The URL can be used to link to this page

1o. Minutes ii _ _ AI CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING li * JUNE 4, 1990 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened Iwith the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson ISTAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Paul Krauss, and Jo Ann Olsen IIAPPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations: I Mayor Chmiel added an item on the Association of Municipalities; Councilman Johnson added discussion of the completeness of the U.S. Census in Chanhassen; Councilman Boyt added trail referendum; and Councilman Workman added Minnesota River/Met Council. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion Icarried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. ICONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's IIrecommendations: 1 b. Resolution #90-56: Approve Cooperative Agreement with MnDot for Trunk Highway 5 Improvements, Project 88-28A. 1 f. Approve Settlement Agreement with City of Shorewood for Assessments on Church Road Improvement Project 87-5. Ig. Approve Settlement Agreement with Albert Dorweiler for Assessments on Bluff Creek Drive Improvement Project 87-5. Ih. Approve Consultant Agreement for Lake Susan Park Improvement Project 89-6. j. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Sections 20-30 and 20-903 of the City IICode pertaining to Recording of Permits and Zoning lots, Final Reading. k. Approval of Accounts. II. City Council Minutes dated May 14, 1990 Joint City Council/HRA Minutes dated May 7, 1990 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 16, 1990 Im. Resolution #90-57: Accept Roadway Improvements in Pheasant Hill 2nd and 3rd Additions, Project 86-1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 II City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 ' D. APPROVE REVISED SPECIFICATIONS FOR HURRAY HILL WATER TOWER REHABILITATION AND PAINTING PROJECT 89-24; AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS.. Councilman Workman: I asked Gary a lot of questions today but not this one. I apologize. It sounds like if we're going to go ahead and just clean this tower of it's obvious dirt and mildew. How much is that going to cost? Is that worth ' our while to do that at this point or does that tower look okay and we should maybe put the whole thing off or is washing it going to. ' Gary Warren: Cleaning of the exterior is a small dollar amount. We didn't have that broken out separately in the bid but I know it's a small dollar amount. The interior of the tank would actually be sand blasted and painted and that certainly is warranted from our inspection report. ' Councilman Workman: Oh the interior still is going to be? ' Gary Warren: Yeah, the interior is confined obviously so to blow the dust and everything else can be confined and collected properly so the interior is still scheduled to be painted and restored. Councilman Workman: So really getting them up there to wash it really isn't much more? ' Gary Warren: Yeah, it's a minor expense. The City of Edina just did it on one of their tanks because they were out there as well and some of the local residents have commented to me that they were encouraged to hear that at least ' we were going to do that. To get the mildew off of it. Councilman Workman: I would move approval. E' - Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Johnson: One more question. It looks like we test sandblasted an area then tested the sandblast. Did we ever test the actual paint to see what percent lead was in the actual paint? See how we met those criteria? Gary Warren: No, I don't believe that we actually tested the paint although I'd ' have to check with our consultant on it. PCA criteria was with the blasting sand seeing that would be the ultimate material to be disposed of. ' Councilman Johnson: Because here they're talking about 5% and in the criteria that was given and everything, it talks about the percent of paint. Percent of lead in the paint and distance to houses and stuff like that whether you have to ' use this criteria. When you get looking at 3 part per million of lead in the final dust, and that's in the actual dust. When you actually look at the milligrams per cubic meter and all that good stuff of actual exposure to the ' neighborhood, it's going to be miniscule. I'm wondering if we've done our homework enough here to say we do have enough of a problem to where we can't go ahead with this project. To me I didn't see the numbers there. ' Gary Warren: The numbers are one thing. The advice that we have from Jack Comer who's been active in this area very strongly throughout the State and Midwest has been that the PCA will actually, if a complaint is issued okay? -- 2 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Councilman Johnson: Right. IF Gary Warren: If a complaint is issued, the PCA will come out and will just outright stop the operation regardless of the lead content because their policies right now, they're running a bit scared perhaps at this time or whatever. If a complaint is issued, their response to that right now is to shut the operation down. Councilman Johnson: Without any air sampling to see if we meet the National Standards for lead? Gary Warren: That's correct. Without any sampling and your next option is then you've got a tank that's half blasted on the outside and you're going to have to go to some real extreme measures to finish it up. Councilman Johnson: Well the other option is to do the monitoring while you do the blasting to where if they come out we say we've got our monitoring data. We meet the National Standards. There is no problem here. They would have a hard time shuting us down if we had that data. Gary Warren: We weighed the expense of doing anything extreme at this time and figured at least we could get the inside of the tank taken care of and we would have some time here to let them sort through their regulations and make some sense out of it. Councilman Johnson: I mean we're just putting you off is what I want to make sure. Mayor Chmiel: So we know exactly what we're doing. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the revised specifications for Murray Hill Water Tower rehabilitation and painting project 89-24 and authorize advertising for bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATION: None. AWARD OF RIDS: LAKE DRIVE EAST FROM DAKOTA AVENUE TO DELL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 89-6. Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, the Lake Drive East project from Dakota Avenue to Dell Road, we opened bids back in April and they've been waiting basically on MnDot to come across with their cooperative agreement for their share of the construction project funds. As was just approved in the consent agenda, that document now is in place so the Council can go forward with awarding the project. The bids were very competitive. Fortunately they came in under the engineer's estimate and we are recommending award of the bid to Northdale Construction who we are very familiar with from our Lake Drive project and low bidder on our Country Hospitality Suites project. The actual amount of the award we've modified somewhat to recognize some quantity differences in the bid proposal. The actual amount of the award is for $719,802.59. 3 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Resolution 890-58: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to award the bid for the Lake Drive East Street and Utility Improvement Project ' 89-6 to the firm of Northdale Construction Company in the amount of 5719,802.59. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REJECT BIDS, UTILITY TELEMETRY SYSTEM, AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF REVISED SPECIFICATIONS. Councilman Johnson: Can I move approval? ' Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to hear the benefits. ' Councilman Johnson: Okay. Councilman Workman: I'll second that so Gary can discuss it. ' Gary Warren: I think we're all very interested in seeing the utility telemetry system package that we've budgeted here get in place. Nobody's more anxious than myself and Jerry Boucher our utility superintendent to see that we do this ' so it was kind of a hard decision here for us to actually recommend rejecting the bids. However, for the long term benefit of the city as far as this system is concerned and recognizing the importance of it, there were a couple of items ' that became apparent as we got into the actual bidding and worked with the bidders as far as alternatives that might be available to us for consideration such as radio telemetry instead of the telephone system. We therefore thought it best in light of the process here to reject the bids and put together a ' little bit more comprehensive package. I personally was down last week to look at Burnsville's system and it's been quite helpful to us to get a little bit better perspective of what is available to us out there. So in order to ' evaluate the telemetry system or excuse me, the radio system, we need to do a propogation study of the wavelengths to actually look at our monitoring locations as it relates to longitude and latitude and where we would be picking ' them up and also the topography and this has been done successfully in Burnsville by some subcontractors that are also mentioned here in the packet. Once that is done, then we will have a good handle as to the radio capability for the system. We believe the reliability of the wavelength. It's not your standard radio system here. This is a very directional peak in the high. frequency system. The time that you need the system most is the time when the phone lines typically have some problems or we're vulnerable to contractor ' problems with phone lines so we believe that that is a very key element that we want to reinvestigate and we expect to have the bids modified by the end of this month so we'd be back on the street and possibly have it still completed this year. Mayor Chmiel: Good. I'm hopeful that we will. That that's going to eliminate a lot of driving around to each location and checking them out and it's going to ' save time and money for us. When you're posing this, as I look at it, once you've come up with your conclusions are we going to look at a Cadillac or a Chevrolet? Don't tell me an Oldsmobile. ' Councilman Johnson: With an AM/FM stereo. j ' 4 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 I Gary Warren: With an AM/FM stereo. There are some things that come with the basic system. The biggest impact costwise to the system here would be if we can go radio_ The radios, because of they go for about $2,000.00 per station so we're probably looking at a $50,000.00 increase to the proposal right now. That is a system however that when we look at the long range operation or maintenance standpoint, life cycle costs of the system, the cost that we get hit from the telephone company for having the telephone lines is pretty excessive on a monthly basis as well so long range the radio investment should be a better return for the City even though there would be better up front capital cost. I would consider that closer to a Cadillac system when you talk about the telemetry aspect but from what the system will be doing, I think that we'll be, I would say middle of the road system. We're not getting all the bells and whistles. We did find out which addresses your point Mr. Mayor, the Burnsville system has a discreet dialer. That's a $5,000.00 unit basically that allows when a failure alarm comes in, allows the pager to be dialed up in a priority rating and specifically give a message to our on call person as to what pump station or well specifically has the problem so what we had in the orignal spec was basically just a failure notice. They would have to come and check out the system and find out where the problems are so that will definitely enhance our response time to the specific site when we have a call. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Councilwoman Dimler: Could .I just ask Gary one more question? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I Councilwoman Dimler: What are our neighboring towns doing like Eden Prairie, Chaska, Shakopee, Minnetonka? ' Gary Warren: As far as systems of this nature? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Are we going to have the best system around? ' Gary Warren: I would say that we always do things right here in the City but it's the trend of the majority of the cities. Burnsville just added theirs. Crystal. Edina. They're all getting to this because of the efficiencies. Councilwoman Dimler: This is the state of the art? ' Gary Warren: Well it's state of the art to a certain extent in that the microchip world has finally caught up with us here but it also will allow us to do things from an operation standpoint as far as even doing energy shaving conservation as far as our well operations and seeing some paybacks by entering into some agreements. , Councilwoman Dimler: So in the long run it's going to save us money in I operation but cost us more up front? Gary Warren: I would say that's a fair statement. ' Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion which is here on the floor with a motion and a second. 5 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 _ ' Resolution $90-59: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to reject the April 27, 1990 bids received for the sewer and water automatic -� monitoring and alarm system and to authorize John DuBois to commence with an evaluation of the radio communications aspects to support the radio telemetry system as quoted in his flay 23, 1990 proposal. It is further approved to authorize the firm of OSM to proceed with the preparation of the revised bidding ' documents for this project in accordance with their May 24, 1990 proposal. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' APPOINTMENT TO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. ' Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Council. At the last Council meeting staff was directed to ask the City Attorney to provide an opinion in regards to the appointment of a City Council member to the HRA board and with that member being appointed, would his term coincide with the term of office as a City Council ' member. The opinion of the City Attorney is that the tern can be made to coincide with the term of office of the City Council and the HRA. It's under Minnesota Housing and Redevelopment Authority Act, the Mayor is responsible for ' appointing an individual to the HRA with City Council approval. Mayor Chmiel: Right. We discussed this last time some and I'm going to throw it back open for any more discussion. ' Councilman Johnson: Well one thing, Cliff was asking to have a short term along with a new person to work in a new chairman. I think that we need at least 2 ' council members at any time on this board and that their term on the board should coincide with their term on the Council. That's pretty close for Tom. He's already assigned and I think a new one should go that way. I'd like to see us appoint one of ourselves here and at this point I'd like to suggest that the Mayor suggest himself and that we also suggest that the HRA ask Cliff to be a special advisor to them in a non-voting role on the commission but to assist with the commission. He has so much information and so much knowledge of HRA ' and stuff that I'd like to see him stay around a little longer to help with the transition. He has said he's not interested in a full S year term but I can't see how we can give him a 1 year term because that's not within the perview of State Statute unless he's a City Council member. So that's my discussion. Councilwoman Dimler: If the Mayor would like to do it, I'd second that. Councilman Johnson: Well, I'm not making a motion. It's only a suggestion. Mayor Chmiel: As I mentioned the last time that I'd be more than willing to ' serve on it. I need just one more particular commission to serve on for something to do but that's besides the point. It's what I feel should be done so we do have at least the overview of what's really happening and get those ' particular opinions. So I would make that suggestion. Bill? Councilman Boyt: Well I would encourage you to withdraw your nomination for a ' couple of reasons. One of them and probably the most important one is that in Mr. Whitehill you have someone who's been with this process from sort of the first brick being knocked down in the city. He brings a great deal of experience outside the City into the negotiation process and though he ' 6 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 1 occasionally misses a meeting, you can't replace that experience. An equally important reason is that he wants to continue to serve. Councilman Johnson: But he's asked for 1 year. Councilman Boyt: That's not a problem. Anyone can resign from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority anytime they want to resign. Whether he wants to be on it 1 year or whether he wants to be on it 5 years, the key is that the gentleman has given a great deal of his time and effort to this. He's currently chairing the HRA and to not reappoint him I think is inappropriate so I could encourage you to move his replacement. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess in answer to that I would like to say that I know he's a busy man and he's most of the meetings in the last year. I think he's done a terrific job but I think he's probably too busy to continue. I wouldn't like to see us appoint him for just one year. It's too disruptive. Councilman Workman: I'd echo Jay's comments. I don't think we have to rip somebody down like Cliff Whitehill to say thank you. You've done a great job but 1 year doesn't interest us perhaps. I don't think that has to be an ' indictment on his abilities over the past years but I think that would, by going Bill by your route would I think short sight what I think the Mayor can bring to the HRA and I think we've got 3 other people on the HRA that have been there an awful long time so there is continuity. So I see that as, I don't need to tell Cliff Whitehill that he's worthless that's for sure. Mayor Chmiel: No,2liff has done an excellent job I agree. ' Councilman Workman: And so I think we can move ahead with, if Cliff wants to help us in that capacity. I've been on the HRA since August. I think I've attended all but one HRA meeting since then and I've only been at 2 with Cliff and so he is busy and so I think we can still get his expertise perhaps without him having to be a voting member of the commission. ' Mayor Chmiel: We have that motion on the floor to appoint the mayor onto the HRA with the assist of Cliff Whitehill if he so desires to assist us by sitting there to provide his expertise and his knowledge into the decision making that we will do. It's been moved and seconded. Resolution #90-60: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to appoint Mayor Chmiel to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and to ask for Cliff Whitehill's assistance in consulting on HRA matters. Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson voted in favor. Councilman Boyt voted in opposition and Mayor Chmiel abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 7 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 - 3 NORTHWEST NURSERY LOCATED AT 7801 GREAT PLAINS BLVD: A. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE ALTERING AND FILLING OF A CLASS B WETLAND. ' B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE WHOLESALE NURSERY. Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, would you like to cover item (a) first? ' Jo Ann Olsen: Sure. The wetland alteration permit and it was recommended that it be tabled. That no action be taken because the plan that had been submitted were not complete. The proposed expansion does not require any wetland alteration permits so it's really up to the applicant whenever he wants to pursue the ponding that he can come. forward again with the wetland alteration permit so there's really no action to take on that other than to recommend tabling it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ' Councilman Johnson: There's a hand in the audience up too. Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Jim Wilson: I'm a part owner in Northwest Nursery Wholesale and to just give you a little bit of background on why. ' Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone please and indicate your name and your address? Jim Wilson: Sure. Jim Wilson and I'm with Northwest Nursery Wholesale, 9150 Great Plains Blvd. . My partner Mark VanHoef who usually appears before the Planning Commission or Council is out of town so I've had to show up and just to ' give you a little bit of background on this. The reason why the wetland alteration permits have been put on hold is back in I believe it was October or maybe even prior to that, it was recommended to us by Jo Ann Olsen, the planner, that we come forward with a total picture if you will. An ultimate plan. ' Ponding is desired by us down the road in the future. However, we're tree farmers. We've had 2 years of drought. We're not a highly profitable business. These type of plans cost a lot of money. We've already spent some $10,000.00 ' plus in working with areas that we've had to work with which we'll get into I think at a later time tonight on the conditional use permit. So at this time I guess we do not want to pursue the ponding until a later date so we'll do whatever is required as far as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or whatever agencies at that time. Any ponding that we want to do is to enhance the site. To improve the wetlands if that will improve the wetlands. I'm not 100% sure. I'm not an agent of the wildlife division but I would think that it would and at a ' later date maybe we will pursue that so I hope that gives you a little bit of why we don't want to get into the wetland alteration. It's from a financial standpoint right now. Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, do you see any problems with that? ' Jo Ann Olsen: No. 8 I _,. City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 It Councilman Johnson: I still have a question. I've questioned this for a the last several years since you first brought it up 3 or 4 years ago I guess it was. I still am unclear why you want the pond. I mean it's not within view of your operations per se. Jim Wilson: Oh, it's within view of our operation. 1 Councilman Johnson: Yeah, in the back view. Jim Wilson: If we could use it for irrigation purposes let's say or just to , open it up to make the site from an appearance standpoint. We're a nursery. Councilman Johnson: You would not be allowed to withdraw water for irrigation purposes. Jim Wilson: Oh I don't know that. I don't know that. I really don't know. Mainly we wanted to put the ponds in to enhance the site. Right now if you would come down and visit the site and see what that wetlands is, it's a up until just recently it's been a dried up marsh. There is no real water in the thing. Councilman Johnson: Normally there is. I'm fairly familiar with that wetlands. 3 to 4 years ago there was but they're not open water. I Jim Wilson: No, I've been there for 5 years. This is my sixth year there. There's never been any standing water in that wetland other than the very northwest corner where somebody threw some dynamite out there years ago and blew a big hole there and it's just a little puddle out there. The rest of it up until, we could still walk across it right now. It is not, there's no ducks. There's no geese in there and what we would like to do eventually, if we're allowed to, is enhance the look of this site for our customers to come in there and see trees around a pond. Water, trees, those kind of things go together. Enhancement of the site. We don't need it for irrigation. We have two wells on the site that are sufficing our irrigation needs right there. It's enhancement of the site. Councilman Johnson: Just a visual enhancement? ' Jim Wilson: We don't need it now so that's why we're putting it on hold. Like I said, it was suggested your total plan or your ultimate goal of this property , so we put that in there and I guess at this time we can't afford to get into the type of planning that's necessary so we'd like that just set aside for right now. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I don't think we have to have any action on it specific. Councilman Workman: But Jo Ann, didn't they encroach on a wetland outside of the conditional use? Jo Ann Olsen: No. Not within the wetland. It was, that's a Class B wetland from TH 101 over to the larger Class A wetland and they were never within that. They were on the edge of it. I 9 41 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 x II Councilman Johnson: Doesn't that require a wetland alteration permit to do the fill within 75 feet? ' i IIJo Ann Olsen: No. The ordinance is only for a Class A wetland within 200 feet. Councilman Johnson: Only if you're within a Class 8. IICouncilman Workman: We've discussed altering Class B wetlands before. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but they didn't alter the wetland per se. They're II just close to it. Jo Ann Olsen: They're close to it. ICouncilman Workman: So close to it is okay but not in it? II Jim Wilson: That's another point I'd like to bring up that I think there's still a misconception of where this wetland is. The B. We're pretty confident we know where the A is but I think there's some misconception as to exactly where that B is. Now like I say, I haven't been on top of this 100% of the time II but we had a Jerry Smith who was with the Army Corps of Engineers come out and walk the site. Right behind him my partner Mr. VanHoef followed him with stakes and putting stakes into the ground and we outlined the Class 8 wetland. Now I some of the stakes are still there. Some aren't. That was a couple years ago. We would certainly like to get somebody out there because we do want to plant some trees. We want to make use of some good agricultural ground that would be II on the edge so before we do that we are going to have whatever ruling authority on that come out and help us stake that out. Believe me, we don't want to fill in any wetlands. We don't want to ruin any land. If you people would have come up there and seen that in 1985 what that site looked like, I wish I had pictures I now of that place. It was a run down, dilapitated farm. Junk piled in spots and I'll tell you, my partner and I were besides ourselves when we've got to go out there to fill in a gopher hole we've got to get a permit for grading and I'm 1 telling you, it's frustrating. Really frustrating. We are in the nursery business. We grow trees. I think it's an honorable profession. It's needed. People desire trees. They desire beauty. Like I said, we'll put a pond in. We I want to enhance that property. What would I want to make a junk pile out of it for? I'm in the nursery business. People that come to me as customers want to buy trees to go out and landscape properties. What would I want to make it a pile of junk for? IIMayor Chmiel: I don't think anyone is indicating that. II Jim Wilson: Well I'll tell you, we're feeling that that's, any time we move. Tear down an old building. We do a little bit of filling in. We're encroaching on wetlands. IMayor Chmiel: That's part of our.. . Jim Wilson: I can come over here and show you where they dug out a pond and - i II they left a little island. There's geese nesting in there. There's families of geese. That's what I'd like. There's no geese over in that wetland. There's no ducks. There's nothing there. Pheasants, they were there because it was dry 1 10 II City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Y I but now they're drowned out and I'll tell you it's. Councilwoman Dimler: We sense your frustration. 1 Jim Wilson: Yes, I apologize. I'll try not to get carried away. Mayor Chmiel: Necessary functions unfortunate of the City. Jim Wilson: . But that's what we're trying to do. Honest to goodness and I wish I had the pictures but we didn't take the pictures and it's unfortunate. But anything we're doing over there believe me, we're doing to improve the site. I mean I'm not in the junk business. Councilman Johnson: So we should move to table right now? Councilwoman Dimler: Second. ' Jo Ann Olsen: It might even be better if the applicant just withdraw that • application right now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you have a choice of withdrawing that application if you so desire. Jim Wilson: I think at this time that's what we'd like to do. Councilman Johnson: Does he get a refund of his permit fees, etc. if he withdraws? Jo Ann Olsen: That's up to you. Councilman Johnson: I know you guys have spent a lot of staff time. Mayor Chmiel: Let's open Council discussion. 1 Councilman Johnson: I think we need some more information as far as many hours of staff time has been in here as far as our cost that we've incurred on this wetland alteration permit. Mayor Chmiel: Normally in processes we have not been refunding. Councilman Johnson: If we table, it continues. Mayor Chmiel: What was the cost? I Jo Ann Olsen: $150.00. Councilman Johnson: I'm sure we've got more than $150.00 worth of staff time.. ' Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure. I'm sure. There's been a lot of time involved by staff with that but if you would like to, as you have made that request, we will withdraw that. Jim Wilson: Okay. At this time we'd like to do that, yes. 1 11 1 IICity Council Meeting - 3une 4, 1990 i Councilman Boyt: Why can't we table it? 11 Councilman Johnson: If he withdraws it, he loses his $150.00. Councilman Boyt: I move to table because it doesn't make any sense to bill the II whole City for this. Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying is if we table it, he's not going to lose his $150.00... ICouncilman Boyt: The City retains the money if it's tabled. II ' Councilman Johnson: Well we haven't said we're going to give it back to them if he withdraws. ICouncilman Boyt: We typically do. Jo Ann Olsen: It doesn't make any difference. IIMayor Chmiel: No, Don. Don Ashworth: I believe there may have been one situation where there was a I special request. In other words, the individual had made a position. Showed a need and we hadn't done that much with it and there was a refund. I mean generally we don't refund. ICouncilman Johnson: I only remember one where we actually refunded the money. It was an individual and it was something like a deck or something. I Councilman Boyt: Well there was this garage over here on Frontier Trail just off West 78th Street and he brought it in and it failed and we returned his money. How many of these things have come in where they're been withdrawn. I There's been a few. Are you telling me that we've historically kept those filing fees when people have withdrawn their application? I don't think we have. II Jo Ann Olsen: When it's withdrawn before we've written reports and done the public hearings and things like that. II Councilman Boyt: So our plan would then be to keep the fees, is that your thought? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilwoman Dimler: Is that okay with you? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Alright. That's the normal way of doing business within the City that I'm aware and in other cities as well. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Well maybe the applicant would rather have us table it then. IJim Wilson: In tabling it what would happen then? 12 II City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 _ 1 Councilman Johnson: Then the fee stays until it's brought back up. Jim Wilson: Okay, then I guess we would like it tabled then is what we would like because based on what else happens tonight, we may go ahead in the near future. It's raining now. The drought may be over. People are starting to buy trees. We might make enough money. Councilwoman Dimler: Well then I'll table. Councilman Johnson: Then I'll second both your motions to table. ' Councilwoman Diller moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table the wetland alteration permit for the altering and filling of a Class B wetland for Northwest Nursery Wholesale. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, item (b). Jo Ann Olsen: As far as the expansion of the conditional use permit, in the report we've pretty much in depth have gone through all the issues that were raised last year. As far as the Planning Commission did review the conditional use permit for the expansion and recommended approval with staff's conditions. They also added two conditions. Added to one and added another one stating that on 12 there should be no, that the applicant shall receive and comply with all conditions of the wetland alteration permit prior to creation of the proposed ( pond set forth on the plans. They say that approval of the conditional use t permit is not approval of the proposed ponds. The Planning Commission also { added 13 stating that no planting, storage or other disturbances of the Class A or Class 8 wetland shall be permitted without application and it says or and it should say and receipt of all proper wetland permits. Now the Planning Commission added these conditions just to make it clear that if there was any alteration in the future, that they would still have to go through the wetland alteration permit. Staff has been working closely with the applicant to have them come into compliance with the original conditional use permit and then to get a final plan on what it actually was that they wanted to do in the future. We're comfortable with what they're proposing and that it still really meets a wholesale nursery. We've also been working very closely with them on the drainage problems where it was going to the east, to Kevin Finger's property. In fact they already have done the ditch along TH 101 with MnOot and they've sodded that and are paving the driveway to resolve all those issues and putting in a holding pond. So we're comfortable with what they're proposing and what they're doing on site. We feel that they have complied with a lot of our requests. The only other outstanding issues where there's all the conditions but one of the major ones is the filling that's still taking place like with the woodchips on the north side of the site and a condition of that that they have to stabilize that and pull it back. Other than that we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report with that change to number 13. Councilwoman Dimler: Jo Ann number 2, does that date need to be changed or has that non-conforming shade... Jo Ann Olsen: Actually I haven't been out. I know they were dismantling it. I Jim Wilson: It is down except for the posts which. 13 I x City Council fleeting - June 4, 1990 Jo Ann Olsen: The roof part which they... Jim Wilson: All the roof and everything, we left some posts up in case it gets ' real hot in July before we build our other. We haven't had the additional shade structures haven't been approved so in case of real hot weather, if it ever does come, we'd be able to put a cloth type of shade cloth up there just on a real quick temporary basis. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to change the date to something else? Jo Ann Olsen: It might be good to give them time so. ' Councilman Johnson: July 1? Councilwoman Dimler: Is July 1 okay? ' Jim Wilson: As to what now? Councilwoman Dimler: It says here June 1, 1990 as the date by which that has to ' be down. Jim Wilson: It is down. There's no roof on it. It's some posts in the ground ' is all it is. Councilman Johnson: Well if you throw that cloth back up you've created a new shade structure without a permanent roof. ' Jim Wilson: Well if you call putting up a piece of, a shade, a tarp is basically what it is. It's 50% shade cloth. 411 Councilman Johnson: It becomes a structure. ' Jim Wilson: Does it? I don't know what the building code is as far as a structure. Councilman Johnson: What'd you have up there before? ' Jim Wilson: Well basically what it was is some posts. 4 x 4 posts on about 8 or 12 foot centers and then across the top they were maybe, depending on the ' grade, anywhere from 8 feet to about 10 feet off the ground. There was a 2 x 8 I believe or 2 x 10 that went all the way around and then was used as joist and then on top of that was snow fence and there was your shade structure. That was it and it was a non-conforming structure because it was set. As a matter of fact, part of it is within the legal setback and part of it wasn't but in order to tear any part of it down, the whole thing had to come down so we removed a whole, all the joists are off. All it is is a matter of some 4 x 4 posts set ' about 12 feet on center still in the ground and as soon as we get approval on the other shade structure, I've got a couple other ideas to put it in a completely different location so it's absolutely hidden from the road and we get ' that up, then I guess we don't need the posts and we can pull them out of there. So I don't know, I can live with July 1 or July 15th, something like that I guess. ' 14 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 '. Councilwoman Dimler: How about, shall we move it to July 1st? Jim Wilson: If there's no other questions from the Council on these recommendations, these conditions, I just have a couple of comments and some questions on them myself if this is a proper time to bring them up. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I think it 'is Jim only because of the fact this may ' eliminate some of the frustrations that you may have. Ue understand what that conditional use permit is about. Jim Wilson: Right and I understand what it is and I understand what happened. I mean in 1985 I don't believe there was any of you folks that we dealt with here at the City of Chanhassen. It was kind of I think we felt kind of an open situation. We didn't think we were doing anything bad or wrong or anything and we did some grading that we felt was rather minor and everything we've done, like I said, we thought improved the property from a standpoint of not only how we could use the property but from an aesthetic point of view. From how when people approached the property and I think that, I know there's letters on file from all the other surrounding neighbors that support us 100% in what we're doing there. We had a problem with one neighbor. Unfortunately there was miscommunication between him and us and it got to the City Council. I believe that had the communication been addressed properly in the beginning, you folks, we wouldn't even be here for this I don't think to tell you the truth. I really don't think so. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah you would have. Jim Wilson: We would have? Okay. . Councilman Workman: You moved stop work order signs out there. Right? I mean those were our City stop work order signs and those were moved. This is kind of the other side of the frustration because as a City Council member, you know we have people who come in and build structures too close to the road. They ask to do that but we have to tell them no. Jim Wilson: You're absolutely right. That shouldn't have been done. Councilman Workman: And there's people that do do it instead and then they kind of laugh at the City Council and then they get a little anxious. I mean staff. Jim Wilson: We're not laughing. Believe me, I'm on the Park Commission over in , the City of Shorewood. Okay? So I'm a little bit, I'm not as involved as you folks are so I know what you go through. Believe me, I hear it from those folks over there. One of our employees moved it but okay. It sounds like a big crime. Okay, run us off to jail or whatever. You know how many loads of dirt were dumped there? Maybe 1 or 2 after that was moved and then it was halted so it was halted. ' Councilman Workman: I understand you painted the picture of a delapitated old farm before and I don't think that farm had two wells going full time and water running off and sedimentation running off and moving. . . 15 ' City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 f � A .1 Jim Wilson: We're going to get into sedimentation? I wish you could come over there right now with me after this 3 inch rain and I'm going to show you some sedimentation. ICouncilman Workman: I'm just saying there's an impact there that you're acting as though we shouldn't be concerned with at all because the neighbors on the IIother side of TH 101 did get the brunt of the sedimentation. Jim Wilson: We didn't put the culvert there. We could argue about that all Inight so. Mayor Chmiel: I guess this is not a competition time. What we're here for is specifically what your needs are. IIJim Wilson: Right. Okay. I apologize. I would just like to get into item 4. Recommendation number 4. The applicant shall submit for approval a revised I grading plan reflecting the recent site grading and proposed improvements. Now I believe that you have plans that show our proposed improvements. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, do we have those on file? IJo Ann Olsen: I don't believe we've gotten the new plans. What this condition actually was referring to was there was some different contours that were I actually out there along the ditch which were shown on the plan. I think the engineering department was requesting finalized engineering plans that reflect what's actually out there. II _ Jim Wilson: Oh, what's actually there now with the ditch installed? 1 Jo Ann Olsen: Right with the slope. IIJim Wilson: Oh it wasn't installed according to plan? I Jo Ann Olsen: The plan doesn't really show. The plan kind of gave a couple of alternatives but didn't really give the detail on the alternatives. II Jim Wilson: My concern is, like I mentioned before, I don't know what you folks think we are over there but we're not developers. We're nurserymen. We're tree farmers okay? $10,000.00 we've spent. That's a lot of money on these plans. Okay? And how I read this is we've got an improved proposed plan. Where we're II going to be down the road. We were requested to show plans on what it looked like before we started anything. Okay, we were there. Then we went ahead and started construction of this ditch. Alternate #2 which was approved. We got I the required permits and okay from MnDot. We went ahead with that. In order to grade out the ditch, it was full right to the road level. There was quite a bit of soil that had to be put somewhere. I believe with the verbal approval, I I didn't get it but I was told from Mark VanHoef gay partner that the contractor got verbal approval to push the dirt around the corner and gradually slope off that bank where the illegal filling had taken place. Because of the stop work order we couldn't continue. We wanted to put in that smooth grade in there. We I couldn't do anymore filling. We were at a stop. No more so we've got a cliff so in order to get that to a 3:1 slope, some grading. So here we've got the dirt coming out of the ditch so we pushed it around the corner so I read this as - I16 II City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 '- now hire a planner to come out there and draw plans to show where it is today which doesn't make sense to me because you've got where we were back in October. You've got where we want to go after you folks hopefully approve our expansion which will also allow us some more filling and grading down there I believe. It's on the plan. What we want to do in the future, which is to grade that down and smooth it out. Why do I have to hire a planner to come out and show where it is today? If tonight you approve it and say Jim you can go out there and start doing those things you want to do and bring it up to snuff. What do I need to go and pay a planner $2,000.00 to come out there and draw and survey it and do that? I want to know. Mayor Chmiel: I think some of the reasonings behind that is to know exactly what the topography is within that specific location and in order to understand what you have done to what you could have proposed is two different things. So consequently I think that's what Jo Ann has just said. Jim Wilson: You had what it was. You've got what it was. You got what we're ' going to do. Mayor Chmiel: But it's not on the plans. , Jim Wilson: Yeah, it's there. Mayor Chmiel: But Jo Ann is saying no. ' Jim Wilson: Here's the plan. Here's $10,000.00 worth of plans right here and we hired an engineer that I think, I'm not an engineer myself. Jo Ann Olsen: He hired a planner and that's the problem. Jim Wilson: I believe you folks have copies of these plans and unless I'm reading this wrong, it tells me here's the plans. You've got them and you're asking me to do them again or I don't understand. , Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, would you like to try to explain that one more time. Jo Ann Olsen: When Dave Hempel and myself visited the site, the grading that ' was occurring out there wasn't exactly what was being shown on the plan. I think he just wants some verification. You can add to this if you want but I'm sure it's something we could just work out. ' Jim Wilson: Oh I'd be glad to work it out but I don't want to pay some guy. You know they're like $85.00 a hour to come out there and stand around with instruments and look through them you know and I thought we had it right here. Our budget.. . Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask our City Engineer. 1 Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding as Jo Ann stated that there are some areas that apparently have been disturbed that aren't totally reflected on the plan. I don't think it's a big issue that has to require a professional engineering stamp on the plan here but I think that staff can get together with the applicant. ' 17 City Council Meeting - June 4, _1990 11 Mayor Chmiel: Staff can get together with Jim and work that out? ' Gary Warren: We can work out some of the details. Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Okay. ' Jim Wilson: That's fine. I'd be willing to work with anybody as long as it doesn't cost me another $10,000.00. I mean I'm not building apartments out there you know. I understand how these guys can come in here and do that. They've got the money in the budget to do that. We're just growing trees. Mayor Chmiel: It's green but it's not money. Jim Wilson: If the drought's over with it might turn into a few. Number 8 I think has been addressed in a letter that we received May 23rd. 8, catch basins shall be installed on a driveway to convey runoff into the ditch. While we're ' talking, I guess we'll take it one at a time. Catch basins. That has been I think through your letter May 23rd where you met with Bob Peterson. Going to forego the catch basins. ' Councilman Johnson: You're not going to put the catch basins in? Jo Ann Olsen: I believe he's got a ditch, but what they're going to do is have ' it slope so there's like a swale to a holding pond now. I don't believe that there's a catch basin is there or was there one? Jim Wilson: First of all, can I just butt in here? Jo Ann Olsen: Butt away. Jim Wilson: The plans where drawn and they're dated here and you've seen them, September 25th. Alternate 1. Alternate 2. Use either or. We love you guys. Put it in. Do it. If you read that plan, and I've got it right here and I'd be ' glad to go through it with you, there's nothing in Alternate 2 about catch basins. There's nothing in Alternate 2 about sediment ponds. We're ready, listen to this. I don't know if you're business people. I'm trying to be a ' business person. I'm a tree farmer. I'm not well to do here. Drought 2 years. We're just hanging on and if you don't believe me you can go down and see my banker. Okay. We draw these fine plans, $10,000.00. Okay. It's sitting here ' before you guys. We've got all winter. Whatever goes on. We go out there. We dig out the ditch. We grade it. That was done in the fall. Widmer comes out and he redoes his work and he's all set. We get the water flowing. The culvert's installed. All that jazz is done. We pay somebody, Widmer again. ' Comes in. Grades the driveway. We haul in 5-6 loads of rock. We are ready to pave. We're going to pave this thing. We've got that baby sloped so it goes off to the north side of the driveway. We wait. It rains. All the water goes off that side. We're trying to direct it away from Mr. Finger's property. We don't want an ounce of water, of our water on his property. We want to keep it all on our property. We like the water. Okay. Staff comes out. I don't know ' what day it was but the letter's May 23rd that we receive. We're supposed to have this work done June 1st. On my manager's butt to get it done. We've got a contract to pave this driveway. We spent the money on the grading. We spent the money on the rock and then all of a sudden the engineer and the planner come t18 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 out. They talk to the guy that s s out there doing the work and they decide at that point in time that we should have a sediment pond. We should crown the driveway and we should put in an asphalt lip and direct the water into that sediment pond. Now I ask you as business people, as citizens that own property, do you think that that's right? Do you think that I should have to spend all that money to grade. To haul in rock and now I'm on hold. The driveway's not paved. We didn't get it done June 1st but what would have happened had we done it a week before. Would we have to rip the driveway up and crown it and put in the sediment pond? There's nothing in these plans that say that. Alternate number 2. And getting into this sediment. I'd love you to come over there, right now. I know you can't and I wish I could have taken pictures. A video or anything. We can go down there and start talking sediment. We've got farm fields that surround Finger's property. Surround the wetlands. Surround our , property. There's 20 tons of sediment sitting in that Class B wetland that come from next door to Finger's. Right next door it washed down and this 3 inches of rain went under the culvert and is sitting in the Class B wetland. You go over to my ditch that we just did all the work, sodded. Put all the nice erosion control matting. Seed. Trees. Everything on there. You look around there. You look in my ditch. You know what's in the bottom of the ditch by that culvert, the damn stone that I put on the driveway that would have been covered by asphalt had we been allowed to go ahead with the plans. Now you wonder why I'm frustrated. We're trying to do this. There's sediment from all over the place. You take a look at the Finger's property right now. Due south. Due south. Right next door to Finger's there's a swale right down through that field and there is a 5 yard load of sediment sitting right next to his driveway from that farm. There's 20 tons of sediment sitting on my side of TH 101 in my wetland from the farm field directly to the east. 50 acres tilled. He's got corn in there or something but with this rain it deposited 20 tons of silt there. Okay, my ditch is clean. Why do I have to put a sediment pond in? Why? If you could come up there and say Jim this is why, here's all your sediment, I'd be glad to do it but the only sediment sitting in there right now is the gravel that I put on the driveway that I would have had covered up had I been allowed to pave it. I didn't want to pave it when we received this letter dated May 23rd. I was not privy to the discussion between the contractor and the City staff. It says applicant not here. No applicant. I don't think Widmer's the applicant. I'm the applicant or ay partner is the applicant or somebody's the applicant. We just said hey, we'll put it on hold and wait until the Council meeting. I'll tell you, you're talking about couple thousand dollars worth of work to do. I've got to tear up my grading. I've got to trash my gravel. I've got to dig up. I've got to destroy. I've got to run a pipe through a berm. I've got to open up some more ground. There's going to be some more sediment. If I saw that that catch basin or that sediment pond would do any good there. If you folks come out there right now after we have reported some 3 inches of rain out there this weekend, if there was going to be sediment there from us, it'd be there and it's not. I would be willing to say hey. I'd even be glad to put silt barriers down that ditch and with that, we can look at it August 1st and if there's silt in that ditch, I'll put in the sediment pond but I don't want to do it now. I don't think it's necessary. I think there's a lot of areas around there that need those types of things worse than we do. Mayor Chmiel: Gary, can you address that? 19 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, Dave Hempel couldn't be here tonight. Dave has been dealing with the details of this and I guess I'd suggest that I'd like to have ' Dave get together here and review this more specifically because he's got all the background and details on it. ' Jim Wilson: I kind of think it was an after thought where staff said hey, they've got Alternate 2. They're going to do that. Let's pull some stuff out of Alternate 1 and add it in there. That sounds good. We'll throw that in there. You know, granted there's nothing wrong with it but it's going to cost me. .. Mayor Chmiel: Well we'll look at that Jim. Maybe we can move on to whatever ' item you have there next. Jim Wilson: I think really that's about it. As far as I know a lot of the other items have been already done. Completed. The applicant shall redirect ' runoff from the nursery, this is number 1, using Alternate $2. I believe we've done that. The non-conforming shade and planting structure, we've got the bulk of that down and you've given me until July 1st to complete that. Councilman Johnson: Can I ask you a question on that? Jim Wilson: Yes. Councilman Johnson: When will you have your other shade structure completed? Jim Wilson: Depending on approval, I think the plans show the larger one in the upper area. I would just as soon, here's another one that really throws me. I'll try to be as brief as possible. Here's my thing. Screen. You guys require ' 100% opaque screening of storage areas. Just about 99.9% of the types of things that we store if you will or grow in containers or what not, are plants. What's inside the shade structure are plants. Living, growing plants. Now to me ' people, and I see it all the time. . .they put up fences to screen junkyards. 100% opaque fences. Screen junkyards. Screen unsightly whatevers. Then you know what they put in front of those fences to kind of break up and soften the fences. What do you think they put in? ' Councilwoman Dimler: Trees. ' Jim Wilson: Trees and plants. Now you guys want me to screen plants. Now that really makes sense to me. That really makes sense. Here we've got an open air structure if you will with a roof on it. It's got posts and it's got green plants in there and now you want me to build a 12 foot high opaque solid fence around this thing. Then you're probably going to require me to put what? Councilwoman Dimler: Trees in front of it. ' Jim Wilson: Now that really makes sense. I just wish you could come out and see this structure that we just destroyed. ' Mayor Chmiel: Can you address that Jo Ann? ' 20 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Jo Ann Olsen: We're not requiring him to screen the plantings. The only thing that we were talking about screening was the storage of the woodchips and the kind of other material. I Jim Wilson: Then I wish it would have been said in there that that's all because I mean we're talking about the maximum of woodchips that we have on site for sale which is hardwood bark mulch. We have one pile there that can range anywhere from maybe, I think it comes in 30 yard loads. We buy one truckload at a time. Just dump it in a pile. Use it for mulching and the landscape jobs. A lot of the woodchips you folks are talking about is woodchips that we get from tree trimming companies that we use to put in our areas to try to fight some of the erosion... Mayor Chmiel: I think what Jo Ann is saying, it says in item 3. That pretty I much covers the aspect of it. Jim Wilson: Okay. You're talking about the woodchips that have been piled up on that ridge line there and they're all gone except for residual and we'll get that cleaned up. But I think the shade structure you wanted. Councilman Johnson: When's the new shade structure going to be built was the original question? When will you have your new shade structure completed was my original question? ' Jim Wilson: Well we're going to try and get it completed July 1st I guess since we have to have the rest of the other one down by then. I've got a couple other ideas to get it. We have an area that we have plants growing in containers and my idea was to put whatever shade structure down in that area behind the barn. Do you know where I'm talking about Jo Ann that's got kind of a horseshoe kind of berm and if anything down there you can't really see. ' Councilman Johnson: What I'm trying to get at is July 1 an adequate amount of time for you to plan to contract for somebody to come in? I don't know if you need, you probably need a building permit. To get your building permit and to build this structure. Jim Wilson: I don't know. My idea of what I would like to do in a shade ' structure is completely different from the plan. I don't know if he'll go for it or not.. It'd be to put a tubular structure with shade cloth over it down below where you can't see it from anywhere which is where I wanted to put it in the first place but my partner was adamant about putting it up on top and he's kicking himself right now because he had to tear it down the structure. Councilman Johnson: But see what I'm trying to get at here is if we can't do it by July 1 and we say by July 1 you've got to take all those posts out of the ground and then on July 1 you have no shade structure and the rains have stopped and the sun's out. There's not a cloud in the sky. , Jim Wilson: I'll be a world of hurt. Councilman Johnson: You'll be in a world of hurt and I don't want you in a world of hurt okay? 21 1 1 s City Council fleeting - June 4, 1990 IIJim Wilson: So what are you proposing?s I Councilman Johnson: Well that's what I'm trying to find out. How much time do you, because I don't think July l's reasonable. IJim Wilson: No, I don't either. I would say more like September 1. Councilman Johnson: Well September 1 doesn't do you a whole lot of good for shade structure this year. IIJim Wilson: That's true. It at least gives me enough time to do. .. IIMayor Chmiel: I think a July 1 date is probably there. Jim Wilson: I'll live with it. I myself in my own mind, the shade structure's been drawn in there. I have what I think is a better idea. It moves it IIcompletely away from that particular site and I think that, and if that won't go, then we'll put it where it's shown on the plan. II Mayor Chmiel: Well it should be located where it is on the plans at this specific time. ICouncilman Johnson: Where is this new site you're talking about? Jo Ann Olsen: I think he's talking about down here. 1 II Jim Wilson: Yeah, that low area down there where we have containers. Councilman Johnson: Where it says shrubs and proposed propogation? IJim Wilson: You can't see it from anywhere. It has a big berm. IJo Ann Olsen: It says shrubs. Councilman Johnson: It says proposed propogation houses and shrubs? IIJim Wilson: What plan are you looking at? Jo Ann Olsen: Number 3. ' Councilman Johnson: Sheet 3 of 4. The last sheet in this group. If we're going to be approving this tonight you know and you change it. .. IJim Wilson: That's correct. _ Councilman Johnson: Okay, where are you going to move. IJim Wilson: No, where it says. .. ICouncilman Johnson: There's like 5 rows of propogation house and that area. Jim Wilson: No I guess the area that has the existing shrubs in it right now. IThat's all one area actually. Proposed propogation house and shrubs. That area 22 City Council fleeting - June 4, 1990 is the area that I'm talking about and that is completely surrounded on at least P Y 2 sides by a big berm. Councilman Johnson: Okay, what would you do with the proposed propogation houses? Are they going to have to go someplace else now? Jim Wilson: Not on the site, no. ' Councilman Johnson: So they could be within the shade structure? Jim Wilson: You can use the shade structure as a propogation house. The propogation houses have to be shaded. So it can be a 2 fold purpose. • Councilman Johnson: Has staff looked at this site and thinks this would be a good site for the shade structure? Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, it would be better screened than where it's proposed. ' Councilman Johnson: So we could put a condition in here that allows the shade 11 structure to go at this site versus the above site to where you don't have to come back in here and change the plan again. Jo Ann Olsen: So you're going to be, that shade structure you're proposing is big and that would take up that whole place. Jim Wilson: I couldn't even begin to build that shade structure. I just tore down a $5,000.00 some odd dollar just the cost of material shade structure. What we were told was to come in here with that ultimate, you know the pond, the shade structure. I don't even think we need that big of a shade structure but we figure what the hell. We're coming in here for a shade structure, let's go for it. The biggest one we could possibly ever need. Ultimate. That's it. That's what we were advised to do. That's why we were here with the wetland alteration permit. ' Mayor Chmiel: You're in agreement with what Jay is saying basically? Jim Wilson: Yeah, I would like you know I guess at this time because my 1 partner's not here and he can't say yeah, okay because he kind of wanted it up there on the top of the hill. If you're willing to put it up on the top, why wouldn't you be willing to put it on the bottom? I mean the bottom is really better than I think anyplace. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would you like to increase that? ' Councilman Johnson: So 14, when we get to the final motion, item 14 would be proposed shade structure to be located as shown on the plans or within the bermed area due west of the barn. Something of that nature. I think that describes it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. , Jim Wilson: Where are we at on the sediment pond? 23 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: That's something that you're going to discuss with staff and reach a conclusion on that. Jim Wilson: Other than that I think, oh the one other item on here. Number 10. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by the City Engineer and the Planning Director to insure that the drainage improvements, ' proposed landscaping and erosion control measures are completed. We have a letter of credit that I think was good. ' Mayor Chmiel: For what period of time? Jim Wilson: It ran out. Was retired or whatever Kay 1st. It was retired. $10,000.00 or $7,000.00 or whatever but I think that we have met the conditions ' and done the proposed work. The only thing that we're lacking according to Alternate $2 is we haven't paved the driveway. And I've got a contractor to pave the driveway and I think our track record shows that when requested, we've pretty much done the things that we've been asked to do. A letter of credit for me to go out and get another letter of credit at the bank to cover what has undone the paving. We'll continue with the paving as soon as I meet with the ' City Engineer. Get this sediment pond thing resolved. We'll pave the driveway. I want the driveway paved. Mayor Chmiel: A letter of credit is normally, that's required. That's ' mandatory. Jim Wilson: It 's going to cost me some money to go to the bank to get a letter ' of credit. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I realize that. Jim Wilson: It would have been done prior to tonight had this deal here on the sediment pond been addressed earlier in the season. I mean 2 days before we were going to pave the driveway I don't think is enough time. It would have been paved tonight. Would have been done. Mayor Chmiel:. Right. I see this where this still has to be in. ' Councilman Johnson: The erosion control measures include the new silt fence. You're moving the silt fence that's out there right now. Jim Wilson: The silt fence is out. Oh, you mean where I'm saying I would be glad to put some silt fence down in the ditch? ' Councilman Johnson: No, I'm talking on the north side. It looks like you're proposing to do a lot more filling of the area. ' Jim Wilson: The silt fence is in. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, that silt fence is not very far from the edge of the current fill and it's looking like you may be putting a lot more fill in to where you're going to fill over the top. Jim Wilson: I don't think we're going to do any fill. ' 24 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 ir Councilman Johnson: Okay. See that's one of the reasons I was having a little problem and one of the conditions was what's there now is to see how much more filling was planned for this area but you're saying the fill on this. , Jim Wilson: To be honest with you, we're done. Councilman Johnson: Well it's not quite a 3:1 slope yet. You've got to do some sloping right? Jim Wilson: Yeah. We'll have to do that. Dressing up the one area. You've , been out there Jo Ann and seen what we've done? I mean the grass is coming up nice. It looks pretty good. I'm going to put a few more trees up there. There's a little area further to the west that is still pretty steep. I guess we'd like to, where it joins in to what was existing. All we're trying to do is just clean up... Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to keep us rolling here Jim. Not to take it up anymore ' but I'd like to get a motion on the floor for the proposal. Jay, I think you have a pretty good handle on what's there. Do you want to make a motion? Councilman Workman: I think we'd better go down the recommendations one by one. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, number 1 is fine. Number 2 has been changed to rather than June 1 to July 1st. Councilman Workman: Does July 1st stay the same in number 1? ' Councilman Johnson: It's already done. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that's all done. It's finished. That was , completed. Councilman Johnson: Moot point. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay item 3, there's no changes there. Item 4 is one that's discussion yet with staff. That you'll continue with that. Councilman Johnson: Supposedly these plans should be pretty close to what was done then so 4 might be this set of plans. Pretty darn close. Jo Ann Olsen: Well, it's pretty close to what's there. It's just there was some discrepancy that we wanted to. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that you're going to find out so you can have ' discussions with Jim on that and come up with a conclusion. Okay. 5 is fine. 6 is alright. 7. Councilman Johnson: Well 5 he's got a bone of contention. Jo Ann Olsen: Discuss. , Councilwoman Dimler: Discuss with staff. 25 1 IICity Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Y illCouncilman Johnson: The sediment pond. - Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's to be discussed with staff as well. II Councilman Workman: So what does that mean when we approve all this? IIMayor Chmiel: It will be conditioned on decisions by staff. Councilman Workman: I think we're going to have a few of those in here aren't II we? Councilman Johnson: I think 5's the main one. I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, 5 is really probably the main item. I don't see the need for us to basically table this. IICouncilwoman Dimler: It is not necessary. Remove 8. Councilman Johnson: We're going to remove 8. IIJim Wilson: There's a letter dated June 23rd that foregoes 8. Councilman Johnson: Well see this was written May 2nd. IIJim Wilson: Yes, I understand that. I Councilwoman Dimler: 9's good. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 10, I answered your question on that one. It shall J 'II remain. 11 is alright. 12. That's fine. 13. Jo Ann Olsen: Change the or to and. I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's fine. And actually with removal of number 8, there still will be 13 conditions correct? Just move the conditions down accordingly. I Councilman Johnson: What's happened in the past when we did that is there got to be mass confusion. We could under 8 say, item deleted and then continue on and have an item 14 because when it comes in later, then we're arguing over what's an 8 and what's a 6. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And item 14 was proposed shade structure as shown on plans in adjacent to the bermed area? 1 Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Could be located is shown on the plans or located in the bermed area west of the barn. I'll move all those changes. ICouncilwoman Dimler: Second'. I Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit $85-1 for expansion of the Northwest Wholesale Nursery subject to the following conditions: II26 II City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 , 1. The applicant shall redirect runoff from the nursery by using Alternative #2 shown on the drainage plans as shown on Sheet 4 of the plans dated September 27, 1989 and approved by MnDot and the City Engineer by June 1, 1990. ' 2. The applicant shall remove the existing non-conforming shade and planting structure by July 1, 1990. 3. The wood chips/mulch shall be removed from the area adjacent to the wetlands to an area where runoff from the same shall not adversely affect the wetland and shall be contained and properly screened as approved by staff. Removal of the wood chips/mulch shall occur no later than August 1, 1990. 4. The applicant shall submit for approval a revised grading plan reflecting , the recent site grading and proposed improvements. 5. The applicant shall discuss with staff the construction of a sediment pond along the south side of the driveway per Alternative #2 and modify the outlet pipe to drain into the TH 101 ditch. 6. Side slopes adjacent to TH 101 shall not exceed 3:1. ' 7. Wood fiber blanket shall be used on slopes 3:1 or greater. 8. Item was deleted. ' 9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required from the - pertinent agencies, i.e. Watershed Districts, MnDot and Minnesota DNR. , 10. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director to insure the drainage improvements, proposed landscaping and erosion control measures are completed. 11. All erosion control shall be Type III, maintained and removed at the request of the City Engineer. 12. The applicant shall receive the comply with all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit prior to creation of the proposed pond site set forth on the plans. Approval of the conditional use permit is not an approval of the proposed ponds. 13. No plantings, storage or other disturbance of the Class A or Class B wetland I shall be permitted without application and receipt of all proper wetland permits. 14. The shade structure may be placed as shown on the plans or in the bermed area west of the barn. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 27 ' - _ -- - -- City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND SIGNAGE REVIEW, CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, WEST 78TH STREET, BOB COPELAND AND BRAD JOHNSON. Jo Ann Olsen: The whole reason we're bringing this back in front of you is that the applicant first was coming through with a sign variance to allow one of the tenants to have more than one wall sign. When we looked over through the files ' what the sign plan that was approved, we found that there were two different plans. One had 3 signs on the south side and 2 on the north and then there was also a plan that showed 5 signs on both sides. This is right in the middle of ' where...planners changed again and it's not real clear in the report or the Minutes that this is actually the sign proposal that was approved by the City Council and Planning Commission. We did get a letter from the applicant showing correspondence sending the plan with the 5 signs on both sides and the Planning ' Commission Chairman Ladd Conrad remembered approving 5 on both sides. So we're just kind of bringing it back in front of you to verify that this is what was approved. Not to have him prove what we feel that we want. The Planning Commission recommended the 5 on both sides. Councilwoman Dimler: Where did the confusion come in? Mayor Chmiel: Was this a draft plan or a finalized plan? Jo Ann Olsen: No, they had to go through an official sign/facia plan. The confusion was that there were plans submitted and the week before the Planning Commission packet and then there were plans submitted the week of the Planning Commission packet and I believe what happened was the plans that were brought by the developer shown. during the discussion had the 5 signs on both sides. I just don't know if it was ever really clearly pointed out in the report that that was what was being approved. I'm not doubting that it wasn't shown. It's just one of those things that might have been missed along the way so we just want to get ' verification. Councilman Johnson: A typical 13th hour submission. When after the packets t have gone to Planning Commission, then a new set of plans come in. That new set of plans. Personally I don't remember the 5. I remember the 3. 3 on one side and 2 on the other side. I thought it was kind of unusual they didn't put 3 on both sides. I don't remember the 5 and 5 but I don't have a problem with 5 and 5 actually. My memory remembers the 3 and 2 but that was a long time ago to try to remember. Mayor Chmiel: If it goes to that 5, make sure that there's no more than one business name per sign on there as the Planning Commission recommended as well. ' Councilman Johnson: So that means he can only have 5 businesses in that building which is a pretty big building for only 5 businesses. As long as the square footage is not over our, I don't have a problem with 2 names per sign ' personally either as long as we know exactly the size of those signs and all of a sudden we don't get some 14 foot tall by 20 foot wide sign. What's shown there are nice little signs. Mayor Chmiel: Does it spell out the exact size of those signs? I've read this. Councilman Boyt: 12 inch letters was in this. 28 A r City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 II II Councilman Johnson: We have some P rints now. Councilwoman Dialer: This is the official? I Councilman Johnson: This is the 3 and the 2 version. Councilman Boyt: Maybe while you guys are looking at it I can state a few t concerns and then Brad or someone can respond to. Like many things downtown, once you see them it always seems as though there's some sort of surprise about II how it looks. I remember talking about the need to put this so close to the road when we built it. When I see it there, one of my concerns is that when we put signs on it, it's going to look even closer to the road so I'd like to have you talk about that a minute when you get up to address issues. The other one I is, as a what I would think of as a professional building in town, in driving by professional buildings normally what I see there is a name for the building and I don't see each individual tenant listed. And I know you're not going to list II each one. You're anticipating 30 tenants in there and there's no way you're going to get that many on there. So I see a concern and you've referred to it or somewhere staff did that this was a retail office center sort of thing as II versus a professional building. I'm not quite sure what the difference is in that. I can tell you that my expectations are a little bit different than what I'm seeing shape up in terms of the signs. I'm a little I guess the closeness to the road gives that building a tremendous impact on the rest of downtown and II I'm wondering if signs don't make it a little more apparent yet than it already is. I understand your tenant's desire to have their names out in front of people. I'm just not real comfortable with it so I'd sure like to see if you've got any artist renderings or anything that will make this a little more clear. I'd sure like to see them. II Councilman Johnson: As far as the clearness of it, how you backlight these I signs too makes a lot of difference. I mean you can put in some quartz lights back there you know and you can read 100 yards away. You can read at night with. I'd want these signs for the night time side of it very minimally backlit II to where they are readable but not glaring. Somehow we've got to specify that part of it because you can really throw a lot of wattage behind there and be very excessive. II Mayor Chmiel: We have to be sensitive to the residential people. Councilman Johnson: Especially on the north side. Yeah. I Councilman Boyt: If we take the lights across here in the west shopping center, or the signs, that signage makes sense. It's not over bearing but it is II informative. Yet it's set, gosh what is that, 100 feet off the street? 75 feet off the street? Now we're talking 20 feet off the street or less so I'm interested in how you're going to handle that. II Councilman Johnson: I'm very interested in your calling this a retail. I've always thought of this as a professional building where you'll have engineers and dentists and doctors and stuff like that. I totally agree. II Councilwoman Dimler: Professional building? II 29 II City Council Meeting - .June 4, 1990 Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Councilwoman Dimler: That was the name of the project. 11 Councilman Johnson: This is the first talk I've heard of retail. It'd be interesting your comments there. Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson and I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I think first of all for the record I want to point out that it's our feeling that ' this particular program has been approved and we have a number of people that have been through this meeting and have verified the fact that these plans were submitted both to the Planning Commission and to the City Council and were approved at that time. It's also our feeling that this should stand on their ' own but in case we do have a problem here, then we'll probably have to appeal because we feel that they were approved. Have gone ahead with our plans for the building. We've gone ahead based upon that approval in attracting our tenants ' and we've included that in our leases for our tenants and that is sort of where we're at. I believe you have letters from the architect that these plans, you received the original plans on Friday. On Monday we had additional set of plans. As the planner that wasn't here that handled those plans, he can't answer that. We carried those plans through. We did not know they were not in your packet but we submitted them each time we presented them and they were not an issue at that time. That's kind of where we were very surprised but I could understand how it could happen that for some reason they never got into the packets because they were here from day one. On Friday the 14th. The next Monday they were here. They were in Steve's hands. That week we submitted 10. There's a receipt saying that they were here prior to the Planning Commission meeting which is easily 30 days before the Council meeting. Now why it didn't end up in your packet I don't know. You know we don't get that part of the packet. All we do is get the letter. So that's kind of where we are. Relative to what the signs will look like, I'd like to have Bob Copeland address that issue and then number 2, why is this building or does any building today need signs and we're actually calling it a professional service center. I'd like to I have the folks that are the tenants of that building explain that and we've got Dan Anderson and John Jacobsen here to explain the need in today's marketing world why this type of building needs this type of signs. I also want to point ' out that any building in the downtown district has the right to have 15% of it's front of it's building in signs. There is no restriction relative to being a professional building or whatever it is, you have a right to have a certain amount of signs and up to 15% of the front of the building and that's in your 1 ordinances. This particular building is 7.5k of the front of the building in signs. As to why the building is close to the road as it is, that was a requirement of the City during that time. If you look at any of our previous ' submissions of the type of building we wanted to construct, we had it back away from the street and it's just there and that was required by the City staff or planners. At the time that we went through this process, they indicated that we should add color to the building and signs. It's not these 2 people here, that signs would be very advantageous to this building because it would add some color. The signs that we're thinking about using are identical to what are in Town Square. They're not the big white light back lit ones. They're individual letters. Some will be colored and if you look at it closely...to liven it up and that's where we are. Bob, do you want to deal with the sign issue itself? 30 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 1 Bob Copeland: Let me just try to clarify what we're really talking about here because it doesn't sound like everybody understands all the issues, at least the way I do. We have two closely related issues that we're asking for. One is the number of signs. We want 5 on each side of the building. That would give us, as Brad said, 7.5. I guess we calculated it yesterday. It's just a little bit under 6% of the face of the side of the building so again we want 5%. We also want the ability to allow a tenant and there are two tenants that want to have one sign on the south side and one on the north side. Now these signs, you cannot physically see these signs at the same time so they face opposite directions. So those are the two issues. Now the Planning Commission said okay. You can do that. They also added that they didn't want to have more than one tenant on a sign band and we go along with that. That's okay. So that's basically the issue. Now these sign panels are 2 feet high, 24 feet long and the number of letters and the amount of the sign panel that is taken up depends on the tenant. There might be a tenant with a four letter name or there might be some that have many letters like Chanhassen Medical Center. The tenant will decide whether it's lit or not lit but we understand that we have to have individual letters which we're willing to... Councilman Johnson: I'd think you'd want them all lit or none of them lit. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Absolutely. It has to be uniform. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I'd think you'd want it uniform. I Mayor Chmiel: I'd assume that they'd also go off at a specific time in the evening. Bob Copeland: We could arrange that. Councilman Johnson: Is there going to be a late hours out patient with Chan I Medical eventually? Bob Copeland: I think if you hold that question, their representative can give I you the answer. Councilman Johnson: Because then turning it off may not you know. Mayor Chmiel: I have a question. We have one of the members of the Planning Commission here. Brian, do you remember discussion at that particular meeting and I'm reading something here from the Planning Commission meeting of May 2nd and Emmings moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the sign allowing 5 signs on the front and 5 signs on the back for a total of 10 signs and recommended approval of the Site Plan Amendment with the condition that there not be more than 1 business name per sign band. It says here you seconded it. Do you recall that discussion? Brian Batzli: Yeah. The discussion was that they didn't crowd numerous names into each individual sign was the intent of that condition. At the time I don't believe Brad or anyone else had a problem with that. I Mayor Chmiel: Is there any other discussion? 31 1 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 ICouncilman Boyt: Well yeah. I think the side of the building that faces the r-" apartment building, when those businesses are closed, that light should be off. Councilwoman Dimler: I agree. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was the point that I brought up. Councilman Boyt: The ones facing main street, I guess I don't have such of a concern with that or as much of a concern because the ones over here I believe are on every time I go by so that could be just part of main street. Mayor Chmiel: They're all going to be the same 5 tenants in that particular building. They would normally have those syncronized onto a timer and they ' could split it but it's probably better off if they had them both going off at a specific time. ' Bob Copeland: Could I make a point here? I don't think you quite understand what we're talking about. There are two tenants now that have said they want to have signs on both sides. Now the remainder of the tenants will probably only have one sign each. Either on the north side or the south side so we're going to have more than 5 tenants. Alright so Dr. Hall is a dentist for example and he has signed a lease and he's going to have one sign. Only one sign on one side or the other. And he's probably going to want it lit and he's probably 1 going to want it lit into the evenings so people will drive by and see that's where his place of business is. I think if you take a close look at some of these medical buildings, this is not only a medical building but if you look at 1 ' them, you can see many signs identifying other businesses and things that go on. Councilman Johnson: So if he wants it lit he should be on the street side ' because at night there's not that many people running through the parking lot. Bob Copeland: Correct. But we only have five on the street side so not everyone's going to be able to be on the street side. Councilman Boyt: Well you've certainly seen more of these buildings than I have. The ones I've seen, the professional arts buildings have not had lit ' signs that are 2 feet high and 24 feet long on the front of them. Usually you have to go through some sort of central entrance and in that entrance is a directory and it will have room 103 and whoever's name is there. Bob Copeland: Are you familiar with Southdale Medical building? Councilman Boyt: Well I haven't been there in quite a long time. Bob Copeland: There's a floral shop. Drug Store. All those business have signs outside. Now also, our signs won't necessarily be 24 feet wide. That is ' the width of the sign panel. The backing board that the letters will be mounted on. ' Councilman Boyt: Okay. Am I right in the understanding that the letters won't exceed 12 inches high? I! 32 I City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Bob Copeland: No. We don't know where ' e t hat restriction came up. We're limited by the height of the panel. Councilman Boyt: Brad and I would disagree about the point of why the building is sitting so close to the road. We can say that's the City requirement and I guess I'll accept that part of it. The part that I have some difficulty with is why did the City require this. It's because it's your apartment building sitting back behind it and between this building's parking needs and the apartment building's parking needs, you couldn't put it anywhere else. Bob Copeland: That's not correct. Councilman Boyt: Okay, tell me why that building's out close to the front? , Bob Copeland: I'll tell you. The reason it's out close to the front is because the City staff and the City consultant planning requested that it be out next to the road and the reason didn't have anything to do with parking other than they did not want to see cars parked in front of this building as you drive by on 78th. They did not want to have a streetscape that was cars in view all the time and then the buildings back away from the street. They wanted to have a streetscape that is similar to many downtowns where the buildings are right up next to the road. In this case it's about 30 feet away. It's not right up next to the road but they wanted it right up so the parking is on the north side screened from 78th. That's the reason. We had plans with the opposite. . . Councilman Boyt: Well I want to follow up on that in a minute but who's John Jacobson? John Jacobson: Right here. Councilman Boyt: Okay, Mr. Jacobson. The letters will be approximately 10 11 inches in height and we anticipate the signage to be very professional looking. John Jacobson: . . .would have 10 inch letters. Councilman Boyt : And so as Ursula mentioned, you're then implying that we may have some 10 inch letters and some 24 inch letters. John Jacobson: Well you won't be able to get a 24 inch letter. Councilman Boyt: 18 inch letter, whatever. This is really what you want to do? You want to have that kind of variance in the letter height? Brad Johnson: That's exactly what we have on Town Square and it's exactly 1 what. . .on many of the presentations that BRW and the previous planners did on signage for the downtown community. Councilman Boyt: Right, I remember those. Brad Johnson: They wanted. . .and then some variance in the letters and that's I become a standard. If you drive by Miracle Mile...have all those signs and they're in the process of changing that to give the building a little bit more life. That's the trend in signage. It's exactly the presentation that Barb ' 33 I JICity Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Dacy and the past planners did and we've tried to stay with consistent sign bands. We don't have signs going all over and then the ability to have color and logos within that standard. Councilman Boyt: Well if you're telling me it's going to be like what we see over here. Brad Johnson: We hope it is. That's exactly our goal. Those letters vary from 2 feet down to 6 inches. ' Councilman Boyt: Tell me about the position of the building. If we've got just a minute because I've just had my concept blown out of the water so how did this building end up in front of the street.- Because I remember, see Todd what I remember, I've heard that I'm wrong but I'll tell you what I remember. I remember the consultant coming in here and saying we need this many parking spots and this is what I heard so it must have been wrong. The only way we can ' get them is by creatine one large parking lot between these two buildings and now this gentleman is coming back and saying that's not true so what do you remember? Todd Gerhardt: There was a variety of things. I mean the apartment building went in first and then the Medical Arts building and with the apartment building ' already set in place, you have to work off of that. There was talk of putting the Medical Arts building back and the parking lot in the front but that would not work with the people in the apartment building looking out their window to a building in their front yard per se of the apartment building. It just didn't ' make any sense so it flip flopped back the other way and you have the parking lot inbetween the two structures. And it got pushed an additional 15 feet towards the roadway to allow for another drive lane back there and reduce the ' parking for that access. You have 2 drive lanes around the parking lot. At one point you only had one. Councilman Boyt: What I don't remember coming out of it was the city staff saying that we want this to sit up next to the road so it will change the way West 78th Street looks. ' Councilman Johnson: Actually I do remember that but I think that was justification after the fact. Such as the crooked old city hall. I think they came back and said yeah, we've done what we can. Now let's think of reasons that it looks good. I think that's what the consultant did in that case when he came out saying this. I was kind of going ah huh anyway at that point. Brad Johnson: Jay, the original downtown plan drafted in 1985, or 1984, prior ' to us doing this model had that whole side of the street with the buildings pulled to the street. And that was the plan at that time and the planners that were involved in that always wanted it to be that way. Then we came back and ' decided that we had a tenant for that area, mainly Mr. Jacobson and the clinic and the hospital and our original proposal was to design a building that say more in the middle and ran north/south. Because of the inability after a year of us to build on that site because we could not relocate Mr. Hanson and because we could not relocate Mr. Loren Anderson and a whole bunch of other reasons that had nothing to do really with the staff, we finally threw our hands up and said why don't you guys tell us how we can do it and if you look at the design of 34 I Iv City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 this particular building, it was designed around Mr. Hanson so we could build right over him because we anticipated that, and he's still there. This is how many years ago did we sign the lease? 2 years? 2 1/2 years ago. They're just moving in. We're about to lose the presence of our main tenants and they were just going to go elsewhere and we would not then be able to complete the downtown and so finally, I think correctly so, the staff came back with this plan because we were unable to build the planned building that we had recommended originally and that's really why it happened. It's nobody's fault except that land acquisition in downtown areas sometimes go slow as you guys are aware of. Councilman Johnson: So there's a lot of various reasons that this has occurred and it has nothing to do with the signs. We're here to talk about the signs. I Brad Johnson: We're happy with the way it looks. Councilman Boyt: It has lots to do with the signs because the building's , sitting there now and somehow we've come up with the opportunity, although debated by Brad to change these signs and my point would be, I want these signs to be very conservative because the building is already obtrusive and when we put lit signs on there, it's going to be even more so. And so I don't know what the right answer is but I know part of that answer has got to be that these signs are not glaring attractions to that building. Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying is you want consistency within those signs Bill whether 12 inch or 16? Councilman Boyt: I think I want that. Brad Johnson: Defining that, we have .a sign band of 20 inches. I think our i sign band on the balance of the buildings downtown is more like 2 to 3 feet and sometimes it runs as high as 5 feet. We've cut this back and scaled it back. The reason that the hospital has 10 inches signs is because they have a lot of letters. Right? So you just can't be high and long at the same time. There may be somebody who just wants to be ODS you know and we're only talking about five particular tenants but those tenants will not sign leases with us. Will not move in there unless they have identification because that has become the key to marketing. I think Mr. Jacobson wants to speak to that about how important it is to the medical profession today that they have signage because that's the name of the game. It's competitive. We are trying to stay within, we've scaled down from 15% down to 7 1/2 and we really don't have a lot of signs. Councilman Johnson: For one other purpose I want to just say one thing. For ' public safety purposes and people driving along the road, I'd hate to have the signs where you have to look for them too hard. The signs have to be obtrusive enough to where they can be quickly seen because otherwise you're driving like this which some people do anyway but no use giving them much more reason. They should be able to catch it quickly. John Jacobson: My name is John Jacobson. I've Vice President of Ridgeview Medical Center and as Brad has eluded, we are the major tenant on the first floor which consists of the Chanhassen Medical Center which is of course Dr. I 35 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 David McCollum and the associates that we're bringing on with Dr. ticCollum and Business Health Services. I think the issues have been well discussed this evening. I find the definition between retail and profession intriging in the ' sense that I'm not sure that there's such separateness anymore between retail and professional. In health care, at least in the last 10 years in health care, marketing has become, whether that's good or bad, it's become the reality of the ' field. It's certainly something that we're sensitive to. As a matter of fact that's the reason we're in Chanhassen is because we're very aware of our service area and the opportunities that this particular community presents to us. In ' terms of the signage itself, we feel very strongly that we need to have signage on both sides of the building. Really on the south side or on the street side for identification of the business and on the north side for where those ' particular businesses are located. Dan Anderson who's the clinic manager just started a couple months back just described to me, yesterday there was an elderly woman that inadvertently walked in the wrong door because we don't have the signage, the appropriate signage up yet. I think for competitive purposes, ' for marketing purposes, for visibility purposes, for educational purposes, we feel very strongly that we want to have signage on both sides of the building. We also are planning on evening hours. We would certainly, our preference would ' be that the signage, particularly on the street side, go into the evening. We think it's important that as people come to the Chanhassen Dinner Theater that they become aware that we have the Chanhassen Medical Center there and Business Health Services there. A lot of our clients come from outside of the community of Chanhassen and as all of us are aware in marketing today, you need to create an awareness and we need to have visibility and people need to be aware that we're here. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor? My mailbox weekly I think has mail from Southdale, St. Francis and Waconia and Methodist and so they're all marketing ' for my sickliness in my house and we are denying them very well. But I understand the idea of marketing and trying to market. I think we're almost quibbling a little bit versus 3 on the front versus 5 on the front and 2 on the ' back. I am concerned about the neighbors that are going to come in from that apartment complex. They're going to have some glowing signs in there. We just had some neighbors complaining about pizzas down at TH 7 and TH 41 cooking potentially and so people get excited about something that maybe changes. I ' don't know if the third floor of that thing's full yet or not. Brad Johnson: It's full. ' Councilman Workman: Is it? The signs as I imagined them, I'm on public record as saying I think this building looks better than I thought where it is and lit ' up at night and some of the gray tones and the lighting and stuff. It would appear to me from these signs and what is potentially proposed that it isn't going to make it look really any better but I'm going to leave that to the owners and potentially the tenants. Don't we have illumination standards as far as how bright and neon versus anything else? Don't we have anything? Paul Krauss: The new site plan ordinance does regulate the amount of foot ' candles that can appear at the property line to half a foot candle. Now that's not very bright but you can see something quite a ways off that's below that cutoff. Of course a sign is not shielded. It's just designed to project out so ' 36 r '`City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 it can meet that half a foot candle standard and still be found to be annoying to somebody who's trying to sleep. Brad Johnson: I think the answer to that one.. .concerned that we simply turn ' off the back signs when the business is done at the end of the day which, how late would you guys possibly run? John Jacobson: Typically our evening hours will end at 8:00 but we are... Councilman Workman: In the summer probably not at all. ' Brad Johnson: Not at all in the evenings. Maybe 9:00 or 10:00 and we could just it up for that whole...and just make that a regulation like we have a lot of other regulations. Councilman Workman: Are you leaving this then at 5 on each side and that's it? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Workman: Okay, is that a part of one of the stipulations? ' Brad Johnson: We're just saying that's whit we thought it was approved and we're coming back and arguing the point saying. . . Councilman Workman: If you have a demand for more than 10 signs are you going to be putting more signs up? Brad Johnson: No. We're quite comfortable. We'll have 5 major tenants. Mayor Chmiel: I don't know where they'd put them anymore Tom. ' Councilman Johnson: In their windows. Brad Johnson: . . .look like also. We're going to have 5 signs. We do not ' anticipate, we'll probably have about 10 tenants in the building. 3 or 4 of the major tenants, the second largest tenant in the building is not going to have a sign and that's the owner. Councilman Workman: I guess and I don't know, we can all try to imagine how this going to all look, etc. but. ' Brad Johnson: Remember we have to come back each time we do do a sign. We're back to see these folks right? You've got your staff. We've got to pull a sign permit. There's all kinds of checks and balances. Councilman Workman: We like to see them Brad. But I guess I don't know really what we're going to accomplish by 3 on the front versus 5 on the front and as it pans out, I don't know. It's the whole marketing question about a business' ability to promote itself and obviously they have the right. They're not even filling the requirement. Half of their requirement for the sign square footage and so I think we went a long way around the block on this one and I'd like to move approval. 37 , 11 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: Well I have a few things that I'd like to say too. I guess my main concern is that because it is so very visible, I don't mind 5 ' signs on either side. I would like to see uniformity however and if that means 1 uniformity on letter size, I guess I would at least on the 78th side. I would prefer to see it not lit up in the back at all. I don't mind lighting in the front because I can see, you know we can have regulations that say okay they have to be off by 8:00 but there's invariably going to be a break in that and we'll have the apartment people in here complaining. ' Brad Johnson: Remember Ursula that whole back parking lot's lit. That's a well lit back parking lot. Councilman Johnson: Street lights in the back parking lot are going to be worse than the sign lights. Councilwoman Dimler: And they'll be in here complaining. ' Brad Johnson: Well that's a requirement that the City had that it be very well it so we didn't have crime in the back. John Jacobson: It's also very late. By 4:30 in the evening in the wintertime and if we're open until 8:00, we can't. Brad Johnson: The real problem is people finding their way to the proper place and there's 2 or 3 places in there that are going to be open in the evening. Primarily the clinic is one and the health services. Those are two. The other ones I don't think. . . Councilwoman Dimler: What are you going to do with those people coming? ' Councilman Johnson: Are they going to have separate entrances? Brad Johnson: Yes. There are different entrances. ' Mayor Chmiel: I think if we have for those signs to go off at a specific time, I think that would alleviate that. Brad Johnson: I think by 10:00 or 9:00 or something like that. It is going to be well lit. I mean there's going to be a lot of candle power back there just ' from the lights in the parking lot. Don Ashworth: There is uniformity in terms, when we had first talked about signage we were concerned I think with the point that Councilmember Dimler's ' attempting to bring up and that's the uniformity. The way that was built in was in the sign bands themselves so that's a very distinct, exact area. We've used that same concept with the Retail West area and also with Kenny's. Now within ' those bands though you can get different signs and a lot of that depends again, as they brought out, the number of letters in the business. So Kenny's will be a different size and I think Your Hour Glass Cleaners goes on for 10 feet or something like that. Your Majesty's. But again, they are all controlled to within those sign band areas. ' 38 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Councilman Johnson: Probably different sizes. Is there any restrictions on having flashing? Mayor Chmiel: These are going to be just lit. No flashing. Yeah, I'd object I strongly to that. John Jacobson: My organization, they will not be flashing signs. ' Councilman Workman: Well I'd again move approval with the stipulation that they be off in the rear once hours are over. Somebody flip off the signs. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Councilman Boyt: I'll second that. I've got a question. ' Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. Ask your question Bill. Councilman Boyt: Where are you going to put the pylon sign? As long as we're talking about signs, we might as well figure out where that's going. Bob Copeland-: Well that has been on the site plan and there's never been any question about that just to refresh your memory. The pylon sign is right there. Councilman Workman: By the proposed driveway through there? ' Bob Copeland: That's correct. This would be the proposed driveway. Councilman Boyt: And that was how high? Just off hand. Was that fairly close to the ground? Bob Copeland: It's under 5 feet. Councilman Johnson: Oh, that's a ground sign then? ' Bob Copeland: Oh yes. Councilman Johnson: It's not a pylon sign. Bob Copeland: It's not a massive Amoco Oil type sign. It's approximately a foot and a half high, 14 feet wide and... ' Councilman Boyt: What's going to be on that? Bob Copeland: We don't know yet. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we had a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the amended Site Plan as shown on the plans dated April 18, 1989 with the condition that the lights on the rear of the building towards the apartment building be turned off when business hours are over. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 39 ' 1 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 1 Councilman Boyt: That's how we get into things that 6 months from now we're I IIgoing to look at each other and say, son of a gun. Councilwoman Dimler: How did we decide on that. II FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, ZIMMERMAN FARM LOCATED ON DOGWOOD ROAD EAST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA AND NORTH OF CRIMSON BAY, PETER AND DEANNA BRANDT. I Jo Ann Olsen: This is for the final plat approval. The Planning Commission recommended for as a condition of approval of the preliminary plat approval. The only discrepancy that we have is that the applicant, the City is recommending that the turn around be made to city standards which includes being II paved. The applicant is requesting that they do not have to do that. I know he is here to discuss that and Gary is also here to discuss why we do want to have it made to City standards. Other than that we recommend approval. ICouncilman Johnson: As the applicant comes up, during your discussion I'd like to know why we got preliminary plans stamped preliminary without a surveyor's II signature and where's page 1 of 2? This seems to be a very incomplete package that I don't want to even consider tonight. Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr. Johnson, I think you got a complete package. I don't IIknow what you got but we submitted a dozen complete packages. Councilman Johnson: Preliminary. ' Mayor Chmiel: Sheet 2 of 2 as it says. I Councilman Johnson: Right. Preliminary. Subject to revision without notice. I've got a problem doing a final plat that's subject to revision without notice and not signed by a surveyor and it's preliminary in nature. I Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Johnson. I don't think you have the final plat document that were prepared, complete. A plat that is fully legal and we're not trying to cheat and we're not going to change anything. ICouncilman Johnson: I want to see it. II Kurt Laughinghouse: I think that's what was submitted. And the staff recommended it. If there was something wrong, I wish the staff had mentioned it a long time ago. We turned it in 3 weeks ago. If there's really problems with it, we'll certainly fix them. IICouncilman Johnson: I'm the one that noticed it. They didn't. I Kurt Laughinghouse: I'm Kurt Laughinghouse. I have the staff's recommendation which includes 8 points and we have no problem with the 8 points and we only want to speak to point number 6 and that is the actual construction of the turn II around. When it was approved at the preliminary plat point, it was the language in there would be built to city rural specifications and none of us addressed r the question of whether that was paved or unpaved. Frankly we didn't think about it. We assumed that at the end of a 1 mile unpaved road that we meant ___ IIunpaved. Then we got, our engineer got a hold of the specifications in the book 1 40 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 iL lw and it's clearly paved and that's why we prepared the final plat with Alternative #1 being the paved specification. We understand that that's the City's standard. A couple of weeks ago when I first discussed this with staff and some members of the Council, I said that our principle reason and this is still true, are principle reason for not wanting to pave this cul-de-sac is that it is after all at the end of an unpaved road. A way below standard road. It is intended to be temporary but we just didn't think that it was a good idea to put all that oil into all that asphalt for a temporary cul-de-sac, and when I discussed this with Dave Hempel he said well yeah temporary might mean 20 years and we understand that but ultimately that cul-de-sac will almost certainly be , torn up and carted off. We thought that a 7 ton standard, and that's what Alternative #2 which is what we proposed, 7 ton standard would be a legitimate substitute in this area. In this rural setting and it would serve for 20 years just as surely as no cul-de-sac at the end of that road has served for 50 years. That was our feeling. Subsequently, in fact just this afternoon I got two different bids. Our engineer thought that the whole cost would be $4,000.00 to $6,000.00 either way. Paved or unpaved because of the extra rock. It turns out that the lowest of the two bids that I got so far, and I have 5 sets of plans out to get this thing done, is $6,300.00 unpaved and $8,700.00 paved so there's a substantial difference. So there's a little bit of difference in money. Not the end of the world and we're prepared to meet that city standard but we argue on the grounds of aesthetics and environment. Least impact on environment and the fact that it's really a rural setting and having a gravel turn around out there is more compatible with the whole neighborhood. We think that is most appropriate and we've discussed it with staff and staff has their arguments. The standard arguments but valid arguments for paving it. Emergency and all that kind of thing. We accept whatever is appropriate. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kurt. Any discussion? Kurt Laughinghouse: And Mr. Mayor, excuse me. One more point. If there really are any shortages on the plat, this is the first I've heard of them. We will make the plat fully legal and comply with State law and comply with all the requirements of the City's. These 8 requirements and indeed the 11 other requirements in the original. Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure you will because when it comes time for that final plan ' I have to sign it. Any discussion? I guess you and I had some conversation. You gave me a call one evening and I indicated my position, where I thought that it should be tarred but afterwards I went out and I still am in a position of halfway supporting it but I've driven through town. Picked up on three different roads within the City that are still gravel and dirt and I feel that ' what's good for one is maybe good for the other. But maybe as we progress, these are things that we have to look at. I just wanted to interject that to the rest of the Council to make you aware of the fact that there are gravel roads within our city and not necessarily out in the rural setting and I'll open it up for discussion. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to hear from staff, their point of view why they I want it paved. ' Gary Warren: I guess our position is that we're talking about a turn around area. Not just a roadway area here so it is an area that is in turning 41 1 till City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Afr i 11 movements, the gravel does get a little bit more wear and tear because of the outward press of the tires on turns and such so it's going to take a little bit more abuse from the turning standpoint. We do have bituminous driveways and such . i li out there so it's not like we don't have any bituminous out there. But you're correct Mr. Mayor in that we do have King's Road and West 96th Street and roadways in the city here that we've been trying like the devil here to II eliminate to be honest. Bluff Creek Drive is a good example. And it's because of the fact that they end up to be a maintenance headache. They need to be graded periodically. When we tolerate a private drive situation, that's a compromise I think in the City's standards from one perspective in that I invariably we seem to get calls at the City Hall to come out and say why can't you fix our gravel road. Even though in this case it wouldn't be the City's roadway. You do get new homeowners out there that have a right I guess to ask Ito have things up to standard and not have to tolerate a bumpy road so I guess our position is where it's a reasonable long term investment, life cycle investment to put the bituminous on to seal up the coat and the gravel and I minimize erosion impacts. And in the turn around we've compromised on the radius down to 40 feet from our standard and the turning movements and such in there I think were more of our real concern on it. IIMayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: This is a tough one because the arguments are very logical. II That you go into, you drive down some very poor roads to end up on a real nice chunk of asphalt and what's that road. I never can remember the name of it. Sunset Trail we did about 3 years ago. It was a mistake to do that. Another I mistake we made down there is not asphalting that road in the first place. 96th, they're all that way. It's tough to turn around. This one I'm personally, it's a private driveway. This has existed for many years. Very few people go down there that get stuck down there. There's always room to turn IIaround in somebody's driveway. We don't plow this right? Gary Warren: No. ICouncilman Johnson: It's all up to the individual homeowners to plow it. As far as city vehicles going down there, it'd only be firetrucks and rescue vehicles trying to get through. It'd be tough to bring the ladder truck down IIthere. Gary Warren: Plowing is another apsect of, that's where you lose a lot of your Igravel. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. • I Gary Warren: Especially in the spring. - Councilman Johnson: Require them all to have 4 wheel drive vehicles down there Iinstead. Peter Brandt: I'm Peter Brandt. One of the applicants. Just some of the I concerns that you've voiced in terms of the number of vehicles traveling down that and you just addressed that. There's going to be two additional homeowners _ J on the road in addition to the homeowners that are along Dogwood Road today and II42 I ti City Council Meeting -^June 4, 1990 II v- as Kurt mentioned, the turn around that has been there is gravel. I mean it's a II • mile long gravel road at this point with a turn around at the end today. That turn around has seem to have served the homeowners that are there today very II" well. We think the additional turn around which is really an addition to what's there today which isn't much, will serve our needs very well for the unforeseeable future. I mean if development does occur, then you have sort of II Alternative B which calls for a blacktop road going in there up to city standards and so on and so forth but for 2 additional homeowners, it just doesn't seem totally reasonable to me to put a piece of blacktop essentially out in the woods at the end of a gravel road so we can have a piece of blacktop out II there to have us so we can maintain it when we don't really want that blacktop out there in the first place as Kurt said for the aesthetic reasons and also the cost factor. II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Workman: Are we talking about paving just the turn around? I Councilman Boyt: No, it's the whole thing. Councilman Workman: From the turn around up to the elbow or the elbow? II Mayor Chmiel: What's the distance on that road Kurt? Do you know? I Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr. Mayor, our understanding was just that the turn around would be paved. Not any other. II Gary Warren: That's what the quotes were based on right? Kurt Laughinghouse: Yes sir. 40 foot radius. I Councilman Workman: Expensive basketball court. I would, it's making less sense by the second but I guess, who's going to plow this road? i Mayor Chmiel: It's their responsibility. Councilman Workman: I'd say it's their own personal problem and their plowers I problem and UPS problem and the mail's problem and if the mail can't get through, they don't go through. They don't deliver the mail. Kurt Laughinghouse: Mail is not delivered to the end of the cul-de-sac. It's I delivered to approximately to the entrance of the Camp Tanadoona. In fact there's kind of a turn around there. It's the end of the world. I Councilman Johnson: Then there's the threatening signs. Private drives. Stay away. Councilman Workman: Except for lot shoppers, that's the only people that are II going to be turning around down there and they may not like what it looks like down there. I don't see any reason to push it but. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? 43 II 1 1 City Council Meeting — June 4, 1990 y IICouncilman Boyt: I think it ought to be paved. — Councilman Workman: I knew you'd say that. - j IICouncilman Boyt: Just waiting to find out what you were going to do Tom. Are you going to pave your driveway? IIPeter Brandt: The very end of it, yes. Going to the house. Councilman Johnson: At the turn around by the house? That will be paved. IPeter Brandt: An area to park cars. I Kurt Laughinghouse: Just for the geography of it Mr. Mayor, this is the end of the currently traveled sort of public road and then there's a couple of driveways for these two homes. It's at this point that everybody turns around virtually now and just some plain old wooded land. The turn around would be in II this vicinity. There's two options but the primary option is one we discussed with the city engineer. This is the drieway to the Brandt's home which is way over here on Lot 2 and this would be a dirt or gravel driveway. I think as Mr. IBrandt suggested, they want to pave a turn around, some parking here. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a Imotion. Cheryl Lei: My name is Cheryl Lei. I represent Mr. Ken Daniels with regard to the purpose of Lot 1. He's not here this evening because we received late I notice of this meeting and weren't aware that there was one scheduled for May 31st I believe. I object to the plat that is trying to be filed this evening on behalf of Mr. Daniels. I've not received a copy of that plat nor has he. I When I presented this parcel of land to him to purchase, the only easements on the lot were a power line easement and an easement for a driveway which was to possibly be temporary. Since the Planning and Council meetings, since about II October the easements have increased to include also a 40 foot easement running along the west 550 feet of Lot 1. A 30 foot easement running along the north 1,130 feet of Lot 1. A 20 foot trail easement along the east 346 feet of Lot 1. On this basis I feel that a driveway easement should and I believe may be the I obligation of the City of Chanhassen to provide access to each landowner. There's access by Crimson Bay where I believe the City has a 25 foot easement and also at Dogwood Road where the City has a 20 foot easement plus an I additional 40 foot easement that will be taken with the filing of this plat. Those two could access Lot 2 very well and are controlled by the City. There's no apparent need for 3 roadway systems to reach Lot 2. The private driveway across these lots could only create some problems in the future for both land IIowners. The question should probably be why .are the three roadways needed and there may be a better answer to the plat that's being filed tonight. Thank you. IIMayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion? Councilman Boyt: In discussing with staff about you may recall when we first I looked at this we talked about having some sort of way of protecting a road system on that 100 acre parcel. I just wanted to be in the record that staff has felt that the way to do that is to put it into at the least cost. Is to put II 44 II Ai t City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 II II ( it into the Comprehensive Plan. Intially we talked about officially mapping it. I think it's very important that staff follow through on that and that we have a road plan for this 100 acres. So with that I would move approval of the final II plat with staff recommendations. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? I Councilman Workman: Would you accept an amendment? Councilman Boyt: Well I didn't get a second so go ahead and make a motion. I Councilman Workman: I'd make a new motion to approve staff's recommendations except for I believe 11. II Councilman Johnson: There's only 8 conditions. Councilman Workman: I'm sorry. Number 6. I Mayor Chmiel: Number 6 is the one that you brought up regarding that. II Jo Ann Olsen: I think you still want some of that wording because if it's not going to be paved, you still want the 7 ton gravel. Councilman Johnson: You don't want to delete 6. You just want to modify 6. II Councilman Workman: Modify 6 to remove bituminous. II Councilman Boyt: It's not in there now unless it's written into Alternative 1. Councilwoman Dimler: Unless you want to add to there that it meets. . . I Councilman Workman: As long as they can bring the road up to 7 ton, they don't need to use bituminous as it reads anyway maybe. I Gary Warren:- I would suggest if I could that the road be constructed, if you're going to go that way, to 7 ton and maintain that 7 ton. In other words, as II gravel and things deteriorate out there, that they may have to bring it back up to that standard if that's what you're getting at. Councilman Workman: I think that's agreeable. II Councilwoman Dimler: Who's going to check it to see if it's maintained at that? I Gary Warren: Well it's just that in the event that it does deteriorate and it does become permanent temporary so to speak, that there is some ability to require it to be brought up to standards. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that one. II 1 45 II City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 ill Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, have we addressed the woman who spoke last's concerns? Have we addressed or explained to her reasonably what the easements, 1 etc. are strapped to this thing? Why? Councilman Johnson: Basically she's about to lose her sale. Councilman Boyt: No. We went through this for 3 hours. I think if she wants to know the background, it'd be much easier to read the Minutes of that meeting then it would be to hold another 2 hour discussion on whether or not.. . Councilman Workman: I don't propose a 2 hour discussion. I just want to make sure that people in the audience do understand and now she does perhaps. I would move approval. ' Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the Final Plat 189-11 for Zimmerman Farms as shown on the final plat dated May 21, 1990 with the following conditions: ' 1. The City shall officially map the road alignment as illustrated by Exhibit 2 of the Sr. Engineering Technician memo dated April 4, 1990. ' 2. Erosion control shall be Type II. ' 3. The applicant shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources. 4. The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. 5. Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, ' Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. ' b. Construction plans and specifications for the temporary turnaround shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The turnaround shall be built in accordance with Alternative No. 2 shown on Plan B to the City's rural road design (7 ton). The grade for the turnaround should be reduced to 3'c. ' The turnaround section shall be maintained at all times to the 7 ton standard with a minimum of 17 inches of crushed rock. ' 7. The applicant shall extend the description of the trail easement westerly 25 feet to be continuous with the extension of Crimson Bay Road. ' 8. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract and provide the necessary financial security to assure the property installation of the improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I 4l0 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 PMT CORPORATION, 1500 PARK ROAD: t A. REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1 CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION INTO ONE LOT. I B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 45,900 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING FACILITY. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, hopefully this one's a little easier than the ones ' we've tackled so far. The applicants are requesting approval to construct a 48,000 square foot addition to the existing PMT structure. The firm manufactures medical appliances and the growth rate has outpaced their square footage and they need the expansion to continue to grow. The building is architecturally attractive. It blends into the original structure. In this picture the original structure starts over here. The new addition is a 2 story addition that matches architecturally the existing building. There's a very high quality office component at the southwest corner where really most appropriately it should be. That's the most prominent point on the site where it's adjacent to other streets. Access was an issue for staff on the original proposal. Initially we were quite concerned with the proposal to gain access to Audubon Road fearing some traffic concerns. We've inputted data that we got from the Eastern Carver County Traffic study and concluded that that really isn't the significant concern that we thought it was. However, we did want some modifications to that curb cut and to the building to make that entrance as safe as possible. The applicant is working there to do that. We now have a 30 foot wide curb cut. There will be a sign because trucks can only move in from this curb cut because of the loading dock situation. The building was shaved a little bit in the corner over there to accommodate the turning movements and that driveway does align with the driveway across the street which is where we wanted the most safe location. Parking was also a bit of an issue. There is an existing parking shortage due to the growth rate of the company. They are providing considerable additional parking on site. However, what they're doing I is using a provision in the newly adopted parking ordinance. Basically it's called a proof of parking concept where what they're doing is they're telling us they don't need to construct all the stalls at this time to serve their needs. What we're doing is we're saying that's fine. We just want to know where you can construct them if we do determine that they're necessary in the future. In this case they'd be constructed on the adjacent property which is owned by PMT for expansion north of the current site and what we'd do to protect that is we'd require the filing of a permanent easement against that property so that if it sold at some point in the future, we can still get those stalls in there if we need it. Site grading and drainage are generally acceptable. There's a couple modifications we're looking at in terms of the west side of the property to protect some existing utilities in there. The Planning Commission reviewed the item on May 2nd and unanimously recommended approval. As I said, some modifications were incorporated since the Planning Commission review* to resolve some of our concerns. We are recommending approval of-the ,preliminary plat and the site plan. - , Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question Paul. The access to Audubon Road. I was over there today. There are some significantly sized trees. Are they going to be in any way jeopardized by that access? I 47 I city Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Paul Krauss: Councilwoman Dimler, I've driven past there too and I see where those trees are and I don't believe, I could be wrong but I don't believe 1 they're where the entrance is going to occur, There's a couple of trees that really stand alone there that are not in very great shape that probably will be nicked by the grading activity. Now the significant stand of trees start north of that property as you're going up the hill.to where Prince is. There's going to be an issue when they come in and develop that new site to the north but at this point in time they're really not getting into the heavy tree stands. Councilwoman Dimler: I noticed too that you're proposing the access across from the McGlynn, the southerly one of the McGlynn. Paul Krauss: Right. I _ Councilwoman Dimler: And that is only a short distance from Park Drive. I don't really understand why they want that access. Why would it be necessary? Paul Krauss: Why's it necessary? In terms of a circulation standpoint, this site has some problems. Basically you've got truck loading docks back in here. To you get to them, you couldn't really back in. You'd have to almost back a truck down in here to manuever it back in there. Right now they come around the side of the building. That manuevering room is going to be cut off by the expansion so really they're limited to trucks coming down Audubon Road, turning ' in, and then backing into the truck stall. There are some ways to design the site around needing that but what they would have to do is significantly compromise the size of the addition. Councilwoman Dimler: So they can't take Park Drive and come in and access the _ ) back of the building? Paul Krauss: Well, you could but what you'd have to do is put a drive aisle around this side of the building where it would chew up square footage and wouldn't be particularly attractive and frankly Councilwoman Dimler, that was ' our original proposal and we only backed off of that when we found out that the traffic that we had been anticipating wasn't as bad as we thought. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? ' Councilwoman Dimler: That was Willy. ' Councilman Boyt: I'd move approval of the replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. Councilman Workman: Second. ' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Preliminary Plat $90-6 subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide the following easements: a. Standard drainage and utility easements overall exterior property lines. _ J ' 48 I City Council fleeting - June 4, 1990 4 b. Reconfirm the location of drainage and utility easements along the 11 western and northern sides of the site to cover in-place and proposed utilities. i c. Concurrently, provide a permanently recorded easement over Lot 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition running in favor of the City for access and parking of up to 63 parking stalls. The easement should be worded so that it cannot be vacated without the written approval of the City of Chanhassen. d. Staff is further recommending that no building permits be issued until the plat and all required easements have been recorded. 2. Provide an acceptable final plat. ' 3. Enter into a development agreement with the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move to the next one. Site Plan review. I Councilman Boyt: Does anyone have any concerns with the site plan from the staff report? Mayor Chmiel: I don't. Councilman Workman:-- No. I'd move approval. 1 Councilman Boyt: I'll second that. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Site Plan 186-3 1 without variances subject to the following conditions: 1. HVAC equipment shall be screened by a parapet wall or by a screen wall 1 constructed of materials compatible with the building exterior. All exterior trash dumpsters shall be screened by a masonry enclosure constructed out of materials compatible with the principal structure. The entire building must be provided with fire sprinklers. 2. Modify the plans as required to reflect the revised curb cut illustrated on the revised detail drawing. Post "truck entrance" signs on the Audubon Road curb cut and an "exit" sign on the eastern Park Road curb cut. 3. The Proof-of-Parking stalls shall be constructed by the owner upon request , by the City at such time that the City determines there to be a parking shortfall. - Provide at least 3 handicapped stalls. I - Compact car stalls should bb clearly marked with directional signage. I 4. Revise the grading plan to limit fill over the watermain along Audubon Road to a maximum depth of 4 feet. Provide an erosion control plan for approval. 49 I lE City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 I I5. The storm sewer extension along Audubon Road and the north side of the site shall be built to City standards and conveyed to the City for maintenance j II upon completion. A development agreement is required. Watershed District approval if required. 6. Revise plans to provide two additional fire hydrants as directed by the City 11 Fire Marshal. 7. Revise the landscaping plans to add four 8'-12' high Douglas Firs in the 1 northwestern corner of the site to screen the loading docks. Relocate landscape material to avoid placement over the City watermain. A landscape bond is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. I8. Site plan approval is contingent upon the filing of the final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIOS FOR THE II UPGRADE OF AUDUBON ROAD FROM SOO LINE RAILROAD TO LYMAN BOULEVARD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 89-18. Public Present: 1 Name Address i II Jerry Alvey 1831 Sunridge Court Doug Barinsky 8731 Lyman Blvd. Gayle & Lois Degler 1630 Lyman Blvd. E' Don & Marsha White 8850 Audubon Road M.J. & Joanne Cochrane 1751 Sunridge Court James & Barb Nelson 1591 Heron Drive Willy Molnau 8541 Audubon Road 1 Tom Michel 8941 Audubon Road Mr. & Mrs. Marlin Edwards 8950 Audubon Road David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd. IIHarald Eriksen HNTB II Gary Warren: I'll give a brief overview Mr. Mayor. As I know you're aware a number of residents here that are interested in the project. The project basically involves the portion of Audubon Road from the railroad tracks down to Lyman Blvd. . The northerly quarter of the project basically down to Lake I Drive West area in here would call for. ..urban section which would be concrete curb and gutter similar to what currently exists north of the railroad tracks to the commercial area. The remainder of the project was basically a road overlay I project for the most part with some minor corrections of the pavement where we know we have some sub-base problems and also in the area of the Barinsky property on the southerly end just before Sunridge Court, we have a very restrictive sight distance problem there where we need to shave the hill to get r J IIback to a reasonable safety standard for sight distance. The road section on the north portion of the project is such in the presence of the concrete curb II50 II iF City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 * and gutter and basically will include the installation of sanitary sewer, storm I ` sewer and watermain. The southerly segment of the project basically is rural section matching the existing 24 foot width pavement in width and in the profile as much as possible with the exception that I noted at the Barinsky property. II The road section at the property, the dotted line here showing the existing road grade and...showing the proposed road grade. It's basically about a 6 foot drop that has to occur in this area to provide the proper sight distance for Sunridge Court primarily. The project in this particular -area we have been aware and II been speaking with Mr. Barinsky in particular since it's his property that receives the most impact from it because we're all aware of the several large II spruce trees that are on the property. On or very close to the right-of-way line. We have gone through a couple of scenarios of the project scope in this area and the latest version which is in the Council packet, the plans- now reflect inclusion of a retaining wall and storm sewer structure to basically II minimize the impact of the property so that we can stay within the current city right-of-way line which exits right here. We are compromising on what's called the clear zone requirements of the State in providing basically 19 feet which is II measured from the edge of the pavement to the nearest obstruction which actually would come to here. Which normally the State would require for this magnitude of a roadway, a 45 mph speed limit a 31 foot clear zone. But we believe that in looking at the impact of the property that would be required to basically taper I this grade out into the Barinsky property, that this is a reasonable compromise in that regard although the trees that are along the right-of-way line, we don't expect that all of them will have to be removed. We will try to save whatever II trees we can. We'll be working with the DNR forester in that regard but there certainly are some that encroach very definitely on the right-of-way and probably would be impacted when you end up putting in your...and foundation for the retaining wall. The plans also include a trail along the east side of the II project as directed initially. As you recall, we're looking at the west side but due to continuity with the ultimate interest of getting to Lake Ann Park and across TH 5, the east side was felt to be a better location from that I perspective. In that regard we are showing the trail plans on the east side. It's a bituminous 8 foot path for the southerly section up to Lake Drive West and then north of that is concrete consistent with the urban section in that II area. The project costs, we have estimated, we have done a revised cost estimate, our consultants have and we are estimating the project to be total cost of $587,900.00. With the exception of approximately $112,000.00 of special II assessments for the sanitary sewer and watermain benefit, the majority of the project is proposed to be funded through tax increment financing and the City Manager's comment, I'm sure you've all read. We have received the information that full funding has been provided as confirmed by the County for the project II so the funding is in place in that regard. - So we are requesting approval for the plans as submitted this evening. The next step would be to authorize advertising for bids to take the next step on the project. - II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Gary. - - - Councilman Johnson: I have a question for Gary. I Mayor Chmiel: Well go ahead, ask your question Jay. Councilman Johnson: Gary, what would it at this point matter if we didn't 1 install the 8 foot trailway from Heron Drive on down, made the improvements to 51 1 I City Council fleeting - June 4, 1990 where in the future as development occurs in the south, that we have the area and the ability to install that path? Would it make a large financial difference in the future as long as we've already, we put in the road sideways. Or not sideways, but road shoulders and put in the retaining wall and everything ' where there's room for the path but not actually install the path. What do you think of that idea is kind of what I'm asking? Gary Warren: Well there is definitely cost involved, especially in the south end of the project on the Michel's property as far as side slopes and such. Probably the question is more will the tax increment monies be available in the ' future or not. Funding sources were a question. From a construction standpoint, yeah you could do the roadway grading. I forgot to mention an important part and that is whether the trail is included or not, the retaining wall is recommended to be built and the trees themselves are still going to have that impact whether we build a trail or not. But yes, you could do the side sloping and such and not pave the path. I guess that could be left out. I think the cost of the bituminous and such, at least on the southerly part of the ' project, we may be looking at $35,000.00 worth of bituminous and gradual with trail costs of maybe $80,000.00. So the bituminous cost probably isn't really that big of an item. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Gary brought out a good point and I would like to research the question further if the Council was willing to consider that. I have absolutely no question that as a part of a municipal public improvement project, doing the roadway, that the City can construct, grade and construct the trails as a part of it. The question becomes one, can the City delay that portion. Potentially come back in 3-4 years and use the dollars associated with the trail as a stand along project and I don't know that answer. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Good point. At this time I'd like to open it up. Doug Barinsky has stopped at my house on Sunday and we had some discussion on this. Doug, would you like to approach it from your position? Doug Barinsky: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I guess I'm lead spokesman of several ' people who'd like to comment tonight. We felt because there were several different issues and as Gary has already represented, there's significant impact to my personal property but I'll come back and comment on that later because there's an overlaying issue here that quite a few people are concerned about and would also like to comment. We decided that because there were a lot of people represented in the Audubon area, at least on the southern end, that we felt we ' should probably get our focus kind of in writing and then present it to the City Council for consideration so I'd like to read that because it was signed by about 27 residents and affected people in the Audubon'area south. We the undersigned residents and property owners would like to make the Chanhassen City ' Council aware of our opinions concerning several issues in the proposed road improvements project. Our concerns are primarily directed towards the southern section referred to as a rural section but also includes some unnecessary ' spending of tax dollars in the northern urban section as well. Number one, both the urban and rural sections include the construction of the proposed sidewalk trail that will run from TH 5 to Lyman Blvd.. We as undersigned citizens constitute a large majority of the Audubon Road residents do not feel that this I sidewalk/trail will benefit us or our neighbors. The Audubon Road south area is primarily a rural residential area which is not almost fully developed or still 1 52 - City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 remains as open rural farmland. Two, a sidewalk trail to Lyman Blvd. on the south will only lead at this point to open rural land which is currently owned by the Degler family and operated as a commercial farm. There is no other dense population on the road nor is there any projected in the City planning process for the area at this time. Current sidewalk system which was started south of TH 5 in Audubon has been poorly designed. It is not now being used. It's currently covered by mud and dirt in many places. We're concerned that a sidewalk/trail placed in open rural areas will be subject to these same problems unless significant landscaping dollars are spent, one to install but more importantly 2, to maintain it. The taxpayers of Chanhassen have voted as a majority not to spend tax revenues for the construction of sidewalks and trails under the Comprehensive Plan. We request that the Chanhassen City Council consider the direction of this vote. There are tens of thousands of dollars in the proposed Audubon Road improvement that are not in fact road improvements at all but rather sidewalk/trail installations. I'll point out as a side issue there that I don't disagree with Gary's projection of the $35,000,00 of the bituminous but I think there's a lot of dollars needed to actually put in the ' base for what ultimately would be a trail because there's significant dirt work that has to be done on the southern end because of the slope of the hills. We do support that basic repair and overlay of the Audubon Road south rural section segment as it is in need of some repair. We do not agree in principle with the concept of lowering the road in areas if it means the destruction or removal of mature trees which line and beautify the area. At a time when other communities such as St. Paul and Eden Prairie are actively pursuing programs to protect their environment, we find it questionable that Chanhassen City Officials would 1 . be recommending the opposite direction. The scenery and setting that line Audubon Road south represent the historical rural setting of what Chanhassen is and why the residents along Chanhassen road south live there. We do not think it's necessary to change the landscape to merely overlay the road. We will appreciate that the elected City Council members of Chanhassen give our proposals and opinions significant .thought _before considering the proposals for the Audubon Road improvement project. _ At the time we prepared this we didn't know just how everyone felt about this but we did ultimately get almost 100% of all the residents of this Audubon south road. Both people that live on Audubon Road or those that enter onto Audubon as their means of egress so with that Mr. Mayor I'd like to just stop on_my behalf for .a couple minutes and give a few other people a chance to comment. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Come up to the mic please and state your name and address. I Willy Molnau: I don't think I have to give my name. I'm Willy Molnau. I live at 8541 Audubon Road. I've lived there for 46 years. This stretch of road that you're talking about lowering, I remember 50 years ago. What you're planning now will revert back to what it was 50 years ago. It will be lower with banks straight up. And when that fills full of snow, a shovel 50 years ago they didn't have equipment to plow it so I suppose us neighbors will have to shovel it because we don't have snow removal on Sunday .up in our area. When Mr. McMahon lived just south of the bridge, he was a fireman. They plowed the road. In the last 2 years since he moved away, we don't have no Sunday snow removal service. I have a pick-up with a plow. That's how we get out now but I can't plow banks 6 feet lower than the wall like the engineer proposed here. I wanted to see him on Wednesday. I was here for pretty near an hour waiting to 53 1 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 — talk to him. I looked at this little model out here of the City of Chanhassen. It's looks beautiful but I don't like what I see downtown. I don't think I'll like what you're proposing for our area. Here is a stretch of road that hasn't ' had an accident in 65 years. Now you want to make it into something that possibly could have. I don't see no reasoning in the first place to lower the road. Remember when they built the street in front of the bakery? The south ' part of the road was closed from the bridge. We could walk safely across the street to pick up our mail. Now you take your life in your hands. Trucks coming by there 50 mph. We don't need them trucks in this rural area. Let -them ' come as far as the new housing development. They have to bring cement and Ready Mix. Tar but let's close that to thru traffic for trucks. When that bridge was closed, they made it nice thru the industrial park. Up Powers Blvd. . Down Lyman. Can you imagine a truck coming out of Hazeltine, slamming on the breaks ' to turn the corner only to shift 15 times to get to the top of the hill? When he comes down Lyman Blvd. he can halfway coast up the hill and take Powers Blvd., it's almost leveled into the park. Why have them trucks prowling around in this little suburban community? Let's close that to thru traffic for trucks. Let's keep that a nice little what you'd call a suburban. We can have our walking trail right on the street. But now the way it is now, these trucks are dangerous. I drove one. I know what it's like. But let's not ruin property ' that these people bought this property because it's beautiful. You put a retaining wall halfway up to the house, that's not the end of it. They'll have to put a 7 foot high fence there because if their grandchildren come and fall ' off the wall, who's going to pay for this? Now they've got a nice little play lawn. Another thing for beautification. You don't see a prettier road than Audubon Road. We keep the ditches cut and groomed. If you want to see what the ' City does, just look at the end of Park Drive or Park Road. They've got signs, cement this high that says Chanhassen Park. Thistles growing that high. Weeds all over the place right now. June the 6th. 5th. Whatever the date is and nobody's done nothing. For 2 years the thistles are growing there. The blooms ' all fall. It's that way right now. That beautiful entrance sign and now you want to dig up our nice beautiful roads and make something that Chanhassen is going to take care of? You can't take care of a little 6 foot sign much less a ' 1 mile highway. I really am appalled that you even come up with an idea like this. Spend $500,000.00 to remodel something that's just beautiful. Let's fix up what we've got and save some of this money. You have to agree. We have the ' prettiest street in the city. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Marsha White: Hi. I'm Marsha White. I'm not quite as tall as Willy. I live at 8850 Audubon Road. We're one of the new houses along the road. My husband and I moved there from Chan Estates. We were about 13 year residents in Chan ' Estates and when we moved we were looking for rural, out of the mainstream, gorgeous countryside and we found it on Audubon Road. Other communities are facing similar situations and they're dealing with them with an eye to conservation and preservation and I have a couple articles. I think you probably got these in the packet that Doug Barinsky provided but I'd like to read just parts of both of those. The first one is from the Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Dated Tuesday, May 29th. Headlines, St. Paul Highwood Have Plans to Preserve ' Rural Life in the City. Tucked away in the southeast corner of St. Paul lies an unexpected sliver of the north woods. Narrow dirt roads wind through lush vegetation. Comfortable wooded homes dot the rolling terrain. Sidewalks, paved 54 -4 City Council fleeting - June 4, 1990 if II It roads and sewers are rare and all of this is less than 5 miles from the bussle f and pollution of downtown. We've had as many as 4 to 5 deer in our yard said Anna McWright, a 10 year resident of the area. This spring we had wild turkeys. II From more than 10 years city officials and residents have worked to keep the I development of the area compatible with it's natural terrain. Within the next few weeks the development plan that would preserve the neighborhood's rural flavor is expected to be approved by the St. Paul City Council. We just didn't want to have anyone tear this place apart with storm sewers and asphalt said II long time resident Robert Nelson relaxing in his living room which is alongside a full greenhouse, swimming pool and deck overlooking lush rolling hills. The other article was published in the Chanhassen/Excelsior/Shorewood Sailor II Wednesday, April 18, 1990 in conjunction with the Earth Day 1990. Titled, Some Cities Act to Protect Trees from the Bulldozer. When developers of Cabriole Center on Anderson Lakes in Eden Prairie received approval for their project in the early 1980's, they promised that they would knock down as few large trees as II possible during construction. The developer's agreement also required a construction sense to protect trees outside the immediate site from damage. The City looked carefully at the wooded hill and noted where the trees were. But II soon after construction began, the phone at City Hall started to ring. Neighbors said they had seen oak after oak falling before the bulldozers and they feared that the area would be clearcut. The City planning department II intervened before many trees were lost and the developer's agreed to replace the trees they cut down with a larger number of smaller trees. This incident together with several other similar ones in Eden Prairie led the City Council to adopt a tree preservation policy in 1986. The policy uses a sliding scale to II determine how many trees taken down during construction must be replaced. It will become an ordinance if it is passed by the City Council this month. We needed some sort of incentive so that we would have more than lip service from I developers saying we want to save all the trees possible said Chris Engler, Eden Prairie Planning Director. Eden Prairie City Council member Richard Anderson said that he has seen a gradual increase over the years in people's understanding of the value of trees and the desire to preserve them. As Earth II Day 1990 approaches, ordinances that seek to protect the urban forest have been adopted in Plymouth, Burnsville, Eagan, Apple Valley and Woodbury and are under consideration in Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Maple Grove. Although Eden II Prairie has had a functioning tree preservation policy since 1986 and was one of the first communities in the metro area to consider such a policy, the City is only now moving to give the policy the force of law by adopting it as an II ordinance. The delay has given the City and developers time to find out how to make the policy work best for both said Stuart Fox, manager of Parks and Natural Resources. The City has rejected developers efforts to have the policy focus II more on tree planning than on preservation of existing mature trees. Tree planning is real important but you can't replace a 36 inch oak tree said Enger. You can try to replace it in kind with smaller trees but you can't replace it with a 36 inch tree. For each 24 inch tree out there we cut down today, we're I not going to live long enough to see a sapling grow to that size. You have to realize that they don't just pop up overnight. Trees in front yards are especially at risk during construction because building crews park vehicles and II stack heavy piles of materials on the ground compacting the roots. Even if such a tree survives for a while, a thinning of the crown can be seen year by year. Trees do a lot more in terms of our environment than we give them credit for II sometimes. We ought to learn from them what they need. Hopefully we will educate people to the understanding that we can live in harmony with the 55 I i 1 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 - woodlands. It just takes some commitment. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Marsha, just maybe for your information. I think the City of Eden Prairie is probably copying our ordinance on trees. So we have taken that position here in the City as well. Marsha White: Good. There are lots of trees along Audubon. ' Councilman Johnson: We don't have an ordinance. Councilwoman Dimler: We have a tree ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said the ordinance. Subdivision developments. Jerry Alvey: Good evening. I'm Jerry Alvey. I live at 1831 Sunridge Court which is just adjacent to Audubon. I'd like to confine my comments really to ' the existence of the proposed trail. I find it a little difficult to understand the need for a trail which essentially ends at a commercial farm and then dead ends at the other end at TH 5 with no ability to cross TH 5. It seems like it's I a trail that goes from nowhere to a rather dangerous area. While it seems like it has been funded by Carver County, I realize that those monies come out of tax dollars which we pay not only to the City but to the County as well and I'm concerned about the spending of tax dollars for a trail which at least to me II makes minimal sense. In terms of long term planning, I'm not certain how this particular side street trail would feed into a main system. It seems like perhaps we're putting the cart before the horse to try to put small segments of I trails in the city in a non integrated fashion. Also on this particular one, I may be confused on this so please correct me if I'm wrong. But on the southern end of Audubon, the trail appears to be planned for the eastern side. On the I northern end, there's an existing sidewalk or trail next to McGlynn which is on the western side. Now to me the major function of a trail anywhere, not on Audubon but just anywhere, is to provide more convenient and safer transportation for non-motorized vehicles. We're talking about regrading and I improving the road apparently because of the heavier traffic that is planned and yet at some point we have the people using this trail are forced to cross Audubon exposing themself to this heavier traffic so from a planning viewpoint I I have some difficulty with that. Also, I'd like you to consider the potential liability situation. If you have a trail for some period of time, months, years, that empties onto TH 5 I believe that there will be some use of this I trail but if you have young people, 16 and under, who come out of this trail onto TH 5, there's going to be an impetus for them to somehow get across TH 5. Since it does dead end there, I think you may have a safety issue with children trying to do something on TH 5 that perhaps they shouldn't have. Also, a couple I of further comments. I've got some pictures here of an existing trail that was put in 2 years ago at the Lake Susan Hills development and I will pass these out among Council. I'd like you to look at them and note the conditions ' specifically of this trail. It seems to be characterized by a great deal of weeds, mud, dirt and in fact there's cracks. We have one picture of a weed growing up through the blacktop itself so the existing trail from the appearance I of it, doesn't look like it's used much. It certainly is not kept up. I know I have a young daughter. She's a little young to use this type of thing but if she was a little older, I wouldn't like her on that type of trail. I also have ' 56 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 1 some pictures of the existing trail at McGlynn which seems to have a problem right now, as Doug mentioned, with a lot of mud running off on it so without further adieux I'd like to bring these pictures up to you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Jerry Alvey: That's the trail by McGlynn's. Here's the series of trails at ' Lake Susan Hills. Mayor Chmiel: Is there -anyone else? I Jerry Alvey: The major reason I'm giving you the pictures of the Lake Susan Hills is because unless there is some method of maintaining these trails, I think all of the residents fear that any potential trail would be kept up in a similar fashion to the one at Lake Susan Hills. Councilwoman Dimler: How old are those trails? ' Jerry Alvey: 2 years. Perhaps a bit under. I think the pictures speak for themself. I Gary Warren: That specific trail Mr. Mayor, is still under warranty with the developer so repairs and these things are a part of the plan. . .of the subdivision so we haven't really taken them over for city maintenance yet. Trails. The north side of Audubon Road as you pointed out on the west side, the Council's gone through discussion on that earlier in this process. . . Jerry Alvey: I thought there was supposed to be a bridge out there. Gary Warren: The railroad tracks that's south of Park Road. And you're correct, there is a 6 foot trail that would be constructed onto the existing. Jerry Alvey: On the bridge? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Jerry Alvey: So that people using the trail would be forced into the path of traffic on the bridge? Gary Warren: Well I didn't show the detail and I can certainly do that if that's your pleasure. Jerry Alvey: Yeah, that's a concern. Gary Warren: If we have the time maybe I can best show a section here. We did look at several alternatives for getting across the bridge. One which would be very expensive was to construct a stand alone structure but basically what's proposed at this point is to construct an on street trail, the scale's going to be a little bit hard to see but basically I'll outline it. This is a series of what's called jersey barriers. Councilman Johnson: Could you draw it on the board easier? 57 ' • 1 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Gary Warren: Well I've got another one here Jay.-.=This is the trail coming in and it actually stays on the bridge but it's separated. In looking at the section view. Again this is the edge of the bridge right now. The existing ' jersey barrier abutments and on the easterly side we would be constructing another jersey barrier for protecting the 6 foot width and that's where the trail would be actually on the bridge. What we would be doing on the ends as it approaches the transition section into the bridge and off, we would be doing twisted end plate beams to protect both sides and bringing it off. Jerry Alvey: Gary, one further question. The bridge is kind of narrow now. Would that mean you'd be funneling traffic further? Gary Warren: The bridge is 44 feet wide and we would be shrinking it. The roadway width would be 36 feet in that area which we've done our checking and calculations and such and we aren't eliminating a road lane or anything. We're just providing a transition down to use that 6 feet of trail. ' Willy Molnau: You said the bridge and the pathway would be 6 foot and the rest of the trail 8 foot? 11 Gary Warren: That's correct. Willy Molnau: Well that don't make sense either. You come with a 8 foot bicycle and you're going to have to carry it across. Gary Warren: I suppose if you had an 8 foot bicycle that would be correct . 1 ' Willy Molnau: Well a baby carriage with triplets in it, that'd be 8 feet. Boy, J that sure ain't very good planning. ' Gary Warren: The other alternative was a stand alone structure. I guess the most expensive Harald was hundred and some thousand dollars. ' Mike Cochrane: Well I'll make it short because I think you know how we feel over on this side. I'm Mike Cochrane and I live on 1751 Sunridge Court and I'd just like to reiterate a couple things. One is the safety and the speed at which the trucks are moving down the hill. The other one is just I don't understand why ' we would want to put in a trail when none of the residents on the street want it period. 100% of them have said no. I just feel it's a waste of tax dollars to do it. I came from Eden Prairie. Lived there 8 years. You know their trailway system and I moved out to Chanhassen to take part in the rural setting and enjoy it. In living in Eden Prairie my wife and I found out that even with all those trails you still ended up with bicyclers and walkers walking down the street so ' I'm sure what purpose the trails served in the end. Enough said. Gayle Degler: I'm Gayle Degler along with my wife and gay folks, Dean and Lois Degler. We are the dairy farmers in Chanhassen at this time. We live just ' south of Lyman Blvd. at Audubon Road. First a couple comments on the trail that is in Lake Susan Hills now. Obviously from the pictures and just by farming the land in that general area, I know it's not being used. I think it's pretty ' obvious. People jog up and down CR 17. They're on the roadway. They don't use the trail system. This is a highly, I don't want call it a highly densely populated but there's a lot of new houses in that area and they're not using the 58 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 1 existing trail. Getting back to the new proposed trail, I as an agricultural I person, as a farmer have some problem with it because I have 4 fields from 2 different owners that I would have to go across this trail and any time with any equipment, especially agricultural, youire going to have some problems. Some chance of having a problem. Mud, dirt, grass, anything falling off of any vehicles. Cars, pick-ups, tractors, implements, whatever and I would not like to see this become a problem. My other basic question with this trail, where does it go? If it is part of this comprehensive plan of the trail system, I think the City was real plain in their vote last time against this trail system. It almost looks to me that we're trying to go around about putting this trail system in by not using our own money and that way we can justify the cost. Indirectly we all know that we pay for it one way or another and I think we should go along with the wishes of the City when we voted this trail system down. My question too as far as this trail system, where does it go. It stops when it hits Lyman Blvd.. It's almost like a big arrow pointing south. Obviously south is where we live. South is where our business is. We're farmers and we don't have it. It's not in the plans of ourselves or in the City's, we're planning on farming for the future. I don't see us, I've got little kids and I plan on having them grow up here. So I see no need for a trail. Who's going to use it. The people who live here obviously don't want it. We don't feel the need for it and besides the Park and Recreation Board has said there's no money to maintain a trail. I mean they're obviously not maintaining the trails that they're got so I think we don't really need it and obviously we don't want it. Thank you. I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Tom Michel: My name is Tom Michel and I live at 8941 Audubon which would be the last place down by Lyman on the south end. In addition to upholding most of the comments that were said about the trail, since nobody wants it why do we want to put it in there but it does affect me somewhat and I have a couple pictures here that I'd like to put in to show. According to the plans I have, the extra amount of fill that would have to be put in would definitely not only be expensive to put in but it would be just that much more detrimental to our property. Now they put in a so called 33 foot 66 foot road but where it goes by our property the 66 foot of road are up here but there's another 75 feet of embankment that encroaches on our farm down there. Now if this is going to be widened further, then it can only follow that it would encroach further down on our property. These pictures I'd like to show you shows the steepness of the hills and how much fill would have to be put in there and also it shows on this that there's suppose to be a temporary easement of 40 feet in addition to that that they want to take. I don't propose to give up an addition 40 feet over what they already have because most of the trees that we have that shield us from the road are going to be involved in this project at a little farther down. Now I don't know if that can be avoided or not but I'll just give you, I'd like to show you these pictures. That's the part down where it crosses Bluff Creek but this is the part where it comes off the road and those are trees there. You can see what that additional stuff would do. I don't think it would be as severe as what Mr. Barinsky would have for a problem but it certainly would be one for us too. I 59 IICity Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 11 Marlin Edwards: My name is Marlin Edwards and I live at 8950 Audubon Road. I hadn't intended to speak and I'll make my comments very brief. I also believe that there is not a need for this trail and that the people that do use that , 11 road, bicyclists for example as the non-vehicular traffic, use it, they're on the road surface and they would be on the road surface if a trail were there I'm also convinced. If that trail did serve to increase foot traffic down to Lyman II Blvd. , I would suggest that it would be rather irresponsible to give them no trail option on Lyman Blvd.. My home faces both Audubon and Lyman. Audubon's rather safe and the traffic is pretty slow, especially trucks which have II difficulty making it up the hill anyway. Conversely, every youth that has either a hot motorcycle or a hot automobile, feels compelled to try out it's top speed going down that Lyman Blvd. embankment. There's a hill at one end and there's a hill at another. It's a perfect opportunity every evening. Every II weekend that's going on. So without having a plan already existing on Lyman Blvd. I would think would be irresponsible for the well being of path users to have a trail inducing them to get down to Lyman Blvd.. That's it. Thank you. IIMayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Dave Stockdale: I'm Dave Stockdale. I own probably the only piece of property I that's on the north section that's being affected by the sidewalk. Or at least who's property is occupied. Originally when I heard that this was going in I figured it was somewhat inevitable that it was going to be happening and I II assumed that there was a driving force of development taking place. I guess I'm not seeing where that development is coming from. It seems like it's being, the driving force is basically some free money out there. Or allegedly free money '1 II and I'm wondering if. that allegedly free money comes and goes and will be there again in the future when it seems to be more in time with actual development that once these improvements. Aside from the road issue, it seems like the trail system isn't desired by anyone on the south end and I'm not sure if II there's anyone that wants it on the north end. I wasn't aware that things would be funneling at the bridge and I'm a little concerned about the safety issue as vehicles, individualized vehicles coming up to a narrow and at the same time II they're coming to the narrow of the bridge. Pedestrian is narrowing towards that same area. It seems like you're creating a potential safety hazard at that juncture. I'm wondering if in fact the roads have to go through, it might make II sense to hold off the trailway system until a separate bridge can be funded so the bridge doesn't have to becomes narrower to accept a compromise pathway. Mayor Chmiel: Gary, maybe you can address that. It seems that the impression IIis the walkway is going to be on the bridge itself. - Councilman Johnson: It is. IIMayor Chmiel: But it will be on the exterior of it rather than on the driven tar. IIGary Warren: Mr. Mayor, that was the graphic that we had earlier. The trail will be on the bridge although it will be on a 6 foot portion of the bridge that will be protected by a jersey barrier and plate beam guardrail. , IIDave Stockdale: And the guardrail...2 feet wide. . .? I60 II City Council Meeting - June 4,x1990 _ ° II I Gary Warren: It would have your standard twisted end treatment that you would I ` see on the interstate to protect the bridge abutments and things of that nature so it would actually be twisted off into the boulevard area. We have a 10 foot boulevard basically behind the back curb and the existing proposed trail so II there's a transition area used to taper in so you don't have an abrupt change of either the road or the trail. Harald, is it 15 to 1 type tapers? So which is consistent with tinDot. The trail would be on the existing bridge but protected. II Councilman Workman: Gary, I thought we agreed to an added structure there at a cost of about $50,000.00 or something. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, that's the jersey barrier he's talking about. I Gary Warren: Yeah, the original feasibility study we had $52,000.00 cost II estimate and that was for extending the bridge abutments and for extending the piers on the bridge to add an additional say 10 feet onto the bridge. That was an earlier option we had looked at. Then based on the cost concerns and such, II we went and looked at other options. One which was a separate structure, totally separate which was $110,000.00 option and then this option which was the least expensive was the $20,000.00 option using the existing bridge. Councilman Johnson: What's the width from the jersey barrier to the center line II of the bridge? In other words, the travel width that the vehicles will have. Gary Warren: 14 foot lanes which is your standard. You're actually carrying a , 12 foot lane south of there. South of Heron Drive, the existing road is two 12 foot lanes. i Dave Stockdale: It's 28 foot from jersey to jersey? Councilman Johnson: No because one side's going to be even wider. I Gary Warren: 38 foot clear. 6 foot trail and 38 foot. Dave Stockdale: Are those just be temporary when they're built? II Gary Warren: The jersey barriers? Dave Stockdale: . .. 1 Gary Warren: Jersey barriers, for those who aren't familiar is the typical you II see on TH 5 here used extensively here in the construction. They're very successful. In fact they are used a lot now, being poured as actual median separaters in a lot of the more dense areas. II Dave Stockdale: Are you talking about. .. Gary Warren: This one would actually be, except for the special end treatments, I this one would be actually assembled, precast units that would then be open. . . Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? I 61 1 II IICity Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 j I Doug Barinsky: I guess we feel kind of -as a group of residents on Audubon South that probably what started out to be an additional renovation of industrial urban section and then ultimately was to include a bituminous overlay to get I Audubon Road in better condition, ended up being developed into a much more involved process including the trail as well as disruption of some of the property and significant environmental impact. We would only ask for I/ consideration that maybe the extent of this thing is went a little further than what was probably necessary so thank you. Councilman Johnson: Doug? Originally you said you wanted to talk more IIspecifically about your property and you never really got to that. Doug Barinsky: Okay. Jay I guess the biggest concern we have is that we really I question this whole 6 foot lowering because of some of the other comments that were made tonight because it does have significant environmental impact along the top of the hill and the large trees that are there. Cary and I had met a I couple times and went through a couple of these options and just anyway we go about it, there's no way that we can save the large trees at the top of the hill if in fact we're going to lower the hill 6 feet. We really question that the speed limit is too high now and we wonder if a 45 mph speed limit will even be I appropriate out there but we don't seem to have control over that. I also had difficulty finding out who is going to control the speed limit out there and who wants to. There seemed to be a lot of discussion about who's in charge of that II even though it is considered a city street. So I appreciate what Gary's saying about the line of sight but as Mr. Molnau mentioned, this has been an issue for a long, long time so why do we feel all of a sudden it's become an issue that it '. has to be dealt with. So if it 's decided that by legal representative vote that I II that hill has to be lowered, I have all of my trees are within my right-of-way with the exception of one that's technically right on the line but unfortunately if the City wants to use all of that right-of-way to take the crest of that hill 1 down, it's probably going to cause a negative impact on a bunch of big trees and the odds are pretty good that they're all going to have to be replaced or a bunch of them will. That really bothers me after driving around the last couple I days because it's pretty easy to see even large trees of 20 foot high that have been replanted here recently because they're all leaning today. I suspect they're going to have to be replaced. I noticed several places going to and from work in the different suburbs this morning, 20 foot trees have been I replanted that didn't make it through that wind this weekend so I envision being out in the open country where we are, if that's what we end up replacing some of those big trees with, we get a 40 mph wind next year and the trees are all going II to be laying and this will be my problem because the City is out of it at that point. I've answered your question. That's at this point the best we can do. Thank you. IIMayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Dave Stockdale: Just one more thing. I suppose it's too simplistic to think I that any of this sidewalk funding could be used to blacktop the City streets that are gravel. IIMayor Chmiel: Thank you, no. Okay, any discussion? I62 II City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 1 1. Don Rshwarth: Tax increment dollars can be used in the area from which they 11 were generated. I think some of the gravel streets you're talking about are not within that area and therefore can't be used. II Gary Warren: Just a point of clarification so that it's clear in everybody's mind. The current road in the hill area that we've been discussing here involves about a 700 foot stretch of the roadway where we would start from II matching existing road to the worse case where there's 6 feet of lowering that would be necessary. The current sight distance out there is less than 35 mph. It's almost 30 mph is actually the sight distance you have. In other words, a vehicle traveling 30 mph down the roadway would have enough stop reaction time II to be able to stop. . . Resident: What's the posted speed limit? I Gary Warren: The posted speed limit is 55 mph. That I believe was a carry over from when it was a county road. Nobody disagrees that that is not acceptable. II The design that we have in the plans right now is for a 45 mph design speed recognizing the status of the roadway I guess in the City's transportation system. This is based on some of the transportation study work that we're currently doing on this Eastern Carver County Transportation plan which I guess nobody likes to have a busy road in front of their homes perhaps but this road is expected to have or continue with increasing use as things like TH 212 and other road improvements in the city does develop in this area. So we have based il the design conservatively to rate though at a 45 mph speed which has dictated this 6 foot cut into the 700 foot section. The rest of the road section we are meeting the existing profile within 4 inches which is the depth of our overlay so that's as close as you can get. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. II Gayle Degler: I thought that you just mentioned that you're projecting a lot of traffic for that highway and I thought Paul in the previous discussion of PMT was saying that there wasn't going to be as much traffic. I Paul Krauss: If we could clarify that. What the study is telling us is that the traffic coming out of Park Drive is going to turn south in the future to get to TH 212 so the component of Audubon north of there, where the trucks normally II today go up to TH 5 is going to see a decrease in traffic when TH 212 opens. The area south is probably going to see an increase or at least that's what the Transportation Model is saying. il Gayle Degler: Where are they going to go when they hit TH 212? Paul Krauss: You're going to enter onto TH 212 at CR 17. II Gayle Degler: Yeah and then go east? I Paul Krauss: Yes. Gayle Degler: And they would go out of their way to head east compared to now I going to TH 5 and heading east? 63 1 II - City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 1 ' II Paul Krauss: Because TH 5 will, even when it's redone will operate at significantly near it's capacity with a series of stop lights. TH 212 is a freeway. It's still going to be quicker to get into town on TH 212. IGayle Degler: I'm not a trucker so I don't know where most of this traffic is coming from or where it's going. I can understand where people traffic will but I'm not sure how trucks usually take the shortest distance depending upon where 1 they're going of course. Willy Molnau: He's talking about new TH 212. IGayle Degler: I know. I understand. Thank you. Dave Stockdale: Where's that trail system supposed to start.. . 1 Councilman Johnson: We're going to get into discussion here my discussion's going to talk about that and the trail system. I think part of IIMayor Chmiel: Go ahead. II Councilman Johnson: I'm a little bit out of order but point 4 on the petition or the letter from the residents talks about taxpayers voting down spending tax revenues for construction of sidewalks and trails. That's not quite accurate and then there was some talk about taxpayers voting down the trail system. A IIreferendum on how to finance the trail system was voted down. The trail system was not voted down per se but the taxpayers said they don't want to pay for the 1 trail system by increasing taxes. But the trail system was never voted down as 11 a system. It was never even brought up for a vote as a system per se. There �' was a proposed trail system and there's a concept for a trail system. The trails in this area as far as I've heard it's concept, connects over to I eventually to Chaska High School complex and Jr. High School complex through Lyman Blvd. and a few other trails that are in the future. At this point I would like to see the area reserved from here on down for trails but I don't see the need to actually install the trails until we get the Lyman trails also I planned as part of the Lyman trails that it connects to construct this which would be a ways in the future because there's no financing for trail systems other than the funds we get from new houses for financing trail systems. But II there's been 20 or 30 different definitions I've heard over the last couple years on what that referendum was about. It seems to change to fit the needs. The trails on the McGlynn side or the west side is what I see as your industrial I trails where the change in the way industry runs nowadays, people are encouraged to get out and walk to exercise and whatever. You go into a lot of industrial parks at lunch and you see people walking. Jogging. Running. We put locker rooms inside of businesses so people can change their clothes. Go jog at lunch. I Come back and take a shower and go back to work. It's part of industry nowadays is to provide these facilities and these people need someplace to do this. So I'm a proponent of putting trails within industrial parks so that the people are I not out running. Lake Drive West already has people everyday at lunch out jogging and walking in the streets. This is also where you have truck traffic and semis and joggers I contend do not mix real well. They don't hurt the trucks much. And so that's my impression of what the trails that are around I McGlynn will be for is for the industrial folks for moving around from McGlynn's at lunchtime and taking their nature walks or whatever they do. The trail on II64 II = -City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 - the east side will be for the residents of Lake Susan Hills as that continues to ' develop and for them to get up to Park Drive, then cut through the industrial trails to get to Lake Ann. I'm not too wild about the trail coming from Prince's place back to Park Drive. I don't know if there will ever be a lot of traffic on that side. The east side from Park Drive up to TH 5. I'm not too sure about that trail segment at this time either. PMT seems to own most of that and they can access out to Park Drive. And Prince's, well I'm not sure what's going to happen, how many joggers come out of there. New trails. New trails are built such as the trail on Kerber Blvd. , which is a new trail that was built about 2-3 years ago. When they're first built nobody uses them. As people get to know they're there, they start getting used. You can go out on Kerber Blvd. now. In the evening I don't think I have, except for during rainstorms and thunder storms. During nice weather, I don't think I've driven Kerber Blvd. where somebody hasn't been using the trails along Kerber Blvd. and sometimes quite a few people. It's now a well used trails and eventually the trails around here will probably be looking the same. The trails that we had the pictures of, you'll probably see some people on them as more houses build. As people get some grass in theirs. It's kind of a pain when everybody's yard is out of mud moved down to the trail system but as Lake Susan Hills West, whatever that subdivision is, builds those trails will be more seen. My basic, I'd also like to know why or maybe refresh my memory. If we did talk about this sight distance problem when we allowed Rod Grams to build this subdivision. I mean it was about 4 years ago we approved this subdivision for Rod Grams to put this street in and now we're saying we don't have proper sight distance to his street and we have to drop the road 6 feet so the people pulling out from his subdivision are safe. Is that the interpretation I'm getting? Am I right there or am I catching something wrong? Gary Warren: That's part of the sight distance problem is the street there but it's also if somebody happens to be, a bicycle person for example out in the road and you're coming over the hill and your chance to recognize that person also is a factor in that calculation. I believe we did address the Rod Grams connection at the time, at least I vaguely recall that we talked about it. Councilman Johnson: That's why it's pushed down the hill. 1 Gary Warren: We did push it as far as we could, that's correct. Councilman Johnson: I can see what you mean there. I drove that. Geez, in the last couple days I've probably driven it 6 times looking at it and I'm driving it in a van where I'm nice and tall. Then I drove it once in my Horizon and there's a whole lot of difference in what you can see over that hill when you're driving something tall and something short so I can see the sight distance problems. I've seen a lot of people on bicycles on that road. It's not real well used. It's not used as much as CR 17 and Lyman has a lot of weekend, the guys with their $100.00 biking suits and their little helmets and kind of the road bicyclers. That's basically where I'm sitting on the trails and stuff. I'd like to see the areas reserved because I think this is going to be a good part of the trail system in the future but I don't see the asphalt going in this year from Heron Drive south and I'm not too sure about Park Drive north. I'm not convinced on that section. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Jay. Bill? 65 ' 11 4 -*= City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 II i II Councilman Boyt: Okay. We'll give them the one two punch on trails here Jay and then we'll hold our tent. There is a trail plan. This is part of it. It does get built in bits and pieces, if it gets built at all. The trail plan was I set up to connect the parks, the schools and the business centers and give somebody an alternative to getting in a car. On the one hand as I was taking notes when you were making your presentations you said gosh, the traffic speed's pretty fast and it's not very safe. On the other hand you're telling me I don't II want a trail. Well, I don't know how you're going to sake it safe. We do have a problem with maintaining trails. We're still trying to figure that out. The one on Kerber Blvd. which is about 2 years old which I use just about everyday, II is pretty well maintained and it gets a lot of use. If we don't build these things when we have the chance to use tax increment money, we're not going to build them. So we can have a difference of opinion about this. I suspect that II a good many people that live along a trail are going to find a lot of reasons for why they don't want it in their yard. I think we're going to be a poorer community for not having it in my opinion. I think in this, a lot of what you associate with the trails in terms of impact on your property is going to happen I without the trail there too. You're still going to have the retaining wall. You're still going to have that setback from the road. You're still going to lose some of those trees and maybe we just shouldn't build the road. You guys I don't want the road. You don't want the road. You don't want the trail. What the heck. Let's save the money and not build it. II Willy Molnau: All you have to do is take the trucks off there and then we've got it made. Councilman Boyt: Well we can't take the trucks off there. IWilly Molnau: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask a question yet. Bill, you just said i that trails are maintained on Kerber Blvd. . You said they're pretty well IImaintained. Who maintains them? The City? Councilman Boyt: As far as I know, what maintenance occurs the City does. IIWilly Molnau: You mean the maintenance of that trail is more important than snowplowing on Audubon Road on Sunday? IICouncilman Boyt: That's an awfully good question. Willy Molnau: I don't have snow removal on Sunday because the City don't want I to pay the overtime and now you're maintaining a trail that you say is used heavily? That road out there is used a lot heavier than that trail. On Sunday the whole neighborhood usually goes to church if we can get out. Too bad we II ain't got a fireman living there but he moved away. That road was maintained. It says firemen have to get out and we had good snowplowing. Councilman Boyt: Excuse me a second alright? I'd sure like to hear from Gary I about the snow removal. I want you to know that the trail on Kerber is not plowed in the wintertime as much as I'd like it to be but the Sunday snow removal is an interesting question. I sure wasn't aware that we weren't plowing Ion Sundays. Gary? II66 II -City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 II Gary Warren: That's news to me also. We do go out whenever there is snow that I needs to be plowed. Willy Molnau: When there's no snow then they're driving the blade on the ground and the fire flies up. Wait until they get to...Sundays. Gary Warren: Public works staff basically have their assignments. The areas. Mike Wegler I believe actually and as I'm sure everybody's aware, our public works garage is right on Audubon Road here so the crews that leave to head to their destinations, they all have their specific areas of responsibility. Trails are not even plowed the day of a storm if at all and if we do plow them, it is only after basically all of the roadways and such are cleared and the cul-de-sacs are cleared. We do not plow all of the trails as I think everybody is aware. But we do plow on Sundays if the weather dictates. We typically are out in the morning trying to beat the traffic to do the snow removal and the area's assigned specifically to an individual who does not stop until he complete his area and every road is plowed. Marlin Edwards: If I could comment on the line of sight issue on that crest of the hill. If you consider the layout of that land, if you were going up north on Audubon Drive and you had just completed doing a 90 degree turn, no matter I where you came from, it's a rather steep incline even if it was cut down 6 feet and I would argue that you're probably not going to build up that much speed getting to that crest anyway. And coming back down the hill, you've got to stop at the bottom of the hill anyway and I would argue likewise that you shouldn't be going that rapidly going over the hills. And this is particularly true in the wintertime with either ice or sand which is mostly what we have in the winter there so I would argue the line of sight issue at a safe operating speed perhaps 45 or 55...and I argue might be unnecessary if you consider what safe operating speed should be for that. Councilman Johnson: But what are they? I've been passed at the crest of that hill. Marlin Edwards: They're posted. I mean people drive by whatever is posted is t legal and that may be the simple solution to the problem. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursula. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess first I'd like to say that the comprehensive trail plan is being revised and I don't necessarily think that the one that- is in concrete and I think we are amendable to making some changes and as far as I'm concerned, if you voted against the funding for the trails, you voted against the trails. So the statements that were made earlier I don't agree with. I thought too rather than lowering the road, if we could reduce the speed limit, if that would be within our jurisdiction. Can we do that? Gary Warren: The road is a city road. It is in our jurisdiction to petition I the Commission of Transportation to do a speed study to evaluate and determine what the actual speed should be for the roadway. As I think Council is probably aware from some of our previous speed studies, the way that that is done is the Department of Transportation actually conducts radar studies of how the road is being used and sometimes, unless there is specific geometric concerns which this 67 ' I .r r City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 11 may be one of them, the actual speed that the users are going at will actually f dictate what the speed limit will be. So in a case where a road is being used at a higher speed, sometimes you can see speed limits being increased but that is the way that happens. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I've driven that road a lot too and I find that the slower I go the more time for reaction I have and I think that's generally true with everybody. I do that in my own neighborhood because anything can pop up. But I would like to see it reduced to maybe even 35 if we can because I really don't like to see those trees destroyed. My last comment is, I guess after all this conversation, I have forgotten the original purpose of upgrading the road. Would you review that for us Gary? ' Gary Warren: The road shows on the City's 5 year State Aid Capital Improvement Program as one that the Council had approved for upgrading here to recognize it's increased potential use here with the increased traffic as well as the fact ' that the road itself, as I think many of the neighbors here have attested, has got some areas where we've got some subgrade problems and we've got bituminous blistering. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I understand that. Are we talking about rezoning any of that and is that one of the reasons why we're doing this? Mayor Chniel: Rezoning from? Paul Krauss: Rezoning no. The comprehensive plan amendment that's being 1 discussed at the Planning Commission does anticipate the expansion of the MUSA ' line west of Audubon Road. Now that's something that has been going on independent of this road project but that area is in the proposed MUSA expansion ' line at this point. Councilwoman Dimler: So you're looking at residential expansion? ' Paul Krauss: No. Residential on the east side of Audubon. Right now the area west of Audubon is shown as office industrial and that's something the Planning Commission's going to be talking about in the next couple weeks. Councilwoman Dimler: Even south of the road? Paul Krauss: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Is that the Wednesday night meeting? This Wednesday night? Paul Krauss: No. That's the meeting on the 20th is for south of TH 5. Gary Warren: This Wednesday's north. Willy Molnau: In case this happens now that the construction starts and everything, when do the landowners get informed that this is happening? I have a stick standing in my wheatfield and my neighbor tells me that's going to be part of the new road system. Well you're talking tonight about letting bids for construction and you haven't purchased property yet and you're going to put the horses behind the cart at this time? Usually you plan ahead and see how much ' 68 I ii City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 1 r b money you're going to need to build this road? I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Prior to acquessing properties from the property owners, you have to have a particular project. Whether it be this or something else. II And that's determined first and then afterwards the contacts are made for the acquiring of the properties. I would assume that's the way you normally do it. Is that right Gary? II Gary Warren: That's correct. There's been a lot of variability here obviously in the plans and the side slope impacts. We've shrunk shoulders. We've added retaining walls. We haven't initiated the easement acquisition process until we have a fix on just what we need to acquire and that would be the next step here that would commence along with the advertising for bids. Mayor Chmiel: Does that answer your question? 1 Willy Molnau: Well partly. I Gary Warren: We would also be communicating to the residents once we do award a project, that comes back to the Council for award of the bids. Then would be Icommunicating a construction schedule to the residents specifically. If that addresses the rest of it. Mayor Chmiel: We went through that process notifying all adjacent property II owners right in town on one of the roads that we just approved. I thought that Gary did a pretty good job of indicating what was going to be done when. What segments were going to be worked on and so on. So yes there would be some II communication to let you know exactly what's taking place, if it takes place. Willy Molnau: When you talk about lowering the road for sight problems, if you II go south of Lyman on Audubon next to the Dean Degler farm, you come up the hill. All of a sudden there's a drop in the road. I mean it's just like your teeth fell out of your mouth when you hit the first bump and then you go level until past a break in the hill and all of a sudden kaboop you hit another. And when II you come either way, up to that point you can't see what's up on the level until it's right up to you so whoever designed that project I think is rather silly. I mean if that's what you talk about lowering a road for sight, you've got to I have a steep bump in the road. Can't that be a smooth grade? Councilman Johnson: Good point. We've got a lot of roads like that in this II city that need some fixing. Willy Molnau: No, no, this is the new road I'm talking about. Councilwoman Dimler: That's because of poor soils. II Gary Warren: Which one is he talking about? I Willy Molnau: Ursula, you'd better take another drink there. Councilwoman Dimler: It doesn't have the right stuff in there Willy. II Mayor Chmiel: Tom? 69 I II lr IICity Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 IICouncilman Workman: Well this is a tough one. I road my wheels bike up that . __ hill. IIWilly Molnau: Which hill? ' Councilman Workman: Your hill Willy. 1 Resident: 60 years ago? II Councilman Workman: Not 60 years ago. About 55 years ago I was riding up that hill. Willy Molnau: You're not old enough. IICouncilman Workman: And we used to sit on the old bridge that was there and just feel it shake. That was a big thrill for us and then we'd go back down CR I 17 to Sandy Acres and we had more thrills and now tonight I have even more. We're obviously going to do something with this road. We're going to repair the roadway obviously and Willy I didn't know your name was really Wilmer. IIWilly Molnau: Yeah, it's really Wilmer. They don't only call me Willy. Some call me worse. II Councilman Workman: I've been a part of a majority on this Council and I'll let you guess who that maybe is that is really, really looked hard at the sidewalk issue. It's been an unbelieveable. If you sat here every council meeting, I'd 1 1 say about at least half of them have involved a wild discussion on sidewalks. Their purpose. The philosophy. The overall plan. The whole idea behind all of it and in fact the Park and Recreation Commission just had a joint meeting with II us and we spent probably 75%c of the time that we had with them on sidewalks. It's that big of an issue and it's been that big of an issue for me. I think I've voted down most every sidewalk that a neighborhood wanted just about. IICouncilwoman Dimler: Didn't want. Councilman Workman: That they didn't want. ICouncilwoman Dimler: Right. II Councilman Workman: But I'm having problems with this because this is just a little bit different and I'm going to explain why. If we don't build this sidewalk, I guarantee we'll never build another sidewalk in Chanhassen again and I'm not sure that overall, looking at the plan, that's good because there are II areas where we need sidewalks. The people on Minnewashta Parkway I think all are in agreement that they want a sidewalk up there and I can't imagine where that's going to go. ICouncilman Boyt: Actually they're not. Councilman Workman: Aren't they? ICouncilman Boyt: There as big a split there as there is anyplace unfortunately. 1 II70 II City Council Fleeting - June 4, 199© ' _A- I Councilman Workman: Oh good. I'll stay up late for that. But my basic I/ philosophy on the sidewalk issue has been, when we develop TH 5 are we going to have one on TH 5 because we don't want people on TH 5. Are we going to have them on the major collectors and the major roads and that has been my biggest concern and this is obviously something of a collector. I'm terming it a II collector. And a high volume road and it's certainly going to be a higher volume road in the future. Are people from McGlynn's going to be using it to II get to TH 212 or the school or anything else? I don't know if this Council has the foresight to say yeah, we're going to be peddling our bikes down to Chaska's community center to use their community center by using this, etc.. I don't know that Chaska has that plan or if our plan connects in with it or anything II else. So I'm confused and while I want a sidewalk here, I'm very, very concerned about retaining walls and trees being lost and everything else for something that the neighbors are a little bit unsure about how it's going to look and stay clean and affect their property and everything else. Willy, aren't you abutting Chanhassen or Lake Susan Hills? Willy Molnau: Am I what? I Councilman Workman: Is your property abutting Lake Susan Hills? Willy Molnau: Abutting? Yeah. I Councilman Workman: So you're pretty close to making some big money there II maybe. I I Willy Molnau: Really? Gat your checkbook along? Tom, I can help you out right now. I'll make a hero out of you. let's put the trail system an the west side I of the road. Then you don't have no trees to worry about. Councilman Boyt: Yeah we do. It's even worst. i Councilman Workman: Make a hero out of me but your neighbors probably, on the other side of the road anyway. II Willy Molnau: He's not here tonight. Councilwoman Dimler: We discussed that already. I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. We discussed that at one other meeting. Councilman Workman: But it's a situation that sitting here on the City Council I for the past year and a half, I can see the use of this road. There's no way we're going to be able to stop the truck use going down here. Trucks are like water, they just flow where it's easiest to go and that's what they're going to II do. I rarely use this road myself except to drive up and see what's happening up here this week to and from Chaska but I am concerned enough about the sidewalk to want to at least buy a little bit of time with this. As it was II suggested on Frontier Trail, if we can't approve the plans with the sidewalk in but give it some more thought to the impact, maybe have a Kool-aid party at Willy's and we can all come out and look at the trees and eveything else a little bit closer and maybe some of the details but enough to save the sidewalk II prior to awarding the bid. I'm looking at him. Prior to awarding the bid and 71 1 1 • City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 4 11 to look at this maybe a little bit closer. It would appear as though the portions of the sidewalk that really impact a lot of the big trees is a very small portion of the problem and that maybe the sidewalk down the rest of the ' way isn't a problem. So I don't know if we can modify that or do something there but I'd like to look at that. It'd be very easy for me in this situation just as all the other neighborhood situations to say well if you don't want a sidewalk forget it. But this thing is such a collector and such a major thru fare here, that I think it goes beyond, somewhat beyond the immediate property owners' to the rest of the community and that's why I want to look at this a little bit better. That isn't the easy way out tonight for me, which I like to take, but I would like to find some options on this. Unless we're out of them. Gary Warren: I don't know if I followed you completely Tom. You're correct in that the sidewalk by the Barinsky property basically, that's the tree impact ' area on the rural section here and that's where we have shrunk by using the retaining wall and by adding a storm sewer in here we're getting rid of the rural drainage ditch that will be on the rest of the project but in this area ' we've gotten rid of the rural drainage ditch by installing storm sewer so we've really compressed that section as much as I think is reasonable and still maintain some sort of a clear zone. This 19 foot versus 31 foot. The further ' that you would bring that in I guess in the worse case scenario. We've shrunk down our shoulder which the standard is an 8 foot shoulder. We've shrunk that down to a 6 foot shoulder on this side so we've tried to really pull it in as much as reasonable. To save the trees out there, I guess with the drip line as ' a criteria, I would say that we probably would need to pull that retaining wall out probably, I don't know, 8 to 10 feet. Councilman Workman: Another 8-10 feet towards the center? Gary Warren: Which would give you, I mean you're right on the shoulder of the road then. Councilwoman Dimler: So there's no room for the trail? ' Gary Warren: Certainly not under that scenario. And you've got a retaining wall right up against the shoulder of the road which is not a safe scenario either. Councilman Johnson: Kind of like an interstate like 494. Councilman Boyt: Much worse. Mayor Chmiel: Not quite as close. A resident in the audience made a comment that could not be heard on the tape. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so. Gary? Gary Warren: The jersey barrier is 6 feet. You have a 14 foot travel lane on the bridge. We would have a 12 foot travel lane here in this area with basically 11 feet then between the retaining wall. Or I'm sorry, 9 feet between ' the retaining wall so it's a little bit narrower up on the bridge section. 72 I City Council fleeting - June 4, 1990 I Mayor Chmiel: What's your timeframe on this? I/ Gary Warren: Well if we're going to construct the project his year, I guess we - need to continue to proceed with it here. The construction season and the time for bidding and such, we're probably looking at a 60 days turn around to get construction started and then we've got easement issues as well. Councilman Boyt: You can bid it both ways. I Gary Warren: You can bid it as we had suggested on Frontier Trail with the trail as an alternate or Council may want to consider splitting the trail from Heron Drive north from the Lake Susan Hills West subdivision. I guess there's all kinds of options. We can bid alternates and accept or reject them at the time of award as well. Councilman Johnson: Gary, if you move this.retaining wall 10 feet and you're saying that's to get outside the drip line of all the trees that are there? , Gary Warren: That's my conservative guess here without. . . Councilman Johnson: I mean that means that there are some trees that are just , like right on the retaining wall or are you going to lose some? Gary Warren: Yeah, the retaining wall we're showing in the section. Maybe I should put it back up but that's, we're showing that at 2 feet. The base of it is 2 feet off the right-of-way line and as Mr. Barinsky noted, he's more familiar with his trees than I'm sure all of us. Most of them are very close to the right-of-way line. Councilman Johnson: Is there a possibility of doing something similar to the bridge at that point with the jersey barrier and moving that, putting in a narrower trail at that point and putting in the jersey barrier and then moving the retaining wall further to the west to save as many as possible, minimizing what damage? So go to a jersey barrier 14 feet off the center of the road. ' Gary Warren: A jersey barrier on that side you're saying? Slide the trail. Councilman Johnson: Narrow the trail down to 6 foot at that point. Just move ' the retaining wall over as far as possible. Gary Warren: We could look at that. 1 Councilman Johnson: Good. Councilman Boyt: When you did your traffic study, what was your projected 1 vehicles per hour per day? (There were two conversations going on at once at this point.) , Gayle Degler: How much use do you project in the next 10 years? Gary Warren: On the trail itself? 73 , City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Gayle Degler: Yes. Gary Warren: We don't know that. Gayle Degler: And there's no way to know if it goes any farther than Lyman. If it stops right there for 15-20 years, it's not going to be getting much use at Iall and I think that's a lot of wasted money. Mayor Chmiel: Well, being everybody's had an opportunity to express their views, I sort of like the idea as to what we did on Frontier Trail. Leaving ' that open as an option. Put a trail in that specific area. I look at the potential of an overaly, of a 4 inch overlay that you're talking. I don't see much problem with that. I think the road needs it. If we didn't do this, there probably would be some assessments adjacent to all the other properties from this. The TIF district as Don explained is something that doesn't have those assessments back to the property owners and at this particular time it would ' upgrade what's existing. I also feel that from the future Lake Drive West south to Lyman, which is going to be that 4 inch overlay, the balance of that you're talking roughly about 1,200 feet for the reconstruction south of the Soo Line railroad, is that right Gary? IIGary Warren: From Lake Drive West Mr. Mayor? ' Mayor Chmiel: Right. Gary Warren: To Lyman? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Gary Warren: I believe we've 3,300 feet. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's nothing more we can do with that additional 6 feet for the vehicles sight distance? Gary Warren: That is the minimum for 45 mph speed limit. Mayor Chmiel: What happens if we put it down to 35? IIGary Warren: Well, the State would have to approve that first of all? If the State would approve it at 35. . . IIHarald Eriksen: Right now it's...33 mph. ' Mayor Chmiel: I don't think I've seen one at 33. Gary Warren: You remember them when you see them. What Harald is basically - saying is if we hit 35 mph speed limit through there, we could match the I existing roadway. It would then become an enforcement issue as to whether the people would actually abide by that and whether the State would go along with us on that. IICouncilman Johnson: It would increase our traffic ticket revenue. We're already the highest traffic ticket revenue in the County. 74 I City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 I/ I/ Gary Warren: Our collector highways in the City are 45. Mayor Chmiel: Anyway, I guess that's where I'm coming from and no sense I reiterating what everyone else has said but that's what I'm looking at. Councilman Boyt: Alright, so what we're proposing in the short run is that we II approve the plans and specifications and ask for bids on a roadway with and without a trail. I would so move. Councilman Workman: Second. II Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion? IICouncilwoman Dimler: We haven't addressed the speed limit and the lowering of the road. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think that's part of the complete portion of this as well. Councilman Johnson: The plans show a 6 foot. i Councilwoman Dimler: And it shows a retaining wall. Councilman Johnson: There are a lot of options to be gone here. I Cugninceilema g Bop:a rtI m ewnot suggest tus ai s if t hte hp rrpo .is etro spuv sw hot the Then road. we've got to take the 6 feet out of it. If we leave the speed limit at 35 mph or we make the speed limit 35 mph, which it probably should be if the road's not going to be changed, the road will not attract those trucks that we II want to get down eventually to TN 212. Now that may accomplish, well apparently given what their reaction is, that would accomplish what the neighborhood wants. This is one of those issues where it won't accomplish what the city traffic flow or the engineer would recommend. Maybe that's an issue that the Council has got II to resolve. Do we want this road to be able to handle 45 mph traffic and therefore trucks or do we want to see it posted and enforced at 35 which make it probably the only road in Chanhassen that isn't lined with houses that was at II 35. Councilman Johnson: Bill, I think it's a prediction from the computer model II that says that the trucks want to take this route. I don't know if being a 35 or a 45 will make a whole lot of difference to those trucks for this short stretch. Plus, you know the experience we've had with tinDot on getting them to say anything about reducing speeds. The answers come back almost everytime that II the higher speed is what they recommend. I'm trying to remember one where they came back and said yes, reduce your speed limit. If they go out there and radar that road, they're going to tell us 55 rather than 45. I Councilwoman Dimler: I thought we said it was under city jurisdiction. Mayor Chmiel: It is. II Councilman Johnson: It is to a point. 75 II 1 4 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: The Highway Department reviewing and making their recommendation. - Gary Warren: The Commission of Transportation has jurisdiction over the speed ' limits of the State roadways except in school zones and alleys and one other I can't think of. Councilwoman Dimler: It is a State road? It's not a city street? ' Gary Warren: No. It is a city street. Councilwoman Dimler: So why does. . . Councilman Johnson: Your street the State has jurisdiction on your circle to ' set a speed limit there. The commissioner of transportation has that jursidiction statewide except for school zones and what was the other zone? Gary Warren: School zones, alleys. Councilman Workman: MnDot uses speed, higher speeds as a short term fix to congestion don't they in a sense? Gary Warren: Well what they actually do in a speed study is they take the 85 percentile of the actual traveled speeds of the vehicles that they monitor for that particular day or week and unless there's other overriding factors, that's what you'll end up with as a speed that they recommend. The 45 mph, as we're all aware, the north south collectors in Chanhassen and in this area, TH 101 we're deficient. I think the computer model is reflecting that this road is a ' road that will be carrying 11,000 vehicles per day in 20 years and that's based on some pretty detailed trip zoning that we've done some breakdowns on so I think 45 is what we typically look to for a collector to be carrying. Willy Molnau: Don, just post it for 4 ton axles a year and then you won't have no trouble. Mayor Chmiel: You're right. Okay. We had a motion. Councilman Workman: With a second. Mayor Chmiel: Would you review your motion again. ' Councilman Boyt: Well the motion as it stands would be, or as I intended it, would be that the plans and specifications as currently stated would be bid out with two options or an alternate and the alternate would be without sidewalks, ' or a trail or whatever we're calling it. So we'd be proposing two bid packages. As it stands means that it would be, we would be bidding this as a 45 mph roadway. I happen to think that I can understand the neighborhood's issue. I've got to go with the engineering department telling me that this road is needed at 45 mph. Mayor Chmiel: I'd still like to see it checked out to see what we can one way or the other. 11 76 I . City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 I/ Councilman Boyt: Sure. Well I'm open to that as part of the motion. If I appropriate we can get them to bid it both ways. All four ways. I don't know. Mayor Chmiel: It gets a little confusing. I Gary Warren: Yeah it does for the contractors. Mayor Chmiel: Right. II Councilman Boyt: Well one bid would be the 4 inch cap or whatever the depth of the cap. Virtually no grading. Another bid would be reducing that section by 6 feet with sidewalk. And the third one would be reducing it 6 feet without sidewalk. Does that make sense? Would they do that? Would they submit that many bids to us? I Gary Warren: If we ask them, I'm sure they will. Councilman Johnson: If they want the job. I Councilman Boyt: What's your thought? Should we do all 3? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I Mayor Chmiel: I would think we should. I Councilman Workman: What was your first suggestion? Councilman Boyt: The first one was that we go for it as written without I sidewalks which would be 45 mph. The other option, and this is definitely not a Robert's Rules here but we'll work something out, is to throw in the 35 mph. Councilman Johnson: Let me complicate this. Are you talking the entire no II sidewalk or no trail everywhere or are you talking from here and south? Councilman Boyt: Everywhere. 1 Councilman Johnson: Completely eliminate them? II Councilman Boyt: It's either in or it's out. When we get the cost figures back, maybe you'll want to cut that up somewhere. Councilman Johnson: Because I think from here onto Park is even a more 1 essential part of the trail system in that that's for the people in the west side of Lake Susan Hills to get to Lake Ann. II Resident: They have a sidewalk in their neighborhood taking them over to CR 17. Councilman Johnson: If you live in the west side, you're not going to go all I the way to CR 17 and then backtrack. Resident: Yes you can. I Councilman Johnson: Oh you can but I know kids. 77 r 1 ti At City Council fleeting - June 4, 1990 Resident: We live on Heron Drive and you can and there will be a sidewalk across. .. Councilman Johnson: Oh yeah. I'm sure that you can do it but I know my children and what they would do. They'll go out to Audubon. You know my kids too. He's been over in your barn. They would go to Audubon and go right on up there. ' Councilwoman Dimler: If at 35 we don't have to lower the road. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have that motion before us. Is there a second? Councilman Boyt: I think we had a second. ' Resolution #90-61: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve plans and specifications and authorize for bids for the upgrade of Audubon Road from Soo Line Railroad to Lyman Boulevard, Improvement Project No. ' 89-18 with the following three alternatives: The first alternative as submitted by staff, the second bid would be reducing the road section by 6 feet with a sidewalk, and the third one would be reducing it 6 feet without sidewalk. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 20-56 THROUGH 20-70 ' PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF VARIANCES (PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT THE MARCH 21, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING), FIRST READING. �ff Councilman Johnson: Is there going to be debate on this issue? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so. I'd move it for the first reading. ' Paul Krauss: By the way, I should point out though. The draft of the ordinance that you received in your packet was an older one that didn't have the most update corrections. Tonight I gave you the one that Roger had corrected that was supposed to be in your packet. There was only a one word change in it and we talked about that change in the text. ' Councilman Johnson: You did? Oh here it is. Mayor Chmiel: What page? Paul Krauss: Elliott, do you remember where that change was? It was a one word deal. ' Elliott Knetsch: 5(a) I think. Paul Krauss: Oh the word exclusively was dropped. ' Councilman Boyt: Undue hardship? Paul Krauss: Under undue hardship, yeah. Elliott Knetsch: (c). Item 5(c). 78 I T __ _ 4 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 II I. 4 Mayor Chmiel: Item (c). Under Section 5. 1 Councilman Johnson: Yeah. . The last page. Page 3. ' Paul Krauss: Yeah, it used to be that the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon the desire to increase property value. That was thought to be confusing I believe by Councilman Johnson. The word exclusive. I Councilman Johnson: Too restrictive. Paul Krauss: Yeah. The word exclusively was deleted. II Councilman Johnson: Could never be proven exclusively. It's kind of a shadow II of a doubt argument. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there any discussion on this? If we don't have any _ discussion. I Councilman Boyt: There is. Councilman Johnson: I move that we table since it's midnight. This is a very I important issue and if we're going to have any lengthy discussion on this one, there's no huge urgency on it. Mayor Chmiel: Great. I'm all for it. II Paul Krauss: Would it be alright if we folded it onto next week's meeting? I Councilman Johnson: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Would you put it on there early. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Table it to the next Council meeting. Move it up. Councilman Johnson: So do we get a second on my motion to table? II Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table Zoning Ordinance II Amendment to amend Article II, Sections 20-56 through 20-70 to the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: II Mayor Chmiel: I have just one thing that I wanted to bring out about the II association of Metropolitan Municipalities. They're requesting for at least someone from our Council to look at possibly signing up our own policy committee which would cover the 5 different items and I think the Council all received a II copy. I just wanted to bring this up to make sure if there's anyone that's interested, that they should get their application form in on or before June 21. Other than that I'm finished. Jay? Completion of the U.S. Census. II Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Completeness. This City has grown tremendously since the maps were made a year and a half ago upon which the U.S. Census based 79 II II 11 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 their count in this town. The bonus system and stuff that they have does not have an incentive for them to count new homes that have been built. They have an incentive to complete their book. I'm worried that we have a significant j undercount in this town. I do have a lot of inside information on what happened with the U.S. Census in this town since my wife was one of the census takers here and I've talked to the supervisor and stuff. Within Sally's area, she ' worked very hard on getting new homes and she added pages of new homes to her book and she had the largest book in town. But then her's got split off and sent off someplace else so what I wanted to do was grab 10 homes. A list of 10 places here in town and send it in to the supervisors in North Mankato from the City saying were these 10 homes counted in your census. If they come back saying well we counted 2 of them, say hey we would like you to do a complete count of this census here. Of course those 10 homes would not be a randomly ' selected sampling. They would be selected from new areas and stuff. I'm not trying to give them an easy task here. The easy task is the established homes. Those were the things that the people had to do to get their bonuses but it was ' almost a discourgement to go out and pick up the new houses to get your bonus because it wasted your time. The maps they had for the census were just ludicrously terrible. Councilman Workman: So what are you asking Jay? Councilman Johnson: In fact, Ursula's house was not on the census map even ' though I think she got her census. Councilwoman Dimler: My house wasn't on there? Councilman Johnson: No. Well, there was only like 2 houses on your circle 1 there on the map. Councilwoman Dimler: I wasn't counted? Councilman Johnson: Well if you sent a form in. Somehow they got you but I'm wondering whether that should be signed by the Mayor or just City Manager that there's a concern from the council that we have a complete count because there's a lot of money at stake. ' Mayor Chmiel: I'll sign it. You draft it, we'll send it. Okay, Bill. Councilman Boyt: Trail referendum. What I would like to see us do. II - Councilwoman Dimler: Oh geez, let's not have a long discussion. Councilman Boyt: No, this is going to be so simple because everybody's going to agree. Is I'd like to see the Council, and maybe you did this because I wasn't at the joint meeting. Direct the Park and Rec to prepare a referendum for a trail on the major thoroughfares in Chanhassen for this fall. That would be Minnewashta, TH 101 and other maybe of comparable sorts of roads. Councilman Johnson: TH 41. Councilwoman Dimler: Powers. 80 I City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 I/ Councilman Boyt: But that it would, and my point in this is that several of the people on the Council have mentioned from time to time that you would support trails on major thoroughfares. I think the two times that it has, in my opinion, narrowly lost in the past has been when it has become immersed in a II neighborhood issues of a residential kind of do I want it in my little neighborhood. I think the town as a whole needs some trail system on there and I'd like to have Park and Rec put it together. II Mayor Chmiel: Well we can't take action on that tonight. Councilman Workman: Well I did in fact at the Park and Rec meeting discuss that 1 and I brought it up in fact of all things. Councilman Johnson: We're seeing you get more and more pro trail all the time II Tom. Councilman Workman: That's right. I've never been anti-trail Jay. I Councilman Johnson: I know. You've never been pro-trail either. Councilman Workman: And I don't know if a referendum this time is good or not. I I guess I'd like some more time to think about that. Councilman Boyt: Well we're going to have plenty of time. Why can't we refer II this to Park and Rec to prepare this? They're not going to get it prepared in a month. Is doesn't have to go on our agenda to refer it to them. Councilwoman Dimler: No, but we can't take action on Council Presentations. II Mayor Chmiel: We did tell them to prepare a plan. Councilwoman Dimler: I think we did. II Mayor Chmiel: Yes we did. II Councilman Boyt: But I'm not talking about just a trail plan. I'm talking about, a trail plan is going to, I would think, is going to be something like II the one we already have. What I'm talking aobut is just specific, major corridors. Mayor Chmiel: We discussed that. I Councilman Johnson: We discussed a major corridor plan. Councilman Boyt: Okay. They're already going to do that. II Councilman Johnson: I think so and that could lead to a referendum in November. IIMayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom. Councilman Workman: I guess I don't have anything to discuss on this. Just what are, I noticed in the packet that people are keeping in touch. If I can II be, if the Council can be kept in touch with what's going on. I think this is 81 1 N, II 1 City Council Meeting - June 4, 1990 closely linked to Met Council's overall plan to control water in the metro area, etc. . Not just rivers but ponds and everything else and I'd like to be kept informed on what's going on there. • Mayor Chmiel: I think can probably view that a little bit because of my responsibility as it were. Met Council's one of my responsibilities. ' Councilman Workman: Can you please keep me informed Mr. Mayor? ' Mayor Chmiel: I'd love to. Tell me your concerns and I'll make sure I address those. ' Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I can fill you in on that meeting. I was at that meeting in Shakopee. Steve Keefe kicked it off. There was a lot of concern about equity issues. Well first of all, there's some concern about what the issue is exactly because they don't understand it themselves. They're doing a study of the Minnesota River. It's real curious that the Minnesota River which is basically agricultural drainage, is having problems that they relate to urban development when the Mississippi is not. But they talked about the 40% wasteload reduction. Cooperative effort. A lot of things that we agreed with but I think there's two equity issues for us. The first is that everybody be subject to something uniformily in and out of the metro area. The second one is ' that within the metro area that we don't pay the price for Bloomington and Richfield's failure to do something by having our development potential choked off. Rather ominously a lot of the Metro Council folks that were there kept on referring to land use controls as being the operative mechanism to clean up the 1 river. To me that means that they're going to try to clamp down on us because of other problems that other folks created when this city's been fairly ) conscientious environmentally. Tonight earlier during the meeting I was ' drafting up a response to Steve Keefe basically saying we're concerned about the equity issues here. We're doing a lot on our own. I outlined what we proposed to be doing in the future and said that we'd like to be involved and if a Task Force was created to work on this, that we'd like some representation on that. I can keep you informed with what I know but that's where it sits right now. Mayor Chmiel: Good. ' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim r82 11 I 4 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 1990 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . The meeting was opened ' with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman and Councilman Johnson COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Dimler ' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Paul Krauss, Roger Knutson, Jim Chaffee and Sharmin Al-Jaff APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to ' approve the agenda amended to add the following under Council Presentations: Councilman Workman wanted to discuss transportation related items and Don Ashworth wanted t: discuss a building on TH 5 for the Fire Department. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: As long as everybody's here, what day was that for Perpich ' coming in? Councilman Workman: Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition goes, who are promoting TH 5 and 212 have invited the Governor and Transportation Commissioner Levine out to this area to say thanks for helping us with the highways thus far. We need more help obviously but for are to kind of rub elbows I guess with those people. It's going to be at MIS at 5:00 to 7:00. It's going to be a buffet ' dinner. I think the cost is $7.00 or something. 5:00 to 7:00. It sounds like Lola will be there but an opportunity to talk a little bit about highways and transportation and those interested should RSVP to the Eden Prairie Chamber II soon. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. ' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Wetland Alteration Permit Request to Alter a Class B Wetland, South of Tanadoona Drive and West of Dogwood Road, Thomas Kordonowy. b. Preliminary Plat Approval to Subdivide 3.2 Acres into 2 Single Family Lots, 365 Pleasant View Road, Robert Sathre. c. Extension of Final Plat Approval, Burdick Second Addition. g. Resolution $90-62: Approve Plans and Specifications for Sanitary Sewer IExtension to Harvey/O'Brien Property; Authorize Advertising for Bids. j. Approval of Temporary Beer License for 4th of July Celebration, Chanhassen Rotary. 1 ir- City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 4 I. Approval of Accounts. m. City Council Minutes dated May 14, 1990 City Council Minutes dated May 30, 1990 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 21, 1990 o. Accept Donation from the Chaska Lions to the Park and Recreation Department. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' K. APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR COMPLETION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Paul Krauss: As you're aware we've been working quite intensively on completing the Comprehensive Plan for the City. It's been a process that's taken approximately 18 months to get to this point. I guess I should start out with the fact that the memo that you received in your packet is a little outdated and ' unfortunately you didn't get a copy of the newer memo that should supercede that and I'll explain why in a minute. It's been clear to us for some time now that there weren't enough funding allocated to complete the Comprehensive Planning ' effort. There's a number of reasons for that. I've listed them in the report and I think they're still accurate. The scope of the plan is expanded considerably. Not only since we started the effort about 18 months ago but ' since I came here in the fall it's been quite clear that the magnitude of what the Planning Commission was considering was quite great. I arrived late in the budgetary process and was really unable to interact very much in terms of the allocations. We've expanded our work efforts with traffic, transportation and ' have contracted with our consultant working on the Eastern Carver County study to make some special runs for Chanhassen so we knew what the development would yeild. The Metropolitan Council in the last month or so has come out with some very strict guidelines as to what they'll be looking for in the plan and I've had ongoing discussions with them and it continues to get more involved frankly. The last item is that the official public hearing process, I think as you're ' aware, has just begun and there is a level of work that's tough to anticipate that comes out of those meetings because we basically have to back up. Look at alternatives. Come up with position papers. Give the Planning Commission information they need to proceed. The initial memo indicated that there was a ' request for an additional $10,000.00 allocation to complete the plan. Unfortunatley that memo was drafted sometime in February and was printed in March and was never dispersed. Don and I had talked about it periodically and ' decided not to submit it at that time. Since that time the work effort has expanded quite a bit and there was a new memo that had been drafted for this packet that indicated that felt that we needed approximately $25,000.00 to finish the work effort. So I think the reasons are all still the same reasons ' but we've had the new work effort in the transportation area. The Metro Council is more recent and the neighborhood interaction is more recent as well. We apologize for having sent out the wrong memo but the correct amount that we ' believed that we needed to finish the plan was $25,000.00. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions I can. Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? 2 --- T City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 • A 5 T Resolution $90-63: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to ' approve a budget amendment for completion of the Comprehensive Plan in the amount of $25,000.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. M. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATED APRIL 30, 1990. Councilman Boyt: You guys, I thought I was at that meeting. I know I've not 1 been at a few of them but that one, I remembered all those topics when I went down through it. Mayor Chmiel: Were you in town? Councilman Boyt: I came in late and maybe that's how it happened but I would. ' Mayor Chmiel: I believe you're right. No, that's correct. Yep. Because I remember you coming in late. 1 Councilman Johnson: So you want to change your absent to late? Councilman Boyt: I don't mind. I just wanted it marked that I was there. ' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the City Council Minutes dated April 30, 1990 amended to include Councilman Boyt as present. All voted in favor and the motion carried. N. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR ZIMMERMAN FARM. ' Mayor Chmiel: Gary, do you want to clarify that? Gary Warren: Yes Mr. Mayor. Staff received some input from the developer's ' attorney here today and just a couple of quick items of clarification for the contract. Our development contract. One is that Tim Foster should actually be shown as the developer in the contract instead of Peter and Deana Brandt. That is consistent with the platting of the property which is actually under Mr. Foster's ownership. And where that applicant is referenced then through several of the conditions, it should be changed to developer. Also point of 11 clarification which is consistent with our policies is that on page SP2, the paragraph following the cost of the public improvements should be added that, and I'll just quote here, at such time as the improvements are completed and have been accepted by the City, the security shall be released to the developer which is consistent with our policies after acceptance. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I just have one question. Tim Foster. Is that what it should be read as or is it Timothy? Gary Warren: Timothy Foster should be shown as the developer. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions. Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the Development Contract for Zimmerman Farm as amended by Gary Warren. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 3 lr City, Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 111 VISITOR PRESENTATION: Jim Burdick: Seeing it's Visitor Presentation, my neice from East Germany who came here to see hos City Councils worked in America. Mayor Chmiel: Welcome. Jim Burdick: I appreciate this being passed on the Consent Agenda but I'd like to clarify just one item. Everything is okay on, we were even given the trunk ' sewer and this and that and things had changed and all of this. The staff and everything is fine except the State wants a temporary easement while they're constructing TH 5 and there's something in the staff recommendation about this ' temporary easement being shown on the plat as a permanent easement. I'd sure rather not show that. For one thing it's kind of out in the middle now like a postage stamp is one. Number two is just a temporary State easement and they told me they might want to change it a bit depending on soil conditions and all and I'm perfectly willing to agree to give an easement for storm water and to put it under this development contract and we're going to replat this anyway. I've agreed to replat it in 2 years after the State has settled down and knows ' exactly what they're taking. So I'd just like to have that little modification there after showing this temporary State easement. Actually you can't show a temporary easement on a plat anyway I guess so it would have to be. . . Mayor Chmiel: Who would like to address that. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I think that you're aware. We're platting a property ' in advance of MnDot acquiring the right-of-way and the easements that they need for TH 5. We would prefer to show all of those things up front. Mr. Burdick has a problem with that and what we've agreed to do is instead of getting them ' upfront is require that the property be replatted after the condemnation goes through. And that's acceptable to us and I think under that same guideline we can modify condition number 5. Right now it reads enter into a development contract to require replatting the property once condemnation of MnDot right- , of-way is completed. We could also add the MnDot drainage easement. That the plat be revised to reflect both. I might add too in reading this, I guess I've got a further concern in that the intent with that condition was that there be ' no building permits issued until this is clarified because it's supposed to be clarified in relatively short order. What we don't want to do or would prefer to avoid doing is having construction on lots in the pending right-of-way which I don't know, Gary what's the schedule for the completion of that? ' Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, MnDot's schedule the way it's been explained to me for title and possession of the property is August 23rd of this year. That's the ' quick take process that I understand that they're following on. Point of clarification also on the easement is that it is a permanent storm water drainage easement which currently shows on the plat that MnDot is showing to ' move. I've got no problem with writing that in as a condition of the development contract that it be replaced at such time as it is actually moved. This was clear that, and I think Mr. Burdick is in agreement with this that the property does have to provide it's own storm water retention pond to meet the criteria of runoff for the development. We've got flexibility on where he wants to place it on the property but we do have to have a permanent easement ultimately wherever the ponding does occur. ' 4 City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 t Mayor Chmiel: That I'm sure is something you can work out with Mr. Burdick to I both satisfaction as far as that's concerned. Gary Warren: Right. The pond will not move until MnDot moves it and MnDot II can't move it until they settle on the property issue with Mr. Burdick so that mechanism fits well together with the development contract. So he'll be in to replat once the property issue is settled and then we'll have the easement replaced. II Mayor Chmiel: And that was as we had our discussions with MnDot last week and in order to get all this pulled together we have to have this all done by the II August. Gary Warren: Yeah, the letting date for the project is June 27th of this year. II Title and possession is August 23rd so they'll have some time there between letting and award so it should all be wrapped up by the beginning of September I would think. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other visitor presentation? Councilman Workman: Do we need action on this? I Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something that, I don't know if we need action on that or not. I I Gary Warren: That condition probably is modified. _ ' Paul Krauss: Yeah, I think what you would really need to do I think is r I econsider the action to modify the conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I Councilman Johnson: I move to reconsider. Councilman Workman: I move to suspend the rules. I Councilman Johnson: I guess we'd have to do that too. II Mayor Chmiel: Yes, we'd have to. Councilman Johnson: Okay, I'll move to suspend our rules so we can take action on this item right now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? I Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to suspend the Council II Rules to take action on an item under Visitor Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to reconsider item 1(c) of I the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 5 II 1 I City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 1 Councilman Boyt: _Now you've got to do it. IICouncilman Workman: But I want to know what it is exactly. Mayor Chmiel: Would you so state, either you or Paul? II Paul Krauss: Maybe I can take a crack at it. I think the first thing you want to do is eliminate condition number 1 which is the one that Mr. Burdick is objecting to that requires that the amended even be on the plat now. So you can II eliminate that and then you need to modify condition number 5. I think it should read that enter into a development contract with the City which will require replatting of the property once condemnation of MnDot right-of-way is II completed. The revised plat is to show the new right-of-way and revised drainage easement. I would also prefer that you add, and this is up to you but that you add a condition that building permits be withheld from these parcels until the final plat or the revised plat is filed. IIMayor Chmiel: But that's an automatic though is it not? Building permits aren't issued until once that plat is. . . IIPaul Krauss: Right. The plat that we're filing today is one that we're a little concerned with because it's being filed in advance of MnDot actually II taking the land. We don't want to wind up in a situation where somebody wants to build under that plat which is going to be obsolete 2 months from now. Councilman Workman: Well how is that recommendation different from what we have II for number 5? y i Paul Krauss: Number 5 as it reads right now is fairly open ended and in the II meantime we would be obligated if somebody requested a building permit to give them one. Councilman Johnson: Does Mr. Burdick have a problem with that? IJim Burdick: No, I have no problem with this at all... I Roger Knutson: I think it's implicit when we're talking about the lawsuit should also be dismissed as a condition. It has to be to. . . Councilman Workman: What would be? Roger Knutson: There's a lawsuit pending on this plat. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That would be part of it too Jim. Do you understand what Roger's saying? II Jim Burdick: Yes. You people have been very good to me on that right turn in and right turn out and oh I'm going to want some land vacated from part of the old 78th Street and various things so I've decided to drop this claim of I $30,000.00-$40,000.00, whatever it was for that trunk sewer easement. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. 1 6 t- City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. 1 i • Mayor Chmiel: There's approval. Is there a second? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I second it with the conditions described by Paul and the City Attorney. Mayor Chmiel: Correct. 1 Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Final Plat 186-6 for Burdick Second Addition as shown on the plans dated June 4, 1990 subject to the following conditions: 1. Item deleted. 1 2. A separate document shall be submitted which provides a temporary cross drainage easement encompassing the existing drainage ditch on the subject property to accommodate drainage from the property to the north until West 78th Detachment Improvements are completed. 3. The easement arrows shall be correct on Lot 2. 1 4. The C.S.A.H. 16 designation shall be removed from the plat and instead designate the street as West 78th Street. 1 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City which will require replatting of the property once condemnation of MnDot right-of-way is- completed. The revised plat is to show the new right-of-way and revised drainage easement. 6. Building permits shall be withheld from these parcels until the revised 1 final plat is filed. 7. The developer agrees to dismiss the pending lawsuit on the property. 1 All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Are there people here for the geese removal? Please raise your 1 hand. Councilman Johnson: Let's see that's item 7. - 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you like to move that we move item 7? Councilman Workman: Yes, I would move. 1 Councilman Johnson: Shall we move it to item 3? Go ahead and do the public hearing and then. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we'll go through that and then we'll move that one up right after the public hearing. 1 Councilman Johnson: Before the award of bids. 7 1 1 at illCity. Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 -- - Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Johnson: I move that we move item 7 to right after item 2. Mayor Chmiel: That way you won't have to sit here all evening. PUBLIC HEARING: METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 1690 -KOEHNEN CIRCLE, GLEN DOTY. ' Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is I hope a relatively simple request. It is a metes and bounds subdivision which comes before the City Council. The proposal is to divide a 39,000 square foot lot into two parcels. Lot A with approximately 24,000 square feet would be occupied by the existing home. That's the parcel on the west. Lot B with slightly over 15,000 square feet would be made available for new construction. Both lots would gain access to Koehnen Circle. There are no variances attended with this proposal. It does meet all our requirements. We had some minor concerns with tree preservation and grading and drainage issues and we've put some conditions in there that would allow us to review those items when a building permit is actually requested. With that 1 we are recommending it's approval with the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Paul. ' Councilman Workman: For as long as I've lived around here, I think they pronounce that Koehnen. Mayor Chmiel: That's-only because you've lived here too long Tom. As I said, 1 this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address this particular item. If seeing none, a motion to close the public hearing. ' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Metes and Bounds Subdivision Request $90-7 as shown on the plans dated May 1, 1990 subject to the ' following conditions: 1. The typical drainage and utility easements should be dedicated: a. 10 foot front and 5 foot sides for each lot. 2. The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan prior to the issuance of a ' building permit. 3. A grading plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that the natural drainage pattern is maintained on the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 8 Is r. City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 1 ^ I • 1 i _ GOOSE REMOVAL PROGRAM, FINALIZE FOUR YEAR PROGRAM. IIPublic Present: Name Address 1 Chet & Joyce Lobitz 3637 So. Cedar Road Ada Anding 3631 So. Cedar Road II Lucy Vanderlinde Excelsior Vicki Anding Excelsior Jill Hempel 3707 So. Cedar Drive Marianne Anding 3715 So. Cedar Drive II Linda Johnson 3629 Red Cedar Point W.R. & Marilyn Hanson 3241 Dartmouth Drive Jim Cooper University of Minnesota Mark & Karen Foster Chanhassen il Dick Schlener 3601 Red Cedar Point Bob & Sally Hebeisen 3607 Ironwood Street Al Harvey 1430 Lake Lucy Road I/ Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive Bill & Marilyn Turner 3501 Shore Drive . il Arnie Hed 3860 Lone Cedar Circle Chuck & Maxine Erickson 3621 Ironwood Road Denton White 3351 Shore Drive Peggy Greer & Charles Heinz 6045 Chaska Road, Shorewood II Mary Knudten 6850 Utica Terrace Jim Jasin Lake Minnewashta Al Smith Red Cedar Point I Jan Reese Red Cedar Cove Don Ashworth: I have distributed this evening letters that were received today. I You should have that in front of each of the Council members. There's a letter from Raymond Roettger, Fran and Jim Borchart, Marilyn Hanson, Jim and Barbara Larkin and Mary Moore. In addition this afternoon or late this afternoon I IIreceived a call from property owner in the Lake Minnewashta area. He had identified himself as the original citizen who had presented the petition in that area. He was not able to attend this evening's meeting and he asked that I pass along his request that the Council consider continuing that program. He 1 stated that he represented approximately 30 to 40 families in the Lake Minnewashta area. Staff report on the item is that this is a program we started approximately 3 years ago. We're in the fourth year of that program. As I see II it, it is not a goose removal program but in fact a goose stabilization program and staff is recommending approval of the fourth year -contract. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this particular I item? Maybe it was explicitedly... Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, maybe if I might suggest before we get deeply into this, maybe a straw poll of the Council might save a little time. II 9 1 1 City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 11 Mayor Chmiel: Well I'll give those who'd like to get up and just address it. Councilman Boyt: They might like to know if they're addressing a favorable audience or an audience that's generally opposed to it. Councilman Johnson: We've done this on a number of issues. I can tell them where I sit. This seems to be the fourth year of a 4 year program that we've already committed to several people that we continue this program through the 4 year time phase. Especially the people that are contracting to do it. I think we should continue with our obligation to do another year and get all the data we need to evaluate the program. ' Councilman Boyt: It's working. It's eliminated a problem on Lake Ann and I support it's continued use. Mayor Chmiel: I'm in full agreement with that as well. I did have a few hands. Councilman Johnson: Tom's smiling. ' Councilman Workman: Oh no, I agree with you all. Mayor Chmiel: I was sitting here sort of chuckling. Councilman Johnson: Reading Raymond's? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I just have to read this one particular portion. I ' think it's probably the consensus of everyone. It says, it's difficult to photograph the suckers but. ..pictures were taken indicating that there are 46 of them in the yard and I can understand that. I noticed that, but if you'd like why don't you just come forward and if you could just limit it to just a few ' comments we'd appreciate it. ' Ray Roettger: Mr. Mayor and Council members. I think. . . Mayor Chmiel: Would you just state your name and address. ' Ray Roettger: Oh, Ray Roettger, 3221 Darmouth Drive. I'd really like to call it Goose Lawn. Don Ashworth I think put it quite well when he said it's a stabilization program because over the years I've noticed that even though ' they're removed, in a week or 2 or 3 there's a fair number of geese back so there's no way you're going to remove all of them but I'd like to say my background is farm. Been born and raised on it and it used to be a baby chick hatcher and we raised like or hatched 90,000 chicks a week so I've dealt with ' chickens, geese and pheasants and all kinds of wildlife but I've never seen anything as obnoxious as geese. I have on my lawn on the north shore, Saturday I think I chased them off 10, 12, 15 times and I'm just not able to do it ' anymore. Anybody that thinks they can go out there and holler at them a little bit and wave at them, they just come right back. There are as many as 19 young ones with a pair of adults and 14 in another group. So Saturday and Sunday I ' counted as high as 63 on my yard alone. It's not just a matter that we don't like geese. It's the fact that they just contaminate the lawn something terrible and the beach and the water is all floating with the green you know dung and on the docks but the swimming rafts are really something to see. 10 y City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 4 They're just loaded so nobody can use them and I think it's really unsanitary. ' Furthermore, there's a terrible noise. Geese I think have a thing going. They squawk from morning til night you know. They're fighting and everything else but anyhow. I built a house there in 1976 there were 2 geese on my property and I loved them. But too much is too much and they're just going to, we're going to have thousands of them so you've got to remove them or might I suggest some way of capturing them and feeding them to the poor. I Charles Heinz: My name Charles Heinz. We live, and this is my mother Peggy Greer. We live at 6045 Chaska Road in Shorewood. Peggy Greer: My name is Peggy Greer. I'm a 32 year resident of the Lake Minnewashta area. I visit Lake Minnewashta Regional Park everyday. At least once a day and often twice a day so I think I have a pretty good view of what's left of the wildlife in that area. I see absolutely no problem with Canada Geese and I'm down there at 5:00 every morning. As far as noise, I don't hear hardly a sound. On that side of the lake the most geese that we've counted is what, about 40 counting the goslings. I see them as beautiful birds. They're wonderful parents and I see them as trying their very best to survive under difficult situations. They adapt themselves not demanding very much at all. There are many people, and I talk to fisherman, campers, hikers in the park and in the area which want a reasonable amount of geese left. Lake Minnewashta is quite a large lake and certainly geese are part of the wildlife scene and I would like to agree on some reasonable amount left for us to enjoy the geese. I think whenever we interfere with the life cycle of any living thing and I think in this day and age we're all coming to the conclusion that we're in this planet together and that what happens to one species is going to eventually happen to all of us. When we interfere with the life cycle of any creature we have to make sure that we justify that and that it's done in the most humane way possible. So I would like to request that a reasonable amount of Canada Geese be left on Lake Minnewashta and I think part of this might be resolved quite I quickly. Chuck and I went out Saturday or Sunday? Charles Heinz: Sunday. ' Peggy Greer: Sunday we were out for 2 1/2 hours on Shore Drive and most of around Lake Minnewashta. We didn't see one goose or hear one goose. When I asked people down at the picnic areas what they think of Canada Geese and they say, where are they? I never see one. Yesterday morning I covered the entire beach, Lake Minnewashta Regional beach and found not one dropping. Not one dropping so there's certainly not a problem to the people who pay their yearly fee to use the park. Chuck and I were on Shore Drive Sunday and we went to Mr. Wing's residence. He I think is one of the principle opposers to the Canada Geese. I asked him if I could see Canada Geese droppings on his lawn or his dock and he said oh, this year they're no problem. He said they are no problem this year. They have already been taken all off the lake. We have no problem with them so if this program works so well that Mr. ding can't find any geese droppings and thought that they had already been removed, then how can they be such a problem. If he thought they had been already stripped off the lake and he opposes them completely, then why is it such a problem. He said they're all gone. He said the reason you can't see any droppings on my lawn or my dock is that they've all been taken. So that opposes this theory that they're wall to wall geese and I think anything this important, instead of just taking the word 11 1 City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 of the people who are complaining about this, I think third parties should go and see this in person because like I say there's no droppings on the main beach =� which people use everyday. So I think somebody other than the property owners should see this and Mr. Wing claimed that the noise is horrendous in the morning. Not this year because he claimed that he had no problem with them this year. I said I get up at 3:00 every morning. If anybody wants to call me when these geese are bothering them so they can't sleep, I'll get up and I'm within minutes of their house, I'll come over. When I get in the park at 5:00 in the morning, I don't hear one goose so I think what we should come to is a 1 compromise here. There are people who love geese. Love wildlife and I think that they should have their say in this too. So I think that what we should work for and I'd like to work for is a compromise. I think we should keep Canada 1 Geese at a reasonable level so we all have a chance. Now just totally, just picking out a few areas today I called Orono, Lake Minnetonka. No, the City of Minnetonka and Excelsior and asked them what are you doing about your geese problems. Well Minnetonka, the City of Minnetonka they have a flock of at least ' 300 behind Cub and they don't seem to be bothering anybody. The people go in and out of Cub. The people make their deliveries and everything else so I said to the People at the City of Minnetonka, what are you doing about your Canada goose problem. Do you have quite a few? Oh yeah, they're all over the lawn of ' the Minnetonka Village Hall and I said well what do you do about them and she said nothing. I said do you get many complaints. She said oh once in a while but until it got to be a really huge thing we're not going to take any action on it. She said they all leave in the fall. I called Orono. Got the same answer and Excelsior they said, yeah. We have a lot of geese down at the Commons where children play and so she called over to a man and she said, whatever his name ' was. She said what are we going to do about the Canada Geese problem? Do we have many in the commons? And he said oh yeah we've got a lot but we're getting along fine with them so I mean I think we have to come to some sort of compromise here. Some people want Canada Geese but a-number within reason and some want them totally wiped out. So Canada Geese are a part of any lake scene. So are fish, frogs, whatever. Why should they be totally eliminated? Mayor Chmiel: I don't that that's basically the consensus of the opinion of the people here. ' Peggy Greer: Well, they want them cleaned out isn't that it? Mayor Chmiel: Not entirity, no. Peggy Greer: Okay, then everybody wants a certain amount left? ' Resident: They don't take all the geese off the lake? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah they have. Peggy Greer: Yeah they have. They've taken every goose. Residents: No. Peggy Greer: That's what Cooper's says. Ask Mr. Cooper. We had a 2 hour discussion with him and his remark to us, which I don't think was very business like or very much taking the view of the taxpayers that are paying for this. He 12 I s City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 11 i IIsaid to Chuck and I, if you want to see Canada Geese, you go and stand behind Cub. I pay, Chuck pays and all my family pays $12.00 a year to go to Minnewashta Regional Park and I think that we have a right to see a few Canada Geese down there and we don't have to be told to go to Cub to see them. I am a 32 year resident of this area. 32 years. Chuck Heinz: I'd just like to say a few things about... I Mayor Chmiel: You have just about 2 more minutes. Chuck Heinz: Okay, that's fine. Number one, people have been wiping out 1 wildlife on this earth continually. We've wiped out buffalo. The hunters wipe our ducks. I don't like fisherman but we have to coexist with fisherman on the II lake. We have to coexist with people shooting deer in the park over there. I think that if we have to put up with that, we can put up with a few Canadian Geese. I know that we don't represent the same opinion as everybody here. I've seen some people bring some droppings and naturally there are going to be II droppings from geese. There are droppings from ducks. Birds. Peggy Greer: Everything goes to the bathroom. II Chuck Heinz: And everything else. I'd be glad to come and help you clean it up anytime you would like to. II Peggy Greer: Yeah, you call us and we'll come over. Resident: Give me your phone number. I Peggy Greer: Okay. I will. Anytime you call, we'll come. We'll be happy to come. Call me. I'm up at 3:00 in the morning. I'll be ready to go anytime. II Thank you for your time. Phyllis Pope: My name is Phyllis Pope. I live in Carver Beach on Lotus Lake. I have a couple questions that I'd like answered. I guess I haven't been II keeping up with this topic as well as I might have for someone who, and I'm going to align myself on the pro-goose side but I'd like to know what lakes i Chanhassen the project is being done on. I Mayor Chmiel: I can tell you those. Lake Ann, Lake Lucy, Lake Susan, Minnewashta and Rice Marsh Lake. II Phyllis Pope: Okay, and I'm concerned about the cost of the project. Mayor Chmiel: Total cost of the project Don, do you remember exactly what that I is? Don Ashworth: No I don't. I can get it real quick though. I Phyllis Pope: Okay. I'll just go on. I guess I would not want to see a lot of goose droppings on a public beach and since I don't use a public beach, I don't IIknow if this is true or not that there are a lot of them there but I think what I'd like to point out is for the homeowners who are having a problem with this is that in advertently those of us who have houses that have lawns going down to 13 II • City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 4 lakes have made a perfect habitat for geese. They like nothing better than a beautifully manicured lawn and I think some ways to deter them would be to plant some shrubs or to let the grass grow up along the edge. They like a wide open area. Resident: It doesn't work. Phyllis Pope: Well I've heard wildlife experts say that it does work so I think it's something to be tried. They like an area, geese like an area where they ' can watch and see a long distance and see if anything is going to be sneaking up on them. A predator and so if you change that, I think it would discourage them and once in a while when I drive the Crosstown I see at the Colonial Church of Edina those fakes swans in their pond and I have a feeling that... Resident: It doesn't work. ' Councilman Johnson: I've seen geese with those swans. Phyllis Pope: Well I never had so I thought maybe that worked and I was hoping ' that was the case. Anyway, I guess in closing I'd like to say that I would not want to see geese eliminated in a big way in this city and I do value the wildlife that we have. I hope we can keep it that way. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Yes maam. Ada Anding: I'm Ada Anding and I live on Red Cedar Point and I've lived there ' since 1914 which gives you a little clue to my age. I think all of you will agree around the lake that we have had a very sudden increase in taxes so we too are paying for the geese. And if you have to go out every day and clean up a ' half a bushel of goose poop so your little grandchildren can play on a 50 foot beach, then I think there's too many geese on the lake and last year they did not take them all off. There were about 15 or 20 maybe that were left that they ' didn't get and that's fine. But I do think that the last 3 years has been a great improvemeflt in taking them off. I feel we should continue this program and I'm sure we're never going to get rid of all of them. And if people want to see geese, Rochester's just down the road a ways. Thank you. ' Jim Cooper: Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council. I am not a resident of the City of Chanhassen. I am Jim Cooper with the University of Minnesota. I came ' out tonight because I am concerned about this kind of program and addressing issues as best I can. I came here in 1972. In 1973 we did a count of Canada Geese in the Twin Cities as part of a research project funded by the James Ford Bell Foundation. The Bell's were among some of the families that brought geese ' here and we counted less than 1,000 geese in that year. Current surveys tell us there's some 20,000 geese in the metro area and that there's 25 cities that are having difficulty with Canada Geese. In a recent survey of the Metropolitan ' area indicated that of the 193 municipalities, 52% or approximately 90 of them have some kind of nuisance Canada Goose problem. Ongoing programs like yours have been expertimental. We're doing our best to try to develop effective programs for eliminating goose problems without eliminating geese. I think most people that we worked with agree that the animal adds greatly to our environment but because it's a grazer and because it spends all of it's time during the good rain period, nearly 18 hours a day in the upland feeding on grass and leaving ' 14 r_ City Council fleeting - June 11, 1990 the droppings from that foraging, the bird constitutes a hazard. We have 1 completed our surveys of Chanhassen and we did find some 90 geese on Lake ' Minnewashta, mostly on the west side where they concentrate during the period at which the time they're flightless and that these birds indeed do concentrate on specific lawns year after year after year. This is a characteristic of the animal that it indeed does result in certain areas becoming very messy. And our removal essentially has reduced the numbers of geese on these sites during the period of later part of June, July and August to reasonably low numbers. Other cities have had difficulty with this including the City of Minnetonka which we have a contract to remove geese from their civic center and the City of Orono at 3 different sites so the issues are primarily of trying to do the best we can. Canada Geese are ektremely difficult to control as we're finding. Some areas we've had very, very good success such as the cities of Minneapolis and Golden Valley. Areas such as yours that are outlying where there's many, many breeding populations adjacent, the control of the goose population have been somewhat reduced so I'd like you know that I'm here and indeed if you have technical questions, I'd be glad to address those. Thank you. , Councilman Johnson: Or. Cooper? Mayor Chmiel: Question. ' Councilman Johnson: As I remember this when we first started this program 4 years ago we were taking some of these geese down to Oklahoma trying to establish populations of Canadian geese in Oklahoma? Jim Cooper: That's correct. - Councilman Johnson: We were helping the Sooners down there. Then the other geese are taking, I mean we're not killing these geese. Ue capture them during their flightless stage. I Jim Cooper: Yes. Councilman Johnson: The adults will return back to the same lake more than ' likely. Jim Cooper: The adults, according to ours, we're having the folks who get these I birds band them and we've found very, very few adults coming back. Currently the adult geese are going to the states of Mississippi and Kentucky. They've been banding there and we're not finding bands put on in those locations back in the cities. What we are finding is that in sites where, in the outlying areas particularly where there are many, many other breeding populations adjacent to your area, that these birds are seeking out nest sites and filling in to a degree but we're not finding the adults come back. The young geese are released here in the State of Minnesota and again these are banded. We've literally released thousands of them now and we've found none of these back in the Twin Cities as such so once they're removed from here, they're gone from the area. Now what we see is birds coming onto, particularly on Lake Minnewashta, are birds from adjacent areas and certainly Eden Prairie, parts of your own city and Victoria to the west have lots of breeding geese as well as Excelsior and some 11 of the Lake Minnetonka communities. 15 , I City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 Councilman Johnson: I guess at the initiation of this program they were talking that the adults would come back every year but by moving the young geese that they wouldn't come back because they would come back to where they were moved to ' but that's been disproven now. Jim Cooper: That's correct. Councilman Johnson: Are they going back to Kentucky or have you got any idea where they're going back to? Jim Cooper: Well those birds are, that are being released and being taken to Kentucky are staying in Kentucky and in those southern states and breeding. Councilman Johnson: Oh, just wintering over? Jim Cooper: Yeah. They're actually holding them for, as breeding birds, they ' hold them for a year before releasing them down there and they have stayed in those southern states and are breeding down there now so indeed the adult geese that we're taking from here are not coming back to the Twin Cities to any degree. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else? Phyllis Pope: I'd like to ask the Doctor a question. Are geese and loons compatible? 1 Jim Cooper: Yes they are. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Mary Knudten: I'm Mary Knudten from Greenwood Shores and I really don't have anything new I guess to add to it except that we thought the Canadian Geese were wonderful too 10-12 years ago when there were only 5 or 6 or 7 in our yard. We ' have pictures when they were coming in our frontyard and we were feeding them but we've been completely overrun with them. We can't even go down on our beach. When you do pick them up, within 2 weeks we have 20 or 30 back again so ' please don't quit your stabilization program. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. ' Jim Jasin: I'm Jim Jasin. I'm from Lake Minnewashta and I've lived there since 1970. I'd like to say something in favor of the program. I think the program has been wonderful. We start off 5 years ago and there were probably 50 geese on our beach in the morning and now we're down to about 5 or 10. I've moved a couple times in the meantime but it usually averages 5 or 10 in the morning and I guess I'd like to ask this lady, what's a reasonable number? ' Peggy Greer: Well what do people think they can live with? ' Jim Jasin: Is 50 a reasonable number? Chuck Heinz: Yeah, 50's a reasonable number. 16 • City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 Peggy Greer: This year people are saying... If people are fairly happy this r year, why not keep it at that level? Al Smith: This picture here, this is a bunch of geese that were out in front of our place in the fall. I couldn't get them all in the camera. They were spread all the way down behind there. Mayor Chmiel: Would you just give your name and your address please at the microphone. Al Smith: My name is Al Smith and I live out on Red Cedar Point. I think the program that's going to keep the geese down is very good because they do get out of hand. Some of swimming floats around the lake are just plastered. You can't even use them. Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Do you have an answer to the money question? ' Mayor Chmiel: Phyllis, to the question that you had. , Don Ashworth: I checked the books in 1988 and we paid $4,200.00. That appears to be a payment for both 1987 and 1988. In 1989 we paid $2,100.00 so it appears as though that's $2,100.00 per year. Phyllis Pope: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else wishing to say something? r - Bill Turner: I'm Bill Turner. I live in Minnewashta Heights and I won't take much time but I just noticed that in Mrs. Greer's letter. The fifth statement says Canada Geese are shy and wary. They will not remain on property where they are not wanted. Well it is evident that Mrs. Greer is talking about an entirely • ,different bird than we are and maybe that could resolve it. Peggy Greer: The minute I park down at the parking lot on Lake Minnewashta, they go right in the water and they will come near me and I'm good to them. They will not come out of that water until I leave. Bill Turner: How many people here have driven a lawn mower through a herd of geese and all they do is step aside? Lady, you've got the wrong bird. I have only one other thing to say. Gentlemen, you are here all the time and I'm only here whenever there's a goose problem. I'm just curious. If tonight there was a rumor that they were selling drugs at the Minnewashta Public Beach, would you get this good a turnout? Mayor Chmiel: You probably would. ' Bill Turner: You would? I hope so. Peggy Greer: Does everybody here want no geese or can you tolerate a few? I Ray Roettger: Two is fine with me. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else? 17 , ir ill * ‘ City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 - _ 1 Jan Reese: Jan Reese and I live in Red Cedar Cove and we've lived by the lake - i also for about 20 some years and the program works very fine. The problem with I stopping the program, in watching the nesting pairs we probably have 7 or 8 in the area that we are now and geese babysit for one another and it's not unusual to see 40 or 50 young goslings with these 6 or 7 pairs of geese. So the minute that you let up taking off even for one year, you've got maybe a 10 fold I increase in the geese so if we're happy with the present number, it means we have to keep the program of removal up because otherwise you're totally out of control. IMayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? .I guess from what I have seen, geese to me are a very graceful bird in flight. I specifically love to watch them land I into the water but when you encounter problems in trying to maintain your property in a condition that you would just as soon use for your, as you mentioned your grandchildren or your own ability to walk around your property, it presents a problem when there are just too many birds. And I guess I see 1 where the positions of trying to keep these birds in an area or having it go through where we come back in and pick them up. I noticed in here once the late June basically is the time that you normally wind up doing this and in late June I if it is where they're flying feathers have molted so it doesn't give them that ability to really get up and leave. But I guess where I'm coming from, I think the stabilization as to what we've gone through with the things that we've II looked at in the past few years, I still feel are still warranted. At least that's my position. Anyone else? Councilman Boyt: Well I think we all started out in support of the goose 1 II removal program. Interestingly enough we've got two nesting boxes on the pond behind my house so the City's doing something to keep some geese around. It's I certainly a challenge to know where does the individual property owner's rights I stop and sort of nature take over but it's been successful. I agree that it's a bit painful I'm sure for the geese to go through the capture process and maybe that's part of why they don't come back. I don't know but if we're going to, if people are going to use their property, we're going to have to do something to control the population. I certainly wouldn't want to see them removed from Chanhassen completely but I don't think we have to worry about that. So I'm still in support of the goose removal program. IMayor Chmiel: Tom. I Councilman Workman: Well I was sitting here substituting the goose for politician and then I decided that was very good because politicians are good people and they wouldn't do that. Hanging around people's houses and doing that stuff so I figured it was attorneys. Then maybe insurance agents or something. I But I think it's kind of, it really seems like it's a property owner versus the non-property owner issue here and I think the property owners have a right to some reasonable use of their property and I understand firsthand how these I droves of geese can take care of you in a matter of hours. I don't promote the extinction or harm of any animal. I received my request again, my yearly request from the Scott/Carver Humane Society which I'll probably be giving money II to again this year but there's a point where you can have too many dogs and too many cats just as you can have too many ducks or geese or anything else so I think this is a proven program that we should continue and I would vote in favor of that. II — 18 City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 1 1. t Mayor Chmiel: Jay? Councilman Johnson: I move approval of the finalization of the four year goose removal program. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the finalization of the four year goose removal program. All voted in favor and the ' motion carried unanimously. AWARD OF BIDS: 1990 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROGRAM, PROJECT 90-2. Resolution $90-64: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to award the bid for the 1990 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program Project No. 90-2 to the firm of F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. in the amount of $107,222.75. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 20-56 THROUGH 2O-70 PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF VARIANCES (PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT THE MARCH 21, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING), FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: This ordinance has been discussed with the City Council on several previous occasions. It was developed in response to concerns that were raised at City Council meetings. The first concern was what appeared to be the Council's desire to have some additional flexibility in considering variance requests. The second concern was related to staff's belief that the variance process as it sits right now is somewhat unweildy and does not provide for a cohesive review of variances that are attached to development proposals. The current ordinance draft essentially accomplishes two things. Most importantly it revises the findings required to support a hardship finding which is necessary to grant a variance. The main change is that a definition has been provided for reasonable use which includes use by a majority of properties within 500 feet. The intent is to allow a review of neighborhood surroundings without allowing variances that make situations worse.. Basically what you try to do is you find neighborhood standards and if that standard deviates below the average that you find, or below Code elsewhere in the City, a variance could be considered if it meets or exceeds that neighborhood average. Carver Beach of course and parts of Lake Riley being the primary examples of situations where areas where that might occur. The ordinance will also redirect various requests for that variances associated with plats, 'rezonings and site plans will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. That is that the variance itself will track with the development proposal which allows you to take the big picture into account. There was a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting held on this on May 14th to discuss issues between both bodies and there was one minor change suggested by Councilman Johnson that will be incorporated in the draft. That has since been incorporated and we are recommending that the ordinance be given first reading. 19 I 1pCity'Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 IIMayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this? - Councilman Boyt: I might want to. In fact I do scant to. What does this do to I the types of variances that go to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals? Do they get covered by parts of this or is this only for the ones you mentioned in 20-30, platting, site plan review? IPaul Krauss: Basically it's for those that are attached to development proposals from the Board of Adjustment and those would track with those II proposals through the Planning Commission and City Council so the public hearing requirements would not be minimized and there would still be public notice. The Board of Adjustments would generally be limited to reviewing variances attended with building permit. Variances or restating or questioning of Code I interpretations and I don't know, Roger am I missing anything else but it's basically those items that would come up before the board. IICouncilman Boyt: Well and that's what we're doing now in practice. Paul Krauss: Well in practice it's quite confusing actually. ICouncilman Boyt: Right. I'll accept that. Councilman Johnson: We do a little of both. Councilman Boyt: What I'm not following is in 20-58, and since there is a fair gap between 20-30 and 20-58, maybe it's covered in there but we set out these ' i I new conditions and my-question is, do the new conditions apply to all sorts of variances or just the ones that go through the Planning Commission route? I Paul Krauss: They would apply to all of them. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Then when we get into, I've got two concerns. Page 2 of the new ordinance where it talks about the flow of this thing. I'm not sure I what you mean in item (e) when it says if no decision is transmitted by the Planning Commission or the City Council within 60 days from the date of a variance request, the Council may take action on the request. Does that mean I the way that's stated that the Council must wait. If they don't hear from the City Council that we must wait 60 days? I Councilman Johnson: What? Councilman Boyt: From the time it was first submitted? See if it goes to the Planning Commission and they forward it on, there's a very logical flow to this. I My question is occasionally, from time to time we have items that come up that don't go to the Planning Commission that come directly to the City Council. Maybe because something's changed in the proposal after it left the Planning II Commission. Paul Krauss: That's true and I guess I would say that in fairness most of those items should have gone back to the Planning Commission but in the interest of II trying to work with the developer for example on the hotel,. we tried to speed l things up for them and we took it directly to you. That sort of circumvented the process that it really should have gone back to the Planning Commission. I20 11 7 City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 II r t Mayor Chmiel: Paul, weren't these words taken directly out of the Statute? State Statute? Paul Krauss: I would defer to the City Attorney on that. Roger Knutson: Which words? Paul Krauss: (e). Roger Knutson: No, that's your own procedure. It mirrors what you have now. I Councilman Johnson: Except it doesn't say Planning Commission now. Roger Knutson: Right. It doesn't say Planning Commission. What this does is 1 if something is languishing at the Planning Commission and you decided that you didn't want that to happen anymore, you can take action without their recommendation after 60 days. I Councilman Johnson: Does it force us to? Roger Knutson: Wait 60 days? 1 Councilman Johnson: No. Does it force us to take action after 60 days? Roger Knutson: No. Councilman Johnson: Because sometimes these proposals go back for other things other than the variance and it's the variance is just a tag along. Roger Knutson: The only time I envision you using this is when you think, for whatever reason that there's an emergency or that the Planning Commission is being dilatory. Unreasonably dilatory. Councilman Boyt: Right, that's not my concern. My concern is that the way this , is worded, does it force us to wait 60 days? Roger Knutson: Yes. , Councilman Boyt: Then that could in fact slow things up. Mayor Chmiel: Where would that happen? r Councilman Boyt: Well that would happen something like where the issues are pretty clear and we want to bring it directly to the City Council. 1 Councilman Workman: Who makes that decision? That's fairly clear. Paul Krauss: I guess I'm not certain how it would tie things up. I mean if you I had a site plan that had a variance and the Planning Commission was having a difficult time with that site plan. The site plan's the primary action the variance is attended to it. The intent is that both actions be forwarded to you at the same time. I guess this would allow you to intervene in the variance part of the proposal. 21 1 City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 . g ICouncilman Boyt: Only if it had been there for 60 days and your example of the hotel is a good one in that that came up. The staff's concern about that came II up and for speed purposes it came directly to the City Council. It was the most convenient and under this ordinance and probably under existing ordinance, since this hasn't changed, we don't have the right to do that. I-] I Paul Krauss: But you wouldn't have acted on the site plan in this case. I mean the site plan would track with the variance so there would be no building out there waiting for approval. I guess I'm not, I don't know. It doesn't seem to, II the variance request would be the primary action and if you didn't have that in your hands, then the variance would be somewhat meaningless. Councilman Boyt: We did have it. You were the one who brought this in front of II us. You understand the circumstances. You didn't take it back to the Planning Commission nor the Board of Adjustment and Appeals because it didn't seem like it was appropriate. Now all I'm saying is we should build that into our I ordinance so that we're not circumventing the ordinance when we do that in the future. So I would like to request you and the City Attorney, look at how we can word that in there. Roger Knutson: You could take that out if you wanted to within 60 days and just say promptly. Then it's your call as to what's prompt. I Councilman Boyt: Well I'll accept that. My other concern is a bigger one to me and that is, when I look at how you define hardship, which I think is the heart of the change that you're proposing to us, I don't see that this helps us much. 1 I First, somehow we have to determine what the majority use of property within 500 feet is. Where that language may seem to be easy, it isn't going to be. My 1 guess is you're not going to end up with 3 pieces of property of which 2 have 1 that or 4 of which 3 have that. Instead you're going to end up with something that's much more big. It's hard enough to determine which pieces of property are within 500 feet which should be easy and when you start trying to figure out majority uses on that. So I'm not sure that we've figured out how to make this I ordinance more flexible when we do that and part of that concern is when I start trying to put this in perspective of let's suppose somebody wants a garage that's a foot and a half longer. Does this help us? No. Let's suppose that II somebody wants a 3 car garage and their neighbors within 500 feet have a 3 car garage but it turns out that their piece of property is half the size of their neighbors. Does this help us? It shouldn't because their neighbors may well not need a variance. And let's take the situation that we've got in town where their neighbors have got a deck that they illegally put in and now they want a deck. Do we then go out and run this test on it and say well, lo and behold your neighbors have some stuff which we wouldn't grant today but we're going to II give you that same thing. I'm not comfortable saying that, these people made a mistake and now we're going to let the neighborhood make that mistake. I Mayor Chmiel: I agree with that position Bill because just out on Lake Riley, just exactly what you said. There's an existing deck. The next door neighbor wants to put in a deck but he can't because he's not in compliance with the II ordinance but yet that existing deck was put in prior to and it'd be a shame to go down and rip that down. But if you have one in violation of it already and it's existing, why can't that second person basically do that? __ II22 City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 1 4 ( Councilman Boyt: Well I would say that they shouldn't. I { ; Mayor Chmiel: You're saying they shouldn't but I's looking at it from a standpoint if one already has it, why can't that other person. 1 Councilman Boyt: Well there's two reasons. This ordinance won't let them have it because the majority of neighbors within 500 feet don't have that problem and then we get into, are the majority of neighbors in a similar property situation. Do they also have a unique piece of property which requires this? I admit that our current ordinance is difficult. I don't think this one's easier. Mayor Chmiel: This same particular one that I'm talking about has a street in front. Has a street in his back property because of the right-of-way. Councilman Johnson: One thing that Paul has done on some of the variances, Paul and Sharmin and Jo Ann lately is compare this with the 500 feet criteria and looked, even though it wasn't passed, went out and tried to test drive this ordinance a little bit. I think you've been fairly successful in the ones I've seen so far of coming down to a conclusion one way or another whether a majority of the properties In the area had this. So I think that is feasible to actually do it because they've tested to 2 or 3 times. Paul Krauss: Councilman Johnson, yeah. That's accurate. We have tried to give you both versions so you could see how it worked. Both of those instances had to do with lot area which in fairness to Councilman Boyt's concern, it's probably the easiest thing to measure but over the years you try to find a perfect solution to these things and I know I've tried and I'm sure Roger's tried longer than I have and I don't know that there is one. What this gives you the opportunity of doing though is, you have the discretion to evaluate the data. When we did the lot areas, when I had Sharmin do the lot areas for that variance situation that you're speaking of Councilman. There were some lots that were exceedingly large and there was a 25,000 square foot lot and I think we decided to throw that out of the average because it would skew the number. I mean that was a decision that we made because we didn't think it was fair to the applicant. Now it ultimately turned out that we recommended denial because he didn't comply with the average anyway but I think you do have the opportunity to evaluate those things and use your discretion. Right now you don't have that discretion. Right now it's either there's a hardship verifiable under the strict criteria or there's not. No, this does not throw open the doors to a lot of situations but I guess it wasn't intended to. Mayor Chmiel: Roger? Roger Knutson: I think what Bill says is right. There's a lot of situations this doesn't help you one whip but you can think of lots and lots of examples where it may give you assistance. The ones that come to mind for example, let's say on lake property you have a requirement that you set back 100 feet but the whole lake is already developed and you go down the block and everybody's got a deck on their house and they're all within 90 feet of the lake. The last homeowner who hasn't put up his deck yet comes in and says oh no, you've got to be 100 feet back. Well the reason you want that setback from the lake is I probably aesthetics so people, the boating public and what not out there, can look at it and it will look better but if the pattern is already set, you don't 23 , 1 I '_ y 0 ' City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 IIaccomplish that by making that person toe the mark. The same with the front yard. If everyone in the whole block is set back 75 feet already and the ordinance says 100, well it would look odd to have the other person comply to 11 100. That's the sort of situation where it would help. It doesn't solve everything. I Councilman Boyt: And I like that. Your example makes a lot of sense. So let's take an example that maybe doesn't make so much sense. All the other lots around me, they're 15,000 square feet. Mine's 12. I can't build a deck. I They've all got decks. They're all set back appropriately from the lot lines. I want to build a deck that goes right up within 5 feet of the lot line. Now everybody else has got a deck. So what if I'm only in a 12,000 square foot piece of property. I ought to be able to have a deck. That's why that 12,000 I square foot piece of property isn't as expensive as the 15,000 square feet. It doesn't have all those things that come with it and under this ordinance you'd build the deck anyway and your neighbors in essence would be giving you some II buffer zone out of their property. They wouldn't be selling it to you but that's what, you'd be splitting the difference and you'd be in fact gaining that. I don't think that's what we're trying to do. I think we are trying to I do what Roger wants to do. I would be trying to do what Roger wants to accomplish. I would be trying to avoid the situation where the unusual lot gets to build things that don't have any right being there. II Paul Krauss: As I say, it's not the perfect solution. If confronted with that scenario as proposed by Councilman Boyt, you would have basically two options in _ reviewing the thing. Let's say that was a lot that's existed for 30 years and 1 II the rest of the neighborhood built up around it and today's house, you can assume that everybody in that neighborhood builds a certain kind of a house, you could probably justify doing something to allow a variance for a deck if you I felt it was appropriate and consistent with the neighborhood. On the other hand, you could evaluate that. If that was a newly platted lot and say, no. You understood what you were getting into. It's not a comparable situation with your surrounding neighbors. 1 Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? IIMayor Chmiel: Yes Jay. Councilman Johnson: Let's take Bill's example. We'll take it and say, okay. II How many decks are within the 5 foot. setback, 10 foot setback in the properties within 500 feet? Councilman Boyt: None of them. ICouncilman Johnson: Then a majority is not in the same situation. 1 Councilman Boyt: No. This says what is a reasonable use and that is a use made by a majority of other property within 500 feet of it. So if everybody else has got a deck, that says it's a reasonable use for that piece of property. I Paul Krauss: And one example where that might apply is, I forget the name but the variance that we had in Lake Riley last fall where there was a home that had been partially demo'd before getting a building permit. - II24 II s_ City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 i_ =� - Mayor Chmiel: Right. Not too far from the one I was looking at the other day. I Paul Krauss: Yeah, I can recall. In fact Bill and I had this same discussion because I argued for the fact that being allowed to rebuild that lake front II cabin or whatever it was into a 3 bedroom home with a deck was consistent with what everybody else had done in the neighborhood and was a reasonable standard to develop to. That was not the rationale that was used to support the variance. The rationale in that case was suggested by Councilman Boyt had to do II with a precedent that was set on another lot. But I still feel that the concept is a valid one. That maybe there is some desire to be able to work with somebody who is rehabing a home like that. At least, I mean nobody's saying II build a 5 car garage and a 5 bedroom house with a maid's quarters but for a 3 bedroom house and a 2 car garage that seemed to be fitting in with the neighborhood, there was some rationale to support that. I Mayor Chmiel: Yep. That house is a credit to the area. They've done a very nice job. Roger Knutson: Maybe one idea I could throw out is, take out the word "other II property" and put "a majority of comparable property". Mayor Chmiel: What page are you on Roger? I Roger Knutson: That's page 2 where it says, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of other property. If you wanted to take care of some of those II concerns, maybe you could say by a majority of comparable property. Councilman Boyt: -That would take care of the Lake Riley situation where II everybody else also built up to their lot line. Well many other homes in that area built. It might cover it. Councilman Johnson: And your 12,000 square foot, there isn't a comparable piece II of property within, in your example there's no other comparable piece of property within 500 feet. II Councilman Boyt•. Right. Councilman Workman: And that diffuses the applicant a little bit too. I Councilman Johnson: It gives them one more arguing point. He'll argue what's comparable. I Councilman Workman: Well but I think it plugs a lot more holes than like other properties. II Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I like that change. Councilman Workman: Because other properties is everybody. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. In fact it appeals more and more as you think about it. Councilman Workman: I'd move approval of the first reading of this. 1 25 II II ICity Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 1 ICouncilman Johnson: With comparable added. Councilman Workman: With the changes. Take the 60 days out and that changes it too. Councilman Boyt: Let me ask one other question. In item (b) on page 3. This maybe plays havoc with Roger's suggestion because it says, conditions that are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought. How does that fit with what we just talked about? Paul Krauss: You don't have to meet all 6 findings or whatever it is to achieve a variance. You have to meet some of them or one of them. Councilman Boyt: Paul, we argue you have to meet all of them. Paul Krauss: All of them? Councilman Boyt: You're a flexible kind of guy Paul. It's an all or nothing deal. You should have been a lawyer Paul. Councilman Workman: So what are you saying? Take (b) out? Councilman Boyt: No, I'm just saying that inbetween the first and second I reading let's encourage them to figure out how do we accomplish what we want in item (a). Paul Krauss: What if you do something circular. . . Roger Knutson: I don't know if that's a s if it's Y roblem though because it say P 9 in the same zoning classification. For example, if most homes have or property in whatever district it is have 20,000 square feet and you're less.than 20,000 square feet then you're unique. But if you're a carbon copy of the zoning district. I mean you've got, if the zoning district requires 20,000 square feet and you've got 20,000 square feet and you're identical, maybe then you don't need any variances. And your home was built after the zoning ordinance was put into effect. Councilman Johnson: Oh, this wouldn't be the 500 feet. This is the zoning classification. So if you're in an RSF, you're comparing it to my house. To your house. To the Mayor's house. Well I'm a PUD but anyway, all other RSF's all over the town. i Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Not necessarily within that neighborhood. Councilman Johnson: Not within that specific neighborhood. Roger Knutson: Right. 1 Councilman Johnson: So this tries to say well, he did it in Carver Beach so I can do it in Red Cedar Point. i Roger Knutson: This says you've got to have something unique about your i property. I26 City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 highways. So I just wanted to say that everybody did a good job. Including the Mayor was down there too. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Don? Don Ashworth: I passed a copy of the resolution. The State has purchased the homes along TH 5. One has been removed. The other one has a tree half lying over it. The State has authorized our Fire Department to use that as a part of training exercises but in doing that they need a resolution. What are they asking for? Jim Chaffee: It's actually a resolution from City Council authorizing the Fire Department to use that building as a training ground and to hold the State harmless for any accident. Well, if the State's in gross negligence then we won't leave them harmless but for any other occurences that take place there, we'll hold the State harmless. Councilman Workman: Which house is this Jim? Gary Warren: Innovative Industries isn't it? Jim Chaffee: Yeah. Don Ashworth: The one with the tree on it. Mayor Chmiel: The one that got moved out. Right next to it. Councilman Workman: It's the one next to it? Gary Warren: There are two properties across from the Press. Councilman Workman: On the south side? Jim Chaffee: Right. One was moved. The other is still there. Councilman Workman: I'd be interested in knowing, they're going to torch it? Jim Chaffee: I think that's the ultimate goal but I think they're going to use it for various training techniques. Entry. Rescue and things like that prior to it being torched. Don Ashworth: In talking with Dale Gregory, they're really looking for houses like this. In their training schedule they have a number of the firemen who have not had experience in this area and they would like to be able to leave the structure up for as long a period of time as possible so they literally start a fire, get it going and then run people in and so it will probably stay there. That's the other reason for the rush is so they can start that process. Councilman Johnson: Usually you have an older house. This is a fairly modern looking house. A little more typical of a Chanhassen home then they get an old farmhouse or something like that they get to practice at. I 29 I 1 I City Council Meeting - June 11, 1990 4 Mayor Chmiel: How do we keep this from being vandalised when we're not in process of training or training? What do we do as a protective measure? Jim Chaffee: We do like we do with the seminary. Chainlink fence and post guards and lights. Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't want to go that far. Is there any security measures that we can put such as lighting or something to deter someone from trying to enter or are there existing lights that can be used? ' Gary Warren: Probably right on TH 5, that's a little bit of a deterrent. We've got construction, as I'm sure you're aware with Lake Drive East going on pretty aggressively now for the next several months so I think it's going to be pretty ' active area. That it won't be that prone. Don Ashworth: What we did in the Bandimere one was to actually board up the windows because again they don't want the smoke escaping and yet with windows ' there's chance of breaking them out. It's the first thing they'll do is go in and board up the windows and then literally nail shut the doors until they're ready to exercise. Jim Chaffee: And we will notify the Sheriff's Department to keep an eye on both the Bandimere and the property in question here. Mayor Chmiel: I'd move that we adopt a 'resolution authorizing Chanhassen Public Safety Department to use certain State owned houses in the City of Chanhassen for training purposes. Councilman Workman: Second. ' Resolution p90-65: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adopt a resolution authorizing Chanhassen Public Safety Department to use certain State owned houses in the City of Chanhassen for training purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth ' City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 I M- - __ _ ^.,_ . . f '*CH ANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION[ REGULAR MEETING JUNE 6, 1990 Vice Chairman Erhart called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim .Erhart,-44n, ette Ellson,-Brian 8atzli , -Jim -�iildermuth and Joan Ahrens _ MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Steve Emmings i fl STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss,--Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, .Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner One; Gary Warren, City -Engineer, Mark Koegler, Consultant and Charles •Folch,- -Asst. -Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 159 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 63.7 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD (CO. RD. 17), JUST SOUTH OF THE EXISTING LAKE SUSAN HILLS 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS. t I Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Erhart called t public hearing to order . he ti Brian Olson: My name is Brian Olson and I 'm with Argus Development , the developer on this project. Argus Development is owned by Joe Miller . He also owns Joe Miller Homes. We 'll be the only builder in this subdivision . i' I had a few things to go over on the conditions of approval . I think I 'll just pretty much all the conditions are basically okay . I would just like to be able to work out a couple of the issues with the engineering department on a staff level . If there's anything in particular it 's the , I guess it 's condition 9 on the staff report . It has to do with the ponding area. If you would like , I 'd like to give my own presentation about the ponding area . Do you have that one transparency? This diagram's ' a little misleading. What you see there as far as the dark area , that is what is going to be a wet pond at all times. What you see as a shaded area t is a 100 year flood level elevation of the pond. This pond has to be ' located in this part of the site and it was also approved in that location as a part of the original PUD. Now the reason is is 3/4 of the storm water drainage from this new development is heading to this area and this is the lowest part of the site and the wateshed district is going to require a ' sedimentation pond in this area. We had quite a bit of discussion of this at Park where the staff would like to see the pond moved to the northern 1' part of this additional park area but I think it was pretty much consensus at the Park's commission meeting that it was -okay where it was unless certain things were met and that sas with the trailways that are going around that area. Just so they --were always out of the 100 year flood area . 1' Now the ponding area, you can really design that to be any kind of configuration, -especially the 100 year flood area. I think you'd want your wet pond to have more of a natural outline to it, around it but a 100 year 1 flood you could have it really any kind of odd shape. It's only going to happen perhaps once in a 100 years so we can design this so it will fit in just right with the trails and make all the grades to work out and I really r don 't think you 'd want to have a pond on the north part of the site anyway . ' They are not really bad soils there. There are some organics and there 's a high water table which limits for building construction but now that'd be filljust perfect for some park use and it 's also one of that you have for your few flat areas your park uses there. And as a matter of fact, if we Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 2 i were allowed to have additional single family lots as part of this PUD , we would have single family lots in that area . But since we were limited , we ' just chose to take the most prohibitive for footings and road construction and keep them out of that area because it is costly to correct it for that area . So that 's one thing that we would like to see happen here is to keep ' the pond where it 's at with some slight modifications to the configuration just to staff recommendation on it . The other thing was about the street grades . Apparently you have a city ordinance that states that you cannot have street grades over 7% in slope and we 're showing 3 areas of 8% slope . ' Those areas are right here adjacent to the pond and just to the west of the County Road through this location and a little bit in here . We would like to still see it at the 8% slope . Really what it means is a difference between an 8% and a 7% slope would be 1 foot of height and 100 feet which when you add up 1 ,000 feet , you know that 's 10 feet and really what we'd have to do here to keep these grades to meet the standard of City ' ordinance , we 'd have to take off another 10 feet off the whole top of that site and we 're talking over quite a few lots . Right now we 're a little long on dirt the way it is and I also heard from the County yesterday and they are now renigging on part of their agreement to us to take 110 ,000 ' yards of dirt . They want to move it back to 80 ,000 yards so we have a lot of dirt out here . We 've got to put it somewhere so if you 're going to require the 8% , we 're going to have to take off another 10 feet off the ' top . It just is going to prohibit the development . So that 's one thing that we would like to be able to at least work that out with staff and I guess if they 're convinced about it , we would prefer to keep it at the 8% . ' Other cities allow up to about a 10% grade and I think the real concern on this minimum street grade is when , especially when you have a dead end street so like in the winter if you can 't get up the grade , at least you 'd have another access point out and in this location they could always , well ' it just wouldn 't happen at a 7% or 8% but if they had a 10% , you could always turn around if there 's ice in the road and just go back the way you came but with a 7% slope , you won 't have that problem . I think that was ' pretty much it from the conditions on the report here . I 'd like to just point out again that we are just gifting almost a 4 acre additional land to the City for park . We didn 't have to do that . There 's advantages to us to . do that . We can get some more park lots you know around it but that area that we 're proposing to give to the City I think is going to be one of your more heavily used areas because it 's the most centrally located area of the park that you 're going to have in this location . We have quite a few ' access points to that park area and they are shown as actual deeded property to be given and not easements which is mentioned in here . But I think that 's pretty much it that I have . Erhart: Brian can I ask , while you 're up there , can I ask you a question . The 4 acres that you 're referring to , was this above the PUD development plan? Is that acres above and beyond what the original PUD development ' plan called for? Brian Olson: It 's not quite 4 acres but 3 something . Krauss: But it 's a matter of what are the acres and what 's their utility . It 's not just cursory . I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 3 Erhart: So it includes some of the pond and the drainage area? Okay . Brian Olson: Well the pond was always shown to be in that area and that 's I exactly the same area that was shown on the original park as part of the PUD . So what we 're gifting to the City is area that was never proposed to have a pond . I Erhart: Okay . Does any other commissioners have any specific questions for Mr . Olson at this time? I Wildermuth: Are you planning any trails connecting the north part of the park with the south part of the park through that 100 year flood plain? Brian Olson: That 's up to the City . As part of the PUD agreement on this t project , the developer 's not required to do any of the construction of the pathways and that is up to the parks commission and the Council if they I chose to have some of the trails in there . We are assuming they are and we 're going to grade the park to fulfill that need and it is up to the City to determine what they want in their park areas because again we 've got to I rough grade these park areas . That will be done this year so . Wildermuth: Can you talk about that Paul or Jo Ann? On the park and rec . Olsen: Whether or not there are going to be trails within the park? I Wildermuth: No , connecting the north and south part of the park . I Olsen: Well that 's one of the things that we 're , if that pond does stay there , one of the only ways that we would allow it to remain in that area I would be that there would be trails or berming around the ponds so that people would have access , dry access . So that 's one of the options we could look at . Brian Olson: As a matter of fact , we are showing a park access right off I the part of the property here . The other park access is right in here and right in this location . We are assuming there are going to be trails I through here but we will bring it in . . . Erhart: Okay , we 'll get back to you if there's any other questions then I when we get into the discussion . Charles , did you want to respond at all at this point to the points about the pond? Charles Folch: Sure . I guess our only concern , I did not prepare this I report however I 've reviewed it and am in pretty much agreement with it . Our only concern I guess is before we get to the final process here is initially it looked like at the second stage where the pond was located to the north , that it was much larger than what it is now and I guess we would i like to , when we get to the final stage process , at least see the calculations that are involved to make sure that if we do accept the southerly location that it is adequate for that 100 year storm capability . I So that 's primarily what we 're concerned about is just to make sure we get the calculations to take a look at and review that before final approval . As far as the street grades , I know there was one area in specific that I 1 F II II Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 4 Ibelieve we could make adjustments to the 8% grade . I think that 's something we can maybe work out . At least we 'd like to see another look I take in that , the layout and see if we can make at least some adjustments if possible to the vertical grades so that 's the only comments I have . If you have any questions . IErhart: Okay . Which condition was the grades referred to in? Jo Ann , do you remember? IEllson: Oh I do . It 's 21 . Erhart: Okay , is there any other comment from the public? Comments from Ithe public at this time . Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in Ifavor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: Alright , why don 't we start with Annette . Do you have some questions on the proposal or comments? I Ellson: Can you review again for me how you 're going to make sure that the decks are going to be big enough and that the problem of the people Istarting to make them and requiring variances . Olsen: What we do right now is when we get a building permit we look at I the elevation to see if there 's a patio door and if there is then we check to see if there 's still you know depth in the back yard or side yard to be able to have that deck , like a 10 x 12 size . But that still isn 't catching all of them . I mean what 's happening is that by the time it gets to that I stage it 's almost too late so what we 're trying to do is to have them show that if there is that patio door , to have them even be showing a deck on the plan . At that time to be showing so we can see whether or not the deck I really would fit . So the builder would have to add onto the survey the deck . So it can be shown that yeah , it will meet it . We 're hoping that will just add one more step to it and make it a little bit easier to catch I because when you get a lot size 12 ,000 square feet and they 're still building pretty good sized homes on them , it 's always looking at a variance . . I Ellson: We didn 't run into any problems with the Public Safety and I just felt like that one road is awful long . It winds into a lot of different cul-de-sacs and things like that . We 've had problems in the past where a I really long cul-de-sac isn 't recommended and this is a long cul-de-sac . And I didn 't get that comment like I 've seen kind of consistently before . Olsen: No , you didn 't get it this time . What 's happening is , let me see I if I can show the phases . This is Phase 1 . Right here you have Phase 2 . So again you have that connection . Is this the cul-de-sac you 're talking about? IEllson: Yeah . IIOlsen: So that when this comes , the 3rd phase and this is developed , it 11 Planning Commission Meeting I June 6 , 1990 - Page 5 1 will have that access out of there . It won 't be a long cul-de-sac . So it 's 1 , 2 , 3 . I think the presentation by the developer or builder makes al good point on number 9 , which by the way we have two number 9 's . But I understand the City 's position of if it 's not big enough but I think if that 's the lowest point and everything like that , logic would tell us that with good planning would put the pond in the lowest location and keep it there so I could see subject to review by our engineering and allowing him to keep that pond where it is . And again , that 1% grade difference I also could see changing that pending another review by our engineer and I don 't I know that I have the authority or even the knowledge to know what a 1% difference is . I don 't think it should be done because they have to take out a lot of dirt and they don 't know what to do with it now that it 's more. dirt but if it 's from a safety standpoint or something and it isn 't any less safe , then I would do it . Krauss: If I could add , the 7% standard is a fairly common one in many communities and it 's based on safety . We have varied that on several occasions but the only time we 've varied it is because we 're trying to save trees or fit in a road in a very difficult place to put it in . That 's not the case here . This is wide open area and there 's really no clear reason why we should deviate from the standard and it would take a variance to do that . Ellson: Good point . Those are the only comments that I have . Otherwise I, think it looks pretty clean . Erhart: Okay , Brian? , Batzli : On condition 1 , the signage stating it 's a temporary cul-de-sac? I Have we ever done that before? Olsen: Yes , we have . Well we 've had the barriers or paving up to the lot line to make it look like it 's going to continue . Krauss: It 's the culmination of many years of banging our heads against the wall and getting streets connected that were supposed to but people moved in after the fact and claimed that they never knew it was supposed toll be extended . Batzli : This is just kind of near to my heart because I did this and there'll wasn 't a sign on it . Ellson: You bring it up every time . ' Krauss: We actually did it on Vineland Forest which you didn 't do because it was at the City Council for so long because of the road issues but it 's in the conditions for Vineland Forest . Olsen: And we 're starting to make it as a condition all the time . ' Batzli : On condition 4 . When you 're going to pull tha cul-de-sac , pull it back . I mean close to the road , isn 't that going to really affect the square footage of Lots 10 and 15 by doing that? Aren't they going to have II I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 6 1 to totally redo that whole southern end there? Olsen: Well we were thinking , assuming that they 'd probably lose one lot by doing that . Erhart: Yeah , I think you 'd want to respond to that . Brian Olson: Well this is a designer on it . I think there 's room to move it . This is just the preliminary plat and we 'll be looking at some ' modifications in there . I think I would like to just kind of run that by staff and see how we can get that to work out . I don 't have any problem with that . Batzli : Okay . And I heard something about earlier you were talking about platting and designating the park plan as an outlot and dedicating it . What was your comment on that again? Have you already done that? ' Brian Olson: No . That's what we would be doing through the platting process here . We would prefer to do it as we do each phase instead of just ' giving all the parkland up front right away because when we come through with every final plat , see we 're going to have to guarantee that 50% of these lots and things go over the 15 ,000 square feet and I would prefer to give the parkland up in chunks as we go along here . ' Batzli : So the parkland that we 're discussing now is the one for instance between Blocks 5 and 6 and south? You don 't want to do that right away . You want to do that as these are . Brian Olson: I would prefer not to maybe do it right now and I can for ' sure guarantee it by spring of next year because that 's by the time we 'd be platting out the next phase but if it 's the commission 's wish to do it now , we will . It just creates more inconvenience for us as far as computing our final plat . Olsen: That was also a condition of the PUD that as the lots are developed around the parkland , that they would be platting that parkland as a part of ' that plat and this was again , with the Park and Rec Commission , they wanted it to be platted at this time . Batzli : At the preliminary plat? Olsen: At this first phase . ' Brian Olson: I don 't think I understood the whole park though . It would be just that new area? Olsen: The most northern part wasn 't really going to be used for active parkland . That was just kind of like an open space that was going to be provided . ' Batzli : On the first condition 9 I guess I agree with Annette and I 'd word it the applicant shall provide calculations for City Engineering approval demonstrating that the ponding areas proposed between Block 5 and 6 within the parkland meets 100 year storm requirements . Something like that if 11 Planning Commission Meeting I • June 6 , 1990 - Page 7 that would be okay for our City Engineer here . I liked the part about the patio doors going in . And the 7% , did we recently give a variance on Near ' Mountain for the grades? What 's the difference between that and this? Olsen: They had a lot of vegetation that we trying to preserve with that one and that one you didn 't really have much, you 're talking 10% was about I as low as they could go . Batzli : Without bringing in hundreds of thousands of yards of fill . ' Wildermuth: Taking the top of the mountain off . Batzli : Yeah. But how can we justify not doing that here? What 's our rationale? Olsen: As Paul said , it 's really kind of a plowed field right now . He 's got a lot of room to work with to adjust that . Ellson: It doesn 't have vegetation like the other one does . Olsen: It can be met I guess is the reason . Brian Olson: There are spotted areas of vegetation out there and there are' vegetations even in the parkland that we 're going to be dedicating , the additional area but as far as the grading plan that we show right now , we do have some undisturbed areas along the slopes and if we have to comply with the 7% maximum on the street grades , it 's going to be totally altered . ` There 's just no getting around it . Batzli : I guess usually when we look for variances we look for a hardship I and if in fact it is just a matter of grading some additional land and we 're not trying to save some significant features , I guess I don 't see the hardship . Those are my comments . , Wildermuth: I agree . In the absence of a compelling reason for a variance , I think the 7% maximum grade has to be met . Do you have any problem Mr . Olson with number 17? Where the intersections meet . Providing' that landing . Brian Olson: Yeah , we did discuss that before the meeting I did with my engineer and 200 feet , we felt it was excessive . This all gets back to this grade now again . If you look at the overall plan , we are connecting into the county road there on the very southern part and you 'll notice that" we start to climb up the hill and with the number of street connections there and if we stick to a 200 foot minimum distance with a very shallow grade , that just means I can 't be steepening it up at all . Again , it 's really going to prevent us from really having a logical development out there as far as the grading . How it 's going to be looking and things . We 're going to have to knock off the whole top there . It 's either that or we propose not even to have an access point out to the county road in that I location because with the conditions there and I would think a good hardship too is just the case of there 's too much dirt . That is a hardship . That 's part of the natural conditions out there in that 11 I 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 8 property . You know you have a number of different things you can be looking at . You 've got ponding vegetation and what about the earth . There 's just too much earth there . And now the problem that I have with the County you know , the County 's starting to renig on their agreement and we 're going to have a real problem out there and it 's just going to cost us thousands of dollars . I wouldn 't doubt it , if we have to haul it off , you know we 're going to have to throw in probably another couple grand per lot or something and the homeowner 's going to pay for it and I 'm trying to ' prevent the homeowner from having to pay for it . Batzli : We 're of course not the final arbitrater on that but if there is a true hardship , then I think you really need to bring in some evidence to 1 convince the City Council . Brian Olson: I 'll be glad to deal with that issue specifically with the ' engineering staff and the City . I could show all that . Wildermuth: It looks like a condition that at this point we ought to keep in . The only other thing that I would like to see is on the first number 9 I 'd like to see north/south trails connecting the upper and lower portion of the parks on either side of that ponding area . Not just one trail on one side . ' Olsen: Within the park area you 're saying? ' Wildermuth : Yeah . To a north/south trail on either side of the pond . Olsen: And is that for the developer to do? ' Wildermuth: Right . The developer to do if the pond remains as they request . Batzli : Grade for them or actually install them? Wildermuth: Install them . I guess then in summary , I wish there was something to do or something that the developer could do to enhance the appearance of this development . I don 't get a good feeling when I drive through it . IBrian Olson: I 'm sorry , I didn't hear that . Wildermuth: I said I wish there was something that could be done to enhance the appearance of the development . I don 't get a good feeling when I drive through that development . I don 't know , it might be planting more trees or doing some additional landscaping but at this point it doesn 't ' appear as a very attractive development . Brian Olson: Right now we 're having a lot of problems with the streets right now . They didn 't get in last year and . . .so we went through a winter I season here not having blacktop and with the rains this year . . .replacement of curbs and also we 're having a problem getting the paving done . The pavement will be going in within a week and a half . I I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 9 Wildermuth: That will probably be a big help. That 's all I have . P Y g P Erhart: Okay , Joan do you have something for us? Ahrens: I just had one comment and I 'll address this to the developer 's 11 representative . I 'm sorry , Brian? Number 8 refers to the access points to the park . That 's going between the single family lots and it struck me when I was listening to the discussion about the decks and whether or not people could get through the lots . That there are going to be problems with the decks and size of the structures on the lots and I was wondering 11 what you were planning . It says that the staff is recommending that the access points either be paved or a sign put up that they 're public access points . What do you plan on doing with that? Brian Olson: I don 't know right now . I would assume that we would probably have to sign them then . I don 't know the exact purpose of this here though . Why that is even in there . I don 't know if it 's to warn . Erhart : Excuse me . I think that might be a mistype . Is it? Is there a typo there? On number 8 because I had it circled here . It says either paved and or signed . You 're talking about 2 different things there I think I aren 't we? Olsen: It has to be paved and signed . Both . ' Ahrens: I was picturing this little sign sticking up out of the ground saying you can walk through here if you want if you can make it under the deck . Olsen: Again , we just wanted to be clear that that 's public property and public access . ' Ahrens: So it is going to be paved and signed? Brian Olson: By the City . , Ahrens: I don 't think they think that . Erhart: Well you still have the word either in there too . It 's real confusing I think . Batzli : Take out the either then . Shall be paved and signed. Ahrens: Paul was shaking his head no . He doesn't . . . ' Krauss: Yeah, we had the intent that it be installed by the developer run past the houses and it's a very clear reason for it is that park I development typically lags the development of homes and there are just innumerable examples of these things being platted and nobody knowing that they 're there and people feeling very possessive that their property extends to the neighbor 's property line and they get upset when people are I walking on what really is public property . The only way we know to hit that head on is to require the posting of a sign and the paving of it at least up past the property line . ' Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 10 Brian Olson: Okay , that was never my understanding on it . We are paying park dedication fees out here and we are also just gifting to the City almost a 4 acre park . It seems like some of these conditions are up and above even the original PUD and it seems like I 'm just kind of being taken ' advantage of here just because I 'm a developer in the city . Ahrens: It 's great that you 're dedicating all that parkland but I think what we want to make sure is that people have access to it . Lots of times ' like what Paul said , people don 't feel comfortable or people don 't want them walking between their houses if there 's not a clearly marked pathway to get there . ' Brian Olson: That should come out of the park funds . We are paying park dedication fees . And that was the understanding of the whole PUD tagreement . Erhart : Jo Ann , was number 8 , was that a recommendation of the Park and Rec Commission? Was that something we added? Olsen: It was one that we added . ' Brian Olson : I might add it was also the understanding at the parks commission that we are not building any trails in here . We are building sidewalks along the development but no trails in the development . ' Ahrens: We 've required that before for other developers haven 't you? Access to the parks through paved trails along side people? ' Olsen: What was that? Ahrens: You 've required that type of pathway before haven 't you in developments? Olsen: In the parks itself? Ahrens: In the parks . Olsen: Yeah , we 've never required them to be paved . This is you know ' again we 've had problems with that and now we 're learning from our mistakes before so we do want that to be definite . If you want we can have the , I can discuss it with the Park department and the park Commission to see if ' they do want to just use the trail fees for that . For the paving of the access points . As far as the trail within the park , I think what we 're referring to is around that ponding area because that ponding area is going to be cutting off access and we want that to be preserved so I do think that that is above and beyond just your basic trail within a park . That that is the developer 's responsibility . ' Brian Olson: Again , that 's contradicting the Parks Commission . We had a very detailed discussion about this and that ponding area is not going to be in the trails . We 're also talking even a 100 year flood elevation or that the trail , we 're not even going to have that in the 100 year flood , Planning Commission Meeting I June 6 , 1990 - Page 11 none of the trails and even if it was , it might be one day in a 100 years so we worked it out with the Parks Commission that we are going to go in and grade those areas and ensure that those trails will not be in there . But there was never anything about building the trails so now suddenly these conditions are coming on even after the parks commission so . Erhart : Anything else Joan? Okay . Item number 1 where you state that the turn around will meet City standards . Does that mean that they 're actually going to put like a 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac , asphalted? Is it 42? Is I that the standard now with curb? Okay . So what 's the reason for the barricade? So they don 't drive over the curb? Olsen: Or to put the sign on . Krauss : Just to notify people that that is not a permanent cul-de-sac . It 's a temporary one . Erhart : Okay , the rest of the street 's curbed and so the cul-de-sac 's not going to be curbed . Okay , so it won 't have a curb or a ditch so there will be nothing to keep people from just driving right on through so that 's the purpose for the barricade? Charles Folch: That 's correct . Erhart : And when do you plan , someone else owns that property right? The next property to the west is somebody . Argus doesn 't own that do they? Brian Olson : No . What we have here is just . . .on the proposal and we were required to show a street going out to the west property . . . It just makes I sense to do it . Erhart : What 's more costly? Putting a curb in that cul-de-sac now or the 1 barricade? Brian Olson: You mean a curb around the cul-de-sac? Erhart : Yeah . I Brian Olson: Putting that in . Erhart: Okay . Number 2 for the record , we actually had a builder that built houses in the city where they put a sliding glass door which was intended for a deck and then the deck couldn 't be built within the buildable area? Who was the builder? Krauss: More than one . Erhart: More than one? Who were the builders? Olsen: Well we had a lot up in Chan Vista and some in Hidden Valley . I mean it 's been , you can pretty much pick and choose any subdivision it 's happened . 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 12 Krauss: PUD subdivisions . Olsen: With the smaller lots . ' Erhart: Is it an interpretation that somebody wanted to put a 16 foot deck and couldn 't meet the buildable area or they didn 't even have 8 feet? ' Krauss: There wasn't room for a 10 foot deck . ' Olsen: And in some even 8 , 6 . I mean some could only get the little . Erhart: Boy that 's kind of incredible so I encourage you to come up with any way that we can prevent that . I think that 's pretty nuts . Regarding ' the pond , I pretty much agree I think with Annette and I think Brian expressed it . There 's some technical things here that I don 't think we have the drawings and the details to really make a strong recommendation ' and so I 'd like to see the thing be recommended that engineering work with the developer on this thing but just for my comments , I 'd almost like to see if the pond isn 't in the north , it 's probably just fine where it is but ' maybe it should be moved to one side or the other . What I 'm concerned about if the water does go up , what you 're going to do is force people to constantly be walking next to somebody 's back yard where in fact it may work out a little bit better if you look at it , to move it to one side or ' the other and encourage people to stay in the middle in the park . Or make it longer and whatever so I don 't , without more details I don 't think we can get into that detailed discussion . So whoever makes the proposal may ' want to look at that condition . The 8% grade , somewhat I think the same thing . I 'm a little curious , how much time have you talked about these grades prior to this meeting? ' Brian Olson: There has been very little conversations with staff . It 's just a matter of us getting the report and having the time to respond . ' Erhart: Right . So my sense is that there 's some flexibility to work with engineering . I mean I can see on one token where you 're coming off this the collector . We certainly want that access point and you 're limited to ' what you can do . The hill exists and it 's a long hill . On the other hand , your comment about having to take down hills to meet the 7% which you didn 't include the fact that you can also fill in areas you know to bring the road , slope down to a 7% . So again , I don 't know how we worded the ' condition to give us a little bit of flexibility but I 'd like to see us work with engineering on it again . Item number 8 , my feeling of that is . Condition number 8 where we 're requiring them to pave the access points . ' My sense is that it 's a great idea but I think we 've delved into , my interpretation of it says it will be delved into starting to develop the park . I think we may be imparting too many requirements on a developer ' there . I propose that that one be removed and the reason is , once you start with paving that I mean where do you stop? Why don 't we have them put in the trails and so forth . My feeling was that at the park meeting was that they were asked and they agreed to do the initial grading but that the actual improvements were to be done by the City . Olsen: Again this wasn 't really considered , we weren 't looking at it as starting to develop trails . It 's more to . . . I Planning Commission Meeting I June 6, 1990 - Page 13 I Erhart: I think you 've identified it definitely as a problem and I just I don 't feel that the developer is the guy who should have to pay for that . Olsen: So how would you do it? Just signage? Erhart : Well to me it 's , the park has to do that . To me that 's the park . Ellson: Well if they 're saying the people who buy it and they said well I I never knew there was supposed to be an access through my thing and maybe even put a fence up and stuff . Brian Olson: They know . I Krauss: No they don 't . Ellson: No , we 've had the history and it 's showing that they don 't and I that they 've been misrepresented . Erhart: Or signs . I Ellson: Like on their thing , it 's like . . . Brian Olson: They have to get a certificate of survey that goes in for a I building permit so both people are very involved in that as far as locating their house and things . We 're just going to put it right on here the park I access . . .right on there so they will know . Ahrens: And they 'll say I didn 't know what that meant . I Erhart : Somebody ought to sign it and whoever makes the motion can , I ' ll just give you my opinion of that one . Is there any more discussion on that particular item? Okay . Overall , I guess I like the development and the II reason is , I 've got 75 employees very few of which could afford a home in Chanhassen and therefore they don 't live in our city . Ellson: You don't pay them enough , is that it? I Erhart: That 's probably part of the problem . But in reality is it 's a ' competitive world and I would like to , I think this developer has done a benefit for the City in attempting to do a good job of providing some economical single family homes . So with that is there any other discussion? I Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Lake Susan Hills West PUP 4th Addition for 159 single family lots as shown on I the plans dated May 10 , 1990 with the following conditions 1 thru 22 and I 'd recommend that we make the second number 9 number 23 . And I would reword the first number 9 as follows . The applicant shall provide calculations for City Engineering approval to demonstrate that the ponding I area proposed between Block 5 and 6 within the parkland meets 100 year storm requirements and that there 's adequate room for access between the north and south park areas . I I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 14 Ellson: I 'll second. Batzli : Oh , on number 8 I would also remove the words "either " and "or " from that particular one . So it would read all the access points to the ' parkland between single family lots shall be paved and signed that they are public access points . ' Erhart: Annette , do you agree? Ellson: I agree . ' Wildermuth: What about a trail between the north and south portion of the park? ' Batzli : Well what I proposed was just that they have to demonstrate that there 's room for the trail to be put in so there 's access between the north and south areas . I personally don 't think that 's up to them to put that ' trail in there . I think that 's part of the development of the park . Like he said , I mean that 's going to be in the 100 year storm area if he can prove his calculations are right to City engineering . ' Erhart: Okay , it 's been motioned and seconded that we recommend the approval with some word changes to 8 and some additional substantive changes to 9 . Is there any other discussion? Are you clear what the ' motion is Jo Ann? Olsen: Yep . Erhart: Yeah , Mr . Olson? Brian Olson: So there is no proposed to 21? ' Batzli : My feeling is that we weren 't given the information to determine that there 's a hardship tonight and that what you need to do with work with ' engineering in the meantime because I 'd really like to see the access to the county road and I agree that I think that that 's probably requires some sort of variance if in fact you can't make that 7% . But as to the other ones , I really think you have to work with the City engineering so that you Ican demonstrate to the Council if in fact you need something over 7% . Brian Olson: Okay . ' Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Lake Susan Hills West PUD 4th Addition for 159 single family I lots as shown on the plans dated May 10, 1990 with the following conditions: 1 . All streets that are proposed for future connection shall be provided ' with a turnaround which meets city standards with a barricade and signage stating that it is a temporary cul-de-sac and will be a future road connection . I Planning Commission Meeting , June 6 , 1990 - Page 15 1 2 . The applicant shall provide one tree per lot and additional landscaping along the entrances and boulevards as part of the PUD approval and the ' developer shall provide $150 .00 per lot for landscaping . 3 . The applicant shall provide a plan illustrating large areas of mature I vegetation located on the site . Areas of mature vegetation not impacted by streets or building pads shall be preserved with tree removal plans required as part of the building permits . 4 . The applicant shall pull back the cul-de-sac servicing Lots 11-13 , Block 4 to remove the building pads from the ravine areas . 5 . The applicant shall provide a registered engineer 's report on soils , footings and structural design and a registered engineer 's grading and drainage plan for the City Engineer and Building Department approval prior to issuance of a building permit on Lots 11 and 13 , Block 4 . 6 . An amended preliminary plat maintaining with at least 50% of the lots with 15 ,000 square feet or more shall be provided . 7 . Designate the parkland as an outlot which will be platted as part of the first phase . S . All of the access points to the parkland between single family lots shall be paved and signed that they are public access points . ' S . The applicant shall provide calculations for City Engineering approval to demonstrate that the ponding area proposed between Block 5 and 6 within the parkland meets 100 year storm requirements and that there 's adequate room for access between the north and south park areas . 10 . Park Access: The approved PUD plan provided access off of both looped I streets . Such continues to be required and should be shown as parkland dedication , not simply easements . 11 . Trails/Sidewalks: The developer shall be required to provide trails/ I sidewalks as follows: a . Five foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along thru streets as shown on the attached plan . Sidewalks shall be completed at the time street improvements are constructed . b . A 20 foot wide trail easement along the west side of Powers Boulevard shall be dedicated for future trail purposes . c . The above trails/sidewalks satisfy the City 's trail dedication requirements and therefore no trail fee shall be charged . 12 . The applicant will be required to pay 50% of park dedication fees . ' There will be no trail fee required . 13 . All building permits with patio doors as part of the building plans II Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 16 shall rovide a survey showing that a deck can be installed without a P Y g variance to the setback . I14 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee completion of the improvements . 15 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required by the ' DNR , Watershed District and Office of the Carver County Engineer . 16 . The applicant 's engineer shall provide the City Engineer with calculations verifying the storm sewer , watermain and sanitary sewer pipe sizing . 17 . At intersections where the street grades exceed 3% , a landing zone with ' a street grade of 3% or less for a minimum distance of 200 feet shall be used . 18 . After grading , all disturbed areas shall immediately be seeded and mulched to prevent erosion . All slopes greater than 3 to 1 will need to be stabilized with wood fiber blankets or equivalent . I 19 . Type II erosion control shall be added along the proposed silt fence adjacent to sediment basin and ravine areas . I 20 . All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City 's standards for urban construction . Construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and ' approval . 21 . The applicant shall reduce street grades to comply with City Ordinance throughout the development ( maximum 7% ) . I22 . Prior to assigning street names , the applicant shall consult with Public Safety for recommendations . I23 . Park Grading: The developer , at it 's sole cost , shall grade the park areas in accordance with a timetable and plans to be furnished by the City . The City will develop park plans when the final park boundaries have been determined . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ISITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 17 ,500 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 7870 PARK DRIVE, INDUSTRIAL IINFORMATION CONTROLS . The applicant pulled this item off the agenda . Paul Krauss stated that it was tentatively rescheduled for July 18 , 1990 pending the applicant 's Iactions . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ahrens moved , Wildermuth seconded to approve the 1 Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 16 , 1990 as presented . '. Planning Commission Meeting '. June 6 , 1990 - Page 17 1 All voted in favor except Tim Erhart who abstained and the motion carried . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION - NORTH SIDE OF HWY. 5 WILL BE DISCUSSED. ' Name Address . II Bryan Pike 7411 Minnewashta Parkway Roy Swander 1628 Park Road M .J . and Joanne Cochrane 1751 Sunridge Court Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd . Jim Curry 4817 Upper Terrace , Edina , MN 55435 Michael & Colleen Klingelhutz 8601 Great Plains Blvd . Warren Phillips 1571 Lake Lucy Road Dave & Karen Weathers 7235 Hazeltine Blvd . Donald O . Boy 7205 Hazeltine Blvd . Paul Youngquist 7105 Hazeltine Blvd . Steve Kindo,n 890 Saddlebrook Pass Wayne Poppe 1950 Crestview Circle Ed Ryan 6730 Galpin Blvd. Peter Olin Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Chuck Gabrielson 2600 Arboretum Blvd . Bill Miller Timberwood Theresa Bentz 7280 Galpin Blvd . Janet Lash 6850 Utica Lane Eric Rivkin 1695 Stellar Court Tim Keene Larkin , Hoffman Representing Mills Fleet Farm II Tom Green Vice President , Mills Fleet Farm Bob & Ethelyn Christensen 1511 Lake Lucy Road Al Harvey 1430 Lake Lucy Road Ted Coey 1381 Lake Lucy Road Nancy Tichy 1471 Lake Lucy Road Brett Davidson 7291 Galpin Blvd . Ed Hasek 6570 Kirkwood Circle Joe Morin Lake Lucy Road Mary & Judy Janic 7021 Galpin Mark Malinowski 7250 Minnewashta Parkway ' Paul Krauss and Mark Koegler presented an overview of the Land Use on Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the north side of Hwy . 5 to the public . ' Vice Chairman Erhart opened the meeting up for public comment . Chuck Gabrielson , 2600 Arboretum Blvd . : I see a new line on there that 's II new from the last time I was mailed a map . It cuts through the southern third of the property that I manage out on TH 5. It 's right above a dotted line which I 'm assuming the dotted line looks like TH 5 and I 'm wondering II if someone can please tell what that is and why it 's cutting through the southern third of my property . Krauss: Mr . Gabrielson was mailed a very early version of the map . As you' recall we had a large number of people here at a meeting I believe in February and we mailed a map that was current at that point in time . Hopefully we were clear on the map that it 's subject to some change . Now II ' Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 Page 18 Chuck the change that you 're noting is since then we 've been working on the collector road system or the future road system that would be used to serve properties if and when they develop . The City 's always anticipated , at least to the east of your area , having a frontage road along the north side of TH 5 . The solid line that goes through your area would be an extension ' of that road that would be built at such time development made it necessary . Of course that entire area 's in that study area so that 's in essence delaying any decision for that period of time . ' Erhart: Does that clearly answer your question Chuck? Chuck Gabrielson: Very politically , yeah . ' Erhart: Do you have another question? ' Chuck Gabrielson: I 'll think about it . Erhart: Are there any other questions relating to the downtown? I shouldn 't say , this isn 't downtown but the concept of the centralized ' downtown . The high density area next to the park . Medium density west of that . The study area . Any questions relating to that at all? ' Peter Olin: My name is Peter Olin . I 'm Director of the Arboretum and the first time I saw this map was when I came down to see Paul a few weeks ago and I guess I 'm a bit discouraged at the planning effort in that one of the major land holders in this town , we had no concept really of what was going on . I do have some concerns in terms of planning . My background is as a landscape architect and planner and I have worked at that position in Vermount and Massachussets and Connecticut as well as taught it here in ' Minnesota . First of all my concern is that the planning effort does not seem to have a very creative approach and it seems to me that the town should consider how the development along TH 5 which looks to me like a ' continuous strip development . I know that 's not quite true but it does seem to have that effect , is going to affect the character of the entire town . I know there 's development that 's headed this way but one does not have to accept everything that 's being proposed and everything that 's coming down the line and I point out that your projections for numbers of people in 2000 and 2010 use up x amount of acres . What do you do with the projection in 2020 when the acres are all gone? See there is a point where ' you can say well there will be no more acres so you can say right now there 's a point where we don 't have to accept all that development or we do not have to accept it in the traditional manner . I had pointed out and ' Paul is familiar with some of the developments of Woodlands , Texas . What 's happened to Davis , California . Even over here in Eagan , Minnesota where there is a different type of approach to this type of development . So there are some alternative scenarios and I would like to point out that cluster housing can be encouraged in many areas . Clustering and you 've done that with your commercial and I find it very appropriate although I see the little neighborhood commercial down there . As I recall , that piece of property , it 's a large hole in the ground . Does that mean you 're going to fill it? It doesn 't seem to be , am I in the wrong spot? It 's the one down on TH 5 . Isn 't that a large depression? That is a totally inappropriate place to put a commercial development . I don 't see a Planning Commission Meeting ' June 6 , 1990 - Page 19 response here to the landform . Response to the character of the town and it makes me very concerned when I see those kinds of things going up as proposed plans for the future of the town of Chanhassen . I see various open spaces and I see a couple of nice connectors but most of them aren 't connected by anything and usually in today 's day and age , open space planning is the key part of any planning and they are connected . It 's part " of that whole pedestrian/bicycle system . One that Davis , California for instance has developed to a very nice degree and there are some very good reasons for doing that . Energy conservation being one and maintenance of II the environment that you have . It 's a very nice open space environment here . You can cut me off when my 5 minutes are up but I think there are many good reasons to rethink this and that the town really should make that" • kind of consideration . I think the fact that the lifestyles of the people in this town accustomed to the kinds of open space and the spaciousness that exists here now of which the Arboretum is a part , are important to maintain and they can be and allow development to happen . In other parts II of the country this has been tackled and tackled rather nicely I think . The fact that the Arboretum may be one of the few green spots along TH 5 as development marches out through Eden Prairie , Chanhassen to Victoria which ' is eagerly looking at massive development along TH 5 as well , makes me a little worried , especially when developers want to come and buy hunks of the Arboretum as well . The question I have is what is the undeveloped area that is just north of the University property? It 's just a big blank space" that says undeveloped . Krauss: That is area that would be located outside the MUSA expansion and II is fundamentally undeveloped . It 's not anticipated to be brought in for anything . It 's got I believe 1 or 2 homes on it . It will not be provided with services under this plan . Peter Olin: But the rest of the area will? Krauss: Not west of TH 41 , no . That is all , it will remain as it is today . Peter Olin: I guess it makes me rather nervous to see undeveloped as a large chunk of land could be very easily developed just to the north of our ' boundary there . Krauss: It could be developed at some point in the future I suppose but we 'd have to go through an exercise that we 're doing right now to move the MUSA line to do it . Peter Olin: It 's not a 10 acre is that correct? Erhart: Yeah , outside that MUSA line there 's no plan for sewer to service so it 'd be limited to development to 1 household per 10 acres outside the MUSA area . Peter Olin: Anyway I guess I 'd just like to say we are definitely concerned . I don 't always get to things that come to the University . Sometimes I get them after the hearings are over . Paul has said he will forward them to me . It 's sort of like when you send the announcement to the' ' Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 20 University would be like sending an announcement to Governor Perpich . If it 's something concerning the State , it 's a huge operation and we don 't always get the information back so I really would appreciate it and I think Paul agreed to do that . ' Erhart : Okay thanks Mr . Olin . I have a couple things . In response to your strip development . I don 't think that 's what we 're , I think we tried to avoid that . Maybe Paul or Mark would like to respond to that . Krauss: Well as I recall , I think very early on the Planning Commission tried to avoid , as I recall you referring it to whatever happened in Eden Prairie where it was wall to wall tip up Fab-Con buildings . The north side of TH 5 was generally established to be a residential environment bringing residential down to the highway . The south side of TH 5 has a very significant area of residential around Timberwood where that 's brought across the highway to break up that visage of wall to wall intense development . One of the things we 're looking at again on the south side is a school site that has a lot of open space . It 's a 40 acre site , if that ' happens to come to pass , so arguably there was a significant attempt to avoid that situation . Peter Olin : I guess one has the feeling when you drive down the highway that it 's primarily commercial/industrial development . Erhart: Yeah except what we 've got though on the plan is not to have that ' beyond maybe McGlynn Bakery lot . Peter Olin: It goes all the way up to the Arboretum property . Ahrens : Paul , maybe you could point out again what 's industrial along there and what 's residential . ' Krauss : Well on the north side there isn 't , it 's all residential . These different colors here are just different intensities of residential . What you 're looking at , unfortunately we 'd have to go back to this smaller map , is the purple . Is the office/industrial area . Here 's where that significant break occurs and brings the residential development across . The potential school site is located where that asterick is . If that comes ' to pass , it will be mostly open space . The reason there 's office industrial noted at TH 41 and TH 5 which parallels development and the city line that 's in Chaska . II Peter Olin: Again , as you see if you start at your border of Eden Prairie , you go through industrial office into commercial into industrial office on one side all the way down and commercial on the other side and back over to I industrial office so the image of course is that it 's a whole development of commercial or industrial and that is the image that 's there and it continues that image . I guess there are ways to handle that too and certainly some of the developments , the Rosemount . Nicely done . II I certainly can 't complain about that but I do get very nervous when I 've heard of some of the proposals down next to the corner of our land which scare the hell out of me . II Planning Commission Meeting II June 6 , 1990 - Page 21 I Ahrens: Do you have any suggestions maybe for that corridor between Eden Prairie and TH 41 where there 's some industrial and commercial? I Peter Olin: Well it 's very difficult to make a suggestion sort of off the cuff . Ahrens: I don 't mean specific . I mean would you like to see houses there II or what? Instead of industrial , what visual . . . Peter Olin: I don 't know . I think when I talked with Paul and you looked II at some of the alternatives that are the scary ones that may be something like a Rosemount might be very nice in there as an alternative . However , III see nothing on here that looks at some of the opportunities that you have now for encouraging farmland to stay . There are ways of doing that . They II can be encouraged and incorporated into plans . There 's ways of handling that in terms of zoning and planning and inducements for those sorts of things but you have to look at the whole thing together . I certainly would not make a recommendation as to I 'd like to see an XYZ right on that corner because it 's part of that whole plan which extends into Eden Prairie and II then down into Victoria . And you know to say well I 'd like to see so and so company build there is a little absurd . I mean really you have to look at the whole thing and how those community , the open space and housing and , so on tie together and in terms of some of the new things that should be considered in planning . Erhart: Your comment about open space connections . How would you envision that north of TH 5? The comment caught me . What are we talking about? Peter Olin: Again , I have not done any study on it and it 's just II presumptuous of me to go up and say why don 't you do this and that . Erhart: Give us an example maybe . Peter Olin: But one of the common ways of starting a plan for a town is to II look at the soils which I 'm sure has been done because that 's usually the most important one . The topography and what 's appropriate for certain kinds of development . The existing open spaces . Good agricultural land as" well as woodland and how those might tie together . Your stream corridors and undeveloped areas are one of the best and I notice in one of the lower II halves here it looks like you followed a stream corridor . That 's an excellent way of doing it . It may be the drainageways rather than the stream corridor but there are ways of looking at that and they can be incorporated before the development goes in . I realize it 's not always II possible and as I say I 've not studied it in any detail and I would not make any recommendations off the cuff on it . Erhart: Okay , I think we 've got a sense for what you 're saying . I think II yeah we have tried to take , at least with Bluff Creek we 've identified that . Peter Olin: I noticed that . That 's a perfect example of how to do that II sort of thing . 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 22 Koegler : Mr . Chairman , in response to that as well , when you take a ' portion of a comprehensive plan and you focus on it as we 're doing here this evening , you 're to a certain degree taking it out of context . There is a recreation element of the plan which contains a trail element which basically overlays over the top of this which I think if we had that over ' that right now , that you would see that some of the objectives that Mr . Olin is talking about is what the plan seeks to attain. It does identify trail corridors that are for more nature trails which are foot ' traffic type situations . Bluff Creek being your prime example . It talks about trails along some of the major transportation arteries and so forth , more geared to the movement of pedestrians , bicycles and so forth so that element has not been ignored as part of this plan . It simply isn 't in part of the presentation materials tonight and it will be when all this is put together for some of the subsequent public meetings and hearings . ' Erhart: Thanks Mr . Olin . We appreciate your input there . Again , I want to encourage people to express their comments here . This is not just to answer questions . We want input as we try to progress through the summer . A lot of summer evenings working on this plan so please come up with your comments so we can incorporate them into our thinking . Bill Miller : My name is Bill Miller . I live in Timberwood which is south but I 'm still interested in the north side of TH 5 . Just had some questions . I 'd like to know how the planning process went through on certain aspects . For example , the small red commercial spot on the northeast corner of Galpin and TH 5 . It looks pretty small . I was wondering do you have some kind of idea of what you think 's going to be there? Is that a gas station? A speedy mart? A florist shop or is there some kind of idea of what you think there 's needed at that corner on such a small piece? Krauss : Well yeah . Intentionally it 's small . It 's viewed as a ' neighborhood commercial center . Whatever would go in there is up to whoever puts it in but it 's a service type oriented thing that 's not necessarily , that 's more convenient out there than found in downtown . Bill Miller : So the idea is that this is some kind of convenience for the people that live around there? Alright . Is that some kind of accepted idea that people want that there and that it 's needed or is there so many square feet or so many miles away? Is there some standard through process or is it just you thought gee there 's a lot of houses there and people need this? ' Krauss: I don 't know that there 's a magic criteria that you look into your crystal ball and say ah , there 's a neighborhood commercial center . What you do is you look for high traffic nodes . You look for an area that 's physically separated from the residential area by natural features and that one is . You look to provide a reasonable amount of services for the population you expect and that was an attempt to do that . Bill Miller : And then next to that also north of TH 5 there 's the orange which I think you said was medium density residential . Is that right? The IIorange? Okay and then next to that proceeding east there 's some brown and Planning Commission Meeting , June 6 , 1990 - Page 23 I that was high density residential? Krauss: Higher density next to the park . ' Bill Miller : Okay , next to the park . Did those border TH 5 on both sides of the feeder street that 's put in there or is that just on the north side of it or what? Krauss: The frontage street would be a line as close to TH 5 as possible . I It would just be located on the north side of that . Bill Miller : Alright so inbetween Th 5 and the frontage street would be undeveloped do you think? Like a berm or something like that? Krauss: Right of way , yes . Bill Miller : Okay , so it would look grassy or something? Is there some thought process that goes in as to why the medium and high density is located close to downtown or the park or the highway versus just continuing the yellow down? Krauss: There 's a very good , well there 's a number of reasons whether you accept them or not . The reasons are is that the higher density was attempted to be placed closer to the downtown where services are available . Where there 's a large park available . Where 's ready access to a highway without having to transit through a single family neighborhood . There was II an attempt to get a mix of housing in the community for people who are different ages . Different economic levels . Different employment opportunities and what not . We have very little medium and high density housing in the City at this point . Most of the brown areas that you see including those east of the park are already designated high density on the existing comprehensive plan or are zoned accordingly . The only new one is the one immediately west of the park . Bill Miller : Okay , if that were to come to pass , are there city standards or is there some kind of set of rules for example what that ground could be? I mean is there some number of stories? Could it be a 20 story highrise appartment or does it have to be 3 stories or 5 stories? Is there any limit or are there rules? Krauss: Yeah , it would be subject to limitations of the zoning ordinance . It would either be R-12 or R-16 and we don't have the ordinance in front of ' us. Jo Ann can look it up but we think it 's a 40 foot height limitation . Bill Miller : 40 foot? And how about the orange part? The medium density . Is that the same? ' Krauss: Well that you 're looking at townhouses . They 're generally 2 stories high . , Bill Miller : Okay and just one other question . The MUSA request seems to bend around that 1995 study area around the north side of TH 5 and go down TH 5 right so the area below the 1995 study area is going to be included in, ' Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 24 the MUSA is that right? ' Krauss: Correct . Bill Miller : Okay . Why did we bend it around like that right there to have that be a 1995 study area? It seems like a sort of gerrymandering and ' politics . You know sort of all of a sudden we 're squirking around . Is there some particular reason why that piece of land versus let 's say the land below or above was excluded or something like that? Krauss: Well there 's a few reasons for that . The area north of TH 5 that was included has historically been the area that the City said was going to develop next . In our 1980 plan it was shown originally as I believe in 1990 MUSA line expansion . Metro Council made us change that to the year 2000 . That green jiggly line going through there is the Lake Ann Interceptor that the City has spent a considerable sum of money to get put in the ground in anticipation of that being the next area to develop . The 1995 study area was established because it was believed that there was sufficient area set aside to accommodate development for the next 5 to 10 ' year period . There was also a concern that commercial development not be allowed to occur on TH 5 prematurely or if at all . There was a decision that that would be held in obeyence by designating it as a study area so that the City would not be entertaining proposals . On the south side there 's a lot of pressure , well Chaska 's developed industrial up to the city line . Chaska 's also annexed parts of Chanhassen because we did not have services available and developed them industrially for their own ' benefit . There was a concern that if that development were to occur , that it occur inside Chanhassen . It seemed to be a reasonable place for it go given it 's surroundings and we concluded that it was serviceable by the sewer system . Bill Miller : Okeydoke . And I guess as far as what little I have to offer in the way of new ideas , I guess just my personal preference would be , I 'd ' rather see the orange , brown and red spots along north of TH 5 . Personally I 'd rather see that yellow all the way down to the road as an alternative unless there 's some significant reason why that 's absolutely not ' acceptable . Just my preference and there might be some others that have a similar preference . Thanks very much . ' Erhart: Thanks Mr . Miller . Anyone else? Theresa Bentz: Theresa Bentz and I live on Galpin Blvd. , 7280 . Where the MUSA line goes through , is this going to be paid by the property owners or I who pays for the frontage when they dig it up and put the MUSA line in? Who pays for that? ' Krauss: The MUSA line is an imaginary line on a piece of paper . It. doesn 't cost anybody anything . Theresa Bentz: Well I thought you just said it had to be put sewer through Ithere? Krauss: No , the sewer that was installed was a Metropolitan Interceptor IIand it was built in I believe 1988 and 1989 and it comes through here . . 1 Planning Commission Meeting i June 6 , 1990 - Page 25 That 's in the ground now as a useable facility . It 's a regional facility that the City 's paid for and we can 't use . We can 't use it until the MUSA line 's expanded . Erhart: Maybe a better explanation is what the line says . If you 're on the inside of that line , you as a landowner have the option to take for yourself to bring that sewer into your property . The City doesn 't pay for I any of it . Is that clear? Theresa Bentz : Yeah . ' Erhart : Okay . Thank you . Anybody else? Janet Lash: My name is Janet Lash . I live at 6850 Utica Lane . That ' yellow area that you said is designated low density . What is the definition of low density? Krauss: Low density by our standards , what 's the density range? Batzli : 1 .2 to 4 . Krauss: 1 .2 to 4 units per acre but typically what it 's meant in Chanhassen is development with RSF which is 15 ,000 square foot lots and larger depending on the choice of the individual . Janet Lash: The individual developer? Krauss: Developer . 1 Janet Lash: I guess I would just like to see some consideration made . Living fairly close to Lake Ann right now , I think that that 's such a unique asset that our city has and it 's something I 'd like to see preserved as much as possible and I guess I have a fear that you know development is going to be going in on the west side that could possibly be 15 ,000 square I foot lots and putting , I know a big chunk of it is where Prince so who knows what 's going to happen there but the rest of it , I think the impact of the lake environmentally . The runoff , all those kinds of things are a 1 concern to me plus just the aesthetics of having a whole bunch of homes around such a beautiful area that is so natural right now. You can go there and you feel like you 're up in northern Minnesota . You just don 't I see any houses and I think it 's something we should think seriously about trying to preserve as far as some type of green space and I don 't know how that can be accomplished unless it were to be zoned with larger lots or . I just think I 'd like to see you look at some different options and I don 't II know what all that you have available to you . And my second question is , I see you have the one asterick area for a possible school site and I 'm wondering if there are other alternatives to that? If you 've looked at other sites or if that 's the only one that 's in your mind now . Erhart : Maybe Paul , you talked to the School Board . Krauss: First of all the School Board hasn 't committed to doing anything but they believe they have a need for a middle school in the next 4 to 5 years . We went over there with some City Council representation and the Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 1990 - Page 26 staff to discuss just off the cuff what their needs might be and where they ' could locate . They told us they had a need for about 40 acres which is for ballfields . It 's a middle school . It doesn 't have lighted fields or anything but they need 40 acres for their activities . We looked at 3 sites . The one with the asterick being one . The south part of the Eckankar ' property being another and the south of Lake Ann on the north side of TH 5 being another option . The Eckankar property had some problems with proximity to downtown . You don 't necessarily want. the kids that close to ' busy streets and being able to walk off campus and that kind of thing . There 's also problems in terms of land mass on the Eckankar site . It 's got that large drop off in the ponding area and it didn 't really seem to accommodate a school . A school probably could have gone on the west side of Lake Ann Park . That is a possibility . The School Board seemed to like the access better at the site that we 're showing you in terms of running school buses either south into Chaska or west into Victoria . There was also a feeling that it met the City 's needs a little bit better in terms of an ability to pull a large open space residential type use across TH 5 and t.■elp bridge that gap and avoid that industrial image corridor that the ' Planning Commission didn 't want to have happen . Janet Lash: Okay . And then my last question . That sort of olive green strip that goes from Lake Ann over to CR 17 . ' Krauss: That 's the Eck Church itself . ' Janet Lash: Oh it is? Okay . And so what 's all the yellow? That 's Eckankar property too that 's zoned residential? ' Krauss: Yes it is . Janet Lash: Okay . And there 's no plans for anything? ' Krauss: No . Not that we 've heard . Janet Lash: Okay . Anyway , my biggest concern is the development on the west side of the lake . Erhart: Yeah . ' Krauss: Could we also address that a little bit . Maybe Mark could expand on that but there 's a green corridor shown around the west side of the lake and it 's for an expansion of park and trail facilities . ' Erhart : I was just going to ask you Mark if you would get up and maybe point out to us what the green areas in the park plan for north of TH 5 is . ' Koegler : As I referenced before , what 's lacking in this is an overlay that shows the trails that are along some of the major arteries as well as some of the other natural or pedestrian type trails that meander through the southern part of the city . What is shown in terms of parks are all of the existing parks within the community . Minnewashta Regional Park of course is another one . There is an expansion shown on the east side of Lake Ann Park . There 's approximately 25-30 acre expansion . That has been Planning Commission Meeting I June 6 , 1990 - Page 27 1 programmed as part of the planning at least in the community for , literally since the 1980 plan was put together . Beyond that the only real corridors that show on this map are the Lake Ann Interceptor line which runs up this way . The intent always has been to be able to put a trail segment as a part of that to make a connection possibly between Minnewashta Regional Park and Lake Ann Park ultimately as well as the City I think at least since the late 70 's has been on record as having a desire to get green space around at least one of the lakes in the community . When you have a community that 's blessed with the lakes that this community is , it seems like you 'd like to obtain that more frequently but with the development pattern it 's very difficult . Lake Ann has always been targeted as the one which the City has a chance hopefully to get a green belt corridor all the way around the lake . The dimensions that are shown on this particular plan really simply are only indictative of the fact that we 're stressing that that 's what 's desired . Whether that line and open space actually is here or comes back or zigs and zags becomes a subject of some of the future planning to be done by the Park Commission as well as developments proposals as they come in . As was identified earlier this piece of property over here is under the ownership of Prince at the present time and' quite honestly assuming that probably it will remain in it 's present state for some time . So the intent is to have the open space connections , the corridor around Lake Ann and then trail system also bridges connection between parks , major employment centers , schools , residential areas , and so forth . Erhart : Okay , I 'd also like to point out too on the school issue which is 1 importart to a lot of people is that just by designating that spot as a potential school site doesn 't dictate that if a school is built in Chanhassen that it would actually be in that site . That would be determined at that time by what land is available and the valuation and so 1 forth . It 's just that we are trying to identify today a site that that most logically would fit a school . So are there any other questions? Issues? 1 Paul Youngquist: My name is Paul Youngquist . I own and live at the property at 7105 Hazeltine Blvd . . I 'm wondering , this is my first meeting 1 here so I need to get brought up to date a little bit but I 'm wondering what is the north boundary of the study area and how was that identified and then what are the east/west black lines there north of the study area? And tell me a little more about why was the study area identified and what are the potential different scenarios for what might happen there . Krauss: Well the simple one first . The east/west black lines are illustrative locations of where collector streets would be built at some point in the future if development occurs . Clearly we have a need to provide streets that service the new areas . Whether it 's exactly in that location or exactly in that alignment , nobody 's really looked at how to align the street itself . There 's been no engineering studies but we clearly need to connect the points . Those streets do provide a connection 11 between TH 41 and Galpin . As to the definition of the study area , one of the things that is hanging over our heads a little bit is if we get real wild and crazy and ask for a tremendously large MUSA line expansion , the Metro Council will reject it out of hand . It has to be a reasonable I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 28 request . And in fact the size of this request is a little bit surprising ' to the Metro Council staff that I 've spoken to . So there was a clear desire not to go overboard and the size of that study area was largely determined by the amount of development that was thought to be reasonable but not excessive . The exact definition of what 's to be in the study area ' is something that we really haven 't discussed essentially . Later on tonight there will be a little bit of a discussion as to what that might be converted to if another area is removed from the MUSA line request . But ' intentionally the Planning Commission I think wanted to keep the options open for what might be considered in there . Paul Youngquist: What 's the north boundary of the study area? Krauss: Well it follows some property lines . I can 't tell you which one it is but we did try to follow property lines . ' Erhart: Again the other aspect of that was the area in yellow would more than likely be served with the gravity flow into that existing Lake Ann I sewer line . It 's not precisely but that was one of the general considerations in putting those lines where they are . Any other comments? Questions on the 10 year plan in general . Bill , have you got another one? ' Bill Miller : Can I have another one without going up there? I 'll talk loudly . In the planning process itself when you 're coming up with these acres such as the location for residential , commercial and industrial . To ' some degree I guess they 're obviously based upon growth and demand for the land and . . . Does anyone plan beyond that? . .for example , what if there just wasn 't a lot of desire for residential development for some reason but ' there was a lot of demand for industrial development? Erhart : Okay . Did everybody catch the question? I Bill Miller : What if you had 4 ,000 requests to put in factories and no . . . Would you say , well we 're going to ask for 1 ,736 acres of industrial and 525 residential or is there some kind of ratio where you say we want to ' have x amount of this and x amount of that or we want development . . . Krauss: Yeah , there was a ratio that was established and I guess the ratio was established by looking at what we have now . The Planning Commission Itook a look at what we have now and I think there was a general comfort level with that sort of a mix and it was anticipated that that sort of mix should be repeated into the future . There certainly wasn 't a desire I I think fairly to capture as much industrial growth for example as is theoretically possible if you listen to all the brokers . There 's significant areas that have been excluded from that type of development I intentionally and it 's basically a compromise but it was to achieve the goal that the community as it is today , what constitutes a community is what 's going to exist 10 years from now . I Bill Miller : Did you compare it to other communities and you know for example that Chanhassen . . .as anyplace else or anything like that? I mean other than the fact that it was already there . I mean did you have an idea of what 's . . . There are no benchmarks or anything like that? '' Planning Commission Meeting I June 6 , 1990 - Page 29 Koegler : The land use pattern was compared to other communities . I can 't I tell you . I know Plymouth was one that was looked at just in terms of the mix of residential versus the industrial/office and so forth and I think this one coincidentally ended up being very similar to that . That they 're '• emphasizing the low density as a major land use also . Beyond that the Planning Commission has entertained discussions about the tax ramifications of various types of development . That 's a very difficult thing to put a handle on because quite honestly you can find supporting data for about any, position on that topic that you want to take . But that has been a factor as well as the policies that have been adopted , were adopted back in 1980 that at least the Commission has again earmarked in providing a mix of land' uses that does provide employment opportunities . That does spread tax burdens across varieties of types of land uses and does provide a housing mix that keys to , as Paul referenced before , various interests . Various economic levels , lifestyles and so forth . So I think that 's the only way II can respond . There were some general comparisons but I think it builds largely upon a certain comfort level that the type of mix that 's there now , at least with the developed portion of the City now is affording the type I of open space and the environment that generally I think the comments are that that 's what desired and the attempt is to maintain that as this community goes on and grows continually over the next 10 to 20 years . Erhart : And again this is a plan based on assumptions . If the demand for housing isn 't there , obviously no one 's going to try to attempt to develop the property . ' Ellson: I think one of the ideas of having a whole plan is it 's easier to turn away a developer when you say we didn 't have plans for that . That 's I not what we want Chanhassen to be . Here look at our plan and see what we want Chanhassen to be and then you have , we said . We 'll talk to you but we have a lot more reason to turn them away and just say we 're not interested i•.',en we have a plan in place that the City has supported . We would definitely say we will wait 50 years for it to develop this way if this is the way we want . It doesn 't have to be done within 10 years . He 's right , every developer would tell you that they could bring in this amount of money but if we zone that all yellow and someone wants to put something brown in there for their own good , we 've got a real good basis to say it doesn 't seem to fit with what we want . Erhart: Okay , Chuck . Chuck Gabrielson: Chuck Gabrielson back again . Just kind of drawing on the question about the little red area there . On the Tom Thumb idea at the corner of Galpin and TH 5 . The question that I have is when I heard the comments talked about wanting to having something convenient to the neighborhood . Is that a consideration of the people who are currently there or are you anticipating what the wants are going to be of the orange and the brown area people because I think if you bothered to test the opinions of those who are current residents of the area , we 'd just as soon drive the extra miles into Chanhassen or up to Shorewood to get our gas or o.1r emergency groceries or something like that . That 's why I 'm wondering , is it in anticipation of wanting to satisfy somebody who eventually might II II II Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 30 Iwant to be there or the people who are currently in the area? tErhart: It 's clearly for those people who eventually will be there and it 's unlikely that anything will be put there until that area is more Ideveloped . Chuck Gabrielson: Thank you . IErhart: Any other questions on that part of the plan? Eric? Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin . I live on Lake Lucy . I have some comments on I the plan not particular to the Lake Lucy area that I think should be shred . Cne is I agree with the comments that I 've heard tonight and particularly Mr . Olin 's comments about creative solutions to the strip I particularly I think in response to the land form or the true character of the town , the way people feel should be really considered here . It says in the comprehensive plan draft , and I had a chance to read it over . It says there that new development should be discouraged from encroaching upon I vital natural resources . After canvasing many people in the area north of T:-' 5 , 1 can honestly say that many of us are committed to preserving and protecting this natural environment to keep this area a desireable place to I I ' ve . We believe in responsible stewardship of the land , air and water and we have pride in caring for it in our own backyards . We want the area preserved with as much open space as possible for wildlife which will be I endangered by higher density development . I think the corridor between Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and Lake Lucy/Lake Ann area would serve as an excellent corridor for preserving that . With higher density development , major Class A wetlands surrounding the lakes and we have a lot I of lake area in this region , could receive an extremely high and predictable amount of non-point source pollution which the Metroplitan Council has in writing tried to build policies to try and reduce that I d-a.stically . Daily removal of millions of gallons of water pumped out of the ground water . Currently the water tower that 's serving Curry Farms is pumping 2 million gallons a day out of the summer months and 1 million I gallons a day out of the winter . If that area north of TH 5 . That could easily double or triple . Well No . 3 shares that system and that 's what the engineer told me it 's coming out of there . This may have an adverse affect on the availability of the aquafir to replenish lake levels . We have a I report from on Lake Lucy that shows that it 's been fed by ground water seepage . Most of the water is for Lake Lucy which is a headwaters for the chain of lakes that feeds into Lake Ann that 's necessary to improve the I maintenance of high water quality . If you replace that water with water that is coming down from streets and rooftops and roads into the wetlands and into the lakes , it will be replaced by water that is very high in nutrients and will pollute the lakes . Many , if not most of the systems of I the homes in the area above TH 5 and west of Lake Lucy and Lake Ann have new septic systems with alternate drainfield sites already . Many of the landowners including Prince and Jerome Carlson and several others around . I Galpin including myself and unwilling to develop into the far future . There is little or no desire to develop in the area surrounding this area beyond the 2 1/2 acre , the old 2 1/2 acre density . That means that the ' general growth rate is expected to be extremely small . If there are a I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 31 different set of homeowners in 20 or 30 years , the majority may have a different opinion but I believe strongly that that 's going to be unlikely . I One thing that I didn 't mention to the people that I had canvased earlier until I thought about it later that may change many people 's minds about being inside MUSA at all , taxes are high enough in this town . If we 're I inside the MUSA , we would face much higher taxes based on potential value and would also face being levied special assessments based on potential value like Minnetonka did to Highland neighborhood . I managed for many years to stay out of being serviced with sewer yet they 're within the MUSA district and they assessed them . They don 't have the utility . So even though they 're not receiving the services , they 've been assessed for it and that could happen to us . We realize that our land and homes have economic values and maybe hedge against an uncertain economic future . The Lake Ann Interceptor was put in against the area residents wishes and as long as there 's no real , not an imagined potential for development , we strongly oppose any attempt to levy specials for services not used or because there 's only wrongfully imagined potential for development . We don 't want , and this is a really gut feel that a lot of people had expressed to me is that they don 't want our local government body imposing a different set of values . Where they tell us the land is worth more to us paved over with streets and sewers , populated with lots of houses . We want to be left alone to live with our own common values concerning the future fo,- our land and not our government 's values . We want to be able to sell our homes not on development potential but the value it holds as a place to enjoy nature , relax and get away from it all . A well cared for or restored natural surrounding and watershed which would be protected by zoning and building laws , has it 's own economic value not only for our homes but the neighboring ones as well . I know that to be the case of people in Pheasant Hills . I don 't think that simple return on investment is the only reason I to ov.>n land and live in Chanhassen and I don 't think this view should manifest itself in the policies or this plan and especially the actions of the City . We don 't want to continually fight to mitigate the damage from human progress embodied and misplaced or insensitively developed , asidential and industrial projects . Solid plans , laws and practices creatively employed including large doses of public education must be the ne:J norm in my opinion to prevent the damage in the first place . And I there 's some specific things that relate to the draft that I 'd like to go over . There 's not that many of them . Erhart : Are you talking about things in general here or are you ready to 1 get into the . . . Eric Rivkin: No . They 're all in general . As I said before , I think land' population projections need to be re-evaluated very seriously . You say in here that , you mention a lot of nice things about protecting the watershed . You mention policies about protecting roof , water , paved surface drainage ' shall be channeled into the storm water system as approved by the engineer and appropriate agencies . I suggest that if you control the quantity of the water , quality and the quantity of the water and the ground water , you control the quality of the water entering the lakes and streams . I think something to that effect should be included in the plan as an overall guiding light here . Storm water runoff it says here that should be held on the land for the greatest extent possible . If you maintain , the only way I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 32 to really get rid of nutrients that are polluting the lakes and that is the ' number one enemy of keeping Lake Ann or Lake Lucy or any of the downstream lakes from turning into swamps is to be able to harvest those nutrients out ' of those holding areas . Erhart: Eric , have you got a whole list of things and is that the same list that you supplied us before the meeting? Eric Rivkin: No . I think there 's some incompatible land uses . I don 't think an industrial area ought to be located next to the Arboretum . Erhart : Eric , why don 't we , I 'll tell you what . Let 's open , if you don 't mind , let 's open the meeting up to the broader discussion of that area . Why don 't we then come back to the specific things if you would . Is that okay? Eric_. Rivkin : Well these are things that affect the whole area north of TH S . Erhart : I understand . I 'll give you a chance later on . What I 'd like to ' havE is Paul make his presentation reacting to the petition that you submitted a week ago and get back to that . If we have time at the end , I 'd like to go through those things but I think I 'd like to get it open to the broader subjects so some people can get their input on overall land use and get on their way if they need to go and treat those specific details towards the end if we could . ' Eric Rivkin: Well is tree cover a specific to Lake Lucy area? Is the natural feature section? I think I 'd like to be heard on that . ' Erhart : Okay , but you 've taken the 5 minutes and like I say , we ' ll give you a second chance okay . Eric Rivkin: Well , okay . ' Erhart : Paul , would you like to start out? Why don't you make your presentation on the petition and then after that the discussion will be ' open to everything . Tim Keene: Are you moving into Lake Lucy after this then? ' Erhart : As soon as the general comments are over . Tim Keene: As to the north plan? ' Erhart : Right . • Tim Keene: Good evening . My name is Tim Keene with Larkin , Hoffman , Daly and Lindgren , 7900 Xerxes . I 'm here on behalf of Mill 's Fleet Farm . Also here this evening is Tom Green and Mill 's Fleet Farm is also been a pErticipant and a member of the Highway 5 Corridor Coalition that has been participating throughout the planning process these many months . Mill 's i Planning Commission Meeting I June 6 , 1990 - Page 33 1 Fleet Farm owns approximately 140 acres in the northeast corner of TH 41 and TH 5 . Excuse me , approximately 50 acres . Scaled down in that I northeast corner . It 's adjacent to that corner and the site is presently designated the 1995 study area . We have some concerns with this designation . First and foremost is the site is located , the intersection of two trunk highways and as Professor Olin has noted previously , there are , legitimate concerns relating to strip development along that corridor . In the spirit of good planning also promote activity centers and activity nodes and what better place to have an activity node than in the intersection of two state highways . That is the attraction to the site . It is one that does cry out to be an activity center to serve people from all four directions and one that I think should be planned accordingly and in this plan document . The second concern of ours , by putting this in this 1^95 study area is that the area in the perimeter is going to be developed in a single family residential land use pattern and this community and history generally is replete with examples . Once the homes are in and 'r. uilt and the neighbors are in , the opposition is there to put anything but more homes just like the ones that are already there . If it should be commercial , it should be desiginated commercial if that 's what makes sense it this planning process . If it 's a mix of other uses , higher and lower us=age , then let 's plan it . I don 't think that 1995 study area has to , e\,en though it 's outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area , that you can 't address the land use pattern . The phasing and timing of services and' utilities would be a logical sequence but the land use pattern can and I think should be established in this process . We 've had some concerns expressed throughout the process regarding the City 's overall tax base and balance between commercial , industrial and residential . The 120 some acres that have been identified as commercial to serve the future needs of the city through 2010 does seem a bit low . It represents approximately 6% of the total new development that 's projected based on your single family development scheme . Those people have to send their children to school and the tax comparables simply don 't , the single family pattern , low density all by itself simply . . .does not support the demands for goods , services and' schools that are required by that population and I would encourage you throughout this process to take a look at that balance . Your tax capacity on your low density residential in the community presently is in the I neighborhood of $2 ,500 .00 to $3 ,500 .00 per acre based on the value of the homes . Chanhassen is realizing that on average , if it's commercial and industrial , approximately $11 ,000 .00 to $12 ,000 .00 per acre . Somebody 's got to pay for those schools and it 's not the single family homes and that 's just a fact . The proposed Mill 's Fleet Farm would be a 4 to 5 million dollar facility paying between $250 ,000 .00 and $300 ,000 .00 per year in today 's tax dollars . I would encourage you to throughout this process I take a look at the pattern and consider some land use designations for the 1995 study area . Thank you . Erhart : Thank you . I think there 's some interesting comments . Does ' anybody , Paul or Mark want to respond to those? I don 't think we have to . Dc you have something? Yom G-een: May I speak? Erhart : Sure . ' ffiII II Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 34 I II Tom Green: My name is Tom Green . I 'm a Vice President of Mill 's Fleet Farm . Our company has some presence in the Twin City market but we are from up in Brainerd , Minnesota . I 'd like to ask the question , we talk about logic development and if you look south of TH 5 we see where we 've I jogged over for approximately 40 acres of industrial . I 'm also told that our site probably cannot be serviced for sewer to the northwest . However , I 'm suggesting that we could be sewer serviced with gravity feed to the I south . I 'd like to propose that if we could have a node sticking out like you 've got in the industrial area to the south , you could surely consider a node sticking out in that intersection . Oo you see my point? Thank you for your time . IErhart : Thanks Mr . Green . Any response to that Paul? I Krauss: Any response . Well , I think it 's clear and Gary Warren , our City Engineer is here tonight . Unfortunately he doesn 't have a voice so he may wa'Je his hands and say yes but we did look at , there is an ability to serve I that study area . We 've got , we 're preparing the utility section of the plan right now and it would anticipate showing us at least how we could carve that study area when the City wants or determines to do that . So I don 't think the sole issue is whether or not we could serve it or not . I I think the real crux of the issue is that when the Planning Commission looked at that , I mean you didn 't look at it in a vaccum . You knew that there was a commercial ownership on the corner there and in fact there was I a presentation of a plan by the TH 5 development coalition that shows large shopping centers north and south of TH 5 there and quite a bit of industrial office development up and down the freeway . Up and down TH 5 . II I think there was a clear choice that that was not a development scenario that the Planning Commission was comfortable with nor did they want to encourage it . And there 's a concern that if that corner were brought into the MUSA line prematurely , that it lessens the ability of the City to 1 control and keep those types of uses that are incompatible out . I don 't know if at some point somebody someplace is going to decide that that 's a good corner for commercial . We really did not discuss that actively I because of the study area designation but the study area designation is clearly being used to say that somebody 5 years from now should take a look at that _ Erhart: Okay . Anything else in general? Okay , if not , let's proceed and open the discussion up to all issues and including . I Bryan Pike : My name is Bryan Pike . I 'm the Pastor of Westside Baptist Church . We have 10 acres on the end of the MUSA line right where it hits TH 41 and we 're in this west corridor . We just heard about the petition I the last couple days . We weren 't informed of it and we 're right smack dab i - the middle of that western corridor and we 're definitely wanting to develop and we wanted to make that known . Er"h�.rt : Good . Stick around . Paul , do you want to take it away? t(rauss: Sure . Briefly , the Planning Commission received a petition from IMr . Rivkin who spoke earlier tonight regarding the potential of continued L Planning Commission Meeting 11 June 6 , 1990 - Page 35 large lot development in the area surrounding his neighborhood . The Commission asked staff to investigate the pros and cons of that issue and report back . We did over the last week we did develop a formal report which the Planning Commission has and we 'd make it available to anybody who 'd like to look at it but would summarize it 's findings as follows . ' While there 's nothing inherently right or wrong with large lot development , there are significant constraints on future large lot subdivision that does not have access to sewer . First of all , at the present time all of the people that reside in rural residential or agricultural areas which is virtually the entire area that we 're looking at for the expansion of the MUSA , are unable to connect to public sewer . That 's what the MUSA desigination infers . By ordinance you 're limited to 1 homesite per 10 II acres . That was an ordinance that the Metro Council required us to adopt and the basic premise is to prevent premature development or leap frog development out beyond the MUSA line . It was part of the Lake Ann Interceptor agreement which was a contractual agreement that the City entered into with the Metro Council and MWCC to get the Interceptor built . When a parcel is located inside the MUSA line and utilities are available , sbdivision with sewer is possible . There 's a minimum lot size of 15 ,000 II square feet and I stress minimum lot size . Many of our lots are considerably in excess of that and it 's really up to the person that 's sellinc the land or marketing the property to determine what they 'd like toil do . In Chanhassen we find that most of our lot sizes are , except south cf TX C . North of TH 5 most of the lot sizes are actually somewhat larger than that . Sometimes considerably larger because of all the wetlands and tree cover and whatever else was found on the property that we 're trying to preserve . The Metroplitan Council will not permit cities to have large lot or sewered development within a MUSA line . They were very clear on that . So in other words you can 't expand the MUSA line and expect that the development within that area can continue to subdivide without having access to sewer . Chanhassen has historically required that all development within the MUSA line hook up to the sewer and city water . There 's a number" o'c reasons for this . Fundamentally the major one is environmental . We surveyed other communities and found out that they had similar requirements . At our last meeting I believe there were a number of communities mentioned . Orono being in particular and we could not find any, that within the MUSA allowed large lot unsewered development smaller than 10 acres which is the same. standard that 's applied now outside the MUSA line . From both regional and local standpoints , large lot unsewered development within the MUSA line promotes leap frog development and often times it 's very costly and difficult to provide services for . It 's oftentimes very controversial to provide services for as services are needed as years come down . What this all boils down to is that for a parcel to have any real subdivision potential , it must be located within the MUSA line and any new lots would be hooked up to city sewer and water . I 'd also point out that the MUSA line is not relocated very easily . I II think this meeting tonight is a good example of that . It 's a very involved process and one that is not entirely in our control . It 's overseen by the Metropolitan Council . We can assume that the current plan , when one is adopted , will probably relocate the MUSA line for the next 10 years for the sake of argument . Thus a parcel that is located outside the MUSA line as it ' s drafted by this plan will not likely have any development potential for that period of time . The Planning Commission is attempting to respond II I Planning Commission Meeting 'June 6 , 1990 - Page 36 to the petition that was received and if the people that responded on that petition understand what 's involved and want to be excluded from the MUSA , it may be possible to do so , of course if the Metropolitan Council approves it . I did discuss this with their staff . I met with them again this week and they 're a little skeptical about proposals that would significantly shift the MUSA line . One of their major concerns is that we have a Metropolitan Interceptor in the ground that would be unused if the MUSA line were relocated outside that area but I still think it 's something that ' could be considered . Still the Planning Commission is attempting to be responsive to the petition by developing an alternate plan that would relocate the MUSA line outside of the area in question . Moving it south ' towards the direction of TH 5 which excludes most of the lots that were illustrated in the petition that we received . If the property owners are more comfortable with this alternative , it may be possible to incorporate but again I caution you with there are implications for those people long ' range and there are things we 'll have to explain to the Metropolitan Council . I 'd like Mark to put up that alternative plan if we could and explain how we derived that . Koegler : The alternative that Paul referenced that 's been put together modifies the MUSA line in this area to omit a large area and I 'm not as up ' to speed on details on the petition as Paul is so I won 't respond to that specifically . I 'll let him cover that . But basically when we sat down we tried to look at trying to determine if there was a logical way to scribe a MUSA line which would still achieve some continuity around certain areas but yet would potentially pull out some of the properties . This is merely one scenario of how that could occur . What it does is it takes the line which used to go around this way and scribes it , includes this piece of ' property . It comes up . It comes across this way . Around and then exits and gees on out to the west as it did previously . That omits this area that 's now shown in white from the MUSA line area . It adds in the study arca which hypothetically is part of this alternate has been labeled low d —sity . The primary reason for that is to some degree a replacement of the low density property that would be lost to larger lot uses in this particular area . The overall net impact on the comprehensive plan and specifically on the amount of acreage that 's allocated for residential purposes is really pretty much a wash . They 're very close to one another in terms of the amount of low density that 's shown with the implementation ' of a scheme of this nature and the low density that was shown on the underlying plan that we presented earlier . Do you want to add comments at this time? Krauss: Just a couple . As Mark indicated , it uses the study area that we previously had not discussed very actively to basically provide for what 's expected to be the growth of the community . It does get at the Fleet Farm is:sue by making the statement that it won 't be a Fleet Farm basically . But this was something that we developed in response to a petition . Now maybe I could put up an illustration here on the overhead . It 's very tough to ' respond to these things . First of all we didn 't take up the petition presented from Mr . Rivkin and we ' ll take it at face value but you can 't gerrymander the MUSA line . You can 't zig zag it back and forth depending on the individual 's choices of property owners at that point in time . It haE to be a rational and reasonable line . For the sake of discussion I I/ Planning Commission Meeting I June 6 , 1990 - Page 37 think we did make an overhead of the map . . .regarding the petition itself . I hope this is clear but with the exception of those 3 parcels that were toll have the names of the owners , according to the petition, these were properties that desire to be outside of the MUSA line and have stated so in the petition . Hopefully that alternative responds to that this is the 11 choice . Which again , I 'd just like to reiterate that the MUSA line does not result immediately in development . It is not required to develop . It is solely the decision of the property owner to do so . I 'd also point out that Lake Lucy Highlands and Timberwood have always been viewed as something different from the rest of the undeveloped or the area outside the MUSA line and that is because they were platted under a pre 1987 ordinance that allowed 2 1/2 acre lots without having access to sewer , That ordinance no longer exists but we recognize the fact that of course these developments are in place and have modern functioning septic systems and are not likely to need public utilities in any near timeframe and there 's going to be text that would be added to the plan , whichever I alternative is selected , that will make it perfectly obvious to the Metro Council and everybody else that we don 't anticipate the need to bring service into those particular areas . We have similar areas that flow through the south of the City . . .would be in the potential MUSA line expansion . With that I 'll turn it back to you . Erhart : Okay . I want to point out again that Eric did quite a bit of work' ever the last few weeks in putting together a petition and presenting some alternative ideas and I think we commend him on doing that . I think we try tc seriously respond to those ideas with some ideas that we could open it I tc thz,. public to respond to the two things that we 've just looked at . So with that I guess I 'd like to open that up to other people with our alternativve ideas and their reaction to this as opposed to our initial proposal . Brian? _ . K l : �. Brian _ _ ��gel utz : Two of my friends and I own this big piece of property I right here . This is 26 acres . I was wondering , that 's a pretty big slip of the pen there . . . never asked us . Eric Rivkin: Sorry . . .currently with the lot lines and the property owners . . .and I had to take that at face value . I don 't even know where Brian 's property really begins or ends . I kind of had to guess based on acres that he told me . . . ' Erhart: Okay , I think the point here Brian is you are not . Brian Klingelhutz: We are not for it . Then I was wondering what ' questions , how did you get all these people to sign it? Did you say , if you agree with this that the sewer 's going to go through here . . .or what approach did you use? ' E•' hart: Brian , I don 't think that 's an issue . Why don 't you come up and tell us what you 'd like to see in your particular property and what you 'd like to see on this Comp Plan . I think we realize that the petition was a genera: petition . It illicited some work that we 've done and we 've gone hack and asked these same questions . How the petition was made so we better understand so I don 't mean to cut you off there . I just say I 'd 11 Planning Commission Meeting :ape 6 , 1990 - Page 38 like to have you talk about what you 'd like to see on the plan and how it ' relates to your property . Brian Klingelhutz : Obviously we want to see it residential with sewer available to it and one of the reasons is we bought it a lot of years ago ' and that was on the plan for the next area to get it . Then the sewer line came through and we didn 't give them any opposition . No hard time and they even stubbed in a spot for us to hook onto it when it came through . For a ' petition to change that now just doesn 't seem fair . When this was a long range investment for us . It 's a beautiful piece of property for a lot of homes overlooking the pond . It 's close to a school . I mean for somebody ' to change it , it just doesn 't seem right . So that 's our opinion . Erhart : Alright . The issue there was the land was shown on the petition but your name wasn 't signed on that petition and I think we 've got your ' particular interest so anyone else? Chuck Gabrielson: Chuck Gabrielson with another question . Looking at the ' map that was underneath that one , I was wondering what the intent was of switching around kind of yellow areas . My concern is that if it 's the idea of trying to pit one neighborhood against another neighborhood saying who 's goi -a to be yellow and who 's not going to be yellow . Who 's going to be in ' this area . Who 's going to be in that area and I 'm wondering why the tradeoff . Why not just the expansion of the area that was not included in the MUSA line? That was my first reaction was all of a sudden well now 1 maybe it 's us versus them or something like that . I 'm just curious about why all of a sudden the change from the 1995 study area in particular . E~hart : Did you have any particular point of view about this plan versus the other one? Gabrielson: I like the other one better . But I wouldn't mind incorp,: -eting the whole area into out of the MUSA line area if that 's what the / '-e wanting but I just , when I saw this presentation I thought to myself , the first concept I had was they 're trying to pit us against the other neighborhood type thing . That was my first thing was a reaction politically that they 're trying to create enemity between the neighborhoods because right now we 're cooperating fairly well . Krauss: And we certainly have no desire to pit anybody against anybody . These meetings are tough enough to get through without that . What we looked at though was there was a desire , this plan started out and one ' could argue the goals but the goal was to provide for reasonable amount of residential growth , single family residential growth in the city over the next 10 to 12 years . If we eliminate a significant amount of the supply of ' land , you 're either not going to attain that goal or you 're going to find someplace else to do it . Then if we 're looking for someplace else to do it , jou say well what 's reasonable? What can we legitimately serve? What can we legitimately provide access to? What do we think the Metro Council may ' et us actually implement? It 's true . The area to the north was always slated to be the next area to be developed . That 's why that interceptor is there but lacking that , we felt that this was a reasonable approach to achieve the goals . It is a land swap but that was the I/ Planning Commission Meeting I. June 6 , 1990 - Page 39 I alternative we were faced with . I Chuck Gabrielson: Assuming that the interceptor is not used , how much money would you have wasted? We wasted? How much did we waste? How much of Chanhassen 's money went into that? Krauss: I believe it was about a half million dollars . Er'-,art: If you have an explanation of your petition , why don 't you take II just a short response . • Riskin: . . .about where the lines are drawn . . . I did my darn best with the maps that I had and what people told me where lines were drawn . Wh,:le people 's lots were . I left out white holes that were indicated on the overhead and I tried honestly to indicate that . I didn 't remember anyt' Inzi , if you say you own 26 acres , I knew that you wanted to develop and that 's why I didn 't contact you . I was just . . . and if you say you owr • acres , I 'm not even sure that even the lines the City drew may . . . " E'"ian Klingelhutz : This line is in the . . . E -ic rivkin : Yeah , but if this is the edge of the property . This is where" t! 'iarcino 's begin and this is where your 's begins . That may be right or it may not . Klinaclhutz : Brian 's abuts right onto Brian 's and Lee 's property . . . Lack at a Carver County plat book and you 'd see it real easily . Eric Pivkin: Well the map that I got from the City didn 't have all the " yy . a_. in . Erhart. : Well this a great departure from where the City 's been going for II the last 1.5 years and I really would like to have people come on up and comment about this because it 's a real big change . We 've discussed it a lot here already . We 're not sure if people understand what the petition I means and please come on up and talk to us about this thing . We 're very concerned about that input we receive . Al? Al Klingelhutz : I wasn 't going to speak tonight but I really feel there 's I been a lot of misunderstanding . The Lake Ann Interceptor was put in in 1988-89 but back in 1980 we had an urban service line that was a lot bigger" than the present line . I think some of you might remember that . It came down and it almost encompassed the actual line that you 're trying to get inll today . The City worked hard to get the Lake Ann Interceptor put in . They spent a half a million dollars which is to be assessed and has already been assessed as soon as that line gets into the MUSA line at $430 .00 an acre I believe it is for any area that can feed into that Lake Ann Interceptor . That ' s a given . But anybody that lives in the 2 1/2 acre tract sites and doesn 't want the sewer is not going to have to pay a lateral charge until they ask for that sewer to come in . And really , the Met Council which is cur money too , I believe in order to put that Lake Ann Interceptor over ands above the half a million dollars that Chanhassen spent , spent another 5 Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 40 million dollars to put that interceptor in . Chuck Gabrielson: That 's more like what I was thinking it might be . Al Klingelhutz: Right. Now we don 't want to let any development go around ' it . Are those 5 1/2 million dollars going to sit there for the next 10 years and not have any use of that investment that was put in just a few years ago? Someone with 10 acres of land or 15 acres of land in that area might want to develop long before then . I don 't know . I don 't know . I think the people that have signed that petition outside of maybe those at the Lake Lucy Highlands and the few of the others in the smaller lots , at 2 1/2 acre lots , better take another good hard look at what they did ' because they 're taking dollars out of their pocket and throwing it to the wind . Bryan Pike: I 've just got a quick question . Is it possible by presenting that plan to the Met Council that they would reject that one sooner than the other? Krauss: The Met Council 's tough to figure . I don 't know . I 've been trying to work with their staff people that would make the recommendation to the Council and they did express a concern that here 's a regional facility . Regional facilities are their cup of tea . That 's what they do . That 's sitting in the ground that we wouldn 't be using . Now whether they 'd accept it or not it seemed awful strange to them that we would even think of doing that . I think we could probably sell the alternative plan to them it 's not going to be the easiest thing . Bryan Pike : So we 're looking at a delay , possible delays too? I went to the Met Council 2 years ago with this whole issue of getting our church property inside the sewer line because we were just outside of it and we cowldn 't build our church or we were running into a lot of complications , including the City Planner , because we were outside of the MUSA line so we put it on hold for that reason and when the Interceptor came through it disturbed most of our property so there wasn 't really a viable site out on our property for a septic system anyway . I mean it 's running right through the middle of our property . It just seems almost ridiculous to not be able to hook up to it . What they were telling me 2 years ago was it was up to the City to present this plan and once it was presented , it was then they would make a decision but this sounds like something that 's really going to put the kaboosh on their whole reason for opening it up . I don 't know . Bill Miller : I guess I would say with regard to what we just looked at , ' this large lot stuff , I like large lot stuff so that 's where I stand . But regardless of that , I guess my point would be sort of like . . .I hope that before this interceptor thing was put in and I don't know a lot about this , and row all of a sudden we have all these people that don 't seem to want to develop with this interceptor , I hope that all these people that own this land somehow knew about this or someone made an incredible mistake putting in this interceptor . I mean was it put in without all these people knowing why and how . I mean was this done to force the development? That just seems to make no sense to me . I mean maybe Brian is very intelligent to have made a great investment like it was out to where it is but all these I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 41 other people and I mean you had this thing going through? That doesn 't make a lot of sense to me . I 'm just sort of looking from gosh , it seems like an incredible problem to me . I mean if you put 5 1/2 million dollars in and all these people , I assume that they didn 't just dream up last night they don 't want to develop it . Then it seems like somebody played some real incredible game there to get that . But besides that , just as far as the tax question goes , I still try to understand this idea that taxes , you II have to have industrial for taxes and all this . I 've lived in quite a few places in my life and I 've lived in communities where there was just about no industrial , no commercial and it had 10 times the service as Chanhassen II has at much lower tax rates . So I don 't believe that there 's this guarantee that by having industrial/commercial you can guarantee me that that 's the only way we 're going to be able to have schools for our kids and all this other stuff . Although I 'd love you to prove that to me sometime I ' guess . The other thing is , I have nothing against the Fleet Farm in particular . I 'm just wondering and I want to bring up the point of you 've II developed this downtown . I know you know this but maybe some other people don 't . You 've developed this downtown commercial area and now you 're speculating on maybe putting it way out there . That may end up killing downtown and you may have one of those communities down the road where all II of a sudden you have a dead downtown because everyone 's running off to Eden Prairie and out to the edge over here to shop . I want that to be considered and then the final thing which I 'll leave on is , could you just take one minute to tell me about this Met Council . It seems like Chanhassen is beholden to the Met Council . Batzli : It takes more than a minute . , Bill Miller : What I want to know is why . I mean is Rochester , Minnesota beholden to the Met Council? , Batzli : No . Bill Miller : I mean give me the parameters of why just so I understand , because a lot of what we 're doing is assuming that there 's somebody out there and then I want to know does Chanhassen have someone on the Met Council or do any of us have any say? I Erhart: Bill , the question on the Met Council is one I always enjoy . Every answer 's a little bit different too but Paul , would you handle that one . Krauss: My version of it . Erhart: Or Jim , do you want to tell us? Jim Curry: I just wanted to say something about how that Lake Ann Interceptor sewer came about because I thought I was going to be with even II less hair than I have now by the time the thing got done . I 'm Jim Curry . I 've owned land here since 1968 but anyway , hearings . We had to make a special multi-million dollar loan from First Bank St . Paul I recall to get II the sewer to do Chan Lakes Business Park because that 's how that got done . We couldn 't wait for the Lake Ann Interceptor sewer because it was taking II Planning Commission Meeting II June 6 , 1990 - Page 42 forever . If we hadn't taken the bull by the horns , which then became a part of the interceptor system later on , that wouldn 't have got done . II Hearings? You bet . This was not just out of the back of somebody 's pocket • done . It was done after multitudinous thought. In fact it was years after the Chan Lakes Business Park got going that the Interceptor sewer got done but that was planned . It 's part of the entire plan of the City of I Chanhassen . It 's not just something that came out of the blue and this was during the late 70 's and 80 's . A lot of people here were still in high school or less . Me , I had lots of long black hair . I was quite a good Ilooking devil in those days . Thank you . Erhart: Thank you Jim . Paul , could you address Bill 's question about 11 who 's Met Council briefly . rrauss : State law I believe in the early 70 's was changed to create the Metropolitan Council which has authority to oversee certain functions in I the seven county metro region . The Council itself is appointed . I don 't know who they 're appointed by . The Governor . We do have a representative , Marcy Waritz who 's very active on our behalf . She lives in Chanhassen . I The Metro Council has authority . First of all , you 're mandated to have comprehensive plans . You can 't elect not to . You have to have them . You can 't move MUSA lines without having a comprehensive plan that backs up your relocation of the MUSA line . The Metropolitan Council uses 1 comprehensive plans to ensure that there 's not leap frog development . To ensure that regional facilities that they interact and control with other agencies are built in advance to support development or conversely II withdrawn to prevent development from occurring in areas that are inappropriate . They do have the authority to approve , reject or require changes in your comprehensive plan . They can be very tough to deal with I znd over the years Chanhassen 's relationship with them has not been ideal . Hopefully we 're moving into some better ground with that and can have more productive relationship but they do have a lot of authority . They do interact with MWCC to build the sewer lines . They do interact with MnDot II to build the highways . Highway 5 is not being built to four lanes west of downtown at this point because the Metro Council objected to it . They 've since changed their position and hopefully that last segment can be built IIbut that 's the kind of authority they exercise . Erhart: Again to repeat , I think our relationship with Met Council over the years hasn 't been exactly real warm . It 's like big brother telling II little sister what to do all the time . I think one of the things that we 're trying to do in expanding the MUSA line is to get some more flexibility in what happens to our City instead of always having Met I Council dictate parcel by parcel and street by street what goes on . But on the other hand , anybody is encouraged to contact Marcy , our representative on the Met Council and to get involved . I think we 'd certainly welcome it II in the planning staff and commission so again , I 'd like to hear some more people that has property up in this area and live up in this area . Your comments about the various different plans we 're talking about . Come on up . IIEd Ryan : I figure I should talk . I 'm sort of new at this here . Let me show you where we 're at . I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 43 1 Erhart : And your name? Ed Ryan: Ed Ryan . We 're at 6730 Galpin . Sort of in this slot in here and I think our property abuts your property on the back here . We 've been here not too long . 2 years . About the same number of years as yourself and when Mary and I had bought the property we really looked at it for purposes of relaxation and openness and just good family life . We have a big family . We enjoy the area a great deal . When this interceptor went II in , we didn 't really have much to say about it and it sort of went in you know . I wouldn 't say against our wishes necessarily but it went in and there 's an assessment now per acre on it and it 's going to come down and it 's just a question of when in terms of our view . And when Eric came around with the petition initially Mary and I both felt pretty good about II the petition and we signed it because we felt that the petition would cultivate this openness and growth and control . But we also didn't realize that it would exclude us from the MUSA extension and when Mary and I talked, about it , we felt that we wanted to have the option since the Interceptor is there and the assessment is coming so those are my thoughts . Bob Christensen: Could you explain that little yellow line right to the middle of the white on the MUSA line area on the north side of Lake Lucy? Krauss: Oh , that 's Lake Lucy Highlands subdivision . It 's got a different color because of that pre-1987 designation . It was under that pre-87 crdinance that allowed 2 1/2 acre lots without sewer . B-,± Christensen: I 'm Bob Christensen and I live on the Lake Lucy . This is the yellow part? Krauss: It 's the light yellow? Yeah . Right . That 's Lake Lucy Highlands ] Bch Christensen: Why is that any different? Krauss: Because it was platted . Unlike all the other property that 's in white , it was platted at 2 1/2 acre zoning . We 've shown that designation on the 2 1/2 acre plat and if you had the larger map we 've shown it down with the subdivisions that were platted under the same ordinance over by the bluff line by the Minnesota River as well . It 's just to indicate the fact that it was developed . It was subdivided and there 's going to be text" in the plan that we don 't expect further subdivision . We don't expect to have to serve it . We don 't expect that the utilities , the on site utilities will have problems at any time in the near future . Bob Christensen: Well this little boundary of the new exclusion to the MUSA line extension? Does that mean that nobody in that area , if this is accepted , can get sewer inside of that area? I Krauss: Yes . rhrens: Paul , maybe you could talk about that a little bit more . What , that means to be outside the MUSA line . I I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 44 Krauss: Well again , it boils down to the fact that the only way the City can run local sewer lines to a property is to have it within the MUSA line . ' We just do not have the authority to do it , even if we wanted to . Bob Christensen: But the only problem is , my dream has been to divide low intensity or whatever lots and I didn 't sign that petition and I 've got an exclusion in mine that I want to develop a certain part of it . Now all of a sudden my hopes and dreams are shot if this is gone through . Eric Rivkin : Your lot 's out of there . I drew your lot out of there . Bob Christensen: Yeah but Paul said that they do not want variations and ' jagged lines through there . Eric Pivkin : I also said , I need to clarify what I 've written to you and what the petition really said . There 's a lot of misunderstanding going back and forth here . . . Bob Christensen: Well , I 'm getting railroaded into something that I don 't 11 went. any part of I think . Erhart : It 's clear that you 're not on that petition and your land is identified I believe as not being on that petition . Bob Christensen: But will MUSA allow all these meanderings and ins and outs? ' Erhart.: No . Bob Christensen: Well then I 'm in if this goes through . Or I 'm out . Erhart . That 's what we 've got to decide . We 're looking for people to tell us what their ideas are . That 's why we appreciate . IIBc`=. Christensen: Well I think I 'd better get a petition going . Ellson: You like the first plan versus the second you 're saying? Bob Christensen : I like the first plan . IIErhart : Okay . You want to be in the MUSA line . Bob Christensen: Isn 't there any way , why does it have to be so large? I Can 't the MUSA exclusion be say Lake Lucy Highlands or whatever it is? The people that have already got functional drainfields and their own sewer system . IIErhart : We 're looking at that . There may be some alternatives but at this point tonight we 're just trying to get a feel for what the people in the area want . We 're going to be working on this all summer . Paul? IIKrauss : If I could address that . When we first got into this we looked at the possibility of creating a little donut hole in the MUSA around I I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 45 I/ Timberwood and ultimately after talking to Eric , around Lake Lucy Highlands" realizing that it 's the same . We found out that we couldn 't do that . We found out that you had to do it in some way that was comprehensive and reasonable and made sense . Lacking that, what we did is we designated Lake Lucy Highlands and Timberwood and all the other 2 1/2 acre subdivisions a low lot residential designation and there 's text in the II plan , or there will be text in the plan that is very explicit that these areas are expected to remain that way inside or outside the MUSA . There 's no anticipation that that 's going to change . There 's a concern that that might not go far enough I guess and hence the petition to completely be excluded from the MUSA line and that 's what we 're trying to react to tonight . Eob Christensen: Would a counter petition prove anything? ' Erhart : Sure . Welcome it . You 've got a quick question Eric? Comment? Eric Rivkin: Could I get up and explain some things before I make enemies II out of my neighbors that I don 't really want to make enemies out of? '_' would like to present at least a little past history of what 's gone on here so the people understand why . . . Erhart : Can you do it in 2 minutes? Eric Rivkin : I hope so . Erhart : well it 's getting late . I 'll have to cut you off in 2 minutes . If' yo.l want to explain what your petition is because of lot of this is around the work you 've done . Eric Rivkin: I wrote to the City that I wish there were some way to include you , Mr . Christensen , Mr . Phillips and Mr . Ryan . In writing to the Olt ,/ that there was some way the plan could accommodate their wishes . I tried ed my best to draw the line around the areas that were indicated within II the petition . The people that I canvased , I made clear to them what Paul had told me . What the consequences were of being within the MUSA and without the MUSA line . I couldn 't contact , I was not able to get everybody contacted . I tried several times to get you but I couldn 't . I did contact Mr . Ryan and Mr . Phillips though and I did try to get you to try and explain it to you and I apologize if I didn 't . I also would like to know , if there 's some way in plans to present some solutions here . Could their properties be drawn out of the MUSA now but later when let 's say this agreement with the Metropolitan Council is up in the year 2000 it could be reconsidered to maybe bump them in or is it possible that 10-20 years from , now that it 's 2 1/2 acre with sewer would come back and accommodate them because originally , the original petition , I 'm just going to read you the first sentence . It says we the undersigned petition the City to redesignate the land indicated on the attached map from low density residential , no sewer service to residential large lot zoning which is a 1/2 acre minimum if the MUSA line moves out . So we were assuming that we � , would be within MUSA and what were our options within the MUSA and Paul came back and told me , after the last presentation that we could not have a donut hole . So I tried to draw it as though there weren 't a donut hole the I I Planning Commission Meeting IIJt,ne 6 , 1990 - Page 46 IIbest way I could and I 'm not trying to make enemies out of any of my neighbors here and I apologize if there are any drawn lines that were drawn wrong . I did the best I could with the map that I had but the point is II that the long term development of the majority of the people that wanted to be in this reflect what this map shows . A majority . And there are 3 people that we heard from I knew did not , and I did indicate on the II petition Bob that you wanted out of the sewer . That you want to be in the sewer district , excuse me and that Mr . Phillips did and that Mr . Ryan did . I did indicate that in writing . Okay , I did not leave you , exclude you out Ior read your mind okay? Erhart : Thanks Eric . Don 't feel bad. I did a petition one time too and ended up , found the same thing . It took a lot of years to mend some II neighbor 's feelings . But on the other hand petitions are good and come on up , and they 're important to get people into this place and give the City their ideas so we don 't hear later on well nobody knew anything . So go II ahead sir . Al Iarvey , 1430 Lake Lucy Road: We had a sewer failure this winter so we IIha'.fe petitioned and we are going to get sewer at the cost of $36 ,000 .00 to c.•r property this year . It then , if this extension is not gone beyond our p -Dperty , it makes it a pretty expensive drainfield . We 've been told that could probably , when the extension goes through , then we could develop . II :".-)ere we 're at right now the extension merely takes care of the one 'roperty that we have . We 've lived out here 25 years . We 've enjoyed it . Tt has changed drastically the last couple three years and this is going to II 1-apoen but I would like the possibility of developing before I 'm 75 years of 1 too and so we would like , we have 11 acres up there and I would like to ao on record that being that we 're having it extended to take care of our immediate problem , I would like hopefully within a year or two to have .that IIc:~•tion . So I would go on record in favor of it . Erha-t : Thank you . Someone new with the hat there . ITed Coey : My name is Ted Coey . I 'm on Lake Lucy Road also and there 's a couple things that I don 't know if you guys were involved in this but on I the interceptor that was something , I 've lived on Lake Lucy Road now for 7 years and that was something that there was a lot of discussions , a lot of meetings on that and the people that lived in the area generally did not II want that interceptor . That was put in and we were told it was put in because they needed to connect the region south of us with the region north and that was the whole reason . We did not have a choice and we were told that that wasn 't going to be used per se for that area . It was being used I by the people that were north that were having trouble with an overflow and they had to divert that sewage south . That 's what they sold us . Does anybody remember that? That was the package you sold us . So I moved here I and they told us we wouldn 't have an assessment on that thing until at least the year 2000 . I got that in writing somewhere and I 'm not about to pC'' , I 've got 20 acres on Lake Lucy at the far east and I have no intention of developing . I moved here and bought 30 acres . Sold two 5 acre parcels IIoff to Brian and Joe . I mean I 'm not interested in having another bunch of fc._:ses all around me okay and I think that you guys keep forgetting that there are people who live here and who moved here for specific reasons and II I/ Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 47 you 're letting outsiders come in and do what they want to do and not listen, to the people who have been here . I 've been in Chanhassen for 14 years and I 'm getting tired of people coming up and telling me what they want to do and they 're outsiders . Now the Planning Commission and the people on the City Council should listen to the people who are here . And the last couple elections you 'll notice the City Council is kind of all different . That 's because the people haven 't been real excited about what the other people were doing . I think you should get the message okay and the exact same thing happened on the street . On Lake Lucy Road . We didn't want the I highway through there either . We didn 't have a choice . They forced it on us and I don 't know why you keep bringing up the fact . I don 't know who does it . If it 's the City or if it 's the Planning Commission , keeps coming up with the idea that they have to use the interceptor . It 's being used . II Aren 't I right? Isn 't the thing being used? It isn 't sitting there vacant is it? I mean that 's what you 're trying , that 's what the people here think that it 's not being used at all . It is being used . It 's connecting the north and the south . That 's why it was put in so why do we have to develop, that land just on the idea that we have to use interceptor . It 's being ,st al already . rhart : Good point . Just another clarification again is that just because your land gets put in the MUSA line doesn 't force you to subdivide , develop c- do 8n/thing . I Ted Coey: No , but it makes you pay part of the interceptor fee wouldn 't E hart • No . Paul? Krause : Well , unfortunately Gary left and he couldn 't talk to you anyway II but 3 years ago when the interceptor was put in , all the properties that were in the flowage for the interceptor were , there was a pending assessment placed against all the properties and I think it was $430 .00 an acre and that was placed on them knowing full well that they were outside the MUSA line at that point . That didn 't enter into it but it was reserving the opportunity to use the thing in the future . Now rightly , wrongly that was an action by a City Council 3 years ago and the money was e>pended . Those assessments haven 't been levied yet . In talking to the City Manager , it 's my understanding that they 'll probably attempt to levy them in the next year or two but that goes through some more public II hearings if and when that happens . That 's completely outside the issue of whether or not the MUSA line is moved at this point . This is something that was done 3 years ago . Ted Coey: We were told that we wouldn't have to pay until the year 2000 . That 's what they told us when they put it in . I mean I was there . Erhart : This is a one time assessment of $430 .00 per acre and the issue is , when exactly do you have to pay that . ' rauss: Again , in talking to the City Manager who 's been here for 17 ' ; ears , it was a pending assessment that was going to be levied against the 1 I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 48 1 properties . In fact in his words that he thought it was going to be levied last year . ' Erhart: Whether or not they put in a MUSA line or not doesn 't have a bearing? ' Krauss: Yes . Erhart: Does have a bearing or doesn 't have a bearing? Wildermuth: The Met Council? Who levies? ' Krauss: It 's the City . These are funds that the City expended . E - h:ert.. : Do you see that there 's a connection between putting in the MUSA line and levying that assessment? ' Krauss: In my discussions with the City Manager , no I don 't . I mean that was something that happened long before , before the process was started to r :_ ec et.e the MUSA . Okay . Well I think that 's a good issue and beyond your comments here , talk to your councilmen about that so . Pastor Pike? E.( an Pike: Has there been any studies on what the property values will do that are going to be inside the MUSA line when that happens? Erhart. : Did you say studies? ' Bryen Pike : Do you have any idea what the property values will do once they 're placed inside the MUSA line? Erhart : I believe they 'll go up . Krauss : Go up . IJim Curry: They 'll go up . Absolutely . I had 2 ,000 acres in Eagan and I have a lot here and I can speak from experience . That 's it . They go up . ' Resident: If this MUSA line assessment , is this true of all the proposed MUSA line including south of TH 5? Krauss: No . It isn 't and in fact it does not go down to your neighborhood because you were not in the original flowage for that . Boots Christensen: My name is Boots Christensen . I live on Lake Lucy Road . We moved in 10 years ago and from information from our neighbor we were told that 20 years ago they were told within 10 years they would have sewer . 10 years ago when we moved in they told us within 10 years we will have sewer . So when we did buy and with thoughts of the future and our age ' in consideration there with retirement , we thought of future development with sewer . So of course we wanted to be excluded to a point . We have high -egard for the lake and for good decent subdivision when the time I/ Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 49 comes to suit the land but to also suit our future . Erhart: Okay . Were you on the petition? II Boots Christensen: No . Erhart: And your first name was? Boots Christensen: Ethelyn Christensen . Erhart: Okay . Thank you for your comments . Sir . Mary and Judy Janic: We live at 7021 Galpin . -We back up against Prince 's property there . I 've got an orchard there . Another 6 feet of drainfield II and I coLld have hooked up to the sewer and I don 't want to be excluded from the sewer line and now I am . Erha' : Okay , thank you . , r3ob Christensen: I 'd better get that anti-petition going . Erha-t : Some people on the petition have any comments? That signed the ' petition . Just because you signed the petition doesn 't mean you 're excluded from coming up and telling us what your feelings are . Someone ha.. there , come on up . I Mark Malinowski : I have a question about something other than Lake Lucy . I had talked to the , my name is Mark Malinowski on 7250 Minnewashta Parkway and I had talked to someone at the Chanhassen City Hall yesterday and I asked them if there was any properties that were targeted for parks in the area and I was basically told no there weren't . Prior to buying my property and let me point it out here . This is the property right through II here . Prior to buying that I talked to Jo Ann Olsen and you know basically asLel if I was able to build on that property should I choose to and the comment was , well if you want to find that out you need to buy the property which I did . I guess my question is , what does that mean? That green . Is it a zoning? Krauss: I guess I 'd like Mark to explain . Mark 's most familiar with the II recreation element . Koegler : The recreation section of the plan speaks for the need for additional park facilities in that part of town . As you 're well aware , I don 't know if you live in that area right now or if you just plan to build . . There have been petition drives by the neighbors for residents in park facilities . The area around Lake St . Joe has long been targeted as a possible area for either just passive open space or just under private ownership or potentially as a city park . When that line was drawn and that lire was drawn some time ago , I think it predated by a long shot the purchase of your particular site . The line was generally drawn because the soil conditions are fairly moist in a lot of that area apparently not right" where you are . All I can tell you is that we 'd be glad to take a look at with you and if your property is a residential property and buildable , there 's no reason it needs to be designated green. II II Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 50 II Mark Malinowski : Yes . I would like , I think we need to do that because I II feel I 've been misinformed as of 2 days ago basically when I was to be in Chicago really tonight but I thought it 'd be in my best interest to attend this meeting . Obviously you can see why I might have a concern . 1 Koegler : As I referenced with my comments on the green space surrounding Lake Ann , that 's somewhat a similar situation . It 's representative right now on the plan of a desire to have park and open space in that facility . 1 It 's not meant to imply necessarily that your property would be taken for that purpose so maybe you can provide me with some information on the boundaries or we can get together and talk about that and we ' ll look at a Ichange on that . Erhart: Okay , other than Eric for the no development scenario , we haven 't had a lot of speakers on that and I think we as a group here , if I can IIspeak for them , would like to hear some more comments on that . Ws) ne Poppe : Just a real quick comment . My name is Wayne Poppe . I live at ' 9E Crestview Circle which for reference purposes here , I 'll just give you an idea of where we 're at . I guess I don 't know where this ends specifically . I am seemingly above that . I guess the problem I have with II this and just looking at it . I don 't know much about the Met Council but I ' ve got a hard time believing that they 're going to look at this hole in the middle of a MUSA and think this one 's going to . . . I recall some of the co,- .iersations they had about this coming through and basically what we were II told then is that it 's outside the MUSA which is why we couldn 't be hooked up to it . So now it looks to me like you 're trying to include it in the MUSA until we get this . that 's really all coming to a head . It seems , it IIlocks like a donut to me . Erhart : Okay , thank you . Joe , did you have something? I ':it, Vorin: My name is Joe Morin . I live next to Ted Coey up here on Lake Lucy Road and I guess my feelings are that this area here can accommodate people who want to be in the MUSA line . Who bought in that area for the I purpose of development . I didn 't buy for the purpose of development . I bought in this area to live here . Listen to the loons and enjoy nature and raise a family . I don 't want my property values to go up . Okay . I I don 't want to be taxed at a higher rate and I don 't want to have to pay special assessments for services I 'll never use . That 's all I have to say . Erhart : Thanks Joe . ITed Coey: I feel the same way . I live next to Joe . . . but I definitely , I have 20 acres there . I positively do not want sewer and water . IIErhart : And your name is? 11 Ted Coe> : Ted Coey . Nancy Tichy: I 'm Nancy Tichy and I live next to Joe and Ted and Brian and I did sign the petition and 1 guess we feel the same way that Ted and Joe II I Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 51 II IIfeel about this . We moved out in this area . We 've lived here for 6 years and we have 6 acres . We bought the property with no intentions in subdividing and to develop and again , we don't want to be assessed for the II potential of having sewer . We like it the way it is and that 's why we bought the property . Erhart: Thank you . Jim . I Jim Curry: I just want to add one thing . I watched this Met Council ever since it was founded . I 've been at this a while . The very purpose of the II Met Council , the number one purpose I believe , besides overall planning , was to prevent these donut holes we 're talking about . You can 't do that and do what the Met Council is supposed to do namely to make an efficient , II steady , gradual movement of the sewer availability . As soon as you start breaking it up , you 're defeating the very purpose of the Council . He can 't Quite say that because he 's City and he 's not supposed to know about that hut a can say that . You guys up there on the Planning Commission and II Council level , you have to decide to go all or go none . I mean go as far as you go but go solid . That in general the only way I understand that they function . I 've watched this in other cities and it would be nice I supposed if they could but that gets away from the very purpose that it 's II set up to do . The purpose is overall planning . It 's unfortunately not to accommodate each individual as an individual . All of us have to live with this sort of thing at times in life . Police protection . Fire protection . rcc- instance all this sort of thing . The purpose of it is to make the seeing of America efficient , at least in the 7 county area . . .this is co,ntrar; to public policy . I really believe that strongly . I feel for the people I really do but the fact is they 're not going to approve it . Erhart: Thanks Jim . Other comments? I Resident : I 'd like to ask Mr . Krauss if he knows of any donuts in any other city or township? II Krauss: No . I have never seen one . I guess I 've been fortunate in the 15 years , I 've always worked within communities that were entirely within the MUSA so the issue didn 't come up and I 'm familiar with most of the other II planners in the Twin Cities . No . The line usually moves in a uniform manner up to a street or a railroad that makes some kind of sense . Resident: So this would be precedence . I Krauss: It 'd probably be different . I mean you look at the MUSA line as ' it winds up over the years and it does clink around all over the place because you have failing sewers here or something that you need to bring in on an emergency basis . You look at it on a regional map and it does look like it 's not the straightest thing but when you look at it on a community I basis , community by community, it is a relatively straight and uniform line . Sob Christensen: I 'd just like to comment . Progress marches on and it I seems like these people want no part of the surrounding development . They 're really living in a , I don 't know, a fairy land because you 've got I Planning Commission Meeting ilJune 6 , 1990 - Page 52 IIto develop and people are moving in and if you want to be alone by yourself , go to Montana but I think this will be developed very nicely at 2 P1 /2 acre lots but let them have their sewer and let it develop . Eric Rivkin : That 's what I said originally Sob . That 's what the original petition . Let 's have 2 1/2 acre lots . Let 's have sewer and the Planning II Department came back and said you can 't have this . This is the original map that I received from the Planning Department . It 's obsolete now but this is the donut hole that the Met Council doesn 't allow . If I understand I the definition of a donut hole , you 've got to have a complete surround of a serviced area with a non-serviced area in the middle of it . What I tried to do here is propose something that isn 't a hole . This isn 't a donut hole . There 's a lot of jigs and jags even in the other proposals and even II the original one way back and I don 't think that it really meets the definition of a donut hole and I do think that that is very acceptable to the Met Council as a concept . I think the petitioners would , a majority of IIt � petitioners within that . . .would agree with that . E,-Lcart : I think one thing that we did specifically change , and Eric I correct me if I 'm wrong Paul was that we basically , are putting into the wording of the ordinance that if you 're on a septic system , even though you 're in this MUSA line , that specifically are not going to require you to hook up at any time unless there 's a total failure and we 're writing that IIin so that 's correct right? Krauss: That 's the way the ordinance reads right now . That you don 't have Ito hook in unless it fails or unless it 's within 150 feet of your house or unless you want to subdivide basically . IINar:c, Tich\• : But are you assessed for the potential? If you 're within the "USA line and you have , okay we have 6 acres , would we be assessed for like if it were quarter acre assessments , that we could develop or something like that? IKrauss : Okay , there 's two kinds of assessments here and that 's where it gets kind of confusing . There 's a trunk charge and that trunk charge is II what the City Council levied as a pending assessment 3 years ago . The trunk charge is the cost or a share of the cost to get that Metropolitan interceptor in the ground . That doesn 't allow us to use it and it doesn 't I pay for anything to hook up . If you developed your property , you would pay lateral costs , well Eric 's aware of this because Eric has been through this before when he split his property in Minnetonka but when you develop your property you bring sewer , water , streets in up to the property and into P each lot and that 's just something that you has a developer in that case would pay for and those costs are distributed against each lot . The trunk charge is something again that was done 3 years ago but no , you would not II have any , well you would not have any particular assessments against your property unless you develop . Now there is a chance and I can 't tell you that you would never be involved in an assessment hearing because , a City Council would review . Well let 's give an example . If you were down the II at -eet and somebody passed you on the street wanted to develop and the sewer was on the other side . It would be brought in front of your property to serve that property . In Chanhassen development is asked to pay it 's own II I/ Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 53 way but the developer may come back to the City and say I want you to do that as a public project . The City Council would then hold public hearings for whoever would benefit by it because they potentially would be assessed II by it . Theoretically the City Council could determine that you should be assessed because you have benefit that in the future you could hook up to this local line . Realistically City Councils find it extremely difficult to place assessments against individuals who aren't going to be developing and then reaping any benefits . Typically what they like to do is throw it back at the developer and say either you pay for it or it 's not going to happen . Or they figure out some way to abate the assessments until such time that you do decide to split up your property and then it 's assessed . I couldn 't tell you it would never happen but that 's typically the way it does happen . Eric Rivkin: What about county assessments? The eventual hook up? Krauss: That 's not an assessment . That 's taxes . Eric Rivkin: That 's special assessments . I know from past history and I 'd like to address this in Chanhassen by itself . I 've observed in many towns II in this area that if you have the potential , if you run a sewer line across your property and you 're not using it yet , you may be assessed . The value of your property would be increased because the potential for development , II even though you may have no intention of developing and that 's kind of , is that true here? Erhart : Excuse me Paul . Can everybody hear Paul okay back there? I Krauss: I guess it is fundamentally Eric what you 're saying is true with that trunk assessment . The City Council went through a lot of meetings and discussions on it before putting in the interceptor and decided that that sho•_.!ld be put in . The cost should be levied back against the benefitting properties who in the future , at some point in the future would have the right to access that interceptor . That 's the only time where it 's kind of " pending in the future . Lateral assessments don 't work that way . Lateral assessments say you have to have some immediate benefit and unless you 're using it , you typically don 't . ' Eric Rivkin: But if you 're running it just for the public benefit . . . that developer 's got to pay anyway . Isn 't it true that they have to hook up II within a certain period of time and now they 're assessed even though they didn 't want it . Krauss: If a sewer is run through somebody 's property , it 's within 150 feet of your house is the way the ordinance reads , you have a certain period of time to hook up and then you are assessed for it . But again , what you 're doing , you know the City Council is confronted with a bunch of II angry people who don 't want to pay that . They say they don 't need it now . Their on site sewer system is perfectly fine . Again , it 's a political process . It 's very tough for a City Council to force people to pay assessments when they 're not going to get an immediate benefit by it . I don 't say it doesn 't ever happen but it 's very tough . I II II Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 54 IITed Coey: That 's what happened with the trunk . That 's what happened with this whole trunk . We were all mad as hell they were putting the thing in 1 and we didn 't want it but they were just going to . . .and they promised us that we wouldn 't have to pay until the year 2000 at least and now you 're saying they 're thinking about assessing it next year . What kind of basis do you guys give us for believing anything you say? IIKrauss: You know I guess it 's tough for me to respond to something when I wasn 't there but the information I get . . . IITed Coey: . . .get away saying that . We were there . We 're stuck with the potential assessment and that 's not fair for the people who have been Ihere . . . . 's-auss: If you 'd like that issue to be addressed , I think first of all it 's an issue for the City Council to address . Secondly , we can get the ICit> Manager to respond directly to it . Erhart : I 'd suggest again getting into assessments is not specifically II what we 're dealing with here but I would suggest given that that is an integral with what we 're doing here , that you start out by writing a letter to the Mayor and City Manager . If you basically feel that something was told to you . Get it in here in writing and follow up with the City IICc ,r,cil . 1 believe the City Council directly addresses assessment issues . Krauss: Oh yes . ITed Coey : Well it sounds to me like if they 're putting the MUSH line farther west , that that 's when they would try to . . .charging us . Now he 's IIsaying that 's not the , the issues aren 't connected but it sure sounds awful suspicious that it 's kind of coming at the same time we 're talking about this and before it was something they said this isn 't going to happen L==-cause you guys aren 't going to get sewer here until at least the year I 2000 and that 's the problem we 're having is that when you move out here , they say one thing . They told me at least the year 2000 and now we 're talking 1990 . It 's kind of like how do you believe anybody . IIErhart: I think in defense . The City at that time I don 't think anybody expected development that we 've seen here in the last 3 or 4 years either . IITed Coey: But that 's why we moved here . I don 't want it to develop . Erhart: Yeah , I understand that but then things change and that 's why I IIsay , nothing gets poured in concrete in government . Ted Coey: I realize that . IErhart : So I think one of the things that staff is so careful about trying to tell people you know what they can do and what they can expect and IIsometimes we go overboard not trying to tell or not trying to give people ideas about what to expect . It 's a tough position to be in . II y ! Planning Commission Meeting June 6 , 1990 - Page 55 Brett Davidson: . . .I have 13 acres just south of Prince's property there . II talked to my neighbors across the street , Stockdales , they have about 15 or 20 and also Songs have about 20 or 30 just to the , 180? West and we all feel like we all moved out there for the open spaces and we moved out therell because we like the natural landscape and all but we also understand that progress is going to happen and we 've all three talked about it and we all know that there 's disadvantages with the MUSA line moving out . We also think there 's advantages and we think the advantages far outweigh so our point is, if you do do something like this donut hole , please don 't extend it any further south or any further west because we like being in the MUSA II line so that 's about 140 or 150 acres there . My border line is the red MUSA . That 's why I say , if they do something as absurb as a donut hole , don 't bring it any further south . ' Erhart : Ed , have you got something? Ed Hasek: Yeah , just quickly . My name is Ed Hasek . I live at 6570 Kirkwood _ I live on the west side of Minnewashta . For all practical purposes considered Victoria in this city . Just in thinking , people at one point in time moved from Minneapolis to Lake Calhoun and Lake of the Isles to live on an estate . At one point in time people moved from Lake Calhoun to Hopkins to live on an estate . People are now moving out of Minnetonka to Carver to all kinds of places to live on an estate . Chanhassen is in the way' of development . It 's going to happen and to think that your estate, is going to be there forever is absurb . It 's absurb to think that it 's going to stay that way . It seems to me that if you want to live on 10 , 20 , 30, 40 acres of land and be on an estate , that it 's maybe time to think about moving to the next area which isn 't in the way of development . Thank you . Erhart : Thanks Ed . Joe? 1 Joe Morin: Yeah , I moved to this area , Chanhassen primarily because I didn 't think Eden Prairie was really sensitive to the needs of the landowners in the way they developed . Okay? And that 's all we 're asking . We 're not asking for hundreds of acres in estates . We 're just asking that our needs and concerns are being heard . Erhart : Eric , you had something else? Eric Rivkin: Yeah . . .because of development like this . You have land with II huge assessment $30 ,000 .00-$40 ,000 .00 for a 20 acre parcel and you 're out of here . Some people . . .$5 ,000 .00 assessment . That 's unfair . They 've been in here 7 , 10 , 20 years . Why is that fair and why don 't we have a right to live the way we want to live? As long as we 're here and all we 're asking for are some guarantees . When I originated this petition I didn 't say we wanted to be out of the MUSA . All I said was we 'd like some guarantees that we would like some stability that we 're not going to be guaranteed that we won 't be assessed for things that we don 't use . That we 're going to be guaranteed that we 're not going . . .because of a huge property value increase because of a potential for development . Those things happen when you 're included in the MUSA boundary and everybody knew that and that 's why they signed the petition because it was . . .reaction , emotion about that . I Planning Commission Meeting ."une 6 , 1990 - Page 56 It 's not why are you living there . That 's what . . .and it 's just a reflection of that . I 'll be the first one to go along with the majority that says we all want to develop our land and Lake Lucy Highlands or ' whatever . . . That 's fine if that 's what the majority wants but I found in that area the majority didn't want that . Ted Coey: What scares me the worse is I think is the potential of getting really racked up as far as the assessments and the best . . . When you put Lake Lucy Road in , they kind of whipped it in and they made a few changes ' and went through , I can 't remember the guy 's name but he lived right on the corner of Lake Lucy Road and CR 117 and he got assessed $27 ,000 .00 for the priviledge of having this road go by his property which he doesn 't even exit on and those are the kinds of things that the City does to you that ' force you right off your land and that 's what scares us . And that is a =carp=y thing and the guy was almost crying when he left . I mean he was stuck with $27 ,000 .00 in assessments and he wasn 't going to be able to ' utilize it . E-ic Rivkin: He fought it in court and the City lost . They couldn 't levy ' the assessment . Ted Coey: But those things scare us . Erhart : I know . I was at that Council meeting . Well I think we had some excellent input from the multitude of opinions and sides on the issue . I t` : nk it 's late and I think I 'd like to close at this point and really ' thank everybody for the time they spent coming in and getting up and talking and we 're going to have more meetings throughout the summer . Keep w wc'hing in the newspaper . The Villager I believe is our . ' Vrau^s: We 're doing it in both . Erhart: Both so keep watching for notices . In 2 weeks it will be south of TH S . So thank you . Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss ' Director of Planning Prepared by Mann Opheim • 11 I