Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1g. Minutes
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 11, 1993 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. 1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Wing, Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Dockendorf ' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Paul Krauss Kate Aanenson, Sharmin A1- .Taff, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman, and Scott Harr 1 OATHS OF OFFICE: Elliott Knetsch administered the Oaths of Office to Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor; Colleen Dockendorf, Councilwoman; and Mark Senn, Councilman. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the agenda with additions under Council Presentations by Councilman Wing to discuss a concern over an ordinance, and Councilman Senn wanted an update. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: Mayor Chmiel: Don, would you go through the organizational items? Don Ashworth: Would you like me to take them one at a time or just briefly go through the entire list? 1 Mayor Chmiel: I think we can go through briefly with the entirety of the list. I think Council has all had an opportunity to at least review that. ' Don Ashworth: Rules of Procedure are rules under which the Council conducts their business. They basically have not changed from this past year. Official Newspaper, we did get a request from the Villager, as they are the only newspaper that maintains a known office of issuance in the city. Staff is recommending the Villager. Under Official Depository, we have a request from Chanhassen State Bank. They have been our depository for several years. The City Attorney, we're recommending that Knutson - Campbell continue to act in that capacity. Bond Consultant was actually approved at the end of the year. Springsted continues to be recommended. Acting Mayor is an item that the Council needs to determine between themselves who they wish to see act in that capacity. Staff does not make a recommendation. Weed Inspector. Under State law the Mayor is the Weed Inspector Typically you have set one of our staff members. Bob Zydowsky has offered to continue to stay in that capacity. The Fire Chief. You're in the second year with Jim McMahon and accordinging the Council does not need to act on that. Health Officer, Dave McCollum has agreed to continue to serve in that capacity. It pays a whopping *1.00 per year. City Auditor's. The Council went through a decision process earlier this past spring in selecting Deloitte for a 3 year period of time. And again, no action is required on that one. 1 1 1 w 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If I could go back up to item (f). I would like to make the motion that Dick Wing be Acting Mayor. Mike had it last year. Councilman Mason: It was a tough job. I worked pretty hard at it. ' Mayor Chmiel: And I try to rotate it every year. So with that I would make . that motion. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Richard Wing as Acting Mayor for 1993. All voted in favor, except Councilman Wing who abstained, and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: So that pretty much takes care of these. Don Ashworth: So the motion was (a) thru (j) then? Mayor Chmiel: And I will make that motion now of having organizational items of items (a) thru (j) for a motion. ' Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the following ' organizational items for 1993: (a) Resolution 193 -01: Rules of Procedure as presented. ' (b) Official Newspaper - The Villager (c) Official Depository - The Chanhassen Bank (d) City Attorney Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs (e) Bond Consultant - Springsted ' (f) Acting Mayor - Richard Wing (g) Weed Inspector - Mayor Chmiel Deputy Weed Inspector - Bob Zydowsky (h) Fire Chief - Jim McMahon (i) Health Officer - Dr. McCollum (j) City Auditors - Deloitte - Touche All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Senn: Don, if I could, just one question. Are these all basically II one year appointments? Don Ashworth: Some of them. Official Newspaper is 1 year, although again the Villager is the only newspaper currently having an office in Chanhassen, which is a requirement. Official Depository is 1 year. City Attorney is 1 year. Bond Consultant is typically 1 year. It can be a 3 year designation. Acting Mayor 1 year. Weed, 1 year. Fire Chief is a 2 year appointment and again we're in the second half of that appointment process so next year you'd be acting on that designation. Health Officer, 1 year. City Auditors. We entered into a 3 year contract with Deloitte and although you could sever it, you probably would end up with some problems if we did that. Potential damage claims. 1 2 • 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 It Councilman Senn: What year of that are we in? 1 • Don Ashworth: This is the first of that 3 year contract. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to keep it at a yearly kind of thing and I think 1 we did expand with Deloitte. .Deloitte has done real well by the City. We seem to be, or at least I seem to be quite satisfied with him. Councilman Wing: I'd like to keep an eye on that Bob Zydowsky in that Weed Inspector position. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's really probably the most important one there. 1 VISITOR PRESENTATION: None. • Councilman Wing: Can I sneak in a welcome to our State Representative and our County Commissioner, who are in the audience this evening. Mayor Chmiel: Welcome on the outside. 1 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: e. Approve Standardization of Auxiliary Power Receptacle for Lift Station Nos. 1 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17 and 18. g. City Council Minutes dated December 9, 1992 City Council Minutes dated December 14, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes dated December 2, 1992 h. Approve Consultant Services Agreement for Radio Path Profiles (SCADA System) 1 for Lift Station Nos. 23, 24 and 25; Project Nos. 91 -14, 91 -17, and 92 -5. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 A. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING EXEMPTION FROM PLATTING REQUIREMENTS. FIRST READING. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Item 3(a). I'd just like to go through this a little bit. I'm not too excited with this subdivision ordinance. And I think that I'd like to sort of, this goes back to Don. My concerns are a couple. One, if we go to do what's being suggested, sometimes streets change names. Highway 101 changes location. Things of that nature and then once someone moves into their property, they feel very much as if they own that property and every foot of that property. And sometimes with having new people move in, people get possessive as well. They'd like to mow maybe another 2, 3, 4 feet over and I guess my concerns are basically that everyone will want to have what's their's and I don't want to see the arguments that could take place amongst neighbors. And so maybe with that, Don I'll throw that back to you because you and I have had some discussions. 3 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Don Ashworth: I've included various examples and metes and bounds descriptions can really become very, very difficult to read, administer, try to keep track of, etc. I think that we have tried to make the process a little easier for 1 some individuals. However, I still have concerns anytime that we allow a description to go through as metes and bounds. I should note that we do allow a metes and bounds by what I call a simple subdivision process. For example, if ' you needed 10 additional feel for a deck and your neighbor was willing to sell and you both had a platted lot, we would allow the sale of that 10 feet. The description then would be, I would own Lot 1 and the westerly 10 feet of Lot 2. My neighbor would end up with the resulting description of Lot 2, except for the easterly 10 feet. A description like that is relatively easy to figure out where you are. Kate, did you want to go through a little bit of the background on how this got up to where it got up to? 11 Kate Aanenson: I'd be happy to do that. This came about when we did the David Teich subdivision. I don't think the instances of this would be pretty much in ' the, what we call the urban service area. I think the instance we had of this was larger tract lots where I think some of these may exceed 25 feet. I think Don's suggestion that they do become cumbersom is true, especially in recording. It's up to the County to decide whether or not they'll accept it. But we do II allow administrative lot splits, as Don explained, where they're pretty straight forward and it's pretty easy to record. But the instances where we've had these tend to be larger lots where somebody wants to sell off maybe 20 acres and it I does become a burden when you've got that big of a property to hire a surveyor and trying to do that. So we felt that, the County will accept them and if they can be managed under, with the minimal language, that we felt it's appropriate to relieve them of that burden, when they're not maybe building even. It's maybe just selling off some propert. Mayor Chmiel: Metes and bounds, it sometimes means tied to the big oak tree and II it gets cut down, then what happens with situations as such. Kate Aanenson: Well I don't think we would something like that but I think what 1 we're trying to do is respond to a burden that some people have approached the city on that. It does become expensive when you've got a large piece of property. To hire somebody to survey and it's more of trying to be reactive to I some of those concerns. Mayor Chmiel: If they choose to put that into lots, that can be absorbed by the cost of that lot as well. II Kate Aanenson: Right. I Mayor Chmiel: And how much total cost, just throw out a dollar figure. What does it cost to plat? II Kate Aanenson: Maybe Charles would know better than I would, as far as platting. I'm not hiring the surveyor. Charles Folch: That depends on the size of the property. II Mayor Chmiel: A smaller one shouldn't be that much, is the point I'm trying to make I guess. 1 4 11 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 It Todd Gerhardt: Just to change the lot line down where Americana Bank... II Kate Aanenson: So someone that's just splitting off a lot that may not even be buildable but trying to put it in an outlot, that becomes a big burden for them II and that's what we're trying to resolve. Don Ashworth: Jo Ann had relayed to me like $500.00 versus $2,500.00. It was not relayed to me that ySu were looking, this was only for larger lots. 1 Kate Aanenson: No, I'm saying that's where we've seem to have the most problems is people that have larger lots but we do allow administrative subdivisions, II right. Don Ashworth: My concern is that once it gets down into a single family lot, II it's going to stay in that description probably forever. I mean if we're really talking about subdivisions where it's a guy splitting off 30 acres and 20 acres, I don't have a problem with the thing being metes and bounds. But then we should have a condition in here saying, this shall apply to larger subdivisions II where all lots are 10 acres or more. Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor? If I'm hearing it right, the concern is coming II from people who are in effect subdividing the land? Kate Aanenson: No. You can't. There can't be any public streets involved. II It's more a straight forward. There's no dedication required and the only instance I'm aware of since I've been here is when we did David Teich and that was a larger lot he was trying to split off. Paul Krauss: If I could add to that. We have had several that would have been 1 inside the MUSA area. We're basically talking about small divisions of property. Again, no streets can be in there. It can't be very complicated. II Oftentimes we get the perverbial little old lady that's trying to split off the lot, you know an individual homeowner and what we've found is that the cost associated with the full platting, not our cost but the cost by the surveyor, are extremely different. People have told us, you're talking about the II difference between $2,500.00 and $500.00. And if the thing is simple enough that we're getting everything we need out of it, we're reviewing it the same way we would as a plat. We're getting any kind of easements we need. We're making II sure that there's no variances and everything else, then the thought process was why don't we try to work with the people a little bit and save them a few bucks if it doesn't hurt anything. Don's concerns though of not getting a real II complicated one in there are real valid. In Hennepin County, if you have a very complex metes and bounds description, the County Surveyor will throw it out. In Carver County they don't so we sort of need our own safeguard. Councilman Senn: What I'm trying to get at though is the issue Paul then with a II situation where we're dealing just with land versus improvements? I "mean is that where the concern's coming from? Why should I have to pay to go through II the platting process when I'm just breaking up a piece of land versus developing a piece of land? Kate Aanenson: Some of them may be buildable. 1 5 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Paul Krauss: The one that Don quoted, City Manager quoted where you can break off 10 feet of your lot and give it to your neighbor, that's in ordinance right now. That you can do that as a metes and bounds. That's the only metes and bounds we have. ' Councilman Senn: That's simple if it's a straight line but if you're taking out little squares somewhere II? the middle. Paul Krauss: It gets a little more complicated. You can still do it It's in the Code that you can do that. What we would envision I think. ' Kate Aanenson: You can't create a new lot is what it says. If you're selling it to another person, you can do that. If you're conveying it but if you're trying to create a new lot, the ordinance doesn't allow for that. Okay. It's only if you're conveying it to another party and not creating a new lot. You're just changing the lines. That's the only way the ordinance allows that now. ' Paul Krauss: So this change would allow you to create a limited number of lots with a simple description that doesn't require any street. It may require extension of water and sewer, in which case they'll have to give us an easement, but in other cases, we have all the controls that we have otherwise with the ' subdivision. We're just trying to save them a little bit of money. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, if I could. I still have a problem when they're creating 4 building lots because those descriptions will stay in that longer form forever. If again, if the primary concern is to hit Kate's concern, these larger tracts because the larger tracts will come back again. At a future point ' in time somebody's going to take that 10 or 20 acres and put in a 30 -40 lot subdivision and I can't see creating a real large expense for them when it's primarily like a farming situation. One farmer selling to another. Again, if you had a condition, one additional one in there that basically stated, where ' all the lots being created are 10 acres or more, I wouldn't have a problem with this. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's a good point. Mark. Councilman Senn: I have a lot of the same concerns you both do. Could we accomplish something even better though by tying it to development of the ' property? More or less if they have a 20 -30 acre tract that they want to simply split part off of, or put 20 here or 30 there, whatever they can do, metes and bounds? But at the point that they move to develop the property, then it has to go into a platting process? Paul Krauss: That's almost the way it exists today. By state law, if they're moving more than 25 acres, I think it is, there's no obligation to come in to the City for any kind of review. You know one thing we may want us to do. I've worked in some communities where this is just kind of taken as a matter fact. Some communities may have had problems with it. The ones I'm familiar with haven't. It might be useful if we came back and just surveyed other communities to find out who's doing what and we'll ask them if they had any problems and we'll give you that information. 6 i City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 It Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Why don't we just then table this one at this time and then bring it back to Council with that information. I would so move that. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. ' Councilman Wing: Just i comment. I think the City Manager's comments are well taken and it cleans this thing up. It's kind of a sophisticated tight community now where fence lines and is the wood on my property or yours, pretty close. I had a piece of property in Wisconsin on metes and bounds and we wound up having to move a house because of it. It looked obvious but it wasn't so I favor, I think Don's approach is more conservative. Although we can ask these questions, I think we should look at the more conservative approach as maybe the way we should go and I'd like to see Don take an active part with Paul on this. , Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the amendment to City Code regarding exemptions from platting requirements for future review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. B. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. BLUFF CREEK ESTATES SECOND ADDITION. Mayor Chmiel: In going through here, I saw regarding one outlot. I did not see the size of that one outlot as opposed to the four single family lots. Sharmin, could you? 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: Okay, it's in the second paragraph. It's 9.7 acres. Mayor Chmiel: Of what page? , Sharmin Al -Jaff: First page. Mayor Chmiel: First page? Okay. Sharmin Al -Jaff: First line of the second paragraph. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's fine and I don't have any. I passed right by that probably twice. Okay. Then I would so recommend staff recommendation that the City Council approve final plat for Bluff Creek Second Addition, Subdivision #92 -5 as shown on plans stamped December 7, 1992 subject to the following conditions. Those are conditions 1 thru 5. Is there a second? Councilman Wing: Second. ' Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the final plat for Bluff Creek Estates Second Addition as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. D. APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTANT DESIGN SERVICES WITH BARTON ASCHMAN FOR TH 5 NORTH ACCESS BOULEVARD, PROJECT 90 -17A. Councilman Senn: I just had primarily a couple of questions, if I could Don. Are we assured now of the funding to go ahead and accomplish this improvement? 7 1 11 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Pending I should say the EIS, etc. Mayor Chmiel: Right. The funding, if I remember correctly, will be coming through MnDot. Don Ashworth: Make sure I understand the question. Local funding can carry out the local participation is proposed to be accomplished through our three tax increment districts that basically would encompass that entire length. Yes, the funds are available to meet the local share. If the question is, are we assured of State participation. Part of this is requiring that the State be the applicant for their own funds and that they enter into a contract with us in advance to insure that they in fact do fund this project, or at least what would be their share. John Mullan is here from Barton Aschman. John, did you wish to respond to that question? John Mullan: I'm John Mullan from Barton Aschman and the question, Don is right in what he said. One thing is there is Federal monies in that and beyond, MnDot ' is in the process of writing a letter of agreement with the City stating that they're in agreement with the split of the work and to sponsor the project and to request of Federal monies. You always get involved with the Met Council and other people but we've met with the Met Council on the trails and they seem to 1 be very conducive to this and I don't anticipate any problem. As long as it goes ahead with the highway project. If it ever has to be split out as a separate project, then I think it would be more debateable. As it currently stands, I talked to MnDot people today and Bill Crawford is Division Engineer for MnDot has passed Don's letter off to Ron Erickson and due to the 35W announcement coming up tomorrow, they weren't able to process that letter today but they're basically, what I was told by Ron Erickson, is they're in agreement 11 with all of the requests that Don had in his letter to Bill Crawford. Councilman Senn: Don, I guess additional question. Was this contract then bid 1 out then or? Don Ashworth: No. We went back through Barton Aschman. Barton Aschman had ' been selected by MnDot to act as the consulting engineer for the Highway 5 project. My recollection is that several years earlier MnDot had gone through a bidding selection process for Highway 5. What we're doing at this point in time is we're amending the previous Highway 5 construction document to include, or add in the frontage roads. So we're not really changing that previous selection process. We're just adding to it. I don't know if that makes sense. If you follow me. Councilman Senn: So rather than a separate contract, this is an addendum to an existing contract? ' Don Ashworth: That's correct. Is that the best way to describe it John? John Mullan: We went through the selection process with Trunk Highway 5 and I would guess this could be viewed as an addendum to that contract. Don Ashworth: I know the State is doing. 1 1 8 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 John Mullan: It's not presented in that format but that's the intention of the It contract is to keep them all together. Mayor Chmiel: What you're bringing up Mark was some of my concerns too at the time. And in the way this fully gels together now, it makes all good sense for us to go with this process. in having that boulevard section in and adjacent to TH 5, with the accessibility also going into Lake Ann Park and having a continuation all the way straight through rather than having those turns in and off of Highway 5 as you look and see in the city of Eden Prairie. There's some real problems there. So with this, this would alleviate some of those concerns and provide additional safety for the residents within the city. 1 Councilman Senn: In that sense I guess I agree that it makes sense. Looking through the contract and a few missed phone calls today so I unfortunately have 11 to ask the question tonight. But I have a little problem when I see assigning a contract with an overhead rate of 179% in it. I've never seen anything like that before. Maybe that's in the prime contract and this is an addendum to it but that causes me a great deal of concern. , Don Ashworth: Do you wish to respond to that John? John Mullan: That is our audited overhead rate within MnDot and has been 1 accepted by MnDot. It's within their environmental area. Councilman Senn: I understand that. So you're saying MnDot accept that? ' John Mullan: That's correct. That's their audited overhead rate. That's our audited overhead rate is in fact a little bit higher than that but we've agreed with MnDot to hold it down to that level. Part of the thing is we've gone down to 10% profit rather than a normal 15 which most firms request, to try and keep that down. Councilman Senn: Well I guess, you know I'm just going to repeat my concern. I mean I see a contract here. I see a contract here essentially based on 6% of project cost. Nationally these are done at 3% to 6 %, so this is top end of the scale. And then I turn around and see 179% overhead rate. Again, I think it makes some sense, if this is the firm doing the overall Highway 5 study, but at the same time I'm not sure we're staying competitive by us doing it that way. ' Don Ashworth: I guess what I'd like to do is to have the opportunity to meet with Councilman Senn to go through typical contracts. I'm not sure what costs are included in the, you're giving the range of like 3% to 6% but I can tell you that all of the contracts that we have entered into with engineering services, and this goes for literally all of the firms. All the way from Engelhardt to BRW to Barton Aschman, etc. You're not going to get them under 7 %. I mean it's 7%, 8% is typical. And again, there has to be a difference in the scope of services between the type of contracts that you're referring to so I'd like to kind of sit down, go through the services that are typically included in many of those contracts. And as John said, typically they look to a profit of 15% and this one, it had equated down to 10% so I'm not, again I guess the best thing would be to just sit down and go through some of the contracts. See what differences are in those contracts that you're typically familiar with versus those that we have let let's say for the last 3, 4, 5 years. 9 11 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Okay, would you like to make a motion? Councilman Senn: Well again, I guess I made my concerns known. If nobody else shares the concern, I guess that's up to them. I still have the same concerns when I look at the rates. Councilman Wing: Well I don't think it's a question of lacking concern. I just think for me it's been discussed at length. Why they were chosen. The costs we were going to pay them. Percentages. I mean I agree with you. I don't disagree with your numbers but Mr. Ashworth in the past has been hit on this 11 pretty heavily and I think that the same comments he's going to give you the same ones that we've heard in the past and why they were chosen. The advantage of taking Barton Aschman and moving with this project, and working with MnDot. So I don't have any concerns at this point. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to move that Mark? Councilman Senn: Oh I'm sorry. Do we act on each one of these individually then? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I'd call a question. You can just move it. Councilman Senn: In relationship to, well I guess the question is, if you're looking for someone to move approval, I'm not willing to do so. If there's somebody else who would like to do so. Councilman Mason: I'd be happy to move approval for item 3(d) on the Consent ' Agenda. 1 Councilman Wing: I second that. ' Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: Mark, in the process of investigating this item, if you should be dissatisfied or find an error, I'd like to have a report back. Councilman Mason: I think it would be nice to have a report one way or the other. What I'm hearing from Don Ashworth here is that this is a pretty competitive deal and if that pans out, I think we should know that as well as if it doesn't. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Environmental Assessment and Consultant Design Services with Barton Aschman for TH 5 North Access Boulevard, Project No. 90 -17A. All voted in favor except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. F. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS. . Councilman Senn: I have I guess again, this is more a simple question than anything else. Don, in relationship to the purposes, is there a reason why we don't in effect detail out purposes for all the expenditures? I mean it's pretty easy to follow but basically you go down the line and then you in effect run into expenditures where there isn't one and it's real hard to explain. Is 10 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 there a reason for that? Again, this is a first time question. Don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to learn. Mayor Chmiel: You're asking the same question I've asked before. Don Ashworth: You're using a standard classification of accounts under gaffer. To the extent that we have learned what type of expenses might be of concern to City Council, Jean goes back in and then adds in those descriptions after the fact manually. Okay. That's the only reason. If I know the type of ones that you may have concern over, I think some of them such as flex plan payable, I would hope is fairly obvious. Again flex plan payable... Mayor Chmiel: I think we pretty much try to say what's there. Every once in a while, as you've done, I'll pull something out of these that doesn't look right to me but normally it winds up where the explanations are correct with each of those charges accordingly. Councilman Senn: And when there's something like, I'm trying to find one here. Like Ryan Contracting Inc., awarded construction contracts, Market Square. I mean that's something that's probably been previously approved contract or something like that? I mean to me that's a $9,000.00 item that I don't have the foggiest idea what it means but you're asking me to approve it. ' Don Ashworth: Right. That is, wherever it says award of construction contract, the Council has officially taken bids. They were the low bidder. That's a payment in accordance with that award that was previously made by the City Council. Councilman Senn: On a public improvement portion of a project or that type of thing? Don Ashworth: Yes. ' Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions that you have on that? 1 Councilman Senn: Just some little ones but I'll ask Don afterwards. I was just more interested in procedure than anything. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to move that one? Councilman Senn: So moved. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. 1 Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Accounts Payable for December and January as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. , Don Ashworth: Again, we can start building in more and more detail on these as I learn what items are of more concern to Council members. 11 1 11 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 I. SET SALE DATE FOR 1993 TAX INCREMENT BONDS. Councilman Senn: If I understand (i) correctly, what we're doing under (i) is we're approving the sale of the bonds? II Don Ashworth: That's correct. Well, you're setting a sale date, but that's making the assumption that when we get to the actual sale date, that if they I bring back a reasonable bid, that we'll award it. It does give an approximate 30 day period. I can't remember what we recommended in here for a date. The first meeting in February. Sale date for February 8th. So you would have an I opportunity between now and February 8th to let's say, ask additional questions in regards to what it is that's proposed to be bonded for in .here. I would prefer tabling the item to respond to those rather than to get into to actually preparing a perspectus and telling people what it is we're bidding and then change our mind. It would be more preferable to take 2 weeks and figure out, no. I don't like some of these items or yeah, all of those are fine versus again, putting out an official statement and then saying, you know we're not really going to make this sale. Councilman Senn: Rather than take the time or waste the time to discuss specific items maybe tonight then I'd like to move to table. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? II Councilman Wing: Is that what you're requesting? Don Ashworth: Yes. If there are concerns by Council. We're not going to go I broke if we wait an additional 2 week period of time to make sure that everyone is up to speed as to what it is that's proposed to be bonded. Mayor Chmiel: I would second that because I had some things here too that, my II concerns were what the rates of interest. What are we looking at? Where are we going with this? And a few other things too. Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table setting the date for the 1993 Tax Increment Bonds until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. GOODYEAR TIRE FACILITY LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, AND EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN EMISSION CONTROL STATION: A. REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 3RD ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE AN AUTO SERVICE RELATED USE IN THE BH. BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. II C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,397 SQ. FT. GOODYEAR TIRE BUILDING. Public Present: ' Name Address Al Beisner Maple Grove I Chuck Beisner n Is Vernelle Wayton Chanhassen 12 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Thomas N. Thompson Chanhassen Tom Kotsonas Chanhassen Estates Sharmin Al -Jaff: There are three applications before you. A site plan, a conditional use permit and a subdivision. Approximately 3 acres are proposed to 1 be divided into three lots. Lot 1 will contain the Goodyear facility. Lot 2 is proposed to contain the Abra facility and Lot 3 will be reserved for future development. The proposal came before the Planning Commission on several occasions. Planning Commission's primary concern revolved around the design of the site relative to ongoing issues of urban design and the Highway 5 corridor. The Abra design still wasn't satisfactory. That's why we didn't bring it in 11 front of you today, but we kept the Goodyear on for you to vote on. The site plan is reasonably well developed. Staff has been working with the applicant for approximately 6 months now and the design has improved considerably. The Goodyear building is a split face concrete block accented by a sandable decorative texture finish structure that will have a series of service bays and a pitched roof. All services will be conducted inside the building. Parking for vehicles is located on the north and west side of the structure. This location is ideal since it places these areas further away from residences south of Lake Drive. The site landscaping is of high quality due to attention that was paid to this issue by staff and the applicant. We regard the project as reasonable, well developed and staff is recommending that the City Council approve the site plan, the conditional use permit and the subdivision request with conditions outlined in the report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is Goodyear here to make any formal presentation or do you have something for us to view this evening? Al Beisner: I'm Al Beisner. I'm not Goodyear. I am the developer of the site. ' A little history. We came to Chanhassen in May I think of last year. I have a relationship with Goodyear. They wished to locate in your community. We looked at several sites. We originally had put money down on an option site further west. That was a neighborhood zone and would require rezoning. When we came to staff we were informed that rezoning in this particular area would be very difficult because neighborhood business is neighborhood business. This ' particular piece of property is highway business. I think number 20 under the proposed uses under highway business fits the Goodyear site and the Goodyear use very well. Later on in the development of the project, because of some sort of a glitch I guess, we fell into a conditional use permit requirement which we are complying by. We have been through, as you probably heard, many, many meetings and design changes with Goodyear, with Abra and the Goodyear store was never the problem. It was the Abra store that seemed to be the problem and we are not asking for approval of that building tonight. We're back doing probably, as we refer to, our seventh redraw of the architectural in that. Even though architect and the taste appeared to be a matter of the individual taste of the Planning Commission, of myself and it's very difficult for us all to agree on what works. I have some boards, color boards I could put here and show you what we've done to the site and how it's going to look. In sitting through several of these meetings with the neighborhood group and hearing feedback from residents, in reviewing this entire procedure, I'm very, I'm confident that what we are proposing is a very, very good use for the site. Number one, we are spending about 2 1/2 times as much on landscaping as the city does require today. We're putting in some landscape features that are not in your 13 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 requirements at all. Number two, we have set back the buildings from the freeway a good distance so that we don't have a building out on a freeway. Basically we've also lowered each, or we've lowered the elevation of our site about 5 feet from the next door neighbor, which is the emission control building. You'll see from one of the drawings that I have that we're not very 1 visible, much to the chagrin of Goodyear and of Abra, from the freeway. We've put in berming. 3 -4 feet of berming in front so that cars that are parked in the parking lot will hardly bb visible from Highway 5 and /or from the Lake Drive II side. And in reviewing some of the neighbors concerns and what is permitted in a highway zone. I think fast food restaurants, which are 24 hours. And motels which can operate 24 hours, that have their lights on and have cars going in and I out all the times of the day. We don't expect any traffic problems. We're hoping to have 32 cars a day as customers for the Goodyear store. If Taco Bell, which is a permitted use in that zone, has 32 cars a day, they wouldn't be in business there. So I think that we've lost sight of some of the things that II this really is a better use because it's open during business hours. We aren't open after 9:00 on any one night. We aren't open Sunday and I think that with the extra attention that we've paid to the landscape details, that we've done, we think it will be a very good, compatible use. There will be no outside storage. There won't be cars parked outside. Those are all in ordinances that the City of Chanhassen has currently and we expect that they would enforce those. I'll try to show you a couple of things. This is basically the color 1 site plan, landscaping plan of the two sites. We're only considering the Goodyear site. We're not developing this other site. Right now...pond in here, existing stand of poplars that is there. We are set back from Highway 5 further II than what your normal setback requirements are. The berm that we have along in II the northern border here, we're virtually...shield cars. If you can see it closely, this is the...car here and a car there. The berm is 3 1/2 to 4 feet. A normal car height is about 4 1/2 or 5 feet. You won't be seeing that from the freeway where currently you...emission control building and the McDonald's site, there really isn't a berming there to screen their parking lot from the highway. This is the building that we are proposing to have a pitched roof. We have some gables on the ends. With accent colors and stripes of the Goodyear colors. This design...we had two gables here. On your handout, that shows... The same building with a couple of gables here to break up the long roofline that we did 1 have at one time. Architecturally speaking, we are not in a historical zone. We don't have sidewalks in front of us. There won't be pedestrian traffic walking through there that we can tell. There aren't sidewalks going in and we think that we've come a long way and we have worked with the city and the staff in trying to develop the plan, the landscape plan and those kinds of things so that it would be a nice use here. Unlike many of you perport developers to be, some of us are very conscience of the community that we are in. We will be a I major taxpayer here. We do not want to develop a slum. It would only hurt our values as it would hurt everybody elses values. And I know the problems that people have with developers and designs along the freeway. I, at one time was ' the original Commissioner of the Maple Grove Economic Development Commission and we adapted a highway zone. And we have bricks, glass or better and we aren't so sure that's the right answer. Developing your highway corridor is extremely difficult and architecture is extremely subjective. But we think what we've II done and what we've put into this far exceeds what any of the standards were and we'll be pleased with this once it's completed. If you have any questions, I'm here. 1 ; 14 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? Councilman Mason: Do you have anything for the view from the back end? The Lake Drive side? Al Beisner: This will be the back. This is the south elevation. Sharmin Al -Jaff: The residential area. 1 Councilman Mason: Yeah. Al Beisner: This way? 1 Councilman Mason: No. I'm thinking of the south side. In terms of • landscaping. I know there's that outlot between the two but will their view be? Al Beisner: Right now they won't be able to see through. I don't know what's going on here. That will be addressed when this lot is developed. 1 Paul Krauss: Ultimately there's going to be an intervening building with additional landscaping but nobody knows what that is at this point. Councilman Mason: On the southern lot? Paul Krauss: Right. 1 Councilman Senn: So that is viewed as a temporary buffer rather than? Paul Krauss: Yes. 1 Al Beisner: Originally we had inquiries by other auto related areas for this particular southerly site. We've had an inquiry, and I only take them as , inquiries believe me, but from a doctor who wants to, or a dentist that would like to build his clinic there. I don't know why he'd want to be in this area as opposed to downtown but that's one inquiry that we do have. But otherwise 11 there's nothing we have on the board. We do not have that property under option. We are optioning this property from, I think it's the Mason family, who coincidentally were the owners and developers I think of the. Councilman Mason: No relation. Al Beisner: No, but I think that they were the original developers of the property. The residential area south of the site. And at that time they wanted to develop all residential but there was some movement by the powers that be at that time to create a business buffer zone between residential and a highway. So that's how it came about. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Where do you expect the traffic flow to come from primarily? Al Beisner: Primarily from the McDonald's end of it. Whatever that stop light is there. The stop sign at TH 101. We, Goodyear, would like to do 32 cars a day. Abra probably, and we aren't talking Abra now but Abra's probably 10 to 15 15 1 11 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 cars a day. It's not like it's a high traffic volume that's going to be created II as opposed to if we were to have a fast food or something like that. Then there could be concern about traffic but we don't see that here. Mayor Chmiel: What about noise? • Al Beisner: They will, there is a condition in I believe the Minutes about we will not exceed, Goodyear will not exceed the acceptable or the permitted noise II level. Goodyear is not noisey. They do everything indoors. Closed. Garage doors down. It's not a noisey kind of business. It's not fixing auto wrecks at Goodyear. It's you know, greasing, oiling the car, alignments, tires, that kind II of thing. Councilman Senn: Two questions if I could. One's a clarification. In our staff report, there's a section on the hours which leads me to believe that an agreement was reached with the neighborhood that you'd be open 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Now I just heard you say a minute ago that they were going to be open until 9:00 p.m. II Al Beisner: I'm sorry. We do not have set hours yet. We have not reached agreement with anybody. The hours that you have in your Minutes are the typical hours a Goodyear store is open. And they vary from operator to operator. But there isn't a Goodyear store in the Twin City area that's open past 9:00 so that's why I threw out the 9:00. That was a mistake. Right now the proposed hours are as stated in that staff report. Councilman Senn: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.? II Al Beisner: Yes. Yes. Councilman Senn: But there's no tie to that basically one way or the other? II Al Beisner: No. Councilman Senn: Second question is. II Mayor Chmiel: Paul had a. II Paul Krauss: He said as to the noise. I think there's an omission here. When this was before the Planning Commission, in fact we were talking about it to the Abra people and they indicated that they have a company requirement that the I doors be kept virtually shut. No more open than a foot or two off the ground. And one of the things it does is cut down the noise. That was to be a condition on both sites that we were going to add. So that would help to keep the impact wrench noise down if it's basically taking place within the building. II Councilman Senn: Yeah, because most of them leave the doors open in the summertime. II Paul Krauss: Right. Councilman Senn: Second one is, where will you, and it may just be the plans that I have so I'd like to know, where is your storage area in effect for your 1 16 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 trash and your discarded tires and that sort of thing? Especially your discarded tires, which get to be quite a pile. Al Beisner: Right here. We're proposing to attach this, this is a 5,200 square foot building. Square foot site...is enclosed part of the building. There is ' outside, the door is that direction. Councilman Senn: ,So it's roofed? It's basically like a trash enclosure? , Al Beisner: No, it is roofed too. Not like a trash enclosure. Trash enclosure is not roofed. Here is that, it does have a roof...with a door that shuts and it does lock. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Councilman Wing: Paul, it says they're going to use a split block. It sounds like a cement block building. Is that right? It might have a fancy texture to it but it's a cement block building? Paul Krauss: That's true. The City prohibits unadorned block. Councilman Wing: But it's a cement block building. Is the one in Eden Prairie, 1 near the Eden Prairie Center, is that not brick? Isn't the Goodyear store in Eden Prairie brick? It sure looked like brick to me. Al Beisner: I don't think so. Block comes in so many different styles and 1 shapes. It may be the burnished block look that we are trying to achieve here too. i Councilman Wing: But it matches all their other brick buildings. Al Beisner: Yes. Goodyear doesn't have as many brick buildings as you might 1 think. Councilman Wing: I don't care if they've got any. But in regards to this city, you're putting a building right in our gateway. Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, we do have a photograph of that one. It does appear to be a brick. Councilman Senn: It is brick. Councilman Wing: It is brick. Councilman Senn: It is brick. The one on Highway 7 is a combination burnished block and block face block. Councilman Wing: Just I guess my comment just on that one specific issue is that, if we're going to place, if we're going to allow automotive use to expand beyond the central business district, and start stripping down the highway into our, the very essence of our gateway which has been a primary discussion for a year now, the cart's ahead of the horse and I don't think we can do much about it in this case. They're meeting the land use and like it says, it's 17 ' 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 reasonable. It's not necessarily unacceptable but I don't think we should be 11 looking at any concrete block if other cities are getting brick and it's certainly a much higher quality building than the one we're looking at. And I went around and I looked at the different types of burnished block and split face concrete block and it's still a cement block building and I'm not going to buy it on this one. Cement block building, I don't care what you call it. It's a cement block building. The one in Eden Prairie startled me because first of all it's nicely landscaped,'which I think this is the case here. With berms but II it was also a real quality building which I was surprised to see. If I go into the, let me just take a quote here out of the Planning Commission meeting from one of it's senior members. Typically with car care type structures you wind up II with a very minimum it takes to do the job. That's the type of light industrial use that you often see with these types of buildings. This is the designer saying this. It is not something that I think we would be in the interest of II good planning to be putting next to both the entrance to our city and single family residents and I agree with his statement. I don't think any type of cement block is acceptable for this building. Not...I'd just like to, that's the only comment I have on that issue. I'd like to stop right there for now. 1 Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor, is this time to ask Paul questions too or? I Mayor Chmiel: Sure, yes. Councilman Senn: Paul, in relationship to that hour issue then. That is not something that, it was kind of a point of resolution with the neighbors? II Paul Krauss: I don't recall it as being one Mr. Senn but under the conditional use permit standards, you can attach conditions that regulate hours of II operation. So it can certainly be resolved by you there. Councilman Senn: Is there, reading through your findings, I just wanted to clarify a couple of them on page 12. If I'm reading this correctly, there will be a condition in the conditional use permit which says there will be no unlicense or inoperable vehicles stored on the premises. I Paul Krauss: Yes, there should be. In fact it's one of the standard ones in the ordinance. It should be repeated. Well, it is. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the Goodyear site. It's condition number 1 4. Councilman Senn: And there will be no outside repairs whatsoever? Paul Krauss: Yes. Condition 2. No outdoor repairs to be preformed or gas sold at the site. We should probably clarify the language so it more directly parallels with what's in the text but the conditions are in there. II Councilman Senn: I didn't see a condition at all relating to outside sales. Flags, banners, all that sort of thing, which Goodyear is famous for. Is it I'm just not seeing it or is that something? Al -Jaff: It's not in the report. 1 1 18 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Al Beisner: I believe that that was an issue that was brought up at one of the Planning Commission meetings and we understood then that the City of Chanhassen has a sign ordinance and what you can do and how you can do it. I'm assuming that's what we are abiding by. Paul Krauss: The sign ordinance would probably allow some of the situations to ' exist that you're referring to so it may be wise to, if you wanted to place limitations on it, put it in the conditions of the permit. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other questions? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you see the development of the Goodyear store , preconditioned on Abra going in? Al Beisner: No. No. It came about because I was doing the Goodyear store and there was another developer that had an option on this site and was going to put in an auto mall and he had Abra and they wanted to be there and I said, I just want to build a free standing Goodyear store. And he said, well I'd like to put an Abra store in there so we're making two separate legal descriptions. Two separate loans. Two separate ownerships. The whole thing. So it's not one on the other at all. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else like to address the Council at this particular time? Yes sir. State your name and your address please. 1 Tom Kotsonas: My name is Tom Kotsonas and I live in Chanhassen Estates. I back up to Lake Drive East. The gentleman has made some comments and maybe he met with some other neighbors and not myself but I don't remember being informed or asked to attend any meetings. I've gotten the implication that he's met with the neighbors. I don't know. No? Okay, so I misread the statement on that. I would just like to reinforce some of our concerns from the Chanhassen Estates neighborhood and those of us who back up to that proposed development. Much of it's been brought up. There seems to be, and rightly so, a great deal of concern with the north side facing the highway. The berming and the trees and so forth. They mentioned the parking on the west side. The west side affects us more than parking on the east side of the building. That's the east side is further away from the houses than the west side is. We have, obviously would like to see as much berming on the south side and the west side as possible and as much vegetation, trees that are of some size to start with. 3 and 4 and 5 foot trees, especially pine trees take many years and I'm a young man but if they stage it, some of those trees grow in Minnesota, they'll be 20 or 30 years from now before they get to a size that will be of any benefit to us and I would like to stay in the neighborhood that I'm in. I've been there a long time and I would like to continue residing there. And I mentioned to other people at times that we have seen a number of, I have seen a number of my neighbors move out because of development that's taken place along behind us. As long as I've got the stage here a little bit, we have McDonald's sitting there with spot lights shining through at nighttime. We have the emissions control, or testing center 1 which we can watch cars coming in and out of there, checking stations, or they can watch us you know from the same thing. We would like this not to become similar to that. We would like, if it's going to be developed, whatever is there we would like to be insured that we have plenty of privacy. We've been 19 1 11 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 there a long time paying taxes and we have a right as residents and as taxpayers to protect our property, our neighborhood and our values as much as someone coming in and making a profit. Thank you very much for the time. Councilman Mason: Why wouldn't the parking lot be on the other side there? If it would help that neighborhood out. Was that addressed at all, do you know? Paul Krauss: Not specifically. Mr. Besiner might have some considerations about the parking. This parking is fairly remote from the neighborhood. I mean ultimately there's going to be quite a bit, and I'm not sure what, but there's going to be something between there and the neighborhood. Al Beisner: This is the west side. This is the east side and this is residential down here so... Also, a problem that came about with the development of the emissions control site. This site will be, it is right now 4 1/2 feet higher than this... Coming from the...natural drop. We have a 4 1/2 to 5 foot drop from this elevation to this elevation. There will be no cars visible from the west. It became more, originally we had the Goodyear building over here but we couldn't put in the... I don't know what happened to that when the emission control building...if the site was raised... Paul Krauss: Now, in the duration, you do have that clump of willows over here which are not great but in the summertime do offer...a line of trees along what will become the north property line there and at least that would give them some time to grow. But again, we're still uncertain as to what's going to happen 11 there. I assume it will probably take access off the driveway here someplace, kind of right across from that and in that case those trees won't be in the way and could be allowed to stay. Al Beisner: On our final plan, and...we do not have any illuminated lighting for Goodyear on this end of the building... Councilman Mason: I did note that there are going to be some trees that are 16 feet in diameter on the report. That's great. I want to see them. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this time? Tom Thompson: My name is Tom Thompson, a Goodyear employee and perspective ' owner of this facility. First, some concerns about hours. Most of the stores that are open until 9:00 are near malls. So this store more than likely will, 7:00 will be sufficient. Secondly, the flags and signs. Goodyear doesn't lean towards the carnival effect. They work towards professionalism and looks of the building, which it handles well. So as far as the flags and the carnival effects, would be on an annual, possibly a permit type thing. Sales, such as anniversay sale. Minimal weekend things. So I don't think that would be, shouldn't be a concern. As far as noise. 25 to 30 cars a day is the normal, and less than 10% of these vehicles are being operated during repair time. So exhaust, revving engines or whatever you want to call it, they're sitting idol. They're not running. The only equipment that would be making noise are air tools which probably more than 50 to 60 feet away you wouldn't hear them anyway. They'd all be within the building. So the noise level's minimal. The looks of the building, someone had recommended or had mentioned Eden Prairie. I managed 11 1 20 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Eden Prairie for 7 years and this building far exceeds the looks and outlay of the Eden Prairie building. It was set up very well. Thank you for your time. Councilman Wing: I just have, one thing in Chanhassen we're certainly interested in good corporate citizens and liquor stores who don't sell liquor to minors and cigarettes to minors at the grocery stores, and Mr. Beisner I don't want to put you on the spot here necessarily, but didn't Goodyear get a lot of really negative media coverage recently on quota systems and, didn't they recently get caught in a sting operation? Tom Thompson: Yes, that was the corporate stores which was, it was one sided. It was sensationalism in journalism. It was a one sided store. I work for a 1 corporate store right now and I can honestly say the independents could be as much a spot as a corporate but sensationalism in journalism. No one's going to deal with one man. They want to go for the corporation. And my store, which I work in Wayzata, we had been visited several times. Nothing was said. What little highlighted segments you saw on the television were sensationalized. They panned out to be nothing and it fizzled out real quick. Councilman Wing: So that problem, both between Sears and Goodyear, that's been resolved? I can feel comfortable. Tom Thompson: Sears was a much more complicated issue. The government was 11 involved with that and government also did come to Goodyear and ask for their advice and their help and Goodyear declined because they didn't want to get into mud slinging. Councilman Wing: So there's no question I could come to your store in full trust? Tom Thompson: 100% guaranteed. That's been Goodyear's warranty all along. 100% customer satisfaction. 1 Councilman Wing: Okay. Councilman Senn: Are you individually going to be owning and operating this 1 business? Tom Thompson: Well, I don't know. It's a franchised store which means Goodyear ' will hire on the owner, just like applying for a job. So whoever's best suited for the position of owning this facility will be taken on. And each individual who applies for ownership has to meet certain requirements, so it's fairly strict. Mayor Chmiel: Do you still live in town Tom? Tom Thompson: Yes, I'm a resident of Chanhassen. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions of Tom? Thank you. , Tom Thompson: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: You had some specific questions that you wanted to bring up. 1 21 1 1 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Councilman Wing: Whenever it's convenient. Are you looking for... 11 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I 1 II Councilman Wing: Mr. Biesner, my comments tonight I want to make sure are not directed at you, and this is the first time as a Councilmember I get a chance to react to this. It goes through Planning Commission and we have preliminaries but all of a sudden here it is, and last time I showed some concerns I got a II letter from a corporation that kind of came after me. So I'd like to put my comments out but necessarily be attacking you or your company whatsoever. And I want to back up and just comment that these are really permanent installations. II Kind of one shot deals and we either do it right or we're stuck forever. The real concern I've got is this is our gateway. I'm going to suggest that this is our front door and we're kind of developing it using 15 year old standards and II ordinances that are just in the process of being updated and these lots on this east end are sneaking by the program here and I'm going to suggest that in 6 months, or if this was to be held for a while, that this development might not be occuring in my opinion. I was hoping we could zone and limit fast food and il auto centers and kind of centralize their automotive centers and not spring them up on a strip basis running out to our east end right down our gateway. So I guess I'm recognizing that this is meeting our standards and maybe there's very 1 little to be said or done and my voting no would not even be a legal vote no if they're meeting our ordinance guidelines. But on the north side of the street we've just taken out a taco stand and a cement plant. Now we've turned around II and added an auto body shop and a Goodyear tire store, and I don't see those as necessarily complimenting each other. It seems we're trying to clean up this side but then we're letting kind of what I see as an inappropriate land use come in for the south side now, and I have nothing against Goodyear. My last set of II tires came from them, but again we're talking land use and what's best for the city. And I think if the Highway 5 corridor study were in line and if our landscaping and our land use ordinance were up to par where I'd like it to be 11 tonight, that we probably wouldn't be addressing this. My concern is that there's probably a few more lots out there in this area that are going to slip through unless we do something really rapidly and that's what I want to discuss II under Council Presentations. I think we need to move to prevent additional automotive or fast food uses at the entryway to our city. Reasonably well developed. Reasonably well developed for our gateway. ...come to terms with this in the staff report has been like trying to hit a moving target because we II don't have any rules in place. Cement blocks I don't approve of. Reasonable if on exceptional land use. You know none of this is making me feel real good about this. Eden Prairie is brick. I'm going to suggest that we have brick II here. The building architecture meets the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements. That's back from 1978. Not the new corridor study that's coming through. Just quickly going back to where we're winding up here and why I'm really afraid of approving this tonight without a lot more information. The II Planning Commission who has looked at this night after night and week after week, said they're really worried about it. Senior Commissioners are, there's one comment off of page 11. I think Ladd you hit it on the nose. We pass this up to Council tonight and let them take a hack at it. Probably the best thing to do. Five more opinions. Well I think we're less informed than the Planning Commission and we're not designers either. So I really, I guess I don't know if I we've got any justification to say no to this but they slip through the crack and what we're trying to do on Highway 5 and I'm really concerned about the 11 22 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 neighbors comments about the negative impact these businesses will have. I don't think they're positive quality business. Again, nothing to do with Goodyear. I'm talking strictly land use and do we want our corridor, the gateway to be auto body shops and tire shops and so on and so forth. I think the neighbors comments about the degregation of their neighborhood and the type of land use that's going in here is very pertinent and I really am concerned for the neighbors and I wish we had been a head of this by another 6 to 8 weeks. 6 months. This probably wouldn't have happened. I think the neighbors have very valid points and I think that once again, staff and City Council are sitting here with all our hoofs dug into the ground, pulling backwards but the carts got all the developers going westbound and they've got more people than we've got. They've done everything right. They're given and yielded. I think staff has done an excellent job on this. I'm real disappointed that Planning is saying, we don't like it and I'm saying I don't like it and I don't like the land use and I wish we were ahead of this and I hope that no more of these are going to slip through the cracks. I can't be any more negative than that. I'll turn it over to somebody else. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for your positiveness. Colleen, do you have any? 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. I think a reocurring theme that we're going to see tonight is the Highway 5 corridor task force and where they are and being a freshman on the Council I'm not completely certain where they are in the development of the plan but I'm concerned that we are letting things come through without an overall plan for what we want to do for Highway 5 and how businesses will relate to that development. So I'm concerned about allowing businesses to build or do anything until we have that long range plan in focus for Highway 5. Particularly, as Dick said, with it being the gateway to our city. I appreciate all the work that's been done by the Planning Commission and by Goodyear but it sounds like nobody's completely thrilled with it and I have a lot of faith in staff and in the Planning Commission. They're not thrilled. I'm not particularly thrilled. As Dick said, it does meet our standards as they sit today but as City Council we have the authority to put the brakes on this one until we have more current standards to have it live up to so I guess right now I'm uncomfortable with it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: Being uncomfortable with it and which way we're going to vote I think are two different things. I find myself being in kind of an unusual position here. I'm not sure at this point that we have much choice. I agree with your comments about I wish this was coming 6 months later because I suspect we'd be done with our Highway 5 overlay. Just out of curiousity Paul, how much longer do you think we'll be going with that? Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing asked me that this afternoon and I always hesitate 1 to give a date where you have citizens involved because you're never sure which way it's going to go. We have an intent to try to wrap it up in about 5 -6 months, or at least get the ordinance out. In fact, there's a separate subcommittee, well you're aware of that. A separate subcommittee has been established to work on the ordinance aspect under an accelerated way and their first meeting is Wednesday. So I'd give the 6 months as a reasonable timeframe. 23 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Councilman Mason: I guess my question would be and maybe this is to the legal II end of this. Is there anyway, and also I want to share what Councilman Wing said too. I think clearly there's been a lot of work done on this and I appreciate that. That to me is not the issue at all, but we are talking about 1 what Chanhassen is going to look like for the next, as long as I'm going to be here, and I'm curious if there's anything we can do to hold this off until that I gets done. I mean what happens if we vote this down? II Elliott Knetsch: Well, part of this is a preliminary plat and you're obligated to act on the preliminary plat but then I believe it's 120 days after it's submitted to you from the Planning Commission so I don't think you could wait II until it's done to act on this. You're legally required to act in a certain amount of time. Councilman Wing: Mike, the other comment along that line, and I don't, you have the floor but the central business district which this falls into is not necessarily anything that the task force is dealing with. They're primarily dealing with the western two - thirds and so this is the eastern part which may or II may not have any reflection on that task force at all and their findings. Excuse me. Mayor Chmiel: Anything else Mike? Councilman Mason: No. I uess we could drag our feet and see if we could prod 9 9 P the committee along but I don't see that. I guess we're asking Goodyear and I people to act in good faith and I think we need to act in good faith too. So at this point I don't have anything more to say. II Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess two different levels of comments. One is if we do I proceed with this I would, I'm in real agreement with Dick that I'd like to see some upgrading of the building materials. I'd also like to see some stipulations that relate to hours and banners, flags and outside sales. And I guess those are the kind of, if it goes comments. I have I guess a real overall II concern just in relationship to the land use. You know I know this is highway business but a lot of things under it require conditional use permit. You know if you go out and drive, let's call it the eastern section of Highway 5. It's II kind of amazing. I mean you see an emission center, 4 gas stations, 1 oil change place, 2 auto service places, 2 carwashes, 1 auto parts place, and then go on and on and on. I've seen this happen before in other cities. I'll call a I wonderful example, Hopkins which 20 years ago became gasoline alley. 20 years from then which is now, they're still working to get rid of that reputation and that image. You know I'm not sure I have as many problems with the Goodyear building itself if it's done properly but again I have a real problem with 1 intensification of this type of uses on our main corridor because it seems to me the handwriting's on the wall. We're becoming another gasoline alley and I think that's not in the overall benefit of the City of Chanhassen. I don't know I guess totally either what the solutions are and again, I haven't been involved in the year's discussion on this, if that's what it's been. But I'd really rather than see us proceed with approvals on this, I'd really rather see us take an action to do something like put a moratorium on it for 6 months so we can sit II back and get where we want to get in relationship to land uses on that corridor. 1 24 11 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Now I'm not sure that's expanding the study that's going on out west because I'm not sure I want to take the efforts away from that that are going on but maybe 1 this becomes an east end study of the same thing. But I get real concerned because any time an area first opens for development, these are the pressures that are put on it. The question is whether you're going to allow the pressures 11 to take over or whether you're going to sit back and take your time and get a good balance. And I guess I underline that word balance of development. Balanced uses in the area. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: Don, I'd just like the City Manager to address this. Don, in laymen's terms, I agree with Councilman Senn. I think the land use has gotten ahead of the, has gotten ahead of us here and we're stung. To put it bluntly, isn't that a tough bounce. Have they not met our standards in our current ordinances and is there in fact, we have no choice? There is nothing to deny here? They've gone the extra mile with staff and with our ordinance. There's nothing to deny. There is no moratorium that he's put on here. Hasn't this simply slipped through the cracks and it's a done deal? Don Ashworth: I would request that the City Attorney respond to that. Elliott Knetsch: Thank you Don. I would agree with what you're saying to a 1 certain degree. I think the bottom line is, however, that the use that they're considering here is a conditional use. If it was a permitted use and they net all ordinance requirements, then you are, there really is no discretion. But with the conditional use, you have discretion and the staff report contains the factors to consider in looking at a conditional use. The staff has made recommendations on findings but the Council is not bound by those findings. If you go through those and determine, in your opinion, that they don't meet those standards, then you could deny the permit. Or you know, if you come up with other standards that relate to the wording of these standards that you don't think they meet, you could deny the permit. In other words, you're not totally restricted to the specific language of the ordinance. If you have other traffic concerns, other land use concerns that may impact adjoining properties or the city in general, that could form the basis for denial of the conditional use permit. Councilman Senn: That addresses this specific action but I think Dick's question was coming back to more what mine is. Can we put a moratorium on consideration even of projects in this area until we have a chance to catch up and get a new land use plan in effect in place? 1 Elliott Knetsch: The answer is yes. You're allowed to have what's called an interim ordinance while you study the area in question. Councilman Wing: So you're saying we could deny the conditional use permit and put an overlay, temporary overlay to get, we could get an ordinance on line real fast that might make it undesireable to put this type of business in or make it so attractive that we wouldn't care what they put in. But we could deny the conditional use permit? 1 25 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Elliott Knetsch: I think that if you consider an interim ordinance, you would II have to consider how the interim ordinance is going to effect pending applications. Do you want the pending applications to go through or do you want them put on hold until you until you lift the ordinance and allow development 11 applications again? Councilman Wing: Okay, we talked about moratoriums before and Woodbury got shot I down so we chose not to go that route. Elliott Knetsch: Yeah, but Woodbury was upheld in Court within the last month. 11 Councilman Wing: Was upheld? Councilman Senn: It was upheld a week ago as a matter of fact. II Don Ashworth: If you would consider denying it, what you previously have done is to act to have the City Attorney's office draft the, I guess you call them I Findings of Fact. Basically it provides the basis under which this is being denied. If you are going to go with the moratorium, I would ask that you similarly table the item to allow the City Attorney to draft those findings as well. 1 Councilman Senn: Excuse me Don, if we table it though, doesn't it pass by, I mean doesn't it just pass because of that time period you referenced earlier? If we don't act by that date, it goes forward? Elliott Knetsch: Right, but I don't believe that we're at the end of our time limit on that date. I don't know when the application was filed or when the II Planning Commission acted on it. Sharmin Al -Jaff: The Planning Commission acted 2 weeks ago. II Paul Krauss: But the item was filed. 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: In May. Mayor Chmiel: I think everybody's concerns are establishing the Hihgway 5 corridor with the regulations that we're looking for and I think some of the II things that I had too is something that were not addressed fully but we're looking at now with that adoption for the Highway 5 corridor. The standards for architecture as to the exterior of those buildings. What they're really going I to look like. I think that's one of it. We could also go for that moratorium on a 6 months basis and I think within that period of time we might have enough gathered to put that through. I see a puzzled look on your face Paul. I'm I asking that question. Paul Krauss: If it was just a matter of staff working with our consultants and going off and writing this thing, we could have it to you in 2 weeks. But the II fact of the matter is, we're working with a citizens task force and we need to bring them along and then we need to go public with it and get feedback and then we need to bring it through the Planning Commission and then ultimately to you. Now at the end of that process, what you have is a new development ordinance. An overlay ordinance in all probability for the corridor. You haven't gotten to 1 26 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 uses at all. I mean that involves the City initiating rezonings and they're probably going to be contested rezonings. A property owner isn't going to want to concede it in a number of cases up and down the corridor. Changing land uses also involves getting often rubber stamped but approval by the Metro Council, which adds more time. That whole, you're going the whole 9 yards on that thing probably takes the best part of a year. Councilman Senn: But can't we undertake that process, separating the east end 1 from the west end and shorten that process back to what you were talking about in the first place? Mayor Chmiel: They're not addressing the east end. 1 Paul Krauss: That's not true. No. The corridor starts at Dell Road and ends technically past the Arboretum. The work schedule in fact, when we've targeted sites that needed special study, we started out with the area in front of Data Sery and then we've got the next site we've targeted is the Ward property so we've picked up parcels in and around, completely through the CBD. Also, Richard you mentioned something that the CBD and the corridor are not necessarily the same thing and that's true except to the extent the CBD has exposure on Highway 5. There was never an intent to look at anything specifically. You know, is the CBD a different area? Yeah. I mean preferrably we'll deal with that, with the Highway 5 study but you're not going to get answers to land use questions on 78th Street from a Highway 5 corridor study. That probably just adds confusion to the whole thing but I think you have to be, one of the things about moratoriums is you need to know that you have a date certain at which time the thing collapses or you're striving to attain that. Again, I think 6 months may be reasonable to establish an ordinance but it's not going to change the uses in that timeframe. Councilman Senn: So you'd need a year is what you're saying? 1 Paul Krauss: I would think so. Councilman Wing: But perhaps if we did have this delay, we would at least, if , Target was suggested to be our minimum standard, we did fairly well with Target. If that was our new minimum standard, I'd like to get that minimum standard in the ordinance so that then applies to these lots that are sneaking in the east side, which is going to increase the landscaping a little bit and maybe setbacks and building types, architecture standards and so on and so forth. Architectural standards, that's so nebulous we can hardly touch that in the next 10 years maybe but the types of businesses, I guess we can't change but at least what we did with Target, it ought to be in an ordinance form and on line before we let anymore development on Highway 5 into our gateway. This Mr. Senn, he sounds like this troublemaker Wing from 2 years ago. My first meeting I came and I said, here's what Highway 5 looks like to me with umpteen filling stations and this and that. It was a cement plant, a taco shop and a McDonald's and then we've got this little building that's the American Legion and I made it clear that I didn't want that to continue to the west end so this corridor study got started. Now you come in saying, you know it isn't a very pretty picture but yet we're allowing more of it and we're expanding it. It just doesn't sound right. I mean he's hitting it right on the head. I'm stunned that suddenly we're expanding this automotive center out to the east end of our city. We're 27 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 trying to encourage Eden Prairie to do a good job at their west end and not cut II all those trees down so we can come barging in from the west and you know really do kind of the opposite of what we're even talking about so. I don't want to be, I hope I'm leaving Goodyear out of this because Mr. Besiner I have no axes I with. The issue is strictly to me is land use, Our gateway and permitted uses. Councilman Senn: But the ordinance takes that now. I mean the ordinance allows II us to take the Target standard and make it the standard for this project or any other use like this in the corridor, correct Paul? I mean by simply attaching those conditions to the conditional use permit. II Paul Krauss: You do have a fair amount of latitude under the conditional use permit to get better than normal development. So you could probably come up with something similar to the Target. In fairness to Mr. Besiner and Goodyear I though, one of the problems here is nobody has ever been able to, well thus far, I mean we haven't been able to articulate consistently what will make everybody happy. You know when the Planning Commission talked about architecture, we had 1 5 different opinions and you've got Mr. Besiner sitting there saying, I will do what you want but tell me what it is. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Yeah, I agree. II Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor, I don't consider the issue here to be architecture. I mean that is a sub - issue. i Mayor Chmiel: That is a portion of it. Councilman Senn: That's a portion of it but I consider the major issue here in II front of us is land use in relationship to that area. Mayor Chmiel: Well, on the other hand you could put another taco shop or a Taco II Johns in there and they would have 150 cars in a day or 200. Is that going to better it? I don't think so from the neighborhood's standpoint, or from the city's standpoint. 1 Councilman Senn: But delaying, doing a study, the moratorium would address both. I mean I guess I'm not going to turn around and say that that's better than a Goodyear because I think the Goodyear's better than the Taco and I'm not II saying I wouldn't come back and say the Goodyear's fine. But my fear is, we approve a Goodyear tonight, then Abra's going to be in right next to it. And the third lot back there is going to be something ease. Before you know it, II there's going to be 3 more automotive things in here in front us. It seems to me we ought to bite the bullet and get at the job we really want to get at, which is get it straighten away. 1 Councilman Wing: Quick question for Paul. Direct question. I'll apologize later. The way things are happening, with our existing ordinances Paul, and you've been struggling to get these things on line and the things that are I happening and your available staff, could you use some breathing space right now to get revamped and look at some of these issues and not have the pressure of people coming in the door all the time? If we gave you a moratorium of x weeks 1 or months, would that give you some needed breathing room right now to really look at these issues and attack some of these issues we're concerned about? 1 1 28 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 Paul Krauss: Yeah, it certainly wouldn't hurt. I mean having more time to sit back and complete. If our only job was to push paper and bring permits to you, I mean it would be pretty straight forward. I mean the more interesting and more complex part of our job is to work with you on a vision for what the city should be and on planning. Fundamental planning. There's no question that I/ we've known all along on Highway 5 that we're under the gun. We told the task force that when they were set up. That we're going to try and bring you along as quickly as possible but there are going to be things that you may be able to influence but not totally change. I think they were pleased when we explained the Target process to them and a little bit concerned when we showed them the Abra plan. But that was a limitation they were willing to accept. I don't want to dissuade you. You know if moratorium is the way you're going to go, I've worked in a community where we did that. I think it was done effectively. There were some outs built into the moratorium for some sites. For example, one important site I think to the city may well be the corner of Target which is part of that PUD and which had the standards that you spoke of already embodied in it. That's also in the corridor. So you may want to be able to exempt some sites if they meet some Rind of criteria. There's a lot of things to think of so how you exactly define the corridor, how you handle that, what's the duration of this thing, it's not as black and white an issue as it might seem. I mean it is one solution. It is effective but there's a lot that goes with a moratorium. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Go ahead. Councilman Wing: I'm only going to move tabling until the first meeting in February to allow some time to look at these issues and clarify where we're going. Especially with staff. I wouldn't want to act on a moratorium. I think it's too severe and I'm not sure that this isn't the choice we want and they haven't done the best job possible. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you have a question? Paul Krauss: If a moratorium ordinance is to be brought back, it would be reviewed I think directly by the City Council. It wouldn't necessarily, well I'm not sure. Would it have to go to the Planning Commission? Elliott Knetsch: No, it would come back to the Council. Paul Krauss: And for us to officially bring you an ordinance we have to publish 1 it 14 days. 10 days? 14 days in advance. Elliott Knetsch: That's by your own rules of procedure. You can waive your own rules of procedure. Mayor Chmiel: I would just as soon not waive rules when it comes to doing things as such. I'd like everybody to know exactly what's happening. Elliott Knetsch: You would still provide, you know publish it and put it on the agenda and so forth so the public would be aware of what's going on. I'm just saying if it's a matter of missing by a day in applying to the rules, you could waive the day. 1 29 1 I City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Paul Krauss: You would also have an obligation to define the corridor and then notify all the property owners who would be effected by the moratorium. So we'll sure try to bring it back to you by February. That's February 8th? II Mayor Chmiel: Maybe that's what we're looking at is tabling it for a 30 days period with to do what? 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: To achieve what, yeah. Mayor Chmiel: To gather just what Paul had indicated. II Paul Krauss: We could bring you a moratorium ordinance and some guidelines for how it might be effected. One of the questions I have though is, should Mr. Beisner be working to resolve. I mean is the direction that you're to give Mr. Beisner are the things that he could do that would resolve your concerns in the short term? II Councilman Mason: I think Councilman Wing has stated his distaste for concrete block. That might be one thing to look at. But on the other hand, why should they spend any more time on it if we're examining this? Again, I'm finding I myself in kind of an unusual position here tonight. Are we, by looking at a moratorium, is this kind of de post facto? I mean why, and I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. I'm just saying this has all been done in good faith with everyone concerned and we accuse developers and the like of not acting in good faith. Are we doing that now? I think that's something, I'm not making a judgment. I think that's something we need to look at. Councilman Senn: But this is the first time we've seen it and we're the only body to consider this type of an action, isn't that true? 1 Mayor Chmiel: True. Councilman Wing: Well the Planning Commission has by their comments, every one ' of them, said we don't like it. They said, we're uncomfortable. Let's get rid of it and give it to the Council. So here it is. Mayor Chmiel: Get 5 more votes. II Councilman Wing: But I agree with Mike. I'm not supporting a moratorium. I don't a moratorium is necessarily the way to go but I think we have to decide ' what we expect out of this. On the other hand, Mike also pointed out that they have complied with the existing ordinances and exceeded those limits. Sharmin has wrung blood out of turnips if you want. I mean both sides have worked hard to do everything possible to make this go. We can add brick to it. I mean I I don't think we ought to have block in our gateway to the city but that's a standard that's simply got to be met head on. II Councilman Mason: I hope it's vote time here pretty soon on this to tell you the truth. I'm okay with tabling this but I'd really, I'm not going to take a moratorium lightly because there's just too much going on in this city right I now. Paul's mentioned Target. Paul's mentioned that area. That's something that would really, I'm not saying I'm against it but I certainly think that that would really need to be looked at very carefully. I 1 30 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I'm not sure what we could accomplish. Say we put a moratorium for the next 6 months, what's our plan for that 6 months? The task 1/ force certainly already has a full slate. Paul Krauss: There are some of these sites that are going to be problematic. I mean there's the second and third site here. There is what is in front of Data Serv. There's the site adjacent to the Press. Once you move out of that, everything that's going to be done either requires a rezoning that gives you a lot of latitude, or is in a TIF district which gives you a lot of latitude. That's one of the, I mean really the zoning is only one of the tools the city has in the arsenol. Unfortunately it's the only one we have here really. I don't want to tell you that without a moratorium everything will turn out just hunky dory. You do have those 5 or 6 sites where you're going to be posed with similar problems if somebody brings in a proposal. But for the balance of the area, you can bring pretty much all the tools to bear that you did with Target. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think I'll entertain one more and I think we'll call the question after that because I think we're just grinding here and coming to no conclusion. Councilman Senn: Yeah. I think we're grinding too and I think part of it is because we don't have a good feel for what the moratorium and stuff would mean. So I guess what I would like to move is that we direct, that we table this for 30 days and that we direct staff to come back in 30 days with a proposed ordinance on moratorium. That's the only way we're going to get our hands on it. Touch it. Feel it. Know what it means. Staff can provide the professional expertise to doing that and at that point we can decide which way we move from that point. It may not be to go ahead with the moratorium but at least at that point we know what we're, I guess talking about. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. At the same time should we also, in that aspect have our attorney go through and look at that moratorium with some draft findings? Councilman Senn: That would make sense, yes. Councilman Wing: Now was that a motion? Did you make a motion? Councilman Senn: Yes, I did make a motion. 1 Councilman Wing: I would second it just for discussion. Because the moratorium I still don't feel comfortable with and I don't support. Councilman Senn: Dick, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting a moratorium. Councilman Wing: Well I know. First of all we're tabling this for 30 days. I still don't think it effects Goodyear. They have a proposal on the table that seems reasonable. It's gone beyond the norm. I think we almost have to on that. But then this moratorium is going to effect the lot next to it and the lot next to that one and subsequent things coming in so I don't think we're going to see them slipping through the crack here quite as easily and we'll get an ordinance on line fast with landscaping that meets the Target standards. Why are we going to delay it 30 days? We can't change the land use and what they've done with Goodyear. I think this, your motion I can go along with but I still 31 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 think we have to address Goodyear tonight and make a decision on denying it or 11 not denying it. Councilman Senn: Well Dick my motion was to delay it 30 days for the reason II that, okay here's the reason now. The reason that, at that point we can decide whether this property should or should not be included in a moratorium. But until we define the moratorium, I don't think that's fair to make that judgment. ' Nor is it fair to treat this property I think any differently at this point than we're going to look at surrounding ones. Councilman Wing: Except this land use is established and it is meeting II ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And it's of those standards but nonetheless you can still II table it for those 30 days. Councilman Wing: Well, I can go with the 30 days tabling. II Mayor Chmiel: And to come along. My understanding of your motion, restate that motion as such. II Councilman Senn: The motoin is that we table this item for 30 days and in that time period staff and City Attorney come back with a draft or proposed moratorium ordinance for consideration and with all the definitions. I Mayor Chmiel: With the findings? Councilman Senn: With the findings and definitions that we need. 1 ' Mayor Chmiel: Good. And you seconded it. I Paul Krauss: If I could clarify that. Should this be an ordinance that we get together, publish it and do everything else so that if you wanted to, you could take action on it that evening? Or did you just want to review it. 1 Councilman Senn: If that's possible, that'd be nice to have as an option. Mayor Chmiel: If it's possible. I don't know how you could do it but. I Councilman Senn: That's something you have to answer maybe more than us. I Paul Krauss: Well part of what you would have to do in creating the ordinance is establish the corridor. Establish what it covers and I guess it's difficult to notify people if we don't know exactly what it is. ' Councilman Senn: Do we have time to wait? I mean do we have time if we wait 30 days, come back, get our hands on an ordinance and then do we have time then to turn around and do that publication? II Paul Krauss: Then you're looking at probably another 15 -20 -25 days beyond that. So I guess we'd like to shoot for it. If we take a shot at defining a corridor I and notifying people, you can make it smaller at that point but you can't expand it without going through a re- notification. ' 32 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 Councilman Wing: Can you make sure that an update is on the next agenda. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I'm going to call a question. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the Goodyear ' Tire Facility for 30 days and direct staff to come back with a proposed draft ordinance on a moratorium and findings. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. ' CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL, GATEWAY BUSINESS CENTER, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND TH 41, OPUS CORPORATION. 