Loading...
1o. Minutes 41)IR F7 •=•ice 9 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Geving and Councilman Horn MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara Dacy, James Chaffee, Lori Sietsema, Todd Gerhardt and Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to ' approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Mayor Hamilton had three items he wanted to add to the Council Presentations. Referendum, Public Safety Commission and the use of mailbox solicitation. Don Ashworth wanted to discuss Absentee Ballot Counting Board. All voted in favor and •• 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 Development Contract for Riley Lake Meadows, Richard Vogel. b. Resolution #88-13: Accept Utilities in Hidden Valley - Phase 1 and 2. j. Accounts Payable dated February 22, 1988 ' k. City Council Minutes dated February 8, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 3, 1988 ' 1. Accept Securities in lieu of Retainage Agreement, Shafer Construction. All voted in favor and motion carried. ' CONSENT AGENDA: (F) APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE BIDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE EXPANSION. Councilman Boyt: A question for Gary. You mentioned $17,000.00 for leaks on the Public Works Garage expansion. It looks like we have the capacity and the amount of money provided to cover that. I don't understand why we would want to put off repairing leaks in the roof. Gary Warren: I guess I'm hedging my bets until I see the quotes that come in. Work could be done if the final dollar bids come in at a comfortable level and we could come back with that piece of the puzzle. We've lived with it. We're not talking about huge waterfalls of water when it rains but we just have some coping problems that could be done at any time. Until we actually see the I y Ti f City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 bidding climate and get the dollar bid amounts in here, I'm just preferring not to include that in the bid package. Mayor Hamilton: Does that answer your question? - - - Councilman Boyt: That answers my question. I don't happen to agree with the logic but it answers my question. CONSENT AGENDA: (H) COLOR SELECTION FOR NEW WATER TOWER. , Councilman Boyt: On this one, this is choosing the color of the new water tower. It is my opinion that there are some people who are going to be living very close to that water tower. I think those people should be given a few options and asked to choose one. Mayor Hamilton: The only concern I had about painting them was if there's any opportunity on the bottom part of it, to do more of a mural type painting so it looks like there are trees or a house or something around the bottom the same with the tree level that is there now and the top from there and the background from that could be something. I don't know how it would look but it seems like it might blend in with the scenery around it better in the wintertime. In the summertime I don't think you're going to hardly see it. Gary Warren: With the change of seasons, it's hard to decide which way to go with that. It might be something, a mural we can always add as long as we've got some basic background color there that we could add. We do have the passive park that is supposed to be developed around the base of the tower. That might be appropriate to consider if we would want to do any murals as a part of that park. The other thing is, as I was suggesting, the color for this tank ought to also be utilized in our other two towers so would that mean you would want to involve the neighbors from the other two tanks in the selection process? ' Councilman Boyt: What I'm saying Gary is, this is a pretty significant structure here and it's in the backyard of a number of people. I think to sit here and arbitrarily choose a color that they're going to live with everyday, there's a better way to do that. Councilman Horn: I think they should be neutral in color. ' Mayor Hamilton: I agree and I guess I feel that's why we're elected is to make those kinds of decisions. If you have to go back to the neighborhood with everything you try to decide, we'd be here forever trying to get something done. That's why we're here and I think they're shown confidence in us by electing us and those are the kinds of issues we deal with. If we were going to pick orange or something, then I think they've got a legitimate complaint. Councilman Horn: I think since we want to put our logo on it, this is probably one of the better colors to display our logo against. It's a very passive color. I've seen towers that color. It's about as earthtone as you can get. Mayor Hamilton: I wouldn't have any problem if we were to say this AH-52 is the color that we feel the tower ought to be. Maybe you can do an artist - City Council. Meeting February 22, 1988 coloring of the tower as it sits in there and send it out to the neighbors and say this is how it's going to look when it's painted and if you have any comments you wish to make, forward than to City .Hall. Councilman Boyt: That sounds reasonable. If we're providing an opportunity 1 for the neighborhood to respond to the color before we've got the tower painted, I can agree to that. Mayor Hamilton: Is something like that possible? Gary Warren: I might suggest, there's a tower right on the Crosstown and 494 that is a very similar to shade. You could send a notice to however large of a I group you would like and indicate that the color we're anticipating_is located here. That would give than a better perspective than what we could do in an artist rendering. ' Councilman Geving: There aren't too many neighbors in that particular neighborhood. It's difficult to pick out 500 feet or 1,000 feet. You'd just ' have to pick most the homes. I like the idea. Mayor Hamilton: I think someone could take that AH-52 and just do a hand sketch if they have to and paint the whole thing kind of to scale. It doesn't ' have to be an artist drawing but something that's kind of to scale. Draw some trees around the bottom and say this is the proposed color. Gary Warren: We do have some renderings when we were looking at the logo, if you recall, that they have done perspectives so I'll talk with them and maybe we'll color up one of those and have it on display here and also send out a notice in the mail. Councilman Boyt: The notice will include the color? Gary Warren: Yes. CONSENT AGENDA: (I) APPROVAL OF GENERIC VERSION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (DEVELOPER INSTALLED IMPROVEMENTS) . Councilman Geving: I particularly liked the comments that were made by Gary Warren, our Engineer, and our City Attorney on this particular item. I think they picked up some major improvements to our development contract. I particularly liked the item on erosion control whereby the City will pick up and remove the bales and other things that are out there and charge back to the developer. I think it's been a problem that Gary's had for a long time. Also the street lighting. I think it's a major improvement on how we handle that. Then I want to mix in with this, comments on 1(1) where we're substituting a securities agreement. I would like to not only include the language in the securities agreement shown in item 1(1) into the revised Development Contract. It seems to fit here under securities. It's a new mode of security and I think this is a good point. As long as we're having to rewrite that area anyway, to include that as an item. Do you have any problem with that Gary? Gary Warren: No, that's a good comment. Typically, in the larger projects like we have with Shafer, we would really be able to make use of that. 11 City Council Meeting February 22, 1988 Councilman Geving: It seems like we're doing a remodification of it anyways so this would be a good time to do it. That's all I had Mr. Mayor. Councilman Boyt: I was looking for the reference point. We might as well start with construction hours which is Miscellaneous (m) . Page 18. I agree that this is what we typically ask people to do. I'd like to see us include Thanksgiving Thursday and Friday in the holidays, as far as non-work days. Mayor Hamilton: Thanksgiving day and what others? 1 Councilman Boyt: Thanksgiving Thursday and Friday I think are typically holidays. I think it's more than just Thursday. Past experience has told me that this is not going to fly but I still think asking them to not work on Saturdays makes sense. Unless there are other members of the Council that feel that way, I'm not going to push it. So that's what I had on (m) was to ask for Thanksgiving to be included. I think that on page 10, Point 7, Clean-up. We've discussed this a few times. We've included it in the development -- contracts and I think we should reference there, to maintaining a neat work site which would be specifically in reference to blowable items. Are you with me Gary? Gary Warren: Yes, I guess you had brought that up a number of times and I've I tried to get some wording that you'd like to suggest. Whatever way you want to go. Councilman Boyt: I think something on the order of a neat and orderly work i site would probably cover it. Gary Warren: The developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and daily clean-up. Something like that? Councilman Boyt: Sure. ' Mayor Hamilton: I wish there was a better way we could control blowable materials. It's frustrating that stuff blowing all over town. I Councilman Geving: It's mostly the insulation that you see or the insulation wrapper. Mayor Hamilton: When they do shingling too, they tear the wrappers open on the roof and just throw the paper and pretty soon it's 4 blocks down. Councilman Boyt: Maybe it's under Park and Trail dedication but I thought I saw a reference to a 10 foot trail easement. That might have been an item 1(a) that you referenced back to this general improvement agreement. Is that correct? Gary Warren: I'm sorry I was writing. Councilman Boyt: In the development contract for item 1(a) , which you referenced to any changes that occurred in 1(i) would be reflected in 1(a) . I'm not sure if it was in there or if it was in 1(1) where I noticed that you had a 10 foot trail easement. Park and Rec historically asks for a 20 foot 1 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 trail easement so they have same room to swing their trail to get around natural obstacles and that sort of thing. Gary Warren: That's in 1(a) for Riley Lake Meadows and that was pulled right out of the condition of approval. ' Barbara Dacy: Right. The 10 feet was specific to that subdivision because that was on the north side of Pioneer Trail. Councilman Boyt: Thanks for clarifying that. That's all I have on 1(i) then. Mayor Hamilton: Let's go back to your first one. Page 18, item (m) . You want to add Thanksgiving day. Councilman Boyt: Thursday and Friday. Mayor Hamilton: I could along with Thanksgiving Day I guess but not the day after. I don't know what the rest of the Council thinks. • Councilman Geving: I agree. Councilman Horn: Yes. ' Mayor Hamilton: Then your next one was Page 10, Clean-Up and the wording that was going to be added there. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations with the noted ' changes: f. Approval of Plans and Specifications and Resolution #88-14: Authorization to take Bids for Public Works Garage Expansion. h. Color Selection for New Water Tower. i. Approval of Generic Version of Development Contract (Developer Installed Improvements) . All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: Mayor Hamilton: Bob Haak is back again for how many years? I know you're back again for several times and you have the same problem. I keep thinking we're going to get your problem resolved but apparently we're not. Are we making progress. t— Bob Haak, 770 Pioneer Trail: No progress so far. I do have a runoff problem and it seems to be getting worse. I've had this problem since 1973. Here are some photographs that I've taken over the years. The most recent ones are this last summer. Anytime we get a rainfall from 3" to 10" as in last summer, or less, all the water that I can see, the area that I have to my north, to the 1 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 east, to the south all comes down through my property. I don't mind so much if it comes through my property but I guess what I mind is that so much of it does and it's restricted by a couple of culverts and I wish something could be done about it. A few years ago, and it doesn't only happen on my property but my neighbors to my east and west are affected by it. I have tried to make 11 improvements to this by widening the ditch, taking out all the dead wood, mowing it all the time and it really doesn't help. Several years ago when the 201 program was put into effect, the County wide sewer thing, I asked to have a mound system put in because it was already bad and getting worse so I ended up with a mound system and a pump tank. Now, what happens is the water that flows through there, backs up and fills up the pump tank which is like 10 feet deep so it renders it useless because it can't keep up with the water that's flowing into it. The problems are getting worse with the development of Gagne property, if they pave West 96th Street, the development by Bluff Creek Golf Course, if that happens, it all contributes to more water flowing down through my property. I feel there is a solution to it and I think some restricting culverts further down the road but some wider ones closer to my home would alleviate pretty much this problem. Like I say, I don't mind if the water goes through there, it has to. There's no other way but if we could make it go through faster, that would really, really do a lot and I guess what irritates me a little more than anything is that I sent a letter in 1977 and I did get a response, no action. Here in 1987, I sent a letter to Mr. Warren and the Council September 28th and I have not received an answer yet. Councilman Geving: When you say the culverts should be increased in size down the road, do you mean to the east? ' Bob Haak: To the west. Councilman Geving: The water runs to the west there? Bob Haak: The water runs to the west to Bluff Creek. It goes in Bluff Creek about a mile down the road. Mayor Hamilton: Gary, could you set up a time to meet with Mr. Haak so you can review the situation and see if we can't do something about it prior to the 1 spring when he'll probably have more water. Gary Warren: Yes, we've been talking to the County, as this is a County issue here and we'll set up a meeting with him. Give him a call tomorrow. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could leave a number with Gary that he can reach you at so he can be sure to get a hold of you. Councilman Horn: How many of these pictures were taken after the big rainfall last summer? ' Councilman Geving: Is most of the water that you get come from the north? From 96th Street? I Bob Haak: I cannot say that. If I look north, east, west, it even comes across from the southeast corner of TH 101 and Pioneer Trail. There's a culvert that goes under Pioneer Trail and then there's a culvert that goes under TH 101. It comes from all over. Especially on the south side, the hill IICity Council- Meeting - February 22, 1988 on the south side. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you from a sanitary standpoint or safety standpoint, do you feel your home is being affected by this water and the 201 Iseptic system that you installed? Bob Haak: If my home is being affected by it? I Councilman Geving: The water quality in your home and the septic system that might be leeched because of this problem. I Bob Haak: I think just the water quality flowing anywhere from my place would be affected and because it all soaks into the ground, I'm sure that -there must be some. ICouncilman Geving: Have you ever had your water tested? Bob Haak: Yes. That was several years ago. I • Mayor Hamilton: Please let us know if you don't receive a call from the City Engineer or you're completely satisfied. IJudy DeJoode, 811 Pioneer Trail: I'd like to speak also. We live right next to the Haak's and where the culverts I think are holding everything up. When liL_ they redid our street and blacktopped it, they put a huge culvert which water runs down the Bluff Creek Golf Course in torrents, just terrible and that can't flow under our two driveways. It backs up in addition to' everything else. I also wrote a letter on July 27th to Mr. Warren which was never responded to. I We also have some real concerns, the water does go through our two culverts but it's erroding just terribly. When they developed the land, Pioneer Hills just west of us, that was all dug up. There was a big hole there. I don't know if I you came out to look at that or not. Our fence line is going to go. Something has to be done. I Mayor Hamilton: We also have another visitors presentation. Jim McMahon who is the First Assistant Fire Chief with the Chanhassen Fire Department would like to tell us about the actions of one of our citizens that we should be made IIaware of and make a presentation. Jim McMahon: Specifically, what's in reference here is on January 18, 1988 II Chan Aslesen of Minneapolis was eastbound on TH 169 when he approached a car sitting on the eastbound side of the road. His lights were on and the car was parked there. Chad felt there was something wrong and that he should stop to investigate. Upon doing that, he found the driver to be unconscious. This I particular vehicle was involved in a hit and run accident and while trying to revive the driver he noticed that the car also had caught on fire. He then pulled this driver from the car while he was unconscious and dragged him a safe lit. distance from the car, flagged down a truck who radioed for emergency service. By the time that our first emergency vehicle arrived on the scene, the car was completely engulfed. Had Chad no stopped out of concern for this particular individual and his vehicle, there's no doubt the man would have died. As a I fact that he did have concern over this, the man survived the incident. So with that, in appreciation from the City of Chanhassen and the Chanhassen Fire I City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Department, we'd like to award you with this plaque Chad and thank you I:r personally for your act. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to congratulate Chad and certainly thank you for your showing outstanding courage and timeliness in an incident like this. The world and our community and others like it can certainly use more people like yourself. Thanks again. STRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON PROPERTY I ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE: A. VARIANCE TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE FOR LOT DEPTH AND NUMBER OF ' BOAT SLIPS. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. I Mayor Hamilton: This item was discussed at the Board of Adjustments and Review , and' it was voted by a 2 to 1 vote to not issue the variance. Consequently, the applicant would like to have the Council consider this item. The reason given for the vote was both Carol and Willard did not want to issue a variance to the 100 foot lot depth. My feeling is that it's one piece of property. It's under one PID number. It is one parcel and I'm not convinced that the 100 foot lot depth exists even though there is a roadway passing through the property. It is one parcel. It's not two. You can't build a house on the lake portion of it. It's all connected. It was sold as one. It's under one ownership. Perhaps Barbara could give us just a brief overview of this item. I think we reviewed it previously but you might want to show us what our alternatives are here. Barbara Dacy: The applicant is requesting in essence three variances. The first variance is the depth requirement of 100 feet. In order to have a dock you must have 200 feet of lake frontage, 100 feet in depth and 30,000 square feet of area. The subject site does not have consistent lot depth of 100 feet. At the northerly part of the property, it does measure 115 feet. However, the narrowest portion does measure 40 feet. Fifth, the variances granted to have the dock and then the next request is to have four boat slips instead of the required three boat slips. Thirdly, the number of canoe racks in the ordinance is tied to the number of docks. One canoe rack is permitted per dock. The applicant is requesting two canoe racks for the storage of 11 canoes. The staff's recommendation is based on the City Attorney's opinion which is included in your packet. That recommendation is to deny the variance request. The Attorney's suggestion is to amend the ordinance rather than issue a variance. If the Council is going to approve the request, the following summarizes a proposed motion. Again, the variance should be issued to the lot depth requirement first in order that the applicant can receive the dock. Then the Council should decide on whether or not a variance should be granted to allow one additional slip. Finally, a variance to the number of canoe racks. Again, two being proposed and none being permitted. We'd also suggest that if a motion of approval is made, that the motion contain reference to the plan stamped "Received February 18, 1988". Finally, in regards to the second item on the agenda, even if the variances were denied on all of these items, the applicant still has the right to petition for the use of a beachlot in a more j A i ; r 4�`Y^1� City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 passive manner. That being a swimming beach, recreational area, etc.. Mayor Hamilton: We have members here in the audience that I think would like to speak to this issue. Did you want to comment again? Mary Jo Moore: I live on Dartmouth Drive in Chanhassen next to an Association that has a dock. It's gotten totally out of hand. I think this ordinance that Chanhassen came up with, it was after a 2 year study based on the fact that we ' have too many of these associations around the lake. They get out of hand and they're not maintained. It's a good ordinance and I think we should abide by it. I have no objection, because of the size of this property, I have no ' objection to a swimming beach, volleyball, whatever, canoes, but I don't think they should be allowed a dock. Thank you. Ray Ruttger, 3221 Darthouth Drive: I guess my comment was relative to the ' access road which has a dock on it. Was loaded with 6 boats at one time and then 5 and after a lot of hassle the City became involved in it. The neighbors became angry at us. Essentially, they had not maintained it. They do ' absolutely nothing to maintain it or remove the dock or put a painting on the side. There are cans out there. Whatever maintenance is required in the dock area. Then they became upset because they couldn't put boat lifts out there but it wasn't just the 3 boats or the 4 boats or 5 boats, but you're talking about large pontoon boats. The last person who parked the big pontoon out there became upset because the realtor told him that he could put any and all boats on the property. So we kind of indicated that he better check it out with the City. He better check it out with the Ordinance before you go ahead and buy a piece of property. I think what I'd like to do, I feel like Mary Jo that the beachlot is fine and it is a good size piece of property. I would I like to see the City have some nice development, some well done homes, expensive homes. I'm looking for a larger tax base but I think it should be policed and I think if, as Tom indicated, go along with 3 boat slips. That it ' should remain at 3. Be cast in iron and the people that buy the property or the lots know exactly who is to be allowed to put a boat at the dock. That it should be very carefully policed because, I don't know if you want me to say this but I didn't think the development to the south is really maintaining what ' they're supposed to be. There are boats out there tied to floats to get by the additional dockage. I'm talking about the condominium development. Councilman Boyt: I feel that what staff and the Attorney recommended that we not grant this and my position would be, if we need to look at the ordinance again, let's look at the ordinance again. I'm not convinced we do need to but I am convined that we've got to live with the ordinance we have. ' Councilman Horn: I think we've already compromised our beachlot ordinance i ce n one case. Apparently with some bad repercussions. I think in this case, the reason that we did that was, we said that the beachlot was entitled to the same rights as a riparian homeowner would have if they were to build a house on a piece of property. If I heard the staff report correctly, this is not a developable lot for a home. Therefore, it would not have a home and be a riparian homeowners situation. Therefore, I don't think it's necessary for us to compromise beyond what we have already done in our ordinance and I would suggest that we go along with staff's recommendation. Councilman Geving: I think that this is certainly a large piece of property 1 .4-) c�y City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 and by denying the variance we wouldn't be denying them reasonable use of the land. They can still use it for a beachlot, for swimming and playing but it certainly doesn't meet our ordinance and I think I would not be in favor of granting the variance simply because it is precedent setting. We do have a memorandum from the Attorney with his recommendations and on that basis, I would stay with the staff and the Attorney's opinions that the variance should not be granted. That's the end of my comment. Mayor Hamilton: I would just call your attention to one of the questions that the Attorney, Roger Knutson, addressed. I felt that he asked more questions than he answered. That was the issue of the 100 feet. I felt that his answer to that question, part of it is that you could count both halves of the lot. The lot size requirement. What about setbacks, coverage and lot frontage? So I think there are some unanswered questions here yet. If it is in fact- a single parcel, and I'm not sure how we determine that. Maybe Elliott can help us with that question. Elliott Knetsch: I'd be happy to. I guess what you're referring to there in Roger's letter is that under the existing ordinance the road, being where it is, the proposed beachlot is one lot and the portion across the road is a separate lot under the existing ordinance so it can't be counted to meet the depth requirement of the beachlot ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: Under our existing ordinance? , Elliott Knetsch: Under the City's Zoning Ordinance. It regulates the beachlots as well as the Zoning Ordinance in general. The existing interpretation is that that would not be considered all one lot. What you did mention earlier at the prior meeting that he raised more questions than he answered. I think, as Barb mentioned, he was being rhetorical there. If you start getting a different interpretation of what the lot is, then all your other zoning requirements such as setbacks come into question too. Where you measure from. That becomes a question where you start to put your setbacks. The size of a lot and lot covereage. All those things come into question. Mayor Hamilton: I don't have a problem with it. I think we should probably address those questions. ' Elliott Knetsch: I think the basic recommendation here is, if it's the feeling on the Council that something like this is appropriate, the way to address that is not through a variance but through an amendment to the ordinance. Under the existing ordinance you have our opinion that it doesn't meet the test for granting that variance. If the Council's uncomfortable with that position, what they should do is take another look at the ordinance. Once the ordinance is on the book, it should be followed and if you don't like the ordinance, it should be changed. Mayor Hamilton: To go back to the point that Clark made too, I don't think it's right. There can be riparian rights here if the developer decided to sell five lots on the lake, those five lots would have riparian rights and you would just deed that part of the property on the lakeshore to those five owners that he has plotted out on the front of that. They would have 100 feet, is that our ordinance? 100 feet of lakeshore? What's the minimum? _ mil` a ,City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 :r- Barbara Dacy: Of lot width along the lake? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Barbara Dacy: 75 feet. IMayor Hamilton: So he could have even more than that. I Barbara Dacy: But based on our current ordinance, you would in essence have to grant almost 5 lot area variances for those 5 lots between the road and the lake. Again, because the current ordinance defines if you have a parcel that's IIsplit by a road then each piece is a separate lot. Mayor Hamilton: I disagree with that. Then by doing that, in my opinion, we are taking his property. We are in fact forcing a hardship on him and the City II better buy his property because what we're telling him is we're not going to allow you to divide that property into five lots and let him put five docks out there and the use of the lake for those people. He can't do it and I think II that's a taking. I would certainly see it that way. I'm not an attorney though. Elliott Knetsch: My response to that is, the City has the opportunity to I impose reasonable regulations. Obviously, the word reasonable is not a clear cut standard and I'm not sure I could tell you what a Court would say. In our opinion, this ordinance, this does not amount to a taking. I think he does have reasonable use of his property. Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Pierce, did you want to make some comments? IRobert Pierce: Originally, when I drove by this parcel I looked at it and I thought, wow, look at the lakeshore we have. There's got to be a way to have some lakeshore, at least 3 or 4 lots across there. We have 500 feet. So I 1 went into it a little further and I checked it out and talked to the City Planner then I went to the Planning Commission meeting and at that point, at the Planning Commission meeting I went there for one reason. Multiple reasons II but the one major reason was I wanted to see the feeling and get some direction at that point because we were into a contract to purchase the property, and see what they would have to say. At that meeting, it's in the Minutes, it was pretty clear cut that, some language to that effect, that to deny us a dock I with that type of useage certainly wouldn't be reasonable. That's the direction they gave us. I believe we came in with a really light, light useage for this parcel. Again, like I stated earlier, I have talked to the neighbors II that are living on the north and I had quite a long discussion today with the neighbors to the rear of the property, to the west and to the south. Each one of them, I think, excuse me I should make reference that the one to the north II really didn't care what went on. She just said, whatever we'd like to do is fine with her but the others I think would definitely like to see a development with a higher grade of homes in there. Without the docks it's just not II possible. Plain and simple. We're looking at 15 lots. In my way of thinking, we can reduce the valuation on each home by about $100,000.00 per package which is a million and a half dollars to this single subdivision. In tax revenues, I �,. don't know what that would exactly come out to for the City but if we could II start this out, in this development, and we could put together a nice package of high quality homes, it would make sense to me that the area that's City Council Meeting February 22, 1988 developed, and there is a lot of land in that area that is going to develop at a higher quality. I think that is certainly in the minds of the neighbors is a real plus. I would think that also in the minds of the City would have to be a real plus to get more revenue out of it. Also, there are beachlots I know up and down this road and I know at sometimes there has definitely been some problems. I understand, but very few of them have the width that we do and the type of screening. We've been really cautious to try to meet the needs of the neighbors. We've worked with the City extensively trying to just meet every criteria that they would have. We would like to work it for everybody's benefit but we need the docks. It's an important part of this development. Otherwise it just changes it. The neighbors I think are for it. To me, the way we're going right now, I can't even have a dock on 9 acres. It's one parcel. The taxes one parcel. It's been taxed as lakeshore. It's just kind of beyond my thinking that we can't put this one dock in there. The neighboring property, Mrs. Campbell just to the north, I talked to her today and they have not had a dock on their parcel. They don't have the width. They don't have the areas that we do. At this point, without a variance, that's not even lakeshore anymore because the ordinance has concluded that. I think there is something wrong there. In order for us to do this project, we need those and we will do a good job. I think it will be an asset to Chanhassen. It will be an asset to the neighbors. If we're denied that, and we must go along without it, then it's going to be on a much less of a scale. Plain and simple. Councilman Boyt: I guess I would suggest that there is a certain amount of logic to what you say about having a long strip of lake frontage and not having a dock on it. It's just that, my opinion is that we don't have an ordinance that allows you to do that and to give you the variance to that ordinance is to basically throw the ordinance out. I don't know what the answer is. I can recognize the problem as being certainly a legitimate problem and a concern that I would have if I was in your position. I think maybe we need to look at the oridnance. I agree, you mentioned during the appeals situation that that might be a rather lengthy task. I suspect it would be because it's such a volatile issue. 1 Robert Pierce: If I could make a suggestion. I don't know how long. If there would be some way to take a look at it, I'm sure it is volatile. I don't know. I have this development. It's going to go forward. We've come to a point, the dock issue. There's a period of time before we can get the project in the ground and there's a period of time before construction begins. I would be more than happy to work with the City any way possible, to make contacts or anything, but at the point that the first house goes in there, the whole tone of the development is taken. If 6 months later we get the docks, it doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. It maybe will bring the value of those 4 lots on the front but the rest of it has already been set. I don't have the wearathol to get into a year. I just don't. I plain and simple can not afford it. We're in an economic situation where this property right now can be developed. It can be done rather quickly I believe. It can get it up and get it back to a finished product rather soon. If we wait a year, we get into the economic situation can stop. I've had that happen before and it just sits. I personally just can not gamble on that. I don't have the ability to gamble on that. Councilman Horn: Where did you get the impression that a dock would not be a 11 problem on this piece of property? It couldn't have been your reading the City Council Meeting - February 22; 1988 1 dock to be constructed with three (3) boat slips and allow two (2) canoe racks. There was no second and motion failed for lack of a second. Elliott Knetsch: May I make a slight amendment to that and suggest that you move to have staff prepare Findings of Fact consistent with denial of the variance and the actual decision would be made at the next meeting when you have those Findings of Fact. ' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask why we need that? Elliott Knetsch: There's a requirement that you have Findings of Fact supporting your decision stating contemporaneously with your decision. Councilman Boyt: We have it. What would you call the Attorney's letter if not ' Findings of Fact? Councilman Geving: It would be just a restatement of that. ' Councilman Boyt: I don't understand why we have to put that off until next session if we have all the facts we're going to have. Elliottt Knetsch: The letter doesn't address all the specifics that he may want to include to support your Findings. We haven't listed exactly what you want on there. Councilman Geving: This is not unusual. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact consistent with denial of the variance request to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance at 6830 Minnewashta Parkway and to direct staff to review the ordinance for the change in the potential for a greater number of ' canoe racks for this particular lot. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried. ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATONAL BEACHLOT. Councilman Boyt: Gary I believe you mentioned int he packet that Minnewashta was being, at least in the distant future was looking at four lanes? Gary Warren: We said we were looking to upgrade possiblities. Subsequent ' information, the 66 foot right-of-way out there would be sufficient for that. Councilman Boyt: When I looked at the map of the beachlot, I remember the ' statement about timbered walls. Where were the walls going to be timbered on the beachlot? I didn't see that on the map or I didn't pick it out of the map if it was there. Barbara Dacy: You mean the steps down to the pathway? Councilman Boyt: That a timbered wall would be built. That's the reference 1 that I have. City Council-Meeting - February 22, 1988 1 ordinance? Robert Pierce: No, from the Planning Commission when I went there. They talked about reasonable use. They said that, I think if you'd look in the Minutes I think you'd see that it was clear that they said, let's give it to the Attorney. There must be a way to do this without jeopardizing ourselves. I know that you have had problems in different areas and I believe you're even in litigation on one on a different lake, or there has been something in that order, but the two projects are totally, totally different. There's not anything in common to it. We're talking 50 feet and then we're talking 500 feet. 50 feet in width and I just feel like the word reasonable is the key here and I think we have a very, very, very reasonable request before you. However it needs to be done but I think time is a problem. Also, we do have, I don't know if you want to go through it but we have a planner from Schoell and Madsen here and he did do the project and he will explain what we're planning to do down there in a little more detail. It might be worth looking at. ' Mayor Hamilton: Does anybody want to see it? I guess we still have the concern. You've got 31,400 square feet which is over two-thirds of an acre, 550 feet of lakeshore and we're saying he can't use the lake. I think that's a little bit ludicrous. That just isn't right in my opinion. To put 3 boats on there with one dock. I guess the other concern I have is, the request was for, I guess looking at the ordinance, it says we can only have one canoe rack for each dock. It would seem to me that we certainly want to review that in our ordinance. It seems like that's the type of thing we ought to be encouraging more places to have rather than discouraging and I would see if there wasn't any dock down there, I certainly can't see any reason why they can't have two canoe racks. As long as they're used for canoes and that's the purpose for them, canoes or sailboats on the lake is what you want to encourage people to use them for. ' Councilman Geving: I would have a tendency to agree with that Tom. I do agree that this is a fairly large lot. It doesn't meet the depth requirements but on the other hand, we've got other situations where it hasn't met the total area requirements. I think they're really the same thing. But as far as reviewing the ordinance to provide for the additional canoe racks and for sailboating, I think that would be a terrific enterprise in this particular development because it would lend itself to that. You've got a number of lots and any time you get a dock with 3 or 4 boat slips, you're going to have contention for those. But on the other hand, if you could have, let's say 2 canoe racks with 12 canoes potential, you'd have enough for your neighborhood that you're proposing Mr. Pierce. I agree with Tom, I think that has to be looked at. Even though I'm opposed to granting the variance, I think the ordinance itself could be revised to reflect some new conditions. Councilman Horn: I agree. I think that stays within the purpose of the intent of the ordinance. I think we could make an exception to lot area size to the one canoe rack. The problem always comes in when you start having permament dockage of boats. Canoe racks typically are not a lake congestion issue. That would be worth taking a look at but I agree, we shouldn't do it as a variance. ' Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the variance to the Recreational Beachlot at 6830 Minnewashta Parkway for lot depth requirement of 100 feet. To allow a City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Robert Pierce: It's the steps going down. Steps or a ramp. There's been some discussion about... Councilman Boyt: I can understand the recommendation by the fire people to ' look at a ramp. I would think a ramp might create some erosion problems. Are steps less of an erosion inducer than a ramp Gary? Gary Warren: Anything that would minimize the rate of runoff typically helps ' to also minimize erosion. The faster the water goes over the land, the more potential there is for erosion so the ramp, as you're saying from that perspective would be more an erosion hazard. ' Barbara Dacy: This issue came up with the Kurvers Point recreational beachlot and I think the applicant can look at a design where you would have a ramp plus a longer set of steps so you wouldn't have a straight slope down to the beach ' area. I think the main intent from the Fire Department was to make sure that the steps weren't designed so that they could easily roll stretchers or whatever down there. We've got the best of both worlds on both options. The ' one to control erosion and the other to facilitate access. Councilman Boyt: I know we all have our points of concern here and that was just an issue that I wanted to bring up. The last issue is that I feel we should make some effort to preserve the shoreline where you're not having a beach area. I would propose that one condition of approval would be that it remain natural all along the shoreline except where the sand beach is installed. ' Robert Pierce: I think that's what my proposal had. Mayor Hamilton: I think along the beach not there are trees that have fallen into the lake and there is a lot of garbage along the lake. Robert Pierce: When I mean natural, I think we want to clean up and improve it but what we want to do basically is leave intact anything that's alive and Iflourishing and holds our bank in. Mayor Hamilton: I think what Bill may be referring to however is to keeping ' the weeds growing near the lake. I don't know if that would inhibit the use of your lot down there or not. Robert Pierce: The sand blanket area that we have there is probably the area that we use for swimming mostly. The rest of it I hadn't really planned on trying to change it much other than clean it up. Mayor Hamilton: You may have a volleyball court or something. Robert Pierce: It would probably be on the sand area. $ Dave Prillaman: I live on Red Cedar Point for 25 years. Now I just heard something that really bothers me. You're talking about a 4-lane highway on Minnewashta Parkway. You can forget then the beachlot and anything to do with it if you're going to have 4 lanes going down there. 