CC Minutes 1994 04 11 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin
AI-Jaff, and Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendoff moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Approve Assignment and Assumption of Development Contract, Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition,
Project 93-5
b. Approve Revision to County State Aid Highway System.
c. Resolution $9442: Approve Selection of Official Mapping Consultant for Tnmk Highway 101
Realignment, File PW-333.
e. Amendment to Chapter 10 of City Code Regarding Intoxicating Liquor, Final Reading.
f. Amendment to Chapter 16 of City Code regarding Hours of Collection for Mixed Municipal Solid Waste,
Final Reading.
g. School Site/Park Site, Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard:
1) School District Purchase Agreement
2) Joint Powers Agreement
3) Lease Agreement
4) Plans and Specifications
i. Resolution $94-42A: Approve Resolution Regarding City Unity Day.
j. Approval of Bills
k. City Council Minutes dated March 28, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes dated March 16, 1994
m. Approved Revised Development Conwact.
All voted in favor and the motion carded unanlmously.
D. SET DATES FOR CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS IN MAY.
Councilman Mason: Very quickly. I now, because soccer season has started and I coach soccer and my
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
daughter plays at 6:00 on Mondays, Monday nights for work sessions are going to be, it was an issue of having
games at 7:00 and missing every other game to be here for Council meetings or having games at 6:00.
Councilman Senn: Can't they change the soccer schedule for you?
Councilman Mason: Well, we've tried that.
Councilman Senn: I sit on the board.
Councilman Wing: Why was it when I had fire duties on Monday nights...geez, no one listened.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's because you weren't really fighting any fires. He's fighting fires when they're
playing some soccer.
Councilman Wing: I would really like it...
Councilman Mason: But you know, and maybe that's for another night to discuss or whenever.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we can come up with that or something to resolve that.
Councilman Senn: Can you keep the May one's intact?
Councilman Mason: That's fine. I mean I won't be here for them.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: The April ones.
Councilman Mason: Well in April we're not having it because we're having the meetings with commissions and
what not.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. So maybe you'll have to get something so we can work this out.
Councilman Senn: Can we work around May at this point and figure it out?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: In regard to Michael's problem and everybody's in agreement with it.
Don Ashworth: And Council did note that the sheet I put out was a mistake. You've already set May 2nd for
meeting with the seniors.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I noticed that.
Don Ashworth: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have an approval then with that modification for item l(d).
Councilman Senn moved~ Councilman Mason seconded to approve setting the dates for the City Council
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Work Sessions in May as modified. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll move along then to the next one, Visitor Presentations.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor? Can we move back to approval of agenda? I don't believe we ever
did that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you're right. I was moving too quick. No, ! did call for approval of agenda.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't think so.
Mayor Chmiel: Didn't I? You're sure. Okay. Let's get the approval of the agenda.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the
agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations: Councilman Wing wanted to discuss trains,
planes and automobiles, and consider limits for PUD contracts; Councilwoman Dockendorf wanted to discuss
Council agendas, and then a personal message to Council and staff; and Councilman Senn wanted to discuss the
Hanus building, and the toll funding for Highway 212. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED LAND SALE TO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112 FOR
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, HIGHWAY $ AND GALPIN BOULEVARD.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor. Under State Statute, City Council must hold a public hearing to get citizen
comment on the sale of public land. The City has already, is looking at entering into a purchase agreement with
the school district for the price of $17,000.00 per acre for 20 acres of land on the corner of Galpin and Highway
5. Staff recommends that you solicit citizen input at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time? Seeing none, I'd like a
motion to close the public hearing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: We will, is there any discussion from Council at this time in regard to this particular project?
Councilman Mason: None from me.
Mayor Chmiel: If not, we don't...Do we have a specific date that we win have this for?
Todd Gerhardt: After this heating you have..~kick in the approval of the purchase agreement so the next step is
to start grading and building the school.
Resolution 094-43: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the
proposed land sale to Independent School District #112 for Recreational Facilities at Highway 5 and
Galpin Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
3
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 9,660 SQ. FT. OFFICE/RETAIL BUILDING (EDINA REALTY) AND A
2,533 SQ. FY. FAST FOOD RESTAURANT (WENDY'S) TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 4 AND OUTLOT
A, MARKET SQUARE, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES.
Sharmin Al-$aff: The planned unit development which regulates this application was adopted in 1990. The
application before you today is requesting site plan approval for an Edina Realty as a retail building and a
separate building which is going to be used for Wendy's Restaurant. The site is located on the corner of West
78th Street and Market Boulevard. Edina Realty is proposed to develop a brick, glass, pitched roofs, arches.
The applicant has incorporated elements from surrounding buildings within the vicinity into the building. The
Wendy's building is also a brick and glass building. Also incorporated the pitched elements and has some
elements also from the existing Market Square building. We've been working with the applicant for the past 3
months on changing of some of the elements and design of the site plan. One of the things that the applicant
changed was the original plan shows two garbage dumpsters. One was located between the two buildings. The
second one was located on the southerly edge of the project. The applicant incorporated those two garbage
dumpsters into one. The garbage enclosure matches the facade of the building. One of the requests the
applicant is making is the location of a monument sign that matches the existing sign on the Market Square site.
However, this is going to interfere with existing traffic controller as well as NSP transformers. The applicant is
requesting that the city transfer those NSP controllers. We did so approximately a year ago. This cost the city
in the neighborhood of $6,000.00. If we are going to move them, it should be the responsibility of the applicant.
As far as the traffic controller, and Charles might be able to add to that, but this is the master controller for all
of the downtown signals and removing it is going to be cost prohibited. Also, to monitor all the signals, this
was a strategic location for it. You are able to look at all of the signals while adjusting the transformer and I
know the engineering department had stated opposition to removing this transformer. Circulation of the site was
one of the major issues that the Planning Commission raised. They were extremely uncomfortable with the way
traffic circulated between the two sites. Engineering department developed three alternatives and what you see
before you is the final alternative and what the engineering department recommended. The applicant
incorporated that into their site plan. We are recommending approval of the site plan with conditions outlined in
the staff report. With this application there is a subdivision. The subdivision is basically requesting a replat
from outlot to lot. That is the only change. We are recommending approval of the subdivision proposal as well.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant going to make a presentation with all these things I see
sitting in front here, I think something's going to be done.
Brad Johnson: You can assured of that. Mr. Mayor, and the Council, my name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425
Frontier Trail and with Lotus Realty. I'd like to welcome Colleen back. I don't think the latest...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I want everyone to know that I read the packet and was fully prepared. My son
has incredible timing.
Brad Johnson: Well thank you very much. I guess my job here is just mainly to give a little bit of history as to
where, since Mr. Bloomberg first came to Chanhassen, where the community has come from. I'm told this will
be the painting that will be on the front page of the paper in about a week or so as part of the progress edition
but this is what old Chanhassen looked like a little bit after Mr. Bloomberg came and just before they built the
Dinner Theatre. And it's kind of interesting. That was about 10 years before I moved here and we actually
started this process but Don, that's about the time you started to think about the ring road. That was just after
Highway 5 was, before Highway 5 was completed. Now I bring this only to point out that most of the
4
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
development that you see in downtown has been generated by the team that is...that's Bloomberg, Amcon and
Lotus. And we work diligently I believe with the HRA and the City Council to sort of change the whole
landscape of Chanhassen and we appreciate the chance to present this product to you which is part of our overall
plan that we've been...I want to point out too that this business is not an easy business. Edina Realty is here, it's
only taken us 4 years to attract them. It's interesting to note that they're the number 5 real estate company in
the whole United States. So you should be proud that maybe they're considering being in Chanhassen but like I
say, every year or two I call Mr. Robeck, or every month or two for the last 5 years suggesting that he come
here. Wendy's is probably the number 5 or 6 fast food. 3. In the United States. And we're proud that we're
able to offer them here. One of the reasons that we were excited about having Wendy's is that we were
concerned about how the Council would geat, and the HRA, would treat design and Wendy's assured us that
they would be fairly flexible and be able to adapt to most of the concerns that you have and I think they have
exhibited that thus far. So we've got a number of people that will be sort of speaking to you tonight. I'm not
trying to tell you to go back to the whole Chanhassen but that's kind of an idea of how it has. I believe...been
involved, it's been about $25 million worth of development in the downtown area and so we believe we've done
as good a job as we could given that's what we started with. And that's what we had to use to attract a lot of
people. Plus I think we had a very imaginative HRA and City Council too and...thus far. I'd like to introduce
Tim Menning who is the managing partner of Market Square. He has...
Tim Menning: Thanks Brad. As Brad said, my name is Tim Menning. One of the parmers in Market Square
Associates and the partnership and I'm here tonight representing the parmership. It's always been our feeling
from the start of doing Market Square I that outlots 2, 3 and the. Excuse me, Lots 2 and 3 and Lots 4 and
Outlot A, the two you're considering tonight, were and are an integral pans of the development. We also
anticipated that the development of these lots would always be carried out in a way that would compliment the
shopping center, traffic generator type uses and so forth. We recognized from day one that these properties were
subject to both the zoning restrictions and requirements and the PUD. And that other than those two
requirements, that door, no additional requirements would be imposed by the city or no reason for it. The
vehicle chosen whereby the city through I-IRA purchased these sites. One of two parties to repurchase them or
in one manner or another. We're simply financing vehicles that without[..development of these properties. As a
panner representing the Market Square, we're fully behind this development presented to you tonight. We feel it
will compliment the center. It's certainly in line with the type of uses we anticipated from day one and see no
reason why you shouldn't move forward and give the necessary approvals tonight. Thank you for your time.
Vernelle Clayton: My name's Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle in Chanhassen. My role tonight
will be to introduce the people who will come up and speak on some of the specific items. At this time I'd like
to introduce John Noga from Wendy's International.
John Noga'- Good evening. My name is John Noga from Wendy's International with their real estate
development[ I was asked to give a few words about Wendy's and what our concept is and why we chose
Chanhassen as a place to do business in. One is the Wendy's concept is to be kind of an upseale, family
oriented, quick service restaurant. We've tried to generate that by the use of the advertising with Dave Thomas
being a fatherly, grandfatherly type of an image. Often talking to his daughter or reflecting on suggestions that
she has made as to what types of sandwiches that he makes and things of that nature. Part of the upscale
treaUnent is the design of our building. The building fits in very well with office buildings. And locations such
as downtown Chanhassen. We tried to keep the signs down to a minimum so as to not have a, you know one of
those signs that some of our competitors have where they make the building actually the sign. We also use
moveable chairs and tables to once again atUact a more adult...people bringing their families but for people,
adults often times can't fit into those plastic that is often times associated with quick service restaurants. There's
5
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
carpeting in the dining hall, Once again to try to enhance the overall ambience to be more of a downtown type
of an atmosphere. You can visit some of other restaurants and often you see people with, in suits and dressed
up apparel. We also spend about $85 million dollars in our media advertising, To try to enhance that into
family oriented and once again we feel that our reputation would attract a~.,depending on the location. Also
we're pretty active in the community on a local level in terms of connecting the advertising with the local events
such as Boy Scouts or different types of bali clubs. Often times we'H help doing the fund raising. Maybe
someone, they buy a combo meal and Wendy's donates so much money for each combo meal, So it's to do a
tie in with the local sporting events and fund misers, Once again that fits in with this location because of the
parks that you have and all the athletic facilities that you have. So from that perspective, that's a little bit of a
background...
Vernelle Clayton: You've heard that we have...development team which has been developing the whole
project...not only to the success of Market Square but for the success of the downtown area as well. And you've
heard that the development...PUD for Market Square. Initially we brought this project to the staff one year ago
for discussion of the site plan...The next formal application was to discuss it on an informal basis with the I-IRA
in September. We then used it as a case study for the landscape ordinance discussions and background
preparation in October and November. This seemed to as as a good idea at the time. In hindsight it caused us
just enough delay so that when we brought it.,.brought the application to the city formally on December 6th. We
learned that nothing was going to be done on anything until after the Highway 5 group.,.was completed and that
brought us then to the middle of February and the various people...explain a couple of the delays that we've
encountered since there are many, ..and one of the things though that happened is that we had some last minute
changes, Some quick turn arounds and..,and help in reacting so quickly as well as Bill Brisley with the Amcon
Corporation who will later...What we're going to do next is show you the proposed development that complies
with the use. Complies...I guess I should say and a site plan which meets the established requirements. To a
large extent the,., was a victim of our quick turn around. The Planning Commission felt it should be cleaned up,
It's been re£med and what you will see reflects that change. I will set it up for you to look at it now and we'll
bring Bill Brisley up to discuss it and we have with us Steve Manhart who is prepared to answer any questions
you might have and may want to ask.,. The next thing will be we'll show you the landscape plan and then...
Bill Brisley: Hello. My name is Bill Brisley, I'm an architect with Amcon and I've been working as the
architect for Market Square Associates, Through several months we've been working on these site plans with
the city and through numerous revisions, this current site plan basically has been altered by staff through all of
these efforts. The site of design will be access from the parking lot circulation of Market Square. This wraps
around the site to the west and the south. There is a double loaded circular drive going around Wendy's and one
dead end double loaded lot and one dead end single loaded lot here and here. From the side of the retail
building. These allow them ample turn around aprons at the ends of each. This site has been heavily
landscaped above city standards by our landscape architect Kevin Norby which he will discuss that at a later
time. The trash is going to be used, is in one area here. It will be heavily bermed, although our civil plan
doesn't reflect that...and landscape it very heavily. The office building and Wendy's will all use the same area_
The lighting is going to be the standard Market Square acom poles that you see out there. Not the tall ones but
the pretty ones that look like old time lights, The site is pedestrian sensitive with a lot of different walkways
that have been requested by staff and different people on planning. Comes in off of a sidewalk here and then off
the sidewalk here with a...and across the drive thru lane. This is an island. There's no other way to get out
there so it's demarked by a sidewalk going right through the bituminous and across here into the front of
Wendy's. There's a couple other items that were just handed to me before I came in here. Sharmin from
Planning has requested that we change, what we did is we moved this wider so, and cut off all these comers. I
think we did that here and down here and moved this whole curb over. She'd like to move it back out again as
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
cars turn in back in the direction that they used to be so that cars coming down here won't mn into this curb
here. And we will do that. There's a signage problem with our project sign here. It doesn't follow...standards.
I'm going to tuck it up underneath here so it does miss those and does now comply...And all along the ci.ty's had
a confusion about re-grading the sidewalk and carrying the sidewalk out. That's not going to happen. It's all
going to stay there. The sidewalk only goes down to about this point right now. We will leave that sidewalk
there and we will continue the new sidewalk...so that really is not an issue.
Steve Manhart: Mayor, City Council, good evening. My name is Steve Manhart. I'm the senior traffic engineer
with the ftrm HNTB Corporation in the Twin Cities. About a month ago we were t_a~ked to review the site plan
for the Wendy's restaurant and based on the comments that were raised by a memorandum from Dave Hempel,
the Assistant City Engineer. We evaluated the traffic circulation effects of the site plan options and we were
specifically looking at the two, excuse me. Three different options that were prepared. One being the option
with a single access for Wendy's over here and single access for the realty site with the drive aligning with the
roadway on the other side. The second option was allowing a second access to Wendy's and the more
perpendicular access from the retail side. The third option...was the option that was previously submitted and
that was denied by the Planning Commission. We looked at the recommendations or looked at these options and
we felt that the ftrst one provided conflicts between the entering and exiting Wendy's traffic. Everything would
be coming in from one point and it would cause quite a bottleneck. Also we felt that unfamiliar patrons would
tend to go into the retail side. You know those...of Wendy's...retail side, park there and does cause some
problems with that. We felt that the second option provided a better exit and entering flow through the site but
provided more of a...flow through the site. And allowed the...enter more here and as the drive thru traffic came
out, they would more naturally exit through here. We felt that that would become a better sitnafion. Also that
we felt that the alignment between the drive that goes out to the east I believe would not create that big of a
problem since it does not align perfectly. We felt that the chances of thru traffic here would be somewhat
minimized. Therefore we felt that it would not be a significant problem. Based on that we recommended that
the City Council approve Option 2 for the access.
Vernelle Clayton: ...presentation the other evening, it was just kind of didn't have time to refine the...We're
trying to bring it up without having to deal with having it come straight across. I think that...Alright, then we'll
move...Kevin talk to you a little bit about landscaping. As we're going through this we're trying to have those
changes still addressed...and Kevin will do that next and then I'll kind of summarize a little bit.
Kevin Norby: My name is Kevin Norby. I'm a landscape architect with Norby and Associates. I also live in
Chanhassen at 6801 Redwing Lane. I've been asked to briefly describe the landscape plans and some of the
thoughts that went into it and answer any questions you've got. In general we tried to take a look at the site and
address both the screening issues from things like utilities, trash enclosure, which is also located here. We also
tried to again in meeting the city's requirements as far as landscape plantings...we've got 37 shade trees and
evergreens, both pine and spruce proposed for the project. Five of those are located along West 78th Street.
Those will be installed as part of the city's West 78th Street improvement project. The remainder are provided
either as an interior landscape plantings providing again screening and shade in the parking lot areas. Or around
buildings to again provide the shade just to soften the architecture. We've got around the Wendy's building
here, we've got sort of a patio area with some outdoor seating. There are 3 shade trees proposed in that
particular area. I think that will be a nice area for people to take their meal outside. There's a fair amount of
screening, buffeting, landscape plantings in this bermed area along Market Boulevard. Those include shade
trees. Again the ash and maple and basswood as well as spruce and pine. And dogwood, which is a lower
shrub like material that provides screening in the winter...We've made extensive use of perennials and ground
overs in both the parking lot areas, landscape islands and around the perimeter of the building. We've got some
7
City Council Meeting - April 11, I994
500 or 600 day lilies proposed throughout the site in fairly large massings. To again, provide color and
landscape plantings. We've got over 1,000 fleece flower which is a knee high type perennial ground cover that's
used around the entire perimeter of this building here with the exception of the entrances where the doors are for
the building. As well as along this entire boulevard area in here as you enter the developers. Our selection of
plant material in this area was driven by some concern on my pan of the appropriate use of plant materials.
You're going to get a lot of salt spray and a fair amount of traffic from both cars driving through there and
snowplows pushing snow and that accumulating. So we tried to avoid the use of sod to minimize the amount of
maintenance and the amount of plant material that needs to be replaced in that area. Sharmin has asked, and I
think in a couple of locations, for me to add 5 trees into this area. I guess I was somewhat unclear as to
whether we in fact still needed to do that or not. We' proposed 3 trees in this area. Trying to somewhat balance
what's already been done on the other side of this entry. There are 3 or 4 trees proposed over here. We were
concerned about...in an area that's going to get a lot of salt spray and a lot of traffic and a lot of snow impact.
We're somewhat limited to what will grow in there. Again, up around the buildings here we've used things like
day lilies, spirea, dwarf lilacs and so forth to provide color up around the trash enclosure and you should have a
reduction of this I think in your packet. We bermed the area around it with the proposed utilities and provided
plant material such as arborvitae, dogwood so it will be green year round. I guess that's it. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't believe so at this time.
Vemelle Clayton: ,..provide everything that we need to,..
Kevin Norby: We've actually exceeded the landscape requirements as far as the number of trees and the
percentage of landscaped area within the parking lot,
Vemelle Clayton: At this point we'd like to start to looking at some elevations...
Mayor Chmiel: Does Council have any questions at this time?
