Loading...
PC 1993 02 03CHANHA$$EN PLANNING CO)ISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 1993 A joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the Park and Recreation Commission was held prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Nancy Mancino MEMBERS ABSENT= Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT= Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION O~ 36 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 33 S[H~[ F~MILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTy ZONED RSF. RESIDENTI~L SINGLE FAMILY ~ LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MINNEWRSHTA PARKWAY, NORTH OF HIC~HWAY 5 ~ SOUTH OF LAKE ST. JOE, 80LEY PROPERTy, LUNDGREN BROT~ERS CO~T~CTION. Public Present: Name Terry Forbord Rick Sathre Terry & Lisa Rixe Joane Burau A~ess Lundgren Bros Construction Sathre-Berquist, 150 So. Broadway, Wayzata 7456 Minnewashta Parkway, Victoria 7225 - 78th Street, Victoria Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: I thought I read in here at some point or another, and I don't believe you mentioned something about annexing certain. Aanenson: It's their desire to annex the rest of Mr. Boley's property into the city because it can be serviced and. Batzli: Who's they? Aanenson: Lundgren Bros. 8atzli: Yeah, but we do the annexing, do we not? Aanenson: Yes . Batzii: It's their desire that we annex. What do we think about it? Aanenson: Well we've asked them to look at the whole super area and we've asked Victoria the same question. Can they get access to the road. There's a significant amount of wetland in this whole area. You're looking at Lake Tamarack. There's a significant wetlands around that whole area. We're wondering how they intend to get roads down in there to Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 2 get access to the property. That's what we've asked them to arrive. Can they get access to it. If they can, maybe they can serve it. If they can't, maybe it makes more sense topographically to belong to the City of Chanhassen. Krauss: Ail we can tell you is what the staff's position is right now because the Council hasn't had a chance to develop one. Ne've worked on this property with Lundgren Company for 6 months and we've had some conversations with Victoria as well. We're talking about a piece of land that's inaccessible to Victoria. That functionally is a part of Chanhassen. They'll use Chanhassen parks. They'll use Chanhassen roads. Our fire department is closer. We get better use of it. There really is no connection to Victoria in a real sense. At a staff level we said the only way we're going to serve that area outside of the subdivision is if it's part of Chanhassen. Batzli: You're talking about the park to the south? Krauss: The park to the south and the park to the, the park to the west is really nominal. Batzli: An extra 40 feet or whatever. Aanenson: 90 feet x 1000. Batzli: So our position is we want to annex it and it's an issue of whether Victoria feels they can service it? Krauss: Well, there's a pretty tough legal issue involved. You have two willing parties and possibly one unwilling one. And you also have, there's a couple of exceptions. Some of the existing homes that are technically in Victoria. I mean if you're going to do an annexation it should be a clean line straight up and down so there's a lot of things that would have to fail'into place but we've got lawyers working on that. What they've told us is it usually takes a... Batzli: Willing party, meaning Victoria willing? Krauss: Yeah. Apparently what...is relunctant to do contested annexations. But we're still working out some opportunities. Batzli: Were we just wimps when Chaska was taking stuff from us or what? Krauss: Well that's a question I keep raising. But that was, well. Batzli: That was then, this is now? Krauss: Well it took place before my tenure here but that was more in the nature of swaps. That's when Chanhassen'picked up Gedney Pickle. Mancino: Paul, what does Victoria get in annexing to us? What...benefit? Aanenson: That's exactly what their question to us i-s. Planning Commission Meetin~ February 3, 1993 - Page Krauss: Victoria has no functional way of serving this property. It mould be very expensive for them to serve it. Batzli: I thought that was enough under the old rules. If they can't serve it and we can. Krauss: I thought so too but apparently that's not the case. Batzli: Okay. Harberts: I just have a question with regards to the annexing of that area. Is that aTea currently in the MUSA line? Krauss: Well that's kind of curious. In Victoria it is not. Harberts: Well yeah, but would the MUSA line move out? Batzli: We would have to amend it. Krauss: We would have to make it all coincide. Harberts: Is that a Met Council decision? Paul Krauss' answer was not audible. Harberts: Would the taxing district, the tTansit taxing distTict also be pushed out too? KTauss: I hadn't thought of that. HarbeTts: I did. Well, isn't that paTt of the same question then? KTauss: Well yeah. The taxing juTisdictions would align. In fact me're looking at ways of working that out with VictoTia nom. HaTbeTts: So that's the conceTn ! suppose from VictoTia. KTauss: Well VictoTia's cleaTly, I mean they'Te losing potential tax revenue. TheTe's very little Teal tax Tevenue theTe right now. HaTberts: What's the cost to the city of Chanhassen to annex it? Is it in out benefit to do it? Krauss: We've already got the utilities in the stTeets in place. HaTberts: $o it'd be a minimal charge compared bo what Victoria would... Aanenson: ...where the service is now, all the may east. We'Te right theTe. HaTbeTts: ATe they foTced to seTvice it? If they're the unwilling patty, ate they foTced to service it? Planning Commission Nesting February 3, 1993 - Page 4 Krauss: Well no community's ever forced to anything. I mean they can be petitioned to bring utilities in and to relocate the MUSA line. But this is the last party in a very long chain of properties that would have to come first. Harberts: I'm just surprised that they're unwilling. Something's driving them. Krauss: Yeah, I mean it's the Carver County... Batzli: Don't want to give up something for nothing. Okay, thank you for that report. This is a public hearing. Normally, for those of you who have not attended a Planning Commission meeting before, we normally allow the applicant to make a presentation. Then we'll open it up fo~ public comment. When we do so, I ask that you come up to the microphone and give your name and address for the record. I also should mention that what we do here is make recommendations to the Council so it's important for you to follow your issue on up to the City Council level. Having said that, do you want to give a presentation for Lundgren Brothers? Rick Sathre: Hr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Rick Sathre. I'm with Sathre-Berquist in Wayzata. We're the planners and engineers on the project. Also here tonight is Mr. Terry Forbord with Lundgren Brothers. Vice President of Lundgren Brothers and he's going to let me do most of the work and he's going to relax. Just sit there and worry, right Terry? I'd like to go back and help you with a few issues on the map. Staff's written a very concise report and I don't think I have to go through all that but I'd like to overview a few things for you and stop me if you already know all this and don't need it. I'll speak louder because I'm going to come ove~ here. Can I use the preliminary plat drawing? The big one that shows everything. The one that you did. I'll turn it so north is up. First of all I want you to fully understand what the situation is with where the boundary lines of the site are and whether the municipal boundaries are. The property lines of the Boley property go like this. I'm drawing down in Victoria now but I'll show you where the boundary line is. The property line comes up over here. ~'m making a big mess here but. Now I'm going to dash in another line here which is the municipal boundary. This portion of the land r'ight here is Chanhassen. The land, this little strip of land along the west side of the property is Victoria and so is this land down to the south. This is Highway $ and this is Minnewashta Parkway. Minnewashta Parkway used to line the city of Victoria but through friendly annexation was'brought into Chanhassen. There are exemption properties here that front on Minnewashta Parkway owned by others other than Lundgren Bros and Boley that are in Victoria as well. This parcel is the Chanhassen parcel. The other ones to the south are Victoria. What we're before you at present for is seeking preliminary plat approval for this northern portion. That land is already zoned RSF. It's been ready, ripe for development for many years. It's only been the fact that the Boley's weren't ready to sell that kept it out of the marketplace. Certainly there are many issues yet to be resolved with the southerly piece. The annexation issue is very separate from the platting action that we're really pursuing at this moment. At this point in time what we're doing with this strip of land that's in Victoria but is in the back of the lots that are with old homes in Chanhassen, is what we're Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page $ really proposing to them and to you is that we would cut it up. Cut that strip of land up into backyard spaces and it would just become a passive part of that lot. What we set out to do, I don't know, what should I use. Maybe I'll go to, what we've set out to do is create a neighborhood that's very nice. We didn't want to do small lots on this site because of the wonderful views. Terry just put up the colored version of the same drawing. On that big board the blue area is the open water and the light, the yellowish or light green color is the lake basin that's actually in the DNR's jurisdiction. The darker green on that map is wetland that's under city jurisdiction but not under DNR jurisdiction. Then you see the upland area that's got the houses on it. The little blue splotches on there are the NURP ponds or the, we should probably .have a quiz. What does NURP stand for? Aanenson: National Urban Runoff Program. Rick eathre: Good job. I used to call them Walker ponds the last time we came through with a project because it didn't sound so much like burp. Anyway, we're showing, because the property lies at the peak of a hill, water runs every different direction. We can't efficiently collect the water and put it in one pond so we've shown four and the idea is to catch all of the street runoff in the storm sewer system and discharge it to one of those four ponds before it gets-to the wetland system..Either the lake or the southwest corner of the piece. In the design of the project we set out to create the 40,000 square foot lots for all the riparian lots. All lakeshore lots and we set up all 20,000 square foot lots for the non-lakeshore lots. The City's ReF zoning district requires 90 foot wide lots whereas the shoreline district requires-125 foot wide lots. We're asking for variances for the lots that aren't tributary to the lake directly anymore. Once the subdivision is created and we have street systems and NURP ponds and the roads there, we can accomplish the goals I think that the shoreland district was set out to accomplish. That being more green space, less degregation of the resource by using the NURP pond approach. So we're showing lots, you've got a table in your report that actually lists all the lot widths. We downsized the lots to less than the shoreland district's standards where the water from those lots would be treated by a NURP pond. $o then staff is recommending approval of the variances for those lot widths. What we intend here is to seek approval or achieve approvals from Chanhassen and Victoria as well for this platting and proceed with a final plat request and development in 1999. As rapidly as we can. I guess one other point that I'd make. This ghost plat that we have in the Victoria portion of the property. The southerly portion. You'll see on this drawing the cul-de-sac and lots fanning out which have to be served by coming through Victoria and we think it's better to. We're leaving an outlot in this initial platting which would later be subdivided once streets can be brought from the.south side of the hill. It's a wonderful wooded knoll and those lots would remain heavily wooded, even after development. $o we've chosen to set aside this hilltop for now so that we can do the best job later. A better job later with the subdivision. I think that pretty well covers it. Appreciate your time and I'll answer any questions. Batzli: I'm sure we'll have some once we start going from Commissioner to Commissioner. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there any public Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 6 comment or someone who would like to address the Commission? After you give us your name and address, step up to the microphone if there is. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing; Batzli: Before we ask Nancy to lead off here. has there been any neighborhood meetings? Okay. $o a lot of these issues have been talked about with the neighbors already? Terry Forbord: On the 27th I held a neighborhood meeting here in the Council chambers. Batzli: Okay. And do you have something that I don't know that you really covered. Do you have any problems with any of the conditions in the staff report? Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Brothers. We've gone through the conditions with the staff today and there were a few outstanding issues that, where there was a little confusion such as what is the flood plain elevation and there's no 3 governmental agencies that-say it's different and so the way we choose to leave that is we'll just work with the staff and whatever those agencies all concur that it is, is what it will be. And the remainder of the items we worked through prior to this meeting. Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Nancy, do you want to start out? Mancino: Mr. Forbord, I've got a question for you. If you were to describe this subdivision once it's all done in a few words', how would you describe it? 3ust for example, I'm thinking of your, I go by your is it Willow Ridge subdivision? And you have a positioning line under the words Willow Ridge. It says, unique environemtnally sensitive neighborhood. And that has caught my eye every time I've gone by it and one of the ways it caught my eye was saying to myself, is this kind of a positioning line for this company in the differentiation from the other neighborhood... subdivisions. How would you describe this new subdivision if you were tb give me three words that you would like to say? Would you use those three? Would you use other ones? Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros. Willow Ridge, if you've followed that project. I'm not sure if you did, but for the City of Chanhassen and certainly I think it's fair to say for the development community as a whole. Not Just Lund0ren Bfog, although I think it's fair to say that we've always been environmentally conscience. But the world's changed a lot in just the last few years. What was acceptable as little as 2-3 years ago is not acceptable anymore and we've all learned a little bit. And the idea, I guess we're paying for the sins of the past a little bit but the idea is that we try to get better at what we do and not stay the same. Now for those of who have worked in the city for a long time, Chanhassen is certainly acknowledged to be kind of a forerunner in it's pursuit in the environmentally sensitive legislation or ordinances to protect the many complexes of wetlands and water bodies that they have Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 7 within this city. And we've always applauded that and we think that's what makes Chanhassen kind of a nice place to live. Willow Ridge kind of happened to fall into the process, the governmental process right at a point in time when Chanhassen was kind of rethinking how they went about some of those things, and it was a very difficult piece of property because it was a land assembly involving two parcels. And because of a wetland that was there and a couple other complexes and other situations, how do you work around it. And then how do you create this preservation zone. The biggest issue was, how do you create a zone around a sensitive environmental, physical sensitive environment that in perpetuity it won't be hopefully.., regardless of what conditions you impose on the developer. Once the homeowner moved in, the homeowner could do whatever they wanted. to do, and that still occurs. Well staff, in collusion with staff we developed a methodology where we think we've accomplished it. Only time will tell but that was to create preservation zones and deed restrictions that actually is on the deed of every home. The title of every home that people buy as well as covenants that are part of, that emcumber the property as well. And there's also an informational packet in every purchase agreement that the people buy. If they buy a home in there so there's all this stuff. $o I'm not trying to pontificate here but the point I'm trying to make is, that's why we chose those words. Is because it was really something that probably hadn't been done before so we tried,. we thought it was unique and we thought it was environmentally sensitive. What 3 words would we use on the Boley property? It's an entirely different set of circumstances. We would like tO think that it will be equally as environmentally sensitive as Willow Ridge and we will have the same type of deed restrictions and we will work through city staff to have these preservation areas because we don't want people going down and cutting down the cattails and riprapping the shoreline of Lake St. 3oe. We don't want that either so forgive me for not having 3 words to come up with but the intent is pretty much the same. Rick $athre: I've got 3 words. Dramatic long views. Terry Forbord: It does have exceptional views. I think it's even pointed out in the staff report that Minnewashta, Lake Minnewashta and I think even portions of the Minnetonka area can be seen from the property. Mancino: Thank you. What is the name of the proposed subdivision? Rick Sathre: There hasn't been a marketing name chosen. Lundgren Bros typically doesn't, they don't spend the considerable time necessary to pick the name, the right name until farther through the design process when the exact market of housing is determined and the exact features to go into the neighborhood are decided. For instance the Willow Ridge name came very late in that planning process. That was Ortenblat/Ersbo forever and that's pretty typical but I would assure that this wouldn't be platted as the Boley Addition either. Or at least I don't think it will be. Mancino: Do you choose the name before the final plat approval? Rick $athre: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Also, do you choose the name of the public streets? Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 8 Rick Sathre: Yes. Mancino: At that time? Rick Sathre: Yes. Mancino: Is there any proposal for street lighting? Are you-going to have lighting inside, interior in the loop?. In the cul-de-sac area? Hempel: Mr. Chair, maybe I can answer that one a little bit better. The City does require city street lights be installed. Locations to be determined between staff and the developer. Typically they're placed at intersections, dead ends, the cul-de-sacs and usually spaced 400 to 600 feet apart. The street lights are required. The developer's required to escrow a fee of $200.00 per street light for electricity it costs for the first 2 years. After that the street lights are put on the city's monthly bill for electricity and maintenance. $o every residential and commercial development does have street lights put in with it. Mancino: Okay, and then the design'is'approved by? Hempel: The street light design of the lighting standard or the location, or both? Mancino: Both. Hempel: Okay. We're somewhat limited on the design type. We purchase the, or I should say we actually lease the street lights from NSP. They have I think 3 or 4 diffeLent designs that are utilized. Typically we use the colonial style that you'll see pretty much around town in newer subdivisions. Location again, that's normally determined by staff and the developer. Mancino: Any proposal for sidewalks? Rick $athre: No. No. We typically don't advocate them. It's been our experience in the. Aanenson: I was just going to say. There-is a new trail going on Minnewashta Parkway. Mancino: To the east. On the east side of the road. Yeah. Rick $athre: We would install sidewalks where there was a problem with conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. If a street was heavily traveled, there was a safety issue but typically we don't advocate sidewalks on local neighborhood streets. Because of personal opinion. We don't think that sidewalks necessarily are typical of suburbia, at least in our view. Mancino: Another question that I have, and I guess that this is more for Kate. One of the things that I was thinking about is, you get all these homes and families and kids and they're all going to want to go down to the lake. How do they get down to the lake? Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 9 Aanenson: There is an access. A DNR access off of Minnewashta Parkway. Mancino: But aren't they going to cut through everybody's backyards and aren't we going to destroy some of t~e wetland that are surrounding the lake? Aanenson: Well, they are private yards you know. Mancino: Okay. Does any development that has the wetlands around the lake like that, do they ever have one path that everybody takes? There's a common area? Whatever it's called so'that families don't use all different trails. Aanenson: The Parks Board did look at that issue because that was discussed and they felt that there is an access that is provided right now and they thought that was a more desireable than to impose that upon the lots adjoining. So their desire is for people to go onto Minnewashta Parkway and use that access. They did discuss that and they felt that' access to the subdivision wasn't appropriate. Mancino: And how's that communicated to the families in the subdivision? Aanenson: In the covenants, as Terry mentioned, earlier. We'll mark the landscaping vegetation and when they get their covenants, that they're not to go in there and mow that and it's supposed to be left natural state of vegetation. Not to be disturbed, yeah. And no structures. Krauss: The odd person working in there isn't going to hurt anything. There's unlikely to be a real beaten down path. It is all private property. It doesn't go anywhere. I mean there's no place to go once you're down there. Aanenson: You mean if you wanted to walk a dog or something or go down in there? Mancino: Well you know how kids are. They want to go down... Aanenson: Sure, I don't see that as, yeah. Mancino: There was also a dock down there when I walked the property. There is an existing dock by the hockey or the ice skating rink that was made so does that come out? Are property owners allowed to put docks down into the lake? Aanenson: I believe that's Mr. Boley's right now, if I'm correct. Well we recommended as part of the staff report that Mr. Boley's house would have to be...platted and we can add that to the condition. That the dock come out. Rick Sathre: We're not proposing any community dock structure for all the residents but each of the homeowners that own the lot that adjoined the lake would have the rights of typical lake owners. Although this lake isn't a prime recreational lake. It's really a, it's something beautiful Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 10 to look at more than it is to use. But there would be some, I'm sure there would be differences in how people would enjoy the lake. Some would want to go down there and canoe and others would never probably canoe. Or go in the lake and fish.. But you are right I'm sure about the kids. They would tend to, some of the kids would run around out in the wetland and they don't see property lines like adults do. But I'd hope they'd be typically good children. Mancino: Typically good. Aanenson: Above average . Mancino: Yes. Street width. You have proposed a 60 foot wide right-of- way with a 31 foot wide street pavement. Now this is an urban residential local street correct? Is that the right specification? Hempel: That's correct. Mancino: So that you are required to do a 60 foot wide right-of~way and your pavement width can be between 28 and 32 feet. And my question was, wanting to keep as much green space as possible, why did you go for the foot instead of 28 foot? Rick Sathre: I think it'd be safe'to say that we would choose to install the narrowest street that the engineering department would be comfortable with. So we're guessing what the standard would be but we don't want to overbuild the road as far as width. Hempel: Mr. Chairman. The 31 foot back to back street width is a standard, street standard for urban section that we use. We've typically maintained that width unless we are preserving trees. We, in the cases have narrowed it down to 28 but generally speaking we've maintained a 31 foot wide back to back curb street. Mancino: I'd love to see a 28, if that meets the guidelines, and supposedly, from what I 'ye read it does. Hempel: It may come down to a parking issue. Some of the city streets if we continue to narrow it. Right now your children and so forth are going to be playing or accessing Minnewashta Parkway via the street. By narrowing it up, you're taking some of the room away for them to travel with their bicycles or walk. Then if the next question is, if we narrow it up and then provide a space for the children to walk, then we're losing that green space by putting in sidewalks. So we've held pretty, generally pretty tight with the 31 foot wide street for the last 4 years. And again the only times we've really narrowed them up is if we can save trees and in some instances, like the Summit at Near Mountain. The developer incorporated boulder retaining walls and so forth in an effort to save trees and maintain the street width so we're pretty standard with that 31 foot wide for the two lanes of traffic and to be able to park a vehicle and still maintain the two lanes of traffic by that parked car. Mancino: I see where city landscaping plan or the ordinance requires 1 tree per lot. I would like you to consider something unique and that is Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 11 putting boulevard planted trees into the entrance of the subdivision on both sides of the street. I'd just'like to hear your thoughts on that. You have gorgeous oaks at the beginning on that northeastern corner. They're big and beautiful. Rick Sathre: Lundgren Bros is the developer of the Near Mountain neighborhood in northeastern Chanhassen and I think, I'm sure you've been through there. Maybe you even live there, I'm not sure. I don't know where you live but I think what you'll find in their neighborhoods that have been developed to date is that there's a great many more plantings, trees and shrubs planted than any city ordinance ever requires because they try to create an image. They try to excite a buyer. What separates a good subdivision from a poor one, it's a lot of times it's attention to detail and Lundgren is magnificent at their attention to detail. Their signage and their landscape treatments. Your taste and their's may be different on any given project but I would hope that you would be very pleased with the end result. To date there is not a landscape, a detailed landscaped plan put together. It generally doesn't come until the final development phase. 8ut there would be a coordination between the entrance signage and the landscaping around the entrance area and they tend to cluster plantings where there will be more drama to it than Just planting a tree every 50 feet or 100 feet or whatever. One in each yard generally doesn't create as much drama as clustering. As we go forward you'll see more information. Batzli: I know you're itching to tell 'us why we can't do boulevard trees. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, typically with the boulevards they're expressly for utilities. We have the gas company. Telephone. NSP and so forth. It really limits the areas where a boulevard tree can go. The boulevard tree has actually become a real maintenance problem. .Even though they are beautiful in the boulevard areas when they get mature, they do take a lot of maintenance with tree trimming and watering and if they die, they end up having to be replaced and so forth. They may even become a public safety hazard with vehicles running into them. Batzli: You and Dick need to talk about that too. There's some history to that whole thing. Go ahead, please. Mancino: I'm done. Batzli: Oh, okay. On the landscaping issue. When are they required to do landscaping? Detailed landscaping plan. At what point? Aanenson: Before they go for final plat. Yeah. We put that as one of the conditions. They need streetscape. That's a requirement of the landscaping ordinance, along Minnewasbta Parkway. 8atzli: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I have a couple of questions for city staff before I ask my questions that may or may not make any sense. On the wetland area that we have on the map here, it says edge of wetland. I~ide here we have a notation there is no vegetation or this area is farmed and you're talking Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 12 about fill that will go, you want to make sure that the fill stays back or setback from that within a certain area. It says 10 to 30 feet, 20 on the average. Is that back from that line or does that include that line? Aanenson: Yeah. No, you have 40 foot of building setback and then from the edge of the wetland you'll have an average of 20 feet of native plantings brought in. Farmakes: Okay, and there is no native planting at this time according to your assessment? Aanenson: Correct. Farmakes: $o in looking at that, and golng back to the ordinary high water mark, and then looking that there's a 4.3 difference between the ordinary high water mark and the flood stage where they're going to be dumping fill, or you don't want them to be dumping fill. Isn't that past that setback then? Are they going to be dumping fill past that setback? Aanenson: Yeah. That's what Dave raised part of that in one of his conditions. Number 4. That's the one we're talking about we need to get clarification of. Farmakes: Okay, but there's only 4 feet difference in elevation. I can't tell on the map exactly where the 4.3 feet would be in elevation difference between the first line we see, ordinary high water level mark and the flood stage. Rick Sathre: This line right here is 945.2. That's the DNR's ordinary high water mark and that drawing that Terry had up before~ that's the line between the light green or the yellow area and the dark green. That's the DNR 3urisdiction line. Where the dark green meets the white, that's the wetland edge. The actual city wetland edge as field located by the biologist and then we surveyed that line. Aanenson: So from that line you'll go the extra vegetation. Rick Sathre: ...10 or 20 feet uphill from that, uphill from where the dark green is would be that buffer strip that's no touch. Then the next 40 feet up above that is backyard but you can't build in it. Farmakes: Okay, but when you say no touch, you're talking about the consumer because I'm looking, I'm having a hard time resolving the elevation maps. Seeing exactly where that 4.3 difference is and I'm looking on 5 where it says the applicant should not place fill material below the 100 year flood elevation of Lake St. 3ge which is at 949.5 and that's where I'm getting the 4.3 difference in feet. Rick Sathre: There is 4.3 feet difference between the 945.2 line. The yellow green boundary and that arbitrary elevation that the Watershed District came up with. What was stated earlier in the meeting was that the real 100 year flood elevation is probably halfway through the green area. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 13 Farmakes: And there's three differences of opinion on this sort of thing. So does any of the fill go within that green area is my question? Rick Sathre: No. None of the fill goes into that-green area and in fact the first 10 or 20 or 30 feet of the white area on there would be planted in some native type grass that would be not maintained. It would not be mowed. It would be like at Willow Ridge where we have established the same sort of a buffer zone. Aanenson: It'd be like this...edge of the wetland and it tapers down. That's the wetland edge. So it won't go past that. Farmakes: Now this brings me to my next question. In trying to calculate and look at these types of things, and we're looking at the area that would be facing to the north. Towards the lake and I think we went through this the last time with Lundgren on Lake Lucy. You have kind of a tendency to develop difficult types of property next to wetlands and we were looking at square footage and again on our calculations we have square footage as actual and area above wetlands but I still, without taking a ruler or a calculator, I still don't know what the buildable square footage is. And that, it seems to me that they're all above 20,000 square feet but again, they're all different shapes of property so I'm trying to, it would be helpful if, and we've talked about this before, seeing buildable square footage. Because from a practical standpoint, obviously everybody on here knows when we get these types of complaints or variances, it's because somebody can't put a deck in or whatever. It doesn't fit in the property. And it doesn't do any good to look at 121,000 square feet of property when there's really only 20,000 square feet there. Krauss: Jeff, there is a table we asked them to provide...being flashed up here. I think you can see that all the lots, when you eliminate the wetland, some of them have very substantial wetlands but when you eliminate the wetlands they're still all bigger than we normally require for flat land on a cornfield anyway. Farmakes: Yes. But I'm also looking at some of the contours of these properties and trying to evaluate how they would fit into traffic patterns, things of that nature. It gets difficult when you have to go and re-calculate it yourself with the setbacks and setback back from the edge of the wetlands. Aanenson: Well I did that with the Attachment ~l. I went through each of those lots and gave you the area above the wetland plus the wetland setback in trying to figure out how close they would be. Farmakes: Is there a reason that somewhere on this chart that we can't see buildable square footage? Aanenson: Isn't that area above wetlands? Krauss: Well no. I think what Jeff is getting at is that you've got to knock out the wetland setback. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 14 Farmakes= Yes. Batzli: Does the area above wetlands include the dark green stTip? Aanenson: No. Batzli: No? Okay. What can you build within the 40 foot setback from the da~k g~een strip? Krauss= Nothing. Batzli= Can you put a deck back there? Farmakes: See, and that's my point. Krauss: It's your backyard. Batzli: Yeah, but I mean most people can put a deck in their backyard. We've got a building setback and then, well no you can't. Aanenson: You can't. It's got to be outside of that wetland. Batzli: There are some structures that can go'back there and most can't. Aanenson: Swingset. Harberts: A swingset can go back there? In the green? Aanenson: What did we say in the final ordinance. I'm not sure I remember. Accessory structures. Olsen: It depends on how we define structure. It gets back into'that whole. Batzli: I thought we did that at one point. Aanenson: Yeah, right. Ne did. Batzli: Z thought we said l0 feet for sandboxes, swingsets, stuff like that. Is that right? In the back. Okay. Farmakes: The point that I'm trying to make here is that it would be beneficial if we know what is buildable and what is not. Rick Sathre: ! can't help you with square footage right off the top of my head but what we've allowed for is the house area and the deck area on each lot. The absolute minimum is 65 feet and a lot of them are 75 o~ 85 feet. Farmakes: Yes. I see that on here but I'm, ! am not actually addressing your particular development. This is a problem that we've had with other developments. One of them happened to be the one on Lake Lucy and it would be a lot easier to concept this if we know what is buildable and what is not. In other words, what can a homeowner build on. Put a deck Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 15 out. Put a swingset. Where would they have to stop? And then eliminate that so we can see what is a true building pad. Going to the extended in the future on the street. Is that a temporary sign then? Would that be categorized as a temporary sign? Does it have a time limit or is that left up until that street changes? Aanenson: So that people are aware that there's a possibility that street can go through. Farmakes: Are we going to require, if it has more of a longevity than a temporary sign, are we going to require? Krauss: Well it's not a temporary sign. Farmakes: It will be a permanent sign? Krauss: It's a metal sign affixed to a barricade that will come down if and when the street's extended. It becomes our sign. It's part of our improvement. Farmakes: So it will be a good enough sign that won't 'become an eyesore? Aanenson: Right. Farmakes: On the two corner areas to the west, I believe it would be. Those little loops there? I'm not familiar with those type of traffic loops that come out where the sort of cul-de-sac comes right up to the thru traffic. Is that sort of a fielder's choice when you're coming out of your house which way you're going to go? Krauss: They're a real common technique. I don't particularly care for them for that reason and it's a lot of blacktop but it's often times the - only way, they're called eyebrows. The only way to service a series of lots that you can avoid private drives. Farmakes: Is Public Safety comfortable with that sort of thing? It seems to me that even coming into your house, that you'll have a lot of cross traffic patterns. Krauss: There's so little traffic on it. Aanenson: The same with a cul-de-sac. Batzli: 90~ of the time you're going to have kids playing street hockey in there. There's never any traffic. Farmakes: Alright. That's the extent of my questions. Oh, by the.way. I have no problem with not having access to that lake. Anybody who has a few hundred feet of cattails in their backyard between them and the lake knows that it would be $10,000.00 to dig out a hole to get to the lake so, from a practical standpoint you're probably not going to get a lot of people applying to do that. Although I can think of one. Batzli: Thanks Jeff. Joe. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 16 Scott: Just a question. When you're talking about, I think it was Attachment #4 that talks about the maximum 3:1 slope. If we've got a potential 4 foot difference between jurisdictions A, B and C, does that mean that conceiveably we could in effect lose 12 feet~ or 13 feet, depending upon? Aanenson: No. Hempel: No Mr. Chairman, because the wetland edge is the actual...for filling. Scott: Okay. Kate, where's that access for 'Lake St. 3oe that you were talking about? Aanenson: Pardon me, the what? Scott: You said there was an access to Lake St. 3oe. Aanenson: It's further up. Scott: It doesn't show. Rick Sathre: About halfway up the eastern side. 2/3 of the way up the eastern side. Krauss: It's a signed DNR access. Aanenson: It's up in this area. Up in I believe it's up in this area here. The parking area right there. It's a flat area that's marked 'DNR with a brown sign there. Lake access. Scott: And then according to the Park and Rec group, they were quite happy just to take the park fee per lot and not try to turn that into a recreational? Aanenson: Yeah, as trail. That was discussed. Trails around the lake and they felt the quality and because there was access already to the lake. Krauss: Yeah, I did. 3oe, I did have the opportunity to speak to Todd about that again this afternoon. What was discussed, and it's been discussed in the past is the possibility of doing a boardwalk type of set up around the west side of the lake. I guess it's fair to say that everybody on staff thought it would be a dandy idea to do it. That it would be very attractive. On the other hand, it's extraordinarily expensive and what Todd pointed Out is that it's tough to justify that kind of expense with a park in that location. If this were in the center of town on a main trail system where people, as some parks I'm familiar with in Minnetonka. Hundreds of people would use it everyday, it may be worth it. Todd didn't feel that in this instance you comld justify it being that it's on the far western edge of the city and pretty isolated. Scott: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1~3 - Page 17 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Ladd. Conrad: Rick, what do you think of our new wetland ordinance? Rick Sathre: I think it's creative. I think the idea of a buffer strip and setback in combination is much more effective than just a greater distance and having mowed grass Fight up to the edge of the wetland. Conrad: It shows the flexibility that we're striving for. Any criticisms? Rick Sathre: Not yet. It's pretty new. I don't have many experience with it yet. Batzli: Ladd, I think you've got a criticism out in the audience there. Conrad: Yes Terry, I'm interested. Terry Forbord: ! think it's a great ordinance. I just think that the preservation zone should be inclusive in the setback. Batzli: The 10 to 30 feet should be part of the 40 foot setback? Terry Forbord: ...problems in plats as they come before you. A lot of problems making sites very difficult to develop. Batzli: From an economic standpoint? Terry Forbord-' Not just an economic but some cases, logistics. Because there might be distances between wetlands. You're trying to get streets, home sites and you're trying to do all these other things. There may be a slope. There may be some trees. There may be all kinds of other things but T think the quest is noble. Tf that's not the issue. But I think there needs to be, it's like in a PUD ordinance. The reason you have a PUD oFdinance is to provide flexibility because you're going to run into that unique situation that's going to make it so you can't do it. And I just think it should be inclusive. That's my personal opinion. Aanenson: Let me just add. This is a natural classification wetland. Ne haven't got that many so it's the most restrictive. But it's still less restrictive than what we had before so. He's allowed to be build closer than we would have on the old ordinance but yet it's still one of our most restrictive wetlands. Batzli: Let me ask one question before~ while Ladd's shuffling his papers. I'll let him get ready here. Tf the ordinary high water mark changes so that the fill, the edge of the wetland doesn't change but the 100 year flood line may. Is that right? Aanenson: Yes . Batzli: So if you look at Attachment #4, the slope that they've got currently goes all the way down to the edge of the wetland? Now is that what's going to change' because they can't put fill in the ordinary high water mark so that that slope will change? Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 15 Rick Sathre: Let me take a run at that. If the 100 year flood elevation is really determined to be 4.3 feet higher than the DNR's, what the DNR thinks the ordinary high water level is, which is think is wrong. I don't think it is that high. But if it is, we would either have to seek an approval to fill some of the flood plain area that isn't in the wetland. What that 949.5 elevation actually goes Outside the wetland. Batzli: Right. Rick Sathre: And we don't think that's correct. But if it was, then our choices would be to seek approval to fill some of the flood fringe or to fill it. And the second choice would be to fill some and excavate elsewhere so we didn't change the overall volume of flood area. Or a third option would be to pull away. But I don't think any of those options will be necessary to be played out because in reality I'm sure the real 100 year flood elevation is downhill farther somewhere. Batzli: Now when you petition to fill within the ordinary high water mark, who do you petition? You don't petition us. k~e don't control that. Do we Dave? Hempel: The ordinary high is DNR but in this jurisdiction it-would be the Watershed District because it's within the flood fringe or flood plain area. That's the area above the ordinary high water mark. Batzli: Now do we care whether 'they do that other than it potentially effects the slopes of these backyards. Hempel: I don't think it would effect, it wouldn't effect us from a, city standpoint other than the flood storage. If in fact as Rick mentioned, that that elevation was accurate from the Watershed District. Batzli: Okay. Go ahead Ladd. Conrad: Stay up there Rick. What do you think of islands? Rick Sathre: Islands in cul-de-sacs? Conrad: Yes. Rick Sathre: Islands in the lakes are nice. nice. Islands in cul-de-sacs are Conrad: What do you think of eyebrows? We've got a new term here. I don't like eyebrows. I think they're terrible. Why? Are you staying away from putting an island in these because of your own design or because of a concern about city? Rick Sathre: We stayed away from, well we did this technique so that it would be obvious to the Planning Commission and City Council that these lots met the RSF standards or exceeded them. I think it would be nicer if those, if that street bubble wasn't out there so far and the driveways, the houses stayed where they were and maybe 3ust had longer driveways. I Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 19 like thati Or I'd like an island in the middle of the cul-de-sac. haven't proposed them yet. Conrad: I wish you would. And we'll stop the conversation there. I wish you would. Maybe city staff will reject it. Maybe City Council would but 120 foot little bubble here is basically, it's a lot of pavement and I guess I just don't see the point when we could put an island in. There's 120 feet there. Our standard for an island is 48 feet, if we approve our ordinance tonight. Plenty of room for tha~. Anyway. Just a thought. Batzli: Paul. Krauss: Well if I could just touch on the idea of the island. I mean this has come up before at Planning Commission meetings and frankly Planning staff has agreed with it. This came up, we brought it up to the City Council probably, I don't know, 5-6 months ago. The City Council said that they agreed with you and instructed, the City Engineer to come up with some standards that would allow.islands to exist. Now that hasn't been done yet but I think everybody's starting to fall into place on that. But I think Rick proposed something'in there'that I think we would go along with. Having demonstrated the case that no variances are required here, there'd probably a preference to eliminate the eyebrows, get rid of the blacktop and just extend the driveways down. $o we'll have a few funny front yard lot lines but effectively the lots don't change. You just extend the lines out closer to the street. And that eliminates the problem in it's entirety. There is one question that results, and our engineering department would have to look at it but it occurs on curves. And what you'd have is you'd have 3 driveways coming together on one curve and then when the snowplow comes around, they get innudated. But that probably could be worked out if the Planning Commission's comfortable with that approach. Conrad: Well I'd just like to challenge your thinking on that and I know Lundgren 8rcs wants to do a nice design and something that's sellable. I guess what I'm looking at is really just not-attractive and it's a lot of asphalt so however you want to work that out between staff. I think you should just challenge yourself on that design. Terry, I'm trying to move along here. We're beating a lot of things into the ground.- Yeah. Batzli: Go ahead Terry. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. I don't want to confuse the Planning Commission because often times we come forth with proposals that include some of the items that Planning Commissioner Conrad has just raised. And if I was in your shoes, you're probably saying well, geez. Why does Lundgren Bros do that on this proposal but they don't do it on that proposal? I can summarize for you very quickly why that occurs. We would prefer narrower streets. We would prefer more green space. We would always prefer islands but in certain types of projects, the scope of the project or the scale of the project is no longer worth the battle. Fighting the countless tabled actions by either the Planning Commission or the Council over things that, I mean they're just not worth the fight. We do believe and agree exactly with what you have said. But it's not worth championing the cause every time, even though it may be right. And so Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 20 there are times when we may take a step back and just say, we're coming in with a standard subdivision. It's not a PUD. We're trying to make a simple decision for the city but it may not make the nicest development. But after a while you get tired of fighting the battle. Conrad: Well I wish you'd revisit this issue. It's sort of your call. It's your call. In my mind, what you think is appropriate should go in there. It's just a terrific amount of concrete. My last point, wetland ordinance states that a monument is required every 300 feet on the wetland edge and it's kind of fun to take a look at the new ordinance a~d see how it applies. Basically it says that that monument goes every other lot. Surprise. Surprise. Krauss: No, actually there's two sections to that. It says, and I don't have it in front of me. It sounds like you might. But it says that either you put it on every property line, every property corner where the wetland buffer exists. But if there's a huge amount of space, then it's got to be every 300 feet. Conrad: So will this go on every property? KTauss: Yes. Conrad: Okay. That's all. Batzli: Okay, thank you Ladd. Diane. Harberts: I just have a comment with regard to the green and the light green as it deals with wetlands. Is it communicated to the potential owners then where the limitations are for building? Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Harberts? Harberts: Harberts, yes. Rick Sathre: Yes. The Lundgren Bros constantly evolves their product in both their house and also the documents they provide the owners. Each one of them will receive a small drawing that shows on paper that there's this buffer strip and the wetland beyond it. But also on the ground, as Commissioner Conrad eluded to, there would be a sign on the ground as well that defines the buffer area and the wetlands. So both in paper. Harberts: But they're going to understand this when they purchase the property? Rick Sathre: Right. They have to review those documents before they can sign the purchase agreement. They can't, Lundgren Bros does not let them buy before they've done that. Harberts: But they will understand though what.those markers are all about. What the wetlands policy is, or whatever 'ordinance for Chanhassen. That's the point coming from just purchasing a home that had a designated wetland there that was not stipulatedin the purchase agreement. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 21 Rick Sathre: I can't stand here and say, tell you absolutely that the husband and wife would always read everything and fully understand it. I certainly hope they do. It's there for them and certainly not something that Lundgren Bros hides or wants to hide. They want to fully disclose all of this information. But some people may scan over it or. That's the purpose of that sign out there too. To say, hey. Wake up. Harberts: Right, exactly. That's why I'm Just wondering, does the average public person understand what wetlands issues are all about. What the ordinances are. ! mean it's something new to the typical laymen so it'~ just a comment, from that perspective. Second thing, again it's just a comment. As it deals with the wetland, and I'm familiar with the different classes or levels of wetlands. I think Kate made a comment that this is a natural setting. And it has to do with boat docks. Help me here to understand that, it was my understanding that in the wetland you couldn't go in and build anything in there but yet they're talking about the opportunity to go in and put a boat dock in there if they want to? Aanenson: Mr. Boley has a dock right now. Harberts: Right. Aanenson: Currently, if you wanted to put a dock across the wetland, you have to get a wetland alteration permit. Harberts: Okay. Yeah, I read about that. Aanenson: That's a process you can go through. I think it is circumstance. What they're envisioning is. Harberts: Because of the excessive cost. Aanenson: Well, it's a long ways. It"s a substantial, a couple hundred feed to get all the way across that and I'm not sure anybody, it would have to be the elevated boardwalk type to get all the way down is the only way we'd allow it to go in. Or you would allow a variance. Allow the vegetation to grow underneath and we just don't envision it. And because there's one on the other side, I think that meets the needs. Harberts: That's it. 8atzli: Okay, thank you. I don't have a lot of questions here. I've kind of snuck them in as we've gone. Hope I didn't tick off too many people up here. I wanted to note that Lundgren Bros was masticistic rather than masacistic. I figured that means that they just eat a lot or something in our Minutes from the Park and Rec Committee. Anyway. In answer to your question. Comment. Nobody understands about wetlands that's not probably in this room, or something. And so the first thing they want to do is, the first thing they'll do is they'll try and figure out what they can do with the wetlands to mow it or do something like that. That's an educational process that the city's going through as part of it's wetlands SWMP committee. Publishing informational items. Things like that. Trying to get it in the newspapers. Trying to make people more aware of those issues. Not to use fertilizers, things like that in Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 22 their backyard. The one question I guess I had left was on the variances. What is our regular, not to talk about the variances for a minute but what. is our regular lot frontage on a road? Aanenson: 90 feet. Batzli: 90? So for example, if you look at Lot 23, Block 1, which is 88. Darn close to 90. Rick Sathre: The width is measured at the building setback. Aanenson: At the 30 foot setback. So that would be, I scaled that one to be about 100. Batzli: Okay. What about Lot 137 That's going to be filled way back as well. Aanenson: That's a flag lot. That would meet the standard at the 30 foot setback. Batzli: Okay. Now on the analysis for the var'iance, what is the upshot of us getting this particular variance from the standpoint of, does 'the State not like us? Does the State not give us money? Do we not, are we not in compliance with their rules? What are we doing here by giving the variance on the shoreland regulations? Krauss: Well Jo Ann can throw in on this too, but we've had a lot of dialogue with the DNR over that particular standard for a number of years. In fact I think we even had them on this property. The DNR regulations, and we put a comment in the staff report about it. The DNR regulations were really designed for statewide perspective and Just don't work very well in the metro area. In fact the DNR has a new shoreland set of regs that we're supposed to be working on that we're going to be looking at giving ourselves a little latitude with that. The DNR reserves the right to review the variance and theoretically they have the right to deny it. I think. We've never been quite sure on that but. Olsen: They can, if they don't agree they can even take us to court. Krauss: But we've examined this' issue with them before and they have agreed with us. Especially when we're doing, going to the lengths of tipping the site back so that it flows in the other direction into NURP basins. We're doing everything they want you to do. They've agreed with us in the past. We expect they'll agree with us on this one too. Batzli: Are we prepared to give this' variance on every single other development that comes through? Krauss: To be honest, I'm probably willing to recommend that you do. When we rewrite the shoreland regs, we want to eliminate having this problem. Batzli: And how can we write the shoreland regs to comply with the Minnesota requirements and eliminate this problem? Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 23 Krauss: Well, there's a new State law in effect and then a community, what they do is they write sort of a model and the communities are obligated to adopt something like it. And we'll adopt something like it, it just won't have that in there. Batzli: I thought they had to approve what we did and look at it. Krauss: They do, and this is an ongoing dialogue that we've been having with them for literally a year. Olsen: We even applied for flexibility. But we have to provide justification. They have a separate form that we have to fill out. You have to convince them that those regulations do not apply to. Batzli: So what lot width do we end up with? What do we ~eel comfortable with? Or do we just care about the within 1,000 feet aspect? Olsen: Well this is the within 1,0OO feet that you're talking about. Aanenson: What we're saying with the square footage requirements, we're not, by making the lot narrower at the street frontage, it's not effecttng the density so it's really a moot issue. I mean what difference does it make as far as lot frontage? Olsen: It's not the street frontage. It's just the lake frontage. Krauss: They're most concerned with. Batzli: I'm concerned that. Krauss: On longer lakeshore. We're not changing that. Batzli: Well, I'm not concerned about your reasoning so much as there is no basis that I can see to grant the variance in here other than, there's no rational to get it here that it seems like we have to give it everywhere else because there is no analysis of why it's proper here and would not be proper somewhere else, and that's what I'm concerned about. Krauss: I'm not sure if you'll buy this argument but it's one I've taken...is that the hardship here is an inappropriate State law. Or State rule. It just did not consider this situation. There's no hardship of the property here. It's not in your typical sense a variance. But the hardship is an inappropriate standard. Batzli: You're right, I don't buy it because every time you need a variance it's because of a statute and it's your opinion in this instance that it's improper but you're not presenting me with a reason. Aanenson: You don't understand. Paul doesn't agree with it period. Not in this instance. Batzli: But that's subjective. You're giving me your subjective analysis of, that this is improper and what I'm saying is, everyb6dy that comes in Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 24 here is now going to get this variance and I guess you're telling me, don't worry about it. Krauss: There is not a lake in the Twin Cities metro area that complies with that standard. Aanenson: We've done it on other lakeshore lots on Minnewashta that don't have the. Krauss: And it's something the DNR staff has agreed with so'. Well, some DNR staff. Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman? Batzli: Yes. Rick Sathre: I think the two important issues here, I don't know if you'd hang your hat on them or not but number one, we aren't increasing the density. We're configuring the lots so they're more efficient from a street cost standpoint. We've still got the 20,000 square foot lots. We just made them deeper and narrower instead of wider and shorter. $o they're just a different shaped rectangle. The other, but more importantly I think from the DNR standpoint or from a public environmental benefit standpoint is the fact that the shoreland standards were drafted with, to number one, control density and lakeshore or this shoreland district use. Also, I think the reason they were controlling density was so that there'd be less hard cover and less polluted runoff reaching the water bodies. Well what Chanhassen has done here, in your city, you've decided we're going to protect our wetlands. We're going to do NURP ponds. Where we're gathering all this urbanized runoff and treating it, we accomplish the same goal that the strict adherence to the shoreland standards would, in fact you're bettering it. You're doing better than the shoreland standard would ask you to. $o I think you do have terrific justification to vary from the standard because you've already bettered the situation that the DNR foresaw. Batzli: I have a difficult conceptional time with that. The eyebrows, I kind of like the eyebrows from the standpoint that' it gives the kids someplace to play other than the street and there's no park right here. And so I wouldn't mind an eyebrow. You can put an island in the other one. Having said that, is there a motion? Conrad: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #93-1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with variances and the following conditions. Conditions per the staff report except in number 4. If staff agrees, I'd eliminate the one line that says, which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. I don't know how else to word it so just eliminating those words knowing that everybody will come to some kind of consensus as to what it actually is. Point number 14, eliminating 8, 9, lC, 11 from the variance. Lots needing the variance but also in that same point, Brian I'm a little bit with you and a little bit concerned in terms of rational. I think Rick and Terry and staff were meeting, I think we're doing what's right. Yet on the Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 25 other hand, I have a real hard time saying, well we know it's right but we haven't, I haven't justified it. And I don't know that I don't want to, two double negatives. ! don't want to put in a position of setting a precedent. I want the rational for these variances to be very specific in terms of, it can't be duplicated again. I don't want to be forced into granting variances in the future subdivision because of what we just did here. I don't mind what we're trying to do but it's got to be worded so when somebody presses me, I can say it was specifically because o1: this and right now I hear general terms but I'm not comfortable with the general terms that I could defend it the next time through. You don't need to respond Paul but I need that. Krauss: Well I think we can certainly add an intent for the variance. Conrad: No, but what you're saying is we don't believe i.n what the ordinance. Krauss: Well I don't believe it but the fact is the rationale, I can't tell you it can't be duplicated elsewhere but the rationale, the tic outline that we felt strongly about that we're doing the job that the state approached with a meat ax. Conrad: But simply say that you said because we're using NURP ponds to catch this, I think.that will get me off. Krauss: Right, and we'd be happy to do that but it is a situation that could be replicated elsewhere. Conrad: If somebody put. Well, give me enough of those that it probably WOn't . Rick Sathre: One observation that I have. This lot width in this shoreland district is different than most places in town where this is a natural environment lake. It has the 20,000 square foot standard and the 125 foot lot width. I don't know that you have another lake like that in town. Mostly you have recreational development lakes which are 15,000 square foot minimum and what, 100 foot width? I forget what the width is. Olsen: 75. Rick $athre: 75. So you already exceed those standards with your RSF zone. You probably won't see this. Conrad: We see everything. Rick Sathre: Yeah, you probably will. Conrad: That's my motion Mr. Chairman. Batzli: Is there a second? Mancino: I second. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 26 Batzli: Discussion. Boy I was going to say something and I lost it there in that last exchange. I was actually going to ask you to amend this. What was I going to say? Conrad: I think you were, I don't know. Batzli: You're not psychic tonight. Conrad: Don't want to be. We don't need your vote Brian. Batzli: Oh. Well, it doesn't matter. What I would like to see is approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria, in condition 12. I guess I would like to see us, rather than just say that is if we feel that this is a case where we don't want people to have backyards split 50 feet, that we direct the staff to proceed towards annexing that area. I don't, it bothers me that we're approving something where the lots are split like that personally. I don't know how the rest of you feel but I would like to see 12 amended. But I don't know if that's the applicant's Job. It seems like that's our job to do that. Is that our job? It doesn't really seem like a condition. Krauss: Having the intent of the Planning Commission backed up by the City Council certainly would help us push the issue. Batzli: But is that appropriate for a condition or is that something that we should just direct you after we approve this that we want to see that happen? Krauss: That would be preferable because it's not something that they. Batzli: I don't think the applicant can do it. Although does the applicant have to petition us formally to get the process rolling? Krauss: The applicant's already indicated willingness to do that. Batzli: Well willingness and following through are sometimes two different things. Do you want to see that happen Ladd? It's your motion. Okay. Any more discussion? Conrad moved, Manctno Seconded that-the Plannin~ Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #93-1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with variances and the following conditions: The applicnat shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 27 · · · · · · · The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with. storm sewer calculations designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100 year storm event, 24 hour duration, and will discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate· I'n addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NRUP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds· The applicant shall not place fill material below the year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and 8 to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. Ail storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr. Ismael Martinez, as outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. Site restoration, vegetative Cover and erosion, control efforts shall. follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. 3ce. In cases where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of the slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of.completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook· All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes· Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention Ponds on the final plat. The applicant shall place a sign on a barrier at the end of the southerly street extension indicating =THIS STRE£T SH~LL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE=. Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each lot. Ail street intersections should be aligned prependicular to each other. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for future street extensions to the west to serve the City of Victoria through one of the phases of development. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90-15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 28 lO. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. 11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulations including permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria. 13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 14. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1. 15. Compliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway and the requirements of one tree per tot. All voted in favor except Batzli who opl:osed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Batzli: And my reasons are that I would like to see the variance rationale before I approve it. And also that I would like to see the city move towards annexing that area. As an informal vote of the commissioners do you want to see the city pursue that annexation. Just kind of hand vote here. Would you like to see personally towards annexing? Not proceeding? Don't care. Okay, well you've got the majority. Yes Terry. Terry Forbord: ...being that this was really not part of the application so I elected to not say anything about it. I think staf'f eluded to that we approached them some time ago about the very issue that you were just discussing, annexation. As well as joint powers agreements between the two cities. Lundgren Bros has hired a real estate attorney that specializes in annexation issues. Has done a tremendous amount of research on the issues and has interviewed the Fire Department, the Police Department, Parks and Rec. Has met with staff. Also met with the City Attorney and so a lot of background work really already has been done just trying to find out what the issues are, etc. And discussions informally have begun with the City of Victoria. I have no idea what the outcome of that is going to be but there has been a lot of work already done towards that end. Batzli: Okay, thank you Terry. When does this go to the City Council? Aanenson: 22nd of February. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVI~)~ ~oPROXIMATELY 60 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP. INDUSTRIAL OFFICE P~J~K, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF DELL ROAD, SUN~INK ADDiTiON, SUNf_INK CORPORATION. Krauss: The DataServ one has been pulled for the third or fourth time in a TOW. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 29 Batzli: Okay, that's the Sunlink Corporation applicant? Okay. We'll put that aside. Mancino: Excuse me. I have a question on that. Paul, because the City Council is going to be hearing the moratorium, Highway 5 moratorium on the 8th, will that maybe delete the Sunlink division? Krauss= Nell if a moratorium is enacted, yeah. That would' stop that preliminary plat dead in the water. Now the ordinance that I drafted with the City Attorney would allow proceedings to occur under some limited circumstances. If it came in as a PUD is one of the options. I'm not sure what the City Council's going to do. Ne'll see Honday. Batzli: I thought they would be a~le to do a plat like this but not a site plan. That they can plat? They can't plat either under your proposal? Krauss: No. Batzli: Okay. SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE N'E~~T REGARDING REQUIREMENTS OF CUL-DE-SAC LENGTHS. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: The record should show that there's no one other than city staff and the commissioners in the room. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Scott moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: I just wanted to make that perfectly clear when people started whinning about islands being around here. Anyway, Diane. Do you have comments on the proposed ordinance tonight? Harberts: Just a question. Two questions. On (c) for instance. ATe they and/or situation? For instance, number 1. And is it, and it preserves natural features, or or? Batzli: I read it as an and. Harberts: That's what I read too. Batzli: But it doesn't say in there. Olsen: Yeah, because we need, yeah. Like 3 has to be in there. ~ has to be in there. Although there's a lot of times where they're not really preserving natural features. They're adding natural features so I wouldn't, that was one that you specfically brought up at the last meeting that that was something that yod wanted in there. That's why we added it but I have yet to see where that's the case. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 30 Krauss: Usually you're grading so heavily around it to get the roads in, that any natural features that were there are long gone. Or will die shortly thereafter. But it's certainly a valid... Batzli: Well we could say the center island will preserve or add natural. Well then it's not really a natural feature is it? Will preserve natural features or add fake natural features. Harberts: Second comment has to do with the (c)(4). I've talked to some other planners and they just raise some issues about if you have center islands and if they're not city right-of-way you're opening yourselves up to a lot of problems. Sust a comment. I guess I'd like to see responsibility for maintenance and liability outlined there. If this is going to be maintained by a Homeowners Association. Those are my only comments. Batzli: Thank you. Do the other planners that you talked to say that in their ordinances they talk about liability issues and requiring homeownership to insure? Harberts: The other planners I have spoken to in other communities, I guess I only addressed it from the standpoint of a private maintenance or private ownership rather than a city ownership of right-of-way and they felt very strongly against a center island unless it was city right-of-way because of the maintenance problems. There were too many problems connected with it, from their perspective. Batzli: Well, what liability are you talking about? Are you talking about a kid getting hurt on it? Harberts: Anything, yes. Yes. Batzli: And are you saying, are you requiring them to insure against that or are you trying to say that it's not our problem, it's yours? Harberts: It's theirs.. If it's not city right-of-way, then it should be their problem. Hempel: Unfortunately it would have to be the City's right-of-way under those circumstances. Harberts: So I guess this is where the ~uestion comes in then. If they're responsible for maintenance and they don't maintain it in a proper condition, and who determines what that proper condition is and something happens where someone is injured or whatever, and granted it may be once in a 100 times that something happens. But you know, who's responsible for this? Now I understand then that it is city, the City's going to be held liable but yet they in a sense don't have the jurisdiction or whatever to maintain it in a proper form. Batzli: See but my point is this. You can't, my understanding is that you can't say to someone, in this kind of a situation, you're responsible and we're not going to be liable. The liability would be determined in the trial. And so what you're requiring I think is that the homeowners- Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 31 insure but it doesn't change the fact that the City still has to insure · because if the Court decides, regardless of what you said in your little ordinance, it was your fault. So what have you done by this other than you required the homeowners to insure. Harberts: If there's not a homeowners association, isn't that a factor that they take into consideration? When they have a.common area like this. Batzli: Well but we're forcing it that they have to have one. Harberts: Right. And what in the sense wouldn't that element also . address it so it's maybe just the buffer that's created? In terms of that liability. Batzli: I don't think we're buffering anything is my only point. I think we're requiring the homeowners association to buy insurance. God only knows what that insurance would cost or what they hang it on or who would underwrite it. Harberts: Does the city have a concern or not? Krauss: Well this is a common problem with these things. Who's responsible for them. Now if it's an outlot that a homeowners association ha~ that all those who are a party to the homeowners association are liable for the maintenance, and there are ways you...still always fall through the cracks. One thing that I'd be curious about. Right-of-way, and our liability covers everything that we own or touch. Maintenance of these things is an added cost for the city and since this is a private benefit, not all taxpayers in the city should bear it.. But I~m just wondering if we can establish a procedure wherein all those lots that benefit by having this outlot are charged a fee on an annual basis that covers our cost of maintenance. I mean we charge fees. People are charged fees for lighting, street lighting. They're charged for different things. If it's just something that's rolled into the annual tax statement. Farmakes: We talked about that at the previous meeting about, if there was the problem maintaining it, to just tack it onto their taxes. Krauss: Yeah but see to do that, you have to attempt to resolve it. Failing that, you have to done all the homeowners association members by way of their taxes. The cover expenses that we would have had to lay out. Farmakes: So would that be under 4? Responsibility for the maintenance is clearly established in the chain-of-title? Is that something you put in the title? Krauss: Yeah, you would put it in the.title. Scott: Does it make sense to say, responsibility for maintenance and liability insurance would be clearly established in the chain-of-title? Because I guess the question is, who actually owns that. PIanning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 32 Krauss: Well as Dave points out, this is internally city right-of-way so we would own it. Batzli-' Ne own it. Yeah, we're just saying since it doesn't benefit the entire city, we're going to make you guys maintain it. Harberts: Or at least pay for it. Hempel: I wonder if maybe another option would be to have it an outlot but the city has reserved the street, utility easement'over it. We have our easement rights for the use of it but' the actual property is still owned by the association. Batzli: But then if you ever have to take it out, you want to own it. Farmakes: The developer then, would they sell it in the chain-of-title? Are they the ones that convey that to the property owners? Krauss: Traditionally, historically the problem has been developers convey these things to nobody and after the development was built they left town. Batzli: Or somebody owns it and never know they own it. Harberts: From my discussions with other planners' from other communities on this particular issue, again they raise some real concerns that if it's not maintained by the city, you start running into problems. So is the alternative, .as Paul suggested, having some type of fee because the entire city should not pay for it when it's just a private enhancement in that area. Is that the simple answer here? Krauss: I think it is but we'd have to get the implications of it from the City Attorney and the City £ngineer. I mean' clearly if everybody on this thing is charged, I don't know $20.00-$30.00 a year and a tree falls down, it will cover our cost to go out and cut it up. You know you'd have to figure out, are we going to have to reforest this thing at some point. But I think this can be done relatively cleanly. Harberts: With the city owning it and maintaining it? Batzli: Did we just decide to eliminate the homeowners maintaining it? Krauss: One of the problems is with the homeowners association is most developments don't have homeowners associations. And if they only establish one to cover the maintenance of the cul-de-sac, you can be pretty darn sure they're not going to take that responsibility seriously. 8atzli: Okay. Is that it? Harberts: It is. Just a couple comments. Batzli: Okay. Good comments though. Thank you. Ladd. PlanninQ Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 33 Conrad: My only one is in (c)(3). I'm not sure Dave why you have a 48 foot diameter island and a 91 foot outside street width. How did you get the 91 feet? Hempel: 91 feet is our standard cul-de-sac diameter. Conrad: so if our minimum street width is 28 feet, and there's two sides to this island, that's 56 feet, and the island is 48 feet. I'm not trying to build this. I'm happy with what you've got but I Just want to challenge the rationale for it. Hempel: How we arrived at this was working with the Fire Marshal and the Public Works Superintendent. We actually went out and took one of our snowplows in the Dinner Theatre parking lot. Batzli: Scientific method. Harberts: Practical. Hempel: And found out exactly what our tightest turning radius would be. And the 91 is basically the minimum we need for fire truck apparatus, according to the Fire Marshal. Batzli: But when they buy the Chevy snowplow next time instead of Ford and it's got the larger turning radius, we're in trouble. But why doesn't it equal the same? I mean we were talking earlier about a 31 foot standard width. Back of the curb to back of the curb, and we needed that. Why don't we need that here? Hempel: Again, it's the turning radius of these vehicles. You're not out on the street. Batzli: What happened to our safety issue of parked cars and two lanes of traffic and things like that? Did that just so away the minute we got in the cul-de-sac? We didn"t care anymore? Hempel: I'm not sure how to address that. I'm not sure I fully understand it I guess. Conrad: We're just saying, if our street minimum is 28 feet. It's really 31 but let's say we go to a different standard. Shouldn't there be two street widths there plus the island and that should add up to a minimum of 108 feet or whatever? Hempel: We're assuming that you're not going to have essentially two way traffic around the island. It's going to be a one way direction. Batzli: Are we going to post it one way? Harberts: No parking. Conrad: Well I like the 91 foot Mr. Chairman. Planning Commission Meeting FebruaTy 3, 1993 - Page 34 Batzli: Well I don't want more tar. I was just wondering what our rationale was, so I appreciated your comment. Conrad: I know you did. Batzli: I'm a mathematical kind of guy. Conrad: That's all. I like what we talked about in terms of who maintains and how we assess. I think that point should change what we've got in front of us. 8atzli: Is that it? Conrad: Yeah. 8atzli: Okay, Joe. Scott: I don't have any comments on that. Batzli: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I have no further comments. Batzli: Nancy. .Mancino: No. Nothing further. Batzli: Gee you guys. You're going to make me look like a real jerk now then. I think we need, well one thing I wanted to ask about first thing was we've changed (d)(1). We talked about severe topography last time because we didn't understand, I didn't understand what it meant. There was a certain percentage grade in there last time I think 3o Olsen: Right. Batzli: Now when we're talking about would severely impact the site due to excessive grading, I think what we've done in the past is we've had a maximum grade that a road could be constructed to and we didn't want to go over that, and that was 7~ or some percentage. Olsen: 10 is usually our max. That is allowed. 