1 Ott 3J City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: There's no proposed 4 lane highway on Minnewashta Parkway. Dave Prillaman: Isn't that what I just heard? Mayor Hamilton: Somebody just asked the question. They said, no, there is not a proposed 4-lane highway. ' Dave Prillaman: You've got 66 feet for right-of-way? How wide was that road going to be? ' Gary Warren: That road would be maximum 44 foot road section that could ultimately built. Dave Prillaman: How wide is it now? Gary Warren: That road now is maybe 31-32. ' Dave Prillaman: I guess all I'm saying is, if we're going to have this freeway, you can forget all the rest of it. All that road needs is to be maintained. It doesn't need to be any wider. The speed limits are not adhered to there now. Let's just don't, I know this is besides what you're talking about, but you're going to have an awful big argument with me if you widen that road. I Mayor Hamilton: We're not planning on any widening. You'd probably have an argument with me too. I don't have that either. My motion would include the five conditions by the staff also. Councilman Boyt: What about keeping the shoreline natural? Councilman Geving: ...will be pretty natural anyway Bill. I think they're trying to make this a receational area but I think they want to clean it up, not destroy the natural beauty of it. I have no problet with amending my second to include that. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Conditional Use ' Permit #87-17 for a recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions: 1. The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock or canoe rack(s) unless a 1 variance to the lot depth requirement is granted by the Board of Adjustments and City Council. 2. The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a variance to the limitation of overnight storage is granted by the Board of Adjustments and City council. 3. All additional standards established for a recreational beachlot in the Zoning Ordinance must be met. 4. A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for approval prior to any alteration to Outlot A. I ICity Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 J Oje) 111-- 5. The applicant shall provide a detailed g radi ng and erosion control plan lif for the recreational beachlot for staff approval. II 6. The applicant shall keep the shoreline natural except where the sand beach is installed. IAll voted in favor and motion carried. II Mayor Hamilton: I would hope that you would meet with staff as soon as possible to discuss the possibility of requesting a change in the ordinance and I'd be happy to work with you on it also. If you don't want to request it, I Iwill. I think it's something we should be reviewing and getting on with. Robert Pierce: I'll call them tomorrow. IISUBDIVISION OF 2.5 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO MINNEWASHTA I , PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF TH 5, SCHWABA-WINCHELL, APPLICANTS. Barbara Dacy: The property is located east of and adjacent to Minnewashta I Parkway. The property is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. The parcel is outlined in green on this overhead. The Planning Commission discussion focused on two major issues with one of the major issues having three subdivisions, if you will. One was lot size and the second one was access and that could be divided into three issues. Driveways versus an internal street. Potential li- variance request and third, the maple tree that's located in the property. I'd _ like to address the lot size issue first. As you are all aware, the single I family zoning district provides for a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. There are a number of adjacent property owners in the area that were requesting that the Council look to reducing the number of lots in this subdivision so 1 that the proposed lot sizes would increase and be more comparable to the lot sizes existing in the area. The Planning Commission discussed this at length and directed staff to bring, an issue back if you refer to the discussion, there was no action taken on this particular item. However, the Council should I be aware that the proposal does meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. All of the lots did contain 15,000 square feet as required by the Zoning Ordinance. If these adjacent property owners would sell their I properties or some time in the future if the properties were to be subdivided, the same requirements would be imposed. Councilman Boyt: How big are those lots? 1 Barbara Dacy: The adjacent lots to the east are, I would say at least an acre and a half in size and maybe some of the property owners are here and could II verify my estimate. As to the second issue of access, one of the issues was whether or not a variance request was necessary for two driveway accesses onto Minnewashta Parkway which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector. We asked the City Attorney to respond to that issue discussed by the Planning Commission. His letter is included in your packet. In essence his opinion was that the ordinance prohibits access from "individual lots" meaning if there were 5 driveways proposed for 5 lots, that would be IIprohibited. However, since the proposed driveways are shared, that does not 1 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 constitute direct access onto these lots. To answer that question, the I:- variance request to the ordinance is not necessary as proposed by the applicants to share a driveway. The other issue was whether or not there should be two shared driveways or creation of an internal street. The applicant went back and prepared a sketch plan of a lot pattern of the area if it were to be served by an internal street. We would still potentially have the possibility of getting 5 lots from this proposed lot pattern, however, Lot 1 at the top here would need a lot depth requirement and secondly, it would need a variance for a flag lot. As to the engineering issues and traffic issues, regarding an internal street versus driveway accesses, whenever you can minimize conflict points along a major collector such as Minnewashta Parkway, that is a desirable objective. In this option, you do eliminate one driveway ' access. It should be noted that the proposed street is located in roughly the same location as the driveway as proposed for the southerly shared driveway between Lot 3 and Lot 4 in the first proposal. There was considerable concern about whether or not the maple tree, located along the proposed lot line of Lot 4 would have to be removed. The Engineering Department has provided recommendations that despite the driveway being located there or the internal street, that a grading plan should be submitted to address the sight distance in that area. Specifically, at least 180 feet of sight distance should be achieved. If you like, Larry Brown, the Assistant Engineer to address those issues in more detail, he can do so. In any case, the Planning Commission's motion was a tied motion so in essense they took no formal action on the request and passed this item to the Council with their noted concerns. As far as the traffic issues are concerned, staff's recommendation would be that the internal street option does minimize conflict points and is a more desirable street pattern. However, the Council should be aware that that does dictate some lot layout problems for Lot 1. Finally, if the Council is to approve this proposed option, with the internal street, it is recommended that the plat be revised and sent back to the Planning Commission so the full street and utility detail can be worked out on this option. If the other option, if the Council chooses to act on, the application as proposed, you have two options. You can either approve it as presented and staff has included some recommended conditions or secondly, you can deny the application for 5 lots and 2 shared driveways. Would you like Larry to address anything further on the street versus the driveway? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. I think we should see that, unless nobody wants to. Councilman Geving: The only thing I was concerned about, can we save the maple tree under your plan? Do you have information on that? Secondly, I think I recall a very deep drainage ditch that runs along the road right about at that point. Right near the road bed. I think that still exists there and the water comes across from Lake St. Joe. That's somewhere in that vicinity. Gary Warren: No, that's further north. It's kind of a high spot. I Councilman Geving: Okay, then I guess the only issue is the tree for me. Larry Brown: The issue of the tree, we went out and took some measurements. Some minor modifications may be possible around the tree. It's a very touchy area whether they can achieve the 180 foot sight distance without removing the tree. There is one smaller tree around it that may be removed that might improve the situation but again, it's so tight that it's going to have to be II -46'0 City Council.Meeting - February 22, 1988 11;r- _ field verified. Councilman Geving: Is this a public safety issue or is it an engineering issue? I Larry Brown: It's a traffic engineering issue guided by the standards from Minnesota Department of Transportation, you must obtain 180 feet of sight distance. Due to the conditions of the curve located just south of that I property, I did bump the engineering estimate down to 30 mph as the posted speed would be 35 mph. Mayor Hamilton: Is the developer here? Do you have any comments you would II like to make? Ellie Schwaba: As far as the tree is concerned, our intention was never to 1 take down the tree. I live in the neighborhood myself on Red Cedar Point and I love that tree and I walk by there and we're going to do everything in our power to keep that tree there. As far as the subdivision itself is concerned, or I when we originally worked with our surveyor, he , put together a subdivision that we felt would comply with all the ordinances which consisted of a lot size requirement of 15,0010 feet. Mr. Knutson's interpretation of the access to the road, which we feel we concur with. All the requirements for the setbacks and I the depth of the lots. We feel that we comply with all those ordinances so we would prefer to go with our original plan based on the fact that it does comply in every way that we can see. There are a couple of reasons for that. One of them is, if we have to put in a cul-de-sac, we are incurring an extraordinary amount of additional costs as well as bringing the sewer up into that cul-de-sac. it would increase the cost of the lots and then we feel it becomes prohibitive because of the price we're paying for the property, with these Iadditional costs, would make it very difficult for us to proceed in a logical manner. So we feel like we'd like to proceed with the original plan that we brought in to you based on the fact that it does concur with the Ordinance. IIMarilyn Larson: We live just directly close by there and I feel that five lots would be a very crowded situation. I do agree with it would be much better to have it more in line with some of the other areas in the area. It just seems very crowded and it's just a matter of preference living close or right next to it that it would just seem like houses right on top of each other. Kind of houses right on top of us too. So that's just where we're at. IIJim Borchart: I live directly east of the property. In your Zoning, under purposes, it says to protect commercial, industrial and institution areas from 11 an intrusion of incompatible uses. When you have homes surrounding that all in excess of 1 acre, when you get to one-third acre lots, I don't feel that's a compatible use. Also, Lot 1 on there, I can not find, when I read your ordinance, I can't find the 150 foot depth. I read it and I've had other I people read it. I believe it's Lot 4 does not have enough roadway frontage. Also, Mr. Heatherington and I have measured. There are no stakes on the property and we come up with the fact that the existing house that's left does I/ not meet, it depends upon which way you're measuring up because of the lines, either sideyard or frontyard setbacks. We come up with it needs 3 variances with the existing plan there. The other plan we have not had enough time to II analyze. I :;mss City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Jerry Barber: I'd like to comment too. I live in the same area. I don't think it's compatible. That's my concern is that I've made a huge investment and I would like to see whatever is decided here to be compatible with that. I think that's fair. If these people want to use that property and divide it up similar to the useage that the rest of are using, then I think that makes sense. If not, then I think it should be looked at. Earl Heatherington: I own the property that goes around the east and north end of the Fisher property. I'm just going to ask you Councilmembers a question, did you happen to receive a copy of the letter that I wrote? Barbara Dacy: Yes, it's in the packet. Earl Heaterington: I felt strongly enough about this issue that I came back from Ft. Meyers, Florida Saturday to be here tonight. I don't take it lightly that an obvious attempt is being made on the 2.19 acres of the Fisher property to cut it up into oblique lots in an obvious mercenary attempt to make money. The 15,000 square feet may or may not be right relative to the developer's request but I think it goes beyond that. They may be found to meeting the minimum requirements but are we going to judge what happens to people's lives, the places that they live, are we going to allow a mercenary attempt to cut up a piece of property into strange looking lots just because it meets the ordinance and gives them the go ahead to build buildings on those lots? I don't think so. According to my friend Mr. Borchart who lives next door, someone in the City mentioned that, well if we don't give them the ability to go ahead and build, they'll sue us if they meet the minimum requirement. I say that's fine. Let them sue. I think we're going to have to stand up for what we know to be right and if the consequences are a lawsuit, so be it. This isn't right. Five lots on that property is too many lots. If you gentlemen would take the time to go out and look at it personally and pace it off and look at it, you would see that I'm correct in that assessment. I hope you'll read my letter. It's written with good gentlemenly intent. I have no objection to the people using the property but I think it should be used in a way that's compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. If it isn't, what we're doing here is a sham. Thank you. Mayor Hamilton: Anyone else? Okay, Bill you had a question of the neighbors. 1 Councilman Boyt: I do and Mr. Heaterington may be the person to answer it. I gather that at the Planning Commission the developers were asked to contact the neighbors about a possible road access and apparently they're attempts to do that were rebuffed. I hear you saying you would like to have larger lots in spite of the City ordinances limited ability to give you that and yet you're unwilling to talk to them about something they could use to maybe get something I you could use. Jim Borchart: Could I reply to that? Councilman Boyt: If you're one of the neighbors. Jim Borchart: Yes. The cul-de-sac would come within 10 feet of my front door. I have a very large house. A very nice house. I just finished it. My taxes are staggering. How would you feel about it? Under the law, you would have to buy my entire property. Are you willing to spend that kind of money to have I IICity Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 I these five lots in there? Councilman Boyt: I'm not the developer and I happen to agree with you that it is unfortunate when 15,000 square foot lots directly abut upon larger lots. Having gone through that in the last year, I know first hand how you probably I feel. Unfortunately, the ordinance is written in 15,000 square foot lots. As with the gentleman earlier this evening, the proper approach is probably to change the ordinance if we don't like it but once the ordinance is written, 1 that's really what we have to live with. As far as other comments on this particular item, I don't like the accesses onto Minnewashta Parkway. I think that anybody that thinks the traffic goes 30 mph on Minnewashta Parkway hasn't been out there. Larry, if we're doing our estimates on required distances by I 30 mph speed limit, we're asking for future trouble. Even though our Attorney says that this manages to meet the intent of our limited access onto a major arterial, I don't believe it does. It may meet the letter of the law, but it II surely doesn't meet the spirit of the law. I would add to that the further opinion that proposal 6 with the cul-de-sac and the long flag lot looks impossible to me. If the person who owned the long flag lot driveway wanted to I go north, they would virtually have to make a U-turn to get onto Minnewashta Parkway. To do that is certainly inappropriate. I feel that the safety considerations involved with this development necessitate that it have fewer lots and a better access system. Those are my comments. IICouncilman Horn: My question is to the Attorney. Do we have any basis to deny IlL this request if we feel that there may be a safety issue or that it isn't compatible with the neighborhood or we feel that it's allowing too many accesses onto a major collector? Elliott Knetsch: Yes, those are all concerns that are legitimately addressed IIin the review of subdivisions. Councilman Horn: So they don't have to require a variance for us to have IIlegitimate reasons to deny it? - Elliott Knetsch: That's right. ICouncilman Horn: It seems to me that there's another alternative here that we haven't seen and that is to put a cul-de-sac with four lots. I'm very concerned about the number of accesses onto the road. We've continually sat II here as a body and complained about the number of accesses Eden Prairie has put on TH 101 and we've been always conscience about eliminating as many accesses as we can. I would strongly support having one access from any subdivision. I I don't know if this not being a PUD limits our right to do that but I think in all cases, we have to try and minimize that number. I do feel that this is incompatible with the area. I don't know how far we can push that but it II appears to me that if we had 4 lots instead of 5, we'd solve all the problems. It would make it more compatible even though it isn't still up to the standards of the neighborhood. It would also give us a good roadway system with a good cul-de-sac and one access. IL Councilman Geving: Is it possible Clark that you could describe how that four lot configuration would look? Could we have you do that Barb? ICouncilman Horn: If you look at the lot, and just eliminate the flag. II - City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Councilman Geving: Did this ever come up at the Planning Commission? Either a proposal or a suggestion. Barbara Dacy: This option was generated by the Planning Commission discussion. Three of the Commissioners felt that there should be an internal street. After the Commission action, we asked the applicant to put together a sketch plan. If it were to be four lots, I think what you would have to see is a rearrangement of the lot lines something like this. This lot would probably be removed and the lot lines reconfigured to have four lots. Maybe for ease for tonight, you could just imagine it without that. Councilman Geving: And the average size of the lots would go up to what? 1 Barbara Dacy: You would be redistributing about 18,000 square feet over the 4 lots so each lot would probably increase 4,000 to 4,500 square feet. Councilman Geving: Could I ask the Attorney? I'd like to know from the Attorney's opinion, if what Clark is proposing here would stand up in the basis of Findings? That this is based on safety considerations, one access onto Lake Minnewashta Parkway for example. Give us your opinion on this particular item. Elliott Knetsch: I guess that's one thing that can be looked at. I think I that's a very legitimate point and a strong consideration when you look at a subdivision on a street like Minnewashta. So that in conjunction with other findings could very well support what you may do. In addition, you can get back to the driveway access and Roger has indicated that a Court may not, or I guess he says probably would not be upheld but you just don't know those things. There certainly are legitimate arguments to be made that the kind of shared access is not the true intent of this ordinance and it really does say that that kind of group access is not allowed so I think that things are not always real clear cut and I think that the Council has already identified all the issues of concern. It's difficult to say how a Court would react to it. ' Councilman Geving: Barbara, if we were to act on this tonight as a recommendations from the Council to go with a configuration something like is being described here with four lots and a cul-de-sac which was not the request obviously, it's a revised request, then you're saying this would go back to the Planning Commission with our recommendation and they would rework it? Barbara Dacy: Right. Staff's recommendation was that the Council motion would read that the plat be revised to reflect four lots, creation of a street and prepare a plat based on that and have that reviewed by the Planning Commission. ' Councilman Boyt: I would propose Dale that maybe rather than do that, although that may be where we're heading, is to send this to the Attorney for a clear definition of what we are in fact capable of doing. I agree with the direction but we're cutting some new ground here and I'd like to know how firm it is. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have the same concerns as the others. I think it's in compatible with the neighborhood specifically. Anytime you're putting on more drives onto Minnewashta, I certainly have a concern for that particular area. 1 I City Council. Meeting - February 22, 1988 Elliott Knetsch: We could certainly look at that and give that opinion if necessary. I might suggest we ask the applicant if they have any objection to the proposed revision of going back before the Planning Commission. Ellie Schwaba: We're on a time schedule as most developers are and we'll... A ' couple of things of consideration for us is one, the purchase price we're paying for the property prohibits us doing a cul-de-sac and having four lots. When we originally met with the Planning Department, our intention was to comply with the ordinances and we feel, based on the 15,000+ square feet on each of these lots, we are complying with these ordinances. Kevin Winchell: And they said that we did comply with all the lots from the ' very start. Their recommendations from the planning department right away was to approve our original plans the way they are. We're adding one additional drive is all that we're adding. There is already a driveway there. We've been told by the City Attorney, from his letter in the packet, we're not in violation of the ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think anybody is saying that you're violating the ordinance. I haven't heard anybody say that. Ellie Schwaba: We're not asking for a variance. We're not asking for any ' variances. Kevin Winchell: Then why do we have to study it more? Mayor Hamilton: You haven't been listening to the concerns we have then I guess. Kevin Winchell: I have been listening to them. Mayor Hamilton: Then you should be aware of why we have some concerns and why ' we think it should be looked at further. It's not compatible with the neighborhood. We do have entrances onto Minnewashta that we're concerned about and we also feel, based on what I'm hearing, that the Council would prefer to ' see a cul-de-sac in there in some way rather than the way you're proposing it. Councilman Horn: If you read the Planning Commission Minutes, they recommended exactly the same thing. Mayor Hamilton: Did you want to respond Barb to the comments that were made? ' Barbara Dacy: The Planning staff's original recommendation was for approval for the original plan to the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission meeting, that's when the discussion came up about the private driveways versus the internal street. Again, back to the applicant, the issue here is more of the safety issue of two shared driveways versus one internal street and the applicant has a couple of options. I think the Council has asked them their time schedule for going back to the Planning Commission on a revised plat. The t_ other option the applicant could request that the Council act on the proposed application. Would that be correct? Elliott Knetsch: That's correct. I City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Barbara Dacy: If I'm interpretting the Council's comments, they are asking you what you would like the Council to act on this evening. Councilman Boyt: While you're thinking about that, if I read the Minutes correctly, the Planning Commission recommended denial. Mayor Hamilton: It was a tie. Councilman Boyt: Which means it fails. Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. The motion was to deny however, and it tied. The motion was made to deny it and it was a tie vote so the motion to deny failed. Councilman Boyt: Thank you for clarifying that. Councilman Geving: I'd like to ask the City Engineer, if the cul-de-sac were to ' be built, would it be built at the urban standards? Gary Warren: Unless Council chose otherwise we would enforce our standard ' urban section. Councilman Geving: And what's the size of that cul-de-sac? 60 feet? ' Gary Warren: 50 foot radius. 28 foot wide back to back. Councilman Geving: Surmountable concrete curb? Okay. Ellie Schwaba: We calculated it out, based on our five lot printer with the cul-de-sac and without the cul-de-sac and the total square foot differential of the lots and that difference was 12,000 square feet but we would be lessening the size of the lots by putting in the cul-de-sac. The neighbors are concerned about the size of the lots but we're reducing that by making a cul-de-sac. ' Mayor Hamilton: We're not getting the question answered that we're looking for. Councilman Geving: I don't think I was so concerned about increasing the size of the lot as I was looking at the safety issue of the one access on the parkway. Even though there's a trade-off in the amount of land that would be given up to create the cul-de-sac, we would still meet the requirements of 15,000 square foot minimums on the other four. Isn't that correct Barbara? Barbara Dacy: Right. , Councilman Geving: So we meet the standard. We meet the ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps Elliott could state again, or Bill, to the developers the options that we're looking for more clearly. We're asking them how they want to proceed. Perhaps you could restate that. Elliott Knetsch: Your options here tonight is to ask the Council to vote on your subdivision as proposed. They would either vote to approve or deny. The other option which I think, apparently the sense of the Council would be that 1 8-4-1 rCity Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 you go back to the Planning Commission with a reconfiguration or further study tudy of the internal traffic option and what are the public safety issues of access onto Minnewashta. So, it's really in the applicant's hands. You can ask the Council to vote tonight or you could agree to go back before the Planning Commission and then back to the Council. ' Ellie Schwaba: There was another option mentioned earlier about having the City Attorney review the ordinance again. Elliott Knetsch: I guess that review, if the Council's inclined to make a decision or if you ask them to make their decision tonight, it would be more of a sense of the Council in that they would direct staff to prepare findings ' consistent with either approval or denial depending on which way they go. Once they've given us that direction or staff, our office would prepare a specific Findings. The Council would have their reasons to support their position on paper in front of them and they could then determine whether, the decision wouldn't actually be made until they had those Findings in front of them. That would entail review by the City Attorney's office and other staff. ' Ellie Schwaba: So there would be no decision made tonight from the City? Elliott Knetsch: Well, you'd get a sense of which direction they're going to ' though by what they direct staff to do but they won't be bound by that decision because they're not actually making it tonight. It would be made at the next Council meeting. Mayor Hamilton: The motion would be made to approve or deny it based on the Findings of Fact. That would be the motion. Somebody is going to propose a motion to either approve it or deny it based on the Findings of Fact by the ' staff and the City Attorney's office. That would then come back to the Council at another meeting for us to review again and to reaffirm our vote either to deny or approve. What would your choice be? I guess we're giving you an ' opportunity here to take part in the decision. We need to move on. Kevin Winchell: I guess we would probably have you decide on the Findings of Fact and at the next Council meeting to vote on it according to what that Findings of Fact would say. ' Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to deny the Subdivision Request #88-1 subsequent to Findings of Fact by the City Attorney's office. All voted in favor and motion carried. Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor, for the benefit of the adjacent Pe Y ro rt owners, could I just make a clarification? P Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Barbara Dacy: Lot 1, the question about the lot depth, the Council has changed the lot depth requirement from 150 to 125 feet. Lot 1 as proposed did meet that. The other concern was the 90 feet. It's easily overlooked but that Lot 4 did have 90 feet. There was 8 1/2 feet that is on the plan so that lot does ' have 90 feet. There were some other concerns about setbacks and the plat not r City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 showing those. The survey that we have on file in our office does show the setbacks and their proposed building pad did meet all those setbacks. I just !- wanted that clarified for them. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT, WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. ' Barbara Dacy: I talked to the applicant before the meeting and they would request that the motion, if approved, that the time would be April 1, 1988. Supposedly the owner of the Murphy Building has given them until April 1st. Councilman Geving: April 1, 1989? ' Barbara Dacy: 1988. Councilman Geving: I was going to give you a year's extension. ' Roy Swander: The landlord has given us his approval to stay until April 1. However, we're finding difficulty finding a building to accomodate our size within the area, in our price range and for possibly one year. It's very possible, as things look now, that we could be in a building within a year on our own property. We've had preliminary approval from a bonding company to provide the financing. We're exploring the different designs and contractors to build and all those terrible details but provided that we have nothing that would stop us over the coarse of the year, it looks possible that a building could be erected on this site and we could be in that building within a year. So it's been mentioned that the City has some vacant buildings that we might be able to occupy for temporary period of time. Mayor Hamilton: Once the Lutheran Church moves out of the old St. Hubert's ' church, that will be empty but that won't be until over a year probably or this fall. You were looking for property at one time up on TH 41 or did you purchase the property or something? ' Roy Swander: We have a contract for 10 acres there that we've signed. Mayor Hamilton: So you're still pursuing that. I just thought that might not ' have fallen through. Roy Swander: We have purchased that property on a Contract for Deed and the ' bonding program would include the property and so on. Councilman Geving: I'm confused by your extension request though. When I looked at this, I immediately said well, we'll just grant them another year and I know that's impractical because Murphy doesn't want you there for a year but give us a period of time in which we can extend this that would be reasonable. Mayor Hamilton: Realistic time so you don't have to come back. Councilman Geving: Realistic so this is the end of it. If you say 6 weeks or 1!17 2 months or 6 months. Roy Swander: To be in Mr. Murphy's building? 2 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Councilman Geving: Yes, because that's where you've got your temporary conditional use permit. Roy Swander: He has said he won't let us stay in there past April 1st. Councilman Horn: So really you only need the extension until then. ' Roy Swander: Right, just the 15 days. We've done everything to twist his arm to let us stay in there. It would be much simplier for us all around if we could stay in that building rather than finding another place to go and meet our accomodations. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to extend the Temporary Conditional Use Permit for Westside Baptist Church until April 1, 1988 at the Murphy Building in the IOP District. All voted in favor and motion carried. •• ORDINANCE CODIFICATION: Mayor Hamilton: Does Council wish to go through each item? ' Councilman Geving: I don't have any questions with each of the items. We've seen them several times. Councilman Boyt: There might be a couple. On the third page of Mr. Ashworth's memo he makes reference to, I think the issue that we were just talking about in terms of private streets and drives accessing on arterials. My question for ' staff or Don is, does this clear up the problem we just faced? Barbara Dacy: The answer is no. Well, I'm going to have to say yes and no. What needs to be done is that Section 6.2 and the other section that was quoted in regards to the Schwaba-Winchell case, what staff would like to do is combine those sections and propose ordinance language that would say urban area. The ' standard for that rural area and the standards for that. Beyond that, all I can say is that the Planning Commission and the access to the collector and arterial issues really came up in the rural area over the past year and a half so the Schwaba-Winchell case was kind of a recent development that we haven't had an opportunity to look at. I think it is clear that we need to clarify what "direct access" is and what "individual lots" mean also. We do need to work on that section. Councilman Boyt: Are you saying then that we want to correct page 108 as Don has stated and then come back at it again or similar sections to address this latest problem? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Number one, I would like to e g t a feeling from the Council to see if the proposed standards for the rural issues are consistent with their thinking and two, we will come back with a more detailed proposal at the March 14th meeting. ' Councilman Boyt: That's all I had on that one. I don't know if any other councilmembers want to respond to that particular item. I've got one on the 1 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Park and Rec dedication requirements. I think item (k) which is on page 2 in the packet says, in lieu of parkland donation, and then goes on, the City may require an equivalent cash donation based upon, I think it should be average similar land value rather than average undeveloped land value. If we go average undeveloped land value, there's no way that we can build a park in a urban area. Don Ashworth: I believe that's a section directly out State Statute, is it not Elliott? I'll look at that. I agree with what you're saying but I'm confident that that wordage, average undeveloped land value, is taken directly out of State Statute. Lori Sietsema: Could I respond to that? I asked Roger to specifically put ' that portion into the ordinance so that we have something to base our park dedication fee on. When we go to charge a building permit, the $415.00 charge, the Park and Recreation Commission was concerned that we didn't have, that we're just picking these numbers out of the sky without any basis and they wanted to. be able to go back to the Park Dedication Ordinance and say, based on something, we arrived at this number. So if you take the average undeveloped land which is different in the rural area from the industrial area and the urban area, average those out and figure them all out with what you're standard is, it comes out to what we are charging. It's very similar to what that is. It gives us something to review every year to see that we are staying in step. Councilman Boyt: Lori, what you're saying is that that's not lifted directly out a State Statute then. Lori Sietsema: I believe that it does relate to that but I had requested Roger to specifically put something in there so I could base it on something. He said, if we're going to go the way we're supposed to do it, go to the letter of the law, this is what you're supposed to base it on. I said, that's what I want in there then because it was real difficult to try and figure out and explain to anybody how you come up with this magic $415.00 or $1,035.00 per acre in the industrial when you didn't have in your ordinance how you came to that number. Instead of having some real obscure formula, Roger indicated that this was, if we're going to do it right, do it legally, this is what we have to base it on. Undeveloped land value. Elliott Knetsch: I don't know that you'd find that exact phrase in the State Law on this but like she says, you have to base it on undeveloped value. The State Law just says that the dedication requirement has to be, again it's a reasonable standard and you can't automatically say 10o is okay because you could have very large lots versus one very small, small lot or for high density and obviously the need on the parks generated by the high density is not the same as the large lot subdivision. If you have a flat 10% on both, it probably can't be sustained under the State Law. I Councilman Boyt: That's why I would suggest that we'd be further ahead if we based on similar land so when we're out in a rural area with large lots that aren't worth as much per square foot, we're not getting as much. Maybe that's unenforceable or so complicated to not be worth it but I think we end up shorting ourselves out here when we say that we're going to try and buy parkland in a single family residential, 15,000 square foot development with the same kind of dollars that we're going to buy parkland in an agricultural • City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 area. It won't ha pIen. I Councilman Horn: Could we let the Attorney's research that and give us as much leeway as they can on that? ' Councilman Boyt: I'd be happy to have that. Elliott Knetsch: Yes. ' Lori Sietsema: If you do it with the similar, won't that be different each time? We couldn't have a standard fee for a single family or multiple family or industrial. It would have to be different. Is that correct? ' Councilman Boyt: I hope not. ' Lori Sietsema: From an adminstrative standpoint, that would be difficult. Don Ashworth: We'll have the Attorney's check it. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the First Reading Pp d g of the proposed Codified Ordinance with research by staff and City Attorney as mentioned in discussion. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVIEW SPECIFIC ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, FIRST READING. Mayor Hamilton: I believe all of these, again we have discussed at various times. There are a few of these already that are going to need further action on them. Barbara Dacy: I do need a motion on each item outside of the ones that obviously we don't need to act on. Councilman Boyt: I have a question on the barbed wire thing. I gather it's pretty consistent. I'm thinking that commercial and industrial barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit. I just want to clarify, that means that we can deny it all together? ' Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Boyt: For Findings of Fact, this we want to point out. Alright, ' I'm comfortable with that one. In 6(5) I guess it is, this is close to the end of the various ones, metal buildings. District shall not have metal exteriors or be of metal construction. I would suggest that we're not going to stick with that. We're going to allow buildings that have some metal on their ' exterior. I can't imagine that we wouldn't allow some metal and maybe we should be looking for some sort of percentage of maximum metal coverage. I/ Mayor Hamilton: Is that what you had in mind because you can have metal gutters and metal soffits probably. Councilman Boyt: And you can have sort of ornamental metal. You can have metal siding that really looks quite nice and I think we want to stay away from City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 the thing that looks like a prefab building. Barbara Dacy: That's exactly the direction that the Commission gave to staff. Even to the point that they said, look our real intent is to eliminate a pole barn being in the industrial park or commercial district so they recommended that term because that's easily definable. Staff is coming back to the Planning Commission with recommendation and revised language on this item. This item is not recommended for action tonight. Councilman Horn: In effect, we would allow ornamental metal but not structural metal? Barbara Dacy: That's the direction that the Commission wanted us to look at. Mayor Hamilton: I had a question on 4. The word temporary, it was never clear what temporary means. Is there a definition of temporary someplace? Barbara Dacy: That's exactly the issue. The Attorney's opinion is that a conditional use, once it is granted, runs with the land and the process of a temporary conditional use is in conflict with state law. Based on his recommendation, that's why we're recommending that that section be deleted. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the first reading of the following Zoning Ordinance amendments as presented: 1. Revise Article V, Section 5(5) (3) and Article V, Section 6(5) (3) to state 125 feet. 3. Revise Article VI, Section 12, Fences and Walls, to provide for requirements regarding the use of barbed wire fences. 4. Delete Article VI, Section 4, Temporary Structures and Uses. 6. Add subparagraph 20 to Article IX, Section 2, General Provisions for Signs 1 to require a conditional use permit for cemetery signs. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: Items 2, 5, 7 and 8 need further review and will come back to us. ' COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: RECONSIDER COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS, COUNCILMAN GEVING. Councilman Geving: Sorry that I missed last meeting. When I arrived tonight I had to kick the structure on the outside of the building to make sure the mortar was still in place. It seems to me that some of the decisions that were made tore the very foundation, in my opinion, out from some of the things we had decided a long time ago in terms of commission appointments. So it's with that in mind that I'd like to read a letter that I've prepared for the Mayor only because I'd like to have it in the Minutes and then I will continue with the commission itself. This is a letter to Mayor Tom Hamilton regarding my City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 I resignation from the Chanhassen Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Dear Tom: ' The action by the City Council on February 8, 1988 to advertise for all positions for all commissions leaves me with no choice but to resign effective immediately. As a councilman I have no intention of applying for a position to which I was appointed to many years ago. The Council's action showed a ' complete disregard for the long term voluntary dedication and service by all of the current board members. I thought we were doing a terrific job and had established a team working relationship between Willard Johnson, Carol Watson ' and myself. I really enjoyed them and I think we have served the citizens of Chanhassen in an outstanding manner. I don't believe the Council fully understands the responsibilities of the Board members. This is different from many commissions in that it has the authority to approve or deny a variance. Therefore, it is essential that the board members have a good understanding of the community, a substantial amount of experience in understanding the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Twelve years ago I was appointed by the Council to this board. At that time ' the Council felt that it was essential to have a councilman on the board and to provide the perspective that only a councilman can give. It is my recommendation that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to stipulate that a member from the City Council be appointed to serve on this board. I sincerel y regret having to take this action but I am very frustrated at our major decision making process by the current council and think that this may be a good time to move on. I wish to say thank you Tom for your supportive comments and the good judgment you portrayed at the February 8th meeting. Too bad some of the others weren't listening. ' I present that to you Mr. Mayor. I would like to go on to two items that came up. Item 8(d) on the Council packet of February 8th. This is in regards to the Southwest Metro Commission. A commission of 6 people for the operation of the Southwest Metro Transit. We have a commission vacancy at the present time. Mr. Hamilton had to resign from this commission and I must say this to the Council. The Southwest Metro is in a demonstration period. It's a very ' experimental thing. We've just completed the first year of a 16 month demonstration period. It was very important for the Councils to appoint their mayor and a councilman to this board. Now Chaska chose not to do that because they had Gale Concannon, an Executive Director for the Metro Transit Commission and that was their candidate. Basically all of the commission members are either mayors or councilmen. We recently added a seventh position to the Transit Commission so that we would have another member for quorum purposes. We had a hard time meeting a quorum on several occasions and it was decided that we would add one more commission member at large and it would be a citizen. This citizen position would rotate between the cities so Chaska chose a lady. She is a bus rider and it represents the ridership. That Commission membership will change to Chanhassen next and then it will go to Eden Prairie. For that reason, I really disagree with what has been laid out for us on the February 8th council agenda and the recommendation of our staff when it says, ' it is not required that a commissioner be a council member. That's true but I can only tell you that the people that represent their cities on the Commission I City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 must speak for their cities. Must be in a position so that they know the hot issues in our communities. They must also be aware of what new developments are taking place. That's why we put the mayor from this city on that commission and a councilman. I submit to you until that demonstration period is over and until the Commission is up and running in very good swing, we should continue that. We should maintain a strong council representation on that commission. So I disagreed entirely with the comment that we should have a rider as our member for this commission. I can understand where Mr. Hamilton is coming from. That's why I resigned from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. A councilman should never be judged by his peers. His peers are the voters. These are the people that elected you. It's very important in this particular case that we have a strong leadership position and it should not be a citizen. It should be a councilmember or the mayor himself that is appointed to the vacancy now created by Tom. I disagree with the advertisement for this position and I followed up with Beverly Miller, our administrator for the Southwest Metro today and it was her opinion and a comment we made when we started the commission that each of the cities would try to get their very best people on the commission to get it going. All of the other communities have done the same thing. There are currently two mayors on that commission. So she recommended that we continue with our emphasis on board members being from the Council. I can only say at this time that I think that we can go ahead and advertise but if you put someone who is not a councilman on that position to fill that vacancy, we're making a mistake. So for that reason, I'd like to take another look at this. I'd like to reconsider the commission approach to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission vacancy created by Mr. Hamilton and I recommend that a City Council member be appointed to that position. Any discussion? Councilman Horn: I think we have to look a the structure of each of our commissions. Certainly the intent of what was done here was a follow-up of what was done at the planning session that we had and that is to remove any doubt of having the good old boy system in the appointments of our commissions. The intent that I had when I supported that position in our last meeting had nothing to do with council positions on commissions. It was only in regards to non-council representation at those commissions. I think there is a totally different issue there. Commissions where we have a councilmember appointed, they are not in the same situation as the other appointments. I think when we have a councilmember representative, there's no point in advertising for that position. We know that we will pick one from our group to do that. Councilman Geving: If you state that tonight Clark, why didn't you say that on the 8th? That's an entirely new statement. Councilman Horn: The issue did not come up in that vein. The issue came up in terms of applicants for the Planning Commission and the other commissions. Councilman Geving: Not really because they're talking, in fact this whole section had to do with the vacancy created by the Southwest Metro. If you read your notes starting here on page 62, Appointments to Commission, we started out with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and obviously that was three [!! positions. Willard Johnson's, myself and Carol Watson's and you took off from there. I can quote you right here Clark. I would be in favor of advertising for all the positions, all of the appointments and then making our selection 11 from all the interested people but I don't think we should delay the selection City Council_ Meeting - February 22, 1988 process before we set our criteria. If you think that I, as a councilman are going to make an application or any other councilman, and then be judged by this group whether or not he's going to be selected for that, I think that would be totally wrong. ' Councilman Horn: I don't think it's even applicable because where we had commissions where there's council representation, that clearly doesn't even apply and was not even a part of my consideration in that. ' Councilman Geving: Then that's why we should reconsider this because that was not stated on the 8th. Councilman Horn: I agree. In fact, it never came up in all of our discussions when we planned for this, we were totally talking about non-council positions. That's why it didn't come up as an issue because it was not even considered as ' such, at least in my mind. Councilman Geving: Let's stay with the situation for the vacancy for Tom Hamilton on the Southwest Metro. Let's stay with that issue because that's the 'first one out of the box. It's very important in my view to have strong Council representation. There's one other fact that I should advise you on. The cities themselves are totally liable. If the Southwest Metro gets in ' trouble financially. Each of the cities are liable for any overrun of cost and that's why a councilman or a mayor is very important to bring this information back to it's city and say, we are in trouble. We've got to come up with some money to support this thing. 'J — Mayor Hamilton: Let me just make i Y just it clear that the reason I resigned from the - ' Southwest Metro Transit Commission was simply because I'm also on the Public Saftey Commission which happens to meet the same night at the same time. I can't be in both places at the same time. I did ask the Public Safety Connu ssion if they would change their meeting date to a different night and they could not accomodate that request. I felt strongly about remaining on that commission as we're still in a growth process and I felt my services might be needed there more than they are on the Southwest Transit because it's moving ' along quite well. I'm not leaving it because I'm trying to leave anybody in the lurch. I can't be in two spots at the same time. I do agree, I think it should be a councilperson on there. We need to have a decision maker. Someone who can analyze things quickly and make the right decision. Councilman Horn: I think the other thing that Dale should be aware of is in our discussions at our planning session, we also said that we feel, at least ' most of us felt that the wave of the future is involved with groups like this where we're involved with other communities in our vicinity. I think that's going to become a more and more important way of getting things accomplished. Mayor Hamilton: You and I felt that way anyway. Councilman Boyt: I would like to say first, Dale not being at that meeting, it's certainly hard to pick up the flow of it reading the Minutes. You'll note on page 66 that Jay Johnson volunteered and was promoted to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission on a temporary basis. I think if we would have had your ' input that evening we might have made that permanent at the time since he expressed an interest. I think you should also note, page 67 in the Minutes in 1 Sa r;1� City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 which we attempted, and I don't know if this happened with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the other bodies but to quote myself in the middle of the page, "I think it's important that we get the word of the people who I:- we're advertising the positions for, who are currently in those positions, that we would like them to not interpret this as a vote of no confidence." The whole spirit of this was we were dealing with how do we appoint people to our commissions in the necessity to be consistent. I thought in making that statement that I was making it very clear that I didn't want people on those boards to feel that we were saying or that I was saying that I didn't support what they were doing. It was simply a matter of, I was very unhappy that we would advertise for one board position and not advertise for another. I didn't think that that was fair treatment and I still don't think that's fair treatment and I believe that's why the advertisement was done. I also- have stated that it was certainly not fair treatment to advertise for a position that we had no intentions of filling without indicating in the ad that the incumbents were seeking to be reappointed. I don't want to generate 18 candidates for a position when I know the incumbents want to be reappointed and that they're doing a good job. So we tried to clear that up. I thought it was in the Minutes. I'm sorry that you took it the way you took it. ' Mayor Hamilton: One of the things that we discussed Dale, and we talked about this on our retreat also is that there is a need to do this and the reason I was opposed to it is because we have nothing in place to give us any direction at this time as to exactly what we're going to do. I don't have a problem with putting something in place but I still feel that we're trying to shift gears in the middle of something. You're trying to change and go a different direction and you don't have any direction to go that way. I'm not saying it's wrong to try and change. In fact, it's perhaps needed but we've got to have some way to get there. We don't have any way to get there. To just say we're going to advertise for these people raises all kinds of questions. Where do you advertise? How many times do you advertise? Do you advertise in all of the papers? Half the papers? One of the papers? Do you put it in the Post? Do you put it everyplace you can? Do you just put it on a bulletin board? All those questions haven't been answered and I think until they're answered, we don't really know how we're going to do it. Plus we haven't addressed the issue of how do you handle those people who are incumbents? Of course, there are a couple people here tonight who would like to speak to that issue. No matter what you say as to not showing any non-confidence in their past performance, when you say you want to advertise for the position for their term that's up, they're going to feel by saying that, just by saying it, they're going to feel that you don't have confidence in them and you feel they haven't done a good job. I guess those are still my reasons why I think we made a mistake and I think the whole issue just needs to be resolved. Not right now because we're in the middle of some of them. The city isn't going to suddenly turn sour if we reappoint people who are on these commissions to positions when their term is up and then let's get something in place so the next time we have some clear guidelines to go by and that the staff also has the clear guidelines to go by because they don't have them either. I think that was another one of the things we talked about that is not in place. We do not want to start giving staff direction to do something when they have no guidelines to do it. 1 Councilman Geving: I agree Tom that we should have a procedure and I would whole heartedly follow that procedure. What irritated me in this particular case is that it, clearly we had people who were interested in continuing to i ;;a`_ City Council_ Meeting - February 22, 1988 II Iserve on commissions. There really was no vacancy to be filled. Where you a clear cut vacancy, then we should follow the procedure for applying and Ihave getting an advertisement out and getting the candidates in and reviewing them and so forth. But where you have incumbents sitting in a commission and they clearly want to remain on the commission, they're doing a good job and the ' council knows they're doing a good job, then I'd say that we should also have a provision and a procedure for continuing to maintain their capability of staying on those commissions and not advertising and getting a whole bunch of people out there. Saying we've got two people that are already incumbents. We know they're going to apply. We're advertising for another two vacancies so the people that are already sitting there and then you get another half dozen applicants, now you've got 8 people vying for 2 positions and it's not fair. ' It's really not fair. I think that I agree entirely with Tom. There is a point in which you kick in the procedure if there is a vacancy of if the performance of an individual is such that you want to remove him or her but where you clearly have people that are doing a good job and want to remain on the commission and there is really no vacancy. Their term happens to expire and that's the only thing that's happened but they want to stay on the commission, then we should keep them on the commission. Councilman Horn: There's already a precedent for what we're proposing happening and that happened with the Planning Commission many years ago. When ' the Planning Commission members, of their own volition said, I think I should throw my hat in the ring along with every other applicant that comes in here. 3 As a matter of fact, they've been operating under that mode. They chose to do that on their own so not every commission member feels that way. What we have though is a hodge podge of one commission doing it one way and another commission doing it another way and many times people think they should get on a commission the first time they apply and that just doesn't happen in most ' cases. People are getting negative feelings because we don't have a procedure. Councilman Geving: I think we need a procedure but let's not turn the tables ' over and make the mortar that I talked about turning to mush overnight. We've got to build on what we've done over a long, long period of time and put the procedure in place at the appropriate time. Councilman Horn: I think you're forgetting one thing Dale and that is that this body still makes those decisions. We can still choose on that basis. Just because we chose to advertise doesn't mean that we can't choose on whatever ' basis makes sense. I can guarantee you that that will be the basis that I will use when I make my decision. ' Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to get the comments, I know Carol Watson and Willard Johnson are here to tell us their feelings about this issue and I guess I'd like to ask them at this time. Carol, would you like to? 11 Carol Watson: My only concern with the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is that it's not like any other commission in the City. You don't make a recommendation, you make a decision. One of the Planning Commission members for instance has been in the city for 8 months. I don't feel a person like that, it's as easy for them to be in a position of making a decision. We don't make recommendations to this body. We make a decision and it stands. Yes, we ' do unless we deny. Bill, we can approve something and it lives. If we make a denial they always have a right to come to this body with their decision but 1 6 F'j City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 when we approve something, they can go ahead and get a building permit and do it. They don't have to come to the City Council. 111: Willard Johnson: I've worked with this board and I've been on it for a number of years. I went through a lot of mayors and I went through a lot of council people. We've got the best working board we've had since I've been on this. I've never had any trouble with the council people. In the past we used to have Planning Commission members. 50%, or I should say more like 75%, the Planning Commission member never showed up. If you look back in the Minutes, ever since I've been on, it's just two people and you're not going to get a good working commission. Plus you've got to go out to the job site and there's a lot of time consuming. If you're going to get a person that's going to do that and waste his time, is probably not their choice of words but spend their time going out to the job site. Chanhassen is 22 square miles. Drive all over the city of than for 3 variances. Mayor Hamilton: What was your feelings, I guess both of you when you saw the process that had been suggested by the Council on February 8th? I was just curious what your feelings were and what you felt was happening. Willard Johnson: No confidence. Carol Watson: I guess I didn't really look at it that way completely. My concern was just advertising. I think the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is different. I think there should be some background. Mayor Hamilton: I think you're right. You've got a lot of background. The ' more experience the better on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Willard Johnson: When it comes out in the paper and you see advertising for ' three positions and we've been holding these positions, maybe we aren't the best. All of a sudden you see this come out in the paper, three openings, and it makes you feel about that high off the ground. 1 Councilman Boyt: I take it that nobody contacted you to tell you about this? Councilman Geving: Not really. 1 Barbara Dacy: Jo Ann called to see if you were willing to reappointed. I know she did. ' Willard Johnson: We were all contacted to be reappointed, yes. Carol Watson: Yes, in our meeting back in October we were asked if we were interested in being reappointed. Barbara Dacy: It was my understanding also that she did talk to you about the ' Council's action. Carol Watson: After it appeared in the paper. We had all read it. Councilman Geving: The statement that Bill read back here on page 68 wasn't part of what was given to these people. That's the problem. There was no explanation of really what had happened on the 8th. '7 q City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 1111 Mayor Hamilton: Have the ads been put in the paper? Councilman Geving: Oh yes, they're in. Mayor Hamilton: Have there been any applicants come in? ' Barbara Dacy: Not to my knowledge. ' Mayor Hamilton: For any of the positions that were advertised for? Then it raises the question, where did you advertise? How long do we have to advertise? It just goes on. We don't have guidelines to follow. It puts us at a distinct disadvantage. Councilman Horn: We said it at the last meeting, that we advertise until have enough candidates to fill the positions. t 1 we Mayor Hamilton: We already have enough. We had enough. Councilman Boyt: I think that Clark made the point that was the heard of the ' discussion in our last meeting which was, to fill positions without advertising was to imply something that wasn't true. The way to cover that in the short term was simply to advertise the position and the people were to be told that ' we were taking care of a procedural matter and not a matter of voting about whether or not we had confidence in the people in those positions. That was the heard of the discussion as I recall it. I'm sorry that it came out the way it did. That wasn't the intent. Don Ashworth: Point of clarification from staff. I think I've talked to almost all of the members. I know Willard and I have talked at length. I talked to Dick Wing and Candy Takkunen. The problem occurs is that you're talking about Monday night newspaper really out on Wednesday and we have so many commissions that by the time we got back to many of these people, they had ' already seen that. The other question becomes one of even stating what the goal was, like with Willard, we really need to have the meetings with the individual commissioners so they can hear from you what it is that we're looking for and goals, expectations, etc.. I know that Dick Wing accepted by ' comments. I don't know if he totally believed them. Mayor Hamilton: He didn't. He was very angry. I don't know what the ' Council's pleasure is. I guess everything has been advertised for and we'll need to deal with those very soon. We need to find some people or reappoint so I guess the staff will have to come back to us. ' Councilman Horn: I thought when this was on the agenda tonight that we were going to call it tonight. ' Councilman Geving: On the first issue, as far as the Southwest Metro is concerned, I'd like to see a councilman appointed to fill Tom's vacancy and that would be it because we are going to have a meeting on Thursday night. Councilman Horn: We have a temporary. Councilman Boyt: He's out of town. /ate City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Councilman Geving: The only bad thing about appointing Jay is that I don't know what his schedule is. It probably wouldn't be fair to appoint him full time for this as long as he's agreed to be a temporary. That might be good enough for now. Mayor Hamilton: I think we should talk to him and see if he's willing to take it on a full time basis. If he doesn't, I know that Bill would be happy to do it. I have your letter here Dale and I'm not willing to accept it so you're still on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilman Geving: So be it. Mayor Hamilton: There wasn't anybody who ever said that we felt that you were ' doing less than an outstanding job. I certainly feel that way and I hope that you will want to be reappointed to that commission which I believe you do. Willard Johnson: I think that's the way the whole Board felt. When it come out in the paper the way it is, I felt like no confidence. Mayor Hamilton: That wasn't the intent for any of the people. 1 Carol Watson: I would like to be reappointed in case there's any confusion. Mayor Hamilton: The next item was the referendum. I wanted to just address that very briefly. It's not intended to be a debate or an issue that's going to be discussed by everybody. I'm just rather frustrated and I think it's time that somebody has something to say about all of the misinformation that is being circulated about the community. I think it's very unfortunate when you have people who have been previously elected to positions and those who are currently holding elected positions, take a position and put their name in the paper as being a part of a group who is certainly entitled to their opinion and thoughts about items on the referendum. However, when they tell falsehoods and are not in the least bit accurate with your information and leave other people in the community to believe things that are not true, I think it's extremely unfortunate and it's time for us to take a look at what is really occurring in our community and look at the people who have been elected. This thing has gotten completely out of hand with the bad information going out. One side countering the other on an hour by hour basis. It wasn't intended to be a debate. It's a referendum that was put together by a group of volunteer citizens of the community in all good conscience and faith that this was the best thing for the community to do and it's not an item that was intended to be debated or kicked around like a skraggy dog. Everybody has the right to vote the way they feel about it and to start doing a lot of name calling of myself and other people who have volunteered their times and effort, just isn't right and I wish it would stop. I'm very, very disappointed in the way some of the residents of this community have reacted to the whole issue. Enough said about that. Councilman Geving: As long as we're on that subject though Tom, are you going to talk about this? Is this something that's going to be sponsored by the City? I 75 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Yes, there is a newsletter that is going out this evening that r- ill has the backing of the entire Council and the staff. It is in response again to accusations and inneundoes that have been made that are not accurate, are incomplete, taken out of context and again, it's an attempt by the City to ' clarify the misinformation that is being spread around town. There has never been any attempt by anyone on the staff or the Council to do anything other than tell everything that needs to be told and can be told about each and every referendum issue and to tell the truth about it. There's nothing to hide. The ' issue is before the residents. It's up to them to vote. If they don't like it, they can vote no. If they want to have it, they can vote yes. It's just that simple. ' Councilman Horn: I got a chance to read this over and I think it's- very well done. It exactly states the position we should take. We're not selling anything on this. We're giving information which is exactly what we should do. ' Mayor Hamilton: That's right. I think we've given out the accurate, the true information has come from the City and it's continually distorted. ' Councilman Geving: I'd like to ask Tom if there is any plan to have a post referendum meeting, possibly Thursday or sometime after the ballots have been counted to assess our position. I think it would be very important for us because we probably won't be meeting again for another two weeks officially. The reason I'm saying this is because we should be aware of the situation of the ballot so as we get telephone calls, we know what has passed, what has not passed. Don Ashworth: There were a number of resolution items dealing with the ' referendum itself that came before the Council, I would say approximately one month ago. One of those was the canvasing of the election results. I'm confident that you set 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, in other words the day following the referendum as a special meeting time and place to canvas the results. ' Councilman Geving: I wouldn't have known about it until tonight. that then? g Shall we set ' Don Ashworth: We have to set one within 48 hours after the date of the referendum. ' Councilman Horn: I can't be here at 5:00. Mayor Hamilton: What time can you be here? Councilman Horn: I can be here at 6:30. Mayor Hamilton: Bill, are you going to be in town? Councilman Boyt: Yes, 6:30 is fine. Councilman Geving: No problem. Any time after 4:00. Mayor Hamilton: As long as I can rip out of here in 10 minutes. I have to be in Chaska at another meeting. 1 1 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Councilman Geving: It won't take long. Let's kick it up a little bit. How about 6:15? I Councilman Horn: I'll try to get here as quick as I can. Mayor Hamilton: The other item I wanted to address was the Public Safety Commission met last Thursday and we had discussed the possibility of increasing the size of that commission to seven. Two more than the current five. That commission had recommended that last fall at some time and it was never acted on. They're still recommending that that commission be increased to seven or two more than what it currently is. Consequently, they would like to advertise and they would like, first of all, have the City Council approve that, that they go to seven. Then to allow them to advertise for the two additional positions. ' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to increase the size of the Public Safety Commission to seven (7) members and to advertise for the two , additional positions. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see the ad include that these are positions that aren't currently held. Don Ashworth: Just for clarification, I see that as an instruction to staff as far as the advertisement, the general desire. The membership is set up by I ordinance so on upcoming agenda you will see that item then appear to confirm what you've done. Mayor Hamilton: Then the last item I had is a part of the referendum again, with all this information that's flying around town. There seems as though everyone is using mailboxes and newspaper boxes, where they deliver newspapers, and it's just been a mess. There's papers flying all over the place. They drop them out of the car windows and they don't stop to pick them up. It's been something that I think we shouldn't have to tolerate. I think it's something the residents shouldn't have to tolerate. Shouldn't be getting this garbage. What I'd like to see us do, if possible, is to have an ordinance that would eliminate this type of activity. I know it's illegal to put anything in a mailbox, but I'd also like an ordinance saying that you can't put anything in a newspaper holder, whatever you call those things. I would also like it actually to include you can't use an individual's mailbox from the ground to the top of the mailbox. You can't rubber it on. You can't glue it on. You can't do anything. You either mail to the individual's home or you knock on their door and hand it to them. If you don't want to do those two things, you don't give it to them. I don't know if it's possible to do that. Maybe , Elliott can give us a little insight. I'd like to pursue that to see if we can accomplish that. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that maybe what we're really after, and maybe one of the more upsetting things about this material is that it should have an individual's name and address on it. Preferably a phone number and if we find them blowing around the City, then we've got somebody we can hold accountable. City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Ii Mayor Hamilton: That was another point I meant to make. If people send out ' unsigned information, it ought to go directly to the Y garbage without passing go. If they don't have the guts to sign it to let the people know who's distributing the information, then it doesn't deserve anyone reading it. There was the one that just went out recently, it said the Committee Against whatever it was. When you have an election you have to sign it, your committee and it has to be a treasurer's name on there. That should have to be the same thing ' for any information being distributed in town. It has to have, like you say, somebody's name that's accountable. I'd like to see our Attorney's office research that and see if we can't come up with some way to control that. ' Councilman Horn: There was a lot of other garbage besides this that comes around in those paper boxes. People are always coming around the neighborhood and putting them in there. Maybe what we should do is to probably get a ' listing. I throw them all away so I don't read them but maybe we should get a listing of who uses those and see if there are any legitimate things that we contact those agencies and let them know this. ' Mayor Hamilton: Well, it would just be billposting. Any billposting can't be done. You either mail it or you hand it to them at the door. Ring the bell and hand it to them. Otherwise, don't do it. Jim, do you have any other suggestions along that line? Jim Chaffee: I did call ADS, they're based up in Cambridge, Minnesota. They're the ones that attach those black tubular boxes to your mailpost. They indicated that it is not legal for anybody to place anything in their black boxes. They say they don't take people to court when they find out who does it ' but they direct their drivers, if they find some material in there that they have not placed in there, that they pull it out and then they, from corporate headquarters call up these people who are on the handbills that were passed out and suggest to them that they pay the ADS Corporation to deliver them. They ' say that most of the time they'll get compliance that way but they do not pursue it legally and I'm not even aware if there is a legal problem with that. Clearly they said they own those boxes. It's for their use and no one elses. Mayor Hamilton: Enough said about that. Don had an item on the absentee ballot. ' Don Ashworth: Yes. Jean Meuwissen would like to see the Council, the State Statute provides a board for counting absentee ballots and that would just help in our process. The governing body of any municipality may, by ordinance, or ' the School Board by resolution, authorizing an absentee ballot counting board for the purpose of counting all absentee ballots cast in the municipality or school district or shall consist of a sufficient number of election judges ' appointed as provided in Sections 2.04(b) . So we already have set our election judges. It's just a matter of taking a portion of those judges and putting them onto this board. What I would ask you to do is to pass an ordinance which authorize the creation of an absentee ballot counting board that is to be composed of members of our election judges. Mayor Hamilton: Do we need to appoint specific people then? 1 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Don Ashworth: I'm assuming that the flexibility is built in here to insure that the election clerk, if that person sees that we're getting 500 of them, that they can set more election judges to count them. Mayor Hamilton: So what do we need to do? Don Ashworth: Again, the passage of an ordinance that establishes an absentee ballot counting board. Mayor Hamilton: Just a motion is all we need right now, right? If it's an ordinance, don't we have to publish it? We can't establish an ordinance right now. We have to advertise it and everything else. , Don Ashworth: The governing body of any municipality may by ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: That's a Minnesota Election law. If we adopt the Minnesota ' Election Laws, aren't we accomplishing the same thing? Probably so, it says by ordinance. Elliott Knetsch: Yes, you still need the ordinance. Do you have any feel for how many absentee ballots there's going to be? Don Ashworth: Jean did tell me how many we had. I thought she said something ' like 70. Mayor Hamilton: What have we done in previous times? We've had absentee ballots come in. You must have handled them somehow. Don Ashworth: The decision to have an ordinance come before this board twice is a decision that we have made locally to insure that all ordinances that are potentially generally affected the populous, in fact get two readings. The City Council may waive those procedures and adopt an ordinance such as this if you find that it's prudent to do such. We've taken care of this in the past, I would assume we can take care of it for this one. Councilman Geving: If you feel strongly about it, I suppose we can vote on it ' but it wouldn't serve any purpose because we couldn't make an ordinance out of it, other than our intent. Don Ashworth: Again, Jean, I don't know if she just found this. She left me the note earlier today wondering if this was a possibility and I just saw the section on ordinance. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to allow the Absentee Ballot Counting Board be composed of an adequate number of election judges to count the absentee ballots. All voted in favor and motion carried. PROCLAMATION FOR VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK, MAYOR HAMILTON. Resolution #88-15: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to proclaim the week of March 6 through March 13, 1988 as Volunteers of America Week. All voted in favor and motion carried. 11 IICity Council_Meeting - February 22, 1988 illi _ WATER QUALITY POLICY PLAN UPDATE, CITY PLANNER. Barbara Dacy: If you would like to make any comments on the four major issues or add or subtract anything, please feel free to do so. 1 Councilman Geving: I'm surprised that Chaska is not a member of this group. Is that correct? IIBarbara Dacy: That is correct. They have been coming to more meetings on this issue, on the sewer policy plan issue but they have not been contributing to Mr. Boland's expenses. 1 Councilman Geving: The reason I ask that is I think I've seen them there. IMayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept the four items of the Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Chapter as outlined by the IICity Planner. All voted in favor and motion carried. AUDUBON ROAD RECONSTRUCTION, CITY ENGINEER. IDon Ashworth: The major portion of the report is written by myself. I did have Gary do a cost estimate. In fact it was running late on Friday so my li example uses $700,000.00 as a total cost figure and again, the actual cost is estimated at $625,000.00 from the engineer. The question becomes one of, will we be looking to improving Audubon Road and at what time frame? McGlynn Industries is interested in coming into Chanhassen. They're concerned with I that expenditure. They have seen the business park, in fact Mr. McGlynn was out over the weekend, I just learned that today, taking pictures of our existing business park. I think it's fair to say that they are very impressed II with the existing business park and would hope that they'll be a good neighbor to the community and again, locate in Chanhassen. Would like to see development standards set for their property similar to those that have been I set in the Business Park itself. Of concern again to them, is Audubon Road which previously was old County Road 17. It's a roadway that the County turned back to the City really leaving it in the condition that it was in advance of II that turnback. Creation of tax increment districts are unpopular type of things, especially in today's day and age but if there were a project that would rightly and justly fall into a tax increment district, it is this one. McGlynn's or other property owners that would purchase property or own property II on either side of Audubon Road, do not directly benefit from that roadway. Legally we could assess them and we could assess them to some viable 50% or 75%. I think you would find it very difficult to sustain that assessment. However, if you did make that assessment, you would still have the remaining I 25% or 50% GO, which would have to come back against the citizens as a whole. What my analysis attempted to point out was that as being a part of a tax increment district, if it can be reduced to a 3 to 6 year period of time, we in fact will benefit all of our citizens by doing it as a tax increment district. Now again, one of the underlying questions becomes one of the roadway itself and the necessity to do that work. Staff believes that the road functions as I it is, that it could be brought up to a 9 ton standard but I think we're only fooling ourselves if within a 5 to 10 year period of time, we would be bringing I City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 it up to urban standards. I'm assuming Gary is ready for any additional comments regarding the costs. Mayor Hamilton: Urban standards, you mean by putting in curb and gutter? Don Ashworth: Curb and gutter, street lighting. 1 Mayor Hamilton: How much would you widen it? Gary Warren: You'd probably be looking at a 44 foot section. Mayor Hamilton: How far south would we go? All the way down to CR 18? Gary Warren: Just to merge with the approach to the railroad, where it's just south of the Public Works property. Councilman Geving: That's an expensive piece for a short ways. Is it only about half a mile? Gary Warren: About 6/10th's of a mile. We're trying to be very generous with , our costs. Mayor Hamilton: I know that I'm not too much inclined to want to create , another TID but I know the State is considering eliminating them altogether before long because they don't like them at all but we do need, that road is in bad shape. Councilman Geving: We couldn't afford to do it any other way. The thing that bothers me is that, have you talked to McGlynn? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Geving: Could this be a factor in whether or not they actually I follow through and come to Chanhassen or not? Don Ashworth: They have been very good to work with. I think when they saw the total cost associated with bringing that road up, they were surprised themselves. They in no way said that that would make or break their decision but I think if we came back and said that we were going to assess that 75% or 100%, I think they would reassess their decision to come. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you about the timing on there. Something I read about April was it? The TID, April 1? ' Don Ashworth: There is a piece of legislation in front of the legislature which would eliminate what has been a clause that allows construction within 3 months of the creation of a tax increment district. Right now you can capture that value. The State Law change would say, they're eliminating that so if you created a district, you would not capture any values for 18 months following the date that you adopted the district. ' Councilman Geving: On the other hand, if we created the district, let's say in March, chances are it's going to take a good year before we would have McGlynn in there or any other developer in there. You really wouldn't be talking about 1 City Council_ Meeting - February 22, 1988 taxes enerated until ntzl 1990 I would suspect. So the 18 months really doesn't hurt us. ' Don Ashworth: Except it's from the date of the issuance of the building permit. McGlynn does want to move along to the point where they would seek a ' building permit in the June to July timeframe. June is preferably what they would like to work towards. ' Councilman Geving: I don't think we've got any choice personally. I think we have to establish a district. Mayor Hamilton: I think for a couple of reasons. I stop and think of all the ' things we did for Beddor and their whole development and that was all tax increment district and it's worked out really well. McGlynn is bringing over a part of their operation. I think if we made that road nice enough and showed ' them we liked to work with them and we'd like them to be here, it's certainly a good opportunity to move the rest of their operation over here at some time. I certainly would like to accomplish that. ' 'Councilman Horn: Are there any other areas that staff would recommend to set up as a district or are just going to piecemeal this thing? It seems to me we should look at the whole issue. tCouncilman Geving: Can we bring it all the back to the new CR 17? Create a new district there because we're going to be expanding the industrial park, I ' would hope, from where we're at all the way over to Audubon. Don Ashworth: You could extend it all the way down to Lyman Blvd., yes. ' Councilman Geving: I'm not thinking that far down. I was thinking just that narrow band along the road. From CR 17 west to Audubon. Almost where we would build a new road. The extension of Lake Drive East. ' Don Ashworth: Actually, that is within tax increment district #1. I Councilman Horn: I was thinking more specifically the area to include TH 101. I'd like to look at all of these potential districts in one group if we could when we discuss this issue. Don Ashworth: I don't know if you could establish a district. Have a parcel here. Normally the improvements go along with the parcels. I don't know if you could have the parcel from which you're collecting monies and then you're ' going to skip over a mile and make the expenditure. Councilman Horn: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if we're going to establish one district here, would there be other areas where we would want to ' establish districts. I'd like to see all of those proposals at once so we get a feel for them rather than just take them as they come. Let's look at the whole picture. Councilman Geving: Don, would this be the district here? 1 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Don Ashworth: I believe the parcel is this entire parcel, was it not Barbara? So yes, that's the only section that had that. Councilman Geving: It's too bad in a way because don't you actually have as much adminstrative work in creating that 80 acres as you would if you were to expand for a much larger area? I don't know where the MUSA comes in there but it seems to me we could come all the way south even though there are homes down there next to CR 18. Mayor Hamilton: That's outside the MUSA. Don Ashworth: As far as the road improvement itself, it could be considered all the way down though. You just wouldn't have sanitary sewer. Mayor Hamilton: But why include it in the district then? Don Ashworth: Only to the extent that the Council would feel that this section of Audubon is going to have to be upgraded at some point in time... Councilman Geving: We could pick up the cost. Don Ashworth: One thing about a district and bringing the thing back, the City Council can always cut it back. The only concern I would have is that the April 1 date is important. If the Attorney tells me I can't get everything done, if you ask us to do all of this, then I will give him guidance to just focus in on the one section he can get done. ' Mayor Hamilton: Bring it back next meeting. Don Ashworth: We will try to take and get it down as quickly as we can. The legal notice section is what I'm worried about. Mayor Hamilton: I think you've got unanimous agreement. ' POSITION CLASSIFICATION PLAN, FINALIZE 1988 REVIEW PROCESS. 