1m. Minutes II CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 23, 1992
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, Councilwoman Dimler, Councilman Wing,
Councilman Workman and Councilman Mason
t STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Charles Folch, Paul Krauss,
Todd Hoffman, Jean Meuwissen, and Tom Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the agenda amended by Mayor Chmiel as follows: Table the public
' announcement for the Maple Leaf Award and to moving item 2.5 to item number 8.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDj Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve
' the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
c. Adopt 1993 Meeting Schedule.
d. City Code Amendment regarding the PUD Residential District, Final Reading
and Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.
�! e. Approval of Accounts.
' f. City Council Minutes dated November 4 and 9, 1992
Planning Commission Minutes dated November 4, 1992
g. Resolution #92 -137: Accept Land Donation, Lot 1, Block 6, Red Cedar Point,
Margaret Ward.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
' ST. FRANCIS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, BARBARA HAMILTON.
Mayor Chmiel: Barbara Hamilton is here this evening to tell us about some of
the things that St. Francis is doing and I think it's sort of neat and that's
why I asked if you'd come.
Barbara Hamilton: Well thank you Mayor Chmiel. I'm glad to be here. I have
some overheads. Should I do my speaking from over there or here?
Mayor Chmiel: Wherever you feel comfortable. If we have to, we can just move
the microphone.
It
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
1
Barbara Hamilton: I will move over there. Well as you all know at city
' governments, as well as consumers and employees, that whenever there's a
possibility to raise some extra revenue to run a business or a city, they look
for all different ways to do that and as you all well know, hospitals have, in
the United States for the most part, remained as tax free organizations which
means we do not pay as an institution any kind of a tax. But in the last few
years this has been brought up as a possible place that we could get some
revenue and the Catholic Hospital Association of the United States decided to
II take it upon themselves to prove to the country that we, as an organization do
provide services to the community that are worth far and above what we would be
providing for taxes to the community. In 1989 the Catholic Hospital
Association of the United States set up an organization which put out some
publications and some accounting systems for Catholic hopsitals to use to
account for the services that they do provide to the community. Up until that
time I think hospitals as a whole did acknowledge at least internally that the
II services we provided was far and above what we normally would have to because
that's part of our mission, but this gave us a chance to quantify it. Now St.
Francis Regional Medical Center, which for those of you who are not acquainted
with it is located in Shakopee, Minnesota. About 5 miles down. Not a very
straight road but it is getting straighter I noticed. And our hospital is over
50 years old. It has been under the sponsorship of the Francescan Sisters until
about 5 years ago when it was purchased by the Benedictine Sisters out of
II Duluth. And we as most organizations have a mission statement and I'm not
going to read you the whole thing but I would like to point out number 3 which
states very clearly that in the tradition of our founders and to the extent that
1 we are able to continue to provide medical care and community resources for
those who are unable to afford these services. And that is the basis of the
mission statement upon which we feel we have become and our reporting our social
I accountability to you tonight. Several of us in the hospital over the last year
got together and brainstormed about what we felt were quantifiable services that
we provide to the community and we divided them up into two factors. One, where
the community services to the poor and the other where community service is to
' the broader community. I believe Theresa Johnson did send you an annual report
and in the annual report, did you get the inserts that list, does the
summarization? Okay. I will do an overhead of that. We broke it into two
II parts as I said. One, total services to the needy and St. Francis last year
provided in that whole circle public programs which we consider Medicaid, to be
part of our services to the needy. $567,000.00 that was not reimbursed to the
I organization. We have a program called Benedictine care which is money that
we've set aside at the very beginning of our budget year to be given out to
people who cannot pay for services. And last year we gave away $57,000.00 to
people who came in and said no. We are not going to be able to afford this
I care. We would like to see if we qualify, and we do have a qualification
process and we were able to qualify quite a few people last year and gave away
$57,000.00. The kinds of people that came in ranged from 12 year old children,
and their parents of course brought them in, to older adults. The services we
provided were obstetric care, some care in our CCU unit, some ambulance services
and then the other things are other benefits for poor and needy and cash and in
kind donations. We provide Toys for Tots programs. We have a collection for
II food. The Food Shelf program. Various other things. The other part of the
program that we broke apart was the quantifiable community benefits piece and
these are things that would address the broader needs of the community and those
II in need. These would be things like ambulance service, Meals on Wheels, our 4
1 2
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1
for 5 Care Program, and this came to $1,668,000.00. This also included our
non - reimbursement services that we have to provide for Medicare patients. How
that particular piece broke down, things like education and research,
$40,000.00. We provide an education and research. This is, we have a research
base for a medical program through the Medical Association. We also provide a
learning lab for student nurses from Normandale. We have an LPN program out of
Hennepin Tech. We do a Paramedic program out of the Vo -tech 916. And this is,
as I said, also includes the ambulance service that we provide. Only part of 11 Chanhassen is included in that ambulance service. The unpaid cost of Medicare
is $459,000.00. Various other things fall into that category. Medicare, as I
pointed out before is a big share of what we feel certainly qualifies for
services to the broader community. - These are, as you can see, the straight line
is the actual cost of the health care and we started that back in 1985 and you
can see what it looked like in 1991. The dotted line is the amount that we are,
as a hospital getting reimbursed. And that gap continues to get wider. This,
at this point, is 14.9% difference between what it costs to provide the care and
what we get reimbursed. But as all hospitals_in the State of Minnesota we
cannot pick and choose our customers. They all are given care, whether they can
pay for it or not. And one of the reasons that we wanted to start doing some of
the promotion for the social accountability program out of St. Francis is that
we do want the community to know that we have funds that are available for
people who cannot get the service. And as you can see, we budgeted last year to
give away about $134,000.00 and of that we gave away 556,000.00. In the next
fiscal year, which ends in June, we budgeted to give away $161,000.00 and we
hope that people here in attendance, as you as organizational members in
the community, will let people know that these are available. They're
there. We want people to know about them. Again I'd like to say, the hospital
does not turn away anyone for of the_care that they need. At all. So I
think as a hospital we are very proud of what we have been able to give back to
the community and I'm glad that you asked us to come here and share that
information. _
Mayor Chmiel: We appreciate you taking time out to do that Barb.
Barbara Hamilton: Oh I'm glad to be here. 1
Mayor Chmiel: And that was one of the reasons why I thought it should be noted
that there is that kind of availability at the hospital and thank you.
Barbara Hamilton: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING: TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN SECTION 10NY AND 9NE: AUTHORIZE
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. PROJECT N0. 92 -5.
Public Present: 1
Name Address
Bret Davidson 7291 Galpin Blvd. '
Charles & Irene Song 7200 Galpin Blvd.
Paul Youngquist 7105 Hazeltine Blvd.
David Stockdale 7210 Galpin.Blvd.
Donald Jensen 5201 E. River Road 1301, Fridley 55421
3
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Name Address
1 Thomas Turcotte 7240 Galpin Blvd.
Don Patton 7600 Parklawn, Edina
Mike Klingelhutz 8601 Great Plains Blvd.
' Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This is the continuation of
the public hearing for Project 92 -5 for trunk utility improvements in Section 10
and 9. Staff has had the opportunity to meet with two of the large acreage
property owners to get a better understanding of their future intentions with
their properties and this information has been summarized in your staff report.
Staff has also outlined three likely scenarios for the project scope and
corresponding assessments levied. Basically, Scenario 1 is the original scope
of the project. Maybe Phil, do you have a diagram we could put up just
basically to show the alignments. Basically a sanitary sewer alignment has
remainted intact, as originally proposed, and the water would be extended,
proposed to be extended south from the Well No. 3. Extended west through the
Song and Lundgren properties. Scenarios 2 and 3 involve, would depend on
' development demand. Basically from other properties to the south such as
Rottlund's intentions to develop the Klingelhutz' property and /or any potential
development on the Davidson property which would require extension of trunk
' watermain south along Galpin Boulevard. In all three scenarios, a full lateral
benefit assessment is proposed and a one trunk unit assessment per 10 acre
increment for the small acreage or hobby farm non - developing type properties is
also proposed. Corresponding initial assessment revenue schedule for each
scenario is also provided in your packets. The trunk assessments are estimated
to be $659.00 for sanitary sewer and $1,275.00 for trunk water. Lateral benefit
is based on the cost for an 8 inch pipe. In all three scenarios, the predicted
1 initial assessment revenue, less the green acre properties, either balances or
is within 10% of balancing. The City Manager has also provided a history of
similar projects where these same difficult issues and difficult decisions had
to be made. In all cases the extension of sewer and water has involved a number
of parcels to allow for multiple development projects in the service area and
full lateral benefit was assessed. With the exception of the property owners
who are senior citizens and demonstrate limited financial resources, as
' recognized by State Statute, staff is opposed to offering any type of assessment
deferral associated with this project. Depending on the wishes of the Council
and property owners, any of the three scenarios as outlined are feasible. If an
' approval is to be made on any one of the scenarios, it is staff's recommendation
that full lateral benefit be assessed and that the previously established policy
of assessing one unit per 10 acre increment trunk assessment to a small acreage
' or hobby farm type developing property with an existing dwelling, be maintained.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you Charles. This, as I mentioned, is a public
hearing. At this time anyone wishing to address this proposal, at this time has
the opportunity to do so. If there's anyone who would like to come forward to
indicate your concerns, this is the time. If you would, please state your name
and your address for the record.
1 Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen. Still with
an Excelsior mailing address. In your notes, which Charles and perhaps someone
else very accurately recapped in terms of a meeting we had. It indicates that
1 the Song's and ourselves, Linda and myself, have come to an arrangement or an
1 4
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
agreement if you will, which will be exercised in early 1993. They are going to
be departing very shortly for a little time and when they return we will resume
our activities. In any event, the staff's recommendation that assessments be
made is obviously contrary to what our feeling is, although the timing may in
fact turn out to be no problem.. As we look at and review the use of the
property, and may I start by saying our motivation for getting involved was
really the location of our particular home and the views from that particular
place. A desire to protect the wetlands but also to protect the area
surrounding those wetlands in terms of a number of potential homesites and
roads. That was our motivation from the very beginning for wanting to work with
the Song's relative to this potential project. And so relative to at what point
the southern part of the property would actually be developed, this is really a
question that is premature for Linda and I to answer. We do need more time,
quite frankly. As far as the granting of an easement necessary for the
watermain, until we have some other more definitive plans, if you will, it is
impossible for us to simply say sure. That's okay because that's not okay. It
may be just fine but this is premature and I expect that shortly after the first
of the year, before the end of the first quarter, we will be in a position to
have made some definite plans. Some specific plans relative to the property.
So as far as our position, I believe this is very much in concert with what
the Song's have consistently said from their point of view prior to our
involvement. The land should be viewed at this date as not being available for
development. Having said that, we are, as the report says, not necessarily
opposed to development in the_southern part of the property but that has not
been worked out. And to presume and to assume that going forward, the easement
would be forthcoming and the assessment could be made, maybe an assumption that
you're not prepared to make at this. :time based upon the situation as it has
changed. And if you have any questions forme, I'd be happy to try to answer
them but that's basically where we are at. We just need some more time.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions from the Council at this time? When
you're speaking of time, 5 minutes. 6 months. A year. What is the timeframe
that you're looking at?
Jerome Carlson: I would say that we are interested in continuing some
discussions which have already begun the Lundgren Bros. With the Songs'
endorsement of those discussions. And should they lead us somewhere or some
other discussions with some other opportunity,-which at this point has not been
looked at, hasn't been even considered. I_ would .hope that we would have this
whole matter pretty well settled by the end of March, to give you sort of an
outside time table. It could be settled even sooner. Perhaps much sooner but
to give the Council some sort of a time frame. -That would be, -based upon what
we know today and what we expect will happen, that's the time frame that I think
is appropriate at this particular date. If it changes, we'll be happy to share
it with you. Thank you; - - = _ •
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Paul Youngquist. My name is Paul Youngquist. I'm at 7105 Hazeltine Boulevard
which is the property on the north boundary of the Lundgren project. I'm a much
smaller player than the Song's or the Carlson's and my request is simple. We're
scheduled for 2 units. I was just here to request that we be considered 1 unit.
We've paid 1 unit on the Lake Ann Interceptor. We've paid our park dedication
5 1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
fee. We've paid the trail dedication fee. We've upgraded our sewer for
$4,300.00 and I know that it's tradition and precedence and all these kinds of
things but I'm just here to request that our property be considered 1 unit.
Thank you.
r Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul.
Charles Song: My name is Charles Song. I just want to be here to say that we
II totally agree with what Jerome has told you and so that's, and we have been
talking for quite a while and just as he say, our agreement is eminent and it's
going to be probably...very quickly. So I just wanted to reiterate what Jerome
II has said. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
II Don Jensen: Don Jensen with the Rottlund Company, 5201 East River Road, Suite
301 in Fridley. We would just like to encourage the Council to look at the
various alternatives that have been proposed tonight by staff. As we understand
II it, to begin the design process which would still allow an opportunity for
further refinement of dollars and budgets and an opportunity to look at still
putting the project on hold or forward as various parcels come on line, or don't
come on line. The process that we are at in having the Klingelhutz property
under an option agreement and having some discussions with the Davidson family
to the north of the Klingelhutz parcel, leads us to believe that to stop at this
point in time might be premature. We would just encourage the Council to move
forward at least into the planning of specific plans and specifications. Perhaps
even going into the bidding this next year to find out whether or not contracts
and contractors can bring projects perhaps into a more cost effective mode than 1
the initial estimates would reveal at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to make a
statement?
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. My name is Terry
Forbord with Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata, Minnesota.
II I'm in kind of a difficult position because I'm enjoying and having constructive
discussions with Mr. Carlson and Mr. and Mrs. Song. It's been a pleasure to
work with them or talk to them over the last couple years and I hope that we can
continue in those discussions. I think that, if I'm correct, the issue before
us tonight is not ordering the project. Is that correct?
Charles Folch: Basically it is. Excuse me Mr. Mayor, it is ordering the
project.
Terry Forbord: Aren't we ordering the plans and specifications? We're going
into the design phase. Is that not correct? Okay, but that does not mean that
the project is being ordered because that doesn't occur until you go to a bid
letting and you accept the bids and then you order the project, correct?
Don Ashworth: You're ordering the project tonight. If they would.
Terry Forbord: It seems to me at the last meeting there was some discussion
that ensued about entering into the design phase. Obviously Lundgren Bros has
6
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
got a significant stake in this and has for some time and we're kind of between
a rock and a hard place because time starts to become my enemy, or it already
has. Time's either my enemy or my friend. I either have too much of it or not
enough of it. Right now I'm running out of time. Purely from an economic
standpoint and from agreements that I have with people who we've purchased the
land and as you know we already have a preliminary plat approved on the property
and the more time that goes by, because of the construction seasons that we have
in Minnesota, if you don't capture the window of opportunity, then all of a
sudden you lose another year. So if we can't get into the ground and get
prepared for 1993, then all of a sudden we're looking at '94. Unfortunately
it's a weather issue I see before us tonight. If we don't proceed now, we
probably won't be happening in '93 and then it's a delay. I was hoping that at
some way, shape or form maybe we could at least start the design process and get
underway with that but if what I'm hearing you say that we're ordering the
project now, because I do not want to put the Song's or Mr. Carlson certainly in
an uncomfortable position. While at the same time I'm trying to continue with
sound business decisions on behalf of Lundgren Bros. So I don't know if there's
a way to have both. I don't know if we can start that process and get underway
with the design and then go out to bid and see how things happen. Then the
Council can make another decision at that time if they want to proceed. If
there is a way, maybe there's a way to explore that because I sure would like to
accommodate the Song's and the Carlson's if we could. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Roger.
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor. There is one potential. If Lundgren Bros. wanted to
pay for the plans and specifications if the project does not go ahead and pre -
fund that, then the City would not be at risk. If they're willing to do that.
Then you could have the plans and specs...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Mayor Chmiel: ...onto the other people because of a development wanting to
proceed. If this is to happen, can the developer pick up the total costs on
this and then as people connect to it, can the City, maybe I should ask that of
Don, can the City administer that kind of a situation?
Don Ashworth: Yes. Yes. I don't know of a bank that would be willing to fund
a development though. In the case of Near Mountain, that's not something that
they would. I don't know of any developer that has ever done that type of
thing. At least maybe to a small scale. I've seen it to the extent of 1, 2 or
3 lot type of thing. I've never seen it to this type of scale.
Mayor Chmiel: This as we're looking at was 2800,000.00 some dollars?
Don Ashworth: Correct. 1
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, maybe we could find out what the commitment would be
for plans and specifications and whether Lundgren Bros could make a decision '
whether that's feasible for them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That might be an idea to just toss around and discuss.
Charles, would you have any idea or inkle as to what that might be?
7
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 _
11
Charles Folch: Maybe I can request Bob or Phil to respond to that based on the
I estimated project cost. -
Phil Gravel: Based on the estimated cost, in the latest revision of the report,
for the full project or? The full project, which would include the watermain on
Galpin, the plans and specifications would be $40,000.00 to $45,000.00. It
might be obviously less than that if we didn't decide on the watermain...as an
option.
Mayor Chmiel: The question would be posed back then to Lundgren Bros. Would
they be willing to pick up that cost of whatever it might come to with the cost
factors? Say anywhere between $40,000.00 to $50,000.00.
Terry Forbord: Your honor, Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros. I'm not sure if I
can answer that question here tonight but I can say the following. Whether
' Lundgren Bros drops their option and walks away or whether Lundgren Bros
exercises the option and buys the property and develops it, the City of
Chanhassen sooner or later needs to make a commitment to it's future if they
decide they want a future. The City at this present time has no developable
land in the commercial or residential sector to speak of, other than maybe some
very, very small parcels. I think it's more of an issue of versus should the
private sector be doing that for the benefit of the City for their future. Now
' maybe there's something to be said. Maybe they should. I don't know but it's
kind of a philosophical situation. I think all cities need to make a commitment
for an investment in their future. For their own residents. For both
' commercial and industrial growth. But I can't answer that question tonight.
There's a lot of other property owners that would be benefitting from this
project as far as what they could or could not do with their land. And maybe
somebody else would be willing to contribute as well. Some of the other
property owners. Now if it was just for our, you know there's three scenarios
before you and each one involves I think different projects. Whether the
watermain's included or whether it's not included. I guess, because I'm not an
owner of Lundgren Bros I can't answer that question. It's never been done in 23
years that we've done business before so it would seem somewhat unusual I think
but it's something I'd have to talk to the owners of the company about.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What you're saying then basically, would you be requesting
us to table this again until you can come back with those kinds of?
Terry Forbord: Well actually I think, you know I'm not sure if that's what I am
saying. Sooner or later the City's probably going to put this pipe in and the
City should want to know what the design of that pipe would be, because they'd
I be ordering it and building it as part of a public improvement project. So
whether it would be Lundgren Bros here or Rottlund or Mr. and Mrs. Song choosing
to develop it or Mr. Carlson, the City would want to have that study done sooner
or later anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: True, to a point and where do you put the dollars and where do
the dollars most fit within the city, and this may not be the place that we
' chose to do it at this particular time as well. So I guess that's why I pose
the question. Times are changing. Operational factors are changing.
Businesses are changing. The dollar becomes a more important issue in all these
cases, as you well know. Because cities are getting cutback every time we turn
1 8
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
11
around from the State. Consequently we're going to have to start changing
possibly some of the way we do business as well. I guess that's why I'm saying
this. Does Council have?
Councilman Workman: Well you know there's a lot of merit in what everybody says
and it sounds to me like we just need to sit down and in a little bit more
detail figure out what we want to do. If the City ran that pipe out there, it'd
develop out there. Whether we have a major risk in paying for a study, for that
study I think it would probably be assessed as soon as we could get it assessed.
That property's going to develop out there. The only thing I hear is time
lines. I hear that from Jerome and then the Song's and I hear it from Terry too
so it sounds like we need to work just on the time line. It doesn't sound like
anybody wants to stick their neck out too far because there's a lot of variables
inbetween. All of them sound reasonable. What are we talking about for the
cost of this study?
Charles Folch: I think Phil mentioned $40,000.00 to $45,000.00 estimated.
Councilman Workman: I know Jerome said end of the first quarter, first of
March, and I don't know if that can be moved up and I don't know enough about
Terry's business to know whether that ruins it for '93 for him.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the point Terry is making is he has options on those ,
particular properties and options can be renewable as well. So you can have
extensions on those options.
Councilman Workman: No, I understand that. It's a matter of, what I'm reading
from him is it's a matter of having work in '93 or not having work to do in '93
which makes a difference to a business I would suspect.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, without disclosing proprietary information, our
options have been extended to the point where they longer can be extended. We
either have to buy the land or we have to go away. And we're getting to that
point in time where we're face with the inevitable. And it's not because
anybody has intentionally dragged their feet or anything like that but as you
know, this has been a very lengthy process going all the way back to when the
comprehensive plan was being adopted. But I know it sounds like a lot of money,
$40,000.00 to $45,000.00 but I know each one of you have been on the Council
long enough to know that you deal with things with land development in the
commercial sector that have cost the city a tremendously greater amount of money
than what this, ordering of plans and specs for this project is. As a
residential developer we've never come before you and asked for any subsidies of
any kind. We've never asked the City to participate in our development. This
is a normal public improvement project and the City, I don't think it's out of
line certainly in light of some of the other city expenditures that you've made,
to proceed with this. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: Don, I've sat here and it's sort of gotten to be the owners ,
versus the developers and we have some real major issues here that impact a lot
of people along the way. I guess I've never felt a real emergency to develop
this far west away from the sewer and water and it seems that what we're being 1
9
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
asked to do here has some severe impacts on a lot of land owners. Just the
issue of septic and wells that are being put in for $10,000.00 on some of the
newer homes along the way and the assessment that's going to impact them. I }
kind of hate to get into an argument where we're deciding major issues versed on
I a developer's weather or season or economic conditions or options. If it's a
good buy, buy it. If it looks like it's got some potential, pick up your
options and buy it. I don't think that's our decision to have to make or worry
about. I think when we impact so many others along the way that we are kind of
I leap frogging and then we have to slow down and both owners that own the access
to this piece and the easements and so on have both addressed us tonight and
suggested we slow down for 2 or 3 months and I think it's a pretty small request
I for such a major impact on the future of the City and with all due respect to
the developers, I think we owe it to the community to go slow on these issues in
this case. Plans and specs, they could maybe change if the Carlson /Song
I situation changes so I'm a little nervous about not tabling this tonight and
I've got a lot more questions even on the septic and the water systems for these
new homes. I'd like to know what we're going to do with them and will this
stand on it's own 2 feet or are we going to have to hit all these homeowners
I along the way and I think if we start doing that, we're going to have a lot more
people here with a lot more opinions.
I Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Don Jensen with the Rottlund
Company. One thing that hasn't been mentioned, at least in the last few minutes
of discussion, in looking at the overhead it appears that a lot of the project
I going into the Lundgren development is specific to their particular design and
there's a portion of the water along Galpin which would clearly run in public
right -of -way and is not dependent on any particular design. And there's
portions through the properties that are, or could be construed to benefit the
I Rottlund Companies should we be able to make those business decisions and move
forward. When you're talking about $45,000.00 in planning fees, that seems a
lot for any one particular person to swallow, if in fact you're throwing it away
I because the plans are meaningless after the work is done. It would appear that
some type of a partnership and discussion as to how to facilitate those planning
studies may in fact be able to occur as some of those designs on the alignment
in the graphic up on the screen would not change regardless of the personalities
I or the companies involved. I think the Rottlund Company would be open to at
least entertaining some type of a partnership in how those fees might be paid in
order to at least get a better look at what the immediate future, speaking of a
I window between now and February is concerned. That doesn't mean a decision
today but it certainly means in our perspective, a decision to continue moving
forward at least to not stop the process completely. And I think we'd certainly
I be open to paying our fair share to get a study looking forward with an
understanding that if the project does move ahead, the City continues to do as
they've done in the past and those planning fees are part of the overall project
cost and it's assessed as it's been proposed regardless.
I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
II Terry Forbord: Your Honor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
II I
II 10
II
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Terry Forbord: Since it appears that the discussion in the Council is that
that's what they think is fair, is that the private sector should bear these
costs, then maybe what you could do tonight is pass a motion contingent upon
that occurring. Then if it doesn't occur, the motion dies or the resolution 11 would die and if it does occur, then we move forward. That way we wouldn't be
wasting any time and you'd put the burden of proof on the private sector to pony
up and if we can, then we move forward. If we can't, then nothing's lost.
Councilman Mason: That addresses one concern. I don't think that addresses
Councilman Wing's concern about property owners along the way and I think, this
is I guess a gut reaction or a gut feeling. I suspect at some point this
project will go through. It's inevitable. But in terms of the life of this
city and the length of stay of some of the residents, I guess I don't think
slowing things down perhaps as much as a quarter of a year is going to be
damaging that area that much. I don't dispute Lundgren Bros' concerns on that
at all. They're very real to them. We need, I guess I concur with what Dick
said. I think our first response needs to be, in a situation as large as this,
the concern of the people who most directly would be affected by it. I think
it's good to hear Rottlund and Lundgren Bros talking about that kind of thing
because I think clearly that's the way it's going with finances becoming what
they are. We have to look at more creative ways of doing things and maybe
something good is coming out of this but I'm not sure I'm prepared to move on
this tonight either because of these concerns mentioned by the Carlsons and the
Songs and there are other people I think that also have those concerns.
Mayor Chmiel: Thomas, did you want to say something?
Councilman Workman: Yeah. As my fellow mates up here would try to characterize
me as pro- developer and development. We went through the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilman Mason: I think lame duck...more appropriate.
1
9 Comprehensive Workman: ..but we went through the Com rehensive Plan and we made
some various decisions back then about what's going to happen. And the Song
property and the Jerome property and this piece and all these pieces are going
to be developed and they just don't, they're just not all maybe in the same
month in the same year. If any city in Minnesota had one parcel like Prince
Roger Nelson or Jerome and Linda Carlson or the Song's, in the way of another
development that'd be one thing. There's 3 of them out there. So the word leap
frog is used maybe a little incorrectly in that these are all young people. The
Carlson's, the Song's and the Prince are all very young people. They could have
this property for 20 more years. So the Johnson /Dolejsi property, and that's
maybe a little bit about what Terry's getting at is that then, those properties
that are now within the MUSA line are not going to develop. Of course I
understand the plight of all the people inbetween. It's going to happen now or
it's going to happen later. It's never going to be good time if I've got a
septic system, to pay an assessment. So it is a unique situation that we have
out here with those big parcels of land and three individual owners, or at least
two of them that are here tonight that are unique to any city in that they can
afford to develop or not develop. And so that's where I, with Rottlund and
Lundgren I, sympathy is a tough word to use but that somehow we figure a way
that this is all going to happen. I suspect we're going to table this tonight.
How that affects people's time lines I don't know but to continue the dialogue
11 1
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
and try and figure out how this is going to be accomplished. Because it's
unique and I think we should assist those in the situation who want to move
ahead like our Comp Plan said.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't disagree with what you're saying Tom either but I
don't think the comfortable feeling, at least with myself, is there yet. I
still have some real concerns. I'll defer saying anything more.
' Councilman Wing: That was good though because I really agreed with my friend on
the right and I'm really feeling with you. I mean it is going to develop and it
is going to happen soon, and I'm all for it. And Lundgren's got an excellent
' proposal.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I don't think that you're going to find that this
Council has ever been against development within the city. It's just more or
less the timing of it right now is really what we're looking at.
