Loading...
1j. minutes i CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 1993 mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Dockendorf ' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Scott Harr, Paul Krauss, Sharmin Al -Jaff, and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF AGENDA_ Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda with the following amendments: Mayor Chmiel wanted to pull 2(c) from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Don Ashworth wanted to discuss Resolution for Easement with Boylan as item 13. All voted in favor and the motion carried. i PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 7 -14, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK. Mayor Chmiel: The Volunteers have been serving the area for more than, or 97 years and they would like us to have a proclamation for this. With that, it's rather lengthy. I know it's going to be a long evening, not that I want to pass it by, but we will have this posted at City Hall, if anyone is interested in reading the proclamation for the Volunteers of America Week. So with that I have a motion to accept the proclamation. Councilman Wing: So moved Mr. Mayor. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution 493 -06: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the proclamation declaring March 7 -14, 1993 as Volunteers of America Week. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Settlement Agreement, Shafer Constracting /Noble Nursery /Albrecht Companies, Downtown Redevelopment Project. 11 b. Resolution 193-07: Approve Resolution Increasing Development Fees for Administrative Subdivisions f. Approval of. Accounts g. City Council Minutes dated January 25, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes dated January 20, 1993 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 ' h. Authorize Public Safety Director to Seek Bids for Replacement of Community Service Officer /Public Safety Vehicle All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' C. THE SUMMIT AT NEAR MOUNTAIN, PROJECT 93 -2. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Basically this item has been requested to be pulled for staff correction on one of the conditions of ' approval. On page 2 of item 2(c)(1), condition number 10. It basically states that, or the intent of this requirement basically came at the request of the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District which says the City and the ' Watershed District will require that individual lot grading plans be submitted for all lots proposed along the outside perimeter of Oxbow Bend. That should be corrected, or the sentence should continue to be corrected with, with the exception of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1. Those two lots were not listed from the ' Watershed District as lots needing to be reviewed ahead of time. So with just that exception, that change also effects item (j) on page SP4 of the development contract. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll make the motion. Is there a second? 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Final Plat, ' Development Contract and Plans and Specifications as amended by the City Engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 I. INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A SALES TRAILER FOR THE OAK PONDS /OAK HILL PROJECT, LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARDS, LOTUS REALTY. Councilman Senn: I had a question, given kind of the, let's call it the predominant location of this. Is there anything we can do in relationship to I temporary, if this thing's going to last a year. Is there anything we can do in relationship to some temporary landscaping or something like that? ' Mayor Chmiel: Good question. I think this is going to be their temporary facility. I had only one other concern with that is making sure that we're not going to have mud tracked onto County Road 17. It's going to be completely taken care of with crushed rock, hopefully. In the event that it doesn't, we'll make sure that that is going to be addressed. With landscaping on a temporary, I don't know what their intent is because I haven't seen that plan. Or I have seen the plan and I've forgotten what was being done. Paul, is there anything 1 in the plans that would show plantings or trees within that particular area? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, there is not but it probably would be easy enough to add a condition that they'd put in at least foundation plantings. And that 1 those can be relocated for use on site when they remove the trailer. 2 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 1 Councilman Senn: I'd like to see that. Mayor Chmiel: That would soften it. Councilman (ding: Mr. Mayor, at the Planning Commission they discussed this I , think at length about it's appearance and concerns about how it sat. They were going to skirt it. The deck was going on. I think this is sort of the gateway for the new project and their sales. I think that Brad at that time was quite concerned about it's appearance and how it was going to come across but I'm not opposed to the landscaping. I just think it's appearance was discussed. I think it was a good point to bring up. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We could make that condition number what Paul? Paul Krauss: 6. Foundation plantings. ' Councilman Senn: I'll move approval with that addition. Councilman Wing: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Is the applicant here? Brad Johnson: Yes I am. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any objections to that? Brad Johnson: I've got to figure out how to do it. When this came up at the Planning Commission we couldn't figure out how to plant a tree...Paul's idea of something that we could move around on the site is probably a good idea. Councilman Mason: And I don't think it needs to be a tree so much as shrubs. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Interim Use Permit for a Sales Trailer for the Oak Ponds /Oak Hill project as amended to add a condition number 6 for fondation plantings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: MARCUS ZBINDEN, CARVER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, UPDATE ON FUNDING AND 1993 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS. Marcus Zbinden: Good evening. My name is Marcus Zbinden and this is Leslie Leffler. We're here to represent the Environmental Service Department of Carver County. We have a few things we want to talk to you about this evening. One is the budget that we have set aside for city funding of environmental projects such as waste related, waste reduction. We did a few things differently this year than we did last year. This year we have a total of $40,000.00 to distribute through all the cities in Carver County. We're going to give each city a total of $2,000.00 for base and then the rest will be adjusted according to population. And with this scheme Chanhassen will receive approximately 3 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 $7,280.00, and you can use this money towards projects similar to what you did ' last year as far as the compost bins or actual yard waste drop -off site or even purchase of new recycling bins. However, there is a not to exceed figure in the contract we're going to sign with you and we had some problems last year with ' some other cities going over the amount. We want to make that perfectly clear that this is all we have in the budget and they can't go over that at all. We also plan on having another tire and appliance day collection as we did last ' year. It went over real well and we had some good response from that. Last year we had two sites. One here in Chanhassen and one at the recycling center at Norwood. We're planning on having one in Norwood and if the City Council would like to have one here again in Chanhassen, we would like to plan around that if that's what your wishes are. Other than that we'd like to discuss about the new hazardous waste unit that we also plan on having to service this area also and Leslie will talk about that. 1 Leslie Loffler: The mobile collection in Chanhassen will be held May 8th and it will be at the Public Works building. And I'm here to answer any questions and ' to mention that we'd like to recruit volunteers to help with the collection. It's a fun day. It will be from 9:00 until 3:00 p.m. That's it. Are there any questions? Mayor Chmiel: How many total numbers of people would you need? Leslie Loffler: For volunteers? 30 maybe. We've already recruited your local Girl Scouts to help out with some of the lighter work. But some of the heavier work we'd like to find some fire fighters and maybe some science background people who could help with some of the sorting. We expect hopefully about 300 people from the Chanhassen area. That's a pretty big number for us. Mayor Chmiel: I know our first time was pretty successful. Leslie Loffler: In Chaska. Mayor Chmiel: Hopefully it will even be more so to eliminate all those given problems that may be around. Leslie Loffler: Yes. We've already begun working with 3o Ann Olsen on setting up the different parts that we have to organize so. We're also going to be ' having a waste pesticide collection for Carver County and Scott County and some other counties in the area and that's for businesses who might have some pesticides and that will be free to those people. They can dispose of up to 150 1 pounds of pesticides. So it's a good opportunity for farmers and other business people who might have some pesticides around that they need to get rid of. Marcus Zbinden: Any questions at all? Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions? When we hear that we're getting money, we don't have any questions. Marcus Zbinden: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate you coming down and giving us this information. Thank you. 1 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 MAPPING OF NEW HIGHWAY 41, BILL MEYER, HESSE FARM. Bill Meyer: Thank you Mr. Mayor and City Council persons. My name is Bill Meyer. I've owned a lot on Hesse Farm West, just on the west side of Bluff Creek, Lot 11 for, since the summer of 1985. We were surprised, I got a surprise call about 8 -10 days ago from Harold Hesse, who had on a chance reading the Chaska newspaper, discovered that a week ago tonight Chaska was going to be officially mapping a new Highway 41 corridor which would proceed south from the currently mapped 212 and the right -of -way would be located directly against the Chanhassen city border. Located in Chaska but against the Chanhassen city border. I was surprised because we had received no notice and knew nothing of this. It turns out in addition to the corridor being directly against the Chanhassen city property line, there will be a diagonal ramp connecting 212 with the proposed 41. That ramp alarms us in that it involves a taking of property on the Hesse Farm West area, specifically Lots 7, 9, 10, and 11. I own 11. A number of issues in addition to the taking of land without notice or process are alarming to us. I'm concerned whether the land south of us, which is also, contains housing. Single family housing. If single family housing will in fact be the highest and best use of that land in the future with a freeway style road proposed by Chaska, abutting those properties. There's a pond on the Hesse Farm Kest which is fed by a wetland that would be consumed by this road. In addition to that, the road would presumably lead to a very expensive river crossing and at the south, the river encounter Chanhassen ground once more. There are some pristine wetlands in that vicinity and some fens, I guess it has some 1 environmental import. Of real concern to us is the fact that Chanhassen knew nothing about this. Perhaps that's why we didn't get any notice. It came out at the Council meeting that in Chaska that there had not been coordination with the staff here in this city. And in essence they had asked MnDot to simply draw some lines in a corridor for them and MnOot had complied with that. This TH 41 is not in MnDot's 2010 plan, according to MnDot. It's not in the City of Chanhassen 2005 plan, which some years ago Barb sent to me. And I think anybody buying a parcel of land over there would not have had an expectation that this sort of mapping would go on, or the potential that land would be taken from them. A number of elements involved but I think you've got a long agenda and what I would recommend simply is that the City direct it's planning staff to coordinate with Chaska and make sure that the City knows what's going on there. I would recommend that some sort of environmental impact statement be conducted before any official mapping be done. As I said, there are wetlands both in the river bottoms area that may be effected. There are also wetlands and a ravine drainage ponding system located in this city that would be effected. And I think beyond that there's a basic question of whether this is an appropriate corridor for a farm to market traffic pattern that currently is of trouble in downtown Chaska, which Chaska is apparently seeking share. To share with the city of Chanhassen and I'm not sure if those traffic studies or the general thought is to the need for a road in this location, or another location, is in fact recent thought. Needless to say, these questions come up because there has not been a public process. There has not been notice or has not been comments. A lot of the work is apparently old work and work that was not mapped and somebody looking to buy a parcel of property over there would not have known about or had any cause to be suspicious about. So in essence we would like to see the two cities coordinate their efforts with each other. We'd like to see the ability for some sort of public comments. Some sort of discussion about the appropriateness of the road and the location of the road. We'd like to see an 1 5 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 environmental impact statement be conducted with regard to the effected ground. And until such time as those sorts of steps have been completed, Chaska parathetically is apparently going to seek RALF money from the Metro Council almost immediately on completing their mapping and we would encourage the city to not cooperate. To suggest that delay be the current mode until such time as the process has been allowed to take effect and work it's way through the system, which to this point has not been done, at least with respect to the 1 residents of Chanhassen. So I thank you for your time and any questions? Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions? I did do a little checking on this and did find out that, that road has been in the picture for something like 25 years right now. Conceiveably with the 212 corridor and with this all really happening, it might take an awful long time before you may see another 20 years. But with that staff is in position to discuss with the City of Chaska, even though they didn't bring us into the discussions when they proposed this. It was all news to us until you brought it forward here. And we've had some discussions with that. Discussions will continue and I'm not sure whether the ' EIS or an EAW would be required with that proposal. But I'm sure that MnDot and the City of Chaska would go through that particular process as to what would be required to do in that corridor. So with that, I guess if there are no other questions, we do thank you for coming in and we will keep coordination with 1 them. And if you'd like to, at some time get back to Paul Krauss, who is our planner. Paul could probably keep you updated. Bill Meyer: That'd be great and to the degree that notice can be provided to the homeowners there, that would also be appreciated. Thank you. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I could add. The City Engineer and I met with the planners down in Chaska and MnDot and also with the Carver County Engineer this afternoon. We got a lot of background material on this. They apologized for their oversight in not notifying us or the neighbors. As you indicated Mr. Mayor, this is apparently something that's been lurking in the background for 20 or 25 years, and it probably will stay there for another 20 or 25 years, but it does raise some legitimate concerns. What we had anticipated doing is having 1 representatives of the County, the City, and MnDot come before you at your, well it's either going to be 2 weeks or 4 weeks from tonight and at that point we can give you a lot more feedback. We're not at all sure what sort of ability we have to interact in the process right now. This is only a section of the right -of -way. They're using regional dollars through the Metro Council has set it aside so a developer doesn't build houses all over it. We may not have any latitude on that process now but we certainly will if anything progresses and there's any environmental studies to be done. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to have a Visitor Presentation? It always sort of pleases me to see that we finally have some faces in those chairs that we normally have. I know we have the moratorium of course discussion coming up, which is the next item. But it's a definite pleasure to see as many people here. Thank you for coming and showing your ' concern. 1 1 6 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT FOR PARCELS ' LOCATED WITHIN THE HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR. Public Present: II Name Address John Prins 5120 Edina Ind Blvd. II Neil Hartman 1841 Center Drive, Centerville, IL Dean Brown Family of Christ Lutheran Church II Robert Barth 3500 IDS Center, Minneapolis Gary Dosdall Family of Christ Lutheran Church Jim Larkin Larkin, Hoffman & Daly II Al Beisner Maple Grove Vernelle Clayton Chanhassen Marlene & Theresa Bentz Excelsior Larry & Betty Van De Veire Chaska II Lee Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd. Henry Wrase 8175 Hazeltine Blvd. Rick Wrase 405 Cimarron Circle II David Albright 7814 131st St. West, Apple Valley Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd. Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd. II Ray & Lisa Notermann 1450 Arboretum Blvd. Ted Bentz 7300 Galpin Blvd. Doug Bentz 7280 Galpin Blvd. Gene Borg 6897 Chaparrel Lane II Katie Kaaz 155 Choctaw Circle Kent Carlson Suite 700, 900 2nd Ave So, Minneapolis Betty O'Shaughnessy 1000 Hesse Farm Road II Paul Knapper 601 Green Avenue SE, Watertown Cam Johnson 7127 Orchid Lane Walt Roberts 880 Lake Drive Mike Meyer 3474 Lakeshore Drive, Chaska II Paul & Carol Paulson 3160 West 82nd Street, Chaska Don ? 7220 Great Plains Blvd. Ellen Dubbe 440 West 79th Street II Lawrence & Florence Raser 8210 Galpin Blvd. Jay Kronick 78 West 78th Street J. Harding 530 West 79th Street Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue II Steve Buan 8740 Flamingo Drive Charles & Susan Markert 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. Peter Olin Minnesota Landscape Arboretum II Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin or Paul, rather than going through a lot of discertation II and having everyone get up at this time, I think I'd like to just take the position, at least from my standpoint that I feel the moratorium should not be considered at this time. And I'd like to just sort of get a feeling from II Council as to their position and if it comes to a point where we can discuss this, we would like to indicate maybe our concerns at this particular time. So with that, why don't I start with you Richard. 1 7 II 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 1 Councilman Wing: I didn't bring this up. The question maybe which is being discussed tonight is the moratorium and how it came about. I think the discussions going back a year and a half ago with former Council was concern ' about us being in the cabooze instead of the locomotive and being more developers in the cart than there was horses to pull the cart from the city side. And we have for a year and a half been concerned about, or the two years I've been on the Council, concerned about piecemeal development on Highway 5 and careless developments. Strip development getting out of hand and I think several of us on the Council have taken the position we would like the west end of Chanhassen to look a little better than the east end has as we drive into ' town. So I did not bring up the moratorium issue. I think it was worth looking at and I think we've had our packet and staff has covered the issues pretty thoroughly. I think we could if we felt the need, and it's my suspicision here 1 that we're not feeling the need right now. Mainly because we have the Highway 5 task force going. The landscape study going. Just a lot of issues that are going to address the very issues we're concerned about on the moratorium and if I honestly felt we needed the breathing room, I wouldn't hesitate to push hard for a moratorium to stop the development. So I favor, I'm going to go along with Council discussion of the past and decisions of the past not to have the moratorium. I don't feel the need for it at this time and I also at this point ' don't want to take the pressure over the issue because I don't think it's enough of an issue to involve this many people at this point. But by denying the moratorium tonight, if that's what we choose to do, the other option as a member of this Council is going to be very slow and very decisive, cautious development on Highway 5 and I'm going to be very critical of anything coming in until we get the task force complete and the landscape ordinance up to where we want it. ' Some architectural standards developed I would suspect, at least for myself, and hopefully the entire Council is going to be very slow moving in development proposals. So in lieu of the moratorium, we can forget that word but maybe kind of a slight—. dragging Council for a while on any development issues that come ' before us until we resolve the issues of what we think is best for the city and it's future 20 years from now and it's appearance and so on and so forth. I guess that covers my position Don. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Good. Just one other thing too. There's several parcels in and adjacent to TH 5 which could be governed by a PUD, planned unit development which gives the city a little latitude to see as to what they would really like to have within those respective areas. But that's another item that we have looked at as well, at least I have and I feel sort of comfortable with that. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you just stole my thunder of what I was going to say as far as the PUD. That makes me feel a lot more comfortable without passing on the moratorium. I think my concerns were that coming onto the Council new, I didn't get a sense of the vision that we had for what Chanhassen was going to look like. Granted, we do have a comprehensive plan which gives us lots of guidelines. There are still lots of loose ends that we need to work out as to what we want the City to look like and to develop into and we were feeling lots of pressures from developers so. I think Councilman Wing's point is well taken that don't expect us to hippety hop through all the developmental issues that may come our way because we're still not sure. We haven't finished the planning for what we, on the Highway 5 task force nor on the architectural 8 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 1 standards, etc. so I guess my opinion at this time is that we'll pass on the 1 moratorium. Councilman Mason: It's beginning to sound a little bit like a litany here. If 11 we didn't have the PUD in place, I quite honestly would be lobbying hard and strong for the moratorium. However, we do and I think with the higher level of competence that our planning staff has exhibited in working with developers and using the PUD, I'm comfortable with the way things are right now and certainly my inclination would be to vote against a moratorium. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mark. 1 Councilman Senn: I agree a lot with I guess what Richard and Colleen are saying. I still have a problem that slow and methodical doesn't mean anything other than slow and methodical. Ultimately what has been happening on the east end for example could continue happening on the east end. All you're talking about is you can slow it down. I guess I have the same concerns as stated 11 basically last time, which have a lot to do with the types of spot development that had been occurring on TH 5. The suggestion I've seen from staff in relation to the moratorium and passing and put in effect exempting PUD zoned property as I understand it. I think that's the correct understanding. I think at least goes a long way towards giving us that control. I mean right now we have no right per se to require anyone to go PUD. So going back to Mike's commer:ts and stuff, I mean basically what I've seen proposed by staff kind of takes the extra step and then requires the PUD which allows you a lot more control in relationship to what's going to happen so that in effect becomes a non -issue discussion wise. So again I've got a couple questions. Paul, I mean is now the time to ask them? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Ccincilman Senn: Okay. Paul, in relationship to the PUD, if a moratorium would pa =ss and the exemption would be in there in relationship to the PUD. Does that give the Council simply an opportunity to have a more direct role in relationship to guiding the type of spot development or does it simply mean that the same thing will occur but now it will be called PUD versus what it was called before? Paul Krauss: ...for latitude in influencing the design of the development. I don't think it gives you any more latitude necessarily in determining what the appropriate use is. That die has already been cast by the land use plan, unless that's changed. The PUD's do allow a certain percentage of the total area of the PUD to be in some other use. I think it's up to 25% but Councilman Senn, I know one of your concerns is the potentially inappropriate location of auto oriented uses and I don't think straight zoning or otherwise you're going to get a handle on that until the land use plan is changed. Councilman Senn: And that's something we're addressing again through the Highway 5 corridor study. Well, I guess it sounds like everybody else has decided but I guess I again renew by objections to it and I don't think I would be for setting it aside. I think the east end is just simply getting innundated with the types of uses we're talking about and I really hate to see it go any further. 9 1 1 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: I just wanted to, it's not related to Councilman Senn, and 1 I meant to say this earlier. That's my feeling now and I suspect that most of the people that are here tonight would like to see this moratorium dropped. II However, I don't want to say that my mind is made up without giving people their shot at it I mean certainly if the vast majority were in favor of it, I think I we'd have to revisit what we've said here. I just wanted to make that clear I guess. II Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Richard. Councilman Wing: On this land use issue Paul. I'm not aware that the Highway 5 I task force. I see them as being west oriented. Are they in fact going to take the time or deal with the land use in the east end of town, or at this point in history with the comprehensive plan in place, are we in fact going to talk about changing the use of that land down there? Or is this kind of a, I guess my I concern here, I see that as sort of already cast. It's kind of a done deal if you will. That land use is already established. Could we even change it at this point? II Paul Krauss: The potential exists but you're right, a lot of it is fairly, if not cast in stone, at least the direction's been set. One of the charges for I the Highway 5 task force is to reassess the validity of the land use plan knowing what we know today and refine it. For example to pull one property out, there's been some questions on the ultimate use of the Ward parcel. It's a real critical parcel to what happens in town. It's zoned industrial with it guided II commercial and that bears some looking at. It's a little more problematic to take for example 1 out of 3 parcels left in the Abra /Goodyear site and do something else with it. Theoretically you could but it's probably not going to 1 happen. DataSery as well is a very large piece of ground. There, thus far the only discussion on DataServ, and it's been at staff and consultant level, is what sort of additional flexibility can we get to get some more innovative land uses out there, but probably still consistent with the office /industrial II designation. Councilman Wing: I want to be real fair with the people that are here regarding II the moratorium in regards to Mr. Senn's comments. If the development pressure and the corporate pressures continue on our back the way they have been with their demands and expectations and criticism that we don't do this and they II can't do this. Our only option is a moratorium where it's just a clear cut, go away and leave us alone and let us get organized. Let this visionary process go it's course so I'm vacillating back and forth. Tonight I'm not comfortable with this. I don't think there's a need until we get a little more organized on 1 where that task force is going to be. But if the problems continue, and if your issues continue to manifest, the moratorium I think is going to be well justified and I think it's a real potential for the future. I don't see us I singling anybody in the audience out. It's simply a Council that sort of elected for the long term vision having to get in the drivers seat here and everybody in the audience that has a piece of property has a different idea for it, and that's just not going to work as we head west. We've got to get a II little organized and encompass everybody and try and find some common ground III II 10 11 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 here someplace and right now we don't have it. We're being driven by forces we can't control and I don't think it's right to the City long term. ' Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I can just sort of turn this around a little bit from where we are going to go. I recognize a lot of faces out here who would be in opposition to the moratorium. Maybe I'd like to turn it around and find out for those who would be in support of the moratorium. Is there anyone here that would like to approach us and tell us that they support the moratorium? Peter. And I'd like to put a limitation on this probably for about 10 minutes because I don't to go to 3:00 this morning. Peter Olin: My name is Peter Olin. I'm Director of the Arboretum and I'm on the Highway 5 task force. I guess I would think that we might need that moratorium and we need it now. The reason is is that there's a lot of decisions to be made and the Highway 5 task force is, in my opinion, going a little too fast right now. These decisions that we're asked to talk about and make decisions upon the directions, with very little background and only cursory review at these meetings. Again, it's very complex issues dealing with the roadway location and the land use around it. The issues of wetlands and how these go through and environmental impact assessments which we were told we could only do two corridors and not look at the connections between those two if part of one was better than the other. And my feeling was that we're going to have to have a little extra time and the fact is we do need some breathing room to make those kinds of decisions. The problem is that when we make those decisions, we're setting the direction of planning for Chanhassen for the future. Probably for the next 25 years because we're going to locate roughly where these roads are going to go. That's going to effect the development that goes along the sides of those roads. It's going to effect the Highway 5 and how that looks and how it's developed and so it's a major impact on all the land use along there. Such decisions really have to have very careful consideration and my feeling is that the Highway 5 task force is going to have to slow down a little bit in order to make good judgments on those. That you can't in fact race through, zip through a lot of decisions. We've already zipped through a couple and eliminated a piece of corridor which on second thought, and I seconded that motion, probably should have been left in for study just because it's an alternative and we only had two choices. So I think with that, that we in essence do need that breathing space that a moratorium would allow. I mean it's a lot of development pressures there right now. Many parcels are looking at some sort of development and I think we have to have that in order to make a good decision. Again, I gave my opinion. Now if there's any questions? Mayer Chmiel: Guess not. Thank you. Charles Markert: Mr. Mayor, I'm Charles Markert. I live at 7461 Hazeltine. We're at the intersection of Highway 5 and 41. 300 yards north of Highway 5. And I know you've been discussing it and you've been trying to do an excellent job with it and I think though that the moratorium, as the good man before me has just said, that that's the proper thing to do at this time. It's going to effect a tremendous amount of people now and in the future. I've lived here for 10 years on the same property, and I love it. I think if I have to change my lifestyle and other people have to change their's, that we should really consider where roads are going to go? What the land use will finally benefit everyone and not just several people. I found out that there was a road just 11 , II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II south of me right along my property and there was a couple of selections and it was decided that that would be the closest one towards my property and I think making decisions like that should be more discussion. I think we are going too II fast. I think you are going too fast. Take your time and think about it. It's going to effect so many people. It's really important. It's never been done before in this city in this area so with that kind of a plan, we should take our time and then we'll come back and I'm sure by that time we'll have something II pretty much resolved. Thank you. That's all. Katie Kaaz: My name is Katie Kaaz and I live on Choctaw Circle. I didn't come I here prepared to make a statement but I'm concerned about the growth in Chanhassen and the direction that it's taking. My only plea is that you do slow down and take your time. We moved here from Westport, Connecticut. A wonderful community where planning and zoning did not look ahead far enough. They didn't II take their time. And things happened to our wonderful little community that they will never be able to undo as far as roads, traffic, you name it. It's just a nightmare. You can't go back and I hope that everybody here is here to II urge you to slow down and make the right decisions. Brian Batzli: Hi, I'm Brian Batzli. I live at 161 Fox Hollow Drive and I'm II Chair of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. I also didn't really come here tonight to make a statement. I'd like to hear comments from people who are against the moratorium. But I did want to say publically to the Council that it's becoming increasingly frustrating as a member of the Chanhassen Planning I Commission to see the piecemeal types of proposals coming in which do not follow any kind of coherent plan. I think it would be better in fact to wait for the Highway 5 task force to get done with their vision. To look at the rooms that II they've created and to come up with some sort of architectural standards and other types of overlays which can be placed across this district so that we can II be proud of it when it's developed. After putting in the time and effort on the I comprehensive plan, I don't want to see that effort be smeerched, belittled, have it go down the drain to have the types of developments which we've seen come in to date and not have the proper standards to put against those properties and developments. Thank you. Susan Markert: Mr. Mayor, City Council members. I'm Susan Markert and I live at 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. I'm also on the Highway 5 task force and I too am in I total agreement with Peter and Charles Markert for planning it the right way. I feel that we're under a lot of pressure to plunk instead of plan. Excuse my phrase but I mean it seems like it's getting to that because we're trying to cover a lot of information that we're not really that familiar with in this II short period of time. I mean there are some citizens, which I'm one of, on the committee and we're not totally familiar with everything that's going on around everything in the plan. So in order to be responsible in the decision making I process i would hope that we would consider doing it the right way and doing it a little more slowly because this is our only chance. Like everybody says, once it's done it's done and I know I've said this before. Once you take out trees I or you move things, it's over. So that's all I have to say. Roger Schmidt: I'm Roger Schmidt. I live at 8301 Galpin and I don't know much about the moratorium. I don't know if, I have very little background on it. I I guess I'd be somewhat interested if there were going to be a moratorium, how long it was going to be. Who proposed the moratorium. I guess I don't even II II 12 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 1 know that. But all I'm, and I don't know if I'm prepared to talk about whether I'm in favor of a moratorium or not, but I am very much in favor of a thorough Planning process to finish off that end of the city. I think I've lived out here about 20 years or so and I think in the past I've seen some things done rather quickly that I don't think was in the best interest of the city long range and I hate to have, I think again, because of the pressure from developers and things like this and I guess I hate to see that happen. Continue to happen. So whether it takes a moratorium or whatever it takes, I would like to see that planning be very thorough. One thing I'm a little bit concerned about, I just hate to see an extension of semifores right, you know marching straight west out on Highway 5. I've sat in on the task force committee. I'm not a member of it but I happened to sit in on one of them, and then from what I can tell, it looks like this is just going to be a continuation of, there aren't going to be any overpasses or underpasses for TH 5 planned out that way. And I guess, and I come from downtown Minneapolis and we've had other people telling us the same thing. Visitors and things, that it just isn't a very good corridor of running into one stop light after another and kind of a hodge podge of development there. So again, I guess that's my main concern that we plan it well. Or do a better job of planning than we have in the past. So whatever it takes to do that Steve Buan: My name is Steve Buan. I live at 8740 Flamingo Drive. I haven't lived in Chanhassen very long but I potentially could live with Highway 5 a lot longer than some people in this room. I'm just really concerned that, like everybody says, go slow. I don't know much about the moratorium because I 11 haven't been here very long but I drive Highway 5 everyday through Eden Prairie and I see businesses closing, things like that and I don't want to see that here. I don't know much about the task force but I think this has probably been done, development of corridors like this elsewhere. You really got to look and see where things failed and where things worked and not just what you perceive is right because where things worked other people have gone through it and where things haven't worked, they've gone through it so I just would like that looked 1 at. Henry Wrase: Henry Wrase, 8175 Hazeltine Blvd. I am one of the property owners within the Gateway development. I didn't attend Planning Commission meetings but I had a film that I watched. I was kind of disturbed as the Planning Commission couldn't come up with any solid decisions. So at the last meeting I attended and I had the same feeling off of the Council that I had at the Planning Commission that nobody had a solid feeling as to what was happening out at Gateway. So I feel there should be a moratorium so the people can really sit down with the developers and make something come out right. Thank you. ' Jay Kronick: My name is Jay Kronick. I don't even live in Chanhassen. I live west of town in Laketown Township and I drive back and forth everyday and appreciate very much the splendor that we have on the western side of town and applaud everyone's efforts to make sure that that's the way it is as we proceed with development there. I own a piece of property on the east side of town. I own Lotus Lawn and Garden and came before the Council about 5 years ago to take a vacant piece of land and turn that into an independent, sole owner business. I'm here tonight and there's a lot of homeowners, residents of the city who are here. I feel like a little fish in a big sea when I hear talk of all these developers with hundreds of acres and stuff and dozens of acres. I'm just here 13 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 I to represent another viewpoint. Whatever you do I think it's important that we take the right steps to assure that this is a quality city. I'm not sure a moratorium is the way to go. I saw a copy of the proposed ordinance. I think II there are some protections in there. I guess from the standpoint of someone like myself, I'm a little concerned about what type of growth I might foresee in my own business here in the next year or two as your planning goes forth and i what limits the moratorium would impose upon me, in terms of changing, growing I on the site that I have. I hope those and concerns of others like myself would be addressed in the planning process as well. I'm neither for nor opposed to the moratorium. II Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just to clarify, for any additions or improvement to land, the moratorium would not effect. II Mayor Chmiel: No. Not what are existing. Anyone else? Tom Kotsonas: My name is Tom Kotsonas and I live in Chanhassen Estates and I'm I sort of a recepient past planning, or lack of past planning that's occurred along the east corridor and I expressed the same feelings that I think anything that's done without some really good planning or some good thought into it is II very destructive to the neighborhood that I live in. It effects us directly and I really would appreciate this Council taking it's time. I'm strongly in favor of the moratorium. As I said, any further development like what's already gone II in on that end. Look at Rapid Oil. It's a great looking site up on the top of the hill. We have some other things that I think are very detrimental to the looks of Chanhassen and those things came in because of hodge podge type of development. Thank you very much. I Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Seeing none. I Resident: Mr. Ma yor, my sense is that the peole p is t op run i to the people. are in favor of the moratorium, t . M questi ispo , was y our ty question such that, if anybody wants to talk about it on either side or are we I still limited to people that are basically in favor of the moratorium? Mayor Chmiel: Well I was just going to bring it back to Council and then I was going to bring it back out again because I thought probably the way I was II looking at it, that were probably less against the moratorium. As I had seen but I think what I'd like to do is just have a little more discussion with Council before I move back to the opposite side or to find those who are in II favor or maybe against the moratorium. I think we're going to have to address both sides of that issue. Unfortunately that's the way it's going to go. But I thought it was maybe going to be just a little bit different. Richard. II Councilman Wing: I clearly would like to hear some of the opposition statements on record because we have the proponents on record tonight and my position kind of favors them. This is the 1990's, not the 1950's and it's the decade of I rethinking and redesigning and it's going to impose some impositions on some people that are still thinking 1950's, but I don't want Chan to go that direction. So I guess my last comment would be after we've heard some other 1 comments from the opposition, I would clearly like to move this to a Monday night work session, specifically on this issue to look at vision, get a II consensus. More of a consensus. Have much more input from staff and the II 14 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Attorney. I think we need a Monday, to plan a Monday night work session that's open to the public specifically to discuss this issue so that everybody's welcome to come in and hear where we're going with this. Obviously another a public hearing will probably be necessary because we probably do much tonight. That's my opinion. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think we're all struggling up here with the issue, can we achieve what we want to without the moratorium and we just don't know. And as much as I hate to table things and say we need to think about it more, this is a big enough issue where I agree with Richard that we probably need an entire night dedicated to it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The thing that keeps me thinking immediately is that how many parcels and how much land, and maybe Paul you have it off the top of your head. That would not fall under the PUD. I don't want to put you in a position maybe. I'll let you answer the way you feel. Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, in terms of acreage, I don't know but I was sitting here doodling and did up an exhibit that I think shows that. If you want to throw that on. I was just trying to highlight out the areas that are already PUD or have PUD commitments to go. Basically you start out here. You've got the University of Minnesota Arboretum. Nothing's happening there. Nothing will. You've got the study area that's not even in the MUSA line which was done by...so we have 5 years to think about what happens there. We've got the Opus proposal for a PUD where they were told not to come back until the results of the Highway 5 Task Force were in. We have a residential development that I think you have a letter here tonight from Pemtom that bought the 85 acres from Betty O'Shaughnessy. That's a residential project that the developer has agreed would come in as a PUD. You then have that 137 acre, that Ryan and some several others are involved with. They've also begun PUD design preparations. Now these little black x's are the properties where it's unclear. For example you have the site that is on later tonight for the Goodyear /Abra. There's the DataServ. The Press' vacant lot and the Ward, but a lot of those cases it will either be some sort of an HRA or an economic development district which gives us leverage, similar to what we used with Target... There's a lot of things to come up with. But these x's where we're really not sure. Now on a lot of those properties we haven't heard that anything's pending but that could change tomorrow. Councilman Mason: Well I want some action on this tonight, personally. I think my personal feeling with the two years that I've been involved with the city is that the PUD has worked very well, and I'm happy with going PUD. Now if Council can take a look at those specific spots that are not PUD yet, I'd certainly be, I think that's worth taking a look at but at this point, you know depending on the rest of the conversation this evening on this, I question what good another work session is going to do on this. I don't know that we're going to find out any more information than we have now. And I guess Paul, I'd like to ask you a question. As city planner, are you comforable that we can do a thorough and well thought out job without the moratorium? I mean not putting you on the spot or anything. Paul Krauss: I'd have to honestly say I think we've done a credible job to date. You know what we've got is a moving target. Four years ago this was not 15 1 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II a concern of the City's and I think that my staff has done a large part of unleashing the monster here and now it's a matter of fulfilling the expectation. And we're excited to be able to work with that. I think each time a project II comes in it's been getting better and we use whatever leverage we have at hand to make that happen. It's not a perfect process. I think Rapid Oil shows you that it's not a perfect process. On the other hand Rapid Oil got rid of a junk i II yard and we were able to rebuild a city street and landscape it where there had been junk autos and dumptrucks. So it all works in the same direction, it's just a matter of how far you can go. You said you didn't want to put me on the spot, and I guess I'd punt a little bit here and ask the City Attorney I something. About 6 -8 months ago we did look at the possibility of prior zoning to PUD of the corridor for that reason with an intent statement and at the time the City Attorney raised some questions I suppose with the ability to uphold II something like that. If you're asking me if every property in the corridor will come in PUD without a moratorium in place, I don't think that that's the case. I think most of them will. I think we can leverage most of them but there's going I to be some that won't. Councilman Wing: ...discuss the moratorium issue. I think we can do it at our leisure and we can hold a workshop. Pending that I'd like to move that we II discontinue this moratorium. Move on with business. Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor to discontinue the moratorium. Is I there a second? Councilman Mason: It's not discontinuing the moratorium. II Councilman Wing: Well this is proposed. It's hard to deny it. If the work denial is better, I'll deny this issue. The moratorium issue at this point and get on with business. II Councilman Senn: Do you suggest then we set up a work session at the same time? II Councilman Wing: No, I think we've got, we really should discuss this. If you choose to have a work session, I think this should be a key issue we discuss. Or if we run into problems in the future over the next month or two, I think the moratorium should be held in the forefront and not as a threat. Just as an 1 absolute need for the Council to help the City get it's feet on the ground but I think we can do that and get on with business tonight and let this process go it's path for the next 2 -3 months. And if necessary, I'm willing to support a II moratorium but I don't think it's necessary to discuss it tonight or impose a moratorium tonight. So I'd move denial of this. Councilman Mason: I'll second that. II Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? II Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I would like the opportunity to hear 10 minutes, 15 minutes of comments. II Councilman Wing: Please. II 16 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: think we can hold that in aveyance until we ask the iel: 5 ure. I opposition now who are not in favor of the moratorium to come forward and if you can just break it down into just a few words. I think I'd like to have that done. Councilman Mason: If I could just make one quick comment. Incidentally, I agreed with virtually everything that was said by the people that are supporting the moratorium. The reason I'm inclined to not go along with it tonight is I strongly believe the City has enough things in place right now to cover that ground. I don't think there's a person sitting up here, I don't think there's a person working for the city that isn't doing what they thing is best for the long range plan of the city and not just the person that owns the 20 acre lot, which is sometimes not comfortable for that one person but I think we've got all of that stuff in place. So I'll be quiet now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let me add just a little bit to that. 2 1/2 years ago when we looked at the potential of developers coming in, I sat down with some of those developers at that time and said that what we, as a city want, we're at least in a position right now to say what we want. Once we don't carry through with that, they just automatically go and build what they'd like. I sat down with one developer and indicated our concerns. That developer said yes, we can accommodate those proposals as to what you envision the city of Chanhassen is going to be. Highway 5 is an important corridor. We want it to be a warm, receptive, aesthetic kind of thing coming into our community. And if we can have those kind of things, and I feel comfortable enough with, as Michael mentioned, with the PUD's. I think we have a sufficient amount of control to make what we want to see happen within this community. I think we've done a fairly decent job with the Planning Commissions and their recommendations to us. And I think we have followed some of that direction. Sometimes we didn't. Sometimes we'd take our own direction but I do like what is happening. I do like our downtown. I do like the concerns that we have for Highway 5. We're going to continue in that vein, so I'll get off my soapbox and open the floor for those who are ready to speak. Please come forward. State your name and your address and who you're representing. Attorney's only get about 3 seconds. Jim Larkin: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Honorable Council members. I am here for a specific purpose tonight and in view of the discussion that's already taken place, I will keep my remarks brief. I represent the owner of the property which is the subject of item 4 on the agenda, Mr. Mason and he. No relation, that's right. He testifies to that also. Not that he would be embarrassed by it but he just says there is no relation. And Mr. Mason has owned that property for some 25 years. It has been given it's present zoning I think about 10 years ago and there has already been considerable discussion and litigation over 11 Mr. Mason's property in that area. So assuming that the Council's not of a mood to enact a moratorium tonight, I will not address that issue. I will say that we have submitted to the City and to the Council our position on behalf of Mr. Mason. i simply ask that that be incorporated as part of the record. We are concerned about fairness. Mr. Mason has been a taxpayer in this city for I think 20 to 25 years and I would hope to address you for another 30 seconds on item 4. Thank you. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? 1 17 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Dean Brown: My name is Dean Brown and I represent Family of Christ Lutheran Church. We're located south of Highway 5 between Dakota and the old Highway 101. I just want a clarification. We already have an existing building but got notice that there was a moratorium on building. Is that, if we wanted to add something, are we going to have to do it again or what? What's the deal on that? Roger Knutson: The moratorium as drafted would not apply to expansion of existing buildings. Dean Brown: Okay. Well I would like to put a plug in for what the Mayor said in that we approached this Council in building and the Planning Director about 3 to 5 years ago and it took us approximately 2 years to get our plan approved. And for those of you who are interested, I mean we had to spend $25,000.00 of trees. Could only build on 70% of our lot. And that was all within existing rules and regulations so I think as long as the Council just enforces exactly what they have in place and take a long hard look and make sure that those things are there, I see no reason why you need to have a moratorium. Thank you. Al Beisner: I'm Al Beisner, 7549 Mariner Point in Maple Grove. I'm probably the reason why everybody is here tonight. Unfortunately. I just wanted to throw my comments out on the moratorium. I develop like others in many cities and this is no piece of cake. You have very strict rules, regulations, ordinances as long as they're enforced and as long as we know about them coming into the situation, we don't care. It's when we find out later things that aren't right, we care. I think Mr. Mayor you stated it when you talked to developers 20 years ago. And as long as we know what the ground rules are, we can pretty much abide by them and work with them. And I think what you have had that's gone on in Chanhassen is as good. Your landscape ordinance is, we even improved on it in the development that we submitted, and I think it's fine. I think Chanhassen will continue on. You've been able to attract very good, large developers out here now that I think you'll be proud and happy to be dealing ' with. And you have plenty of rules, regulations and restrictions in place now that govern and I think will make Chanhassen a good place to be for the next 25, 30 years. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Larry VanDeVeire: Hello Mr. Mayor. Larry VanDeVeire. Council. I'm from Chaska. I'd just like to make a comment. I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of any type of moratorium. I guess my main concern is tonight I heard the word go slow all too much for me. I guess this is an entire new Council that I'm looking at. I've watched the Comp Plan be changed. Go to a Highway 5 corridor study, and now a task force put in place, and now possibly a moratorium. And I'm not so sure slow is the right words to use. I would be in favor of doing everything right but I think there's something to be said with getting something done before the Council turns over and before there's another group of people to start looking at the same old problems all over again. Councilman Wing: Can we give that a round of applause? Larry VanDeVeire: You know I want a good job done but something has to be done in a timely fashion also. Thank you. i 18 i City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Don McCarville: Mr. Mayor and Council. I'm Don McCarville. I have the Country Clean Laundromat in town, and when I heard about the moratorium I was quite ' concerned because I also have a piece of property down on the highway. And it was because of the City's actions a number of years ago that I purchased the property because the City had, or representatives had indicated that they were going to take my building down and I looked for a piece of property. Found one. Purchased it only to find out that since I didn't go into the development, I was not going to be taken out and so my building was left. So now I do have the piece of property that I bought. I've owned it for a number of years. The taxes have gone up on that property to the point of about $8,000.00 a year on just a single lot, along with the payments so I'm paying about $1,000.00 a month to hold a piece of property that I can't use. And you know, I've been trying to sell it all these 6 years. There's nobody so far come forward to buy the property and so now a moratorium just makes it that much longer that I have to continue to try and pay taxes on this property and so it really does put a hardship on a few of us to hold off any hopes of selling that property. Thank you. David Albright: Members of the Council, my name is David Albright and I am a resident of Apple Valley, Minnesota and I am one of those people that is going to be speaking against the moratorium. Not so much that I claim to be the world's greatest expert on it. I've always thought you learned a lot more by listening, and I've learned a few things here tonight. But I'm speaking on behalf of some landowners who have the old Mary Walter farm property. And the point that I would like to make is one, I do think that there are significant obstacles or significant opportunities, depending on your perspective, for the Council to impact on development anywhere. But there are a couple of rules in the relationship between a government and it's people and in governmantal regulation that I think need to be brought to everybody's attention whether they be pro or con on the moratorium issue. The first is, the government, and these folks here, the Council need to have some input in order to exercise or to protect the city and the residents of the city but they should not, and are ordinarily not allowed, except in the most extreme circumstances, to say you can't do anything with your property. I mean that is the one thing that you can do is something. You have a great deal of impact in saying, what activity can be done? Whether it can be used for this purpose or that purpose or what it's ultimately built. Where it's built. How it's built. But the most extreme sanction that a government can take, and is not justified in every situation. In fact it's not justified in many situations, is to say that you can't do anything with it and I just want the Council to be aware of that and I guess I think that you probably are sensitive to that, from what I've heard today. The other thing I just wanted to talk about briefly, if I could, is there is always going to be individual disagreements as to where a road goes or where a factory goes and there's a syndrome known as, not in my backyard and I've been a recepient of that since I now have a brand new section of County Road 38 going basically through my backyard in Apple Valley. So I can understand where some of the residents, who spoke originally, are coming from. But it seems to me that there's certain givens in this thing and one is that the people who own the property adjacent to or abutting or near where Highway 5 is going to be going, are not going to be particularly enthusiastic about doing anything other than a nature preserve or a bunch of trees so that people can see things. On the other hand, neither should the people who are homeowners be unnecessarily trashed. I don't know anything about Rapid Oil but I can sense that everybody in this 1 19 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 1 room wishes it wasn't there. And so I guess the thing I was trying to point out is that there are balancing things that need to be taken, but by saying that we won't even consider entering this delicate balancing process for the next year, which really means two, because by the time the moratorium is over and by the time you get through the process as it begins post moratorium, you're really I talking tying up people's property for 2 years in which they can do nothing. It's not like they can't do what they want with it. It's not like they can't do something that is slightly less desireable to them than what they want to do. II It's really that they can't do anything. And again, I just want to make it a point that there are an incredible number of things, levers, as the staff has indicated. Rules, regulations that allow the city to impact on it and I would 11 urge you not to go to the most extreme measure that is possible for you to do, which is impose a moratorium. I thank you very much for listening to me. Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Brad Johnson. I'm with Lotus Realty. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. We've done a number of developments in this community. Almost all of them were done under the PUO ordinance, where applicable and where we met what, 5 acre minimum or 4 acre minimum. One is Market Square. We're just completing the planning of the Oaks up above us here with 210 units. On the average I'd say those projects have taken at least a year to get through the process, and in addition to that it's a very painful process to go through from a developer's point of view. It's very 1 painful for the staff. I think most of the developers that are represented here, and certainly the ones I've seen on the list, recognize that the PUD process is a way of doing it. There's some benefits to us. But the process is I tough. I mean I cringe every time I get together with your staff on a PUD because I know it's a control issue. I also developed, or was indirectly the developer of the Rapid Oil site, which I originally proposed as a PUD and was I turned down by e aff. t st, b the Council at him we ame before it. So that st was origina he lly also aff a PUD ut and I think everythi te ng that c we've done along the Highway 5 corridor has been that because it made sense. Not because it's TIF. Not because of a lot of things. Just because it made sense I in the use of the land, because I think a lot of us are concerned about that. So I thirq for those of you that are new on the Council, and for those of you in the past, I think you can be comfortable that your staff, I think that was the I real question I heard a lot of you say, can persuade people like myself to try to carry out a good development. The PUD process is there. It's available for us to use and it has worked in the past. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, I would recommend that we close the public hearing. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. II Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion that has been on the floor. Councilman Wing: Out of order. Mayor Chmiel: That is out of order. I would request a restatement of that as you indicated previously. 1 1 20 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 , Councilman Wing: Roger, what's the word? Because this was a public hearing. Mayor Chmiel: Deny. Councilman Wing: Is deny? What's the word I need on this? 1 Mayor Chmiel: What's the proper word? Roger Knutson: If you want to follow Roberts Rules. ' Councilman Wing: I want to drop the issue. Roger Knutson: The motion should be to approve first reading of the moratorium ordinance and then second that and then vote against it. Motions are supposed to be in the positive. Councilman Wing: With his statement on the record, I would so move first reading. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Wing: Then I would denial of the first reading. , Mayor Chmiel: All those in favor say aye. Councilman Senn: Of which one? Mayor Chmiel: Of the first. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the First Reading of an Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting Development in the Highway 5 Corridor. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 Councilman Wing: Now? Councilman Mason: Can we get some discussion? Councilman Senn: I'd like a little discussion, yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I was going to open discussion after the motion. Councilman Mason: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. You know I think something that this leads to is that everybody that is working with all of this, obviously developers want to make a buck. I mean that's their right. I'm not here to comment one way or the other on that. But I think that we all need to 11 understand, and everybody is that we feel we need to do what's best for the city of Chanhassen. And there are pressures from developers and there are pressures from individual citizens to sometimes not look at the overall picture and my concern here is that I think, just like Councilman Wing, I think you said it very well about us not being in the 50's anymore. I hope everyone that deals with these issues needs to understand. We're not just looking at a 20 acre parcel or a 50 acre parcel, or a 4 acre parcel, but we are in fact looking at the whole picture. 21 1 1 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II Councilman Wing: And I would like to, in regards to Mr. Senn. I think part of his concern is that, do we have the rules to apply evenly right now and do we have these levers and I don't have the confidence in our levers. That's why we 1 discussed this in the first place. Councilman Senn: Yeah, you know I agree with what Mike said in relationship to 1 1 really being concerned about Chanhassen. It's all rhetoric about that the control is in place though as far as I can see. I asked Paul the questions and that's the answer I get back. Put it in the real world type of situation and let's say we pick a point in time and draw a magic line. Let's say we do it to 1 be fair and say okay, well if for example on the east side of Goodyear and Abra is there or whatever and it's that far along, well fine. Let's say you approve that, okay. Then let's say we say at that point, okay now we're going to stop 1 it. We're not going to have any more of that. Well, when you turn around and ask our planners is that doesn't make any difference. We can go as slow as we want but somebody can come in tomorrow and propose an auto mall right next door I to it, and that bothers me. I've heard a number of residents come up here tonight and say they'd like to see a moratorium. I've heard one resident opposed to it. I've heard from a lot of people on the east side, which is where I live versus most of the rest of the Council and there are a lot of people on 1 the east side upset over a continuation of the type of development in that area that's poliferated itself. I'm still strongly in favor of seeing the moratorium as staff has suggested. Exempting the currently approved or whatever plats. 1 Allowing the expansion and remodel and even open basically to look at some type of consideration on PUO's but I think that consideration even should be limited in relationship to some overall acreage size. So if we're talking about large master planned PUD's, I don't think I have quite the same problem with those as II I do every little parcel all of a sudden becoming a PUD. Again, that's just for whatever it's worth, the way I feel. I Councilman Wing: Mr. Chair, I'm in agreement with Mr. Senn. I'm just hoping that our expediting landscape ordinance, expediting the sign ordinance, and expediting the task force, is going to in fact accomplish some of what you'd 1 like. If not, I'm going to be the first to admit it... Councilman Senn: Well but Dick, if you were in the other side of the position, what would you rush to do right now? And go back and ask yourself the question, 1 how quickly can all these things we're talking about, landscaping, Highway 5 and everything be accomplished? Paul's memorandum on the other issues and that, I mean we're not looking at that happening tomorrow. 1 Councilman Wing: That's right. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I think that's on the top of our list. I mean II that's our responsibility. I have a problem when we start delegating type of visionary things that the Council's responsible for. When we start delegating that to a task force or to other subcommittees when really that's our job and I II think it's our priority to make sure that we develop these standards. Mayor Chmiel: Well there too, by getting the additional input gives us better 1 insight with that and that's why we formed that particular task force. 1 22 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: I think this needs to be in a workshop and I think it needs to be addressed aggressively and more intellectually with a lot more time on this Council's part but until then I'm going to stand by my motion to deny the Interim Ordinance for development of the Highway 5 corridor. With all due respect to Mr. Senn's concerns. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. ' Councilman Wing coved, Councilman Mason seconded to deny the Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting Development in the Highway 5 Corridor. All voted in favor except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for coming this evening. Appreciate your input and ' we'll take about a 5 minute recess. GOODYEAR TIRE. LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, AND EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN EMISSION CONTROL STATION: A. REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 3RD ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE AN AUTO SERVICE - RELATED USE IN THE BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,397 SQUARE FOOT GOODYEAR TIRE BUILDING. Public Present: Name Address , Jim Larkin Larkin, Hoffman Al Beisner Maple Grove Neil Hartman 1841 Center Drive, Centerville, IL Vernelle Clayton Chanhassen James Benson Abra Herb Mason 1589 Highway 7, Hopkins Thomas Thompson 1011 Butte Court I/ J. Harding 530 West 79th Street Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue Sharmin Al -Jaff: Approximately a month ago you reviewed the subdivision, site plan and conditional use permit request for the development of a Goodyear auto service facility. Tabled action on the proposal as architectural and site design issues surfaced. Staff was directed to investigate the possibility of a moratorium along Highway 5. The applicant was directed to revise the plans by providing additional landscaping along the south portion of Lot 1, and change the exterior finish from block concrete to brick. The applicant has not submitted the requested changes. However, staff changed the conditions of approval for the site plan review to reflect your recommendations from last month in conditions 10, 11 and 12. The additional landscaping is reflected as well as changing the exterior materials to brick is also reflected. There were some additional concerns such as noise level. We changed the conditions of the conditional use permit as you had requested and with that we are recommending ' 23 ' 1 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II approval of this application. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Jim Larkin: I'm Jim Larkin and I'm representing the owner of the property, the Mason family and asking that the Council vote approval of the conditional use permit without requiring the two conditions which have been added since the last r meeting. That is the brick and the additional landscaping. Mr. Beisner, the developer who has spent over 10 months trying to work with the city and it's staff and has made significant and multiple designing changes over that period II of time in order to meet the requests of a variety of constituencies, will speak to what he has done and show you what are the latest drawings and we ask you that you consider them for what they are and not for a particular type of material that is being used I would note to you that if you look at the Target II store which is presently under construction, the exterior material on the Beisner project, or excuse me, the Goodyear and Abra project are as good or better than that material. If you look at the buildings immediately to the II north on Highway 5, which would be where a driver coming into the city would logically look first, they are of material that is no better than and probably less than that will be proposed. The result of continually changing the I requirements is to impose what eventually becomes an uneconomic burden or such a strong economic burden on the development that it can no longer go forward because who pays for commercial developments ultimately are the members of the il public whose prices are raised. These two developments between them will create some 10 to 20 jobs per unit, or at least based on the information that has been made available to me, 25 jobs at a time when the economy is not creating a great number of jobs. So given all of those factors, I would ask that you listen to I Mr. Beisner as he goes through what he has done and shows to you the current views of the property as it would appear upon completion. Thank you for your attention. I Al Beisner: I'm Al Beisner, the developer. I'm the one that caused all the commotion before and we are here basically again with probably not a change in our design from last time. Not a change in the placement from last time. But II this time with some more answers to some of the questions that we may or may not have been aware of back when it was presented at the earlier meeting. Some of the considerations that I want you to know and what we've done in this process. II Basically we start out, and we started this project about 10 months ago and we did go to the City. We located the site. We found that the original site that we wanted to build a Goodyear store on was not properly zoned. We went to II staff. Went to the City and they directed us to the location where we are currently proposing these developments. We submitted all of the information necessary to staff in September and at their request we did virtually everything that was in the requirements for a conditional use and a BH zone. In fact we II went further. We put in twice the landscaping that was required and throughout the last 4 or 5, 6 months, we have made no less than 8 changes to the Abra store and 3 or 4 changes to the Goodyear store. When I talked earlier about levers I that you have, you have some of those levers and we went above and beyond. We have spent almost 2 1/2 times as much on architecture to get to this point than we had originally proposed. Just making all the changes that were requested. I We followed, so that this was not a rush job to get through here, we followed a very slow procedural process here. The first meeting that we were to attend was October 21st. That was a Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was cancelled because there was a lack of a quorum. The next Planning II I 24 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Commission meeting was November 4th. That meeting was cancelled because staff failed to give proper legal notice to the residents. On November 18th we went to the next Planning Commission. That Planning Commission meeting was, or the item was tabled. At all three of those meetings the staff had recommended the plans we had. The fourth Planning Commission meeting occurred on December 2nd and the staff recommended our project and at that meeting it was approved unanimously. On December 14th we were to have the first City Council meeting. We showed up at the first City, or we were on the agenda for the first City Council meeting and then staff pulled us off the agenda because staff didn't like the design at that time. We were rescheduled for the January llth meeting which was last month and that's when we decided we'd go through the moratorium business. And so we're back here now in February and we have been patient and have done I think as much as we could within the requirements of the conditional use permit and the BH highway zone. A couple of things that you should be aware of that we go through. When I got into the process early on in the game, it's important that I number one arrange financing. It's important number 2 that I have a lease signed. For prior to signing a lease with Goodyear we have to have the project costed out, as Goodyear will sign a lease based upon a multiple of what the costs are and Goodyear does approve the costs and Goodyear, and a representative from Goodyear is here this evening, if you care to ask him any questions. But Goodyear has built many of these and they know what their costs are. They are like many of the other large major retail corporations. They know the economics of the area by the demographics of the area. They know that they can afford to pay so much in rent in this location because they feel this is what the business will be. anything more than that might not be economically viable for the operator and for Goodyear. A lot of the businesses that you see vacant back and forth on the strip here between here and 494 that are vacant, don't look very good when they're vacant. They went out of business because they couldn't handle it. Their projections were wrong. In the Goodyear store, with the design that we had with the split faced block, the economics are so that we think the business can make it and we think that that is more important, or I shouldn't say more important but that is a very, very important consideration when you go forth with any venture. The last thing I think you want is to have us build a building that looks good on the outside. Have Goodyear sign a lease. Have the operator come in and can't make the lease payments because the business is not there. He folds up. Closes the door. It's vacant. Even though Goodyear's still paying the rent, it's a vacant building and so there's more that goes into the whole process and let's just have some cost here and cost there. We may not have been here today if in fact back in July that brick on a building would have been a requirement. We would have said Neil, this is how much more cost for brick on the building. This is how much more your rent is going to be, and he would have said, we probably can't afford it or would have cut down the size. He also went through his process to get this lease approved in Akron, Ohio and that was no small feat either because we've just recently received the final signed leases back, and that took about 4 months. So it's all a very slow process. I guess I wanted to show you that so you don't think we come in here and can slap up a building here or there, whatever. A couple of things I wanted to address about uses and why I think this building is good for this location. Number one, there's an emission control building there. Theoretically, x number of cars have to go through that emission control building every year, every month, whatever to be inspected. If there's something wrong with the emission control or with the car that goes to the emission control building, they need to have it fixed. You can have them 25 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 1 drive right next door 50 feet and have it fixed, or you can have them drive 2 1 miles through town to the other end of town to have it fixed. What you're doing is just creating more traffic. I think when you talk about a land use that we had talked about previously, this is a good use for the property and we think ' that having a Goodyear there and hopefully having the Abra right next to it, will concentrate all of those uses together. I was also a little concerned about some of the comments that were made about the gateway and I'm still uncertain where the gateway is because from the west it's Target and from the ' east, I would have thought the gateway was down there, I think it's on Dell Road. I understand there's going to be a bus garage there or, that's not the gateway? People have told me there are different gateways and I wasn't sure and these buildings that we are proposing and the Goodyear building tonight, I think is as good a looking building as you will find on all of Highway 5. I'm not particularly pleased with the looks of the emission control building. To me it looks, and I know it's been well liked here I guess, I'm sorry, but