Loading...
1i. Minutes IF CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL iF I REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 1988 ' Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. ' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Todd Gerhardt, Barbara ' Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the agenda as amended by Councilman Geving to include discussing having a joint HRA and City Council meeting and Mayor Hamilton wanted to discuss West 78th Street and Old St. Hubert's and a possible addition to the development contract. All voted in favor and motion carried. ' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: ' a. Lake Susan Hills West Preliminary Plat Amendment, Argus Development f. Approval of 1988/89 Liquor Licenses. Ii. Accounts Payable dated March 28, 1988 ' j. City Council Minutes dated March 14, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated March 2, 1988 ' k. Resolution #88-24: Approval of Resolution Authorizing a Public Hearing on May 9, 1988 for TID No. 2. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (B) WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS SECOND ADDITION FINAL PLAT. Mayor Hamilton: Jo Ann was there a condition you wanted to add to item 1(b)? Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant, on condition 7, they did not want to change that ' 25 foot easement to a highway easement. Carver County has agreed to accept just a 10 foot highway easement and the applicant has stated that they will give a 30 foot trail easement rather than the 25 so it's just those minor changes. Number 6 would be, shall provide a 30 foot trail easement and number 7 would say that the applicant shall designate a 10 foot easement along Powers Blvd. as highway easement. There already an existing utility easement. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Consent Agenda item 1(b) , West Village Heights Second Addition Final Plat as amended by staff. All voted in favor and motion carried. 1 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 11 CONSENT AGENDA: (C) LAKE ANN PARK PARKING FEE SCHEDULE. Mayor Hamilton: I just wanted to talk about the parking fees at Lake Ann Park, , or whatever we call the fees that we charge there. What were our fees last year? Does anybody know? Councilman Geving: The same. No change. I don't think we've had a change in , two years. Councilman Boyt: It's on the last page of this. Mayor Hamilton: I'd truly like for us sometime to get residential seasonal item down to a buck or two. We pay for that out of taxes. Every property owner pays for the park out of their property taxes already. To have to pay again to go in doesn't make sense to me. Non-residential I'm fine with. Councilman Geving: Do want to do it tonight? Mayor Hamilton: That's fine with me if everybody is in agreement. Councilman Boyt: If we look in that paragraph about costs, we have a situation here in which the users of the park are actually paying the costs of operating the beach program, which is not a bad idea. My guess would be, although Don could certainly correct this, that we don't have a budgeted amount and if we take away a substantial portion of this $17,000.00 there, I think this might be something we want to look for next year and budget for rather than come at it I this year after the fact. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I don't have a problem with that. I think we ought to look at the bus fee also. When you have a bus paying the same as a non- residential seasonal, it almost seems if you have a busload of people coming in, it should be a dollar a head or something. Kind of make it a little more equitable. We could have 50 people on a bus and to only pay $10.00, that doesn't seem like the right fee to me for a bus. I don't know if we ever have buses come in there. I don't believe I've ever seen one in there. Don Ashworth: You have various requests during the course of the year for larger groups. Many times we have to turn those types of requests away. Potentially you have the people such as Honeywell who want to schedule their entire company to come out. When it gets over 50 people, we do issue a special permit and we do charge them accordingly. Hypothetically you could get up to the 50 but after that point they do require a special permit and there is a special fee associated with that. Councilman Geving: This is an interesting item. Many years ago when we first started the Lake Ann Park, there was a lot of discussion about not charging any fee. Then we went through a period of time where the Park and Rec Commission was basically going to recommend to us to double any of the fees that we previously had. We started with a dollar, believe it or not, it was just merely a token amount to keep most of the people who weren't Chanhassen residents out of the park. Even though it was only a dollar, that was the idea. It was a token amount and over the years it has grown and grown and over the years we've picked up a little bit. I did get two calls on this over the weekend from people who feel very strongly that there shouldn't be any charged 2 1 • II City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 ic ' for a person wanting to use our city parks. I kind of agree with that. I II think we had Lori do a survey maybe two years ago on the various parks in the area and I think she found that we were the only city that was charging any kind of a park fee to get into our city park. I may be wrong on that but I seem to recall that that seemed to be the survey results. I kind of feel the 1 same way, that the fee should be very nominal. These are not out of line. I do believe that $1.00 per residential is fine. What happens in my case is I have three cars and I always have the park sticker on the wrong car so I buy 1 three of them. I kind of go along with what Bill is saying. We have budgeted for this year and we're ready to start this season and maybe that's something we can look at for next season. It's certainly a good thought and I had thought about pulling this off myself. I do believe that the citizens of IIChanhassen should be able to use the parks without paying a fee at all. Mayor Hamilton: I don't have any problem with charging something. It costs us Ito print stickers and to adminster it. I think that should probably be the extent of what we charge for the sticker. 1 Councilman Johnson: I've got two comments on this. I think that Lake Ann is a unique city park here in the city. All the rest of them are free. We have staff to pay out there. A lot more grounds keeping and stuff. I think for the residents I would be in favor of dropping it. I'd also like to look at, in 1 1984 we had an employee non-resident. I think as far as our economic growth, the city of Eden Prairie for their community center, if you're an employee that works in the city of Eden Prairie, you're treated as a resident of the city. IIII'd like to see the same type of treatment for our commercial people who have companies here in the town. That the employees who are feeding our businesses, buying our lunches and gasoline here, get the same treatment. 1 Councilman Horn: They do. Councilman Johnson: Oh, that's why it was dropped? They're considered 1 residents. Don Ashworth: That's correct. 1 Mayor Hamilton: We've always encouraged that. Councilman Geving: Would you be in favor of dropping that to a $1.00 tonight? 1 Councilman Johnson: No. I'd like to see the financial analysis to see what we would be doing to our budgets and everything there. ICouncilman Horn: We looked at 1987 and the total seasonal was $7,120.00 so we know it's going to be some portion of that. It seems to me we can at least 1 head in the right direction and reduce it by some amount this year. Maybe not drop it to $1.00. Councilman Johnson: The swimming classes were $11,000.00 which was almost II covered by the daily. I'd like to look at the whole park budget though. I didn't pull the park budget to look at it and see what we would be doing if we `& took $2,000.00 away from the park operating budget. I 1 3 • City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps we have time yet to review this. Have staff review it and bring it back at our next meeting. See if that's going to cause a tremendous hardship on the functioning of the park this year, than I think I would like to see Lori say that or perhaps even discuss it with the Park and Rec Commission. What our thoughts are and see what their thoughts are. Don Ashworth: I don't think there would be a significant impact if you want to potentially $2.00 in 1988 and instructed staff to look at like $1.00 in 1989. You will have a reduction in your daily fees but you will also pick up some ' additional useage out of that. Our previous experience has been that with an increase in the fees, you don't see significant increase in the amount of money but by contrast, by reducing fees, you do have increased useage. Councilman Boyt: I would like to make a comment here. It says in Lori's first page that there was considerable discussion. We didn't get the Minutes and we're really working in the dark here. I Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table action on the 11 Lake Ann Park Parking Fee Schedule until next meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (E) REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES. Councilman Horn: My only comment on this is, it seems to me that what we're ' doing here is allowing somebody to jump the gun on a development proposal just to take advantage of the 2 1/2 acres. I believe that's the only reason that this request came in when it did. I don't think there was any intent to develop it at that time. It's purely an attempt to beat the 1 in 10 ruling. Now we get a request to extend that time and it seems to me that all we're doing is delaying something that wouldn't have happened in the first place. I have a little problem with that. I wanted to get the rest of the Council's opinion on that. Councilman Geving: Don't you think though Clark that there are others, I seem ' to recall that there are probably others who have done the same thing. That were trying to beat the 2 1/2 acre proposal. I believe that's true isn't it Barb? Don't we have other proposals other than Don Halla's who basically are in the same position? Councilman Horn: That makes it even more relevant then because what that says is this is just the first of many requests we're going to get to extend these and they're going to get extensions forever until they're ready to develop. Jo Ann Olsen: All the other ones are meeting all the deadlines. They are in the process of development. Barbara Dacy: Except for Sever. , Jo Ann Olsen: Sever, that's one tabled but that's with TH 212 property. Mayor Hamilton: That was legitimate. 4 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 - Jo Ann Olsen: This is the only who hasn't moved. Councilman Johnson: I think he was very honest with you when he said he really doesn't want to develop. Met Council forced us, basically to make the rule in the first place or forced the city into the 1 in 10 and that forced to preserve ' his rights. This is one where I'm torn again. I see both your side of it and I see his side of it. He's got a growing nursery business that he doesn't want. to start taking out multi-hundred dollar trees in order to put houses in and to ' put streets in through the middle of his nursery when he doesn't really-plan to - sell those lots to anybody. He plans to continue growing trees. He doesn't need a standard street running through the middle of his nursery. I'm torn on this one personally. ' -One side of me says, shoot, let him extend it. If he ' doesn't want to develop, we shouldn't be forcing him and the Met Council made us force him in the first place. The other side is saying he's trying to get away with something like what you were saying. Not away with something but he's stuck between the same rock and a hard spot as I think we are in looking at this. ' Mayor Hamilton: I just would feel that if we give him the extension, we're going to have to follow the same rules for everybody else. I think he's following the rules that we've established for doing this. He's not doing something we haven't ever done in the past but I think if we do it for him, we're going to have to do it for others. I understand your concern. Councilman Geving: I would say this Tom. If this extension were granted, this is a one time deal. By July of 1989 he should have this thing moving. - I i of Mayor Hamilton: I think perhaps that could be a part passing p p ng this. Make David understand that we'll extend it for a year and if he hasn't begun doing ' something in a years time, the changes of his receiving another extension are pretty slim. ' Councilman Horn: I agree. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the extension for ' Final Plat Approval for Great Plains Golf Estates for one (1) year. If something hasn't occured at the end of this year's period of time, a second extension will not be looked upon favorably. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (L) APPROVAL OF FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, ' DAVID LUSE. Councilman Horn: My comment on (1) was, I was surprised to learn that the HRA ' is negotiating with Mr. Luse on the railroad depot. As a member of the HRA I was not aware of that. I'm not too excited about the idea, even on a temporary basis of setting up a trailer out there. It seems to me that unless I'm missing something here, where he says he needs some temporary space but remove the depot because we didn't need the space. Why would the depot not work but a temporary trailer will? 1 Don Ashworth: It's an entirely different use. The primary issue is one that the City had looked, as a part of the settlement agreement with Mr. Luse, to 1 5 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 come up with an amicable way in which reasonable disputes that existed between the City and Mr. Luse, as to the proper use of that property could be settled out. What has been negotiated through the Attorney's office is an issue that simply allows us to do that. To do it in a fashion that recognizes the court process that we went through. That recognizes that we do not have a similar type of a situation likely in any other type of land use issue before you. Again, where something has gone through the court type of a process, you end up with a situation where both parties try to come back to some reasonable solution. In regards to the HRA acquisition and negotiation regarding the railroad depot, I'm surprised at that. I do recall meeting with the Chairman on that issue. I was sure that the issue had been brought to one of their last HRA meetings. I'd have to go back Clark and look but I know that at the time that we had the session regarding the election results, the Mayor and myself had presented this issue at that meeting and we had discussed some of the particulars regarding that negotiation that particular evening. Councilman Horn: I was late to that meeting. Councilman Geving: Did you miss that discussion? Councilman Horn: I missed that discussion. Don Ashworth: I feel in bringing this issue back, that I am doing it solely on ' the basis of agreements that we had reached at that point in time recognizing that there were some very tight schedules and some decisions by the Attorney's office as to whether or not further pursuit of the entire court process was reasonable or whether or not this form of a settlement was the best way to achieve the ends for all parties. It was his position that this was a reasonable position. Again, I thought that we had agreed to that. Councilman Geving: I know we did. Tom and I were both at the preliminary meeting that you apparently missed and we did agree to that. Councilman Horn: I came in later when we canvased the election results. I didn't get in that discussion and I don't recall any discussion at the HRA on this either. ' Mayor Hamilton: We're trying to keep the depot in the City and this is a way to accomplish that. Councilman Horn: My concern of course is that we're trying to clean up that area out there and they had trucks for sale and everything else for sale out there. Now we're going to put a trailer out there. It just seems like. .. ' Councilman Geving: It's a temporary deal. Mayor Hamilton: It's for one year. The trailer will be behind the house and I think it's getting cleaned up. Councilman Geving: I just had one comment. This is a 12 x 46 foot mobile home ' and I want to make sure that it does not become a living quarters and is strictly for temporary office space. So I'd like to make sure that staff is directed accordingly in this agreement and that that's worded. , 6 11 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 Barbara Dacy: It was our understanding that Mr. Luse purchased the trailer Y from Sperry in St. Paul and it had been used as a temporary office space in. that location. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the First Supplemental Settlement Agreement for David Luse. All voted in favor and motion carried. ' Mayor Hamilton: Dave, the only concern I have is for your employees working in there are made aware of where to go in case of a storm which get in the summertime. There have been so many things recently on the news about these ' darn homes, where people are living in them. I would hate to see anybody get caught in there if there was a storm or something. ' David Luse: I would say that it is strictly office. We have someone in there right now and we have no intention of anyone spending the evening there. Maybe the later hours working but that's the extent of it. VISITORS PRESENTATION: There were no visitors presentations. ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS ALLOCATION FOR YEAR XIV, LARRY BLACKSTAD. Barbara Dacy: I've got some additional information. First of all, Larry Blackstad from the Urban Hennepin County Office is here tonight to answer questions. I know several of you had some other suggestions and ideas for the funding. Just to quickly review, last meeting you approved $15,000.00 for the ' South Shore Senior Center. That leaves $17,197.00 remaining for Year XIV. There are a couple of options available to the Council that we can meet the CDBG regs on low and moderate income as well as some of their other eligibility requirements. We have some Comp Plan work that does need to be finished up. Mark Koegler has, we have entered the stage where we are finishing the last couple of chapters of the Comp Plan update and are about to embark on the public hearing process. We estimate that that would entail up to $5,700.00. ' We also need to revise our Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan as required by the Lake Ann Agreement and part of the Comp Plan update. We're looking at a couple, or I should say one consulting firm in particular and we have gotten an ' estimate of approximately $11,500.00 so there is an option there for the Council to use those remaining funds for our Comp Plan. Another option is that you could, one of the original recommendations was to allocate the remaining ' amount of money to the South Shore Center. Third, we have an ongoing housing rehabilitation program that for certain areas of the city, as there is housing rehab monies available and homeowners make application, they submit information as to their income levels and so on and CDBG evaluates that and Hennepin County ' determines whether or not they are eligible for the program. Some of the other suggestions that were listed by the Council at March 14th, Mr. Blackstad has responded to. Unfortunately again, based on the 1980 census figures, Chanhassen does not have a low and moderate income population there, we're not high enough in low and moderate income people to cross the threshhold for a lot of these projects. You saw some of those other projects in other communities. They have a different demographic make-up than Chanhassen has. Secondly, we're ' operating under the 1980 census figures and those are outdated obviously, based r 7 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 on the amount of growth that we've had in the last 9 years. The census will begin their work in 1989 so we should have a better handle in future years for our income levels. Another future project that City Council could consider in , the future is, if the community center is funded and constructed, it's my understanding that one of the rooms in the community center would be available for the Chanhassen seniors. Now at that time, if the seniors develop some type of program, CDBG funds may be used for their capital needs or some type of programming needs. Unfortunatley at this time, they don't have a specific program available that's already established in the South Shore program so 11 that's a future item that we could provide some service to the Chanhassen seniors. Then just to refresh your memory, you still have monies in Year XIII which must be expended by the end of this year. Originally we allocated that for the community center. Obviously we know that was voted down in the most recent election so we need to reallocate about $26,000.00. Hennepin County people have said to us that given the amount of housing rehab applications that we have on an annual basis, they feel confident that we would be able to expend those funds for housing improvements in areas such as the Carver Beach area and the Red Cedar Point area. Again, Mr. Blackstad is here if you have any questions or concerns about the program. Mayor Hamilton: I had a question. I had asked if it was possible to expend any of these funds for a study to look at the staffing of the fire department, police department. That encompasses everybody in the community, not just the low income. Since we have concern about whether we have adequate police coverage and fire protection and all that kind of thing. Larry Blackstad: When you get involved in studies and Barbara raised that Ell question to me this afternoon in a conversation and I went back into the Block Grant regulations and did some research. When the feds talk about planning and administration in the Block Grant Program, they're essentially talking about historic preservation, environmental and comprehensive planning. There are prohibitions, specific prohibitions involving areas of police and public safety. Those are viewed as general obligations of both units of government under the CDBG regulations. The proposal that you performed, I would have to say at this time, I don't believe would be eligible. Mayor Hamilton: If I could ask one other question. I had an opportunity to 1 see 60 Minutes last night. One segment of it had a portion on this about, I don't know where it was, if it was a city or a county someplace had taken people who were on welfare and used some funds from someplace, I'm not so sure where they came from but they helped to set these people up in a business. Not solely funded them but they got them going well enough so that these people are not welfare recepients any longer. It seemed like a very worthwhile project from what was presented on the news show but you never know all of what happens. It sounded like a very worthwhile project. Larry Blackstad: In several large urban counties, the one that comes to mind , is Daid, Miami Daid, they have set up essentially their own bank using block grant monies. The scale of difference is that Miami Daid receives approximately 17 million dollars a year. Los Angeles County has also done the 11-17 same kind of thing. They get in excess of 20 million dollars a year in Block Grant funds. Hennepin County gets 2 1/2 million and in your case you're talking about a total $32,000.00. We have done some cooperative projects with Block Grant funds and with some of thoes job training partnership funds through 8 1 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 • Ili Hennpin County and the training employment office. We will either provide materials and they will provide the wages or "workfare" type of program. We I are not currently involved in any activities like that. We have proposals before a citizen advisory committee earlier this year. Some discretionary funds of"about $100,000.00 and it was turned down. ,Basically the nature, the I jobs were very short term. Without the training received; could in fact translate into long term employment for individuals is the question. The program you're talking about, if it is the Miami Daid program that involves an II education component. The people have to go to school for so long. It's a substantial prerequisite before they can access to any of the money. They are very interesting programs. I would love to try and set something like that up but again, it's just the scale of the dollars we have to work with. IMayor Hamilton: Can any of those dollars be used for educational purposes or for low income people or people who are on 14elfare, to try and get than off of IIwelfare? Larry Blackstad: Yes, they can. Again, we've been involved through JKJ trying Ito create some employment opportunities. It's not an easy program to put together because you need the cooperation of either a Vo-Tech or a Junior College or the public school system setting up a training program and then job placement program. Those are expensive programs. Funds can be used for those I types of purposes. Again, my only caution is the number of dollars under consideration essentially. Mayor Hamilton: I know we've got $26,000.00 from a previous year and I $17,000.00 this year so we're looking at $38,000.00 some dollars. That would go a long ways towards educating some people. If it could help them get a fresh start on life. ILarry Blackstad: Not outside the realm of possibility to create such a program. Having not done it up to this point in time in the last 14 years, I I don't have any good data to respond to your question but it is possible to do some type of program. Probaly the most direct aid to education we're currently doing are the daycare assistance programs where we are providing daycare II assistance to single parent households. It allows, in 99% of the cases, a woman to continue her education and her education is being subsidized through one of the other public assistance programs. I Councilman Geving: Thank you for coming out tonight Larry. We appreciate your coming. A couple of things that we're doing in the downtown area is we are creating a historic preservation area. We've got an old city hall and we just I heard earlier that we might move an old city depot into the city into an area. Is there the possibility of using these funds for historic preservation purposes? I Larry Blackstad: Historic preservation is another nebulous area. Where we have done it, we have done it only to preserve not to restore structures. As far as moving a structure, I don't think we can get into that. k_ Councilman Geving: But the preservation of the structure to bring it up to a standard where we could use it? II 1 9 99 . City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 Larry Blackstad: No, not even that. We bring it up to a standard that stops the deterioration then anything else is up to the city. I think the best example we probably have is, I'm trying to remember the name of it. It's a house over in Eden Prairie someplace done by the local historic society. It was one of the first homestead farm structures built in Eden Prairie. We got involved and all we did essentially is secure the exterior and the roof to stop ' the penetration of vermins and squirrels and rain. p.11 we did was secure the thing and said okay, now it's up to the Historical Society. Other things we get involved in is reuse. Councilman Geving: How about the demolition of the seminary right down on TH 169? You've got demolition in here as one of the items in Hennepin County. That's an area that is fairly dangerous at this point. There are some old ' structures down there and it's unsafe in my view. There's a possibility that we could go in there and demolition the area. Larry Blackstad: Is it part of a current renewal site? Councilman Geving: No. Well, I don't know. It could be. Mayor Hamilton: We just don't know what we're going to do with it. Larry Blackstad: In order to qualify such an activity, it would probably be done under a spot renewal basis. What you're going in is the Council, in your case the HRA or the Council establishes that the existing conditions represent a blight influence on the community. You could then say alright, in order to eliminate the blight we have two choices. Either restore the buildings or eliminate them. Not knowing anything more about the subject property at this point in time, there would have to be some type of analysis done upon which the justification would be made for the statement of blight. The possibility exists. Councilman Geving: I just have one other. Next week we are going to start a dial-a-ride system in the community and one of the big things, our seniors meet every Thursday and have to get transportation to the elementary school from throughout the community. They pick-up rides or however they get there. A lot of them can't drive. What is the possibility of having a fund set aside to pay for the pick-up of these people on a dial-a-ride basis once a week. Pick them up at their home, bring them to the community center. This is the only center we have in the community, and take them back home at the end of the day. ' Larry Blackstad: It's again, a possibility. Where we do transportation programs, they usually center on a senior center or in some cases a medical facility. Councilman Geving: This is all we've got right now Larry. Larry Blackstad: That we justify based on low to moderate income. We probably need some information on the senior population in Chanhassen. Councilman Geving: It's not a big thing. It's about 50 people that meet every , Thursday and we're not talking about a lot of dollars except that this would be a way for them to get to the center. �' .- 10 IICity Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 11' Larry Blackstad: You just hit on one other subject. We have a requirement equ ement zn i the program that was in the contract that you executed with us last summer. We have a project minimum of $7,500.00 at this time and that just is an II administrative issue from the County side that we were running 150 to 170 properties a year and we're down to three staff who run this program from as I high as six a couple years ago. We just can't keep track of it. If it's a real small project.. . Councilman Geving: You're better off then, in that 'case, buying a van for them IIand hiring a driver. . Larry Blackstad: We do capital costs. I don't like to get into operating Icosts of vehicles. ,. Councilman Horn: When did this $7,500.00 minimum start? IILarry Blackstad: It actually started in Year XIII in the Statement of Objectives that the County Board passed in about February of 1987. The $7,500.00 as far as a contract issue will go into effect for Year XIV which Istarts in July. Councilman Horn: One of the other things that I had asked for at our last I meeting was a complete list of these projects. We still don't have those. The reason I asked for that is I noticed that Brooklyn Park had several transportation related projects. In fact, they have three different projects, 52.69 redevelopment projects. I- Larry Blackstad: Right, that is the purchase of land adjacent to, I can't remember the cross street. It was an intersection that they were buying out a I couple of small businesses to redevelop the area. The City had gone through the blighting analysis and established these businesses were a blighting influence on the community. I think one was an auto salvage yard and another II one was some other kind of scrap operation. The City wanted them out of there. The roads were being improved, upgraded. The area is changing. If you're familiar with Brooklyn Park, everything north of 85th Avenue has drastically changed in the last couple years once the sewer moritorium was lifted so now I they're going back and having to try to clean up some old uses of land that are there. I Councilman Horn: There's nothing in our downtown development program that would qualify? Larry Blackstad: We did some work in the downtown project a couple years ago. I We bought part of the Ringrode and the extra parking land necessary to meet your city code requirements on the.. . IDon Ashworth: The old Instant Webb building. Councilman Horn: What about our other parking area here that we just had to create or the demolition of some of these buildings? IICouncilman Johnson: And it's for a daycare center. II II 11 • City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 Barbara Dacy: Some of the issues were that the amount of allocation that we had wasn't enough in some cases to make the acquisition work. Don Ashworth: I don't know if we actively pursued an individual demolition. Most of the demolitions have run anywhere from $10,000.00 to $30,000.00. Councilman Horn: We have $30,000.00 I think. ' Don Ashworth: Hypothetically that may be another portion. You still have the rear portion of the LeBallo structure. That needs to have an allocation made on that. I would say that's probably $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 depending on, I can't remember if that's a wood structure or not. I don't know if we've explored that with Larry or not. Larry Blackstad: No. Barbara hadn't mentioned it to me. The demolition of property, which are in your redevelopment district would be eligible as far as your funds. You would have to go through the normal process where we require bids and the payment prevailing rates on the demolition. - Don Ashworth: If you were going to do that, I would highly recommend that we look at the seminary property over the downtown because you do have resources basically allocated for the demolition. Not to say that we couldn't change those allocations but in the case of the seminary property, we have nothing and we know that that is a problem that as a private ownership position and given the magnitude of dollars associated with that with very little potential for reuse, we're not allowing reuse for apartments or other types of high value II uses that may generate a private individual to be willing to take that down themselves. I know for the past several years that that has been a real problem for code enforcement and public safety, etc. that we have not been able to resolve. Barbara Dacy: I was wondering if I could ask the Public Safety Direction, I'm not even sure, I know there's been an evaluation of demolition costs on the seminary. - Mayor Hamilton: The estimate was $500,000.00 so if we could help. This is a small portion of it. Larry Blackstad: The seminary isn't by any chance a historic structure is it? Barbara Dacy: No, it's not. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see a study done of our seniors and what their needs are as far as their needs for dinner programs, meals on wheels or whatever kind of programs. A full time versus a one day a week community senior center and stuff like that. Would this type of study be eligible? Larry Blackstad: We've done a couple of those over the years. We funded one in Minnetonka. We funded one in Brooklyn Center. Councilman Johnson: I know the South Shore would like to do a similar study ' except it's more to find a new building. 12 ' ' City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 ' Larry Blackstad: Yes, they contacted me about that already. That type of a study is an eligible expenditure of Block Grant funds. ICouncilman Johnson: I think we need to know what our senior needs are right now. We need to do the study to do it. This is a good opportunity to me to do that study. Mayor Hamilton: Anything else? ' Councilman Johnson: That was the main one unless we've got some senior access places anywhere else in town that we can utilize the money for, for ramps or whatever. I just can't think of any right now that we need ramps or anything for. Councilman Boyt: I've got a couple. I guess I would agree that the idea of a study would be good Jay. I've heard several good ideas here. I'd like to see us consider taking this year's money and putting it into a potential senior room in the community center. I think that was along the.lines of what we tried to do last. year. I'm optimistic that the community center will pass when ' it comes to a vote again. Larry Blackstad: Can I comment on that? I think as Barbara pointed out, maybe she didn't use quite the word we used in our earlier discussion, it's more of a ' retrofit. If you approach it in that way we can probably make it more useable for you, the dollars. Block Grant funds are not without strings. I'll be very lit upfront about that. One of the more difficult strings we encounter is a law that says you pay prevailing wages rates on any construction done with Block Grant funds. If $1.00 of Block Grant funds goes to the project, it must take the place of the whole project so when you start talking about the community ' center, it might be a value to consider at what point in time you consider whether or not the senior project is... Councilman Boyt: So it would be possible to build a community center and then ' come back after construction sometime during 1989 and possibly make an addition to the senior room? Larry Blackstad: Again, your study that Councilman Johnson mentioned, would provide possibly a very good basis for a decision at that point in time but at this point in time... ' Councilman Boyt: There might be other uses for that money at that point but I would see us some way tying the money into our own community center and senior activity there. I have another issue I'd like to check with you. We had ' mentioned earlier this evening that Carver Beach and Red Cedar Point had been areas where we had used a good bit of housing redevelopment money. It would seem to me that one thing that would also be helpful to those areas would be to ' have some sort of a neighborhood clean-up program. Now if those areas were eligible for this sort of rebuilding of parts of it, wouldn't they also be eligible to have some sort of clean-up drive. Larry Blackstad: This was, I think Barbara made a slight error in her presentation on that program. The project housing rehabilitation is client based. There are no geographic limitations in the community. It just depends on the clients. We had the situation where we've had a concentration of 13 r�f • City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 clients and I think in this case we're talking about 5 or 6 that we've done in the city of Chanhassen at this point in time between those two areas, have come from those parts of the community. There's no way, based upon that experience , to say that an area is low or moderate income from our experience. Councilman Boyt: I follow you. So that's not a possibility? Larry Blackstad: Not unless you want to do a neighborhood income survey and we have a methodology that's been accepted by HUD and a format and everything that the City has to follow. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we take this money and tie it in with the senior room in the community center. The reason I would suggest that we not put it towards the seminary is if the bill is anything like $500,000.00, I don't see it happening in the next year. And if it doesn't happen in the next year, these funds would be essentially unallocated. ' Mayor Hamilton: No, I disagree. That seminary is going to have to have something done to it within the next month. Something. It's going to be an expensive proposition whatever happens there. Whether they tear it down or fence it or do something to it but it's got to happen immediately because it's a dangerous situation 'down there. Councilman Boyt: They will block it off. Excuse me Mr. Blackstad, you did say that you would make a building basically vermin proof, weather proof. Larry Blackstad: An historic structure. 1 Councilman Boyt: It's been there for 100 years. Larry Blackstad: My one caution is, you make a historic structure, you'll never tear it down. Mayor Hamilton: I think we've given staff a lot of ideas on things to look ' into and we don't have to do anything tonight I don't think. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table the item. ' Larry Blackstad: I realize that I'm a visitor but I'm going to have to press the City. I have to go to the Citizen Advisory Committee on April 19th with the listing of projects. Not only from Chanhassen but the other 43 cities in our program. In order to meet that deadline which ties me in with the Hennepin County Board Agenda process that brings me to a conclusion of this whole thing in order to meet my deadline with HUD, I'm really going to need an answer from the city by next week. Mayor Hamilton: Prior to the 19th I would think, right? ' Larry Blackstad: I need it, in order to get my materials ready for the Advisory Committee, like by the 5th of April. , Barbara Dacy: I have a suggestion. I would propose this. Todd tells me we're looking at demolition of the remaining buildings sometime this summer, we could reallocate Year XIII monies for demolition which total about $26,000.00. That 14 ' City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 It- could take care of significant amount of costs for that and then if the Council Iso chose for Year XIV, tonight they could act on for a senior study, $5,000.00. Councilman Geving: Put it all in there. ' Larry Blackstad: And then reallocate the rest after the study. Barbara Dacy: But if there is a pitch that staff would like to make, if you'll allow me to do it, we could use the money for the Comp Plan update. Especially the sewer policy plan. That's a significant portion of the Comp Plan update and it's really important to us as far as numbers and Met Council and so on but ' that would be, I think that would try to get kind of a compromise situation, we still could get the demolition objectives done this year and still reserve things for Year XIV and if we do find things don't work out, we can reallocate it then. Larry Blackstad: We do allow you to reallocate. What we need is, I need a program that I can take to HUD. ' Mayor Hamilton: Let me suggest this then. We could allocate $11,500.00 for the Comp Sewer Policy Plan. We could reallocate the $26,507.00 for demolition ' of the remainder of the downtown area, which would still leave us about $5,500.00 or somewhere around that neighborhood which we could put towards the senior study and we could still reallocate some of these things. 'L Barbara Dacy: Do we need $7,500.00? Larry Blackstad: Yes, if you go $7,500.00 for the one. tMayor Hamilton: Okay, $7,500.00 for the senior study and take the rest out of the demolition so we're not quite as high there. ' Councilman Johnson: Mr. Blackstad, do we have to do the reallocation at this time or the $17,197.00 at this time? ' Larry Blackstad: You have to deal with the $17,197.00. The reallocation is a question, as Barb said, there's a whole other public hearing process you have to go through for that. ' Councilman Johnson: So for tonight we're actually only working with the $17,197.00? ' Barbara Dacy: That's correct. Mayor Hamilton: Bill, you had a question. ' Councilman Boyt: It really was in regards to the $26,000.00. I think the idea of giving that to rehab would probably pay benefits to the city in areas that we don't have funding allocated and we do have funding allocated for the destruction of the appropriate areas of downtown. Mayor Hamilton: Since we're dealing with the $17,197.00 tonight then, if we allocate $11,500.00 to the Comp Plan and the remainder to a senior study. No, that's not adequate. $7,500.00 to a senior study and the remainder to the Comp 15 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 Sewer Plan Update. How's that. That will accomplish what you need, right? It will leave it a little bit short but that's pretty close. Resolution #88-21(b) : Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to allocate $7,500.00 to conduct a study for the senior citizens of Chanhassen and allocating $9,697.00 for the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. All voted in favor and motion carried. ACCEPT TETON LANE FEASIBILITY STUDY, ALTERNATE 4. Mayor Hamilton: We got a lot of information here. I don't know that I ever saw Alternate 4. I'd like to have seen something that would indicate to me what the heck it is. Councilman Horn: That's the one we proposed last time. ' Mayor Hamilton: I know but I don't see anything here. I know we talked about it. Bill Engelhardt: The reason there wasn't a map included along with the report is that Centex was still working on their alignment for the cul-de-sac in this area. If you recall, in their initial proposal for Phase 2, they had a cul-de-sac included up in the Donovan property and we just received this map today where they had finally worked out the details for the lot sizes in the Phase 2. The change would be, and the way that Phase 2 will come in, Road G [II will stay all up on their property. These lots will all, I believe will meet the city standards. Concerning Teton Lane, we'll have a 33 foot easement in the rear of the right-of-way and construct a 22 foot bituminous roadway from Lilac Lane up to their property line, the Centex property line. At that point we're proposing that a barrier be installed and neck the driveway down to a 10 foot bituminous lane and then landscape it with shurbs and bushes in this corner. The reason for that is we wanted to not give the appearance that this roadway would be a through road at some point in time and we felt that by going down to a 10 foot bituminous in this area, that would accomplish that. We also felt that the 22 foot wide bituminous roadway that would be constructed would accomodate the traffic from the area. In effect we have one property owner, the Natoli property that would be using that as an ingress/egress point. The Ware's could eventually use it. They do cross the Pickard property to get onto Lilac. They could eventually use it so really our number of property owners that will be using this 22 foot lane is very minimal and it would provide the surface area that would be capable of carrying the emergency vehicles in and out. The sections for the proposed roadway as we said in the report, would go from 6 inches of Class V rock to 2 inches of bituminous mat to 10 inches depending on what the soil conditions would dictate out there. We're estimating the cost to use the 10 inches and the 2 inches to give a maximum number so we know what we should have to work for. Any plan for Teton Lane to be prepared in conjunction with the Phase 2 of Curry Farms, it would go through the process of approval and review by the City Engineer prior to construction. I think you did receive a letter from Centex stating they were agreeable and it 11117 was feasible and they would be agreeable to carrying the cost. i 16 ' • City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Bill, will the Shakelton, Cameron, Brancel property then, Ithey'll just have to use Road G, is that correct? Bill Engelhardt: They'll just have to use Road G. I think that's probably the best alternate for those parcels because they are big enough where they could be subdivided and they might have to have additional roads or somebody might come in and put this whole parcel together as one development. Jack Brancel: I'm the owner of the property back there. Would there be any costs associated with that if we're going to be taken off of this Teton Lane and brought back onto this Road G around Road E and back out again? ' Mayor Hamilton: I don't believe so. There wouldn't be any assessments. Councilman Geving: Costs to you? Jack Brancel: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: No. Nothing. Jack Brancel: Okay, that's the only question I had. , Councilman Boyt: Tell me where you're going to put the snow. Bill Engelhardt: It's a very difficult question. In fact, the directive from '' the Council was to look at a cul-de-sac in this area. That's not feasible because of the limited right-of-way. By going with the 22 foot wide surface, we then have about 5 1/2 to 6 feet on each side of the roadway for snow 1 storage. It's not like a typical right-of-way. You should usually have about 7 to 8 feet but in this case, it's like putting it off to the side. I think the "T" turnaround right at this end, we're probably going to have to push it into this area and maybe leave the pole just across the drivingway and leave ' some kind of an area open on the end and try to move that out onto the field and try to get the snow in this area. That's about the only think you can do with it. Councilman Boyt: I can give you another possibility. Not one I particularly like. I'm concerned that if we have a barrier there, we need to have some way ' so the snow isn't piled up in front of it or it becomes useless. I'd like you to take your cul-de-sac that services Lots 12 and 11 and take your temporary barricade and put it down there right across from the corner of Lot 11. Now we've got a cul-de-sac basically. ' Bill Engelhardt: Then you would use this cul-de-sac, you'd come in Lilac, come down Teton and into this cul-de-sac? Adding another cul-de-sac. ' Councilman Boyt: I guess we would yes. That has a drawback to it too. Bill Engelhardt: The key to that, I guess one of the reasons for not doing it was to avoid the traffic on Teton. Councilman Boyt: I agree that we don't want to put traffic on Teton Lane. I also think that to make this workable, we have to have a place that we can put snow relatively easily so it doesn't get stacked up against the barricade. I'm ' 17 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 somewhat skeptical that that plan is going to do it. Gary Warren: It's going to come down to our city forces and the particular ' individual who plows this area to have the marching orders that that's not done. I guess we feel, it's not whether we have the right-of-way or not, they plow the road and the snow builds up on the sides. We'll get it open and use whatever area we need to do that and specific direction will be given to keep the barricade area, don't use the snow as the barricade but keep that area clean and I see that as a workable situation. Councilman Boyt: How can they take that truck and turn it around in there so they can clean in front of that barricade? I don't understand how they can do that. Bill Engelhardt: I think the 33 feet, if we use a "T" in here, we should be able to get enough so they can come in and probably push it ahead and "T" it on both sides. Wing it on both sides and take it away from the front and put it on this side and this side. It will happen. We'll have to work with it. It's such a limited area up there. Mayor Hamilton: Except that Mr. Donovan has been very cooperative and I would suspect that if we asked him, he would allow us to put a "T" in at the end of the street there. There's nothing there. It's just a field. Were not going to be hurting anything if we did it at our expense and returned the property to the way it is now when we're finished with it. I can't imagine he's going to have a problem with that. Councilman Horn: If you're going to put that shrubery in there, you can blade up to the barricade from one side and you can blade up to the shrubery from the other side but the rest of it's going to be filled with snow. How is that going to be an access in the winter? Bill Engelhardt: We're talking about a 10 foot walkway in here. You'll have to come in and take that 10 feet out. Clean that out. Councilman Horn: Before you could get a firetruck through you'd have to come and plow it. Bill Engelhardt: No, when he plows snow, when he gets done plowing your cul-de-sac out, then come in and take that out with a front end loader or something. Gary Warren: We go around on our second pass so to speak and we dress up areas that we know are problem areas such as cul-de-sacs and this would be just another one put on the list. Clean out, as Bill said, with a front end loader or bobcat for example would be very useful in that type of a situation. Bill Engelhardt: I think Gary, you do that with hydrants too. Don't you go out and clean around hydrants so it would be the same piece of equipment that you'd be cleaning around hydrants. lo Councilman Horn: Explain to me again what you're going to put in that area. I E thought you were going to put something in there so it wouldn't like a through section. 18 ' City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 1 Bill Engelhardt: The Centex roposal was s to, you can leave this blank too. IIA You wouldn't have to put any landscaping in there but it would seem to me I guess, a good idea too that if we would dress that corner up a little bit so it wasn't all weeds and who's going to take care of it? We don't want to go out ' there and have to cut that little piece of grass. I suppose you could pave it. That's one option to pave the whole thing but it would appear that it would be more attractive as you came into this cul-de-sac area, to give the appearance ' that it wasn't a through road. If you pave it and you put all the blacktop in there and the barriers, somebody down the line is going to say, that's a right-of-way and you're going to start getting petitions to utilize it as a right-of-way. Councilman Horn: How are you going to have something that can landscape g you pe that you can plow through? ' Bill Engelhardt: You aren't going to plow through the sides. You're just going to scoop the snow off to get a 10 foot strip just like you would clean ' around the hydrants. Go in with a front end loader and pull your snow back to make the 10 foot strip. Councilman Horn: Is that a city street then? City maintained street? Gary Warren: Yes. Councilman Horn: It isn't now? Gary Warren: No. ' Councilman Boyt: I want this barricade to work. To me, for it to work, one of the things we have to do is we're not building a permanent barricade here but at some point, maybe it's 20 years from now, land is going to develop on the ' other side of these big parcels and when it does, the conception is that that road is going to go through. I think we need to make it pretty clear that someday that road is going to go through because if we hide it, then I can assure you that we're going to get a tremendous petition the day that we decide to open it up. So I'd like to see the area that you've got shaded there, paved. I would even support a sign there that said this is a temporary barricade. I want the barricade there because I don't want the traffic but I ' don't want to mislead anybody into thinking that it's going to be closed forever. John Speakes: I'm with Centex Homes. If we take that barricade, if you think of the barricade on the diagonal across that road instead of perpendicular, the snowplows are going to go by one side. ' Gary Warren: We can work out the details during the plans and specs phase so you'll have another chance to look at it then. Obviously it needs some more thought here to get it to that point. Kevin Clark: I also am with Centex Homes. In anticipating some of the questions that would come up tonight, I spoke with the Natoli's and mentioned to them that basically what we have is a situation of a deadend and there would be some backing up of city vehicles and such. I proposed to them that Centex 19 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 1 would improve a 10 foot apron so that in essence, we would deed it over to the City to have an area to back up into and you're not backing up into a rutted area. What we wanted to do was put in an improved apron on the Natoli property. I had talked to then before the meeting so there's a place to properly back up in. Councilman Geving: I think it's important though, if we do this with the i driveway at the Natoli's, the Natoli's may not always live on that property over the next few years until that is developed. I would hope that we would have some kind of an agreement with the Natoli's that is binding on the future homeowners as well. Mayor Hamilton: We'll get an easement. I Councilman Geving: Okay, we'll get the easement necessary to do that because I can see that as a potential future problem. I did talk to the Natoli's and they are more than willing to use their land. Bill Engelhardt: After listening to discussion, if we took that 10 foot strip and made it 22 and just carried it all the way through, that would solve it. Mayor Hamilton: Seeing how Mr. Natoli is here, I'll ask him. Everybody has been telling us that you agreed that we may be able to back our trucks up during plowing to use a part of your property so they can turn around. Would you be agreeable to an easement so we could do that? Mr. Natoli: Perfectly alright. Bruce Cameron: I just had a question about Teton Lane. There has been talk at one time that Centex was going to purchase that and deed it over to the city. Is that the case? Mayor Hamilton: That's what is being accomplished here, right. Bruce Cameron: So at some point in time the property owners could be assessed if that street was put through there and brought up to the city standards? Gary Warren: If it was brought up to full city standards. Councilman Geving: Potentially. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, full city standards. Someday. Councilman Boyt: I think we should follow up on this gentleman's comment that, 1 were you here two weeks ago when we discussed this? Bruce Cameron: No I wasn't. ' Councilman Boyt: The plan is to not upgrade this road until that property is developed over there at which time there would be a much larger group of people that would be assessed for it. Bruce Cameron: Thank you. I was in the hospital. 20 1 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 • Jim Donovan: I'm just wondering, were you saying that you're not going to assess it until the property develops? Like my property would be developed. You wouldn't be doing any assessing until that time? Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. Could I ask you a question too Jim? I'm sorry, I didn't see you come in. We had talked again about the availability of having our trucks when they're plowing, turn around at the end of that street. I was wondering if you would be amendable also to just a "T" at the end of the street so the truck could pull in there and back up and turn around. If we ' could get an easement from you and develop it at our own expense? Jim Donovan: Yes. ' Councilman Horn: I'd like to finish my question. You were saying we would have a 2 inch bituminous coating on this? ' Bill Engelhardt: That's right. Councilman Horn: Similar to a driveway? ' Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. Councilman Horn: Do you know what garbage trucks can do to a driveway? How long do you expect that to last? Bill Engelhardt: I really don't have a problem with it. With a 2 inch mat 1111 with a base that's constructed properly. We talked about that last week. It's the base that creates or doesn't create a problem and if that's constructed properly, I don't think the 2 inches will have a problem. You find in the city ' streets that 2 inches is almost the standard section. Councilman Horn: The other thing I read in here is that everything we put in now will come out when it's brought up to city standard so there will be no ' benefit in what we're doing now to a final street? Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. ' Councilman Horn: It seems kind of a waste. Is there anyway we could do something that would be more permanent at a later date? ' Gary Warren: The reason that that statement is true is because of the work that would be done with the utilities and normally we run the utilities down the center of the road in that easement area so by the time you get done ' excavating the trenches for the utilities, you've basically destroyed the subbase and you have to come back and rebuild that. That's the reason why we couldn't take advantage of what we're putting in now. ICouncilman Horn: And you couldn't go besides it or make some provision for • that now? 11 Gary Warren: The utilities? Councilman Horn: Yes. 1 21 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 Gary Warren: We try to be creative and if we've got some existing condition that is worth salvaging, Church Road for example where we're looking at the south end of Church Road, even though we've got the Metropolitan Commission is going to be installing our full road section out there, the Carlson property is going to be putting in the sanitary sewer on the west side outside of our road section so we don't have to bust up that road section. So we do, if the situation dictates it, we will try to be creative and put our utilities in other areas. I think in this case, it all depends on how the development goes and we'll certainly keep that in mind. Councilman Horn: I really have trouble with this. What it all boils down to 11 is we're doing all this just for a potential secondary access requirement at some point. The City is going to have to plow a section of street now that it didn't have to plow. We're going to have to put in a chunk of pavement that is totally temporary. I really question the benefit of this whole thing based on this. Now if there could be something of a permanent nature for a future plan I could see it but I really have to question this. Mayor Hamilton: Wouldn't you be able to salvage the Class V out of there? Gary Warren: Yes, you're not going to totally lose it but it gets contaminated as a result. We did, in the downtown here for example, we salvaged a lot of material there so those things are feasible. It's just a matter of what the proposed improvements would be and how you could justify the salvaging of them. Councilman Geving: Centex Homes are here tonight. Is there someone here who Ell can speak for the corporation? Do you agree with the recommendation in the Council's packet tonight that you would pay for not only the street but the expanded scope of the Alternate #4 study? Kevin Clark: I can't say I agree totally but I'd like to get beyond this. Councilman Geving: That's good enough for me. ' Resolution #88-25: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Teton Lane Feasibility Study Alternate #4, Curry Farm Subdivision Phase 2, File #87-16 with the recommendation that the expense for implementation of this alternate study be borne solely by Centex Hanes. It is further recommended that the developer be responsible for reimbursing the City for it's consultant's expenses in preparation of this study, namely $3,700.00. Further, that design details for the upgrade of Teton Lane in accordance with the criteria laid out in Alternate #4 shall be submitted for approval to the City Engineer and the City Council as a part of the plans and specifications approval process for Curry Farms Second Addition. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and motion carried. APPROVAL OF PLUMBING/HEATING INSPECTOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH HEATING PERMIT AND FEE SCHEDULE. Mayor Hamilton: This was an item we looked at last week and I had asked the C !17 ouncil to table it until such time as we had an opportunity to review the total staffing needs within the City. I think I've asked for that about a 22 1 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 If- Jhundred times now and I still haven't even gotten a reply from anyone so I would go along with approving the request from the Public Safety Director to go ahead with a full time position with the contingency that we do review staff needs. ' Councilman Geving: Let me ask you, now this may be a second item but would this be a position that we would advertise for? There is a recommendation... ' Mayor Hamilton: We already have advertised for it. Councilman Geving: Have you received candidates? ' Councilman Horn: This is it. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the amendment to ' the 1988 budget to include a full-time Plumbing/Heating Inspector with the contingency that the city review the total staffing needs within the City. All voted in favor and motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE CONTRACT. ' Resolution #88-26: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to award the bid of the public works expansion project #87-22 to Fullerton Lumber Company of Chaska, Minnesota for a base bid of $222,850.00 and that the City accept I- Alternate No. 3 with the addition of $1,800.00 for skylights and Alternative No. 4 for an addition of $10,660.00 for repairs of the existing roof for a ' total bid award of $235,310.00. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Johnson: I'd like a slight discussion on the source of the money that's been budgeted and what's the effect on our budget that it appears we now have another $80,000.00 into the budget and can that be converted? One of my big concerns, like Tom is talking about here, is on personnel and mine again is public safety and reinstituting a CSO program where we have park patrol next ' year is a high priority to me and I'm wondering if this might be $80,000.00 that we could reallocate to where we get the additional police coverage. Mayor Hamilton: The CSO program is going to be reinstituted. As we discussed ' our last meeting on the 14th, we had some grant monies to use for that plus I think it was $5,000.00 that we allocated to that program so we have enough monies to have a full-time CSO officer aboard for the remainder of this year. ' Then we need to look at it next year. Councilman Johnson: I've just gotten a lot of comment lately from people on ' the visibility of our patrols in town. The only time they see a sheriff's car on my block is when they come to deliver my packet every other week. Mayor Hamilton: Public Safety discussed that last week and that was a high priority item. We decided to move ahead with that. Don Ashworth: Going along with that, in fact there was some misinterpretation ' of the recommendation I made in total, we're looking to $15,000.00 associated with that Community Service Officer program so that will put us back to a level ' 23 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 of funding for two persons similar to what we've had before and I feel very confident that that level of staffing can provide the park issues that you're talking about. In regards to the dollars and how we may use some of those when we complete the expansion. The one thing that I've been very, very worried about is we're looking to both public works expansion as well as city hall. As we've been going through numbers and we've been bringing items back to City Council, we've been talking about let's do this additional portion and this additional portion. In comparison to total funding that had been set aside more than a year ago, I had been very, very nervous that we are not creating another Eastcliff type of situation in the City of Chanhassen. I asked Gary to move ahead with the public works. The dollars, we would make those work but I'll be honest with you, we were using up every bit of contingency associated with all of those allocations and I became very nervous when we started talking again about the City Hall expansion and the miscellaneous things that can come up as a part of that. When I saw these bids come in, I was just thrilled because what it does do is it takes the pressure off of our total building ' program. I'd like to put this in combination with our City Hall. See what happens in that expansion and if there are dollars then available for any other types of programs where reallocation could occur, let's handle them at that point in time. POSITION CLASSIFICATION PLAN, FINALIZE 1988 REVIEW PROCESS. Don Ashworth: If the Council would like to proceed with this item this evening, fine. I have not dropped the ball in terms of two items. One, the _ Mayor had just brought out. The continuing study of the positions and where we basically stand, etc.. I have following the presentation of the updated position classification plan but there were some questions as to what it was staff had come through or had prepared as a part of that updating process. I have gone back to the League of Cities through a contract that they have with Labor Relations Associates. We have totally reanalyzed the overall plan. Where we are with that entire program. How that compares to the multi-city jurisdictional study. What I would propose doing is to put that work in combination with the process that we had started several years ago where a fellow employee of Mayor Hamilton had been employed by the City to update our position classification plan at that point in time. I mentioned to Tom that I stand ready to go through this latest work with that individual if he would consider an additional contract. Again, I have employed and completed the work now with Labor Relations Associates. They are prepared to come in and go through their reanalysis of that whole process. Whether or not that should change the review of my position or what timing we may want to carry out as a part of this overall study issue and whether or not, again going along with what Tom had brought out, that he would like to see this broadened into the police and fire area, because that is not included as a part of the work that I had completed today. We would have to go into a specialized study area such as the one completed for the small town in New York, which I did go through that study with Tom. I think that we're in a position of bringing back each of r' those different item areas. I think in terms of my particular position in what we're doing. there, that should not really be held back. Let's do some of this other work but if the Council would like to see and hear some of these other �-- professionals in advance of handling this particular item, I would be more than willing to wait. 24 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I'd like a simple, like in 25 words or less, what do we get out of doing that? Don Ashworth: Out of doing what? Councilman Boyt: Out of having other professionals come in and review a program. Tell the result very simply. Don Ashworth: I feel confident that what we have completed is correct, accurate and meets the standards of State Law. There were questions raised and ' that had been presented before, as to whether or not it properly reflected the State Law in what our people are, where they are in comparison to other cities. Councilman Boyt: Put simply Don, what you're saying is, the sense you got was ' that the people weren't being properly paid for the size job they were in. They were either too high or too low. Is that the drift of this whole thing? Don Ashworth: The reanalysis that was presented, the position classification plan that you adopted, modified certain of the scales to represent the multi- city study and that was done in-house to make those comparisons. I sensed questions by the Council as to whether or not staff had properly made those ' interpretations and extraction comparisons. That is the reason we did proceed with bringing in at least one additional consultant to look at everything we had done and I stand ready again to use the consultant that had been used 4 to 5 years ago to also provide that information to you. Councilman Boyt: I would gather than when we have consultants review this ' plan, that it costs the city some money to do that. Don Ashworth: That's correct but one of the reasons I went back through the League of Cities and the contracts that exist with Labor Relations is that work ' can be done at one-tenth of the cost if we would go out to a typical consultant. ..personnel Officer who used to work with Mayor Hamilton, that individual charged us basically little or nothing to do that work. If ' I remember correctly, it was $200.00 to $300.00. Councilman Boyt: So you're proposing to spend $500.00 or less to have this program reviewed one more time? ' Don Ashworth: $500.00 has already been expended. If we would use the additional consultant, it could potentially be an additional $300.00 more than that. Councilman Boyt: It would be my position that we put this to rest and pass it ' as is without further review. Councilman Geving: I also believe that we ought to move on with Don's position classification. At some point in here, we're already almost to April and Don really hasn't had his review yet. Isn't that true? Mayor Hamilton: I know. It would have been done by tonight but he was unfortunately been on vacation and sick for about a month. 