1 Don Ashworth: Typically the Mayor has met with myself at the end where we have completed the overall position classification process. I would anticipate that the Council wants to follow a similar procedure. If that's the case, we would present this item then on our first meeting in March. Councilman Horn: Are you the only one who takes a shot at it? Mayor Hamilton: No, everybody does. I write it up and go through it with Don and then if somebody wants to add or delete they can do that. , Councilman Geving: Is it your idea Tom that we would fill out these and give them to you? ' Mayor Hamilton: I think we've done that in the past. Usually fill one out and I think everybody's gotten the one that I filled out and seen my comments on there. 1 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Councilman Horn: Would you like our comments before you review it with Don? Mayor Hamilton: Sure, that's fine with me. Councilman Geving: I've got comments and I want to provide than to you. Mayor Hamilton asked the two young men in the audience their names and what ' project they were working on. They stated their names were Clark and Mark. They live in Chanhassen and attend Minnetonka Jr. High School. They stated they needed to interview the Mayor after the meeting. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager ' Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 I 1 �1 NE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION A 1 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 40 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad , Brian Batzli and David Headla ' MEMBERS ABSENT: James Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst . ICity Planner PUBLIC HEARING: EVALUATION OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR' S YARD ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 4141 KINGS ROAD, LOWELL CARLSON. 1 Public Present : IILowell Carlson Applicant Wayne McCorney Applicant 's Attorney Mr. Chamberlain 4151 Kings Road I Jean Chamberlain 4151 Kings Road Doris Brickley Minneapolis, MN (Part owner of two parcels on Kings Road) Oscar Anderson 7115 Kings Road Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. IConrad: Just for clarification Barbara , the applicant is applying for a 12 , 000 square foot building. First phase would be 2,000. 1 Dacy: That' s correct. Conrad : The conditional use that we granted before was a condition of how many square foot? Dacy: There was no specific number established in the record . It was I just determined that whatever would be necessary to store the amount of material on site. Conrad : With that little bit of background, we ' ll open it up for any kind of public input. Mr. Carlson, if you'd like to make a statement about your application. Maybe it' s good that you kick it off and we ' ll listen to your comment. ILowell Carlson: I really thought it was no problem after the 1985 motion. It was all set and cut and dry except for the setback and the II price of the permit was going to cost . That ' s the only thing that drug this thing along was that. 11 � N Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 2 I Conrad : Tell us about the 12,000 square foot building. What you' re intent on that? Lowell Carlson : The City of Chanhassen required me to, that I had to build a building big enough to put everything inside so I agreed. At that time, they wanted everything inside so I agreed to build a building that size so everything was inside. Conrad : By building the first 2, 000 square feet of this 12, 000 foot building, what will get inside in this particular case? Will much of what you currently have be inside or only a portion or what? Lowell Carlson: Basically the 2,000, the ceiling, in the excavating ' business you work during the summer and you don' t have much to do in the winter so as far as building a building, we wanted to build it this winter to get it done. Then I run into this thing . I 've got to go and do this and that. Finally, we got the setback of the building settled . We still ain' t got the red fee settled because they wanted, I called George at the time that he was here, he called and a square foot building at that time, he said was about $62, 000. 00. I said it isn' t a new building. I didn't pay that. He says by the time you get that building up and have them put it up and everything, I said they' re not putting some. . . I 've owned the property for 18 years. There' s no way that that building could cost me no $62, 000. 00. But he wanted to appraise that building. Charge me the permit price according to that $62,000. 00 and I said no way. It' s like a house . There' s nothing in it. It isn' t sheetrocked. It isn 't plumbed and he comes with a fantastic figure like that . Somebody called him up or whenever he got his figure so this ain' t exactly set on this deal and I guess you can ask Barb about it. I checked back with her several times all through 1987. In 1986 I checked back with her and that, so finally this thing got a setback. Finally I got a 30 foot setback so I could know where to set this building in the first place because the property drops off in back. If I put the building setback as far as they wanted it, there ' s no way you could put a building there. Now with a 30 foot setback off the road, the road, my property line is in the road itself. It runs off at an angle and then down below, the whole road is on my property. I didn' t want to put it from the edge of the road 50 foot back plus so some of this has kind of come to a standstill on trying to get an answer and then I find out George has left. Nobody still has come up with the answers to what this permit is going to cost me to build this building. I don' t know, like you say a $62,000. 00 building and whether that ' s going to have any reflection on as far as a tax assessor or whatever . That would be ridiculous . If they assess the building at $62 , 000. 00, I 'm not paying taxes on that if that' s going to decide it. Doris Brickley: I 'm part owner of several parcels of property on Kings 1 Road. May I direct a question to Mr. Carlson? Conrad : Certainly. I Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 3 r Doris Brickley: How long have you been in the contracting business on your property? Lowell Carlson : Since I bought it in 1965. Doris Brickley: You certainly expect to expand your business don ' t you in the future? rLowell Carlson: It' s expanded as it went up because I bought a dump truck and a front end loader and a tractor and a Jeep when I come from r Minot, North Dakota in 1965 when I bought this land . I was doing excavating. . . Doris Brickley: Based on a 12 , 000 foot building, in the long range planning, and you plan to expand your building, what makes you think that that 12, 000 square foot building is going to be adequate? You' re going to be having still a lot of vehicles sitting all over the property. Lowell Carlson : I 'm not the one to be having vehicles sitting all over rthe property. Doris Brickley: I mean your contracting vehicles . ' Lowell Carlson: The contractor vehicles, they are planning to go inside so to do this , I personally have to build a building that will take care of their needs. What they want. ' Doris Brickley: I have just one comment and I think Mr . Carlson should be allowed to stay there in the residential dwelling but I think he should take his business to commercially zoned property. Wayne McCorney: I 'm here representing Mr. Carlson. Mr. Carlson is grandfathered in on this property. He had, I 'm sure, the property long ' before Mrs. Brickley or anyone else had their property. What we would like to do, recognizing that he wanted , when this was totally by itself, it was wide open country and then with this village, he was running his r business . Now the city is running his business . He did this long before there were any zoning ordinance. He has a right to run his business there and people have to recognize that . We' re willing to ' cooperate recognizing that every Village and City now does intervene and attempts to clean things up and you can ' t get a permit for a junk yard for all the tea in China I guess but the fact is, those things exists and they have to exist in order for our entire economy to work. So what ' we' re willing to do is we' re willing to cooperate with the Council. He can not afford to just go out and buy something else so that Mrs . Brickley, who came in there facing a contractor ' s yard, so we improve the value of her property and therefore throw my client into bankruptcy. This is not legal and it can not be done. Consequently, since we are grandfathered in and have a right to operate this business from this property, we will restrict the manner in which we operate this if we can ' get the building , get it built and get a reasonable amount for a permit, for our costs. We' ll help clean up what is our city. I 'm sure our r Planning Commission Meeting ' r February 17 , 1988 - Page 4 interests are the same as yours except that we have the right to do this on this property. There are a lot of other buildings there. The farm building and this and that . If everything ' s inside, it should be no problem but I think that what we have to have is recognition that we' re entitled by law to operate this and it ' s indeed unfortunate that we ' re here at this point to determine whether or not there was compliance with a conditional use permit because indeed, if Mr . Carlson had had counsel at that time, there would not have been any application for a conditional use permit. All the City' s threats of criminal prosecution, etc . , I 'm sure if he had counsel , he would have just thumbed his nose at them because they had no right to do that. They had no right to bring criminal charges and all kinds of other charges, throw him off the property or take his business away from him, which is the reason he applied for the conditional use permit in the first place. So we will restrict the impact of our business if you allow us to build the , building under some reasonable parameters that you might take the evidence . 12,000 foot building, there can be no argument or no question that the Council knew back in 1985 that he was going to put in something more than 1, 000 feet . As a matter of fact , on page 8 of the Council meeting Minutes, they asked him how big. Councilwoman Watson asked how big a building do you hope to erect and Mr . Carlson said we' re looking at 50 to 60 foot wide and 100 to 150 feet long so the Council knew at that time that he' s not building a 1, 000 square foot building . I guess we' ll restrict the impact. We' re willing to restrict the impact of the building on the surrounding area by building the building and therefore it is not going to look like a junkyard or an equipment yard or anything like that, which is normal in this sort of business . But we need this permit and then we also need some recognition that by law we' re entitled to operate there and that we build a building and that the City does not have a right in 6 months or a year later , to come in and say no, you've got to move that building because it ' s a non-conforming use . As I see it, we have a legal right to operate the way we are now, to a certain extent. We will change that if we' re given a reasonable alternative and I think the building is the only way to give us a reasonable alternative to use our property other than that. As far as I see, it' s a Constitutional , unlawful , illegal taking of property. So we' re willing to cooperate. We' ll do anything. We just want to get this whole thing over with. We don' t want to fight with anybody. We don' t want to get into litigation but we do have to run a business . Conrad: The key issue, as I understand it however, is you don ' t want to build a building that has a high value because then the taxes are going to be high. Is that my understanding? That ' s what I heard Mr . Carlson say. Wayne McCorney: No , what Mr . Carlson said is that the building is going ' to cost about $16 ,000.00 to $18, 000. 00. He' s not going to pay for a permit for a building $65 ,000 .00 and then have a $65 ,000. 00 building assessed on the land. Now I realize that just the amount of the building permit may not have any bearing on how the assessor assesses the taxes but that' s in theory. In practice, I 'm sure they look at it and they will immediately raise the price value of the property $65, 000. 00 even if the building is worth $20, 000. 00 so we' re willing to 11 IIPlanning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 5 II I pay a permit for what it costs us to build the building and that' s going to be maybe $16, 000. 00 to $18 , 000. 00. I Dacy: Just to comment on the permit fee issue, that is not within the Planning Commission' s area tonight. The Building Inspector, every City has to go by a Uniform Building Code and there are established building fees based on the construction value. If the applicant does want to I seek relief from the typically required building permit fee , this is not the place to do that. I think we should keep the building permit fee issue out of it. That' s for another . IWayne McCorney: I 'm not arguing with that. I 'm just saying that' s the main argument , one of the main arguments that he had . We can resolve I that issue if we can just go ahead and change the way they are operating here so that we' re still able to operate but operate in a little differnt manner which will make the City happy because it' s more beautiful , whatever and nobody' s going to object . IDacy: Right. I just wanted to clarify that the Commission' s role is to determine whether or not the application is consistent with the 1985 I approval and you' re dealing with land use and zoning issues and not building permit fee issues . Conrad : I 'm trying to understand why it was not built in the first Iplace. Doris Brickley: King Road is not served by water and sewer . Is his I commercial activity in the future going to conform to safety regulations and waste disposal regulations? What about all these vehicles up and down Kings Road? What about school aged children? That area is Ideveloping . I ' ve seen these large vehicles tear up and down Kings Road. Wayne McCorney: It seems to me that any road has vehicles on it and on this particular road , it' s a little dirt road. I think there' s probably I two children in that one house. The roads are there for vehicles to drive on. You drive your car on a road. Certainly he' s got a right to drive his truck on the road. He' s been doing it since 1965. IOscar Anderson: I 'm one of Mr . Carlson ' s neighbors and I 'd like to say that. . . I 'm very much against the junk yard that we have there now. I 'm very much against the piles that he has . I 'm very much against the I burning that he does. He' s got a regular burning dump there and all of this mess is not going to be taken care of by building a building . I 'm against all the vehicles he' s got there. I think he ' s got close to 35 I or 40 vehicles . Some running, some don ' t. They' re all sitting there, all over the place. He would need a building, at least 2 acres in area to house all the vehicles that he has . I 'm just against it . I still I own a place out there at the end of the road and I was told by a realtor at that time that I could have gotten $15 ,000. 00 more for the place if you didn' t have to go past a junkyard to get there. I 'm very much against it. This has been coming , up and down for years . Mr . Carlson I has not done one thing that has been recommended by the Planning Commission or the Council to clear up his area . To clean up his act at I Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 6 all . I don ' t mind a few pieces of construction equipment but I sure I don' t want all that junk. Wayne McCorney: I 'd like to say, a great deal of the junk. . . that are on II the property, van type bodies, truck bodies and all these truck bodies are used in his business to store property because he doesn' t have a buliding to store them in. He wouldn' t need perhaps 20, van bodies if he had a building. I Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted II in favor and motion carried. The Public Hearing was closed . Conrad : Barbara , I think for our background, there were some conditions set up in 1985 for the conditional use. Can you give us a recap of the I conditions and the performance of Mr . Carlson on those conditions? Dacy: Okay. Condition 1 and 2, basically revolved around the II construction of the building and that ' s at issue tonight . Item 3, unless the applicant wants to address that otherwise, there is still a substantial amount of litter and debris on the property. II Conrad: Has anything been done to your knowledge? Dacy: Not to my knowledge. Maybe Mr . Carlson could address that. I Lowell Carlson: What are you people saying of litter and debris? What is litter and debris on that property? I Conrad: Let' s put it this way. When you were here in 1985, there was a concern that it didn' t look the way we would like it to look so if you II could reflect back in 1985, we wanted that property to look differently. The idea was to bundle it into a building. I guess the question I 'm asking staff right now is, if there' s 18 or 19 piles of litter but I 'm curious whether you' ve taken any steps , either in your mind or in II staff' s mind to solve the problem. Lowell Carlson: This is the time when anybody can come out if they II wanted. Any stuff that's gone, is the stuff that 's used. It 's all on pallets. We pick it up with a forklift and stack the pallets . You can come out and look at it. We' ll shovel the snow off for them. Wherever they set the debris and whatever . That place , as far as the vans , if II you want to see what' s stored in them. The plumbing stuff. We have compactors . We have compressors . We have pipe, sewer and water . Copper fittings. If you can get that all in a little building, whoever II thinks you can or whatever . An excavating business isn' t like an ordinary job where you have a pencil in your pocket and a piece of paper in your hand . Many a job that we do , people ask for compactors and II everything else. If you ' re going to be in the excavating, you've got to be in excavating . You've got to have equipment to do the job. You call me, no I can' t do it because I 've only got a shovel and a spade. Sorry, if you' ve got something we can do with that. 1 II Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 7 ' Conrad : Have you done anything since November 4, 1985 to clean up the area? ' Lowell Carlson: Oh yes . You bet. Come out and look at it. The vehicles isn' t in exact rows. I 'm saying, some day when it snows, our vehicles get closer to the road because that' s the easiest way to plow them out to the road. So they do get closer to the road and maybe ' that ' s why it' s more agitating to someone but now we' ve got the building right in there. It' s a steel rack. I 've got a steel rack in my yard and all the crane and everything are stacked. All the iron is there. ' The metal for the roof is there . So you gain one and lose the other I guess. This building is sitting there. It could just as well have been up. That' s the way I look at it. It didn' t happen. ' Conrad: Had we been able to settle on assessed value and those type of things? ' Lowell Carlson : Yes . That ' s where the whole trouble is . I 'm getting tired of waiting. All my vehicles, the seats and everything, they' re getting worn. The seats deteriorate, whatever . I 'm not very happy about leaving my stuff out there either. You paint it up and it looks shabby in a year . I 'd like to have it under cover so when I go out to a job I can be proud of my stuff. ' Conrad : Barbara , the point 4, expansion of the contractor ' s yard ' s activity beyond what has been represented in this application. What was represented in the application? ' Dacy: I believe in the original report , I 'm going to have to refresh my memory. Conrad : Usually we want to know how many pieces of equipment there are. Dacy: Right. We have a number of vehicles and the location of the ' storage yard and so on. In 1985 we took a number of pictures and then after that, I believe it was in the winter of 1986, we went out to the site and we' ve got a handwritten check list here of the items that still remained on the property. Mr. Carlson is right, he has a substantial amount of material so to determine whether or not 2 pieces of wood have been removed or stacked on pallets versus how many vehicles have come and gone , without going out there on a regular basis , it' s fairly hard ' to keep track but after going to the site this fall , during his application time, there is still the same amount of material along the east property line. There' s still the little storage area of the ' vehicles . He has an enormous amount of materials stored on that property. It' s very hard to keep track. Erhart : According to your Minutes of your 1984 Planning Commission meeting, there are 5 vehicles . Dacy: Yes , an International Harvestor Tote and Trailer , Ford Dump ' Trailer and Truck, a Chevy Pick-up, Ford Van and International Harvester Dump Truck. Those were the vehicles that were listed during that time 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 8 and there' s one employee listed . Hours of operation usually between 8 : 00 to 5: 30. However , sometimes varied. That ' s what was listed in the applicant ' s letter at that time but based on the pictures that we took in 1985, I think it' s clear that there were more than the number of vehicles indicated in the application. Erhart: I was there and I counted vehicles at the house and the yard had 16 vehicles , licensed and unlicensed. ' Conrad: You were there when? Erhart : Today. ' Conrad : It' s staff posture basically that not much has been done? Dacy: That' s correct. Headla : What was your comment? We' ve got to look at this as a 1985 application? Dacy: My comment was that the issue before the Commission is, the applicant' s request is to build a 12, 000 square foot building. 2, 000 square feet initially. It was brought to the Commission' s attention to determine whether or not you feel that it' s appropriate for that area and whether or not that ' s consistent with condition 1 of the 1985 permit. In other words, if you feel that what he's proposing is fine and he can store all his materials within that building, then you can recommend approval . , Conrad : Mr . Carlson has the permit to go ahead and do this . Not the building permit but the conditional use permit. Staff felt that because the building size is so great, we really didn' t anticipate how big that building could be. Therefore, they' re bringing that back and saying , is this really your intent City to tell Mr . Carlson to build a 12,000 square foot building out there? Secondarily is the issue of the permit being issued . Yet Mr . Carlson not living up to anything that was agreed to 2 to 3 years ago. Mr. Carlson is saying he couldn' t because he couldn' t resolve the debate with assessments and taxes on that expanded building. Headla : Where Lowell has been here and grandfathered in, how much control do we actually have? I 'm comparing with like other contractor ' s ' yards. I think the last time we had a contractor ' s yard at the south end of Chan. We were pretty stringent. We insisted on berms. The aesthetics of the building. Do those requirements apply to someone who' s grandfathered in? Dacy: I conferred with the City Attorney on this matter and to use Mr . McCorney' s words, the City does have the right to control the amount of impact of Mr . Carlson' s use. We have every right to require berms. Require construction of buildings. Require screening. Require any type of measure that we feel that can control the impact of this use against the adjacent properties. That is the purpose of a conditional use I Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 9 ' permit . The applicant ' s attorney is contesting the whole conditional use permit process in the first place. What I 'm saying is that the City Attorney feels that that was appropriate . But again , our charge here tonight is to determine whether or not the 12, 000 square foot building is appropriate . Headla : I think it all fits together . We've been very consistent on ' insisting that screening and berming for any contractor ' s yard. I talked to Lowell and I know this would be a hardship on him but at the same time, I don' t see how we can back away from one person and then require it of everyone else. I really think we' ve got to insist on some type of berming and screening but then it presents another , this leads into another problem. In our area , even Minnewashta Parkway, it ' s questionable from that shoulder is 66 feet wide. It ' s never been taken off of my abstract . I own that land by my abstract . King ' s Road is muddier yet. I 'm not sure where King ' s Road really is. Is it 90 feet north of Lowell ' s property or right next to the store? So where he ' s ' got the stakes, I don' t know. He tried to go what seemed to be the right thing for the building but I think we ought to have some definition of where that road is and then room for a berm and then a setback. Then the third point I had was , Lowell I measured the drawing and it looks like that building would be 37 feet high. Is that correct? Lowell Carlson : No, it can' t be. Headla : I thought it said 18 feet to an inch . If that ' s the case , I get 37 feet. Dacy: That ' s the same dimension that I came up with on the scale drawing. The way that your architect has it scaled on here, it does ' measure to be 37 feet . Lowell Carlson: It would be 20 at the most . ' Headla: What I have in writing is 37 feet. To put that in perspective, we' re going to be talking about a church over here with a steeple and that' s going to be 37 feet high. Anyway, 37 feet, I 've got to assume I that what we' ve got here on prints is correct for the time being. It may be wrong but assuming that, I think 37 feet high in that area is just way too intimidating . I don ' t have a problem so much with the building but when it ' s on a hill and then 37 feet high, it ' s going to be ' there for a long time . It ' s just going to dominate that whole area . Then the only other one I have is, on the finish of the building , do we have any control over aesthetics of a building? I don ' t know what you ' were going to put up there Lowell . You showed me part of the material but it seems like if something is going to be that visible, we ought to have some control . Just like last week on the contractor ' s, we went into detail . They have a block building and we were asking a lot of questions about it. Did it fit into the area? It seems like we ought to have some, and I hate to say control , but some yea or nay on it or some type of control . I 'm not looking for an answer but that' s just an ' opinion I have. Planning Commission Meeting 1 February 17 , 1988 - Page 10 1 Wayne McCorney: You give us a color and we' ll be glad to. It' s going I to be steel outside obviously and if you want some sort of color , we' ll be more than happy to comply. If you like yellow. . . Conrad: I 'm trying to decide what you really said on the issue. You' re I concerned , you don' t think there needs to be a building and that berming is satisfactory or did you say there needs to be a building? Headla : I think he has to have some type of building . Conrad: So berming is an extra besides the building? I Headla : Yes , and I think we have to require berming if we' re going to be consistent. Send out the same signal to all contractor' s. I don' t Isee how we can isolate one and say you live over here so we can' t do it. Conrad: And what do you think about the 12, 000 square foot size? Headla : I think that ' s excessive. Based on the resolution we passed I last time, we can' t back up all of a sudden and say, this is a special case . I think we' ve got to be consistent . I Batzli : I guess my first question was, has the business expanded from when the first conditional use permit was granted? I don' t know that that was ever answered clearly. I Dacy: It wasn' t answered clearly because to be honest , I can ' t address that. I did not evaluate that. I Batzli : Has the City ever reviewed this conditional use permit? Dacy: Over the past year and a half, as Mr. Carlson relayed, we talked I to him a number of times about putting up a building and the discussions were stalled because of the issue over the building permit fee. We advised Mr . Carlson to either appeal to the City Council or go to the I City Manager to resolve the permit value issue but that was not resolved . Now, we did get a valid application. Batzli : I guess it's clear to me he has submitted himself to the I conditional use permit process and that for one reason or another , it appears he' s in violation of his conditional use permit but on the other I hand , I think he' s trying to get in compliance at this time . I believe also that the building size is excessive, even from his own original estimates would put it at between 5, 000 and 7 , 000 square feet even if he built it at this point. I do think it' s a valid issue and it sounds to I me like it' s a concern to his neighbors whether he will put everything inside even if he does put up the building. Based on those facts, I think I agree that berming or screening should be required as well Iregardless of what size building he eventually puts up. Ellson: I think the building sounds awful large. I 'd like to see a smaller building. I agree that he needs a building. I have trouble I seeing that this thing hasn ' t been resolved in this length of time or at Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 11 ' least some best efforts basis of going ahead with something toward meeting these conditions from, Tim' s mention of the number of vehicles now versus the number of vehicles in the pictures that were passed ' around. It does look like he has done some expansion which, according to this conditional use, has to have approval so I would say that he isn 't necessarily meeting those conditions. Not only from the building standpoint but from the expansion standpoint as well . I 'd probably go along with both gentlemen that we' ve heard from that I 'd like a smaller building and I 'd like to see as much as possible get in there and then cover up the rest with as much berming and screening as you can. Emmings: I don' t have anything that' s very differnt . I don' t see any sense in building 2, 000 square feet of the building. Somehow we've got to get a handle on what size building he needs to reasonably handle his use of the property. I think we need the berming and so forth but I have a feeling we' re never going to find out what kind of a building would take care of it because I think, no matter what size building , ' unless you dome the whole property, I think he' ll wind up outside anyway because that' s what he' s always done. There are several garages, I remember when we talked about this 3 years ago or whenever it was . He had several garages on the place and they were jammed to the rafters and I think that' s what is going to happen to anything you put up out there because I think that ' s just the nature of his business and the way he ' runs his business . In a way, I think it' s kind of hopeless . I really don' t like backing away from the ordinance amendment that we've got going to limit buildings. This is an RSF zoned property and that bothers me a lot. I don't like backing away from our 1, 000 square foot ' maximum size on that . I don ' t know how to resolve that in my own mind . I guess I wonder, are you going to take down all those other buildings if you have this 12, 000 square foot building? Will you take down all ' those garages that are jammed to the rafters with stuff? Lowell Carlson: If you were at them and knew they were that tall , basically some of them will have to stay there regardless . Emmings: I 'm wondering, if you have a building that ' s as big as 12, 000 square feet, would that eliminate your need for all those other buildings on the place or not? Lowell Carlson : Somewhat but like they' re saying everything inside. ' I 've got to make sure that everything ' s inside. If you want it inside, I have to build a building to put it inside . Now you' re saying, I go back to 1,000 square feet. Now where am I going to put it in 1, 000 square feet? ' Emmings : No, I said if you built your 12, 000 square foot building that you' re asking for, would you still have a need for all those other buildings out there? Lowell Carlson: Yes, some. Emmings : The other thing is , I noticed in a letter here you were asking for structural calculations on the building. Did you ever get those? I Planning Commission g Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 12 Dacy: No . Depending on what size is approved, that would eventually be required. Emmings: The bottom line for me is, I think Mr . Carlson has a mess out there and I don't think anybody would argue with that except maybe Mr . Carlson and I think it would be better to have it inside than have it outside all over the place. I 'm opposed to this because I can' t tell what it is . He says he wants a 12,000 square foot building but he only wants to build 2, 000 square feet of it. Now we' re going to wind up with another garage out there that' s going to just get jammed full of junk and there' s still going to be stuff outside. If I had something in front of me that said, if I can build this building on this property, I can tear down the old buildings out there, the garages and stuff, I can get all my stuff inside. This is what I need to make this place look nice and I don' t see that here. This is not a concrete plan. It ' s just mush . He hasn' t done a thing to comply with the conditional use permit conditions that we set out last time and he was here when we did that and it was certainly my understanding at that time that he was agreeing with them. He didn't do anything. I don' t care what the reasons are, he didn' t do anything and I don' t think he' ll do anything now either . Bottom line, I 'm just plain opposed to going any further unless he can come in to the staff and say, this is what I need and put together a package to clean up the property, to build the building he wants, to do some berming and screening and we can see that plan . That ' s a plan I could act on. This one I 'm not willing to act on. Erhart : I have to , in fact Steve pretty much took away everything I was going to say. I 'd have to agree a lot with Steve. I think you have a pattern here of delays . It' s associated with the business and if I was in the same business I would probably could see myself following the same track that we've seen since 1984 . He was required to build his building and he agreed to do it by June 30, 1986. Is that correct? Okay, that' s almost two years ago. I 'd like to point out , so we all understand, that this contractor 's yard is a non-conforming use in this area now so it ' s not quite the same as the other one we were discussing . We' re talking about residential RSF district. I think you want to keep that in mind . I 'd like to also point out to the Commissioners that in a non-conforming use, and correct me if I 'm wrong, but if this property is sold , that terminates the use. Dacy: No , the use runs with the land . He ' s been issued a conditional 1 use permit for a contractor ' s yard at that site. If Mr. Carlson sold, for example to Mr . Volk, he could continue operation as long as the terms of the conditional use were met. ' Erhart : Okay, so it stays with the land . Dacy: Again, I 'm drawing the distinction between the conditional use ' and non-conforming use and with the conditional use, it runs with the land unless it is revoked. I Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 13 ' Erhart: The question was non-conforming. That ends with the sale of the property. Dacy: The City staff ' s position is that they were , Mr . Carlson was issued a conditional use permit and the City has the ability to revoke the conditional use permit. In a non-conforming use situation , if a property owner sells to another property owner , the use can continue if it' s not expanded or intensified . The only time that a non-conforming is expired, if the ordinance says that the non-conforming activity ceases operation. I think it' s a one year time period . ' Erhart: Did you have burning permits for the burning you' re doing? Lowell Carlson : The little bit there is , all the neighbors , I see smoke coming from different areas. A burning permit as far as burning. Erhart : My conclusions on this is , in viewing the property on the first place, on one side 12, 000 square foot building seems large. On the other hand , if a 12, 000 square foot would not contain all the materials that you currently have on the property. I think allowing an industrial ' building at all represents an extension of a non-conforming use and I think adding a building really makes the non-conforming use more permanent which is something we ought to be working in the opposite direction. Quite frankly, I don' t believe that putting a building on the property is going to make it look any better . You ' re going to have a variety of sizes of small garages. You ' re going to have a used building . Given the pattern , I don' t know, at any prediction at all what it would look like. I think you will continue to see materials on the outside of it so I would recommend creating a conditional use permit that requires some berming , screening, landscaping and strict ' enforcement of the setbacks . Then , if those aren ' t followed , then I think the City ought to take legal action to eliminate the non-conforming use. So I 'm against the building for those reasons . Conrad: All together? 2, 000 or 12, 000? Erhart : Yes . ' Conrad : My feeling is , I think the 12, 000 square foot building is excessive. Especially in a residential single family area . I don' t see ' that Mr . Carlson has taken any step to resolve the problem in 2 1/2 years. I honestly don ' t see that anything presented tonight is going to resolve the problem. If there was a plan in front of me tonight and Mr . Carlson said this will take care of the City' s needs, I think I could ' feel responsive and act on it . I don' t see anything . I see some schematics but I 'm also hearing Mr . Carlson saying that the building won' t take care of what we were trying to resolve 3 years ago. My opinion is to revoke the conditional use permit. Headla : When you say revoke the conditional use permit , the conditional use permit for the building? Conrad : The conditional use permit that we granted in 1985 . To revoke r Planning II P ng Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 14 the contractor ' s yard . I don' t think anything else is going to take care of this issue and this issue is taking up a lot of our time and city staff ' s time and nothing happens . There are other issues. Contractor ' s yards are a problem in Chanhassen. Most communities outlaw them. We are trying to give contractor ' s like Mr . Carlson the opportunity to stay in business in Chanhassen because they have been here. We flexed our rules to allow them to stay here like good citizens. In this particular case, I 'm not seeing anything happen and I still don ' t see anything on the desk right now that gives me hope. If revoking the contractor 's yard permit is what it takes to get something happening , maybe Mr . Carlson will realize that we' re serious about this . Erhart: What' s being requested is what? Is it the building permit or is it the continuation? Dacy: What is being requested is a building permit for 12, 000 square foot building and just to clarify, Mr. Carlson has said he is set and prepared to build 2,000 square foot of that. r Erhart: But what are we being specifically asked to vote on? Dacy: You' re being asked to vote as to whether or not a 12, 000 square r foot building is consistent with condition 1 of the 1985 approval. Is this consistent with the intent of the City when they authorized the conditional use permit in the 1985? What the Commission has said so far is that you have concerns about the size of the building. It' s excessive and you' re sure about the overall plan for the clean-up of the property. r Erhart : I 'm not sure we want to vote tonight. Even though the conditional use permit that we voted on in 1985 may have directed the owner to build a building, I 'm trying to make a motion that we deny the building of the building but I 'm too sure that' s the purpose of the public hearing . Conrad : The public hearing would be conducted by the City Council to revoke the permit. We can make that motion that the City Council conducts a public hearing to revoke the permit . My understanding is that that permit would not be for the building but for the entire contractor ' s yard. That' s one alternative. I think we all have similar opinions about how the contractor ' s yard is being run. How we want to resolve this issue is, I think we might have six different opinions on how we want to resolve that issue. My opinion is to have the public hearing but there are other approaches . Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council revoke the conditional use permit for Lowell Carlson. Headla: Now we 're talking strictly the building? r Conrad : No . Headla : His whole operation? II Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 15 ' Conrad: Right. ' Batzli : The motion on the floor is to revoke the conditional use permit. Erhart: What it will do Dave, it will basically restart the process all over again. Headla : What ' s it going to do to him? Erhart: He' s going to have to come in and negotiate an acceptable way to do his business . I think in voting for this , what it says is , we are ' not accepting anymore those conditions which include a building. Dacy: Just to clarify. Your recommendation will be passed to City Council and they will consider this on March 14th. They may choose to ' accept that recommendation or they may work out an agreement with Mr . Carlson so this is a recommendation only and the council will have the final say on it. Erhart : But it may be changed to a berming/landscaping . From a building to a landscaping given that they look at our Minutes. ' Headla : I guess what it' s really going to do is force some action to get this thing resolved. That ' s what you ' re really after I guess . Batzli : I 'd be against the motion in that I think a large part of the inactivity is perhaps based in part upon the City of Chanhassen' s lack of enthusiam for the entire process as well . Once we did finally grant ' the conditional use permit, I don' t think anything ' s been done as far as monitoring the activity of the contractor ' s yard. There hasn ' t been an annual review. I don' t entirely place the blame, from my viewpoint, on Mr . Carlson . At least to a point where revocation of a conditional use permit would be warranted. Headla : Even though this is a recommendation and we' re trying to work ' toward a resolution? Batzli : That ' s right . Erhart moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council revoke the conditional use permit for Lowell Carlson. All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and motion carried . Batzli : What I stated prior to the vote is my reason . Conrad : Mr . Carlson , I would recommend if I were you, and I 'm not , but if I were you, I would go in there with plans that would demonstrate to them how you would resolve the problem. I 'm not a lawyer by any means but in front of us tonight, without any plans , even though you' re lawyer said you wanted to resolve the problem, there was nothing here that gave 1 Planning Commission Meeting • I r February 17 , 1988 - Page 16 me any confidence that there were plans to resolve the conditions that were set forth 3 years ago. If I were you, I would be going into that meeting showing them how you would resolve that . Emmings: I 'd like to explain my vote to some extent. I agree with what Tim said after me. I think maybe a more overall approach to the landscaping out there. Doing some berming and doing plantings may be a better first approach to this problem. If it' s done right and if it' s maintained, I think that might be a better type of solution. Conrad: I ' ll jump in that too . I 'm not convinced that a building is the right solution to the problem. I totally favor the berming and the screening . Wayne McCorney: . . .number one , we bought the building because we wanted to do something about it. It seems to me if you buy a building and you make the building look like it' s brand new, even though it' s used, by putting all new steel on it, and put all the vehicles and all the crap that you' re complaining about now, put it inside of that, I don' t see any reason for berming and everything like that. Emmings: He told us it all wouldn' t be inside of it. I heard him say that to me. Lowell Carlson: I said it wouldn' t be inside of it? When did I tell you that? Conrad : I heard the same thing . ' Lowell Carlson: I 'm sorry if I told you that. Conrad : Mr . Emmings said that if you build a 12, 000 square foot , building, would you be able to fit everything in and you said, no you could not . You said those garages would still be standing , packed. Lowell Carlson: Yes, that I did say. Wayne McCorney: He' s not going to tear down all the buildings that are there but everything that' s outside is going to be inside. Consequently you' ve got room that you can paint and fix up the buildings you don' t have everything piled up against the building so consequently all the buildings are going to look decent and look good if he got the building . The size of the pile is concerned, that there' s too much to go in there. You' ve got to realize that that building is entirely there and that building, when it' s broken down sitting on that pile, it would take up about one-third of the building so forget about that pile because it' s going to be gone. It' s going to be inside. Emmings : I think you might get a long way with the City Council if you would come in with a real hard plan and say if we can put this building here , we' ll take everything off the ground and put it inside this building. We' ll build the building by such and such a date. We' ll have everything cleaned up by such and such a date . If you came in with a 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 17 I real hard plan , they might be interested in listening to you but you didn' t do that tonight. It 's hard to evaluate something that' s in the future when you have people you ' re dealing with who haven ' t shown any Iinterest, really, in doing what they said they would do in the past. Lowell Carlson : Number one, how do you go about getting a price on a permit? IEmmings: I have no idea . This is the wrong body. ITEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A TRAILER TO BE LOCATED TEMPORARILY ON 5. 65 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 1660 ARBORETUM BLVD. , DAVID LUSE, NATURAL GREEN. Conrad : Staff has advised me that the second item regarding the I temporary conditional use permit for a trailer to be located temporarily on property at 1660 Arboretum Blvd. , the Natural Green site , that this item should not be handled at the Planning Commission level and will be handled at City Council . Barbara , can you explain that a littel bit ' more for us? Dacy: The City Attorney reviewed this request and because of a previous document called a Settlement Agreement with Natural Green that was I executed in 1985, that the issues involved with the office space can be handled by an amendment to that agreement and should not be handled through a conditional use permit . So the City Council will be I considering that agreement at their March 14 , 1988 meeting. So if there is any public here regarding that issue , they should attend that meeting. ' Conrad : So the rationale is , there is already an agreement governing that parcel or that property? ' Dacy: Right . So we would execute a secondary agreement that would wrap up the issues concerning the first agreement as well as the office space issue . IEmmings : That would also include, would the . . . for allowing the trailer be that we get the old railroad building by a certain date and that he I have his trailer out of there by a certain date? Dacy: That' s correct. ' Emmings : I think that sounds real good . I PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT 5 COMMERCIAL LOTS INTO 6 COMMERCIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD, T.F. JAMES COMPANY. IJo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. 1 /I Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 18 Charlie James : I just had a chance to look at the staff report this evneing and I have substantial agreement with everything that' s being proposed here . I guess one of the things, there are two areas that might be a bit problematic that I would like to discuss. One is this recommendation that there be no access allowed onto CR 17. I have a concern there because I don' t if we' re talking about just this here because at some point we' ve provided a road up here that we thought would go through this area and come out into CR 17. ' Olsen : No , we' re just talking about this plat. Charlie James: Okay. I was confused there because there may be a , situation where the Fire Department may require a continuous street through here to the north through this multi-family area rather than a cul-de-sac and we had made provisions with Mr . Jacobsen to reserve the public and private right-of-way through the center of his property for a future street that may go to CR 17 here . My only concern would be on the timing of this. We may have a situation where if this doesn' t get built right away and we have somebody that wants to go here, there is sewer and water and if they can get a temporary access off of here. That ' s only the condition that if for some reason this thing here gets held up. This relocation. We did submit when this was all approved , a temporary access plan for this Lot 1, Block 2 showing how all that will work on a temporary basis until such time as this is constructed and we also have a temporary drainage plan showing how that will work until such time as these improvements . Those have been reviewed and accepted by Staff and I guess I 'm concerned about this no access onto CR 17 from the standpoint of just timing this and maybe we might need it on a temporary basis here. I don ' t know. The other issue is , I don ' t have any problem here. We've got these driveways lining up here and we've got a driveway lining up here and the reason for this configuration of this lot down here relates more to the farm houses. There are now an old couple living there , that future use that we capped for that . What we may have to do before we go to the council , if staff wants a driveway at this point, is perhaps replat this lot to expand this west property line over to this point or something so there isn' t an easement required to get into that lot . I don' t have any problem with increasing the easement to 33 here. I did want to point out in the staff rerport, from Gary Ehret' s report , I think he said we' ve only provided 40 feet of right-of-way here and that' s not correct. Along here the right-of-way was vacated out to make it consistent with the width of the right-of-way in the downtown segment of the street but I want it noted that we provided 80 feet of right-of-way through our property here. Not the 40 that was mentioned in the report. Dacy: I think he was referring to the existing portion. Charlie James: I guess that' s my only comments . Headla moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 19 Erhart : Why do we recommend that these driveways be directly across the street from another driveway? What' s the purpose of that? Olsen : It ' s much more preferred to have them come at a direct angle rather than be off-set. People pulling out from one driveway. From an engineering standpoint , it ' s much better to be directly across to have a complete intersection. Erhart: Do you have any businesses that are going to be built here? Can you give us an idea of what? Charlie James : We have our hopes and dreams. Erhart: Are you working with someone specificly on something at this time? Charlie James : We are working with a number of parties . I wouldn' t ' exactly say that, we' re ready to go as far as this southwest corner of the property. They' re finishing the structural drawings and we ' re going to be submitting, we' ve already been out pricing the plans and we' re ' going to be submitting our building plans , our finished plans to the City probably by the first of the month. On the other side of the street , we' ve had various inquiries . We've had some people who want to put a landscape business here and I turned them down because I didn' t ' feel it was an appropriate use . We' ve had some interest from some banking people and we do have a plan at the other end there at some point, to do some sort of community sized shopping center at the east end of the property at some point when conditions warrant that . That ' s why it has the configuration that it does. We have done some prelimnary drawings to lay things out . I think the other reason to have the driveways line up is , if they ever put a median down that street, it gives an opportunity to add turn lanes in. Erhart: The building that you showed, was that in here once already? ' Okay, and that ' s progressing and that ' s going to be what? What ' s going to be in that building? ' Charlie James : There' s going to a little grocery store and dry cleaners . Erhart : When you expect that to be constructed? Charlie James: We' re trying to tie our completion of that with the completion of West 78th Street . We don ' t want to be opening that if West 78th Street isn' t. . . Erhart : When ' s that planned? ' Charlie James: October 1. We' re shooting for fall . Erhart : My only comment is , I believe we should not have permanent access to CR 17 but a temporary one would be okay. That' s all . Planning Commission Meeting II February 17 , 1988 - Page 20 Emmings : In the staff report it talks about minimum 300 foot separation between driveways and from Powers and Kerber Blvd. but it doesn' t say that in the conditions . I don' t think, does it? Olsen: It does from Kerber but it didn't say from Powers. I noticed , that too . Emmings: So we should add in Powers? ' Olsen: Yes. Emmings: Now I noticed that Lot 1 only has 294 feet of frontage. How can he get a driveway 300 feet away? You knew this question was coming. Olsen: Yes, because we discussed it with the engineer too. When we were going through it, I pointed it out too. I said, that will put it right on the lot line but the way you measure it . The center line. With 294, the driveway can be anywhere from 20 feet wide. It would still be able to placed on it. Emmings: But if you also want 300 feet of separation between driveways , then how do you get one into Lot 2? Are you planning that 1 and 2 will share? Olsen: They wanted it just from the main streets , Kerber and Powers . ' Emmings: Okay. Again, the staff report seemed to say 300 feet separation between driveways . Oh, I see . That ' s not saying between driveways. Just between the driveways and those two roads. Okay. I understand what you've got there now and that ' s fine . Ellson: I have nothing further . ' Batzli : Are there any conditions on the driveways for this Lot 1, Block 2 going north to West 78th? ' Olsen : The driveway was already approved as a part of the site plan. This will be West 78th Street, the new portion. ' Batzli : So you' re already basically limiting where you' re going to put that driveway on the north. Where does that line up on the other side? Olsen : They line up almost directly. Charlie James: The one down there at the southeast corner of the site lines up with where we placed the driveway for Lots 3 and 4 . Batzli : Are you sharing driveways then? Charlie James : Yes . We have cross easements for all the driveways . Batzli : So 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 are already sharing driveways based on your having driveways in your Lot 1, Block 2? I don ' t have any Planning Commission ssxon Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 21 questions then. Headla : Let me take off on a tangent on one thing he mentioned this ' multiple housing to the north. I don' t know, have any of you gone to any of the referendum issues? The fire station . The main rationale for a new fire engine was those units. They need different equipment to get to those buildings. So I asked the Safety Director , what goes on? When you approved that you never said anything about a fire engine. Shouldn ' t those people have born some of that cost if we need new equipment? He came back, it' s against the law. We can ' t charge those people for a new fire engine . If we allow them to put up that building, and it needs equipment to fight fires, they' ll disperse that cost. Not that person . I really had an eye opener on that one. I got a little upset but that' s the way it is and the Fire Department's in the State are trying to work with the legislature to change that . But as it is right now, that' s the way it is . ' Charlie James : I 'd like to distance myself from that. I don' t have anything to do with that. I just sold the land to him. ' Headla : I understand that but this is an education for us . When you brought that up it just jarred my memory. Charlie James : I want you people to know that we' re working very diligently with our plans to bring them into conformity with what your fire people here want . You should also be aware that you ' re local fire people have, they can' t do less than what the Code requires but your ' local fire marshalls have the power and authority to request more than what the Code requires and that 's what is being requested of us . They' re requesting sprinklers and a central 24 hour monitoring system which is something that I could see on the Pillsbury Tower downtown tied into the police department . We' re actually being required to do what I think is excessive. Conrad : I have nothing to add . Emmings : Could I ask just a clarification here? If he wants to move ' that westerly boundary of that lot to get in a driveway or something, I don ' t think anybody would have any problem with that but do we have to put anything in here to allow him to do that? ' Dacy: No , if he wants to make that change between now and the Council , that's fine. ' Emmings: So the plan can change between here and the City Council without causing him any delays? Dacy: If it' s a minor change. Conrad : We' ve had times when plans did change and we didn' t see what was going and that ' s always a concern of mine. I want to know exactly what ' s going to Council but in this case I don ' t see a problem. I Planning Commission Meeting II February 17 , 1988 - Page 22 Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #86-11 for West Village Heights to replat five commercial lots into six commercial lots as shown on the plat stamped "Received January 28 , 1988" with the following conditions : , 1. There shall be a maximum of four driveways on the north side of West 78th Street and the driveways shall be directly opposite of existing driveways to the south or placed in a location such that future driveways on the south side can be constructed opposite of those on the north (i .e. lot lines) . 2. Lot 5, Block 1 shall share access to West 78th Street with Lot 4, 1 Block 1 at a minimum of 300 feet from Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard to intersect with the Burdick property to the south . 3. A maximum of two driveways shall be allowed along Kerber Boulevard and a driveway servicing Lot 5, Block 1 shall be directly opposite Coulter Drive. , 4. There shall be no permanent driveway access to Powers Blvd . (CR 17) . 5. Final site plans shall conform to city and watershed district criteria for 100 year freeboard elevation. 6. The drainage easement for the ponding area on the Eckankar site must be acquired prior to development of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and the 25 foot utility and drainage easement on the west border shall be increased to 30 feet . All voted in favor and motion carried. I SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 7, 277 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH TO BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 251 LAKE DRIVE EAST (LOT 1, BLOCK 7, HIDDEN VALLEY) , FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff rep ort on this item. Conrad: Would a representative of the church like to talk to us? Maybe respond to anything you' ve read in the staff report or what you've heard tonight. I think that 's important if you agree with the staff' s recommendations or have problems with them. We' re interested in that . I Dean Brown: I 'm chairman of the new building committee and representatives of the building committee , as well as the church, are here. Terry Lyons is also here. He is an employee of Banden Construction Company and they are our designers and they have prepared the drawings and at this point, will be the ones that are going to be carrying through the whole construction. I think Barb knows us pretty well . Let' s see, we' ve been working together for quite a long time I 1 Planning Commission on Meetzng February 17, 1988 - Page 23 ' here . I think that we've come a long way. We agree with the majority of the recommendations here but we would like a couple clarifications on a couple of them. First of all , on number , we might as well just go ahead and start with number 5. I think that that, from our perspective, is fine. To realign with that intersection is okay from our perspective. One thing that we were wanting to know though is, if when we realign and move that 60 feet down, there seems to be an area there ' that we could possibly get some more parking. I think it' s important to realize that the church that we' re building is on an area where we can not park on any streets and we don't want to park on any streets so we ' want to be able to maximize the amount of parking space that we can get . I realize that you have minimum requirements but at the same time, we want to be able to provide as much parking so we don ' t have any problems ' in the future. I think what we' re talking is just north of that intersection, you can see there' s a little bit of area in there , if we could possibly get some more parking in there. Second is item number 6. A second access to Lake Drive East shall be provided and approved by the ' City Engineer. We' re a very new congregation. We've been in existence for about 7 years . We have experienced a growth rate in the last 3 years of approximately 20% a year and that' s why we' re at the point ' right now of proposing to you, we need to move on. We've been very fortunate that we were able to rent the old St. Hubert' s church but at this point we've outgrown our needs. We are a member of the new Evangelical Lutheran Church of America who has a very tight building program that ' s been in existence for a number of years . We ' ve been working through them as far as estimates for a building and that' s really our lending institution is our main church. What we' re up ' against is that because of the size of our congregation, they go through and recommend and approve an amount of money that they will lend us for building our church. We have to pay it back at a specific interest ' rate. We have to live within a budget of $450 , 000.00. We kind of have a top end here where we just have a certain amount of money to spend. The reason I 'm bring this up is that a number of the items that have been proposed by the City we' re very much in agreement with. We feel that they' re very important but I think it' s important that you also understand that a number of the items are kind of outside of the original budget that we were going with . Now I can' t say it' s your fault that our budget was a certain amount but we were relying very heavily upon a very well established building program within the Lutheran church. Currently, up to the point where we don' t have to do ' this extension drive, we' re spending approximately between $50,000. 00 to $60, 000. 00 of our money to comply with the curbing, landscaping , sprinkler system, additional fire hydrants and this is money that was never appropriated for those types of things. What we' re thinking on item 6 is that at this particular time in our building phase , we' re looking at approximately $6, 000. 00 to $10, 000. 00 of additional money to add that road . We would very much love to have that second access when ' we add our additional parking but at this particular time, it' s a cost that we just really can' t bear . We don' t quite understand the full reason behind it. As stated earlier by the gentleman just preceeding us , we found kind of three tier effect here from the Fire people. A sprinkled building. That' s fine. We agree that that' s a very important aspect. That will help our insurance but it' s a cost to us upfront . I Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 24 Second is the number of fire hydrants that we' re providing on our lot . Currently we' re providing two fire hydrants and we' re going to be adding a third one when we add our final sanctuary. We feel at this point we kind of have two tiers of fire protection. Now, all of a sudden we' re getting an additional access for emergency vehicle type of equipment and it doesn' t settle well with us. Conrad: What ' s the rationale Jo Ann? Olsen: It came back, again from the Fire Department and also from engineering . Staff, we always look at a second access . They wanted that for emergency purposes in case, for some reason this was blocked and trucks could not get in to the fire hydrants around here. We can negotiate. It' s pretty level here and I think a truck might be able to get in there if it is a gravel road and maybe just keep it plowed in the winter to keep a path open. That' s something we can negotiate or work with them. I know that we want some form of secondary access onto that site. If it' s just a driveway that is maintained or kept clear than I think that would be acceptable and possibly they wouldn' t have to do a bituminous drive at this time. We can work with the Fire Department and the Engineering Department . Conrad: We've always wanted to get two roads to a parcel , a building site, a residential site, but also we' re asking for two accesses to the site? I guess I 'm not aware that we have applied this standard before. ' Maybe we have and I just haven't recognized it. Olsen : When we have the two separate roads it helps provide us with an area for a second access. We have been lately though providing a secondary access . Headla : I can remember having battled through when Tim and I , when we couldn' t get them. Olsen : The mini-storage for Gary Brown, he had to provide a different easement. The neighbor is letting us drive over their land but it' s still some form of secondary access . Conrad: Where' s the guideline that we use to require a second access? ' Where is that? Dacy: I think you have to remember , how many people can assemble in the sanctuary? Conrad : Barbara , I think I heard Jo Ann say that we can work out some kind of access. I 'm just going back to some basics. It really has nothing to do with this . I'm just trying to understand . Dacy: That' s part of the rationale. You' re asking, what is a guideline , and a guideline is the type of use . What I was going to say is that the sanctuary can hold up to 400 people. If you have a parking lot that ' s full of people and there' s an emergency that occurs , you have a 2 foot berm plus landscaping , let' s say it' s during the wintertime and for some II Planning Commission Meeting eetzng February 17 , 1988 - Page 25 reason that access into the front of the church is blocked, the emergency vehicles have no other means to get to that. To scale berm and maybe a snowpile , a secondary access is going to help that out . The July superstorm, if there ' s flooding or something occurs in that area that that access is blocked, again that leaves a second means in and out. The amount of people going in and out of there, especially if it' s full , at a Christmas mass for example , that ' s what we felt was the ' criteria. Conrad : Is it a planning staff guideline? Is it a Fire Department ' guideline? Dacy: All three . As Jo Ann said earlier . Engineering , planning and ' Fire Department. Conrad : So in terms of the motion that the staff has recommended , that a second access be provided and approved by the City Engineer, do we ' need to change that in light of Jo Ann , you feeling that we can work with the church somehow to insure that we have a second access, because that probably makes sense? Do we need to modify that to give the church ' folks a warm feeling that . . . Olsen : Yes , you might want to modify it just because the conditions , Larry's conditions are pretty specific that it must be a bituminous ' driveway. Emmings: Why don ' t we just leave it general one in here that there will be a second access and take out the specific one and let them negotiate. Ellson: Take out the words "Hidden Court" and just say, a second access shall be provided and approved. Olsen : Maybe just take out Larry' s specific . ' Batzli : If you remove the engineer ' s condition 5? Is that the recommendation? Olsen : That deals with both of them. Dean Brown: Just for clarification from our standpoint then, if we provide the second access , what about the curbing along the street? Do we have to provide the curbing into that access and assuming there is some sort of berming and landscaping along there , how do we? We want to comply with you guys but we just want clarification. Olsen : That' s something we would work out with the engineers . I know what we want to do and I can work it out. ' Terry Lyon: For example if we were to provide a curb cut . . .and insure it' s clear in the winter. ' Dean Brown: I guess I kind of want to bring up a point too about the use of the building. We are a congregation that meets on Sundays, Planning Commission Meeting II February 17 , 1988 - Page 26 II Wednesday activities , Monday activities but we do not plan any type of a II day school or any type of a child care either so the use of the building is not going to be continuous all the way through. It is going to be on specific days and specific times. Again, I guess I 'd really like to say II that we agree that we would like a second access but a fully, true second access would be provided . . . I think we needed clarification again on point 8 . The steeple shall be constructed of non-combustible material or shall not exceed 20 feet in height of? I Olsen : I talked to the Building Inspector this evening to confirm that and what he' s saying is that you will measure that 20, not from the II actual highest point of the building , the sanctuary but there it' s pretty much the height of that building, you can go 20 feet higher than that. IDean Brown: And that height is 44 feet? Olsen: Say that height is your 33 feet of the sanctuary. You would be I able to go 20 feet higher than that . It' s from the State Building Code . Dean Brown: And if the height of our building was 44 feet and then it II would be 20 feet above that? Olsen : I believe that ' s how it works . I don' t know if that 44 feet adds something to that 20 feet. It's a Building Code that he' s using I that from. Terry Lyon: I feel obligated to talk with the Building Inspector in II that regard too because as I read the specific section that was cited in the UBC, Article VII , it says that you can go 20 feet above the highest allowable height which in this particular building, it ' s a Type V, is 50 Ifeet. 50 plus the 20 and I realize we' re still 3 feet above that but I 'd like to discuss that issue to clarify it. Conrad : So just for my own clarification, and I don' t even care but if I they built it entirely out of non-combustible material then these 20 ' s , we don' t care about . But if they do, then the building code applies . Olsen: And that will be caught in the building inspection action. II Dean Brown: On the water , I think we needed clarification. We've been II told or talked about a total water loop for the fire hydrants connecting Chanhassen Estates into a fire hydrant on the lot just to the south of us. What' s the ruling? Terry Lyon: By that they mean they would like an adequate water supply I line connected to the east on Chanhassen Estates and also to the south so there is a continuous loop. There again , as we were indicating I before, we have a sprinklered building. They required hydrants. Now they want a complete loop. A watermain is not real cheap and then the access. We' re just asking how many different requirements. Olsen : That ' s a typical requirement for the loop in the water . II II Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 27 Dean Brown: Again, I ' ll reemphasize the first phase of the bui.lding . . .a limited budget in the sense that we agree, we very much intend to do the ' sprinkling and do the two fire hydrants but I would like to amend it to say let us do the total water loop at the time we add the third fire hydrant and add the final sanctuary so that we could possibly delay some of the costs because at this point, we don' t really see that to be anything other than a convenience for the City. Again, we want to comply to that but we' re talking some money here and again, we' re already, to meet the landscaping, the parking and I 'm going to reiterate ' these things because from our perspective we' re not a business . We don 't sell a product. We don' t get any income from something. What we survive on completely is donations and we want to make sure that we are ' completely responsible to the citizens of the city of Chanhassen. What we' re looking at here, is really experiencing a cost that ' s just a lot for us in the first phase. We would like to see that amended to say, bring the watermain in for the two fire hydrants and then at the time we ' go to the third phase for the sanctuary, be required to do the total water connection into the third fire hydrant . ' Conrad: Is there any supportable logic to phasing in those types of things? Olsen : I would need to discuss those with the engineer . I think that it might be more logical to do it now. I don' t know whether I could say that it could be amended . I guess I don ' t know the facts . ' Dacy: To be honest, we didn' t anticipate the detailed questions that the applicant has so we didn' t ask Mr . Brown to attend tonight . Jo Ann's right, we can' t recommend to the commission one way or the other ' on their request but we understand your concern . This is a detailed item that, as far as the Planning Commission is concerned, unless you do have a real big problem with it, this is something that staff should be able to work out. ' Conrad : The only impact is the motion that we make. I Dacy: If you want to phrase a motion so there is some leeway in there, we'd sure appreciate that. ' Conrad : The trouble is , we don' t have the insight either . I 'm not sure why we require two fire hydrants or three. I 'm not sure why we require the looped water . What ' s it a function of other than it ' s probably a standard that makes sense to me but I 'm not sure when can you slip that requirement and when not? Dacy: Exactly because the engineer , the basic purpose of it is to ' maintain a constant pressure and if you ' re using one fire hydrant and that draws all the water off of one main and there ' s not enough pressure to serve the second hydrant, you want to keep a looped system, as Mr . Lyon ' s said. They go through the flow and pressure analysis and I 'm ' sure Larry has done preliminary evaluations of that to determine this recommendation . They have submitted another proposal that he may or may 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 28 111 not have looked at . Unfortunately Larry isn' t here and he could have probably answered that. Batzli : A continuous loop may have been based on an evaluation of the third fire hydrant already being installed. May or may not have been. We don' t know. Dacy: Right. Terry Lyons : Actually, I believe the continuous loop is a request whether it' s 1, 2 or 20 hydrants. The concern, as Barbara mentioned, is they want to maintain pressure. If for example there was a fire at the church and Chanhassen Estates, if all the hydrants were open at the same time the pressure would drop. Our feeling is , possibly but there again it' s belts and suspenders and should we be made to bear that cost all at this time. Dean Brown: I would assume that the majority of you have built a home and had a budget. Again, being the chairman of this building committee, I have to be very conscience of that budget because the money that we sink into the ground for these things are very important to us but they also deduct from the aesthetics that we can build into our building. Right now we can' t even afford brick and that' s not anything from your perspective so we' re giving up a lot of things. We' re reducing the quality of the windows that we' re putting in the building and the quality of the carpet. Things so we can afford stuff that will make the building what you guys want. Conrad : We' ve heard that . I think we all work with a budget . On the other hand, one of the charges for the City and for this commission is to make sure things that are built are safe . There may be liability problems if we allowed you to do something that ' s not considered safe and I think that' s a responsibility that we have to make sure is satisfied that whatever building goes into Chanhassen, has the safety of the citizens as a cornerstone. I think the City will work with you and if a phased in approach can be worked, I think we' ll try to do that. If it can' t, you' re going to be stuck with it . You should continue, when you go to City Council , between now and City Council you can be working with City staff on these . I know the road access can be taken care of. The other issues, I think they have to talk to the engineer and get some specifics and you should sit down with him. Dean Brown: But that' s something we hadn' t heard before was the phased in approach. That' s why I 'm asking these things several times . We've just been told water loop, fire access, pavement. To us those are there but let' s give and take a little and thank you very much for saying that. That's what we' re looking for . Conrad : And I don ' t want to lead you astray. Maybe we can' t do that but I think we should look at it and see if that ' s possible. Dacy: It was my understanding that Mr . Brown did talk to you about these recommendations. II Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 29 IDean Brown: Yes . Dacy: Okay, so you were aware of them? Dean Brown: Yes . I Dacy: Okay, so now you' ve come up with alternatives that you may not have posed to Mr. Brown? Dean Brown: That' s right . Dacy: Okay, so that makes me feel better . They were aware of these conditions and we can go from there. IDean Brown: The point 4, the future phases shall preserve the additional right-of-way required by the TH 101 improvement. What does that mean? IOlsen: That ' s more of a condition just so when those future phases come in, we will know to review those sites and not let you put the parking I lot within the right-of-way. If this goes through, they will be acquiring this property. I Dean Brown: At what point would they acquire that? Olsen: When it would be improved . I Dean Brown: That again is cutting into an area of our parking that we' re concerned about. Can we get some sort of approval at that time that would say, that setback would change so we can still get some Iparking for there? Olsen : Right . The way we' re considering this is that it' s a hardship imposed by the City so you could possibly get a variance to the I setbacks. It is something we are taking away. Land that you did have for the setback so the setbacks may be reduced . You still would not be able to build into it but we may be able to look at reducing the Isetbacks and provide some screening or additional berms or something . Dean Brown: Again, our concern was that to us it' s taking away from 1 some of our parking and so long as we can work on a variance . Is that the only spot we' re talking about? Olsen : So far . IDean Brown: And we wouldn ' t know that until it was all approved right? I Terry Lyon: That' s pushing that one right to the limit but as you all know, that parking is just meeting the requirements for the future expansion so if indeed you say we may get the setback, that ' s not going IIIto allow us to meet your requirement in the future. 11 Planning Commission Meeting II February 17 , 1988 - Page 30 I Olsen : You still have to go through process . I can' t say that you' ll II get it. Terry Lyon: In your opinion , it would be approved? I feel it ' s II justified to ask. The church is setting aside that property for something that may not happen and receiving no compensation for setting that aside and also it may be limiting their ability to expand in the future because they won' t be able to meet the parking requirements so we II need some sort of commitment that it would be acceptable also . Dacy: That would be staff ' s recommendation. We can' t guarantee what a I City Council is going to do. Dean Brown: So by us agreeing to this recommendation , we' re just saying I that the future phases shall preserve that particular piece of right-of-way or any right-of-way? Olsen: We' re saying that particular . If things change. . . I Batzli : I don ' t know that staff can even make that statement because how they develop TH 101 will have a major impact on that and we have no control over that really. Very little. II Olsen: When they determine what property need, that's when they will start the acquisition process . As of today, that is the corner that I they are looking at that would need the additional highway right-of-way. Dean Brown: But we can go on the assumption that if it was condemned I for state use or whatever use, then we could apply for a, what type of a permit was it? Ellson : Variance . I Dean Brown: A hardship variance . A hardship imposed variance saying that we still need the parking. Because potentially what could happen there is if you condemn that and then didn' t give us the right-of-way, we wouldn' t be able to meet your minimum requirements for parking . That ' s the extreme to the one end . I guess that' s what we want to make I sure everyone is aware of is that we' re building now with the thorough assumption that we can add a second and third phase. We would hate to be able to develop this and the second phase and then all of a sudden I find out we can ' t do the third phase because we' re 5 parking spots short. Headla : This summer when we had that heavy rainstorm, what happened to I that area down there? Did they get flooded? What I 'm really referring to is if we take that spot of land now and we blacktop it all , we' re going to have faster runoff. Are we going to create a problem for that church or for the immediate neighborhood? Olsen: The Hidden valley plan always had, their storm water system always had this lot also included in those calculations and perhaps you , could clarify it a little bit better but it was always planned for the II 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 31 development of this lot so it will be able to . Headla: It will be able to handle that more rapid runoff than if it was just plain ground there. Terry Lyons : That' s also addressed in the engineer ' s report . Headla: Yes, I see they talk about it there but where they put it all blacktop, I just was wondering about that . On the lights you have in the parking lot, how tall are those lights going to be? Terry Lyons : 20 feet . ' Headla: And will they be on all the time? Dean Brown: They' ll be on a timer switch where they' ll come on. ' Headla: So during the night they usually stay on until middle evening, something like that? ' Dean Brown: We do use our church into 10: 00 to 11: 00 at night. Like on Wednesday evenings and sometimes on Mondays so for our safety purposes , we' ll more than likely have them on. Headla: But they would be on 7 days a week? Dean Brown: Yes . ' Headla : I was wondering there , 20 feet , is that going to affect neighbors a ways away if it' s on every night? ' Olsen : We usually have the lights shielded so they' re directed . They might still be able to tell that there' s a light over there but it ' s reflected so it doesn ' t shine into a neighbor ' s property. Does that ' answer your question? Headla : I 'm thinking about when I look out my back window, 2,000 feet away I see the lights from my church parking lot and to say they point down, it leaves a fair amount of light there. What kind of lights are these? Terry Lyons : They will be high pressure sodium. Shielded high pressure sodium. Dean Brown: I think it' s important to note that all of the houses to the east of us, that you would be referring to, are lower than our lot to begin with and we' re still going to have a 6 foot berm as well as 10 foot trees across there. So, it' s like if our lot is here and the houses are down here plus there will be that 6 to 10 foot shield across there. Then the lights are going to only be from one end to the other . Terry Lyons : One of the parking lights that would be visible to the residential neighborhood. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 32 Headla : The one up on the north end? Terry Lyons: Yes . I Headla : That ' s all that I have. Batzli : I guess I 'm curious, are we recommending this as a conditional I use but you evaluate it as if it was a conditional use? Olsen : We use the requirements of a church within a residential district as the guidelines. We had no specific guidelines for a church in a PUD district so we really haggled this over . We were going , well is it a conditional use? No, because it' s not submitted as a conditional use in the PUD ordinance but yet there are no specific regulations for the church in the PUD so we felt, since it is a residential district , that regulations for churches as conditional uses in the RSF district, whatever would be appropriate to use for the site plan review. This lot was always approved as a church site. We felt that it was still an approved use. Batzli : So the future expansions would have to come back in as another ' site plan? Olsen: Yes . All phases have to come back in. We have to make sure that they' re conforming to the parking and the setbacks . Ellson: I think it looks awful nice. I don ' t know how we can make a recommendation with the motion so open to this type of thing. Maybe you' ve done this in the past but it seems like it will be awfully vague to try and do something when there' s so many things that' s left to be done. Do you do this a lot? They have to do this and that . Okay, we' re going to go with that. It seems like anything can be written in there. I 'm just a little apprehensive about that part of it but if you guys have done it before, I ' ll trust you. 1 Emmings: He mentioned they' re not doing a daycare or not doing day school . We one time talked about a church who was going to do a school or we talked about the possibility of them doing a school . If they would add that as a use, would that have to come back? It seems to me we talked about the fact that there had to be different requirements for bathroom facilities and all kinds of other kinds of things. Is that being taken into account now? Olsen : No . If they came in for a new use , a lot of times we' ll hear about it from the building department and within the PUD district, we would have to address that as a permitted use . It would have to get some sort of city approval . i Emmings : So if they decided to add those uses , they would have to come back? I/ II Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 33 ' Dean Brown: And we already fully understand that that is very well , I talked to Barb and staff, that construction of the walls are different. The fire code is different and that ' s why we' re stating now that we ' re ' not doing that so that what we' re proposing is what we' re using . Emmings: The only time I talked against a church related issue, my furnace stopped working at home. I 'm not willing to risk that anymore. ' Erhart : Why are there no trees shown on the landscaping in some of the areas such as the very north end and the south end? ' Olsen: The reason is because they' re not developing this side. Erhart: What about the other? Olsen : They are landscaping it all around. ' Erhart: I see they' re landscaping directly around the parking lot but not around by the street. Okay, so that future parking essentially will be seeded at this point? Olsen : I think we' re just going to leave it in it' s natural state at this time. ' Dean Brown: We plan to seed or sod it. As you point out in one of your recommendations is that all land that we' re not using needs to be seed and sodded . Erhart : That ' s a good point . If the land is natural grass now and you' re not disturbing it, that may be imposing an additional requirement ' that may not be necessary. Olsen : It was my understand that you were going to leave that southern portion all in it 's natural state. Dean Brown: Point 2, all open areas in the first phase shall be covered. ' Erhart : I have a question , does the City have written requirements for fire hydrants and loops or is this something that the building inspector sort of comes up with from time to time? Dacy: The Fire Code does . ' Erhart : But I don ' t see a condition requiring three fire hydrants on my list. Am I missing something? ' Dean Brown: It' s on the plan . Erhart : Oh, you' ve already got that on the plan. And I think you ' ll see that a loop is a standard requirement of the City for a fire hydrant ' so I don ' t have a problem with that . I do think we ought to change the condition for the steeple so there's not, again, I don' t think we ought II Plannin g Commission Meetin g February 17, 1988 - Page 34 to be imposing fire restrictions that go above the Uniform Building Code so I 'd like to see us change condition 8 to say that the steeple shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code period. I sometimes think we do get a little carried away with this fire thing . You' re requesting that one entrance be moved 60 feet further to the south as compared to as shown on the plan? Olsen : Yes . ' Erhart: And the Fire Inspector is asking that the second access be added at Hidden Court. I agree, if nothing else, that we should just leave it open but I really question whether you want to have that many parking spaces and one access. It just seems to me, from a practical standpoint , given that Lake Drive East is basically a private street. In other words, it' s not a collector. It' s not an arterial . Why you wouldn' t have an access up on the north end. It just seems there' s going to be a tremendous congestion bringing all those cars in. You know how people all come in 5 minutes after the service starts . It just seemed practical to me to have a second access up there. I think that' s much more logical than the south end . Particularly considering , in the future you' re considering a classroom. If you ' re going to have a second 11 access , it ' s more reasonable to put it on that side where you have a density of children and so forth. Again, I don' t know if it has to be done now. Terry Lyon: The staff would not allow us a second access onto Lake Drive East. Olsen : Lake Drive East is a collector . It ' s a major east/west . ' Erhart: But according to your TH 101 plan here, that' s going to become. . . Olsen : That' s still going to be a major road . And we did look at providing that secondary access onto Lake Drive East and they had a large berm to cut through. The sight distance of before . Erhart: A berm that doesn' t exist today. ' Olsen : Right but it' s just that the sight distance was not good . There are good points to having it on Lake Drive East but we reviewed it and we determined that . . . Erhart: What ' s the distance, if you move that driveway let ' s say closer to Hidden Court, can you maintain a 300 foot distance between the two driveways? Olsen : I think the City Engineer was recommending 100 foot distance from Lake Drive East to Hidden Court. Erhart : And it looks like you've got , about what? 200 feet there now? About 160 feet now so if you move it 60 feet down, that would get you to your 100 feet . If you put another driveway up on the north end , that i Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 35 ' would easily be 300 feet from that driveway. Aren ' t we requiring collectors, that driveways be 400 feet apart? Dacy: In the rural . Erhart: So it doesn' t apply here. Whatever , I think just looking at this whole thing, you ought to have provisions, at least for the future on the driveway on the north end . Not the south end . Dacy: That curve and the grade is the biggest factor there. The sight distance is poor there. Even the existing elevation now. Batzli : Is Hidden Court a through street? ' Olsen : It curves down in a round about way. Batzli : It does link up with something else somewhere? ' Olsen: Yes . Dean Brown: Lake Drive East curves around and connects with Dakota . Batzli : We' re talking about Hidden Court . Olsen : Yes , Hidden Court does dead end . There is another access . Here' s Lake Drive East and then there' s another Hidden Lane back there. I Erhart : It must be the new design for the TH 101/TH 5 crossing . I 've not seen this before. This is much preferable over the one Mark ' s got in his book. IConrad : I don' t have anything to add . I think Tim, your comment on point 8 was using the Uniform Building Code instead of the specifics that were in there? Thinking they would cover what staff detailed? The I only other thing I would say is that whoever makes the motion, is that we recommend that the applicants work with staff to review access . Maybe some phased in approaches if it works for fire hydrants, looped I water , whatever but basically working with staff and the City Engineer to see if any of those things can be deferred. If not, the City Council should be aware of that when it gets to them. ' Dean Brown: That' s what we' re looking for. If it' s a rule, we' ll have to live by it but if we can work, we'd love to . Erhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #88-1 as shown on the site plan dated January 28 , 1988 with the following conditions : Headla : That second access , we' re really talking about quality. On that second access aren' t we? 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 36 Ellson : Right . Not necessarily the road as constructed in the Engineering report but we still want some sort of . . . Headla : Yes , I think we want an access of some kind but . . . it' s the quality of the access . Erhart : I think what we' re trying to say is on Phase 1, maybe we could live without it but if you 're going to build all these parking spaces and the additions shown here, we feel that a second access will be needed at that time. Conrad : Emergency vehicles need a second access period . It just ' simply, right now the mechanics of how quickly we want that access upgraded and I think they can work that out . Headla : Did you say anything about , like the fire hydrants and the loop? If that could be negotiated with phases? Conrad : Tim didn' t. Batzli : Could that be a friendly amendment? Erhart: There has to be a second first. Headla : I ' ll move that the requirements for the fire hydrants and the looping of the watermain be considered for negotiation to be incorporated in with the third building phase . Emmings: Shouldn 't we just say it like this maybe. If they can satisfy the City Engineer that it' s not necessary to do it all at this time, then that would be alright with the Planning Commission. Whatever the City Engineer thinks is necessary or appropriate at this time. Is that the idea. Batzli : Are you suggesting in your point 8 that the steeple need only be designed in accordance with UBC and not constructed in accordance with that? Erhart : I 'm assuming that' s the same. ' Batzli : Okay. Are there other applicable building codes that you would like to include? Is the problem that we have a building code that' s tougher than the Uniform Building Code. Was that merely a requirement of the Engineer or the Eire Department and the City? Olsen: That was the interpretation, 20 feet was how the Building Inspector interpretted the height that they would permit under the UBC. Erhart: If his interpretation differs from somebody elses and we 1 approve the requirement including this wordage, then the interpretation doesn' t mean anything anymore. Then it' s what we approve and I want to go back to the Uniform Building Code and let them work out this interpretation. • Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 37 Terry Lyons : The only other applicable Code would have been the Minnesota Building Code and it doesn ' t address that specific issue so ' the Uniform Building Code is the only one. Batzli : I guess I would rather have said, the steeple shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable Building Codes . Erhart: That' s fine. ' Emmings : Aren ' t you just talking about the UBC there? Batzli : I don' t know. Emmings : I think the State has adopted the UBC and all these communities have adopted the State so we will have the same. ' Erhart : I 'm not trying to get us , put words to try and back up somebody' s misinterpretation if in fact that' s the case. I don' t know. Headla : One other thing, looking at my notes , we were going to put in a note that whenever they do further expansion, they were to come back. Conrad : I think that' s implied though. Not implied . Olsen: We would require it, yes . Headla : You would require it anyway? Okay, then there' s no need for it. ' Terry Lyons : It ' s required by your Zoning Ordinance and it ' s required by the Uniform Building Code and it' s required by the Minnesota Building Code. Anytime you add , alter , modify. Headla moved, Emmings seconded an amendment to the motion stating that the Planning Commission approve phasing of the fire hydrants and looping ' of the watermain if the City Engineer determines that these requirements are not necessary at this time. All voted in favor of the amendment and motion carried. ' Erhart moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #88-1 as shown on the site plan dated January 28 , 1988 with the following conditions : ' 1. The applicant shall provide details on type of shrubs proposed along the east lot line and provide 1 foot of hedge along the west ' property line between vehicular access and Lake Drive East . 2. All open areas disturbed during construction in the first phase shall be covered with sod or seeded . Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 38 3. Two additional handicapped parking spaces will be provided with the second and third phases or as required by the State building code. 4. The future phases shall preserve the additional right-of-way required for the TH 101 improvement. 5. The proposed access to Lake Drive East shall be relocated 60 feet to the south. ' 6. A second access to Hidden Court shall be negotiated with the city staff with the possibility of phasing. , 7. The applicant shall receive a sign permit for the proposed sign which shall not exceed 24 square feet. 8. The steeple shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes. 9. The hydrant located in front of the proposed sanctuary shall be relocated to the south corner of the entrance from Lake Drive East. 10. Lights must be shielded and not be intrusive on adjacent ' neighborhoods. 11. The 16 points outlined in the City Engineer ' s report shall be ' included. 12. The Planning Commission approves phasing of the fire hydrants and looping of the watermain if the City Engineer determines that these requirements are not necessary at this time. All voted in favor of the amendment and motion carried. ' APPROVAL OF MINUTES : ' Emmings moved , Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 20, 1988 as amended on page 11 by Steven Emmings. All voted in favor and motion carried . Erhart moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 3 , 1988 as amended by David Headla on page 23. All voted in favor except Conrad who abstained and motion carried . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER. Mark Koegler : You made a statement before that I was going to be ' talking . What I 'm really going to mostly do tonight is turn it back to you and let you do the talking and just take notes and agree and disagree and those kinds of things. Let me tell you, the material that 's in front of you tonight is the entire Transportation Section Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 39 1 I draft of the plan . There ' s new material in there and there ' s a mixture of material that this Commission has seen before as well as, obviously some redrafting and rewriting of the text from the old Comp Plan portion I and the Broadened Study Area Report into one document. The actual new pages occur on pages 12 through 32 and then again on 39 through 46 and addresses such topics as planned improvements, the recommended system which is primarily a compulation again of the major recommendations from I the last plan that we did some 7 years ago or so plus the Benshoof Report that was done on the Broadened Study Area . Then it moves into some new sections on jurisdictional classification. Airports, transit I and some language on implementation . I think the bottom line conclusion is that probably transportation has been studied fairly extensively within this community over the last 10 year period . I think the result I of those studies is that there' s not a great deal of "new revelations" that have come out of this. However, it really is pointing again that their number in the original recommendations , for a lot of reasons , haven' t been implemented yet or in some cases are in the process of I being implemented . To a certain degree becomes a restatement of some of that and a reaction to some of that with the eye towards, again implementing that to the best of the City' s ability over the next 10 I year period of time. So with that, I don ' t know that any elaboration on specific section . I 'd be glad to do that if you so desire . Perhaps it 's more prudent to field any comments or concerns or questions that you might have. IConrad : Anybody have any comments on the first 10 or 12 pages? I Emmings: Mark, I just noted again that there' s an inconsistency in that major arterial versus intermediate arterial language. That happens on page 2 and page 3 and page 4 and pages 34 , 35 and 36. Sometimes it ' s in Ithere as a major , sometimes it in there as an intermediate. Mark Koegler: That' s correct. I have not gone back and cleaned up the language on some of that first part of the text. All of that will be I changed to read major/minor and that is the current language. The chart ' s that in here which replaces the previous chart that ' s the Metropolitan Council information, is the current classification Ilanguage. Emmings: Is that on 34? IMark Koegler : Yes . There you see the current categories we utilize. The interstate freeway then we go major/minor collector so those now have preceeded and totally replaced the old minor and intermediate Ilanguage. Emmings : Another thing I had is that on T-4 there' s this exhibit 2-T, I existing roadway system and there are these heavy dark lines which I think indicate maybe improvements that are occurring at the present time. There' s nothing in the key to tell us that. It took me a while to figure out what they were and either they shouldn' t be in there or I else be something in the key to tell people what they are. And then I wanted to thank you for adding the TH 7/Lake Minnewashta area turn-ins Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 40 on page 8. That' s all I had on those pages. ' Erhart : I like to look at the pictures and I have a couple of comments on the maps . It seems when you go through it fast it ' s redundant but I 'm sure there' s some reason for saying the same thing over again three times . I think it' s real good . I do have a comment here Mark, maybe just some corrections. On exhibit 1-T. Wasn' t CR 17 in existence in 1980? Mark Koegler : No . Erhart : Okay, then if it wasn' t then , then it should be on the 2-T as an ' improvement from 1980 to 1987. It should have a heavy black line on the next one that Steve referred to. Am I correct? Mark Koegler: That' s correct. Bear in mind here what happened. The roadway probably physically was in the ground in 1980. This plan was put . together in the late 70' s and I think there were some assumptions made so this really is an exhibit from the previous plan reflecting what was there. I agree, it should be shown as an improvement that occurred . Erhart : I wasn ' t aware that that wasn ' t there in 1980. ' Mark Koegler : That was about the time of construction. Erhart : I don ' t have anything until after 12. Conrad: Mark, what' s the difference, the issues and deficiencies starting on page 5. You ' ve got them broken down by intersection and access . Mark Koegler : We had three really major categories there. Intersection, Access and then Road Capacity Connections and Jurisdictional Continuity. Conrad : In terms of road capacity and connections , on point 3 under Pleasant View Road. What are they indications of that problem? Where did you get that information that there' s capacity problems? Mark Koegler: That really is from the previous plan. I have modified the text to bring it up a little more to date . I 'm sure you' re aware there was an effort at one time to upgrade that as a full collector street . There was a perceived need in the overall transportation of the city for collector movement in that area. That politically was not feasible and pretty well was finalized that that would never be feasible. I think that assumption prevails in this text and simply reiterates from a design standpoint and from an application of the normal standards, you would look for one in that area but given the geography, given the political circumstances , it won' t happen . Conrad: You 've described it right. The inadequancies of this route will continue to intensify but in my mind , it' s not a solveable, as you just said, it' s not a solveable problem so do we keep it there as a Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 41 ' problem, even though it is , but it' s not solveable? Mark Koegler: That' s correct. It is insolveable and I guess that falls ' back to you as to whether or not you feel that it should or shouldn' t be there. It is a situation that people in that part of the community are going to experience in the future, obviously. Whether or not that means ultimately there will be enough pressure to do some kind of improvement to that route or not , I don' t think anybody knows . The assumption is now, is that won' t happen. I 've also seen really multiples last of the parcels development with the exception of the later stages of Near ' Mountain as it laps around here to the west. The high end of residential in there. But as the demographics continue to change and there' s continued increases, as the Metropolitan Council data shows , ' that the use of personal cars and the number of cars people have and everything else, traffic on that route is going to continue to increase. It was just pointing to the obvious perhaps with no solution. ' Ellson: What are you saying your problem is? To have it in here if there' s no solution. I think it' s important to let it be known that we know it' s a deficiency. I think it would be an oversight not to mention r it. Conrad : What are you going to do about it? Erhart: Light Rail Transit. Conrad : It doesn ' t go through that part of town. Erhart: I guess the concept is, the light rail transit would take significant traffic off these major arterials and freeways . That the Iexisting system would be maintained tolerable. Batzli : I think you' ll have the same amount of traffic on Pleasant View whether or not you have light rail transit. ' Emmings : They' ll all be driving that way to go to the station. IConrad: My only point is, if you don't have a solveable problem, why. . . Ellson: TH 5, it runs parallel to that and I think as that improves . I People are taking Pleasant View sometimes just to avoid TH 5 in rush hour . I think maybe it would improve to a certain extent . • Batzli : I had a question, if we' re done with this . IConrad : I think we are. It' s identified properly. ' Ellson: I know like a problem having a solution. Conrad : Well , there should be. Typically, identifying something without a solution doesn' t solve anything and here ' s a case, why put up I a flag when there' s really nothing to do for it because it ' s really been predetermined, based on a couple years ago on how we let some properties r Planning Commission Meeting II February 17, 1988 - Page 42 be subdivided . And the neighbors don' t want that anyway through that area but I 'm just trying to make sure this is as clean as we can make it so we understand it when it comes back. I think we' ll leave it stand . Batzli : I think your problem will be exaccerbated though by the fact 1 that they are building more units on Pleasant View, at least at the east end. I think the problem will get worse before it gets better and there may be a solution to some of the problems. 1 Conrad: It gets worse when they build up the west end and they build on top of the Mountain because that' s when the traffic builds and the traffic doesn' t want to go west to CR 17. It wants to go east to TH 101 and that is the real guts of the issue there but we' ll leave this stand. Batzli : That gets me to my point and that is, when we' re talking about jurisdictional continuity, I would have thought TH 101 was probably the worse case of jurisdictional continuity but it' s not listed under that category although it' s elsewhere. Or don' t I understand what you' re talking about by jurisdictional continuity? Mark Koegler : No , I think that' s a fair criticism. I think TH 101 is discussed so many times elsewhere is probably the reason I didn' t include it in that. Most of the other routes in terms of jurisdictional continuity is that they don' t have any problems with TH 101. In that at least TH 5, the continuity that we' re speaking of, the problem occurs ' once you leave the Chanhassen borders. The same thing with CR 17 . You've got good continuity within the geographic area of Chanhassen but when you cross into Excelsior , it falls apart . North TH 101, obviously we' ve got a different situation because we've got only jurisdiction within Chanhassen borders . There ' s no problem. That can certainly be added. Batzli : I was looking at it along the stretch north of 78th Street up to Town Line Road where it's the border between Chanhassen and Eden Prairie . I think the traffic load on that stretch of the road is increasing and is getting more dangerous as we have these developments like Fox Hollow and all these other nice ones , where a lot of people again to avoid TH 5, are trying to get on to Valley View via either Duck Lake Trail or going down to Valley View and it' s a very dangerous , couple dangerous road situations rith there where it 's a problem that both Eden Prairie and Chanhassen are really experiencing at the same time. I guess that' s how I would look at it . Mark Koegler : What I would propose in light of that is to add some fairly brief commentary referencing again that it was discussed in other areas of the plan . Batzli : Yes , you' ve discussed it on T-9 in depth . Conrad: Anything else on the first 12 pages? On page 13, Steve had something . 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 43 I Emmings : I 'm not on the map. I live in Chanhassen. We've got an exhibit here that shows the city and all kinds of information about it and our end of town isn ' t on there Dave. IMark Koegler: Let me explain that. First of all , let me offer a comment on the maps . The maps that are in there , may exist in that final form and they may ultimately be altered. Those are going to be reviewed by Barb and determined what she wants to have reworked and not reworked. That was not really the prime responsibility we had in terms of updating the plan itself. What we did in the transportation section, just go through and include what was appropriate because it's easier to see how it all fits together . Some of those may be reworked . This particular exhibit does not include the Minnewashta area because it' s an exerpt from the Broadened Study Area Report and that geographic area was not a part of their planning boundaries. So the subarea information that ' s been developed on the tract assignment zones has not been developed to the degree of detail for the Minnewashta area that it has been for the balance of the community. Emmings: I don' t know why we want to include something here that is that incomplete and I don ' t think this is purely parochial but maybe it is. We got that problem on several of these maps. There' s information here and naturally when I 'm reading this , I look down to see how we fit into the rest of the city and we' re just not there. Maybe it ' s not important for the specific purpose but maybe just out of a sense of fairness you ought to include it. Dacy: As Mark referred to earlier , the traffic study that Benshoof did had a specialized focus and we' re just using that information to plug into the transportation section . They did the computer modeling based on the traffic trips coming out of those subzones. It wasn' t meant to cut off the western area . Emmings : I suppose you could just call the document a semi-complete Comprehensive Plan. Dacy: If we were to add the Lake Minnewashta area , we would have to go back to Benshoof and have them rechange all the calculations and add that and factor that in. Emmings : Why was that area excluded in the first place if we' re doing the rest of the entire city? Dacy: The basic reason why they established those boundaries was , and actually they only even looked at from the TH 212 corridor. They looked at the subareas in there just because it ' s rural , just to get a feel for how many single family areas are in the southern part of Chan and Eden Prairie but their primary focus again , remember was the TH 212 corridor , TH 101 and access into downtown. The area that they focused on in Chan and Eden Prairie were the major generators of traffic that would go into the downtown area. Granted, there is a significant population in and around the Lake Minnewashta area but they felt that from TH 41 on the west to Dell Road on the east, was going to give them a good feel for Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 46 from that . I don ' t think there' s an issue here. I just want to make sure that we' re not binding. Conrad : Other than smoothing some things out , are there any changes in the two? Erhart : Yes , Lake Drive East now is connected to Hidden Court . Dacy: The changes that have occurred would be that on 13-T, the leg into Lake Drive East over to Dakota Avenue , there' s not that curvature in there . We have shifted the road over to the west of the intersection. I agree, everybody is pleased with that. I 'm not disputing that . Erhart : The same consultant did both right? Dacy: No. BRW did the refined drawing that was in the site plan. We can change it. Conrad : Is that the only change that you did in terms of the two? Olsen: There' s a different intersection into Lake Drive East going to TH 101. Conrad : I 'm looking at the north side, not the south . Dacy: On the north side, it 's a straighter intersection from TH 101 in. You don' t need the curves . Conrad : I thought that this plan required so much interaction between the railroad and it still does . Emmings : I suppose the trouble with the new one is we've really got two crossings instead of one. Conrad : That ' s right . Dacy: Supposedly the railroad , initially at least , has been agreeable to that. Again, we can change the graphics to be what you see on the site plan. Conrad : It' s got to be, what are we presenting in here? Dacy: The number one issue is whether or not we should have an intersection at that point in the first place. That ' s going to be the big issue from Chanhassen Estates and McDonalds and everybody else. When Benshoof did this it was just to illustrate that it could work and it could get the north/south volumes out of downtown and onto a new TH 101 alignment . The BRW graphic does probably a much better job of that from a traffic standpoint. There' s going to have to be a feasibility study conducted and approved by the Council to determine the exact alignment of that which will be reviewed by MnDot and approved by the railroad , etc . . That' s why I 'm saying , whatever we show, this has 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 47 ' to be labeled conceptual . That we' re just talking ideas about making connections here. Batzli : I guess if we have a choice of what concept to present, I 'd rather present the one. . . Conrad : The one that ' s been refined . Yes . That ' s a lot better than ' the one we've been flying with but that' s brand new information to me. The one we've been flying with from Benshoof has been there simply because, at least on the north side. I don' t see a problem with the ' south side but the north side was the railroad crossings and we had to have it that way because we spent all that time, and apparently all that money, to design this incorporating the concern with the railroad and now all of a sudden we've changed the north. I don't know that those problems have been addressed . I don' t know what kind of concept we've just presented even though it' s a lot cleaner. It 's a better looking thing but it may not be real . ' Mark Koegler : The important thing to convey in the Comprehensive Plan is the fact that these two intersections really are the same because what they' re doing is we' re taking the TH 101 traffic , as Barb said, out of the downtown area and relocating a new intersection point. That ' s the key item. Then you get beyond that , you get into the level of design detail and how do you handle the cross street connections and there are probably other alternatives that we missed that may be equally as viable too. As far as the Comp Plan goes, the Planning Commission' s normal interest in the "big spectrum of planning" , the important thing ' is that we' re looking at deemphasizing the existing intersection, two of them actually, at Dakota and TH 101 with TH 5 and emphasizing a new one that's kind of midway between the two. You can do that with a much ' simplier graphic than either of these just showing a movement line sweeping through with the appropriate text. Whether you focus on one of these and label it heavily that it' s a concept only, I don' t really think there ' s a lot of difference as long as the key thing that you ' imply to any reader is that we' re looking at this movement . Very specific graphics like this tend to focus interest at a public hearing. That may be an item on this comprehensive plan, as you hold the public I hearings, that may be a target. Why do we have Lake Drive East coming in this way? Why do you have this and why do you have that? That' s not really the focus of the Comp Plan. I Emmings : Wouldn' t they ask those same questions about this other one Mark? IMark Koegler : They could, yes . Emmings : So it doesn ' t matter which one we have in here, we' re going to get the same questions . Conrad : Barb and Mark, if you can, I think we all like the newer version and Barbara, I understand you ' re concerned with presenting I something that hasn ' t gone through all the rules and reviews yet . If you two can come up with something that is presented for the plan that • Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 48 kind of is drifting towards the new one , I think we'd all like that. I ' ll let you work that out. Emmings : I would say too , if you think there' s good reasons to leave this one in here, I wouldn' t be uncomfortable with that either. Maybe if that one is drawn in a little more abstract way. If you think it' s too detailed, maybe you want to just have it drawn in a little more abstract fashion . ' Conrad : It looks like the south part is real . That seems like it should happen and I think that should be incorporated so if we stick with the current Exhibit 13-T, I think we should make those modifications. The north side bothers me because I don't know that we' ve got something real there that is going to change or is actual but I ' ll let you folks figure out how you want to treat the north part of the map. Pages 31-32? 33-34? 35-36? 37-38? 39-40? Emmings: On 40, I was interested in this part on airports since I live on Lake Minnewashta and we do have a very little airport out there on the lake. I became concerned last summer when there was this accident up north somewhere where some guy crashed his plane and some people got hurt. I think actually on Lake Minnewashta, it' s really decreased a lot during the time I ' ve been living there. We used to have 4 or 5 planes parked on the lake all summer and planes coming and going. Now I think there are 1 or 2. ' Headla : One at the south end permanently. I think that ' s it . Emmings: When Leech' s was there, there was always a couple in there. 2 , or 3 and now there aren' t any so I think the use has really gone down . But I 'm wondering, especially when you think about the public access that they put in there , I thought if the lake use increased very much it could be a conflict but it' s amazing how. When I first saw there were planes on there , I thought this was a terribly dangerous thing but the use seems to get along pretty well . It seems to work. , Headla : I don ' t understand why they get along so good but they do . Emmings: There always seems to be plenty of room for them to land and no problem. You'd think even a guy coming down would maybe have a water skier shooting across in front and cause a big problem and it just isn' t and I don' t know why. Conrad : When they come in here and talk to us , they seem to be well organized and very concerned. , Emmings: Who? Conrad : There ' s an association of folks who will come and talk to us occasionally when they think we' re changing the lake surface ordinance at all . They' re in. They seem rather responsible. What is that black line through Minnewashta? Is that the landing strip? Is that a , floating landing strip with lights that come up? Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 49 II IIMark Koegler : No. Again, that ' s a recycled referenced map. The only intent was to indicate that those are the two bodies of water . IBatzli : I' ve heard periodic rumor and inneundo that they' re talking about eventually having to build a new metropolitan airport. Do you II know if the plans for that would be south, west , east or north of the cities? Mark Koegler : I 've seen , probably some of the same articles you have, I citing a need and everything I 've seen is referencing that it will be north. II Conrad : Page 42. Light Rail Transit . Mark, we really haven' t said anything in that section. We said, if it reaches us, we' re going to have to get there somehow. I Mark Koegler : What are your thoughts and interest I guess in that regards? I Conrad : They' re very personal . I really believe in a light rail transit system. I don' t know if this is a section where we state commitment. It' s a personal commitment . I think it' s necessary and it certainly looks to me like the north route is the most beneficial to I Chanhassen . You kind of say that here. I just bring it up as a point of do we want to say anything in the Comprehensive Plan that we support? I 'm saying that because of the little that I ' ve read , I don ' t know if we Iwant to be more powerful in supporting that or what we want to do . Mark Koegler : Your in kind of a unique position , different position if I you will , from somebody like Minnetonka or somebody that has the line running through the community which will have more of a land use than transportation concerns directly. Park and ride stations and so forth. Chanhassen is a little bit more insulated from that just because of the I fact that the northern alignment just barely runs through the City. The southern alignment is totally in the rural service area. Any direction that you think is appropriate there , we can certainly build the language II into the plan. I 'm sure that certainly Hennepin County would be very happy to see all the language we would want to put in there in support of light rail. Carver County is setting up a light rail program now. What do you want to say? IIConrad : I guess I 'd like to just make somehow a stronger statement that Chanhassen supports the use of light rail . I guess I don' t know enough I about the two alternatives , even though it sure appears that a northern one is better but maybe we don' t need to get into selecting the route other than saying that from the standpoint of Chanhassen' s growth and I it ' s ability to access the metropolitan area, that we strongly support light rail transit and somehow want to be incorporated into the thinking of the planners that may put this system in. I assume that there' s absolutely nothing we do, I can ' t think of how we would link up to the II system. We don' t need park and ride. It' s there. It goes through Excelsior . You drive over so there ' s nothing that we have to I Planning Commission Meeting II 9 g February 17, 1988 - Page 50 anticipate . Our railroad track won' t link up to it. I can' t think of anything that we can do as a community that would say we should connect up somehow or do something different. Erhart: I guess I 'd like to see a statement in support of it. I think we have nothing to lose and everything to gain in this city. I think the real beneift is that it is an alternative to the growing taffic already on our congested TH 5 and TH 212. The southern route would be an alternative to TH 212. That's why Chaska is so interested in it and of course , the northern route would be an alternative for TH 7 and TH 5. I think we ought to support it. ' Conrad : In terms of how we plan for other than supporting it , my last comment, is there anything we should be doing and I can' t think of anything other than saying we like it. To take advantage of it is simply getting in our car and driving over to the station or whatever and hopefully there' s enough parking places . Erhart: I think it is a politic thing. The fact that we will have it on our Comp Plan and we support it, I ' ll bet you' ll see that in the Minneapolis paper. Hennepin County will use that. They' ll use that in the arguments down in the meetings they' re having right now that Chanhassen is supporting it because Excelsior is going to fight it. Batzli : The people along where the track will go do not want it . ' Conrad: Nobody wants it where, anybody who touches it or is close to it, they do not want it . , Erhart: I think we ought to support it. Batzli : I think there is an element here that we do have input on and that' s the last paragraph where we' re talking about, how do we get to the light rail transit . Whether that means that the bus system of this area needs to be improved because I don' t think they' re going to be enough spots at a park and ride for everybody to park. So that means , whether they' re going to have off-site parking facilities with buses connecting to the light rail transit or trying to improve bus service, which I think has been a total disaster in the metropolitan area ever since I can remember . There' s going to need to be more planning in regards to how do you get the people to these stations because that will have a major impact on traffic flow if these things are put in and people start patronizing them. Ellson: So how do you say something like that Brian? That we'd be willing to . . . Batzli : I don' t want to say that we' re going to pave Chanhassen as a parking lot for light rail transit but I 'm just saying we are looking at this plan , I think, we ' re looking at it as if the present traffic congestion is going to be there and this is where all the traffic is because everybody is commuting on TH 5 and TH 212 and TH 169 . In 20 years, if light rail transit goes in, you might be able to get on TH 212 . 1 II Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 51 I and go 70 mph and never see another car . If light rail transit is everything it' s cracked up to be. Then again , maybe no . This is kind of like that 00 on the roulette wheel . This is a variable that nobody Iknows what' s going to happen. Conrad : Maybe we should put some corridors on this map, on page 43 . Our light rail corridors . IDacy: As Mark mentioned , Carver County has formed their rail authority. As a matter of fact, I think they have their first meeting next week. I That ' s an issue . Who ' s going to maintain and who ' s going to build the park and ride sites so maybe you could put in language stating that the City feels that park and ride sites should be located appropriately as II well as corridors to make sure there is good access. Or whatever you want to say in that we need to work with Carver County on that issue. But then again, Carver County is saying that they' re not looking at light rail into Chanhassen until after the year 2000. Maybe we could I try, to come up with some more information. It' s a tough one because who knows where the money is going to come from. I Conrad: Mark, if you can weave the words in that say we strongly support it and if you can probably put in some very general terminology in here speaking to the Chanhassen need to consider it' s access points I and it ' s park and ride in conjunction with light rail transit. It ' s going to be kind of fluffy. I don' t know that you can be very specific on that but maybe if you can work a few sentences in. I Mark Koegler : I think the last paragraph begins to be a little fluffy but perhaps it doesn ' t have enough loft. IConrad: 43 and 44? 