1 Public Present: Name Address 1 Michele Foster Opus Corporation John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban Paul & Carol Paulson 3160 West 82nd Street Henry Wrase Chaska Rick Wrase Chanhassen Peter Olin Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Jim Andrews Park and Recreation Commission Larry Schroers Park and Recreation Commission Jan Lash Park and Recreation Commission Harry Adams 115 West 82nd Street Kate Aanenson: Opus Corporation is requesting PUD conceptual approval of 170 acres of property. This proposal includes 22 lots with approximately 950,000 square feet of building. The buildings would be an office /industrial mix. This proposal also calls for some support or ancillary commercial included in the project. Lot 1, which is this lot right here, is being shown as being held out for future development. This property is zoned A -2 but the Comp Plan guides it for office /industrial type uses. This item appeared before the Planning Commission twice. First in October and then in November and the Planning Commission discussed it at length. They had numerous concerns with the project. I think what we're trying again is the Highway 5 in a conceptual envision of this development and where we're going with that. We have shook out a few issues I believe. Paul Paulson's property here and the Wrase's property there were both shown as exceptions. We're hoping now that they can be included and it appears that they may, are working towards being included into the development project itself. One of the other issues is the park dedication. This project does not reflect what the Park and Recreation Commission, their recommendation. They are showing two lots. Lot 17 and 18, which would be these two lots right here, as open space. These lots also include the more significantly wooded area and the wetlands, both of which would be required to be preserved under the PUD anyway. So what the Park and Recreation Commission is looking for is more of a community park and that acreage does not meet their needs. They're looking at something separate from that. At the time of the Planning Commission, there were 4 proposals. It got tabled the first time. The Planning Commission asked that they come back and show some alternatives for that Lot 1. There was a great discomfort in what the possibility of that would , be. So they came back with 4 proposals. Those being office institutional, 33 1 1 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 office industrial, institution, hotel and apartments and retail commercial. The I Planning Commission definitely ruled out any possibility of the retail commercial on that site and wanted that known that they don't see that as a possibility. They also recommended that natural topography be maintained as I much as possible. Also they recommended that the uses adjacent to the Arboretum be much more sensitive and a landscape buffer be included. Also there was concerns from the residents over in this area here as to what the uses across I the street would be There's just a large open space area with a trail and the City of Chaska. And what they're proposing in these other two lots here would be a daycare, maybe a gas station. But this use right here, as part of the PUD, the staff would be recommending and I think it appears to be acceptable to the II residents, that that be a lower profile building. More limited hours. Typical office hours with limited truck traffic and that would be some of the development standards we would be designing into this issue. I'd like to talk a II little bit about the PUD itself. I think there was some of perception that they had asked for, the applicants had asked for the PUD but I think the staff certainly directed this project towards the PUD as far as the comprehensive I elements. Of course transportation, the combining at work, including mass transit. The architectural designs we'll be developing as this project evolves over the next, when you see it again next would be the development standards. Similar to what we did to Target. Unifying the types of designs and piggy II backing those into what the Highway 5 corridor study is recommending. We'll also be looking at gateway treatments. Unified gateway treatments and landscaping, sign issues. Again, what they're doing in a PUD, we're getting a I comprehensive looking at the wetland issues. How those can be altered and mitigated and we have a lot more property to work with. Which ones we'd want to enhance the value and which ones we may allow to be altered. In addition we're getting the preservation of some of the natural features. Again, which are I predominantly located in this area here. The wetlands but again that doesn't I exclude the creation of some other elements throughout the park. The Planning 1 Commission, we got hung up on the concept issue itself and I just kind of want 1 to go through briefly what we're looking at as far as concept because I think there was a discomfort level of how much should we show at this level. We kind of went through that when we had the Lundgren proposal. Is that do we need to II show a lot of detail at this point but I just want to go through what's required as far as concept. As far as the PhD ordinance and that's the overall gross and net density. Identification of each lot size and width. The general location of major streets. The general location and extent of public and common open II space. Types of land uses and staging and timing development. I think that this proposal shown here meets the concept but I think what we're having problems with is, are we on line with the vision, which direction that we're I going in and that's where the staff is having some concerns. Again, holding out on Lot 1. Not going forward with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommending and then that whole, again the development standards for the Highway 5 corridor and exactly what direction we're going with that. Having said that, Paul previously spoke to you about that the Highway 5 task force had set up a subcommittee to look at the development standards for the corridor and one of the Planning Commission recommendations, and obviously the staff is too 11 that those standards be carried forth in this project. Again, I'll let the applicant go through the specifics of the project itself but I'd like to reiterate, this is a large scale project and before you see it again, if this II goes forward, there will be a lot of work to be done. It's going to require an ! Environmental Impact Statement, traffic studies. There's a lot of work to be i II 34 - II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 done as far as the wetland issues. Plus there's the whole issue of sewer timing. It may be up to 2 years before we get the improvements out there to get sewer and water. So there is a big timeframe before we would see this again. I think that was the reason that the staff felt comfortable going forward because we feel like there's a lot of work to be done and we need some of these issues addressed more specifically before we can come back with some, you know they need to raise some of the issues and let us find out what we need to do to soften the impact or to make changes. But staff again is concerned that we're on line with the same vision. It appears that there's some deviation as far as what they envision the project and the direction we see. We would recommend approval if they agree to the conditions as we've outlined in the staff report. We feel those reflect our concerns but if they are unwilling to, then at this time we feel that it needs to be tabled. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. Does the applicant wish to come forward and provide their presentation? Michele Foster: Good evening. My name is Michele Foster and I'm Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation. I am the person from Opus Corporation who is working with the land owners who have owned this property for some period of time and who have now envisioned that it is appropriate to be looking at this property for development. I think as many of you know, Opus ' Corporation has been involved in the city of Chanhassen in developing office and industrial property for a significant period of time in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park and with specific buildings such as the Rosemount Corporation building that we designed and built in the city of Chanhassen. It was our intent, upon the completion of development in that park that we wanted to continue our relationship in the city of Chanhassen and that's what brought us to develop a working relationship with the owners of this property. Opus Corporation does not own the property but we are the exclusive development and marketing agent for the owners and for all practical purposes will be acting, or hope to be acting in any event, as the developer of the property. Our goal in development Gateway West Business Park is to develop a quality office industrial park in the city of Chanhassen. That has been our practice in Chanhassen and in other suburban communities in the Twin Cities. Specifically Opus II in Minnetonka and Bass Creek Business Park in Plymouth, which is in the early development stages. We expect this park to be a continuation of that kind of quality. Of quality development. Preservation of open space. Respect for the land that is there and we don't anticipate to operate any differently in the development of this park and we don't think that we have to this stage in working with our consultants in developing the master plan that's before you this evening. We feel that the concept plan that we have proposed for this business park is consistent with those levels of quality. In terms of coverage. In terms of preservation of open space. In terms of preservation of wetlands. In terms of respect for the topography of the land. This concept plan is very consistent with the kind of business parks that we have developed in other communities. We have not approached this property any differently and we feel that it needs to exemplify the kind of quality that we want to develop and continue. We understand that this property is a very visible piece of property. Mr. Krauss in his comments in the staff report this evening indicated that we've already been working on this property for a year. I checked my notes myself today. Our first meeting with city staff was on January 22nd of last year. We understand the importance of this property. We have been working with city 35 1 11 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 II staff and with the Highway 5 group and we understand that that needs to continue. What we are looking for this evening is, as Kate said, concept plan approval. We would like the approval of this plan in it's current form so that we can then proceed to the next phase of analysis and detail for the plan. We 1 II do need to do an environmental impact statement. We have a number of other reviews that we know we need to come back to you for consideration but we really 1 can't proceed in that direction until we have some basic understanding of how II the property can develop. And that's the kind of approval that we're looking for this evening. As Kate mentioned, there are some issues that we are not currently in agreement on. One is park dedication. With respect to that issue and John Uban will address this in more detail, we are not in disagreement about II the City's desires for a park in this part of the city. And we are fully prepared as we have shown on the current concept plan, to include park as part of our property. We understand the goals for the city with respect to the park. II Our concern and our goal has been that there are other adjacent properties who will benefit from this park and we would like to see a more global approach taken to the planning for the park and include adjacent properties in the II planning for the park so that this goal can be met mutually by these adjacent properties. We are showing a significant amount of property as park and we feel that there is merit in looking at this goal being met by adjacent properties as well. The second issue has to do with utilities. When we first got involved II with the property, it was our hope and our expectation that if we went through the governmental approval process, which we knew would be lengthy, that we would be able to receive utilities to the property in order for development to occur II in a timely basis. The next item on your agenda which deals with the feasibility report for servicing part of our property from the City of Chaska indicates that we may not be able to receive utility service for up to 6 years. I That's a big surpse u a nd all pus t us n a er difu situatio terms of proceeding ri with to very expensive governme vy approvals ficlt when we don n't in know if we can get utility service to the property in a timely manner. And we'r hopeful that we can work with the city in order to expedite that process. We 11 know that there are adjacent property owners who are also interested in receiving utility service faster than that and that's an issue that really needs to be addressed as part of this property. At this point I'd like to just close I my comments and turn over the presentation to John Uban, but I'd like to say that it is certainly our goal to continue to cooperate with the city. To cooperate with the adjacent property owners. With the Highway 5 task force. We know that there is a great deal of detail work that still needs to be done on II the development of this plan but as Kate said, we're just at the concept plan point in the process and by approving the plan this evening, it will allow us to continue that process and address the concerns that have already been brought up II by the Planning Commission. So with that I'd like to turn. Councilman Wing: Is it appropriate to ask a question at this time? II Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can address that after once we've seen Mr. Uban. Councilman Wing: Sure. 11 Michele Foster: Okay. At this point then I'd like to turn it over to John Uban. II II 36 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 John Uban: My name is John Uban. I'm a planning consultant with Dahlgren, 1 Shardlow and Uban and I'd like to go over just a few points of our conceptual plan. Share with you our vision that we have been developing with the plan and hopefully get some information in front of you that can give you a little better insight in the direction we're taking and how we view the property. If I could • have this on the overhead. This photograph has an overlay on it and if you can see that, this is an aerial view of the property from Highway 41 and to your right you'll see the industrial development in Chaska. The dark lines represent the generally, schematically where roads are proposed and then we see an outline of the property in black which surrounds all the wooded areas and other open areas on the eastern portion of the site. This then is the proposed park area and the black roads are the roads that would be the service road or frontage road that connects onto the east. And the homesite is the Wrase site that also is right on Highway 41 which we're trying to include in the planning for the overall business park. This gives, when we first looked at the property we saw the eastern edge with it's wetlands and wooded areas to really be a significant asset to the property and a place where we can create open spaces that would be a benefit, not only to the city but to the City of Chaska and the residents and so forth. And so we initiated the idea of park in this area, and have always included park on our eastern edge. Park all the way from Highway 5 down to the 11 82nd Street and connecting on through. And we want to do this and we've always proposed to do this. I think we've had some conflict in how we view this with the Parks Commission and maybe how much park should be parkland. We think the city should be prudent. Should decide if they want to buy all the park up front and buy it all from one property or if they want to look at properties that are adjacent to each other and get through dedication all the parkland so you don't have to expend the money up front. I think it's a little more reasonable to do it that way. And also I could show you on our concept plan, we understand that the properties, here's the park and once again Highway 5. The adjacent property there has just been sold and there are interested people in development. Residential is the land use on the comprehensive plan. And there's residential to the south. To have this park continue through and incorporate those adjacent parcels in some way would then combine these residential areas, the industrial area and have a common park that would really serve all these areas quite nicely. And maybe there was a lost opportunity that the City of Chaska was not involved in this because they have some very nice wooded areas that are not really incorporated in any public use. So that was sort of the heart. Beginning of our concept and we had looked at the City's comprehensive plan. We looked at how the land use was designated when this land was assembled and it was industrial office. We looked at the circulation patterns. The transportation patterns and guidelines of the comprehensive plan and we have followed those as best we can. We've looked at the road system and it's really laid out to best miss wetlands and keep the environmental aspects of the site intact. So we have developed a plan really with a curvalinear road system, straightening it where it has to be straighten to meet the requirements of the City's engineer. Specific points have been worked out with MnDot for access onto the road system. We have suggested a common feature at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41. Something that can be done by the cooperative land owners. This plan includes only one quarter of that. Everything on the west is Arboretum and Milts Fleet Farm is the owner of the land to the north. All of this can be consolidated into a variety of plans that would create a gateway sort of feature and we're quite supportive of that. We've suggested this circular pattern. Sort of a round and focus for that intersection. Whether that is ever 1 37 1 11 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 considered strongly, we think it's a good one to start with. The real issues II then that we've found that we've been trying to deal with, with Planning Commission and the task force, is how to develop the area adjacent to the Arboretum and how to develop a common vision for how this will really develop. I We showed pictures of Opus. This was in Minnetonka and they had looked at similar things in Opus and had rated them very highly in their visual analysis. So we think we're on the same track. When we really sit down and say, we're going to do a quality development, I think we see the same thing. At this concept stage, it's very hard to illustrate that because it's hard to understand in a planned view sometimes what is an attractive development. And so we conceptually now are just showing the road pattern and more specifically what II lands are available to us with sewer from the extension of Chaska sewer, which really is only a small stretch of land along 82nd Street and we really thought there would be a lot more. At this point it's very difficult for us to continue I with environmental review with such small amounts of land available for development. So we would propose that that environmental review takes place when the extension of utilities is also brought forth. So that those can be ' combined and done together at one point. The City might have an opportunity here to help developers, not just ourselves, but the adjacent landowners and the task force and really how to implement your vision. I think you're struggling with this. I've been listening to it tonight, and we've been witness to it as I we've been before the Planning Commission and other commissions, that everyone has sort of a different view and how do we bring this together and how do we articulate it? How do we get everyone to agree to it? We were involved about 3 years ago in trying to organize the landowners along Highway 5 and we had them organized. We did produce, at least the first idea of a concept but the vision didn't come through. We weren't fully embraced with the city in making decisions, and that's what we need to do. We somehow have to come together to II really share those visions and really start putting them together on paper. And I think if the City and it's task force could also take on the additional responsibility of environmental review, and do a combined EIS for the whole II corridor in a timely fashion, combined with the extension of utilities, this would help everyone. Often times a traffic study on one parcel doesn't really tell you that much how it's going to interact with another one. A couple years I hence down the road. This all could be done with one study. And this may be a good way to help developers combine together with their planning a single vision for the corridor. I think it's a cooperative idea. The City of Woodbury for instance is doing it for about a 1,000 acre area that is just being expanded II with utilities. There they did all the environmental review. It's an alternate review process with the Metropolitan Council. We looked then in our various meetings at some alternatives or ways we could best place our industrial type I development in the area west of TH 41. And this has been a strong issue. Peter Olin is here and will I think strongly tell you his concerns about the Arboretum and what we've tried to do. We initially took out some industrial development I that was on Lot 19 and put in a residential development. A multiple family. Neither of those solutions seem to work well for the Arboretum but we had at the same time promised, and still do, to cooperate with the Arboretum to combine with their property whatever form it takes, a new entrance to the Arboretum from II Highway 41. And this then would also provide access to Lot 19. And this is so we don't have to build this wetland for industrial development. For other access and so forth. It allows in the most sensitive type of entrance and treatment for Lot 19. Lot 19 then stays primarily as open space except for the development to a portion of it against Highway 41. This way we're really trying 38 • City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 to separate ourselves from the Arboretum, yet at the same time giving the wetlands an amenity value for that multiple family. Then on the southern edge along 82nd Street, the neighbors from Chaska told us of their concerns. Specifically right at the western corner. Here we worked out a plan. They did ' mind office /industrial use as long as it was quiet and oriented in a fashion that kept the loading and parking off towards the east, screened from their area and that we had a very attractive front facing 82nd Street and set back and landscaped and so forth. So we've worked out at least a system of buffering at least 50 feet from the property edge to the Arboretum, which will be landscaped. It will be the quietest side of the building. Everything will be to the east and have entrances off onto 82nd Street. And then we show some service commercial, daycare, gas station. There's really no gas station within several miles of this particular site and this is probably a good location, certainly not right at the gateway intersection but at the first set of stop lights that would be possible in the future. We have found that all the land to the south in Chaska is not built. It's the old Nordic Track site. All of that actually accesses onto 82nd Street. So this site, which is about 20 acres, has no access to TH 41 or any other direction. So although this seems like a small gravel road right now, it really is planned to be an industrial road to serve that site in Chaska. The other parcels on the west side of TH 41, east side of TH 41, we have a bank site, water tower, industrial sites. Generally, what we're trying to put together is a road system. We said that we will produce along the edges very attractive facade to the buildings common to what you see in other Opus Parks. We understand the desire to screen parking, specifically from TH 41 and TH 5 so what we're aiming to do is have a 50 foot setback, which is more than, I think 40 foot is the required. Landscaped of course. In addition, 50% of that frontage be building and the other be either some parking or open space and no E loading. So that we try to get primarily the buildings up against the edge of the highway so we don't have all parking lot visible from the highway system. This will allow us to do some screening and very attractive building facades and then all the buildings will really orient themselves towards the interior road system and toward the park that is shared to the east. I think this has explained to you a little bit about our concept. Our vision is for quality. We have many examples we can show you. We are here to cooperate but we have been frustrated, as staff has been frustrated with a sort of unknown vision and how does it really come about and many people thinking and having ideas in many different directions. We're here to do a quality development. We're here to make it work and be as an exciting, wonderful place as any other place in the city. And the corner that we have for Lot 1. It isn't that we're trying to hold this lot away from the city. We are trying to hold it for the city. We are really committed to holding it for the right time, the right development, and the right place. And we think that is a service we can do to the city to really commit to doing the best thing possible. We really cannot predict what that will be. And we just, we understand this is a PUD. You will have the controls. We'll put them all in, as we have in other industrial parks and what happens there we hope will be a common vision for the city and it will be something that all of us can agree to and it can't happen any other way. So feel comfortable that I think we're on the right track and that we can develop with city staff a common vision. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this particular project at this time? And if I could ask, time is fleeting this evening. If we could limit our statement to probably about 10 minutes. Or less. 39 1 1 11 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Peter Olin: I'll try. Peter Olin, Director of the Arboretum. I do want to I address the Council tonight, not only as Director of the Arboretum but as a registered, professional landscape architect and land use planner in the State of Minnesota. And I want to give you just a brief background to let you know ' that I do have training in this area. I started in 1963 in Connecticut as a landscape architect where I learned with a firm that I was with, that housing and commercial development layout done by planners could more effectively destroy the land than the developers could. It was a great learning experience but a poor job. In '67 in Massachussetts I did learn how good PUD's could be designed while working on two very good ones in Amhurst. And one of them was a seminole PUD development that set the pace for others. We worked on housing, I commercial and recreational development there as well. In 1970 I worked on a major regional plan for southeast New England. In '71 I worked for a planning and research firm inventorying the scenic qualities of the State of Vermont. Analyzing the factors that made up those secenic qualities. '72 I worked on developments in Vermont, including town plans and zoning ordinances, commercial developments, housing developments and PUD's. '73 I worked on developments in Boston. Commercial and school developments and since '74 have taught landscape II architecture at the University. PUD is a unique opportunity for the designer/ planner to work with the landform and native environment so that it isn't destroyed. And for the developer, it's a way to preserve part of the site and I increase the amount of development that they may not be able to do under regular development guidelines. For the City it's a way to retain the character of the land as called for specifically in the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and provide amenities for it's citizens. The people who work and live there, it II provides a better setting. More environmentally compatible place in which to work, reside, and recreate. The plan does not, as presented, this plan does not address these issues. The roads rip across the landforms and will destroy them I entirely. The 1 and 2 acre buildings that are probably the kinds of buildings again shown on these plans which are in this type of development, cannot be put on those, most of those lots without either removing the entire hill or massive I retaining walls. The parking lots for the most part face the road, at least in most of the plans that I've seen. I may have not seen the latest but they were mostly all along the roadway making the drive through the site a tour of parking lots. There is no respect for adjacent land uses, especially the Arboretum 1 which is a major regional and quickly becoming a national resource. We are now known nationally. It needs major buffering considerations and appropriate land uses. Those are things that we can't do as an Arboretum. A few rows of trees 1 doesn't begin to do the job to buffer potential machine shops, fast food restaurants, gas station or some multi family housing. Further, the plan does not respect the importance of entry into Chanhassen on Highway 41. The welcome that's proposed will greet people with a gas station or a fast food restaurant, or both. At Highway 5 there is only the most sketchy of ideas about industrial office, commercial or what have you. There's not much to say Chanhassen is a different community. One that respects the land. The only thing that has been II given respect in this project was the wetland, and of course the law won't allow them to build there, or at least not without major costs. A PUD is a way-to creatively approach development. In this case we have major landforms, I wetlands, and two of Chanhassen's major entries. The site needs creative design development. It needs to go beyond just 1 or 2 acre industrial buildings and consider other land uses. Certainly the city entrance needs a major innovative II landscape treatment. The city needs to protect the rolling landscape that is characteristic of Chanhassen. It's in your city plan. You deserve and you 40 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 should demand a creative development solution for this site. You have a developer that's known to do creative land use planning, which respects the landscapes they're developing. What is needed is a good solution for this particular piece of property. Several of these lots have 28 to 38 feet of drop across them with a 1 to 2 acre building. Flat building on it. These then abut ' a roadway with up to 30% slopes in some cases. That's the way the land is now. . All of which has to be graded out appropriately with side slopes and drainage. This plan does not work unless the entire landform is almost completely removed. That means taking it off the top and dumping in the bottom, or hauling it off site. They are not minor adjustments that can be made after preliminary approval. It simply can't be done without removing the landform. I strongly recommend that no approval be given to this plan until a plan is presented that minimally, one, respects the rolling landform of the site for both roadway and building location. Two, shows at least block grading, that's gross grading plan to indicate how roads, parking lots, and buildings can be placed on the site without destroying the landform. Three, begins to develop some type of logical and appropriate entry sequence to Chanhassen, both on Highway 41 and TH 5. Four, makes appropriate land use considerations for the Arboretum, a major botanical and educational resource. And five, finally, the Arboretum, as part of the University of Minnesota, and the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Foundation takes strong exception to any of the development proposed on the west side of Highway 41. University officials, who I've talked with, are quite concerned about development that negatively impacts the Arboretum. After much discussion the Arboretum at this time opposes any land use change whatsoever on those 30 acres on the west side of TH 41. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Paul Paulson: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Paul Paulson. I'm a resident of the city of Chanhassen. I live just north of Lot 20, which is in the southwestern most part of the plan. I guess first of all I'd like to say that I have attended the Planning Commission meetings, both in October 7th and December 2nd, at which point I voiced my concerns and comments and they're on record, and if you're interested, you can go back and refer to those. I won't reiterate most of what I said before. But I would like to say that I do continue to be concerned about development west of Highway 41 and the impact of that plan on my property. There has been recognition and discussion of the issues I raised at the Planning Commission meetings but there has been no resolution to those to this point. So my concerns have been noted but not resolved. The Planning Commission I believe does share some of the same concerns that I have. This proposal coming before the City Council tonight does not finalize any of these issues. Before the plan goes forward, issues concerning my property need to be addressed. One of the main concerns I have is that I would like my property included in the planned unit development. I'm concerned that if it is not, my property as a residential use would be severely depreciated in the future if at some point I wish to move out of that property. So my motivation for wanting to be part of the planned unit development is to maintain the value of the property at some future date if I chose to get out of it. I guess one other concern that I feel fairly strongly about is the buffering on Lot 20. The plan shown on the overhead this evening, tonight is the first time I've seen it and so I haven't had the opportunity to study it but from a distance it looks like I might still have the concerns about buffering. Also, one final comment. I would appreciate it if the City would keep me informed as 41 1 • I City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 new plans become available and staff reports and that sort of thing. I did write a letter to the city in October requesting that and I have been kept fairly well up to date with exception of this latest meeting. I just found out about this meeting today. Early afternoon and I had no idea that there was a new plan available for my review. So I'd like to publically request that I do stay informed on this because I am directly impacted by the plan. Thank you. I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Jim Andrews: I'm Jim Andrews. I'm on the Chanhassen Park and Rec Board and I wanted to speak a little bit about the park issues. First of all, as a Park Board we have duties to the citizens. Not only today but into the future as to what our needs are and what our opportunities are. This part of our city is grossly park deficient and we need to look at larger parcels as our way of ' acquiring a large enough piece of property to deal with the needs that we have. Unfortunately we're not able at this time to impose our dedication process upon property not before the Council or the Planning Commission so in spite of the fact that I agree with the developer that we should have a global way of dealing with these problems, we currently do not, so we are forced to deal with the reality which is this particular parcel. We are planning next year to identify park areas and refer that to the Comp Plan and have that included for the future ' so I think that would be helpful. Also, in this park deficient area we are definitely identifying some of our needs as being active use needs, not just passive use and wetlands. In the past we have not given credit for wetlands as dedication. We have several examples of that in past City Council actions. One I can recall is when Redmond was proposing a development. They also asked for dedication forgiveness for wetland area and we did not offer that. It turned out that that development never occurred but we were planning not to do that. Also, as this being as a PUD, the City of Chanhassen has always taken the attitude that we should require more than the minimum requirement. Not let the developer come in just at the letter of the law. I also feel that our land in ' Chanhassen is a very high demand. Our city is an exceptionally good city for development as well as residential uses, and I don't feel we need to make any excuses as to what we ask for our future development of our city. The 1.5 acres ' that we've identified in the park board as being helpful to our needs, cannot be considered to be economically critical to the development. I think the park board request is consistent with consideration given other industrial developments and I find it interesting that the developers have stated that he's holding his Lot number 1 for the benefit of the city. But at the same time they don't adopt the same alturistic attitude toward the 1 1/2 acre parcel that we asked them to include to give us a larger active use area. So I strongly suggest to the Council that they follow the recommendations of the Park Board, the Planning Commission and staff regarding this issue. Thank you. .. Harry Adams: Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is Harry Adams. I'm the middle resident of three residences that are opposite Paul Paulson's property in Chaska and I won't duplicate the lengthy speeches each of us gave at two prior Planning Commission members meetings other than to say that they had an effect ' on the Planning Commission members and I hope that that effect and our logic and our pleas are somehow transmitted to your group in the verbatim Minutes of those meetings that I think are in your kits. We endorse Peter Olin's eloquent statement that some consideration be given to the west side of Highway 41 and preserve the residential beauty and character of our three residences extending 1 42 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 further to include four additional Chaska residences. We've had good cooperation with Kate. The developer and their planning representatives have been silent other than to promise a low keying of the one commercial building they plan to put right across the street from us, and that building will be about 100 feet from Dr. David Dungey. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Is there anyone else? Larry Schroers: Good evening. I'm Larry Schroers, Chairman of the Park and Rec Commission for the city of Chanhassen. I just want to take a second to express my concern that the Council take time to read the motion that the Park and Rec Commission worked so long and hard on. We think that we looked at all the issues and needs of that developing area. There are four of us in attendance at this meeting tonight to show how strongly we feel about it, and we sincerely hope that you'll take our motion into sincere consideration. Thanks a lot. ' Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Jan Lash: Excuse me. I have a cold so I don't know how long my voice is going 1 to last tonight, but I'm Jan Lash. I'm also on the Park and Rec Commission and I want to support what the earlier commissioners have mentioned and I want to say in the 4 years that I've been on the Park and Rec Commission, I have not felt as frustrated with a developer coming with a proposal and being as uncooperative as we have had to, the cooperation level was very low. We started in September. Made a recommendation of what we wanted to see. They came back with it. It didn't come close to complying with what we had asked for. Tried to come up with a compromise that we thought was workable. At that point in time the compromise was not even something that I was willing to make. I didn't think it was going to fill our needs, but at that time the developer made it clear that they were not willing to make that compromise either. So we went back to our original recommendation and the proposal that they came in, I was shocked to see the second time they came through was a very nice park layout. I loved the plan until I realized that the boundary for the majority of the parkland was not within this development. And I thought it was, actually it was the funniest thing I had seen come through our Commission because for someone to lay out the park on someone else's property I thought was pretty presumptuous on their part. As Chairman Andrews said earlier, we don't have control right now. We don't have a plan before us on the adjoining property so we cannot ask for dedication of that property. And also we don't always have the power to designate a specific site so the proposal that this developer brought through would entitle us to have enough flat space to have a parking lot and a volleyball court. I think that was about it. And I really don't feel like that's filling the need of what we asked for in our recommendation. So I would appreciate your consideration of our recommendation and requiring that the developer at least come back to us and we need to review this and there needs to 11 be a lot more work done on this proposal to meet our Park and Rec needs for this city. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, any questions? Michael, you've , got a smile on your face. Councilman Mason: Well, first of all, being involved in many bike races in the Opus in Minnetonka, I do know the job that Opus can do. All of this surprises 43 • City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 me. I think 1.5 acres of flat land for a park, I'm not quite sure what's holding up the developers. We don't know what's going to happen in that adjacent land and quite honestly, with what I'm hearing about park deficiency at that end of town, my guess is we're going to want 1.5 acres from them too. Clearly something needs to happen here. I guess I do have the question, what's the hold up with the park plan the Park and Rec Commission pants? I share the concerns that the residents in Chaska and Mr. Olin and I'm also, it certainly sounds alturistic what the developers are doing on Lot 1 and that could be. I'm very concerned about Lot 1 so I guess other than the 1.5 acre park that seems to be a hang -up, I don't have any specific questions right now but a whole lot of major concerns that we need to discuss before this gets passed. Councilman Wing: I have a real preliminary question I'd just like to ask Mr. Uban. And it's how, even in a conceptual discussion, unless you know our rules, how can you even conceive a plan or concept? We've got a task force that's going to be looking at development, design, roads, architectural standards, landscape requirements, setbacks, and those are going to be within the next 6 to 8 months. Hopefully. Or sooner. In other words, that's a priority. You say we don't have our act together. You're right. That's why we have a task force. You're saying we don't have our act together and a vision. You're 100% right. That's why we have this PUD coming in with this task force, with the Council ' supporting it. So we've got a set of rules coming in here that we don't know what they are but we know they're going to be relatively restrictive. So how can you even think of designing this when you don't have any idea what the rules are going to be? And how can we approve something when we know the rules are going to be there shortly. It'd be like this thing tonight with Goodyear saying, well. I guess they've done it, what do we do now? Well we're telling it that the rules are coming in and even on Lot 1, you say you can't predict r it's use. Well we can predict a lot of it's use and I think we've predicted, at least from the Planning Commission level that it's not going to be any kind of retail. So that really limits your options and I guess it's time to start talking what the other options, excluding that one might be. But Lot 1 is maybe irrelevant. Knowing that we're going to be coming in with a set of rules and you talk about a 50 foot setback, I'm on the task force and I'm going to ask them for a 100 foot setback. I think we should have nothing closer to Highway 5 than 100 feet with a buffer greenway in there. And I may get nowhere with that but these assumptions you're making, have no impact whatsoever on this task force other than as a landowner with your input, which are certainly welcome. Especially with your background and your company. I mean you have a lot of things to offer here so it's not to put barbs at you, but conceptually, how can you or even would you want to spend the time or money when we don't have our rules in place yet and we're telling you that and they won't be here for another 6 to 8 months. Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, if I could just put into perspective a couple things. When we started to Opus a year ago, that was 6 months before the City Council committed to doing a Highway 5 study. I think everybody's worked over the last year you know in what we all perceive to be good faith efforts to resolve the many issues in front of us and again, you have the same kind of issues. I mean there's a moving target. What do we want to do? And we have been a little frustrated and they probably have been equally frustrated with us. On the other hand, this is what be can be termed as a mega project for our community. I mean they don't come much bigger than this anywhere really. And 44 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 it's going to take a real long time to put it together. It's also a PUD, or will be a PUD, which gives you a great deal of latitude. It's also, in all I/ likelihood, we've talked about setting up a TIF district to cover the thing which gives us another layer of latitude. The reason it's before you here tonight with a lot of half baked things is (a), we don't know exactly what to do. And (b), we had that moving target syndrome. That's why, when we brought this to you tonight, we suggested that you know, we've been talking to them for a year. The Planning Commission's been talking to them for 3 -4 months, that we need to be real explicit and tell them exactly, if we can, what it is that we're looking for. You will have time to refine these things. I mean I dare say this is not going to come back before you for real firm approvals before that Highway 5 district is set up. It takes that long to put something like this together. So this is not, unlike the Abra /Goodyear, you do have a lot of controls. Levels of control over this and it is a much more lengthy process. So I guess the sky isn't falling on this one. , John Uban: I'll respond. Councilman Wing: Please. 1 John Uban: The concept plan is really derived from several things. One, we have to look at what the city does have as guidelines, and that is your existing 1 comprehensive plan, which we follow. And your existing ordinance, which we followed. We also looked at the marketplace and what the developer and so forth, what is going to be done. How is it usually developed. Industrial business park. And this plan follows what those parks really demand. The size of lots. The kinds of buildings that will be placed there. The configurations and so forth and at the same time we thought at least in the beginning when we took a step forward by proposing a park, which wasn't really designated in your comprehensive plan as this should be the place for a park. We really thought we were kind of leading the charge on this and in fact, by bringing this before the City, actually tried to help the city visualize or realize what is happening. What the task force means. What this corridor means. We tried that several years ago and did not have success. Hopefully this is our second time around in a way with more detail. But trying to follow your comprehensive plan. We also have some market driven concerns. We see that in Chaska for instance they're really running out of industrial land, except for the Nordic Track site directly to the south. And that site is being sold for $1.00. Now it's very hard, we can't compete against that. I mean we can't offer ours for $1.00 and I don't think the city can participate at this point in a buy down program that would allow the marketing of sites for $1.00. It would be nice if we could. The more that sort of thing happens, the way Chaska is aggressively put together industrial development, gives more latitude to a developer to put in bigger setbacks, more landscaping, more expensive buildings and so forth. And that's the kind of partnership we think a city really can join into with a developer, especially one like Opus. What do both sides really need to make this vision happen. This quality of development. These kinds of setbacks. This kind of circulation system. All these things. And so far part of this confusion maybe has been, we haven't heard the back and forth. And it was asked at the Planning Commission of Kate I believe, why is the developer going through a PUD? What is he getting? And the answer is really nothing. At this point very little. And it keeps getting more and more and I think some of our frustration and maybe it happened at the Park Commission, we just kept being asked for more and more. 45 1 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 We're giving, at least our park designation's over 30 acres at this point. We II have enlarged it several times here and we thought we had it worked out at one point but it came back again and another acre and a half now is being requested. Obviously when this is all done, perhaps this acre and a half is not, it's not a II killer but we just don't see the end of this and we need to see the balance of what we're going to have to pay for utilities to come in. When do they come in? Do we get them? What is that assessment per acre? But if there isn't the development kind of scenario available to support those kinds of costs, it II becomes very difficult for the development to go on a high quality level. And so as we have more setbacks and more infrastructure to support, per developable square foot, the cost keeps going up and then we have less money to put in for II buildings, quality and other things. And it's a balancing act. We don't know where that balance is yet. But it's something we have to sit down and really workout with the city so that we really have a cooperative vision and a I cooperative set of tools and regulations that we can all agree to. And our concept really is, we're not trying to jump ahead of the gun. We thought we were trying to lead, and I know we have some strong differences of opinion with the Arboretum and other people and depending on what the City really wants to II see here. Different things, you just can't keep restricting and restricting and restricting and thinking it's going to become more and more and more wonderful. There is a partnership to it and a balance and we really need to spell that out I so that both the developer and the city sees that very clearly and we are here to cooperate and participate fully in that process. II Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Mark. Councilman Senn: Can I just ask a preliminary question so I can first gain an understanding? Paul, on this. I followed that down until I get to the bottom I II and I kind of get lost in trying to relate that to the plan that we have here. Like Lot 22 here, it shows as 13.4 acres in a 50,000 square foot building. Yet I look on the plan and there's a small parcel right on the corner of TH 41 and 11 I 82nd. Kate Aanenson: This plan was submitted the middle of last week, after the report had pretty much been put together. I think it was, you have a copy of II the other site plan in your packet that reflects this. I think what they try to do, and what we got hung up in the Planning Commission is they showed buildings on all these. Again, we talked about what you require for conceptual and we II kept getting bogged down. When I say we, the Planning Commission, in looking at how do these individual buildings fit on these lots and what we're trying to look at is the overall, is there merits for the PUD. How we feel about the II "number of lots. ...out of the development standards. That is a big project to try to do the PUD standards like we did for Target, for this whole industrial park. That is a big project and that, we need to have the EIS and all that information before we can do that. And the wetlands. Then we'll come out and II talk about what should be those setbacks. What should be the architecture. Right now we're just trying to look at some of the peripheral issues. II Councilwoman Dockendorf: Given the fact that we do have, we need the EIS, we need to find out when utilities will be available, what timeframe are we talking for any of this development given? II II 46 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Kate Aanenson: Well again, we just talked about too, when the sewer will be available. I mean that might be, even be a year before they have sewer. We're looking at the inside, they may be able to respond better, 6 months at the inside, and maybe up to a year before we see it again. I think what they want to know is whether the commitment level's there before they spend more dollars to proceed. And that's why we felt comfortable with going ahead with the conceptual based on the fact that they concur on the outset what the conditions should be put in there. That there be no retail. That be eliminated as a possibility. That they agree with some of the other issues. The buffering along the Arboretum. The uses that the Planning Commission looked at. If they're not willing to agree to those conditions, then we feel it shouldn't go forward. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I have some of the concerns I have with bonding for some of this and being that we'll have water and sewer within that particular area, in addition to that probably about a million dollar plus water tower that will probably be required. This really concerns me, only because of our bond rating that we have presently. We're sort of at the end of our rope with bonding without changing our bonding rating as well. And because of that bonding rating, every time we turn around and go out to get dollars, every million dollars we save $50,000.00 automatically. And Don, maybe you can give me a little more, or establish a little more my concerns_ regarding this. 1 Don Ashworth: I think that they are valid concerns. We'll need to have them petition for a feasibility study. I know we did some preliminary work and they've done some preliminary work but I don't think we're in a position to answer the question how much is it going to cost for that water tower. How ( large is the area that's proposed to be assessed, costs associated with that? What are the individual costs to each of the property owners coming up to that site? And I know when we got into the similar discussion with Lundgren Bros, we got into a discussion about whether or not the developer should be required to put the dollars up front to insure that if we went ahead with this study and in fact then the decision was made, well this is too high of an assessment, literally the city could be left holding the bag. I'm sure from the developer's standpoint, that they are similarly concerned that if we did the study and completed it, again I know that there are tentative plans that are out there that potentially the city might pull the plug. But again, I don't think we have the full answers to a lot of those questions. Councilman Mason: I heard things like latitude of the developer and I hope the 1 developer's understand the city also has that latitude. And it is a balancing act. I agree with that 100% and what I've heard so far tonight is that the balance isn't even close between the city and the developer and I'm very concerned about that right now. Well, enough of that. I'll wait. Councilman Senn: If I'm understanding it right then, tonight with the concept 1 approval or concept review let's call it or whatever, you're just looking for feelings, indications, comments? Am I gauging that right Paul? Paul Krauss: Yeah. I mean the concept stage is completely non - binding on both 1 parties. It's to get a sense of, are they on the right track? What more do they need? Is the City generally supportive of the concept with refinements? And that's why we've encouraged you to be as explicit as possible. We've tried 47 1 1 I City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 to articulate some of the things we've been hearing but it's fairly clear that II this is a project that obviously involves millions of dollars are on the line and I mean we understand that they're looking for some sort of indication that ; at least they can get pointed in the right direction before they spend a lot II more and they've already expended a considerable amount. It's a process that i we've gone through on many projects. It's an optional step, as a matter of fact, and some have elected not to go through it. I think Target we did away with it because it was on a track. They take more risks in essence just diving into the plan. Councilman Senn: Well let me try to do that I guess just briefly. Again, not II having a large knowledge base to go from, it seems to me we ought to be looking west of Th 41 to the issue of park space given the huge wetland there. Enough area for active and...all the concerns of the neighbors. Whereas on the east II side, at least if I'm understanding it right, isn't this industrial development to the east side too? Paul Krauss: No. East of this site is all residential. I/ Councilman Senn: Is all residential? What, single family? Multi? II Paul Krauss: It's a mix. There's medium density up towards the. Kate Aanenson: This area up in here is multi family and south of that would all II be single family residential. Councilman Senn: Alright. Was that issue looked at all west of? II Paul Krauss: I'd defer to the Park Director on that. No, it really hasn't and it's kind of away from the population centers. 11 Todd Hoffman: Correct, away from population centers and then difficulty crossing Highway 41 to gain access to it for the main population of this development and then other residents of Chanhassen. II Councilman Senn: I guess sencondly I'd like to really, as far as Lot 1 goes, I guess I'm not sure conceptually that I would oppose all retail development on Lot 1. It may very well be a good location for retail development but I I think more critical, at least in my mind is how that retail development, I'm going to say effects downtown. I mean Chanhassen's made a decision to establish the CBD, central commercial district. There can outlying retail without 1 effecting downtown but if you're talking about a power center or a large strip center or something which is going to turn around and compete with downtown, I don't, I just saying personally I don't see that in the cards. If you're II talking about a retail type of use which isn't appropriate to downtown, and would not detract from downtown, I think that's something that at least could be open for consideration there because that's going to be a pretty heavily let's call it traveled or concentrated corner. I mean that's going to be a pretty II heavy intersection right there. Kate Aanenson: Can I just give some clarification to that? It's guided for 11 office industrial so it had to be rezoned. The PUD ordinance does allow for, at the Council's discretion, up to 25% support commercial, which is one of the II 48 • II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 reasons why we threw it on the Planning Commission, threw that retail commercial out because it would have to be rezoned. And we felt that, based on the size of I/ this property, it does merit some support commercial. But we felt that that scale is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and it doesn't meet the PUD either. 1 Councilman Senn: But why was the support commercial moved up to an area probably more effecting the residential and the Arboretum's concerns rather than on a, I think what future wise is going to be probably one of the busiest intersections in Chanhassen. Kate Aanenson: That issue was raised by the staff and the Planning Commission 1 as an issue of concern, yeah. I agree with your comments. Maybe it's misplaced. The location. Mayor Chmiel: I think I see that, from my own purview as I looked at the site 1 for the Lot number 1. I see that more as a headquarter site for a company. My own opinion, rather than any commercial or any strip mall that you're suggesting or indicated. And I think it's true what you basically said. I want to see that downtown developed first. I don't want to see these kinds of things within the city. I don't think we need it. We've got a site on TH 41 and TH 7 that picks up that section of the area for those kinds of shopping needs but as far as what we have now, I want to see that downtown. Our downtown be as successful as it can be without empty storefronts and that's one of my major concerns. Any other discussion? 1 Councilman Wing: I'd like to put my priorities on the record. On the Architectural Record of February, 1992, the idea that commerce belongs in narrow strips along highways made sense in small cities and suburban zoning ordinances were first drawn up in the 1920's. By continuing to extend commercial strip zoning along highways, communities have created a development pattern that no longer makes sense, wastes valuable land, produces inconceiveable traffic conflicts and it goes on and on. My first priority is that the Arboretum, which is a national, environmental jewel of our community, be protected first. It was there first. It was developed. It was there and I think that our comprehensive plan failed to recognize it's importance and it's value to this community and the State and the Country and the comprehensive plan kind of just bumped right up against it and said, well. We'll go industrial commercial right up and then there's Peter Olin and he's got his spats. So my first priority is to buffer the Arboretum, and that might mean no commercial use west of Highway 5 and a close look at anything east of TH 5, or east of TH 41 rather. Secondly is the residential area and those residential areas may prevent commercial use west of Highway 41 or we're going to wind up with something we've been fighting for years and that's Timberland West. We're going to wind up with a few residential homes right in the middle of a massive commercial and it's not going to be compatible. We've been fighting that right along. Secondly, is the Lot 1. I concur with the Mayor. I see a campus appearance on that corner. I°would also support the Planning Commission's removal of the retail to the 25'x, and I think we should go ahead, at least if there was a majority on Council that that is not an acceptable use, retail would not be an acceptable use and it might as well come in with some ideas for it because that's a premiere corner and to hold out for better market or that Lot l's use should be based on future market needs isn't going to sell with me. I think we have to know what's going to go on 49 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 right from the beginning. The bonding issue has certainly got to be looked at. And as far as the filling station and the retail on Highway 41, I guess I see 82nd Street as kind of out of the way and not visible and I guess I don't have a lot of trouble with it shifting up in that direction. You can't see it from TH 41. You can't see it from TH 5 and it seems like it would be much better managed there plus it ties into our service road and that's really where we're • trying to put everything. ( Along the service road. It's not out on Highway 5. 11 The other question, so those are my priorities. Number one is buffering the Arboretum is top priority. Second is the residents in that area and thirdly is the Lot 1 and I concur with the Mayor's standing. The only other question I've got, if anybody could handle it, is just a slight review of where the utilities are going to come from? Who's going to provide them? I mean we've got Chaska down in the south end and we've got Chan coming from the east side and who's going to win the race? Who in fact is going to run sewer and water into this entire site? What's just a general? Mayor Chmiel: That'd be us. Councilman Wing: Just real quickly. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. In fact some of this will be discussed with the next agenda item but basically there is a defined area that can be served on this site by gravity back to Chaska. Now of that defined area though, the limiting, the key limiting factor is the available capacity in the Chaska system. Now based on that we've defined in the feasibility study that you have in your packets tonight, how much land area within Phase 1 can be served through Chaska per the previous cooperative agreement that we've approved 11 with Chaska. The remaining portion of this development is proposed to be served via future extensions of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvement Project. Currently the Phase 1 project which is going to be completed by the summer of this year will provide trunk utilities basically extending them to Galpin Boulevard about, oh a half to three quarter mile south of this particular project area. Now as of late last week and today we have received some petitions from adjacent landowners along Galpin Boulevard requesting the City investigate the extension of utilities north along Galpin and it would only seem to fit that. It appears that area, that the area around this project are coming together. That there is a demand to have these utilities extended. It's 1 probably only going to be a couple years before we would be able to provide utilities all the way to serve this entire property. From a design and construction standpoint, does it really look at the financial aspect of the picture but at least from a physical and construction standpoint, we could have utilities there within just a couple years. Councilman Wing: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen, do you have any? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I guess we're not answering the question, what direction should they go besides saying it needs to be more imaginative, but I haven't examples of what more imaginative is. We're in a difficult place because it is just a concept and we have all very respectable parties on different sides of the issue. From Mr. Olin to Opus Corporation to definitely the citizens and it seems to me that we're not getting that cooperation that's 50 11 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 necessary but maybe that comes down the line. I'm not sure. But right now I'm not ready to even approve this concept because there are too many questions I/ unanswered. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael, anything more? 1 Councilman Mason: Well, I guess I would disagree with Councilwoman ©ockendorf. I'll go ahead and approve. With the list of recommendations that are here, I think it will in fact give some sort of direction to where we want to go with this. So I'm comfortable knowing that there are no strings attached to granting the conceptual approval. I think if we do go that route, there are some items here that we need to highlight. Work to incorporate two exemptions. Well, Mr. Paulson says he's not sure we wants to be exempted. So that's an issue. A couple other quick comments. I agree about Lot 1 not being retail. I don't think that helps the Arboretum. I don't think that helps the view of citizens coming into Chanhassen. Basically I would line up with most of Councilman Wing's concerns. I think the Arboretum is the big issue. I think the west side is the big deal and I'm hearing things about things would have to be completely graded to get buildings in. There's no imagination there and I know we've had developers in this city before that have started out that way and realized we're all working together and let's do it so everyone's happy, and so it looks nice too. So I, well let's hear what the Mayor has to say. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I guess I sort of threw out some of my concerns and thoughts on this. There's a lot of loose ends on it. I don't like approving loose ends. I really don't. I went through some of the areas here and I was combining both the 6 and 7 of some of the concerns as I mentioned before with the additional 1 things that we have to approve. 1 Councilman Mason: Are your recommendations now? Mayor Chmiel: No. I'm just talking from what I have discussed previously on my own. Councilman Mason: Oh, okay. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Regarding the bonding, the water tower, the additional costs that are entailed by this and can we even really afford this, and that's all part of the other concept plan as well. To me it's one in the same. Who's going to pay for it? Will this effect our bonding rating as I said? I guess the concept plan approval is something I don't fully agree with. I want a commitment for what Lot 1 is going to be. I don't want a maybe or we'll put in what's best for the city or what we think is best for the city. What might be best for the city may not be best for us. And that's a large parcel that we have to contend with. I think in my own estimation, I feel right now that I'd almost table this because of all the loose ends. Even with the recommendations that we had from both Planning Commission as well as Park and Rec. And I don't disagree with any of the recommendations that were put completely from each of those. Councilman Wing: But the loose ends won't be tied up until that Task Force is complete. 11 51 1 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: There again, that's the problem. They're looking for a fast track here and putting this in within a year. Getting the utilities. We're saying 6 years. Charles just got through saying possibly 2. We've got a 1 to 6 and maybe 2. So where are we really? This all fits in with the proposals for II both, there's no question in my mind. And even on item 7, I feel some real concerns in getting those utility improvements to there at this time as well. And Highway 5 corridor is something that's important to all of us and we know that. We put a lot of time into it. We know what direction it's going in. I think it's going to in the proper direction, and I think we've got to protect that part of it. So with that I'll open it up for floor discussion or for a motion. I Councilman Wing: Well I'll offer a motion that this be tabled pending the completion of the Task Force study and receipt of those recommendations by the II City Council. My conflict I have with that motion is the timeframe. Clearly there's I think a Council desire to see that Task Force as the locomotive, not the cabooze here. ,II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I want to put a clarifier on it too. I don't want Opus to say that we're against Opus coming in. We're not. It's just that there are a lot of things going on within the city. If we don't take a position now, we're ' never going to be able to take a position to say this is what we want within the city rather than have everyone come in and tell us what they're going to put there. I think we have a right to do that because we do want to see what this I city's going to be and we want it to be something a little more exceptional than what other people may have preceived it to be. Councilman Wing: And Abra triggered off a possible moratorium on the east end. We're only looking for a 6 to 8, 9 month delay on the west end to get our task force on line. Councilman Mason: Well put. Councilman Senn: But in effect we're doing the same thing. I mean we're saying let's put a moratorium on this for 6 months to a year. Just because the task force is out 6 to 8 months, I mean there are still considerations that are going to occur beyond the task force. So I mean different vehicles here because we're looking at this differently through a PUD but I'm going to come right back to the same thing we were talking about before. We're talking about placing a moratorium on this thing. Councilman Mason: This may be semantics but I don't think we are. And it was kind of cloudy to me until Don made that comment about we have the right as a city to ask this, and that's not saying that we're putting down anybody that wants to come in here. But we do have to live here just like they would have to live with the development. And I think by saying we want some more vision, you know I think John was right. That vision isn't there yet and what I'm hearing right now is, that we want that vision in place before we go ahead and start saying, come on down. And if that vision isn't in place yet, and we're working on getting that vision in place, then so be it. Let's wait a while on this. Councilman Wing: We talked moratorium. Ursula Dimler brought up moratorium for this stretch and we decided not to because we thought we were going to beat 52 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 development. Well, we're not. They're beating us now. We thought we'd have this in place before development hit. I/ Councilwoman Dockendorf: And it may sound like we're being very wishy washy tonight tabling items but I don't think there's any shame in saying, we're not ready. We need to make some bigger decisions about what the City's going to look like into the next century. And we're not ready. Mayor Chmiel: No. No question in my mind. 1 Councilman Wing: I'll stand by my motion to table. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: A motion is on the floor with a second. Any discussion? Paul. 1 Paul Krauss: I have to get some legal advice on something. The last moratorium I set up...the one in Minnetonka in the early 80's... At that time the City Attorney said you're within your rights to do a moratorium for a defined period of time but you're also better off and legally supportable if there is a mechanism by which some development can proceed. In Minnetonka it was the PUD vehicle. I don't know if that's good advice yet these days or not given the recent cases but if it is, my guess is that the criteria that we would come back to you with, for that out...continue, would probably fit the bill of this project... 1 Councilman Mason: If I could kind of tag along on that. When is the absolute soonest time, given environmental impact statements, blah, blah, blah has to be done, that this is going to come back before us? Kate Aanenson: That goes back to my point. We see these points tracking together. What you're asking for is the next phase when they come back with the preliminary plat. You want to see the development standards. What we're saying at this point is that, they're looking at conceptual. They're not at that point yet. We certainly aren't at that point yet. 1 Councilman Mason: And I wonder if we're not, I hate this word but I'm going to use it anyway, over reacting a little bit to what's going on here. We're talking half a year minimum? Kate Aanenson: That's what Paul's saying. The sky isn't falling quite yet because we feel like these two are tracking together fairly well. There is obviously some concern but we don't see this coming back before you. And you may even want to make that your motion. That it doesn't come back for preliminary, I don't know, until we've got that. But I don't see them coming back before you, before 6 months and it may be a year. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I guess I think there's enough that needs to be worked out here yet that we can tweak, and I'm a member of that corridor study. Maybe throw a few more meetings in there and get this rolling. I know there's a motion and a second on the floor. I don't think tabling this is dealing with this issue right now. 1 53 1 I/ City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Councilman Wing: It absolutely isn't. It's saying good -bye for a while. Councilman Mason: And I'm saying, I don't think we need to do that. Councilman Wing: ...I'm only trying to move it along because I think they're going to parallel each other anyway. We're going to get this done and they're going to still develop and we know they're coming. Sewer and water's still going to be running out there. I don't see it's going to make a difference one way or the other. However, I am comfortable with your statement and Mr. Mayor, I'm going to fall back and I'd be happy to withdraw that motion. If you're comfortable that these things are in fact going to fall together. Mayor Chmiel: There's so many things really...and there's a lot, even though it's a concept plan, conceptual. To me there's too many unanswered to even go along with what's being proposed. I think that we may or may not be over reacting to this. I'm not sure. But there's so many, as I said before, loose ends in regard to this, that how can we justifiably come up with a solution or an answer to this with that there? And what Paul is saying is maybe what you can do is approve the PUD proposals as well as the TIF and let the rest of that set. ' Paul Krauss: If I can clarify Mr. Mayor. I think that maybe Kate's suggestion may be more appropo. That if the concept were to be approved, it gives the developer the ability to proceed on environmental documentation and...and those things don't need necessarily to get, you know you don't need to establish a setback or trip generations kind of thing. At the same time, the Highway 5 program is tracking ahead, and possibly you do want to make, you know if a concept were to be approved and say that it not be brought back before you until the Highway 5 corridor district is up and running or a date certain, so that if you want to pick a date 6 months from now, 8 months from now at the outside, that we have an obligation to complete it by that time so that we're not putting them on the back burner forever. That way, whatever's brought in is going to have to track with the new Highway 5 program, whatever that happens to be. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Go ahead. Councilman Mason: This area is going to get developed, one way or the other. Mayor Chmiel: No question. Councilman Mason: And I have seen the work Opus does. I mean I think, I like what I've seen them do and I have no reason to believe that once we get some things in place here and we all know what some guidelines are, that we can work this out. And I think, you know now I'm hearing that we can go ahead and approve a concept. Nothing more. And I wouldn't have any trouble at all, after we've approved this, if we don't like the site plan, to pull it out. But if we're now saying that we can somehow tie this into the completion of the highway task force, I think that maybe lends some more credance to approving it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I would probably go along with that if we also include the bonding aspects of it because if we can't go that, we pull the plug automatically on it. 54 • City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 Councilman Mason: I don't have any trouble with that. That certainly is 1 reasonable. Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor, just a minute ago you referenced TIF. I mean I haven't seen any discussion at all of TIF relating to this parcel. Mayor Chmiel: That's the other part of it. That's the other part of it. That's why I said. I/ Councilman Senn: That has nothing to do with what we're considering here? Mayor Chmiel: It's not as a nice ball to get rolling with. Paul Krauss: That's true but in the normal course of events, you don't normally get the TIF program at a concept stage. Mayor Chmiel: No you don't, but it's all part of it. Paul Krauss: Right. And that's where we feed back and get that extra level of control by saying, well what are we buying for our dollars and the expectations go up. , Mayor Chmiel: So we have discussion and I'd like to ask for your opinion there but we have this on the floor. Okay, we did have a motion on the floor with a second to table, until we know exactly what's happening with all these other things. Now, there may be some valid points on the other side of this. I don't want to appear to be wishy washy either but I'm trying to pull together this thing as neatly as we can. Councilman Wing: To the best of our ability. Mayor Chmiel: Right. 1 Councilman Wing: I'd like to withdraw my motion and propose a second. 1 Mayor Chmiel: And will the second? Councilman Wing: Well do you want to give me a chance here? 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 1 Councilman Wing: I'll move to approve case 92 -6, conceptual development plans to rezone 178 acres at TH 41 and TH 5, Gateway West Business Park. And make sure I have the three cases. Number one, we need a bonding case study. No further action to be brought to Council prior to task force study completion and acceptance by Council. And the timeframe, I'm lacking. 6 months? 1 Councilman Mason: But do we even need a timeframe if we're saying? Paul Krauss: For the task force we do. I'd defer to the City Attorney but it's always trying to define. If the project folds and never completes itself, I 55 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 mean we have an obligation to complete it and defining it is something that II might not be completed... Councilman Wing: Okay, but I'm looking for a timeframe for the task force. I'm saying in 6 months we'd like to have it on line. That's pushing it. Councilman Mason: We can do it. • II Paul Krauss: I think 8 months would be a little safer. Councilman Wing: Okay, then the timeframe of 8 months. And then also, the II recommendations of Park and Rec and Planning Commission to be included. They spoke to that very directly tonight. And those motions are clear aren't they? I mean they're on record. II Kate Aanenson: They're in the report, yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That I will second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion. Mark. I Councilman Senn: Question. Paul, if I understand the Parks and Rec recommendation correctly, they are recommending a trail fee be paid? Is that coming out of there? II Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilman Senn: Versus the developer constructing the trail along TH 41? f 1 Todd Hoffman: Constructing trail and again, the issue there was the reconstruction of Highway 41 and at what time it would be appropriate to I construct that trail. I have no problem with the recommendation to require the applicants to construct the Highway 41 trail at such time when that road reconstruction is entered into. The applicant has voiced their opinion that they believe that will happen as part of this development. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd like to see that done. Just a comment on my part. I don't know if you want to include it or not. II Todd Hoffman: The original recommendation was not to include trail construction as part of this. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But you feel that it should be? Councilman Senn: I think it should be because, I mean nothing's set and I don't know who ends up paying for it. Probably us but I mean if you look at the trail fee versus the trail, I think we get a lot more bang for our buck if we the trail. It would make more sense. il Todd Hoffman: The Highway 41 trail segment makes good sense. The Highway 5 segment will be constructed north of Highway 5. 11 Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'm talking about TH 41. 1 56 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's the big question. That's all part of the other I/ part. John Uban: Alright. And then we'll work with the Task Force in the next 6 months and do what we can do during that time period, or 8 months and we still don't know what it means to take the Arboretum into consideration. Does it remain rural totally, which is much different anticipation ?' We would be kind of upset if that's the direction. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I think we get the flavor of what you're saying. Councilman Wing: One comment that John Uban made also was that maybe an entire 1 EIS for the entire corridor because they all relate to each other. By doing just this one section, may really not, they impact each other and we may be making a real mistake not to run them together. I think that's really good 1 advice from John. Bring that up on the 27th right. RECEIVE FEASIBILITY REPORT ON UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK, PHASE I; CALL PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 8, 1993, PROJECT 92-17. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As I eluded to earlier, some of the elements of this project. One thing I think, given what's transpired tonight that I think we need to think about is, are we ready to, do we intend to construct these improvements this year? Mayor Chmiel: No. 1 Charles Folch: If we don't. Mayor Chmiel: Did I answer it? Charles Folch: Basically, what I'm getting at basically is by law you have one year from the time that you order the project. Ordering basically occurs at the time that the public hearing is completed and you order the project plans and specs be prepared. If you do not begin construction within one year of that time period, we have to start back over again with updating a feasibility study, going back through the public hearing process, la de da. That's one thing that needs to be looked at now given the kinds of delays that we're talking here in terms of getting some of the other background work associated around the project done. One of the problems that we've experienced on projects similar to this is that yes, a developer would like to see this type of improvement project track move along but here again, ultimately it's the underlying fee owner of the property who has not sold the property to the developer yet, who has to waive their right to assessment appeal before we would go ahead and move with this project. Some things to keep in mind. I guess I'm a little concerned if we go through this public hearing process and don't move ahead with the project this year, everything we're doing this year is for naught then. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Does everybody understand that? Any questions? Okay. IF Thank you. Is there discussion? Councilman Mason: I'll make the motion. I'd like to make a motion to receive the feasibility report and utility improvements to Gateway West, Phase 1 and 59 1 1 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 call the public hearing for February 8, 1993, Project No. 92 -17. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? 11 Councilman Senn: I'll second that. Charles Folch: Maybe I'm nqt making my. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Get your points back across. Charles Folch: I have reservations and I guess I would at this point, hearing the Council's feelings, I would rescind my recommendatin to proceed at this point in time. Unless we are intending to build and do the improvements this year because we're just going to go through the public hearing process. Mayor Chmiel: That's the only reason why I said no at first. I Councilman Senn: I just seconded it to get discussion going again. Paul Krauss: There is more than n ne thing ought o. Charles, we've o igyo uou g t .. le ev been requested for utilities from 3 different landowners thus far? II Charles Folch: In relation to this project? II Paul Krauss: Yeah. Charles Folch: _No, actually we just received one. One from Gateway is the only I petition that we've received, to my knowledge. Mayor Chmiel: No one else has made that request. I Paul Krauss: Well we got that note tonight from Betty O'Shaughnessy which would be. II Charles Folch: That would be a separate project. That's a different project from this project here. I Mayor Chmiel: She owns the property adjacent to this property. Paul Krauss: The 85 acres where the park was illustrated. We've also got the buyer for Jerome Carlson's...is requesting it on that piece and you kind of II incrementally get these pieces creeping up Galpin. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but those two have not been acted upon nor any feasibility I done on any of that to date, right? These are separate parcels that have not come before us nor the Planning Commission. Charles Folch: Those are separate projects. Those particular properties which il have just recently petitioned for improvements are not involved in this particular project which is being presented to you tonight. II Mayor Chmiel: That's my understanding. For what's here now and what we're talking now is two separate issues. 60 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Charles Folch: Right. And I guess my concern is that we don't go through a dog and pony show this spring and end up doing it again next spring. I/ Phil Gravel: I'd just like to make a point that if you look at the schedule in the report, we need about 6 months from the time we...to complete construction so there wouldn't be a problem in just not calling for the hearing at this time. And at such time as you saw the need to get cracking...call for the hearing and we could still easily facilitate any... Mayor Chmiel: I think you're right. You get the dog and pony show and the cart Y Y 9 9 9 P Y before the horse at this particular time. So your recommendation at this time would be to table the or deny? Charles Folch: Basically, well I guess maybe I'd defer to the Attorney but maybe tabling would be better so that we would bring it back at such time that things are moving along as the appropriate time. I think if you deny, do we have to start back over again? Elliott Knetsch: We'd want to table it. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would then look for a motion to table item number 7 as per staff. 1 Councilman Mason: I think I need to withdraw my motion. Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry. I/ Councilman Senn: I'll withdraw my second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion to table? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move to table item number 7, which is the receive feasibility report on utility improvements to Gateway West Business Park, Phase 1. Councilman Wing: Second that. 1 Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion. Councilman Mason: Quick discussion. Why are we tabling this now? I'm sorry, I/ but it's getting late and I'm confused. Mayor Chmiel: A little reiteration. Because of the dog and pony show, we're 1 putting it before the horse and at this time, it would not be logical for us to proceed with it because 6 months down. Charles Folch: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. If we're looking at really not, I mean taking the next 6 to 7 months to get some of this background ground work done before we actually move ahead with this thing, we have one year from the time that the public hearing is held and the project is ordered. Ordered meaning ordering preparation of plans and specifications. From that date you have one year to begin construction. Let's say we hold the public hearing the first meeting in February. Maybe the second meeting we would order plans and specs on the 25th. 61 1 1 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 That means we should, we need to start breaking ground by February of next year 1 which isn't going to happen. Obviously we're going to lose this construction season and it doesn't appear at this time that it's going to happen. i I Councilman Mason: I need to make it clear in my own mind that we're not tabling I this indefinitely to put somebody off. We're tabling it until it's, some other I .pieces are in place and it'p prudent to move ahead? II Charles Folch: That's right. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the II feasibility report on utility improvements to Gateway West Business Park, Phase 1. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I/ 1993 APPOINTMENTS: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. ,I Mayor Chmiel: We just had pass before you one of the applicants who have applied for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Gary B. Boyle. Because of Tom Workman no longer is eligible to serve on the Housing and Redevelopment I Authority. Statutes similarly state that nominations for vacancy for HRA must be made by the Mayor with concurrence by City Council. And I would like to so move that Gary Boyle be appointed to the HRA. Is there a second? II Councilman Mason: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? l II Councilman Senn: I guess I have a comment. One is, this wasn't in our packet. f I feel a little uncomfortable approving it since I haven't had time to really II look at it or you know, talk to other people or whatever about it. So in that sense I'm uncomfortable with it. Second issue that I feel strongly about is it relates to the HRA is, I would really like to see the City move towards making I the City Council the HRA given the large amount of funds that has been built up in the HRA and most cities in the metropolitan area have now already done that. I guess I'm not quite sure I understand why we're still not doing that. So for those two reasons I guess, one for I'd like to learn more about the applicant II and (b), investigate the other alternatives. I'd like to see us wait on that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. My position on that is, I don't feel Council should be the controling factor. The HRA as well as Council. I feel that having citizens II involvement gives us a little more input, a little more insight and gives a better opportunity to be a little more successful in the way we use the HRA li within the city. Gary Boyle, we've had this before Council before. Probably about last month or prior to that with his application and is fully familiar with the city. Lived here for 18 years and has got a good business background as well. My position was that, that's the reason I'm recommended that he be II appointed to the HRA. We do have a motion on the floor with a second and I would call a question on this. II Resolutin #93 -02: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Gary B. Boyle to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. All voted in favor, except II 62 II • City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. • Councilman Wing: Before we drop that, I think it's important that Mark know I/ that that's been discussed at length at this Council. That we're concerned about those funds and we did go to a 2 member Council on that from none prior to that, Mayor Chmiel. And that I think if you have an opportunity to talk to Mr. Ashworth and get the political ramifications of the Council taking over, it's got some...of not taking it over. I was very pro being on that commission until I had an opportunity to really look at all the ramifications. So before you jump to any real harsh conclusions, I'd ask you to come up to the City Manager to clarify the positions. But you're right, they've got a lot of money. It's something to be kept an eye on. .1 • Mayor Chmiel: And continuing to do as a Council member. PLANNING COMMISSION. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Appointments to the Planning Commission. We had three commissioners choose to leave the Commission after serving it quite well and we did present them with their awards at our last Council meeting. And I asked that they show the ranking of the people who have come through with the information on each of those people as well. I sat down at that interview, and I/ Councilman Mason was there as well and Councilman Wing. There are the 7 who had applied, I think are all excellent candidates. I'd hate to try to choose 3 from the 7 but I think we more or less have to. As I viewed it, and I'd just like to I/ give my opinion. I thought that Diane Harberts was one who I thought was well rounded in this, even though being in the community for a short period of time. I always like to see time with us on someone's side applying for these, but she has worked quite readily for the past number of years with the Planning Commission in establishing different things for Southwest Metro...very well handle discussions with people. The other one that I looked at was also Joe Scott, and you can each make your own comments here. I'm just giving mine. Joe comes from the business community. Has a business within town. He is also I/ presently President of the Chamber and I think to get that kind of input back into the Planning Commission is good because I think we've been sort of neglecting the business community. But at least get a feel on the concept as to what their thoughts are. My other one was Greg Blaufuss who is an architect. He's lived in the community a number of years. Has a good handle on things that the Planning Commission does and the needs for the Planning Commission. By the I/ way, each of these three all have the time to be dedicated to the Planning Commission and are willing to basically serve, as the balance of them are as well. Richard. 1 Councilman Wing: Can I pass? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. 11 Councilman Wing: Good. I'd like to see what Dockendorf's going to do. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I can't speak to many of the people listed here 11 because I did not get the opportunity to interview them. However, I do know Joe Scott and I know that he has put considerable commitment into serving the city anyway he can, and obviously wants to be part of the decisions that are made in 63 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 II this town. And I would recommend that he be appointed to this Commission. I I would defer to the Commission's recommendations on the other two. Councilman Mason: I too was with the Mayor for these. We agree on two out of it three. Clearly I've worked with Diane. I was in Southwest Metro until I was I il appointed to HRA. I have no trouble with her. Joe Scott, clearly has the 1 desire to serve the community and I agree with the Mayor about the business end of it but also, he stated very clearly at the time that Chamber was an II apolitical organization and he felt he had the energy and commitment for the job. The one, the area we disagree, I'd like to see Nancy Mancino would be my choice. I think it would be, I like the idea of having two women on the II Planning Commission. I don't think we can go wrong with either Nancy or Greg. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. II Councilman Senn: I guess a couple questions. When were the interviews? Mayor Chmiel: At the last Planning Commission meeting. What date was that II Paul? It's in here I know. Paul Krauss: It was last Wednesday. Mayor Chmiel: The Commission reviewed them on January 6th. ■ Councilman Senn: Okay. What is, I mean I don't, I guess I'm at a loss because I having participated in the past application process, I thought there was an interview before the Planning Commission and then an interview before the City Council. That is why I did not attend the Planning Commission meeting to do the I interviews. So obviously that procedure has been changed and the Council will not have the opportunity to interview these people? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, my understanding is, I thought everyone had the opportunity to come to the interview that was being done by the Planning Commission to eliminate that part of it. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I would just hope in the future that's more clear because that hasn't been the past practice I guess. Mayor Chmiel: That's true. II Councilman Wing: What year? It hasn't been since I've been here, and I don't want to interview them twice. 11 Mayor Chmiel: No, and that's what we normally have done. Is that we've looked at it and then we've come up with our conclusions as to the appointments. 11 Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. II Don Ashworth: There have been different processes used over the years. At one point I know like, Mayor Hamilton just did them himself and he reported to the 11 Council what his findings were. And there was another point where the Council 11 64 - II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 did interview the candidates twice. I don't think we've done that for several years and I think the reason it kind of fell out of place was, it became a very I/ lengthy process and people just kind of got disinterested in it. Councilman Senn: Well I'm not, again that may be all well and fine. Twice since Mayor Chmiel has been in office, I have interviewed with the Planning Commission and with the City Council following that so I mean I don't consider it to be an old practice. I consider it to be a recent practice. Councilman Mason: I believe the reason for that was, is there was a fair amount of dissent as to who the candidates should be and we decided to pull in. Well I was elect, not in but as I recall, because I was there at that second interview, that we couldn't make a decision. Or the then Council couldn't make a decision and called those 2 or 3 people in. Councilman Senn: I'm just asking in the future that the City Manager make that clear so people understand. Other than that, I've done my own checking from there. If we're stating preferences or what we found out. Again, we're looking at what 3 positions basically? Mayor Chmiel: Correct. Councilman Senn: Nancy Mancino seems to be particularly qualified. John Luce, I like him. Diane Harberts, I have some questions on. Not that she's qualified but as you stated Mr. Mayor, she's had a lot of work, she works with the Planning Commission a lot and deals with them. I just have questions. I mean is there a potential conflict there? Mayor Chmiel: The question was asked and it was determined there was none. 1 Councilman Senn: But I like Greg Blaufuss for the other one. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I/ Councilman Wing: It looks like a long night, because I agree with you on 2 out of the 3 Mr. Mayor. Joe Scott is a priority and Diane Harberts also. She's really a worker and I just am so impressed with Nancy Mancino, I can't rule her out. She's just a real worker and very dedicated to planning and the direction the city is going so. I'm afraid I'm with Mike on those 3. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You were with? Councilman Wing: Mancino, Scott and Harberts. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And we have, I had the 3, Diane, Joe and Greg. I think we're coming very close. We need your votes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Only because they are ranked in order of preference and my own personal preference for Joe Scott, I'd say Joe, Nancy and Diane. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Joe, Nancy and Diane. Okay. That would mean that we would have then, Nancy, Diane and Joe. 65 1 • 1 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 I Councilman Wing: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. i 1/ i Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? I would like to make sure that we send letters to all the candidates and thank them for their participation. I'd also like you to put in there that just because they II were turned down at this particular time, they still have qualifications as far as I'm concerned and would like to see them make that application at the next vacancy on the Commission. 11 Councilman Mason: Absolutely. It was a luxury almost. It was a difficult luxury this time. II Councilman Wing: By the way, having served on Public Safety for 10 years, I think it's really important that the Commission has a large significant input in who gets chosen and the priorities. Because they have to work with them and I they've talked to them and they've interviewed them. It's nice for the Council to be able to pick and choose but that could get political. But these people are saying, we've got to work with them. We've got to talk to them and I really did want that control as a commissioner. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Nancy Mancino, Diane Harberts and Joe Scott to the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. II PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Mayor Chmiel: We have four members of the Commission eligible to, three. How II many do we have? Todd Hoffman: Four. II Mayor Chmiel: Four, okay. Councilman Senn: Don if I could, a question again. I have no information on II Andrews or Lash at all in my packet. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, they are existing and on the Commission presently. II Councilman Senn: I understand that. II Mayor Chmiel: Both doing a good job. I think you saw an Lash this evening. And Jim Andrews both made presentations on behalf of the Park and Rec Commission. Upon conclusion, the Park and Recreation Commission unanimously recommended Commissioner Lash and Andrews be reappointed to their positions and II that Ron Roeser, 222 Chan View and James Manders, Chaparral Lane be appointed to fill the two vacant positions. With Mr. Robert Smithburg of Chanhassen Hills as an alternate choice. II Councilman Mason: So moved. II 66 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to re- appoint Jan Lash and Jim I/ Andrews and to appoint Ron Roeser and James Handers to the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS. Mayor Chmiel: I've already put the squeeze on Mark for that one. Councilman Senn: With a conditional yes. Mayor Chmiel: With the condition that in the event he's not able to do it, that 1 someone else can fill in and I said I'd be willing to do that as well. Councilman Senn: Which means he's got it every Monday night for the next couple of months. Mayor Chmiel: Until February. 1 Councilman Senn: End of February. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to make that motion. 1 Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to reappoint Carol Watson and Willard Johnson; and to appoint Mark Senn to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Wing: That means I'm off it right? I/ Mayor Chmiel: You're right. You're off of it. Councilman Senn: That was understood that that was the desire. If you would like to keep it, you're more than welcomed to keep it. Mayor Chmiel: No, we keep rotating that. Keep rotating that. 1 Councilman Wing: No, I can't make the meetings so thank you. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT. Mayor Chmiel: Richard has been on this and just filled that position until the end of '92. However, I would like to, this is a 3 year term and it expire's in '95 and the meeting dates on those are? Councilman Mason: Third Thursday. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, third Thursday has a conflict with HRA. 67 1 11 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 il Councilwoman Dockendorf: Ask, I'd be thrilled. Mayor Chmiel: So moved. Is there a second? II Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Colleen Dockendorf to the Southwest Metro Transit Board. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: 11 INSTALLATION OF FOUR -WAY STOP SIGNS. WEST 78TH STREET, COUNCILMAN SENN. Don Ashworth: I'm not sure Mark, if you wish to present this? If you wish me II to? Mark did stop in. In his campaigning, the number one concern that he heard, at least from my neighborhood was the inability of those people to get out onto 78th Street. I don't disagree with that at all. A lot of good things could happen with stop signs. I sincerely believe you would reduce speeding, II reduce cut throughs. You would reduce, you'd allow the side streets to get off. My only concern is if we make a mistake and the hang up time on 78th Street gets so long that we have to pull them. Well you really can't pull them. You're I only other chance then is to put an officer out there. I would like to see this go to the Public Safety Commission just to make sure that we've got all of the input we can get before we would make this type of decision. II Councilman Senn: Don, let me just add to that if I could. I don't have a big problem with that except I question if there's any other way to answer that question. Right now the amount of cars that cut through because there's I absolutely no stops, in effect taking 78th ratan op lghts on Hhway 5 is enormous. And I'm not sure how we're going to th fi nd 5 stop out wi hat portion ig of that traffic's going to move back to where it really belongs. You know that's I not something that we can sit around and theorize about or say that oh, well my guess is this and your guess is that. I mean that seems to be about the only way you're going to get there. I guess I feel strongly that basically the traffic congestion we have there is being created by people using it as a cut II through. That's obvious to see. I'd invite any one of you to go out and watch it and I strongly urge you to act on this. The citizens back in that neighborhood have been waiting a long, long time for this already. I sympathize II with them because every time I go over there, I run into the same thing they're running into. II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. What's our timeframe with our stop and go light? Councilman Mason: That was just exactly what I was going to ask. Where are the stop and go lights at? II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. This is something we've discussed and talked about. I Councilman Senn: I understand and that's a ways out but go ahead. Don Ashworth: I think we're trying to accelerate that. We're trying to get it 11 ahead of the TH 101 realignment so it's, I thought it was summer /spring. I 11 68 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Charles Folch: We are trying to acclerate it as much as we can. We may have to, I know there was some primary concern, as Don mentioned, to try and get that signal up at Great Plains to serve as the detour for the TH 101 project. ( Whether we meet that or whether we have to go with some temporary alterantive type signals, I guess is not known at this point in time. My best guess is based on manufacturing. Getting the equipment. Getting everything set up. It's probably not going to be until mid - summer before we have those signals operational. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree. Councilman Senn: I guess I don't want to say it's...but the signal's coming anyway. So stop lights to me, or I mean stop signs to me are not going to be a mistake because they're a lead in to the stop light. If the stop sign is a mistake, undoing the mistake is the stop light which is already planned. Councilman Mason: True. I don't know. You know I do drive on that street every day and I come on Kerber and sometimes I am stacked 7 deep waiting to get on. To 78th. However, if now all of a sudden I'm going to be stacked not only 7 deep there but 7 deep down 4 or 5 blocks, I'm going to be even angrier than I am now about it. But that's only my opinion and I, Western Hills certainly has a gripe, as does Carver Beach, as does Saddlebrook. But I don't want to, I mean I'm stacked up once. If I'm going to be stacked up 5 or 6 more times, I don't like it. Mayor Chmiel: Well it's that old story, patience is a virtue and you have very 1 few virtues. Councilman Mason: Boy, at that time of day and at that spot, you're right. So I don't know about that one. That's a tough one. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Part of the problem is that the Highway 5 stops are timed so terribly. If they were, I've called MnDot at least 3 times on this issue and it seems to me if those were in sequence better, it would...the need to fix the problem on 78th because people are cutting through. Mayor Chmiel: Although, I just came through on, and I've done this a couple, 2 -3 different times. This is coming from the east going west on Highway 5. I've made every light all the way through. This is at, between 4:30 and 5:00. 1 Councilman Mason: You know, I don't know what it is but east to west I can go with them but west to east in the morning I can't do it. I go out on Powers, I've got to stop 2 times. I go out on Market, I've got to stop 2 times. Because you're right, coming home I go through them. Now I don't know whether it's time of day or how they're timed or what. Mayor Chmiel: I think it's part of the cross traffic going through but they're not using the left turn signal on CR 17 and TH 5 going from north /south, if you're going to go east on TH 5 coming off of CR 17. There's a light up there but the arrow isn't shown. It's just a green light. And to me that's a real problem. 11 69 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 Councilman Senn: Yeah, right now TH 101 dumps onto 78th going west and then II hits Highway 5 at CR 17 where there's not even a stop movement. You just merge in and you go. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that maybe we could talk to them a little bit more II to see what they can do with that synchronization that can be put in. Maybe they don't have that tied in yet. II Don Ashworth: I think that that may be the case because here's maybe a fact that's not known a whole lot and that is that we, as the city paid like $80,000.00 to put in the controler devices to insure that the synchronization I capability was in place. Councilman Wing: So why am I stopped at Market Boulevard at 3:00 in the morning Y PP 9 at a red light? I Councilman Senn: It's terrible at off hours. Don, I mean that's...but my concern then becomes is, how long is it going to take us to re- educate all the II people that we've now made a phone call to MnDot and accomplished that? They aren't going to start going down TH 5 thinking they're going to make it through all 5 lights. The only way they're going to start going down TH 5 is if you 11 make it harder for them to go on the route that they want to go on. Councilman Wing: Yeah, but that's my route Mark. Mayor Chmiel: But if you stop and think about it, going through Eden Prairie, I don't make all those lights either. 1 II Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's not as bad. Mayor Chmiel: No, because there's not quite as many lights. You have one at il Dell. You have one at Eden Prairie Road. You have one then up at Mitchell and il then you have one up at the turn to the shopping center and then after that it's done. Those are 4 of them. 11 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think the issue here is that we don't know what's going to be necessary with TH 101 and with perhaps changing the timing on the lights. I'm not ready to say let's throw up stop signs yet. 1 Councilman Wing: This is really old business. I mean we've hashed this over. The firemen were saying we can't get out on this darn, we've gone over this a thru z and we've had all the traffic engineers stating what those stop signs I will mean and what it will do and it's going to further complicate it. My issue would be is that I just pull out. I just go. You get so fed up with it. Plus you can't see left or right to even pull out with all the bushes there. So we know we've got big troubles downtown. Big troubles but stop signs I thought, I II thought, getting back to your concern, were going to complicate the issue more. Is that what you decided? I Charles Folch: Stop lights or stop signs? Councilman Wing: Stop signs. II il 70 - II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 1 Charles Folch: Yeah. Basically I think it was during our time when we had those public informational meetings in August and September and that issue did come up. I can't recall if it was a resident or one of the Council members that suggested it but staff and the traffic consultants, Strgar took a look at that issue and we felt based on the current traffic volumes that we're seeing on 78th Street, the spacing between the primary minor feed intersections and then also the intermediate access points to parking lots, that you put a stop sign at one intersection and you may allow that particular minor street to be able to get I/ out more conveniently but what you're then going to do is eliminate those bigger gaps that you might have for like Kerber, Market, and the other areas. Because what you're going to end up doing is having cars heading in one direction, spaced at 150 feet and then nobody's going to get out at any other street. So then the only option to deal with that is to put stop signs at every intersection and then you're going to have gridlock. Because you're going to have traffic backed up at every single stop sign. Councilman Wing: We're also starting to rack them up pretty good at Market Square and West 78th Street. Scott, I don't know what the investigations are showing but we're starting to get some pretty good bumpers there. On a regular basis. Councilman Senn: Again, there's no traffic control. There's no way to stop it 1 and you're just going to have people buzzing through. Mayor Chmiel: Well, just for your information. I hope the people viewing this tonight are going to understand that 78th Street is now going to be ticketed for anyone exceeding the speed limit on there. We have sat there. I've sat there with the radar gun and I've picked them at 45 and 50 mph. There aren't that I/ many but there's enough of them and my concerns are the safety of the people downtown and crossing those streets. And I'm not an advocate for providing tickets to anybody because if you've ever seen my car insurance, with the boys that I had at home, it was absolutely atrocious. Especially with accidents. Not so much tickets but those all count against you and that really raised the price. But we're going to have to start doing something. We're going to start ticketing. It's a necessity. I've talked to several different business people too and they say that they have a hard time getting across that. Councilman Senn: When I knocked that neighborhood, every single house, number one issue in all of Chanhassen. I went to three coffee parties out there. I'll go back and tell them that's not what everybody wants to do but I mean to me I just think that's really a bad way to approach it as far as those people go. They need attention and something needs to be done. �. Councilman Mason: You know I agree but however, something I have said a number of times in this Council and I'm going to say it a number more times. It's just like negotiations for teachers. What's good for a small pocket of the city might not be good for the whole city. And I'm speaking from one of those pockets that uses that road as much as they do. So while I hear what Western Hills is saying, is that the best thing for the city? I personally don't feel that it is. Councilman Wing: Where do you want the stop signs? Which street? 78th and what? 71 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Councilman Senn: Let's see here. The comments I think I heard more often were 11 at, I think Kerber and Laredo. Councilman Wing: Laredo's the one I'm getting hit on all the time. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Well I mean Laredo was very concentrated and very nasty so to speak. The next big one that came through was Kerber though because that was hitting the whole neighborhood to the north there. Mayor Chmiel: I find leaving Laredo, if you want to make a left hand turn, you're better off to make a right hand turn, go down to... Councilman Senn: Hey Don, that's what I do. Councilman Wing: Don and our engineer, based on the past discussion on this just several months ago, and the decisions made and the studies made, do we want to even address this issue again or is it a dead issue pending the completion of that roadway? Don Ashworth: Well I don't know that Mark, or whoever else may want to. I think it would be good to take and listen to what Strgar has to say. Charles. The Sheriff so that if Mark is going back to some of these neighborhoods, at least he has the information from some of these professionals and has an opportunity to debate it with them and say, no. I think you're wrong. If we do this, traffic has a way of moving back over and hear what they have to say. That was the reason I recommended it going to Public Safety so this issue potentially could be redebated and maybe there's some new issues on the table that we should be aware of. 11 Councilman Mason: Sounds good. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we do that. Why don't we refer this back to Public Safety and have discussions and get that information back to us. Okay. I don't think we need a motion on that do we? Don Ashworth: No. Councilman Wing: I have one item on Council Presentations very quickly. Target is in and if Target was, there was an agreement on this Council, that become our minimum standard for landscaping. A lot of thought and effort went into the parking lot. The trees and landscaping and types of trees, etc. I'd like to formalize that minimum standard into the ordinance as rapidly as possible so that if Abra or anybody else comes in, that that ordinance is elevated and impacts the next eastern plat that might come in. That's going to include parking lot standards, shade percentage, tree coverage, types of trees, the I/ amount of space they need to grow. This putting in a 1 foot strip with a tree, that's just a planter and trees won't grow. We know that. There's enough parking lot information out to know what will grow and what won't. What's salt resistent and what isn't. Boulevards. Number of over story trees per square foot. Whatever the case is but let's use the, basically what we did at Target as a minimum standard as Kate suggested and apply that to our landscape ordinance right now so that if another one sneaks in, that's what they deal with right off the bat and we don't have to crawl up to this level. I'm asking for 1 72 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Council recommendation to staff for such purpose. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: If staff is going to pursue that, I guess as a new Council member I'd appreciate being brought up to speed on it and getting what you're talking about. So when it does come back, we're aware of what it is. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Mason: These packets usually have more than enough background information. Councilman Senn: It pays to read it. Don Ashworth: Dick and I have talked in this area. I had anticipated that 1/ being an item for like your goal work session where we're making that as one of the goals you'd like to achieve. But as this is a Council Presentation section, you could not act on it tonight. I could put it onto a future, the next agenda with some outlines as to what we might do. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you bring this up on the 23rd. Councilman Wing: If you promise to make it a goal. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark, did you have something? { Councilman Senn: Yeah, I've been talking to Don and to Todd and asked that we set up a few meetings and examine the potential or possibility of extending a trail up TH 101 at the same time that we do the TH 101 intersection improvements. That likewise was a big, big issue during campaign because most of our citizens who live up in that area feel that they're totally cut off, other than motorized vehicles from utilizing downtown Chanhassen. So most of them go to other commercial centers. Using other means. I think there's an opportunity here, because of the TIF and the intersection improvements. It's gone so far as a lot of citizens are even volunteering to put together the easements and the right -of -ways. Mayor Chmiel: Point to point, where are you talking exactly on TH 101? 11 Councilman Senn: It'd be as far as I guess feasibly north as we can go. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That was something that we discussed a long time ago too and it's another issue that they brought up as well. And the only problem is, even with easements on that side, there's no enough room in several locations on several of those parcels that we could even put a trail along TH 101. And if we're talking on the west side of TH 101, it becomes a problem. One of the things I suggested at the time was to see if we could work something with the City of Eden Prairie, which is just across the road. In conjunction with them and putting a trail on that side. Because of the inabilities to continue that trail. It breaks off. And once you break that off, you're back in the road easement. That's not a place for anybody to walk, believe me. So maybe that's 1 73 II City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 something that we can look at to see if we can work something out with the City of Eden Prairie. Councilman Senn: If there have been past discussions on it, I guess I wasn't j II made aware of them but you know, if there are spots where there isn't enough I room, I guess I'd appreciate knowing where those are. Mayor Chmiel: Just right as you come around that turn before you're coming in I to TH 101 and 78th Street. Off, or just prior to. I Councilman Senn: Where the guardrail is there? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's an area there that, I mean it's as steep as you can get it. It's not a logical location for it. 11 Councilman Senn: I know it's steep but a walkway could be put across there couldn't it? 11 Mayor Chmiel: A lot of cost involved with that. Councilman Senn: I mean again, that's all we're looking at so to speak. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. But I like to watch the dollars we spend, even though they're needed and in that particular location... I i Councilman Senn: No, I understand that and I appreciate that too Don and I likewise do but again, we have TIF dollars here that have to be spent in a II certain area and also tied to that intersection improvement. Now I mean if we don't have the funds, then that's part of determining the feasibility. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. There's so far you can only go with that within the TIF i l district. You can't go outside of it. Councilman Senn: That's right. I understand that. 1 Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. In fact I had an opportunity this morning to talk with the consultants. We have a lot of the information and I'm having them put it together like three different scenarios as to the location of a trail. What if you went on the inside of the berm? What if you actually cut into the side of the berm? And what if we brought up kind of what I'll call a full section. And they'll look at the section all the way from where we're upgrading it which is II right at the curve. Just south of the curve. We're going up to that point right now. All the way up to Pleasant View. And right now I don't know what the answers are but I do know there's some difficult tasks in there. I also :I/ know that Eden Prairie doesn't really care to take and participate at all. I mean their position is, is hey. il Councilman Mason: So what? Don Ashworth: That's the eastern portion of our community. Western portion. We improve it, where are the people logically going? They're going to il Chanhassen. Why would we want to send them there? II 74 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, unfortunately that was the answer they came back with. • Don Ashworth: And I also got some disturbing news in that MnDot might also 1 fight us on it, and I just don't totally understand the logic of that but. Councilman Senn: Especially since they say they never want to do anything to TH 101. Don Ashworth: Yeah but I mean, even if we come up with the money to pay for it, 11 they may still end up fighting us on it. I just don't understand it. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: SET SPECIAL MEETING DATE, 1993 GOALS. • Mayor Chmiel: Set special meeting date for 1993 goals for January 23rd or the I/ 30th at 8:00 a.m. at the fire station. Hopefully we start at 8:00 and we're done by 11 :00- 12:00. Does anyone, Don will not be able to make the 23rd date. Councilman Wing: I'm gone. 11 Councilman Senn: What's the dates, I'm sorry. Mayor Chmiel: 23rd or the 30th of January. Councilman Mason: I unfortunately cannot make the 30th, Councilwoman Dockendorf: Nor can I. Councilman Mason: Here we go again. 1 Don Ashworth: How about February 6th? Councilman Mason: February 6th is fine with the exception that was p 1 at I, s not going to share this with anyone here tonight, but I'm getting sinus surgery on Thursday so if you want to put up with, I have no idea what shape I'll be in on Saturday. Mayor Chmiel: Black eyes. 1 Councilman Mason: Hopefully that will be it. Councilman Wing: February 6th? 1 Don Ashworth: I think that's the first Saturday in February. Mayor Chmiel: February 6th. Does that sound alright with everybody? 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: At what time? Mayor Chmiel: 8:00 a.m.. Fire station. 75 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993 Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 76 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 r-- .v y y.. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION '` ` ' � � '' ~ ^ y1 y REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 3, 1993 The Planning Commission interviewed applicants prior to the regular meeting. ' Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:55 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens 11 STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; and Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: LAKEVIEW HILLS NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY. Public Present: Name Address ' Donna Bohn 9201 40 1/2 Ave No, New Hope Craig Mertz Suite 1100, 120 50 6th Street, Mpls 55402 Bob Peterson 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. Delbert Smith 9051 lake Riley Blvd. Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Ray Lewis 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: We didn't get the nifty little summary sheet that we normally get of what they're asking for. Did you guys get it? Krauss: No. You mean where we had the '81 survey. What they're asking for. No. I gather Kate didn't do it that way this time. It's pretty much limited to what you see in the conditions. Batzli: Let me ask one question because after I read the attorney's letter, the sheet that has the three columns.. Emmings: Oh right. Batzli: It appears to me that the applicant is, well the attorney is submitting an application on behalf of the applicant. they then go onto say that they're really not, they're not subject to this ordinance. Are we comfortable, by the time we get done approving this and the City Council approves it, are they then subject to this ordinance or are we just approving them promelgating certain rules which will take care of the noise and nuisance that's been going on there? Krauss: Well, we will ask the City Attorney to clarify that when it gets up to the City Council. I believe Kate was in contact with him and he didn't seem to think it presented much of a problem. That they would be 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 N January 6, 1993 - Page 2 obligated. They've accepted the conditions and they would be obligated 1 to operate under them. Batzli: Okay. So this, okay. Is the applicant here tonight? ' Craig Mertz: You bet. I'm Craig Mertz and Donna Bohn is here from the management company also. I'm here representing the Lakeview Hills ' Investment Group, which is the owner of the project. Some of your past paperwork refers to a Lakeview Hills Apartments Homeowners Association. There is no such thing. Never has been such a thing and if you thought there was an association, you were misled. This is strictly an apartment ' complex. There's approximately 170 units in this. The position of the owners is that they have the status of a valid non - conforming use and they are entitled to continue to do what they were doing when your ordinance was adopted but in the spirit of cooperation, we have advised staff that what we want to do and plan on doing is continue to use the property just as we had in the past and without any waiver of those rights, we're willing to promelgate the 4 conditions that I outlined in ' my letter. The first was the gate and the second was the change in the overnight boat storage situation. The third was that those people who did want to store boats overnight would move them up to the parking lot '' of the apartment complex itself at night. Fourth, we'd limit the dock length to the 50 feet. Another way of saying it is we plan to continue to use the boat launch. We plan to continue to make the property 11 available for resident picnics, barbeques, portable barbeque grills, daytime boat storage, docking at the beach, swimming, etc. but we will impose, or agree to impose those 4 conditions that I mentioned in the letter. We've given you some historical material. You've seen the 1977 picture before. It isn't in today's packet apparently but that depicts a dock. We've given you copies of the advertising copy relative to the past dock on the property and we've given you two affidavits covering the historical situation on the property. So with that I guess I'm open to questions, if that's what you want to do. Batzli: I guess I have one question and that is, is it your position ' then that you're waiving the rights or you're not waiving rights and so you could take back your promelgated rules and allow these 4 things to occur. Are those the rights that you're? Craig Mertz: Our position is that we'll agree to do these things and carry these things out but it's our decision and not your's. That you do ' not have the authority to impose this on a valid non - conforming use. Batzli: These additional things which weren't occurring -on, in other words. What this originally, what we were attempting to do was to get a handle on what level of activity and intensity of use was occurring on the various beachlots back in '81. I understand your position that you feel that you're not subject to this for a technical reason that there was no homeowners association apparently. So are you submitting an application here today? Are you not, do you somehow feel that even though you're going through the application process and we're trying to bring you into the fold as a conforming use under our new ordinance, that you're not subject to our new ordinance? Is that your position? r f Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 3 IF Craig Mertz: Our position is notwithstanding this procedure, we have valid rights as a non - conforming use but nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation, will go through this process and register the historical level of useage, if you will. Batzli: Does anyone else have any other questions before I, okay. This" is a public hearing. If there's anyone else from the public that would like to comment on this particular issue. Feel free to step forward to the microphone and give us your name and address please for the record. I Raymond Lewis: My name is Raymond Lewis. I live at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. I've been here and participated in the last two hearings on this II subject. I have a couple, several recommendations I'd like to make. Th first recommendation is that it was my understanding that the proposed gate was supposed to be locked only at night. I think the gate is an excellent idea but it's been my observation that there's uncontrolled us of the launch ramp during peak hours where the public access is being used. And so I think that the gate should be locked at all times, whenever the residents are not using the launch ramp. The second thing I is, and this is a point that I brought up at the last hearing. The launch ramp is undeveloped. It's unpaved. It's basically soil with some gravel on it and if you look at it, it has deep gullies and ravines and it's very evident that there's been erosion. Erosion that's silting in the lake are a source of nutrients and reduce the water clarity and I think that the Lakeview Hills should submit a permanent erosion plan and enact it to make sure that future erosion doesn't degrade the lake. And the last thing is that in the last 2 years, Lake Riley has been innudate by Eurasian Milfoil. It's a big problem. It's a particular problem in the north bay where the water adjoins this beachlot property. And I think it's reasonable for the Lakeview Hills to participate in water quality programs and lake weed programs that are initiated by the Lake Riley Homeowners Association or Lake Improvement Association and by loca� government. And I'd like to see the Lakeview Hills participate as members of the community. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the I Commission? Don Sitter: My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Also a homeowner. I guess I have to ask some questions. Excuse my ignorance. Do I understand that there is an ordinance for the beachlot control and they do not feel that they are bound by this ordinance? Is that what I'm hearing? Batzli: There was a first beachlot ordinance passed in the 80's that in essence excluded existing beachlots. Right Paul? At the time they were' an existing beachlot and for a technical reason, apparently there was some language in there which included homeowners associations owning the beachlot. They do not have a homeowners association and so they feel that they would not even come under the purview of the current ordinance!' which this is all part of the process of getting these non - conforming beachlots to a certain level of activity so that we can regulate them. They can't increase that activity. I don't think they're saying that II they can expand over what their level of intensity was, but that due to Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 4 some language in the ordinance, they don't fall under the prerequisite ' for this ordinance. I'm paraphrasing I think what their position is. • Don Sitter: Okay. And I'm trying to understand if they're trying to fall under the ordinance or if they're saying they are doing this just out of the goodness of their heart and we basically have absolutely no control over this beachlot and I'm still, I'm sorry, I'm a little confused. Batzli: Well, the level of control that we have on beachlots under this process is we're trying to freeze the level of intense use at any of ' these beachlots as to where it was in 1981. We did not survey this beachlot back in '81 so the City has very little evidence of what was taking place on the beachlot back in '81. I think that they're saying, they will go through the process and they will implement certain rules to try and develop a level of activity that was occurring back then but if they want to change those rules, they can. That's their position. I think the City's position is, they do fall under this ordinance process ' and they are subject to it. Don Sitter: So if we approve them to fall into this ordinance, we're ' trying to I guess gain the control that we think we're gaining under this ordinance. Is that right? Batzli: Yeah. Don Sitter: Okay. I guess I'd like to second, raise concerns of I think the gate is a wonderful idea and I think control is a big part of keeping ' this. Working with the community. My question is of enforcement. Who will enforce these rules? Who will make sure the gate stays locked? Is this something you'd call the police on or is it something you'd call the apartment? Who enforces something like that? Krauss: Well you know, we need a clarification again from the City Attorney when this gets up to the Council. What we have here is sawyers doing lawyer things and reading innuendo and meaning things that may or may not be there. The opinion we have thus far from our City Attorney is that our ordinances are enforceable. Craig on behalf of the beachlot owners dispute that but that's something that you know, if we have to decide that in court, then we'll do that. If we have to change one word in the ordinance, then we would do that too. The fact of the matter is though, is that they're being cooperative in proposing it. However they get there. We believe that in the future henceforth, if there is a problem, that it's the kind, they deviate from the conditions, that it's something that would be enforced through the City. Don Sitter: Through the city, okay. And I guess I'd like to compliment you on putting the gate or the sign that you did put up there. I thought that was really helpful. I also agree with Ray with the erosion control, and I guess we're basically asking you to put something in to help with the erosion control. And is there anything in the ordinance on toilet facilities being required at something like this? i Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 5 Krauss: No. Toilet facilities can be installed at the applicant's request and it's a conditional use permit. We do allow it but we don't II mandate it. Batzli: It goes through a process like this. A public hearing. Don Sitter: Okay. Well then I guess I'd like to turn to you and ask you. Craig Mertz: We're not asking for toilets. ' Don Sitter: Okay. We'd sure recommend some kind of toilet facilities. If that's at all possible, I guess we're asking you to do whatever you can. We'd like to ask you to install a Satellite or something on the property. Craig Mertz: ...didn't want a Satellite. Don Sitter: A Satellite or something like that would be much better thall having people going in the woods uncontrolled. And we've all seen the size of the parties that end up there on Friday nights and it would be nice to have some place for them to use. So and thank you for your time Batzli: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Craig Mertz: May I respond to a couple? Batzli: Sure. ' Craig Mertz: We have no intention of expanding the non - conforming use on the property. Certainly the city, if it felt that expansion is taking ' place...enforce the ordinance against the owners of Lakeview Hills. Regarding the access to the lake, the owners have no intention that this would be a public access for anyone to use. To come on the property. It's an access point for our residents and their invited guests. We're II attempting to control the access and keep strangers off of the property. The toilet facilities, I don't think that's part of this particular process. That's something we can look into. Batzli: Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Joan, do you have any? ' Ahrens: Just to clarify something for the neighbors here. These items that are listed as voluntary, I don't even know what to call them. Batzli: Promelgated rules. i Planning Commission Meeting g January 6, 1993 - Page 6 Ahrens: Voluntary promelgated rules. That these aren't going to be 1 conditioned on any permit because Roger says we can't put conditions on a permit right? ' Krauss: There's no question that the one dealing with boat dockage should be and is a condition. That was the intent of this whole ordinance. Ahrens: Let's talk about the gate issue. That's not a condition we can put on any permit. Krauss: The gate probably gets into the area of voluntary compliance. Ahrens: Right. So there's really no enforcement of that. You can't ' call the City. You can't call the police. You can't call anyone to enforce that kind of thing. Krauss: That's, unless Roger tells me differently, that's probably true. ' Ahrens: Okay. Is that clearer? Don Sitter: That's what I was trying to ask... In other words, they're doing this voluntarily? But if they decided to change their mind or take away the lock or just don't lock it at all, there's nothing we can do about it? Is that right? Ahrens: That's right. Okay. A question on the application itself. I'm 9 Y 4 PP kind of confused about, this is a statement of first of all of what ' existed on the beachlot in 1981. Number 7 says the number of boats docked overnight was 0 in 1981, as I understand it. And then number 9 said, so there were no boats docked but stored on land it says there were ' 8 to 10 in canoe racks. Or they were on land or in canoe racks. And then number 11 says that, the number of boats on land overnight were as many as 15. What was the actual number of boats on land in 1981? Do you understand that? Or am I looking at something wrong? ' Craig Mertz: It should have been 10 that were overnight... ' Ahrens: 8 to 10 or 10? Craig Mertz: 8 to 10. Ahrens: So you're asking for 8 to 10 boats on land... Oh, you're saying that that's what existed in 1981. Okay. I understand the concern of the neighbors. I'm not sure, the purpose of our hearing tonight is the establishment of what the use was in 1981. I'm not sure that's accomplished by the affidavits that are attached to this. With this application it's evident by the pamphlet that there was some use in 1981. What it was I don't think can be established. The affidavit of Sandra Durand just says there was use...so we're back to this guessing game. Really all we have is the application that states what the use was. We don't have any kind of documentation as to what the use was. I feel kind ' of, I don't know where to go with this again. If anybody else has any ideas, I'll listen but. i Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 6, 1993 - Page 7 Batzli: Okay. So your position is? Ahrens: I don't know yet. I mean if someone else has some clear idea o' what the use was. It doesn't make much sense to me to just look at an application and say this is what they say it is when there's really no other documentation that states what the exact use was. Sure there was use but what was it? Nothing in here states what the use was. The numbers of boats docked. The numbers of boats on land. What was, how was that beachlot being used? We don't have any documentation that specifically states what the use was. ' Conrad: Are you comfortable with their requested use? Emmings: And let's just stop here and make sure we all understand what 1 this requested use is. I see this as 5 fishing boats or sailboats and 10 canoes. Is that what you're thinking? Because that's what's on the application on the number 7. Conrad: Well the application states '81 useage. I'm reading it real literally in terms of what they want to use and that's one canoe rack, 8' to 10 boats. Daytime useage. So no overnight storage? Emmings: Right. Well, but in number 11 it says overnight as many as 101 Conrad: But in my mind this kind of supersedes what they had in '81. Emmings: Oh okay. ' Conrad: And I don't, I guess I don't have a problem with this document that they're submitting. In terms of their current useage. , Emmings: Okay. Conrad: I don't know, Joan's comment might be right. If we agree to that level of useage, does that also mean that we've agreed to the useag that they had back in '81? Krauss: I think that's an important point. You may want to add a condition. You're right Commissioner Ahrens. You're being asked to accept something at face value that's somewhat difficult to dispute. Clearly there was something there. But you may want to add a condition,' if you're comfortable with it, that says that for the sake of interpretation of this ordinance, that you have defined that the level o use for the purposes of this ordinance in 1981 was 8 to 10 boats. Irregardless of what's on this application. If you define it in that way, it gives you some way of enforcing that into the future. Ahrens: Can we do that? ' Krauss: There is nothing, I mean the hardest part of your job was to figure out exactly what was there in '81. It seems to be an impossible task. On the one hand you're being asked to take the ballpark, well it' 10 to 15 boats. On the other, you're saying that consistent with existing uses, it's more like 8 to 10 boats. There doesn't seem to be 11 Planning Commission Meeting g January 6, 1993 - Page 8 any clear guidance. Where there's no clear guidance, I'd take a shot at ' it. Craig Mertz: The question from our standpoint is which day in 1981? Every day is differnt. ' Emmings: We let you pick it. Craig Mertz: Well we'd pick the 4th of July I guess. Batzli: Well, are you guys currently comfortable with 8 to 10 boats? Craig Mertz: Yes. Ahrens: Okay. I guess I don't have any choice but to go along with it. We have no other alternative. Craig Mertz: I think the situation is, this gate thing is for our I benefit also. We don't want strangers coming down there using the facility. This is supposed to be for our residents and their invitees. And we don't want third parties down there making trouble...and the overnight restriction is for our benefit also. That's going to keep the useage turning over so they're not the same residents that are using that lake access day after day and hogging it, if you will. We're rotating useage through our residents by having this park it up at the building. - Ahrens: Do you have any objection to locking it during the day, like ' these people asked? Craig Mertz: No. ' Ahrens: Do you change the locks once a year because of the rental building? ' Craig Mertz: We can gate it in the daytime. It's not a big problem on our end. ' Batzli: Jeff, do you have any comments? Farmakes: I think this whole thing needs a big dose of pragmatism. I like Mr. Lewis' 3 issues. It seems that the applicant is not adverse to ' doing that. And it discussed the milfoil issue but if they're a property owner on the lake, I'm sure they're interested. Clearly-that particular lake is quite subjected to that type of damage being that it's quite shallow. I still get confused when we talk about this, not being an ' attorney. It was my understanding that this whole thing that we have been discussing so many times...such a long period, is the issue of expansion of use and what we get thrown in along with this is citizens coming in that are adjacent to the property complaining about current use. They don't like so many people parking here. They leave garbage cans. Or beer cans or they build fires and things like this nature. And it's my understanding that just to focus this that if we are to evaluate, this is the use you had in '81 and this is what you've got now. This is 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 January 6, 1993 - Page 9 the difference. You have to make an adjustment to that. It's not very f clear as to what the existing use was there. I agree with Joan. I thin the City should come to an agreement or an arrangement as to what they'r comfortable with And as to the legal interpretations on it, obviously support the City on whatever direction they take with that but it seems to me that the client is willing to take care of the issue of irresponsibility in using that access, in that case. To get the problem solved there and at the same time it would seem to me to come to a pragmatic agreement as to how many boats they can have there. I'd support that. For 170 units, it doesn't seem to me to be out of line. Although what I'm doing is undermining the issue that we've been dealing with with the other associations, and I realize you're claiming you're not an association but non - conforming use beachlots is that the issue oil use in '81 versus use now. I don't know how else to get around that since we can't define use in '81. Batzli: Would you support 8 to 10 boats? Or don't you know? 1 Farmakes: Well I have nothing to base that in. I think unless we can come up with some evidence to the contrary and an agreement needs to be cut between our staff and the applicant as to what is acceptable. Withi the realms of safety and... Batzli: Okay, thank you. Steve. 1 Emmings: I basically agree with what Jeff just said and I think that I approving them for 8 to 10 boats stored and the rest of the conditions that are set out in this request and perhaps adding to it. Do you have a swimming beach there? Craig Mertz: People do swim there but it's not a particularly attractiv place. Emmings: Alright. And that's an activity that's gone on I supposed so 1 that maybe should be approved. Is there a raft? Craig Mertz: Not at the moment but in the past I understand that there I was...and I think there was one in 1981. We have no plans to put in a raft. Emmings: Well okay, alright. So we can leave that out. Alright. So II we're going to do nothing. There's no way to do anything but go round and round on this and so I think we just have to set it and to me what'll being requested here seems reasonable. Batzli: Okay, Matt? Ledvina: I had a question. Maybe Paul can respond to this. Does the DNR have specific requirements for maintaining access ramps to lakes, in terms of preventing a situation such as this with erosion? 1 Krauss: I'm actually not certain on that but we could sure find out before it gets to Council. 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 10 Ledvina: Okay. Because maybe there's something that we can make the ' applicant aware of that, some standards that they can use to help improve our situation there. If that's possible. Let's see, otherwise I think it appears reasonable in terms of 8 to 10 boats. There's just the boats, these will be canoes and then they'll be fishing boats. Will there be boats on trailers and that type of thing as well? Do you anticipate that use? Craig Mertz: ...lead them down to the water on trailers. Ledvina: Okay. So you'll have boats on trailers stored right on the beachlot then? ' Craig Mertz: No, no. We'll have people coming down in the daytime and who will put their boat in the water and they may bring the trailer back ' up to the apartment parking lot or they may leave their trailer on the lot. But overnight, they have to get their boat and their trailer up to the apartment parking lot. I should mention here, when we're throwing ' out this 8 to 10, what that means to us is that there might be 8 to 10 parked there either hooked up to the dock or beached or up on the beach itself at a given point in time but we might have 15 boats using the water. There might be 5 out in the lake and 10 on the beachlot. Ledvina: Okay. That heaps to clarify that. No further comments. Conrad: I think the applicant's done a good job of taking care of most of our concerns. If we can have daytime, if we can lock the gate during the daytime, I think that's the only addition that I would impose. I think the neighbors, the two other points, I just don't think they're ' part of this process. They're important but I don't think they're something that we can deal with in our realm right now. I do have a problem approving the beachlot application that stated what the use was in '81 for line item 9 and 11. Now I'm trying to understand, does everybody else feel that that was a documented? Well I now you don't. Some of you don't but are we saying that that useage, on number 9 and 11, is acceptable? Craig Mertz: Can I clarify that since...? Part of the trouble here was understanding the form that you have. On number 9 what we're asserting ' is that in canoes there were between 8 or 10 of them overnight. Some of the people might have put them in the racks. Some of the people might have had them laying on the ground. When you get down to number 11. That we are asserting that as many as 15 of the boats, or watercraft if you will, the all inclusive term, were up there overnight. -5o I explained it wrong. 11 Batzli: So you had as many as 15 on the property. Watercraft. Craig Mertz: We believe in 1981 we had as many as 15 watercraft up there overnight. Batzli: And that would include the 8 to 10 canoes? r 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 11 Craig Mertz: That would include those canoes. I think the canoe rack had a different configuration. ' Conrad: Okay. Then I can accept number 9, that talked about. Basically I don't care. I think that canoes are not a major issue. Now my only concern is number 11. Obviously they've said in their statement to us that that's not going to happen. They have a different anticipate use but I guess, the 15 boats stored, I don't want to say that I agree with that right now. I don't want to debate it. I just want to make sure that if they go back on what their recommended use is, that I'm not locked into point number 11, saying that I agree with that. Batzli: If we find 8 to 10 boats, and we're going to grant 8 to 10 ' canoes, no overnight parking of boats, then that solves it. As far as if we, at least if we determine in our devine wisdom that that's the level 1 of. Conrad: It solves it based on our agreement. But it doesn't solve it legally. Because if they decide that they don't come under this ordinance, if they decide they don't come under this ordinance I guess this is just folly anyway. , Emmings: As a suggestion Ladd, maybe we could ignore the application ant just say what we're approving for them under the non - conforming beachlot in terms of what they're written. Ahrens: It's not really an application. Emmings: So that we don't have to take a position on this thing. Becausil I feel the same way you do. Conrad: I like what you're doing. I guess I don't want to say we've done a good job of backgrounding. Batzli: Well, as part of the whole original ordinance process, and people coming in here, the burden was intentionally placed on the applicant. To the extent that the applicant is unable to prove that the had 15, we can find that we think there was only 8 to 10. And if you want to find that you can. Emmings: Not without a rational basis you can't. You have no basis for that whatsoever. And I don't think... Batzli: Well, then your other choice is not to approve anything. Conrad: No. I think we can approve what their request is. I think we II can acknowledge their beachlot application except for point number 11. Therefore we're acknowledging that everything on their application we may believe is true, except for point number 11. So if they withdraw their recommendation use and then they go back to default some other use. We can say, well we never really said that you had 15 boats. Batzli: Okay. My comments are, I'll buy into your proposed plan there II Ladd. I don't think they've necessarily given us data to make a final 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 12 ' determination and I guess I support the City's interpretation so I'm going through this exercise as if they are becoming subject to our ordinance. Is there a motion? Is there any other discussion first ' before someone makes a motion? Conrad: I'll make the motion but I don't know what I'm going to make the ' motion. They have not, are we making a motion for a non - conforming beachlot application? Is that what it is? Okay. I make a motion that we approve the non - conforming recreational beachlot application of Lakeview Hills Investment Group with the recommendations that are found ' on the staff report dated December 28, 1992. That a change in number 1, which would have the gate being closed or keyed also during the daytime. And then maybe a sixth point. A sixth point would state that the ' Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to number 11 on the application itself. But all other historic information has been agreed to. Batzli: Is there a second? Emmings: I'll second it. ' Batzli: Discussion. No discussion. Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lakeview Hills Apartment Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot with the following recommendations: 1. Installation and maintenance of a gate which would be locked day and night (but the residents of the complex would have lake access by keys furnished by the management); 2. Prohibit overnight boat dockage, prohiit overnight boat morning, and prohibit overnight storage of boats on the beach itself, except for ' storage of canoe in canoe racks (application requests one canoe rack with 8 to 10 boats stored); 3. All other overnight boat storage would be limited to designated ' portions of the existing parking lots (north of Lake Riley Blvd) and other designated portions of the property lying north of the apartment building; 4. The dock length would be limited to 50 feet; 5. Continued use of the boat launch; 6. Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to number 11 on the application itself but all other historic information has been agreed ' to. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: When does this go to the City Council? 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 13 Krauss: I believe the 25th. Batzli: Thank you very'much for coming in everyone. , Craig Mertz: Paul, is that February 25th? Krauss: I'm sorry, January 25th. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed. I'll sorry but in the hubbub of the interviews I neglected to tell you. We had Sunlink call us yesterday afternoon. Their attorneys called us to pull from them from the agenda. It's item number 4. ' Batzli: So that one's gone, okay. PUBLIC HEARING: 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, JUST NORTH OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE, VINEWOOD ADDITION, STUART HOARN. II Public Present: Name Address ' Julius C. Smith 7600 France Avenue So, Mpls 55435 Dan Rogers 6500 Nez Perce Drive David Lundahl 6501 Nez Perce Drive W. Pat Cunningham 865 Pleasant View Road Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Julius Smith: My name is Julius Smith. I'm here representing the landowner to the immediate west of that property. Emmings: Who is that? ' Julius Smith: Frank Beddor Jr. Now I can put it in the negative or the positive. I'll take it in the positive. We don't object to this, provided that it doesn't negatively impact the lots to the west, which mll client owns. He has engaged in substantial landscaping and we would hope that the City would require the same requirements on this developer who is being benefitted of course, because he's getting two lots out of one,' that they do of everyone else and that trees on that lot would be replaced 1 for 1 and inch for inch like they require of other developers. And we feel that he should replace all the trees that are going to be done or we should establish or the City should establish'a 20 foot conservation easement certainly along our side. We've spent a considerable amount of money landscaping the land to the west and there of course is many precedence for establishing a 20 foot conservation district where they can't remove the trees. They've done it with my client on several parcels. The other question, the other thing we're concerned about is the use of Outlot A for access to Pleasant View Road., Under the initial platting, Lot 2, the original Lot 2 was required to go to Nez Perce Road, and we don't have any problem if both lots go to Nez Perce Road but we don't want, we would object to any authorization allowing them to use access to Pleasant View Road along Outlot A. Since 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 14 that was prohibited before, we would like to see that prohibition remain. And make that a condition of approval. So essentially we don't have a problem with it provided they don't tear all the•trees out next to our lots. Our lots to t west and we would hope the City would apply the 11 same requirements that they applied to everybody else with regard to trees and replacement thereof. Or if it's not possible, because you're going to put two houses in there, that there at least be a 20 foot conservation easement along the side, on the west. Batzli: Paul, could you respond to the tree replacement and the access on Outlot A and the buffer. Proposed buffer. Or he would like to see a ' buffer. Krauss: Let me take the easy one first. There is no access being 1 proposed to Pleasant View Road. A condition backing that up is certainly fine with staff. I believe the old driveway to Pleasant View Road, there was no anticipation of using it. It's a remnant outiot that was left over from the subdivision. We preferred at that point that it get incorporated into adjoining lots and there was some presentations by the property owner, the developer at that point that he was going to offer that for sale to adjoining properties and apparently it's never been ' done. We're still requesting that that be done. So again, I think you can put that to bed by just adding a condition that neither of these lots should access to Pleasant View Road. As to the tree preservation issue, 11' Mr. Smith is correct. As far as subdivisions go, we do have a tree replacement policy. We do do that. However, on single family lots, which these generally are right now. I mean we're taking one lot and splitting them into two, typically what we do is establish tree preservation, a no cut area, around the homes to minimize cutting. That has been done. There is a condition to that effect. It states that landscaping, tree preservation, home placement plans, shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for staff review and approval. As to the question of buffering single family homes in the Troendle Addition, that's somewhat more problematic. First of all the location of ' the driveways that are being illustrated on the plat would preclude that. I suppose it's possible to kick those driveways over somewhat to save additional trees. Honestly, it's been a white since I've been up there. Unfortunately, Kate could be here tonight. She was ill. But if there are trees on the property line, we can certainly work to incorporate some of those to some extent into there by kicking the driveway over. But the fundamental issue of buffering between one single family home and another ' is not something that we've gotten into in the past, and I really wouldn't advocate that you launch into that for the future. These are not, I mean the homes that are built in Vineland Forest area are not insubstantial. I think the neighborhood has developed quite attractively and people typically do significant landscaping. So if there is some desire, I think Mr. Smith is right. I think there were some trees along the old Troendle driveway, and I'm not sure who's side of the property they're on. Julius Smith: Troendle is again another bunch of lots over further west. Krauss: No, it's this one. Oh I'm sorry, you're right. It's after one more. It's the homesite. If there are trees within 10 feet of the • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 15 property, I think we can do something like that. But it's kind of hard to see on that drawing. But if you look at the larger sized print, the driveway that's being illustrated virtually butts up against that wester property line. Batzli: But there's two driveways illustrated on this. Wouldn't that 1 shrink once we go with the single driveway? Krauss: Yes. Well, the condition though that's been applied by the engineering department is only that they have a single curb cut. It gets split out into two driveways. We can, and probably ought to because it' in our subdivision code, require that they share a common driveway beyon House number. Batzli: When it says the applicant shall utilize a single driveway II access in condition 5, that means one curb cut? That doesn't mean one driveway? Krauss: Yeah. ' Ahrens: That doesn't even make sense actually. Batzli: And then you require a cross access or driveway easement. Why II would you require those things if they have two separate driveways? Krauss: Because at one point they will Y down and run together. 1 Batzli: This is the property line there. He doesn't come over it. Emmings: Oh, you're right. Krauss: What you will do is you'll have a single driveway that will branch off at some point, so there is a common section. Ahrens: That's not how it shows on the plan. Batzli: The plan shows two and it shows. Krauss: That's correct. The plan is wrong. This is a condition to remedy the plan. But an alternative in this is to require that you, we're spinning our wheels with a lot of concrete here... If there's a common driveway that runs something like that, then you do have more clearance. Batzli: Is the condition the way it's worded now require the red line? • Krauss: No. The green line. Ahrens: Why not require the red line? 1 Krauss: I honestly don't have a problem with that. Batzli: Now explain to me one more time why you would require for your 1 green lines, why there has to be a cross easement? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 January 6, 1993 - Page 16 Krauss: You've got this common point of intersection where they're both using the same piece of blacktop which may be on one or the other properties. Batzli: Have you looked at the way this is drawn on the map? Krauss: Yeah. 1 Batzli: I mean this second driveway from Lot 1 never touches Lot 2. Krauss: It doesn't the way it's drawn. The way it's drawn is not the way the engineering department is asking for it to be drawn. Batzli: Okay. 1 Krauss: I mean essentially what you do. If you see that little diagonal, this corner of the lot? Batzli: Yep. Krauss: That would be almost the center line of the common driveway. So you'd line up 10 feet on one side of it you know...5 feet on the other. Batzli: I feel like I'm not communicating well here so we'll go on. Conrad: You're right. Batzli: Where were we? Is there anyone else that would like to address I the Commission? Dan Rogers: My name is Dan Rogers. I live at 6500 Nez Perce Drive, ' which is basically on the inside of the corner that you can just see of Nez Perce there. A number of the residents there are concerned, myself included, about the type of homes I guess. We would also like to see that those homes conform to the covenants that we have conformed to, due to the proximity of this lot to our development. I'm wondering if, has there been any type of plan as far as the size and style of homes submitted yet? i Batzli: Let me ask something. Are you to the south of this or right to the west in Vineland? Or are you across the street? Can you point there? Dan Rogers: I'm there. Batzli: Oh, you're across the Nez Perce. Okay. There's been nothing in regard to style or cost. ' Emmings: We can't impose covenants from one development onto somebody elses land. Don Rogers: Right, I understand. From listening earlier that this portion was originally a part of Vineland Forest. Did I hear that correctly? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 17 1 Krauss: As I recall, it was one of the lots that was split off from Vineland Forest but I think Frank had an interest in it. Julius Smith: No, that isn't correct. This property, if you don't mind... The property line for Vineland Forest was here. It stopped. This was all one piece and when Van Eckhout did then with Vineland Forest, he bought this chunk from this guy to get access from Vineland Forest out to Pleasant View. And he had three lots here plus a long roa coming through. During his hearings, that road was eliminated and Mr. Beddor objected to that road and so Mr. Van Eckhout had three lots here and Frank bought those lots from him. This used to be all one piece so this never was part of the Vineland Forest property. It was a totally I different ownership. Then this parcel split in two with the back half going here. This was required as a part of the Vineland Forest plat. Krauss: That was done in the Vineland Forest plat. 1 Julius Smith: So that there would be an access, you know however that 1 might develop. So that this lot would come south and not go up to Pleasant View. Dan Rogers: I'm not terribly familiar with how everything works at the I City. Is it the Planning office then that approves housing plans? Krauss: Well, yeah. The Building Department does review housing plans. We review them as well. We review them against Code minimums. That doesn't get at what your issue is. Typically covenants, and I'm not sure what the Vineland Forest covenants are, is that the house value should b $180,000.00 or whatever. Dan Rogers: Or square footage. Krauss: A certain size and have so many garages. That's not something 1 that's enforceable by the City. Nor is it frankly legal for us to demand that there be a certain value. The market dictates that it generally happens but we can't assure you of that fact. 1 Dan Rogers: Okay, thank you. Batzli: Let me see if there's anyone else that has a comment first okay Yes, please. Dave Lundahl: My name is Dave Lundahl. I live at 6501 Nez Perce. I am I the lot exactly south of there. The first thing I would say is that I would, I guess I would like to see the red line driveway. I would much 1 prefer that to the separate driveways. All of the trees and stuff that are where that driveway goes right now, happen to be some quite large oaks so I'm disappointed to see those go. I understand that probably can't be changed. But I would also ask if there is something that can bell done to preserve some of the trees along the lot line on my side of this piece of property. I'm also concerned of course about what type of home is going to go in there and will it conform to the rest of the neighborhood since there are only going to be 2 homes alongside of a 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 18 development that's already there. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we ask the developer to conform to similar type convenants. Batzli: Well you certainly should talk to the developer and see if you ' can, it's something that we can't necessarily do but often times neighbors do have a large impact on a developer's plans so. Dave Lundahl: Is there any information about the number of vehicles per household that we could expect that would help us to insure that there's only one single driveway there? ' Emmings: The number of vehicles per house are the number of spaces in the garage plus 1. If it's anything like my neighborhood. If you have a 1 car garage, there's 2 cars. If you have a 2 car garage, there's 3 cars. Conrad: I don't think there's anything you can hang your hat on to help in that issue. The issues you can deal with are what we're talking about right here. You're kind of don't have control. Dave Lundahl: Well, I would reiterate my desire to see the red line type driveway recommended. Batzli: Thank you very much. Yes sir. Julius Smith: Just as a point of clarification. It's my understanding there's no access to Pleasant View authorized by this and also that tree replacement...ordinances don't apply to single family plats. Did I read 1 that right? Paul, is that what it says? Krauss: Jules, they have not been applied to single family lots. Once you're looking to site a home, once the plat, the lots are created, we require that roads be moved to save trees. We require that lots be reconfigured to save trees. Where a developer has asked to cut them down, we require replacement. But when individual homes have been built, 1 it's one of those things where something has to give someplace and what's been done in the past is that the home is allowed to go in. They establish a no cut zone around the home and make sure that the equipment ' doesn't go outside of that area but you have to make a lot buildable. Julius Smith: Well, except they're going to cut down all the trees along the west line. Krauss: Well I think that can be addressed. Batzli: Well can we make it a condition that the driveway that we approve minimizes disturbance of the trees at the entry point onto Nez Perce and on the western line? Krauss: I think that you can do better than that. Frankly, I don't offer this as an excuse but this was, there was something that I caught reading this tonight. I mean we have an that says when you have flag lots and you share common driveways, that you use a single driveway. That it be paved 20 feet wide to a 7 ton design I believe. In 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 19 this case, I mean it doesn't, they checked with the Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal was willing to accept this because both homes are within 15' feet of the street which is the distance they can lay a hose. But yes, think in the interest of tree preservation, you can insist that they share a common driveway over Lot 2. Going down to a single driveway on Lot 1 and that that driveway be designed to avoid impact to the trees as much as possible. Batzli: Okay. Is there any other public comment? Is there a motion to' close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Discussion, Ladd. Conrad: Are we obligated to allow that lot split? Krauss: It has no variances. It conforms to your ordinances. Conrad: Just reading through here. The driveway that gets to Lot 1, is that an easement? ' Krauss: No. They've actually platted it as a neck. Conrad: And we can allow that? I guess my biggest problem with this is' that access that is forced into the tree line. And so if we can solve that problem, I guess I am comfortable with it. But I'm not sure what we're solving here. You know I'm saying those words and I haven't given' an absolute, I want to save this. I guess we're coming up loose to staff. Ledvina: We don't really know where the trees are. You know if we move, it one way or the other, that's impossible. Krauss: Well however though, when you go from having two 10 or 15 foot II wide driveways to having a single common 20 and you lose the dead space inbetween, you've got a lot more flexibility. Batzli: Okay, Matt. ' Ledvina: A couple of technical things here. The subdivision number, is that 92 -13 or are we using 93 numbers now? Or is this a holdover from last year? Krauss: It was submitted last year. ' Ledvina: Okay. And then condition number 3. There's some verbage missing. On the first line it should read, the applicant shall dedicate' to the City by final plat an additional 7 feet of road right -of -way. That was in Dave's report but didn't get in here. Krauss: Well actually no. If I remember right, Pleasant View Road runs' on the bias through there and the condition that we've been using is Planning Commission Meeting g January 6, 1993 - Page 20 actually accurate. That they will dedicate over Outlot A whatever it takes to make 40 foot on centerline. Ledvina: Okay. So ( you're...7 feet, you just want. 111 Krauss: That's the approximate amount but it varies from one side to the other. ' Ledvina: Okay, that's fine then. Batzli: Then just take out the word "of ". Ledvina: Yeah. Additional road right -of -way, okay. Because it looked like something was missing and I thought that could have been the ' problem. I guess I would generally support the discussions regarding the access or preventing access to Pleasant View and then the driveway situation. Batzli: That's it? Okay, thank you. Steve. Emmings: I have nothing additional and I agree with the comments that have been made so far. Batzli: Jeff. Farmakes: I have no further comments. Batzli: Joan. 1 Ahrens: No comments. Batzli: Brian. Okay. Thank you. Can we force this condition number 4 to happen? Krauss: I don't believe so. We had the same problem in the past. I'd 1 like to double check that with the City Attorney. Batzli: But we wouldn't necessarily have to approve this if we didn't ' like the fact that this had an Outlot A in it, correct? Or because everything else meets our ordinance, we would have to approve it? Even though we've got this funny little Outlot A sticking here. Could we require that that be part of something? Krauss: You can certainly try and I wouldn't be opposed'to it. I tried to get that done 3 years ago. It's certainly, if it's legally upholdable and we'll let the City Attorney discuss that. Batzli: I just don't like to let them split this and leave this problem here. Krauss: Well it has no purpose. We had a condition, in fact I think you might have approved the condition, with Van Eckhout originally when this went through 3 years ago. At that time Van Eckhout made representations that he had every intention of selling Outlot A to the property owner • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 21 1 either to the east or the west but if we obligated him to sell it, then it wasn't worth very mush. Well apparently that's never been resolved. Ahrens: It's not going to be worth anything... Krauss: Of course not. I'd support you trying it and if it's not justifiable, our attorney will tell us to pull it out. Batzli: Well, I would like to make it stronger than what you have it 1 worded I guess. Not should be deeded but it shall be deeded prior to giving them building permits or something. Emmings: Or final plat approval? Batzli: Yeah. Something where, this is kind of wishy washy and we don'll solve the problem that we have hanging here. Krauss: Or it shall be deeded and combined. Ahrens: Why do, if we're not going to give them the access, what do we care what they do with it? Krauss: What do we care what? Ahrens: What happens to Outlot A. 1 Batzli: I guess we don't want little fingers all over the city. Krauss: When you have remnant parcels, they're not maintained. Certainly nobody's going to mow that thing. It's the old driveway. It's no man's land. Ahrens: But there's no incentive for him to take half of it either. Krauss: No, and then what happens when is it goes tax forfeit after 7 years. II Emmings: And one of the neighbors buys it. Ahrens: Yeah, one of the neighbors buys it anyway. Batzli: So then we live with it for 7 years? I guess I'd rather clean II it up when we have the opportunity. Ahrens: If you can force them to sell his land? I doubt that you can di that. Julius Smith: Hasn't Oultot A in fact been sold to the owner of Lots 1 and 2? I believe it has. ' Krauss: That's the issue. Julius Smith: I think it has been I mean. 1 1 Planning ommission Meeting g January 6, 1993 - Page 22 Krauss: It's part of those lots. ' Julius Smith: Mr. Van Eckhout has sold this to this guy. 1 Krauss: So what you've done is you've eliminated the problem over Lots 1 and 2 but you still have the problem over the remainder. Julius Smith: Right. So when you say combining, you mean Outlot A with Lot, what is this 1? Is that what you're talking about? Krauss: Either that one or the one that's labeled as Cunningham to the. ' Julius Smith: Well of course Cunningham doesn't own it but the guy who owns this owns Outlot A. ' Krauss: That's not clear. Ahrens: What if they don't want to buy it? What if the neighbors don't ' want to buy it? You can't force them to sell something that somebody, then you're forcing somebody to buy it. i Emmings: Well how about making it part of Lot 1, to give Lot 1 responsibility for what happens to it. Taxes and everything else. He may have more incentive to try and get a deal with one of the neighbors if he doesn't want it. Krauss: Sure. ' Batzli: See, I just don't like creating an outlot here that's you know. Ahrens: I think Steve's solution is the best one. I don't think we can ' force him to sell it and force somebody else to buy it. I guess we just have to hook it onto another lot and make him maintain it. Emmings: Then he'll have to pay taxes on it and everything else until he 1 does something else with it. Ahrens: Right. i Emmings: Except the only trouble with that is, it would make him go through another proceeding to split it off. Well, they'd have to wouldn't they? Ahrens: Is this registered land? Emmings: Well, wouldn't they have to go through another platting to make it a separate parcel to sell it? ' Ahrens: No. I don't think so. Emmings: Do it by metes and bounds? Krauss: Sure. Metes and bounds...you're not creating a new lot. 1 i Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 23 Emmings: I wonder what the applicant will think of this. Too bad he didn't show. - Conrad: That will show him. Emmings: Let's turn the lots too while we're at it. Batzli: Okay. Otherwise I support the language to have the common 11 driveway and preserve as many trees as we can to the west and to the south and where the driveway... That's all I have. Is there a motion? Or you want to discuss first? Emmings: Yeah. What do you want to do with Outlot A? And then do you II really. Batzli: I don't want to allow the preservation of an Outlot that they'd just screwing around with and they're not going to finish this piece up. I don't feel like this is good planning to let them create a new outlot. Emmings: But do we gain anything by making it a part of Lot 1? Batzli: Well I think you force the issue that the applicant is going toll go to the Council and say, I can't sell this with Lot 1. Or at least it's going to, it will force them to do something with it. I think. { Emmings: Well, who's going to own Outlot A? That's what, I'm not clear, on that. Pat Cunningham: That's'why I'm here. I'd like to. ' Emmings: Who are you? Pat Cunningham: I'm Pat Cunningham. ' Emmings: And you live? Pat Cunningham: I'm directly to the east. Emmings: Oh okay. Have you talked to him? ' Pat Cunningham: Yes. I've talked to him. I've tried to buy it for the last couple of years and I got a call about 2 months ago from Mr. Van Eckhout, I think you pronounce it. He said, I'm not going to sell it yo � because I can make more money selling it to somebody else. Ahrens: Who does he figure he's going to sell it to? , Batzli: He "sold it to the person that's splitting these lots. Pat Cunningham: He sold it to the first, the larger of the two I'm , guessing, and that man owns, as I understand it... Julius Smith: Is it my understanding that the guy who owns Lot 2 is not" the same person who owns Lot 1 anymore? 1 II Planning Commission Meeting 11 January 6, 1993 - Page 24 Krauss: No. II Julius Smith: Then perhaps the owner of Lot 2 also owns this. II Krauss: Actually my understanding is the individual that's buying Lot 1 is also buying Lot 2 to build a home for his mother. Emmings: He couldn't own Lot 2 now because there is no Lot 2 now. II Krauss: It's in one ownership. It's one parcel. 1 Julius Smith: This whole parcel has got, there are two lots. Krauss: Right. II Julius Smith: I'm talking about the old plat. The original one. This has been divided into two lots. Now they want to divide Lot 2 of the original one into Lots 1 and 2 and making the new plat. II Krauss: Right, exactly. I Julius Smith: My question is, Outlot A, the fellow who owned Lot 2 before this plat. I mean the guy who's platting it, Lot 2 of the old plat. Owns Outlot A as well. You can't very well, if you put these two lots together, he's going to have access and I don't know how. I/ Krauss: That's not clear to me Jules. I think that this outlot is still merged with this underlying lot. II Julius Smith: That's right. And that's why you almost have to leave it an outlot because if you say we don't want an outlot. It's got to be put I with this lot. Krauss: Well, but what the Planning Commission seems to be saying is, why let it be an outlot at all. Why not make somebody take II responsibility for it? Julius Smith: I don't know that you could force somebody to sell it II though. Krauss: No, but you don't have to allow it to be replatted and II maintaining it's outlot status. Julius Smith: You could just leave it as nothing. II Krauss: You can make it part of Lot 1. Emmings: But what do we gain by that? It was my suggestion and I'm not 11 so sure we really gained anything by it. Because it still is going to be owned. Someone's still going to have to pay taxes on it. I was thinking we could. 11 Batzli: But that person's right there. II 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 25 Emmings: What do you mean? Batzli: Well if you hook it up with Lot 1, whoever's in that house is going to own it. Krauss: They don't have the ability to just sever it and forget about 1 paying taxes on it. It's part of their lot. Batzli: It's part of their house. They're going to pay taxes on it. Emmings: Maybe we'd be doing Mr. Cunningham a favor if we do it that way. 1 Ahrens: This underlying lot, this Lot 1 right here. Batzli: The original Lot 1. ' Ahrens: The original Lot 1. Who owns that? Batzli: Do we know? Julius Smith: A fellow by the name of Edwards used to own it. I don't know if he still does. He was the platter, he was the one who did the . original split into two lots. Batzli: Well from a sound planning practices viewpoint Paul, should we 1 hook it up with Lot 1 or not? Krauss: I'd prefer that you get rid of it one way or the other. Either" we force their hand into merging it with an adjoining lot, if that's legally justifiable. I think probably that's questionable. Or you eliminate the outlot status and combine it with Lot 1 and put the onous II on that property owner to resolve it by selling it or maintaining it. Ahrens: That's what you have to do. Batzli: I guess I'd, oh okay. Yes. Julius Smith: I have only one concern with that. If you split, if you ' put that Outlot A into Lot, whatever his new one is, Lot 1 of the new plat, that outlot, that Lot 1 is going to be an L shaped lot and I don't believe the city has bought the access onto Pleasant View Road and I'm II not so sure that if his lot abutts Pleasant View Road you can stop him from using it. If it's a separate lot, you can prohibit "him from doing that. Emmings: But if we make it a condition of the plat, can't we do that? Tell him he's got to have his access on Nez Perce. Krauss: Yes, for sure. That's true. I mean you've already resolved , that. Ahrens: We're already doing that. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 26 ' condition of the plat. He's asking for a plat and That's a con ition p g P d we're making that a condition. Do you think that's alright? Julius Smith: Well ( yeah, if he agrees. He in & sense is giving up his right to the access to Pleasant View... Emmings: Well but that's even what he's drawn on his own plat. So that's what he wants. We're not making him do anything he hasn't. ' Batzli: I guess what I would recommend is that we say, the remaining portion of Outlot A should be deeded or combined with one of the adjacent parcels, or be combined into Lot 1 prior to final plat approval. Emmings: I like that. ' Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Is there a motion? Emmings: I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of Subdivision #92 -13 with conditions in the staff report 1, 2 and 3 as they exist, and striking the word "of" in number 3, as discussed in Matt's discussion. And number 4 will read that Outlot A, striking the words "remaining portion ", that Outlot A should be deeded or combined to one of the adjacent parcels or be combined with Lot 1 prior to final plat approval. And then conditions 5 thru 8 will stay as they are in the staff report. There will be a new number 9 that will say that neither Lot 1 nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View Road. And a number 10 that says that the Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway and the location of that driveway shall be submitted for approval to city staff with the intention being that the trees along the west lot line of ' the two lots shall be preserved to the extent possible. Ahrens: Second. ' Batzli: Any discussion? Ledvina: I think this is one item, I think you used the word should in your. Emmings: Shall. Change should to shall. Ledvina: Okay. For item number 4 11 Batzli: Would you like to, I think that our neighbor to the south indicated there were some trees there. Would you like t� extend your motion on the driveway access to try and be considered to the trees on that side as well, or are you just concerned about this west side? Emmings: I'm concerned about the west side only because we've got an opportunity by the location of the driveway and I don't know what. They 11 do have to submit a tree removal plan right? Krauss: Yes. 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 27 1 Emmings: So you're going to have some input and you can look out for thl neighbor to the south maybe to some extent there? Krauss: We can try, yes. But we should be aware of the fact that these lots are big enough to accommodate a 60 foot wide home and the increased) sideyard setback on a neck lot, which goes from 10 feet to 20 feet. So you've got to assume that it's probably going to be down to the minimums. You'll have a home 20 feet back from the property line. 1 Batzli: But they're going to have 20 feet of buffering from the property line. Krauss: Yeah, and what we try to do is to make sure that as much of tha 20 feet as possible gets preserved because you don't just cut it off their foundation line. There's usually abutment that runs around it. , Batzli: Any other discussion on the motion? Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II approval of Subdivision #92 -13 with the following conditions: 1. The proposed house location meets the flag lot requirements. ' 2. A landscaping, tree preservation, and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application for staff II review and approval. 3. The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat additional road right -of -way on Outlot A along Pleasant View Road to arrive at one -half the total right -of -way of 40 feet contiguous from the north line of Lot 2, Block 1, Edwards /Vogel Addition. 4. Outlot A shall be deeded or combined to one of the adjacent parcels I or be combined with Lot 1 prior to final plat approval. 5. The applicant shall utilize a single driveway access onto Nez Perce 1 Drive. A cross - access or driveway easement shall be prepared guaranteeing access and maintenance responsibilities for the two parcels. 1 6. The City will provide and install individual sanitary sewer and water services to the property line at the time a building permit is issue" for Lots 1 and 2, Vinewood Addition. At the time of building permit issuance for Lots 1 and 2, a connection charge in the amount of $7,907.44 (1993 balance) shall be collected. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying any manholes or catch basins as a result of the driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive. ' 8. The applicant shall contribute $1,800. to the City for future extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 28 9. Neither Lot 1 nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View Road. 10. Lots 1 and 2 shall 'share a single driveway and the location of that driveway shall be submitted for approval by city staff with the ' intention being that the trees along the west lot line of the two lots shall be preserved to the extent possible. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: When does this go to City Council? 1 Krauss: January 25th. Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in 1 PUBLIC HEARING= SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO LOCATE A MONUMENT SIGN WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK LOCATED AT 600 WEST 79TH STREET, ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT, AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK. 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Kim Jacobsen: I'm Kim Jacobsen. I'm representing the Americana Bank. Randy Schultz, the President of the bank gives his condolensces. He couldn't be here. He's got a bad back tonight and he's in bed and maybe going under surgery but needless to say, we did request that the sign be 1 approved as I guess we're presenting it now. We did go through the City Council and we went through with the Planning Commission. We never tried to do anything that allowed us to be 2 feet from the property line. We 1 came from Market Square. It's a PUD. If you can recall, we were here once before with a development. During that time we had a monument sign. It was located within a few feet of the property line there. When we came down to Market Blvd, we again represented a monument sign. Never tried to deceived anyone but we ended up with a monument sign and built a base as part of the general construction package where the contractor built the masonary base, which happens during the construction. Came at that point to apply for a sign permit. To put the signage on top of the base assuming we had no problems. Everything had gone through. Construction plans had been reviewed. Had been approved by staff. We ' looked at the situation and I guess what we've got to say is that we don't feel we're presenting a problem and not making a precedence out of this case. I brought along some photographs. One is the photograph of our base, which is sitting here. But I think the important thing to notice about it is that we are about 20 feet from the street. We're a good 12 feet from the sidewalk and I guess if you look real hard in the background of this photograph, you can see the Market Square sign. The one I've got a photograph of is the one that is on Market Blvd. It sits within a couple feel of the sidewalk. Within 10 feet of the street. It just seems like, to the average person, a precedence has been set. I mean they look at that sign and then they look at what the Americana is proposing and the situation we have been brought into, I don't see that 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 29 anyone is going to interpret that you're breaking any precedence or 11 setting any precedence and I think that from where we're at, we all got into it innocently. So what I'd like to do is ppss along a couple of photographs. Way in the background you can see the Market Blvd sign. This is a photograph of the sign. ' Emmings: Can I just ask. Is Miles Lord one of the people that are going to be on the sign? Kim Jacobsen: Yes. Emmings: I have to disqualify myself. I'll get out of here because I II work with him on a daily basis and there's no way I can take part. Batzli: Okay. ' Kim Jacobsen: And this just shows a picture of the bank. The sign that we proposed was 9 feet in height. I did some drawings real quickly. Th sign company did a drawing that has what was proposed... We add about 3 feet in height to get to this cap and I guess I don't feel it does anything for the signage itself. What we tried to do, after looking at this proposal, and I'll be very honest with you. This was the first drawing that was done and presented to the owners. We looked at it and II decided that heightwise it was very obstructive. We took 3 feet off and lowered the top down. The building also is housing a lot of professiona people. Right now we've got 2 law firms that have taken tendency. Of the two signs I feel overall this sign is less intrusive for the city. I fits the building well and so that's why we're still asking that we get this signage approved and allow the variance to leave the base where it'll at and put the sign on it. When you drive along there are no...to the automobile. At least that would be the one thing that if we thought there was something that would cause us some problems, we would 11 definitely say we should move it. Ledvina: If you were required to move the sign, could you meet the conditions of the sign ordinance with that 10 foot requirement? Kim Jacobsen: Yeah. To move that sign, what has happened has been that we ended up putting more mechanical equipment. They upgraded their mechanical equipment and to do that we swaled the sidewalk around. To II move it back, we're going to lose that sidewalk on that side of the building which, that would be the worst case. We can move it back, yes , but we're going to lose our pedestrian walk from that side of the building in. Ledvina: And that parking lot. ' Kim Jacobsen: From that parking lot coming back on through. Ledvina: But you would still locate it in that relative position? ' Kim Jacobsen: That would be my guess is yes. I think they would opt to locate it, just moving it back that extra 8 feet or whatever the actual measurement happens to be. Planning ommission Meeting 9 January 6, 1993 - Page 30 Batzli: Any other questions of the applicant right now? Farmakes: I have a question. What was the thinking behind adding height to the base...top? You're saying that the trade -off happened between the ' two drawings that you're showing. Kim Jacobsen: We're still kept within the 9 foot height whether we put the roof on it or not. Farmakes: ...the lettering or? Kim Jacobsen: No. Farmakes: You woke up one morning and decide to. Kim Jacobsen: Well let's back it up. When a preliminary set of drawings was done for the city, the signage was not a developed part. It was developed to the point that we knew there was going to be signage. We wanted a monument sign but if you look at the quality of the sketch that was presented and everything else, it was a concept. After the building was fully developed we came back and said, we feel the sign is going to 1 look better with a base to match the building on it. During construction drawings it was represented that way. Like I said, it did appear on all the construction documents that were approved through the city and that's why when all of a sudden out of the blue we came to, as soon as we were going to put the signage on the top is when we came to apply for the sign permit and that's when we were notified that we were at, you know too close to the property line. Farmakes: This is a while ago and I tried to read the information to bring me up to date but as I recall we had a discussion about that at the 1 time. One of the representatives of the bank was asked, what additional signage would be going on there, and they thought a couple of major tenants. And I see that there's a lot more major tenants in the building. Kim Jacobsen: I think it's always been represented that there would be approximately 6 tenants. Farmakes: Right. But I guess the difference wasn't how many tenants but I believe in the discussion as I recall it, that it was the major tenant that would be built rather than a monument sign. Kim Jacobsen: I've got to be honest with you, I don't remember that Jeff. Just to be totally honest. Farmakes: I see that in addition to the tenants, the 6 tenants, that's why I'm assuming the 6 tenants...copy is referring to the total of 6 rectangles underneath the Americana Bank. There's also an instant cash card. Again, I'm going to ask, was the base added to raise the type. Did whoever was advising you suggest that you raise the height of the sign? Kim Jacobsen: No. Not honestly. The base was put on from an architectural standpoint. Not from a sign standpoint. We felt more than 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 31 1 anything was we wanted it, the sign as I see the sketch originally, did not tie itself to the building other than the green roof on the top. An we felt overall that the sign improved itself a lot by putting a base on it and that was what I guess the thinking process was through it. We architecturally wanted to tie it to the ground a little bit harder, like the building has been. 1 Batzli: Let me ask you something that's not intended to be argumentative but it may sound that way. You've just gone through telling us that all this was preliminary and conceptual and everything else and yet you want , us to believe that the location was dead set in concrete, if you'll forgive the pun, even though everything else about the sign is conceptual. 1 Kim Jacobsen: I think the size, we're real close to that so conceptually yeah. I mean we were conceptually very close to that placement. And II that's as best as we can say. Is that we laid it there. We looked at ill and overall I think that, it was not an issue to be very honest with you as we went through it. No one at staff noticed it. We didn't even pick" it up as we looked through the plans. Batzli: Okay. Well we'll probably have more questions for you once we close the public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission at this time? The record will show that there's II only planning staff and the applicant in the room. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Joan, do you have comments, questions? Ahrens: You know I don't know which sign would look better, to tell youll the truth. I mean I know the issue is. Batzli: Well let me ask a question. Are we even, you know the sign process. Permit process. We're not a part of that right now. The only' issue that we're really looking at is the variance? Al -Jaff: The variance. 1 Batzli: Okay. Do you want us to look at what kind of sign they put up? Al -Jaff: It would be helpful. What we will approve is What you approve" originally. Batzli: Okay, unless we tell you differently? ' Al -Jaff: Correct. Batzli: Okay. Ahrens: So the variance is just on the location of the sign? r 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 32 Al -Jaff: Correct. And the height not to exceed 8 feet. I just heard the applicant mention that it's 9 feet? Kim Jacobsen: No. ( Right now it's only at...6 feet. It was if we added the top on it...3 feet if you added the top. Ahrens: I realize it's a self- imposed hardship by the applicant but I'm not sure it's a real big deal, considering the location of the Market Square sign. Batzli: From the standpoint of setting a precedent you mean? Would you want others to be able to do this? At least in a PUD we can rationalize it's in a PUD, can we not? Ahrens: Ordinarily I would agree with you but they are, they have the base and they have all the mechanicals in place. Batzli: So to play devil's advocate. In order to get a variance you ' just have to put in part of the project and then apply for the permit? Ahrens: No. No. Batzli: How do we distinguish this? Ahrens: What I think that they've done, I think they've done a nice job with the building itself. I think that, I don't see this as an intentional attempt to. I Batzli: I don't either. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and figure out, how do we justify giving them this other than we think it looks pretty or it doesn't hurt. I'd like to come up with some sort of l rational if we decide to approve this that would allow us to say, we're allowing this because of some rational reason that we can come up with. Ahrens: Because I think it does not have a negative impact on the... building or the project. Or on any other project that's going to be developed along here. And the location, as I understand this is similar, the location of this signage is similar to the location of the Market Square sign which is across the street, is that correct? Batzli: And so you may be going on the condition of granting a variance that allows, made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet? Ahrens: Yeah, that's it. Batzli: Jeff. Well let me back up. Did you have a preference as to requiring them to put the original pitched element on there? Ahrens: I think we should keep the original pitched element on. Batzli: Then they may require a variance for the height. Ahrens: Variance for the height. 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 33 ' Kim Jacobsen: We could probably lower the pitch. Ahrens: They only have' the base on. I don't know why they can't lower II it. Kim Jacobsen: ...somewhere within this we can live... 1 Batzli: Does that still tie it into the building? Does the pitch look silly then compared to the building if you lower the pitch? Kim Jacobsen: ...I'm speaking off the top of my head... Batzli: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: This started out where I thought that they were adjusting pretty good to our original comments on the building. I particularly liked the plaza that they were putting in there because I thought it was an important spot in town aesthetically. As the actual building went into fruition, the plaza became less and less. I'm not sure if they wer all modifications but in essence it became a little less, by the time it got to Council it became less of a plaza. I'm looking at the architecture for the sign and I guess I can say the same thing. The sill has been downplayed as far as architecturally. It now becomes more of a utilitarian sign. It's reminiscent of when you go up to the cabin up north and you see the listing. They're just sort of chalked full of little items and I'm assuming that if a potential client or professional" service there, just driving by and that person tells them I'm in the Americana Community Bank building, as many of them do. You're looking for some identification there that Miles Lord practices here or you're II looking for Advantage Travel. I guess what disturbs me, going back to the generic implication of this is that we often see these types of signs where oh yeah, it's a couple of tenants. We're going to have a couple II major tenants in here. And you look at that and you're saying, well there's 3 names there. That's pretty conservative. You don't see much of an impact from that. But when it actually comes down to it, in an effort to sell many of these leases, you see a motivation on the part of" the leasing agent of the building to offer signage. To offer advertising. I question whether or not the professional services that every professional in the building has to have a shingle outside. It II becomes more of an advertising issue than a location issue. Particularljg if it's a predominant building. They do it downtown all the time. I mean you don't see a big list of shingles outside the Northwest Bank ' building and there are hundreds of professionals in that building. Ahrens: Actually there's one...Minnetonka City Bank...brand new buildin in Glen Lake and they have, there are seven attorneys in there and other professionals...and there is no signage whatsoever out in front. It jus says Minnetonka City Bank on the front of the bank building. It's a beautiful building too and they don't have any identification of anybody!' who's in that building. Farmakes: Well certainly, if a client's trying to find you, it often says I'm in the so and so Medical Arts building. Or so and so bank building. So I think as a matter of practicality for the argument of 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 34 identification, the City isn't that big and the issue of identification and location seems to me, if you're identifying the bank building, you've done 99% of the job that's required. I'm a little worried that it looks like everything but the kitchen sink is tacked on to this sign. As to the mathematics of raising the base, getting rid of the top, if you put the top back on and keep the base where it is, whether it was intentional or an oversight, that you ignored the signage plan, and I recall the discussion. That was an item to be taken care of at a later date specifically of what that signage was going to be. So I guess I don't have, I'm not uncomfortable with the staff's position on that. It is a significant difference, and again I think it's unfortunate that it becomes a much more utilitarian sign that as a part of the architecture. As I recall the original concept of that building, that's what the problem with the building was. It was a very utilitarian building. Very massive and very, what I'd describe to be as an unfriendly structure. And I'm glad that you re- looked at that issue and changed the building. I think that I've heard comments of people going through town that they like the building. They like the look that it's projecting, and I'd like to see that in signage. I realize what we're discussing here is, or what I understand the issue to be is that somebody went ahead and built this thing up according to your plan on a misunderstanding and that's where it was in the plan, and basically somebody came back from the City and said, hey. This is not conforming with our ordinance. So you're trying to get it to be used. Being that it's sitting there right now as we speak. I 11 guess I would, as a pragmatic situation, since this is, as I understand it. Paul, has this been approved? With the 6 clients. Is that part of what was worked out on the City Council level? Al -Jaff: No. Krauss: There was no deviation from what you saw. 11 Farmakes: So as I recall the discussion, and again we were going to deal with this at a later date once they applied for the signs, it was being brought forth that, as I recall the conversation, a couple of major tenants in the building were going to have signs. Krauss: Well you have the illustration. Is that in their packet? Al -Jaff: Yes. 11 Batzli: But we don't have the Minutes. Al -Jaff: This is what you approved. 11 Batzli: From what we discussed. Farmakes: Well that drawing conforms to my recollection of our discussion. Krauss: Right. But there was no intent to bring it back again. That was going to be the approved sign. Al -Jaff: Two tenants only. 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 35 Farmakes: But again, what I understood it to be is that we we're going to have a couple of names there, and not 6 which is a considerably percentage increase. In addition to that, there'is an additional advertising item on the sign. Is that also consistent with what we're doing with monument signs? ' Krauss: You mean the instant cash logo? Farmakes: Yeah. , Krauss: That's arguable. I mean we've allowed people to have... Farmakes: Is that a business logo or service logo in addition to? Krauss: It's probably a service logo. It's probably like Target sticking Pharmacy up in the right hand corner of the building. It's an II advertisement for one of their services. Ahrens: At least it's not an ear. 1 Farmakes: I'm going to stop taking up the time here so we can get going but I really am concerned about these monument signs. That when we actually leave the general concept with you and then they actually come II and are built, they are different. And the reason that they're different j is pretty obvious. There's a motivation factor on the part of the leasing agent to give as much as possible to get the lease. What you gell is everything and the kitchen sink tacked onto these signs. I think we should be much more specific up front as to what's going to happen. Krauss: I think you were. I mean I think you approved that sign. Thos were the reader boards that you approved on that sign. We were quite specific. I mean this was an attractive looking building. The sign was" art of the package. That was the sign. Now the sign got shifted, and argueably there's some question as to where the base actually might wind up but it shouldn't change what it looks like. Nobody ever gave anybody"' any authorization to do that. Farmakes: I'll leave it with that I think I've made my point. Batzli: Matt. Thanks Jeff. 11 Ledvina: I agree with Jeff's comments as it relates to the signage. I II would support the original design of the sign but I think the key to the variance is where is the sign located. I have a question for Sharmin. Is the Market Square sign, is that non - conforming or is that? Al -Jaff: Part of the PUD. So the setbacks were different than. Ledvina: But the setbacks would not meet the requirements that would bell imposed on Americana Bank? Krauss: In a standard zoning district, no. 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 36 • Ledvina: Okay. So there have been, you know just from a general perspective, there are other signs in the area that are variant of the ordinance? Krauss: Relative to location. Ledvina: Right. Krauss: But you shouldn't forget the fact that Market Square was required to come in with sign covenants. There's only one pylon sign on the entire property and I think there was a limitation, we weren't going to allow. Al -Jaff: Outlot A was going to have one. Krauss: One, but there's two or three lots, outlots that were going to have nothing. So there was a give and take on that one. Ledvina: Okay. And then in terms of the specific location of the sign, are there any utilities that are directly below it or how close are the nearest utilities for that? Al -Jaff: There aren't any utilities underneath it. But we're still requiring that should you approve this, that the applicant enter into an encroachment agreement. Ledvina: But how close are the nearest utilities? Do we know that, in terms of the water or the sewers or anything there electrical? Al Jaff. There aren't any utilities. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. I think that this does qualify for a variance. I would support that. I guess looking at, you know some of the findings that the staff is contending that really don't apply. I think that you can stretch the criteria and make these, you know make the variance allowable here for items a and also item c. That's any opinion. So I guess specifically then I would support the variance with the two conditions that the staff has recommended here. Batzli: So you would limit it to the Americana Bank and then the two tenants? Ledvina: Right. Yeah, I think that we should go back to what we originally approved in terms of what we thought was going to be on that sign. And then also the actual, the design in terms of the pitched roof. Where the pitched element of that sign. Batzli: Joan, I don't even know if I asked you. Did I ask you whether you wanted 2 or allow more names on there? Ahrens: I think we should approve the sign as it was approved originally with just the location. 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 37 Krauss: I think you understand there's also a significant difference in size. The sign. Batzli: It's 5 feet bigger? Krauss: Well it grew by 10 square feet but the base of the sign is approximately 4 feet wider or longer than it was before. Ahrens: We'll have to change the base. , Farmakes: They basically turned it upside down from the roof now is the brown. 1 Krauss: Below the ground. Batzli: But we approved a 70 square foot and they're asking for 75. 1 Ledvina: Is the base part of the footage of the sign? Krauss: We typically don't calculate the base. Batzli: Ladd, make sense of all this for us. 1 Conrad: I don't see any harm in allowing the variance. There's nothing to be improved by making them move the sign, from anybody's standpoint. II Batzli: What about the changes? Conrad: Now we get into some philosophy of stuff here you know, and i II think what I'm hearing Jeff say is real true. If there was a signage that said Americana Community Bank and everybody knew who was there, that becomes a landmark, and we don't need details. But you also take a look!' at every other building in town and every tenant wants name recognition. They want their name outside, and we've allowed it. Again we're being real naive, and we don't see all the facts when things come in for site 11 plan review. But it's just a fact of life that people want their name out there. And I don't know that it's a bate and switch. To a degree I think sometimes developers come in and say here's something and they get their foot in the door and they come back and they ask for a little bit II more. Obviously that's a trick they play with outlots and stuff like that. They can do that with this also but also you don't get definition to who you're tenants are going to be. You're proposing long before you have a tenant mix. So there are reasons for changing things. I don't think what's been proposed is necessarily attractive but I also don't think it's necessarily worst than other things I've seen in town. We 're ll reviewing things on a real arbitrary basis. We really are. You know it's sort of a willy nilly type of deal and I'm just not, from a standpoint of profile, one would think that what was presented right now is better. A lower profile. Less obtrusive. I don't think it works foll the tenants. Even at 30 mph driving by that sign, I think it's tough to read. Letters, I can't tell how big the letters are. Batzli: They're a foot. , 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 -- Page 38 Conrad: The letters on the top for Americana, you know if I take a look at the block is 12 inches so the letter size is 6 inches. And therefore the ones below it might be a little bit less. So 6 inches, in the business, if you crate a letter under 10 inches, you can't read it at 40 mph. Well I don't know what at 30. So I don't think it's real useful but the tenants are asking for this stuff. I'm babbling here. I don't think it's attractive but I don't have a problem with it in terms of taking down a profile. I don't like a 9 foot profile sign. I think that's more obtrusive than what we're seeing here. This is not necessarily pretty but it's in my mind less obtrusive than the other one. Think of what you can do. If we put 2 tenants on the other one, big. I don't know. We're going to, when we see the sign that, or we may not see the sign but it's not going to be attractive necessarily. But we're saying that 6 small type faces are worst than 2 big type faces. I think that's kind of arbitrary and I think we have this conversation every time a sign comes in and maybe we should try to figure out what we want to do with this type of stuff, recognizing. You know I'd like to make it consistent throughout Chanhassen. I feel Market Square, everybody get's their, they're listed aren't they. On the monument sign. Isn't everybody listed out there? Krauss: Festival is listed but I don't know if anybody else is. Ahrens: They don't need it. Conrad: Because they have visibility with their signs on the face of the building, yeah. Farmakes: Are we differentiating retail? 11 Conrad: Again, I'm not sure that service versus retail, service versus product is any different. A sign brings people in. A sign to pick up charcoal is the same as a sign to go to a dentist. Not quite. I would have a tough time defending that a whole lot but it's close. Anyway, it's not worth me talking anymore. So again, the variance is aceptable to me. I think there's just absolutely nothing to be gained by switching the thing. I would vote for the, I guess what I'd like to do is to see the sign, the applicant bring in a better version of the sign so I could make a realistic, a better decision. I guess I'm not real fond. I guess I'd like to see something better brought in before I make a decision on how it looks. Batzli: Well you didn't make sense of it for me Ladd. 11 Conrad: Let me just say one thing. Long term, we should get a grip on visibility for businesses that move into Chanhassen. Ahrens: We said that 2 years ago. Conrad: I know, and we're still talking about it and every time somebody comes in, we argue. We make decisions and I'm not sure how we're making them. 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 39 Farmakes: It is an issue that's being dealt with with the sign ordinance. ...that, it.'s grouped with a lot of other... Krauss: The part about who gets signage and how many tenants should hav are something that the sign ordinance should look at. What districts have signs and what not. The part that bothers me is that this is one o the first buildings where design of the building and the site plan and it's relationship to downtown was a fundamental element at it's approval" And the building works real well but all of a sudden, because this is a sign. It's a structure but because it's a sign we're saying well, you know. A square box is the same thing as a pitched roof and we're losing the design continuity between the site and it's relationship to other sites doesn't matter anymore. The variance for the 2 foot setback or whatever is really nominal. I mean I'd rather it not be there but that really is fairly inconsequential. But it does seem as something of a setback for us to be moving in the direction of having a design review ordinance where these kinds of things grow in importance and we have the first case where we actually did make the attempt to consider all those II things and it just goes by the boards because they decided to change their mind. See I don't know what names should be on the sign but I think I know what it should look like. Farmakes: I believe we have the tendency here to spend far more athetic time talking about trees and bushes and the amount of square footage tha ( they take up and totally ignoring the amount of square footage that we'r adding to this city in the areas of backlit plexiglass and attractives that are serving the purpose of advertising and not serving the purpose of it's implication. If we're going to use the basis of what we used II year or 10 years ago or 20 years ago, I don't think we're going to improve as we go along and as we become more sophisticated in our development and as more and more large corporations come in here, they'r not only going to incorporate these issues in monument signage but even bringing signage into our architectural building itself. Through in essence make a building that is in itself a sign, and that's what you're seeing more and more in the directions of franchising. We've got to readdress this issue, because it is an important one for the overall community in what we see here. It's our perception of where we live and it's too easy to forget about that. 1 Batzli: Let me ask the applicant. I assume that the old sign doesn't fit on the base that you've constructed. Kim Jacobsen: I guess conceptually it could just as long as it fits on the ground like it is there. We have 9 1/2 feet of height on that sign as it's drawn in that conceptual sketch. 1 Batzli: My sentiment is this, and then I'll let somebody make a motion. I think we're in agreement that we're probably, we would allow them to build on the base they've constructed. I think the consensus seems to b� that other than Ladd, we would like to see the pitched element. I don't know that we're concerned about the overall height but if it's within reason, and it sounds like there's a consensus that we're limiting it toll the Americana Community Bank advertisement for itself and then 2 main tenants. I guess I would, I don't know. Going to a lot of different 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 40 companies and a lot of different professionals, from my own personal standpoint, I kind of Like to see the names out there so I know who I'm visiting and that I'm at the right location. But I guess I don't quite 11 view this as being as structurally significant as someone telling me they're in the IDS or the Medical Arts Building. When I'm going to a small community and I'm not familiar with it, I guess it is more convenient for me personally to see a name on a sign so I know where I'm at but. I'd also like to see on condition 1, if we do approve it, that we're not held liable for damages done to the sign while accessing traveling over or otherwise performing maintenance within the utility and 11 drainage easement. In other words, if we have to go over the easement and there's damage done, even though we're not actually performing maintenance at the time, we should still be held liable. So does someone have a motion? Ledvina: I'll move that the Planning Commission approve a variance to Sign Permit #92 -11 subject to the two conditions in the staff report with 11 the first condition being modified to include any other activities that the city performs within the drainage easement that's associated with the sign. And 2 as designated within the staff report. Batzli: Is there a second? Ahrens: Second. Batzli: Discussion. Conrad: Was there a second? Batzli: Joan seconded it. Conrad: Discussion. So, point number 2 says, incorporate the pitched element in the sign. Batzli: I don't believe that it says limited to the 2 tenants. Ledvina: Well, the original design shows 2 tenants so again, specifically doing that. Farmakes: Address that separately? Batzli: I don't know. We have a new proposed sign design. Ledvina: We're not approving that sign design. Batzli: Well, but it seems like we're talking about it when we say we're incorporating things into that sign design. This to me is the request for the variance. This sign. So I feel like I'm approving this sign with these conditions. Is that fair reading? Ledvina: Okay. Can I make an amendment then? Batzli: Well you can move to make an amendment. 1 1 . Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 41 1 Conrad: Can we make these two separate things? Can we talk about the variance and then can we talk about a sign? How come we're talking aboui� a variance? Is the changing of the design of the sign a variance? Krauss: No. It's deviation from the site plan approval. 1 Batzli: So we should separate the two? Okay. Would you like to withdraw your motion to make a new one or do you want us to vote on your" motion? Ledvina: No, I withdraw the motion. Batzli: Do you withdraw your second? Ahrens: Yeah. 1 Batzli: Okay. Ledvina: Okay, so we want to just, with this variance, just have 1 condition 1. And then did you want another motion then? Batzli: I think then we have to talk about what the sign looks like after we approve the variance. Ledvina: Okay. Well I would move that the Planning Commission approve variance to Sign Permit #92 -11 subject to the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the city agreeing that the city will not be held liable for any damages done to the sign while conducting any activities within the easement which may also include maintenance. Conrad: I'll second that. Batzli: Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II approval of the variance to the Sign Permit #92 -11 subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city agreeing that the city will not be held liable for any damages done to the sign while conducting any activities within the easement which may also include maintenance. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: Now Paul, as far as what we would then move or recommend 1 approval of is a change to the site plan? Krauss: That's the way I would see it. You approved that sign as a pars of the site plan. Batzli: But we don't know the site plan number. 1 Al -Jaff: Yeah we can get that. 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 42 Krauss: Leave it blank. Oh, we've got it here. Batzli: Okay. Does anyone have a motion regarding? Conrad: Actually I'd like to table it but I don't know if that serves. Kim, do you want us to table it and come back or do you want us to act on it now? Or what's your recommendation. Kim Jacobsen: I guess I'm in a real great quandry. I guess I'd just as soon have you act on it and go from here to Council because I think we're getting very arbitrary as far as, it's hard for me to look at something as being a sign and say, within your ordinance I don't think you stipulate the number of people that are on a sign. You stipulate the square footage that you can put on a sign, and I guess if you're going to restrict me by square footage, I'd say fine. But we're rewriting the laws as we go forward because in...concept again we said, tenant 1, tenant 2. There's no reason there's 2 tenants on there. There's more words on there. It could have said Joe Schmoe, Sam and Larry. We had nothing to do with...to be very honest with you. Conrad: So you want us to react right now? You'd rather not. Kim Jacobsen: I would rather go forward from here and...at City Council because I really think they're rather arbitrary points that right now within your ordinances I'm not exactly sure what we're restricting. You're writing a new ordinance as we're sitting here is my impression. Krauss: I think that Kim is possibly right relative to who gets signage space on a sign. There is nothing in the ordinance that dictates that and argueably one word is no different than the other in what you've approved. What I do think you did approve as part of the site plan is the size, location and the shape. Batzli: But we just changed the location. Krauss: Changed the location by variance. 11 Batzli: You think he would have been happy for crying out loud but he wants more now. Okay. With that understanding and the understanding that he wants to move forward to Council, is there a motion? �. Ahrens: Why do we need a motion? Al -Jaff: You need a site plan amendment. 11 Batzli: If we wanted to amend it, we could. If we wanted to approve his change. His request to change. To not have the pitched element. To 11 change the square footage of the sign from 70 to 75. Ahrens: Ladd is the only one who wants to do that. If he wants to make a motion. Conrad: No, I'm not sold on it. Yet. I'm not sold on it yet. I think I could be, very easily. Again, my point is, anytime you take down a 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 43 1 profile sign, you're improving aesthetics and you can junk up a sign so easily that we're playing arbitrary games here. 2 tenants versus 6. A good logo versus a bad logo makes a whole heck of a lot of difference so we're in never never land here on this. But at this point in time, I guess I can't say to change this. I can't say to change the specs of thll sign. Batzli: I'd be perfectly willing to entertain a motion to deny his request to change this signage, as approved in the site plan. Or we can" give the Council absolutely no guidance and let them deal with it. Ledvina: Isn't this actually part of the sign permit then? 1 Batzli: Yes. Ledvina: And so they can deal with it with the sign permit. We don't 1I give sign permits here or approve sign permits. Batzli: I don't think the Council does, unless. 1 Al -Jaff: No, that would be done at staff level. Ledvina: Right. So you have everything you need, based on what we approved previously to take it forward right? Al -Jaffa Correct. Ledvina: Okay, it's just the variance that we need to deal with. Batzli: If the applicant has requested a change to the site plan, as they have, have they done that properly? Do we have to act on that tonight? I mean they requested a variance for the location. Do we have ll to act on their request to change the site plan? Krauss: Do you want to make your feelings known to the City Council? Dll you have to do it, no. I mean that's not technically. Well, I don't know how you could avoid it. I mean he is asking for a different sign and the location is different but it's a different sign. Batzli: But is that the process as part of the sign permit process? Tha he went to you. You guys said this is different, so do you come to us? Krauss: I guess theoretically we could ask him to come back in with a 11 separate request for a site plan amendment. It would be the first time we did that but that's technically what we're doing right now anyway. I'll leave that up to you. I guess if it's going to go to the City Council, the likelihood the Council, I mean it's not an earth shattering issue when taken in context and the Council's likely to want to move on it and get it out of the way. 1 Batzli: Okay. What I'd propose we do then is, if we don't have a motion, I would like at least for us to give guidance to the Council how li we feel about it and I'll just ask everybody how they feel and you can let the Council know that that was our thoughts and they can yea or nay 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 44 it. So if there's no motion. Joan, what I'm looking for is increase the square footage, pitched element. Those are the two changes. Do you want to see that? Those things on there. I Ahrens: I don't think the square footage should be increased. I like the pitched element in there. I don't think there should be any change to the original site plan approval. Batzli: Other than the 8 foot variance? Ahrens: Other than the variance which we just made a motion on. Farmakes: I'd agree with that. I'd also question the issue, if you're going to change the signage Itself and you're going to do a far more technically proficient drawing on the signage you have changed compared to the sign that was originally on the site plan, which has no, only a scale referring to the issue, and I believe that the surrounding elements are out of proportion to that size. I think that if we're going to get into a site plan, and I was here at the time and I recall we discussed this. We're going about this the wrong way and to approve something like that would be to make a farce of that process. I wouldn't do that. Ledvina: I agree with Joan and Jeff. 11 Batzli: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I think the footage should be the same as we approved. I think the applicant should submit a better rendition or illustration of the proposed sign. I think a lower profile sign is preferable and I think more tenants is acceptable. I Batzli: My sentiment is, I would, until I had better reasons, I would say go with the old sign. I'm not adverse to allowing more tenants on there but I would prefer to see the roof element incorporated, unless we did have better reasoning as to why it's not on there and a little bit better renditions of what all this will look like, because it is a change to the site plan and the perspective as to what it's going to look like on the site plan, the new one, I don't think we've been given enough information so, I guess that's what you can take to the Council. Conrad: I just want to echo a footnote. Developers don't know what the mix of tenants are going to be. They don't know that when they build it. They're hoping. Somebody comes in and says, I'll take 5 square feet and somebody says I'll take 12. They don't know it until they build it so. 1 Batzli: I'm not adverse to that but I think the applicant should at least present to the Council that information that we would have liked to have seen, at a minimum. Okay. Thank you very much for coming in. And this variance will go to the Council when? Krauss: 25th. 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 45 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20 -1023, HEIGHT OF FENCES ANII SECTION 20 -1019, LOCATION OF FENCES. Ahrens: For the record, I agree with Brian's comments on this. �f Batzli: Which ones? Ahrens: The ones that are in the Minutes. 11 Batzli: Oh. I was on a roil. Are you leaving us? Are you going to bell here next time? Ahrens: I hope not. I'm not supposed to be... Batzli: When will the Council approve our replacements? Krauss: I'm going to try and get on their Monday meeting. 1 Emmings: I'm going too. Batzli: Okay. So we're losing our two departing persons, never to be II seen again. I feel like we should say something...We11 come visit us for crying out loud and I move that the Planning Commission recommends good ( things to these departing personnel. 1 Conrad: Well, good things to Joan. I think Steve deserves what he gets. Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 1 Batzli: Did you look at the fence across from me in Fox Hollow? Ai -Jaff: Yes I did. Batzli: And would that conform to your new ordinance? 1 Al -Jaff: Yes it would. - Batzli: Because it doesn't encroach the 60 foot? 11 Al -Jaff: Correct. And when I read the Minutes, I understood that that was the only issue. 1 Batzli: Well I didn't like it. That was just my one that I could think of immediately. I'm trying to think of another while we sit here. Is that it Sharmin? Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Seeing" that the room is bare. Ledvina moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted i1 favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Ladd, lead off. j Conrad: No, I'd rather wait to hear your comments. I'm okay with it. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 46 Batzli: Okay, Matt. • Ledvina: I would defer to the staff on this. I don't have a lot of I experience in this and if they think it's a safety issue, I think that they're probably in a good position to make that call. I did have a question regarding the wetlands. Staff is proposing to add the following regulations to regulate fences near wetlands. Doesn't our wetland ordinance, the new ordinances that we just passed, don't they have no cut zones and like 50 feet or something and requirements prohibiting fences and all that? Or am I wrong in that? 11 Krauss: I honestly don't remember Matt. We should double check but I think if that's the case, then we have two parts of the ordinance that are at odds somewhat with one another. Ledvina: Yeah. I don't know what the specific requirements are but I do seem to remember discussion of fences. Krauss: I don't remember. We may have. I know we've had issues in the past with people building fences... Ledvina: Right. Does anybody else recall that? Batzli: I'm not clear what clause you're talking about in the wetlands ordinance. Which one? Ledvina: Well a clause that would prohibit the construction of fences at the ordinary high water mark, or whatever. I think there was some kind of setback that we had from that level or. Batzli: Well there's a buffer and we said you can't do a lot of things in there but I don't know if that included a fence. We said you can't cut. You can't mow. You can't dump. You can't spilt. I don't think we ever said you can't build a fence. Ledvina: I may be wrong in that but. Krauss: We can double check and if it's redundant, we'll drop it. Ledvina: It's a good consideration certainly. Batzli: Do we have any wetlands inside of pasture areas left in the city? Krauss: Sure. Batzli: Any that border a pasture? Krauss: I don't know. I haven't walked all the farm areas of the city. We don't have that much open pasture left. I Batzli: I just, you need an L shaped fence going into a water thing to turn back a cow. I mean you have to have a fence up to the ordinary high 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 47 1 water mark and you have to go in there because cows can swim and they go ll around the fence. • Krauss: I could be wrong but I believe we only have 1 or 2 operations left that have cows. 1 Ledvina: No further comments. Batzli: Sorry., I was just. 1 Ledvina: In the interest of brevity. Batzli: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I have no additional comments to make on this, other than the ll wetlands issue that was brought up. Batzli: So you like this? Well okay, my pasture one didn't work. What's, in your definition of front yards, or in paragraph 2. Fences in li required front yards. Should that word required be in there? Krauss: It should just say front yard. Eliminate the required. 1 Batzli: Now do we allow, we still allow under this ordinance that it be built within the setback area right? 1 Al -Jaff: Correct. Batzli: Now what do we do with existing fences that don't conform to this or hedges or whatever we do? I mean whatever. What happens to? Al -Jaff: They're grandfathered in. 1 Krauss: Until they fall down. Batzli: Well you can repair, right. But if they fall down and they're 1 gone for a year and then you try to rebuild, that's when you get in trouble. So we would enforce this at the permit level but most people don't come in to get permits to plant hedges I would imagine. 1 Krauss: When you become aware of... Batzli: If I could delay this until next summer, I could put in a couplj more bushes. Conrad: You're going to beat this one to death. Batzli: Yeah, okay. Well, I think that this is okay as long as a fence like by neighbor has is legal under this ordinance because I think he J1 does, and those types of cots do need the ability to put up larger opaqu fences. So if a fence like his is legal, where he can use his backyard, then. 1 Conrad: And it is. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 48 Batzli: Yeah, it is. Then I guess this, it's intrusive but there is a valid safety issue with the sight lines at intersections and I think that's what we're taking care of. Ladd, do you want to make any other comments? Conrad: No. I Batzli: Okay. But I still believe it is intrusive and I wouldn't want to do it other than if there were real safety concerns. I think this is kind of, we're making it for ourselves. There's other bigger issues that we could tackle. Al -Jaff: We're really not changing that much from what is in the ordinance right now, other than the sight triangles. Batzli: Well, we've allowed fences, higher fences up through the sight triangles before, as I understand it. Krauss: There have been no regulations prohibiting. Batzli: Right. But we're adding that and I'm just in, in a small PUD situation is where I'm more concerned about it than anything else. If somebody's got a big yard, it doesn't matter too much. But in a smaller lot setting, you can't use a lot of your yard potentially. You put in a dinky lot like that guy's got across the street, and it sold right away though. He put it on the market, a week later. So some people like them. I don't know. Anyway, is there a motion? Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences, and Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences, as noted above with modification to item number 2 of the first line. Delete the word "required ". Batzli: Is there a second? 11 Farmakes: Second. Batzli: Okay, any discussion? Just to go on record, and you guys are going to look at how this pertains to the wetlands stuff that's already in there? Krauss: Yes. Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences and Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences, amended in item number 2, Front Yards, first line, deleting the word "required'. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 49 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission dated December 2, 1992 as presented. . Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in 1 favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director • Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 4 in neighborhood parks. Is that where our dollars should be going? Or is the availability of tennis courts at community parks, is that sufficient to meet the residents needs? That's a question each of you will have to ask yourself as you consider this amendment to the master park plan at Pheasant Hills. Pheasant Hills Park. What I've concluded with is a brief recommendation that in light of the site constraints at Pheasant Hills Park, the most evident of which is the desire to preserve natural amenities, coupled with the lack of accessability and the city's desire to locate tennis courts in community parks, the Commission should amend the original Pheasant Hills Park plan deleting the tennis court and realigning the remaining amenities, including the open playfield, bituminous trail, picnic area, play area, half court basketball court, and sand volleyball court as depicted in the new proposed plan. The Commission should also direct staff to send a letter to the affected residents informing them of this amendment and the reasons for the change. I should add, if you feel it's necessary to go through the process of an additional neighborhood meeting to discuss this with them, you can take that option. Schroers: The only problem I would have with this is, would be to review the Minutes of those meetings because there was a lot of interest from that area and my concern would be in breaking a promise. Lash: I guess I'd be interested in sending the letter. Telling the situation and then saying, if you are having a problem with this or if you have concerns about this, contact you. And if you see that there is enough input from the residents, then schedule a meeting where they could come in and voice their concerns with us and we could deal with it then. But I think in line with the new Tree Board commission, our whatever they're called, that if this was, had a serious impact on a nice grove of trees, we would need to deal through them also before I would feel comfortable in wiping out a whole block of trees to put in a tennis court. Schroers: Yeah, I really think it's good but I think it would leave a real bad taste in people's mouth if we renigged on a promise or, not necessarily a promise but what we had intended or led them to believe that we were going to do without a proper explanation. But I think what Janis is saying is real good. Berg: I support that also. Andrews: My preference would be that we would hold a meeting. I think we've got the time to do it between now and spring. I think we should just offer them the chance to talk about it and move ahead at that point. I agree that we should delete the tennis court incidentally, but I think we should have a hearing. Give them a chance to hear our reasons and for us to hear their response. I'm sure we could take action before construction season anyway so. Schroers: Okay. I guess that I would be in favor of sending a letter and then having a meeting, if there's enough opposition to try to understand it rather than having an additional meeting. Unless you just want to include it as an agenda item. Andrews: That's what I would want to do. Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 5 Schroers: You're not talking about having a separate? Andrews: No, just an agenda item. I think to make a decision about what's enough of a response or not enough, I think you've got to offer t usual forum so that nobody can say, I didn't have my chance, or nobody listened or, you know treat everybody the same and consistently the same and then we have no complaint later that we didn't follow the proper procedure. Lash: I still say a letter would in line and then telling them the date it will be on the agenda. Berg: That's a very good idea. Hoffman: Again, I think when we go into that meeting, we need to discus- the issue of, when you went through the neighborhood meeting the last time, the issue of parking was very key. The master plan shows parking off of Lake Lucy on the south side of the park, which does not provide access to the, direct access to the active components of the park. So i' the consensus is, they still want to see a tennis court in that park somewhere, we do need to provide sufficient access to that and is on , street parking at Wood Duck Lane sufficient access for a tennis court? Tennis courts typically draw from a much larger area than your other standard components and so, in my opinion, if the neighborhood wants a tennis court, the parking lot would be the associated component. Lash: And it would have to be off of Wood Duck. Hoffman: Correct. Lash: And they don't want that. Koubsky: ...and discuss before we change it, if we're going to change Lash: And we ended up deciding that the parking off of Lake Lucy was ju not convenient enough or was it, was there land? Hoffman: Not convenient and very destructive. You want to talk about knocking down trees. That is a much more, there's a nice stand of trees' which would need to be removed to accommodate that parking lot. Lash: I'd like to think that we're taking a stand. What's going on her1 Hoffman: Firecrackers. Lash: Of taking a stand on, if the City's got a tree ordinance and we'r starting a Tree Board, I think that we need to feel very proactive in th area also. And when we're putting in parks, I think we have to be really conscience of not going in there and wiping out big areas of trees. And for no other reason I'd be willing to do that. Koubsky: You have to keep that in consideration of our design too. We have a big open play area. What is more beneficial for the area? You don't have to tear down trees on this property to supply them with some CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 Interviews for Commission vacancies were held prior to the official meeting. Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 8:50 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Wendy Pemrick, Fred Berg, Jan Lash, Jim Andrews and Dave Koubsky STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Mr. Chairman. It gives me a real great pleasure to be here this evening to recognize two of the commission members who are leaving the Commission as of December. And as most of you know, it takes a lot of time, a lot of your effort and it has taken Wendy's time and effort as well, who we're recognizing this evening. Because of the commitment she's done and extending herself to assist the City in determining what's best for the residents within the Community, I really appreciate that very much and the Council also appreciates the fact that you extended that time and effort to us. It isn't too often that citizens within this community really come forth and fortunately enough we did have a few come forth this evening to fill some of those positions. Hopefully they're going to fill them as well as what you've done over these years. So with that it gives me a great deal of pleasure to provide you with a Certificate of Appreciation from the City of Chanhassen and I'd like to just read this to you. Be it hereby ordained that the Chanhassen City Council has officially acted to recognize Wendy Pemrick for the dedication and public service offered to the citizens of our community as a member of the Park and Recreation Commission. Further, the City Council has hereby placed into the official Minutes this recognition as a lasting expression of the gratitude of this City and the service provided. So Wendy, I'd like to give you this. There's one more in addition to that and of course Randy is out of town and unfortunately can't be here so just about what I said for Wendy, I would almost have said for Randy. And it's a shame that we again, lose someone who has just started here but I'm also going to provide him with a Certificate of Appreciation as well. So with that I hope that Todd somehow that you can get this to him. And if you can't, I'll be more than happy to deliver it myself to him. Hoffman: Thank you Don. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Pemrick: Well that was really nice. I've enjoyed being here for the last 3 years. I'm going to miss this but I just got caught up with the time commitment. My husband and I are working our fool heads off and have a young daughter and I hope to be back at some point. If not here, somewhere else volunteering my time. Thanks very much. Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 2 Schroers: Three years is a generous commitment. Thanks a lot. Pemrick: I'll help at 4th of July. I'll be there anyway so. Hoffman: Good thing we've got verbatim Minutes. Schroers: Okay. Well since we spent so much time on our interviews, we'll try to gain a little ground here on our agenda. So we'll move back to item 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lash: I have two corrections. The first one is on page 3, the very bottom. I think that is supposed to be a 4, not 3. Isn't it Todd? Pemrick: Acres? Lash: Yes. Hoffman: Correct. Lash: Instead of 40. And then also on page 10 in Todd's comments. Like when I correct other people's comments? Hoffman: Absolutely. Lash: In the middle of the page, in the middle of the paragraph, it's his opinion that parkland should be flat land, fairly cheap. Something that is not good for much. Oh, never mind. Schroers: Any other corrections or changes? Lash: Oh, no, no, no wait. Wait. Hoffman: She found it. Lash: I found it. It was in the next line. Would not. 1 think there should be a not in there. We certainly would not have Lake Susan Community Park. 1 knew there was a not that should be somewhere in there... Schroers: Anything else? If not, a motion to approve. Andrews: So moved. Berg: Second. Andrews moved, Berg seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated November 24, 1992 as amended by Jan Lash on page 3, changing 40 to 4; and on page 10, adding the word "not ". All voted in favor and the motion carried. Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 2 LOTS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT, NEZ PERCE DRIVE, VINEWOOD ADDITION. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, commission members. Item 2 is merely a formality to insure that our ordinance in regard to park dedication fees is upheld. As you can see, the applicant is requesting a preliminary pi- to subdivide a lot where there is currently a home into two separate lots adjoining that lot and then an outlot to allow access. Well actually th- outlot would not allow access to these two lots that are coming in off N= Perce, as you can see there. That outlot is to continue their access to their current site. Recommendation then would be to recommend the City Council accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction as a part of the Stuart Hoarn application for preliminary plat approval. Schroers: Very good. Thank you. Lash: So moved. Pemrick: Second. Lash moved, Pemrick seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction for the Stuart Hoarn Subdivisio All voted in favor and the motion carried. PHEASANT HILL PARK CONSTRUCTION REPORT. Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers and Park Commissioners. Obviously you've read the report. I'm not going to read through that. I will bri= the transactions which have taken place out at Pheasant Hill Park. To tell you honestly, I did not think we were going to get off of ground ze this fall because we did not have the time, the commitment from, back to the parks department and public works was so great that they were off doing other things and we didn't have a supply of fill. That type of thing. Then the Target issue came up. We had representatives of Ryan Construction in the office looking for fill sites. We picked up the coordination there with our public works department and the divisions ou there and as you can see, within 2 days we were trucking fill to the Pheasant Hill Park site. We were able to do that in organized and plann. fashion since the Commission did approve design of the park. The master plan. We followed that with the design of a grading plan so we knew how much dirt we needed and where. We did take additional fill, since we ha. it, to level the ballfield a little bit more than was originally called for on the grading plan. They've completed rough grading out there. Di• anybody get a chance, if you did, you can see it looks fairly nice the w. it currently lays out. The one hang -up is the issue of destruction of what I would call perfectly good, perfectly beautiful natural, passive parkland which you talked about at great length tonight during your interviews. If we can accommodate excluding the tennis court, which I discussed here, we can accommodate all of their aspects, all of their amenities of this park by amending the plan, I certainly would recommend that you consider that. The issues over the tennis court we've discusse. in recent times. Accessability. The expense of including tennis courts Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 6 recreation facilities. We're opting on this plan to provide an open facilities. p g en p p P space. They may, as a neighborhood, want something instead of an open space. Lash: That was one of their high priorities though. Hoffman: Highest. The open space. The open field. Lash: And some basketball I think. They said their kids were getting a little big for, of course by now maybe they've had some big turnover and have the need for totlots. Schroers: Okay, would you like this in the form of a formal motion then? Hoffman: No, it's not necessary. I would position my letter explaining what we've discussed this evening. So when we're calling a neighborhood meeting, if they already have sufficient information and they've made up their mind that, well I guess I need to ask that. If the Commission would 11 like me to position my letter stating that this is the proposed change. You have an opportunity to discuss this with the commission. If discussion is not hear, then this change will be formalized. Schroers: Yeah. I think that's a good way to put it and then just include when it's going to be on the agenda and you've got it. Great. 1992 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE REPORT_ Hoffman: Other than the report, it's self explanatory. I have no comments on it. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Schroers: Okay. Any commission members. Andrews: Are you talking about item 5 now? Schroers: Yeah. Andrews: I just want to thank Wendy too for the good job. Appreciate ' your work and your effort. Pemrick: Well thank you. I'm feeling so sad. f Berg: It's a sad day for Chanhassen. Pemrick: I want to be involved though at some point again. Something. If any fun committees come up later on. Schroers: Well now you've got all these high powered credentials. Lash: Well you know every year there will be, probably be vacancies. Schroers: And I think it's also appropriate at this time, while we're on the subject, to thank both Jan and Jim for re- applying. I appreciate that 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 7 as well. Pemrick: And Jan's perfect attendance. That needs to be commended. 11 Schroers: You can't talk about stars in Chanhassen. It's maple leafs. II ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: B. OUTCOME OF REJECTING RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION AT LAKE ANN PARK/ RECREATION SHELTER. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Schroers, commission members. So we got through" without me even knowing it but again, remember that that's your opportunity as a Board, if you would like to see things on future agendas. Always take that opportunity to let me know when I'm coming up with agendas. Andrews: We had talked some about a, what's the word I'm looking for. It's like a comprehensive plan for park area for first quarter of '93. II Hoffman: It's scheduled for January. Lash: A what? ' Berg: Comprehensive plan. Andrews: For identification of park area. Hoffman: That will be a big work effort for the commission. Probably ji begin in January with some preliminary comments. Investigations. At th current time I've had conversation with Hoisington-- Koegler group, Mark Koegler, who the Commission is very familiar with. He's done excellent work for the city. Mark and members of his firm will be in in January tc� discuss the process. Essentially what we have is, we have a comprehensive section. In addition to the comprehensive park plan, I will be working through other amendments in the comprehensive, recreation section of the comprehensive, City's comprehensive plan with you. I'm not sure if any these members recall working through that. It's a process which began about 10 years ago and concluded about 6 years ago. So actually Larry II caught the tail end of it. But we need to take a look at some updating that recreation section. And then the key component which we're missing, we have a comprehensive trail plan. We do not have a comprehensive park plan so as land development comes in, it's right there. It's right on t map. It's part of the city document. All the developers, as they come Chanhassen, the first document they look at is the City's Comprehensive Plan. What is this land zoned? What are the future uses? What are the' adjacent uses? It has a trail next to it but it does not tell them that they have a park next to it. At this point what we've used is the park deficiency zones, but when you get into the head to head battles over lall acquisition, you need something more than that to stand on. That is why we're going in that direction. Schroers: Real good, and I'm sorry for skipping over 5. That was my ' mistake. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 8 Lash: Can I back up? That just triggered something with me too. I read in the paper, or it was an agenda item or something, for the HRA and they're working on this entertainment complex in.downtown. And at one point I think I read some Minutes that gave me the impression that it was kind of a combination entertainment complex /community center type thing. Is that how you're...? 11 Hoffman: The current plans would be that it's first and foremost a convention center to incorporate the business that the Country Suites Hotel, the Dinner Theatre, and to cater to, as you all know, you've been to plenty of conferences. Conferences is a big market. But then chiming in at the same opportunity, the same type of things you offer when you have recreational components along with that. Pool and adjacent to racquetball courts, gymnasium space, those type of things. Those will be added in. We're taking a look at, currently there's a Phase 1, Phase 2. Essentially Phase 2 is the gymnasiums and Phase 1 is everything else. I'll be working, and as we get into this, I hope with the backing of the commission, to include gymnasiums right in Phase 1. There should be no Phase 2. The thing we are the shortest on is gymnasium space. To bring you up to date, the HRA has selected a preliminary construction manager for that project. They've gone through selection of architects, so now ' they will be coming out and reaching out to the other community members and Council members, Commission members, to get your input to find out what exactly you want this thing to be. It will be a unique facility. ' I'm not sure if there's one similar in the State but the general feeling is, if you call it the pit if you will, back behind the Dinner Theatre. Everything back inbetween the tracks and the Dinner Theatre, it's not real attractive for private development and the HRA has come to that conclusion. They think it is a wise investment to invest some public dollars in addition to private dollars to construct this type of use facility in that area. Pemrick: That would be Filly's? Hoffman: Filly's would be incorporated into it, yeah. The bowling alley would be incorporated into it. It would connect all the way over. Obviously Merlyn's is leaving. It would, most of the plans plan for bringing more of a front. More of an entrance out onto West 78th so you ' have something there. Lash: Isn't there a theater? Hoffman: A theater would be a portion of it, correct. Pemrick: Like a movie theater? ' Hoffman: An auditorium to take care of your conference needs and community needs. Lash: I guess my reason for bringing it up, and I think you addressed that is, I would hate to see the HRA get this ball rolling and then this would be totally their project and that the Park and Rec would not have any input into it if it's going to turn into a recreational facility for the city. I feel like the last time when we got into the community center Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 9 i mode, it was sort of an independent group and we were not involved as a commission in it and that was a concern for me. I would hope that this II time, whoever is taking on this endeavor would try to involve us and get you know especially your input and 1 think all of us. Hoffman: Correct. Executive Directors of the HRA are the City Manager, Don Ashworth and Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager. They asked me to get involved in the process. The whole staff really to come up with, in the preliminary stages, programming ideas. What could we fill this building with. Everybody is hesitant. You don't want to create a white elephant. Will this building actually operate. We lodged them with those requests. Conducted those type of brainstorming sessions. Came up with' that material. I was involved in the interviewing process. Sat in on those type of meetings. And it isevery intention of the HRA, even though they are the governing board, of the tax increment districts which will fund this project, they certainly want your input. 1 Koubsky: Two things. When we had the joint meeting with the City Council, we expressed some desire to have them come and talk to us. I feel real ignorant when it comes to the HRA. 1 think I'd like to see the here and explain to us just what exactly they're doing. What their plans are maybe in some more detail. 1 Hoffman: How would you like to see that? Would you like to see a presentation from either Don or Todd, or a joint meeting of the bodies of the two? The Commission and the HRA. How would you like to facilitate II that? Andrews: I'd like to see kind of an up to the minute presentation of thll project you just described. Koubsky: Yeah, I think we get more information from one or two of them than a joint. As far as that auditorium, is it a performing arts auditorium that we're talking about, or what exactly is that? Hoffman: It may include a stage as part of that component. But very initial architectural drawings included a formal auditorium with seats b that was found to be too restrictive and for your conference, delegate type dinners and that type of thing where you need the tables and the flit floor, that would not accommodate that and that space would become very single use. So they'll most likely be looking at an auditorium space with a flat floor. Multi purpose and potentially with a stage at one end. Koubsky: What kind of time line are we talking? Hoffman: Construction over the next 2 years. But again, when the time there, the input from the Commission. If gymnasiums should or should no be included. What the community center element should be. How it should function. Initial thoughts were more of a health club type atmosphere. It was the recommendation from the Park Commission that no, the community' would be, the demographics of Chanhassen will not buy into that. They will not like that. Mayor, in preliminary discussions has stated the same. This building has to function for the family. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 10 Schroers: That's exciting. Andrews: Another potential item you want to take a look at probably as quick as we can is, kind of in conjunction with the Highway 5 committee, ' would be the crossing, particularly of Bluff Creek. As to what we would like to see for our purposes there. So we can get our preferences in front of that group because right now they're kind of open to any and all ' suggestions. We need to take a look at what potentially we may have as a trail crossing Highway 5 at Bluff Creek. Lash: And where's Bluff Creek again? Pemrick: How does that connect with TH 5? Andrews: It's between CR 117 and TH 41. Lash: Does it go to Lake Ann here? Hoffman: It's across from the school property. And then the other one is Riley-Purgatory which comes out of Lake Ann. The creek crossings, as Jim describes, are how you should treat the crossings, the underpasses. ' Lash: So is it somewhere around Prince's studio? Or is it west of there? Andrews: West. Hoffman: North of Timberwood. ' Andrews: West of the nursery. Lash: What are the options? Andrews: Right now it's wide open. Schroers: It looks like a wooded ravine, is what it looks like. It's in a cornfield. It's most noticeable in the cornfield that's west of the nursery and... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Andrews: ...those are issues that will probably come up in the next 60 days at that meeting and if we come there and say, here's what we'd like. I'd say our chances are pretty good that that's what we'll see. Schroers: Well what you're talking about is the north /south trail on either side of the highway that actually travels east and west? You're not talking a trail running down from north to south along the creek? You're talking about the trail that runs along side of the highway right? ' Andrews: No. The linkage underneath the highway. Koubsky: How are we going to cross TH 5? Whether it's underground. Andrews: It will be underneath. Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 11 Koubsky: Because we have the trail at Audubon there, right? And then that comes up by McGlynn and then does that deadend? Hoffman: Deadends, right. Lash: But we will have, as TH 5 continues west, we'll be having a trail ' east /west on the north side of Highway 5. Andrews: Both sides will get it. ' Lash: Oh both sides? Andrews: They're going to have it looks like, they call it access boulevards. On the north side it will run fairly close to the highway and the south side, they may be, maybe as much as a half a mile south of the' highway. The way it looks now, those will both have boulevard trails on them. Which should be real nice. 10 foot wide trails. That's the concept. I mean it's not built yet obviously but MnDot seems to be very ' cooperative. Hoffman: MnDot has participated in the north leg. The south leg is more. Andrews: Concept. 1 Hoffman: Yes. Koubsky: The benefit of crossing there would be to get to Lake Ann. Andrews: It's also a natural feature of the city. I mean at some point" we always have talked about sort of Bluff Creek all the way up to some sort of a nature preserve type of a thing here. A path or a trail or something in there. ' Lash: Access for people down in Lake Susan and those new developments, Timberwood and the two new ones coming on line, for them to cross TH 5 t get to Lake Ann Park and also to get to downtown. Koubsky: Well you'd have to come down to CR 117. Of if you're going to bike, you'd have to. 1 Andrews: You could have a connection under the highway. Lash: Under the highway. 1 Schroers: I think what we need to do is include that as an agenda item II for a future meeting and bring in the preliminary concept. The concept plan so we can...take a look at it and try to visualize what it is. Andrews: We want to put our idea in front of the Highway 5, we need to 11 this next month. If we want the Highway 5 group to put their idea in front of us for approval, then wait until February or so. Lash: Well I need to have some pictures of different options. ' 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 12 Andrews: There are some sketches that have been done up already so we can at least look at those and modify those. But we also need to look at just what is our long range plan as far as the north /south trail. Is there one? Lash: Well is that the only place that we can do that? Andrews: No, but that's one of the few places where we'll have a crossing that's not on the highway. So it's either going to be under the highway or, there's no plans to build any bridges over the highway. ' Lash: And is that the only place that we can go under? Hoffman: The two would be Bluff Creek and Riley- Purgatory. ' Andrews: And it's likely that Riley - Purgatory may be just a culvert because that's a small one. Lash: But if there's a creek going there, how can you. Koubsky: There's a lot of relief. There's a lot of trees. ' Hoffman: There's a culvert. The culvert exists today. Lash: Yeah, but who wants to walk through a culvert? Hoffman: No, you can't. ' Andrews: Nobody will so that may not be available. Lash: But if both of the options are a creek? Hoffman: Well the design is to have the creek off to the side and then put the trail adjacent to the creek. Andrews: A large arch with maybe 30 -40 feet of extra ground to be used as a trail area. Lash: I need a picture of that. Schroers: Alright. Well that was I guess under the item 5, Commission member presentations. Is there anything else that we missed there? Koubsky: Any update on the TH 41 /TH 5 development? Hoffman: Opus? Certainly. The last meeting held with the administrative members and representatives of Opus, that included our City Manager, our planning staff, myself and folks from Opus. They did not come off of their position from the evening when you discussed the park issues with them. It is the recommendation of our City Manager that I will be presenting your position on this issue to the City Council as a part of their review of the Gateway development. They will listen to the developer as well and the City Council then will take action. Either siding with one of those two or asking that it go back down to the 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 13 i Commission. The applicant to come back into the Park and Recreation Commission and work out your differences. ' Schroers: I don't like the idea of them just deciding on going one way or the other and not giving us an option. I mean if they side with Opus, Opus has just sold us out so to speak. Or has just not made an attempt accommodate what we've asked for and I don't think that's acceptable and think that that could potentially set a precedent. If Opus finds a way work around us and beat us out, who's to say that other developers won't in the future and that's going to, it could potentially impair our abili to acquire the parks and the trails which is our purpose for being here. I think that if we have to go through route, I would prefer that we woul� state that our position on that is very, very strong. Extremely strong. Berg: I would agree. It almost seems as if they're able to circumvent the whole system this way. Why go through all this? It seems like they're giving lip service to the procedure and then they didn't like th ultimate answer so they're going to go around and try an end run. I don' blame them but I don't have to be happy with their using that. Lash: And I would be extremely frustrated if the City Council did not pay some attention to our recommendation in this situation. , Schroers: ...a suggestion that we take someone else's property. Lash: Well after he told us that we have all the control and we can do what we want and then he turns around and wants to play hardball and tak a firm stand on this and then try and tell us what we have to do. Schroers: I mean this is, what he is saying is that this is a prime sit" We know it but it's in our city. If you don't want to play our game, somebody else will. I mean I don't think that we have to let them beat up like that. Koubsky: No, he's just trying to develop it. That makes the most profi He's trying to do his job and I think it's important to note that we had an original recommendation for an area of land that would facilitate wha we felt were needs of the area. They made a concession. Staff made a concession. We disagreed with that concession and went back to our original recommendation which required a certain amount of land. Useablil land in that area. We just have to reiterate to staff that that was our position originally and it is now. Hoffman: If I can just go a little bit further in depth into my thought J 9 P Y as we've gone through this process. You recall that they had a very lar e area of open space there. Mature trees, open prairie, wetlands, but we wanted a mix. We wanted to get some active area and some passive area a well. It is always my contention that when they miraculously come up with what they call the most beautiful property down there in the wetland, till we chose that as park specifically because of it's beauty, etc, etc, it makes me hold my breath in these meetings when we sit down with these folks. But the fact is, even at this juncture, we are about even with t trade -off between dedication and what they are giving us by our cash rights and what they are giving us. In asking for that extra 2 acres of Park and Rec Commission Meeting n s g December 15, 1992 - Page 14 what certainly to them is very valuable land, they're going to be looking for some concessions for that and that will all be negotiated. But the simple fact is, they didn't even want to take that step. But then again, so they brought in the tax increment district issues and was the city in the position to buy this property and they're questioning us whether or not we are in a position to buy that. The City holds the key to how those tax increment dollars are distributed and our City Manager has always been very much in favor of using those for public purposes relating to 11 acquisition of parks and he has stated privately to me, and in that meeting that that will continue in this case. But you go fruther from that and I think if we position ourselves properly, I don't feel that there will be any problem with the City Council upholding your position. Then again, you need to clarify what that is. If that is the position presented by staff, with the additional property, to make that land a little bit more useable. Or if you want to go right back to the original recommendation, which you need to realize would necessitate then totally leaving that open space and those wetlands as non -city property and then we would have to venture off and renegotiate and start the process all over and find some other land somewhere else. If we make that perfectly clear, which we have, which I have. Both the applicant and our City Manager and our City Planner, and then if members. We have not set a 1993 attendance schedule to the City Council but if 1, 2, 3 members of this Park Commission come and speak before that City Council, in front of that developer, you can be convinced that the City Council is going to see your points. And again that, as we go through the meetings with the Council, that is the type of involvement they would like to see from their commissions. If you recall back, Planning Commission. You will find members of the Planning Commission there on a very routine basis speaking in favor of their recommendations. There are many more times the Planning Commission finds themselves in this position. When the applicant is very much in disagreement with the Planning Commission's recommendations. Planning Commission will be there in defense of their motion and then the City Council obviously has to wrestle with it and get on with their business. Schroers: If potentially, if we were able to win support to get more useable space, what is the likelihood that they would try to drain that wetland, cut down the trees and develop that for their development? I 11 mean do we stand to potentially come up with a win /win? Get our parkland and also have some passive, natural area there that's not necessarily owned by the city but it is likely to remain because they would prefer not to develop that anyway? Hoffman: They have stated that if we picked up our doormat on that piece of property, that they would look for rezoning to come in from the opposite side which is residential and develop those, the areas which would allow it in the residential homes in that area. Lash: They would look for rezoning to do what? Hoffman: To plat a residential subdivision in that area. Lash: In the wetland? 1 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 15 II Hoffman: Well, there's high ground interspersed. Especially in that southern one. There's a big knoll there and some high ground and some II property which is out of the wetlands. They would have to go through a rezoning for that. Or knock it out as an outlot and do that at a different time when the adjoining property came in. Something of that II nature but just immediately south of here is large lot residential and they could sell it off of that. There's other options. It certainly was the most convenient thing to do. Go down to that area, it's not easy to work with. Draw your boundaries around it and say it's parks and open space. Schroers: Well I mean that's the problem that I have is they want us to eat what's easy and convenient for them and it's not filling our needs a requirements, and it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. I just feel that if we accept that, we're getting the short end of the , stick and they're getting the whole pie. Not even wanting to give us a taste. Hoffman: It is, the property which I'll admit and that will be my argument if the scenario would go this way. Giving credit, acre for acr for land which is piece by piece, a piece here and a piece there. You know you've got a little corner in this side of the wetland, and a little 11 corner in this side of the wetland, does not fly with me. We will give you a portion of credit and an area which I've stated which would be a starting point is about 50 %. So if you have 5 acres or 10 acres or 20 II acres, which is interspersed here and there, we may consider that applicable at a 50% rate to the reduction of your park fees. Lash: I really wouldn't even be able, I wouldn't with a clear conscience" be able to give them that much concession. I mean that's just a given that there's going to be some little spots that they aren't going to be able to use. With the Tree Board coming and the Tree Ordinances and things, if there's a mature grove of trees there, I can't imagine that they'd be allowed to plow that down and blacktop over it and it would have nothing to do with us. It would be totally other people telling them th can't do that. Hoffman: Well, in the past two instances to stop that, which is Chan Business Center. The triangle PUD there. You recall the large grove of ' trees there? The City had to purchase that. The other one would be the Target site. To save that mature stand of trees. Other than outright purchasing, there was no option there to save those trees. So the city h to purchase that property. We currently do not have, and probably will not have the ability to go that far in tree preservation. Koubsky: The housing development south of Timberwood is all mature mapil and they'll lose half of that. Lash: Well I don't really feel like the concession that that we were, oll the compromise we were willing to make last time of asking him for his extra acre and a half, or 2 acres, whatever it was. That really didn't cut it with me at all. I didn't think we were gaining enough to really even argue about it. II 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 16 Schroers: Because it wasn't enough to develop our active use area. So that was the consensus of the entire commission. We're all in agreement with that and I think we stand strong on that issue and I feel that if they want to by -pass us and go to the City Council and use them as an arbitrator, then I think we should be strongly represented there and make it known that we are unanimously not in favor of their proposal and we want to stick with our proposal to provide us what we feel we need for the 1 area. And that's not too much to ask because that's what we're asking from everybody else. That's fair and they can do it or they cannot do it. We don't care. ' Koubsky: Reiterate that we were looking for a parcel of property sufficient to put at least one ballfield. Is that correct? And not the additional acre. Schroers: Was it one ballfield or two? Koubsky: Initially it was two. I can't remember what the exact motion. Hoffman: The motion was the exact same motion that you made the first time. • Koubsky: And that was two. Any idea what the PUD and wetland issue, are there things that or positions that other commissions have that we don't 1 have insight in as to wetland preservation? Hoffman: Well the city's wetland preservation ordinances would certainly protect the wetlands. They would classify them and there would be all the setbacks necessary for those wetlands. Beyond that, there is a narrow strip of land there. I can't begin to go through all the possible options which they could think about in negotiating that development of that property. Lash: The next time that we deal with it, maybe if we had the map that would show us the areas that would already be protected, so that we know which areas wouldn't be developed by the developer and should have no bearing whatsoever on the park property dedication. Then we would have a clearer picture of what's still going to be undeveloped. Regardless of 1 where we get the parkland and put it in. Koubsky: That will be open space regardless. 1 Schroers: And it will seem like we will gain. If we stick to our guns and go for park property that we want, it just stands to reason that 1 there's a part of that they're not going to develop so we'll probably gain some natural area or passive use area along with our active areas that we're going to require. Possible. There's a lot of options but. ' Hoffman: I need to get a feel this evening from the commission what that exactly means as I can then write in my report for the first of the year. I don't recall the exact acreages but essentially the site, you go by 10% of land. 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 17 Schroers: 18 acres I believe what our dedication was. And we're asking for 18 acres. A portion of it like 5 or 6 acres of that 18 was to be II useable to the point where we wouldn't have to do massive amount of grading and that sort of thing to develop active use area. Instead, they wanted to give us 30 acres of basically unuseable. I mean there was onl11 1 or 2 acres out of that 30 acres that would have been suitable for an active use area and even those, that small acreage would have required considerable grading. And at that, it wasn't enough space to do anythin with anyway. So they basically are not giving us anything that we asked for and that's not acceptable. They want to give us 30 acres in junk rather than 18 acres of what were asking for and we said no sale and that's the way it still is. No sale. 1 Hoffman: Okay. That's the way I will write my report to the City Council. 1 Koubsky: Let us know when the meeting is Todd. Hoffman: Okay. January 11th, I believe if I read the schedule correctll Schroers: And we should suggest or volunteer one or two people, if you want someone in person to represent the Park and Rec. ' Hoffman: Oh absolutely. You're speaking to the Council is more effective than my. Andrews: Would that still be the old Council or would the new members b on? Hoffman: New members will be there. Andrews: They'll be on board by then? ' Hoffman: Correct. Lash: If a couple of us show up, it's going to blow their doors off II because they'll figure this has got to be pretty big. We've never done that before. Schroers: Well that's on Monday, January 24th? ' Hoffman: January 11th I believe. Lash: I could go too but could you drop me a note. Hoffman: Absolutely. ' Schroers: Yeah, I will also. Hoffman: I'll mail the entire commission a copy of the report. The ' agenda, both from my perspective and the planning report. Schroers: And when you write your report, you're going to check back will the Minutes of the prior meeting to make absolutely sure what our 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 18 recommendation was. Hoffman: The longest motion in the history of Park and Recreation. Schroers: So okay, can we move off of. Hoffman: Certainly can. Item 6(b). First of all, I've got an item written in 8(a). Officially would like to, the Commission to welcome Dawn ' Lemme as a new full time staff member of the city of Chanhassen. The City Council confirmed as part of the 1993 budget approval budget so Dawn again works 50o with our Chanhassen Senior Center and 50o with the programming ' for all ages. Schroers: Great, congratulations Dawn. 11 Hoffman: Item 6(b). Outcome of rejecting retaining wall construction at Lake Ann Park Recreation Shelter. As I informed the commission at the last meeting, I was not pleased with the construction. It was unsatisfactory at Lake Ann Park. Started working through the necessary communication efforts to get this corrected and as such, talked with ALM Contractors, our general contractor. Their first reaction was to ' schedule a meeting with the City, ALM and then the subcontractor. I said, well I'm simply not interested. My position back to you as general contractor that I refused the construction effort. It is up to you now to work with your subcontractor to see that that is corrected. To insure my assessment of the wall, I wanted some outside opinions. As such, I received two of those. One of them being from the actual manufacturer or the Keystone product which is out there. As stated they have an obvious interest in seeing that Keystone products are installed properly. As such, prior to my pushing the issue any further, he requested some time to coordinate between the contractor and the subcontractor to see if they could solve the problems which we may have existing out there. I allowed them to do so. They have met on site. That was yesterday morning. I have not heard back from that person. From the block manufacturer but upon doing so I will make a decision on what my stance will be at that ' time. Unfortunately, we're going to lapse over into spring so these types of communications need to be formalized in 'written letters and agreements. That type of thing so I'm going to stand very confident that until that wall is taken down and rebuilt, we're just simply not going to accept it. It's a shame to build a building of that nature and then to surround it with a crooked wall. ' C. TREE PRESERVATION BOARD APPOINTMENTS. Hoffman: Larry, you can give an update on that one. Schroers: Basically the interviews have been conducted and the recommendations have been given to Todd. To be perfectly honest, I don't remember all their names. Thomas Dunlap was the last person and the gentleman that works for the city. Hoffman: Charles Eyler. 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 19 Schroers: Charles Eyler and then there was a lady that's on Highway 5. ' Who is that Helen? Hoffman: Lillian Berrard was the other one and then the Highway 5 person is from, sits on the Highway 5 Task Force as well. 1 Schroers: I don't recall her name either. I thought her name was Helen. Anyway, we are moving ahead with that. The appointments that have been recommended to Council and I would imagine would be approved at the next Council meeting and we'll be rolling. Initially the consensus right now is that it's going to be a very aggressive board but our first mission i going to be, to decide who we are. What direction we're taking. What ou mission actually is going to be and we don't know if we're a commission. If we're a board. But we're hoping to become significant enough to apply for funding or to acquire funding from Council to maybe plant trees or 1 if we have to, purchase stands of trees to prevent them from being cut down or whatever. But it's going to be very proactive and aggressive initially. I can't tell you much more than that. Lash: And is Tim Erhart and Dick Wing? Schroers: Tim Erhart and Dick Wing and myself. 1 WINTER BREAK PROGRAMS. Dawn Lemme updated the Commission on this item. She could not be heard the tape. ADULT BASKETBALL REPORT. 1 Hoffman: Jerry will address any questions you might have. Schroers: How's it going Jer? i Ruegemer: Just fine. On schedule. Schroers: Have you got a lot of participation? Ruegemer: Yeah...4 or 5 teams. If we had more space available... The league did grow... Hoffman: One thing just to keep in mind. We operate the Chanhassen/ Chaska Adult Basketball league and we use facilities at the Chaska Community Center and they play how many games a night? Ruegemer: They play 4 a night at the community center and 3... �. Hoffman: So 8 teams a night at the community center and 6 teams a night at... , Schroers: That's like every night? Ruegemer: Just Wednesday nights. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 20 1 Hoffman: That's the only night we have available so that's why we have to turn away those teams. (The quality of the taping was very poor during this part of the discussion.) SKATING AND HOCKEY RINK STATUS REPORT. Hoffman: Needs no explanation. No ice. Berg moved, Pemrick seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /I PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 14, 1993 1 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bill Bernhjelm, Brian Beniek, Dave Johnson Don Chmiel, Craig Blechta, Eldon Berkland Dave Dummer • STAFF PRESENT: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director Bob Zydowsky, Public Safety Officer Sgt. Julie Boden, CCSO Richard Wing, 2nd Assistant Chief Carl Barke, Mechanical Inspector Commissioner Dave Dummer opened the meeting at 7 P g .m. P Commissioner Brian Beniek was appointed 1993 Chairperson; Commissioner Dave Johnson was appointed the Alternate. ' Commissioner Bernhjelm was welcomed back after attending FBI school in Virginia for 3 months. 1 FIRE DEPARTMENT Assistant Chief Wing asked that the vital Opticom issue be kept in the forefront. Rescue vehicle #218, responding to a full arrest ' call on Tuesday, January 12, was unable to proceed westbound on 78th Street from Laredo Drive due to vehicles unable to pull over because of the narrow width of the roadway. Director Harr reported that meetings have occurred on the Opticom issue and more meetings are scheduled. Asst. Chief Wing briefly discussed the security problems occurring at the main Fire Station. A committee is reviewing the policy regarding the use of the Fire Station by community groups. This security issue has been addressed by Public Safety Director Harr, with a crime prevention survey being completed. CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF Sgt. Julie Boden reported that new shifts went into effect 1/11/93. There are currently 7 deputies assigned to Chanhassen. At the request of the Commission, the alarm policy was reviewed, and Sgt. Boden provided a handout on the 1992 year -end alarm responses. Asst. Chief Wing questioned the fee for false alarms, ' and mentioned how costly these runs were for the Fire Department to respond. ' INSPECTIONS DIVISION Director Harr reported on the Planning Department's immense building projections for the future. Discussion was held on the increased workload in the Department. The Support Staff are recording the number of their incoming phone calls for statistic purposes. Asst. Chief Wing asked if the calls could be broken down by fire /police /cso /inspections. Public Safety Commission January 14, 1993 Page 2 Commissioner Beniek would like to have an inspector do an informative walk through at a future PSC meeting on the how /what /when of plan review. Director Harr will have staff attend future meetings for introductions and questions. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT Director Harr mentioned the positive front page article and 'editorial in the 1/7/93 Chanhassen Villager. He commended Sgt. ' Boden and the deputies for their acceptance and enthusiasm towards Officer Zydowsky's promotion. ' Director Harr reported that at the December City Council meeting, the Council unanimously voted in the Commission appointments: Brian Beniek - 3 year term, Dave Dummer & Bill Bernhjelm - 2 year term. ' Director Harr distributed the 1982 commission attendance policy, which requires a 75% attendance rate. 1 Commissioner Berkland has contacted the American & Hennepin County Lung Associations for information regarding carbon monoxide ' detectors. Discussion occurred on whether the Public Safety Commission would like to sponsor a community education project on the topic. Discussion followed on press releases, publicity, and having kits available for residents to purchase. Commissioner ' Berkland and Director Harr will meet before the next Commission meeting to discuss further. Commissioner Johnson gave an update on the Highway 5 Task Force. Concerns relating to public safety have not surfaced yet, but will become more focused in future meetings. Commissioner Beniek will ' be the alternate person for this committee. Director Harr suggested having an update of the Highway 5 Task Force at the monthly Commission meetings. ' Asst. Chief Wing questioned the warning /tagging /towing policy for snowbird parking. Sgt. Boden explained the City's policy and procedures. The consensus was that the system is working well. Director Harr gave the Commission an update on the department logo development. Discussion followed on the central theme of developing a new patch. ' Director Harr introduced Mechanical Inspector Carl Barke. Carl provided a brief outline of his position, and among other things, mentioned seminars he attended on carbon monoxide poisoning. Commission Johnson suggested that an article appear in The Chanhassen Villager regarding fireplaces & possible poisoning. ' Director Harr presented the issue of installing stop signs on West 78th Street. Commission Bernhjelm motioned, Commissioner Dummer seconded, to table the issue of traffic lights on West 78th Street Public Safety Commission January 14, 1993 Page 3 1 for the February meeting, in order for Director Harr to arrange for adequate information to be presented for the Commission to consider the issue. All voted in favor and the motioned passed. Carol Dunsmore reported on the city licenses, permits and fees, at the request of the Commission. Discussion followed on permits and fees charged by neighboring communities for other permits. A copy of her findings was included in the Commission packet. Director Harr reported that he and Officer Zydowsky organized a meeting Monday evening, January 11, with the Sheriff's Office, DNR and the Trails Association regarding snowmobile complaints in Chanhassen. The Association and Snowmobile Club would like to see strict enforcement of all snowmobile regulations in order to preserve snowmobiling in the City. A discussion was held on the setting up of check points along high activity locations to assist with enforcement. The Sheriff's Department, Public Safety, DNR and the Snowmobile Club are working together on this undertaking. Director Harr presented issues the Commission may like to address in 1993, including shooting boundaries, police contract hours, animal control contract, and staffing. Commissioners Beniek and Johnson will meet with Director Harr to further discuss this. Commissioner Beniek suggested informing the community as to the role of the Public Safety Commission through an article in The Villager, describing the Commission's purpose and goals. He will work with Director Harr to address further. Commissioner Dummer motioned, Commissioner Johnson seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1