it looks more like a smaller Menards to me than it does you know a good building. There are things wrong with the McDonald's. For one their parapets don't go up high enough to cover their rooftop HVAC units. I can see the green. That's not ' good. A couple things that we have done with that in the Goodyear building I'd like to walk you through. Is we first recessed the building, we've recessed the building. We moved the building further away from Highway 5 because we thought that Highway 5 was a sensitive area. We were told that and so we moved it as far away from Highway 5 as we possibly could. We've also on both buildings, to show you the detail we put into this. We staggered the buildings. We don't have a straight building. We don't have a straight face there. One building is ' staggered behind the other one. We do not have the doors facing, on the Goodyear building, there are 4 doors on each side. They aren't facing the freeway. They're facing Abra and they're facing the emission control. Something else that you can't see here but if you walk the property, you'll be able to see. This site is about 5 feet lower than the emission control site. I don't know why it was engineered as such but this is higher, our elevation is 5 feet ' lower. So virtually from the west we will be almost, I shouldn't say it in front of Neil, the Goodyear guy, but we might be invisible because of the emission control blocking the view of this building. We basically, as I mentioned, spent twice as much on landscaping in this location as your ordinance ' requires. We did that because we think it looks better and we did it because we have underground sprinklers in the green area and we think that will make for good looking green area all the way around. This is a bird's eye view from ' Highway 5, if you will. We have a 3 1/2 to 4 foot berm that surrounds, or is on the north border of the site. Over on this side we virtually have a 5 foot drop so we aren't visible. The parking lot will not be seen from Highway 5 in this design unlike the emission control and unlike the McDonald's and unlike many of the others. Those are the details that we have gone to on the site plan. On our building plan. This is a colored rendering. The ones that you have, we have two more gables in here to break up even further that roof line. We've introduced this blue element to break up the one color sameness of the entire building. Keep in mind too that this building is only 5,200 square feet where Target's 118,000 square feet. I mean this building is probably maybe smaller than many of your homes and the end facing the freeway is only 52 feet across. People are rich out in Chanhassen aren't they? There's the two gables here. And this we changed again because staff wanted to break up that roof line but you're only looking at 100 feet along here and you're only looking at 52 feet along here and that's not a very big building. It's not significant. If we 26 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 were 3 or 4 stories, or 6 stories, or in the middle of an intersection, there'd be something. I brought along samples. This is a split faced block that we've used and there are probably 30, 40 different kinds of architectural block that you can use. This is one of the architectural blocks that we plan on using. Something else, and I was going to run a quiz. This is what we all think is brick, and this is brick. But, and it's a gamble that I was going to take but I decided not to. The block on the bottom, that's brick. Believe it or not, that's brick. They've come out now with what they call an atlas brick. It's the same size as a concrete block and they're using that, the contractor Ox, down the road distributes this and sells this. There are only 3 or 4 choices of that but we in the architectural group thought that a solid faced of that kind of brick is just one flat solid sheet wall that doesn't have any interest to it and really is not in good architectural taste. I wanted to, I have a comment here. I have a quote here that I have to get in and it's basically, this is what Frank Lloyd Wright, who we all know was a wonderful architect, says about architecture and building materials. I quote, "It's not what the basic material is as to whether or not it's good or bad, it's how you use it." And we can build a brick building that looks bad and we can build an architectural scored block building that looks great. We plan on doing that. We hope to do that and I think it will be a building you'll be proud of. I don't know if many of you are familiar with Summit Avenue area and Crocus Hill, but I've done some work in that area and Crocus Hill, Summit Avenue area in St. Paul has the largest concentration of Victorian homes in the United States and they are architecturally sensitive to everything that goes on over in the Crocus Hill area. Several years ago they got together, there were some homes being built in the area when the old ones were torn down. The new ones were put up, that didn't adhere to their "Victorian standards ". They have about a 28 page standard book that if you are going to build a home in that area again, you have to adhere to all 28 pages of directives and they get down to material type. They get down to arches and peaks and whatever. They do the whole thing. About 5th and Summit Avenue, an architect and a public relations person built a duplex. They met with the architectural control committee and they did everything that there was in that 28 page ordinance, and then what they did is they painted it purple and it's still there and you can go see it. It met everything architectural there is to do and I was aghast by it and I go by it about once a year to show you that you can impose some things. If it's not done in good taste...from the beginning, it's not ever going to be done right. There is nothing that the Summit Hill and Crocus Hill area people and architectural control committee could do. We aren't planning on painting this purple. We want it to be in good taste. Good quality...show you that we all aren't as bad of developers as some people think. We're trying to do some business in South St. Paul and I wrote and asked for some information and this was an unsolicited 1 letter back from the City Administrator. So in talking about us doing a quality development and quality building, we mean it... Sorry we weren't aware of brick before. We weren't aware of a lot of things that we found out later and we've been patient and I think that staff will tell you that we've worked as hard as we could and be as nice each of us could to each other under the circumstance. I'm here for questions. Councilman Mason: Al, one real quick one. Now this color that we see now is an accurate reflection of what you have? Al Beisner: Yes. It's sort of like that with the Goodyear... 1 27 ' II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this? Please come forward and state your name and your address II please. Tom Kotsonas: Tom Kotsonas, Chanhassen Estates. Very quickly. The building may be architecturally fantastic but I think it's very important to keep in mind I that if Goodyear goes in, Abra goes in, there's another lot that could be Champion Auto. It could be Rossi Auto. It could be whatever. I mean how do you say no to the last one that goes in there? We have an emission station. We I have McDonald's that, excuse me. I'm a little emotional but was shoved down our throat and as he said, architecturally is an eyesore on that corner. It's got a wall that's falling in. We have a Sinclair gas station next to it. You go up the highway. We have an auto something with boats stored outside that you look ' at from going along the highway. You have the Rapid Oil we've talked about. We've got the Brown Standard. Go around the metro area and you find me a site in the metro area that has this many, this concentrated type of activity and I look at the neighborhood around it. The neighborhood that's there now is a fine neighborhood. It's an older neighborhood. I'm also a 20 year plus taxpayer in Chanhassen and I have, and so do my neighbors, have as much right to our II protection as a developer who doesn't live here. None of these people live here. They're going to develop and they're going to be gone. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If seeing none, I'll bring it II back to Council. Councilman Wing: Could I just ask that we start, I asked Sharmin to draw up a I sketch of a possible option here that I'd just like to show the Council just for information. And I guess this was prompted by Bill Morrish stating that maybe it's desireable to kind of keep parking off the road and keep the greenway II spaces as wide as we can and I just suggested that if we moved the building north, kept the greenway and kept the parking off of Highway 5, and moved the trash bins to elsewhere on the property, and I don't know how this turned out or what Council thinks about this but this is just a suggestion I had. And by the 1 way, I want to just, Mr. Beisner's been a very, a real quality gentleman and I told him. I called him to comment on my suggestion here that I wanted to bring this up tonight but I wanted to point out that we don't get to see this I until now and then it's dumped on us and it's really awkward. You know last time we were really stunned by it and the neighborhood's concern about land use and you know it's kind of done and so then all of a sudden you get confronted by the Council that is really looking at this for the first time and I can't apologize I for that. It's the system but at any rate, Sharmin can you go on with what we had talked about. Just for Council's information. II Sharmin Al -Jaff: With this design the building is pushed to the north. You get a 50 foot depth of green space versus the 35 that was there before. The parking was moved to the south. They're losing one parking space but still exceeds the II ordinance requirements. Again, it pushes the parking away from Highway 5 to the south and we get additional green space. Councilwoman Dockendorf: With the berms that are currently proposed in front on II Highway 5. Will we really see the parking? Driving along or is the berm going to be high enough where if it stays where it currently is platted? II II 28 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Sharmin Al -Jaff: It should be high enough to where you won't be able to. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we're pushing the building further back and. Sharmin Al -Jaff: We're bringing the building closer. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. My concern is if we can keep the building back off the highway and not see the parking. Al Beisner: One of the other concerns too, and these are all sorts of great suggestions and some of the suggestions...so there's three sides I think to everything in here that we looked at. You will not be able to see the parking lot. If you look closely, these little things here are cars...and that's what you should...you can see the tops of them. If they are small foreign cars, you won't see the tops of them and that's from the freeway...The berm is 3 1/2 to 4 feet. Mayor Chmiel: We know what the topography is on the highway as opposed to the proposed construction site? Paul Krauss: Well we do know what the elevation of the highway is. We've got the as -built drawings. Mayor Chmiel: Looking at a sight line is what I'm saying. Sitting in a position of a vehicle. Paul Krauss: We have not verified it from that standpoint. What you'd want to do is pick a point on the highway and then go 4 feet above it because that's where the driver's eyes typically are. ' Al Beisner: The freeway is 935 according to this drawing. Mayor Chmiel: 935? What's your contour on the site? ' Councilman Senn: 935. It drops down to the drainage ditch. Councilman Mason: How would moving the building effect the neighborhood behind it? Paul Krauss: I understand it's a sensitive issue for the neighborhood but I really don't think it effects it one iota. I mean you've still got an intervening site that's going to have a building on it at some point. Mayor Chmiel: Some type of building is going to be located on the vacant lot. Councilman Wing: What are you going to do with that one, just out of curiosity? That could be another automotive center under the present ordinance right? Paul Krauss: It's very likely. That is one of the allowed uses there. Not to play devil's advocate but also one of the allowed uses is another fast food restaurant. Now I think this is really casting the die where they don't have enough parking to do anything like that so you're talking about a lower intensity type of use. It doesn't, I understand it doesn't make the neighbors 29 ' II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II feel any better to know that it could be worst if that's the perspective. But I'm hoping that enough is gleaned from the direction of the Council here that before they come in with that third building, we will have more information to I tell them do i way n w can give you smooth passage that through it ths the Plannin e g Commission and better Council assurance of it's . Councilman Wing: How about to the east? Same situation. II Paul Krauss: Well east is the Abra building. II Councilman Wing: Okay, after Abra. Paul Krauss: There is nothing left. Then you go over to the IOP property. The I DataSery property. Councilman Wing: So this is the specific area the neighborhood's going to be effected with? I Paul Krauss: This is the end of that commercial use, yes. II Al Beisner: One other thing that I found out in doing a Goodyear store as opposed to others. Goodyear, because they are basically very, very full service, will probably eliminate from use the competition of a Midas Muffler, II Meinke this or those kinds of uses because Goodyear does do all of those. And once you have Goodyear in a situation, the others probably won't come in. There are a couple that are complimentary but there will be less of an option for any servicing going on in a third site is Goodyear is there because they are so full II service. If we don't do a Goodyear there and do a Meinke Muffler, then there's a be chance that there would be another servicing kind of thing being there. Right we have no plans for anything on the other site, and as I mentioned I last time. At one point in time, yes. Rossi Big Wheel, we were in contact. We've also had a contact as of late with a dentist in town who's thinking about maybe building a little clinic there. We also had a conversation that Sharmin sent out way from the Dance studio. They wanted to put a dance studio there. II It's hard to project right now. We have nothing that we're thinking about beyond these two sites. II Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: So real quickly, what's the benefit to the city to moving the I building? Paul Krauss: Well, if I could touch on that. One of the proposals in the Morrish program is that highways, frontage roads, parking lots, when they're II done in the typical sense, it will take you about a quarter mile wide blacktop strip. And Bill wasn't the first guy to come up with this. There's been articles, a famous one, Jonathan Barnett. And one of the things that he II proposed is that you seek to do the opposite. That you focus development on roads such as Lake Drive, you know that run parallel to Highway with a remote location. And that you seek to put as much unencumbered green space, ideally II landscaped green space between the highway and the use and that you put the building up close and bury the most obnoxious, the more high intensity aspects of the site away from the frontage. So that's basically what you're striving to II 30 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 , do if you push the building up closer and it's a trade -off. The building is , closer and assuming it's not an unattractive building, it's not a very big building, it's still going to be set back 50 feet from the property line and it's more than that from the traveled right -of -way because it has a ditch section through there. But the green space, the area of green space is widened out by an additional 15 feet. Al Beisner: To move the Goodyear building forward, and had we done that 8 1 months ago, it would not have been a problem. Not too big a problem. Right now we've engineered the site for where it is right now. We've taken soil tests for the site for where it is right now. We've done all the architecture for the site for where it is right now. We find out two things. Number one, if we do move the building, we have to pay more for re- architecture. Re- engineer and new soil tests, and that's only another $15,000.00 - $17,000.00 that we can add to the cost. I mean it doesn't seem like it, plus the front of the freeway, as you go further north on the site, our soil tests are worse, which we didn't know until we actually took them but it will substantially, you know cost more. Mayor Chmiel: Do we have soil borings on this site Paul? Paul Krauss: No. Mr. Beisner I'm sure could provide us with it. We haven't seen it. Al Beisner: The worst spot that we have is right here. And it gets, as it goes this way it gets better and that was just dumb luck because...so that's an extra . cost for soil correction there... Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Councilman Mason: I think we've got to move on it. It seems to me with this being a conditional use permit, they've done everything they need to do. I understand the concern about raising the cost. However, I certainly think the city would gain quite a bit by moving the location of the building. So with, boy I'm going to need some help getting through this one I think. I would move approval of the conditional use permit with the caveat, or I guess it would be number 9, and it sounds like it would probably entail some further discussions with the city about moving the location of the building to create more green space. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Could I just back up one? Could we go back up to item (a), replat Lot 2, Block 1 and get that. Councilman Mason: Oh, I'm sorry. Mayor Chmiel: Then move into the conditional use. 1 Councilman Mason: Alright, yeah. I'm sorry. I'd like to cross whatever I said and move to replat Lot 2, Block 1 of Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition into 3 lots. Roger Knutson: Is that subject to the conditions set forth in the report that you have? Councilman Mason: Yes. 31 1 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for clarification. Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Which? But what conditions? II Roger Knutson: You have them in your packet, under Subdivision. The list of conditions. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. II Mayor Chmiel: They aren't in sequence. They're a little out of sequence but the subdivision is with the approval of Subdivision #90 -17. Councilman Wing: I'll second that. II Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? 1 Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision *90-17 for Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition as shown on the plat dated September 21, 1992, with the following conditions: II 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed at the time building permits are requested. I 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5 -foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated I along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. b. Drainage easement located over the drainage pond. I c. A drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 3, Block 1. II 3. Enter into a development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross - access easement for use of the existing and proposed I street shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. I 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the Watershed District, Health Department, etc. II 6. If construction of public improvements proceed beyond freeze -up, special modifications to construction practices shall be incorporated as directed by the City Engineer, i.e. full depth select granular material for trench backfill, etc. II 7. The developer shall construct the sanitary sewer and watermain improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification II and Detail Plates and submit final plans and specifications for formal City approval. II 32 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 8. Outlot A shall be included with the replatting of Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition. The outlot shall be replatted /combined with Lot 3, Block 1. 9. The developer shall revise the detention pond to accommodate 0.95 acre/ 1 feet of runoff below the 927.0' contour line. 10. Erosion control measures (silt fence -Type I) shall be shown on the grading 1 plan. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the north, east and southeasterly perimeters of the plat. 11. The applicant shall reimburse the city for all engineering consultant fees associated with the storm water study. 12. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and 1 Conditional Use Permit #92 -2. 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for violation of the terms of this permit. 5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the allowed use has not been completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse. 6. Criminal Penalty. Both the owner and any occupant of the subject property are responsible for compliance with this conditional use permit. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. , Mayor Chmiel: Second item would be conditional use permit to locate an auto service related use in the BH, Business Highway district. Councilman Wing: I guess we've decided that. I'll so move. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. With conditions as indicated ' within staff report? Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, would we want to, there was concern about banners. Temporary signage. Flags. Exterior tire displays and I believe this would go under the conditional use permit. I would add an addition here that there be no banner, exterior banners, temporary signage, flags, or exterior tire displays. And a second one of, I think this is the recommendation of Council, of hours of ' not earlier than 7:00 and not later than 7 :00. Hours of 7 :00 to 7:00. Mayor Chmiel: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 1 Councilman Wing: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Councilman Mason: Do we have a second on that yet? 1 Mayor Chmiel: No, not yet. Councilman Mason: I'll second it. ' 1 33 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit #92 -2 as follows: II 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use: Auto Service Facility. I 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property ( "subject property ") in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: Lot 1, I Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition. 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: II 1. No public address systems are permitted. 2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site. II 3. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or public right -of -way. II 4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the Goodyear site. I 5. No outdoor storage shall be permitted at the Goodyear site. 6. Noise level shall not exceed OSHA requirements or Minnesota Pollution II Control Agency guidelines at the property line. Doors will be kept closed or no more than a 12" opening. 7. Pollution level shall meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution II Control Agency. 8. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and II Subdivision #90 -17. 9. There shall be no exterior banners, temporary signage, flags, or I exterior tire displays. 10. Hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. II All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: Item (c), the Site Plan Review for 5,397 square foot Goodyear II Tire building. And that would be Site Plan Review #92 -3 and conditions 1 thru 13 and there's been some objections about item 12. Councilman Wing: 12 I support. I like the store in Eden Prairie and I don't II think we should step below that with the brick so, and as far as moving the store, I'd like to see that left to Council. I don't want to be impulsive on that. It didn't go through the Planning Commission process and suddenly here we II are tonight making a major change. I want to make sure that's fair and in the right order and I don't want to see that passed over too rapidly. It's my only opportunity to bring that forth and it's somewhat impulsive to both the II 34 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II developer and us I think. I think it's a good idea. It seems to have met with II staff's approval. There's some advantages to the setback. There's some advantages to having it up front and I want to make sure that's clarified. Councilman Senn: Did the Planning Commission consider that? II Mayor Chmiel: I don't believe that was a part of their recommendation. 1 Councilman Wing: No, and that's my frustration because unless I address them, which I choose not to do normally, it doesn't get brought up until it gets here and then it's, the process gets difficult. II Councilman Senn: Should they? Should it go back to them? Councilman Wing: I'm not going to send Mr. Beisner back. 1 Councilman Senn: I'm just asking you. You're the one raising the question. Councilman Wing: I suggested that based on Mr. Morrish's comments, that he has been working with the city on, that there was some credibility to expanding the green space. Doing away with the trash bins on that north side, which by moving II it up the trash bins would have to be moved to the side. Getting that element off of Highway 5. That's all. I mean this is a start in the right direction. Mayor Chmiel: I would probably support that. The question that I have in II compliance with that requirement, as their counsel indicated, is that can we substantiate that portion of it. Roger Knutson: It seems like a, it's within your discretion to impose that sort I of condition on a conditional use permit. You design the site to a better, more compatible with the area and is more aesthetically pleasing. But if you want to II impose that, you should impose that as part of the conditional use permit and I don't think you should leave it to staff to decide whether it's further out. That's something you really have to decide. II Mayor Chmiel: Right. Strictly up to Council. Bring it back to the Conditional Use Permit, that would make that item 12 into item number 9? Is that correct? Roger Knutson: You have 10 conditions down now? II Mayor Chmiel: On the conditional use you have 8 requirements. II Roger Knutson: But conditions were added. Hours of 7:00 to 7:00 and no exterior flags, tires, etc. Mayor Chmiel: No banners, temporary signage, flags or tire displays, and I operation from 7:00 to 7:00. Roger Knutson: Right. And this would be number 11. II Mayor Chmiel: 10 and 11. 9, 10 and 11. Okay. Alright, but that should fall back under the conditional use which we already had voted upon. 35 II II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Roger Knutson: You can put it in the site plan I guess because you've adopted the conditional use permit. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's where it's at is under the site plan review. Okay. That was my question. Councilman Mason: The question I just asked here is would we see more or less ' if we pushed it back further because of the angle of the berm and all that. I mean if we're going to see more of it I don't. ' Mayor Chmiel: The building in itself? Councilman Mason: Yeah. ' Councilman Senn: You're creating, in effect what his suggestion does is create more green space, which allows you to still address the berm just as adequately. And all you're doing is shoving the building forward. i Councilman Mason: Right. Right. ' Councilman Senn: So you won't see any more or less. I mean I think what Dick's suggestion is more of a consideration of what do you consider more important. The highway side or the neighborhood side. ' Councilman Wing: Well the neighborhood side's going to be blocked and that's going to. Mayor Chmiel: It's going to be blocked by another building once that comes in. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would just as soon keep it as far off the highway ' but definitely move the trash. One thing I don't like when I'm driving on Highway 5 is I see Festival Food's trash. Councilman Wing: Tell you what, being that the brick is a new condition and ' it's fairly costly, I'll go along with the present position with the brick and item number 14 I think goes under this would be that the trash receptacles be moved to an off highway side. Mayor Chmiel: As item number 14? ' Councilman Wing: Yeah. The northern trash receptacles would have to be moved to preferably a west, the west side of that building. Or at least off the Highway 5. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: East wouldn't you think? Mayor Chmiel: Well, if you're not going to see a car facing Highway 5, you're ' not going to see the trash containers facing to the north. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm not so sure about that though. I mean that's further back than where the cars would be parked. The cars would be parked 11 right up to the berm. The trash would be. ' 36 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 ' Councilman Wing: It won't be a straight facade. It will be the north side with the trash receptacles what, up to 5 feet or 6 feet? I don't have that. Mayor Chmiel Depending on your sight line as to what you're looking at. , Councilman Mason: Along with trash what, I don't remember and I'm sure it was in the report. What's the trash receptable? Are there going to be doors? Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's going to be covered with. Councilman Mason: That's right. Yeah, it's covered. It's totally enclosed isn't it, as I recall. Paul Krauss: It's going to be made out of the same materials as the building. Councilman Mason: Yeah, right. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Chainlink door though. 1 Paul Krauss: But that faces to the side. Mayor Chmiel: That's covered. That's taken care of. So that would mean that item 14 would not be on. Leave it up to 13. Okay, call for a motion. Councilman Mason: So the motion is, to accept the site plan review #92 -3, items i 1 thru 13? Mayor Chmiel: Very good. , Councilman Mason: Is that correct? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Mason: I will move approval of Site Plan Review #92 -3 with the conditions as stated in the staff report. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will second it. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussions? - ouncilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Site Plan ' '=view 1192 -3 as shown on the site plan dated November 30, 1992, subject to the Tollowing conditions: 11 1. A 4 foot variance to achieve a 12 foot high monument sign. This sign which will face Highway 5 shall contain only the names of the occupants of Lots 1, 2 and 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for staff review prior to the City Council meeting. The monument sign may not exceed 12 feet in height. Sign covenants are to be submitted outlining the use and limit of one common sign and allowances for its use by the remaining undeveloped lot. 37 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II 2. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. I These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required. II 4. The applicant shall provide a flammable waste separator as required by Building Code. II 5. Provide a complete, final set of civil engineering documentation to staff for review and approval. II 6. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal's memorandum dated October 8, 1992. 1 7. The applicant shall post "No Parking -Fire Lane" signs along the south curb line on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Signs shall be placed at 100 foot intervals and the curb painted yellow. II 8. Concurrent with the building permit, a lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. II 9. The applicant shall pay $7,580.00 into the Surface Water Management Program fund for water quality treatment downstream of the site. This fee will cover Lots 1 and 2 only. II 10. No signage will be allowed until sign plan approval is obtained from the Planning Commission and City Council. II 11. The applicant shall provide eight additional evergreens along the south side of Lot 1, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition. I 12. Brick shall be used on the exterior of the Goodyear building. Plans shall be developed to staff approval. The brick shall be designed to incorporate highlighting treatments similar to the or better than the current proposal. II 13. Compliance with conditions of Subdivision #90 -17 and Conditional Use Permit #92 -2. II All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously_ Mayor Chmiel: Mark, do you have anything you want to say? Okay. Thank you. II II II II 38 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 , CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD AND WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD, RYAN CONSTRUCTION. A. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND PUD AGREEMENT. , Public Present: Name Address ' Stephen & Yvonne Kerm 6540 Devonshire Darcy & Mark Seaton 7315 Penny Hill Road, Eden Prairie Jeff Boutin 7017 Woodland Drive, #301, Eden Prairie Richard & Gloria Kramer 8688 Shiloh Court, Eden Prairie Michael & Patricia Richardson 8828 Flesher Circle, Eden Prairie Allen Peterson, M.D. FACEP 361 Trappers Pass Lynette Danz 6540 Devonshire Drive Darin Bradshaw 6975 Pima Lane Brooke Hegge 425 Chan View, #110 Scott Eggen 5701 Bluebird Lane, Minnetonka Marty Andreasen 19330 Vine Ridge Road, Shorewood Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this came before you at your last meeting in January. , What had been proposed is to complete the PUD plan and platting that Ryan had initiated a year earlier, but also to amend that plan to allow a 2 acre site on Audubon Road to be developed with a Jehovah's Witness Church. Site plan approval is not being requested for the church at this time. If it's approved tonight, that would come back in for review by yourselves and the Planning ^ommission at some point in the future. There were a couple points that were ised at the last meeting. One had to do with the tax impact. The concern of _ of industrial land. The City Manager did a rough...analysis that's in the -t that basically says it's pretty close to being a wash as to whether or ,t this was developed as a, well if this was developed or if it was developed on residential ground. I mean clearly wherever it goes, there's a loss of taxes but wherever it goes, it really doesn't seem to make much difference. There was also some consideration of statements made by the representatives from the Witnesses that they'd looked at a number of other sites. 30 or some odd other sites and this was the only one that came to pass. There was some information provided to us by the church. We've included that in your packet. Staff continues to see this as a rather, somewhat innocuous proposal. If we had our druthers I suppose it would be a high end office building at that corner but it is a fairly good use to interface with the rest of Chanhassen outside this industrial PUD. It is a relatively low intensity use and if it wasn't going to be an office building, this is probably as good a use as any to fill the void. With that we'll bring it back to you for action tonight and we're recommending that you approve it. I should also add too that we're trying to get the Ryan PUD and plat finalized, for other reasons. With this we get easements that we needed to complete an ongoing sewer and water project. And it really gets the ball rolling for things like the weather station which is, had it planned to come in here for the last 3 years to get going and hopefully other uses in the future. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Paul. Is the applicant here in agreement with 1 Paul's position? 39 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 ' Councilman Senn: Can I ask the applicant one question? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. ' Councilman Senn: Last time a lot of my concern related to this was that there were potentially other sites, or whatever. I've gotten all the material now and I've looked through it. If I'm interprelating that right, those sites have been pretty much dismissed as not feasible and so that's why you're ending up here. Okay. Well if I could, I guess since I was the one who asked to hold this over, just briefly I hope we don't end up with a lot of churches in industrial areas. ' But I would be willing to move that we approve this. Mayor Chmiel: Final plat approval and PUD agreement? ' Councilman Senn: Yes. I Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? ' Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Final Plat and PUD Agreement subject to the plans dated January 11, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: i. Provide the following easements and right -of -way: - a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements over the proposed sewer and water lines outside the road right -of -way. - trail and conservation easements over all buffer yards, Outlot A, and ' sidewalk connection from Lake Drive west to city trail. - Drainage and utility easements over the Bluff Creek flood plain and all ' retention basins. A temporary ponding easement shall be dedicated. - The radius on the curbs at all street intersections Audubon Road shall be 30 feet. 2. Deleted. ' 3. The applicant shall provide the City Engineering Department with updated grading and drainage plans including storm sewer and ponding calculations for Phase I and the overall development designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations to show that the ponds will retain a 100 year 11 storm event and will discharge at the pre - development runoff rate. Permanent ponding areas shall meet or exceed the city's water quality standards. The ponding areas shall be built to "NURP" standards. Design standards shall be submitted for a temporary retention pond for Phase I shall be created on Lot 6 until Phase II is developed. 4. The applicant shall provide the City, for review and approval, updated grading and drainage plans including storm sewer and ponding calculations for Phase I and the overall development. ' 40 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 5. If only Phase I of the site is graded, erosion control fence shall be incorporated along the perimeter of the construction limits. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained along the entire westerly perimeter of Phase I construction limits. Phase II construction will require the perimeter of the construction limits shall be Type III erosion control. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulched, sod or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of site grading or before November 15, 1993, except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year. Areas disturbed with a slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored with sod or wood fiber blanket. As a part of the erosion control measures, the applicant shall be required to remove any materials (sediment) that enter into Bluff Creek. 6. The watermain loop between Lots 8 and 9 shall be extended to the southerly property line of the development. ' 7. Deleted. 8. The northerly, easterly and southerly slopes of the Phase II retention ponds on Outlot A shall be reduced to a minimum of 4:1 for maintenance purposes. 9. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee construction of the improvements. 10. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the city's standard specifications and shall prepare final plans and specifications and submit for city approval. A 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk /trail shall be included along one side of Lake Drive West (Phase I and Phase II). The developer shall acquire utility construction permission /permits from the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health. 11. The developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed , District, DNR and Army Corps of Engineers, and comply with all conditions of the permit. Drainage plans shall be revised as outlined in the approved staff report and shall be resubmitted to City staff for approval. The applicant shall obtain permission /permit from the railroad authority for all grading activities within the railroad property. 12. The developer shall incorporate street lights into the street construction , plans. The street lights should be installed at 150 to 200 foot intervals. The street lights shall be designed consistent with existing lighting on Audubon Road. A 250 -watt contemporary low - profile- rectilinear - rectangular style lighting fixture with pressure lamps mounted on a 25 foot high cortin steel pole. 13. The entire tract of land development (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 and Outlots A, 8, C and 0), shall be assessed for the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sewer and Water Improvement Project No. 91 -17. 