45 and 46? Anything else? Emmings : I wonder if we have him put in there that we strongly support I light rail. I wonder, does everyone in Chanhassen support light rail? Headla : I was going to bring that up. I 'm not sure that ' s an accurate statement at all . IConrad : I don' t know. I think we support better access to Chanhassen. Ellson: Any alternative to TH 5. I Conrad : You' re right Dave . To a degree, if we knew all the facts , maybe we would be concerned. IErhart : Don' t we have a public hearing on this . II Conrad: City Council also has a review of it and then we' ll see all the people who come in in droves when we do have the public hearing . Actually, there might be a change this year with the support of the papers and we may have actually some interest from people seeing what 1 we' re doing. I Planning Commission Meetin g February 17 , 1988 - Page 52 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER POLICY PLAN. I Conrad: Barbara, do you need anything from us on this? Dacy: Does anybody have a strong position on any of the commens that I tried to summarize. I know it was fairly long and if you didn' t get a chance to read it, I can understand . Erhart : I read it. I was hoping you 'd have a communist representative from the Central Committee here tonight. I was hoping we'd have a representative of the Met Council . We have not had one since I 've been on the Planning Commission and I would look forward to that sometime. I 'd sure like to better understand their authority. Conrad: What do you find in this thing? Erhart: I had a few questions about some of the issues . As long as I can't pick on anybody. ' Conrad : It' s sort of like God , Mother and the Flag isn ' t it , when you review this stuff? Erhart: Timing and sizing of the metropolitan sewer service will be based on population, housing and planning forecasts prepared by the Council . Doesn ' t that strike you as . . . ' Dacy: Especially when they' re forecasts are already below us and we've already exceeded our 1990 projections . And that continues to be our concern. Emmings : When you bring that to their attention, how do they respond? Dacy: They respond to it by saying, and this is true, that the City reports it' s annual building permit activity to the census bureau and the Met Council and they supposedly keep track. They said they will update their information on a regular basis . They indicated that that ' s done every 5 years or if a community wants to object to the annual population estimate that it does , it will consider that. We' re concerned though that the population gets turned into a sewer allocation and you can ' t go beyond it. We' re not necessarily saying that we want more people here. We want more people here. It' s happening with or without our help and we just want to make sure that we have enough capcity sewer and transportation wise to provide for those that are coming . Emmings : So you just have to kind of keep hammering on them? Keep confronting them with reality. Dacy: Right . What Eden Prairie did, they went to the extent of taking ' a special census in the 1984 and 1985 and that worked. They revised their calculations . Erhart : Do you find them flexible at all? Planning Commission g x n Meeta.ng February 17 , 1988 - Page 53 Dacy: You deal with a couple of staff people . It depends. In Chanhassen, as opposed to Eden Prairie, we' re talking about a difference ' between 4, 000 and 5 ,000 people. That may or may not be a big difference as compared to Eden Prairie where they' re talking 5, 000 to 10, 000 people. We just want to make sure that the sewer capacity is there. ' Erhart: A question Dave, you were on the downtown Community Center and you selected the downtown because of the existing buildings and so forth. Given you didn't have that building, what would have been the second choice of location? There are a lot of editorials about not having it downtown. What would be the second choice site location if that existing building wasn ' t there? ' Headla: I think the general consensus was we kind of wanted to put it at Lake Ann but we didn' t see how we could do it. - ' Erhart: Why? Headla : We didn ' t own enough land and we'd have to go half a mile , ' third of a mile with sewer and water. It was quite a bit of money. Erhart : Is that outside of the MUSA line? ' Headla: Coming off of Powers Blvd. . If you don' t consider downtown, I think that was the one. . . ' Erhart : But that ' s outside the MUSA line isn ' t it? Headla: On the east side of Lake Ann is outside the MUSA line? ' Dacy: The Eckankar property is within it . The Lake Ann property is outside. ' Headla : So that' s the land we would have to buy to get it. And we looked at just south and west of here. That land's quite expensive. And we looked just north of the building and we didn' t see any space ' available. Erhart : I guess what I 'm getting to on this Metropolitan Council , I kid I about being communistic but I think this is the real world. If it gets defeated , and I have no idea what the polls are or anything , but I think it ' s going to be because of location and then the question is, is the committee going to have enough energy to go back and plan another site I and try to put together the plans and so forth. And these guys are restricting us from something that makes sense because I agree with you. I think the best site is the Lake Ann Park facility. Headla: I think it would give us an overall better recreational complex . 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 54 Conrad : Anything else about the Water Resource Management Development Guide Amendment? In the packet Barbara sent us a note about Scott County Lumber vs. the City of Shakopee. Headla: How would you like to be that City Appraiser? Did he get his hands caught in the cookie jar . Conrad : The only clarification in your note Barbara , it says you can' t deny a conditional use permit unless there' s an adverse impact but also if it doesn ' t meet the standards that you 've already pre-established for a conditional use permit. In other words, if you've got standards set up and they don' t meet those standards, you can reject anything you want. When the standards aren't there, then it becomes tough and that' s when you go back to the health, safety and welfare but as long as when you establish a conditional use process, if you don' t have pre-established conditions , then you' re open. I buy what this note says but I also want to make sure that everytime we think about requiring a conditional use, that we' re thinking of what those conditions are that we want met. If we don' t have those conditions, then we' re probably not really monitoring much at all because the conditional use permit will go through because we don' t have anything to measure it against. In the City Council update , I 'm real intrigued in the first one . The wetland alteration permit for Eric Rivkin. The city made the decision or in the wetland permitting process , I guess I was not aware that our ordinance doesn't supersede DNR jurisdiction. Why doesn' t it do that? ' Olsen : Because of a State Statutue that specifically gives DNR jurisdiction on public waters for dredging. There have been court cases . Conrad : For dredging . Olsen : For dredging . We could still regulate docks . Batzli : But it only regulates it below the ordinary high water mark. Conrad : Because most wetlands are below the ordinary high water mark and most docks are above. . . , Olsen : We' re going to be meeting with the DNR just to see how they would feel if we would try to amend it to give us jurisdiction. Conrad : Why can' t we be more restrictive than the State? Olsen: It' s just the way it' s written in the law. ' Emmings : It' s preempted . It' s just like the antennas . They have taken the area and they said, we' re going to regulate this and nobody else can . Olsen: I believe the County and the Watershed District does have jurisdiction. . .within the public waters. We' re looking into possibly ' doing that with the City. IPlanning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 55 ' Conrad : I 'm real confused and I would hope that staff could help. Here' s a case where we' re trying to keep the wetlands from being dredged ' and now we ' re saying we don' t have that authority so I sure would like staff to help clarify the impact of this action on our ordinance and what we should do with it. ' Dacy: It ' s not so much the ordinance as what we've got to do to change State Law. ' Batzli : Actually our ordinance , as aptly pointed out by one of the two of you at the Council meeting, it does have a significant impact and if there ' s a disturbance within 200 feet of a wetland , we can control the permit process. So assuming that any portion of what they' re going to ' dredge is above the ordinary high water mark, they would have to get a permit from the city as well . ' Olsen : So that ' s where we stood. We still acted on a wetland alteration permit because he was developing within 200 feet and he was locating his spoils within 200 feet so we did put conditions to control that. We' ll still be able to control activity going to the dredging path. I also wrote the DNR and asked them to add on all of our other conditions. We had other specific conditions with our initial wetland alteration permit. Conrad : I 'm really kind of amazed because the DNR was involved in our wetland ordinance. They were counseling us . They were encouraging us ' because they knew there were certain things that they could not do and they thought that we could help out and they were looking to us to be leaders in that area . Politically it was not sound for DNR to get ' involved in some of these things and therefore they kind of thought it was, certain levels of their group thought it was good that Chanhassen was involved. Not all levels mind you but they were very supportive so now I find it real interesting that we ' ve drafted an ordinance that ' really I 'm not sure how much of it is valid anymore. We do have some controls that we' ve implemented but some of the key things that we were trying to do, I 'm not sure that we' ve done it. Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to adjourn the e meeting . All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 25 p.m. . Submitted by Barbara Dacy ICity Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim . . il ICCHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 1988 IIChairman Lynch called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . IMEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Carol Watson, Curt Robinson, Mike Lynch, Jim Mady, Larry Schroers and Ed Hasek STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator II APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mady moved, Hasek seconded to approve the Minutes Iof the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated December 8, 1988. All voted in favor and motion carried . 1 INTERVIEW COMMISSION APPLICANTS. Sietsema: . Your options for the commission applications is to direct 1 staff to readvertise for more applications or to appoint the ones that have applied . It' s up to you. IWatson moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend reappointment of Jim Mady and Larry Schroers to the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and motion carried . 0: PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE FEES. 1 Sietsema: I don ' t know if you want to go over this in detail . Basically what I did is I looked at the study that was done by Schilling Environment Consultants and took a good hard look at what other cities Iare doing. We seem to be right in the running with what other cities are doing . What I ' ve recommended is that the single family and duplex remain the same. That we consolidate all of the multi-family instead of having the different ones for each kind of unit and what I did is IIbasically I added them all up and divided by how ever many there are. So I took an average of all those which seemed to be an appropriate figure also. Then I 've recommended an increase of 10o for the commercial IIoffice and industrial . The reason that the 10o increase was recommended for the commercial/industrial was because the single family units will be filling an increase in dedication fees with the addition of the trail IIfee. Although that ' s a different fee and they are not really one in the same, I did not think the timing was right to increase the park fee and add a new fee as well . For the commercial/industrial isn' t really effected by the trail fee , or is very minimumly so I ' ve recommended an Iincrease in the industrial . Boyt : I think we should double the industrial . I that at 1, 000 homes , lic$140. 00 per acre , we' re assuming that the maximum number of people we ^ould have is 7 . 5 per acre. These people would then be treated the same ,.f they had 7 . 5 per acre as a single family unit . I think it would be more comparable to Eden Prairie in our commercial/industrial. The IIpeople who work in these facilities generate the same amount of need for additional parks and recreational spaces . I think we' re going to have I Park and Recreation Commission I January 26, 1988 - Page 2 (7 more than 7 people per acre in the industrial facilities . i Lynch: You really think they do generate the same amount Sue? Boyt : Yes , like in Eden Prairie. Anyone who works in Eden Prairie is eligible to belong to the Community Center . To use that facility. We' re going to be having more facilities and you ' re going to be eligible to use those if they work in Chanhassen. ' Lynch : I can' t imagine, for instance, that they' re going in programs in Eden Prairie if they live in Bloomington. ' Boyt : A- lot of people who live in Chanhassen, have their kids in Eden Prairie. Lynch : I can understand that because we' re on the undeveloped fringe but it ' s a little hard. Maybe people from Victoria but it' s a pretty . . .on their folks to bring their kids all the way. We used to have that a little bit, even back in the old days because they just liked our programs. Watson: What are demographics of the people who worked at United Mailing? That last article in the paper told alot about where these ( eople came from. There were quite a few from Carver . Most of them were within the County but there quite a few of the people were from west of here. Lynch : When I flew for Northwest , I played on their ballteam and the ballteam I played on was a classy thing in Bloomington but I was living in Hopkins and we took no other advantage of any park system except just that basketball league. Boyt : That ' s not where I see families who live next to a community that has nice facilities. Lynch :Lynch : We' re not going to attract Eden Prairie people this way. Boyt: We do. We do attract Eden Prairie. The kids play on our baseball teams. They play on our soccer teams . They' re coming over here. Lynch : Why? I Boyt : We' re developing a different sort of athletic program with all our coaches are required to be certified now and we' re putting the emphasize of really being and giving your time rather than the league so we evaluate our whole program and it' s made a big difference . People are coming in. ' Cynch : To my knowledge, when I was coaching, never had , ever , an Eden Prairie kid. Like I said, we'd have some come from Victoria but never Chaska . ' II Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 3 IC IIBoyt : We still have Victoria kids . We have Minnetonka kids. Chaska kids and Eden Prairie kids. Some of the people coming from Eden Prairie are coming because we have smaller programs . They like the smaller IIprograms . Lynch : Now are these people then that you know, work here or are they just showing up? IBoyt : Some of the work here. ILynch: What if they don' t work here? Boyt : They can play in our programs . They can parti.ci pate. ISietsema: It' s the adult leagues mostly that have the stipulation that you should live or work in Chanhassen. For the adult men ' s softball , if there ' s a team from Chaska that wants to get into the league, the only Iway they can get into the league is if there' s an opening. If the league has not filled with Chanhassen teams. If it' s filled, they' re last priority but because the youth programs are run by the Association, Ithe City doesn ' t have any stipulation on who can play on those because we don ' t actually administer the programs . Their policy has been that anybody who wants to play, all they have to do is register and become a ember of CAA. Lynch: This is getting kind off the subject but I 'm interested . What happens when the City takes a program over? ISietsema: At that point , I think what we would do , it would have a lot to do with the numbers. If we' re hurting for kids to make a good round IIrobin league so they can play, there ' s more than two teams , if we ' re hurting for kids to be in the program, then we would invite other kids in. It would basically run the same way as the adults , as I would see it. The programs are all open to anybody who wants to play in them but Chanhassen residents live and work first . I Lynch: There 's no legal liability reason that the City wouldn ' t want I any? Sietsema : No, not that I 'm aware of . That ' s never been an issue that I 've ever heard of. IIMady: I was curious when I read this , why commercial properties should be assessed the trail fee. ISietsema: They would be for their building permit. It ' s $138 . 00 for their building permit. Their building permit is just one where single ILfamily development has maybe 100. So a developer taking out one building permit for an industrial that has to pay $138 . 00 where a Developer with a single family has to pay $138 , 000. 00. IIMady: Shouldn' t we be basing that, that $138. 00 is kind of based on the fact that per unit usually means it ' s going to benefit from the trail I Park and Recreation Commission i January 26, 1988 - Page 4 C system, they should be paying a proportion of the trail and it' s based on how many units of development it ' s created. Sietsema: In dealing with the residential , it ' s really geared toward density but it wasn't applied that way to the commercial/industrial . Now you may want to re-evaluate that . The thing is, the trail fee is designed so that the trails are developed within the development. Along the streets within the development that abut the development , it ' s to make sure that if a developer comes in and has three streets that go through, we' ve got a trail on those streets and they contribute toward the whole trail system whereas, there probably won' t be as many trails or the trails will already be in place in the industrial park. Mady: I 'm just thinking of situations. McGlynn' s Bakery bought the corner right across from Paisley Palace. They' re going , at some point in time, build a large bakery. They' ll pay $138 . 00 for trails. Our trail plan had trails running on both TH 5 and CR 117 . That $138 . 00 isn 't going to buy us much more than about 10 feet of trail realisticly. We can' t charge them a million dollars for it either . Sietsema: Perhaps you want to increase the trail fee to on an acre . Mady: One-third of the cost . ( ,ietsema: Equal to one-third of the park dedication fee. Mady: That' s where I 'm looking at. During the day, we see a lot of people , especially in the nicer weather . Now you don ' t see it so much but during the day there are people coming out from work who are running, jogging during the noon hour . They probably using the trails more so than the residents are. Lynch: When you take an area such as the Washington Avenue , Eden Prairie Drive, bike and drive where I am. There must be a little lake behind the biking headquarters , there ' s a trail all the way around that i now and a new segment north of that, for every one of those business complexes that ' s in there to have paid $138 . 00. . . Sietsema: Perhaps that ' s a better way to handle it. That would bring i the fee to about $350. 00 per acre for the industrial then . Mady: Eden Prairie the business complexes to build their trails when i they put them in. There' s a building like this going up on TH 169 and they put trails in there. Boyt: DataCorp. You always see people on the DataCorp trail and there' s nothing up there. They just want to get out and walk. �Mady: That ' s where I would like to see it go. Something more in line i i.th what we 're requiring the residential developers , should be required of the business developers also. Hasek: You' re simply addressing now the trail fee? The $138 . 00? r IIPark and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 5 Ic ISietsema : Yes . Hasek: When I first went through this , I walked out of the office and I talked to just about everybody there and the Court says there has to be an equity. If you really want to get down to it, if somebody wanted to come in and fight this thing. The Court says there has to be an equity between what is required or used by the person you' re exacting from and I what is exacting from that person. It all gets to, I think the bottom line is to people. Who uses it and who doesn' t use it. The one thing I noticed in what we' ve got going here, single family $415. 00 per unit and Iduplexes is still $415 .00 and that ' s actually two families . Sietsema: Per unit . I Hasek: Okay, that' s per . I think the duplexes is a little bit high then where I think when we get down to some of these other things, they' re just a tad low. The bottom question I have is , how much use do I we actually get out of commercial and industrial users and there' s nothing in here that really tells us anything about how many people that work in those places, what percentage of those people actually use the I system. I don' t know if there ' s a study out there that ' s ever been done, that may suggest things like that but that ' s what I 'd be interested in seeing . If: Sietsema: I can tell you that the people that we have in the City, almost everybody in the industrial park has at least one team on the industrial league and some of those play on more than one league. The I Press has two teams . DataServ, next year , when they' re in operation, will have six teams. Kiowa Corporation has a team. Instant Webb has at least a team. United Mailing has a team. They almost all , all the I big ones anyway, have a team and I think it would be a reasonable thing to say that once we get the trails in and around Lake Susan Park, that that will be used by those people quite a bit . I Hasek: The other thing that I wanted to say, was that if you look at a single family user , it ' s 3 people per household , whatever , a single family house has open space and they do recreate in the open space that I they have. They' ve got spots for the kids to go out in the backyard , throw a ball , hit softballs and shoot golf balls in the front yard . When you get into an apartment complex , the demand on the park system, is higher per user because they don' t have that open space available and I a lot of times the places to recreate aren ' t there . It gets even more intense when you get into commercial uses because there ' s nothing there so they have just a direct demand on the system. I guess what I 'm I thinking is that there must be someway of looking at this and saying , single family area should have to contribute less than the industrial per user, even though the industrial may not have as many people using I(— it directly. If you' ve got a single family house , chances are that mom and dad when they' re going to take the kids to somplace, there will be a fairly heavy use per user , for single family where when you get to the commercial/industrial uses , maybe the use isn ' t as heavy but there' s IImore of a demand for the use by those users on the system. Do you I Park and Recreation Commission , January 26, 1988 - Page 6 4 1 understand what I 'm saying? It' s confusing to look at but it seems like the single family here is almost being penalized for being a single 11 family when they've got their own open space to begin with and it should be the industrial user that gets hit the heaviest. If you look at it that way, it can be defended, if it were ever to be challenged . When you start talking about, I know I just got done with a project in Champlin that paid $45,000.00 for a 19 acre multi-use piece of ground . They paid $5. 000.00 for their park dedication fee. They also have to put in a concrete sidewalk on two sides of the project . That was in addition to the fee. Incredible what they ask for out there. Nobody' s challenged it yet but it should be challenged out there . I think it' s way out of focus . They simply say, commercial uses are going to have a higher demand and we' re going to charge them more than single family. It just goes up the scale. It' s nuts and it' s wrong. I think if we can find a way to make it tied to the user , it should be defendable , if anybody should challenge it and it certainly would be easier to exact more for commercial and industrial projects who do have the big teams like they' re talking about and do put up fairly heavy use on the big buck parts of the system. I Sietsema: I hear what you' re saying and what I would contend is that it 's hard, you can not measure how much each person is going to use. If you' re going to go by how much each person is going to use it , you ' ve got to wait until they move in and measure it. Some single family 4: person may be out at Lake Ann Park every week and the other may never go out there. What you do is you have it available to everybody. You' re offering these programs and they' re available to everybody. Whether they use them or not, they' re responsible for helping to foot the bill for it . That includes the industrial . They may not have their kids in the programs and they may not play on the softball league but it ' s available to them. Some of them do. Watson: As we add facilities, and they may use nothing now but we may offer something later on that they will be using . Sietsema: I think it' s going to be impossible, and it'd be impossible for any Court to prove, how much single family is going to use the park system compared to industrial because each industry varies and each neighborhood varies . The people that live in Minnewashta use a lot different parks services than the people who live in Carver Beach simply because of what' s available but that ' s to be considered also. Everything in the City is available to everybody who lives or works here and as long as we keep it open to everybody who lives or works . . . ' Hasek: If that' s the case, if you really firmly believe that, then you can tie it directly to bodies . It should be able to be tied directly to bodies. Sietsema: It should be directly to density. ' Hasek: No, bodies. Bodies, not density because if you look at for example , a single family there ' s a statistic . There are 3 .4 people on the average per family. If you ' re getting a 3 .4 average family within ' IIPark and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 7 IC the City. If you get down to industrial uses and you can in fact , there I are numbers that will tell you how many for a certain type of use, certain type of industrial or commercial use, how many people typically that generates for business and you could tie it directly to bodies . ISietsema: How complicated do you want to make this? I think that a flat fee. . . IHasek: If it comes down to bodies , then it ' s by the use and it ' s almost by the acre at that point. You can tie it to units where you' ve got a residential or you can tie it to acreage where you ' re got commercial and Iindustrial uses. Boyt : I worked with the figure 2. 5. ISietsema: The City' s is 2. 8 . IIBoyt : And assume that the $415.00 per single family unit was for 2 . 5 people and that we multiple that times 3, we get 7.5 people per acre in a commercial because you multiple $415.00 times 3 and you get what we ' re charging for commercial . So we' re assuming that there are 7 . 5 people Iper acre in the commercial/industrial buildings in Chanhassen, if we' re going per person. That' s real low. We could double that and look at 15 eople per acre . . . asek: Look at a McDonalds A McDonalds is roughly an acre site . How many people do they employ? How many people are eligible in that? There ' s almost a double indemnity. Assuming that those people are ' outside the city and you ' re almost double charging, if those people all come from within the city which in the case of a McDonalds or something like that , they probably would . Sietsema: That is probably one reason why some of the cities that were I in here charged by the square foot of the building. Some charged 4 Icents per square foot of building space and that could maybe be tied in more readily to how many people per square feet of building normally an industrial normally employs and I don' t know what those figures are either. IIHasek : I guess my feeling is , they have to be adjusted but I don ' t know that simply throwing out a bunch of stuff at us and asking us to make a Idecision on it is the right way to go. I don' t know if this is even the right study. All it does is tells us what other people have done. It doesn ' t tell us whether they' re right or wrong or not so that ' s left up to us to decide. I know I called Mark and talked to him a little bit about it and he was , as much as I was by the time we got done talking I about it what it really should be. If somebody in the business can ' t figure it out, how in the world if this commission supposed to try and understand what ' s fair and equitable. I don' t know. I guess what I 'd i.ke to do it take a little bit of time to see if I can ' t find a study hat somehow ties it to square foot and make some real logical sense out ilof it. I don ' t want to exact a ton of money for the amount of people. I guess I 'd like it to be absolutely fair. I 'd like it to be on the high r Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 8 C end but I 'd like it to be fair . It wouldn ' t hurt me a bit to try for $1,000. 00 for single family unit if it was equitable all the way across the system and the park board had more money than anybody in the world . That would be great with me but I think it should be equitable and I don' t know that I can make a decision as to an equitable way of doing it. Sietsema: So what do you want to do? Hasek: I think if we had to vote right now, I 'd just have to abstain because I don ' t know that I could make a rational decision. You talked about discussion and the possibility of a motion, that would have to be my decision . Sietsema: So if you were to make a motion to table, what would you want? What would you direct staff or what you want to table it until? Hasek: I would like to direct staff and maybe particularly Mark, or yourself and Mark, just get a few people out there trying to see if there is a decent way of doing it. I guess I almost expected Mark to be here tonight just as kind of a second opinion on things. Maybe it ' s not that big of issue. I guess this is such a big deal to me is because I have to go through it day by day and you go through these different cities and look at their park fees and so forth, and sometimes you ( 'ratch n your head and wonder where in the world they' re coming from and y they' re doing what they' re doing . Boyt: I think one of the buildings in town, one of the printing places that is huge, only has like 7 people working in it. It wouldn ' t be fair for an acreage. Hasek: I can see at the same point, if you really think about it , you've got a McDonalds that' s right on the city limits between Eden Prairie and the big population is just across the land to draw people from Eden Prairie to employ and you have a McDonalds . . . not even within the city, that would be actually 30 or 40 people per acre for that commercial use where another one might only have 2 or 3. Maybe it' s done by employee. Sietsema: There' s not a lot of information on this . There really isn' t because I did call, I called almost all of these and more cities , to see what their formula was , how they go about it. Some of them have a flat fee. Some of them you have to take the raw land value times what the development costs could possibly be or the average development cost this year in the construction bulletin, or whatever. There are some really far out formulas and we used to have one. We' ve been trying to clean that up so it is a little bit cleaner and I think what we have is pretty consistent . I don' t think that we would have a hard time in Court right (now. 1 Csek: I 'm not saying that it ' s not consistent but I don' t know that it 's necessarily equitable. I don't know that the right people are paying for the the system is what I 'm saying . I don' t know that it ' s I IIPark and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 9 IC necessarily wrong but I don ' t know that it ' s right and why change it if Iyou don' t know and I don' t know. Watson : Basically what you want is what other cities are doing. IWhether it ' s right or wrong . Hasek: The right way to do it is the equitable way to do it. That ' s Iwhat the Courts will say. Watson : . . .what' s equitable and we could possibly spend an awful lot of time thereby spend a lot of money because it' s going to cost somebody Itime to figure out whether all these cities figured it out wrong and there' s a more accurate way of doing it. Basically we are doing it, if we want to take the time to figure this thing out , we could do that over Ithe next few months but to hold this up to try and figure out something that nobody else has figured out either . in Hasek: I don' t know that anybody else has necessarily really tried . I Watson : I can ' t believe that nobody has tried . I think there is only so much time and that ' s because time is money given to figuring this Iout . If we really thought that this was so wrong but I don ' t think that we ' re that wrong. isek: As long as we' re in line with everybody else. I 'm just wondering I.s the right people are paying. I would like to see industrial and commercial pay their fair share I guess is the bottom line but I don ' t want to pull a number out of the hat and say this is fair and then have all of those people in the commercial and industrial uses come through this city and say, boy is this a ridiculous number . Where did you guys come up with this? Sietsema: . . . it was to give 10% of the development or money equal to I the raw land value and that's where this all originated. That ' s what Ithe current numbers are based on. That goes back to 1984 when the last time this was changed. That was the old formula. It had to do with a lot of other things and development costs as well . So if it' s safe to say that since 1984 land values have increased, then it would be safe to say that we could increase our fees by that much . * A taping malfunction occurred at this point in the meeting . Hasek : . . .The reason why Eagan was approached, obviously was because I there was some inequity in the system and that' s why it was challeneged. 11Boyt: I think we need to find out how many people per square foot . In other words , how many people are in our facilities in Chanhassen. We don ' t have that many industrial facilities . We could get an average number per acre per square foot. asek : I would almost think that we could sit down and talk with the II Planner, between the Planner and maybe Lori and the City Administrator and some of those and just get some opinions . Mark and his past II Park and Recreation Commission 11 January 26, 1988 - Page 10 (7- experience . Met Council might have some generalized numbers for industrial uses and commercial uses. How many people are very typical . If we can tie it to something that someone has put together that at least looks half way decent and reasonable, it would be very easy to do. It' s so stragith forward . Take commercial . You' ve got x number of acres is this many dollars. Plain and simple. It' s not tied to value of the land , which flucuates , or anything like that. Simply if we could raise it based on cost of living or something like that. Or inflation rate or something. Lynch : I notice we are the lowest on the list as far as the dollars are concerned. Even if we raise the 10% that Lori suggests, we'd still be the lowest . Hasek: That indicates to me that the single family, the people that have the most open space, are the ones that are carrying the burden and I don ' t think that ' s fair . Lynch:. Ed , are they carrying a burden or is the commercial property not paying enough? Hasek: Either way. Like I said, I 'd like to see the single family and residential go up but I 'd like to be darn sure that the rest of the land uses are carrying their fair share. I think doubling commercial and ( 'dustrial , as was suggested by Sue, might not be out of line but I .jn ' t know for sure. Lynch : One thing we have to be certain of , and again, these numbers are based on this 10% of the value of the property, current raw land. We want to be darn sure that we don' t exceed that in one of these categories because when we do, that' s where we base our flexibility on in the past . So if we still think in some manner , then we become undefensable. Then we ' re going to have a problem. Boyt : So, we need to find out how much an acre of land is selling for? It' s more than $40,000. 00 isn' t it, in Chanhassen? Sietsema: It depends on where. Hasek: That' s great. This City would be plum full if . . . Boyt: 10% would be $415. 00 for $40, 000. 00 per acre . Sietsema: That ' s raw land value is what you have to go by. Before any improvements . Hasek: Still , they're selling for $12. 00-$15. 00 per square foot along TH 12 and obviously that' s a different situation. 'dy: We' re talking about the southern area and putting in a new park I '....wn there and talking to Al Klingelhutz, he says $3,000. 00 to $3 , 500. 00 an acre is low. ' IIPark and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 11 Hasek: That ' s raw land . What would an acre across the street over here Isell for? Mady: A lot . Hasek: See , 10% of that is going to be considerably higher and I don ' t know that necessarily the location of the building, based on land Ivalues , is the way to go. I really don' t. I think that ' s unfair . I can' t believe, in Minnetonka where they have land values of $12. 00 a foot up here that they' re paying for a commercial site. ISietsema: The reason you have to do that though is because you can only demand park dedication for the area that the developer is creating the need for. The reason they go by the raw land value is because it ' s a Idifferent value in the rural area than it is for single family than it is for industrial . You see what I mean? Hasek : Let' s take that to a step under a logical conclusion , let ' s go I into central Minneapolis where there is no opportunity to do anything more . If somebody comes in and wants to do something there, they give park dedication based on their location there which is probably $25. 00 a Ifoot in the IDS Tower . $50. 00 or $150. 00 or whatever it was for a foot for that land. ftetsema : The whole premise is that it ' s a park dedication. The only eason you wouldn ' t take park land dedication is because you already have park in that area or it ' s undesirable land . You don ' t want it in that specific area so then you will take the fees equal to the land value in lieu of taking the land . So it' s equal . You' re either taking the value of the land or you' re taking the land. They both have the same value. If you' re going to put a park in downtown Minneapolis , it ' s going to cost the City, if they were going to go out and buy it, it would cost the City $25. 00 a square foot if they put it in that neighborhood and that ' s why it ' s based on the land value because you Ican' t charge, I can' t charge Instant Webb for a park I want to put out in Minnewashta . That ' s not the way it ' s supposed to work. They' re not responsible for the park needs in the Minnewashta area. They' re responsible for the park needs that they are creating because of their 1 development. And that 's not related to community park needs , it 's for neighborhood park needs. IHasek: Then what do you do? How is that exactly figure out? Is that somehow tied back to the contractor who purchased the land? Sietsema : It ' s the raw land value before any improvements are made so Ilwhatever the developer bought the land for , before he many any improvements , that would be the land value. Not what he can sell it for but what he bought it for . lit 'nch : I guess what I ' d like to see , if there ' s some other system we an used, fine. I wonder we are right now. How these reduce so if you I take the high and low, lot size and land value in the City and say, this is the average lot. This is 10% of that now. What about the commercial II Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 12 C and office and the industrially zoned stuff over here? What' s that going for an acre? Hasek : What happens in the case of a Gagne who bought the land 20 years ago. That' s the purchased price of the land. Sietsema: It would be the fair market value of that if you were to buy it currently. The assessor . It' s current land value and that' s what it' s tied to the land value. Hasek: It ' s the current market rate? Is that what they use? Sietsema: Whatever the assessor would assess it today in it' s raw state. As it sits before the developer does anything to it. Hasek: Which only by law has to be 90% of what it ' s really worth. You' re only required to assess it to 90% of it' s market value. The 10% right 's there that we' re getting. Sietsema: You wouldn' t necessarily use the County Assessor . A developer could bring his assessor in and if the City doesn' t agree with that assessed value, we could have it assessed ourselves. ' Robinson: Doesn' t that say it' s like $12, 000. 00 an acre? If $415. 00 1: 3 that' s about a third of an acre, typical lot . Sietsema: Usually 3 units per acre is what you can go. Robinson : So $415. 00, that would be $1, 245. 00 so that ' s close to what ' the industrial . Then if you' re going to base it on the market value of the land , if that then is 10%, $1, 245. 00 would be $450. 00. Is that , I don' t know any idea, is that quite a bit for an acre of land undeveloped? Hasek: That ' s free . Like I said, if it was based on that, we could buy land like that, this city would be full of industrial . Lynch : There' s a range Curt. If you go down by the farming area , down there where we we' re looking for a park, yes, you could buy for just about a $100. 00 an acre but you try to buy one of the lots by my place and you' re talking. . . Hasek: There' s a lot in my neighborhood, a single family lot , a third ' of an acre selling for $25,000. 00. It just sold. The utilities are in . The services are there. Robinson: but we' re talking an average development . Lynch: You almost have to look at what' s developing because there' s (re of the expensive lots being developed here . They' re expensive cause they have municipal services and so forth closer to town than these larger lots and of course, what do we have for zoning down south of the MUSA? 5 acres? Lark and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 13 I ,Sietsema: You can' t be less than 2 1/2 and it can only be 1 unit per 10 acres . It ' s 1 unit per 10 acres and the lot size can not be less than 2 1/2 acres . Lynch : Okay, so let ' s use a for instance with Al ' s property down there at $3 , 500.00 an acre. There you' re looking at about $9, 000. 00 for a I ot , it ' s a 2 1/2 acre lot minimum. So $9 ,000. 00 for a lot and let ' s ay you buy an average over by Meadow Green Park, in that area, you buy one those less expensive homes on a very small lot and maybe you pay $12,000.00 to $15,000. 00 so not too far off there but once you get I south, most of those places are 5 acres at $3 , 500. 00 an acre. But again, since it' s a single dwelling they' re only getting a unit charge. Now you start talking this industrial land, anything that' s industrially zoned, whether it' s got improvements on it or not, you ' re talking /megabucks . But if you' re relating it, like Lori said, you can dedicate "'Robinson:land or cash equivalent, then it ' s got to be back to so much an acre. With the average single family dwelling is a third of an acre, then the Icommercial just about has to be three times the single family. Lynch: Commercial land is worth more anyway. itady: That' s where we ' re kind of hitting the hard spots . Hasek: I ' ll tell you what , the Legion is sitting on a gold mine there. 'sbsolutely a gold mine. If they don' t move that thing pretty soon and ell it and build a new spot. Robinson : It doesn' t have to be then related to the single family. Lynch: This is all related , very vaguely, to the general land values in the area. Sietsema: The Courts say that we can require 10% . They have istorically said that 10% is a reasonable taking and that ' s what it all oils down to is what the Court' s determine is a reasonable taking. istorically, 10% has been a reasonable taking so if you take 10% of the aw land or you take 10% of the money equivalent to that , that ' s what your park dedication fees should be. 'Hasek : Then really you' re saying , by your understanding of the past cases, that it should be tied to the land values rather than to bodies . Sietsema : How it goes with density is that you can justify that 10% or ow that varies is that our standard is 1 acre per 75 people. So if ou' re a single family development, it ' s generating 1, 000 people, you ' ve of to have 1 acre for every 75 of those 1,000 people. asek: But you don' t have to do it that way. If you do it , you can tie Wt directly to the density in single family or in any residential . You an tie it directly to the density because that ' s really what it ' s 1 . Park and Recreation Commission II January 26, 1988 - Page 14 C il selling for . Commercial is commercial and then everything else, it ' s II zoning really is what it is. The zoning in this city is what, you've got like R-12 and R-3 or something . That must be for single family multiple. Sietsema: There' s R-8 , R-12, they' re behind you. II Hasek: But still this land value, that' s what it ' s being sold as and if II somebody wants to build a single family residential area in a commercially zoned district and pay the price for the land. . . Sietsema : If the Planning Commission lets them. I Lynch: Where everybody else is a quarter and a half because he wants more land and 10% of the value of his operation was $415. 00 but he says II hey, I 've only got one household there guys. So again, I don' t think you' re looking for uniform fairness , you' re looking for defenseability. The guy comes in and says this is BS, I 'm not paying it . I Hasek: But at the same time, what makes it defensible is the fact that it' s equitable. So if you shoot for equitable, it' s going to be defensible. I L nch : I don' t think you' re ever going to get equitable in all cases . Ha sek: There' s always the somebody' s oddball , no question about it and somebody s ' ox is going to be gored but that' s part of the system I guess . I don' t know. I have a motion and I don't know if anybody wants to second it. I I guess I 'd like the opportunity to look at it and one way or the other I will and whether we do something tonight or not, I guess doesn' t matter . Sietsema: Let me just read the motion back. Ed has moved to direct II staff to work with Mark and himself to research this further and to table this item until the next meeting . I Lynch: Question Lori , is there anything that would make this some more immediate of a problem? Is there anything happening that would make II this an immediate problem? Sietsema : No. The ordinance says that the Park and Recreation Commission will review this at their first meeting of every year and II submit a recommendation to City Council . If you need more time to look at it, I don' t think that' s unreasonable. Watson: And the current ordinance stays in effect until it' s changed . I Sietsema: Right, exactly. y: I guess I don ' t have any problems. What I ' ve been II hearing is, it most sounds like the industrial should be at least a minimum of 3 times the residential plus some. I 'Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 15 IC I(ietsema : I think what you want to do is you want to figure out a olicy so it' s clear in everybody' s mind that we' re going to say that ietsema : equal to this and therefore it breaks down to this and everybody knows. It' s not some obscure number that it looks like staff just ticked it out of the sky. Hasek: Can I just read through real quickly what Champlin has done and I( 'm not suggesting that this is the right one. It just happens to be a ery high one and I don ' t know that it ' s ever been challenged . Every hing is based on kind of the value of land out there. Single family is Itassessed this year , and each year they go to the assessor and say okay, hat' s single family land basically selling for in the city. $12, 000. 00 er acre and 10% of that is $1, 200. 00 per acre of dedication so that works out to about the $400. 00. Multiple family, $20, 000. 00 per acre, I2, 000. 00 per acre of dedication fee . Office and commercial , $45, 000. 00 er acre, which is about. . . IIRobinson : $45, 000. 00 per acre? lady: That's where land is hot. Iasek: That' s what land is selling for , raw land . 10% of that would be 4 , 500. 00 and all streets are considered as single family so in other rds, if you ' ve got an industrial or PUD for example, and you 've got a Ich of uses in there, the street is also charged on a single family asi_s . PUD' s or multiples are whatever the land value is times 15% . . . and values would be given every year by the assessor so if you look at lihose types of things, that ' s where we were looking at before . We 've of a very open, loose commercial development putting in and it' s osting us a fortune to do it but if you consider the fact that we have in town, is this going to be on-line next year? We are offering those Services and suggesting that all these poeple have the right to use all hose services in the city, then yes, I think if the use is there. lynch : I 'd still be interested to see how the fees that we charge now 'educe back or can be tracked to our original intent. Do these really eflect 10% of the average value of the average residential single home and commercial properties? You ' re looking in other ways or many ways Ind I 'd just be interested to really see if the way we' re doing it now eems right. lasek moved , Robinson seconded to direct staff to work with Mark and Ed Hasek to research the park dedication ordinance fees further and to Table this item until the next meeting. All voted in favor and motion arried. IEVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT - LAKE SUSAN PLACE. .,zetsema: That item has been deleted. The application was withdrawn . I Park and Recreation Commission ' January 26, 1988 - Page 17 REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT - SCHWABA-WINCHELL Sietsema: This is a 2 1/2 acre site and the proposal is to subdivide it ' into five single family lots . This is Minnewashta Parkway. It lies on the east side of the parkway and over further is the lake. The Comprehensive Plan shows that they are park deficient and the land use plan identifies the area around Lake St. Joe as potential parkland so this is not included in that area . The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies Minnewashta Parkway as a primary trail system. With the ' developments that are showing up along Minnewashta Parkway, I asked Mark to come out and we drove and tried to just kind of thumb nail it and figure out what side of the road Minnewashta Parkway. Basically what we determined was that it would be best to stay on the east side until you get to Red Cedar Point, cross at that point and stay on the left side up until you hit TH 7. I think it' s pretty reasonable for us to be able to stick to that . That would mean that this would lie within the side that we want the trail on. We are recommending that we get a 20 foot trail easement along Minnewashta Parkway. I thought the developer would be here because they've called me the last two weeks to see if we' re going to have the meeting . I 'm surprised that they' re not . I hope they didn' t get wrong information. But as always, we would try to build this within the road right-of-way if it' s possible. I 'm not sure how the upgrading of Minnewashta Parkway is going to be done to what width. What area there is available so we' re recommending 20 feet trail 1: easement along and we would give it back if it ' s not needed at the time of construction. I would think that we would try and time the trail 1 installation with the upgrading of the street. Mady: Have they discussed that they' re going to upgrade Minnewashta Parkway? Sietsema : It has been discussed but I couldn ' t give you a time line as to when it' s going to be. I know that it ' s in a goal . One of the engineering department ' s goals but I don ' t know at what point . Lynch: Are the driveways for these houses, do I see this right that they' re going to propose a drive and come out on Minnewashta Parkway? Sietsema : It would be two curb cuts onto Minnewashta Parkway. The north two would be like a slingshot design. The other two enter right here and one goes to this house and one drives back to this house. Hasek: This is the old nursery property, if you ' re familiar with that . Where that nursery used to be. Schroers : I have a question. Not necessarily on your recommendation. I think your recommendation is fine but I was wondering why you and Mark decided that you ' re going to need to cross to the west side of the road at Red Cedar Point and then go up this side. CSietsema : Because of the steep grades that are on the east side of that road. There' s no way we could get a trail all the way through there. There ' s a number of areas along that way. ' Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 18 (7 ' Schroers: You mean dropping down to the lake. Sietsema: It goes straight down to the lake or there ' s a wall of dirt ' right there that's just a cliff to the road . The topography, it ' s impossible to get a trail through there. There' s still going to be some tricky spots on the other side but it looks much more reasonable on the other side. ' Hasek : Unless the City bought all of the shore . Schroers: It would be nice to have a trail that ran along the lake side. Sietsema: It would be but even so, we wouldn' t be able to pave a path on some of those grades. It would have to be something that ' s on the Carver Beach trail . Where it' s in the woods and it' s just a gravel or a chip path because the grades there are pretty steep. ' Schroers : I know what you' re talking . Sietsema: And I think what they really want out there is an off street paved bike trail that ' s multi-use. Watson: Where you can actually go from one place to another . Sietsema : Multi-use and we didn' t think, at the point at Red Cedar Point isn 't an unreasonable crossing area . The sights were pretty good and there wasn ' t a big hill or anything. Schroers: There aren' t many straightaways on that whole road. ' Sietsema : It was the most reasonable place and it was the most logical place for it to cross . Mady: There ' s no stop sign there right now? Sietsema: No. ' Mady: At some point in time, they may just put one of those control stop signs up. Schroers : Or a cross walk. Hasek : If they ever tried to do that , I think it would end up like the one they used to have on that road that ' s adjacent to Minnetonka Country Club. The City of Shorewood took it down. They' ve tried 3 or 4 times to put a stop sign in to slow people down. It doesn' t make sense. You' re driving along and all of a sudden you have to stop and there ' s nobody around . I have a question. If we take 20 feet of easement, how is that going to effect this driveway plan? Sietsema: It does effect but I talked to the planners and they didn' t 11 Park and Recreation Commission I January 26, 1988 - Page 19 think that it was unreasonable. I did talk to the developer too and they didn' t voice any concerns. Maybe that ' s what they wanted to voice here but they didn' t mention anything to me. To just be able to push those housing pads back a tad to fit that in. Hasek: What is the approximate scale of this thing? , Sietsema: It' s way off because it' s been reduced . Hasek: There are two that it would tag off of Lot 5 and Lot 1. Sietsema: Jo Ann kind of drew in here a different driveway plan. She didn' t think that it would be unreasonable. The chances that it would need to go to the extent of that 20 feet. It just gives us some maneuverability room in case there are some obstacles that we need to get around. I Mady moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to approve a 20 foot easement along Minnewashta Parkway, make no land dedication requirements and to request 100% payment of park and trail fees. All voted in favor and motion carried. UPDATE AND MEETING SCHEDULE FOR REFERENDUM. 1: Sietsema: I put in front of you a schedule that' s been revised. The old schedule, just throw away. Don ' t even think about it . Robinson: This one we got in our packet? ' Sietsema: Yes . Don' t think about that one anymore. That one is wrong . The reason that it' s changed is because the date of the referendum changed and I needed to change a number of meetings so the timing would be more appropriate. The other thing that I wanted to mention, February 10th is a call-in talk show on Dowden Cable TV Channel 20 and I 've asked Jim Mady to be there representing the Community Center and Jim McMann to represent the Fire Station and Sue , I 've asked her to do the parks and trails. There' s only room for three people on the panel and there will be a moderator as well . We would like to seed questions because we 11 don ' t want to have dead air space. We want to make sure that good questions are asked. So that' s something we need to talk about before we leave tonight. I think we should handle the meeting first . Lynch: I did this some years back in another community and we had some red cards all made up ahead of time so that if we didn' t get calls in , then the moderator didn' t say, he said, well we have some questions here on cards. Boyt: From the audience. Lynch: No , they didn' t say that either . They just said we have some questions on these cards and they were a certain access, we wanted to see brown and if the callers in didn' t ask those questions, we'd cut I IIPark and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 20 IC them off. To make sure we' d get these in there. We had a red star card Ior blue star card. Watson : Questions bring other questions . If nobody asked them, nobody IIknows what they want at all . Sietsema: Sometimes , nobody wants to be the first caller or whatever . I Lynch: What you need is to set those questions up ahead of time to make sure they' re covered so if somebody calls. . . I Sietsema : We' ve got that pretty much covered. We' ll have a rehersal on that but I 'd urge any of you to watch on that night . It ' s a Wednesday night and it's from 7: 00 until 8 : 00 and the phone number will be put I across the screen the whole time so you can call in. You might have a question about the fire station. You might have a question about the community center that you haven' t had answered yet . Whatever . Let ' s just go through the top, starting with the fire department meeting on I February 1st . Jim said that he would be there. You' re covering the community center items? IMady: I 'm covering the community center . Sietsema: I don' t think that Jim should cover both because it looks If: like a one man show up there so if somebody else would want to come and cover. We have another meeting the same night at the Legion at 8 : 00 so if the same person would want to cover both meetings. I Mady: I can cover the Legion one because Scott' s going to do the Community Center there. One thing I did with the Hockey Association last night, they asked some very tough questions of the fire department I and it got to the point where it finally got almost uncomfortable because it wasn' t a good situation for me. After I got through with myine on the parks and I answered a lot of questions on the community center and actually gave a presentation on the community center. After I the community center guys are done, some of them looked at us , what we' re saying is, we' re asking questions and the voters in Chanhassen are being asked to vote yes on 5 items . Vote 5 times yes for the future of I Chanhassen. The Fire Department will be pushing their thing and they' re going to let the rest of them tag along but they' re not going to do anything about that. You need to make sure that there' s a concentrated II effort by everyone. Every item on there is necessary to the City. Boyt: We also need the first or the last person that gets up to explain the voting and if you vote yes , this is what it ' s going to do to your Itaxes. Sietsema : I think what we' re going to do is have a councilperson come IL and do that. Tom volunteered to do that. Hasek: I can make the 7 : 00 one at the Fire a Dep rtment might be a little bit tough but I could probably be there, for sure make it at 8 : 00. The II3rd is possible and the 4th, I have commitments in St. Paul . The 10th Park and Recreation Commission 1 January 26, 1988 - Page 21 C through the 17th I 'm on vacation. Sietsema: Okay, Jim will be there on the Legion one so if you could handle the Rotary. That' s 7 : 00 in the morning. Wednesday in the morning at the bowling alley. And I do have, I want to make sure I tell you that I do have the big trail map. I have an overhead of the first phase of the trail plan and the whole trail plan and I have a transparency of the Lake Ann Park and the survey results so we want to tie in that the whole thing initiated with the survey. , Hasek: Who' s going to be at the Rotary besides myself? Sietsema: Bill Kirkvold will be there for the Community Center . , Boyt: If you can' t make it, give one of us a call . Sietsema : So Ed has committed himself to 7: 00 in the morning on Wednesday. I ' ll bring the projector . I ' ll bring the transparencies . How about the seniors? Sue, you' re going to do Women of Today? Then who else can make it on the 11th and the 17th? I really that ' s important that we have as many as possible . Jim, you' ll be there for both of those? Mady: Yes . 4: Sietsema: And who wants to give the presentation on the parks and trails at those last two meetings? The general information meetings, we 11 just want to give like 10 minutes of what exactly we' re doing . Give them all the information. The cost, what it is, how we got to this point will be important and then let them ask the questions. Mostly it will be a question and answer thing. If you watch the Channel 20 talk show, I think you' ll get a lot of the information that you need for that so you have the ammunition to answer those questions. Watson : I remember helping to write the Comprehensive Plan and after we finished the Comprehensive Plan we practially went door to door and we were going to tell everyone about the Comprehensive Plan . We went to Minnewashta and we sat there. Nobody came. It was really something . We couldn' t dredge up any interest in that Comprehensive Plan. We did everything but tapdance in the street and nobody cared . Mady: There are some very hot buttons in a referendum. Watson: This should be better . Mady: They' re charge about the fire department . There are some people very charged about the community center . There are a couple of people have asked some questions about parks but for the most part . . . LSietsema: I think the parks is the easiest issue with everybody. I haven' t heard anything against or for the parks but I ' ve heard a lot of conversation about the other two. Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 22 C Mady: A woman last night asked a couple of q ood questions about I g maintenance and what' s it going to cost. Sietsema: I 'm available to meet with anybody before any of these I meetings to give any background information. I ' ll be at all of the meetings so if you can ' t field the question, I hopefully can. Some of the bigger , more important ones, Don will be there also. I Mady: The funding questions , I think I can handle just about every one of them. I' ve talked with Don so many times . . . I think I know what ' s going to go on with the funding and the bonding and how that all works. ISietsema: The big thing is, the referendum, the day has been changed. The new date is Wednesday the 24th so get out and vote yes . IMady: We will be having a phone campaign that ' s being organized right now. It ' s tentatively planned within the next two weeks we ' re going to call every resident in Chanhassen. Similar to a political poll taken to I find out if they feel yes or no on a quesion. Basically do you support a for or against the referendum. I Sietsema: We' ll need about 120 callers . 13 nights of calling. We should be able to get a hold of everybody. Then, the last 3 days before the referendum, they want to call everybody, all the positive people back and remind them to get out and vote. IMady: I 'm fearful that we ' ll have a little more than 600 people vote in the referendum and that' s a very small number and people who are I vehemently opposed to anything , will be there and vote . We anticipate most of the people will be for it but there are also going to be those that want it and aren ' t going to show up and do it. We don ' t want half Ilike in Eden Priarie where they lost their thing by 26 votes . Hasek: Isn ' t it an all or nothing referendum at this point? IMady: There's five questions and each question stands on it ' s own. Hasek: They were going to lump them together the last time I watched a Icouncil meeting on TV. Sietsema: They talked about it but . . . IMady: The bond attorneys wouldn' t allow us to lump, it could be lumped together and that would be the Community Center and Lake Ann expansion and south park acquistion and the trails . Those three could legally be Ilumped together as one question . Schroers : Lori , you can put me down for the 11th and the 17th. Then if ILyou find yourself short somewhere else, call me and I ' ll take over . Sietsema : Again , if you can ' t make the meeting that you are committed to , just give me a couple days advance warning because somebody else can Ido it or I can fill in but I just want to be prepared . 1 Park and Recreation Commission , January 26, 1988 - Page 23 REVIEW 1988 MEETING SCHEDULE. ' Robinson : Right now we've been operating on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday? I think that' s what we' re going to have to take. Mady: I don' t have anything scheduled . I usually schedule around it. I don ' t have specific dates that I 'm schedule. Lynch: YOu don 't have regular meetings then? Mady: No . Schroers: Mondays are bad. Wednesdays are bad. Fridays are bad. Hasek: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of any week are usually ' bad for me. The only reason I 'm not here is because of work and I can' t schedule around that. Lynch : Should we leave them where they are? Sietsema: It looks like it ' s our only choice. The only reason I wanted to change it to the 1st and 3rd week was because it ' s an off council week and if you ever drop by on a Friday afternoon and we' re trying to 4: get packets out , it' s just a zoo . Schroers: What about the 1st and 3rd week rather than. . . Sietsema: He can' t make it on the 3rd. We' ll leave it where it is . It' s not an impossiblity. Watson: I 've gotten used to where it is . Sietsema: Next month, I ' ve scheduled the first Tuesday of February as a Comprehensive Plan time and I would like you to read through the Comp Plan and make any changes. I know I 've said that before but this is your final and last chance . If you have any problems with what I ' ve given you, I ' ve got to have the chances by next Tuesday and we will also be going over the 5 year capital improvement program so get your wish list together of what you want to see done as far as land and building improvements in the parks for the next 5 years . That will be covered next Tuesday. Lynch: I ' ll be out of town. Sietsema: Can you get me your wish list. ' Lynch : The main thing I want on the wish list that we really haven' t gone after in the last few years is the bath house at Lake Ann or community meeting house or whatever . Some sort of a stand down there where you have a concession stand and restrooms, shower rooms and maybe a deck on top where you can sit and look out . That ' s part of my wish list. I don't think it's mandatory but I wish we had one. I . 1 IIPark and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 24 If I Sietsema : That' s your assignment for the next week and Mark will be here to go over it. I 'd like to have all of the graphics done by that point in time but I can ' t guarantee anything because with this I referendum, everything is on the back burner except the referendum but I ' ve got Todd working on some of the things so we hope to have the graphics . I ' ve got just bare basics of our capital improvement program worked out and then we' ll go over the Comprehensive Plan one I more time. That' s the only thing that we' ll do next Tuesday' s meeting . There won' t be any other business on that so hopefully it won ' t take us too long. Then, the regular meeting date of the second Tuesday, that' s I the 9th of February. Then we ' ll have our regular agenda items and we should be caught up by then. We have to do election of officers tonight and I wanted to talk about T Bar K. IRobinson: Did we do number 8? Update on zamboni . Sietsema : And I wanted to do that too. The zamboni , all of the I conditions of approval that were put on by this commission have been approved . The check hasn' t been submitted but it will be submitted this week. We got the letter from Bloomberg Companies saying that they would I share costs and any major maintenance items . That we would be able to repay that interest free. Security interest at any time that we wanted and whatever else was on the conditions . We got a letter of condition , ' from a registered mechanic that has said, the date that he inspected it IF he found it to be in good working order . The hydraulics , the engine, the compression and that ' s what you asked for but that doesn' t hold him to any guarantees but I think he ' s reliable. We have had the personnel I trained on it by the zamboni representative. We' ve got a very limited number of people that actually operate it . We don ' t have all the kids that work out at the ice arena able to operate it and the Hockey I Association has been given strict orders that if they even look in the general direction of it, that we will sell it . Hasek : What has the response been by the coaches? ISietsema: Minnetonka came down for the first time after the zamboni was used and their eyes poped out of their skulls. They couldn ' t believe ' how nice the ice was. Hasek: I was down there twice and just asked people in general in the crowd and they said gee, that ' s nice ice here, how did you get that? IRobinson : How are the condensation problems? 1 Hasek : When I was in there I didn' t see anything at all and I was in there a day when it was really cold and one day when it was almost melting outside and I was really concerned about it because the ice lik..._ surface behind the one net, the entry in was a little wet but they said it didn' t make any difference. Sietsema : It is a problem and I think that Todd is going to be writing Ia recommendation that we request Bloomberg to insulate the full I Park and Recreation Commission I January 26 , 1988 - Page 25 4: I! building . In fact, when it does g . , get warm, the moisture rises and the ceiling that' s in there and the insulation that is in there, is just water logged and he's afraid that that may all fall in eventually because it' s just rotting. He' s concerned that there may be a safety problem eventually. He' s not concerned this year that it is . He doesn' t think it' s at that point and he' s had the inspectors out there but he' s going to see. His recommendation probably will be that something different be done to that ceiling so it eliminates the problem we don' t have the water logging either . That was one of the other conditions of approval , was that Bloomberg Companies, and they have agreed to, install insulation to solve the condensation problems the, zamboni doesn' t alleviate the problem. The zamboni can shave it off , but when it gets real moist in there , it still is kind of a problem. The ice is good. The other thing, T Bar K. You got a letter in your last , when I sent a notice that we would be meeting tonight and there was a memo in there from Bill Boyt about the alternative that we worked out, that we came up with, and I was kind of concerned . I meant to get a hold of Bill because I think he felt that staff sold out the Commission and I really think, that really wasn ' t my intention. I ' ll show you why. I talked it over with Tim Erhart who has walked it in every season and I ' ve gone out there and looked at it myself, although I haven' t walked around the whole thing. What was originally, this is Lyman Blvd . and this is how TH 101 comes down, what was originally in the plan was for the trail to come along the edge of this wetland where 4: it' s high and dry most of the way and to come along here to TH 101. The plan was for them to walk down this way and work their way back that way. Tim had said there is a high and dry bank pretty much around this wetland except right in this area because this is going to be a tough area to traverse because of steep grades and whatnot . And he also indicated to me that not only is it a nice trail on this side of the wetland but it' s beautiful all the way around it and he said it would be a beautiful addition to our trail system. What he suggested was that it would be starting down on the other end of this wetland and work our way around it where it' s high and dry and stay on the high and dry area up to Lyman Blvd . . At this point the plan is that there will be an off street trail along Lyman and TH 101 and we will get our way down this way to the bottom side of the wetland and then work our way back down so it would make a circle around the wetland. I thought that it made sense and I hope that I didn' t misrepresent the Commission. I indicated to the Council that you had not seen this plan so this was not your recommendation but solely and mine and I indicated to what your recommendation was and this was what they went with. Mady: I talked to Lori that Monday. I didn' t figure anyone from the Commission was going to the Council meeting. I called Lori up specifically about this because I felt strongly enough about it that I wanted to make sure the Council understood the Commission felt very strong about . Lori explained to me what Tim Erhart had told her and what this whole thing came about and it made sense to me so I decided I wthsin'g t tgnp ie dg.o p m tn o e c emetein ngin my I miidn hy l iwe the way he n oa le 11 year ago or whatever and none of that made sense to me but a compromise was reached. I guess it was okay. I didn' t see how we could do anything ' II Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 26 about it and some of the people on the Council had talked about . II didn 't think they would hear the votes on it anyway. Hasek : I guess as long as the intent of the plan was carried , out it I doesn' t matter to me. The comment about Bill that we should be . . .but what I 'd like to see and I don ' t know what the City has available for not is aerial photographs and contour plans and section overlayouts to see where the piece of property is and at least have some idea as to how Iit lays out on the ground. Sietsema : We have them but aerials are real hard to reproduce so they I work. Hasek : Are they screened or are they mylars? ISietsema: They' re mylars that we run prints onto. Hasek: The only thing that I would suggest , do we have the capability Iof putting the section over the aerial? Sietsema : Yes . IIHasek: Have you ever done that? Sietsema : No . I don' t know if they can run them both together . I 've Inever asked them. I don't know that much about it. Schroers : Are we talking about a bituminous trail here or are we Italking about more of a nature trail? Sietsema : No . There ' s a deer path there . It ' s a deer path right now I so we wouldn' t use woodchip but whatever. I don't know that we'd do much of anything . At least not until there was really a need for it because I don' t see any reason why people can' t walk on a path. It doesn ' t have to be gravel I don ' t think. It can be signed or whatever . IHasek: It's my opinion that the intent of the plan is still intact and if it goes on one side or the other , it doesn ' t make any difference. I One thing I don ' t want to start happening is people coming through and saying , why are you putting it on my land when this guy is developing over. Push it on that side instead and that ' s what I 'm starting to get strong reaction from. ISietsema : That' s why it doesn ' t go right along that property line because right in this area is where it' s difficult to maneuver . I Otherwise , it would make more sense . When this piece develops in here, this may change all together differently because we' re going to have to be going along the streets or along backyards or something but at least liki_ we' ve got an outline that we want a trail that goes from this nature trail up to the paved trail . Schroers : Roughly, how far is that going to be around that loop? II I Park and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 27 4 Sietsema: I don' t really know. Schroers : Just roughly. Are you talking a mile to a half mile? 1 Sietsema: I 'd say 1 to 2 miles. There wasn' t any action required on this . I just wanted to let you know why I did what I did and hope that I didn' t misrepresent. Robinson: You did nice work. , Mady: Before we adjourn, we brought down the color entries nn the Community Center . We really haven' t spent a lot of time going over it with you guys. I don't know if you want to hear what the possibilities are and what the costs are . Hasek: I 'd like to hear it , quickly. Mady: What you' re getting here is , we' re buying a 4 million dollar facility for 60 cents on the dollar. 2 1/2 million dollar facility. This is a view of it from TH 5. Here ' s the back of the bowling alley. Robinson: What did you say? A 4 million for 60 cents on the dollar . What do you mean? 1: Mady: A 4 million dollar facility. This building , if you built it any other place, with this configuration, would cost 4 million dollars minimum to build . Because we ' re building it at the site we ' re building it, we' re going to build it for 2 1/2 million dollars . The savings coming in that we' re getting a lot of the land and some of the existing buildings for $1.00 from the HRA. The HRA is paying roughly $700,000. 00 in demolition costs for some of the building. The existing building that' s in this area here is a concrete block building and what has to come out it , the block is deteriorating very badly. That has to go. Boyt: That 's where we were? Where the zamboni is being stored . Mady: Yes . That ' s where the zamboni is currently being stored . This portion of the building, it' s a tilt up roof . The roofs are sufficient to accept what we plan in here and we' re going to save that intact so there' s not a lot that has to be done there. A portion of this building , the old Frontier Lumber building , through about here , will stay intact. We' ll have to take the wall down in here and build out, I think it' s 35 feet , to accomodate two gymnasiums . The ice arena will be a totally new building. That will be a tilt up concrete building also. 240 by 120 square feet . The main access is here, which is the entry point here but there will be access from all four sides into the facility. All by corridors . The pool , as depicted here, is an L-shaped pool . Currently designed is a L-shaped pool . That' s not finalized. The corridor system that goes around the pool will be glass so there will be visual access to the pool . You' ll be able to see the pool from any of the corridors . On the other side of that corridor will be retail space. They plan 50,000 square feet of retail space. When that retail space develops , it will generate $250, 000. 00 of property taxes for the city ' IIPark and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 28 Ili: that we currently don ' t have. The ice arena is in the plan. It ' s going I to cost us $900,000. 00 to build it. It' s going to save the community center $50, 000. 00 a year in utility costs because we' re going to save the heat that' s generated from the ice making equipment and use it to I heat the pool . Those numbers are given to us from the Eden Prairie complex. They gave us their actual numbers . The ice areana, we 've already received inquiries from various hockey associations around here. They' re willing to take as much ice time as we will allow them to rent. I If we use the numbers Eden Prairie is getting , and we think those are very accurate and very close to what we' ll be getting in the number of people who want to use the ice, the ice center should by itself give us I $50,000. 00 to $100, 000. 00 more money than what it costs to operate just the ice arena which would then be used to cover the costs of operating the rest of the facility. We simply can ' t charge people enough to I operate the gym areas and the community rooms and fitness area . The racquetball courts should generate somewhere in the neighborhood of $40,000. 00 a year in excess profit over what it costs to operate them. They' re a profit center. The ice is a profit center . The pool should I pretty much break even. It should cover it ' s own costs outside of the building costs. We are saying the whole thing is going to be self-sufficient with the exception of building it and we need general I obligation bonds to add as many dollars to build the whole facility. We' re telling the Council we have to build the whole facility at one time. We can' t put pieces in one at a time because if we don' t do it I all at once, the taxpayers of Chanhassen are probably going to kick in IIN, $100, 000. 00 to keep this thing operating if you don' t put the ice in. That point took us a long time for us to come to that decision . There were a few of us, including me, that didn' t think ice was important Iuntil about October and then we got swayed then . Schroers: I just wanted to ask, are there four racquetball courts there? I Mady: Yes , four racquetball courts being built initially. A fitness center here. ISchroers : Are you going to charge additional fee for court times? I Mady: Yes , we ' ll be coming out with a fee structure very similar to the Eden Prarie Community Center has . It was not going to be as high as you pay at any of the racquetball clubs and that. It was going to be more of a moderate . IBoyt : We have an option for the fire fighters in the town. We could give them free membership at the community center and then they. . . 1 Mady: What they' re saying those is , they want to have their fitness center on-sight so their people are on-sight when the fire call comes in so they can have a better response time, is what they' re saying . Watson: It's a block away. IISietsema : They contend that they' re in the minute business . 3 minutes I Park and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 29 4: can make or break your house if it' s on fire. Watson: That ' s very true. Boyt : Maybe in conjunction with their one racquetball court , they could be offered a special deal at the community center. Mady: I currently believe that because a racquetball court, I play racquetball and you need more than racquetball to keep physically fit. That ' s just not enough and they need a program. Lynch: The firemen at Minnetonka, with their new fire hall which I just had a tour of, the one on Excelsior Blvd . , they got a fitness room in there. Do you know what it' s got in there now? They' ve got an icebox with beer in it and a pool table. One of the firemen took me up and showed it to me and said, this is our fitness room. Sietsema: They have a great big living room and an expanded kitchen for their icebox with a satellite TV. Boyt : In St. Louis Park, I know the police are given free ice time. Mady: I 'm sure we should do something similar for our firemen. I 'm ' convinced those guys should have free membership in this thing . One 4: thing that' s been a concern of a lot of people is the locker rooms . I don ' t know if any of you guys have been over to Eden Prairie center when the kids come out of the swimming lessons and you just got done playing racquetball , you don' t need to take a shower . You ' re going to be soaking wet just standing there. What we' re trying to do, this area of the building is going to be two story. We' re going to put in , initially, a one story locker room. We' re going to put the rough plumbing in to put a second locker room above it which will be an adult only locker room. Somewhat of a soft locker room. Not as plush as what you' ve got at Flagship and Crosstown Racquet Club and those but it will be fairly nice. We will have rented lockers versus free lockers you can give to the kids and we' re going to try and section off portions of these two locker rooms for adults only that will have pay lockers in them and some signage to try and keep the kids out . You ' re not going to be able to keep them all out but we' re going to try and make it because that ' s the biggest complaint they' ve got at Eden Prairie right now. Sietsema: It' s no problem at all keeping kids out of the adults only area . I 've seen it at the Y' s . It' s no big deal . Kids wouldn' t even dream of going in the adult side. Lynch: At Flagship, they even have the adults only gym. Hasek: Locker rooms . I saw a comment, I don't know if I heard it on television or if I saw it written someplace , that they didn' t want to waste money on the locker rooms. I don' t really remember where I saw that and it just appalled me. I 'd never belong to a club. The locker room and the gym makes or breaks the damn thing. If you can ' t feel comfortable in the locker room, you' re never going back. ' 11 IIPark and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 30 Ili I Mady: That' s why we' re going to build nice locker rooms here. We ' re not going to build locker rooms in the ice arena . If we put everything in this ice arena that we want to do, which includes in the future a I running track around it, it would be a mile running elevated above on virtually the second story. The seating in here is not going to be built. There will not be the locker rooms in this area. There will just be a room for the zamboni . We' ll buy a zamboni , that ' s $35,000. 00. I We will buy a brand new zamboni for the new ice because you do need a big zamboni for that big sheet of ice. The ice arena , we said, okay you guys basically got, the number we first saw was $800, 000. 00. . . . I can' t I do it for less than $900, 000. 00 and he said , okay you ' ve got 9 and that' s it. You build the ice arena for 9 so basically there' s a building shell , a refrigerated ice floor with the best equipment possible. I Lynch : No more than a million two then by the time we figure inflation and cost overruns . Right? IHasek: They' re supposed to throw that into that estimate. I Mady: They better be. The bonds that we are asking, the citizens of Chanhassen, we will not sell any more than 2. 6 million dollars in bonds. That is it. That is all the money we got to build this thing. If we I: can ' t do it for that , then we ' re going to have to start making cuts . II' Lynch: It would be unusual if you built this and it came in under budget . IMady: You ' re probably correct . We' re working with Bob Davis . He knows what we' re under . We came in and said, this is what we' ve got. We know I the City can not , in the first year we can not bond any more than 3 million dollars . That' s a given. We can not build every item that we ' ve got on the referendum, the 5 questions being asked , we can not do them all in the first year. A lot of those things will be pushed out 1 providing they' re voted yes on. Lynch : Do you have a potentially developed and privately held cut list Ifor when and if you do have overruns? Sietsema: That kind of detail isn ' t worked into this . II Mady: This is not a final plan. This is realistically, we said here' s what we think we want and here' s the configuration we'd like to do . We have not finalized anything. The pool , in an L-shape variety, we' ve I talked about making this into two pools. Making a warm water and cold water pool for lap swimming versus recreational swimming and seniors . This is a whirlpool . It ' s possible to put in a wading pool . We' re lik._ trying to do, one of the ideas is to, in one of the L' s make a floor so it ' s moveable. It can be down at the 4 foot level for lap swimming and then when you' ve got young kids or seniors and maybe you want to bring it up to 3 feet. Maybe you put all your pool intake, all the water Imaybe comes in from one side of the pool so that ' s the warm area of the Park and Recreation Commission 1 January 26, 1988 - Page 31 C ' pool . The north side of the pool as the water filters over to the exhaust side, it cools also. There are a lot of things that have to be worked out and we' re not sure. The Task Force didn' t spend a lot of time on the design. Robinson moved , Lynch seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator - Prepared by Nann Opheim ' 1 I PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION , ii7 MINUTES FEBRUARY 2 , 1988 ' The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. ' Members Present Jim Mady, Carol Watson, Sue Boyt, Curt Robinson, and Larry Schroers . Members Absent Mike Lynch and Ed Hasek Staff Present ' Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Supervisor ' Election of Officers Watson moved, seconded by Boyt to nominate Mady for the ' Chairperson. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, seconded by Robinson, to nominate Boyt for Vice-Chairperson. All voted in favor and the motion carried. As this meeting was set up as a work session to review the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission chose not to record the meeting. At 10 : 20 p.m. , Robinson moved, seconded by Boyt to adjourn the ' meeting. The motion carried unanimously. I 1 I IL 1