Don Patton: Mayor, Council. Just to give you data. You realize I've been
appearing before you since I think '86 with the Lake Susan development and as
you know, we worked with you in donating land for the County Road 17 and worked
on getting the watermain extended down through our project to serve the Chan
Lakes project. So it is not a precedent to do that and I give you that just as
a data to encourage development because again, it is going to develop.
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else at this time?
Terry Forbord: You know I think I need to talk speak specifically about delays.
I know that most of you probably won't want to hear this but the fact is, I know
each one of you well enough, either you're businessmen or you work for youself,
you certainly understand the cost of time and the cost of money. But when
you're talking about Si million. I'm talking about just Si million at today's
rates, you're talking somewhere between $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 a month just in
interest. And when you start looking at projects that are $2 million or $3
million, simple math, it's really clear to see what the cost of indecision is.
Now it's not just, to me I start looking at weather. I mean I know you don't
want to think about weather but weather, when you lose a season, you lose 6
months. You start totaling up the cost of that, that cost gets passed onto the
buyers or the future citizens of this community and inflated home prices that
' needn't be. And that's the reality of it. The bottom line is, it gets added
cost into the project. I know you probably don't want to hear that and you
don't want that to be a factor in your decision but oftentimes I hear that it's
not going to have any effect whatsoever by having a delay. But it does. It
effects the community. It doesn't just effect Lundgren Bros. It effects the
people who live here. The vast majority of the people who buy our homes who
live in the area, and they're going to have a price to pay for it. So the cost
11 of time and money and delays is phenomenal in our society. It's just
phenomenal. And so there were a couple comments made that time isn't that big
of a deal. It's a huge deal. Not as far as profits but in what it does to the
cost of housing.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I'll get back to my present position that I stated before.
' Was that if you feel quite as strong as you do with what those needs are, maybe
your company may be willing to even pick up that total assessment cost with that '
' 12
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1
reimbursement coming back if this is really going to be a problem. And use the
city as the catalyst to provide back the dollars back to Lundgren Bros as the
growth progresses. Maybe that's where the crux of this really still lies and I
am trying to meet a happy median with the position that you're taking of saying
the cost factors are there. And there's cost factors there for everyone else,
not just Lundgren Bros. It's involvements of other people in and adjacent to
that route who are on their own septic systems which they will be required to
connect to city sewer. They can keep their own water system. There's
additional costs that are incurred by them as well and depending upon the amount
of feet that it runs in. So there are a lot more things that we have to look
into. And that may be an eventual situation that will occur, as you said.
Hopefully it will but I'm still uncomfortable with the way we're proceeding with
this. To me I still think there's a certain amount of, there's been some pros
and cons to the issue of leap frogging. Even though there are those large
parcels. There are still other people concerned within that complete line as to
where we'd locate it. So I don't know whether you can come up with an answer
this evening in regards to some of these questions that have been asked. Or
where you can really come from.
Terry Forbord: I can answer some of those questions. First of all, from a
planning perspective and from an engineering perspective, both from a consultant
standpoint and from a Met Council standpoint, this is not leapfrogging and I can
attest to that because I was at the Met Council this week and I was talking
about this very project in relation to the MDIF and it was not considered
leapfrogging from a Met Council perspective. I know staff doesn't believe it's
leapfrogging and I know the consultant for the City doesn't believe it's leap-
frogging. As far as, I'm not sure if I understood the question correctly
about, I wasn't sure if you meant would Lundgren fund the project and be
reimbursed or would the private sector pay for the plans and specs? I wasn't
sure.
Mayor Chmiel: I think there's two items there. Both of those. 1
Terry Forbord: I don't know a development company anywhere in the Twin Cities
that could do that. I'm just not aware of one. We financially are not strong
enough where we could do that. We may be able to contribute to the cost of the
plans and specs if we can get some participation from some of the other people
but I personally do not know of any development company in the Twin Cities, from
Carlson Real Estate to Opus that could afford to fund projects and work on some
reimbursement factor. Maybe Don is aware of one but I don't know of one. But
as far as contributing to the plans and specs, I'm sure we'd be willing to
contribute some portion of. I'm not sure how much we could afford to but
Rottlund said they'd be willing to and so maybe we could work something out with
the city. It's my understanding we get reimbursed on that anyway at some point
in time. But we are not financially strong enough to pay for the entire
project.
Don Ashworth: Mr Mayor? Listening to a number of the comments made, and I
guess I've had various thoughts but Councilman Workman had said that this is a
unique project. In a lot of ways I think that it is but I think in the past
you've had some unique projects as well. Sewer and water as it went up into the
business park involved going across the entire lake frontage of the Martin Ward
property and through property then purchased by Jim Curry who favored the
13 ,
i
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
project. Martin Ward did not. Through the Victor Schmieg farm and then
finally to serve the business park which was Ed Dunn and Bob Schoenecker with
Animal Fair that was proposed to go in on Prince's property out there. And I
think we took some time to try and look at some options that would try to deal
with all of those owners but it really came down to, Ward not really wanting to
do the project and I don't know how much time you could have given it, it just
wouldn't have changed the fact that they couldn't decide where that really
' should be. Schmieg, which ends up as a parcel that Jerry ended up buying. That
Instant Web eventually went on. And it came down to the Council having to make
a decision, should this project go in or shouldn't it? I don't think that
there's a way a developer could hold that cost because again, the Ward family
' has decided to hold that cost. They bore that cost and have paid those costs
since it was put in in 1978. And it's still not developed today. Whereas
Victor Schmieg, I'm sure he came off very, very well in selling the farm site
and again the eventual construction of Instant Web, United Mailing and Victory
Envelope. And I know there is a cost of holding land. Ed Dunn saw that as it
involved the Eckankar property which he just hit a bad time for him. Otherwise
' you'd see single family houses out there today.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, to move this along. I think I've heard the Council
make a statement tonight that several of us aren't comfortable. Not denying the
project, nor do we even suggest it shouldn't go through. There's enough loose
ends that I want to ask questions about that for me there's two options. Either
to deny this or simply to table it and I'll leave that to the other Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I guess we've had some discussion.
Councilman Mason: I just want to make a couple quick comments. I don't view
tabling this as indecision tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think some answers have to come back anyway.
Councilman Mason: I agree with that and whereas I appreciate the money angle
from all of this, we're in a position to not be considering just the money angle
here. And maybe that's good. Maybe that's bad. But our charge is not just
looking at total dollars and cents here.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, I would like to just make one clarification for any
' property owners here tonight that have the 5 or 10 acre parcels with either new
or currently satisfactorily functioning septic and well systems. If and when
these improvements are put in, they will not be required to immediately hook up
to the system. If their septic or well system should fail, then basically the
City Ordinance would kick in requiring that they do make hook up. But initially
they will not be required to make hook up to the system if their septic and well
are functioning properly.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if that's a true statement Charles. And I'm not
going to challenge it but on my understanding is, by the Metropolitan Waste
' Control Commission. Anytime you put sewers within a given area, they have a
limited time to make connection. And I know I was told that when I had my own
septic system that was working and I was required to make that connection with
the sewer and I think that is a regulation of the MWCC.
14
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1
Don Ashworth: I see where Bob has his hand up in the air and I'm hoping he can
respond.
Bob Schunicht: I've got a comment to make... What we're talking about in the
improvements here are really the trunk sanitary sewer system. Not the lateral
sanitary sewer system and when you put laterals in, then you have to hook up but
the trunk system does not require you to hook up. You still have another step
to get to the homes with the lateral systems so I think with trunk system it's
just, you pay your area charges and they'll hook up until you put the laterals
in.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Okay. I think we've probably, we're discussing '
this to death. I would like to have a motion one way or the other. To either
table these plans and I don't, I'm not looking for to denying it at this
particular time but I think some answers have to come back so we can feel
comfortable.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, I haven't said much about this. I've listened to
all the discussion and I think everyone has made excellent points on both sides
of the issue really but I really see that the City isn't pushing. Is not the
entity that is pushing this project at this particular time. I see that to be
Lundgren Bros and therefore if they can't carry the cost, you know I'm not ready
to put a burden on our property owners or on the city taxpayers so I would move
at this time that we table this issue until either Lundgren Bros feels that they
want to move ahead and come up with another proposal to pay for the project or
something else happens then. Other developers want to get involved.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: I'll second that Don but I would like to just discuss with you
the timeframe. What are we after here? Do we want to wait for Mr. Carlson and
Mr. Song's proposed quarterly report or do we want to move in January on this
one? What's our timeframe on this?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I think as we're looking at this and respecting some of the
things that Lundgren wants to get through, I would suggest that we have this on
our next Council agenda which would be December 12th?
Don Ashworth: 14th. '
Mayor Chmiel: 14th.
Councilman Mason: Will we just be hashing all this stuff over again if the
Carlson's and Song's are still discussing?
Mayor Chmiel: We could. We could.
Councilwoman Dimler: What answers are we looking for that would give us a
better comfort level than, I'm sensing some of us are not comfortable. I mean
my end, is Lundgren Bros going to pay for the project as plans and specs? That
still doesn't address the future of the assessments there.
15 1
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Well the assessments don't really take hold until
II the following year after that once it's put in. And by that time, whatever
they're doing can be consummated but I don't think that's the discussion that
Council should take for the consideration.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So are we just waiting for the answer to see if
Lundgren Bros wants to go ahead with the $45,000.00 expenditure?
' Councilman Mason: Well it wouldn't just be Lundgren Bros though necessarily.
Mayor Chmiel: No. There may be the other factors that are involved as well.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, to work that whole thing out. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin Blvd. For your December 14th
meeting, relative to any potential change, relative to the Song - Carlson
property, the Song's have granted me the ability to continue negotiations and
talks with the Lundgren Bros. I think I indicated that that was the case
earlier so it is not out of the question that something could occur by that
' time. 14e do not want to be viewed as anti this particular development. But
rather the concern again goes back, and went back originally to the specific
property which the Song's presently own and our desire mutually to protect the
' northern part of that in particular. So should this be put on the 14th agenda,
it may or may not, specifically from any new developments relative to the Song
property, be a waste of time. It's difficult for me to predict that outcome.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. We realize that.
Jerome Carlson: Okay.
I Mayor Chmiel: And with that I'll call a question.
Councilman Workman: Could you repeat that motion?
Mayor Chmiel. The motion basically is to table this until December 14th.
Determinations is finding whether or not the cost for picking up the plans and
specs would be done by Lundgren Bros or any of the others that may be associated
with this project.
' Councilman Workman: I'd like to make one comment maybe before we vote.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Councilman Workman: We aren't making a decision to develop or not develop.
Either tonight or even at the next Council meeting. We made those decisions
about 2 years ago so I'm not going to, I tried to play a little bit of the
' devil's advocate tonight and maybe I sound pro development but that decision and
those heart aches we went through a long time ago. I was trying to highlight
the differences and some problems with large blocks of land in the way of people
who do want to develop. So now that I've made that point, I feel better.
1 16
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Don Ashworth: Clarification point. This is primarily for Terry's benefit. What 11
I hear the Council saying is, is if this project does not go ahead as a public
improvement project, that they will have to put up some form of guarantee to
insure that the City is reimbursed those costs. If in fact it does go ahead as
a project, those costs are folded into the project so you don't come up with
those dollars.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Question is being called.
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table authorizing the
preparation of plans and specifications for trunk utility improvements in
Section 10NW and 9NE, Project 92 -5 until the next City Council meeting December
14, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Terry Forbord: May I say one more thing?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. 1
Terry Forbord: I think what...prepare for the City Council for the next
meeting. Just so you know. The preliminary analysis of this, just on the
development of the Lundgren portion of this project alone will service the debt
on the bonds for the sale of the project. So I mean just with a minimal
absorption rate will be servicing the debt just from our project. And that's
from the preliminary analysis that we've done and I know the City's Springsted
can easily prepare a performa for you. A spread sheet showing how all of that
would work, if that's what the Council would like to see. Because they've
already told me they could do that. In case that was a question.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll let you know back on it. Thank you.
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR EXTENSION OF UTILITIES TO GATEWAY
WEST BUSINESS PARK, PROJECT 92 -17.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Gateway Partnership, in kind
of a joint venture with Opus Corporation, have prepared some preliminary concept
plans and are interested in developing the 160 acre parcel of land located in
the southeast quadrant of Trunk Highway 5 and Trunk Highway 41. The southwest
portion of this property was one of the four areas in Chanhassen identified as
potentially being served by gravity sewer flow to Chaska. In fact a Joint
Powers Agreement for this flow was drafted as an addendum to the Interim Chaska
Flow Diversion through Chanhassen. The Agreement which was approved in
cooperation with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission earlier this summer.
Phase 2 of the Upper Bluff Creek project is intended to serve the entire
property for development by Opus and Gateway, but these improvements are likely
to be a number of years down the road. Therefore it may be more feasible to
serve, at least this first initial phase of the Opus development from Chaska.
I've contacted our consultant and received an estimate to prepare this
feasibility study which is estimated to cost $2,100.00 and it is therefore
recommended that authorization be given to prepare the feasibility report for
this extension of utilities to the Gateway Business Park Addition, Project No.
92 -17 conditioned upon the City receiving and the City of Chaska executing the
Joint Utility Service Agreement and that the developer, Gateway Partnership and
17
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Opus Corporation provide a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of
$2,100.00 to secure the cost for the study.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone from Opus here? I don't see
' anyone. Any discussions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: My only concern on this is that the Highway 5 Corridor Study
and the potential of people doing, being that entire area is moving real rapidly
now and I think we're going to have some conclusions fairly fast and my concern
that if this study is done and in fact we agree to extend the utilities, it will
put that development in high gear. It will be like Target will be here
overnight and then we'll say yes and it will be up. And based on the corridors'
speedy finish here, will this project be dragging the horse? Will the cart be
dragging the horse? Or will we be and the horse will be dragging the cart? And
' will this project be ahead of us to the point where we both meet architectural
standards or setbacks or landscape or parking. Whatever requirements are part
of this PUD. Is it going to get ahead of us and literally be the island that
' we've established in other areas that's going to get in our way. So my concern
is, if we prove preparation of the feasibility study and if that does in fact
extend it, is that going to time line the same or are we going to just lose our
shirts on this whole Highway 5 corridor project?
Paul Krauss: Well if I could touch on the last issue first. What you're being
asked to approve tonight is undertaking the feasibility study, not the project.
And it's at no cost to the City and there's no commitment to do the project. So
this in and of itself won't hurt anything. And I guess I'm confident that that
could go ahead and not put the cart before the horse type of situation. In
terms of, you know you're raising a bigger issue. It's not only for this site.
It's for all the sites up and down the corridor and I think you're aware we're
working on the property for Abra and Goodyear up by the Emission Control station
which is clearly right now out of the direct control of any new, or many new
' inputs coming along Highway 5 because there's no new ordinance and it's not a
TIF district and we're not giving them anything. The idea, I mean the only way
to really prevent that from happening is a moratorium and that's been discussed
' twice and that was decided that that's not a way to do it. So yeah, we are
truly playing catch up with a lot of things and this is clearly the major
project in the corridor. The positive side of it is, the planning process is
going to be a lengthy one. It's a major, major project. If they got anything
in the ground by next fall, I mean I like to be optimistic but I'd be surprised.
It may happen and we'd like to work towards that happening, especially...traded
to Chaska but I don't know if it's going to happen. Secondly, the Highway 5
group has been working to keep ahead of things. We did have this developer do a
presentation at the last meeting. We are going to continue that process so
we're committed to keeping this process proactive so that you're not, it's like
' the SWMP committee. You're not going to wait until it's all done for the
results. We're going to try to feed the results back and forth. And since this
project is a PUD, will have a tax increment district created for it, even though
we don't have a Highway 5 ordinance in place, we have a lot of leverage in this
which we don't have on the Abra and Goodyear.
Councilman Wing: Do you know where your south service road is going to go? To
the point where they can even develop this?
18
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1
Paul Krauss: Well, that's something we're going to have on the next agenda in
fact of the Highway 5 group. Barton- Aschman's engineers are looking at
alternative road alignments and effectively through the Opus site there's really
only one choice. I mean once you get over to TH 41 there's some variation but
to bring it around that wetland there, there's only one place for it to go.
4
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, my understanding too is the south frontage road will be
meandering through that particular area because of some of the wetlands that
exist there as well. And so it's not going to be quite as straight as the north
side of the highway.
Paul Krauss: That's true. You won't have the road continuity. I mean the
north side you'll be able to get from Highway 41 to TH 101 without going on
TH 5. The south side is discontiguous.
Councilman Mason: I was at the last highway corridor meeting and I think
Councilman Wing you would have been more than impressed with the heat that the
developers felt about the need to take care of that area and what probably, if
that task force had anything to say about it, what would be and wouldn't be
getting approved. At least recommendation wise from the task force.
Councilman Wing: If I wouldn't have been at a fire I would have been at that 1
meeting. Mr. Mayor I'll move to authorize preparation of feasibility study for
extension of utilities to Gateway West Business Park Project 92 -17.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Resolution $92 -138: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to
authorize the preparation of the feasibility report for the extension of
utilities to Gateway West Business Park, Project 92 -17 conditioned upon the City
of Chanhassen and the City of Chaska executing the Joint Utility Service
Agreement and that the developer, Gateway Partnership/Opus Corporation provide a
cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $2,100.00 to secure the cost
for this study. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CITY CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING WETLAND REGULATIONS, FIRST READING. 1
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is something that you're aware of that we've been
working on for some time since the SWMP committee and a subcommittee to the SWMP
Committee. We're real proud of this document. We think this represents the
state of the art in wetland protection in the State of Minnesota. It
incorporates a number of features that have never been put into ordinance
before. For example we've looked, we used to say a blanket 75 foot setback from
wetlands. We realized that wasn't doing the job and it was a onerous
requirement on property owners and what we went with was a reduced setback and
the imposition of buffer yards which would do a lot better job of protecting the
wetland. One of the things, buzz words that incorporated into this ordinance
that's art of the new State e law is called sequencing. What that means 9 a s is that
before you impact a wetland you have to go through a process that we've done in
the past but was never articulated. Depending on the wetland you have to look
for alternatives first and determine that there are no alternatives before
19 1
1
11 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
you're allowed to impact them. Our ordinance, and I think this is where it's a
real healthy departure from the State law and the State rules right now, is that
our ordinance truly deals with value and function. What is the value of a
particular wetland to the community and the way we've done that is by
classifying wetlands as pristine, natural and ag urban and then utilized. What
that allows us to do is say that pristine and natural are going to receive the
utmost protection by the city. Ag urban is something that we'd have some
latitude to work with developers on. We can improve them up or we can make them
serve to filter storm water and serve those other functions. The last thing
that I think is real good here, and these maps are being used so often that
they're becoming...is that we did map every wetland in the city. We have
' identified. We have a handbook that outlines height, the nature of it, survey
notes, the elevations. Everything else and it gets used 7 or 8 times a day. So
we would recommend that you do approve first reading of this ordinance. We've
already sent it out. A number of communities have been bugging us for it
because Jo Ann and I keep going to conferences and telling them about how
wonderful it is and I know a lot of other communities are looking at doing it.
Now, before you do approve it though I want to make it clear that there is a
State law out there and there are State rules. Proposed rules that go with the
State law and you're aware that I worked on the committee that helped draft
them. Well, the rules and I think Roger can attest to this too, the rules are
incredibly bad and the law itself is severely flawed. I think now that we have
a friend in the legislature maybe we can.
Councilwoman Dimler: He's pro development.
Paul Krauss: Since the law was the result of two bills getting crammed together
at midnight and they never even bothered to revise the language so they worked
together and the rules are being written by beaurocrats in St. Paul and involve
both of those jurisdictions doing a lot of things. We working to cleaning that
up. Parts of our ordinance are contrary to the way the State law and the rules
' are set up right now. I still think, and we've thought on the SWMP committee
that this is still the right thing to do and we are working to secure changes
into the law and the rules. By the way, I should also mention too. We are
working with a number of planning organizations, governmental organizations, to
get the State law and the rules changed. I'm going to be testifying down there
in December. I should tell you, one of the things we've been looking at doing
is there's a joint public /private coalition being assembled now to put together,
the idea is to say to the State that we're highly in favor of the no net loss
concept but you've got to do a better job of it than this. Communities such as
Blaine and Maple Grove, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka are looking at doing it.
They're joining this. Watershed districts, Minnehaha Creek...County, Ramsey,
Washington I think is one of them. A number of other watersheds. A number of
other communities. Private developers are looking at becoming this and better
private developers. Terry Forbord from Lundgren is one of those and business.
There's a number of industrial...going in here. What the SWMP committee did is
authorize, if this platform comes together as another means of approaching the
State legislature. If this platform that's being developed under the auspices
1 of Larkin - Hoffman on behalf of this group, comes together. The SWMP committee
authorized contributing not only my time but some funds to that effort which
will probably in the nature of like *500.00 or if anybody's looking to kick in.
And we want to explore every avenue that we can to do that. The State hearings
on the rules are going to be December 17th and so I'll keep you posted on that.
1 20
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1
But again, I think that this in accordance is the best example of how to handle
wetland protection in the city. We wrote it and I'd recommend that you approve
it. Thank you.
Councilman Workman: So moved. 1
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, just before you ask for a motion. Did you attend
the Soil Management Convention in Minneapolis 2 weeks ago?
Paul Krauss: What Soil Management Convention?
Councilman Wing: There was a very large nationwide soil management convention '
at the Minneapolis Convention Center. I was there and I was looking for you.
But the reason I was there is my daughter, Shannon. I'll say the word Shannon
because she watches these programs. She senior thesis at the University of
Washington was published and it was presented at this Soil Management. At any
rate, one of the programs I went to followed this to the T and I just, for the
Council's information, the University of Washington, ecology circulars 92 -7 thru
10 follow this ordinance to the hilt and those are brand new circulars from the
University of Washington. So this is very well done. My daughter was rather
pleased that this is very modern. Very up to date and I would move approval.
Councilwoman Dimler: Good. Before we do that, vote on it though, I want to say
something too because I worked on this and I thought it was, it's so well
thought out and I know it's going to be the model for a lot of other cities and
other states as well. It is just exactly what we needed. There will be no more
arguments whether this is a wetland or not. We've got it all down. It's pro
development plus it protects our natural resources. I think we hit a real good
balance there so I would highly endorse this wetland ordinance.
Councilman Mason: Well I'll get my two cents in too because I was on that
committee too. We worked long and hard and I'm also very proud of it. I think
all of the people involved on that did an excellent job and put in a lot of
time.
Mayor Chmiel: True. Very true. So with this, can I have a motion?
Councilman Wing: I so moved.
Councilman Workman: I second it.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the first reading
of the Wetland Ordinance amendment as shown in Attachment $1. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
TAX INCREMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS, DISCUSSION. '
Don Ashworth: As can be seen on the date of this report, it goes back a period
of time. The plan amendments have been considered by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority. To make any of those occur we need to get, we need to
notify the County and the School District of the proposed modifications. As I
saw that the planned amendments potentially could represent a situation where
both the County and the School District would feel that we have not, or would
21
1
11 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
not then be complying with what had been agreed to for a long period of time,
that the districts would cease by '95 -96, we commenced discussions with both the
County and the School District in terms of how we could continue to do the local
projects while at the same point in time develop a plan whereby both the County
and the School District could receive a higher level of funding and would be
received if the districts were to cease. I think we've been successful in doing
that. The County at this point in time is stating that the proposal that is
being presented does represent more dollars to them than would be received if
' the district ceased. They also recognize that there are county roads in
Chanhassen that would not be built under albeit for our pledging dollars toward
that construction. The school district is looking to a major referendum that
they would like to see passed to provide additional schools within the district,
but specifically within Chanhassen. They see the work that's been completed
between the city and the school district as a means by which that they can
literally obtain greater dollars than would have been achieved if our district
would have closed out. While simultaneously insuring that our school district
could present a referendum that would be, have lower dollars that then could
otherwise be achieved if the district did exist. The Housing and Redevelopment
' Authority has reviewed this item for their last two agendas. It is the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority which needs to conduct the hearing which would be
held approximately 30 days from now. This item is being presented to the City
Council as I see that there has been very close cooperation between the City
Council and the HRA as to what it is that we're trying to achieve. Not only in
terms of local projects but also in terms of how we can assure that we are not
harming either the County or the School District. This report is being
presented primarily to insure that the Council is aware of some of the joint
efforts that have occured. And by the way, I should mention that the meetings
with the School District and the County have occurred for at least 3 to 4 years
at each of those levels where I have attended a meeting at least once a year by
those groups. The presentations as to the dollars and number of dollars
available are amounts that have been agreed to by Dick Stolz, representing
Carver County and Jeff Priest, representing the School District. Dave Clough
representing the School District. We have been presently previously to the
Carver County Board. I've made an invitation, or made myself available to meet
with either of those two groups should they ask for that. Again, this is being
' presented primarily as a presentation to the Council to make you aware of what
is occurring. But it is also being done recognizing that any bonds sold by the
HRA have to be approved by the City Council. They have no authorization to
potentially build a library without coming back in front of you and asking for
that authority and you approving that sale. So for them to go through plan
amendments whereby they would dedicate dollars, either for county road
e construction, municipal school cost reductions or for local projects, we have to
insure that both Council and the HRA are working jointly and again that's the
reason this item is presented.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. I have reviewed this completely and I've
had several discussions with Don and I also have attended some of those meetings
with the County and School District and the cities. Mainly between Victoria and
Chanhassen and Chaska. And I think it's unique in itself to be able to get
those total numbers of people to all sit down in one room and work together for
what's best for everyone within the district. And I think that what Don has
pulled together here really spells it out quite well and I really feel that it
does all the explaining as it should and yet I wanted to make sure that the City
1 22
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
in one way did not get hurt by doing this because it's quite evident that in
doing what we're doing within the City is providing still and yet additional
taxing dollars by being able to utilize that tax increment. If we don't have
that, we're not able to bring additional kinds of businesses or industries,
commercial or like commercial into the city. And so I think the old story goes,
what's good for the goose is good for the gander. In this particular instance I
feel that this is what it is. Ursula, would you care to say something?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. I guess I've always gone on record as saying, what 1
we're doing here is rolling the districts over so to speak and I've always gone
on record saying that I would oppose that. I think the report that Don wrote up
and I'm sure it's well studied and well documented. I think it makes excellent
sense. I agree that the County and the School Districts and the City should be
working together and if you can prove to me that we're all going to come out
better, that's fine. Then I would look at it. But my main concern is that
nobody's addressing how the taxpayer of our city is going to come out and I see
no evidence that they're coming out better. Can we look into that a little bit
more deeply and see what the tax burden is on the individual taxpayer here? As
a result of doing this. Because they might end up...
Mayor Chmiel: As I see with what we're doing here, we are offsetting some of
those costs that normally would be incurred by the residents of the city. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: That's correct. But they might very well be also paying
for a school referendum, which I know they're going to have to present
regardless of what we do here. You know and other costs are going up for them.