Vemelle Clayton: Okay, then we'll start against this building. Or the comer building which we're calling
Market Square II...
Bill Brisley: I want to give you a fairly tight description of the building materials.,.of the retail building. One
thing I might point out right away to you is you can see these two donners right here are much closer to each
other than what is illustrated in the rendering. I'm not quite sure how our artist missed that but that's correct to
about there...not that long and not...The building has brick walls above 30, to the 30 inch line and colored rock
face concrete block foundations up to 24 inches which is cast with a continuous decorative 8 inch seal block at
the bottom of the window line. Square four pane horizontal and vertical ambulant windows with burgundy
aluminum frame on all four sides of the building. These three lines of windows are punctuated by larger circle
head windows as each of the...There is a continuous roll lock brick band above the straight window beads and
above the circle heads accenting the opening and the brick walls. There's a similar roll lock brick band at the
junction between the soffit and the top of the brick wall. There is a revealed brick edge around each brick panel
that defines between... To give architectural interest to a basically rectilinear retail space, the comers of the
building...articulated by the placement of free standing white round columns recessed into reverse revealed
pockets. In other words, when the building comes to a comer, it goes back into a reverse comer and then the
columns in the middle of that. That's on all four comers of the building...The walls between the donners are
stepped out 2 feet to break up the long wall. The sidewalks, these step outs create planter areas for small shrubs
and ground cover against the walls...Kevin was talking about with those. The wood soffits and facla trim
City Council Meeting - April I1, 1994
features that edge the roof are painted white. The 7:12 roof, or that's about a 30 degree, is a typical asphalt
shingle found extensively throughout Chanhassen with colors the dark charcoal gray...The most recent staff
report we received last Friday came up with a new request for cedar shake roof. However, the asphalt shingle is
a very compatible material in this area and on the strip in Chanhassen. Outside of the Dinner Theatre, most of
the pitched roof buildings in the city are asphalt shingle. I don't agree with the Planning Deparlment to change
the roof to cedar shake at this time. I'll be glad to answer any questions when the time comes.
Councilman Mason: Vemelle, real quickly. Where am I looking at?
Vemelle Clayton: We're standing son of, well I'm standing down by Festival. You're more like Frankie's.
Councilman Mason: Cool. Okay, now that I can relate. Thank you. Perfect.
Bill Brisley: But to be truthful, that's the view from every comer. Every corner's detail is the same. We don't
have a back side.
Vemelle Clayton: And the north and the south elevations are the same on the east and the west...if there's
anyone's confusion on anyone's part, this is the second building we designed. There was a comment...although
since the staff report was rewritten between a few proposed Council meetings. The first staff report contains the
recommendation that we have shake shingles...The second one contains a reference to that but it was deleted on
the conditions....With that, do you have any other questions of where we are on that building?
Mayor Chmiel: Does Council have any questions?
Councilwoman Doekendoff: Just a real brief one on your artistic rendering. Does that show the Irees as they
will be going in or 15 years from now?
Vemelle Clayton: The real answer is it probably doesn't show all our trees at all.
Mayor Chmiel: About a 5 or 8 year growth there.
Vemelle Clayton: That's some artistic likeness that he took. Again, that was...We'd like to talk to you a little
bit about Wendy's elevations and plans. I'll invite John Noga again and Jurij Ozga.
Councilman Mason: Vemelle, is that about where the trees will be going in though? Or is that just, we don't
know.
Vemelle Clayton: Where's our landscape plan? Let's get that.
Mayor Chmiel: It's right in front.
Vemelle Clayton: Oh, okay.
Kevin Norby: Trees are not accurate on the rendering. They're shown actually a bit closer than the building
here. This in fact is a parking area. The projection into the parking lot. Here and it has a tree here. So there is
in fact a tree located.., on the other side of the building, the West 78th Street side, this would be fairly accurate.
They are located in front of the building. On the West 78th Street side there's in fact 5 trees located in fairly
9
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
close proximity to the building. So looking at this perspective with the parking lot there, there'd be a tree here,
a tree down here and on the other side there would be trees immediately in front of the building like you see
here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And what height would they be in relationship to the building when they fa'st go
in?
Kevin Norby: They're specified as 2 1/2 inch caliper tree which would put them in the, depending on the
species, anywhere up to 12 feet.
Vemelle Clayton: We should add too that a large number of the trees on this side will impact what we see here
and how it looks are being provided by the city. And I'm not sure that the entire plan is exactly...one of the
conditions that we work with the city...
John Nogax In regards to Wendy's, Jurij Ozga is our engineer and real estate...and when we originally presented
the Wendy's, the thought was that we should try to use materials that were compatible with the existing Market
Square, which has kind of a gray tone image with green and with burgundy. So we incorporated that. So that's
what you see. So we have a picture here where we say it's going to be like this except for the colors. Our
color scheme will be exactly the same as the building materials and colors of the office building. Jurij Ozga
passed out some copies of our standard building and during the planning session meetings, we had...on the
planning committee say, why don't we use those types of materials for both the office building and for the
Wendy's so that when you approach the comer that all the buildings on the comer are somewhat blended
together with more of an earth tone beige. So in terms of our elevations, this would be, in the beige tone family.
The same materials that would be used in the office retail center. We were told that we had to screen the roof
top unit and this green...shield will be done in a bronze tone. The same as the, copper. The same as the copper
that's used over here on the facia So you see a picture of how we utilize the copper and the copper will be
utilized in the...here. And then our turn up will be a bronze with a little bit of burgundy and beige so once again
we'll pick up on the burgundy that's used in the..xetail center as well as... We also, our lettering will be in the
standard front lettering back lit.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have, it's not directly related to the architecture but as long as Wendy's is up
here. I think in one of the conditions we're saying that they're not allowed to have like 99 cent deal signs in the
windows.
John Noga: They're window signs.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The window signs wilt not be allowed, right?
Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin.
Shannin A1-Jaff: That was something that was proposed by the Planning Commission as well as at the time we
stated that there won't be any signs that will say hamburgers 19 cents.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: So that's part of the recommendation?
10
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. And that was something that they...a condition. However they denied this so there
weren't any conditions of approval that they...
Councilman Wing: How will this plug into the new ordinance trying to restrict window signs and percentage?
Will they just simply have to comply with that new one?
Kate Aanenson: Well actually this would probably be more restrictive than what we're looking at for the
proposed ordinance. We may give a small percentage for a window but that hasn't been...
Councilman Wing: So being there as a condition we're saying.no window signs.
Kate Aanenson: That was what the Planning Commission recommended. Sharmin said that those conditions
weren't carried forth because it was denied.
Vernelle Clayton: If I might...a little bit. That is the condition of a variance...The Planning Commission
discussed signs in both meetings. The first meeting, and basically this discussion was conducted by two of the
members. The first meeting the idea of...that we shouldn't have signs on the north and the east side. At the
next meeting they talked about temporary window signs. I have the Minutes flagged. It was two of the
members talked about it but not, it would not be fair to the rest of the Planning Commission members to say that
it was a Planning Commission recommendation. It was two members brought it up. It was not ever included in
as part of the, the motion that was proposed for approval, it was not added as a condition. Nor was it a part of
the motion to the end.
Councilman Wing: Just for the Council's information. I think this issue was discussed at the last meeting and
thek point is to city wide, put an ordinance in that restricts window dressings. Window signs based on a certain
percentage...and I think by putting any use restricting the use on Wendy's may not be compatible with that
ordinance. So I don't think we have to address that issue. I think it's going to be...
Vernelle Clayton: That would be our request.
John Noga: One of the other discussions that went on at the Planning Commission. One, they never talked
about Wendy's signs as much as they talked about the retail centers and one of the comments was to make retail
be able to be viable they'd have to do some type of signage and displays because questions arose as to if
someone had a show store and you could see shoes in the window, would that cause accidents. And then...well
if you want to have retail, you want to have successful retail...
Vernelle Clayton: ...a sample of the burgundy. A sample of the roofing materials...the fight color, the brick.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is that consistent with the Edina Realty building as well?
Vernelle Clayton: This is the Edina Realty brick and this one is used...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And what about the concrete block?
Vernelle Clayton: This is just the break off...this is the same block that's used in Market Square trying to give a
little bit of compatibility here and that goes up along here.
11
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that goes up 24 inches you said?
Bill Brisley: 30 inches. But the top row is a...
John Noga: Wendy's has the same...
Vernelle Clayton: Well with that I've...I would go through the conditions just a little bit, And hopefully make it
clear where we are with this. Number one was explained. We have...changing the southerly alignment...
Number two, we have no problem working with the...and developing the landscaping and the sidewalk along the
northerly edge. And then the rest of the...number 3 is the development contract. I do have a question about
number 4. It says that we'll grant the city the necessary landscape and street easements. I think that needs to
be sidewalk. The street is already in.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct,
Vernelle Clayton: Okay. So we'll change street to sidewalk, The number 5 is a typical request that we have no
problem with. We did discuss number 6 and we have talked with Kate earlier about...not having a problem with
some of the locations of the signage and on the other hand we don't want to have it more restrictive than anyone
else in town and I think we don't have a..,on that. Number 7. We have, I believe talked about that relating to
the moving of transformers. We have, since we learned that there was maybe a problem moving a traffic control
box...we are moving it, We have...incorporate that somehow or another into either monument sign or the
landscaping. We have never found an argument with anyone and those installations are not the most beautiful of
our downtown Chanhassen and we're willing to cooperate and to remove them..xemind that they are currently
not entirely all on city property and the city utility easements, Apparently they overlap onto our property here.
But that's, be that as it may, we're anticipating that we might, we don't really feel totally comfortable that it's
the developer responsibility to move them because they weren't installed very carefully or prettily in the fa'st
place, We're hoping maybe we can reach some kind of.,. Overall with the language, The language and...out of
the signage, I think being somewhat of m.,I think that what we should be saying here is, in the last sentence the
signage shall meet the criteria as identified in the sign covenants for Market Square as followed. We have
agreements. We have the sign, all of the sign requirements are currently done for us in with the PUD agreement
and there's a couple that are of record. I think we need to avoid trying to make any... It's a restatement of
everything in the sign plan. I think it would be appropriate that we're required to have it be, have monument
signs be exactly like those... The only other item then I think,..our judgment that we start with 3 and we now
have 5. We've added 2. Kevin talked about why he doesn't like to have those there because they'll die from
the salt. My observation is that when you're driving through Market Square, I'd like to have it look a little bit
the same on the right as it does on the left, Them currently are 4 trees on the left. Rather spread out and I
don't know that you have to have a sort of boulevard effect...We also don't want to obliterate the view...so with
that, I guess the Planning Commission never really picked up on that, It was never addressed...We're required to
have 58 trees on the site..,Through a site plan,..stop signs that are already platted. I don't think there's anything
that we really need to take your time with tonight except I'm not 100% sure Sharmin that we have talked with
the Fire Marshal. At one point we said that he wasn't quite sure where it was. Obviously we don't care where
it is, We were going to say that...to reflect the.. ,as requested by the Fire Marshall instead of specified in the
staff report that we didn't know for sure where he wanted it. That fell through.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Well...previously it was on an island in the parking lot. We changed the design a little bit so
it should be.
12
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Vemelle Clayton: ...we still weren't sure if you still wanted an interior location or along the edge but whatever.
Sharmin Al~Jaff: As long as you're aware that them is a hydrant required.
Vemelle Clayton: Right. Then the only other substantive suggestion that I have, lhat we have is under the
approval of the plat where it says that the following easements shall be required. Under (a), and this is on page
15. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot (10' along Market Boulevard and
West 78th Stree0. Technically what you're asking for here, it meets it along Market Boulevard. The lot doesn't
front 78th Street. We discussed the fact that we don't want them on the interior. So what you're a.~king for is
along Market.
Charles Folch: ...10 foot easement that you have along here fronting the road, the driveway type of property.
Vemelle Clayton: Right, and our only point was, it currently says Market Boulevard and West 78th Street and
the lot that we're talking about doesn't touch 78th Street.
Charles Folch: Okay. Well Wendy's lot doesn't, right.
Vemelle Clayton: Right. And that's the only one that's being replatted.
Charles Folch: Okay. I don't have a problem with that.
Vemelle Clayton: It's really...okay. With that, those are our comments. We will be sticking around to listen to
you talk and we'll be happy to answer any questions. I certainly hope that you'll...essentlally do not have any
questions, that you'll vote for approval immediately.
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to bring it back to Council. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time?
Okay. We'll bring it back to Council for discussion. Somewhere along there Kate, maybe I missed it. What is
seating capacity within.
Kate Aanenson: Seating capacity within?
Jurij Ozga: 72 seats.
Mayor Chmiel: 72?
Jurij Ozga: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I've been, I got in on this real early when the very first proposal came through and I think
kind of just felt a little bit panicky with what was happening there and who was in charge and what was going
on. I think I've been outspoken enough and expressed my opinion on it but I think I'd like to listen to the rest
of the Council and see where they're coming from.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Colleen.
13
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't think there's any question that the architecture and landscaping and the
whole project is a quality job and that's really not the issue for me. The whole issue is that comer of our city
and as Richard has said many, many times, a pivotal comer in town and yet, which makes us be very cautious as
to what to do with it and we continually say yes, but we might want to do this with it. We might want to do
that with it and continually put off any development on it. And yet the city really hasn't come up with an
alternative. We've got some maybe's. Some good ideas. Some what iris and yet we haven't gotten our act
together and it's been very frustrating for all parties involved. And now we sit here with an excellent proposal
in front of us and we need to make a decision on it. On one hand I don't want to pursue prematurely but on the
other hand, this isn't premature necessarily. It's very well thought out and I don't want to penalize the
developer for our indecision. So I guess I'm ready to move forward with you know a couple comments on how
to change it a little bit and those are only personal opinions on my part but just as a general statement at this
time, I'm ready to move ahead with this project.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Michael.
Councilman Mason: This current proposal looks a whole lot nicer than the first one that came through and I
think that's to everyone's credit. I share much of Colleen's comments. We've been in this position before
where we, well what if, what if, what if?. And if the what ff isn't out there and everything meets the conditions,
I think we're a little hard pressed to turn something like this down. The latest renderings look very nice. I'm
concerned. I know Richard, my guess is, is concerned a little bit about some landscaping issues and I think as
we, if we go ahead with this, there's some issues I share with him on that. Mark and I were talking earlier
about the color of the building. Whether it should, all we're hearing, and this is a concern of mine and I believe
I've stated it before. I don't want everything in Chanhassen to be the same color. I don't like it. I don't want
architectural style A next to architectural style Z. But on the other hand, I don't think we need to have.
everything gray in the city and I'm curious if there isn't some way we can fie the colors in. Well this is going
to be, where'd those bricks go? Okay. It is the beige. Okay. And I think, this is something as these
developments come in, that we do need to talk about and grapple with a little bit. With the brown and the gray,
if we can tie City Hall with Market Square, great. I see perhaps some issues with the bottom part of the realty
building. I think the Wendy's design obviously looks different than some of the pictures we see here. They've
spent a lot of time and I think they truly do want to be a presence in Chanhassen and I think they have, it looks
to me like everyone's working together to try and get a good product on that comer. You know, I too share the
concerns about premiere comer. But I think we as the city, we as the Council, we as a vision committee or
whatever. I-IRA. Then need to define that and get something down in writing. And I don't think that these
people can be held hostage to things like that. Unless we have that down.
Mayor Chmiet: Okay, thank you Mike. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I don't have a lot of problems really one way or another with the project. I think it's a good
project. I think as far as previous decisions by previous Councils and the HRA, I mean the stage has been set. I
don't think we can mess with the land use a lot at this point. It meets the requirements. I think the redesign
that they've worked with, staff and stuff has come out considerably better than what we were seeing in the first
place. I'm in 100% agreement with staff on the no window signs. My personal preference on the architecture.
I should say on the coloration, is what Michael and I were talking about, that I'd really rather see, I'm going to
say a combination of grays and tans. And the reason I'd like to see that is I'd like to see it fie the hotel and
City Hall and that sort of thing together with Market Square. Which right now are pretty different and I think
those would make good transitional uses. I think putting strictly brown earth tones out in front of Market Square
is going to look, in my mind a little silly, but that's just my opinion. I'd much rather see something that ties
14
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
those two together. My only real concern as it relates to the plan is the drive thru for Wendy's. And the part
that concerns me is from point of order I see a stacking of 3 cars before you're in conflict with your parking.
I've never really seen that end up being a good situation. If there's any way to shift these things a little bit to
provide a, and I just spoke briefly with Charles about it and I don't know if there's any possibility on it but if
there were any chance at all of a dedicated drive thru lane around the south end. Yeah, around the south end of
the property and then looping into the order point, I think from everybody's standpoint we'd have a lot less
problems there. That's more of a function of layout and setbacks and stuff so I'm speaking a little bit off the
wall on that because I haven't sat down and laid it out but I've seen that system work fairly well because when
you come in the entry points, if you're going through the drive thru, you make the decision and go that way and
if you're going to the restaurants, you make the decision to go into the regular parking area. And that's my only
real concern is when it comes down to all the issues.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I think when this ftrst came to us I didn't think very highly of the developer for what they
offered us. I thought they came in here with a Wendy's that was very standard with it's bright signage, colors.
I think the Planning Commission ridiculed the building. The office building they brought forward and said they
liked the fast food more than they did the office building and if somebody hadn't spoken up and gotten on the
band wagon and gotten a little panic stricken, I don't know where this would have gone so I think we really
have a right to be leery and we have a right to be concerned. We have a right to go slow. I think this is a
premiere corner. I think it is the focal point of our city but more important it's the very center of our city. It's
a city that's developing. This isn't something that's going to come and go. We're forming our downtown as
we're going to know it for my lifetime. So I think we want to be cautious and I think a couple things that
planning mentioned. I think that we have a right to demand. To expect q,ality and I don't think we should
deceive ourselves on that. I think planning has addressed this at length. I don't think the traffic issue was ever
addressed. I think Mark's point of view is well taken. I think we've got a stacking problem. I think that traffic
and the drive thru are a major concern that hasn't been addressed but if that's what engineering whats to do, if
that's what Wendy's wants to take on, I'm not going to wait in line so it's not going to bother me. I usually go
in anyway. On the Planning Commission's motion, they did...the poor traffic circulation which Mark brought up.
But they also added the fact that they're concerned about whether it should be 1 or 2 buildings on the site. We
haven't addressed that. Architectural standards which we've kind of addressed tonight. How do you come up
with that and whether, in a retail commercial use. So I guess I had a couple questions. I don't think it's
pertinent now on why they chose Edina Realty and a Wendy's wouldn't make a two story office building with a
lot more retail and other types of retail and aren't there other uses that might really satisfy the center better?