25 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 Councilman Geving: But the point is though, I believe that you can handle that Tom, as we normally do. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to have the rest of the Council review it and Don and I will review it and everybody will have an opportunity to see it and make comments on it. ' Councilman Johnson: I was wondering, next Monday night we have our special meeting, work session, it doesn't sound like you've got your report out yet. Don Ashworth: I think we can have it done by then. Councilman Johnson: So this can be something that can come to us Monday night. ' Councilman Boyt: As far as the overall classification plan, I would think we could vote and finalize that tonight. To drag this out is pointless. ' Councilman Johnson: If we finalize it tonight, there's no need to see the final report from the consultant. Councilman Boyt: There's no need to get the report from the consultant. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve finalizing the 1988 review process for the Position Classification Plan. All voted in favor and motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Hamilton: Dale, was it you who wanted to talk about a joint HRA and Council meeting? Councilman Geving: I think it kind of goes along with what you're talking about in your part of this. Bill Boyt brought it up at the last meeting and I just want to pursue it longer, since we've got a chance tonight. I would like to see us once and for all, before the construction season starts in the completion of our downtown redevelopment, to come to an understanding with the HRA over certain things. One is what are we going to do with the old Village Hall. I will not rest easy until that building is square with 78th Street. I just feel bad about the way this looks. I've taken so much heat just like everybody else on the Council and ridicule. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about what we're going to do with the devil's triangle there in front of the Pony Express. I thought that the best thing to do, since we kind of gave this to HRA to resolve but we have some input in this and this is something that we have a lot of concern for so I was going to request that at our next HRA meeting or the next Council meeting, we could have a meeting together and discuss this together and come to some conclusions before we move ahead with the final development of the downtown. I was going to suggest 4-21. I don't know what your schedule is on that night Clark for HRA but I don't think it would be too far advance so the work would be, or is it going to be? Don Ashworth: Is there a way we could handle this as a part of this meeting for this next week? 26 , ' City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 Councilman Geving: It's very possible. ' Don Ashworth: My concern is that the contract work will be starting very, very shortly. Councilman Geving: My concern is that we just don't want things to get going and finalized and then the HRA and the Council members still have these reservations about what's happened down there and we haven't got a chance to ' change it. Mayor Hamilton: Let's do it on next Monday. We can make our views known and ' we can pass them onto HRA. Don Ashworth: I would like to use that as an opportunity, if I may Mayor... Mayor Hamilton: To invite HRA members? Don Ashworth: Yes, we should have HRA members. Mayor Hamilton: I thought maybe we were talking about potentially not having a joint meeting. Just discussing it ourselves and coming to a conclusion of what ' we want to do and then pass that on to the HRA but if the HRA members can make it, fine. If they can't, I think we ought to discuss it anyway. Don Ashworth: What I'd like to do is really update the City Council on the total acquisitions and where we're at in that whole process downtown. We have not had a real opportunity to talk about what it is that the HRA has completed. Where we stand with each of the various negotiations for the downtown parcels ' and I think that the process has been very good and I don't think that Council members have received a lot of negative comments regarding what has been occurring and I think you would very much welcome or you should be a part of ' that process of where we stand with each of those individual owners. Councilman Johnson: As far as that's going, I've been starting to have a little nagging, one of the big things of the whole downtown was the apartments ' was going to be a money generater. It was going to help pay off some of the other things. Now it does not look like that's going to happen. ' Councilman Horn: It never was. Mayor Hamilton: We can discuss that too. I had a couple of items I wanted to discuss briefly with you. The Public Safety Commission last Thursday night ' talked about West 78th Street at some length since we've had several comments from the church, Pastor Caston's church. They're having difficulty getting their parishioners and children, especially across the street for their church ' service and for their bible study classes during the week. There does seem to be considerable amount of speeding on West 78th Street. The Public Safety Commission was in favor of perhaps having some radar on West 78th Street and I'm reminded and I reminded them of when you go into Excelsior down CR 17 and you get into Shorewood, for a number of years it seemed like there was always a police officer sitting just over the hill and it's interesting now, when you drive in there, everybody slows down. I'm just amazed. Everybody is right down to 30 as soon as you hit the top of the hill and I see no reason why we 27 LCity Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 • can't do the same thing on West 78th Street. It's too busy a street and there are too many children up there going across and citizens crossing the street to get to a place of business, to allow speeding and illegal passing and everything else so if the Council would like, we can tell Jim to go ahead and to start a program of radar patrolling and to tag people. I don't think we should even give than a warning. Just tag than and say, you better slow down. Councilman Johnson: I think there are several places in the city that we I should establish as our known speed traps. That's what Shorewood has physically done. They've got a beautiful little hill that they can hide behind. , Mayor Hamilton: We've talked quite a bit about 78th Street and the problems there and we're trying to help Nate Castin's resolve his issues. We suggested that perhaps we could get a flag monitor out there like they have at the school so their people can cross during their service and during their worship. I think Jim was going to check into that to see if they could do that. Legally if there's any problem with that. Parking was also a problem. I don't know if you guys have ever gone up there on Sunday morning, past Kenny's on Great Plains and 78th Street, you get to the corner and you've got cars now lining both sides and you're kind of taking your life in your hands trying to make a left turn because you can't see so we're going to try to get the cars further away from the corner so you can see traffic from both directions. I might just take a second here to draw a little picture. There was another suggestion that was brought up and hopefully it's something we can do. What I thought we might be able to do is we've taken one no parking sign down that was in here so there nobody can park along here but the church has commented that they have no place to drop off at the church, children or handicapped people. There's no access for them so I thought if there's room in here, if we could do a drivethrough type of thing like this with a drop off with an island type of thing or Don suggested instead of doing that, you could just cut out here, like the boulevard portion all the way down and part of this would be designated as drop off and this could be used for parking. Just a thought to try to alleviate the handicap ramp there and people could pull up to get into the church and our future park here. Councilman Geving: Would you have to excavate along the north side of the church then with your proposal? , Mayor Hamilton: You've got a sidewalk and a boulevard and Don thought perhaps you could take the boulevard out and move the curb over and pick up 4 or 5 feet to add to the parking spaces. We would probably just designate a park with a handicap ramp. Councilman Geving: I don't think I'd be very much in favor of the first idea ' of that turn in there. We don't have much room in that Heritage Park there anyway. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to be able to have people use the park. We don't have any handicap ramps anyplace down here. Councilman Geving: If you do that then Tom and this all goes along with this overall proposal on the old City Hall, you'd have to move the old City Hall back which I'd like to see done anyway, quite a ways, then that could work. 28 11 . City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 ' There isn't much room between the street and that old City Hall. Mayor Hamilton: This would just swing in a few feet. You don't need much room. ' Councilman Johnson: I think with our joint HRA meeting, have BRW take a look at that. ' Councilman Horn: Are we planning to have regular church services in that after they move out? Is that our long range plan? Mayor Hamilton: Nate has commented to me that there are at least two churches who have approached him about using it after they're gone. Councilman Horn: Is that going to be doing that as a part of the Heritage Park plan? Mayor Hamilton: If there's someone who can use, I see no reason why they ' shouldn't. Councilman Geving: The best thing that could happen to a building like that is to be used. ' Councilman Horn: I'm just asking, what is our plan. Do we have a plan? I Don Ashworth: We really should look to a reuse of that. We did receive a ' notification from them that they will be vacating basically a year from now so we do have a period of time in here to look at a potential reuser. We have a 5 ' year lease on that building for $1.00 and we entered into that 6 years ago so we're 1 year into the second 5 year lease period. But the cost of maintenance of that facility is tremendous so without having a user into that facility, our cost structure would be roughly $8,000.00 to $14,000.00 per year as an ' operational cost for that facility. Getting a reuser in there and having them pay that cost if far to our advantage. ' Mayor Hamilton: The other thing I wanted to bring up tonight was development contracts. Gary, you've been developing a new generic development contract. I'd like to see us put something in there dealing with an outlot situation where you have, and I'll use Pheasant Hills as an example because that's where this came to me from. They have an outlot there that's a retention pond for drainage. It's not buildable. It's not useable. It just is a pond. I think in the wintertime the City even keeps it clear for kids to skate on. That ' piece of property is assessed at $38,000.00 by the County and the taxes on it are unbelievable for an unuseable piece of ground. So somewhere in our development contract, I'd like to see us say who and when do we take care of i these outlot situations that we require a developer to put in. Whether it's a retention pond or whatever it's for so they don't remain on the books like these do. There are back taxes against this property now. He doesn't want to pay them. The City doesn't want to pay them. We made him put them in there. 11 How do you get rid of the problem and it was never resolved as to when it was going to happen and who was going to do it. ' Gary Warren: Most of the outlots now, we are taking fee ownership on them. Especially those for stormwater retention or other uses. It's a watershed 29 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 issue also in that who maintains them if the City doesn't own them and you do want to maintain than from a water quality standpoint. Mayor Hamilton: It sounds like it should be in there that it would say who is going to own than and when are they going to own than just so it's clear to the developer when that happens. Maybe the developer in some cases wants to retain ownership. That's fine. In this case they don't but they've still got than and they don't want them. Gary Warren: We probably will eventually be dealing with that on a city basis ' because they are obviously with the more the Watershed Districts get their act together as far as trying to get us to get our maintenance program organized, we will be addressing access to these retention basins that we don't own plus commitment of some of our resources for maintenance facilities. I think the place to handle it is in the special provisions like we do with any of the plats that come in here. We look at specifically call up or ownership on outlots when they are to our purpose and that would be the place to put them. I would imagine in that case that would probably be tax forfeiture if that's the case on than. Don Ashworth: We went through a period of time where developers wanted those and now they're coming back. You've got that Reichert Addition on the north side of Lotus Lake. East Lotus Lake Estates. The Rick Murray piece in there. ' Both of those ran into a similar type of situation. Back taxes. They decided they didn't really want them and we have taken those back but it has been an excruciating process in that we do have this tax burden. The City's not just ready to jump in and pay $38,000.00 or whatever it happens to be for these back taxes. Mayor Hamilton: That's just want the Assessor has but it's not worth anything. It's worth something as a retention area and that's it. Councilman Geving: That's something we could bring up whenever we meet with the Assessor. Councilman Horn: We can all see the scenario now. It gets take over by the City, we talk to the Assessor, it gets down to some reasonable number and the developer say, it was just a city guise to get control of the property. Councilman Geving: I don't think so. A ' Gary Warren: Most of the developers have those retention problems because it does have a maintenance liability for them. We're going to be looking at toughening up our own standards in terms of some of these skimmer devices and these pumper devices that we know are, 5 years down the road are going to be maintenance headaches for us. A little more appropriate type of construction for skimmer... WATER RESERVOIR COLOR SELECTION, CITY ENGINEER. Mayor Hamilton: I would just like to say, I talked to Art last week and they had selected a color other than what we had selected. Gee, that's great. Whatever color you want, we'd be happy to put on there and I still think, and 30 ' ` City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 li- I mentioned to him, I said, how about painting the bottom part with some trees II on the thing. I don't know what that would cost but I still think that's a good idea. Have someone go up there. It doesn't have to be an exact tree but make it a rough, so the inside at the tree level looks like trees back there. He said, boy would that be nice. They were in favor of that. I don't know I what addition it would cost but they would certainly be in favor of it and I think it would make it look nicer. II Gary Warren: I think if you look at something along with the park program up there. We want to get the base coat, with the current color selection would be a pretty easy coat to put something on top of. We want to make sure we get a good base coat underneath there. That would be something we could look at Icosts of any kind of a design on the bottom there. Mayor Hamilton: Evergreens or something so it would add some color during the I winter. Make it blend in as much as possible. So is this color that you have on here, BB82, is that a blue type? I Gary Warren: That is cumulus, as they call it and I think it's pretty accurate. That will really blend in with the top. And we will make another mailing to the neighbors so those who thought it was going to be brown and see it changing, won't be surprised. IICouncilman Horn: Does this mean we won't put our maple leaf on it? 1 Gary Warren: No, we're still planning on using the maple leaf. I}- Councilman Boyt: When you send the letter out, the next letter, I think you Ishould advise them that this was in response to citizen input. Mayor Hamilton: And then tell them we're considering painting trees on the bottom and maybe ask them for their thoughts on that. II Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve painting the Water II Reservoir the color BB82, cumulus and to investigate the possibility of painting some kind of trees on the base on the reservoir to the top of the tree level. All voted in favor and motion carried. IIDon Ashworth: I will be testifying tomorrow down in front of the legislature. This is regarding our tax increment district and our ability to extend the I number of years basically to take care of the TH 101 funding. This is an issue we previously talked about with City Council. State legislature is not very. .. with tax increment funding and there is a lot of discussion at that level as to I the value of it and not value of it. Hennepin County in that entire process was not overly happy with the City of Chanhassen's ability to extend our economic development district into the downtown area. Most of the acquisitions have in fact taken place but they have introduced a bill for the legislature and it is part of the omninous tax bill at this point in time that would disallow the expenditure of dollars generated in one county to be spent in another county. On the basis of my discussions with the LaFevre firm, this I action would take affect on April 1st if the legislation in fact gets passed. What we have done as a part of our original plan, was to allocate acquisition I31 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 ' 1 of the LeBalla, part of Riveria Cafe, Bernie Hansen and Cennex Properties as a part of that expanded economic development district. All of those acquisitions have now been completed and we do meet the full portion of State Law with the one exception of the Bernie Hansen and the Cennex property which those purchases have not been consummated. The acquisitions have been complete in terms of arriving at an budgetary number, agreeing to that amount with the HRA, agreeing to that amount with the two property owners and I sincerely believe that within the next two weeks, we will have consummated those actual purchases. To insure that this city is protected regarding any potential change in the state law as generated from Hennepin County, I would recommend, and this is based on our City Attorney and the LaFevre firm's recommendation, that I obtain from the City Council a resolution authorizing those acquisitions in accordance with the budgets that have already been established. The monies would be put into a trust deposit with the Grannis firm to assure that those dollars remain valid dollars for when those actual acquisitions occur. Again, I apologize for bringing this at the late moment but the legislation changes just occurred in the last week. We have done significant lobbying in terms of Chanhassen's position and as a part of that, I also would like to thank Sidney Pauly who is sponsoring the bills on the House side in combination with Becky and Bob Schmitz for their work but I do need to take and get this one consummated this evening, which again would nothing more than place those dollars that we've already allocated into a trust account to assure that they be available for those acquisitions. Mayor Hamilton: What subcommittee are you meeting? Don Ashworth: It's not a subcommittee but Becky has one, her name is Pat Fest who is a member of I think the Tax Committee who she feels could be a very influencing factor. We're down into some tie votes situations. Mayor Hamilton: I'm just wondering which committee. This is the tax committee? Don Ashworth: Yes. ' Mayor Hamilton: And it does have to do with the TH 101? Don Ashworth: Yes. What I'll be doing tomorrow, this issue does not have ' anything to do with TH 101. This preserves our dollars for our downtown acquisitions. They are two separate issues. Resolution #88-27: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded a resolution authorizing acquisition monies into a trust account for future acquisitions for the downtown redevelopment project. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth, City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 32 II UNEDIT :; } ' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 p.m. . IIMEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and David Headla IMEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and James Wildermuth I STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst . City Engineer I PUBLIC HEARING: HSZ DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 7 AND TH 41 INTERSECTION (PART OF LOTS H, I & F, BARDWELL ACRES) : IA. REZONING OF 7. 63 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM OI , OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL TO BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS. IB. REPLAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS PARTS OF LOTS H, I AND F OF BARDWELL ACRES INTO THREE LOTS ( . 92 ACRES, 1. 18 ACRES AND 5. 53 ACRES) . IC. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 25,920 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER. If: Public Present: Name Address I Leander Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd. Robert Wagner 2511 Orchard Lane Jeff & Wanda Kamrath 2731 Orchard Lane I Sandy Lehmer 6461 Oriole Avenue Kelly Ziegler 6480 Oriole Avenue Kenneth & Delores Ziegler 6441 Oriole Avenue Agnes Anderson 6470 Oriole Avenue I Betty Lang 2631 Forest Avenue Dick & Yvonne Brown 2630 Orchard Lane Dan & Fay Dudycha 6451 Oriole Avenue I Jim Masters 6450 Oriole Avenue Ben Gowen 6440 Hazeltine Blvd . Gary & Jan Reed 2461 West 64th Street I Marcia & Bob Scheferli 325 George Street , Excelsior Ralph H. Livingston 2631 Orchard Lane Paul Prenevost 6351 Minnewashta Woods Drive William Wefring 6350 Minnewashta Woods Drive I Howard Schmet 2810 Sandpiper Ralph & Kay Hegman 6361 Minnewashta Woods Drive Ginny Hanily 2660 Orchard Lane ILBarbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item. I I Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 2 Conrad : Because we are missing a piece of the puzzle and some information, I think we do have that choice. Right now we could I basically table the entire issue until we got that piece or we could go ahead tonight. We can make recommendations on zoning. In past we've looked at the site plan and we ' ve looked at things in conjunction with the zoning changes. Theoretically we should be able to look at a site and decide what it' s good for and should be divorced from the specific that we put on there. I guess my preference tonight would be to go ahead and conduct the public hearing . The down side to that is there' s a good chance we' re going to table an item which means you'd be invited back again. You could go home tonight and come back when we had all the information in front of us. I guess, being that you' re here, my preference is to go ahead. Unless I hear any different direction from commissioners, I 'd like to proceed on the matter and we' ll address them individually as we come to the three different issues. 1 Emmings: The one thing that we' re missing is , apparently there' s a problem with water quality. Could we approve the plat and the site plan and add a condition that they have to satisfy any requirements imposed by II the Watershed District just to move the thing along so they don' t have to come back and then that issue could be take up in front of the Council? Dacy: Yes , that is an option and you can place that as a condition of approval . The commission should be aware though that the drainage issues may involve adjustment of the site plan or changes in the plat so those items would go up to Council. Headla : It would be your discretion if it should come back here? Conrad : Generally it's a good idea to have it come back to us so we see II the site plan that goes to Council . Headla: Many times we leave things to their discretion. ' Conrad : It' s up to their discretion when there are minor changes . Then we have typically let minor changes go along and what is a minor and what is a major , it' s always been based on staff ' s best judgment but I think Steve we could do that. We could put conditions in there yet I don' t know how we could send that, put the right benchmark for staff to say II bring it back to us if. I 'm not sure what that is. Again, we would say if there are significant changes . I don ' t know what that might entail . Dacy: I know the developer may have specific requests as to that matter . Conrad : I 'm sure you'd like us to review the matters tonight. Anything else you could add to that without getting into other things right now? Roger Zahn: Sure , I 'm Roger Zahn, president of HSZ Development . Actually we found out about the drainage problem about 4 : 30 this II afternoon or the issue and it really is a problem that is, I think going to be pretty easily resolved and we've already got a good solution for it I think. We have John Uban from Dahlgren , Shardlow, Uban & Associates is here to address that issue and I think John has something that he can I ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 3 show you that you can look at tonight that will almost surely by our plan. Perhaps we can take care of that on the front side here. J.D. MacRae: My name is J.D. MacRae, I 'm one of the architects on this. One of the reasons we did decide to proceed and come to this meeting tonight is that your next meeting is very filled up at this point. Because we' re such a big issue, we felt that if there was any way we ' could get a hearing, get a feeling on it and a recommendation, we'd be better off obviously than putting it off two months or bogging down your next meeting which is already full so that' s why we are here and decided to proceed. Conrad: We ' ll go ahead with the items and we' ll open it up for public comment. We will entertain comments on any of the proposals in front of ' us which is one, the zoning change, the preliminary plan to subdivide into three different lots as well as the site plan. We' ll open the public hearing for those . I think we' ll start if the developer would like to give a presentation, I think that' s a good way to start and we can all see what they have in mind and maybe any of the changes that they would anticipate as a result of the recent information they got this afternoon. So with that, Roger would you like to make a presentation or your staff? Roger Zahn: I have the job of presenting to you the basic outline of our proposal. I just would like to go back a little bit into the planning process that we went through and let you know something about our philosophy with respect to this development and this project and the neighborhood in which we propose to place our building and then I think 1 I ' ll turn it over to John Uban who, as I mentioned is from Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban. They are our planners who have done some excellent work in terms of traffic patterns and traffic planning and also on the drainage issue. . . . the quality of the project that we ' re going to put up and the building materials and show you maybe some different elevations and some color renderings and so forth. When we looked into starting ' this project we were aware of the history of the difficulties that previous developers had had in dealing with certain issues as far as the people in the neighborhood were concerned and we went back and studied those and researched them. It seemed to us that traffic flow and the traffic pattern around this site was going to be the key to making it work. We worked extensively with the staff . We had some discussions with neighbors. Engaged what we thing are the best planners in the city to help us resolve those issues and we came up with the idea of vacating 64th Street and moving the entrance to the site the way it was. We kind of went in and said, if we can resolve the traffic pattern so that we have minimal impact on the neighborhood and also resolve the traffic pattern in a way that ' s going to be good for people who are shopping in our center, then this project is going to work. Let' s get the traffic pattern resolved first and then we ' ll orient our site and decide how our building is going to fit in there and make the project sort of start from there and evolve and that ' s what we did . We really put a lot of time and effort into studying and listening to the problems and issues that have been raised before and I think we' ve come a long ways and we' re still , of course, willing to listen to any other comments that may come along . Planning Commission Meeting , March 16 , 1988 - Page 4 Also, the other issue that we saw that was a significant problem previously was drainage. Of course, that ' s the one that may be hanging over our head a little bit as I speak because the issue was raised to us maybe at about 4: 30 this afternoon that the solution that we had proposed might have some problems as far as the Watershed District is concerned. 11 However, I want to make the Commission aware of the fact that we were asked to engage engineers to do a study, which we did. At our expense we undertook to present a plan which went beyond what was absolutely necessary for us to do in order to improve the situation that currently exists and make it a little bit better and we did sort of the same thing with traffic and there will be some things that I think John probably will go into as far as the entrance into the neighborhood off of TH 7, that we picked up a few things from the neighbors in trying to add something back in, not only just make a good high quality development. Our philosophy is that we want to do something on this site, and on all our projects, that' s going to last. That 's going to be good for a long time. It ' s in our long term best interest, not just that we want to be nice guys but that 's the kind of development we want to do because it' s just better for us. We put a lot of work and thought into our approach to this and we hope the Commission looks favorably upon those efforts . With that, I think you have a basic good understanding of what our site plan is going to be and I think I ' ll turn it over to John Uban and let him explain in a little bit more detail about the traffic and drainage. John Uban: I will not belabor any of these topics but would like to V is take through our planning review of the area in general . This s an area plan, section maps on the scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet and the property itself lies on the northern edge of Chanhassen. Also, it ' s right on the corner of TH 7 and TH 41. Now this is unique. You do not have many corners of two major state highways in the community. When those occur , they are usually not sought out for residential uses or for anything other than neighborhood business , commercial . So from a general point of view, the uses that have been proposed generally in the past and how we' re viewing it today are all basic planning approaches to this kind of property. We feel that the uses are very appropriate. What we found ' is that we should really study how this piece of property not only works with the highway system but how it works with the neighborhood as a whole. So we began to look at all the different uses around the site itself. Residential to the west. Again, to the north there is other commercial in Shorewood that has access directly off of TH 7 . Full interchange access. Then we looked and saw of course there' s a major park facilities to the southwest and then there was unsewered or rural areas down to the south so from this we saw there will be a concern for traffic. Traffic integrating with residential traffic. So we looked for a solution that would allow this piece, about 7. 6 acres of commercial land to function and serve the neighborhood and community in a very busy intersection and yet at the same time not create problems with the residential traffic. So to separate those traffic systems. We saw that an existing system now was sort elongated roads penetrating back into very beautiful residential areas and the concern of course, in the past was that these areas may become encumbered with commercial traffic so we wanted to separate them. What we looked at are two different approaches. This drawing is at the scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet so we enlarged the ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 5 If area . Here' s the shopping center and the immediately adjacent road ' system. So we did several things. We had many meetings with MnDot and we just got word for one of the things. One of the concerns in the neighborhood was turning into Oriole Drive off of TH 7. As they return ' from the east in the evening coming back to their homes , it ' s very dangerous to sit in the middle of that very busy highway and try to make a left turn. It' s not protected . The highway narrows right at that ' point and there is a high probability of rear end accidents. So we worked with MnDot and I just got word that they have approved our plan to put in a left turn lane there that will be restriped. We' re not talking about when that can happen, possibly this summer . So that is something we pursued and hopefully will settle a significant problem for the neighborhood . Additionally, we looked in conjunction with the two neighbors to the south, Mr. Reed and Mr. Gowen who have land yet to be developed and how those lands could be developed in a pattern that really works for everyone in that area. So we looked at relocating the road system in some fashion through those two properties to allow good , rational development of their property and at the same time separate ' these traffic systems . We think the two solutions that we've looked at, which are basically the same thing but just different interior patterns of roads depending on how they actually want to plat the interior parcels. Both of these can be done quite easily. We ' re working right now on a system that will allow them to happen in conjunction with reasonable development down here and in a system that will not add cost and assessments to people who do not benefit from it. In other words, existing neighbors that live in the area. So the plan is only those who benefit, those who will have developable land when it ' s done with will bear the burden of cost. Obviously we will have a significant burden in that improvement. The other things we' ve done is we' ve worked with MnDot to improve the traffic system on TH 41. From the north we put in a right turn lane so there will be a deceleration lane so traffic can easily ' blend into the intersection and enter the site. Also, on the northbound lane we will be putting in a by-pass lane, a widening of the shoulder so for left turning movements there will be the easy by-pass of through traffic . So all of these will combine to make a good intersection of TH ' 41 and TH 7. The other issues we looked at had to do with the kind of intersection and how to have the lands come together and we think that everything is working out quite well and should do very good things for ' the neighborhood in separating the traffic and at the same time keep the commercial access good and easy and direct off of major highways and not off local roads. The other thing that we looked at, this is a drawing of ' the same area but has topographic information on it, and we looked at drainage. Here ' s the subject parcel again and in this light tan color is a marsh and ponding area down in the park area. This had been designated in your Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan as being a storage area for the ' berm and ponding. Then it flows out into the lake. This kind of ponding is a very good clarifier of water but we want to clarify them on our site and this is what the Watershed District is concerned about. So what we ' re proposing is in an area where water already goes underneath TH 41, that we will be putting in a sedimentation pond and we will do that, working with MnDot where we would like to regrade some of their right-of-way to make sure that it is a good flat condition. Help their drainage problems. Help ours and really work out a pattern of drainage • Planning Commission Meeting ' March 16 , 1988 - Page 6 and storage in this area of the site that will meet all the criteria of the Watershed District. That' s what they' re concerned about. They want storage of the water on the site in a fashion that gets all the sedimentation out. We will have skimmers on that pond, on the outflow of that pond so it skims off the oils and debris . So by the time the water II leaves the site and enters the natural system, it is as clean as any water can possibly be. So working with the highway department and our site, we can solve many of those problems. I think that' s exactly what the Watershed District is looking for . So that is the change or that is how we will solve that problem so you should be comfortable that that' s the direction we' re going in. If you have any questions on that part , I ' ll get glad to answer them but now I 'd like to turn it over to the architect. Public : May I ask Mr . Uban a question? He said something about a left hand turn on TH 7. John Uban: A left hand turn off of TH 7 onto Oriole Drive. We have worked with MnDot. This is a left hand turn. Traffic coming from the I east , slowing down to make a left hand turn onto Oriole Lane. So this is where this deceleration, the stacking lane separated from the through traffic will be located. ' Public : So you' re saying then that they are going to expand that passing area? John Uban: Two things are going to happen. One, this area has already been looked at and geometrics have been measured by the highway department themselves and they have determined that within the existing right-of-way or the existing paved area, a left hand turn lane can be placed . Striped and designated left hand turn only. We've talked to them. They' ve gone out and measured it. They agree with us and they say II they will do it. Now I just have to make sure it gets done as quickly as possible. We will be adding in this area, also a deceleration lane on the eastbound lane that heads in the other direction so we will be widening that portion also. The widening of that deceleration lane is for the right hand turn only into the site . J.D. MacRae: I 'm J.D. MacRae, the architect from Heise, Vanney & MacRae I and I will address the site itself now that we've gotten ourselves from the perspective of further out, coming into the site and as we have discussed , off of TH 41 and off of TH 7. The orientation of the building was addressed to orientate the face, the retail faces of the building to the intersection. Back the building up to the residential . Both the main center and an accessory building back up to the residential to try and act as much of a buffer as we possibly can between residential areas and the parking area. Try to isolate the activity of the parking , the noise of the parking, the lighting of the parking as far in the site as we can. Addressing the two outlots on TH 7 where we have your highest II amount of traffic and obviously your highest ability for resale. We have brought the cars in here. They can break off either direction, making them turn as they enter the site to slow the traffic down. Come across the face of the building, parking up against the building and parking, as II IPlanning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 7 IV required by Code, out in the parking lot . We tried to minimize it ' s I depth and it' s blacktopping by bringing employee parking along the backside of the building. We have then put in a 59 foot green strip here on the west portion of the lot and a 59 foot green strip on the south I portion of the lot . Landscaped and a berm that ' s running, again protecting parking, protect the ability for the residential to be viewing at least the blacktop. We can ' t say we can block out a building I completely. That would be, I think a lie. We' re going to block out cars . We ' re going to block out the blacktop. Conrad: Even on the west? IJ.D. MacRae: Even on the west . I have a couple of things to show you here. Number one is a landscaping plan that we have done. With the use I of evergreens basically all the way along to try and act as much of a wall as possible without actually building a physical wall , which is an option but probably not as pretty as greenery. Then we ' re proposing I sumac, which is a natural plant in Minnesota, along the hillside. That will help hold the root system to keep erosion down and help keep a low maintenance need to that hillside and yet add color and texture to the hillside rather than a big green hill that needs mowing and maintenance. I Here in the fall will turn nice and bright red . In the summer it' s green. In the fall when the leaves fall off, there are evergreens remaining there as a natural buffer . We' ve made this back portion along I1- the residential as intense as we feel we can do it within an economic F base . By trying to plant continuous evergreens and then bringing out in front here less dense trees such as locust and maple trees that you can see through so you can see our center. The signage of the retailers can I be seen by the shoppers. We then go into some site sections here and I 'm going to put this down here probably out of range of the camera but I ' ll_ bring the sections up onto the easel . I 've got some site sections I looking at different areas along the land here . Section A is cut basically through the accessory building. Coming along the existing house, this is the existing grade up to the property line and then we hill up to a slight berm and actually have some grade up against the I building to try and reduce the height of that building where there is no road behind it. Then the landscaping which we showed on the landscape plan up on top of that berm and hillside. Here the idea is that we just II try and reduce the amount of building that is seen by the residents . We get into the retail center , Section B is cut basically so it ' s just hitting the side of the building here. Existing house and existing I grades coming up and then again , our hill to build up the site because of the way the whole site falls off, we do need to do some fill and build it up. We ' re building it up above the parking and then coming back down. Landscaping that so the sight lines don' t see the parking lot. Don' t see I the cars . They will see the top of the building . As we go C and D here are along the south portion of the property in a couple of different points . C where we have the highest amount of grade fill . The highest II amount of fill. We can get a slight berm in to again, protect the sight line of a car from development that may happen down here. Again , we' ll see the building only in a reduced sense because of that berm. Then with I the landscaping it merges that much more . Then on Section D, the hill starts getting much less because the grades are coming up to TH 41. Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 8 There we' re able to put a larger berm. Especially as we get out in here, the idea was to berm up as high as we could, landscape that as hard as we II could so the traffic coming from a high spot down on TH 41 here are not looking into the back of the building. They' re looking at rooftop units so we can break that view up and try to make a pleasant looking II development. As they get around the corner , looking at the side of the building , then the building starts showing itself again. The building itself is made out of a brick and a masonite and metal roofing. Our firm specializes in retail architecture and this is kind of a hybrid of development that we' ve done all over the Twin Cities and with every development we feel we get a little bit more advanced. A little bit better addressing retailers and addressing concerns of the neighbors and I cities. Here we' ve gone in with two anchor masses on each end of the building. This is a cut large view of the overall site. Anchoring the building on each end with an element . Starting with masonry, working up to a little architectural element that kind of looks like a little lighthouse almost and then going in with a metal canopy with an open truss system where the signage would be going on these open trusses so each sign would be acting in here, a metal canopy covering a walkway underneath up against the storefronts and then glass underneath the canopy. We 've got a brick with a rockface concrete block which I 'm sure , if you' re not familiar with I can describe that. It's a rough looking concrete block that was made to try and look something like an old limestone type material. Accenting the building with a stripe up on the top with rockfaced block here and a rockfaced block band at the bottom. Then this element is also made out of the rockfaced block. Here we have II glass block up on the top on these little lighthouses . We wrapped the side of the building around on each side with brick with the rockfaced bands again going back to about a two-third point where we have a mass of I block that comes off and travels across the back of the building. What we see here in black is another metal roof set back two-thirds into the building that wraps around this side and wraps back for about 20 feet in the back of the building and then terminates . The purpose of this is because of TH 7 interchange and because of TH 41 to the south, there are points that are higher than our building is and we were very concerned about screening rooftop units that will sit up 4 feet off the roof. We feel that by actually building a roof that looks like it ' s part of the building as a screening device rather than putting up little fences or something that you may have seen around other cities , we can integrate the screening system that helps the building and makes it part of the architectural expression. We then have a sketch that I ' ll leave you with here. Just sort of a perspective of how this thing might look as we' re II looking at one of these elements and how the canopy is wrapping back and going along. You see the open truss underneath trying to make it sort of a fun, festive feeling building with the colors trying to not be overpowering but yet add color and brightness to the area. With that I II will leave it open to wherever we go. We have a lot of concerns that I 'm sure we want to address. We have all of our consultants here tonight to address drainage. To address grading . To address utilities . To address II the building. Anything that may come up, we have people who can answer them. Conrad : Just a quick question on your elevations for sight lines . How • Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 9 1 much to scale were those elevations? J.D. MacRae: Those are to scale . Conrad : Are the economics of an interior walkway just so restrictive costwise? J.D. MacRae : It makes it very difficult for the retailer to get his ' identity. For an example, if we had an interior walkway her and say we had an entry point here, here and here. This retailer sitting back here has lost his ability to appeal directly to someone driving or walking . . . ' We' re finding that the marketplace in Minneapolis just doesn ' t allow for that. They would just as soon be outside with a small center where people can drive up and address them directly and they can have their identity directly off of the street . Conrad: With that I think we' ll open it up for other comments . You've heard the staff report. You've heard the developer ' s proposal and ' I think we' ll open it up for public comments at this time. Bob Wagner , 2511 Orchard Lane: I 'd like to address some of Barb' s ' comments , if I may, rather than the developers here initially. She said this was the third application. I guess I ' ve got bad records . I show it' s the fourth . I show that we came up here in June of 1983 for a 4. 7 acre parcel . That was refused and stayed residential. We came back in April of 1985 at which time it was eventually approved in June of 1985 as C-l. We came back in May of 1986 trying to change that to commercial and that was refused and turned down so this would actually be the fourth trip back. A second question I had was the previous plot where you said it was 32 , 000 square feet and I guess I refer you back to a May, 1986 memo in which you sent to we, the property owners in which you identified that as 28 , 000 square feet so there may be two sets of data there. What I 'm getting to is the question of intensity. I do have that letter here. Another concern, just in the paperwork side of it , your staff report that you' re looking at tonight, on page 5 states and it ' s in the quote, the ' Planning Commission recommends approval . I guess I 'm a little confused . I thought we were here seeking comments before you passed that judgment. ' Conrad: What we ask staff to do , because we' re not real eloquent all the time and this is not our permanent job, we ask staff to draft a recommendations for us . We don ' t have to accept what they draft . In ' this particular case staff feels that the request is acceptable in their eyes and if we believe that it ' s acceptable in ours , we can adopt their particular recommendation. Many times we do. Many times we don' t. Many times we alter it. It' s not predetermined at this point in time. It ' s ' something that we have, if you went through our Minutes tonight or the different items on the agenda tonight , you'd find the same for every item on the agenda. Bob Wagner : The next phase of this that I listened to of course was should we go ahead tonight or not go ahead tonight. The concerns I had as I listened to that is that MnDot hasn' t served their paperwork. The water drainage issue is in hand to some degree but the paperwork is not Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 10 done and then I go back, and this has come up so many times and I look at this development group and I think they are far professional to anybody II I 've seen come forth on this corner and I would really like to see it all down on paper before something is issued because I think they have as good a chance as anybody I 've ever seen . Then moving into some of the II issues directed by the development group, one of the conversations about the buffering and particularly the buffer west along the homeowners . Part of the presentation and part of the original zoning here is just a shopping center . The 25, 000 square feet and the building there , the second retail , the 6,000 square foot building, is in the plat but it isn' t proposed , as I understand it, to be developed at this time. Yet I see that' s one of the tremendous buffers we' re talking about here if in I fact this is approved and particularly that ' s Ziegler ' s property. I say that as a buffer from the standpoint of lighting. From the standpoint of sound yet I would hate to see this approved and that buffer not be there 5 years down the road because I think that' s a key issue there when we look along the back strip . The first plat we looked at with trees , which is basically the one you see here, you see a lot and I believe it was termed 16 foot scotch pines along TH 41 yet I see very limited along the II back. I recognize of course you came back later I believe with another plat with trees in it. I guess I heard the word grennery. I didn ' t hear the verbage there about what' s the height of those trees. How many of II them are there? I heard it very specifically on the front side. I would like more clarification on the back about what we' re really talking about when we talk about greenery mixed with sumacs . I know Mr . Zahn is aware of this , my elevation is a little bit higher than the guy coming down TH 41 and we have those trees there to keep the guy on the highway from looking at the center . I 'm up on the highest spot probably in the community. I can' t drive down the highway and miss it . I have to drive home and look down upon it. In all fairness , they've been out. We've talked about it. I have not heard it directed tonight how that can be handled or if it can be handled. I look out the front of my house today El at what was once Bounty Corporation for any of you that went through that II saga. Barb I 'm sure remembers it. I certainly sent her a long letter on it about two years ago . The landscaping, while it was escrowed was never done. It hasn ' t been done even today. I sit here and I look across at that and I hear words here about escrow and we' re going to have a letter of credit but I 'm very concerned because I 've heard this all before and I yet haven't seen anything done about it. I hate to have to think that I I 'm going to look out the front of my house and now I 'm going to look out the back of my house and have it on both sides . I personally have an emotional issue there. Talking just about the developer , I kind of II eluded to it. As far as I 'm concerned, this is the first time this group has had a developer , a true developer worth talking about a proposal . I have to commend them on a lot of things . The area of concern, I think with the neighbors is why does it all have to be zoned BN? Why can' t a 11 section of this remain office as a buffer behind the homes? I think it' s addressed a couple of ways . One is with this building and can that be an office and can it be conditioned to be nothing but an office. But I think the whole strip from TH 7 along behind these people ' s homes is really the emotional issue. I think about how it' s been said, and I can quote Council meeting Minutes , there hasn' t been any consolidation or giving. I think there has . It ' s gone from residential to office and now I ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 11 1 we' re still talking . . . The issue comes up about Reeds and Gowens and the ' roads . I guess I 'd certainly like to feel a lot more comfortable in what that means before this is passed on . The concern I have is what do those roads lead to as far as future zoning requests and they' re both here. ' Maybe they could address it a little bit . For instance , what happens to TH 41 in front of Reeds once these roads are put in there? Is that going to become a request for commercial? That ' s one of the key issues . Not just in the local neighborhood but in the whole Lake Minnewashta area . ' The effects on future zoning . Whether it goes south along TH 41 or west along TH 7. I guess I have a concern about what happens along TH 7 with the two blank spots . In talking to the developer , I feel comfortable in ' his thinking and talking to me that they' re going to try and preserve something in behind the houses that ' s less intense but again I come back to the fact, the way to really preserve that , at least at this point, is the zoning . Does the whole thing really have to be zoned commercial? The corner of TH 7 and TH 41, I suppose if all the neighbors were to bare their souls, they would say they recognize that ' s the most intense piece of land and even then there 's a concern of something with a filling ' station and the all night type of atmosphere that sooner or later is going to be asked for there. One of my neighbors asked me, where are the dumpsters . I think that the issue that should be addressed also is how is the trash movement going to be handled there. I say that with some experience again , looking over the hill in front of me. Is there fencing around that? Is it intended the berming is going to take care of it? Is the trash going to be stored inside? Are there dumpsters with fences or IFwhat is the protection on the outside? That ' s probably my key thoughts . Batzli : Can you point out , you were talking about a buffer lot existing there. Can you point to where you ' re actually discussing that? Bob Wagner : This area . These are the homes of course and this buffer ' zone, I 've heard it stated 50 feet and I ' ve heard it stated 59 feet . We' re talking, some of the greenery we' re looking at , this berm will be high and there will be trees on top of it and the building but in initial statements , there is no building there that ' s being discussed tonight . ' The zoning is being discussed but the only thing we' re talking about is the 25, 000 square foot building which again, is not really addressing the intensity issues . . . But this is also the area I 'm talking about when I talk about why not maintain the zoning other than BN. Why can not that remain OI? Again, I understand it from the developer ' s side. There are two sides to economics but I think I have to represent my neighbors and their intent is that they have homes that have been there a long time and the concern is from this point all the way down. I think the developer has done an excellent job in trying to preserve it in a commercial mode with the exception of addressing what ' s really going to happen up here. Is that building really going to be built? My house is over here somewhere and I 'm looking down upon this area . I 'd like to have that addressed by the developer. Any other questions? Conrad : Would you like to respond to any of the comments that Mr . Wagner had? I Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 12 Roger Zahn : Sure. We' ve had several previous discussions and I think they've been good discussions with the neighbors and we' re still listening to them. They know our thoughts I think on the particular issues that they addressed and let me just put our sight plan here to try and talk about them maybe one at a time. I know Bob is concerned about intensity of our development in terms, there are several different ways to look at that . You can look at that on a flat square footage basis and you certainly have to have a certain amount of square footage in order to justify economically what we' re trying to do here but we want to make it I look less intense and that ' s the reason for the brick exterior, the metal roofing , the roof over the rooftop units . That ' s the reason for the lighting plan being directed out towards the highway and away from the neighbors . That' s the reason to make it look less intense, more atuned to the neighborhood. The type of sign band we' re using which is not one of those big wide bright bands . They' re all going to be individually lighted letters and they' re great for the retailers but they sure are a lot less intense looking . That' s the reason for the orientation of the site. Everything out directed towards the two highways. From the standpoint of the neighbors , make it feel less intense and certainly I think our resolution of the traffic problem also addresses that intensity issue. Maybe not in terms of square footage but as far as how it' s going to feel to the neighbors. I think the traffic, the way we have it set up, it ' s not going to go into their neighborhood . The commercial stuff is just really going to be isolated on this site. As far as this building is concerned , what we' re calling an accessory retail in building, a couple of comments on that. Number one, we would love to build it, we' re going to build it when we have a tenant. We have some tenants interested in it . I can tell you what my feeling is about this building is that it would make a nice office and I 'd love to have it be an office if I could get a tenant but I 'm not going to build an office building and then have to go seek an office tenant. If we can get a tenant in there that' s a nice office use, we'd love to have them. It may I be good for a daycare center also . It does not have the best visibility on the site for that reason I think that' s what we' re at least looking at . However , there are some good retail uses for that also. I think maybe daycare probably classified as a retail use. That' s the most likely type of use for it that I can see right now. It' s possible that it could be maybe used as a restaurant building but I think that' s less likely because of where it sits on the site . If we were required to make I it office, I think that office zonings would allow us a much taller building for one thing . I think maybe 45 feet is what office zoning allows and so that might not be necessarily in the neighbor ' s best II interest anyway but I think they do know that we would do that but we' re not going to just go ahead and build it until we've got it occupied. Conrad : Talk about dumpsters . Dumpsters , trash . ' Roger Zahn: We' ve got interior trash storage rooms with overhead doors in the back of the buildings. The dumpster can be located inside. Conrad: How about looking down from higher elevation? I Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 13 Roger Zahn : From Bob ' s deck. Where we sat last Saturday except it was so cold we really couldn' t get outside on the deck very much. He has kind of unique problem in the neighborhood in that he does sit up higher . He ' s also done a beautiful job of landscaping his backyard and I think he ' would concede it' s not much of a problem for him during the summertime because he' s got a significant stand of trees but they do loose their leaves in the wintertime and he looks back out there. ' J.D. MacRae: He'd be looking at this elevation from the higher point. Again, the rooftop units , the rooftop screening is going to help. I was up by where your house is and I drove through there. That ' s a concern. ' I can understand that concern and I can ' t say that anyone can do anything that's going to totally eliminate any chance of him seeing something. ' Bob Wagner : I guess I could steal some of your trees . J.D. MacRae: We could plant a big pine tree. ' Roger Zahn : I think actual , when you get right down to it, I think one thing we' ll do about that also, when you get right down to placing , actually placing the trees , we have a landscape plan that ' s pretty ' specific in detail but I think maybe when we do place those trees, we will be able to instruct our people to kind of take a look up at his deck and do the best job they can as far as that' s concerned because it is the IF most crucial house in the neighborhood . And again, if there ' s offices there or if there' s our building there or if there were residential houses , he might have some of that problem. We did go back, after our neighborhood meeting last week and again after talking to him, increased ' the berming there and with the plantings that we' ve got on top of the berms , I think we have tried to address that problem. I 'm not going to promise that we ' ll make it perfect but I think we' re doing the best job we can. J.D. MacRae : He had a question about the sizes and the types and the locations . I wonder if our landscape architect could help him go through ' that in a little more detail . Craig Johnson : I did want to address , I know Barbara had mentioned them ' too, she gave an actual number and a count on that site but we have proposed , I believe there is 3-12 foot on the west end of that building. This is a revision from this . In regards to the west end and west location, we are proposing 3-12 foot and then a row of 7-6 foot and then a group of 6 and then again at a high point here , 12 foot again . Bob Wagner.: While you ' ve got that up there , can you address the issue of ' your cut off point on the north towards TH 7 where you don' t show it at this time? ' Dacy: The screening is proposed only up to . . . Bob Wagner: Don ' t quit. Keep going. What happens from there on up? ' Dacy: There is an elevation change. As I recall the elevation is . . . • Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 14 Craig Johnson : There is now a berm here and now adjacent to the gravel operation, sand and gravel operation. This is the end right now. This tree right here I 'm pointing at is the final tree in the proposed site plan development. These would all be then the 12 foot scotch pines . Bob Wagner : Let me just throw out the emotional issue here is that that house is of course the house that at one time had been proposed to be something other than residential and that' s where you start the strip zoning conversations and I think that would like to be implemented very soon or at least documented in your controls because that' s the next concern that the entire lakeside community. Roger Zahn: The berm will continue. We just didn' t put it in our plan because it doesn' t address our particular buildings . Those outlots are something that we may sell or we may develop ourselves but it' s not part of our current plan so we didn' t address it but I can tell you that that berm will continue at at least the same height and the same type of plantings will continue right" out to the highway right-of-way. Bob Wagner: You' re here to approve the zoning, we had some discussion tonight for 8 acres . . . Roger Zahn : We' ll covenant that if we sell it, that that has to be done I or we' ll do it ourselves. That' s really what we' re looking to do. To even think about planting something we want to do. We've listened to you and we know that' s important to the neighborhood so I just want to. . . I Conrad : The only concern I would have is if there wasn' t a potential to berm because that will come into us again. We' re sensitive. We've been here every year that you ' ve been here and I think in this particular case, I 'm very confident . It' s not on this particular site plan but I think in the future when those other lots are developed , that the same I type of screening would be carried forth by whoever did that development . My concern would be, if it wasn' t possible, then you'd have a real good point. If we were blocking some but still we had a potential for a gapping lack of buffer , than I 'd have the same concern but I see no reason why we couldn' t carry it forth