I just want to make sure that the tax burden does not increase to the individual
taxpayer as a result of the action we're doing here. Because certainly some of
the projects are worthwhile but I'm saying that if it's going to be an increased
tax burden to the taxpayer, then maybe we can do without a city center park. We
can do without a library. You know. So I'd feel more comfortable knowing what
the end result is on the individual taxpayer. 1
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. 1
Don Ashworth: Again this is a hearing that will be proposed to be conducted by
the HRA in December or the first part of January. Could I inbetween that time 1
work with Councilwoman Dimler and try to see what type of information might.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think maybe we should all be involved. Isn't
everybody else interested too?
Councilman Wing: Well I asked that question and Don sold me. When I walked out
of there saying, whoa. Let's not mess with this because it would impact me very
negatively. Very negatively.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. And that's exactly...
Councilwoman Dimler: Well that's good. That's good news if you know. I'm not
convinced of that but if you want to present me with the evidence.
23 1
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Don Ashworth: I think what it amounts to is, I think it's there. It's simply a
II question of, I must not have presented it in a format to show it to yourself so
what I need to do is sit down and say, how can I better show this so that it's
easier to understand or easier for the average citizen. Whatever you might.
r Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think you've done an excellent job. But I'm saying
is that, and I agree that the projects are worthwhile but if it's going to
increase the taxes, then do we need another library? Do we need a city center
1 park? Do we need some of the programs? Maybe we can weed out some of the
projects. I think we have to look at that.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dimler: But I like the idea of working with the County and the
School District and if we all benefit, and the taxpayer benefits, then I'm all
for it.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's where this is really boiling down to. And I think
that it shows maybe what you should do Don is sit down with Ursula and.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just not me. Is somebody else interested?
1 Councilman Mason: I'll sit with her.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thanks. You two new members interested?
Don Ashworth: And I do believe that Councilmember Senn has shown some concern
in this area and may want to sit in on that type of meeting and I would
1 encourage Dick Stolz from the County and that Jeff Crees from the School
District.
I Councilwoman Dimler: And Dave Clough too. Let's get them all together and set
up a meeting and discuss it.
Councilman Wing: Don, I have just one other quick question. Not to interrupt
I you. The only thing, I failed to ask Don this today and I apologize for having
to bring it up tonight but what's the State kind of going on the attack a little
bit and the rules becoming more stringent, do you have a feel? If we start
1 relying on this and predicating our future on this, and suddenly they sweep it
out from underneath us, where would we wind up? Are we really looking for
trouble if they suddenly do away with these?
1 Councilman Workman: They can't break a rule.
Councilman Wing: No. No, but they can sure make the rules stringent like...
1 Mayor Chmiel: They can make some changes, no question. A couple legislators...
Councilman Wing: Is that an issue? Do I care about that?
Don Ashworth: Yes you should. The worst that would happen is that certain
projects then wouldn't get funded. You know some of them we know. For example
II the library, assuming that that were to go over on the Pauly /Pony /Pryzmus site,
1 24
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
the earliest that that site is available is July 1st of 1994 with construction
being '95 -96. If in the next 3 -4, whatever year period of time and the 1
legislature said no, for whatever reason. These certain dollars are not
available, you're just not going to do that project. One of the areas that I
would be concerned about would be, entering any type of agreement with the
School District or the County and then somehow having funding pulled. And I'll
tell you that the soft spot for us is right now we do not pay into fiscal
disparity pool. At one point in time one of the legislators had a bill in
effect that basically said that the opt out or the communities that are pre '79
cities should start to pay and they phased them in. They said that next year
they'll go in at 80% of the 40% and. Or I'm sorry, 20% of the 40%. 40% of the
40% and finally literally take away 40% of your revenues. You take away 40% of
your revenues and you take away many of the benefits we have for keeping the
district in place but more importantly you take away the dollars that might then
have been shared with the county or the school. Any agreement that we would
enter into with those two entities should take that into account and recognize
that possibility.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other discussion? '
Councilwoman Dimler: So we're not approving anything here tonight? We're just
discussing it. So do you want to call us on a meeting date Don? '
Don Ashworth: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: There's only one clause containing...action proposed be taken by
Council or HRA to authorize staff to prepare specific plan amendments. I don't
know what your feelings are. I'll start with Michael on the end.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, may I?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 1
Don Ashworth: This report was.
Mayor Chmiel: Purely discussion. '
Don Ashworth: No, joint between Council and the Redevelopment. I was not clear
in that the authorization of taking on specific plan amendments was back to
really the HRA. It still is true though that if they act and say, yes we want
to amend the plan and they hold a hearing and you decide you don't want to bond
them, I guess I'm trying to figure out out loud.
Mayor Chmiel: How they do that.
Don Ashworth: Yeah. When does the Council. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we have that meeting prior to the 14th?
Don Ashworth: Prior to the HRA?
Councilwoman Dimler: To the HRA public hearing.
25 ,
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
II
Don Ashworth: Sure. Save me a phone call. Mark, Colleen, would you like to be
II in on that meeting? Yes?
Councilwoman Dimler: And Dick Stolz and Jeff Crees and Dave Clough.
II Councilman Wing: Dick Wing.
Councilman Dimler: And Dick Wing and...
II Mayor Chmiel: And anybody else in the city who wants to come. And if we have
more than 2 of the existing Council.
I Don Ashworth: Then I'll notify the newspaper.
Mayor Chmiel: Make sure you notify the newspaper.
I Don Ashworth: I will.
I Mayor Chmiel: Alright. We'll move along.
NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH HIGHWAY 5 RECONSTRUCTION
PROJECT.
II Don Ashworth: This item has gone, again I tried to make sure both the HRA and
the City Council is aware of what the others are doing. Primarily recognizing
I HRA and any costs associated with the Highway 5 frontage road construction where
as the City Council is actually authorizing the work to be completed. The
initial concern, or one of the issues raised at our last meeting was the cost
II associated with acquisition and other costs associated with the project. In
talking with Barton - Aschman, the cost of the right -of -way acquisition cannot be
included under the ISTEA funding. However, there are parts of the frontage road
that in fact could be paid, meaning the right - - way acquisition. Specifically
II the area in front of Eckankar property as it would go over into Lake Ann Park.
A piece to serve what is currently the Kerber property and the tree farm and
what was the nursery that's sitting there. And then Mr. Gorra's road. The
I biggest part is the recognition that they're, although part of the project will
not be seen as a benefit back to properties where you had the road and there's
this 150 foot buffer. In most instances that is going to be looked at more as a
I taking rather than as a benefit. However, the western portion of the project,
where it would go through the area currently being considered by Fleet Farm,
very definitely is an assessable project and an analysis of this with Barton -
Aschman we feel very confident that the cost for this project, including
I right -of -way acquisition, will not end up as any form of a general obligation
cost. Should be 100% assessable. Any cost that do not hit into one of those two
categories could be used, or tax increment could be used to pay those costs.
II Again, we do not think there would be tax increment dollars into that project.
But those would be the three levels of funding. To specifically respond to the
question as to the right -of -way costs, we're estimating that to be $700,000.00
1 to $900,000.00. One final note and that is, initially there was a concern that
making application for these dollars maybe get in advance of the work that the
Highway 5 corridor group was carrying out and before citizens could actually
become involved. The memo from Barry Warner at the very end of your packet
1 basically is stating they need, meaning the Highway 5 corridor task force, needs
II 26
11
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
the information that would be generated through the engineering side to be able
to complete those public hearings and to meet with owners to tell them where
this is going to be and what it's likely going to look like. So we've kind of
moved from, maybe we're moving too quick in making application to the State to,
or we're moving too slow.
Mayor Chmiel: I see some of the costs that they're looking at for the
construction and...and so on has changed some from what it was back in September
to what it is now in October as it shows here. In the later part of October.
It's not that any difference there as far as the MnDot assistance one but there
is a little variation without MnDot's assistance as well. If you look at this
particular table. Is there anyone wanting any discussion on this at this time?
Or have any questions?
Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I'm in part of this area that's effected by
the road. How much land are you planning to take for this service road? Do you
have a diagram or a sketch or something that shows what the taking's going to
be?
Don Ashworth: I thought Mike, didn't between Paul or I give you a copy of that '
study carried out by Bill Morrish. It was called the corridor and the, I can't
even remember now the name of it.
Mike Gorra: Well I got something but it didn't really show what the footage
was. You could just kind of guess at it. I just wondered if it had changed.
You know how things change from day to day? '
Don Ashworth: Well my understanding, and Councilmembers can correct me but Bill
was looking to trying to insure that a green area was preserved especially as it
went along what I'll call the main line, recognizing that it would have to
bubble back out at certain intersections. Meaning you'd have to move back to
like a 300 foot distance at any major intersection. But it was my understanding
that kind of midstream areas, which would be kind of where your property would
be, would be enera
g lly 150 feet was my recollection. Between, that we were
looking to as what I'll call a buffer area. I don't know if our recollection
y 1 ion
was 100, 200. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you remember?
Mike Gorra: Would that include the new right -of -way or would that just be a '
buffer inbetween the two? I mean it's kind of hard to figure out.
Don Ashworth: In my mind that was seen as the buffer and then you would have an
additional 50 foot of right -of -way associated with the frontage road itself.
Mayor Chmiel: So you're saying as far as the expansion of Highway 5 as well? '
Mike Gorra: Yes. The total amount of the taking. Would it be 150 or would it
be over 200 then? Are you talking 150 inbetween the two? '
Don Ashworth: Through your area, if there is any taking and MnDot now has got
it down to the point at least in that area that it's very small, would all be on
the south side as it deals with the main line. Now in the area of Lake Ann Park
27 '
11
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
you're going, that would actually be on the north side. There would be a
transition right through that intersection area where it will actually move back
over to the south side and go off of the proposed school property. So any main
line right -of -way in your area comes off the south side. Then this plan, the
' Bill Morrish concept, would say that there should be a green buffer area between
the highway and a north frontage road. And my recollection was that he was
generally looking for 150 foot distance where you'd have pedestrian walkway.
Potential bikeway. Treed area and then there'd be the frontage road would be
the north of that.
Mike Gorra: So the ultimate distance would be probably over 200 feet then?
' Don Ashworth: I think the important thing Mike would be to make sure that you
continue to work with this committee. In making an application for this
funding, we're not making application that the road would be 50 feet north of
the roadway or 250 feet north. We're presenting a generalized concept and
getting MnDot to agree that taking traffic off of the main line would be a good
idea. Whether that frontage road be right adjacent to the highway or not is a
local decision and we have until 1996 to really make that decision.
Mike Gorra: So nothing's really been decided yet? It's still.
I Don Ashworth: No. That's the reason that we've selected this committee and
want that committee to be the ones that say, how do we want each of the parcels
' along Highway 5 to develop. And it could get accelerated. It could move to
'94. Maybe '95.
Mike Gorra: Now is this north service road, is this a necessity? 100%
necessity. Does it have to go all the way from, down to CR 117?
Mayor Chmiel: It should.
II Mike Gorra: No matter what the development is inbetween CR 17 and CR 117?
Mayor Chmiel: No I look at it as a safety factor more than anything else for
the residents within the city. Making that accessibility rather than going out
onto TH 5 approaching into Lake Ann Park. And so to me it would have a priority
of being put in, yes.
Mike Gorra: So that's the only option you're looking at on the north side of
TH 5 then?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Mike Gorra: That's all I had to ask.
Councilman Wing: Don? You know I've been real active in this corridor study
and supporting it. I guess I'm a little frustrated that land owners such as Mr.
1 Gorra who's right in the project's way, if you will, he hasn't had more
questions answered. Isn't more up to date on what the thinking is and some of
the potentials. Somehow we've got to get the communication going because we're
' kind of moving on this. I think the Council has unanimously agreed to go with
this corridor and I think the landowners ought to know at least as much as we
' 28
11
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
know on the committee. Because they're the ones that are going to be impacted.
Is there any way we can get this information to, I mean Mr. Gorra is just one of
many but I think he deserves a little more background here than maybe he's
getting.
Don Ashworth: Do you recall, has Paul set up specific timeframes under which '
notices would be sent? Do you recall?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know. Paul's out in the hall. Paul, maybe you can come
in here and answer that question, if you can hear me. Paul, Don has a question
for you.
Don Ashworth: The Council wondered, when in the Highway 5 corridor process do
we bring in the owners such as Mr. Gorra and involve them in the process? We
recently approved the contract with Camiros. We're moving ahead with this.
Paul Krauss: Yeah. This process is running pretty similar to the
Comprehensive Plan. I mean there will be definitive neighborhood meetings.
Informational meetings all along but we've had a contingent of residents who
have shown an interest and I'm pretty sure Mike, did you get our agendas? We'd
be happy to send them to you if not. We have had a lot of residents start to
follow this thing and show up regularly at the meetings and we appointed a
chairman at the last meeting. Actually two chair people at the last meeting.
And depending on their calls, I would invite people to come and get some...but
there will be specific informational meetings.
Mayor Chmiel: I think if we could make sure and check out each of the adjacent
property owners all the way along TH 5 and provide them with that information as
to when these meetings are going to be held and if they'd like to come and sit '
in on them, they're more than welcome.
Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor we've avoided, I guess whenever anybody shows an
interest in this thing we're more than happy to provide them all the
information, meeting notices and what not that we can. We've been a little
relunctant. This is a hold over from the Comp Plan, to go out and mass notify
everybody of every meeting because the Highway 5 task force needs to gain an
understanding of what they're going to do and so they have something for people
to give them feedback on. The Planning Commission, while they ran a very public
process. Sent out all the notices. Invited people to come, actually did not
invite them to speak for a period of time until they had some thoughts jelled
and provided the basis for discussion. So I think we're trying to run this in
the same way.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't find that as a problem. At least if they come to these,
they know what's happening. Even if they're not allowed to give input at that
particular time. Still they can be there to observe and listen as to what's
taking place.
Paul Krauss: I'd be happy to double check if you're not already on that mailing
list.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions?
29 ,
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: What's our action here tonight? Anything?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think our action basically, this is to.
1 Don Ashworth: You're authorizing me to prepare a letter similar to the one
that's enclosed to MnDot basically asking them that yes, they're willing to make
a commitment to this project and include the north frontage road project as a
part of the Highway 5 construction.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Seeing none, can I have a motion? For Don
to send that letter to MnDot.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
' Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded authorizing the City Manager
to prepare a letter to MnDot asking them to make a commitment to the Highway 5
project and include the north frontage road project as a part of the
construction plans. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Wing: I was doing City business and I missed the Pledge of
Allegiance and I just was wondering, would you just allow me out of order one
quick comment under Council Presentations?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I'll do it next time.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead.
Councilman Wing: Paul, I think this Council and the Planning Commission at the
last meeting are constantly stymied, Abra's coming in and we got something good
from Target. I'm surprised at the feedback I've gotten from Target. Comments
1 that maybe that ought to be our minimum standard. Abra we're stuck with and
these other ones coming in along Highway 5 and it would appear that our
landscape ordinance needs to aggressively be attacked right now. I mean if
Target is what we like and what we want, then the landscape ordinance has to
reflect that on the Abra and the new ones coming in and it doesn't. We really
have no say whatsoever unless it's a PUD or HRA's project. So my concern is
two. Number one, landscape ordinance seems to be solely, grossly inadequate.
Is that an assumption I can make? Or needs to be adjusted?
Paul Krauss: I think our landscape ordinance was state, was 1980 state of the
art but it doesn't deal with Highway 5 issues very well.
Councilman Wing: Okay. And also architectural standards. We say well we want
this and we want that and we think it ought to have pitched roofs and we don't
think, and we think it ought to have this. So there's no rules and these poor
1 30
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1
guys are coming in scratching their heads saying, gripes people. What do you
want? Just tell us what you want. We'll build it. We'll do it but what do you
want and we don't have the rules. So the in a sense the architectural standards
we don't seem to have adequate rules and the Planning Commission is frustrated
and I think I get frustrated here because you don't know, we just don't have
anything to tell the people coming in except the quick oil change place could
build what they want because that's, we don't have any rules to say they can't.
So I guess I'm suggesting here that the Council recommend to staff that the
landscape ordinance and the issue of architectural standards be taken up at
the Planning Commission and be given priority.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't disagree with you but how far are we going to go with 1
architectural standards?
Councilman Wing: Oh, I have no definitions other than we don't have any
definitions. So what's good for you I don't like. What I like you don't like.
And I don't know Don. I don't have that answer. Or maybe just a committee to
review but do we want pitched roofs or don't we? Are flat roofs okay or aren't
they?
Mayor Chmiel: I think we should have a specific direction with design. But as
far as colors, I don't think we should even really approach that.
Councilman Wing: You know you're becoming specific and I don't know, I have no
suggestion here other than what can or can't a company do coming in. 1
Mayor Chmiel: In other words you say you want this one blue, you want this one
pink, you want this one yellow.
Councilman Wing: We're sort of doing that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. '
Councilman Wing: And they're really frustrated. I don't blame them.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul. '
Paul Krauss: Well you know, in fact I had a meeting with Jeff Farmakes today.
Jeff had volunteered to provide some sketches for Abra and Goodyear so that we
could relate to them the kinds of concerns that staff and Planning Commission
had. And Jeff and I had an opportunity to discuss, how do you get a design and
we both agree and that is... We don't want to dictate colors. We don't want to
dictate era...you know, everybody has a Wild West theme or ultra modern or
anything else but you do want to get to things like there should be no unadorned
walls. That there's got to be...detailing that we do want this, on and on and
on. As far as the Highway 5 area goes, that's on the agenda for the Highway 5
corridor task force. Maybe we can give some direction to them to accelerate
work on an overlay district might be appropriate. But that would, once that's
in place that will deal with the Highway 5 corridor which incorporates portions
of downtown but all of downtown. Then you have sites like the Charlie James
property that aren't technically on the Highway 5 corridor. If you want to deal
with those somewhat separately or just expand the corridor so that, there's lots
of ways you can look at that.
31 1
1
II City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: I think we can put slash slash TIF districts to various blah,
II blah, blah.
Paul Krauss: Well you see I think the HRA and the Council have been very good
II recently, the last two years, I think it started with Councilwoman Dimler's
suggestion with the industrial building, to use the HRA input as leverage to get
a better quality product. So in that case you don't specifically need an
ordinance. You're getting at it through another.
II Councilman Wing: Oh, but if Charlie James puts in a Wal -Mart across the street
that doesn't use HRA money, we do want that one landscaped the same way we want
I the Target across the street landscaped? Or better? Then we won't have an
ordinance for it right?
II Paul Krauss: You don't have one that would produce that, right.
Councilman Wing: That's what I'm asking for.
I Councilman Workman: But Eden Prairie has an ordinance that dictates design,
right? I mean I get a little nervous relying on things that can blow over that
a termite can eat to block the view of something that's still going to be there.
1 Paul Krauss: Eden Prairie has I think, I could be wrong, but I think they have
a brick or better ordinance so it's been my experience that Eden Prairie that
II gets a lot of buildings that are just as ugly, they're just clad in brick.
Councilman Wing: But on the other hand the Abra plan at the Planning Commission
talked about this classic, updated. It went on and on describing how wonderful
I they're going to be and then it states cement block and I almost want to start
applauding. Well that's painted cement block. Wonderful. What a classic
that's going to be. Something's wrong. I'm just saying we don't have the rules
II and I'm concerned about it. That's all.
Paul Krauss: I certainly will feedback this thing to the Highway 5 corridor
task force. Same think like when we did the SOP and we were told to accelerate
the wetland.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And I think Dick has a good point there.
II Councilman Wing: To move along tonight I'd just like to ask this be on a future
agenda. Don if you would approve that for Council discussion. Preferably after
II the 1st of the year...
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, we'll get it on the next agenda for discussion. We'll
move along to 7.
II ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
II 1993 BUDGET, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: Each of our sessions moves us a little closer to adoption of a
budget. Our hearing is set for December 9th. At that point in time you do have
II to complete what would be the general and debt levies as they would go to the
1
1 32
II
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
County. We have until December 28th to complete literally all of the rest of
the budgetary items. Again I would hope that we have everything concluded by
the 9th.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's at 7:30 p.m.? That's what I have down. ,
Don Ashworth: Right. The Council previously had received a copy of each of the
requests from each of the departments. Those dealt primarily with the general
fund. Scott Harr, Todd Hoffman made initial presentation for Park and Public
Safety. Then Charles is associated with Public Works. Paul as it dealt with
Planning. We had an additional session where we passed out the sheets
associated with what I'll call the special revenue type funds. At that same
point in time we presented the consolidated budget as it related to the
presentations by each of the department heads, meaning Paul, Todd, etc.. At
that point in time we were out of balance by $500 and I think I stated
$27,000.00 here but I think the amount was closer to $514,000.00 Tom.
$524,000.00? $524,000.00. Council instructed staff to go back and meet with
each of the department heads. Try to figure out how we could achieve balancing
of that number. We did that. We have put in front of you basically the same
sheets you had from our third work session showing the general fund revenues. I
should note there that under general property tax levy the amount proposed for
certification, or at least for 1993, $1,566,000.00 is approximately $30,000.00
less than the dollar amount levied for 1992. With the aggregate revenues then
for the revised budget being $3,402,000.00 in comparison to proposed
expenditures is on the third page of $3,402,000.00 for a positive position of
$&89.00. We have reshown each of the departments. So in other words, if you
take the budget forms you had from three meetings ago and look under general
government or public safety, you would see the amount that they had requested
under each of those categories. Whether it be by type. Personal services
materials or by department. General government and public safety. To make your
iob a little easier, we then put together what would be the fourth and fifth
sheets which show the detail associated with how we feed that $524,000.00 so
that shows each of the revenue adjustments for expenditure cuts. Hopefully
J P P Y
tonight I can get Council reaction to those. By the end of this week we hope to
take and have before you, and I'm starting to, knowing the total things that
need to be completed, I'm a little worried as to whether or not we'll be able to
do that but I'm still hoping to take and have together a total proposed budget
that would include general, all of the special revenue, debt, have a lot of the
same graphics that you had in previous years for the tax dollar and a lot of
those kinds of things. So again I don't know how you want to proceed. If you
want detail questions now. If I could, maybe I could go through my entire
report and then we might come back to this because I think there's some overall
impacts that should be considered. Anticipated tax impacts. Back in September
when staff had basically set through the Truth in Taxation process, the proposed
1993 levy. We set that at 5% greater than had been set for our operational levy
in 1992. We did that recognizing that we had an approximate 11% real growth
within the community. That means that we put in 11% more streets. 11% more
street lights. 11% more watermains. 11% more people. 11% more houses. We
had, and they're very good justification to take and look to a proposed levy
that would be 11% higher simply to keep us at where we were at from a year ago.
And that really wouldn't keep us up from the standpoint that that number does
rot include any type of inflation. So hypothetically you could justify taking
before the citizens a 12 -13% or 14% increase over one year ago. However, the
33
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
State changed the rules for taxing residential properties. In fact they gave a
major tax break to higher valued homes. The fact that higher valued homes are
going to pay less taxes means that somebody else has to pay more taxes.
Conscience decision, and I hope it was a conscience decision of this Council was
to state you did not want to see a tax increase on any residential property
which means then that from a staff standpoint we no longer could look at this
shift of 6% and we lost 6'c off of the 11% real growth. That's the reason we set
the amount at 5% more for the operational levy than we had one year ago and it
was to insure that no matter what valued residential property you had, barring
that there had been any improvements to the property, or a general increase in
values through like a 4 year re- evaluation process, that there would not be a
tax increase. We came awfully close. I got mine at home and my value stayed
the same from one year to the next. The city portion went up 34 cents. The
budget as presented here, if the Council would drop cut $5,000.00 off of the
budget as it is, you can assure that no residential property, barring that they
made improvements, would have a tax increase. Everyone would have a tax
decrease. The effects of what the State did can best be shown in exhibit number
3. What that shows, oh by the way. This was prepared by Carver County. Carver
County put this through their computer. The tax sheets, the truth in taxation
notices that you received in the last 1 or 2 days have been, were prepared using
live data. So in other words, that would represent your tax bill from the city.
11 From the county. From the school district if no changes were made from that
proposed in September. What exhibit 3 shows you is that for properties values
starting there at $50,000.00 and going up to $60,000.00, $80,000.00,
' $120,000.00, $110,000.00 all would have a 0% change. So in other words, when we
set it at that 5%c amount, 5% more, we truly for lower valued houses are not
creating a tax increase. We are also not creating a tax decrease. We're
basically leaving them the same. Starting at $110,000.00 - $120,000.00, you're
starting to see decreases. And this is the formula change that the State put
through. Moving on up to a property at about $200,000.00, becuase the formula
change will see almost 12% reduction in their taxes. Now that again is solely
because of the formula change. If you look at the city, county and school
district, you will find that between the three, that there is an approximate
3 1 /2% decrease in the aggregate for all of those governmental units. So that
means that if you have a lower valued home, $60,000.00 to $80,000.00. I don't
know if that's lower value. I think it is. That you would see a 3 1 /2%
decrease. That's the minimum decrease. If you have a more expensive home, you
would see the 12% plus the 3 1 /2'c so you would see an approximate 15 1 /2%
reduction. Now I have to make one big caveat for one third of our residents
that live in the Minnetonka district. And that is that Minnetonka district did
not see the same reductions that are currently being foreseen in the Chaska
district. Specifically that levy went up by about 13% and I believe that it's
attributable to the new debt associated with the new school buildings. The
County is also proposing to go up 3%c, 4%, 5% so residents in that area are going
to see an approximate 17% to 18% increase in their property taxes. Now, what
you have to again factor in is this modification that the State makes. So if
you're living in that area, you have a $200,000.00 house, you'll see an 18%
increase because of the actions of the school district and the county but you
will see a 12% decrease as a result of what the legislature did. So the net
effect would probably be a 5% or 6% increase. If you have a lower valued home
in that area, you would see the full 18? from the school and the County.
Because you did have the lower valued home, you would not see...
34
r
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Makes sense.
Councilman Mason: I'm going to move across the street.
Don Ashworth: The third sheet basically shows the proposed levy amounts. I
also included that some of the financial reduction information that we have been
using associated with our meetings with the school district and the county. The
final item is kind of talking about what might happen on December 9th. I don't,
if on December 9th we do have a number of residents that are present, first of
all I would request that I be allowed to make kind of an overview presentation,
very similar to what I've made here and in fact we have in place and I hope to
have it functioning by that point in time, a computerized form where I can show
some of these numbers right on the screen and it should appear in their homes
when they see that. So that each of these sheets that I've been referring to
and where we show general property taxes and that the amount scheduled for '93
is less than the dollar amount for '92, that I can show that right on the
screen. Finally, that if again we do have a number present, that the meeting
for the 9th just concentrate on those funds, meaning the general fund, debt
service funds, fire relief, those type of things that deal with the property tax
levy. and discuss and vote on those on that evening. I think that if the group
has concerns over whether or not, let's assume that the final sheets that we
develop. we've already gotten some preliminary in this case for cable TV. So we
show how much we're bringing in for cable TV. When we show a continuation of
the contract with the City of Chaska for $5,000.00 to carry out programming
through the High School. I think if we got into more lengthy discussions on the
9th in regards to whether or not we should include *2,000.00 camera within the
cable TV fund that it's going to be difficult for citizens who may be in the
audience to relate to the fact that that's not an item that's effecting their
taxes. And so there might be a tendency for that citizen to stand up and say,
I've listened to this discussion and I don't understand this. If we're trying
to find ways to reduce taxes, why don't you guys vote to get rid of that
$1.000.00 camera that you guys were talking about. And not realize that that
has it's own funding. It's own source of revenue and that if you eliminate the
camera, you do not save the property taxes. Given the overall strength of the
proposed budget, meaning that it will create a tax decrease for 2/3 of our
people from a city standpoint. It will create a real good decrease for most of
our citizens on a generalized basis. Meaning city, county, school. I think we
will have some from the Minnetonka district area. Maybe we might even have a
Council member get up and go in front of us.
Councilman Wing: Wouldn't be a bad idea.
Don Ashworth: I guess I open it to, Mr. Mayor should we go back and maybe touch
on each one of these items now?
Mayor Chmiel: No I think we can probably look at this, we're looking at 1
possibly one more meeting before the 9th and I think at that particular time I
think we can probably go through most of that.
Don Ashworth: How about the 7th? That's Pearl Harbor Day. Maybe that's
fitting.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a good day.
35 1
r
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Don Ashworth: Do it as a work session like at 5:30?
Mayor Chmiel: That'd be fine. Monday, 5:30 p.m.. Okay, meet in the courtyard
room?
Don Ashworth: Yeah.
Councilman Wing: Was this in lieu of the 9th?
Councilman Mason: No, no, no. No, no.
Councilman Workman: Aren't you lighting the Christmas Tree at 6 :00 Don?
Mayor Chmiel: Well maybe we'll be done by then.
t Don Ashworth: Could we make it 5 :00?
Mayor Chmiel: I can make it at 5 :00.
Councilwoman Dimler: 5:00, sure.
Councilman Mason: 5:00, I can make 5 :00.
Councilwoman Dimler: And then the tree lighting's at 6:00?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing: I will not be here the 9th.
Don Ashworth: And then maybe in the meantime, if any of you would get a hold of
me. Where we have shown cuts in there and if there are particular items that
you really feel should stay in there. Remember we still do have some of our
specific and capital project funds where hypothetically a shed for Lake Ann
hypothetically can still go into the park acquisition and development fund. But
' then it would be back to the Park Commission to basically say that that's a
priority and they really have that in there. We feel very good about the budget
process to date. We feel that we've met the guidelines that you've given us and
we hope to conclude the process on the 9th.
Councilman Mason: So we're going to wait on questions for this until the 7th?
1 Mayor Chmiel: I would suggest that you look at this and look at your other
sheets that you've had.
Don Ashworth: But if you could give me a call. I mean it'd be find if you'd
like to wait until the 7th but.
Mayor Chmiel: But if you have something you want to talk about beforehand.
Don Ashworth: Then I've got something to work on.
36
11
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
UTILITY BILL APPEAL. STATEWIDE AUTO SALVAGE. LAVERNE VASSAR.
Mayor Chmiel: P hmiel: It appears that Mr. Vassar is just walking in the building and 1
very fortunately this is perfect timing. Don, item number 5 for you. You're
just in time. We just have it before us. We haven't started any discussions. 1
Don Ashworth: I started out my report stating that I firmly believe that the
passage of the storm water management plan will turn out to be one of the most
important ordinances that we put through and will be found to be one of the most
environmentally sensitive ordinances that we've had. I think the merits of the
entire ordinance, the program are, well again, time will prove that it in fact
is one of the best ordinances to pass on through. Unfortunately, in trying to
establish charging systems back, those become much more difficult and especially
recognizing the wide range of properties that we have within this community.
The number of landscape property owners. The number of Arboretums. The number
of hills. The number of valleys. The number of wetlands. I am very surprised
that you have not received previous concerns or complaints as to how an
individual property was being charged under that ordinance. How should we look
at the drainage that comes off of St. Hubert's cemetary? How do you look at the
drainage associated with our schools? Yet they're all put into generalized
categories and I really appreciate and commend engineering and planning and
specifically Dave Hempel in meeting with each of these individual property
owners. All of the Dave Stockdales of the world who are concerned because they
have their own ponding area. They're doing their thing for the environment.
And he's done an excellent job in getting them to understand the general goals
of that ordinance and then to reasonably come back to what should be a
reasonable charge against their property. To the best of my knowledge, the
request before you tonight to review the account of Mr. Vassar associated with
Statewide Auto Salvage, is the first complaint that I am aware that you've had
in front of you. And in looking at the aerial photos that I've supplied with
this packet, there is no question in my mind that his property being in a
similar category to St. Hubert's cemetary or Chanhassen Elementary, there's
absolutely no way that his property has to have 10 times the runoff and if you
want to look at the type of runoff. I'm sure one of the things that he may say
to you is that you don't have a specific program established for his area. Of
course that's a part of the ordinance is to develop programs. But I do know
that someone will pay a major cost in cleaning that site up and it's going to be
far more than any amounts that we've collected locally. And I have yet to see
any one of these projects that the City has not gotten involved with somewhere
along the line. Again, I can only guess as to what Mr. Vassar has to say but I
would highly recommend that the Council keep in place the charge as has been
developed by Dave Hempel.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mr. Vassar.
Laverne Vassar: Well by the letters that your own staff has sent you, you've '
got them in your copies there, your staff has already admitted... It's like
charging for the sky. Blue sky is what you're doing.
Don Ashworth: I wouldn't have gone on the first reduction but Dave did that and '
that was within his jurisdiction.
1
37
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Laverne Vassar: On the south of Highway 212 is in a different watershed
district from the rest of the city completely.
Don Ashworth: The watershed districts make no differences to.
Laverne Vassar: It absolutely .does. There's nothing you could ever do on the
south side of 212. That's done by the Minnesota Lower Watershed District is
' what regulates that completely.
Roger Knutson: That's not true. We have concurrent jurisdiction over storm
water.
11 Laverne Vassar: It does. That's who issues all the permits for that area down
there. On the south side of 212.
Roger Knutson: We also issue it.
Mayor Chmiel: The City does basically. In conjunction with their approval.
Laverne Vassar: Well, I've got the League of Cities doing a check on this thing
too.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's fine and that's your perrogative to be able to do
that as well. But I think that after I have reviewed this as well, I don't
disagree with the position taken even though they did give you a different
category for that. Moving it from a general business to the industrial /office
category which did lower it some as well.
Laverne Vassar: Well, that's no different than a field. Just because there's a
car sitting there, that doesn't mean that water's running off the place. It's
just your car at your house. When the water runs off the roof of it, it runs
' underneath the car and it soaks into that ground just like anything else. I'll
tell you a good example for you. You've got Joe Notterman's motel down there
and you've got Western's motel and you've got the same area, amount of acreages.
1 You've got two different fees down there. It's a discriminatory practice that's
going on.
Mayor Chmiel: That I'm not aware of.
Laverne Vassar: Every point that I brought up when I come in and tack to him in
the office, every point it's just like falling on deaf ears. He never addressed
any of them.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Notterman has been in and I know that there has been
correspondence on his property. I do not know the details of the correspondence
but I do know that he's been in and visited with Dave on several occasions.
Mayor Chmiel: Does the Council have any specific questions of Mr. Vassar?
' Councilman Workman: Well how about, what may be his contention that in fact
anything draining from this area, and I see naturally that it would drain into
the pristine waters of the marsh there. And the City may not ever need to treat
that. How do we treat a scenario like that? What might come off of a farm
38
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
field and into a ditch that we might have to maintain. This may never enter a
ditch or a pond that the city would, you know what I'm saying?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Workman: Because this clearly runs into United States of America 1
property that we're not going to have anything to do with.
Roger Knutson: Maybe I can respond, at least in part. One of the things we're '
aiming for and we're required to by Federal law shortly, is to have storm water
that enters places like rivers and lakes, be of a certain quality. We recognize
that every drop of rain water we can't control before it enters those bodies of
water. Maybe in some cases it will have to be a little dirtier here and a
little cleaner here. So we use the money we gain here to clean it up over there
so overall we reach the goals we need to reach. '
Councilman Workman: We may need to use monies from this fund here someday. I
mean in a general sense, if our city were a dome, every parcel of land on the
bottom of the dome would drain into another community. It wouldn't be
justification for not having them a part of the utility. Because we may need to
do something there anyway. Correct? Is that what you're saying?
Roger Knutson: Yes. And they maybe reach a point for example where you're not
going to allow direct runoff from industrial sources or sources like industry
into a wetlands. You want some pre - treatment before it reaches there. There
are all sorts of different things you need to do. One thing you need to do is
develop a plan and that takes money.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Roger. Any other questions? Or any discussion? 1
Councilman Wing: I'm in the same boat as Mr. Vassar out on Lake Minnewashta.
I'm paying into this fund but they haven't cleaned up my lake. It's all going
towards Lotus and other areas of the city but I accepted this as an
environmental tax and I guess it's been so intact and all the dust that's
settled down, I thought all the problems had been addressed. I was rather
surprised.
Laverne Vassar: Well I tried to come and address you last year and I got the
date screwed up and that's why I didn't address you last year. 1
Councilman Wing: I'm paying the same fee, just not as much obviously because
I'm residential. 1
Laverne Vassar: Right across the street is Moon Valley over there. He's got
two parcels of property and he pays like $3.22 apiece on like 40 acre parcels.
That doesn't even make any sense. And that's not residential. I got the whole
list of from everything from the county line up to Gedney's. Gedney's has got,
look at Gedney's what they're paying you for storm water. If you think that
isn't discriminatory practices, Gedney's is paying nothing. '
Councilman Workman: Maybe we can get an analysis of that. I couldn't tell you
what Gedney's is paying.
39
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't have the foggiest idea.
Laverne Vassar: His roof runoff has got to be bigger than my whole place. At
Gedney's.
Don Ashworth: I'm not aware of what the charge is on Gedney. I do know that
Gedney built a large ponding area onto the property and they went through a
permit process back with DNR and this was to take waters that had been going
into the waste treatment system and be able to put those out into one of these
aeration ponding areas and take the drainage off of the property and pre -treat
it in advance of putting it into the river. Now I know there had to have been
credits for that type of thing to the point where he got a zero bill, I have not
heard that before. Do you believe that Tom? Do you know? You don't know one
way or the other?
Councilwoman Dimler: Let's look into it.
Councilman Workman: You know I don't mean to hold it up for anybody. We might
want to get that. I'm not inclined, like I suspect the rest of the Council is
to remove one parcel out of all the parcels in the city from the district. If
we're not being fair to him, that's another issue. If we can research that, I
might feel a little more comfortable.
Councilwoman Dimler: Absolutely I agree.
Mayor Chmiel: As we see here, as Don has indicated and also the letters that we
have from staff, Dave Hempel, I guess maybe we should find that out as to what
the others really are and then based that on that judgment. I think the charge
' is going to be there but I'm not sure whether that same amount would be the
charge that we'd be charging those until we find out what the others might be.
II Councilman Wing: I bet if Dave was here tonight he could answer this pretty
straight forward.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure he could but being that he's not here, I would request a
1 motion for a table on this.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
1 Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded to table to pull together
information that's been gathered to determine what it is to be based on. Did
you have a question Tom?
Tom Chaffee: If Council is going to take action to table...maybe a critical
time point being here now. Mr. Vassar has a bill that is going to be certified
if it's approved by this very body to be certified to the County Auditor to...
with his 1993 property taxes. If you're going to take any action tonight to
hold that in advance, perhaps they should footnote the action they've taken that
that be held in...not certified at this time until a determination is made.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, give me a legal definition as to how we can really?
1 40
1
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Roger Knutson: The problem you're running against is that if you don't get it
to the County virtually now, it doesn't get on next year's property taxes. It's
too late. The cut-off, I don't know what the cut -off. You're just about at the
end of the line. I think it's like this week. Next week. And you either do it
now or it's gone for the year.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can we make any correction to it? If we were to let this
go through and say the funds could be certified, is there any way that we then
can go back to the County to request that they make that change once we reach a
determination later on?
Don Ashworth: Mark's office has been very good with us. You always worry how
many times can continue to push them to help us. 1 thought we had a little more
time on this one Tom. I thought that the change, the certification dates that
we weren't under quite as much pressure.
Tom Chaffee: Adjustments can be made to the certification up until the 28th of
December.
Mayor Chmiel: Well then we should be alright.
Don Ashworth: So if we have this one back on for our regular meeting of
December 14th.
Tom Chaffee: Staff's schedule calls for certification to the Auditor's by the
2nd of December.
Don Ashworth: So then the Mayor's suggestion is a good one. Go ahead. Make
your certification but if necessary we'll treat this one as a, what did you just
say?
Tom Chaffee: Subsequent adjustment. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. With that, is that agreeable with the motion and the
second to table?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to table the utility bill
appeal for Statewide Auto Salvage, Mr. Laverne Vassar for further information
until the next City Council meeting. Also, to direct staff to cerify the
utility bill and adjustment, if necessary, can be done at the December 14, 1992
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager 1
Prepared by Nann Opheim
41 1
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7 :35 p.m..
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings,
Brian Batzli and Jeff Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering
Technician
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO PLAT FOUR LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS
DISTRICT AND LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE,
ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 ON 79TH
1 STREET, GATEWAY FIRST ADDITION, LOTUS REALTY.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the
public hearing to order.
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Tim, why don't we start at your end here. Do you have any
comments? Questions?
Erhart: Other than this cash in lieu of parkland dedication. That wasn't
done in the previous action. A duplication?
Olsen: No.
Erhart: I guess I don't really have anything on it. It's pretty straight
forward.
Batzli: Ladd? Matt?
' Ledvina: Yeah, I had just a general question. Why are we doing this at
this time? Or what's the advantage to the City? For the developer?
What's the purpose of this?
Olsen: Well it was a condition of the approval from when the Valvoline
site was created. And the benefit is because right now there's metes and
bounds descriptions. This makes it a lot cleaner. We are able to get
right -of -way that is required for access to Lot 4. It's getting rid of
two outlots. Two remnant pieces that are unbuildable so now it's
combining them with adjacent properties. That's the main reason that we.
Ledvina: It's mostly to clean up the title and straighten out the
right -of -way?
Olsen: Exactly.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
r 1 November 18, 1992 - Page 2
Ledvina: Could this be done at the time the Red -E -Mix parcel is purchased
and developed or is that not?
Olsen: It'd really be hard to tie that in with this At this time the
1 owners of these properties knew that they did have to go through the
platting procedure so otherwise it'd be hard to bring them all back in
once Red -E -Mix is under our ownership. At this time they're all willing
and cooperative.
Ledvina: That's all, thank you.
1 Emmings: I don't have anything.
Batzli: Okay, you're going to wait for me to ask the question. Okay,
Jeff.
Farmakes: No comment.
1 Batzli: I have one question for Dave. The right -of -way description. How
did we come up with that description of the additional right -of -way that
' you needed? Did our attorneys prepare that?
Hempel: As far as the condition number 2?
Batzli: Yes.
Hempel: On the plat there, the right -of -way on the cul -de -sac. Right now
' there's no boulevard space to speak of with the existing cul -de -sac that's
out there. What we wanted to do is get an additional 10 feet east of that
cul -de -sac to give us a boulevard consistent with other typical
cul -de -sacs in the city. The description of it was prepared by myself
upon review of the plat.
Batzli: Okay, I am not a real property attorney but we should make sure
that this accurately describes what you're trying to get. 1 note the
intent of the parties and everyone's agreeing but this didn't make'sense
to me.
Hempel: Okay. With the final plat we'll make sure that the additional
right -of -way is being granted or conveyed with that final plat document.
Batzli: Okay, that's fine. Those are the only questions I had. Is there
a motion?
Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Preliminary Plat #91 -1 as shown on the plans dated October 19, 1992 with
the 4 conditions as shown in the staff report.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Conrad: Second.
Batzli: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 3 I
Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary. Plat #91 -1 as shown on the plans dated October 1
1992 with the following conditions:
1. Lot 4, Block 1 shall be platted as Outlot A. 1
2. Right -of -way shall be dedicated along the northerly 60' and over the
westerly 10' of the northerly 65.89' of Lot 3, Block 1. 1
3. Cash in lieu of parkland dedication shall be required at the time of
building permit issuance. i
4. The plat name of Gateway First Additional shall be changed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
PUBLIC HEARING:
BEISSNER, LTD. PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF GOODYEAR TIRE AND ABRA
FACILITIES ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS AND LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN EMISSION '
CONTROL STATION:
Public Present:
Name Address 11
Al Beissner 6100 Summit Dr, Brooklyn Center 55430
Randy MacPherson Abra
Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue
Gerard & Lindsay Amedeo 8007 Cheyenne Avenue
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this time. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order. '
Al Beissner: I'm Al Beissner and I'm the applicant and real estate
developer. We have entered into a purchase agreement to buy the 2 acres
of land and develop the Abra and Goodyear site as outlined. We've worked
probably 4 or 5 months with the city through maybe several site plans to
develop what we thought was compatible. This presented a little more of
challenge than we initially thought because we're actually facing 2 fron
doors. Highway 5 is a front door and Lake Drive is a front door. And it
was difficult to determine which should be the front so in essence what
you see on the plans that we've submitted, are basically we have metal II
facia on Highway 5 and we have metal facia on Lake Drive. And we've triell
to treat one as the other one because we didn't know which would be the
front door. If it's a neighborhood, they think Lake Drive is a front
door. If it's the City of Chanhassen, they think Highway 5 is a front II
door so we were very conscience of our development of that. A couple of
things that I'd like to point out about the efforts that we put forth her
is that, the two buildings as they are proposed, really is a lot less
building coverage for the land than what it is zoned for. That is
Goodyear wanted double the parking requirements and that required more
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 4
' land obviously. More green area so we have about 11,000 square foot of
building on 86,000 square feet of land. If we were to develop it to it's
max, it would have had much more coverage. We've also been sensitive.
Your ordinance requires some guidelines for landscaping. Minimum dollar
' amounts. We have, our bids have come in and our landscaping cost will be
more than double what your standards are for the property so we've taken
that effort. We haven't completed the complete development of the pond
' yet but we will be landscaping that. We don't have a plan for that.
Generally speaking we are in agreement with the staff report and can
comply without objection to most everything in it with a couple
exceptions. The dormers that were requested by staff. Goodyear hasn't
' approved dormers yet on their gabled roof and they don't have it in their
plans. In dealing with Goodyear, they have like 8 sets of standard plans
that they think meet all the standards and we have sent to Akron for a
' request for the dormers to sort of offset the gabled roof that we have on
it and we have not heard back yet from them. Akron, Ohio and corporate
Goodyear is apparently substantial so it may be a while before we hear on
' that. When we developed the rooflines, and this seemed to be a very
sensitive issue, we had the Abra standard roof plan, and Randy
MacPherson, president of Abra is here and would like to address you also.
Abra had their standard building that they've developed kind of like
Goodyear had to develop their standard building. Fortunately for us I
guess, Goodyear has a gabled roof on this particular building and not a
flat roof. The standard Abra roofline and standard Abra building did not
meet with the staff's acceptance when we walked in the door. We've worked
through I think 4 or 5 different plans and elevations for it. And in fact
we've probably added a good 4% or 5% more to the cost with the two front
' doors if you will. By putting awnings on both Lake Drive and on Highway
5. There was a strong sentiment about having a pitched roof or a gabled
roof or something other than a flat roof on the Abra store and we thought
we came to a reasonable compromise. The President of Abra would like to
address it. They're trying to develop their own standard roof line and
this design that we came up with doesn't meet quite their standards yet
and we're still talking to them about it. Otherwise I think everything in
' the staff report is acceptable and fine with us. We've spent a lot of
effort and time trying to meet all of the requirements and we think we've
done a good job of it and we were sensitive to the landscaping. We were
sensitive to the coverage. We were sensitive to the two front doors and
we hope that we can continue on. There will be, we will be putting in
substantially more trees than what we ever anticipated and that's
satisfactory with us. So I don't, different Planning Commissions function
differently. I don't know what you want for a report or want me to say
but that's kind of what we went through. And I think the staff report
adequately reflects the number of meetings we have had and the changes
that we have gone through on trying to meet your requirements.
Batzli: We may have questions for you later. What I think we needed a
sense of was whether you had seen the staff report and agreed with those
conditions. So you've answered that.
Al Beissner: Right. The only other thing in the staff report, we were
I originally scheduled I think for October and then we didn't have a
quorum. Then we were scheduled for 2 weeks later and that didn't work and
so the condition number 11 is a condition that wasn't in the October 14th
r
i
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 5 1
one. And what that is, it's an $8,700.00 charge for water retention
downstream. When Schoell- Madsen, our engineers designed this, they thou"
that the water retention downstream was free and so they designed it that
way. The sellers of the land aren't so sure that they wouldn't rather
store it all on the site as opposed to downstream and we would like to
meet again with staff to determine whether or not we can deepen the pond
and berm it more so we don't have to pay for downstream retention or if
they would rather pay for it and keep the pond as it is. So that's the II
only condition that we are up in the air on. At the October 14th meeting
we didn't have a number. Didn't know what it was coming out. Would this
be the appropriate time for?
Batzli: Yes.
Al Beissner: Okay. I have brought, not good plans but plans. The firs"
plan we had for the Abra store. The second one. The third one and the
one we wanted and then the one we ended up with so I'll let Randy
MacPherson address you.
1
Batzli: Okay, thank you.
Randy MacPherson: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Commission members. My name
Randy MacPherson. I'm the President of Abra Auto Body and Glass. First
of all I want to assure you that we share your same concerns about the
appearance and the quality of our operation. This facility will be one il
our national prototypes. It will be our national role model. We have
people flying in from as far away as Europe to view our facilities so the
apperance of this facility we share
aPP Y your same concerns. And one of the Y
things we want to do is make sure that we present ourselves in a very
professional manner and that we become a very good neighbor in the
community. I think you have one picture which is actually a facility th
we did several years ago but we have done another facility similar to th
and I wanted to show you the difference. I think you have this picture
here and it shows a...on the roof and we have since, I'd like to give you
another picture which actually shows a different, we extended .a rolled II
masard up on the roof as well. And one of my concerns with this pinnacl
and I'll pass this out to you, is that actually having this false roof we
think actually attracts more attention to it. And it's maybe a matter of
taste but we have worked very hard and diligently to try to create
something that's not obtrusive or not going to stick out or not going to
draw attention to it. And so what we would like to propose, we are happy
with the city and with the conditions. We're just asking that you would'
allow us to build a building that's more consistent with the appearance
and with the quality of image that we're trying to accomplish. So if you
can pass that picture around and I didn't bring more. I probably should
have but anyway, we share the same concern and we're just asking. This II
national role model for us. A national prototype. Minneapolis is our
headquarters and we're expanding all over the country now and it's very
important that we have a uniformity consistency. It's something that
every city will be happy with so we share you concerns and want to be
willing partners with you in creating a facility that everyone will be
happy with. '
r
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 November 18, 1992 - Page 6
Batzli: Very good, thank you. This is a public hearing. I'd like to
' open it up to the public. If anyone would like to address the Commission,
I ask that they step up to the microphone and give their name and address
for the record prior to addressing the Commission.
Tom Kotsonas: My name is Tom Kotsonas and I live at 8001 Cheyenne in
Chanhassen Estates. I also have some pictures to pass around. The
pictures that I'm presenting are of current establishments around the
western suburbs and all of these, after looking at these, I have some
grave concerns, at least what exists at the present time with Goodyear and
Abra facilities. Questions such as what happens to the automobiles. As
' you can see in the pictures, when they circulate the storage of
automobiles on the outside, a rather unsightly view in all those cases.
Most of those pictures were taken this weekend early in the morning so
' those cars are there and they're not stored away at night. They're there.
There are a number of concerns besides that that I have on this
development. To go through them in a sort of a manner here. One, is the
increased traffic that this site is going to bring to our neighborhood.
Or line our neighborhood. Noise. These types of businesses bring a great
deal of noise with them. Air and the auto pollution was already talked
about. The trash and all of these businesses except one had outdoor trash
sitting front and back. Storage overnight. And these would be something
that we're worried about. Obviously loss of privacy in addition to what
we already have. The general destruction of the trees in that
neighborhood that are there. Which is something in a natural environment
which we'd much prefer to stay. That negative impact on the mini -park.
To have those businesses right there. The amount of traffic going by. I
can't imagine many couples or many people wanting their kids to go down.
' Young children to be playing there when that traffic, that increased
traffic is there. There are some pictures of the entryway into Chanhassen
and I don't see how this is going to enhance the entryway into Chanhassen
on the east side. That I read in the paper and it seems like the City
Council and the Chamber and this group and others are very concerned with.
Nothing seems to be being done about it. There's a lot of talk but
' everytime something goes in, it doesn't seem to be something to help out
in that nature. And the other things we're worried about of course are
outdoor signs. Flags. All of these places have banners flying. Sale
signs. All these types of things that again, make it very difficult and
' make it very unsightly for our neighborhood. And the other things that I
would like you to consider is, how is this business compatible to the
neighborhood. I think we as residents and long term residents. Myself
I've been there over 10 years, and some of the other people in that
neighborhood have been there as many as 20. We feel that we deserve also
to be considered in this. It seems that every time a business comes along
' they have the top spot or top billing or however you want to say it and
then we get sympathy and then after the sympathy, the vote is taken and a
couple trees are put up and away we go. And also the feeling in the
neighborhood is that there's a big push to develop this and whatever
comes, let's get it in there. Let's get this plot of land developed and
then we'll be done with it and we'll be onto something else. We feel that
we're entitled to be recognized and entitled to be considered in what goes
in and what kind of businesses. Automobile repair facilities do make
noise. They are unsightly, and with the other things that go with them.
Thank you very much.
r
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 7 1
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission?
Lindsay Amedeo: I'm Lindsay Amedeo, 8007 Cheyenne. Chanhassen Estates
also. Of course, anything in the automotive industry is not the businesil
of choice to back up a residential neighborhood but I also understand thit
the zoning for that area allows for this type of business and we
understand that the city needs the funds. And so the remaining question
for me is, like Tom said, what will be done to reduce the visual and the '
audio disturbance that is brought by this type of a business? They are
unsightly. This type of a business is extremely noises and that's my
primary concern. Although to also repeat what Tom said, the natural
visual barrier of the evergreens that are behind, inbetween my property
and the proposed site, is dying out and there is no visual obstruction
there right now. So I'm real curious to know what the plans are to I
decrease the visual and sound problems that this type of business will
bring.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
apologize, we took some of your pictures apart and there was glue on the .
Tom Kotsonas: That's okay... '
Randy MacPherson: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I don't know what
pictures are being circulated but we share the same concerns as the
residents do. In fact many of our good customers live very close to us.
We have 16 locations in the metropolitan area. Many of these are by, some
of them right next to restaurants. In Coon Rapids we have residential
homes in less than 200 feet. We're in West Bloomington, we have 1
residential housing with less than 200 feet. We have 16 locations and
have never had, we've never had one complaint to any city about our
activities. We operate our businesses and we've had OSHA out to test I
noise levels and everything and I can assure you that we will not be a
disturbance and ou can check our facilities. And you can check also
Y Y
other cities that we have been in and find that to my knowledge a we ve 9
never had one complaint. And we just opened up a new facility in`West
Bloomington and it's always an issue and I can understand. Especially i
auto body. You mention the word auto body and it sends shivers through
many residents and also Planning and City Commissions because of the
concern. Because the industry. The image of the industry. Frankly the
reason why we have prospered and done so well in this industry is because
of what we've done. We've raised it to a new level. We have brought till
body shop business from back street to main street, USA. So the noise
level, the sounds, the odors, we have to abide by very strict government
regulations. We've just had OSHA through again checking to make sure th
we're doing everything appropriately. And we have not, this concern has
been raised before and after we come into the community, it's never beco
an issue. So we share the concern and again, we want to be a good
neighbor in the community and we certainly don't want to offend some of I
the people close by who could be potential customers of ours and so we
share that.