And aren't there uses that we might put there that really would benefit Market Square much better than what
we're presenting. But I don't have that information. I haven't heard the developer come through with that
information. I'm not so sure they have and so I think it's premature but with all that said, I've had my say on
this and done what I could to say I think we ought to hold on and other than go to a moratorium or buy it, we
don't have a lot of options and this is certainly much, much better than we started with and a lot of effort and
time has been put into this and I'm appreciative of that. So I would just say to Council, I have a lot of heart,
very deep heart felt feelings on this and I guess I can go along with the group here but I have three conditions
that trouble me that I would request that you consider seriously. Number one, I'd like to go full brick on both
buildings. The color doesn't bother me as much as the fact that it's, I want it quality coming on this corner and
I want a permanence that both planning. In all the planning meetings, those were the main issues that we had
quality and we had permanence and a look of permanence. That this isn't just a 3 to 5 year, it's only worth
$13.00 a square foot. Let's throw it up and see what happens. We're talking the life of our city here so by
going full brick, I feel we're accomplishing a little bit more than rather just a few inches of brick and then this
15
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
cement block which I don't fred to be quality building material. The Highway 5 corridor study coming in says,
brick, glass or better. It doesn't allow cement block, even with a finish on it. So I would approve it as it stands
with the additions of full brick on both buildings. Cedar shakes on the roof. I think that adds quality to it. It
gets away from the asphalt look. And then the other thing, I'd like to see the landscape plan return with better
buffering to the south. I don't disagree with the number of trees and the quality and the fact they're putting
them in. But just perhaps if we want to look at the focal point of this, from Highway 5 and the other areas, not
screen, not block, that's not my intention. But just slightly buffer a little bit better the south side which isn't up
there now but I'd like Kevin to come back with a revised landscape plan that adds just a few pine trees that are
year round buffering and a few additional overstory shade trees which aren't going to block the view. That's not
the case here. I guess we've putting in what, 5 additional on the south side. So I would leave that alone. Just
the...but what I won't accept is just to have this open to Highway 5 as it sits. I think we can do just a slightly
better job of screening. Not blocking. Buffering, not blocking. I don't ask a lot there but maybe just a little bit
of rethinking on that south side and maybe just inclusion of a very few pine trees to give us a year round
screening process so. I guess I support all the recommendations with the exception of number 8 which would be
better screening and a revised landscape plan to the south to be brought back to Council. Cedar shakes and total
brick on the buildings. And I point out Abra. Abra and Goodyear when we I think thought brick and there's
brick and block and I don't remember that happening. It's the fact...approved but I would have preferred to see
those buildings be brick and then whatever decorative use wants to be done there, I don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike, were you going to say something?
Councilman Mason: Well I was just going to ask Dick. They're talking about 25 inches of that.
Mayor Chmiel: 30 inches up,
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Of the concrete block.
Councilman Mason: Of the cut. That stuff. That little stuff on the left there right?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing: See I'm turn around here. I can't really see, The bottom?
Mayor Chmiel: The bottom portion.
Councilman Senn: The bottom 30 inches.
Mayor Chmiel: The bottom 30 inches will be the gray.
Brad Johnson: This is 30 inches. The rest is all brick.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Councilman Senn: I was a little confused on that too.
Councilman Wing: So we have then the cedar shakes and improved landscape plan to the south.
16
City Counci/Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think the concrete block does tie in Market Square to a degree.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I just would like to see the gray tone that's in your bottom there, come up a little bit
more. Not by use of that but maybe in yom' brick colorations. I mean them are some very attractive tan gray
brick combinations that look really nice.
Mayor Chmiel: From fa'st, you were going to say something Vemelle.
Vemelle Clayton: Well I just...what you wanted to say first but would you be comfortable having us work with
staff on the combination of the gray and the brick?
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. I guess when it comes to it.
Vemelle Clayton: The other thing I do want to say that we don't think it's appropriate to have shake shingles
and I think we have said yes to virtually everything so far. But we have already said no to the first
recommendation and the shake shingles. There isn't anything else in town that has gone up with shake shingles
since 1968 and when there was a building...with shake shingles. The hotel across from it is asphalt. The bank
itself is metaL.but we think we're moving a long way from being...
Mayor Chmiel: In looking at this proposal the fa'st day that I had seen it, and I'm not going to reiterate a lot of
things that have already been said. But I think at that time when it came before I-IRA, I probably was the most
vocal against the aspects of having a Wendy's located on that particular comer. Not that there's not a place for
Wendy's within our community. There is. Aesthetics was the thing that I wanted to see and I said I wanted two
other things with it as well. And that was aesthetics and aesthetics for that comer. And I think they have pulled
together those items to make the appeal a lot better than what has originally fn'st come in. I like the Edina
complex building in itself. It's low enough. The profile is there. So it's not going to deter fully from the
balance of what Market Square is. And with some of the new ideas and concepts that Wendy's has come up
with, I think that it shows that they do want to be part of the community. Be it to me that's still was an
important comer for the city. We only have one opportunity when we do what we're doing right now. If we
don't put it in right the first time, we don't get a second chance. It's pretty hard to come by. But I think with
the things that we have pulled together totally and kind of looked at, it's got some of that appeal right now.
Although I think that cedar shakes on that particular building would probably be added to it would give that
touch of quality a tittle bit more than what's existing. I think that from openers to what they are now, I have to
commend you that you've done a pretty good homework on that. And with that I think I'll just bring it back to
Council. We have before us the approval of a site plan review and.
Councilman Senn: Maybe I can try a motion, if that's what you're looking for?
Mayor Chmiel: Well let me finish what I'm saying Mark.
Councilman Senn: Oh. Sorry, you paused too long.
Mayor Chmiel: We're looking at also the replatting of the Outlot A into Lot 1, Block 1, Market Square 2nd
Addition for that total amount of square footage. I think we should specifically clarify each of the points from
what we have on these site plan review with all those conditions of what you go through 1 thru 15 with that
subdivision portion. Items 1 and 2 with items a and b as well. So I would entertain, at this time, a motion.
17
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Senn: I'm confused. I thought we were, at least in reading the item, I thought we were only doing
the site plan tonight.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: No.
Mayor Chmiel: It indicates all that on the front page of the.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand. I'm just wondering about the published action.
Mayor Chmiel: Well the published action is indicated within the packet in itself but from what staff report
proposals are, it covers the 1 and 2 items.
Councilman Senn: Okay. ARight. How about if I try moving approval of the site plan review with the
conditions that staff has outlined adding the, getting the additional landscaping that Richard was requesting. The
applicant and staff working out something with the brick tones that staff feels meets more of the intent of tying
the surrounding buildings together as far as maybe tan and gray tones. Leaving the, I guess what I'd like to
include on the roof is, I really like the dark roof. I'd like to see the dark roof but why don't you use the shake
shingles that are now on the market. I mean they're basically an asphalt shingle but they're shaped like shakes
and it really looks like shakes. But you have a lot better color selection. It's not just a wood look per se which
I think doesn't really fit there. It's a lot classier looking. And let's see. Do you have any?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Item 4.
Councilman Senn: Well that we're leaving in, right?
Councilman Mason: Well no because it's going to be superseded by whatever.
Councilman Senn: But Kate said this made it more restrictive right? Leaving the window signage in the way it
is or, did you want 6 deleted or left in?
Councilman Wing: Window signage?
Councilman Senn: Window signage.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're going to deal with that in an ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Mason: I mean that's currently being dealt with with an ordinance.
Councilman Senn: With the new ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: We are looking at a small percentage of the new ordinance.
Councilman Senn: How far away is that?
Kate Aanenson: Probably...
18
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Wing: 2 years?
Councilman Senn: How about leaving 6 the way it is except it changes at the point that the new ordinane, e
comes in, to conform to the ordinance. How's that?
Councilman Wing: I'd delete it only because they're looking at trying to decide what percentage should be
allowed on the windows because they're going to happen anyway and it has to be an enforceable type ordinance.
Are you suggesting that 6 be deleted? I mean 99 cent hamburgers are going to happen one way or the other.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But not ff we decide.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it depends.
Councilman Senn: See, ! don't view it that way.
Councilman Wing: I would favor no window signage.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean I would like to stick with no signage and then bring it into conformity to the
ordinance when the ordinance passes. But not knowing when this ordinance is going to pass. We've been
through that around here before.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger?
Councilman Senn: Is that alright Roger?
Roger Knutson: You make that decision and I'll give you my advice.
Councilman Senn: Afterwards.
Roger Knutson: If I understand what you're saying, is you're saying, you're adopting a new ordinance and until
the new ordinance is in place, you're putting a moratorium on this building and any more or less on window
signs and whatever the new ordinance says, the new ordinance .... is that what you're saying?
Mayor Chmiel: Per se, I would think that's what he's saying.
Councilman Senn: Per se except I thought we had more latitude in that it's a PUD and there is a PUD
agreement and we could just say in there that there's no signs until such time as.
Roger Knutson: The PUD is in place. You're not amending the...
Councilman Senn: But the development contract is not, is it? I mean the development contract's an extension
of the PUD agreement, is it not?
Roger Knutson: They're in for a site plan approval, if that helps.
Councilman Senn: I understand.
19
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Until they proceed with that portion.
Councilman Senn: Can't that be directed? I'm just asking.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Are you saying...I mean we are?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing: But you know, out at Super America they said no outdoor storage or sales of any materials
and it was part of the conditions and that was a good-move. And considering the location of this.
Councilman Senn: Oh I think it's important.
Councilman Wing: If we say no window signs, it's to our benefit.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think it is. If the rest of the Council is more comfortable with changing the
ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Then leave it in.
Councilman Senn: I'm willing to change it when the ordinance comes in.
Councilman Mason: Then I think something has to go down there that, go down with this that that will be
amended as the new ordinance comes in.
Councilman Wing: No, it can't be. This will be, if this were pan of this development contract, no signs.
Roger Knutson: You don't have a development contract on a site plan. You're issuing a site plan permanent,
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. We're not even into that phase yet but. So eventually as we proceed with this,
that is what will.
Councilman Senn: That is going to be stuck in the development agreement?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Right.
Councilman Mason: Well because I don't.
Councilman Senn: Because this is being issued, the site plan review as I understand the conditions here are
contingent upon a thing here that says they have to sign a development contract. I mean aren't they all...
Roger Knutson: There is no development contract for a site plan. The site plan is close to the same thing
because that's what it is.
Councilman Mason: Don't other buildings in Market Square get window signs?
Councilman Senn: I don't think any of them are that close and visible to the comer.
2O
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Mason: Well Wendy's is not going to be that close and visible.
Mayor Chmiel: There are signs in MGM. Signs in a few of the other.
Councilman Mason: Festival has them. I mean I don't know how we can tell Wendy's they can't have signs at
Market Square and everyone else can. Is my concern about that.
Councilman Senn: Well I'd like to know signs that conform to the ordinance. If that's what everybody's
comfortable with. And then we can word it the way Roger wants.
Councilman Wing: We don't have an ordinance so...put that in.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Until an ordinance is adopted.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, keep going. We also had one item on 15 that Vernelle had made some changes there
and I think that can be corrected by staff.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And also on 4 about a sidewalk and not a street easement.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Yes. That one we can't give, have it there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I second the motion if you're done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, a motion's on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: Oh, there's one other thing I would like to just add to that If at all possible, and I'd like
just staff to look at this. You know you guys and Charles get together with the applicant. If there is any way to
change that drive thru you know so it doesn't impact the overall design but allows you more stacking distance
you know by going around the perimeter there and stuff.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know how they can change that though.
Councilman Senn: Well it's, a lot of it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's pretty hard to do that.
Councilman Senn: Hard to see but if you basically come in here to the parking lot and give up some of the
generousness of the double stacked isles and stuff because what you're trying to allow for there is extra room
because of the drive thru. More or less cheat on that a little bit more and come around here. I don't know Don
whether that's practical or not. If it is practical I think it'd be a far better solution than 3 stacked cars.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's put it this way. Let staff review it to come up with a conclusion.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's all I'm saying. Let staff review it. If there's a better conclusion, let's reach it
but I didn't want to close the door on it.
21
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Richard. Discussion's still going.
Councilman Wing: One item that I missed here. Did anybody else, are they concerned about, I've got to let my
mind float or it's going to be the wrong words. The garbage pit being on Market Boulevard. Is that the
appropriate place to have it? What do we call it.9 The dumpster.
Mayor Chmiel: That was shown. The dumpster is.
Councilman Wing: Shouldn't the dumpster maybe be .inland someplace? Not on Market Boulevard. It seems a
real inappropriate place for it.
Mayor Chmiel: Well it's not really on Market in itself. It would be facing towards 78th.
Councilman Wing: I meant to ask Vernelle to point that out.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, it's on Market.
Mayor Chmiel: Right there.
Vernelle Clayton: It's brought in from...
Sharmin AI-Jaff: It's screened by the berm as well as the landscaping,
Councilman Senn: It's got to go somewhere unless it's in the building.
Councilman Wing: Mark, I'd just like to clarify that. The landscaping one that it pertains to the south side and
I would like that, and I've asked for a little better screening and buffeting and I'd like that returned to Council
for approval. What did we call it? A re-altered.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Revised?
Councilman Wing: Revised landscaping plan.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You may as well bring the materials back too,
Councilman Wing: You want the materials brought back also?
Councilman Senn: I think staff understands where I'm coming from. I'm comfortable with them deciding that.
I'd just like to see some toning,
Kevin Norby: Richard, can I ask for clarification?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone please?
Kevin Norby: Sure. I think it was the February 2nd Planning Commission meeting, Sharmin asked us to
include 5 trees. We didn't have any trees in that south.
22
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Wing: I understand that. I'm concerned about an entirely revised.
Councilman Senn: I don't think Richard was saying more trees. I think he was _a.~king you tO change some to
year round, ff I heard him correctly earlier.
Kevin Norby: ...the way the recommendations read now, it says 5 trees but we have actually already added 3
since that recommendation.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: We changed the recommend_afion and said, additional recommendation.
Councilman Wing: No, I want a revised landscape plan so that we wind up with a mild screening, buffering
effect and it maybe means 5 more trees, 10 more uees or 2 more trees. I don't know that.
Kevin Norby: So it's not a net change of 5...
Councilman Wing: No. It could be a net change of 10. I don't know that. That has tO be worked out with
staff. There's an effect and I'll work with staff.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Clarification on this, how does number 6 read now? The window signage.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, item 6. No window signage shall be permitted on Wendy's or the office/retail building.
Councilman Senn: And then hold those off and Roger's going to supply the rest.
Roger Knutson: Until such time as the new ordinance is adopted which allows a certain mount and it will be
subject to the new ordinance.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: So they'd be in compliance with everybody else and not just all on an island.
Councilman Mason: Okay. And we're talking, Kate give or take, a couple of months with this sign stuff?.
Mayor Chmiel: And it will be a lot of time before they're in the ground.
Councilman Mason: Alright, thank you.
Councilman Wing: The issue of signs is some wanted postage stamps and some wanted.
Councilman Mason: Right, right. Okay. Good.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll call the question.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Site Plan for Edina Realty
and Wendy's (089-2 PUD) as shown on the site plan dated March 10, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
23
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
The northerly access to the shopping center from Market Boulevard should be widened to 16 feet wide face-
to-face over the easterly 100 feet of the site. In addition, the northerly radius should be expanded to 30 feet
to improve turning movements into the shopping center. "No parking" signs shall be placed along the east
curb line of the parking lot at the west elevation of the retail building. In addition, "no parking" signs shall
be placed along the east curb line of the drive-up window lane to Wendy's.
The applicant shall work with the city in resolving final placement of the sidewalk along West 78th Street
along with the landscaping. Landscaping other than the city's boulevard trees shall be prohibited within the
city's right-of-way or trail easement area, The construction plans shall be revised to show impact to the
existing sidewalk along Market Boulevard. Any/all damaged sidewalk as a result of construction activities
on the site shall be replaced in kind by the applicant.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval.
The applicant shall grant the city the necessary landscape and sidewalk easements along West 78th Street.
The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice Handbook to control site erosion. Type
I silt fence shall be installed along the southerly perimeter at the construction limits. Temporary rock
construction entrances shall be required to minimize off-site tracking. Construction access points shall be
limited to the interior parking lot and not on West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. After the storm sewer
installation and prior to paving the parking lot, the storm drainage inlets (catch basins) shall be protected
with hay bales and/or silt fence to prevent sediment from washing into the drainage system.
No window signage shall be permitted on the Wendy's or the Office/Retail building until such time as the
new sign ordinance is adopted and signage will be subject to the new ordinance.
The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. One monument identification
sign is proposed at the northeasterly comer of the site. This location is in conflict with the existing NSP
transformers and traffic control box, as well as being located with in the sight distance triangle. The
monument sign shall meet the following criteria:
a. The height of the monument sign shall not exceed 12' 10" (the height of the existing Market Square
sign).
b. The sign shall contain no more than 41 square feet of sign area per face.
c. The sign shall be constructed to reflect the architectural style of the Market Square shopping center.
The applicant is proposing the sign design to be identical to the existing Market Square monument
signs.
d. The owner of each monument sign shall be responsible for its construction, repair, maintenance and/or
replacement.
Only one wall mounted sign is shown on the western elevation of Wendy's building. Wall mounted signs
must meet the following criteria as identified in the plan:
a. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height and must be lighted.
b. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and
shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination.
24
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
o
c. The signage shall be located on a maximum of two elevations of the buildings to be constructed.
A revised landscaping plan shah be brought back to the City Council addressing the southern portion of
the site. A berm shall be incorporated into the plan to screen the trash location from views. The applicant
shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calcnl_a_fiug the required
financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance.
Approval of the site plan is contingent upon the replat approval from Outlot A to Lot I, Block 1, Market
Square 2nd Addition.
10. Stop signs shall be placed at the exit points of Wendy's and Edina Realty's parking lots.
11. Submit revised utility plans to reflect a fire hydrant location between the Wendy's and the retail office
building.
12. The Fire Marshal will provide information regarding placement of "No Parking Fire Lane" signage at the
time of building permit application.
13. The office/retail building must be fire sprinldered pursuant to Chapter 38 Minnesota State Building Code.
14. Submit radius turn dimensions to Fire Marshal and City Engineer for approval pursuant to 1991 UFC Sec.
I0-204(c).
15. The plans shall be revised clarifying the applicant's responsibility for relocating the NSP lxansformers and
installing the balance of the 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk along Market Boulevard to the corner of West
78th Street. The city's traffic controller shall be left in place.
16. The applicant and staff working out something with the brick tones that staff feels meets more of the
intent of tying the surrounding buildings together as far as the tan and gray tones. Leaving the dark
roof but using the shake shingles that are on the market that are basically an asphalt shingle but are
shaped like wood shake shingles.
17. Staff review Wendy's drive thru traffic circulation.
Councilman Senn moved, and Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to also approve the replat of Ouflot A,
Market Square to Lot 1, Block 1, Market Square 2nd Addition as shown on the plat with the following
conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid to the city pursuant to the city ordinances and City Council
resolutions at the rate then in force upon building permit applicati°n.
2. Provide the following easements:
a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot (10' on along Market
Boulevard).
25
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
b. Cross access easements need to be provided over the northeasterly driveway."
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Brad Johnson: Thank you very much. I appreciate Colleen coming back for the vote and Dick, I think your
input was well received, even though we didn't always agree with you and I think you've got a better project.
We certainly have a better project than we started out with so.
Councilman Wing: I don't think ! was out of order.
Brad Johnson: Huh?
Councilman Wing: I don't think I was ever out of order, just to correct those Minutes.
Brad Johnson: Thank you very much.
VARIANCE TO CITY CODE REGARDING SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS
CENTER, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS SECOND ADDITION, CHARLIE JAMES.
Kate Aanenson: Let me just give a brief ulxlate...3 to 1 vote and you needed a 4/5 majority vote to make this
happen. In summary, Byerly's is requesting a variance to the sign ordinance and what that does, I think we got
into a lot of different discussions 2 weeks ago. Because they're asking for a variance you can put conditions on
that...give larger square footage in one area, you can require or limit the area in other areas. So there's quite a
bit of variation. But a lot of discussion...I think the directive was to the applicant to come back concerning the
height of the pylon sign on West 78th Street.,.The applicant is here tonight and we have included in the packet
the representation that...In addition, the applicant has made modifications to the recommendations of the staff
report including the last...and staff would support their modifications. With that I'll turn it over...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, great. You're on.
