Loading...
1q. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27, 1989 II Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. . The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Steve Hanson, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt, Lori. Si.etsema, and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman Boyt ' wanted to discuss the purchase of the property east of Lake Ann Park; Councilman Workman wanted to discuss variance policy and smoking at City Hall. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman oh J nson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's ' recommendations: a. Approve Grading Permit for Chanhassen Hills Third Addition. If. Resolution #89-38: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study for Utility Installation for Extension of Lake Drive East to 184th Street. g. Resolution #89-39: Approve Advance Encumbrance of State-Aid Funds. 1. Approval of July 4th Celebration Contracts: 1. Banner Fireworks 2. Hi.-Topps o. Ordinance Amending Code Concerning the Acceptance of Gifts, Second Reading. p. Resolution #89-40: Approval of Furnishings for Fire Station and City Hall Additions. q. Resolution #89-41: Approval of Change Order No. 3 for City Hall/Fire ' Station Expansions. r. Approval of Temporary Use Permit Extension, Westsi.de Baptist Church, 1268 Park Road, Brian Pike. s. Approval of Accounts 11 t. City Council Minutes dated March 13, 1989 Planning Commission Minutes dated March 1, 1989 All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' 1 r7f) City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 B. ACCEPT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLEANING, REPAIRING AND PAINTING THE 100,000 GALLON ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS. Councilman Boyt: When we painted the new water tower, we did something that I ' thought was received very well in the community. That was, we sent notice to the people living immediately around the tower about the color and asked for their response. As a result, we changed the color and I believe have had several comments since it was painted by the neighbors that they liked the color. I would suggest that we do the same with the City tower. Telling them that we have picked the color because it was so well received with the larger tower and we're going to need to send a notice to them anyway about the sandblasting and how that would be handled. I'd like to see included in that notice that we tell them the color and ask for their response. It adds nothing to the cost but certainly communicates better with the neighbors. So I would move. Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. Will that cause any problem to engineering? I Gary Warren: No. Councilman Boyt and I spoke earlier about it and that's no problem. , Resolution #89-42: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to accept plans and specifications for cleaning, repairing and painting the 100,000 gallon elevated water storage tank, notifying residents as to the color selection and _ asking for their opinions, and authorize for the advertising of bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried. C. ACCEPT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY/TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS. Councilwoman Dimler: I just wanted to pull this for one question and that was, it's about the aerial photography and topographic mapping proposal. It says that money has been set aside each year for the past 4 years for this and it didn't specify the amount. Could you give me the amount? Don Ashworth: That was put in the Administrative Trust Fund and if you would go back, each year we had tried to put money aside to insure we could fund that. It ranged about $20,000.00 to $25,000.00 per year. Councilwoman Dimler: For 4 years? Don Ashworth: Yes. , Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to accept the Aerial Photography/Topographic Mapping Proposal and authorize contract negotiations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 2 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 11 31 D. AUDUBON COURT. Councilman Workman: I brought this up for one reason only and I won't take credit for the idea. I did read it in one of the papers. It was action by ' Victoria City Council in that they are not looking favorable upon new additions with new roads all being named basically the same thing. It becomes very difficult for law enforcement, fire department, UPS drivers, mail delivery, etc. to all have Boyt Boulevard, Boyt Drive, Boyt Circle. Particularly when we have an Audubon Road or something on the north end of town and now we've got some more coming down here and we've already got an Audubon Road. I spoke with Jim Chaffee today and Fire Inspector Littfi.n, they both agreed and Jo Ann I also ' spoke with, they concurred that it might be a good idea if we got a little more imagination into naming of the roads so we don't have problems such as fire calls. Councilman Johnson: That's something staff has pointed out before. This is just one place I guess we kind of missed this one. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I would reinforce that too. When I spoke with the Carver County Sheriff's Department, the people at 911 have a terrible time, just a terrible time when the roads are named the same. ' Mayor Chmi.el: How about the final plat portion? Any other discussion on that Tom? Councilman Workman: No. I have no other discussion of that. I'll just Tale a motion that we approve Audubon Court final plat, Development Sites, Ltd. w i - h the condition that they find other suitable names for their roads. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Second. ' Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the AudaDon Court Grading Plan and Development Contact and the Final Plat for Development Sites, Ltd. with the condition that they find other suitable street names. All ' voted in favor and the motion carried. ' E. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN THIRD ADDITION. Councilman Johnson: First paragraph, with the exception of a few last min.:te changes, have reviewed this document with the developer. Does the developer know about these few last minute changes at this point? ' Gary Warren: faxed a copy of the development to his attorney and I have not had any discussion with them after that. There's no real major surprises : n there. We'r_e not pulling a fast one by any means. Councilman Johnson: When did you Fax that? Friday? Gary Warren: Thursday afternoon. 3 City Council, Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Johnson: They've had time to respond. Is the developer, his attorney here tonight for Trappers Pass, Near Mountian Third Addition? , Mike Pflaum: Yes. My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm with Lundgren Bros Construction and I've reviewed the changes. Mayor Chmiel: No problem? Mike Pflaum: No problem. I Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Development Contract for Trappers Pass at Near Mountain Third Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. H. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR BLUFF CREEK GREENS. Councilman Boyt: There is a trail planned for Bluff Creek. We already have , easements on part of the creek and I noticed that in this development contract there's no reference to easements for the continuation of that trail. I'd hate to see the City have to come back later on and buy those easements. So I would suggest that a trail easement over Outlot B and below the 857 contour, which by the way is in the non-buildable area on Lot 1, Block 3 would provide this link. So we have a trail easement over Outlot B and also below the 857 contour line on Lot 1, Block 3. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is the developer here for Bluff Creek Greens? Dave Johnson: I'm in a little bit of a tenuous situation tonight. My name is Dave Johnson. I'm Art Johnson's son. One of the partners of Bluff Creek. Or my father is. He has been on vacation for a week. Will be back on Friday. His other partner Norm Berglund had left everything in the Attorney's hands and I got a call about 20 minutes ago letting me know that the Attorney is out of town today and so there is nobody here to represent that tonight. So I ran up here and it was supposed to go through, is this right Gary, 2 weeks ago and it was tabled at that point in time and I was wondering if it would be possible for a 2 week extension. Discussion I'm sure on what you're speaking of Bill could be done in that time too. ' Mayor Chmiel: I don't see any problem with that unless you have a problem Gary. Gary Warren: No. Initially the 2 year time clock on the preliminary plat ran ' from March 16, 1987 and that's why they were trying to get on the March 13th agenda to get the development contract approved and get everything signed up. We had no time to deal with the item at that time due to the magnitude of the agenda at that time so I could not place them on that agenda and that's why we said we would follow up on this agenda. So it's really Council's rules as far as the preliminary plat and if you want to extend them another 2 weeks, I don't see a problem. Mayor Chmiel: Roger, is there any legal problem with that? 4 7 ' City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 II Roger Knutson: No. Ij Mayor_ Chmiel: I guess I don't have any problem with that. Councilman Boyt: I have no problem with that. If we're going to extend it, I ' would like to add a couple other points for consideration when you're reviewing it. Dave Johnson: Bill, I can not speak for it at all. Councilman Boyt: Since you're going to have a couple weeks to mull these over. Since this was originally approved, the City has pretty consistently asked for a ' DNR review of tree cutting plans and when those have been severe, have asked for alternate plantings. I'd like to have you look at that as well. Rather than just go through and sort of pick apart the whole thing, those are my two big ' issues and I'll stop with that. Mayor Chmiel: Do we have a motion on a two week extension on this? Councilman Johnson: Yes, I move that we provide an extension to the preliminary plat to such times as the trail issue and woodland issue can be discussed with the developer. If that takes 2 weeks or if it takes another 2 weeks after that, ' I don't think we need to tie our hands. Councilman Boyt: Second. 4 III Councilman Johnson: I'd like to put a max on it though of 6 months. We're not indefinitely extending the preliminary plat. To the maximum of 6 months. I'm not sure if you're in a hurry to develop this. Gary Warren: They're intending to construct the project this year, so I would expect them to proceed expeditiously with it. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to grant an extension, not to exceed 6 months, to the preliminary plat for Bluff Creek Greens to such times as the trail issue and woodland issue can be discussed with the developer. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. RESCHEDULE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO DISCUSS THE POSITION COMPENSATION PLAN. Councilman Workman: The set special meeting date 1989 position classification plan and comparable work plan for April 17, 1989 is something that I can not make. ' Todd Gerhardt: I'm open to councilmembers of setting another date or do you want to go ahead without Councilman Workman? Councilwoman Dimler: I'm also, I mean I can make it but it's inconvenient for me on the 17th. Mayor Chmi.el: What about April 11th? 1 Counc' L Meeting - March 27, 1989 , Councilman Johnson: Yes, after the Park and Rec joint meeting we just said we're going to have. Todd Gerhardt: It'd be better if we could push it farther back. Councilman Johnson: You'll just have to work harder. ' Todd Gerhardt: It's not my problem. It's Karen Olson. She also is a negotiater for union contracts for other cities in the metro area and this is the earliest time she could meet. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see us meet as soon after the 17th as possible and before the 19th. ' Mayor_ Chmiel: How does the 18th look Todd? Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to reschedule special City Council meeting to discuss the position compensation plan for April 18, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.. All voted in favor and the motion carried. K. APPROVAL OF LAKE ANN PARK CONCESSIONAIRE. 1 Councilman Johnson: One of the things that was discussed a lot at Park and Rec when I attended this one was the noise level issue. I've done some research into it. Unfortunately I did the research this afternoon instead of in a more timely manner and I'd like to make sure that the generater purchased on here has a muffler that is rated for critical use. They have industrial use mufflers, residential use mufflers and critical use mufflers. According to Zeigler Inc., their caterpillar group, they have a critical use muffler, 1 inch diameter for $76.00 so we're not talking a lot of money for the best muffler available. So that's why I'd like to state that we need at least what the Zeigler Caterpillar sales people classify as a critical use muffler. This is a muffler to use next to a hospital. If you've got a generater in a hospital and stuff so it's the quietest possible. I have a real concern that we get a noisy generater going by the beach that the lifeguards utilize their hearing as much as anything else so I don't want anything interferring with that. Plus it would just float right across that lake and over onto those homes up the side of the hill on the other side of the lake. ' Councilman Boyt: As long as you've pulled this, I'd like to make another recommendation. That the concessionaire make every effort to have some sort of distinctive paper items so it's possible for us to determine when they're doing a good job of picking up their paper items. Part of the contract is an obligation to do that. If they have some distinctive, a name, a color, anything that we can tell what's theirs will help us keep track of how we're doing. , Mayor Cmi.el: There you'd be imposing on them to make sure they have their logo on their napkins or whatever else. I Councilman Boyt: I don't want to require them to do something that would be particularly expensive but I want to be able to say to them, yes very clearly 1 5 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 I — this litter isn't ours y or it is. If we could do something that would just make it distinctive. II z Councilman Johnson: If they purchase industrial quantity, hose usually y look different than what the residential homeowner is buying and bringing out for his picnic. Then again, you may not be. Hopefully they've also use biodegradeable versus plastic or styrofoam. I don't know if that was in here anyplace. Was it Lori? Bi.odegradeability of their containers? Lori. Sietsema: No. Councilman Johnson: I don't want to see styrofoam cups out there for coffee. I ' thought we had discussed that. Or I shouldn't say we, I thought you had. Mayor Chmiel: They hadn't mentioned coffee on here. What they indicated that they'd have is just 4 flavors of soft drinks. Councilman Johnson: Yes, but it's going to be served in cups. ' Mayor Chmiel: I would imagine those are pretty much paper, waxed covered. Councilman Johnson: I think it was discussed. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think they'd have styrofoam because your costs are less on the paper. IICouncilman Boyt: Well can we recommend those and if there's a problem they can always come back to us? There's plenty of time. I/ Mayor Chmiel: I think it'd be alright to make that recommendation. Councilman Johnson: So I'll move approval with 3 modifications. One is to 1 require critical use or equivalent muffling on the generater. Two would be the biodegradeable paper goods. Three would be distinctive paper goods so we can tell whos is whos, if possible. That's a very nebulous one. Couniclman Boyt: Second. 11 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Lake Ann Park concessionaire to be awarded to Domo Products, Inc. with the following conditions: I1. Require the use of a critical use or equivalent muffling system on the generater. 2. The paper goods should be biodegradeable. 3. The concessionaire carry distinctive paper goods. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 7 -r1 City Counc1 1 Meeting - March 27, 1989 I, M. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, FIRST AND SECOND READING. , Councilman Boyt: I guess I'm a little surprised to see a zoning ordinance _ amendment that's taken over a year to get here appear on the Consent Agenda when it finally arrives. If you would, it might help if you refer to page 5 in your pack. I guess to sort of tell you where I'm heading with this, I'm going to recommend that this be tabled for a couple of major reasons. One of them is, this is a very significant change in our ordinances and I think that the current council needs to be involved in discussions about it before we just vote on it. Another one is because I have some serious questions about parts of it and I'd like to demonstrate some of what those are. We're talking about allowing people in the residential single family area to have an accessory building that's up to 1,000 square feet. Now to keep that in perspective, we allow people to build houses, one level houses in their that are 960 square feet at a minimum so it's conceivable that somebody could build an out building bigger than their house and they can put it 10 feet from their lot line. The back lot line. Now I think that one of the issues we've got to look at here is why do we have a 30 foot setback in the first place? If we have that because we're saying we want I neighbors that back into each other to have a common green space, by allowing a building bigger than a house to be built within 10 feet, we've just allowed one neighbor to take advantage of that green space. I think that's an awfully important issue and we really need to look at whether we want to, if 30 foot setback makes sense in the first place, why are we now coming back and saying you can put virtually the same size as a house within 10 feet? I don't think that's a good way to design a neighborhood. The other thing that I would I suggest is that we're allowing these buildings to be within 5 feet if they're up to 200 square foot. So that means a single car garage can be built 5 feet from the back lot line. I think the idea of these accessory buildings is something like a storage building. The largest storage building that I'm aware of, unless you custom build it is going to be 10 x 12. That's 120 square feet. The discussion in the Planning Commission talked about that but then they referenced 200 square feet is what other communities do. I don' t think that Chanhassen necessarily needs to follow that lead in this particular example. So those are a couple of the areas. I would suggest that some of the changes that should be considered if we do table this, one is we should never allow an accessory building to be bigger than the permanent house. I would make that point (d) . The second thing that I would suggest is we need to make some minor changes in item 2. That is, if you'll see in the second line where it says located in the front or rear yard, we need to cross off the word setback because if we don't cross that word off, then the second part of the statement conflicts with the first part where we're talking about buildings may be located in the front and rear yards. If we say they can be located in the setback, then it doesn't make any sense to go on to say they must comply with the front side and applicable other setbacks. Just in conflict. Councilman Johnson: Typo. Mayor Chmiel: I think it's probably right what you're saying. This probably 1' should be tabled and further discussion begun on this at that particular time and I'll second your motion to table this particular portion until those considerations should be brought into view. 8 j City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Boyt: It might be, if others have some comments Don, it might be ' good to get those back to our staff to work with. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have a question Bill. You said something about ' the accessory structure of 1,000 square feet never to be bigger than the home but you're talking about rural single family here. That means you can't have a shed bigger than your house. Councilman Boyt: No we're not. RSF is residential single family. Councilwoman Dimler: What's R-4? ' Councilman Boyt: R-4 is higher density yet. Councilman Johnson: It's duplexes. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'm sorry. I thought that was rural. ' Councilman Johnson: Actually these are much stricter than what's in there right now. It's a step in the right direction. We currently have a similar problem on my block except for they actually put it on the lot line. Even though the drawing showed it 5 foot off the lot line, when the structure went up, it ended up on that lot line. Public Safety's working on that one but it does on a small 1 lot create a big problem. Maybe the 30% is something we need to look at. 30% 11 I for 1,000 square foot building is only 3,000 square feet. Allowing 30% of a back yard to be filled with a single structure is really a very large reduction in that back yard. Especially when you start getting into your smaller yards. 3,000 square feet is not much of a yard. That's what 1,000 square foot structure. We don't allow 1,000 square foot home to be built on a 3,000 square foot lot. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Accessory Structures, First and Second Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: Do we send this back to the Planning Commission then? Reopen the public hearings on it? ) i Don Ashworth: I don't think so. We're just going to respond to the questions posed and if you don't feel comfortable we could send it back at that time. Councilman Johnson: One thing is the zoning ordinance amendment, you're required to have a public hearing on your proposed, this is what went before the 1 public in their public hearing process. We get more stringent than this, I believe it should go back before the public and public hearing again. Mayor Chmiel: I think that can be determined at that time as to what's decided. 111 Don Ashworth: We'll have Roger respond to that question as well. Mayor Chmiel: To approve the balance of the Consent. Agenda. Item b, c, d, e, h, j and k. Do I have a motion to approve those items into the Consent Agenda? I 9 �C, City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: I so move. Councilman Johnson: We approved them individually. ' Mayor Chmiel: We'll do it one more time just to make sure. i Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve items b, c, d, e, h, j and k from the Consent Agenda with the changes mentioned above. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATION: There were no Visitor Presentations. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED USES OF YEAR XV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS. Steve Hanson: You may recall we talked about this at your last meeting just very briefly. I just wanted to bring you up to date on the projects that you had mentioned and some of those that we could operate under and some of those ew could not include in the block grant allocation. There are $33,488.00 available in the Year XV. Some of the things you had mentioned previously was the library expansion, neighborhood park programs, handicap accessibility, housing rehab and the South Shore Senior Center. A couple of those are not allowed to be granted under the block grant program and that includes the library expansion and neighborhood park programs that we talked about. They do not qualify. We did I II get a request from the South Shore Senior Center for an allocation of $6,935.00 which is consistent with what you've done before to help their operation. Also, the City has a track record of doing housing rehabilitation which that program is run by the County and would not involve any city staff time. Staff is recommending that $19,053.00 be allocated into that program. Then in consideration of the handicap accessibility that was mentioned by Council, we've identified to potentially use some of the funds for the Lake Susan handicap to make a boat ramp handicap accessible. I don't have the firm cost for doing that project but the minimum you can put in for a project is $7,500.00 so I put that minimum amount in at this time. If we need to adjust that, we can do that adjustment later but in order to get the allocations we have to have that amount in there at this point in time. Also, there were some additional projects we identified that potentially could be funded through it although they weren't ones that you'd brought up before and they exceed the grant amount but we did want to include those for your benefit as well as to let the County know what other things we might do if all the funds aren' t allocated and we have a potential to get future funding. With that I would conclude my remarks unless you have any questions. Mayor Chmiel: I have one specific question that's regarding our liability I Roger_. If we provide a handicap accessibility to the docks, what is our liability? Roger Knutson: I assume public docks? If someone concludes you designed them improperly, you would certainly have liability. But if you design them correctly and you go Code, you should not have a problem. Which is not to say you can not be sued of course but you should not have a problem. 10 i ;�� City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 :1 Mayor Chmi.el: That's one of the concerns I had is making sure that that is constructed in accordance to whatever regulations there are, if any. Make sure ' we're doing it right. L Lori Sietsema: I believe the DNR has some specifications for handicap docks and boat access. . .and we would comply with those. Councilman Johnson: Roger, if a handicap person used the docks without it being a handicap accessible dock because we didn't make the public facility handicap accessible and they got injured at that point, would we have greater liability? Because we can't put up a sign saying no handicap allowed. That would be ' ludicrous. So theoretically everything public is handicap accessible, is the way I believe it is. So if we don't do this, are we in greater liability than if we do do it? Roger Knutson: I don't believe there's a mandate, existing mandate that we do everything in the world today, new construction yes. I suppose you might have a greater liability is someone got hurt but again, if it's clear that it's not handicap accessible and someone is negligent in trying to use it in any event, I would think.. . It certainly could make that argument. Councilman Johnson: South Shore Senior Center is only $6,935.00 and the minimum grant allowable is $7,500.00. How does that? Steve Hanson: The grant that goes to the South Shore Senior Center is managed through Hennepin County. The funds don't come directly to us. There are a lot of communities that are contributing to it so I believe the total amount that ends up going there is $23,000.00. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so we're one small portion of a larger grant that's greater than $7,500.00? Good. Mayor Chmi.el: I just wanted to note that I did attend the Senior Citizens Day that they had over at Eisenhower in Hopkins. It was absolutely amazing the amount of time that these people spend providing their time to help other people as well. We have from our community here attending Eisenhower, if I'm not mistaken, there's 65 or 66 with a total hours of their time which they combined for assistance in many different varied items of somewhere in the neighborhood of about 1,500 hours which I think is pretty great. But anyway, I'd like to just bring this back to any other discussion here before I open this up for the public. Councilman Workman: I have a question in regards to the demolition of properties. What would that be? The Hanson property? Is that something that ' we should maybe keep separate? Is that an HRA item that we should maybe keep separate? Councilman Johnson: I really think we should in that the three things that we are addressing here, handicap accessbility. This money is coming from Hennepin County and the fact that the City of Chanhassen is both Hennepin County and Carver County. Carver County doesn't have these kinds of funds, only Hennepin I County. Items 1 and 2 really benefit not only Chanhassen residents but Hennepin County residents. Item 3 is really only Chanhassen residents. When we start 1 11 s-Linty Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 talking using demolition, HRA money, I'd hate for Hennepin County to start objecting there when we're in delicate negotiations with them already on utilizing of other monies derived from Hennepin County and bringing it slightly across the border. Which is HRA related. Councilman Boyt: I think these are approved uses for the money Jay. Councilman Workman: I don't have any problem with that. I just want to know if maybe we shouldn't keep them, I don't know. I do see the Senior Center and the handicap uses kind of maybe more in line with the use that maybe this money should be used for because it is hard to come by money where I'm sure we'll find someway to tear down a building but it isn't always easy to find the excess for things such as those hard to fund projects. Is HRA going to miss $19,000.00? Councilman Boyt: This isn't a matter of spending the $19,000.00 to tear buildings down in downtown Chanhassen. This is if the County has money that's not claimed, then we have back-up projects as I understand it. These three projects are stand alone, top priority. What we do in downtown that might benefit the City of Chanhassen and could be covered by HRA is just if the County turns up with more money that we've requested. We should have some list in case that should happen but I wouldn't want you to get, any of us to get our hopes up that it's going to happen. But if it does, we want to be prepared. Councilman Workman: So this is money that we're not giving to the South Shore I Senior Center? We might be able to give it to them. Councilman Boyt: No, that's different. The South Shore Senior Center and the other two projects are money where we have $33,000.00 and we're committing it. They're getting it. Now we're saying, if it turns out that someone else doesn't claim all the money available, then we should have a project that's on the burner, so to speak, so that they know that we're interested in getting more money. But they're two separate issues. Councilman Workman: Okay, but we are allocating $19,000.00 for the demolition I of buildings? Councilman Boyt: Not downtown. This is for restoration of residential property. Councilman Johnson: The Housing and Rehabilitation program is a program where we've helped to rebuild some homes in Carver Beach is one area. The old part of downtown. Some of our, it's a very successful program over the last few years where people who have some rundown property and fixed income, etc.. Councilman Workman: I'm just reading a paragraph. Staff has also identified 11 the following projects which utilize the CDBG funds. There are additional demolition properties in the downtown which total $30,000.00. That's where I'm getting my info. Councilman Johnson: But they're not recomnending those projects. Those are back-up projects. , Councilman Boyt: I think if you change the word would to could we'd have captured the spirit of what staff was trying to say. Is that accurate Steve? 12 ' City Council Meeting g - March 27, 1989 Steve Hanson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions on it Tom? Councilman Workman: Yes. Isn't it possible for us to shift $19,000.00 to something else that we might want to use it for? Mayor Chmiel: There's that potential, sure. Councilman Johnson: If you don't want to put that into the housing program, then yes, we could shift that elsewhere. That's why they gave us the list of the other things. We could put $19,000.00 into the demolition of downtown buildings versus letting our fixed income people get grants to improve their homes. Councilman Workman: I see. I see what you're saying. I want it left the way it is, the way I'm reading it now. I had my eyes opened. It's such a short paragraph. I got spun around with the woulds and the coulds. Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this? Enna St. John: I'm Enna St. John from the South Shore Center and we hope that the Council would approve our request and also glad to have seen you at the recognition. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded y to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Resolution #89-43: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the proposed uses of the Year XV Counuunity Development Block Grant funds as presented by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: AUDUBON ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 88-20B. Gary War_r_en: The Audubon Road improvement project we solicited quotes for, this is basically the, we call it Phase B which is the reconstruction of Audubon Road from the railroad tracks north to TH 5. We are very pleased with the results of our bidding process here. Things seem to be very hungry so to speak yet for the contractors. Bill Engelhardt's memo attached goes into detail on the results but basically we had a number of very competitive quotes submitted. The low bidder, Imperial Developers estimated bid is $523,332.55. They are a contractor we're very familiar with because they've been doing the site grading for McGlynn Bakeries. They've done our Kerber Blvd. improvement project and we're satisfied ' that they will do a good job here so I would recommend awarding the contract in the amount of $523,332.55 to Imperial Developers. Resolution #89-44: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to award It the bid for the Audubon Road Improvement Project #88-20B to the firm of Imperial Developers, Inc. in the amount of $523,332.55. All voted in favor and the motion carried. i� 1 13 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 LAKE ANN PARK EXPANSION. Gary Warren: Again we advertised for bids for the Lake Ann Park expansion , project. The results are attached in the bid tabulation and we, again had very competitive situation. The engineer's estimate $282,660.00 with the low bidder again being Imperial Developers. I think because they're working in the area here they've sharpen their pencils. They're about $59,800.00 under our engineer's estimate. We had shown two alternates in the project. Alternate 1 is for the construction of concrete barrier curbing on the parking areas which we believe is good for the parking areas and the park. Also, Alternate 2 which recognizing that the existing road sections in the Lake Ann Park are going to be encountering further construction traffic and they're already in a state needing some sealcoating. We had bid an alternate for sealcoating which also is in this. It's my recommendation that we award this contract to Imperial Developers including Alternates 1 and 2 and that the total award be $239,393.00. Resolution #89-45: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to award the bid for the Lake Ann Park Expansion Project No. 88-13 including Alternates 1 and 2 to Imperial Developers, Inc. in the amount of $239,393.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW LAKE LUCY ROAD TRAIL ISSUE. I Councilman Johnson: I've spent quite a bit of time the last, quite a few weeks. I drive Lake Lucy a lot and over this weekend, only on one trip across Lake Lucy did I not find anybody walking on that trail. The maximum number I saw at any one time was 8 people. Besides the one time I went through, there was no people so obviously that was the minimum but usually there was between 3 and 8 people walking in there. Sunday I went over it quite a few times because I was looking at flooded areas and watching the snow run off and looking for problem areas there. It's a well used area by a lot of people. People come down Yosemite. Some joggers come up Powers and hit the trail. I think the least expensive option is to go with similar to what we've done in Greenwood Shores over the years. Is when somebody needs to have a party or whatever and they know they're going to have some guests coming over, they make the phone call and the Sheriff will be instructed not to tag the parkers at that time. Just leave everything as is. Councilwoman Dimler: I wanted to make a correction here in Gary Warren's letter to Don Ashworth. It starts out with at the February 27, 1989 City Council meeting, Council tabled action concerning the Lake Lucy trail issue and directed that the issue be taken up by the Park and Rec Commission for review. I remember specifically saying, we voted that it would not be taken to Park and Rec because it did not originate with the Park and Rec and that it was merely. . . Councilman Johnson: We sent it back while you were on vacation. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: But not at the February 27th meeting. Councilman Johnson: Yes it was. Councilwoman Dimler: No it wasn't. 14 1 e�ij City Council Mooting - `larch 27, 1989 II -- Councilman Johnson: You were on vacation. II ' Councilwoman Dimler: I was here. Councilman Boyt: You missed two meetings. Councilman Johnson: You were in Colorado. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm sorry, but still, the time before that then. Councilman Johnson: We said it wasn't going back. We changed our minds while you were in Colorado. Councilwoman Dimler: Why? Councilman Boyt: We wanted an open discussion of the issue. Councilman Johnson: to wanted to give some more input from the Park and Rec. p he citizens through Councilwoman Dimler: I guess the point was that it didn't originate with them and what could they do with it and what did they do with it? I just didn't want it to be a time waster. That was my point. Now I do have a recommendation and it parallels kind of to what Jay is saying but it's a little bit different in that I've checked with the Carver County Sheriff's Department today and they IIindicated that the City can issue parking permits. Is that correct Don? Don Ashworth: I've heard that term. I don't know of any that we have issued. The note that Councilman Johnson brought up where citizens have called, where they've had parties and I know that the Sheriff has honored that. As far as there being an actual form that says parking permit, I don't recall seeing it. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay but we can get them. Waconia dispenses them. They told me that other cities do have that and that the City has the authority to dispense them. So I would recommend that we do that to the citizens that live on Lake Lucy Road that have a parking problem and that want parking on Lake Lucy Road. That they would come to the City and would apply for that permit for each one of their vehicles. Then when they have guests, that they would have an x number of, maybe 6 would be an arbitrary number, for their guests as well. And 11 these would be permits that they would have in their possession at all times and then they can just dispense them and they would recollect them after their company is gone. That probably they should be renewable every year but the permit would be good for one year. Then that way, it gives them a little bit more to stand on rather than just saying, hey I called the sheriff on this because if the guy that's on duty may not have gotten the message and then there's a problem. This way there's a permit there and it tells everyone that's informed. Then we would also send a letter to the sheriff's department indicating that this is what we're doing and that these permits have been issued and that they're legal at all times. Councilman Johnson: I thought about that and actually came up with the number 5 myself for probably the same reason you came up with the number 6. It sounded like a logical number. The only thing that I had, and when I discussed that within my own was abuse of it in that somebody decides, it's an easy thing to 1 15 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 I abuse if you have it, to continue it all the time. I would think that we'd still not want to, none of the residents say they need it for their own vehicles. The Tichy's have said they've got 4 wheel drive vehicles. They can get up and out of their parking place okay. It's just when guests came over. As such, I would make sure it's not overnight and if they want to do something overnight, it would have to be something different. Plus in the winter you couldn't do it overnight anyway because of the snowplowing problem but I think it's a workable solution. Councilman Workman: I guess I would say that we work with it in that sense that 11 we work, and maybe we put some time on it to monitor the situation. You've monitored that road about a half a dozen times now as far as I can tell but we look at it and that's the thing that I mentioned to the Tichy's earlier is that we look at maybe boxing it in and trying to figure out what would be, to give them an open permit to park any time of the day above and beyond ordinances and everything else. We can't do that obviously. I think they realize that. And I think they are just looking for the occasional use but I think we monitor it. I drive by there all the time and I think somehow we set up something to monitor it. Hopefully we won't monitor it the way we're doing Moon Valley down there. But to monitor it and look at it that way. If there's abuses, then certainly we've got to look at it. There are some concerns about the ability to get through there. There's some trucks and the snow kind of makes the road smaller and so, you get a little claustrophobic in there with that but I think it's something that we should monitor. I don't think the City is in any way, shape or form prepared to tear up or put a trail on the north side and spend $80,000.00 or whatever it is at this point. In talking to the Mayor of Greenwood, he said they do do this all the time and that it works. Councilwoman Dimler: They do it in Waconia and it works there. l_ Councilman Johnson: One thing, our sheriff is pretty good. As you note, right now you can't get at that one house that's under construction because of the mud and everything so the construction vehicles are parked out there and the sheriff drives by and he's not tagging them because they're reasonable. He knows the construction workers can not possibly get off the road, and it's functional that way. That's perhaps something we might want to look at. I Councilman Boyt: I talked to Jim Chaffee about this earlier today Ursula and he said he could live with it. His choice, first choice would be Jay's suggestion of a temporary request at the time of need. I guess Tom, I agree with you that if we do this, we need to make sure that the permit is for special use. That this shouldn't be some way of permitting continual parking on the street because parking on that street compromises safety so we don't want to compromise safety. I/ At the same time, we've been trying to balance this out all along and the neighbors have been working to balance this out and it would seem to me, if a special card or something they could put in the window when they need to park there will meet everybody's needs, it allows us to maintain the trail, gives the Tichy's the parking they need, we don't spend a lot of money to do it, it sounds like a good compromise. Councilwoman Dimler: But I do want to emphasize it's not only the Tichy's but all the residents along Lake Lucy Road that need it. Councilman Boyt: It wouldn't be a matter of it just being available to them. 16 11 1 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 II -- Councilwoman Dimler: It would be available to everybody on Lake Lucy Road that wants it. Councilman Boyt: I would think that we would have, we could tell if this was a problem if we have continual parking on Lake Lucy Road. Then it's not a special event. Mayor Chmi.el: Let me just say something. In our area, as you all know, we have no parking. For situations of a party that we had at one time, the other my daughter getting married and those were the two particular times that we really had to use that probably in the last 14 years. But I'm sure, and of course I can put enough cars in my driveway where there's really not that much problem, but I think with this kind of useage and with the neighbors there, I would think that that probably would be the most acceptable. As we've looked at it, with 1 the dollar costs as Tom has indicated. I think too there's a lot of concerns. I just can't see expediting those x number of dollars at this particular time. We don't have those dollars and I'm not about to allocate or say we're going to spend those either. So I think this is a reasonable solution and maybe if any of you would like to address the issue and see if your concurrences are with ours because this is basically where we're coming from. Brian, do you have any? Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, as Brian's coming up, there's also the possibility of combining the two. Giving the people the passes and say call into the Sheriff's office when you plan on using them so the sheriff's aware that they're going to have a pass in the car. IIMayor Chmiel: Once the sheriff drives by and he sees those in there, that would just eliminate the need of calling. ' Brian Tichy: I'm one half of the Tichys. I'm Brian Tichy. ...something that we could live with. I think we've known all along that the money's not necessarily available for a lot of the projects that we discussed along the road. We did have an informational meeting with quite a few of the neighbors from Pheasant Hill and people that have abutting property and we went through, as you've probably seen, a myriad of options. This solution appears to be the least expensive and if not abused, maybe a very good option. Jim VonLorenz: Jim VonLorenz from 5371 Yosemite Avenue. I believe I had something to say about this because I was instrumental in getting those bike paths put on back in the years ago when we started to improve the roadway there. My wife and I do a lot of walking and riding on these streets starting in our ' Yosemite address, plus some of our neighbors do also. I've done it over the years and I have found that the bike paths are very important and they are a safety belt along each side of the road that gives us room to avoid the traffic that we have as we've upgraded these roads. I think that this permit system looks to me like a reasonable solution. When you have a special use, yes, that'd be fine. I think that we need to maintain our bike paths and they are utilized. I just want the council to realize that there's a lot of us that do get out there, once a day at least or couple, 3, 4 times a week get out and use these so it's important that we keep those and don't let them go by the wayside. Councilwoman Dimler: Excuse me Mr. VonLorenz. Did you say you lived on Lake Lucy Road? 17 ' ''(:_qty Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 1 VonLorenz: I live on Yosemite. I live about a block and a half from there. We start our walking from Yosemite and go down to Lake Lucy and then go down to CR 17 and around and come back on Apple Road. Councilwoman Dimler: Does Yosemite have a trail on it? Jim VonLorenz: No we don't. We've got a narrow road and that's probably part 1 of a concern that we have that there is a lot of, that's where we start and the driving on there is more rapid than we like to see it often. In fact we had to dodge a car here the other day my wife and I coming down on Apple Road and it I does happen and it's just nice to have a Lake Lucy Road wide enough and have the bike paths on there on both sides. It gives us the ability to use this road without any fear or concern of having to be dodging vehicles. Either on a bicycle or walking and it's very important that we keep these that we have. Councilwoman Dimler: But you're not affected by the parking lane? Jim VonLorenz: No, no. That isn't a concern. That doesn't bother us. Councilman Johnson: As a matter of fact, he doesn't even have asphalt on Yosemite Road no less a trail. That's one thing we need to look at. Nancy Tichy: I'm Nancy Tichy. The other half of the Tichys. I agree with the parking permit. I think that's a good option. There are service people that have come to our house several times where I've had to push them out. Even if it's not a snowy day. Our driveway still is very icy and people that come to service our area have a difficult time not being able to park on the road. Also, [11 we hold meetings at our home on occasion where we do need people to be able to park on the road and because our driveway does not service that for people so I think the parking permit, if we could get them for certain occasions would be a good option. I also think the option using a bike route is still a good option. Leaving the existing roadway the way it is and we presented this at the last Council meeting. Another option to that might be, and this would require a State variance, but if they auto lanes could be cut back to 11 feet instead of 12 feet? I don't know if that can be done but if it could, it would allow 2-11 foot auto lanes and an 8 foot parking lane and then a 6 foot bike route. Hopkins and Minnetonka have done this on many of their roads. Two roads in particular are Tonkawood Road and Baker Road which are inbetween Minnetonka Blvd. and TH 7. Both of those roads are 36 feet wide and they are both high density roads and they are both classified as collecter roads and they service more than 1,000 cars a day so they're almost identical to Lake Lucy Road and they accommodate the people for parking and just designate it as a bike route. I guess as far as safety, the way the road is designed and the way it's set up, I really can't see a major difference just designating it a bike route instead of a bike lane. I guess I'd like to make one other point regarding the petition that we submitted to the Council. The people who signed the petition basically didn't, I think the whole thing got kind of out of control. All of the elaborate options and costly things. Basically all we wanted was to designate it as a bike route instead of a bike lane. People were getting pretty worried that there would be further encroachments on their property and further assessments and that's not what we wanted so I'd just like to clarify that. Councilman Workman: If I can make a quick point. In talking to Gary today, I think the problem as far as Gary's comments were with a route was, and Gary's 18 1 ms City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 a 7 not looking at me, he's leaving me here, is that a route kind of has to connect to, it has to be part of a connecting trail. We don't have that right now with Galpin and Powers. II 1 Nancy Tichy: You could put route on any of those roads. I think. Gary Warren: What the State had told me, and again we get into this where it's who you talked to it seems, is that in order to put a bike route sign on a road, you have to have a bike trail. In other words, if you have a bike route sign, that on it's own doesn't stand to indicate the trail. So we could put bike route signs out there right now for example. As long as we've got the trail there, it would make sense but if you've got a bike route and you don't have a place for the people to go so they know where is the route, that's where they I/ say it's not compatible. Mayor Chmiel: Excelsior has that bike route. Termed as bike route. Councilman Johnson: Doesn't that connect on through and all the way down to Minneapolis. It's a part of an overall system. Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest that Ursula has come up with a good compromise. I'd like to not make it more complicated. We've got something. We've got a time to try it. We don't have to make any changes other than print ' the cards and I'd like to see us move approval of a special permit parking system for Lake Lucy Road. I Councilman Johnson: Nancy, how many? 6? 5? 10? What kind of number do you think the people? ME 3 Councilman Workman: I think we ought to have staff kind of look into that because do we want to make them transferable? Mayor_ Chmiel: I think individually, each individual one should have to apply 11 for that themselves and that it not be transferable. Councilwoman Dimler: Visitors you mean? Mayor Chmiel: No, no. The residents themselves within the area. Councilman Workman: But if I have 6 permits and gee I'm going to have 12 cars here, I can go over and borrow my neighbors. Mayor Chmiel: That would warrant just a call to the Sheriff's department indicating that you're going to have more than what's there. Those that will have the passes in the windows will be shown but there's going to be 6 more cars or whatever. ' Councilman Johnson: Because you're not going to have somebody come down and say, hey, good I can park here because. Mayor Chmiel: They're very accommodating with it. They really are. Don Ashworth: I need to talk to public safety but I would really like to develop a system, if this is the direction the Council wants to go. Some means 19 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 I by which we can monitor it and at the end of 3 months, 6 months, 1 year we can say, during the course of 1989, x number of permits were issued for an average of whatever so we have some ideas as to the number of vehicles that were out there. I don't really think it makes any difference if on a particular occasion there's 24 permits that were issued to a particular home for a particular activity but I don't think it would be good just to have 6 that would be a yearly thing and you can pass them around and whatever else. I just don't think that will work. Councilwoman Dimler: Except I can foresee a hardship to them if they're planning an event and then they have to come in and apply for 24 permits too. Don Ashworth: The way we'd set it up, it would not be an application. We could 1 set up a process to insure that they could get that permit literally immediately or within a very short notice. But I think we should have way to monitor parking is occurring. I Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that the key here is to make this simple. If staff can work to get a baseline, typical need and issue those permits and then we're done with it. If they need more, you arrange for more. If we have to get into monitoring this continually, it's going to be staff time we don't have. Mayor Chmiel: I think we can work this out with staff and come up with the I easiest system that we possibly can. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want just a motion then with the general theme or are you just going to take what I said earlier? Mayor_ Chmiel: I think basically what you indicated previously. Councilman Boyt: Well we have a motion, if we could get a second to it. Councilman Workman: Who made the motion? I Councilwoman Dimler: I did. Mayor Chmiel: I think Bill made the motion. I Councilman Boyt: Go ahead and make it. Councilwoman Dimler: I presented the whole thing. . . That was a motion by the way. Councilman Boyt: Do you want to restate it? 11 Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would move that the Council would authorize City Staff to issue parking permits to the residents on Lake Lucy Road and stipulations and useage to be determined by City Staff. Is that acceptable? Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to authorize City Staff to issue parking permits to the residents on Lake Lucy Road and stipulations and useage to be determined by City Staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 20 1 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 I/ -- REVIEW MEDIAN CUT PROPOSAL FOR KLINGELHUTZ PROPERTY, 7811 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. Gary War_r_en: Basically Council had asked staff to investigate the curb cut. As crude as this sketch is, and I apologize for that, this is to show the is i. ex t ng construction plans that were approved with the downtown Phase 1 improvement project. North being up. The railroad tracks through here. The Klingelhutz property in this outline form shown here and the medians as proposed in the construction plans for the downtown are darkened in here. The driveway access which is maintained as a part of the downtown improvement project is in this location and also a curb cut here into the municipal parking lot with a drive thru into the driveway access to the Klingelhutz property. We asked BRW to take a look at this to address the concern that Mr. Klingelhutz had expressed to wanting a left turn into the property from southbound West 78th Street. Basically the staff report that you have in your hands shows the four alternates that they have put together and I'll just briefly run through them for you. Again, the Klingelhutz property here. The current driveway access there. This is Alternate 1 which is again, that just shows the current design scenario. Alternate 2 is basically to construct the median with the exception of a curb cut in the median to allow southbound traffic to make a free left. Make the left into the Klingelhutz driveway. It manages obviously to give southbound access to the property without having to come through the City, the public lot. The disadvantages are that you have a left turn movement being made from a through lane which can cause, it's not a protected left turn. The protected left turn being the most safe but conditions such as we have here, as an example, is the safest. So here we have some potential conflicts and also the potential of crossing movements across the northbound lanes in an unanticipated area. Typically when a driver's coming through, he doesn't see your typical intersection configuration which alerts them to crossing traffic. He has to be a little bit more perceptive to kind of notice if there's a car maybe here waiting to cross or, in the worse event, where somebody's going to try to hot foot it through. But it does give the access. It also provides us the median separation consistent with the downtown scenario which is especially important ' at the railroad crossing here where we have crossing arms that need to honor the design for those crossing arms. This also continues with a channelization of traffic coming from the south and north so that we don't have a void in the median scenario. Alternates 3 and actually Alternate 4 are some modifications of that which actually get to be a little bit more wide open scenario. Especially it will probably cause a little more concern. Alternate 3, the whole median has been removed and we would be using a painting scheme basically to mark out the median area which obviously anybody could take any kind of a turning movement through here unrestricted to get into the property. Disadvantages are similar to what I mentioned earlier as far as crossing movements. Also here your left turn lane, especially in the wintertime there would be a lot of adjustment on the part of this left turn here as to really where the left turn lane is, to the point where he could actually encroach out of this area and have some potential conflicts with southbound traffic. So it's a lot more wide open scenario. We do get back to the median section here before we hit the railroad tracks and the crossing here so we do meet that. The final version that was presented is to show specifically what I call suicide lanes almost but it's the left turn scenario for both southbound and northbound traffic. It has a lot of potential I think for congestion between the turning traffic, especially when we have Dinner Theater traffic and the more congested periods. Again reinforcing that this median really needs to be a part of the 21 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 system. All of our alternates really are dealing with this extension of the median. From a safety standpoint, I believe there's no question that Alternate 1, or the current design alternate I should say, is the safest. It provides protected left turn movement for the traffic that we anticipate in here and channelizes that traffic properly to make that movement. No unexpected cutting through the medians. All the movements are at the intersection. Legality wise, I guess the access to the property still meets the legal requirements as far as access to it because he does have right-in/right-out access on the laneage. It's just the left turn movements have been anticipated that if you want to get into the Klingelhutz property, the public parking lot is the location for it. Out of the other alternates, if the median or left turn movement is desired, I guess I would conclude, as did BRW, that the curb cut, Alternate 2 is probably the second best option there because it does provide for definition up here and the left turn, northbound movements at this intersection so we can't get encroachment in the southbound lanes and it does allow traffic to get into the Klingelhutz property from southbound. Recognizing that there are going to be some conflict potentials there depending on the magnitude of traffic and the perception of the northbound drivers. If an alternate such as this were decided on, I think that it should definitely be conditioned on the review depending on warrants and traffic experience. If we for example go ahead with this and end up having lots of conflicts that amount to traffic accidents, I don't think anybody would want to see that continue. Likewise, if a more intense use is planned for this property at sometime in the future, this curb cut should be looked at at that time to evaluate the traffic demands and the impacts on these movements. Mayor Chmiel: Gary, have we checked with the Fire Department for the i accessibility in through the public lot? For instance, with our new engine that we're going to get, is that accessible to that? I see that probably by putting in that new drive with that new cut in between the median would probably give it a little better accessibility into that facility. Gary Warren: I haven't specifically talked with Chief Gregory about it. The turning radius in here, I don't know what the new turning radius is. I think it was like around 50 feet, at least the specs were looking at that. Maybe Jim knows. I would imagine that there will be difficulty although the curbing in here could be mounted by the vehicle to get in and then to make a left turn to get back in here. I'm not a fire fighter. I don't know how close they need to get to this building. They certainly can get to this point to fight that fire. Even with this movement I would imagine with the turning radius, they will have to to up on the curb to make the full turn but I think it's makeable. Councilman Johnson: Go down to Market, come around 79th and come back up if 11 they knew they had to come in that side. Gary Warren: They apparently do, at least in talking with Dale and Mark Littfin, when we were working on the north side parking lot, they do work through in their minds what's the best way to access some of these properties. By necessity they do that so if they know there's a fire call in a certain area, they do have a preferred route which recognizes some of these challenges. I Councilman Johnson: Not only in their mind but they actually sit down and pre-plan. 22 City Council Meeti ng - \;arch 27, 1989 11 — Gary Warren: Right. I know Al is here as we recognized in good health. II Councilman Boyt: Why is the curb in the road there further down, further toward the south on Alternative 2 than it is on Alternative 1? In both of those. That's interesting because on this one, you'll note that it stops right where the curb starts and on your two transparencies it extends into the turn. Do you know what I'm talking about? Gary Warren: No I don't. Councilman Boyt: Okay, up further north. Right there. See where that comes across? It comes across to the second side of your. Oh maybe that's it. The twist is different because as it's lined up on our drawing, it's right even with the northern most side curbing. On your drawing it's definitely not. It's much further down in there. Which one is right? Gary Warren: February '89 is on both of them. Councilman Boyt: Yours doesn't make a lot of sense actually. The way it's lined up there, you'd make it almost impossible for the person trying to go across and take.. . Gary Warren: From here to here? Councilman Boyt: Yes. What about coming out of that lot? Gary Warren: The nose here, the turning radius, maybe the rendition is improper but like any of the other noses that we have, to establish this arc line, the turning radius is established. ' Councilman Boyt: But don't you want the cars to go in that entrance? Why would you put that nose of that all the way down to the south side curb? You have to turn backwards to get in. It's a sharp angle. Gary Warren: It's the extent of.. . Councilman Boyt: On the drawing here it comes out level with the north curb. Mayor Chmi.el: I think your transparency might be off a little bit. The print that we have on Alternate 1 and 2 are consistent. Gary Warren: Wb would actually plot the design standards for that. That's a standard nose and maybe this schematic just doesn't show it accurately. Their emphasis was down here obviously. Al Klingelhutz: I haven't too much of a problem with number 2. I have a big problem with number 1. In the first place, the entrance to the parking lot would not let a semi or a large fire truck get into my lot from either the south or to the north because the driveway is only about 12 feet of blacktop. The problem is showing itself already coming in through the parking lot. For some reason when two trucks went out the access into our property from the parking lot and ruined a sidewalk already and there was four 12 x 12 posts put up through the inside of the sidewalk which was part of the driveway which made it ' another foot narrower. That's a pretty good indication that the width of the 1 23 c71,1-,y Co,.,lc11 .:,?eri,ay - larch 27, 1989 II IIdriveway and the direction of the curb was not very well established pr' the time it was constructed. One of my major reasons for objecting, ` anon to go through the parking lot because of the fact, r having to driveway going into our place turns out towar_d�the uroad eand you've rgot gto�make na II wide turn into our parking lot. The only way south. You know, if you make a perfectly saf we road, you into it is from the intersections. But when you've got a business in a�town,wIuthink youehave to any II leave access to those businesses to make than a viable business. We've got a rather old building on the property which we try to maintain in good historical condition. It isn't saying that that's all that's going to be on that 3/4 acre of land there. Right now the value of the land is far in excess of what land capacity can use as far as a business in Chanhassen. the 11 access away from that property To take a driveway think I have the knowledge to know lwhatpthatawouldedo, would depreciate I value of that land approximately 50%. One P e tte 2 up there. Your concern is about thru trafficthere. have, you've got alternate here. Isn't there some way of just putting a curb cut down vthe ocenter_dofmthisn and leave this as a left turn lane just like you've II left turn this way then. Left turn this way with an obstacle i.nbetweenvto the assure that traffic wouldn't cross over. So there wouldn't be any hazard as far as obstructing all the thru traffic coming south to make this turn in. II Gary Warren: It's quite possible that that could be narrowed up. I think that's what you're suggesting. I think what's shown here was a typical 4 foot II section for your standard barrier median and we could take a look at coming up with a narrower section but it still needs to be I guess somewhat insurmountable if you will, in providing protection. Al Al Klingelhutz: But that would leave your left turn lane away so that the thru traffic, if there was that much traffic, would be a way to save the thru IItraffic. I think there would be sufficient room there for a left turn lane. :Mayor_ Chmiel: Thank you Al. Is there anyone else who would like to discuss the issue? If not we'll bring it back to the Council. Is there any discussion? (A tape change occurred at this point in the meeting.) ting.) Councilman Johnson: That lot was very difficult to design. 11 we went around and around and around on. t This whole section, extremely big issue two years ago when all of thi.s]was lgetting designed. IICouncilman Workman: I guess this is a difficult, this is kind of a sad corner over there. We've got one business kind of going out of business soon up there and I know this is an older building with an older business resident in it, Al IIKlingelhutz. I don't like the idea of shutting him off. I'm more concerned about the intersection to the north with exiting Dinner Theater traffic going north. Taking a left out of there. That's got to be a very high volume situation. In the evening hours after they've had some dinner and a few drinks II and they're coming out of there and that's a dangerous intersection. I think with a median cut for the Klingelhutz property here, and I don't have any II figures to support this but I would assume it's very seldom used. It's not a retail building but more of an office building but to provide the convenience for the Klingelhutz customers with that cut and then review and monitor the situation, just like we've done for the parking permits. II t 24 II Illsmemmilmimm / City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 T— Councilman Boyt: I would propose that it's going to be, it's awfully difficult to crystal ball this. I remember all the times over the last couple years that Al has come in here to champion somebody elses cause and done a very effective job of it usually. When I look at this situation I imagine what's going to happen when we encourage people look at a second access into the public parking lot by putting that turn there. Maybe they see a few cars backed up ready to make a left hand turn through what's now the entrance, Alternative 1. Say well I'm not going to wait there. I'll just go down to the Klingelhutz turnoff and come in that way. I'm a little concerned. I agree when Tom says we may not be generating very much traffic, or at least not a high volume of traffic into the Klingelhutz Realty. Maybe that's not the big draw. Maybe the big draw is the public parking lot. Especially as the city develops further. I just wonder how we want to control access. We've got what BRW, and everybody knows they're not my favorite engineering firm, has told us is the best traffic flow, safest design. We've got the engineer who says that to go with any other alternative is to compromise that safety and we've got a business owner who I think legitimately points out that this certainly does restrict flow back to your business to some degree. I have no way of even guessing what people's preference would be. People may prefer to take the guaranteed left turn lane and turn into a wider opening than try to go through a cut in the middle of a median strip when they know there's thru traffic backing up behind them. I have ' no idea. My inclination on this Al is to hang in here with the engineer. I'm willing to hear more about it but I'm a little wary of creating a situation that I think might draw more traffic than we want going through that route. 11i Councilman Workman: Could we shut off the south entrance to that public parking lot? Gary Warren: The main reason that that access is there, was access to the Klingelhutz. I guess that would be something for Al to comment on. If you're provided with a left turn, southbound access of the property, what kind of impact does that have on it? How necessary is that connection to the parking lot to the property? Councilman Workman: There's a pile of dead shrubs in downtown that you could probably transplant there. Al Klingelhutz: It really doesn't do much for any access out of there. I know ' beer trucks have tried to make it and driven on the sidewalk and cracked the sidewalk. Most of them put in on both sides and I guess it's impossible for even a truck to get... Mayor Chmiel: I guess I look at that alternative aspect of it as to what Gary has indicated in here about the next best alternative would be Alternate 2, opening in the median and I think that would be in agreement basically with Al as well. This option would be conditioned however as a temporary median cut conditioned on a re-evaluation to land use intensified on the Klingelhutz propety and/or_ traffic accidents or safety considerations warrant a change. I think that's something that we have to look at is from the safety aspects of the people as well. I would have no problem in going with that Alternative 2 myself. 25 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I would have a big problem it personally. I hate to say it but being a victim of a rear end accident and leaving with the back injury day by day on that, that's inviting a rear end. Not having a protected left turn. This reminds me a lot of the TH 7 and Oriole Lane, which is what I was going to bring up to Council on Council presentation. It could be a protected left turn if they'd ever get the painting down the road and the signs up, but we've got a situation there where we've got a lot higher speeds but here, I just can't see it. We've got access. He's got two accesses coming in. He's got more access than we're planning for the medical center. The medical center is a far higher useage here. If you're going to put plantings in that one median cut there, they better just be the little short stuff because.. . Mayor Cbmiel: Ground cover. I Councilman Johnson: Yes, ground cover. We've got some planting problems already but in an unprotected left turn situation, you're not going to want to stay sitting out in the middle of the traffic waiting to take a left turn. You're going to take the small opening and that's dangerous. I feel we've given southbound, he's got two different access ways. Northbound he's got two ways to get in there. One before, one after. Southbound he's got one before. That's I more than a lot of other properties downtown. I also feel that if we do anything special, causing the city to incur extra money on this, that those monies should be assessed back to the benefiting property owner, which is only , one in this case. So any cost incurred here, if we do vote for something, that incurs more engineering or other changes, other than correcting, if he's got an existing problem that has to be corrected that we're ruining some existing 11 stuff, that's different. But I know that we've already got the final plans and specs written on this so we're going to have to rewrite the final plans and specs which is going to cost a couple thousand bucks. I don't think I'm willing to pay our taxpayers money for this without it being assessed back to the 11 benfiting property owner. Al Klingelhutz: I wish some people would have been concerned about our 11 taxpayers money a year or so ago when they put in main street with two single lanes. Taking out a piece of concrete costs less money than leaving one in. I can't quite understand your thinking on that one Jay. Councilman Johnson: There's not significantly less concrete going to be put in there. Al Klingelhutz: All you would be doing is leaving out maybe a 12 or 16 feet I stretch of concrete that they wouldn't have to put in. Councilman Johnson: And then putting in two additional curb sections that you I wouldn't have to put in otherwise which are more expensive than street sections. Al Klingelhutz: Where's the curb sections going? 1 Councilman Johnson: Around the ends. Al Klingelhutz: Well you'd have to put on the end anyway. , Councilman Johnson: Now you've got four ends instead of two. But it really doesn' t matter. If there's no additional cost, it won't be assessed. 26 1 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 -� Al Klingelhutz: Have you taken a look at the driveway that they've put into our property? I'd like to have you meet me coming into that driveway. It's actually a one lane driveway. Councilman Johnson: Maybe that's the problem. If we have poorly designed that ' existing driveway, that driveway needs to be. .. Al Klingelhutz: You're talking about costs of designing Jay. Take a look at what you did there. A truck coming out drives over the sidewalk and the City has to put in 12 x 12 posts in order to keep the truck from driving on the sidewalk. ' Councilman Johnson: Now that's on your south side driveway? Al Klingelhutz: That's on the south side and they put a couple of them on the north side. I think I talked to Don about that last fall. Then he puts up a sign that completely hides my sign. There's absolutely no place for me to put up a sign for my real estate office. It's all hidden by brush and trees and the City of Chanhassen. ..sign. Now don't tell me you didn't hurt my property when you did all these things. Now you want to take my access away. An access going through somebody elses parking lot. It just don't add up at all. It seems the long time landowner and business owner in Chanhassen has been getting the shaft and the new ones are being kissed. I think I've heard that from a dozen different old time businesses in Chanhassen. Why is Pauly's closing? Leaving an opening there, maybe it's my butt that I'll get rear end but I'm not afraid of that but I think if you just put in a center abutment between those two, you'd have a left turn lane as good as you have for the Bloomberg properties. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd just like to make a corinent and Al hit upon it. I would like to say that earlier that we are hearing now a lot about safety concerns and I think certainly safety is a top priority but when the intersection there, just north of there was built and I thought too, my gosh this looks unsafe. This looks terrible and now it probably isn't as bad as I feared it would be. How many accidents have there actually been? I'm sure there's been some but is it really as bad as some of us feared it would be? So I think maybe in this case here we're now starting to react in fear of being rear ended when in fact the danger isn't as big as we're making it. So I would go and support Alternative 2 because I also believe that when we do new development we should take the concerns of the citizens into consideration. 1 That's one of my main points. If we can make it easier for even just one citizen that has been there a long time and that has run a respectable business, then we aught to do that. 11 Councilman Boyt: I guess I will respond. BRW designed the corner of TH 101 and Great Plains and we've lived with the results of that. They've come in here, and it looks to me like the problem is the island. The problem is the shortage of parking. That's why we put the island in there, I gather. The island makes it hard to access from the north side of the parking lot. It prevents people from coming in and driving over to the real estate building. Why should we 'Icompromise safety to protect parking. We need to do something with the parking lot apparently. Maybe we redesign it. Maybe we lose some parking spots but I'd rather do that than encourage people to make an unprotected left turn when we've I/ got protected left turns throughout the city. Now we're going to have a 27 ME Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 I unprotected left turn. Why start that? Why not just design the parking lot so people can access the realty building? If that's going to be our priority, let's do it that way. Councilwoman Dimler: Bill, were you on the Council when they approved that intersection on TH 101? Councilman Boyt: Ursula, we don't have enough time to talk about that. Councilwoman Dimler: Did you approve that though? I Councilman Boyt: The HRA approved that intersection. Councilwoman Dimler: Did it ever come to Council? , Councilman Boyt: It came to Council for comment. Council made comment. The Council raised questions about, do you think that's going to be safe? Do you think people are going to be able to drive through there? But that was built with HRA money by the way. Al Klingelhutz: It's our money too. 1 Councilman Boyt: It's your money because you're part of that tax increment district and I don't think we want to get off on that topic but if we do, we can spend the afternoon discussing it. Councilwoman Dimler: That's right but I'm just saying, you're concerned about , safety and we should have been all along. Councilman Johnson: That was one of our biggest discussions on the entire downtown was that intersection and would that intersection work. Can we take a Eire truck through it? All that kind of stuff. Same kind of discussion we're having on this. Councilman Workman: Why don't we ask Al if Bill Boyt's comment about pulling that median and rearranging that parking lot is a viable option and we can go From there. I Al Klingelhutz: I think it's a more costly option than just putting in a narrow center island down the road and leaving the left turn lane into my property. I forgot to make this comment. The total center island project on TH 101 and the four lanes across the railroad tracks, down TH 5 was proposed 3 years ago, 2 1/2 years ago. When TH 101 was supposed to be located at it's present site and not moved over to Market Blvd.. I think that could have a big effect in traffic generated coming into town when the future main entrance into Chanhassen is going to be from TH 101 over onto Market Blvd.. Would we even need a four lane if there's not going to be a TH 101 south of TH 5 where it is at the present time? We talk about if it was designed for the traffic coming into town when TH 101 south was supposed to stay exactly where it is and be the main entrance into the downtown. That has been changed within the last year and was replaced over to Market Blvd.. That's going to be the main entrance into downtown. Are you going to have four lanes there and four lanes here? Four lanes are nice but someday in the future it's going to be very important. Another thing, on our piece of land, if ever the old building goes, I guess I wouldn't have any 28 1 ../(7 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 problem moving our parking lot to the north side of our land along side of the IIcemetery and including it with the parking lot that's already there. But at the present time it doesn't work that way. The building is setting on the wrong place for that. I think Don and I discussed this a year and a half ago. Why don't you build a new building and move it to the south and make more parking to the north? It would help the businesses that are there now and it would be parking for our place. The building is where it is now and I'd sure like to keep a complete approach to it. Mayor Chmiel: I think it's time to call a question on this. ' Councilman Boyt: I would make a motion that we send the parking lot design to the City Engineer to try to come up with a proposal that would make more direct access to Mr_. Klingelhutz' property. Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. Councilman Workman: Gary, when's this median got to be approved? ' Gary War_r_en: This spring is when we would anticipate putting it in. As soon as the railroad gets their act together. I had a call from them today in response to my phone call but I haven't made contact with them to find out if they're still honoring their second quarter construction schedule for that intersection. Once that work is done, then we could come in and finish up our median. So I would think in reality we're probably 2 to 3 months yet away. ICouncilman Johnson: Did they say if they were still were oin to hit the second quarter? g 9 Gary Warren: We passed messages so I'm going to try them again tomorrow. Relating to the median in the parking lot, if you recall, sometimes these things go through subtly but the trash collectors are not located in the median. That was the result of considerable negotiations and discussion with the Kallsted property and the rest of the businesses there. They Pony, Pauly's, Pryzmus and we were hard press to locate that trash collector and that was the alternate that we came up with so it's not only just the transportation access issue, we're going to be looking for another trash location which has already been difficult to find in that area. Councilman Johnson: I think if you lose one parking spot in that parking area, you're ;oi.ng to have all those businessmen in that building plus the. ..sayi.