Batzli: Have you had any meetings with the local residents? 1
r
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 8
Randy MacPherson: In going before the City of Eagan, we went back and
resurveyed people in the West Bloomington market and none of them had a
complaint. I didn't do this. It was hired by the people representing us
in Eagan.
' Batzli: But in this particular development, you haven't had a
neighborhood meeting to explain the development?
1 Randy MacPherson: We have not personally had one, no.
Emmings: Do you have any need to store anything outside? Other than your
trash perhaps.
Randy MacPherson: Well I'm as sensitive to that as anyone. We have a
' general philosophy of not having outside storage and once in a while
someone will drop off a customer, a customer will drop off a car after
hours and leave the key in the key drop but we do not want wrecked cars
stored outside.
Emmings: How about anything that, anything that you use in your
operations? Do you need to store anything outside?
1 Randy MacPherson: Nothing. We don't want anything outside.
' Emmings: So if there were a condition that nothing could be stored
outside, that would not be a problem to you?
Randy MacPherson: That would not be a problem.
' Krauss: Commissioner Emmings, we do have a condition that says no damaged
or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight.
1 Emmings: I'm talking about anything. We've got trash and we'll get the
trash enclosed. There will probably be some vehicles outside but I just
wondered if there would be, I don't see any reason. He doesn't have any
need to have anything else stored outside so we can put a condition on
that nothing else will be stored outside.
' Randy MacPherson: I don't want anything stored outside. I'm just as
concerned about that as anyone.
' Farmakes: Where is a damaged car stored? When I bring it in.
Randy MacPherson: We keep it inside.
' Farmakes: So when a wrecking car, you don't have like a central area
somewhere else where you store these? They bring in a wrecked car off of
a wrecking truck and it brings inside and it spends it's entire time
' inside?
Randy MacPherson: There may be a short period of time during the day when
it's dropped off and then it's, they'll tow a vehicle. Sometimes an
11
inoperable vehicle will be towed to us and it may be outside for a short
period but it's brought in by night. And we work very hard to schedule
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11
November 18, 1992 - Page 9
1
appropriately. The other thing that I want to point out about Abra, I
can't speak for Goodyear but we, most of our facilities do not, their
average traffic, I mean the amount of cars we produce a week is not much
more than about 20 cars: We are not doing a lot of small, you know we'r
not doing tune -ups or anything like that. We do a lot less volume of
repair and so, and we do not, especially in a location like this, we do 1
not specialize in heavy collision. We're not doing the heavy, really
severely damaged. Most of it is, if we have a vehicle that's damaged like
that, we'll bring it to one of our larger facilities where we have more
storage, including Eden Prairie. We have a larger facility with storage ,
and it's tucked down behind where we can store some vehicles down there.
Farmakes: How do you deal with the damaged automobiles as far as leakagli
of oil or battery acid or any of these other types of things that are
stored on site?
Randy MacPherson: We have an EPA license. We have storage containers 1
which are removed and we have to keep track of all potential, we are
considered a small quantity generator. We're not a large quantity
I generator, but even so, we are very regulated by the government on
anything. So we have the appropriate, if the oil spills, we have the
appropriate product to clean up that and the proper way of disposing of
it. 1
Batzli: When you're doing minor repair work, maybe pounding out dents and
things like that, during the summer months do you typically have the doll
open to your facility? The bays open.
Randy MacPherson: We tell our people that they cannot have the door ope
more than 12 inches. And there are some facilities where we have, I thi
our Eden Prairie facility, I don't know if you've been by it.
Batzli: I'm looking at pictures of it. 1
Randy MacPherson: Okay. See that's tucked, you can't even see that from
1 the road. That is tucked behind. I don't know if you're familiar with II
the Modern Tire building.
Batzli: Yeah.
Randy MacPherson: But it's back behind that. And that's a different 1
location. That's more of an industrial facility. And that's where I said
we will do more of our heavy collision and repair. 1
Batzli: Thank you. We may have more questions. This is a public
hearing. Does anyone else wish to address the Commission? Is there a 1
motion to close the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1
Batzli: Jeff, we'll start with you here.
II
11
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 10
1 Farmakes: Paul, can you talk a little bit more about three of the general
issues. Standards. To be designed to construct...so it will be
compatible in the appearance with the existing and intended character of
the general vicinity. We've had a lot of problems with that area in the
' past, being that it's so close to a single family residential area. Some
of the intents of the things that we're working on with the Highway 5
development. What concerns me a bit I guess is now that the highway is
' completed, there sort of will be a general development I think is kind of
indicative to some of the stuff that we're seeing and these types of
buildings appearance generally take on a light industrial look. With the
block and the comments that have been made in the past by some of the
other applicants for these types of buildings. Valvoline for instance.
Putting the money into the building is not probably consistent with good
business practice with these types of operations. The problem with these
types of buildings is that they're positioned of course into a very
sensitive area and I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that that's the
entrance to our city and so on. How does this relate to the intent of
1 what we're doing with Highway 5? I read your paragraph there but it
really doesn't address sort of the work that's been working on for a year
and a half.
Krauss: Well, Commissioner Farmakes, I'm sure as you're aware, we've had
a lot of intent in the last year to do a better job of development along
Highway 5. It has yet to pay dividends in terms of having a new ordinance
' with some specific guidelines. Now we went through an exercise with
Target that you're all familiar with where I think we did employ a lot of
the concepts that will become a part of the Highway 5 project. But again,
' Target it was in the HRA district. There were financial considerations.
It was done as a PUD. It was a modern day project. In a lot of respects,
I think I indicated this at our last Highway 5 meeting, this site is
something of a throwback in terms of the way it was handled. I mean this
has been a platted, commercial site since McDonald's went in. The site's
been appropriately zoned for this type of use. Lake Drive is a frontage
road through there, is completed. We do have concerns with the way these
buildings look. We'd much prefer that they take on an appearance more
consistent with the development standards that we've had in downtown
Chanhassen. We think the PUD standard provided some latitude to do that.
Probably not as much as we would have at it if the Highway 5 project was
completed. I'd note that, I recall when the emission control station came
before you, you were told that they had a prototype that they built 11 of
and their contract with the State said this is all they built. And in
that case we would have preferred a pitched roof again but we settled for
a mansard condition on there and we settled for considerably more
landscaping than they put in elsewhere and I think if you look at other
' emission control stations around the Twin Cities, it's probably one of the
better looking ones. What it all boils down to is, I think the fact that
this is a CUP and that there are conditions like this in a CUP, gives you
' some latitude to demand better than average. But since we don't have the
Highway 5 program yet up and running, I'm not sure exactly where the gray
area is of how far we should push that. We've worked, given the fact that
this is somewhat traditional site planning, we've worked with Beissner on
and off as he indicated, for many months know, trying to get a handle
on where Highway 5 is going. Trying to do the best job we can within the
existing ordinances. Again, we wish that we had a little bit different
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 11 11
architectural style but beyond that, we'd like to hear your comments on II
where you think we should take it. I'm relunctant to, ah. I guess I've
said enough on that.
Farmakes: I wanted to know what you could do in regards to the '
architectural standards. And I guess I'm going to have to rely on your
expertise with that because it is interpretative at that point. I think,
it's unfortunate that one, you have to ask an applicant to do something
that's far more costly and the type of building that maybe in general
terms in servicing is, from their standpoint, a waste of money. From our
standpoint I think it's one of aesthetics in the community that we live II
in. We keep on bumping up against this problem and particularly in the
car care industry. I really don't mean to single that out but I'm sure
that this isn't the first time that you've heard that. The type of
architecture that we're getting is corporate led franchise type
architecture. It is basically bare bones type of architecture that is
meant to put up a workable facility for the least amount of money
possible. And unfortunately, when such facilities are taken out of the II
light industrial area and they're put into a commercial area that, for
instance car care where they want to be next to the highway. They want to
have a visibility that a light industrial area is not going to provide
them. We get into a situation where we're getting the bright plastic anal
the graphics and the cinder block type buildings. I think that that's
unfortunate in this particular area. This is an incredibly sensitive ar
I think because of the zoning mistake that was made...past that we're al
familiar with that in this room. I don't realty know again getting bac
to that gray area, what we can do there but I would really like to see
more done with the style of the architecture in trying to take it away
from the light industrial look. I realize that you've done work on that
and the applicant has been working with you on that to try and stick with
that. I don't know if there could be any additional work done to clarifil
detail, perhaps what that could be. We've had problems in the past with
architectural standards. If you have any ideas with that, I'd like to
hear them. I think for sure at least that there's further work that coin
be done in softening the roof line. I am concerned about the-storage on
site. People driving into our community. I certainly hope that they're
not going to see a line of smashed cars as they drive into Chanhassen.
But 1 guess I'd also like to say to us in general, as a warning, that well
need to get this overlayment district done. And do it well but do it as
priority because these types of developments are going to follow this
highway completion very, very fast and I kind of see us in a position II where we may be putting up things that we don't want to live with long
term. If we can get any additional type of negotiation position for the
types of properties that are going to be developed here, we're going to
need more than what we have.
Batzli: Jeff, help me out a minute here. On the roof, you're suggesting
that we should do what with it? 1
Farmakes: Well I'm not an architect but basically it looks like an
airplane hangar. The comment Goodyear made I believe about corporate
directive, there are thousands of different Goodyear operations and
architectural styles throughout the country and I know in Ipswitch, a
small town in New England. Massachussetts, it's in a historical zone. It
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 12
looks like a historic building. They basically had to conform an auto
1 body section care area to like a salt box type operation. These types of
things can be done if there's a community that wants to have them done and
have the type of ordinances that support that type of development. And
again, I'm going to'have to defer to you because we get into a gray area
in negotiation and I'm not sitting there at the table. But I think that
in the area of the Abra facility, actually the stone work there is fairly
nice. I think the problem there is the roof line and sort of the
' contemporary, you have a box industrial look with a flat roof and again,
these types of structures, even though we put a lot of trees around them,
still wind up looking like light industrial type buildings. And without
changing that and putting them close to a single family zone, and in the
primary entrance into our community, we're going to wind up with car care
area that extends down the highway which is what we did not want working
' on our general corridor.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Steve. Oh, sorry.
11 Krauss: Commissioner Farmakes. It would be useful you know if the
Planning Commission had some specific recommendations on this and I don't
say this because we couldn't come up with them but we had a series of
meetings with them over a period of months getting small incremental
changes here and there and you sometimes lose the forest through the
trees. We went through a similar process on the Americana Bank as I
recall. You gave quite an astute dressing down of the architecture of
that building. I think it resulted in some modifications. I believe that
you clearly have some latitude. Some degree of latitude and again I don't
know where to tell you to stop but in terms of this being a conditional
use. It's clear that Chanhassen is developing a set of standards and
expectations that are somewhat beyond Bismark or Mandan. You know simply
because there's franchise architecture doesn't mean you have to take it.
' For years we've been telling people like Hardee's that orange buildings
don't fly in Chanhassen and you do have a right to do that. So don't
shoot too low either.
Farmakes: Well I, of couse when we deal with some of these things, when
we sit up here and we start saying, well why don't you move that over here
and why don't you bring that up here. We're up here for an hour.
Arbitrarily when we look at these things, we of course go over them but
they're small schmatic type illustrations. Some of the things that we are
suggesting or have to be responsible about, they're obviously costing
someone thousand, tens of thousands or many thousands of dollars. I want
to make sure that perhaps maybe we can sit down later and talk in more
specific terms of architecture. In terms of general ideas, I find that
it, when we sit up here and we say, no we want four gables up there or
something like that. It doesn't serve a lot of purpose and sometimes
confuses the issue. Perhaps maybe we can discuss this later in regards to
changing the architecture but I wanted to be on record as thinking or
' making the statement that we could improve this type of structure so it
does not have a light industrial appearance as we drive into Chanhassen.
Batzli: Okay. Steve.
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 13 1
Emmings: In general I agree with what Jeff has said. It's frustrating II
sit and look at these buildings on the one hand and think now we're goin
to have McDonald's and the test station and this building and this
building and it is the entrance to Chanhassen from the east and it doesn'
seem to be going very well. But I don't know how to change it. I don't
know now, you know these kinds of businesses are businesses we all use a
it's not the kind of situation where you want to say, well they can be in
somebody else's community or something. And there ought to be a solutioil
in it but I don't know what it is. The way the land is zoned now, it's II
appropriate use I think for the area. So in general I just think it's
kind of frustrating to look at this. But a couple of things that were
brought up. The pictures raise a point. The one Goodyear facility had
huge stack of tires outside of it and is that addressed here somewhere?
There just will not be any outside storage.
Krauss: It's addressed but it's not addressed as well detailed as it
could be.
Emmings: I think it should probably be under the conditional use permit"
portion.
Krauss: Yes, exactly.
Emmings: And we may...broader condition that just says, there will be no
outdoor storage. Now they've got trash, that will be enclosed right?
Krauss: Yes.
Emmings: Trash containers, that will be enclosed. There shouldn't be ail
outdoor storage of anything on these sites. We can leave the condition
that there's no damage or inoperable vehicles stored, even though that's
kind of mushy. I'm not sure exactly what that means. But I can see thail
they would sometimes have to park cars outside if it's not a lot and
they're not in terrible condition, if they're not all smashed up, I guess
that can be all I've got. The other, somebody raised, one of the people
who spoke, raised the question about having banners and sale signs. Thail
does seem to be kind of something that you associate with a business of
this kind. Is that regulated under our sign ordinance?
Al -Jaff: Yes it is.
Emmings: Okay, what can they do? '
Al -Jaffa They can have streamers. They can have banners as a temporary
sign 3 times a year, 10 days at a time for a total of 30 days per year. II
Per site.
Emmings: And do they have to come in and tell you when they're doing al
Ai- Jaff: Yes.
Farmakes: That's being modified somewhat. 1
Emmings: What will the new one say?
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 November 18, 1992 - Page 14
1 Farmakes: Well, we haven't met in quite a while but essentially it limits
some of that to a new opening. And modifies it somewhat.
Emmings: But it's limited anyway so it's not...
Farmakes: It deals pretty much with the banner and the amount of what
goes in the window. It would say temporary, the Valvoline would change.
Would temper that down somewhat. That type of useage.
Al -Jaff: Does that cover the streamers as well?
Farmakes: Ah, I would be, I don't feel comfortable quoting that because
it's been a while since I've worked on that particular thing. Maybe 4 or
5 months. I don't want to quote that off the top of my head.
Emmings: I don't really have any other specific comments on this.
I Batzli: Thank you Steve. Matt.
Ledvina: Well generally I would say that I believe the site does fit into
the land use that's in the vicinity of the project. I would also agree
with Jeff's sentiments as it relates to the Highway 5 overlay and I think
we should also try to expedite our development of an overlay to more
adequately deal with these types of buildings that are going in. I'd
support the efforts, continued efforts to improve the roof lines of
certainly the Goodyear with the use of the dormers where we can and also
staff's recommendations regarding Abra. One of the residents mentioned
' the situation with the traffic and I think that these types of uses really
won't provide a tremendous intensification of the traffic and so I don't
know that there will be that much more substantial traffic or pollution
resulting from this. Being that you have the emission control center just
next door and hundreds of cars go through that line so. I wanted to ask
about one of the elements in the staff report and find out whether maybe
we wanted to add a condition as it relates to the Highway 5 task force
' providing some input on the site plan review. And I don't know,-.Paul you
were suggesting that that might be appropriate?
Krauss: Well in fact we had a meeting last week and we talked about the
proposed Opus project and we did briefly talk about this one. The concern
that I have is, some of the Highway 5 issues may be out of the legal
context of the current ordinance. I mean I think you should push the
envelope within the current ordinance because you have a standing to do
that but the Highway 5 Task Force is looking down the road towards a new
set of guiding principles that don't quite exist yet. We'd be happy to
take it to them. I think we have a meeting in early December. We could
do that but they're likely, it's likely to be an exercise in frustration
because they may come up with desires that can't be met.
' Ledvina: So maybe they really can't provide additional input beyond what
we're doing right here.
l Krauss: I don't know, Commissioner Emmings serves on that. I mean we'd
be happy to bring it up. And Jeff.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 15 1
Batzli: Paul, by way of example, give me a desire that can't be met. '
Krauss: If there's a statement that, you know we initially would have had
a preference for both these buildings to be identically designed. I've
seen both uses done very attractively in auto malls that have consistent
architecture where the door's already entered into a central courtyard a
they share a common parking where they do have pitched roofs. Metal
standing seam roofs. Where all the signage is coordinated. That would II
my preference. If that's the recommendation of the Highway 5 Task Force
my guess is if, I don't want to speak for the City Attorney but if it was
rejected on the principle that that's what you wanted to do, you may havli
Pushed the envelope a little too far. In terms of what you can demand
based upon the current ordinances.
Batzli: I don't think we would be pushing it too far necessarily to hav�
design themes that would tend to have you look at one building and anoth
and say, they resemble one another. Or at least there are design elements
that are consistent. Do you think right now that we have that? '
Krauss: I don't know. I mean that was our initial preference that we
discussed with the applicant. I think clearly that's the most appropria
way of doing it. If we get, and again, we're dealing with an ordinance
that doesn't exist and we're not sure what you're reaction or City
Council's reaction's going to be on any of these things so it's kind of,
we've got a series of unknowns. If we get a strong indication from you It
to what your desire is, we'll pursue it.
Batzli: Ladd. 1
Conrad: Three issues which everybody's talked about. Noise. The
architecture. The roof design and landscaping. Noise, the applicant ha
talked about a little bit. I guess I'm not comfortable there yet becaus
I don't know what kind of noise is generated from Abra. That bothers me.
I need somebody to comfort me somehow on the noise level for the
neighborhood. The pitched roofs and the architecture, I think is just
real important. It's the entrance to Chanhassen and I'm not overly
protective of that visual but I am somewhat. I don't want this to be the
typical and I'd like to stay away from architectural standards as much a
I can but in this case, this is the entrance and there's just no doubt w
have to make it work. I'm not sure that I need to have the two building
looking alike. But I do need to make it look like what we've been tryin
to make that area look like and that's a little bit of fitting into the
neighborhood. Even though it's on a highway. I want to feel comfortabl
that there's some architectural soundness and that's typically with the
roofline. I think the building materials look fine. 1
Batzli: Let me ask this, if I can interrupt you, and I already have so I
will. Rather than look like a hodge podge of fast food /franchise type
buildings, doesn't it make more sense to at least make several of them
look like they belong together?
Conrad: That'd be nice. I don't know if it counts. Really we already II
have two that, we've got McDonald's so we should make them all look like
McDonald's.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 16
Batzli: Not identical but at least so one architect is looking at the
other plan. Architects know how to do that. I don't.
Farmakes: The intent though is, I can't speak for the applicant but in
' general a franchise directive usually follows that you have to be seen and
they're very concerned about that and of course they seek this type of
confirmation with structure and signage to try and reinforce that this is
a Goodyear or this is an Abra. And they do put a lot of money into it.
It's part of that marketing direction and Ladd, I'm sure you know that you
can dillute that.
Conrad: If I were the applicant, I wouldn't want to. I'd want to keep
the image constant. Yet on the other hand, what we're seeing is that that
image is a variety of images out there right now. If you're a franchisee,
we have an opportunity to make a new standard for architecture that others
try to match. The ones that I've seen in the pictures, and those are old,
they're today but they're still, there's certainly nothing, there's not a
standard there that I want to follow. I think the applicant has presented
some visuals that are okay but I think we have to improve upon them and I
think it really, a lot goes back to that roofline. And it also goes back
to you're part of the entrance to Chanhassen, and that's real significant.
Being part of that good image means you're going to increase your business
and so I think there's a compromise here to keep the Goodyear and Abra and
give them their identity if they want but I think also Chanhassen has to
demand what fits in that area. And the neighbors have never been happy
' with that section and I think I want to, it's not an intensive use. It
fits this area I think. My concern is just to make sure it fits visually.
And again, part of that is noise. Part of my concern is noise. The other
' Part is landscaping, and I don't have any idea what we're talking about.
None. It's just like, I want to see how it fits and that's real
important. And again we're talking, I've looked at the plans and I don't
have a clue and I think staff has asked for more landscaping and I think
that's real appropriate. I do want to, in looking at many little plans
here and I don't know what that is, but that's a big deal to me. I want
' to feel comfortable that both facilities have good highway exposure
because that's what they're buying. They're buying exposure to the
Highway 5, and I want that to happen. Yet on the other hand, I don't want
to pollute visually in terms of the cars that are going to be there and I
have to plan for the worst possible scenario and I have to plan for the
fact that there are going to be some vehicles out there that don't look so
good and...for a while so I just guess I'm not real comfortable yet with
what we're doing to that site and I need more information. And I think
it's something simple. I think it's something that, I just need to see
what's going on and right now I don't.
' Batzli: So how do you see? What do you need to see?
Conrad: A plan.
Batzli: You need big plans?
Conrad: No. I guess I'm kind of interested in, when we talk about trees.
Yeah, I need something bigger than this and I guess I need something that
incorporates what staff's vision is in it and I need to know how
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 17 II
automobiles are blocked both ways and maybe we're talking about elevatiol
so I can see berming and how the berming hides the cars. Cars from the
neighborhood and maybe, I need to feel comfortable that Highway 5, our
vision on Highway 5 or our view on Highway 5 is acceptable. So you know
it may be an elevation that shows me berming and how cars are. I'm just,
kind of nervous that cars are going to be stored there and then again, I
want to plan for the worst scenario and see how we take care of it. So
noise, roof line, and landscaping and there are probably solutions that 1
are on the table right now. I just can't visualize them with what I've
been getting.
Satzli: Okay, Tim. 1
Erhart: I'll shock everybody and make it short. I can't figure out
anything from these drawings. About once a year we see a set of drawing"
like this to represent a plan. I think we all should have the same
response.
Krauss: We did distribute full sized drawings for this but it was done 1
the meeting that was cancelled because we didn't have a quorum.
Erhart: And we were supposed to bring them? 1
Krauss: Yes.
Erhart: Then I apologize but I can't figure out what the landscaping or'
the parking, or actually the traffic is. So I guess I'd like to see an
opportunity to see a full set of plans. I agree with pretty much I
everything on the architecture. I'm not sure what the architecture is.
What it is on this. I don't think it even comes close to the auto
emission which I think came out okay. After we worked on those guys for
little bit. So I think we've got to work on these guys a little bit and
see if something can be done, better appearance than this. I'd like to
see them look a little bit like there was some thought to put them
together. It doesn't have to be the same. Some consistency. I-have onll
thing that I'll speak up on on behalf of the developer. Item number 11
under the site plan review where we're asking them to pay a $7,580.00
Surface Water Management Program fund for water quality treatment
downstream. If I read that right, that is asking for something that the
first time any citizen group even reviewed tonight for the first time,
unless I misunderstand this.
Krauss: No. This is.
Erhart: Or is this the off site? 1
Krauss: This is the off site and it's similar to what we did with Hans
Hagen Homes.
Erhart: This is not the storm water hook -up charge?
Krauss: No, no, no, no. No. This is because the pond that's sized on 1
that third site is not large enough I think to accommodate the volume an
it's not large enough to accommodate the water quality standards.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 18
Erhart: We're talking about this pond. Is there going to be a pond here?
Krauss: Yes.
Erhart: Is that big enough?
Krauss: No. And Mr. Beissner indicated tonight that they may look to
' increasing the size of the pond and that's fine and that would decrease
the dollar but at some point there's a law of diminishing returns because
the lot loses it's utility.
Erhart: Yeah, that would be a surprise if that couldn't be made big
enough.
' Krauss: Well keep in mind, this pond also has to serve the emission
control site. That's all supposed to drain through this one.
Erhart: Okay. Well if that's what that is that's okay. Then again, I
guess we can point out for you Paul is that item 11 on the subdivision,
now which, if we go forward here and add this engineer to handle this
storm water work, we should be incorporating the cost of this into our
' development fee structure as opposed. That's my opinion.
Krauss: Okay. To raise the fees to cover it...
1 Erhart: Whatever. Yeah, I don't think it's right in the long run that we
go to developers and ask them to agree to an open ended thing like this.
At some point we have to make it part of the fee structure so they know
what it's going to be. That's a comment internally here. And also the
conditional use permit. Make sure that we don't have outdoor storage and
I agree. I think it's an appropriate use for the area. I think we just
have to work, we've got to work this architecture out better. Again, I'm
not going to waste your time. No double parking. I thought some of those
photos they were double parking. We want to make sure we don't have that.
I don't think it's on here although in one spot it looked like it could be
but it's hard to tell. So my feeling is, other than the subdivision
motion, I think it should come back.
' Batzli: Thank you. It's difficult for me to look at this and I know that
we have a condition in here that there's not going to be any damaged or
inoperable cars and again I don't know what that means but clearly there's
going to be cars parked outside these buildings. And I don't think
that's a problem but I don't know that that's what, that there's a meeting
of the minds on this condition as to what this means and what they're
going to do from the standpoint of, I can't believe that Abra is going to
be able to get all the cars inside every night and do that. And some of
them will be "damaged ". It's beyond my comprehension that they're going
to actually do that. I don't know that they're envisioning not parking
' one or more vehicles at some point in time out of doors and be at least in
technical violation of the conditional use permit.
Krauss: If they cannot, I would ask them to consider another site. You
know I worked with a Goodyear dealer who was moving from Hopkins many
years ago who had an operation where they had a wrecker and a field full
1
Planning Commission Meeting —
November 18, 1992 - Page 19
Ir
of junked cars. It really was in the entrance to downtown Hopkins. It 1
was a hideous thing to look at. I don't think Abra has in mind doing
anything like that. They've said tonight that they're willing to comply
with it. I'd be real leery of opening the door to having crunched cars 1
sitting out on Highway 5.
Batzli: Well that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm just suggesting that
for example Goodyear I think had 32 parking spots and if we assume for a'
minute that there's maybe, I don't know how many people will be working
there but let's assume about 12. 15. There's about 17 more parking
spots. Probably 2/3 of those will be people who are leaving their cars
there that are going to be worked on that day. Some I'm sure will be le
overnight from time to time. Some of them may be "damaged ". That's
probably why they're there and I don't think they're going to pull them
into their bays either. And I don't know what, you know I don't want to
try and kid ourselves that there won't be "damaged" cars sitting outside
and there will be storage of, I can't envision that places that deal with
damaged cars at some point won't leave one outside. And if this is an II
intent to minimize those things, or you know put in place some vehicle.
Vehicle, no pun intended. Method of trying to get them to put them inside
every night, that's fine but I can't see it happening. And by looking all
these pictures, every one of them has cars outside. Now granted most of
them are probably employees in the back. You know I take these photos
with a grain of salt because I don't know. I wasn't there to look at the
cars and see what they were. Whether they were employees' cars that ar
being driven back and forth or whether these are the cars that are bein
worked on. But I have a tough time because once again, from our room
concept that we were initially shown in our grand Highway 5 corridor pia',
clearly this is one of the first things when people are coming into
Chanhassen and while I don't mind a couple of cars being left out, I don't
want it to get out of control. And what I really don't want to have
happen is to 4 years later finally get tired of it and go back to this
conditional use permit and have them say well yeah but, you know you let
us go for 4 years and you knew that we had to park some things outside and
our attorney says, well yeah. Boy, you kind of sat on it for a long ti.