Charlie James: I guess just briefly to summarize where we were at last week. I guess we began by talking
about the ordinance and there being some ambiguity in the ordinance. Also the fact that regardless of what your
interpretation was, that everyone would agree that the ordinance was drawn up or written before the,..and so we
were asking for a variance. There was a lot of discussion as to the signs on the building. I guess we agreed to
amend our...request to one...on the northwest comer of the building and to eliminate the words, Open 24 Hours,
from the east wall. And I hired a surveyor. I guess one of our arguments is that actually granting this variance
would bring us into conformity with our neighbors and with the other uses in our district out there and when the
staff report was done and all the square footages, when Mr. Generous calculat~l all the square footages at the
last meeting, he conf'mned that he had neglected to include the calculation for the word Pharmacy on Byerly's
and also the word.,.Open 24 Hours on Festival Foods and those calculations...were provided to you last time. I
hired our surveyors and I don't know if some of the material that I sent to Mr. Generous was distributed to you
or not but that color photograph we got somebody, we took pictures. I'll just start with this one. This is the
Country Suites sign. It's 19 foot 6 tall and 12 feet wide and this is a surveyor from James R, Hill Inc. and he's
holding a surveyor stick on there. And then I have all the telephoto photographs of that that define the
elevations that he was getting on there. So for instance on the Country Suites $ign.,.what our proposed 18 foot
by 8 foot wide sign would look like. I've tried to highlight that in yellow. The yellow area would be brick and
the...and the blue letters would be the PMS 286 blue. So you can see in the case of the County Suites, we're
26
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
almost 2 feet lower than that sign and we're about 4 foot than the ordinance. Town Square, their sign is 19 foot
2 tall and 12 foot 3 inches wide. What we're proposing again is 18 feet tall, 8 feet wide. Our sign would pretty
much fit inside of just the pillars on their sign as you can see. We also, Mr. Meyers is here tonight and he hired
someone to do a streetscape that would show what this would look like down on West 78th Street. We also
measured Market Square's sign on West 78th Street and for your information, that was 13 foot 6 inches tall and
13 feet wide. John, would you like to show your.
John Meyers: The gentleman that did the rendering...we hired him to go back out. Do you remember the
rendering of the store? The same gentleman I had go back out. I gave him the topos. The different grades for
the site. Topo of the roadway. The elevation of the sign. The elevation of the buildings...big issue obviously
was the pylon sign. We kept the 18 foot pylon sign for this purpose. If you were pnlling out, if you were down
at Target where the stop light is today. The existing stop light. If you were parked at that stop light and you
wanted to turn east on West 78th, you'd effectively be looking up the hill, this would be the view that you'd see.
If you were parked right here and these would be the size and dimension of the street lights that are existing that
you see out there. This would be the dimension of the street light across. These are the trees that are on the
landscape plan and the n~ajority of which are already planted. So the majority of the center's already going to
be buffered. From that vantage point, a good portion of the center will be buffered by the trees that exist
regardless of the elevation of the buildings. This is an 18 foot pylon. Now keeping in mind that the gu-st one is
12 feet. Or the pylon...
Charlie James: You've got 9 fooL..
John Meyers: Because of the arch, which is the same architectural design that the shopping center had on the
building, the arch remains in there so we're basically looking at 5 or 10 feet of it still being open. So it's not
going to be a brick wall that you're looking at. But that gives you some proportion which I think was your main
question. What this would look like from a distance. Now if you went up on top of the hill, from the top of the
hill and if you were at City Hall looking down, you're only going to see the top portion of the sign. You're not
going to see the bottom. So from that standpoint it's got some advantages to be the 18 foot sign because you'll
start to see the name of Byerly's and the shopping center which is above Byerly's. From a perspective
standpoint, I mean I think it points out pretty clearly that it's not an onerous sign. It doesn't jump out and say,
I'm 62 feet tall and I'm white and you can see it from a long distance. It serves the purpose which the canopy
of the trees. It serves the purpose that it designates that this is a major entrance for the Byefly's store. That's
the purpose of the sign quite frankly. It's below what the majority of the signs are in town. I think the
interesting thing, as I came into town today I went up to the Brooke's, where Brook's market is and if you'll
look at all the signage along that strip center, there's more signs on, my building is probably substan_ti_ally larger
than Brooke's. I can't believe that they're about 25,000 square feet total. There's got to be more signage on
that building plus a higher pylon than what we're asking for so, and it's a nice design. It's brick. It's not going
to be onerous...with dark blue letters. You know they're not red, yellow and they don't shine...kind of subtle
color. Hopefully that answers your questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions?
John Meyers: Would you like to see the larger drawing of it?
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you?
John Meyers: We have, I asked, the guy that did this, his name was Bob Lewis...and I asked him to draw this
27
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
same rendering at 12 feet and his basic comment.,.that it just doesn't make sense. There's no sense in doing it
at 12 feel It's not going to serve any purpose...monument sign is 8 feet and saying Market's monument sign is
15.8.
Charlie James: 13 foot 6. Yeah, our's is drawn to the code. Our monument's drawn precisely to the letter of
the law here and this is actually drawn 2 foot less than the letter of the law.
John Meyers: But to give, what they've got up at, if you think of the Market Square sign. Just from a
proportion standpoint. That's a monument sign that's 13 feet versus one that's 8 so.
Charlie James: 13 foot 6.
John Meyers: 13 foot 6. 13 and a half. So proportionally...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just a point of order.
back for consideration, is that.
I think we need to have a motion to bring, even bring this
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Roger Knutson: To eliminate any confusion over it, what I'd recommend is that, if that's your desire, to move
to waive the rules and put this back on the table for action.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to waive the rules to bring this item back
up for discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Richard. I think what we had a lot of discussion was the 12 foot to the 18 feet.
Councilman Wing: Well I went back to Planning and read all those Minutes and discussed it with them and
their rationale, when I got all done with it, made a lot of sense and they were real _ad_amant against the 24 Hours
and I think we went from 10 to 12 on that pylon. I guess I just happened to, based on Planning Commission
and what they put into it, staff recommended. Kate, you appear to be pretty comfortable with your 11
recommendations. Is that true?
Kate Aanenson: Well yeah. And 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were the ones that were modified.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, I guess I had been happy with 12 feet and then I kind of took a view of, I guess 24
hours, I guess I agree with the Planning. The monument sign, it seems that our interest to keep those down and
28
City Council Meeting - April 1 i, 1994
if we allow 20 feet here, someone's going to come in and do all the sight lines and say well there's is 20 feet
and we won't, we'll just never sell it. And so I guess I really long term favor these recommendations I guess as
sta~:L I guess the point, it just isn't necessary for the success of this project. I mean this is a good project.
This project is going to be...and I don't think it centers on whether that pylon sign is...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, since I was the one that held up the decision last week, I think it.
Councilman Mason: I don't think you need to take the blame for that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Hey, it probably took me longer to read the Minutes from that meeting than it did
to attend the meeting. Anyway, I had attended the Planning Commission meeting on this item and I did read last
meeting's minutes and you know, I hate to nit pick this to death but, I don't care about how tall this pylon sign
is. I really don't. The words Open 24 Hours, I thought there was a good compromise where we allowed it on
one part of the building and not the other so one sign of Open 24 Hours. You know to keep parity with Festival
Foods, I think that's t-me. The rest of the recommendations, I have no problem with. Whatever the rest of the
Council decides on...I don't care. I guess I agree that Open 24 Hours should be on the building. Somewhere.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well, the pylon, I think it is, in defense of Byerly's and James. The ordinance reads 20
feet and they came in at 18 so I mean I guess I think that should be clarified. I have, and I've said this before.
And I said it earlier with the site plan review for the other. I have a little Irouble telling one business they can
have an 18 foot high pylon and another business they can have an 18 foot high pylon but now we're telling this
business they can only have a 10 foot high pylon. And I read those Minutes too and I don't dispute what
they're saying. ! don't, I'm not quite sure, I don't understand why I guess, and Dick maybe you can help me
out on this. I don't understand why Ahn Le or Country Suites gets 20 feet and Byerly's gets 10. That's.
Mayor Chmiel: Shorter building. No.
Kate Aanenson: ...again this isn't a PUD so they're asking for a variance. So the way these conditions came
about is the fact that you're giving them a larger wall sign area so therefore in giving that the Planning
Commission felt, we're giving you that so we're going to impose some restrictions on the other signs. So it's
kind of a give and take. That's how it got to be.
Councilman Mason: Was that give and take or was it tit for tat?
Kate Aanenson: Well.
Councilman Mason: Well there's a difference. And I think that's an imporlant distinction.
Kate Aanenson: I think there's an overall square footage of the sign and because they asked for more wall
signage...in order to allow that...so they felt that maybe the pylon sign didn't need to be as high because the wall
sign can be seen. That was my understanding.
Councilman Mason: Well, okay. Yeah, I don't. I understand that. I guess I don't necessarily agree with it.
29
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Kate Aanenson: Well I'm just saying...it's a variance and we tend to..,
Councilman Mason: Okay. I guess that's really, I don't know. The 24 Hours, I'm going to leave up to, I don't
have a real strong feeling one way or the other. Although Festival does have it. Festival does have it fight?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Mason: And I know because it's a variance but why, it seems to me if Festival has open 24 hours
on it, Byerly's should too. The monument sign on the comer there, I suspect there's going to be some
discussion about and I guess I'm kind of on the fence on that one, I want to hear how other people feel about
that one. Those are the only two things I'm concerned about fight now, Is the height of the pylon I guess and,
well those three things.
Councilman Senn: I have no problems with the expanded building face signage for Byerly's on the building.
The 24 hour thing, you know I don't want to see it plastered all over the place so I kind of liked somebody's
idea that it be limited. The pylon sign.
Councilman Mason: Mark I'm sorry, Limited or eliminated?
Councilman Senn: Limited.
Councilman Mason: Okay, to like the one side or whatever?
Councilman Senn: Yeah...or whatever. I view the pylon sign I guess a little differently. I don't have a problem
with the pylon being 18 feet. I view it as a pylon sign which identifies the shopping center which is West
Village Center. And that's normal for a strip center and I also view it as having the anchor tenant's name on it,
which is Byerly's, which is normal for a strip center. Those are your identifying characteristics. Those are your
traffic generators. That's pretty common across the industry regardless of what shopping strip center you go
look at. But in basically granting the variance to allow the other expanded signage I just, I'm just really opposed
to or against any additional monument signs out on the boulevard. Especially identifying other tenants in the
property because that is something that does not exist in any su'ip center almost anywhere, at least that I can
identify in the western suburbs. I know we can talk about Market Square but I'm sorry, I wasn't here for any
decision on Market Square and I never would have made it but to me that establishes a whole new level of
signing for a strip center. If you go look at any strip center, the tenants other than the anchor tenants fall back
and rely upon the signage over above their store aud..see all that. We haven't seen any of that in here one way
or the other. And to now basically account for or establish a monument out on the parkway to handle all those
tenants, I mean to me there we've opened Pandora's box and it's something we're going to be identifying every
tenant in town on out on the boulevard. And I just really disagree with that because it's not a standard that's
even been well accepted in the industry. And the, I almost wanted to go out and just take some pictures of all
the strip centers but I think most of us go by them most of the time thinking if you can name one that gives sub-
tenants the, or I'm going to say sub-anchor tenants signage you out on the boulevard, I'd like you to name it. I
think we need to draw the line there and I think that becomes the compromise as it relates to the expanded
signage on the wall which is what we're giving the variance for. And that's why I voted no against the last
time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. One thing that we've got to bring back into focus. We're looking at some of the
things the Planning Commission has gone through and some of the things that we discussed last time, is this is a
30
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
PUD. You can call the shots for what you want with it.
Councilman Wing: This isn't a PUD.
Mayor Chmiel: Is this not a PUD?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh! Okay. I thought it was. No, you're right. Okay. I stand corrected. So with that.
Councilman Senn: It's a variance though and we can do the same thing.
Mayor Chmiel: The variance is the thing that is what we can judge that from and that's almost the same kind of
rules as we're looking. But the variances are the things that we can come up with. Now ordinance requirements
say 20 foot Kate, is that right? For the pylon.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And that's the maximum height. I still have some, a little bit of concerns in regard to
that 18, even that 18 foot height. Dixecfly along street level. And I guess that I really shouldn't because we're
still looking at the same things we see at the hotel and over at the other center in itself. It's just a catcher to
catch the eye. Say this is where we're at and come on in. ! don't know, I guess ! can ride with that 18 but I'm
not too comfortable with it. I would have liked to have seen some of those other signs come down. I wasn't
too happy with the one that we did put at the hotel. As large as that is but that's something in itself. The 24
hours, I think they should have one wall, just like Michael has mentioned. As far as Byerly's is concerned
having at, I think it was brought up on the east wall.
John Meyers: That was the one we took out, the east wall.
Mayor Chmiel: Pardon?
John Meyers: The east wall is the one that will come down.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, okay. Okay. The monument sign, all it's going to do is say Byerly's basically and have
the other tenants contained within the balance of the building or is it just strictly Byerly's?
John Meyers: Byerly's won't be on the monument sign.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So that's going to be just as the other people within that particular building in itseff.
Councilman Senn: But Don, I think that's part of the confusion because in the recommendations that came
through from the Planning Commission on 9, it keeps saying it's a monument sign for Byerly's and I think.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the thing that does, yeah.
Councilman Senn: ...pan of the confusion I think has come from all along.
31
City Council Meeting - April t 1, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: That's why I was trying to get clarification as to what that is. I guess I leave this back to
Council. I guess I've just expressed some of the thoughts that I have seen. We're still going to have that color
blue and the PMS 286 so that's not going to change.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Well let me take a stab at it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I would entertain a motion.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I move approval for the variance with the recommendations modified as follows.
On number 7, pylon sign shall be limited to a height of 18 feet, On 8, the words Open 24 Hours shall be
eliminated from the east wall. Number 9, replacement of the east, replace the east elevation with a monument
sign containing the sub-tenants blah, blah, blah and I guess that's it. Nobody wants to second that,
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Can I try another one?
Mayor Chmiel: I'm still waiting.
Councilman Mason: Well I think, is now an appropriate time for discussion because there isn't a second?
Mayor Chmiel: Well no but you can ride on the recommendation with some of the suggestions that you have
and that the motionee has had but you would have to second that position.
Councilman Mason: Well I'm sensing that the issue here is probably the monument.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh really.
Councilman Wing: Is that the big one?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought it was the pylon.
Mayor Chmiel: No, pylon's the big one. Monument's the other.
Not to me. The monument's number one. I didn't have a problem with the pylon.
Kate, can you just review, they're entitled to the monument sign. There's no question about
Councilman Senn:
Councilman Wing:
that.
Councilman Senn:
No, not true. That's not tree.
Councilman Mason: Wait, Roger wants to say something.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't want him to say it yet. No, go ahead Roger,
32
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Roger Knutson: If they weren't applying for a variance, they just came in and said we want a sign package. As
I understand it, and Kate can correct me. They could put in a 20 foot pylon. They could put in a monument
sign and they could put in a little wall small sign. Much less than they've requested, So for example if you
said no monument sign as a condition of the variance, they could say well then we don't take the variance. I'm
not suggesting you would but you could walk away from that and put it in, everything just in accordance to the
ordinance and not apply the variance. And they could have their monuments.
Councilman Mason: So the, I'm close.
Mayor Chmiel: An example. The Americana Bank. The pylon that's there, or excuse me. Don't say pylon.
The monument sign. That lists tenants that are contained in that particular building.
Councilman Mason: And that's in our ordinance that says that that's okay.
Councilman Senn: But they required no variance or.
Councilman Mason: Well I understand than I understand that.
Councilman Senn: And they don't have a pylon.
Councilman Mason: No, I understand that Mark.
Councilman Senn: That was their pylon if I remember the discussion. I mean that sign was in effect
constituting the pylon for the building. And the trade off was the monument for the pylon, the lower. I
remember we had a long discussion about that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So for this variance, what the city is gaining is less square foot on the building in
exchange for a pylon and a monument?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
No, more square footage on the building.
Maybe Nancy could clarify where they went with this. I'd like to hear from her if possible.
Councilman Senn:
Councilman Wing:
At some point.
Mayor Chmiel:
clarifications.
Nancy Mancino:
Mayor Chmiel:
Nancy Mancino:
Okay. Let me get the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission to come forward and make some
A couple of clarifications.
Nancy Mancino.
Nancy Mancino, 6620 Oaipin Blvd and I am aiso a member of the Planning Commission.
What we, when we got this...variance was the wall signage of the big Byerly's in front of the enlrance, It was
predicated or the logic of it had to do with the surrounding, what else within the area, that's Target and that was
Festivai Foods, because they had bigger signage. So we looked at that and said, yeah. That makes sense for a
33
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
bigger Byerly's and how big the entrance was and etc, proportionate to the height but we were concerned about
the pylon sign. And because there aren't any other pylon signs on West 78th Street west of Market Square. So
we said, if we're going to lose the logic and rationale that we are going to allow a bigger Byerly.'s sign at the
entrance...pylon coming down West 78th since there aren't any on that side of Market Square and let's keep it
the same height as Target and as the Market Square monument. And the other pan of it was, we were thinking
that on West 78th Street, you know we're in the downtown. We're in our downtown. We're not on Highway 5.
We're going 35 mph. Is there any reason to have such a high pylon sign there...
Councilman Senn: Nancy, a question. I understand your premise but what is going to allow us to stop pylon
signs on any of the outlots west of Market Square because ff they conform.
Nancy Mancino: The new sign ordinance.
Councilman Senn: Well, unless they come in before that.
Nancy Mancino: Or they're a PUD.
Councilman Senn: Are they?
Nancy Mancino: No but this zone.
Councilman Senn: See I mean if they meet ordinance requirements, there's no way we can stop them from
having a pylon there.
Nancy Mancino: But they also aren't asking for, I don't know if they will but that this, they may not be asking
for a bigger signage on their building or there may be a Little give and take there.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I don't know but ff they don't ask for anything, they can have it.
Nancy Mancino: And hopefully they'll do what Target did. You know Target has their pylon sign on the
highway and not on West 78th Street. So maybe there can be some good...aesthetics.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's a good idea as to what you're saying. The speed along West 78th will be at 30 mph
all the way up and down.
Nancy Mancino: You will see the big Byerly's from their entrance I'm sure, signage from Highway 5... The
other thing is that we have a downtown. We have a more concentrated downtown. You're going to know where
Byerly's is. I always thought Byerly's was kind of the subtle, if you build it, they will come.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Alright, any other? Michael. You were in the chair of questioning the
motion that has been brought to the floor.
Councilman Mason: I'll second it. For reasons that I've.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I guess I said I'd go 12 feet on the pylon and I'll go along with that. One Open 24
34
City Council Meeting - April I 1, 1994
Hours on the front. But my position was I supported the recommendations from staff and planning. Going to
12 feet. We gave them a little bit from last time in going to one 24 hours gives a bit and I won't question the
monument.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I stand by my motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well it looks, it sounds to me like it's going to get voted down but the txouble is going to
be here, that there's obviously a monument issue here and there's a pylon issue so somebody somewhere is
going to have to do something somehow and I, it would seem to me that Byerly's, while as it's certainly, the
question is perhaps how nice some sort of 12 foot pylon would be but I would, I can live with that too.