41 1 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 14. The Developer shall be responsible for a percentage of the costs for II traffic signals at Audubon and TH 5 based on traffic counts attributed to the overall development. II 15. T applicnt wi be equird pa pak dedication ($2,500.00/acre) and trail fee s ($8 . 00 /acr in e the to d evel opment contract. No development shall occur on Outlot A as it shall be preserved as open space. II 16. The recreation trail shall be located along the north side of Lake Drive West. The trail shall be a 6' wide concrete walk along Lake Drive West and 8' wide bituminous trail along the sewer easement and stubbing to the II railroad underpass in Outlot A. The recreation trail shall also loop from Outlot A along the southern property line up along Audubon Road and to tie into Lake Drive West. This trail (see exhibit for trail route) shall have 1 bituminous surface and be 8' in width. 17. The developer shall be responsible for maintaining the storm sewers or retention ponds until both phases of the development are "built out ". II 18. The trail system shall loop, using the utility easement along to the storm water retention pond. II 19. Temporary improvements in Phase I are limited to 3 years. At that point final street, utility and drainage improvements must be installed. Surety I shall be provided to ensure timely completion of these improvements. 20. F temporary ponding easement should be conveyed to the City for the interim nding basin proposed over Outlot C. The temporary ponding easement shall I maintained until the permanent ponding basin is constructed with Phase _ and accepted by the City. II 21. The applicant shall be responsible for the extension of Lake Drive West to the westerly lot line of Lot 1, Block 2. A temporary street easement for the cul -de -sac shall be dedicated to the City until the second phase street improvements have been completed and accepted by the City. II 22. The applicant should be aware that City Council is considering approval of the final plat at this time, however, final review and approval of the II construction plans and specifications may or may not require additional modifications to easements or road right -of -way on the final plat. Staff is recommending that the City Council grant staff the ability to II administratively approve any modifications necessary in conjunction with the review and approval of the plans and specifications. 23. The applicant shall provide the City, for review and approval, updated II grading and drainage plans including storm sewer and ponding calculations for Phase I and the overall development. II All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. II II II 42 II ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND CITY CODE, SECTION 18 -37, EXEMPTIONS 11 CONCERNING SUBDIVISIONS, FIRST READING. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to take a quick position on this before we have much , discussion. Councilman Mason: Can we quote the City Manager? ' Mayor Chmiel: As I would quote the City Manager's comment, I would suggest that this be dropped. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's not quoting. Mayor Chmiel: Well I didn't want to say that because I used to work for a ' utility company. Councilman Senn: And they might think something's coming to Chanhassen, right? , Councilman Wing: I would like to second that. Councilman Senn: Now does that mean then that we don't do this? ' Mayor Chmiel: That's right. End of discussion. If hearing none, I'll call the 11 question. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Did we have a motion? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I made the motion. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to deny Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code, Section 18 -37, Exemptions Concerning Subdivisions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20 -1023, HEIGHT OF FENCES; AND SECTION 20 -1019, LOCATION OF FENCES, FIRST READING. Sharmin Al -Jaff: Fences are common structures in this city. The fence ordinance, as it stands right now does not deal with the location of fences within a front yard. There is a safety issue that needs to be addressed. Many times when we locate fences within a sight triangle, we create blind intersections and this is what this ordinance is going to try to accomplish. As , ar as side yards and rear yards, the ordinance stays as is. As far as front rds, we're requesting that the height not exceed 3 feet if it's a solid fence and 4 feet with mesh fences. With corner lots we're requesting that within the , sight triangle the height of the fence not exceed 3 feet in height if opaque and 4 if solid. With side yards, the 6 1/2 feet remains. And again, there's another section in the ordinance that does not address fences within wetlands. We are recommending that no fences be permitted below the ordinary high water mark of a wetland. With that we're recommending approval of the ordinance. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. You know I look at these 6 1/2 foot fences, I think we're either building a substation fence to keep people out so they don't 43 1 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 II get hurt, or we're creating a stockade. Just my own opinion. But 6 1/2 feet, anything at 6 1/2 feet must receive a conditional use permit, as it's indicated. Councilman Senn: Don, could I help you out? I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, go ahead. Councilman Senn: Could I help you out on that? I have a real problem with that representation, and everything I see here is that representation. Ordinances like this should be a guideline, not necessarily just a hard set of, you know hard and set bunch of rules. I can think of a lot of nice front yard situations, even where people maybe have 10 feet on a cul -de -sac if they're lucky, that would look beautiful with a 6 1/2 wrought iron fence with brick columns and we're saying gee, you shouldn't do that. Or you can't do that. Fencing isn't all just stockades and solid. I mean there's a lot of other types of fencing that are open, and I'd really like to see us visualize it in that sense and look at this as a set of guidelines rather than a set of absolutes which simply says all 6 1/2 foot fencing is bad. Mayor Chmiel: Let me clarify that just to add more. I don't like fences. I Amen. Councilman Senn: Well, some of us who want to adhere to city ordinances that have, let's see what do I have now Two dogs, two cats. ' Mayor Chmiel: I'd adhere to the city ordinance because I wouldn't put one up. 1 Councilman Senn: No, no, but you know you've got to confine your animals. Cc_,:ilman Wing: ...Carver Beach that are really awkward that in the low 50's, do what you want to do. Councilman Mason: Now wait. Now wait just a minute. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question about that too. Whether we do have any leeway in determining what fences can be made of. That's more my concern than where they're located. Mayor Chmiel: Well, we're concerned with intersections so they're not blocking so access can occur. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh granted. I'm saying in addition, can we also look at building material because I guess I agree. I don't like fences. Councilman Senn: If again, if the type of fence could be constructed which wouldn't adversely effect it. Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin, tell us where this came from. ' Sharmin Al -Jaff: We've had several applications. When people apply for fencing and we don't have anyway of telling them no, you can't put the fence for instance in a sight line area, or I believe there was a house that burned down 44 City Council Meeting February 8, 1993 on Lake Riley. They came in and they requested a 6 1/2 foot fence surrounding the property just to keep anyone from coming in to their property. Mayor Chmiel: 6 1/2 foot of chainlink fence with 1 foot of barb. Sharmin Al -Jaff: It was a solid fence that they requested. 1 Paul Krauss: We do prohibit barbwire fences. That's the only thing. But you know, there's really two issues. The issue that concerns us most is the sight triangle. The second one that neighbors have asked us to intervene on and we've kind of punted usually is when your neighbor throws a 6 foot high fence around his or her front yard, your yard is boxed in. And if you drive down the street, all these 30 foot front yards that we've set aside to turn into 6 foot boulevards and a fence. Now, we weren't so much trying to get at the aesthetic issue with this ordinance. More the safety issue but some communities want to address the, I mean a lot of communities just prohibit fences in the front yard unless it's split rail or something like that. Totally. We haven't gotten real hung up on the aesthetics of it but it clearly matters to a lot of folks who call us. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, based on my years of experience on the Council, the time to really get orgainzed if you don't like this, is to fight it on the second to sway the Council. The first reading, I think this is needed and necessary and a good idea and I'll move the first reading. Then if you want to fight it, hit it on the second meeting but have your eggs in order. Mayor Chmiel: Sounds like a winner. Is there a second? I Councilman Mason: He's a man with emotion today. I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: Can I offer a friendly amendment, just to see if it works? If you eliminate the reference to the height in the front yard. Councilman Wing: They've restricted it to 3 1/2 feet. I don't see it here. No, I think that's the whole issue is the front yard. Councilman Senn: At least with sight angles as it relates to intersections. Councilman Wing: This is trying to accomplish that. No. I tell you, you research that issue and if necessary on the second reading I'll be happy to take that as a second. Because it's worth looking into since then because the way it stands, I happen to like the restrictions. You're saying it might be higher in some cases? Councilman Senn: Well Dick, what I'm saying is I don't like solid fences in the 1 front yard anymore than what he's talking about but again, that's not the same situation for everybody. I mean front yards, you can have a front yard like I do which borders on nothing but back yards. I don't have any front yards bordering me. And at the same time, I've got 20 feet on the cul -de -sac and that's it. Now if a person wants to put up a fence in his front yard in a situation like that, where most of his yard, by the way is the front yard, not 45 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 the back yard. And it's open fencing. See that's where I come around to and ' it's something that makes sense like open fencing. Councilman Wing: We have a committee that I sit on that meets at 7:00 before Council meetings that would be happy to hear your request for that variance. ' Councilman Senn: Is this the sitting on the fence committee now, like the SWMP committee? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Would you like us to survey cities? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, why don't you do that. I think that would be a good idea, just to see what other cities are basically doing. Councilman Senn: That doesn't mean they're right necessarily. Councilman Wing: ...yeah, in your case we do have a real good procedure for that and I would never hesitate to give you that fence on a variance, if that was the case. I happen to like this ordinance. I'll stand on the ordinance then. Mayor Chmiel: I'll call the question. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences, and ' Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences as presented by staff. All voted in favor except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. ' DISCUSS POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6921 YUMA DRIVE, CARVER BEACH, FOR STORMWATER PURPOSES. Public Present: Name Address Russell Norum 3264 North Shore Drive, Wayzata Margaret Rossing 130 Cygnet Place, Long Lake Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor. You'll recall this came up at your last meeting. This was. Mayor Chmiel: Paul. I'd like to make a motion that we acquiesce that property. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would second it. Mayor Chmiel: Because I think it's going to be in the best interest of the city. Rather than going through a lot of discertation, I think we can find the money, as was indicated, and I think we would eliminate a lot of given problems and concerns. And also improve the quality of that flow going into Lotus Lake. Councilman Mason: I'd like to second that. Just from personal experience, someone builds a house down there, I can see the lawsuits coming down the road. With the fact, well I second the motion. 1 46 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion. Councilman Senn: Don, if I could. Go ahead, , Councilwoman Dockendorf: Seeing that Mr. Terry has withdrawn and that it would 11 be very difficult for the seller to find another buyer and we don't want to see it coming back to bite us when a homeowner gets flooded. And seeing that it's a relatively good deal and we do have the funds for it, there's no reason why we shouldn't. Particularly when the seller has agreed to pay all the back taxes on it. Mayor Chmiel: Well that would be part of the condition as what we have in the recommendations. Mark. Councilman Senn: Maybe knowledge is danger but I guess I'd still like an answer to the question that I raised at the last meeting which is, if we are going to spend $20,000.00 on this. Okay? (a), how many of the six storm sewers are we going to get out of Lotus Lake next year? Or at least treat before they get there. And (b), of the ones which we aren't, how many more would the money going to this take care of next year? Mayor Chmiel: Paul. Paul Krauss: Mark, in trying to get an answer to your question. Sharmin and I and Dave Hempel from engineering went out to the site again with Ismael Martinez from Bonestroo.. Short of paying them $1,500.00 to design the thing right now where I can come back and tell you exactly what we're going to do. We 3d some pretty good ideas. Oh, Mike Wegler from our street department went out e too because Mike's the guy who we would actually have do the work probably in house so we could save on contracting expenses. We came up in the short term ...with some pretty good ideas for how this property will benefit our program. In the long run there's quite a bit more opportunity but that's contingent upon when the streets, or if the streets in there I should say, are ever upgraded. It gives us a lot more flexibility. To do what we need to do, what we already programmed to do on this wetland, we would probably have to buy easements anyway. I don't know what they would cost but there'd be some percentage of the total lot cost. When we spoke about this the last time, there was an intervening buyer who since dropped out, which is why I told you that it could be as high as $30,000.00 which makes you think twice. Relative to whether or not we could do other things, or what we are proposing to do, we had programmed this year two projects for two drainage points on Lotus Lake. They're not necessarily the biggest ones, but they're ones that we could tackle to get the program going and have a big bang for the buck. They were very cost efficient. Cost effective. This property is part of one of those deals and will enhance our effectiveness on it. Right now we're working. Councilman Senn: Well wait. Let me stop you right there. But last week you 11 said it would enhance the effectiveness but was not necessary to accomplish the project. 1 Paul Krauss: And that was basically true. That it gives us more flexibility in how to do the project. If we didn't do it, if we didn't own it, we could probably do the project anyway but you'd have to buy easements and we may have 47 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 to pay some damages to this property because we're raising the flood elevation. So I don't know if that turns out to be a wash or not. I have no way of knowing. And I wasn't trying to be cute when I was thinking, because you posed ' the question if I had $30,000.00 to spend, would I spend it here or someplace else. Councilman Senn: No. What I was asking was, if we had $30,000.00 to spend, how many of the four remaining storm sewers can we treat or stop from running into Lotus Lake? Paul Krauss: Well it's hard to know because we've only studied three of the major discharges right now. One of the major discharges we figured would cost well over $100,000.00 to fix, and that's the one that comes down by the ' beachlot. I forget who's beachlot it is but it's where the creek comes down off of Frontier Trail. Now we're working with a developer of a tract in there and WE +hink we may be able to fix that $100,000.00 not with something more in the c- of $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 in conjunction with any development. So we're 11 - These things as we can. This is new dollars. These are not dollards t -e going to be made available to the SWMP program necessarily. So they - re not diminishing our ability to tackle those other projects. Councilman Senn: No, but just as we would make them for purchase of this property, we could make them available to do that, correct? Paul Krauss: Or to buy a new fire truck. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Councilman Wing: But if you've got, then I want to have a couple drainage areas out at Minnewashta fixed up and looked at too. ' Councilman Senn: No, I'm just asking the question. Mayor Chmiel: That's when the dollars come back into that fund. That's one of the things that they can look at. Councilman Wing: Is SWMP running out of money? Mayor Chmiel: They're out. 11 - ilman Wing: Okay. - s: If we fund the projects that we wanted to do in '93, by December ld be broke. Well, I mean next year we get another $135,000.00 but we',, __ng more in the order of $200,000.00. One of the things I broached at the goal session was we have a couple of other sources of funding that we're going to explore, so we're going to be bringing that up shortly too. The long and the short of it though Councilman Senn is that at $20,000.00, which we thought it was a pretty good deal and would make our efforts to do what we want to do there a little more efficient and resolve a lot of problems that could otherwise occur. So it seem to be a reasonable thing to do. Councilman Senn: So can we put a cap on it at 20 grand? ' 48 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 ' Paul Krauss: Well, the purchase price was at $20,000.00 and prorate the taxes. So it's a matter of when it closes. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Just had a little discussion on the side. Okay. Any other discussions? If not I'll call the question to acquiesce the property for the Surface Water Management. We have a motion and a second. Resolution 193 -08: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt a 1993 budget amendment to purchase the property at 6921 Yuma Drive for the Surface Water Management Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried. , Councilman Senn: Don, could we, just out of curiousity. I mean is it possible for us to do something like give some real firm direction on this as far as a price goes so this thing doesn't? Or if it does, it comes back to us I guess is what I'm saying. Mayor Chmiel: Well, it's a negotiable thing they can do. I'm not saying. 1 Councilman Senn: Well it seems to me we've just written a blank check. Paul Krauss: No. If you wanted to make it, was it $20,000.00. Tell me if I'm wrong... Russell Norum: Yeah, it was $20,000.00 but there was nominal damages asked by . his other buyer of $200.00 that he had to pay the City of Chanhassen to collect e names from around the area that he had to give for notice of variance. And ,e's asked Marge in a letter today that he wants that $200.00 back. Marge would prefer to get $20,200.00. Councilman Senn: So the deal is $20,000.00 plus proration of taxes plus this $200.00. Russell Norum: And proration of taxes. Councilman Senn: We've got it on tape. It's a done deal. Russell Norum: We need to know that. We'd update that Certificate. Would we 11 be dealing with the City Attorney? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Russell Norum: So he would instruct us then to update that Abstract and deliver that to you? Roger Knutson: Yeah, I'll just give you my card. You can just, the Abstract or r the CT, whatever it is. Marge Rossing: I asked for a timeframe. When will this be done? ' Roger Knutson: As soon as we can check title. We'll draft the purchase agreement tomorrow and give it to you. 1 49 City Council Meeting February 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Just to making sure that everything is where it should be and all Y 9 Y 9 ' the back taxes are taken care of. Once that's consummated. Roger Knutson: Couple weeks, whatever. ' Marge Rossing: The back taxes will come out of the proceeds. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Marge Rossing: Because I don't have that kind of money. Mayor Chmiel: Neither do I. RECEIVE FEASIBILITY REPORT ON LAKE LUCY ROAD STREET AND UTILITY EXTENSION, CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING, PROJECT 92 -12. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. At the July 13, 1992 City Council meeting, following a petition from two property owners, authorization was given to prepare a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway 41 and County Road 117, Gaipin Boulevard. I have included in your packet the copy of that completed study along with some of the other of the previous staff report back in July which will provide some background information. As presented in the staff report, it is not intended to build this entire roadway segment at this time. However, constructing a segment of the west' portion will allow development of these two petitioning properties. On ' thF ,er hand, officially mapping the entire segment at this time will be a t t from a city standpoint allowing us to proactively plan for this future _mprovement. An informal neighborhood meeting is being scheduled for Wednesday, February 17, 1993 here at City Hall. Mayor Chmiel: What time? ' Charles Folch: At 7:00 p.m. in the courtyard conference room, for which all effected property owners will be invited. We also invite any of the Council members who so choose to attend. At this time the only action needed for tonight would be for the Council to formally receive the feasibility study and call for a public hearing at your regular meeting on Monday, March 8, 1993 at which time our project consultant engineer will give a formal presentation of the feasibility study. Councilman Wing: With that definition on record I would so move to call for public hearing. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Hearing none, I'll call the question. Resolution *93 -09: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to receive the feasibility study on Lake Lucy Road Street and Utility Extensions, Project No. 92 -12, and call a public hearing for March 8, 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 50 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 APPOINTMENT TO SENIOR COMMISSION. Sharmin Al -Jaff: On January 22, 1993 we interviewed four applicants for the Senior Commission. We currently have 3 vacancies. One of the commissioners had selected to run again for the position. The votes in the staff report reflect ' the votes of the Senior Commission with Commissioner Selda Heinlein in first position. Albin Olson, second position. There was a tie between Mr. Mark Littfin and Mr. Dale Geving. However, we would like to remind the Council that at the last meeting you did appoint Mr. Dale Geving to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Councilman Wing: Based on their recommendations and your knowledge, I would just recommend appointments of number 1, 2 and 3. Selda, Albin and Mr. Littfin. Mayor Chmiel: I'd second that. And ask Mr. Dimler to stand in the wings if someone else, and I would like to see he appointed then to that next vacancy... Councilman Wing moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to appoint Selda Heinlein, Albin Olson and Mark Littfin to the Senior Commission. All voted in favor and 1 the motion carried unanimously. 1993 PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION UPDATE, CHARLES FOLCH. 1 Charles Folch: The staff report that you've received tonight for this item contains more or less detailed explanation of the Public Works vehicle and equipment acquisition as was contained in Fund No. 209 of the approved 1993 budget. As the Manager has addressed in his comments, City Council approval to - specs and actually take bids for these vehicles and equipment is not -- cessary. However, the approval of award to the low bidder does require your approval and a lot of staff time will be expended in preparing the spF:ifications and going through the bidding process. Therefore, if the Council should have any questions or concerns with these items, staff would wish to hear from you at this time and hope to address those accordingly. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion in relationship to the public works equipment and acquisition update? This has all been submitted to the budget for 19x3 and it comes out of the Fund 209 for the equipment replacement. One of the questions I guess I only had Charles is, I'd like to see the total amount of mileage that we have on vehicles when we do make replacements. It makes it a little easier for me to think about it as to what we're going to do. A dump trunk with plowing that we're looking for $70,000. I know it's a '76 and it's probably had two motors in it and that particular vehicle is getting a little rusted out. The body and so there's not much you can do to that but I think if we had the mileage, that would also be an indicator back to us as to what should be done. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: Well just the standard, what's wrong with the old stuff? Why can't we fix it? Mayor Chmiel: It can be done if you're behind it pushing. 1 Councilman Senn: Remember that question the next time a fire truck. 51 1 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Councilman Mason: With that I'd move approval of the 1993 Public Works Equipment Acquisition Update PW016. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the 1993 Public Works Equipment Acquisition Update, PW016 as presented by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: The last item is item 13. This is that resolution for easement for between Boylan on Minnewashta and it's coming past my hands right now. Don Ashworth: The urgency on this is we've been trying to meet with Boylan's and to reach agreement for the last 3, 4, 6 months. We haven't been able to do it. I'm sure we can get in and finish the construction this spring. We need authorization to be able to literally condemn the property so we can get the road through there. I Councilman Wing: You mean you're having to go that far? Condemnation? Don Ashworth: I bet we've met with him 15 times out on the site. This is the one that has the dead trees. Councilwoman Dockendorf: He's just obstinent or what's the problem? ' Don Ashworth: Yeah, that's a good word. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Everybody understand what the proposal is? ' Councilman Senn: No. Councilwoman Dockendorf: You had 3 seconds to review it. Mayor Chmiel: Check the back page. Turn it around. It's all there. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Councilman Wing: Don, not to draw this out. This has got a real history. You can't appreciate what's occurred out there. Charles, before we get off Minnewashta Parkway, I don't know how many calls you've had but the one call tonight on my answering machine specifically said, if you don't do something they're going to start bringing in what the problem is and laying it out here like they did with the goose stuff. Whatever they put down out there it is just an unbearable goo to the point where we don't want to take the fire trucks out because it takes us an hour to wash them and that's only going from the station to Highway 7. My car can be clean, I can go from TH 7 to the fire station and it is absolutely caked solid with this clay mucky. Is there any chance that we can rock that for those people? I know it costs money. Councilman Mason: And dog gone it, I brought that point up and we were assured by Mr. Engelhardt that that would not be happening. 52 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Charles Folch: Well what you have out there is a Class V rock base, okay. It ' does have fines mixed in with it. It's got a varied gregation of materials in the mixture. What you have is, particularly when you have the spring thaw and 11 you get the frost coming out, those fines will pump up to the top surface and when it's wet, it's going to appear to have an appearance, you're going to have a soft surface on top. What we can do about that, hope for colder weather for another month or so. ' Councilman Wing: No, because it's going to, the spring thaw hasn't hit yet. We're talking about rain, snow. Anything that dampens the surface. My concern is that when the spring hits, they're going to be busting down these doors. I mean they are really mad. I mean they're furious what's happening and I keep telling them, my question is, can we do anything to coarse up that top layer to keep that fine stuff from coming up and being such a mess or are we stuck with that? I guess that's the question. We're stuck with it? Councilman Mason: You know, I really think Mr. Engelhardt needs to be called on the carpet for that one because I can go through the Minutes, because I specifically asked that question. Because somebody brought that up. What's my car going to look like when spring thaw comes and it was all, it will be no problem. It will be no problem and I specifically questioned him on that and he reiterated that, and that gripes me and we're given. I'm not saying it's your fault. It's not your ball here but that's not the message I don't think we should be giving. If it can't be done, it can't be done. So be it. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I've already had some discussions with Charles today with the - alls that I've also received on Minnewashta Parkway, and he assures me that hey can address by hopefully more rock. Charles Folch: Well and what we'll continue to do, particularly as we get into the spring thaw, is we'll have a motor grater out there constantly blading the top surface and respreading it and trying to reroll it. Councilman Wing: That won't solve the issue of that we've got. Charles, my only suggest is maybe if another letter should go out to be really upfront about that it's a Grade V and these particals are coming up and it's going to be a mess and it's sort of the way it's going to be. I think we've just got to absolutely upfront and then there's no more to be talked about. Right now they really, my call tonight was, would you please bring up, should we have rough rock on there just to keep us off that messy roadway. And I said I would just bring it up and I realize it's probably a cost factor but if another letter goes out, be really upfront about the problem and it's going to exist. Excuse me, I interrupted your motion. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: ...Can I have a motion? , Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. 53 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Resolution 193 -10: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the resolution for an easement on the Boylan property on Minnewashta Parkway. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth ' City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 54 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION 11 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 1993 A joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the Park and Recreation ' Commission was held prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Nancy Mancino ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior ' Planner; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION OF 36 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 33 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE ' OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND SOUTH OF LAKE ST. JOE, BOLEY PROPERTY, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros Construction Rick Sathre Sathre - Berquist, 150 So. Broadway, Wayzata Terry & Lisa Rixe 7456 Minnewashta Parkway, Victoria Doane Burau 7225 - 78th Street, Victoria Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: I thought I read in here at some point or another, and I don't believe you mentioned something about annexing certain. Aanenson: It's their desire to annex the rest of Mr. Boley's property into the city because it can be serviced and. Batzli: Who's they? Aanenson: Lundgren Bros. Batzli: Yeah, but we do the annexing, do we not? Aanenson: Yes. Batzli: It's their desire that we annex. What do we think about it? Aanenson: Well we've asked them to look at the whole super area and we've asked Victoria the same question. Can they get access to the road. There's a significant amount of wetland in this whole area. You're looking at Lake Tamarack. There's a significant wetlands around that whole area. We're wondering how they intend to get roads down in there to II Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 2 I get access to the property. That's what we've asked them to arrive. Can they get access to it. If they can, maybe they can serve it. If they can't, maybe it makes more sense topographically to belong to the City of 1 Chanhassen. Krauss: All we can tell you is what the staff's position is right now I because the Council hasn't had a chance to develop one. We've worked on this property with Lundgren Company for 6 months and we've had some conversations with Victoria as well. We're talking about a piece of land I that's inaccessible to Victoria. That functionally is a part of Chanhassen. They'll use Chanhassen parks. They'll use Chanhassen roads. Our fire department is closer. We get better use of it. There really is no connection to Victoria in a real sense. At a staff level we said the I only way we're going to serve that area outside of the subdivision is if it's part of Chanhassen. I Batzli: You're talking about the park to the south? Krauss: The park to the south and the park to the, the park to the west II is really nominal. Batzli: An extra 40 feet or whatever. II Aanenson: 90 feet x 1000. Batzli: So our position is we want to annex it and it's an issue of 1 whether Victoria feels they can service it? Krauss: Well, there's a pretty tough legal issue involved. You have two willing parties and possibly one unwilling one. And you also have, I there's a couple of exceptions. Some of the existing homes that are technically in Victoria. I mean if you're going to do an annexation it should be a clean line straight up and down so there's a lot of things 1 that would have to fall into place but we've got lawyers working on that. What they've told us is it usually takes a... 1 Batzli: Willing party, meaning Victoria willing? Krauss: Yeah. Apparently what...is relunctant to do contested annexations. But we're still working out some opportunities. 1 Batzli: Were we just wimps when Chaska was taking stuff from us or what? II Krauss: Well that's a question I keep raising. But that was, well. Batzli: That was then, this is now? II Krauss: Well it took place before my tenure here but that was more in the nature of swaps. That's when Chanhassen picked up Gedney Pickle. II Mancino: Paul, what does Victoria get in annexing to us? What...benefit? Aanenson: That's exactly what their question to us is. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 3 Krauss: Victoria has no functional way of serving this property. It would be very expensive for them to serve it. Batzli: I thought that was enough under the old rules. If they can't serve it and we can. Krauss: I thought so too but apparently that's not the case. Batzli: Okay. , Harberts: I just have a question with regards to the annexing of that area. Is that area currently in the MUSA line? Krauss: Well that's kind of curious. In Victoria it is not. Harberts: Well yeah, but would the MUSA line move out? Batzli: We would have to amend it. Krauss: We would have to make it all coincide. i Harberts: Is that a Met Council decision? Paul Krauss' answer was not audible. Harberts: Would the taxing district, the transit taxing district also be ' pushed out too? Krauss: I hadn't thought of that. Harberts: I did. Well, isn't that part of the same question then? Krauss: Well yeah. The taxing jurisdictions would align. In fact we're" looking at ways of working that out with Victoria now. Harberts: So that's the concern I suppose from Victoria. 1 Krauss: Well Victoria's clearly, I mean they're losing potential tax - evenue. There's very little real tax revenue there right now. - berts: What's the cost to the city of Chanhassen to annex it? Is it our benefit to do it? Krauss: We've already got the utilities in the streets in place. Harberts: So it'd be a minimal charge compared to what Victoria would... 11 Aanenson: ...where the service is now, all the way east. We're right there. Harberts: Are they forced to service it? If they're the unwilling party, are they forced to service it? ' Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 4 Krauss: Well no community's ever forced to anything. I mean they can be petitioned to bring utilities in and to relocate the MUSA line. But this is the last party in a very long chain of properties that would have to come first. Harberts: I'm just surprised that they're unwilling. Something's driving them. Krauss: Yeah, I mean it's the Carver County... Batzli: Don't want to give up something for nothing. Okay, thank you for that report. This is a public hearing. Normally, for those of you who have not attended a Planning Commission meeting before, we normally allow the applicant to make a presentation. Then we'll open it up for public comment. When we do so, I ask that you come up to the microphone and give your name and address for the record. I also should mention that what we ' do here is make recommendations to the Council so it's important for you to follow your issue on up to the City Council level. Having said that, do you want to give a presentation for Lundgren Brothers? ' Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Rick Sathre. I'm with Sathre - Berquist in Wayzata. We're the planners and engineers on the project. Also here tonight is Mr. Terry Forbord with Lundgren Brothers. Vice President of Lundgren Brothers and he's going to let me do most of the work and he's going to relax. Just sit there and worry, right Terry? I'd like to go back and help you with a few issues on the map. Staff's written a very concise report and I don't think I have ' to go through all that but I'd like to overview a few things for you and stop me if you already know all this and don't need it. I'll speak louder because I'm going to come over here. Can I use the preliminary plat ' drawing? The big one that shows everything. The one that you did. I'll turn it so north is up. First of all I want you to fully understand what the situation is with where the boundary lines of the site are and whether the municipal boundaries are. The property lines of the Boley property go like this. I'm drawing down in Victoria now but I'll show you where the boundary line is. The property line comes up over here. I'm making a big mess here but. Now I'm going to dash in another line here which is the municipal boundary. This portion of the land right here is Chanhassen. The land, this little strip of land along the west side of the property is Victoria and so is this land down to the south. This is Highway 5 and I this is Minnewashta Parkway. Minnewashta Parkway used to line the city of Victoria but through friendly annexation was brought into Chanhassen. There are exemption properties here that front on Minnewashta Parkway ' owned by others other than Lundgren Bros and Boley that are in Victoria as well. This parcel is the Chanhassen parcel. The other ones to the south are Victoria. What we're before you at present for is seeking preliminary plat approval for this northern portion. That land is already zoned RSF. It's been ready, ripe for development for many years. It's only been the fact that the Boley's weren't ready to sell that kept it out of the marketplace. Certainly there are many issues yet to be resolved with the southerly piece. The annexation issue is very separate from the platting action that we're really pursuing at this moment. At this point in time what we're doing with this strip of land that's in Victoria but is in the back of the lots that are with old homes in Chanhassen, is what we're Planning Commission Meeting 11 February 3, 1993 - Page 5 really proposing to them and to you is that we would cut it u Y P P g o y e up. Cut that strip of land up into backyard spaces and it would just become a passive part of that lot. What we set out to do, I don't know, what should I use Maybe I'll go to, what we've set out to do is create a neighborhood that' very nice. We didn't want to do small lots on this site because of the wonderful views. Terry just put up the colored version of the same drawing. On that big board the blue area is the open water and the light, the yellowish or light green color is the lake basin that's actually in the DNR's jurisdiction. The darker green on that map is wetland that's under city jurisdiction but not under DNR jurisdiction. Then you see the upland area that's got the houses on it. The little blue splotches on there are the NURP ponds or the, we should probably have a quiz. What NURP stand for? 1 ,nson: National Urban Runoff Program. ick Sathre: Good job. I used to call them Walker ponds the last time will ame through with a project because it didn't sound so much like burp. Anyway, we're showing, because the property lies at the peak of a hill, II water runs every different direction. We can't efficiently collect the water and put it in one pond so we've shown four and the idea is to catch all of the street runoff in the storm sewer system and discharge it to one of those four ponds before it gets to the wetland system. .Either the lak. or the southwest corner of the piece. In the design of the project we sell out to create the 40,000 square foot lots for all the riparian lots. All lakeshore lots and we set up all 20,000 square foot lots for the non - lakeshore lots. The City's RSF zoning district requires 90 foot wide, lots whereas the shoreline district requires 125 foot wide lots. We're asking for variances for the lots that aren't tributary to the lake directly anymore. Once the subdivision is created and we have street I systems and NURP ponds and the roads there, we can accomplish the goals I think that the shoreland district was set out to accomplish. That being more green space, less degregation of the resource by using the NURP pond' approach. So we're showing lots, you've got a table in your report that actually lists all the lot widths. We downsized the lots to less than the shoreland district's standards where the water from those lots would be treated by a NURP pond. So then staff is recommending approval of the variances for those lot widths. What we intend here is to seek approval or achieve approvals from Chanhassen and Victoria as well for this platting and proceed with a final plat request and development in 1993. II As rapidly as we can. I guess one other point that I'd make. This ghost plat that we have in the Victoria portion of the property. The southerly portion. You'll see on this drawing the cul -de -sac and lots fanning out which have to be served by coming through Victoria and we think it's better to. We're leaving an outlot in this initial platting which would later be subdivided once streets can be brought from the south side of th hill. It's a wonderful wooded knoll and those lots would remain heavily wooded, even after development. So we've chosen to set aside this hillto for now so that we can do the best job later. A better job later with the subdivision. I think that pretty well covers it. Appreciate your time II and I'll answer any questions. Batzli: I'm sure we'll have some once we start going from Commissioner t Commissioner. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there any public Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 6 comment or someone who would like to address the Commission? After you give us your name and address, step up to the microphone if there is. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Before we ask Nancy to lead off here, has there been any neighborhood meetings? Okay. So a lot of these issues have been talked about with the neighbors already? Terry Forbord: On the 27th I held a neighborhood meeting here in the ' Council chambers. Batzli: Okay. And do you have something that I don't know that you really covered. Do you have any problems with any of the conditions in the staff report? Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Brothers. We've gone through ' the conditions with the staff today and there were a few outstanding issues that, where there was a little confusion such as what is the flood plain elevation and there's no 3 governmental agencies that say it's different and so the way we choose to leave that is we'll just work with ' the staff and whatever those agencies all concur that it is, is what it will be. And the remainder of the items we worked through prior to this meeting. ' Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Nancy, do you want to start out? ' Mancino: Mr. Forbord, I've got a question for you. If you were to describe this subdivision once it's all done in a few words, how would you describe it? Just for example, I'm thinking of your, I go by your is it Willow Ridge subdivision? And you have a positioning line under the words Willow Ridge. It says, unique environemtnally sensitive neighborhood. And that has caught my eye every time I've gone by it and one of the ways it caught my eye was saying to myself, is this kind of a positioning line for this company in the differentiation from the other neighborhood... subdivisions. How would you describe this new subdivision if you were to give me three words that you would like to say? Would you use those three? Would you use other ones? Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros. Willow Ridge, if you've followed that project. I'm not sure if you did, but for the City of 1 Chanhassen and certainly I think it's fair to say for the development community as a whole. Not just Lundgren Bros, although I think it's fair to say that we've always been environmentally conscience. But the world's changed a lot in just the last few years. What was acceptable as little as 2 -3 years ago is not acceptable anymore and we've all learned a little bit. And the idea, I guess we're paying for the sins of the past a little bit but the idea is that we try to get better at what we do and not stay the same. Now for those of who have worked in the city for a long time, Chanhassen is certainly acknowledged to be kind of a forerunner in it's pursuit in the environmentally sensitive legislation or ordinances to 11 protect the many complexes of wetlands and water bodies that they have Planning Commission Meeting , February 3, 1993 - Page 7 within this city. And we've always applauded that and we think that's what makes Chanhassen kind of a nice place to live. Willow Ridge kind of happened to fall into the process, the governmental process right at a 11 point in time when Chanhassen was kind of rethinking how they went about some of those things, and it was a very difficult piece of property because it was a land assembly involving two parcels. And because of a wetland that was there and a couple other complexes and other situations,, how do you work around it. And then how do you create this preservation zone. The biggest issue was, how do you create a zone around a sensitive environmental, physical sensitive environment that in perpetuity it won't ' be hopefully... regardless of what conditions you impose on the developer Once the homeowner moved in, the homeowner could do whatever they wanted to do, and that still occurs. Well staff, in collusion with staff we 11 developed a methodology where we think we've accomplished it. Only time will tell but that was to create preservation zones and deed restrictions that actually is on the deed of every home. The title of every home that people buy as well as covenants that are part of, that emcumber the property as well. And there's also an informational packet in every - chase agreement that the people buy. If they buy a home in there so --e's all this stuff. So I'm not trying to pontificate here but the ;_. _nt I'm trying to make is, that's why we chose those words. Is because" was really something that probably hadn't been done before so we tried, -e thought it was unique and we thought it was environmentally sensitive. What 3 words would we use on the Boley property? It's an entirely different set of circumstances. We would like to think that it will be equally as environmentally sensitive as Willow Ridge and we will have the same type of deed restrictions and we will work through city staff to haul these preservation areas because we don't want people going down and cutting down the cattails and riprapping the shoreline of Lake St. Joe. We don't want that either so forgive me for not having 3 words to come up with but the intent is pretty much the same. Rick Sathre: I've got 3 words. Dramatic long views. Terry Forbord: It does have exceptional views. I think it's even pointe out in the staff report that Minnewashta, Lake Minnewashta and I think even portions of the Minnetonka area can be seen from the property. ' Mancino: Thank you. What is the name of the proposed subdivision? wick Sathre: There hasn't been a marketing name chosen. Lundgren Bros f'pically doesn't, they don't spend the considerable time necessary to pick the name, the right name until farther through the design process when the exact market of housing is determined and the exact features to ' go into the neighborhood are decided. For instance the Willow Ridge name came very late in that planning process. That was Ortenblat /Ersbo forever and that's pretty typical but I would assure that this wouldn't be platte as the Boley Addition either. Or at least I don't think it will be. Mancino: Do you choose the name before the final plat approval? Rick Sathre: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Also, do you choose the name of the public streets? Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 8 Rick Sathre: Yes. ' Mancino: At that time? Rick Sathre: Yes. Mancino: Is there any proposal for street lighting? Are you going to have lighting inside, interior in the loop? In the cul -de -sac area? ' Hempel: Mr. Chair, maybe I can answer that one a little bit better. The City does require city street lights be installed. Locations to be determined between staff and the developer. Typically they're placed at ' intersections, dead ends, the cul -de -sacs and usually spaced 400 to 600 feet apart. The street lights are required. The developer's required to escrow a fee of $200.00 per street light for electricity it costs for the first 2 years. After that the street lights are put on the city's monthly bill for electricity and maintenance. So every residential and commercial development does have street lights put in with it. ' Mancino: Okay, and then the design is approved by? Hempel: The street light design of the lighting standard or the location, or both? Mancino: Both. ' Hempel: Okay. We're somewhat limited on the design type. We purchase the, or I should say we actually lease the street lights from NSP. They have I think 3 or 4 different designs that are utilized. Typically we use the colonial style that you'll see pretty much around town in newer subdivisions. Location again, that's normally determined by staff and the developer. Mancino: Any proposal for sidewalks? Rick Sathre: No. No. We typically don't advocate them. It's been our experience in the. Aanenson: I was just going to say. There is a new trail going on Minnewashta Parkway. Mancino: To the east. On the east side of the road. Yeah. Rick Sathre: We would install sidewalks where there was a problem with conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. If a street was heavily traveled, there was a safety issue but typically we don't advocate sidewalks on local neighborhood streets. Because of personal opinion. We don't think that sidewalks necessarily are typical of suburbia, at least in our view. Mancino: Another question that I have, and I guess that this is more for Kate. One of the things that I was thinking about is, you get all these homes and families and kids and they're all going to want to go down to the lake. How do they get down to the lake? Planning Commission Meeting II February 3, 1993 - Page 9 II Aanenson: There is an access. A DNR access off of Minnewashta Parkway. Mancino: But aren't they going to cut through everybody's backyards and II aren't we going to destroy some of the wetland that are surrounding the lake? Aanenson: Well, they are private yards you know. 1 Mancino: Okay. Does any development that has the wetlands around the lake like that, do they ever have one path that everybody takes? There's" a common area? Whatever it's called so that families don't use all different trails. Aanenson: The Parks Board did look at that issue because that was II discussed and they felt that there is an access that is provided right now and they thought that was a more desireable than to impose that upon the lots adjoining. So their desire is for people to go onto Minnewashta ' Parkway and use that access. They did discuss that and they felt that access to the subdivision wasn't appropriate. Mancino: And how's that communicated to the families in the II subdivision? Aanenson: In the covenants, as Terry mentioned earlier. We'll mark the landscaping vegetation and when they get their covenants, that they're no to go in there and mow that and it's supposed to be left natural state of vegetation. Not to be disturbed, yeah. And no structures. , e.uss: The odd person working in there isn't going to hurt anything. -e's unlikely to be a real beaten down path. It is all private II .,erty. It doesn't go anywhere. I mean there's no place to go once ;ou're down there. Aanenson: You mean if you wanted to walk a dog or something or go down ill there? Mancino: Well you know how kids are. They want to go down... II Aanenson: Sure, I don't see that as, yeah. Mancino: There was also a dock down there when I walked the property. 1 There is an existing dock by the hockey or the ice skating rink that was made so does that come out? Are property owners allowed to put docks down into the lake? II Aanenson: I believe that's Mr. Boley's right now, if I'm correct. Well we recommended as part of the staff report that Mr. Boley's house would II have to be...platted and we can add that to the condition. That the dock come out. Rick Sathre: We're not proposing any community dock structure for all thl residents but each of the homeowners that own the lot that adjoined the lake would have the rights of typical lake owners. Although this lake isn't a prime recreational lake. It's really a, it's something beautiful" II ' Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 10 to look at more than it is to use. But there would be some, I'm sure there would be differences in how people would enjoy the lake. Some would want to go down there and canoe and others would never probably canoe. Or ' go in the lake and fish. But you are right I'm sure about the kids. They would tend to, some of the kids would run around out in the wetland and they don't see property lines like adults do. But I'd hope they'd be ' typically good children. Mancino: Typically good. ' Aanenson: Above average. Mancino: Yes. Street width. You have proposed a 60 foot wide right-of- way with a 31 foot wide street pavement. Now this is an urban residential local street correct? Is that the right specification? ' Hempel: That's correct. Mancino: So that you are required to do a 60 foot wide right -of -way and ' your pavement width can be between 28 and 32 feet. And my question was, wanting to keep as much green space as possible, why did you go for the 31 foot instead of 28 foot? Rick Sathre: I think it'd be safe to say that we would choose to install ' the narrowest street that the engineering department would be comfortable with. So we're guessing what the standard would be but we don't want to ' overbuild the road as far as width. Hempel: Mr. Chairman. The 31 foot back to back street width is a standard, street standard for urban section that we use. We've typically ' maintained that width unless we are preserving trees. We, in the cases have narrowed it down to 28 but generally speaking we've maintained a 31 foot wide back to back curb street. ' Mancino: I'd love to see a 28, if that meets the guidelines, and supposedly, from what I've read it does. ' Hempel: It may come down to a parking issue. Some of the city streets if we continue to narrow it. Right now your children and so forth are going to be playing or accessing Minnewashta Parkway via the street. By narrowing it up, you're taking some of the room away for them to travel with their bicycles or walk. Then if the next question is, if we narrow it up and then provide a space for the children to walk, then we're losing that green space by putting in sidewalks. So we've held pretty, generally pretty tight with the 31 foot wide street for the last 4 years. And again the only times we've really narrowed them up is if we can save trees and in some instances, like the Summit at Near Mountain. The developer incorporated boulder retaining walls and so forth in an effort to save trees and maintain the street width so we're pretty standard with that 31 foot wide for the two lanes of traffic and to be able to park a vehicle and still maintain the two lanes of traffic by that parked car. Mancino: I see where city landscaping plan or the ordinance requires 1 tree per lot. I would like you to consider something unique and that is Planning Commission Meeting ' February 3, 1993 - Page 11 putting boulevard planted trees into the entrance of the subdivision on II both sides of the street. I'd just like to hear your thoughts on that. You have gorgeous oaks at the beginning on that northeastern corner. They're big and beautiful. Rick Sathre: Lundgren Bros is the developer of the Near Mountain neighborhood in northeastern Chanhassen and I think, I'm sure you've been" through there. Maybe you even live there, I'm not sure. I don't know where you live but I think what you'll find in their neighborhoods that have been developed to date is that there's a great many more plantings, I trees and shrubs planted than any city ordinance ever requires because they try to create an image. They try to excite a buyer. What separates a good subdivision from a poor one, it's a lot of times it's attention to , detail and Lundgren is magnificent at their attention to detail. Their signage and their landscape treatments. Your taste and their's may be different on any given project but I would hope that you would be very pleased with the end result. To date there is not a landscape, a detailell landscaped plan put together. It generally doesn't come until the final development phase. But there would be a coordination between the entrance signage and the landscaping around the entrance area and they tend to cluster plantings where there will be more drama to it than just planting, a tree every 50 feet or 100 feet or whatever. One in each yard generally doesn't create as much drama as clustering. As we go forward you'll see • more information. Batzli: I know you're itching to tell us why we can't do boulevard trees. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, typically with the boulevards they're expressly foil .Ptilities. We have the gas company. Telephone. NSP and so forth. It Bally limits the areas where a boulevard tree can go. The boulevard tre - actually become a real maintenance problem. Even though they are atiful in the boulevard areas when they get mature, they do take a lot maintenance with tree trimming and watering and if they die, they end A having to be replaced and so forth. They may even become a public safety hazard with vehicles running into them. Batzli: You and Dick need to talk about that too. There's some history to that whole thing. Go ahead, please. Mancino: I'm done. II Batzli: Oh, okay. On the landscaping issue. When are they required to do landscaping? Detailed landscaping plan. At what point? Aanenson: Before they go for final plat. Yeah. We put that as one of II the conditions. They need streetscape. That's a requirement of the landscaping ordinance, along Minnewashta Parkway. Batzli: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I have a couple of questions for city staff before I ask my questions that may or may not make any sense. On the wetland area that w have on the map here, it says edge of wetland. Inside here we have a notation there is no vegetation or this area is farmed and you're talking" Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 12 about fill that will go, Y ou want to make sure that the fill stays back or setback from that within a certain area. It says 10 to 30 feet, 20 on the ' average. Is that back from that line or does that include that line? Aanenson: Yeah. No, you have 40 foot of building setback and then from the edge of the wetland you'll have an average of 20 feet of native plantings brought in. ' Farmakes: Okay, and there is no native planting at this time according to your assessment? Aanenson: Correct. 1 Farmakes: So in looking at that, and going back to the ordinary high water mark, and then looking that there's a 4.3 difference between the ' ordinary high water mark and the flood stage where they're going to be dumping fill, or you don't want them to be dumping fill. Isn't that past that setback then? Are they going to be dumping fill past that setback? Aanenson: Yeah. That's what Dave raised part of that in one of his conditions. Number 4. That's the one we're talking about we need to get clarification of. Farmakes: Okay, but there's only 4 feet difference in elevation. I can't tell on the map exactly where the 4.3 feet would be in elevation difference between the first line we see, ordinary high water level mark and the flood stage. Rick Sathre: This line right here is 945.2. That's the DNR's ordinary high water mark and that drawing that Terry had up before, that's the line between the light green or the yellow area and the dark green. That's the DNR jurisdiction line. Where the dark green meets the white, that's the wetland edge. The actual city wetland edge as field located by the biologist and then we surveyed that line. Aanenson: So from that line you'll go the extra vegetation. Rick Sathre: ...10 or 20 feet uphill from that, uphill from where the dark green is would be that buffer strip that's no touch. Then the next 40 feet up above that is backyard but you can't build in it. Farmakes: Okay, but when you say no touch, you're talking about the ' consumer because I'm looking, I'm having a hard time resolving the elevation maps. Seeing exactly where that 4.3 difference is and I'm looking on 5 where it says the applicant should not place fill material below the 100 year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe which is at 949.5 and that's where I'm getting the 4.3 difference in feet. Rick Sathre: There is 4.3 feet difference between the 945.2 line. The 11 yellow green boundary and that arbitrary elevation that the Watershed District came up with. What was stated earlier in the meeting was that the real 100 year flood elevation is probably halfway through the green i area. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 13 Farmakes: And there's three differences of opinion on this sort of thing. So does any of the fill go within that green area is my question? ' Rick Sathre: No. None of the fill goes into that green area and in fact the first 10 or 20 or 30 feet of the white area on there would be planted in some native type grass that would be not maintained. It would not be II mowed. It would be like at Willow Ridge where we have established the same sort of a buffer zone. Aanenson: It'd be like this...edge of the wetland and it tapers down. That's the wetland edge. So it won't go past that. Farmakes: Now this brings me to my next question. In trying to calculat and look at these types of things, and we're looking at the area that would be facing to the north. Towards the lake and I think we went through this the last time with Lundgren on Lake Lucy. You have kind of 11 tendency to develop difficult types of property next to wetlands and we were looking at square footage and again on our calculations we have square footage as actual and area above wetlands but I still, without taking a ruler or a calculator, I still don't know what the buildable square footage is. And that, it seems to me that they're all above 20,00 square feet but again, they're all different shapes of property so I'm trying to, it would be helpful if, and we've talked about this before, seeing buildable square footage. Because from a practical standpoint, obviously everybody on here knows when we get these types of complaints or variances, it's because somebody can't put a deck in or whatever. It doesn't fit in the property. And it doesn't do any good to look at 121,000 square feet of property when there's really only 20,000 square feet there. II Krauss: Jeff, there is a table we asked them to provide...being flashed up here. I think you can see that all the lots, when you eliminate the wetland, some of them have very substantial wetlands but when you eliminate the wetlands they're still all bigger than we normally require II for flat land on a cornfield anyway. Farmakes: Yes. But I'm also looking at some of the contours of these , properties and trying to evaluate how they would fit into traffic patterns, things of that nature. It gets difficult when you have to go and re- calculate it yourself with the setbacks and setback back from the ' edge of the wetlands. Aanenson: Well I did that with the Attachment #1. I went through each oll those lots and gave you the area above the wetland plus the wetland setback in trying to figure out how close they would be. Farmakes: Is there a reason that somewhere on this chart that we can't II see buildable square footage? Aanenson: Isn't that area above wetlands? 1 Krauss: Well no. I think what Jeff is getting at is that you've got to knock out the wetland setback. Planning Commission ion Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 14 Farmakes: Yes. Batzli: Does the area above wetlands include the dark green strip? Aanenson: No. Batzli: No? Okay. What can you build within the 40 foot setback from the dark green strip? Krauss: Nothing. ' Batzli: Can you put a deck back there? Farmakes: See, and that's my point. Krauss: It's your backyard. Batzli: Yeah, but I mean most people can put a deck in their backyard. ' We've got a building setback and then, well no you can't. Aanenson: You can't. It's got to be outside of that wetland. Batzli: There are some structures that can go back there and most can't. Aanenson: Swingset. Harberts: A swingset can go back there? In the green? Aanenson: What did we say in the final ordinance. I'm not sure I remember. Accessory structures. Olsen: It depends on how we define structure. It gets back into that whole. Batzli: I thought we did that at one point. Aanenson: Yeah, right. We did. Batzli: I thought we said 10 feet for sandboxes, swingsets, stuff like that. Is that right? In the back. Okay. Farmakes: The point that I'm trying to make here is that it would be beneficial if we know what is buildable and what is not. Rick Sathre: I can't help you with square footage right off the top of my head but what we've allowed for is the house area and the deck area on each lot. The absolute minimum is 65 feet and a lot of them are 75 or 85 feet. Farmakes: Yes. I see that on here but I'm, I am not actually addressing your particular development. This is a problem that we've had with other developments. One of them happened to be the one on Lake Lucy and it would be a lot easier to concept this if we know what is buildable and what is not. In other words, what can a homeowner build on. Put a deck Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 15 out. Put a swingset. Where would they have to stop? And then eliminate that so we can see what is a true building pad. Going to the extended in the future on the street. Is that a temporary sign then? Would that be II categorized as a temporary sign? Does it have a time limit or is that left up until that street changes? Aanenson: So that people are aware that there's a possibility that street can go through. Farmakes: Are we going to require, if it has more of a longevity than a II temporary sign, are we going to require? Krauss: Well it's not a temporary sign. ' Farmakes: It will be a permanent sign? Krauss: It's a metal sign affixed to a barricade that will come down if II and when the street's extended. It becomes our sign. It's part of our improvement. Farmakes: So it will be a good enough sign that won't become an eyesore?" Aanenson: Right. = On the two corner areas to the west, I believe it would be. =e little loops there? I'm not familiar with those type of traffic =as that come out where the sort of cul -de -sac comes right up to the . traffic. Is that sort of a fielder's choice when you're coming out of your house which way you're going to go? Krauss: They're a real common technique. I don't particularly care for II them for that reason and it's a lot of blacktop but it's often times the only way, they're called eyebrows. The only way to service a series of ' lots that you can avoid private drives. Farmakes: Is Public Safety comfortable with that sort of thing? It seem to me that even coming into your house, that you'll have a lot of cross traffic patterns. Krauss: There's so little traffic on it. 1 Aanenson: The same with a cul -de -sac. Batzli: 90% of the time you're going to have kids playing street hockey II in there. There's never any traffic. Farmakes: Alright. That's the extent of my questions. Oh, by the way., I have no problem with not having access to that lake. Anybody who has a few hundred feet of cattails in their backyard between them and the lake knows that it would be $10,000.00 to dig out a hole to get to the lake soli from a practical standpoint you're probably not going to get a lot of people applying to do that. Although I can think of one. Batzli: Thanks Jeff. Joe. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 16 ' Scott: Just a question. When you're talking about, I think it was Attachment #4 that talks about the maximum 3:1 slope. If we've got a potential 4 foot difference between jurisdictions A, B and C, does that mean that conceiveably we could in effect lose 12 feet, or 13 feet, depending upon? Aanenson: No. 1 Hempel: No Mr. Chairman, because the wetland edge is the actual...for filling. ' Scott: Okay. Kate, where's that access for Lake St. Joe that you were talking about? Aanenson: Pardon me, the what? Scott: You said there was an access to Lake St. Joe. ' Aanenson: It's further up. Scott: It doesn't show. Rick Sathre: About halfway up the eastern side. 2/3 of the way up the eastern side. Krauss: It's a signed DNR access. ' Aanenson: It's up in this area. Up in I believe it's up in this area here. The parking area right there. It's a flat area that's marked DNR with a brown sign there. Lake access. Scott: And then according to the Park and Rec group, they were quite happy just to take the park fee per lot and not try to turn that into a recreational? Aanenson: Yeah, as trail. That was discussed. Trails around the lake and they felt the quality and because there was access already to the lake. ' Krauss: Yeah, I did. Joe, I did have the opportunity to speak to Todd about that again this afternoon. What was discussed, and it's been discussed in the past is the possibility of doing a boardwalk type of set up around the west side of the lake. I guess it's fair to say that everybody on staff thought it would be a dandy idea to do it. That it would be very attractive. On the other hand, it's extraordinarily expensive and what Todd pointed out is that it's tough to justify that kind of expense with a park in that location. If this were in the center of town on a main trail system where people, as some parks I'm familiar with in Minnetonka. Hundreds of people would use it everyday, it may be worth it. Todd didn't feel that in this instance you could justify it being that it's on the far western edge of the city and pretty isolated. r Scott: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions. 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 17 1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Ladd. Conrad: Rick, what do you think of our new wetland ordinance? Rick Sathre: I think it's creative. I think the idea of a buffer strip II and setback in combination is much more effective than just a greater distance and having mowed grass right up to the edge of the wetland. Conrad: It shows the flexibility that we're striving for. Any criticisms" Rick Sathre: Not yet. It's pretty new. I don't have many experience with it yet. Batzli: Ladd, I think you've got a criticism out in the audience there. Conrad: Yes Terry, I'm interested. Terry Forbord: I think it's a great ordinance. I just think that the preservation zone should be inclusive in the setback. Batzli: The 10 to 30 feet should be part of the 40 foot setback? Terry Forbord: ...problems in plats as they come before you. A lot of II problems making sites very difficult to develop. Batzli: From an economic standpoint? 1 Terry Forbord: Not just an economic but some cases, logistics. Because there might be distances between wetlands. You're trying to get streets, -Dme sites and you're trying to do all these other things. There may be dope. There may be some trees. There may be all kinds of other things but I think the quest is noble. If that's not the issue. But I think II there needs to be, it's like in a PUD ordinance. The reason you have a PUD ordinance is to provide flexibility because you're going to run into that unique situation that's going to make it so you can't do it. And I just think it should be inclusive. That's my personal opinion. Aanenson: Let me just add. This is a natural classification wetland. W haven't got that many so it's the most restrictive. But it's still less restrictive than what we had before so. He's allowed to be build closer than we would have on the old ordinance but yet it's still one of our most restrictive wetlands. 1 Batzli: Let me ask one question before, while Ladd's shuffling his papers. I'll let him get ready here. If the ordinary high water mark changes so that the fill, the edge of the wetland doesn't change but the II 100 year flood line may. Is that right? Aanenson: Yes. 1 Batzli: So if you look at Attachment #4, the slope that they've got currently goes all the way down to the edge of the wetland? Now is that what's going to change because they can't put fill in the ordinary high water mark so that that slope will change? 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 18 Rick Sathre: Let me take a run at that. If the 100 year flood elevation 11 is really determined to be 4.3 feet higher than the DNR's, what the DNR thinks the ordinary high water level is, which is think is wrong. I don't think it is that high. But if it is, we would either have to seek an ' approval to fill some of the flood plain area that isn't in the wetland. What that 949.5 elevation actually goes outside the wetland. Batzli: Right. Rick Sathre: And we don't think that's correct. But if it was, then our choices would be to seek approval to fill some of the flood fringe or to fill it. And the second choice would be to fill some and excavate elsewhere so we didn't change the overall volume of flood area. Or a third option would be to pull away. But I don't think any of those options will be necessary to be played out because in reality I'm sure the real 100 year flood elevation is downhill farther somewhere. Batzli: Now when you petition to fill within the ordinary high water mark, who do you petition? You don't petition us. We don't control that. Do we Dave? Hempel: The ordinary high is DNR but in this jurisdiction it would be the Watershed District because it's within the flood fringe or flood plain area. That's the area above the ordinary high water mark. Batzli: Now do we care whether they do that other than it potentially effects the slopes of these backyards. Hempel: I don't think it would effect, it wouldn't effect us from a, city standpoint other than the flood storage. If in fact as Rick mentioned, that that elevation was accurate from the Watershed District. Batzli: Okay. Go ahead Ladd. ' Conrad: Stay up there Rick. What do you think of islands? Rick Sathre: Islands in cul -de -sacs? Conrad: Yes. Rick Sathre: Islands in the lakes are nice. Islands in cul -de -sacs are I nice. Conrad: What do you think of eyebrows? We've got a new term here. I don't like eyebrows. I think they're terrible. Why? Are you staying away from putting an island in these because of your own design or because of a concern about city? Rick Sathre: We stayed away from, well we did this technique so that it would be obvious to the Planning Commission and City Council that these lots met the RSF standards or exceeded them. I think it would be nicer if those, if that street bubble wasn't out there so far and the driveways, the houses stayed where they were and maybe just had longer driveways. I 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 19 , like that. Or I'd like an island in the middle of the cul -de -sac. We haven't proposed them yet. Conrad: I wish you would. And we'll stop the conversation there. I wis you would. Maybe city staff will reject it. Maybe City Council would bu 120 foot little bubble here is basically, it's a lot of pavement and I guess I just don't see the point when we could put an island in. There's 120 feet there. Our standard for an island is 48 feet, if we approve our ordinance tonight. Plenty of room for that. Anyway. Just a thought. Batzli: Paul. Krauss: Well if I could just touch on the idea of the island. I mean this has come up before at Planning Commission meetings and frankly Planning staff has agreed with it. This came up, we brought it up to the' City Council probably, I don't know, 5 -6 months ago. The City Council said that they agreed with you and instructed the City Engineer to come up with some standards that would allow islands to exist. Now that hasn't been done yet but I think everybody's starting to fall into place on that But I think Rick proposed something in there that I think we would go , long with. Having demonstrated the case that no variances are required here, there'd probably a preference to eliminate the eyebrows, get rid of the blacktop and just extend the driveways down. So we'll have a few funny front yard lot lines but effectively the lots don't change. You just extend the lines out closer to the street. And that eliminates the II problem in it's entirety. There is one question that results, and our engineering department would have to look at it but it occurs on curves. And what you'd have is you'd have 3 driveways coming together on one cure' and then when the snowplow comes around, they get innudated. But that probably could be worked out if the Planning Commission's comfortable with that approach. ' Conrad: Well I'd just like to challenge your thinking on that and I know Lundgren Bros wants to do a nice design and something that's sellable. I guess what I'm looking at is really just not attractive and it's a lot of 11 asphalt so however you want to work that out between staff. I think you should just challenge yourself on that design. Terry, I'm trying to move along here. We're beating a lot of things into the ground. Yeah. Batzli: Go ahead Terry. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. I don't want to confuse the Planning Commission because often times we come forth with proposals that include II some of the items that Planning Commissioner Conrad has just raised. And if I was in your shoes, you're probably saying well, geez. Why does Lundgren Bros do that on this proposal but they don't do it on that proposal? I can summarize for you very quickly why that occurs. We woul prefer narrower streets. We would prefer more green space. We would always prefer islands but in certain types of projects, the scope of the project or the scale of the project is no longer worth the battle. Fighting the countless tabled actions by either the Planning Commission or the Council over things that, I mean they're just not worth the fight. W do believe and agree exactly with what you have said. But it's not worth championing the cause every time, even though it may be right. And so 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 20 there are times when we may take a step back and just say, we're coming in with a standard subdivision. It's not a PUD. We're trying to make a simple decision for the city but it may not make the nicest development. But after a while you get tired of fighting the battle. i ' Conrad: Well I wish you'd revisit this issue. It's sort of your call. It's your call. In my mind, what you think is appropriate should go in there. It's just a terrific amount of concrete. My last point, wetland ordinance states that a monument is required every 300 feet on the wetland edge and it's kind of fun to take a look at the new ordinance and see how it applies. Basically it says that that monument goes every other lot. Surprise. Surprise. Krauss: No, actually there's two sections to that. It says, and I don't have it in front of me. It sounds like you might. But it says that either you put it on every property line, every property corner where the wetland buffer exists. But if there's a huge amount of space, then it's got to be every 300 feet. Conrad: So will this go on every property? Krauss: Yes. Conrad: Okay. That's all. Batzli: Okay, thank you Ladd. Diane. Harberts: I just have a comment with regard to the green and the light green as it deals with wetlands. Is it communicated to the potential owners then where the limitations are for building? 1 Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Harberts? Harberts: Harberts, yes. 1 Rick Sathre: Yes. The Lundgren Bros constantly evolves their product in both their house and also the documents they provide the owners. Each one of them will receive a small drawing that shows on paper that there's this buffer strip and the wetland beyond it. But also on the ground, as Commissioner Conrad eluded to, there would be a sign on the ground as well that defines the buffer area and the wetlands. So both in paper. t Harberts: But they're going to understand this when they purchase the property? 11 Rick Sathre: Right. They have to review those documents before they can sign the purchase agreement. They can't, Lundgren Bros does not let them buy before they've done that. I/ Harberts: But they will understand though what those markers are all about. What the wetlands policy is, or whatever ordinance for Chanhassen. That's the point coming from just purchasing a home that had a designated wetland there that was not stipulatedin the purchase agreement. 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 21 1 Rick Sathre: I can't stand here and say, tell you absolutely that the husband and wife would always read everything and fully understand it. III certainly hope they do. It's there for them and certainly not something that Lundgren Bros hides or wants to hide. They want to fully disclose all of this information. But some people may scan over it or. That's th� purpose of that sign out there too. To say, hey. Wake up. Harberts: Right, exactly. That's why I'm just wondering, does the average public person understand what wetlands issues are all about. Whall the ordinances are. I mean it's something new to the typical laymen so it'-s just a comment, from that perspective. Second thing, again it's jus a comment. As it deals with the wetland, and I'm familiar with the different classes or levels of wetlands. I think Kate made a comment that this is a natural setting. And it has to do with boat docks. Help me here to understand that, it was my understanding that in the wetland you II t go in and build anything in there but yet they're talking about _ portunity to go in and put a boat dock in there if they want to? Mr. Boley has a dock right now. 1 harberts: Right. Aanenson: Currently, if you wanted to put a dock across the wetland, you have to get a wetland alteration permit. Harberts: Okay. Yeah, I read about that. Aanenson: That's a process you can go through. I think it is circumstance. What they're envisioning is. Harberts: Because of the excessive cost. II Aanenson: Well, it's a long ways. It's a substantial, a couple hundred feed to get all the way across that and I'm not sure anybody, it would have to be the elevated boardwalk type to get all the way down is the on111 way we'd allow it to go in. Or you would allow a variance. Allow the vegetation to grow underneath and we just don't envision it. And because there's one on the other side, I think that meets the needs. Harberts: That's it. Batzli: Okay, thank you. I don't have a lot of questions here. I've kind of snuck them in as we've gone. Hope I didn't tick off too many people up here. I wanted to note that Lundgren Bros was masticistic rather than masacistic. I figured that means that they just eat a lot orli something in our Minutes from the Park and Rec Committee. Anyway. In answer to your question. Comment. Nobody understands about wetlands that's not probably in this room, or something. And so the first thing they want to do is, the first thing they'll do is they'll try and figure II out what they can do with the wetlands to mow it or do something like that. That's an educational process that the city's going through as part of it's wetlands SWMP committee. Publishing informational items. Things" like that. Trying to get it in the newspapers. Trying to make people more aware of those issues. Not to use fertilizers, things like that in 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 22 their backyard. The one question I guess I had left was on the variances. What is our regular, not to talk about the variances for a minute but what is our regular lot frontage on a road? Aanenson: 90 feet. Batzli: 90? So for example, if you look at Lot 23, Block 1, which is 88. I Darn close to 90. Rick Sathre: The width is measured at the building setback. Aanenson: At the 30 foot setback. So that would be, I scaled that one to be about 100. Batzli: Okay. What about Lot 13? That's going to be filled way back as well. Aanenson: That's a flag lot. That would meet the standard at the 30 foot setback. Batzli: Okay. Now on the analysis for the variance, what is the upshot of us getting this particular variance from the standpoint of, does the State not like us? Does the State not give us money? Do we not, are we not in compliance with their rules? What are we doing here by giving the variance on the shoreland regulations? Krauss: Well Jo Ann can throw in on this too, but we've had a lot of dialogue with the DNR over that particular standard for a number of years. In fact I think we even had them on this property. The DNR regulations, and we put a comment in the staff report about it. The DNR regulations were really designed for statewide perspective and just don't work very well in the metro area. In fact the DNR has a new shoreland set of regs that we're supposed to be working on that we're going to be looking at giving ourselves a little latitude with that. The DNR reserves the right to review the variance and theoretically they have the right to deny it. I think. We've never been quite sure on that but. Olsen: They can, if they don't agree they can even take us to court. Krauss: But we've examined this issue with them before and they have agreed with us. Especially when we're doing, going to the lengths of 11 tipping the site back so that it flows in the other direction into NURP basins. We're doing everything they want you to do. They've agreed with us in the past. We expect they'll agree with us on this one too. Batzli: Are we prepared to give this variance on every single other development that comes through? Krauss: To be honest, I'm probably willing to recommend that you do. When we rewrite the shoreland regs, we want to eliminate having this problem. Batzli: And how can we write the shoreland regs to comply with the Minnesota requirements and eliminate this problem? Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 23 Krauss: Well, there's a new State law in effect and then a community, what they do is they write sort of a model and the communities are obligated to adopt something like it. And we'll adopt something like it, it just won't have that in there. Batzli: I thought they had to approve what we did and look at it. Krauss: They do, and this is an ongoing dialogue that we've been having II with them for literally a year. Olsen: We even applied for flexibility. But we have to provide justification. They have a separate form that we have to fill out. You II have to convince them that those regulations do not apply to. Batzli: So what lot width do we end up with? What do we feel comfortabli with? Or do we just care about the within 1,000 feet aspect? Olsen: Well this is the within 1,000 feet that you're talking about. Aanenson: What we're saying with the square footage requirements, we're not, by making the lot narrower at the street frontage, it's not effectin the density so it's really a moot issue. I mean what difference does it make as far as lot frontage? Olsen: It's not the street frontage. It's just the lake frontage. 1 Krauss: They're most concerned with. Batzli: I'm concerned that. 1 Krauss: On longer lakeshore. We're not changing that. - 1z1i: Well, I'm not concerned about your reasoning so much as there is , ..asis that I can see to grant the variance in here other than, there's •ational to get it here that it seems like we have to give it - rywhere else because there is no analysis of why it's proper here and II would not be proper somewhere else, and that's what I'm concerned about. Krauss: I'm not sure if you'll buy this argument but it's one I've taken...is that the hardship here is an inappropriate State law. Or Stat rule. It just did not consider this situation. There's no hardship of the property here. It's not in your typical sense a variance. But the II hardship is an inappropriate standard. Batzli: You're right, I don't buy it because every time you need a variance it's because of a statute and it's your opinion in this instance" that it's improper but you're not presenting me with a reason. Aanenson: You don't understand. Paul doesn't agree with it period. Not in this instance. Batzli: But that's subjective. You're giving me your subjective analysi of, that this is improper and what I'm saying is, everybody that comes in � 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 24 11 here is now going to get this variance and I guess you're telling me, don't worry about it. Krauss: There is not a lake in the Twin Cities metro area that complies with that standard. Aanenson: We've done it on other lakeshore lots on Minnewashta that don't have the. Krauss: And it's something the DNR staff has agreed with so. Well, some DNR staff. Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman? Batzli: Yes. Rick Sathre: I think the two important issues here, I don't know if you'd hang your hat on them or not but number one, we aren't increasing the density. We're configuring the lots so they're more efficient from a street cost standpoint. We've still got the 20,000 square foot lots. We just made them deeper and narrower instead of wider and shorter. So they're just a different shaped rectangle. The other, but more importantly I think from the DNR standpoint or from a public environmental benefit standpoint is the fact that the shoreland standards were drafted with, to number one, control density and lakeshore or this shoreland district use. Also, I think the reason they were controlling density was so that there'd be less hard cover and less polluted runoff reaching the water bodies. Well what Chanhassen has done here, in your city, you've decided we're going to protect our wetlands. We're going to do NURP ponds. Where we're gathering all this urbanized runoff and treating it, we accomplish the same goal that the strict adherence to the shoreland 11 standards would, in fact you're bettering it. You're doing better than the shoreland standard would ask you to. So I think you do have terrific justification to vary from the standard because you've already bettered the situation that the DNR foresaw. Batzli: I have a difficult conceptional time with that. The eyebrows, I kind of like the eyebrows from the standpoint that it gives the kids ' someplace to play other than the street and there's no park right here. And so I wouldn't mind an eyebrow. You can put an island in the other one. Having said that, is there a motion? 11 Conrad: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #93 -1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with variances and the following conditions. Conditions per the staff report except in number 4. If staff agrees, I'd eliminate the one line that says, which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. I don't know how else to word it so just eliminating those words knowing that everybody will come to some kind of consensus as to what it actually is. Point number 14, eliminating 8, 9, 10, 11 from the variance. Lots needing the variance but also in that same point, Brian I'm a little bit with you and a little bit concerned in terms of rational. I think Rick and Terry and staff were meeting, I think we're doing what's right. Yet on the 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 25 ' other hand, I have a real hard time saying, well we know it's right but w haven't, I haven't justified it. And I don't know that I don't want to, two double negatives. I don't want to put in a position of setting a precedent. I want the rational for these variances to be very specific in terms of, it can't be duplicated again. I don't want to be forced into II granting variances in the future subdivision because of that we just did here. I don't mind what we're trying to do but it's got to be worded so when somebody presses me, I can say it was specifically because of this and right now I hear general terms but I'm not comfortable with the general terms that I could defend it the next time through. You don't need to respond Paul but I need that. Krauss: Well I think we can certainly add an intent for the variance. Conrad: No, but what you're saying is we don't believe in what the o-c _ nance . fuss: Well I don't believe it but the fact is the rationale, I can't 11 you it can't be duplicated elsewhere but the rationale, the ric _utline that we felt strongly about that we're doing the job that the state approached with a meat ax. Conrad: But simply say that you said because we're using NURP ponds to II catch this, I think that will get me off. Krauss: Right, and we'd be happy to do that but it is a situation that could be replicated elsewhere. Conrad: If somebody put. Well, give me enough of those that it probably" won't. Rick Sathre: One observation that I have. This lot width in this shoreland district is different than most places in town where this is a 11 natural environment lake. It has the 20,000 square foot standard and the 125 foot lot width. I don't know that you have another lake like that in town. Mostly you have recreational development lakes which are 15,000 square foot minimum and what, 100 foot width? I forget what the width is. Olsen: 75. ' Rick Sathre: 75. So you already exceed those standards with your RSF zone. You probably won't see this. Conrad: We see everything. Rick Sathre: Yeah, you probably will. 1 Conrad: That's my motion Mr. Chairman. Batzli: Is there a second? 1 Mancino: I second. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 26 Batzli: Discussion. Boy I was going to say something and I lost it there in that last exchange. I was actually going to ask you to amend this. What was I going to say? Conrad: I think you (were, I don't know. Batzli: You're not psychic tonight. Conrad: Don't want to be. We don't need your vote Brian. ' Batzli: Oh. Well, it doesn't matter. What I would like to see is approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria, in condition 12. guess I would like to see us, rather than just say that is if we feel that this is a case where we don't want people to have backyards split 50 feet, that we direct the staff to proceed towards annexing that area. I don't, it bothers me that we're approving something where the lots are split like that personally. I don't know how the rest of you feel but I would like to see 12 amended. But I don't know if that's the applicant's job. It seems like that's our job to do that. Is that our job? It doesn't really seem like a condition. Krauss: Having the intent of the Planning Commission backed up by the ' City Council certainly would help us push the issue. Batzli: But is that appropriate for a condition or is that something that we should just direct you after we approve this that we want to see that ' happen? Krauss: That would be preferable because it's not something that they. Batzli: I don't think the applicant can do it. Although does the applicant have to petition us formally to get the process rolling? 1 Krauss: The applicant's already indicated willingness to do that. Batzli: Well willingness and following through are sometimes two 1 different things. Do you want to see that happen Ladd? It's your motion. Okay. Any more discussion? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #93 -1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated ' January 5, 1993, with variances and the following conditions: 1. The applicnat shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 27 ' 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and I MWCC. 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100 year storm event, 24 hour duration, and will discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NRUP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100 year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe. The applicant's engineer shall' review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and 8 to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr. Ismael Martinez, as outlined in his memo dated Januarll 15, 1993. 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall II follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases where the sid slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of the slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance" with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 6. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements. The II access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality /retention ponds on the final plat. 1 7. The applicant shall place a sign on a barrier at the end of the southerly street extension indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE ". Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain -of -title of each lot. All street intersections should be aligned prependicular to each other. 8. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore 1 the potential for future street extensions to the west to serve the City of Victoria through one of the phases of development. 1 9. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90 -15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. ' Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 28 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. 11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulations including permanent ' monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria. 13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 14. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, ' 25 and 27, Block 1. 15. Compliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway and the requirements of one tree per lot. All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Batzli: And my reasons are that I would like to see the variance rationale before I approve it. And also that I would like to see the city move towards annexing that area. As an informal vote of the commissioners do you want to see the city pursue that annexation. Just kind of hand vote here. Would you like to see personally towards annexing? Not proceeding? Don't care. Okay, well you've got the majority. Yes Terry. Terry Forbord: ...being that this was really not part of the application so I elected to not say anything about it. I think staff eluded to that ' we approached them some time ago about the very issue that you were just discussing, annexation. As well as joint powers agreements between the two cities. Lundgren Bros has hired a real estate attorney that specializes in annexation issues. Has done a tremendous amount of research on the issues and has interviewed the Fire Department, the Police Department, Parks and Rec. Has met with staff. Also met with the City Attorney and so a lot of background work really already has been done just trying to find out what the issues are, etc. And discussions informally have begun with the City of Victoria. I have no idea what the outcome of that is going to be but there has been a lot of work already done towards that end. Batzli: Okay, thank you Terry. When does this go to the City Council? Aanenson: 22nd of February. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 60 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF DELL ROAD, SUNLINK ADDITION, SUNLINK CORPORATION. Krauss: The DataSery one has been pulled for the third or fourth time in a row. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 29 11 Batzli: Okay, that's the Sunlink Corporation applicant? Okay. We'll put that aside. Mancino: Excuse me. I have a question on that. ,Paul, because the City I Council is going to be hearing the moratorium, Highway 5 moratorium on the 8th, will that maybe delete the Sunlink division? 1 Krauss: Well if a moratorium is enacted, yeah. That would stop that preliminary plat dead in the water. Now the ordinance that I drafted wit the City Attorney would allow proceedings to occur under some limited circumstances. If it came in as a PUD is one of the options. I'm not sure what the City Council's going to do. We'll see Monday. Batzli: I thought they would be able to do a plat like this but not a site plan. That they can plat? They can't plat either under your proposal? 1 Krauss: No. Batzli: Okay. 1 SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING REQUIREMENTS OF CUL -DE -SAC LENGTHS. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: The record should show that there's no one other than city staff" and the commissioners in the room. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Scott moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: I just wanted to make that perfectly clear when people started II whinning about islands being around here. Anyway, Diane. Do you have comments on the proposed ordinance tonight? Harberts: Just a question. Two questions. On (c) for instance. Are they and /or situation? For instance, number 1. And is it, and it :reserves natural features, or or? tzli: I read it as an and. rberts: That's what I read too. 1 Batzli: But it doesn't say in there. Olsen: Yeah, because we need, yeah. Like 3 has to be in there. 1 has t be in there. Although there's a lot of times where they're not really preserving natural features. They're adding natural features so I wouldn't, that was one that you specfically brought up at the last meetinil that that was something that yoQ wanted in there. That's why we added it but I have yet to see where that's the case. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 30 Krauss: Usually you're grading so heavily around it to get the roads in, that any natural features that were there are long gone. Or will die shortly thereafter. But it's certainly a valid... 1 Batzli: Well we could say the center island will preserve or add natural. Well then it's not really a natural feature is it? Will preserve natural features or add fake natural features. Harberts: Second comment has to do with the (c)(4). I've talked to some other planners and they just raise some issues about if you have center ' islands and if they're not city right -of -way you're opening yourselves up to a lot of problems. Just a comment. I guess I'd like to see responsibility for maintenance and liability outlined there. If this is going to be maintained by a Homeowners Association. Those are my only comments. Batzli: Thank you. Do the other planners that you talked to say that in 1 their ordinances they talk about liability issues and requiring homeownership to insure? ' Harberts: The other planners I have spoken to in other communities, I guess I only addressed it from the standpoint of a private maintenance or private ownership rather than a city ownership of right -of -way and they felt very strongly against a center island unless it was city right -of -way because of the maintenance problems. There were too many problems connected with it, from their perspective. Batzli: Well, what liability are you talking about? Are you talking about a kid getting hurt on it? ' Harberts: Anything, yes. Yes. Batzli: And are you saying, are you requiring them to insure against that 1 or are you trying to say that it's not our problem, it's yours? Harberts: It's theirs. If it's not city right-of-way, then it should be their problem. Hempel: Unfortunately it would have to be the City's right -of -way under those circumstances. Harberts: So I guess this is where the question comes in then. If they're responsible for maintenance and they don't maintain it in a proper condition, and who determines what that proper condition is and something 1 happens where someone is injured or whatever, and granted it may be once in a 100 times that something happens. But you know, who's responsible for this? Now I understand then that it is city, the City's going to be held liable but yet they in a sense don't have the jurisdiction or whatever to maintain it in a proper form. Batzli: See but my point is this. You can't, my understanding is that you can't say to someone, in this kind of a situation, you're responsible and we're not going to be liable. The liability would be determined in the trial. And so what you're requiring I think is that the homeowners 1 P lanning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 31 insure but it doesn't change the fact that the City still has to insure because if the Court decides, regardless of what you said in your little ' ordinance, it was your fault. So what have you done by this other than you required the homeowners to insure. Harberts: If there's not a homeowners association, isn't that a factor that they take into consideration? When they have a common area like this. Batzli: Well but we're forcing it that they have to have one. Harberts: Right. And what in the sense wouldn't that element also address it so it's maybe just the buffer that's created? In terms of thall liability. Batzli: I don't think we're buffering anything is my only point. I thin' we're requiring the homeowners association to buy insurance. God only knows what that insurance would cost or what they hang it on or who would underwrite it. 1 Harberts: Does the city have a concern or not? Krauss: Well this is a common problem with these things. Who's 1 responsible for them. Now if it's an outlot that a homeowners association has that all those who are a party to the homeowners association are liable for the maintenance, and there are ways you...still always fall I through the cracks. One thing that I'd be curious about. Right -of -way, , - d our liability covers everything that we own or touch. Maintenance of - se things is an added cost for the city and since this is a private :refit, not all taxpayers in the city should bear it. But I'm just ,-:ondering if we can establish a procedure wherein all those lots that benefit by having this outlot are charged a fee on an annual basis that covers our cost of maintenance. I mean we charge fees. People are charged fees for lighting, street lighting. They're charged for differe.n things. If it's just something that's rolled into the annual tax statement. ' Farmakes: We talked about that at the previous meeting about, if there was the problem maintaining it, to just tack it onto their taxes. Krauss: Yeah but see to do that, you have to attempt to resolve it. Failing that, you have to done all the homeowners association members by way of their taxes. The cover expenses that we would have had to lay out" Farmakes: So would that be under 4? Responsibility for the maintenance is clearly established in the chain -of- title? Is that something you put 11 in the title? Krauss: Yeah, you would put it in the title. Scott: Does it make sense to say, responsibility for maintenance and liability insurance would be clearly established in the chain -of- title? Because I guess the question is, who actually owns that. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 32 1 Krauss: Well as Dave points out, this is internally city right -of -way so we would own it. Batzli: We own it. Yeah, we're just saying since it doesn't benefit the entire city, we're going to make you guys maintain it. Harberts: Or at least pay for it. Hempel: I wonder if maybe another option would be to have it an outlot but the city has reserved the street, utility easement over it. We have our easement rights for the use of it but the actual property is still owned by the association. Batzli: But then if you ever have to take it out, you want to own it. Farmakes: The developer then, would they sell it in the chain -of- title? Are they the ones that convey that to the property owners? Krauss: Traditionally, historically the problem has been developers ' convey these things to nobody and after the development was built they left town. Batzli: Or somebody owns it and never know they own it. Harberts: From my discussions with other planners from other communities on this particular issue, again they raise some real concerns that if it's ' not maintained by the city, you start running into problems. So is the alternative, as Paul suggested, having some type of fee because the entire city should not pay for it when it's just a private enhancement in that ' area. Is that the simple answer here? Krauss: I think it is but we'd have to get the implications of it from the City Attorney and the City Engineer. I mean clearly if everybody on this thing is charged, I don't know $20.00- $30.00 a year and a tree falls down, it will cover our cost to go out and cut it up. You know you'd have to figure out, are we going to have to reforest this thing at some point. But I think this can be done relatively cleanly. Harberts: With the city owning it and maintaining it? Batzli: Did we just decide to eliminate the homeowners maintaining it? Krauss: One of the problems is with the homeowners association is most 1 developments don't have homeowners associations. And if they only establish one to cover the maintenance of the cul -de -sac, you can be pretty darn sure they're not going to take that responsibility seriously. Batzli: Okay. Is that it? Harberts: It is. Just a couple comments. Batzli: Okay. Good comments though. Thank you. Ladd. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 33 Conrad: My only one is in (c)(3). I'm not sure Dave why you have a 48 II foot diameter island and a 91 foot outside street width. How did you get the 91 feet? Hempel: 91 feet is our standard cul -de -sac diameter. i Conrad: So if our minimum street width is 28 feet, and there's two sides to this island, that's 56 feet, and the island is 48 feet. I'm not trying to build this. I'm happy with what you've got but I just want to challenge the rationale for it. Hempel: How we arrived at this was working with the Fire Marshal and the 1 Public Works Superintendent. We actually went out and took one of our snowplows in the Dinner Theatre parking lot. , Batzli: Scientific method. Harberts: Practical. ' Hempel: And found out exactly what our tightest turning radius would be. And the 91 is basically the minimum we need for fire truck apparatus, according to the Fire Marshal. Batzli: But when they buy the Chevy snowplow next time instead of Ford a -~ it's got the larger turning radius, we're in trouble. But why doesn' ,,ual the same? I mean we were talking earlier about a 31 foot ,ard width. Back of the curb to back of the curb, and we needed that. don't we need that here? Hempel: Again, it's the turning radius of these vehicles. You're not out on the street. Batzli: What happened to our safety issue of parked cars and two lanes of traffic and things like that? Did that just go away the minute we got in the cul - de - sac? We didn't care anymore? Hempel: I'm not sure how to address that. I'm not sure I fully understand it I guess. ' Conrad: We're just saying, if our street minimum is 28 feet. It's really 31 but let's say we go to a different standard. Shouldn't there be two street widths there plus the island and that should add up to a minimum o 108 feet or whatever? Hempel: We're assuming that you're not going to have essentially two way, traffic around the island. It's going to be a one way direction. Batzli: Are we going to post it one way? Harberts: No parking. Conrad: Well I like the 91 foot Mr. Chairman. ' 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 34 Batzli: Well I don't want more tar. I was just wondering what our rationale was, so I appreciated your comment. Conrad: I know you did. Batzli: I'm a mathematical kind of guy. Conrad: That's all. I like what we talked about in terms of who maintains and how we assess. I think that point should change what we've got in front of us. Batzli: Is that it? Conrad: Yeah. ' Batzli: Okay, Joe. Scott: I don't have any comments on that. Batzli: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I have no further comments. Batzli: Nancy. ' Mancino: No. Nothing further. Batzli: Gee you guys. You're going to make me look like a real jerk now then. 1 think we need, well one thing I wanted to ask about first thing ' was we've changed (d)(1). We talked about severe topography last time because we didn't understand, I didn't understand what it meant. There was a certain percentage grade in there last time I think Jo Ann? Olsen: Right. Batzli: Now when we're talking about would severely impact the site due to excessive grading, I think what we've done in the past is we've had a maximum grade that a road could be constructed to and we didn't want to go over that, and that was 7% or some percentage. Olsen: 10 is usually our max. That is allowed. 7 is what we, but we've allowed up to 10. Batzli: Okay. So is excessive grading, does that mean that, is that based on what the road is going to be or is that based on a more global analysis of we're going to have to grade more of the site? Krauss: Your later one is correct. The road grade itself doesn't matter. Batzli: But what if you only had to grade 20 feet of it but you ended up with 13% slope? Krauss: But that's a whole different issue. That's a city standard, they wouldn't be allowed to do that. But what this gets at is that, where's a 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' February 3, 1993 - Page 35 good example of where that's occured? Olsen: Summit. ' Krauss: Summit. Olsen: Well it hasn't occurred but. 1 Krauss: Yeah. We had the situation up there where we preferred to not have a very long deadend street but to get that you have to knock the whole top off the hill to connect it into that Indian Hills Road that was there. Batzli: And we left a little emergency fire route. ' Krauss: Right. Batzli: Okay. So we don't have to cover that here is your point? So I II don't have to worry about that. Olsen: Right. There's a maximum. , Batzli: Okay, so the excessive grading is talking about somebody in the planning department saying, this is excessive, and we'd leave it up to yo guys? Krauss: And you and the Council agreeing with that determination, yeah. I °atzli: Okay. Do we want the capability under the cul -de -sac and center Island. Actually center island. Do we want the ability to remove the :-rater island if it's determined at a later date that it's a public safet n,_ard or something. Let's say we put in a bunch of these things and we rt having problems left and right. Can we get rid of these darn cente islands and pave them? Krauss: We own them. Batzli: Okay. So we own them. The association doesn't have any control" We're not taking anything from the people who live around it? If there's a taking issue here, by taking them out, I would rather have it somewhere" in the ordinance that says, you know the people who live around it understand that they don't own it and it can be removed or whatever. Because if these things turn out to be a problem and a house burns down and there's an outcry in the city and Dick runs for Mayor on the platform" I'm going to get rid of all the center islands because I couldn't get my fire truck around it. Right? I mean maybe we take them out. Harberts: I'd like to add to that. I think that's a good idea and I think you may want to expand on it to also include that, depending on what is in that center island, that the city then if we're going to own it, also has the right to change it. In terms of what the center island is II all about. You know if there's trees and at some point they determine to be too high. That they can go in and cut them down and put in bushes or something. It really sounds like it gets back to the issue that the city 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 36 needs to have control and ownership over it and that all of these other ' issues seem to go away then. Batzli: I don't know, does that make sense or are we just really nit picking at this point Paul? Your eyes are kind of glazing over 1 Krauss: For things that the city owns outright, generally we maintain them the way we see fit. 1 Batzli: But this is going to be an amenity that people move into the community for. Krauss: Yeah, and presumably we wouldn't be taking anything out unless those people were suffering from some problem and asked us to do it. The goals for these things is to make them as close to no maintenance as possible. I don't think we'd ever allow anybody to plant any ground cover. You know they'd probably be trees and rock and that kind of stuff that doesn't need to be maintained. Batzli: I guess the last thing I was going to say was, the center island issue again, I don't have any comments on the other ones, other than what I've already mentioned. The center island, if we make it, it has to meet each one of these things. Is there ever going to be a situation where it meets these things and yet from a safety issue or for some other reason we simply don't want it in there. Where we want to put kind of a, we used to ' have the clause in there that you, city staff was going to review it and approve it, which we thought was too discretionary. But if there is an instance where, for some reason that we haven't thought of yet, it's going to present a safety hazard, do we want to say something in there that it's prohibited unless it meets all this and it doesn't present a safety hazard. It at least gives you something to hang your hat on if you really don't want it in there for a valid reason. Or safety concern. I don't ' know. My point last time though, you have to remember with go slow with these things and just allow a couple of them and see how they work. What this is doing, in my opinion, is we're just kind of saying okay. Do it and then we're going to get a bunch of them and then we're find out whether we like them or not. My preferred way of doing this would be, still be to prohibit them unless we approved them whereas the rest of the people up here want to approve them unless we prohibit them. So it's just a different mindset. Krauss: I don't understand the go slow. Batzli: I would rather see, I would absolutely prohibit them for another 3 years until we find out how they work out in the Lundgren development. 1 Krauss: Well see we've never prohibited them for anybody building long cul -de -sacs in the past. We've got. Batzli: I'm talking about center islands. Krauss: Oh, islands. I'm on the wrong. Okay. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 February 3, 1993 - Page 37 Hempel: We have a couple islands in town that have been in place for 5 years now. Creek Run. I believe also on Linden Circle. Batzli: I've seen that one. I don't know. I would take the go slow approach but. Those are my comments. What do we want to do with this? Do we want to try and make a motion? Trust staff to get them in there. Or do we want to see it one more time back here with all the changes and things we've talked about? Due to the fact that 3 people had absolutely no comments on it, I think everybody's pretty happy with it at this point other than probably some of the minor things that we did tonight. Ladd, II do you want to see it back? Diane, do you want to see it back? Harberts: I would but, I'll defer. 1 Batzli: Well you can make the motion then. Okay, is there a motion then? Scott: I'll move that we adopt the Section in Article III, Design Standards, Section 18 -57(k) of the Chanhassen City Code as amended in thi document and then with additions being made by city staff to items 1(c)(2 to read, the center island will preserve natural features or add additional features. And also in item 1(c), to identify that all four conditions under 1(c) be present at one time, i.e. items 1, 2, 3 and 4 must occur for a center island to be allowed. Batzli: Is that your motion? Scott: That's my motion. 1 Batzli: Is there a second? Conrad: I'll second it. Batzli: For discussion purposes? ' Conrad: Yes. Batzli: Okay, is there discussion? 1 Conrad: We were going to take out (4) and how do we want to replace what's necessary to replace (4) giving the city the ownership of the island and also the leverage to assess. Harberts: Maintenance fees? Conrad: Maintenance fees, yeah. Should we simply make that, replace those words? Replace (4) with those words or are you comfortable keeping (4) the way you've made your motion? 1 Scott: Are you talking to me? Conrad: Yeah. 1 Scott: That was the point that I missed. Thank you very much. I would agree that we need language that specifies that the City would maintain 1 1 II Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 38 II ownership and responsibility for maintenance. In that basically the I center island would exist at the city's discretion. These would be public safety issues. Harberts: And that also included then the mechanism to determine some type of maintenance fee? Scott: Yes. I Batzli: If he amends his motion, do you have enough to go on? I Olsen: Yes. Batzli: You do have enough? You understand what he wants? I Olsen: Yes, I have all the little points written down. And I'm hoping that Nann and I, we'll get it word for word unless you want to repeat it. I just think on some of that, won't we have to kind of confirm some of II that with the City Attorney, whether or not we can assess? I think we'll kind of have to work with that a little bit. So we won't have the exact wording. II Scott: So we'll need to see this next time then? Olsen: You can trust that we'll show you what we've done. I've got the II gist of what you want. Batzli: Are you amending your motion? II Scott: I guess I am. Batzli: Are you accepting? II Conrad: Second. II Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Harberts: We would receive a staff report back then, just as an FYI? Is II that the understanding? Krauss: If there's a major glitch, we'll bring it back. Otherwise, we'll report on it in the update. Batzli: You'll get about a paragraph blurb on what happened to it at the City Council and then several months later we'll get a print of it for our II ordinance, but that's about the last we'll see it. Harberts: Well I guess I'm curious what the Attorney's viewpoint is on it with the maintenance fees. You know when Governor Carlson is coming down with a decrease your budget by about 5% from the previous year and recommending wage freezes on public employees, things like that in terms of cost containment and we're putting in something that is raising the II cost on the part of the city to maintain. It just doesn't balance. II Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 39 Krauss: Well the goal would be for it not to cost the city anything. Harberts: Right, and that's why I'm interested to see if there's some problem from the Attorney's perspective about developing some type of maintenance fee. I guess my concern is if he says, no you can't assess them any type of fee, just take it out of your coffers and pay for it. I I mean is this the right time to do it with everyone trying to cut costs and streamline. Batzli: I don't particularly like the fact that we're leaving it open ended. These people are going to move in. I have no clue what the City' going to assess them to maintain this. I don't know what it's going to cost. I don't know if this is reasonable what we're doing so I would prefer to see it come back once we've figured out (a), I'd like to see engineering or somebody tell me what it would cost to maintain this thing and who we would assess. And if we're going to do it that way. Conrad: Why do you care? The City's going to put the words in but the point is that the cost for maintaining it is going to be taken care of by those residents that have that as an asset. So why do you care what the II cost is? Batzli: Because, I'm a bleeding heart liberal who wants to protect the II people moving into the. Conrad: The developer's going to have to. P.tzli: But the developer doesn't do, we're not protecting the people Yig in. We're molly cuddeling the developer to sell it as this ==rful feature and then the city comes in and decides they're going to sn'ear, several grand on it and they're going to start assessing people tha have no clue what's going on. That's the reality of what's going to happen. Mancino: So can't we make sure that these developers send a letter, registered letter, whatever it is? Krauss: No. What you do is you put it in the chain -of- title. I mean we've gone through on any number of occasions and Brian points out that not everybody has an attorney working for them who reads the chain -of- title. But it's also going to show up on annual tax statements. If there's a way it's possible to do that a different way. Conrad: What do you think Brian is it going to cost? $100,000.00? , Batzli: I don't know. I don't know. Hempel: It's probably not a lot of cost. , Conrad: We're talking about city maintenance. We're talking about cutting a tree down right? Batzli: Yeah, but what you're talking about is we've decided that homeowners were unwilling to pay for a second tree in their backyard and 11 1 II Planning Commission Meeting g February 3, 1993 - Page 40 II now suddenly we don't give a rip and we're going to assess them some open I ended charge for whatever the city wants to dream up it costs them to maintain this thing in their front yard. I mean we debated for weeks over whether people wanted to include in their mortgage, financed over 30 1 years, the cost of a $200.00 tree and now you're going to suddenly, without knowing what it costs at all say...well yeah. Let the developer put it in and the residents will get it and who cares. Let them figure out what it's going to cost them down the road. I would rather, if it's I going to be an amenity that's going to be enjoyed by the residents, I would rather see some sort of idea of what we're proposing rather than just say, gee it sounds good. Let's do it. Just me. 1 Farmakes: Do you think a developer's going to put in something like that that's going to be extensive enough that it's going to cost a substantial amount of funds? 1 Batzli: I don't know what, how the city would even calculate what it costs them to maintain it. I Olsen: And that cost will go up every year too. 1 Krauss: Yeah, I mean you pull a number out of the hat and you say, it's $50.00 a year escaled to CPI. Farmakes: So if it doesn't clear that year, or you lose money that year, I then you raise the funds. Scott: Or do we just take this and shred it? ...get on the record to 1 make a motion but I mean it's getting pretty ridiculous. I mean I appreciate the fact that you're bringing up points, because they're obviously important and it's again, becoming apparent now that maybe this 1 is something that we shouldn't even get involved with because of extra. I mean extra, maybe city staff could probably spend their time much better on something that's perhaps, I mean in all deference to Mr. Conrad. In other words, we're opening up a can of worms and I don't know if we really 1 need to do be spending our time on something like this, if we have all this open ended stuff. So maybe we just want to forget about the islands. 1 Batzli: The way to do it, I think, is the way that it may have originally been in there. And that is, we would allow it based on basically a case by case basis and on a case by case basis we would determine how the heck II these things would be cared for and nurtured rather than trying to come up with an all inclusive way of figuring out how it's going to be done city wide. So what I would be for, and ready to vote on affirmatively right now would be basically the language we had in there last time which was, II it's prohibited unless it's approved by the city based on you know, being able to demonstrate that it can be taken care of and whatever whatever. I would rather see that. The go slow approach. 1 Conrad: Well there's no such thing as a go slow approach Brian. I don't understand where you're coming from. It says they're prohibited in the language here. 1 II Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 41 Batzli: Well I don't think that these things are difficult to demonstrate. It's got to be a minimum size. You're going to preserve a tree or add a tree and it's in the residential area. That's pretty easy to do. Really what we're talking about is maintenance and we can't figur out how we would do that city wide right now. Conrad: There's only two of them in the city. Do you think we're going to get a rush to build these? Batzli: I have no idea. I don't know. , Conrad: We haven't heard any problems with the two. You know it's not worth the conversation right now. Seriously. Batzli: We're going to be done by 10:00 Ladd. I'm just dragging it out until 10:00. I don't want to get out of here before then. Scott: Is this a situation where you say center islands within cul -de -sacs bubbles shall be prohibited unless approved on a case by case basis? Batzli: You can't say that. Okay. Well the motion right now is that, I think we had. , Conrad: This has to come back. I think we, based on all the things, I think Diane would like to see it back and I think Brian, you brought up - ough concerns with it on your part. I think staff should revise it per, .nat we said and bring it back one more time. Batzli: We have a motion in front of us right now, unless do you want toll withdraw your motion? Scott: I would withdraw that. Batzli: Second? Do you want to make a motion to table? Is there a second? Any discussion? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to table the ordinance amendment to Sectio 18 -57(k) concerning lengths of cul -de -sacs for further review. All voted in favor except Farmakes who opposed and the motion carried with a vote oil 5 to 1. Batzli: And your reasons are, you want to see it sail up? 1 Farmakes: I just think we're ignoring the city staff can probably do a much better job of assessing those charges than we can come up with up here. It seems like a small point. What I really don't want to do is gel' involved in a case by case basis. I think that certainly we should be able, when we look at the city code book and how thick it is, you certainly should be able to come up with a way to come up with a pragmatill system of charging that back that's equitable to cover that. Batzli: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 42 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning ' Commission meeting dated January 20, 1993 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: ' Krauss: Well a couple things to touch on. One thing I found quite interesting was the City Council's debate on the Americana Bank sign. The City Council echoed a lot of the concerns that have been raised here periodically about office buildings turning into retail buildings when it comes to signage. They ultimately agreed to go along with the compromise that the Planning Commission suggested. But staff was directed with the ' sign ordinance to come back and provide some information about who is supposed to get a sign and when, and at least some members of the City Council said office buildings do not confer the right for signage to everybody that happens to rent a room. I don't know that had they voted on it had consensus but it was kind of an interesting discussion. Conrad: But where are you going to go Paul to get, you know things are ' changing in the real world. We used to be a product driven society and now we're service driven society and we have this misconception that services don't need the same kind of support as products do. So I really think we're playing with some old memories and are you going to look, be intraspective and just base it on staff's feeling or are you able to go out and tack to a consultant? I don't want you to hire one but how do you get a feeling for the trends that are occurring Paul? ' Krauss: Ladd, I don't have a good answer for that. I mean we've had this dialogue at least on 3 occasions. On 3 different projects in downtown and staff's often come down on one side of the issue and you've come down on the other for valid reasons. I guess as the community matures and as office buildings may probably will get bigger, I just have a growing concern that we'll have vein clinic signs on a 6 story building. You know ultimately this will be your call on recommending to the City Council what you want to do. Again, I don't think the City Council's necessarily unanimous on it. And the City Council did agree to go with your ' compromise position. But I'm sure that if we ask a sign consultant about it, a sign consultant will say that everybody should have a sign. ' Farmakes: Especially those that make them. They're the ones that really come forward and say, you could use one here and there and here. Krauss: Yeah, I've had Naegele come to meetings where they say billboards are a community asset. I mean you can get all kinds of opinion on it. We'll bring you the opinion and you can make the decision. Farmakes: One thing on that particular type of sign where they have a lot of the little slats like we have in front here that go in. You might have 20 or 30. If I'm out selling a lease and I say, and you get a sign up here on Market Boulevard and from a practical standpoint that sign at a car 20 mph even, you're not going to read it. It's not going to provide anything except clutter when you look at it with 20 other signs. So then another thing has to be evaluated, is how many signs can reasonably be put up in a confined area where they're actually beneficial to the business. And a lot of times you'll see good selections and a lot of times you can't 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 43 1 for the life of me figure out why someone spent $20,000.00 on a sign that doesn't work for them. , Conrad: Well Joe being sort of our connection with the Chamber of Commerce, every business in this city wanted to have their name out on II Highway 5. Several of them do. There's not enough. And they're all 4 inch letters which Jeff, you know can't be read. I know can't be read but every business wanted it there. I don't think it's visual pollution. It'� not effective. It's certainty not effective communication and it's just getting us, but it's what the business community wants. And so, just because we want it, doesn't mean we have to give it to them. But on the other hand, I tell you. It's part of running a business. And to hide a II company, things are changing in our society in terms of what people, the services are looking at and I guess I'm just going to be real interested to see how we net out on this because the businesses are saying, give me the visibility and my perspective is, if you do something well, it doesn't, matter. Farmakes: Exactly. And you can be proactive about this. But if you say that signs are not visual pollution, there are certainly places you can g in town and find visual pollution that is caused by signage. So the estion is, how is it applied just like anything else, and how's it 11 ionalized? It certainly has to benefit not only the business itself the community environment that it's in. Conrad: Do you think that city staff is going to be competent at bringinil us some good alternatives? Farmakes: We're working on a sign ordinance and the intent is to benefit" both a reasonable use to benefit both business. Two of the members are members of the Chamber of Commerce and business owners in town. And I think once the education is gone through, you're still allowed an opportunity to identify your business. The question then becomes, how much do you advertise through your signage or repetition of signage. And a lot of problem is with repetition because some of the repetition simply doesn't work. It provides maybe a 10% of the sight line and you have ' another sign in some cases that is in almost maybe a 1O% difference in angle. The same sign that's sitting right next to it. So if the question is, why put a limitation on it if you're going to have a duplicate sign 111 feet away, what is the point? What point is served? Scott: And there's a big difference too between whether your customers i kind of a random arrival because they saw your sign or a situation like mine where people are specifically coming to my office. They know where my building is and they could really care less if there's a sign on the outside. So I think you have the retail service versus the vein clinic o something like that. That's one of the issues that we're going back and forth with but I think any business owner believes that it's a God given right that they are able to put their sign up and the way the signs are now, the major benefit to the sign is that that business owner sees it when they're driving. Like if you own 4,n Oldsmobile 98, you're going to see them all over the place. Oh, there's my sign. But it doesn't dawn o you that no one else sees it. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 44 Farmakes: Or what happens when there's 300 other signs by it? Then what h Kapp s e g y at criteria do you use to regulate that so it doesn't become an eyesore? Conrad: We could talk about this for a long time but hypothetically, because Paul, let me get my two cents in here. If you regulate what you ' put signage on, and that's the aesthetic piece, who cares if there's 100 names or two names? Batzli: It looks tacky. Conrad: I don't know that for sure. Probably not. Farmakes: Let's say for instance that Minneapolis, on a 40 story office building has a boulevard sign out there with a 4 inch letter for each office that's in the building. Now we always look at this as tunnel vision. We see each individual applicant. Each individual boulevard sign. But what happens when we're filled up here? What happens when instead of, when you look out on Market Boulevard that isn't that full yet, there's still plenty of development yet to come there. Batzli: Can you imagine the Foshay Tower where everybody has a sign outside? Farmakes: What happens when that fills up? We don't look at it that way. We see it, well we see the one boulevard sign going up by Americana State Bank but we don't see what else goes by it. We don't see the development next to it. And Americana actually has I think a very good signage plan. It does enough to identify it. You can see it from the road but it's not overkill and that's really what the ordinance that we're pursuing, many of the changes that we have, deals with the overkill. Batzli: But let me ask a question Jeff, just because we've had the task force for a while and we're filling up downtown and the question, not to cause any irritation at all but are we going to get a new sign ordinance before downtown fills up? Farmakes: I'm not writing it. Maybe Paul can address that. Krauss: Let me tackle that. That's my issue because Jeff worked very diligently on it along with Gene Borg and. Scott: Kevin McShane. Krauss: Kevin, yeah. And the fact is that Kate got it to the point where it was 90% wrapped up and then had to put finishing touches on it and we've just been swamped. I've asked her to get a schedule. She's looking to get it on your agenda by March. Farmakes: I think the Highway 5 thing maybe is, from what I'm hearing is somewhat interfering with some of the. Krauss: Some of the issues. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 45 Batzli: But in the meantime we keep on seeing these sign issues coming i and it'd be nice to be able to point at something that's, what our vision is going to be. And I promise I won't nit pick it to death like I'm doin to cul - de - sacs and on center islands. Farmakes: And to be proactive about what I just said Ladd, not to beat II this dead, but it also benefits other business owners by not having that clutter. By allowing their signs to be seen too. They don't have to compete by putting up 10 signs because the person next to them put up 10 signs. Conrad: I buy that. I think we've always had a pretty restrictive sign I ordinance here. Haven't we Paul? Isn't that your impression? Krauss: No. 1 Conrad: Not really huh? Krauss: It's pretty wide open. 1 Conrad: Because when we put it in what, 10 years ago. Or whenever Pat - son...the developers of the business community was really incensed because their feeling was it was very restrictive. ; Well, but as you enter town some of the first signs you see are held on a roof by sandbags. Batzli: Really? Which ones? Krauss: Every one on the Frontier Center. Batzli: Oh really? With sand bags, cool. ' Mancino: Jeff, does the sign ordinance at all have to do with windows, as in MGM Liquors and their hand made signs there in the windows? 11 Farmakes: Yeah, they deal with that. Well they don't deal so much with what the sign is made out of as much as, if that's what you're referring to. Something like say. 1 Mancino: Not only what it's made out of but the placement of it in their windows. Farmakes: Well it deals with percentages, as I recall. It deals with percentages of the window space. What we're trying to do is give percentages to calculate space so that it doesn't go beyond. ' Conrad: So tell me, we're really getting carried away. So tell me like for the Chan Bowl. 1 Batzli: We're not going to get out of here at 10:00 now Ladd. Conrad: I know, I'm screwing this up but so the Chan Bowl has probably II the biggest sign in town, don't they? Because they can have 10% of their Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 46 300 foot wall. Would they still be able to do that because that's not, that's visual pollution. Krauss: There's also going to be a cap on it Farmakes: There's a cap on the size. But there is, there's still an argument yet to be made. We were discussing over here amongst ourselves, a formula that you use. I prefer square footage next to the sight line, access road that they're dealing with. I believe the ordinance is dealing with total square footage of the wall of the buiiding and personally I don't think the alleyway has anything to do as far as the formula for using that. So that's somewhat still under discussion. But what we're looking for is to moderate the coverage of the building. So if you had this huge building, you don't get these terribly huge signs. If you have a small building, you don't get a huge sign on a small building. So you get some relationship buiiding to scale to sign. And that also allows some breathing room for signs adjacent. And again, I think that you can see for instance going into some developments. Retail developments, good signage plans and horrible signage plans. And usually the good ones are just as readable but incorporated into the architecture of the building rather than the opposite direction. Leaving the building and going off on their own, where you have a shotgun approach versus a bullet, and we have examples of that here in town. I think that a lot of the ordinance that we had is being picked up but there are certain areas that, definite area problems that we see here. We're not reinventing the wheel. There are ' other communities I think that have dealt with some of these problems and they've come up with some pretty good solutions for them. Minnetonka, we've used their ordinance for sort of a building block, although we've incorporated it into our own. But I think you'll find, it deals with a lot of different issues and it's a complicated ordinance. I'm glad I don't have to take that up. ' Batzli: No, but I am glad that you're active in it and Ladd takes an interest and I always find it fascinating that we have a good blend up here and different people take the laboring on different things. Like Diane and I apparently are a little bit more technical on some other things and You guys like signs. That's good. I like to see that. Anything else? Krauss: Well, to touch on what's going to happen on Monday. Monday's an important Council meeting. 1 Batzli: Is that the study area? Krauss: The moratorium. I wrote an ordinance up for a moratorium with Roger. The idea of the moratorium came from some of the Council people. I'm not sure which way it's going to go. I guess if I had to give you a percentage chance, it would probably be better odds that it's not going to be enacted. But that's just a guess. Pending that, the Goodyear store is 11 on the agenda. We also had to bring back the Jehovah Witness Church didn't get through. Batzli: Is that going to be on early? Planning Commission Meeting 1 February 3, 1993 - Page 47 Krauss: I don't recall. 1 Farmakes: Can you help me out with the thinking on that. If you have 4 half acre, $150,000.00 houses, you're going to get more tax revenue from that than you are from the tax bill, so I don't understand their thinking 11 Krauss: Well a couple things. First of all, there have been litigated cases in the State of Minnesota that basically say the loss of tax revenuil is not a reason to deny a church. But I went through the same calculatio you did, except I figured it was 5 homes. The difference is that, I suppose is that homes generate more taxes total but they also require II services that the industrial project doesn't. The industrial project is pure cashflow. But I don't think it's going to hinge on, I mean I don't know what's going on with that one. I think that that's going to go through. Farmakes: You know what's bothered me about that type of thing, and I've talked to our State legislator. There's sort of a carte blanche in singl11 family zones. So if you're doing a master plan, churches have sort of a carte blanche, no matter how big they are. And when you're dealing, you know we've done that in this community here because we're a tier suburb and typically what happens to the church is that their membership gets so big in the core city that they have to move out because of the square footage cost. So many of them move into Eden Prairie and 10 years later they'll move into the next suburb out. And then buy up, some of them can buy up enormous amounts of property and as I understand the law, basicall they have carte blanche in a single family zone. Krauss: No. Well we have, it's conditional use permit and we keep them I out of, we insist that they stay on collector or arterial streets. That they have a certain minimum area. That they buffer themselves from singl family homes. Beyond that, yes. There is a carte blanche. - hrmakes: If they have a good law firm though, they can take you to the -•d on those restrictions can't they? iss: No. I think we would be upheld on, I mean traffic issues are - tainly a valid concern but you're dealing with something, I mean I II ee with you on a personal level but this country has treated churches and organized religion in a certain way for 250 years. Farmakes: All I'm suggesting in the thinking is that to conform with a master plan, when you're dealing with traffic corridors and you're dealin with the type of concentrated traffic that you're dealing with, churches that may have 500, 600, 800 cars in a parking lot, is to gravitate them II just like you would anything else. You go to a medium density, a high density. If it's over this amount, you stick them in a commercial or industrial area. I mean it doesn't make sense to me that say, you come u to an area and you buy a home in a single family and the next thing you know, there's an 800 car parking lot across the street from you. And the law I think is outdated that we have. It goes back a long ways to that sort of opens up single family zoning for that sort of thing because it II asks them to go back to the corner church that took up an acre or Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 48 something on the corner of the block and there wasn't a problem. And ' times have changed. Batzli: Well we looked at, several years ago now, we looked at based on ' the fear with Eckankar coming in in part, that a large percentage of our tax base might someday vaporize because of tax exempt organizations moving into the city. Since we had Tanadoona and Eckankar and we were afraid you know, Sid Hartman's Little Sister to the Poor were going to move in next ' or something. I don't know what we were thinking but we decided we weren't going to do anything about it then and I think the rationale was, it wasn't going to be a problem. This type of campus setting that ' Eckankar had was unusual and unique and we weren't going to become a depository of a lot of these things. So if you're suggesting that we look at size of church and where it goes. Farmakes: I don't think we can do that here. I think that's an issue to be handled at the State level and that's. ' Batzli: Do you want to do something about it? Farmakes: No. In getting back to the church itself, the Jehovah Witness church, I have no problem at all. I don't understand the relunctance to put a church in an industrial area. It's a wash on the tax revenue as far as I can see. Paul, do you have, do you want to expand any further on that? In fact it seemed to me that you'd make more money not putting it ' in the single family zone. Krauss: The only thing that I thought, if there was a valid concern of their's that we have a very limited amount of industrial office land in the city. How much of it, and it's very important to the city in terms of future tax base, employment, how much of it are we willing to give up? In the short term, I think there's a balance of what one pays versus the ' other. That may be unique to this situation because this church is only taking 2 acres. Batzli: I think that's the whole point. Is that this is taking such a small parcel that it's absolutely ridiculous to me that it's even a topic of conversation for purposes of whether we're going to be able to tax it or not. Krauss: Yeah. I Batzli: It's almost as bad as my argument on the islands. So I mean that's how silly it is. Anyway, let's move on. Krauss: Well so anyway, Monday night's meeting should be an interesting one. I gave you a couple of other things in your packet. One was the testimony that a working group I'm with prepared on the State Wetlands I law. Batzli: Were you preparing that on behalf of the BOWSR group? That drafted that. I didn't understand that. 1 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 49 ' Krauss: What this was is, I think you're aware that I was asked to serve on the BOWSR group last summer. I did so. It was somewhat of a II frustrating experience. I think the bureauracies are running away with this law in a way that's'really going to diminish the ability of a community to manage their own affairs and make life a living hell for anybody that wants to do anything. Frankly there are those, it's been ail interesting experience because you find that the State wetlands law is fundamentally the result of a deal that was cut by the agricultural group and the environmental groups. And it's being balanced on the back of everybody who's left, which is anybody who lives in the Twin Cities or Duluth, St. Cloud or Rochester. Fundamentally the goal of the law is great. I mean we're not arguing that and this group is not arguing that.' Everybody supports the no net loss. What we put together a proposal for for local control for the State to get it's bureaucracies together and require that you go to 3 or 4 different agencies with different rules d different time lines. That there be some standards that are based in , - act and not fiction. And I think we put together a pretty cogent esponse. Now there was a big turnout across the State at the hearings on this. I've heard that our response was one of the best received ones because we did represent a cross section of opinions and it was the most II concise and well put together. There are some changes that, we understand that there's some changes that are occurring in the rules but by and largil they're not enough and we're now trying to kick this program, expand it rapidly. Add on other communities and watershed districts and developers and kick it into the legislative arena for this session because we understand that there's going to be some bills introduced to tinker. One of the things that we got rid of that I found particularly onerous. We understood we got rid of in the rules was this technical advisory committee that basically puts us in the position of we've spent all this II time and effort and dollars to pre -plan our community. Develop a wetland protection plan to go out and survey all of them and this technical advisory committee would basically be a panel consisting of the Soils and Water Conservation District, a BOWSR representative and the City Engineer who would effectively say, I don't care. The wetland's where we say it is. And be asked to do that, or be ordered to do that every time and we can come up with conflicting opinions from the city. Or anybody else and ll then that could be contested to the State. It was a real weird, and I mean it was a star chamber kind of thing. There was no right to public access to this technical advisory committee. There was no public hearing requirement. There was no requirement that they document anything. So w� understand that BOWSR's willing to eliminate that. We also understand that BOWSR is willing to accept a continuation of the interim rule progra which is what we asked for. So that there's more time available to shake this out. Keep in mind, in the interim there is no net loss. There has been since last year. It's working just fine. I mean we're in the forefront of this thing but a lot of, most everybody else has already towed the line. So there is not a pressing or eminent problem with massive amounts of wetlands that are going to be destroyed if nothing happens. The reverse is actually true. Anyway, I'll keep you posted wit that. I also gave you copies of the Best Management Practices Handbook. We're kind of proud of that. I mean I think it's one of the early products and one of the better products. I've sent it around to the Stat agencies and the watershed districts. We wanted you to have an opportunity to take a look at it and then we wanted it back so we could 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 50 sell it. In the interest of being able to have raises for public employees next year. So when you're done looking at it, if you could drop 11 them off at City Hall, I'd appreciate it. Harberts: You wanted these back? 11 Krauss: Yeah, ultimately. If you really wanted to keep it, if it's something you wanted to use as a reference document, feel free. Otherwise, if it's going to sit in your closet. Batzli: Do you hold the copyright? Was there a transfer of title from your consultants to you on the copyright? Krauss: Well since they plagerized a lot other things to begin with, that's not something we got into... We're only selling it for our... We're not making a lot of money. Farmakes: You weren't inspired more than 25% though on any one particular thing right? Krauss: No. I just got a copy, GTS is offering their programs for Planning Commissioners. Do you want to pass that around? If anybody's interested in going, we will be happy to pay for it. Their advance program is probably the better one. Batzli: Any administrative approvals? Krauss: No. ' PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS. Batzli: Let's talk about Planning Commission goals. Is that next on your list? Krauss: Yeah it is but before we do that, maybe we can just touch on, well it's part of one of the goals. The Park Board is going into their Comprehensive Plan. The meeting you thought you were coming to tonight but you didn't. We'd like for the Planning Commission to stay in the loop and the Park Board has offered to have you all come to a couple of meetings where it's appropriate but they've also sought, and I think it would be a good idea if one of you were willing to birddog their process and then report back to the Planning Commission. That would be a real good thing for one of you to do. 1 Batzli: When do they meet? Krauss: I asked Todd that. I guess he didn't say. I didn't think they were going to meet more than once a month and I understood it might be at their regular meeting which is, they only have one meeting. I don't remember when it is. Batzli: Would this topic, the amendment to the comprehensive plan occur at the end of the meeting after they talked about each of the ' developments? 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 51 Krauss: I don't know. I mean we could get more specific about that. It gets to be onerous to sit there. ' Batzli: It's onerous to sit there through the entire meeting. Krauss: Right. Well, if somebody were willing to indicate a predisposall to volunteer without committing, we can certainly try to find out the details. Batzli: Do we want to be actively involved in the process? I've whinned ' ineffectively for years that what they are deciding has to do with a lot of the issues that we're also deciding, and that is preservation of open II spaces. Is there a park located here and there. Natural features. From time to time we've actually gotten them to take a revisit some issues that we thought, there's some natural terrain that's needed here. Why aren't we preserving that and they've gone back to look at it but for the most part we've totally steered clear once they make their decision. And now' our chance for input into that decision and I guess I would ask the Commission, do we want, now that we have this one opportunity in a II lifetime, do we want to take advantage of it? Or do we want to let them decide and just kind of send a representative to report back here what they're doing? Do we want to meet with them as a group is really what asking? Farmakes: They might not want to hear what I have to say but. Batzli: I think we should give them input. Vrauss: I think your point, there were some real concerns. Joe, we II -lked about it earlier but I think the older members on the commission -uld remember. Or the people who have been on the commission longer, ill recall the issues that occurred with the Hans Hagen development and the commission's belief and staff's belief that we were missing a good be preserving an environmentally sensitive area. When the Park Board's predisposition was we need more ballfields. Farmakes: They want to build and that's... Bf7J5: But Jim Andrews, I mean you can see where they're coming from by his comment earlier. I don't mean to pick on Jim but he wants to see room for organized sports and that's what they're predisposed toward. And it came out real clearly today when he wants to see a couple of gymnasiums and an 8 lap pool and you know, and so it's the same thing with their, give me some ballfields and a hockey rink. Farmakes: And that's fine if you have 3 kids. But if you're 48 and your" kids are gone, you don't necessarily, if you can't find a place in Chanhassen to walk along the trees unless you own some or you own a lake, there are a lot of different types of park experience. Batzli: And Nancy doesn't even want us to walk through the reeds out to the lake. ' Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 52 Krauss: So is there a preference then that we have them organize a couple of joint meetings and everybody, maybe one early in the process so when they're laying out their goals, we can clarify some of these things? Batzli: Yeah. I'd like to see us meet up front to talk in general terms about parks and open space and how that fits in with our view of Chanhassen, if it does. And then I think, I don't want to intrude on their process. They didn't trample on us too bad but I would like an initial meeting to give them our input and then I'd be willing to try and track their progress. Conrad: Is Mark Koegler leading that? Krauss: Yeah. Mark's doing the job which is great because Mark worked with us and there's good tie in there. When we did the Comp Plan I went before the Park Board 2 or 3 times just to keep them posted on what was. Batzli: Maybe that's what we should do is have, I'm sorry. What's his name? Todd, yeah. Do that for us. ' Conrad: So you've got good ideas that you can just throw out? Batzli: I don't know that I do but I'd like to hear what they're trying to do and what their process is. Scott: It seems like we need to kind of expand. I mean they talk about park and recreation and you're right, it's more of an organized situation but I think we can kind of expand the vista a little bit by talking about unique topographic features or perhaps passive recreational use versus ' active organized. Farmakes: And even tying in the creek you know that we're dealing with I on TH 5. Krauss: Well that creek is part of their agenda. I mean that will be done. ' Farmakes: But you can deal with that like they've dealt with the trail over on Lake Ann. Where they basically chopped down a 60 foot swath through the trees and then decided that they didn't like what they put down on the ground and they chopped down another 60 foot swath. I mean I guess it depends on what type of park experience you want to make. If you want to make a parkway like they have in Calhoun or you want to more trees and less trail. There's a lot of different things and my curious thing is that 20 years from now, when our ballfields have caught up with our demand and our barbeques and our picnic tables and our outdoor Satellites, where are we going to find the space to go for a walk in the woods. Where are we going to find it publically? And where are we going to find a quiet area where people want to go like Hyland or there's a 1 multi use type park. They have a multi use experience in one park and unless we go down to the bluff or unless we have a creek, if we don't deal with any of these other areas, all these neighborhoods that we're building are going to have to hop in the car and go somewhere for that experience because it's going to be 5 -10 miles away. Well that's what I'm saying. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 53 1 Yeah, you'll have to do something like that because we're only building one kind of thing and I don't think that that's ever good. Conrad: Are there people on the Park and Rec that have a vision? I don' know who's there. I honestly don't. Is it basically staff driven? Krauss: I don't know the dynamics. Batzli: You know the major criteria that I, I mean I applied for that group and the major criteria that they used was were you active in the Chanhassen /Chaska Athletic Association kind of thing so they're coming from a mindset of organized soccer, organized football, Little League. You know all these things which is fine because you've got a lot of participation and that's what people want. But I think people also want something that doesn't come out as clearly and that is, some of the multi experience kind of things. Now North Lotus Park, is a good example actually I think of, you have some ballparks, you have a little totlot, and then you have a big open space leading down into the marsh into Lotus. And it's never utilized at all. I mean some people go out there and hit 11 golf shots. Practice their golf shots on it but otherwise it's not utilized at all. And the deer feed on it and I kind of pull the kids on their sled once or twice a year or cross country ski out onto Lotus through it but it's under utilized. But I think eventually people will I begin to appreciate it as the city starts filling up that there is this open space leading out onto the lake and other things. Farmakes: Minnetonka has a nice, over by I think. 1 Scott: Purgatory. Farmakes: Yeah. There's a wetland. A trail through the wetland there. I/ Krauss: Oh, that's Meadow Park. Yeah, that's between Oakland Road and.., Farmakes: Yeah, and that's right next to a big ballfield complex. Krauss: It's 4 blocks away from Ridgedale. , Farmakes: Yeah. So I mean there are a lot of different things that they can do with that. ' Batzli: So to answer your question Ladd, no. I don't have things I can just spout out but I would like to hear what they do and then maybe we ca think about it and if we need to follow up with another meeting, we can d� that. To quickly move onto our goals, so we can get out of here in 4 minutes. I asked people to bring goals. We have a list of ongoing items, I don't know that anybody brought any goals. Harberts: I did. Batzli: Okay. Do you want to share them with us? You can go first. t Harberts: Certainly from a professional perspective but I think it has all lot of impact on any community is, as development occurs is that I truly Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 54 believe that transit needs to be looked at in the forefront of development not as an afterthought. Batzli: We have traditionally looked at it as an afterthought and have paid as little attention as possible to it. Harberts: And I will change that. And I think the example with Target was a nice opportunity and I've already looked at the Opus Gateway. You know in all developments transit certainly isn't going to be a primary focus but when you're looking at, even with the discussion earlier tonight with the recreational center, you know as simple as if this recreational center is going to be attracting kids and youth, I didn't see any sidewalks or any bikeways or anything like that. You know from the demand that we see at Chaska Community Center for public transit is enormous. In the summertime it's enormous. Mothers and fathers, they love public transit in the summertime. Get the kid on that vehicle and it takes care of their day. They can go swimming. Batzli: Do we have public transit here in Chanhassen? I'm serious. I'm never here. I sleep here. That's it. I'm just kidding. What issues in particular do you want us to look at? Or would you want us to look at. Is there an issue or is this just an ongoing thing that we need to pay more attention to? Harberts: I think it's an ongoing thing but I guess overall what I'd like to do and certainly develop in a closer relationship with staff on a staff to staff basis, is having some general type of criteria so that when we look at development, the question has been asked, what is the role of public transit. Is it appropriate for this type of development that's going on or whatever? Batzli: So let's say a residential development comes in here like tonight. Do we look at public transportation? Harberts: I think it should be a question that's always addressed. Batzli: Okay. Harberts: But in terms of the focus of transit, it's going to have different degrees. You know with the development tonight, I don't see it as a primary focus. One of the questions that I'll ask later on has to do with traffic control, things like that, especially on Highway 5 where everything dumps off there. But that's certainly, I didn't see a priority for it. But when we were looking at a recreational center, when it's a heavy destination, things like that. Industrial is certainly big time, especially when we're working with, I'm working through staff with the major employers out here to find ways to get public bus out here. To reverse commute programs. Your land use has to compliment transit. You can't force transit out there. Cost, everything. So if we can look on a ' more proactive perspective for public transit, there's going to be some great benefits to the community and that's what my wish list is. Batzli: So Paul, assume for a minute that you look at this question on 11 all of our developments. Is there something we need to put on our to do 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 55 II list or is this just something that you will follow up on? 1 Krauss: Well I actually think it's something that as our sensibilities have changed and as Southwest Metro's capabilities have improved, we've started to do it as a matter of course. I mean Target was caught early o and we had them put a bus shelter in by the front door. And they kicked about it. They said well, you've got one out on the street. That's good enough. Well it wasn't good enough because you don't want people to walk, in the rain or 30 below. Why should they have to walk further to the bus than they do to their car? II Batzli: Yeah but you what really happens is they all huddle inside the building peering out the window waiting for the bus so this is actually good for them. They don't have to run all the way through the parking II lot. Krauss: It's hard to define through in every case ahead of time where yo would do this and how you would do this. I mean this is almost a case by case basis. Batzli: Do you understand what Diane is looking for? 1 Krauss: Yeah, I think so. Batzli: Do we have the expertise in house to answer her questions and to cover this issue on our staff report? Krauss: Well the expertise we need is actually with them. I mean it's II kind of, you know we bring the site design expertise. They tell us what their capabilities are and we've been able to work it out. Batzli: Okay. What's next on your list? II Harberts: That's all. , Batzli: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I really don't have any great insights this year. I think :sway 5 is the biggest we've got to look at. That's moving and as long that's happening. The study areas out on TH 41 and TH 5 I think is an teresting thing that we have to push and I don't know what the timeframll is. Krauss: Well the one on TH 41 is part of the Highway 5 process. II Conrad: Is that really? It is part of it huh? Batzli: You have here on our ongoing issues for the study area, north II study area, that public hearing to City Council. That is just on the moratorium correct? That's not on anything that the task force has done? That comes to us first? Right, for public hearings? , Krauss: I don't know why that says that. That's not. Cross out that second sentence. II II Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 56 i Batzli: But I mean there is going to be a public hearing on the 11 moratorium I assume. Krauss: Yeah, but that's not relevant. Batzli: Okay. Conrad: Do we have an open, continue to talk about architectural standards. What's happening? Are we looking at them? Are we just thinking about it or do we just always challenge a sign when it comes in? I don't know what we've said. Krauss: To the extent that it's in the corridor, it's going to be part of that overlay district. Now that doesn't take care of the rest of the city. Batzli: Does Minnetonka have architectural standards? Krauss: Minnetonka has the exact same language we have today because I wrote it over there. Batzli: So they don't have architectural standards? Krauss: No. Batzli: Who does? Farmakes: Although what we're discussing in the sub group of planners, the consultant the city hired, is relevant to that. Although it is in the Highway 5 area. Krauss: Who does? Batzli: Yeah, what city has them? Krauss: Well what do you call architectural standards? Batzli: Well I don't know because I don't know what we're even talking about every time we talk about architectural standards. I'd like to see an ordinance that has architectural standards in it to see if I want them or not. I don't even know if I want them. Krauss: That's being clapped together for the Highway 5 corridor overlay. Farmakes: You can see one from Illinois which is the orriginal one that they had at the meeting. If you want to see one, but it's more like a very long intent statement than it is an actual, I guess what I think of an ordinance. 11 Batzli: For example let's say we wanted to adopt it for downtown Chanhassen, even though most of it is already done and we can't do much about it. Let's say we wanted to put it somewhere other than Highway 5, which we may want to do. Should we look at the original one, or at least give it to us for informational purposes so we can talk about it 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 57 II intelligently. I'd like to see it come on our to do list, just at least II to evaluate whether we want to look at it. Krauss: Yeah, we can get you that. 1 Farmakes: It kind of reads like our PUD ordinance. Krauss: Really? Kind of mushy. 1 Farmakes: No, it has a very long intent area where you kind of read the 1 restrictions. They're more intent type words. Conrad: Well I think the goals should be to minimize the amount of conversation we have been giving architectural standards when the project come in because we've got 7 people making decisions on stuff that we really shouldn't be making decisions about. There are either standards for them or there aren't and I think we have to come to grips with that il because I really don't think that 7 of us can tell a developer how to design a building, and that's what we're doing. I think we'd better decide if we have some standards, we'd better tell them what they are before they come in here and then we give them 7 opinions on how to II redesign a building. We can't do that. Farmakes: I think principles is a better word to use than standards because what it is is there is architectural principles. When we think oll standards, everybody starts talking about style. II Mancino: And someone needs to teach us how to take those principles and apply them to every time it comes up. Or else take those principles and have an architectural review board... I'm not saying that I support that but that's another option. 1 Scott: Or just use an example of something that's built. So if you have questions, Mr. or Ms. Developer, just on the corner of such and such,, a look at that building or take a look at Target or whatever. At -_ have something a little more tangible. Because from tacking to some _.he guys who do some development around, that's the thing that just II _otally drives them nuts. This ameoba thing that they have to deal with and it changes all the time. Some of them are at the point now where they're just, the heck with it. I'm going to build somewhere else. Farmakes: Well you know, there is an inherent conflict of interest 1 because what happens is, if you're doing it for commerce and there's no value to the outside of your building to your commerce, you don't do II an hi ng for it. Batzli: Okay. Well right now let's not, let's put it on our to do list because we've got to go through several other people here. We could talk 1 about this all night. Do you have anything else Ladd? Conrad: No. I like the transit idea. I think that's worthwhile. I II don't know what it means. We've always, it's never been an issue. We talk about park and ride. As long as we have that, we've talked about the railroad track bed going through there and never using that for anything.. II 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 58 But I think with Diane on here, I think that's a real asset to make us think about it. And maybe you can help us provide some, maybe you can get 1 us thinking about that a little bit more. Batzli: She can get light rail out here. Scott: I'm really interested in Highway 5. When I think of the vision when you're coming into town from both directions. I think that's something that's really high on my priority list so, I would say that's probably the thing I'd like to concentrate on. Batzli: Okay. Anything else? Scott: No, that's it. 11 Batzli: Jeff. Farmakes: I agree. I think Highway 5's going to take up all our time. 11 It also probably should because it's going to be the development of the decade. The other question, as far as the goal is, are we going to have long term planning at all heading down south on 212 and on the junction of TH 41 and TH 5? Are we going to deal more with the long term development of that once we decide where those frontage roads go through and start talking about what we're going to see there? Is that possible? Krauss: TH 41 and TH 5? Mancino: The access boulevards north of TH 5? Farmakes: The Fleet Farm. Krauss: Oh yeah. Farmakes: What the intent of commercial will be there. Krauss: We're not going to do a detailed, we're doing detailed site studies and shirettes...on 6 or 7 sites on the corridor. So the entirety of the corridor, no. We won't have it on every site but we're going to take important ones and do it. We're going to be working up a process similar to what we did on Target. We're going to be working up one for the Opus development and bringing it into your meeting on the 25th. By the way, you're also going to get notice from me that I cancelled the subcommittee meeting next week. I don't want to belabor the point too much but after coming off of the last meeting it occurred to me and to Kate that something's not banging away here and we think we know what it is and we want to take a moment to fix it and get the process going in the right direction. So it involves us bringing back the goals and policy statements of the task force on February 25th I think. Mancino: So we're still going to have the subcommittee and it will still be made up of the same people? Krauss: Oh yeah. That's not the issue but the full committee needs to decide some direction before we decide what ordinances we're going to deal Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 59 with. I mean it was very lear that not everybody has the same thought Y 9 about what's supposed to be happening there. Batzli: Very tactfully said. Jeff, did you have.anything else? 11 Farmakes: No. I'm involved in those two things and I guess, not to get on overload, but those will probably take up as much time. I agree on th� transportation issues, although not being a user of public transportation myself but I have to say I have very little practical use experience usin public transportation in the suburbs. From what I have seen, and I've been listening to it for 20 years, I've been hearing a lot more discussio about these things than I actually see benefit, although I believe in the future that that may change. 1 Harberts: FYI presentation might be in order to the commission. Krauss: I think it might be kind of neat for them to know, I mean there'll a lot of nifty stuff happening that you should probably know about. Mancino: That's what I'd recommend Diane. I'd love to have a little in 11 service on transit. I guess my big goal is Highway 5 task force. Being on it and being on a subcommittee. Batzli: Okay. So when we prioritize our goals that I suppose we normal" kind of at least report up to City Council, Highway 5 has defintely been the leader. In looking at the ongoing issues chart, is there anything else that grabs people's attention as something that should be concentrated on in addition to the Highway 5 corridor? Harberts: What about the discussion tonight earlier? , Batzli: Regarding? Harberts: The TIF district and the meeting conference room versus a recreational facility. Farmakes: We have no. 1 Harberts: We have nothing. Farmakes: No information at all on any of that and it seems to be. , Harberts: But they were talking about a summer start of construction of summer of '93. And I don't know if that was some earlier meetings that I missed on, since I wasn't involved. If that's just a to base cost on. But there certainly didn't seem to be any clear direction on what to go. Batzli: Well, we had a fundamental problem at that meeting. One, I mean" you have to initially realize that the recreation center has been vetoed by the community several times. This is a way to get it done without having to go back to the community. And so the Park and Rec Board wants II to see it happen that way. They want space to have basketball and swimming, etc, etc. So that's their mission at this meeting was to see a big one that's going to service all of the community. And obviously I 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' February 3, 1993 - Page 60 ' think our concern may have been a little bit more, let's not put in something half way and let's make sure that if we're using TIF dollars, that the communit;'s getting something and not just a conference room for the hotel for free. Although, I could be convinced that the conference room, including a stage and everything else is needed very badly and it sounds like that's what Dick Wing and some other people were saying is that we're tapped out. We need additional community meeting rooms. But that information wasn't really there and what Jeff said is, let's design it to what we really need. We don't have any data on who would use this thing or who we're going to gear it towards or whether they're going to want their little kids in downtown next to the restaurant /bar, whatever it 1 turns out to be, which was a huge concern to start with and we really don't know what we're doing. Harberts: Well that's really exactly my question. Is that an issue before us this year? Mancino: Is there something we should be doing? Batzli: You know from a historical perspective, the HRA decides to do something and we see it after it's all put together into a plan. Krauss: That's why we asked them to talk to you. Batzli: That's why we saw it tonight and so if we want to continue to have input into that, we need to drive that mechanism. Ohterwise the next time we see it, it will come to us in a plan. Done deal. Scott: Did you, I was quite offended by the whole situation myself. Batzli: I hope I didn't offend you. Scott: No, not at all as a matter of fact. I've been learning quite a bit about how to be inoffensive from you and I didn't figure it was my 1 place at the time to do that. But I got the opinions like the deal had been cut. Harberts: Well it was on the cutting edge there. ' Scott: You know? Like a deal had been cut. And it was kind of like, well here's the deal. So I'm pretty good at being a jerk sometime. So I was just going like, like what's the deal? Like who's going to benefit? Where's this money coming from? Krauss: I should tell you. It's been a real moratory concept. I mean it originally started out with, I mean we've had long standing issues over there. The hotel came and wanted to expand and put a restaurant in and wanted some conference space. We knew we had a movie theatre that's wanted to locate there for years. We knew the bowling alley's near bankruptcy and they're into the city for a substantial sum of money. Well you just throw all those things in the same. Oh, we knew that the Dinner Theatre needed a new scene shop and we knew that Frontier Center was losing it's effectiveness. You start throwing all those things into a pot and stir and things start dropping out. And this was originally driven by 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 61 private parties who came to us and said, well we want to do this. What can the City do? We started saying, well we probably can do a lot but we're not going to do it unless it fixes a lot of problems that we've already had in here. The concept of the, it changes. It really does. I mean it's been changing from week to week as new things crop up and issue are thrown in. So don't feel at all shut out of the process. Frankly it's even tough for me to follow it because it changes. The size of the recreational component keeps on changing. The level of interest of private parties in the thing keeps on changing. Boy, it's really hard toll think of this thing breaking ground this year period. Farmakes: I think it's a good idea. But I think it's going to be a real mistake to sell it as a civic center, because it's not. It's not a civic I center. It's a partial civic center at most and if they go ahead and be upfront and honest about it, but I was thinking of...when I keep on seein that thing come back out because it's always in the same spot as it comes back out. Over what has it been, 10 years? It's always in the same spot. Krauss: Well yeah, and a lot of it predates me but it's my, what I've I been led to believe is the first time this thing came up for a vote, it was very close. It was the second time, I was here the second time it came up. i Batzli: Yeah, but they did it too quickly. I mean the voters said, look. We hammered this once, what are you doing? Krauss: The second time though it was over here. Batzli: I know but they didn't want to hear it again. It was only about" a year or 9 months after the first one. Krauss: But the issue on the first time, the issue was Filly's and the impact that had on mixing kids with all that. The nicest part of this proposal clears all that stuff up. That's no longer an issue. Plus the world has changed around. I mean Filly's is no longer the bar to go beat up somebody at on a Saturday night, or be beat up at. I mean it's across" the street from our supermarket you know. It's got a main street that goes through to TH 5. It's just a different place. Batzli: What's that football player's name? It might have something to II do with him not being in town anymore. No names. Okay. Harberts: Well the point right there though, do we take a role? Do we have a role? We do want a role? I think this type of project certainly has an impact on our community and so from my personal perspective I'd like to see a very active role in it. 1 Batzli: I would want to see, I mean what I would really love to see is a phased construction where we can do it right but we need a little bit mor information and I don't know that the HRA has that. Farmakes: And a viable retail. It shouldn't just look like they're amenities for the hotel and restaurant. It should look like a viable. W11 should have viable retail, otherwise we're isolating other. I mean if 1 I/ Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 62 we're going to have quasi retail over on Great Plains, and down there by the Medical Arts Building, we should connect it. We should have a, we don't have retail up on the street. Batzli: So how do we continue to have input Paul? It sounds like we want to have input. Krauss: Well, I mean things are being handled differently than they were before. I mean you are seeing projects. We first brought this to you when, early last fall and Don took to heart very much what he heard here because at that time it was much more limited in scope. I think you're ' basically saying the same thing with more knowledge. Then it was a limited scope project. Just a back part of the Frontier Building and I remember Tim Erhart and Brian, I think you said well. This is silly. Why don't you just punch out those derelict looking buildings in the front and carry it through to 78th Street and have a lot of presence and go the whole 9 yards. Put a lot of glass in. Make sure that this is an impressive structure. Batzli: In an area that tied together and they had that by having the entrance which tied it together, rather than having these little dark corridors that scurried around a maze. So they took a lot of our comments to heart but how do we continue to? Krauss: Well we'll make sure that, I mean I'll work with Don and Todd to make sure that you have other opportunities to do this. This was to the point where it should he brought back to you and the Park Board for some direct input. We'll keep doing that. Batzli: Okay. Farmakes: I do like the idea of though of a recreational /conference/ entertainment area. But we should be known for entertainment. We really should. When you look at what we have here in our community, we should be known for entertainment. Most of MTV comes out of here. We've got 11 several theatres. We've got the largest capacity restuarants here in the state and we should be known more for that, and it's not. We're not known. I mean we're not playing that up. Scott: But when you look at that line that says, this is public and this is private, I think we need to change that so that if something is going to be a private enterprise, an entrepreneur needs to make the decision that I can make a buck at this so I'm going to pay for it. Krauss: And I know that's very much a part of the deal with Don. The hotel is, you're going to have to sign on the bottom line. You're going to build 20 rooms, you're going to build a new restaurant, you're going to build some of your own conference facilities. Cinema, you're going to have to guarantee that you're either going to buy the space from us or lease it long term from us to get a restaurant in there. We need, if we do the retail component on 78th Street, they're looking for commitments from Bloomberg to say he will own that space and he will lease it out so he'd be paying for that area. That's very much a part of the deal and it's just so tough. I think you can probably fathom how tough it is when 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 63 1 you've got about 10 to 15 interests, each with their own agendas trying til put something like this together. Mancino: Do you know, is a private health club trying to get in the area Krauss: No. Not that I've heard of. Batzli: It would be nice if the Y or somebody else would come in and takil care of that and then you could really do a community center as a community center and not worry about some of this other demands that we have in this area I think. But that's just me. Scott: I would personally appreciate being able to see that. Although I think most of us, we were prepared to deal with another issue, I thought that was extremely interesting. So I think we need to be involved in that process. Farmakes: I know that Flagship really just separates adult recreation and children even though they have the family, they also have the family coordination program between the two. But I don't want to go swim laps when there are kids in the pool. I just don't want to do that. I don't want to go sit in a hot tub when there's 20 kids on there and who knows what they're doing. Krauss: Well originally, the athletic facility was what Don was indicating. It was an adjuct to the hotel and adults in the community an the recreation for everybody else would be done out at the expanded school. But then we started hearing from some folks that that's not egalitarian enough. We really need to offer this for everybody and. Farmakes: The practical matter is that many people are just going to pul up, drop their kids off and take off. A lot of adults don't like to recreate. Tatzli: Okay. I have two things quickly here. One is Bluff Creek __rridor. I think we need to, if that's going to be handled with the Par Rec Commission, in their recreational element, that's fine but we need move on that or else that's going to be an opportunity lost and we're going to have that whole thing built. And the open space zoning, I think that kind of ties in with the existing zoning use...that you passed out today. I know that this is kind of flogging a dead horse but I still would eventually want to see, I think the area down, coming off the bluff" in the southern part of the city is one of the neatest natural features we've got. I still want to see that rezoned somehow. I don't care if it is a taking. I think we have to do it. Harberts: What's it zoned now? Krauss: Business fringe and agriculture. In fact, I was just told I havi to go back to Court for the fourth time. Batzli: On Moon Valley? 1 Scott: On Moon Valley. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 64 Batzli: That's been worth it though hasn't it? ' Krauss: I've loved it. ' Batzli: So I would like to see those things taken a look at some point during this year and I agree that the Highway 5 corridor, it'd be nice to add the standards, at least to educate us as to what we can do with it and what is the Highway 5 corridor doing with it so we can be consistent. Maybe we want to wait for them to bring in their standards and then just adopt them city wide if we like them. Krauss: Well that's my thought. I'm kind of, well to touch on it. I just handed out something for you that I was going to hand out on Saturday. By the way, I think you all know you're invited, Brian in ' particular, to the Saturday morning goals session. Batzli: Is that going to be over at the Fire Station? ' Krauss: Yes. Same format. Batzli: Same format. What time does that start? ' Harberts: I was told 7:30 until noon. Mancino: What is it? Krauss: Once a year the City Council gets together and talks about goals for the year. I handed this out, and I'm kind of glad you didn't come up with too many new projects because frankly we're getting snowed in. What's on that sheet is the list of how many boards and committees my staff is responsible for. I mean the engineering department is responsible for one, the City Council. That's all they do. Public Safety is only responsible for the Public Safety Commission. That's all they do. We're the only organization around here that has 12 or 13, whatever it is, committees. And then what's really concerning me and every time I see the 1 newspaper saying the recession is over, it doesn't sound so good to me in some ways because the dam is bursting. I mean we've just got developments coming in like crazy. ' Batzli: Job security. Harberts: Or early burnout. 1 Scott: And then taking a look at this list and saying, say from the Planning Commission's perspective, we can probably handle two of those a meeting. There's at least a year's worth of stuff in there too and you guys basically do the heavy lifting. Then we send you back for more in some instances so I can definitely see where you're coming from there 11 because we're going to get the tip of the iceberg and you guys get the rest of it. Krauss: So hopefully things won't fall through the cracks too much but frankly I feel kind of guilty over the lack of quick progress we're making on Highway 5 because there was some fundamental things that weren't done Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 65 and when it occurred to me what wasn't done, I mean it was really so basi it was... Batzli: So, what is going to come of your request to Don? Anything? Krauss: I don't know. I'm not even sure at this point what I, I mean thl easiest thing for us to do would be for Jo Ann and Kate to go back onto 5 day work weeks but I really don't think either one of them are in a position to do that because of their family responsibilities. The possibility of bringing an intern on, I'm not terribly excited about that. I mean there are a lot of different. Harberts: So much training? Krauss: Well that's the problem. You know in a crisis situation. They're only here for 6 months and then they're gone. On the other hand II though, we're thought of very highly around this State with the departments we work for and there's a lot of folks that would like to work... Harberts: Is there budget opportunities though to hire for new hire? Krauss: No, that's part. You know Don's usually been able to work some II magic and find money here and there but the idea of staffing a new position is probably not realistic. Which then you come down to the only other option, and I didn't put it in here, is we've got to pick and choos what we're going to be successful on. Farmakes: If this moratorium goes through help? ' Krauss: Well, if the moratorium goes through, it helps in some respects but it's a big city and most of the development we're getting is outside II the moratorium area anyway. Batzli: That's what you get for expanding the MUSA line Paul. You could have had a cush job. Scott: I get the idea that that moratorium was thrown specifically at the Abra /Goodyear. ' Krauss: I think that they're genuinely concerned. I mean the same night they had the Opus thing on. They're genuinely concerned about everything" that's happening. Batzli: Yeah but you know, it was proposed that we put a moratorium on months ago and everybody said no, no. We don't want to do that. Farmakes: I think that happened to be coincidence that that came up at the same time that came up in the discussion. It wasn't driven by it. Batzli: No, I don't think it was driven by that one thing. I just found it interesting that the minute the new Council was kind of, it became an item again because. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 66 1 Krauss: Well for a lot of reasons too, we lost about 6 to 8 months on getting going before we got the final go ahead to get started on the Highway 5 project. It was a long period of time that we back peddled. 1 Batzli: Yeah. So, do you want us to do anything? Do you want us to lobby Don? Conrad: I think Brian, you should, I'll hand out responsibilities here but 1 guess. 1 Batzli: As Assistant Chairperson you could be just as responsible. Conrad: You nominated me so you're going to suffer. I think that you ' should really sit down with Paul and go over his priorities and Paul's got to tell you what he thinks his staff can do. And you've got a pretty good sense for what you know is out there and what the things we talked about tonight. I think Paul's got to tell us what he can get done this year with his staff and then it's our job to say, do we want to get more done? And if we want to get more done, then it's our's to tell the City Council that we, here's what we're going to get done. If you want to get more done through the staff, then there's got to be something, some of that additional resources placed there. What that does is at least gives us our priority. We can't ask staff to do more than they can do. We don't know what they can do but the bottom line is, probably if we take care of 1 Highway 5 this year, we're probably doing a pretty good job but that's not much for us to do because basically it's Paul and the task force and I don't know how much commission involvement there is. But I think I'd sure like to have a crack at looking then at what we could do. Batzli: That's the issue is because, assume for a minute that you and I 1 aren't on the task force, which I think is true. We sit here all year and we wonder what's going on and then while these guys are out there doing their Highway 5 deal and we're saying, let's do something. Guys, Minnesota gender neutral, yes. And the issue for me is I would like to get something done between now and when suddenly I've got this grandiose plan in here for irrate public hearings. But you're already doing something but I don't see it happening and so that's the problem too. Harberts: And also at the same time I think you can still go ahead and prioritize but there's always that what if. If something else comes up or some new development or whatever. Krauss: I don't know what percentage of our time it is but it's probably 60% to 70% of our time is, here's a new project that walked in the door. 1 We have an obligation to get it on the agenda in 4 weeks, and there's a lot of those in the pipeline. Farmakes: Can you adjust the service requirements on the lead time to bring? I know you have your own set of criteria. Is that carved in stone? Krauss: Well when I first started here it was 3 week turn around. I raised it to 4. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 67 Farmakes: That's not legal, correct? Krauss: It's in, well it might not be in ordinance. It's in the N� procedures that we hand Out to folks. But all that happened is we let everything slip for another week. Harberts: But isn't also though within whatever that project would be, that if something, some characteristic of that project happens that you I have an obligation to in a sense reaot tP it or whatever? Krauss: Oh yeah. Well you can bounce something if there's rational to do it. But we have at least 2 packets going out every week. 1 Batzli: Well Paul, you and I will sit down and we'll see what you think you think you can get done and we'll take it from there. Okay, thanks everybody. N� Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. U� Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING 1 FEBRUARY 11, 1993 1 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bill Bernhjelm, Dave Johnson, Don Chmiel, Craig Blechta, Eldon Berkland 1 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Dave Dummer, Brian Beniek I STAFF PRESENT: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director Bob Zydowsky, Public Safety Officer Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official I Jim Castleberry, Chief Deputy CCSO Sgt. Julie Boden, CCSO 1 Alternate Chairperson Dave Johnson opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. I Commission Blechta motioned, Commission Berkland seconded, to approve the 1/14/93 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion passed. I The New Business agenda item of Stop Signs on West 78th Street was addressed at this time. Councilmember Mark Senn presented his and many residents' concerns regarding the need of stop signs on West 78th Street. At this time, Dennis Eiler, from Strgar, Roscoe and 1 Fausch, reported on his study findings. Semaphore placement will commence by Fall 1993, but stop signs in the interim would be authorized by the State. The Opticom System will be operating when semaphores are installed on West 78th Street, and sooner on Highway 5. 1 After significant discussion, the consensus was to have Mr. Eiler provide additional traffic study information in a letter to Director Harr for further consideration. In the interim, the Sheriff's Department agreed to continue to enforce traffic laws downtown and to monitor I traffic flow. Also, Commissioner Berkland asked for efforts to keep the community posted on this matter by a newsletter, possible neighborhood meetings, etc. Director Harr will be 1 following up on this, and will provide the results of the engineering report to the City Engineer upon receipt. 1 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 0 Chief Deputy Castleberry commended the City of Chanhassen, along with Director Harr, I for the $l million savings to the taxpayers on the successful use of the contract system. Other counties and cities are inquiring of the Sheriff's Office about our contract system. I The Sheriff's Department, along with the State Patrol, and Chanhassen Public Safety have continued to patrol West 78th Street, with very positive results. 1 1 1 II Public Safety Commission February 11, 1993 1 Page 2 1 1 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Building Official Steve Kirchman reported on the 1992 increase in inspections and revenue. 1 Steve also forecasted a slight increase in building for 1993, and an even greater increase for 1994. A walk -thru in new construction (single family & commercial) with the 1 Commissioners will be scheduled this Summer for the purpose of educating the Commission on this aspect of the Public Safety Department's activities. I Building Official Kirchman handed out maps displaying the proposed Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition. Confusion will exist if the proposed street name of Lake Susan Hills Drive is used. He recommended the possibility of renaming the street, which would affect 9 I homes. Commissioner Blechta motioned, Commissioner Bernhjelm seconded, to support this recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion passed. This recommendation of the Public Safety Commission will be taken to the Planning Commission and to City 1 Council. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT 1 Director Harr reported that two inspection vehicles, and the CSO vehicle will be painted by General Motors because of a recall on the paint, which has also permitted a more I modern and pleasant lettering to be installed on the vehicles. The City Council, at their 2/8/93 meeting, approved the requesting of bids for a replacement CSO vehicle. 1 Commissioner Beniek, in the absence of Commissioner Johnson, attended the last Highway 5 Commission meeting. Commissioner Johnson will submit a memo to Director Harr on the update of this Commission. I Commission Berkland reported that carbon monoxide detectors are available for purchase P P at many locations. He has contacted the American Lung Association for educational I material. This educational material could be available for residents at the Public Safety Open House, Fire Department Open House, City Newsletter and The Villager. Commission 1 Berkland will submit a memo to Director Harr regarding his findings and his recommendation for direction on this project by the Commission. I Director Harr inquired if the Commission would like to hold a public hearing regarding shooting boundaries in the City. Discussion followed concerning a public hearing or a public input session during a future Commission meeting. Director Harr will meet with the editor I of The Villager to suggest an informational article in a future edition. 1 5 Public Safe ty Commission February 11, 1993 Page 3 1 1 Discussion was held on the amendment of the solicitors ordinance. Commissioner Blechta 1 motioned, Commissioner Berkland seconded, that the Public Safety Commission endorse the proposed solicitors permit similar to the City of Edina's. All voted in favor and the motion I passed. Commissioner Blechta motioned, Commissioner Johnson seconded, to adjourn the meeting I at 9 p.m. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1