I don't know if you can get rid of them now. I would like this conditi ,
whatever it is to reflect reality because this is such, I believe a
crucial site coming into Chanhassen. I'd love to believe everybody but I
can't believe that if I was the applicant standing up there, you know I'
probably say well yeah we're going to try our best. But I don't know that
I would have made the statement we will never do that. They will do it..
I can't imagine they can't do it. I mean, do you want to respond?
Randy MacPherson: I'd love to. I think I said that there will be times
that people will drop off cars but we do not store cars outside, and I
think there's a difference. I think that's what it's called, is storindl
cars outside. And we share the same concerns. I mean I've got people
coming from all over the country and even Europe looking at our concept.
And we do not allow our managers to store outside. Now I can't ever te�
you that I never have a manager who does not not follow our procedures b t
we have people on staff that go around to all of our facilities and
visibly inspect them and do a grading and a report. And one of the thins
we evaluate is to make sure that there's nothing unsightly outside. So ■■
that's very important and we have several cities that we have this
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 -- Page 20
stipulation that there will be no outside storage of vehicles and have
lived by it and abided by it. Another thing is we do have Goodyear next
door. Well typically the Goodyear customers come and go the same day and
many times there are empty stalls in their facilities at night and we have
worked out reciprocal arrangements where if we have too many, which is
infrequent, to get inside, we simply work out an arrangement with them to
pull the car inside over there over night. And since we a lot of times do
' some reciprocal business back and forth, we try to get along real well so
it's worked very well on those occasions when someone did over schedule.
So I'm not here to try to mislead or trying to lie to anybody. We're very
' concerned about that and are prepared to look to that agreement. And if
we have any of our, if anyone from the staff would call me from any city
and say hey, your storing cars, I can guarantee you we'd address it
immediately. So I can never say that an employee would never do it but I
' can tell you we're living under this agreement and our cities have been
happy with us. And they share your concern so. The other thing I want to
point out is that our buildings are not cheap. They're very expensive.
The buildings look more like an office complex than, they do have some
garage doors on the sides of them but they are very expensive buildings to
build and the question with architecture is not really to us a cost factor
' because to put that particular peak up, whatever is not any more money
than what we're proposing. That's not any additional money. Our problem
is that we consider it actually more intrusive and it actually attracts
more attention to our roofline and we don't want it to be, we don't want
' to attract attention to that roofline. That's our opinion. That's our
view. The other thing is, you'll never have McDonald's wanting to look
like Hardee's. I mean it just, I think you said it very well. We want to
' have identity in the community. And of course we want that identify to be
very positive so anyway, we are prepared to live by this ordinance. And
while I'm up here, if I may address the noise issue. Our buildings are
insulated and our garage doors are kept closed except for a foot. Now
once in a while we do run into a store where somebody has left the door
open. When our people see that, we make sure that they close that door.
Most of our repairs are simply replacement of damaged sheet metal. It's
just take a fender off and you put a fender on.
Batzli: Do you use air?
Randy MacPherson: They call them air ratchets which, you know you would
not, I've never had one noise problem ever. And I drove by the site
tonight and I saw the distance to the residential area and it'd be
virtually I think impossible for someone to hear our activities going on.
And so I'm very comfortable personally with the noise issue and we've
purposely driven ourselves by the locations. Most of the air ratchets
don't make that much noise. There's a lot newer ones that are a lot more
quiet and we're not beating out fenders and those kinds of things because
frankly you can't repair fenders nowadays. You have to replace them. The
' sheet metal is so thin, if you lean on them you put a dent in them. So
anyway that, the noise issue has come up many times but after we've gone
into the community, has never come up as an issue. And we have our, it's
enclosed and it's in insulated buildings and has never been an issue.
Batzli: You've been very helpful, thank you. I have one more question.
And that is, since this is going to be a showcase, if you will, for people
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 21 1
coming in and looking at your concept and franchise, I imagine that you
don't want to tie it too closely into the Goodyear store. Is that a trur
statement?
Randy MacPherson: I don't, you know we want to work with you people.
We're not saying it has to be any particular way. We're just saying tha
we'd like to have you recognize that our desire to have our own individual
look, for it to be a professional look, that will represent the communitll
well. In this picture here, which is the one you got earlier, that blue
roof there is a Panekoeken restaurant. And that's on University Avenue.
And so we're right next to restaurants on main retail thoroughfares and
think that's an attractive looking facility. I mean and I could be wroni.
You know my wife sometimes has to tell me if this shirt goes with this tie
and those kind of things so maybe I'm the best judge of that but so
anyway, we would like to have. We are in auto malls that have, everyon
has the same architecture. But this is a free standing building and it'
not incorporated within a building and so we're just asking for you to
allow us to, if we can, to represent ourselves and we are trying to get.
consistent. And I'll admit, that we do not have all 16 of our metro are
nor our outside metro areas all the same but we're trying to get more
consistent with our appearance and our professionalism.
Batzli: Well as a trademark attorney, you don't have to convince me tha
you want to maintain a somewhat consistent image, so thank you.
Randy MacPherson: The other issue that I want to make sure too on, you II
talked about landscaping. And I appreciate your comments. I don't want
people to see cars either and I don't mind berming. I just want to mak
sure that we have people know when they drive by Highway 5 that there i
an Abra facility there.
Conrad: That's real important.
Batzli: Thank you.
Emmings: I have a question for Paul. 1
Batzli: Okay, go ahead Steve.
Emmings: Paul, the condition that says no damaged or inoperable vehicle
will be stored overnight on the Abra site. Why?
Krauss: It should apply to both.
Emmings: Okay. 1
Batzli: Go ahead. You've been waiting very patiently.
Al Beissner: I'd like to go through a couple of the issues that I now
hear that are brought out that can maybe you can appreciate what we've
been through and what we're trying to do. Would you put that site plan
back up. What we tried to do and that's our site plan blown up and you II
should have had. We delivered 27 full sets of plans to the City in
September. Whenever we had to so I'm sorry that you didn't get yours
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 22
then. But this is the site plan and a couple things that we tried to do
that, to make it different and better. First of all our setback from the
freeway or Highway 5, a good distance. As far as we could go. With one
major exposure out there, everybody wants to build on Highway 5 so when
' you're coming from the east, then you can see the building right there.
We set the building back as far as we could. We turned the buildings also
so that you see just the short ends of the buildings and the garage doors
' are facing each other so that if you don't like the looks of garage doors,
you don't like Abra's garage door and Goodyear doesn't like Abra's garage
door and Abra doesn't like Goodyear's garage door but we did that so
' there's no visibility from the freeway or from the residential area for
the garage doors. We offset the buildings so not to make them look like
kind of a row house. 1 mean that's the reason they were pushed back and
forth and we pushed the Abra one closer here because they had a small door
' on that end of the building that we didn't want exposed. We also, this
site plan doesn't show it but the emission control site is probably 5 feet
higher in elevation than our site and part of what we're doing is cutting
' off the road here and going down. Why that site got built up and is kind
of a beacon up there, we don't know but our's is lower by 5 feet than what
their site is. So we won't be sticking up and looking that direction. The
third thing is, we do have 3 foot berms along the freeway and so when the
cars are parked, you won't see any hood and grills or whatever from any
normal car. And if there's any foreign cars or smaller cars there, you
won't see them as they're parked anywhere along in here. You will not see
the cars parked from the west elevation because again, this site pad is 4
or 5 feet lower than the emission control site plan. So basically, and
there's very little parking of this view from the eastern elevation. So
we were, you know it is your front door. We did work hard, a long time.
I think we originally entered into the purchase agreement in May and we've
been back and forth and when you were talking, 1 think our frustrating
part and your frustrating part, rooflines. I didn't even put on this
' board the first roofline that we had because it was when we walked in, we
walked out quickly because they said that will never work and we got the
hint right away. So we struggled with the roofline thing and we don't
know, when you say what is right. I mean what is right? Is_blue: suit and
blue tie or is it brown suit and brown tie? We don't know and we went
through an exercise where we designed the Abra building with the same
' mansard roof that the emission control building has. That didn't fly very
well because it still looks like a flat roof. One of the problems that we
ran into early on in so you know why we struggled with it and why they
can't have a roof like a Goodyear. The rooftop whatever it is that's over
' your paint booth, has to be on top of the roof. Goodyear doesn't have the
rooftop units that they need for ventilation. And the problem lies with,
if you have our building plan and floorpian out there, is that on this
11 line right here, this is where one of the, that's where that big rooftop
unit is. The other rooftop units are on this side of the building. And
what really throws the thing out of whack is that you want to screen the
elevation that you have. We have a 4 foot screen from the east and the
west so you can't see it from the east or the west but then to make it
have any kind of balance in a peak, we had to go up so high and that's why
it looked really bad. When Randy saw it he said, you know it doesn't look
right. That's not our first choice. We do these and we have one.
Also signage. When we first came to town and I know when developers come
to town and they're always, we are the bad guys wearing the black hats and
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 23 1
we looked at the ordinance and we thought we were under the Highway
Business zone and the Highway Business zone allows you to do so many
different things. I think about 45 days into our development work the II
City of Chanhassen found out that we, there was a technical loophole or
something that we found that we now are under a conditional use and not
Highway Business. In Highway Business there's a whole lot more that one,
can do and the City and the staff you know has to I guess abide by the
ordinances in what we can do. Because it's a conditional use permit, we
changed a whole lot of thought process. The sign that you will see on t
freeway is from this site that has 60 square feet of signage which is
less, or is it 80 feet? 60 square feet or 80 square feet which is less
than what we are allowed. If we would have had Highway Business, we coult
have each of the sites had their own pylon sign. We have one sign here
out on the freeway there and it will be done with the Goodyear logo, the
Abra and then the third user which will be this guy down here. And the
sign will be coordinated, color coordinated probably with the Goodyear
building or the Abra building. So we're very sensitive to that. And
those are the kinds of things that we have negotiated back and forth and
come up with and we are happy with and arrived at. This is the same Abr
building with a mansard roof just like the emission control one. You pu
a mansard all the way around it and that's how that looks. This is a
modification of their building where we don't have a mansard all the way'
around but we have screened on the roof the rooftop units. And we
struggled with that. We came up with what we thought was a better plan
and that was closer to what Abra does or what Abra wanted and this is,
this is all the rooftop. These rooftop units are screened. I think if
you were to superimpose the elevations that we've drawn on say the end o ,
the roofline comes up something like that. We have much more roof or
facade than we really need to screen it but to put it in balance and makIL
it have some interest, you had to. That's what happened here. One of t
rooftop units is here and the other one is over there and that's why we
had to start so far out and to give it any kind of balance. We struggle
with this probably 5 different times to come out with the right balance
it and so when you're talking, where do we go with the architecture, we'
like to know where to go with the architecture. It's not something that •
not that cost isn't a factor again but we all estimate how much our
typical architect fees are going to be. Engineering fees are going to b ,
etc, etc, etc. If you send it back to us and say okay, let's do it again
and let's try something architecturally different. Who is going to
determine what's right architecturally? That's our biggest concern
because I think, I mean we struggled with this a lot and I'm not sure that
there's a right solution and that's what the problem is. So we did do a
lot more with the site and I wanted to point these things out to you so
that we did take all this into consideration by moving the buildings bac
Setting then differently. We're lower so it's not going to be something
big and intrusive sticking out there. And we thought we did a good job
with it. It's taken a little longer than we wanted to take but we
understand that. So if you have suggestions as to which style of
architecture to use, that's great. But what I'm afraid of is that we'll
go to a committee over here and the committee will try to guess again as
to what is the right look. That's our biggest problem is that we don't
know and there aren't any guidelines saying they all have to be gabled.
They all have to be mansard. They all have to be flat. It's kind of th
individual choice. I just wanted to point that out but that's kind of
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 24
what we have gone through and this one we thought was attractive. That
was choice, that was go around number 4 I think or 5 but that still has
some flat roof look and I really don't know what to do. This one isn't
balance. We put an'accent stripe around the entire building too so it's
' not like one solid wall so it won't be straight brick. It will have
accept stripes in it. And the architecture here, we tend to carry the
same accent through the front and sides. We have struggled with it. I
will say this, it's not gone without um.
Batzii: What happened to the roof units when you put the pitched roof
on? Where did they disappear under the pitch? What happened to them? The
last one they showed us.
Al Beissner: This one?
' Batzii: Yeah. Where are the rooftop units in there?
Al Beissner: One is over here and one is here. From the side this is...
Batzii: That part is pitched? Straight up and down.
Al Beissner: This panel is pitched up. You can see how it's... If we
didn't have...side elevation looking from east and west. The metal that
is complimentary to the exactly what is the other metal facade is and it's
' slanted the roof, tipped slightly rather than...and the unit sits facing
here and over here and that's why it had to be spread out so far. That's
why it kept getting so high. If it didn't, then we'd go with this. It
would have to be lower... I wish there were some way that we could do it
architecturally with, that's where our problem comes in because we just
couldn't put the same roof on it that Goodyear has.
Batzli: Okay, thank you.
Emmings: Do you have any idea what's going to happen on the other lot
there?
Al Beissner: No I don't.
Emmings: Okay.
Al Beissner: We tried to do them all three at once and we didn't find a
11 third user.
Emmings: Do you expect it to be some auto related something or, not
necessarily?
Al Beissner: Yes. I would think so. The people that we've talked to
have been like Champion Auto Store, Rossi Big Wheel or something like
that. We understand that you kind of want all the automotive stuff in one
area as opposed to sprinkled throughout the community and it seemed like,
as long as the emission control was there, and if we can do Goodyear and
11 Abra there, you should make that the auto center if you will and have that
use there. But we have talked to Rossi Big Wheel and Champion Auto.
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting_
November 18, 1992 - Page 25 1
Emmings: Would you go back to your site plan? You've kind of detailed
the landscaping on the north, east and west sides and what about from th
view from the south where the neighbors?
Al Beissner: We aren't doing anything down here. The trees that are II
there will still be there and until this site gets developed, those
poplars and dogwoods and elms will stay there. We are doing landscaping
around the pond that we have to put in. '
Emmings: On the.
Al Beissner: Both sides. 1
Emmings: Okay, what's going to be on the south side of the pond?
Krauss: Nothing. Just a line of trees.
Al Beissner: Yeah. ...as you can kind of tell, we've gone through mayb
4 or 5 different sign designs too that would make it right and compatibl,
and kind of make it so it's as well as you can make an auto
architecturally compatible with an area.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Let me ask you a hypothetical question Ladd.
Now that we just saw what we saw, if we were to say table this for tonight
so that we could see final landscaping. Maybe there's still an issue II
about noise or something that you haven't been satisfied with. What wound
you want to see in relation to the roofline /architecture of the building
now that we've kind of at least gotten a flavor of the history of what's
been done on the Abra. What do you think the applicant could do or staf'
could do with the applicant to, I mean what guidance can we give them?
Conrad: Well I think staff's always done a pretty good job of working IL
with applicants. We're not designers up here. I get real nervous when
talk about architecture. And when we see something and we're all
speaking, there's some consensus I think amongst those of us who are her
that the roofline is still not comfortable. I think the history is good'
to see where Mr. Beissner has taken it but I'm still not comfortable with
the roofline period. The Abra roofline is kind of artificial looking to,
me. It just doesn't feel right. And I think staff has asked for some
things with Goodyear that might make sense but again, I'd guess I'd just
like to see a final, and I know what Mr. Beissner's talking about. What
bogey are we shooting for. What is it? What's the standard? Typically"
staff has given pretty good direction. I guess when I take a look at,
other than maybe there's a couple cases where I might wonder but I think
generally they've come back with something. We can't get a consensus he
on architecture. There's just no way 6 of us are going to do that and I�
think staff has at least is one voice. So I guess as long as staff is
going to tell me that the noise is not a problem, I guess I'm not waitin
for the applicant to tell me. I think the staff is saying noise is not
problem and that's one of the, the reason this is a conditional use is
because you're obviously backed up to a neighborhood and a neighborhood
that's been there for a long time and a real important neighborhood and ir
want things to fit in. I need the security of somebody saying, hey. Well
don't have jack hammers operating in an Abra thing all day long. That
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 26
would be obviously...and I'm naivee on what noise goes on in a place like
' that. Second thing. I guess I'm looking for a roofiine that, I'm not
trying to bundle costs. I guess I just see some rooflines in the Abra
thing that I don't like. And it seems that there's got to be a solution
to that. And third, I'm looking for some elevations that can show me from
the highway. You know a 3 foot berm is, they typically sink and I guess I
need some security that we have done our job out on Highway 5 to make this
look good. And I guess, if 3 foot are standard, is that the maximum
berming height that we can, our ordinance allows?
Krauss: 3 foot's fairly typical. To go higher than that you almost have
to drop a wall behind it otherwise the grade gets.
Conrad: And I'm not trying to hide your identity. I guarantee you that.
' I think it's critical that companies who buy the property have that
highway identity. On the other hand, it's critical that we kind of bury
some of the stuff that is a little bit offensive to the eyes as flashing
by at 45 mph and that's some cars that might be there. I guess I need
' some really crude sketches to show me that we've done our job out there. I
think when you take a look at these, it's a little bit better than what I
was looking at before.
' Batzli: But the staff has asked them for things in addition to what.
Conrad: That's my impression. That this, you've asked for more beyond
this. I'd like to see that and then just get a sense that we've done what
we're trying to do and that is to visually take care of cars that are
there and I'm not looking for standards that we haven't applied to the
' emission control folks. But you know it's funny, my impression of that
emission control is pretty good. I think we did a good job of designing
that thing so whether that tells you our taste is terrible or whatever.
I feel that fits some of what we're looking for.
Batzli: Does your wife have to tell you what tie to wear with which suit?
Conrad: Absolutely. No, she waits until I make a mistake and then she
gets me.
' Batzli: Does anyone else, before Paul asks his really important question,
have any other guidance for what they're looking for in the roof?
Erhart: Yeah, I like the mansard roof and what I don't like about the two
roofs that we're looking at is the square ends.
Conrad: Yeah. I'd reinforce that. Mansard is acceptable to me. The
square. The wall that. See the wall is a face on a TH 5 and from the
angle that most people, you don't follow and look directly 90 degrees at
it. So typically what you're seeing is a view that it's not real. It's
like a fake.
Batzli: A set. It's a set.
Conrad: You're going to create a fake roof no matter what but still, yeah
you're right. It is a set. So anyway, it doesn't.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 27
Randy MacPherson: We don't like that wall either. I liked the rolled
mansard. That's what I'm trying to get is the rolled mansard look. My '
problem is with that fake wall. It just looks like a saloon.
Batzli: Right, exactly. I think that's our problem with it too and wha
we're struggling with is, by committee we're having a tough time saying
you well this is what we want. I actually, I think some of your previous
designs were better efforts, at least closer. Something like that bothelt
me less than what the one, second one down, bothers me a lot less than t
fake saloony kind of walls that no one's going to look at from 90 degrees.
Farmakes: ...but if I can volunteer this. If the staff wants to meet
later on this, I think we could come up with a couple of quick sketches
that maybe would give a directional point for the client and maybe the
city. But I feel real uncomfortable when we start playing with the
architectural drawings in the space of 20 minutes here for something
that's going to be here for 20 years.
Batzli: I agree. '
Al Beissner: Could I leave these drawings with you then? So that you cir
have them to mill around with.
Batzli: What I would suggest is, I'm getting the sense that we'd like t
table this and get some additional information. I know Jeff for one wou
be more than happy to meet with staff and yourself and the architects to
maybe noddle around and kick around some ideas. I'm volunteering you but
I think that. '
Farmakes: ...just trying to help.
Batzli: Okay. I guess I'd appreciate a motion at this point from my II
fellow, one or more of my fellow commissioners. Oh yeah, your really
important question. I'm sorry.
Krauss: Well yeah, the noise question. Noise is a tough animal to 1
regulate. There are state noise guidelines. I think the residential
standard is 65 dba daytime and 55 nighttime. We can put a condition on
there that this site not exceed those levels of noise at the property
line. I like the Abra idea of keeping the doors largely shut. That cou d
be applied to Goodyear. I'll bet you though that whatever noise
guidelines we establish, the highway's going to drown it out anyway.
Conrad: Well that's an interesting parallel or contrast, yeah.
Krauss: But we can still make them operate to an acceptable level on 1
site.
Batzli: Two things that, before our motion, I would like to see those II
things that you just suggested but two other things. And they were
comments by the public here that maybe weren't brought up again. One I
think, I'm sorry I have just your first name written down. Tom, was
You spoke about a mini -park. I'm unfamiliar with the location of that. ■■
Where is that in relation to this?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 28
Krauss: It's almost directly across the street.
Batzli: To the south?
Krauss: To the south.
Batzli: Okay. Is there uncomfort on staff's part at all with these types
of, there's a lot of traffic on that road from DataSery and whatever else.
Krauss: Well and to be honest, I think we pointed this out when emission
control came up, because the same question came up. There's going to be a
' lot more traffic on it. It's a collector street that passes through an
office /industrial area. Most of that area's undeveloped right now. Now
since the emission control station came through, we have Dell Road is now
constructed and the signal is operating and I'm not sure if that's
inducing a lot more traffic to come in from that side but that's the goal.
Batzli: Yeah I'd like, I'm going to take another visit to that site
because I didn't really see where that mini -park was in relation to that.
The other thing was, our second person from the public. Lindsay, was that
the name? She mentioned something about the screening and we've heard
' from the applicant. There basically isn't going to be any. Right now
we're going to rely on natural screening until the site to the south
develops. Is there any reason to require, obviously you don't want to
11 have them put up screening temporarily which is all going to all be graded
down or cut down. But assume for a moment that this other site doesn't
develop for a number of years, which it very well could. Is there
adequate screening for the neighbors to the south right now?
Al -Jaff: There is a large number of elm and poplars on the site.
' Batzli: But elevation wise, are they going to be able to.
Al -Jaff: You won't be able to see them from the neighborhood. You won't
be able to see the two buildings from the neighborhood.
Batzli: Okay. You're comfortable with that right now? Okay. Is there a
motion?
Conrad: I would move that we, well I want to make sure. Let's see we've
got the conditional use permit. You've got the site plan.
Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission table the approval of the
site plan review.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Farmakes: Second.
' Batzli: Discussion.
11 Conrad: Well yeah, what's your intent? .
Erhart: To come back.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 29
Conrad: Well what are you thinking about for the other aspects? 1
Erhart: Well I'll get to that when I get there.
Conrad: So you have a strategy. What's your strategy? ,
Erhart: I'm going to ask these guys if they want to do the subdivision
tonight of if you want to table all of it? For sure with the site plan II
review we want it.
Conrad: Right. ,
Emmings: Well and the conditional use.
Batzli: We're asking the applicant to sum in here, do you understand th'
question?
Al Beissner: Yes, I understand and I don't think there's any reason to
through the other two...do all three at the same time.
Erhart: Okay, well then I'll move that we table all site plan review,
subdivision and conditional use until we get to review the architectural,
and cover some of the other issues that are still in question.
Batzli: Okay, who seconded that motion? 1
Conrad: It was me. Oh, it was Jeff?
Farmakes: I seconded it. '
Batzli: Okay.
Al Beissner: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Are there any things in
the other two that could pose a problem...?
Emmings: The only other one that we talked about at some length was
outside storage.
Al Beissner: If we're going to table the site plan review but the ,
subdivision agreement and the other two that you're going to act on
tonight, are there any problems with those two that we should address til
Council at the next meeting?
Batzli: We were really talking about all three of them tonight. And I
think you heard all of the problem areas. Do you accept this friendly II
amendment to his motion? I think you seconded it.
Farmakes: All three. I was assuming it was all three. '
Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? One moment while we vote
on this. Paul, is it clear to you from our Minutes what we want to see •
next time when it comes back?
Krauss: Clear as it usually is.
Planning Commission Meeting -
November 18, 1992 - Page 30
1
Batzli: Well then we're golden. Is there any other discussion?
Erhart moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission table action
on the Goodyear Tire and Abra site plan, subdivision and conditional use
permit application for further review. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Batzli: We did have one more question from the public. I'm sorry sir,
your name?
Gerard Amedeo: Gerard Amedeo. It's not really a question. It's just a
comment after listening to the discussion. It has to do with... One has
to do with the traffic that...and the gentleman brought up that he didn't
think the traffic was going to be much of a problem. I'm sure that these
two gentlemen hope that he is wrong. That traffic is going to hopefully
be substantial. I think it will be.
Conrad: Just responding. When we take a look at the site, and the uses,
11 compared to a McDonald's or compared to the emission control, it's not
even close. So the validity of challenging that is can that area sustain
additional traffic. That's where you could challenge it. I looked at
that in terms of what we had planned for and nothing seemed to me on the
surface to say we're stressing the site out. Obviously there's more trips
per day. There's just no doubt but when we did traffic studies before, we
knew that that was going to happen. So again, if you know some more
things, I think it's valid to come back at the next meeting and share them
with us but at this point, it didn't look that way.
Gerard Amedeo: My second comment is that, it seems to me that the flavor
of what I'm hearing all of these gentlemen say is that you're not quite
sure what the image should be. You want it to be something that's
' positive for the city but you're not really quite sure what that is. It
seems to me we're a little late in the ballgame to be deciding what that
image should be when you've got applicants coming to the city with plans
and drawings. This is what we want it to be and you're still not quite
sure.
Batzli: We have a citizens group looking at that issue. Yeah, I mean
we're talking about Highway 5 from one end of the city to the other. It's
a massive undertaking and we really weren't in a position to do that until
the Highway was upgraded and we had our comprehensive plan done which was
done about a year and a half ago. So we're working on it as fast as we
' can and I agree, we'd rather be proactive than reactive and unfortunately
on a couple of these early applications that come in, as they just finish
this stretch of highway, we are being reactive and we're trying to be as
cautious as we can on it. But we appreciate that. So this will be back
hopefully next time.
Krauss: Well we're trying to work around the holidays but we should
hopefully be able to get it on the next meeting. We will send out another
notice to the residents just so they're sure which meeting it's on.
Batzli: Thank you very much everyone for coming in.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 31 1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning 11
Commission meeting dated November 4, 1992 as presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS: 11 Batzli: Any administrative approvals Paul?
•
Krauss: We only had one. There was a chemical tank of some sort that
was installed out by McGlynn's. On the south side of the building. Thell
couldn't physically screen it so we had it landscaped.
OPEN DISCUSSION: '
DISCUSSION OF TREE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
Batzli: Paul, why don't you give us about a 30 second highlight of the II
tree conservation easement and then I'd like to have Tim present his case
as for why we don't want to do this. Or at least why we should be more II
careful.
Krauss: I wrote this quite a while ago and Tim and I have had several
conversations about it. What we've used these tree conservation
easements to accomplish needs to be clarified. We have not used them to
save individual trees on individual lots. What we have done is where the
City has made accommodations. Large scale accommodations in terms of
massaging developments around. Occasionally giving variances.