•1,,i where's our parking going because that was one of the other real hot issues in the design of downtown was that parking lot and how we can maximize parking in that. Put the church and old City Hall at an angle and whatever to get us more parking in there, which I've gotten used to after all these years. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my question is, does it really, is further study going to come up with any solutions or is it about time that we move on this? I like the idea of Alternate 2 with the attachment there that we will study it as it's being used and if there are any problems, that we will then correct them. And that's really even better than what we've got for the intersection up north of there. We don't even have that we can correct the problems on that one. 1 ' 29 _-a ijty Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 1 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to send the parking lot design to the City Engineer to try to come up with a proposal that would make more direct access to Mr. Klingelhutz' property. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor_; Mayor_ Chmi.el, Councilman Workman and Councilwoman Dimler i voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Mayor Chmiel: I'll entertain another motion. I Councilman Johnson: Co you know what the cost? If this turns out to where we decide then to close this, do you know what that cost is going to be? I Mayor Chmi.el: Who says we're ever going to have to close it though? Councilwoman Di.mler: That's right. We'll deal with that when it comes along. , Councilman Boyt: I assure you that it's going to be next to impossible to close it once you open it up. , Councilman Johnson: That's right. No matter what your study says. Your study could say we're killing people every other day and it's going to be tough to close it. If somebody does die there, we'll probably get it closed but at great expense to the citizens of Chanhassen. I don't know if HRA, would that be under HRA then to make that closing or does that come back against the general populace? Don Ashworth: How far into the future? The HRA does have a closing off period of time. Generally, once something is put in and it turns back to general 1 1 maintenance and that's exactly it. It becomes general maintenance of the City. Councilman Johnson: Let's say it's probably 1 or 2 years. Don Ashworth: 1 or 2 years, the project y project i.s still open and still occurring, it could be paid out over as long as the project stays open. Usually a project does not stay open longer than a 3 year period. Given the size of this project, it probably will be open 4 years. Councilman Workman: Are we discussing the cost that it might cost to build a cap there someday? Councilman Johnson: Yes, because that was part of the study to see if, to put it in and then study it to see if it was the right idea of put it in. Then if it's not, _hen you take that action and correct it. I'm saying, we have to look not only at today's cost but we're responsible for all the money. We're gambling that we're not going to spend taxpayers money 3 years down the road for this project if we put this in now. Councilman Workman: What is that, about a 12 foot median? I don't think that's that big of a deal. Gary Warren: 6 maybe. Councilwoman Di.mler: I would be in favor of crossing that bridge when we get to , it. I would make the motion that we accept Alternate 2. 30 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1929 Councilman Workman: What would be the estimated cost on that? On filling in the median? II Mayor Chmiel: I think it would be minimal. Gary Warren: Less than $10,000.00. Councilman Johnson: That's minimal. $10,000.00. Councilman Boyt: I have a question Don on funding of this road surface. How is this paid for? Don Ashworth: This was assessed back to abutting property owners. The roadway itself was assessed back on a front foot basis. Landscaping. A certain portion of the costs were paid by HRA. Generally the roadway itself was assessed back to abutting property owners on a per lineal foot basis. Councilman Johnson: And that's already been assessed? Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Boyt: So this is a city project? The roadway? Okay. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to make a motion that we accept Alternative 2 with the option that we study it, re-evaluate it and at that time make any I ; changes necessary. Mayor Chmiel: I'll second that. ' Councilman Workman: I guess I would just amend it to say, just approve it as it sits with number 2. I think it goes without saying that we'd monitor anv situation in the city. ' Mayor Chmiel: I think that probably should be in there too then just to clarify it. Councilman Boyt: There has to be a better plan than the one in front of us. We don't want traffic stopping in a traffic lane. ' Gary War_r_en: If I could suggest following through on the discussion that Al had presented here, we would take a look to see if we can not get a left turn in that median and shrink it down as a part of that action which would, I think ' address everybody's concern for the rear ending situation. If possible we will do that. Also, I think that it is important that the motion call it a temporary cut if you will with the caveats that we've commented here on. Intensi.fi.ed land use and such. If there's a site plan that comes in, if the Council wants to look at leverage for being able to work, if that needs to be closed off as a part of a site plan review process, that could be a condition of the developers to do that and possibly to even pay for that closing. One other thing that Al had commented on that I also think might make sense here. If Al is agracable to t closing off that access from the public parking lot, it's probably a way to get two more parking spaces in the parking lot. 31 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 1 have a couple of months. If we included Mayor Chmi.el. You indicated we still have couple ; that in with the balance of the motion? 1 II Councilman Johnson: Are you going to call this temporary too? In your motion so you don't handcuff the future? Mayor Chmiel: I think we should. ' Councilwoman Dimler: That's fine with me. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to accept Alternative 2 with the option that we study it, re-evaluate it and at that time make any changes necessary. Councilwoman Dimler, Councilman Workman and Mayor Chmiel voted in favor. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to state, according to our procedures, I don't believe it's a safe design. That's the reason for my negative vote on this. APPROVAL OF 1989/90 LIQUOR LICENSES. Don Ashworth: City Council previously established the license fees. You have attached the person who have applied for the specific licenses and the amount of II such for each using the new fee schedule. All applicants have submitted all of the information required under the ordinance and we have verified that it is in conformance. The only applicant who is not really aware of the procedures and what was required was the Anh Le Restaurant and as of today Karen tells me that his application is nearly complete. Approval of the licenses as listed is recommended. approve the following Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to ,,p the g liquor licenses for 1989/90: RIVIERA CLUB, INC. - On-Sale Intoxicating, Sunday Sales BLOOMBERG COMPANIES - On-Sale Intoxicating, Sunday Sales KALLSTED ENTERPRISES - On-Sale Intoxicating, Sunday Sales PAULY'S I"_.C. - On-Sale Intoxicating, Sunday Sales CHANHASSEN BOWL, INC. - On-Sale Intoxicating, Sunday Sales CHANHASSEN LEGION POST - Club License, Sunday Sales MGM LIQUOR WAREHOUSE - Off-Sale Intoxi_cati.ng KENNY'S SUPERMARKET - Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating SUPERAMERICA - Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES - Off-Sale Non-Intoxi.cati.ng BROOK'S SUPERETTE - Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating BLUFF CREEK GOLF ASSOCIATION - On-Sale Non-Intoxicating ANH LE RESTAURANT - Beer and Wine License ST. HUBERT'S CHURCH - Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating All voted in favor and the motion carried. 32 , Es ' City Council Meeting - `March 27, 1989 i APPEAL DECISION OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR FRONT, SIDE, AND PEAR YARD VARIANCE REQUESTS, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HIDDEN VALLEY, BLUE CIRCLE INVESTMENT COMPANY. Steve Hanson: Mr. Mayor, this item was presented before the Board of ' Adjustments and was unanimously denied by them and the applicant has appealed their decision to you for your determination. The Board of Adjustments made three findings in their denial. First, that the present setback requirements severely limit the development of the parcel. However, the variances do allow uses exceeding what was anticipated on the approved site plan are inappropriate. Second, the variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Third, circumstances are self-imposed hardship due to the size of the building being proposed for the site. Since that review by the Board of Adjustments, the applicants have submitted a revised plan which basically has eliminated some of the parking spaces and reduce the size of one of those spaces down to a compact car size. The applicants also had submitted some information at the Board of Adjustment hearing. Specifically it was a brochure describing the facility and in that it notes that the facility is designed to accommodate approximately 100 children and 20 staff members and staff went back and re-evaluated the parking. Initially when we had met with the applicants, we had indicated that the 21 spaces they had shown before were adequate for the facility but my recollection is there was no mention as far as the number of children or staff members. After the Board of Adjustment meeting and before your consideration tonight, I went and looked at previous day care facilities that the City has approved and the parking that has been r_equir_ed on those and that was 1 space for every 6 children plus 1 for employee which in this case would work out to a total of 37 spaces. The revised plan that the applicants have submitted does remove any parking space itself from the 25 foot setback but does not eliminate some of the access drive to service some of those spaces from that 25 foot setback. The 25 foot setback is a setback that was in place prior to the present zoning. It was a setback that was in place when they initially site planned the property. The reason that staff has brought up the ' 25 foot setback is we have looked at that as a way of a compromise to allow the development on this particular parcel. I'd like to go over a graphic quickly with you that includes the property. This is the portion that's in question tonight. This is part of the property that's already developed with this proposed strip center in here. The area shown in orange is the daycare facility that they're proposing. The brown area is a parking that they're showing as the 18 spaces for the center. This red line is the present zoning .r_equirements for ' setbacks. What their proposes encroaches on all setbacks that apply to this particular property. The dashed line along the front is the 25 foot setback that was in place when their site plan was approved. The zoning was subsequently changed roughly 4 to 6 months I believe after their site plan was approved after the city had been working through that. The problem staff has, if it were agreeable that this would be appropriate for them to go out to that 25 foot setback, where staff has a problem is in this particular area right here. This access is provided to access approximately 4 parking stalls in this area and that access is within that easement. Parking within that setback area, staff does not feel that is appropriate. Does not meet the intent of what staff had intended. Lastly on here, the green area outlined is the playground facility to serve the daycare area. Also within your packet are referral comments from some of the agencies that we did send this out to and although we're not looking at site plan approval, I think it's appropriate for me to look at some of that information. One of those was a letter from engineering 33 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 regarding the site visibility problem that may exist at the entrance. That's due to some of the berming on the existing approved area. Staff looked at that and I think maybe was a little concerned that the fence kind of compounds that problem even though there's a chain linked fence. The angle of it is going to.. .and I think really that's a site planning issue as opposed to part of the variance we're looking at tonight. Staff is recommending that Council confirm the Board of Adjustment and Appeal's decision to deny the variance and based on the following findings. That the granting of a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Number 2, circumstances are self-imposed hardship due to the size of the building being proposed for the lot. Three, while the zoning requirements have changed, the proposal does not comply with the previous zoning requirements. Number 4, the present setbacks limit the development of this parcel. However, the proposed variances will allow useage exceeding what was anticipated on the approved site plan are inappropriate. That would conclude my remarks at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I see that you're standing and ready to come forward. , Pat Hallisey: I'm Pat Hallisey. I'm a partner in Blue Circle Investment Company. We're the owners of the property. Before I get into this issue in depth this evening, I just want to explain that we've had a little bit of confusion in our minds regarding what actually is a parking situation and what is the code and what we're expected to meet. Up until today at approximately 1:30 when I opened my mail was the first time that I was aware that there was any kind of a parking situation for daycares in the city of Chanhassen. The 21 number was not any magic number. We went back and designed the site plan that we submitted to you at this point in time feeling there was no code for the city of Chanhassen for daycare centers. That's the only thing we'd been told until I _ received the staff report in the mail today. I do have somebody here this evening that I would like to have address it. I do have some more further in depth information from the people that would be utilizing the property. They could not on short notice get here this evening but I did have a short meeting and visited with them this afternoon about their parking requirements and how they see it. I'd like to introduce Mr. Gene Peterson and while he's visiting with you, I'd like to give you each a coloring rendering of our site which does show fairly graphicly the green areas, the parking areas and the building outlined in color so you can review it and you can see that we really do have a tremendous amount of green and not very much asphalt on this very difficult site to work with. Gene Peterson: Gentlemen, my name is Gene Peterson. I'm one of the owners. I sit in a u Zi.que situation. I probably am the pioneer of the daycare of the Twin City metro area. About 75% of the major daycares built in the Twin City metro , area, I either built or own right now and I've been sitting here, and we own several of them, and taking the parking issue momentarily now. I've gone through it and to date you've got an interesting deal. Not only do I do them here. I do them in California. I do them in Colorado. I do them on the east coast and yet, if you could figure out an answer on what a daycare needs, anywhere in the United States, they have not established yet the daycare. You've got the argument of backup. You've got the argument of this. If you were to basically, and we have done extensive research and I don't care what time of the day you go to one of the major daycares in the Twin City metro area, where you've concerned, if there's over 8 or 10 cars there, that's a lot. What nobody understands about the daycare, the most beautiful part time profession 34 11 City Council Neeti na - 'larch 27, 1989 • out is being a daycare instructor. So while they look at a potential of about 20 people working for them, they stagger them so there is very seldom that there is over that many cars there. And I'm not trying to sell you on it. I'm just Itrying to give you facts from doing them over the course of the years. I started out, it used to be 12. I think the most that I've put to date in a daycare, and you could call me a liar on this, is 23 I think is the most that ' I've ever done. And the funny part of it is the one with the 23 has probably the least cars there. We built one on 44th and Drew right off from 50th and France. It's got 12 parking spots on it. They've got a city parking spot right next door to it that they could use. They don't even use the 12 parking spots on 40th and Drew. These are all the same sized daycare center. So the thing I'm just trying to bring out is your city planner has no choice but by virtue of the way that your codes and such are written to, and your Board of ' Adjustment, to basically turn this down. It's a problem that the daycares have to come most of the time for a variance or special use permit because nobody yet has established it. Something that I think that you should give serious thought ' as to this decision. Why are we here asking you for the variation when there is still open land here? One of the biggest problems that's happened in the daycare, and if any of you have children in the daycare, is the costs are ' spiraling daily. It is a never ending battle. I think when I started out and my son had his first child in it, it was $47.00 a week. Maybe it was even less than that and the baby, a 6 month old baby I think at that time was $65.00 and I believe today, if I'm not mistaken, it's over $100.00. We took a look in Chanhassen. Chanhassen is definite, really needs daycare out here and everybody's crying for it. One of the things that we try to do before we do the daycares is we will go into a neighborhood and ask if there's anybody against ' it. I understand and I'm gone a lot so I don't get in always on the daycare. I happen to be in town now and I was asked to come out to this meeting. We'll go into a neighborhood and first of all see if there's any of the neighbors that ' are against having the daycare. I understand that a petition was put out to everybody in the neighborhood is there. Another thing that a daycare does, in Minnesota, I don' t know, you may not be aware of this. One of the toughest daycare regulations in the United States is Minnesota. Minnesota is so far ' ahead. If you really want a sick deal, go down to Texas. They don't even have any parking codes or anything on it. I understand your planner originally come from Denver. Look at the changes that have taken place in Colorado just because ' of some of the problems. I've done quite a few of the daycares in Denver, I understood and I may stand to be corrected on that. But I have been a consultant for several years for Children's World who have just, and I've built most all but about 3 of the Children's World here and we own all of them here. ' We also built several of the Daybridge and as you may not be aware of it, Daybridge bought out Children's World. I brought 'Cinder_-Care in here and built the first 10 Kinder-Cares and did several of the Kinder-Cares. So I've had the opportunity many times to be in here on variances. What we're looking at is, we went on this piece of land because of the location. Because of the cost and it was our feeling with the green area and the consensus of the people there, that it was worth coming in asking for the variance. The concern of the parking, I can appreciate in looking at the codes and as I say, if you can find anywhere in the country where they are. I just finished coming back from San Diego County, doing some in San Diego County and the same situation come up about parking out there. The average daycare out there, and I think California is probably some of the toughest place in the United States for zoning on it, we are putting in anywhere from 18 to 23 for the same identical sized daycare. It's not a ��— problem. Take my word for it. I can verify everything I'm telling you here 35 I m -_CAy Counci 1 .leeting - '.arch 27, 1989 1 from ownership. From taking you and showing them to you if you had the time. r- I'm not trying to sell you on the parking. I understand where your planner is coming from a variance. The reason we went in there, because of a zoning change that was unique. It makes the piece of land a little bit difficult. I think if you take a look at the green area that your fellow gave you, you will look at it, that we have extensive. I think it's an asset to your area. We're looking at about a three quarter of a million dollar project. We're looking at II potential of jobs of anywhere from 15 to 20 jobs. We're going to build a daycare somewhere in Chanhassen if you don't do it here. Our approach that we looked at here was, that we felt it was an asset. We did not feel that it was a II detriment to your city. We felt that the variance, with the green area and everything it more than off set it and that's why we're in here asking you to give us the variance. The parking problem, I can understand where that came from. I only tell you this from my experience. If you will bear along with II us, I could verify everything I'm saying on the parking. We would like to have you offer us the variances so that we can proceed. We are ready. If you approved it, we would start construction tomorrow. There's that much demand in Chanhassen for a daycare. The difference in cost to look at, we looked at 3 different sites here. We are looking at almost half the price of this land versus another 2 pieces of land here in Chanhassen. Land is not too cheap in II Chanhassen. It's a fine suburb on it and it is a very growing one. That's why we're in here. If you can understand by this variance that you could possibly be saving the opportunity, and I can't promise this because there are other II costs that are coming, but the difference in that land cost could be as much as $10.00 a week in the future as to daycare costs. There are other costs coming up stronger contingent. As you know, New Horizons has a very fine name as far as the quality of their care, if I think that you did that research. We're ill asking you for something that's probably difficult but I think with the green i area that we're putting in, and I think I can verify to your planner's satisfaction by taking the time and showing him at different times or any one of you, that the parking is not a problem. Thank you for your time. If you have II any questions, I'll try to answer anything that you have. I don't have all the answers. I have a lot of them from 14 years in hare but I'm still old enough to still learn something too so if I could be of any help, I'd be glad to. I II understand that one of the residents, if I'm correct, is here that they did check with and I would like to have him give you the opportunity to find out what the reaction right around there from the residents are too. I Uli Sacchet: Good evening. My name is Uli. Sacchet. I live at 8071 Hidden Circle in Brookhill development which is immediately adjacent to where this project is proposed for. When I first heard about this proposal of the daycare II center, I was very e' cited about it. I'm sure that you're aware there's a ne.a neighborhood there. I've never seen a neighborhood with so many little children. It's unique. It's very special. And I took it upon me to check with II some of the people that live there. I went around talking to people and collected some signatures which I would assume that you've seen that. It's not excessively many. It's about 30 or 40 signatures. Basically I almost felt I silly going around getting signatures for this sort of a purpose. It seems such a clear issue. People were so enthused about this sort of thing coming so close to where they live. They were more interested to hear about how they can sign up, to reserve themselves space or several spaces in that daycare than they were interested to hear and look at the blueprint that there was a situation with I: variances. I personally feel relatively confident, having put some effort into supporting this proposal even though I'm not an expert in- variances and your 36 1 am City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 building codes and all that, but i t is my understanding that this proposal basically complies with what setback requirements were at the time like when I : that shopping center was put in place and that there were some changes of the rules. I don't know to what extent that's true. That part I have to leave up to you but I do like to make a point that as far as the close by residents, the neighbors of that neighborhood, it's very unanimous stand of support and it would have been easy to get more signatures but it was really not necessary. I think the point is very clear and that's all I'd like to say here and hope that ' you can support that proposal from the technical aspect as well. Thank you for your attention. Gene Peterson: I have with me, if you would like to see actual site plans of ' about 6 or 8 different daycares. One of them on 494 and Fish Lake in Maple Grove which we just opened about in the last 6 months on it. That has, I think it has 16 parking spots on it. So rather than take your time, because of the ' time element here, if you would like to look at them, to verify what I was saying about the parking on ones that are either new or have been open. I' open for questions. Fire at me if you need any. Pat Hallisey: I'd like to address in a little more depth the issue of parking. This afternoon, as I said, I visited with the President of New Horizons daycare centers and the planner is correct. There was a brochure given out that said there was up to 20 employees and up to 100 children in this facility running at 100% maximum occupancy. That does not mean that they're all there at any one given point in time. Their requirements, their maximum staffing requirements at any one point in time, absolute maximum is 12, more likely 10. This is at midday maximum staff parking requirements. And these are absolute maximums. This is at the midday when the people are not coming and leaving the children or picking them up. The staff parking during the 7:30 to 9:30 and 4:00 to 6:00, when the great majority of the children are coming in and leaving, are 7 to 8 staff people. This is due to the staggered arrival and departure of the staff as the numbers of children in the facility increases and decreases. The maximum trips for pick up and drop off generated by a facility of this size runs between 20 and 25 trips per hour. The average length of stay within the daycare for drop off and pick up is 6 minutes. If we expanded that 6 minutes to a 15 minute ' stay, that would mean that each parking stall is capable of handling 4 trips per hour. If we have 18 stalls, 8 staff at the time when the kids are coming and going, we still have 10 stalls for the parents to use to bring their kids in and out. If they're there for 15 minutes more than twice what they find operationally is the average length of stay, we can accomodate 40 trips per hour when 20 `a 25 is the normal. So we don't feel that the 18 parking stalls is a problem. As I said earlier, we didn't know that the number of parking stalls was going to be an issue until this afternoon when I received the mail. But we've done what we can to try and address that concern in your mind. I have done one other thing in order to try and give you an option, and this is a little crude because it was done fairly rapidly but the staff had at one time supported 21 parking stalls. What I've done is I've taken that site plan and I've outlined the green area there and if you want the 21 cars, really what we're asking for in a variance is this area in yellow here in order to get 21 cars in there. This being a small portion, approximately a half of that parking stall, a quarter_ of that one and drive access to this. With 13 stalls, what we're really asking you for, and we didn't know there was an interpretation that the driveway to a parking stall is considered part of a parking lot. This area ' right here is what you're talking about as far as being outside the setback. • 37 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 I That's only if staff's interpretation of the code is correct. That that driveway access is part of the parking lot. I'm not here to dispute the staff's interpretation. I've not seen your code, but we were not apprised of it until once again we saw the staff report at 2:00 this afternoon. I guess we feel, and I've tried to point out to you in my letter to you, that the denial does reek a tremendous economic hardship on us. We tried to show you that without variances, we can build an 1,850 square foot building on this lot. Totally. The plan is contained in your staff packet. It's totally, economically unfeasible. That's a hardship that was imposed on us by a zoning change. We had absolutely nothing to do with it. I've tried to point out, to give some credence to that, that the normal economic guide for land planning is 4 square feet of land for each square foot of building. There is something in your prior codes that substantiates that. That is your prior code. Your present code has no requirement as to the amount of building coverage on a site. Your prior code said not more than 25% of the site can contain building. That matches what I just told you. Exactly. Once you start exceeding that, you have gone past I the bounds of economic reality. If we're to build on this property with without a variance, we have exceeded that ratio by 79%. The upper ends of the economic ratio. I don't think that's fair. We have come to you with what we feel is a very, very clean use. It does need a variance. We feel that no matter what we build on this property we're going to need a variance. We have tried to bring to you a very clean use. One that has strong neighborhood support and one that can be implemented now. As I say, it does need a variance. Whatever we build is going to need a variance. I guess I would like the opportunity, as I said in my letter to you, to respond to any questions or concerns that you may have because this is an issue. Mr. Peterson brought up a point and before I close, he said that he had looked at 3 sites in the city of Chanhassen and that he could buy this site for half price and that was going to reflect in the potential of a lowered cost to the people in the community. Well there's a reason he's buying it for half price. It's not because I love to give land away at half cost. As I pointed out in my letter and as I stood before present council, we're fighting for something here. We're fighting for our economic life in our shopping center next door and we've told the past council here that we're willing to do what we can to avoid future problems with the City of Chanhassen. Mr. Peterson just told you, he's getting land for half price. I think that's pretty good concession and indication that we come here in good faith trying to work with the City of Chanhassen and give you a good, clean use that the community needs and supports. If anybody has any questions of myself or Mr_. Peterson, we' ll be happy to answer them. Gene Peterson: I have only one thing to say. As the owner, the buyer_. ..and that is t:i.s. I've told you what the variance and why I felt when I came in here. I appreciate there's some problems with your land and your variance. I just want to say this, that I can understand, having been a planner which I was many moons ago, they had no choice but to come up with a way. I think that you have listened to a hardship from people who own the land. Selfishly, yes we can come in with a lower program because of the price. I think the deicision you have to make is not whether your planner is right or wrong. Not if your zoning is right or wrong. Is by issuing this variance are you going to be haunted down the way or is this good for Chanhassen? That's what I'm asking as the variance tonight as the owner. We don' t build them and spec them. We end up owning them. The chances are, and you can say fine, that's easy. We own them and keep them. We will be the owner for sometime on it. We will- become a part of. . .as one of the owners. So we're looking at it far deeper. What my concern is, I 38 , City Counci 1 Meeting - 'Sar_n 27, L999 II — don't want it to become an issue between you and the land. People came to us and said we will do this and we're at the opportunity to take advantage of the price but you, probably many of you that are sitting there, have children in Idaycare. We've got to live with you afterwards for a long time and it's tough enough at $75.00-$85.00 a week for kids today no matter what you have if you're dual parents, to turn around and keep that price down. I only say that so you understand where we come from as owners of the daycare.. . Councilman Johnson: While from the discussions thus far it seems like there's ' minimal variances here, under the existing ordinances, this would be probably the largest set of variances ever passed in this city. Under_ the old ordinance, it is minimal variance. The question comes up, who designed this lot? Pat, you're the owner of Blue Circle. Blue Circle subdivided the lot. You made the lot. Now we need massive zoning changes under the existing ordinance. It's a hardship that the zoning changed but I think when a lot is designed under a given ordinance, whatever goes onto that lot should match that ordinance. You ' will find that a parking lot is considered a structure by City Ordinance and a structure can not be put within the setback. Sidewalks are a structure unless it's a public sidewalk in the public right-of-way so we've got two sections on this existing drawing. You notice I folded the drawing. The green area that's ' the City's property, is going to stay green no matter what happens to it except for the sidewalk that's in there that's not shown. But the other thing I'm wondering, because we've got this nice green area shown here, is the playground ' going to be grass and dirt or is the playground going to be some kind of play surface? Gene Peterson: It is all lawn and where each piece of equipment is, it's ' squared around with sand underneath it but it is predominantly grass and it's pretty well kept. What's changed is we used to do them with all sand and now what we have done is, we have put in, like our little tric walk and like a ' sidewalk type in there or wherever we have the tires or anything, we put the square like this and put the sand in there and we put it high enough to keep it in so we get as much green area as we can. ' Councilman Johnson: One of the biggest discussions, how much parking is � g needed? Quite frankly our zoning ordinance that was in place at the time that ' this was zoned said adequate. That doesn't help much. What is adequate to one person is not adequate to another. I disagree with you when you say there is no more than 8 cars or whatever it was. I drive by one of your daycare centers everyday on Valley View behind Rainbow. This morning there were 5 cars that were overflow from parking. They were parked in front of the building on both sides of the driveway. Where you're normally driving it was down to one lane becaus of all the cars parked there during the drop off time. Drop off is big. ' This is next to one of our, this particular location is very close to one of our larger bus stops. That particular daycare center, the one on Valley View is used by people as a park and ride lot. Your customers come in. They park their cars there. Put their kids in. Get on the bus. Go downtown. Gene Peterson: I'm glad you brought that one up because we do have that pr oblem and it's one. .. problem Councilman Johnson: And the Southwest Metro Transit Commission, which I'm a member of, also was petitioned by your customers to put a bus stop there and we �'— put a bus stop in for you so the bus does stop there to pick up your people. 39 Ci• ty Council Meeting - Marcie 27, 1989 Gene Peterson: It backfired on us. Councilman Johnson: well this is also one of the bigger bus stops in the town is right there at the America Legion. I suspect you're going to be having this same problem here if you allow i.t. Now what you're going to have to do is tell your customers no park and ride. If you do do that, tell your customers no park and ride, it may work but you're going to have to eliminate 2 more parking spots to do it because the paved surface is a structure and it's got to get out of that 25 foot setback. The sidewalk next to the compact car lot is a structure. It's got to get out of the 25 foot setback. Steve, I want to ask you a question right away. As I read the old zoning ordinance, it said parking lots can be 0 setback as long as the adjacent property is also zoned C-2. This was C-2. Now both properties are BN. Under that, if they took their parking lot and moved it to the north 5 feet to give themselves a little more room there. I see one of their biggest problems with the parking lot is having the ability to come in, drop the kids off and turn back out. Just movement. If they can make that parking lot 5 foot wider and leave only a 5 foot strip, would that be within the old zoning ordinance? Steve Hanson: I'm not that well versed in your old zoning ordinance to be honest. Councilman Johnson: It's in the packet. I'm just reading what you gave me. ' Steve Hanson: I think what it's probably referring to is sharing parking facilities. 1 Councilman Johnson: Here's what it says under parking location A. The parking area may abut the property line if the abutting property is zoned C-2 or C-3. Parking areas adjoining all other districts shall not be located closer than 25 foot to the side or rear property lines. So obviously this must be the same or else you'd have a 25 foot rear setback for his parking instead of 10 foot. Right now he's on 10 foot. I would think that he could probably gain some by moving it to the north a little bit. I still would like to see him leave some shurberies and some room there for some green space and some plantings. I do believe this is a fairly good use. I think we're trying to put, this is an odd piece of property that's left over from the shopping center construction. I know it was a business decision made a long time ago and it ends up haunting us. This is one of these things that we have to look at as we look at new zoning requirements in the future. When other shopping centers come in and we look at other shoing center.;, we want to o :==.-ent these little parcels from c7etti.-y1 :t in there. I'm not sure whether 18 or whatever. They're are 16 parking spots at the larger daycare center that's behind Rainbow at Valley View. This morning at 7:30 there was 5 or 6 cars parked out in front of it and I did not observe whether the whole parking lot was full on the side of the building. Their main problem there is the parking lot's on the side of the building. If you park in I the parking lot, you've got to walk around the building. Most people are too lazy. They're going to park in the fire zone and take their kids in. Here there is no fire zone per se. I'm sure you're going to have people because there's always those people who aren' t going to bother parking. They're just going to pull straight up to the front door. The heck with the rest of the world, I'm parking in front of the front door. Unfortunately that's the attitude of some people in the world today. I think you can make it but I 40 , J II City Council Meeting - :1.a -_a 27, 1989 II think, you may think, and _eopte in the Audi nco may think us figh':ing o""er I ' these little zoning things, oh, it's only 100 square feet of parking lot in here. But the actual is o out half the property or probably a quarter of the property is now asking for 7aiances from our existing. The last point I'd like Ito make is to counter, you said there's nothing in our new zoning ordinance on lot coverage. We allow you to cover a maximum of 65% of the lot now with structures and parking lot, etc. . So there is a number. The old one was 25% building only. They didn't say you could put the rest of it as parking lot if I you wanted. The other 75%. But the new zoning ordinance, the City of Chanhassen has chosen to be a green city without buildings crammed right next to each other so we've said we want at least 35% of your property to be green area. I I don't know, I think we're getting awful darn close here. There's not that much. If we can move it to the north, we might be able to only lose one parking spot then. I don't know. IGene Peterson: Let me bring something up about that stat that might help you too. One of the things in daycares is, almost 50% of staff comes from, because of the uniqueness of being able to be, because it's called part-time/full-time, I that they can come in at different hours because of the drop off and the kids, that we will run into quite often that about 50% of our staff where you're sitting with neighborhoods close by like this or housing that's close by like II you have there, will come right out of the neighborhood. I'm not saying that that's definite, but as an example we've got several of them, like Apple Valley. We've got two of them in Apple Valley where almost half of our staff walked over II ] to it because they're right from the neighborhood. That's because of the way that you can work. While it's called a part-time/full-time job, the variation because when they drop off kids and going back using, and I think you brought up a real good one in Rainbow. We did an experiment on Rainbow on a park and shop. I The problem we run into was half of the park and shop didn't leave the kids off and the other one was, we thought it was a convenience because we had extra parking. If you remember when we first built it, we run into the same thing is, I we had about 10-12 parking spots so as a gesture, the manager there said that some of them that were leaving their kids off and if you want to leave your car there, we' re not using it anyhow. And we got a loaded deck on it. We did it in two different spots and we ended up having parking problems. So we will not get 1 there again but you're right. Councilman Johnson: At this point, the Metropolitan Transit Canuission built a I park and ride lot just a couple miles from there. They can drive over there and park there. It's almost full now but my wife used to work in one of these and it was in Texas as you talked about and there was no parking. This is in a I residential neighborhood. If you parked, you parked on the street. The daycare center she worked at is not someplace we would have taken our children, to tell you the truth. She ended up talking to the health department about her employer. IIGene Peterson: You've got so many things on Minnesota staffing that really protect you from the daycare that would be concerns unless you were really close II here, that they do such a tremendous job on the staffing regs here. It really protects you an awful lot if you get by your variance that you're talking about. From protection, a lot of the things that you're worried about. II Pat Hallisey: Did I understand that you were suggesting moving the lot 5 feet to the north? II 41 ' City Council Meeting - Mar�'1 27, 9 1 3 U L 1f Councilman Johnson: Right. The entire parking lot. 4 Pat Hallisey: You don't have a problem with that. We don't have a problem with I II that. Councilman Johnson: We'd also probably have to eliminate the last two so you'd be down to 16 parking spots which is what you have at the one by Rainbow is 16 parking spots which gets pretty low but then again. . . Gene Peterson: It wasn't a problem before we did that park. .. , Councilman Johnson. -efor_e you did park and ride. I meant to stop at another one in the Opus area to look at it and I don't think they have that many parking spots either. I don't think they have 30 in there. But to me, as a purist on variances, get it out of the setback. Mayor_ Chmiel: I'd like to ask an opinion of our attorney. What can we do with this Roger? I see here by what your letters indicate, maybe you could just sort of clarify that for everybody. Roger_ Knutson: Sure. Don asked me to write you a letter about the proper procedures for appealing a decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. I set those out in writing to you. Anyone can appeal a decision. Any agree person can appeal a decision from the Board within 10 days of that decision requesting making an appeal to the zoning administrator_ who is Don Ashworth. Your Code then goes on to say you must follow the same procedures in your handling of it that the Board of Adjustments used in it's handling of it. So ; II you're required to have a public hearing preceeded by published and mailed notices by this body for that appeal. That's an internal policy procedure which under your own internal rules you can waive by a four-fifths vote from this body. State law does not require that published and mailed notice. Councilman Johnson: What's the question and what's the. .. ' Roger_ Knutson: I just learned, and I guess I made an assumption, that this had been advertised for a public hearing for tonight but it had not been so to act on it, you're going to have to waive that rule. Otherwise, send it out for a public hearing. Councilman Johnson: Was it advertised as a public hearing? Mayor Chmiel: The motion basically has to be waived as he indicates. Then we would have to have a public hearing on it and all adjacent property owners would have to be notified with published notice in the paper as well. Councilman Johnson: Didn' t we publish it? Don Ashworth: We published this and it was for the Board of Adjustments meeting that occurred from before. But you did not publish tonight's meeting. City Council meeting of tonight. ' Steve Hanson: My recollection, it was tabled at that last Council meeting when it was before the Board of Adjustment. 42 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 II Mayor Chmiel: Yes, with some consideration as to looking to see what they could really do with that particular site with the facility. We also talked about the probability or possibility of shrinking that building down some as well. Don Ashworth: But even the last one, what the notice said was, you're invited to attend the Board of Adjustment meeting at 6:30. It did not address the City Council meeting at which time it was then tabled to this meeting. Again, there is a procedure. It becomes one of, in the determination of the City Council are all potentially affected property owners at tonight's meeting so you can make that decision? If you feel that those people logically affected by this decision are here, you can go ahead and waive your ordinance and take action on ' it. If you're concerned that potentially there is someone who is not here, then you should table it. Gene Peterson: Would the petition that's signed by a majority suffice as the same... In other words, you have a petition on file from several of the homeowners there, also be suffice.. . ' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess the Legion has property, and they're not here. I guess I would be concerned as to how they feel. ' Councilman Johnson: Of course they haven't commented as of yet and they were familiar with the previous advertising for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. They made no comment there at that point either and they were notified. ' Mayor_ Chmiel: But I would not want to put myself in the position to speak for the Legion on this particular one. Councilman Johnson: I think they've spoken by their silence, if you can say that. Councilman Boyt: There's a major drawback to putting this off. April 10th is ' going to be an interesting meeting all by itself. I think we better have some pretty serious reservations before we add another item to that agenda. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Does it have to be the next meeting? Don Ashworth: No, it's actually within 30 days but I'm sure there's a desire on ' the owner's part to move as quickly as possible. Gene F_ter_son: We have a time cic ent out here. 7\ny consideration at this time is important to us. Roger Knutson: Let me just point out. Under State Statute, most people are unaware of this, but under State Statute you do not have to have a public ' hearing before anyone to grant a variance. All it has to go is on the agenda at the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. No public hearing is required. But you do it, and that's just fine. That's your internal policy to do that. It's not required by Statute. Councilman Boyt: At the very minimal we certainly ought to give Mr. Haltisey some sort of sense of whether he's on reasonably good ground or not. Know whether to continue to proceed with this or whether he needs to look elsewhere. 43 um -City Counc i 1 Meeting - March 27, 1989 I Councilwoman Di.mler_: I guess g I d like to comment. I know Mr. Hallisey indicated that this property, and I feel it is, is just a little bit over a half an acre and the way it's laid out, it is going to be difficult for anything that is proposed there and that he'll have to come in for variances of some sort for anything that goes in there and I think that's where we now maybe have to make a deicison of what would we like to see there. I guess daycare is a good thing. I would be in favor of that rather than something else so I think that's a consideration that we do have to look at. I don't like granting that much of a variance but maybe in this case, I don't know if I agree that the hardship is self imposed because of the fact that TH 101 moved and there's certain problems with your property as a result of that so that's my comment. Mayor Chmi.el: Okay, I guess I look at the aspect too, the zoning in itself did change from what it was previously. Even though those take place, that's something that everyone has to live with. I guess I basically agree with what Ursula is saying too. I think a daycare center is needed in the community. We have one in the midst of moving and I think we need another as well. Whether or not this facility can be located on that piece of property to be in accordance with all of our requirements, that's the question. Whether or not a variance is going to really be the answer, I guess I'm not much for really moving on something when there's not been any variances within the specific locations for anything to date. I guess I'm still keeping an open mind to it. Bill, do you have anything? ' Councilman Boyt: I'd be happy to encourage you in a direction. First, Uli. if I might ask you a question since I remember only too vividly the discussions II about 6 months ago about highway traffic concerns and children playing i.n the area. You know 184th Street is going to be extended out and this piece of road is going to become considerably busier. Separating your neighborhood and that road is what, a 6 foot wood fence? I don't know how high but it's a wood fence. Separating the daycare and that highway is a 4 foot chain link fence. Something to think about. I think when I look at the other uses for this property, it is a quandry and I can see the advantage of having some sort of a traffic generater. I think you're going to get quite a bit of traffic when 184th comes through. I know that might not be a bird in the hand so to speak but I do think that we've got to be very careful about where we put daycare centers. This is something where we're really speaking for a group who can't vote for themselves here. Uli, did you want to respond? Uli Sacchet: Yes, since you addressed the. . . I may not be 100% informed of all ' the details with this but I believe a si.mili.ar_ question was raised at the Planning Coimi.ssion meeting about the distance. If my recollection is correct, I believe there was some say that there would be a similar distance actually from the daycare to the road, that is from the road to the residential area. Maybe I can pass the question on to you to address this. I agree that this is a concern. There's going to be more traffic there that is not necessarily enhancing to safety. On the other hand, it's going to be much less traffic than if it would be the TH 101 proposal. Councilman Boyt: Let's hope so. ' Uli Sacchet: I would certainly hope so. It seems from that angle, coming from that angle, it seems like this proposal to put a daycare center there is making 44 I ,- City Council Meeting - March,h 27, 1989 II __ the best of a relatively bad situation. You got kind of hung up a little bit in a crack in terms of a business location and when I heard that it was going to be a daycare center, I felt that was something that I felt like supporting because I i I felt that it makes good use. There's certainly lots of children. I have two children. I drive one kid to Hopkins and the other one to Southdale every morning plus I work in Rosedale so you can imagine how much driving I do. I'm I very excited. My children might be too old by the time this is in place, I don't know, but there's so many small children in the neighborhood. I would urge you to consider that safety aspect very thoroughly. I don't want to IIdissuade you at all Bill but please, maybe you can address that. Pat Hallisey: Yes. The question regarding the fencing. The Board of II Adjustments was looking at the different distances from the street and what have you and whether a fence was in character with the neighborhood and I was the one who pointed that there was a fence across the streeet sheltering the neighborhood from the commercial and that's a lot line fence just as this is. II Most fences are on the lot lines. That is a wood fence. This is a chainlink fence. Although it's a 4 foot chainlink fence, it's not like you've got 100 kids running around in a street, in a fenced in play area where there's a bunch I of traffic going by here. They're supervised. You have supervisors in that playground with the kids when they're there so they're not just. .. Councilman Boyt: But it is a bunch of kids in a playground by a busy road 1 whether they're supervised or not. I'm just pointing out it's a busy road. Pat Hallisey: Right. But it's certainly going to be far less busy than what it II was originally intended for and it is a permitted use for that site. Gene Peterson: If you want a higher wood fence, we don't have any problem. If I you'd rather have a wood fence than a chainlink fence. In other words, that's not a problem with us. Our reasons for going to chainlink in most cases is to view openness but we have some with a wood fence if that's the question. . . 1 Councilman Boyt: I haven't gotten to that concern but the other part of it is, you talked Mr. Peterson about an economic advantage. This is something the Council needs to be, I think quite concerned about. Not that we don't want to 1 give people economic advantages but that, I think we have to be concerned that in granting variances we give people an economic advantage. We have one other daycare in Chanhassen and we're going to have other daycares in Chanhassen because there are other neighborhoods that have the same growth that you're Italking about. To come in and grant variances so that a daycare can locate in an economic piece of property is to put the other daycares at an economic disadvantage. I think we have to be careful when we do that. If we do that. I Pat you requested the subdivision of this piece of property the way it's divided. I Pat Hallisey: I'd like to address that for a minute if I could, and Councilman Johnson wrought this issue up also. We've gone through a tremendous multitude of changes with this property. The road alignments. The whole 9 yards. When we looked at this, planned this whole property in the first place, it was under Ia different, a totally different scenario. It was with TH 101 being here. Lake Drive East being a high traffic roadway from Dakota to TH 101. In fact it was so high traffic, that there was going to be no access anywhere other than here and here. Lake Drive North. Your designated street. Lake Drive North. There II II 45 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 was going to be no more access to Lake Drive from this point to the Sinclair station. This is the dividing point between the Kerr property and the Legion property. What was going to happen when TH 101 widened and was upgraded, the Legion was going to lose access to this property from TH 101. All traffic was going to come down around here and come i.n. We had to agree to move this curb cut to this point right here when that happened. It's in your Planning Commission notes. I'm pointing this out so that you know there's been tremendous changes and how some of those changes affect this particular piece of property. That's not there anymore. We now have access. We could have planned our whole development differently and not had this screwball shaped piece of property had that been the case. But at that point in time, the City said you can't have access here. Everybody's got to come through here to get to that property. That's why you've got that crazy looking plan that has never been an approved site plan. There's never been an approved site plan for this piece of property. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Hallisey, y, my point is that when you requested that you get two lots out of this piece of property instead of one lot, you did make that request right? i Pat Hallisey: We did. Councilman Boyt: When you submitted that request, you submitted it indicating a 4,000 square foot building would apparently meet the setbacks. Is that correct? 1 ' Pat Hallisey: As I pointed out in my letter, we didn't even begin to think about 4,000 square feet. All we were doing was showing a building on here so the lot could be used under those circumstances. Councilman Boyt: And that I think is the key line. The lot could be used. I think the City Council at that time, and I didn't have their minutes to read but what I gathered from reading your letter and what I know of the group that reviewed it, my guess is that they didn't want to give you that lot as a separate lot and that you came in and demonstrated that it was buildable and therefore you wanted i.t. Pat Hallisey: I don't want to be argumentative but it was their suggestion that we did that. Staff's suggestion at that point. Councilman Boyt: Staff's suggestion but then you came in and demonstrated that it was a v'able lot as a separate lot? Pat Hallisey: Without access on Lake Drive which at that point couldn't be ' because of the high number of traffic. . . Councilman Boyt: And are you now claiming it's a hardship to be given an access? Pat Hallisey: No. What I'm trying to say is that we would never have designed that "approved site plan" in anywhere near that fashion had we been able to have an access here at that point in time. We had a whole different size configuration building on that. 46 ' IICity Council ".eeti nor - `larch 27, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Well I'd be interested in seeing how you could put more than 4,000 square feet on that piece of property given the plan that you've got here ' in front of us. Pat Hallisey: This plan that's in front of you right now with Councilman Johnson's suggestion of moving the parking 5 feet to the north and eliminating 2 parking stalls fits all of the criteria that was in place at that point in time. Councilman Boyt: Well I don't think the City ever committed to allowing you to ' put a 5,600 square foot building on that piece of property. Pat Hallisey: I don't mean to suggest that they did. All I'm saying is with ' Councilman Johnson's suggestions, we could have done it. Councilman Boyt: I think that in terms of coming in and saying that by not allowing you to put a 5,600 square foot building on this we've created a ' hardship, I just don't buy that. We never agreed to allow a building of that size. I agree, things have changed. I think that among other concerns, before we vote on this, the fire, Mark Li.ttfi.n, the Fire Inspector, should look at the ' need for a fire zone. It came up, I didn't see one. I think Mr_. Peterson makes a good point when he says we need to be very careful that we're not haunted down the way. Daycares are unique in that they're built for kids. Mr. Peterson ' wants them built in the right spot. In the right way. You're just building one down on TH 101 right now. How many parking spots are you putting in that one? Your competition, you know it's an interesting corner. It's like gas stations. There's now 3 daycares out of the 4 corners. The other one has a home on it I ' think or you'd probably have a daycare there too. Well out of those, one of them has 24 parking spots. The other has 19 parking spots. Yours is going to have 18 parking spots. ' Gene Peterson: I think it's 19. Councilman Boyt: I don't know, and maybe Steve doesn't know where we came up ' with the figure of 1 out of 6 but we really need to look at that and see if that's what the right number should be because that represents space and space is money to these daycare. And we've already got a daycare that says it can ' live with that and interestingly enough, they claim that they can put it in our industrial park, which is expensive land, they can put it in there and make a profit with it and provide all the space we require and all the parking spots we ' require. You're coming to us and saying to build a viably sized daycare, we can't do that. Gene Peterson: No. I didn' t say we couldn' t. I said that due to the ' inflating costs of daycare, that it was our feeling that this was worth pursuing. It isn't a question of whether or not we can or can't do it. There's a need for a daycare. It can be built somewhere else and I have to clarify what ' you're saying. That isn't saying that we can't put one in your industrial par_k. ..and probably make a profit. I'm not questioning that. I'm just saying that you have a protection for a hedge on it as to it going up if the cost is there. ..and what I'm trying to do, very selfishly, is trying to keep the costs down. They're going up in daycare. ..and the regulations but I don' t want to leave you with the opinion that if we don't go there we can't make any money. ' 47 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 • -Counc ilm an Boyt: No, I don' t t mean that. I just mean that to go here, you're saying we have to have these sorts of considerations. Mr. Halli.sey, I've felt all along that the City owes you some consideration with the traffic changes that we've made. I don't think putting a daycare in this site is the right kind of consideration. My main reason for feeling that way is I just am uncomfortable putting a bunch of kids on this road and that constraint. So I'm going to have a great deal of difficulty voting for this variance as it works out. We need some better answers than we've got here certainly in terms of your piece of property and I think if I had to hang it on anything else, I'd say come ' back to me with a 4,000 square foot daycare and we can talk further. I'm finished. Thanks for giving me the 15 minutes it took me to get through all that. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd have one question. That is Bill, do Y ou know the one in the industrial park, does that service citizens of Chanhassen or just the workers in the park? Councilman Boyt: Ursula, we started out recommending that that serve just the people in the industrial park and by the time we had approved it, we approved it for the City as a whole. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but you do see the need for more daycare in Chanhassen? Councilman Boyt: Certainly. 1 II Councilwoman Dimler: My point is that this would serve, being out of the industrial park, it would service the citizens of Chanhassen and not the people in the industrial park necessarily. They wouldn't probably use that one. Councilman Boyt: Well I know they're advertising in the Taco Shoppe right , p� ght now. Councilman Workman: I'm not going to be able to touch too much on what anybody ' else hasn't already touched upon. Maybe my perspective as being the only person who has daycare aged children. I think Don has a younger sister. I really don't have an opinion on these one way or the other. My daughters are not in a daycare of this nature. They're in an in home daycare. I read Plato's Republic and I didn't like it. I do have questions of course brought out by the Board of Adjustments about this maximum size and the location. I have probably way too many concerns in regards to the entire corner to make a comfortable decision in 11 regards to this. I do understand the concerns of the neighbors. I think if it was, maybe, maybe not. If it was as big a concern for them to have a daycare and I thought maybe more than one of the neighbors might be out here tonight. But I do understand the need for daycare. If there is anything anybody else can add to this that will give me a little bit better direction. My major concern when I came in here tonight was the question, who divided the lot? How did the lot get there? And now that it is there, how much forethought was used to decide what could go on it? I asked the question of Steve not too long ago, what's meets and bounds? Can't we slap a Few lots back together and add it onto the end of the office complex there? Does Willard have any questions or concerns? Is Willard here? Willard Johnson: I hadn't followed the latest report so. . . At the time I felt, and I still feel the same way, that. .. I don't feel we should overcrowd it 48 ' City Council `I2ccti nq - 'larch 27, 189 ' — there. It was brought up.. .and that's just a minor thin . . .This is a pretty g � Y good sized project in a sense and I don't. .. Councilman Boyt: I would move that we deny this request for variance because it does not meet the criteria as staff has pointed out. ' Mayor_ Chmi.el: I have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Things seem to be dying around here. ' Councilman Workman: I guess I'm still tied up as far as, I guess I'm looking for time. Can I have 2 hours until tomorrow? ' Councilman Johnson: My concern here is that we meet every zoning r_equir_ement that was in place at the time the lot was platted. To me this, with the new zoning requirements, the new zoning requirements made this lot unbuildable ' without any variance whatsoever. Maybe you could put a putt putt on here with 9 holes but I don't think you would really want to do that because you'd still need a parking lot for the putt putt and it probably wouldn't fit. So I feel that the hardship is there as long as they don't require a variance from the old ' zoning ordinance which the plan as proposed does. I think we can solve that. Good supervision, I don't think we're going to have a problem with the kids crawling the fence. I think that in the site plan review, we will be looking a ' lot closer at the berming and the changes to make good vision in that area. Then it comes down to one last question. What is adequate parking? In order for them to meet the old zoning ordinance, we're down to 16 parking spots which is the actual number at the Rainbow site, behind Rainbow Foods which is a larger ' center than this. I think that's an 8,000 square foot center versus a 5,600 square foot center. This one is never going to expand. There's absolutely, I know you say you can't now. Wa hear a lot of people say they can't and 3 years ' later they're trying. One more variance. Gene Paterson: Pegs will control that so we can't. Minnesota regs. Because of ' the playground situation so you're safe on expansion unless they change the State's regs on it. Councilman Johnson: I can't imagine the Legion having any questions on this. ' They went to the Legion and asked the Legion if they could buy some property from them. The Legion is well aware of what they're trying to do because they wanted to fix this lot by making it bigger, which is a very logical thing to do ' and the Legion did a very logical thing from their standpoint in saying no, until we figure out what we're going to do with our property, the whole proper-y, we're not about to sell off a little piece of it and shoot ourselves in the foot. So I guess what I'm getting down to, this will probably be the Baptist Church was one time and this will probably be the second time when I'm pushing my hatred of variances but I think I can live with it if we go down to 16 parking spots and I think we can probably survive there. So what I will move is that we allow the variance as long. .. Councilwoman Dimler: There's a motion on the floor. Councilman Johnson: No there isn't. There's no second. It died. I would move that we approve this as long as no parking area, sidewalk area, other than the driveway, is within the setbacks. They consider moving, as I read the zoning ordinance, moving the entire parking lot 5 feet to the north and give themself a ' 49 .City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 larger parking lot so we have better traffic movement within the parking lot. I don't necessarily want to move the entire parking lot but I want to give you a .4 little more parking lot there. I think in site plan reviews, we'll have all the you have to meet this code and that code of the Daycare Association but this is only the first of many hurdles. Site plan review is not going to be much funner. I don't know, is there any other conditions you think you might want on there Steve? Basically you can't impose into that 25 foot setback whatsoever in curbing. That's my motion then. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to add to that motion to waive the r_equir_ement for a public hearing. That's going to take a four-fifths vote. Should it be a separate motion? Roger Knutson: I would just point out procedurally the difference between combining them and having them separately. There may be 4 of you who vote to get it over with tonight. There may only be 3 of you who want to approve. Councilman Workman: Would you repeat that motion? ' Councilman Johnson: Well, why don't we do this one at a time. First motion is I move we waive the public hearing requirement. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to waive the public hearing. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and Councilman Workman who didn't vote. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Roger Knutson: I should point out that there's a rule of procedure that the Council adopted. If a councilmember is silent when someone is voting, it's a vote yes. i Councilman Johnson: I think Tom was still thinking. I don' t want to cut Tom off because I'll give him the opportunity to vote against it. Okay, that's the first motion. That passed. We waived our public hearing requirement. Then the other one will be, the motion will be that we approve the daycare variance where no parking lot area, sidewalk area, etc. extends into the setbacks that were established at the time the lot was platted which in the case of the front yard, which is t',? main setback we're concerned with right now, is 25 feet. In order to do this, .se's going to have to remove 2 parking spots. It looks like. Further consideration be given to maximizing the size of the parking lot by moving it to the north, if my interpretation of the zoning ordinance is correct and they can go zero lot line by the old zoning ordinance. By the new zoning ordinance they can but by the old zoning ordinance. I think the new zoning ordinance is 25 foot. Unless you're sharing a parking lot with your neighbor which I don't think you're sharing one with the Legion. That's pretty much the second motion. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. 50 i y1 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Boyt: There's discussion. I have a question for you. How many staff are you going to have in this? Let's assume you're running at maximum. How many staff? Gene Peterson: The total potential for 100% would be somewhere between 18 and 20 but the staggering of it, it varies so that you're looking at 8 to 12. Councilman Boyt: So if you were to have 100 children in the building, how many ' staff would you have? Gene Peterson: I would rather do it this way if I could on it. The problem ' that you've got on the staff is you're going to ask with a 100 kids and then you've got to go back in all honesty, what are their ages. Then you run into, it's 1, if it's a concern, I can get it by ages and give to you and it varies. ' Councilman Boyt: So you're talking 8 to 12 staff? Gene Peterson: I think you're safe all the time that you'd be looking at 8 to ' 12 if you had 100% capacity. Councilman Boyt: You're talking 100% capacity now just for a second so we're talking 100 kids. We've got 8 parking spots available because we've got 8 staff ' minimum and we might have 4 parking spots. That means 4 parking spots. 1 per 25 children. I would guess that they're probably going to be picked up in roughly a fixed time frame. I think one of the biggest risks we run in a daycare is we get some kid hit in the parking lot. I think Jay that we're 111 reducing the wrong thing when we reduce the size of the parking lot and leave the size of the building. Especially leaving it 1,600 feet bigger than the City ever even remotely approved. If you accept the $4,000.00 as being a ballpark idea of what might go on that lot at some time. Councilman Johnson: It wasn't an approved idea. Councilman Boyt: But it was kind of, well yes, we can understand how you can put up to 4,000 square feet on that property. We've now got 5,600 square feet ' on the property. I would suggest to you that it's simply too big and the wrong use for that piece of property, especially when we look at reducing the size of the parking lot so we end up with a potential to have a situation where even if we had 8 spots, we're now talking 1 spot for every 12 children. Gene Peterson: One thing you should be aware of on the children is that might help you on this decision. It's something that might help you is that one of ' the things that are stipulation in the daycare, major daycares. ..daycares is, that children have to be brought, when they sign to bring the daycare in.. ., when the chi.id is brought, that the parents have to bring them to the door. Another thing is, a child can not go off the floor without being given to the ' parents. The safety factor has been established and even though you have parking, I'm not saying what you're trying to accomplish isn't right or wrong. What I'm saying is, I think they've eliminated the fear factor of the pick-up and delivery as far as safety to the children. Councilman Boyt: You're telling me that more adults are going to be coming in to get those children and my fear isn't that the wrong adult gets the wrong child. It's that once they get in the parking lot, there's enough cars moving ' 51 a -` `3. 7 Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 ' around there to complicate the issue. Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Peterson, let me ask you a question. With all your C facilities, how many accidents have you had within your parking lots? 4' Gene Peterson: None. In all the time that I have been in the daycares that I have been involved in the Twin Cities, we have not had an accident of any child that I'm aware of. That does not say that there has been one that has not been reported. I'm not always posted but as far as I know, and I would be glad to check with the 4 majors that I've been involved with and ask them specifically to correct myself if I'm wrong. But to date I have not seen. We've had accidents but they have nothing to do with the parking and there have been other factors... In St. Paul there was a child lost...but I have not, in all my time, in the 14 years in my daycare association, whether it be in California or anywhere, I have not run into a parking accident. I think you've got as good a one to use as a comparison, and I'll go back and tell you this. Rainbow, and that's double the size. We'r_e talking a bigger daycare over there and we have 16 parking spots. Then we run into this transit deal. We didn't have a problem. We have not had, honestly I'm telling you, the only problem that I can tell you on parking that we have had is we will run into on special deals, on pick-up and drop-offs. We will run into a back-up there out onto the street. You would have that problem though. ..because of the way the configuration is. I will tell you this, that has happened. It has not been a big problem but we did run into that. The funny part of it is, the ones we run into it, were not the ones with the smaller parking. They happened to be where we had ample parking.. . Councilman Boyt: I'd just like to finish my comment that daycare is a unique use. We're talking about preschool aged kids many times. We'r_e talking about the most valuable resource a parent's got and I think the City should not be granting variances to put a daycare in. If there's one thing that ought to meet all the codes, it should be that kind of use. Gene Peterson: Are we. ..the way the Code is asking here before we do it? The ' variances are being based on the old zoning ordinance? That's the way I interpretted it. Is that not true? Councilman Johnson: The reason we changed the zoning ordinance is because it was not adequate. It did not meet the requirements of modern day life. Gene Peterson: I stand to be corrected. ' Councilman orkman: I guess I'd precer not to see Jay's suggestion in moving that parking lot to the north. , Councilman Johnson: That's only to be studied. Councilman Workman: Are we leaving this at a study stage to come back to us? Councilman Johnson: On the parking lot to the north, we still have the site plan to review. Mayor Chmiel: Right, the site plan will have to come back. 52 ' City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 -.- Councilman Johnson: Say look at the advantages of moving it to the north. Actually Bill's arguments, when he starts talking putting 12 in there, 16. I can see how we can get 17 slots in there now. That leaves only 5 for drop off and pick-up. The chances of having only 5 people in there at any one time are slim. I'm leaning towards voting against my own motion. It won't be the first time. That's why we have discussions. Councilman Workman: I guess maybe that's part of my problem. We're being asked to give and give. How far are we willing to go with shrinking the daycare to whatever? Gene Peterson: The peak of the building, let me tell you where you're at as far as the. . .bui.lding. It has nothing to do with what you can.. .buildi.ng. Then you're back.. . In other words, the problem you run into with the playground costs and that, it becomes an economic profit review. ' Councilman Workman: Are you saying you can't make money? Gene Peterson: A 100 unit daycare has become the realistic approach to do it. If you were to say, and I'm not using this. ..I'm just answering the question. If you were to have to cut down the building, what I'd have to look at immediately is the performance schedule to see if it works. I'm not saying it's not possible to do. I'm saying to you that the chances are possibly then that it ' will be.. .to move it to a better site 3s all I'm trying to say. We have cut this down already from our normal size of over 6,000. If you were to cut it down to fit the lot, and I'm not saying if you make that, then we would go back in on the basis of however you do it here and see if it's feasible. But it would be my quick judgment that you cut down the size of the building.. .and I'm sorry Pat but I would have to look at possibly another site. ' Councilman Workman: Is tner_e a possibility of a two story daycare center? Gene Peterson: No. From a safety factor. . . Councilman Workman: Could you sink one floor lower and have a circling ramp or something? Gene Peterson: Then I better go get another lot. In other words, I'm not saying if you go to a smaller building. I don't want to get into that position. I'm saying that I would turn it down. I would just have to review and see if it's feasible and come back and say it's not workable to buy the lot at that stage. I'm coming now the way that you're asking for the variance and that, it's workable for us but that's very selfish on my part. That I'm not asking ' you to do. I'm asking for a variance based on what it is. That's what we are saying is feasible to do. But if you want a smaller building, I won't tell you that it couldn't be done. We would have to do a performa and it might be that ' the performa would say, there's such a y, potential for daycare out here, as to the size, we may be defeating ourselves. It was a feeling that the location and many of the factors that we. .reshash it, it's getting late and having sat on both ends of it here, I hear where you're coming from. I don't want to get into the position of whether it is right or wrong. I'm trying to give you as much as I could as to where we were at in a daycare. I've tried to answer the parking and that. Not q uestion you as to be tried fairly as I could to you to say that I think you're worried about the parking is more than you need to be. That's 53 y-:yrs City Council Meeting - 'March 27, 1989 all I was trying to establish. From my experience of having a variation at various locations, that that's not a safety problem and that's not a problem. As to whether it's a problem on your variance, that's something you have. You run your city. I'm looking at a profitable business. I'm good hearted but not that good hearted so I mean, I'm in it for a business. I don't want to deceive you by no means on it. I'm looking at this as a profit but I think some of your worries about the safety that the gentleman on the end here has, I can only tell you from my experience that's not a problem and it's not one that we have had that I think you're concerned. As to whether the building is too big or not, I that's your decision. Would I go along with it if you cut it down? I can't answer that right now until I do a performa as to what the costs are. The suggestions that he made on your old zoning are workable. Something I think you should think about that has become very prominent now in development. I not only do daycares, I do several other things, we invest in a few, is with the realistic of specifying compact cars as well as big cars. I think that's something that you can work when you start talking about your parking that has become nationwide in trying to come up with not putting all big parking spots but specify compact. That's something you might take into consideration to accomplish more parking because what is it today, 65% or 75% of the cars today I believe are compacts or something. So the need of the parking that we're showing sometimes can be accomplishing something that would satisfy your. ..and the variances that you're talking about. I've had zonings come up now in the daycare where it specifies so many compact and so many other. If that helps you. Mayor Chmiel: It's been so long I've almost forgot what it was but I'm sure we I have it down. We have a motion on the floor. 6+;e have a second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the variance request for Lot 1, Block 1, Hidden Valley, Blue Circle Investment Company but that no parking lot area, sidewalk area, etc. extends into the setbacks that were established at the time the lot was platted and that further consideration be given to maximizing the size of the parking lot by moving it to the north. Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman and Councilwoman Di.mler voted in favor. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted against the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Gene Peterson: Let me say this to you, if you will basically work with your I planner an' you staff, each one of you and put any directive ideas or concerns you have.. .and mostly with you to come up with... I want to thank you for your time. 1 APPOINTMENT TO PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION. I Lori. Si.etsema: Everything is pretty straight forward. In the staff report the Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that the position that Carol Watson has just vacated, they've recommended that you consider the last two finalists of the last set of interviewed people. The criteria was that we were to send two people to you per position and since there are still those two finalists, they'd ask you to consider them rather than to go through the whole interview process all over because that is very time consuming. 