Mayor Chmiel: With the 12 foot?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: As could I.
Mayor Chmiel: Question for point of clarification. Would the motionee and the second accept the 12 foot pylon
sign?
Councilman Wing: Is that a friendly amendment?
Mayor Chmiel: That would be a friendly amendment.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would accept that amendment. So we've got a 12 foot pylon. We've got Open
24 Hours limi~l to the east wall. And we have the monument sign for the sub-tenants.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing: Is there a second on that?
Councilman Mason: Ah yeah, there is a second on that. I do, well I'll wait for discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Discussion.
Councilman Mason: There, now.
Councilman Senn: I didn't even get discussion on the fu'st one.
Councilman Mason: Well that's true. But you know Mark does, I think just so everyone knows where I'm
coming from. Where I'm getting hung up on on this is (a) that it is a variance. And (b) there's a difference
between Byerly's and their pylon and the tenants getting the monument. And I think for the most part
everything has been pretty well delineated here on this whole project but it's real hard to separate that stuff out
35
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
and I don't guess I don't feel like penalizing the sub-tenants. Well by telling them they can't have a monument
sign there,
Councilman Senn: But Michael, nowhere in the Planning Commission recommendation is there one. They said
put one out there to replace Byerly's signage with a Byerly's on it. Not the sub-tenants. Byerly's is foregoing
on the signage and now it's sub-tenant signage. All of a sudden that's not what's in number 9 here. Number 9
is Byerly's. Replacement for the east end for a monument.
Councilman Mason: But okay, so then.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael maybe let me, before we get into a heated discussion.
Councilman Mason: Please do,
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just throw a feeler out to Byerly's and then Council can also get a little bit of input.
How about if we put an 18 foot pylon sign and then eliminate the monument sign.
John Meyers: That's something Charlie has to,
Councilman Mason: But see the monument sign doesn't have anything to do with Byerly's.
Charlie James: At the Planning Commission.
Councilman Mason: Right? They don't care about that,
Mayor Chmiel: But that goes back to Charlie for the balance of his tenants.
Charlie James: The monument sign was not an issue at the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission
there was this separate suggestion as it pertains to the east wall of Byefly's only. That they said, take that sign
off the wall and put a monument out on Kerber so they'd give us two monuments and one pylon. So the
monuments were never an issue at the Planning Commission,
Councilman Wing: On West 78th Street. On West 78th Street they weren't an issue.
John Meyers: What their recommendation was take this off and put a 10 foot monument sign at the enmmce.
Charlie James: Or 12.
John Meyers: 10 to 12, at the entrance of Kerber.
Councilman Wing: And we're saying leave it and forget that monument, That's a done deal.
John Meyers: Right, But the question on the other monument sign was not brought up by the Planning
Commission. They had no objection to the monument sign that you're referring to as somewhat of a...
Councilman Mason: Oh yeah, see. So this isn't even addressing the sub-tenant monument sign.
36
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Mason: Well I was not aware of that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm lost.
Councilman Mason: $o am I.
Councilman Senn: Well it is. It's just not addressed here. What there is is, ff you take the staff
recommendations and the Planning Commission's recommendations, okay. They've limited the size of the
pylon. They've eliminated 24 Hours. They've replaced the east wall elevation of Byerly's with a Byerly's
monument, okay. Beyond that, what they've done is they've passed the sign package. The sign package
included okay, a monument sign down at the comer for the tenants. Okay, that's not called out in these
recommendations because it was already inherent in what they passed. Okay. And Byerly's is now saying that
they don't care about having that monument.
Councilman Wing: On the east.
Councilman Senn: On the east, well no. What I'm saying is, they don't care about the monument trade off for
the east side signage. So they're saying, just eliminate it.
Councilman Wing: Yeah.
Councilman Senn:
Councilman Wing:
Councilman Senn:
Councilman Wing:
Councilman Senn:
Okay? That's right. So I mean that's where that issue sits.
Right, the east side.
Right. The east side.
Your whole discussion is on West 78th Street. Always has been.
Yes. On West 78th Street on the west side with any additional signs basically on West 78th
Street other than the pylon which is normal for the shopping center. Again, I mean every small tenant in this
place is going to say we're by Byerly's. I mean that's the identifying characteristic in any strip center. It's not
going to be, come down to the point that you see our sign on the comer of blah blah and blah blah. And stuff.
That's just clutter. It's unnecessary signage and again I just, here's the new standard that's going to set for
signage in town. Because everybody else is going to want the same thing.
Councilman Wing: Okay so you, first of all, where are you at on the pylon height?
Councilman Senn: Dick, 12 or 18, I don't care. I mean ff it takes 12 and I can get rid of the monument, I'm
happy. I don't care whether it's 12 or 18.
Councilman Wing: And you would like to delete the monument across from Target?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
37
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The monument that has the sub-tenants on it.
Councilman Senn: Correct.
Councilman Wing: Kate, where do you stand on that? Where do we stand on that?
Kate Aanenson: Again, I would ask you what they're allowe& With each they're allowed a monument sign for
the center. A full sign. A pylon sign and wall signs for each individual tenant. Byerly's was one of the
tenants. Okay...Planning Commission meeting they added an additional monument sign by saying take the wall
sign and the 24 Hours...
Councilman Wing: So what right do we have to remove the monument? I guess I can't.
Kate Aanenson: It's a variance.
Councilman Wing: It's a variance.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, so we can put any conditions to the variance we want. I'd rather have a classy pylon
out on West 78th that identifies the center and draw the line there and say you rely on the building signage
which is normal for the center beyond that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can I take another stab at it then?
Councilman Wing: Go Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, 7. 18 feet.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. This is a corrected motion to the fin'st. First of all you're willing to drop it. Michael is
also willing to drop that as a second? With a new motion coming up.
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, alright.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, 7. 18 feet. Number 8. Open 24 Hours eliminated from the east wall.
Number 9.
Councilman Wing: And limit to one.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Yes. Limit to one. Number 9 stands as it is and we're adding a number 12 to hake
out the monument which lists the sub-tenants.
Councilman Mason: No. Because they don't care about that monument. Byerly's doesn't, you don't want that
monument, right?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
38
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
John Meyers: We removed the signage on the side of the building.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's all we need to do.
Councilman Wing: Number 9 is deleted.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, delete 9.
Councilman Wing: And add 12 saying delete 9.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I'll second that. I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Add 12 saying what?
Councilman Wing: 12 says delete the monument.
Mayor Chmiel: 12 says delete the monument sign.
Councilman Mason: Which monument sign?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The sub-tenant.
Mayor Chmiel: Well wait a minute. You made that as your motion and it's just not as a, okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Should I try it again?
Mayor Chmiel: No. We've got it down.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you want to restate it Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Pylon sign shall be limited to a height of 18 feet. The words, Open 24 Hours shall be
eliminated from the east wall. And limiting one 24 Hour sign. Eliminate item number 9. 10 remains. 11
remains and item 12 says delete monument sign on 78th Street.
Kate Aanenson: Can we get a clarificalion on, well yeah. 7 and 9 and actually 8. Open 24 Hours is going to
be eliminated from the east side. It's my understanding there's still a Byerly's wall sign on the east side.
John Meyers: It says Byerly's Fine Foods.
Kate Aanenson: Just the 24 hours is being taken out.
John Meyers: From the east side.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
39
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendoff: There's one addition Open 24 Hours on the front.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct, Just one. Understood. Charlie.
Charlie James: Yeah I guess you know when I think maybe some of you thought I was wasting your time last
time when I came up with this spread sheet on my computer about all the Planning Commission members and
how some of them liked this sign and didn't like this sign and I guess,
Mayor Chmiel: The buck stops here though.
Charlie James: I appreciate that, Thank God it stops somewhere. I guess just to kind of revisit the gestalt of
this thing. We're coming in here and saying, as to the Byerly's portion of the project we want a variance on the
wall sign area. Not percentage of coverage. But the size of any individual sign. You can either say that's an
error in your ordinance or the ordinance simply didn't contemplate big boxes and I tried to show some math last
time that showed that if you worked the math backwards, you'd figure out that the ordinance contemplated the
shop with an average width of 30 some feet and an average height of 36 feet. We came in, the ordinance clearly
allows a monument and a pylon. There's no argument about that. That's allowed. We came in and we drew
those things initially to the letter of the law. As a matter of fact at one time there was some confusion because I
was caught between what the new ordinance was and it was 8 x 10 at one point. Then they told us, no you've
got to redraw it back to 10 x 8. So then we've come back. We've tried to remove some signage from the
building and reduce the height of the pylon. I guess what my concern is, I guess again I'm unfortunately in the
position of having to take issue with Councilman Senn. I can think of a lot of shopping centers around towfi
where we have this type of condition and I guess I'm concerned with that intersection, we're at elevation 954
and the finish floor elevation of the retail space, Byerly's is at 982 and let's see..,979 so that's 25 feet and I
guess my concern was that as the people are there, they wouldn't even know who's up on the hill. The trees are
going to be up 20 to 30 feet high along the boulevard blocking their view.
Councilman Senn: Charlie, we didn't pick the site though you know, so I mean.
John Meyers: This is a real condition. I'm going to help Charlie.,.that's a real condition. These are real
elevations. When you're parked at that intersection and the point is you see these 24 and 36 inch letters on these
signs, they're going to be 450 to 500 feet away and they're going to be 20 feet above you...part of the center is
past trees now so. I don't know if that helps you out.
Charlie James: It helps them but it hurts the little guy and so I always thing the little guys need all the help they
can get. I don't know what the answer is.
Mayor Chmiel: Well a motion is on the floor.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it's been first and it's been seconded.
Councilman Mason: Who seconded it? You seconded it?
Councilman Senn: I seconded it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's open for discussion right now.
4O
City Council Meeting - April I1, 1994
Councilman Wing: Fellow members. Council men and women. Mr. Mayor. I've been active in Chanhassen
for 14 years and we've dealt with some really major, crucial issues. Tonight I think we approved fast food into
the middle of our city without any work sessions. Without any thought. Without any planning.
Councilman Mason: Oh, that's not true Richard.
Councilman Wing: ..for 4 years I have brought up, I think we ought to decide where we're going with this and
we ought to deal with some of these architecttmfl standards and we ought be doing some...so I think we
approved a project that's okay but I had a lot of concerns. Major, major issues and we kind breezed through it
tonight I thought. I'm not unsatisfied. I'm not saying we made the wrong decision but it's not as good a quality
of a project as we could have had. And I think it was a little premature. But I'm only leading up to the fact
that I think Charlie James is going to come in and do a pretty first class job. The pylons and monuments, I think
he's going to do a first class job and if I'm going to sit here for 2 nights in a row and fie up this Council and
the city over 4 feet of sign on a monument, I'd rather be home with my family. Frankly I don't care. I just
want to get out of here. Either we go along with these recommendations or I think we've got to trust Charlie to
put in a quality project here and maybe that, we keep going back and forth. Mike, you're vacillating. You're
vacillating. We're all going should it be 20 feet or 127 Well, and should that monument be there. Well, then
they bring up the fact of the elevations and you really can't see what's up there and it's partly true and we are
asking for a lot of landscaping and if this is landscaped properly and a quality Charlie James monument, I don't
think I'm going to be bothered by it. I don't think the one at the bank is bad. I would have rather had a
monument at the bank than stuff plastered all over the building.
Councilman Senn: It was a pylon that was proposed.
Councilman Wing: So this is getting to be a little embarrassing.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't think it's getting embarrassing bemuse I think we're giving Byerly's a whole
lot with this. Right or wrong, and we're telling all the other sub-tenants tough rocks. You know Mark raises a
good point. Every time one of those tenants gets called, they're going to say we're next to Byerly's and oh
yeah. Sure. Fine. But I don't know why we can be, some of us can be so glib and say we haven't given this
thought and we're okay with what Byerly's wants to do but by God, we're not going to give those tenants an
inch by a foot sign.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I want to withdraw my second. And then if that fails, I will move on a motion here.
Councilman Senn: I'il second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion on the floor with a second.
Councilman Wing: To withdraw?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Councilman Mason: No, you withdrew your second.
41
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: You withdrew your second and he replaced your second with that.
Councilman Wing: You made the motion right?
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen did. And you're siffing on right now with the pylon 18 feet. Strike item 9. Leave I0
in. And we have the verbiage contained within 8 with what we've mentioned previously. You have item 10 and
I 1 and 12 was to delete the monument sign. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Well we'll wind up nowhere.
Mayor Chmiel: Basically the monument sign in height and location to where that's going to be and I don't
disagree with some of the things that Mark has said. But how many times are people going to indicate to
whoever has called, where are you located. We're on 78th Street. Will they say, we're located within the
Byerly's complex? I drive by and I look for things, I look for a monument sign. If I don't see a monument
sign I go in the building and look to see where they're located,
Councilman Wing: Do you support the monument? I'll go along with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, there's a motion on the floor.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, then let me question myselfi I think Charlie brings up a good point in
helping the little retailer.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and it is. It's the small retailers that, or whoever's within that complex that you're taking
it away from. Or at least let them know that they're there.
Councilman Senn: But it's not, I mean.
Mayor Chmiel: But there may be people who aren't even interested in that particular time. But as they're
driving by they may be interested and they see this on this monument sign. They may just ring that bell and say
this is where I want to go.
Councilman Senn: I will be more than happy if you want to table this to go take pictures of every shopping
center in Plymouth, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie and I will bring every one of those shots of a strip center back
into you and I will guarantee you that none of them will have the sub-tenant signed out on a monument or pylon
sign on the boulevard. I will bring every one of them in and you can make your own decision, I don't take this
issue lightly. This is a whole new level of signage in the industry. And I just, it's just not there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not in Chan.
Councilman Senn: Not in Chanhassen, yeah, Not in Chanhassen, that's right. So does that mean we keep
talking about this new sign ordinance that's only been here a couple of months.
Mayor ChmieI: The monument sign won't be on the boulevard in itself. It will be on their own private property.
Councilman Senn: Well yeah, Semantics. I mean boulevard meaning out on the street. Street identifiers.
Street identification,
42
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: You know if Richard, you know I don't want to back off on Riehard's issue. I mean ff
Richard feels strongly about the 18 feet, then I think that's something we should also be addressing. I mean
there's a lot of world between 12 and 18 or whatever. I heard the rest of the Council say they didn't care that
much about the 18 one way or another. If that's a real concern, I think we should address that. Again, Byerly's
has no pylon sign at it's Minnetonka location or at it's, what is it Edina location or whatever. I mean this, none
whatsoever. Again, it's a nice thing to have but none of these things are essential. I don't think it's killed their
business in Minnetonka for example. The fact that they don't have a pylon sign.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd suggest we're sitting on a fence and I was.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to call a question.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, call a question. For the ones I have indicated previously.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the variance to the sign
ordinance for the West Village Center to permit a maximum of 431 square feet of sign area on the south
elevation of Byerly's (a variance of 351 square feet), and a maximum of 376 square feet of signage on the
east elevation of Byerly's, (a variance of 296 square feet), approval of the signage on the west elevation of
the retail center and denial of variances to permit signage on the west elevation of Byerly's This approval
is subject to the following conditions:
1. Signage shall be individual block letters. No pan or panel signs shall be permitted.
2. All signs require a separate permit.
3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development~ Consistency in signage shall relate to color,
size, materials, and heights.
4. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
5. Individual letters may not exceed four (4) feet in height'exclusive of the Byerly's sign.
6. The signage for the remainder of the development shall comply with city code.
7. A pylon sign shall be limited to a height of 18 feet.
8. The words "Open 24 Hours" should be e 'hminated from the east elevation.
9. Deleted.
10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommend_a_fion shall account for the removal
of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text.
11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
43
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
12. Delete the monument located on West 78th Street.
Councilman Senn voted in favor and the rest of the City Council voted against. The motion failed with a
vote of 1 to 4.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I can vote against my own motion can't I?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. You certainly can. Okay, I would entertain another motion.
Councilman Wing: Okay I'll do it.
Councilman Mason: How about if we split the difference between 18 and 107
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought we took care of that,
Councilman Mason: Or did we? Okay. Alright. Alright, let's leave it,
Councilman Wing: At what? At what Mike?
Councilman Mason: Well I've stated before that I'm okay with 18 but I'm not.
Councilman Wing: Okay, the 18 stays, 24 hours is eliminated from the east and limited to one. 9 is deleted.
10 remains. 11 remains. 12 is deleted.
Mayor Chmiel: But you're still going to have to have the monument sign as to what they're still looking for,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're eliminating number 9 altogether.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, in the entirety.
Councilman Mason: We don't even have to say anything about that other monument sign, right Kate? Isn't that
correct?
Councilman Wing: This was the east one.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, okay. Yeah, yeah. Right.
Councilman Mason: I second it.
Mayor Chmiel: We're playing too much here.
Councilman Mason: Yep. I second Richard's motion.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and secondecL Any other discussion?
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the variance to the sign ordinance for
the West Village Center to permit a maximum of 431 square feet of sign area on the south elevation of
Byerly's (a variance of 351 square feet), and a maximum of 376 square feet of signage on the east
elevation of Byerly's, (a variance of 296 square feet), approval of the slgnage on the west elevation of the
retail center and denial of variances to permit signage on the west elevation of Byerly's This approval is
subject to the following conditions:
1. Signage shall be individual block letters. No pan or panel signs shall be permitted.
2. All signs require a separate permit.
3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. Consistency in signage shall relate to color,
size, materials, and heights.
4. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
5. Individual letters may not exceed four (4) feet in height exclusive of the Byefly's sign.
6. The signage for the remainder of the development shall comply with city code.
7. A pylon sign shall be limited to a height of 18 feet.
8. The words "Open 24 Hours" should be eliminated from the east elevation.
9. Deleted.
10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall account for the removal
of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text.
11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TO BRING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE INTO COMPLIANCE
WITH THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT, FIRST READING.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: I think everybody has read it.
Councilman Mason: Second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, one second. Bringing into conformity from the 150 to 75 raises an interesting issue
with a project that we've already got turned down but ff you all want to approve it, go right ahead but it
45
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
basically allows placement of a septic system almost at water level on Lake Minnewashta. And I'm sorry, I
can't vote for that or support it. If we would like to conform to the State guidelines, I would be happy to do
that so long as we would stick in an elevation requirement that would require something like a 20 foot or a 30
foot separation more or less up a hill. Considerably up a hill from the lake or whatever. Being within that 75 to
150 range, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But anything down close to the lake I would. But again, you can
do whatever you want. And since you've already moved approval and seconded, that's what you've got.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion was open. You made discussion. Kate. In regard to that specific question, is
that going to have any clarification as to the height? Well that would add it...All septic tanks adjacent to the
lakes around the city...There is a setback, I mean there is a septic...if you were to say, such as 20 or 25 feet
above the ordinary high water mark or wetland...
Roger Knutson: 20 to 25 feet I think would be staggering.
Councilman Senn: Well I agree but what I'm saying is we haven't studied the issue. We haven't looked at the
issue. We haven't determined if we'll have a real problem with 3 feet, which is what the ordinance says. Or I
mean what the State guidelines say. I thought it say like 2 to 3 feet above or something.
Kate Aanenson: That's an old...
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's the same if I remember. We went through a long hearing on that in the Board
of Adjustments and that came up and that was my understanding is that all it had to be was 2 or 3 feet above the
water mark and I have a real problem with that.
Councilman Wing: I think part of the reason for the rush on this is that it sort of was the required deal. We
sort of didn't have much choice but to go.
Councilman Senn: Well no, we keep the 150 we've always had. That's not.
Roger Knutson: The rest of it there is, it's in effect whether, we have it in a state of confusion right now. The
Wetland Conservation Act permanent rules went into effect January 1 and we're trying to come into
conformance. The septic system issue is.
Councilman Senn: We can come in conformity on all points other than our existing 150 and stay with what we
have at the 150 if we want, correct?
Roger Knutson: You can do that without being inconsistent with the Wetland Conservation Act. But...
Mayor Chmiel: But as Roger has pointed out that the recommendation is to approve the ordinance amendment
so that we don't give a judge a chance to decide it isn't, as he's indicated.
Councilman Senn: So give him the chance, I mean what's wrong with 1507 We've been functioning with it
for years. Nobedy's tested it yet.
Councilman Wing: We've had years to make a decision on that lot. To do something about that lot. Correct
that lot. Take that lot. To park that lot. And we did nothing.
46
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Senn: Neither is the Arboretum.
Councilman Mason: That's right.
Councilman Wing: ...comes in it's been big bucks.
Councilman Senn: But Dick that doesn't change my mind on putting a septic system right down on a lake.
Councilman Wing: I don't disagree with that. However, it's got to meet today's standards and they are fairly
rigid.
Councilman Senn: No they aren't. You can put 2 feet of dirt on top of that lot and you can put a septic system
on top of that 2 feet of dim
Councilman Wing: One of the only areas we've got on Lake Minnewashta, I look at St. Louis Park where
they're having to come in and route out their sewer, each home are having to come through and route their
sewers every single year because of busted down pipes with roots coming through them and I'm wondering
where is all that stuff going. So this one almost doesn't bother me in the big picture of what's happening.
Councilman Senn: Look at the grades on our lakes already. I mean I don't know how you can say it's going to
better the grade of the lakes by...
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call a question and rely on Council's divine
guidance to give us the best move on this and ff we find that sometime it's not the best, we have that ability to
at least change it again.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the f'n'st reading of the
Amendment to City Code to bring the Wetland Ordinance into compliance with the Wetland Conservation
Act. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
RESOLUTION TO INCREASE WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FEES.
Kate Aanenson: This is pretty straight forward.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it is.
Kate Aanenson: Right now the city if requiring for a wetland alteration permit for single family home...$75.00.
All others would be $200.00. Now with the Wetland Conservation Act, there's a lot more administrative...and
that Conservation Act allows for an additional $75.00 fee...
Mayor Chmiel: But that's now existing lots or not dealt with at this time. This is any new lots that will be.
Kate Aanenson: Well no. If someone were to come in that would need to do a wetland alteration permit...we
would still...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but I was reading the first sentence and it says, Chanhassen city code requires that all lots
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
created after December 14, 1992.
Kate Aanenson: That's buffer monumentations. Number 7.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're on 6.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion?
Councilman Senn: And then this pertains, in relationship to those people who have in effect wetlands on their
property or on the official map and all that stuff?.
Kate Aanenson: If you want to put up a dock or ff you want to expand your home and you encroach from the
wetland setback area and you've got to get a wetland alteration permit.
Councilman Senn: So it won't be a surprise to anybody?
Kate Aanenson: No. It's really what's been in existence. We have a lot more administrative procedures now so
the $75.00 helps with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion?
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Resolution #94-44: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Resolution to
increase Wetland Alteration Permit fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEE FOR WETLAND BUFFER MONUMENTATION.
Kate Aanenson: When we discussed the new wetland regs, what we said is that,.,because we have to go out and
inspect them anyway to make sure they're...so what we're proposing is that we collect the fee at the time when
we do all the development fees. That we figure out how many...monumentation markers are required and...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any questions?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, your one sentence in here. The City will then install signage.
Kate Aanenson: It's a little sign that says, there's a little small sign that will say, buffer wetland edge.
Councilman Senn: I understand but that little sign is then on one of those nice ungodly green posts that the
sewers are marked with and stuff like that. I mean I have a real problem requiting that in people's backyards
just because there's a buffer strip. I mean that just.
Mayor Chmiel: It just blends into the grass.
48
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Kate Aanenson: I wish I had a perspective. I should have given you that.
Councilman Senn: I mean, aren't we talking the same thing?
Kate Aanenson: ...what we're trying to do is there shouldn't be any, a lot of these are going to have
vegetation...and I shtJulci have attached a copy of the specs so you could see how high...
Councilman Mason: How high is the sign?
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, I can't remember now. Diane put this together but if you want to table this, we can
provide ....
Councilman Senn: I mean the ones I've seen marking other things they're like 4 to 5 feet in height and they are
just ugly.
Councilman Mason: I think tabling it's a good idea because I agree with Mark. We've got so many doggone
signs up all over, you little green post signs all over.
Kate Aanenson: ...so people can't take it out and mow but yet people can see it and I agree...
Councilman Mason: I'd move that we table this until we can see those specs.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor to table. Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table action on the Wetland Buffer
Monumentation fees for further documentation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONING 39 ACRES FROM A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, RLK
ASSOCIATES.
Kate Aanenson: ...it's currently zoned A2. It is bordered...The applicants are proposing a 56 single family
housing site. There are two existing wetlands on the property. One included the Bluff Creek. As you're aware
the City is working to get this segment of the road as it goes over to the school. Highway 5 is up here. This is
Timberwood. And the subdivision will tie into Stone Creek. Right now here's the extension. I would just like
to address the issue as far as how we feel it merits the PUD. There's a significant amount of varied topography
in the area as well as a creek corridor... This is concept at this point and staff certainly feels it merits the PUD
as far as preservation of the natural features. We feel at this point this proposal that you're looking at tonight
falls short of mark. ff you look at the conditions, we do have a lengthy condifions...The Planning Commission
had recommended...concepmal approval be given at this time for the reasons outlined in the report. Given the
number of lots that are under 15,000 square feet. The treatment of Bluff Creek. The grades...preserve the
topography. Provide a transition for Timberwood to Heritage to the south. There is a utility line, a power line
that hms along the back of these lots and you can see that some of, these are quite a bit smaller lots, especiany
when you look against adjacent to Timberwood. There's a significant change in the lots and the number of
49
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
homes that.,.Minimizing the tree loss. And then the tying of the extension road. The east/west tying into that,
Right now it appears that this road needs to be carried all the way over to McGlynn's. Otherwise we need to get
the extension down from this street. Otherwise they're dependent upon the extension of the Fourth Phase of
Stone Creek in order to get access to this. One of the big issues that the staff brought out. As you're aware, the
city is pursuing the LCMR grant with Bluff Creek study and we do have an ad hoc committee with that.
Unfortunately even ff we do get funding for that, it's a year away. What we had recommended throughout this
report is that we put together a design charette with Bill Morrish. I had contacted him and he said he was too
busy to do that but recommended Lance Neckar from the Landscape School. Lance did send me back a proposal
for doing a design charette and looking at the issues of Bluff Creek. We not only have this project going
forward but we also have the project...which is north of Highway 5 which the creek also goes through. That
property we talked about as far as where the frontage road should be crossing the creek or whether it should stay
to the south. We do have a lot of issues and we feel like this is kind of getting ahead of what we're doing
which is kind of the same situation when Opus came forward on the Highway 5 corridor. We don't have the
standards in place and that was the whole intent of securing the LCMR grant is to come up with some designs.
We know we want to protect the Bluff Creek corridor and we want some elevations but we're not sure as far as
where we should provide the recreational opportunities and the revegetation and basically enhance...itself. So
what we have recommended in this report is that we...come back, if conceptual approval is given for this, to
come back with final approval, that we allow a design charette to happen. Lance Neckar did tell me that BiII
Morrish has freed up some time and feels really committed to this project and they're looking at the end of May
for doing the design charette. It will be coming back...to approve funding for that charette but I think that's...and
what we recommended in this report is before it would come back again, that they incorporate some of those
issues. And what we're talking about as far as the corridor, is just flushing out some major issues...starting at
TH 41. Going all the way down at least to Lyman Boulevard because that's where all the pending deve!opment
is happening. And what we don't want to do is allow subdivisions to go in and then find out we haven't
provided the proper setbacks and... But we do feel this merits a PUD. As outlined, as I read through the
Planning Commission and there are some concerns as far as the amount of grading. The lot sizes. And the
applicants are aware that there may be a lot of change between this plan and the preliminary plan. The Planning
Commission, when they recommended denial. We have this problem every time we do the concept PUD. It's
not ready for concept. If you go back and look at the ordinance, what is required for conceptual. It really is just
a general statement and we've always felt like it's really just their marching orders before they come back and
we did the same thing with Opus. We asked them not to come back until we got the Highway 5 in place...So
what the applicant is looking for is some direction. Just to point out the salient issues and this is what we need
to go back and address. Now obviously we did go...recommended denial but what we've given in the conditions
of approval is substantial direction and as I said, marching orders that they need to...So staff is comfortable
although the Planning Commission recommended denial, we had conceptual approval with the conditions in the
staff report, and there's quite a few of them.
John Dietrich: I'm John Dietrich from RLK Associates..John Dobbs from Heritage Development regrettably had
a conflict tonight...I appreciate the comments that we received from staff with regard to the conditions of
approval. We realize this is a concept plan and there is additional work that needs to be done on this site...We
have also tried to work closely with the engineering department...that's also one reason that we also went
forward with the concept plan is that we can start to look at that alignment and be able to start...that sight
accordingly. We realize there are a number of issues that need to be addressed and we'll start working on
them. We are currently getting surveys. Wetlands delineated and those items being picked up so that we'll be
able to have a much better handle on the overall development of the site. We do realize there will be a
combination of lots, both over the 15,000 and under the 15,000. The plan as it sits today has an average lot size
of approximately 20,000 square feet, not counting the wetlands that are on the site. So it's, in order to preserve
50
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
some of the topography. The trees along the southern part of the second wetland. The two wetlands that are
identified on the site. It's going to take a challenging plan and it's going to take some flexibility from the city
and that's why we were requesting the PUD. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I think the Bluff Creek issue stands alone. The only comment I had, I think which came
first, the chicken or the egg and was Timberwood there first or second and although I don't have any great needs
to defend Timberwood, we have tended to protect them and they've kind of been a group that came in and
established a neighborhood that they wanted and we did separate them from Stone Creek. We didn't tie those
together for a reason and I wouldn't even entertain the thought of them taking the Timberwood residents and
tying them to 5 homes in their backyards so I think this western border or the eastern border of Timberwood
with 16 homes is totally incompatible with the existing land use and I wouldn't even want to address that. I'm
not even interested in looking at it. I don't think that's fair to them. I don't think it ties the areas together and
that would have to be the large lots there and small lots someplace else ff there's going to be any. I'm not
interested in seeing this area because that's. These lot sizes Kate, they're not just the buildable numbers right
now? These large lots still include wetlands and may not be buildable, is that right?
Kate Aanenson: You mean some of these lots?
Councilman Wing: No, the average lot size is 20. Did you mention that still includes non buildable areas
possibly?
John Dietrich: That has deducted out the wetland areas.
Councilman Wing: Deducted out, okay.
Councilman Senn: All the lots were meeting the ordinance requirements.
Kate Aanenson: Well the PUD, the smallest lot size you can go up to is 11,000.
John Dietrich: And the smallest lot size I think was 12,500 and then 13,500.
Councilman Wing: My only comment was the 16 lots bordering Timberwood and putting 5 homes in someone's
backyard. They kind of didn't move there for that reason. Or moved there to avoid that. Is that what I wanted
to say?
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Yes. That's what I want to say. Since it's two homes away from mine.
Councilman Senn: So what's somebody supposed to do?
Mayor Chmiel: He's just making general comments.
Councilman Wing: I don't think we need that density abating those houses.
Mayor Chmiel: In and adjacent. Even though it's a PUD. I didn't like the size of those lots that bother there
either but Colleen.
51
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: There are two things I like about this proposal. One is that it's coming in as
PUD. I think that's certainly appropriate. And the other thing is the builder. I think they, I mean the developer.
You've shown great willingness to work with the city. I just think this is premature at this time. There are too
many outstanding items and I think staff has really outlined what needs to be worked on. So I'm not prepared to
give concept approval tonight. Go back. Work on some of the issues and then come back and we'll take a look
at it. You know going in residential, I think that's the appropriate use for this piece of land. But it just, there
are too many things left out right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well, I'll admit when I fa-st read through this I thought huh, you've got to be kidding.
Well just because I think clearly and I think everyone's admitting that there are some things that need to be
worked out. The reason I would vote approval tonight is just because of the, what Kate had just said about a
concept plan and the underlying portion here where it says, approval of the concept statement shall not obligate
the city to approve the final plat or any part thereof or to rezone the property to planned unit development
district. And I think with this rather lengthy list of recommendations and I would concur with what Richard said
about the homes abutting, regardless of what property they're abutting, I don't, that size I don't think is
compatible to the size of the Tirnberwood homes. I'm sure the developer understands. There's quite a bit of
work that needs to get done before they would come back to us again. So I can go along with it with those
conditions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I mean as far as preliminary concept goes, once you superimpose and inject staff's points and
comments, I think it's an early stage and there's a lot to be done...but I think if you incorporate and work out the
things that staff wants to work out, I think it brings it pretty much in par with what we're looking for normally.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I too feel that it's a little premature to even give the conceptual because I want to see a
little bit more and I'd like to see staff work back with the developer to come back with something other than
what's basically shown. And I think it's a good proposal, having residential in and adjacent to what's there and
would serve the area rather well. But the sizes, I still have some real concern with, even though it's PUD. So
with that, would someone like to make a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move to deny the concept approval.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say.
Councilman Senn: Wait, wait.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Did you want to say something?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean it seems to me that if you think it needs more work past the concept approval,
why don't we table it and let them go through the work. I mean I don't know why we're denying it. It seems
to be inconsistent with what we would normally do. Usually we table it and let them go to work on it some
more.
52
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: That would be up to the mofionee and with the second to make that change to either table.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That does make more sense because we're not saying we don't like the concept in
general. Yeah, I would withdraw my motion and make a new one to table.
Mayor Chmiel: Would the second also?
Councilman Wing: That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll entertain the motion.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I already made it to table, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table concept approval for a Planned
Unit Development for Heritage Development for further work. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT COMPUTER AIDED
GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND SUBDIVISIONS.
Kate Aanenson: I did hand out a couple additional leuers that staff had received...concern about this item. This
directive came from the Planning Commission who was concerned about being able to really get a grasp of the
scale and scope of the projects. And the City Council's discussed that also. It also came out of the fact that we
saw the photo imaging for the bridge for the ISTEA project. It helped to visualize the scope and the scale of
that project. So the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment. So what we've
done is prepared an amendment that would, our subdivision requirements for application and site plan review to
add language that would say, computer image enhancements. If you look at the definition that we put in there,
there was a discussion about whether or not the...would be sufficient or enhanced photos like you say tonight
with Byerly's. And I think that's probably sufficient for a lot of projects. But there are projects when computer
imaging is more appropriate so there is, under subdivision and site plan application there is a requirement that
says other information as deemed necessary by the staff. Well lot's of times, that's where we do ask for just
renderings and that may be sufficient but we did want language specifically that talked about the generated photo
composite imaging and...So we amended the code in two places. The subdivision regulations where we're
looking at large subdivisions and again this may be a multi-family project along Highway 5 where we're trying
to capture the visual and what the impacts would be of the roof lines, the...of the buildings...So it does make
sense in subdivisions. And it may not in all subdivisions. I think when we put it in there saying they may be. I
think that's a concern a lot of people have...and then also when a site plan, it may be a simple site plan and it be
required but...it may be a small one that has significant impact...The other issue that came up is the cost. People
had a concern about that. In looking at the Planning Commission Minutes, Bob did discuss that and he called
and found out, he felt the standard right now was about $3,000.00...it was our understanding that that would be
the high end and that the cost, depending on once you put the original information in, then duplications are
alterations from that...Of course this is a new technology that's rapidly catching on and it's our understanding
that the cost of this, there's more people doing it...So with that, we'd recommend approval of the two ordinance
53
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
amendments. And again, the perspective that we're taking is that it would be something that we wouldn't
necessarily be ask every project but it's there if we feel like it's the scope or the scale of project...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. If anyone would like to come up and provide their comments. I would like,
to limit those to about 3 minutes if we could. The hours are getting late but we can still at least address some of
these issues that are brought up this evening. If you would just state your name and your address, I would
appreciate it.
Dan Herbst: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Dan Herbst at 7640 Crimson Bay in
Chanhassen. Basically I'm here as an advocate for lowering the cost of housing and it is going to do nothing
but I think drive up costs. I think it's just one more additional item that's adding to the cost of subdivisions.
Adding to the cost of housing that I think we're going to regret in the future. I believe the burden, if they have
to convince the neighborhood or if they have to convince the staff or the Council, should be up to the applicant
and not at the discretion of the city to put this additional burden on the subdivision. We did a very extensive
video presentation of a condominium project on the Minnesota Valley Golf Course. It showed the sun rising and
the sun setting and the trees growing and we impressed the staff but we really confused all the neighbors and
new technology like this basically ends up just being costly and I think very ineffective. And it's not a
requirement of any city that I'm aware of right now that I'm subdividing in and again, I think it's good, it's
going to put Chanhassen just out of the competition long term I think if cities around us are not requiring this.
It will be one expensive thing so I urge you to not adopt this ordinance and let that be an option of the
developer. Put the burden on him. If he feels he has to convince the neighborhood. The burden is the
responsibility is on us. If we want to rezone this land, to convince the neighbors to diminish the political
pressure that can be put on you. I think that should be our obligation and not forced on a future consumer or
anyone trying to buying a house here in Chanhassen. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Kate, didn't you say this isn't intended to impact residential and housing developments?
Primarily look at the commercial...
Kate Aanenson: Right, but we did put it in the subdivision regs. There may be specific instances like I
mentioned on Highway 5 or.
Councilman Wing: It could be required but if it's not in...
Audience: We can't hear Kate at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, maybe if you'd bring the mica little closer to you.
Kate Aanenson: What I'm saying is that we did put the subdivision regulations because we feel like there may
be some places where it's appropriate. As I mentioned, Highway 5. We've got some multi-family projects
going up and to visualize the brace of the buildings and there was concern that we had rows and rows of
buildings with no breaks. And there may be areas where in residential, in a subdivision that's appropriate. It
might have been helpful on the...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else?
54
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mark Anderson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Mark Anderson. I'm at 420 Merrimac Lane
in Plymouth. I'm here representing Lundgren Bros Construction which has a number of projects in Chanhassen
and hopes to continue to do so. I have a letter here I would like to also...and the letter basically, they're.in
opposition to code change. One of the big reasons is cost associated with that. Although Lundgren is primarily
a residential home builder, when you give staff discretion, they might...Secondly, this is going to add some
additional time to the submittal process. Right now the subdivision process is pretty lengthy. When you start
putting in buildings in the process, most of the buildings, and I do come from a commercial/industrial
background as well, are theoretical at this point when you come in with a subdivision. You don't know exactly
how a building's going to be. They're all customized specifically for the customer. We've talked to our
engineers about it in terms of how you would do this kind of work...topography information of adjacent
properties as well as your own and that you have to buy this topographic information. It's expensive. But also
we've been told that topographic information available over at the city is not real accurate so quality that you're
going to get may not be real good. Basically we'd ask that the item be tabled. I personally think that's bit of
an overkill and in my 20 years of developing experience, I think if I was to drive down through subdivisions,
one that has been designed with the existing guideline and one that would be designed by the computer aided
graphics, I don't think I could tell the difference between the two subdivisions. So I'd like to leave this letter
with you so you have it.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, okay. Anyone else?
Jim Ostenson: My name is Jim Ostenson with James Development, 7808...Circle, Bloomington and I'm also
been involved in one project in Chanhassen...and it is my understanding from the staff memo, and the proposed
amendment to the ordinance, it really is very unfair that this is required. That it's not up to staff's discretion at
all. In the recommend_afions that the staff recommends, in reading it be approved...for subdivisions and site
plans. In talking with members of the Planning Commission, they were very clear that it was only staff
discretion. That it was not going to be required for each project. So we certainly want that answered but
beyond that, we really feel that again it's, we've been able for years to provide sketches and renderings and
different elevations of homes that are going to built and townhouse projects that are going to be built that have
served us well and this seems to me to be much more of a commercial application than it does a residential
application. As it was said, so many of the houses are customized so you don't know whether it's going to be a
rambler or a two story or...
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else?
Molly Bomgard: Hi. My name is Molly Bomgard, a representative of the Builders Association of Minnesota.
We are a non-profit...with 3,000 members. We are strongly against this ordinance. As stated earlier, it does not
say...for any ordinance anywhere that this is not going to be for small, can be applied to small residential
developments and that really concerns us, especially with affordable housing costs. I did meet with the people
that provide this service. They said in an average...cost anywhere between $2,000.00 and $6,000.00 to put on
something like this. We f'md that cost extremely high. We would request that it, some clarification...with staff.
We do work with cities in adopting new ordinances...
Kate Aanenson: Could I just make a clarification. If you look on the subdivision regulations it says that unless
waived by the city because of limited size and...so we've always used that. There's some things that we don't
ask for that aren't appropriate...As far as the cost goes, $2,000.00 to $6,000.00 for a whole subdivisions, spread
over those lots, we felt that that's pretty small as far as the impact...
55
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Senn: Who are you suggesting makes the determination?
Kate Aanenson: Well basically we've gotten that direction from me Planning Commission and from the City
Council. If they think there isn't enough information. Same with the landscaping plan. If you tell us there isn't
enough information on that. Or like Mr. James' sign ordinance. If you tell us he doesn't have enough. Basically
we've relied on your information...not there. I think this is going to be kind of a process where as projects come
in, we'll know which ones...but we're relying on the Planning Commission and the City Council to tell us which
ones they want to see.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks.
Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. Mr. Mayor, Council people. We are more concerned
about this ordinance in that we have attempted periodically to provide this type of service. After I read the
ordinance I went to BRW, I went to Amcon, I went to Kevin and a few other people and said, do you have this
service available and they said no. So a major concern is, who does this? We have in the past tried to load the
topographical information, like over here at the Oaks, into the computer and those costs were, because
topographical information is not available except you've got to stand someplace, we're in the neighborhood of
about $15,000.00 for the Oaks. One of the recommendations is that the city spend the money to electronically
prepare the topographic information that's necessary and then we could use it. It could be very easy to use it if
the topographical information was available, according to Amcon. We've talked to them about that. The
problem is not just our site, it's the whole city or wherever you want to look from, you've got to be in and I'm
not pro or against this because we've tried to use this stuff. Sometimes it looks good and sometimes it doesn't...
I don't think, as far as I know, there's only one, maybe two vendors in the whole community at the present time.
Kate, do you know?
Kate Aanenson: There's yeah, a select few.
Brad Johnson: And I just don't, I mean we've used it and I think sometimes it is a concern. It's certainly a lot
less expensive than a model. Okay. Because models really cost a lot of money in our history, but I don't know
who and what and where this is going to come from and I'd just be interested in knowing from, we talked to the
Minnesota Association of Architects and they just couldn't believe you guys were thinking about that. Mary
Jones, who you know is the past President and he just shook his head because they're just not ready. So that's
my concern. I'm not saying it's a bad idea or a good idem I just don't know where the vendors would be. I
know we'd have to change our whole staff of people that we use for the work that we do. I mean that's the idea
but the point being is I don't think it's ready. That's an added cost along with these guys. I didn't even think
you were thinking about subdivisions but that's another question. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Anyone else? If not, we'll bring it back to Council. I had a lot of questions on this and
I had some discussions with Richard on it and asked him if he would check around to see what it is and who
were available and what these costs might be and I'll mm this over to you Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I'm tired of making mistakes and it started back 4 years ago with the Rapid Oil
Change. Best landscape...we all heard this and I can go on down the line with projects that we're dissatisfied
with and we've approved everything, in my four years, basically off a $200.00 blueprint, or a set of $200.00
blueprints. And I think we've made enough mistakes so I guess my feelings are, and these are quotes from
today and of all the dumb things. I had pages of quotes from these finns I called and it's one thing I left at
56
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
home and I've tried to paraphrase what I could remember here so I'm not going to quote directly other than this
is as accurate as I remember. They sort of said, they had a lot of praise, one firm had praise for Chanhassen. It
really is trying to improve it's image and it's quality and elevate it's city and their comment was, this ordinance
says to people coming in, be prepared. If you're coming into Chanhassen, this is the cost of doing business and
this ordinance was presented, one party commented they thought it was on the cutting edge. They did comment
that the software is not in it's, not in a high level of teeh right not but that it's rapidly getting to the point where
most of the ftrms that are going to have the software available are going to be incorporating it. The larger firms
are looking at it. That the costs are falling like a rock. Right now if you're looking between $1,500.00 and
$3,000.00 to put these slides in or computer imaging or build models, whatever. That this stuff's really going to
be falling rapidly. So over the next 2 years, two of the companies said the cost of this is going to fall
dramatically because it's going to be a very common process. They brought up comments about design fees~ If
you have a million dollar project with a 5% design fee, $2,000.00-$3,000.00 can be a hill of beans. I mean you
should anticipate that anyway. Maybe you don't want to spend it but that's kind of a cost of doing b~iness.
They didn't think the dollars that we're going to impose here on a random basis, as needed, and that was my
intent certainly. To be a real issue. $200.00 for blueprint, $1,500.00 for color renderings, $800.00 for slides
with artist renditions on it. Costs going down. One person said $800.00 a slides times 4 slides, 4 elevations.
You've got $3,200.00. For a million dollar project, that's not that much. Look at what happened with Market
Square tonight. We started out with one blueprint. One picture. 8 x 11 picture and we said what the devil is
this? What is this a joke? And they came back with signs and pictures and I don't think we should have had
to beg that. I think it should have happened. It should have been part of the proposal to begin with. Now I
want to clarify that this doesn't happen in the beginning. The conceptual stage or even the preliminary. It
happens when we finally come down to brass tacks with what's going out to bid. What is actually going to
happen. At that point, when we make the fmal decision, we should be making it off of some information that
shows us elevations and directional views and how it fits on and it may be a model. It may be computer
imaging. It may be video imaging. It may just be artist renderings. All these work but artist renderings are
every bit as expensive as anything else we're doing here. When you start getting into multi colored detailed
artist renderings, they're not cheap either. And I don't think this is aimed at residential or necessarily the
housing group. It's primarily I was thinking our downtown. Large multi, large million dollar projects. The
Byerly's. The apartment buildings...I agree with Kate, it could happen on a subdivision. Without a doubt. I
think there could be landfonns we want to protect. I could tell you one right now that I think we should have
protected our landforms and I think this would have helped us so, I feel we have not had the information to
make these decisions. We are not experts reading blueprints. I don't think staff has even done well with it so.
One company complimented our attempt to upgrade our city. They felt this was a reasonable request. They said
they expect a request. They expect this type of quality if they're coming in with a million dollar project. They
would do it otherwise. So contrary to what these other people have said, I heard nobody state that we were out
of line. We were on the cutting edge. We're maybe a little bit ahead of the technology but we're.., either.
We're not going to impose hardships. But I think this ordinance says, come into Chanhassen, be prepared. If
you're coming to Chanhassen, there might be a cost of doing business here but the day of the $200.00 blueprint
for me is out. I'm not going to address any more issues on an 8 x 11 page or...the housing group. I don't think
this was intended to be directed at you. I think there's some things we want to look at so I think that approving
this tonight, there will be some conditions for the next reading that should definitely be addressed. Or maybe
perhaps tabling this tonight and brought back with some of these things reviewed and I think we can be specific.
And those that are here, I think the subdivision is an issue Kate. For residential versus commercial. Small
businessman versus the major projects such as Byerly's. 'I don't see that this is needed for a small businessman
coming in necessarily. As long as Rapid Oil Change isn't considered a small businessman. I'm sure Council
and the Mayor may have maybe some other issues that need to be addressed here but boy, I strongly support.
This is a drastic need in the city if we're going to do anything to elevate our city and it's future. Thank you.
57
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Don Ashworth: If I could add a little bit. I did some research there as well. I think there's really like three
different types that are out there. I mean you can do computer modeling where they just take a picture of the
site and then superimpose again and digitize whatever it is you're going to put in there. And superimpose the
two. You can actually get that for $500.00 to $1,000.00. The problem with that is, things aren't necessarily
scaled correctly. So I mean if you really want to do it, you have to move up to the computer modeling type.
Okay. In that instance then they literally insure that they've got a third dimension in there and that's where you
get into the $2,000.00 or $3,000.00. But you have to realize that with those type of, what that tool is very good
for is like the pedestrian bridge because the contours pretty well stayed the way they were. They could take a
picture of what you saw up there. Digitize that. Digitize the bridge itself and then superimpose it on that... So
this type of technology works very well with a bridge and entry monument. It would have worked well for the
Wendy's. The commercial here. In fact you would have seen then behind those buildings, what you would have
seen with Festival, which I didn't see in the renderings. In fact on the artistic rendering for Byerly's, I didn't
see the bluff line up above Byerly's and I thought it would have been nice if you could seen what the houses up
there might look like. Again, you could do that for $2,000.00-$3,000.00. What you really can't do. Well you
can do it but now we're starting to talk about Hollywood type of stuff. Is you t_ake the Opus site or even the
recently approved school site. I mean you can load in all of the contours for the existing elevations and you can
load in the contours for the new roads and whatever but I mean you're talking about very, very expensive. I
mean really kind of out of the question. So I would agree with Councilman Wing's point that probably this is
not going to work for subdivisions. Because when you have to start homing around with these, you don't have a
picture of what this site is going to look like in an after condition and therefore start putting houses or something
on it. Okay. So this application in my own mind is only going to work for certain buildings and you want to
see what this building is going to look like.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My year and several months on the Council, tonight was the £~t time I've ever
seen an artistic rendering of what a building will look like and that's been a frustration of mine for the last year.
I think Richard pretty much outlined all my feelings on it. It was never, in my opinion we never intended it to
be a requirement, particularly for subdivisions. We just need something to fall back on to request it. I guess
I'm happy with the way the ordinance reads right now. Maybe we can tighten up the language somehow to say,
for extenuating circumstances for subdivisions but. If the decision comes to the Council as to whether these, it
will be required. I mean I trust this Council to make fair decisions as to whether it would be required. You
know future Council's I don't know. I guess my point is, I don't think any Council would be very lax in saying
yeah, go ahead and do it because we'd like to see it. I think we'll have some good reasons why we would want
to see it for a subdivision. So we need an out there. For commercial developments, I think it's, I would be
happy to say it's a requirement but I'm satisfied to leave it as an as needed request as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Michael.
Councihnan Mason: I pretty much concur with what's being said. I would go along with tabling because I do
think some language needs to be tighten on it. I don't, my intent for something like this was never for small
subdivisions. I don't, I agree with that. I mean I do think of, you know seeing what that pedestrian bridge was
going to look like across Highway 5 was very helpful. It gave us a really good idea and I liked what Richard
said about no, we're not saying bring this with a conceptual approval. But if push does come to shove on an
important project and Council feels they need another tool, yeah. Yeah.
58
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Kate Aanenson: What if it's the Planning Commission that wants it? I mean they're the ones that requested
this.
Councilman Mason: Well but I think this started here. We've been talking about this for a long time.
Kate Aanenson: What I'm saying is, what if the Planning Commission wants the renderings before it gets to
you. Before they make a decision.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it's a Council issue.
Kate Aanenson: What if the staff wants it to make a decision and a recommend__a_tion to you?
Councilman Wing: I think it's coming past the preliminary stages...
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's the provision is provided in there too that the Planning Commission looks at this,
they at least that way can give us a better understanding of what we want to even look at too with their
recommendations.
Kate Aanenson: Otherwise, I guess what I'm saying, if you want the Council...put language in that says the
Council has discretion to ask for this. Otherwise.
Roger Knutson: Just to point out one thing maybe that will be a problem. One of the things that could generate
this information is the site plan review. You only get one pass at site plan review. I'm just thinking out loud.
You could have a situation where someone comes in with a site plan review. You know it's unusual but
sometimes developers are in a hurry. And they come in here for a site plan review and they're going to break
ground in the morning and you say we'd like to see a rendering. I don't know how long these things to make
but if it sets someone back...developer do one at the onset. How long does it take to put one of these things
together?
Mayor Chmiel: Couple weeks.
Councilman Senn: It depends on which one you're talking about. I mean there's a universe of projects here.
Brad Johnson: I guess what we're saying a little bit is all these guys are saying, geez it's not good for them.
I'm just saying...all that came out with this was a brochure by one vendor and I went and _talked to our vendors
Dick and they didn't do it and these are big guys in town.
Councilman Wing: Then you have to present models. You might have to put detailed.
Brad Johnson: If you said models and not electronic imaging...
Councilman Wing: We're saying it all.
Kate Aanenson: No, we're saying both composite images or artistic renderings...
Councilman Wing: Okay, and I wanted models in there because I felt that was a need and I guess I just am
aware of a project that simply built a model right off the bat before they went to the School Board. But that was
59
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
their option because the rendering was not possible for them but it's not uncommon for a major project to come
in or a major fu'm. Well HGA. They were ready to give us whatever we wanted including models. Tear apart
models.
Kate Aanenson: And I think most the subdivisions that you get, Lundgren included, gave us a lot of artistic
renderings.
Councilman Mason: And that was frae.
Kate Aanenson: Right. And that's, the language is written that way.
Councilman Wing: That was never questioned.
Kate Aanenson: But what I'm saying is lots of times, even on the concept, I mean we bring it up tonight on the
concept for Heritage. I mean there's some significant topography and creek. What are the views from the
creek? This is an instance where staff would like to see some of that information.
Councilman Wing: Why is models deleted? Why isn't models in there?
Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission felt that that wasn't a perspective tool.
Councilman Wing: But it may be the only one.
Mayor Chmiel: It probably should be put in there. Images, models or renderings.
Jim Ostenson: Did I just hear that this.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up here so we can get it on the microphone?
Jim Ostenson: Sure. Jim Ostenson here with James Development. Did I understand that it would have been
appropriate tonight on Heritage's 56 lot subdivision?
Kate Aanenson: Appropriate for?
Jim Ostenson: Appropriate for the photo imaging.
Kate Aanenson: To have a perspective. No, to have an artistic rendering or some views from the creek. Yeah,
I think it would.
Councilman Mason: I think we're geV, lng a little hung up here. I mean number one, I think the way it's
worded, on the agenda, it's not a requirement to submit computer aided graphics. It may be a requirement.
Jim Ostenson: That's not what it says in the staff report. In the staff report it says, shall be required.
Councilman Mason: Well and that's why we're talking right now. About this whole thing.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: But the ordinance doesn't read that way.
60
City Council Me. ting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Wing: Such images and renderings shall be submitted. What I had written in there, shall be
submitted upon request of the City Council.
Jim Ostenson: And add that language.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Mark.
Councilman Senn: It seems to me in a universe of A to Z, we're jumping from A to Z and forgetting everything
in the middle. You know looking back at the bridge issue, the bridge issue was very nice and basically you
know what I learned from talking to people that I talked to the last few days is yeah. If you have existing
topography and you're trying to superimpose something on it, there's nothing real complicated in that. I mean
you basically take a picture and you superimpose another picture over it and you know yeah. That can be done
in a $1,000.00 to $3,000.00 range very easily. But you know the problem is very few projects get done on that
basis. Very few projects simply leave the land as the land now exists. The level that you're talking about in
computer aided graphics, I mean I don't know who told you what but the technology doesn't exist.
Councilman Wing: I stated that up front.
Councilman Senn: Okay, it doesn't and to create the technology requires a person to sit down and input every
topographic line into the computer and even then, once it's all entered, the software still doesn't exist to turn
around and kick it out on the basis that you could even understand it on any type of a schematic basis. That's
not to say that can't happen and I'm sure fu-ms would rush to do iL The bigger firms will' but I mean at that
point you've cut out every architectural finn that doesn't have a CAD system, which are quite a number of them.
Especially small ones. And even the ones with CAD systems, it comes down to a matter of overhead and how
much they can invest up front to put this together. The conservative estimates, in fact the most conservative
estimate I got was that right now to basically even take a shot at doing this, you're talking about adding 15%
was the most conservative. I got estimates from 15% to almost 50% in terms of design cost added to a project
so I mean if you're talking about a million dollar project and a 5% fee of $50,000.00, I mean you're talking
about adding you know another 15% to 50%, depending on what point that firm's starting from in terms of
getting there. Now, I want to go back to A again because I agree. A where we've been working from has been
totally inadequate. I mean I don't care ff you want to talk about Rapid Oil or what but A has been inadequate
because what we've been dealing with in effect is a site plan with some topographical lines drawn on it and
building elevations. And I want to underline that word, building elevations okay. There's a real next logical
step in this thing that we've never required that I think will satisfy a lot of our requirements and that is to
require elevations. Not building elevations but elevations. Elevations which conform the site to the building.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What does that look like from here?
Councilman Senn: That basically takes the topography that you find on a flat sheet and brings it up this way
and puts the building on it so you can in effect,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you'd see a berm and.
Councilman Senn: It's a blue line version of a color rendering you saw tonight, except it's blue lined. If you
want to add color to it, yeah. Whoopee. Add another few hundred dollars in cost if you want it to be colored.
Right now you can produce artist renderings for $300.00 to $600.00. I mean but artist renderings are not very
accurate. I mean I've used them a lot. They are not very accurate. It requires basically someone who's kind of
61
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
half architect, half artist to basically take what their visualizing. Going out and looking at a site and transposing
it to paper. There is no technical basis. I mean there's no finite technical basis to what they're doing and again,
you're going to run into I think a lot of misimpression over what's being shown there. I think if we basically
take the next step and require in effect elevations, we'll be taking a giant step towards the next step and I think
eventually technology will, like Dick said, I think eventually technology will catch up and it will be there in an
affordable cost but I don't think it's there in an affordable cost right now. The artist renderings in some cases,
we may not apply them but to me the real trick goes back to in this in a lot of cases, we simply can't do it. I
mean I'm going to take any business park. Any business park, we're going to almost settle on the elevations
through construction of the public improvements and roadway systems before we even know who the building
occupants or the types of buildings that go in that bt/siness park are. They're all going to be very different sizes,
shapes, you know everything. I mean that we're not going to be able to decide up front and make that kind of a
decision or, and it's not something we're going to be able to do as we go down the road because once we set
those public improvements and roadway heights and everything else and sewers, that's going to turn around and
affect the drainage one way or the other so you can't just go take this section and say okay, this is going to be
this way and that's going to be that way. That's going to be pre-determined. Same thing with housing
subdivisions. I mean you can't determine what elevation every one of those houses is going to be at and
whether it's going to be a walkout or not a walkout and all kinds of different things. I think this lends some
good opportunities as you saw tonight I think with the color rendering and I've seen color renderings a great
deal, but the color rendering again. I don't know if you noticed when we looked at Charlie's color rendering or
not but I'll tell you, from the point that he said we were standing, could you visnalize that drawing? I mean it to
me looked like everything was 100 miles away. If I'm standing where he said, that tree next to me is going to
be 20 feet tall. Not in that drawing where you're saying, you know.