Occasionally going PUD's. Where we've done that, because we have wanted
to save a stand of trees, we've wanted to make sure that stand of trees
is in fact safe. And we've gone with the tool of providing conservation
easements to guarantee that for all that the city's doing, for all that
we're giving up, that we can guarantee that that natural amenity, that II natural environmental feature is going to be saved. We went this route
large because the standard way of doing it for many years was to have a
condition that said, when you come in for your single family building
permit, come in with a tree preservation plan. All we ever got was a loll
of grief because every time you went out there you had to do another onell
And all we ever got was, I've got to cut down these trees because this is
the house plan I have and that's just the way it is. And we never had
any grounds to really change anything.
Batzli: Paul, let me interrupt. These two gentlemen are here for the
Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association beachlot. Did you get notices II
of this for tonight? Oh, you just got that? That was the last meeting.
When is this going to be back because this was tabled and I apologize
that you sat here tonight. '
Krauss: There are some discussions going on with Kate and the Homeowners
Association. We were going to renotify everybody when it comes back on."
Batzli: What I think would be best is if you can write your name and
addresses on the back of a piece of paper and give them to Paul and he'll
make sure you get notice of it for the correct date. Thanks. 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 32
Krauss: Anyway, I think the purpose and the intent is quite good. I
think it actually gives more latitude to the individual homeowner because
we've gotten away from trying to save individual trees in a backyard or
on a property line or whatever and just saving the tree massings that are
real important from a visual standpoint over a large area. Now, we've
been requiring these things for the better part of 2 years now I think.
Emmings: Which?
Krauss: The conservation easements. And it wasn't until Tim raised the
question that I got a copy of what Roger had drafted up as the tree
11 conservation easement and I found frankly that I was somewhat
uncomfortable with some of the language that's in here. I think the
intent is good but some of these things, constructing and installing and
maintaining anything made by man, which includes clothesline poles and
playground equipment which is really sort of irrelevant. I mean if a kid
can't play in the woods, what good is the woods. I think to some extent
this goes a little bit too far. Tim and I also discussed, is this a
permanent requirement? I guess I have a preference for it being
permanently recorded against the property because then it's a legitimate,
has legal standing. Everybody who buys the property henceforth knows
about it. However, once the development's put in, once the homes are put
in clear of this area, it's highly unlikely that anybody is going to come
in and cut them down. It's just too dumb a thing to do. So it's quite
possible that we could accomplish the same goals by putting on a
conservation easement with some revised language but have it expire 5
years after the date that the last house is put in or something like
that. That would probably accomplish the same goal and if the concern is
long term being onerous of the property owner, maybe that would eliminate
some of those concerns. But again, you do make significant concessions
in terms of moving roads. In terms of paving roads to a narrow width. In
terms of adjusting setback lines. In terms of adjusting lot areas. All
those things to accommodate tree preservation. If we can't guarantee
we're going to save the trees, then why do it in the first place.
Batzli: What do you think of it Tim? Rebuttal.
Erhart: Well it's a complex issue. There's a number of aspects the way
I've looked at this. Let me start out with the last one you just
referred to. I'm not sure it makes sense to go and make a development
all misconfigured for the sole purpose of saving 1 or 2 trees and every
development's different so you can't make a rule. But I think we've
gotten tree nuts and what I'm trying to do is get some balance to this
thing. You know I obviously want to save every old oak tree we can but I
think it's also important that we don't go in and through these
developments to make them unliveable. I mean these are for people number
one and their safety and their welfare. Trees are part of that safety
and welfare but it is for people. Trees, as I say, most of these
11 developments, most of the land is open space. When people get in there,
they do plant trees and in 50 years you're going to have, it's going to
be an urban forest. And so I don't think the importance that we put on
trees here, if you want to use the last couple years is fine. I think
we've gone a little bit overboard on it. We've forgotten the fact that
most of the trees we have in 30 years are planted after the area is
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 33 1
developed. The second thing is that, and the number one issue was this
30 foot setback. Trying to convert it to 20 but I see in here a summary
of the PUD ordinance, t'he City Council I think had the good sense to go
back and say, look it. 30 foot setback is the right thing because I
really don't think, as I stated in my letter; that 20 foot setbacks make'
any sense at all under any conditions. Particularly for, I don't think
trees would justify that. So number one is the construing of these
developments in an attempt to somehow the trees have become more
important than the people that live there. I think the trees are there t'
serve the people that live there and keep that in mind. Two is that, you
know the idea that we have this thing hanging on forever." You've seen a
homeowners found guilty and this perpetual banishment from the forest bu
in fact really that's what we're doing. I don't think there's any reaso
for it and if it's the developer and the guy who comes in and builds the
homes that isn't going to live there later, the home builder, that's our
problem. Let's deal with him and we have brilliant lawyers on our
commission here and Paul and somehow we could come up with some way to
get a handle. Get control of this home builder who isn't going to live
in this house. Who doesn't care about the trees and get control of him
yet at the same time, the guy who owns the house and is going to make the
payments for 30 years, is going to plant the trees and want to put swin
sets and swimming pools or whatever, you know he's got the American way.
He's got his, that's his turf and by golly if he wants to put a tennis
court and 2 oak trees got to go, well geez, that's too bad but I think
that's the American way. I think it's worked well over the hundreds of II
years that we've had. I mean America's the only place in the world that"
has individual homeownership. It's what makes us America and I don't
like the idea of intruding on that with these easements where I don't ,
think we've got a sound basis or experience says that we ought to be
doing, I'm not going to say communism. I just don't think we've had,
there's nothing that says, save that. If I use your terms in your lette
about the way you're being treated by the State in the wetlands thing.
You say that we're concerned about the State's going to treat us as
second class citizens. We're not to be trusted and I think that's kind
of what we're doing here. We're treating these homeowners as second
class citizens not to be trusted and I don't think the...has come to tha�
conclusion. So I'd suggest that we come up with a way to control the
subdivider or the guy who puts in the streets as well as the guy who's
building the homes for spec houses, which I think is where your problem
is, is it not?
Krauss: Well I'd say building the house period. Once the house is up,
you can almost let it. Keep in mind too, there are some community
that we've ascribed to trees and wetlands and views that we've generally
agreed warrant some kind of protection. Also keep in mind that you kno
as Brian so often points out, we have some obligation, I mean let the
buyer beware is fine but we have a lot of people who have expectations o
the city as guaranteeing some things to them. Maybe one of the
guarantees is that that oak forest is largely going to remain intact. II
You know it's taken, if you look at Post World War II development, it's
taken at least the first 40 years, or 30 years of Post World War II era
to stop development from doing what it always used to do which is bring II
out the bulldozers. Plow it flat. Put in a grid street system and pop
in houses and yeah, you come back to Levittown today and it's full of
11
Planning Commission Meeting
9
November 18, 1992 - Page 34
trees. I mean 30 -40 years later it probably looks halfway reasonable.
11 But we have developers who don't want to do that anymore. We generally,
I would feel very uncomfortable going back to that style of development.
It's really I think a question of being able to provide guarantees. I've
got, maybe there's a better way of doing it but if there is, I'm not sure
what it is because I'm in contact with other communities that have tried
other things. We haven't carried this to the extent that Eden Prairie is
notorious you know. You've got to count every tree and you've got to
replace every tree, even for single family housing. We've never done
that. We never would want to do that.
Erhart: Paul, I'm not suggesting that we allow developers to do clear
cutting. I mean and we haven't had any of that since we changed the
subdivision ordinance after the one we had up here. I just don't think
' we've had that. What we're talking about now I think is your response
to, you feel that people place homes on lots. You feel, I don't know who
this is, if it's the developer or whatever, your feeling is that they're
taking out some trees unnecessarily.
Krauss: I think that if you have a feature that you want to save, you've
got to highlight that feature. You've got to plan around that feature
and you've got to make sure that the streets and the lots don't result in
that feature being destroyed. And it's like we have, we're fully
familiar with having a lot of lots that border on wetlands. But because
of inappropriate consideration during design, there's no way t..o put a
house on it or a deck without impacting the wetland. Well what we're
saying is, take that feature. Protect that feature. Design around that
and then after the thing's developed, yeah. I think then we can fully
' back away because I don't think you're going to find many people cutting
down 30 oak trees in their backyard to put in a shuffleboard court or
whatever. If they do, it's probably their choice but I don't think many
people are going to do that.
Erhart: I guess to end it, I guess what I would request is number one,
we try to figure out a way we don't end up with a permanent easement on
' this property. I don't care what we do with the developer and the
homeowner. You've got come up with some process that we restrict him,
that's fine but not to end up with a permanent easement. And two, be a
little bit more understanding. A little bit more consideration of what
the street layout, the usefulness of it and so forth and we not quite put
so much emphasis on these trees in laying out the neighborhood and I
think the 30 foot setback will solve a lot of it in my mind. And I don't
think you can equate trees to wetlands because people can't plant
wetlands. People plant trees so after the development's in, the tree
situation does improve. You're never going to improve wetlands so I don't
think it's exactly comparable. The last thing I want to say, I think
there are some places where permanent tree conservation easements are
appropriate and that is, if you have a pseudo public area you know. Let's
say you have a PUD and a guy designates this area sort of as an area
where people can walk in and kind of enjoy the forest. Have that, kind
of semi - public access to it. Although in that case you still should have
some trails. There's an area. Or around a wetland or something that is
special. Or another area would be if you have severe erosion problems if
you have trees removed. I think those are the two areas where it makes
r
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 35
sense to have a permanent conservation easement. I guess I'd like to se
this non - permanent thing on people's lots being removed at sometime.
Batzli: From a philosophical standpoint, let's use a recent development
that we're probably still familiar with. The Lundgren one on that Ersbo ,
property. There was I believe a tree conservation easement at the
entryway when you drove in on the right hand side of the road.
Krauss: Actually on both sides of the road. '
Batzli: On both sides of the road. Do you think that was an improper
place to put one? 1
Erhart: Who owns the property when it's all said and done?
Krauss: They're all private lots. '
Erhart: Okay, and you're saying that, would those people ever use that 11
area?
Krauss: As I recall, those lots got kind of long and skinny at that
point so the probably is they wouldn't. But it did wrap around some of II
them. In fact it came behind some of the lots next to the wetland.
Erhart: If it could be said that those are pseudo public, okay. That
they represent an entrance monument or something, then I'd be fine with
it but you've got to remember also in that development there was tons of
other trees that put these tree easements around that were essentially i
people's backyards.
Emmings: That wasn't all trees. That was a conservation easement for
whatever existed. Right? Just to leave it alone. It wasn't just a trell
easement.
Krauss: Well there were both. There was buffer yards around a wetland.'
That was the first one we ever did. Buffer yard zone.
Emmings: I thought we called it a conservation easement.
Batzli: Yeah we did.
Krauss: You did. 1
Erhart: On the what?
Batzli: But we didn't have individual tree easements. We told them that
they had to save them but we didn't put easements around the individual
trees on that one.
Erhart: In the tree groups we did. 1
Batzli: The big ones. There were some individual ones we wanted to sail
as I recall.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 36
Krauss: Well, there were some individual ones we would prefer to have
saved but we concluded that it really wasn't encumbant upon us ever
buying the lot to figure out what they could save at that point. As long
as they kept the home out of the large mass of trees, it was their call.
Because we didn't go in and pick individual ones.
Erhart: Individual trees?
Krauss: Yeah. We did not do that.
Erhart: No, but we had masses of trees that we put tree easements around
1 that ended up in people's backyards.
Krauss: Yes they did.
1 Erhart: And I'm just saying, I just don't see that it makes any sense.
Batzli: So you don't think there'd be, let me put words in your mouth.
Erhart: Unless there was an erosion problem.
Batzli: You don't see there would ever be a need for a big clump of
trees to have an easement in someone's backyard?
Erhart: Not unless it's a pseudo public area or if there's a potential
erosion problem as a result of cutting trees. I don't think, I think
those people want to evolve that forest. They're going to plant trees.
They want to go and trim some of those trees. They're going to want to
I cut out the box elders and the junk to allow light to come in so that the
oaks and the sugar maples can grow and they can shape those trees.
That's what people are going to do. They're not going to go down there
and cut them all out.
Batzli: Well but look at the type of development that that is. See my
fundamental difference with you on this Tire is that what you're
suggesting is that we have a well manicured, attended, we're going "to
select what things grow as opposed to natural. I'm a biologist. This is
a natural setting. Let the chipmunks run around and the bunnies you know
build their nests in the scrub. And what I'm suggesting is that that
particular development was billed, and built hopefully, as a natural
setting and what you're suggesting is, is that we will destroy the
natural character that currently exists on that site to suburbanize it.
And that's okay if that's the vision we want for each and every
development in the city.
Erhart: I think there's a continum there. I'm not suggesting that he's
going to go and make a park out of it. But for example box elder is not
a native tree. We brought those in.
Batzli: Well they're here now.
Emmings: When you're saying natural, you're only talking about a point
in time. You're saying that what's there now is the natural circumstance
of the land.
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 37
Erhart: I'm saying 30 years. ,
Emmings: Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.
Batzli: But if you don't do anything, it will be natural. ,
Emmings: Yeah, but maybe a mess.
Erhart: I think it will be less than optimum. No matter where you look
on that spectrum, it will be less than optimal if you don't do anything.
Batzli: I guess my slant on this comes from, (a) just wanting to present
the polar extreme to raise some discussion. But also, I have several
biologists in my family who have chosen to let their entire yards go
"natural ". Meaning they don't do anything to them. Well this
immediately raises some consternation with the neighbors over stuff
blowing into their yards and they end up having to build fences around
their yards which you could argue certainly isn't natural. It's an
interesting perspective to take that they want their yard. They want toll
encourage whatever will grow to grow and they go out and they literally
poke around. You know gee, here's the mouse trails and they think it's
the most wonderful thing ever. Now that's a real polar extreme from you
person who's going to go out there and shape his oak trees to get them to
grow but.
Erhart: You know what prickly ash is right?
Batzli: Yeah. My point in raising all this is that, from my perspectiv,
a person moving in. Now I argued long and hard that we needed larger
lots in PUD's and I finally backed down because everybody hammered me.
But the interesting thing is, in this case, moving in, these people have
every bit of foreknowledge moving into that lot, that they've got a
permanent easement in their backyard as people do moving into a PUD. Tha
they're moving into a small lot. And I say, if they want to shape their
trees, then they can move in to a different location where they can. No�
every subdivision we do has tree easements in it and if you want a'place
where you can go out and chainsaw every damn tree on your lot, go move
next door to Mr. T or in the Lake Susan Hills subdivision and don't move
into one with it.
Erhart: You know to counter that, some people aren't going to know that
easement's there.
Batzli: Well that fell on deaf ears with the PUD. You can raise it but
blah...go ahead. 1
Erhart: The second guy that buys the house won't even know it's there
and he's going to go and he's going to start trimming and it's going to
be.
Emmings: Well what he wants to do on his lot may change over this
lifetime. 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 38
Krauss: I don't want to get hung up on the exact language that's in here
because I know Steve, you've represented that when you moved into your
house you couldn't enjoy the lake because there was so many trees down
there.
Emmings: I just took down 3 huge oaks on my property in the last couple
weeks.
11 Krauss: And I think that maybe there needs to be something in here for
thinning and again, I wouldn't mind if it was temporary but the idea that
forests are a transient phenomenon and if you want 30 years you'll get a
new one. While it's true, since most people don't live in a house more
than 5 years nationally anyway, it's not going to do them a darn bit of
good. And I'm not willing to, and I don't want to be flippant but I
don't want to be seeing us write off these resources, be they inherently
natural, which virtually nothing is in this town because it's all been
farmed, but it's still an important and pristine resource.
Erhart: But the point is, people don't mow them down. We're concerned
about something that doesn't, a problem that doesn't exist.
11 Krauss: People don't mow them down after their house is up. People will
mow them down for their house.
Erhart: Okay, well let's stop them then but then after that.
Emmings: But that's not, Tim said the same thing. You're not saying
something different than Tim did. I think, first of all you've got some
protections built in it seems to me. I took down 3 big oaks on my
property. It cost me $500.00 a tree just to drop them and I had to deal
with the brush and the wood laying there and I'm going to have to split
I it. That's a significant disincentive to take down trees. The other
thing is, most people like them and they're not going to take them down.
i would be really distressed to own you know a house that I'm busting my
butt to pay the mortgage on and have somebody tell me if 10 years in I
can't cut down the trees to put in a tennis court. I can't cut down
trees to put in a swimming pool or any other damn thing I want to do on
my property. That would be real offensive to me. I guess though, for me
I could see having a tree conservation easement ordinance. I think it
should be used very sparingly. I think an example of places where you
might want to have it would be, you know the back side of this slope
where they want to put up all these multiple houses on top of the hill up
here. The back side of that slope and going down. But there it isn't
just the trees. You want to just leave that as kind of a natural area.
So I could see putting it there. I could see having it out along the
river bluff where there are steep slopes. The creek. Bluff Creek. It
might be another tool to preserve things in some particular places. The
one place we used it in the development that went in south of Timberwood,
was it?
Krauss: On Hans Hagen.
Emmings: Yeah. The spot we used it there. I didn't mind that one.
That was an okay place to do it as far as I was concerned because that
1
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 39
was a big, long standing significant stand of trees and I wouldn't mind
applying it sparingly to a few places like that. I don't know when
you're going to decide to do it or how you're going to write it in but I
really think it ought to be used very sparingly for unique situations.
Farmakes: Doesn't the DNR say that only 5% of Chanhassen is wooded. 11
Emmings: Well what does that mean though? What does wooded mean? 1
Farmakes: Well that would at least mean that it would be applied pretty
sparingly.
Emmings: Oh! Oh fine.
Farmakes: When you're talking total square footage of the city, 1 mean 11
1 didn't do the study.
Emmings: And I assume we're not going to go back and put tree easements
on existing lots. This is something.
Krauss: We don't have the right to do that.
Emmings: Right.
Krauss: We're not going to buy easements. 1
Emmings: So given that, it doesn't bother me very much as another tool
in the arsenal to preserve some good things.
Krauss: Well let me give you some other examples too. On the Highway 5
corridor, I mean the rooms that Morrish refers to are defined by stands
of trees generally. And those trees in particular need to be permanentli
protected frankly because you know, I don't want somebody coming back 5
years from now on the Opus site saying, well I'm going to chop down this
bunch of trees. 1
Emmings: But you're not talking about, that's not a residential site.
Krauss: But it applies there too. 1
Emmings: Yeah but I don't think.
Krauss: But there are residential sites along the Highway 5 corridor 1
where you have the trees up along the creek system or something else. I
mean again, we're very willing to examine the context in which we use it il
We're very willing to ask Roger to redefine this thing so these are
temporary easements generally that would expire and to be somewhat more
liberal in what you can do with it in the meantime in terms of thinning
to get utilization of the lot or improve the growth or whatever. But I'll
still, I'm very relunctant to back away from the preservation of
something that I think is very worthy.
Batzli: See I agree. ,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 40
Emmings: I don't disagree.
Batzli: And I say to the people who want to do with their lot what they
will is, it's either buyer beware or it isn't. And I have a little bit
of difficulty with the well, on this case we're going to say that he can
do with it what he will and on other cases it's well, tough luck. You
bought the lot. Move if you want a bigger lot. I really think that in
the instance of a Lundgren or some sort of developer that is developing
the entire development in a way which suggests that it is a preserve and
it is natural features and everyone is going into it with that
understanding, that it is very appropriate. And if it's in someone's
backyard, all they have to do is look around and listen to the sales
pitches and understand that this is the type of development they're
moving into. And I do not want to water down the resulting ordinance or
11 something else that some one person in that development can go out and
thin to the extent that everybody around them says, you know what the
hell are you doing? This is supposed to be a natural area.
Erhart: Take the development up on Lake Lucy Road that Sathre- Berquist
did. That's the first one I remember where we did this tree conservation
and there we just drew a ring around some trees and say, okay you can't
ever touch those and they were in the back of people's yards. What was
the reason for that?
Batzli: I don't know. I think we're becoming more sophisticated and
part of it is this discussion tonight. Because I don't know that we've
applied it in a way that, in a manner that would suggest that we have a
coherent guiding principal as to why we're doing it. But I think that's,
hopefully we'll at least start to be you know foimented out of this
discussion tonight. But I have a fundamental disagreement I think Tim
and that is, I think there are instances where it's very appropriate,
given the subdivision that we're doing. And including corporate sites
which in my mind, those are the ones you probably do have to put it in
there because they can afford to take them all down.
Erhart: Right, commercial I don't care. They're fine in there. 7'm
only talking about people's backyards. I don't know. We should hear
from some others.
Batzli: Yeah, what do you think? What do you think Ladd?
11 Conrad: ...flush out the issues.
Erhart: But what's your opinion? ...We're trying to develop a consensus
and give Paul a steer of where we're trying to, what we think. So we
need your opinion.
Conrad: Rooflines? I think the issues are real valid. I share your
concern with taking away rights and then Brian's representing obviously
the other extreme in terms of preserving what we want to preserve. And
the bottom line is how we apply it. I think the goals are softy and I
really don't have a need to prohibit somebody from cutting down a tree.
I'm real concerned about Steve cutting down 3.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 41
Batzli: Oak trees. ,
Conrad: You know that's real stressful.
Emmings: For the taxes I pay I should be able to see the lake I live on"
Conrad: ...But when you have a conservation easement, that we're taikin
about, it should be because it's significant. It has a bearing for the
community. If the community is more important and so, you know somehow
it's the standard of how we apply this easement that I'm concerned with.
Right now I think we're fairly good in some of the stuff we're doing.
But I also share Tim's concern about, and Steve's. I don't think I woul�
want to have, I don't think I need to be in somebody's back pocket
concerning what they do to their property. I don't want to be there. Bu
if there's an easement there, it's for a reason and as long as we have
valid reasons to protect that stand of trees.
Batzli: But how do we get to those reasons? I mean do we have a little'
subcommittee get together and say, these would be maybe valid reasons an
this is the type of analysis you look at. These are the factors you look
at or is it I know it when I see it kind of thing. 1
Emmings: Why do we want to call it tree preservation easement.
Conrad: I think conservation. 1
Emmings: Or do we just want to call it, I don't know why we don't just
call it a conservation easement. 1
Batzli: I thought we called it a tree conservation easement.
Erhart: Wilderness easement so when we agree as a group to apply this
thing, we clearly understand what we're doing. Is that we're making tha
area wilderness. Because that means you're going to have prickley ash
and nobody's going to go in and touch it. We're not going to mow it. II
We're not doing that so when we apply it we call it a wilderness easemen
so it's clear in everybody's mind what we're doing. Because that is what
we're doing. 1
Krauss: No, I don't think it is though. I mean when you're talking
about that site up on the hill, I had the two bus tours going up and dow
the highway and both times, coming and going people saw, there's a stand
of 5 or 6 real signature oak trees right at the top of the hill. And
it's not that massing that you're talking about on north face. I mean
these are just massive trees that stand up in the middle of the site. II
And everybody on those buses, both times said we've got to save those
trees. It's the first high ground you see when you're approaching the
city from the west. And we're making the developer pick those up. I
mean he's created a large island around it. We'd like to make sure that
those trees are protected permanently. Now I don't know if you feel mor
comfortable about it because it's a multi - family development and not a
single family development. But really it shouldn't make any difference II
I don't think. I mean these are owner occupied dwellings.
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 42
Ledvina: So why isn't that wilderness?
Krauss: Because it's clustered around a totlot and a swimming pool that
they have.
Ledvina: But that specific area that you've designated as an easement is
left alone.
Krauss: Well they may mow around it.
11 Ledvina: Okay.
Erhart: ...tree easement around it? There you just set it out on the
plan that says you can't touch these trees. Isn't that what you did?
Krauss: Yeah but again, in that case frankly, we don't want the
Homeowners Association to decide that one tennis court isn't enough.
They want three more and it's right where those trees are.
Erhart: We actually might put a tree conservation easement on those
trees?
Krauss: Well yeah they could.
Emmings: That's a PUD and they can't have things in there.
Krauss: Well yeah, I mean theoretically we can tie them to that plan but
8 years down the road, 12 years down the road, I think you might be hard
pressed to walk into a courtroom and say that Judge, those 6 trees were
on that site plan 12 years ago and they just chopped them down.
Emmings: Eventually they're going to die for...
Krauss: Sure.
I/ Batzli: Well how do we get off the dime on this? What do we have to do
Paul?
1 Krauss: Well I think that I can certainly work with Roger. We can come
back with different language. We may also want to talk to Roger and see
if we can come up with a way of putting this into ordinance with an
11 intent statement.
Emmings: It seems to me we're talking about two different kinds of
intent here. One is, sometimes there are individual trees in places that
we want preserved because they're special or unique. And other times
there's full stands of trees or whole areas, whether they're trees or
not, that we want to preserve in their natural state. We don't want
people addressing nature to any advantage. We want them just left alone.
Erhart: That's what I would call the wilderness easement.
' Emmings: So that's two different ideas there really.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 43
Krauss: But the wilderness bit implies that there is no utilization on I
that lot which implies it's going to be owned by the public or privately
held in common. That's not going to happen on somebody's lot.
Emmings: The kids are always going to play in the woods and that's fine 1
Batzli: Conservation or, I mean we can come up with a word for it.
Krauss: And again, I don't have a problem in most cases if these things
expire in residential situations. So I think we can address it two ways.
Coming up with an intent statement. An ordinance and revising the
easement language so it's a lot less onerous.
Batzli: Yeah, this is onerous. I mean I think you've got to at least b
able to walk through the area that's protected and this would maybe not
even allow you to do that in a lot of instances.
Erhart: Well we should give Paul a direction on what we want to do.
Whether we want them to terminate after a time or not.
Emmings: I would think you'd want to do that on a case by case basis. 11
Farmakes: If we come up with something that has enough bite to it, it
still has the potential to be misused. I mean isn't that part of what
you're saying? That it can be interpretted too, beyond common sense. S
what worries me though is that if the city, on so many of these things,
takes a negotiation position that they're not negotiating with something
to back them up. We dilute it too much that basically the cards are
played before they ever sit down at the table.
Erhart: Maybe what we're hearing is, we're looking for some selective
tools. One would be forever perpetual wilderness easement or whatever.
Another one is making sure that the developer and builders don't touch
certain trees but that we could apply that in cases where we don't want
it to be perpetual and then the other one would be where we could select
specific trees. And staff would essentially apply that on a case by cas
basis and we would approve it. So I guess I think we're looking for some
tools that we want to apply selectively. 1
Batzli: Does that make any sense Paul?
Krauss: I think so. 1
Batzli: Do you have enough direction to go try something? Okay.
Conrad: The direction is, we're still keeping some constraints on the I/
developer.
Emmings: That's the main thing. 1
Conrad: And for sure we're talking about applying this in the commercial
areas in terms of maintaining. We're really talking, the concern become
in residential.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 44
11 Batzli: Well it's going to be a balancing of, I think it has to still be
case by case but there are times when your concerned about the developer
and once the house is built, you let the homeowner do with it what they
I will.
Conrad: Let me give you. There's a tree that's 8 feet in diameter.
Emmings: And 3 feet high.
Conrad: It's a bonsai that survived the winter. Is that a case? Would
we protect a tree like that?
Krauss: Maybe. One of the things we asked the DNR forester to do and
when the thing's completed, is to fine, I mean they're like pristine
wetlands. There are signature trees that are just, I mean 300 year old
tree or something like that. A particularly magnificent specimen that's
worthy of some protection but those are pretty rare. By on large you're
11 talking about massing and you might have a bunch of 3 foot trees you know
that are.
Conrad: If there was a transitionary area between neighborhoods, talk
about Timberwood.
Emmings: Or between commercial and residential.
Conrad: Right. There's another case where we'd want that stand to be.
Emmings: Those are buffer yards.
Erhart: Then who owns those buffer yards?
Emmings: Whoever owns the property.
Batzli: It could be a homeowner.
Conrad: It could be and so there's an absolute. We're protecting. We
are buffering. There's a transition. It stays.
Batzli: But see those could be some, I mean we could almost list some
factors in the ordinance for, is it a buffer yard. Is it a particular
natural feature of the area? I mean these could be factors that you
1 determine when you apply the ordinance.
Emmings: Well it would help you decide if it's going to be temporary or
permanent. So if it's, or like scopes or bluffs you know.
Conrad: That's real important. And then there's some other areas that
I just call character type of things. That might be the top of property
where if you take them down. Even though they regrow Tim, I'll challenge
you on this one. * *for 30 or 40 years you don't have the same situation
so there's cases where you can't. A tree here and tree there, who cares.
But I think we do have to protect those spaces where you can put some
apartment buildings in. If you level everything, you've taken the
character out of Chanhassen and we can't allow that to happen.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11 November 18, 1992 - Page 45
Emmings: Let me give you an example of what maybe runs contrary a littl
bit. You know I bought. a lot that was next door to another house and th
guy, I don't know who planted the trees but most the people that live on
the lake, they put their trees lined up kind of the outsides of the lot II
so they have a view down the center toward the lake. Well, the lot I
bought was next door to this guy's house and it was just chalk full of
trees. I took down as few as I had to to build my house but from my
house, when you're on the lake you can't see my house from the lake and II
from my house you can, anytime you want to see anything on the lake
you're doing this and it finally got to me after 10 years so I went out
and now I've taken down 3 trees that have really. One of them was
threatening my house. One of them the top fell off of it and the other II
one was just plain in my way. But I've planted, I don't know maybe 100
bushes and this year 4 trees. Four evergreens on my property and I thin
I ought to be able to do that. You know, I don't think I'm doing
anything that's hurting the character of Chanhassen, although I might
have neighbors, I don't know who say, what's that * *fool doing cutting
down those big beautiful trees. But they're not in their yards.
Conrad: I agree with your right to do what you did. I don't want to
live next to you but.
Emmings: I don't want to live next to you either for a lot of reasons.
Batzli: Okay, well let's take a look at what Paul comes back with on II
that. Do people want to talk about cul -de -sacs tonight or philosophy of
meetings and reports?
Conrad: You've got 5 minutes.
Emmings: What about the roofline preservation easement? '
Batzli: Why don't we, can we have 10 minutes on each one of these?
Erhart: Let's do it. 1
CUL - DE - SAC LENGTHS.
Batzli: Paul, Cul -de- sac's. We know your arguments. Okay.
Krauss: Yeah, you know the issues and I gave you the other communities."
Emmings: I agree. 500 feet.
Erhart: Hang on a second. I agree too but. Given the last 6 -7 years,
we've seen, we've allowed a lot of what? 1,000 foot cul -de -sacs and 80
or what's the character been of the last 6 -7 years of the cul -de -sacs
that we've allowed? 1
Krauss: It's been all across the board.
Farmakes: When was the ordinance dropped for 500? 1
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 46
Krauss: It was before my time here. I've got to believe it was 6 or 7
years ago.
Ledvina: Do you know why it was dropped?
Krauss: I think a developer objected to it.
Batzli: Well I think it's an issue of character of a community in part.
And I think a lot of people within this community want cul -de -sacs. They
feel that they can, it's more difficult for people to cruise a
neighborhood looking for burglary sites, whatever. They feel there's
less traffic. Every time we do a development the big concern is kids are
going to play in the street and they're all going to get run over and
there will be blood everywhere and clearly in a more upscale, if you
will, area you're going to find more cul -de -sacs. More windy roads.
More a lot of this stuff and I think it's a community issue of perception
and the developers are telling us, typically we try to listen to them.
What it is that's selling and what it is people want and I think we
should at least pay some attention to that. I've found for example in my
neighborhood that the cul -de -sacs are very popular. I don't know if I
could go in and say that they were selling for more money but we actually
have a big loop but yet it's sort of an isolated exit through the North
Lotus Lake Park. And the loop is nice because everybody walks around it
and you get a good sense of neighborhood, which is one of Paul's points.
11 I don't necessarily want to restrict us this discussion to safety. What
I'd like to do is talk a little bit about planning and neighborhoods and
things like that because I think that's what some of the issues we should
11 raise because everytime we talk about this, you know planning staff gets
up on their chair and salutes the flag and says, you know fire trucks and
snow plows. Well I don't care about that so much because we hear that
everytime and it's a valid concern but let's talk about some of the other
11 things.
Emming: Well nobody's saying we shouldn't them right?
I Batzli: No but you know, what's wrong with the longer one? If a 500
foot one is good, is a 1,000 foot one better? Why is it that we're
getting them? Is it because of access is limited to the area? Is it
because it's tough?
Farmakes: It's easier to lay out a longer cul -de -sac.
11 Batzli: You can get more lots in there with cul -de -sacs because you've
got less roads? Is that the deal? Is that why developer's like them?
r Farmakes: Well if you're selling to a bunker mentality, which is the
majority of people who move out here, that's what you're offering. You're
offering them a private road.
Batzli: Okay. But if we go with the theme that we let people cut down
whatever trees they want. If it's, let's cater to what the people want.
11 Why don't we give them long cul -de- sacs ? - Why do we care?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 47
Farmakes: Well I think you can still offer cul -de -sacs for the consumer
and still design it, for the most part, that it's a reasonable length. I
other words, we set up a parking lot where we say, this is a reasonable
distance that a consumer will get out of their car and walk to Festival
Foods. And if they limit that to 400 feet, that's a reasonable distance!'
And a person who's planning that, that's the criteria that they use to
design that. If you get beyond 500 feet or so, I don't think you're
going to get little Jimmy walking down the street to get on a bus. He's
going to have his parents drop him off in a car or it's going to create
distance problem where you're probably not going to walk to access that
pick -up point on the thru street. So what you wind up with is a lot moll
functional design if you deal with 500 -600, somewhere in there.
Batzli: Let me ask a question. When other people read this list of
cities, and maybe this will point me out as the snob that I am. When yo
�
read this list of cities, do any one of you read this and say, but we're
not Eagan. We're not Burnsville. We don't care what they do. We're
something else. Or do you look at this. Something else from the
standpoint of, different area. Different type of community. There is all
different type of person who is moving to those areas and do we care what
Eagan, Burnsville, Plymouth, Brooklyn Park, Bloomington. Those things t
me are, those areas in the development have, well Bloomington maybe. Wes
Bloomington's a little bit different but I look at these and I say, I
don't give a rip what those communities are doing. I want to know, mayb
some different lifestyles. Different kinds of people are being attracte
to those areas. I don't know. That's my feeling when I look at this
list.
Farmakes: Well is your argument though, cul -de -sacs or not cul -de -sacs II
or are you talking about the length? Is that what your argument is?
Batzli: I'm talking about why are we limiting the length. If it's oniy
because, if we're not looking at the type of neighborhoods that these
promote or land use or anything else. If we're just going to do it for
safety, let's just say we're just going to do it for safety and be.done II
with I guess is kind of my sentiment.
Emmings: That's why I'd do it. I know that, I'll tell you why I come
down on this. When I was first on the Planning Commission I didn't want
any cul -de -sacs. I didn't like them. I've become convinced over time
that people like to live on them. I wouldn't want to and we have a lot
of developers that told us that people want cul -de -sacs. So fine. I call
accept that. So then my next position is, they ought to be kept short.
We had a lot of discussions here about long ones and the difficulties
it presents for city vehicles. Emergency vehicles. Better to have two II
accesses than one. I buy that. I think it's real and so I think they
ought to be kept short. The Lundgren one was a good example where, real
clear to me that ought to be tied together. I even thought, and
Lundgren, the option should have been left open to tie that development II
to development that would come to the east of that. There were some
problems with that. But I think things ought to be tied together becaus
I think if you're going to have cul -de -sacs they ought to be kept
reasonably short. 500 -600 feet, I don't have any trouble with that.
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 48
Batzli: How many lots under our current ordinance can go in on 600 feet?
How many are you talking about down and back? About 6? 100 foot.
Krauss: Well you're talking, you're probably going to get about 15 on
both sides of the street and around the bubble. Lundgren's proposal
wound up with 44 homes. Now there's some fallacies about cul -de -sacs
too. I mean cul -de -sacs are supposed to offer a nice environment. I
live on a cul -de -sac. I understand why. I mean my kids play in it and
all that but when you've got 43 other homes coming out in front of your
home, which is nominally on a cul -de -sac and you're on the corner, I'd
rather be a on a loop street with 20 homes you know. You're getting a
lot less impact.
Erhart: I think that's a strong argument to sitting here trying to
figure out balance between what people want and arguing cul -de -sacs
versus the safety issues. And I think the real swing argument here for
limiting it to the 600 feet or whatever, is that if a developer wants to
sell cul -de -sacs, he can make more cul -de -sacs. He just makes them 600
feet because you can go in and set up your street pattern to make lots of
■ 600 foot, if that's what he really wants to sell, he can do that and meet
both criteria.
Batzli: I've got no burning desire for long cul -de -sacs. I just wanted
to see if I could get an argument. So if we're all in agreement.
Erhart: We're onto you.
Batzli: Okay, 600 foot cul -de -sacs. Let's do it. Let's talk about
islands in the middle, because we've got to get out of here.
Conrad: Before you talk, I like long cul -de -sacs.
Batzli: Oh you like them? And you didn't speak up.
Conrad: I don't know where to take that though. 1 wasn't here for the
Lundgren deal. I thought you guys made a major mistake when you tied
that together.
Batzli: I didn't. I voted against it. I was the only one.
Conrad: You use cul -de -sacs when you can preserve stuff. To tie a thing
11 together for artificial reasons doesn't make sense.
Batzli: No, I think it gives a better sense of community and
neighborhoods.
Conrad: Cul -de -sacs are so community oriented.
Emmings: I think tying the town together and not making isolated
neighborhoods is communited oriented so I don't agree with you.
11 Conrad: So the cars can go speeding through.
Emmings: Do you go speeding through?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 49
Conrad: Sure. 1
Emmings: Well I don't, and I don't think you do either.
Conrad: I like the little neighborhoods that they create. I think you II
lose a sense of community when you have all these grid streets.
Emmings: Well what are you defining as a community? Our community is
made up with 759 communities which are cul -de -sacs? I mean that can't
happen.
Conrad: But my point is, I think you've got to balance the emergency II
needs and I think there's some validity except.
Batzli: Dick, on a good day how far can you back up the fire truck? 11
Richard Wing: You know what kind of troubles we here as a Fire Chief,
I have trouble finding those * *cul -de -sacs. I don't have any trouble 11
finding a long street. I get up into near Timberwood up there where
there's 15,000 little side streets, you can't find...
Emmings: That's enough for me. 1
Batzli: Well but that could be a lot of short cul -de -sacs.
Emmings: Then let's get rid of them.
Conrad: I don't even need to talk about this when I think we've got an
ordinance that keeps cul-de-sacs to the 600 feet or 500 or whatever.
Batzli: That's what we're trying to do.
Erhart: We don't. We don't have any ordinance.
Krauss: Well it doesn't have any constriction at all now. 1
Conrad: I thought.
Krauss: No, it's wide open. 1
Emmings: City Council was where it happened.
Erhart: Like they always do.
Krauss: Brian when you're talking about other communities, I note that
Plymouth has the most expensive average house value in the Twin Cities. II
And Minnetonka, if I remember right, Minnetonka was 600 feet or 700 feet.
You could go longer if environmentally it was the only reasonable way to
serve an area.
Farmakes: Timberwood's kind of a bad example. That's 2 1/2 acres.
That's not a typical development. 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 50
Batzli: I'm familiar with the less prestigious parts of Plymouth
apparently.
Erhart: So what's the consensus here?
11 Batzli: The consensus is, let's go with the 600 or 700 foot. 600 foot?
Can we go with 600?
Farmakes: 5 was the old ordinance.
Batzli: Yeah but we've got a lot of 600 footers in here too. Is 600
foot a reasonable compromise there? And that's basically 2 extra homes
on the cul -de -sac.
Conrad: The key to this ordinance is talking about when it should be, I
don't care if it's 400 or 500 but when you actually can improve the
surroundings, improve the neighborhood, that means environmental type
considerations. So if we've got those built in. But I get worried about
some words when there's absolutely no other way to make this happen.
Krauss: There's no question. It would be waived. It wouldn't even be a
variance.
Erhart: He's going to put language in there.
LANDSCAPED ISLANDS AND PARKWAYS.
Batzli: If we can briefly talk about landscape islands and parkways.
11 We'll postpone the philosophy.
Krauss: I'm sorry Dave left but you know, engineering was going to
prepare some report for the Council and you guys on that and they haven't
done it yet. I think we've generally concluded in house that everybody,
Planning Commission, City Council and many staff members, want to go with
these things. And that the engineering staff ought to figure out on
11 acceptable way that they can design it.
Batzli: Okay. So we want to postpone that. Do we want to discuss
philosophy at all?
Krauss: I don't.
1 PHILOSOPHY OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND REPORTS...
Batzli: Well, the reason this came up, from a philosophy standpoint,
just so everybody can think about it, was when we were talking with the
people. Which one was it on? It was a PUD.
Krauss: It was Lundgren.
Batzli: It was Lundgren over at TH 5 and TH 41. Is that the one?
Krauss: Yep.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 51 1
Batzli: And we ended up negotiating element by element and the comment
that came out were that this should all have been taken care of before
and yet I remember often times sentiment that staff had negotiated it
already and it was a canned deal by the time we saw it. Now granted,
maybe we would have liked a happy medium but the issue was broader and I/
that was, in a PUD, obviously I think the issue there was that the
applicant probably hadn't gotten the staff report early enough in the
game so that they had a chance to see it and discuss it with the staff.
But the broader issue that came out of the Planning Commission was that
in the past we kind of wanted maybe more of a say in what we got in a PU
and we had an opportunity and we whined about it. And my question was
whether we really wanted to be whinning or whether we wanted to take thell
bull by the horns and tell the guys what we wanted in that PUD.
Erhart: There's got to be a balance. That one was too much. 1
Farmakes: I don't think that was the situation with that particular one
at all. And I think that one was more along the lines of what happened
on Oaks here where there was a breakdown of communication. Whether it
was time or notification and some of these items that were already
covered under ordinances, were not hashed out. If they're already
covered under other ordinances, they weren't that they had pressing need"
to change them. I believe that in the case of the Oaks, they hadn't
researched whether or not there were ordinances that covered that. It's
a matter of talking to city staff. 1
Batzli: Okay but let's look at the broader issue. 1 mean I brought that
up by way of example. What do you think our role should be in that
process? Should we have a rubber stamp role of looking at the report an
saying yes, we like it. We don't like it. And I've had several comment
from commissioners that we sit here and listen to a lot of things and we
talk a lot and then we approve it after 3 hours changing one condition
out of 50. You know that makes for a long evening of a lot of talk and
no action and the issue is, what is our role. Should we be up here being
proactive in making suggestions? Does that mean that we need-to-go
through the reports better? Does that mean we need to talk to Paul
better? I mean what should we be doing on these things to make us feel
like (a) we're actually doing something. Tim.
Erhart: Our goal ought to be to spend more time establishing policy andll
guidelines and if we could get it to the perfection is that we simply
pass yes or no as they come in here. If we did the perfect job on
establishing guidelines and policy, we'd have 5 minute reviews. Now you
can't be perfect.
Batzli: Well we could but the public would want to ask a lot of 1
questions.
•
Erhart: Well you're going to want some, that's right but I think what will
have a tendency to do here is that we spend so much time on these review
chewing on these things and we ended up not making any changes. We never
get any time like we get tonight. Thank goodness. This has been great
because we sit down and we establish for staff some guidelines. I think
there's where we have failed in the last couple years is we don't have
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 52
enough time to do that and that's what happens when you get into these
long things. Unfortunately what happens here in this community is we're
growing. That the guidelines have to be dynamic. They're constantly
changing. And you just can't set an ordinance out there and then live
with it because we have to maintain time to do that. For example, one
thing I think, we could cut these discussions short if we simply would
pass an ordinance that you can't have a flat roof in the commercial
district. I tell you what, that would have cut that discussion in half
IS
tonight. Given staff leverage to make these guys come in with something
better than what we had and give them some idea where we want to go on
these things because quite frankly we don't ever want to see another flat
roof in our commercial district. Unless it's something, an unusual flat
roof.
Batzli: Okay, Paul. Put together an ordinance on that. He's not
writing this down. I'm serious.
Emmings: I don't know if I agree with that.
11 Erhart: Let's find our minimum level and let's communicate it to staff
what our minimum level is so they don't have to come in here and discuss
with an applicant what's the minimum level.
Batzli: Well I think part of it is, you know a dynamic process between
the applicant saying to him or herself, I can't give up everything to
Paul because I've got to go in front of the Planning Commission and
then I've got to go in front of the Council and if they ask me for
more, I've already given it up. They want to almost kind of hold
something here and then be able to go, oh I'll give you the couple more
trees. And you know, I get a sense at times from some of the developers
that they're doing that. So I don't think it could be a perfect yes or
no situation.
Emmings: I don't know if I agree with that because what I hear
developers saying is, just tell me what the damn rules are and I'll make
my plan conform but don't make me guess.
Batzli: Oh see, I didn't get that from Target at all.
Emmings: Well Target, that's different.
Batzli: Well no they're not different. I mean we've seen people come
in, look at the Opus. They came in. They gave us this plan and they
knew it was going to be terrible and we were going to hammer on them but
they weren't giving staff anything.
Emmings: I think developers mainly want to know what rules. Tell me the
rules of the game. That's what I hear them saying.
Krauss: You're saying Target's different and Richard and I met with
their Landscape Architect who was, I don't know if he was whinny but he
was kind of, he was whinny. But going on about you know, he felt like a
ping pong ball but I know the folks on Target side. They were
congratulatory...Now it's a hell of a lot better than the average Target.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 53
But at least everybody knew the ground rules going into it. It drove
everybody crazy in that 4 months period but Target works for 8 -9 months II
on other sites and then gets rejected. It's well worth their time to
come across and compromise on a few things. And if you look at it, the
basic principals were not being argued. The idea that we wanted a bette
than average building. Well yeah it took some beating to get the kind oll
building but the basic concept was agreed to. The basic orientation of
the store was agreed to. The idea of protecting the trees. All those
things up front. They knew that ahead of time. 1
Farmakes: But the thing I was talking about on those buildings for
instance is that it gets back to architectural standards. We're talking"
the intent of those people putting up that building despite what the
gentleman from Abra said, is to put up a structure that services their
needs for the least amount of money possible. That's what their goal is ll
Krauss: And maintains their identity. That argument was the same
argument that McDonald's came up with when they said every building has
to have golden arches. Well McDonald's doesn't do that anymore and
apparently Abra hasn't matured to that level but there's no reason why II
you have to accept it.
Farmakes: Well hopefully we're providing a different perspective that II
gives you checks and balances but the point is well taken. If they don't
have a guide, which is difficult to do because that would be to say, in
this case both applicants were building the same building with the same II
intent and the same use. To some extent I guess that's true but you had
two different building proposals here. And it seems to me they were both
beating the same goals. Certainly the question whether or not they painii
the cinder brick gray versus tan is kind of a moot point it seems to me.
Batzli: As one final issue here before, are people comfortable now with
the increased number of conditions we're seeing in all these reports or
do they want to go back to the good old days where there's about 3 in
there and everything else is pursuant to the plans as shown or that we
received? 1
Ledvina: Well obviously it's better to have fewer conditions with the
most up to date site plan but that's not possible to do. Staff is
working hard to get as many positive modifications as possible and that'll
good. But it's nice like what we saw today with the Goodyear /Abra. You
know we had plans that didn't, the landscaping plan for example didn't
reflect what was actually agreed to and those type of things you know
should try to be resolved if we can.
Erhart: When they come in, you have an agreement how many weeks this is"
going to go to Planning?
Krauss: Yeah. From the day they drop it on my desk we get it to you, i
comes up 4 weeks later.
Erhart: Whether it's a small project or a big project. 1 think what
would make sense is to have a graduated scale based on the size of the
project so that bigger projects, they have to come in earlier on bigger II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 54
1
projects to get a certain date. That allows you to finish these
negotiations because I sense many times this stuff is coming in here and
quite frankly you just ran out of time.
Krauss: Well, that'can happen. I like to think we don't do it too often
11 but you know, I like having you around. I mean there's a good cop /bad
cop kind of thing going on. Beissner and his group, I mean Sharmin and
I have been telling him this for 6 months. Americana Bank, we told them
that for 5 months and they go okay, well I'll add an awning. Well
okay, I'll put up a dormer. Okay, i'll do this and after 6 months you
go, I don't know. Let's just throw it at the Planning Commission. And
if you come up and say, this thing is lousy and jump all over it or this
thing is good, I think it puts it all into perspective. And I know in
the case of Americana Bank, I mean you had the bank President here kind
of reared up and said, geez I guess what staff was saying is probably
11 true and I don't want to come into the community if you don't really want
me to do it that way. I'll go redesign it and I think the building that
we're getting now is a pretty good one because of that process. So don't
11 take yourselves out of the role. We need you to be there. We can only
take it so far.
Emmings: The problem there is Paul, like tonight on the Goodyear /Abra
thing. My sense was that we were going a good cop /bad cop thing but I
wasn't sure and I wasn't sure if you were saying that under the zoning
that we pushed them as far as we could. Lots of times I have a sense of
what you've been telling them and kind of what you're looking to us for
and I didn't have it on that one tonight. So good cop /bad cop works but
only if I know what you've been telling them.
Krauss: And that's my fault too. You know Sharmin wrote the report and
I didn't, usually I add some language that tries to get across the
essence. But I'll be honest, I mean there were some things I'd rather
not say or commit to on camera if I'm going to be hauled into Court to
defend the City's position on something.
11 Batzli: I think one of the things we can do is clearly, I mean obviously
there's going to be chances, opportunities for us to play this good
cop /bad cop role but there may be something to a much larger development.
Four weeks not being enough time to do the job you want to do with it and
if we are having a problem with this, maybe we want to look at changing
those rules. That may be one thing we could do. The other thing we could
do is to make sure that the agendas don't get too long. A large reason,
in my opinion, that we suddenly have 3 people drop off the Commission, or
about to, is because the meetings last too long. One is because of my
pansy way of running the meetings that I let everybody sit up there and
talk for hours and of course that didn't happen when Steve was running
the meetings. But another reason is surely the size of the agendas that
we've had. And I don't know how we move things along while at the same
time shortening the agenda but we need to work on that so that the people
who are on the commission feel like they can stay on the commission and
not worry about getting up for work the next day.
Krauss: It's tough and you know we've had more packed agendas in the
past. We've actually had a fairly lenient couple years in terms of new
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 55
1
development.
Batzli: Yeah but we've had a lot of cases where a lot of people came in '
and they all wanted to talk and they all had good points. And the issue
is, didn't they have neighborhood meetings. What's happening on some of il
these things? Is it just because development is approaching some of
these old neighborhoods? I don't know.
Krauss: Well I think you're also finding, the City's growing larger.
People are moving out from Bloomington and Edina and are used to being II
active and know how to make the system work for them. And I think
there's been a series of projects that you've seen recently where we've
gotten the developer to make some very significant accommodations but
you'd never know it hearing the residents talk because I mean they have
their agenda and here's this phone book of their agenda.
Farmakes: Are you talking about the last meeting?
Krauss: Yeah.
Batzli: Well I don't know. It seems we certainly have to work on
because I agree with Tim that it's more fun to talk up here and be
proactive than to sit there and, I don't mind listening to the residents
but on some of these they get extremely long and tedious and you start
looking at the clock and you're thinking less about what's being said
than I've got to get up at 6:00 tomorrow morning and I've got to do this"
and that before I go to bed. We can't do that.
Conrad: I've talked to people about it and I can't do that. It just
doesn't work.
Batzli: Right now is a perfect time to quit and we're going to and this
is what it should be like every week when we meet. 1
Krauss: Some communities do limit agendas. We haven't done that. If
you'd like us to do that.
Batzli: Well I have the authority under the By -laws to call the meeting
at 10:30 and I've felt like it at some times. Is it 11:00? Whatever its
s. I mean it's in there, the power to do it but you typically, it's
when there's still 50 people in the room and I feel pretty silly telling
them, sorry. It's time to go home.
Krauss: See I know, one of the things that the Mayor in Minnetonka was 1
pretty good at doing is looking at his watch, and they had an 11:00
deadline. At 10:00 and saying, look it folks. I don't think we're goinii
to get to your item. You're welcome to hang around and see if you want
to. Otherwise we can get it off the agenda now and make you first on the
agenda next time and you can go home and catch the 10:00 news. But it's
your choice. 1
Batzli: But usually, and this is partly, in large part communication
between whoever's chairing and you is to figure out what are the hot one
and why are all these people here and trying to figure out how to juggle
.1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 56
11 that. And maybe I can help a little bit on that too but you should have
advanced inkling of which ones are hot, or hopefully you do.
Krauss: You know I used to be able to tell you that we always knew.
I There's something that bothers me a little bit lately and it's that
sometimes we don't know. That some residents have felt that the more
appropriate way to respond is to get the petition. Get everybody all
riled up before they ask any questions and hopfully become enlightened.
And they're kind of by- passing us which worries me.
Conrad: One comment on my part. And this is probably self critical more
1 than anything else but I think it's real important. We drag out issues.
In the last couple months it's been real clear. Brian you use one of the
examples where we beat something up for 3 hours here and we made one, and
' we were very negative and we made one lousy change to what the staff
report said and I tell you, I think we're real good at disecting stuff.
We really are and we typically come up with some things that I think are
pretty good that we send up to City Council but there have been some
cases recently where we'll spend an inordinate amount of time and not
know where we're going. And some of it's process. If you talk about
something sooner or later maybe you come up with a solution but we hadn't
in many cases, and that's gotten real frustrating. Sometimes I don't
know where I want to go on an issue so it's good to hear people talk. So
I'm going to speak out of both sides of my mouth. Yet on the other hand,
' there's some cases where geez, we're just saying nothing and I don't
think we're taking the issue any further. But unfortunately, I'll make
that comment and there's no solution. Tonight on the only hot issue,
I knew what the issues I had and I tried to be brief, and typically I'm
not but I tried to be and say here's where I'm at and hand it off to
somebody else. Rather than just make.
' Erhart: Limit the number of commissioners at a meeting to 5.
Batzli: One final thing before we adjourn here and I don't know if we
accomplished a lot but maybe we at least got some things off our chest
and we can think about it more and work on it. I appreciate at least two
of the people, I know with holidays coming up and everything else, it's
sometimes I don't even know if we'll have 2 meetings in December, is to
thank Commissioners Erhart and Emmings, (and Ahrens), for their service
on the Commission. They will be missed and I hope that City Council does
something nice for them.
Emmings: What do you like? I like cars.
Conrad: I think maybe they deserve some kind of thing for cutting down
trees.
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10 :40 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
1 Planning Director -
Prepared by Nann Opheim
11
r
r
t
1