54 m. City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Mayor_ Chmiel: I think we have the applications here as well, of all the applicants and I think we've gone through the review process as well so we know pretty much what was there. I think that the total numbers that we have are to be considered and I think not just the last two but all of them should be still looked at to come up with a conclusion as to who we should have. Do I have a motion? Councilwoman Dimler: I have a nomination Mr. Mayor, if that would be in order. I appreciate the Park and Rec's recommendations but I have another concern. I think they're all excellent candidates and I'm going to place a nomination, the name of Jan Lash for the following reason. I prefer to replace a woman commissioner_ with a woman commissioner. The balance that consists on the commission now is that we have 4 men and 3 women and I would like to see that balance maintained rather than going to 5 men and 2 women. And the 2 candidates that the Park and Recreation recommended were both male and that is the reason ' that I'm placing the name of Jan Lash into nomination. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to nominate Wes Dunsmore, if we're doing ' nominations then. Or do we need a second? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. ' Councilman Workman: I guess I'll second Ursula's Jan Lash. _ Councilman Boyt: Well good, I'll second Wes Dunsmore. That ought to make for II discussion. Councilman Johnson: I think Wes' experience in being an urban park worker, much 1 as Mr_. Schroers experience at being a rural or nature type park employee. He's an employee of Hennepin Park preserve system. Works out at Carver Park I believe. I'm not sure exactly which park he works at but he's really been instrumental in a lot of the decisions that the Park and Rec board has made on your nature type parks. I think Wes, being experienced in urban park planning and maintenance in the specific issues of urban parks, would be an invaluable resource that we should not let go. I thought Carol was a very good resource in ' her years of experience in planning and zoning things. I was sad to see her leave but I think we need to replace her with somebody with a lot more experience. Now Jan, I know her from soccer and whatever and is interested in the kids and kids sports and all that and has that kind of interest and I think ' that's good but I'm swayed by Wes Dunsmore's experience. I really like Mike Schroeder too. This one, I sat on the phone with Lori for a long time trying to get her to say something that would convince between Wes and Mike Schroeder and unfortunately she never did. So up until 5 minutes ago, I hadn't decided which one of those two I was going to nominate but I think I've come down to the technical expertise that Wes has that we' ll be able to utilize in this city ' without having to pay for the consultant fee is invaluable. It's valuable. It would be $60.001 an hour without it. There's my argument for Wes. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I looked at what you're saying Jay too. It'd be two people from that south end but yet there'd be no one up within our area is what I'm looking at too. Councilman Johnson: That's why I was looking at Mike because he's in the Carver I Beach area that's not well represented either but you do have Schroers who is ' 55 Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 right across the street. He uses Greenwood Shores Park. He is up in your area. He's the first house in on Carver Beach Road across the street from you so your area is represented. Councilman Boyt: I believe that when we interviewed these candidates, as I recall the discussion, we were impressed by all three. Wes Dunmore has a superintendent of parks for the city of Eden Prairie, our neighbor. Wes has attended I think every regular Park and Rec meeting since his interview with us if not before that so he's dedicated to the thing I gather. But with that expertise, I don't think that two people from south Chanhassen is overloading the Park and Rec with south Chanhassen people. Especially since we're going to be locating a quarter of a million dollar park in south Chanhassen. This is an advisory body. I guess we could almost put anybody on. I'd just really like to have the expertise that we get when we have someone that works with these problems every day. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a comment to back up my nominee and that is that, I have liked her statement that said that she's willing to look into the future, listen to people and have realistic expectations and ideas and someone w'no's willing to take direction from the Council and from citizens. And I guess when we met earlier today with Park and Rec, that was one of my main concerns is that the commission recognize it's purpose and that is to make recommendations. Also to take direction from Council and to feel free to call me and get my input before we get together or have it come up as a surprise and I feel that Jan would do that. She'll also listen to the citizens and take their concerns into consideration. Mayor Chmiel: I would almost have tendencies to go along with Jan only because of some of the things that she does have in here so I would probably, I would cast my vote for Jan. Being that we have a motion on the floor. Councilman Boyt: We don't have a motion on the floor. Councilwoman Dimler: We have two nominations. , Councilman Johnson: This body has not interviewed Jan yet. We've interviewed the other candidates and we've made it a policy to interview all candidates. So it sounds like what we want to do is reopen interviews then. If you'd like to bring a new. .. Councilwoman Dimler: I forgot because I was at the interview when she was , before the Park and Rec. Mayor Chmiel: I was there also. We can go one or two ways. Either go by the 1 way that Jay is requesting or we can proceed and vote for the appointment. Either or. What's the pleasure. Councilwoman Dimler: Well maybe I would make a motion that we waive the , requirement to be interviewed at this point. Councilman Johnson: It's not a rule. It's just something we decided we would 1 do. 56 1 City Council =-sting - ;March 27, 1989 ., IICouncilman Bcyn: I think it's a good thing to do. To interview and I would be opposed to apc,:i.nting anyone without interviewing them. Mayor Chmiel: : guess I'd been at those interviews too at the time. ICouncilman Boyn: Well I wasn't. Mayor Chmiel: I know. Two of you weren't. Were you at them Tom? IICouncilman Wor(man: At the Park and Rec, no. Mayor Chmiel : Okay, 3. Let's do that. Let's have an interview Lori of Jan and II Wes. Councilman Johnson: Should we bring Mike in again? II Mayor Chmiel: I think we should. And Mike Schroeder. And we could have that, when do you meet, tomorrow? IILori Si.etsema: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: That's the availability for tomorrow? IICouncilman Bo r_: I'm gone. I'll be back on Friday. Mayor Chmiel: :;hat does it look like if we were to do this on Friday? Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure if I'm going to be 'back in town on Friday. I'm going out of town on Wednesday and Thursday and Friday is the pivotal day. If II I'm through on Thursday I come back Friday. If not, I won't be here. I can't guarantee this Friday. 1 Councilman Boy=: Will you be here on Saturday. Councilman Johnson: Saturday I can guarantee. IICouncilman Wor than: Saturday is out. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, how about Monday? tCouncilman Boyt: I'm gone all next week. Councilman Wor_.unan: Saturday morning? Councilman Boyt: I can do it Saturday morning. ICouncilman Johnson: I can do it Saturday morning. Councilwoman Dimler: The first you're talking about? 4 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And no April's fools either. [how about 9:00 a.m.? Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action until ISaturday morning, April 1, 1989 at 9:00 a.m.. All voted in favor. II 57 gm City Council Meeting - `-larch 27, 1989 CONSIDER HIRING ONE FULL-TIME BUILDING INSPECTOR AND ONE FULL-TIME MECHANICAL INSPECTOR. I Councilman Boyt: I move approval. Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, as you are aware and I think most other members of the Council, we've been looking at the necessity for additional help in the inspection department for pretty much 2 months now. We were caught in late February not being able to fulfill our requirements to the developers, to the homeowners in completing inspections in a timely manner. We wanted to be sure that we knew what we were doing when we started the research into what our requirements need be in the inspection department. You are aware, we met with various builders, realtors in the area and they expressed their concerns about the fact that it was winter and we weren't able to keep up when it was supposed to be a slow period. We looked at the needs, the growth that are occurring in the City of Chanhassen right now and quite frankly, we are not able in the inspection department to keep up with the growth that is occurring. I think the report was pretty much self explanatory as Councilman Johnson said at the beginning of the meeting. It's a lot of information packed into a very small report. I would like to dispense with most of it if I can and get down to the recommendations and I' ll just throw up a quick graph on the overhead that pretty much highlights what we're trying to do. If any councilmembers have questions on the graph, I do have the building inspector and the mechanical inspector here. This graph is as a result of the building inspector Steve Kirchman's work. It explains, pretty much the dark area or the number of inspectors from 1979 to estimated in 1989. In about 1986, 1987 we reached a point of 3 inspectors but you can sea the number of inspections just skyrocketed so what 2 inspectors were doing here, 3 inspectors were doing here for this amount of inspections, it just went up almost explanationally. That graph pretty much highlights it. You might have seen that graph in a couple of newspaper articles in recent weeks. I'll just leave that up there. I'll get right to the recommendations. Quite simply they are to hire one building inspector, one mechanical inspector with support vehicles and support personnel. I think that's pretty much it in a nutshell. I'd entertain any questions from the Council and again, I have the building inspector and the mechanical inspector here to assist me. Mayor Chmi.el: We already have a motion on the floor. I just have one point of , discussion. : sort .f agree with w it :e 3 ._r_e. --1-t_ you're saying ,u-ld I'd just like to clarify this that similar to the approval one year ago, the inspector's proposed to be employed would be informed that their positions are being paid solely by the additional building revenues anticipated in 1989. That any reduction in those revenues would require reduction in inspector services. Jim Chaffee: That is correct. Councilwoman Dimler: I've talked to Jim about this and I'm certainly in favor of keeping up and helping everyone out but I do have a question here. Now you just said something about having auxilli.ary personnel or what did you say? Councilman Boyt: Clerical. 58 1 a r7 City Council Meeting - March 27, i939 - ' Councilwoman Dimler: To help them? Jim Chaffee: Yes. Support personnel , yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Then my other question was the two vehicles. Although I can see a need for them, because this is a non-budgeted item and we have to adjust the budget for 1989 for it, I was wondering if we couldn't cut just a little bit and is it a possibility that they drive their own vehicles and then we reimburse them for gas and mileage? Councilman Boyt: That's not a savings. Don Ashworth: I honestly do not think the City would save anything in that. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm asking a question. Also, then on the numbers where you know, I was a little bit confused here. You're using these numbers to indicate the need and the total numbers for 1987, how many inspectors did we have in 1987? Jim Chaffee: Are you looking at building permit totals in new residential? 79-88? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I just can't see that drastic of an increase. When I did the numbers, I totaled all the new construction and it was 329 in 1987 and 373 in 1988 and that's only an increase of 13%. If you were using the numbers to justify your need, I guess I don't see it. Mayor Chmiel: You don' t have the coirner_cIal buildings on there do you? ' Jim Chaffee: Right. And the numbers that we're using to justify our needs are the numbers of inspections that are done and permits issued. Not evaluation. I think that's what you're getting at isn't it? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Jim Chaffee: Yes, it's the number of inspections that we actually do have skyrocketed. Not necessarily the evaluation of the construction that is occurring. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Those c,ere my only two questions. Mayor_ Chmiel: Any other questions? ' Councilman Boyt: Only that we're probably being too conservative. Mayor Chmiel: I think we probably are but we're going to have to see where we're going with th economy that's coming in. The situation that's happening, I know we have to do something. Councilman Boyt: I would make the other point that I think we discussed this at other budget meetings in previous years but the City has got to get out of the business of directing building permit fees into the general fund. You just can't do that anymore. We've got these on the backs of the building inspectors ride a good bit of the funding of the City as a whole. It's not designed to ' 59 OIty Counc i 1 Meeting - March 27, 1989 work that way and that's why we have a problem right now. Councilman Johnson: We're doing, this particular thing is a fee for service and people are paying the fees and I don't think they're quite getting the service yet. Resolution #89-46: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the hiring of two additional full-time inspectors (one mechanical and one building) and to amend the 1989 budget, Fund 125-4010, Personal Services in the amount of $52,000.00. In addition, Fund 209-4704 should be amended to include two inspection vehicles (4 wheel drive) in the amount of $32,000.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CURBSIDE RECYCLING, ASST. CITY PLANNER. Jo Ann Olsen: At the last minute Mr. Gnade pulled out of his bid to do the curbside recycling and it was for personal reasons. His wife became ill. Waste Mangement Inc. has stated that they can still provide the service. It's 87 cents per household per month and it would be through the end of December, 1989 and it comes to around $24,000.00 to $25,000.00. It's still within what is budgeted. Staff is recommending that the City Council accept their bid. They are also willing to provide, they will not be able to start the service until May 1st but they are going to provide a special pick-up in April on Saturday on the 15th, April 15th, to allow the people who have been collecting items since December to get rid of them. We are recommending that you accept that bid. I I think it will work out. Mayor Obmiel: Have we had any discussions with any others like SuperCycle or any? Jo Ann Olsen: I have gotten letters back from like BFI and they're just not interested in the bid. I think it's because it's such a short term. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes, one year period. (A tape change occured at this point.) Councilman Johnson: So we still have to supply our own containers? It's not like some of the other places where you've got the little thing with the slots? Jo Ann Olsen: The City usually has to purcnase those to do that or else you have to pay a lot more for than to provide that so we'll look into that for next ' year. Councilman Johnson: I certainly hope the newspaper, since we had a front page article and people are ready to start throwing them out there, we get as good of coverage on oops, it didn't happen. My wife was very excited to read about this. I move we approve. Councilman Workman: Second. 60 1 City Council Meetin,7 - 'March 27, 1989 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to accept the bid for curbside recycling from Waste Management, Inc. at 87 cents per household per month. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Bill. Purchase property next to Lake Ann. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Well, there's been some discussion about this in the past so I am going to, I recognize that unless we suspend our rules, all I'm proposing is that we put this on the next agenda. I would actually suggest that this might well be worth suspending our rules and going ahead and passing the motion. I would move that the City Council begin preparing, or the City begin preparing for the purchase of the property located to the east of the existing ' Lake Ann Park property. I think we should contact the school district and we should contact the HRA. This is a piece of property that needs to be developed to the best benefit of the citizens of Chanhassen and to do that, the City needs ' to purchase it. As part of that, I think the City should prepare some sort of survey to find out if we're going to be supported by the rest of the residents in it's purchase request. That survey could take place between now and April 10th so we know how we stand. The survey would cost somewhere in the neighbc :nood of $700.00 to conduct and would be done througn the mail but I think we need to know. There might be other possibilities but I think this is one that's actually conceiveable. The City could pull this off and it would be, ' from an economic standpoint, well worth considering. Councilman Johnson: Bill, the reason I mentioned earlier what side of Lake Ann, ' I think we ought to be looking at the west side of Lake Ann also. We'r_e talking currently we're seeing what's happening in our search for property on the south side of town. What's happening to property value right now. We're looking at unsewered land on the west side of Lake Ann that also would be fitting once ' sewer gets there which may be now, maybe a little while from now. I foresee the possibility of saying, taking 174 acres and change it to one building site. Dear Met Council, can we transfer some of this unused sewer capability, this 174 acres to this property on the west side? And now for a quarter of the cost, we've achieved the same purpose. We've achieved a site for a school. We've achieved a site for a community center and achieved a site for extension of Lake Ann Park at probably a quarter of the cost that it would cost to buy the land now. Because we're buying unsewered land and then trying to put sewer into it. We'll probably have to n:y $6,000.00-$7,000.00 an acre for that land because I'm sure the people owning it believe that they will get sewer right away, in the next movement of sewer and we can see, I don't think you were at the last Park and Rec meeting when Al discussed properties and what's happening in the unsewered area. They've gone from $3,000.00 to $6,500.00 an acre in the last 3 or 4 years. Councilman Boyt: Jay, I don' t think it's that's easy to take sewer away from somebody so I would suggest that the place that the City can develop the best, get the biggest economic return and granted, it does take a substantial investment to do that but the opportunity for return is immense. I think we have a pretty good chance that we could sell this and run a combination of II situations between the HRA, the school district and the City and purchase that piece of property. 61 bie y) City Council Meeting - Marco 27, l)39 I Councilman Workman: And I strongly second that. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Councilman Boyt: Don, I don't know exactly what we're doing with this thing. , Mayor Chmiel: Well we've got to go somewhere with it. Councilman Johnson: What are we looking for? What is the purpose of the t purchase? To buy land for the schools or what? Councilman Boyt: Hang on a minute. What I'm trying to get in is a procedural point and then you can discuss it. What I'd like to see us do is suspend our rules and make this a motion and get staff acting on it so we've got some information to respond to by April 10th. So I guess my first motion would be, that the City Council suspend it's rules and agree that we can approve a motion off the Council Presentations. Councilman Johnson: Second. , Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to suspect the City Council ' rules of procedure to approve a motion off the Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: my second motion would be that we direct staff to, and this hi ' ti may need some work but I would say that we direct staff to survey the community about their support for the purchase of the property east of Lake Ann. ' Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Johnson: Will that survey include indicating during that, what the affect on their tax rates will be? Councilman Boyt: Oh definitely. I Councilman Johnson: So you're going to say, if you have a $100,000.00 home, we estimate it's going to be between $100.00 and $200.00 or whatever dollars and if it's $150,000.00, we'll have that information for them during the survey? Okay. Councilman Boyt: I think we need to give than something so they can react to it. ' Councilman Johnson: Can we expand it to looking, there seems to be a real need for additional parkland, additional school land. I would like to not only look at one site. If we are looking at this, we should look at available sites for these options so there's more sites available that we should be looking at because quite frankly, our chances of getting a willing seller in this are very slim. We can have a willing buyer but we're not going to have a willing seller. , Now obviously there's a need for future park, future coinuni.ty center, future school land and we're saying there's that need by making this motion, is the way I'm interpreting your, unless there's a different purpose for your motion. Do we come straight forward and say what the purpose is or do we say that we have a 62 I "y 1 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 critical need for a community center, school and parkland? If so, we should 3 � / look at all available sites and see what is the most economically viable site III for the citizens of Chanhassen. It's almost 5 million dollars. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you talking about just, is there only one owner of that land? There's not multiple owners? Councilman Boyt: What I'm proposing Jay is that this is in fact a sewered piece of property. To my knowledge the largest sewered piece of property available in the city and because it's sewered, it has unique possibilities for the City to develop with. I wouldn't be pursuing this as a piece of parkland. I'd be pursuing this as a unique sewered piece of property in Chanhassen. How we use it, probably needs a little closer study. I'm just saying that let's get the first hurdle out of the way. Are the people willing to pay the price to get it and is the HRA willing to get involved in this thing? Do we need the school ' district involved in it? I don't know but the key ingredient there I think is do the residents in the City of Chanhassen, are they willing to accept that sort of financial tax responsibility in order to make this happen? Councilman Johnson: Do we have any idea what the price is? Councilman Boyt: 3 1/2 million and up. ' Councilman Johnson: And up. They've turned down a heck of a lot more than 3 1/2 million. II i Mayor Chmiel: How do you know? Don Ashworth: I don' t know if that's correct. My concern is the turn around time. Normally when we have talked about any type of surveys and then the data collection period and who we should use to analyze and what not, we've been into 6 month period of time. Now we're talking about 2 weeks. Staff can do everything we can and one of the ways we can do that is to keep it simple. If ' it's one question and try to provide some information regarding the potential taxes and put a postcard with it where a person can send it back just saying yes or no. Councilman Boyt: Tell them the date we need it by. Don Ashworth: Hopefully and then we just start counting. Counci.L- n Johnson: Now Bill, is this an all or nothing proposition? If the seller is willing to sell two-thirds of the property, north third and south third, are we still interested in the property? Because we already said we want the south third for our pond and that they've already expressed they're willing to sell. I have inklings from than that they're willing to sell the north third too. Councilman Boyt: I don' t want to make it complicated, as Don said. Let's hit at the heart of the issue. Councilman Johnson: What is the heart of the issue? I don't think that's been heard yet. 1 63 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Boyt: The heart of the issue is having a piece of property that we can economically develop. That's the heart of my issue. I don't know what the heart of anybody elses issue but that's mine. Councilman Workman: The heart of my issue is that it's not going to be used for any kind of a tax base in the present form or in the future intended use and that we ought to use it for our future middle school, high school, community center, softball fields. Councilman Johnson: That's still untaxed. Councilman Workman: Nothing gained, nothing lost. Councilman Johnson: In that scenario, you go west and buy the land at a third of the cost. I can't see wasting the taxpayers money for sewered land for future ballfields and future uses. We don't need sewered land for ballfields. Councilman Workman: Middle schools and high schools need sewered land. Councilman Johnson: That's still a future use. We'r_e not going to be getting a middle school or high school here in the next couple years. Councilman Boyt: I would argue that that particular piece of property will ' attract a Rosemount or better that will in fact pay for the whole piece of property and give the City the economic leverage it needs to develop other parts of that property. I Councilman Johnson: Unfortunately it's zoned residential. Councilman Boyt: Not all of it. t Councilman Johnson: Yes, all of it. All the way to TN 5. Councilman Boyt: It can be changed. Don Ashworth: The City Council previously looked at approving Minnetonka Inc. for that property. Bill had called earlier today asking the question. Can the City bond for and come up with enough bonding capacity to purchase that property? If you look at just your general obligation, remaining debt, that 11 legal margin, I doubt very much we could do it. You're talking about basically 3 million -lollar_s and I sincerely believe that the final price tag will be 4, if not 5-5 1/2 million dollars. And Bill posed the other question. Can the City establish an economic development district for that property and would in fact ' that potentially pay itself off? The analogy I used was Rosemount in saying that's about 60-80 acres. The taxes per year are $905,000.00 per year. That would be sufficient to basically pay for a 5 to 5 1/2 million dollar site over let's say a 12-14 year period of time. In other words, you've paid off the entire site with just that one user. Where people get larger, fine. The big gamble is will you find another Rosemount out there who is willing to come in and pay the $905,000.00 per year taxes. Councilman Johnson: And is that the proper zoning for that? 64 1 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 1 Don Ashworth: And that's the other question. If all of that were to occur, from what I've heard council members say, I've heard various people say that it I _ really bothers them that you're going to have a church using 174 acres. 5 to 10 acres of land of some of the most prime property within our community. If you firmly believe that it would have a higher and better use, the economic development district route does have the potential of providing a vehicle whereby the property could be purchased and again using the Rosemount analogy, taxes generated of anywhere from 1 to 3 million per year from that piece of ' property. Then again depending on how much of if you use for other purposes. That scenario does not really work though, while again there's significant risk in trying to find that type of developer to come on there, because if we don't, then that means the citizens as a whole will pay that 5 1/2 million dollars. Councilman Johnson: Plus the people of Greenwood Shores have stated emphatically that they want residential next door to them. ' Don Ashworth: I don't know if that's totally true. I believe that they had supported the proposal from Minnetonka Inc. I do not think that Greenwood ' Shores was in opposition to that proposal. I may be wrong. Do you recall of your neighborhood? Mayor Chmiel: I don't recall. Councilman Johnson: Because I know it was from their pressure that we rezone the entire area from what it was to RSF, R-4 and R-12. Because the bottom used Ito be commercial, if I remember right. Then as it went up, it got into residential. I think we ended up with like R-4 up against the existing single family. We're talking actually slightly before my time when I was involved in some city work at the time and they changed to where we had single family residential next to single family residential. Now it makes sense for zoning. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask a question. I think we have, the paper has ' discussed this. I'm sure most of us have thought about this possibility and I'd like to see us take a vote on whether we're going to move forward with this or not. Granted there are a lot of issues that need to be worked out but I come ' back that the critical one is, does the coinuunity as a whole want to see us move in that direction? And we've got to get some feedback to know that. Councilman Johnson: Okay, but what happens April 10th? Councilman Boyt: Well April 10th, if we don't have the feedback, then we'll get more ti.c,e. ' Councilman Johnson: Are you familiar with the correspondence we have that says until this is approved, they won't entertain any offer? Councilman Boyt: Sure I am. First step is find out if the community wants us to move in this direction or not. Mayor Chmiel: I think the community are the people that will tell us what they want to do. Either Minnetonka Inc. or have it for either of the things we just discussed. Jr. High. Sr. High. Community center. Whatever. I think we're going to have to listen to the voters. What they want. ' 65 ,1r -4,1r5 Council Mooting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to direct staff to survey the community about their support for the purchase of the property east of Lake Ann. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman: The first one was my smoking issue at City hall. It was brought up I believe in a memo on the administrative packet by Public Safety Director Jim Chaffee that there was not going to be smoking allowed in the new addition at City Hall. Being that smoking is a dear topic to my heart, I asked why we don't have that policy throughout. I understand one of the biggest I smokers left earlier tonight. She was there. I think I've got most of the smokers in City Hall pegged and I'm not turning my back on them. I am in fact not picking on these people individually because for personality reasons other than smoking is a generally accepted hazard to those who do not smoke and who have to work within the surroundings of it. I'm just bringing this up to Council to perhaps, maybe we can generate a no smoking policy or a strict no smoking policy where smoking can be allowed out of doors or somewhere else. That's basically where I wanted to leave it. Don Ashworth: I can put it on the next agenda and let's give the Council some options. Councilman Johnson: Let me give you some quick feedback. Honewell has instituted a no smoking policy. Then they had to roll back from that a little bit and establish smoking rooms within the building. It is the single largest waste of time that we have. These people, the smokers now I would say waste a good hour a day of productive work time that other people then have to take up , the slack for, by having that kind of strict poii.cy. I think that there's other ways to handle it. Ventilation ways. Segregating smokers from the non-smokers and things like that which is better than a strict, I'm a non-smoker. I don't Like smoking. I've got allergies. It bothers me but smokers have rights too. They've a right to kill themselves. Councilman Workman: But Jay, I'm just bringing up the point and I'.m probably , going to hold pretty steadfast on this in that there's no way to pollute half a room witha cigarette. That's an issue that's been argued and argued and I just want to bring it up and maybe we can discuss it some more. I know it's getting late. Councilman Johnson: Put all the smokers in one room and ventilate it right and let them smoke each other out. Councilman ;;orkman: I say we discuss it at the next opportunity. The second one I have is in regards to the Board of Appeals. At the last Council meeting, ' and let me bring up one other point before I get into this part of it. It was possibly suggested that two members of the Board of Appeals who do not currently carry business type, City of Chanhassen cards, perhaps get them since they do go out to each site and then can knock on a door and say hi, I'm with the City of Chanhassen and perhaps they don't have to snoop around and they can save themselves some harr_asement. But the problem perhaps arose at the last meeting with the variance to the Jessup property on Lake Riley. I guess the issue was brought to Don and then brought to Roger and we're kind of sitting right there with it as far as what Council's offical duty was in case of a unanimous approval of the variance. 66 , ' City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Don Ashworth: The opinion was received back from Roger. Mistakingly, it's in II the very back portion of the packet so I can understand if it was missed but it is in the adminstr_ati.ve section. It should have been put in with the appeal itself. ' Councilman Workman: I don't have that. I never saw that. I do not have any of those. I read everything, I don't have that. It doesn't matter, I guess I'd like some clarification as to where we have the.. . rCouncilman Johnson: Any citizen can file an aggrieved citizen and protest it. We have the same rights of any citizen in the City of Chanhassen. If we disagree with the unanimous decision of the Board, we, individually can petition ' and say we are aggrieved by contacting Don and then it will come back to the Council. ' Councilman Boyt: We've handled it I think much quicker than that. We don't want to delay people and typically, very frequently I'm the person who objects. When I am, I tell the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the applicant at the ' time I disagree with this. I'm going to bring it up. We put it on right after the Consent Agenda. I think we're handling it and I think people who are in the room at the time realize that it's going to be brought back up. Councilman Johnson: We're kind of outside of the way we should be handling these items as far as I've always thought. The Council should not get them, or actually the Board of Adjustment and Appeals should not be held half an hour I before the Council. I think it should be held the week before and then after they make their decision, we can get the written version of their decision to review at our next council meeting. I always thought that yes, it was awfully ' convenient for the applicant to do that. I never thought that was a good procedure. Willard Johnson: As a member of the Board, I disagree with all of you. I think we have the power to grant a variance on the unanimous vote and if it's denied on the unanimous vote, according to the ordinance it takes 10 days written notice by any person within 500 feet. ' Councilman Johnson: No. Willard Johnson: It is. I've read it. We'll ask Roger for your interpretation then. If it isn't questioned by anybody, our vote should stand. On a split vote, it automatically goes to the Council. I could stand to be corrected but I believe I'm right. Not that I want to take the power away from the Council. I ' have no part on it. I was overrode by the Council tonight and that don't bother me a bit because that's the way you wish to go but I'm just saying, if we grant a variance, it can not be brought up at the Council meeting and denied. Councilman Johnson: It does not specifically say you have to be within 500 feet. It says any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board including. Including. That is not saying only. It says including the applicant or any person owning property or residing within 500 feet of the property. Tnat does not exclude anybody living 10 miles from the property. 67 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Willard Johnson: But the Counci 1 can not bring it up that same night. , to be in written. g It has Councilman Johnson: I don't think it should be brought up that same night. Councilman Boyt: We'r_e not helping anybody out if we hold than off for 10 days which then of course becomes at least 2 weeks because the Council isn't going to meet that often. Willard Johnson: I just feel if we grant a variance unanimously, I feel that in 1 the past we've done it and I'm not going to argue and belabor this, but in the past we've always held it to a grant. If we deny it unanimously, I don't see no reason why the Council can override us on a unanimous one way or the other, or a split tie. Otherwise, why do we need a Board I guess. That's the way the rest of the Board feels. I'm not talking for the Mayor because he's new on it but I and Carol feel that if we're going to go through all this work and go out there and grant a variance, if it's appealed before the Council and you override us, I have no qualms on that. Councilman Boyt: That's what's happening. It's being appealed. ' Willard Johnson: But you can't appeal it within 10 days according to your City ordinance. I'm not going to belabor this thing any longer. Councilman Boyt: The ordinance doesn't say we have to wait 10 days to appeal it? Willard Johnson: It has to be appealed within 10 days in writing or do read 1 it wrong Roger? Y g I z�ad Roger_ Knutson: It says you have to file an appeal within 10 days. You could file it 5 minutes later. It doesn't say in writing I don't believe. Willard Johnson: That's just my point. Councilman Boyt: My problem isn' t that, you guys do your homework and I usually try to get here to sit in because I can learn a good bit by listening to your concerns about it. My problem with it is, you don't run for office. I do but I live with the consequences of your vote. If I live with the consequences, you know I'm going to want to have a say about it. So that's why I think that the City Council has to have the ability to review that. As it is, if you pass it unanimous'__, it's becoming more difficult for us :o override that. A 2 to 2 vote doesn't do it. In fact, a 2 to 2 vote supports it. Barb Klick: I would just like most of you to consider the April 10th meeting. I really think that this spot probably will be inadequate and I would like to consider.. . Mayor_ Qimi.el: You're looking in at the school Steve? Steve Hanson: I can. 68 1 City C 7 1 -?ari ne - hir e 27, L_,3 111:1 Mayor Chmiel: I thougnt I discussed that with you and said make sure tact -1e have it it the school rather than here. ICouncilman Johnson: The school acoustics is horrible. Is there any other place? The Dinner Theater doesn't hold anything on Monday nights. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's just going to cost us more money. Councilman Boyt: It'd or_obably be worth renting a PA system. Councilman Johnson: Absolutely because the acoustics in there is horrible. ' Mayor_ Chmiel: But this is not going to be large enough to accommodate everybody. I agree. In fact, I felt that way at the first one. Made that suggestion that we look at the school. ' Councilman Johnson: If worse comes to worse, we can put TV monitors out there. TV monitors upstairs. If we can't. Mayor Chmiel: There's one thing that just came to mind. Don and I had a discussion just the other day about those appraisals. Don, do you want to bring ' that up? On the appraisals on the adjacent properties. Don Ashworth: Yes, we nave moved ahead with the appraisal for the abutting properties. Citizens had asked us about that. We brought it oack with Roger_ and myself and Roger is moving ahead as contract to have that work completed. This would be the affects of Dckankar potentially back on the residential properties in the vicinity of the church. ' Councilman Boyt: Did we determine then that teat was actually a defense? We were going to bring that up in such a fashion, raise those questions in such a ' fashion that if they found out there was an economic impact, that we could in fact turn it down for that reason? Otherwise, why do it? Roger Knutson: I explained in a confidential memo to you my thoughts on it and ' I think it would be best if you read it in that fashion. Councilman Boyt: But we haven't received it. Roger Knutson: I mailed it to Don. ' Councilman Johnson: I think it was in his pile he's going through today. Don Ashworth: The secondary issue is really one of where we had ended up with the Derrick land purchase. There's a lot of questions by citizens as to the reasonableness. In fact I believe that was even of Roger's recommendation on that issue. At that point in time we did look to a second legal opinion as to what options the City may have open to then. Again, where the issue has been quite controversial, the Council has looked to again a second opinion in that area. Again, I would use the Derrick land where we went into Lotus Lake Homeowners Association where we were into again the basis for that was just so f that Council members could basically say, when asked by citizens, we have asked ' two different firms for opinions as to what it is that you can legally can do as City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 far_ as approving or denying. Then in one case we received this or in both ca , ses we received this or whatever the case may be. Again, I do not know if you would want to look to something similar. If you were, I would probably go back to the LeFever firm and maybe pose some of the same questions that have already been asked. Mr. Kurvers: I'd like to say a little bit about over the weekend our property has been flooded by Colonial Grove by not having a storm sewer. You people, I don' t know if some of you people here didn't have anything to do with approving. There's two houses recently been built and the elevation is 3 1/2 to 4 feet higher than the street and at the present time we're collecting about 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 acres of storm drainage through our development. Where there was supposed to be drainage, there's now a house built so we did call the City and no one came except Ursula came down and looked and I think Jay, you came down. Councilman Johnson: I spent time there Sunday and I've been discussing it with ' Gary today. Gary believes he may have a solution. Mr. Kurvers: Gary does? Well, whatever is going to be done, I'd like to be part of it because there's definitely a problem there. Councilman Johnson: There's several problems there including some from your property. Mr. Kurvers: There is problems but it has to be solved somehow because whatever you approve and keep approving it's getting worse. Right now it's just like a waterfall trying to find a place to go over the street. It gets up high enough and it comes over the street and it comes down through our property. Like I say, we're taking at least 5 acres of drainage, which there's a culvert in there 10 inches or 12 inches but the water is coming solid so that's a lot of water. That's a lot of water and if you look at the contours of the development, that water is supposed to drain the other way into a wetland that's been filled and refilled and filling and continuously filling. What they're doing is filling in a wetland which is a Class A wetland and draining it into our development in another Class A wetland. What they're doing is building on it and running the water in ours. Now I don't think that's quite fair. Councilman Johnson: Actually there was no water flow from their wetlands towards your property. , Mr. Kur_ver_ - : It can' t get out. Councilman Johnson: Their wetland drains the opposite direction. This area was ' platted in 1959. They made some errors. There was no culvert put underneath Cheyenne Trail to take the water from your property that is going to the north. It then turns, comes around down Cheyenne Trail street and then circles in front of the first house there and comes back to your house. All the property on the north side of Cheyenne Trail, all the way up to the top of the hill, which used to drain down Cheyenne Trail and then go into that wetlands, appears to have switched and now is cutting across the way to your wetlands. Gary and I are going over several different ideas on how to get that back to the wetland now. 70 ' City Counci 1 `?•yeti nn - . . rch 27, 1989 - " Mr. Kurvers: That's why I wanted to be part of it because there's been many changes that have taken ?lace which made it worse. ' Councilman Johnson: Including your development. ' Mr. Kurvers: No. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mr. Kurvers: What did we do that changed it? If you can tell me what we did that changed it? ' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to suggest that Mr. Kurvers and Gary Warren get together. ' Mayor Chmiel: Right, that you be included in those negotiations. Mr. Kurvers: That's all I'm asking for. Councilwoman Dim ler moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth ICity Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 I 71 mis I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 .. ' r w t" t",bs„ F,;+ CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION g I .. REGULAR MEETING k MARCH 15, 1989 I Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. . IMEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson, Steve Emmings , Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla I STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olson, Asst. City Planner IPUBLIC HEARING: REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, 2ND ADDITION INTO ONE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST I CORNER OF CR 17 AND LAKE DRIVE, AMCON CORPORATION FOR EMPAK, INC. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order . ' Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Headla: I think the recommendations are appropriate. I think there I r should be a second condition that the staff recommended . That ' s . . . the site plan gets approved for this item. In other words , if we don' t approve. . . then whoever gets it gets the two lots . IEmmings: So the notion would be if the site plan ' s not approved it would stay two lots . Otherwise , it would be joined as one. IWildermuth: I have nothing. Ellson: It looks pretty good to me. IConrad: I have no comments . I don ' t know that we need to make it conditional . Staff , does that make any sense? Conditional in terms of Ithe site plan being approved. If some owner wants to replat. . . Headla : I think it makes sense. Why do it when someone else may come in? IConrad : It' s their right. Headla : To come in yes . IConrad : It' s their right to just join properties together . IHeadla: But I think we want to know what we' re joining and why. f Conrad : We did . Those two pieces of property. I Headla: That ' s right. For this company for this reason. I think we ought to approve it for this reason. Not for some other reason later on that some other company does it. I II , Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 2 Erhart : I have no comments and I guess regarding the second item, I guess I don' t see any reason Dave either . If they decide not to build the building , they probably wouldn' t follow through with this anyway so I guess I don' t see a reason for a second condition. Batzli : Is part of the replat issue the easements? Vacation? ' Emmings: No. Hanson : You don' t act on the vacation. Council acts on that . ' Batzli : I just had one question about that and that was , in the discussion about Well No. 4 there needs to be access or something, is that handled by what we' re doing with this piece of property? It says that they need to have access during construction and something else but do they need continued access after the development of the property? The street goes to it? I couldn' t tell where the well was I guess was my biggest problem. Olsen : The engineering, when they come out with their plans and specs , all that will be determined and if they need an easement or cross easement, they can be. Right at this time they did not feel that they needed a utility easement or anything like that. Batzli : Where is Well No . 4? Emmings: It' s not on this property is it? Erhart : It' s on this side here . It' s down by, right there. That little box there. Where we have all the city parties. It' s actually a public park and a well building put all together and it ' s used for , the public can use it. Batzli : This little block down here? Erhart: Yes, it ' s cut off at the bottom. ' Batzli : And how else would you get access if it wasn ' t over this property? ' Hanson : Ultimately we' ll have access off of Lake Drive when that ' s extended through. But during the interim, Lake Drive won' t be installed. Batzli : So you' re going to access it via this property and you say somewhere in one of the conditions that you want access during the development and construction phase or something? ' ( Emmings: Let' s do this on the site plan review. Let' s finish with the replat . Just remember to bring it up because I think it ' s an important thing. Batzli : Okay. ' 1 . I Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 3 5 I Olsen : It ' s part of an easement that we are requiring that wouldn ' t Iaffect the platting at all if that' s what you' re getting at now. Batzli : Yes , I didn' t know where it should be addressed to be honest with I you. Emmings : I don ' t have any comments. I don' t see in your reason to add the second condition. Right now there are two lots there. These folks I want to build on both of them. They've got to combine them into one and if the replat goes through and they don' t build, then whoever comes in there has to deal with it as a single lot , one large lot and that doesnt' I bother me. I could see doing it either way and I don ' t really care which way it goes myself. I don' t see any compelling reason to do it but it could be done. So is there a motion? IEllson moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #89-3 to create Lot 1, Block 1 Empak IAddition as shown on the plat stamped "Received March 1, 1989" with the following condition: 1. That the applicant receive vacation of the interior drainage and 111 _ utility easements . All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a Ivote of 6 to 1. IEmmings : And David for the reasons that you stated? Headla: Yes. I think it ' s appropriate for this person, if they go ahead with it but if something happens and it defaults and goes to someone else, I think it should go back to two. ISITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PHASE I AND PHASE II FOR AN OFFICE/MANUFACTURING/ WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 17 AND LAKE DRIVE, SOUTH OF IHWY. 5, AMCON CORPORATION FOR EMPAK, INC. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. IEmmings: Jo Ann , the Lake Drive, when does that road get built? Olsen : They' re getting real close to it . I think they' re going to start Iconstruction this fall . ( Emmings : Okay, so that' s going to be after construction of this? IFOlsen: They' ll have to get temporary access from Carver County to get temporary access from County Road 17 . I II " Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 4 Emmings : But there will be a road there , a finished road there this year? Olsen: It' s supposed to be. Again, you never know when they' re going to be completed . Emmi.ngs : Is there a plan? Olsen: Yes . Emmings : If it goes according to plan, there will be a road? Lake Drive East will be there this year? Olsen : It ' s supposed to be finished this year , yes . That ' s my understanding. Erhart : Who builds that? The County? The City? Olsen: The City is building that. The feasibility study has been approved and it ' s going to be coming in also with Rosemount so there' s a lot of pressure to get it installed now. ' Emmi.ngs : This is not a public hearing but the applicants are here anyway I guess. Do the applicants want to address items in the staff report? Particular the conditions . Have you read the conditions? Todd Kristoferson: I 'm Todd Kristoferson. I 'm with Empak for the applicant and we received a copy of the report last week and since then we' ve been talking with City Staff, County Staff, Watershed District regarding some of the conditions that we ' ve got and all of the conditions we feel that can be worked out with staff between now and the 10th of April which is the Council meeting . So if there isn ' t anything specific that you want to ask me, I guess I 'd just like to leave it at that. We are aware of all these conditions and we feel that they can be worked out . Emmings: I don' t know what Empak does. Can you tell us what they do? Todd Kristoferson : Larry Welter here is with Empak and maybe he could address those. Larry Welter : Empak is a plastic molding company. Taking plastic residue and converting it into a product. This facility will be used for molding bottles . Emmings : Any comments? Tim? ' Erhart : More comments on the administration than on the site plan itself. There 's an existing creek running down the eastern portion of this property, draining to the south and to Lake Susan. What ' s the plan for the oak trees that surround that creek? Olsen : I believe right now that that future , they won ' t really be touched right now. . . ' I Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 5 r _ II Todd Kri.stoferson: I uess I know where the o g e t oak trees are from driving by the site but I 'm not sure exactly where they sit in relation to this phase Iof the project . Erhart : It appears from your building that what you ' re currently putting il up, with the 20 parking spaces. It appears the building you' re currently putting up won ' t affect existing trees but your plant expansion, I don ' t know. It ' s hard to tell . It looks like that may or may not affect it. I might be wrong. Most of the trees may be actually down in this area. Is II that what it is? Olsen : This site, has hardly any trees on it . . . II Erhart : What is the plan to do with the creek? I heard one time that we were just going to replace it with a culvert. ITodd Kristoferson: The plan is part of the City' s improvements with the street and the plan is to replace the creek with a 36 inch storm sewer that will drain property from the north of the railroad tracks and also IIpick up the drainage from our project and the street . Erhart: And our engineering department is making those recommendations? Todd Kristoferson : Yes . Wildermuth: I think that ' s the storm sewer plan for the street according Ito Gary Warren' s letter . Erhart : We' re eliminating a creek with a culvert . I guess that strikes Ime as . . . Wildermuth : Why wouldn' t the DNR comment on that? IErhart: Creeks are not official wetlands . We learned that about a year ago here in another subdivision. II Olsen: It' s protected by the Watershed District and the Watershed District is also involved with that storm water study. ' Wildermuth: I didn' t see a letter in here from the Watershed District . Olsen: This project isn ' t. . . IIErhart : What project do we see where we get to comment on the idea of turning a creek into a culvert? IOlsen : I believe it was the downtown storm water . That went before the Council . rHanson : About a month or two ago . It was all part of the Lake Drive improvements and the assessments that were being done for the improvement of that which also included storm sewer and water and sewer lines along Lake Drive. MI Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 15, 1989 - Page 6 i Olsen : It ' s always been in that storm water management plan to bring the water from the downtown area to the pond that' s going to be in the park or south. Erhart : Everytime you get rid of wetlands , it ' s always someone ' s plan to put a house here or industrial building. It ' s the same thought process that has caused us to allow 80% of our wetlands, loss of wetlands . . . It ' s really scary that the City are on one hand eliminating wetlands at the same time have such strict ordinances regarding preservation of wetlands. ' Maybe this is all good common sense and everything but then again, maybe this is a little one page in the back of a document someplace that no one really had a chance to look at. Just never really, it got through with everything else. I sort of heard about this some weeks ago and I guess I 'd like to maybe , I ' ll let the other commissioners comment but it disturbs me that we' re doing this. So that ' s my comment on that one. Administratively, we' ve got 27 conditions on this and I think it seems like the number of conditions has grown. Like some of these things . One, and I think I ' ve heard the rest of the commission comment here, I think it becomes difficult to assess and provide valuable comments to the Council when it' s difficult to really see what the plan is . For example, it' s hard to go home and study the landscaping plan when it isn' t there and then to respond to them at point in front of the camera with just a comment. So some of these things , aren' t they standards? Maybe they' re not but like for example, the turn in the roadway shall maintain a minimum road width and shall be constructed with the minimum radius and 25 feet. Is that a standard or is that something special to this particular site plan? Olsen : It ' s pretty standard . ' Erhart : Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 feet clear width. Is that a standard or is that special to this? ' Olsen : That' s the fire , Mark Littfin came in. . . Batzli : But Tim aren' t these things normally in the other engineering and staff reviews and we kind of incorporate them by reference and in this particular one you' ve set them all out? Isn' t that one of the big differences? ' Olsen: I usually spell out . Batzli : A lot of times we incorporate by reference. Things like saying ' that it' s from Larry Brown' s memo dated such and such. I agree. We rarely have 27 conditions . Olsen: When we got that from the engineering , department we did discuss i what to do and I did contact the applicant and requested to have something =�_ in response to a lot of those conditions before we came in front of you . It was misunderstood that he thought I meant March 27th but anyway, yes a lot of those are typical and if you don' t want them spelled out , we don' t need to. II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 7 r II Emmings : I think when you were gone , you missed something . I think it II started down here at this end. Dave went on a war path and we all agreed that there is no sense to having so damn many conditions . There are some subjects that come up here 3 times in different conditions and it seems to IIme they could easily have been put under one heading or there could have been a heading for things that need to be done before it gets to City Council and those listed as sub things. Have them organized in some way. As far as, I can' t wait to get to Dave. That's what I started at this IIend . I 'm saving him for last . As far as this goes , this is the worse one I think I ' ve ever seen in that regard and I think you kind of missed . . . II Olsen : No , I heard it. And I totally agree. That ' s something we ' ve been trying to. . . Emmings : And you' re going to hear it 7 more times tonight . IOlsen: I agree that we want to do that. It was just a surprise when we got that memo from the engineering department . It was a little spread out II and I couldn' t condense it. I don' t have the reasons . Emmings : Tim, you' re still on. II( Erhart : I 'm not going to through it but it seems to me, I marked them at home, like 9 or 10 of these, it appears they were just standard conditions that were just restated again. Things like revised plan should be II submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussion contained in the staff report. What does that mean? They have to revise your plans even to your discussion because it says discussion contained in I the staff report. Even though you might show two sides of an argument , they have to show both sides. So anyway, I think we need to shorten these but I think we need two things . There' s a comment we made previously. We I need to have plans more closely to finished form which I think is what Dave has been asking for . Then secondly, if it ' s not , we want to be able to identify for the Council things that are unique I think in these conditions . Unique to this particular subdivision if I 'm not wrong II because I think that ' s what we ' re trying to do is bring up to the Council special circumstances related to this particular subdivision so they can think about those when they' re reading their comments. Other than that, I I think there really isn' t a lot of say about this particular subidivision other than I guess is it possible to go through what the revised landscaping plan is at this point? I guess I would be interested in seeing that but, that ' s the only real thing I had along where the creek IIwas in the trees. Conrad : My comments are very similiar . Just out of curiousity, the first II point says all signage must meet the conditions of the sign ordinance. Do we have indication that they don' t? So is this communication to the ( people who are doing the project so they pay attention? Is this the right ,f... vehicle to do that? Olsen : We don ' t have a detailed signage plan. II I , Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 8 Conrad : Okay, so really your comment is , we don' t have the details on the sign so you can' t make comments until the details are in. Generally, does this mean that staff hasn' t worked together real closely with the group on this project or what do the conditions or whatever mean? Hanson : I think really what it means is , it points up the flaw that we have in the process that we are operating under . As an example, submittal date for your next meeting was Monday of this week. In order to set the agenda for that meeting we have to put public notice in the paper this Friday. Referrals go out this week. We get the comments back from even engineering, even departments within the city the week that we write the staff report . Quite often we write our recommendation and we haven ' t received comments from the other departments. The way we set it up in the process is that ' s coming through word processing . We get their comments and the secretaries essentially trade disks and all the engineering comments come out under our recommendation. I think in this particular case, there are several items that come listed out and that' s for a couple of reasons . It ' s a different person at engineering who reviewed the plans who' s ever done it before as far as the City so they, I think to their credit , were very particular about what they did and they noted everything. I personally believe that that' s very appropriate for them to do . If the process was massaged a little bit , we would have those comments, give those to the applicant so they would have time to respond . As it is now, they' re kind of behind the 8 ball in all honesty to be able to respond to something. Right now our option is to say to them, if we can go ahead , because we don' t perceive a lot of the conditions as big deals, I think they' re agreeable to all of them. A lot of them are fairly standard items. They' re Code requirements if you will . Engineering stanards but we don' t want those not to show up in the conditions because we want to make sure that those are addressed. We would like to see essentially all of these convered prior to going to Council . On the signage thing, they haven' t submitted anything as far as a specific signage for it but also they can get the site plan approved , come back at 11 a point later and file for a sign permit in comformance with the Code so it ' s not something that necessarily comes back to the Planning Commission for approval . The reason that we put that condition in there is to make it clear that they' re not asking for something that ' s out of the ordinary. ' Conrad: How do you want to massage this process? Is there, I agree with what you' re saying. In this particular case we ' re just hit with so many but Steve, do you see the proces changing at all? Ellson : He made a suggestion once before about that committee thing or whatever. Didn' t you make a suggestion one other time before about a committee or something? A preliminary thing . Hanson: What I 'm hoping to do is to get a process put together and bring it back to the Planning Commission hopefully next month. No promises but hopefully in that time frame and one of the things I 'm looking at essentially two alternatives . One is that we move the submittal date back 2 weeks so there' s a time for stuff to get reviewed and you get comments and then you do a public notice . The other option from doing that is to leave it the way it is and say, tell the applicant, look we can publish 'I . 11 pPlanning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 9 IIthe notice and we can go ahead , if it ' s not ready, we ' re going to pull it. If we have to republish then, we may reassess you but that becomes rather I cumbersome and what I 'd like to do is have a system where they can submit stuff and if everything ' s complete, we can proceed ahead and if there' s something that needs to be corrected , we have a means for doing that I without essentially put out agendas that have items that aren' t fully complete. Emmings : Why wouldn' t you just go ahead and do that? What militates IIagainst doing precisely that? Moving that back 2 weeks . Olsen : We get a lot of pressure from the applicants that it' s already Itaking so long. Hanson : To do that , I would like to have that endorsement. I would like Ito have the endorsement of the Planning Commission. . .especially people who have been active in the community in bringing development projects through. I can guarantee you ' re going to get calls and there' s going to be complaints until people understand it. On the other hand , we have II applicants who have never dealt with the process here and find it very frustrating because they never get any input essentially until Friday before your meeting . II f Conrad : The point is , you should have agreement . When you come here though you should have pretty much agreement with the applicant except for where you disagree and that' s where we should kind of come in and have our Icomments. Hanson: The other thing I think where there ' s a flaw is , I think we agree I and they agree that the conditions are appropriate. Where I can see where you would be nervous is for example on the second one where we ' re talking about the landscaping and doing some changes to that where you ' re not I seeing that so essentially you ' re relying on staff to handle that. You never know. Conrad : And 1 or 2 is fine . 27 seemed to be , we ' re out of control . Some IIother specific questions . What is 2 foot continuous screening? Olsen : The ordinance requires with a berm or screening . IIConrad: So what is 2 foot continuous? Ellson : Bushes? IIConrad: Is that a bush? II Olsen : Usually it ' s a bush . Usually what they' ve used for screening is berming but this with the topography here you really couldn' t berm a hill so they pretty much. . . IIConrad : Okay, is 50% opacity is that our standard? Olsen: Yes . I II, Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 10 Conrad : I think one of these things we care about as long as you agree that they' re alright. Information on where drainage is discharged and the possible need for a retention pond for wetland pollution and nutrient loading impacts. What does that mean? That really means drainage and does it mean that we ' re not comfortable with the drainage? Olsen: They usually submit calculations that show how much of the roof drainage there will be or runoff from the site and I believe engineering just wanted to see those calculations to determine whether or not the pond to the south is able to handle that or if there should be a pond . Conrad: So there may be a need for a pond? Olsen : Which means a drainage easement on the plat. Conrad: So we ' re not looking at the final thing. So what' s going to City ' Council will be quite a bit different, or a little bit different . Number 24, plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian traffic around the building and site. , Olsen : I asked him on that one and he was discussing showing sidewalks and things like that and that' s not really. . . Conrad : We haven ' t done that to anybody else. Now it is an interesting thing. If we put employees in big buildings, I think there' s validity in traffic movement or pedestrian movement around but we haven ' t done that to my knowledge to anybody else so that one, I think you can work with the applicant on that and figure out what you want to do. On one level , in the package Jo Ann someplace in here where we show, way towards the back, the schematic where we show a wetland on the other side of the road . What kind of wetland is that? Olsen : I don ' t know if that is a designated wetland . ' Conrad: It may or may not be a designated wetland. If we built a road over it, would that need a wetland alteration permit? Because we' d force everybody else to do that. Olsen : I don ' t know if they. . . Conrad: I think City Council should know. Erhart : That whole area down there is intended for park I believe. ' Hanson: Yes . Erhart : I think the intent is to make that into a ballfield . What it is is it is cropped. There was agricultural crops on it today but it floods out frequently. Olsen : I can check on that . I 'm not sure. I ' I I Planning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 11 I' IIConrad : Would you check out and see what that is Jo Ann? And I agree with Tim' s comments on the overall concern with making creeks into II culverts . We didn' t see it. I 'm concerned like Tim is . Olsen: We could have, if you want, we could ask Gary Warren to comment on these plans . IIConrad : The Chairman can decide what he wants to do. 1 Emmings: I 'm going to appoint a committee to decide what to do and you' re it. II Ellson: In general I think the site plan looks fine. I 'm not going to belabor the point about 27 conditions. I think it' s been discussed enough and I think we' re going to be dealing with that so I ' ll leave you to Dave. II Batzli : I agree about the 27 conditions. Enough said on that. The condition 3 , additional phases or expansion of the site will require a site plan review. I 'm assuming you ' re talking about the hatched line IIwhich says plant expansion? I 'm also assuming that if you put that plant expansion on there, there' s no way that they have the necessary percentage of impervious to non-impervious . IVOlsen : I think they show that they still meet it even with that expansion. I Batzli : Well they would need additional parking I would assume when they put that expansion in as well . I Olsen : That will all be reviewed if they have adequate parking versus the square footage. I Batzli : What is the percentage? Olsen: 70% impervious . IBatzli : But they say Phase 1, 17% covered by building . Then the 16% impervious so they' re saying there' s only 33%. Now wait a minute, what is the total percentage of green space on this baby? IOlsen: The first phase is the 17% and the 16% . Batzli : What' s the 3 . 7%? What ' s the difference between impervious surface and parking area? Olsen : They usually do the site covered by building and impervious ' surface and you just add those two together . 17% and 16%. Actually I added them all up. They' re definitely below it now and that' s something ( we would look at in the future. IrTodd Kristoferson : I guess to answer that I would say that the Phase 2 that ' s shown on there is just to show the intent and the direction of the building expansion and exactly how that would lay out and exactly how the II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 12 parking would lay out would be designed ned at the time the Phase goes ahead .. 9 Y 9 2 g and at that time we'd like to bring it in. Batzli : For instance, let ' s say you' re going to need a retention pond due to the water off the roof. About the only place you ' re going to be able to put it is where your plant expansion goes . If that ' s the case, would you even want to put up the building? The first phase? Todd Kristoferson: I would say if we had to put up an 80, 000 square foot retention pond, no. We probably would look at that very, very seriously at this point . I 'm assuming that if we need a pond , that we' ll have that resolved with the Watershed District between now and the Council . I have talked to Bob Obermeyer at the Watershed District about this site in general and we are working on our calculations for him. Talked about what might be needed . It ' s not apparent at this time that any pond at all will be needed and certainly not one of that size. , Conrad : Brian , I think it ' s a good point. Given the fact that there' s, on the diagram it says that there are a 89 , 600 square feet addition. That to me would indicate to the applicant that we agree with that and we don' t think we want to. I don ' t think we want to say anything about agreeing to the second phase at this point . It' s good to know where they' re going but I don' t think the approval is the approval or sanctioning an 89 , 000 square foot addition. Batzli. : No , and I understand that condition 3 is attempting to say that we don' t approve of the plant expansion but. . . Filson : You want to be a little more specific maybe? Batzli : Maybe. I think it' s very specific on this plan what the direction and intent of the applicant is and I don' t think, well we certainly don' t have enough information in front of us to agree to that at all . Didn ' t we require a recent applicant for roof drainage to have traps of some kind and things like that coming off the roof? Olsen : Rosemount, yes . , Batzli : Are we requiring these people to do that? Olsen: No, but Rosemount was directing it right into a wetland and so that ' s why we had that . It' s something we could add on. Batzli : This is going into the creek isn' t it? , Olsen : I believe it' s going down with the runoff to the south. Hanson: It' s going into the proposed storm sewer system. Olsen : Which ends up in the pond and then the lake. Batzli : Lake Susan? II Planning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 13 IIOlsen : It ends up in the pond right north of Lake Susan and then it goes into the lake. Although Lake Drive East is going to direct everything to I the east but not on this site . It ' s something you could add . It has a couple large rooftop and because it was going right to that wetland , that ' s why we brought that up. It ' s something that can ' t hurt. IIBatzli : I guess if in fact the drainage off of the roof is going into the storm sewer , the storm sewer is going to end up in one of our lakes or streams. It doesn' t matter to me one way or another whether it' s going I right into a pond or into the storm sewer. It ' s going to end up in our water. I would prefer to see that we treat people somewhat equally as well as I prefer to see them put in the proper strainers or whatever they I need to do for that. My last question, two questions sorry. One is the easement again for Well 4 or potential requirement for an easement, depending on when we build Lake Drive. If you ' re satisfied with condition II 25 that all we need is access during construction and development, I ' ll be satisfied but if we don' t know when Lake Drive is going in, I think we may want to , it' s included not only during construction and development but thereafter until Lake Drive is constructed . The last thing, construction II traffic shall not conflict with the City ' s improvement project which is condition 26 and I assume you mean the improvement project is Lake Drive? IIHanson: The Lake Drive and the storm sewer and the water in the sewer : being constructed in the Lake Drive right-of-way. Batzli : Okay. I guess I would prefer that we say what improvement we ' re II talking about. Those are my comments and my honest opinion is that I think we should table the matter . II Wildermuth: I would definitely like to see a more complete package come to us with far fewer conditions. I guess I have a coupe of questions for the applicant . Are you planning any undergroung storage tanks for II retention of any kind of solvents or washing solution or anything like that? Larry Welter : No . Most of the raw products is brought in and how I form I plastic, it' s stored in outdoor storage tanks and it' s piped into the building during the manufacturing process and converted directly into the bottles. IIWildermuth : So any waste you have is solid waste? Larry Welter: Right . IIWildermuth : And it ' s probably reprocessed? IILarry Welter : Right . ( Wildermuth: How about processed water requirements? Do you have any rprocessed water? Holding machines generally, are you going to have heating and cooling , stand alone heating and cooling units for the dies or are you going to require cooling water? II E. Planning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 14 Larry Welter : y W�lter : The equipment does have, by it ' s cooling water although most of it is, it' s all recycled to clean water . There' s very little waste . I Wildermuth: So you' re not going to have any, you' ll probably have some processed cooling tower , processed cooling water towers right? Larry Welter : Correct . Wildermuth : And those will be the rooftop units? But nothing will go down the drain? Larry Welter : Mainly in the sanitary. ' Wildermuth: The water demand will be to make up the processed cooling water that you lose in the rooftop units? 78 , 000 square feet of factory space and you' re only going to have 50 people on one shift? Larry Welter : That ' s the initial phase , yes . Wildermuth: Yes , for Phase 1. What do you do with all the floor space with only 50 people on a shift? Larry Welter : It ' s mainly storage. It takes a lot of room. ' Wildermuth : Your product is bulky? I don' t know if this is an issue that the applicant has to be concerned with, or if it' s a city issue, but Jo Ann do we want to look at maintaining a creek where the 36 inch storm sewer should be going or is that something that the Watershed people Olsen : That' s out of my hands with planning . I don' t know if that' s really what the engineering , if that was part of the plan that was approved by Council . I can look into that and see what the possibility of changing it. If it has to be there. Wildermuth : I agree with Tim. It would be a shame with an existing creek to just put a culvert in and fill the whole area over . Olsen : But sometimes there' s benefits to that . They' ll say that it ' s better than what ' s there now. I can check that out. Wildermuth: It would seem that the creek, it meanders along that lot line there back and forth. It seems like if it possibly could be redirected , that would be preferable to putting a culvert in . I realize that the applicant probably doesn' t have anything to do with it. That ' s a City plan . I agree with Brian . I think for the moment this issue should be tabled until we have a more complete package to look at with about half the conditions . Headla : You' re talking about a building construction much like MTS and Research? You' re talking of building construction much like MTS and Research just to the east of us in Eden Prairie? 'I II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 15 Todd Kristoferson : That would be the double T wall panel? IHeadla: Pre-cast concrete walls . II Todd Kristoferson : Maybe we should address that because it' s not entirely clear on the plan. The main portion of the building , the plant walls along the sides and the back, would be pre-cast flat panels very similiar to the McGlynn Bakery building that ' s going up out there. It won' t have IIthe projected fins like the MTS building . Headla: You say it will have? ITodd Kristoferson: It won' t. It will be very si.miliar to the McGlynn Bakery building . 1 Headla : What color were you going to have the walls? The reason I 'm asking is we' ve got one white castle now. You have a very nice location there and it would have a lot of view. Something stark white is going to Istick out like a sore thumb. That ' s why I ask that question. Todd Kristoferson : We ' re hesitant to go to a white building for that very reason. This is the material that would be on the office portion of the building . It ' s prefi.nished aluminum. Headla : Pretty consistent with what you have over there now? That color? IEllson: With the other buildings and stuff you ' re saying? IIHeadla : Yes . In the industrial park. What about the concrete walls? Todd Kristoferson: That would be painted a similar color but a lighter I tone . Headla : Okay, very good . Thank you. Your injection molding , is that your business? ILarry Welter : Yes . Injected and blow molding . IHeadla: And what are your machines , 15 by 25 feet? Larry Welter : Yes . Roughly. It varies from among the sizes . That ' s about average. I Headla : And what do you do with the residue of these machines? The flashing. ILarry Welter : We reprocess it . ( Headla : You' ll continually reprocess that? Okay. Wildermuth : Pretty valuable stuff . I Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 16 Headla : Okay, the reason I asked some of those q uesti.ons . . .on the number 11 of people you say you' re going to use and you use that to justify the number of parking spots . The closest I can come is 169 , 000 facility that has 600 people in it. If I run a ratio of people per square feet, you' re probably over 3 times the amount of square feet per person which means , before I 'd ever say yes, I think you ' ve got a good plan here on parking spots , I 'd sure what to see some rationale why you only have 50 parking spots. On the numbers of just common industry, I think you' re way low on the number of parking spots . If you' ve got rationale for it and you can point it out, fine. I 'd like to look at those numbers but I think those numbers have to be available if you ' re going to go that ' s your parking spots . Larry Welter : A rough figure that I used for calculating is 10 , 000 square ' feet machine. For instance, with all the machines you have 120, 000 feet needed for warehouse space to support that production facility. You figure like a gallon jug and it takes up a lot of space. Maybe it won' t have too much plastic in it. Headla : I 'd like to see some documents showing that space. Now that kind of fits in. I think you' re way, and I 'm no way an expert in your business but just from what I see in the industry, I think you' re short on parking lot. The size of parking lot then flows into Brian' s point about you' ve got runoff on the parking lot . We haven ' t put in skimmers . What are we dumping into our streams? You' re going to have oil on those parking lot . You' ve got . . .on these parking lots going into our lakes and streams and the bigger the parking lot, the more cars , the more it ' s going in which means we probably should have the skimmer . That ' s why I would like to see some rationale for that. On why you went so light on that. Then, I think it' s obscene that the number of deviations that we have. I don ' t think the Commission is here to judge on a process of how we get there or to judge on what ' s in front of us . No way would I recommend approval of this. I think it should be tabled. No way would I recommend approval of the applicant should provide an amended landscaping which provides the following. That ' s the stuff that ' s got to come to us before we can even approve it. I want to see what you' re proposing . I don ' t want to leave it to just the staff. I see different things about the fire hydrants and then I 've got a drawing here that shows a possible location of a fire hydrant. I don' t want to say yes , I 'm going to vote yes for that. I want to see it on that print and I want to see it documented and then we say yes, that' s what the fire department agrees to and then we can do it . Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 feet in length. If it' s an issue, then it should have been resolved beforehand. If it isn' t an issue, then it shouldn' t have been in here but it' s here so I ' ve got to raise the question. Submittal of revised site plan incorporating the above conditions prior to consideration by the Council . I want to see all that stuff before it goes to the Council . Revised plan shall be submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussions contained in this staff report. I want to see that. I want to see the erosion control plan . I don ' t want to leave that to the staff and put all that on them. They' re our guidance and I want to give them as much strength as possible and I want you and them to work together and I think you have been but I want to see you work with each other and get it resolved so when it comes I II Planning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 17 I IIhere, we' ve just got a couple of issues and maybe it' s disagreements that we talk about. But we can settle on that and bang, we know exactly what' s II going to go to the Council . It ' s in crisp form and the Council can look at it and they can make a very good judgment on it. Right now everything we' re doing , we' re shoving it onto staff and then it certainly isn ' t crisp IIto the Council and I don ' t think it' s fair to either one. Determination of waste water monitoring requirements . What I hear from you, that isn ' t even an issue but it was put in here so I flagged it and after hearing you, but it was in here. Access must be maintained for City forces to II monitor and maintain Well No . 4. That' s got to be resolved before it comes to the Planning Commission. Not tell the staff to work it our afterwards . II Todd Kristoferson : We have agreed to that access . I Headla : Most of this should have been resolved beforehand so my point, I ' ve got others but my point is , get that stuff resolved with the staff before it comes in. I hadn' t even heard of your company until just a little while ago. Empak, now it ' s come up and I just saw a fellow you II just hired today away from the company where I have my office. Not my company. He was happier than heck. He was just grinning from ear to ear so it must be a pretty good company the way he spoke of it. What you' re I doing , I think is good . I like to see your building. I like to see you in here but for the Planning Commission and the Council to make good judgments , I think we have to have those defined and documented . That ' s all . IIWi.ldermuth : I 'd just like to say one thing . Basically I think we' re very pro business and we certainly want to welcome you to Chanhassen. The 1 project looks like a beautiful project . Your project just kind of got caught in a little internal conflict here. We ' re not basically critical of the project at all . IEmrnings : I am going to belabor the 27 conditions a little bit because it seems to me that what we ' re getting is, we' re getting planning staff conditions and then it sounds like you' re getting engineering staff I conditions and you simply add those on. There' s no synthesis done so we wind up with conditions that treat , and I think on the fire hydrants , fire hydrant things appear on 3 separate ones and two of them seem to be very I similiar to me . When you' ve got , there' s a condition here that says all driveways should be consistent with the City' s commercial/industrial standard details . I think somebody else has brought up other ones of that nature. What the heck else? It ' s like putting in a condition that says , II you' ll obey the law. Unless it' s a problem, unless they' ve designed something that doesn' t meet the standard so we have to tell them they have to meet the standard , that should never be necessary it seems . IIHanson: That ' s why it' s mentioned in here though . II- Emmings : Why? Hanson : Engineering , when they went through, the reason they would have mentioned that is that they didn ' t find something that met that particular II i, Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 18 p standard explicitedly. Emmings : But that' s not giving anybody any information to say that. Then it seems to me they should say that the plans do not meet the City' s commercial/industrial standard details and must be redrafted . Olsen: . . .a lot of that information. 1 Emmings: But then why put it in this report? Olsen: It' s to let them know. 11 Emmings : That they have to comply with our standards? It isn ' t multiple choice. They don' t have a choice about that. This almost suggests that they do . A lot of these , it looks to me like if somebody sat down and tried to do a little synthesis. You know say, here' s all the points we've got, let' s group them together so that we cover topics in a group. It seems to me even going with respect to fire hydrants and watermains , these things need to be done . With respect to landscaping . He did it under landscaping. But pull together what engineering has to say with what you have to say but there' s no way there should be this many. I think tabling it may be, for the people who spoke for tabling it, all of these things seem to be things to me that the staff can handle I guess and I don' t want 1 to punish the applicant by delaying them because we don' t like the process or we don ' t like the way the staff is presenting this stuff or we' d like it presented in a different way. So until we can get this process straighten out, maybe we' re going to have to put up with a little bit of this but I think we should work like crazy to try and get this done because it' s been a topic ever since you' ve come on the scene Steve. I think we nailed you the first meeting . 1 Headla : Steve, I think you slid over the important point . We ' re being asked to approve stuff that we don' t have the definition of what we' re approving . Emmings: I think to some extent , most of those things , if they' re technical , if they' re where trees are going to be located and things like that , I 'm content to let the staff handle that between now and the Council myself. I don' t see, if they brought one plan or another with trees here or there , as long as the staff tells me they've got an adequate number of trees under our ordinance and so forth. Wildermuth: We should be concerned with the concept , conceptual things rather than technicalities . Emmings : I guess I don' t think it' s worth delaying them 2 weeks so that I should decide they should move a tree. I 'm going to let the staff, and there may be more significant issues in here. Headla: I think you hit trivial with those things . I think those are . . . Signage. I 'd like to know what they've got in mind for signage. I think that' s very important. , I II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 19 1 IIWildermuth : That should be part of the package. IHeadla: I don' t want to see that go to Council without seeing what , just a concept . I 'm not asking for detail . I Emmings: You said you store things outside in tanks? Where are those on the plan? Larry Welter : They' re on the north side of the building and the east Icorner . Emmings : All those little round circles you see there? Okay. IWildermuth: What kind of a hardship is it going to work if we table this thing on the applicant? Todd Kristoferson: I guess I can add something there . We ' re on a real fast track schedule with the owner to get him in production in late July. He has these very expensive pieces of equipment that are due to arrive at 1 the same time that we finish the building . Two weeks is very important at this time to us . As far as the number of comments in here , we' ve tried from the time we got this report to address those with staff. Probably ILtwo-thirds of them I think could be eliminated either_ because they' re conditions that are already met or just things that state we need to conform to standard codes . IWildermuth: You said something a little while ago that you thought they were all , they could all be negotiated. Do you plan to comply or do you plan to stand up to a couple of them? 1 Todd Kristoferson: We plan to comply. I didn ' t mean to think that were going to come in and change anything . Some of them are open ended . IIHydrant locations. We realize that we need to have some hydrants but where they are , I guess we want to work that our with the fire department so they' re satisfied because they' re the ones that have to sign off . I Headla : What' s the lead time of your big presses? What' s the lead time if you go to order one? ILarry Welter : That varies between 4 to 6 to 8 weeks . Headla: You can get them that quick? II Wildermuth : Are these new or used pieces that you' re moving? Larry Welter: New. II Headla : One other question and Steve brought it up before. When you came in and talked to the Village, did you have a pretty clear , crisp Iunderstanding of what things you had to look at or did you have to go through ordinances and talk to our staff quite a bit? II - -- Planning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 20 V Todd Kristoferson: We talked to Steve and we got a handout that basically 11 spelled out what they wanted to see. Headla : So you' re making progress with that package Steve? Hanson: What we gave them was sections of the Code. Right now we don' t have what I would call a developers packet . Headla : Steve has been working on something there and I just wondered how he' s progressing so when you come in he says , these are the things you've got to look at. But it' s pretty clear? Okay, thanks . Todd Kristoferson: Our intent is to conform with what the City Engineer ' s and Fire Department' s want. We don' t have any, on many of these items, we don' t have any disagreement at all . We just want to do the next thing to have to clarify. Emmings : It seems to me that ' s all the more reason that we don' t hang them up is that they' ve agreed to the ones that are here. Maybe, as a compromise Dave, I don ' t know of the forces that are in favor of tabling , maybe if there was signage and maybe some other particular issues you want to see back, maybe we could have those come back. Pass the plan on but say that we want to see, we want the signage to come through , or something like that . Just to not hang them up . Since they've already agreed . I 'd '' just throw that out. Headla : This is going to go to the Council before we could see that ' information right? Emmings : Right but we would withhold approval on those issues or say those things have to come before us and should be withheld from the Council . Whatever . Our problem is with our staff , not with these applicants. Batzli : My point is with the proposed expansion and not with the staff in that I think I heard them say if they can ' t build their expansion, or if the potential isn' t there to build the expansion , they might not build . So I would like to see more information before letting it go. Emmings : And on that , it seems to me that we simply say we' re not approving the expansion period. They can' t present a shadow of a plan and expect to get approval on it but I think if you change, what number was that? You already brought it up. Batzli : Which one? The one about the drainage? Roof drainage? Emmings: No, it was 3. That would simply say that this approval was not to be construed as approval of the expansion noted on the plan and any additional phases or expansion of the site will require an additional site \_ review. The other thing that concerned me is I want to add another condition. Ellson : 28? i I . II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 21 A. IIEmmings : Yes , 28 because I just don' t think there are enough. I was a little concerned . It says that the applicant has stated that roof top I equipment will not be visible from the south . I don ' t know if there ' s any other possible place the roof top equipment could be visible from. TH 5 gets up pretty high and all I would say, there ought to be a condition 1 that says that if any roof top equipment is visible, it will be screened because we' ve been real , starting with Pat Swenson back when , she looked at every plan and that was the thing, one of the things she really focused on. I think it was a good idea and that ' s one of those things I think we 1 have to really be a watchdog on or we start losing our grip on it so I think there ought to be a condition that says that if it is visible, that it will be screened. IIHanson : Steve, could I clarify that? Is the intent, if it ' s visible from a public right-of-way? IIEmmings : Yes . You can always crawl up on a ladder and see it . Sure. If it' s visible from, I guess I 'm thinking primarily of TH 5. I don ' t know if it ' s even possible that it could be visible from TH 5. IErhart: TH 5 is very high relative to the site. ILEmmings : So I guess if you said from a, I 'm not thinking of being visible from another building. I think that' s alright. Okay, I don ' t have anything else . Does anybody else have any other comments on this? I Erhart: Yes. Right at the beginning here you quote your Section 20-1125 that for office space , you have 3 parking spaces for each 1, 000 square feet. How many parking spaces does this have? It doesn' t appear that you 1 apply that to this structure. Hanson : It ' s just for the office . 7 ,000 is based on the employees that Ithey have. Erhart : I have another question here . All the Austrian Pines in front of the future building are going to be put in place at the time of the Iconstruction of the building? Todd Kristoferson: First phase? Right . 1 Conrad : No , just as the first . II Todd Kristoferson : No, I 'm assuming that these trees are also going to be put in now or in the future. Conrad : Phase 2, are you putting in the trees in front of your Phase 2? ITodd Kristoferson: All the trees shown on this site plan will go in on c Phase 1. Erhart : In the center , is this going to be graded back to the natural after you get all done? What are they going to be , just left to grow natural? Are you going to mow that? I am II ' Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 22 i Todd Kristoferson : It will be seeded and mulched . Erhart: What does that mean mulched? ' Hanson : A strawed area . Erhart: Oh, so we don' t have erosion? Todd Kristoferson: Right . It helps the grass establish. 1 Erhart: And that' s not intended to be mowed? Probably not. Will it be mowed or just left to grow long? Todd Kristoferson : I would think that the plan is to mow that . Erhart: Are you intending to mow the whole thing or just let it grow I wild? Larry Welter : It would be kept mowed . 1 Erhart: It would be mowed, okay. So essentially you' ll have just a big flat area out there except that these parking lots will be put in now and the dotted ones are for the future? This area is essentially what, your docks? Larry Welter : At the time that there Phase 2 is built , that trucking and dockage will be screened from the street. Erhart : Okay. There ' s landscaping requirements of trees every 40 feet on the interior lot lines correct and that 's not in here so there will be some trees along the east line . Okay, thanks . Conrad: Most of the stuff I think administratively can be handled if 1 staff agrees that it can be. Although they opened it up to us which I 'm sure they' re sorry for doing. My biggest concern that impacts this that basically tells me we may not be giving City Council the final plan is the drainage. If there' s a pond , where does it go? How does it affect the phases and I think that could really screw this up. That ' s the only thing that I see on this site plan that I really care about that the applicant should know that we' re not going to bend rules downstream to make sure we get the additional area in for phase 2. Were also quite concerned that , and typically we handle storm water drainage, or any kind of drainage on site, or we have been with pondi.ng. I don' t know what the difference is right now because we haven ' t been informed of what kind of storm water drainage we have and what the impact is downstream on that and where it' s going . So in my mind , that ' s the only thing I care about . That ' s the only thing that really impacts this site plan and it ' s a thing that, I i think all the other stuff is administrative matters pretty much. I don ' t i even care about signage because I think our sign ordinance is pretty specific on what it can be but I think in terms of this , I think number 19 is a headache for me and I don' t know how we want to handle that . What ' s your guesstimate? What do you think? Are we going to find a problem? , I I Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 23 3 a 1 That ' s a big roof and if we go to Phase 2, that' s another big roof and we are reaching 70% impervious surface there and where' s it going? I think I that ' s a problem. Now City Council can deal with that. They certainly are going to get our notes but we haven' t helped them and basically what it says is between now, if we don ' t act on this , the next meeting we have I is 3 weeks from now so with the developer ' s schedule, we really are impacting them if we delay. So the question is , do we want to make City Council be Planning Commission for a little bit . I Headla : Will they have all the information ready for us in 2 weeks if we have a special meeting? They' ve got to get the information anyway so since they' ve got to get it anyway, I want to see it before it goes to ICouncil . I want to see a crisp plan go to the Council . Todd Kristoferson : I would like to comment on the drainage because that ' s I something we ' ve been discussing with the Watershed District engineers and we ' re fully aware that even if we get approval here and at the Council , that we have to also get their approval . They are looking at the drainage and they will be the ones that will be needed for approval of drainage and I erosion control with them. I don' t have the exact date. I know it ' s between now and mid-April . We are aware that we have to meet the drainage requirements for the drainage. I 'd rather not get held up here because we haven ' t gone to the Watershed yet . I would rather see this approved 4 subject to subsequent Watershed District approval . Conrad : Normally we have those in hand when things come in don ' t we? IOlsen: We usually have comments from the Watershed District . I Conrad : So we' re sort of out of sync . Usually we like to see their comments first and you' re telling us we' re not going to see them for another 3 weeks or 4 . IOlsen : We usually see their comments before the final approval . They only meet once a month, the first Wednesday. IEmmings : Any more comments? Larry Welter : I would assume on that , that would be pretty much black and I white decision for the Watershed. You ' ve got your square foot of the roof there . You know what their storm sewer size and the proposed storm sewer is . I Emmings : I think what you' re hearing though is , they make their decision but we make our decision too. I guess we usually take their comments into account when we ' re looking at a plan before we make our decision . It I isn' t a situation where we just let them decide. Anything else. Is there a motion? ii- Wildermuth: I just have one question addressed to Steve and Jo Ann . Do you have ordinances against employee parking on for example Lake Drive? I 'm sure they can ' t park on CR 17 if there aren ' t enough parking places . I IIM Planning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 24 Olsen : I 'm sure they can ' t park on CR 17 but no we don' t. Hanson: There ' s no restriction on Lake Drive . Olsen : We have that problem with Instant Webb, where they park on the street. Park Road. We have no way to prevent that unless we put no parking signs up there . We do try to work with the companies and ask them to ask their employees not to park there. There is no specific ordinance against it . Wildermuth : How many people are you going to have on the second shift? Larry Welter : Roughly a dozen people to start out with. During the day it would probably get into . . . Wildermuth: Even in Phase 1? Larry Welter : That would be Phase 2. Wildermuth : What I 'm thinking about is , if you have 100 employees on the first shift, you have 108 parking spaces . When the second shift comes , they aren ' t going to have anyplace to park. It just seems like you' re a little light on the parking for Phase 1. Larry Welter : What we ' ve tried to show on this with the dashed lines is that we have room to add additional parking if it were to become necessary even with Phase 1. But we ' d like not to . We'd like to leave as much green area out there as we can as long as there ' s going to be parking for employees and if it becomes a problem, we ' ve got room to add spaces . Conrad: How many people could meet next week for a special meeting? 1 Headla : If they have it ready, I ' ll be here . Conrad: I could show up. Batzli : Aren ' t we already having a special meeting this month? I Hanson: That' s one thing I wanted to talk to you about tonight, about setting up a special meeting on the Comp Plan . 1 Conrad: When would that be? Hanson: When I can get the majority of you together . Emmings: I don' t have my calendar here. Conrad : We could possibly do it together . r \_ Ellson: Are we making the assumption they' ll get this Watershed thing all put together? ' I I Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 25 i. IConrad : Oh yes . They can try. Or staff can review it and that 'd make me comfortable. IOlsen : You want a report? IConrad: Yes . Olsen : In a week? IConrad: Yes . Ellson : You'd need more information and then you'd have to write a Ireport, right? Emmings : Let ' s do this . Let ' s make a motion. IWildermuth: Let ' s ask the Mayor if he' ll accept it like it is . Emmings : Let ' s make a motion . IIHeadla : Let me ask the question first . When did the first application come in from Empak? 'V Hanson : It would have been 3 weeks ago. Headla: 3 weeks ago and they want approval of this but their machines are I 16 weeks lead time . I ' ve got a bunch of them on order and you ' ve got to put them someplace. I Todd Kristoferson : I can add something to this . Mr . Bongaard , the owner of Empak, came in to talk to I believe the City Manager several months ago about this project. At that time we initiated the design. So even though I the application only came in 3 weeks ago for this meeting, I guess we ' ve been in this process for some time looking at this site . Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the I Site Plan Request #89-1 as shown on the Site Plan stamped "Received February 21 , 1989" with the following conditions: 1 through 27 set forth in the staff report and an additional condition 28 . The applicant shall I provide screening for roof top equipment if the same is visible from a public right-of-way. A sentence prior to condition 3 which reads, approval of the site plan is not an approval , nor does it imply approval , of any notations of plant expansion set forth in the site plan. End of II condition 19 another sentence which reads , further skimmer and/or traps shall be provided subject to staff approval for all roof and parking lot drainage. Condition 25, the end of the sentence insert, and until such I time as Lake Drive improvements are completed . The end of condition 26 insert, improvement project associated with Lake Drive. i- Ellson : I ' ll second it. Erhart : Do we want to add something in referencing this 19 to strengthen 9 g the, encouraging staff to strengthen. . . IN ,r Planning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 26 1 Batzli : The creek issue? Erhart : No , the use of the skimmer or the pollution thing from the storm ' water run off and the roof and the parking lot? It seems in the past that we' ve gone beyond the Watershed District' s approval and asked for certain things if we felt there was . . . Batzli : I added a sentence there that read skimmers and/or traps shall be provided subject to staff approval for all roof and parking lot drainage. ' Erhart : You added that to what , 19 or another one? Batzli : 19. ' Erhart : Okay. I had that note here. I guess I was so busy trying to read my notes that I didn' t hear you. Okay, good . Conrad : Going back to drainage and erosion control and all those nifty things . In one week, would we find out anything? I Hanson : If you were to meet next Wednesday? 1 Conrad: Yes. If we met next Wednesday, I 'm sure we could clean up some of this stuff and send to City Council . If we approve it with 28 points , it will go to City Council with all 28 points . Hanson : Unless you make it a provision that those are complied with before it goes . Conrad : If they are complied with , do you eliminate them? ' Hanson: Yes . Conrad : What issue are we really dealing with in terms of the roof top drainage? Do you feel we have valid concerns? Is it something that staff wants to look into? I assume you ' re waiting for referral agency comments back but are there things that we haven' t studied in terms of . . . Olsen : Usually, once it goes into the storm sewer , it ' s usually taken care of. The only time I can remember that we ever added anything additional was with Rosemount , and maybe I missed something again when I was gone. It ' s usually takes care of it adequately. If you want us to research exactly what ' s happening to i.t, we can do that. If you feel this is a sensitive area, which it could be. Conrad : I don ' t know what the Wateshed ' s going to say because of the impact on the improvements that they' re making . r Olsen : It ' s the City that requires that they maintain pre-development runoff on their site. The Watershed District does not require that so actually our engineering department requires more than the Watershed District does. 11 I II Planning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 27 s V I Conrad : Tell me about our policy, and we really do have a lot of I retention ponds on sites , how come right now we feel that it' s real easy not to have a retention pond here? Is that just simply because we have a storm sewer that we can drain? IHanson : I think that ' s part of it, yes . In some cases you don ' t have that capability. I think the other thing the engineering department is trying to raise in 19 is that they were unclear where the drainage from Ithe roof was going . Olsen : And they didn' t have the storm water calculations . IIHanson: So what they were saying is we need some more information and based on that information , then it may become an issue. IConrad: So can we feel confident that because there' s a storm sewer that will empty into a pond downstream someplace , that the adequate controls on that pond, skimming or filtering the pollutants before it gets into any of II the wetlands , is that what we are assuming has been done? Just the fact that we' re dumping it someplace and we know whatever that place is has been approved to control water like this . IIr Hanson: My assumption is , with the design of the storm water drainage, that improvements that the City has done and then putting it into that holding pond, that they' ve addressed that. And it' s been addressed based 1 on the roadway and projected development that would occur within the drainage basin that it ' s serving. Now I did not specifically ask that question of engineering so I couldn ' t tell you that . . . IIEmmings : When are the storm sewer improvements scheduled to be completed? Hanson: It ' s all part of the . . . II Emmings : That ' s all part of building Lake Drive? IIHanson : Yes . II Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Request #89-1 as shown on the Site Plan stamped "Received February 21, 1989" with the following conditions : II1. All signage shall meet the conditions of the sign ordinance . 2. The applicant shall provide an amended landscape plan which provides Ithe following : a . Two foot continuous screening of the southerly parking lot from 1r- Lake Drive. b. Fifty percent winter opacity. 1 IF Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 28 c. Interior lot line landscaping. g 3 . Approval of the site plan is not an approval , nor does it imply approval , of any notations of plant expansion set forth in the site plan . Any additional phases or expansion of the site will require a site plan review. 4 . Every dead-end roadway more than 300 feet in length shall be provided at the closed end with a turn around acceptable to the Fire Department . 1 5. Turns in roadways shall maintain the minimum road width and shall be constructed with a minimum radium of 25 feet at the inside curb cut and a radius of 50 feet at the outside curb . 6. Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 feet clear width between rows of parked vehicles for vehicular access and movement . 7. Distances between installed fire hydrants shall not exceed 300 feet . 8. Approximate fire hydrant locations are indicated on the site plan. 9. Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a 6 inch diameter main installed on a looped system, or not less than an 8 inch diameter main if the system is not looped or the fire hydrant is installed on a dead-end main exceeding 300 feet in length . 10. Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 feet in length for main sizes under 10 inches in diameter . 11 . Submittal of revised site plan incorporating the above conditions prior to consideration by City Council . In order to be placed on the April 10, 1989 City Council agenda , revised plans need to be submitted by March 27, 1989 . 12. Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report . 1 13 . An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals. 14. Contouring of the perimeter of the site will need to be shown. 15 . All side slopes greater than 3 : 1 will need erosion protection. 16. Determination of waste water monitoring requirements with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. 17. Watermain looping and hydrant locations shall be included in the submittals , including valves . 18 . Information on roof drainage discharge and possible need for retention pond for wetland pollutant/nutrient loading impacts . Further skimmer and/or traps shall be provided subject to staff approval for all roof I IPlanning Commission Meeting ; March 15, 1989 - Page 29 IIand parking lot drainage. II 19. All driveways are to be consistent with the City' s commercial/ industrial standard details . I 20. A typical section of roadway to be shown on plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. 21. Necessary County permits for control of access to CSAH 17 at the IInortherly access to the site shall be obtained . 22 . A 35 foot permanent utility easement shall be dedicated along the IIeasterly lot line of the site for storm sewer purposes . 23 . The plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian traffic around the building and site. II24 . Access MUST be maintained for City forces to monitor and maintain Well No . 4 at all times during construction and development of this site IIand until such time as Lake Drive improvements are completed . 25. Construction traffic shall not conflict with the City' s improvement project associated with Lake Drive. I 26. If the City' s 18 inch watermain is not relocated, an easement shall be provided across the southwest corner of the site and any cut or fill I over this main shall receive prior City approval which will be predicated on proper remedial actions taken . II 27. The applicant shall provide screening for roof top equipment if the same is visible from a public right-of-way. I All voted in favor except Headla and Wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. II Headla : I think two reasons . Inadequate information available. I don' t know what I 'm approving and I don ' t see anything in documentation of the parking lot and drainage to make a judgment . IEmmings : Same thing? Wildermuth: Yes . IIEmmings : I guess just as my closing comment I 'd say, I think this thing probably should have been tabled in terms of what we should do in terms of Isupplying information to the City Council . I think it ' s kind of half baked and it results in our doing kind of a half baked job but I don ' t ( think the applicant should be held up for that reason. I think this stuff Iris going to get ironed out between now and the City Council meeting . 1 IF Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 30 CONTRACTORS YARDS . Emmings : I have a little preliminary question there . We have something new in our packets in the form of a little folder . Does that signify that we should keep these for a while? Hanson : Yes . The intent is a couple of things . On some of this stuff , ' especially the ordinance stuff and when we talk about procedures and so forth, I expect we' re going to go through a few generations on that and what I 'd like to do is not copy Minutes from the last 7 meetings when we get to the point where we' re about to approve something so what I 'd like to do is give you stuff that we anticipate that you need to hang onto for a while . I Emmings : Then I would also assume that from the time we get one of these , that will appear on every agenda after that as old business . Hanson : We can do that, yes . Emmings : I think we' ve talked about that several times and I think it' s a good idea so that we have a handy checklist of the stuff that we' re considering on an ongoing basis . Contractors yards, what have you got for � us? , Hanson : Basically what I 'm really asking of the Planning Commission is kind of a last check off to authorize us to go ahead and have the formal amendment , if you will , put together and drafted so that we can schedule it for a public hearing . What I 'd like to do is publish that so you have what we' re itending to, at least consider for the adoption before you . What the staff is suggesting is that we go ahead and delete contractors yards as a conditional use in the A-2 district . I guess there' s one thing I didn' t mention in there and I should have and that was the BF district . Whether we' re going to delete it from that district . I was going to delete it from the BF district also . Then under the conditional use provisions, we could delete entirely the section on contractors yards. I guess it' s a question of whether you want to deal with the BF district or now or if you want to leave it there or if the intent is really just to delete it from the A-2 district. Right now the contractors yards are allowed in the A-2, the BF and the IOP. Emmings : I ' ve got a question. The last time we talked about this we kind of went around about whether we should say that we' re, in the published notice for the public hearing , whether we ' re considering restricting the intensity of the use or whether we' re actually going to abolish the things . Whether we' re going to present that as an alternative or whether we are going to just present one alternative. What are you proposing to do? I { Hanson : What I 'm suggesting is the alternative to delete it as what you' re considering. Not the option of the mom and pop. Continuation of contractors yards as a mom and pop type operation. Headla: Did you say delete the mom and pop? I II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 31 k I Hanson : Yes . IEmmings : Now the Section 20-574 is conditional use in the A-2 and 20-255 is what? ' Hanson : That ' s the conditional use requirements for contractors yards in an A-2 district. IEmmings : Then you'd add this section down there for BF also? Hanson: That' s what I 'm wondering. If you want to keep BF or not. The I conditional use requirements for the contractors , one ' s for the non-residential and then there' s ones for the residential and agricultural so the criteria is different in those two instances . If we leave the BF alone subject to the conditional use requirements that apply in the IOP IIdistrict. Emmings : I 'm just trying to remember what was in the report that we got II from Mark and it seems to me, I thought we had agreed that they were appropriate in the IOP but that ' s all . So it seems to me the BF stuff ought to be down here. Who ' s got comments on this? Headla : I have a hard time giving up the mom and pop type of thing . Emmings: I take it that we can still discuss that at the public hearing . I The trouble is we' re not throwing it out in the public notice which is , the notice for the hearing and I . . . IHeadla : That ' s my only concern . Wildermuth : I guess I 'm in favor of deleting it in the A-2. I think I that ' s the approach I 'd like to see taken with the public hearing . Emmings : What about the BF? IWildermuth : I think it could remain in the BF and IOP. Batzli : I was just trying to recall . . . IEmmings : Are you going to . . . Batzli : Well , I should say I did and my problem was , I couldn' t even add IIup the score of what the Council people were saying. I had 3 for ma and pa . One for eliminate . Our Mayor saying that if you couldn' t limit them, maybe eliminate them totally and then I don' t know what, so we kind of had I3 for ma and pa , 1 for eliminate and 1 of the ma and pa was kind of walking the fence and Councilperson Workman, I didn' t know what he wanted to do but I assume he wants to get rid of it in the BF from his comments itas well . Which leaves I don' t know what. I didn' t really get clear guidance from reviewing that but I assume that since we only have 2 BF' s and they' re both along TH 212/169 there. I would like to see them eliminated from that because I don ' t think that ' s appropriate places to I Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 32 put them due to the increase in traffic, etc . and it ' s already a pot pourri of things that I don' t think are appropriate there anyway so my bottom line is to eliminate them from A-2 and BF. Ellson: Are we just deciding here what to say in the public hearing? We' re not making decisions are we? Emmings: No . Ellson : Why are we going around like this? , Emmings: In some ways I think it would be nice if we wait to make up our minds until after we have the public hearing . Batzli : But we' re trying to decide what to say to the public though. Ellson : But let them come anyway. I Batzli : I spoke with you . I would like to give them an option. Invite them in and hear their comments but if we' ve got to publish something , my recommendation to publish is, eliminate it from the A-2 and the BF. My mind is not made up in stone but if we' ve got to publish something , that' s what I 'd like to publish . Hanson : Could I maybe clarify one thing for you Brian? Batzli : Go ahead . Hanson : You' ll jump on me if I 'm wrong but just as far as what City Council did when they looked at the issue because you did want to get some input from them. Granted the Minutes don ' t, I don' t think the Minutes read what was said. Batzli : Hopefully they do . , Hanson : Well , I think it' s the words but my reading of what City Council said, there were 2 people that said, let' s eliminate contracting from the A-2 district . And there were 2 people who were supportive of keeping the mom and pop operation. Batzli : Johnson and Dimler? ' Hanson : No. One of those was the Mayor . And the Mayor ' s point was, if there was a means where we could do it on a temporary basis , he would like to retain the mom and pop but if we can' t, then his tendency was to say well , then maybe we should lean towards eliminating them. My understanding , and I don ' t recall who was on what side of the issue . I would say then that the other person, I believe it was Ursula, was less clear about what she wanted although she talked about the City ought to be looking at what ' s going to happen in those outlying areas. And that would 11 tend to tell you whether you should allow that kind of a use out there if it' s going to conflict with what you ' re going to do long range so she was looking , I think, for a longer term solution on whether contracting yards II II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 33 k IIbelonged out there or not may depend on what the City envisions happening . That was my sense of what was said. I took that in my mind to be a II direction of Council that really their direction was , let ' s eliminate it from the A-2. The question on the temporary use and Steve had brought this up at Planning Commission previously about whether we could do licensing . You have a memo in your packet from Roger on that and essentially what Roger said is yes . They probably could do something under licensing but the red flags in my opinion in his recommendation are not quite as bright as they needed to be. I ' ve talked with him and he I said, he feels that legally you could probably do it but that enforcement of it is really going to be a headache . His concern is once you've allowed the business in and you want to get it out, it 's going to be real I hard to do . He did mention to me that he' s been involved in a case like that where they had a business . It was supposed to be in for a temporary time period and they had to get them out . He said the amount of legal I fees and time that it took to get them out, he said it probably wasn' t worth it . If I remember right , what he told me on the phone was they spent close to $50, 000. 00 to get the business out . Even though it was to be a temporary use. I think that' s his fear with it and that ' s why he I said in there , if you' re going to proceed that way, he' d like to see us proceed fairly cautiously. Mayor Chmiel : Has that bill been introduced to allow a temporary use? Hanson: I don ' t know if it has been introduced or not . I know that there I i.s a bill proposed to change the conditional use to allow temporary. Mayor Chmiel : For x number of years . II Hanson : Yes . And there ' s also a bill on the conditional use process to make it clear that a conditional use permit can not be denied. The City can ' t say no to a conditional use permit . They can only put conditions on Iit. So there is some legislation pending that could change the issue . Ellson : It doesn ' t really bother me which way the public notice says it . think we would get the same people either way we notify them. II Olsen : I think the only thing is , I remember Roger stating this before that the public hearing states something that if you were to approve is Isomething more restrictive. Ellson : Then maybe you should ellude to the fact that it may end up being II total elimination. Then I guess you should write it as strict as it could possibly turn out . That ' s what you should do it . Conrad: I agree. The only question is, should we instruct staff to I prepare a procedure where we would allow ma and pa? Do we want them to review that with us during that public hearing formally? Procedures and the pitfalls of doing that. IrEllson: Yes . Emmings : I do . II EN - 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 15, 1989 - Page 34 Ellson: The pros and cons . Emmings : Do you? ' Conrad : Yes . Emmings : Dave does I guess . What about you Brian? Batzli : Yes, I 'd like to see that . , Emmings : Jim too? Wildermuth: Yes . I Hanson : I 'm sorry, I missed that. Erhart : Be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of the ma and pa if the discussion goes in that direction. I guess if we get a lot of people that come up and say. . . ' Ellson : We already have some council members that were thinking they liked the idea of mom and pop. We should really know the pros and cons to 11 g it because it ' s already being thought of seriously. Emmings: Think about the kind of place that would be, somebody who ' s lived here for 35 years and they've got 1 truck and 1 Bobcat and they run this place right out of their home and they' re sitting on 40 acres . That isn ' t the kind of thing we ' re going after in prohibiting these things. The question is whether or not you can reasonably write any kind of standards . Batzli : And then enforce them. Emmings : And then enforce them, yes . So I guess that' s the problem. Wildermuth: The other side of the coin is , maybe we've got to look at some zoning too . Emmings : I don ' t know what you mean though. Erhart: I think Jim, my point is, you've got a lot of this A-2 out there really is residential today and when you' ve got a downtown area where we' ve got some pretty restrictive uses of in town lots in terms of overnight parking and what you can have in your front yard and what you can store in your back yard. We as Chanhassen, we have those rules yet now you' ve got essentially a residential area out there that a guy can have his Bobcat and his dump truck right next door so if we do it at i large , I think that ' s the easiest way for the City and other cities have filled precedent that they' ve eliminated contractor ' s yards when they get to our stage of growth . On the other hand , if we' re going to allow some ma and pa, then I think we ' ve got to do what Jim' s referring to and that is , I think we need to look at the A-2 area and find out which is II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 35 a IIresidential and which is rural . I 'm okay with either approach . IIHeadla : Where are you going to draw the line on this? Wildermuth : If we say we want some contractors yards like the ma and pa I operation , then I think we've got to look at some zoning allowing them on critical highways . Headla : Are you getting to a point that if you own a Bobcat , you' re in ' violation of some ordinance? Emmings : No , that' s not the objective. That ' s not going to be a II contractors yard . That' s not going to fit under the definition of a contractors yard . Erhart : If you have a business with that Bobcat . If your business uses IIthat Bobcat, then that falls under the definition of contractors yard . Headla : I don ' t know of a single Bobcat that ' s used that isn ' t used for a IIbusiness of making money. Erhart : You' re probably right . Your initial question was what then? i Headla: If I owned a Bobcat, I 'd be in violation of some ordinance here? Erhart : You' re saying then that you own that Bobcat and you operate a IIbusiness with that Bobcat? Headla : Yes , that ' s what you' re implying . I wouldn ' t own a Bobcat if I Ididn' t expect to make some money on it. Erhart : But then if you owned a lot , do you want your neighbor to operate II a business with that Bobcat where he' s loading it up, unloading it? The question is , the real basic question here is , is that kind of business appropriate for an urban neighborhood? I Headla : That isn ' t my question at all . My question is how definitive are you going to get? What if I ' ve got a tractor with a bucket on it? You' re going to get down in a gray area there that you could hit a lot of people ISO I think we' ve got to be prepared for that . Erhart : I think the definition is , does he use that for his main source of income. I think that ' s the definition. IEmmi.ngs : It isn ' t the definition but maybe we want to look at that too . We may want to look at all this stuff. We' re getting beyond what we' ve I got to do tonight. Are we? What I 'd like to do , I guess you have an idea of what we want for the public hearing and I guess we' re saying go l ahead and do it. Is that what we ' re saying? Erhart: Both districts right? For the public hearing . Ellson: Right . As strict as it might possibly be. II I ' Planning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 36 Erhart : And then we can back off from there? Ellson : Right . , Wildermuth : Let' s say eliminating it altogether from everything . Erhart : Well we 've got to have it in the IOP. Emmings : What he ' s saying is if you want to make it most restrictive, just say we' re going to consider eliminating them. Erhart : I don ' t think we want to eliminate them from the IOP. Wildermuth: If you just have it in the IOP, it ' s tantamont to eliminating it pretty well . Except for the one little IOP that we' ve got down here . Erhart : IOP is the industrial park. Wildermuth : I know but who can afford to put a contractors yard in the industrial park. Hanson : You have one that you' ve approved in the A-2 district that ' s 11 looking at locating in the Industrial Park. Erhart : I think when all the other cities have outlawed them, essentially they have to go to the IOP' s . I think it' s a good business and I think we do want them in Chanhassen and I just think the IOP is a good place for the. I think we ought to at least put our sign out someplace for these businesses . I guess I assumed all along that we were talking about allowing them in the IOP' s. Ellson : Jim was just saying , if you' re going to go the most severe possible in the public notice, do it that way. Erhart : That ' s almost like saying , we want to chase you guys out of town completely. I 'm uncomfortable with that. It doesn ' t leave us the argument that . . . Wildermuth: If they've got a permit , we can ' t do that anyway. They' re in because the permit goes with the property. Erhart : I understand that . I 'm just saying that if somebody comes into our town with a contractor ' s business, what this is saying is we don' t want you. Do you want to leave that answer with them? Emmings: Do you need any kind of a motion or anything or you' ve just got the idea? Hanson: Yes . II , II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 37 ICONVENIENCE STORES . IIHanson : As you may have heard me mention to you, the City Council on December 19th put a moratorium on convenience stores within the City. It really resolved around two issues . The two issues were, first of all the IIproliferation of convenience stores and there was a concern for that . Then the second part of it was the issue of service stations allowing full service and having service bays . The one concern, it really centered around the Amoco project coming in and losing those service bays and having it replaced with essentially a convenience gas facility. At that time one of the real concerns and issues was how do you define what a convenience store is. In all honesty in my mind, that' s still a cloudy I issue . It ' s a situation where I think you talk to the normal person on the street and you say a convenience store, gas pumps , they think of Tom Thumb or a Holiday or 7 Eleven. You have an image of what it is and I typically those facilities are around 3 , 000 square feet. The problem is trying to put a definition on that . If you say 3 , 000, then does that mean if it' s 2, 900, it' s not a convenience store, it ' s a gas station? Or at what point , is there an upper limit on it? Is there an amount of the IIsquare footage inside that' s important? In the memo that you have before you, it ' s by no means intended to be a definitive answer on what a convenience store is but what I wanted to do at this time is give you some IIbackground information . The first part of that is a list of where _ convenience stores with and without gas pumps are allowed. Be it as a permitted use or as a conditional use. Also , where auto service stations are allowed. One definition that is not included in the present Code is • II what I would call , for lack of a better term, a gas station or a self service gas station where you don' t have the convenience. It ' s not a convenience store but it ' s not a full service gas station either . I don ' t IIknow, to my knowledge, we don' t have one of those in the City per se unless you were to classify the one down on TH 212 and TH 169 , the Super America down there and I 'm just not real familiar with that facility but I I think it ' s more than just the gas station. It doesn ' t fall within that kind of a definition. The other thing I ' ve included in the information is the conditional use requirements for those facilities . The intent statements for the various zoning districts within the town. I ' ve given IIyou a brief definition , a shot at a definition for a convenience store. And what I 've said in there, probably the critical part is that if it has over 400 square feet of floor area for retailing of non-automotive goods. I Then also some proposed additions to the conditional use provisions. The first of those stating that it must be attached to an integrated shopping center so that it' s not a free standing facility. Secondly, that there' s no outdoor storage and display which I think typically has been a IIcondition that' s been placed on the conditional use for convenience stores that have gone through. In looking at that from that standpoint and I ' ve taken just a rough shot at where those uses would be allowed . In Ireviewing the Code right now. . .the right way to look at neighborhood business , there' s a couple ways to look at the convenience side. Whether it ' s a convenience to the residents in a neighborhood or whether it' s a IIconvenience to the people commuting to work. If the intent is to be a convenience for the residents in a particular neighborhood , then my logic would say, then you allow the business center in a neighborhood business district. But if the convenience store is really convenient for the 1 IF Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 38 traveling public , then it really belongs in the hi hwa y business district. Whether you want to make that distinction or not , that ' s kind of a flip of the coin . I don' t think from a land use standpoint or a planning standpoint, I don ' t see that there ' s a real issue that you can put your finger on and say that it makes more sense than one or the other . In the proposal that I ' ve put down there, what I ' ve suggested is that a convenience store without gas pumps would be a permitted use in the neighborhood business, the CBD area and the general business and the general business is intended to allow virtually any retail use . That it would not be allowed in the highway business or in the business fringe . Now if it' s a convenience store with gas pumps , then it would be a conditional use in the neighborhood business, the highway business and the general business as a permitted use and not allowed in the CBD and BF district. Now I 'm aware that the Brooke Center is in the CBD and it has convenience and it has gas pumps . When I read the intent of what the CBD is , personally I think that ' s a mistake. I don' t think that ' s the appropriate location for a convenience store with gas pumps is not in the CBD. I don' t think that ' s the kind of activity you' re trying to encourage down there. It belongs more on the fringe of that area . It belongs either out on the general business or in the highway business. I guess I tend to look at the convenience stores and the gas stores , the logical place for a lot of those is on the major intersections where you have the traffic . It ' s a question of accessibility and getting on there and getting off and getting back on your way. So I guess the bottom line of this long discussion is that I don ' t have a clear answer for how the convenience stores ought to be dealt with. I think a lot of it is how you perceive the problem. I think some people ' s perception is that the convenience stores are taking away from what everyone would like to see as far as a full service grocery, larger grocery. I have a hard time with that argument because I don' t think the convenience store is taking business away from that. I personally don' t think the market ' s here yet to support that grocery store. I think those facilities are being provided by our neighbors and until we get a little more population and market that can support that, that type of facility isn ' t going to happen . When it does happen, I don' t see that the convenience stores will take away from it . I think just the opposite is probably going to happen. The grocery store will take some of those convenience shoppers from the existing convenience stores . When you go and you buy the gas and you go in and buy a candy bar or the Coke or whatever , it' s not going to take that , I think some of the normal grocery items that I would expect at some of those convenience stores would lose some of those. Another suggestion was that there be a minimum separation between convenience stores . A mile or half mile or whatever figure you want to have. I guess if the concern is that there ' s such a proliferation of convenience stores then that ' s a way to get them separated. On the other hand, I think the trend has been that they like to be next to each other . Not necessarily right next to each other but on the same intersection so they' re picking traffic. For example , if you' re on TH 5 and you' re westbound , it ' s a whole lot easier t to go to the one that' s on the right hand side of the road rather than having to make two left turns . One in and then another left turn to get back out on TH 5. So consequently it makes sense from that standpoint to have a convenience on both sides at a major arterial where you can get in and out fairly quickly. The existing stores , just for your information, I 11 MR II Planning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 39 d ' did a quick look at what sizes they are. The SuperAmerica , the new one that' s up on TH 41 and TH 7 is roughly a 3 , 300 square feet. The Holiday' s I 3 , 900. It ' s the largest . The Total Q is 3, 000. Brooke' s is about 3 , 000. The proposed one in West Village is approximately 3 , 200. The Amoco site, the one that ' s being proposed there , that building is only 1,000 square I feet so there' s a dramatic difference in size between those. The thing that ' s interesting when you look at it , the signage that was proposed for Amoco, they called it a Food Store. But the retail area within that Amoco site is approximately 570 to 740 square feet . It depends on whether you II include the coolers in that retail space. The coolers are, you open the doors and access them but there ' s also storage in part of that. So they' re roughly 60% to 75% of that facility is retail space. Ellson : Both SuperAmerica ' s are 3, 300? Hanson: No. The one that was approved up on TH 41 and TH 7. But a lot I of those are in the 3, 000 square foot range. The last issue is the issue of the auto service/full service stations . I guess one way to try to encourage that is to take one , have one of the zoning districts that I allows that particular use and say, for example does not allow a convenience store with gas pumps . I don' t know if that' s something that you would want to do . I guess I have a hard time saying that the highway business is really intended for a full service gas station and it ' s not ,( intended for a convenience store with gas station because really, when you look at the intent is to service the highway users . Both of those are highway users. If you have an area that you felt was appropriate for 1 automotive uses , that maybe there ' s some credence to that having a district that' s intended to have automotive related areas. I think when you start to do that though, we ' re not talking about that large of an area I where the business districts are . I had mentioned I think in the report that there was an attachment . This is just a copy of the zoning areas and really the commercial districts we' re talking about are around the CBD I area with the exception of the commercial zoning up on TH 41 and TH 7 where you have a SuperAmerica. There' s not a spot on that particular site for another one . You have the other SuperAmerica down in the BF district . Then in the memo I ' ve just kind of listed a bunch of other things that can II be considered as far as restricting or trying to define the difference on these. What I wanted to do at this time was just kind of go through this and get any comments that I can . What I 'd like for the next meeting is I I 'm trying to get some information from the convenience store operators and owners as far as how they view what their business is . Hopefully I can get that so we can present that at the next meeting. 1 Emmings : How about some samples of how other communities have dealt with the same issue? Like any information like that? IHanson : I ' ve talked to some. A lot of people haven ' t done anything . Emmings : Could we find some examples though where they have? IIHanson: Yes , we can get some examples of that . II MI ' I Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 40 Olsen : I can ' t remember which city it is but I know they allow Y Y convenience stores with gas pumps but they also require them to require service stalls . I ' ve heard that' s one way to remedy. ' Emmings : And then they just let the service stalls sit there? Erhart : What was the fundamental for imposing this temporary moratorium? , Emmings: Too many. Erhart : Simply what , too much competition concern? Hanson: No. I think there was a sense that there were too many convenient stores . Ellson : It was a concern of mine I remember when that came through. I just thought, a person will drive in and we don' t even have an established dry cleaners or anything like that and all these convenience stores are here before a true downtown area is anywhere and I know that was a concern of mine . Erhart : You have too many because one' s going to go broke? We have too many because it' s cluttering the City or people are buying too much? Emmings : It was my perception Tim that there were just so many over such a short time. Getting so many applications and so many of them springing up but I don ' t know if that ' s right . ' Mayor Chmiel : That basically is right what you' re saying . I think the other intent was the fact that you ' re losing a full service to be provided to the citizens . Emmings: And the full service one you' re losing is Amoco . It ' s obvious that Amoco has made a decision to convert, I 've seen them converting one station after another from a full service type operation to the convenience store with gas pumps. It' s like the gas station that we kind of all knew and grew up with is a thing of the past . It just doesn ' t exist anymore. Hanson : One of the comments that , when I talked with Amoco , and it wasn' t during the meeting but outside of the meeting , one of their comments was it' s becoming almost virtually impossible to try to be able to service the vehicles that are coming in now. What they' re saying is because of some of the high tech applications , that they just can ' t do, if somebody drives , in and their car doesn' t work and they say well , they can' t deal with it. We can change a tire and those things. Ellson: Like towing services and things like that, I know that they were ( the ones that were assigned by whomever to tow all of TH 5 here just last N.- night. What do we have as choices around here? Is it just saying that we basically ousted the little guy that ' s next to Kenny' s there. Now this is being gone. We' re saying here we' re this great city. We' re growing. We' re going to provide you with what? Nothing for your car . You' ll have oft II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 41 f t, IIto go in town. I like her idea that we almost encourage the convenience store with the gas pump, please with the service bays if you could. We'd I certainly help your bottom line if it ' s the convenience stores that' s going to get you that but I don ' t want to be a city that doesn' t give everything you need . I don ' t want to have to drive into Bloomington to IIget my car serviced or whatever . Emmings : But it seems like this is a market thing . If the market is here for some guy to open a repair shop and make a living at it, he' s going to II do it but if he can ' t service most cars because he needs such high tech instruments and tools to do it is more and more of his work I 'm sure and with extended warranties on cars , I 'm sure more and more of the work is Ibeing done at the dealerships. You' ve got a 6 year/60, 000 mile warranty. Conrad : Fewer problems literally in the business . They' re making cars that just don't have that many problems, even though we think they do. IThey' re forecasting that that business is being reduced a great deal . Emmings: But I don ' t think it ' s going to matter whether we make it, if we IImade it a permitted use in every district in the City. If the can ' t make a living, it' s not going to happen. I don ' t know. Conrad : I think an interesting issue is , we' re sort of around it , why isn' t anybody coming into town? What is Gary Brown doing? Does he see a '' viable business opportunity here in town? I really can ' t believe, for a population that ' s growing , I can' t believe somebody doesn' t want to come II into town. Whether it be Gary, and it ' s just not Gary. There should be enough market here to support a couple service stations that can change, take care of the radiator and a few of those things. I guess the question II in my mind is , why aren' t they moving in? What ' s wrong? Based on what Gary' s perception is and Don maybe you've talked to him and maybe we have some of those answers but I think the City should be encouraging that kind of stuff coming in . I 'm not sure it ' s with what you had down here as I IIwent down the list I put no by each one. I like the intent statement but I 'm not sure I want to encourage it with those particular reasons but I think the City should aggressively go out and try to pursue whether that IIbe through Brad or whatever . Bringing somebody, some groups into town . Mayor Chmiel : B.F. Goodrich is looking at it as well . Gary is looking at I putting his own 4 to 6 bay service shop in adjacent but he can ' t put it on Amoco property. They won ' t allow them. Amoco won' t allow the existing dealers to continue with their kinds of service. They want to promote their Certicare which again is increasing his cost in operation of that I particular facility. To rent the so called food shop or just with gas alone, I think his increase would more than double. They want $7,0001. 00 per month. They' re interested in must pumping gas . IIEllson: It will be a self serve too I ' ll bet you . IIMayor Chmiel : Now you take into consideration too , for our residents within the community, handicapped people, they have to have, we have to have some kind of convenience for those people . II II Planning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 42 A Conrad : I think the promoting , somehow getting those interested parties in. I think we should be doing that. I think Steve what you' ve done makes some sense to me. There are a couple things that, I went back to objectives . What are we really trying to do here and one of my objectives is to encourage service stations . Full service stations into town. That ' s an objective and that was what I was reacting to when Gary was forced out over there. I wasn ' t reacting to convenience store as much as I was hey, there goes another and I don' t think we' re a good community if we don ' t have service stations that can work on some of the minor things that go wrong with the car . I think there are some other objectives that we may want to look into . Do we care about looking like a convenience center town? Does that have any kind of impact and when a grocery store comes in, it will impact their business so then are we stuck with a lot of 11 operators that aren' t going to make a living? They' re going to make a living right now but when a grocery store comes in , does that have an impact so I think I personally would like to have staff tell me something about that . I think the market will determine how many convenience stores can come in right now but we know something that we know that there ' s a grocery store that might come in sooner or later and what impact will that have on a variety of convenience stores. I think another objective is to provide convenience stores where they' re necessary. I guess being really convenient. I Wildermuth : Promote it through appropriate zoning . Conrad: Right. So if they are convenient stores , we should make sure they are convenient . My mind even got to the point where should service ' stations be convenient to the neighborhood? That' s sort of radical thinking for me because I 'm not trying to get these little neighborhood , I think you lose some control when you start putting your business neighborhood stuff around . But then again , what ' s wrong with having a gas station that can work on your car a couple blocks away from your house. I don ' t know that there' s a negative to that . I ' ve thought of some. They can be hang outs. There can be some negatives so therefore I question whether the auto service station or whatever , shouldn' t be in the business neighborhood. Maybe it should. Maybe because my objective was to make it convenient for the neighborhood . That ' s not that we have to put in , that' s a low intensity use I think so some of that makes sense. The other objective would be to protect the neighbors around that. Then my other objective would be to provide highway services for tourists and people , going through town which tells me, I don' t care if they have convenience stores in the business and highway business district if Chanhassen wants to make some money on people driving through town. I don ' t care if they stop for gas and food at the same time. So those are my, and I went back to objectives . Encourage service stations into town . Keep us from looking like a convenience mecca because they may close down in the future. Provide the convenience of these things where it' s necessary for 11 the residents . Protect the residents and provide services for highway traffic which probably could be gas and food. That' s where I started. I don ' t know where that goes . Batzli : Picture the strip in Eden Prairie right across from this shopping center , is that your idea of a convenience mecca? Starting at, what is II II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 43 } it , Hardee ' s going down to the gas station and Skippers and all that other stuff down there? That, in my mind, is the epitome of a convenience IImecca , that strip right there . I think it looks tacky personally. Ellson: And that' s what our downtown is turning into. It ' s very close all around here but you' re right . $5 . 00 will go a long way between I multiple storage of something. Conrad : And that will be what our BG district looks like . For sure II because that' s the less restrictive district that we've got downtown. Because we couldn ' t bundle it into CBD so you' re BG district is the one that sort of says, all the strip stuff, anything that needs a stand alone Iunit ' s going to go down there and that' s what it ' s going to look like . Ellson: Versus a downtown like Excelsior which is what I 'd rather . 1 Erhart : . . .convenience store. Conrad : Which? IErhart : Over by that Eden Prairie Center . It ' s all fast food restaurants . Batzli : I know but in my mind , I guess we do . We have Midas so that ' s a bay place. IIErhart : The Q station in there is the only convenience store . Batzli : Is there only one? But to me it ' s a convenience mecca . IIErhart : I agree , it ' s a mess but I don' t know that what we ' re talking about here is going to prevent that. We' re talking about it' s a mess of fast food restaurants . A muffler store and a convenience store . IBatzli : I think there ' s just an incredible mish mosh of convenience everything there now that I think about it . I was thinking there was like I 3 of them in there. There' s one right by the Midas shop and then I thought there was another one up by Hardee ' s. IErhart: There' s a Standard station there. Batzli : Okay, that ' s a Standard? IConrad: It ' s hard to prevent that . Ellson : I know. That' s why I 'm saying , maybe we should actively be going 1 out after what we want before the other stuff comes in. Conrad : I think a market will drive a lot of this stuff and I hate to get I in the way of the market but I think sometimes we know more, we might know something that the market may not take into consideration and that ' s in grocery stores. That may impact a bunch of these. My real issue goes back to , let ' s make sure we have service stations in Chanhassen which is II AM Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 44 3 really not protecting, really is not as keen on the convenience store issue as let' s make sure we get those service stations . I literally think we should have 2 of them in 6 months . ' Hanson: This isn' t going to shed any light on it but just food for thought . I do know that there ' s another convenience store that ' s waiting in the wings . Emmings : What will be their location? Hanson: They' re tentatively talking about the Legion site. Emmings : That ' s 3 back to back then. Hanson:. They' re literally on top of each other . Ellson : That ' s exactly what I think would be terrible. , Emmings : Ladd, do you think that the separation notion for now will keep the number down? Conrad : But it' s going against what Steve said . Convenience stores go on major intersections so they, by the nature of their marketing strategy, they have to be on those intersections . So if we say there ' s a space, we are definitely not eliminating . . . Ellson : We' ve answered it already with one of the left at that corner and one on the right at the corner . Conrad : You won' t have one on the left and right . You' ll have one if we have a distance requirement. Ellson : I 'm talking about the ones that are grandfathered in right now are there. Those we' re not going to say, leave Holiday. Leave Amoco . Leave Total . As far as we' re trying to sell that sort of area . I don ' t want that to come in on that corner . I want a reason to say no and I 'd like to run after what I 'd like to have in there. So a sell job to somebody else. Mayor Chmi.el : Go by total numbers? Go by population as to what, or is that . . . Hanson : That would be pretty tough to regulate . When they' re trying to locate one, they' re doing that as far as assessing the market . ' Emmings : But that ' s try of the population of the City that may be insofar as the neighborhood is giving it business but then they' re looking at how much traffic goes by that corner and those people of course may be coming ( from anywhere I supposed so I don' t even know how you 'd figure it out. I guess what you' re saying though is that there should only be a certain number of stores per , for every 1, 000 population there' s a quarter of a store or whatever . I II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 45 F a IIConrad : The stations do that or any good marketer does that . They figure the population. They figure the traffic and they know if there' s one gas IIstation , they' ll pick up so much they know they can pick up half the business. So they do the same ratio that we' re talking about when they determine to put a unit in. I Mayor Chmiel : By the same token, before putting up a station in residential areas, that' s a long time where stations go into locations . They don ' t last very long . . . total gallons of gas should be pumping in II accordance with Amoco or Holiday or whoever. So that sort of knocks those out . When you go into a lot of the older areas where that works , the traffic flow and the station is no longer there. IConrad : That ' s what I started thinking about is the old fashion corner service station. 1 Mayor Chmiel : There' s not enough to support them is the problem. Conrad: But if they put food and a service bay and a gas pump. IIHanson : At least we haven ' t seen the Amoco/Burger King station come in . I don' t know if you' ve seen, there' s one of them. . . Ellson : It really is a tie in now? Hanson : Yes . The one that I 'm familiar with , the one in Denver that was I close to where I lived. You drive in and you get your gas and while you' re getting your gas you can order your burger from the thing and you drive up to the window and you pay for your gas and you pay for your I burger and they hand you it. That ' s a combination. It was either Amoco or Standard and Burger King . Ellson : I think something has to be done. I don' t know that we' ve come Iup with an idea but, especially if there' s one waiting in the wings, I don ' t want it. I want a way to tell it no . IConrad : What do you want to do on a special meeting? I have to go . Emmings: What do you want to propose on a special meeting? It wasn ' t for Inext week though was it? Hanson : We had I think contacted some of you. Some of you were out of town. We' re trying to set up a special meeting so we could get the I Comp Plan cranked up . What Mark and I had talked about, what would be ideal is if we could have a special meeting where we don' t have anything else on the agenda because it' s been so long , so we could take a couple I hours and really try to bring everybody up to speed on where we are and bring you up to speed on the revisions that have been made to date and things . IEmmings : What date are you proposing? II • I Planning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 46 k Hanson : We had tried to set it up for the 29th . We couldn' t get a hold of some of you and some of you were going to be out of town that week. Emmings : Is that a Wednesday? ' Hanson : Yes . And if I remember right , I think Mark has a conflict . Emmings : Are you going to be out of town on the 29th? Conrad : I ' ll be gone next Thursday through the following Monday. I ' ll be gone for 10 days. Emmings : So we either do it next week or after that if Ladd ' s going to be there. Erhart : Is transportation one of the items we' re going to discuss? Is the official mapping going to be done April 10th for the TH 212 freeway. That ' s on the City Council agenda. Does that a significant impact on the Comp Plan discussions? It seems to me it would. Hanson : Yes . ' Erhart : Would it make sense to do this after that or can we assume what will happen? Hanson : There are several sections . Emming : We' re going to meet more than once . Hanson : Yes . We' re looking at , I don ' t have the schedule that Mark and I have worked up but we had, I believe 3 or 4 meetings with the idea that we'd get to May and we 'd have the draft of the plan so we could say at that time schedule public hearings . The one thing I did want to mention to you, we talked about our list . Our to do list . Our goals and that at City Council on Monday. At some point I want to go through those with you as far as what some of the priorities were . One comment that was made was maybe Planning Commission ought to look at taking half it ' s time and only allowing half the time for development requests and the other half to deal with the to do list and the Comp Plan so that we don' t get it continually pushed off because we don' t have the time. Really we ought to maybe take some of the development requests and push them off. Maybe our priorities are are skewed. I think that ' s something else that we need to talk about . Right now what I 'd like to try to do is if we can set some time when we could get together and at least get the Comp Plan process going . ' Emmings : I ' ll make a suggestion . I can ' t give you any dates because I don' t have my calendar. I think it sounds like, can you be ready by, is next Wednesday something that we can do or is that too soon? Hanson: We can do it but Mark ' s not going to be able to be here . Conrad : How about Tuesday? II II Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 47 IHanson: Tuesday would probably work. I Emmings : Why don ' t you call , why don' t we all call in and give you dates that are open because I think everybody should be there. As many as possible but it would be nice if everybody was there. These are important I I think. So why don ' t we all call in and give him our schedules . Maybe we' ll even have to push it into April . Hanson: Yes. Even if for like the next 3 weeks or something. Dates that Imight work and maybe we ' ll hit one . Sunday at 7: 00 in the morning . Emmings : What was the Tuesday that you could make? The 28th are you Italking about? Conrad : Next week. Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. I Emmings : And that' s it. It sounds like that ' s too soon so maybe we should try for the week after our next regular meeting . That ' d be the second week in April . Does anybody know they have a conflict there for Ithe week after our next regular meeting . On the 12th. Wildermuth: I won' t be here on the 12th of April . III Erhart : Either will I . Emming : Alright . Let ' s all call in and give him our dates for the next 5 I or 6 weeks and then we ' ll just let him pick a date when most people are available . IIHeadla : Call in your available dates for the next 5 or 6 weeks? Emmings: No, for the next 5 or 6 Wednesdays . I Ellson : What if it happened to be a Tuesday? Maybe just say when you absolutely can not. If you find certain days left open without x ' s through them. IEmmings : Let' s try for Wednesdays unless it ' s impossible. Are there any more comments on this convenience? IBatzli : Did we decide on anything on the convenience stores? Emmings : We don' t have to . He ' s going to come back with more information Inext time. It was a discussion item. Keep your stuff . I Erhart: I 'd like to hear what the Council . Even though I was there Monday night , I did have to leave at some point and I did miss the discussion Monday night on what the Council ' s reaction to our work Ischedule was . I 'd like to hear . Hanson : I ' ll give you a synopsis . Initially I was just going to present the list and I thought well , I probably ought to give a shot at what I II Am _ _ - Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 48 thought the priorities were . What I had suggested to the City Council was the Comprehensive Plan was a priority in completing that update. Then I had listed under the Zoning Code amendments as a priority, contractor ' s yards . Completing that. Updating the zoning map. Convenience store moratorium. Talking about that . Then I dropped down to updating the development procedures. From my standpoint, that' s what I said I felt that our priorities ought to be , or at least from my perspective. I think there was a general concurrence with that from Council that those were priorities but not necessarily that that was all of the priorities . There were listed, and there really wasn' t a concurrence I don' t think by the whole Council that these were all the priorities but a couple of the members listed a couple and those were the blending ordinance. The sign ordinance . Wetland violations . How to deal with those. How to deal with after the fact wetland permits? Just generally violations on how violations of the Code ought to be handled . Outdoor storage and front yard fencing . Those were two new issues from when we had met. Then computerizing the land use files . Trail involvement by the Planning Commission. Recycling oil . Eurasian Water Milfoil . Ellson : What was that one? Hanson : The water milfoil from Lake Minnetonka that ' s the latest and greatest weed to be infecting the area . Erhart : On the trails, what was the comment? Hanson: It was just a comment that the Planning Commission should be , involved and participating . I mentioned in the memo that I gave them that yourself and Dave were both interested specifically. Ellson : That weed thing , that weed problem, how would that come to i us? Land use turn into a weed problem? Hanson : It was something that was mentioned . Really it ' s being handled I by Public Safety. Ellson : It ' s just a priority of your department? 1 Hanson: It ' s a priority of the City. Emmings : When you say it' s being handled , what does that mean? It ' s my understanding that as long as, if the public access is open, you' re going to get it. Hanson : It ' s being handled in the sense , what I meant by that is it' s been delegated to somebody to be responsible for and to put together essentially a study and a group or whatever is going to take place . i Mayor Chmiel : One suggestion was just close off all the accesses for one year? Emmings : But then we just delay it for a year . I r ' I Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 49 t IHeadla : What are we going to do , shoot all the ducks and geese flying over Minnewashta? T Batzli moved , Wi.ldermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in I favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 20 p.m. . Submitted by Steve Hanson Planning Director IPrepared by Nann Opheim i I I Ii I I I I I I I i_ i