Councilman Wing: That was a slide. I wanted a slide taken looking westbound with that monument drawn into
scale.
Councilman Senn: And if you're standing on that point where he was standing, that was not to scale Dick. It
wasn't even close to scale.
Councilman Wing: I agree 100%.
Councilman Senn: So there was no perception of what was there. That monument sign, th~ pylon sign will
stick up many times the size that you saw them in that drawing tonight and many times more obvious. And
again, if you mm around and require to scale, in effect I'll call it a site, or call it a site elevation, then you're
going to basically now mesh the landscape or the land contours with the building and I think that's going to take
us to the next step we want.
Councilman Wing: Then I would add that to this ordinance as the initial step but I still want access to Charlle
James to say, I want video imaging of that sign and that monument on that and I want east and west bound
looks. I think we should have had it for Market Square. I think we should have had an easffwest version of
how that fit and how it looked. I think we should have seen a picture from City Hall. The University didn't
double, come in with a 50% increase when they gave us a video imaging of our downtown. They showed our
downtown. Drew in the buildings. Drew in the trees and we all sat there with our mouths open saying this is
wonderful. It is there. It is available. It's being developed rapidly. We are ahead of it, We are going from A
to Z and I don't care if the other cities don't have this. They will real soon and ff we have it, boy they're going
to say, well Chanhassen did this and it's going to go like fire because we're all in the same boat and we're all
making the mistakes. This isn't hurting anybody. It's on request as needed. It's not being demanded and it's
62
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
toward the end of the process. And yes, it may cost $2,000.00, $3,000.00, $4,000100, $5,000.00. And I have no
qualms that a million, 2, 3 million dollar project is requesting that type of paperwork. Maybe. We're not even
demanding it. Your elevation I think is an excellent idea and I'd like to see it added as a first step.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, are you writing all these things down that have been discussed? Good. Because I can see
that where we're at with what we have and what we want to really see is not hero and there's been some
suggestions that we table this rather than have the first reading, until we get all the things in front of us. That
we do table it.
Councilman Wing: I move tabling.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the amendments to City Code regarding a
requirement to submit computer-aided graphics or models for site plan reviews and subdivisions for
further clarification. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: When do you think you can have some of this back to us with the corrections for those who are
here listening tonight?
Kate Aanenson: Well I just need one point of clarification. My concern is, I can write it a couple of ways. It
sounds like you want to have the authorization of whether or not to call it and then we have to put it in say upon
Council. Or again, it goes back to if the Planning Commission wanted it or the staff...
Councilman Senn: I think it has to be the Council.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I do too.
Councilman Senn: Because you need to have a public, open. I mean that's a significant...
Mayor Chmiel: If they're going to...Council requests that that be done, Planning Commission's going to get it
automatically will it not?
Kate Aanenson: Well, it's like Roger said. You see a site plan once. It goes to Planning Commission and then
it goes to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but if the ordinance becomes effective.
Kate Aanenson: Well I can write. What I think we need to do at this point is write some of the address and
take it at that point. There's some outstanding issues and.
Mayor Chmiel: Give us two different things and see what you come up with.
Councilman Mason: That makes sense.
Brad Johnson: Can I say one thing? I think what I heard you say is, you want to be able to see elevations. If
you look down at the beginning of the ordinance, the purpose. We've had that asked and we just tried to do this
63
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
with the hotel when we gave you. Dick, we did do it with Market Square because we have electronic. One of
the things that the problem is, we bring the CAD system in just wonderful because you can sit here and move
the whole deal. But then we put it on a piece of paper and we lost it. See electronically you can bring it in
here. You guys have seen the CAD system. That works great because we can try to do it here without all the
stuff that you need to do it so, t think we've always had to do it. Okay. And we've done it on all our projects
in some fashion. So if you just said the general purpose is and you can use any of the following but what are
we trying to do.
Councilman Wing: Brad, ff you were to come back again with this ordinance, I would have had your staff go to
City Hall. Take a picture looking south so we have the whole Market Square. The bank. The whole thing in
there and then I would have had them put your proposed building, it's design, right where it's supposed to be at
the elevation and we could have said, or we could have said ooh, that isn't going to fly.
Brad Johnson: I guess what I'm saying is, it's different with the technology is what we're afraid of. I mean
that's from my end of it because of what, just what he just said and my experience in not finding a source
quickly.
Councilman Wing: I agree.
Brad Johnson: ...probably a little heard of the technology. I'm thinking like you were thinking. I've got to lay
all this stuff in and it does cost a lot of money. So ff you just say the objective is, because we've got to go
through it in most cases, in our projects. Now we may not have done it perfectly but I'm just saying, we're not
afraid of it. And Amcon is trying to get the stuff for example. But just tell us what you want in general at the
beginning of the ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks.
CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THE CREATION OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT/TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT AND PROGRAM ON THE PRESS AND
DATASERV PROPERTY.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Honorable Council. Included in your packet is a request to consider establishing a
new tax increment district, economic development district on the DataServ and Press property. There's a map
attached to my report on the back which I've highlighted in red. It's that area that you would collect the
increment from which is highlighted in the dashed little square dashes in back. However that would allow you
to spend money outside of the district which follows up along TH 101. And the City Council's straggled over
the last year and a half in trying to find a way to assist in looking at alternatives and rebuilding TH 101 and
trails and this is another mechanism that you could have available to assist in planning the reconstruction of TH
101. And also...on Dell Road south of Highway 5. But again this report is not that you are approving the tax
increment plan. What you're doing is calling for a public hearing and asking for input. Citizen comments.
County to comment and the School District to comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to see some of those things be entered into it when it comes to that particular
time. Any discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I guess with so little information provided in this item, I guess I'll call for the
public hearing just so I can find out what it's all about~
64
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Get all the infc~mation that you're looking for. Okay.
Councilman Wing: Are these businesses that are in it and going to supply it, how long do they nm?
will this district nm?
Todd Gerhardt: This is creating a new economic development district. They last for 10 years.
Mayor Chmieh Or less.
Councilman Wing: Okay. And we'll be capturing D~mgerv, Press and basically those and then whatever else
might come in and be developed?
Mayor Chmieh Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: The existing Press would have a base value as it does today so you're not collecting any
increment with the exception of any increase in value on the Press and the D,~ta.%rv buildings. Where you
would capture increment would be if any new developments came in those areas. For example, the Press is
considering or has made application right now for a 40,000 square foot addition to their building so that will
increase their value. With that increase you will be capturing close to about S80,000.00 a year.
Mayor Chmieh But it's only on the new addition that's going in. Not the existing facility that's there.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Councilman Senn: And like on DataServ's, it would just be all the vacant land to the east of where they are
now right? And out front.
Todd Gerhardt: On both sides...They've got roughly about I think about 70 acres is my guess. And staff's
been working with them. They're going to be coming in with probably some office warehouse along, between
Lake Drive East and Highway 5 in the front half and then they're lease runs out in 2 years and they're building
in Eden Prairie and they're considering building 100,000 square foot office building on their land south of Lake
Drive.
Don Ashworth: And although the district was 10 years, you can only collect increment for 8 of those 10. You
pick out which 8 you want.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I would like to see us show what a cost estimal~ would be for some of the proposals that
we're thinking about with TH 101. With the trail. And then take that and see how many years it tokes fee us to
become solvent on U'tat whole matter and look at that district for that number of years.
Todd Gerhardt: Staff would also, we think that in doing this we would extend our 3 year mx increment policy
over to any builders that would come into that area that would q, alify under Stal~ Statute for those dollars too.
So it'd be the 3 year program for them...how we've treated ali the other businesses.
Mayor Chmieh Okay. Any other questions? If not, did you ~ tint as a motion ~ go through the public
hearing? ':'
65
City Council Meeting - April 1 t, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Certainly.
Mayor Chmiel: And is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Resolution g94-45: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to call the public
hearing to discuss the creation of an Economic Development District/Tax Increment Financing District and
Program on the Press and DataServ Property, All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Wing: Trains, planes and automobiles. Todd came up with something that just blew my mind and
then Mrs. whats her name from Southwest Metro blew my mind because when I brought it up to her. Colleen,
are you still on Southwest Metro?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Certainly am.
Councilman Wing: I'd appreciate if you'd take this back on behalf of Todd and myself and, Diane Harberts.
We have a railroad track running through the city. It's used twice a day. What a god send if we could get one
of those engines mined around morning and evening and run a train from Chanhassen, Chaska to downtown and
back and use that as mass transit.
Councilwoman Doekendorf: Is that where it runs?
Councilman Wing: It goes downtown. It may have incredible pitfalls and be impossible but I'd sure like, that's
the greatest thing I've ever seen you come up with. I just, what a boom to this community. Boy if we could be
on the cutting edge of the future. So I think it needs to be pursued and I just want to get the momentum going.
and I'll pitch in. I'll even attend a Southwest Metro meeting. The other thing, I would just like on a furore
agenda to discuss the issues of PUD's and limitations like we have on our other. I don't want to take another
PUD that dated back to the 1987, before my time and have to live with it with today by today's standards on
yesterday's thinking. So I think PUD's ought to have a one year limit on them also. They expire after one year
if nothing's been done, or whatever time frame. But an expiration on PUD's.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good.
Councilman Wing: Is that ridiculous?
Roger Knutson: Do you want me to comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Roger Knutson: To ask for a zoning designation to automatically expire is like asking for...to expire, You
can rezone it. It doesn't expire.
Councilman Wing: So there will be no limitations on the zoning?
66
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Roger Knutson: If you don't like it, an example. If something was zoned 20 years ago, whatever...plann~.' g
your development, you can come in today and rezone it to, ff appropriate, to R1A or whatever's appropriate.
Councilman Wing: Well how come I couldn't do that tonight then?
Roger Knutson: It wasn't on the table.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I didn't know we could do it. So then Market Square we could have said we're
rezoning it to PUD because it doesn't meet today's standards and we're going to rezone it with a proposal on the
table? You get my point. We can discuss it later.
Roger Knutson: I would have to read that for planning a development. Typically planning a development will
save but you're exempt from any change or official controls for x years. After that you can change it...
Mayor Chmiel: Or would you be required to put it as some kind of a city use?
Roger Knutson: Well yeah, you could also acquire it. Acquire the property.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, okay.
Councilman Wing: For fruitition, I'll just see that it maybe gets on a future discussion point when it's a better
time. Just the last thing real quick. No one in this city, and the Planning Commission is the wont, is willing to
discuss architectural standards, design, etc, etc, etc. The Highway 5 Task Force has said glass, brick or better
but nobody wants to tackle pitched roof or it goes on and on. I would just like to present at a future Council
meeting the Wayzata ordinance for their design review board and I would recommend that we just review this as
an issue where an outside group of architect and design people, whoever. Not related to Council or anybody else
looks at Market Square and says, this is good or bad, fits or doesn't. But someone to address this because no
one else has come to a consensus. I just would like to put this ordinance up.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I've heard a lot of controversy on that.
Councilman Wing: Absolutely. I don't deny that.
Kate Aanenson: That issue was brought up on the Highway 5 corridor study. Them are architectural standards
in place...but that came up and there was a lot of concern about control. If the architectural approves it and then
it gets to this body and we don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. It gets to be a real hassle and that's part of the problem. Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: In reading the last meeting's minutes I didn't see anyone specifically address the
unreasonable agenda we had at our last meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh we did.
Councilman Wing: No, thank you. And I think his minutes in the paper had real merit.
67
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Absolutely. Absolutely. Very well taken. You know, it was ridiculous that we
had that many issues, number one. And that many big issues that would draw the audience that we did and I'm
just requesting staff to be a little more conscious about what's on the agenda and what's reasonable. And I think
it was handled appropriately Mr. Mayor that we said from the onset this is how the meeting's going to go and if
we get to the issue we get to it. And when the meeting would end, etc, etc. Second item is just a,
Councilman Wing: Before you go off that. How did you feel about the editor's comments about maybe
changing our agenda and putting those items first?
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Absolutely. I mean if we know what items we need public input on or are going to
have public input, let's put them at the beginning.
Mayor Chmiel: Sometimes they put them accordingly as they come in.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Switch them around.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, it can be done. We can do it too at Council if we so choose.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You're absolutely right.
Councilman Wing: Rather than change the agenda, just identify the problem that night.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Unfortunately some people look at the agenda and take that into consideration and
don't show up until 9:00. Then suddenly we moved it to the top of the agenda and they're out of luck so.
Anyway, let's just be a little more conscious of it. Second item, I just want to thank Council and staff and
everyone else for all the kindness and support and well wishes and flowers and gifts and everything else. Thank
you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: You're entirely welcome. Very f'me performance.
Councilman Wing: I've never seen it on television before.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh we came awfully close.
Councilman Senn: You obviously never took birthing classes.
Mayor Chmiel: You had the Admin Packet and the toll funding for TH 212.
Councilman Senn: Let's see here. Yeah. In our administrative packet this week there's a letter from Robert
Linclahl, as President of the Southwest Corridor Transtx~rtation Coalition. Which I believe we're a member of
and.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: All of a sudden now there's a deal going forward to the Governor and the Transportation
Commissioners saying we want to really proceed with a study of TH 212 as a toll road. I mean that's contrary
to what I thought the action was this Council took and now...we're part of it and that really bothers me because I
68
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
don't agree with it.
Councilman Wing: Me either.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Richard and I have had many discussions regarding this and I do sit on that board for the
Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition and the information that has been contained in the packets, all the
letters that I get, have been put in the Admin sections and there's been some of those things that have been
leading up to this particular letter that has been sent in regard to that proposal. Funding is a problem with TH
212. In order for them to feel they can proceed any further than what they've done, they're looking at that as an
alternative to seeing whether that could move that forward to getting TH 212 in.
Councilman Senn: But see I don't understand that because, to spend $75,000.00 to do that is ludicrous to me.
If the issue is funding TH 212, it seems to me we'd be far better off spending $75,000.00 to lobby to get the
funds necessary to do TH 212. Not go study some goofy thing to make it a toll road, which will never survive.
Toll road's don't survive anywhere if you haven't got a lot heavier traffic base than you've got there, especially
tourism because most locals avoid them anyway. I mean most successful toll roads are either in.
Mayor Chmiel: I've been on toll roads here just recently and I'm not very fond of them myself. But I think if
that's the position that Council feels, then Don should be writing a letter indicating some of the concerns that are
being voiced by Council back to the corridor.
Councilman Senn: I thought we did that
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, Richard brought that up several weeks ago.
Mayor Chmiel: But we, I don't think any letter has been sent
Will a ditto suffice for my input?
I guess I object to this letter because this says we're behind it.
I think toll roads, to me indicate a total breakdown of local and state and federal You find toll roads in...
Councilman Wing:
Councilman Senn:
Councilman Wing:
government. It's the lowest form of government on Earth, in my opinion,
Councilman Mason: It's a user fee.
Councilman Wing:
Councilman Mason:
Councilman Wing:
..Mew York, South Chicago.
What's the matter with the user fee?
And it is a user fee. Now, in one of the discussions with the Mayor.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: They're...
Councilman Mason: Oh I disagree. Don't use the road.
Councilman Wing: But you know in Chicago you can't buy gas any more or you're stuck...
69
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Anyway, I agree with Mark. I don't feel comfortable that...
Mayor Chmiel: Well we should voice our opinion on this. And indicate that, of that concern and the concerns
that we see with it. And I guess maybe Bob moved ahead on it because we did not send anything nor voice our
basic opinion on it. Hopefully they're looking to acquire some additional dollars and maybe with this new
additional gas tax that they're talking about. Another 4.5 cents, who knows what they're going to do with it and
if they grab onto the dollars that they have available within the State now and put some of those dollar
allocations back towards highways, which you probably won't see for a while yet. But everybody is cutting
back and the only way to get some of these things accomplished is some of the supposedly new innovative ways
of getting it done but toll roads aren't new and innovative. They're there.
Councilman Wing: What do you think of the user fee Mike?
Councilman Mason: What do I think of the user fee?
Councilman Wing: ...road going to go from Chan to Chaska.
Mayor Chmiel: It might be a very quiet road.
Councilman Mason: I'm not saying I'm for it.
Councilman Wing: The user fee is a somewhat valid argument. You don't have to take that road but ff you
want to go from A to Z right now, it's going to cost you 60 cents. Maybe it's worth the 60 cents.
Councilman Mason: Well how much does it cost you to get in the car and drive now? I mean.
Councilman Senn: The scary part is, ideas like this all of a sudden pick up momentum and go and everybody
says you were a part of them and I'm going to use a wonderful example which are the sane lanes on 394, which
by the way cost I mean, each car that takes a trip on that sane lane cost the taxpayers $5,000.00. Each car. I
mean come on.
Councilman Mason: If we're going to get serious about that, we should be paying what? You cars are not
paying their fair share of what it costs to maintain the roads so if we're really going to get serious about it, gas
should be $10.00 a gallon or $20.00 a gallon. So.
Councilman Wing: How about $2.25?
Councilman Mason: Well, I mean we don't, you know. What mass transits pays per mile and what automobile
pays per mile.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: We'll just do that train Richard talked about.
Mayor Chmiel: There you go. That will eliminate it. Okay anything else that you had?
Councilman Senn: Let's see, last week the Administrative. Or not last week. I can't keep track anymore. Two
weeks ago in an Administrative Packet we had a follow-up memo on the I--Ianus building situation and I just
didn't want to take and Council's receipt of that memo was an endorsement of all the money we're spending
70
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
there doing that. That's something I'd really like to save and talk to the HRA about when we meet with them
but geez, when you go back and add up all the costs that we're spending on that building and stuff, why didn't
we just buy the damn thing and rip it down in the first place and accomplish really want we wanted to
accomplish, which now we're throwing many times the money we should be at and accomplishing very little. It
just really bugs me and that doesn't take a lot of foresight to see lhat. That should have been kind of...
Mayor Chmiel: Well we're still saving money so far.
Councilman Senn: Well, I don't know about that. Whatever. Could I bring one last issue. Willard and Carol
have very heavily lobbied me and talked to me about keeping a Council person on the Board of Adjustments. I
don't know. They just, they've been at it a lot of yeats. I guess in that sense you have to kind of look at a little
bit of their wisdom and their comments and stuff but I don't know. I guess at this point I guess, if it's not too
late to do so, I will bow to their pressures and stay on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Good.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Thank you.
Councilman Wing: I'd like to just point out in closing that I think this is a historic record where our
newspaper's editor, the longest night I think he's ever put in.
Councilman Senn: Well after he wrote that editorial.
Councilman Mason: And he's enjoyed every minute of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Dean, nice to see that you woke up now. It's time to go home.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
71