in the future. J.D. MacRae: I 'd like to point out that in the ordinance there ' s a 50 foot setback between commercial parking or buildings and the property line between residential so we have to have a 50 foot swath in there and the landscape ordinance is such that we have to landscape that. Presently there' s quite a large hill that was cut out when they did the mining of the gravel on that site. That hill can' t change because that' s not on our property so that hill stays exactly where it is and then it drops down almost a shear cliff and that 's about the grade that the whole II site is at. So there is already, quite a berm. A 10 foot, 15 foot berm built in because it' s not on our property. We can' t change that . Craig Johnson: We did fulfill then the requirements of a 6 foot screen adjacent to parking in residential area. On the right-of-way side of things , then we also had planted the appropriate number , more generous number of canopy trees with additional berming and shrubery. In this IPlanning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 15 It case the rigosa rose and then a juniper which would also then create and I fulfill the 50% winter screen that is required adjacent to right-of-way. So in general , this is the translucent screen . This is the opaque screen and then we've also created the sense of arrival with that canopy and Ivery fragrant blooming trees . Conrad : Let me jump into the public hearing and I want to deal with as many issues that were brought up as we can and not let them hang or maybe I not get to them. I think one concern that Mr . Wagner brought up was the property to the south. Barbara, based on the road configurations and the relocation of 64th and the new entrance to this property, does that I dictate how we allow the property to the south to develop? What have we eliminated for it ' s potential use or have we still left it open to various types of zoning? IDacy: Again, the action for the zoning was on this site here. Just to use this concept as an example, the Reed and/or the Gowen property or both will have to go through the same type of process for platting to I subdivide and to create a road right-of-way. Depending on the street pattern that exists , I know to be very frank, Mr . Reed has talked about townhouses in this area as well as single family homes . He has mentioned I the possibility of commercial zoning directly adjacent to TH 41. But the Commission would go through the same type of process when this application would come in to determine the same type of issues that are going through now. Is there adequate traffic separation? Is there adequate screening? Are the lights impacting the neighborhood and all those various list of issues. I can not stand here and say that there will not be anymore zoning applications in this area . I don' t think that I that would be fair but I think the neighborhood and the Commission needs to be aware that when this property comes through, that that could be an issue. As to this application, what we' re saying is that they can' t I start building here until the City has resolution on the street connection issue. From Staff' s standpoint, that ' s the major issue is to get traffic connection back to TH 41. I Conrad: Based on the separation distance between access , between TH 7 , between access to the site that we' re looking at and the potential vacation of 64th and the new construction, will that southerly piece of Iland be able to have direct access off of TH 41? Dacy: Direct access from this area or this area onto TH 41 probably I would not be allowed by MnDot . They would probably require them to access into the new street. MnDot ' s intention was to create separation between a new intersection here and a full intersection here . I Ben Gowen: I 'm on the south property there. Are you saying that MnDot can vacate my driveway? I Dacy: Under any type of proposal in this area that the street going into TH 41, MnDot has the power to look at your existing driveway and 4 determine whether or not they should be realigned into the new street . I know you have a separate driveway for your greenhouse and your flower Ioperation. Whether or not they would ask you to remove that or whether Planning Commission Meeting 1 March 16, 1988 - Page 16 1 or not you could keep your existing house driveway and so on, that would be up to MnDot. I think you should be prepared for the possibility that t they may ask you to realign your driveway. Ben Gowen: I think I have prepared for that because I submitted a five item agreement that would predicate on where that 64th Avenue goes and what effect that has on me. Now if it does that effect and in effect our cost, of course I 'm not for it then . If it doesn' t have the effect that my plat has honored, then let' s go with it but otherwise no. I 've got prior commercial rights there for quite a while yet and I don' t think you have the right to take it away from me. Dacy: Yes , we did receive your letter and the Planning Commission has it 1 also. Again, those types of access issues have to be dealt in more detail when this area comes in for development. Mr . Gowen states that he is not willing to sell or go along with the proposed street connection, • that' s going to have to be an issue that ' s going to have to be addressed . Gary Reed: I 'm probably impacted the most by this project seeing they plan to reroute the street one way or the other it' s going to impact me. I guess I 'm not sure when they' re going to require the development or the relocation of West 64th Street . If this project is to take off this summer, can they at that time do the street at the same time? Mr. Zahn and I have talked but we haven ' t come down to any kind of agreement yet. 47. We've operated the business up there for over 20 years on the drive-in operation . I guess I would like to see the front end be some sort of commercial too. I own a house up there and the valuation is residential is not. . . I proposed to Mr . Zahn to buy it from me buy he hasn' t come back to me yet with any comments . I guess there are a lot of unanswered questions at this point . There are a lot of decisions to be made. The property is for sale. Hopefully we will work something out. Conrad : I don ' t know if I can answer your comment . Barbara , do you have something? Dacy: I want to clarify that our condition , if it were to be approved 111 would be that construction can' t start on this piece until we get a plat approved and a letter of credit submitted assuring the City that a road through here in whatever fashion would be built. In essence, your property is driving whether or not this center gets built. Gary Reed: But say the plat approval is made and then the project is not completed . Would that be a possibility? • Dacy: Right, that's why staff ' s condition is that we have a development contract and a letter of credit meaning we have, the City has the financial security, the money so if something happens . The developer or whoever bought your property would fall out of the process , the City could then go in and construct the improvement. Larry Brown: If I can add to that. MnDot will not support the proposed intersection to the site without having the right-of-way vacated and the entrance moved south . In addition however , I would like to comment to • Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 17 I one of Mr . Wagner ' s previous concerns regarding MnDot getting the ' paperwork done. MnDot had originally reviewed the site and was fine with it and I asked them at a later date to go back and conduct a traffic study out there to verify that my report, that the report that I received ' regarding the traffic issues was still current. That was a later request. MnDot has confirmed. They've done the traffic study. They support the site and I will be happy to meet with any individual or group ' to verify the credibility of that . Gary Reed : I 'm not too familiar with Lake Lucy Road . Isn ' t that coming through to TH 41? ' Dacy: Further to the south . That is a planned long term improvement . That ' s down in here. Gary Reed : Now that ' s going to be in the future. In the next 10 years that will probably all be developed so the traffic patterns will increase quite a bit in that area . With the influx of traffic off of Lake Lucy ' Road, the traffic patterns as we' ve studied them today are a lot different than in 5 years . Larry Brown: That issue will be addressed if Lake Lucy Road goes through as development occurs in that area . However , MnDot has evaluated the site on not only the present proposal but future proposals for what the site will handle at maximum capacity and again, Lake Lucy Road will be I addressed at that time. If the traffic pattern existing does not support Lake Lucy Road, then we ' ll alter or remedy the situation to Lake Lucy Road . Sandy Lehmer , 6461 Oriole Avenue: I have one question to address to Mr . MacRae and that is you talk about the slight berming. What is slight ' berming? How tall are you talking on the west side of this development? You used the term slight. I want to know what slight means . J.D. MacRae : On the left side, Section A here, Section A goes up into the building. What we' re showing is we' re 3 feet up on the building and then we' re about a foot up above that . So we' re a 4 foot high berm at that area off of the parking lot elevation. Here to here is 3 feet. A ' car coming up in here so you' re screening from down at a house , up your sight line would not see your house . Even with no vegetation on it and then we' ll have the 6 foot and 12 foot vegetation on top of that berm. ' The idea was to try and screen cars so you' re not looking at cars and that you then aren' t just seeing one building on the site, so you ' re not seeing a very intense development from that area but trying to limit what you' re seeing and then with the height of the trees , breaking that up as ' much as we can . Sandy Lehmer : . . . I too would like to see more screening of the natural 11 form in that southwest corner . On the corner of 64th and Oriole so again , the slight berming of 3 feet is really not . . . J.D. MacRae: This would depict the two story house. Right about here, this line right here, I don' t know if you can see it, this line would be I Planning Commission Meeting I March 16 , 1988 - Page 18 about an eyeball height . That , while standing on your deck. I 'm at the top of the berm here and I 'm at your eye height here, that' s how much building you' ll see without trees . Then with trees on top of that , for your house we tried to address it as absolutely as much as possible. For the houses further west who go back up the hill , that' s a tougher issue. I Sandy Lehmer : My second question is, will these changes in the road, who pays for those? Who pays for the assessments on that because I think Barb said that in talking about the benefit. We have roads there. We' re II not asking for the road to change so who pays for the road changes? Larry Brown: Under this option, and I think one of the applicant' s consultants has brought this up, under this option the benefit would be the properties that they are interested in there so they would be bearing the brunt. If on the other hand Option 2 were pursued, then adjoining properties would be assessed accordingly because they do have a benefit to an improved urban roadway section. You can see that the applicant would bear the majority of this cost. Typically they are assessed on front footage. ' Emmings: Not the applicant . That ' s Reed' s property. Larry Brown: But it' s contingent upon them going into agreement with Reed or doing something with Reed having vacated his property. This property would bear, any of the adjoining properties who receive the benefit from the road would be assessed and I ' ll leave it at that . Roger Zahn: I might address that also . Emmings: I 'd like a blunter answer . I think they would too . Who ' s going to pay for the road? Roger Zahn : That is what I was going to address . We have talked to Reeds and Gowens extensively. Gary is absolutely right. We haven' t come to an absolute answer . We' re satisified with the Planning Commission' s staff' s resolution of this in that we can' t go forward until we resolve that issue and we know that we can' t go forward until we resolve that issue. We are looking at ways of developing in ourselves or contacting other developers and maybe we' re going to work with them. Maybe we' ll put together some kind of a joint venture deal but until we have it, we really shouldn' t make a commitment one way or the other . We know that we know their cooperation or this project isn' t going to go forward and II we' re going to get it one way or the other . We just are trying to find a way and we sat down and worked some numbers back and forth a little bit , we' re trying to find a way to make it economically viable for us to do it essentially. We haven' t gotten there yet but we' ll get there. Conrad : I don' t really care which developer , how they split that up between this particular subdivision. From the neighborhood standpoint , do you see them, are they getting a benefit in our minds at this point in II time and would they be potentially a part of the assessments for that road improvement? I Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 19 Dacy: Again , it depends on the option. . . . there are vacant properties ' adjacent to that now. Mr . and Mrs. Ziegler own a number of lots in that area and they have expressed to me several times that , obviously they are concerned about potential future costs . That is just one option. The ' other option proposes the road through the Reed property and as Larry said earlier , it' s obvious that the property that benefits the most is the Reed property and whoever would develop that . We just want to make clear to the neighborhood, it depends on the option that' s proposed and the term benefit is coming from the State Statutes for road construction. Headla: Steve, did you get your blunt answer? ' Dacy: It depends on how that property develops . ' Emmings: I guess what I 'd like to know, let' s say that he can' t negotiate any arrangement , let ' s say with Mr . Gowen. Mr . Gowen simply doesn' t want any part of this . Could he wind up getting stuck with any costs under any scenario from that road? Dacy: Could who wind up getting? ' Emmings : Mr . Gowen. Dacy: If he does not benefit from that road , meaning that he can ' t Icreate lots off of it or get access to that road. Emmings : Let ' s say if he did this . Would he pay part of the cost under this scenario? ' Dacy: He could . That ' s a matter of negotiation between the developer and Mr. Gowen too. If the developer comes in and buys the property and ' so on, then they can create the lots to recover the road costs . Roger Zahn: If I could just maybe inject a little bit here. We ' re trying to deal with a couple of hypothetical situations . We really know ' that we have to resolve this issue. We' ve known about it for quite some time. We' ve taken a number of steps . We have our contractor giving us some very specific bids which we hope to get next week. We know that ' we' ve got to work with these people . Frankly, one thing that I do know is the configuration that' s up on the screen right now is a little bit not quite to Reed ' s liking . They would like the north to south road just ' closer to TH 41 and I ' ve told them that where that road goes is basically their call because it goes through their property and we want to see to it that they have the input as to where that road goes. So that isn' t even specifically located so while I 'd like to give you a blunt answer ' I ' ll pay for it, or I 'd like to give you a blunt answer I won' t pay for it , we' re just not at that stage yet but I think the Planning Commission' s staff recommendation is we' re not going forward until we resolve the issue. It' s going to be something like this and I think it' s going to be something that certainly we participate in and hopefully we can make it fair to everybody so that it ' s not going to be a cost to those people. That' s foremost in our mind going forward with what we' re going to do with that road. I Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 16, 1988 - Page 20 Emmings: I guess the only thing that would concern me is that you need to have that road or some resolution of that matter to have what you want on that corner . It would seem in some way it ' s not hard to see how it would be unfair even if you and Mr. Reed came to an agreement of what should happen, if Mr . Gowen didn' t want to have anything to do with it I and does wind up bearing some of the cost, essentially having it shoved down his throat when he doesn' t want it at all . That' s the only thing that would concern me. Roger Zahn : Yes , it ' s certainly a legitimate concern and it ' s not something that we want to do to Gowens . Betty Lang , 2631 Forest Avenue: I guess I 'm a little concerned because ' it wasn' t too long ago when I was in here and they said that Forest Avenue was going to be a nice little gravel road down to the neighborhood I park. Now could you tell me again about Forest Avenue. Dacy: You' re absolutely right . The Park and Rec Commission did an access study for this area to Herman Field Park a couple months ago and they did end up with a gravel road into the park. . . . there' s a paper right-of-way for Forest Avenue and there are landlocked lots back there . I 'm sure a couple of you in the audience own some of those lots . One of the options . . .when they reviewed this plan came back and said, if 64th is going to be realigned in this fashion , that they would want to see a driveway come out to the road from that point. Rather than going back through the neighborhood and build a road, they can get a direct access over into here to this area, then they would reconsider their original decision . Betty Lang : So opening Forest Avenue as a part of the 64th is not being I considered to make it a drive? Dacy: Depending on the property owners abutting the Forest Avenue right I of-way, they could come in and request that the street be connected here. Betty Lang : There' s only two of us and we already said we don ' t want it. I Dacy: . . .unfortunatley people come and go. Deaths , whatever. We still have a right-of-way out there and if we have a right-of-way in here. ' Ben Gowen: No you don' t. You don' t have a right-of-way where your finger is now maam. Dacy: Yes , that ' s correct . I 'm saying if the right-of-way is created in this area through the future development of those sites , there could be. . . These two areas are zoned RSF, single family. ' Ben Gowen: You ' re mistaken. Dacy: Mr . Gowen ' s use is considered a non-conforming use. He ' s had his commercial property for a number of years . At least the zoning maps that I have up in the office since 1972 show that your parcel has been zoned as R-1 and now it 's been zoned as RSF even though it 's commercial . ' • ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 21 Robert Sommer , 6239 Chaska Road : The subject matter has been dealing ' with this area all night long and I have a very deep concern, which I expressed the last time, about the traffic pattern coming this way. It has not been even discussed tonight. I ' ve been able to estimate that ' almost all the traffic on this road comes this way. Very little of it goes that way and the simple reason is that it ' s a cut-off to take TH 41. This will certainly increase the traffic flow. I wish somebody would ' sometime do a study and find out exactly how much traffic goes in a southwesterly direction as opposed to a northeasterly direction but they can easily take the TH 7 route coming back. It ' s almost a racetrack. I drive 30 mph on the road and there are people who are tailgating me at 10 ' feet behind and passing me and I 'm deeply concerned about what will happen with the flow in this direction with that shopping center . ' Dacy: Let me make sure that I understand your comment. Are you concerned that , the center is located here Mr . Sommers , that traffic would tend to go along Chaska Road and back up again? ' Robert Sommer : Yes . Particularly if there were a fast food facility in the area . ' Dacy: A fast food facility is not permitted at this time but I would think by looking at the traffic pattern, it would appear that going through a controlled intersection may be faster for the motorists to get into the site versus going south and doubling back up into that . Robert Sommer : That ' s exactly why they would do it because it would be faster coming back to Galpin. ' Dacy: Larry, I don ' t know if MnDot is looking at that traffic movement but my interpretation would be, that would be doubling back and that ' would be longer than going through the intersection . Robert Sommer : It would be faster because you would have to wait for the left hand turn signal . I 've watched the traffic flow and if you' re going ' to Chaska or if you' re going anyway over this way, rather than come up here and wait for that long wait for a left hand turn signal to come, they prefer to use downtown Excelsior . They' ll cross all the way across TH 7 and come down this way on their way to Chaska. MnDot should obviously determine how much traffic goes this way and how much traffic goes that way and I think they probably would find that 75% of the traffic goes this way. Dacy: Another issue to consider that we had looked at , if this area redevelops then another opportunity could be made to realign Chaska Road ' right across from the commercial center . That ' s a future option that depends on the development of this property. ' Robert Sommer : I would like to see that addressed . I want to know what ' s going to happen. Larry Brown: In my conversations with MnDot , they've felt that it ' s a simple matter. The movements through here and as Barb said doubling Planning Commission Meeting ' March 16, 1988 - Page 22 1 back, just are not as convenient as coming through this left hand turn lane. I don't what other evidence I can give tonight but that is MnDot' s I position. Conrad : It' s hard to relate to your comments because I drive that to the Jr . High and I don't see it. I 'm not there everyday like you are so it' s tough to assess the traffic . I hear your comments. I don' t see a whole lot of traffic myself when I 'm there and it ' s not convenient. I won' t drive there unless I 'm going to the Jr . High and that' s not all that frequent. I hear what you' re saying but I kind of think that MnDot, there are faster ways to get to places . I look for what potential increase in traffic we could have there and I 'm sure the center will draw some people. I'm sure the developer would hope that it would but I 'm not ' sure how significant that increase is. I guess more interesting to me is we know people on that side who would like to develop that commercially. II southeast quadrant there have expressed an interest now and again to put a commercial uses there. I think obviously at that point in time, we really do have some traffic issues to contend with. I don' t know. I 'm not sure how to deal with your concern right now to be very blunt . I I don't see the traffic myself. I don't see it as a problem myself but as a layman, that doesn' t satisfy you and I understand that . Bob Scheferli : We own property on Forest Avenue. As far as I can see, actually this thing should all be put on hold until these things are resolved period. You' ve got a drainage problem. You have the access road between the Gowen and Reed properties . Until those two things are solved , I can ' t see where you can go ahead. Conrad: I 'm sure the developer would like to know if we' ll consider rezoning because he'd prefer not to spend all his time negotiating with all these different individuals if we' re not interested and we don' t think he' s got a good suitable use for that property. So I 'm not sure, those are two good points . . . Bob Wagner : . . . if you' re as frustrated as I am. That' s the issue we come here to talk about. Who is really going to pay for the road? If the road goes up through Reeds, maybe that ' s got a little less impact because the developer is developing the thing but to me that is the issue. We' re talking about one of the key issues that makes it and I that' s the traffic area intensity. Then I hear us talking about up there by Reeds and Gowens up front and MnDot comes back and tells them they are going to have to run that traffic, which may be commercial , back into that road , that' s the same road we' re talking about developing back to the residential community. I think those are big issues. I don' t think you can address the zoning until you address what that road is going to do. ' J.D. MacRae : One of the reasons we came tonight with two options was to get exactly the impact. That it 's impacting the neighborhood. How it impacts the City. Where those concerns are so we can get direction because we really didn' t know what would be wanted. It' s also possible, and we don ' t know until we ask, that Ziegler ' s would say, oh we'd love a road there. We'd love to sell our land. We don't know that. We don' t r ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 23 ir know how people want what so we' re looking for your input . I 'm hearing that you 'd like it over there. Bob Wagner : You' re misreading my comments . I 'm not at all trying to be negative to you guys. Like I said earlier, I think you guys are professionals . You' re finally dealing with some people who I think are genuinely concerned but I think the issues here are to some extent beyond the corner they want to develop or that part of that corner , that I think ' have got to be addressed. I come back to my opening comment, what' s the rush? We in the community have seen it go from R-1 to office, talking commercial again. If you've got us leaning that way because you have a ' professional . . . , don' t arouse the community. Roger Zahn: I think the concerns that the neighbors are expressing on ' this issue certainly are valid and they certainly are something that we' re interested in but I just want to go back and say that I believe it' s all protected by the format of the proposed resolution saying that we' re not going forward until this issue is resolved . So I think we' ll ' resolve it and I think we' ll resolve it in a reasonably for the corner and if we don ' t, we' re not going anyplace . I think you have control of that now under the langauge that you' re going to use for your resolution ' or that staff is proposing for your resolution . We' re very satisfied with that. I think that your neighbors are protected. Maybe we will put a couple of trees in your yard . Bob Wagner : But what I hear is that this road , that effects us residentially could become commercial and that' s not going to, if this zoning passes on you, that ' s a separate issue than what happens down the road. At the same time . . . (There was a tape defect at this point and part of the discussion was not ' recorded .) Dacy: . . . it will only allow one full intersection from the commercial site at this location but they can not accept another full intersection of 64th Street and Chaska Road so close to this intersection. They would accept what they would call , I think it' s a "T" intersection because there is no cross through traffic . If they propose a full intersection here and concentrate the traffic going to TH 41 so it ' s not going back through your neighborhood , 64th Street has to be moved to the south. Now your question, what happens in the future is yes, there will be another series of public hearings. They have to file a plat application. If there is a rezoning, they would have to file that. Everybody would be notified again and the Planning Commission and the Council would have to make the final decision. What I would suggest to the Commission, if you ' would so desire tonight , is your receiving a number of comments on which alignment and I think it ' s been pretty clear that the Oriole Avenue option is not favored . The Commission, through their consideration tonight, can give direction to the various property owners who are in the room that this would be a road alignment that the City and Commission would recommend and would like to see. Further on the land use and zoning issues , you do have the tool to use , if the Commission wants to initiate this, and that ' s the Comprehensive Plan. This site is already Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 24 designated as commercial . You can amend your Comprehensive Plan to include new language one way or the other to say that land uses in this I area should be limited to this spot , this spot, this spot because of these reasons, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The Commission has tools to initiate a land use and zoning study to resolve some of these issues but again, what happens here has got to go through another hearing process, Commission and Council . If 64th Street is realigned this way, the Dudycha ' s would not be assessed if they had moved on. Wanda Kamrath: I live on Orchard Lane. The entrance into the shopping center from TH 41, is there some particular reason that that must enter at that point and not closer to the intersection? Since our road is already there, is there some reason why that can ' t be placed? Dacy: Yes , MnDot again has said that we have to maintain a distance of at least 600 feet from the TH 7 and TH 41 intersection so the distance from here to here , I think is approximately 635 . Wanda Kamrath: Also, the first house off of Oriole, is there any proposal , has anybody ever talked about rezoning any of that commercial and continuing on because there is an office building on TH 7 there and I do have concerns because I live on Orchard Lane and the further you crawl towards my property, the more traffic there' s going to be. Is there any discussion? Has there been towards more zoning of that as commercial? Roger Zahn: I should probably answer that. We do not want that property I period . We have no intention of buying it. No intention of developing it. Wanda Kamrath : Not you but you ' re not the only developer . ' Dacy: The first application from Todd Thompson looked at closing Oriole Avenue off at this location and taking Oriole and Orchard back through here into the development which would have meant the removal of the house that ' s there . The 1986 application did not propose to rezone that area at all . I think from the City staff' s standpoint, the rezoning of this lot would not be appropriate . Again , the intent is trying to isolate and concentrate the commercial area into the intersection and not west . Conrad: We would end up with the same type of transition problems that we' re trying to solve right now. If that turned into a commercial spot, we would have a real difficult time protecting that spot from the neighborhood so I don' t see that as a potential . Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in I favor and motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Headla: What Mr. Sommer had said. As an old Excelsiorite I agree with him. Not that I 've ever really gone on the old TH 41 but there ' s going to be traffic there. I don' t care what MnDot says, they aren' t out there. They don' t live there and when you' re part of that community, you kind of like to take that road. I had some questions during the day I Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 25 ii concerning lighting , sewer and water and Larry answered those quite ' satisfactory. I think the applicants have been very cooperative. I think you did an excellent job with the road configuration, talking to the people. This whole thing on talking about changing from OI to BN, ' I haven ' t any rationale why we should change. I don ' t think we should change unless it's a win-win situation. I think the applicant should win . I think the City of Chanhassen should win . I think the neighbors should win. I haven ' t heard any of that. I hear winning on one side but ' the other side is losing and I think we' ve got a lot of concerns . For that reason, unless some of you people can come up with something why we should change, why it' s going to be a win-win, I 'm going to vote no. ' However , in case you do recommend that it passes, I 've got a couple of comments . One is on the landscaping . The landscaping I consider between sterile and ho-hum, not due to your fault. I think the way we' re going , ' the way our ordinance is , I think we limit the people and make a very sterile situation. Three miles to the south we' ve got a major institution, a research center . They develop I don' t know how many hundreds of plants. Unique plants to this area like forsythia. We have ' never done anything to promote any of the Arboretum' s products . I really think something like this , if we could work with the Arboretum, our staff and the developer and I don ' t think it should be any more money, cost the ' developer any more money. I think we ought to promote the products of the Arboretum. I look at where we have scotch pine and what did you say you had 15 or something . Out of about 10-12 years , you can plan on those scotch pines turning brown once or twice. Not necessarily all at once. I see all those scotch pines and a few of them turning brown, that will just break me up and I don' t think we ought to go that way. Here again, I 'm not knocking the applicants . I think they've been very cooperative and I think you' ve caught a little bit of the spirit. Going through here, I didn ' t see anything about what the Fire Department had to say. Do they have adequate equipment with what they have now to fight any situation in that building? Dacy: Right . There was a memo from Steve Madden, the Fire Inspector . Headla : But he didn' t address that point. Dacy: As to the type of fire equipment? Headla: Yes. If we have adequate equipment right now to fight a problem in that building . Dacy: Yes , we do have adequate equipment at this time. The building is 20 feet tall . It can be attacked with our existing equipment. The building will be fully sprinklered and they have met the watermain and thydrant location requirements . Headla : Larry, you were going to address the water pressure . Did he say d1 anything on that? Larry Brown: Yes, in my report there were concerns from the neighborhood ' brought up that stated they were worried about the water pressure that' s out there now. At present , the watermain , the existing 10 inch watermain • Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 26 along 64th Street has a pressure reducer on it . That is to hear problems down on Minnewashta where the pressure, although at this particular site II is approximately 50 psi , due to the elevation change of Minnewashta it' s up around 80-85 psi . The proposal in front of us would not affect the water pressure whatsoever . It will be impacted , if they had to come in here with a 48 inch watermain, it would have affected the volume flow of the water and still would not have affected the pressure flow. If for some unforeseen reason the pressure did drop, we could adjust that pressure by a pressure reducer that ' s existing out there. But again , the I complaints that are out there now regarding the 50 pounds of pressure are due to addressing the problems down on Minnewashta Parkway. This will not have an effect on it. Conrad : Just to ask you Dave, your rationale for not rezoning . If you read the history, which is quite extensive, a couple of years, I think the neighbors have always been concerned with intensity of use. It ' s a commercial location. It 's a commercial intersection. Theoretically. We have two highways . You' ve got good access . Your concern for not rezoning right now is, do you have any reasons? Your just saying let' s not rezone to rezone but do you see a reason that this particular use is too high in intensity for that site? Again, the neighborhood business district is one of the lower use zones we' ve got . It ' s main traffic lies I in this particular size site, it ' s hard for me to tell but it may not be quite as low as an office center but still it' s on the lower side. I 'm just sort of struggling to understand your concern with the area . Headla : A couple of things. It ' s one of these things where if you don' t I get the right answer you keep coming back and keep coming back and maybe over a period of years you' re going to score because you' re going to get the right combination, the right chemistry and they' ll approve it. That' s what has happened here . You' ve gradually migrated . As I understand, the last situation it was agreed that we' ll go office institutional at that corner period . That seemed to be a somewhat soft agreement but that was the agreement. Now we' re deviating from that . Someone is coming with a proposal to go for . . . I see one party winning , other parties losing. I also see that if this goes in, we' ve got a nice I line right now, that road , TH 7 , if we allow this , pretty soon Shorewood Shopping Center is going to jump over. People are going to come in , they' ll make proposals to us . They want to put in whatever and you say no. Come back in a couple years, you get the right combination, it' s going to be another Shorewood Shopping Center and it' s just going to migrate. Conrad : What do you want to use that intersection for? Headla : I think what you agreed to before, that office institutional was I an excellent choice . Conrad : Even though there' s not a demand for it? Headla : I don' t know if there is or not. Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 27 Batzli : Prior to the meeting tonight I think I agreed with Dave but what ' I 've heard tonight, at least from the public has been that the developer has done a pretty good job and has done probably the best job of the proposals. I wasn' t around for the other proposals so I don' t know how to react to that other than they are probably the best source to tell me that and they really told me that so I 'm kind of, at this point, leaning towards approval of the rezoning . I did have a couple of questions ' though. One of them was our favorite topic about two entrances and exits to all of our neighborhoods and shopping centers and such and I only see one exit. ' Dacy: From the commercial site? Batzli : Yes . Dacy: Yes . That' s correct. The access onto TH 41 would be an entrance and an exit and the right-in only from TH 7 is just that. Batzli : Why not two exits? Dacy: MnDot would not allow a full movement intersection on TH 7. The previous proposals too, kind of went through I don't know how many different types of traffic scenarios . In the first application they looked at keeping Oriole Avenue open but shifting it down and then having another access onto 64th Street . The neighborhood concern was that traffic from the development could easily backtrack through the neighborhood . The second time through, MnDot said we will allow a right-in only and a right-in only for TH 41 and the second time through ' they had a full access onto 64th Street . Still the same type of concern for backtracking through the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, I think one of the homeowners suggested why not a full intersection onto TH 41. ' At that time, MnDot had not indicated to us their willingness to look at this type of a "T" intersection and realign 64th Street . So now we' ve progressed down the line more and we can provide adequate access to this area . Provide access in for eastbound traffic and still get people in and out while maintaining separate from the neighborhood. Batzli : . . . it goes to our requirements in a lot of other situations with ' indeed what we considered an emergency exit should that one be blocked . Dacy: In an emergency situation , if this were blocked , the Fire Department is going to mow over anything that they can. If it means going out a right-in only and over the median , they' re going to do it. There is access in and out . ' Batzli : That ' s find in the summer . I guess I 'm wondering to myself, we've required this, we' ve looked at it extensively in a lot of other plans and here we' re kind of saying you can drive over the medians and drive over the curb, why is this different? Dacy: Your question was for emergency access if something is blocked . ' What I 'm saying is that the Fire Department is going to try and knock down anything they have to to get out . I Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 28 1 Batzli : Back it off one. We' re not in an emergency situation. Why aren ' t we requiring two exits? ' Dacy: In this situation. . .traffic . If we were to require an additional full movement access, we could be promoting traffic back through the neighborhood . Larry Brown: In addition, if I may point out , the main entrance onto TH 41, as I read it, is the distance counting the median, is 60 feet. To me II that seems to be adequate. Batzli : I ' ll defer to your judgments but in the future, I guess if we don' t require it on all developments, I guess I have a hard time seeing why it' s so important to some and not this one. I haven' t heard the magical words yet that tells me, this one we don' t need it because. If II it ' s because we' ve got a 60 foot exit and entrance, then I guess I 'd like to make a mental note of that but if we get that in the future, we don' t need a second entrance or exit . Conrad : There is . I guess I 'm struggling with that. There are two. On a day in and day out basis , you' re right there isn' t a second exit but there is a second exit/entrance for emergency vehicles . They would be breaking the law when they came in but I think that would be overlooked and I think that ' s typically what we' re concerned about is to allowing the fire truck to get in there when one entrance is blocked. That' s what we do in the neighborhoods. Here , there is a second entrance to get in there so I guess I 'm not having a tough time rationalizing it although maybe the standard should be looked at. Batzli : I don' t think we' re enforcing our standard very well on that issue personally but I ' ll move on. Is the accessory building in the site plan or is it not? I 'm totally confused on our accessory building . , Dacy: No, it is not for consideration for the commission tonight . Batzli : Next question, are we within 200 feet of a wetland? Dacy: No. Batzli : Where is our settling pond or whatever , going to be going? ' Dacy: The way that it was originally considered, there is a wetland area and the drainageway of the wetland is in Herman Field Park. The options that we have been looking at is ponding in and around the wetland over here or the developer would be doing ponding on site or if the development occurs in and around the Reed property also. ' Batzli : At what scale are we looking at now? Dacy: This has been reduced. You want to know the distance from here to I here? Batzli : Approximate . , 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 29 IC Roger Zahn: I 've estimated it at 1,400 feet. Batzli : 1, 500 feet maximum? Is the plan for going north on TH 41, I heard something about expanding the shoulder and not making a left hand ' turn lane. Is that true? Dacy: And not makeing that left hand turn? ' Batzli : Did I hear that there was a left hand turn lane or an expanded shoulder? 1 Dacy: I understood that there was an expanded shoulder and a by-pass lane so you could have a left turn there. ' Larry Brown: That was one of MnDot ' s requirements as far as approval . Batzli : So it' s not a left hand turn lane, it ' s a by-pass lane to the right? Larry Brown: There will be a designated lane to turn left and a by-pass lane on the right. Batzli : I guess my last concern or problem is really where that other road goes and who has to pay for it. I would recommend that I didn' t see IFwhere the staff had really addressed that issue . Larry Brown: I think the road again, we ' ll have to go through that public hearing process as well and because there are so many variables out there, we can not address that. Being the issue is the site and not the property below, I think we have to consider the site. Obviously the plan is contingent upon resolution of the problem to the south but we ' can ' t analyze that until we have a firm plan in. Batzli : But the language currently proposed by staff for us to act on doesn ' t handle that issue specifically. ' Larry Brown: I believe the approval is contingent upon it. Dacy: Right . One of the conditions of approval is that . . . Emmi.ngs: Approval of what Barbara? Approval of the preliminary plat? Dacy: Right , and the site plan is being considered also . That before building permits are issued and the City vacates 64th Street, that we have a plat approved , development contract executed and a letter of credit submitted. Batzli : I guess in the event we go ahead with that, I 'd like to propose 11 some amendments to that paragraph but I 'm done for now. Ellson : I read an awful lot and like you 've all said there has been an awful lot of history on this. What I ' ve read and what I 've seen to me sounds like people are succumbing to the fact that a corner like this 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 30 I gets developed like this . You'd be blind if you think that it could go on and on being a lot there without anything and I 've seen that the neighborhood people saying it' s okay to be developed but and there' s a lot of buts . We want to be heard and we want to be part of what' s going on with this development . I think that this development contrary to some III the ones I 've read in the past is doing just that. He' s trying to get that input . He' s trying to research before going along , which is good . To me this can be the win-win situation that Dave is looking for. These people are putting in requests and they' re following up with okay, we' ll give you a tree or we' ll x a tree or we' ll stand on your deck when we plant these trees . It sounds like they' re trying to meet the needs of the people as best possible. I 'm not sure another developer down the I road when you try to get the perfect mix is going to be that way because they' re not required to be that way and I think this one has been. So I think it can be a win-win situation. I 'm leaning towards approval on it. I think if I lived here, and when I drive and look at the sites, I look at it in terms of that, I 'd dislike most of all on that corner would be like a fast food restaurant or something that really smelled up your whole neighborhood or whatever. I think the fact that this is zoned business neighborhood where that' s outlawed is a great way to zone this because it' s going to eliminate that type of thing which can happen on those corners just as easily as a small little strip mall development. Also , the way we are proposing to zone it is going to eliminate the free II standing signs. You' re not going to have a gawdy Red Owl at the top of the roof or something like that because again the zoning and the way they' re doing it is not going to allow that sort of thing. I had a question in regards to that accessory building area . Because we' re not talking about the accessory building at this point, as far as approving it, it would be a possibility then that it wouldn ' t be built, isn' t that II true? Okay. Then the other question I would have is that that landscaping as the plan shows is being built up right into the accessory building. Would it be built before the accessory building goes up there I or if it does ever and I would approve it upon the fact that that is going to be there whether the building goes in there or not or something like that. Whether or not the building goes up, that should get in there and then when the building comes , it' s there. And if we build an accessory building we' ll do another berm or something like that because there will still be parking lot and that sort of thing. Again, I 'm leaning towards approval . Something with our recommendation to the second road proposal also. I 'd like it in there somehow. Written in that we would like to see not an extension of the first road but looking at the other type of proposal for the road so that 's a little more weight for them to try and come to some sort of agreement for the road going in that direction. I was really impressed. I was impressed with how prepared all this was and how professional the presentations were and what have you. This is the first time I ' ve ever been to one that ' s so big and I was expecting who knows , people screaming or whatever so I was really proud of everybody and again, very impressed with how well everybody did and it really makes my job a lot of easier if I can hear from people the way you have been commenting and get the information in the manner you' ve presented as well . I I • ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 31 Emmings : Annette said a lot of the things that I have written down to ' say and some of them I 'm going to reiterate. I live up in this end of town also. I live on the north side of Lake Minnewashta and drive by that corner a lot. I was here the last time in 1986 when the other ' proposal came up and it was vastly inferior to this one. I don' t think it matters much what the past history has been because that corner is going to be developed commercial somehow sooner or later . To me it' s ' just inevitable. It's unthinkable that corner would be developed any other way. This developer has done a really outstanding job of taking into consideration the concerns that the neighborhood has raised again and again and again and are to be commended for that and the neighbors are to be commended for acknowledging that. I think they were very candid about that . As far as Dave' s concern goes about leaving it office institutional, OI , the last developer maybe only said one thing that I thought was true when they were here and that was that there is no market for office buildings . It' s not just that there' s a slight demand. There' s no market and I think we' re essentially depriving them of using that land if we leave it zoned that way. In some ways, I think BN might ' be better for the neighborhood . The buildings have to be lower in BN. I don' t think the intensity is too much different. It' s probably a little more intense but not too much different. Another thing here is that it' s ' zoned for those services that we all use in our everyday lives. It ' s a little, this isn ' t going to sound very nice but it may be a little hypocritcal to always say we want these services and we want them accessible to us but we don ' t want them near us so we can see them. They do grow up in our neighborhoods . It ' s inevitable. I was wondering if in BN we have any limitations . Are there any limitations on hours of operation? Dacy: Possibly through a conditional use . . . Emmings: Okay, so if somebody came in and asked for a conditional use, we could put that on it . I like the idea of vacating 64th Street. I think that makes a lot of good sense. I like this traffic plan isolating the neighborhood from the traffic that ' s going to be generated in and out ' of that facility. I think it' s an excellent idea. Getting that left turn lane off of TH 7 onto Oriole certainly will make my life a lot safer. Even though I never turn there, I come up behind traffic that' s ' turning there all the time and I see a lot of near misses and I think that' s something they didn' t have to do. I 'm real concerned about those two outlots. The last time a proposal came up here, I made a motion to ' approve that even though I didn' t like that but I didn' t want to rezone the outlots until we knew what was going on them. I think that again , the BN takes care of most of my concerns in that regard. . . If we make a motion to approve the rezoning , and I 'd be for that , that we make it contingent upon resolution of this road problem. That' s the most significant thing up here that I see is the road and I would just as soon let it go back and stay 0I, leave the zoning alone, if this project doesn ' t get approved. So if they can' t work out the road problem, I 'd just as soon see things stay the way they are. That's sounds a little contrary to what I said before but since there ' s no market for office , that gives us kind of maximum control I think. That's something I 'd like to see . 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 32 C I Conrad : Is that legal Barbara? ' Dacy: I think it is . Contract zoning is when you approve a rezoning based on a specific site plan. However, because we have some broader issues here , road alignments that would serve the site as a commercial site, my best interpretation at this point is that the Commission could have a motion like that acted upon. Granted I 'm not an attorney so that 's my best interpretation. I Conrad : Is that your best interpretation? Emmings: I have no idea and if there' s a legal problem with it. . . Conrad : It' s really tough. Legally you can' t tie zoning to a development. You really can' t do that. You ' re tying it to road construction and I think that' s a little different. Emmings: Not just road construction but just a resolution of that I problem because it' s such an integral part of the plan. Either that or we can table it and make it come back. I don' t think any aspect of this should get tabled tonight or stay here . I 'd like to see this whole thing II move onto the City Council . I think we could talk about this for 4 or 5 meetings and I don' t particularly want to. I 'd just as soon have done fr with it tonight . Dacy: If I could follow up on Steve' s question on the rezoning . As a matter of policy and procedure, the City would not enact the rezoning until the preliminary and final plat were approved and we had a development contract signed. Emmings : That' s right . Forget I said that. I ' ll remove my contingency. We' re already protected on that. Another idea I wanted to ask Barb about II and maybe you Ladd , from your experience, on the preliminary plat and the site plan, can we say, if we were to make a motion to pass it, could we put a condition on there that it not go to the City Council until they have a resolution of the road situation to present to the City Council? Dacy: A resolution of the road situation would depend on who is going to II develop the Reed property. They would have to come and get the plat. Basically what you' re saying then is before it goes to City Council for action on these three items, you' re saying that you really want to see the application for the Reed property come in. Emmings: Yes , I guess so. I want to see a resolution of this . I think the road problem ought to be resolved before it even goes to the City Council. I don' t care if it leaves here, but I don' t want it to go there II until they' re ready to present that fully to the City Council . What they propose to do at least so the City Council can decide how to handle that I issue. Conrad : But they will anyway. Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 33 Ii Emmings : Why? ' Conrad : They' re going to have the same questions that you do on the roadway. You' re just saying, let ' s keep it from the City Council for ' months or whatever . Emmings : No . I 'm just saying , if they can' t get to the City Council , I think the road problem will get resolved in a hurry if it' s going to get resolved at all . Headla : It ' s going to have to get resolved for them to continue . I 'm ' not quite sure why you would want to do that. Let them go ahead and progress but they can ' t, as I understand , really start anything firm without getting the road resolved. Emmings : If it goes from here, if we just sent it on, if we passed the resolution that we have in the packet here tonight, if we pass them all , when would this go to the City Council? Dacy: It would go April 11th. ' Emmings : And at that time they don ' t have to have a resolution of this road situation do they? Dacy: Right . The intent of the application, the developer ' s intent from Ir what I understood, was to number one, determine if the City wouldn even consider rezoning the site to neighborhood business in the first place. He could go through all the plat preparations for the Reed and any other ' piece of property and get to the Council and they business neighborhood zoning concept could be mixed. Emmings : I don ' t know. I 'm a little confused right now I guess . I guess it would seem to me that it would be, I 'm trying to find a way to encourage them to come to a quick resolution of that road problem and it would be nice, it would seem to me, to have that presented to the City ' Council at the same time the rest of this is , is all I had in mind . Maybe I haven 't presented the best way to do it but I 'd just like to find someway to do that if we can . iConrad : It ' s a good point. To resolve the whole traffic flow in that quadrant is important yet it' s got to be resolved before anything ' proceeds . The developer is motivated to do that. He wants to build . Holding it from the City Council, I 'm not sure. That ' s typically what I like to do. You' re saying what I like to do is don ' t give them anything until we've got it solved. In this particular case I think the developer ' should hear whether the Council wants to rezone it and whether the developer should hear whether this looks kind of good to them from the City Council , who may have entirely different opinions and have been known to have. I think it' s good to get it there. It' s still contingent on resolving the road problem. I think I 'm comfortable with that Steve. I think it' s okay yet I do appreciate what you ' re saying because I would love to have this entire thing resolved in terms of the entire commercial ' impact because I know the neighbors are not only concerned with this Planning Commission Meeting ' March 16 , 1988 - Page 34 1 particular subdivision but with that to the south and that still has a bearing on a lot of things . Traffic and some other issues but I don' t know that that' s going to be, I don ' t know how we can deal with that quickly and I don ' t know that I need to force development of that down there either . I 'm happy to keep it a greenhouse. ' Emmings : I don' t think what happens south of this property, with the Reed property and ultimately the Gowen ' s, has nothing to do with what ' s in front of us. We should take a broad view but we've got a specific proposal in front of us that we' ve got to act on. We can' t dictate anything to Reed. He can develop now or 10 years from now or 20 and do what he wants to then and we' ll have to look again at that time. 1 Conrad: Barbara, you mentioned a study from a comprehensive plan standpoint of this area . Then I heard somebody from the audience talk I about the southeast quadrant going residential which is something that I was not aware was happening so is it your opinion that to the east side we don' t have commercial pressure from some landowners? Dacy: To be honest, I 'm surprised Mr . Swearingen didn' t show up tonight II because he' s been at all the previous meetings and has stated on the record and I know it' s in the Minutes , if this site went commerical that he would file an application. My comment about the Comprehensive Plan is ' that you do have the tool that the City can state the preferred type of land uses in certain areas of the City. This site is already on the land use plan as commercial . None of the other sites are. There is a process. If the Planning Commission and City Council want to look at that 1 area in more detail based on the new road configurations , the Comprehensive Plan would be a good place to start . , Conrad : The City Council could initiate a study of that area in terms of south of this particular project, could they not? ' Dacy: Right . We could easily ask Mr . Koegler to start that up as a part of our Comp Plan review process . Emmings : You said something about a 20 foot height limitation in the BN and I believe that ornamental canopies on a building are 27 feet. How do we resolve that? I Dacy: The BN districts , there' s a height limit of one story. That' s 20 feet tall and the ornamental canopies do extend to 27 feet . Emmings : Is that alright? Dacy: The intent of one story is to have one floor of occupancy. I think the actual ceiling height is actually 15 or 16 feet. The extra 4 feet was for roofing and screening of the rooftop materials. Emmings: Is all of the berming and plantings going to be done at one time? I Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 35 I Dacy: As indicated on the plans , yes . Recommendation is that , what you see in the plans for the landscaping all the way to the property line and the grading , that would all have to be done in conjunction with the construction of this shopping center . ' Emmings : Then Dave brought up a good point . Not everything makes it through every winter. Who' s got an obligation if one or two or a bunch of these trees die the first winter? Does anybody have any continuing obligation to replace those trees? Dacy: Yes . There is an obligation and that ' s the obligation and that would be the obligation of the property owner . The landscaping ordinance provides that there' s got to be a constant opaque screen and that the landscaping has to be kept alive. We do have a Code Enforcement officer now that we can use to monitor that . Emmings : Maybe it' s obvious from my comments but I 'm basically in favor of approving this and moving it on to the City Council for their ' consideration . Conrad : I have very little to add . I think the zoning is better than we' ve had there before. This particular zoning district is a low intensive use. It ' s certainly going to be greater than what it' s currently at but the zoning in my mind is real appropriate for the area. The traffic problems appear to be solved which was a concerned that I had lij the last time and a buffering problem which I really did not like in any of the previous development proposals. It ' s far better . In the developments that we look at here on an every other week basis, I think ' the buffering to me is superior to almost anything that I 've seen Chanhassen do. When you do have some commercial or some other type of use than what ' s next to you xight now, those three things make me feel ' much more comfortable than I have in the past . The developer has done a nice job. It ' s always good to work with good people and professional developers and you can tell when one comes in and you can tell when one is not a professional developer and it ' s always so much easier working ' with people that are good communicaters and do good work. I think the current group, in my mind, is that. I had some concerns , therefore I guess my comments are, I do like the zone. The neighborhood business ' district for that area. It keeps the traffic away from the neighborhood which has been a concern . I had some concerns that I 'd like to validate and Larry, I think you mentioned it once, that basically MnDot, the ' turning lane on TH 7 for the neighborhood to come in off of TH 7, what form do we get that from MnDot to guarantee that type of road improvement? What is the document that we look for to say we will do this? ' Larry Brown: The first one is , they will be sending a letter of recommendations. Again, they will approve it contingent upon meeting their requirements . Number two , being that it ' s a County Road and similarly TH 7 is a controlled access and therefore the applicant will need to go through the process with MnDot similarly for the proposed access to the site on TH 41 and will have to meet the requirements of the Planning Commission Meeting ' March 16, 1988 - Page 36 County and get an access permit for those to make sure their requirements are met. , Conrad : But a turning lane off of TH 7 into the neighborhood , that' s in a letter that comes to us that says we, MnDot will do that? Larry Brown: It is stated that they approve of the proposed entrance and exit conditions contingent upon construction of, (a) the right-in off TH 7, (b) the left turn lane off of TH 41 and any other conditions that I they've addressed. Dacy: They notify us by writing and then the applicants have to walk down to MnDot and get an access permit and that' s where MnDot says you have to build the right-in' s . Conrad : How do we document the buffering specifications? I asked the developer if that was an accurate elevation that I was looking at but how does staff request specifics? When we talk about a 3 or 4 foot berm, is that part of the development contract agreement? ' Dacy: Right . The grading plan that was submitted shows existing and proposed elevations . The landscaping plan indicates where the plantings II are going to be located on that berm so we feel that we have accurate information now that states that the representations that they made about the berm heights on the west and south boundaries are accurate. Conrad: I 'm concerned and I think it will be covered, but I 'm concerned as the neighbors brought up, with the cost to the average neighbor of putting in the roadway. I think as we said loosely, those that benefit II should pay for it. The neighbors who are there who are not benefitting from a different road should not be paying for that road improvement . I think any motion we make tonight should be contingent on what the Watershed. The Watershed has some concerns. I guess the other comment that I 'd like to see is that the City Council initiate some kind of study on traffic patterns to the south of this particular development. Whether they feel it' s appropriate or cost effective but I think it' s important in that a study be inititiated so we can see how that traffic might flow when those lots to the south do get developed . Those are my comments . If there's nothing else. I Headla : Let me make two comments . There were some dead trees up there, some scotch pine, for instance one of the species will turn color and then they come back again. The Austrian pine they wouldn' t have that type of thing but I 'd really like to see that type of thing addressed. I would also like to see that we take the position that we start pushing the Arboretum products. Newly developed products . They are a part of us . Conrad : Are they marketing their products? r Headla: Not them. It' s through nurseries but if we could say, look at this development, and this would be an ideal place. Some of these are Arboretum products. They develop right at the Minnesota Landscape ' r ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 37 147- Arboretum. They' ve done wonders on a lot of that and I look forward to ' the scotch pine issue because put that with even some kind of deciduous bush . That would really be nice . Somehow, whoever makes the motion, I would like to see something in there. Nobody else commented on it so I don' t know if they' re concerned . Dacy: Mr . Chairman, if the Commission wants , the DNR forester has been available to us on other items . We could pass a condition that we could have the DNR forester look at the proposed landscaping plan and make some comments as to the species . ' Emmings : I don ' t think we should propose that on this plan . I guess I agree with Dave. I think it' s a good general notion. Maybe we could develop something so that when new developers come in with new plans , we ' can say we've got the Arboretum out here and they' re developing a lot of nice new products , let ' s see you use them. Let' s see you use a couple of maple trees. That was Bob Siegel who used to sit in this chair , that was something he always pushed and they do have maple trees . I don' t know about sugar maples . Conrad : One of the upcoming meetings, the next agenda items, we' ve got a lot of sugar maples on a plat. Emmings : I just have one other question. We were told how you thought 1r we resolved the problem that the Watershed has raised at 4 : 30 this afternoon . I just want to ask if you think that resolution of that problem will change anything we' ve looked at tonight? ' Roger Zahn : I don' t think so . Emmings : Will it change for example the landscaping plan along TH 41 because of the creation of that pond or where the entrance is or anything like that? John Uban : Not the entrances . Right now we see the ponding would happen up in the corner in the areas where we show no landscaping at this point . In trying to work with MnDot , they have excessive right-of-way up there and solve some of their drainage problems too with a combined pond. Emmings : Then the only other question I have Ladd, is putting in a condition that approval would be contingent on approval by the Watershed ' District, would that have to go both in the preliminary plat and the site plan or just the preliminary plat? Dacy: If you throw it in the preliminary, there ' s a catch-all condition on the site plan that you ' ve got to meet the preliminary. Conrad : Okay, I ' ll accept motions . We' ve got three items in front of us . First is a change in zoning. Second, is a review of the preliminary plat. Third is the site plan review. Would somebody want to make a motion on the rezoning? Planning Commission Meeting ' March 16, 1988 - Page 38 Emmings moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Rezoning Request #85-2 to rezone 7. 63 acres from OI , Office Institutional to BN, Business Neighborhood District as legally described in the proposed plat application. All voted in favor except David Headla who opposed and the motion carried . ' Batzli : On the first condition. Execution of the development contract. Who are you expecting them to execute the contract with? ' Emmings: The City. Batzli : Yes . Can we specify that? Dacy: Your question is , including execution of the development contract between a developer and the City? Batzli : Yes . Dacy: Sure, if you wanted to. The intent of the condition is not to require this particular developer or whoever but that they come in to the City to insure that that road can be. . . Emmings: If I can speak for you. It' s just a little ambiguous and he ` wants to be sure somebody doesn ' t come in and say, how do I know that doesn' t mean it ' s between me and the guy who' s going to build my building . The owner of the property and the builder of the building. Dacy: That's fine. I just want to make sure I understand. ' Emmings : Yes, the development contract with the City. We' re just taking that for granted because we see it there all the time and it' s not a bad II point . Batzli : The filing of the letter of credit I assume is with the City from a recognized bank authorized to do business in Minnesota? , Dacy: That' s fine. Batzli : I was going to start talking about the letter of credit but . We I have some concerns from the public regarding it. I think the letter of credit should be a form subject to the City of Chanhassen' s reasonable approval . Larry Brown: All letters of credit are subject to our approval . We have a standard form. 1 Batzli : Those are my friendly amendments if you'd like to accept them. Emmings: Sure. Let' s do that. So as I understand it now. Starting ' with the third line of number 1 it will say, including execution of the development contract with the City and filing of a letter of credit in a form. . . ' IPlanning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 39 IV I Batzli : Here ' s what I had . Letter of credit with the City of Chanhassen from a recognized bank authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of Chanhassen ' s reasonable Iapproval . Emmings : That ' s fine . I Roger Zahn : do you want to change that to financial institution instead of bank? IBatzli : That ' s fine. Recognized financial institution. I Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #85-7 subject to the plat stamped "Received March 7 , 1988" , the grading and drainage plan stamped "Received March 7, 1988" and the utility plan stamped "Received March 7 , 1988" and Isubject to the following conditions : 1. Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent I upon vacation of West 64th Street right-of-way, including execution of a development contract with the City of Chanhassen and filing of a letter of credit with the City of Chanhassen from a recognized I financial institution authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of Chanhassen ' s reasonable approval to insure construction of a realigned 64th Street. I 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the public improvements . I3. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit . I4. Hay bales shall be placed and staked around all storm sewer inlets . 5. Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all Idisturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. 6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the I permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Office of the Carver County Engineer. 7 . Calculations verifying adequate pressure conditions for the sprinkler I system of the proposed retail building should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. II: 8 . The proposed sanitary sewer and watermain systems internal to the �_ site will be constructed and maintained as private utilities. The City of Chanhassen will not be responsible for any maintenance of the Iutilities (with the exception of public storm sewer drainage II Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 40 facilities) internal to the site. 9. An acceptable sign and pavement marking plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit . 10. The applicant shall agree to enter into a joint storm sewer project I with the City which will involve the addition of a catch basin on the proposed storm sewer plan as mentioned previously in this report . 11. Specific plans and specifications which address the specific alignment, installation, and erosion control for the proposed storm sewer system must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. Catch basins shall be constructed as sump type catch basins . 13 . The applicant shall submit a revised erosion control plan subject to the approval of the City Engineer . 14. Plans which address the demolition of the roadway of West 64th Street I and restoration of the right-of-way be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the final plat review process. ' 15. Access permits from the MnDot and Office of the Carver County Engineer will be required prior to the commencement of any grading . All voted in favor and motion carried. Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #86-2 for construction of a 25 ,920 square foot retail center as depicted on the site plan stamped "Received March 7 , 1988" , the landscaping plan stamped "Received March 11, 1988" , the lighting plan stamped "Received March 11, 1988" , the exterior elevation plan stamped "Received February 22, 1988" and the grading drainage and utility plans stamped "Received March 7 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1. All bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete curb. , 2. The building permit for the retail center will not be issued until the city has approved the vacation of 64th Street , including submission of financial sureties , the execution of the development contract to insure that 64th Street will be realigned to intersect TH 41 in another location. 3. Compliance with all conditions of the Subdivision Request #85-7 . All voted in favor and motion carried . Conrad : Is there a feeling amongst Planning Commissioners that we should initiate a study for the traffic patterns and the land use to the south? 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 41 Emmings : To the south and to the east? Yes , I think so. ' Conrad : We might need a motion to do that or can that just be a simple request? Dacy: That can be a request . Conrad : It takes the City Council to fund the request so formally how. . . Dacy: I think what we would do is take that comment along with these items to the Council on April 11th and see if the Council would allow extension of Mark ' s contract to include this study. ' PUBLIC HEARING: GEORGE NELSON ASSOCIATES , LAKE RILEY WOODS SOUTH, PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED SOUTH OR AND ADJACENT TO CO. RD. 14 (PIONEER TRAIL) , 1/2 MILE EAST OF TH 101 : ' A. SUBDIVISION OF 77 .44 ACRES INTO 16 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS (MINIMUM LOT SIZE 2. 5 ACRES) . B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. Public Present : Name Address ' Brian Olson Ron Krueger & Associates, Applicant Jim Peterson Ron Krueger & Associates , Applicant Boyd Peterson 325 Pioneer Trail Jo Ann Olsen and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item. ' Brian Olson: I 'm with Ron Krueger and Associates and I 'm here representing George Nelson & Associates and this is Jim Peterson who is also here. I have a color up rendering of the drawing that may be a ' little bit easier to read than that one but basically we have no objections or any additional things to add to the staff' s comments. We are here for any questions . Boyd Peterson, 325 Pioneer Trail : My property line adjoins . I had a question on the road. It' s going to be going from their road over to Great Plains Golf Estates . Is that a road or a trail? Olsen: We were just looking at options of providing future connection and actually the only possible location would be along this line but that is not definite that that road will go through yet. Brown: If I may clarify that , I don' t mean to confuse you. I don' t think it's a future street connection. I think if the plat were to be ' approved , that would be a requirement if the Commission would so desire Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 42 ( 1 to look at that option. It ' s not related to future road connection. That ' s dependant upon the approval of the plat . Headla moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Conrad : Before I open it up for the commissioners to talk, the property to the west has been subdivided and there are no easements to make the connection. If we wanted to make the connection , what would it take to I change the plat that has been approved? Is that really an option? Olsen : It is an option . They just have preliminary plat approval . They I haven' t received final plat approval . Conrad : Did staff or the Planning Commission look at that? Olsen: We did and we hit the ravine and we didn' t know where the development was going to go so it was really hard to determine so at that time we did not pursue it. 1 Emmings : We've never liked long cul-de-sacs . We' ve always been for connecting them up to neighboring properties and I certainly think we ought to reserve an easement across there to do that. Sometimes the City II Council has gone along with us . Sometimes they haven' t but I would certainly want to encourage the City Council to make that a condition of this plat and try and get a connection across there. The only other 111 thing I 've got is that if you look at Lot 6, Jo Ann, and really this would apply to a lot of these. All of them. 9 , 10 . They've got all of the septic sites between the house and the street and we' re bringing I driveways back and I assume that they will be absolutely forbidden to put a driveway across . Olsen : Oh yes . They' ll all have to be staked . 1 Emmings: Okay, and they can' t drive across those areas in the construction phase either to compact them. They' ve got to stay off of them. Olsen : And they should be preserved even after the house is constructed. II Emmings: In fact there is a provision that says that isn' t there? They can' t ever . And that ' s not going to create any problems with driveways? Olsen: What usually happens is that whoever buys that lot also has the option of finding another suitable site . If they want to line them up right along the lot line to provide them more room, they can do that. 1 Emmings : I guess what I 'm thinking , if you just look at 12 and 13 for example. The driveway on 12 is going to have to be right hand side as we' re looking at this and the driveway on 13 is going to have to be off to the left. The way it is , do we worry about driveway separations coming out on those streets or not? Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 43 IV Olsen: No. IEllson : Just to echo the thing about the street . I 'm not sure I like the idea that one person has, even if it' s a plat approval or whatever , I this whole thing is contingent that that one goes through. First of all , the Great Plains Golf Estates has to go through. Everything has to be built just the way it plans before this can even get off the ground. I That's kind of a lot of tying in to make your project go. Emmings : I don ' t think we' re saying that . I Ellson: Well , he' s got to have that thing to connect it with otherwise, if Golf Estates or whatever falls through than this would fall through because there isn ' t anything to go across there. Isn ' t that right? Emmings : We only want to reserve an easement so ' zt s possible to do it I in the future if we want to. That' s all I 'm saying. Conrad : It ' s a question. We have these standards that we keep screwing around with on cul-de-sacs. It ' s kind of tiring. IEllson : We' re not being consistent , yes . Conrad: The idea that we' re party to is that it ' s unsafe to have a long ,' cul-de-sac and we continually, almost every week, have long cul-de-sacs. I don' t know Jo Ann. Obviously, it ' s tough to plan in advance and make connections in some of these areas , especially in larger areas like this I but we do have a standard out there and that standard says it' s unsafe. Yet we' re saying, it' s unsafe but we' ll let this happen because we' ve already granted preliminary plat approval to something else and I don ' t I know, we still have a chance to connect and if we really buy that standard that it' s unsafe to live on a cul-de-sac that ' s longer than 500 feet and that ' s going to injure somebody, we' d better to stick to that or else we should change our standard. We kind of are believing the staff' s I perspective that it is unsafe . We hear all these emergency folks tell us that it is unsafe. Here we go, we ' re allowing an unsafe development to go based on opinion. IOlsen: The recommendation should be to preserve that . I Conrad: It' s not only to reserve it, it ' s to make the connection. I don ' t know, given what the standards are. If there ' s no way for emergency vehicles to get in there, we ' re creating a dangerous situation. I don ' t know how I can resolve that in my mind . IHeadla: That bothers me. I think there is an alternative and I 'm sorry we didn ' t bring it up at our last meeting . Remember the church over by 'I McDonalds . We said all you needed was like a hard gravel road. If we ask staff to try and develop something here but give them an alternative. ,. Try to come through here and you probably have to acquire some land but come through here somewhere with that type of road and he can put a chain I across it. The fire trucks can get the chain down. It would stop cars from using it but if he would have a firm surface from here through here , I Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 44 20 foot right-of-way or whatever the Fire Department would need , wouldn' t 1 that satisfy our safety requirements? Conrad : It would satisfy the standards that we've been trying to follow. Headla: And like Lake Susan, if we would have just asked the fellow to put in that type of thing, at least temporary, I think it would have been alright. I Ellson: Just like a fire escape road that' s just used in case. Headla: Yes . ' Olsen : We did look at that option . . . Emmings: And would they have problems with getting another entrance on that road from the County? Olsen: Exactly. We looked at that too. Headla : As an emergency road? Ellson: Maybe if we just told them it' s limited use like that . Brown: No, they would still object . ' Olsen : The best direction would be going to Great Plains Golf Estates . It ' s level there. It almost lines up with another future road. That really could work out the best . The problem is with Great Plains Golf Estates, I don' t know if you can follow this, this is showing the existing connections , but Don Halla is proposing to extend their deadline for final plat approval . They just do want to even- develop it for a long time. The easement would be there for a long time. I don' t think we do have a set length of 500 feet. I think that' s what one of the problems is , is that is real ambiguous . The definition of what length of a permitted cul-de-sac is . Emmings : But this one is long enough to be in the category. It' s over in the red zone. I know we've talked about 1, 500 as being too long before. I can remember that . Headla : We gave up on that too easy. You can come up CR 14 , part of the I proposed driveway. Then you don' t have to worry about the access . It isn' t something we' re going to be using all the time. It looks like I think it was right at the curve. I think there' s something there that we II could develop. Brown: In comment to that . I agree with you that we would like some alternative access. The problem being, one of the problems that I will mention is Carver County reviewed this access point onto CSAH 14 with regards to sight distance. It's very tight. Very tight. They did come back with a recommendation that the access onto Pioneer Trail would be acceptable and would meet MnDot' s guidelines. I would doubt, speaking 1 Planning Commission ommisszon Meeting Ik7March 16 , 1988 - Page 45 ' off the top of my head , I would doubt an alternative accessing that general vicinity would meet those sight line requirements . Again, that would have to meet MnDot' s approval . ' Headla : But if you ' re coming off an existing road already, a driveway. ' Brown: Where is the road that you were. . . Olsen : Where this cul-de-sac will be? That ' s where they' re realigningCR14 and they are proposing to put in a cul-de-sac. When the County realigns CR ' 14 , they are proposing to also develop this cul-de-sac to service all the lots that are loosing their frontage. It doesn't show up here but that' s where it would go, right through this guy' s property. Batzli : I had a question for Jo Ann. Is this letter from Carver County regarding the access point or is that what this is solely in regards to? ' Brown: Correct . ' Batzli : Have they reviewed the final construction plans before approval? Brown: They've reviewed this . lr Batzli : What are they actually requesting here is I guess my question. They would like another opportunity to look at something . ' Olsen : That ' s one of their new conditions that is in all the letters now. They just want to see what was finally approved by the City but they always have to give the access permit so they always have to see the final entryway plan. Batzli : Is that something we should be including as a condition? ' Brown: Being that they are covered by the access permit, it ' s solely up to the feeling of the Commission. ' Olsen: It ' s a reminder to us . Brown: I think their main intent there , a lot of times when plat approval , their feeling is a lot of time in plat approval there may be items missed such as side slope grading at the culvert entrance, etc . . Minor details that they want to make sure they have their handle on. ' Batzli : I guess I would suggest maybe as a reminder to us , that we do include that as a condition. Another question I had, is your condition to straighten out the reverse curve, number 4? Okay, so that' s already been included. Brown: Yes . Batzli : I also agree , not to overharp on it because I think I did enough last agenda item on the subject but I guess I 'd like to see at least to I Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 16 , 1988 - Page 46 47 preservation of right-of-way. I 'd like to be consistent . ' Headla: I think we' ve got to have another access at the north end of the cul-de-sac . If we can give them two options or more, all the better but II I think he should be obligated to come up with something. Ellson : Explain to me what the difference of saying reserve a right-of-way versus . . . I Emmings : We' re reserving an easement for a road . Conrad: So just in case. Ellson : But it doesn ' t tell him to make a road? Conrad: No. So I think we can either have language in our recommendation to reserve it and say that sort of gets us off the hook with our standards but it doesn' t force anything to happen. Or we can make it an absolute . We think a second access should be found . Emmings : But if we do it along the route that we' re talking about, of course it will go to the edge of their property and it will stop and it will be a road to noplace until that other development is done. What you' re saying , as far as what I hear is if we reserve the easement , at least we' ve got the potential for connecting it up later on. But if we demand that they have a second access point , that ' s going to have to come off CR 14. And it' s not going to happen because of the County if I hear what Larry is saying. So there we' ve got an impossibility. , Conrad: I guess I don' t know that. I 'm sure Larry's feeling is, I don' t know that Larry has ever gone or said this is an emergency entrance only that is chained and will only be used by the Fire or Police. Emmings : But they don' t even own that property up there. We' re asking them to put a road through property they don' t own. ' Conrad : I honestly don' t know where it would go. I hear what you' re saying. , Brown: If I may clarify the position before you may make a motion. My condition so states, at least in the body of the report, that if the Planning Commission wishes to pursue the alternative access , then the plat should be revised to form a "T" intersection with that cul-de-sac, the end of the bubble. My concern is if in fact the applicant were to pursue putting a road through to Great Plains Estates, and any other conditions , the intersection created there would create an askewed intersection and ultimately a hazard. Conrad : Larry, we' re talking about an emergency entrance. We' re not ' talking about an ongoing road. Ellson : It ' s not even the same material . Usually just gravel . , 11 ! , Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 47 ' Brown: If it' s an emergency access only, then there would not be a problem with it. If the Council 's wishes were to pursue a 50 foot roadway easement , then I would ask that it be conditioned upon that ' statement . Headla : What happened at the Council? Did they look at Lake Susan Hills? ' Olsen : That hasn ' t gone in front of them yet . Headla: Okay, so we don' t know how much the Council is going to back us up on emergency fire lanes . Batzli : Based on my experience, they would. Headla : However , a few meetings before you came on. ' Batzli : This was way prior to when I came on. It was through my neighborhood . Headla : I still remember over on the southeast side of Minnewashta . Conrad: Would we want language in here that would basically say that we IF reserve some right-of-way for a second access for emergency use only? Is that the intent of what we'd like to do? Headla : If they just reserve it , he doesn ' t have to improve it. Maybe ' there' s a little swamp or something so a fire truck couldn' t get through there . Instead of reserve, provide? ' Batzli : But it can ' t be provided until what , when and where we' re going to require it to be provided. It may not be able to be provided right now other than to CR 14. Conrad : Well, we can' t even get there. Headla : I think we' ve got to take the position here because other ' builders are going to look in and if we let this one go through , just like this in a day, we might as well forget about the whole thing . Do we mean it or not? ' Emmings : We can vote it down on that basis . Make a motion to vote it down and explain that the reason is simply because of the long cul-de-sac or maybe do the same thing a little more positively, although I don ' t think it' s any different. Maybe make a motion that it pass contingent upon the developer finding a second access acceptable to the City planning staff and City Council by the time it goes to City Council . Conrad : I think that ' s a good way to do it. Olsen: When you say access, are you talking about a roadway easement or? I Planning Commission on Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 48 ' Emmings : A solution to the problem that' s okay with city staff and City I Council . Brian Olson : I guess I 'd like to maybe get a clear understanding about II the sort of things we' re talking about. I guess it seems like the main concern here is the connection of this long cul-de-sac somewhere else outside this property. Emmings : No . The concern, just to maybe speed this up, the concern is II the length of that road and with emergency vehicles getting to property owners who are at the end . If there are vehicles blocking that road or II snow blocking that road or whatever. We always like to have a second way in . That' s the issue . Brian Olson : Is the concerns for the safety, like if this was in a normal say smaller lot subdivision, it would have numerous more lots along the length of this cul-de-sac . If you would take a normal 500 foot long cul-de-sac with their 90 foot wide lots along there, I believe you'd II end up with 11 or 12 lots . This has 16 lots so we' re talking 6 additional single family houses that would be on this long cul-de-sac as compared to the normal city standards of 500 feet which would be the smaller lengths . Jr Conrad : Emergency wise , you still have to get to that . It ' s a distance A, issue. The thing that we are struggling with is we've always had some kind of a standard saying cul-de-sacs should not be longer than this simply because we can' t get emergency help to the people there and that' s what we' re dealing with. Here I don' t know how long your cul-de-sac is but it' s a long one. We set precedent. Everytime these come in and we say you don ' t need it , then I guess if you don' t need it and we' re not worried about somebody at the end and reaching them in a tornado or II whatever , I don ' t know if the City is doing it ' s job of making sure that everybody is going to be provided their emergency service adequately. That' s what we' re struggling with . No matter how many houses , I think your point is there are fewer houses in this area but we still have to get help to them. Brian Olson : May I ask Jo Ann or Larry maybe can help me out on this . II This plat has received plat approval and the Council did ask for a change for revision in their preliminary plat . Does that constitute a major change or a minor change? To provide an access or does that get into the condemnation of a lot? Olsen: It' s a major change. Conrad : I don' t think those on the Planning Commission are saying you have to have a fully improved road. We just want to know that there' s a flat piece of land that this fire truck or vehicle can get over and when II that part is blocked, we want to be able to get that vehicle there. Therefore, we' re not , I don ' t think on either your property or , I don' t know that it' s condemning or taking a piece of land. I think it' s putting a right-of-way there and it ' s going to make sure that it ' s a I Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 49 ' passable right-of-way but I don' t know that we' re taking property that' s useable. ' Headla : From the proposed Great Plains Golf Estates , would it be possible to put like a 20 foot right-of-way? They really don' t need property as such . If we come through on a dividing line, take 20 feet ' off of each side just so they can drive a vehicle on? Brown: Right now the possible access through Great Plains Golf Estates is limited by the topography. The ravine cuts up into the lot . ' Headla : That really is not a practical way to go Larry? Olsen: There is a flat area . There also is an existing road on Great Plains Estates but it ' s being used by the nursery. So if you' re just talking a small gravel access . . . ' Headla : That ' s on the very south side isn ' t it? Olsen: There is an existing drive here . ' Brown: There ' s no doubt that the applicant ' s provided a section through here, that this is fairly flat. Again, my only concern was we obviously would be affecting this building pad and this building pad is limited due Ir to the ravine which cuts in through here. From what I ' ve seen , it ' s not going to be easily remedied by that. Whether it' s possible . . . ' Conrad : I guess we can ' t get into designing right now. We' re pretty lousy at that but maybe we put in some terms where we ask the City Engineer and the developer to provide a plan for providing emergency ' access for the short and long term. Then you can do it and then the City is making their decision as to what kind of emergency service the people at the end of the cul-de-sac should have. ' Headla moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #87-2 as shown on the plat stamped "Received January 25, 1988" subject to the following conditions : ' 1. Soil borings are submitted to the city soil consultants and the consultants approve two acceptable sites per lot prior to the final ' plat approval . 2. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper ' installation of these public improvements . 3. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit . 4 . A revised plan showing the changes in the horizontal roadway alignment, as discussed previously in this report, shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer as part of the final planning review process . I Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 50 5. An 18-inch minimum diameter culvert shall be installed underneath the I proposed access onto Pioneer Trail , CSAH 14. 6. The proposed road file shall include a 0. 5% grade for a minimum distance of 50 feet prior to the access onto Pioneer Trail . 7 . Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be utilized on all disturbed , slopes greater than 3: 1. 8. The typical rural roadway section shall be revised to a 3-inch bituminous wear course as per the City standards for rural construction . 9. The applicant shall pay park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction. 10. If a road connection goes through to Great Plains Golf Estates , the Park and Recreation Commission shall review the plan for possible trail connections . 11. The applicant and City Engineer shall work together to develop an emergency vehicle right-of-way. Jr 12. The applicant must provide calculations verifying the pre-development II run-off rate. 13 . Carver County shall be given a chance to review the final construction plans. All voted in favor and motion carried . Headla: The function of our Class B wetland is really just to delay water from flowing down so even if it ' s a lawn, it ' s going to serve the purpose isn' t it? Olsen : The vegatation will be preserved and they won ' t be able to fill it in and mow it. Headla : That ' s not going to happen . Why is it such a poor Class B wetland now? Olsen : It ' s just a low area in the ground that just happens to have wetland vegetation. ' Headla : Low area and they' ve plowed into part of it . My point is , the owner has gone into it already and if it becomes a lawn. ' Olsen : It won' t become lawn . It' s being preserved. Headla: Go out there in 5 years and it' s going to be a lawn but that' s not necessarily bad is it? 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 51 Olsen : It ' s being preserved as a wetland . They have certain setbacks that they have to maintain. They can not alter it without receiving a ' wetland alteration permit. They can not make it into a lawn area . Brown: I think we have a similar item where someone in the community had ' altered a wetland alteration permit and even though their construction wiped it out and they are being made to go back through the process and give compensation to restore the wetland . ' Emmings moves, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-4 for development within 200 ' feet of a Class B wetland subject to the following conditions : 1. No construction traffic will be permitted beyond the erosion control fence to the south of the wetland. 2. The structure on Lot 2, Block 1 must maintain a 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetland and the septic system must maintain a 150 foot setback from the edge of the wetland . All voted in favor and motion carried . IFGARY CARLSON, MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS , PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CHURCH ROAD AND TH 7: ' A. REZONING OF FOUR LOTS TO R-4 , MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR TWIN HOMES (8 UNITS) . B. SUBDIVISION OF 8 . 6 ACRES (LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 3 AND 4, SCHMID' S ACRE TRACTS) INTO 12 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 4 TWO FAMILY LOTS (8 ' UNITS) . C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DEVELOP A SUBDIVISION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. Public Present : ' Name Address Gary Carlson Applicant ' Dennis Story William R. Engelhardt & Associates Paul Palmer 1930 Whitetail Ridge Court, Excelsior Merlyn & Betty Wanous 6231 Church Road Harry Campbell 6251 Church Road Clinton B. Shager 6320 Church Road Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 52 i Dennis Story: I 'm with William R. Engelhardt and Associates and I 'm I representing the applicant, Gary Carlson. The applicant is in agreement with the staff ' s recommendations . I ' ll be happy to answer any questions . Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the ublic hearing. All voted in P g favor and motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Headla: Larry, on the recommendation 7, I don' t think I 've ever seen that before . Why here? A gate valve shall be located three feet behind each hydrant in accordance with the City' s detail for hydrant construction . Brown: Typically the gate valves are always proposed there . On this plan they were left out and that standard is in accordance with the City' s standards . We have a detail for that. Headla: So they just left it out? That' s the main reason you put it in? I Brown: Yes , it' s just so we know we have a positive place that we know the gate valves exist in the case of an emergency. ' Headla : Which way, when you say the gate valve behind each hydrant . Is that towards . . . Brown: Towards the supplying watermain . Headla: On the Option C, I don' t see where we even should consider it I since there are two variances there . I think we ought to go with A. At first I didn' t like A but I sure don' t like variances and it looks like recommend approval of a variance just because it ' s kind of convenient for now. Is there any overwhelming thing for why we should go with C and not A? Olsen : It provides future street access . ' Headla: That may or may not happen down through a wetland. Olsen : There is area there to be developed as residential in that ' property. Emmings : There is developable land west . ' Headla: Is that the way you really see that land being developed and a road going into through there as in Option C? Is that the most logical way? Olsen : A developer that I 've spoken with was looking at I possibly servicing it from the west but it would have to cross a wetland and they wouldn ' t get staff approval for that . We would prefer that it be serviced from the east . Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 53 ' Headla : I don ' t think we ought to go with Option C and the variances . If we do that we' re saying we aren' t really serious about the numbers that we try to impose on other people . That ' s all . ' Batzli : Same theme, different song. I don' t necessarily agree that the imposition of a second access is a hardship. I don' t like that reasoning at all and for that reason I don' t like granting variances and imposing a second access because I don' t think it should be a hardship. I think it should be planned into the site plans being given to the City. I had a question on the difference between conditions 2 and 8 . Olsen: There isn' t. One was my condition and one was Larry' s. It' s just a repeat. Batzli : 8 is broader and I like the fact that it ' s disposed of properly in 8 . I guess when it comes time to make a motion, I 'd kind of like to clean that up . That was all I had . Conrad : What alternative do you like? Batzli : I like redrawing it without one of the lots somehow to get a second access . Whether that' s to an unimproved thing to the cartway. That seems to be our tune tonight but I don ' t think it ' s a hardship. '- Ellson: So you ' re saying , maybe don' t have a separate lot. Just make 7 really big and make it 15 or something like that? ' Emmings : Just find a way. This is a passing comment. I always think it ' s funny we plan, you take the lots along the highway, they' re not as desirable so we put more people on them. Because there' s a noisy ' highway, we put more people on those lots and I understand that ' s the way it goes but it just seems perverse. We' ve got to be in favor of a connection over to the west it seems to me. They' re never going to be ' able to cross that wetland. That wetland is a connection between Lake Minnewashta and Lake Virginia , is it not? It runs all the way through there. They' re not going to be building over that thing and there is going to be development to the west . I think that ' s inevitable so ' I think there should be a connection there. The Fire Department is right here on this corner and if they had to go anywhere in that area, that would be the way they would want to go rather than going all the way up and coming back. I 'm in favor of the connection and I agree with Dave that we want to stay away from variances, trivial as these are and I agree with Brian that maybe they ought to just look at it and try and design a way to have that connection in there without needing the ' variances . I don ' t know if it ' s impossible . If they've tried to do it and they can tell me it' s impossible. That' s one thing but . . . Dennis Story: We have tried to do it and the size of the lots involved just prohibits from shifting anymore. We tried to shift all the lots around to make that additional room there. The area to the west can be developed and have access from the north and from the northwest without ' an access in this area . This basically is a short cul-de-sac, 500 feet . That little bubble provides access to those two corner lots. The lots , Plannin g Commission Commissi ' Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 54 as they sit in the Option A, meet the requirements as far as the square I footage goes and that type of thing. The land to the west can be developed by alternate access . So this parcel actually stands by itself. The other parcels can be developed to the west with access from the north I and northwest . Emmings : Would you just point out to me the two lots that need variances? Would need variances under Option C. 1 Olsen: Lots 4 and 5 . One of them has 88 feet of frontage at the 30 foot setback and one of them has 80 feet . ' Emmings : That' s what they have but are you saying that with the street in, going to the west that's what they would have? Olsen : With the street going in, they could possibly have 90 feet and that is why staff was saying it might be justified because right now they do not meet the requirements . • Emmings: They don' t? Olsen : No, pushing this easement, no they don' t. ' Emmings : Because you can't measure into the easement? Olsen : They' re pushing these lot lines over to provide for the easement so right now, no I measured into the easement and they still don' t have it . Emmings : So 4 and 5 are short right now but if the street when in, then they would have sufficient frontage? ' Dennis Story: Yes , if the street went in , they would . Batzli : I 'm sure it' s Lots 4 and 5 . ' Headla : Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 shall receive a lot width variance so we' re talking 4 and 5. ' Emmings : So once the street was in, only 4 would be? Olsen: We rough drafted a street coming in ' There would be the street frontage there. Then the street would be coming in like this so Lot 5 might go straight up like that and 4, then they would II both have enough street frontage. That' s why staff was justifying those variances because if the street goes through, it would be resolved . The street frontage problem. Batzli : One of them would be resolved. Olsen: Possibly both could be . , 1 • Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 55 IF ' Dennis Story: Under Option A, it meets the requirements . Under Option C, if the street goes in, it meets the requirements if the line is suggested . ' Conrad : Why didn' t staff like B? Olsen : It was the street configuration of south, we felt that this would become a real straight through street. We liked the configuration of the curve . Conrad : But you' re forgetting about the lots and how many lots there ' are. If you take that issue out, you still don' t like that road configuration because it' s not curvy. Olsen: That' s pretty much our position. The engineering staff too. Conrad : I guess from an engineering standpoint , it looks like the easiest one right there. They may have to drop a lot but engineering ' wise, isn ' t that the easiest one to do? Olsen: And a temporary cul-de-sac too, we don' t like. Conrad : But we have that on C right? Isn ' t that a temporary cul-de-sac? Olsen: No, it' s really a permanent cul-de-sac but then they' ve got an ' easement for future roads . Conrad : And we' re going to assume that road connection will go through so then we' ll have a pretty strange, we' ll have a lumpy road won' t we? That ' s always bothered me. To have a cul-de-sac turned into a road because for sure, you' ve got a big loop. I don' t know what that does . ' Brown: I think basically from a planning standpoint , they requested us to take a look at the other site plan, aesthetic, whatever, planning issues , the other site plan was preferred . There is no problem with this ' type of configuration. Certainly both of them lend themselves from an engineering standpoint as far as right-of-way width, as far as grades and access, what have you. I think it boils back down to planning issues and ' aesthetics . Both of them from an engineering standpoint will achieve the access that may need to be facilitated to the cartway. Paul Palmer : It just seems like the logical solution was combining B and ' C. Take the design of C with the extension and use the B where you don' t put the circle at the end of it . Now you ' ve accomplished your objective. You have a circle drive but you don' t put the circle at the end. I agree wholeheartedly that putting a circle in there with curb and gutter and everything else and then putting a street through as part of a future purpose having a natural development of the land . Anybody that knows anything about it is going to see what you did and that' s always going to be that sore spot . Plus it ' s going to be a problem when it comes to building on those lots because of setback requirements . By having a Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 56 temporary put in at an angle like that , you could probably achieve what I you ' re after. Dennis Story: Typically what is done is the road on the other alternatives or options where the road was extended, the wings on that cul-de-sac would be removed and a straight curve would be put in. Conrad: From a zoning standpoint Jo Ann, how do we justify this? It' s not spot zoning , you tell us . It ' s acceptable zoning to change it because. . . Olsen : We reviewed it as to what the zoning district permits and is it compatible with adjacent uses and we felt that it is appropriate. Conrad : And we' re not setting a precedent? The density is not real high. It looks good in that regard. Olsen : No , it' s not. We not setting a precedence . It has been done before. Emmings: Right across TH 7. Conrad : Okay, I 'm comfortable with how this particular applicant wants to develop that property. That looks good. I 'm in concurrence with the zoning . I think it' s pot luck, I guess I don ' t know what to do on the A, B or C. I don' t have a clear vision and I hope somebody here on the Planning Commission does . Can make a recommendation for us tonight . Any other comments? Would somebody like to make a motion first of all on the I zoning issue? If you feel in concurrence with that , we'd be rezoning it from RSF to R-4. Olsen : The motion is on that other attachment . Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend I approval of Rezoning #88-1, request to rezone 3 acres of RSF, Residential Single Family to R-4, Mixed Low Density as shown on the preliminary plat dated February 22, 1988 , Lots 9, 10, 11 and 16 . All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad : In terms of the preliminary plat, is there a motion? Ellson: What do you want to see Brian? Batzli : For Option A, B or C? Ellson : I think you should make the motion or whatever , so we make sure II we get it right. What would you like to see? Batzli : I didn' t get a clear direction on proposal B, first of all , as to why it was rejected out of hand. I heard crossfire from the staff kind of . I don' t know, I kind of like B but no one else seems to . Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 57 ' Headla: I liked B. Batzli : But it doesn ' t seem like the developer or the staff likes it so ' I don' t know why I should like it because I 'm probably the least trained to look at it and decide whether I like it or not from an aesthetic point of view. Conrad : Anybody want to make a motion now that we know where Brian stands. Headla moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #88-2 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received March 3, 1988" (Option B) and street and utility plans as shown ' on the plans stamped "Received February 22, 1988 and subject to the staff ' s conditions . This motion was later withdrawn. Headla : A question on the trail easement. When we go up to the parkland , Shorewood ' s parkland , is that what that Park and Recreation thing is? Olsen : The Park and Recreation Commission wanted to continue the trail along Minnewashta Parkway. IF Batzli : I ' d like to propose a friendly amendment that we clean up where this shed actually is if we ' re going with Option B. I think it' s on a different lot number . Gary Carlson : I know I 'm not in order with your order of parlimentary procedure but I 'm the developer on the property, Gary Carlson. I can appreciate that we' re wrestling with concerns about the City and staff ' has done an excellent job of putting together actually three proposals. The reason that B was frowned on was we ' re not trying to set up city blocks here in a straight line development. It' s a small area with only 16 lots on TH 7. What I ' ve tried to do, I own 5 homes in the area and all of them are affected by this plat . I 've lived in the area for 17 years and I tried to bring together something that will be simple, look the nicest. I have a lot of neighbors here supporting me. As they know, ' I want the nicest neighborhood in the area . It has to be medium priced because it ' s close to TH 7. It ' s not on any range or wild oaks . What we have is a small single block area and now you want us to put the ' straight streets through, if I hear this motion. If you press ahead with B I ' ll probably withdraw and not develop at this time because you've ruined 1 through 5 as just straight block lots . The pontential for having a street all along and no privacy. You do open up to the west but as I say, we've been out there for 18 years and nothing has changed. If it does , they have a cartway and I own one of the houses on the cartway and I 've given the City a 50 foot easement. I 've asked the City to maintain the street . I 'm willing to accept assessments to improve that to a curb and gutter street. There are only two other residents there besides the park and the park someday has got to have curb and gutter . They can' t go with a gravel road forever . The cartway is the natural way. I 'm willing to go with Option C or Option A would be preferable because it keeps the lots in that small area close to TH 7, it gives the I Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 58 people some privacy. If you go with B with a straight through road , all 1 those lots are small and see what it does to 8 . It makes a big square lot and there' s a house on there already. At least a $50 , 000. 00 house. It ' s way at the back corner of the property whereas on the curvature design , the home can be added to make it up to the medium priced home that is being proposed. You have to look at what homes are there and they' re asking me to take down a home. Either demolition it , removing it so I only have one home per lot. I 'm doing all that I can. Right now on I that whole parcel , I pay $150 . 00 in taxes . I 'm giving that up. I 'm turning over to the City, when those 16 lots develop, the potential between $24 , 000. 00 and $32, 000. 00 in taxes a year . So all I 'm asking you I to do is look at every lot owner who' s going to own in there. What are we, as a City doing to provide them with the nicest, private neighborhood. Taking into consideration for emergency vehicles. Taking into consideration the property to the west , he only has a little strip, you can barely get four lots in there. Then you run right into the creek and a huge swamp area . So you want me to provide street , walk and out to four lots . He' s going to have to come in with a cul-de-sac to develop anyway. He' s not going to go through and he' s got the cartway which should be improved. It' s got a fire hydrant on there. The whole north end of Shorewood has to come down the cartway to get to that fire hydrant. Now I have to call the City of Chanhassen every year to come. It ' s a public cartway by the way. It ' s publicly dedicated. We along the cartway pay the same taxes that everybody else in the City does and we get no street maintenance. Conrad : We' re trying to, let me jump in here , it' s real late . Here ' s what we' re trying to do and I guess we didn' t see anything that was really perfect up there in the three alternatives . We don' t like variances. Especially when you have a lot of acres to develop. Gary Carlson : Those variances are only. . . 1 Conrad : But when you have 7 acres or whatever you have, you don' t need any. You have enough land to put in something without any variances . I Really you do. If you' re tight and you had one acre or whatever, I think we can see situations where there are constraints . We' re changing the zoning. I think we' re sensitive to what you want to do there. I think the way I read the Planning Commission is , not that we like straight roads. I really like the curve that you had in there before but you didn ' t solve our problems . The problem being access to the west and you didn' t solve a variance problem. This particular alternative, and I 'm not sure what the variances involved in that . I wouldn' t want variances in that road alignment. I guess I would not be approving that particular plat or subdivision . What I want to make sure of is that there aren ' t any variances and I want to make sure that there' s a potential access for those to the west, unless you can sell us that we don' t need access to the west. But there' s land there and you know that area there fairly well yourself . I haven' t heard a case made that there should be an access from some other direction. Gary Carlson: C provides access to the west . Our planner and the city staff has worked together to make an aesthetic neighborhood and yet 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 59 ' provide an access to the west and C does that . I don ' t know why you' re building on B. ' Headla : From what I hear , B is not an option. Conrad: It may be an option for us but not for the developer . ' Headla : I think we ought to withdrawn and table this thing until we find out what they really want and look for that second road. ' Ellson: I 'm all for C. I like the way that you did that especially if that road goes through, then you ' re really talking about just one lot with that problem. It ' s not like four variances and what have you. In ' fact, we could take the curve back and eliminate the look of a cul-de-sac that went bad , or whatever . If you added that kind of thing in there, wording, I 'd like to see it and go ahead and move this along rather than just tabling it. Emmings : I think what I hear , I would vote for B or C if they eliminate the variance. Either B or C or some other one that hasn' t been presented ' as long as it connected to the west and eliminated the variances , I 'd vote for it. IF Headla : Like I just said, I think we ought to just table this thing and let him come in again. Emmings : I wouldn ' t have voted for your motion on B because it included four variances . Batzli : Are you withdrawing your motion? ' Headla: Yes . Batzli : I ' ll withdraw my second . Emmings: If the applicant doesn' t want B. Headla : And A doesn ' t really fit . Conrad : A doesn ' t solve our problem. The only alternative is C and what I 've heard is that, you ' re concerned with the small variances to two lots on C. Headla : I don ' t think they've worked C good enough. I think there is some design work that could be done there to fix that up. Ellson : Such as , what do you mean? Just move them around or whatever , is that what you ' re saying? Headla : I don ' t see why there y has to be that real curvy road right in there. If you plan on a road going through there and work it that way. r PlanniII ng g Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 60 I Ellson : I think they've done an awful lot . We don ' t get a lot of three II choices type plans before us . I think they've shown that they have been willing to do whatever they can. Headla : He withdrew B so we only have two and one of those two requires II variances and the other one doesn' t fit the Village' s plans . Olsen : You can approve C without any variances and that would solve it. 1 Conrad: If somebody makes a motion for C but eliminates the variances, that would send a signal to the developer that we like the road II configuration but that something has to be done with the lot lines to eliminate the variances and he would probably have to solve it before he got to City Council. If he chose not to solve it, City Council could II vote to grant variances . Ellson: You guys weren ' t satisified with her reasoning behind allowing this one being whatever see called a hardship, because of aesthetics . , You' re worried that this will set a precedence so people will say, you let it happen on Church Road whereas she seems to have a really good argument where you could say that was the exception because the Church II Road instance was thus, thus and thus . 1 Batzli : It ' s not a hardship. I view it as they planned their own hardship. That 's not a hardship. II Ellson moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of II Subdivision #88-2 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received March 3, 1988" (Option C) , and street and utility plans as shown on the plan stamped "Received February 22, 1988" and subject to the conditions I in the staff report. There was no second and motion failed for lack of a second . Conrad : And as a part of that motion , you do feel they should be granted I the variances? Ellson : Yes . I Batzli moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend I approval of Subdivision #88-2 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received March 3, 1988 (Option C) " , and street and utility plans as shown on the plan stamped "Received February 22, 1988" subject to the following conditions : I 1. The two sheds on Lot 14 , Block 1 and the street right-of-way and the small one story single family residence on Lot 15, Block 1, shall be II removed prior to completion of site improvements (i .e. , street construction and installation of utilities) . The demolition debris from the home and shed shall be removed, trucked off from the site II and disposed of properly. II Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 61 ' 2. A 20 foot trail easement shall be provided along the west side of Church Road and park and trail dedication fees shall be required. ' 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement for completion of the improvements . ' 4. All utility improvements shall conform to the City standards for urban construction . 5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions required by the DNR, Watershed District and any other regulatory agencies . ' 6. A gate valve shall be located three feet behind each hydrant as in accordance with the City' s detail for hydrant construction. 7. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the ' initiation of any grading and once in place they shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer is required to review erosion control and make the necessary repairs ' promptly. All erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal should be the repsonsibility of the developer . if IF 8. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used on all slopes greater than 3 to 1. 9. The property utility and drainage easements shall be provided for the proposed retention/sedimentation basin located at the south of Lots 9 and 10 of Block 1 prior to final plat approval review process . ' 10. The sanitary sewer along Church Road shall be installed at a deep enough level to be able to provide gravity service to the Frizzell and Kerber property. ' 11 . Construction of sanitary sewer along Church Road shall take all necessary precautions to protect existing City utility and roadway improvements . 12 . Lot 16 , Block 2, the driveway access onto Church Road shall be at the northerly most point to allow for proper traffic stacking movement . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Elison moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-3 as shown on page 1 of the preliminary plat stamped "Received February 22 , 1988" and subject to the following condition: 1. There shall be no construction activity beyond the erosion control fence adjacent to the Class B wetland. ' All voted in favor and motion carried . Planning Commission Me et in g March 16, 1988 - Page 62 , PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FOOD PROCESSING FACILITIES (127 ,000 SQ. FT) FOR MCGLYNN BAKERIES, ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 5 AND AUDUBON ROAD AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR FOOD PROCESSING FACILITIES FOR MCGLYNN BAKERIES ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 5 AND AUDUBON ROAD. Jo Ann Olsen and Larry Brown presented the staff report on these two items . Conrad : Do we need anything in our motion that refers to the tax increment district being approved by City Council? Is that important? Brown: Yes . ' Chairman Conrad opened up the meeting for the public hearing . Mark Koegler : Not surprisingly the length of our presentation has been shrinking . Let me just introduce the people who are here and then we' re II here to respond to any questions that you might have. First of all for the record I 'm Mark Koegler with VanDoren , Hazard & Stallings and with me from our firm is Bob Sellers . Our role in the project is project planners , engineers and landscape architects . The architectural firm that' s involved in the project is Setter , Leach & Lindstrom. Dick Erickson on the end and Jim in the back. Both are very familiar with the building aspects and will address those questions . I guess last but not least , certainly not least from our point of view is our client . Michael McGlynn who is president of McGlynn Bakeries . Michael is very knowledgable , obviously with business aspects . I think between all of us we can certainly field any questions you might have. If you 'd like • further clarification on the Arboretum Road thing , we certainly can supply that. Headla moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings : I love it. Welcome to Chanhassen . I think it' s just a great addition to our community. I ' ve got no questions. I 'm all in favor of it . Ellson : I 'm the same way. I don' t have any questions . I thought it was easy to read and understand. I like it too. Batzli : I just want to know if they' re going to have a retail outlet so I can buy rolls. A question for Larry, was the 12 foot fire lane, was that in your condition 5? Do you have that? , II Planning Commission Meeting 1[7 March 16 , 1988 - Page 63 Brown: That was addressed by the Public Safety. Batzli : So the second sentence in condition 5 . . . IIOlsen : Should be removed and it should state that the level 2 sprinkling, that it should provide level 3 sprinkling system throughout the building . IIBatzli : I don ' t have any other questions . I Headla: On your bulk storage of flour and sugar , do you require special wiring switches? IMichael McGlynn : For the bulk sugar? Headla: For the bulk flour. IMichael McGlynn : Different type of wiring? Headla: If there is bulk flour , the first thing I think about is Iexplosions . Michael McGlynn : Possibly there are items on the market such as what ' s IFnicknamed as the exploded proof wiring. Headla : Now, if they need that , are our inspectors trained? Do they know what to look for and work with the customer on this? IBrown: We can certainly add it to a condition. IOlsen: It will have to meet State Code. Headla : Okay, and our inspector can , he' s trained in? To me this would I be special that he hasn' t done before in Chanhassen. Brown: At present we have a mechanical inspector on temporary assignment that can probably do that, yes . IHeadla : Okay, so we can do that and work with them. Mark, you had the landscaping. I didn' t see anything there with our landscape Arboretum, Isome of the things they develop. Mark Koegler: Any of their specific hybrids? IHeadla : Right . We went through that earlier . Conrad: Four hours ago Mark we were on that subject. '' Headla : They' ve developed so many beautiful things and when I drive by there and I look at the whole southwest bank, I think what a beautiful place for that . That ' s all I have. I wanted to know. Do you have any Iother chemicals that are going to be used in there? II Planning Commission Meeting i March 16 , 1988 - Page 64 , Michael McGlynn: Other than the standard baking ingredients? ' Headla: I 'm not sure what' s standard. You have flour and sugar but are there any particular chemicals that will be used there for either baking or cleaning? Michael McGlynn: There certainly are chemicals used in cleaning . Not many of them are hazardous types. Our sanitation people are trained in the use of hazardous chemicals but we have very few in our facility. Headla: What kind of hazardous chemicals? Michael McGlynn: The caustic cleaning chemicals or maybe the grease from our donut frying operation or something like that. Headla : That ' s what you' re referring to more just a clean-up type of thing. Michael McGlynn: Yes . In fact the chemicals that we call hazardous are probably not the same as what a layman would. For us it ' s because of their proximity to food . Brown: I think if you go upstairs in the coffee room of City Hall , there' s a label of hazardous chemicals that we use routinely and they've been labeled hazardous just because they do pose a hazard if misused . It covers a wide range. I understand your concern and I think that a possible area for storage or some sort of addressing of this matter may be necessary not knowing what chemicals they are storing . , Headla : You' ll look at that then? Brown: We can, yes . ' Conrad : Okay Larry, tell me what tax increment district has to do with our proposal at this time? I guess I 'm really lost in terms of how that II affects this particular motion. Brown: First I ' ll explain that the tax increment district will allow the future access road that was shown in the plans to be constructed and then those assessments may be put against the property and waived due to the tax increment district. I really don' t think we need to get into the I nuts and bolts of the increment district . However , I think Brian worked out an acceptable statement as far as action being taken on this . Olsen : If you want , Mark Koegler can explain it to you. ' Mark Koegler: Your timing on everything is never perfect and this is a good example . On February 22nd at 4: 30 we had to have plans in . At 7: 30 II that night the Council met and decided that this is a good candidate for a tax increment site . The only impact that has , first of all it has no impact on the site itself. The only impact it has is on the form of the access . What we've proposed right now is the 220 foot , what we've internally called a glorified driveway. It' s a 36 foot wide City street I Planning Commission sszon Meetzng March 16 , 1988 - Page 65 really but we weren ' t proposing to dedicate it . Initially it was being built as a driveway thinking that when the property is platted later, that would be dedicated as public street, it would be added to serve the ' balance of the property. When the discussion of the upgrading of Audubon Road came into play, that was the new wrinkle at kind of the 11th hour and as I said, a decision had to be made at the time the plans were turned in. So this assumes that Audubon Road , if it' s going to be ' upgraded, is simply going to be probably an overlay. It' s a 7 ton road now. It would maybe go to a 9 ton. That ' s still a viable option . The other alternative that' s being addressed is to put in a full urban section street . Curb and gutter , street lighting and so forth and improve that entire stretch from probably TH 5 down to the railroad tracks . If that ' s done , certainly some of the utilities along that same ' right-of-way corridor as well as the entry road as Larry outlined, could be part of the tax increment project as well which could be a public improvement project at that point done by the city and assessed back to the property rather than a private improvement project that we' re looking ' at right now. So it really is simply an issue of who ' s going to be doing what . McGlynn ' s management has been meeting with Don on several occasions and is totally cooperative with whatever the City wants to ' pursue in that regard . It ' s just a matter of not knowing tonight how the tax increment issue is going to sort out. Either way, the access is the same. It ' s a matter of who does it and who pays for it . Conrad: Thank you Mark. That' s a little bit clearer. Okay, now Larry, you tell me what that has to do with the site plan . Although I understand what Mark just said, do we still need that contingency in here ' that this site plan is basically approved giving the tax increment? Brown: We can condition that if the City Council creates a tax increment district for this area , that the proposed access , the 220 foot access , be extended to the west to the future driveway as shown on page 2 of the plans dated February 22 , 1988 . ' Olsen : Just to further explain our reason for that , and correct me if I 'm wrong, is because that extension would also be partially paid for by the tax increment district and we would prefer to have that. ' Batzli : The proposed added condition would be that in the event the current tax increment district is approved by City Council , then the ' applicant shall submit plans to the City Engineer for approval for future roadway access to the westerly parking lot access . Headla: There's not going to be any retail out of this is there? ' Michael McGlynn : No . ' Emmings moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commisison recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-2 to allow a food processing plant in the IOP District with the following condition : Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 66 1. Any expansion of the food processing plant would require another conditional use permit. All voted in favor and motion carried . Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #88-3 as shown on the plan stamped "Received February 22 , 1988" with the following conditions: 1. The three Hackberrys proposed along the west side of Audubon Road shall be replaced with three evergreens at lesat 6 feet in height. 2. Additional evergreens , at least 6 feet in height , shall be located along the easterly boundary of the large employees parking lot . 3. One additional handicapped parking space shall be provided . 4. An elevation of the easterly berm and landscaping used to screen the easterly trucking area shall be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Fire hydrants shall be installed completely around the building and 300 feet apart. Level 3 sprinkling system shall be provided throughout the building . , 6 . The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide adequate financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of these improvements . 7. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize all I disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. 8. Plans and specifications for the construction of the sanitary sewer , watermain, storm sewer and sanitary services shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the final site plan review. 9. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction . The developer is required to review erosion control periodically and make the necessary repairs promptly. All of the erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced, at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer . 10. The applicant shall obtain permits and comply with all conditions from the DNR, Watershed District and any other appropriate regulatory agency. 11. In the event that the current tax increment district is approved by City Council , then the applicant shall submit plans to the City Engineer for approval for future roadway access to the westerly parking lot access . Planning Commission ommzsszon Meetzng March 16, 1988 - Page 67 ' 12. The City will accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland , a 20 foot trail easement along the west side of Audubon Road and trail ' dedication fees . All voted in favor and motion carried. Emmings moved, Headla seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12 : 50 a .m. . Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 f I 1 11 1