Loading...
1j. minutes .' CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. . The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, _ Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson ' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Jo Ann Olsen, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Lori Sietsema and Jim Chaffee ' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to amend the agenda to move the Presentation for the Maple Leaf Awards prior to the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations: Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss silt fences and community garden plots; Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss oil recycling and the flag in front of the Fire Station; and Councilman Workman wanted to discuss the Board of Adjustments and an update on Crossroads Bank. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Chmiel read the letter enclosed in the City Council packet addressed to the Honorable George Bush, President of the United States, ' regarding National Flag Day. PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARDS: Mayor Chmiel presented the Maple Leaf Award to Candy Takkunen and Richard Wing for their service on the Public Safety ' Commission. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to ' approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Accept CORE Fishing Pier, Donations from ONR. (Councilman Johnson wanted to say good work to Todd Hoffman publically on this item. ) e. Accept Plans and Specifications for 1990 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program, Authorization to Advertise for Bids, Improvement Project 90-2. f. Approve Agreement with Short-Elliott-Hendrickson for Stormwater Utility ' Consultant Services. g. Approve Plans and Specifications for Construction of Production Well for Well No. 5; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Improvement Project 89-4A. i. Approval of Accounts. ' j. City Council Minutes dated April 9, 1990 Planning Commission Minutes dated April 4, 1990 1 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 ' k. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Electrical Service to Lake Ann Park ' Shelter and Advertise for Bids. . ' 1. Approval of July 4th Fireworks Contract. L 1 n. Resolution 990-48: Approve Resolution Authorizing the Quick Take of One ' Permanent and One Temporary Easement for Roadway and Utility Purposes, Country "Clean Property. o. Accept Soil Exploration Proposal for old Public Works Site. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: B. SET SPECIAL MEETING DATE, JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT ' AUTHORITY PUBLIC HEARING AND STAFF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES WORKSHOP. Councilman Boyt: The meeting on May 7th. I don't know how crucial that meeting is to hold quickly but I'm not going to be here. If there's a possibility of putting it off for a month. But if there isn't, I can put my thoughts in writing and give them to everybody too. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well that'd be appreciated. Councilman Workman: So are we keeping the meetings. Councilman Boyt: On the 7th. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to move item 1(b) Bill? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve setting a special meeting date of May 7, 1990 for a joint meeting of the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority Public Hearing and Staff Goals and Objectives. All voted in favor and the motion carried. C. AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE SPECIFICATIONS, FIRE CHIEF VEHICLE. Councilwoman Dimler: I pulled item (c) mainly because I remember in our budget ' process that we ask for that to be removed from the budget and Jim Chaffee did pull it from the budget. I see that it's back on the Consent Agenda and Dale Gregory did come and speak to me and gave me some facts on it. I would agree that this vehicle would be a great asset to our community but I'm not convinced ' that it's an absolute necessity so that's why I wanted to pull it and discuss it. Jim Chaffee has assured me that no one in our community is presently at risk because we do not have that vehicle. I can see advantages to that vehicle ' and I've been more inclined to vote for it than to vote for the expensive exercise machines that we approved for the Fire Department. I guess my point is that I think we've been really good to the Fire Department. When they ask us ' for a new building and voters approved it. They asked for the aerial truck which is here now and it 's an asset to our community and they got it. They asked for recreational area and workout equipment to keep them in tip top shape and they got it and I guess I want to know when does the asking stop. I think ' 2 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 I. , there's other areas in our city that need attention. I also had calls from II concerned citizens that think that we're favoring the Fire Department over other departments in our city who also have wants and needs that are real. In the II long run I can trouble for our budget in general. At the State level the tax committee is looking at reducing state spending by $537,000,000.00. Some of that will be reduction in local government aids and that means that the City of I Chanhassen will be getting less from the State. That means we will either have to cut our spending or increase our taxes but I'd rather see us cut our spending. I've also seen over uses of city of Chanhassen vehicles in the Ipublic works department and I think until we clean these over uses up, I'm not inclined to favor owning and operating and maintaining more city vehicles. I am open for discussion but I did want the public to know that in the future I will not look favorably on any more vehicles. I Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment. Maybe ask Mr. Chaffee a few questions. Councilwoman Dimler just mentioned the exercise equipment and I know that came I in front of us but wasn't that covered by the money voted in under the bond issue. Jim Chaffee: I believe it was. I don't know, maybe the City Manager can I comment on that. Don Ashworth: That's correct. II Councilman Boyt: So it wasn't any additional expenditures by the City? That was part of the bonding approval? II Councilwoman Dimler: Bill, you did mention though when it came before us that you thought it was way too expensive and you would have loved to go for the $2,000.00 units rather than the $12,000.00 units. I Councilman Boyt: Yes. I agree with you that I would have liked to have seen them come in with different equipment. They did come in front of us and explain II why they wanted to spend that. It wasn't additional monies. It was just how they're going to utilize the monies they had. It sounds like we agreed that it was expensive equipment. The Fire vehicle here or the vehicle for the Fire II Chief, references made to the budget. As I understand it, Public Safety set your budget . You had a certain amount to work with and you allocated it towards the directions you thought were most appropriate to public safety. Is that correct? I Don Ashworth: If I may respond. The 1990 budget includes $37,000.00 that was with the title unallocated. It was done recognizing that there were various I vehicle needs within the city and as we got into 1990, we would have to prioritize as basically the need for each of the pieces could better be evaluated. One of the pieces under consideration was a sewer jet machine and Idiscussing that with Gary, the decision was made that that particular piece should be moved off at least an additional year and accordingly, the next priority was the Fire Chief's vehicle and that's how that came before the City Council. I Councilman Boyt: So what you and Mr. Chaffee are saying here is that this is your highest priority vehicle? Basically out of the amount approved in the I 3 II City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 ' budget for vehicle expenditures, you're saying this is the best use of that money or part of that money. Is that right? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, Mr. Chaffee did you tell me this morning that you ' had removed that item from the budget? Jim Chaffee: Yes I did. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Councilman Boyt: Apparently I'm not disagreeing with that but it sounds like what you did was created a vehicle fund and you're now coming back to us and saying this is your top priority vehicle given the needs of the City engineering department. The needs of park and rec and so on. Am I right in saying that? ' Don Ashworth: The approved budget shows the $37,000.00 with a footnote saying during the course of 1990, various pieces of equipment will be reviewed and a recommendation made to the City Council as to how to best utilize those dollars ' for equipment needs. Councilman Boyt : I certainly agree with Councilwoman Dimler's point that we ' need to be careful about how we go about reacting to these needs. I guess I am though saying that a city growing like we are needs transportation. If we're _ hiring people, and we are, to fill these jobs, very frequently part of that cost is a vehicle for them because our city, the nature of what's going on here ' requires people to get out and be able to see what's happening. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't agree with that. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Well, it sounds like we disagree on that point . Councilwoman Dimler: We're not going to buy a vehicle for every employee. Councilman Boyt: No, I don't mean to say that. I said very frequently, and if you look back at the people that we've added to staff over the last 2 years, I ' would say that very frequently we end up purchasing a vehicle for that person. Or a vehicle that they share with someone else. And without that vehicle we're paying them mileage because there's a lot of driving that goes on here. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to reiterate my point that Mr. Chaffee told me that no one, and I said I would make this a high priority because it is ' fire department. We have favored the fire department. I believe that some of their needs are legitimate. However, I don't want anyone to get the impression that anyone in the city is in trouble or is not safe because we don't have this vehicle and that's what I always oppose using that as the basis of getting, you ' know. Like I said, I'm open but in the future I don't want to hear anything else about vehicles. Councilman Boyt: That's the one point we disagree on. I agree with the other things you're saying. We need vehicles to run this city. That's all I've got. 4 • City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 It r II- Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Jay. I Councilman Johnson: Don't we currently have a Fire Chief's vehicle and is this for the what I'd call the duty officer's, like the duty officer's vehicle or II something? I think they take the grass rig home, whoever's the officer of the night or whatever. Because I thought you had a red Fire Chief's vehicle out there. I Dale Gregory: Originally the way this all started was when the construction of the building was in progress. The grass rig that was there either had to be I stored or else we used it in this sense as a take home vehicle. That's where we originally got our first of using it this way. Right now it is not a good way of doing it because with the way the weather is, the summers and everything, we can't have the grass rig at a home. It has to be back at the station. We don't II really have a vehicle to use in this sense. As a Chief's vehicle. Councilman Johnson: Is there a vehicle that you use as the Chief's vehicle? I Dale Gregory: I was using the grass rig. Councilman Johnson: Oh, you were using the grass rig. I Dale Gregory: I was using the grass rig until the grass season started. Councilman Johnson: What 's the red sedan? II Dale Gregory: The red sedan was the one that was donated by Craig Blechta and II that we basically painted and everything else. It's a vehicle and it's got 130,000 or 120,000 miles on it. It 's not a vehicle that's going to be used extensively as a Fire Chief's vehicle. II Mayor Chmiel: What year is that vehicle? Dale Gregory: It's a 1981. Besides that, it doesn't have the room to carry the I equipment that we have to carry with it. Councilman Boyt: It's much too expensive to drive that grass rig. II Councilman Johnson: Oh I agree. And you don't want to put that kind of mileage on it either. I Mayor Chmiel: Let me just make a suggestion here. I had looked at this previously. Our Fire Marshall has an existing vehicle that he's using now and I'd just like to throw this out. If we got that vehicle, because I don't think II that Mark Liftin uses that vehicle as much as it probably could be used. Maybe if he used the existing vehicle that you have until that one goes and take his vehicle and utilize that, which is a 4 wheel drive. I'm not sure how that would I work out but what I'd like to propose presently is that we table this discussion and pursue this thought and see if we can't come up with some solution. 5 ' City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Dale Gregory: Oka talked Okay, I e earlier with Don. In fact we kind of looked at every aspect we possibly could. That didn't look like a real viable thing ' because again, the car doesn't have room to carry the things that Mark is carrying in the back of his vehicle and again, the car doesn't really work real well. I mean we're really into trouble with that thing. It is again, the ' vehicle was donated and it was set up as a personnel vehicle as far as going back and forth to meetings, schools and that type of thing and that's what we initially set it up for and that would be good. We're close to 38 people right ' now, fire fighters. We've got 4 of them that are attending schools that basically go to Vo-Tech schools that are all over the City right now. They're not at Hennepin Vo-Tech and that and that's basically why we set that vehicle up. So they would have something to attend meetings instead of using their own ' car or else coming over here and trying to get a car from City Hall. We only had the opportunity to use it for about 2 months and it was working good while we had it that way. Mayor Chmiel: I would still like to propose that we table this and have some further discussions. Maybe between having a couple Council members and I'd like to sit on it myself, if anyone else would and sit down with the City Manager and ' with Dale and even Mark and try to come up with some conclusions. Councilman Johnson: Could I ask one more question before we get into this ' motion? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. _ ' Councilman Johnson: Is Mark's Fire Marshall vehicle utilized at night or is it parked up here? ' Dale Gregory: No, I believe he takes it home at night. Councilman Johnson: Okay. Is that necessary as part of his function as a city I fire marshall to have that vehicle as a take home vehicle or could that be used during the day as his fire marshall vehicle and as a fire chief's vehicle at night? ' Dale Gregory: The thing we run into with that is this vehicle, when we set it up, we're going to have to build cabinets and things in the back of this vehicle basically to handle the First Aid equipment . To handle all the pre-plans and ' the equipment that has to be there and if we're going to use it as a fire chief vehicle and a fire marshall's vehicle, that means every morning, every night, all of Mark's stuff comes out. The other stuff goes in and we are talking quite a bit of equipment that has to be rerouted every night then. Councilman Johnson: Now that's something new to us. Some idea as to what we were talking about, what a fire chief's vehicle. I mean the common lay ' person's idea of a fire chief's vehicle is a red sedan and we don't know what goes in the trunk and what goes in the back seat of it so it sounds like it's a mobile command facility. iDale Gregory: The reason it's set up for it, it is the initial command vehicle when you get to a scene. It's to get the chief officer on the scene first . Make the decisions. Set up a command post. Again, it's got all the files and 6 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 It everything 11- ever y i g for all the pre-plans for all of the industrial buildings will be in this vehicle. Communications. Radios which are in Mark's right now. But there are, like again, there'd be First Aid equipment and things in there and that but II it's basically set up as a command vehicle so we can set up all the operations out of that vehicle. And the way we'd set it up is even on like say weekends, should I be gone, vacation or that type of thing, we'd always have an officer on II duty. That vehicle would go to whoever the Assistant Chief or if they're not in town, a Captain or somebody so basically we'd always have the City with an officer on duty at all times. II Councilman Johnson: Okay. Well that explains to me a little bit more why we need the Fire Chief's vehicle. Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? II Councilwoman Dimler: To table? Is that your motion? I Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilwoman Dimler: I second that . I Councilman Workman: If I could make a couple of quick comments before we head into the table. I researched this. I sat down with Dale and I talked to no II less than a dozen fire fighters from different communities because in fact I received a call from one of our own fire fighters complaining that maybe we didn't need this and everything else. Well I sought to prove or disprove that II and the information that I found out was that every fire department that I talked to has one of these vehicles. It probably could be considered a luxury but it's a very nice luxury to have in that then Dale can be on the scene, whether it's 3 or 4 or 5 minutes before everybody else is and that those 3 and 4 II and 5 minutes are very critical to setting up a plan for whatever needs to be done. Where fire plugs are, entry, etc. . I found out one other thing that a fire doubles every 1 minute and that these 3 or 4 or 5 minutes are very II important and we even discussed the fact that Dale, who works for the City has a park vehicle and why can't we use the park vehicle. That's why I'm wondering if discussing this at a future date is necessary because we went around all these I angles of whether the park vehicle. Well he can't really keep all this equipment and pre-plans and whatever else in this park vehicle, which would be ideal obviously because he's in that and so this is a unique vehicle that I guess basically I sought to disprove that we needed it because I get concerned I also with the number of vehicles that keep popping up all over. But this is something that if we can afford the luxury, I think is a useable vehicle. Councilman Johnson: So you're speaking in opposition of tabling basically? II Councilman Workman: Well no, I'm not afraid to table it. I just wanted to make II sure that my point's gone out before. Councilman Johnson: Because at this point all we're doing is writing the specs. Mayor Chmiel: That 's right. We've not gone beyond that as yet. II 7 II City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Johnson: Right. We're not authorizing to spend any money. Just make the specs. Councilman Boyt: There's plenty of time to do the research after. Councilman Johnson: While they're writing the specs. Well writing the specs will probably help us make our decision. Councilwoman Dimler: You know that that means that we've got the vehicle you ' know. Basically that means we get the vehicle once you go with the specs. Councilman Johnson: I'm for getting it so. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Like I said, I'm not deadly opposed but I just wanted to be a forewarning that I'm not going to look kindly on any more vehicles so don't come and ask. iMayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to table with a second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to table authorization of plans and specifications for the Fire Chief Vehicle for further investigation. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion to table carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Chmiel: Let's sit down. Talk. Pull it together and come up with some kind of a solution. ' D. ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR HARVEY/O'BRIEN SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION; WAIVE - 0 PUBLIC HEARING; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 90-5. ' Mayor Chmiel: The applicant would like to address this regarding the sanitary sewer extension. It's your time to come forward to make your presentation. ' Terry O'Brien: My name is Terry O'Brien and I'm the property inbetween Harvey and the sewer connection. I've seen the proposal for the cost of the sewer ' line. I think my portion of it would be $18,000.00 or there abouts. Somewhere around $18,000.00. I feel that right now there's no way that I can afford that and I'd like to know, and my sewer system is working. If I could table or I don't know what you call it, but until I hook up where I wouldn't have to pay ' that money until I can some money somewhere to pay that. I just no way can pay that kind of money. ' Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe we can get that addressed. Gary, what are the procedures for that? ' Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, staff met with Mr. O'Brien and Harvey last Friday to review the study and at that time it was noted and as I'm sure Council recalls, the extension which is dependent on the Metropolitan Council's permission, is to really address the failing system on Mr. Harvey's property which since the sewer ' passes Mr. O'Brien's property, it was looked at for both properties. But as Mr. O'Brien indicated, your system is currently operating satisfactorily so his request is, because of the financial hardship of his property, is that if the 8 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 • I. II. assessment for the improvement could not be deferred until such time as either his system fails and he needs to connect or also there's a possibility that he II could subdivide his property, which as we all know, takes time to walk through the process and takes some money. Obviously if he can split another unit out there, it makes it more financially attractive to him. So if I can speak for Mr. O'Brien, what he's requesting the Council to consider is that in his II particular case that the assessment be deferred until either he subdivides or connects. The deferment of assessments, putting my other hat on and =the City Manager may want to address I'm sure, is looked at in a negative vein as far as II a bad debt of the City and has it's negative connotations that I think needs to be considered. It's not policy of the City to entertain those types of factors because of that. However, there are some exceptions. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Don, do you have anything to add to it? Don Ashworth: I'm not sure of the legal ability to do. I know we have a I senior citizen deferment policy or allowance under State Statute on a 429 project but Roger? Is there such a thing for a 429? Can we simply assess and defer? 1 Roger Knutson: There is a procedure for assessing deferring if the property is not developed. Vacant land. II Don Ashworth: Here you have a home and it's just a matter that he has a functioning septic system and would like to wait until that fails. II Roger Knutson: No. There is no. Don Ashworth: You might have to table to let staff try to. . . I do not know of II an easy solution on this item. Mayor Chmiel: I think probably what we're going to have to do so we're going to II be in compliance with our requirements, the way we can proceed with this. I think Mr. Harvey and Mr. O'Brien probably would agree that if we tabled this for a couple more weeks to see what we can come up with, a solution of whether II or not we can or we can't, I would not want to make that judgment call right now. I would just as soon see us review it and come up with a conclusion on it. Either positive or negative. I think that I understand your position and I understand fully the cost burden that's established on you for that $18,000.00. II I know when I went through mine I paid $10,000.00 to get my water and sewer and I too had water and sewer available with my own septic system at that particular time when the sewer came in. I Terry O'Brien: This isn't, the thing is, it isn't just sewer. I just paid $4,000.00 for the road and around probably $3,000.00 for the water last year and now the $18,000.00. It's about twice, almost 2 or 3 times. . . II Mayor Chmiel: Yes. You're talking $25,000.00 totally with all three assessments. I Terry O'Brien: So what do I have to do now? Do I just wait for these two weeks? Do I do some. . . I 9 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to make that as a motion that we table it at this time ; and have staff review and come back with some position on this. ' Councilman Boyt: I have a couple questions before we move on this in this direction. $18,000.00? Is that what you're proposing? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Boyt: Are we paying 7% for City money these days? 6%? ' Don Ashworth: We don't know what this issue would go out for but you can assume about 7 1/2%. ' Councilman Boyt: Okay, that's interest on money that we've spent will be $1,300.00 a year. And so I'm wondering if we defer this, who's paying that interest? ' Don Ashworth: The typical senior citizen deferment, the interest stacks up against the property. That's one of the problems with the senior citizen deferment. You can literally double the cost. Turn a $40,000.00 assessment ' into an $80,000.00 assessment. Councilman Boyt: I have another question. So that's one thing is that you're ' piling up $1,300.00 a year from the time this is finally assessed to you. Another thing that occurs to me is, what happens if we don't do this? Terry O'Brien: Well I'll have to sell a lot. There's no way. Councilman Boyt: No, I'm not talking about your situation. I understand what is impacting your situation. What happens if we don't put the sewer line in? ' Gary Warren: Mr. Harvey's system is the one that has brought this to the fore- front and the City is on record with an enforcement action here to get his ' failing system repaired. This seemed to be the cost effective route because it was putting money into a final ultimate solution. If this would not come to pass, then Mr. Harvey would have to go and spend money to upgrade his current system. ' Councilman Boyt: So he'd have to put in a new septic system basically and that's, what is that $10,000.00-$12,000.00? Gary Warren: Right. ' Councilman Boyt: So for him, it's close to a wash either way for Mr. Harvey. Is that correct? Terry O'Brien: I don't want to block it. I'm not trying to do that. ' Councilman Boyt: Right. One other question and then I'll stop this. How many square feet are in your lot currently? Do you know off hand? Terry O'Brien: In my property? ' 10 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Yes. Terry O'Brien: There's 450 foot of frontage. ' Councilman Boyt: So it looks like you've probably got 3 lots in there? Terry O'Brien: Well there's some wetlands. Two at the most. Maybe just one large lot.- Councilman Boyt: In addition to what you already have? ' Terry O'Brien: In addition to mine, yeah. Councilman Johnson: He's got some extreme slope problems and some wetland ' problems on his. Councilman Boyt: And so one possibility is if you were to subdivide that into 3 lots, assuming that you can have yours and two others. Terry O'Brien: That would be the extreme. ' Councilman Boyt: Okay, that would be the extreme. Then you'd be paying one- third of this assessment which would be $6,000.00. The other two-thirds would be accumulating interest. Terry O'Brien: If I sell a lot , I'll pay it all off. I'm not even looking for profit. Councilman Boyt: No, I'm not talking about you selling any of them. I'm simply saying that if you subdivide them into 3 lots, then you take that $18,000.00 and you split it into thirds. Am I on the wrong track here? Gary Warren: Keep going. ' Councilman Boyt: It's possible. Okay. So then you're talking about an assessment that you would begin to be charged now for $6,000.00 instead of $18,000.00. Your two lots which were built upon would be sitting there idle accumulating interest charges. Isn't that what I heard you could do? Roger? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's right. ' Councilman Boyt: So there are some options here is just my point . Terry O'Brien: But sooner or later I've got to pay that right? ' Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Jay. ' Councilman Johnson: In the scenario that just went through, we're making the assumption that Mr. O'Brien's entire lot is going to be within the MUSA line. 11 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Eventually. Terry O'Brien: It is now. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe within a short period of time. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Is the service area that's designated oh the drawings we have in the feasibility study, is that the only part that's going to ' go into the MUSA line or is their entire property going to go within the MUSA line? Gary Warren: The current minor guide plan amendment that has been applied for which we expect to hear on by next week, is strictly to allow the current units to be connected because of the pollution or the emergency situation. It would wait until the Comp Plan amendment and the full MUSA expansion before the rest of their properties could be subdivided. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so yeah. We're assuming in the next year we're going ' to get permission to extend the MUSA in this entire property so right now all we'd be able to do, he wouldn't be able to subdivide until that happens. Terry O'Brien: Could I do the front lots? That 's in the MUSA line. Councilman Johnson: The front lots? • Terry O'Brien: Right along the road. Where the sewer goes. I don't care about the back. ' Councilman Johnson: I don't believe it is within the MUSA line. Gary Warren: No, none of his property is within the MUSA line right now. ' Terry O'Brien: When it gets approved it won't be? Councilman Johnson: When it gets approved in about a year. Terry O'Brien: This temporary approval thing or whatever it is. ' Gary Warren: We're talking about two different things. The minor guide plan amendment which we're currently expecting to hear from, would strictly address allowing your existing unit to connect to the sewer system. Not any additional ' units until the overall amendment is approved. Councilman Johnson: Right. So that scenario would not work right now. The long and the short of it. ' Mayor Chmiel: Presently. Councilman Johnson: Presently. And presently we have a guy pumping out his septic tank several times a month as his short term solution. ' 12 11 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Here again we come into the dollar amounts and we're talking IF about the environmental concerns. Gary Warren: I believe it's appropriate Mr. Mayor to let staff study this. The Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain is an example of connection charge approach that we took to dealing with some of the costs but there are some interim cash situations that need to be looked at as far as the cost of the money. If the City happens the bank roll so to speak so I think there are some options. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe as I mentioned, maybe we should table this. , Councilman Boyt: I'll second that motion. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Al Harvey: Mr. Mayor, may I add one thing? ' Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Come on up. Al Harvey: Al Harvey, 1430. This is, our system failed this winter so this is , why this is before the Council. I have no problem with paying a 600 foot frontage between, which includes O'Brien's property and our property. I do have a problem of paying 220 feet of what was existing Centex property. when we went to their first meetings they indicated perhaps they were going to extend the sewer to their property line. Now they did not. They're 220 feet short. I'm wondering if the City has any available monies to help us to get to our property and we'll take it from there. As long as you're going to be discussing that, maybe that could be discussed at the same time. Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, that's been discussed with Mr. Harvey in the past . Centex was required to extend their line to service their units and similarly in the proposal, the feasibility study actually overstates to a certain extent how far the sanitary sewer line would have to go to capture Mr. Harvey's current septic system. We would expect that when the plans and specs are actually done, that the sewer line would not be extended to Mr. Harvey's westerly property line because he doesn't need it to that point. The next property, the Betsy Glaccum property, if and when they need to connect, would have to pay to extend it so it's sort of a wash on both ends. They would paying to pick up the line where it exists in the Curry Farms subdivision to get it to their property. Similarly the Glaccum property would have to pay to extend it across his property. ' Mayor Chmiel: I see what you're saying. Al Harvey: Except there's a difference in footage. I only have 150 feet . , There's 220 feet from the Centex and to get to where our need is, we need it 90 feet so we've basically working with 60 feet which probably is to my benefit to extend and which I'm willing to go to the extent of mine. I'm just asking if there's any available monies to help us to get to our properties. I have no problem picking up the cost of extending it through ours. I'm more than willing to meet that. I'd much rather do that than to put in a new system at this time. Okay? Thank you. 13 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 11 Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor with a second to table and come up with some again solutions to what's been discussed. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table action on Improvement Project 90-5, the Harvey/O'Brien Sanitary Sewer Extension for futher study. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Councilman Boyt: I would like to move item (h) to be discussed when we discuss item 10. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. ' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to move item (h) from the Consent Agenda to be discussed with item 10. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' H. AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THE POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY, FINAL READING. Councilman Boyt: Item (m) is quite quick. I would like a specific date added at which the City will review it's cost structure. I'm convinced that $100.00 isn't covering the city's cost. This is for the leasing of the sign. So what I'd like to have. We talked last time about some sort of study so the City's costs were covered. I'm concerned that if we don't put a specific date on that, it won't happen given the amount of work the staff has to accomplish. So I'd _ like to put a date of 6 months from today to see a response from staff back on whether we appear to be covering costs with the leasing of the signs. - r• Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 6 months from today to see if we're covering costs. ICouncilman Boyt: So I would move approval of item 1(m) with that amendment. ' Councilman Johnson: First meeting in October. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the final reading ' of an Amendment to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance to Require the Posting of Public Information Signs for New Developments within the City with direction to staff to bring the item back in 6 months for review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Are you meaning the first meeting 6 months from now or on the 26th? ' Mayor Chmiel: 6 months from today to see if we are covering costs. Councilman Johnson: That'd be the second meeting in October I guess that would be. Specifically October 23rd. Councilman Boyt: Thank you for that clarification. 14 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 IF VISITORS PRESENTATIONS: Bob Wagner: My name is Bob Wagner. My address is 2511 Orchard Lane and I would , like to add to the discussion either now or in the future, the corner of TH 7 and TH 41, Crossing Addition and specifically the lighting to the rear and to the west of the building and the lighting of the pyramids at the top. To give you just a little background, I have had some prior conversations with some of the Council members and then the community had a meeting with the developer and we addressed the inadequacy of the darkness that we have these days. He agreed. He was going to pursue possible shielding of the lights which rather than point downward as was in your original discussions and as is in the parking lot, they point outward as well. Fairly high intensity. I haven't yet had another meeting with Roger Zahn but it's my understanding in talking to other members in the community that he can't shield those lights without invalidating the warranty on the lighting system. I find that unacceptable. What he has done and what I have done personally to three of the lights is put duct tape around the sides. That's a nice temporary fix and I feel it's fairly acceptable, at least for the side and the rear. It doesn't address the issue at the top. The unfortunate part is the duct tape is already peeling off. And I would hope there are some regulations still available as far as that development and an inspection process that will address those. Councilman Boyt: Might I respond? , Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Boyt: I remember very clearly that the development contract doesn't ' allow that. That we said there's some sort of candle power limit at the property line. Jo Ann Olsen: And all lights have to be shielded. Councilman Boyt: Well then shouldn't we enforce that? 1 Jo Ann Olsen: We have. We've sent them a letter stating that we won't give the CO until that's done. ' Councilman Boyt: Well it's not moving with very much speed, typical to that sort of enforcement action. Jo Ann Olsen: Well our last understanding was that he was trying to come up with some solution. We didn't hear that he was saying no, he can't do it. Bob Wagner: And that's a bit figuresome on my part but that's my understanding ' in talking to other members in the community that it's a matter of expense I think with Roger and how to handle it. ' Jo Ann Olsen: It has to be done. Councilman Johnson: So nobody opens their business there because nobody can get a certificate of occupancy until those lights are changed. 15 1 11 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. 5-1 Councilman Johnson: Roger will find a way to change those lights because he ' can't collect any rent from anybody. Councilman Boyt: The simple way to do it is to go out there and unscrew the light bulb. ' Bob Wagner: They don't unscrew. Councilman Boyt: Oh, it's sodium? Bob Wagner: I've been on a ladder very close to those bulbs duct taping them ' because I looked at all of them. All 5 or 6 of them. Mayor Chmiel: Have you had any response from them at all Jo Ann? Nothing at all from Roger? When did we write that letter to him? ' Jo Ann Olsen: A couple weeks ago maybe or longer than that. It's been a while. eCouncilman Johnson: It wasn't in this Council packet. Jo Ann Olsen: After I got the first complaint. ' Mayor Chmiel: I've not seen copies of that letter unless we've had them in our Admin Pack. Jo Ann Olsen: That's where they should show up. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I just passed by it. IBob Wagner: I would just ask, have you addressed the issue of the lighting on the pyramids and is that within regulations? Jo Ann Olsen: That was never brought up. Bob Wagner: I'd like to point out that the one closest to the community has never been turned on but I would anticipate that at some point in time it will be. The one out by the road is on. It probably only affects us poor fellows that live on the "hill" but it affects me quite drastically. He did tone that ' down by putting the glass around it and to me it sort of smacks of the Super Value issue or the Super America issue of lighting pointing outwards rather than downward. ' Councilman Boyt: Roger, what's the next step to getting this cleared up? Roger Knutson: You can go after him. He turns the lights on? ' Bob Wagner: Oh yeah. Roger Knutson: Prosecute him. 16 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 Bob Wagner: I'm not here to be real critical. I mean with the tape on, it's much more acceptable. Before it was totally unacceptable and I do believe there is a solution that could be had here. Councilman Boyt: I think Bob, in my experience in working through this for the last 2 years or more, that Roger tends to respond to the gate that squeaks the loudest. Maybe that's the nature of the business. I would like to see the City Attorney draft a letter to Mr. Zahn taking this one step further. Bob Wagner: I feel we've done something unusual. We've gone to Roger as a community and had a meeting and the action has come forward. Councilman Boyt: Well I know he's got a proposal in front of us tonight. I know that doesn't make the lighting issue any lighter on your part but I have to believe that his intentions are good and if we just sort of squeak a little louder, we'll get some action. Mayor Chmiel: I would almost suggest Jo Ann that you write another letter to Mr. Zahn indicating that he should be fully aware that in the event his lighting is not addressed, that his CO will not be issued for any kind of facilities going in. And that has to be addressed. Jo Ann Olsen: That's what the first letter said. What I'll do is just reiterate that and then also give them a deadline that our City Attorney will address it and that's what we usually do next . Mayor Chmiel: And then maybe what you can do is just keep in touch with Roger and let him know what that solution is. But have a definite date to respond by. Councilman Johnson: How many facilities are under construction inside there that have building permits? Jo Ann Olsen: Quite a few. Councilman Johnson: If there's a couple building permits there, those people who pulled those building permits are the people renting from him I would assume and they would be interested to know about this. I'm sure that's not one of the first things Roger will do is run out and tell the people who are renting from him about this little problem he's got but we'll let the shop owners squeak a little too. Mayor Chmiel: I think what we can do Bob is approach it from that aspect. Bob Wagner: We would appreciate it. ' Mayor Chmiel: And see what happens from that. And we can keep you posted as well. If you give Jo Ann a call, you'll know what the solution is hopefully within, can we have a date by which you will.. . Jo Ann Olsen: We give him 10 days. We'll send it certified. Gary Warren: The current building permit. . .restaurant is working through the process right now. 17 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's on our agenda. Okay 10 days from today, which is Is' the 23rd, we should have a response back by. Jo Ann Olsen: Well it will go out tomorrow. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so take it from tomorrow. Then get back in contact with Mr. Wagner so he's aware as to what's happening. Any other visitors presentations? Yes Sir. ' Don Dudycha: My name is Don Dudycha. I live on 6451 Oriole and when Roger did put this bank behind there, he was going to have sumac all the way down the bottom and fix it. He's got rocks and car tires and busted down fence and everything. Dirt rolled on my property. I'd like to get that cleaned up and get the sumac. He's got sumac about 3 rows across the top. The rest of the bank is all rolling down with, just fallen down into my property. Mayor Chmiel: Eroding is what you're saying basically? Don Dudycha: Right . He's got car tires. Great big rocks. Everything down ' there. I'd like to get that cleaned up too. I've been going to talk to him but he don't call me back. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you can also put that in the letter to him. Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, we're looking at all that. IIDon Dudycha: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Gary Brown: You folks approved the new Amoco station down there but what you kind of forgot to do was let me a way out of there for my self serve car wash so people can wash their car and leave. . . .see the existing building on there and where the curbing comes down with the planters and such it's going to look real nice. That goes right down the center of the sewer easement there. . .part of my ' driveway. Councilman Workman: What's north? The car wash? Mayor Chmiel: North is to your right. Councilman Boyt: We didn't get an arrow. ' Councilman Johnson: Oh, I got an arrow. Mayor Chmiel: North is Minnesota Trunk Highway 101 is at the top. Councilman Workman: I still don't understand this map. ' Gary Brown: See when I bought that property from you folks 6 years ago. ' 18 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Tell us just a little bit more what you're saying Gary. I Gary Brown: What I'm saying is, I have an entrance into that car wash off 79th Street. The exit onto TN 101 and when the people are through washing their cars they make a loop and go back out on TN 101. With the new station, I don't have an access to get back onto TH 101. Mayor Chmiel: -Oh, I see what you're saying. Councilman Johnson: You mean they loop through the station's parking lot right now to get on? ' Gary Brown: Right. Well no, no. No. See we have a combined driveway there but in that combined driveway down the center of that is a sewer easement which when I purchased that from the City of Chanhassen or lot 6 years ago, was the understanding that if anything ever went wrong with the sewer, the City would repair the sewer but I would repair the road right-of-way because I put the asphalt down. Which is fine with me. But now all of a sudden this thing got approved and we're out there measuring and there's no way to get back out of that car wash. Councilman Johnson: Do you have any idea when you might start this construction? 15th of May now? I noticed they were out putting more wells in trying to chase, clean the contamination. They thought it was going to be the 15th of May last year too. For real this time? They were very confident last year. Some of this curbing needs to be changed. Councilman Boyt: Would you clarify for me Gary some of this? I can get lost , anywhere. Show me where your car wash is. Gary Brown: The car wash is right here. , Councilman Workman: Currently? Gary Brown: Currently. That's the existing self serve car wash. Councilman Workman: I'm confused boy. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I won a quarter on that. What are you suggesting as a solution? Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying is you need access to get back out onto TH , 101. Gary Brown: I need access to get back out onto TH 101. , Councilman Boyt: If you had, and it was a joint access, it would seem to me they can't take that away from you. It's probably what it would seem to you too. Gary Brown: It seems like to me. ' Mayor Chmiel: What's their position? 19 11 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 11 IICouncilwoman Dimler: I can tell you. Gary Brown: Their osition is it isn't it 's t their problem, it s your problem. t ' Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, did you ever have an agreement with them that you could use their driveway? ' Gary Brown: The problem being, yes I had an agreement with the City of Chanhassen written up by Scott Martin. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Did you have an agreement with Amoco? Gary Brown: On that driveway? ' Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Gary Brown: Yeah. There's one that should be on file here. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have it Don? ' Don Ashworth: It should be in that file. Councilwoman Dimler: Go get it please. ' Don Ashworth: I'm assuming there's a project file. Councilwoman Dimler: I wanted to bring that up. I did talk with Mr. Kristofek ' today. He said there was never an agreement and that you were using the without permission. And therefore he feels no obligation to alter his plan. ' Councilman Johnson: Is he the Amoco? Gary Brown: . . .Amoco with Ursula and I've been their dealer for 19 years and he - can't call me about it. Councilwoman Dimler: He said he's been talking to you. ' Gary Brown: I haven't talked to Mr. Kristofek in 4 or 5 months. Councilwoman Dimler: And didn't you get the plans when it went through? Gary Brown: I saw the plans last Thursday for the first time. ' Councilwoman Dimler: No. You saw it when it came through. And you did not come and object. ' Councilman Boyt: That's besides the point. The point is, you need some access. You think you've got a document in the City's files, if not your own, that give you that access. It would seem to me that if we can find that, that's what we have to forward. Gary Brown: What if we can't find that agreement? 1 20 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 ,' Councilwoman Dimler: Then you're in trouble. ,. Gary Brown: No, then we're all in trouble Ursula. Councilman Boyt: Yeah, I agree with you and I think if we can't find it , then II maybe start with City staff and see where we go. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that's where we have to. I think basically if we II have an agreement in file, that protects you. You're in good shape. But if there isn't, it's a problem for everyone and I agree with that. Some kind of II solution is going to have to be determined as to how and what we're going to do to provide that access for you. I noticed Don's writing. What we can do is pull together information from the file and as soon as that's determined, then we can let you know what's in there. I Councilman Johnson: Gary, do you know how much property to the east of your existing building you own? Is there a possibility of looping back around? i Gary Brown: No. I'm right on the lot line there. Councilman Johnson: Zero lot line? I Mayor Chmiel: And you can't back up because people are parked behind you so it's a little difficult. I Councilman Johnson: Okay, but then on the west side would it be possible to put a drive back up to where they went back up to that street? II Mayor Chmiel: What's on the far west side of that building? Is there enough room to come back out and go around? Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, there's a utility easement there as well that's been II paved. Gary Brown: The utility easement along the front and then the sewer easement I which belongs to the City I believe goes right through the center of the property. Councilwoman Dimler: Has that been paved over? II Gary Brown: That's the one that's paved over, yes. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let us go as to what I said. Someone from staff will get back to you and let you know. i Councilwoman Dimler: Let's find that agreement. Mayor Chmiel: If not, then we'll have to come up with some kind of solution. I What that is, I have no idea but that will have to be determined and you'll probably have to have discussions with our Attorney as well to see what the rights are. I Don Ashworth: About what was the date of that? 1982? 1984? 21 II II City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 ,Gary Brown: 1984 Don. We opened in June of 1984 so probably about the first of 11 the year. 6 t Councilman Johnson: Is this something new? A new plan? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know, I haven't seen it. Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think we've seen it. ' Councilman Johnson: This should have been a site plan. I see this error in back down here and an area I didn't think. . . Mayor Chmiel: Well that's not on our agenda right now. This has just been brought to us for basic. . . ' Gary Brown: I didn't want to take up a lot of your time. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Councilman Boyt: Hang onto this. You're probably going to need it Gary. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address Council? If not, we'll move on to the next agenda item. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FINANCING PLAN, MODIFICATION NO. 10. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this at this specific time? As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was ' closed. Councilwoman Dimler: If I may start Mr. Mayor. ' Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: My concern is that we've just set a date for May 7th for ' the joint HRA/City Council meeting and there's a lot of public that would like to address this particular district. I'm wondering if we can wait to make any modifications until after that May 7th hearing? I understand that the legislature is pushing on that bill and I did check on the update today. As a ' matter of fact I talked to the author of the bill, Representative Grist and she indicated that because it is a redevelopment district and that it is not a new district, that her bill would not affect us. I know there's some misgivings ' about that whenever things are in a SO page bill that there's some loophole somewhere that it will affect us and it will be too late. However, another thought is that April 1st is the deadline instead of April 30th so if they go ' with that deadline, than we're too late already. So it all depends on what they pass. At least I would like to leave our options open that we don't accept the projects just as stated here because the public hasn't had their input and I don't want it to come back later and they say well it's right here that this ' project was approved and we're going to go do it. 22 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 II Councilman Johnson: This doesn't approve any projects. . Mayor Chmiel: No. This is not the approval basis, you're right. II Councilman Johnson: And I think we need to go ahead and approve this tonight . It can always be modified after the May 7th meeting. Nothing is written in II stone. This is kind of the edge of the truck. Councilwoman Dimler: Well the bill doesn't include that you cannot modify the II district after. Councilman Johnson: Right. If that's after. I Councilwoman Dimler: After the bill passes. Councilman Johnson: After the bill passes so I think it's important, this is a II modification for the district. Important to get this, this opens up those options so that if these projects do materialize, we can actually do something with them. Or even if it's slightly different. We have a plan. We have something going on here. If similar thing materializes, we can do it. If we wait until May 7th, the bill passes before May 7th, we just tied our hands. I think we really need to pass this tonight. I Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. Who again knows what the legislature may end up adopting. They're still working on that section as we're talking right now. However, the law as it came out of the committee and that was even as of II 5:30 this morning, did show the May 2nd date. I can't tell you that they will or will not include Chanhassen but as written, you would not be able to expand the district. You can always reduce the district so I mean if you make these II modifications and come May 7th you don't like one of these descriptions, at that point in time you can remove it or reduce the district. You may not have the ability on May 7th, I should re-emphasize that, may not because we don't know. II You may not have the ability to expand it on that date. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and I think one of our major concerns was the volume caps, is that right Don? That 's .what you were concerned about? 1 Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilwoman Dimler: That has been removed from the bill as of this evening? I Don Ashworth: Yeah. The word that I had received was as of this morning the II conference committee had agreed to remove that cap provision but none of our advisors had actually seen that. Mayor Chmiel: That's just a discussion but it's not firm in hand. II Councilwoman Dimler: Right. Okay then, if we're going to go ahead and approve it, I guess I don't have any problem doing it as long as we can modify it. I Mayor Chmiel: You can always make it smaller. Councilwoman Dimler: Make it smaller. On item (c) however, if we could reduce I that to take out the retail space, the Amoco, the car wash and just leave the 23 1 11 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Apple Valley Ready Mix in there. I'm doing that because the, I talked 1 ed t o the Amoco people today and they're not planning to use any TIF money at all so we 11 won't be having to bond for that. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, can I respond to that? Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: The HRA also picked up on the item that you had discussed and ' Amoco, as written by Fred Hoisington who drafted this document, is referring to the Hanus facility remodeling. That Amoco really should read auto service center. That would be included as a part of the car wash. ' Mayor Chmiel: Would that be the Hanus building too? The auto service center, would that include the Hanus building? ' Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: That is the Hanus building. 1 Todd Gerhardt: Amoco is not requesting any assistance. Councilwoman Dimler: So Amoco should be taken off for sure. The retail space, does that refer to a restaurant? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Hardee's? Todd Gerhardt: Well it's referring to a 4,500 square foot facility ' approximately. Councilwoman Dimler: I just have to share with you, when I mentioned that to Representative Grist, she just about had a fit and she said that 's exactly one of the reasons why I'm writing this bill. In other words, she's no in favor of using it for any type of a restaurant facility. ' Todd Gerhardt: In this case it wouldn't be used for a restaurant. It would be used to prepare the land for the construction of something on that site, be it a restaurant or retail center, whatever. Monies solely used to buy and acquire the existing car wash and the raising of that car wash to prepare it for the Amoco site and any public improvements that would be done in that area. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so then why was Mr. Brown here asking for access when it's going to be razed? ' Councilman Boyt: Different car wash. Todd Gerhardt: Would improve the value of the car wash. ' Councilwoman Dimler: The Hardee's doesn't need it or whatever goes in there? Councilman Johnson: Amoco's car wash or Gary's car wash? 11 24 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 II r wash.Gerhardt : Gary's s c arw as . Councilwoman Dimler: Well he's talking about his existing car wash that's going I to be gone. Councilman Johnson: But see this could be 2 years from now that this happens. II He needs his access for the next 2 years too. I mean we're not going to be. . . Councilwoman Dimler: There's going to be another car wash with the Amoco you're aware of? II Councilman Johnson: Eventually. Councilwoman Dimler: Before Gary's probably. II Councilman Johnson: Gary's is already there. I Councilwoman Dimler: No. His new one. Todd Gerhardt: I guess he has plans to build a new one as a part of the Hanus I facility. Councilman Johnson: Right . But we haven't approved that car wash, either car II wash. Mayor Chmiel: Neither. I Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, the Amoco one has been approved hasn't it? II Todd Gerhardt: No. Councilman Johnson: No. That was a future car wash. We only approved the II station. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Well anyway, I would amend this to read then just II the Apple Valley Ready Mix. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, he has two car washes. Amoco has two car washes on their I site. Gary Warren: The Amoco site has a car wash proposed. I Todd Gerhardt: They have an automatic one and a self serve area. The four bay self serve which is to the east of the pumper gas pumps is not approved by the II Council. Mayor Chmiel: To the east or to the north? Gary Warren: There's an existing or a proposed one just to the north of the II facility. Don Ashworth: And that has been approved. I 25 1 II City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 II I ' Gary Warren: That has been approved and you're talking about another one. • Don Ashworth: The one to the east has not been approved. i i I Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, the reason I'm bringing all this up is it is my understanding that TIF money is to be used to clean up blighted area. I don't see the car wash as being blighted or the Hanus building as being blighted. II I guess I have 'a lot of trouble with that and I would agree with Representative Grist on that that would be a misuse of money. So I would like it to read the Apple Valley Ready Mix definitely needs updating or relocating or whatever so it 1 would just read Apple Valley Ready Mix, that's the title on (c) and it says this project will entail the acquisition and demolition of the Apple Valley Ready Mix Plant. 1 Councilman Johnson: I'll argue against that modification in that we're talking an entire area. Apple Valley Ready Mix is a small portion of the entire area. That if we go piece by piece, peicemeal, we're only going to do this. We have Ito look at the big picture and this includes from Great Plains to Dakota. That whole section and how that whole section is going to be handled in the future. There's a problem that we found some oil contamination and various other things at the Hanus facility. II Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but Don, didn't you say that we could bond for that whole area just by using the Ready Mix plant? Without naming the 1 other projects? Don Ashworth: Well, I made the assumption that you would not be looking to I expending any tax increment dollars on either the improvement to the Hanus . x facility or to relocating Mr. Brown's car wash. If that is the case, then the project just as you've described it would be fine. If there is a desire to II potentially help in relocation associated with Brown to pay potential pollution costs, then the larger description should probably stay. Councilwoman Dimler: Well the potential pollution costs would be covered 1 anyway. But I'm saying the Amoco and the car wash and the retail space shouldn't necessarily be named as such because these are the projects that the public may react to. IIDon Ashworth: You would not have to specifically name them so if you said a project area, including the area bounded by Great Plains, TH 101, south of the railroad tracks and north of TH 5, that would be sufficient. You would not have Ito say that the decision is going to be retail or. . . Councilwoman Dimler: No, but don't you want the Apple Valley Ready Mix in there 1 because that's the one obvious one. . . That's the blighted area. Don Ashworth: You may want to take and show the Apple Valley Ready Mix. This Iarea includes the Apple Valley Ready Mix. Councilwoman Dimler: Right. I Don Ashworth: That would further clarify the area. I think if you walked around the area behind the Hanus facility, I think you would call that blighted. - II 26 II City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Nobody sees it but it's not one of our better spots in town. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, see it's behind a fence but if you look through the , fence, it's not exactly in the best of shape back there. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. ' Mayor Chmiel: Fine, go ahead Bill. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to move approval of item 2 amending 2(c) to include the geographic area mentioned by the City Manager. I would move approval. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. 1 Resolution $90-49: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve an Amendment to Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment District Financing Plan, Modification No. 10 as amended by the City Manager to include the project area, including the area bounded by Great Plains, TH 101, south of the railroad tracks and north of TH 5 to item 2(c). All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE DRIVE WEST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 90-1, AUTHORIZE PREPARATION ' OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Public Present: ' Name Address Don Patton 7600 Parklawn, Representing Lake Susan Hills Partnership Dave Stockdale Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, staff has had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Stockdale and Mr. Patton on separate occasions and if you'd like a full presentation on this we can certainly do that. 1 Mayor Chmiel: No, I think many of us have read what's here. What it consists of and what some of the problems basically are. Where they're at as far as Redmonds are concerned so maybe if you can just summarize it. Gary Warren: Yes, I believe they both may want to approach the Council as a part of the hearing process. That may be appropriate. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there anyone wishing to address that at this time? Don Patton: Are you going to make a presentation Gary? Gary Warren: Did you want a presentation? , Mayor Chmiel: I wanted you to make a short one. Gary Warren: I'm sorry. I'm good at those. 1 1 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 I Councilman Johnson: I thought it was a little short. 1 IF it Gary Warren: There was a shorter one. Mayor Chmiel: It was so fast, it went past us. ' Gary Warren: Lake Drive West Improvement Project is located between Audubon Road and CR 17. The project was initiated by Redmonds Product petition. Shown on this overhead, Redmond Products is a large portion of the frontage along the north side of the roadway. Other properties within the project area, Lake Susan Hills Partnership and some city property and the Stockdale property in the 11 northwest. Basically the project is a continuation of the city's Lake Drive frontage road project which we recently completed the Lake Drive segment and it includes the upgrade of the road section. Inclusion of sanitary sewer which is shown on this overhead projection. The extent basically of the road frontage. ' Storm sewer basically collecting in two locations on the west side of the property. There's an internal storm system proposed on the site development plans for Redmond Products which convey the storm water between their ponds and ' to an ultimate discharge here at Riley Creek. Watermain basically is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan for water service. This would be completing a loop of watermain from Audubon Road to the 18 inch main on Powers Blvd. . Consistent again with the frontage road that we have been building along this southerly part of TH 5, street lighting is proposed and a trail system/sidewalk system along the north side of the roadway. The road section again is consistent with that which is built in the existing segments of TH 5 basically 1 resembles the City's collector classification. Project costs estimated for the project , total estimated construction costs of 1.2 million dollars and with the overhead adminstrative charges basically a 1.6 million dollar project. The project area lies within the City's redevelopment district and as such there's a combination of assessments to the benefitting properties along the roadway and tax increment trunk funds being proposed for certain aspects such as the sanitary sewer which is a certain element of the sanitary sewer sizing that's being increased to accommodate flow from the northwest area from the upper reaches of the Bluff Creek intercepter which is currently being proposed as part of the City's comp plan amendment. This is not an assessment hearing obviously but the feasibility study as we typically do, does include some assessment methodology that we have presented to give Council some idea and the abutting landowners, the benefitting landowners an idea of the type of assessments that ' we're looking at. Sanitary sewer we've looked at on a unit basis by estimating the metropolitan, MWCC's sac units to get some comparable valuation of property from one use to the other. Watermain similarly follows the sac unit assessment rate. Storm drainage would be on a per acre basis. Sidewalk, roadway on a ' front foot basis and street lighting on a front foot basis. .. .50% of the storm system would be assessed, which is consistent with the City's policy and the other 50% picked up by the City. There is an estimated assessment table 11 presented in the feasibility study. Again, these are very preliminary numbers just to get an idea. They show the Lake Susan Hills Stockdale property which in this case we're looking at strictly a storm sewer assessment for that parcel. ' Redmond Products which basically encountering assessments for all of the elements. Lake Susan Hills, which is the outlot which currently has an R-12 zoning and then the City property which also has frontage and shown here as receiving an assessment. Project schedule which is changing here with every 1 passing moment it seems. The Redmond Products has noted in the staff report the letter from Ryan Construction has requested that the City not proceed any ' 28 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 I/ further with any formal approvals of their submittals. This is due to their , newly hired chief operating officer who has asked to have the opportunity to review their intentions in this regard. So we had put together a schedule here that showed April 23rd, this evening obviously for the public hearing and showed construction schedule which showed that we would be able to complete or hope to complete the major elements of the project with the exception of the final bituminous and restoration which would be done next year. That schedule would be very much dependent on the Redmond Products. So at this point in time, this is again the .public hearing to receive input from the public and with that brief introduction I'll sit down. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? 1 Councilwoman Dimler: I have a quick question. I have a question of Mr. Warren first. Has Redmond indicated that they're willing to give you that letter of credit for $120,000.00? Gary Warren: I have received no discussion at all from Redmond or Ryan as far as the willingness to do that, no. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Don Patton: My name is Don Patton, 7600 Parklawn, Edina representing the Lake , Susan Hills Partnership. I have a letter, I don't know if I made copies. Just briefly the real concerns we've got. We developed a PUD agreement which is currently in effect. The site that we're talking about for the partnership was zoned R-12 at the request of the City. As a part of the procedures that have gone on in the last 6 months, that was rezoned R-16. In this we're asking the City action to redesignate that R-16 as we had done and grandfathered into our PUD agreement . As a part of that, and the infrastructure that we're talking about here, Gary could I use your slides? Gary Warren: Yeah. They're all over there. 1 Councilman Johnson: Don, how does the R-16/R-12 enter into this item? Don Patton: It affects the sac units that go into it . Councilman Johnson: Oh, okay. Have you applied yet to make that zoning change? ' Don Patton: No I haven't. In talking to Jo Ann, she had indicated that we had to bring a project forward and with the apartment market, what we see it right now, we don't see that happening and I don't want this thing to go on forever and then be stuck with different folks up here and different folks on the staff and say, oh, as has happened with the driveway access earlier this evening. Councilman Boyt: Jay, maybe you can help me out. I'm not sure that I understand why we're looking at an R-16. Mayor Chmiel: We just recently adopted the R-16 zone. ' Councilman Boyt: I understand. I do understand that. I don't understand what it has to do with this. 29 1 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 , Mayor Chmiel: I don't see that either and that was one of the questions that I 11 was going to ask. • Councilman Johnson: Well see an R-12 has so many units to get charged against. ' Councilman Boyt: So he's saying he wants more units charged against this assessment? Is that it? Don Patton: No. We just want the equal units from the standpoint of recognizing that there can be additional zoning as a part of the R-16 zoning. 11 Councilman Johnson: Gary, is there any affect on the assessment whether it's R-16 or R-12? ' Mayor Chmiel: What's the difference in that? Gary Warren: Well the higher density. The sac unit formula is to recognize that the intensity of development which relates to the amount of waste water and water demand of the site so as Don and I had reviewed earlier today, an R-16 zoning on the site would change proportionately the calculation and increase the sac units. So the watermain and sanitary sewer assessments I would expect to be ' higher. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Patton's group would pay more? Gary Warren: For those particular elements. _ Councilman Johnson: And what you want to do is go ahead and make sure you get ' the R-16 designated here or else when he tries to change to R-16, we're going to say well geez, you only paid for R-12 on the sewer. Is that kind of what. . . ' Don Patton: I've got some other comments if I could proceed? Councilman Johnson: Well, we're trying to figure out your first comment. Don Patton: I want to be sure that I can. . .an R-12 to R-16. That's the first issue. ' Councilman Boyt: Well it would seem to me, and I'll let you finish certainly but it might help you to know where some of us are coming from on this as you do your explanation. It would seem to me that if you're in here asking for tacit ' approval to make this R-16, your intent is to make it R-16, that for my part, I would want , if you're going to pull the PUD back out and amend the PUD, that's what's going to have to happen. I'm not going to commit myself this evening to an R-16 zone for this. ' Don Patton: Why wasn't the R-16 changed as a part of the PUD? ' Councilman Boyt: You mean why weren't you grandfathered in as an automatic R-16? Don Patton: Yes. 30 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 Councilman Boyt: Because to me, I can't speak for the rest of the Council Dori but I can tell you that for me there may be a whole different set of conditions for an R-16 compared to an R-12. It's not an automatic. You were an R-12, now you're automatically R-16. We're changing the density. We may need to change some of the conditions around that approval. Councilman Johnson: We did not eliminate the R-12. We added the R-16. So you still have an R-12 zoning district and you're in it. I Don Patton: We were approved with R-12 which is now equal to R-16. Councilman Johnson: No. I Councilman Boyt: No it isn't. Mayor Mayor: No. Councilman Johnson: R-16 allows you 16 units per acre. R-12 allows you 12 units per acre. Don Patton: There's other conditions with that Jay which we talked about . Garages and so forth. Let's drop that issue. Okay? Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Why don't you proceed. Don Patton: Alright. The issue that came up, if you look at the watermain. This side was assessed as a part of the Chan Hills. . .watermain extension. When the assessment was done and you can look at the study, there was a section of watermain from here down to basically right here. This part was installed and was not assessed to the properties in here. That's a matter of record and Gary and I have talked about that . So there was a section of watermain 16 inch which is costly. From the records I saw, there was no tax increment financing to cover that at the time. That all these people absorbed and I think that some credit needs to be given as a part of that to the folks that have already been assessed for that installation. The other thing that was considered that Gary mentioned that there may be oversizing. This shows a 12 inch and we would expect any credits for oversizing on that. The other thing is working with accesses. We did provide the Council with site plans. Do you recall that Bill? And we would expect to provide accesses to the County at the site plan original. With regard to the storm, let's just go to sanitary. I'll go down the letter. Again, we ask the design or at least input into the design so that the access points for the sewer and water accommodate what we had submitted for the concept approval with the PUD. The storm drainage, what we show here is an area, the dotted areas is what is being assessed for storm water drainage. As a part of our plans and approval, you can see an existing pond right here. You see an existing pond right here. This was a natural pond that the ONR and staff agreed should not be changed. This was one that was created as a part of the nutrient and storm water ponding issues going forward. Basically Hickok did a study for us and all of this area was incorporated into the ponding area. The sizing. The piping that went down this road and into this pond before it went down into the various storm sewer systems. So this area should be excluded from the assessment for the storm water drainage. I guess the other item on the second page in regards to the roadway, we question is $91,000.00 is a reasonable price for 24 street lights that goes on the road. It's about $4,000.00 a unit and 31 1 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 11 that does seem quite excessive with the cost of business and doing business, we ' wonder if that excessive cost is really necessary and look at other alternatives g for lighting costs. Then the other item is the deferment of the assessments as a part of this. You see almost $400,000.00 for something that may not be g developed for 2, 3, 4, 5 years. That's pretty hard to come up with for a partnership. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Dave Stockdale: My name is Dave Stockdale. I own the other piece of property in the northwest corner of that section. I just had a couple questions. I ' talked with Gary Warren about some of the assessments and it's my understanding that the only portion affecting me would be the storm sewer assessment. I just had a chance to briefly look at that table. If I understood your presentation I would be assessed 50% of that number. Of the $1,260.00 per acre. lGary Warren: The next affect is that the cost for your acreage, half of that cost is proposed for assessment, that's correct . 1 Dave Stockdale: Okay, is the $1,260.00 half or is that before? ' Gary Ehret: That 's after the. . . Gary Warren: So the unit is after the credit . ' Dave Stockdale: The storm sewer will not extend onto Audubon Road and northerly and in front of my property? Is that correct? Gary Warren: It will not did you say? Dave Stockdale: Right. Gary Warren: As a part of the design, we'll be looking at whether we extend it to Audubon Road. I believe that it probably will at this point in time. Dave Stockdale: It's too early to tell what elevation that will be at? Chet Harrison from HNTB gave an explanation to Dave Stockdale's question that ' could not be heard on the tape. Gary Warren: We've got two projects in design that impact for Mr. Stockdale's properties. lDave Stockdale: Did I understand you to say that half my ro ert drains P P Y to Audubon Road? Okay. The portion that drains to Audubon Road, I think Audubon's elevated above my property but it drains to the right-of-way. Okay. The portion that drains the other direction presumably drains onto Redmond property. In the northwest corner you had a holding pond showing there and I think my ' natural terrain drains towards that. For my assessments, do I have guaranteed surface drainage to that pond and is that pond engineered to accept my run-off? Gary Warren: This is a matter that Mr. Stockdale and I reviewed last week. Basically there is a 6 lot, preliminary sketch of a potential 6 lot subdivision that the Stockdale property could be looked at to ultimately subdivide. I ' 32 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 explained to Mr. Stockdale that the City's criteria and the watershed district`'s criteria for storm water retention or runoff is to retain the pre-development runoff rate which I think we're all pretty well familiar with. The choice is either to provide that ponding area on site as you develop or if the City has available another ponding area near the property, and if we can accommodate that, then he pays to have it accommodated someplace else but he doesn't have to do it on his site. That's a design issue that we intend to look at and based on Mr. Stockdale's interest, he's at least, if I'm interpretting you right, you're interested in being able to have the City accommodate your runoff in that pond which probably would increase your costs in this project as far as assessments but the net result would probably be very close to the same as if you had the pond on your own property. It's either you pond on your property or on somebody else's property. If you're using somebody else's property, then you're still expected to pay for your fair share. Dave Stockdale: Okay. And then kind of as a question that came up as I was hearing Don talk. If in fact you determine that because his property doesn't use the storm sewer, they don't become assessed for it if it goes that way. 11 Does the additional cost of that storm sewer get pro-rated for the remaining properties or how does that get picked up? Gary Warren: The topography and the final design will actually determine what's reasonable to reflect the benefits of the properties. In the Lake Susan Hills partnership property, as Mr. Patton explained, there are some storm water provisions that were provided in the PUD which they have this on site pond to , accommodate. I don't know that that degree of accuracy was actually estimated in our current feasibility study. We were just trying to get some concepts out here. A determination will be made prior to the final, the preparation of the final assessment roll as to just what percentage of any of the properties go which way. I guess the scenario, if Mr. Patton is correct, the scenario could be posed that a large percentage of his outlot is not actually going to be flowing to the storm sewer system so therefore two things would happen. One, a certain percentage of the area from the Lake Susan Hills partnership would be reduced from the assessment area which would have a net effect of increasing the assessment rate. On the other hand, the piping that's being proposed to accommodate him right now would also be down sized which would have an affect of reducing the construction cost. Again, it's a detail but you would not be asked to pay for anything that is not in proportion to the benefit that you'd be ' receiving. Dave Stockdale: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public 11 hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm ready to make a motion. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I move that we authorize the preparation of plans and specifications conditioned on the receipt of an appropriate agreement from 33 , 11 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 I Redmond Products stating that they agree to be assessed for the cost of the improvements as outlined in the feasibility study. That they waive their rights to objecting to the assessment and demonstrate clear ownership of the property. ' Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Johnson: I would like to make a slight modification to that. Mayor Chmiel: * Jay. ' Councilman Johnson: I'd like to remove from that the words as outlined in the feasibility study. If there are significant changes, the feasibility does a preliminary assessment roll. With that wording in there, as outlined in the feasibility study, I think that's kind of weasle phrase to give them an option ' out if we change the rolls for Lake Susan Hills partnership and whatever. So just delete those couple words. Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, is that okay? That was your wording. Gary Warren: Yes. The wording really meant to apply that the assessment would ' be along the order. I mean the methodology proposed in that feasibility study was going to be approved. Councilwoman Dimler: The methodology? IGary Warren: Not that we were committed to that rate or quantity but it's appropriate qualification. ' Councilman Johnson: It doesn't hurt anything to remove the words and it limits x their ability to argue. ' Gary Warren: Roger will actually work up the waiver and such and I'm sure that that will cover us. Councilman Workman: I'd modify my second. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. If that was the intent to remove as in the feasibility study. Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? ' Councilman Boyt: Yes. How are you going to take into account the comments that were made during the public hearing? Gary Warren: The comments that were made in public hearing, we have Mr.' Patton's record and we also will be working from two areas. One is in the design. We'll be obviously to hammer out some of the details, especially on the storm water drainage issues as it relates to Stockdale property and the Lake Susan Hills partnership property. Secondly, as a matter of record, we'll be incorporating this in when we do come to the assessment roll preparation at the end of the project. We will use this to come up with the assessment methodology at that time. 11 34 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 I/ Councilman Boyt: I'm concerned that this is a very large project. That we're I basically asking everybody to waive their rights to further appeal it looks like and I'm very wary of that. Especially when it seems to me like there are several issues hanging out here over how this goes. I Gary Warren: Redmond Products is the only one that's being asked. Councilwoman Dimler: Right. According to this, the way it's stated. It's only Redmond Products. Councilman Boyt: And we're only doing this because of Redmond Products right? 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Right. They're the impetus for the project. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Resolution $90-50: Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the Lake Drive West Improvement Project No. 90-1 conditioned on the receipt of an appropriate agreement from Redmond Products stating that they agree to be assessed for the cost of the improvements, that they waive their rights to objecting to the assessment and demonstrate clear ownership of the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 89-10. Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, on March 12th we advertised for bids and April 12th we opened bids for the Frontier Trail improvement project. We had a very competitive bidding climate as summarized in the staff report. We had four bidders and they were all below the engineer's estimate of $550,000.00. The low bidder was Wm. Mueller and Sons of Hamburg, Minnesota who is capable of performing the project and has a good reputation from Mr. Engelhardt's experience and as such we would recommend awarding the Frontier Trail utility and roadway upgrade project in the amount of $520,789.50. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion? Councilman Boyt: Yes. I've got a few questions. Gary, do you have your assessment roll in front of you? Gary Warren: I'm sorry, I forgot to bring it down. Councilman Boyt: Well I forgot to ask you to bring it down. Don, do you have yours? Don Ashworth: No, I do not . Councilman Boyt: Ursula, are you aware that you're going to be assessed for this project? Councilwoman Dimler: Not according to the last study that I saw. 35 I I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 ' Councilman Boyt: Surprise. You're going to be assessed for part of this project. Councilwoman Dimler: Where's the attachment? Gary Warren: The assessment that Councilman Boyt is referring to is the storm water assessment element of the project. When the discussion about removing Kiowa Circle was forwarded as far as eliminating the roadway construction, it was pointed out at that time that the Kiowa Circle property was still in a drainage area for these storm water improvements and that was left in the assessment roll. 50k. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't recall any of the neighbors objecting to that. Councilman Boyt : I'll bet you that they don't know. That's my first point is that there are going to be people assessed for this that don't think they're going to be assessed for it. ' Gary Warren: They were provided with.. . 1 Councilman Boyt: Yes, I agree with you. They were given the information Gary. I'm not faulting the City here. I'm simply saying that somewhere in the discussions about Frontier Trail I think that there are a few people, you being one of them. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, where's the attachment. This is all I got. ' Councilman Boyt : That 's all any of us got. Gary Warren: That is the attachment. The tabulation of bids. ' Councilman Johnson: We're not talking about assessments here. We're talking about accepting the bids. Mayor Chmiel: It was part of the total cost. That assessment was in there. Councilman Boyt: I'm sorry, I got rambling. Pardon me. We are talking about ' assessments here. Although we're not assessing people, we are creating for them a half a million dollar bill that they're going to pay. I don't enjoy sitting in meetings where people say to me how did you do this to me. You and I have ' sat in a few of those. Lake Lucy Road being one of them. I'd like people to be real clear about what it's going to cost them before we make a decision. Well one point. There are a few people out there that are going to be assessed that it hasn't occurred to them. They think they're not part of this right now. Mr. Ashworth, how long will it take to pay off these bonds? Ballpark. Don Ashworth: The City has not sold the bonds. It would be part of the 1990 bonding program. I would anticipate 15 years. Gary, in any of the materials that were prepared, were bonding years shown in any of that? Is anything different than the 15 year timeframe? ' Gary Warren: The pending assessment rolls that we prepared I believe, 10 year assessment roll. 36 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 ' Councilman Boyt: Okay, 10 years. At 10 year rate, what's going to be the I City's payout per year? The City's portion of this. I grant you that these are assessment issues but my point all along has been that we've got to clear these issues up before we approve this package. And I think the City's portion of this probably comes to something, I'm guessing but I'd say $50,000.00 a year? Maybe more? Don Ashworth: The percent proposed to be assessed. Staff had recommended a 40% level. The Council had discussed 30%-40% and I think there was even some statement as to even a 20% level. All of the hearings staff conducted with the neighborhood stayed at the 40% level. Is that not correct Gary? Gary Warren: That's correct. Don Ashworth: So can I use that then to respond to your question? ' Councilman Boyt: Okay, use 40%. Don Ashworth: Roughly $60,000.00 per year. Councilman Boyt: And where does that money come from? , Don Ashworth: That represents the general obligation portion associated with that project. Those are dollars that, really they're the same dollars as operate any other type of function within the City except they are outside of levy numbers. Councilman Boyt: That comes from public safety, park and rec. You name it . I Street cleaning in the winter. That's where this money comes from. This $60,000.00. Is that correct? Don Ashworth: The $60,000.00 could compete with those dollars, yes. The point that, right now you have existing bond issues which are going off which would exceed what is coming on with solely Frontier Trail. So I would not say that this project in and of itself will compete with dollars for police or fire or parks. However, if you had 10 of these projects, if we were to move into a period of time where we were doing a number of these projects like this each year. Each assessed at a relatively lower amount, you would have a general property tax impact but I can't answer that question. Are we moving it in that phase or aren't we. I don't know. That's part of Gary Warren's study. Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that we don't know how many roads we're going to , have to rebuild in Chanhassen. What we have agreed on, I believe, is that the money the City uses to pay it's portion comes out of the general operating fund. And what you've told me is yes, but we're paying off some bonds which generate maybe as much as $150,000.00 a year. I'm sort of trying to lay some building blocks into place so I don't have to make two giant of a leap here in a minute. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Now a couple of points that are relevent to where we've come so far. Tonight we approved item 1(f), an agreement to study a storm water utility and setting a storm water utility up in the City. It's conceiveable, in fact the consultants that put together the proposal said on page 1 in their introduction, special assessment projects for handling storm water are now being challenged in courts more often. Then it goes on to say so I 37 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 much so, consequently, many communities lack proper funding for storm water related projects because these individuals are winning when they go to court and c g say I am upstream and it is not benefitting my property at all. And so that 's one of the reasons for this study according to the consultants. Mayor Chmiel: Bill, if they're upstream. ICouncilwoman Dimler: They're contributing to the problem. Councilman Boyt: But they're not benefitting from the project. Mayor Chmiel: They're causing a problem to the project though. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I don't want to debate that with you. I'm just saying that the consultants that we've just hired, in their introduction simply said that they're being challenged. The communities are having a hard time winning these battles. Maybe Roger wants to contribute here and that as a result, it makes the project we funded in 1(f) very important to do. So we approved it, which I think we should have. We also. . .the utility approach is gaining recognition as the most equitable way to finance storm water projects so it 's quite conceiveable that the City is going to put into place a way of rebuilding 1 these that is going to be at no assessment to the individual property owner. On this project we are proposing to assess that, I believe at a 50% rate. Mayor Chmiel: Are you referring this back to Kiowa Circle basically? Councilman Boyt : But the whole project. I mean a big part of this project is storm water containment and I'm saying, among other things, the people on Kiowa Circle do not know that they're being assessed for this project. Mayor Chmiel: Were you aware you're being assessed for it? ' Councilman Boyt: I figured it out this last week when I talked to Gary and he said by the way, you're being assessed for this. That 's why I started out by asking Ursula. . . Gary Warren: I don't believe that's how I presented it . ' Councilman Boyt : Well no you didn't but in the process of our conversation, I can tell you that finally the light went on Gary that this was going to cost me some money. Councilwoman Dimler: Could I ask Gary a question. Have you changed procedures because if my memory serves me correctly, we were told that the storm water was not going to cost and the City was going to pay that. Gary Warren: Councilwoman Dimler, the sanitary sewer and the watermain corrective measures were the only elements that were not proposed to be assessed. The storm sewer, because the road is so deficient in storm drainage capacity which relates to some of the problems as we know with Arlis Bovey and such, had always been proposed to be assessed and I could check the record but I'm very certain that we were very sensitive in pointing out that the storm sewer assessment for Kiowa Circle was not being extracted because we still were constructing storm drainage improvements. Now as it relates to the utility 38 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 II district and Bill and I talked earlier about this. If an improvement, just II because the City chooses if we do to establish a storm drainage utility and we go and do an improvement project for storm water drainage such as is proposed here on Frontier Trail, it does not pre-empt the City from still assessing the II benefit if we feel we have a good handle on the benefitting properties and we feel that it's appropriate to assess a percentage of that. So it again comes down to City policy and how we use the utility district but it is, and Roger can II I guess relate the comment that Bill is extracting from our storm water consultant's proposal but there's no question that storm water assessments can become more arguable than connecting somebody to a sanitary sewer. It's not II meant to mean that every storm water assessment is not sustainable but this gives us a little bit better vehicle for dealing with those and still the opportunity of assessing where we have clear benefit. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any inkling as to total amount of dollar costs that II would be for that? For the assessment? Gary Warren: On Frontier Trail for the storm water project? II Mayor Chmiel: For the storm water for Kiowa. II Gary Warren: I believe it's less than $1,000.00. I can go up and get my report if that would be appropriate. Councilwoman Dimler: Would you? That would be interesting. II Councilman Boyt: Before you go, there's more. You might as well get it all. II You may want to pick up some other. . . Councilman Workman: Bill, if I could quickly ask you a question. What you're II saying is, you think this project this project and the benefitting properties are going to be assessed this and then in the next years we're going to have a utility in and nobody else is going to be assessed and then you and Ursula will have been? I Councilman Boyt : Well, it's not just the two of us. I mean it's the whole project. I Councilman Workman: But I mean, is that the point? Councilman Boyt : That's part of it and we're just talking August. They're I proposing a timeline here which says they come back with a recommendations in August I believe or maybe before that in 1(f). If you want to confirm that for yourselves. August 13th I believe. The City holds public hearings and adopts , utility program. Well we won't do it all in one night but they're saying in the middle of August that's going to happen. There's a couple things that I think need to be resolved here. Number one is, as Oon Ashworth has suggested to us, Iat this point we don't know how many roads in the City we're going to replace. We do though, I think it's logical to assume that in the next 10 years there are going to be others. All you have to do is drive around town to see that there are going to be others. This comes out of the, the City's portion of this comes II out of the general operating budget so in fact it does compete and yes, we can look at the $150,000.00 that we're going to receive when the one bond is paid off but I want to remind all three of you, particularly the Mayor, that when you II 39 II City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 were campaigning last year you were talking about spending City money without citizen input. Specifically the City Hall expansion came up any number of • t times. And that was built into the budget over a number of years and the argument was, but that money could have been spent to reduce taxes or some other ' way and the citizens should have had more input. What I'm suggesting to you is that this volume of road replacement issue is a big issue for the City. We should have a lot more input and Frontier Trail is marching us down that road to early. That it's a $60,000.00 per year commitment potentially for the next 10 years and one; we should be thinking about, is this the best use for that money. You know, interestingly enough, I don't recall somebody from Frontier Trail coming in here to the City and saying we want our road rebuilt. What I recall out of this is that the City did a study. Said the road's in terrible shape and it ought to be rebuilt. Different motivation there and with the City pushing this, then I think we should take the time to do it right considering storm water and how we're going to do that in the long run. We'll know that by the end of the summer. Considering just how big road replacement's going to be and I don't know when Gary is proposing as a time line to have that study completed. So those are two issues. The third issue is that though we don't have to have it worked out at this point, there's an awful lot of vagueness about how much these people are going to be assessed. Forget the storm water. Think about the ' cost to the road. How much they're going to be assessed for that and when it varies everywhere from conceiveably 20%c to as much as well beyond 40%. It could easily go to 45% or 50%, that 's too big a range. We should say to people, you know here's within a couple hundred dollars what it's going to cost you for this project . Not here's within a $1,000.00 is what it's going to cost you for this project. So all that in a nutshell, we shouldn't approve this tonight. There's too many unanswered questions out there and all of them affect people's pocket books. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Bill. I notice there's some people here from the area. ' Is there anyone wishing to comment on that? Bill Loebl: Are you asking me Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: What do you remember? ' Bill Loebl: Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail. The majority of the people that I've contacted feel we need a road. Some of them feel we could wait a year or ' two and I've mentioned this previously in my remarks until a policy is in effect which funds the reconstruction of city streets by adding taxes to each property on a yearly basis and allocating a certain portion of it to road reconstruction. This could take a year or two until there was enough money in the fund for the ' first job which should probably be Frontier Trail because it was originally constructed and approved by the City as a substandard piece of construction. That has been proven. I believe it is documented. The fact that you have ' approved the plans and specifications and now you have approved a larger storm sewer study, I think people would be happy to wait a year or two and in the meantime get the funding under way so that the assessments, as undoubtedly they ' will be, will either be eliminated entirely or will certainly be much less on individual property owners. Most of the remarks that I have off the top of • my head, if you wish to prolong the issue, I can go around and make another petition and a survey of the neighborhood. Thank you. 40 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Bill. Gary, as I remember there's some other problems 11 that existed not only with the road but sewer problems within. Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, we have televised all of the sanitary sewer under ' there. There are areas that we are showing on the plans for being reconstructed for testing and ceiling and such so there are areas that we have included since the road surface would be taken off. That's the time to fix them, that's correct. I did look Mr. Mayor, Mr. Loebl is the only one of us who happened to bring his feasibility study here and I appreciate that. The storm sewer assessment that we proposed in the feasibility study was $1,632.34. If you'll recall, we were also given the direction and we did follow through with Bill Engelhardt here and we did cut back on the design. We found it feasible to actually reduce the scope of the storm sewer improvements to about half of what was in the feasibility study so our best guess now would be that the assessment would be around $800.00 probably in round numbers. Councilwoman Dimler: Per home? I Gary Warren: Correct. Councilman Workman: Gary, when this assessment wouldn't take place until the , project was completed. Gary Warren: That's correct. ' Councilman Workman: Which would be when? Gary Warren: I would say conservatively we would be hard pressed to assess it ' this year. Most likely we'd assess it next year. Councilman Workman: So realistically for our storm water utility, etc. we might have the answers to that long before this project was ever assessed? Gary Warren: Storm water utility district, the schedule that was approved here this evening shows August roughly that we're looking to have some good fix on adopting the utility district concept. The assessments, if not levied this year would be levied the 1991 for collection of taxes in 1992. ' Mayor Chmiel: Anything else Tom? Councilman Workman: Well no. Maybe we need another Loebl's petition but I I don't know if we want to hold this up. I mean we always talk about, I mean if we want to hold this project up 2 years, I mean this kind of reasoning has been, I've beat over the head and bloody with this that if we wait 2 years it's going to cost us 20% more to do it and the assessments are going to go up and so I don't know what the logic is. I think everybody on the road thinks it would be a fine idea to have a nice new road with curb and gutter but let's face it, nobody wants to pay for it and if we can get around that, the uncertainity about what the City's going to do permanently, I think we do have a little bit of time and some buffer in there without holding up the entire project for 2 years, if that's what I understand is being perhaps discussed. Councilman Boyt: I don't know what the magic timeframe is here. Mr. Loebl mentions 2 years. It might be 6 months. It's that we're committing general I 41 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 operating funds here and not just for this one project. We can't stop and say well that was once but we're not going to do it again. What happens to the s people in Carver Beach? Some of them are living on roads in much worse shape than Frontier Trail. In the older part of town here, there's any number of roads that may well have a similar sort of need. It happens this one ties is together with some things so I can understand why staff is coming here asking for this. I'm saying that there's a great many unanswered questions. That they need to be answered and that simply because if we accept the utility plan, that doesn't mean that there's automatically money in it. It's going to take some time to accumulate that money. And Mr. Loebl, waiting 2 years doesn't guarantee that the road will be for free either. Mayor Chmiel: It's going to be up in cost, there's no question. ' Councilman Boyt: There's going to be a cost involved in this thing. It's that we're sitting here tonight getting ready to commit $60,000.00 worth of City money per year for the next 10 years. That's more than the City Hall expansion ' cost Mr. Mayor and we haven't had any input from the City as a whole whether they even think this is a good idea. ' Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Jay. ICouncilman Johnson: Isn't this fairly routine? Did we not have general obligation on Lake Lucy? On Bluff Creek and all these different projects. This is kind of an ongoing. Now we're talking about putting together a roadway utility or whatever to program these a little better but what's the difference between Frontier and Lake Lucy or Frontier and Bluff Creek? ' Councilman Boyt : There's a dramatic difference. Lake Lucy had 80% State funding and we assessed the rest of it. The City didn't have anything other than we committed State Aid money to there. Bluff Creek, the same thing. Councilman Johnson: Okay, there was no general obligation on those two? Councilman Boyt: This is much different. Don Ashworth: The City has had general obligation going back with projects, I think the largest area where many citizens are from that are here this evening. The north service area. That was a very high percentage of GO involved in that issue and a lot of paying for those people. Councilman Boyt: You're talking about what, sanitary sewer and storm water? ' Don Ashworth: Yeah. ' Councilman Boyt: Different issues than the roads. Not that it's not general obligation. Don Ashworth: That also included the road construction as well. So anyway we've had, I would say a track record of generally 20% to 30% of a project has involved general obligation and it's just typical oversizing. In fact the cost. However, since 1983 all of the projects that really would involve some form of 42 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 general obligation have either dealt with a State Aid project or within a Tax Increment district and the GO portion has been picked up in that fashion so there has not been a levy since 1983 certified as a part of our property tax. . . I'm not so sure that if you would wait the 2 year period of time, that in fact the percent would go down. I've had discussions with our auditors and they have concern in here but they see a policy decision is taking a period of time. I think that they will come back with the recommendation that would have the cost born in relation to the benefits received. So in other words, similar to a hot water heater,- you would have a certain guarantee going along with that: We'll guarantee that street for a 15 year period of time but after that you're going to have to pay for it. And you would also be paying now and you'd have our guarantee again for 15 years. We have to keep issues moving along in the City. I see the Mayor's looking at the time so I'll try to keep. . . Mayor Chmiel: Yes he is. Don Ashworth: But, it's going to take a period of time to come back with some of these what's used by our auditors and staff was looking at moving ahead recognizing that this project is not significantly different than Bluff Creek, Lake Lucy, etc.. It may be a different form of GO that 's been involved. It may end up that the City has to, a year from now, re-evaluate our policy decision but at least we are getting work done that currently needs to be done. Councilman Boyt: This is like driving down an alley with your headlights off. , We don't know where we're going. Mayor Chmiel: It depends whether it's day or night Bill. ' Councilman Boyt: Well to say that this place is the same kind of obligation on the general obligation fund, general operating fund as Bluff Creek and Lake Lucy, I can't believe that you said that. There's no way that it does it. Is there? Don Ashworth: You're saying from the standpoint that those are dollars that are going back against the general citizenry? Yes. It is different from that standpoint. As far as how it affected the individual citizen. How much the individual citizen had to pay, they're exactly the same. , Councilman Boyt: But the State Aid monies have to be spent on roadways. We're taking this money out of stuff that can be spent anywhere in the City. Public 11 Safety. Park and Rec. Clean the streets. Much different than the State Aid money which can't be spent in any of those places. There's no reason to rush into this and it's rush into it actually goes against the principles that I heard being expressed earlier. Councilman Workman: Well I don't know if I'm being accused of something or not but I think it's two issues. One, do the people affected know they're going to be assessed. If they don't know, they need to find out. Does the road need to be repaired, I think everybody on that road believes it needs to be repaired and so does the City. I don't think the City and the people who live on Frontier are arguing a whole lot of them are arguing that the road is in terrible shape. If they don't know that they're being assessed. Don, you're saying that they've been notified. Maybe we need to re-notify them or I don't know what we need to do but if two members of the City Council didn't know that they're getting I 43 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 assessed, then there's maybe a problem and we need to notify everybody again that they're going to be assessed and re-open all this but I don't think there's any doubt about whether the road and the storm sewer needs to be repaired and it's got to come out of somewhere because nothing's for free. So if the issue is the citizens are ill informed and they need to be better informed, them ' obviously I'm not going to tell anybody forget it. Let's try to sneak one by people. Does the road need to be, is the sewer and the storm sewer and sanitary sewer and everything else, are they leaking and possibly causing pollution and etc.? I don't think that's an argument . Councilman Boyt: I apologize for jousting back and forth here. Let me just ' clarify one point and I'll let you finish. You're conceiveably talking about obligating the general obligation fund for more money than we have in there. You show up with one more road a year that needs what Frontier Trail does. ' Councilman Workman: But you have to approve that . Councilman Boyt : If it's in the same condition as Frontier Trail is, you tell me how you're going to turn them down. Councilman Workman: But I think the City is saying we can do this and I don't think the City's, I think Don the magician has. . .over and over again where to come up with all this money and he's not going to say to us, okay we need 5 new projects next year and then we're going to approve them. You know what I'm ' saying? I don't think we're going to have those 10 roads. Yeah, they're going to maybe be, there's going to be some roads out there that need to be improved but this is the only one we have now and I think staff is saying that it can be done and I don't think they're going to run and tell us we need to do all of Carver Beach. Councilman Boyt : We're going to have that study sometime in the next year. Councilman Workman: But it's going to be approved before the assessment. ' Councilman Boyt : I'm not concerned about the 3 people on Kiowa Circle not knowing. I mean there's only 3 of us. We're not going to change the whole neighborhood because 3 of us don't know the assessment. It's unfortunate. They should have known but I don't think they do. I'm not saying that's the sole ' reason to stop it . I am saying that the bigger issue is that we are involving a great, potentially a great deal of city money in the midst of changing policies and we ought to put the brakes on this thing and do it right. What's the rush? ' Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question and that's back to Gary. When we first began this I remember speaking to you and you said that you had a plan to do so ' many improvements as the years go by. You have a priority of roads that need to be done. You've done Lake Lucy. You've done Bluff Creek and Frontier Trail was next on your priority. Isn't that correct? And you have other streets that are coming down the pike. ' Gary Warren: The discussion, I believe I recall it as well, was that we've worked our way from Lake Lucy Road, Bluff Creek Drive, Frontier Trail. The only other project that, and this was not through any sophisticated evaluation of our road systems I should point out, was the Chan Estates area where we did the road grader work and Audubon Road. Audubon Road is being covered under the Tax 1 44 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 II Increment District. I Councilman Workman: And Minnewashta? Councilman Johnson: Lake Minnewashta Parkway. II Gary Warren: And Lake Minnewashta. In our 5 year State Aid, that's correct . II That was another roadway and that would be a situation where State Aid funds would be involved. That was a broad brush overview recognizing that we didn't have a sophisticated tool here to say this road is good and this one is bad or where they are in their life cycle. II Councilwoman Dimler: And can you tell me why you picked Frontier Trail as the third one on the list? II Gary Warren: Well Frontier Trail, the record that we have of complaints from the residents, basically was the motivater to me personally as far as getting it II before the Council. It was not self motivation to see Frontier Trail done by any means because I realized that there was going to be some significant challenges here to resolve as far as assessment and other elements. But the II record I'm sure will show on our files, as far as letters of complaint about the road and discussions we've had with the residents and our own evaluation of how much money that we spend annually on road routine maintenance and then you add on top of that our storm of 1987 and the damages that have come because of lack II of storm sewer systems so it's kind of a combination of those elements that we looked at. I should point out just for Council consideration as well that the current bids that we have are good for 30 days so they will expire on the 12th II of May. Before our next Council meeting. Councilman Boyt: There is, the complaints about the road was because we II couldn't get any potholes fixed. I mean there were potholes that looked like canyons out there. Just a year ago. You fixed those. If you drive that road today there are very few potholes. In fact I don't recall any. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we're going on with this. I Councilwoman Dimler: It's really a patched road. I Councilman Workman: Well isn't the potholes created because of poor storm water management? I mean they're going to be recreating. . . Gary Warren: That's a very complex deal. II Councilwoman Dimler: Bill, I don't think anybody on Frontier Trail is arguing II that that doesn't need to be done. I realize there are a few that think the project can be put off for a couple of years hoping that we establish that fund and I think the fund is a good idea but again, as was pointed out, that fund is II not going to pay the whole thing and then the people that have already paid their assessments are going to say, well how come we didn't get in on that . That's going to be a problem. And people that are coming up to have the projects done in the future, they're not going to have all of theirs paid for II either. So I don't see why we should delay. r 45 II City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Johnson: I agree with Ursula. I don't want to delay this and I think a very good part of the roadway funding could be done similar to what we have done with the tax increment district and doing special assessment write offs. Go ahead and assess it back to the properties and then use this fund to a A help pay those special assessments as it's created. Therefore, this project in the future could be, that would be part of the study to see if that was legal or feasible to do something like that. But I think my driving around the roads, I'll agree this particular road really has some major problems and I'm very ' concerned about the sanitary sewers that are leaking into the ground there. I would hate to delay this another year and have more sewage into the ground and everytime it rains more storm water into our sewer system. Especially when we keep telling Metro Council we're really going something about I and I and here's one of our bad sections. We've got a chance to do it, let's do it. Let's get her on. So I'll move approval of the award of bids to Wm. Mueller and Sons in ' the amount of $520,789.50. Councilwoman Dimler: Could I amend that to include that the people who are affected would be reminded that they will be assessed including if they're going to be assessed for the storm water, then the Kiowa Circle people should be notified. Gary Warren: Kiowa Circle folks, we should send a reminder to them? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes please and I'll second that. ' Councilman Johnson: 2 out of 3 of them know. I have no problem with that friendly amendment. ' Resolution $90-51: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to award the construction contract for the Frontier Trail Utility and Roadway Upgrade Improvement Project No. 89-10 to the firm of Wm. Mueller & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $520,789.50. Also directing staff to notify the people who will be affected by assessments from this project. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chmiel: I think you've indicated adequately your concerns. Councilman Boyt: Oh yeah. APPROVE TRAIL PLAN FOR AUDUBON ROAD SOUTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 89-18. Gary Warren: We have a little show and tell. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we've all been out to see this. Have we all been out there? ' Councilman Johnson: I know you and I passed on the road as I was going out. You were coming back. Councilman Boyt: We might not need the slide show. We've all seen it. Mayor Chmiel: We may not need the dog and pony show is what he's saying. 46 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Gary Warren: If that's the case, maybe I can certainly run through some quick overheads that would summarize it or whatever's your pleasure. Councilman Johnson: Quick. Councilman Boyt: I would move approval. Mayor Chmiel: I think we should probably see if there's anybody here who has any real concerns. Is there anyone here that has a concern over this specific item? Councilman Johnson: ...yeah, how we're going to work around your trees Dave. 1 Would it be okay to put the trails, well it's city trees but it really affects his property. Would you have any problem putting the trail on the east side of your trees or the City's trees? 1 Dave Stockdale: Nice try. I had some discussion with Gary about where the property lines were and there was some discrepancy on the history of that acquisition. The additional 17 feet on. . .for the record I've gotten that cleared up Gary. Gary Warren: You haven't? 1 Dave Stockdale: I have. The City records are correct. I just wanted to make sure that I understood that as I see the lay of the existing road in relation to the right-of-way, for the portion basically north of my driveway, the right-of- way is a 50 foot offset. Or there's 50 foot from the center line eastward to my property. If the sidewalk does go on the east side of Audubon it will be contained within that 50 feet and not beyond. The City won't be coming back for more to go beyond that 50 foot line right? Gary Warren: That's correct. The only place where the additional right-of-way , would be required is in the southwesterly 55 feet of your parcel as we reviewed last Friday where it shrinks down to the 33 foot segments so just in that small corner there. 1 Dave Stockdale: Unfortunately it's my misfortune, I don't have what I thought I had when I bought the property and I would just ask that the City consider strongly whether or not that sidewalk would truly be used or if there's alternate locations for it. Long range, if they decide that they don't need it , consider repurchasing what I thought I had. I don't expect you to pull a lot of favor but it's something to consider. I'm not real excited about pedestrian traffic on that side fronting an entrance into an industrial park but that's just my personal preference. That's all I have to say. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If not, any discussion? 1 Councilman Boyt: What can we do to replace those trees? It's really not a major grove there. It just happens to what, 10-15 trees? 1 Gary Warren: Well there's 2 areas. One is the area just discussed near the Stockdale property and the other is in the south end where we have a sight distance problem which should be corrected. The southern end there's a chance that we can use retaining walls to minimize some of the impact and we're going 47 1 1 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 to be looking at that as part of the design. The trees that immediately abut 1 the roadway, they're definitely in the clear zone and are a safety problem themselves and those would be gone but from there beyond we would look to utilize things such as retaining walls. We even looked at trying to modify the alignment of the roadway to get it away from there but the dollar impact of the project, you're talking almost $100,000.00 extra to do that. But in the design we will be conscientiously trying to avoid and mitigate where we can. Chet Harrison: Gary can I raise a point that. . . Chet Harrison with HHTB working with Harald Eriksen from our office on this project and the issue, there's a farmhouse or a farm or a farmstead further to the south on this project that is impacted by the tree issue. Very similar situation except the trees are on private property and we looked at moving the road which he discussed but we've also looked, gone back and looked now at building a small retaining wall to construct that area and one of the things that would reduce ' the impact and potentially, there's a chance we can save the trees if the trail was placed on the west side of the road in that property and I think Gary brought that question up early on about if we put the trail on the west side, it ' might reduce the problem there and in fact it would, if we built a retaining wall behind the drainage ditch. In other words, there will be an overlay of the road in that area. Shoulders added and a ditch constructed and then a trail on ' the outside of that. If we put the trail on the other side of the road, obviously you'd probably be able to save more trees on that side and maybe save that entire row of trees along there. I guess that's kind of an issue that wasn't clearly addressed in all the documentation. Councilman Johnson: One thing we brought up last time Chet was that most the residents that are going to use that trail are going to be coming out of Lake Susan Hills on the east side. To cross the highway to the west side, go down and then cross the highway again, if they're heading for Lake Ann Park, means that we now have children crossing a county highway twice where they don't have to count it at all if we lose some trees and to me that safety issue far outweighs the tree issue and the additional cost. Mayor Chmiel: That's right . That's what we brought up the last time Jay. Chet Harrison: Again, that issue wasn't clear I don't think about what the trail would do to those trees and it would impact them. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Johnson: A semi and an 8 year old don't match. Gary Warren: We do have good news as far as getting across the bridge as you read in the report so we did cut that almost in half. ' Councilman Johnson: How long will that last before we have to have the full width of the bridge back again? As traffic gets busier and busier there. ' Gary Warren: Our forecasts on the transportation needs are out to the year 2010 so we're talking about a 36 foot road section. Councilman Boyt: Is it appropriate to move approval? 1 48 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 II Mayor Chmiel: It's appropriate. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. I Councilman Boyt: I will move approval with staff recommendation of the trail on the east side and Option 1 for crossing the bridge area. I Councilman Workman: Was it staff recommendation? I thought it was for it on the west side? 11 Councilman Boyt: No, east. Mayor Chmiel: That's what I brought up the last Council meeting. I thought it I should be changed over to the east side because of the residents within that area. Councilman Boyt: The consultant suggested the west side and then back in the II summary down here it said east. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion with a second. I do like the fact that 1 Alternative for the railroad bridge of $26,600.00 is a lot better than $52,000.00. Resolution 190-52: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to II approve the trail plan on the east side for the Audubon Road South Improvement Project 89-18 with Option 1 for the bridge crossing. All voted in favor and the II motion carried. LOT AREA AND LOT DEPTH VARIANCE REQUESTS TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, LOTS 1 1083-89, CARVER BEACH; NORTH OF YUMA AND CARVER BEACH ROAD INTERSECTION, DAN CASTONQUAY. Jo Ann Olsen: The Board of Adjustments recommended tabling this item until the II applicant could possibly meet the 15,000 square feet. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. I Councilman Johnson: Basically the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, to a person II said that we weren't going to grant your variance. If you'd rather, we'll table it right now and give you time to the find the alternative because we believe there are alternatives to how you can get your 15,000 and we named 2 or 3 different ways to do it. So he's going to go try doing that. He has a II potential buyer who was in the audience. Also brought up some interesting, some other residents brought up some interesting drainage issues there. Mayor Chmiel: It's rather steep to the west. I Councilman Johnson: Right and there's a significant, according to the neighbors, a significant amount of drainage coming from the west through that II property and could cause a lot of problems with a house built there. So they're going to be looking at that. II 49 II II City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 30+ SEAT RESTAURANT WITH TAKE-OUT LOCATED IN THE • RETAIL CENTER LOCATED AT SEVEN FORTY-ONE CROSSING ADDITION, WAYNE SALDEN. Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission recommended approval with the conditions from staff. Unless you want me to get into it further. ' Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think that's necessary. Is Wayne here? Is there anything you'd like to say? Wayne Salden: . . .conditional use permit pass, . . . ' Jo Ann Olsen: That was in front of the Planning Commission. They just make a recommendation to the Council. Mayor Chmiel: The Planning Commission just strictly makes recommendations. ' Council passes on it . Is there anything you'd like to say at this particular time or go along with the staff recommendation? ' Wayne Salden: I'm fine. Councilman Johnson: When do you expect to open? ' Wayne Salden: It just depends when we get all the permits that we have. They told me I didn't need one of these permits so I just said. . .and Roger said well I guess you need a permit for this. Construction will take about 3 weeks. So ' whenever my building permit gets approved. Councilman Johnson: Did you hear our earlier conversation about the lighting in ' the shopping center and how certificates of occupancy's can't be. . . Mayor Chmiel: That 's something probably for you to discuss with Roger. I guess I just have one question from staff. This does meet all requirements as far as the development plan was established back at that time? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. ' Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? ' Councilman Johnson: Any of the citizens? We've got quite a few neighbors. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, is there anyone who wishes to address this? ' Wayne Salden: I have one more question. The question I had is on the conditional use permit if it gets passed, then your building permit is passed on what particular? Is that just done by the building inspectors themselves? Mayor Chmiel: You have to get your building permit then and your building permit is then issued and then after that's done, you have your certificate of ' occupancy in making sure that your in conformance with all of the requirements of the City. One of those requirements is the lighting as well which I think you can probably address with Roger. ' Wayne Salden: Yeah, I'll mention that to Roger. So your certificate of occupancy is after you're completely done and you're inspected. . . 1 50 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 Mayor Chmiel: That means you can start business and have people coming in. Wayne Salden: And that's inspected by the City and the State? 1 Councilman Johnson: The State's the electrical. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, the electrical portion is done by the State. The balance I of the inspections are done by our people here. Wayne Salden: Okay, but when you have your final health inspection or whatever ' you call it, certificate of occupancy, does the State Health Inspector for Carver County, does he make the final okay? Mayor Chmiel: I would most imagine they do. 1 Councilman Johnson: He has to make an okay. The State Electrical Inspector has to make an okay and the City's Builder Inspectors have to make an okay. Mayor Chmiel: You'll have a sign off on your sheet, on the placard that you get so he can post on the particular site. , Councilman Johnson: The Health Inspector may not be on that sign. Mayor Chmiel: Some of them are, some of them aren't. ' Wayne Salden: Thank you. Bob Wagner: This is just very brief. Bob Wagner, 2511 Orchard Lane. I haven't had the luxury of sitting in the prior meeting for which I apologize but like others, I have evening activities occasionally and I would just like a quick review of what conditional use permit regulations are in effect. What this individual's been asked to do to be able to move into that shopping center other than the norm. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, would you like to address that? Jo Ann Olsen: Sure. What the conditional use permit is for is for a standard ' restaurant and in the neighborhood business district that's a conditional use. They meet all the basic requirements with a specific requirement for a conditional use in the business neighborhood for a standard restaurant. The one condition that the Planning Commission recommended was that they have their own individual trash enclosure and that they. . .frequent pick-up. Bob Wagner: Was there anything addressed on food odor in the neighborhood? ' Jo Ann Olsen: No. We didn't find that there was going to be. . . That's just part of those 12 general conditions. Out of those, the one that we had the most concern about was the trash. . . Councilman Boyt: Well, Bob raises an awfully good issue. If the neighborhood is impacted on this thing one way, it will be impacted of course is with light . Possibly. You've taken care of that. Another one, blowing trash. We're going to hear about that in a few minutes and we've tried to take care of that in this 51 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 situation. But a third one is certainly odor. Apparently we haven't investigated that . F , Jo Ann Olsen: Well you know I can't say that there will not be odor from the restaurant. I don't think that 's going to be that extensive. It depends on who's smelling it . ' Councilman Workman: It's not going to be toxic is it? Jo Ann Olsen: No. Mayor Chmiel: He certainly hopes not. Councilman Boyt: I think anytime we have a restaurant that abuts a residential area, we have the potential for conflict. Jo Ann Olsen: That's right and there is quite a separation. Councilman Boyt: And one area of conflict is going to be, if everytime they go outside and the wind's blowing right, they smell pizza, it's not going to take ' long to get tire of that. I'd be interested in what we can do to control that. Jo Ann Olsen: Well always as a conditional use, that can always be brought back up for review and again conditional uses now do have annual reviews. If you want, you could also add a condition that if that is offensive, that we can look at it quicker. Even though we still would, we would just act on complaints of the neighborhood. ' Councilman Boyt: Well aren't there things like charcoal filters and this sort of thing that would handle that problem? ' Mayor Chmiel: It doesn't completely remove it. Even with your coal charcoal. Councilman Johnson: It certainly cuts it down. ' Mayor Chmiel: It removes some of it but not all of it. ' Councilman Boyt : Have you have any? Wayne Salden: You know your exhaust is very minimal that comes out the roof of the building anyway that's up and above and blown into who knows where. Councilman Boyt: Right over there. ' Wayne Salden: You have many, there's all kinds of restaurants in a residential area. When you drive by the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre, it's the same thing. I mean theirs is exhausted somewhere. Or you drive by whatever. The mall here in ' town, the Chalet Pizza is blown out back and the people live behind there. Councilman Workman: We haven't gotten any complaints from any of those people? ' Jo Ann Olsen: Just the garbage. ' 52 1 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 Wayne Salden: And we've gone with the separate dumpster enclosed for garbage to be blowing around. Lights, I guess I'll call Roger on that. Exhaust, it has to exhaust somewhere. It's very minimal. It's 2,000 cfm's which is very minimal amount of exhaust and normally your grease products, if you have burgers and things would have way more smell than you would just out of your pizza oven fan. And that's just to exhaust the heat . It's not necessarily even, it doesn't necessarily even have to run. If it's winter and your kitchens are normally not heated or air conditioned because they just go out the exhaust hoods and you have plenty of heat in the kitchen anyway. So you wouldn't even necessarily have to run your overhead fan there there because of it's Code. Councilman Boyt: Code, that's right. Alright, it sounds like and you're the owner/operator/leasee? Wayne Salden: Right. 1 Councilman Boyt: So you have the ability to make some decisions here affecting this? Wayne Salden: The exhaust? Councilman Boyt: Right . Wayne Salden: As in? Councilman Boyt: Well it sounds like that you're quite interested in working with the neighborhood on this issue. Wayne Salden: I don't have a problem with it. There's filter's that can be put in there. It's not going to take all your, you're going to smell some food. I mean let's face the facts. Even with a coal filter in there which, your exhaust hood is ran through filters which would decrease anything, amount of grease or anything to go up your hood and that's imprinted and then they're out and it's exhausted out a hood that is covered and then it shoots down and is eliminated. I believe there is a coal lining which is just like a mesh fish net that could probably decrease some of the smell. I mean it's just not that extreme. Councilman Boyt: Okay, I would like to see added as a condition here and it sounds like you're going to agree to it, that every reasonable effort will be made to contain aroma. Mayor Chmiel: Could we add that aroma to item number 7? That's on page 3. 1 Councilman Boyt: Maybe the place to add it is. . . Jo Ann Olsen: Page 5. Councilwoman Oimler: It's got odors there already. Jo Ann Olsen: That's the general conditions. It would be on page 5. Councilman Boyt: Where we just have one condition and this would be number 2. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 53 11 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Johnson: I'm not, are you going to be frying hamburger or frying anything? • Wayne Salden: We don't even have a deep fryer or a grill. Councilman Johnson: No grill. No deep fryer. Just straight pizza ovens? ' Wayne Salden: •Pizza ovens and steam tables for Italian food. And there's one gas burner top stove gas operated to good some sauces and things. ' Councilman Johnson: That's got a hood over it then? Wayne Salden: That's got a hood. They've both have a hood. One is like 6 feet, ' one is 4. Very small. Councilman Johnson: There's problems with these charcoal filters. Maintenance cost and everything else. They only last so long and then you've got to take ' them out. Then they've got to be disposed of. It runs a lot of costs up. Maybe provisions for having them added when it's designed to where the filter could be added in rather than, this is the time to plan for that in case there is a problem. There shouldn't be much cost to have the provisions in there that if a problem does occur, that the filters could be added. The filters are also more of a fire hazard than other things too because as you start getting the ' grease mixed in with the charcoal, it becomes a more extreme fire hazard. Of course there shouldn't be that much grease because you're not doing that. I just don't see that this is going to be, like there has been some complaints on odor on Ahn-Le's. It may not have gotten here but I've had some citizens say ' that they don't appreciate the Chinese cooking odor when they're trying to cook their steaks in their backyard. They don't smell the steak, they smell Chinese. But for a place like this I can't see that, we're trying to fix a problem before ' it happens but let's make sure we at least have the ability that if there's a problem we can fix it. ' Mayor Chmiel: Can we put that down as a condition? Councilman Johnson: Is that the intent? ' Councilman Boyt: I think what we're proposing is we're saying that if there is a problem, all reasonable efforts will be made to control that problem. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but that isn't the way it was at first. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, the if there was a problem was not added. It said all reasonable efforts will be made to control odor. ' Councilman Boyt: I think they mean one and the same thing. If he's not going to have a problem, then it's not a problem but to enter this with the thought that ' maybe there won't be, I'd much rather enter this with the thought that maybe there will be and that we're all committed, the owner included, to solving it so it doesn't end up back here. ' Councilman Johnson: Yeah, well there's two ways. I've seen people come off and say okay, I've considered it. There's not going to be a problem. He puts in his ' 54 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 exhaust system with no provisions for future problems. Here all I'm trying to say is that the cheapest point to ever solve the problem is now when you originally put that exhaust system in. Wayne Salden: All that can be done for odors, either you put in a coal filter 11 or you don't. That's just the fact of the matter. There's nothing else. I mean just exhaust hoods. They exhaust what they're suppose to do. That's all you can do to eliminate partial odor and I'm sure it's not 100%. It's probably not 75% but the odor will be very minimal. Councilman Johnson: I agree. And fortunately also, the winds in this part of the country are primarily either from the southwest or northwest which very rarely, about 5% of the times they come out of the east or the southeast. And that happens to be when you're barbequeing in your backyard of course. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is that Bob. Councilman Johnson: Oo you like Italian food? Bob Wagner: I think the issue is one, and I don't want to speak for these people. I think they should speak for themselves but from my perspective I don't want to have this guy spend money unnecessarily but if a problem were to arise, I'd like to think we've had the flexibility to come back. That's all. A more important issue to me is not so much what 's happening right now but once we've got a restaurant in there and what happens next. I mean what happens? Can it change to somebody else? Can we now have hamburgers? Can we expand? Can they suddenly be frying steaks? That's not at all what I understood when I was here this evening and I guess I'm not sure what you have in your regulations that govern that. Councilman Boyt: Well if it expands it'd have to come back. Councilman Johnson: What if they just changed owners? Mayor Chmiel: Or changed menus? ' Wayne Salden: It would still have to come back to have re-exhausting because it's not.. .State Code. You'd have to have new exhaust system. ' Councilman Boyt: It wouldn't have to come back to us though. Bob Wagner: It won't be a Hardee's right? Wayne Salden: It would have to come back to someone. It would have to come here sooner or later. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else from the neighborhood wish to say anything? If not, we have a motion the floor. Is there a second? ' Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Conditional Use ' Permit Request 190-2 for an Italian Restaurant to be located at Seven-Forty One Crossroads Center as shown on the plans dated March 29, 1990 and with the 55 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 following conditions= 1. The applicant shall provide it's own trash enclosure at the rear of the restaurant which shall be enclosed with the same materials as the exterior of the shopping center. 2. The applicant will make every effort to contain aroma emitted from the restaurant. • All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' MCDONALD'S CORPORATION LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE EAST AND DAKOTA AVENUE: A. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1 AND 2, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA FOR THE ' EXPANSION OF THE PARKING AREA AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF RESTAURANT. ' B. VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE 75 FT. WETLAND SETBACK REQUIREMENT. AND 1(H) APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR CHAN HAVEN PLAZA SECOND ADDITION. Mayor Chmiel: Okay Jo Ann, let's address the first one. Jo Ann Olsen: Okay the plat first. The applicant is proposing to replat ' property located along Lake Drive to allow them to add parking. . .to their current site. As far as the plat, it's very simple and we are recommending approval with the conditions in your staff report on page 13. We're also requesting that final plat be approved at this time to allow the project to move ' forward and to allow Lake Drive East to move forward. Because it is such a simple one, we allowed it to go without the final plat actually being in our hands. I know that that's unusual but it's very simple conditions that we will ' make sure have been met when it is provided. If not, we will bring it back in front of you. Onto the bigger issue is the site plan. The primary addition to the proposed site plan is the truck parking stalls located on the east part of ' the site. In addition, with the realignment of Lake Drive, the entrance and exit points are being improved for trucks entering and cars entering and leaving the site. The site was approved with several variances to it. To the setbacks that had even been in existence when it was approved. We're not exactly sure ' why but it isn't an existing condition. What we tried to do was to include the site as best possible with additional landscaping. Having them remove parking stalls where they could to provide more of a setback. We have worked closely with the applicant and they have met many of our conditions and we are satisfied with the site plan that they are providing us now and we are recommending approval with the conditions on page 12. As far as the wetland alteration ' permit, the setback to the wetland, the 75 foot wetland setback, the Board of Adjustments reviewed this item earlier this evening and it was a split vote all 3 ways. So it was just passed onto the Council. One of the members didn't want to approve it at all. Another felt that the 10 feet is fine and another one ' felt removing just one parking stall would do it. It was Carol who wanted nothing to be done and. . .was because of the condition that the wetland is in now. It's a pretty poor conditioned wetland. The fact that the City is altering ' the bottom third made an impact with them too as far as how they should handle this situation. What staff tried to do was to point out that the existing site ' 56 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 II is within 55 feet of the wetland now so it's already within the 75 foot setback. We tried to show alternatives to not having it exactly 10 feet away. We think II that that's pretty close. So we've given you alternatives. What it would be if they removed 1, 2 or 3 parking stalls. We're recommending that either 2 or 3 of the parking stalls be removed so we are recommending approval of the variance. II Then I can't answer the questions on Gary's item. I can try maybe. I don't know what you had on 1(h). Councilman Workman: Well my only quick point on all of this is the staff report I seems to state that it's a worthless wetland, if there is such a thing and that it probably won't be there. Why is it such an obstacle? Secondly, aren't we a bit hypocritical if we can go through one-third of it with our road. Actually II go through one-third of the actual wetland and then tell somebody else they can't come within 10 feet of it? Jo Ann Olsen: It can be seen that way. We're not saying it's a worthless I wetland. What we're saying is that the circumstances, existing circumstances and future circumstances most likely show that wetland as being proposed to II being altered considerably. With the Lake Drive East wetland alteration, we felt that that was being replaced. We felt that again that the alteration, that the wetland is just kind of a result of where Lake Drive East was put in the first place. Just because it's backing up drainage and kind of resulted as II that. Yes, it does put us in kind of uncomfortable position saying yes to the City and no to the developer. That's why we're trying to come up with a compromise. I Councilman Boyt: We need some action. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll move approval. I Councilman Boyt: Maybe we have somebody who wants to say something. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, is there anyone who wishes to have discussion on this? II Please state your name and your address. Ray Schleck: Good evening Councilmembers. My name is Ray Schleck. I'm a I construction engineer with McDonald's. This is Gene Borg our operator. Gene Borg: I live at 6897 Chaparall Lane. I Ray Schleck: We worked very closely with staff and came with what we thought was an agreeable compromise for landscpaing, setbacks. Everything seemed to be II working fine until we discovered that what was a low spot in the lot next door turned out to be a wetlands. Gene, I think you've done a little research on that. ' Gene Borg: On the wetland, I thought that it was a wetland that was created when Lake Drive was put in. In fact it was. I contacted Herald Kerber who used to live there. There used to be a farm there on that site and I have an aeial I photo and topography map that shows that that wetland as it exists today did not exist and that was in fact a part of his cow lot where he kept his animals behind the barn is what that was. And he went through all that with me and II showed me where everything was and where it drained from. So I don't believe it's a true wetland. It's a wetland today. I don't argue that point. It's a 57 I 11 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 wetland today but it's not a true wetland with natural flow in and a natural flow out of water. I agree with Tom that I think the City is hypocritical in going through you know the best third of that wetland, they're going through the best third of it where the cattails are and where the trees are. And where I think we're actually benefitting the wetland to some degree versus what it was ' because we are putting landscaping and stuff with barriers you know, traffic and stuff for what does remain of the wetland and putting in storm sewer to help carry the water away. I think we worked very closely with the City. I believe ' we've met all the criteria that was expected of us in the planning so far except for this wetland. It came to my attention, for a fact it came to my attention on Friday. We did have a little bit when we turned in the plans and Jo Ann was there about a few days earlier than that. She thought maybe we had a variance problem. . .a variance. But we worked with the City on giving them land for their easements and stuff. We will do that. We've also worked with the City close in getting the owner of the property who we're buying the land from to give the ' City his land which he was not going to before so I think, we'd just like to be fair. It's very expensive to start cutting more off of that. When we found we were in the wetland, we pulled back the parking lot because I don't want to be in wetland. I'm in favor of wetlands but I don't think we're hurting this wetland. Ray Schleck: The grades at that point don't change from what they are now to ' where they were before. So as far as the level of the land around the wetland, that is not changing. It would be curb and gutter 10 feet away from the edge or from a contour line. The rest will be landscaped. Any runoff from the parking lot would be taken away in storm sewer. Gene Borg: I guess I would like to be treated like the City's being treated. ' They are damaging that wetland, in my opinion, to a great extent and I hear that they are giving money of some sort, of some value to another wetland. I would like to propose doing that the way it exists there as a plot drawing and propose giving money to another wetland in a proportion of the damage that I caused to ' that wetland. Worked out in the same criteria as the City's worked out because to me I think that's totally fair. ' Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to discuss this? Yes sir. Please state your name and your address. Tom Kosonas: My name is Tom Kosonas and it's 8001 Cheyenne Avenue. I live directly south of this project that's being proposed and I speak in opposition of it. This goes back a number of years of course when McDonald's first came in it was going to be a small restaurant or serving type thing and now it 's ' expanding and of course the neighbors around myself fear that we're going to end up with a truck stop. It looks like we're building a parking lot so we can bring in trailer trucks off the highway so they can have a place to park. They're going to be practically in all purposes in the back yard of about 5 or 6 people. We've talked about wetlands here tonight. I was at the Planning Commission meeting also. I haven't heard one thing from Planning Commission or ' anyone speak of concern about the residents that are going to have these trucks coming in. I mean the purpose of this parking lot is to bring trucks in from what I understand. They have plenty of parking for cars. The parking lot is never filled so all of a sudden we're looking at in our neighborhood of having a ' regular supply of semi trailer trucks or whatever sized trucks coming into this area. McDonald's as it is we get trash blowing through the area. We've talked ' 58 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 about that before. We get the noise of the cars coming in. I happened to be in II line with the driveways coming out so at night time I get the headlights in my backyard and through my living room windows, unless we close the drapes. It's a general inconvenience for a number of residents through that area. It's picked up traffic. Whatever. It's litter, noise, pollution and now all of a sudden we're looking at a parking lot for trucks. I cannot believe that the City would allow this to happen to a residential neighborhood. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel:- Thank you Tom. Anyone else? Alex Kringle: I'm Alex Kringle, 8009 Cheyenne. I've probably been in that area along the evergreens along this because I planted those. 20 years ago I got permission from Robert Mason and a number of the neighbors and I planted those trees on Mason's property. Shortly thereafter, not shortly. Quite a few years thereafter a road came through. They almost took the trees out. Fortunately they didn't. That pond that we don't think of as a wetland is more of a wetland than you think because when I planted trees across that wetland, I couldn't get them to grow. I had to build up a little dike across there so that wetland has been wet for longer than you and I. I had a load of dirt delivered. I didn't know about it at the time but the driver said hey, where your house sits I used to hunt ducks there and so that wetland that we're talking about now, actually is part of the wetland where my house sits. I realize that the City made a mistake by going through that wetland. Just because we made one mistake doesn't mean we have to make another. I think we should swallow and say hey, we shouldn't have gone through that. But now we're going to start putting in a big parking lot for deisels. Stinky, smelly, idling deisels. Why they can't shut them off I don't know in place of part of that wetland. We've gone through this over and over again. We made one mistake by zoning that area commercial because it was residential when I bought. As soon as all the lots were sold along there, it was rezoned commercial and then we were told there would be no drive- ins in that area. Then we got a McDonald's without a drive-in but now we have a drive thru or a drive-in and now we want a truck parking lot back there. I'm not against development but I sure don't think that a deisel parking lot is helping us out with that area. And it is next to a residential area because I pick up McDonald's garbage. When I call them and ask for help, they tell me no, you're too far away. We don't go out that far because I'm the furthest east along those evergreens and McDonald's to the best of my knowledge, has never picked up as far east as I live. I pick up their garbage. This year I took it over to the restaurant and left it but I pick up their garbage along there. I know they go out and pick up but not that far. Anyway, I think the deisels idling all the time and that, I just don't think we need it next to a residential area so I'm definitely against the parking lot. I know I can't stop that but I don't think we should fill in the wetland. If that's one proposal or I don't think we should give in to the new law that exists now. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, any discussion? ' Councilwoman Dimler: I went over there today and I looked at that wetland. There's no question that it is a wetland. How it got there, I don't know and I don't think that that may not be germane to the discussion. It definitely has wetland vegetation and that's mostly on the south side which is where the City will be altering the wetland. Taking that out. It 's a Class 8 wetland because I guess it has no outlet. Is that correct Jo Ann? 59 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Jo Ann Olsen: It 's just the type of vegetation. • Councilwoman Dimler: But it doesn't have an outlet as well? j Councilman Boyt: A lot of wetlands don't s don t by nature. ' Jo Ann Olsen: It doesn't have it but that doesn't make a difference what type. ' Councilman Johnson: It used to. Councilwoman Dimler: I think we should keep in mind that when the City came in with a proposal just 2 weeks ago for the wetland alteration permit, there really was none of this discussion. Interesting and I'm really not in favor of treating the City any more favorably than I would be treating a private resident or commercial entity. I'd like to remind us too that Mr. Borg gave the City ' easements for Lake Drive East and we have a good working relationship with him and I don't think we should jeopardize that. He's already indicated that he will give money to another wetland which means no net loss. I think the parking ' lot, although I can see where it would be a concern to the neighbors there to have trucks, the trucks are already there and they're parking along Lake Drive East. I know Mr. Boyt several weeks ago or a month ago asked for no parking signs there so really the trucks are going to be there. We might as well make ' it safe and give them the parking stalls. I do think that the neighbors have a concern. I spoke to a Mr. Randy Swattfager and he was concerned if there would be any increased lighting so at this point I'd like to ask Mr. Borg if there'd be any increased lighting. Gene Borg: There'd be some but it 's, the lighting that's on the drawing is ' pointing towards the. . . Councilwoman Dimler: The lighting from the parking lot? ' Gene Borg: It's pointing from the east pointing west over the parking lots. Councilwoman Dimler: How many lights are there? Ray Schleck: There's 2 lights per pole. There would be 10 additional lot lights. And the type of lot lights we use are directional. They're downcast. ' They're not, they don't just flood the area. They have a directed spread of light . Councilwoman Dimler: If there would be a potential problem with that, is there ' anyway we can address that? Ray Schleck: I'm trying to think of which lights would create a problem for the neighborhood and I'm assuming that the neighborhood is strictly across Lake Drive. Councilwoman Dimler: Right . Ray Schleck: The lot lights in that area that would be affecting the neighborhood would be these two lights and they are aimed more towards the north. Northwest. ' 60 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 II II Councilman Johnson: What about the one on the far north side? Which way is it directed? Towards the neighbors? Ray Schleck: It's directed south but it's, I don't know if you've seen our II newer lot lights are basically like a shoebox and the lens is in the bottom so the light can only go down and then it's spread out. I Mayor Chmiel: The fixture you're saying has prisms contained in there so you're restricted as far as your light distribution. It's set in a direct pattern. IIRay Schleck: Right. If you go 15-20 feet away from the light post, the foot candle level is down to almost negative so that's why there's so many fixtures around there to try to get some light. There are already lights in the island, II in the parking island existing. We wouldn't change those so we're trying to get light out into the area. Let me point one thing out too. Our intention was not to make that a truck stop. I should call those trucks RV, boat trailer, camper II spots. I mean it 's not just for trucks. One of the goals is to get the trucks off of Lake Drive. Just give them an easier path to follow. Councilman Johnson: As long as you're standing there with that up. I hate to II step on Ursula here right now but how's the semi, if he comes in there face first, have you checked all that to make sure they can make that turn back around and not have to try and back out or something? I Ray Schleck: Yeah, these dash lines show the radius of a 60 foot tractor trailer. The radius it would have to make to come out this island. It would be I exiting, this is an exit only. This is an entrance only so this is the turning radius here and then coming in and the radius to get back out. Councilman Johnson: So you're going to run them by the door? I Ray Schleck: Yeah. We worked pretty close through the staff on that one. Councilman Johnson: They definitely do have trucks parked on Lake Drive East. U Ray Schleck: Our goal isn't, obviously we're trying to sell hamburgers and II that's what we're in business for but it's not to draw trucks. We don't like them that much ourselves. It's one person in a truck as opposed to hopefully a family in an RV. Councilman Johnson: Or a bus. Employees don't love the buses. Just the II owners. Ray Schleck: No, that's right. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursula do you want to finish? J II Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. The garbage concerns I guess I'm concerned about that too and I know the neighbors have been out there. Have been picking it up. I spoke to several of them. There is a chainlink fence that goes along that II whole edge behind all of their properties that catches most of it. What they told me is that they have to go along the fence and pick it up. Do you have another, Mr. Kosonas, would you like to address that? How does it get to your I 61 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 11 property or does it get beyond that fence into the neighborhood? Tom Kosonas: Well the fence behind mine. . .just blows straight through and ' generally it builds up behind the fence and the trees that I've planted. But I know the comment that they pick it up and I live directly behind them. I purposedly since the Planning Commission meeting, I took 3 McDonald's paper products and stacked them about 100 feet from the road and they're still there and this is 2,' whenever the Planning Commission meeting was. No one has come out and picked up paper along the street or in that empty lot. I don't know when they do it but it's been 2 or 3 weeks since the Planning Commission meeting. If you go down Lake Drive East, just walk along the road. . .the road is just littered. I mean it 's solid. Both sides. . . They don't pick it up. I don't care what they say. . . ' Councilwoman Dimler: Is the litter mainly though on Lake Drive? It doesn't get into your neighborhood. ' Alex Kringle: It gets into my yard. Tom Kosonas: How far past my yard it goes I don't do searching the neighbors ' yards to see. . . Councilwoman Dimler: Uh huh, but you haven't heard any other neighbors complain? Tom Kosonas: Myself, yeah. They probably don't get as much because I'm sure the fences are going to stop it. It gets into my yard. I send my kid out there to pick it up or I pick it up. When it's heavy weather like this. . . Councilwoman Dimler: I'm sure that we can work out something with that garbage. ' Tom Kosonas: I'd like to see something on that lot. I don't know who owns the lot behind us. Mason built it at one time. . .if it's deeded to the City or not . ' The City cuts it. . . Councilwoman Dimler: And the other question I had, is there a possibility, I assume the City owns the land on the other side of the fence towards TH 5. Is ' there some kind of a fencing other than what is there similar to what they do along 35W to cut noise, lights? You know, something like we did over here with the Brooke's. Is that a possibility? A fence. Gary Warren: You're talking about the. . . ' Councilwoman Dimler: Basket weaved fence, yes. Gary Warren: Cedar fence. And this would be on the south side of the, across from McDonald's? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Across. ' Gary Warren: Where all the trees are? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Right. I'm assuming that's City property. 62 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 II Gary Warren: No. II Councilwoman Dimler: It isn't? Who's is it? Gary Warren: Chan Haven Holding Company owns that lot. If it's the parcel that I I'm thinking of which is right south across Lake Drive East from McDonalds. That corner parcel there. That is owned by Chan Haven Holding Company. Councilwoman Dimler: So we couldn't run a fence all along that? t Councilman Workman: That short stretch of fence in downtown cost $70,000.00 or II what do they cost? Councilman Boyt: No, no. Councilwoman Dimler: Here? I hope not. II Councilman Workman: What did that new fencing project cost there? I Mayor Chmiel: I don't think it was much over $10,000.00. Don Ashworth: That seems like a logical number. II Councilman Workman: We're going to end up with that situation all up and down Lake Drive. I Gary Warren: We will be taking a portion of that lot. Not the whole thing but a portion of that as new right-of-way for the Lake Drive East project but there II still will be a remnent piece there that I don't believe is built on. Councilwoman Dimler: Well it's just a question I have. Maybe it's a II possibility like we did with the Brooke's. I don't know. That would help reduce noise, light and possibly keep the garbage out of their backyards as well. Councilman Johnson: Won't do much for noise. II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it doesn't do anything for noise. I Councilman Johnson: If it was 25-30 feet tall it might . Mayor Chmiel: It still doesn't Jay. It normally goes up that wall and goes I over and hits the people 2 doors away rather than the ones sitting right there. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll add more comments later but that's all I have for II now. Mayor Chmiel: Did you have something to say? II Councilman Johnson: Mostly on the wetlands. I was the one saying I wanted at least one parking spot taken out of there because 10 feet's too close to the wetland but I'm also of the value of that wetland and it's function in nature I nowdays. It's been encroached on on probably 3 out of 4 sides. There's 63 I II City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 • I evidence that that used to be a creek running through there. As I dug through the wetland with a shovel this afternoon, I got to a nice well graded layer of sand and cobble. Large grade sand several inches thick indicating fairly fast y rushing water at that point. Below that was continued highly organic clays with root and whatever. As deep as I could go with what I had. I didn't bring an auger out there. It appears to me that this used to be other types of wetland rather than one that held water in that it's now been dammed by the lake. It ' looks like the area to the north of it has also been filled. Probably what's left of the old farmstead probably. If you start digging in there you'll probably find the barn and house and whatever when the whole thing was ripped ' down. They say that's to the north and east of the wetland. This wetland drains an area probably twice as big as the wetland itself. There's not a lot of areas drained by it. It has no outlet. I don't even think it's an infiltration type wetland. I believe it probably just goes in there and ' evaporates and doesn't provide ground water recharge. I can't prove that but I tend to doubt the way it holds the water that it provides ground water recharge. It provides limited habitat, which the City's going to take most of. ' I'm a protecter of wetlands by reputation and by the way I feel. I'd like to, this wetland does so little for anybody other than mosquitoes and the mosquito control people have already been out there and planted their little charcoal briquettes in it to fool the cattail mosquitoes. As more and more development goes around here, the one thing this does maybe is decrease the amount of water going into that wetland. Further development might further decrease it and we're going to end up with an old dry marsh as it's very small area gets built up and we probably will never direct any water into it . This is the type of place that eventually I'd like to see it eliminated and a comparable area downstream replaced and enhanced where it actually does something to the watershed. This particular wetland does very little for the watershed. But I still don't want to start a precedence of putting a parking lot within 10 feet • of the wetland. I'd like to see the bushes extended to where they encircle the wetland more to where the garbage blowing off of the parking lot does not, has something between it and the low area because there's a whole lot of plastic in that low area. I'm also a little disappointed by the surveyors missing it by this far. Hopefully the additional cost that 's caused you all for replatting ' and everything's going to be passed on to show. . .and let them eat that cost. That wasn't a minor mistake. That was really quite a major mistake as far as I'm concerned. Error. Omission. Whatever you want to call it . I think that ' by putting this truck area or RV area or whatever, actually will be better for some of the neighbors than the current practice of parking on Lake Drive East. As I was there this afternoon, a lumber truck pulled up. Pulled onto the side of the road and got out and went in. Left his deisel idling and came back 10 ' minutes later. Sat in his deisel on the side of the road. Ate his lunch and then left. This way if he's parked in the parking lot, he'll be another 30 or 40 feet away from the homes or even further. The further away he can get, the better off he'll be. Those are most of my comments. I'd really like to see at least one, if not two of the parking spots removed. I'm not that wild about getting for this poor of a wetland. I'd like to know what's planned for next ' door too. If there is anything yet. Mayor Chmiel: Bill. Councilman Boyt : Okay. I think the biggest problem here is the expanding parking lot because it's designed to make it easier for trucks. Look at the 64 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 neighborhood. Look at what this has done to the neighborhood since 1982. Prior 1 to 1982 no restaurant. You're in a residential neighborhood. You've got TH 5 noise. Whatever it was in 1982 to deal with and then we end up with this thing going all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The neighborhood definitely sees this as a potential problem and they put their money behind it. I guess, according to the neighbors, nobody knows quite how the drive thru got there but we go from a McDonald's restaurant to a McDonald's restaurant with a drive thru and now we're -going to go to a restaurant that for all practical purposes could be a truck stop. Whether you want the trucks to stay there or not, we're going to make it easy for them to park in there. The neighbors told me when I talked to them that on occassion a truck pulls in there, parks and stays for hours along the side of the road. I can imagine the driver's looking for someplace to sleep or whatever. Says well, this is great. It's right by a restaurant and naturally they let the motor run all the time. You travel a lot. I'm sure you know what it's like to be in a motel that's anywhere near a tractor trailer. I know what that's like and to think that the people living in that house have the potential of having that every night, that's what bothers me. The wetland, I don't know how to put this other than to say it. This is a wetland that is maybe better off filled in and a new one dug someplace else. That goes against a lot of what I basically believe in yet looking at that wetland is very disturbing. First it's full a trash. A good bit of it has McDonald's name on it but it's also got tires. It's just a mess in there. Somebody should clean that up. Whoever the property owner is should have some obligation to clean that up. I would like to see us pursue having the south side of Lake Drive East bermed, and I'm not talking about a 2 foot berm. I'm talking about a 6 or an 8 foot berm. A major pile of dirt. I think that would solve a lot of problems. I think something that massive would deflect the noise. Now I don't know, maybe other people have more experience with noise deflection but we can't, I can't vote for this knowing that it puts more trucks in there unless we do something to get those trucks, the noise impact greatly reduced. I can't vote to put I think, as I mentioned before and we didn't get it passed by the way. We shouldn't have any parking there. Those trucks are destroying the boulevard and both sides of that road should have no parking signs on them. If we're going to allow truck parking to happen in McDonald's, it should happen over by TH 5 where there's plenty of highway noise already and there's going to be a lot more. Maybe that would help mitigate some of this but it have it, they can park 50 feet, well I'm not exactly sure how far the back yard is off the south side of Lake Drive but right the way it is, even with this parking lot addition, we're going to have trucks that are close enough that when that motor is running, it's going to seem like they're in your bedroom with you. We just can't have that. People weren't bargaining to get that. Not even with the original McDonald's and we shouldn't be giving them that kind of problem today. If a berm sounds unrealistic to block that, then I think we have to look at other ways of blocking that and maybe one of those ways is we, McDonald's establishes a policy and agrees to enforce it that no truck is going to park there for more than a half an hour. Gene Borg: We can put up a sign stating that but we close at. . .12:00-12:30 and someone comes in to open about 4:30. We have no way to stop them. If we're not there. . .we can't stop it. . .unless a policeman does. We can put the signs up. Councilman Boyt: We don't have anybody from public safety here but I'd be real interested in if you post a sign, what you can do to enforce it. I would 65 1 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 I imagine you have some control over that. I don't know how you get truck parking so that it happens as close to the highway as possible but I'm pretty sure that the way this is laid out right now, that's not encouraged. To me, from a philosophical standpoint, I don't see how we can possibly justify a wetland ' permit that allows you to get closer to the wetland than you already are. I haven't seen anything in the staff report that justifies that other than the fact that you want to do it. I don't see a way to do that. We can argue that ' the City is violating one end of the wetland so you get to have the other end of the wetland. I just as soon see the thing filled in and redug. I think your idea of being willing to contribute to the development of another wetland is a good one. We should pursue that. But that's a separate issue to me. The biggest issue here in this instance is that this is impacting people who cannot move their house. They didn't bargain for tractor trailers in their backyard. First we put DataSery in and let the DataSery trucks run up and down Lake Drive ' East. Then we come back and we let them park there and now we're going to let a restaurant expand so that if they had any second thoughts about parking there before, now we can put 8 of them in there at a time. I think that's too much to ' put on this neighborhood and we need to very seriously look at how do we reduce the impact. Councilman Johnson: Bill, if they took out 3 parking spots, that would move it about 60 feet further away. Councilman Boyt: Every little bit would help. Councilman Workman: I hear you saying two different things about the wetland. One, don't get any closer but fill it in. Councilman Boyt: I'm saying, if we're going to put it closer, let's just call it a day on that wetland. Fill the puppy in and have them dig another one. Councilman Workman: Well I think that's what's going to happen and you know, what we have is, and none of us were on the Council in 1982 but we have, and we're going to have this same issue up and down TH 5. Stay on the City Council ' and you will lose as many friends because TH 5, everybody, I don't think you're proposing that from Dakota to Dell Road will be nothing but quarter million dollar homes and residential. I don't think the people in Chanhassen Estates firmly believe that quarter million dollar homes are going to be built when McDonald's is sitting right now. The people at TH 7 and TH 41 are having the same problem. Timberwood is having the same problem. They all want down TH 5 quarter million dollar homes which isn't going to happen. There's going to be a ' business, residential rub all up and down there with gas stations and convenience stores and pizzas cooking and everything else and it's going to be a continuous headache so it's very tough to, highway. Residential. What goes in between there? What's a good buffer? I don't think we're ever going to, I know Ready-Mix isn't. But I mean it's going to be very, very tough for us to dictate the owners of property to settle with the size of their business the way ' it is. I don't think, first of all McDonald's can expand if they want here. I don't think we have the right to deny them. They're going to expand. If we have a trash problem, maybe we can work with the trash problem. I sure hope so. We can do things to warrant trucks. We already have trucks so I don't know what the statistics are that we're going to have more of them. The fact of the matter is we have a business and a viable business here that in talking to Gene I 66 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 is putting $230,000.00 in the pockets of the kids who work here a year and we don't even have, in our discussions, they have no place to even spend $230,000.00 in this town. They're probably spending it in Eden Prairie. We're not doing things right but what we do and with the pizza man and everybody else and the Roger Zahn thing is we're getting ourselves in a situation where we're always chasing after the business guy and we should if we have a trash problem, but out of our control is the situation that we have a McDonald's and they can expand and they are alleviating a problem over here and I think it would be fantastic to get signs saying no idling. 20 minute maximum time limit or whatever. If the boats and the campers and the RV's are more lucrative, I mean I can't think of anything worse than a whole series of semis parked here and if we can thwart that that'd be great but if they can't park here, they're going to maybe still park here and they're going to maybe still park on TH 5 and they're going to cause all sorts of other problems. So I think we're beyond worrying about the wetland because the wetland isn't going to be there. The people who live over here who said people used to hunt ducks there. They built their house there and they're not concerned about it. It's gotten littler and littler since before you and I were born I think. Me at least. And so it's gotten littler and littler and now the people over in this neighborhood are worried about this little wetland but their house is built on one. And there used to be a stream running through there and all sorts of other things so it's down to this micro wetland that nobody is concerned about and foremost the city because we approved it last time to do away practically with it. I like your idea about the berm. I don't know where the funding would come for the berm but if we can, just like Ahn-Le and Brooke's and everything else for those neighbors, whatever we can do to keep the trash, noise, stink, stench and everything else away from those neighbors, I mean I'm all for that. But we have to face the reality that there is a business here. They are going to expand and there are going to be trucks somewhere in and around the vicinity because we've got DataSery and everything else down there and Lake Drive East is built to handle all the industrial all the way down to CR 17 and Audubon Road. That's why it's there. And so facing the reality with modifications to protect and buffer this, I think we should be looking at that. I think to worry about this wetland because of one parking stall or two parking stalls does nothing because you can still fit at least 6 semis in there and I don't see what that is really going to accomplish on the short term. So it's a wetland that we don't care to worry about and I think we can fix idling problems and the length of time they park there if McDonald's wants to help us out and agree with that because it's a not a preferred business, although those people do eat. I don't know what kind of marketing is going to be done out here on TH 5 to draw trucks in. They get used to it. They get on their radio and they say stop. I think a lot of it is because of DataSery and those guys are coming back out and they want to grab a burger. But further down on the other side of this parking lot, I don't think we're going to ' have residential homes built there. We're going to have a whole other industry in here. I talked to Gene about it. What are we going to have over here? Nobody knows what we're going to have in there but I can guarantee you it's not going to be homes and it's going to be another impact on this neighborhood because coincidentally TH 5 is right here. So I have no idea how we can propose to berm this thing. A 10 foot berm or something. But I think these little parking stalls over here are so insignificant to talk about in the larger picture of all these other parking spots and the expanded lot that it's really insignificant because this is going to happen. I don't know why we're not worrying about charcoal burners on this thing because they can smell Big Macs in 67 1 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 the morning or somethin but we have an impact and I know that the Supreme Court dealt with the zoning and that problem and that's going to be tough for us to deal with again. The business is there and again, they have the right to expand ' it and so what we're down to is these little parking spots. Jay says 1. Carol says 2. Willard says none. And it's a minute problem. The big problem is how much of this truck traffic are we going to get in and do we learn to curb it and maybe we've got the solution solved. I don't know. I don't see the trash increasing or decreasing necessarily here. You and I just had a private- discussion, I don't know what's with people rolling down their window as they're ' leaving and throwing it out their window. I just don't understand that but maybe we've got a receptacle problem there. Impervious surface problem has been taken care of. They have every right to do what they're doing and so it comes down to this wetland which isn't a concern and it comes down to increased truck ' traffic for the neighbors which I think we can handle. Because with or without these 1 or 3 stalls, there's going to be some truck traffic in there just as there is now. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is that it? ' Councilman Workman: That's it. Councilman Boyt: Can we talk for a minute about what we agree on or go ahead Don. You haven't had anything to say. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I certainly appreciate it. I'm trying to figure out who's running the meeting. Councilman Boyt : You're running the meeting. . Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. One of the things that I see presently, and maybe Gene can work this out too, is we're talking about having semis. We're assuming semis are coming in there and possibly they will but is there a potential that you could even allow those trucks to park to the far end of the semis? ' Designate it as such for the last 3 or maybe 4 stalls. Gene Borg: Try to move them down as they come in? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Gene Borg: Closer to TH 5? Mayor Chmiel: Closer to TH 5. ' Gene Borg: We can try to move them with a sign. . . Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't expect you're going to have a traffic person out ' there directing the trucks where to park. Gene Borg: We can put up signs but the more signs you put up, the less they tend to read them. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's probably true. 68 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Gene Borg: We could try it. Mayor Chmiel: I guess what I'm looking at is trying to keep it more towards TH 5 if you can. Gene Borg: I don't think we can change the lot to do that. , Mayor Chmiel: - No, I don't expect that you would either. _ Gene Borg: We could try a sign. . .proceed to furthest staff or whatever. We can try that. .. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think the restriction on time limitation would be ' something in itself. For the RV's and so on and some of your other trucks, normally do shut them off but semis they do run. Gene Borg: I don't know why they. . . Mayor Chmiel: During the winter they keep them running. But during the summer they do have tendencies to shut them off as well. But that would be something that you could try to enforce. The other portion I see is the pick-up problem that some of the people have indicated. With the paper blowing around. I think it would be to an advantage and I know you're trying to be a good neighbor too. ' Gene Borg: ...I don't know where they went because I wasn't there Saturday but I know they spent 6 hours picking up stuff on Saturday. Apparently they didn't...and they missed. . . Councilman Johnson: They didn't go through the wetland either. Gene Borg: They didn't have boots on. Councilman Johnson: Even the edge. You could use some more trash receptacles outside. Mayor Chmiel: I guess rather than reiterating everything that's been said, these are many of the things that I have listed here with some of the concerns and there's no sense in rehashing that just to take up more time. I think that if you could probably try to accommodate some of those things, it might alleviate some of those given problems. Anything else? Councilman Boyt: Yeah, I know we're running late but I think if you paint your sign on the asphalt and if the ones next to TH 5, say the 3 down there next to TH 5. If you would put something on there that would say semi only. If you come down to the ones closest to what used to be the wetland. Gene Borg: RV's. Something like that. 1 Councilman Boyt: Well, I happen to believe you're going to get quite a bit of semi traffic in here because when 184 opens up, it's going to be a natural. It's going to be the easiest place for them to get this kind of food within several miles. So I think you're probably keeping full of semis but if they're out there by TH 5, you've basically got a spot reserved for them. They'll pull I 69 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 II I there_ If you say to the 3 that are closest to what used to be the wetland which won't be for long even if we don't let you pave it over now. If you put no semis in there, that gives us another, I would imagine 15 foot to the space so another 45 feet removed. If we could and I think the best place to put this ' is generally on the asphalt. They're going to be looking in that direction. If you put something down that says I don't know, 20 minute, 30 minute, whatever is kind of reasonable along those lines for parking limits, it would get the idea across. Gene Borg: On some of this you're going to have to put up on the outside ' because in the winter you're not going to be able to read that. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I got it. ' Councilman Workman: Or a note on the door. Truckers. Councilman Boyt: Well whatever. Gene Borg: I like that idea. .. Councilman Boyt: Okay, and then if you guys commit to the idea that you are going to tell them that they've been there too long or if you get a neighbor complaint, you will respond to that. I think we're beginning to talk about something that starts to work. Then on this berm business, Chan Haven Holding Company. They're going to lose a certain amount . I don't know where Gary is but I would think they're going to lose a certain amount of that as Lake Drive East gets changed. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: Right? But we need, there's quite a bit of property there. ' We could build a substantial berm. Typically in these road projects we end up with fill or we're taking out or something. There's a lot of dirt that gets moved around. Now this one's pretty flat. I don't know if that 's the case but ' if the City would commit to providing the dirt, would you commit to getting the piece of property to put it on? Gene Borg: . . .wants $4.00 a foot for that and I don't see. . . Councilman Boyt : $4.00 a front foot? Gene Borg: $4.00 a square foot. Councilman Boyt: A square foot. Is that a buildable piece of property? ' Don Ashworth: I don't see how you could build on that piece of property. It's so narrow. ' Gene Borg: He wanted me to put in a parking lot and I told him no. Councilman Johnson: At $4.00 a square foot? ' 70 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Alright, so I know that this tends to be a scary word for most of us but could the City do this as some sort of public improvement? I'd be interested in pursuing how much of that you would be willing to be assessed for. Councilman Johnson: Bill, your semi noise source is so high that when you get semis on there, a 6 foot berm's not going to do anything. Mayor Chmiel: - It's not going to do a thing. Councilman Johnson: What a berm tends to do is what McDonald's talked about, it screens it. It creates a shadow effect directly behind it but noise is not like light. It goes around corners.. It's a change in pressure and so it just drops right on over. The people behind these fences along I-35, they have a good thing. A person a block away has no affect at all. I don't think the berm's going to do you anything. Councilman Boyt: Well I don't know, we've got another issue with light . ' Something needs to be out there to stop the headlights of the cars pulling out. Councilman Johnson: That's where a privacy fence would do just as good. ' Councilman Boyt : We don't have this issue worked out. And then I'll stop here but those trucks shifting up and down to get in there, we're impacting the property value of these homes along there and somewhere in this approval process that ought to come into play. Councilman Johnson: Bill? I think one of the biggest things is something Tom 1 brought up. As we develop to the east of here. As more businesses go in on Lake Drive East further down, it's going to increase or maybe by the connection of 184th down there, that might be a preferred route where you might have a better light and better intersection than Dakota anyway. They may prefer to come in on 184th and may decrease the traffic on Dakota. But the truth is, if we don't provide the truck parking here, the people servicing these new businesses that will be coming into the east are going to come down here and they're going to park on the street. Without the truck parking lot, it's going to be worse. Councilman Boyt: We can stop the on street parking. Just post it. It won't take long to stop that if we want to stop it. Okay, well so there's 2 or 3 issues here. One of them is the wetland. For my part I'll accept whatever is a reasonable replacement of the wetland. I can't believe I'm saying that but I'll do that. Councilman Workman: Well we're mitigating it now. ' Councilman Boyt: Yeah. That's right. But the other part of it is some kind of a sign arrangement so that the semis park as far away from the people as we can get them. In some respects that will be an improvement over what they've got now. That we specifically mark the three closest to the street as no semi parking. I can see some improvements here. I just don't think we can go far enough. 71 ' City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Hearing none, is there a motion? r ; For items A and B. Councilwoman Dimler: Shall we move them separately? t ' Mayor Chmiel: Move them separately. A first ' Councilwoman Dimler: We have to move (h) as well. Councilman Workman: We don't really need to fool with A do we? I'd move approval of the site plan expansion of McDonald's and the preliminary plat and if B is simply the wetland setback variance, I'm not sure how we'd want to word. ' Councilman Boyt: Let's do them separately. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, do them one at a time. Do A and then let's do B. Roger Knutson: A includes final and preliminary plat. Mayor Chmiel: Right. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Bill, are you going to move (h)? Councilman Boyt: Yeah, we'll get there but first we've got to do A. Councilman Workman: Okay, I think Tom made that motion. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Johnson: Tom, with your motion are you going to give us any .1 flexibility if we approve the site plan, then we go to the wetland alteration permit and we say take away a couple parking spots or something on the wetland alteration permit. That's different than the site plan we just approved. How do we. ' Councilman Workman: Maybe we need to go B first? ' Councilman Johnson: We may need to go B first. Councilman Boyt: Let's do B first. Mayor Chmiel: 8 first. Councilman Workman: I would move approval of the wetland setback variance at 10 ' feet. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. ' Councilman Workman: I mean that's with the stalls. Mayor Chmiel: You're going to include all stalls that's existing. Councilman Boyt: Okay, that includes the signing? ' 72 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: The signage that's requested. Councilman Workman: Doesn't the signage become part of A? Mayor Chmiel: Part of A, preliminary plat. I Councilman Boyt: But part of 6 is the replacement of the wetlands. Mayor Chmiel: Right. ' Councilman Johnson: But he's not taking any. All he's doing is getting within 10 feet of it. Councilman Boyt: But to get within 10 feet of it, he's agreeing to replace it . Gene Borg: I agreed to, as I stated up front, agreed to a percentage of the City's destruction I will replace my percentage of my destruction. Councilman Johnson: How much are you destroying? , Gene Borg: Well no, I'm within 75 feet of the variance so 65 feet of the variance and then whereas the City, they're going to be within 65 feet of the ' variance also. Whatever that works out. Councilman Johnson: If you're comparing apples to organes, the City's not paying anything for what they're doing because. . . Gene Borg: They said they were. Councilman Boyt: We sure are. Jo Ann Olsen: Well yeah, we are. ' Councilman Johnson: What? Councilman Boyt: We built wetlands. We paid money to build that wetland. , We're dedicating part of what we built to this particular removal so we paid to remove this. We could have done it with some other piece. What I would like to see happen on the wetland is that we call, the wetland is over. At least we take it off the map. We leave it there maybe but we take it off the map and we replace it so somewhere between the City and the McDonald's application, the wetland is replaced somewhere. ' Councilman Johnson: But the wetland's isn't in McDonald's property. It's in some other person's property. They should have some responsibility here too. Not just McDonald's. Councilman Boyt: They're not asking to get a variance. This wouldn't even happen if the parking lot. Councilman Workman: But the wetland doesn't even have a semblence of a wetland after what the City does to it. ' 73 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Johnson: We're still going to have some semblence of a wetland yes but. d Mayor Chmiel: I guess what we have to keep doing, rather than we're hasing back and forth and not making any sense, I think what we should do is move ahead with what we've got going. Tom has made a motion that the variance request to have a 10 foot setback requirement plus the replacement of the 65 feet that McDonald's ' indicated that they would do, or replacement of that for the wetland. Is that clear? I don't know what I said but pretty close. ' Councilman Workman: And how about that and that staff work to find out how much wetland needs to be mitigated? Mayor Chmiel: I think that 's what we need to do. Good. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I seconded that. ' Councilman Johnson: You could look at existing watershed that feeds this wetland and what affect McDonald's is going to have on that because 10 foot, you're definitely encroaching within the watershed servicing that so you could go into a square footage. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but if it doesn't have any outlet, how does it. . . I Councilman Johnson: It 's what flows into this wetland is no longer going to flow into this wetland so it's going to have decreased water to the wetland. Increased water to Riley-Purgatory. . 0 ' Councilman Boyt: Wetlands a lot of times seep up the bottom. Councilman Johnson: We're not sure of that. Nobody's done, I couldn't get deep enough to get to clay. Councilman Boyt : What we're saying here is that everybody has a good intention to replace the part of the wetland that's impacted. Maybe go beyond that. That's my understand. Is that your understanding? Gene Borg: Something.. . Councilman Boyt : Well, we're replacing part of it. Jo Ann Olsen: We'll look at the plans for, there's two options. We can work with the wetland on the Eckankar site. Mayor Chmiel: How about the 429 Jo Ann? 429 process. Using that . Jo Ann Olsen: As far as? Don Ashworth: What I was suggesting was that it simply be incorporated into the public improvement process so the City would take over the control of the replacement of that wetland. We would make applications to Watershed District or whomever else and all owners would be assessed for their fair share which is 74 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 basically what Gene is saying he'd be willing to pay. II Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I call the question. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the variance I request for a 10 foot wetland serback plus the applicant working with staff for replacement of the 65 feet of wetland. All voted in favor except Councilman I Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. _ Councilman Johnson: My no vote is simply that I think 10 foot is going to come back to haunt us as a precedence. I would have liked to have seen some more negotiating there. The other thing is that, I've got a suggestion for the formula but I guess I can tell staff that. Percent of the watershed taken. Councilman Boyt: That's not workable. It has to come back to us. II Mayor Chmiel: Item A. Preliminary and final plat to plat lots 1 and 2, Chan II Haven Plaza for the expansion of the parking area and site plan review for the expansion of the restaurant. Can I have a motion for that? Councilman Workman: This is where we want to add the signs? I Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Signs. Why don't we just reference parking signs as per II discussion? Is that good? Mayor Chmiel: I think that's good enough. II Councilman Boyt: And sort of limited hours of parking. Councilman Johnson: No overnight parking. I Gene Borg: Half hour parking? I Councilman Boyt: Yeah. Councilman Johnson: A sign saying no overnight parking too. I Mayor Chmiel: I don't think Gene allows any trucks staying there now. Councilman Workman: We have an ordinance on that now don't we? II Mayor Chmiel: That's right. I Resident : ...putting some berms or fences on McDonald's. . . Councilman Boyt: There's no fences on McDonald's property. I Councilman Workman: They're putting natural edging aren't they? Councilman Boyt: You haven't seen the landscaping plan have you? Do you have a II copy of that Jo Ann? 75 II II City Council Meeting - April-23, 1990 . , Jo Ann Olsen: The last plan I saw, there will be some berming in this area and ' landscaping but there's really not room for them to put up a fence. It would only be covering this area and this area. Resident: How about that southeast corner? What's in there? Jo Ann Olsen: 'ou want a fence in this area? ' Resident: Yeah. Jo Ann Olsen: That would require a wetland variance. ' Councilman Boyt : Aren't there trees there now? There are trees there now. Mayor Chmiel: Not on that far end. Scrubby. ' Councilman Boyt: They've got something about a 24 inch elm. ' Gene Borg: That's a dead elm. Councilman Boyt: Oh, that 's the dead elm. tCouncilman Johnson: That's a 24 inch stump. Councilman Boyt: Are you doing any plantings? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there's a considerable amount of plantings. . . ' Councilman Boyt : Well I know on the property but I'm talking about that corner up by the wetland. Are you doing any planting up there? ' Gene Borg: In the wetland? Councilman Boyt: It's the southeast corner. Gene Borg: On the property line or the. . .line? Councilman Boyt: Of your parking lot line. Gene Borg: . . .blue spruce. . . Mayor Chmiel: I guess that planting is quite substantial. Councilman Johnson: The only thing I wanted on the planting was some more planting as a weed barrier. As a fence. It gets caught in the bushes as they go through so low lying shrubbery. So if the wind's blowing from the northwest, the prevailing winds, they don't blow across there. So after those spruces and before the first whatever 3 inch diameter. . .edge or annuals. I don't know. Those low, low bushes are good at catching Big Mac containers. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but there again you've got the open driveway and the other areas there. I don't think that would really stop it. And I think with the ' 76 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 policing effect that they've taken, picking up all that. Councilman Johnson: They've only got one trash can outside, or two trash cans outside. I had to look for trash cans the other day to throw it away. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Kringle, what did you think? Jo Ann Olsen:- I just told him we'd work with him in having more landscaping around that one shrubbery. It's part of the replacement maybe. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move on this one way or the other. Tom, you made a motion on this before. Councilman Workman: It's the same motion with parking signs and limit the ' parking to be 30 minutes. I don't know if we can enforce them idling or no idlying portion on this. Councilman Johnson: We've got the owner of a trucking firm sitting here. Explain to us the idling of deisels. Tom Zwiers: Deisels, when you run them on the road they build up so much heat internally in the engine. If you don't let them run for 5-10 minutes to cool back down the temperature, it will crack the cylinders. , Councilman Boyt: But it 's not the 5 to 10 minutes. It 's the 30 to 60 minutes. If they're only going to be able to be there for 30 minutes, it 's probably not going to be the same kind of problem. I Councilman Workman: So just with those two points. Councilman Boyt : What about a pick-up, paper pick-up point? Mayor Chmiel: Are you saying a parameter area? Councilman Boyt: Well as Tom likes to say, when I used to do this sort of stuff, one of my jobs is to go out and pick up paper every day. Do you have one of those people? How do you miss the wetland? i Gene Borg: Probably in the winter it was wet in there and nobody could get in there because it was so wet. I Councilman Boyt: Yeah, but they do get in there. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion. I Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve Site Plan Request *90-4 with a variance to decrease the wetland setback from 55 feet to 44 feet subject to the following conditions: I I. Receive a variance to the 75 foot wetland setback and meet any conditions of the variance. 77 ' City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 y 2. Revise plans to increase the size of the storm sewer to 12". Provide an ' erosion control plan for the site. Project approval by the Riley Purgatory ;; Bluff Creek Watershed District is required. 3. The owner shall be responsible for relocating the retaining wall one foot outside of the right-of-way when requested to by the City in conjunction with Dakigota Avenue improvements. The applicant will revise landscaping improvements as necessary in this area due to the relocation and present a ' plan for staff approval. 4. Provide financial guarantees for landscaping improvements as required by the ' zoning ordinance. 5. No additional signage is authorized by this site plan approval. 6. Provide required handicapped parking stalls and curb cuts along with appropriate identification signage. ' 7. Approval and filing of the plat is required prior to the issuance of building permits. ' and; approval of Preliminary and Final Plat for Chanhassen Haven Plaza 2nd Addition subject to the following conditions: ' 1. Provide the easements outlined in the staff report and described on the attached illustration. 2. Dedicate illustrated right-of-way to the City. 3. Provide a final plat consistent with these conditions. ' 4. Enter into a development contract with the City and provide necessary financial guarantees prior to having the City sign off on the final plat. ' 5. The applicant shall have signage indicating the location for parking of semi-trailers with a limit of 30 minutes. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Councilman Johnson: I said opposed. Councilman Workman: Why? Councilman Johnson: Mostly because I still think that they can use some more plantings to help prevent the spreading of trash. Fairly economical method of doing that. LCouncilwoman Dimler: We need to move (h). Mayor Chmiel: Item number (h) Bill. Approve Development Contract for Chan ' Haven Plaza 2nd Addition. 78 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 , II Councilman Boyt: Gary, why are we doing item (h)? In 10 words tell me. Why are we taking that little nook out of the turn there? I Gary Warren: Why are we taking the little nook out of the turn? Councilman Boyt: Well item 1(h). II Gary Warren: That's the development contract. Councilman Boyt: And doesn't it impact the road too? II Gary Warren: Basically just covering the conditions of approval of the site II plan as far as it relates to the retaining wall, the developer's connecting to the City's storm sewer system and the landscaping retainage. Councilman Boyt: What about this extend existing right-of-way? II Gary Warren: That's actually a part of the easement dedication that MnDot is pursuing as a part of the TN 5 improvements. I Councilman Boyt: Okay. I move approval of item 1(h). Councilwoman Dimler: Second. I Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the Development Contract for Chan Haven Plaza Second Addition. All voted in favor and the II motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE IV, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND ARTICLE I XXVII, EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES. Jo Ann Olsen: I'll try to keep this brief so you can start your discussion. I This ordinance was drafted at the request of the City Council. It's not specific on Moon Valley. It's for use throughout the City and I guess we need to stress that that's what we should be discussing tonight. Not necessarily I Moon Valley. The ordinance is not punitive. There are much stiffer ones that we looked at but what we wanted to get was one that would allow us to work with existing situations. We've made a lot of adjustments since the Planning II Commission had looked at it and had recommended approval. Those have been added in to the ordinance and we've tried to go through a summary of what exactly those were as far as fencing and landscaping, etc. . We've added the II adminstrative procedure for grading less than 1,000 cubic yards and more than 100 cubic yards. Staff just wanted to stress that we think that that flexibility is something that we would like to see remain in there. Other than that I'll just answer questions. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion? Councilman Boyt: I'd like to start. If you will refer to the ordinance itself. 1 Mayor Chmiel: What page? 79 II II ' City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 Councilman Boyt: Well, I think it starts on page 2 of the staff report . Or no, ' it's probably, I don't know. They call it page 2 but it's about 4 pages in. The question I asked Jo Ann earlier and she was going to get some information for me. I understand some of the rest of you also asked this question so maybe ' you have the information. How big is 50 cubic yards, 100 cubic yards and 1,000 cubic yards? I know how much a truck holds. I want to know in terms of basements. Tell me a typical 1,000 square foot basement . How many cubic yards? Gary Warren: 10 feet deep? Councilman Boyt: Sure. ' Gary Warren: I need to know that otherwise I can't answer that. A typical 1,000 square foot basement 10 feet deep would be about 27 cubic yards. It would be about the equivalent of 6 of our smaller city dump trucks or 3 of our tandem, the larger tandem dump trucks. Councilman Boyt: Okay, so in terms of, I can relate to houses so what we're saying is that staff can approve somebody who does, I don't want to make this too complicated here. Four houses in a 100 cubic yards but they can go up to just short of 1,000 cubic yards so if I've got that right that means about 40 ' basements worth. That 's too much. A year. So somebody could come in and pull 40 basements worth of dirt or whatever, gravel, clay off their property and the City Council never sees it . That 's a big hole. I'm inclined to say 50 cubic ' yards. Okay, 2 houses. That seems reasonable. That's the kind of thing that maybe somebody would do. I'm going to say well, I want to make a house that's going to be 2,000 square feet . I'm going to need 50 cubic yards of fill removed, or whatever they call the stuff you remove. Not 40. You're talking a development . So that 's one change I would think. Adminstrative approvals for something like 50. Maybe 100 max in a 12 month period. We should be in the business of reviewing these things. Not delegating off major earth moving. Then on page 4 of the ordinance, item 13. Rehabilitation plan. I think we could have that it be rehabilitated to a state as good or better than it was before it was mined. Now that gives you some flexibility in determining what is ' as good or better but I suspect the industry has some standards on that. On page 5, adminstrative approvals, I think when they apply for an adminstrative approval they should have along with those other items, item 8 which is a tree survey. Item 13 which is a rehabilitation plan and item 14, which is a wetland alteration permit if required. So that's page 5(C). On page 8, 7-45, item B talks about hours of operation. I think there should be something in there that indicates that the hours of operation cannot exceed the development contract ' hours we have as a standard in those development contracts and that according to Apple Valley, I like something that they had in there. I forget what the distance was but if you were within a certain distance of a residential development , you could only operate Monday thru Friday. I think there's a lot of merit in controlling mine operations that are close to residential areas. Then page 9, item I which is the dust control. How do we keep the City streets clean. I think we can simply that one greatly by simply saying that the owner/ operator of the extraction will be responsible for maintaining clean public streets. So if they choose to do that by asphalting an interior drive or wash system or whatever, it's just that they can't get mud or the equivalent on public streets. Let them decide. I think this is an awfully good idea overall. 80 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 come up with the dollar amount for restoring the site or replacing erosion control or. . .individually looked at. I guess we haven't had an example because we haven't walked this permit through. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And you're going to up that letter of credit every year? Is that what you're saying? I guess I don't quite understand. Gary Warren: Well this provides us with the opportunity'to do that if appropriate. I think that's a good clause for us to review the letter of credits. Normally we do that annually as they're scheduled for either releasing or renewal. We take a look at it but typically when a developer does work or a private individual, whatever the case may be, the letter of credit lags behind the work that's been done. In other words, we get a $10,000.00 letter of credit. The minute that he starts doing work on the site and such, putting erosion control fence up or whatever, we're sort of ahead of the game such that we're normally in a position where we have more security in force than typically is necessary. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, are we going to know in advance how much work ' they're going to be doing that year and how much restoration costs would be for that work and then can you take 110%? Gary Warren: Basically with each application permit here we would be looking at each one individually and establishing the security amount. If they happen to have several of these and still are below the criteria that's established for the max, that letter of credit can be bumped each time. They could have one overriding letter of credit per applicant let's say. Councilwoman Dimler: Thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom, do you have anything? Councilman Workman: Not at this point. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I went through some of these things and I just have a couple questions. On page 4, item 11. Travel routes to and from the site. It's good to know what the travel routes are from each location to and from but do you think it would be adviseable to have numbers of trucks as well? Knowing what flow of traffic is there. On page 6 on 7-39 I assume that that's strictly a hold harmless clause for us. Roger? Roger Knutson: 7-39, that's correct yes. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. On 7-46. I'm not sure the word rehabilitation standards should be as such. Should it be rather than rehabilitation, restoration standards through a lot of those given areas because it is restoration of what's existing rather than rehabilitation. I guess those were the only comments that I had. Councilman Johnson: Does that apply back to item 13. . . 1 Mayor Chmiel: It should apply through the balance of the areas where rehabilitation is. , II 82 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Johnson: All the way back to definitions. Mayor Chmiel: Even under definitions. Councilman Boyt: What do we have on erosion controls Gary? It seems to me I ' read it but I can't find it. Councilwoman Dimler: It's in there. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was in here somewhere. Councilman Johnson: There's something on the bottom of 8, 7-45(d) that kind of talked about it but. Roger Knutson: In 7-35(8,12) they have to start off by giving you in their application how they control erosion. Councilman Boyt: There is part of this is when you establish any kind of loose dirt pile, we should be doing something to. That should be part of their erosion control plan. Gary Warren: 7-34(A). Is that what you referenced Roger? Roger Knutson: I was looking at 7-35(B,12). ' Mayor Chmiel: Well we already have erosion control standards within the ordinance requirement and I think 7-34 covers it there under item A. Roger Knutson: 7-34 does not require a permit. Even if you don't require a permit, you still have to comply with these things. Councilman Johnson: Just looking at N-12, that says water erosion control. Is that trying to differentiating from air erosion control or is this. . . Councilwoman Oimler: Where are you? ' Councilman Johnson: Page 4, item 12 up there. Would that be soil erosion control? Councilman Boyt : Why don't we strike water? Councilman Johnson: Or just say erosion control. Good idea. Councilman Boyt: We don't have anything right now controlling stockpiles of dirt. Occasionally we'll put it into a development contract but it's pretty likely in a mining site that you're going to stockpile items. Is that going to come in under 12 Gary? Plan for erosion control sedimentation. Gary Warren: 12 is very broad I would say in scope. It could come under there. If you wanted to point that out. Councilman Boyt: Where would we put it? 83 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Gary Warren: You could add it right in there I suppose. .1 Jo Ann Olsen: That's information that has to be provided. Maybe you should have another section. Kind of saying what's in 7-34(A). Councilman Boyt: This is kind of a first reading? Mayor Chmiel Yes. We'll have another opportunity yet. Councilman Boyt: So you can take these notes and work magic on them? Gary Warren: I think it could be added to page 3, item 4. B(4)(a) where you talk about specifications of the following using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys and then you say a proposed grading plan and you could say which enumerates proposed stockpile sites. Councilman Boyt: Does that make sense to you to include that? We have not, as I gather, we haven't resolved how much staff is going to get to approve without , bringing it to us. I've said 100 cubic yards. Maybe that's too small. Councilman Johnson: What do the other ordinances say? Apple Valley, etc. ' Gary Warren: 5. Councilman Johnson: 5 yards? Gary Warren: 100 cubic feet . If they're doing anything below 100 cubic feet , they don't need a permit. , Councilman Johnson: I've almost done that in my backyard. Gary Warren: A child playing in a sandbox could be a violation. Councilman Workman: Shouldn't that include something to do with I guess what we're talking about is it won't have to go to the approval of the Council. We're talking about them that would have to have a public notice published. Isn't that what we're getting at? That would happen anyway right when it came to us? ' Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Councilman Workman: So it would have to go to the Planning Commission first and probably become a public hearing there? Roger Knutson: Correct. , Councilman Boyt: What I want to avoid is, I don't want Dick Vogel calling me up saying do you know what they're doing over here? ' Mayor Chmiel: Dick wouldn't do that . Councilman Boyt: And I don't have the slightest idea because we've never heard about it. Now there's a certain size hole in which we'd hear about it. I'm not 84 , I 11 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 sure what that is but I know 1,000 is too big. I've got a problem then. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. There might be a point . ' Jo Ann Olsen: Are you also saying that under Exemptions on page 2 that that should be 50? Exemption from any permit, nothing more than 50? Are you saying ' there at 100 is too much? Councilman Workman: Are you talking about E? Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, E. Because you've kind of discussed E on that page and then you've also brought in A under 7-35 on the next page. Councilman Boyt: I think 50 is, I can live with no permit under 50. We're just talking about a couple basements. ' Jo Ann Olsen: Okay, so you want to change 100? Councilman Boyt : I'm talking for myself. Councilman Johnson: As I look at this, another thought just came up. It says if we're going to excavate less than 100 cubic yards, you're exempt from a permit. I'm sure there's people out there who would construe that to mean that ' oh, I'm excavating less than 100 cubic yards so I don't need a wetland alteration permit. At the top could we say exemptions from earth work permit or whatever the permit is rather than just permit requirements because we've got so ' darn many kinds of permits, we're specifically. I know this ordinance specifically only talks about earth work permits. Jo Ann Olsen: We do address on the next page. We say exempt earth work and then we say it has to comply with City's erosion control and maintain natural existing drainage and comply with other ordinances so it's brought out separately there I think almost better. ' Councilman Boyt: Maybe we can go to something like from 50 to 500? That's 10 basements. That's a big hill. Mayor Chmiel: I think rather than to continue this, I think we should. . . Councilman Boyt: I'm just trying to give staff a sense of where to do with the thing. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll have a little better idea and then maybe we can get a ' little bit better information on that as well. Councilman Boyt: You guys can do what you want with it. You'll pass it while I'm gone. Mayor Chmiel: There you go. Any further discussions? Anybody want to say anything? Mike Dwyer: I'm Mike Dwyer. I represent Moon Valley. Just a couple of things with respect to the wording of this ordinance. We were in attendance at the 85 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Planning Commission meetings in March and April and I think if you review the motions that were made, that passed this onto you, it was the intent of the Planning Commission that there be some other language than what is reflected in the materials you received. The one that is pertinent to my client's position is Section 7-41. There was a discussion at the Planning Commission by Commissioner Batzli I believe indicating that they felt it appropriate that there be a public hearing before the City were to draw down on any letter of credit. That -as I read the Minutes and understood the motions that was- made was carried. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's strictly a recommendation. We can change what we want. Mike Dwyer: I understand that. The point is that you don't have that even on here. I think it's a good idea for due process reasons but I didn't see it in here in the first place. Councilman Johnson: Public hearing before draw down a letter of credit? I Mike Dwyer: Excuse me. , Councilman Johnson: You're saying a public hearing before the draw down of a letter of credit? Mike Dwyer: I'm repeating what one of your commissioners said, yeah. Mayor Chmiel: I don't fully agree with that myself. , Mike Dwyer: And we'd just like to repeat what we have said at the Planning r Commission. That we think this is an inappropriate ordinance because it's drafted, in our opinion I think towards Moon Valley as evidenced by the fact that the City already has an ordinance that's very similar to this and has had it on the books since 1986. Late 1985. The main difference being that you, through a clause here, you capture the grandfathered entity of Moon Valley. We believe it's discriminatory against Moon Valley in that sense. We also think it's improper for you to try to apply land use laws to a non-conforming land use. Moon Valley is willing to work with the City in terms of it's legitimate safety needs. Indeed there are some fencing problems out there, fine. Until this matter was raised in December of 1989, the City had never approached Moon Valley in terms of needing fences. Never approached Moon Valley in terms of needing a trap or paved roads. If the City has legitimate safety problems, Moon Valley will comply with them. But in terms of responding to zoning laws, we think that's inappropriate for an operation that's been there for a long, long time. We do object to the letter of credit. We think that the fact that that land is there, Mr. Zwier's intentions to develop that land in residential lots down the road, the land is security enough. I don't think the City needs an expensive, very expensive LC to backstop those intentions. The cost to the only existing substantial significant mining operation in the City of Chanhassen is going to be substantial to comply with this. To apply for the permit process along is going to be about $35,000.00. To put up 6 foot cyclone fence is going to be $15,000.00 or $20,000.00 depending upon how aggressive the City is in terms of that fence. The paving of 300 feet of roads, that could be another $50,000.00. That's significant money. We've heard a lot about this Council's sensitivity to costs being assessed to residents and other landowners. That's a 86 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 significant cost to this landowner. These are arguments that if you pass this ordinance you'll be hearing again from us through the permit process but I think it's an over reaching ordinance and it's one that I'd recommend you not pass. The City hasn't demonstrated a need for it. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion? Dick Vogel: I just think between 7-41 and 7-46, a letter of credit should be substantial to take care of whatever the rehabilitation standards for whatever project are done so that the contractor will perform what he says he's going to do in the rehabilitation standards. I'd like to see the setbacks from adjoining property owners enforced. I think that's an important part of the ordinance. And also 7-43, screen off site views. You know I guess that's something that ' should be looked at. I think one of the commissioners said, maybe there are no homes around, that isn't too important but if there are homes around, I think that's something that should be kept in the ordinance. I guess that's mainly ' what I have to say. Thank you. Terry Beauchane: My name is Terry Beauchane. I live at 240 Flying Cloud Drive. ' Just across the hill from the Moon Valley operation. I'll try to keep this as brief as I can. I have a number of points I'd like to bring up. Maybe they are worth discussion, I don't know. Number 7-32, the permit required as to the portion in here that says active earth work operations that predate this Article that do not have a permit shall obtain an Earth Work Permit within 6 months after the adoption of this chapter. I guess I would like to know why does that have to be 6 months? Why such a long period? Mayor Chmiel: Roger, do you want to address that? ' Roger Knutson: We felt it's fair to give existing uses some time to put together a plan to comply with this and to go through the process. Once they put together a plan they might have to hire consultants, and I'm sure they will. They'll have to come in. Fill out the application forms. Go through the hearing process. Planning Commission up to here. We just wanted to give them, we didn't want to cramp them. ' Terry Beauchane: Does this mean then that the existing operations are not covered by any ordinance or they're covered by the previous ordinance and so on? In other words, the operation as it has been rather than as it will be under this ordinance? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Terry Beauchane: So there would be no restrictions pertaining to this ordinance then? I guess I would like to make a comment also too about the letter of credit and bond as referred to in this proposed ordinance. I'm 100% in favor of it and I think it ought to be probably even more substantial than what has been discussed here tonight just because of the possibility of this land turning into city property and the taxpayers end up footing the bill to do something with it after the operaters of this land are already done. On item 7-44, number E. It ' talks about appropriate to screen off site views. I guess I'm not clear. Site views from who or, I don't quite understand that. ' 87 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, would you like to, or Roger. 7-44. Terry Beauchane: 7-44(E). Jo Ann Olsen: What we're trying to do there is like some of those bluff areas that would be impossible to totally screen the views from all directions and so we changed that so that staff can look at the actual situation and determine exactly what is necessary. Terry Beauchane: Well is that section primarily for the homeowners in the area or that type of thing? What I'm getting at, I don't know if any of you have ever looked at the Moon Valley operation from Shakopee. From across the river. I mean it's a God awful sight and it does, 7-44(E), would that cover that type of thing? Councilman Boyt: Can't . ' Jo Ann Olsen: It'd be impossible. Councilman Johnson: That's like trying to screen the roof of a shopping center , from the people that live on the hill above it. It's impossible to do. Terry Beauchane: That's why I'm asking the question. I'm trying to determine , what exactly he was. . . Councilman Johnson: . . .practical to give some flexibility. Mayor Chmiel: Terry, maybe I could make a suggestion. If you have a lot of , ;. questions in regard to what's here, maybe it might be a good idea to discuss this with Jo Ann. This is going to be the first reading. Terry Beauchane: Okay. Am I understanding that this proposed ordinance is not going to be voted upon or approved tonight? Mayor Chmiel: Not today. This is the first reading. We have another reading before that. So maybe if you have specific questions from staff, you can ask those and then come back to the next meeting with those that are not answered, maybe we can do that at that time. Terry Beauchane: Okay. That'd be fine. Thank you. r Mayor Chmiel: If that's alright with you. Terry Beauchane: Yep. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else that has a quick one? Quick question_ If not. Councilman Johnson: I just noticed something I didn't notice before. I hate to do this at this time in the morning. 7-44(0. Weeds shall be eradicated. In some areas weeds are the natural habitat and. Mayor Chmiel: Eliminates erosion. 1 88 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 Councilman Boyt: What's a weed? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I mean what's a weed? Mayor Chmiel: Ask the weed inspector. 11 Councilman Johnson: That's right Mr. Mayor, as the City's weed inspector, you'd be real busy. Anyway, take a look at that. I'm not sure what you mean by that. ' Mayor Chmiel: If not hearing any other discussions on this, can I entertain a motion? Councilman Boyt: I move approval of the first reading of Zoning Ordinance ' Amendment of Article IV, Conditional Use Permits and Article XVII, Excavating, Mining and Filling and Grading Activities. ' Councilman Johnson: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the first reading ' of Zoning Ordinance Amendment of Article IV, Conditional Use Permits and Article XVII, Excavating, Mining and Filling and Grading Activities. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: NOMINATIONS FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES, MAYOR CHMIEL. Mayor Chmiel: We received this communication from the Association requesting nominations for Board of Directors and the Board duties as you see are as such. My suggestion was at the time that it also is directed to managers, that what I'd like to do is have Mr. Ashworth submit his name, even though they're to be ' filed by the 20th and this being the 23rd. To serve on this Board of Directors. Don Ashworth: It was sent in today. It's a very distinguished position so I'm ' not holding my breath but I did send it in. The original transit board though on the back side is still open and anyone who would like to sign up for that. Mayor Chmiel: That 's right. RTB. ' Don Ashworth: I think I got them to hold it open until after tonight's meeting. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Did you get a hold of Gloria Don? I talked to Gloria on the 20th and she mentioned that to me and I told her that I'd like to have an application. Did she indicate she was going to send in one. ' Councilman Johnson: Gloria who? Councilwoman Dimler: Vierling. ' Councilman Workman: What 's she got to do with RTB? ' 89 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 Councilman Johnson: What's she got to do with RTB? She's MWCC. JIL Mayor Chmiel: I was going to say that if there isn't anybody that wanted to, I would do that as well or try to. Find out what it is. Don Ashworth: If you've got anything short. I faxed my over to the League here today. Maybe you and I can talk tomorrow and I'm not sure, Ursula if you had wanted to pursue that one as well or not? Councilman Johnson: She's on the Southwest Metro Transit Board. I know that. . . Councilwoman Dimler: I saw it as a progression, yeah. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. One of our members of the Southwest Metro used to be on the RTB and boy does she come up with a whole lot of good information she gained her knowledge of federal and everything. It'd be a good experience for you. Councilman Workman: I will say that, if you recall the MWCC commission, which I basically applied for and never heard back. I was there the day with Tom Chaffee and Tom Chaffee suggested yeah, maybe he'd be interested. Tom Chaffee's now on that thing and I am not and I never heard back from those guys. I suspect my politics weren't in the right corner. , Councilman Johnson: Hey, I applied for it too Tom. Councilman Workman: Tom Chaffee, somebody tapped him on the shoulder that •11 morning and said what do you think and he said, sure. The next thing you know, he was in. Councilman Boyt: Can we keep this hummer moving? We may finish at 1:00. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES LEGISLATIVE WRAPUP SESSIONS AND ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN OULUTH, COUNCILMAN WORKMAN. Councilman Workman: I brought this up to staff just simply to say I'm interested in going. I will be in Duluth that week anyway so I'm looking at the wrong thing. That's the annual conference. I'm going to be up there anyway. I would like to also attend the legislative wrapup session to find out how in fact we've been stuck. I don't know that that needs approval or whatever. Councilwoman Dimler: Is there a cost involved? ' Councilman Johnson: Usually Don asks us if we want to go to this every year. Councilman Workman: The annual? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, the annual Minnesota one. I've always had a conflict. This is the first year I don't have a conflict. I hope I have a conflict by then. I 990 11 City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 1 Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can discuss that. I'd like to also on these other items that we have here, I don't know if they're real crucial to discuss this evening. Maybe we could talk this Monday night at our next Council meeting. ' Councilman Boyt: Mine are really quick if I could. Councilman Johnson: My first one is super quick. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, then let's do it. Talk fast. Jay? Y ' Councilman Johnson: Silt fences. Inspect them puppies. I saw a bunch of them ripped down this weekend. Just that fast. And some, a constituent who was talking to me about dogs in parks. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's not part of this. Councilman Johnson: I know but from there it got into a community garden ' because she lives in a quad and has no place to garden and we're talking about maybe looking into the possibility of establishing a community garden like Minnetonka and Hopkins and a few other places have. Where people who don't have ' any yard can establish a garden. It's something I'd like staff to look at sometime in the future. It's not a high priority. ' Mayor Chmiel: Oil recycling. Bill. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I would like staff to come back in the next 3-4 months with an ordinance on recycling oil. Two points. This past week Channel 2 has broadcast several times a program on ground water in Minnesota. Among other things they said 40! of ground water pollution is caused by oil that's not recycled. Oil that 's put into landfills. That in Minnesota alone there's 2 million gallons a year of used motor oil generated. Mayor Chmiel: That 's going to be mandated now with regulations with motor oil. ' Councilman Boyt: Well I would like to see us out in front on that issue. Councilman Workman: I will say something in relation to that quickly. Over at ' the SA over on TH 7 and TH 41 where they do have a recycling receptacle. I don't know if you're familiar with it. It's in the ground. It's over on one side of the parking lot and you've got to go over and lift up this greasy lid ' and take off this greasy cover and put it all back in. It's user friendly for nobody and it's, I don't know that it's, I think we need to have user friendly in there somehow because I mean I do it before work. I'm in a tie and I'm getting gas in the morning and I'm going to dump some oil in there. That's it. ' It's pretty much. . . Councilman Johnson: Kind of like Sinclair's too. His is real oily. ' Councilman Boyt: Okay, but at least they've got one. So is there general consensus that we could be do this? Councilman Johnson: The County is also looking at this. We're discussing it at the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and the County's trying to put something ' 91 I City Council Meeting - April 23, 1990 11 together on used oil too and we can work with them. Yeah, they have to by law. Mayor Chmiel: 8 Y mi By law they're required. Mandated to. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Next point. This is real quick. Take the flag down ' off the Fire Station and don't put it back up. It's not legal. You can't fly a flag that's tattered. You can't fly a flag that's been cut off and so, the City can certainly afford to put a flag up at the Fire Station and here at the City Hall that meet all the requirements you're supposed to have for a flag. It's disappointing to see that flag up there too short and all tattered. So I'd like to have it taken down until we get the right kind and put it up. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom. Board of Adjustments. Councilman Workman: Board of Adjustments, and this is directed at staff. We ' need to have some sort of a rule or idea or suggestion. I think Willard brought this up before. He brought it up to me earlier. These people are getting, the Board of Adjustments commissioners. Are they commissioners? The Board of Adjusters, the adjusters are getting notice Friday night and sometimes Monday. That has happened on an occasion? Jo Ann Olsen: Their packet is sent out the same time the Council packet is but what we have been trying to do is whenever we send out public hearing notices to the applicants, to also send those to the Board of Adjustments and sometimes Vicky doesn't get that out . •, Councilman Workman: Well it hasn't happened. Willard was supposed to go on vacation. He didn't know that there was one coming up. He cancelled. .1 Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, I brought it up again and I can only keep reminding her to do it. Councilman Workman: Yeah, I don't know if we need to get it listed in some rules of the Council or how but it's getting some people anxious and I promised that I would at 12:30 in the morning bring it up. Crossroads Bank, I wasn't at the last HRA meeting. I did talk to Tom Mork, the President about where is the Crossroads Bank and he just kind of named one of these. I'm wondering where we're at with the Crossroads Bank. Don Ashworth: They're still trying to get their charter. Most of it goes back to the concern on the Federal level with the number of S & L closings that have occurred nationwide and general statements that this country needs to take and have tighter controls for banks and before new banks are started, and that's created more bureacracy which has made it harder and harder to start. Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 92 1 I 1 461":"n° • CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18, 1990 IChairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p .m . . I MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth ISTAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: I CARL CARRICO, LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON LAKE LUCY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE WEST OF YOSEMITE: A. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE 12 ACRES OF PROPERTY IN THE IMETROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA; B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 12 ACRES INTO 16 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; AND IC. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER AN EXISTING WETLAND. IPublic_ Present_: Name_ Address_ I Frank Carderell Representative for Carl Carrico Laurie Williams 1760 Wood Duck Lane Nancy Febry 1710 Teal Circle I Todd & Sherill Coumbe 1791 Ringneck Drive Roberte & Betty Slater 1820 Pheasant Drive Scott Allen 1750 Wood Duck Circle Jeff & Becky Jessen 1741 Wood Duck Lane I Pat Johnson 1.730 Lake Lucy Lane Mike Bomstad 1810 Ringneck Drive • Bob Spelts 1841 Wood Duck Lane I Dave DeZellar 1731 Wood Duck Lane Riff Yeager 1830 Pheasant Drive Carol Droegemueller 1740 Pheasant Circle I Ruben & Renee Perkins 1721 Wood Duck Lane Bob Gunderson 1690 Wood Duck Lane Mike Filippi 1731 Wood Duck Lane Eric Rivkin 1695 Steller Court 1 Tom & Kari Struthers 1741 Wood Duck Circle Mark & Donna Sims 6531 White Dove Circle Mary Cordell 1730 Lake Lucy Lane I Jim Bergeson 1661 Wood Duck Lane (5/14/90 ) Mark Williams 1655 Lake Lucy Don & Vernee Bierle 1820 Ringneck Drive Jim Filippi North Star Engineering representing IPheasant Hills Development I I rPlan,ning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 2 Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . I Conrad: It seems to me we have a series of priorities here on this particular issue . I think we 're going to deal with them on a , well we 're going to open it up for public comments but if the Commission doesn 't believe that we should be rezoning or incorporating this property into the I or petitioning the Metropolitan Council to put this into the MUSA area , the sewered area , then some of the other issues are not real relevant . So that 's more of a global issue that the Planning Commission should deal with I and maybe some of the specific issues that you may have come here tonight with will be addressed at some time and we may address them tonight , depending on where we go because I can 't speak for the rest of the I commissioners here but there are global issues that we have to deal with and then there are specific issues that we have to deal with . And I think we 're going to , as a commission , try to figure out how to handle this particular subject as we go along . What I 'd like to do right now is open I it up for public comments . I 'd like the applicant , if they have a presentation for us or they have comments . They obviously know that the staff has recommended tabling or turning it down based on the I recommendations that you heard . I think it 's useful for the applicant to tell us their perspective on it at this time and why it 's coming to the commission at this point in time . IFrank Carderell : Yes , I 'm Frank Carderell , surveyor , representing Carl Carrico . First of all , I just received the report . It was supposed to be mailed to me but I didn 't get it until the meeting tonight so I haven 't had I time to read it . There are some questions we have and it 's kind of a catch-22 . In meeting with the Metropolitan Sewer Board , we have to have approval from the City first before they 'll consider it and if the City has I to have approval before , if you have to have approval from the Metropolitan Sewer Board before you can approve it , we 're at a stalmate . There 's nothing we can do so we have to start somewhere . Furthermore , I have a question as to the wetlands alteration permit . We don 't plan to do that . I We just show a possibility if the City wanted to put a pond in there . We are not asking to do that because we have dropped that portion of it . We have stated that we will donate that 4 1/2 acres to the park . In order to I do that , if you want to use the entire park for ballfields and totlots and we have designed tennis courts and we're willing to give that land but we 're not willing to grade it . We just showed what the ONR . We met , Jo I Ann Olsen met with us out there with the DNR . With the Watershed District . With the Corps of Engineers . This is what they said could be done in that area . Now we don 't intend to do that . We don 't plan to build anything in that 4 1/2 acres . We plan to give that to park because there was some Isuggestion . We again have been working for 2 years on this particular piece and the owner is getting very antsy to do something . IIConrad: Who is the owner by the way? Frank Carderell : Carl Carrico . IIConrad: He owns the property? II Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 1990 - Page 3 ' Frank Carderell : Yes , I believe he does . That 's my understanding that he I does . That 's why we 've been working on it . He had bought it at one time I know and still owns it as far as I know . The concern I guess we have is that the 4 1/2 acres that we have set aside for park would be a very generous portion of the property leaving 13 lots . Obviously the sewer and water , the sewer is available to the north . The water does run along Lake Lucy Lane on the south side so there is water available . However , why we 're I here is to try to get something going rather than just a stalmate . If there is no way that the City can get together on the purchase of the property , the total 11 .67 acres , then something has to be done with the property . It 's been standing now , we 've had this in proposal for over 2 years and we find that this is the second time I 've been before the Planning Commission . However , we would be glad to have it delayed so that • we could work out the problems and again . . . Conrad: Let me interject and normally I don 't do this but you don 't like the timeframe that the City has in terms of redoing it 's Comprehensive Plan? I have to assume that you don 't like that because we 're in the process of looking at the plan . Looking at zoning . Looking at changing maybe this particular site to single family but we're in the process of I looking at all of Chanhassen and that must not agree with you . The timing of that , you 're saying I don 't want to be part of that action . I want to go this alone . Frank Carderell : No , that 's not what I 'm saying . I 'm saying we 've been working on it for 2 years . We 'd like to get some action . The City is still interested in buying the property . The owner would like to develop it . Sell it or do something with it or try to get together . We feel , as representing the owner , that he 's tried to bend over backwards . He 's offered the 4 1/2 acres for a park . And I 'm showing on there that , like Jo Ann just said , we don 't want it because we can 't use it . The Corps of Engineers , the DNR and everybody we have met with said if we put an enhancement area of approximately 1 acre there for water , it 'd be no problem . Also , we agree with the City but we want to try and get some I action going . We want to try , as I said before , we need some action. Is it, the way it 's laid out , the 13 lots , will that fit in your plan? Now we don 't expect action tonight and we 're not going to ask , if it 's going to be ' denied or delayed , we would rather have it delayed to work with you but we also would like to get off dead center . Either if the City wants to buy it , fine . If the City is not happy with the 4 1/2 acres . If we can lay it I out some other way , we 'd like to do that . We want some direction . That 's what we 're here for tonight is direction . Thank you . Conrad: Okay , thank you . Anybody on the Planning Commission have a feel II for how we would like to handle the public hearing tonight? Again , getting into details may be premature yet the applicant is saying that they 'd like some direction and I think the applicant , he deserves that kind of direction from us . Is it a feeling that we should open it up for public comments so we get their ideas at this point in time or is there a feeling that we should react to maybe the MUSA issue and bring this back in later on and deal with maybe some of the park issues? Anybody with a perspective" on the Planning Commission on that? I II Planning Commission Meeting IApril 18 , 1990 - Page 4 IErhart: Ladd , I think you should point out that we really have nothing to do with the park issue . This body . It sounds like the applicant is willing to delay any real action until we get this MUSA line thing settled I while at the same time looking for probably some comments from us about what we think of his plan . If I 'm hearing right , that 's good because I think that 's my recommendation is simply to deny it and wait until we work I through the plan . Work through the MUSA line issue . If the applicant 's looking for some constructive criticism of the plan in response to his investment in this , I think that would be warranted . I Conrad: Any other comments? Okay . I think therefore , I think it 's valuable to provide some direction and those of you who are here , make your time worthwhile . If you 'd like to make comments about the plan , I know I you 're all , I know you 're real interested in the park issue . I 'd appreciate it , more than likely we 're going to table this or turn this down tonight . Speaking for myself . I haven 't counted noses here but more than I likely it 's not going to go through . But I 'm curious about your general impressions with the plan that you see , if you 've looked at it and therefore , without getting too detailed in some of the specifics . I don't want us to get bogged down in the real specifics but if you do have some I real concerns that we should be looking into that might provide the applicant with some direction . Might provide the City with some direction . The Mayor 's here tonight and I 'm sure he would not mind hearing some of I your comments too , if he hasn 't heard them already . But I 'll open it up for any comment with that kind of direction if that 's clear or foggy , I don 't know . Are there any comments? IJim Filippi : Mr . Chairman , my name is Jim Filippi . I 'm with North Star Engineering , consultants . I represent 11 of the homeowners in and around the Pheasant Hill area regarding this particular development . We understand I that it will be continued tonight , tabled . We see that as a nice opportunity to be able to sit down and work with the developer . The concerns that the people that I represent have relate to the park area . I The area of it . The location in particular . The suitability for development . We think some of the points in the staff report regarding the potential adjacent development of the Hughes property are well taken in I terms of viewing that as to how this development should tie in and where that landlocked parcel would go . At this point we would like to , from the viewpoint of the entire property , the first choice would be to have the City purchase the whole thing as a park . That there be some sort of I negotiation or purchase agreement arrived at where that could be . Barring that , that the roadway alignments take into account the adjacent property and that the park location be shifted to where there may be some more I suitable property . Particularly when you look at it in view of a no net loss policies that you 're getting with the wetland and whether the enhancement really is a 3: 1 or 2 .5: 1 trade-off that you look at . We would ask that the Planning Commission direct both staff and the developer to I provide an opportunity for you representative of the neighborhood to meet with them and that a representative of the neighborhood be notified of staff meetings , if the developer would so consent to that as alternatives I are discussed in the intervening time so that hopefully come August or whatever that anticipated timeframe is , we 've got an agreement of how the property should be developed rather than what you 're looking at now . II II Planning Commission Meeting , April 18 , 1990 - Page 5 I • Pat Johnson: Good evening . I 'm Pat Johnson . I 'm a homeowner . I 'm also an I attorney . My address is 1730 Lake Lucy Lane . We 're no in Pheasant Hill . We 're in the area south of this proposed development . Lake Lucy Highlands . I We had a meeting at my house at which Mr . Filippi was there . Some of the Pheasant Hill people were there . Some of the Lake Lucy Highlands people were there . We 're concerned about the park issue . I did a little checking though as far as title to the land here and based on my checking . We have I a lot of questions to ask the developer based on my checking that doesn 't indicate he owns the land . So the first question is , who actually down own the land . Title as far as I could tell was in the name of a bank . So we I do have some questions as with the developer and as Mr . Filippi said , we would like to maybe coordinate with the City , particularly the parks department or whoever is going to , who 's in charge of acquisition of this land , and see if we can 't get some input together and talk with Mr . Carrico I or with the owner . Who he represents . Whatever the case may be and see what we can do to work something out and I think that 's the consensus of most people at my house this evening . As far as the plan goes , again we I have problems with seeing anywetlands go I guess is what we come down to . There are some steep grades there . I think at the meeting last year I objected to the way the road was coming in so close to the Lake Lucy . I There appears to be a change there that we 'd like to look at so thanks . Mary Cordell : Hi . I 'm Mary Cordell . I live at 1730 Lake Lucy Lane right across from the parcel . I guess the comment that I would have that I feel I like I would need more information on is what type of developer is Carl Carrico . I don 't have any information on him . As far as what I 've heard from the City , I don 't know that they have that much information on him . I What types of homes? What price range of homes? What? You know we don 't have much information as far as what they 're really thinking of putting in as far as the homes so I think as a neighborhood resident , we have a lack Iof information and I think the suggestion that we have a neighborhood representative be working maybe with the developer and with the Planning Commission , just so we have the information available to us would be helpful . I Conrad: Excuse me . Paul , could you try to answer her question the best way possible in terms of the City 's control over those types of things? I Krauss: Yes Mr . Chairman . We have direct control over the layout of the subdivision . We have standards that they have to adhere to . Be it a good ' developer , bad developer , be it indifferent , they have to adhere to the same standard . We do not do background checks on the individual developer nor do we regulate exactly what they build there . It 's a single family home . It has to meet standards . I Mary Cordell : I wasn 't aware of that . Krauss: I can understand why the neighborhood would be interested in what I sort of home they build and what price range but by law that 's not questions we 're permitted to ask . Mary Cordell : Okay . And also just as a personal comment , I mean my I preference is to see the City purchase the entire parcel for parkland for II II Planning Commission Meeting II ' April 18 , 1990 - Page 6 IIour area . I think a lot of the people that are here are coming in support of the parkland . We have over 100 kids in the area and there 's no park . Just a comment as far as the location of the parkland , just in meeting I with Park and Rec and talking to them , it doesn 't seem to be that feasible for the needs of the area and we think we need something more and we think we deserve something more . IIBob Spelts : My name is Bob Spelts . I live at 1841 Wood Duck Lane and I 'm involved with a number of these people in trying to develop an association I for Pheasant Hills . The Homeowners Association . There 's a number of issues involved here . With all due respect to Paul and his folks , some of us have not had a good relationship with the developers around here and sometimes the things that they say , we take with a little bit of a grain of II salt but there are a number of issues , one of which is the fact that we don 't have a park anywhere for our children to use . This area was pointed out to us by the people that were selling us our homes and our lots that I this would be a park someday . Now I know that you can 't control that at this point but still the promises were made and we had certain expectations . Another issue is this roadway through here . Lake Lucy Lane has become a thoroughfare for people who don 't want to go south over to I Galpin Lake Road . They cut through and I see this other road as another shortcut through the development . We have been concerned about the traffic through there because it 's been impossible to get a stop sign put at the I intersection right around the curve so everybody guns their engine and takes off as they come around that corner and if we create more hazards for our children , it 's just going to make those of us in the neighborhood all I the more concerned about what 's happening . And then finally , if you look at the area that 's designated, the 4 1/2 acres there , if you actually go out there and look , that doesn 't make a suitable park area . We would be destroying natural wetland and I don 't think that that 's a reasonable thing I to do at this point in time and the concerns that we have about ecology and so we would recommend that the entire parcel be bought and used for park for our neighborhood . Thank you . IEric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin . I live at 1695 Steller Court and I live in Lake Lucy Highlands which is right around the corner from this parcel . I 've I spoken before the Park Commission last Tuesday and a lot of the things pointed , kind of the general feel of how things like this get developed and call for the need for more parkland in this area . This is a park deficient area . It 's seen in the staff report that this is , the Park Board agreed I with that . I would like to see this whole parcel be bought by the City as a park . One of the things that I have brought up as an issue is the fact that the laws . The weak laws that are in the City about standards that I have to be met when parcels are subdivided . That a certain portion have to be set aside per person for parkland . This kind of land that he 's proposed to set aside here is not by any stretch of the imagination park . If you visited the site , it is mostly wet in the spring of the year . There is I standing water there now . They cannot be built any totlots around it because it is either wetland or it is too steep . And the system does not work because it does not set aside any quality land for park . We 're 1 entitled to parkland that can be really used . I think that funds were short , mentioned by the park board . I think in order to find other sources of funds , we should encourage the park board to be creative about where to II I Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 7 , find these funds . Maybe laws need to be changed perhaps about how parkland 1 is acquired before MUSA lines get expanded and land prices soar . That 's not the time to buy parkland . The time to buy parkland is now when the MUSA line in this area is not established because land values are fairly reasonable now . I understand that the City had a couple of assessments done for the land of what it is worth now as being less than $70 ,000 .00 . I understand that Mr . Carrico had this appraised as if it were completed severed and watered and subdivided and developed at $350 ,000 .00 . I 'm sure there 's a place inbetween that would fit within that would be reasonable . So I encourage that the City should involve in negotiations with Mr . Carrico . The other issue that I want to bring up is an ecological one . It 's very important , we've had the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association pulled together $1 ,500 .00 and paid Dale Hogan , a biologist , to assess our lake and our watershed area because we want to clean up our lake and this is in the I Lake Lucy watershed . That wetland drains into Lake Lucy . It carries all the nutrients that are draining into that wetland and if this is developed , will contain more pollutants , more nutrients than possibly this lake can handle right now . He found evidence , very strong evidence , to support that 'll fact that our lake is a seepage lake . It is fed by ground water mostly , not by runoff . If you pave over and overdevelop land in this manner , he I said that if the area were fully developed , that you could lose 20% to 25% of the replenishment opportunity for Lake Lucy . That is a headwaters for a chain of lakes . For that reason alone , Lori Sietsema commented that the park board should deny to go ahead with this project . Also , in the Sailor I which came out today , the Metropolitan Council has a lynologist who stated in here that the water quality in metro area lakes will continue to deteriorate unless there are lifestyle changes such as no fertilizing , I reduce use of cars and modified building practices . He said that it 's not hard to find examples of large scale residential and commercial developments in areas soon after MUSA lines get extended and transportation ' systems are extended . The point in this article is that this will contribute to a thing called non-point source pollution and our watershed district and ourselves and other lake associations on the chain of lakes have been trying desparately to try and get funds together to clean up the chain of lakes from non-point source pollution . The main source of that is development . Laws have to be established to , better than what we 've got now . This doesn 't do justice for that reason and we need to raise our II expectations about ecological impact on our watershed . We 've got our best natural resources in this town are our lakes . We are going to continue to degrade them further if we put in developments like this so close to the watershed . We 've got to control and better planning to be able to have holding areas to trap the sediments . Take them away and give them to farmers who want the nutrients. We 've got to have better practices . Management practices in the watershed that should be legislated hand in hand with practices that the watershed district cannot or are unable to enforce through planning practices . Thank you . Conrad: Thank you . . . .I think it 's real clear where your interests are there . I 'm interested in other issues that we could be concerned with . I don 't want you to stop if I 'm taking some of your comments away but we have heard those and we 're sensitive to those . I 'm not sure the Planning II Commission is a , we 're not necessarily the best resource in terms of park useage . I think we rely on the Park and Rec and the City Council primarily I I . Planning Commission Meeting 11 April 18 , 1990 - Page 8 for those decisions . But as to how it 's impacting a layout . How it 's impacting a subdivision , we 're interested in that but again , the issue is , ' we 've heard the issue . I 'm real interested in other things . Carol Droegemueller : My name is Carol Droegemueller . I live in Pheasant Hills , 1740 Pheasant Circle and I guess I responded to this particular land ' and the way it 's been proposed over the last year . Even through this entire process of coming to public hearings , I 'm still unsure about a particular question so I 'm going to ask it and totally reveal my ignorance ' here but , this is a Planning Commission here and you are responsible for the comprehensive plan for our city . I am not sure how park needs are designated here and I would like maybe for you to address that exactly . If you don 't zone it specifically for a park , how does it happen? Do we knee jerk response to every development that comes through and then decide that a park is necessary because we have all come here and complained that we need it? I would like to see our Planning Commission look toward the ' future and the numbers that are growing and , I don 't know if there is a zoning for a park and I guess I would like to hear you address how that works so we can better use it . Then my second comment is , I would just ' like to reiterate something that was said at the meeting on April 11th . Jim Mady who is from Park and Rec , summed up the response for us that the Park and Rec Commission had , and I think it bears repeating . He said that we have to look at this development in terms of what it can do for the City ' of Chanhassen . His feeling was that it would simply add 12 or 13 more homes in need of a park . We would still be back to ground zero and we would go through this process one more time looking for property that would suit 12 more homes in need of a park . Conrad: Paul , maybe you can help integrate for everybody the role of Park and Rec and Planning Commission . Krauss: The Park and Recreation Commission is charged with advising the City Council on acquisition and development of park property . The Planning ' Commission typically accepts their recommendation and then embodies that in their recommendation to the City Council . Parks , specifically where they should be , what they should look like are not typically addressed directly ' by the Planning Commission because they're looking at the development relative to the surrounding area . The question as to whether or not parks are zoned as parks , typically they 're not . Parks are a permitted use in the residential and agricultural districts in the community and as such they can go presumabely anywhere . The City does have a comprehensive plan that does locate major park facilities and acquisitions to those and those are the facilities that have the ballfields or the major environmental I amenities that are being protected or whatever and we identify those because they 're quite site specific and they're quite large . The facility that we 're talking about tonight is a neighborhood facility . Neighborhood II facilities are not specifically located but what they are is a designated search area on the map and then typically as development occurs , parcels are reviewed to see where those opportunities may lie . The park board has some ideas given the lay of the land where a park should be but I think II you 've got to recognize that the way in which we acquire parkland is only one of two ways . We can either take it as a required dedication with a subdivision in which case we 're limited to how much we can take by state I I Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 9 law and there 's a reasonableness and do we have to take , and no we don 't have to take wetland as active park area if we don 't want to but we can 't take the whole site . If we want to take more parkland that we are entitled I to under the subdivision ordinance , we have to buy it . The park board continued this item and that 's really realistically a recommendation that they'll have to make directly to the City Council . I 'm aware of the fact that negotiations are continuing . I 'm not sure if they 're going to be successful or not but we simply under the subdivision and zoning ordinances do not have the right to stop a development because we prefer that most of it be park . We can require a dedication and that would be done . The comment that there aren 't a whole lot of opportunities for neighborhood park development in this area appear to be accurate . In talking to Lori Sietsema , there 's not a whole lot of opportunities left . For one reason or another these things have been deferred over the years and we 're looking at one of the few opportunities remaining and it will be for the park board to recommend to the City Council a course of action on that . Conrad: Okay . Good comment . Jim Filippi : Paul , can I ask who 's doing the negotiations on behalf of the 1 City? Krauss: Lori Sietsema . ' Conrad: So really what you 're, saying Paul , and I think it 's good for the neighbors to hear that . In this particular case , there is not a zoning I that we 're doing and it is possible that in a deficient area , we could end up with no park . That 's really possible based on the process . Krauss: It 's not inconceivable . Given the fact that this is one of the few remaining opportunities , there 's obviously a strong desire to work something out and work it out quickly . A lot of times we acquire park over a period of time . As different parcels develop , you take a chunk of park I here . A chunk of park off of that subdivision and when you put the whole together , you 've got a nice piece of park . We don 't have that flexibility at this point . This is one of the few remaining sites . Conrad: Okay, thanks . Any other comments? Jim Bergeson: My name is Jim Bergeson . I 'm at 1661 Wood Duck Lane in Pheasant Hills . After attending the meeting last week with the Parks commission and then tonight , to me there 's some major issues that kind of stand out . One is the road that's proposed as far as thru traffic going in' and through Pheasant Hills. Another issue is the speed of getting something done . The developer is concerned about getting something done . The residents are concerned about getting a park developed and not waiting for another year and having that drawn out . If the developer and the community got together and did some compromising . The developer drew up a III new plan . Came up with perhaps 8 lots instead of 13 lots. Had a cul-de-sac instead of a thru street . The parks commission bought some additional property . My question is , would the developer be able to re-present that proposal to the Park Planning Commission and this Planning 1 I Planning Commission Meeting IIApril 18 , 1990 - Page 10 ' Commission and get something done fairly quickly as far as getting the MUSA line okay? ' Conrad: Well I can't react to the whole thing but the MUSA line , we 're trying to deal with it not in reaction to this particular property . We 're in the process of looking at all of Chanhassen and there 's a schedule set ' up for doing that . We really don 't want to react . If we took this to Met Council right now , there 's a good chance , it might be harmful for us as a city to approach the Met Council . So therefore , there's probably a feeling ' here that we don 't want to do this on a site specific issue like this one . Therefore , we are going to delay more than likely , we are going to delay action on zoning it for residential use . That area is logically a residential neighborhood so it 's not like we 're thinking commercial or ' something like that but it 's in conjunction with a lot of other activity that we 're going to be going through . Paul , what 's the timeframe just so people know? ' Krauss: Well , we 're looking at submitting the comprehensive plan amendment to the Metro Council this summer . It 's probably going to be July or ' August . We need to hold public hearings on it first . Some of you may have seen articles about it in the newspaper . There 's going to be a continuing number of those in the next few months . I guess one thing I should clarify too is there seemed to be an implication that there 's a catch-22 situation ' with MUSA line amendments . Individual property owners and developers don 't make requests to move the MUSA line , cities do and the Metropolitan Council responds to a City Council 's request to do that . In fact they typically ' dislike talking to individual developers because that puts them behind the 8 ball . The City's been going through a comprehensive plan process for the last 2 years that 's basically considering the well being of future development of the entire community . The City 's running out of land to ' develop in other areas . There are some needs for different types of things in the community and there 's a guide plan amendment , the one we 're looking at is looking at moving the MUSA line to include about 2 ,000 acres . Now ' this particular site is well within the area we 're considering and we just have a concern and this has been related to us by the Metro Council staff as well , that they don 't want us to come to them in a piecemeal fashion . ' We 're revamping our entire plan in the manner that they laid out and rather than take these things on a catch as catch can basis , we 're coming to them with the whole package . We 're explaining why we need to do this . What we propose to do. How we 're going to build the roads . How we 're going to ' build the sewers . Everything else and frankly as staff , we support that approach . That 's why we recommended that this be continued or denied . ' Conrad: So it 's not totally relevant to your issues . It 's a function of a process that we , in this particular case I believe we want to follow because it makes sense for all of Chanhassen . Park and some other things ' can happen but in terms of residential going in there , there 's a good chance we can 't move quickly on that . Jim Bergeson: So it is possible that if the developer and the community ' reached an agreement , the developer could sell property to the City , develop the park with the expectation of the MUSA line approval later and then development of a limited number of homes? 1 II Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 11 II I Krauss: I don 't want to imply that we will refuse to talk to the neighborhood or developers . That 's anything but the case . We 'd be happy II to continue negotiations on acquisition or continuing possibly the park board would make , I 'm not sure about this , but make a recommendation to the City Council irregardless of what you do tonight on this development and 1 we 'll be happy to continue working with everybody to get a plan in place that we find that we can recommend approval of at such time as the MUSA line moves but we don't anticipate this going ahead until that 's done . Conrad: Are there any other? I Frank Carderell : I guess I want to clarify some points . I think when we I started this there was no reaction from the City for the MUSA line . We were alone at the time and we met with the Metropolitan Sewer Council and that was over a year ago , year and a half ago and we are again willing to try to work out the problems . What you 're hearing tonight is the beginning' process . We obviously realize that the roads that we proposed were what the engineering department asked for . Now that 's what we did . We are here tonight for direction . If the landowners , adjacent landowners don 't want I that road to go through, we 'll put a cul-de-sac on it but we have to have direction and that 's why we 're here . We are here for 3 things . Negotiation on the park . Fine , if they want to buy it all , fine . We have I laid out for Lori , I 've laid out what she asked . A totlot , 2 half court basketball courts and I believe 2 tennis courts and that 's what she said she wants on the property . I laid them out for her . We designed them . We put them in the property and that 's all she said they wanted . Well if they' want something else , we'd like to know . That's the direction we 're asking . We 're not asking for . . . Resident: . . .is that on the wetland? I Frank Carderell : It 's not on the wetlands at all . It 's off . I Resident: It 's not on the 4 acres? Frank Carderell: It 's on the 4 1/2 acres . Yes it is . All of it can be I designed on that 4 1/2 acres . We have done it and I 've given it to Lori . I didn 't know about the Park Board last week or I 'd have been there but we do need direction and we are at this point beginning that direction and I that 's what we 're here for . As you can see , there 's going to be a lot of work yet to go in it . It will probably be August before we get the plan laid out . I Resident: Can I ask . . .plan submitted this summer , like what time line are you looking at as far as approval or not of the MUSA line? Any idea? Like when are you realistically looking to get sewer and water into this parcel I and neighboring parcels? Krauss: Once we submit it to the Metro Council , honestly it 's somewhat out' of our hands . Metro Council has 90 days to review it . They can ask for extensions if they feel we haven 't covered something adequately or the public community has raised objections . It enters what frankly is a I Planning Commission Meeting 11 ' Apri'l 18 , 1990 - Page 12 ' political arena at that point and I would predict exactly when it would be adopted . If things proceed smoothly by November , an amended Comprehensive Plan could be in place . That 's the earliest . Conrad: Anything else new . Any other new issues? Anything? Okay , is there a motion to close the public hearing? Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: Paul or Jo Ann , would you go through the proposed street design and explain , if in fact that 's what we wanted and the pluses and minuses and why it came that way . Olsen: The City does . . .applicant and we do approve of this connection . Again , the 50 foot right-of-way in the Pheasant Hills PUD was put in for ' future connection . The access here has been located to give us separation from Lake Lucy Lane . It 's also , because of the slope of the property and the wetland area , is one of the reasons it was kind of designed with the curve in it and the half cul-de-sac . We are looking at , with the Hughes ' ' property potentially coming in with a cul-de-sac in this direction or we 've also looked at possibly coming in in this direction . I think maybe what some of the people in Pheasant Hills were getting at was whether or not we ' could do a loop drive through here and not use this connection . Frankly that 's something that we haven 't reviewed at the time . . .there is a long cul-de-sac here and I don 't know if you're familiar with this area but going to the east , there is an area there for future connection. . .so we do need a secondary access out on that location . Erhart: And access on Wood Duck Lane? Olsen : Well it 's not Wood Duck , it goes out to Yosemite . . . But anyway , there are other options there . ' Erhart: Well you state that the road design provides a 90 degree bend which does not meet city standards . I assume you 're putting that in there ' to try to eliminate thru traffic . Is there a potential for a lot of thru traffic through there? Olsen: I know that there is a lot of thru traffic , because some of the ' people were talking about with the location connection here to Lake Lucy Lane . If you remember , Lake Lucy Road used to go straight through to Galpin and we cut that off and it loops down now so the people on Galpin do ' tend to cut , who are going to go east , do cut through Pheasant Hills . They cut onto Lake Lucy Lane and through rather than going straight to Galpin , or to Lake Lucy Lane and curbing back up. I don't know if they would still be . . .in using this access or that same sort of thing but I 'm sure people in ' this northern area would be cutting . We even have had some people recommend the City looking at vacating Lake Lucy Lane where it comes up Wood Duck . They 've got a cul-de-sac and if this went through, then it would just be moving . . . Erhart: Okay , it sounds like you 'd want to review that further . 11 I Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 1990 - Page 13 1 Olsen: Well we are hoping with this time that we have now , to include the Hughes property . Erhart: So you could have an all encompassing approach? Okay . Well that makes good sense and I suppose with that respect then perhaps our comments on the street design tonight would not have that much impact . ' Olsen: They 'll be changing . Erhart: Yeah . I 'm a little curious . Why do we look at a plan that ' doesn 't have lot widths that meet the code? Krauss: In this case it wouldn 't be a very difficult exercise to adjust II the lot lines to meet code . Erhart: Isn 't it clear to developers when they finally get to this point II that they 're not going to get lot widths approved that . Olsen: They 've not given the impression that they 'll be approved . I think' things like this , they might just have been overlooked . Erhart: Overlooked? Olsen: That 's making assumptions . ' Erhart: The fact is it 's supposed to be a professional engineer is providing , or professionals are drawing up the plans . It just seems odd toll me that you would get to this stage in the process and we 'd still have such simple things as lot widths not meeting the standards . So from those I comments I think it 's clear that the developer would have to meet that if he 's going to proceed any farther than this point . Why do you suggest that the developer would have to put speed advisory signs? Olsen: That was coming from engineering where because of that 90 degree , curve is a more dangerous curve that they would just recommend us to . . . Erhart: Would the developer put those up or is that a city responsibility?' Krauss: It would be in the development contract . If we installed a street , we would install it and assess all the costs back . ' Olsen: It would be in the right-of-way . Erhart: Okay . My recommendation is to deny this tonight . Not that I criticize at all the developer for trying to pursue his interest in this property . In fact I appreciate the effort that the developer has made in pointing out to the City that in fact there's land here that would like to be developed and obviously he believes that there are potential homeowners that would want to have access to these lots or perhaps there 's people who want to have access for a park and I think everybody , one more stimulus to I point out to us that we need to make some action on this whole thing . As I 've stated many times here in the past , I dislike this whole concept of I . Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 14 the MUSA line and think there 's a far better way to limit urban sprawl than draw MUSA lines . The fact is that we have to , I think we 've been forced ' over the years to accept that approach to controlling growth and the fact that we 've had to do that despite my , again empathy for the developer and encouragement to continue to pressure us to , and the citizens to accomplish some action here . I cannot help but do anything other than recommend a denial at this time and would look forward to seeing the proposal at a time when we 're ready to actually take some action on it . ' Emmings: I 'm not going to make any specific comments . The matter ought to be either tabled or denied . I don 't see any real compelling reason to do either one . It seems to me that if we deny it , does that mean he has to ' pay another fee if he wants to bring it up again? Is that one difference between tabling it and denying? Krauss: Theoretically yeah . That frankly didn 't occur to us but that 's ' true . The reason we would suggest denial or the only reason we would suggest denial is if the developer objected to the delay , we 're held under statutory requirements to act on this . ' Emmings: I understand . There 's plenty of good reason to deny it and I guess in the spirit of trying to keep negotiations open with the developer and so forth and trying to get something resolved on all these issues , maybe that 'd be a good reason to table it but I don't have anything else . Ellson: I agree with the Park and Rec that it should be a park and I prefer not to comment on this what if type of plan . What if we get a MUSA line and if we get the zoning and you saw a plan like this , would you ' approve it? That 's the way I view what they're coming forward with this on and I feel that it would put the City at a disadvantage during this negotiation . The less apt I am to tell him that I would okay this plan in the future , the less they probably have to show future land values and ' things like that so I 'd rather not comment . Whenever it comes forward , it has to come forward like everything else with all the approvals met . Quite frankly , the City spent an awful lot of time looking it over . They 've got I a lot of comments from them and more work than I 'd probably recommend they do even but I think it would be a waste of our time and it wouldn't really help the City in their negotiating points so I would deny it . I wouldn 't I table it either . I think a tabling gives the impression that it 's still active and there's still some hope and this thing doesn 't meet anything so I think it should be denied . I Batzli : I was going to ask some site specific questions if you don 't mind . Jo Ann , there was discussion last time about the 90 degree curve and that it wasn't up to some sort of standards . Is that still the case? I don 't I recall exactly what the problem with that was . Was it just a speed problem? ' Olsen: I believe that 's all it was . Batzli : There was nothing about the cul-de-sac being on the corner? II Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 15 Olsen: The only reason there 's comments usually about that is from the public works department . Whether or not they can get the snow out of there and they had no comments against that . I Batzli : Do we encourage that type of thing? Olsen: We 've gone both ways in the past . Again, it was discussed at this I point and it wasn 't felt that it should be removed . And I know that we have discussed where we curved it and just took out the cul-de-sac . Batzli : We have discussed that? I Olsen: We have internally and it wasn't to that point where we had to , we I didn 't agree to require them to remove the cul-de-sac . Batzli : Have you guys seen the plan at all that the developer 's drawn up for the totlots and things like that at all? I Olsen: I saw a copy where they showed where some of the facilities could be developed but it is all , this doesn 't show it too well , but the actual I outline of the wetland is approximately in this location . What they 're proposing is to make this the wetland and have all this able to be filled . • Batzli : The smaller part that 's in yellow on ours would be the part? I Okay . Olsen: But from our testing of this or research , these soils are still I really porous and there will be water . . .but that's where the Park and Rec did not agree that this would be good facilities . Batzli : Who mapped the wet , did the Fish and Wildlife map the outline? I Olsen: We did go out with Fish and Wildlife and the Corps . I Batzli : You haven't gone out there since '88 or whenever you went out? You haven't been out there recently? This was 2 years ago when we drew . . . Olsen: Not with the Fish and Wildlife or the Corps . I 've been out there . I Batzli : But that was kind of previous to this drought so , okay . Then we I moved the Carrico Lane over to the west creating Outlot 8 . That was our recommendation to get it away from the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane? Olsen: Yeah. If I can recall , I think that there was some remnent piece I to begin with . I don't know , was there? Frank Carderell : Yes , that was moved over there at the engineer 's I request . That 's why that outlot is in there . Otherwise he came straight down . Batzli : Would Outlot B be deeded to the City? II I Planning Commission Meeting ' April 18 , 1990 - Page 16 Frank Carderell : Yes . Also , to answer your question as to that 90 degree curve , that was Lot , I think it was 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 was put a larger radius on there at the engineer 's request . This has been worked through the I engineers and the roads have been approved by the engineering staff when I was there at the meeting . And by the way , that line on there , the part there in green is the wetlands as staked out on the field with Jo Ann and with the Corps and with the DNR and that is the wetlands that they claimed . They put the stakes in . Batzli : Right . But she was indicating that the plans that she saw , you had the totlot in part of that . Frank Carderell : They were all around . I 'll get those plans for the park where we showed the tennis courts , the totlot , the half ball courts are all out of the wetlands completely . Olsen: Not the existing wetland . Batzli : How much active parkland, just out of curiousity is there if you take out the wetlands from this 4 . whatever? IOlsen: Well if you take out the existing wetland , there 's not much because the rest of it is slope . There 's not much . Frank Carderell : About half . About 2 1/2 acres are wetland and about 2 1/2 acres are high . Batzli : Does that take into account the driveways meant at all then too? Frank Carderell : The driveway isn't going across that . . . iBatzli : Okay . I guess I agree that I think a portion of this property or nearby needs to be a park . I think obviously this needs so many variances at this point , well it needs several variances and it doesn 't meet the , it 's not zoned correctly and it can't be rezoned until the MUSA line 's moved so that I would also recommend denial on that basis . But I think obviously the developer shouldn't necessarily be totally frustrated and they should continue to negotiate and work with the staff because I think the movement of the MUSA line is hopefully going to shortly be a reality . I Frank Carderell : I just had one thing . That 's $1 ,000 .00 the developer has to pay just to bring it back and that 's a hardship on the developer . We 're willing to negotiate but if you deny it , that throws that out and he has to Ido it over . Batzli : You 'd prefer that we table it? IFrank Carderell : Why certainly . Conrad: If we deny it , you get to talk to the City Council . IIFrank Carderell : Well that true . I II Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 17 II Conrad: That 's worth $1 ,000 .00 right there . You 'd rather not have it go a that route? Frank Carderell : . . .other than we have to come back with another 1 $1 ,000 .00 . . . Conrad: Okay . Joan? I Ahrens: I 'm not going to ask any site specific questions on this but I think it should be parkland also . I think parkland is really necessary up 1 there and needed . I have a question about these speed advisory signs though . If you have any extras of those Paul I think they should be posted all along Lake Lucy Road which is used as a raceway by I 'm sure a lot of people in this room also . I happen to live on Lake Lucy Road . Anyway , and if it 's a park , you may want to post those signs too because the kids riding up and down that road are going to have to deal with the racing Icars . But that 's all I have . Conrad: Okay , thanks . I generally agree with the staff report tonight . I think some good comments in the staff report . Some things that are real important to me , I ' ll just hit them . I do need to know that there is , I doll need to know proof of title or ownership or some kind of contractual agreement by Mr . Carrico . I need to know that he has an interest or some , document that proves that . Parks , I think it certainly seems like a park deficient area . We 'll wait for input from the Park and Rec Department . I think there 's enough of you interested in that you're going to get some kind of action on that particular issue . I 'm not interested in hurting the l wetlands at all . I think there is , as Mr . Rivkin said , they're rather important , especially in the chain of lakes , that this may head up . I 'm interested in Dale Hogan . Was it Dale Hogan? I think you should get that III report to staff , if they don't have it . Make sure that Lori gets it to thell Planning group . Well , Paul you can ask Lori for that . I 'm interested in that . I didn 't quite follow all the comments on that but as to how that I will affect any type of a subdivision . That's significant in my mind . I think we have gone through some road alignment issues here that I thought staff was sensitive to the ecology of the area and therefore , just so you all know my position on the roadway , I 'm not necessarily against what I see' in the plan right now . Obviously it's going to be dependent on parks and going to be dependent on a whole lot of things but again, I don't see a real negative on that road other than , and I have to take a look at it II again specifically how it impacts wetlands and how it can impact some of the contamination downstream . Obviously the reason that I don 't want to pass this tonight is I 'm not interested in going to Met Council and having ii this put into single family at this point in time given the fact that we II are going to do that for all of Chanhassen. Any other comments? I think the applicant is recommending that it be tabled . If anybody feels that they want to bounce this to City Council for their comments, another way is to deny it and that will cost the applicant another $1 ,000 .00 . Emmings: Or we could recommend denial and the City Council could table it . That way they get it both ways . They get the input of the City Council but r still don 't wind up with the extra fee if the City Council decides . . . II I , Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 18 Conrad: Well there are a few Council members here tonight . Did Jay leave? Is Jay here? I know Ursula 's here . Jay , you 're there . Yeah , there are a fair number of Council people here . They heard a lot of the comments tonight so whether , it can go to them . On the other hand , 3 out of the 5 heard a lot of the neighborhood comments tonight . ' Erhart : I think if the applicants asking us to table , let's just do that . Conrad: It's what you want to do. Yes sir . ' Jim Filippi : There are a number of the neighbors who would support tabling rather than going to Council at this point . Conrad: Okay . Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission tables Land Use Plan Amendment ' #88-4 , Rezoning Request #88-4 , Subdivision Request #88-19 , Wetland Alteration Permit #88-12 based on our previous reasons , discussions and the applicant 's request to table it rather than deny it . Conrad: Is there a second? ' Emmings : Second . Conrad: Any discussion? Ellson: I have a question . What Paul was saying , how soon do we have to bring it back then legally and things like that? ' Krauss: If the applicant agrees to the tabling motion , you don 't have a problem . Ellson: Once it 's tabled , they have to say well you have to see it again? ' Krauss: No . The clock only ticks if the developer intends to push it . Have a finding that you 've exceeded 120 days . They 've agreed to the Icontinuance . It 's not a problem . Emmings: Well , do you need that from them in writing? Krauss: It would be nice , yes . That would be a good idea . Emmings: Well then there 's a condition that , are you including that condition? Batzli : Yes . IConrad: What was the condition? ' Batzli : The condition is that I move to table it pending the developer 's approval in writing to the City staff . II Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 19 II Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission tables Land Use Plan Amendment #88-4, Rezoning Request #88-4, Subdivision Request #88-19, Wetland Alteration Permit #88-12 pending the developer 's written approval I to staff. All voted in favor except Annette Ellson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1 . Conrad: And your reason? I Ellson: I 'd rather deny it outright rather than tabling it . Conrad: Okay , motion does pass . I think , for the neighbors who are here , the process in terms of Park and Rec and negotiations . How can we advise the neighborhoods right now . They do have some counsel and they 're I obviously interested in working with the developer . Working with staff . What is a feasible way we can guide them in doing that Paul or Jo Ann? Olsen: Well they are being notified of all the Park and Rec meetings . I Conrad: You will be in the future for sure . So is this an issue that Park and Rec is actively dealing with and is Park and Rec going to be dealing 1 with it relatively shortly? Olsen: Yes . Lori is again in the negotiating stage and looking at other ' property that is available so yes , it is being actively pursued . Conrad: So any neighbor who has signed up right now for sure will be notified of Park and Rec meetings okay . Any other recommendations for the I community or the developer at this point in time? Anything? Okay . Good . Thank you all for coming tonight and we 'll keep you involved in the process. Thanks much . I PUBLIC HEARING: • I MODIFICATION NO. 10 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TIF PLAN. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Batzli : I think you just for the record indicate that the only people in the room are two councilmembers and staff and us . Conrad: Okay , you just did . I Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I Emmings: I have a question. Item number 3 down there talks about Hardee 's . What's going on there just out of curiousity? I Olsen: As far as I 'm concerned and with Paul , nothing concrete is happening with that . It 's another Brad Johnson deal where he keeps coming 1 in with plans showing Hardee 's with Amoco but it 's nothing that 's really being pursued at this time . I , Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 20 ' Krauss: That 's a tough one to figure because plans keep on appearing on my desk . Hardee 's apparently has an option agreement for that corner . I 've met with them once several months ago. They 're talking with Brad Johnson ' about putting together some sort of a comprehensive redevelopment plan for that area . Brad 's been trying to put this together for quite some time and it still hasn't come together but the TI district needs to be amended so that the possibility of this happening can be included. Emmings: Once it's come up the idea of putting fast food restaurants into , zoning them down to a small area we 've talked about . We 've never really done it . I don 't know how much interest there is in that or whether people want to see these spring up wherever they will and it will be too late to do anything about it . I have some interest in talking more about having a place for fast food restaurants to be . Ahrens: Eden Prairie . Emmings: And I don 't know if other people do but if part of this is to help Hardee 's come in down there , I don 't know that I 'm for it . Krauss: Again , this deal keeps changing and I can 't tell you for certain what Brad Johnson 's asking for on this because I don 't understand where he is right now but it was my understanding that Hardee 's in particular was ' not asking for any HRA subsidy . The HRA subsidy was in there to acquire and relocate Gary Brown's car wash which is sitting where the Hardee 's would like to go . 1 Ahrens: Do we really want a Hardee 's and an Amoco and a car wash right at the entrance to our downtown area? ' Krauss: The Amoco is a done deal . The Amoco is not part of this proposal . Ahrens : I mean just as a big picture . You know all of them together . ' Krauss: It 's a valid question. Ahrens: That 's really junky I think . Across from the Holiday and the auto parts store . Krauss: Then we did, there is an ordinance now that deals with the ' separation of gas pumps that followed because of that . Those two uses could not occur in such proximity again . I think what did we apply , 250 foot separation if I recall right? Batzli : I think it was more than that . ' Krauss: 500 . Batzli : 500 . 250 to a residential . ' Krauss: Right . I Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 21 Emmings: Can we , the HRA is planning three separate things here . Can we recommend approval of this plan for items 1 and 2 and omit 3? Or do we have to take it all or nothing? ' Krauss: I wish Todd were here to explain it directly but what I would prefer you did is recommend approval of the plan . See approval of the plan' doesn 't mean that you 're recommending approval of that specific course of action . It 's allowing the HRA to work with us and I 've been to HRA meetings where they've been skeptical of the particular project the way it's laid out right now . But it 's clear that there 's some interest in doing something with the City in that area . Olsen: With the Hanus building . ' Batzli : Is the Amoco deal though , is that a done deal regardless of whether of . . . Krauss: Amoco was approved outside of this redevelopment . It was approved . Ellson: Right now this couldn 't be allowed though and if we approve it it I can be allowed? Krauss: No , Amoco . . . ' Ellson: No , the Hardee 's . Krauss: Oh Hardee 's . Ellson: I know the Amoco , we 've done all that . I mean that 's kind of what' Steve is getting at . Now we 're giving him an in so it 's a lot harder to deny it than to not even have it be a possibility . Krauss : Don , do you want to field that? ' Don Ashworth: The entire impetus for the plan amendment before you is recognizing major changes in State law which basically prohibit the City from making any additional changes within our existing tax increment district so there 's a number of projects that are shown in there that the HRA may or may not get involved with . The Council may or may not approve . I The plan amendments are put forward to give the City the option to be able to consider those projects or not . Chanhassen sits in a favorable position . When the tax increment was first created it was a tool to help I stimulate economic development . Well , we 've done a better job of it than most cities in the State and at this point in time , the City 's kind of changing the rules and saying well , maybe we didn't really want you to use it as extensively as you have . In the meantime , the City has a number of ' projects , the HRA say , that are half done . For example , and let me say that typically the HRA would not carry out a plan amendment until you had the specific revenues in place and them come back with a plan amendment to I show the entire project . Now the State is saying , if you don 't have something in your plan prior to May 1st , you 're not going to be able to do it in the future . Well that poses a problem . The City owns HRA . Pauly 's . • I Planning Commission Meeting ' April 18 , 1990 - Page 22 We own the Pony . The current plan does not have us acquiring Pryzmus nor demolishing all 3 buildings . The plan amendment was put through to ensure that we had the flexibility to take down that middle building and demolish all three . When it got into the project area over south of the railroad tracks , the one you 're discussing , staff really was debating . What you should include in there , what we shouldn't . There have been no hearings ' with the City Council . There have been no hearings with the HRA . I think it is fair to say that both groups have a lot of concern over any of the projects that come before them today . Any of Brad 's presentations , most of ' which have been more or less . . .book of matches . One of the biggest expenditures that is in there for that size of roadway is the acquisition , removal of Ready-Mix The major dollars that you 're seeing incorporated south of the railroad tracks is for that Ready-Mix acquisition. There are I no dollars associated with Amoco . There is no . . .for dollars to potentially acquire Gary Brown 's property . His car wash . But if I 'm seeing the tone of HRA and the Council , they 're really , the developer 's really going to I have to demonstrate that that 's absolutely necessary before either of the two groups . . . In the meantime , the plan has been prepared to give Council and HRA that possibility . IConrad: Okay . Does that answer your question? Emmings: Well it 's one of those deals where he said so much I don 't know . II I don 't know what my question was anymore . You snowed me Don . I ' ll all for TIF . I 'm all for buying up the Ready Mix . I 'm all against the Hardee 's in that area or in that corner . I guess I was all that in favor ' of doing this . Conrad: I think it makes sense . Just out of curiousity . Everybody has a problem with what goes down there . What should go down there? Why not a I Hardee 's? What 's supposed to go into this entryway to Chanhassen? Anybody have any ideas? Planning Commission . Okay , just curious . Ellson: We 'll know it when we see it . Ahrens: Any other restaurant or commercial . Erhart: Just to counter Steve , I like Hardee 's . Conrad: See that 's a natural place for a fast food or a gas station . The I challenge to us is , if we have some things that we think are appropriate , we should be talking about those things but it always comes out , I hate that . I hate that but what is it that we really want? This entryway . We Italk about this entryway to Chanhassen . Emmings: I hate it when you ask questions . I Ashworth: I think the traffic setting could very well . . . If you think about it , you cannot get into that property from the east side . TH 101 will preclude the . . .from the east . The west access point is terrible . IConrad: To me it looks like a lousy location for a Hardee 's . Brad says Hardee 's wants to be there and I don 't know . It just seems like a lousy II Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 1990 - Page 23 I place for it but on the other hand , I guess that 's what engineering 's I supposed to tell us . Any other comments on this one? Anything else? It sure makes sense that we give the City the opportunity to do that . Councilwoman Dimler : Don , if the projects that are mentioned here , let 's I say that we would not approve this . Say we don't want a Hardee 's but we - want to put in something else . Would this approval preclude us putting I something that wasn't mentioned in? Ashworth: No . Actually as long as you stay within the total dollars , you could. One of them we looked at was this question, is Target going to be a I reality . Is there a necessity for HRA and the City to become involved and how do you potentially guard against or keep options open if the Burdick property , you have Charlie James , you have the Ward parcel . The attorney took the position that as long as the total dollars have been allocated and talked about a project , if the project actually ends up let 's say over in the Ward area and it ends up that the dollars that you used to straighten ' out TH 101 , that 's a valid thing that can be done as long as you 've outlined it . . . Councilwoman Dimler : I wanted to keep the State from coming in and saying ,' well that was approved in April and the . . . Emmings: Ursula , I think in support of what 's here , the motion isn 't specific about any projects at all . They're only used as examples that the HRA is considering so I don 't think our approval of this has anything to do with specific projects . Is that right? I Ellson: Maybe we should just add that? Ahrens: Why can 't we just eliminate the Hardee's name? I Emmings: Those are just given as examples in the staff report . It 's not part of the motion . Here , are you ready for a motion? I Conrad: Yeah , I 'd like one . Emmings: I 'll move that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No . 90-2 II finding Modification No . 10 of the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan consistent with the City of Chanhassen 's Comprehensive Plan with a specific understanding that the examples given in the staff report are not being I approved in any way by the Planning Commission. Erhart: I 'll second it . I Conrad: Any other discussion? Batzli : I 'm confused . As part of Modification No . 10 , I mean they discuss!' the examples within Modification No . 10 . I mean it's not just in the staff report . There are concrete examples listed in Modification No. 10 on page 4 . I II I , Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 24 Ellson: He 's saying to permit doesn't mean we 're approving it is what he 's saying . ' Batzli : I agree but it 's stating that they 're currently under , they 're the subject of negotiation and I just want to clarify that these are in the Modification and not just discussed in the staff report before we vote on that . Emmings: Okay . What can we do about that? What Brian is saying is ' absolutely right . In the Tax Increment Financing Plan , that you 've got a copy of , Hardee 's is specifically mentioned as something that 's . . . Ashworth: The allocation , and I ' ll go back to the statement . . . As long as they designated the type of project and dollars , if the project changes , you 're still alright . I don 't see a problem with the wordage of your motion at all . ' Emmings: There may not be but I can hear Hardee 's standing at the podium saying , it said so right in the plan and you guys said the plan was okay . ' Why , if we really think that 's not something we want to look at . On the other hand , is that something that's within the Planning Commission 's balewik or are we intruding on the perogatives of the HRA here or don't we care? Ashworth: Well it 's kind of like the question posed earlier from the citizens regarding the parks and who 's responsibility . You look to a number of different groups . . . The HRA provides you advice as to how they feel the downtown should be redeveloped . However it is your comprehensive plan that if you feel that amendments that they 're bringing in are not in character with what the Planning Commission would like to see for the downtown area , I think that 's your perview to say no . Emmings : Nobody seconded my motion did they? Conrad: No . Emmings: I 'm going to withdraw it at this point . Can I do that? Conrad: Yeah , you sure can . Is there another motion? Oh yea you likes ' Hardee 's to my right . Erhart: I was just kidding . I 'll take a McDonalds anyday . Are you trying to make a motion to exclude the paragraph? ' Conrad: I thought you may have a different motion . Batzli : Well do we have to be Hardee 's specific? Restaurants . ' Erhart: What you 're talking about is excluding . . . II Ahrens : Can 't we just identify it by location , the area and not define any of these? • II Planning Commission Meeting II April 18 , 1990 - Page 25 Erhart: If you 're looking for approval to expand the TIF , why don't we I just leave the proposal to them . Why do we need the references to Hardee 's , Redmonds , West Chanhassen? I Conrad: Yeah , I think that's for the legislation from what I understand for the purposes of the legislative intent . I Ashworth: If you , again talking this example, but if you use the Target type of development ends up going somewhere else and you find yourself in a position that the only way you can make the new roads work is to use tax I increment , if you have not put into the plan a general description of that project, even though you moved it from one area to the other , you 're not going to be able to do it . If you don 't like Hardee 's , you can replace II Hardee 's with retail development or just strike the word Hardee 's . Again , the major dollars under that section that are set up for Ready Mix and maybe replace Hardee 's with Ready Mix . , Emmings: Ready Mix is there . Erhart: Why don 't we just add some verbage that says , could include the I following but is not limited to or restricted to items ( a ), ( b ) and ( c ). . . .nobody can come in later and say we are specifically tied to those particular projects and it would seem to me that that would solve the I problem you have with the legislature and also to prevent any of then projects from coming in and saying we 've given them approval . So Paul , does that seem reasonable . Can you come up with some words that gives us the flexibility? I Krauss: I 'd really rather defer that to the City Manager . Ashworth: I don 't have a problem with that . So if I hear the motion I correctly , you 're approving it but then amending Section ( e ) there to basically remove any reference to Hardee 's . . . I Emmings: ( h) . Erhart: I though you indicated that you wanted to leave those references ' in there for the purpose of going to legislature . Ashworth: I do but if you want to take out Hardee 's . I Erhart: No , I was just saying just change the wording to make sure that we 've got the flexibility in there that later on that we 're not committed Ito any . Conrad: Basically in your introduction under ( h). You can leave the examples (a ) thru (c ) there . That 's fine with you Tim as long as ( h ) , the II intro to ( h). Erhart: States that we have flexibility in that and we are not committed 1 to those particular things and I think that resolves Steve 's concern that these guys aren't going to come in later and say well gee , this is the amendment that we passed . So if things like include the following but are ii I I Planning Commission Meeting II ' Apr i*l 18 , 1990 - Page 26 not limited to or committed to or something like that . Steve , have you got some words? Emmings: No . Conrad: I think include the following but not limited to sounds reasonable . Erhart: For the purpose of getting approval from the State , you have to spell out some specific projects . Is that what we 're hearing? ' Ashworth: Right . And we can replace ( c ) for example and I don't know about the header there but just say , if the projects south of the railroad ' tracks , that being TH 101 and Great Plains Blvd . . . . Emmings: It 's already got Amoco . It 's got the car wash . It 's got Apple ' Valley Ready Mix and Hardee 's all in there now . Ashworth : I 'm saying is if we can just eliminate all of the references . The only reference would just talk about the general project area and to include a statement saying it would include Apple Valley Ready Mix . But otherwise there 'd be no wordage there regarding Hardee 's/Amoco/Car Wash . Ahrens : Couldn 't we just change the wording of (c ) on page 4 to read this project may entail the construction of a new Hardee 's restaurant instead of will? In the introduction it just says that the projects which are the subject or current or upcoming negotiation . There are no commitments to that . Emmings: That 's good enough for me . That would satisfy me . I would ' rather see Hardee 's not mentioned but I think that 's a good alternative to me . ' Batzli : I think you should do that in the next several sentences though as well . Everytime it says will. If a Hardee 's is included , it may have whatever . Ahrens: Right . The whole wording would have to be changed in that paragraph . ' Conrad: What do you want to do Steve? Emmings: That sounds like a good alternative . I like it . ' Conrad: Okay , do you want to amend your motion? No , actually you withdrew your motion . Emmings: Well I 'll make another motion. I 'll make the motion as suggested by the staff with a change on page 4 , item H(c) along the lines that was discussed and suggested . Basically it would read that this project may I entail the construction of a new Hardee's restaurant . The rest of that sentence staying the way it is and the second sentence would read, if approved , the Hardee 's restaurant would have approximately 4 ,500 square I 11 Planning Commission Meeting , April 18 , 1990 - Page 27 1 feet and the rest of that sentence as it is and that would be all of the I changes . Ellson: Second. I Resolution #90-2: Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 90-2 finding Modification No. 10 of the I Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan with the following changes to paragraph H(c): changing the word "will" to may and changing the second sentence to read; If approved, Hardees would have approximately 4,500 square feet. All voted in' favor and the motion carried. Conrad: That 's the longest we 've ever talked about one of these . I Emmings: That 's because Todd wasn't here . I Conrad: Do you need a signature of mine on this? Normally the Chairman has to sign it . Is there an official document that you want me to sign or I can I just sign what 's in here? Krauss: I 'm not sure . Conrad: Anyway , I 'll leave you this and if this works , that 's fine . I Otherwise , normally somebody gets to me with a document that I have to sign . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 4 , 1990 as presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Krauss: At the April 9th meeting the City Council approved the wetland I alteration permit for filling and alteration of the wetlands along Lake Drive. That was something that you had raised some questions about 11 relative to the trade-off of wetland areas . The City Council raised similar concerns . There 's a related matter with that and that is the McDonald 's proposal which would also affect one of those wetlands . McDonald's has revised their plan so they are not filling or altering the I wetland at all . There is still a variance for wetland setback . There is an existing variance there . It 's only 55 feet from the wetland now . Their plan as they revised it would have resulted in a 10 foot setback and we 've I asked them to revise their plan again to increase that so it 's roughly comparable to the existing variance there and we're making that recommendation to the City Council . They have revised their plan by the way in all the other respects that we asked them for so we 're expecting to go to the Council with a positive recommendation . The Roberts Automatic site plan was approved by the City Council . However , Councilwoman Dimler raised a concern that , to paraphrase it basically , if there 's HRA support I for a project , does the City have the right to ask for better than normal or have higher than normal expectations for architecture . You may recall II I , Planning Commission Meeting 1 April 18 , 1990 - Page 28 that I raised some concerns with the quality of design but basically said they met the ordinance so we 're sort of limited in what we can do . Councilwoman Dimler 's suggestion was I thought well placed and it was approved contingent upon them improving the building facade in some as of yet unspecified way . I 'm going to meet with their architect and see what kind of architecture we can get . ' Conrad: Was it concrete? Krauss: It 's tip up panels . There's not a whole lot of definition though in the office area and oftentimes you can get a lot of glazing or interest there like Empak did and the Roberts site didn 't really do that . We 've had the City Council authorize the consultant to help us with the consideration ' of a storm water utility fund or other funding mechanisms . We keep on talking to you about the storm water management plan and the wetland , revised wetland protection measures . Those all get rolled into this ' financing mechanism . Once we have a financing mechanism on stream , we can do the work that we need to do . Zimmerman Farms was finally approved . Preliminary plat . What was ultimately worked out and it went around and around for quite a while , was a system of looped roads that in the future is probably developers will provide a loop back from the end of Dogwood and the end of Crimson Bay merging with a new entrance onto TH 41 . So we think that long term , the access needs of that area will be served . Lake Riley ' Woods preliminary plat . The replat . That was something that you had recommended denial of I think . They 've pulled from the agenda . They haven 't gotten back to us yet but apparently their attorneys are talking to ' one another trying to work that out . That was that one with the house and drainfield are in the wrong place and the road's in the wrong place . The zoning ordinance amendment requiring posting of signs at developments was given first reading . We also had scheduled discussion on the variance , ' amendments to the variance ordinance which you had recommended approval of . The Board of Adjustments , I scheduled an earlier meeting so I could sit down and talk to them before the City Council , raised a number of concerns ' with philosophical outlook of the ordinance and how it was structured . Jay Johnson then said that because of his concern , he thought it was inappropriate for the Council to discuss it and they 're holding that over ' for a joint meeting , which I think if May 14th scheduled for so I 'll keep you posted on that and we 'll see what develops from that . One of the things in your packet is I received a copy of a petition which , it stems from the meeting that we had, the joint meeting or the neighborhood meeting IIon the guide plan . Batzli : Wasn't that before? IIKrauss: I believe , it wasn't dated but I believe that it appears , from reading the petition , that the petition came out in advance of that meeting . That most of those questions were raised had answered I hope II satisfactorily at that meeting . I haven't seen anything about that since but I just wanted you to be aware of it . I 've also met with Bob Ostlund from Chaska Schools relative to the siting of the future schools in the I city . He 's indicated that there is a desire to site possibly a grade school and a middle school . The district doesn't have funding for it now . City support of a site and potentially acquisition and holding it for the I I Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 1990 - Page 29 school district would tend to strongly influence their decision. Bob is coming over here with the School District's architect on Friday and we 're going to show him some maps and take him through some sites . The probability is we won 't be able to say specifically the grade school should be here but we'll have to do it like the neighborhood parks , do a search area type of approach . I guess that does it . Conrad: Good job Paul . OPEN DISCUSSION: ' Conrad: I 'm trying to get out of here relatively reasonably tonight . Steve , you 're leaving right? Emmings: I should . I have a long drive in the morning . Krauss: Would you like to talk about yours first? I don 't know , it 's just' a suggestion . Emmings: I don 't care . ' Conrad: They 're both really important issues . Let 's start with Steve 's . DISCUSSION PAPER REGARDING COMMISSIONER EMMINGS NEW APPROACH TO CREATING A II "BLENDING" ORDINANCE. Krauss: Basically as you 're aware , we've talked about a blending ordinance' on a number of occasions , most of which predate my coming to the City . Basically , it 's our understanding that the intent of the blending ordinance is to mitigate the impact of new development which develops typically to a 1 15 ,000 square foot lots . Where it interfaces with old developments which may have been at a larger lot size . In the interest of being upfront , I guess philosophically staff has always had some questions with the ordinance and we continue to question the equity of some of it but we 've talked it over with the City Attorney he believes that the approach that Commissioner Emmings developed is one that could be upheld and because you 're interested in doing this , we want to work to pursue it and that 's why we put together the paper tonight . Commissioner Emmings did come up with a unique approach . In the past we had tried to develop a ratio or formula that would say you do x amount of blending at this site because and' basically found it was impossible to do that . Commissioner Emmings approach is basically I know it when I see it and I think you paraphrased it quite well . And again , it 's something that the City Attorney felt that in the subdivision ordinance we could uphold . I guess I 'd like to ask you to consider two modifications to it though. As I tried to apply the draft , there were a couple things that became clear to me in discussing them with the City Attorney . As currently proposed, the ordinance doesn't discriminate between large lots that will ultimately be subdivided and those that won't . I think it 's am important distinction to make . I don 't want to belittle anybody coming here and swearing on a stack of Bibles that 'll they'll never develop but I guess to be honest , we always assume that sooner or later they will . I think the only time a blending ordinance or blending requirement should be imposed is when it can be demonstrated that II Planning Commission Meeting IIApril 18 , 1990 - Page 30 I the lots that you 're protecting are permanently in that status . Now they can be in that status because it's 29 ,900 square feet and it takes a variance for lot area to subdivide it or because of terrain that there I simply isn 't any way to divide it . And there 's any number of ways of proving that . There 's a concurrent issue with what happens when you have a subdivision that 's adjacent to the MUSA line . I 'd like to add something in U here that I think being adjacent to the MUSA line should be excluded from the blending . It shouldn't automatically trip the blending unless those lots can be further subdivided. MUSA line is a temporary fixture as we all know and sooner or later it probably will be relocated . I guess this isn 't II to diminish the importance of the blending approach . It 's just to hopefully introduce some equity into the thing and account for those situations where we do believe that further development will take place . I The second one , and I hadn't had a chance to speak to Steve about this but it appeared that the way it was worded , that the blending requirement would be applied to all the lots in a subdivision . That once you legitimately I trip the blending standard , that if you had a 100 acre plat , that all the lots in there would have to have some reflection of this blending , or it could be construed that way . I guess as I read it , I didn 't think that was necessarily the intent and it also causes problems because is somebody I comes to you and wants to develop a 100 acre tract and you 're going to say everything in that 100 acres needs to be blended and somebody comes to you in the same , gets the same property line and says I 'm going to develop a 2 'I acre tract and everything beyond that avoids the blending requirement , it becomes inequitble . So we 've introduced or suggested two modifications that we think address the issues that we 've raised and basically with those modifications , well we 're looking for your guidance on this but we think we II can put together , we know we can put together an ordinance that the City Attorney 's comfortable with and one that we think would be workable . With that we basically put this together as a position paper if you will to get I your reaction and we 'll come back to you with whatever ordinances you direct . I Conrad: Okay . Thanks Paul . Reaction . Joan , start with you . What do you think? Ahrens: Of the changes? I Conrad: No , just the ordinance period . Do you want to . . . IAhrens: We have discussed this in the past haven 't we? Conrad: Well we have . IAhrens: You want to talk about it again. I thought Steve's draft of the ordinance was very good . It seemed to address the issue that we were all concerned with . I understand the revisions that Paul made , or staff made , I and it does clarify a couple issues . I never interpretted it the way Steve wrote it to mean that all lots within a subdivision would have to be blended at some point . Is that what the concern was? I interpretted it as I just the lots along the periphery would have to be blended in with the neighboring property . But obviously that wasn 't clear to everyone so the wording here seems to clarify that point . I don 't have any problem with 1 I Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 31 the ordinance . I think it 's fine . Batzli : Well I think that raises the philosophical issue then of what are II we trying to do with the ordinance because if you 're trying to get a true blending , there would be kind of a trickle down through the development from a large acreage or large lot as opposed to just requiring the I periphery to kind of match up and then the developer comes in with 15,000 square foot lots after he does one row along the periphery of large lots . And so is the question , or is what we 're trying to do to protect the homeowners with large lots on the periphery of a lot that 's going to be developed or is it to get a true blending of lots throughout the subdivision that's coming in? Ellson: I think the people that are coming in get that choice but it 's thell people who , earlier we were most concerned about the people who don 't get that choice . It 's the people on the periphery that they 've been sitting with this big lot and then the new ones come in at 15 ,000 . Batzli : Yeah , I agree with that . That from an equitable standpoint of I I bought my lot . I didn 't know they were going to put 15 ,000 foot lots next to me . Ellson: The next guy does know that when he 's buying his . , Batzli : Agreed but that's fine from equity but my question is , from a planning perspective is what you 're trying to do to protect that one group of people with an investment along the periphery or is it to truly blend lot sizes and go from a transition more smoothly? Ahrens: Hopefully it would be the second . ' Batzli : Well I would hope so but then this wouldn 't do that necessarily . Emmings: This is aimed at doing the former . ' Batzli : Yeah. This is an equity issue and that 's the issue I wanted to I raise . The other thing I think is , what the heck was it now . Oh , it will come to me again. I guess the question I had , it's in Roger 's opinion . He 's talking about identical language that's currently in the code I believe and he said that he has sustained denial of that but then he says the blending ordinance would better spell out what is required and make the requirement easier to implement and enforce . The question is , have we done that by this ordinance? It still seems to me that anything we do , even I though we require justification the question is, is it any easier or is it going to be just kind of an arbitrary thing that we impose . Krauss: Well , in talking to Roger , I think the language , I think it was Lakeville 's ordinance that he upheld and it was kind of in the mom and apple pie section of the ordinance that said the City has the right to establish a larger lot size and it didn 't say why . What you were trying toll accomplish or how it would be applied . With either approach , with Steve or . with the modification we proposed , you're laying that out in much more specifically than that Lakeville ordinance did which in Roger 's opinion I ' Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 32 ' gave even more meat to it and made it more defensible . ' Batzli : But what 's the standard? I mean Steve normally goes for a mom and apple pie statement and then you get into the meat of it so that when you 're interpretting it , you understand what you 're trying to do. Maybe that 's what this is missing . In part it's probably because it jumps around ' through the Code so it 's not laid out in a nice neat section that this is the blending section . ' Emmings: Yeah , I was looking for a place to put in kind of an intent statement and couldn't find a place so I agree with you on that . ' Krauss: There is a risk of arbitrariness with any of these things and I mean we tried to point it out . Short of having a formula that says thou. shalt do it here because . We 've already concluded that we can 't come up with that . You always run the risk of applying something arbitarily . ' I think you run a greater risk of that if you don 't specifically or attempt to specifically limit or say exclusively where this blending ordinance might apply . A for instance . Somebody comes in with that 100 acre tract . ' They 're adjacent to that large lot area . You have a meeting like you had tonight where everybody opposes any development at all . Do you then say that every lot in that 100 acre tract has to be 29 ,000 square feet? Or that , you start with 29 ,900 and the next one 's 28 and the next one 26 or something like that . Frankly I have a problem with that premise . I think it is very difficult to administer . It opens the door to being very arbitrary and it undermines the intent of the single family district . We 're willing to concede that there 's. a valid concern for the direct impact of somebody who has a larger lot who has development going on adjacent to them . But I grow concerned with the assumption that they have the right to not only dictate what interfaces directly with them but what also happens down the street . Batzli : Ripple effect throughout the property . The problem I have is that ' if in fact let 's say you , as by way of example , let's say you have a 2 1/2 acre lot development that you 're going to be abutting . The premise would be that you 're not going to go any larger than like 29 ,900 or require them ' to go any larger than that correct? Krauss: Well frankly you mentioned that Brian , that's something that Roger ' suggested and he suggested it to me late . It didn 't make it into this but he suggested that we put a cap . Batzli : But at that point, if we did that and we had a 29 ,900 cap for the ' lots which abut the 2 1/2 acre lots , after that it would be your feeling that they could put in 15 ,000 square foot lots after they have . . . ' Krauss: Yeah , because you 're not impacting any existing homeowners . I mean these are the people who are moving into this subdivision who know full well what 's the neighboring property . I Batzli : What 's that do from a planning point of view? I guess there was one transition strip in there but from a planning perspective , wouldn 't you rather make it more gradual? I t Planning Commission Meeting II April 18 , 1990 - Page 33 II Krauss: No , in fact from a design perspective , it makes it incredibly difficult to get a transition uniformally across something . You can do II that if you 've got a cornfield in Kansas that doesn 't have any creeks or wetlands or anything else but with our kind of terrain , uniformity is impossible . II Conrad: I think that 's the developer 's problem . The developer 's going to do what is going to sell his property and I don't want to get into that . All I want to do is protect who 's there already . You 've got to let the developer do what he thinks is right that can sell his property and I guess I personally don't have a need to blend internally as long as it meets our other ordinances . I do have a definite need to try to blend with the II existing parcels . Batzli : Those were my comments . II Ellson: I think it was a heck of job trying to do it . I still think that it 's going to be really hard to enforce . I know it goes against our grain because here you are trying to plan as best you can but I don 't know . The II only way somebody could be totally sure that they're not going to get something 15 ,000 square feet next to them is by buying it or something like that . I think they sort of , if it's zoned that way when they look into the ordinance . Whether they look into it or not I guess is up to them but they, know that that possibility is there . I don't know how many this is going to affect that we still out there , especially the part that it has to be II demonstrated that the lots on the periphery cannot be further subdivided because I 've seen in most of the cases the people that- are complaining could easily tomorrow turn theirs into 5 lots and they'd be here talking to us about it . And now we 're turning them into, you won't be able to II subdivide later on or the next person that you 're trying to sell to that wants to do that . I just think it 's a good try but I don't think we can do it . I would have a hard time justifying it with one guy and trying to look' at another one and saying this is a little different so you don't have to . So I guess I 'm going to . . . Emmings: I don't know if this does anything or not but I guess the II underlying notions were that this was something to be done on a periphery of the new subdivision . And the other thing was to get something in the ordinance so that when a developer comes in and says what do I have to do I to put a new plat in this town . What are the things that I have to take into account and if this language is in there , or if the staff can say don't forget this . You 've got to be careful on the edge of your subdivision that you 're not upending existing subdivisions , that would give ' them something to jawbone with. I think it 's, well this is the third or fourth attempt we 've made at trying to put something into the ordinance so obviously it 's hard to do but I hope that maybe this would work . I think II it could . Erhart: I appreciate the effort Steve 's put into this . I know a couple of ' us . . .take another jab at it . I view it also as not something that 's going to really regulate but it 's just going to give us , if it was in there , just some leverage to coerce developers into taking into account the II I Planning Commission Meeting ' April 18 , 1990 - Page 34 ' neighborhood developments . On the other hand , I guess my feeling about land use is that I would never want to see the City in a position of encouraging lots larger than half an acre . By the same token , well I 'll ' just state that as a general . I think 22 ,000 square foot lot is , that 's a big lot . If a developer wants to come in and make a subdivision full of 22 ,000 square foot lots because he feels there 's a market for it , that 's ' just fine . Emmings: This from a guy who lives on how many acres? Erhart: I 'm a tree farmer okay . It's just , my fundamental feeling is that government should not be in a position of encouraging excessive land use for homes . Individual homes . I think we found ourselves in that position since I 've been on this commission . By the same token , if this is going to be used for that . If we 're going to be out there throwing some 29 ,000 square foot lots in there when the market really wants 22 ,000 square foot lots , I 'm totally opposed to that . If I go back to the 3 1/2 years that I 've been on here and try to define where the problem has been , it 's been with those lots . Those landowners where there 's a bunch of 22 ,000 to 25 ,000 square foot lots . In an older neighborhood that you 're right , could ' not be subdivided and all of a sudden we 're coming in with a whole series of 15 ,000 square foot lots . So I think if we 're going to put this in , I think we ought to have a limit . I think the limit ought to be 21 ,500 or 22 ,000 . Not 29 ,000 . Because I think that would solve , in those few cases ' where we had complaints where the old neighborhoods came in here can said , gee whiz . You 're going to diminish our land values because now we have a whole neighborhood of 22 ,000 to 25 ,000 square foot lots and you 've got all these 15 ,000 coming in and maybe two 12 ,500 's in a PUD . A 22 ,000 limit would have solved those people's problem and at the same time not putting the City in a position of creating lots larger than they wanted . I just ' can 't imagine using the example that you had a 2 1/2 acre lot and saying well gee whiz now you 've got to have 29 ,000 acres in the first tier and then 15 ,000 in the second tier . In the first place , you could never design ' a road system around that . Krauss: It 'd be tough . ' Erhart: Pardon? Batzli : Slip of the tongue . You said 29 ,000 acres . That 's big . Erhart: 29 ,000 square feet . So those are my comments . I think the concept 's valid . I think there 's a lot of statements that say well , since ' there 's no specifics or we 're not going to enforce means it's useless . I don't agree with those comments . I think anytime you have wording , even adding some examples in this thing is helpful to the Planning Commission staff to coerce developers into ultimately ending up with a plan we like . I By the same token , let's make sure we 're not finding ourselves in a position of artificially creating big lots . Ellson: Well you just arbitrarily feel that a half acre is it? I mean where did you pull 21 out of or 22? What if the market is 15? I I Planning Commission Meeting - April 18 , 1990 - Page 35 , Erhart: I think the City , we 're protecting the neighborhood but at some I point you want to stop . Emmings: You 've got knowledge that 22, your figure of 22 is just as arbitrary as 29 ,500 . They 're all arbitrary . Erhart: It is except when you look around . When you look around and you see the size of the lots coming in here today , they generally fall between 15,000 and 22 ,000 so that tells you that 's where the market is . If a guy wants a high quality . . . Emmings: That tells you how a developer maximizes his dollars . That doesn 't tell you where the market is . Erhart: It might be but if a guy has a wooded area and he comes in with a 22 ,000 square foot land because that's the upper end of the market today . Emmings: I don 't know . You may be right . , Erhart: That 's what I 've seen . That's what we 're seeing . , Emmings: No , what we 've seen is not necessarily what the market is . Maybe the market that 's being built out here right now but that doesn 't mean , I mean you can go other places and see other sized lots . You can see 2 1/211 acres in southern Chanhassen and people are building down there so I don 't think it 's all arbitrary Tim . You 've got to give me that . Erhart : No , no . No , I don 't think it is . A 2 1/2 acre lots because the II City said they 're going to be 2 1/2 acre lots . If you would go down and poll the people buying 2 1/2 acre lots, I believe that 80% of them would have been happier with 1 acre lots . , Emmings: You may be right . Erhart: The only way they could get over 15 ,000 square feet was to buy the' 2 1/2 or 22 ,000 square feet . But most people who want big lots would prefer to have 1 acre because they can mow it . They can take care of it . I And I 'm just saying , well anyway . Conrad: Are you interested in pursuing this issue? Batzli : Excuse me? I 'd love a 2 1/2 acre lot . Ellson: But you really wanted 1 acre . ' Conrad: Not Tim's point but specifically the blending . Batzli : Yes . ' Conrad: Okay . Even though we 're talking about the periphery . Batzli : Yes . , I ' Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 36 Conrad: Okay . Question Paul . In terms of your example where it couldn't be divided again . A 45 ,000 square foot lot could be divided again so how are you going to preclude me , and therefore based on your new comment is , that 's exactly the situation that I have a problem with . It 's the 1 acre abutting the 15 ,000 and I really don't have a real problem with the 2 1/2 acre . I think there 's some things that we just can't really solve very ' easily when you have a 2 1/2 acre against anything . I don't care if we put a 22 ,000 square foot there . They 're not going to be happy . I don 't have a solution for that one but based on what you 're telling me , an acre is going ' to be able to be subdivided and therefore , based on that example and your recommendation , this wouldn't apply . ' Krauss: Generally speaking yes . You can 't unilaterally say that an acre lot can be further subdivided . I mean there may be instances where it can 't . It could be a lot of wetland with a house sitting smack in the middle and you can 't subdivide . See that 's where the work load increases ' because we have to get that information but typically the reason why I was saying 29 ,999 is because 30,000 you can divide it in half . But I think Roger 's point about a cap , wherever that cap is is well taken because it ' would place some strict limits on what our expectations are . Conrad: I don 't want to drag this out any longer . I think we should pursue ' it . At first I didn't like it because it seemed so arbitrary . It seemed like we were getting into never-never land but if we put a cap on it , I like that . I don't like 22 ,000. I like something bigger . I don't think 22 ,000 solves anybody 's problem . If I 'm at 15 ,000 and 22 , I don 't know . ' Yeah , I just don't think 22 is the right number yet but we can debate that one later on . I would like examples like Tim said . Either for us to go through them during a public hearing or as part of the document that this ' is . I need to know what we 're looking at . I want a developer to see how we would apply this particular formula . Krauss: One thing I think in the interest of fairness we need to do is if we actually structure an ordinance and put this on an agenda , we should contact some of the more prominent residential developers in our community and say look , we 're discussing an ordinance that affects your business . What do you think about this? Let them take a crack at it . Conrad: Yeah . We might as well . ' Krauss: I 'd just as soon have a calm meeting but I think it 's the fair thing to do . ' Conrad: Are we talking , is there a minimum size subdivision that we 're talking about here? Are we talking about everyone that comes? Every subdivision or should there be a standard where you don't have to go out and look? Are we talking about 4 pieces or everything? Emmings: Let me add one little gloss here . The reason that the second sentence , the second clause was in the first section here that bothered Paul and Paul took out . It said that the proposed subdivision has lot sizes compatible with development in the general area in which the subdivision is located . I had a specific one in mind when I did that and I I Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 37 that was the one that was approved on Minnewashta Blvd . . If you remember 1 there were 5 lots . Five 15,000 foot lots wedged into a property and it was . _ . Ellson: It was across the street if I remember . . . Olsen: No . , Emmings: And it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that it didn't fit in the area . Batzli : Is that the steep one down to the lake? Emmings: Well no . It sits up on kind of a hill and then the lake is beyond it but we approved those 3 lots because there was kind of no way not to approve it and that 's the one I had in mind here . I guess when we 're talking about the periphery , I 'm thinking more of developments like we 've II seen , the one that came in next to where Jay lives over here . I can never remember names of the subdivisions . Where you 've got rings of things . That 's where the periphery language comes in but I thought for the small one where there 's 4 or 5 lots where talking about the periphery doesn 't make any sense , then somehow they ought to somehow fit in with what 's in the area in general . Conrad: I think you 're still right . Emmings: So that 's what I was trying to get at there . I don't think , I obviously didn 't do a good job . Krauss: Steve , in that case though , aren't they across the street from larger lots as well as being on the exterior , the north and the south side?, Emmings: Well the thing is , there 's no periphery . They 're all on the periphery then . ' Krauss: But the language , if it 's justifiable . Emmings: Maybe that's good enough . ' Krauss: But there 's a point that I just realized too. That you may want II to set a bottom range on this . For example , if you have a vacant 30 ,000 square foot plot of ground that happens to be next to a larger lot , are you going to tell that property owner that you won't accept any subdivision at all because they can 't blend? ' Emmings: Now wait a minute . Tell what property owner? Krauss: If Ladd owned a 30 ,000 square foot lot wedged in between two 25 ,000 square foot lots . Current wording in the blending ordinance says you could deny Ladd any subdivision at all because he can't blend. Emmings: If it was Ladd I would . I don't know . That's tough . That 's tough. I I Planning Commission Meeting April 18 , 1990 - Page 38 Krauss: I assume we could put in some language that says that this ordinance will not be used to preclude any subdivision potential or something like that . Emmings: Yeah , I guess I basically feel that probably that person ' shouldn 't be denied to subdivide that lot . Batzli : So you 're going to deny developers of large projects but not . ' Ellson: But not the little guy . Erhart: If that 's what you 're doing, then you shouldn't be doing this at all . Ellson: That 's right . ' Erhart : Then you 're treating people differently . Emmings: No . You don't have to be , you don 't have to always treat everybody the same . That 's kind of a goal but if a result is nutty , you don 't have to do it . You don't have to be dumb . You don 't have to , you could be reasonable about it . I think this is directed maybe we 'll want to ' say that . Maybe we somehow want to , maybe we ought to just forget the whole thing . Maybe we want to put it over but I 'm more worried about the big subdivision coming in next to the existing big subdivision . Then I am about the single lot wedged between two other lots . Councilman Johnson: This conversation brought up an interesting idea . What if when sewer becomes available in Timberwood . 4 or 5 of these all have 3 acres . . . Ellson: That 's exactly what will happen . ' Councilman Johnson: Decide to go to 15 ,000 acre lots right in the middle of all these 2 1/2 acre lots and the rest of these people don 't . I mean we 're getting a lot of these subdivisions where that could get , I mean one guy could have 2 1/2 acre lot could split it off into 3 or 4 lots . Right in the middle of a subdivision of 2 1/2 acre lots . And when you start interspersing $500 ,000 .00 homes with $50 ,000 . . . Emmings: Well see , that might be a place where you could use this language to say we 're not going to let you do that . We 're not going to let this go ' down to 15 ,000 . Councilman Johnson: And that 's going to be a problem for Chanhassen many years from now when the southern side starts getting sewer with all of these 2 1/2 acre lot subdivisions . Some people are going to save some dollars . . . ' Ellson: Do you want him to look at caps and things like that? I think , we go through this every time and it keeps coming up . I I Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 1990 - Page 39 1 Conrad: Well it 's a tough issue but your choice is not to deal with it . I Ellson: Well I agreed to try to take a look at it and I think we have and I think we 're coming closer to the conclusion nobody wants to make and that" is , no , it can 't be done . I don't doubt other cities have tried to do it too . It would be a wonderful wish list but awfully hard to enforce and too many exceptions to the rule and taking away people 's rights . I just think II how many times do we have to rehash it? You just don't want that to be thell answer but , there 's got to be another way . Batzli : Why don 't we just raise the minimum lot size from 15,000 upwards? II Conrad: Well that would solve it . Well it still wouldn 't . Krauss: It wouldn't solve it , it would defer it . II Conrad: Next step . Should we just defer making a decision right now and 1 go through an exercise whenever we can reschedule it and look at practical examples of how this would work? Should we have staff develop , based on our comments , a draft ordinance and hold a public hearing? I 'd rather not II do that one . Batzli : I 'd prefer to fine tune it a little bit more . If there 's a public hearing . II Emmings: We 're not ready for that . Conrad: Yeah . So what would you folks like to do? Ellson: Kill it . 11 Batzli : I would like to see staff work on it a little bit . I don 't know that it should be our highest priority with the Comprehensive plan and things but I 'd like to see them continue to work on it and come up with an , upper limit and potentially a lower limit as to when it would apply and if there is a rational basis to do those two things as well as formulate an intent statement and come up with wonderful examples . Not much . II Krauss: Well those questions also raise questions that I think I need to pose to Roger and see if he still buys the legitimacy at that point . Batzli : Well the cap he bought . I Krauss: The cap he suggested. I Batzli : The minimum size he might have a problem with you 're saying? Conrad: Why don 't you put a little bit more energy into this one Paul for 1 us . I don't know how much we're talking about . I would like to bring it back with comments from Roger on some of the specifics and maybe your reaction to some of' the things that we 've had but I would like to go through some examples . We go to the board and just play out how it would work with different configurations of developments or subdivisions that II I I Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 1990 - Page 40 might come in so we can see how we would react to it . Just little play script or whatever . Just so we know what this would mean . How we would handle it when it came in. It 's 10:00 . Steve is leaving . What should we do with the next item? The Business Fringe District . ' Emmings: It 's real important and it 's real hard . I don't know if you people are going to stay here real late but I sure would like to have some input in here but I do have to go . ' Erhart: Why don 't you give us your comments? Conrad: I really have to get out of here . Ellson: I think it deserves everybody's comments . ' Krauss: We could reschedule it for the next meeting . Conrad: Are we time sensitive on this because this is a real important issue . I really want to get into this . I don 't feel real good about ' skipping it . Krauss: There 's nothing happening that 's going to affect anything and the ' grading ordinance is proceeding on it 's own relative to Moon Valley which isn 't in the district anyway . Conrad: Okay . Do we have time on our next agenda to look at it? Krauss: I think so . Conrad: Okay , let 's do that . Any other discussion? Any other items? ' Ellson moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. . Submitted Paul Krauss tPlanning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 3 f CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 1990 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m . . MEMBERS PRESENT: Wendy Pemrick , Jan Lash , Dawne Erhart , James Andrews , Jim Mady , Curt Robinson and Larry Schroers STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator , Todd Hoffman , ' Recreation Supervisor and Jerry Ruegemer , Program Specialist APPOINT ACTING CHAIR: Andrews moved , Mady seconded to appoint Larry Schroers as Acting Chair for the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . REVIEW HERMAN FIELD COST ESTIMATES AND FACILITY PRIORITIZATION. ' Public Present: ' Name Address Betty Lang 2631 Forest Avenue , Excelsior ' Bob & Marcia Schiferli 325 George Street , Excelsior Dolores Ziegler 6441 Oriole Avenue , Excelsior Kelly Ziegler 6480 Oriole Avenue , Excelsior ' Sietsema : I included some background material for your benefit just so you can get kind of the feel of what the history of the park is . Basically over the past year the development of Herman Field has been requested to be ' speeded up by the homeowners in the area who were interested in forming a group called the Friends of Herman Field . That group met 2 weeks ago to discuss prioritization of the facilities at the park and that ' recommendation is included . Basically they recommended that the park , the first phase of the park include park access , the playground area , open field , trail development and 50% of the landscaping in phase 1 . Additionally they recommended that the 1990 Capital Improvement Program ' budget be amended if it was necessary to , if the cost of these items exceeded $3 ,500 .00 which is in the current budget . They also recommended that Phase 2 to include the boardwalk , picnic area , tennis court , lookout ' tower , picnic shelter and landscaping and recommended that that be funded in 1991 . Staff feels the committee 's recommendation is reasonable and in order to begin development , we need to then move into acquisition of that access . The easement between the road right-of-way and the actual park . ' As those costs are unknown at this time because we 'll have to have appraisals done and work with the current landowner , I would recommend that we wait to amend the budget until we know exactly what numbers we 're ' dealing with . But otherwise , to accept the recommendation of the committee . Schroers: Is there anyone in the audience tonight that is from the Friends of Herman Field that wish to make any comment in regards to this? Would you please come up and state your name and address for us please . Betty Lang: My name is Betty Lang . I live at 2631 Forest Avenue . That was part of the property that Lori was mentioning as far as access to the Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 2 I. • park . We had talked about some of the things at the meeting that we had and one of the things that I think I failed to bring up at that time was sometime back they had mentioned an entrance gate that would be closed like I whatever the closing would be for parks . 10:00 or 11 :00 and I would still like to see that so that it can be locked at night . And also I think we discussed the possibility of having open fires down there . The more I thought about it , the less I thought it was a good idea due to the fact that our property adjoins that and there 's no water , no hydrants or anything down there . I guess that 's it . Schroers: Thank you . How do you feel about the entrance gate Lori? That 's something that could be taken into consideration? Sietsema : That can certainly be done . The park maintenance staff has built gates in the past and I don 't see that that would be a big problem . As far as the fire rings , the committee did discuss whether there should be grills or fire rings . I can 't recall that they really came up with a conclusion . The staff would not recommend that we put in any kind of a fire ring . At the most we 'd consider grills and the policy has been to provide grills in parks because oftentimes people will bring their grills , grill in the park and then dump the coals on the ground and walk away and throw their grill back in their car and then you have the potential for either fire or kids walking over hot coals . So we have provided grills to in prevent that from happening . It 's just basically something that this commission should , however you feel about it . Schroers: Maybe that would be something to consider in Phase 2 of the development? Sietsema: Yeah . We wouldn't have to include that in the first phase . I don 't know if anybody felt real strongly one way or another about the grills but staff again would not recommend having the fire rings . Mady: And if there 's anymore discussion on fire rings , I would like to see' it go to the Public Safety Commission and maybe input from the Fire Marshall too . Schroers: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to comment 111 on the Herman Field issue? If not , then I would open it to the commission for any comments in regards to this issue . Lash: I was a couple minutes late so I missed what , did you say anything beyond what your recommendation was? Sietsema: Not really . Lash: Okay . I just had a couple of questions . One is , what do we have in the budget for 1991? Anything? Sietsema: We haven't done a budget for 1991 . Lash: So that 's something we can look at . 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 3 Sietsema: That 's a blank piece of paper at this point . ' Robinson: Did we have something in there? We did a 3 year plan or something . ' Sietsema : Boy , I 'd have to go back and look . I don 't recall that there was anything in the 5 year plan . I don 't recall that there was . Schroers: Jan , do you have something else? ' Lash: The way I 'm understanding this is what you 're saying is Phase 1 is going to cost more than the $35 ,000 .00? ' Sietsema: It 's very likely that it would . ' Lash: So you 're recommending a budget adjustment? Sietsema: What I 'm recommending is that you approve Phase 1 as the committee has outlined it and direct staff to proceed with acquisition of ' the access easement that we 'll need and when we know what firm costs are , I 'll bring it back to you for a budget amendment at that time . ' Schroers: Jim , do you have any thoughts? Mady: Yeah , I just wanted to the plan looks fine . The work of the Friends ' of Herman Field committee along with staff should be commended . As to amending the budget at this time , I guess I 'd like to see staff go forward to guesstimates . Get the cost done , nailed down and then come back with a site . I have a real difficult time saying yes or no to a budget amendment ' at this time . We have to , I think as a commission , have to discuss how we consider budget amendments . Whether this one gets one or not or another park gets a budget amendment , I have a tough time amending the budget once ' it 's been in place . I don 't know if we have a procedure in place for that but I would like to see staff get an appraisal done and get the negotiations going with it because until that 's done , absolutely nothing else can go along . ' Robinson: Lori , did the Friends of Herman Field approve of the latest plan we had? ' Sietsema: Yes . ' Robinson: They liked that plan? Sietsema : They were directed , I indicated to them that the meeting was where they should bring up any last changes that they would like to see on the plan and there were none that were talked about . Robinson: Do we have any alternatives if it just becomes cost prohibitive or whatever on coming off Forest Avenue at the proposed location? The access road . Is there a second alternative if we just . . . IF Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 4 IL Sietsema: Well if you recall , we looked at , we did a feasibility study on I four different accesses to the park . One coming off of TH 41 . Coming off of Oriole . One coming off Forest and then the other one coming off of Piper Ridge . Piper Ridge was not accessible through that area at all . The TH 41 option was the most expensive and the Oriole Lane was the one where the soils were poor and we would have to take down the large stand of trees . So it was the decision of this Commission and also approved by City' Council to do the Forest Avenue access . Robinson: So the other 3 alternatives are really not very good I alternatives? Sietsema: No . I Robinson: I have no further comments . Erhart: I would go along with staff 's recommendation . I Schroers: Jim and Wendy are kind of new and I don 't know if you had an opportunity to be , I 'm pretty sure that you didn 't have an opportunity to I be involved in the Herman Field issue from the onset but if you have any comments in that regard , we 'd be happy to hear them . Andrews: I guess my only comment would be toward later development and I that would be what , there appear to be trails through the woods . Would those be lit at night at all or would that be an area that would be kept . . ., Schroers: No . I think that our original intention was that they 're basically a nature type trail in the spring , summer and fall season and would possibly lend itself to cross country sking in the winter but I basically they would be a turf trail and not real developed . Sietsema: The City Code states that public parks are closed at 10:00 or ' dusk , whichever comes first in neighborhood parks . Andrews: I 'm thinking from a safety standpoint and there probably would Inot be a concern then . Sietsema: The park would not be open at night so there wouldn't be a real need to have them . I Pemrick: I too agree with staff 's recommendation on this and I can appreciate Mrs . Lang 's comments about wanting it locked . If it 's on her I property line I think that 's only right that we would honor that . Schroers: Okay , good . I also feel that the recommendation is acceptable . From personal experience , I 'd like to make two comments in regard to I boardwalks . Boardwalks , number one generally cut through prime wildlife areas and number two are an expensive , very expensive item in terms of maintenance . There 's all kinds of problems with them . I don 't know what the water level is or exactly where the boardwalk is proposed but if it 's a' proposing type of one , the floating type of materials they have seems to enhance the appetite of the muskrats and they get in there and eat that II .1 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 5 IIsort of thing all up . The weeds tend to grow up through it and under it and rot it out and it 's really a difficult thing to maintain so I think 1 that 's something that you may want to take a look at . But other than that , I think that it's fine and I guess I 'd be ready to entertain a motion if someone has one . 1 Mady: I ' ll make a motion that we direct staff to proceed with the appraisal and negotiations on the park access as soon as possible . 1 Robinson: I 'll second it . Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission I authorize staff to have an appraisal done on the property needed for park access and to enter into negotiations with the property owners for acquisition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 REVIEW REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN. Sietsema: I had a couple of calls on this item . People who were I interested in being in the audience and I told them that it probably would not be on the agenda until after 8:00 so if you would want to hold off on this just because I know there was some interest . 1 Schroers: I wouldn 't have a problem with that . Does anyone object? Okay . Then we 'll put that to the back of our packet and move to item 6 . 1 SITE PLAN REVIEW, REDMOND PRODUCTS, INC . Sietsema: This site plan proposal is located , the location of the site is I just north of the Lake Susan Hills West subdivision . It will be located on the north side of what will be Lake Drive . Just south of the Business Park . It is 51 .6 acres that 's proposed to be developed into a 388 ,380 I square foot office/warehouse facility . As you may know , Redmond Products is currently located just off of TH 5 over by. the Press and ABC Lumber . They 're proposing to develop a bigger facility and move . The Comprehensive I Plan does not call for parks in this area as Lake Susan Park serves the industrial area . Additionally the City has parks in Lake Susan Hills West directly across the street from this site . The most northerly park site of Lake Susan Hills West lies directly across the street . Lake Drive East I will include a sidewalk along the south side of the road and the trail plan calls for a concrete sidewalk along the east side of Audubon Road north of Lake Drive East . So the recommendation as there is no , this ins 't a park 1 deficient area , the recommendation for staff is to require the payment of park dedication fees in lieu of parkland dedication and to require a 20 foot wide trail easement along Audubon Road and the construction of a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk within the easement and to allow a $3 ,500 .00 Itoward the trail fee for sidewalk construction . Mady: So the credit is specifically for Audubon Road? 1 Sietsema: Audubon only because the sidewalk along Lake Drive will be . . . 1 Mady : In the HRA deal . I. Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 6 II II Schroers: How did you arrive at the figure of $3 ,500 .00? Sietsema: We had estimates of what a running foot of sidewalk would cost I and I can 't remember what the length of that stretch was . It wasn 't much but that 's , you calculate it out that many feet by that many dollars is roughly $3 ,500 .00 . Now if this piece is constructed along Audubon Road with the upgrading of Audubon , which very well may happen , then staff would request that you allow me to take the liberty to change the direction of Ithis commission to not give them that credit . Schroers: Okay . Do you feel that maybe because the people from Redmond would more than likely be using the surrounding parks during business hours' that they wouldn 't adversely impact the parks in regards to the residents in the area? Sietsema: They will definitely impact the area . However , there are parks I within , they 'll have an impact on the existing parks which are located close to this facility so it 's not , Lake Susan Park isn 't even open yet so I wouldn 't think that it would have , I think the parks that are there will I accommodate this facility . Schroers: Okay , that 's what I was looking for . I Sietsema: Trying to spit that out . Schroers: I guess we 'll open it up for comission comments . Does anyone II have anything of interest? Andrews: Is the land directly to the south that says planned unit , would that be apartment type units that are planned to go in that vacant land at that point? Sietsema: Right across . I Andrews: That 'd be directly to the south of the proposed site . ' Sietsema: There 's a piece of parkland that 's in this area right across the street and the rest of this area is zoned high density . Andrews: I can 't see the detail here but is Redmond going to screen their I building so they don't have this huge concrete monolith in front of , right directly across the street from the park . I can't see that on the plan . I I know that 's not the issue we 're talking about but . Sietsema: I don 't have a landscape plan . They generally do and the Planning Commission is the one that addresses that . I Andrews: I understand that . I mean I realize we don 't have the authority to make that change . I Mady: Let me clarify that . We did on Rosemount . That issue came up here and the recommendation was discussed here so it 's a good point . II 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 7 I Andrews: I see it on the plan that their parking lot and building are just right up against the property line there that to me it looks like there would be an uninterrupted sight line just to the building and I guess I feel that . . . ' Sietsema: Generally they do berm and are required to put in landscaping . ' Schroers : Any other concerns? Lash: I have one and I think I have a pretty good idea of where this site is . I drive Audubon almost everyday to work . This little cut out area ' that 's up in the upper left hand corner . Mady : Prince . Lash: No . Sietsema: That 's an existing farm . Lash: That 's a farm right? Okay . I guess I have a problem with the recommendation to put that little chunk of sidewalk along there . I really ' don 't see that it serves any purpose . I see the one already on the west side of the road everyday along McGlynn and I look at that as it was probably a complete waste of money and I would certainly not support ' putting any more , especially on the other side , and have a black chunk of sidewalk that starts nowhere and ends nowhere . Personally I don 't see the point of having it in an industrial area . I would just as soon forget that and take the money and use it for other trails that we put a higher priority on . Sietsema: There is a trail along Audubon that will be built south of this site with his Lake Susan Hills West and this provides the next connection toward Lake Ann Park because that is the way the people that live in Lake Susan Hills West will get pedestrian access to Lake Ann . ' Lash: So they 'll be going down the east side of the road until they get to the railroad tracks and then they 'll have to cross Audubon and get onto the one that goes along McGlynn? Sietsema: No . What they will do . ' Lash: I have the trail plan . Are you saying ultimately your plan is to have it on both sides of the road? ' Sietsema: No . The piece that 's built from McGlynn is to get the people that work at McGlynn to be able to either get over to the trail system or up to Lake Ann Park . The one on the east side is to serve the residential area . It 's shown that the residents down in this area will hop on the ' trail on the east side of Audubon Road, go up to Park Road and because that will be probably a quieter road and up to Lake Ann to the intersection which will be at one time lit and there will be a crosswalk to get into 11 Lake Ann Park . This will be the new entrance to Lake Ann Park there . So li Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 8 this is one chunk , one leg in that whole stretch. Eventually this is a g major link to the downtown to get down to the Chaska school district if someone wanted to get whether they live along in that area . If it 's more II developed or whatever , it is our connection down to the school area . Lash: Okay . Also go along with my recommendation and with my suggestion I that we take the easement but at this time take the money . Schroers: Anyone else? I Mady: I guess I 'm looking for , I 'd like to see us construct , as a person who works in an industrial area in Eden-Prairie , every nice day , the day the sun's out . Not a rainy day , there are people who walk along the roads .' In my area there are no trails . Eden Prairie missed that one area for some reason , but there are a lot of people who walk that area everyday , including some joggers . I 'm not sure where they change clothes but apparently they have some type of wellness program in their buildings . So I if you have construction , and Redmond Products has been a very aggressive employer in the past . I haven 't seen any change in that . I would guess they provide for their numerous employees with some type of recreational facilities including walkrooms so I would assume that we 're going to be seeing a lot of walkers and joggers during the lunch hour and before and after work in that area . So construction at the time of total construction' makes the most sense . It 's the cheapest time to do it and if we 're worried about maintenance to the sidewalk . I know the sidewalk in front of my parent 's house in Minneapolis was replaced 5 years ago so that would make ' that sidewalk 55 years old prior to it being needing to be repaired so I guess whether we do it now or do it 5 years down the road makes more sense to do it right now when it 's cheaper than to wait 5 years when it 's going to cost quite a bit more to do it . And you 're not really gaining anything 1 in time . Robinson: But we are just talking about this little piece right now? I Sietsema: Right . Lake Susan Hills West will be developing the piece that their property abuts along Audubon Road and then if we have , the thinking is that if we have everybody along the east side construct their portion of, it , eventually we'll have the whole segment done that will lead from a subdivision through an industrial area up to a park or going south down to the school campus . And past the park into the downtown area . I Schroers: Is there any further comment? Can I have a motion? Mady: I 'll make a motion to go with staff 's recommendation. To accept I park fees in lieu of any park dedication and to require a 20 foot wide easement and construction of a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along Audubon Road with a credit of $3 ,500 .00 being given to Redmond Products unlets at some 1 point in time Audubon Road is being upgraded and the developer or Redmond Products is not at that time , or the sidewalk can be constructed with other funds . I Robinson: I ' ll second it . I I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 9 I Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission I recommend to require the payment of park dedication fees in lieu of parkland dedication, to require a 20 foot wide trail easement along Audubon Road and the construction of a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk within the easement and to allow a $3,500.00 credit toward the trail fee for the ' sidewalk construction along Audubon unless the sidewalk is constructed with other funds at the time of upgrading of Audubon Road. All voted in favor except Jan Lash and Dawne Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Pemrick: I have a comment . I 'm kind of concerned with Redmond . We had I talked at one point about seeing if they would put softball fields in . Has that been mentioned now that they 're building this new facility? Some of the larger corporations . . . APPROVE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PLANS FOR LAKE SUSAN PARK AND CHANHASSEN HILLS PARK. ISietsema: I 've provided for your information the quote from Earl F . Anderson who we 've gotten our equipment from in the past . And also the plans for the two sites showing Phase 1 and Phase 2 . If you have any I changes that you 'd like to see in those plans , we should make those now . Otherwise I can go ahead with your approval and order it now. It would be within 6 to 8 weeks . ILash: This is a really minor thing . I really like this . I like these a lot and this is a real trivial little thing here but these little wheels , I you know these steering wheel things . I don 't know how much those cost . They probably do not cost very much but in my experience watching kids in the playground , it seems like it 's something that 's very seldom ever used . ISietsema : On which plan is it included? Lash: I think it 's on both of them actually . It 's D on Phase 1 of Lake ISusan and Chan Hills Park it 's D also in Phase 1 . Sietsema: It 's probably the cheapest thing that we could stick in that I spot . Lash: I know but . . . I Sietsema: Because I indicated to him before that we weren't wild about those but he had the space and it was either just put up a board there or put that and that was probably the cheapest . ILash: Okay . And then I noticed on one of them , that there was' a fireman pole . Yeah , that 's on Lake Susan. I was wondering if it would be possible just to get one in on the Chanhassen Hills Park one too . If that would put I us way over budget . Those are really good sort of a confidence builder for kids that are starting out being kind of chicken on this equipment and they look at them for a long time and they maybe decide they might try it if Isomebody helps them . Then the first thing you know , they 're going on their IF Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 10 own and it makes them feel like they 've really accomplished something so I I really like those . And then my other question is , E on Phase 2 of Chan Hills Park , what 's an exerglide? I Sietsema: An exerglide , it 's a new kind of a swing and actually two people can fit on it or a parent and a child and instead of pumping the swing to I get going with your legs , it moves . It 's a metal piece that you hang onto the hand . . . ( There was a tape change at this point . ) ' Lash: Okay . I 'd like to see that if it can be done . Mady: I had only one comment to make . For Phase 2 next year , could we direct staff to order Phase 2 like in February next year so it will be here . Sietsema : If you budget for it I can . Mady: Well we hopefully will . That way it will be here April 1 . I Sietsema: That 's what I did with the Lake Ann equipment . Lash: When is that coming by the way? ' Sietsema: It might be here . If it 's not here , it should be here any minute . Robinson: Do you need a motion on that playground equipment? Sietsema: Yep . ' Schroers: Are there any other comments first of all? Okay , then I would I be looking for a motion to include Jan 's additions . Andrews: So moved . Lash: Okay , I 'll make it since I was the one that made that . What he said . Schroers: Is there a second? Pemrick: Second . Lash moved, Pemrick seconded to authorize staff to order the playground equipment for Chanhassen Hills Park and Lake Susan Park with the addition of a firepole at the Chanhassen Hills Park. All voted in favor. and the motion carried. II Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 -- Page 11 I VERBAL UPDATE ON LAKE ANN PARK CORE PIER. ' Hoffman: We 're concerned about attempting to get the pier installed before the Fish department started in the first part of June and when they initially said we were granted a pier they said it would be here by late summer . That date has been moved up so installation of the pier will take place on Tuesday , May 15th . Lori and I met with the folks in the Department of Natural Resources the other morning at Lake Ann looking over ' the site there . They will pick up the pier that morning at Stillwater State Prison . Bring it out to the boat access at Lake Ann . Our park maintenance personnel will be there with a front end loader to unload the pieces right at the boat access and they 'll float them over to the site and pin them together and have it installed in one day . Schroers : Where is the site? Hoffman: just to the east of the boat access where that dock . Mady: Where the dock is now? Hoffman: It 's in that general area . We 're going to take some water depths and find out the best place to put it as far as the drop off location and ' those types of issues . Then this year it will be anchored off and it will be somewhat of a temporary , 12 to 14 foot piece of dock since the water will be so low , that will be installed there and then the handicapped ' access trail will be asphalt to the parking spots and the lower parking lot will be designated as handicapped . And we 're going to have a grand opening celebration sometime in the first part of June . ' Schroers: That sounds great . What 's going to happen with the existing dock? ' Hoffman: That existing done , Dale , he 'll probably move it down to the other end of Lake Ann beach to that popular fishing area unless otherwise . . . ' Schroers: There is one dock there . Hoffman: Yeah . Schroers: And there will be two docks there? Hoffman: Yeah . Mady: You 're talking about the west end of the beach? Hoffman: West end of the beach , correct . Schroers: Okay . Anything else on the CORE pier? ' VERBAL UPDATE ON CHANHASSEN CLEAN-UP DAY, MAY 5TH. 11 Lash: I got one of these today from school so they were sent home . II Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 12 I Ruegemer : These are the flyers that went out to the schools last Friday so they should be getting distributed in the next couple days . We just tried to keep it real simple and to the point and with a brief description of the clean-up day designated for May 5th . McDonald 's was generous enough to donate 1 ,000 bags and those can be picked up at any time . It 's while supplies last . Lash: Where? Ruegemer : At McDonald 's . Andrews: Chanhassen . Ruegemer : Chanhassen McDonald 's . Schroers: You just go in and ask for a clean up bag? 1 Ruegemer : Right . If you have like a big group , they 'd like you to call I ahead so they can get them ready for you . So if like the Cub Scouts are going to go in and get some , so they wanted them to call ahead so they can get like a pack of them to them or just so it 's easier coming in and out . So they can just get them . ' Schroers: Are these like larger sized garbage bags? Ruegemer : They 're garbage bags , yeah . So that was nice . ' Erhart: Did you give them credit in the local papers? McDonald 's for doing this? ' Ruegemer : Right . Yeah , that 's what I 'm going to get to . I 've been working with Connie Meyer of the Villager and we designed an ad . We just finalized' that today for this coming Thursday . It 's going to be a full page ad . It 's going to be , we worked together on working on the clip art so it 's going to be basically like this and there's going to be writing inside of it . A brief description . It 's going to be coming out this coming Thursday and it 's going to be in the back side . A full page ad on the back side of the paper . It 's going to be green so it's going to stand out a little bit more from the original . ' Sietsema: And the good news is it doesn 't come out of the park and rec budget . ' Ruegemer : So we worked on that and there is mention of McDonald 's in the paper . Also , there 's basically more of the same information . We 're just I going to try to keep exposing it and try to get repetition so people are familiar with the clean up day . Last Tuesday we had an informational meeting here . I sent out probably , I don't know how many letters . Probably 50 or 75 letters to the homeowner 's associations and local I scouting groups . Local businesses and interested citizens and two people showed up . II Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 13 g Mady: That 's better than other meetings we 've had in the city . So we 're just going to try to advertise for the papers and through schools . Try to get people involved that way . Hoffman: Hopefully with all the Earth Day . . .this will just kind of take ' off from that . We had a call from one of the local Girl Scout organizers that they had picked up 10 bags already along Kerber Blvd and asking Lori to dispose of it . I think we should see some activity and hopefully it ' will be just kind of pick up off of all of the Earth Day information . . . Robinson: Are we sure to get the parks in the downtown? ' Ruegemer : We have groups kind of slated for that with the Cub Scouts and the Girl Scouts . And different citizens have expressed interest but I 'd like to plug those people into the parks like out at Lake Ann and up at ' City Center . To get the parks clean also along with the main street . Schroers : That 's a good idea . Where is the drop off point for the refuse ' then? Ruegemer : We are encouraging people to include it in their regular weekly trash cycle so whatever they pick up , we 'd like to have them put it in with ' their own garbage . Schroers: Okay , so we don 't actually have a designated drop off point? ' Ruegemer : We don 't have a designated , we 're trying to keep it simple as possible so people would pick up their own yard as well as their ' neighborhood and surrounding areas . Hoffman: Other cities that have had that type of clean-up and designated drop off area are just inundated with not only litter or trash from the ' streets but everything from A to Z . Schroers : Yeah , I was going to ask if I could throw my neighbor 's pumper 1 away . Hoffman: So it gets to be a risky proposition. Ruegemer : With the low turnout at the meeting , it doesn 't seem like there 's a lot of outcoming public interest so that 's why we 're not going to have the social mixer on Saturday with the hot dogs and pop in fear of low ' turnout . Hoffman: Your worse fear . Four people show up to eat 300 hot dogs . ' Ruegemer : So that 's going to be scratched . Just keep it self motivated on Satuday to make people aware and have them clean up their own area . ' Hoffman: Maybe next year . Ruegemer : Right . Just kind of grow from there . And there also will be probably the same ad coming out the following Thursday . It would be May 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting I April 24 , 1990 - Page 14 1 3rd I believe . Coming out in the Villager just to . Hoffman: But smaller . 1 Ruegemer : Smaller , to inform people that the day is coming up that Saturday . So we 're just trying to keep people informed through different 1 informational channels . Robinson: What about down at South Lotus Park? Somebody dumped two big II old Christmas trees down there . If I put them out by the garbage barrels , will the City pick them up when they pick up the garbage? Sietsema: Yeah . 1 Ruegemer : So if anybody needs any flyers , stop by . I 'll give you some . We 'll copy some off for you to distribute . 1 Schroers: Thanks a lot Jerry . Mady: Side comment . It appears , hopefully it 's not because of this but II there seems to be a lot more glass around the city . Broken glass in the streets and that . Hopefully it 's not because we have such a readily available supply of recycleables out there that kids can hit going on their) way to school but there does seem to be more glass out there now . Schroers: Okay , if there 's no further discussion on the clean-up day , we will back up to item 5 on the agenda . REVIEW REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN. Sietsema: We received a letter at our last meeting from Dawne Erhart requesting that a portion of the trail plan be revised and deleted from the trail plan . I 'll show you where it is on the map . This is the overall trail plan . The segment that we 're talking about tonight is this piece from here to here . This segment is shown as a part of the nature trail system that 's along the Bluff Creek area and it provides a link between the hard surface trail along TH 101 to the nature trail system. This section is right in here actually has changed and has gone straight up to the hard surface over here . So there 's been some changes already just due to development and the soil conditions and what not . Staff feels that the comprehensive trail plan is a planning tool for us and it shows the connections that we have and try to make between, within the trail system . The hard surfaces and natural trail system and how they connect to each other . And rather than at this time start taking out bits and pieces of it and seeing what we have left, I would suggest that we leave it as it is and try to find an alternate route or make a conscience decision not to I proceed . We don 't have the easement at this point in time . The time that we would acquire that would be if the landowner were to further subdivide in the future and acquire it at that time . So we can either make a 11 conscience decision not to proceed with acquisition of that easement at this time of development or look for an alternate route . That 's basically in a nutshell what I feel that the options can be for us to do . 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 15 Schroers: Is there anyone that currently uses that trail now for walking , horse riding , cross country skiing , anything? Sietsema : I think the local people down there do but it 's not a public trail . ' Erhart : As far as we 're concerned , anybody that wants to walk on it , whether they be in the neighborhood or they belong in another neighborhood , ' are more than welcome to walk on it . Before we open it up to discussion though Larry , I 'd like to give the audience that has come in and then the new members some background on this . ' Schroers : Be my guest . Erhart: Okay . Thank you . First of all , my husband and I voluntarily drew ' the nature trails out and drew the nature trails on our property and said that this is something we would like to see . It was our understanding at that time that an easement would not be required until at which time we ' came in and wanted to subdivide for development . Yet 2 years ago we applied for a mortgage and we found staff making the recommendation that they wanted to take the easement at that time and this is a very much of a misfortune and it was something that I feel was a real abuse as far as the City 's responsibility and we found ourselves before the Park and Rec telling them why they should not take the easement at this time . I just feel that in the future , if I ever want to build a new home on my property , ' I will be asking for another lot split at which time history may repeat itself again . I am not opposed to nature trails but I have found it to be a nuisance to have it on the map and at the time that there would be a subdivision for development or we would subdivide I should say for ' development , we can talk about it at that time . If the City feels that that 's still a good place for it , we 're willing to negotiate . I have not changed my feelings on major trails . I would not have gone to the trouble nor would my husband have gone to the trouble to draw them out if we did not feel that it was something but that 's what 's kind of the irony is here . We wouldn 't even discuss this segment tonight or be discussing this segment ' if we hadn 't gone to the City and asked them to put it on in the first place . And second of all , I don 't feel that this piece of trail should be looked at by itself . It 's just a segment of the overall revisions that I think this Commission needs to look at as far as the comprehensive trail ' plan . We 've had two failed attempts to fund trails and •I think we need to sit down and discuss this and come up with something that we can bring back to the people of this community that they can fund . I think that 's the bigger picture here . I think my piece of property there should be discussed as with the overall revision of what I see the comprehensive trail plan . Schroers: Okay , is there any response from the audience in regards to the comprehensive trail plan revision? ' Tim Collins: I think I agree . I think we have to look at the overall comprehensive plan in detail so I think maybe we should schedule a time or set up maybe a conference in lieu of this to see what we can do for something that the City can fund . That 's where I 'm coming from so this one Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 16 revision to the trail , I don't think we 'll be able to address that right now as well . Lash: Did you have a specific area that you were concerned with or something? That when you saw this on the agenda caught your eye and you wanted to hear what was going on? Tim Collins: I have a real interest in the entire trail system . Sietsema: For the record this is Tim Collins and he lives down in Chanhassen Hills . He wrote a letter to the Commission last year expressing the need for trails along major collectors and the natural areas along the park that 's along Chanhassen Hills and basically his desire to see the trail plan move forward . He 's been interested all along in seeing that happen . I think if I can put words in your mouth , that he 's here tonight to see if he can instigate more discussion on how funding can happen so I that trails can be built along those major collectors like TH 101 and the area around the south as well as the north. Tim Collins: People in our entire development were under the impression I that the trails were funded . I mean we really thought they were going along and then of course they got voted down in the referendum so the people in my development , they 're eager to go and start putting together II plans or helping with fund raising . I can get a lot of people in a couple of days or few weeks to put some things together . Lash: I guess I have a couple of questions about this just because I 'm one, of the newer members and wasn 't involved when this was all put together . I guess one of my questions is , when was this plan actually put together and who put it together and who approved it? I. Sietsema: It was developed in 1987 . The instigation , what prompted us to do the trail plan was the survey that was completed , the parks needs surveys and trails were consistently mentioned in the survey . If I remember correctly , it was 4 out of the top 5 things that people felt were needed in the City were trails . Whether they be nature trails , walking trails , biking trails , whatever so we put together the Park and Recreation Commission put together the trail plan and it was approved by City Council in 1987. In early '88 it went to referendum and failed . The funding for the whole overall plan failed . The plan still is an approved plan . This , is our planning tool is this comprehensive trail plan that shows what our overall goal is someday although it 's ambitious . But we knew when we put it together that it would take a long time to accomplish this . Anywhere ' from 1 to 20 years likely . So that 's basically the history . The plan has been approved by City Council in 1987 and funding is what we 're trying to accomplish . Tim Collins: Wasn 't that referendum though voted down by just a few votes?. Sietsema: 5 . ' Lash: But it was twice wasn 't it? Did it go to the voters in 1987 and then in 1988 too? i 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 17 Sietsema : Twice in 1988 . It was in February of 1988 and November of 1988 . Robinson: So it takes a Council action then to change? Sietsema: That 's right . It 's part of our comprehensive plan . Our overall comprehensive plan that guides us in , when we look at where there are park deficient areas and there are park needs and when it 's in regards to trail , we look at this document . Robinson: So it 's really more than a guide . It 's pretty well cast in concrete . Sietsema : Well no because it 's just like , things change . Things shift from where it may be exactly shown on here . It may shift to the south or to the ' north or when it gets right down to development , we have soil reports and feasibility studies and that kind of thing . We have to change it from off street to on street . The one on Minnewashta , it 's not likely that we 're going to be able to get that off street . Disconnected from the paved surface of where the cars are all the way along there simply because of the topography and what not . So this shows us what our goals are and what we would like to accomplish in the best case scenario . But we often deviate from what our comprehensive plan or what our plans show . Our planning tools . But if we don 't have the thing to start out with , we 're throwing darts in the dark . ' Robinson: Do minor deviations need Council approval also? I mean this is obviously not a minor one . I don't mean to imply that . ' Sietsema : Yeah . Well , you do look at the whole plan and you look at each section because usually , similar to what we talked about with Redmond , that 's just a small section and in and of itself , it doesn 't go anywhere ' and doesn 't end anywhere . It 's just a linear piece of concrete but when you connect it to Lake Susan Hills and the industrial park and then the development that comes below Lyman Blvd . and you put a trail along Lyman Blvd . and then down along CR 17 , eventually you 're at the school and you 've got something that connects a whole bunch of neighborhoods to the downtown Chanhassen and to the park system and to other neighborhoods . So you have the big picture but you have to address each little segment because there are different landowners . There 's different situations . There 's different topography . There 's different barriers . There 's a lot of different things so you may have to deviate from what it is that you still want to make that ' connection . Lash: When you made this , did you specify which areas were to be , I know the red is this hard surface and the bluer dots are natural trails . Did ' you specifically have in mind which ones were to be concrete and which ones were to be asphalt or how did you . . . Sietsema: Basically the policy in the trail plan is that if it 's in a residential area it would be concrete . If it goes by the front of homes and also in our downtown and industrial park area . Lake Drive East is all concrete . Downtown will be all concrete . But along the major collectors Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 18 II II where it 's a more rural section , it 's the 8 foot bituminous . Lash: I guess I 'd also be interested in then when things are changing , as II an example the trail in front here . The trail that was voted down and the one on Curry Farms that was voted down, are those things then being removed from the plan or are those just remaining on the plan even after Council II has voted them down? Sietsema: They still remain on the plan . The comprehensive plan . It 's II just basically what they decided is not to proceed with construction of those trails at this time . They still remain on the plan . Lash : I guess I kind of have a problem with that . I don 't know why II something like that should remain on the plan when it 's already been rejected by probably the majority of the people who live there and also by the City Council . I mean it 's like eventually somewhere along the line II it 's going to be forced on someone even if they don 't want it . Mady: That 's a pretty tough , I 've got to jump in . I 'm sorry but if you want to talk about Frontier Trail , I live on Frontier Trail and I was here II that night . I don't think you were . The statement to take it off because the Council voted it down , there were a lot of issues in there that don 't reflect what the people were told that night . This is a planning tool . Just because it 's on here doesn 't mean it 's going to be constructed in the II next 20 years but it still reflects good sound planning. And in Dawne 's case , it doesn 't necessarily mean that it has to go on her property . It , just reflects the fact that we want to get from Point A to Point B and here 's a logical way of doing it at this point in time . It 's just like on TH 212 . For 25 years they said TH 212 's going to cut through somewhere in the southern part of Chanhassen . Just because you don 't know for sure II it 's going to be in this quarter mile or that quarter mile doesn 't mean you show a meandering line . It 's a planning tool and that 's what it 's there for so that when the opportunity 's present themself , you bring them up and II everybody knows they 're going to be brought up . It 's not something that just kind of hatches out of the wild blue . So that 's why they should always remain on here as a planning tool . II Lash: I agree that it 's good to have plans but then you get all hung up with every single thing that comes up . Because it 's on the comprehensive plan it 's always the recommendation regardless of how people feel about it because it 's on the comprehensive plan . It 's always the recommendation and I feel like people have a tendency to be somewhat intimidated into going along with that even if it 's maybe not what they think is best because it 's 11 on the comprehensive plan . Sietsema: But Jan that 's why there are commissions and the Council has the final . They haven 't approved that that 's the way it 's going to' be built no matter what . That 's why we still review it here and we still review it at City Council level and they make the final decision . But if we don 't have things where if we don 't identify where we want our parks and where we need parks and where we want our trails to be on a plan, it makes it much more difficult for us to achieve that when we actually get a site plan in front of us . Staff would be remiss if a subdivision came in here and did not II • Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 -- Page 19 recommend following our comprehensive plan . This commission may decide that this isn 't the right time to do it or the Council may decide this isn 't the right time to do it but staff bases most , I mean we base most of our decisions and recommendations based on the plans , the general plans , comprehensive plans . The policies and the ordinances that have been set up by the City Council . Lash: Well I understand you make your recommendations based on the comprehensive plan . That makes sense to me and that 's your job . What maybe doesn 't make sense to me is that , how do we know that this is a plan that is workable or doable or that people want? To me if it failed twice , maybe it 's the plan that people don 't want . Maybe they want a modified plan and maybe we need to look at that and that in the end would possibly save us a lot of money . It would maybe take things off that people don't want and put and then we 'd have money to put them in places where we do want or that are higher priorities . Andrews: Can I make a comment? I think if we proceeded that way you 're basically destroying the entire comprehensive plan . If you 're going to look at every individual parcel as individually , we won 't have a plan . Lash : No , I 'm saying maybe what we need to do is revise the plan . ' Sietsema: I had it on the agenda the last time we talked about it . ' Andrews : It is such a huge project that I think it 's something that , it 's probably more modified than created anew but the other thing , what the comprehensive plan , it 's a 20 year plan or a 30 year plan . I doubt if any ' of us will be here in 30 years or even 15 years to see the plan go through . I think to start talking about removing sections or adding sections of a comprehensive plan , all these individual sections of the trails and so forth will be . . .on the map as premanent as drawn . I think that 's what ' you 've already said . So there will be an opportunity to look at individual portions of the trail to see if they deserve development and consideration at the time that that property comes up for development or change of ' ownership . Erhart: But Jim , what happens then if we go to a referendum and the people vote to fund it? Then what we have on the comprehensive plan is what we 're going to get . Andrews: I disagree with that . I think that every individual parcel that ' the City would have to obtain would have to be looked at individually because we have to deal with individual owners . Erhart: I 'm going to jump in here too . I talked to some of the old Council members to try to get some history on the comprehensive' trail plan and how it all came into be and who approved it . One of the Councilmen told me that when it came in for approval , they said that it was fine with them if the people chose to fund it but because the people voted it down , he felt , as well as I know 3 of the new Council members feel , that it needs to be gone over and revised . Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 20 Sietsema: And that can certainly happen and that 's been on the agenda . Erhart: Right but it helps to know the property procedure to change things and that 's why myself did not jump on this sooner . Because I did not know the proper procedure to amend it and I know I asked for that twice now . Maybe everybody else knows . I have finally found out by making phone calls" and talking to you Lori but like I said , it 's hard to make changes if you don 't know the property procedure . Lash: I guess another thing that I want to say is , looking at the plan , I II can 't say specifically that I have problems here or there or anywhere without looking at it in detail but when we get recommendations for subdivisions coming in , those are sidewalks and trails and stuff that are going on that are not on that plan . Sietsema: Right . The trail plan is a document . It 's a portion of the II chapter- of the comprehensive plan . This just shows you where we know we want connections now but it doesn 't even have Saddlebrook in there which has sidewalks going all the way through it but because I can 't guess where those , who 's going to sell property and how . The document also states that'll the general policy is that sidewalks will be included along all thru streets and there 's some policy statements in there and that 's what I base those recommendations on . I Lash: Okay , and was that a policy that was initiated by the Park and Rec and then it went on and it was approved by City Council? Sietsema: Yes . Lash: Okay , I think that 's another thing that needs to be re-evaluated . , Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission can revise , we 're going through the whole Comprehensive Plan updating and that 's why I 've included on the last few meetings . It wasn 't last meeting , the meeting before and a couple meetings before that , we talked about revising and I think that it's the general consensus of this group that this plan needs to be revised or at least shown in phases so if we want to do some funding , we have something that 's more workable . I haven't gotten a lot of direction from you . The way you change things is to take action when it 's on the agenda and no formal action has been taken . You directed me to go find out what I the road improvements are going to be and I showed you that the last time we talked about it but now what? I didn 't get direction from you that we want you to come back to us with a plan that shows only TH 101 , TH 11 5 , Powers , Lyman , Pioneer , Minnewashta Parkway and come back with cost estimates from that . I need the direction from you . Erhart: Okay . Well I think I can do that tonight or speak for myself anyway and I think each of the commission members could have an opportunity here . Can we do that then? Sietsema: You can do whatever you want . ' 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 21 Schroers: Let 's try to get this back under control a little bit . We 've just kind of let it got into an open discussion here and I think that 's ' okay . We need to communicate a little bit but maybe if we could get things a little bit more under control then we could proceed and get something accomplished or something done . ' Erhart: Okay , then you call it Larry . What do you want to do? ' Schroers: Okay , well what I would like to do is to start with Wendy and get each commissioner 's feelings in regards to the revision of the comprehensive trail plan . I Pemrick: Well I 've heard that this is updated or it needs to be updated and reading through this letter of Dawne 's from last week . I think it was very generous of them to donate so much of their property for this trail ' and I can understand where she 's coming from now . Some of this needs to be looked at again . I can understand changes and thoughts occurring and I think we should honor that . We can 't look a gift horse in the mouth here . ' So much property has been set aside by them and if there 's a way to work the trail a different way in that area , I think it should be looked at and now's the time to get it off if that 's what she wants . I think then we don 't have to sit and stumble over it every time and go through this every ' time this trail plan comes up . Give us something new to start from and approve that way . Those are my feelings . ' Schores: Okay , Jim . Andrews: I guess my biggest concern is the entire concept of the trail system is so large of a project I think it 's very , we 're trying to discuss ' a small detail at the same time we 're trying to discuss the whole project . I think that we do need a comprehensive plan in order to have some vision of what the finished project is but I do feel that let 's go back to the ' drawing board on the whole thing . From what I 've seen of a government at any level , basically that means that nothing 's going to get accomplished at all if all you do is keep going back and redrawing and redrawing . As far ' as the specific recommendation , I guess my feeling is that I 'm not sure , I 'm not really sure which way I would recommend at this point but I feel that we do need a linkage , an east/west linkage . If there 's an alternative route that could be used at the time of development , I 'm sure that that would be looked at . I think the plan , at least the way I understand it , as a concept or a recommendation of what we would like to see but is not necessarily what would happen at the time that the trails were constructed and the way I also understand it is if there were a referendum to be passed by the citizens to build these trails , they 're not necessarily going to go as drawn . There 's going to be much discussion and many hearings as to where trails would actually end up so I guess I feel that until an alternative could be offered to the connection , but I feel it should be either not passed or tabled until a later date . Schroers: Okay , Dawne did you have anything further? Erhart: Yes . If this is the time that we are going to call attention to changes that each of think that needs to be made , I 'd like to do that right Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 22 now . I think the trails on the major corridors should have first priority .� I think everybody here has agreed to that . As far as the sidewalks go , I feel all of them should be taken off at this time . I feel that we have a II Council that has some problems with this or at least we should take them off and maybe have a work session with Council but it seems to me in one of our meetings when the new Council came on , we sat down and talked to them about it and we have a Council now that is not supportive of that but they ' do support the major corridors so I 'd like to go ahead and keep those on but take a real good hard look at the sidewalks . And I think the one on Curry Farms should come off . The people were in here . We never made a motion on that . It went to City Council and they agreed with it . That 's all I have at this point . Robinson: Boy , I don 't know where to start . It sounds like we 're back challenging the whole trail plan again and maybe we should do that . Only not with just the Park and Rec Commission . If Tim is it? If you can get I some people together maybe and maybe 10 other neighborhoods . There 's 10 groups like you say you have interest in it , that could really help us in address it . It is like , it 's overwhelming the magnitude of the project II that you really don't know where to start with it . So I hate to propose starting all over here but if we 're questioning it , maybe that 's what we should do and we can 't do it here tonight I don't think at this meeting . As far as Dawne 's specific request , that 's a shame if they have dedicated that property or given that for trail use and then it became part of the comprehensive plan and they get challenged now everytime they go to do anything with that property . I don 't think that 's right but I wouldn 't make a decision on that until we get an alternate route to it . So I 'm wondering if we should start all over . Or not start all over but looking at just looking at it again for possible revisions or challenge some of the, things that are on it . Mady: I think I 'm going to take Curt 's ideas one step further . It must be about 2 months ago now I asked or made a request in commission II presentations to look at doing another park need survey . There has been some changes in the city as to understanding of what a trail system is . What the costs are . What their implications are to your own particular neighborhood and that to the whole city . I think Dawne 's correct , there are 3 City Council members now who aren't necessarily pro trail but I don't know if that 's the way the city is or not anymore . What we found out in the two failed referendums , which both failed by very small margins . Where people didn 't want to spend any of their money right now to build a trail . I know a number of people I talked to voted against both issues who each time said , yes I want the whole trail system but I don 't want to spend any II money . So it 's still , then comes the job of this commission and the hope that City Council to figure out how in the world we do that . That 's why we do it through the development process and we do get bits and pieces done . • They ultimately will make a whole connection but if you don 't do the bits and pieces now , it 's kind of like building a brick wall . If you don 't lay II the first two bricks , you 'll never get the top course in . You can 't look at the whole plan and say that this little segment is insignificant so let 's not do it . You 've got to look at the whole plan and say if I don 't II build that first segment , I can't build the next 3 . So if we don 't continue on , maybe the plan doesn 't need to be in at all . We have to find Park and Roc Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 23 that out . We have to I think , until we do a very comprehensive survey like the last one was , we won 't know what we need to do . It doesn 't need to be ' leading . The last survey didn 't ask leading questions . It was free form and we still found out that I believe it was 77% of the people wanted to see a fairly complete trail system through so now people have a very good understanding of what that means . At least- a number of the people in the community do . Maybe we 'll get different response and maybe we 'll get a higher response or a lower response . I don 't know if any of us can make that judgment at this point in time . As to the specifics of Dawne 's situation , we need an east/west link in there somewhere . If it 's not on Dawne 's property , it needs to be someplace so I think it 's a shame if we don 't get it there but I just want , I guess my concern is that in that ' large tract of land in there that there needs to be an east/west segment since there 's going to be a park , major park directly across TH 101 there . So we need to show it somewhere . That 's all . ' Lash: I agree with Curt 's comments and Wendy 's I guess that it 's a shame that someone is generous enough to do this but then when they want to do any little thing on their property , they 're made to go through the hoops and who knows how many people that could apply to in this situation . They 're not planning on subdividing for a development . All they want to do is add a garage and they 're taking out a mortgage or something you know and ' I don 't think that 's fair and I don 't know how that can be changed but I think that this , since the comprehensive plan is being revised this year , this is our opportunity and I don 't waglt to pass that up at this time . It 's the time for us to revise it and to make it something that 's going to be workable and that the people would support if it ever had to go to a referendum and I don 't know that that would have to be done . If we 're to keep a trail plan , I guess I would choose to see it go in phases and I ' think we did talk a few meetings ago about where our priorities were and just to kind of clarify my position on , when you 're talking about bits and pieces and I kind of like to think that I 'm capable of looking at the big ' picture of things and I 've had people tell me that they think that I can . Where my problem comes in on this is that I already have in my mind where my priorities are because we 've talked about that and I think we were all pretty much in agreement but we don 't have the money to do it . So where I have the problem is putting in a little piece here on something that is not one of our priorities . I would rather get the money so that we could put it on a road that is our priority and then in 20 years , if that road is a priority , fine . Then we 'll fund it and do it on that road instead of having a block of it here and a block of it there and a block of it over there on roads that are not our priorities at this time . Maybe down the road , maybe it would save us money . Maybe that road will be ripped out . ' Maybe , who knows what 's going to happen in 20 or 30 years . The whole thing could be ripped out before anyone ever walks on it from one neighborhood to a park you know . How do we know it 's going to happen? My priority is to ' get it on the major corridors and I see putting all these little bits and pieces in as a stumbling block for me to accomplish that goal because we don 't have the money to do it as long as we keep spending it on all of ' these other little bits and pieces . So that 's why I know you all have a pretty good feeling for how I feel about those and that really is my thinking . I feel like we 're just defeating our goal of what our priorities are . And Jim has said that he 's talked to people who wanted the whole Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 24 II plan . They like the whole plan but they didn 't want to have to spend money II for it . I talked to a lot of people who didn 't like the plan . They thought it was too massive and it was overkill and they would have supported a revised one that would have been maybe half the money but they II thought it was too much money and just too much all over everywhere . So that was the feeling that I had gotten over the plan when it was defeated II twice and we 'll never know whether it was people didn 't want to spend the money or people didn 't like the plan . But personally I would never , ever vote to support putting this plan back to a referendum again after it 's II been voted down twice . I 'd be embarrassed to put it back to the voters again . Mady: I think you 're missing a point here . The trail referendum , each of , the last two times , the two times rather , never was to fund this whole thing . It never has been . Lash: Well what was it to fund? How much of it? That was the impression I people had . Mady : The first time around it was , maybe it was both times , it was a II three phase idea and we had 800 ,000 Phase 1 . Erhart: Jim , do you recall what was in the first phase or could you II talk . . . Mady: I can 't remember off hand but it 's always been a phased plan . No one has ever said we 're going to build a whole thing . Geez , we 're talking II 3 years ago but I think we 're talking like 3 million dollars for the whole thing back then . We were up front with that every meeting . Every piece of literature all the way through and yet we still can 't seem to get the point" across of what this was and what it was supposed to be doing . Lash: Maybe if the plan had showed exactly what the $800 ,000 .00 was going II to do . Schroers: Well it did. We had estimates that said that the average mile II of trail was going to cost us $28 ,000 .00 and that it could go as high as $40 ,000 .00 in areas where the topography didn't lend itself very well to having a trail there and other flatter areas might have been less but the average trail cost , if I 'm not mistaken, was about $28,000.00 a mile . And II things were broken down and it was pretty organized at the time but it 's difficult to remember back but do you have more? Lash: No , I think that 's about it . I Schroers: Okay . You know we're getting a little bit beyond the subject here . I mean we 're getting into the whole comprehensive plan and it 's all II related and I think it 's something that we definitely need to address but we are unprepared to address that entire issue tonight . I just have a couple comments some of which haven 't been mentioned . The survey that we II conducted in regarding to the trail plan . On that survey the people surveyed overwhelmingly wanted a trail plan . The survey showed that no question . Everybody wanted it . It was my opinion that the people that II II 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 25 were in favor of the trail just felt well , who wouldn 't want a trail plan . There 's no problem . This is going to pass . I don 't have to go and vote ' and people didn 't show up . It was real close on both of the times but the factor there was the number of votes . The total number of votes . There was very few people that turned out to vote and I think where we were lacking was getting the information out to the city . Communicating with all the people . That 's the tough part and really getting people to get involved with the issues and show up and give us their true feelings and that 's something that we need to address whatever we do in the future in regards ' to a trail plan or community center or what it is , we have to find out and have an avenue to pursue to open up the communication to the residents so they 're aware of all the facts and they feel like they want to get out and 1 become involved . I think that that was really the failure of the referendums in the past . That 's just my personal feelings . In regards to Dawne 's personal situation here . I agree that it was most generous of Dawne and her husband to donate this property . ' Sietsema: Wait a minute . There 's no property that 's been donated or purchased . ' Schroers: To designate this section as a part of the trail . ' Sietsema : Just for the record I needed to clarify that . Schroers: Excuse me for that . What concerns me is that whether or not we 're going to be setting a precedence by making a revision like this . Are ' other landowners going to come up and say well you 've changed your plans in the past and I 've decided that I wouldn't like a trail on my property either . Then if you deny a request , someone can ,also come back and say ' well okay , you 've granted a request to your commissioner but you won 't do it for me . That really shows the City in a bad light . I don't like to see that . I 'm not sure exactly what to do about it . I don 't personally like ' to see anything designated as a natural area being taken off a plan for fear of losing it altogether at some point in the future . I think the natural areas that we have are few and precious and my feeling on the matter is that , as long as it 's really not having a major affect on anything right now , I would just as soon see it left in place until a better alternative is found and that we would direct our attention to doing just that . Finding a better alternative . So I don't really know if , in ' lieu of what I heard tonight , if we can even ask for a motion or recommendation on this . If we can just table this item until . . . Andrews: I 'd like to make a comment . From what Lori talked about , it sounds like the whole issue 's been kind of perpetually tabled and I think that I 've heard just about everybody say we 've got to prioritize them . Break this down into workable chunks and make some sort of , take some step ' forward rather than just constantly deferring to the future that we may do something . And I 'm not referring to this specific proposal but I think to prioritize and break it into smaller phases . I mean you talked about how I the referendum was communicated as being a Phase 1 , 2 , and 3 . I can guarantee you that in my neighborhood that probably 99 out of 100 people were under the impression that this was an all or nothing proposal . And I think even myself , I mean I have as a commissioner , I have no idea . I mean Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 26 I really don 't understand the plan . It 's just too big to understand as an II entire plan . I think we really almost have to work with maybe a Phase 1 map , a phase 2 map and a phase 3 map so I can see with a map what 's what . II I 'm also beginning to agree that perhaps spending money on 100 feet of sidewalk here and there over the big scheme of things , maybe that money would be better saved for the projects that are going to be the top priorities . I can sense the frustration already building in myself that II action has to be taken , not just deferral . Lash: Can I ask Dawne a question and then we can maybe go on . I don 't know if we can do a thing with hers or not . Dawne , I 'm trying to remember II and I have kind of foggy recollection that at one of the meetings when you were talking about this that you said that there was , did you say there was a work road or a gravel road or something that was somewhere down there that people were using? Is that on your property? Is this the area that we 're talking about? It is the area that you 're talking about? Erhart: No , this is the trail that we 're talking about . And I think everybody sitting here is saying they 're going to lose it . Yet at the time somebody comes in to subdivide for a development . In other neighborhoods we have requested a trail and we will continue to do that as people . And the other question I have is , if water and sewer goes in out there , which right now as long as I own the property , I won 't subdivide until that comes, in and I may not see that in my lifetime but all of a sudden that 's going to change the whole trail system. And the trail where it sits right now , there are no natural amenities there . On my property on the other side would be a beautiful place for a trail system along hills and wetlands and nesting areas for birds and that . But you know , a person 's almost afraid to show anything on the map because like I said, it becomes a nuisance . Everytime I want to do something outside of subdividing for development , I have to come and come before the Park and Rec explain why you shouldn 't take it at this time . That is what has started this whole thing with me . I have not , and I want to go on record again , saying I have not changed my mind about nature trails . I wouldn 't have gone to the trouble and neither would Tim have to draw this all out if we didn 't think it was something this community needed . But I agree with Larry , and everybody else that we maybe need to work on this . Would it be out of place to talk to Council II about sending out a survey like Jim had brought up or even get together with Council for a workshop? Maybe go for a public hearing and get some input from the people so we know where we're going with this? ' Schroers: I certainly wouldn't think that having a combination meeting with the Council is something that we can request . It 's been done before and they wouldn 't deny it . It seems to me that we would need to have a little work session before that and organize ourselves a little better on this issue . To be perfectly honest , after all this discussion , I 'm not absolutely clear on this and I don 't know if we should put this item up for a vote this evening or if we shouldn't . Sietsema: Maybe I can suggest that we take 3 giant steps back and I 'll II bring the whole trail plan with all of the verbage and everything back to the Commission and we can review it . That 's it . 1 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 27 IIMady: Do you have this? I Sietsema: Yes . And we can review it all , start over and there are phases in there and see where we are from there . Schedule an hour block at our next meeting or whatever and talk about reviewing the trail plan . II Lash: Maybe if each commissioner comes prepared with a list of their top 10 priorities or whatever . I Sietsema: What I 'd like to do is I 'll make copies of that and get it out to you this week so you have a couple of weeks to review it so we 're a little ahead . ISchroers: I think in fairness to Dawne and ourself , we need a little time to look at this . Okay . In that case . IILash: Do you want a motion to table this? Schroers: Yeah . I 'll ask for a motion to table this until we have further Iinformation and time to sit down and sort that information out . Sietsema: In the meantime I also , I want to address another area . I have I a number of people , residents that continually call me and want to know , tell me when you 're going to be talking about the trail plan . We 're interested . We want to give our input . Tim is one of them . He 's calling me on a regular basis and saying what 's happening . Are we any closer to I funding? Are we going to go to referendum? Are we going to you know , what can we do? How can we help? We want people to know that we want this . Would you want me to invite those people into this work session? It is a IIpublic meeting and it will be in the newspaper but I can notify them . Schroers: I don 't think in a work session . IIMady: Well if they 've asked to be included in the discussions . Lash: I think if it 's published in the paper and it 's on the agenda , IIpeople who are interested I would think would be looking . Mady: If they 've talked to you . . .Herman Field , this should be the same Itype of deal . Schroers : Do you think so? I guess my feeling is that the commission isn 't real organized on this issue right now and that we would be better II prepared to deal with the public in general if we spent an hour or two on our own to get ourself organized a little better first . II Councilman Johnson: The Sunshine Law may require that people asked to be informed of discussions of the trail issue have to be informed if you 're going to discuss the trail issue . It just might be in the State Sunshine I Law . There are certain things that if they requested to be informed of it , and you go ahead and discuss that item without informing them of it . I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 28 Schroers: This may not be a discussion . This may be a commission workshop . Lash: More of a notification than publishing the agenda in the paper? Councilman Johnson: Yeah . If they 've requested to be on that kind of a list . I don 't know , maybe these people have made that formal of a request ., There are certain people who . . .bus commission who requested to be informed about everything that the bus commission ever does . You can also make it in specific to a subject . I don 't know how many of these people have made that request . . .work session and in the future have a more public meeting where you 're going to invite public input and you inform them of both . . . Sietsema: I 'll notify them of the work session but that it 's not a public 1 hearing . Lash: Maybe put that in the letter . Say it 's not a public hearing . It 's all work session . Mady: Well it should be free form . . .Even in our regular meetings there doesn 't need to be that much structure . The Council meetings need to be II structured . This should be free form as much as possible , and it usually is . If we sound like we 're just , don 't know where we are from time to time , that 's still fine . Lash: Because we are . Mady: Some of the best ideas and things come out of total chaos . They really do because you get things coming from all over the place and then all of a sudden they seem to jell . If a meeting seems to be going nowhere ," well maybe sometimes that 's where it needs to go . Schroers: Well I guess that 's my point exactly is that this item tonight took pretty much that very venue and we ended up accomplishing practically zip on it . Sietsema: Well I don't know . I don't agree . ' Erhart: No , I think we 've opened the doors . Andrews: I 'd like to make a comment about the survey . I think that 's a 1 waste of time mainly because I think everybody 's going to be for it until it comes time to put up the money . Lash: Right . It 's like saying would you like a Mercedes . Would you like a million dollar house? Hey, yeah. I 'd love a million dollar house but I can 't pay for it . Mady: If that were the case , then why in the survey did we get so totally different results? When we had stuff at 20% and stuff at 80% . ' Andrews: A survey is not spending the money . When you have a referendum , that taxpayer , that voter is spending the money . A survey is a wish list . 11 I . Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 29 It 's like and what do you want from Santa this year . Well I 'd like a new car . Then you do to the store to buy the car and see it 's too much money . ' You don 't want the car anymore . I think if we 're going to make any progress , I think we have to obviously communicate this in small phases and take it one step at a time because that 's the only way we 're going to get ' funding on it from the voters . They 're not going to fund a grandiose plan because , you know if we can 't understand it , how can the voters know what it is . I really don't , I mean I see the plan . I understand the concept of the plan but for me to understand what it costs and all the time it takes ' to dedicate the property and stuff , it 's a huge undertaking . If we 're going to move forward , we have to do it in pieces where we can say well this is what we 're going to accomplish this year or this 6 months . We 're l going to take this quarter mile section and we 're going to put a path on it and if we get that much done , that 's progress . A survey , by the time we get a survey back and decide what to do with it , it will be this time next ' year . Lash: I agree with Jim 's comments . I 'm not trying to say anything negative but I feel like the last time we had the survey , 77% of the people ' said yeah , they wanted trails so you guys went ahead and you did all the work and you drew the plan and you went to Council and you did the referendum and then it failed because 77% of the people didn 't want to pay ' for it after they said they wanted to have it . So I guess I just feel like the survey 's , while they can provide you with some information , I just don 't know for sure when it comes down to it if people are going to come across with the money and then you 've wasted an awful lot of time . ' Andrews : I don 't think the results would be any different . I think people would still say they 're vastly in favor of a trail system . ' Sietsema : Then what I need tonight is a motion , one , if you want to table the item . The request to revise the comprehensive plan until the comprehensive plan can be studied further . The other would be , then to direct staff to set up a work session at the next meeting with the trail plan . Andrews: I think that 's right on. Erhart: I do too Lori . ' Schroers: Okay , then . ' Sietsema: Dawns moved? Lash: And I 'll second . ' Erhart moved, Lash seconded to direct staff to set up a work session for the Park and Recreation Commission at the next meeting to review the trail plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Schroers: That 's it for the agenda . Do we have any commissioner g Y presentations? II Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 30 II Mady: I 've got a question for Todd . Todd , have you been in discussions I with the DNR as to any fish stocking . . . We did Lotus Lake approximately 3 years ago with walleyes . They were going to supposedly do it on like a 3 III to 5 year basis and I haven 't heard anything since then . Hoffman: No , there hasn't been any discussions lately . I know in talking with them on the population on Lake Ann , they 've never stocked Lake Ann and, they don 't see that they will stock it in the future . If you have any specific requests , I can certainly talk to the appropriate person at the Fisheries and get some further information on any particular lake in I Chanhassen . Mady: Well I know after they did Lotus after the boat access was in , there' supposedly was going to be an ongoing program with Lotus . Could you just give them one quick phone call and see if there 's any plans because I 'm sure they have a specific plan . Lash: Is that kind of the same for Ann too? I know I brought this up to you one time before but we think the fishing stinks down there . Are they going to do anything about that? I Hoffman: They 've never stocked Lake Ann that I know of . Lash: Well now we 've got a boat access . We 're putting in a fishing pier . II We 're doing all these neat things to fish and there 's no fish . Don 't you think we should maybe . . . Hoffman: Not everybody would hold that general consensus . Lash: Well , if you want to spend the whole day out there , you might get a II bite but . It 's not like it used to be , I can tell you that . Hoffman: They monitor all lakes . ' Sietsema: That have access on it . Hoffman: If you would like , there 's information on tests . They do test II nets every 3 to 5 years on what the population of what all species of fish are in that lake and then you can find out if they are there . Lash: How do they know that? I Hoffman: They test net it . Gill net it . Box net it and you can find out II that the fish are there . Mady: Before I bought my house I called the DNR to get a fish count on the lake across from me . II Schroers: Okay , are there any more commission presentations , concerns? Andrews: Todd , did you get my comment about North Lotus? About the 1 wind . . . II II Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 31 Hoffman : About the tennis nets and wind screens? Robinson: And the wind screens here at the elementary school? We were going to do something with those . Hoffman: Yeah , we had this discussion with Dale this spring and they 're just not holding up . We 're just trying to battle with trying to piece them together . ' Sietsema : I think the big thing is , we 'd like to do some plantings and some screening that will protect those courts but until we know what 's going to happen with the whole park up there , we 're hesitant to spend any money . Andrews: As far as North Lotus goes , you might as well take them down . The wind breaks those clips . The first good wind they were down . You might as well just take them down and save the money . Mady : Put the netter on the other . . . Andrews: It doesn 't marten . ' Robinson: But is that what we decided to do? We talked about this 2 weeks ago . Is that what we decided to do up here at the school? I don 't know half the wind screens are on up there I think . Hoffman : Yeah , they 're pretty much removed the torn ripped segments and tried to keep the north/northwest portion of it retained . Andrews: The North Lotus ones are in good condition . They 're just falling down . You can take them down and put them on the other spot or something . Robinson: What are we going to do? Nothing or replace them or . . . Sietsema: We were going to look into alternatives I think is what we came down to because there really isn 't a better model of tennis nets . We can go to half , put in hald nets up . Andrews: Half screens you mean? ' Sietsema: That have a little bit less resistence . Andrews: Well it 's not the netting itself that breaks . It 's the little plastic clips which there are about 800 of them on the tennis courts right now . The screens themselves are in perfect condition . But what may happen is if you put a wire attachment , then they may be stronger than the screen t and the screen will rip so I really feel that you have a battle you can 't win there . I 'd just take them down and say the heck with it because I think you 're just going to either rip nets or break clips constantly . 11 Robinson: Can we put this on an agenda in a couple weeks or so just to get it on the table and let 's do something specific? I • 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 24 , 1990 - Page 32 Schroers: Okay , the next action would be to move to adjourn . Robinson: So moved . I Lash: I think Lori had a couple of things . Sietsema: I had a couple of updates of what the City Council did last night . We had the CORE fishing pier on the agenda and they accepted it andll authorized execution of the agreement . The park shelter , electrical up to the park shelter was approved and I 'll be going and getting bids for that I project and the fireworks . . . Robinson moved, Lash seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor II and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Lori Sietsema I Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim I 1 I I PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES ...••-� APRIL 12, 1990 1 PAGE 1 ' PRESENT: Bill Bernhjelm Dave Dummer ABSENT: Wayne Wenzlaff Craig Blechta Barb Klick Brian Beniek Bill Boyt ' STAFF PRESENT: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director Scott Harr, Asst . Public Safety Director Deb Rand, Crime Prevention Specialist Dale Gregory, Fire Chief VISITORS : Mayor Don Chmiel , Sheriff Al Wallin, Deputy Dave Selinski ' Meeting called to_ order at 7 p.m. ' Daryl Rodde, Waconia Ambulance, gave an interesting presentation on the ambulance services for the City of Chanhassen. ' Craig Blechta motioned, Barb Klick seconded, to approve the Public Safety Commission minutes of February 8, 1990. All voted in favor and the motion passed. ' Deputy Selinski mentioned the ongoing problems with the Assumption Seminary. The Sheriff ' s Department receives 2-3 calls a night in regard to trespassing which then leaves the deputies in a poor response ' position for other calls. Scott will again contact the owners of the Seminary and Jim Chaffee will contact the City Attorney to make demands to the present owners about the possibility of erecting a security fence around the property. Jim and Scott informed the Commission that they have been sworn in as Deputies of the Carver County Sheriff ' s Department . Deputy Selinski also noted the grateful assistance the State Troopers have given the deputies on many ocassions and hopes the State Patrol ' keep their office in Chanhassen indefinitely. A suggestion was made to install an emergency phone next to the back door of the Public Safety Department . Jim Chaffee will be following up on this request . Chief Gregory discussed the closure of Teton Lane and the problems the ' Fire Department will have trying to get over the barricade. The J-bars erected as the barricade cannot be pushed over by the Fire Department rigs. Scott suggested the Public Safety Commission make a motion to ' request or direct the Engineering Department to change barricade. Jim Chaffee and Chief Gregory will meet with Gary Warren and Dave Hempel and the topic will be on the May agenda. Dale also mentioned that the Fire Department used the defibrillator twice during the past two weeks . 1 r " pUBtIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1990 PAGE 3 Jim discussed the bus arkin request by ' s p g r uest q y St . Hubert Church. Instead of dropping off children in the parking lot , buses would like to stop along Great Plains Blvd. and let children walk across lot to the school . Discussion followed on the hazards of this situation and it was suggested by the Deputy and Commissionors to keep the buses off the street . Jim Chaffee will get in touch with Father Barry and let him know the consen- sus of the Public Safety Commision is "No" on this issue. ' Deb Rand presented information on the upcoming Public Safety Days being held at the Minneapolis Convention Center on May 18 St 19. Police Departments, Public Safety, FBI , Medical , Secret Service, Mpls. Swat Team, Fire, and State Patrol from Hennepin County will be represented ' at the Center . Hours on Friday are 5 - 10 p.m. and Saturday Noon - 7 p.m. The Chanhassen Public Safety booth will be attended by Fire, Building, Public Safety, State Troopers, Deputies, and CSO personnel . ' Deb invited all Public Safety Commissioners to attend with their fami- lies for a fun time. She then presented a short video on last year ' s event . Bill Boyt brought up the subject of the sprinkling restrictions in effect in the City. Discussion followed about a total restriction if necessary in the future. An article will appear in the next Villager ' reminding residents of the odd/even schedule. A suggestion was made to have Jerry Boucher attend the next Public Safety Commission and answer questions regarding the water levels , etc. Barb Klick asked Sheriff Wallin about the bike safety rodeo available for children. Deb stated that her and Rod Peddycoart have discussed ' the issue and, hopefully, will find time to schedule a bike rodeo in the near future. Craig Blechta mentioned he is the chairman of the St . Jude Children' s Hospital Bikeathon on May 19. ' Craig asked if the Public Safety Commissioners could have I .D. tags available for instances such as going to a fire, etc. Discussion followed with the issue being dropped. ' Craig motioned, Brian seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 10 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ******************************************************************** * THE NEXT PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE HELD AT THE * * * CHANHASSEN FIRE STATION, 7610 LAREDO DRIVE, AT 7 : 00 P.M. , * * * ' * ON THURSDAY, MAY 10 * ******************************************************************** 1 I I I 11 S CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION UNEDITED REGULAR MEETING .1 MAY 2, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m . . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad , Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens ' STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planning Intern ' PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO HAVE 2 WALL SIGNS AND SITE PLAN AMENDMENT ' FOR THE CHANHASSEN MEDICAL CENTER LOCATED AT WEST 78TH STREET, BRAD JOHNSON. Public Present: ' Name Address ' Brad Johnson Bob Mithune Applicant , Lotus Realty Developer John Jacobson, Vice Pres . of Professional Services Ridgeview Medical Center Dan Anderson Manager , Chanhassen Medical Center ' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . ' Brad Johnson: I guess what I 'd like to address is the things that Jo Ann was addressing was primarily that this plan had not been approved by either the Planning Commission or the City Council yet 3 of us were at this meeting where they approved it including Arvid Ellness and we 've got ' records of shipment of plans to here on the 17th to Steve Hanson . The only thing we're missing is Steve Hanson because he's not here to deal with it because at that time we weren't dialing with this particular people on the ' staff. So it's been our feeling from the very beginning and until what, Friday or Thursday of last week that 5 signs had been approved on both sides. So we're kind of surprised . Secondly then I think we'd just like to present it based upon it's merit and you can reconsider it so that we'll present our case once more and hopefully it comes out okay. So that 's probably how we'd like to approach it. We have John Jacobson and. . .from the Clinic. . .and Bob Hoveland who worked with us on the original review. 1 Let us show you where the signs would be located first. This is kind of a big plan of what downtown. . . To get a little history on why the building is where the building is so they'll understand. This is a total plan for the downtown area . Site plan. Bob Mithune: Hopefully you're all oriented so just briefly, this is the ' Kenny's and so on, strip center right here . This is the new professional center , office building and this is the existing lawn sports and the Riveria over here . And the Heritage Park apartments are right here . Brad Johnson: Right behind it . 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting I . May 2 , 1990 - Page 2 1 Bob Mithune: Originally our first plans that we submitted to the City had I this building back here . Right along here and all the parking in front but the City didn 't want that . And the City didn't want it I guess because number one , just like what is going on over on this side of the Riveria . What 's that called? I Brad Johnson: Town Square . I Bob Mithune: And similar to this development and secondly , they thought this would be more like a building in a city . Downtown city that 's right up close to these sidewalks . So we went along with that and what that I resulted in is a building with maybe 2 fronts . I think that 's important for consideration . Brad Johnson: And where do we place the signs . . . Bob Mithune: Well we wanted 5 signs located 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 and again on this side , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 . Brad Johnson: Now if you 're looking at the building , you can look at the zoning downtown and you can have 15% of the front of a building can be signs from the CBD district on the main street . . .two fronts . This will be the only building in town that would have actually two fronts . It has an entrance on the parking lot side and then the other side so we did a quick calculation and we are using 6% of the front of this building so we 're well below the allowed amount of signage that would be on the building and we 've traded , if you read all your ordinances , they want to have a new proposed sign ordinance . I don 't think which has passed. They prefer to have a sign ban on the building with a limit of height and everything so you have some control as to where those signs will be so they 're not plastered all over the building' so they have some consistency with the building . And this is any building in downtown , we 've always been stuck to that concept - that we should have a sign ban . It also gives us control over what is there . It was the opinion of Fred Hoisington I believe that also this building should have some color and he felt the addition of signs which would be in varying colors potentially, the neon signs , they basically are neon backed signs , would add to the interest in the building itself. I can remember that discussion with Fred. So basically we have the 5 signs on both sides . Basically they 're there to advertise the tenants. This is not an office building as we think of it as a professional services building where you 'll have insurance agency and your real estate people , myself , who want to advertise the fact that they 're in the building and they're not , sort of passive . One of the requirements of all our tenants including the dentist is that they have some kind of identification on the building because that 's one of the reasons they want this location is because they realize it 's high traffic area . So then the second problem you have is if you have signs just in the front and none in the back , people can't identify where they're supposed to go in and relate to what it is so I guess that 's basically our presentation . Both sides are using about 6% of the available frontage for signs . They 're on a sign ban. They're below your ordinance requirements . It is the only building like this in town and finally, was approved once to our way of thinking because we sent the stuff 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 5 Ahrens: So you want 5 in the front and 5 in the back? Brad Johnson: Okay , there will be 5 in the front and 5 in the back with Medical Health Services having 2. Or what do you call it , Business Health t Services. And the Medical Center having 2 because they take up a good share of the building and that will give direction as to where people should go and identification. The balance of the tenants probably would have one . As I read the staff report , what they were concerned about was more not whether you really had one or two signs but that there were no more signs than allowed . Is that right? Olsen: Than were originally approved, yes . Ahrens: The plans that were submitted on April 19th , the second set of plans or whatever . I don 't know how many plans they submitted . Brad Johnson: We submitted the second plans on the 17th . Ahrens: Okay. So those are the plans that you referred to as April 19th plans? Olsen: 18th , yeah. Ahrens: 18th? Okay . At who 's request were those plans submitted? What was the purpose of having those extra plans submitted? Brad Johnson: Steve Hanson . Wildermuth: We can blame it on Steve . Brad Johnson: No; no . We submitted a set of plans and they were incomplete relative to the signage so we submitted those on Friday and Monday we came back . It was a site plan that had the sign on it and the elevation that had the signs on it were incomplete . We caught it when we 1r received it and we said to the architect why did you do that and that was �h like on a Thursday . So on Friday we shipped over the balance of the plans. . .and then we colored them up and presented them this way. Ahrens: Why would the first set of plans have 5 signs indicated on them and the second set of plans have 10? Brad Johnson: Oh , just because the architect hadn't consulted with us, Bob and I and the owners of the building as to what kind of signage we wanted . That was all . So we caught it when we got the plans and we said , hey ty that's not right and we submitted it . We cleared it verbally with Steve Hanson . He 's just not here . I' Ahrens: So you 're saying that the City, Steve Hanson, approved 10 signs? Brad Johnson: The Planning Commission , we say , but there 's no record of it but we presented this plan. Ahrens: With 10 signs to the Planning Commission? • I , , Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 6 Brad Johnson: And it wasn 't even an issue at the meeting . Basically that 's less signage than we could do just by ordinance . The ordinance permits 15% which this is less signage . Emmings: Yeah , is that 15% is the maximum? Brad Johnson: Yeah . ' Emmings: You get what gets approved. You don't automatically get 15% . You 're saying things a little . . . ' Brad Johnson: It 's a good argument . Emmings: Yeah . ' Ahrens: My impression is that a lot of illuminated signs on the front of a building does make it resemble a strip mall . It seems that if the City Council had wanted , there was a desire to have the building moved to the ' front of the property so that it would be more like a downtown type of building and that it wouldn't look like a strip mall . So it seems to me that if you put that kind of signage on the front of the building , it kind of defeats the purpose of moving the building to the front of the property and having it look like a regular downtown building . Brad Johnson: There was no discussion about that . We always presented this building . . . Ahrens: Well , they may not have thought about that but I just thought of ' it . Bob Mithune: Well there was discussion but not part of the City Council and that 's what the planners at that time wanted . Ahrens: They wanted the building moved to the front of the lot . ' Bob Mithune: And they wanted a lot of colorful signs. Ahrens: A lot of colorful signs? Well , I can't imagine that would look ' very good . That 's my own personal opinion . That a lot of colorful signs on the front of the building is going to make it look like a real professional building . ' Brad Johnson: What is a real professional building? Ahrens: Well , one with less illuminated signs all over the front . Lots of ' colorful signs . That 's my personal opinion like I said . I think it 's subjective . There 's no objective standard for what a professional building should look like but if it 's moved to the front of the property where it's supposed to look like a regular office building in a downtown area , I don't see the purpose for that and I think that if there is signage in the inside of the building where people, it 's not that big a building where people would get lost trying to find . I 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 7 Brad Johnson: It 's a very large building when it 's all completed . 11 Ahrens: Well I 've been by it . It 's not a huge building . Brad Johnson: No, there 's another whole wing that goes with this thing . It goes on all the way down to the Riveria . Ahrens: It's not built yet? Brad Johnson: No . i Conrad: You're only looking at half here . Brad Johnson: You 're only looking at half the building . , Ahrens: Well , I think that signage inside a building up there is a lobby to direct people . I mean it 's not a huge office building . , Brad Johnson: I appreciate what you 're saying but this is not an office building . It 's a professional service building which is like retail . The tenants that we put in there expect signage . Ahrens: Well I think there 's a big difference between a retail building and a professional building . . . Brad Johnson: My tenants ' point of view. I 'm the one . . .they want signs or they wouldn't be here . I Ahrens: Well okay . I mean I don't want to argue with you . I 'm giving you my opinion and that 's the purpose of having our report right now . I don 't I have any more comments at this time . Wildermuth: Would you have more than one tenant on a sign bar? On a single sign bar Brad? I Brad Johnson: More than one tenant on a single? The ban could handle like two probably . Each one of these bars . Wildermuth: Then you would plan to do something like that? I mean potentially? Brad Johnson: They have to come back each time we do a sign . We have enough sign space here we think for our tenants . . . Wildermuth: How many tenants potentially will you have in the building? II Brad Johnson: You've got to talk about major tenants and minor . We're talking about 6 major tenants . Wildermuth: Just total . Brad Johnson: We could have about 30. 11 I , Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 2 , 1990 - Page 8 Wildermuth: Okay , so there are quite a number that won 't have sign representation? Brad Johnson: That 's right . It 's mainly the ones like . . .doctor or dentist who we really are concerned about . Wildermuth: Well in all honesty , I 'm not very impressed with the appearance of the building to begin with . It seems to me that the front of the building probably ought to have a single sign ban and maybe the back could have 3 . Something like that but I 'm not in favor of illuminating the ' signs and I 'm certainly not in favor of 5 sign bans in front and 5 sign bans in back . The Southdale Medical Building for example doesn 't have any signs . Brad Johnson: That 's a different . . . Wildermuth: How do you see that Brad as a different kind of building? Brad Johnson: John , maybe you want to address marketing of health services because this is not , I 'm dealing with what the tenants require . Not so much . . . Wildermuth: I understand . John Jacobson: I think part of our objective here is that the Chanhassen Medical Center is going to be attracting people from a fairly geographic area and they 're going to be coming into town . They 'll know of the Chanhassen Professional Building . They 're going to perhaps see that main signage and yet there 's still going to be some question . We just have an interest in being able to be visible from both sides of the building if you ' will . Really for two different purposes . The front side being the location of where' the Business Health Services is located in the Chanhassen Medical Center and on the back side , the different entrances . I might add that there is not a way in from the lobby area into the Chanhassen Medical Center on the north . Ahrens: I understand that . 11 John Jacobson: You eluded that perhaps there should be signage in the lobby area and people could go in that way . They can't get to the clinic ' from that door . Conrad: Anything else Jim? Brian? ' Batzli : I assume that , if I remember , Phase 2 the buildings king of tie in and I assume at that point you would want signs up and down the front and back of Phase 2. The two buildings tie into one another . ' Brad Johnson: That's right and it's a retail building . Batzli : Jo Ann, in the report I think you said that you didn't have a problem with the same tenant advertising on both the front and the back . That no variance would be required. And no variance would be required I I Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 9 1 additionally if we approve the 10 signs here correct? Because they 're not 11 over the maximum limit? I guess I was kind of looking at this a little big differently I think than Jim and Joan . I was picturing this as more of a downtown building . More retail like if it was Excelsior it would be a cluster of different buildings. Each one of them would have their own sign indicating who was in that . Hennessy Travel Services . Ben Franklin . You know , Excelo Bakery and so when I was picturing this , I was picturing it as if this is the type of building we were trying to do , we should give them the signs so that 's kind of how I was looking at it and I don't have a problem with giving them the 10 signs . ' Ellson: I sat down and thought of it in terms of if I was the tenant . They could see the sign in the front and they made the decision that they wanted to go in there . I don 't think if they went in the wrong door in the back , number one , they 'd only do it one time and they 'd probably never make that mistake again . Number two , I think they 've made the decision that they 're going to go in there based on what the front is so I don 't think the back needs to have quite as many . Then I thought about , what does my doctor 's office have or what does my dentist have and my dentist is right up against a street and he's got it in front but he doesn 't have it in back . The first time I went in there I went in the wrong door but ever since I 've been going into the right door so I can't see that many. I think that the II traffic isn 't going to be in the back . The people go in the back have decided they 're going in there because they 're going to park . It 's not like a high traffic area that 's going to draw people in unless they 're in the apartment building or something like that so I don't see that that side is as important to them as the front street and I think the front street I can do it adequately without having the back . So that's my comments . Emmings: I looked at this the way Brian did basically. I don 't really have anything to add besides that so I 'd be comfortable with the 10 myself ., A couple other things , comments I 'd have is , if this is the Chanhassen Professional Building and if there winds up being 6 major tenants and 15 small ones , it would seem to me you would want that name on the building 11 somewhere . Brad Johnson: It 's on the pylon . Emmings: Okay . That 's in front . Okay . That takes care of that concern and then the only other concern I 'd have is having more than one name on a sign . I 'm not real comfortable with that and I don't know if it means that the lettering gets smaller . If you wind up trying to put 5 people on one of those bans. I think it ought to be limited to, it probably should be limited to one tenant per ban . That's all I 've got . Erhart: I think the medical industry has changed significantly and what well used to think of as a professional building years ago or even 10 years ago, today has become much more competitive and therefore I think today a professional building needs that signage to attract customers . I know if II I go to a dentist and I do. I go to Mike Leonard over in the building over by Dell Road there and he 's having a hard time getting going . There 's no , signage out there . 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 10 IBrad Johnson: He 's moving . Guess where he's moving? Erhart: Here? Brad Johnson: Guess why he 's moving . Elison: Because you promised him a sign? Brad Johnson: No . He 's in a building that does not or hasn 't set it up like this . We 're recognizing the needs . We also have another dentist moving because of that . ' Erhart: Yeah , I asked him if he was and he hadn 't decided yet but anyway , I think it 's real competitive out there and I think they need the signage to get going so I 'm in favor of the signage . ' Conrad: Okay , thanks Tim . It 's real clear to me , I believe I approved what I see here . My memory fads through time . In fact , over 24 hours it fades but I do believe that this is what I saw and it didn 't raise any concerns with me then and it still doesn 't because it still looks tasteful . I think it 's critical in retailing , and I think as we develop downtown Chanhassen , it 's just really critical that we give people the signs that drive folks into , that help people get to the right building . It 's part of my business . I see it all the time . Signage is extremely important . One , we kind of impose the problem on the building . The city imposed it . Still , regardless of whether the City moved it forward or back , I think the building has two fronts and the consumer has the right to find the building , the office that they want to go to . I think the signs add some excitement to it . It is , as somebody else said , it is retail space . It 's ' more than a professional office building like we 're used to. The business has changed . Like Steve , I agree . I don 't think we should allow multi names on one ban . I don't like that . The only other thing that bothers me , the only other thing that bothers me is what this . If our ordinance 11 didn 't allow us to allow 5 front and back signage , wall signs , I would want to revisit the ordinance . It does so we can do this and therefore we 're not setting a precedent . We are responding to a situation that is ' justified . At least in my mind is justified so we aren 't setting a precedent . Olsen: As long as they 're below . Conrad: The 15% but we can have , okay . Those are my comments. Any motion? Emmings: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the sign proposal allowing 5 signs on the front and 5 signs on the back for a total of 10 signs and recommend approval of the site plan amendment with the condition that there not be more than one business name per sign ban. Batzli : Second. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the sign proposal 5 signs on the north side and 5 signs on the I . II Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 11 II south side for a total of 10 signs for the Chanhassen Medical Center with II the condition that there be no more than one business name per sign ban. All voted in favor except Ellson, Wildermuth and Ahrens who opposed and thel motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Conrad: Annette , any summary for why you voted against it other than your I comments? Elison: No , nothing other than the comments I 've had . Conrad: The same? I would imagine the same . Very straight forward . Okay .' Motion passes . Goes to Council? May 30th? Olsen: I don't know if that 's right . It 's the Wednesday after . . . I PUBLIC HEARING: I NORTHWEST NURSERY LOCATED AT 7801 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD JUST SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD: A. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE ALTERING AND FILLING OF A CLASS B II WETLAND. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE WHOLESALE NURSERY. I Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . 1 Mark VanHoef: I 'd like to show some slides . Obviously all the drawings are a little cumbersome to work with so I thought if I showed some picture of what we 're really looking at that might be somewhat helpful . I just have a few slides to kind of compliment Jo Ann's presentation and then I 'll make some comments as to some of her etches or sketchings. This is the II area to the south of the entrance which has already been bermed and planting screen of 8 to 10 foot Austrian Pines have been put in. The problem that Jo Ann eluded to and some of you remember , we were here last fall . This area right here was the only ditch catch area for any of the water . And when we irrigated the crop , the holding crop that we had in th holding area , that water then would run into this ditch and the only outlet was to run through a culvert at the beginning of our driveway onto our neighbor 's property, the Finger 's property. It created some problems . The' Finger 's approached us. We weren't really in a position we could do anything. We contacted MnDot and at that time were told that that was the existing drainflow or waterflow and we weren't allowed to make any changes .' So the problem continued until it was brought in front of the City and MnDot came back out. We worked with the City and what was done, and I can show it in the next picture . Again, this is not the next picture going down the ditch area but this is the holding area that is behind that wind II screen or that planting screen. Here 's TH 101 right here and here's the planting screen that goes across the highway so this is the area that plant material was stored on that the water runoff was creating a problem . This , is taken early this spring after we did do some grading last fall to alleviate the drain problem . What we really accomplished here is a new II I , Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 12 ' culvert was put under our driveway so all of the runoff now goes into the ditch and rather than through the culvert under the highway , it goes under the culvert and our driveway, down across the border of our property to catch existing drainfield , ditch , creek area , whatever you want to call it , that goes into the wetlands . Prior to us doing that , what the water did is it went across TH 101 . Across the neighbor 's property . All the way down ' and there was another culvert down here , not on our property but then goes back across the highway and into the wetlands . So what I 'm pointing out here , Jo Ann mentioned it in her staff presentation . This has all been ' sloped to conform with the standards. The ditch area is in place now . The new culvert is in. What has yet to be done is a planting screen of conifers has to go in this spring and this has to be sodded and this has to be seeded. But from my understanding, we 've had some rains . The drain problem does not exist , at least coming from our property and Jo Ann did mention in her write up that there is drainage going into the neighbors property but that has to do with the lots above our property to the south . ' So basically what I 'm pointing out here in these 3 slides is that we 've been required to recapture and contain all our runoff and we 've done so . This is a picture of the shade structure which is not in compliance with ' the 100 foot setback . I made an appeal or a plead or whatever you want to call it to the Planning Committee last fall pointing out the fact that the shade structure , although it was not in the 100 foot setback , is still further back than the permanent house which is on the property and it I didn 't win so this will be moved and we will move that back to I guess comply with the 100 foot setback . Here 's another picture of the shade structure . I kind of felt when we talked about the shade structure that ' people were getting the opinion that it was a permanent type of a structure . All it is , as you can see , 4 x 4 posts with 2 x 6 supports and snow fencing on top . It is , again staff 's recommendation is that this is moved and should we comply or if we 're requested to comply , this is not ' going to be able to be reused and will just be that shade structure and not put up a new one . Unfortunately this isn 't a real good picture but this is the expansion area we 're talking about . This next picture 's a little bit better . I do want to correct something that you might have been , I guess you might have been mis , how do I want to say this? You might have gotten the wrong idea that our planting area's going to be expanded . We are requesting to finish the ditch area here that we inherited when we moved into the property . When we took over the property in 1984 , on the very end of this was a chicken coop which we took down. Behind the chicken coop there was some dead elms which was a collecting place for chicken paraphernalia . If you 've been around an old farm, it was a bunch of junk . We cleaned that up but unfortunately in doing so , I guess it exposed this ravine that we want to I guess take away or at least dress up. We 're not ' expanding although to qualify and come in front of the City Council or your planning board, it I guess goes under an expansion but this will not be utilized in any facet of our business other than to just improve the appearance . This is the first thing that anybody sees in driving to the ' property and right now it 's kind of unsightly . It was unsightly when we got it. It 's unsightly now and our proposal through the plans are to continue this slope so it goes all the way across but has a gradual slope ' down to this lath area or down to the wetlands and will be seeded and will be left as just natural vegetation . This is the area behind the barn . There 's really no questions or problems on this but I did want to show . I Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 13 1 This is the holding area for the crops that we do dig out of our fields . Both on site and we are renting property across the street from Bob Rogers , a 15 acre piece that we 're growing and harvesting trees . Here 's another picture of the holding area . This is just a quick shot of some of our growing areas . You 'll notice there are certain areas that cannot be grown II on which we have just planted some conifers to hold erosion control . Then on the top we are using, well we do have what 's planned as plantable acres II for our crop which is mainly nursery stock trees and shurbs . This is the area behind the barn which is the current area classified as holding area . It was designated as such on our original plan that we presented and was approved on . We have asked for consideration on expansion of this area because we needed additional space for additional shurb products . This is II a picture from the reverse angle from the back area looking towards the front , towards the barn . The white area is what you see is just what we , call a propagation or over winter house which stores nursery material through the winter and also acts as a propagation bed in the early spring . This is the area in question regarding the wetlands behind the property . There 's really two sections that we 're talking about . This is the section right behind the holding area that we 're proposing a pond and an expansion . Here 's another view of that same area . The Class A wetlands is the area behind the heavy vegetation of Dogwoods and some willows . The Class B II wetlands as designated on the maps , comes out into the area that has not been mowed and kind of more or less follows a contour of the lower ground . You can see that on the topography also . There is a step down where that II B wetland is easily determined . The Corps of Army Engineers , Jerry Smith , did come out and walk this site so up to that point that 's the only definition of these two areas that we have . That would be the area for expansion . . . This is the area that we 're talking about in terms of II planting trees in . Now in 1985 when we presented our initial plan we had the major part of our property shaded in , you have a copy of that , as growing area and it was shaded right to the wetlands . Well , we found out 11 last year as we were interested in planting this area and here 's another picture of it , that this 5 to 7 acre segment cannot be planted without an approval from the committee as a part of our expansion . I don 't quite understand that but we 're here to talk about that expansion . I 'll say one II thing on our behalf . When we first approached the Planning Committee and Barb Dacy presented our case, this area was cropped and the supporting material that she presented was an aerial view of the property and it designated and showed that that area was being cropped at that time in alfalfa . Now all we 're really asking is to have the opportunity to put that back into crop which would be shurbs and flowering trees in this areal Here 's I guess one other shot . This is from the back . This is from the west looking east on that same area that is in that proposed future planting area . And one more picture of that same area . The only other comments I guess that I would make , throw this back up here . I just wanted' to show you what the areas that we just looked at in those pictures. Again I said that we 're talking about really two different expansions . The first again was that ravine fill and again I would I guess support our reasoning I behind that is it's not going to be an actual expansion of our operation but rather an improvement to the appearance of the site. And the topography shows both the existing and the proposed that that ravine would 11 just be filled with either existing fill or additional fill that was brought in on the site . No plantings will be done . It will just be , I I , Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 2 , 1990 - Page 14 guess taken back to the natural vegetation . Right now it looks kind of poor and we 'd like to address that . The other areas that we 're talking about tabling and I just want to make sure you understand them , is this area here which does show as planting on our original approval now is not in planting, does border a Class B wetlands. We 'd like to have the ability to put back into crop production . The area that 's more of a real tender ' area is the area back here which would cut some of the Class B wetland . Jo Ann did mention that we have had the U .S . Fish and Game out . We have mentioned that you know to better the area because right now this whole wetlands that we are in has no standing water on it . If we were allowed to ' dig a couple of ponds because of the business we're in, we could runoff water into that . This whole area behind the barn is a holding area . If we 're allowed expansion , that would another holding area for flower and shurbs all which could be tiled into this pond so we virtually could not only dig and create a pond but because of our watering practice , we could maintain a water level in that pond to support a real improvement to the wetland area . The pond that we proposed back in the corner was nothing more than must I guess an aesthetic improvement to that whole area back there and I really , that 's of no importance to us at all . If that 's an infringement on the wetlands , we could take that off the plan but again , the expansion would be , fill the ravine . Expand the container area here and then put this area back into planting . I guess that 's all I have to say unless there 's questions . Conrad: Okay , there probably will be later on Mark . Thanks . Are there other public comments? Anything? Is there a motion to close the public 1 hearing? Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: We 'll start down at your end Tim . Erhart: Jo Ann , a couple times you said that there 's been complaints by the neighbors yet in reviewing this , just for my own clarification , have we ever received a complaint from actually more than one neighbor? Olsen: No . Erhart: Okay , so it 's been one neighbor all along . Can you explain, go through for me again here what are we trying to do between this proposed pond on , the eastern pond and the edge of the Class B wetland. Olsen: This one? Erhart: Well let 's start with the other . Let 's address this 5 to 7 acres . . . .that was an alfalfa . . . ' Mark VanHoef: For us to plant , we were going to go ahead and plant that and I got the feeling that that was being construed as an expansion on our 11 program. I Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 15 1 Erhart: Can you come up here and show it to us . On the plan it appears tc, me that you 're planning on planting down to the edge of the Class B wetland. Mark VanHoef: Right now there is , and you can see on your contours , there , is about a 7 acre lower piece of ground . The one I eluded to that was an alfalfa at one time and when we took over the property we did nothing to . Erhart: Okay , are you under the impression that you cannot plant up to the Class B wetland line? Is there anybody under that impression? Mark VanHoef: I am . In fact I 'm under the impression that the last time I was in front of this board, that anything else that we do has to come in front of you to be approved . ' Olsen: . . .not necessarily a wetland alteration permit . What you 're showing up there , you 're not going to be going into what we determined . . . You 're making it sound like you 're going to be filling in next to the larger pond and then also . . . Mark VanHoef: Right now that 's a nice field that we could plant . We 're overkill right now . I mean we may not even plant that this year but we ha an opportunity and we were required at our last meeting to get in all our future expectations , wants , desires on a map and that 's an area that is no currently being planted and that we would like to someday plant so that 's II why it 's in the proposal . Erhart: If you could just stay there a minute Mark . I guess my question II is , and maybe this is just a clarification but I don 't see where the City has any interest in where you plant things . Certainly it would have an • interest in where 'buildings are and commercial activity is going on in terms of trucking• and things like that but why are we interested in , as long as it doesn 't get into the wetland. Olsen: Well the expansion of the planting areas and holding areas is an 11 expansion of the nursery. Expansion beyond the original conditional use permit . Erhart: Well actually it goes back to the original conditional use permit ; Why did you draw a line when you first came into the thing? Why didn 't you just say I 've got 40 acres I 'm going to be planting trees on the whole 40 II acres. Mark VanHoef: You know I think Tim has hit it . When we first approached the City back in 1985 , we made a mistake of not having a more concise , clear picture . Jo Ann's worked with us on that . Unfortunately we were asked to present a plan . We had a 40 acre farm that had been not used in 2 years . There were renters in there . It was a pretty unsightly piece of property and they said, put a proposal and a site plan . And if you 'll see the original site plan, there wasn 't a lot of thought put into that . There was we 're going to hold some plants here and we may hold some plants here II and we 're going to plant all the other area . What has happened is , the City has tried to watch and say , well this is just a nebulous plan and now 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 16 I think you 're outside that plan . Erhart: Really what we 're here today is really doing the first conditional use permit? Olsen: Exactly . ' Erhart: Okay , well let 's clarify this . In my view of this thing , you 're essentially taking your whole 40 acres and you can plant on anything ' that 's, as far as I can see . Am I wrong on that? Isn't that what it is? You can plant trees anyplace . Olsen: Well it 's whatever you want to permit with the conditional use permit . Erhart: Okay , well let me ask you this . Any document that we 're voting on ' tonight , including his plans and your conditions , is there anything that says that he can't plant up to a Class B wetland? Olsen: No . What you would be approving tonight is the plan showing planting areas all along there . Erhart: Would that satisfy you then in that area? Mark VanHoef: Yes . ' Erhart: Okay , great . That covers that one . Then can you explain to me , you made some comments about something on your pond or on your proposed pond . Your proposed pond . Between that pond and the edge of the Class B ' wetland , you were proposing to plant in there as well? Mark VanHoef: Okay , right now . Here 's your Class A wetland and we 're not going to touch that . Here 's your Class B wetland and our proposal is to put some kind of a pond area in there . That was on the pictures if you remember , that was just beyond the Red Twig Dogwood and some of the Willows . Then behind this area here, going back to Mark Koegler 's , his ' proposal a fall ago , we showed that we wanted to expand this container growing area into this area which would be right up within 50 feet of the pond . Erhart: Okay, but you 're not showing that on the plan? Mark VanHoef: That is not shown on the plan, correct . And I 'll tell you why . Until the pond issue , I guess our feeling is, if we go in and make an improvement to the wetland before we come back and try to take wetlands away , we 'd be in a better position . Paul Burke came out to the site and ' was really against any alteration of Class 8 wetlands period. I mean that was no. No , I don't even want to talk about it . Then we started talking about what if we put a pond in? Then he started saying , well that would improve the wetlands . Right now there is no standing water . That would improve the wetlands so it 's , I don't want to weigh all my cards down . . . I I Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 17 Erhart: You 're not under the impression that you're going to come in a year from now and then fill that? Mark VanHoef: Fill the pond? I Erhart: No , fill in that little . . . Mark VanHoef: No , our goal is first to get approval of the pond . I 'm not II even saying that would be done in a year but if we were able to get approval of the pond, I would feel more comfortable then in coming back and asking for an extension to the area behind . Right now , according to your point, is this area right here which is currently not planted , can be used • for our operation . Erhart: Well everything up to the Class B wetland . Everything up to this II line . So everything south and east of this line could be planted the way I understand it . I 'm just saying that I 'm just saying Mark that I doubt that you 're going to be able to come in a year from now and propose any filling .' I mean if you 're going to do filling , you want to do filling , you should have that in this plan . Olsen: For that Class B wetland. . . I Erhart : If you want to do that , you ought to be proposing that at this time because you wouldn't have a prayer at another meeting because . . . Right now you 're just proposing an improvement? Mark VanHoef: Correct . , Erhart: Okay . How long do the erosion control measures stay? Olsen: The property is stabilized until there is ground cover . ' Erhart: Okay, is there anything that states that they have to be removed at such and such a time? This is kind of a general point that I made • previously . Sometimes these things stay in there forever and we end up with polluting plastic . Olsen: Right and what is done now, like with other developments is that I the developer is required to remove them . Before it was kind of left up to the City so that 's something that we would be doing with a letter of credit" that would guarantee that there would be monies to remove it and if they didn't we could go in and do it. Erhart: Okay . One last issue . I 'll let somebody else deal with the shade, structure . I 'm not completely where it's going but I do have one other thing and that is , you want to table the wetland alteration permit because you don't have the contours of the removal of the current . , Olsen: It 's just not a complete plans for the wetland alteration . Erhart: I guess y question is , you know if you take a look at the Fish and, Wildlife recommendations , they 're pretty general . It says the slopes I II Planning Commission Meeting IIMay 2 , 1990 - Page 18 Ishould be 1 : 10 to 1 :20 . It should be irregular and so forth and so forth . I guess I don 't know , I don 't understand why you need a contour . As long I as the material 's taken out of any wetland and not deposited in any of the wetland , it 's pretty obvious when you 're done it 's either within that range of slopes 1 : 10 to 1 :20 . And quite frankly when you're doing that , it 's nearly impossible to construct to a particular plan . I just think it 's a I burden for people who want to improve a wetland by converting some Class B wetland to Class A wetland by making them go through the expense of a contour . In other words , surveying it before and then trying to build to a Icontour , it just seems like overkill . Olsen: Well the plan that they're giving us now we have no way to , they 're II showing one general cross section where it 's 4 feet deep but we don 't know if that 's consistently all the way across . I guess I disagree . I believe that we do need to see the full contours . The full depth . Where the depths are . IErhart : Doesn 't the inspector go out afterwards and look at it? IOlsen: What would he know to look for? Erhart: The Fish and Wildlife . IIOlsen: Well I think we need to see that on the site . Erhart: Just write a condition that says the slopes have to be 1 : 10 and I 1 :20 . Approximately so many acres in size will be approved . We 're in conformance with the general plan . I don't know , let 's get the other comments from the other commissioners . I just think that 's an expense that I essentially by doing it here , we 're setting a precedent that anybody that comes in that wants to do this , has essentially a complete engineering plan to do that and I just don't think there's anything to be gained by it . I really question whether it 's . I mean if a guy wants to landscape his yard , I do you require that? I don 't think we 're talking about that big of a thing . Maybe there 's some limit . What are we talking about? This proposed pond . It 's size . An acre? IConrad: Tim , we do ask every business , we ask each business in town to give us a landscape plan . There 's a correlation to it . IErhart: Well what if it were a homeowner , is it the same thing? Conrad: No we wouldn 't . IIErhart: You 're saying the difference here is that this is a business . IIConrad: This is a business , yeah . Erhart: Well if that 's the issue , then I guess I don 't have a problem with it I guess so much . I still think it's unnecessary but those are my I comments . Item 6 and 7, are those contradictory on the conditions or is there another area where the slope is greater than 3:1? On item 6 and 7 it says side slopes adjacent to TH 101 shall not exceed 3: 1 . Then 7 says , II 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 19 1 wood fiber blanket shall be used on slopes 3: 1 or greater . That means there 's other areas that are going to be higher slopes? Bigger slopes? Olsen: That 's kind of one of those general conditions that there are any 11 that you have to do that . There might be . I 'm not exactly sure what the slope is along. Right now there are definitely steeper slopes like where those wood chips are and things like that . The reason we 're saying not to II exceed the 3: 1 on adjacent to TH 101 is we really want to reduce the velocity of the runoff into that ditch and to reduce the runoff . It 's a little steep right now . Erhart: What 's the slope on the gully that Mark is fillip in? Olsen: Do you know what the slope is on where you 're filling? I Erhart: The finished slope . Mark VanHoef: I have no idea . Probably about 2: 1 . Steep . , Erhart: Okay , so then 7 then , okay . I thought maybe there was some intent not to have any slope over 3: 1 . Apparently that 's not the case . 1 Olsen: Right . There 's places that aren 't being altered . Erhart: In conclusion I guess , well you know I 'm a neighbor of Mark 's and I quite frankly I 've enjoyed having him next to us and I certainly haven't experienced problems . I feel a little bit in that like anytime you face the Planning Commission , or the City and the government in any first time situation it 's kind of awesome and you make a lot of mistakes that first time . We 've worked hard working this thing through. I think this is a real excellent plan and I 'd like to commend both the staff and Mark for doing a lot of work in the last year in trying to satisfy the neighbor and II I guess the requirements so with that , I 'll pass it on . Conrad: Thanks Tim . Steve . , Emmings: I guess all I have is I had some doubts about the degree to which' Northwest Nursery wanted to get all this in shape at one time but I don 't anymore . I think they've done , finally done a whole bunch of things that I wish they maybe would have done sooner but it's finally come together and I 'm feeling pretty magnanimous here . I 'm willing to let bygones be bygones and look at this objectively. I think it 's a good plan . Ellson: I agree with the staff 's report. Batzli : Jo Ann , does not acting on the wetland alteration permit at this time allow the applicant to proceed at all? And if so , does it adversely affect the wetland? Olsen: They are not altering the wetland at all with what they 're proposing . The ordinance requires a wetland alteration permit if you 're II within a certain amount of feet from a Class A wetland . I I . . Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 20 ' Batzli : Yeah, but aren 't they proposing a pond within so many feet of the Class A wetland? Olsen: That 's not being acted on . That 's what we 're recommending tabling that pond because it 's within the Class B wetland and it does require the wetland alteration permit . So they would not be able to move ahead with ' that pond or with any filling of that area they 're proposing without a wetland alteration permit . ' Batzli : Okay . Does anything that they 're asking for in here or any conditions that we 're putting on them, going to be affected by them not getting the wetland alteration permit at this time other than the pond? Olsen: No . Other than the last condition . Batzli : Okay . Well that was my question was whether we should make them get the wetland alteration permit before doing anything else . Olsen: Well at one point there was discussion about filling in a portion 1 of that wetland for expansion of that holding area . It was my last understanding with these plans submitted that they were not going to do that . That the only alteration to the wetland was going to be the ponding areas . That 's up to them . If they want a pond , that 's fine . If they ' don 't , that 's not really a requirement for any of the other expansion . Batzli : Are we , the fourth plan here , that 's future expansion in addition to what they want to do now? Olsen: No . That 's , are you talking the last small one? That 's just kind of a blow up of what that section located on TH 101 . That's not any different than the other plan . The fourth sheet is a blow up and it 's not any different than the other proposed expansions so . Batzli : You talked in the report about future expansion someplace or another . The ultimate expansion to the nursery on page 10 . So you 're saying? Olsen: Essentially what I was trying to say is that the plan that they 're showing for expansion to the nursery has already taken place . That in addition to that , it 's just the planting areas . Certain planting areas . ' So really what has occurred already is the majority of their expansion . Batzli : So by us approving these plans tonight , we 're just approving ' what's basically what they've already done? Olsen: Essentially, yeah . It 's after the fact . Batzli : Okay , so their ultimate expansion isn't reflected on the plan? Olsen: No , that 's on there but they've already expanded most of that . We 're approving expansion that has already taken place . I tried to point out where , the only further expansion will be the future planting areas on the south side of the Class A wetland and the proposed alterations in the I II Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 21 II Class B wetland. Those are the only two things that haven 't occurred as of, today . But it 's shown on the plan and it will be approved if this plan is approved. Batzli : Okay. If we approve this, then are we tacitly approving the 11 construction of this pond in the Class B wetlands? These ponds? Olsen: No. That 's a separate wetland alteration . I kept that separate soil no. I see what you're getting at . You might want to , yeah I see what you 're getting at because it 's on the plan . II Batzli : You gave a good presentation. Do you understand all the conditions and you agree with all of them? Mark VanHoef: Most of them have already been met . In fact there 's only I two that I guess I 'd like to discuss with Jo Ann . Everything else has already been done . II Ahrens: Has number 3 been done? Batzli : Wood chips , mulch . 1 Mark VanHoef: No that 's, when I read this report , that was the first time that was brought to my attention and I just got the report today so . I II would only say this that as it reads , it 's a little bit misconceiving because it sounds like those wood chips are on the border of the wetland and that is not the case . They are on a hill . The hill goes down and the II bottom of the hill goes into the wetlands . Batzli : Where are you trying to get him to move the wood chips and mulch to Jo Ann? I Olsen: Well we just want him to get away from that slope because it is falling down into that area adjacent to the wetland . Essentially all II storage areas , that is becoming kind of a storage area , that has to be screened. It 's something we can work with him to pull it back away from that and hopefully more internal into the site. II Batzli: Okay , so you 're concerned both about it running down into the wetland and also screening? Olsen: Exactly. And it's filling in. . . I Batzli : I think we can add that because right now it's, I think it 's kind II of vague as to exactly what you want . My only other question was, if you put too much muracid on a conifer , does it turn yellow? Anyway , go ahead. Wildermuth: I 'm glad to see the drainage issue has been satisfied . It II would appear that if you satisfy all 12 of these requirements or at any rate the ones that you have to date not satisfied, that you will be in good compliance with the requirements for the conditional use permit and I II support the staff recommendation . I 1 . . Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 22 Ahrens: Are we expecting all the conditions to be met before approval of the conditional use permit except for 1 and 2 that you have specific dates of June 1 , 1990? Olsen: What we normally do with this is that that is a condition and we give them a certain . We don't usually set time periods on those but it 's something that they have not met that condition . There 's always an annual review of all conditional use permits and it 's something where we can say you 're not in compliance and if they don 't go into compliance , then we could take him back to possible revocations . It 's something that yeah , you could just continue and give them a time period on that also . On 3 . Ahrens: I 'd like to see a time period on 3 . I 'm in agreement with the staff recommendation on this with the addition of a date on 3 . Date for compliance . Conrad: Okay . The drainage that we 're now moving to the west side of TH 101 is a self imposed , is drainage from plantings and then we run it down to the wetland . All we 've done is taken a different route . Keep it away from the neighbors . And what did we do to basically where it runs Jo Ann , ' is that a grassy area . Is that how we strip any nutrients? How are we stripping before we get to the wetland? ' Olsen: That 's why that one condition that we have in there to end the pond in this location because yes , this will be covered with vegetation . Will be landscaped and will have grass and this is the wetland that says . . . The driveway right here and the ditch . The only area that 's always , we have the exposed dirt and the runoff is up here in the planting areas and that 's why we wanted to have that pond in this location to collect that sediment . ' Conrad: Okay , but through allowing this , really that runoff . . .I 've got to believe we would but what I 'm toying with here is the idea that we 're allowing a nursery . The nursery is watering . The water that goes to the plants also is going into the wetland . It seems like it 's harmful . It seems like basically it 's more harmful than another use that didn 't require watering . A different type of contractor yard as such . Wildermuth: I guess the question is how much fertilizing is being done? Conrad: Yeah , what kind of fertilizer around your plants? Mark VanHoef : There are no fertilizers through the water system if that 's what your concern is . Any fertilizer is incorporated into the soil . ' Eitner be it the pots or in balled and burlapped material , that fertilizer was done in the fall before it was dug and harvested. So any water runoff that you have , the water runoff that hits the ground is no different than rain runoff , that would then go into the ditch . Go down the ditch and into the wetlands . There is no fertilizer runoff . We don't broadcast fertilizer over the soil because our crop is not the soil . It 's just the nursery stock itself . The nursery stock is either contained in ( a ) a pot , ' or ( b ) balled and burlapped . The only fertilizer that we incorporate during the season is in the potted material and that would have to leech through the entire plant into the soil and then into your water system and I I Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 23 1 I doubt that that would happen . I Conrad: The plantings on the real close to the Class A wetland . If they started to do that . Basically those plantings can be right up to the wetland can't they? Olsen: Technically yes . Again , if you approve that . I Emmings: You can't get to the A because there 's B all along there . Olsen: There's Class B around the whole Class A wetland . Conrad: Okay. Wildermuth: And you have no plans to plant into the B wetland right? Emmings: He can 't . 1 Olsen: He couldn 't do that without a wetland alteration . Conrad: I guess really where I 'm trying to get to is just that , we have all wetland and there 's no reason we should be screwing it up . Period . Absolute . There 's just I think the applicant has done , I think you 've done a nice job of responding to what the City has asked you to do and the neighbors . I just want to make sure , and I 'm real concerned about the wetland alteration permit . As long as you improve it , that 's what we 're trying to do . If we can improve anything , that 's exactly what we 're tryingl to do to our wetlands in Chanhassen . So there 's no reason to make them diminish in value . Especially in this particular parcel . There 's just no reason so just a signal from me , the wetland alteration permit process is an intriguing one 'to me because I really don 't want any harmful thing to happen to those wetlands . I see no reason for it . There 's no justification . I think you can do your business without really harming those but I want to make sure the right controls are in process . Here 's a II good case where zero degregation to the wetland is fine . I don't mind you III altering some contours and I think you 've routed the water the right way but I just , I don't want to use wetlands as a solution to some of the problems that are part of the business. They 're not the solution to your business problems . They 're something that we 're just trying to protect an they happen to be on your property . I think I agree with Joan's comment o time on the third one I think . I think that makes sense on the third point . The only other thing that I would suggest is , how do we monitor Paul , this process? The conditional use process . When would somebody make an on-site inspection to see what's going on? You're probably out there II all the time anyway but . Krauss: Actually this one we get a phone calls on and we do check them periodically . We have instituted an annual inspection of all conditional use permits . In fact , Sharmin Al-Jaff , our planner one is sitting here tonight and she 's in charge of that . So there is an annual rotation where we do go around to check every condition of these conditional use permits . II In addition , where there 's a program such as this one where there are , it is an expectation that conditions will be complied with in the near future , Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 24 relative to a construction program , we 'll go out there as soon as their construction activity is done or while it 's underway to make sure that it 's being completed as per your approval . Conrad: Okay . So when this wetland alteration permit comes back , at least from my perspective , I really would like staff to be reviewing . You know ' I 'm going to be real critical of what that says . I think we owe the wetlands the protection and if that 's how it 's contoured, if that 's drainage ditches , whatever it is I think we owe that to the wetland and not treat the wetland just as a solution to some drainage problems because I ' don 't believe that 's what I 'm trying to do with wetlands . Anyway , the balance other than the wetland alteration permit , the balance of the staff report looks fine to me . Is there a motion? ' Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #85-1 as shown on the plans dated April 2 , 1990 with the following conditions 1 thru 12 as written in the staff report . Number 3 would be amended to read , wood chips/mulch shall be removed from the area adjacent to the wetlands to an area where runoff from the same shall not adversely affect the wetlands and shall be contained and screened by a ' fence . Removal of the wood chips/mulch shall occur by not later than , any suggestions from you two? Conrad: A date agreed to by staff . Ahrens: June 1 , 1990? Olsen: It would be nice if we kept all those the same date . Batzli : Okay , June 1 , 1990 . ' Erhart: What 's a' reasonable time Mark? ' Mark VanHoef: Well it would be nice if we could, that 's all been piled there for sale . By the middle of the summer it will be gone through sales . Now we 've taken delivery of that and will probaby last 2 weeks . Had I known that was a problem, I mean that 's how we operated all last year . We could easily relocated that pile somewhere else . Ahrens: Well with the trucks moving in and out all summer until the middle of the summer , how much of the wood chips is going to move into the wetland by that time? Mark VanHoef: The only thing that moves close to the pile would be a Bobcat front end loader that scoops up the chips and then brings it back and loads the truck behind that pile area . So if the runoff is a concern , we can clean up the runoff after the course of our season . Erhart: I think the concern is the chips floating into the , with the heavy rain the chips washing down into the wetland . Olsen: They 're also enter into trees . There are some trees there that are starting to get filled around . 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 25 Erhart: It would be convenient for you to get it out of there by mid-summer . Also , I guess we 're not talking about toxics here . Batzli: Let 's make it August 1 , 1990. Number 12 would be amended to read ,, at the end of that sentence before the period, prior to creation of the proposed pond site set forth on the plans, wait a minute . Yeah , that reads right. Okay. So the whole thing would read, the applicant shall receive 11 and comply with all conditions of the wetland alteration permit prior to creation of the proposed pond site set forth on the plans . Another sentence , approval of the conditional use plan is not an approval of the proposed ponds and I 'd also propose a number 13 , condition 13 which reads II no plantings , storage or other disturbance of the Class A or Class B wetland shall be permitted without application or receipt of all proper wetland permits . Conrad: Is there a second? Wildermuth: Second. I Conrad: Any discussion? Erhart: Yeah . If we 're moving the wood chips away from the wetland , why II then does it have to be screened with a fence? Did you mean that to be one or the other Jo Ann? Let 's say it 's way back on the south side of the property away from the wetlands . Olsen: One of the conditions , the general conditions is that , specific conditions for a wholesale nursery is that all outdoor storage must be screened. Erhart: Okay, so are you talking about landscape screening here or are you talking about , maybe I 'm misinterpretting this. You 're talking about landscape screening as opposed to a screen that would hold the chips in? Olsen: Right . Somehow it has to be screened . Batzli : And properly screened rather than screened by a fence . Erhart: Okay , if that 's what it is, let 's just clarify that . Conrad: See a fence could be more objectionable than the wood chips themselves_ Emmings: Screened from what? The view on TH 101 or from the neighbor? II Olsen: Well yeah . That 's where if they locate it where it cannot be seen from other areas , we 'd let that go . Erhart: But aren't we putting a screen along all of TH 101 now? ' Olsen: Not along the north side . Where it is right now , it is very visible . We have had complaints about it and so it needs to be moved back II away from that where it isn't visible. We were saying a fence is if they 11 I . . Planning Commission Meeting ilMay 2 , 1990 - Page 26 II wanted to move it back just from that location and keep it there so it is contained . IIConrad: If it stays there , what is the screening solution? It is a fence? Olsen: Well we would want something to contain it so it 's not as the IBobcats come in and . . . Conrad: So are we talking , is it a visual thing that we 're talking about or is it a physical? IOlsen: Both . It depends on where they relocate it . IIErhart : Can it be located to the south side of the property? Mark VanHoef: Yes . It can be relocated . 1 Erhart : Okay , would that solve the whole problem? Olsen: As long as it 's not visual from the surrounding properties . IIErhart: Okay . Why don 't we just specify that any wood chip storage has to be on the southerly portion of the property . IIEmmings: Let 's let him put it where he wants to . Ellson: And we 'll work it out with staff . If they say it 's okay , fine but IIwe don 't have to tell him where the specifics are . Erhart: Well I read this to mean that he has to put a fence as a screen . IIOlsen: Well we meant screen , I 'm sorry . IErhart: That was probably my mistake . Olsen: Well it says by a fence . II Erhart: It says by a fence , I guess I have like Ladd, I have a problem with fences . II Conrad: I 'm glad you brought that up because some solutions with fences don 't solve it . II Erhart: Well Brian, you know where we 're going there . Do you have some kind of a . . . Conrad: I don 't think , do we need to amend that? IIBatzli : Well rather than say screened by a fence , just say properly screened . 1 Ellson: To the approval of staff . II Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 27 Batzli : What she said . That sounds good . I Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #85-1 as shown on the plans dated April 2, 1990 with the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall redirect runoff from the nursery by using Alternative #2 shown on the drainage plans as shown on Sheet 4 of the II plans dated September 27 , 1989 and approved by MnDot and the City Engineer by June 1 , 1990. 2 . The applicant shall remove the existing non-conforming shade and plantings structure by June 1 , 1990 . 3 . The wood chips/mulch shall be removed from the area adjacent to the wetlands to an area where runoff from the same shall not adversely affect the wetlands and shall be contained and properly screened as approved by staff . Removal of the wood chips/mulch shall occur by not II later than August 1 , 1990 . 4 . The applicant shall submit for approval a revised grading plan reflecting the recent site grading and proposed improvements . 5 . The applicant shall construct a sediment pond along the south side of the driveway per Alternative #2 and modify the outlet pipe to drain into the TH 101 ditch . 6 . Side slopes adjacent to TH 101 shall not exceed 3:1 . , 7 . Wood fiber blanket shall be used on slopes 3: 1 or greater . 8 . Catch basins shall be installed on the driveway to convey runoff into the ditch . • 9 . The applicant shall obtain and complyh with all permits required from II the pertinent agencies , i .e . Watershed District , MnDot and Minnesota DNR . 10. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director to insure the drainage improvements , proposed landscaping and erosion control measures are completed . 11 . All erosion control shall be Type III , maintained and removed at the request of the City Engineer . ' 12 . The applicant shall receive and comply with all conditions of the wetland alteration permit prior to creation of the proposed pond site set forth on the plans. Approval of the conditional use plan is not an� approval of the proposed ponds . 13 . No plantings , storage or other disturbance of the Class A or Class B II 1 i . . Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 28 wetland shall be permitted without application or receipt of all proper wetland permits . All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' PUBLIC HEARING= PMT CORPORATION, ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 1500 PARK ROAD: A. REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1 , CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ' ADDITION INTO ONE LOT. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 45,900 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING FACILITY. Paul Krauss presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Conrad: The applicants are here I see . Would you like to show us some pictures? Show us what you 're doing . Mark Huse: We 've been looking at the site plan . ' Conrad: And your name just for the record . Mark Huse: I 'm Mark Huse with Amcon Corporation . . . As Paul was saying , ' this is the site plan . It shows just a concept for future expansion . Just a possibility . We 're not asking for approval of this concept tonight . By our estimation , the wetland Paul is talking about is in approximately this location here . And we 'll work out the details of how that . . .around that when the owner decides to expand on his property . This is a perspective of the building showing you from the intersection . These are the elevations that you have in the packets . It 's shown a little bit better here . We 're introducing a spando type system . Curtain walled at the corner . Working with the client , one of our primary concerns was to put a building on this corner that will give the prominence to that corner that it deserves and hence the 2 stories which is also one of the reasons why we need to expand ' future parking onto the site to the north. He could have . . .at this time with a single story building . The second floor is to be largely unused at this time . There was a real concern that we have a 2 story building on ' this corner site to give it prominence that it requires . I do have a grading plan . That 's not all that clear . The grading plan is also in your packet . Todd Christoferson is here with our firm and he 's in charge of the construction and we do have a representative from PMT Corporation who'd be willing to answer any questions about the operation of their company . Conrad: Okay , good . Thanks . This is a public hearing. We 'll open it up for any other public comment . Is there any? Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I • Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 29 I Conrad: I 'll just open it up in general rather than going down the row . Are there any questions of the applicant or staff on the presentation? I Wildermuth: If you took the square footage of the second floor out , how many parking places would be needed? Do we know? ' Krauss: I believe there was 84 for the new addition so I would cut it in half . I think the space distribution relative to office/industrial was about the same from floor to floor . Wildermuth: So we 'd be roughly at the required number of parking stalls if the second floor isn't occupied? Is that correct? ' Conrad: What 's your thinking Jim? What are you getting at? Wildermuth: Well I 'm just wondering whether or not how soon he 's going to II have to put the extra parking to the north of the proposed building . Erhart: I looked at the site today . I don't see , looking at the site , howll you could ever put another building and these additional parking spaces in the area to the north of the proposed building . It just doesn 't look right and as a result , visually it tells me that they just ought to incorporate II that lot, at least the western part of that lot into this lot . I 'm not suggesting that they have to build parking lot but take an area where I really question whether you could put another building in plus an II additional , what is it , 44 slots and then go through all this rigamaroll with the easements . Jim , did you have that same feeling? Krauss: Commissioner Erhart , I looked at the property to the north . • There's a lot of land in that parcel that extends from Audubon all the way II over to Park Court . I have a lot of concerns about that concept that 's being shown . It 's showing two additional buildings . I think one would be II more appropriate .. Erhart: Which one? You mean the one over . . . Krauss: Well either one . The one to the west starts to have grade problems because you start getting up into that wooded slope . The one to the east has wetland problems so it's probably, you know you put square II footage, you put them both together , you come up with one building . But that wasn't really the issue before us tonight. I 'm confident that the parking can be accommodated there and that's really the issue for me on this plan. Erhart: On this concept, where 's the parking for those two buildings? I don't see that on there . Krauss: Well again , we did not do a computation . They didn 't have to verify for us that there 's sufficient parking for those buildings . They 're going to have to prove that when they come in. Ellson: When the time comes you can certainly ask them . 11 I . . Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 30 Krauss: And there 's a permanent liability with this site . This site 's carrying a liability of 64 stalls . ' Erhart: Whatever , it seems like we 're going through a lot of Mickey Mouse here . ' Krauss: It 's a little bit . I guess it relates to the ownership situation that 's been established by the property owner and his future plans . We're comfortable we can work it out this way . It 's a few more hoops to jump ' through but we 've done it before . Conrad: Any other comments? ' Batzli : Is the entrance/exit off of Audubon Road an entrance only? Krauss: No , it is not . It 's an entrance only for trucks . Ellson: Trucks have to exit one way . ' Krauss : Right . Trucks have to manuever through this site in one direction . ' Batzli : Do we want it to be an entrance only for everyone? Krauss: There really is no need for that we don 't believe at this point . At some point in the future there may be a median down Audubon Road at which time it would obviously just be a right-in/right-out only but at this point in time we didn 't see there was a need to limit it . ' Batzli : If there was a median there , how would trucks get back to the truck dock? They'd be facing the wrong way wouldn 't they? They 'd have to come in Park Road? Krauss: They 'd have to approach from the north on Audubon . I 'm sorry , they 'd have to come up from the south on Audubon . I 'd have to add that the median is not something that we see being built tomorrow . It 's just as ' traffic levels continue to build , at some point in the future it 'd be something that they 'd probably have to look at . ' Batzli : But since you had the concern about Audubon Road, your concern with the traffic was to the south of Park Road? Krauss: Yes . Batzli : So you don't care if cars go in and out on Audubon? Krauss: No . The traffic levels again , it was somewhat surprising to us to realize it but the traffic levels that the model was showing were roughly comparable for Park Road and Audubon north of Park Road . Batzli : Well it just seems with the angle of that road, the cars are going to be facing the wrong way if they 're going to be trying to go north on Audubon . I/ Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 31 I Krauss: The illustration is somewhat deceiving Commissioner Batzli . There, is sufficient room at the neck of that drive for the car to be perpendicular to Audubon before it enters out onto the street . Batzli : Even if a truck is coming from the north to turn around it into I the . . . Krauss: Yes . 1 Batzli : I 'll take your word for it . It doesn't look like it on the drawing . Conrad: Anything else? Ahrens: I have a question about the landscaping plan . You have here that I you 're recommending that the applicant provide four 8-12 foot high Douglas Firs to hide the loading docks. That doesn 't seem to me to be adequate to hide loading docks . Krauss: Well I think you have to take the perspective of what we 're trying' to achieve here . The loading docks are somewhat concealed in these locations . On the other side of the building . Right now you can see across here to a point . On this side it 's coming up and you start hitting trees but you have a direct line of sight here . What we 're proposing is II that the trees be added here . That would screen kind of the direct view into the site . We 're assuming that as this property develops , that whatever we do over there is going to provide additional screening . That this becomes something of an internal . . . With the trees clustered right here , will screen the direct view of that loading area . Ahrens: So you think that 4 trees are going to screen that area? , Krauss: That 's about all you can fit in that space . Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion? Wildermuth: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #86-3 and Subdivision #90-6 , Preliminary Plat for PMT Corporation, without variances subject to the following conditions 1 thru 8 and subdivision conditions 1 thru 3 . Ellson: I 'll second it . Wildermuth moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of Site Plan #86-3 and Subdivision #90-6 Preliminary Plat for PMT Corporation without variances subject to the following conditions: 1 . HVAC equipment shall be screened by a parapet wall or by a screen wall constructed of materials compatible with the building exterior . All exterior trash dumpsters shall be screened by a masonry enclosure constructed out of materials compatible with the principal structure . The entire building must be provided with fire sprinklers . I Planning Commissi on Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 32 ' 2 . Modify the site plan to provide a 30 foot wide drive onto Audubon Road while maintaining alignment with the McGlynn 's driveway . Post "truck entrance" signs on the Audubon Road curb cut and an "exit" sign on the ' eastern Park Road curb cut . 3. Provide revised plans to illustrate the feasibility of constructing the 64 proof of parking stalls as outlined in the staff report . These ' stalls shall be constructed by the owner upon request by the City at such time that the City determines there to be a parking shortfall . ' 4. Revise the grading plan to limit fill over the watermain along Audubon Road to a maximum depth of 4 feet . Provide an erosion control plan for approval . 1 S . The storm sewer extension along Audubon Road and the north side of the site shall be built to city standards and conveyed to the City for maintenance upon completion . A development agreement is required . ' Watershed District approval is required . 6 . Revise plans to provide two additional fire hydrants as directed by the City Fire Marshall . 7 . Revise the landscaping plans to add four 8 '-12 ' high Douglas Firs in the northwestern corner of the site to screen the loading docks . Relocate landscape material to avoid placement over the city watermain . A landscape bond is required prior to the issuance of any building permits . 8 . Site plan approval is contingent upon the filing of the final plat . ' and Subdivision Conditions: 1 . Provide the following easements: a . Standard drainage and utility easement over all exterior property lines . b . Reconfirm the location of drainage and utility easements along the western and northern sides of the site to cover in place and ' proposed utilities . c . Concurrently , provide a permanently recorded easement over Lot 4 , Block 1 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition, running in favor of the City for access and parking of up to 64 parking stalls . The easement should be worded so that it cannot be vacated without the written approval of the City of Chanhassen . ' d . Staff is further recommending that no building permits be issued until the plat and all required easements have been recorded . 2 . Provide an acceptable final plat . 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 33 3 . Enter into a development agreement with the City . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING= ' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-30 AND 20-903 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO RECORDING OF PERMITS AND ZONING LOTS. I Paul Krauss presented the staff report . Conrad: Tell me the process , going back to the first one Paul . Recording I permits or conditional use permits or whatever . How does that work? So you get a conditional use permit . Go through the process that somebody would follow to get this recorded and tell me how it 's controlled . I still' don 't understand . If we approve the conditional , take it from the point that the City Council approves it , tell me what happens . Krauss: We get a City Council resolution that says that on such and such all date the City Council authorized it subject to these conditions and it 's signed by the Mayor . We would then have that filed down against the property at the County . Conrad: So Chanhassen would? Krauss: Well we tried in the past . Conrad: No , tell me the new . Krauss: Well what we 'd like to do is first of all lay it out in the ordinance that , I 'mean right now State law does require these things but ' our ordinance doesn 't mention it . In the past when we 've tried to do it , we oftentimes get' there after the fact and we don 't have , and I 'm terrible on what kind of proeprty is which, if it 's Torrens property but we don 't have the title certificate . We don 't have all the owners complying down II there with us to sign off to say that they 're willing to have this pledged • against their property . So we 're saying the applicant 's going to have to do it and show us that they did it or else the permit's invalid. Conrad: So they have to show you that they did it . Now how do they do that? Krauss: Well we can get a copy of the recorded document that is given to II the County . Conrad: So you 're going to do that every time. Is there a little system I you set up? Every time there 's a variance or a conditional use , that you set up a tickler system that one month from now they have to prove that they did it? Otherwise the City sends . . . Krauss: Or if there 's a building permit relative to that request , the building permit won 't be issued until they 've demonstrated it . Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 34 UConrad: Well is that what you 're using to monitor it? Krauss: It will be , yes . Conrad: So it 's not really a tickler system to make sure they did it? You 're waiting for an activity . A building permit . Olsen: Sometimes it 's not a building permit associated and that 's when we would use the . 1 Conrad: So there is a system . I guess I 'm just curious what the system is that you 're going to set up to monitor this . Krauss: There will be a system that does that . In the past what 's happened is by the time we get these resolutions together and get them signed , a month maybe two months has passed . By the time our secretary gets to take it down to the County maybe another couple of months has passed . By that time the thing 's up and running . It 's long gone or the owners won 't cooperate . We 've had very poor success in getting these things recorded after the fact . ' Erhart : . . .you can 't get the document . . . ' Krauss: You have to have the owners compliance and you need the title . Conrad: Why issue the permit until it 's recorded then? Why not wait for the Mayor to sign off until it 's recorded? ' Krauss: That 's in fact what we 're saying here . Right now there 's nothing in City ordinances that has that requirement . We 're proposing that that be ' put in . Conrad: Okay . That 's my only question . Erhart: What does the County Recorder think about this? Krauss: They've actually been fairly cooperative . Emmings: They can charge you a fee . Krauss: The Hennepin County Recorder , even though State law requires that these things be filed against the property, the Hennepin County Recorder has refused and has refused since the law was changed . ' Erhart: When you 're talking about an Abstract which is a legal sized document . ' Emmings: They don't have to do anything with the Abstract whatsoever . Ahrens: No , it doesn 't have anything to do with the Abstract . They just ' take the permit down to the County and either they file it with the County Recorder 's Office or the Registrar of Titles Office depending on what kind of land it is. Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 2, 1990 - Page 35 I Erhart: Okay, but we 're talking about both drawings and legal descriptions, now right? Ahrens: They can only file a document against it . ' Krauss: It 's the conditions . Erhart: So it 's not a drawing? 1 Olsen: No . Erhart: If we 're talking about filing a conditional use permit , normally the drawings are such . I 'm under the impression that you 're going to be walking down there with a big set of drawings . , Olsen: It 's a resolution that refers to plans dated . Erhart: Okay , so it 's not the drawings? Ahrens: It just shows up as a little entry . Erhart: The entry that shows up in your Abstract? Emmings: It will after they 're brought up to date . , Erhart: Like an easement? Emmings: Yeah . It gives notice to the person, if they 're interested in I the property, that there have been some limitations placed on his property or some approvals granted and if they want more information, than they have to come to the City and look at the documents . I Erhart: Okay . We 're not talking about stapeling a whole enclycopedia? Emmings: Oh no . I Ahrens: All you'd have to do is make a phone call to the County to find out if the. . . Emmings: Well this is dynamite because this stuff doesn't exist otherwise . If it isn't recorded at the courthouse , it doesn 't exist . ' Batzli : How long does it take to record something at the County? Krauss: I think it depends on what time of the year you get it. ' Ahrens: It 's instanteous . You hand it over to them and the date of recording is the date they accept it . Erhart: And you get it back within a week? Emmings: Is that what you mean? That isn't what i thought you meant is it?' Planning Commission Meeting 9 May 2 , 1990 - Page 36 ' Batzli : How long is that going to delay people in getting the stamped copy that it 's been recorded back? ' Krauss: We 've heard that it can be as long as 2 to 3 weeks at peak times . Ahrens: To get what? ' Krauss: To get them to go through their stack of things they 're supposed to be recording and to actually get it recorded . ' Ahrens: Well they actually record it right away. You just don't find out that they record it for several weeks . Ellson: But that 's what we need the verification . Krauss : In fact that 's been one of the problems in the past is that we 've submitted things for recording and 3 weeks later we find out that for some reason it couldn 't be recorded . Ahrens: Yeah but generally you can call down there and they 'll give you a ' document number immediately . That document number for the recording . I mean I do that in Hennepin County and in Hennepin County they deal with a lot more documents than Carver County . I mean you can get document numbers immediately . Olsen: In Hennepin County . ' Ahrens : It 's true , you can . You don 't get the documents back if it 's torrens property because they keep all the original documents so you just make a phone call . It 's very easy . They charge $10 .00 I think to record ' it . Erhart : Is there anyway , concern it 's a legitimate one if you 're doing a condition or a variance or whatever you 're trying to get started here and all of a sudden you , before they can get started you 're asking for proof that it got recorded . It 's conceiveable that the process could get a month long or longer delayed depending on, you 're talking about an ordinance , you 're probably going to need a place for eternity . If the thing got to be 6 weeks. ' Ahrens: That would be the exception. That just is not , I mean that 's not enough of a concern to be worried about . Batzli : Getting approval from the City is already such a slow process, ' I guess a couple of weeks. For instance , the worse case scenario would be the person 's going to do something, some temporary interim use and it takes 2 weeks to talk to staff . A week to get on our agenda . A couple more 1 weeks to go to City Council . A couple more weeks to get you recorded . Krauss: In addition, if it 's anything that requires building , they have several weeks of after submitting their building plans before they 're able ' to pull a building permit anyway . Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 37 i Conrad: What else? Anything else? Is there a motion? Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending Section 20-30 , Recording Permits , conditioned upon revising the ordinance as follows , and using the words that the staff has used in the report. The 3 conditions . 3 requirements I guess. And then also include with that , recommend that the Planning Commission also approves Section 20-903, Zoning Lots as written on the ' attached amendment . Conrad: Is there a second? ' Ellson: Second. Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending Section 20-30, Recording Permits, conditioned upon revising the ordinance as follows: 1 . The ordinance be drafted in such a way that it is clear that the I applicant for the approval has the responsibility for recording the permit and for providing proof of recording to the City . , 2 . No permits related to the activity nor the activity itself shall be initiated until the approval and conditions have been recorded . 3. The ordinance also be designed to apply to interim use permits . Also recommending approval of Section 20-903, Zoning Lots, as written on the attached amendment. All voted in favor and the motion carried. BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT, STATUS, BACKGROUND PAPER, DISCUSSION. U Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Conrad: Thanks Paul for kicking it off . Tim , why don 't you jump in . We'll let you kind of steer the balance of the meeting , as hard as that 's going to be for us . I Erhart: I 'm confused. I 'm confused about Moon Valley and the gravel thing . Moon Valley isn't in the 8F district now? l Krauss: No it isn't. It 's in the A-2 district and mining operations are a permitted conditional use or now an interim use in the A-2 district . Erhart: I mean your argument to say that that's a disadvantage because then now this , the conversion of the A-2 is a disadvantage because now this is A-2 and mining could be put into this area . I mean there 's a whole II valley there that 's in the A-2 . The whole stretch is in the A-2 district now so that 's a real minor disadvantage . I was just wondering if we were together on that . I was wondering if I misunderstood but I don 't so . Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 38 . II II Conrad: I 'm going to interrupt . What 's your vision? Start with your vision down there . A long term vision . Is it really restoration back to the natural? Is that it Tim? 1 Erhart: Yeah . That 's my next point . I think that 's right . And I feel that by converting it to A-2 , we will freeze it today . It just bothers me immensely with that vision to see us look at new things going down . New 1 commercial things down there . That is just opposed to that vision and I 'm willing to wait 30 years to get there because I think in the next 30 years that the events that you talked about are going to happen . Either self II induced by closing the operation . Again , this is assuming it 's an A-2 or someone 's going to come along , either someone's going to come along and say we want this operation out of there . Someone 's going to come along and put the junkyard out of operation . It 's probably going to be the State of IIMinnesota . Krauss: I haven 't been able to verify it yet but I understand the Fish and 1 Wildlife may have negotiated something where the fella has a life estate or has agreed to sell at some point when he retires . II Erhart : I think if we freeze it and show concretely that the City 's not interested in developing that area , that it will eventually revert back either self induced or through some other external factor , back to a natural area . IConrad: What I keep searching for in that philosophy is a real proactive stance like not only waiting for things to go away but I think the action Itis , you 're saying we 'll do it via zoning so we kind of restrict what 's going on and I keep thinking , well geez . Do we want it to be a park? Do we just simply want it to exist that way? 1 Erhart: Maybe it's a two stage process . Right now let 's freeze it . Stage 2 is the Park and Rec comes in or the State comes in or Fish and, they can come in and they can somehow eliminate those uses . IIConrad: But I wish we had a goal . You know I wish it was this vision that said not just preserving and you know I like that but for some point . For Isome direction . Erhart: A park. I Conrad: If it was a park . If we felt that that was great park property down there , than I 'd feel comfortable to go a particular route but I don't have the vision right now. IErhart: Well I have that vision. I have that vision that it's a semi- public , semi-private park where maybe a few more homes . You know the homes I on the bluff are great . That 's a good use . Beautiful spots up there . Maybe come down the bluff a bit but generally there 's a lot of park going down that river with horse trails and all kinds of useful things that are appropriate for that . Right today I 'm just trying to be practical . Step I one is to stop the development . Then if something comes along , there 's money to make it into a park, that 's step two but today we 're seeing this Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 2, 1990 - Page 39 go . Do you realize that today after all the work we did in the last year and a half , that another , remember the utility storage facility that we looked at about a year and a half ago in here? Down in the valley that we II were all so appalled and in fact the City of Chaska came in and said please don 't do this to us . Do you realize that they could come back today and II put that in under a temporary use? Batzli : The guy who was going to have the big poles? The utility poles? , Erhart: Yeah . We had eliminated it one time when we eliminated contractor 's yards but now we've reverted . That guy could come back in with that proposal again today under a temporary use permit . It makes me II sick . Conrad: Why did we reject it? Didn 't we reject it because of the construction? Erhart: We approved it and for some reason it never got built . Conrad: Oh we did approve it? Erhart: Sure we did. We had to . We approved it . I Olsen: I don 't recall that . Was that when Steve was here? Erhart: Remember the guy was going to have the big trucks coming in there?" Wildermuth: He was going to build a big bridge across the creek? Erhart : No , it was another one down by the pickle factory . Right below I Chaska 's development up on that hill . This was a real industrial use . The guy was in Hopkins and he wanted to move out here . If I remember right , is we approved it . . Emmings: No , I don't think so . Batzli : I don't think we approved it . Erhart: Oh okay . But anyway. Let me address the points related to this . II That was my vision was to someday keep that , preserve that as an open space area . By the same token , I feel by going to an A-2 , there probably is some properties there that we are taking and they are owed some compensation for it . My opinion, I think that's worthwhile . The gain is worthwhile considering that in this proposal . Now obviously there 's a price . I don't know what the price is . Our attorneys and their attorneys would have to sit down and come up with what , if they feel there 's a taking , I 'm more than welcome to come back and say hey, you 're downzoning my property and it 's worth this much and we ought to go through the process to see if we can come to an agreement with them . I think it 's worth it , going through II that . I 'm not afraid . I don 't think we ought to be afraid of the taking issue . Let 's address it . Take it on. Go forward. Yeah, we 're taking . How much do you want? In my opinion this is worth it . 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 40 I Conrad: And therefore , would you send this issue to the Park and Rec Commission right now to say Park and Rec , do you think this is a Chanhassen , a site for a park? IErhart: I don't think we have to do that today . Conrad: But boy , to justify what you 're just saying you sure do . IErhart: Why? I Ellson: Because if the Park and Rec is behind that being a good place for a park . IIConrad: You 've got to know where you want to go . Erhart: What 's going to happen if we zone this A-2 , the property owners as Paul states , it can 't be agricultural . They can say that was a taking . I They ' ll file a claim against the City that says hey you 're taking and so let 's say the property owner has 5 acres of land and his property is worth down there today oh I don 't know . I 'll just pull a number out . $5 ,000 .00 I an acre . Okay , and he 's got 5 acres . That $25 ,000 .00 his property is worth so now we convert it to A-2 and you claim that his property is only worth $3 ,000 .00 an acre so it 's a $2 ,000 .00 an acre difference times 5 acres is $10 ,000 .00 . I don 't think you 're talking about millions of II dollars here . You 're talking about , there 's not that much land we 're talking about and I 'll tell you , the value today isn 't very much . . .so this property is not going for the $50 ,000 .00 a square foot it is in downtown II Chanhassen . I believe it 's barely above the level of individual properties that you 'd put a home on so I don 't think we 're talking about that much money . So I think our being scared off because there 's a taking issue , I I may be wrong but I believe it 's overblown in our minds . I don 't think we 're adversely affecting the property that much by doing that . And that 's got to be a Council decision. I think from a Planning decision , we ought to pursue it and see if it is that much . IIConrad: But to make it worthwhile , I go back . Your vision is a park . IIBatzli : Open space . Conrad: Your vision is open space . IErhart: Yeah , really it 's open space . Not a park . Batzli : I don't picture it as a mowed ballfield. This is natural bluff . IIConrad: As a taxpayer would you go in and to buy out those businesses that are there , you 're just going to buy them out , you 're going to spend Ihundreds of thousands of dollars . Erhart: Why do you have to buy them out? IBatzli : I wouldn 't buy out those existing businesses right there . Right now . II 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 41 , Erhart: You would respond to someone who says you have devalued by property and then argue about how much and then settle it . If you think it's reasonable . , Conrad: Any idea what the property valuation is down there Paul or Jo Ann? Krauss: No . Some of those properties have been for sale for a long time and it 's tough to find uses for them. Some of those uses are already non- conforming and therefore , conceiveably the SuperAmerica doesn 't have value to lose . It 's already non-conforming so you 're not doing anything to it . It 's already zoned A-2 but there is a significant cost I think that 's goin to be involved . These things always escalate a whole lot more than you even would anticipate . I appreciate Chairman Ladd 's comments about having a goal . Mark Koegler and I were working on the Comp Plan yesterday and we were talking about this area and I asked him to show the area south of the highway as park . Particularly , all those non-BF areas right now where commercial areas are shown , I said show it as park because we don 't acknowledge that those uses have any long term presence anyway . But I think it involves the park board . I think it involves other agencies too . U.S . Fish and Wildlife which wants to operate the sanctuary on the other side . I think it involves the City Council . This may be something that ill that 's the route you want to go , is best discussed , we 've started a work session format with the City Council . We 've had a couple of them so far and they're informal sessions where the cameras aren 't running . Where there 's not a great number of citizens wanting to be heard . Where there 's an opportunity to kick things around informally and what you may want to do is have this scheduled for one of those meetings and you can have some , representatives from Planning Commission, Park Board and the Council sit down and discuss it 's ramifications . Because I think it is going to be costly . 11. Erhart: From legal fees? Krauss: Well I 've already had owners who were in the BF district . In fact I had a long meeting with Patrick Blood, the garbage folks who got approval of the building and then was withdrawn. Whatever the story was on that . He was trying to market the property for commercial use now . They have , I II forget what they told me they paid for it but they 've since , they've cleaned up the property and they've had it on the market for quite a period of time . I mean they 're going to be able to demonstrate a significant lost I would have to believe . Erhart: How many acres was it? Krauss: I don't know. Conrad: It was quite a few . ' Erhart: 20? Batzli : I think they had 10 . 1 1 11. Planning Commission Meeting II May 2 , 1990 - Page 42 1 Conrad: Yeah , it was 10 or 15 . Erhart: What do you think they paid an acre? 1 Krauss: Oh, I wouldn 't hazard to guess . 1 Emmings: Do you know what they 're asking? Buy it Erhart . Conrad: There's a solution . 1 Erhart: Well anyone who would pay more than three grand an acre . Krauss: Well in fact they asked to be notified to be present so they could I kick it around with you and I told them that I wanted the Planning Commission to discuss it informally amongst themselves and then we would notify all the property owners . But I 've got to believe they 're going to 1 be able to demonstrate a significant financial loss and that they acquired the property on a good faith basis and at the time they could have done something with it . Now that gets into a legal issue and maybe we can get away with that . IBatzli : But we don 't know because we don 't know the numbers . We don't know what they bought it for . 1 Eilson: Right . Batzli : That 's why what we 're talking about today is to give you direction II to do further research and we don 't know whether it will be costly or not . It might be . It might not be but until we start looking at what are these people buying the property for down there . What is it being offered for . IIWhat 's the average selling price per acre down there . We don't know . Krauss: Yeah , but the way to find out though is a fairly comprehensive and 1 usually costly study where when you want to acquire property you hire some appraisers to go and do research and find out what the values are . Batzli : We 're not to that stage but it would be easy to call , you know or 11 to talk to some real estate people to find out what it 's selling for down there . 1 Erhart: Go down to the County and you can find out what the guy paid for the property. 1 Emmings: Ask somebody like Al Klingelhutz . What is his property or Brad . Ellson: You're just saying kind of informally check it out or whatever . 1 Conrad: Let 's get some consensus on the direction here . Is it the consensus of the Planning Commission that we would like that property natural at some point in the next 50 years and therefore to zone it so that I really it would be an agricultural zone? Is it worth the first step from staff to look at the cost of a downzoning to A-2? Or is somebody more 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 43 interested in pursuing another one of the alternatives that staff has recommended? Emmings: Can I ask a question? ' Conrad: Yes . Emmings: If we 're talking about a bluff protection ordinance which I think , well I certainly think is important . I think everybody does . But what are we calling the bluff? Conrad: We 'll call your bluff . Krauss: I guess I see the bluff as a wholy separate action that we probably ought to go ahead with irregardless of what we do with what 's on the highway . Emmings: But if we put in , we 're going to have to define the area that we II call the bluff and is this area that 's down there , BF now , would that be outside the bluff zone? Krauss: Conceiveably parts of it would not be . You know when you look at , a property like Sorenson's where he 's even at 80 foot high cliffs , I mean that used to be the bluff . Emmings: It seems to me the bluff area could well go right down to the highway . Krauss: In some places . Emmings: I think applying this existing use idea to the bluff zone is a pretty good one and as far as what I 'd like to see in that area , I think it ought to be an open space area . It would be nice , I don't have any problem with agricultural activities down in that area . If there 's somebody down there who's got a cornfield they've been planting , that seems perfectly compatible and fine to me . But other than that , I think it ought to be kept as natural as possible . It ought to be just , and uses will be found in the future for it . I have no doubt about it. Whether it's trails or II whatever . Conrad: See I think that 's a tough posture to follow . Let 's say it comes II back that it's going to cost Chanhassen $300 ,000 .00 or $400 ,000 .00 . Ellson: And they you ask , we want that for a horse trail . Conrad: Yeah . Would you rather spend that money on a horse trail or on a trail system . Ellson: People on Lake Lucy will say they want it on there . Emmings: Who 's the guy who always says , we don't look at the eonomics . Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 44 ' Conrad: You 're absolutely right . I 'm just trying to be a real practical person in this case . Have we lined up the Park and Rec? Have we lined up City Council? Do they really care? Would they rather spend their money ' on this issue than on other issues? As much as I buy , it 's a visual . You know the way Tim's giving it , it 's visual for aesthetics . We just want to look at that area . We don't want to use it and if we had a use , then I think we could start lining folks up to say, hey it 's worth the money . But what it is is just saying hey we don 't like how it looks and we just want to drive through that part of town and see that it looks really pretty because it 's a bluff. I think that 's . . . Emmings: I don't think so . I think what Tim is saying , and I think I agree with it , is what we do know is we don 't want it developed . Maybe ' that 's enough said right now . We don 't want to see developments going in there that 's going to make , if we 're all kind of for having it open space , for God 's sake , let 's not be putting development in there . ' Batzli : I view that as , it 's a natural resource just as the wetlands , the natural tree cover , the other amenities of this community . That 's a natural area that is a unique geological formation through this part of Minnesota . ' The bluff . And it 's not just visual contamination . It is the preservation of a natural area within the City that I think has just as much right to be protected as a wetland . Conrad: Does the bluff run right down to the highway? I never considered the area the bluff . Krauss: Bluff line ordinances are typically tied into the percent of grade . Where it exceeds that percent of grade you 're in the bluff protection area and where it doesn't , you 're not . Emmings: That 'd be one thing to do would be to define that on a map for us so we can see what the heck we 're talking about . ' Krauss: Can I throw something else into the mix here? Over the years I 've , for the past 15 years been driving past that thing . You always wonder about the seminary and what that can be used for and we continue to ' have inquiries about bed and breakfast and you know, hotels and restaurants and those sorts of things . I 've never tried to dissuade anybody from looking into it further . I mean it 's a very complicated thing to do . The building won't fall down . I mean we've looked at condemning it . It 's still very solid amazingly enough but it's got some historical significance and if somebody actually puts a project together that would involve it 's restoration and use for something, the question is, is that something you would encourage even in light of this discussion? Emmings: Yeah . Erhart: That 'd be alright with me . Conrad: I sure would. Ahrens: Well you have a whole list of permitted uses in the A-2 district . I I Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 45 Krauss: Well I would think if anything happened to the hotel , we 'd have to` do it as a PUD because it 's really a one off situation . . . Conrad: Joan, what do you think? Where do you want to go on this one? Ahrens: I don't know , to tell you the truth . I think that protecting the bluffs is a great idea . I don 't know how to define it either . I don 't know at what cost . I mean I think we should protect it . I don 't know . I II think that more study has to go into what land is down there. What 's valuable and what we should protect . Wildermuth: Downzoning to A-2 I don't think is the answer because there are too many other uses that can go in there . I think somehow we 've got to freeze it without running into these taking issues . At least for a time t look at it . The only way to take it out of circulation is to buy it for a • park. Conrad: Could you put a park down there? Right off of 169 . ' Wildermuth: Probably not . Call it an arboretum or something . Batzli : Well park 's an unfortunate choice of words . I think it 's more of ,' it 's an open space . It 's preserved area . Wildermuth: It 's not picnic tables and ball diamonds . 1 Batzli : Yeah . It 's not that kind of a park . Krauss: That 's true but the park board has expressed an interest in bluff line preservation and their plan does state that there are areas worthy of protection as open space . If you 're going to go that route , I 'd really encourage you to sit down . Appoint a couple of people to talk to the Park II Board and then having all of you go talk to the City Council at one of these work sessions so there can be some concurrence on which way to go . Emmings: Why don't we just find out from the City Council if we're even on a track that they 're even interested in? Wildermuth: I think they 're looking at us to propose the track though . Conrad: If we don 't have a clear vision , I don't know that we can get them" going some direction. If we said this is what we want , then I think they could react to it and we could get , and that's what I 'm trying to get is as much definition and I 'm kind of worried that just a passive vacant land is I something that they 're going to jump on the bandwagon for . Ahrens: Is it envisioned that the City would own all of that land along 212 there? ' Emmings: No . Ahrens: Well who else would want it? I 1 I , . Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 2, 1990 - Page 46 ' Con--ad: We could get the State . Ahrens: Well the State or the City . It would all be publically? But why would the State own it? Emmings: With the existing use zoning, the people who own it now could ' continue to own it and they can sell it and the use is going to have to stay the same . Ahrens: As open land? Emmings: Yeah . That 's why the existing use zoning is kind of interesting because . ' Wildermuth: But the thing is , how do you get rid of what 's already there? • Emmings: Well that 's another problem . Ellson: I think that 's what we 're trying to do is get rid of what 's there . Erhart : We 've got to be careful here . We 're not getting rid of everything . We 're not getting rid of the individual homes . ' Emmings: No , they can stay . Batzli : You 'd be freezing it and preserving it as it is today and eventually if the City wants to purchase some of the stuff and restore it , that 's fine . Ahrens: But there 's nothing to prevent like Moon Valley from expanding? ' Krauss : Well Moon Valley expansion though we 've got that other ordinance that 's going to get second reading next week and that hopefully will give ' us a leg up on that . For the National Wildlife Refuge though , all I 've ever heard that they 're interested in is the south side of the highway . They 're not interested in the other side so it would have to be . ' Emmings: I look at what we 're doing is adding onto what they're doing . Krauss: But also , if existing use zoning is used down there , you 're going ' to give some legitimacy to those uses that are now outside the BF district and not now non-conforming . The junkyard for one . ' Emmings: Yeah, but you said that's already been taken care of some other way . Krauss: Well , I heard a rumor to that effect . ' Emmings: Yeah , but here 's the thing . Look , if you 've got a big area of land and you 've got some uses here and there that we don 't like , I see what we 're doing is preventing there being any more of those by freezing development there or by doing existing use zoning and then if you want to go in and clean those up, you 've got a variety perhaps of tools to use to I • Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 47 do that. Condemnation being one of them . , Krauss: Yeah, but I think you 've increased the cost . The motel on the south side by the junkyard is not outside of the BF district as is Super America. They 're non-conforming uses. If we have a tornado that comes down the river valley this summer and they 're wiped out , they can 't be rebuilt. I would assume that existing use zoning , although it 's not been defined yet , would allow the restoration of a permitted existing use . Batzli : If we do existing use in the A-2 and not just in the BF down there . 1 Emmings: Well we 'll have to be careful to take those things into account but. I think the goal is to try and freeze development and then you can put II in the best thing we can to try and get rid of what 's there . If the goal is open space . I don 't know why open space isn 't , I don 't understand Ladd why open space isn 't a legitimate goal . • Conrad: I like it . Emmings: I think you do but I don 't know why you don 't think it will sell ., Conrad: It 's the cost . Emmings: But it sells to Tim and me and Brian . ' Conrad: Because you haven 't seen the cost . Ellson: But will it sell to you if your taxes are going to go up? Batzli : I would pay more taxes to buy that land down there . ' Conrad: But if it was for let 's say $300 ,000 .00-$500 ,000.00 , I could make a terrific community asset some other place in town . I could buy Moon Valley and turn that into a recreational facility that you wouldn't believe . I could . Emmings: You can't because we won't let you do that on a bluff . I Conrad: I 'm just saying, is it worth it. Erhart: I just can't imagine how it could be $300,000 .00. I Krauss: I think it would be that easy but really, it's going to be much more than that . I don't want to dissuade you from your vision because it's, one I find somewhat attractive myself but I think you've really got , I mean this is not in the theoretical realm anymore. If you 're actually thinking of doing it, I really believe and would strongly urge you to try to work 11 together with the Park Board and the City Council to first see if you can have some uninimity of vision. If you can 't , you might as well drop it . Conrad: Does the Park Board have any vision? If we sent this to them , what 's the chance that they would really take this to heart? Are they 11 i Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 48 pretty much . . . Emmings: I have another question . Why haven 't they already done something about that? Conrad: Well even putting a park on the bluff . A passive park I think ' would be really fun to do . Krauss: They have talked about , and I 'm not an expert on the Park Board and the Park Board of course has just changed somewhat significantly but ' when I was at their meeting last , looking at your comprehensive plan , brought up the fact that we hadn 't called on any protection for the bluff line which they 'd like to see . They've also had a long term goal of having ' a trail corridor along the Bluff Creek which we had always intended to show but it wasn 't shown, not the entire length of it anyway , wasn't shown on the plan . So they have an interest and what that depth of interest is , remains to be seen . Batzli : I think there 's one or two members on the Park Board now who would be interested in following up on what we 're talking about . ' Emmings: This seems more like a planning and zoning issue to me than a park issue . I don 't know . ' Conrad: But they 're in charge of park . • Emmings : Yeah , but I 'm not talking about a park . IConrad: You 're not? So then we don 't give it to them . If you thought it might be a park , then we give it to them and they tell us what they think . ' Emmings: If we zone the whole thing so that no more development occurs , if they want to come in later and put in parks here and there , I don 't care . That 's fine . It seems compatible and everything else but I don 't see why we need park and rec . . . Erhart: What Paul is saying , I agree with him. We're talking about selling this to the City Council . I 'll tell you , my feeling is that the City Council hasn't thought about this a whole lot . I think some of us have some strong feelings about it and I do believe there are some people on the park now starting to think about it . I think with working together with them we can sell the idea to the Council . Number one , when you sell , number one is you get their attention. Number two , then once you 've got them listening , try to convince and today we haven't even hit number one ' and I think we need to do that. If we believe that we ought to do something , than I think we ought to try to sell it to them . I think we can do it if we work together with the park . ' Emmings: But I think what Ladd is saying is it's , we don 't even have enough of a vision to take the first step at this point . Is that what you think? I mean I don 't agree with you. I • 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 49 i Conrad: I 'm just saying the passive use and just open space is probably not as sellable as if we said it should be a major , if we had something of substance beyond that . Batzli : We need I think a larger goal before we do more research to get tJ a more concrete vision . Personally . Conrad: So what would you like to do? I Wildermuth: Well isn 't the goal to stop anything from happening right now? Conrad: You know the number one issue , well I guess it 's not number one . II I kind of like zoning for something rather than against so I like the line of our conversation because it 's saying what do we want to use that space for . It hasn 't been , even though it 's the bottom line , it 's contrary to what 's there . Basically what you 're all saying is , we don't want anything down there . So from a planning standpoint , we do not want any commercial ' uses down on that highway . That 's what everybody 's saying and now , if that 's the case , then we can start zoning against commercial uses and I don't know how to do that . If it 's State recommended or whatever but I think that 's just one absolute step . We don 't want commercial uses there II because we have a different direction for that property and the stronger that direction is , the more the chance we 're going to get that zoned that way . The way we want it . So one , everybody is saying no commercial uses down there . Let 's get rid of it . Last time I was here when we put the zone in just simply to try to control what we 've got and we didn 't do a very good job through the course of time . We did a bad job . So consensus , we don't want commercial down there . Now the question is , what do we want. Is that it? Emmings: What do 'you mean is that it? , Conrad: Now we 've got to give staff direction to come back and help us on this one . We don't want commercial . It may be interim agricultural but certainly . . . Emmings: See I can conceive of commercial uses down there . Ellson: Horse rental . Emmings: Oh no . Don't ever mention horses around me . But the idea of the" seminary being converted into a bed and breakfast or a hotel type thing . That doesn't bother me . Conrad: You can do that in agricultural though can 't you? ' Krauss: Well again we've got the PUD so. . . Ellson: We could do it with an Alternate 2, make it BN or whatever you ' want . Emmings: I 'd like to think of some commercial uses that would be nice down' there because the land is so beautiful so it might be a place a person I I . . Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 50 ' would want to come to see . Not a Super 8 Motel . Ahrens: That 's not a bed and breakfast? Conrad: Don 't you like the little motel down there? I think that little motel is kind of neat . Erhart: Which one , that yellow one? Conrad: Yeah . The transient deal . Erhart: Oh , the little cabins? Conrad: Yeah . Emmings: I 'd like to find out this , who stays there . ' Ahrens: John and Jane Doe . Conrad: Okay folks what do you want to do? ' Ahrens: Well tell him what we don 't not want . To leave it alone . It sounds like , at least Steve is saying that there could be commercial uses down there . Conrad: But he doesn 't have any good examples . ' Ahrens: How about a golf driving range . Emmings: I think it ought to be open space . Krauss: Jo Ann and I were just talking that it may be possible . I don 't like all the districts that we have in town but it might result in a new district . Conceiveably you could come up with some sort of an open space conservancy district that had as permitted uses agricultural uses and single family homes . It would make everything non-conforming down there . Every commercial use non-conforming but you might allow bed and breakfast 11 or whatever else you want to do with some uses that are compatible with that district specifically . I think we can be creative in that way but I still go back to my original thought that I think you really need to get ' some uninemity of opinion on this thing. I think, the City Council 's also raised the same concern . You know you 're not alone in that and the Park Board has too in terms of what to do down there. I 'm pretty comfortable ' that if you all put your heads together and think of exactly what you want it to become and what would be involved in terms of cost for the City , we can write an ordinance that will do it . And hopefully stand up and won 't get us sued too badly . Batzli : I like what you just said . The open space conservatory . Bluff conservatory type district . ' Wildermuth: Sounds good. But that implies getting rid of what 's there as well as . I 1 Planning Commission Meeting • May 2, 1990 - Page 51 Emmings: Well some things there you 're never going to get rid of though I II think unless you buy them . Like the Super America . That 's going to , there 's going to be a gas station there forever unless somebody buys it I would assume because it 's just such a great location . Krauss: Well it is although that location will be somewhat diminished when' the new highway 's built . Emmings: Just because of less traffic . But it will stay there I think don't you? , Batzli : Although our first goal is to perhaps not have anything . That might be utopian and I think at least limiting to what 's currently there is, our immediate goal . At least is my immediate goal . If there are some additional very low , low impact uses , that might be okay but the long term , goal or my long term goal would be that there would be nothing down there . Conrad: Men there would nothing so then you could just drive by it and think it was pretty . Batzli : You wouldn 't just think , it is pretty . Wildermuth: But it 's important that we say that and establish that as our vision . Start doing some . . . Conrad: You don 't want to actively use it . Batzli : If there are some trail or two or some parking or something , that 's fine but I 'm talking open space , not an active park . Erhart: We have. a picnic area . A place to go in the park where people I then can get off on trails and hike up and down the river . Emmings: I don't even need to drive by it and I 'll be satisfied to know II it 's there . Batzli : It 's for future generations . If we don't do it now , it's going to be developed and we lose the bluffs. Erhart: That's right . We're going to lose it if we don't do something about it . Batzli : And you're not going to get another bluffs until the next ice age so you either have a choice now to save it or it's gone . Emmings: We are into an interglacial period. Batzli : It 's just a matter of a couple million years and we're right back . Erhart: Let me not be accused of dragging meetings on. , Emmings: Call it a glacial zone. Glacial outwash zone . I Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 52 ' Krauss: Would you like me to make a few overtures to the Park Board and City Council to see if they have some similar interests? ' Batzli : I don't think you 're sold enough on the vision to present it fairly to be quite honest with you . You 're not excited about it at all . If you 're promoting your new proposal yes , but as far as promoting open space and preserving the bluff . Krauss: Well no . I applaud that as a goal . I just have been through the reality of what these things cost and what it costs people that have ' invested . I mean there 's a lot of things that are attached to these things that you don 't , yes . Preserving a bluff line . . .It 's just not that simple and it 's going to be costly and it 's going to involve a lot of effort by a ' lot of people in the City if that 's what you want to achieve . Emmings: Okay , do it . Erhart: Do you want people to volunteer? Krauss: Yeah , there 's a couple of folks that . . .but we 'll put together some kind of a meeting and get people . Emmings: But you know what , what can you say? Conrad: But no , See , I 'd rather have a proposal that we take to somebody . Seriously . If we get the Park and Rec and the City Council involved , we 're pretty familiar with these issues and we 're not coming up with an absolute . ' This is it . We 're starting to generate some ideas but we 're closer to it , maybe I 'm taking some liberties but I think we 're pretty close to the issue . I 've played with that fringe district down there for many , many years . But I 'd sure like , what I 'd rather do is draft a direction statement or an opinion that the Planning Commission believes that we should look at a conservancy zone down there with the intent being . . . The long term intent being a recreation site for people of Chanhassen and the ' surrounding area for trails and whatever . Then for staff to put in an anticipated cost of whatever our action would do . That would be a gut feel and I guess I 'd have to associate the costs with it . I wouldn't feel real ' comfortable if I didn't put some kind of cost implications down . And then pass that in front of somebody with us and see how they react to it . Emmings: How about this? I think what you're saying is fine with me . I don 't disagree with you but I think a first step along there is maybe to prepare a map of what the area is that we 're talking about and what 's in it now . Get it identified so we can see it . Conrad: I think that 's a good idea . And then also maybe how the bluff , I think concurrently we 're looking at a bluff ordinance . So I think out of this report that I see tonight , I see the bluff ordinance is something that we should be going ahead on . I also really like and something that I 've never considered is that dump . That salvage yard . I think that 's another issue that we should tackle . Those two seem rather important to me so I don 't know but I think we should be looking at those and then doing this also . I Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 53 Krauss: I can sit down with Roger , Jo Ann and I and we can try to piece this together a little bit . If you want to go with an overall open space conservation district , it would oveate the need for a separate bluff ordinance so we 've got to figure that out up front . Erhart: Maybe we should be looking at hiring Mark to do a $5,000 .00 ' something? Krauss: No . We'll do this in-house . I Ellson: Save that $5 ,000 .00 for the buying . Krauss: Roger 's on a retainer so we can use him as much as we want to . Erhart : Well anyway , I agree with the alternative to go with at least an intent plan that we all agree with . , Conrad: We are putting together a comprehensive plan right now so this has got to move kind of quickly if we want to put a different zoning category II down there . And when are we going to the public with the comprehensive plan? Krauss: We 'll talk about that in a minute . 1 Conrad: What Jo Ann? May? You said May? Krauss: She did? Olsen: I did not . , Conrad: I keep thinking we 're going to have public hearings pretty soon . Krauss: Well we thought we would but we gave you a vacation . ' Olsen: We 'll start moving ahead real heavy duty on it . Krauss: If you want to move onto the next item I can give you an update on' that stuff . Emmings: On what? 1 Krauss: Well I didn't have a chance to do a report from the Director so I can . . .I was in Denver during the last Council meeting came up but let me II briefly touch on that and a couple of guide plan issues. At the last meeting , well actually you approved that guide plan amendment for Harvey and O 'Brien on Lake Lucy Road with the sewers that were failing. The Metro Council just approved that and they didn't alter our stipulations any so it' was approved as you asked. The HRA has authorized staff to enter into a contract with Stagar , Roscow, Thoust to do a traffic study for the downtown. It 's going to reopen up some of the issues on West 78th Street . II It 's going to look at the Target proposal , if that materializes and a Brad Johnson proposal . We clearly have some significant traffic concerns that Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 54 I we may be confronted with and this is the group that we 've decided to go with to work with us on that . Short , Elliott , Henderson has been hired to work on the storm water utility program . You may recall that staff is hoping that we can get this storm water utility fund in there to finance . ' Emmings: Is that one person? Krauss: Short , Elliott , Henderson? Emmings: Yeah. You just call him short for short? ' Krauss: He is pretty small . But we 're hoping that this is the financing mechanism whereby we can do a comprehensive storm water plan that we 've never had in the City . We can also do our wetland protection program with 11 official mapping and some new ordinance developments under that program as well . The Council 's looking at this . Hopefully we 'll have a decision from them yet this summer . Basically a storm water utility , if you don 't understand how it works is it assumes that everybody in the city contributes to storm water that falls on your property so on a per acre basis divided by use on a quarterly basis , you 're assessed because the City is operating utility fund for storm water . About 15 communitie shave done ' it in the Twin Cities which State law was recently changed to allow you to do it . Most communities wind up , single family homes wind up paying about $3 .00 or $4 .00 to $5 .00 a quarter . Commercial property pays more . You can get tax exempt properties and charge churches because anybody that 's on a city utility system is going to get charged and it can generate significant sums of money for us to not only do planning but us to also go in and do ' acquisition of storm water retention areas . Of wetland areas . Construction of storm water facilities . Where they need to be constructed . Up until now , all we 've been able to do is tell the developer you take care of the problem on your on property because we have no place else to put it . And it 's really an ineffective and inefficient way of working . Wildermuth: What about buying nature conservancies? The City Council could decide . Krauss: You mean down on the bluff? Wildermuth: Yeah . Krauss: I suppose the Minnesota River Valley , it 's going to get the water . ' I don 't know . It's pretty focused . What you're paying for is fairly focused. The City Council approved the modification to the tax increment district that we kind of flubbed our way through the last time it was on ' here . You may be aware that there 's a large joint HRA/City Council meeting on Monday that 's open to the public to discuss all the tax increment programs in the City . What they repercussions are and where they 're going . Along those lines , we 're meeting with Target Friday morning . Now Target was supposed to tell us whether or not they were going to go ahead on Friday and we 've since found out that Target is internally making their decision on Friday but we should have word shortly as to whether they 're seriously . . . I Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 55 1 Ellson: What do you think the probability is? Krauss: I 'm beginning to think it 's getting real . Reason for that is two fold . I rode out on the plane with my former boss from Minnetonka and I asked Anne what was the latest on Target in Minnetonka because that 's where they wanted to go and she said they were working pretty intensively through the fall and finally realize that they just couldn't put it there . It can 't fit . At 7 Hi shopping center . The old Red Owl and in fact there was another article I read a while ago that Rainbow is looking for sites to expand and they had chosen Minnetonka as one of their sites and that occurred to me , that 's the only site for this place to go and Anne confirmed that they 're looking at that so . Ellson: There is no spot left . . . I Krauss: No , there is not and Target had told us that one of the reasons why they were so anxious to be here was to head off Wal-Mart . Well Wal-Mart just announced they 're building in Coon Rapids this morning so if II that lights a fire under Target , and I think it will , you begin to put the pieces together and it 's starting to sound legitimate . i Ahrens: Do we want Target here? Conrad: I don 't know . That 's a real good question . ' Krauss: Well that 's one of the things that 's going to be discussed on Monday . ' Ahrens: I wouldn't say that that would be such a great advantage . Conrad: Yeah , I don 't know . , Batzli : Is that a TIF property there? Krauss: It is a TIF property and Target is looking at . . . Ahrens: I think it 's too huge . I Emmings: Who hasn 't gone there in the last year? Ellson: In the last week. ' Krauss: I think you have to realize though, this is not just a Target . First of all they're talking about a mega Target . One of the big ones but I they 're talking with a combined with a major grocery store . 50,000 to 60,000 square foot grocery store and a lot of retail inbetween so in one fell swoop downtown Chanhassen, for better or worse, conceiveably gets completed . Batzli : What does that do to the Super Value? Krauss: Well that whole project disappears. Market Square site would be enveloped by the Target . That 's still up in the air but that 's what would I I Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 56 happen if Target . Batzli : So they 're waiting on that , on the Target decision? ' Krauss: Yes . ' Erhart : You know Market Square could be built . Krauss: They could come in for a building permit tomorrow . Emmings: But they'll make money selling their land to Target I know . Krauss : A couple minor things . The CUP for the restaurant at 7 and 41 was ' approved and McDonald 's was approved . Relative to the Comp Plan , I think we all overdosed on Comp Plan material and we needed about a 30 day hiatus . Time 's up and you 've got to go back to it . We didn 't completely stop working on it though . I had a number of meetings with the School District . The School District is looking for a middle school site in the mid-1990 range . And we think , well you can tell me I 'm wrong but it occurred to me ' that the perfect place for them to go is out in front of Timberwood on TH 5 . Ellson: Wouldn 't they just love that . Krauss : Well the school district likes that site . We walked it with their architect . There 's a 40 acre chunk there . It's situated right in terms of ' their busing . It 's a nice area for them to level off and I think it really brings that residential component across TH 5 that we 've been looking for . They would be looking to develop it with a number of recreational amenities 1 that would be of use to our residents as well . The program , if it comes together , and the City Council is interested . I 've talked to them about it , would involve City assistance in acquiring the land and we 're not sure yet whether the tax increment law as it currently sits is going to allow us to ' do that but we 're looking into it and we 're going to be showing that as a preferred school site on the next draft of the land use plan . We want to come back to you at the next Planning Commission meeting with a revised ' land use plan and some additional text work . It 's not going to be a real heavy agenda with land use . It 's not going to be a real heavy agenda period . We don't have that much on but we wanted to bring you some material to talk to you about that . We 've been working with RCM on our ' utility program and expect to have that wrapped up in 2 to 3 weeks . We 've been working with , well Mark and I have been working on an Eastern Carver County study on a transportation element . We think we're going to have ' that wrapped up shortly . We 're getting some pressure to hold some informational public meetings. And while you would prefer normally to have everything done before you go ahead and do it, I don't think we can wait ' much longer realistically to do that . What I 'd like to propose is that for your regular meeting on June 6th and for your regular meeting on June 20th , we establish maybe an hour and a half discussion time and go like north of TH 5 one meeting. South of TH 5 the next meeting. If we need ' more meetings , we can of course do that but I 'd like to get some articles in the paper that basically outline the current status of the plan . What it means to people . What it doesn 't mean to people . When these meetings I I Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 57 1 would occur and hopefully get some attendance out here to get some more issues out in the open . Comprehensive planning by petition , which is sort of happening now in the background, is not a very effective way of working and I think we need to bring people into the process rather quickly . If I , get your agreement on that , we'll go ahead and try to arrange those meetings . The last thing is , we need time to hit on these last sections as we 're bringing them in . Now we can hold another special meeting on an off Wednesday night on May 23rd or what we can do is what we did the last time that seem to work fairly well which is start the meetings at 5:30ish and bring you dinner and try to get in a couple hours work in before the regular planning commission starts . Now it makes for a longer night but onell night . I 'd like your direction on that . Filson: I like the one night better . ' Ahrens: I do too . Batzli : I like the one night but unfortunately I find myself concentratinJ less on either the meeting materials or the comprehensive plan materials because there 's just so much of it all at once . That 's just me . I don 't 11 know . Emming: I find myself concentrating on the food . Batzli : Maybe if we could get the Comp materials a little bit , to us a little bit before the regular meeting materials or something. That would help me in any event . Krauss: We can try to do that . Conrad: Let 's try to do one night . , Ahrens: Maybe if you could keep the agenda short on the rest of it . Krauss: Well so far we haven 't had to be elective about that . We haven 't II had a whole lot of items coming in and some that we 've had, big ones , Redmond for example and a couple of smaller industrial projects , have pulled and we 're not exactly certain when they 'll reschedule. Should I go II ahead with setting up those informational meetings? Conrad: Yeah. ' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 18, 1990 as presented. All ' voted in favor except Jim Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried. Conrad: I see under open discussion you want to talk park and ride . Do II you want . . . Olsen: We can do that later . ' Conrad: Great . I I Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 58 Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor ' and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director ' Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 I i I 1