7 is what we, but we've allowed up to Batzli: Okay. So is excessive grading, does that mean that, is that based on what the road is going to be or is that based on a more global analysis of we're going to have to grade more of the site? Krauss: Your later one is correct. The road grade itself doesn't matter. Batzli: But what if you only had to grade 20 feet of it but you ended up with 13~ slope? Krauss: But that's a whole different issue. That's a city standard, they wouldn't be allowed to do that. But what this gets at is that, wher.e's a Planning Commission Meeting February 3, ~993 - Page 35 good example of where that's occured? Olsen: Summit. Krauss: Summit. Olsen: Well it hasn't occurred but. Krauss: Yeah. We had the situation up there where we preferred to not have a very long deadend street but to get that you have to knock the- whole top off the hill to connect it into that Indian Hills Road that was there. Batzli: And we left a little emergency fire route. Krauss: Right. Batzli: Okay. So we don't have to cover that here is your point? So I don't have to worry about that. Olsen: Right. There's a maximum. Batzli: Okay, so the excessive grading is talking about somebody in the planning department saying, this is excessive, and we'd leave it up to you guys? Krauss: And you and the Council agreeing with that determination, yeah. Batzli: Okay. Do we want the capability under the cul-de-sac and center island. Actually center island. Do we want the ability to remove the center island if it's determined at a later date that it's a public safety hazard or something. Let's say we put in a bunch of these things-and we start having problems left and right. Can we get rid of these darn center islands and pave them? Krauss: We own them. Batzli: Okay. So we own them. The association doesn't have any control? We're not taking anything from the people who live around it? If there's a taking issue here, by taking them out, I would rather have it somewhere in the ordinance that says, you know the people who live around it understand that they don't own it and it can be removed or whatever. Because if these things turn out to be a problem and a house burns down and there's an outcry in the city and Dick runs for Mayor on the platform, I'm going to get rid of all the center islands because I couldn't get my fire truck around it. Right? I mean maybe we take them out. Harberts: I'd like to add to that. I think that's a good idea and I think you may want to expand on it to also include that, depending on what is in that center island, that the city then if we're going to own it, also has the right to change it. In terms of what the center island is all about. You know if there's trees and at some point they determine to be too high. That they can go in and cut them down and put in bushes or something. It really sounds like it gets back to the issue that the city Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 36 needs to have control and ownership over it and that all of these other issues seem to go away then. Batzli: I don't know, does that make sense or are we just really nit picking at this point Paul? Your eyes are kind of glazing over. Krauss: For things that the city owns outright, generally we maintain them the way we see fit. Batzli: But this is going to be an amenity that people move into the community for. Krauss: Yeah, and presumably we wouldn't be taking anything out unless those people were suffering from some problem and asked us to do it. The goals for these things is to make them as close to no maintenance as possible. I don't think we'd ever allow anybody to plant any ground cover. You know they'd probably be trees and rock and that kind of stuff that doesn't need to be maintained. Batzli: I guess the last thing I was going to say was, the center island issue again, I don't have any comments on the other ones, other than what I've already mentioned. The center island, if we make it, it has to meet each one of these things. Is there ever going to be a situation where it meets these things and yet from a safety issue or for some other reason we simply don't want it in there. Where we want to put kind of a, we used to have the clause in there that you, city staff was going to review it and approve it, which we thought was too discretionary. But if ~here is an instance where, for some reason that we haven't thought of Yet, it's going to present a safety hazard, do we want to say something in there that it's prohibited unless .it meets all this and it doesn't present a safety hazard. It at least gives you something to hang your hat on if you really don't want it in there for a valid reason. Or safety concern. I don't know. My point last time though, you have to remember with go slow with these things and just allow a couple of them and see how they work. What this is doing, in my opinion, is we're just kind of saying okay. Do it and then we're going to get a bunch of them and then we're find out whether we like them or not. My preferred way of doing this would be, still be to prohibit them unless we approved them whereas the rest of the people up here want to approve them unless we prohibit them. $o it's just a different mindset. Krauss: I don't understand the go slow. Batzli: I would rather see, I would absolutely prohibit them for another 3 years until we find out how they work out in the Lundgren development. Krauss: Well see we've never prohibited them for anybody building long cul-de-sacs in the past. We've got. Batzli: I'm talking about center islands. Krauss: Oh, islands. I 'm on the wrong. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 37 Hempel: We have a couple islands in town that have been in Place for 5 years now. Creek Run. I believe also on Linden Circle. Batzli: I've seen that one. I don't know. I would take-the go slow approach but. Those are my comments. What do we want to do with this? Do we want to try and make a motion? Trust staff to get them in there. Or do we want to see it one more time back here with all the changes and- things we've talked about? Due to the fact that 3 people had absolutely no comments on it, I think everybody's pretty happy with it at this point, other than probably some of the minor things that we did tonight. Ladd, do you want to see it back? Diane, do you want to see it back? Harberts: I would but, I'll defer. Batzli: Well you can make the motion then. Okay, is there a motion then? Scott: I'll move that we adopt the Section in Article III, Design Standards, Section 18-57(k) of the Chanhassen City Code as amended in this document and then with additions being made by city staff to items 1(c)(2) to read, the center island will preserve natural features or add additional features. And also in item 1(c), to identify that all four conditions under 1(c) be present at one time, i.e. items 1, 2, 3 and 4 must occur for a center island to be allowed. Batzli: Is that your motion? Scott: That's my motion. Batzli: Is there a second? Conrad: I'll second it. Batzli: For discussion purposes? Conrad: Yes. Batzli: Okay, is there discussion? Conrad: We were going to take out (4) and how do we want to replace what's necessary to replace (4) giving the city the ownership of the island and also the leverage to assess. Harberts: Maintenance fees? Conrad: Maintenance fees, yeah. Should we simply make that, replace those words? Replace (4) with those words or are you comfortable keeping (4) the way you've made your motion? Scott: Are you talking to me? Conrad: Yeah. Scott: That was the point that I missed. Thank you very much. I would agree that we need language that specifies that the City would maintain Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 38 ownership and responsibility for maintenance. In that basically the center island would exist at the city's discretion. These would be public safety issues. Harberts: And that also included then the mechanism to determine some type of maintenance fee? Scott: Yes. Batzli: If he amends his motion, do you have enough to go on? Olsen: Yes. Batzli: You do have enough? You understand what he wants? Olsen: Yes, I have all the little points written down. And I'm hoping that Nann and I, we'll get it word for word unless you want to repeat it. I just think on some of that, won't we have to kind of confirm some of that with the City Attorney, whether or not we can assess? I think we'll kind of have to work with that a little bit. So we won't have the exact wording. Scott: So we'll need to see this next time then? Olsen: You can trust that we'll show you what we've done. I've got the gist of what you want. Batzli: Are you amending your motion? Scott: I guess I am. Batzli: Are you accepting? Conrad: Second. Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Harberts: We would receive a staff report back then, just as an FYI? Is that the understanding? Krauss: If there's a major glitch, we'll bring it back. Otherwise, we'll report on it in the update. Batzli: You'll get about a paragraph blurb on what happened to it at the City Council and then several months later we'll get a print of it for our ordinance, but that's about the last we'll see it. Harberts: Well I guess I'm curious what the Attorney's viewpoint is on it with the maintenance fees. You know when Governor Carlson is coming down with a decrease your budget by about 5~ from the previous year and recommending wage freezes on public employees, things like that in terms of cost containment and we're putting in something that is raising the cost on the part of the city to maintain. It just' doesn't balance. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 39 Krauss: Well the goal would be for it not to cost the city anything. Harberts: Right, and that's why I'm interested to see if there's some problem from the Attorney's perspective about developing some type o'f maintenance fee. I guess my concern is if he says, no you can't assess them any type of fee, just take it out of your coffers and pay for it. I mean is this the right time to do it with everyone trying to cut costs and streamline. Batzli: I don't particularly like the fact that we're leaving it open ended. These people are going to move in. I have no clue what the City's going to assess them to maintain this. I don't know what it's going to cost. I don't know if this is reasonable what we're doing so I would prefer to see it come back once we've figured out (a), I'd like to see engineering or somebody tell me what it would cost to maintain this thing and who we would assess. And if we're going to do it that way. Conrad: Why do you care? The City's going to put the words in but the point is that the cost for maintaining it is going to be taken care of by those residents that have that as an asset. $o why do you care what the cost is? Batzli: Because, I'm a bleeding heart liberal who wants to protect the people moving into the. Conrad: The developer's going to have to. Batzli: But the developer doesn't do, we're not protecting the people moving in. We're molly cuddeling the developer to sell it as this wonderful feature and then the city comes in and decides theY're going to speak several grand on it and they're going to start assessing peopl.e that have no clue what's going on. That's the reality of .what's going to happen. Mancino: So can't we make sure that these developers send a letter, registered letter, whatever it is? Krauss: No. What you do is you put it in the chain-of-title. I mean we've gone through on any number of occasions and Brian points out that not everybody has an attorney working for them who reads the chain-of- title. But it's a~so going to show up on annual tax statements. If there's a way it's possible to do that a different way. Conrad: What do you think Brian is it going to cost? $100,000.007 Batzli: I don't know. I don't know. Hempel: It's probably not a lot of cost. Conrad: We're talking about city maintenance. We're talking about. cutting a tree down right? Batzli: Yeah, but what you're talking about is we've decided that homeowners were unwilling to pay for a second tree in their backyard and Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 40 now suddenly we don't give a rip and we're going to assess them some open ended charge for whatever the city wants to dream up it costs them to maintain this thing in their front yard. I mean we debated for weeks over whether people wanted to include in their mortgage, financed over 30 years, the cost of a $200.00 tree and now you're going to suddenly, without knowing what it costs at all say...well'yeah. Let the developer put it in and the residents will get it and who cares. Let them figure out what it's going to cost them down the road. [ would rather, if it's going to be an amenity that's going to be enjoyed by the residents, I would rather see some sort of idea of what we're proposing rather than just say, gee it sounds good. Let's do it. Just me. Farmakes: Do you think a developer's going to put in something like that that's going to be extensive enough that it's going to cost a substantial amount of funds? Batzli: I don't know what, how the city would even calculate what it costs them to maintain it. Olsen: And that cost will go up every year too. Krauss: Yeah, I mean you pull a number out of the hat and you say, it's $50.00 a year escaled to CPI. Farmakes: So if it doesn't clear that year, or you lose money that year, then you raise the funds. Scott: Or do we just take 'this and shred it? ...get on the record to make a motion but I mean it's getting pretty ridiculous. I mean I appreciate the fact that you're bringing up points, because they're obviously important and it's again, becoming apparent now that maybe this is something that we shouldn't even get involved with because of extra. I mean extra, maybe city staff could probably spend their time much better on something that's perhaps, I mean in all deference to Mr. Conrad. In other words, we're opening up a can of worms and I don't know if we really need to do be spending our time on something like this, if we have all this open ended stuff. So maybe we just want to forget about the islands. Batzli: The way to do it, I think, is the way that it may have originally been in there. And that is, we would allow it based on basically a case by case basis and on a case by case basis we would determine how the heck these things would be cared for and nurtured rather than trying to come up with an all inclusive way of figuring out how it's going to be done city wide. So what I would be for, and ready to vote on affirmatively right now would be basically the language we had in there last time which was, it's prohibited unless it's approved by the city based on you know, being able to demonstrate that it can be taken care of and whatever whatever. I would rather see that. The go slow approach. Conrad: Well there's no such thing as a go slow approach Brian. .I don't understand where you're coming from. It says they're prohibited in the language here. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 41 Batzli: Well I don't think that these 'things are difficult to demonstrate. It's got to be a minimum size. You're going to preserve a tree or add a tree and it's in the residential area. That's pretty easy to do. Really what we're talking about is maintenance and we can't figure out how we would do that city wide right now. Conrad: There's only two of them in the city. Do you think we're going to get a rush to build these? Batzli: I have no idea. I don't know. Conrad: We haven't heard any problems with the two. You know it's not worth the conversation right now. Seriously. Batzli: We're going to be done by 10:00 Ladd. I'm just dragging it out until 10:00. I don't want to get out of here before then. Scott: Is this a situation where you say center islands within cul-de-sacs bubbles shall be prohibited unless approved on a case by case basis? Batzli: You can't say that. Okay. Well the motion right now is that, I think we had. Conrad: This has to come back. I think we, based on all the things, I think Diane would like to see it back and I think Brian, you brought up enough concerns with it on your part. ! think staff should revise it per what we said and bring it back one more time. Batzli: We have a motion in front of us right now, unless do you want to withdraw your motion? Scott: I would withdraw that. Batzli: Second? Do you want to make a motion to table? Is there a second? Any discussion? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to table the ordinance amendment to Section· 18-57(k) concerning lengths of cul-de-sacs for.further review. All voted in favor except Farmakes who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. · Batzli: And your reasons are, you want to see it sail up? Farmakes: I just think we're ignoring the city staff can probably do a much better 3ob of assessing those charges than we can come up with up here. It seems like a small point. What I really don't want to do is get involved in a case by case basis. I think that certainly we should be able, when we look at the city code book and how thick it is, you certainly should be able to come up with a way to come up with a p~agmatic system of charging that back that's equitable to cover that. Batzli: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 42 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 20, 1993 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Krauss: Well a couple things to touch on. One thing I found quite interesting was the City Council's debate on the Americana Bank sign. The City Council echoed a lot of the concerns that have been raised here periodically about office buildings turning into retail buildings when it comes to signage. They ultimately agreed to go along with the compromise that the Planning Commission suggested. But staff was directed with the sign ordinance to come back and provide some information about who is supposed to get a sign and when, and at least some members of the City Council said office buildings do not confer the right for signage to everybody that happens to rent a room. I don't know that had they voted on it had consensus but it was kind of an interesting discussion. Conrad: But where are you going to go Paul to get, you know-things are changing in the real world. We used to be a product driven society and now we're service driven society and we have this misconception that services don't need the same kind of support as products do. $o I really think we're playing with some old memories and are you going to look, be intraspective and just base it on staff's feeling or are you able to go out and talk to a consultant? I don't want you to hire one but how do you get a feeling for the trends that are occurring Paul? Krauss: Ladd, I don't have a good answer for that. I mean we've had this dialogue at least on 3 occasions. On 3 different projects in downtown and staff's often come down on one side of the issue and you've come down on the other for valid reasons. I guess as the community matures and as office buildings may probably will get bigger,. I just have a growing concern that we'll have vein clinic signs on a 6 story building. You know ultimately this will be your call on recommending to the City Council-what you want to do. Again, I don't think the City Council's necessarily unanimous on it. And the City Council did agree to go with your compromise position. But I'm sure that if we ask a sign consultant about it, a sign consultant will say that everybody should have a sign. Farmakes: Especially those that make them. They're the ones that really come forward and say, you could use one here and there and here. 0 Krauss: Yeah, I've had Naegele come to meetings where they say billboards are a community asset. I mean you can get all kinds of opinion on it. We'll bring you the opinion and you can make the decision. Farmakes: One thing on that particular type of sign where they have a lot of the little slats like we have in front here that go in. You might have 20 or 30.- If I'm out selling a lease and I say, and you get a sign up here on Market Boulevard and from a practical standpoint that sign at a car 20 mph even, you're not going to read it. It's not going to provide anything except clutter when you look at it with 20 other signs. So then another thing has to be evaluated, is how many signs can reasonably be put up in a confined area where they're actually beneficial to the business. And a lot of times you'll see good selections and a lot of times you can't Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 43 for the life of me figure out why someone spent $20,000.00 on a sign that doesn't work for them. Conrad: Well 3ne being sort of our connection with the Chamber of Commerce, every business in this city wanted to have their name out-on Highway 5. Several of them do. There's not enough. And they're all 4 inch letters which 3elf, you know can't be read. I know can't be read but every business wanted it there. I don't think it's visual pollution. It's not effective. It's certainly not effective communication and it's Just getting us, but it's what the business community wants. And so, just because we want it, doesn't mean we have to. give it to them. 8ut on the other hand, I tell you. It's part of running a business. And to hide a company, things are changing in our society in terms of what people, the services are looking at and I guess I'm just going to be real interested to see how we net out on this because the businesses are saying, give me the visibility and my perspective is, if you do somethir~ well, it doesn't matter. Farmakes: Exactly. And you can be proactive about this. But if you say that signs are not visual pollution, there are certainly places you can go in town and find visual pollution that is caused by signage. So the question is, how is it applied just like anything else, and how's it rationalized? It certainly has to benefit not only the business itself but the community environment that it's in. Conrad: Do you think that city staff is going to be competent at bringing us some good alternatives? Farmakes: We're working on a sign ordinance and the intent is to benefit both a reasonable use to benefit both business. Two of the members are members of the Chamber of Commerce and business owners in town. And I think once the education is gone through, you're still allowed an opportunity to identify your business. The question then becomes, how much do you advertise through your signage or repetition of signage. And a lot of problem is with repetition because some of the repetition simply doesn't work. It provides maybe a 10~ of the sight line and you have another sign in some cases that is in almost maybe a 10~ difference in angle. The same sign that's sitting right next to it. So if the question is, why put a limitation on it if you're going to have a duplicate sign' l0 feet away, what is the point? What point is served? Scott: And there's a big difference too between whether your customers is kind of a random arrival because they saw your sign or a situation like mine where people are specifically coming to my office. They know where my building is and they could really care less if there's a sign on the outside. So I think you have the retail service versus the vein clinic or something like that. That's one of the issues that we're going back and forth with but I think any business owner believes that it's a God given right that they are able to put their sign up and the way the signs are now, the major benefit to the sign is that that business owner sees it when they're driving. Like if you own ~n Oldsmobile 98, you're going to see them all over the place. Oh, there's my sign. But it doesn't dawn on you that no one else sees it. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 44 Farmakes: Or what happens when there's 300 other signs by it? Then what criteria do you use to regulate that so it doesn't become an eyesore? Conrad: We could talk about this for a long time but hypothetically, because Paul, let me get my two cents in here. If you regulate what you put signage on, and that's the aesthetic piece, who cares if there's names or two names? Batzli: It looks tacky. Conrad: I don't know that for sure. Probably not. Farmakes: Let's say for instance that Minneapolis, on a 40 story office building has a boulevard sign out there with a 4 inch letter for each office that's in the building. Now we always look at this as tunnel vision. We see each individual applicant. Each individual boulevard sign. But what happens when we're filled up here? What happens when instead of, when you look out on Market Boulevard that isn't that full yet, there's still plenty of development yet to come there. Batzli: Can you imagine the Foshay Tower where everybody has a sign outside? Farmakes: What happens when that fills up? We don't look at it that way. We see it, well we see the one boulevard sign going up bY Americana State Bank but we don't see what else goes by it. We don't see the development next to it. And Americana actually has I think a very good signage plan. It does enough to identify it. You can see it from the road but it's not overkill and that's really what the ordinance that we're pursuing, many of the changes that we have, deals with the overkill. Batzli: But let me ask a question Jeff, Just because we've had the task force for a while and we're filling up downtown and the question, not to cause any irritation at all but are we going to get a new sign ordinance before downtown fills up? Farmakes: I'm not writing it. Maybe Paul can address that. Krauss: Let me tackle that. That's my issue because Jeff worked very diligently on it along with Gene Borg and. Scott: Kevin McShane. Krauss: Kevin, yeah. And the fact is that Kate got it to the point where it was 90~ wrapped up and then had to put finishing touches on it and we've just been swamped. I've asked her to get a schedule. She's looking to get it on your agenda by March. Farmakes: I think the Highway 5 thing maybe is, from what I'm hearing is somewhat interfering with some of the. Krauss: Some of the issues. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 45 Batzli: But in the meantime we keep on seeing these sign issues coming in and it'd be nice to be able to point at something that's, what our vision is going to be. And I promise I won't nit pick it to death like I'm doing to cul-de-sacs and on center islands. Farmakes: And to be proactive about what I just said Ladd, not to beat this dead, but it also benefits other business owners by not having that clutter. By allowing their signs to be seen too. They don't have to compete by putting up 10 signs because the person next to them put up 10 signs. Conrad: I buy that. I think we've always had a pretty restrictive sign ordinance here. Haven't we Paul? Isn't that your impression? Krauss: No. Conrad: Not really huh? Krauss: It's pretty wide open. Conrad: Because when we put it in what, 10 years ago. Or whenever Pat Swenson...the developers of the business community was really incensed then because their feeling was it was very restrictive. Krauss: Well, but as you enter town some of the first signs you see are held on a roof by sandbags. Batzli: Really? Which ones? Krauss: Every one on the Frontier Center. Batzli: Oh really? With sand bags, cool. Mancino: Jeff, does the sign ordinance at all have to do with windows, as in MGM Liquors and their hand made signs there in the windows? Farmakes: Yeah, they deal with that. Well they don't deal so much with what the sign is made out of as much as, if that's what you're referring to. Something like say. Mancino: Not only what it's made out of but the placement of it in their w i ndows. Farmakes: Well it deals with percentages, as I recall. It deals with' percentages of the window space. What we're trying to do is give percentages to calculate space so that it doesn't go beyond. Conrad: So tell me, we're really getting carried away. So tell me like for the Chan Bowl. Batzli: We're not going to get out of here at 10:00 now Ladd. Conrad: I know, I'm screwing this up but so the Chan Bowl has probably the biggest sign in town, don't they? Because they can have lO~ of their Planning Commission Heeting February 3, 1993 - Page 46 300 foot wall. Would they still be able to do that because that's not, that's visual pollution. Krauss: There's also going to be a cap on it. Farmakes: There's a cap on the size. But there is, there's still an argument yet to be made. We were discussing over here amongst ourselves, a formula that you use. I prefer square footage next to the sight line, access road that they're dealing with. I believe the ordinance is dealing with total square footage of the wall of the building and personally I don't think the alleyway has anything to do as far as the formula for using that. $o that's somewhat still under discussion. But what we're looking for is to moderate the coverage of the building. $o if you had this huge building, you don't get these terribly huge signs. If you have a small building, you don't get a huge sign on a small building. $o you get some relationship building to scale to sign. And that also allows some breathing room for signs adjacent. And again, I think that you can see for instance going into some developments. Retail developments, good signage plans and horrible signage plans. And usually the good ones are just as readable but incorporated into the architecture of the building rather than the opposite direction-. Leaving the building and going off on their own, where you have a shotgun approach versus a bullet, and we have examples of that here in town. I think that a lot of the ordinance that we had is being picked up but there are certain areas that, definite area problems that we see here. We're not retnventtng the wheel. There are other communities I think that have dealt with some of these problems and they've come up with some pretty good solutions for them. Minnetonka, we've used their ordinance for sort of a building block, although we've incorporated it into our own. But I think you'll find, it deals with a lot of different issues and it's a complicated ordinance. I'm glad I don't have to take that up. Batzli: No, but I am glad that you're active in it and Ladd takes an interest and I always find it fascinating that we have a good blend up here and different people take the laboring on different things. Like Diane and I apparently are a little bit more technical on some other. things and you guys like signs. That's good. I like to see that. Anything else? Krauss: Well, to touch on what's going to happen on Monday. Monday's an important Council meeting. Batzli: Is that the study area? Krauss: The moratorium. I wrote an ordinance up for a moratorium with Roger. The idea of the moratorium came from some of the Council people. I'm not sure which way it's going to go. I guess if I had to give you a percentage chance, it would probably be better odds that it's not going to be enacted. But that's just a guess. Pending that, the Goodyear store is on the agenda. We also had to bring back the 3eho'vah Witness Church didn't get through. Batzli: Is that going to be on early? Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 47 Krauss= I don't recall. Farmakes: Can you help me out with the thinking on that. If you have 4 half acre, $150,000.00 houses, you're going to get more tax revenue from that than you are from the tax bill, so I don't understand their, thinking. Krauss: Well a couple things. First of all, there have been litigated cases in the State of Minnesota that basically say the loss of tax revenue is not a reason to deny a church. Sut I went through the same calculation you did, except I figured it was 5 homes. The difference is that, I suppose is that homes generate more taxes total but they also require services that the industrial project doesn't. The industrial project is pure cashflow. 8ut I don't think it's going to hinge on, I mean I don't know what's going on with that one. I think that that's going to go through. Farmakes: You know what's bothered me about that type of thing, and I've talked to our State legislator. There's sort of a carte blanche in single family zones. So if you're doing a master plan, churches have sort of a carte blanche, no matter how big they are. And when you're dealing, you know we've done that in this community here because we're a tier suburb and typically what happens to the church is that their membership gets so big in the core city that they have to move out because of the square footage cost. So many of them move into Eden Prairie and lO years later they'll move into the next suburb out. And then buy up, some of them can buy up enormous amounts of property and as I understand the law, basically they have carte blanche in a single family zone. Krauss: No. Well we have, it's conditional use permit and we keep them out of, we insist that they stay on collector or arterial streets. That they have a certain minimum area.. That they buffer themselves from single family homes. Beyond that, yes. There is a carte blanche. Farmakes: If they have a good law firm though, they can take you to the mad on those restrictions can't they? Krauss: No. I think we would be upheld on, I mean traffic issues are certainly a valid concern but you're dealing with something, I mean I agree with you on a personal level but this country has treated churches and organized religion in a certain way for 250 years. Farmakes: All I'm suggesting in the thinking is that to conform with a master plan, when you're dealing with traffic corridors and you're dealing with the type of concentrated traffic that you're dealing with, churches that may have 500, 600, 800 cars in a parking lot, is to gravitate them just like you would anything else. You go to a medium density, a high density. If it's over this amount, you stick them in a commercial or industrial area. I mean it doesn't make sense to me that say~ you come up to an area and you buy a home in a single family and the next thing you know, there's an 800 car parking lot across the street from you. And the law I think is outdated that we have. It goes back a long ways to that sort of opens up single family zoning for that sort of thing because it asks them to go back to the corner church that took up an acre or Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 48 something on the corner of the block and there wasn't a problem. And times have changed. Batzli: Well we looked at, several years ago now, we looked at based on the fear with Eckankar coming in in part, that a large percentage of our tax base might someday vaporize because of tax exempt organizations moving into the city. Since we had Tanadoona and Eckankar and we were afraid you know, $id Hartman's Little Sister to the Poor were going to move in next or something. I don't know what we were thinking but we decided we weren't going to do anything about it then and I think the rationale was, it wasn't going to be a problem. This type of campus setting that Eckankar had was unusual and unique and we weren't going to become a depository of a lot of these things. So if you're suggesting that we look at size of church and where it goes. Farmakes: I don't think we can do that here. I think that's an issue to be handled at the State level and that's. Batzli: Do you want to do something about it? Farmakes: No. In getting back to the church itself, the 3ehovah Witness church, I have no problem at all. I don't understand the relunctance to put a church in an industrial area. It's a wash on the tax revenue as far as I can see. Paul, do you have, do you want to expand any further on that? In fact it seemed to me that you'd make more money not putting it in the single family zone. Krauss: The only thing that T thought, if there was a valid concern of their's that we have a very limited amount of industrial office land in the city. How much of it, and it's very important to the city in terms of future tax base, employment, how much of it are we willing to give up? In the short term, I think there's a balance of what one pays versus the other. That may be unique to this situation because this church is only taking 2 acres. Batzli: I think that's the whole point. Is that this is taking such a small parcel that it's absolutely ridiculous to me that it's even a topic of conversation for purposes of whether we're going to be able to tax it or not. Krauss: Yeah. Batzli: It's almost as bad as my argument on the islands. So I mean that's how silly it is. Anyway, let's move on. Krauss: Well so anyway, Monday night's meeting should be an interesting one. I gave you a couple of other things in your packet.' One was the testimony that a working group I'm with prepared on the State Wetlands law. Batzli: Were you preparing that on behalf of the BOWSR group? That drafted that. I didn't understand that. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 49 Krauss: What this was is, I think you're aware that I was asked to serve on the BOWER group last summer. I did so.. It was somewhat of a frustrating experience. I think the bureauracies are running away with this law in a way that's really going to diminish the ability of a community to manage their own affairs and make life a living hell for anybody that wants to do anything. Frankly there are those, it's been an.. interesting experience because you find that the'State wetlands law is fundamentally the result of a deal that was cut by the agricultural groups and the environmental groups. And it's being balanced on the back of everybody who's left, which is anybody who lives in the Twin Cities or Duluth, St. Cloud or Rochester. Fundamentally the goal of the law is great. I mean we're not arguing that and this group is not arguing that. Everybody supports the no net loss. What we put together a proposal for is for local control for the State to get it's bureaucracies together and not require that you go to 3 or 4 different agencies with different rules and different time lines. That there be some standards that are based in fact and not fiction. And I think we put together a pretty cogent response. Now there was a big turnout across the State at the hearings on this. I've heard that our response was one of the best received ones because we did represent a cross section of opinions and it was the most concise and well put together. There are some changes that, we understand that there's some changes that are occurring in the rules but by.and large they're not enough and we're now trying to kick this program, expand it rapidly. Add on other communities and watershed districts and developers and kick it into the legislative arena for this session because we understand that there's going to be some bills introduced to tinker. One of the things that we got rid of that I found particularly onerous. We understood we got rid of in the rules was this technical advisory committee that basically puts us in the position of we've spent all this time and effort and dollars to pre-plan our community. Develop a wetlands protection plan to go out and survey all of them and this technical advisory committee would basically be a panel consisting of the Soils and Water Conservation District, a BOWER representative and the City Engineer who would effectively say, I don't care. The wetland's where we say it is. And be asked to do that, or be ordered to do that every time and we can come up with conflicting opinions from the city. Or anybody else and then that could be contested to the State. It was a real weird, and I mean it was a star chamber kind of thing. There was no right to public access to this technical advisory committee. There was no public hearing requirement. There was no requirement that they document anything. So we understand that BOWSR's willing to eliminate that. We also understand that BOWSR is willing to accept a continuation of the interim rule program which is what we asked for. So that there's more time available to shake' this out. Keep in mind, in the interim there is no net loss. There has been since last year. It's working 3ust fine. I mean we're in the forefront of this thing but a lot of, most everybody else has already towed the line. So there is not a pressing or eminent problem with massive amounts of wetlands that are going to be destroyed 'if nothing happens. The reverse is actually true. Anyway, I'll keep you posted with that. I also gave you copies of the Best Management Practices Handbook. We're kind of proud of that. I mean I think it's one of the early products and one of the better products. I've sent it around to the State agencies and the watershed districts. We wanted you to have an opportunity to take a look at it and then we wanted it back so we could Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 50 sell it. In the interest of being able to have raises for public employees next year. $o when you're done looking at it, if you could drop them off at City Hall, I'd appreciate it. Harberts: You wanted these back? Krauss: Yeah, ultimately. If you really wanted to keep it, if it's something you wanted to use as a reference document, feel free. Otherwise, if it's going to sit in your closet. Batzli: Do you hold the copyright? Was there a transfer of title from your consultants to you on the copyright?. Krauss: Well since they plagerized a lot other things to begin with, that's not something we got into... We're only selling it for our..' We're not making a lot of money. Farmakes: You weren't inspired more than 25~ though on any one particular thing right? Krauss: No. I just got a copy, GT$ is offering their programs for Planning Commissioners. Do you want to pass that around? If anybody's interested in going, we will be happy to pay for it. Their advance program is probably the better one. Batzli: Any administrative approvals? Krauss: No. PL, ANNING COMMISSION GOALS. Batzli: Let's talk about Planning Commission goals. Is that next on your list? Krauss: Yeah it is but before we do. that, maybe we can Just touch on, well it's part of one of the goals. The Park Board is going into their Comprehensive Plan. The meeting you thought you were coming to tonight but you didn't. We'd like for the Planning Commission to stay in the loop and the Park Board has offered to have you all come to a couple of meetings where it's appropriate but they've also sought, and I think it would be a good idea if one of you were willing to birddog their process and then report back to the Planning Commission. That would be a real good thing for one of you to do. Batzli: When do they meet? Krauss: I asked Todd that. I guess he didn't say. I didn't think they were going to meet more than once a month and I understood it might be at their regular meeting which is, they only have one meeting. I don't remember when it is. Batzli: Would this topic, the amendment to the comprehensive plan occur at the end of the meeting after they talked about each o1: the developments? Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 51 Krauss: I don't know. I mean we could get more'specific about that. It gets to be onerous to sit there. Batzli: It's onerous to sit there through the entire meeting. Krauss: Right. Well, if somebody were willing to indicate a predisposal to volunteer without committing, we can certainly try to find out the details. Batzli: Do we want to be actively involved in the process? I've whinned ineffectively for years that what they are deciding has to do with a lot of the issues that we're also deciding, and that is preservation of open spaces. Is there a park located here and there. Natural features. From time to time we've actually gotten them to take a revisit some issues that we thought, there's some natural terrain that's needed here. Why aren't we preserving that and they've gone back to look at it but for the most part we've totally steered clear once they make their decision. And now's our chance for input into that decision and I guess I would ask the Commission, do we want, now that we have this one opportunity in a lifetime, do we want to take advantage of it? Or do we want to let them decide and just kind of send a representative to report back here what they're doing? Do we want to meet with them as a group is really what I'm asking? Farmakes: They might not want to hear what I have to say but. Batzli: I think we should give them input. Krauss: I think your point, there were some real concerns. 3oe, we talked about it earlier but I think the older members on the commission would remember. Or the people who have been on the commission longer, will recall the issues that occurred with the Hans Hagen development and the commission's belief and staff's belief that we were missing a good bet in preserving an environmentally sensitive area. When the Park Board's predisposition was we need more ballfields. Farmakes: They want to build and that's... Batzli: But Jim Andrews, I mean you can see where they're coming from by his comment earlier. I don't mean to pick on Jim but he wants to see room for organized sports and that's what they're predisposed toward. And it came out real clearly today when he.wants to see a couple of gymnasiums and an 8 lap pool and you know, and so it's the same thing with their, give me some ballfields and a hockey rink. Farmakes: And that's fine if you have 3 kids. But if you're 48 and your kids are gone, you don't necessarily, if you can't find a place in Chanhassen to walk along the trees unless you own some or you own a lake, there are a lot of different types of park experience. Batzli: And Nancy doesn't even want us to walk through the reeds out to the lake. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 52 Krauss: So is there a preference then that we have them organize a couple of joint meetings and everybody, maybe one early in the process so when they're laying out their goals, we can clarify some of these things? Batzli: Yeah. I'd like to see us meet up front to talk in general terms about parks and open space and how that fits in with our view of Chanhassen, if it does. And then I think, I don't want to intrude on their process. They didn't trample on us too bad but ! would like an initial meeting to give them our input and then I'd be willing to try and track their progress. Conrad: Is Mark Koegler leading that? Krauss: Yeah. Mark's doing the job which is great because Mark worked with us and there's good tie in there. When we did the Comp Plan I went before the Park Board 2 or 3 times just to keep them posted on what was. Batzli: Maybe that's what we should do is have, I'm sorry. What's his name? Todd, yeah. Do that for us. Conrad: So you've got good ideas that you can just throw out? Batzli: I don't know that I do but I'd like to hear what they're trying to do and what their proocess is. Scott: It seems like we need to kind of expand. I mean they talk about park and recreation and you're right, it's more of an organized situation but I think we can kind of expand the vista a little bit by talking about unique topographic features or perhaps passive recreational use 'versus active organized. Farmakes: And even tying in the creek you know that we're dealing with on TH 5. Krauss: Well that creek is part of their agenda. I mean that will be done. Farmakes: But you can deal with that like they've dealt with the trail over on Lake Ann. Where they basically chopped down a 60 foot swath through the trees and then decided that they didn't like what they put down on the ground and they chopped down another 60 foot swath. I mean I guess it depends on what type of park experience you want to make. If you want to make a parkway like they have in Calhoun or you want to more trees and less trail. There's a lot of different things and my curious thing is that 20 years from now, when our ballfields have caught up with our demand and our barbeques and our picnic tables and our outdoor Satellites, where are we going to find the space to go for a walk in the woods. Where are we going to find it publically? And where.are we going to find a quiet area where people want to go like Hyland or there's a multi use type park. They have a multi use experience in one park and unless we go down to the bluff or unless we have a creek~ if we don't deal with any of these other areas, all these neighborhoods that we're building are going to have to hop in the car and go somewhere for that experience because it's going to be 5-10 miles away. Well that's what I'm saying. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 53 Yeah, you'll have to do something like that because we're only building one kind of thing and I don't think that that's ever good. Conrad: Are there people on the Park and Rec that have a vision? I don't know who's there. I honestly don't. Is it basically staff driven? Krauss: I don't know the dynamics. Batzli: You know the major criteria that I, I mean I applied for that group and the major criteria that they used was were you active in the Chanhassen/Chaska Athletic Association kind of thing so they're coming from a mindset of organized soccer, organized football, Little League. You know all these things which is fine because you've got a lot of participation and that's what people want. But I think people· also want something that doesn't come out as clearly and that is, some of the multi experience kind of things. Now North Lotus Park, is a good example actually I think of, you have some ballparks, you have a little totlot, and then you have a big open space leading down into the marsh into Lotus. And it's never utilized at all. I mean some people go out there and hit golf shots. Practice their golf shots on it but otherwise it's not utilized at all. And the deer feed on it and I kind of pull the kids on their sled once or twice a year or cross country ski out onto Lotus through it but it's under utilized. But I think eventually people will begin to appreciate it as the city starts filling up that there is this open space leading out onto the lake and other things. Farmakes: Minnetonka has a nice, over by I think. Scott: Purgatory. Farmakes: Yeah. There's a wetland. A trail through the wetland there. Krauss: Oh, that's Meadow Park. Yeah, that's between Oakland Road and... Farmakes: Yeah, and that's right next to a big ballfield complex. Krauss: It's 4 blocks away from Ridgedale. Farmakes: Yeah. $o I mean there are a lot of different things that they can do with that. Batzli: So to answer your question Ladd, no. I don't have things I can just spout out but I would like to.hear what they do and then maybe we can think about it and if we need to follow up. with another meeting, we can do that. To quickly move onto our goals, so we can get out of here in 4 minutes. I asked people to bring goals. We have a list of ongoing items. I don't know that anybody brought any goals. Harberts: I did. Batzli: Okay. Do you want to share them with us? You can go first. Harberts: Certainly from a Professional perspective but I think it has a · lot of impact on any community is, as development occurs is that I truly Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 54 believe that transit needs to be looked at in the forefront of development not as an afterthought. Batzli: We have traditionally looked at it as an afterthought and have paid as little attention as possible to it. Harberts: And I will change that. And I think the example with'Target was a nice opportunity and I've already looked at. the Opus Gateway. You know in all developments transit certainly isn't going to be a primary focus but when you're looking at, .even with the discussion earlier tonight with the recreational center, you know as simple as if this recreational center is going to be attracting kids and youth, I didn't see any sidewalks or any bikeways or anything like that. You know 'from the demand that we see at Chaska Community Center for public transit is enormous. In the summertime it's enormous. Mothers and fathers, they love public transit in the summertime. Get the kid on that vehicle and it takes care of their day. They can go swimming. Batzli: Do we have public transit here in Chanhassen? I'm serious. I'm never here. I sleep here. That's it. I'm just kidding. What issues in particular do you want us to look at? Or would you want us to look at. Is there an issue or is this just an ongoing thing that we need to pay more attention to? Harberts: I think it's an ongoing thing but I guess overall what I'd like to do and certainly develop in a closer relationship with staff on a staff to staff basis, is having some general type of criteria so that when we look at development, the question has been asked, what is the role of public transit. Is it appropriate for this type of development that's going on or whatever? Batzli: So let's say a residential development comes in here like tonight. Do we look at public transportation? Harberts: I think it should be a question that's always addressed. 8atzli: Okay. Harberts: But in terms of the focus of transit, it's going to have different degrees. You know with the development tonight, I don't see it as a primary focus. One of the questions that I'll ask later on has to do with traffic control, things like that, especially on Highway $ where everything dumps off there. But that's certainly, I didn't see a priority for it. 8ut when we were looking at a recreational center, when it's a heavy destination, things like that. Industrial is certainly big time, especially when we're working with, I'm working through staff with the major employers out here to find ways to get public bus out here. To reverse commute programs. Your land use has to compliment transit. You can't force transit out there.. Cost, everything. $o if we can look on a more proactive perspective for public transit, there's going to be some great benefits to the community and that's what my. wish list is. Batzli: So Paul,-assume for a minute that you look at this question on all of our developments. Is there something we need to put on our to do Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 55 list or is this just something that you will follow up on? Krauss: Well I actually think it's something that as our sensibilities have changed and as Southwest Metro's capabilities have improved, we've started to do it as a matter of course. I mean Target was caught early on and we had them put a bus shelter in by the front door. And they kicked about it. They said well, you've got one out on the street. That's good enough. Well it wasn't good enough because you don't want people to walk in the rain or 30 below. Why should they have to.walk further to the bus than they do to their car? Batzli: Yeah but you what really happens is they all huddle inside the building peering out the window waiting for the bus so this is actually good for them. They don't have to run all the way through the parking lot. Krauss: It's hard to define through in every case ahead of time where you would do this and how you would do this. I mean this is almost a case by case basis. Batzli: Do you understand what Diane is looking for? Krauss: Yeah, I think so. Batzli: Do we have the expertise in house to answer her questions and to cover this issue on our staff report? Krauss: Well the expertise we need is actually with them. I mean it's kind of, you know we bring the site design expertise. They tell us what their capabilities are and we've been able to work it out. Batzli: Okay. What's next on your list? Harberts: That's all. Batzli: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I really don't have any great insights this year. I think Highway 5 is the biggest we've got to look at. That's moving and as long as that's happening. The study areas out on TH 41 and TH 5 I think is an interesting thing that we have to push and I don't know what the timeframe is. Krauss: Nell the one on TH 41 is part of the Highway 5 process. Conrad: Is that really? It is part of it huh? Batzli: You have here on our ongoing issues for the study area, north study area, that public hearing to City Council. That is just on the moratorium correct? That's not on anything that the-task force has done? That comes to us first? Right, for public hearings? Krauss: I don't know why that says that. That's not. Cross out that second sentence. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 56 Batzli: But I mean there is going to be a public hearing on the moratorium I assume. Krauss: Yeah, but that's not relevant. Batzli: Okay. Conrad: Do we have an open, continue to talk about architectural standards. What's happening? Are we looking at them? Are we just thinking about it or do we just always challenge a sign when it comes in? I don't know what we've said. Krauss: To the extent that it's in the corridor, it's going to be part of that overlay district. Now that doesn't take care of the rest of the city. Batzli: Does Minnetonka have architectural standards? Krauss: Minnetonka has the exact same language we have today because I wrote it over there. Batzli: So they don't have architectural standards? Krauss: No. Batzli: Who does? Farmakes: Although what we're discussing in the sub group of planners, the consultant the city hired, is relevant to that. Although it is in the Highway 5 area. Krauss: Who does? Batzli: Yeah, what city has them? Krauss: Well what do you call architectural standards? 8atzli: Well I don't know because I don't know what we're even talking about every time we talk about architectural standards. I'd like to see an ordinance that has architectural standards in it to see if I want them or not. I don't even know if I want them. Krauss: That's being clapped together for the Highway 5 corridor overlay. Farmakes: You can see one from Illinois which is the orriginal one that they had at the meeting. If you want to see one, but it's more like a very long intent statement than it is an actual, I guess what I think of an ordinance. Batzli: For example let's say we wanted to adopt it for downtown Chanhassen, even though most of it is already done and we can't' do much about it. Let's say we wanted to put it somewhere other than Highway 5, which we may want to do. Should we look at the original one, or at least give it to us for informational purposes so we can talk about it Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 57 intelligently. I'd like to see it come on.our to do list, just at least to evaluate whether we want to look at it. Krauss: Yeah, we can get you that. Farmakes: It kind of reads like our PUD ordinance. Krauss: Really? Kind of mushy. Farmakes: No, it has a very long intent area where you kind of read the restrictions. They're more intent type words. Conrad: Well I think the goals should be to minimize the amount of conversation we have been giving architectural standards when the projects come in because we've got 7 people making decisions on stuff that we really shouldn't be making decisions about. There are either standards for them or there aren't and I think we have to come to grips with that because I really don't think that 7 of us can tell a developer how to design a building, and that's what we're doing. I think we'd better decide if we have some standards, we'd better tell them what they are before they come in here and then we give them 7 opinions on how to redesign a building. We can't do that. Farmakes: I think principles is a better word to use than standards because what it is is there is architectural principles. When we think of standards, everybody starts talking about style. Mancino: And someone needs to teach us how to take those principles and apply them to every time it comes up. Or else-take those principles and have an architectural review board... I'm not saying that I support that but that's another option. Scott: Or just use an example of something that's built. So if you have any questions, Mr. or Ms. Developer, just on the corner of such and such, take a look at that building or take a look at Target or whatever. At least have something a little more tangible. Because from talking to some of the guys who do some development around, that's the thing that just totally drives them nuts. This ameoba thing that they have to deal with and it changes all the time. Some'of them are at the point now where they're just, the hock with it. I'm going to build somewhere else. Farmakes: Well you know, there is an inherent conflict Of interest because what happens is, if you're doing it for commerce and there's no value to the outside of your building to your commerce, you don't do anything for it. Batzli: Okay. Well right now let's not, let's put it on our to do list because we've got to go through several other people here. We could talk about this all night. Do you have anything else Ladd? Conrad: No. I like the transit idea. I think that's worthwhile. I don't know what it means. We've always, it's never been an. issue. We talk about park and ride. As long as we have that, we've talked about the railroad track bed going through there and never using that for anything. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 58 But I think with Diane on here, I think that's a real asset to make us think about it. And maybe you can help us provide some, maybe you can get us thinking about that a little bit more. Batzli: She can get light rail out here. Scott: I'm really interested in Highway 5. When I think of the vision when you're coming into town from both directions. I think that's something that's really high on my priority list so, I would say that's probably the thing I'd like to concentrate on. Batzli: Okay. Anything else? Scott: No, that's it. Batzli: 3elf. Farmakes: I agree. I think Highway 5's going to take up all our time. It also probably should because it's going to be the development of the decade. The other question, as far as the goal is, are we going to have long term planning at all heading down South on 212 and on the junction of TH 41 and TH 5? Are we going to deal more with the long term development of that once we decide where those frontage roads go through and start talking about what we're going to see there? Is that possible? Krauss: TH 41 and TH 5? Mancino: The access boulevards north of TH 5? Farmakes: The Fleet Farm. Krauss: Oh yeah. Farmakes: What the intent of commercial will be there. Krauss: We're not going to do a detailed, we're doing detailed site studies and shirettes...on 6 or 7 sites on the corridor. So the entirety of the corridor, no. We won't have it on every site but we're going to take important ones and do it. We're going to be working up a process similar to what we did on Target. ~4e're going to be working up One for the Opus development and bringing it into your meetin~ on the 25th. By the way, you're also going to get notice from me that I cancelled the subcommittee meeting next Week. I don't want to belabor the point too much but after coming off of the last meeting it occurred to me and to Kate that something's not banging away here and we think we know what it is and we want to take a moment to fix it and get the process going in the right direction. So it involves us bringing back the goals and policy statements of the task force on February 25th I think. Mancino: So we're still going to have the subcommittee and it will still be made up of the same people? Krauss: Oh yeah. That's not the issue but the full committee needs to decide some direction before we decide what ordinances we're going to deal Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 59 with. I mean it was very clear that not everybody has the same thought about what's supposed to be happening there. Batzli: Very tactfully said. Jeff, did you have anything else? Farmakes: No. I'm involved in those two things and I guess, not to get on overload, but those will probably take up as much time. I agree on the transportation issues, although not being a user of public transportation myself but I have to say I have very little practical use experience using public transportation in the suburbs. From what I have seen, and I've been listening to it for 20 years, I've been hearing'a lot more discussion about these things than I actually see benefit, although I believe in the future that that may change. Harberts: FYI presentation might be in order to the commission. Krauss: I think it might be kind of neat for them to know, I mean there's a lot of nifty stuff happening that you should probably know about. Mancino: That's what I'd recommend Diane. I'd love to have a little in service on transit. I guess my big goal is Highway 5 task force. Being on it and being on a subcommittee. Batzli: Okay. So when we prioritize our goals that I suppose we normally kind of at least report up to City Council, Highway 5 has defintely been the leader. In looking at the ongoing issues chart, is there anything else that grabs people's attention as something that should be concentrated on in addition to the Highway $ corridor? Harberts: Nhat about the discussion tonight earlier? Batzli: Regarding? Harberts: The TIF district and the meeting conference room versus a recreational facility. Far makes: We have no. Harberts: We have nothing. Farmakes: No information at all on any of that and it seems to be. Harberts: But they were talking about a summer start of construction of summer of '93. And I don't know if that was some earlier meetings that I missed on, since I wasn't involved. If that's just a to base cost on. But there certainly didn't seem to be any clear direction on what to go. 8atzli: Well, we had a fundamental problem at that meeting. One, I mean you have to initially realize that the recreation center has been vetoed by the community several times. This is a way to get it done without having to go back to the community. And so the Park. and Rec 8card wants to see it happen that way. They want space to have basketball and swimming, etc, etc. So that's their mission at this meeting was to see a big one that's going to service all of the community. And obviously I Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 60 think our concern may have been a lit'tie bit more, let's not put in something half way and let's make sure that if we're using TIF dollars, that the community's getting something and not just a conference room for the hotel for free. Although, I could be convinced that the conference room, including a stage and everything else is needed very badly and it sounds like that's what Dick Wing and some other people were saying is that we're tapped out. We need additional community meeting rooms. But that information wasn't really there and what Jeff said is, let's design it to what we really need. We don't have any data on who would use this thing or who we're going to gear it towards or whether they're going to want their little kids in downtown next to the restaurant/bar, whatever it turns out to be, which was a huge concern to start with and we really don't know what we're doing. Harberts: Well that's really exactly my question. Is that an issue before us this year? Mancino: Is there something we should be doing? 8atzli: You know from a historical perspective, the H~A decides to do something and we see it after it's all put together into a plan. Krauss: That's why we asked them to talk to you. 8atzli: That's why we saw it tonight and so if we want to continue to have input into that, we need to drive that mechanism. Ohterwise the next time we see it, it will come to us in a plan. Done deal. Scott: Did you, I was quite offended by the whole situation myself. Batzli: I hope I didn't offend you. Scott: No, not at all as a matter of fact. I've been learnin~ quite a bit about how to be inoffensive from you and I didn't figure it was my place at the time to do that. 8ut I got the opinions like the deal had been cut. Harberts: Well it was on the cutting edge there. Scott: You know? Like a deal had been cut. And it was kind of like, well here's the deal. So I'm pretty good at being a jerk sometime. So I was just going like, like what's the deal? Like who's going to benefit? Where's this money coming from? Krauss: I should tell you. It's been a real moratory concept. I mean it originally started out with, I mean we've had long standing issues over there. The hotel came and wanted to expand and put a restaurant in and wanted some conference space. We knew we had a movie theatre that's wanted to locate there for years. We knew the bowling alley's near bankruptcy and they're into the city for a substantial sum of money. Well you just throw all those things in the same. Oh, we knew that the Dinner Theatre needed a new scene shop and we knew that Frontier Center was losing it's effectiveness. You start throwing all those things into a pot and stir and things start dropping out. And this was originally driven by Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 61 private parties who came to us and said, well we want to do this. What can the City do? We started saying, well we probably can do a lot but we're not going to do it unless it fixes a lot of problems that we've already had in here. The concept of the, it changes. It really does. I mean it's been changing from week to week as new things crop up and issues are thrown in. So don't feel at all shut out of the process. Frankly it's even tough for me to follow it because it changes. The size of the recreational component keeps on changing. The level of interest o~ private parties in the thing keeps on changing. Boy, it's really hard to think of this thing breaking ground this year period. Farmakes: I think it's a good idea. But I think it's going to be a real mistake to sell it as a civic center, because it's not. It's not a civic center. It's a'partial civic center at most and if they go ahead and be upfront and honest about it, but I was thinking of...when I keep on seeing that thing come back out because it's always in the same spot as it comes back out. Over what has it been, 10 years? It's always in the same spot. Krauss: Well yeah, and a lot of it predates me but it's my, what I've been led to believe is the first time'this thing came up for a vote, it was very close. It was the second time, I was here the second time it came up. Batzli: Yeah, but they did it too quickly. I mean the voters said, look. We hammered this once, what are you doing? Krauss: The second time though it was over here. Batzli: I know but they didn't want to hear it again. It was only about a year or 9 months after the first one. Krauss: But the issue on the first time, the issue was Filly's and the impact that had on mixing kids with all that. The nicest part of this proposal clears all that stuff up. That's no longer an issue. Plus the world has changed around. I mean Filly's is no longer the bar to go beat up somebody at on a Saturday night, or be beat up at. I mean it's across the street from our supermarket you know. It's got a main street that goes through to TH 5. It's just a different place. Batzli: What's that football player's name? It might have something to do with him not being in town anymore. No names. Okay. Harberts: Well the point right there though-, do we take a role? Do we have a role? We do want a role? I think this type of project certainly has an impact on our community and so from my personal perspective I'd like to see a very active role in it. Batzli: I would want to see, I mean what I would really love to see is a phased construction where we can do it right but we need a little bit more information and I don't know that the HRA has that. Farmakes: And a viable retail. It shouldn't just look like they're amenities for the hotel and restaurant. It should look like a viable. We should have viable retail, otherwise we're isolating other. I mean if Planning Commission Meeting FebTuary 3, 1993 - Page 62 we're going to have quasi retail over on Great Plains, and down there by the Medical Arts Building, we should connect it. We should have a, we don't have retail up on the street. Batzli: So how do we continue to have input Paul? It sounds like we want to have input. Krauss: Well, I mean things are being handled differently than they were before. I mean you are seeing projects. We first brought this to you when, early last fall and Don took to heart very much what he heard here because at that time it was much more limited in scope. I think you're basically saying the same thing with more knowledge. Then it was a limited scope project. Sust a back part of the Frontier Building and I remember Tim Erhart and Brian, I think you said welL. This is silly. Why don't you just punch out those derelict looking buildings in the front and carry it through to 78th Street and have a lot of presence and go the whole 9 yards. Put a lot of glass in. Make sure that this is a~ impressive structure. Batzli: In an area that tied together and they had that by having the entrance which tied it together, rather than having these little dark corridors that scurried around a maze. So they took a lot of our comments to heart but how do we continue to? Krauss: Well we'll make sure that, I mean I'll work with Don and Todd to make sure that you have other opportunities to do this. This was to the point where it should be brought back to. you and the Park Board for some direct input. We'll keep doing that. Batzli: Okay. Farmakes: I do like the idea of though of a recreational/conference/ entertainment area. But we should be known for entertainment. We really should. When you look at what we have here in our community, we should be known for entertainment. Most of MTV comes out of here. We've got several theatres. We've got the largest capacity restuarants here in the state and we should be known more for that, and it's not. We're not known. I mean we're not playing that up. Scott: But when you look at that line that says, this is public and this is private, I think we need to change that so that if something is going to be a private enterprise, an entrepreneur needs to make the decision that I can make a buck at this so I'm going to pay for it. Krauss: And I know that's very much a part of the deal with Don. The hotel is, you're going to have to sign on the bottom line. You're going to build 20 rooms, you're going to build a' new restaurant, you're going to build some of your own conference facilities. Cinema, you're going to . have to guarantee that you're either going to buy the space from us or lease it long term from us to get a restaurant in there. We need, if we do the retail component on 7$th Street, they're looking for commitments from Bloomberg to say he will own that space and he will lease it out so he'd be paying for that area. That's very much a part of the deal and it's just so tough. I think you can probably fathom how tough it is when Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 63 you've got about 10 to 15 interests, each with their own agendas trying to put something like this together. Mancino: Do you know, is a private health club trying to get in the area? Krauss: No. Not that I've heard of. Batzli: It would be nice if the Y or somebody else would come in and take care of that and then you could really do a community center as a community center and not worry about some of this other demands that we have in this area I think. But that's just me. Scott: I would personally appreciate being able to see that. Although I think most of us, we were prepared to deal with another issue, I thought that was extremely interesting. $o I think we need to be involved in that process. Farmakes: I know that Flagship really just separates adult recreation and children even though they have the family, they also have the family coordination program between the two. But I don't want to go swim laps when there are kids in the pool.- I just don't want to do that. I don't want to go sit in a hot tub when there's 20 kids on there and who knows what they're doing. Krauss: Well originally, the athletic facility was what Don was indicating. It was an adjuct to the hotel and adults in the community and the recreation for everybody else would be done out at the expanded school. But then we started hearing from some folks that that's not egalitarian enough. We really need to offer this for everybody and. Farmakes: The practical matter is that many people are just going to pull up, drop their kids off.and take off. A lo%' of adults don't like to recreate. Batzli: Okay. I have two things quickly here. One is Bluff Creek corridor. I think we need to, if that's going to be handled with the Park and Rec Commission, in their recreational element, that's fine but .we need to move on that or else that's going to be an opportunity lost and we're going to have that whole thing built. And the open space zoning, I think that kind of ties in with the existing zoning use...that you passed out today. I know that this is kind of flogging a dead horse but I still would eventually want to see, I think the area down,' coming off the bluffs in the southern part of the city is one of the nearest natural features we've got. I still want to see that rezoned somehow. I don't care if it is a taking. I think we have to do it. Harberts: What's it zoned now? Krauss: Business fringe and agriculture. In fact, I was just told I have to go back to Court for the fourth time. Batzli: On Moon Valley? Scott: On Moon Valley. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 64 Batzli: That's been worth it though hasn't it? Krauss: I've loved it. Batzli: So I would like to see those things taken a look at some point during this year and .I agree that the Highway $ corridor, it'd be nice to add the standards, at least to educate us as to what we can do with it and what is the Highway 5 corridor doing with it so we can be consistent. Maybe we want to wait for them to bring in their standards and then just adopt them city wide if we like them. Krauss: Well that's my thought. I'm kind of, well to touch on it. I just handed out something for you that I was going to hand out on Saturday. 8y the way, I think you all know you're invited, Brian in particular, to the Saturday morning goals session. Batzli: Is that going to be over at the Fire Station? Krauss: Yes. Same format. 8atzli: Same format. What time does that start? Harberts: I was told 7:30 until noon. Mancino: What is it? Krauss: Once a year the City Council ~ets together and talks about goals for the year. I handed this out, and I'm kind of glad you didn't come up with too many new projects because frankly we're getting snowed in. What's on that sheet is the list of how many boards and committees my staff is responsible for. I mean the engineering department is responsible for one, the City Council. That's all they do. Public Safety is only responsible for the Public Safety Commission. That's all they do. We're the only organization around here that has 12 or 13, whatever it is, committees. And then what's really concerning me and every time I see the newspaper saying the recession is over, it doesn't.sound so good to me in some ways because the dam is bursting. I mean we've just got developments coming in like crazy. 8atzli: 3ob security. Harberts: Or early burnout. Scott: And then taking a look at this list and saying, say from the Planning Commission's perspective, we can probably handle two of those a meeting. There's at least a year's worth of stuff in there too and you guys basically do the heavy lifting. Then we send you back for 'more in some instances so I can definitely see where you're coming from there because we're going to get the tip of the iceberg and you guys get the rest of it. Krauss: So hopefully things won't fall through the cracks too much but frankly I feel kind of guilty over the lack of quick progress we're making on Highway 5 because there was some ~undamental things that weren't done Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 65 and when it occurred to me what wasn't done, I mean it was really so basic it was... Batzli: So, what is going to come of your request to Don? Anything? Krauss: I don't know. I'm not even sure at this point what I, I mean the easiest thing for us to do would be for 3o Ann and Kate to go back onto 5 day work weeks but I really don't think either one of them are in a position to do that because of their family responsibilities. The possibility of bringing an intern on, I'm not terribly excited about that. I mean there are a lot of different. Harberts: So much training? Krauss: Well that's the problem. You know in a crisis situation. They're only here for 6 months and then they're gone. On the other hand though, we're thought of very highly around this State with the departments we work for and there's a lot of folks that would like to work. · · Harberts: Is there budget opportunities though to hire for new hire3 Krauss: No, that's part. You know Don's usually been able to work some magic and find money here and there but the idea of staffing a new position is probably not realistic. Which then you come down to the only other option, and I didn't put it in here, is we've got to pick and choose what we're going to be successful on. Farmakes: If this moratorium goes through help? Krauss: Well, if the moratorium goes through, it helps in some respects but it's a big city and most of the development we're getting is outside the moratorium area anyway. Batzli: That's what you get for expanding the MUSA line Paul. You could have had a cush job. Scott: I get the idea that that moratorium was thrown specifi6ally at the Abra/Soodyear. Krauss: I think that they're genuinely concerned. I mean the same night they had the Opus thing on. They're genuinely concerned about everything that's happening. 8atzli: Yeah but you know, it was proposed that we put a moratorium on months ago and everybody said no, no. We don't want to do that. Farmakes: I think that happened to be coincidence that that came up at the same time that came up in the discussion· It wasn't driven by it. 8atzli: No, I don't think it was driven by that one thing. I 3ust found it interesting that the minute the new Council was kind of, it became an item again because. Planning Commission Meeting FebruaTy 3, 1993 - Page 66 Krauss: Well for a lot of reasons too, we lost about 6 to $ months on getting going before we got the final go ahead to get started on the Highway 5 project. It was a long period of time that we back peddled. Batzli: Yeah. So, do you want us to do anything? Do you want us to lobby Don? Conrad: I think Brian, you should, I'll hand out responsibilities here but I guess. Batzli: As Assistant Chairperson you could be just as responsible. Conrad: You nominated me so you're going to suffer. I think that you should really sit down with Paul and go over his priorities and Paul's got to tell you what he thinks his staff can do. And you've got a pretty good sense for what you know is out there and what the things we talked about tonight. I think Paul's got to tell us what he can get done this year with his staff and then it's our job to say, do we want to get more done? And if we want to get more done, then it's our's to tell the City Council that we, here's what we're going to get done. 'If you want to get more done through the staff, then there's got to be something, some of that additional resources placed there. What that does is at least gives us our priority. We can't ask staff to do more than they can do. We don't know what they can do but the bottom line is, probably if we take care of Highway 5 this year, we're probably doing a pretty good job but that's not much for us to do because basically it's Paul and the task force and I don't know how much commission involvement there is. 8ut I think I'd sure like to have a crack at looking'then at what we could do. Batzli: That's the issue is because, assume for a minute that you and I aren't on the task force, which I think is true. We sit here all year and we wonder what's going on and then while these guys are out there doing their Highway 5 deal and we're.saying, let's do something. Guys, Minnesota gender neutral, yes. And the issue for me is I would like to get something done between now and when suddenly I've got this grandiose plan in here for irrate public hearings. But you're already doing something but I don't see it happening and so that's' the problem too. Harberts: And also at the same time I think you can still go ahead and prioritize but there's always that what if. If something else comes up or some new development or whatever. Krauss: I don't know what percentage of our time it is but it's probably 60~ to 70~ of our time is, here's a new project that walked in the door. We have an obligation to get it on the agenda in 4 weeks, and there's a lot of those in the pipeline. Farmakes: Can you adjust the service requirements on the lead time to bring? I know you have your own set of criteria. Is that carved in stone? Krauss: Well when I first started here it was 3 week turn around. I raised it to 4. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1993 - Page 67 Farmakes: That's not legal, correct? Krauss: It's in, well it might not be in ordinance. It's in the procedures that we hand. out to folks. But all that happened is we let everything slip for another week. Harberts: But isn't also though within whatever that project would be, that if something, some characteristic of that project happens that you have an obligation to in a sense react to it or whatever? Krauss: Oh yeah. Well you can bounce something if there's rational to do it. But we have at least 2 packets going out every week. Batzli: Well Paul, you and I wlll sit down and we'll see what you think you think you can get done and we'll take it from there. Okay, thanks everybody. Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim