Loading...
1n. Minutes 9i r # CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL ---` REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 1988 i I Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Gevin g and Councilman Johnson ' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the agenda with the following changes: Councilman Johnson wanted to ' discuss recycling committee; Councilman Geving had a resolution for the National Drug Free America Week; Councilman Horn wanted an update on the form of government issue; and Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss campaign signs. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. ' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Plans and Specifications for Colony Point, Brad Johnson. c. Rome Development Corporation, 1450 Park Court: ' 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-814 to Permit Day Care Centers in a Free Standing Building as Conditional Use on Property Zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park District, Final Reading. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-814 to Permit Day Care Centers as Part of a Multi-Tenant Building as a Conditional Use on Property Zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park District. ' 3. Preliminary Plat Request to Replat Lots 1-3, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. 4. Conditional Use Permit to Construct a 6,700 Sq. Ft. State Licensed Day Care Center. e. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval, Sever Peterson. g. Approval of 1989 Joint Powers Agreement Prosecution Contract with Carver ' County. j. Authorization to Continue Participation in Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. Iik. Approval of Accounts. 1. City Council Minutes dated October 10, 1988 ' Planning Commission Minutes dated October 5, 1988 1 1 92 City- Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 ? ' 1 m. Set Special Meeting Date, City Planner Interview, October 29, 1988 n. Fire Department Bylaws, Reflect Change in Benefits. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (B) APPROVAL OF WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CREATION OF A POND IN A CLASS B WETLAND, 1200 LYMAN BLVD., BRENT MILLER. Councilman Boyt: I just want to point out that you would refer to pages 5 and 6 ' of the Planning Commission Minutes associated with it b. I'd just like to reference a point that I think, since we just finished talking about the budget, reflects one of my concerns for the budget. At the bottom of page 5 Jo Ann is being asked why we missed a situation in which somebody was altering a wetland. Her comment was, because I get about 20 a day on my desk and we don't have the man power. That didn't mean 20 opportunities to alter a wetland but it meant building site approval requests and the time allowed for that. On page 6, Tim - Erhart points out that 2 garages were built in wetlands. The response as to how that happened was on page 7. The City signed off on the building plan without realizing that they were in a wetland because they didn't happen to be on the map. I think this just reflects the fact that we're asking our staff to do more than they can do. I hope we all remember that when we look at the possibility of changing our planning staff. That's my only comment about that. This demonstrates the point. Councilman Johnson: Bill, on (b) , I'd like to point two things. When I saw this and went over it, I then checked to see if we're required to show wetlands on the diagrams that are handed in with the building permits and we're not. So that is what must be changed. We must have those wetlands designated by that surveyor when he hands in his survey that we have wetlands in that area. Then if they build on that wetlands, that surveyor has now provided us bad documentation and the building permit is instantly pulled when we find out that the building permit was submitted. So I think we need to work on our ordinance there and change the ordinance so this doesn't happen. I don't think we have enough building inspecters. We never will to go out and do a pre-review of every building site to make sure that, our building inspectors aren't wetland experts anyway. But I think we need to do that change. The other thing that really upsets me on this particular one anyway, why aren't we prosecuting? When somebody goes, especially in a case where somebody with knowledge that a permit was required because they came in and asked and they were told a permit was required, then we went ahead and did it after they were told a permit was required and had letters back and forth. Okay, let's give him a permit now that he already did it. He did it slightly wrong. He didn't quite do it right. Let's go ahead and give him the permit. I think that's wrong. I think what we need to do is be tough on these. Too many times we're granting them. Now maybe we need to change our ordinance also here that if somebody comes in for a permit after the fact, that there be a substantial administrative charge on it for the cost of investigating that. This is something Don and I have talked about and with our planning staff problems right here, it's something I'm going to bring up after we get the new planner on board because right now Jo Ann doesn't have time to look but this would be another change to our permitting structure. [ii 2 , City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: You made a couple of good points. I'd like to move on. I think Don has a couple of a good points he can follow up on and then come back to Council with a recommendation. I would move approval of item 1(b) . Councilman Boyt: Second. Councilman Horn: Was Barb here during this time? So when you're referring to these 20 a day, was that during the time period she was here or after she left? ' Jo Ann Olsen: We average, we get a lot of building permits and I sign off on them. Councilman Horn: And you're doing them all? ' Jo Ann Olsen: I have been. ' Mayor Hamilton: I think it isn't any mystery that we're understaffed in the planning department. It's been that way for quite a long time and I think it was brought to everyone's attention more than once. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit for the created of a pond in a Class B Wetland, 1200 Lyman 1 Blvd., Brent Miller pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (D) ROSEMOUNT, INC., OUTLOT A AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK THIRD ADDITION. ' Councilman Boyt: I called Lori today and I just talked to Todd before the meeting. If I had more time, I might have been able to straighten out an understanding of what happened here but the reason I called it to our attention is that I'm concerned when we have 87 acres that we're looking at and we end up with 2 acres of valuable parkland. I'm glad we got those 2 acres but we have 87 acres of development and we're netting about $12,000.00 in park fees plus 2 ' acres of land and that does not seem to me to be reasonable. We should be getting either more land or more money. Councilman Geving: I think you have to understand though that this was all part of the negotiations with Rosemount and I think getting the 2 acres for the industrial park for the people that work at Rosemount and will be working at Rosemount is still a good deal. Plus the money that we're going to be getting ' in dedication fees. I wasn't involved in the negotiations but I suspect that there was a point in which, at any point Rosemount could have pulled out if we had suggested that we wanted either more parkland or more dedication fees so we were right to the limit of what we were going to negotiate with. I think that's why we got the 2 acres and the $12,000.00. I feel strongly that our negotiating team did a very good job. I don't feel bad that 2 acres because you've got to remember, this is not residential. The people who are going to be using this I area are people who are going to be taking their lunch breaks. There are going to be people also who, a few from the community using that park shelter down there. 2 ares is quite a bit of land. I think we made a good deal. 3 r 94 I , ' City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anything else Bill? I didn't know if you were finished. Councilman Boyt: Well, yes. I do have more. I would argue that the boat launch that we're getting is certainly a nice thing to have for the community and it's certainly an improvement over putting it through the trees which would have been the other alternative but when we're talking about 600 employees, we're talking about heavy use on city parks. We've got a development here that I think we're all happy to have in town. I think that they should look at how they can be contributing more to the costs that we have in operating those parks. I would like to see, is there anyone from Rosemount here? Okay, I guess what I'd like to see happen is, since you're going to have 30% of your property covered with some sort of hard surface, which is basically what you're limited to, and I would imagine you're going to be grading a good bit of that property. Is that a reasonable assumption? What I'd like to have a commitment to is that when you're doing that, you'll build some ballfields out there. It's still not impervious surface so you get the greenspace credit and the community and your employees get some fields to play on. That would seem like a reasonable approach. Rosemount Representative: We approach all of our sites.. . Councilman Boyt: So you'd be open to putting those in when you developed? Rosemount Representative: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Bill? I Councilman Boyt: No. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Rosemount Inc., Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Third Addition: (1) Preliminary Plat to subdivide 87.3 acres into 5 industrial office lots and two outlots; and (2) Final Plat pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (H) SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT. Councilman Boyt: I just had one comment. They've discussed putting in a 8 foot wooden fence but in our conditions we didn't reference to that. We just said put in an opaque fence. There's a lot of opaque fencing I wouldn't be happy with so I would like to see us, under Council recommendations on page 3 of the staff notes, add that the fence under item 1 where it says, must be totally screened with an 8 foot wooden fence. I'd like to see that added. Mayor Hamilton: I've seen wooden fences that aren't nearly as attractive as a lot of other types of fences. They tend to fall apart. Councilman Boyt: Well, it's going to have to be maintained. 4 IFCity Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: There's no question about that. We have inspectors now to do i that. Councilman Boyt: Great. They've indicated they would like to build it. I'd just like to see it in writing. Mayor Hamilton: I'm merely commenting on your comment. That there are fences that are better than wood fences. Councilman Boyt: Tom, if you'd like to suggest one, I'll change this. ' Mayor Hamilton: I'm not an expert on fences. I guess I didn't know you were either but I do think there are fences better than wood fences. Wood is not the answer. You don't like to cut down trees but you want everything to be wood. It's amazing. It's kind of hard to do. Councilman Boyt: Would you accept wood fence or better? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. I think opaque fence answers what we're attempting to do. To screen the storage from site. Councilman Boyt: What I don't want is an interwoven chain linked fence. Mayor Hamilton: I wouldn't accept that either because you can see right through them. They are not opaque in my opinion. Councilman Boyt: ; I guess we can shorten this up. I would move that we amend point 1 under staff recommendations for the conditional use permit to include an 8 foot wooden fence. Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. I think there's another point where, a lot of times we talk in our zoning ordinance about what type of trees we want and whatever. When we're talking about opaquing, if we want to prohibit interwoven chain linked fence, we should have it right in the ordinance that those are considered adequate for screening purposes. Councilman Geving: I'd agree with you on that Jay. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit request for Office/Warehouse facility and outdoor storage, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Lakeshore Equipment with an amendment to condition 1 of the conditional use to include an 8 foot wooden fence. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (I) AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE BIDS, FIRE DEPARTMENT AERIAL LADDER TRUCK. Councilman Boyt: I just have a question that I'd like to clear up. Is there I anyone from the Fire Department here tonight? Okay, you can probably answer this question for me. It's my impression that when you're taking the bid on this truck, that we're getting a truck that goes through the downtown, makes all the turns and you can set it up down there. Is that correct? 1 5 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 11 Richard Wing: The very truck we're getting is the newest truck available. I guess I can't comment about that. That's something that Dale...other than the truck is manueverable. It was purchased to have the least amount of backswing possible. I think if you were to set it up on West 78th Street with the outriggers, you'd probably have to put... The Fire Marshall suggested that. It would be unlikely that it would ever be set up on West 78th Street because the parking lots and most of the access would be coming from parking lots from the side. ...to specifically answer your question about the aerial truck, I believe... Councilman Johnson: Richard, were you there when they did the drill at the Dinner Theater a few months back? Did we not have 2 aerial trucks that participated in that drill? And are those similiar to what we're purchasing? , Richard Wing: The one that was on display at the Fire Station. The ones that were up here were very close to the one we will be buying. Councilman Johnson: And they manuevered to the y position that they would want to be in for a fire at that shopping center? Richard Wing: There was no problem. Councilman Geving: As I understand it, we had the truck that was going to Bismarck in town for an evening and some of us had the opportunity to ride on that truck and they manuevered all the streets in the City. I was told that that would be approximately the same specs that we were going to get so I think the answer to your question Bill is yes. 1 • Councilman Boyt: In talking to the committee that's making this proposal, they assured me that number 1, it would go through all the streets. And number 2, they could set it up anywhere they wanted to downtown and that's what they were building into the specs. Mayor Hamilton: You've asked a question you already knew the answer to. You're , wasting our time. Resolution #88-112: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to ' approve the authorization to take bids, Fire Department aerial ladder truck pursuant to the City Manager's recounuendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: There were no Visitor Presentations. ' PUBLIC HEARING: STREET VACATION REQUEST, LAKE DRIVE EAST, OPUS CORPORATION. 1 Public Present: Name I Pat Hallisey Blue Circle Investment Bob Worthington Opus Corporation 6 1 ICity Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the Public Hearing to order. IIPat Hallisey: I'm Pat Hallisey of Blue Circle Investment people with the shopping center on Lake Drive East. I'm just curious what the proposed vacation entails before I can ask any questions about it. I don't have any knowledge of what they're requesting. Mayor Hamilton: If somebody would supply you with that information, you could perhaps read it. Councilman Geving: Do we have a visual? Jo Ann Olsen: We do not have a transparency but it's located west of your property. West of TH 101. It stops at the church. Right now it comes directly across and we're proposing to vacate that. Pat Hallisey: I have no objection as long as it continues to be a connector from existing TH 101 to CR 17. ' Bob Worthington: I'm Bob Worthington with Opus Corporation. Just for the record I wanted to indicated that we're here in support of the request. I would be happy to answer questions that you may have relative to Opus Corporation. I Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing. IAll voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us add another condition here that there ' be on deposit with the City a letter of credit for the construction of the streets and utilities. I think before we vacate a piece of property, we should be assured that the other street is going to be built. I see no reason that it ' won't be built but I'd like to have that letter of credit as assurance. Don Ashworth: The proposal as it's previously been looked at for Lake Drive East involves a number of property owners. The previous time that this was ' approved for a public improvement, we did not have that type of requirement at that point in time. Simply because we're moving the road slightly north or south, I don't see where that really affects the necessity for requiring that ' letter of credit. Specifically we'd be asking Opus to put up a letter of credit for the Ward property and I don't think that we've ever done that type of thing before. Additionally, you have Rosemount, the church..that represents all of the owners. Anytime you have multiple ownership, it becomes very difficult to require one of those four owners to put up a letter of credit for the other three. Councilman Geving: The point that I would like to make to you Bill, since you've questioned this is that a vacation of a street is only the movement of something that we had placed on a piece of paper as a plan. It isn't really a street. It's a proposed street that's on a map. No one is going to gain a great deal by leaving it where it's at. We've done this a lot of times but we've never asked for a letter of credit to assure us that that road is going to get built. I know the road will get built because that's the only access that we have to the Rosemount property. As for a letter of credit, I think it's 7 98 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 completely out of order at this point. I just don't t see , your reasoning. We have not done this in the past. The property owners who would be affected will receive the vacated piece of property and a new road will eventually built. It's ' just a paper transaction. That's all it amounts to. Councilman Horn: I don't like putting a last minute changes into things that 1 we've set motion to for some time. We're heard it now here on a request from this. We've heard a request on a park issue at this point. I think those are areas that need to be negotiated up front and not at the time of final approval. Councilman Johnson: We will get a letter of credit ' from Opus when they build it as part of the Rosemount project. That's already going to be there. Part of the development contract. Councilman Boyt: I agree with that. I'm simply saying that we've giving up something that we now have the right to use. ' Councilman Johnson: We also have just now, by earlier action tonight, provided for it's replacement in the platting of Lake Drive West from the north which was conditioned upon this approval so we're not losing anything. We got exactly what we had before except it's moved at one point, only about 30 to 40 feet north. Councilman Boyt: Okay, Don you're comfortable that should we vacate this piece of property, we still have the right to put a road through without acquiring additional property? Don Ashworth: Absolutely. Councilman Boyt: That's my big concern. Resolution #88-113: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to , approve the partial vacation of Lake Drive East as shown on the plat stamped "Received September 22, 1988" with the following conditions: 1. Final plat approvalq of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition and recording of the plat with Carver County. 2. Provision of any utility, drainage or roadway easements as recommended by ' the feasibility study for improvements to Lake Drive East. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: AUDUBON ROAD UTILITIES, PROJECT 88-20A. Gary Warren: I should point out to the Council, you all got copies ' the bid results. It's a very favorable bidding g P tonight of ng climate. Machtemes is an excellent contractor. We've had good experience with him so we're very pleased with the bid results. Mayor Hamilton: Machtemes, you've had experience with them previously? 8 II' , City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 ' --- Gary Warren: Bill has had a lot of experience. He's out of Waconia. II I Councilman Johnson: A lot of people bid on this one. This is a really good bid I think. Councilman Geving: Would the construction start this fall? UGary Warren: That's our intent is that they would start here. By spec they have 10 days to get their contract documents in order but I'm sure they'll meet I that. The reason you saw so many bidders is because of the good construction season we had. They're anxious to get going. IResolution #88-114: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to award the bid for the Audubon Road Utilities Project 88-20A to Machtemes Construction in the amount of $87,638.75. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 7210 GALPIN BLVD., II DAVE STOCKDALE. Jo Ann Olsen: This was tabled at the last meeting because it was so late and the applicant requested that. 1 Dave Stockdale: My name's Dave Stockdale. I've got some property on Galpin Blvd. and since the last meeting I've had a chance to review my situation and II what's taken place since I bought the property. Also with me I have a friend 1 who's an attorney. . .and I'm asking to assist me in the conversation. As you know, I received prior approval of a conditional use permit in 1985. Three I members on this panel approved it at that time. I'm here tonight is to try to show you that there is in fact some hardship that I hope you will go along and be persuaded to making sure of a conditional use permit again. One of the things that I did do, since the permit was approved, as some of you may have I seen, although I didn't do a lot of physical work on the property, I was going through the process, the normal process of doing the surveying, getting drawings worked on which was expensive and I had spent a lot of time doing that process. I Prior to actually starting the execution of the project I was in the process of building my house and having the land subdivided based upon the Minnesota Mortgage laws. The legal description had to change and at that point in time, because of the description change, the permit had to be resubmitted. By the I time I finished building the house, I had to put it on hold because of economic reasons. I'm sorry, I didn't put it on hold, I was still proceeding and then I was notified that the permit was not valid so at that point I decided II to...proceed with it. During this time I had some unfortunate...difficulty in pursuing this project. I contend that if that did not happen, I would have been able to actually start the project within the timeframe or at least reapply for II the conditional use permit prior to the change of the ordinance. As I stated before, it's my intention in moving to Chanhassen was to have both my residence and a contractor's yard and that was one of the original conditions on my property. The ordinance was changed and like I said, at that time I was being I i distracted by some of the processes that were affecting me. The investment. When I was back in a position to go through with the project, I talked with staff and they recommended I go through the procedure again. So again, I have IIincurred some expenses going through the process of doing soil borings, ...fees II9 100 ,City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 and those kinds of things so I have been spending money all along. I also feel if I am denied the contractor's yard, in essence by property value would just have a progressive decrease because it won't be useable for anything else for ' the next 15 years or so until sewer and water are available. I also might note that my contract for conditional use permit did not state anything about the 1 year limitation. However, that was in the documents somewhere but I didn't have that.. . As you're discussing this, I'd also like you to consider the possibility of grandfathering this because of the original grant was approved. There is a contractor's yard within a mile. That seems to be the major stumbling block. It's use is real minimal. If you're concerned, I think you prbably should talk to... The other concern is the neighbor besides myself within 500 feet. At the prior meeting I presented a recommendation from him stating that his approval of my project. Again, I'd like you to consider the fact that there was a variance granted at one other time in the last few years since the ordinance changed to Gardeneer. As far as I know, that was not based upon any kind of hardship. As far as I know, they did not previously have a conditional use permit. As I stated before, I've made every effort to work within the system. Do things above board. I know there are times when people just go ahead and do their own thing and then at a later date that project is grandfathered in. I chose not to approach it that way. Again, I'd just like you to consider these things and hopefully you'll see these hardships are not self-imposed but in fact are created from outside influences. It's my understanding that if you perceive it that way, it does give you the grounds for ' granting a variance and that's what I'm asking for. Councilman Johnson: How many employees would you have at this contrator's yard? Dave Stockdale: I have 12 employees. I have about 9 of them that actually show up at the yard. The other 3 just move in the field. Councilman Johnson: Do they all have parking for their private vehicles? ' Dave Stockdale: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Co they then get into your vehicles and leave or do they take their vehicles? Dave Stockdale: They use my vehicles. I have buffered parking through a berm situation so the vehicles wouldn't be visible from the street level. My site plan includes...for personal vehicles. , Councilman Johnson: I think that one of the main purposes way back when, I shouldn't say we, I wasn't on the Council at that time but when the previous Council put in the ordinance to allow contractor's yards, they were considering yards like what Larry Kerber has. Where he's the employee and he keeps his vehicles there and he's go out and does his contracting and comes home at night. A very small, low intensity use. That's what I'd like to see contractor's yards be in the town. When you start putting commercial businesses in, our plumbing business, other folks, they locate in the industrial yard. They come in, their employees come in, get in their trucks and head out to work. That's always been our industrial zone and that's where I see that fit. However, our rules don't prohibit this type of operation. That's one thing I guess we're looking at changing our rules again for contractor's yards. The Planning Commission is looking at that. In this case, I feel that the Minnesota laws prevented you 10 I City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 from having your contractor's yard way back when. We had approved under the old ordinance and that you would be here and you would be grandfathered if it II I weren't for the mortgage laws. That was the primary thing. I swing a bit towards, at this point, saying you do have a hardship here. I'm a bit, as you can tell, slightly opposed to as intensive a use in the rural areas. I know a farm doesn't have 12 employees coming to it but, most farms but I'm not totally convinced right now of the hardship and hopefully somebody else will convince me during this evening. ' Councilman Geving: I have a comment or two that I'd like to make and I'm glad you asked about the number of employees because I think it's important that we understand that Mr. Stockdale is trying to bring a business into Chanhassen but ' more importantly, Dave was given a conditional use permit back in March of 1985 and at that time we saw fit to provide that conditional use him to have a contractor's yard. When I look back at the intent of what we tried to do, we ' tried to get a hold of all the contractor's yards and identify them throughout the city. Prior to that no one knew where they were or what they were doing so on a very honest basis, we asked these people to come in and register with us. Most did. In fact, they all did. It was our way of trying to find out what ' kind of businesses were going on. Now I find that we have caught Mr. Stockdale in a web of sorts because of timing and the fact that another conditional use permit was given to Mr. Ted Bentz who lives within 1 mile of David's location ' and an ordinance change that took place inbetween the conditional use permit and today. I feel strongly that David does have some very good grounds for asking for a reconsideration of this. We didn't vote on it at the last meeting. David felt that he should go back and gather his facts and he's done that. He's given us a letter tonight regarding his problem with the embezzelment in his business and he was working towards making that contractor's yard work. I must say Dave, that you're trying to do the best you could. You came to us in all honesty and ' you probably, like so many people, we had one tonight, could have gone ahead and built something out there and no one would have ever known the difference because it is off the road and it could have happened. We eventually would have caught up with you I suspect but the main thing is that you were honest enough to bring this to our attention and as a result, you're here tonight. My personal feeling is that we're only hung up on a couple of minor issues here. One, and that's the neighbor 500 feet which you could move your business away from that area so that you could conform to our ordinance requirement. Is that true? Could you move your proposed site so that it did not fall within the 500 feet? ' Dave Stockdale: It would be on the same legal description regardless of how it's proposed. ' Councilman Geving: Okay, the second issue then is the hours of operation which you can conform to our ordinance and it would be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that's no problem? Dave Stockdale: No. Councilman Geving: The biggest issue that I see is that no two contractor's yards can be within 1 mile of each other. My proposal to the Council is to delete that item number 5 from our zoning ordinance for contractor's yards located in the A-2 district. If we did that, it makes sense to me because there are already existing in the city situations where we have more than one 11 11 .)O2 ' City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 contractor's yard located practically on the same land. To delete this from our ordinance and amend the ordinance rather than grant a variance is the better way to go. I am personally very sympathetic to you Mr. Stockdale. I would encourage the Council to move along those lines. To grant this conditional use permit for the contractor's yard. If you're agreeable to the changes that I suggested in the hours of operation and moving your site and then maybe we could ' turn this back to staff and to the Planning Commission to amend the ordinance to remove the 1 mile distance. Those are my comments. Councilman Horn: What is the exact distance that you are from Bentz? ' Dave Stockdale: About three-eighths of a mile. From yard to yard. The legal description is closer but yard to yard. 1 Councilman Horn: I guess the question I had is, pursuing Dale's line, what kind of exposure would we have if we reduced it something within say, a quarter mile? How many more potential contractor yard sites would we open up? Jo Ann Olsen: A few. I'd have to look at that one. Right now we're pretty much filled with the 1 mile radius. Councilman Horn: What I'm trying to get a handle on is what kind of precedent would we set and... I guess I'd like to find another way to do it other than ' reducing the 1 mile limitation. I'd like to get the Attorney to respond to us on the validity of the hardship based on the facts that we have this evening. Mayor Hamilton: Roger, did you have an opportunity to review. .. , Roger Knutson: Yes. I think you know, or many, many times what a hardship is. I guess you'll each have to make your own decision obviously...as to whether they meet the definition of our ordinance now. Councilman Horn: The fact that he lost financing does not create a hardship? ' Roger Knutson: No. It's a hardship for him. There's no question about it but not as defined in our ordinance. I Councilman Horn: In our ordinance? Roger Knutson: And by State Statute. ' Councilman Horn: So we have no opportunity to change the description of what a hardship is? , Roger Knutson: No. Councilman Horn: Okay, let's attack it from another angle then. What about, ' why don't we meet the rules of grandfathering since we already approved this once? Roger Knutson: If he was grandfathered, he wouldn't need another conditional use permit for one thing. Councilman Horn: Well, that's the question. Does he need a conditional use 12 1 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 1 - permit? 1 1 Roger Knutson: He hasn't built anything on it. Councilman Horn: But is showing progress merely in the building or in the ' planning? Roger Knutson: The Supreme Court has told us that you don't get vested rights to proceed until you are digging a hole and putting up the boards. Councilman Horn: So digging a hole and pouring money isn't enough? ' Roger Knutson: A paper hole doesn't qualify. Councilman Horn: I can't find an easy answer. Maybe somebody else can. ' Councilman Boyt: I follow Clark's line of thought I believe. I would be opposed to deleting the 1 mile limit. I think that we're surrounded by ' communities that have said that they don't think that contractor's yards are compatible with residential development and I would agree with them. That's why the 1 mile limit's in there. I didn't vote to put it in there but I've been assured by staff before that there's no room for contractor's yards and since ' then we've approved one and we're now looking at you. I'm of the opinion that this isn't a type of business that we generally want to encourage. Although the people who have it, have the right to continue to do that. The other thing I IIdon't want to do is I don't want to create an ordinance that we can no longer i enforce. I think Roger has sort of sealed the deal. I think what you read in the Minutes, or at least the way I interpretted the Minutes of 2 weeks ago was ' that if we were going to approve a contractor's yard, this was the model of the kind of yard we'd like to approve. It certainly looks very much like a responsible type of business to have but I don't want to lose the ability to limit contractor's yards in our community. So far, the people that I've listened to, no one has come up with a way to balance those two out. I'm still listening for a way. I would like staff, if we're going to pursue this, I'd like to know on a much fresher basis, what the basis was on Gardeneer and why we ' granted that variance. I think we need to be consistent. I would hope that if we decide that we're in general support of this, that we ask Roger to come back with Findings of Fact before we actually take action. ' Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have a question of you. In the wintertime, what do your employees do or how many do you have there? ' Dave Stockdale: We scale back quite a bit. We do remodeling work and we do have some snow removal contracts. If we get to that point, I was going to ask to talk to you about adjustment on the hours for the snow removal. Mayor Hamilton: You do remodeling work so you're doing more than landscaping? Dave Stockdale: When I say landscape contractor, we don't deal with plant materials. We deal strictly with hard goods. Retaining walls, decks, fences, patios and we do a fair amount of remodeling work. About half of my work is remodeling. We have a relationship with Bachman's. We do their, on a sub contract basis, we do all of their construction projects. Because of that ' relationship, I don't deal with the plant material. They do. ' 13 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have a difficulty, as everybody else does I guess, in trying to figure out exactly what a contractor's yard is. I guess I mistakenly , thought that you did more with plant material and if that's the case, I guess I still feel the way that when you have plant material involved, it's not to me a contractor's yard, it's an agricultural use and it shouldn't be classified as a contractor's yard. I think our problem lies in defining what a contractor's yard is. I think when the ordinance was passed, to me a contractor's yard was some guy who's out pouring.cement with his dump truck or whatever and you're hauling their equipment back and forth. That, to me, is a contractor's yard. I'm not sure if this falls in that category or not. I guess if you're not using plant materials and you're doing construction type things, that probably falls into a contractor's yard. But I also feel that since you were given a permit once, I don't have a problem with allowing you to continue. i certainly feel that what has happened to you is certainly no cause of your own. I'd like to see you in town and I'd like to see you continue business here. It's the type of service that's needed and you should be here. You had a comment you wanted to make. Dave Stockdale: Just to one of the things that Mr. Boyt stated. He said he's concerned about having a contractor's yard, with how it woulde interface with the residential development. In fact that neighborhood is not a residential development and won't be until sewer and water comes through. It's zoned 10 acre minimum. One acre is 2 1/2 acres lots and that will probably not be used...so it's not really interfacing with the residential community. At that point in time when sewer and water comes through, I suspect that I would reassess my situation. , Councilman Horn: Would it be possible for us to relook at this whole contractor's yard ordinance and in fact make the type of uses much more restrictive than some we're seen today. If we did that, we may feel more comfortable in reducing this mileage. If we knew that we're going to get the type of thing in that required the original intent. It would seem to me that if we made it more restricted and compromise and reduce the distance, we'd have something that might be liveable. Councilman Geving: I think the important thing here is that we're not trying to make an exception for you Mr. Stockdale. We're trying to look at the city and the ordinance that we've created and try to apply it fairly. I again go back to the original intent when we captured this contractor's yard situation was to find out what kinds of businesses were being done in the rural area. That was our total intent. It wasn't trying to restrict anyone. the were trying to get a handle on it so that we could then decide how we should build the ordinance and make it better. I think Clark may have hit upon it. I only included my idea on the 1 mile so we might be able to find a way and I think we're still looking for that way. I want you in town and I want any other business that would bring 12 employees to our city. It doesn't have a great deal of impact on the rural area certainly. So I think since you've already had our conditional use permit from 1985, if things had gone right for you, you would have been out there for the last 3 years. No question about it. So I want to find a way tonight to direct staff to see if they can't come up with a means by which businesses like Mr. Stockdale's can be a part of Chanhassen. I guess I would ask our planner, our only planner right now, what her thoughts are in Mr. Stockdale's request. I want you to be fair and impartial. Not necessarily thinking about Mr. 14 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 IT Stockdale's request but along the lines of what Clark was asking. Is there a way that we can look at that ordinance provision on a conditional use permit and probably define better what a contractor's yard is because there are a lot of Ivariations of that. Jo Ann Olsen: We are doing that right now. We are reviewing the ordinance for ' contractor's yards. Making it much more restrictive. Better defining what they are. We have not gotten into details as of yet as far as like the 1 mile radius. I definitely don't want to remove that completely but we could look ' at... Mayor Hamilton: Who doesn't? Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission is working on the ordinance right now. Councilman Horn: How about if we keep the 1 mile in for the existing ordinance ' the way it is and then also allow a provision in there that if we have a more restrictive use, that it could be closer than a quarter of a mile. That way the higher intensity things that we are trying to keep out would still have the mile restriction. In effect, the less intense you have, the closer you can have it to another one. Jo Ann Olsen: I think the Planning Commission, what they've been giving the ' staff as comments is that they want to restrict them even if they're within a mile or not. Councilman Horn: They may want to do that anyway. Even a mile, that's fine. Mayor Hamilton: When do you anticipate the Planning Commission will have that completed? Jo Ann Olsen: They're going to be reviewing it in November. They'll be coming to the Council in December if it's not tabled or taken back to the drawing board. We have a pretty good idea. We've discussed it several times with the Planning Commission and we have a pretty good idea of what they want so we're preparing that right now. We'll take it back to them, I believe it's the second ' meeting in November. Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, would what they're considering help Mr. Stockdale at all? I kind of doubt it. ' Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, I don't think that it was changing that 1 mile radius. Councilman Johnson: And it's looking at a less intense use probably than what he's proposing. The 12 employees, I think they're looking to make it even less than that. ' Councilman Boyt: You have to live on the property. Councilman Johnson: He does but his employees don't. Councilman Boyt: Let's not forget that an A-2 is a single family residential area. It's rural but it's also single family residential. I agree with a lot of what I've heard everybody say tonight. We've got contractor's yards defined 15 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 , in our ordinances and they describe what you've described. So unless you change your business substantially or unless we change the definition substantially, there's not going to be relief there. I think one of the things to keep in mind is the City Council just approved a contractor's yard that has 5 tractor trailers operating out of it. I'm real wary of extending the ability of putting more contractor's yards in town. It's not your situation but it was one we approved on TH 169 in the last couple months. ' Councilman Geving: I would like to make a motion at this time to approve the contractor's yard as proposed for Mr. Dave Stockdale located at 7210 Galpin Blvd. with the conditions as stated here on page 10 of our September 21, 1988 memorandum of planning staff. There are 7 conditions on my motion. Mayor Hamilton: I'll second your motion. , Councilman Johnson: Dale, do you want to put any conditions on here, starting with 12 employees. If you get successful here, I can see him going to 20 employees and then to 30 employees. We're granting it at 12. We've talked about intensification. Do we want any conditions on the intensification? Not • to exceed 15 employees or... Councilman Geving: I don't think there's anything wrong with that because think that's a good point. We don't want you to start up a Frank's business out there or some kind of home remodeling business. I agree with you. That could be a very good. What would be a good number for you Mr. Stockdale? Dave Stockdale: I think 15. Councilman Geving: 15 to 20 maximum? Dave Stockdale: 15 sounds fine. 1 Councilman Geving: I would like to add then condition 8 to my motion that this business can't exceed a total of 15 employees at this site. I like your idea Jay. Councilman Johnson: Dale, are we going to have to go through the variance procedure then? Councilman Geving: This is a request for a conditional use permit. Councilman Johnson: But in order to get it, at the time we'll have to grant a variance also which you'll have to go before a public hearing and before our Board of Adjustments and Appeals. ' Councilman Geving: I don't understand that. Mayor Hamilton: Is that right Roger? Roger Knutson: You need a zoning variance. Zoning variances go before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Mayor Hamilton: We're not changing zoning. 16 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 17 Councilman Geving: The City Council can override the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at any time. That's why we are elected officials. We can make that distinction tonight to do that and we would grant him the variance as requested. ' Councilman Johnson: He hasn't applied for a variance. Councilman Geving: No, but if there was one required, this City Council could grant that. ' Councilman Boyt: I think that we're rushing into something that needs a lot more study. You grant this variance and you've just done away with the 1 mile ' restraint on contractor's yards. The City Attorney has said that, in his opinion, this doesn't fit our ordinance not meet the requirements of a variance. Planning staff is recommending that it be turned down. The Planning Commission voted to turn it down. Without further study, I'll vote against it. Councilman Geving: Mr. Boyt, let me remind you that in 1985 we granted this variance once. We granted the conditional use permit for Mr. Dave Stockdale to go into business. We gave him that right. Through no fault of his own, he ran into some financial difficulties. He was not able to consummate that conditionalq use permit and for that reason, because of the mortgage situation ' in the State of Minnesota, when he applied for his home mortgage, he was forced to subdivide his land into 10 acre minimums. That's what brings him before us tonight. If all of those conditions had not happened, Dave would have moved ahead and built that yard out there and we would have had a construction yard. A contractor's yard right where it was proposed. I don't feel we're violating anything that this Council didn't grant to Mr. Stockdale in 1985. Mayor Hamilton: The request is for a conditional use permit. Councilman Horn: If we, in our Findings of Fact, use that very line that this was granted at one previous point, would that surely differentiate or would that give us some reasonable findings of fact to indeed grant a variance. Councilman Johnson: Or could we reinstitute the 1985 permit? Councilman Horn: In other words, could we use that as a difference on any other future request for variances where this had previously been approved and that's ' our Finding of Fact as to why we allowed the variance in this case. Roger Knutson: It would help this move. Councilman Horn: It seems to me that's our key. Councilman Boyt: I think that one of the things that the previous Council established was that a conditional use permit that isn't acted upon within 1 year expires. That's not my ordinance gentlemen. That's the City's ordinance. We can't ignore that ordinance in spite of a logical argument. Councilman Geving: Let me tell you something Mr. Boyt, we make the laws and we amend the ordinances. That's why we're here. That's our job. We created this ordinance. We have a right to change it. It's that simple. If you can't see ' that, I can't teach it to you. When we have to amend the ordinance, we have ' 17 108 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 that right. We built that ordinance back in early 80. I was a part of it. Councilman Johnson: In this case, we're stuck by State Zoning laws too. That ' to grant a conditional use permit that in effect grants a variance, we have to go through the variance procedures. He has to file for a variance. Public notice has to be made. Letters have to sent to all residents within 500 feet. Mayor Hamilton: Thank you. They did that already. Councilman Johnson: ...in order for us to. Mayor Hamilton: We've going back over something we've already. It's a good point. You've already said that. Roger, is that true? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Horn: I'm not against granting a variance as long as we don't open a real precedent and we have a Finding of Fact that substantiates what we're doing and can differeniate it from future requests. I think that's the key that we have in this case. I believe the Attorney sustains that position. Councilman Johnson: I'd also like to make one other point. If, after replatting this land, in 1985, that we then had come at that time in. I know for some personal reasons that you didn't come back at that time. You could have come back at that time. Gotten a new conditional use permit because the old one expired. It didn't expire for the 1 year but it expired due to the ' replatting as I understand the circumstances. What first got rid of the conditional use permit is that it goes with the land. When the land got replatted, the conditional use permit disappears. If at that time you'd come back for a conditional use permit, moved a couple feet of dirt, you would have had your conditional use permit. By not doing that, it's hard for us to say that 3 years later, two simple actions that could have been taken at that time, that were within your control, could have been taken by you, that would have preserved your rights to the conditional use permit. It's tough now to come back and do it. When we look at the literal enforcement in this chapter, we call it undue hardship and practical difficulty. You have a business that's going. It's established. If you don't get this, it makes it to where you have a longer drive to work everyday. I know people who work in Maplewood and drive to Maplewood everyday. It doesn't really cause what I would consider an undue hardship or practical difficulty. Councilman Horn: Do we have any others in this category where they failed to exercise within the time and they would be potential to fall into this Finding ' of Fact? Jo Ann Olsen: The only outstanding one is Lowell Carlson but he never received a conditional use permit. Councilman Horn: So this is indeed the only one. Councilman Geving: I just wanted to ask Clark, would it be your interest then to add to this motion that we would ask the Attorney for a Finding of Fact using the fact that we did grant this conditional use permit on March 18, 1985? 18 , I 109 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 I Councilman Horn: And that's how we're justifying a variance and it's not 11 something that we would deny from somebody else... Councilman Geving: I understand. I would add that to my motion. Dave Stockdale: Can I add just one more point? Just in response to what Mr. Johnson is stating. No, I did not go out there and take a Bobcat or a shovel II and turn over dirt. That's not the logical procedure for executing what I was trying to accomplish. I was going through the normal procedure of having the documentation first. I could have approached it from a, more devious point of view I suppose and gone out there and turned clumps of dirt and come back and said, here, I've done what was required of me. Now let me have it. I didn't approach it that way. I in fact did proceed in a logical manner with my planning and surveying work. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit Request #88-2 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan which conforms to the 100 foot setback requirement for the storage areas. ' 2. The applicant provide soil boring information locating two septic sites for approval by Drs. Machmeier and Anderson for use of a bathroom facility in the contractor's yard building and provide a holding tank for waste water with a contract from a pumper and documentation when the tank has been pumped. 3. The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver County. 4. The applicant shall maintain hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 ' p.m. with work not permitted on Sundays and holidays. 5. There shall be no signage advertising the business establishment on site. 6. Conditions of the Building Department. 7. Conditions of the Engineering Department. ' 8. Employees can not exceed a total of 15. 9. The City Attorney shall prepare Findings of Fact using the fact that the applicant was granted a conditional use permit on March 18, 1985. All voted in favor and the motion carried. HIGHWAY 101 REALIGNMENT: I! A. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF TH 101 REALIGNMENT, FRED HOISINGTON. B. APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER TO IDENTIFY SAID REALIGNMENT. I 19 1' City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 C. ADOPTION OF OFFICIAL MAP AND APPROVAL OF FIRST AND SECOND READING OF AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE FOR OFFICIAL MAPS. Fred Hoisington: Your honor and members of the City Council, we're near the end of a process as far as deciding on which of the original 7 alternatives will be selected for and become the subject of a feasibility study. The feasibility studies have been going one simultaneously with this decision making process. It's continuing but this really becomes the key decision that kind of triggers the completion of that and details. We have a lot of good news. As we go, we learn more and invented things all the time. We have two alternatives but we're evaluating three, as you know. Alternative 2, what we call new alternative 2 is an alternative that has the intersection at Dakota. The south leg of TH 101 will be at Great Plains Blvd. or something approximating that and then another intersection at Market Blvd. but only constructing, not as part of TH 101 but connection of to Rosemount Inc.. Now the 2A alternative you've seen many times. Again, the intersection of Dakota, a 4 way intersection at existing Great Plains Blvd. and then a new Market Blvd. becoming the south leg of TH 101. Then a third alternative is the old 2, new 2B and for the sake of trying to keep, what that is is a state of 2 in transition to either a 2 or 2A. I guess what our ' real concern there is that we're not sure, because of a number of reasons, we think that decision has to be made and you have to pick one or the other. You can't really pick one that's in transition because it's going to be critical that that decision be made now and then all the decisions at final are based on one or the other. Now let me run through. We have dealt with 6 criteria in this case. Future costs. Financing. MnDot preferences. MnDot and Carver County preferences. Roadway geometrics. Impact on existing businesses and immediate property owner acceptance meaning Wards and Rosemounts since they are the ones who's land it will pass it through. Let me just briefly cover some of 1! our comments in that case. One of the reasons we're using future costs here instead of present costs is you'll recall with the 2A alternative we were building at least a portion of the south leg of TH 101. To compare that to a now south leg TH 101 is very difficult. We're comparing apples to oranges in that case so we had to take a look at what is a reasonable future expectation for improvements south. What we said to you in this case, 4 lanes at some time in the future, we don't know when that will be, with right-of-way, 100 foot right-of-way throughout most of that and we think now we can compare. Don't get so concerned about the costs. You can build it any increments you want to build it in but for the sake of cost comparison, we felt it was necessary to do it in that fashion. Now we think that the 2B alternative, the one in transition, will be extremely difficult to get support from Hennepin County for the extension of the tax increment district, economic development district and not necessarily for the dollar to come from this improvement and I won't go into the details of that. We think that they could support either a 2 or 2A and would help us extend that district so that we could divide it the bulk of dollars to finance the improvement. The next criteria deals with MnDot's preferences and we would say that MnDot prefers 2A but I would not consider that one of the criteria that I would hang my hat entirely on nor would I suggest that that would be a pivotal one that you should consider ultimately in making this decision. The letter from MnDot indicating their preference for Alternative 2A. Affects on existing businesses which was a criteria that was added by the Council the last time we [!! were here. One existing business would be affected by the roadway were it to stay where it is or were it to move to the 2A alignment and that would be Q- Superette where a stream of traffic on present TH 101 would be diverted away from the near front door of Q. That is, of course, a concern but according to 20 1 . 3 • j i II' City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 1 our attorneys, there would be no requirement for compensible damages or payment of compensation for that loss. Regarding property owner preferences. We asked ' both Rosemount and Ward, I think we have letters from both, asking which they would prefer and Ward prefers 1 and Rosemount prefers the other. What we concluded, and I've talked to both since we got the letters, what we've concluded is that they would accept either one. Both of then have given us that assurance. They would not fight us if it turned out to be either one that they do not prefer so you can see in the checklist that we came out with pluses all the way across in this case and what we came up within this matrix was something that wasn't as conclusive as I had hoped it would be. But what I will tell you is that we do have a preference as a feasibility study team for alternative 2A. Now our reasons for that. One, it's a more efficient roadway. One, if you get down to accurately figuring the cost, it's a cheaper roadway. The level of service is better balanced at all of the intersections. All level service D instead of D, C, E. 2A is further from the residential area than is 2. But I'm ' not willing I guess to stand here tonight nor is Don Ringrose who's with me. Nor is Gary Warren because we spent a lot of time talking about this, and say we recommend 2A because we just don't feel that we're strong enough there to make a firm recommendation. We like either 2 or 2A. We don't like 2B. We don't like the transitional one. If there's a recommendation that comes, it should come through very strongly. It is that we do not want to see that sort of inbetween decision made. You're going to have to build some portion of this roadway south ' of TH 5 with this first construction phase, whenever that occurs and the costs are reasonably comparable in those cases. What we would recommend is approval of one or the other and then approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Approval of the official mapping coordinates but not the official map because we still don't have the right-of-way established. That will be established by the feasibility study and wants to be working with the Wards to determine exactly where the location of those roads shall be. So with that your honor, I would just open for questions. Councilman Geving: Can you still meet the schedule for TH 5 completion if you ' recommend and this Council selects 2A even though we have to buy land, acquire quite a bit of real estate and build a new road rather than going with existing TH 101? Fred Hoisington: We've confident that we can still meet that schedule based on what MnDot indicates to us. It probably doesn't make any difference whether it's 2 or 2A. It's going to be about the same and we think we're still.. . Councilman Geving: I have one other question then. We keep showing the south part of the Market Blvd. intersection. What would we do to the north side of the roadway that you proposed? Fred Hoisington: That section of course is going to be built as the second phase of the Market Blvd. project. As part of the downtown process. Councilman Geving: So it's going to go regardless of our choice here tonight? Okay, that's what I needed to know. Thank you. 11 Councilman Boyt: Although our Attorney says that we do have a good chance of defending against a claim by the Q-Superette people. I think we've indicated a commitment to those people when we let them build there. They built with some assumptions and I hate to take those assumptions away from then even if we don't 21 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 have to pay them any money to do that. The toss up side to that, as I see it, is that it would be awfully nice to move that traffic flow away from existing neighborhoods and 2A looks like a good opportunity to do that. Right now I haven't worked out which of those is the best and I'd like to hear from other councilmembers on their thoughts but I think regardless of our legal liabilities, we definitely have a tie with that commercial development that we've allowed to develop there. Councilman Horn: I disagree with that. I think that that was not surprise that we were looking at realigning TH 101. That area will be developed regardless of what it is. The only option we would have had at the time that development came into us, would be to buy the property. Under either option then would not be something that we would do. That would have been the only thing we could have done to prevent building at that point and it was very clear to, everybody was aware of the fact that we've been looking at TH 101 realignment for many years. The possibility that it could happen was not clear to everyone because we didn't know what kind of funding we'd get but I don't agree that we made commitments that we would never move TH 101 from anyone building a site. I think that's something that's done at their own risk. I think one thing we really have to be very sensitive to is how well these highway systems function. We've already got many limitations built into our total transportation system based on what's already there today. I think we should listen to MnDot and their recommendation and go along with it because there are a lot of issues that we're going to have if we don't get the traffic moving as efficiently as we can with what we still have left to salvage out of this transportation system. Councilman Johnson: ,I have a few questions also. You made a statement, have to 1! build some portion of TH 101 with each of these alternatives at this time on the south side. How much of, if we want to do Option 2 at this time, how much, it's shown on your drawing that we're realigning it all the way down to the point of the temporary connection. Would we have to go that far or would we have to go as far as Lake Drive? Fred Hoisington: Jay, because of the timing of the development or the planning that's likely to occur on this property, we have to establish an alignment in any case. Then we are going to have to establish a right-of-way width. I think we need to be sure that that's tied up. Most of the official map... Councilman Johnson: We don't have to build it? Fred Hoisington: We don't have to build it all. I think what we need to do, we'd prefer to build at least a portion of it. Probably, maybe with turn lanes here and then maybe just 2 lanes or something to connect down here but the important thing is the Ward's are going to want to have this alignment pretty much established because it will tie up more land if we don't. Councilman Johnson: Established and built are two different things. Okay, what ' about 2A? How much of it would we have to build in the immediate to do 2A? Fred Hoisington: We could probably get by with doing essentially the same I thing. A little wider here and then neck it down and bring it over here and then we've got a temporary. In both cases a temporary to connect back into this. 22 1 IICity Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 IICouncilman Johnson: Let me ask you again, why on 2 do we have to completely realign 2 lanes all the way down now? We have 2 lanes functioning right now. II Could we go as far as Lake Drive, connect to the existing TH 101 and then at the time that the Wards want to develop and change it all, that's part of their development or is that where the money's coming from anyway? I Fred Hoisington: Let me say that in order to have a project that we feel would be attractive to Hennepin County and would support, give them the ability to support our efforts here and we need their support. We don't think we have to I buid a piece of that leg under any circumstances right away. The road, first of all Jay, is necessary but secondly, because this becomes kind of a portion of the local share on that roadway. A part that can also be assessed. ICouncilman Johnson: Why does Hennepin County give a hoot if we get rid of our turns and twists in TH 101? II Fred Hoisington: It isn't a matter of that. That needs to be done no matter what because it's a dangerous road but secondly, they won't do it because of that. They'll do it because they'll look at this thing and they'll say, how 1 much of this should we be taking a chunk off? And how much is MnDot taking a chunk of and then how much is the City taking a chunk off? We've got to build it anyway to correct the project so I guess we want to make sure that you're leveraging as much as you can to make sure that you end up with a total value Of 11 the funding. Councilman Johnson: Okay, I think I understand that now. IIMayor Hamilton: .Just to clarify that a little further Jay. We mentioned earlier that Representative Kelso and Don and myself met with Commissioner II Darris about a month ago and discussed this project with him, being a Hennepin County Commissioner, and we asked them for their support. Told them what we were attempting to do. Told them that we were looking to them for some funding. What Fred is saying is that they want to see how it is going to impact people I who live in Hennepin County who use this road. They then can better assess and come back to their people and say yes, we should fund a part of it because the people who live in Hennepin County are going to benefit from it. 1 Councilman Johnson: Yes, but they don't want to fund two-thirds of it. II Mayor Hamilton: I'm not saying that. I didn't say any amount. We're just asking them to consider funding a portion of it. Councilman Johnson: Okay, that makes sense to me. My feelings on the thing are 1 2A is the most logical of the two. I drive a road right now, TH 62 at 494 in my avoidance of TH 5 I end up driving. Hopefully in the near future I won't avoid TH 5 much anymore. I drive a section that will be similar to what would happen II with 2. Where you come across and people want to make a left hand turn right away. Those people really create a problem for me every morning because I don't want to make that left hand turn but they stop and don't merge with traffic. They've got a half mile merging strip but they don't use it because they're II trying to get four lanes over and everybody ends up running in, I'm surprised there aren't as many accidents there. That's exactly what we'll be seeing i here. The distances are a little bigger here but not that much. The further Iryou have for that merge, the better it is. I think in the long run the City II 23 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 1 will be better served by it. I see the proposed realignment on option 2 being pretty good too except for that one merge difference. I think that I would at this point support 2A over 2 just because the professionals on the traffic study side of thing say that that's the best. When we start getting an E class intersection for TH 101 and that's not good. That will create more problems in the future. The purpose of us is to make the best road system for the City of Chanhassen and for the long term growth of the City and I believe 2A does that better than 2 with everybody being a D instead of having one E tossed in there. Mayor Hamilton: I just want to reiterate what Clark had said about having TH 101 going down Lake Drive East which was never done. It was never said it was going to be done. We didn't know where TH 101 was going to go so I don't think we have any obligation to anyone who has built on that road. I'm very much in favor of 2A. I think it's the best plan by far. It answers and resolves a lot of the questions and issues we've had for years to come and I think it's a very good plan. I like it. 1 Councilman Geving: I think we ought to move for a motion at this time. Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to ask, I know there are some neighborhood people here who might have a comment or if they don't, that's fine. If they're just here to listen. I know we've heard most of their concerns previously. If they have something new they'd like to comment on, I'd appreciate hearing from them. Pat Hallisey: I introduced myself a little earlier this evening. Once again I'm Pat Hallisey with Blue Circle Investment Company. We are the owners of the shopping center that's located at the intersection of existing TH 101 and Lake Drive East. What I'd like to do is address a few of the issues or statements that I heard raised this evening. First of all somebody brought up the issue that by moving from a plan 2 to a plan 2A there would only be one business affected. We're not the owners of Q or Total Petroleum or that store. We are the owners of a shopping center. The shopping center was designed to have up to as many as 9 businesses. Currently there are 3 so we're not dealing with just the issue of one business. We heard somebody refer that the counsel for the City of Chanhassen feels that by adopting plan 2A you would have no compensible damages with respect to our claims. We've submitted previous correspondence from our legal counsel who differs with that. However, it would be certainly my hope that as rational people we could come to some kind of an agreement and arrive at a plan where litigation or dispute between attorneys is not necessary. That has been our objective all the way through this process. We do not want to be in litigation. We will only be there if we're forced into it. I have heard some, what I feel to be, misconceptions with respect to what we were told and the conditions under which we built our shopping center. First of all, ' Councilman Horn states that it's no surprise, the possible moving of TH 101 should come as no surprise to us. Well, let me assure you, it comes as a great big surprise. During the planning process when we built our shopping center, we were told by the staff of the City of Chanhassen that TH 101 was going to be in the future exactly where it is today. That was an unequivacable statement. As a matter of fact, we submitted a development plan to the staff, to the planning staff. We had to redo that development plan in order to accomodate the future [!! upgrading of TH 101.. .in it's present position. There was a study done in 1981 regarding the possible relocation of TH 101. It showed 5 alternatives for the redoing of the north portion of TH 101. All 5 of those studies showed the south leg of TH 101 in it's exact present location. I do have a copy of that study in 24 I IICity Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 t 7 1 my briefcase with me this evening if you'd like to look at it. So the realigning of TH 101, not so much the realigning, the moving of the south leg of Ili TH 101 south of TH 5 does came as a great surprise to us and it is in direct violation of what we were told when we planned our development and made our investment. Mayor Hamilton states that nobody ever promised us that TH 101 would be relocated to Lake Drive East. We're not saying that anybody promised I us that TH 101 would be aligned onto Lake Drive East. What we're saying is, we were told that TH 101 south of TH 5 would be in the future exactly where it is today. Whether or not we have a legal claim with the City of Chanhassen should II you decide to relocate TH 101 in accordance with plan 2A, I think is a secondary issue and as I said earlier, one that we would like to do all that we could to avoid. What I do feel is the primary issue with that respect is that we did I come before this city. The staff. The Planning Commission and the City Council. Received some very direct recommendations and were guided into making an investment. Whether or not there's a legal claim, I feel the City of Chanhassen has a deep moral obligation with respect to the economic havoc that II would be brought on us if you relocate TH 101. And believe me, it would be economic havoc. Mr. Hoisington stated when he was talking about the financing issues with respect to plan 2 and plan 2A, that it was possible that part of I these costs could be obtained through a direct assessment. I appeared in the informational meetings prior to the Planning Commission meetings dealing with this issue and I asked that question point blank. Were any of the costs attributable to TH 101 going to be directly assessed to the affected properties 11 and I was assured that they would not be. That this would be a citywide assessment. That was a direct assurance from Mr. Hoisington at that point. Councilman Johnson addresses the similarities between Hwy. 62, Crosstown intersection and the possibility may happen with TH 5 and TH 101 should plan 2 � ' be adopted. I agree that there are some similarities. Councilman Johnson - himself pointed out one major difference and that is that there is a greater I distancing and I think there's also a further major difference and that is, at this point in time, that intersection currently handles approximately twice the traffic flow that TH 5 or TH 101 is projected to carry in the year 2005. So there is a substantial difference between the two sections of road. I thank you 1 for letting me address you. We ask that you do adopt plan 2. Mayor Hamilton: Just a couple of clarifications. As far as TH 101 south of TH I 5, somebody mentioning it being exactly as it is today. I've been sitting here for 8 years and no one has ever expected it to be exacting as it is today. It's something we've always wanted to change. I don't know who told you that but I II would be surprised if somebody did. Cost, as far as being assessed citywide, we haven't talked about costs yet. Fred certainly knows that he can't make any guarantees to you about how assessing can or can not be done. That's not his decision to make and we haven't even discussed it yet so that's just a couple of IIclarifications. Fred? Fred Hoisington: Let me just answer that question since Pat raised it. At the II time they were talking about Alternative 3 and you recall Alternative 3 had no place to assess anything because residential was on one side. Q, we didn't figure we could probably assess for that. There was really nothing to assess of the improvement that we were talking about at that point in time. We were not II making a commitment. We knew we couldn't on the part of the city in areas where there is assessable footage and there is assessable footage in this project. There was not in 3. F 25 II City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 I I Pat Hallisey: Mr. Mayor, I want to clarify your clarification. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that TH 101 was to remain in it's exact condition. We knew it was to be upgraded. In fact the City has already done some work to the existing TH 101 to upgrade for what it felt to be the future needs as it came into TH 5. That work was done in conjunction with our development so we didn't anticipate that it would be in it's exact same form. What we did anticipate and had every reason to believe was that it would remain in it's exact same location. That's our concern. Gary Jensen: I'm Gary Jensen with the Holiday Station stores. Maybe I'm a little late in asking some of these questions. If Alternative 2A is adopted, would a full signalized intersection remain at Great Plains Blvd. and TH 5? 1 Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Gary Jensen: And would full access to 79th Street remain? ' Mayor Hamilton: Yes. As far as we know. Gary Jensen: Was Alternative 2 proposed with that same situation? Councilman Geving: Yes. I Gary Jensen: Our major concern is on this in and out access to TH 5. Councilman Horn: You'll have better access because Market is completed, there will be a complete loop in front of your station. Councilman Geving: Your situation will actually be better because we are trying to get the traffic onto 79th and into the loop so it can either come out, back onto TH 5 and move west or go to our downtown area. I've usually found myself at odds with highway department recommendations but I'm not going to say that I am with this one. Greg Mater: My name is Greg Mater and I live at 81... I attended all the informational meetings and Planning Commission meetings and Council meetings and what I got out of all the meetings was that they were looking out for all the people of Chanhassen as a whole which I think 2A does. ...gentlemen with the 2A option and I feel for his problem but I think looking at just one person's problem rather than a city's problem...Lake Drive East. They felt for us then that they're going to look at the city as a whole and decide from there which I think is what this city should do... Judy Shane: My name is Judy Shane and I just have a little question. I am just interested in what will happen to the land that is vacated between TH 101 when it turns down to TH 5? Will that become the city and parkland? , Mayor Hamilton: We haven't even discussed it. I'm not sure we could answer your questions. Gary, did you have any thoughts on that or Fred? 011 Gary Warren: In that case, it would go back to the abutting property owners. Councilman Geving: Yes, but I don't think we know where it's going to be Judy. That's the problem. 26 1 (.7 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 I_ A Judy Shane: Would it go down to TH 5 on the east side? Councilman Geving: The general response to your question is that the abutting property owners will gain one-half of each of the vacated parcels but to tell you exactly where that's going to be located at this time, we don't know. Until we see engineering drawings and specifications. Councilman Johnson: Almost all of the Ward's property. Councilman Geving: No. Judy's concerned about the north side where it comes up where D is located and loops by the apartment building. That's where you ' interested right Judy? Judy Shane: Yes. Councilman Geving: Where we have that little park there. Judy Shane: You have the park and the city so you would be the owner. I guess I was just interested if it turns into commercial or... Councilman Geving: No, no. ' Roger Knutson: A lot depends upon how it's acquired and who's name is it in right now. I frankly don't know whether it's in the County's name, the State's name or the City's name and it's a fairly complicated question to answer. You really can't give a simple answer. Councilman Geving: We'll keep you advised though Judy because I know you're concerned but we can't answer it. Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet. I live also in the Brookhill development. ' Personally I think it's a toss up and I hate to speak up one way or the other as a person. However, as a spokesperson for the Brookhill development, I'd like to point out one element that hasn't been mentioned. The fact that if option 2 is chosen, the fact that it's closer. The intersection has a secondary affect, namely that by default, if TH 5 gets saturated, Lake Drive East still will have to carry the greater portion of traffic because people will know if TH 5 is plugged up, they're going to take Lake Drive East as an alternative route which it's much less likely if you adopt the plan 2A. And I would just like to bring that to your attention in order for you to make a wise decision. Councilman Boyt: It might be a very good point but we've just said that that intersection in the middle was to stay open. Once Lake Drive East is put through over to Dakota, it would seem that people have 2 or 3 opportunities to drive over onto Lake Drive East. Councilman Horn: That's true but if the option is more currently where TH 101 is now, if it backs up only to that point, they can go down the old TH 101 and get on that way completely eliminating the Park Drive east portion of it effects the development. The only way they would be affected is if total area were } backed up and then it would come back through Dakota and have to go back to Lake I Drive East so it gives them a stacking distance between Market and existing TH 101 and more buffer with that option before they're back into Lake Drive East. 27 -1 [:.)_. City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 1 Mayor Hamilton: Its a similiar situation that occurred in Eden Prairie when they put their industrial park in there. It cut through the industrial park and a lot of people tried it but it doesn't accomplish anything. I'm sure some people tried but, you think you're going to beat the light or something but it doesn't work. Councilman Geving: To answer part of your question Bill. We're just seeing one piece of this. Eventually that Lake Drive East, going east, will go all the way out to Dell Road on 184th Street and Eden Prairie already has plans of putting a light at the 184th Street so there's going to be another light going in there eventually. They have very definite plans of doing that. It's possible that you could take Lake Drive East all the way from CR 17 to Dell Road. Councilman Boyt: As we look at the shopping center down there, I thought I heard Mr. Hallisey say that he is open to some sort of negotiation that might keep him in business. I can remember, by the way, I remember reading through the packet which I think last time when we considered the whole TH 101 issue had a much more detailed explanation of the background of your situation. I don't quite remember it as being as clear cut as you remember it but that wasn't my money. The situation that I remember a year and a half ago when the golf course sent us a letter and said we'd like your help in expanding TH 5 so that it will be ready for the Open. The reaction was, it will never happen. Fortunately the City and Clark and several of you became very involved and even more involved in TH 5 and it's happening. It's pretty terrific but I can understand why the impression would be created that changes to TH 101 might be an awfully long way down the road. My concern is, if there's some way of mitigating the economic hardship, I think we would all like to do alternative 2A. That's what I'm I!! hearing but I hate to do alternative 2A and sort of cast this gentleman to the winds when he's come into our town and made a considerable economic investment as a taxpayer. Just like everybody else is paying taxes. Councilman Geving: I would just like to respond to that, in response to Mr. Hallisey. I don't think anybody ever gave anyone any commitment that TH 101 would always be located where it was or is today. We have studied the realignment of TH 101 since 1980, that I'm aware of. And to suggest that a planning person or a member of our staff made a commitment, which they're really not in any position to make because they are employees of the city. We are the decision makers. I suggest that you may have heard wrong Mr. Hallisey and that you may have made a financial investment in the community but not without some kind of risk on your part. We don't commit anything. A plan is a plan and our plans since 1980 were to always do something with TH 101. We are now making that move to change TH 101. Now, if there's some way that we could sit down with you as you suggest, and come to some kind of an agreement, I'm all for ' that. I think it's the right way to go because if we can talk about it, maybe we can work something out. Regardless of what comes out of our negotiations here tonight and deliberations and our final decision, you probably won't like any of the decisions that are going to be made anyway. But we're still willing to sit down with you and talk about it. Mayor Hamilton: Anything else? If not, I'm going to move for approval of I recommendation to realign TH 101 to the plan that's been presented to us as 2A. Councilman Horn: I'll second that. 28 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 I Councilman Boyt: I would like to add to your motion that we have the city enter into negotiations with the shopping center on how we can help them adjust to �= this situation. I still feel that we have an obligation to those people. Mayor Hamilton: That's fine. I don't have any problem putting it in there as long as if there's any additional information that Council can bring back that they think we should consider, then they should do that. Councilman Horn: I was going to suggest after we voted that Don talk to the developer and discuss with him incentives that we have within our tax increment district in terms of relocation and find out what those options are. I don't Iknow that it's necessary to have it as a part of the motion. Councilman Johnson: I would not want as part of the motion to admit that we are I causing any damages to the shopping center. As he said, he's got 3 tenants in the shopping center that's about 2 or 3 years old now that is designed for up to 9 tenants. We're not saying that we've got the most highly successful shopping center in the city going here. We've got one that's just opening up here down the block that is doing much better. I'm not sure why but the total viability of the shopping center as it is is questionable to me right now whether he's currently have a great business success and as such, the damages that will be Icaused by this, I don't want to admit to any damages. Mayor Hamilton: There's nothing in the motion that says anything about any = damages. We're just saying that we're going to negotiate with him. Talk to him, whatever you want to call it. See if there's any way that we can find some 1 type of resolution to his problem. That's all I'm saying. Councilman Johnson: Does saying that we're going to negotiate with him about his problem admist that there's a problem? I Mayor Hamilton: We're going to enter into discussions with him to see if we can resolve the concerns that the developer has. How can that possibly have been. .. Roger Knutson: That doesn't... Councilman Johnson: Until he can show a measureable decline in business, etc., I don't see that there's any damages. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's something the attorneys can talk about. Councilman Geving: I do have a question and I'm sure the people in the audience who live south of TH 101 are concerned and want to know this. What will happen Fred if we choose this option to the existing TH 101? Could you describe to us what could happen. It would be returned to us as a city street I suspect and Ithen we could determine whether to abandon it, vacate it or whatever. Fred Hoisington: I think what would most likely happen with that south leg is, if the Ward's are interested in moving ahead with some planning, which they I= appear to be at this point, we would just simply work with than and figure out how we can replace 1 leg with an existing leg and hopefully avoid costs associated with right-of-way. We gave you the worse case situation where we Iwould want to just simply work with the Wards to resolve that question. 11 29 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Councilman Geving: I guess if it becomes a city street, my feeling is that it should be abandoned. We don't want to maintain it. Snowplow or anything else. Mayor Hamilton: That's for the future. Fred Hoisington: You would not want 2A to be, or the south leg where it is now, , anyway because it could become a shortcut so it would have to be removed. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the recommendation to realign TH 101 to the plan that's been presented as 2A. Also, that the City enter into discussions with Blue Circle Investment Company to try to resolve some of their concerns. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution #88-115: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving to approve the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment as presented in Alternative 2A to the TH 101/TH 5 intersection. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table the of the adoption , p official map for TH 101 realignment and approval of first and second reading of Chapter 15 of the City Code for Official Maps. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, as the noise decreases here, I've learned I!! something recently from our Public Safety Department. I'd like to move to amend the agenda under Council Presentations to add Assumption Seminary. I'd like to update the Council on some actions that have been taken out there. I think that Council action is required. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to amend the agenda to , include discussion under Council Presentations regarding the Assumption Seminary. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW NEAR MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES. Mayor Hamilton: I think that all the work that Gary has done, and the Public ' Safety Commission is pretty self explanatory. Do you have anything you'd like to add? Do you have anything you want to add or clarify? Gary Warren: At your discretion, I guess we tried to put it all in the report. I apologize for the magnitude of the paper but I think it probably comes down to maybe 3 issues. The stop sign request, the speed request and the children at play request. The stop sign issue I think is one that we've tried to respond to from...to get some specific information. It is interesting that information agreed relatively well with the calculations in the different manuals. 76 actual vehicle movements per hour at Pete's information. Looked at the criteria, the manuals which aren't a 100% factor. We recognize that State Statutes do provide for discretion and that's where we get into some discretionary community issues that with traffic information. Basically from an engineering standpoint, i guess I maintain our earlier position that with the 30 1 ',�- 1 /� City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 IIaddition of stop signs from a safety standpoint, are not warranted at those - locations. The intersection of Near Mountain Blvd. and Trapper's Pass, as I 'Icommented in the memo, is one that will no doubt be seeing some increased I traffic movements and is one that we will continue to keep an eye on as the connection with Shorewood and also with the Country Woods are made. But at this point the vehicles do not justify it. Concerning the children at play signs. II The documentation is pretty thick I guess and I contacted several other cities. St. Louis Park for example where they also have a policy of not installing those signs following the lead of the Department of Transportation and many of the I traffic institutes. The fact that it is almost giving permission to play on the streets which is definitely not what we want to indicate. I think that the fact that you're in a residential neighborhood, just by the fact that there are homes there, is an indication enough that there are children at play. The signs has Iit's place such as parks and some of those areas but as a general rule of thumb in a residential area, it is not adopted by any of the agencies that we have... Likewise, I don't know if this is appropriate as a part of this or as a follow I up maybe that I think the City should grapple with the children at play signs and establish a policy on our own as far as if we would allow them or what conditions would we want to respond to that. Then lastly, the speed study. We I feel that based on our knowledge of the Department of Transportation's speed criteria from when we were working on Lake Lucy Road, that the Commissioner of Transportation would probably not warrant a reduction of the speeds out there. II However, it's his discretion that I need to do that study and a resolution of the Council is the first step to get that going, so we would certainly support that. Maybe the last issue to touch on is the trail, the on-street trail issue. The research that I've been able to avail myself of and I've included in the packet there is just what we intended in the concept plan for the trails out there. The fact that to put an on-street trail at this time on Near Mountain Blvd. and Trappers Pass basically would require no parking on both sides of II those roadways and dedicated lanes, one in each direction. State Statute does not allow bicycle traffic to be going against the traffic, so I'm certainly willing to take questions. 1 Mayor Hamilton: Okay. Jim, do you have some comments you want to make? Councilman Geving: Do you have this copy? IIJim Wehrle: I have Gary's letter, yes. What I haven't seen is the Minutes from Public Safety Thursday night. I attended the meeting and I know that Public Safety voted unanimously in support of everything we asked for provided I that it didn't contradict any law any place where we had discretion. . ..they were unanimously in favor of it. I guess I agree with Gary that it has been narrowed down to a handful of issues. They've got the pond clean-up well II underway and the coverings on the pipes which takes us to my third point. My latest memo on this subject, on the speed limits. Public Safety Thursday we had total support of the 25 mph speed limits on the basis of bike paths. I can't II tell you how chagrin our entire development is to find out that the City misled us for 4 years as to the nature of our... We have all been told consistently, those of us who inquired, by all of the city workers that we were to have a 4 foot wide bike path on Near Mountain and on Trapper's and that's why those two 1!-- streets were 32 feet instead of 28 feet and that it was going to be on the west side of Near Mountain and on the south side of Trapper's. We had no doubt that the Gary is bringing up has some validity to it and the regulations that are II there saying that it's got to be 2 ways and all this stuff. It's a rude 31 II City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 awakening. We bought and built homes there on the premise of representations from the City and from the developer that this was the understanding. Obviously we're not going to resolve that tonight if we are not to have bike paths there as promised. We don't want them off street because there's no room. The houses aren't set back far enough. We can't have them on both sides of the street. It would constrict the street too much and leave no parking so in the current trail system that's being put up for referendum, please exclude us from any considerations in that regard because we don't want it if that's the way it's got to be. I can only speak for myself and those I've spoken to but I don't know of one person in Near Mountain who wanted it if that's the price we have to pay. That's why we were hoping to get 25 mph speed limits based on. I don't know if we have any prayer of meeting any of the State studies that would justify a 25 mph speed limits. Obviously we'd like to ask for that but the other thing that Public Safety approved of was the placement of curve signs in some of our dangerous curves to be accompanied with signs of perhaps 15 mph which I'm not sure I understand all the legal technicalities that go with that. I understand those would be recommendations as opposed to anything else. We would certainly, in lieu of anything else, if we can't get the 25 because of the bike, we'd like all of our curves be posted with a curve sign and 15 mph statement. Would you like me to keep on going topic by topic? Mayor Hamilton: You go right ahead. This is your shot. Jim Wehrle: The next topic on here is slow, children at play signs. Once 11 again, I think everybody in Near Mountain finds it astounding that we're basically being told that if these signs were put up, that we're so stupid that we would then think we could let our kids play in the street. You see these signs all across the nation. A moment ago it was said that these were appropriate in a park but in a residential area people should know there are kids. Does that imply that you shouldn't think there are kids in a park? I don't see the logic. I think that in our development we, the ones living there, would feel more secure with a periodic warning to the traffic coming through there, much of which is not our local neighborhood. People passing through, reminding them of the periodic danger of our children running across the street. It's been referenced here that we're a baby factory. Perhaps we are and anything that you can do to save the life otentiall of p y a youngster that hasn't got the maturity or the sense not to run across the street in front of traffic, is well worth it and I'm just adamantly opposed to the concept that this is going to give us a false sense of security and we'll let our children play in the street. We firmly ask that you approve the placement of slow, children at play signs in our development. The fifth point in my memo that we've all been working from is the placement of stop signs. Now the Public Safety Commission, once again, I don't know what discretion you have on stop signs. If you go ' traffic counters that are put in are the final, final authority and you have no discretion to override how many cars were clocked and all that stuff. Obviously your hands are tied but if you have discretion, we have the unanimous support of the Public Safety Commission from Jim Chaffee and the Sheriff, everybody on down , for 4 of our intersections. The four being, Near Mountain and Trapper's Pass, Near Mountain and Mountain Way, Castle Ridge and Cascade Pass at the top of the hill and Castle Ridge and Cascade Pass once again where it curves around and comes from the other section at the bottom of the hill. There are other places we would certainly like to see stop signs placed but obviously at this point in time we have the best imaginable support I would hope from the Public Safety Commission that those places warrant it and we would like to see those put in. 32 11 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 T Councilman Geving: Jim, would you give me that fourth one again? I've got one here at. .. Jim Wehrle: Near Mountain and Trapper's Pass. Near Mountain and Mountain Way. Then the other two, Castle Ridge and Cascade Pass. Councilman Geving: And the other one, the fourth one would be on the north end of Castle Ridge and Cascade Pass? Jim Wehrle: Right. There are two. Castle Ridge has Cascade Pass run into it and it curves and runs into it twice. At each place it intersects. Councilman Geving: How about at Mountain Way and Mountain Blvd. ' Jim Wehrle: Yes, that's one of the four. As for the bike path issue, once again, if there's any way that you folks in discretion or in the regs can allow us to have the long promised 4 foot wide on street, painted, one side of the road bike path, obviously that's what we've all anticipated for several years. If that can't be, that can't be but the bituminous part of it has been paved in our outlot. The memo that I saw from Gary, I received it Saturday, indicates putting gates across either end of it to keep out traffic as opposed to posts. The premise being that that would then make it accessible for emergency egress. Now that we've got 3 ways of getting in and out of Near Mountain, I don't know that that's a concern but what does concern is gates across there. How do you get the kids bikes on bike paths with gates across them? I don't know that it would be attractive and I don't think it's necessary. It'd be much simplier from our perspective to simply put up the fence post in the center of the path at either end and that would then obviously limit the ability of cars to go on I there. We do appreciate the signs that went up indicating no motorized vehicles. The crosswalk, the crosswalk signs are out there on little temporary tripods. Obviously the sooner they can get up in sight on a pole, the better. ' Now a recap there on Pleasant View. We would be concerned with putting wooden posts out there. The metal posts will do just fine. We will come up with a decorative posts for Near Mountain that you so authorized. That was referenced in Gary's memo and whether we do it or whether Lundgren does it is besides the point. We'll have it done. We do appreciate the street lights, the four that are apparently on their way and those are going to be well received and we appreciate that. I don't know if there's a whole lot more to talk about from my ' perspective other than we appreciate your consideration on all these and there may be some other people from Near Mountain here that may have other things to say on the subject. ' Peter McKay: I'm Peter McKay. I live at 6390 Near Mountain Blvd.. I guess the thing I'd like to address you about, like I did the last time I was here and basically the engineer report came back as we anticipated it would the last time. All that does is basically count the cars. It doesn't take into account what happens to the cars when they come into the area. Looking at the map, it appears that everything is nice and flat and you don't get a perspective of the topography of the development as you come into it. I would like to see a stop sign at the intersection of Near Mountain Blvd. and Castle Ridge. Number one, as people come into the development, Near Mountain Blvd. goes downhill at that point. It's only natural and I observe it everyday as cars come in there, they gain speed going down the hill. There are young children that live along that • 33 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 1 street. If a car had to stop at that intersection and then again start up, it 11 would greatly decrease the speed that they travel through there. A lot of the problems with cars coming through happens when there are people parked on the street. People have guests for parties and there are cars on the street and II it's very easy for a child to run out through the area behind one of those cars and be hit. It happens all over the town. All over the state at any number of times. I think the placement of stop signs is a very critical safety issue and that just judging things on a pure traffic count or an occasional visit by somebody from Public Safety, doesn't give you the true input that you gain from people who are there and observe the traffic on a regular basis. From the people that I've talked to in the area, again it's the people of the area requesting the signs. We are willing, or the people that I've talked to, are willing to abide by the signs. It's not going to be an extra burden to anybody who lives in there and it's going to slow down and control some of the traffic from the great number of people that right now are using Castle Ridge or in the future are going to use Near Mountain Blvd. as a short cut to other areas so I would urge you very strongly to consider the recommendation to place the stop signs at the intersections that they've been requested at. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you Mr. McKay. Are you talking about the north corner? Peter McKay: Yes, it would be the corner, the west corner of Near Mountain Blvd. and Castle Ridge. As you come in off of Pleasant View onto Near Mountain ' Blvd. at that corner, as you enter. Not as you exit the development but as you enter the development. Councilman Geving: Because there's one proposed on the other corner as you come 111 down Castle Ridge and enter Near Mountain Blvd.. So you have two of then there. That's what you're talking about? I understand where you want them. Thank you. Mayor Hamilton: I wanted to ask you a question Jim. You said that there is through traffic and I guess I'm curious if you have any idea, any of you gentlemen, is it through traffic? Are those people driving through the area looking for homes or looking at lots? Peter McKay: This right here is a short cut up to Town Line Road. As this is connected down there and again it's going to be another way for the traffic to flow through. Jim Wehrle: I think Mr. Geving can...the evening he spent with me, just for the I heck of it we sat here at the top of the hill and said okay we're going to follow the next person that comes in. It was about dinnertime. The next person that came in, we followed than right on down Castle Ridge and when they got down here to Near Mountain Blvd., rather than turning as a resident would be going towards their home, they went right back put onto Pleasant View and hightailed on out of there. Councilman Geving: He headed west. Jim Wehrle: Right. He made the right turn, a few people can figure out that 1 they're allowed to make that turn or not. That's another reason for the problem I should have touched on tonight. That sign still should be a single plate of metal. I'll reiterate what Pete said about, a traffic count is only counting 34 i C I City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 IIvehicular traffic and we're one of the few recent developments, thanks to new regulations that you all have in place in Chanhassen, that don't have off street sidewalks. So not only the adults but the children use the gutter, more or less, and the streets as their sidewalks. That doesn't come into play in any of the traffic counts that you folks are taking and I think that's important to keep in mind. I would like you to give it further consideration to the changing II of that right turn sign. Even at the Public Safety Commission meeting Thursday night, the Public Safety Commissioners could not properly interpret the meaning of the existing sign that's there and I think the problem being it's not on one 1 plate of metal and it's two signs slapped together. Mayor Hamilton: I don't understand, Gary I guess why, if we want to put some II signs in, whether they're stop signs or slow or a curve with a speed limit, why we can't just do that. Gary Warren: The City can do that. IIMayor Hamilton: Why don't we do it? IIGary Warren: All we need is Council action. Mayor Hamilton: We've done a lot of studying of this issue and if the people II who live there want to have this, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't do it. Put them there and then let them react to what's there. Then they can come back and say whether a sign is working or not working or it shouldn't be on this corner or that corner. They're the ones that are up there all the time. They're the ones that observe what's going on. I think we ought to listen to t t them and put up the signs. Give it a test period. Let them come back and say, hey it solved the problems or it hadn't solved the problems. It would seem like Ithe most logical thing to do. Maybe that's the problem. It's too logical. Gary Warren: Statutes do provide, and Roger correct me if I'm wrong, for the Council to take it's own discretion through the avenues of doing an engineering I study and then still making it's own selection as far as signage is concerned. I guess our approach to it has been to provide you with the professional advice from the documents that are normally used as far as any applying of signs to II subdivisions and it does not meet the criteria in that respective. Now the liability, a couple of cases that go wrong along with improper signage and such, I guess we all can probably take a guess at. II Mayor Hamilton: I don't see how you can have a liability problem if you're trying to slow traffic down. What liability situation are you creating? II Gary Warren: It's very clear, if you're slowing traffic down, is the only purpose for the stop signs, it's an inappropriate application for stop signs. II Mayor Hamilton: It's not just slowing traffic down, it's trying to save people's lives I suppose. Gary Warren: I think we're all interested in doing that. I certainly support that but I think the premise of too many stop signs, lack of enforcement of stop signs, is going to lead to or can lead to irritated drivers who are going to come to rolling stops and who are going to pose more of a threat because the II pedestrians and such in the neighborhood are relying on those stop signs 100% 35 II City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 and then they're going to run into the situation where you've got somebody who isn't and is going to roll through. Then you're going to have an accident. ' Mayor Hamilton: I think there's no question, when you observe stop signs, people don't stop anymore. Hardly anybody comes to a complete stop. Everybody just drives right through them and the younger you are, the faster you drive through them. If you put a stop sign up and you put a crosswalk marking on there, I think it's going to help. I just can't believe it won't help. Councilman Johnson: I've spent a lot of time on this issue and I'd like to hand 1 out to the Council the State Law and the areas of the manual, this manual that has been quoted in our notes so many times but we weren't able to read and go through. I've highlighted some stuff if you'll pass these down for me. I've got enough for down to Roger. I'm sure you don't want to look at it. I've highlighted here, when we first start here under local authorities, it says we do have the authority to designate any intersection as a stop intersection. Also within here, we can do that. The placement of signs, 3 pages in here highlighted says that we can place the signs as we may deem necessary. We will indicate and to carry out the provisions in this chapter, local traffic ordinances that regulate warrant to guide traffic. I think some of these signs apply at that point. Where we get into the engineering report and some of the recommendations from our engineering staff, several pages in here it starts A(1) and 1(A-4) at the bottom is from this manual of Uniform Traffic Control devices , where it says that the decision to use a particular device at particular locations should, which should is an advisory condition, be made on the basis of an engineering study for that location. Thus, while the manual provides standards for design, and application of traffic control, the manual is not a substitute for engineering judgment. It's not the intent of the provisions of this manual to be a standard for traffic control installations but not a legal requirement for their installation. In other words, what they're saying here is that they do provide some conditions under which the guidelines tell you you should put in or you may put in stop signs but these aren't the only conditions. That you need to use your engineering judgment. Thus far the engineering studies from our engineers have depended upon only the three conditions for stop signs which are about 4 more pages in here where it says, multiway stop signs warrants and they give three conditions under which you may warrant a multiway stop sign which we're talking about here. What should be noticed above there, it says multiway stop signs, installation is useful as a safety measure at some locations. It should ordinarily, not talk about weasle words, should ordinarily is about as weasily as you can get, be used only when the volume of traffic on I the intersecting roads is approximately equal. That's not a shall. That's a should. We have a lot of discretion on the placement of the stop signs is what I'm trying to get to here. What we need to do, what I think we need to do and I think several of these intersections do warrant stop signs. The 4 that the Public Safety Commission, I believe in my judgment warrants a stop sign. But our liability as a city is based on what information we make our decision on. Thus far we have our engineers looking at these 3 conditions which are 3 of many conditions under which you can make this decision and say none of these meet. I think we need to get some transportation engineers who will take into consideration all the safety factors involved and tell us that this stop sign will either increase safety or decrease safety. There's many articles that were presented to us which described how the overuse of the stop sign has created hazards in the past or the overuse of a crosswalk sign. More people are injured in crosswalks, from that one article, they did a survey, 10 to 1. More people 36 I zad City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Iare injured within a crosswalk than people jaywalking, of course I jaywalk everywhere. It's the same thing. You have the stop sign there. You pull up to the stop sign. You expect the person at the other side of the stop sign to ' stop. If he doesn't, then you cause an accident. That's what we have to watch out for here and that's why what I would like to propose on the stop signs is that we hire a transportation engineering firm to do a study to review these. I don't think it's going to take a huge study amount to do this. A huge amount of money but I'd like to know how much but I think some of this warrants it but I don't know if we have the information right now. If we, at this point, go and decide on these stop signs based on our own feelings that they are required, I have a feeling that we're opening ourselves up. We may be causing a problem to the neighborhood that they don't want. Many times my children tell me that they ' want something and they thing it's the best thing for them. I think that's why we're called city fathers to a point. I don't like that term very much myself. There are times when we have more information and we have more examples. We have more research into it that we have to make that decision. We have to come to the hard decision. I'm hoping that that decision, and I've got some real good reasons for some of the stop signs that I think when introduced to the traffic engineers, they're going to come out and agree with us that these stop 1 signs could be warranted at which point we would have a good defensable case to install these stop signs. One example that I see is Mountain Blvd. and Mountain Way. As that curve takes those two curves, I sat in the corner driveway just off that corner, as the cars are going westbound on Near Mountain Blvd., they disappear almost totally from site behind a section of trees that are right near the end of the pond. You can't see than and I'm down the way. The cars coming down Near Mountain in the other direction cut the lane and actually many of than are in the lane of traffic coming at the cars that can not be seen. I'm surprised we haven't had a head on collision in that intersection from observing the cars that I was observing in that area. A stop sign at that intersection, a 3 way stop at that intersection would definitely help to prevent a head on collision which I think is a very big possibility there plus we've got the pedestrian walking in that position. With that kind of information from a traffic engineer. Although our city engineers are a lot, they're not traffic engineers. Benshoof or somebody else. I think that we would have a very logical reason to approve these stop signs. Councilman Geving: Is it your feeling Jay that for tonight's action that you would rather leave the stop sign issue out of our deliberations and if any motion is made here tonight at all, that it would be to direct that kind of study so that we can put it into the hands of a professional rather than 5 1 people here that are not traffic engineers? Councilman Johnson: Yes. I think that's what I'd like to see on that particular issue. On the children playing issues, I'd like to see those signs put up at the entrances. I don't think we need 8 or 9 of than, whichever it was being recommended but I'd like to see it, as you come in off of Town Road. As you came in off of Pleasant View. As you enter any residential neighborhood, we should have those signs up. Especially this neighborhood which doesn't have the off street trails. On speed, I'm not going to bother handing out the State law on speeds but the State law on speed basically says, if you want to see it you can have it. 3 Councilman Boyt: If you've got a copy, pass it down. 37 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 1 Councilman Johnson: If you're interested in the speed laws. Councilman Geving: Make it quick though will you. Councilman Johnson: I'm trying to make it Y g quick here. This is a big issue and I want to make sure that we understand where we are from a legal standpoint and everything else. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and Roger's over there going oh god. Amateur lawyer again. Under zoning within local areas, establishes when a local authority believes that existing speed limit upon any street or highway or part thereof within their respective jurisdiction and not part of the trunk highway system, is great or less than the reasonable safe under the existing conditions, they may request the commissioner to authorize upon the basis of engineering and traffic investigation, the erection of appropriate signs designating what speed is reasonable and safe. That I would like to make as a motion tonight that we believe that the speed limit of 30 mph within this area due to the curvature of the roads and the lack of trails, lack of off street trails, narrowness of the homes, all these other conditions that exist, that 30 mph is an unsafe speed and we'd like the commissioner to do his study, do his thing. Whether we have to hire somebody to do the study or not, I'm not sure. It doesn't say the commissioner will do the study. Councilman Horn: The State does it. Councilman Geving: By adoption of resolution. Are you making a motion to adopt I a resolution in that respect? Councilman Johnson: In that respect, yes. I will be following the discussion that we move the commissioner and say that we believe that we have an unsafe condition and we would like for him to determine what those speeds should be and that those speeds should be reduced on his recommendation. I thought it was very interesting, I didn't find anything that said anything about the trails. That if there was a trail, that you can reduce it. Roger Knutson: Separate Statute. I Councilman Johnson: But I did find some speed zones about school zones which we need to take up for Laredo Drive. We can drop, when school kids are coming in and out, we can drop Laredo Drive to 15 mph and that's by, almost City Council action. Very little input from the commissioner on that one. I think that's something we need to take up in the very near future. Those are my three burning issues. Councilman Geving: Jay, I just wanted to say, certainly on my behalf, I don't know if the other councilmembers agree but you put a lot of personal time into this and I appreciate that because you took it and ran with it. You went up to the site. Did some radar studies and I think your report was very well respected by the Public Safety Commission. The Public Safety Commission in turn took your recommendations and I think for the most part pretty much was in line with your recommendation and recommended back to us that all the conditions are certainly feasible. It's entirely an engineering matter but those recommendations that are safety in nature or police in nature were followed as you recommended them. So I appreciate what you've done. Secondly, I just want to say for the record that on October 10th when we discussed this with the Near Mountain people and Jim had 12 issues that he had brought before us, we had 38 1 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 II — given our staff quite a directive to come back tonight with a resolution to those 12 items and I'm happy to see that our staff did one whale of a job. The II 1 Public Safety Commission. Jay Johnson. Gary Warren and Larry Brown and if I miss anybody, Jim Chaffee and others, gave to us tonight a very, very comprehensive report. From what I'm hearing, there's really only 1 or 2 small issues. All the rest have been resolved in my view and we're only talking about things such as the slow, children at play signs which I believe should be in place at that location. I know personally when I see a slow sign, I respect that. I do slow down and I think for the most part people do do that. I'd like to see some signs up there that say slow, children at play. Whether it's on Town Line Road and at Pleasant View. In terms of the stop signs. I think that's an issue that we can put in the hands of certainly some engineering ' people, specialists in the field and we can resolve that. I think in the 3 or 4 recommended locations that came out, I'm very much in favor of what I saw. I too believe in what Peter said. I think that's probably a good location for one and the other three that Jay had identified in his memorandum to the Council. All of the items that I saw here tonight, the culvert has been protected. I'm happy to see that. The issues regarding the pond cleaning. I think staff is moving ahead on that. We can identify that as an item that's been done. We're 11 going to move ahead hopefully later this evening on the speed reduction and if we pass the resolution as proposed by Councilman Johnson, we can do that which leaves us basically with the stop signs. I'm pleased to see, especially 1 pleased to see that we did a good job of taking care of the street lights that were proposed. We not only did you, we almost doubled the number that you requested Jim but I think the 4 that are being proposed will give you good lighting in that area. All the other issues as far as I'm concerned, is that your feeling as well Councilman Horn and Bill? That all the other issues outside of the stop sign issue and the slow, children at play and the speed have been resolved. Is that true? Do you know of any others? Do you know of any others that I mentioned other than those three? The stop signs. The Caution, Children at Play and the speed zone. Are there any others? Clark. Councilman Horn: Yes. There's the issue of the trail and what type of trail is feasible, if any, at that point. I think there's another issue of a recommendation that was brought up at Public Safety which I think is good. It's a slow curve sign which are not related to the stop signs. I think those issues should be addressed. In fact, I believe those are the areas where we can make the most progress on this particular item. As a matter of fact, I got a different impression when I read through these Minutes than what I'm hearing here. I consider this with what Candy Takkunen gave, a member of the Public Safety Commission and when they met, they did not have privy to the engineering studies that were done at that point. Therefore, their recommendations were based on not having an engineering studies. They said they would go along with these recommendations as long as they conform with the engineering studies. Now I have the impression here tonight that we believe that staff recommended stop signs. If I read this report properly, none of the stop signs were found to be significant or could not be justified from an engineering study. Therefore, it seems to me that the only thing we really have to control speed out there from a legal standpoint is the slow curve sign. The other point I'd like to make is in response to Jay's excerpts from the Minnesota Traffic Regulation Book. My It opinion is that Minnesota is not as progressive as many other states in terms of traffic regulations. My feeling is, in having traveled in both areas, the State �- of California has had to deal with traffic issues far greater than we hopefully ' will ever see, is a far better authority on traffic than our own Minnesota 1 39 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 1 Highway Department. If you'll look through the excerpts that we got from our Public Safety Commission, many of the logic behind much of what we're talking about here came from California. It wasn't something that didn't make sense to put up slow children signs. That wasn't something this group made up. It 1 wasn't something Public Safety made up. It was made up by experts who have gone through a lot more traffic studies than we've done here. I don't think we can laugh those off as being ridiculous. To me those are valid inputs that we're getting from people who are far better versed in this subject than we are. I think to ignore that is irresponsible on this body. So I think we have to very carefully consider these things. I was very happy to hear Jay's comments saying that maybe we need to bring a traffic expert into this because I don't think we have anything at this point that justifies our willy Hilly stop sign placement as suggested. I think that's one of the reasons we see so many stop sign violations in this city is because we've done that in the past and nobody stops for signs in this city. I think they're ridiculous. The other thing I'd like to comment on is the development contract. That is our message to potential homeowners. We put in conditions in a development contract that is given to the developer of an area. It is encumbant upon him to pass those requirements onto people moving into those areas. I don't think it's city personnel's responsibility to tell a neighborhood what's going to happen in their neighborhood. They're not qualified to do that. They certainly don't have access to all the history that's gone on. A way to do that is through the developer and interpretation of his development contract. I don't like to hear that the employees of this city misled people into thinking they were going to get things they didn't. First of all, they were not qualified to give you those answers and you shouldn't take answers from then unless you check into it. Also I feel that we're seeing the effects of not having a trail plan. There was not a trail plan put into place when that development started. In my opinion, it's not adequate yet today. I think there's a lot more work that has to be done. A year ago when they brought us a trail plan, we made suggestions as to things that should be added to that. Those have not taken place so I think there's still a lot of work that has to happen. I think that trail plan has to be in place before development starts. Not something that gradually creeps up on a developer as he goes into a development. I think that pretty well spells out where I'm coming from on this issue. I would be very relunctant to put in anything that doesn't meet a sound engineering criteria and some basic logic done by people who understand traffic. , Councilman Geving: Very appropriate comments Clark. I appreciate it and I think the Council has learned from your suggestions here on what we should do. I want to read into the record, we keep bringing up this manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. For the public, this is for your consumption. This is a memorandum from the City Attorney and I'm going to quote. "The City is therefore required by Statute to abide by this manual. My recommendation is the Manual must be strictly adhered to. This will go a long way to insulate the City from liability claims." I think that's a very important document and we, as a Council, very, very much lean on our counsel to give us that kind of advice. Believe me, we follow it very dearly. When we get into trouble, we usually lean to the right and we ask Roger for his opinion. We have generally given very, very good sound advice and I want you to read that into the article for tonight because this is the basis for a lot of future discussions or questions that someone may have on why we did something or why we did not. We're trying always to stay out of litigation. Bill, why don't you take it from here. 40 ; aai� ' City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 i � Councilman Boyt: Thanks Dale. I'd like to get a little bit of information, to II I change the flow around here for a second. When I read the packet I think the standard for a 4 way stop was 500 vehicle trips per hour for an 8 hour period. Right? Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Boyt: What's the standard for a 2 way stop sign? Off hand. Half that? Gary Warren: No. rCouncilman Boyt: You've got the book Jay. Maybe you can look it up. Councilman Johnson: It's in the page before that I gave you there. Basically an intersection of a less important road with a main road with application of normal right-of-way rules unduly hazardous. 1 Councilman Boyt: I heard something about 300 also. I'm trying to get a base. Councilman Johnson: There's no numbers listed there. Larry Brown: There's no numbers. The MUTCB states that it either bases a one way stop where you come into a T intersection or it comes into a multiway stop where.. . If Councilman Boyt: =_ Okay, give me the number for a one way stop sign? 11 Larry Brown: There is not a number for a one way stop sign. Councilman Boyt: So the only time there's a number is for a 4 way stop sign? ' Larry Brown: For a multiway stop sign. Councilman Boyt: More than one way? And then it's 500? Larry Brown: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: So I guess that would cover a 2 way stop sign. I'm sure, we haven't done this but I think following up on what Clark says, it would be very easy to find all sorts of stop signs in town where we have them, we don't have a great many but the ones that we have, I would venture to say that few of them meet this criteria. So we have already gentlemen, accepted whatever liability there is in stop sign placement. There is or there isn't by what we've already done. Councilman Johnson: I don't think you should dwell on this 500 number because it doesn't mean anything. The 500 is, if you hit that 500 criteria, that's one IL place the manual is definitely recommending you should put in a stop sign because of that criteria. Also, there's a 200 criteria if there's people involved. Councilman Boyt: Jay, maybe I misread your figures but I thought they said minimums. Minimum traffic volumes. 41 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 ' Councilman Per hour. Geving: ' Councilman Boyt: Per hour. We don't have that kind of traffic. ' Councilman Johnson: That is one place where, if you're at that minimum, then they believe you definitely should have a stop sign at that location. These criteria in this manual is only three of many criteria. There is other criteria that aren't taken into that the engineers... Councilman Boyt: Hang on with me Jay for a little bit okay. That's one of the criteria. We have all sorts of stop signs that don't meet it. There are others. I appreciate your background as was previously mentioned. What people are really after here is a safe place for their children and themselves. Jay, I guess I disagree with you. The folks who are making this recommendation are adults and they've thought about it. They've discussed it in their committee. They live there. They are going to live with the results of this and I'm for giving than the stop signs that Public Safety recommended. I don't think we need to do an engineering study that's going to tell us what our existing engineering study has already told us. From an engineering standpoint, you can't justify stop signs there. But that's not the standpoint we need to be working from. We're talking about, how do we slow traffic down and I agree with the information staff gave us that said stop signs in this situation are probably not going to do what the people want than to do. Give me a better alternative. Until we have a better alternative, I think we owe it to these people to put stop signs in there. Public Safety has said, if you discount engineering, which we either decide to discount or not, Public Safety has said, put than in in some of those locations where they're requested in. I would like to see us on an interim basis put than in where Public Safety said it makes sense from a public safety standpoint. MnDot doesn't have the 2 footers out there with no trail or any other place to walk besides the street. None of us want those kids out there but they're out there. I don't think we have to have a detailed engineering study to tell us what we've already got from our engineering study. Which is that the engineering study won't support the sign. Let's go ahead and do it from a public safety standpoint which you've pointed out we can do. We've already done it whether we can do it or not. I think that where we should direct our engineers to spend some time is how do we control speed. We apparently don't control speed with twisting roads. Maybe we make the problem even worse. Clark, curve regulatory information is worthless because 3 years ago you guys put 2 signs on the road I live on. One of than says 15 mph. I'll give you $5.00 for every car that slows down to 15 mph in a day. Councilman Horn: Those were wrong too. I Councilman Boyt: It doesn't happen. They probably were wrong although the engineering study said the safe speed is 15 mph. We were told, you can't enforce it. So we probably shouldn't have those signs out there. I don't hold hope for slow curve signs. The trail system. Let's drift down to the trail system for a minute. The trail system has a lot of things that needs to have worked out but I think we need to find out if the community supports the concept [!! or not before we spend a lot of money researching how we should build than. What side of the street we should put them on. We should find out, do people wnat the trail system in this town. When you think about a trail system, I sure I 42 I City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 hope you don't think about your front yard. Instead you think about TH 101. The fact that it doesn't have a trail. Mi.nnewashta Blvd. doesn't have a trail 1 I and we're never going to build one without a major funding effort from the City. So I hope when the neighborhood considers the trail system, they think beyond their own front door. Although TH 101 practically is the front door of this neighborhood. So, in brief, I don't support an engineering study that's going to show us what we already know but I do support the stop signs. I think the trail system situation in this development reflects what Clark was talking about ' but in 1983 when this development contract was approved, you guys apparently thought that the City could build a trail. Well, I guess what we see as a result is the City can't build these trails and it sure is a rotten time to go in and try to build them now when people have their houses established and we I/ should have built them first which is somewhat of a different point of view maybe than Clark but basically I think we agree. Let's put the stop signs in with it and continue to have the engineer study how we control speed from an engineering standpoint. Councilman Geving: I think that we can move on to resolve everything remaining ' left on the agenda here and that basically is the speed reduction. If we could get a resolution tonight from any of the councilmembers to have that study be performed, we could move with that now. What I'm trying to say is that I think we need to move ahead with the resolution for the speed reduction and Councilman ' Johnson has agreed to do that later on. I think we need to put up the slow, children at play signs. I very, very strongly believe that. If it's just two signs, fine. But there should be one going into Near Mountain. There should be one on the north end. Maybe another one but we need to put those in. I don't i care if there's 2 or 3. In terms of the stop signs, I agree entirely with Bill. When I came here tonight I had identified the 3 stop signs. Mr. Peter McKay identified another one for me. I don't think we need 9 or 11 or 15 but I do ' think we need some key stop signs in the development that should have been placed there probably when the development was created. It's now time to do it. We recognize the problem. Let's resolve it. I remember very distinctly many ' years ago we didn't have a signal light at Dakota and TH 5. We had to kill 5 people before that signal light went in. That's true. I can tell you for sure. We had to kill 5 people. We don't want that kind of accident to occur. If we ' recognize a problem, let's correct it now. My feeling is, if it's 3 signs or 4 signs in Near Mountain, let's put the stop signs in. I agree entirely with you on that Bill. Now it doesn't preclude us from having a study at some time but let's do it now. In terms of the pedestrian bike path, I don't know what those 1 gates are going to do. I don't know what kind of fabrication you're going to go forth with. I've been out there and I've looked at it. It's just a tarred strip where the kids take their bikes, go across the road and head for the park area. ' If you put gates in there, they won't be able to do that. Our only intent is to stop 3 or 4 wheelers from going up that bike path. Now tell me why we couldn't do as suggested, just put a nice 6 inch post right in the middle of that thing and they won't use it. What kind of gates are you planning on using Gary? Gary Warren: The gates are similar to what we used at Lake Ann Park trail right down there. Basically they allow bicycle traffic to go through. They're locked in position with a gap between basically to allow bikes to pass through or people with strollers or anything to get through. They don't come tight together. There's a gap. Councilman Geving: They're not chained together or anything? 43 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 , Gary Warren: No. And they are tandem locked with our City locks on them so that if we do have to get in there, we can easily do that. 1 Councilman Geving: Then I'll withdraw my statement. If they do work and they have worked in the past. You know what you're doing. I'll back off on that. I have no other questions or comments Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hamilton: I haven't really changed my position. I'm interested in seeing the best thing done for the area up there. The people who live there have the ' best knowledge of what the problems are. I never thought I'd waste so much time trying to figure out if we should put a stop sign up or not. All the money we've spent just screwing around with this thing. If we do another study it's going to be, we should all be shot. Just put the damn signs in. Get it over with and let's see what the results are. I don't think that's too hard to figure out. The same with the pedestrian path. Let's put the path in. Let's mark it and try it. See how it works. Let's try some of these things. It's not in concrete. It's not set forever so let's try it and see if it works. Jim and Peter and going to be watching. They're going to let us know along with the other neighbors up there. If something doesn't work, come on back and tell us you need to make an adjustment. I just think we're wasting a heck of a lot of time over some dumb issue that we should have resolved a long time ago. Let's get on with it. We've got more important things to deal with here. Not from a standpoint of saving a life or anything but this could have been done a long time ago. Councilman Boyt: I have a comment in response to part of that. Listening to 1 what the engineer said about the road width, there is no trail system available so it's not a matter of putting it in, it's not built into the roadway. Mayor Hamilton: If the road's 32 feet where the trail was supposed to be, I don't see any reason why we can't stripe 4 feet. Councilman Boyt: It's not. , Mayor Hamilton: It's not 32 feet? Gary Warren: We've got two road sections out there 34 1/2 feet back to back and 31 feet back to back as you get further to the west. State Statutes require that if you're going to put up a bike path on the road, that you have to have one in each direction. Councilman Johnson: What about a pedestrian path? Mayor Hamilton: That's not a State road. Gary Warren: This Statute applies to roads as far as pedestrian traffic is concerned. Mayor Hamilton: Well, tell them we didn't see it. Councilman Boyt: Gary, didn't you say in the staff report that that road was 32 feet wide because it was required for the turns in that road? 44 ' City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Gary Warren:: The discussion with the amount of curves in the road.. .when the preliminary plan was brought in here initially from the development, was hey, Iwe've got some curvy roads here which means we're going to need a wider street section to accomodate traffic. It wasn't from a trail standpoint. Councilman Boyt: So that's my point. If we stripe a road that was never designed to have a trail on it, we may be going a little far there. ' Councilman Johnson: It might be dangerous. Councilman Horn: I'd like to point out under the children at play sign provided to us from the Southern California section of the Transportation Division. California law does not recognize and federal standards discourage use of children at play signs. There are times when installation of signals result in an increase in pedestrian accidents. It says if you're going to think of doing that, you should answer this series of questions. There's a series of 5 questions. The answer to every one of them in this case is no. I don't understand when we have experts who give us testimony, why we're going to reinvent the wheel and try to engineer something better than they could just because we want to try something. That philosophy doesn't buy it. Two years ago when Councilman Boyt was running for office he said that we don't listen to our professional staff is the problem with this Council. I think it's still a ' problem with this Council. We have professional input and we're not listening. That's all I have to say. Councilman Johnson: In this case, listening to our professional staff and I ' don't think they went far enough in their evaluation. I think they read the manual too narrowly and did not take into consideration, that's why I'm pushing for transportation experts to give us the opinion. I wouldn't be saying Dear ' Mr. Transportation Expert, look at this manual and tell us if our staff can rad the same as everybody else can read because if they do that, yes. We will get the same answer back. What I'm saying is, get a Dear Mr. Transportation Expert, I want you to take into consideration that there are no off street trails in this area. There are a lot of kids. There are curvy roads. There's a trail coming in at this location. The existing cars are going outside of their traffic lanes to make certain curves and things and that we are looking for a recommendation that, look at all reasons for which we would control traffic here. This manual does state that you should not, it does not say you shall not. It says you should not put in stop signs to regulate speed. You get a ' little difficulty when we have adopted this manual as our city manual for streets as we're required by law to if we use those excuses but I think ther are plenty of excuses that we can cite and when we go to the traffic expert, we ' should be citing to him what we believe the good excuses are already and having him confirm them and putting his little stamp of approval upon it to back us up here. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask Gary one quick question before I make a motion. Gary, how much is this study going to cost us? Gary Warren: I can only guess. About 2 grand. Councilman Boyt: Okay. I guess that seals the deal. I move that we put in stop signs as indicated by the Public Safety Commission. That stop signs be put in place until...or if the neighborhood says this isn't working, pull them out 1 45 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 but for right now. So I move that we put them at Cascade Pass and Castle Ridg e. Castle Ridge, both places where that hits. That we put them at Trapper's Pass and Near Mountain Blvd.. At Mountain Way and Near Mountain Blvd. That one sign be positioned on the east side of the corner of Near Mountain Blvd. and it looks like Castle Ridge. Councilman Geving: So we're talking about 4 signs Bill? I Councilman Boyt: Public Safety said from a safety standpoint they could justify those signs and all I'm doing is adding a sign at Near Mountain Blvd. and Castle Ridge. Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion. I Mayor Hamilton: Will your motion include putting in speed reduction curve signs with the speed reduction? Councilman Boyt: If the neighborhood wants that, I have no... Mayor Hamilton: That's what they asked for. 1 Councilman Boyt: Put in whatever you want to put in. Mayor Hamilton: It's your motion. I'm asking you to include that as a part of ' your motion. To put in curve signs with the reduction of speed. Councilman Boyt: No. My motion would not include that. ' Councilman Geving: And I would second that motion. I think we need the stop signs. The other issue is the curve signs. Are you only dealing with the stop ' signs? Councilman Boyt: Only dealing with the stop signs. Councilman Geving: You're not going to deal with the Slow, Children at Play? Because I think they're just as important. y Councilman Boyt: Alright. If the second will accept it, we'll go with the stop signs and the Slow, Children at Play signs as requested by the neighborhood. The stop signs by the Public Safety Department and the Slow, Children at Play signs. I have serious questions about Slow, Children at Play signs but let's try it. If it's not working, we'll pull them out. Councilman Geving: I second that. i Councilman Horn: One further clarification. The recommendation by the Public Safety Commission as I understand it was that these signs would be 1 recommended... Mayor Hamilton: The Public Safety Commission said they would allow it. That's the motion. It doesn't matter that Public Safety said that they wanted an engineering study. 46 ' S �. , City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 II — Councilman Boyt: I agree with you Clark on what you're saying. It's just j that's how I referenced the points. I retract anything that implies that the II Public Safety Commission is actually recommending these signs. (There was some fading in and out of the tape during the next few minutes of the ' meeting.) Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the installation of stop signs at the intersections of Cascade Pass and Castle Ridge, both north and south; Mountain Way and Near Mountain Boulevard; and Trappers Pass and New Mountain Boulevard. Also, that Slow, Children at Play signs be installed as requested by the neighborhood. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn and Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Resolution #88-116: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adopt a ' resolution that the State conduct a speed study for the Near Mountain neighborhood. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: . . .the motion was to put in the stop signs. .. ' Councilman Geving: But you got everything else. Jim Wehrle: The curve signs, yes or no? Not going to be addressed? ' Mayor Hamilton: No. He wouldn't put it in his motion. It was addressed. Everything was addressed that was in the memo. Jim Wehrle: Is the no right turn sign going to be corrected or left as is? Councilman Boyt: Left as is. Councilman Johnson: For right now. Now next year, if we have the money, we'll correct the intersection. That intersection hopefully will not stay the way it is. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a follow on motion. I would like to move that ' staff do more than a hip shot, $2,000.00 cost estimate on the engineering study. I'd like to get an actual estimate to do that study. ' Councilman Boyt: I'll second that. Councilman Johnson: I can't believe it's going to cost $2,000.00 and take 40 hours to do such a study. ' Mayor Hamilton: There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Councilman Horn: My only concern with that is, I totally agree we need that type of study. I think we need it for the whole city. We talked before about being consistent throughout the whole city. I think we need it for all because as Bill said, we've got a ton of stop signs that don't meet these requirements. I think they should all.. . Councilman Johnson: I don't think that, these requirements are not the only ' requirements for a stop sign. They are the three most obvious requirements for 47 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 a stop sign. I do believe that there's a whole lot of other intersections of the City that should be looked at. Maybe that should be an engineering project to evaluate and see what a cost estimate to do an engineering study of a larger portion of the City. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded for staff to get an actual cost estimate for an engineering study of the whole City. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and the motion carried. Jim Wehrle: Can I ask a clarifying question? What you voted for, is that going to happen next spring? Next week? When. Gary Warren: The signs will be ordered tomorrow. Mayor Hamilton: How long does it take to get the signs? ' Gary Warren: Two weeks. Mayor Hamilton: How long will it take to put them up after that? Gary Warren: Underground utility clearances are getting better so I would say we'd have them out there by 3 weeks. Councilman Johnson: We could get the underground utility clearances now couldn't we? ' Gary Warren: If we can get Mr. Lundgren to cooperate putting frames on also. Jim Wehrle: All we want are the posts. We don't want them framed in totally. i Just wooden posts. Councilman Johnson: They're not allowed to be framed in. 1 Jim Wehrle: By way of, the Slow, Children at Play signs. It was left a little vague. There are three entrances. The one coming in from Shorewood is the third one that we're concerned with. That's okay. Councilman Geving: We authorized the three signs. Jim Wehrle: And regarding all this discussion about people crossing the center line. There is no center line. Is that common? Councilman Boyt: There aren't on residential streets. You don't want a center line. Jim Wehrle: Thank you gentlemen very much. I RECEIVE GRANDVIEW ROAD SEWER AND WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY. Gary Warren: Council authorized at our last meeting that staff should have the feasibility study for the Grandview Road sewer and water prepared...but in short 48 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 I - I form, the report did obtain some additional information as directed by Council IIas far as the existing systems that are out there. Their age, their updating 4 and such as far as that's concerned. Likewise, we did some research on funding sources and the majority of the report in the appendix has got that in there. In all honestly, in talking with Bud, I do not believe that we would qualify for ' any funding programs... Basically the report says that if we're going to do sanitary sewer and water for the Grandview properties, that we should run it on the current alignment for the 33 foot right-of-way. I feel a little more comfortable after receiving the report here that the septic systems were accepted. ..Anderson property have had some upgrading here in the recent past so that was our intent originally. To try to get whatever we could to know what ' the next time limit is out there. So the report itself recommends that the immediate issue, the water service for the Bernier property, basically just having them redrill their well or install new wells is the most appropriate route at this time. I think the report, the question that I have in my mind is ' what is the mechanism that we decide then if we do go ahead with public sewer and water systems out there. That's the hardest thing, or has been the hardest thing for I think all of us in this. The report will serve itself in the future ' as far as the costs for the improvements out there and the best way to do it. So I don't think we lost anything there except maybe some time but we should be thinking about when is the right time for sewer and water out there. I should also clarify, in future discussions with the City Attorney, as far as the public opportunity here to go ahead and declare an emergency out there and certainly with some of the bidding requirements that take time here. It's pretty finite and particular in that we could initiate a public improvement project or declare if an emergency for the problem out there that basically right now would have to be the Bernier water_. We could run water out there specifically for that property on an emergency basis but to service the rest of the area, would be extending ourselves beyond those provisions. Just to back off from my recommendation there. In my opinion, the whole area, if we wanted to go ahead it would have to fall on the regular bidding requirements. Mayor Hamilton: Wouldn't the property, it gets sewer and water I would think when the people who own the property want to subdivide it. That's usually the determining factor. If the 5 property owners there all decided they are ready ' to subdivide their land and put more homes in there, they're going to have to have sewer and water and that's going to tell us that it's time to put it in. Other than having problems. They're having septic systems that are running out on the ground. Gary Warren: I think our reaction has been, what happens if a month from now another septic system fails or a well goes out? Nobody knows for sure. Mayor Hamilton: I know the Bernier's are here and I think some other neighbors are here. Resident: You speak of the subdividing. I don't think that's a concern of any of ours. I think we're out there and we like it the way we have it. I don't think there's any of us that want water and sewer to subdivide. Mayor Hamilton: I'm just saying, that's usually want generates that type of activity. Then that helps us to make our decision as to what we're going to do. But then thcse things change. People decide to sell their property and whoever ' may buy a property may decide to subdivide it also. ,� 49 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 I Larry Brown: I met with the residents this evening after digesting the feasibility study and they have requested that I come before the Council and ' pursue the idea of running individual services for the sanitary sewer and forgetting about the water at this point. I might put our consultant on the spot here in asking his opinion of running individual services at this time if the Council wishes to pursue that option. Some of the drawbacks that are related to than is that puts the Sinnen property at a distance of 450 sanitary sewer service. There's obviously some drawbacks to that as well. The residents felt that by trying to pursue the individual services, the costs would be cut down extensively. Gary Warren: I think the report addresses that pretty much and was my strong concern out there that as the Will property, the Held property were having problems with their systems and wanting to connect into our system, that we started looking at facing the situation. We were going to have a lot of long individual laterals coming across country which is going to be a terrible maintenance headache and just a very inefficient way of providing service to the property. From that standpoint, I personally would be very much against allowing... 1 Councilman Geving: As I recall, this whole situation started with Mrs. Bernier requesting us to look at this and her concern was water. Only water. I understand from looking at the feasibility study, that it's possible and you made the statement just a minute ago that the Bernier's have one of two options. They can install their own well. Upgrade your own well on your own or on an emergency basis, and I assume right now that this would be an emergency, that we could proceed with the Bernier's getting a hook-up to the City water system directly. All the rest of the study could be put on hold as far as the sewer and water for the rest of the residents in the area until such future time as they subdivide or whatever. Now I understand that this may come down to a public health issue in terms of the sewer. In one case. But for the sake of expediency tonight, I would say let's proceed with the Bernier's and their request for water as this was originally planned. I like the study. We got a lot of information here. It's not going to be wasted but let's proceed with the Bernier's. Let them hook up with the city water system and be done with it and let the rest of the people who are satisfied with their situation, at some future time we can make a project out of this if there's a subdivision in that area. Then we'll address it at that time. I think that's exactly what the recommendation of this whole study is about. It's leave it alone. Is that how you're reading this Gary? Gary Warren: I'm concerned about, to run water service to the Bernier property, the way I would be comfortable with it is if it comes down Grandview and up the road. Not to come cross country through backyard easements. Councilman Johnson: That's $27,000.00. ' Gary Warren: It doesn't have to go all the way from there. You can just stop it at the Bernier's so you would save about. .. Councilman Johnson: They're the last one. 50 1 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 1 41 11 Councilman Geving: They should be the first one shouldn't they? Wills are already in so you don't have to worry about them. But anyway, that's how I see this whole issue. It's really one person is the only one who's really having problems out there and that's Mr. and Mrs. Bernier and they're wanting water. Councilman Johnson: The one thing I would have like to have seen in this study is are there alternate sewage treatment sites available if the site fails? I saw them address the condition of the site but not alternate sites. ' Gary Warren: I guess with the limited time available here to get back to the Council was a factor. Also, the added expense if the Council wished to authorize any. Plus, you could have Machmeier... Councilman Geving: It says here, based on page 3 of the report, the Bernier's should either construct a new well or be permitted to connect to the city ' system. The cost for Bernier's to install a 1 inch copper service between lot lines from the Marsh Circle cul-de-sac would be approximately $2,500.00 plus any connection fees. Now doesn't that make sense? Why not? ' Councilman Horn: Because we're doing exactly what we started doing here and I'd like to know how we got the Held property put in in this cobweb method. 1 Mayor Hamilton: The what? Councilman Horn: How did we get the Held property put in? ' Gary Warren: Early on we had a request for them to hook into the Hidden Valley system and there wasn't anything negotiated at that time or the developer willing to grant that to allow that to happen. I guess in all honesty, I would have to say that we made a mistake in that regard because like with the Held property, we allowed them to connect in with the understanding with a written agreement that they would pay their appropriate assessments if sanitary sewer and water were brought into that area. Councilman Horn: Two out of the five people here have had their problems pretty ' well fixed. Granted it's a bandaid method. They have no incentive at all to want sewer and water to come in. They're got their problem solved. These other people don't have their problem solved. What we're hearing tonight is, to solve their problem the way that we did it for the Wills and the Helds doesn't make sense and I agree with that. That doesn't make sense because we've got a hodge podge system if we do that but I don't know how those ever got in there in the first place. I think that was a mistake. Gary Warren: The Will property also, there's quite a difference of elevation. So as this report addresses here, we would not have serviced it from this ' connection stub here. Councilman Horn: Then why were they included in this study? Gary Warren: They were included because we were looking at the general area and they were a part of the system. Councilman Horn: Well, that's an automatic no when you go in for a poll on this situation. 1 51 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 1 I Resident: It's just been a...we talk so often about not wanting to piecemeal and we have 5 homes already with 2 pieces and that's what I have never understood at all. How they let Harvey do all of this. We were never aware of it. None of us knew this was happening to Harvey's property. It just seems unbelieveable that all of this has happened and we just sit there wondering what's going to happen to us and we don't know because as you say, Harvey is certainly completely exonerated from this whole thing. It's 14, 15, now we're 16 to $20,000.00. He's free and clear...and the rest of us... I don't know how this happened and nobody seems to tell you. Mayor Hamilton: Mary, you wanted to say something? Mary Bernier: We've been up here and asked long before...for that development for sewer and water for consideration to be hooked up to it. We were denied and Harvey sneaks in there...and the rest of us sit. Victoria Held: We did not request that we hook up to the City. What happened is right at the last moment the Bird family refused to sell the home because of failing septic. Called me at work, my realtor called me and told me what was going on. We were called then by the realtor selling the house, Mr. Mark Paul who said I've got a great deal for you. Two options. Either you pay the cost of digging the new septic yourself. Possibly they'll pay part of it. We agreed to pay half. Then he came to us again, the realtor selling us the house with the Birds and said, better system. You could hook up with the city. We didn't approach the City. We didn't know it was a possibility. He told us after he worked it all our for us. We waited and waited until we ready to hook up. Then ' when I started calling to ask the City about what's the hold up, then we were told about having to sign for assessments. Again, not told that there was already one family that wasn't going to share the cost. We were thinking it was going to be five families. Now it feels, as I told the other families here, it feels like we were sort of slapped around. Well, the heck with you. These folks are getting nothing but you've got to share the cost of it whether you want it or not. All of a sudden...I don't know if these folks can be stubbed in. This was sold. The whole house was sold. Councilman Horn: And you don't even have a permanent system. You could come back and have a radial system put in with the assessment? Mayor Hamilton: What you'd pay to have your system put in? Peter Held: Less than $2,700.00. That's 200 feet of sewer. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, Gary. How'd that happen? ' Gary Warren: I might add, the Wills, I'd have to check with Jean Meuwissen...but my direction to her when the Wills hooked up, like any City policy here, that they had to pay an appropriate lateral assessment in addition to our hook up charges so Jean in that case would generate a comparable assessment that the Hidden Valley people were paying for their sanitary sewer. The Wills will be paying for that so it's not like they're getting a free hook up. Likewise, if you're down to four connections here versus five, the sewer and water is not being extended further so the costs are not for five type system so the cost would be proportionately less to service the four properties 52 11 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 L? down there. Wills certainly are not getting out Scott free. Councilman Johnson: I heard that one of the very, very preliminary plans on the 11 1 Ward property is that residential would be planned for the area immediately to the west which makes a lot of sense to put residential in next to residential. Maybe that is the time that we should be looking at how to bring this in and whether it should go towards the Ward's property versus to Near Mountain. In servicing the Simmon's and the Anderson's off of the Ward property as that develops. I don't know what to do about the Bernier's at this time on their ' water problem. We didn't get any information on the depth of the well. They may be having a...or over the years been having a problem. I'm not sure. Gary Warren: If I could have Bud maybe address, we did look at topography out there. As far as servicing this area from the Ward property, it wasn't practical to go west. ' Bud Osmundson: Well, the Will property might be. The existing stub and man hole that come up...were put in I'm sure for that. .. ' Councilman Boyt: Gary. The recommendation of the consultants is not to extend the City sanitary sewer and water system. Is there some simple reason for why we should be doing this? ' Gary Warren: For why we should? Councilman Boyt: Yes, since the consultants say we shouldn't. IGary Warren: The consultant report was received Friday morning so he and I had some verbal conversations. So my cover memo that appears to conflict with their report, that's partly why. The report actually came out a little bit more strongly saying for right now maybe it's best just to allow Bernier's to upgrade and hold and wait and see what happens but I think that is most directly pointed at when is the right time. We did get more information here as a part of this 11 study. He did say that the systems, some of the septic systems have been upgraded. That was my greatest fear is that we have a bunch of 30 year old systems out here that are going to go down again here as soon as we get done ' addressing one. That's been my thrust all along here is to bite the bullet so to speak at the appropriate time here and service this property I guess in the most appropriate way for the urban service area. Councilman Boyt: Okay, as I recall, the total cost figure was somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000.00? Mayor Hamilton: $60,000.00 to $70,000.00. $66,000.00. Councilman Horn: Was that for the 5 or 4 properties? 1 Councilman Boyt Four properties so we're talking $15,500.00 a property. Have the neighbors indicated what they want to do? 11 Councilman Horn: They don't want it. Larry Brown: Again, they were interested in seeking private service in the ' ground to help... 53 i City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 I Peter Held: We paid less than $2,700.00 for a 200 foot sewer. Actually it was $1,500.00 in labor to install the sewer. The other approximate $1,200.00 was for the trunk or the access charges. Councilman Boyt: I think that Clark makes a pretty good argument when he says that this isn't in the long term best interest of the City when we've got a good system to tap into it in an individual fashion like you're proposing. Since there's no desire on the part of the neighbors to spend $15,500.00 a piece to do it right, I suggest that we don't do it at all in line with the consultant and I so move. Councilman Horn: Second. ' Councilman Johnson: Larry, did the neighbors want just water at this time or just sewer at this time? ' Larry Brown: Sanitary sewer at this time. Mayor Hamilton: The Bernier's want water I believe. ' Councilman Geving: The only problem that I have with... The suggestion was made by Gary that we let the Bernier's upgrade. Okay, we're talking about $3,000.00. $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 to upgrade that well. They may have that well in there 5 or 6 years and this whole area will be developed along with the Ward property and whatever and now they've invested this money in the ground and we come along with a construction project to upgrade the whole area and we'll do it again and they'll pay double. That doesn't make sense to me. I still believe that they should be hooked up directly with their water to the city system for $3,000.00. Pay for it once and be done with it but don't upgrade their system. It's up to them. It's their business but I'm looking at it from the City's standpoint it doesn't make sense to let them go ahead and do that and then somewhere down the line force them to hook up to the city system as well. U Mayor Hamilton: I agree partially with what you're saying. If they can hook up off of Marsh Circle for whatever the cost is, a temporary hook up to get their water problem resolved, we should all them to do that and they need to understand completely that at some time when this property is subdivided, that there is going to be sewer and water put in the street the same as every other residential street in the city and you're going to receive a full assessment for that the same as the other property owners. The same as the Helds will on their sewer. It's a temporary solution but I think we have an opportunity to resolve the problem that they have. To get them out of a bad situation. I see no reason why we shouldn't allow that. Councilman Geving: Would the Bernier's go along with that suggestion? Mary or Tim? As a suggestion? Mary Bernier: Is there going to be any condemnation charges because ...$12,000.00. ' Councilman Boyt: There's already easements isn't there? 54 t 5 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Gary Warren: No, we do not have an access easement. It was denied by the developer earlier on. Councilman Geving: This would be an easement through Lots g o 15 and 16? Mayor Hamilton: But if you're just going to run copper over there. Councilman Boyt: It's going to have to be deep enough to not freeze. ' Mayor Hamilton: Well, of course. Gary Warren: If the same policy is applied that was applied to the Held property and the Bernier's are allowed to make a connection if we can get it through to Marsh Circle, that they'd still be responsible for assessments for water and sewer if we do bring it through, then I think it's the same finality ' that you were portraying earlier in the fact that they're making an investment here to give than some extra but that still is not going to absolve than from something... ' Councilman Geving: But I think they understand. They've got a current problem. As I understand it, they are willing to take that risk to get the water that they're after. I think they understand. If this whole area develops at some ' future time in a whole construction project and they come in at $60,000.00, that's the choice that they would make. They would get a full assessment. Gary Warren: So they'll spend $3,000.00 or $4,000.00 now to hook into Marsh Circle or ...Creek, well either way. Councilman Geving: Either way. Give than the choice. Mayor Hamilton: It's the same thing. If it's less to hook it up City to Cit water than upgrading their well, than that's the decision they have to make. Jay, you had a question. Councilman Johnson: I was kind of curious as to what the problem with the well was. I've never really heard. I just keeping hearing there's a problem with the well. Mayor Hamilton: They don't get any water out of it. Larry (Resident) : Actually I think the problem is the city pumping water into their wells and... ' Gary Warren: The City draws it's water from 300 and plus feet from a different aquafir system than these shallow wells. ' Larry Brown: We might have to be concerned. The reason condemnation was brought up was as expected through our regular platting processes, there would be a 10 foot total utility easement going down the lot lines of 15 and 16. Staff will have to look into trying to find a contractor that would be willing to work within those confines. That was the reason that condemnation was brought up. We may have to pursue going through that process to gain that easement if necessary. 55 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Roger Knutson: I would point out. If they want to get a new well this fall, unless there's total cooperation from the people we need the easements from, it can't happen. It can take, in the normal process is 5 months. Councilman Boyt: Or attach them to the city. Roger Knutson: If we need to condemn property, we need 5 months minimum. Mayor Hamilton: There is a motion on the floor. Councilman Horn: I have a question. Is there any difference in whether you need to condemn on a city hook up like this versus a well? In other words, would you need to condemn to drill a well? , Councilman Boyt: No. It's their own well. Councilman Horn: So there's no problem but we would have to condemn if... The ' other thing is that it seems to me if you put a well in, you get something of value even if city water comes in. If you use it for private ground water and things where if you put this in, it's a total waste of money. Mayor Hamilton: We have a motion and a second to follow our City's consultant and to do nothing, is that correct? ' Councilman Boyt: Right. Do nothing. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to follow the advice from the City's consultant, OSM, and to do nothing at this time for Grandview Road sewer and water. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and the motion carried. Councilman Geving: Now where does that leave the Bernier's and the Simmon's? Gary Warren: Upgrade their own. ' Councilman Geving: You're on your own I guess. Do you understand that Mary? Mary Bernier: We've done that for 30 years. I Councilman Geving: At least it's not going to cost you $15,000.00. Councilman Boyt: How much did the engineering study cost Gary? , Gary Warren: I haven't received the bill on it but he had to do it so fast. .. Councilman Horn: A thing to remember, these things don't get cheaper with time. Councilman Boyt: Give us a ballpark. ' Bud Osmundson: About $2,500.00. 56 ' City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: The next item on the agenda was number 7. It's been deleted. It was Kurver's Point trail and compensation. It was advertised and then ! deleted and I'm not sure why but the Kurvers have been here all evening and they 17 I would like to be on the agenda with this item. Since it has been advertised and appeared in the paper, I would like to move that we allow the Kurvers to present their case. Councilman Geving: I'll second your motion. ' Councilman Johnson: Wouldn't that be with Visitor's Presentations since we have no packet? ' Mayor Hamilton: Where we're at right now is item number 7 and that's where we're going to handle it as. They have a handout if you want to look at it. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to amend the agenda to discuss the Kurver's Point Trail Construction and Compensation at this point. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried. KURVERS POINT TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND COMPENSATION. Councilman Geving: Why was this deleted now? Gary Warren: We received the information Thursday morning and in our staff Itreport... Larry's been trying since Friday to catch up with them. Mel Kurvers: I'll make it brief. My feeling on there, I would like to get this ' put the trail compensation. We don't like the idea of putting a trail in but if we have to, we would like to be treated compensation wise the same as Saddlebrook and some of the others. We've given up land along TH 101 for the trail along there. We have no problem with that. That calculated out and based ' on the cheapest lot, it comes to almost $60,000.00. That's a lot of money. If you put the trail around the interior in the project, we don't like to do it but if you're going to ask us for it, then we guess...like the rest. Saddlebrook and...building permits and... Councilman Geving: Do you have an estimate of that cost Mel? Mel Kurvers: On which is that? Councilman Geving: On the second issue. If it's placed on the interior. Mel Kurvers: If we put it in with concrete, which is what I feel it should be, it would be roughly $12,000.00. iCouncilman Horn: Is that what was requested was concrete? Councilman Boyt: I think that's what you wanted. Mel Kurvers: It was just a trail. It never came out as concrete. Councilman Horn: So it's not a sidewalk? 57 L2=0 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Councilman Boyt: It would be 5 feet wide. Councilman Horn: But it would be asphalt. Gary Warren: A 6 foot trail was provided in the plans. 6 foot bituminous. ' Mel Kurvers: The 6 foot was bituminous. Councilman Boyt: The width is determined by what you build it out of and where , it is and what the uses are going to be. There's a lot of variety there but when they put it in the residential area, on TH 101 it's going to be a different width than it's going to be when it runs through your development. It's going to be narrow through your development. Mel Kurvers: I just feel that if a trail has to go in, it should be something that would add to the development and not something that's going to take away from it. Mayor Hamilton: I guess this is an issue we've discussed before when we looked ' at the platting process with Kurver's Point. Some of the councilmembers wanted to have a trail along TH 101 that would run for what Mel, about a quarter of a mile I guess through your property or half mile and end? ' Mel Kurvers: It's a little over 1,600 feeet. Mayor Hamilton: A 1,600 foot long trail beginning on his property and ending , when it got to the SOsin property. That's great. I suppose a lot of people drive over there and park and get out and walk back and forth and then drive home again. Then the same with the interior, I suppose it's possible that the people who live there may want to have a trail in there but it's not a huge development. There are not a lot of homes and I would think that an internal trail doesn't really accomplish a whole lot either. In any case, either way, if the trail is put in, I think Mel has a very good point that if a trail, an internal trail is put in, that the City should construct it and pay for it and then recover our costs out of lot fees as lots as sold and homes are built. The same as we have done for other developments in the city. I don't think he's asking for anything that hasn't been done previously. Councilman Geving: I could see the need for gaining a trail easement along TH 101. We've always had the vision of a trail system along TH 101 connecting the downtown to Pleasant View and so forth into the northern areas such as Near Mountain. We wanted that kind of a system for a while. Internally, I can't see the reason why we would need to have the residents, I think there's about 40 homes aren't there approximately? Right around 40 homes in this small development and except for their own use of such a trail system, I really don't see any need for it. Although it's in the development contract, I suspect I personally I just don't see why it needs to be there in such a small development because on the north end you've got the Colonial Addition and on the south you have Mr. and Mrs. Sosin's property and you're right in the middle. Where are they going to go. I hadn't seen this before. Kurvers Point request here. Their request to us to consider this but for $12,000.00, my personal feeling is that it's totally not necessary and I would like to see this removed from the requirements. I just don't see any reason for having the trail within the 58 1 ' City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Kurver's development. That's all I have. Councilman Johnson: I do see the need for the, we just sat here and talked 11 -1 just Near Mountain, the kids playing on the street. We don't want kids playing on the street. If you don't give them a sidewalk to walk down the street and connect to the trail system that we're putting up for referendum that we will eventually have a trail system running from Near Mountain all the way to downtown. That's the objective. At this location we have to get that. Now we have to get from the subdivisions, the people onto it. Too bad that years ago I the City did not perceive to do this for Colonial Estates and for Fox Hollow and for the other subdivisions to where we have the inner sidewalks leading out to the overall trail systems so we don't have to walk on the streets. So we don't have the neighbors coming in 5-10 years from now, like they are for Near Mountain this week, saying hey, you messed up. I think this trail system within these developments is needed. I don't remember exactly, I don't have the data in front of me. We don't have the development contract or our discussion when we put in these trails. I don't think we have enough information tonight to take any kind of action tonight. I'm not going to do anything on one piece of paper. I need to see that the plans, it says here the developer will submit ' plans for approval. I don't see those plans. I'm not going to talk about compensation until I see those plans. We have negotiated with other subdivisions. You put in the trails, we won't charge you the trail fees. I think that's what we're working on here. You want to pay the trail fees and they agree at the time that they would rather put in the trails than pay the trail fees as far as I can tell but now we've got to look back at the Minutes of If those meetings and see that but we can't tell that from this piece of paper. As far as I'm concerned, we don't have adequate information so we better not take any action tonight. ' Councilman Boyt: This fits right into the category that Clark repeatedly hits me over the head about. Last minute changes. We've got a development contract. A development contract that was agreed to after a good bit of discussion and I remember it that night. I think you have an excellent development. I'm surprised that having this, as Dale said, having just sat through a development coming in after the builder is gone and saying, we've got a big problem. That we can turn around and say we don't need trails off the street. Saddlebrook, you mentioned Saddlebrook. Gary, don't run off, I've got a question for you about Saddlebrook. When we approved that development contract there were two trails in there as I recall and the developer said he'd build both of them. Do you remember that? Gary Warren: The developer in Saddlebrook, in building the trails, about 4,200 feet of trails and the City agreed to reimbursing a percentage of his costs. ' Councilman Boyt: But he's basically, in lieu of paying trail fees, he agreed to develop the trails. I don't see any trails over there. Gary Warren: Look out there tomorrow. They're upgrading.. . Councilman Boyt: Okay, so they're coming? Gary Warren: Yes. 59 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 I Councilman Boyt: So Saddlebrook is putting in trails and they're doing it at their expense and I couldn't agree with you more that the trails need to be in there before the houses are built. It's too late. Near Mountain, the prospect of putting trails in that development are slim given the 25 foot setbacks that [I the City Council approved when those houses were made. So I would like to see something worked out so the City builds those trails as soon as you're open to having them put in before the houses go in and then the people can decide. They don't want to live on a trail, they'll buy one of the lots in a development that's not on the trail. This is a Park and Rec recommendation. I think that they have several styles of trails and they can find one that I think will upgrade your development. It's already an excellent development and a trail can be put in there that fits the style of your development. I'm for it staying in. Councilman Horn: I agree. I don't think we need to change the rules in the 1 middle of the game. My concern is that this statement in the development contract is so vague. I don't know how anybody could get any definition from it. The developer shall submit a plan for approval by the City Council prior to construction. Compensation will be determined by the City Council at the time of trail plan approval. Why didn't we know what compensation was going to be when we approved this? Why do we wait until afterwards? I don't like surprises that come in afterwards. Don Ashworth: This is the development contract. We're down to the point of trying to... 1 Councilman Horn: He's building. Don Ashworth: He's building out there... Councilman Horn: So why doesn't he know what the trails are going to cost him before that? Don Ashworth: This section here has not been finalized right? Gary Warren: I guess recalling the meeting from where it was discussed, that was a difficult item and it was agreed, the Council at that time with the developer that it wasn't that key to hold up the whole development while we're ' trying to resolve the trail issue and compensation so it was reflected and put in pretty much verbatim in the contract the way the understanding was at the time. Councilman Horn: Also, I think $12,000.00 is a number that we should look at. We should look at what a 6 foot bituminous costs because that is the standard trail. I disagree with Jay's comment about us not planning for trails. I think this body long before I got on it, has asked for a trail plan. In my opinion we still don't have one but we've asked for one. Probably before Dale was on the Council... Councilman Boyt: There was an official city trail map and it didn't 9 et filed. Councilman Horn: The other thing is I believe that the way you interpretted the ' comments from Kurvers is that they wanted to, you want to put the trail in before construction. If I read Kurver's statement right, they're saying that the construction of the homes will damage the trail and they want to put it in 60 1 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 after. I think that was what you had stated. Councilman Geving: Isn't there a point, the fact that they would rather have ' the city put in the trail and assess it to the homeowners. That's all they're saying. That's all they're saying. Kurver's Representative: The issue here is compensation. We are not opposed to the construction of the trails if it is deemed necessary by the City and that's your decision. The issue is compensation of whether we should... We believe we should be compensated for trails consistent with other developments in the City of Chanhassen. An issue referenced here was Saddlebrook and I understand the compensation in that is that the City of Chanhassen was constructing the trails in there. There's a trail dedication fee being assessed against the individual lot owners. I'm a property owner in Saddlebrook and have been assessed $138.00 trail dedication fees. If that is the standard, we believe $138.00 should be assessed against the individual property owners in the Kurvers Point Development and that fee should be collected at the time a permit is issued for construction. That's all we're asking for. If that's the decision, we believe that should be held up and we would agree to $138.00 assessment fee against ' Kurvers Point Development but no additional fees because that would be inequitable unless you demonstrate that there is a precedent set on other lots within the city. Councilman Horn: Or if you deviate from the standard trail which is what you're proposing to do by putting in concrete. Kurver's Representative: I believe actually there's no standard. I think that has to go back to`what the standards are and the policy for the City of Chanhassen and overall trail plan. The issue of what will be the fee to the I individual property owners. If you have an overall comprehensive trail plan, quantify the number and assess that against all, that's fine but our point is, we should be assessed an equitable rate as a property owner in Shadowmere. As a property owner in Saddlebrook and not anything in excess to that. Councilman Horn: I agree with that but I believe from what I heard of the trail presentation, that a standard trail, not sidewalks, standard walking trails is bituminous. If you choose to put that in concrete, I don't think you should pay the standard for the trails. 11 Kurver's Representative: That's not the decision. Whether it's concrete, we prefer concrete but I think that has to do with your overall trail plan and the policy of the City of Chanhassen. I think as a policy maybe the decision for that, in residential developments that you have a concrete surface for a trail. Whereas if...maybe you want a better surface but that's not the issue. It's compensation. Councilman Horn: Is there any places where the concrete trails aren't sidewalks in the plan? Councilman Johnson: Yes. t__I Councilman Boyt: They've changed the title of this from a trail plan to I think a safe walkway trail and there are some plans to put in concrete in places. 61 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Laredo and Frontier. Councilman Horn: But that's a sidewalk. ' Councilman Boyt: I think the City's policy all along was to assess at whatever the applicable rate is when the building , g permit is issued. So if it's $148.00, which is my fee, $138.00 or $148.00, that's what would happen when a building permit was issued and that's fine. Kurver's Representative: ...that point that we don't get a special assessment , for trail construction applied against the developers should be a blank amount. It should be assessed against the individual property owners when they construct the house in the form of a trail dedication fee. Councilman Geving: You're saying that every homeowner paying $148.00... Kurver's Representative: Whatever the rate happens to be. Councilman Geving: Whatever that rate is at the time we paid for the 6 foot bituminous. , Kurver's Representative: The decision as far as where the trails are constructed would be the City's responsibility to construct that. Whatever consistent with Park and Recreation's determination.. . Councilman Geving: Can we do it for that Gary? Can we build a 6 foot bituminous for $148.00? Gary Warren: I doubt it. Councilman Boyt: When the estimates came in on Saddlebrook, it was actually underneath the trail assessment fee. Gary Warren: Saddlebrook is that little special consideration because tied in , with the trails and the City's compensation to the developer, partial compensation for his expense is also the sale of Kerber East and also parkland property that the City was buying so that kind of muddies the water to what the real compensation for the developer is doing. Councilman Horn: Plus the fact that Saddlebrook had a much higher density. There were a lot more building permits taken out per square mile than there is for this. This was low density. Gary Warren: Saddlebrook was 140 units. I Councilman Geving: Can we recap here? Mayor Hamilton: Jay? Councilman Johnson: Down south Lake Susan Hills. Didn't we negotiate down there even differently in that he's going to put in some trails and that we would cut the trail fee in half or something down there? Wasn't there some kind of... If I remember right, it was a long time ago but he's going to install some trails and then the trail fees for those properties for 62 I C) City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 compensation for him installing the trails will be cut in half or something. g There was some negotiation there. I think with every different development, the II 1 negotiation goes different depending upon what the developer wants to do. Whether he wants to pay for them or he wants the people moving in to pay for them and the City install them. Like you said, Saddlebrook is different because of the parkland that was tossed into it. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask a clarification question so we can make some progress. Given what you've said, what you want to know is what's the compensation plan. Is that accurate? Kurver's Representative: That's the issue. Councilman Boyt: I would move that we use the compensation plan that's standard practice for the City. I think there is one. It's when building permits are issued, you pay $148.00 for the trail. You've already granted the City the 11 easements and I would move that we collect the trail fee as permits are issued. Councilman Horn: I'll second that assuming we have a plan. ' Mayor Hamilton: And the city construct the trailway? ' Councilman Geving: The City would construct it. Councilman Johnson: The developer constructs in this case and we compensate him. IGary Warren: The-plans and specifications submitted by the developer which were approved by the City, do show a 6 foot bituminous pathway. Your contractor's ' bid proposals do have that. Correct me if I'm wrong. Your current bid from the contractor includes that as a work item. So they have contracted to do it that because then the City doesn't have to administratively go out and advertise for bids and get it in so it makes a practical sense to provide along with the developer and then just compensate him... Councilman Geving: Do we give him the full value of the cost of $12,000.00? Would we refund him $12,000.00? Gary Warren: I guess that's the issue here. tCouncilman Geving: Because it seems to me that it could be paid for this way and we reimburse him the $12,000.00. At the same time collect that fee at the time the building permits are issued. Whatever that fee is. It may not be a winning proposition doing it that way. I'm sure we'll come up short but it's a way to resolve it. Councilman Johnson: I still think we shouldn't take any action tonight on deciding these issues until we have all the paperwork in front of us. Mayor Hamilton: We have a motion on the floor and a second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to collect the trail fee as ' permits are issued for the Kurvers Point Development. Councilman Boyt and 11 63 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Councilman Horn voted in favor. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. I Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to move that the internal trails in Kurvers Point be deleted from the development contract. I Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion. Councilman Boyt: I'm amazed. Given our discussion earlier tonight that you I would delete trails in a residential neighborhood. You're not making the road any wider. You're not giving Park and Rec a chance to respond to this thing. I think it's ill advised. , Councilman Horn: Aren't we changing the whole intent of what we stated in the development contract? Mayor Hamilton: I'm not. Councilman Horn: Then I'm missing the motion. Wasn't there a plan for the , trail at the time we had a development contract drawn up? Councilman Boyt: You bet there was. I Mayor Hamilton: Sure, and I was opposed to it then as I am now. There's no need for it. Councilman Geving: I don't think a shall development of 40 homes requires a trail plan or a trail in the neighborhood. The people that are going to be walking on that trail are all the people that live in that development. You're ' not going to have outsiders coming in there using it. Walking along the streets. Councilman Horn: So you've changed your mind? ' Councilman Geving: I have not changed my mind. What I'm saying is, I said it earlier. The very first comment I made tonight. I don't think there's a need for a trail within that development. Councilman Horn: Then that should have been decided when we voted on this initially. Councilman Johnson: Contary to what you say, I...with a lot less than 40 homes. I've seen too many near misses of children on the street. Mayor Hamilton: It's a through street isn't it? Councilman Johnson: No it's not. It's a cul-de-sac. Mayor Hamilton: Who were the near misses? By the people who lived there right? Councilman Johnson: Some by the people who live there and some by the boy [11! friends of the teenage girls up by the corner. We've chased some of than down to have discussions with than vigilanty style showing up behind than at their ' 64 ' City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 girl friend's house. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the internal trails in Kurvers Point be deleted from the development contract. Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Geving voted in favor and Councilmans Boyt, Horn and Johnson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. 11 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table the issue until staff has had time to review it and provide a staff report. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Geving. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. I Mayor Hamilton: I see no reason to reconsider the whole development contract. ' There are a couple of issues that have not been resolved and that's all we need to look at. Councilman Geving: Let's get this bituminous and concrete thing resolved too when it comes back. ' 1989 BUDGET, RECONSIDER POLICE SERVICES. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, we'd like you to go over the issues that surrounded bringing this back. My report touched on it. On October 10th the Council approved the 1989 budget to include the police budget with the direction to staff to take it back to the Public Safety Commission to decide whether we wanted to go with 24 hour coverage by the Sheriff contract or the full time CSO. As luck would have it, we worked out a compromise through the Chief Deputy and the City Manager. An option that had previously been presented in my memo was opted for at the Public Safety Commission on Thursday night. That is, ' increasing the coverage from 21 to 24 hours a day through the Sheriff's contract and upgrading one of the part time CSO's to full time. It wouldn't be on our budget until the springtime of 1989. To determine at that time whether an additional part time CSO may be budgeted for. A motion was made and seconded and passed unanimously by the Public Safety Commission on Thursday for that option. Councilman Johnson: As I review my motion that I made that passed the budget last time, we asked that they seriously review the options of staying at 21 and adding the full time CSO utilizing whatever difference there is within the Public Safety Department to increase on street visibility. They seen to have done that. Comply. I don't see that we need, at this point, to reconsider the budget at all. We told then how much money the Public Safety Department is getting and they can spend it. I think Public Safety Commission has made a very good recommendation. I think the only action we're really requiring here is for the City Council to approve the contract at 24 hours because the Council has to approve all contracts. The contract that's listed in our packet is kind of blank. I would have liked to have seen the blanks filled in but in general, I think I would like to move that we approve the contract with the Sheriff's Office to be filled in by the City Manager with 24 hours as the amount of time in that. 65 r City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 1 Councilman Horn: I second that. Councilman Johnson: Also, that we amend our pay classification system and include a full time CSO under the paid classification system. Councilman Geving: And that we direct the staff to continue looking at next I spring. Councilman Johnson: Right. Whatever options are available and monies available to emphasize... Councilman Horn: I do have a question about that. What's going to change in the spring? Councilman Johnson: In the spring they say, or towards the summer more likely, they can re-evaluate the availability of money. Whether they have money at this time. If the revenue projections are coming in to put another part timer back on so we'd have two part times and a full time. Councilman Horn: That's the prime problem because in effect what we're doing is 1 we're earmarking any revenue and excess for this purpose. Councilman Johnson: I would think that would be earmarked from the Public Safety funds though. That if a revenue comes in from a park, which of course the park would apply for because I think park has cubbyholed some of their funds for park patrol but they weren't considered as CSO type people. But from I talking to Lori, she was looking to put on some lifeguard type people who would, instead of being a lifeguard would patrol the park and tell people to pick up their cigarette butts and stuff. Councilman Geving: I get the impression, based on the recommendations here, that the budget for the Public Safety Department is set for 1989 and this recommendation to look at the part time CSO in the spring is only a means by which Jim Chaffee can look at his total budget and say, can I proceed with a part time recommendation. Cone back to the Council and if it works, if he can work within his budget which has been approved, he's got his part time CSO. That's all we're talking about. Councilman Horn: Why would he need us... Councilman Geving: I think it's information. He's trying to give us some information. Councilman Horn: Then the motion is correct that Jay made. Don Ashworth: No. I should let Jim speak but I've gone through this so many times. We'd be going to a 24 hour contract with the Sheriff's Department. That , will insure that we will get the power shift or the additional vehicle in here on the Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday timeframe. We would also upgrade one of the CSO positions to a full time position. Any statements regarding what we may do this spring with more money that may be available, I would just as soon not talk about that at all. Whether we have money available or not, I guess that's another issue for another time. Right now, 24 hours contract and 66 r 5 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 IFupgrading the position to one of a full time position. Councilman Geving: Can we do this Don? Can we take recommendation number 3 and at the end of the third line where it says upgrade one of the part time CSO's to full time period and eliminate the last three lines? Don Ashworth: I totally agree. Councilman Geving: So that no one in the future will say that it was the intent of this Council, which may change between now and next spring, someone's interpretation. Councilman Horn: I have a common question of Jay. Did your motion include adding a job description for a full time CSO? ' Councilman Johnson: That's the only way we can hire a full time employee. Councilman Horn: But you're not authorizing...you're authorizing a job description be created for that. ' Councilman Johnson: Right. Change the pay classification system to include a full time CSO position. ' Councilman Boyt: You're not authorizing the staffing of that position? Councilman Horn: We don't do that. [_ Councilman Johnson: We're authorizing the position. Don, do we authorize staffing of a position? Don Ashworth: I think everyone is saying the same thing. You're authorizing the creation of the position and providing the funds, that's part of this ' recommendation is providing the funds. Clark is correct, it's staff responsibility then to fill that position once the Council has set the position with funding. Mayor Hamilton: But it can not be filled until we have reviewed that job description. Councilman Johnson: That's right. That's what I'm saying. Let's start that process. Mayor Hamilton: I will go along with this as long as we see a job description. 11 That's the only way I'll go along with it. Councilman Geving: Does everybody agree then that we'll cut in the third paragraph at the end of full time? Councilman Johnson: It never was in the motion so. ' Councilman Boyt: I'd just like to point out on page 2 of the contract that the way the contract is reading now, we have given the Sheriff the right to select the personnel. Assign the personnel. Assign the vehicles. What kind of vehicles will be used. To determine what manner the service will be given in. 67 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 To determine what the standards it will be given in. any discipline will be given. All that is with the Countyeand ifewe if and disagrreeen with how it's done, the Sheriff decides whether or not we're right. I just want us to know when we enter into this contract, that the Sheriff has all the cards here. We put the money on the table but he's got all the cards. Councilman Geving: Bill, it's the same contract we've had for 8 years. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe we can all talk and we'll get nothing done. Councilman Johnson: I have been speaking ' talking to the Sheriff on it. It's late this fyear ttosdoanythingeaboout it unfortunately but I do believe that this will be an emphasize of the Public Safety Department next year to work on this contract. The County's excuse of course is, well this is the same contract that every city has. Well, we're unique. We are the only city going to 24 hours and I'm with you and next year I think that part of the Council's duty will be to direct Public Safety to get this contract more equitable prior to the 1990 contract. Mayor Hamilton: You need to understand that this same contract has been in use , for a number of years. If there had been any problems at all, they've been very well worked out with the County. They're very willing to work with us. They always have been. I see that there are going to be no changes on it. Councilman Boyt: As I said before, if relationship with the County remains in good shape finish, I agree and we're hope that the working on this together. I think we have in the past.people, we continue ontiny I!! What I'm saying is, the contract language is such that I'd like to see it to. reflect what Jay was talking about. But the relationship hasn't indicated that we particularly need to change it. Councilman Johnson: No business in the world would accept this contract as a commercial contract. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know about that. We need to move on. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve police coverage from 21 to 24 hours a day through the Sheriff's increasin and to upgrade one of the part time CSO's to full time. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COURT SETTLEMENT, VOLK ANNEXATION, CITY MANAGER. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to move to item 9(b) . Merle Volk and his representative have been sitting here all evening. We have an opportunity get them out of here a few minutes earlier. Don, would you like to, you to handle this one right? You want to Don Ashworth: I think really the City Attorne y bettt is are questions regarding the item. It is a h pcuprent. If there ro instituted by Merle Volk. P posal to the current litigation 68 ' City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Is there anything additional you want to add Roger to what Y our letter... Roger Knutson: Not unless you have questions. Councilman Boyt: I'm glad to see that we've followed this route and we're practically ready to make a decision. Before we make the decision on this annexation, I'd like to know, one, are there counsel that specialize in this area? Roger Knutson: mill time no. I would say our office is probably handled as many annexations as any other office in the State. Councilman Boyt: Well, that may seal it up pretty good. What I'm looking for, and maybe you can assure me I don't need this. I really want to be assured that this is absolutely the best legal situation we can attain. So what I was suggesting was that we refer this for a second opinion to a more specialized counsel. You're telling me that's ill advised and I won't make that motion. 11 Roger Knutson: You can certainly get a second opinion if you'd like. I have no problem with that. As far as this is the best you can get, that's always a judgment call but in my opinion, it is. ' Councilman Horn: We've already had a second opinion on this. Everybody we've talked to on this issue has given us the same opinion. I think we wasted several weeks when we could have settled this several weeks ago with the same thing we're settling on tonight. It's just a waste of time to pursue it any further and I make a motion that we agree to the court settlement as proposed. Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion. I do have a question. I'd like to have identification of the Chaska lands that will be annexed to the city of Chanhassen. Can those be identified for us please? 1 Roger Knutson: I got their descriptions from Gary. Councilman Geving: I have the description. I'd like to see it on a map. Gary Warren: The Arboretum property north of...and then this parcel here just north of the Gedney property and the railroad tracks. Right in here. Councilman Geving: And how many acres is that Gary? 25? 20? Councilman Johnson: It's supposed to be 40. Councilman Geving: Will we get 40 in return? Gary Warren: Pretty close. Councilman Geving: That's really all that I ever asked in this regard. I wanted to make sure that we had 40 acres of contiguous property that was relatively the same value. We didn't get it obviously but I'm still not dissatisfied. The Court has spoken as far as I'm concerned. I I69 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 Councilman Horn: I think you should look at how you measure value. The way you look at value, equal value is to look at what the land is worth today. I think...we looked at potential for that property as to what it will be when it goes to Chaska. We could never make that property... Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept the Court Settlement as presented in the Merle Volk annexation case. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Hamilton: Jay wanted to talk about recycling and the Assumption Seminary. I Councilman Johnson: Quickly on recycling. I'd like the Council to authorize the advertising for a recycling committee to help us set up curbside recycling which we've agreed to do next year. We agreed to do it but we don't have staff to do it. We need to get a group of volunteers to help us evaluate the various systems that are out there. Go out like a community center task force and look at this. I see us not instituting curbside pick-up for a long time if we do it with the present staff. I'd like to form a committee and I'll volunteer to be on that committee. The whole recycling thing needs to be looked at closely and also the operation of our existing recycling facility. How we can improve that. I think somebody indicated to me that we're supposed to have a committee already. It's just been a matter of not getting one going. I'd like to make a motion that we advertise and get a committee. 1 Councilman Boyt: I'll second it. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to advertise for the of a Recycling Committee. All voted in favor and the motion carried. creation Councilman Johnson: Assumption Seminary. I've been working with Scott Harr, as you know, on the barrels as the primary thing because that's what I work with is hazardous waste a lot. The gentlemen do not seem to want to handle the hazardous waste in what I consider a totally proper manner. They did some ill advised movement of the waste. They got lucky. None of the barrels broke. We have some very old wesson barrels, as you may have noticed by the pictures I presented last time. They moved the waste from their current position and inside the building now. What Scott and I had recommended to them to do before they move the waste was to sample the barrels and make sure what was in it before they start moving it. Then to overpack them in the proper, what's called a salvage drum. It's a drum bigger than that drum and then they could safely move them. They did not do that. They went ahead and made the movement and claimed to have only received our letter yesterday which was sent a week or so 11 ago but knowing the U.S. Mail, obviously they received it yesterday. They are now saying that it's too expensive to sample the drums as I get this. They have now got what is considered by the State of Minnesota hazardous material being stored inside of this building. We've been messing around with this for a long time. I think we have to get very strong. We either have to get the State and get the State off their butt and get them strong on this too. One thing I'd 70 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 like to know, can the City go in there and declare this a hazard and do the proper actions and assess it back against the property? We need to get those barrels sampled. We need to get those barrels contained inside of adequate containers and then we need to get them shipped off and treated properly. Mayor Hamilton: Let's have Roger answer that. He's probably the only one here qualified to answer that. Councilman Horn: If you assess anything back to them at all, the property is ' going to come back. They're not going to pay for it. Councilman Johnson: It's not much money. He's saying it's a lot of money. I never did see, has he told us what he says the cost estimate to handle this stuff properly is? ' Scott Harr: We haven't identified the material. Councilman Johnson: So he hasn't said what the cost estimate is to do the sampling and stuff? Councilman Horn: How many barrels? Councilman Johnson: Around 20 barrels of this stuff. Mayor Hamilton: I think Scott's been following along on this and I've encouraged Scott in the past to write stronger letters. I don't know if he's done that but he should continue to do that and perhaps maybe even working with Roger and with his assistance write something that's going to have a time limit to it or something. tCouncilman Johnson: I would like to say that if the barrels have not been sampled by our next meeting, that the City will take action to do it either ' through the State Superfund laws or through our own action, whichever we can do. If the State of Minnesota gets in there and does it, I'll guarantee you it's going to cost them 2 to 3 times as much as if he voluntarily does it himself. Mayor Hamilton: Before we make a comment like that, we've got to know that we can follow up on it. I don't know that we can do that. We don't have the man power. We don't have adequate facilities or anything else. We can't go off half cocked making comments that we can't follow up on. Councilman Johnson: We would hire the same people he would hire to do that. 1 Mayor Hamilton: We still need to make sure that we can accomplish... Councilman Boyt: Scott, what's the Pollution Control authority's response to this? Scott Harr: We've got hardly any response from the PCA at all. I've talked to the State PCA on several occasions and was told outright that's not an area we're concerned with. Carver County has been very helpful directing the owners where to go and they have been pursuing this. I don't have a lot of problems with the rate that things have been going on it. I think what irritated us is that we directed them to handle those barrels in a specific manner and before 71 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 I they got the letter they put it inside in a way that they thought was handling it safely. My conversation with the owner today, they assured me that by the end of the week they would have arrangements made to sample these barrels. I think that they've put this on one of the last items. It's about ready to have the security lighting in operation and an alarm system is about ready. I agree with Councilman Johnson that if we don't have an answer by the end of the week when they are going to do it within the time...then we can work with Roger. Councilman Boyt: Is there a motion to that effect? Councilman Johnson: Yes. When I briefly talked to him he did mention that they were going to sample by the end of the week. Scott Harr: I told them that they would. Councilman Johnson: Okay, that is your direction to them. They did not agree to that or did they agree to that? They said okay. I'll make the motion that, I'm not exactly sure of the motion I'm making. .. Mayor Hamilton: That the things are sampled by the end of the week or by our 1 next meeting and if not, the City is going to take action. Councilman Johnson: Okay, that's the motion. ' Councilman Boyt: Second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded that the owners of the Assumption Seminary take action to sample the barrels stored on the site by the end of the week or before the next City Council meeting or the City will take action. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: Dale, you had something to say on a resolution. Councilman Geving: This week has been designated as the National Drug Free American Week. I don't know if the Public Safety Office or the Department has received any posters yet on this. I did have some posters in my office and was going to bring them tonight. I'd like to propose that we have the Mayor make a resolution stating that this is the National Drug Free America Week for the City of Chanhassen. I would make that motion. Councilman Horn: Second. i Resolution #88-117: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded approving 11 a resolution declaring October 24th through the 28th as National Drug Free America Week for the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: Clark wanted to talk about the form of government commission. 72 1 1 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 31;; Councilman Horn: Yes, I just wanted to know what the status is on getting that formed. I Don Ashworth: The Minutes of October 10th are correct. I talked with Roger. The City Council can set up a committee. If you'd like, they can authorize the advertisement of that particular committee. ' Councilman Boyt: What are we doing when we do this? Don Ashworth: I'm making the assumption that the committee is really only ' looking at the issue of a ward system and bringing back to you whether or not they think it's a good idea or not. Councilman Johnson: That never does go out for a referendum per se? The ward system? Councilman Geving: I bet it does. 1 Roger Knutson: The only way you can have a ward system is to have a charter and a charter needs an election. The way the process works, the District Court 1 forms a charter commission. They write the charter without any input from you or they can talk to you, whatever they want to do. It goes on the ballot. The voters vote it up or vote it down. You can have a committee if you wanted to to 1 discuss whether you want to turn it over and talk to the District Court as to whether the District Court should authorize a charter. You would yourself have to authorize that. Ilf Councilman Horn: What all would the charter commission do? They only do the ward system or does our entire form of government? The charter decides. Roger Knutson: It sets a whole bunch of things. It'd be like Minneapolis' charter, I don't know how many pages it runs. 100 pages or something. It tells you how many people you're going to have up here. It tells you when your elections are going to be held. It tells you about how you finance things. To 1 form your structure of government. Councilman Johnson: Well beyond just how you get elected onto City Council 1 you're saying? Roger Knutson: Oh yes. ' Mayor Hamilton: It's how your whole city is going to function. Councilman Horn: I'd like to see a presentation of what that is. Whether the ' committee puts that together or staff. Mayor Hamilton: If you have a committee, then perhaps Roger or somebody from 1 their staff who is familiar with that can come and make a presentation on it so everybody clearly understands what needs to be done. Roger Knutson: If you want written information on the. ..common charters, I've got it in my office. I'll just mail it out to you. 1 73 1 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 • Councilman Geving: We could request for people to be on this study group. .g P There is an interest in the general population. Roger Knutson: Maybe I can suggest that the first step is just sending that stuff out to you and then you can look it over and decide whether you want to pursue it any further. ' Mayor Hamilton: You should probably send it to Dale and Clark unless Bill wants it or Jay but I don't. Councilman Boyt: I'd love to see it. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see it. Mayor Hamilton: Don't send it to me. Bill, you wanted to talk about campaign signs. Councilman Boyt: I do. There is a Minnesota State Statutue regarding campaign signs and where they can be posted. I intended to bring a copy of that. I don't know exactly how to put this so I'll launch into it and see where it goes. I don't think we're following this guideline. Maybe, I don't know if Roger knows them off hand to state this but I think we ought to be taking, ever at this late hour, steps to get all the candidates up to date on where you can put a sign and where you can't put a sign. They're not doing it. I don't imagine the City is going to enforce it so I don't know exactly how to approach this problem. I!! Councilman Horn: They have in the past. Councilman Geving: There were 3 of us up here at one time that had all of our signs taken down and deposited in the City Garage. Clark and I had to go and retrieve than from the City Garage. I don't have any problem with what you're talking about Bill. I wish we would enforce the people that are stealing signs and tearing down the signs and that's an issue that I really want to talk about because I've lost about half of my signs to vandals. People that just put them up one minute and 15 minutes I come back and they're gone. Damnit, they cost a lot of money. It's expensive to run for a city election. You know that as well as I do Don as well as anybody else. Wayne. We've lost a lot of signs and it isn't just kids. I don't feel it's just kids. People maliciously having some people say, hey I don't like Bill Boyt. I'm going to tear his signs down and they go out and do it. I'll tell you, if I ever catch anybody I'm going to report them. I can tell them right now. I'll report them to Scott Harr and I hope that the enforcement people take it from there because I think it is a violation of our right. Those are personal, private property. Mayor Hamilton: It's part of our democratic process that when you have an , election you put up signs I guess. My major concern is as long as when the election is over the people go out and take them down and get rid of the blight because that's exactly what it is. , Councilman Horn: I haven't seen the gross violations on signs this year that I have in other years. One year they were plastered all over the telephone poles 1: in town which is clearly a violation. In my opinion, it's up to each candidate 74 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 14-- to know what his responsibilities are as a candidate. He needs to know his spending limits. He needs to know where he can put signs and he needs to know what the rules are for the recording and everything else. That's not the City I ; Council's responsibility to do that. I fully agree we should enforce those rules but it's not our responsibility on hauling everybody in and saying, okay since you're running for office, here's what you have to do. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see looking into the possibility of when people put up signs in the right-of-way, the City has to take those down. That there's ' a charge for taking them down. They can have their signs back but I'd like to see a sign deposit or something when they file. If you're going to put up 100 signs, I'd like to see a sign deposit and any sign the city crews have to take ' down gets removed from your sign deposit. Councilman Geving: Can I add just one thing? I think it's really important and I'm just adding to what you're commenting on Bill. I did contact Jean Meuwissen the other day. We all received the financial disclosure document about how much you received in contributions and how much you are spending and so forth. I talked to Jean briefly about that and her interpretation is, that every candidate must file that document with her and I just want to make sure that the candidates who are here hear that because it has to be filed 14 days before the general election which pushes us back to about the 28th which is this Friday. Friday or Saturday, so if you get a chance, make sure that every one of you candidates do that. I'm sorry, it's 10 days before the general election. I don't know if a lot of people knew that. Jean doesn't even know all the ramifications. She says I'm just learning this myself but she says I want to ' tell everybody make sure you send in that disclosure document by this weekend. That's just information. It's free. Councilman Horn: I don't know why we're taking the staff time for these sorts of things either. I don't think that's our staff's responsibility. Councilman Geving: No, but Jean Meuwissen is the election judge. ' Councilman Horn: You have to take them to her but it's not her responsibility to disseminate what to do with them. Councilman Geving: I agree with that but it's just a public service so everybody stays straight on this issue. I wouldn't want to see a candidate for example thrown out of the race because they didn't submit some document in due time. ' REVIEW ROBERT HAAK DRAINAGE ISSUE, PIONEER TRAIL, CITY ENGINEER. Mayor Hamilton: The last issue we have is the review of the Robert Haak Drainge 11 issue which we've seen many times. I guess Larry, you've dealt with that. You've recommended that the problem is his and he's going to have to resolve it. It sounded like it was partially County. It would seem like the County would need to help him or should. Larry Brown: We pursued the County's participation many times and their response has been that the City's responsible for the watershed problems through the increased development in the surrounding area. So we're frustrated with ' 75 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988 _ that but going through their records, we have nothing else to pin it on. Councilman Geving: Mr. Mayor, can I suggest that we send this letter from Larry to the Haak's and to the DeJoode's to resolve this matter. Larry Brown: They have been sent. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Submitted by Don Ashworth ' City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim , 1 I 1 11 1:: 76 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION • . 2 t ; d �F REGULAR MEETING , NOVEMBER 2, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 30 P.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, David Heala and Brian Batzli MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer and Fred Hoisington, Planning Consultant SUBDIVISION OF 22. 8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 1. 9 AND 20. 9 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, GINER GROSS , CHES MAR FARM REALTY. This item was tabled per the applicant ' s request. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CLASS A AND CLASS B WETLAND INTO STORMWATER RETENTION BASINS LOCATED AT OUTLOT A AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 3RD ADDITION, JUST NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, ROSEMOUNT, INC. . Larry Brown presented the staff report. Conrad: Just a quick question Larry. The road between the two is not an alternative, is that right for whatever the option is that City Council . . .? Brown: That' s correct . That road will not be going in. Conrad: Where' s it going? Brown: That roadway is part of Market Blvd . . You and see, it' s not real clear here but we will be proposing an entrance down at this point here. Part of this crosses over into the Ward property and we consented to obtaining easements through the Ward property as part of the Lake Drive feasibility study for probably this access . Conrad: This item is a public hearing so we' ll open it up for public comments . If there' s a representative from Rosemount who would like to make a comment. Bob Worthington : I ' ll introduce our case on the application that' s before you. I 'm Bob Worthington with Opus Corporation. We are going to be the developer contractor for the Rosemount project which is going to be considered. The site plan item is last on your agenda , really the operation for that is somewhat out of context if you don' t take it within the area of concern, the entire site plan. In terms of the alteration permit, that was filed in conjunction with a site plan and plat I Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 4 Fred Hoisington: No . As a matter of fact, right now that entire site or a good share of that site is draining to that wetland. What we' re going to do is be cutting that off because we' re going to divert all of the water, almost all of the water in the parking lot and so forth into this wetland instead . What that' s going to do is overflow into the storm sewer- first and as this storm sewer, a 100 year frequency storm gets too full , what it will do is it will back some additional water into this wetland but it will only be a temporary thing. Just kind of a holding pattern and then it will be eliminated and continue off into the storm sewer . The question is, if before all of this was draining into it, now how do we keep the level up? It will dry up is what it will do over time so we need water to support it and we decided that instead of taking it off the parking lots into here, that we would take it off the roof directly in the wetland instead. So it' s a small amount of water. Headla : Okay, I didn' t understand that concept. That gets back to pages 3 and 4. I was trying to understand what assumptions do you make for that type of drainage to go that way but okay. I like that. On recommendation number 3, no more than 50% of the land around a Class B wetland shall be sod or seeded . Is that pretty standard to go 50% on that? I guess I 'm uncomfortable because I don 't know. Fred Hoisington: I 'm not sure if that comes, apparently it does come from the Fish and Wildlife Service in that case. One of the things we were concerned about that it not all be finished , polished , fertilized area . Something was pushing against that. I don' t know where that 50% comes from. I think it' s something you used before. Does that ring a bell? Headla: I feel uncomfortable. To me I think that ' s high. I 'm certainly not an expert on it and just shooting from the hip I question it but that' s all I can do. Should I stop there or can I go onto. . . Conrad : Not to the site plan. Let' s just stay on this . Headla: Okay. I like what I see here. Batzli : I was curious , how far apart are the Class A and the Class B wetlands right now? Approximately. Brown: Approximately 75 feet. We have 100 foot bid back there. Batzli : 100 foot? I was just curious because you' re going to require some grading of the Class B wetlands and you ' re going to keep a 75 foot stripe all the way around the Class A wetlands , how are you going to accomplish both those tasks? Are you going to be able to? Bob Worthington: Remember , this again, we' re considering out of context. This should be considered as a part of the site plan but this road which is shown on the site plan which is no longer going to be there. So you' ll be eliminating those things that you did have then in these two wetlands . . .this is going to be altered . I Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 5 ' Batzli : Right but they' re only 100 feet apart . You' re going to have to walk a pretty fine line staying just 25 feet from the edge of the Class B wetlands without altering within 75 feet of the Class A wetlands , correct? Bob Worthington: That' s correct. ' Batzli : What are you going to do, stake that off? Brown: One of the initial stages of construction will be to establish the boundaries of construction limits . Batzli : I guess I 'd like to see, and this isn ' t really wetlands, this is site plan more but kind of do what we've been trying to do in the past. ' Kind of snow fencing or staking off some of the areas that we' re trying to preserve around the existing stand of trees and the wetlands and things. My only other question, I think it' s a fairly good plan here. I was just ' curious in the 5th, we have the impacts needs to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Who ' s going to do that? Is that something that the applicant is going to provide? ' Hoisington : There are a number of things Brian . Both of us are going to provide things that there. The City is currently doing a feasibility study on Lake Drive East and the new TH 101 so there are a whole lot of drainage questions that can' t really be answered right now because of that. The applicant however will have to tell us what the volumes and so forth are going to be that will come into that wetland from drainage so yes , they will be providing some. The City will have to provide some as well. It' s kind of a melting of that information as we continue down the road . ' Batzli : What do you think might be appropriate measures taken to satisfy anticipated pollution and/or nutrient loading impacts? Hoisington: I 'm not too concerned about the effects that we ' re likely to have on a Class B wetland. I think we conceded, at least I have conceded that that is going to be altered and it' s going to carry the first flush of water from this site for a long period of time. What' s going to ' happen, Bob explained this but it' s kind of, the water in the small wetland . . .Class B in the pipe and a portion of the required storage on site will actually be born by the City in it' s downstream pond . When it ' does that , they are going to help pay for a certain portion of that improvement because they' re shifting their load off site. So most of that additional nutrient load is going to go directly into , the first wetland into the storm sewer into the City' s pond where it will be stripped. It ' will then trickle in a fashion down to Lake Susan through a rather long drainage ditch. The one that already exists there. We think that will be adequately taken care of. One of the things we ' ve been talking about for a long time with respect to the silt and so forth, is to have a catch basin in advance of the wetland itself to catch the silt, the sands and those kinds of things. It will have to be cleaned out periodically but it does do the job extremely well . I Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 6 Batzli : What about the run off from the roof? What kind of roof is it going to be? Is it going to be an asphalt type roof? Is that the type of impact you' re going to look at from the runoff from the roof? Bob Worthington: That would be better I guess to be answered as part of ' the site plan but John McKenzie. . . John McKenzie is the project manager -- for the building. John McKenzie: The final selection of a roof system hasn' t been determined but it would either be a built up asphalt and gravel roof or a ballasted single ply membrane. So in any event, we would make certain in I working with the staff that water that drains from that roof through the interior roof drain system through the storm sewer to the wetland is consistent with what we' re looking at. I don' t think we have to anticipate any particular problem because of the Rosemount operation that would be different than any other roof drainage. We' ll just continue to work with the staff to see that those issues are resolved. Batzli : Okay. I didn' t have any more questions. Elison: I had some of the same ones that Bob just answered that Brian had. It seems to me that if they can satisfy staff with most of these types of things that are still open, then I ' ll be perfectly happy. Emmings: Everything looks fine to me too. A lot of this stuff is pretty II technical and I don' t appreciate it but the one thing that looked to me to be kind of an inherent contradiction and maybe it ' s not is one of the 6 conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service is that, for the Class B wetland you' re supposed to have an uneven rolling bottom on this Class B wetland after it' s altered. One of the purposes is to provide forging areas for wildlife feeding in shallow water . In the EAW it says that II they' re going to be excavating 6 to 8 feet , making it 6 to 8 feet deeper . Those 2 things don' t seem compatible with one another to me . I don' t know, am I missing something? Brown: I think what happens is we have to again, take the conditions from two different bodies and combine them. Provide an area where it ' s sufficient for wildlife to come in and habitat . However , I think the EAW II is basically getting at trying to get that stormwater retention volume that' s necessary. Emmings : It seems to me we' re making a pond here , not a wetland and I don' t think we ought to have this condition on here from the Fish and Wildlife Service. It seems to me that ' s inappropriate for what they' re trying to do with that pond which I think is a right thing to do but I don' t want to put a condition on here that they can' t possibly meet. I don' t know what we can do about it . Hoisington : Steve, I agree. When I first looked down through this list , I found two that I had questions marks . It appears, also (b) . (b) and (c) . There is a possibility I suppose in some slopes but this is a fairly small wetland. It' s designed, built to do what it' s going to do here. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 7 Emmings : But these conditions are for when you' re trying to keep it as a wetland, not when you' re making a pond out of it. I guess I don' t know why we should impose the Fish and Wildlife Service requirements on that wetland, or what' s going to be a pond. Maybe we should take them all off. I don' t know if any of them are appropriate. ' Conrad: I don' t know either . Hoisington : Maybe what you can do is suggest that we strive as best we can to obtain these. I think we' re going to have a real problem with (b) and (c) . Emmings: Since we' re not trying to preserve it' s character as a Class B ' wetland but we' re actually converting it into a pond, I guess my inclination would be just to take out number 4. The more I think about it the less appropriate it seems . That' s my only comment. ' Bob Worthington: To reconcile with. . .there' s no question that we' re creating the capacity for the storm water runoff that is needed. . .doesn' t make sense . Maybe it' s at the edges you create. . . It ' s only a thought. ' You will find some wildlife that will go to the edge and look for food and go through some growth in terms of aquatic vegetation that will come up at the edges. Maybe that' s what the Fish and Wildlife people are looking ' for . Creating at least some medium there where the deer come down and want to drink. . .they can do that. Emmings : I think too , these 6 conditions they put on, everytime we alter ' a wetland, they put these same 6 down. These weren' t designed with this in mind at all . They' re just standard conditions . Maybe what we could do to keep it in is say, just add in there before, say the alteration of the ' Class B wetland , to the extent possible shall conform to the six conditions. Then maybe we' ve made it meaningless but at least. . . ' Headla : I think you've made it meaningless already. You say in areas of shallow water. That' s self limiting right there. It doesn' t apply to anything before you do have shallow water . That ' s at the end of (c) . Encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water . So you don' t care about what ' s going on. I like this because when I look at Near Mountain, the pools of water they' ve got are very sterile. It' s like a swimming pool . Wham, you' ve got water and then you' ve got ground . You ' don't have any shoreline at all . Ducks and geese can land there but that' s about it. I think you need some type of shoreline . Conrad: Normally when we had a previous consultant that worked for the ' DNR, Dr . Rockwell would always give us input . As you know our ordinance says zero degregation. Usually what we get back from out experts was talking a little bit about that . In our kit tonight, I don' t have a clue ' what Mr. Burke is talking about. Normally they fill out our forms and talk to us in our language. What I ' ve got here isn' t really anything that I feel comfortable with. He' s just really doing a different routine than ' what we' re used to. I ' ve always trusted those people because they knew our ordinance. I ' ve always gone along with them. When they said it' s not a good wetland , a non-functioning wetland , we' ve applied that reasoning to . 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 8 1 allowing it to be altered . I 'm real comfortable with that. In this ' case, I don' t know what they' re saying. They didn' t say. We've done a real good job in the past of listening to them, using them as experts but just letting them apply their guidance to it and when they said it' s not a II functioning wetland and I think we've typically allowed that it be utilized for drainage and we' re not going to protect something that' s not - that valuable. In this particular case, I still don' t know if there was a I value to it and we've applied that to those reasonings or that rationale to every other wetland that we' ve looked at until this one. Another point, on his comments , and I 'm just not able to send comments back to the proposal or to the alteration. Version 1 versus version 2. On his second page he made some comments, storm water storage, I would recommend the use of concrete cisterns . . .to aid in reducing insoluble pollutants . Has any of that been incorporated into what, are any of those comments bound into I the proposal or did we just say that' s not important? Hoisington: I don' t see them in there Ladd. I think that is probably one of the most important things he says . ' Conrad : Yes, and nobody' s responded to me on it. I haven' t got the staff report telling me that we don' t think that' s important or we do. I have a I problem with these two . Not that I 'm against the dredging and making of the pond. It seems reasonable. I just don' t have any good input where staff has spent the time to dissect what some consultant is telling me that I can' t understand so I can' t vote on this . Somebody could make a motion and take it through provided staff provides more input by the time it gets to City Council . Emmings : I didn' t read that that closely. It says too, no more than a third of the existing wetland should be excavated it says for aquatic enhancement purposes . Conrad: I just don' t know. Emmings : Yes , you' re right . ' Conrad: I don' t know what he' s talking about. Hoisington : We' re really talking about a body of recommendations in the staff report for our plans that you' ve seen before. Apparently that' s been generally applied to wetland alterations in the past . My understanding and I was not present at the walk through the wetlands but after Jo Ann came back from that walk, the impression I had was that the big wetland ought to be preserved and the small wetland could be sacrificed because it' s a meadow wetland . There' s nothing there. When I II read this, I see some inconsistencies in what he apparently told her and what this says . I don' t understand . . .either . I think the important things that both of you have raised are to what degree will the. . . I pollution of the parking lots , off of the roof, silt sands and those kinds of things before they enter the wetland. I think that' s an important consideration that we still have to work out as a process and we will work those out with Opus and Rosemount. They are minor things but they are important things in this case . The incongruity with respect to the degree 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 9 of excavation, I can' t explain . I don' t know how to explain that to you. Emmings: Your point on, for example the concrete cisterns may be included where it says they still have to assess the wetland impacts . Conrad: Yes, it could be. Emmings : Due to roof drainage. Actually, that will come from the parking lot. Brown: I think the point here is , and you can certainly open it for discussion but the point here is that the flow to the wetland needs to be regulated and Jo Ann talks in her report about how it can be 2 feet down ' one day and 3 feet up the next day. I think that' s what he' s trying to get at here with this system because he wants a constant release rate into those storm water retention ponds such that the wetland is not affected ' daily. Conrad : That' s one side of it Larry, yes . In all past wetland alteration permits, Jo Ann and Dr. Rockwell or whoever ' s representing the DNR, tell ' us that they' ve reviewed the site . That they find that the wetland to be good, bad , indifferent, not needed or in great condition and useful . We' ve listened to that . If they say it' s not a very valuable wetland , ' we' re allowing that construction to take place and we don' t apply the standards . I don' t have that in my hands. I don ' t have somebody telling me that which is inconsistent with what we've done with everybody else and that makes me uncomfortable. I 've got two problems. One, Jo Ann is not ' here, obviously, and she knows. She' s the one that could solve our problem. Two , I 'm not getting the same information , the same type of input that we typically get from those consulting people out there and I ' can ' t interpret . I 'm not smart enough to understand what he ' s saying and why we didn ' t incorporate some of those things or if we did so I can' t make a recommendation. ' Emmings: I ' ll take a swing at a motion. Conrad : Why don' t you talk to me about, what you' re thinking of. Emmings: I guess my notion is this . What I 'm thinking is , that I would propose to make a motion, I 'm going to change the language in 4 just a ' little bit in that I would make a motion to approve this with directions to staff to take your comments into account and to square what appeared to be conflicts in the Fish and Wildlife Service report with the staff ' s recommendation and explain that to the City Council when it' s presented there. Conrad : I 'm comfortable with that . Ellson: Let' s hear it. Emmings: You just heard it. Batzli : We didn't hear your change to the language. 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 10 Conrad : I was wondering where he was going overall . Whether we want and this is sort of discussing what kind of motion we want to make here. Emmings : This is a pre-motion. ' Conrad : It ' s a question of whether want it coming back here so we can look at it or if we want it to proceed and make sure that staff does a good job of analyzing it but send it along to City Council with additional input. Emmings : My notion is that they are all technical issues and they can explain those technical issues to me all night long and I 'm probably going to , I don' t know. , Headla : I think you brought up the one good point about, I can imagine particularly in the springtime when all the grease and oil coming off the parking lot is going into this pond , if there shouldn' t be something else in there. Conrad : I don' t understand . Remember what we ' ve got going on at TH 7 and II TH 41 and we' ve got skimmers over there for a little parking lot. There we' ve got skimmer . Here we've got 1,000 cars , or whatever , and we don' t have, I don' t know what we have. Headla : However , on the other hand , the Village allowed themselves to put inferior quality of water right through that immediate area so how can we justify being hardnosed on this? ' Conrad: I don' t think we' re being any harder nosed. Headla: I 'd like to see 5 include some type of direction to staff to take I a look at the pollution coming off, possible pollution coming off the parking lot . If it' s appropriate action, they know more about it than we do but at least highlight our concern. Batzli : I thought that was already included from the current language. Do you want to beef it up? ' Headla: I didn' t see anything about parking lots . They talked about the roof. Conrad : Are you comfortable letting it fly out of here? Batzli : Yes, I already thought with clause 5 in there, that there was going to be a lot of technical issues determined downstream, if you will , from this meeting. I assumed that they' re going to look at the impacts and the pollution and whatever and they' re going to make appropriate decisions and put in the appropriate devices for it. I kind of assumed that already. Conrad : Normally we see that stuff. ' 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 11 ' Batzli : I know. That' s I guess why I asked the question about 5. What are you thinking of putting in. ' Conrad : The only control you have is allowing it to proceed . You don' t have control of anything as letting it get out of your . . . Emmings: In 5 maybe we can just , after roof drain you can just add , parking lots . Conrad : But the other issue is, there' s a road going right next to this wetland. Emmings: You mean Lake Drive East? ' Conrad: No. Market Blvd . , right? Emmings : That' s on both sides . One of each side. ' Conrad: So the City' s going to take care of this wetland if Rosemount doesn ' t but I haven' t heard anything about that. This baby' s gone for all ' practical purposes but I guess from a consistency standpoint, I 'd like to hear and see the same stuff as we review this . Especially on a big project like this. Steve, do you want to make a motion? Emmings: I do . I want to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 with the following conditions and they' ll be the conditions set forth in the staff report with the ' following alterations. I 'd alter 4 so that after the word conform, the introductory sentence to 4 would read , the alteration of the Class B wetland shall conform to the extent possible consistent with it' s use as a pond with the 6 conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service as follows . Number 5, I would add parking lots right after where it says roof drainage so it would say, wetland impacts due to roof drainage, parking lots , and/or backup from the storm water retention pond . Then I 'd also, not as a condition but instruct staff to be sure to be prepared to explain to the City Council what appeared to be specific suggestions set forth in the Burke report from Fish and Wildlife Service with the recommendations 1 they've made so that we know all those things have been considered. Conrad : Is there a second? Batzli : Second. Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 with the following conditions : 1. Submittal of a revised plan and calculations which verify the preservation of the Class A wetland and shows the extent of alteration to the Class B wetland . I Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 12 2. A 75 foot strip around the Class A wetland shall be preserved in its natural state. 3. No more than 50% of the land around the Class B wetland shall be sod or seeded. The remaining 50% shall remain in its natural state. 4. The alteration of the Class B wetland shall conform to the extent possible consistent with it' s use as a pond with the six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service as follows : a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and resting birds . b. The basin will have shallow enbankments with slopes of 10: 1 to 20: 1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3. 0 feet) and (b) encourage growth II of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation. d. The basin, will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing , wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbance of wildlife using the wetland . f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland . 5. The wetland impacts due to roof drainage, parking lots and/or backup from the storm water retention pond need to be identified and appropriate measures taken to satisfy any anticipated pollution and/or nutrient loading impacts . ' 6. Meet any and all conditions of the Site Plan Approval #88-12. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Conrad : Larry, as a footnote. We have to have the right input on the right forms from the advisory bodies . We have to have that. If we don' t get it, staff has got to interpret it for us . We also want staff to tell us how the impact relates to our wetland ordinance. That has to be in the II kit. I know Jo Ann, you' re not doing this and I know Jo Ann has got other things happening but I want Don to know that and Jo Ann should hear that. Rosemount shouldn' t have to go through this . This should have been 11 debated before it got here and resolved. I ' Planning Commission Meeting ' November 2, 1988 - Page 13 ' SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 330,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, WAREHOUSE AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY LOCATED AT OUTLOT A AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 3RD ADDITION, JUST NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND WEST OF IHIGHWAY 101, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, ROSEMOUNT, INC. Larry Brown presented the staff report. Fred Hoisington: A couple of comments with regard to the site plan. This whole process has been kind of an evolutionary one. One that most all of you know since it' s been here before for the platting and so forth, has I been one that because of the timing , the rapid pace that this thing is moving on , and it was really one of the conditions under which the City was selected. That we could get in the ground in November, construction I could start this year . It' s necessitated that we kind of bring it to a stage, resolve our problems and then take it to the next stage, resolve our problems. We know you don' t like to see so many conditions on a site plan as this one has. We fully understand that. The most difficult part of this whole thing has been the drainage. We think we ' ve got all of the things that you' re talking about just about worked out. By the time it gets to Council , they will be worked out . One piece of information that ' still is not available that we know you like to look at, are architectural drawings or image of the building and so forth . What Rosemount and Opus people are willing to do is to come back to you on the 16th or whatever would be convenient and kind of go over that aspect of the building with you. They had hoped they would have those drawings here tonight but because of the very difficult schedule and the need to select a certain appropriate building . . .and so forth, we' re not able to bring that to you I tonight . What they kind of want to do is they want to run through everything that they have committed to. Again, you' ll have to trust a little on the staff in that these conditions will in fact be fulfilled . ' I 'm satisfied they will . I 'm real pleased with where we are right now. I didn' t think we could ever be this far along this soon in the process but we are and I 'm amazed at the progress that Opus has been able to make with ' that charge . So with that, what I think what we'd like to do is have them make a presentation. Give you a good feel for what it is that' s being proposed from their drawings and so forth. I 'd like to introduce again, Bob Worthington who will give our presentation . IBob Worthington: Fred has stated a precondition of, I guess of our presentation which we hope that you will take into consideration as we ' evolve and weave our tale through the site plan this evening for Rosemount. We are very pleased to be able to be standing before you a month and a half I guess since we initiated the process with the City with what we consider to be the completed site plan with a couple of minor ' modifications. Hopefully within the next week or two, we will complete an architectural statement for the building which as Fred has stated , we' ll be very happy to bring back to you to show you what the final . . . is going ' to look like once it' s been committed to by the client. Before I introduce John Miller who is the chief architect with Opus Corporation responsible for the evolution of the site plan as well as the architectural drawings which you won' t review until later on. I would like to go back a moment because, when I was before you on the plat, we kind of gave you the plain vanilla envelope version of what Rosemount was I II Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 14 - , all about . Why they wanted to be here and what they really intended to do II with the building once it' s completed. Of course, I couldn' t do as good a job as the person who would be with us and shortly could do, from Rosemount who has kind of lived with this dream, seen it evolve and now is finishing up the final touches of it before we go into a construction mode. I think that the story that he has to tell in terms of why they have chosen Chanhassen , what they intend to be doing in this building, II needs to be told before we launch into very pragmatic and to the point discussion of the site plan so without, if you can bear with me for a moment, I 'd like to introduce Jeff Schmidt with Rosemount Corporation who will tell you a good story. I Jeff Schmidt: Good evening . My name is Jeff Schmidt. I 'm Vice President of Company Services for Rosemount and I , in that capacity am responsible II for the facilities for our organization in the Twin Cities area and national and internationally. Rosemount is a 32 year old company that was founded in Minnesota . In Rosemount, Minnesota . We' ve grown in Minnesota . A majority, as a matter of fact, all our growth has been in Minnesota. We have acquired other companies through our parent. . .and our own acquisitions but our growth has been in the State. We currently have five facilities , five major facilities in the Twin Cities area . We are I headquartered in Eden Prairie. About 8 months ago we started an extensive search which included other states , as a matter of fact, and also some off shore type locations, as where we should do and build our world class II manufacturing facility to build our pressure transmitters which is the precision instrumentation that ' s talked about. This is a pressure transmitter . It ' s something essentially this size. It is the major product, the largest product line within the Rosemount family. This II project is by far the biggest thing that we' ve ever undertaken from a size standpoint and relative to an impact that it will have on our operation. We did this site search. Was probably, when we got it narrowed down to II the State and decided in the Twin City area, there were about 50 sites. It got down to a comparison between Chaska and Chanhassen . We know both communities because we are close in Eden Prairie. We felt that the I Chanhassen site was the site that would best fit the kind of operation that we want to have. I don' t know if any of you have ever seen our facilities but we are very sensitive to the aesthetics and to the green . We have parks in our Eden Prairie facility. We have softball fields. We I have amenities for our employees . We are very concerned about those kinds of things. We' re concerned about vegetation and many of the conditions that go along with the site plan that we talk about tonight . We fully II intend to try to meet all of those in response to the City' s concerns and to make it an area that we think is going to be good for our employees . The building will have 700 people initially. It will be our largest single facility in the Twin Cities area . We' re excited about Chanhassen II and we think we' re good community citizens . We have in other facilities and I think in talking to those governments or if you' re talking to people, they would say we are. We' re excited about showing you at least I our plans that we have so far today and we were hoping that we would have the rest of them today but by next week we would have more details on some of the elevations and the details of what the building would look like. II 'd like to introduce John Miller to present. . . II 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 15 Emmings : Can I just ask you real briefly. The product that you make in this plant, what is it and what does it do? ' Jeff Schmidt: It' s a pressure transmitter used in the process control industry and that would be an oil refinery or a pulp and paper mill . It' s a transmitter that has a sensor which essentially is in the pipe or in the process. Instrumentation that measures the pressure. It takes that pressure through an analog measurement and converts it to electronic signal which is then used to go back to a computer which would help control that process for that factory. So it' s taking an analog measurement and converting it to an electronic measurement. Conrad : I ' ve got a question. Briefly, when you compared Chaska to Chanhassen for the site, what were the pros there and the pros here and the cons in both? Jeff Schmidt: I think one of the things that Fred mentioned , and it ' s difficult to make that determination here because you don' t know. We haven ' t had an operation in Chanhassen or Chaska . You have to look at the people you' re working with and you have to look at , get a feel for what ' would go faster . That was an issue. I think probably the biggest thing was the fact that we thought that the site was a beautiful site. We thought it would be a good place for employees to work and we thought Chanhassen would be a good place for them to work. It was a little closer to our current operation. We did find in doing a study, when we looked around and started evaluating sites, that 25% of the employees that we currently have on the product line that we are going to move here , which ' by the way we' re moving 3 or 4 different facilities in Eden Prairie and that' s one of the reasons why we' re under such a tight time schedule to get this done is we want to get those consolidated for efficiency reasons . ' 25% of the people in those operations live to the south or to the west , to the south and west of our current facility so we' re drawing from a large population out here already. We felt that was good for those people and ' we didn' t want to go out, we'd like to get a little closer for those people that are on the other side. I think it was the site basically that sold it for us and the feeling that the City could allow us to go along as fast as we have. And as Mr . Hoisington mentioned , I 'm even more amazed at where we' re at today in the process. It was our plan several months ago that we wanted to break ground on a site in November . There were a number of delays, several of which were imposed by ourselves and by our parent ' company but nonetheless we' ve got to a point where we might not meet that exactly. We would hope to be very close. Headla : I 'm having a hard time with the area you ' re building and the ' number of employees. It seems to be off by maybe 50%. To say world class manufacturing , are you trying to operate a black factory? ' Jeff Schmidt: A black factory in that it ' s secret? Headla : You turn off the lights . It' s mostly automated . Jeff Schmidt: No, that is not the case. World Class is a term that we didn' t coin ourselves but it' s one we' re using to describe it. Basically 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 16 what we want world class to be is we want this facility to produce the kind of quality products that can be competitive in today' s market and that means some things. We' re looking at different approaches like Just in Time engineering, Tehoochi methods for measurement and cell manufacturing . We' re going to have 700 people there initially. This facility, we' re hoping based on our projections, will give us growth space for the next at least 3 to 4, 5 years . And there will be more people going in there. . . We are not a very automated operation. Headla: This is just the. . . 700? Jeff Schmidt: This is essentially the people that we have on line right now in different operations around Eden Prairie and the Twin Cities and those that we feel we' re going to have to hire over the next 12 months while we' re constructing this building . John Miller : It' s a real pleasure to be here in front of you and it' s a I real pleasure to the be the designer for this facility for Rosemount. At Opus we' re totally convinced that they really want to make it a quality project out of this. It' s very aesthetically pleasing. It' s going to project a strong image for them and that as a designer makes me feel good about it. I always like to work with that situation. I think we've been through the site plan in several ways already. I 'd like to maybe focus on the building itself and what the concept of the building design is all about. We worked extensively with Rosemount up to this point finding out how their operation wants to work. What type of functional requirements there are and I think we' re getting a real strong handle on that. Basically the concept we have is that they need a large, very flexible, high base face that can function as manufacturing and also has office space integral with that manufacturing space. As their product development proceeds and evolves, the actual organization of these areas II within this big, high base face would be altered. Would be very flexible. In other words, office space could move around the various parts of this large high base space. What we' re talking about basically looking at this I plan here is the high base space which is 720 feet long , this dimension, by 400 feet wide. We' re talking there about 18 feet of clear building height to the bottom of the joist and that ' s the area where we would have the flexible type of arrangement between the manufacturing and the office II space. Now that might scare you thinking of a 700 foot plus dimension for the building. Initially I was scared. I get over that easily. What we are going to augment that basic building block is providing around the perimeter for additional functions that are of a fixed nature. In other words, functions that will not be subject to the kind of change that we see happening within the large building block. Those would be things such as mechanical rooms, major central utility areas where services for the building would be generated and dispersed throughout the building. There are what we call personnel service areas which are conference rooms, toilet rooms, break areas, some of these fixed type things with things II such as plumbing where they don' t want to be moveable. Those are located in various locations around the basic building block. We have a major cafeteria on the south side of the major block which is almost 20, 000 square feet. This is something that you would not perceive having to be moved at any point in time. Those types of things are lower ceiling 1 II Planning Commission Meeting IINovember 2, 1988 - Page 17 IIheights and lower roof height types of building modules that will be placed around this larger box to break up the impact of the long walls that would be on the basic building block. We have, as Jeff eluded to, proceeded beyond this point as far as the elevation development has gone. We' re really excited about some of the things that are coming out of this and I honestly think you' ll be amazed at what the product we come in with will actually be, the manufacturing facility that you think it might be so I 'm looking forward to when we can bring in more detail on that. I ' ll just briefly describe a little bit some of the locational requirements for some of these building blocks. The biggest one is the cafeteria area on the south that we located there so it can take advantage of some of the views to the Lake Susan. We've got it nestled in some major oak trees there right along the crest of that hill . This is going to be a real nice amenity space for the people working in the building so I think that has worked out very well . We' ve got several of the break areas that are also in that south face of the building that we take advantage of those to use as a green space. The building as it functions , we have two basic product lines that are on each half of the building and along this north face of the building you' ll see a large, one of these large areas that is , there' s a central utility area in the center of that. To the side of that area 11 are two loading dock areas which provide service to the two halves of the production area. We are providing across from those berming as necessary to screen those docks so they would not be a negative impact on a site . it Now along with having two production areas on both ends of the building, obviously we have people working in both of those areas so we provided parking on the east side of the building and on the west side of the building with two major entries from each end of the building . Visitors coming to the building would primarily come in the east side of the building off of the Market Blvd . access into a turn around into the east entry of the building. That' s where the visitors would encounter the building . Other than that , until we can come in with more information as to the facade and the exterior treatment of the building, I 'm here to answer any questions you might have regarding site plan and building concept. Headla : What ' s your rationale for the 18 foot height? John Miller : We had the parameters we were given is that they want 11 feet of clear height for installing the work stations as are required as well as for movement of materials through the plant so there would be no encroachment on that limit for height . Then above that we' ve got 7 feet that we are allowing for all horizontal runs of utilities , of lights, of whatever technical types of support equipment is necessary to get the work stations and the assembly stations to function. So that' s where our ceiling height evolved . Conrad : You ' re not breaking the parking lot up much. Any reason for that? You 've broken it up in two basically, east and west but we have 500 cars on each side but it looks like it ' s just mass parking . John Miller : One of the things we run up against in Minnesota is in almost all of our projects we'd like to put more plantings in the parking areas. However, the snow removal gets to be a major factor and the more I i Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 24 11 with that kind of an operation. We take off the site. . . for disposal . Batzli : So you' re basically covered pretty tightly by the Federal Regulations? All the safety data sheets and all that other stuff . iII Jeff Schmidt: Exactly. Batzli : Is the storage room, are you talking large volume storage or do i � you have the stuff taken out fairly often? Jeff Schmidt : We' re only allowed, I believe it' s to keep things 30 days maximum in storage. The quantities are very small . Batzli : How small is small? This is a big factory. Jeff Schmidt:. I guess I don' t remember all those numbers. Maybe 2 barrels of a certain chemical . Maybe of the degreasing solvent or something like that. We do have a list of that and. . .could certainly make I' available . Batzli : I didn' t have an idea of what kind of chemicals really you were talking about there. The other thing, I guess I did want to talk about the fact that obviously the landscaping plan is going to be redone. I 'm curious if there is going to be shielding from the parking lot, between the parking lot and the lake. I know that you ' re talking about an acceptable one will be provided but I don' t know, what are the requirements for screening from between a lake or something and a parking lot? Is there any requirements? Hoisington: Really Brian, the primary landscaping isn ' t between the lake and the building. It' s from the parking lot and it' s for the loading areas behind . Those are the areas that Jo Ann has concerns about . The whole slope coming up from the lake is wooded now so the few trees that are shown, I 'm not sure if they' re on this site plan but they' re on this one, . . .more meadow trees . Not for the purpose of screening. The trees are already there . Batzli : Yes . If this is the one you' ve got up there, they' re not between the lake and the parking lot. They' re between the building and the park and the lake so the question is, if the neighbors have a concern and if you'd rather look at trees than a parking lot when you ' re on the lake, is that something that' s going to be provided for in the corrected landscaping plan or no or can' t you even see the parking lot from the lake? Hoisington : For the most part, the trees that are there will screen the parking lot. Emmings: How high is the site above the level of the lake? Batzli : Is it 50 feet above the lake there? Hoisington : To the floorline, it' s about 35 feet. II II Planning Commission Meeting INovember 2, 1988 - Page 25 IBatzli : But then you' re elevating the lights even higher up. I Emmings : But the lights themselves should be shielded but of course you' ve got the glow. I Batzli : Are shielded lights planned on being used? Bob Worthington: . . .by the same token, we need the security for employees that are going to be using the facility. That would require some Ilighting. . . Batzli : As it' s currently drawn, is the parking lot 75 feet away from the I finished edge of the retention pond? That doesn' t need to be amended at this point does it? Bob Worthington : It' s about 100 feet. The original concept plan showed Iit closer . We' ve revised the. . . Batzli : I guess my comment about either staking off or fencing off around I the Class A wetland and around the trees that you' re trying to keep so the bulldozers don' t run rampant through this stuff applies to this as well . The one thing that I really I guess had my big question, actually maybe two , condition 11 here. What is this in there for? That ' s basically Isaying that everything that we' ve got right now doesn' t mean anything? Brown: No , I think the intent there is , there is obviously some open I doors which exist right now regarding the feasibility study of Lake Drive East . In Gary Warren' s memo he states that there is more that need to be worked out. Admittedly it' s kind of blanket statement to try to cover these open doors . . . for the feasibility study to be completed . Batzli : I guess I see that and rather than have to go through the staff report and find all the conditions in sufficient detail necessary for ' reviewing approval, I assumed that' s what the other conditions were trying to do . Are you saying that there are some conditions that are in the report that aren' t addressed currently in the conditions that are in front I of us? Brown: I think there are options out there such as , one of them being the entrance on the easterly property boundary needs to be worked out in conjunction with the feasibility report . In turn, we need to work out the technical details of the storm water retention. I Batzli : But aren' t those two already conditions? The storm water retention is condition 19 again isn' t it? IBrown: Yes . Batzli : So the entrance to the east isn' t a condition right now? 1 ! I thought that was already. That' s option B entry road, that one? Condition 1? I II Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 28 I as the cars come in . Take around Christmas time. You get a lot of I traffic and the people out on the lake and on the other side see all that traffic . If you just had like highbush cranberry that are going to block all the flashing of the car lights , the reflections won't go out on the I lake. I think that could help the whole area aesthetically quite a bit and I don' t think it's a whole lot of cost. Larry, for my own information and I think this is the first time I 've said this . I think I kind of I understand that type of operation that they want to put in there and they' re going to be, I think the inside of that building is going to be very dynamic . It' s going to keep growing. The lines are going to change. They are going to be changing offices . When they start rerouting power I and there' s going to be some plumbing and stuff, do they get building permits to do all theirs or are they free to do anything they please to do or how is that worked out? I Brown: If there are any major modifications to the building , they are required to submit any new modifications to the building structurally, I they are required to get a building permit. As far as electrical power , I guess it comes down to a public safety and enforcement issue. If they do any rerouting of electricity then it should be inspected by a licensed electrical inspector. I Headla : Should they or do they have a master electrician do it? What I 'm trying to do is make sure we' ve got some common thoughts on it and not get into a box later on. That' s why I 'm asking questions . I don' t have the answers . Jeff Schmidt: One of the things, you asked the question before about the I 18 foot high. One of the things we want to have in that 7 feet between the roof and where the operations are is because of the flexibility that we needed , you' re exactly right . There is going to be changing and moving around. We anticipate putting in a utility grid system which will allow us to run, when we construct the building grids throughout the building so that when we do things , we can move them effectively by just unplugging them from here and moving them over there. We hope to , that' s exactly the thing we hope to eliminate is the major modification as we feel we can' t go into the cost or from a time standpoint to effectively do the things we have to do. Headla : To me, when you decided to put in a line or change a cell , that' s what you' re got to do and you' re not going to screw around and wait 3 I months to go through it. So do we have some common thoughts or should we develop any common guidelines so they know what' s expected and you know what they' re doing and there isn ' t a conflict or is that established I already? Brown: The guidelines and restrictions have been established through the State Codes. I 'm not real positive that it' s the City' s jurisdiction to II enforce that . We may get involved from a public safety standpoint but it' s all handled under, well a lot of it' s handled under UBC. In that instance the City wouldn' t come involved but a lot of it just boils down to their liability versus insurance versus something. . . 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 29 ' Headla : So what you' re saying is there really is no good mutual understanding? ' Brown: Not from a City' s enforcement policy, no . Headla: I 'm not thinking so much of an enforcement itself. It' s just a good understanding of what the City can expect. I think I see rules broken quite frequently but the company still have to get the job done and they don' t deliberately go out and abuse it but they've got to get the job done. We've got to give them a certain amount of flexibility. Brown: Again, we would expect them to meet all the code requirements of the UBC and I 'm sure a facility of that magnitude would be inspected ' by OSHA. That' s about it. There' s a clear understanding of that aspect. Headla: So you have a master electrician who understands what' s required and they can go ahead and reroute? It shouldn' t be a problem? Brown: I certainly hope so yes . ' Headla : As long as they don' t really disrupte the structure of the building , okay. On item 15, the watermain extension should be considered to be constructed . I don' t know what should be considered means . Are we going to construct it or aren' t we? Brown: One of the key things that Gary was trying to get at , he was just essentially trying to insure that Rosemount is obviously going to be taking out a large volume of water and it ' s suggested here, it ' s not a requirement. I believe the way he stated it, he wants it considered putting in an additional service out here just so they have another source. Obviously if they' re going to be dependent upon that water source , it' s obviously a good idea to have more than one source. Where you get into a little bit of the vagueness , this kind of leads into ' another point . This watermain will be constructed as part of the new Market Blvd. and that' s why he' s saying once the watermain exists they should consider putting on some additional storage. Headla: All we' re saying is we recommend they look at making double source in their water supply? Brown: That' s correct . That leaves the City with another problem which I know the Rosemount staff was very interested in. Condition 13 states that the first 500 feet of sanitary sewer which parallels the easterly property line on the site will need to be constructed by ' Rosemount. I think that' s misstated in the condition. It should continue to read, if the sanitary sewer line is not completed by the Lake Drive project versus the need that Rosemount needs that. In other words, we' re saying that the City is proposing once again along with this watermain to construct the sanitary sewer line that runs down this portion. Now Rosemount is very interested in using this , it' s called . . . right now. If we don' t get to it first, then obviously Rosemount is going to be interested in constructing that line before we get there just based on their need and date of occupancy. Now when Gary wrote the report he 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 30 was under the understanding that Rosemount was going to need that sanitary II sewer line by April 15th. Rosemount has clarified their position stating that they will not be looking to put that sanitary sewer line in until sometime in December of 1989 so with that in mind we' re very optimistic 11 that we would be at that point but if we haven' t got that portion constructed due to delays or whatever , it would be Rosemount' s responsibility. Headla : So if we stumble around and screw off then we get the bonus because they have to put it in? Brown: They would put it in. However , it would be either reimbursed or credited. Headla : Okay. They would get credit if they had to put it in? Brown: That' s correct . Headla : Item 16. I don' t understand cooling water discharge. I thought it went right through the other stuff. There wasn' t going to be any cooling water discharge. That scares me. As soon as we open the door on cooling water discharge, or at least what my concept of cooling water discharge is . What did they really mean by that? Brown: This was one that I had a question mark by. They are going to be II recycling some of the water and I know a classic example is Instant Webb where, because they recycle water they got the credit for that and we need some way of verifying that . The amount of water that they are recycling versus the amount of water that they take and Gary's point was that we needed some way to verify the credit that they receive for recycling that water . ' Headla : Don' t we have a restriction on, just by using the heat out of the water and pouring it down the drain? That's the concept that I 'm concerned about . Brown: As was mentioned before, all the discharge from the facility are monitored by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and they have to get a special permit for that . Headla : We' re not talking the same thing . Bob, I think one of you understand what I 'm talking about. Do you have a comment? Jeff Schmidt: What we do in Eden Prairie right now for instance is we do take some cooling water and we do put it into the storm sewer and we do get credits on our sanitary sewer charge for that and we meter that useage. It is not our plan at this particular site to put that water , we plan an internal use for recycling our water in this particular project. Hoisington: All it appears that she' s asking for in this case Dave is some documentation that they' re doing that so they get the proper credits for whatever . . . 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 2 , 1988 - Page 31 ' Headla : That' s what they' re really asking for is the documentation. . . Hoisington: When this first started we were talking about pumping it in ' the sanitary and storm sewer . What we concluded was that that didn' t make any sense. In the long haul they should keep it and reuse it. Headla : Fine. Okay, 17 I had the same thing as Brian. It' s just going to be a one time charge right? Okay. That' s all I have. Conrad : A couple thoughts . Larry, I want you to make sure that you ' verify that lakeshore owners were notified and report to the City Council that they were or were not . In terms of screening on the lake, in terms of building elevation. With the trees that are left standing on the hill , ' does that screen the building from the residents on the other side? Any answers? The residents have always been terribly concerned about that and I am too . It ' s a big building and I want to break it up visually. I 'm also concerned about screening of the parking lot on the lake too. We don' t have standards but in this case I think we have to take a look at how we're going to screen the parking lot. When somebody tells me that a berm is going to take care of it, that' s fine. A berm can do it , a hedge, ' but we' re got a big parking lot over there and we have to have the appropriate screening from the lake. Larry I want to find somebody in the planning staff who may still be working for the City that can report to ' the City Council what the impact of that parking lot is in terms of how massive the impervious surface is and whether we have broken it up effectively through the use of green islands. I understand what our friends from Opus are saying about snow plowing and I don' t want to ' inhibit that . On the other hand, this is the biggest parking lot in the city and we've always been, the planning staff has always been concerned about breaking up. We' re breaking up little lots with 12 cars in it. ' Here we have 500 cars on one side and maybe it' s okay. Nobody' s talked to me about it. Hoisington: I 'm not sure it is and I don' t think Jo Ann is saying it' s okay. What she' s saying is there still needs to be some work done. Conrad : And that brings up my next point. There' s so much work that ' needs to be done, it' s a question. This is fast track stuff folks but I don' t know if you know what you' re going to be approving if this goes out of here because it' s all referring to something else or something in the ' future. There are some things that I think we've seen that make sense but I don' t want to send the City Council the message that we've reviewed everything because we really haven ' t reviewed much of what this plan is about. We haven' t found many problems with it but we haven' t looked at it ' or we haven' t had a lot of staff input because we' re on this so called fast track. I haven' t seen the Park and Rec report which we typically do . Therefore, I personally feel comfortable forwarding it on but I personally am not going to make a recommendation on it because I don' t know what I 'm making a recommendation on other than let' s move this on. ' Headla: Let me comment on that. First of all , I think I comprehend the size of this parking lot of the building because based on the soil engineer' s report, the parking lot I 'm not really concerned. It' s I Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 32 identical to the one that I 'm used to in the city. I feel comfortable ' with this whole thing and the reason I feel comfortable and budgets are working and I go by feel . I think there' s a good flavor . I think the City' s trying to help and I think they are dealing in good faith with us and when you can work it mutually, I think it' s an experiment but when we can work it mutually and keep it going as fast as it can, it' s money in -- their pocket. It' s to their advantage to . . . I think we can keep friendly with this. . . .then you've got to take a look at it but for right now I have a comfortable feeling on this . Conrad : I have no doubt . I think it' s a good project and when you work II with quality people and quality projects they typically go on pretty well . I think I like Bob working with the folks in the neighborhood because it works far more effectively on your level than it does once it gets into the City' s hands so I like what I 'm hearing Dave. I'm just not comfortable sending the signal to City Council saying hey, this is all perfect. I want them to review this critically as if we typically do. When we say we like it, we are saying we have critically gone through every point and the City Council should feel pretty comfortable. Whether they do or not is a debate but when we say from a planning standpoint we like everything about this plan, I can' t send that message. I want them to be as critical as I normally would be at their level . Headla : We could send them that message though. ' Conrad: I 'm just opening up that point . Emmings : Annette and I were kind of talking about the same thing . This project is so different in scope than what we usually deal with, it' s almost a different kind . When you think about how we look at the mini- golf or the driving range down here, we were much fussier about that than we are about this enormous facility. We went into that in a lot greater detail and that' s ridiculous but I think you almost have to treat this differently. I think you do have to go with kind of a feeling , an overall feeling of whether or not you think you like the, you almost treat it more conceptually than in detail and you almost have to trust the staff on one this big when we' re trying to move it through the way we' re moving it through. That they are going to work out the technical details. I 'm II willing to do that on this one but I kind of . . .what I hear from Ladd and I think maybe it' s worth considering doing is just saying we' re comfortable with this thing conceptually. You guys with the staff, take our comments II into consideration and we' re generally for it conceptually but we' re not going to tell you that we think that these are the set conditions that ought to be applied to this . Headla : I don' t think we should manage to that detail . Let staff . Conrad: But staff hasn' t done it yet . ' Emmings: Normally we do do that. Conrad : Yes , normally we do manage to what staff tells us . When they review it, we review what they've done. Right now they haven' t done it. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 33 Emmings : But this one is a little overwhelming in that regard and I don' t want to hang it up here. The choice seems to me is to table it until there is a firm concrete plan . I don' t want to do that. I don ' t want to hang them up here. I 'd rather let the City Council do that work on this one. Conrad : Absolutely. Headla : One question I did have. Is there any type of fire fighting equipment needed for this building. . . Just wait, next year the capital improvement fund . Conrad: Is there a motion? Headla : Let' s talk a little bit about it. I like the concept and I 'm thinking about next year already but talking about a motion a little bit first . I think that helps us maybe get out a little bit better motion although we've got a pro over at the end who can usually word it quite thoroughly. How do you people feel about . . .maybe from the actual standards that the City set for trying to get more of the native vegetation of trees and shrubs on sites like this? Do you think we should try to fool around with that at all? Conrad : I think that' s a suggestion at this point in time that we can make. We don' t have a standard so if Rosemount wants to put in certain select trees and vegetation, they can do that but that' s something they negotiate with the City. I think you can make it as a recommendation that they strongly consider some native vegetation but what I suggest to you and you' ve mentioned this many times and we don' t have any planning staff to implement anything right now but I sure hope that we could get some standards put in there in terms of how we want new developers to put in the vegetation that we' re requiring . The landscaping plan should have some direction at least, some guidelines out there. Headla : There' s got to be guidelines . Conrad: Yes, there' s got to be guidelines and it shouldn' t be a surprise and staff should have talked to the developer before they get here about that and it' s not us saying we want 2 more maple trees . It' s staff saying these are our standards and we'd kind of like you to do this type of greenery or deciduous trees . They should be working with the developer . Typically they' ll do it but we don' t have those standards right now and we' re not going to until we get planning staff . Headla : Let me make a motion then that we recommend approval of #88-15 with the 25 conditions listed by the staff and item 13, Larry you had some wording there . You felt it should be a little bit different . Brown: If anyone has any way of shortening it up, I ' ll certainly be open for suggestions . it Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 38 facility. The only thing we' d like to request is perhaps the stipulations that have been stated, I would ask the staff to have those available to us as quickly as possible if this plan is to evolve. We go to the City Council meeting on the 14th. There' s a lot of things that you have conerns about . . . So to a certain extent I thank you for the trust. . . Emmings: Even our negative vote was a one of trust. Conrad : I really do want to make sure that you' re covering these issues with your neighbors because I don' t want any surprises with that group because they will put a wrench in if we don' t talk to them. It ' s so much easier when we do it on your terms. If you' ve done that and we sent out our public hearing notices , than we've done our job for the neighborhood to get their input in the development of this land. The comments that you heard from me were directly related to what I heard them. The last time projects came through on this land, we had elevations prepared so we knew exactly how high the trees were. Where they were. How much higher the building projected above the trees. They were extremely concerned so if they' re not concerned anymore , I think that ' s terrific . I just am kind of skeptical that they' re not concerned. I don' t know what changed their minds so continue working with them and that will resolve a lot of problems downstream. Hoisington : Ladd , just a comment . I just hope and request that the Minutes of this meeting indicate that there is a unanimous support in concept for the Rosemount proposal . I don' t want to confuse the Council on this. Conrad : I think Steve worded his comments clearly. I couldn' t word mine any more clearly Fred. All we' re doing is passing this along to City Council . They can review it . What I didn' t want to indicate is that we reviewed it in the detail that we normally review it in. We didn' t and that came across 10 times in what we said . It' s sort of a disclaimer on our part. We just don' t want to deceive them by saying that we' ve reviewed everything because it' s not here. I think our comments reflect that and our comments reflect that this looks like a good proposal . We like it. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 19, 1988 as presented . All voted in favor except Headla who abstained and the motion carried . Headla moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. . Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen Asst. City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim if CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ' REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19, 1988 ' Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth ' MEMBERS ABSENT: David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen , Asst . City Planner 11 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 18 , 000 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR AUTO REPAIR AND ' BOAT MAINTENANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND 101, CHANHASSEN AUTO AND SPORTS CENTER, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. ' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Brad Johnson: I 'd like to ask a question. I think you' re probably aware I 1: that we' re in the process of trying to assemble about, I have a map here that shows it, but there' s about 4 or 5 parcels that are involved on the Hanus site and up until 2 or 3 weeks ago, we thought that the TH 101 adjustment was going to come just to the east of us . Now on the new plan, ' they have the north route. You also have before you a request by AMOCO to change dramatically their particular site. We are working with them. If you get into the details as to what we' re trying to accomplish, it' s to ' integrate that site . We perceive, and this is just background information, we perceive that that site has probably, current improper use for a city. It' s there however and the building was designed for a truck facility and there is a conditional use permit that we believe runs with the ground that permits the use of a truck facility there. We are, in answer to I think one of your questions last time Steve, the zoning here is BH which is very restrictive considering that building is already ' there. I guess if the building wasn' t already there and worth quite a bit of money, I don' t think we'd have that problem but in the BH District for example, as we've discovered in a meeting a couple times ago, you don' t ' even permit automobile service unless you have gas . The history behind this is that we started to acquire this building because we knew we had to relocate a number of people from the downtown area . They were to be Chanhassen Lawn and Sports. Marine Fiberglass . Scotty' s. Loren. All t the people that were auto related because we perceived this to be one location on what we' ll call east of TH 101, current TH 101, where we could relocate service type facilities . We've been trying to convert it slowly into an automobile oriented type of repair facility. Tenants have not been knocking our door down and because of the various changes that are ( going on with TH 101, TH 5 all the way around us , it is difficult. It' s one of those kind of moving targets from a development point of view. Out 111 ultimate objective is to integrate that complete site. We are meeting 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 2 1 Cnow, tomorrow, and will be here with Matt Fischer who has the Apple Valley Concrete Plant. He will be over here tomorrow and I guess our general objective is to change the site and make it better . We've spent quite a bit of time getting it under control . Secondly, we've had a number of requests from people downtown who are about to be relocated by the HRA in II about 30 days to go somewhere. This is sort of a safe harbor we felt for a period of time to allow this and looking at the previous conditional use permit that was granted, boats were permitted as, not boat repair. Marine Fiberglass , what he does is he doesn ' t repair king of inexpensive boats . He is a premiere repair, he resurfaces racing sailboats for the fleet over on Minnetonka . He' s got quite a clientele and he happens to bring boats over here periodically. That' s primarily his business is doing that type II of thing . I think the facility is okay for that. I think our storage at the present time, it certainly is no better or worse than what is currently being stored in there and we' re attempting to move. So our request is that you grant the conditional use permit. I 'd like to get some response from you. I 'm not coming with a complete plan for that whole corner at this particular time. I think there are issues for the same reasons you rejected the AMOCO request the last time and I think we've got to kind of figure out what' s going on in total before that ' s done. That' s kind of where we are. We do need some cash flow to support the building. These guys are tenants that are going to be in there for 3 years. . . We' re currently negotiating with Scotty' s who is also going to be coming in front of the Commission. Conrad : Temporary use then? Brad Johnson : Yes . I think ultimately, I think they' re looking at it as a temporary location because they can' t find another location in the community. We perceive a Scotty' s type operation or Goodyear or whatever could make use of parts of the building but it' s a transfer in going from heavy use , truck facility to probably, I guess the best way to say it is II something where my wife probably would not drive in for service currently and if we have to convert it over a period of time to a store where people can go for service. That' s kind of the main thought to accomplish , more so than we thought . I guess our request , based upon use was permitted before. It was used that way and it' s a convenience to the HRA so they have a place to move at least one tenant who right now is having a hard time to find a place in the City. I don ' t think it intensifies that location. I think staff is. . . Emmings moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in II favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: Why did we deny the AMOCO proposal? I might not have been here that night. Olsen : It was tabled . ' Conrad : It was tabled because we didn' t know the access. There were a couple of issues based on access. Staff wanted one access to the site. II AMOCO presented two different . An island approach . We also had a concern I i , Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 3 I Cwith MnDot' s, MnDot has a need for and I 'm not even sure how that ' s tied ' in but they would like to really block any kind of left hand turn at the intersection. Coming out of the Holiday going into . . . But anyway, I think our biggest concern was the access . Erhart : Were they going to tear down the existing car wash then? ' Conrad: The car wash is a different site. Brad Johnson : The ownership there is Amoco owns the station and Gary Brown owns the car wash. ' Erhart : And the property? He owns the car wash and the property and Amoco owns the other lot? Brad Johnson: That' s the way it is . I think you ' re going to find a lot of interesting things happening on that corner . . .next couple years. I 've got a couple of plans along if you wanted to see the thoughts . ' Erhart: What' s going to happen to the. . . ' Conrad : Future use? Brad Johnson: Here' s the problem. You' ve got with the new TH 101 coming in and the Dakota access, you basically have a triangle that has the highest traffic count in the City landlocked except for an entrance from 78th Street. Then you've got all these other things happening on that corner there and intensifying traffic flow. We think some type of ' internal system is going to happen to take the pressure off , just that intersection is going to have to be developed . I ' ll just give you a couple of hand outs that you can take home and think about . ' Erhart : You' re using West 79th to provide that access? ' Brad Johnson: You saw the one, I guess you've got the one that' s on the map and I 'm just saying , this is the kind of things we' ve been working with. Now as you can see, the road that we thought was going to be there isn ' t going to be there anymore so we have to change our plan but it ' s ' something that you kind of become. . .that corner because it' s potentially a fairly. . . ' Erhart : Is this the reason that you have a continuous parking lot through the whole area? Brad Johnson : Yes . And we' ve had Food Fair that was interested in coming and we assume there will be some kind of a Food Fair . We have a movie theater that' s interested if we can find enough parking . We' ve got a lot of interesting uses for this particular site but this road system worked ' kind of slick but TH 101 is no more going over the Apple Valley Concrete { so he' s got to start dealing with what he' s going to do to this site also . Erhart : What is the deal with Apple Valley Concrete? Does that have to ' go or no? 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 4 1 Brad Johnson: There' s a conditional use ermi. that what? ' p t t at runs out what. By right around 1993? I think he' s always assumed . . . Emmings : Run out? Conrad : In that particular case there was a limit. It taxes my memory II but we were real concerned that that was a focus point of the City and we didn' t want it to be there. So when they wanted to improve the site with new washing facilities to wash out trucks and whatever, we were real concerned that they were putting in too much investment for a site that we wanted to purchase and do away with and put something else there so I think we made it, and boy, I tell you, I could be wrong, but I think we made it contingent on a limited permit. Therefore they had to figure out I how to write off that equipment. Ellson: Doesn ' t that seem illegal? 1 Erhart : It does make good sense. We' ve been told , and I 've tried to discuss that relating to retail nurseries where you just put a time limit on them so they don' t invest in the buildings so we can get rid of them when development comes in and we keep getting told by our Attorney that you can ' t do that. What you have here is the perfect example. Conrad: Well , we may have had different attorneys and I may have distorted it. I just may have but that' s what' s in my memory. How we did that. 1 Brad Johnson: Actually, the Hanus Park property where the cement plant sits, is on the Hanus. We go all the way over to TH 101. It' s an interesting problem that obviously doesn ' t mean. . . This particular request that I have. . .the HRA and Todd would like to see it happen. The guy who operates , Stan who operates the fiberglass , had not been able to find another site in the community that fits his particular needs . . . He wants people to be able to find , it' s sort of a retail business . The boats themselves, I think stored correctly don' t look bad at all . They' re not offensive. ' Conrad : Do the masts go up when they' re stored? Brad Johnson: So we anticipate they' ll be there for 3 years. He could stay there longer but we just have to work through our use process . That' s some of the ideas. We've been coming up with all kinds of ways of using that site. Now our next problem is, the next problem will be more II highway oriented. How do you get into that coming east? You get a right in off of TH 5 in that Apple Valley concrete. How do those trucks get in and out of there and the new boats? There' s a lot of questions that weren' t addressed in any public hearing because , as you know, the one that was chosen was the last one and it' s kind of a surprise to both you and everybody else. As I said, everybody from the south had their chance to . . .something. I was at the meeting, the Council meeting and nobody has II really brought up the other side. I met with the guy who owns the apartment buildings for lunch today and he was totally surprised. He' s I .Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 5 IIC the one that said he waited as long as he could to build those apartments . ' That' s another problem. We have to deal with reality. Right now I need to get some tenants in there. These guys need a place to go . Erhart: What you' re talking about here is no intensification of it? . . It ' s leased or something and he' s going to store boats? Brad Johnson: No boat storage. He' s got places for 10 but theoretically, like today, in the fall and certain times of the year when he' s got a lot of boats coming and going but he doesn' t store them over the winter . ' Erhart : Is that in addition to the trucks they store now? Brad Johnson: No, we will remove some of the stuff that is there. A lot ' of stuff has been hauled out of there. Erhart: The truck business is getting smaller? Brad Johnson : Yes , definitely. He' s no longer in the auto body manufacturing business. He is in just truck repair . Erhart : What are the chemicals that are associated with fiberglassing? Brad Johnson: . . . I can' t answer that question. He' s been downtown for a I ( long time. Wildermuth : Virtually everything is consumed. There' s very little waste. Especially for what he charges . ' Erhart : I thought there was sanding stuff . Okay. So that ' s the guy that' s downtown and he just wants to move out there? Brad Johnson : And his building will be torn down Thursday. We were all set to move in earlier and then we ran into this thing . . . ' Emmings : I think Tim has hit the things I have written down. I wondered whether there were any special safety considerations or anything associated with the materials. I wasn ' t clear on what exactly the business that' s in there now is doing. It sounded like it was winding down but it sounded kind of mushy. ' Brad Johnson : It' s mushy because we' ve got people that have no other place to go in all of Chanhassen. There' s no one facility for anybody in there trying to figure out where to go. ' Emmings: But I wonder what, the business that ' s in there now, I couldn' t tell what that was doing . Brad Johnson : In that particular site , there is nothing going on. That' s vacant, that one little spot but what they' re doing now is truck repair . Emmings : Repairing them mechanically or doing body work? Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 6 I CBrad Johnson: Primarily mechanically. The body equipment is no longer there but just because of the nature of the business , periodically they use some molding . Emmings: So do they do it in other locations or . . .? I Brad Johnson: No. Emmings : Then the only other thing I felt that would be a good idea to do II would be maybe a number 2, just instead of a period there, put a semicolon. Just say, no storage of boats shall be allowed so that' s very, very clear. I Brad Johnson: Qualify it by saying, it' s supposed to be transitional . Emmings: No, it says, it should then say that Marine Fiberglass shall be II limited to exterior staging of 10 boats and no storage of boats shall be allowed. Or no seasonal storage or something like that. Brad Johnson : That' s what we wanted . Emmings: I know it is and that ' s what we' re all thinking but I think it would be good to say it so there ' s no confusion later . But sometimes these things come back. In just a matter of a couple of weeks and we can' t remember what we did or how we did it. Ellson: I don' t have any other comments . Batzli : Again , I had several of their comments but the question I had was, the first condition. That they have to meet all the conditions of the original conditional use permit. It seems that most of the original conditions dealt with vehicles so they really don' t have to comply with very many of them at all other than perhaps 2. 08 in screening or something. Are we trying to put any other conditions on them from that original conditional use permit? Olsen : No . I just want them to be aware of the existing conditional use permit that they still have to meet. There was some other conditions besides storage. I Wildermuth : Which have probably all been violated in the last 5 or 6 years. I Emmings: I kind of assumed that word , where it said vehicle in that one it would mean boat. Batzli : I read it that way at first and then I kind of wondered I guess . Olsen: It includes , where they say service and repair of motor vehicles I and then they say boats . . . Batzli : The intent then is that boats is interchangeable for the word vehicles in the conditional use permit? I Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 7 II C ' Olsen: In the existing one it is . That' s the way it was written with the original conditional use permit. Batzli : I guess with that understanding , that concern of mine goes away. I liked Steve' s comment about the seasonal storage of boats. Condition 3, the increase in use of the site, do you mean by like the number of boats they' re bringing in? By the amount of space they' re using or any of the above? Or do you just want to leave that soft and fuzzy? Olsen: I meant that they couldn' t start storing additional boats there. ' That they were limited to that size. What they' re getting the conditional use permit for at this time. Conrad : What else would cause an increase in use? I can' t think of anything . Wildermuth : Would we have an objection to their leasing more floor space? I don' t think so. Olsen : It' s just a way for us to know what is current on that site. Batzli : I don' t have any other questions . IWildermuth : How much floor space does Scott' s repair want? Brad Johnson: 2,600. Two pieces . The building is 18 ,000 in there. . .bay. A real big bay. Wildermuth : I think that' s a good use for the building . Can you relocate Loren? ' Brad Johnson: I 'd like to. We' ve tried to . Quite honestly he' s getting out of downtown for different reasons and once they were ready, Loren woulde move in there also. Originally we got it for Loren and Chan Lawn Sports and they' re still here and we can' t get him out of there. We'd like to see it. The town needs a site for that. We' ve got Goodyear looking at the site as a potential corporate storage. Someday. Nothing moves very quickly. Wildermuth : I think that woulde be a shame. I would rather see a number ' of smaller businesses than an operation like Goodyear. Brad Johnson : They wouldn' t take the whole thing either . That' s a really big building. ' Wildermuth : I think it' s a good use for that site. ' Conrad : Me too . Brad Johnson: We need to change it around and make it look nicer . ' Conrad: That whole area could . I Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 8 Brad Johnson : As I say. The zoning question Steve you brought up last time, it would appear given that that building is there, BH is very restrictive for what ' s . It should be like a BG so our people will be coming back so we don't have to keep going through this. Because everytime I come in with something . See if we brought in an automobile repair place, either we have to do it under the current conditional use permit. Do you remember that? So we'd like to come in probably but at the right time along with a plan and ask for a different kind of zoning . You should be aware of that site . It' s got a lot of potential but it' s going to be a bear until it gets straighten out. Wildermuth : Who owns the piece between the car wash and the Hanus? - II Brad Johnson: We do. That's why we just leveled it to make the building II look better . Then I discovered all those trucks . The good news is you can see the building. The bad news is I hauled all the dirt over to my backyard and I ' ve got to haul it back and build a berm. We should have left the berm up front so that you can' t see. Right now you go up right through the building . When you look out there, there will be a little berm someday. Emmings : I' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Hanus Facility to permit Marine Fiberglass to be located at the subject site with the following conditions. Number one will read as it is except at the end of it Jo Ann where the period is, remove the period and put a paren and say that boats shall be deemed to be "vehicles" for purposes of construing the original conditional use permit . Then close the parens , period . Then number two , II where the period is, remove that and put a semicolor and just say, then add no seasonal storage of boats shall be allowed . Batzli : Second. 1 Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend , approval of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Hanus Facility to permit Marine Fiberglass to be located at the subject site with the following conditions : i 1. Marine Fiberglass must meet all other conditions of the original conditional use permit (boats shall be deemed to be "vehicles" for purposes of construing the original conditional use permit) . 2. Marine Fiberglass shall be limited to exterior staging of ten (10) boats; no seasonal storage of boats shall be allowed . ' 3. Any increase in use of the site by Marine Fiberglass shall require a conditional use permit. ' 4. The applicant must meet all Fire Code requirements prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 9 5. The applicnat shall meet the requirements of the Building Department. All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION OF 22 .8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 1. 9 AND 20. 9 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, GINGER GROSS , CHES MAR FARMS REALTY. Public Present: ' Name Address Tim Keane 7900 Xerxes AVenue So. , Bloomington Mark Kelly Representative for the Gross' Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Tim Keane : My name is Tim Keane , 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington. I 'm here on behalf of the vendor of the property, Naegle Trust, Ches Mar Farms Realty, trustee . Also with me this evening on behalf of this item is Mark Kelly who' s representing the buyer of the property, Charlie and ' Ginger Gross . Very briefly, the circumstances that gave rise to the need for this request was an option, I don't know if this will clarify things any better . In 1981 Charles Gross entered into an option agreement with ' the Ches Mar Farm Trust on behalf of the Naegle Trust to purchase the homestead on this parcel which is a 1. 93 acres . That was a legal lot of record at the time that the option agreement was entered into. There was a condition in the option agreement that there was a life estate that would continue, that would be a condition precedent to closing on the option agreement. That life estate came out of being this past spring with the death of Margaret Johnson. The Gross ' then requested that the property be conveyed under the terms of the option agreement. In 1981 this was a separate lot of record. It continues to be a separate lot of record . However , it did come under common ownership and there was the ' same tax identification number for both properties. In approximately 1985 there was a State Statute passed that gave municipalities the authority to review tax divisions. This is not a division. We have two separate parcels of record . This is a technicality to approve a tax division. The City upon request, requested that this property be platted in response to the request for the tax division . We agreed to the request for going through the subdivision procedure. There would be a more simplified I process and that would be a resolution of the City simply to waive the platting requirement and agree to the tax division to the County. But we did agree to the platting requirement. A couple things I 'd like to note ' that what this is not. This is not a development proposal . This subdivision will not bring about any new development. No new I Planning Commission Meeting • October 19 , 1988 - Page 10 1 construction . No new homes. We won' t have any additional traffic out here. There will be no intensification of the land use. We have one homestead out there. We' re simply trying to convey that one homestead. It will create no additional demands for public services or parks, fire, police . Nothing will change. It' s simply a legal convenyence. I would II like to emphasize that it is an existing legal lot of record. We' re only here to fulfill our obligation to be able to enter a deed to divide it. -- We do have the one existing home out there. It does meet all of the setback requirements . The request is for approval of the subdivision. We' ll also request a variance, a lot area variance pursuant to the request for the 1.93 acre subdivision. Addressing the conditions that were recommended by staff, we agree with condition 1. That it is platted . II That it would not be a metes and bounds. It would be a platted by Lot and lot description. As to Parcel A, if Parcel A were to be required to increase to the 2 1/2 acre standard , we would have to have the vendor and vendee, 7 years after the transaction was negotiated and contemplated under the existing zoning , and understanding that we have a separate lot of record, to go back and negotiate for . 57 acres to come up to the legal minimum. I 'm not sure what would be accomplished but it would put both buyer and seller or vendor and vendee in a very awkward position trying to agree upon just exactly where that extra .57 acres should come from and what the value of that is . I do believe that it does create undue hardship, both on the vendor and vendee and I 'm really not sure what ' s accomplished by bringing it up . 57 acres. Item 3, the 35 foot roadway easement to be dedicated to the City along the northerly property line. The proposal to split off the land, again, doesn' t create any additional demands. The burdening of this parcel with a 35 foot roadway easement, in no way is related to the request to simply split it off. I would request that that condition not be included . It would be a condition again later II on, an agreement entered into 7 years ago , the Gross' certainly do disagree with the request for the 35 foot roadway easement across their property. Number 4, the applicant enter into a development contract with II the City designating Parcel B as having only one building eligibility. Again, looking at what this is, simply a conveyence out of an existing lot of record , I would question why the restriction' s being placed on 20 acres that will be actually the remainder . In the alternative, we certainly would agree to designating that as an outlot with a development restriction that it not be developed until it is replatted. That, I think would accomplish what the City is trying to achieve without unnecessarily II burdening property and the chain of title. Any examination or consolidation of this property could be looked at in the context of an overall larger plan. That was referenced earlier . Number 5, Parcel B must have 2 approved septic sites prior to final plat approval . Again, we' re not requesting development of Parcel B. I believe that that condition can be addressed in the same manner as designating Parcel B as an outlot with a condition that it not be developed until there is a new subdivision . To go out and venture where those septic tests should be taken would be nothing more than a stab in the dark. No one knows where a logical homesite would be on Parcel B. We don' t have a development proposal for that at this time and to require septic tests without a ( development plan seems like a fruitless exercise. Again, a condition to restrict development until it' s replatted would address the City' s concerns on that item. Number 6, the applicant shall provide trail II , Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 11 1 easements , fees required by the Park and Recreation Commission. We ' haven' t heard what the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission is and we' re not prepared to address that. Number 7, a 15 foot driveway easement for Parcel B be provided along the westerly property ' boundary of Parcel A. Again , I believe we can achieve that with the same restriction as noted previously. That we don' t develop Parcel B until it ' s replatted and if indeed we do have the restriction for the consolidation of a future development with access on TH 41, it can be addressed in that context. With that , I would respectfully request that the subdivision be approved as applied including the request for the variance from the 2. 5 to 1. 93 acre minimum. I 'm available for questions . Mark Kelly: I 'm Mark Kelly on behalf of Charles M. Gross and his spouse. Two comments . My client' s interest is a personal one. We' re dealing with a transfer of title and as Mr. Keane has noted that actually it began 10 years ago. It was in 1978 when Ches Mar Farm sold off an interest that it had come into, ownership from Margaret Johnson but Margaret Johnson held back a life estate. Anyway, trasferred it to Mr . Pelitier who then sold it to Mr. Gross in 1981 and Ches Mar Farm approved that transaction. That is of record as of June 1, 1981 and that has been my client' s home since that time. He has resided there and continues to reside there. This was ' not something that could have been completed earlier . . .simply because the convenyence could not be done until , unfortunately the death of Margaret Johnson . That occurred back in April and we' re trying to move as quickly 1 as we can to complete the final transfer of the title. This is much like a contract for deed essentially. The problem is that the legal description, which are of record in the County Courthouse, don' t happen to match the tax legal description and what we' re simply asking is that the City recognize what is essentially an existing, non-conforming tax legal description with the actual property description . We' re grandfathered in. We were in existence well before your 2 1/2 acre minimum. The City can not tell my client effectively to buy some more land because you can ' t own what you already essentially own. He already has an interest. We just haven' t been able to get the deed as such but he has a legal title to it. So we' re not asking the City to waive it' s zoning laws . We' re asking the City to recognize that it has a grandfather situation. Whatever it may choose to do with Parcel B is really quite independent of my client' s concerns which as Mr . Keane has properly noted, we' re not looking to increase the use of Parcel A. We' re maintaining it' s use as it has been heretofore. As far as some of the suggested requirements for this arrangement might be approved as suggested by the staff of the City. ' Obviously my client has only purchased 1. 96 acres which at that time was not a non-conforming zoning use. The requirement of a 35 foot roadway easement is a taking of my client ' s property interest . Effectively it would benefit property behind him and the City doesn' t have a right to take that from him. Similarily, any requirement for trail easements or 15 foot driveway easements are also an imposition. These people have a legal interest in this land and I would hope that the City would recognize that and allow us just to conform with the tax identification, legal description at this time to what is already of record . I 'd be happy to answer any questions . Planning Commission Meeting II October 19, 1988 - Page 12 Brad Johnson: I 'm Brad Johnson , 7425 Frontier Trail and I represent the owner of the property to the east and west, the Kirk property. We have been , as you know, attempting to come back to you sooner or later with a package that will hopefully be acceptable to you. During that period of time though, we realized that, we could never figure out why the property II was divided the way it was in the first place . I think the gentlemen have just answered the question. Nobody did it legally in today' s world. After Gary purchased the property, we discovered that there was only a 25 II foot easement allowed which he gave in the review process for the road. It' s required in that particular area to have a city road into that property and 60 foot wide easement. We' re faced with the fact that either , if ever , could be today, could be 10-15-20 years from now, access II is going to come into that property from TH 41. I think Jo Ann has found out, I read the staff report, that MnDot would not allow another access point to come into Outlot B. At least at our current reading so we' re faced with, if the City is ever going to have that property developed by some developer , whether it' s the guy who owns the property at the present time, you' re going to be faced with the problems that we' re being faced with which is that sometime down the line nobody said you've got to have a 11 certain amount of property given for access to the property to rear . Now I don' t know if that' s a taking. We've been involved in other subdivisions where access is required as part of the subdivision. This is II considered to be a subdivision of land and it seems to me you have the right to do that so we are concerned as property owners to the west, that this issue be resolved and not left in the air because basically from our point of view, that we have to negotiate with the Gross ' or at MnDot for access . It makes it fairly difficult to do it. We' re not opposed to negotiation but that' s our concern. A 35 foot easement. We also are purchaser of the property to the south of Outlot B and we would like to ' request some type of access to that with an easement. We would like to have it considered to be an outlot, as Mr . Keane has requested so we can go ahead and either come back with a logical development or not and allow II us to proceed with we had planned in doing. We' re not discussing, as has been pointed out, any development of the site but I want to point out that there are problems on that site. By not dealing with them now, we' ll have ' to deal with them again and again and again until ultimately there' s some solution to the problem. I think the primary one happens to be what was perceived by most as the access that was grandfathered in. If the City rules that you can' t have a 25 foot wide public easement, that it has to I/be 50 or 60 feet, we' re stumped. We would like to request that you leave the 35 foot easement in place and require the 15 foot easement on the west end side to give them access to Outlot B with that particular purchase and II that you leave it as an outlot as Mr . Keane has required rather than a developed lot. . . Conrad : Brad , what were your comments about the outlot? ' Brad Johnson: You've got Outlot B, it' s called Parcel B. I think Mr . Keane asked that it be called an outlot rather than a lot so that somebody could back later . Conrad : Yes, and your comment to that was? Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 13 I Brad Johnson: That ' s fine. I think that' s a good way to do it . That I makes it, I guess not buildable until somebody comes back with a plan. I don' t think somebody is going to build one house on there currently but long term, if nobody bought that lot, there is no access. Let' s just say we didn ' t complete our acquisition and now that Outlot B is sitting there and Jo Ann can give you the answer to MnDot ' s feeling about two accesses there. You' ve basically landlocked the property. It doesn' t appear to be ' landlocked but you can' t get access off TH 41. I don't know if that' s true or not . I 'm just saying , if that is in fact true, it ' s landlocked . We had assumed you could but I 'm not sure now, since we found out we can ' t. I 'm just speaking , as I said, for having dealt for the future. . . Mark Kelly: Only one thing that Mr. Johnson raised and that is the concept that the City' s can serve over a 60 foot wide easement. As far as my client' s home, and I ' ll point this out, the City can not use it' s municipal power of emminant domain to benefit one property owner . That is effectively what Mr. Johnson has just asked you to do. He' s saying that ' he doesn' t want to have to negotiate with my client. He'd rather not talk about the road with Ches Mar Farm and their counsel . He would prefer that the City use it' s municipal power to benefit one person and not for public purpose. As we indicated, this is pre-existing situation. With that in ' mind , I will trust that you will not abuse the powers of emminent domain for what is obviously a rather selfish purpose. Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Wildermuth: Let' s say that Lotus Realty and Gary Kirt did not purchase Parcel B or Outlot B or whatever we might designate that, at this point there would be no access to that property. Olsen : The Zoning Ordinance does not allow on a collector , you' ve got to have a quarter of a mile separation. And plus MnDot has said that they would not permit an access . . . Wildermuth : So technically we really couldn' t allow this subdivision of " this parcel landlocking one of the parcels? Olsen : Without providing . . . Wildermuth : Without providing an easement . Has the City Attorney looked at this at all? Olsen : Yes , he' s aware of the objections by the applicant . Wildermuth: And what does he say? Olsen : We have the right to require it to be subdivided because it' s under single ownership. By splitting Parcel A, subdividing it off, you' re creating a. . . lot. Technically the legal description is . . . 3 by dividing it the Parcel B. . . Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 14 I Erhart : Did you say it' s on a collector or arterial? Olsen: It' s a collector or minor arterial . . . Erhart: If it' s a collector , it' s only 400 feet . We have to clarify what II it is . Wildermuth: Jo Ann, this is technically a subdivision? , Olsen: Yes. Wildermuth: And that' s why we' re talking about park fees and trails? , Olsen: Right. The Park and Recreation Commission did review this on Tuesday. Actually they did bring it and they determined that they did not ' need any trail easements because they would have enough right-of-way on TH 41 to provide for that trail . Since the building permit will not be coming for it, I doubt if they will be required a trail easement. I was - just told that today. They can confirm that with Lori Sietsema, the Park and Rec Director but they will not be requiring trail easements . Wildermuth: I don' t know what to think about item 4 . I guess item 4 and 5 are in keeping with the idea, the fact that you' re creating a subdivision. I guess basically I agree with the staff report. Ea Batzli : I was, I guess , curious, Tim probably can answer this. Was the � life estate . . .did you say? Tim Keane: Excuse me? , Batzli : Was the life estate recorded as part of the. . . ■ Tim Keane: Yes . Batzli : So that' s been recorded at the County for however many years? Numerous years? Tim Keane : Yes . And it is a parcel of record . This is not a subdivision. A subdivision is a formality but it is creating this lot . j We' re not creating any new lots . Batzli : And our Attorney says it' s a subdivision because of the common ownership? Olsen : Any lot that is combined and under single ownership, becomes essentially one lot. For it to be separated, you have to go back to the subdivision process . Mark Kelly: If that was the case , then every subdivision that is developed by a developer , the second it' s recorded and under the common — ownership of the developer , all of the lots are suddenly, I mean it' s a fiction. It' s not correct. Simply because adjoining parcels are under commn ownership does not mean that they merge. ' Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 15 'f t� Olsen : That ' s how our ordinance defines it and that ' s the way we' ve done it. When it' s a lot of record, even like with Carver Beach where they' re all separate parcels of record but they have combined to form parcels that '1 meet the requirements . Batzli : So if we did designate Parcel B as an outlot , that wouldn' t satisfy your problem because of the fact that it' s technically a subdivision? Olsen : Right. We would still need to have some of the conditions that we requested to make it clear that Parcel B only has one building eligibility. It could be sold off as a separate parcel . . . Tim Keane: If that were to be the case, we would have a cloud running on the title of that land that would be very difficult to remove. In the event that Parcel B were joined with another one through a replatting process , that still runs with the title. And the same goal of the City to assure that development could be guided and a plan can be accomplished by your restriction, either by a development agreement or we would certainly agree to an agreement running with the land that property not be developed until it ' s resubdivided so that outlot designation would not be. . . It would only be developed if it' s subdivided. It seems to me that all the goals the City is trying to accomplish in terms of orderly development , Icould be accomplished . . .without creating the unnecessary problems. Batzli : What Tim is asking for, by designating this as an outlot is basically requesting a variance under our , what may be a formality but 1� under our current definition in the ordinance is a subdivision. In order to make that not a lot , there would have to almost be a variance type situation to designate that an outlot . Olsen : To allow Parcel A. II Batzli : We have to basically designate, in order to conform with the density requirement, only one buildable site can go on that lot. So you' re basically asking for another variance to designate it as an outlot rather than. . . 1! Olsen : We want to make it clear that even if that ' s combined with additional land, at 20 acres, years down the line when it' s sold off, that 1� 1 unit per 10 acre is still in effect . In fact people are going to be thinking that they have 2 building eligibilities. For us to maintain that 1 unit per 10 acres as we' re required to do by the Met Council , we want to Imake it clear that Parcel B has only one building site. Tim Keane : Excuse me. I hate to belabor the point but we have many mechanisms to regulate development of the land . And to create encumbrances on the title, . . .chain of title is an exceptional burden . For example, if sewer and water serves the area and we now have 15, 000 square foot minimum lot sizes , you still have running in that chain of I 1 title an encumbrance restricting that parcel from one building unit eligibility. I think the City can contemplate the rationale, organized #I Planning Commission Meeting • October 19 , 1988 - Page 18 ff !' for the whole district to maintain the 1 unit per 10 acre. If he wants to not have the public context, he wants a deed restriction or something on that outlot. It' s just a technicality. Because that 20 acres is going to be used for Ches Mar Farms and they are going to be using . . . Emmings : In my own my mind I feel very strongly that Parcel A should stay !' precisely the size it is for the reason that Brian suggested. That land was the subject of conveyence between these parties prior to the time that our zoning ordinance was adopted. And to go back and say that these parties have to cut a new deal involving more land , is something , I don' t know if we have the legal right to do it but we shouldn't have. To me that' s just wrong . If I put myself in the place of the Gross ' and just ask myself as a matter of fairness. In the position of either party and ask myself as a matter of fairness , should I have to go back and buy addition land after I 've already made a deal to purchase a piece of land for a certain price. The answer ' s a big no . It just isn' t right . So I think that should be carved off of there in it' s present size to allow those people to complete the deal that they originally agreed upon. That would knock out condition. Condition 3, on the roadway easement, now we' re in the hard stuff because they can sit there and say that they don' t contemplate development of Parcel B or what I believe should be an outlot. I think that is the way to go on but if we do that, I think we' re doing two things that are real foolish from a planning standpoint and that is , number one , we' re creating an outlot that ' s landlocked and I don ' t want to do that. That seems to me to be foolish. The other thing is , we' re kind of sticking our heads in the sand , or we would be, if we ignore the fact that the obvious intention is to join the balance of Ches Mar Farms that isn' t involved in this platting with Outlot B and develop it as one parcel . I don' t really have a good answer there. I don ' t think that the 11 City again , should be allowed to impose on that Parcel A a 35 foot easement, which is real substantial it seems to me, on Parcel A. For that matter , I don' t even think we should put the 15 foot one on the back side. But it seems to me that these people, the Gross ' and the people who are going to own Parcel B or Outlot B on the Ches Mar Farm area ought to get together , maybe before we approve this plat and maybe it should be tabled . Some accomodation should be made between those parties so that we don' t have to create what are obvious problems . If we approve this the way they want it , there' s going to be a 25 foot easement going back to Ches Mar Farms to serve this entire area and that is foolishness. I don ' t think there should be a development contract now. I think if Parcel B, or it should probabl be an outlot, has two eligibilities, I just don' t think it' s that big a deal . When these two parcels come into the same ownership, Parcel A comes into the person owning both with all kinds of restrictions on it. It ' s not like he owns both- lots free and clear of all obligations . That' s what makes this different and why I think we can think of this in terms of a variance without worrying about setting any kind of a precedent. There are all kinds of obligations on the part of this. I want it to convey what he said he would convey on this property. He' s got to be able to do it. We can' t make it a legal impossibility for him to do that . For now I think that should be an outlot which takes care of condition 4. It takes care of condition 5. I agree, it' s foolishness to make them go out and drill holes in the ground out there at this point iI in time when they don' t have any idea how it' s going to be developed Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 19 II Cbecause if it' s an outlot and they come back and they can ' t show that there are viable septic sites out there, they' re not going to be able to build there . That' s all . It will stay an outlot. I think number 7 I would knock off for the same reason because what will happen is it will ' wind up, I don ' t know how they' re going to get access to TH 41 but the road system that ' s going to be internal to those two parcels when they' re developed , will all have to come out of their own land . I think the Gross ' deserve to get what they bargained for . Conrad: How can you create a landlock Parcel B though? Emmings : We can ' t. That' s the significant problem in this to me. I don' t want to vote on this. ' Ellson : I like your idea of tabling it . Maybe it does need to be looked at. Emmings : The only thing I don ' t like about tabling it is we' ve got . . . Wildermuth: Technically you can' t recognize the fact that the outlot is going to be sold . . . At this point it ' s got to stand alone. Emmings: Right and it' s landlocked. That' s why I think there' s, but the other part of this is , there ' s a Parcel A there that needs to and should I be conveyed to the people who live there. That' s the dilemma for me. It ' s how can we create this landlock Parcel B? We heard some talk about selfish purposes here. The Gross ' have a great opprtunity for selfish purposes in all of this too in that they sort of hold the, they' re the ' gatekeeper here and they can say you want land to put a road in, it ' s a lot of dollars a foot . What should happen here is that these folks ought to get together it seems to me somehow. I don' t know how we can force ' them. That ' s what I 'd like to do. It might be easier to sit over there and you figure this out and come back with a plan for the whole piece because from a planning standpoint , I don' t like approving this . Conrad : Why are you so concerned about the 35 foot road easement going in? Emmings : Because I think that the Gross ' have a right , why should they have this entire road on their property? Why should they have that 35. . . Conrad : They only have half of it. Emmings : Do they though? What you ' re saying is not right . I think right now their property from this map, it looks like it runs down the center of their road . Do they already have 12 1/2 feet on their side and now we' re asking for another 35? Brad 's shaking his head no. What do you say Brad? I Brad Johnson : There ' s a 25 foot easement on the way in and at some point there would be a paved road in. . . Emmings : From the survey we' ve got in front of us , it looks like most of it sits over on the Gross ' side of the actual roadway. I Planning Commission Meeting , II October 19 , 1988 - Page 20 I C Brad Johnson : At some point up here there are marks on the edge in some places. The roadway would only be 28 feet wide. . . It would require a 60 foot . It' s a rural area . If the road never goes in there, it' s got to be 60 feet wide easement. The road is only 24 feet. If it' s a rural roadway, or 28 feet . . . It' s a problem and no matter how you do it, the other alternative. . .is to forget all this and somehow you say that access can come from either direction but if access is ever brought in from the south, then they have to vacate the road. It' s a catch-22 deal . Emmings : How does the person on the north get in then? Brad Johnson: They come around. We had a plan . Emmings: Oh yea, that ' s right . Brad Johnson: I 'm just saying , it' s a problem that probably should be addressed and I realize Mr. Kelly says we' re thinking greedily but we are I getting landlocked . If it worked out like you were thinking about it , the greed might be on the Gross ' side rather than our side. . . Emmings : Putting a road south of the Gross ' one road that would go into that property maybe makes some sense but that' s not the plan that' s in front of us but there ought to be a plan so there' s access to this property. I can' t see how we can approve this now without having some kind of plan for access . It doesn ' t seem to me that it' s right to impose it on the Gross' who I think have a right to get what they' re running for . I would have liked to have seen a letter from our Attorney addressing the legal issues because it' s a mine field and we don' t really have much ' direction that I think we need from our Attorney to tell us how we might get Parcel A out of there as it is and yet somehow apply whatever pressure is necessary to get these folks to come up with some kind of a plan for the whole thing so we don' t get a landlocked parcel . Erhart : This is a fun one. The first thing that hits me is your comment Jo Ann that because the subdivision ordinance is one owner, if an owner of the property buys the platted parcel next to him, that because of some ordinance that we have, they become one parcel . I find it unbelievable that we have an ordinance like that . It would be even more far fetched if II it would be found legal so yes, I 'm not asking you to answer the question but I sure would like to ask our counsel . Conrad: Our Attorney says it' s true . , Erhart : No , he says that there' s an ordinance like that. I guess I just can' t believe it. That you could enforce such an ordinance or that it could be legal . If you' re the owner of B, and let ' s say you have fellow 1 out there and fellow 2. You' re fellow 1 and you own B and fellow 2, he' s looking at buying Parcel A. What you' ve done is you ' ve created a II different value for the two different persons because you' re the owner of { B. You' re getting faced with requirements that the other guy doesn' t have `• and that 's just totally unfair. I Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 21 I CConrad : I tend to agree. I don ' t understand that . I honestly don' t understand what the point of that was. However, it tends to be something that ' s on our books . The ordinance is there apparently. We have to deal with it. Brad Johnson: Is the ordinance two unplatted lots? Tim Keane: It' s a metes and bound description . Olsen : It' s under a definition of a lot and a lot is only separated by something like a street. ' Erhart : Can you find that ordinance? ' Olsen: Which is what we' ve been using. . . One or more lots of record which at the time is filed is created by an owner or developer . It ' s under the subdivision ordinance too. Erhart : I didn' t follow you on that one . Olsen: A single tract of land shall consist of one or more lots of ' record . It ' s under the Subdivision. . . Lot meaning separate parcel or tract area of land undivided by any public street or a private road which has been established by plat , metes and bounds, subdivision or otherwise permitted by law. I Erhart : I didn' t see it. Olsen : That ' s the way our Attorney has interpretted it for us . Erhart: Could you read it again for me. IOlsen : Lot means a separate parcel or tract or area of land undivided by any public or approved private road. Erhart : Is this page 20-1. Is that what you ' re looking at? Olsen: No . 97 in the Subdivision Ordinance. Conrad : We' re not going to figure it out Tim. Erhart: It seems to me that we ought to, you ' re bringing up an ordinance and we' re the Planning Commission , we ought to be able to find the ordinance and look at it. Olsen : It ' s under the interpretation about those definitions of the law. Erhart: Could you read it for me again? Olsen : It' s a separate parcel or tract of land undivided by any public street or a private road. We have had several cases of where. . .and the Attorney has always used this interpretation. . . .split off a portion or even an existing separate lot of record from that. I Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 22 I Tim Keane : The ordinance is dated when? 1 Olsen: The subdivision ordinance? Tim Keane : The one you just quoted . Erhart: Is this the one I 'm reading? A lot means a separate parcel , tract or area of land . Is that the one you' re reading? Where does it say II anything about single ownership? It says separate parcel of land. You' re looking at two parcels of land of record . Tim Keane: The comment I need to make is that, if that ordinance referring to post dates the transaction which occurred in 1978 and then _ reoccurred in 1981, is essentially inmaterial because these parties II weren ' t on notice at that time of any condition that you' re referring to . There' s a legal interest in land that my client signed on for and it ' s of record . You' re attempting to impose conditions post hoc the situation and it can' t be done. , Batzli : Tim, the definition that talks about single ownership is the definition of subdivision, not lot. If you' re confused because it doesn' t II talk about single owner , you have to turn the page and look at the definition of subdivision where it does talk about an area under one owner . i Conrad : This is stuff we' ve got to have our Attorney do guys . Erhart: If we can' t understand these ordinances . This is just so clear cut Ladd . I don' t know. Emmings: But I don' t think, I think our Attorney should look at this but I don' t think he should look at this and try and justify the position that staff has taken. He should look at it and tell us what our options are and how we can get where we want to get to which to me, and it may be different for each one of us , is breaking out Parcel A. Not landlocking B II and somehow having access to what right now we believe to be the most likely scenario which is the combination of that outlot with the rest of Ches Mar Farm for development. Now we'd be accomplishing something . I Batzli : And if for instance we basically asked Parcel B to take the entire easement of 60 feet up to Ches Mar Farms, in the event of some occurence they get the whole 60 feet on the outlot. Something like that might be an option. But putting the burden on B where the development is going to be rather than A which is the contemplated transfer from years ago. Erhart : Well , I read it while you were talking there. How you can take that paragraph that talks about the dividing a parcel of land and then reversing it to come to the conclusion that ' s stated in the staff report is beyond me. It is just beyond me. Conrad : You'd like to have it explained? I '1 Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 23 I1 ( 11 Erhart: Yes. Conrad : Tim, any other comments? Anything else? IErhart: Let me move onto the next one. That' s very irritating because it kind of strikes home because I just bought a parcel of land next to me and I� all of a sudden it's one plat is just ridiculous. You go up and I sat through this meeting this morning of the candidates and they' re all concerned why the citizens get upset at the City. It ' s things like this that get people upset at these things. II Batzli : But it probably helps you because then you can use your entire parcel as being subdivided so you have more room for density. 11 Erhart: You go through a lot of money to put these plats down and then all of a sudden it doesn ' t mean anything . Well , anyway. My comment on this one is the whole premise for any of the recommendations are baseless . II Let me go through each one . I do think we need to get a legal opinion . One way or the other . We' ve got , from a planning standpoint. Go one step further . Did we decide whether this was an arterial or a collector I [ because it makes a big difference as to accessibility onto Parcel B or outlot B? Olsen : The City Engineer reviewed it and stated that they would not . . . II ( Emmings : Mark, do you know is TH 41 a collector or an arterial? Do you know off hand? It' s on the Chapter you wrote on Transportation. II Wildermuth: TH 41 is an arterial street in the City' s Zoning Ordinance. ance. II Erhart : I think somehow we ought to come up with an easement. In fact there is no other access to the Ches Mar Farms except for that driveway right now, right Brad? 1lBrad Johnson : Yes . There ' s two alternatives . I don' t think we would . . . either one unless we want to be sandwiched inbetween . One is to come in on the south side. If somebody bought to the property to the south of B, ' they could come in that way. In this particular case, if we did not have at the present time a purchase agreement or option for B, if I was Gary Kirt I 'd be up in arms because you ' ve really just strangled him. 1 Erhart: But we have to assume that you' re not buying B. Brad Johnson : Right . So if you ' re not buying B, I tell you what , you Ilandlock the back from a City' s point of view. Erhart : Yes and we' ve made that point of view. That ' s right so I think 1 the City. ( Brad Johnson : What they could say is that the land they' re developing in the back, one way or another an easement has to happen. It turns out that the applicant owns technically the whole parcel . Don' t you technically 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 26 t� PUBLIC HEARING: II LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT , PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED ON PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF HWY. 5: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE ON 4. 19 ACRES. Public Present: II Steve Willet Applicant II Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Steve Willet: Good evening. I 'm Steve Willet and I 'm the president of 11 Lakeshore Equipment Company. What we are proposing is an outside storage area for docks and boat lifts. We currently have outside storage on our location over on Monterey Drive which is nothing like what this one is going to be. This is all going to be cedar fence. I came to you 2 years ago when we moved into town when we got an outside storage permit. I started working on the fence and the Mayor, Tom Hamilton and a few of the f ` council members decided well , don ' t cut down anymore trees and put up any more fences. Leave the trees to make a natural screen so that' s the reason for the condition that the outside storage in existence is this II area in which I 'm proposing . I am going to own the land, the building and everything and we have a very strong vested interest in it. I had picked up the fencing report. The fence is going to be an 8 foot high fence and some of the stuff that we' ve got in our storage yard now, apparently we' ve grown up so large, we stacked them rather large in height this spring . This storage area is now 5 times what we' ve got so we won' t have to see it I � stacked so high so you won' t ever see anything above the fence as well as I have designed in berms going around the entire fence to try to drop the height of that 8 foot high fence as well . On our property line, if you' ll note along the north edge of our property there ' s an existing berm already I going onto the next piece so that even brings it down a little further so you' re not going to see this big high fence but we' re still going to be able to achieve our screened storage. We have in the total landscape plan , right now there' s 1 tree on our entire lot which is about the size of your thumb. I put 80 some odd trees on our lot at the cost to Lakeshore Equipment of almost $14 , 000. 00. I am committed to try to stay in Chanhassen if I can. I 've spent a lot of advertising dollars. We' re the largest in the midwest of our kind and we are doing very, very well . We bring in a lot of trade to the community and this is a necessity for our business . The fence is all going to be cedar . Fully stained to earth tone color to seal it and let it blend with the rest of the land. I guess that ' s basically it. We' re just dealing with the fenced area right now? I I Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 27 Conrad : Yes , just the fence . Thanks , and we' ll call on you when we get to the site plan. Any other public comments? ' Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart : The outdoor , that is included in the ordinance as an acceptable use? Is there any restrictions on how close the fence can be to the property line? In this case it' s not right at the edge. ' Steve Willet : . . .We have plenty of land behind it. Erhart : The area that you can see , you were asking for some more landscaping Jo Ann? Olsen : The fence does . . . Erhart: And there' s trees all around the fence? ' Olsen : Yes , there is. Emmings: We' re only doing the conditional use permit, right? Conrad: Yes . Emmings : The only thing I would do again is, number one says that all ' items will be totally screened and I would just add to that, and I 've added this in whenever we' ve looked at mini-storage with walls on it. Again, just add to number 1 that no stored items may project over the top ' of the fence. Again, so it' s just clear . He' s said that' s not going to happen and I 'm sure it' s not but just so that' s clear . Steve Willet : It didn' t happen very ofter even over at our other one. maybe a week or two. Emmings : I 'm not directing this at you. Whenever we' ve looked at things with fences around them, I ' ve tried to put that condition in. Steve Willet : That was in our last one. Emmings: But do you get anything where you have just like a mast , just a pipe sticking up in the back? Ellson: It looks fine to me. Batzli : To get totally technical and somewhat legal here, after the word "any" in the second condition I would insert the words "and all" . That' s it. Wildermuth : I don' t have anything . 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 28 Conrad: I have nothing. Is there a motion? Batzli : I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-17 as shown on the Site Plan dated September 26, 1988 with the following conditions . The first condition reading as staff prepared 11 it with the amendment that the period by a semicolon and that the phrase, no stored items shall project over the fence, be inserted . And the second condition, that the words "and all" after the word "any" be inserted. Emmings : Second . Batzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-17 as shown on the site plan dated September 26, 1988 with the following conditions : 1. All items stored in the outdoor storage area must be totally screened; no stored items shall project over the fence. 2. The conditional use permit must meet any and all conditions of the site plan approval for Site Plan #88-16. All voted in favor and the motion carried . B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE FACILITY,r PROPERTY ZONED IOP INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED ON PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF HWY. 5, LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT . • Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . I Conrad : Steve, do you want to react to the conditions that the staff has laid out? Steve Willet : As far as the additional trees in the front, if I could I would like the opportunity to move a couple from someplace else because I already spent $15, 000. 00 on landscaping and I think it' s substantial . I came in with a plan thinking that I 'm going to do it up right and the first time we' ll get it through, we ' ll get done and there ' s not going to be anyplace to pur a few more trees when I already spent $15,000. 00. I 'd II like to move 1 or 2 of those from along that parking lot area. If you' ll notice, on that plan that you have on the board there, it' s a little different from the photocopied plan that I revised because of the berm that we had to put around the parking area and the pine trees that we put on the berm to screen the parking lot area from the road . I found out later on that it was just because of headlights but we' re going to screen them a little bit more so you don' t have to look at the parking lot. I 'd II like the opportunity to move a maple tree or two and maybe put a couple pines trees out front. You' ll notice there are some pine trees on the corner around the parking area. Maybe if I could just respace them. I hate to spend any more money. ' Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 29 Conrad: Jo Ann, what do you comment back? Olsen : That ' s fine because in other areas he is exceeding . So that ' s fine. Steve Willet : In answer to, I don' t know if I 'm answering my own -- ' questions or maybe you can run back through them. Conrad : I just want to make sure that you ' ve read the staff report and we hear what your comments are. So if you don' t have any comments. rSteve Willet : I do as far as Riley Creek. Riley Creek is right in here. This is the Riley Creek area. You' ll notice there' s the 200 foot is shown ' right on Opus' plot map and this is my lot right here to the right . 200 foot, that' s the 200 foot easement to the north of Riley Creek. I did not buy any part of that easement . I just bought the lot. My legal description is that so if that answers any question about the 200 foot to the north. Olsen : The creek meanders through there. What this light blue is an ' outlot that the City has retained a drainage easement over the creek area . That doesn' t necessarily provide the 200 foot separate. I don' t believe that that ' s 200 feet . Erhart : Where does the 200 feet come from? Is that an ordinance? An existing ordinance? Olsen : It comes from the Watershed District . Steve Willet: That' s from the center of the creek? ' Olsen : Yes . Erhart : For creeks but not for wetlands? Creeks? Conrad: I guess it' s just a plain fact you 've got to be 200 feet back. Olsen: He has to maintain a 200 foot green space along the creek. Steve Willet: There' s no problem with that anyway. There' s no way I can get that close to it anyway. Olsen : It looked like when we were reviewing with the Watershed District, it looked like it was pretty close but what we' re saying is that because of development of the site to the south that' s taking . . . that was a condition between Opus and the Watershed District. ' Steve Willet : Here' s the blue area . This is where the blue area starts . This is my property line. There' s over a 100 foot blue area. If you' re talking from the center of the creek so here' s the property line and then we' ve got to go all this distance here. We can measure that out right now. Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 30 I C Conrad : You' re comfortable that you' re going to meet that and I think staff is pointing that out that we want to make sure that you do. They don ' t have the evidence documented right now that you do so. It sounds like you can. It' s not a big problem. I Batzli : We may want to change the wording because we ' re saying he has to revise the plan. If it can be demonstrated to the staff that it already does meet that , perhaps there is better wording . Steve Willet: I 'm also asking if I can show you, without getting into a whole bunch of survey costs . The lot is already subdivided and the creek II is drawn in there. All I 'm asking is that we can use the scale, existing plat map and show you that there' s 200 foot from where we' re talking about. ' Olsen : Staff is just pointing it out that it' s something that the Watershed District is going to require. Conrad : It' s not even us . You' ve got to satisfy them. Olsen: We make it clear that we want it . Batzli : And if we are imposing it as a condition , make it clear , then I think we probably can just say that he work with staff and decide . Steve Willet: Opus did give me a letter from Riley Creek and the Watershed District just before I did my purchase agreement with them and they did state that there was a setback from the creek and that we would have to comply with that . Conrad : Who is Steve working with on this? When you ' re worried about setback from the creek. Olsen : The actual setback from the creek will have to be, we ' ve always enforced that along the river . We' ve always had them show that that site I plan can meet that setback because otherwise they' ll have to come back and do a new site plan. Conrad : So show us , the City? ' Olsen : Because that it is going to be enforced . In working with the Watershed District on this site, it looks like there' s the possibility that that setback is being encroached . It ' s with the outdoor storage and that would have to be adjusted. We just would like to say, look , meet that now rather than approving the site plan, it might be changed . If that' s minor to you and the site plan is changing , that' s okay and that' s not necessary but they will have to meet that setback to receive the Watershed District permit which is a condition of approval . Steve Willet : I 'd just like to in closing , as far as an answer to the questions that came up. I will comply with all city ordinances. With all Watershed District laws and we are doing this as a fairly comprehensive 1 11 . Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 31 r plan . We' re a 3 year old company. We' ve grown very fast . For us , this ' is undertaking a large project for us and it means a lot of us . We' re in a time frame where I want to try to get down by January 1 but we' re going to make sure we do it right. As far as the drainage area, I ' ll deal with the Watershed as far as drainage from the parking lot. I have talked to the contractors and there' s no problem whatsoever as far as putting in something that will provide us as far as the drainage. We' ll work with ' staff on that. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Wildermuth : I think all the bases are covered here . I 'd like to reword item 6. Something along the lines that the plan shall reflect the exact location of Riley Creek and that the setback requirements are satisfied . Batzli : You don' t want to put it in under 7? Wildermuth : Under 7 rather . Other than that, I really don' t have much else. I would just say that I 'm sure the applicant would like a solid fence for security reasons but I guess I would much rather see an ' evergreen fence all the way around the storage area rather than a wooden fence . Conrad : Yes , I 'm not wild about wood either . Batzli : I agree with Jim. I think 7 should be revised to indicate that I the applicant will somehow work with staff to make sure that the green space is maintained. One question I did have on that is, in Larry' s memo he talked about 130 foot setback. Didn' t it? ' Olsen: Right. I think that was the closest that the building could be. There are areas on the applicant ' s site that would have to maintain a 130 foot setback. The reason we put in the 200 foot, because the fact that we' re at a 130 foot setback is and there' s only one portion on the north site that can be 100 feet. Batzli : I guess I didn' t follow that . Sorry. Conrad: I didn' t get it either. You said it a couple times . Olsen : You have to have a 200 foot green space . In going to the south it was allowed to be 70 feet. Typically it is 100 feet on either side of the center line . What the Watershed District wanted was for them was to . . .to go up 30 feet. They have to add the 30 feet. Because we don' t know exactly where that is, we said just to maintain the 200 feet. Steve Willet : I was aware of the 130. That ' s why I said , I wasn' t sure what the figure was when we were talking. I did get a letter about the 130 foot from Opus . I was only aware of a 130 foot setback, the green area. I didn' t know that had to be. . . I still don' t think there' s going ' to be a problem if it was 200. If it comes down to 10 feet or something like that where. . . Batzli : So you were aware that you had to go 100 feet and now to 130? 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 32 1 CSteve Willet : 130 is what I was aware of. They gave up 70 feet before so . . . ' Conrad : No . Steve Willet : I have to maintain 130? I Conrad: You' re okay. Steve Willet : We' ll work with the Watershed and do what they want us to do. Batzli : I was confused because they used the 130 and I didn' t realize _ II they were measuring from the center line. That's where I was confused . Okay, the only other question I have was on condition 8 . The storm sewer system which directs the site runoff to Riley Creek, do we normally drain it directly into a thing like that without some sort of a catch basin or sedimentation or skimmer or some other . . .- Olsen : I 'm sure they' ll have some sort of a catch basin and that would be II part of the storm sewer plan. The applicant does have the option to do a storm water management but the engineering department requested that they just provide a storm sewer . Steve Willet : My engineers did say that in the storm sewer we would have some kind of a catch basin. We figured it into the cost of putting it in. Batzli : So you wouldn' t have a problem if we said that would include a catch basin? Steve Willet: No , we' re going to work with staff on that anyways and that would be part of working with staff on the changes there. We don't have any problem with that . It should be done properly and I 've got. . . Your engineers brought it up and when they did, I went back to the contractor and I talked to him and he said, yes , you could have that so we figured it out and we are going to put something in there. . . Batzli : Is that by law or something or is that just common sense? Conrad: That would be our engineering standards wouldn' t it? Olsen : Yes . Plus they have to get a permit from the DNR which would require it. Conrad : I don' t think we need anything . Batzli : Okay. Those were my two questions. Then, I do agree that we should amend condition 1 to say that he can adjust his trees . Ellson: I like it. Number 13 has to be in there even though we granted ' the conditional use permit? You say, by the way, anything in the conditional use permit says you've got to do also. It seems kind of redundant that you' ve got it in both places . It' s what we always do? IIPlanning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 33 II II( Emmings: Yes . Ellson: Okay. I like it. No problem. IIEmmings : It looks like a good plan to me. I have no additional comments . IErhart : I agree. Conrad : I have no comments . Is there a motion Brian? IBatzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #88-16 shown on the plan dated September 26, 1988 subject to I the following conditions. 2 through 6 and 8 through 13 as proposed by staff . Condition 1 I think should read , the applicant shall work with staff to insure that appropriate landscaping in the form of evergreens along Park Drive from the proposed building are. . . IConrad: You said exactly what the staff report just said. II Batzli : Let me start over . Strike that . The applicant shall work with staff to insure that adequate landscaping is provided for the proposed site plan . So just let him come back to staff and make sure that it all meets everything we want because that's what we' re basically asking. He' s IIIC going to start jockeying it around. Wildermuth: Did you want to say something about Park Drive? IBatzli : No , because once he starts moving trees , he' s going to have to make sure that that' s still okay for that area. I don' t want to talk about any location . Just insure that it meets standards. IIConrad: Do you require an additional landscaping? In this case would you require a different landscape plan Jo Ann? IOlsen: He can just draw on the official . . . Do you want to read what you had for 7 because I didn' t get that? 1 Batzli : Well , I haven' t even made up 7 yet. I did such a poor job on 1. Erhart I got that one. IBatzli : Do you have a suggestion for 7? I Erhart: Yes. The plans shall be consistent with the Watershed District' s 200 foot green span along Riley Creek. II Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #88-16 as shown on the plan dated September 26, 1988 and subject to the following conditions : IE 11 as Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 34 1. The applicant shall work with staff to insure that adequate landscaping is provided for the proposed site plan. 2. The retail sales proposed for the site shall not exceed 20% of the floor area of the building. 1 3. The trash receptacle shall be moved away from the building and must be totally screened. 4. All rooftop equipment shall be screened . 5. The applicant must meet the requirements of the Building Department. ' 6. The plans shall be revised to indicate the exact location of Riley Creek and the normal water line (NWL) for the sedimentation/retention I pond located on the northeast corner of the parcel . 7. The plans shall be consistent with the Watershed district' s 200 foot green space along Riley Creek. 8. The plans shall be revised to provide a storm sewer system which directs the site runoff to Riley Creek or the existing sedimentation basin located on the property prior to final review. 9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Department of Natural Resources permit. 10. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit . 11. The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan which properly addresses erosion control . 1 12. The applicant shall notify the City 48 hours in advance of any construction which has a potential to impact Park Drive. ' 13. The site plan must meet the conditions of the conditional use permit for the outdoor storage area. All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning II Commission meeting dated October 5, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried . 11 I ME Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 35 t CCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN - POPULATION PROJECTIONS , MARK KOEGLER. Mark Koegler : The Comprehensive Plan item is just basically� cally xnformatxonal but to inform you of some of the things that we' re doing . We' re looking at revising population projections and also incorporating some more detailed numbers that hopefully will be used as part of the Sewer Policy Plans being developed now. Basically those revisions follow the same methodology that' s been used in the past and they simply update and incorporate it in the Metropolitan Council ' s most recent estimate that was in April of this year . That results in a projected population of 1990 of 10,065 people and in the year 2000, 15,700 people. Metropolitan Council ' s official "projections" are still 9,000 in 1990 and 10,000 in the year 2000 even though the 1998 number is above basically what was projected in 1990. So we' re holding it as part of the Comprehensive Plan acceptance process ' that those projections will be modified. We are revising some of the plan text and utilizing those numbers from this point on where it would appear to be supportable again based on facts it' s the same methodology which was employed previously. Wildermuth : Mark, does this assume that there' s no change in the MUSA, right? Mark Koegler : Correct. IIC Erhart : There was an article in one of the local papers recently that went into quite a bit of detail , I was looking for a copy tonight because I thought I had saved it, and basically it was the Carver County met with ' the Met Council fellow for a breakfast meeting this week I believe on that same issue. Are these numbers basically the same numbers that our County is using Mark? ' Mark Koegler : I can' t answer that . I just became aware very recently that the County is apparently getting some kind of a coordinated effort together to take a look at population. Basically all forecasts for this area. I think that' s something we need to check on. . . Erhart : Would you because I apologize. I went through my office trying to get that for you because it went into the same discussion and I think the numbers looked similar . Basically the County is doing it for a couple of reasons. One is they want an accurate forecast to the Met Council . For one, they' re affected on how much aid they get both for ' highways and for I think something with welfare or something also affected by what the State views as their population. It' s surprising that it can be fuzzy but apparently it is. I guess I just think if they' re making a ' stab , we ought to work with them and try to get accurate projections obviously from the planning body here. It' s difficult to do good planning without accurate projections . Are you thinking that they' re going to play the same game that they played with us in the past Mark where they' re ' going to try to artifically keep the projections low or do you think now they' re taking a different view of things? Because the article stated that on one hand , let' s see for the purpose of TH 212 I guess was one of the issues. The Met Council is coming out with big numbers but for the purpose of sewer planning , they were using a different set of numbers. 1 Planning Commission Meeting • October 19, 1988 - Page 36 1 Does that ring a bell with you? Mark Koegler : That specifically does not . However , in response to your question, which is kind of an opinion kind of response, the general tone that I 've seen more recently coming out of the Metropolitan Council does seem to be a little bit more, . . .necessarily more in line to open to at least considering arguments . I think that spirit of cooperation was a little less in the past, shall we say. So I guess I am somewhat optimistic that these kind of things may have a better chance now. . . Erhart: What do you suppose the animosity was? Mark Koegler : I can' t really even speculate on that. Perhaps it was just a genuine thinking that their projections were right and 10 years worth of growth in the southwestern area has proven that those weren ' t always right. Conrad : Mark, what were the figures that changed that caused the slight increase here? I saw a lot of numbers here but, the number per household? II Mark Koegler : That was one factor that changed but really the key change was the Metropolitan Council coming back to the City with their household estimates . Of course they tabulated the building permits and having that number as a base number , it was higher than what we had previously extrapulated from there. So it' s just basically a wholesale adjustment. 1 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DISCUSSION, MARK KOEGLER. Conrad : The next think you' ve written into our ordinance modifications, you'd kind of like our input on the three different areas. Mark Koegler : I assume the Commission is aware, I don' t know whether I drew the long straw or the short straw but I 'm going to be providing some fill in work with Barb being gone and assist Jo Ann in some things. I II don' t know if these were the assingments that were rattling around for a while but those were the ones she labeled . She also supplied me with realms of material on this in the form of past reports and Minutes and so forth, most of which I have waded through and all of which I won' t pretend to have a grasp of yet. What I thought would be beneficial is if I simply had a chance to hear first hand in the general sense on each of these topics . What' s the consensus concerns are of the Commission. Then from there we' ll come back to you on the 16th of November , I believe is the date that we scheduled for some of this material to get back to you with some concrete suggestions that you could begin to dig into and support or II modify or whatever. That starts with the revision of the A-2 zone. Basically my understanding of the charge is to remove contractor ' s yard with a minimum extraction from conditional uses and to look at the possible inclusion of temporary retail nursuries . Some definition of golf II courses and public buildings. Now as I referenced some of the Minutes, even as recent as August 17th of this year , some of the Planning Commission comments weren' t totally in line with that charge. Again, some II clarification may be in order . There was a comment in the Minutes for I Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 37 I example that contractor ' s yards may not necessarily be omitted but modified. Is the tone that those are to be omitted and if so, are you looking basically at an assessment of what that means and rationals why that should be. . .beyond what you've already seen. It' s that kind of clarification that I would like to have your thoughts on. Conrad: Tim, do you want to talk about. . .? Erhart : Mark' s got my letter that goes over it. Maybe I can shed a little light on the meeting that we did have when we did talk about it. Probably helps bring Mark up to light on that. We talked about a couple ' different issues there. I think from eliminating to just to try to better define it so the need would be and what we perceive to the original intent of letter some guy operating his carpenter ' s business out of his garage and his house. I think what we' ve seen here in the last year really is industrial. The question came up at that time, the conversation kind of got off on a tangent and the question came up, if we eliminate new ' contractor's yards by basically taking them out as an allowed or permitted use, what happens to the existing contractor ' s yards. Do you remember that discussion? And there was some confusion that, and we somehow came to the conclusion that the conditions that were set for those contractor ' s ' yards when they were established, somehow they wouldn' t have to abide by them anymore. ' Olsen : No . We said they were recorded with the County so they couldn' t. . . Erhart : And I think that was a little bit confusing . I think basically the conclusion is Mark that if we do eliminate new contractor ' s yards by not allowing them, are the conditions that are applied to existing contractor ' s yards still apply. Is that correct? Mark Koegler : That ' s correct. ' Erhart: Okay. I seem to remember that was . . . Batzli : That was a sticky point. Erhart : A real sticky point , yes . I think that' s clarified now. It comes back to I guess, I don' t know if you' re looking at me, you know what my feelings are . I thought about it after our last meeting and I 've gone back and looked at contractor ' s yards and I thought we were going to get into this again at a later meeting . I was going to bring some photos in and try to get you to see why they' re incompatible when you have lot ' densities of 2 to 4 acre lot densities . I personally still believe they' re incompatible with argicultural use but the problem is, if the intent is just for a guy to work out of his garage , that' s one thing but by golly, they all grow. They just all grow. It ' s the nature of this contracting business to grow. The ones in our area now where the guy 2 years ago had one very large detached garage, now he' s got 1 that' s four times that size. Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 38 1 CEmmings : But that' s probably, you' re not supposed to be able to expand . Those are all conditional uses. You' re not supposed to be able to expand II them without , without coming back but of course you add 1 truck here. It' s a bunch of small steps and all of a sudden you've got a mega mall . Erhart: And the one next to me, which is 300 feet from my driveway, he' s 1 got 2 cars stored out there now in the back area with a trailer outside and I 'm going to go over and see if they' ve got licenses . But it just doesn't fit. I had another idea from the last meeting that if the Commission still believes that contractor ' s yards are permissible or somehow consistent with an agricultural area where you have 10 acre lots and larger . Then take a look, if you think that' s still okay then let' s II take a look at the rural area of Chanhassen and find out where the density is in this 2 1/2 acre density and make that all RR because the RR District in the Zoning Ordinance does not allow contractor ' s yards. That's an alternative. If you really feel that we still should have contractor' s yards in the rural area. . . Wildermuth : Tim, there' s another alternative too . It may not necessarily I be contractor' s yards in the rural areas but how about contractor' s yards in the IOP areas? You' re still allowing contractor ' s yards but you've gone upscale. They' ve got a whole new set of criteria. , Erhart : We don' t have a list of specific items in the IOP area for contractor ' s yards or do we? 1 Olsen : It generally comes. . .contractor ' s yards. . . Erhart: But do we list contractor ' s yards in the IOP District? 1 Wildermuth : I don' t think so . Olsen: As a conditional use. Batzli : That' s a philosophical , almost a subtle question because then you do upscale them and then you take it away from the guy that is trying to run his carpentry business out of his garage. You forced him to make. . . Wildermuth: But it depends on where you put the threshold. . . That' s what requires some type of. . . How big can he get before he reaches the threshold point? Where he' s putting up a 2, 000 square foot Butler building . . . 1 Erhart : That' s exactly what you' ve got. Conrad: Before we talk about it any further , what problem do we have left? We' re probably contractor yard, we' ve probably filled up with contractor ' s yards. Emmings : With the 1 mile. 1 Conrad: Because of the 1 mile. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 39 CErhart: Except if somebody gets out of the contractor yard business , one ' night Tom Hamilton got up and basically said the nice thing about contractor ' s yards is they just go away when people move in. That' s not the facts as we know it in this one case up here but the reason that you want to do something is that if someone does sell his house and he quits using it as a contractor' s yard, if you leave it in the ordinance, then another guy can come and take his place. ' Conrad: I think that' s really good to get out of there. I don' t know that we can but to take it out that it doesn ' t go with the land . . . ' Ellson: It goes with the owner? Emmings : But that' s not a conditional use then. A conditional use runs ' with the land period. Well see, this goes back to another point. We get back to this temporary conditional use business again and Hanus and all that. I still think and Tim now has put it on his official work list of things to bring up but I think what should be done here is why doesn ' t the City have some way to license activities like this? Because a license is revokable if they don' t live up to the standards. It does not run with the land. Why don' t we have some way to license an activity like this? Then you' ve got a strangle hold on them and when they stop operating , the license just expires and they don' t pay a little fee every year . Conrad : Gee, I really like that. Erhart: Then you can set a time limit on it. Emmings: You can set a time limit. Give them a license for 10 years . I don' t know if that's possible but boy it. . . Conrad : It sets up a review process too. Ellson: I like the idea that it' s away from the land though. Emmings : Yes, you don' t run into all those. . . Batzli : I think you' re going for one of the problems but then you may end ' up with more of them with the criteria you' ve set. If you do away with the land requirement and within 1 mile. ' Erhart : I don' t think it necessarily has to relate to just contractor ' s yards but we were just thinking it was a good idea . . . to apply them to other things that come along in trying to take uses that some of the ' people know that there' s a problem. . . Emmings : I don' t know if this will help but it seems to me, one thing we have to face square on is whether want an out ban. . . ' Conrad : I think we' ve got to take a vote right now. Emmings: I don' t know because it seems to me, I know that I would be in favor of a contractor ' s yard where a guy had a couple of trucks . He lives Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 40 on the piece of property where the contractor ' s yard is and we have an opportunity to say your contractor' s yard will consist of 2 trucks and maybe a little pile of gravel and stuff but there will be a berm and all these conditions and standards for how that will look. I know on the other hand I 'm completely opposed to something that came in like this one II down on TH 212. Whether the person is living there or not but it' s basically a guy trying to put 50 trucks . To me it was creating a dump is what he was doing but I 'd be opposed to something where it was just his business and he lives somewhere else and it' s a pretty intense use. If you could define the contractor's yard to those things that are on that one end of the spectrum I just defined or tried to define, that would be fine and I think you can' t. That's the problem. I guess what I 'd say to Mark is, if you can find a way to define contractor ' s yards in that very narrow kind of way and a way that we can enforce it, I 'd be willing to take a look at keeping contractor ' s yards around . Failing an ability to do that, then I think we ought. . . Batzli : Look at reality and our track record with enforcing conditional uses of contractor 's yards. Do you seriously want them to look into whether we can force them to do something in an enforceable way with contractor's yards? Emmings : I am not going to look at enforcement. That is not my job. I think you ought to take it into account. You shouldn' t stick your head in the sand , I agree with you but if we have a good ordinance, I think we should try and design a good ordinance and then whether it' s enforced or not, that' s not my job. Batzli : But it has to be enforceable. ' Emmings: Exactly. I agree with that. Photographs are the way to do enforcement as far as I 'm concerned. ' Conrad : The only thing that I think is real important is that we' re setting contractor' s yards up to be an accessory use on that land, II accessory to being a home. I don' t know that I can come up with the rules for a 40 acre contractor ' s yard and a 10 acre. I just don' t think government can get in there and I don' t think you can come up with those things. But I do know that the 1 mile radius is pretty restrictive. We probably only, I do know that if we make it an accessory use, I think that' s kind of restrictive. Therefore, we' re not getting professional contractor yards coming in here. We' re serving people with real needs that want to live in the community. By the way, they work out of their house. I 'm real comfortable with that approach. I don' t think we' re going to get abuse. The only other factor that I 'm concerned with is, I 'd , like to get it out of running with the land . I think it runs with the person. However you can get us out of that, then I think we solved our problem. Emmings : I don' t know if you can do that . I Conrad: I don't know if you can do that Mark but that's why you' re highly paid. You got the short straw by the way. r ' Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 41 i Mark Koegler: Thank you for that clarification. Batzli : Do we need to talk about golf courses , retail nurseries or public ' buildings? Emmings : I think the materials that Tim drew up kind of go over that pretty well . Conrad : That' s pretty consistent support of that . Mark Koegler : The only final question on contractor 's yards, before we leave it, have you seen demand for people coming in requesting what we call a mom and pop level or have they all come in requesting essentially ' industrial uses? Conrad : They' re requesting the industrial uses . ' Batzli : We had one mom and pop that we turned down the other day. Wildermuth : Yes, that was a shame . ' Batzli : The guy who came in who had it and then lost it. ' Mark Koegler : So you' re comfortable with the smaller scale. . .? Conrad: Absolutely. We basically are dealing with a population of 10 contractor ' s yards or something like that . We don' t want abuses Mark. I ' think the direction is to get rid of them but here' s a case where we can satisfy certain people who have lived here and want to live here. And there may not be a big demand but we' re not trying to encourage that ' either . Just trying to be reasonable to people who buy a 40 acre farm and then want to put a little contracting business in there during the off season. The blending ordinance . This is one that I 'm real interested in. It's probably the biggest irritant. It is the biggest irritant of all the ordinances that I see . It' s a case Mark where we have minimum lot sizes and as you know, we have properties that were developed many years ago with bigger lot sizes . Up to acres and because our ordinance says 15,000 ' square feet, that' s all we can hold a new developer to who abuts an existing neighborhood . As you know in planning, you like transitions and you like to make things consistent within the neighborhood. Over the last couple years we have had many, in my mind , outrageous cases where a new development went in with significantly different lot sizes . We' re not talking 10%%-20% changes . We' re talking 300% decrease . We' re talking triple. They' re coming in with lot sizes of 15, 000 and they' re putting them in an acre to an acre and a half. Emmings: The guy on the old lot gets 25 new neighbors. Conrad : It' s not only that situation but it seems, the only thing that we have. We don' t have a transition. We don' t have anything called transition other than what you do or what our planning staff tells us to d when we start putting in zones. That' s the only transition we have. We Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 42 1 don' t have transitions other than zones . I don' t know that that' s appropriate. I think we'd like to have you help us out of that one. ' Emmings : It doesn' t have to be all the lots in a subdivision. Just those butting up against. . . , Ellson : Right , a certain percentage of what the ones next to them are. - Mark Koegler : Where do you draw the line in assuming that your role as people charged with planning function is new, realize the property will further be subdivided at some point in time. As planners we' re always looking 50 years down the road . It seems like a case like, take Greenwood ' Shores where you've got larger lots and eventually the property of there will develop. That property poses . . .and there was a lot of discussion about the lots that would abut the Greenwood Shores lots . This same concept was kicked around then without it being proposed as an ordinance. It was the same point of view, they say, Mr . Dunn, you've got to make those lots bigger . That ' s a case where it obviously works because you' ve 111 got. . . You get in other parts of the community, say out on the north portion or the northwest maybe you have a couple of 5 acre pieces abutting a new tract proposed for development . How is that relationship working? Does that 5 acre piece count against the development or is there some maximum? Do you only look at blending up to some maximum size? Emmings: That's your job. Conrad : That ' s a good question though. Wildermuth: What we' re essentially talking about is blending an urban , scale. . . Emmings : We' re talking about subdivision against subdivision kind of situation. Erhart : I ' ve penciled with this a lot. I think I ' ve got a pretty good idea. One of the basic things you' ve got to. . . Conrad : When do you have time to do all this stuff? Erhart: One of the things that you' ve got to ask yourself, before you put II down something on paper to try to define this , is that what is the extreme case? If someone came into an area where there was all 40,000 square foot lots and some guy came in to do a subdivision right next and he says I want to put all 15,000 square foot lots , the lot that sits next, or the line of lots that sits next to the 40,000 square foot lots, what size do you want those to be? Do you feel good in going to him and saying , they've got to be 40? Obviously that' s the extreme but are you going to say, okay, it' s 18? What' s the number? Ellson: A percentage is what I was thinking . Erhart: I 'm not sure you can do it that way. Mark has to have an idea. Is it 25,000? Is that the max? Let' s say the guy has all 1 acre lots and Iplanning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 43 I 4 the guy now starts blending down. What ' s the first row? You've got to II ask yourself that question before you put anything down. Is it 25, 000? Is it 20, 000? Is it 30,000? IBatzli : How many square feet is an acre? Erhart: 43, 560. So that' s kind of a basic , and it' s an opinion and I -- I don' t think you can get anything down. If you get this done, you get an idea of what everyone' s opinion is, in what I developed, I kind of came up with 25,000. Go to the developer and say, you've got to have bigger than 25, 000 square foot lots is really asking for a lot. IIConrad: But remember, we' re talking about a transition. Tim, they can move down to 15,000. That' s what the ordinance says . What we' re trying Ito do is buffer the people, and we' re not talking about a brand new subdivision that' s totally self-contained or whatever . I don' t care what lot sizes are. They can have a 15 next to a 40 as far as I 'm concerned as II long as it meets all our different codes but I 'm talking about a brand new one coming into an old and existing one and my concern is that those first rows and as they move away, they can start doing anything they want. IErhart: Okay Jim, what' s a big lot? What do you consider a big lot? Wildermuth : A big lot I think is 40, 000 square feet. IP: Erhart: Alright, let's say you' ve got a bunch of 40, 000 square foot lots. I think what Mark, and I hope I 'm not putting words in your mouth. The issue that I face in trying to proceed with this and assume that this guy, II let ' s say that there' s a couple rows of lots . Like you say, over here we' re going to have some 15, 000 square foot lots , right? The question is , in your mind , what' s the proper size for these lots here? 20, 000 to I 25,000 to 30,000 or to 35,000? It could be expressed in a percentage but I tell you, it' s a gut feel thing and this ordinance is coming from us so I think we ought to give Mark what our gut feeling is so he can proceed . IWildermuth : I think we' ve got to look at something along the lines of 50°% of the abutting lots or some percentage like 50% have to be within 85% of I the adjoining lot area . Something like that . Then going down from there. 85% to 90%. Something like that. IErhart: Up to what size? Let' s say over 2 acre lots . Ellson: Then we' re saying if it' s separated by a road it doesn' t count? IEmmings : Could you say, if those lots can be further subdivided? Wildermuth: I don't know, maybe the cut off is 50, 000 square feet, an I acre plus because otherwise you' re going to end up with something down around Hess Farm there that' s going to be a real problem. Those 2 acre lots . 2 and 3 acre lots . II Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 44 CConrad : I think an acre or more, those are large parcels. I don' t care how big they get after an acre. If I had acre parcels on one side of the II street, what do I want on the other side of the street? If I were the neighbor , been living there for 25 years and all of a sudden they start building. I don' t care if I have 1 or 5, 5 is going to be subdivided some II time. Wildermuth : Across the street, do you want something with 85% or 90% of your lot size? Batzli : I'd say 75% . Ellson: I 'd say two-thirds. Conrad : I would have said 75%. , Batzli : Did you see Bill Boyt' s draft of this? He used 75% and it goes up to a maximum of about 40,000 square feet or something like that in his proposal? ' Mark Koegler : I don' t recall . Emmings : Are you aware of any other communities that have done something I like this? Mark Koegler : No . ' Emmings : Is there a way to find out? Mark Koegler : Yes . Conrad : Mark, I don' t know that we need , and maybe we do to be absolute and to be fair to developers about it. Therefore, you give them the rules . I hate arbitrary rules and we just came up with one. But if there' s a way to be open. I always wanted and I always assumed when we developed our subdivision ordinances , that we had the flexibility to develop that transition. The other zone said 15,000 but we had the ability to regulate that and say no , I don' t like that 18 ,000 lot. I want that to be 22,000 because it' s kind of close to this. Arbitrary but I thought we were going to have the flexibility to be arbitrary. Wildermuth: But you don' t. Mark Koegler : Picking up on that , a person who does site planning , I prefer arbitrary rules and ordinances to arbitrary policies. At least I know what they are going in. At the meeting all of a sudden say, well I II like this shape and this size. . . Conrad : I can hear that . ' Mark Koegler : But at the same time, again, somewhere there has to be a `_ cut off because, as you well know, if you put on your glass and look in your crystal ball , 50 years down the road many of these parcels will be I 11 ( planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 45 I subdivided. Conrad : But I think anything over an acre is not going to be. ' Mark Koegler: I guess that' s a call we' ll all make and see what happens. Hopefully we ' ll be around to see that happen. I don' t know that I would share in that thought but it' s probably a look in time. Conrad: It might be but again, we' re not going to be around here in 50 years . Mark Koegler : Those properties may subdivide and having to blend with the blended lots. Wildermuth : I doubt that the ordinance would stand for 50 years anyway. Conrad : We' re not going to get to a perfect solution here. That' s why I said , 1 acre for whatever reason , anything over 1 acre is grouped together and that says, lots typically that you' re bordering are over 1 acre. This row, the first row of the new subdivision has got to be, and we create all those lot sizes the same. I don' t care if they' re 1, 5 or 10 because ' those are going to be subdivided at some time. I don' t care about it but I just want, for that 1 acre lot, I want to be within 75% of that across the street. Mark Koegler : We' ll bring back some thoughts and suggestions on thresholds and percentages and all that and some examples of how they work. Conrad : Okay. And pitfalls obviously. ' Ellson: Tree removal , that was really Dave' s . Conrad : Yes, we' re missing Dave on that one. ' Ellson: He wants every inch removed be an inch replaced. The 10 inch diameter with 10-1 inch trees or something . Erhart: Eden Prairie has an ordinance that apparently works. Olsen : Well , the one they had doesn' t work so they are now amending . . . ' Wildermuth: What would you do if you were trying to put a development in Shadowmere? It would kill you. You couldn' t do that. Erhart: We could learn from their experiences and find out what they' re amending the ordinance to. ' Batzli : Wasn ' t there more to this? Wasn ' t there like a protected stand overlay that we were going to talk about? A protected vegetation overlay. Is this part of this or no? Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 46 i Olsen: No . Council also thought that that was a good idea. We met with the DNR forester . , Batzli : We have a wetland basically overlay through all the districts and this would be a protected tree overlay of mature stands of trees that would be basically mapped and you can' t go in there and just start clear cutting. Olsen : At least he' ll figure out what we' ve got. We do have some really nice stands of trees. Conrad : Anything else on the tree removal? I don' t know that we would want you talking to Dave without the rest of us being around. Any other direction on the tree removal? We' re not giving him any kind of. . . Mark Koegler : That was actually easy, the trees. The other two, your comments are helpful . Wildermuth : Jo Ann, what happened to the group that was looking into construction standards? The wooden chimneys and the wood foundations? Olsen: They' ve been working with Public Safety and Howard Noziska . ' Conrad: There were a lot of things about tightening up building codes . We can always have a more stringent building code than State can' t we? Sure. We can have it tighter . That' s the minimum? Erhart : If you take a stainless steel , double or triple pipe and you use II it daily for heating your house, it would only be a matter of 5 years before that would burn through and now you ' ve started a chimney fire. Elison: Daily to heat your house? ' Erhart : Used daily to heat your house. . . .and uses it for heating his II house and eventually the house starts on fire because they will not stand up to daily use. Conrad : Jo Ann, next time can you give us a status report of that group? I 'd like to know if they' re meeting. Olsen : They were. It was with Bill Boyt. Conrad: Bill and Howard? Olsen : Howard . I just heard like the other day they had to call Howard . II They hit some wall where they couldn' t go and I don' t know if it was the building code or what . Some State Code. . . I Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 47 I k DISCUSSION OF WETLAND ORDINANCE. ' Conrad : You went to a conference, and I haven' t read that yet but also, Jo Ann in your note you talked to us about, in terms of identifying ' wetlands , our concern was we find out there' s a wetland after somebody' s applied for a permit. Kind of after the fact. Your exploring, the way I read your notes says . . . Olsen: We can update the map. I don' t think that that says . . . Conrad: And how would we update the map? Olsen : When we were working with Elizabeth, they have gone to other cities and done a survey, site survey. They update it periodically. I ' don' t know if they will do that. . . Conrad : Is that something that takes professional skills to do? Are there students that can do it? Olsen : I think it can be students . . . ' Wildermuth: What can we do about these 30 years old spots where they' re filling in wetlands and building on wetlands? ' Olsen: The only way to really stop those are if they come under the. . .since they' re already platted and that' s where we get into the problems where the builders come in with their old plat and the surveys do not have the wetlands on them. Wildermuth : So if we updated the maps , wouldn' t that get around that? Olsen: It would help me knowing that there' s a wetland on their site. Batzli : When the building permit came in? Wildermuth: But what about the guy down on TH 101? That was obviously a wetland and he went in and filled it in. ' Olsen: Well , he dug it out actually. Wildermuth: So it wouldn' t have done us any good? It was obviously a wetland. Batzli : Just east of Lotus . 11 Olsen : Okay, yes. That subdivision, those were all platted and sold off. Conrad: Preplatted. Nothing they can do about it. IBatzli : If it' s platted , regardless of whether it' s in a wetland or not, they can go in there provided they. . . ' Olsen : If it was approved and signed off . I Planning Commission Meeting • October 19, 1988 - Page 48 I c Batzli : But provided that they are complying with the DNR or whatever ' other? Olsen : That one, I think was the Corps . I think that they. . . We were notified. Wildermuth : No . They didn' t want to get involved . I called them. I called them. I called the DNR. I called the Watershed District. Nobody wanted to have anything to do with it. Olsen: They've got 2 people I guess working . . . ' Wildermuth : They said, no, no, no. That looks like that' s a city. We don't show that on our maps. That' s a city issue and the City sure isn' t going to do anything about it because. . . Erhart: Are the lots being filled Jim? Wildermuth: Yes. It' s the one that' s being filled. The two lots have been filled and then there are two more lots and those are going to be filled in too . The filling is already started . ' Erhart: How can they do that? Conrad : They were preplatted . My understanding was that they came in the II City and was willing to give up one of the lots but then, for an exchange for nothing. But if they did do that they would have to go through a replatting which would bring them under the current ordinance which would I say you can' t build at all. So there' s a case where the developer said I bought it. I ' ve got to do something here and I want to do it a little bit better and we couldn' t help him. ' Erhart : How did you get involved with this? Did you just happen to be involved in that particular one? Conrad : I just talk to people. Olsen : When they came in for the building permit, they pushed the homes II 40 feet back from the street. . . I tried to talk them into at least making them 30 feet instead of 40 feet . I don' t recall them coming in with a different plat. ' Conrad : A comment on your note . We can' t visit every site. It' s just a flat out statement. I 'm kind of surprised that the building inspector . . . 11 Olsen: . . .every site. That' s why I 'm saying that we' ve been working closely with them. Conrad : Do they have a check list when they go there and they say. . . Olsen: They let me know if there' s a wetland. I Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 49 I CConrad : How do they do that? How do they let you know? Do they just give you a call? Olsen: They come back. ' Conrad : So when they go out and make an inspection, do they have this form that they fill out to justify their business or to document what they found? Olsen : They' ve got a form. Conrad : And on that form does it say wetland on the area or no wetland? Olsen: It' s just. . . ' Conrad : Is it something that you'd like to see on that form so that they make it an absolute check Jo Ann? Olsen: That' s something we could do. Conrad : Would you look at that. If it works . Maybe that' s the way to do it. As long as they' re there, that may be the best eyes we've got. I 'm not trying to get planning staff out there except when there' s a potential . Maybe that' s the way to do it if they' re visiting every site. Why don ' t you get back to us in terms of how you think that map can be updated. I 'm not interested in spending $10, 000.00 to update the map, unless we feel it' s worth $10, 000. 00. It seems like there' s got to be a way to solve the problem for something less than that. Erhart : I suggested the last time that we had a question on the subdivision application form. I do believe in some cases people come in who don' t know. What is so ironic is how, you start talking to people who kind of move into the area, some farm people who moved into the area 50-60 70 years ago and you talk to them about wetlands like we talk about ' wetlands and they' re just so valuable. They look at me like I 'm just absolutely nuts . People were ingrained in those years to think of wetlands as an obstacle. Something to get rid of. Drain it. Let' s tame America . Part of taming America is draining every bit of water . They ' still have that, and the government came in and helped them. Paid for it. Then when you go back there and say we want to protect them and rebuild this land, it' s like. . . ' Conrad : Why don' t you turn to the camera and for all the farmers watching this meeting , what would you like to tell them? ' Erhart : Right now it' s something that we ' ve lost a lot of that resource. Jo Ann Olsen updated the Commission on the TH 101 realignment. Olsen : The other thing is, certain people on the Planning Commission ' terms are up. What my question was is, when we' ve done this before you had stated that there are certain things that you wanted to see in Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 50 I there. . .and the Council has certain things that they want. Where they live. What they do. There are certain important points . . . Is that I something that you want also? When we bring the applicants before you, do you want a checklist that there are certain points that you felt were important? ' Conrad : The checklist? I don' t think we need a checklist here. I think, one, nobody' s resigned so we' re not talking about resigning. Two, if 11 those that are here are reapplying , I don' t think this is the body that should reappoint. I think the City Council shoulde do the reappointing. Which means I think there should be an interview with the reapplying commissioners with Council . I don' t think this body should be. . . I Emmings: I find that personally offensive. If they don' t know who I am after 3 years , they' re not going to find out anything about me in a 10 minute interview. Conrad : Let' s put it this way. I think they should have the option of interviewing. One, it' s not fair that we interview you. The Planning Commission has never done a fair job of interviewing any applicant . Typically it' s a rubber stamp deal and I don' t know that it should be all the time. I think if we had sent Howard to the City Council earlier than II after 6 calls that I had, they might have solved a problem earlier so I think the City Council has a nice role to play in terms of the review process. In terms of you going in. . . Emmings: My notion is , if I ' ve been here , once I 've been here , they can interview all the people they want but they already know who I am. It seems real Mickey Mouse . I Ellson: Except for the new people. Conrad : But I 'm not sending you in there to interview against other i people. Emmings: But that' s sort of what it feels like I guess . It' s kind of obnoxious to me. Either I put my name in the hat or I don' t. Conrad : So it' s automatic . So then you don' t like a term? You want a forever term? Emmings: No . They don' t have to reappoint me. Conrad: Who? Emmings : The City Council . , Ellson: He' s saying , put it before them but don' t make him go in front. Emmings: I don' t want to go in for an interview after I 've been sitting I here for 3 years . I didn' t think, what Annette said , that there might be a whole bunch of new City Council people who don' t know me. I didn' t think about that. planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 51 ' Conrad : I think they should have the option. If they' re considering terminating you, they should have the option to interview you. I think that' s the right thing to do rather than they' ll take a vote saying Steve didn't show up for 3 meetings but I think they should be the body that reappoints without an interview unless they so desire. Emmings: If I have to interview, there'd be a question in my mind whether I 'd reapply. It doesn ' t make sense to me. Erhart: Maybe you could reterm it. I agree. If you've got to go in after being on this thing for 3 years to try to vie for the job, I agree but if you look at it from a point of let' s say an employee review standpoint, periodically review. . . Look at it from a review as an opportunity on a periodic basis to sit down with council and to discuss after 3 years what you've experienced . The problems you see. Why or why not you want to stay on the Planning Commission and including stating these are the changes that I want to see if I 'm going to stay on. They may have the right to do the same thing. Gee Steve, Tim, Ladd, we've enjoyed having you on here but there' s a few things that we view different. From a standpoint of communications , it may not be a bad idea to have just a get together session with the Council but I agree with you, it shouldn' t be like a job applicant interviewing. I Emmings : There should be better communication. There should be some kind of communication. Right now there is essentially none except to the extent that you may talk to the Mayor . Olsen: The applications that we get, do you still want to interview them? Conrad : That' s phony stuff because we never consider the applications. If Steve reapplies, advertising an opening is , maybe by law we have to do that but in technicality, we are deceiving the applicants . So I don' t know how to solve that problem. I 'd rather not advertise if we've got ' somebody who is reapplying . Olsen : Maybe what I ' ll do is notify you that you ' re up for reappointment. You coulde maybe let me know if you want to stay on. I ' ll check and see if we have to advertise. Council is going to come up with qualities that they wanted to see and that' s why I was wondering if you had any input that you wanted to include in that. Conrad : No, we have totally different things on our mind than they do. Ellson: I don' t think so either . We need someone from each district of ' the City to have an equal mix . We'd like to have occupations of x, y, z. That sounds terrible. What if I 'm just a concerned citizen for crying out loud . ' Conrad : I think taking the best person available. Drafting from different neighborhoods . If a neighborhood and people are interested in being on our Commission or City Council , they can apply but I think to set a quota is a ward, it's a ward system. Planning Commission Meeting 11 October 19, 1988 - Page 52 1 C Ellson: Plus the commitment that goes along with it . Even if you get somebody. . . Conrad : See, the last time we interviewed was the very first time we had I more than 1 applicant. I think we've had real tough times in that situation finding enough qualified people. Somebody is going to have to be prepared, if the Council wants to do it, go out and seek candidates. They' re going to have a problem doing that . I think some of the qualifications are difficult. Basically again, no input from us Jo Ann. They will have total authority to dictate what they want to do. Olsen: I just wanted you to be aware that they. . . Batzli : From what I 'm hearing , the Planning Commission as a whole is opposed and feels strongly that we should not have to have criteria that we have to match up against? Conrad : I don ' t mind , as I told Boyt, I don ' t mind them determining a need. They should be aware that we' re reappointing or that we' re interviewing . The meeting before we start interviewing , I think they should be telling us, based on what they see the needs are of the City. Maybe we have a tremendous need in the rural area . The non-sewered area . I think they should say, please, why don' t you focus some attention, see if you can find somebody in that area or find somebody who has experience in a certain field because we think you' re missing that. But that means they have to think about it before we do it. Rather than having some rules that don' t make sense every time, I think I 'd like to force them into a little bit of thinking based on what they see us doing and the composition at the time and the future needs. Wildermuth : The danger in having a selection profile is we might end up with a bunch of clones . Conrad : Tim you wanted to talk about interviewing candidates for the ' planning position. Erhart: I ' ll submit that I think the Planning Commission ought to have an opportunity to discuss with the City, with the City Manager or the Mayor or both, just what we feel we need in Barb' s replacement from our experience with this. The ones who have to work with the planner. I guess I 'd feel a little left out if they' re proceeding to hire somebody without asking this particular body about what we feel the needs are. Since they haven' t come to us, I submit that maybe we ought to go to them and suggest the reasons. . . Conrad : Any particular qualities that you' re looking for? Erhart: Yes, I 've got some specifics. I don ' t want to go into it tonight II but yes , I have ideas on levels of experience . I guess basically I 'd like to express my views on the approach, the philosophy about what the planner does and how they would relate to the Planning Commission and Council as Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 53 far as adding their recommendation before we pass on ideas about that. ' The other point, the Mayor or the Council or Manager but I 'd like to have that opportunity to have us have that discussion . Give us that opportunity. I think it' s unfortunate time but it gives us an opportunity for us to sit down, whoever is doing the hiring and to kind of go over that. Conrad : Are you concerned with the individual that fills the current job description? Erhart : No , I 'm not talking about, I 'm not suggesting that we interview a ' person. I 'm talking about defining the job description. Helping write the job description and defining the level of experience. The philosophy of what that position is. How it's going to function. I think that ought to be reviewed by this body. Plus , I guess there' s always the issue , do you go with 1 person or 2 people? Get our input as to how much is one person, were we able to function with just Barb and Jo Ann before? Is it inadequate staff? ' Conrad : I ' ve always been intrigued that nobody asked us . Planning is probably one of the key departments, if not the key department in the community as we expand and nobody' s asked us . Strange. We have a tendency to focus on just that here and nobody asked us if we think that we' re understaffed . But I think it gets into more than numbers . It gets F into qualities and pay ranges and skill levels. I think whether we talk community development director position here. That concerns me. I think there is so much, enough staff to react to urgencies but enough staff to really do some planning Jo Ann which we don' t do a whole lot of. The ' Planning Staff here, you react. We don' t plan. It' s a fallacy. I say we plan but we react to the development proposals that come in. When we have a special idea, it takes Jo Ann or Barbara many months to get the ' time to get there to review it and that' s just exactly the opposite of what it should be. The ideas that we come up with are probably important at the time. They shouldn' t be secondary to another urgency or a developer coming in to effectively do our job in this town as it grows. I think we've got it backwards. We' re being pound foolish if we' re trying to save on budget. We pay it over and over again and we' ll pay it in consultant fees and it just is kind of amazing to me. ' Olsen: I think Don was saying that they already have applications. They have been closed . As of. . .Friday and the Council is planning on meeting before next Saturday. They' re going to meet the applicants and talk . . . Conrad : Obviously they' re going to do something without us . Tim, if you'd like to write a note, I think the best thing to do is write a note ' or show up. I 'm sure they'd include you. I think what I 'd like to do Jo Ann is have you give us some job descriptions. If you could give to us in the next planning packet the job descriptions of the planning staff, I think I 'd like to take a look at that. Emmings : We get that initial packet that defines . . . I think I 've got it. I Planning Commission Meeting , October 19, 1988 - Page 54 Conrad : Let' s see if it fits . It may be, I guess my motivation is maybe not, I think it' s stupid for people to interview staff. Us or the City Council unless they' re interviewing the City Manager . That takes away all the responsibility and accountability when the City Council interviews people. Ellson: I can' t see them making the decision. I can see them having input. Conrad : But who' s making the decision? That' s why I don' t want to interview. I want to set requirements out there. I guess I 'm pointing out some things that I see really wrong in some procedures around here. That doesn' t make sense because then I don' t have anybody to point at. Somebody' s got to be manager . Olsen: . . .both Barb and I did get interviewed by the Council . I don ' t know if the City Engineer did. Erhart : Before you did that , did they narrow the candidates down to 2 or II 3? Olsen : They narrowed them down to 5. ' Conrad: So Tim, where do you want to take this? Earnings : It sounds like it' s too late. ' Conrad: I think it' s too late. Do you want to pursue just taking a look at qualifications in general and having the Planning Commission come up with statements. I think it' s appropriate that we start talking a little bit about the type of staff that. . . Erhart: I would like the Planning Commission ask Don Ashworth to come to , us at our next meeting and basically give us, basically tell us the criteria involved with the strategy in the planning department. What the department plans for the next 3 years. Olsen: The strategy? Erhart: What' s the plan. ' Conrad : We'd like to know how the planning department is being staffed to II accomodate growth that we see in the next 3 to 5 years. Erhart : What' s the structure? What' s the philosophy? How are they going to relate? What' s your position relative to the new person? Conrad : Anything else? A motion to close the meeting? Erhart: I 've got a couple other things. Somebody had an idea on the way II out of here last time about how to operate procedurally so we don' t, someone had the idea that we keep a list of functions or things that we' re 11 currently working on. , planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 55 C Emmings: Old business . Erhart: That' s it. It was a great idea and I think we ought to do it. That is, that we have old business on our agenda that includes all the items that we are currently working on. We can' t check them off. Ellson: The more you see them the more you want to get them. Erhart : Until they' re done. Until we all agree we' re done working on them. Ellson : It doesn ' t mean we cover them all . Erhart: That' s right. It doesn' t mean that we cover each one at every meeting but we' ve got a list that we kind of. . . Ellson: A running tally. Erhart : A running tally of what we' re working on. Olsen: Did you have any other items that you can think of? Is there something that I 'm missing that you can think of? Conrad: A lot of the issues have been taken care of. Olsen : We' ve been really trying to do that. Conrad: I can' t come up with, after Mark came in tonight with those couple items. Erhart : The one I 'm thinking of is the Minnesota River Valley. Olsen: We' re still working on that one. Conrad : I think it' s a real good idea to do . I don' t know that there' s much to the list but I think we should be doing it. We used to do it because there used to be a ton of stuff outstanding but we haven' t maintained a list in the last year . Olsen : Do you want that on the agenda? Conrad: I don' t know that it needs to be on the agenda but I think there needs to be on a report and maybe we call it a monthly report and quarterly report or something . Olsen : We can just make out a list and attach it. Erhart: Just call it a status review. Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 56 Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. . Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen Asst. City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim f ' PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 1988 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Curt Robinson, Jim Mady, Ed Hasek and Larry Schroers MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hasek moved, Robinson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated October 18 , 1988 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW, CARRICO ADDITION. Lori Sietesma stated that there were a number of options available for this site including; asking for nothing, asking for the 3.8 acres, or asking for the whole thing. Carrico brought in a new plan with 4. 24 acres of parkland. They said they would be willing to listen to an offer but would prefer to develop. Boyt: Did it say somewhere that you were planning on doing some wetland alteration? Tom Carrico : What we originally had planned for this, the road kind of went something, an S from this point to this point and we had approximately 20 lots planned throughout including over in here and four in front of the wetland and then creating a wetland , more of a wetlands behind these four lots here. We ' ve since revised that and come up with a different plan that called for 2 homes over here and you cut out two of the homes here. We' re going to do some work and try to create possibly a pond or something like that. Hasek : Does this generally follow within the zoning district for out there? Tom Carrico: We are working with the City to transfer the zoning so that we can do a single family development. Sietsema : This lies outside the MUSA line so. . .endorse an application to the Council move this into the sewer. Hasek: Does that look like it' s pretty good shot? Tom Carrico: Everything we've got is favorable on it. We' re working, our surveyor , Frank Harwell happens to be friends with the person at RCM who' s handling the survey for the City and we' ve been working with them getting topographies and so on on this property so that' s been going and the application for the changes in the MUSA, line. Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 2 Hasek: Have you had any preliminary feedback from city staff or Council? Tom Carrico: They've been conflicting to be honest. Met Council , we met with staff at Met Council and they, of course went on. . .in favor of changing of the MUSA line but when we talked to the city staff, and they are very much in favor of it. Hasek: The only reason I ask the question is because I know we had gone through a big hassel with moving that line and giving up the rights to a develop for a while. . . Tom Carrico: It' s my understanding that there' s 6 or 7 pieces that are going to be petitioned to Met Council for a MUSA line change. Carl Carrico : Just as a jury. . .when you stop and think about it. All of you are familiar with it and we' re not, the water and sewer . . . I 've been in Chanhassen probably longer than any of you. We did our original zoning in the center property so I kind of like this town. I had owned this property and grown up as farmers , I don' t want to create anything here , actually we would like to develop this property. I think a park. . .but our plan is we'd like to develop it. If you people believe you need that whole piece, then I ' ll entertain a proposal on that but basically I 'm a developer . I 've owned this property. . . Robinson: How wet is that wetlands? Carl Carrico : Not very wet at all . I' ve owned this since 1972 and I ' ve never seen any water. Robinson: No standing water? Carl Carrico : No . What has happened here is right through here, Klingelhutz is starting to drain now and that' s what happened. Then the drain actually goes . . .across Lake Lucy Road. Hasek: So this isn' t any kind of a designated wetland then is it? Sietsema : It is a Class B wetland . Hasek: Can we alter that? Sietsema: As I understand, yes. I 'm not a wetland , you'd probably know more because you' ve had to deal with Jo Ann on it. Tom Carrico : What we've got, we' ve got a letter from the Corps of Engineers that came out and took a look around and I can get you a copy of that letter if you'd like. Hasek: What did they basically say? Tom Carrico: That it was no problem because the amount that we were going to have to alter for our purposes was less than an acre. r ' Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 3 Hasek: Okay. I'm wondering if we can alter part of it. Carl Carrico: What we had originally planned, we originally were going to just dig this out a little bit, put this in and have walkouts . That' s what we originally were going to do. I 'm not here to rape the land or anything else but I 'd like a piece of land . In fact I 'm thinking about taking one of the lots and building there myself. Schroers : What you' re thinking about is probably the same thing that comes to my mind is that in that particular area we need some active use play area for the residents of the area . That' s the type of parkland we - need. We need a place for the kids in the neighborhood to go and play. If it' s a wetland that we can' t alter or if it' s too wet . . . Carl Carrico: I 've been watching it since 1972 and I 've never seen it really wet. I 've seen cattails in there . Tom Carrico: We didn' t have any water out there this year but we did cut it this year . There was no evidence. . . Because we ' ve been back and forth with the City on this also. Kept post of the wetlands classification. Schroers : Lori , have you been out to this site and taken a look at it? Sietsema: No, I .haven' t been out except to drive by it. I haven' t walked it. Robinson: Are there trees on it, tall any place? Tom Carrico: You've got mature trees up in this area here. Schroers : What' s the total acreage of your property? Carl Carrico: 12 acres I think. Tom Carrico : 11. 67. Hasek: I think there' s enough pieces of property out there. Five is a nice number but I don' t know that we necessarily need 5. We've got virtually zero where we' re working at right now. I don' t like the idea of a totlot next to a pond. Boyt: That' s what the neighbors asked us and I don' t thi.nk. . .because of the small children. Hasek: There are a couple of things that could help this . If we could buy 6 and 7 or get 6 and 7 incorporated in as part of this deal , work back and forth. Carl Carrico: What I 'm saying is, I really want to develop my land but I also look at it from the standpoint that maybe the thing to do is at this point consider buying the whole thing because there is trees and it' s a nice picnic area . Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 4 Sietsema: Do you have any idea what you'd be asking for it? Do you have any idea of the starting point? You'd have to have it appraised? Carl Carrico: You know anything I 've ever done, I 've always gotten an appraisal . The City' s gotten an appraisal and they choose another appraisal and we work it out. I have a potential profit on it. Sietsema: Have you priced any of the land, other land in this area? Carl Carrico: I know what Klingelhutz is asking for his lots . Boyt: His are MUSA lots though. Mady: Yes, his are MUSA lots . He wants like 35 grand . Sietsema: I was just wondering if you knew what other property in this area outside the MUSA similar to this would be. Carl Carrico: No, I basically, Charlie and I are developing property here in Minnesota and also in Texas so we' re not into actively seeking other property here right now. This has been kind of like a hair wound to me. I bought it to. . . I think what we should do is probably, you guys figure out what you want to do and my interest right now and my son who ' s my partner is basically, we want to get the property developed. We like the property. We think it' s a good area. We like it a lot better than what Klingelhutz has got. I wouldn' t tell Tom that to his face, but we are, as I said, right now as is shown we' re losing about 7 lots. If you want to take 6 and 7 than we ' re losing 9 lots . Then it' s getting to a, it' s really getting to a question of whether it's worth us developing or not. Boyt: I'd like to look at acquiring the full piece. We don' t have many chances in this area to acquire property and being it' s outside the MUSA line. Hasek: The nice thing about it, if it' s 11 acres , it' s actually almost bigger and it' s considered a little more, it ' s going to develop more densely in this area in the future anyway. We might prevent a bunch of screaming and hollering if we pick up a big enough piece. Instead of making it whatever the radius for a 5 acre park, extend that a little bit and say this is the park for the area because it should cover all the way over . . . Schroers : Not only serving the needs now but in the future. Carl Carrico: I was going to talk. The only reason. . . to buy a house. . . I would certainly consider the whole piece. The thing that I like about, as we show right here is this outlot is a great area for parking . Tom Carrico : Yes, in fact that ' s why our surveyor designed this . Carl Carrico: With that S curve we' re going to slow the drivers down considerably. What we really wanted to do, this road has almost got to Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 5 come in because the fire department is coming back up in here. Boyt: We talked about if anyone were to help us out. . . in some parkland, we would name the park after , Carrico Park. Carl Carrico: That' s very nice but I don' t think. . . We'd have 13 lots then . If we go any shorter , we really got some problems . Robinson: You say if you go any shorter than this. Is this acceptable to you? Carl Carrico : The 13 is acceptable right now. . .so you make this whole thing park here and that might work okay. The street is laid out in such a way that I don' t know if I 'd . . . Hasek : You could still have 10 lots if you get rid of this bottom piece and just have a cul-de-sac off the left lane. Tom Carrico: To be honest , we' ve looked at many possibilities . This is the fifth time we' ve. . . Carl Carrico : I think as far as. . . Tom Carrico : Our future concerns are that if this area gets all built up, they'd have to go all the way around. That 's why we created this because there is an outlot here. That ' s why we created that little street . Carl Carrico: If you guys bought the whole thing, you could put a road in anyway you wanted . I think maybe you can get away with it if it' s your park. You' re a lot better at developing what you want but I would think, I love the piece of land to tell you the truth and I am anxious to develop. We want to start getting somebody on it. Hasek: Okay, you' re not looking for an answer from us tonight then necessarily? Carl Carrico : No , I just came out to tell you I have an interest and a possibility. . . Schroers : That you ' re willing to give us a shot at this . Hasek: How long have you been looking at developing this piece now? Carl Carrico : I 've owned the property since 1972. Haesk: But when did you do the first. . . Tom Carrico : We really started to work really hard on getting this since the 28th of June. That' s when we had the first plat to cart around in . We' ve actually had plats done by several other architects . The first time we came into the City was in June to talk about doing this. Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 6 Mady: Actually you have to get approval from the Met Council before you can even go forward with this. Tom Carrico : That' s our understanding . If we can get the zoning from the City contingent with what happens. . . Hasek: I think we ought to look at this . Boyt: He seems real fair. Prepared to sell . Sietsema : They can' t actually start developing until they get that approval from Met Council and that could be. . . Hasek: But they could get all of our approvals contingent on. Sietsema: Right but Met Council may be over a year process to get that approved and I don' t know if they want to wait that long . To sit on it that long. They may just as soon sell it for parkland. Hasek: I think they might be just a tad optimistic about getting the approval as easily as they are. They might be trying to right a way through applications . Sietsema: That' s right . That' s the only way the City was really able to back it is because there was a number of other things and when this came up, they said let' s look at all the other possibilities and do it as one big application. Hasek: Of course my understanding is that that last time, that last deal that Met Council struck, they were pretty adamant about the fact that they didn' t want you coming back for another year trying for more. Boyt: When was that? Hasek: A year ago. A year and a half ago. It wasn' t that long ago. It' s true that maybe this should have been included but I 'm positive he was approached when this whole thing went through. I don' t know if he was made aware of what was going on. It would be nice to have the whole piece. It is a pretty little piece of property. Sietsema: I think if we could get it for a reasonable price and I don ' t even know what a reasonable price is. I don' t think we' re going to get it for $3 , 500. 00 like the unsewered area in southern Chanhassen but if we could get it for a reasonable price. Hasek: If we could get it for $5,000. 00. That' s 12 acres in one chunk. That' s close enough. The thing that we should be thinking about is the possibility of other areas . Mady: Thoughts ahead on that though is, right now we do have a park that' s about three-quarters of a mile away roughly so we really can' t get more than half a mile away from this parcel no matter what without people really being outside the MUSA area. Although it would serve Lake Lucy Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 7 Highlands real nicely. Sietsema: It will serve Lake Lucy Highlands and Pheasant Hills and it will serve that area between Curry Farms and Pheasant Hills as well . Hasek: I have a request for you as long as I 'm looking at this map. Who does this. . . Sietsema: Our engineer tech. Hasek: Is it possible that they could get that map updated? Lake Lucy Road should be on there. Sietsema: I sure will tell him. We've got more updated ones upstairs . Robinson: So we need some soil samples on that wetland? Sietsema : If you just want to take that portion, like the 3 or the 4 acres, then we do need to look at that more closely as far as, Carterelle, their engineer ' s opinion that the drainage is going to go through there and right after a big rain it' s going to be wet for a couple hours but then it would rain off and then it would be dry. I would just have to have our engineers confirm that and I don' t know if that' s going to take soil tests or what. Schroers : I don' t think that ' s a type of area that is seen for an active use. Even if it' s going to hold water for a few hours . Hasek : I think that ' s an excellent use for a soil that ' s marginal land. If it' s a piece of ground that ever had water on it and excluded it from development, there would be an awful lot of land in active park areas . If they' re well constructed, you can even put, well look at the ballfields . Schroers : Are you talking about. . . Hasek : I don' t know. He' s got to get off of those but still there ' s water. I don' t know that it' s necessary the fact that it' s a pond or a temporary pond . Schroers : Just the way it looks to me . If the whole area gets wet, it looks like most of our parkland would be wet and then unuseable for that period of time. Boyt: We' ve taken too many pieces of property and called them parkland . They' re nice habitats for wildlife but they' re not useable spaces for children or adults . Hasek: I think it' s a matter of how it' s altered but the one consideration or the one piece that I keep looking at is the ballfields just outside of St. Boni . If you ' ve ever played there in a rain storm, you know that you can build a ballfield in a wetland because those things will get 6 inches of water on the ballfield and they' ll continue to play ball . I think it' s a matter of how you handle the ground and what you Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 8 really need it for . If it' s going to be flooded for a half a day after a heavy rainstorm, I don' t think you really precluded it from being used as an active area simply because everyplace else is wet too and nobody' s going to be out there. Boyt : Our wetlands ordinance is pretty conservative and I think we need more information on what exactly could be done with a Class B. Hasek: I guess all I 'm saying is, the wetland , especially if it' s a flow through, marginal quick wetland doesn' t scare me in the least. I don' t know that I would necessarily be in favor of accepting it as park dedication if it' s really a wetland. Boyt : They won' t be building on it anyway. Robinson: We need a professional opinion I think don' t we as to exactly how wet this wetland is. Schroers : How much rain we would need in a given period of time to make the area unuseable and how long it would remain that way. Robinson : Something like that . Something that we can understand . How long would 1 inch of rain in an hour sit there? Hasek: Maybe the easiest thing to do is to ask the City Engineer to take a look at it to see what it' s supposed to do. What the city' s storm water plan has for it and what it really does . Sietsema: I guess what I would ask for direction is if you want me to pursue getting appraisals on the whole parcel? Is that your number one choice? Hasek: I 'd like to see the whole parcel purchased as long as it isn' t terribly outrageous . Robinson: Could we look at both alternatives though. Mady: If the City could keep 10 lots paying taxes and we can get a useable park of roughly 4 acres , that would work for us I think as long as the wetlands isn' t too wet. . . .the first one that we got here before he showed up, worked I think better for us because we could view everything . Gain access to the park off of Carrico Lane we have it situated. Maybe put a totlot in that northeastern corner and just have a ballfield in the western side provided the wetland isn' t real , real wet. That would work for us . Robinson: I would agree with Jim. Mady: We don' t have to have 12 acres . If we get 4 acres , I 'm pleased and I think the people in Pheasant Hills and Lake Lucy Highlands would be perfectly grateful for it. I guess if we get the whole thing and get it cheaply, that' s fine but if we' re going to be spending more thousand dollars for a minor , small park, that' s a tough one. Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 9 Schroers : I also would like us to take into consideration what future development plans are in the area and if we can use this parcel to accommodate that . I think we want to look ahead a little bit on this. I think it may be an opportunity here with the entire parcel to cover this area well into the future. Prices continue to escalate , why looking at what we can do with the entire piece right now may be a good way to go. Mady: That might make some sense. It may become extremely difficult to --- get other developers to provide parkland that they really feasibly should be providing . Boyt: We' ve seen so many small developments . Sietsema: That' s just it. What' s left up there and you can look at the map that I put in there that shows the southern parcels. Boyt: It' s so unusual to have a developer come in and offer us a third of his plat in parkland . That' s real unusual . Schroers: That and giving up the option to take the whole thing. I think he ' s being real reasonable . Boyt : I would like to look to the future more. Try for the 11. 67 acres if it' s reasonable. Schroers : Or actually, look at all the options and let it play our hand and see what ultimately, what would be the best avenue to pursue. Mady: I guess the direction we need to give you Lori then is to get additional information about the wetland. How much can be altered and what type of wetland it is and all those types of information. Then find out what the property really should be approximately for . Sietsema: That would take an appraisal and I need a motion to have an appraisal done because it will cost money. Mady: This will sove a lot of problems . It' s worth spending a few hundred dollars if we can solve the problems . Hasek moved , Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to get an appraisal done on the Carrico property. All voted in favor and the motion carried . REVIEW AERIALS FOR SOUTHERN PARK LAND. Sietsema: Let me just summarize real quick. I wanted to find out the areas that staff found could be potential parkland. I was going to bring you aerial photos down and I forgot . I can go up and get them. I found these five. I made just some notes on what immediately jumped out at me on the map that I outlined each piece. Some of them are not really up for Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 10 sale and might not be willing sellers . I was not able to contact any of the current owners to find out who those are. This is just pointing out big pieces of land that have some characteristics that we were looking for . Would you like me to go up and get the aerials? Boyt: I don ' t like a park along the highway, TH 212. (The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aerial photographs of southern Chanhassen for possible parkland sites. ) Sietsema : At least 80 acres in size was a must. Land costs up to $3, 500. 00 an acre was a must . South of Lyman was a must. Centrally located was a want. Near Bluff Creek Trail was a want. Includes nature area was a want. Near major roads was a want. Buffer to TH 212 was a want. Available within 2 years was a want. Accommodates horse trails was a want. Land topography conducive for active facilities was a must . 100 acres in size was a want. Offer unique opportunity was a want. Mady: Should we maybe be starting to rate some of those wants or were we going to do that on an individual basis? Some of those are wants but they' re not very heavy priority wants . Boyt: At least 80 acres a must? Sietsema : At least 80 acres was a must . Mady: Council made that a must. But if we have a 75 acre parcel that' s great. Boyt: Do we have the sizes of all these? Sietsema: Yes. It' s on your ledger . Mady: I remember at the Council meeting Bill argued that point . That you had to understand what the decision analysis was before we started making musts and wants because an 80 acre must is actually an 80 acre want . It should be maybe a 50 acre must. Sietsema: At any rate, I wanted to bring those options to your attention. That does not mean that that' s the only options. It' s just the ones that are most obvious to staff right at this time. I will be working to get in touch with the current land owners to find out what their position is as far as if they' re interested in selling or developing. I don' t need any action on this. I just wanted to bring it up to your attention for discussion and show you where it is . If you haven' t gone out there to look at those sites, you might want to go out there and see what we' re actually dealing with . Mady: Is there a road going into number 3? Sietsema: Yes. You can drive all the way in there. Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 11 Robinson : Is that a field road or a regular road? Can we get back in there? Sietsema: It' s like a field road that you can get in. We took the city car in there. Robinson: Off Pioneer Trail? Sietsema: Yes . Schroers : We need permission to do that wouldn' t we? We can' t just go driving around? Mady: You' re a city official . You can do whatever you want Larry. Sietsema: You can get permission if you want. We didn' t. Schroers : I do that everyday with a truck that has a logo on the side and people, the first thing they do at the entrance, what are they doing here? Are they going to cut down the trees? Are they going to build a road to my house? You can draw a lot of attention to yourself in a truck like that. Sietsema: Do you have any more discussion on those or do you have any direction to give me or do you want me to just proceed with contacting landowners? Schroers : I 'd like you to proceed. I think we need to know if there' s any real possibility of the land being obtainable before we go off and start tramping around on it. Robinson : I think we should go out , each of us , and take a look at it and come back with some sort of opinion on it. More so than just looking at a map. Sietsema : Yes , I 'd like you to go out there and see what it looks like. Robinson: So you just scoped these out. You have no idea if they' re for sale or anything? Sietsema: No . I have no idea . Dawn was just saying that the people that abut her property, the people who own the property around here are likely to be interested in selling . The guy to the north quoted them a price of $5,000. 00 an acre but she said he may just be feeling them out as far as what they were willing to pay. Its likely, the Erharts aren ' t interested in selling and I knew that when I put this in here. It was an open, big piece of land so I just included it. Hasek: Was the piece to the east of TH 101 for sale? Sietsema : I believe it is and I think they' re asking $3 , 500 . 00 an acre. I have to verify that with the landowner . Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 12 Hasek: Okay, so that would be at least an indication of the potential cost of land in the neighborhood right? Mady: That was the southern portion of that . Sietsema: Right. Just that bottom 33 acres. Hasek: Is there any possibility with topography to get another 21? Connect a piece in case that' s all that' s available. Really that' s what you' re talking about. Sietsema: He' s way up in the air . If you drive down that stretch of TH 101, you look up a bank to see his house. Mady: And it goes down to the Erhart property. Sietsema: Then across the road is their wetland. Hasek: Is TH 101 going to be improved? Sietsema: Someday. Hasek: Number 5 really excites me. I like that piece of property a lot. If you could do that, I think that would be a nice piece to chase. Beyond that , I think either 3 or 4 seems to be the most likely. I 'd like to have some access at least off of an existing roadway so it doesn' t have to go through a neighborhood . If we went with 2 or 1, we'd have to go through neighborhoods. We' re not going to get access to 212 through there anyway. You'd have to come off on Pioneer Trail all the way back over . . . Sietsema: So is there any action? Hasek: I don' t think we need any. Robinson: I think the action' s on our part to go out. Sietsema: Right . That' s your assignment for the next time is to have gone out and looked at those pieces of property and get an idea of what they actually look like. My assignment will be then to contact the land owners . Mady: If we get arrested , can we call Jim Chaffee to come and get us out of jail? Sietsema: Sure. Mady: That ' s an active deer hunting area is it not? You can shoot a gun down there? Sietsema: So wear blaze orange. Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 13 UPDATE ON LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF LAKES CLEAN UP PROJECT. !axesecieanTup project. DO you update on onkth Riley chain of Mady: You sent that memo out to the Lake Lucy residents? Sietsema : Today. Mady: Today, okay. Because I know they were concerned about it. Sietsema: Since I 've written this memo, Jo Ann told me that they have set a meeting date that I will be attending on what we have to do. They' re saying that the Environmental Protection Agency wants to allocate the funds to other projects because this one is inactive. The inactivity. We haven' t been doing anything, Watershed who is the local agent has not been doing anything because they haven ' t got that substate grant signed yet. They haven' t executed the contract and we haven' t gotten final grant approval so they' re sitting there waiting. So there' s a communication problem somewhere. Somebody is supposed to be doing something that isn' t happening . I ' ll let you know as I know more on that project . Schroers: Is there anything that we can do about it? Sietsema: No . I ' ll go to that meeting and maybe there will be after that. But as of right now, there really isn ' t. Schroers : Do we have to meet the criteria like with public accesses or anything like that before the grant is actually approved? Sietsema: We had to commit to putting access on Lake Susan and Lake Lucy and we did send them the resolution from the City Council saying that they are committed to doing that. We put a time line down of how we could apply for grant money to do that. I have never heard back from them that that was not acceptable so I 'm assuming that that time line and that resolution was what they needed to proceed. Maybe I ' ll find out that that ' s what the problem was and they never communicated that to us . I don' t know but all the agencies that are involved with the project will be meeting at this meeting and I ' ll be there and I ' ll let you know what happens at that time. UPDATE ON LAWCON GRANT PROJECTS . Sietsema: We got 50% grant on a $222, 000. 00 project for the Lake Susan boat access and athletic field developments so that' s $111,000. 00 that LAWCON will be giving us . Schroers: Does that cover our archery range? Sietsema: That was not in the plan. They' ll send us back the things that they didn' t like about plan and what we have to change about it. Then we have to do a Historical Society comes out and makes sure there aren' t any Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 14 • • . • artifacts that we'd be disturbing . We have to have the Army Corps of Engineers sign off on the project. We have to do an Environmental Intrusion Statement on the project site . There' s a number of forms. A whole packet of things we have to submit as a final application. As long as we aren' t deviating from what the scope of the initial plan was , I 've never seen them not, I 've done 7 of them now. Robinson : And we have $111, 000. 00, that' s part of the $300, 000. 00 that I heard mentioned? Sietsema: The total project cost was $222, 000. 00. They' ll fund it 50% . The other 50% is our local share but part of that can be done with the Lake Drive East will be going in because Rosemount is going in so that' s a good share of it right there. We may be able to get Rosemount to do some of our grading for us . That' s part of our share. We can probably get a good part of the local share, at least the grading portion of it done by the other development that' s going on so we have a real good opportunity here to get a huge project done for cheap. Robinson : And relatively soon too . Sietsema: Yes . We could get final approval on this like by March and start development right after that . Mady: There' s no way to use the tax increment district? Sietsema: I don' t think so . Mady: I had one 'other question. Can we get an update on the Lake Ann grading? Do we have any bids or anything on that? Sietsema : I haven' t got the grading plan back yet. To tell you the truth, I was kind of curious about that myself . I ' ll call . Hasek: Did we ever see a final plan? Sietsema: Yes . You saw a final site plan but you haven' t seen a grading plan yet. Mady: The Council approved that . Sietsema: I ' ll call Laurie tomorrow and find out. Mady: And get us an update . Hasek: Can I ask you to send me a copy of that because I 'd like to see a big plan of that. Mady: We should also have available next time at the Community Center Task Force meetings because that really does lay out what' s happening at Lake Ann . Park and Rec Commission Meeting . . . November 1, 1988 - Page 15 Boyt : The next time we have a light agenda , it would be a good idea to talk about what we'd like to see for Park and Rec Commissioner requirements . Sietsema: A while back Council directed staff to come up with a process by which commissioners should be selected and I think that Barb was going to work on that . I don' t know whatever happened to that so I haven ' t even been able to get in to talk to Don. Mady: Are there any of us coming up for renomination this year? Sietsema: Yes, Curt. Mike' s term was up in December so those were the two. Schroers : How many applications do we have? Sietsema: I think I have 5. Robinson moved , Hasek seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned . Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim