1e. minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
1 REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag..
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason and Councilman Wing.
1 Councilman Workman arrived after the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Charles Folch, Paul
Krauss, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Todd Hoffman, Scott Harr and Todd Gerhardt
1 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the agenda as amended by Mayor Chmiel to add an Administrative Presentation
regarding sewer assessment for an individual. All voted in favor and the motion
' carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
1 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution 192 -107: Accept Street Improvements in Minnewashta Highlands,
Project 88 -6.
1 b. Resolution X92 -108: Metes and Bounds Subdivision of a 1.5 Acre Parcel into
two lots of 29,172 and 20,000 square feet, 8412 Great Plains Boulevard,
Eugene Klein.
1 c. Resolution 192 - 109: 1992 Bonding Program, Set Sale Date, October 26, 1992.
d. City Code Amendment Allowing the Sale of Intoxicating Malt Liquor with a
1 Wing License, First Reading.
e. Approval of Accounts.
1 f. City Council Minutes dated September 14, 1992
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated September 10, 1992
1 g. Resolution 192 -110: Approve Resolution Supporting a Constitutional
Amendment Creating a New Property Taxpayers' Trust Fund in Minnesota.
1 h. City Code Amendment Prohibiting Unauthorized Removal of Stop Work Orders,
First Reading.
1 All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel presented a birthday cake to Don Ashworth and everyone sang Happy
Birthday.
1 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
' PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT OF YEAR XVII STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR
THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
f
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, simply this is one of the periodic number of changes we
make to the Block Grant funding program as needs become apparent. What we're
' proposing to do is reallocate $5,000.00 we had set aside for Old Village Hall
handicapped accessibility and $500.00 that's remaining from our handicapped
accessible totlot at Chan Elementary into the Senior Services Account so we can
use it towards the salary of the Senior Coordinator. We found out that to spend
the $5,000.00 on the Old Village Hall, we had to do $20,000.00 worth of study so
it just didn't seem to be very worth while. As to the other project, we wanted
to reallocate approximately $2,000.00 that remained unspent into the housing
study that's ongoing. That senior service plan we were able to do in -house and
with volunteer assistance and with the donation of printing work from Instant
Webb so we were able to get the product done for free so we'd like to put that
money to good use elsewhere. So we're recommending that you approve a
resolution reallocating those funds.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone at this time who wishes to
state an opinion in regards to this? This is a public hearing. Something that
we've worked very hard on in acquiring and through some of the problems that are
coming up, we are trying not to lose these CDBG funds. And hopefully we can
' continue with this and assist with things within the community. If seeing none,
I'd ask for a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Workman: If I read this right then, in light of the letters that are
going back and forth about the legality of Hennepin County giving us these
funds, where are we? Are we planning on where we're going to get the funds in
future years or how long are we hiring Dawn and are we going to be able to pay
I for Dawn next year if we don't have these? Well, you're saying we're going to
have what, $14,000.00?
' Paul Krauss: Approximately. Actually a little more than that this year.
Councilman Workman: Is that subject to them maybe saying no, we aren't going to
get those or is that 1995 or are we looking at the future?
Paul Krauss: It's a good question Councilman Workman. We are having problems
with the Block Grant program. We have commitments to go through the fiscal year
that started in July. So these funds are given. That's not a question. The
question is next year.
' Councilman Workman: At July?
Paul Krauss: Yeah. As to whether or not, you know how Dawn's position is
funded, that's something that's going to be brought up to you in the budget
2
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
process over the next couple of months. The dollars that are available to hire
the Senior Coordinator can be used for part -time coordinator, full -time
coordinator, whatever is chosen. Yes, we've stated a desire to bring Dawn on
full -time but that's something we're going to need to make a case for you over
the next month or two. Having these funds available allows us to spend it on
whoever's doing it full - time /part -time so it's not a commitment to a full -time
position.
Councilman Workman: So I mean this is going to get us through this year but we
would be commiting, hopefully funds like any other employee here.
Paul Krauss: That's true. Unless we can get the problems with the Block Grant
resolved and we're still hopeful that we can. It's conceiveable that as of next
July there would be no Block Grant funds available and if Dawn or whoever's put
on full -time in that capacity, at point it would be entirely the City's
responsibility since we wouldn't access to Federal funds.
Councilman Workman: What's the percentage of chance that we might not have
those funds? '
Paul Krauss: It's kind of hard to guess. The Mayor and I and Don Ashworth have
been working real hard on that. Congressman Ramstad's office seems to be doing
a lot for us in that regard. I think we have about a 50/50 shot.
Mayor Chmiel: I think just to make everyone aware, we get these funds through
Hennepin County and because of the residences that we had contained within the
city, we kept receiving these funds. But because of the highway coming through
and knocking out the residential homes within our city, within Hennepin County,
this is supposedly to throw our ability to acquire these funds from Hennepin
County. But because of the State taking these properties, the residences,
through no fault of ours but because of the expansion of Highway 5, we felt that
we had at least a leg to stand on to still acquire those specific funds because
if the Highway Department didn't come through, take out those residential homes,
we would still be getting those block grants from them. With just a little
background information. So hopefully what we've done is we've written to both
our Senators and our Congressmen requesting that they support this measure and
introduce into some existing legislation as a rider, that this be an acceptable
situation because of what we have gone through._ So hopefully with that, and
Congressman Ramstad has been working on it rather dilligently and hopefully we
will get that through._ - -
Councilman Wing: I think that's the best paying little chunk of land I've ever
seen. The dollars here are 1992 budget dollars being reallocated in 1992
totally: The only plug I want to put in is we talked about seniors and senior
supervisors and a lot of downtown seniors but the seniors that aren't healthy
enough and can't make it to the senior center are being cared for by the Sojourn
Center out west and I don't that should be overlooked and I think even as
Dawn comes on, as dollars becomes available or dollars are needed at Sojourn,
should be kept in this - '
Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, I think as you're aware, and with some of your
interest and participation, Sojourn has been getting I think $3,000.00 a year
3
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
for the last two. As long as we continue to get the funds, we're happy to
continue working with them. -
Mayor Chmiel: So with that discussion, a motions on the floor with a first and
a second.
Councilman Workman: I don't think there was a first and a second.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we called to close it. We closed it. We've already gone
through that. We are now in process and I asked for a motion. There was a
first and a second and you had comments to make.
Councilman Workman: Okay, I'll buy that.
Resolution 992 -111: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
' adopt the resolution reallocating Year XVII Community Development Block Grant
funds. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' PUBLIC HEARING: WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT PROJECT 92 -3; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION
OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Public Hearing:
Name Address
' Jim Dvorak Strgar- Roscoe- Fausch
B.C. "Jim" & Brigitte Burdick 4930 Meadville, Excelsior
Charlie James T.F. James Company
Dick Koppy RLK Associates
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. At your regular meeting on
March 9th of this year a public hearing was held concerning the supplement
' report to the feasibility study for the West 78th Street detachment project. At
that hearing, it became obvious that there was still some concerns between the
adjacent property owners concerning access locations and control. Therefore, we
decided to continue the public hearing until such time as these outstanding
issues could be resolved. During that time process that followed, staff became
aware that Target was interested in developing on a site adjacent to the
' detachment roadway. Due to potential major impacts that a retail development
such as this would have on the roadway, staff concluded that it would be in the
best interest to delay completing this feasibility study until Target had
officially chosen a site location and submitted conceptual site plans for city
review. These submittals have since transpired and at the last meeting on
September 14th, conceptual PUD approval was given for the Target site plan and
tonight, later on in the agenda, further approval processes are scheduled for
1 the Target proposal. A number of meetings have occurred between staff and the
Target people and Charlie James, the property to the north of the detachment, to
acquire information and input on their concerns related to design and other
aspects of the project and staff and the consultant have attempted to
' incorporate these relevant concerns into this revised project proposal. Tonight
we have our project consultant engineer, Jim Dvorak here to give you a
presentation on this current edition of the project. I think he's passed out
4
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
some revised information concerning the project cost, preliminary assessment
roll, and some figures. Jim. 1
Jim Dvorak: A good portion of the work that's been done to date on this project
concerns the area between Powers Boulevard and Kerber. As the original study
that we brought to you in March, basically changed the design done in 1987 to a
5 lane section with left turn lanes and medians. This is really an extension of
that based on some of the input we've received from the Target development,
which is supposed to be about in this site. Kerber would be over just off to
the east of the graphic here. Quite a bit of discussion has taken place to date
on all the various entrance locations and number of accesses and where our
signals and such should go. We are basically standing with what we had... we
have shown here a schematic where we have one what we're calling a full access
or main entrance road that would serve both the north parcel and the south
parcel. At that point we are now proposing this south signal. That signal was
not part of the original... The other driveways that are shown reflect what was
proposed on the Target site plan in this location and then a couple of drive
locations to the north that may or may not be used to serve the James parcel.
Along with this, this is a schematic of Powers Boulevard, north and south. This
is actually like north is up then. West 78th in this location, TH 5 here and
then a future frontage road off to the west. MnDot was reconstructing Highway 5
this last construction season and the original plan was to have MnDot
reconstruct Powers Boulevard to approximately this location. Because of the
delay in this project, West 78th currently is hitting at just about this point.
They could not do that construction so that has now become part of this project.
So this project really encompasses all of Powers Boulevard from Highway 5 to the
north to this touchdown. Here again you can see the medians. Channelization.
Minimum of 5 lane sections. Turn lanes divided and that type of thing. I
guess I would also like to point out that all the amenities and types of
improvements that were initially expected to take place with the project are
still in the numbers that we present. In other words, the lighting and the
landscaping, sidewalks, and those types of things. Signal systems, they're all
still in the project and in the dollar values I'm going to present; In addition
to the project proposed west of Kerber, there are some modifications that are
also being...to the east along with several signal systems to promote traffic
flow throughout the city's downtown area. There are some turn .lane work that is
proposed between Kerber and Laredo on the north side and between Kerber
and Market on the south side. There's some widening and nose reconstruction to
allow for thru turns and to facilitate turns and those types of things. It also
would allow to get the radius back where they need to be developed in the
sections so that we have the signal systems properly placed so we don't have to
go back and revise those in the future when the ultimate width is constructed.
Work at the east end of town at Great Plains and West 78th, revising that
intersection. There's a clock tower and some median work extending the turn
lane and such. The costs of everything I've been talking about is approximately 11 S2.3 million. Slightly higher from the original study I believe was about $1.9
or closer to $2 million dollars. . The added cost is, number_one in the extra
work encompassing Powers now. Number two, the signal at the Target entrance.
And thirdly, a little bit more lane width work that :is - now proposed on West '
78th and that area. This $2.3 million is only for Kerber; or•West 78th between
Powers and Kerber and Powers Boulevard. The work that is comprehended from
Kerber to the east has been kind of putting a footnote here on the bottom.
$784,000.00. That is for the remaining signal system, interconnect some of the
5 . 1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
work that has teen - requested as far-as your receiving a pre - emption and
controlling traffic signals at City Hall. We've kind of also threw out, because
really the assessments for the project are dealt with in the numbers up above in
the $2.3 million and the - $784,-000.00 for that other work is comprehended to come
out of some type of general Dbligation funds. I have then a revised assessment
table or project financing table. The-proposed street assessments have been
computed now to approximately $180.00 per front foot. That is the assessment
for grading, paving, sidewalks, and that type of work. We have not included the
' signals, the landscaping or the lighting system in that street assessment. With
that then we have storm drainage assessments. Sanitary sewer and water will be
totally assessed so we're looking at approximately $884,000.00 being assessed.
*1.4 million being then general obligation amount from the city for a total of
$2.3 million. -Here again the $784,000.00 for the work between Kerber and Great
Plains will be considered to be part of the general obligation amount. There
has also been included in the revised table, an updated assessment roll. You
probably can't read this it's so small. I guess I have extra copies of the
feasibility for anybody who needs it. Just see me and I can get you that.
Basically this breaks out how the storm drainage, sanitary sewer, watermain,
street assessments are proposed. There's one other item to note here. The
signal at the Target entrance and the James parcel to the north and that signal
is mainly there to adequate serve the proposed development. Based on that we
felt, along with staff that it was fair to assess that signal to the properties
to the north and the south and that assessment has been made on a square foot
basis for each one of those parcels. With that then I'd be happy to answer any
questions anyone has or...
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, just one question that I have. You're talking about general
•
obligation. That really is not general obligation. It comes out of HRA funding
' so it's two different things. If it were that, then we'd have concerned
citizens coming after us with a particular amount. Those are dollars that are
through the TIF district.
Jim Dvorak: So they're all funded and set aside through the tax increment
financing?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. That's correct.
Councilman Wing: Could Don Ashworth, or either one, the $784,000.00 then for
' the east portion, that does not include any proposed widening or the yellow zone
you showed us the other night at HRA?
Don Ashworth: Yes it does.
' Councilman Wing: It does.
' Jim Dvorak: It does. That includes all the widening from what we're calling the
first phase or what, through meetings with staff and the Public Safety folks,
what we thought was needed to adequately serve the downtown area today. It also
' moves the curb back, as I said before, at the intersection so signals could be
properly placed today so they won't have to be moved in the future when all the
widening is done.
1
1 6
City Council fleeting - September 28, 1992 1
Charles Folch: Figures 3 and 4 show the proposed improvements east of Market
Boulevard as far as the widening, the median treatments and such.
Mayor Chmiel: What does that do to the center median in itself? Anything
presently with our existing lighting and trees and everything else that we've
put in there?
Jim Dvorak: Most of the widening has been accomplished on the outside. ,
Mayor Chmiel: The outer limits of the curb portion.
Councilman Wing: Show me the widening. That's where I'm getting lost...
Jim Dvorak: If you look on your figure, or up here, there's a dashed line
that's on the inside of the heavy black lines. The heavy solid line is what we
are proposing today or where the curb line would end today. So some areas are
being widened. Some are being left alone and only say the intersection noses
are being pulled back to allow for turns and that type of thing. 1
Mayor Chmiel: What is the total number of feet that that's going to be moved
back?
Jim Dvorak: It varies. We proposed to, you have about 16 or 18 feet there
today. We need 28 feet for two lanes so we're talking somewhere in the
neighborhood of 10 or 12 feet in width. Obviously there's some landscaping
items that will have to be dealt with. Possibly some sidewalks, hydrants,
street lighting, that type of thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. We'll go out first to see if there's anyone 1
• here at this particular time that would like to address this issue. This is a
public hearing. Jim, if you'd like to come forward. Please just state your
name and your address.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: B.C. "Jim" Burdick. I'm from Excelsior. I just saw this
report about 10 or 15 minutes ago and I think it'd be very nice if they'd send
us one ahead of time. That's number one, and then we could come a little better
prepared. And the first thing that concerns me is that 35% for legal and
administration and fiscal. That seems awfully high and I hope that you elected
officials would take a hard look at that. I've never seen one that high but
I haven't seen as many...but I know originally it was 20%, the figure in there
and at that time the Council questioned it very thoroughly. Why there needed to
be 20% for those items. In other a third of it for the legal and ,
administration to me seems, it just doesn't sake sense almost. Secondly, the
drawing here, to me at least isn't very clear. I guess don't want to use the
word not professional but not very clear and difficult to understand. This
scale and all and I think a study should be made of much better drawing and a
study should be made of it by you folks and by the City Engineer and others.
And the third item is on the assessments here. It seems kind of strange. I have
a number of lots here that only...down here, for some reason are assessed about
$50,000.00 so I'd like to object to that on a temporary basis. I don't mean
I can't meet with whoever made these decisions and iron it out but it just kind
of, *50,000.00 coming down from Heaven or some other place. And it's kind of
strange Burdick Park 2nd Addition isn't assessed a bit there. One time we'd
7
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 • - -
II
agreed to have Lots 3, 4 and 5. , Brian had in Burdick Park 2nd Addition assessed
and now Lots 3, 4, and 5 are not assessed in Burdick Park 2nd Addition. -
' I assume that this is Burdick Park. That's means first addition and I believe
it does. And I believe those are the four things I had and I can most certainly
get together with the engineers next week. Not this week. Perhaps you've heard
that hunting season is open and if there's any questions of me, I'd be glad to,
or any comments while I'm standing up here.
' Mayor Chmiel: Can you be reached by portable phone when you're hunting Jim?
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes, but.
Mayor Chmiel: I want you to know that we just got this this evening as well at
the same time as you had an opportunity to take a look at this as well.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes, and I thought this was a big improvement from your
administration. The agendas came out on Thursday noon instead of Friday at 4:00
and other information was submitted to the interested parties much earlier and
I'm not complaining about this one time Mayor Chmiel because recently it's been
very good in getting information out in a timely manner.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jim.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address us at this particular
time?
Charlie James: I'm Charlie James, 2715 Maplewood Circle West. I guess for me
the issue of West 78th Street and Target has become something like the stations
of the cross. My cross to bear has been the ever changing plans for West 78th
Street so it's kind of whip me, beat me you know. I'm not sure what station
' we're at here tonight but I can tell you this, 4 years, 3 months ago I signed a
developers agreement with the City for a plat and project that was approved by
the Planning Commission and City Council. These are the plans that went out for
' bid on that project. A complete set of architectural, mechanical, electrical
plans. These are the specifications that went out for all that we paid for.
They weren't done at city expense, for all the utility connections, sewer,
water, everything to service our property out there. I've lent Jim, where are
' you Jim? I lent Jim a pile of stuff about 6 inches high of all the stuff we had
about the grading plans and the soil tests and this is what I have left over in
my file. These are all reports and borings and field reports and bills for all
' the grading that we did out there. Part of that grading was done to prepare the
lot that we have out there that will be obliterated by this alignment and part
of that grading was done pursuant to our developers agreement with the city to
' dig out 16 feet of dirt along that right -of -way and build the sub -base to MnOot
specifications. To the best of my recollection, I sought no variances or
special treatment at that time. I donated the right -of -way for West 78th Street
as this was contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. And the City agreed to
' build the street in the developers agreement that I signed with the City. That
development agreement 4 years and 3 months ago provided for four full access
points on West 78th. The plat was drawn to center my lot lines on shared
driveways. We have before us tonight yet another set of plans with a new
8
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 ,
alignment proposed as recently as September 5th by Ryan and then revised just
last week by Strgar and I think Jim, that's why we didn't get this information
because everybody's been humping to get this done for the Target thing and I
just got my feasibility thing today and also today was the first time I saw the
plans that are being proposed here tonight. I guess gentlemen, we must resolve
this issue. I can't take another month or another year of uncertainty. For
over 4 years I've been prevented from marketing my land because I don't have
access to a public road for 3 of my lots. I don't care at this point whether we 11 use the existing alignment or that presented tonight by Strgar. All I ask is
four things. Number one. I want a fair price for my land that's being taken
that recognizes all of my plans, my costs, my engineering, the grading work that
was done, the soil work that was done, soil testing, the engineering. Number ,
two. I want adequate access to my remaining land that is no less than that
provided in our development agreement that was signed over 4 years ago with the
City. At that point in time BRW did a plan and you can see here, the orange, or
purple I guess lines here represent the lot lines that were prepared in our plat
and the yellow represents driveway locations that were agreed upon at that time
where the two lots are sharing driveways. Number three. I think there should
be, and I want a fair assessment apportionment that recognizes that I graded the
old right -of -way. Graded my site, on top of which you're going to place this
road if this alignment goes. And I would also the assessments to abide by
the development agreement as to the burden that I would bear. There was very
specific language in that development agreement as to what my costs would be
because of the money that I had expended out here. The fourth thing that I
would like is an expeditious condemnation. Basically for the last 4 years I
guess I've been living under, for lack of better words, what I'd call an inverse
condemnation. Where the uncertainty leaves me unable to market my land. I'd
{ like it to be part of the public record tonight that if you adopt this
feasibility study, that the clock will start to tick on the notice period for
condemnation so that I'm not left twisting out in the wind on this thing. I
don't want to hold up the Target project but I don't think we should just
approve that and then let this thing just go for a longer period of time. With
regard to tonight's feasibility study, I'd like to note that 1987 I was to pay
$333, it was proposed that I would pay $333,000.00 and those numbers at that
time did not reflect what was in the developers agreement. In 1987 that was
updated. In February of this year, Strgar came up with $372,000.00 as my share
and tonight, based on the information I received earlier today, it's being
proposed that I would pay $466,845.00. I guess when Hook at this drawing of
tonight's feasibility study, I guess the first thing that I'd like to point out,
and I've colored this up here. This is a large scale drawing that Jim was good
enough to give me this morning. After staff had had a chance to look at it and
I added the color here, and the pink represents my original plat lines and the
pink here represents the lot on which we had approval to build a shopping
center. And this shows some additional right -of -way here that with this
alignment will be taken off of Lot 4. What concern is here is that my
developers agreement and my understanding with the city had always provided for
a full turn movement 300 feet back that would be centered on these lots. And
that isn't the case here. •I note that there's enough width in the right -of -way
to provide that so I'd very much request that of the Council tonight that they
would make that part of this feasibility report. The other thing is, I noticed
here that this distance here is 320 feet and this driveway location here has
been moved. Under the plans that were presented by Ryan on the 5th of
September, the driveway going into Target's northwest corner is that shown in
9 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
blue and their west property line corresponded with this to the edge of this
' blue area here. I tried to draw that in as close as I could. I guess what
happens for me is that somehow, in all the original plans through this process,
this driveway aligned with my lot here and the idea was that these two lots
would share a driveway. Now this has been moved today about 80 feet to the west
with the results that I get a full turn driveway movement into the center of a
lot. The lack of a full turn iovement here combined with this is going to
number one, place an undue financial burden on me because I'll be forced to
' develop some sort of frontage road system in here that wasn't originally
contemplated. I won't have direct access to some of these lots and if we had
moved this to where I'm suggesting it was originally here, you'd have a 320 foot
spacing here. 320 foot spacing here, if it was located back to where it was
originally and 320 foot spacing to this point. So by moving the stop light
approximately 85 feet east back to where it was, we'd have 320, 320, 320 foot
spacings. In reviewing these assessments here tonight I noticed that they're up
over 40% since we started this process. The street has gone from $92.00 to
$180.00. Storm drainage has gone from 5 cents then to 7.7, now to 8.8. The
watermain has gone from $24.00. Then to $25.11. Now to $29.00. The sanitary
sewer has gone from $16.91 to $26.19 to $28 I think that's .66. Is that right
Jim? So the way the assessments are proposed here and considering what's being
done to my property, the closest analogy that I can draw for you folks on the
' Council is, this is the equivalent of making me pay for the ammunition for my
own assassination. I think this is kind of cruel and unusual punishment. I
think that the assessments should recognize number one, the development
agreement costs. Or the costs as they were outlined in my development agreement
' with the city. They should recognize the cost of the fill in the new right -of-
way and in the old right -of -way that I placed. And they should recognize the
extra cost that I'm going to incur because the street is being proposed to be
lowered by Ryan to a grade lower than that contemplated by BRW and that will
' force us into some extra grading and retaining wall situations. I guess I've
given you a lot of information here. I guess I'd just like to summarize four
points if I could that maybe you might think about in making a motion about this
tonight. As I said, I guess I'm resigned to whichever way this thing is going
to go but I'd ask you to consider four things. Fair price for my land that
recognizes all the costs that I've enumerated. And again, adequate access to my
remaining land to the north. And I think if we can move, if I could have some
time to work with Strgar, and they've been just terrific to work with, but every
time you think you have an agreement with them, then someone else down the thing
' changes it around so you never know. It's like hitting a moving target
constantly on this thing. But if we could space those entrances out at 320
feet, I'd like to restore that full turning movement into my property onto the
north so I'm not forced into a frontage road or other types of situations and
' with all those attendant costs. And so that we're also in conformity with the
developers agreement and the understanding that I had with the city 4 years ago.
And as I just stated, on the number 3 was a fair assessment apportionment. I
don't expect that to be accomplished this evening but I'm raising it for the
record this evening. And then number 4, the issue of an expeditious
condemnation here. Without any of this gentlemen I'm being asked to pay almost
' half a million dollars for plans that I feel diminish my property. I support
the Target project and my philosophy on this has been, go along to get along or
get along to go along or whatever the expression is but now we've kind of come
down to the wire here and everybody's been working real hard to meet their time
table and to get this thing approved and I'm afraid that I'm kind of coming up
10
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
short here. I guess in summary, I want to be careful how I phrase this because
•
it's a public meeting but. In summary I'd say, I don't mind being relunctant
but necessary participant in a fornication, and I don't mind the sweet lies
whispered in my ear. I'd just like to be kissed a little bit along the way.
Thank you. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else at this particular time?
Dick Koppy: Mr. Mayor, Council members. I'm representing Target and Ryan ,
tonight on this West 78th Street alignment.
Mayor Chmiel: Will you give your name please. 1
Dick Koppy: My name is Dick Koppy. I'm with RLK Associates. I have three
basic items to comment upon. Before I make those comments I'd just like to say
that Target and Ryan are in favor of this roadway change that you're looking at
tonight with some comments. I think part of the problem we hear in this
chambers tonight is probably a little bit related to the tight timelines we've
had on this project, particularly today I know Mr. Burdick mentioning he just
saw the report before the meeting. We in fact looked at the report this
afternoon and the feasibility cost estimates for the first time. So there is
some tight time decisions that are guiding what's happening tonight. I don't
think that's the City's fault or problem in terms of how this came about. We
would like to see the project continue and register a few comments or concerns
that could be worked out as you go into final design on West 78th Street. The
developer Ryan, in concert with Target first suggested the realignment of West
78th Street back in late August, early September. In fact on September 9th we
made a new submittal, a revised submittal to the City that had the realignment
shifted about 120 -125 feet from what I call the BRW plan. One of our first
concerns, it's a little hard to see on the sketch on the screen but one of our
first concerns is the roadway alignment that we submitted on September 9th is
not what you see on the screen. The alignment has been skewed into what we call
Outlot B to a degree where you now, instead of having 5.2 acres of developable
land in Outlot 8, we're down to 4.5 acres. So we've lost about 3/4 of an acre
by sliding the road down further. If you'd like to look at a schematic that we
put together, we can show you the difference and how that happened but I think
as I look at it, SRF has tried to straighten the roadway out so that you take
out just about all of the curvature and that's caused the roadway to be moved
further into Outlot 8. That's a concern. That doesn't mean that this alignment '
won't work but it's a concern of ours because Outlot B is getting smaller. So
that's concern number one. Number two concerns the access that you look at for
Outlot B and Target. Target and Ryan together agree to move the signal. To
move the traffic signal that will be placed with the West 78th Street project
from the entrance right in front of the Target store to the entrance that you
see now on the sketch in the center of the Target entrance and Powers Boulevard.
Jim maybe you could just point to where I'm referring to so the Council members
know. Okay. We've agreed, Target and Ryan has agreed to move the signal to
that point from the Target location where previously it was planned to be
located. They did this because they felt it would heap the overall development
of property on the south side of West 78th Street and also on the north side of
West 78th Street. They also felt it would help access conditions for Outlot 8.
One of the access conditions for Outlot 8 that has been in all of our submittals
is a free right turn in and out from West 78th Street for Outlot 8. That has
11 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
been omitted from the plan you see on the screen and Ryan would like to be on
record as indicating they feel that that right turn in and out is very important
for the development of those lots on Outlot B. We don't understand the reason
from a traffic engineering standpoint that that free right in and out would be a
problem. There are several ways of looking at that and handling it if it does
appear to be a traffic problem. For example, adding a longer right turn lane
from the signal back and including the right turn in and out along that turn
lane. But we would like to see that looked at a little bit more thoroughly.
' The third point I'd like to bring up is the assessment information. Primarily
reason Target and Ryan brought up the realignment is because they felt it would
reduce cost. It would reduce cost because of soil problems along the south side
' of the former West 78th Street right -of -way. Different acquisition costs with
James. With the James property and several other reasons. But the primary
reason the alignment change was brought up was to reduce cost. In looking at
the assessments which we received this afternoon, the assessments for the Target
property for roadway costs, just purely roadway costs, have gone from $69,475.00
to 5142,200.00. Outlot B assessment cost for the roadway have gone from
$48,900.00 to $90,900.00. Our question is why are the'costs that such higher,
II if at all? We don't understand that. There may be a reason for it that can be
given to us that we could understand but I would suspect, because of the tight
time periods, we haven't had a chance to discuss that with the city staff.
' Those are the three comments. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else at this time? Seeing none, I would ask for
a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: A lot of this is becoming a little more overwhelming and I think
most of the Council feels to come up with a decision on this and I don't like
II tabling things but from what I see here, there's some cost figures that are
alarming to me. From where they were to where they are now. Some of the
proposed changes that have been suggested by both parties as far as Target and
' Mr. James. The assessments too, there's some questionability on now these came
up with where they're at right now. My one suggestion is going to be to table
this item until we get some additional information. I wouldn't want to base an
opinion on this this evening at all. Just right off the top of my head. I'd
like comments from Council. Michael.
Councilman Mason: I couldn't agree more. There are certainly, the report I
' think has raised all kinds of questions that we don't have answers for tonight
and I agree with you. I think one of the problems with this has been the time
table. I think all of us have felt some pressure to get this done and I, we've
got to live with it and we have to do it right.
I Councilman Workman: I agree. You know the facts and figures that Charlie James
brings up are, he I think said them politely. I think it's certainly a good
' foundation for a lawsuit that's going to cost us a lot of money. He says he
doesn't mind the alignment as long as he's treated fairly and cost and
everything else. We don't know where those costs are coming from. And we've at
least graciously had the courage to rename this project 87 -2. It used to be
92 -3. I've been looking at this for 4 years too and darn it, I'm leaving the
' 12
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Council the end of this year because of it so. I can't believe we're still, I
read the staff report Charles and I kept asking myself, why are we doing this ,
and I don't know that I really found a good answer as to why we're doing this
and causing all this new commotion when we've been trying to get this done for
so long. I'm ready to get it done but now I'm knowing tonight that we can't. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's Richard's turn to make comments.
Councilman Wing: I support tabling it but on a full agenda, as complicated as
this is, I can't handle it and I don't think it's fair to have an agenda sit
through a process that gets bogged down like this so I'll go along with tabling
but only if we hold a special meeting where this is the sole item. And I
mention that because Target is an enormous retail center coming in. Awesome
traffic studies projected for the future. We're going to annihilate, I live in
Excelsior. I say this repeatedly because I care about downtown Chanhassen but 7
stop lights are being suggested for this small stretch of road. Right now we're
just having some traffic problems. We're talking 7 stop lights and I think the
impact of this is significant. We're talking about time lines. It was brought
up by my colleagues. I don't think we have any time lines. I think we have to
do this right. Business and government move slowly and I think they move slowly
for a reason. I don't feel bad about tabling this. There's some real impact
issues but in particular, as this goes to the next meeting, whenever this is and
again I'm requesting a special meeting, I'm real curious about the James
property and costs he's incurred. I mean I look at all this grading, this
theoretical road that's been cut through all these years. And I just sense we
have some liability there and that he's got some real legitimate complaints.
Target comes in and complains because they're losing .7 of an acre but Mr. James
was just here telling us he's losing a lot more than that over all the years so
I almost have no sympathy for Target. It's almost humorous to hear their
complaint based on the enormity of some of these other complaints we've got so
there's got to be a balance on here. People are losing some and gaining some
and I don't know who's side's on who anymore. I enjoyed your humor if nothing
else. That's about all I got out of it tonight. Well it was. It was dry,
sarcastic humor and I love it. That's what I thrive on. So I would move
tabling after your discussion Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The only other discussion I'd have with that is whether
this would warrant separate additional meeting. I don't think that it would. I
think what I'd request is that we have an abundance amount of time at our next
Council agenda and have that as a lighter Council agenda to really deal with
this respective issue. My suggestion would be for each of Council to sit down
with Charles and maybe Strgar and if we need be, maybe have more than one or two
or three or maybe all four or five of us but I then would also request that the
newspaper be present so there's not a violation of an open meeting law.
Councilman Wing: One other question I'd like to be handled as part of the next
meeting, and that's as we discuss the James property, he talks about his access,
whether there's two access, three or four or six, I guess I don't know and I
don't know if that's significant to me but I'd like to take the worst scenario
use of that property, be it 7 fast food restaurants or a Wal -Mart or a Double
K -Mart, whatever the case is but what would impact that land the heaviest or
it's maximum land use and then make sure that whatever accesses we're looking at
in our time line to appease Target on the south side will in fact handle the
13 '
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
north side under the worst scenario. So with it's maximum land use, does the
I existing access provide Mr. James with what he needs under the worst scenario or
does he in fact need four? Can we supply him the proper access with what we're
giving him now? And I'm really questioning whether what he has currently
proposed is going to be adequate should he determine to use maximum land uses.
II Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion would be that we stop in and see Charles as early
as tomorrow, if you have time, or some specific time make arrangements so your
concerns can be indicated and also have some discussions with Mr. Ashworth as
well. So we can come up with a conclusion to what we're really going to really
do with this phase.
' Councilman Workman: I'll second the motion.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the West 78th Street
Detachment Project until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
' Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Con.
Don Ashworth: Going along with that, I heard Mr. Burdick say that he would like
to meet with the engineer and I believe that Target would as well. Those
meetings need to occur prior to next Monday or Tuesday to ensure that we can get
' the packet report out next Thursday for that Council meeting. So really any
type of meeting should hopefully occur this week, if at all possible.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: If we meet tomorrow, if it's in order at all, I'd like to
come to it...because it vitally effects me.
Mayor Chmiel: I think many of them will be coming in on an intermittent
' basis. Not all at one time maybe Jim but yeah, anybody's welcome to come in and
sit in and have your discussions with Charles and make those known back to us.
We'll get that information as well. And we've written down pretty much each of
I the respective concerns that you have. You have four items and Charlie James
has four and Target has a couple others so that's what we plan on doing.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: ...tomorrow would be an excellent day for me.
' Charlie James: Mr. Mayor, I want to advise the Council that I've got a whole
series of airline tickets that have been pre- purchased that are going to have me
' out traveling about the country from this coming Thursday through the 19th of
October. I'll be available to meet tomorrow and Wednesday or whenever but then
there's going to be a period of time when I'm going to be gone. I guess the
' last time I was gone is when the HRA had that meeting at the fire hall so please
don't hold a meeting without me but I guess the other thing is, the second to
last thing is, I was wondering if Mr. Knutson could comment tonight on whether
it's appropriate maybe, if this is going to be an alignment or something, that
we're looking at some sort of condemnation. Either partial or total or
whatever. Whether we can't somehow get the clock ticking on this or something.
11 14
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: I think it might be a little bit premature until Council comes up
with a conclusion prior to having our attorney provides those comments. 1
Roger Knutson: Just a comment. At this point, I don't know what to condemn.
So I can't condemn anything.
Charlie James: Alright. Well then I guess the third thing I was going to say,
you know I'm not trying to come in here tonight with some seering indictment. I
mean this is just the way it's been. Strgar has been accommodating and Don has
given me all the time in the world to come in and rant and rave and pound on his
desk and everything and I mean basically everybody's been working real hard to
try to get something that they all think is going to be in the best interest of
the city so I'm not condemning the process or I'm not pointing a finger or
anything and I don't want to obstruct anything but I'd appreciate an opportunity
to work this out.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. When we get to a point of making a decision,
hopefully in two weeks, part of the action you will be taking will be to
authorize condemnation of any properties necessary for construction of the
roadway. So Mr. James' concern is proposed to be addressed as a part of
actually ordering the project. If and when that occurs.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, thank you.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR A NO PARKING ZONE ON CHOCTAW CIRCLE (CONTINUED FROM JULY
27, 1992).
Public Present: 1
Name Address '
Carol Anderson 51 Choctaw Circle
Marge Kelly 100 Choctaw Circle
M. Kate Kaaz 155 Choctaw Circle
Jean Hyak 120 Choctaw Circle
Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor and City Council. This request for a no parking area has
been discussed at two Public Safety Commission meetings with each Public Safety
Commissioner going out to the area to take a look at it. In seeking the least
restrictive alternative to this request, the Commission has recommended that
safety concerns regarding beachiot traffic be addressed by cutting back the
foliage to improve visibility and by erecting no parking signs by the beachiot
access area. Public Safety Commission was concerned with the fact that
apparently one of the owners of the primary lots that would be effected was
opposed to no parking signs so that the Commission felt that concerns expressed
needed to be carefully reviewed. It was the understanding of the Public Safety
Commission that in addition to the concerns about visibility to the beachiot
entrance, the other concern was the interaction between vehicles and young
people on bikes and playing in the street. It was the consensus of the Public
Safety Commission that the area's not conducive to excessive speed and that the
roadway should not be used as a play area. And that the least restrictive step
15 1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
at this point would be to address the beachlot visibility issue to start with. I
would also be happy to have extra police patrol conducted in the area. The
Commission acknowledged that on occasion many vehicles may park here or at any
given spot in the city. Situations like weddings, holiday parties or
graduations sometime result in increased parking demands. Also people
occasionally need extra parking such as when guests are present, a child is home
from college, or a recreational vehicle is being used and the Public Safety
' Department is relunctant to be put into a position of issuing citations for
these occasional uses. In public safety we try to balance the rare need to get
through and occasionally congested street with a convenience of some people
using the on street parking. Because the commission feels that the least
restrictive first step is to improve visibility in the area and increase police
patrol in the area, not only to deal with traffic violations but also deal with
bicyclist, etc that might be using the street inapporpriately, that the best
step would be to, which is the recommendation of the City Engineer, the Public
Safety Director and the Public Safety Commission that the City Council establish
no parking at the beachlot access and to direct the Public Works Director to
have that foliage cut back so visibility is improved.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone from the neighborhood that would like
to provide any comments? Please come forward and state your name and your
address please.
Carol Anderson: My name is Carol Anderson and I live at 51 Choctaw Circle. I
' think that a no parking sign should be established on both sides of the street.
Both north and south because even though it may be an inappropriate use of the
street for children to be on there with their bicycles, it is the only place in
our community outside of Highway 101, which is extremely dangerous, for the
' children to play. We are an enclosed, small community of only 42 houses and our
children need some place for them to play. They rollerblade on the streets.
They use skateboards on the streets. They ride their bicycles on the streets.
We have many small children that walk dogs and just play on the street. And
we're very afraid that we're going to have an accident and somebody's going to
be badly hurt or killed. I think we've been discussing tonight the Target
center. We've been discussing changing streets. I think we should keep in mind
that the life of a child is more important than any of the things that we've
discussed so far and a no parking sign would probably greatly increase the
chance that we wouldn't have that kind of an incident. Thank you.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Katie Kaaz: My name is Katie Kaaz and I'm President of the Homeowners
Association on Choctaw Circle. I've spoken to Scott Harr, who has been very,
very helpful. I've spoken to Dave Hempel, who has been equally helpful. And
I understand, I mean I've heard the ruling of the Safety Commission but I guess
' before each of you vote, I would really like to understand your reason why. I
mean I feel very comfortable coming up here after this presentation about all
the money for Target and asking for two no parking signs. I mean that seems
like pretty reasonable request. You're proposing putting two signs on either
side of our beach stairs. That has never been the issue. Because in front of
one of the homes you already have a fire hydrant so nobody's ever parked there
anyway. People don't come up there and park in front of the stairs. The
problem that everybody keeps forgetting is that we have two blind curves.
1 16
1 .
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 '
Unfortunately they're in front of the Hyak's residence at 120. We don't feel 1
that two no parking signs is an unreasonable request by any means. There's no,
our neighbors are all very friendly. There's no big battle going on in the
neighborhood because of this but I need to understand a lot better than I do
already why we're being turned down, if you do turn us down before I give this
up. I mean I don't want it to take over anybody's life but I need to understand
why you would say no to two blind spots. And I guess you were out. I don't
know. And evidentally when you were there, there were no cars, No people. No
nothing. It's a very busy street or we wouldn't be here. The other things, I
think all the people that are working on the Target project, they are all
Chanhassen homeowners and taxpayers, are they not? I mean all of them? I think
they should all be required to buy homes in Chanhassen and live here. Thank
you. -
Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor, I have to return the compliment from Katie. I wish that 1
everyone of these issues that we take a little bit different perspective on
could be as pleasant and downright enjoyable to work on. And I want her to
recognize, as we discussed regarding this, that the commission's not denying
their request. They're merely taking a look at the least restrictive approach
because of the fact that one of the property owners is apparently not in favor
of this. There are several things that we might be able to do without the
additional no parking. Katie and I discussed getting the digital radar down
there to take a more exact reading with her and some of the association people
to get a stronger feel for what the speed issue is. Some of the ideas I've had
is perhaps we could work with the neighborhood association. Maybe do something
on bike safety with the kids and the parents to work together on that. And of
course I think that having increased patrol response in the area really helps as
well. The commission's not rejecting Katie and the neighborhood's request at
all on this. In fact I think along with some of the Council's encouragement,
that they really spent a lot of time taking a look at this. What the Commission
has attempted to balance is the safety issues along with the convenience factors
that sometimes require on street parking. If the Council goes ahead with it,
we'll certainly enforce it. Again, it's just a balancing, not a rejection of
Katie's request and the homeowners. I think they've been very articulate and
patient in their request. This has really been on the table for a little bit
longer than most no parking requests are.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I know there's a lot of consideration been given to it and
I'm sure that Council's been up on that particular street. In fact the one day,
one of the days of the several days that I have driven up there and parked and I
also had the radar gun and took some readings on that street. 20 mph was the
highest speed that I had recorded, unless my radar gun was off. Sometimes
during the afternoon. Late evening. One specific day that I was there, I could
hardly get my vehicle through that street because...
Katie Kaaz: Because of what?
Mayor Chmiel: Because of a party within the neighborhood. There were cars just
all over. Two cars could not go through on that particular day if they tried.
Even to get an emergency vehicle through there would have been rather difficult
in the event we had to have our large fire engine going through. And so I've
been up there probably about 5 or 6 different times at different intervals to
see what the given problem is. And I realize that often times people coming
17 1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
into the n h neighborhood or sometimes the people that cause a problem with the
speeds, and anybody that drives that even at 30 mph on those turns, is very how
shall I say, dumb. And it really is because I drove that back and forth and I
tried that several different times. Even at 30 I slowed down and slowed it down
to 20 'and 20 is a good safe speed within that street. It's a shame we can't
post it at 20 because of all that particular turns. But that's almost next to
impossible to do. Yes, you have an arrow that shows it at 20 mph. Right. I'm
saying post it completely with 20 mph is what I was thinking. So yes, you're
' right. There is a curve sign on there that is posted at 20.
Carol Anderson: The 20 mph speed sign...going downhill.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right. That's an automatic momentum that you do pick up.
Is there anyone else that wishes to address this? Okay, if not, I gave my
blurb. Richard. Have you had an opportunity to be there?
Councilman Wing: Well, I've been out there numerous times and speeding is
really perceived. I don't know how any radar runs I've done in the city in the
' neighborhoods with complaints and we've never ever cove up with speeders. That's
the problem and the Sheriff backs us up on that statement. But the speeding,
we're getting lost on issues here. We weren't discussing speeding. If
speeding's the issue, then we've got to do something about speeding. So let's
' forget that one and if we open up the no parking, we're going to increase the
speed because there's going to be easier access to get through the neighborhood,
so set that one aside. Also we brought up the entire neighborhood tonight.
That's never been discussed. If you have a neighborhood problem, then we've got
to deal with the neighborhood problem but we're talking about the beach access,
summertime primarily and children coming in and out of that beach access. The
' dangerous curve. Never in the previous meetings that I've been at, have we
discussed a neighborhood problem. It's been the beach, access to and from the
beach and parking in the beach area. We've only talked about no parking signs
in the beach proximity. Not up at the top of the hill or at the bottom.
' Katie Kaaz: That's not what the original petition said. I don't know who
interpretted it that way but that was never our petition. It was not in the
' petition that was in our presentation.
Marge Kelly: ...we even tried to clarify that. The beach access has never been
a problem.
Councilman Wing: Well we're talking about this curve primarily. We're not
talking about.
II Katie Kaaz: The curve across the street from that. The beach access stairs is,
it's not in the middle of the curve but it's over on the other side of the
street.
Councilman Wing: You're concerned about no parking on the curve though, not the
entire neighborhood right? As we had the x's drawn last time. The no parking
II didn't start at TH 101 and go to the top of the hill.
Katie Kaaz: No.
i
1 18
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Councilman Wing: So my point is, the no parking was primarily on the curve.
What am I missing here? 1
Mayor Chmiel: This is the petition here.
Carol Anderson: Could I say something? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Carol Anderson: The point of this is not whether anybody has been speeding.
Nobody is speeding around there. The point is not whether we have access to the
beach. We have wonderful access to our beach. The point is we have a blind
curve curving from a westerly position into a northerly position and when a car
is parked right in this very narrow curve, right here, and kids are coming down
the street on a bike like this, and a car's swerving around the car that's
parked, they're going to hit that child and there is no way that even at 20 mph
that car is going to stop. And certainly that child is not going to stop unless
they hit each other. It has almost happened many, many times. That is the
point. We need something saying nobody can park right on that specific curve so
that there's no swerving out and nobody will can hit. That is the point. Thank
you.
Councilman Wing: So I'm reading the original petition here and that's what I 1
was referring to. The original drawing included the two houses, 121 and 120 on
both sides of the road. Scott, it's my understanding then that you feel that a
conservative approach to this, in lieu of that problem which is a known. I mean
the curve is obvious. They're cutting back all the brush on the east side of
the road in particular and then with the no parking across from that beach,
pretty much opens up that curve area enough that that might suffice as an i
initial start.
Scott Harr: Councilman Wing, you bring up the fact that the issues are varied
here and it's tough to, one of the difficulties we've had between the
engineering and Public Safety departments has been difficulty grasping just
exactly what the primary concern was and that's why we're talking about things
like the speed issue and the beachlot issue because these have been issues that
have been brought up. This is one that I wouldn't mind one bit losing on my
recommendation because I understand the empassioned need and plea of the
neighborhood and like I said, Katie and the people have been absolutely
delightful to work with. Always listening to my perspective and working back
and forth and giving us the time. Whatever we do, signs alone aren't going to
take care of this problem. I feel bad the podium's kind of sticking in it's way
there. We ran into this problem at the intersection of White Oove and what was
it, whatever the other intersection was. Where we put up signs to limit cars
and then we had a young man on a bicycle go through a stop sign right front
of a car that wasn't doing anything wrong. So while the no parking might help,
and it's not the opinion of the City Engineer or myself that that would solve
the probolem. What I really think we need to do is work with the neighborhood
on the bicycle useage in the area because we just pick whether it's a necessity
or not, we just can't endorse using city streets as play areas. I.understand,
I'm the father of two young kids myself. That's just a fact that I've got to
say. If you do go with the signs, I think we really need to do some work with
the kids in the neighborhood and the family to make them realize that signs,
19 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
1
really one of the reasons that Charles and I have been relunctant to recommend
1 and endorse signs is they really create a false feeling of security. And even
if there's no parking signs there and the kid's still coming across as
enthusiastically as children will on their bikes, car versus bike, there's only
one winner and one loser on those. So again, this is one that I guess I
wouldn't mind losing because Charles and I just don't feel that the signs are
going to do that much to create the safety that the neighborhood might think it
will. But if you go ahead with it, I would like some direction or encouragement
' that we get our CSO's out there. Maybe we can do a neighborhood thing or have
kids and families in here to work together on it because it has to be a two part
approach. It's tough to take a strong stance against this neighborhood and I
don't want to do that. We just don't feel that the no parking signs will
provide the amount of safety that maybe we can by working with the kids and
getting more police patrol out there.
Councilman Wing: Just so it's clear in my mind...question for the neighborhood
association. I agree with you on that curve. It's really treacherous and I
also think reality is it's a playground. I mean we can say all we want but the
1 kids are going to play in that street and use that hill. And my interpretation
is you really need no parking from the very top northern most part really down
to the most southern part at the bottom of the hill. Along that entire curve
' and you've asked for just 120 and 121. It really just covers what, about 40 -50
feet either side of the beach area right on the main part of the curve. Is that
really adequate or would we in reality for your neighborhood be best that no
parking almost the entire neighborhood. Keep cars off that street and leave it
open.
Katie Kaaz: I honestly don't know. I guess I would defer to the people, the
' experts on that. The only that I know is that there is a problem with a curve.
As far as how to rectify the thing, I don't know. I mean I can't see taking no
parking, I just don't know how big a hunk we're talking about and I'm saying
this with...
1 Jean Hyak: It's my house that we are talking about. My property that has most
of our frontage is down on the road. We have 17 feet back. It's a pie shaped
lot so the whole front.
Councilman Wing: Can you accept just Mr. Harr's initial reaction here where we
I cut back as much of the foliage as we can, give some no parking and just see how
that works out as summer progresses. I think we're open to do whatever you see
necessary.
1 Katie Kaaz: The cutting back of foliage helps when you're approaching 120, the
Hyak's home. Then you still have that second blind curve as you go past their
house and approach 130. The spot there where you cannot see what you're going
1 to.
Councilman Wing: I pass.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thomas.
Councilman Workman: The only thing I was concerned about was, is there a
II problem with the Hyak's having no parking in front of their home now?
1 20
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Jean Hyak: Well that's what we're talking about.
Councilman Workman: That was the problem last time and you still have that same
problem.
Jean Hyak: Well, in some ways because I think I'm the one who probably brought 1
up speed. Those kids really, because the times they're going too fast, not so
much the cars being parked there. It's because they're going to too fast
through the curve. So I probably brought it up that it had more to do with the
speed than.
Councilman Workman: But if you don't have parking in front of your house, are
you prepared for that?
Jean Hyak: Well this is why I'm here because if there is no parking, where is
it? Is it going to be the entire...
Councilman Workman: Katie's house.
Katie Kaaz: Her husband brought up a very, very interesting point that I had
not thought of. No parking signs are put in front of 120, he's going to park
across the street which is right across the street anywhere so that if I'm not
home or I come down from the top of the hill where I live, I'm going to go
around the cars on that curve, I'm going to be in the other lane of traffic at
the curve. So so you follow me?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Katie Kaaz: Yeah. That's a bigger problem. Coming and going... '
Councilman Workman: Well, I think it was Carol that said, you know you have an
extremely small enclosed neighborhood of 42 houses and this is
Carol Anderson: 44.
Councilman Workman: Sorry. This is rare in that we've had a lot of these kinds
of discussions but they've always been because them outsiders from outside our
neighborhood are coming through here and not looking after our kids. Not our
own neighborhoods aren't looking after our own kids. This is kind of rare, you
know what I mean? I know you're talking about teenagers.
Carol Anderson: And friends. And their friends. ,
Councilman Workman: And ignorant friends. We'll add that. And usually a
properly placed shout at one of these vehicles or a very ripen tomato will get
the point across. If this neighborhood wants to take the whole street and make
it no parking, I'm for that. Whatever this neighborhood wants is what I want.
However, they can't agree that that is the case. We've had a lot of discussions
over the years about the premise that Scott laid out that a parking sign is not
going to save your kids from getting killed and I've had people beat me over the
head that a sidewalk will save lives. Well people get killed on a sidewalk too.
1
21 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Katie Kaaz: But Tom, the no parking sign is not going to but you're going to be
removing an obstacle...
i
Councilman Workman: Well and when there's the perception of no obstacle, then I
can see people coming in and saying, geez it's a racetrack out there because
they can really just scoot around that corner and there's no cars to even think
about. So if the neighbors are prepared to have no parking in front of their
homes, that's fabulous with me. To me this circle, the curve all the way to the
top is basically the same all the way around. Maybe there's a steepness or a
grade change but if they wanted to go up all the way around the bend, I wouldn't
have a problem. This is such an enclosed neighborhood. The neighborhood should
have a say in how they want to do it.
Katie Kaaz: One last thing and I'll be quiet. If that in fact, if that becomes
the case, then I need to take a revised petition back to our homeowners because
they signed a petition that said one thing and I'm representing that.
Councilman Workman: You may have to move from the neighborhood.
II Katie Kaaz: I probably will.
Councilman Workman: You understand politics. At least I know we got that.
Katie Kaaz: I just think that...
II Councilman Workman: I don't mean to tell you what you have up there. I've just
heard enough of these traffic situations and people came in and said, if we
would just get a stop sign in here, I'm sure that everybody's lives in our
I neighborhood would be saved and Public Safety and MnOot tells us that doesn't
mean that you're not going to have a problem. You can have a stop sign that
I kid will be going by and he'll be expecting a car to stop and it doesn't stop
I and then there's this false sense of, anyway. Then if we're going to go all the
way around the bend, then that is another perhaps petition drive and I know
Katie doesn't have enough to do but I don't know how we want to treat this. If
we want to approve what Public Safety has said to go along with now and revisit
I
it in 30 days. This is something that effects these people and they want it and
however, I don't know that we're going to be able to best or adequately do that
tonight if we don't know what it is can do.
1 Mayor Chmiel: We can start World War III by going back with a petition as
suggested. I guess that's almost what they'd have to do is go back and have the
entirety of that street no parking. And have everybody make that request for no
parking.
Katie Kaaz: I would be more than happy to get a committee or a group together
' to work with Scott and...safety thing.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that would be well advised.
Katie Kaaz: If you'll let us come back...compromise is the name of the game. I
just don't know. I don't want the whole street no parking. Nobody wants that.
Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor?
22
r
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Scott Harr: I hate to delay this anymore but Charles and I were just talking. ,
The primary concern of the Commission is that they did not feel that they wanted
to force this upon one of the two individuals who would be primarily effected
with no parking in front of that residence when the Commission wasn't absolutely
sure that, or didn't feel terribly confident that the signs themselves would do
what the homeowners association would like. Charles and I have come up with a
possible compromise here that actually was recommended by Dave Hempel initially '
and that is to cut the no parking off so that half of the lot of the owner
that's not supportive of it would still have some parking but the majority of
that curve would be left open. I just asked Charles if he could support that
right now and he said he's got to do some geometrics work and take a look at it.
Could you give me some time to work with Katie? I think maybe there's a
compromise here beyond one or the other. If you don't mind waiting just a
little bit more Katie and you and I can talk.
Mayor Chmiel: Pretty soon you're going to have all the kids off the street so
it's not, other than sleds. 1
Marge Kelly: Actually, if you'd give us a little path out of the neighborhood
to let kids leave the neighborhood... 1
Mayor Chmiel: I understand. Michael, did you want to, everything's been said?
Councilman Mason: Everything's been said. I guess one quick question. What ,
percentage of traffic would you say on Choctaw Circle is non Choctaw Circle
people or their friends?
Marge Kelly: The mailman... 1
Councilman Wing: If we pass this tonight as stated, it would put no parking up
initially. It would cut back some foliage that needs cutting back. And our
agreement is that they form a committee to look at the long term effect of this.
This is maybe a good start with what we've got tonight but then let the
committee form and come back with a real proposal if there's a need. Maybe this
will solve your problem. At least we've done something and this may suffice.
If not, the committee is more than happy to come back with Scott and this can be
changed just like that. It's not anything, it's your neighborhood. 1
Councilman Mason: I believe the neighborhood is saying they don't care about
the no parking on the beachlot there if we,do that.
Councilman Wing: No, they're asking for no parking on both sides. This is just
one side right now so I'm going move approval of this with the understanding
that you're more than welcome to this and come back with another- petition
because I think this is a start and it's going to get something established
right now there with some no parking and some of that foliage cut back, which
needs to be done anyway, and I am fully prepared for you to be back and state
whatever you want done permanently.
Katie Kaaz: I'm sorry, you said you were going to vote for the approval of
this. This being partial no parking? Trimming back trees?
23 '
11
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Councilman Wing: That's going to get done.
1 Mayor Chmiel: No parking by the beachiot's approach.
I Councilman Wing: And full expecting you to be back, but with an open door. 1
g
1
Katie Kaaz: You've got a fire hydrant on one side anyway so you can't park
there and on the other side, nobody parks there.
II Councilman Wing: The no parking is going to be there anyway.
II Mayor Chmiel: Let us go from where we're at right now with coming up with a
conclusion as to Scott working with them to see what other avenues are there and
if those avenues aren't there.
II Councilman Workman: I'll second his motion.
Mayor Chmiel: You will, okay. There's a motion on the floor with a second. Let
' me finish what I'm saying before you get your second. But what I think should
be done is to get that worked out. And if it can't be worked, then go to no
parking on the entirety and see if everybody would be in agreement with that.
il Katie Kaaz: What happens to Scott's recommendation just a few minutes ago that
we post no parking on part of the hill on one side?
II Mayor Chmiel Yeah, he did mention that.
Scott Harr: What my suggestion is Katie is that, in fact I'd like to meet with
you and your representatives right now after we're done. But that suggestion
hadn't gone too far for I don't think the neighborhood liked it before. But I
want to talk to you more about that and then the City Engineer and I can lay out
I some engineering concerns and take a look at that and see if we might able to at
least partially meet everybody's request. So that's what they're recommending
is that we go with what we recommended so that I've got some more time to work
with you and the neighborhood and see if we can't meet some compromise for you
II and the one person opposing it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor and I'm going to have to act
II on that, with a second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to restrict parking on the
' west side of Choctaw Circle, 20 feet each way from the existing beachlot access
and cutback /remove vegetation within the right -of -way on both sides of Choctaw
Circle adjacent to the beachlot entrance to improve visibility and direct staff
to work with the neighborhood to work on some long term solutions. Councilman
I Wing and Councilman Workman voted in favor; Councilman Mason and Mayor Chmiel
voted against and the motion failed with a tie vote 2 to 2.
Mayor Chmiel: So it kills it. You're right back to discussing it with Scott to
come up with a conclusion.
1
1 24
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK/MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT. NORTH OF HIGHWAY 212
AND EAST OF THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY, TOM ZWIERS. MOON VALLEY
AGGREGATE_
Public Present: 1
Name Address
Michael Tsoykin 9941 Deerbrook Drive 1
Marsha Lawrence 610 Bighorn Drive
Dennis & Cathy Bartholow 9841 Deerbrook Drive
Paul Kilker 788 Lake Point
G.W. Burtsch 8556 Irwin Road, Bloomington
Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail
E. Jean Tischleder 185 Pioneer Trail
Steven Quinn 9390 267th Street West, Lakeville
Richard Sathre 150 So. Broadway, Wayzata
Paul Krauss: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I think this is the third time this will be
up to the Council. We've gone through, there's been a series of requests for
additional information that we've tried to respond to and the request itself has
changed somewhat since it was last here. If you remember back to your August
24th meeting, one of the questions that was raised was, there was questions
regarding the functioning of the infiltration basins relative to the actual
location of the sand. It became clear at that point in time that there was some
soil boring information that was not in the possession of Mr. Zwiers but was in
the possession of the contractor that was going to haul the material to Eden
Prairie. Mr. Zwiers' engineer got ahold of those soil borings shortly before
the last Council meeting and it became clear that there was less clay on the
site than they had originally anticipated. That the sand was closer to the
surface than they had believed. Well there was a couple of good things happened
with that. The amount of clay that could be removed from the site is reduced.
We now are assured that the infiltration basins are going to work. The down
side of it was that it required a new grading plan which is why I pulled it from
the agenda for your last meeting. We kept the neighbors informed. We've had
several mailings as to what the changes are and when this thing is actually
going to be heard. And it's back before you tonight. Now this request is
somewhat different from the original one. In basic layout it's similar though.
It still amounts to peeling off the black dirt, removing a clay layer, putting 11 the black dirt back on it, reseeding the area. As before, there will be no
trees lost through this. A couple of on site erosion problems will be fixed
through this and these infiltration basins should help other erosion in the area
by providing a means for the water to infiltrate rather than going over the
bluff or down into Moon Valley itself. The amount of yardage for the clay being
removed is reduced from 250,000 yards to 200,000 yards. Of possibly equal
significance is one of the major points of contention or concern on this
proposal was the related proposal to locate a sedimentation, I'm sorry,
infiltration basin in the southwest corner of the site. In this area right
here. There was concern that that involved some tree loss. It was associated
more with the gravel mining operation. It's not a clay operation specifically
and also the potential impact it could have views from adjacent nearby single
family homes. Given all the concerns that were raised about it, the inability
to satisfactorily resolve those, the fact that this really isn't part of the
25 1
11
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
clay mining request, we've recommended that you delete that from the proposal.
You do have the option of modifying the request in the manner such as that. We
think it's the reasonable thing to do at this point. It simplifies up the
issue. The issue then becomes only the clay mining operation at the top of the
hill which is relatively straight forward. There is a time deadline on i The
I original time deadline I believe was supposed to be July of 1993 but that was
when this proposal was going to be approved in July of 1992. We've suggested a
September 1, 1993 deadline be imposed. With that we are recommending that the
IUP for the grading be approved. You should also be aware that the
Environmental Quality Board did receive the petition that you had received
earlier regarding EAW. We still don't believe the EAW is warranted but note
that you have to take an action accepting the petition and making a finding that
1 EAW is not required. So with that we are recommending approval of the modified
clay mining request as proposed.
I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is the reprsentative here that would like to address
the issue?
I Rick Sathre: Yes, your Honor. I'm Rick Sathre with Sathre - Bergquist in
Wayzata. I'm representing Mr. Zwiers. As I understand it, the staff is
recommending their Option No. 3 in the staff report as they've listed on page 7
where they suggest that there's really 4 alternatives. One, approving the
I application the way it was presented and requested. Secondly, denying the
application. Third, modifying it as they suggest. And fourth, proceeding with
an EAW. I guess we've shared together with you the length of this process and
' we'd like to bring it to a close. We'd like to see an action taken but we,
myself and Mr. Zwiers are still convinced that that southerly pond is a good
idea for the long term, even though in the short term it results in some further
I disruption in the area. We continue to request that you consider the
application with that south pond. It does give you a way to in effect leverage
that approval and require some restoration or tree planting in the gravel pit
that otherwise wouldn't be possible to do. To require. And I think that's
I pretty significantly positive. Additionally, that south pond would provide for
additional seepage into ground water rather than allowing water to continue
downstream and further erode other places. The staff's done, continues to do a
I terrific job of bringing you up to date. If you were to do what I have asked,
which is to consider the request as it's been asked for, that would mean that in
the staff recommendations for approval you'd be striking number 1, which says
II eliminate mining activity on the south ponding area. Secondly we would, no
matter how you proceed, I guess some of the other recommended conditions
probably are partially satisfied at this point but maybe that's not a very big
issue. So in conclusion, please react to the request as it's presented and we,
I/ and time is of the essence to us. Minnesota is a short construction season and
so we'd like to end the process as soon as you can. Thank you. I'd be happy to
answer questions.
I Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, modification of the request. If we do that, the
I ability to require reforestation on the bluff and the existing gravel pit would
be lost. Right?
' Rick Sathre: Yes.
1 26
r
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 '
Councilman Mason: I mean what will that do for erosion for Bluff Creek?
Paul Krauss: Well the erosion that occurs on the mine face dumps directly into
the Minnesota River at Rice Lake. We are in the process, you know you approved
the permit with conditions for the gravel pit back in May. We are working with
their engineer to gain resolution of issues with that, one of which is erosion
control. Erosion control across the gravel mine is easier if there's a way to
intercept the water upstream. You lose that without that pond in the southwest
corner. However, there's ways to pick up that need to provide sedimentation in
the gravel pit itself and that's what we're working with Mr. Sathre on. So it's
not a total loss. It makes it less efficient but it's a problem that can
probably be dealt with.
Councilman Mason: Staff is recommending deleting the south ponding so I'm
assuming that you feel, I mean Bluff Creek is obviously a very sensitive area. '
You're comfortable with what you can come up with with Mr. Sathre and their
engineers to take care of that problem?
Paul Krauss: Well, as I often stated with the gravel pit, I mean you're dealing 1
with a situation that we wish wasn't there in the first place.
Councilman Mason: Right. 1
Paul Krauss: But they are obligated to provide us with a workable erosion
control plan and one that's going to be in effect as they're operating as well.
We believe that can be accomplished.
Councilman Mason: I'm fine with not having an EAW. I think staff has pretty
much satisfied my curiousity on that. The way staff has recommended the interim
use permit, deleting that ponding area, I would go along with that. I don't
like that ponding area in there. That's where I'm at.
Mayor Chmiel: Thomas.
Councilman Workman: How big is that pond? 1
Paul Krauss: How big is which pond?
Councilman Workman: That you propose to eliminate? 1
Paul Krauss: He does have that information. I neglected to put it in since we
weren't recommending it be constructed. 1
Rick Sathre: Can I use your graphic? Let me get my notes out and we'll go
through that. Councilman Workman, you're asking how big the basin itself, how
big the bottom of the pond would be?
Councilman Workman: How much fill will you be taking out of there?
Rick Sathre: Okay, well different question than I thought you were asking.
This is a strong ridge line, a high ridge line that separates the pit area from
this lower north facing wooded area. Wooded slope. There would be right here,
there'd be about 75 division. Here there'd be 60 feet. Here there'd be 50
27 1
11
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
feet. Right now it's a ridge line and this plan shows creating a pond to
intercept the water coming from the north. And additionally provide a place for
water from the northerly portion of the mining operation to drain into as well.
To allow that water to seep into the ground. Right now the lowest point is up
I here.
Councilman Workman: So from the current elevation it would go about 70 feet
deep?
Rick Sathre: On the average, I would say that would be about right.
Councilman Workman: I think Lake Harriet's about 70 feet.
Rick Sathre: It wouldn't be 70 feet of water but there'd be a 70 foot
' excavation.
Councilman Workman: Paul, with deleting that, how does that effect the
September 1st date?
' Paul Krauss: I did not have a chance to ask Mr. Zwiers about that...could still
adhere to the original July deadline. I simply assumed that if that's what they
told us it was going to take to take the material out, and they're getting their
approvals 2 1/2 months late, that it was reasonable to push the deadline back. I
wouldn't want to go any further than September 1 however because if you want to
restore a site before stuff stops growing, you need to have the black dirt down
II and the seed spread and the erosion control and whatever else up by that
September 1 date. If they could still adhere to an earlier date, I'm sure not
opposed to it.
II Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, are you going to take comments from the
neighbors again?
II Mayor Chmiel: Yes I will. Only to the point that it's not, if there's
something new to be injected, then it should be brought up. We do have the
Minutes of the previous meetings with us and we have had a chance to review
I , those. So hopefully there will not be any reiteration of what has been
discussed previously.
I Councilman Workman: Well I think I'll hold off until I hear.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
II Councilman Wing: Well staff has made a real effort here to separate the north
parcel from the south parcel and the tie is the proposed infiltration basin.
And if they want to take the clay out, I'd like to stick on the clay issue which
II is the north parcel. And I have no problems with that and so the staff
recommendation addresses the north parcel. The clay and the only suggestion I
would have is that the hours of operation on Saturday are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00
' p.m.. I don't need that in my neighborhood. Now if they're going to be having
enormous mining going on. And I don't get up before 9:00 so I don't expect the
trucks to be going before 9:00 and I don't think they ought to be going after
5:00 on Saturday so I would, as part of my approval, I would approve this with
II the exception of the Saturday operation would have to be limited to more
28
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 ,
reasonable hours to allow people to sleep in or enjoy their tranquility of their
property. So that's the north parcel and that has only to do with clay. The
minute we start talking about a proposed infiltration basin, we're now talking
about cutting down the bluff line. We're now talking about sight impacts.
• We're now talking about neighborhood inputs that are going to have some 1
credibility because it is going to effect them and what they see and what they
do. And it's going to remove about, as I see it, about 5 acres of trees which
may or may not get planted and so on and so forth so we're really altering the
bluff line. I see that entire issue of that infiltration basin is solely
related to the south parcel. I'd rather deal with it at a separate time as a
separate issue as it effects the south parcel. Then if we so decide to have the
infiltration basin, wonderful. So I intend to support the staff recommendation
for the clay removal with the hours altered for Saturday.
Mayor Chmiel: 9:00 to 5:00. 1
Councilman Wing: Well I'd suggest 9:00 to 5:00.
Councilman Mason: Would you accept 8 :30? ,
Councilman Wing: Elimination would be fine with me.
Councilman Mason: If I could just comment on Councilman Wing's about the hours.
We did talk at the last meeting that, and it does say here, that if Saturday
does become an issue, that can be changed fairly quickly. 1
Mayor Chmiel: As I've gone through all of this, and I have some real concerns
yet, in regard to what's going to be accomplished and what's not going to be
accomplished. As you're well aware, the amount of litigation that we've gone
through on the other parcel has taken quite a bit of staff's time, city's money
and a lot of different things that have been added to it. My concern is how are
we going to be assured that everything that has been discussed is going to be 1
covered and be done. It doesn't give us any guarantees and all it can do is
give us another point of litigation back into the Court system, and that bothers
me some. '
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor. I frequently said it and I said it again in the
report. I can't attest to Mr. Zwiers' character commitment anymore than I can
to anybody elses. But the fact is, we're trying to treat this request in the
same manner we treat any other development proposal in the city and that is to
make clear and concise conditions. Where necessary, to get them recorded
against the property and to take a sufficient enough letter of credit that if
we, with periodic inspections conclude that the applicant is defaulting on the
conditions of approval, we have the ability to go in there and rectify the
situation. I don't know what else we can do. We've got a fairly sizeable
letter of credit request on this. It's something on the order of *118,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Has that been increased from what it was previously?
Paul Krauss: Sizeably, yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay. I guess that's really where I'm coming from.
I don't want to throw away good money after bad when it comes to this. Put some
29 ,
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
1
more money out from the city to represent us to make sure that we approve our
II points, and yet we approve our points and the folks have gone along with us.
And that's one of my real concerns. I don't particularly like that and I'd
rather state that as I have. I too am going to hold my position on this until
we have some people within from the neighborhood who wish to address this at
I this particular time. Is there anyone here who wishes to address this? Must
have worn them out. Okay, if there's no one wishes to really discuss this with
us, I'll bring it back again to Council. Oh, I do have one.
1 Richard Vogel: I'm Richard Vogel from 105 Pioneer Trail and I guess that the
staff recommendations if that resolution was passed that way, I'd be comfortable
with it. I did bring some pictures along which I think show the 5 1/2 acres on
II that southern parcel. Or 5.2 or whatever it is that would be taken out. There
are mature trees on that parcel. It would open up the view to the mining for
some people on Oeerbrook or Deerfoot Trail and it would also open up some views
1 for Dakota Avenue which is on the west side of the railroad tracks. And if you
want to see these pictures, that's fine. Otherwise.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we'd like to take a look at them. Just give them to Tom.
Is there anyone else? If not.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to move approval of Interim Use Permit #92 -5, Earth
II Work be approved with the waiver of setback standards and subject to the
conditions listed in the staff report and I'm wondering if Councilman Wing will
accept 8:00 to 5:30 on Saturday.
1 Councilman Wing: No.
Councilman Mason: Okay, what are you people comfortable with? Now come on,
they've got to make a living too. 1
Cathy Bartholow: I...out of my home. I live with this Monday thru Friday...and
II I'd rather not have this open on Saturday at all.
Councilman Wing: The only reason I came up with that is when I was out with
I staff walking the property over on Deerfoot, which they're worried about the
noise, the deafening noise from the tractors, the D -9's and the trucks beeping
on a construction site was overwhelming that morning. I said cripes, is this
noisey. That was just one house. Now if we get an enormous operation going,
II
it's really clanking down there and I don't know what's fair and reasonable.
I'll accept anything you want to put out but I think Saturday's a day of rest as
far as I'm concerned. As far as from 7:00 to 5:00 is pretty long work hours in
1 a neighborhood like that.
Cathy Bartholow: Maybe I will say something...or is it too late?
1 Mayor Chmiel: No, be my guest. Please come up to the microphone.
Cathy Bartholow: I've spoken before. I'm Cathy Bartholow from 9841 Deerbrook
II and this is just an ultimate compromise, isn't that what they were saying
earlier. I think we're okay with this but work with us a little bit on
Saturdays and maybe we can be flexible...but it'd be nice not to have to deal
1
II 30
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
with it on Saturday. And just what we've said before, if we're going to
compromise on this, I guess we want the assurances that things are done right. 1
Councilman Wing: I'll second whatever the motion Mr. Mason chooses to put
forth. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I'd just like to shoot to Tom before we request a motion.
Councilman Workman: Well that's why I asked staff about the September 1st '
deadline. Was that taking into account the pond being out of there? Was that
taking into account 20? less clay removal?
Paul Krauss: No. It really didn't. Again, it's just a matter of moving back
the originally perceived date of approval. Again, there was no magic to it but
that's the outside I would ever recommend that you go because of the need to
restore the site.
Councilman Workman: I guess then what I'd like to do at the very minimum, to
modify the motion is to keep the September 1st date but then to eliminate the
Saturdays or to move that date to something like August 1st or other and keep
the Saturday. I think I would prefer no Saturday. But given that we went from
250,000 to 200,000 in clay removal and then subtracted that rather deep pit on
the south side, that September 1st, and again I'm no expert on hauling but that
we could then eliminate the Saturday for convenience of the neighbors.
Councilman Mason: Is that a friendly amendment there Councilman Workman? '
Councilman Workman: Yes.
Councilman Mason: That's fine.
Councilman Wing: I'll second that. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard, do you have anything in addition to say?
Councilman Wing: No. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Mason: So the amendment it stands then is, Interim Use Permit $92 -5
as staff stated with the exception of no hauling on Saturday.
Mayor Chmiel: And the elimination of item number 1? 1
Councilman Workman: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: From staff recommendation. Striking that.
Councilman Mason: No. No, no. '
Councilman Wing: No, you want to leave that in.
Councilman Mason: No, we want that in there. i
31
11
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Paul Krauss: That's the one that requires them not to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Items 1 thru 13. Now are you also looking for the
elimination of the EAW?
1 Paul Krauss: Yeah. I was informed by the Environmental Quality Board that you
might act on it somehow. Act on the request.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That to also be included in with the motion.
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor. So the record's clear. Your decision is based upon
the Findings of Fact as set forth in the Planning Director's memorandum and the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. That's the basis of your decision.
1 So the record's clear.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that that will be correct.
Councilman Wing: We're eliminating item 2. No Saturday operations. I'm
missing something.
' Councilman Mason: We're not eliminating item 2. We're eliminating the portion
of item 2.
Councilman Wing: Of Saturdays.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And you're saying to eliminate, to having this Monday
thru Friday and excluding national holidays. Is that what I'm understanding?
' Councilman Mason: Yeah. They will be allowed to work Monday thru Friday, 7:00
to 6:00.
' Mayor Chmiel: Now, is that acceptable to the applicant? Or does that cause a
problem? I don't think it's going to change Council's position but at least
' I'll listen.
Rick Sathre: Well, the way I understand your action, or the proposed motion, it
would be denial of the southerly pond?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
1 Councilman Wing: And deletion of Saturday operations.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Interim Use Permit
192 -5 for earth work with a waiver of setback standards, subject to the
following conditions, and approve Resolution *92 -111A stating that an EAW is not
required:
' 1. Plans be revised to eliminate mining activity in the area referred to as
the south ponding area in the planning report.
2. Use of explosives to support this operation are prohibited. Hours of
1 32
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday,
excluding national holidays.
3. Dust control shall be the operator's responsibility. If conditions persist
which make dust control ineffective, the City Engineer may require
temporary halting of operations.
4. The applicant is required to phase site restoration in a manner acceptable
to the City Engineer. He will provide staff with a written phasing plan
for approval prior to the start of operations.
5. The applicant shall pay an inspection fee of $900. and provide the City 1
with an acceptable financial security (letter of credit or cash) in the
amount of $118,075.00 to cover the costs of site restoration and repairs to
Pioneer Trail. Inspection costs in excess of the $900. fee shall be billed
to the applicant at a rate of $30.00 per hour to be paid within 30 days of
receipt.
6. Drainage plans to be reviewed by Bonestroo Engineering prior to City '
Council review. Fees for this shall be paid by the applicant. Fees for
Bonestroo's services will be billed to the applicant. The current bill is
for $117.00. The applicant must demonstrate that the underlying sand layer
is located at the elevation described on submittal plans prior to the start
of mining. If the sandy sayer is deeper than expected, alternative
drainage plans must be developed for city approval. 1
7. Provide permanent drainage easements in favor of the city over the
retention basins. Drainage calculations are to be provided to demonstrate
that the ponds are properly sized. Place notice in chain -of -title that
current and future owners are responsible for keeping the basins
functional. When development occurs, the city would normally accept
responsibility for the ponds. The applicant must demonstrate that all
ponds have bottoms located in the sand layer or structured outlets will be
required. A clay liner is required on the west edge of the north pond to
protect the adjacent side slope. The applicant shall provide the city with
an as -built grading plan of the ponds to ensure that they comply with
approved specifications upon completion of operations.
8. Provide and maintain an erosion control plan acceptable to the City '
Engineer. Designate black dirt stockpile areas for approval by the City
Engineer.
9. Comply with conditions of project approval by the Lower Minnesota River ,
Watershed District.
10. The applicant's engineer shall prepare a plan to repair erosion damage 1
found at the two locations on the north site described in the report. The
plan is to be submitted to city staff for approval prior to the start of
operations. This plan is to be undertaken as a condition of approval. ,
11. All mining operations and site restoration shall be completed no later than
September 1, 1993. 1
33
11
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
12. Tree preservation areas shall be clearly marked prior to the start of
operations by snow fence. trees and forested areas designated for
protection that are damaged by mining must be replaced on a caliper inch
basis.
13. The property owner shall file a notice in the chain of title permanently
relinquishing all future rights to mine the property.
All voted in favor except Mayor Chmiel who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 1.
' Councilman Wing: For reasons?
Mayor Chmiel: My reason being is that I'm not sure we're going to get
' everything that I think we're going to wind up getting.
Councilman Wing: Do you have a solution?
' Mayor Chmiel: I wish I did.
Councilman Mason: You're okay with the EAW?
I Councilman Wing: Well you included the negative finding on that. Was the EAW
included in that motion?
1 Paul Krauss: Yes.
I Councilman Wing: Was that part of the motion? The EAW.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That was part of it. Okay, we'll go right alon to item
number 6.
I FINAL PLAT FOR WASHTA BAY COURT. MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY AND LINDEN CIRCLE, DANA
JOHNSON.
Paul Krauss: In May of last year the Council approved a subdivision request on
Lake Minnewashta. You may recall that there was a marginal variance involved.
I Lake lots, riparian lots were required to be 20,000 square feet. These lots
were very marginally short of that. And the City Council did recommend that
they be approved. The request tonight is to final plat the subdivision.
However, there is a proposed change in the conditions. During the discussions
II on this request, the applicant voluntarily at one time suggested that they would
only have one dock for two lots. I'm not really sure it was critical to the
discussion at the time but it became part of a condition. In his request for
' the final play, they'd like to amend that so they could in the normal manner
have one dock per lot which is what's normally allowed by Code. Staff does not
have an objection to it. It seems to be consistent with the way we develop
II along lakeshores and we are recommending that the preliminary be approved with
that revised condition. That about sums it up.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here?
' 34
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 1
Dana Johnson: Yes. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Do you wish to address that? Or are you in agreement with
staff's recommendation? 1
Dana Johnson: I'm in agreement with staff.
Mayor Chmiel: Well we'll talk to ourselves for a few short minutes while, it's '
your turn Richard.
Councilman Wing: I have no comments on this Mr. Mayor. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any either and Tom is not here and
maybe we'll just wait for a quick, short minute. He's having discussions in the
hall. If he's eating cake, we'll move this right along then.
Councilman Wing: One reason I don't have any problems with this because they've 11 stated clear that they intend to share one dock. They have one dock which is
really becoming the norm...but the point here was to intend to have two docks.
That question is, I think for the future, it's proper to plat it this way. But
it's my understanding they intend to have one dock and that's really what fits
best here so.
Mayor Chmiel: Have one dock for two lots. But somewhere I read this Paul, if
I understand, you're suggesting that there be two separate docks.
Paul Krauss: One dock per lot.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Each lot having one dock.
Paul Krauss: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: At least that's what I thought was here. With that, can I have a
motion.
Councilman Wing: I'll move final plat Washta Bay Court, Dana Johnson.
Councilman Mason: Second. 1
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve final plat 192 -3 for
Washta Bay Court as shown on plans dated September 9, 1992 with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall supply the City with a development plan indicating the
proposed house pad elevations, including the lowest floor and garage floor
elevations.
2. The applicant shall supply the City with a finished grading plan showing
existing and proposed finished 2 foot contour elevations for review and
approval.
3. Each lot should be restricted to one driveway access point, in an effort to ,
limit the access points out onto Minnewashta Parkway.
35 ,
r
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
11 District and Department of Natural Resources permits, if any.
5. No additional variances will be granted in the future.
6. Park and trail fees are due at the time of building permit approval.
7. An escrow of S135.00 is required for recording of the final plat and
' attorney fees.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Workman who was not present during the
' voting, and the motion carried.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A BLUFF LINE
PRESERVATION SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 9981 DEERBROOK DRIVE, JAMES STELLICK.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: The applicant is proposing to build a single family residence
on a property that is within the bluff area. The ordinance requires a 30 foot
setback from the top of the bluff. The applicant is proposing to build with a
zero setback to the bluff. The location where the applicant is proposing to
place the residence will destroy a large number of trees eventually that will
' cause erosion and it would defeat the purpose of the bluff protection ordinance.
There are other designs the applicant could pursue. We can't find a hardship.
We are recommending denial of this application. On September 14th the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals reviewed this application and they denied it
' unanimously. Councilman Wing was strongly opposed to approving this variance
and recommended that it be carried in front of the Council and so it is in front
of you today. Again, we are recommending denial of this.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is Mr. Stellick here?
James Stellick: Good evening Mr. Mayor. Council people. I'd like to spend a
few minutes to go through a summary. This is the first time I've seen this. I
was not privy to the report to the city as an applicant apparently. I don't
feel that that line is correct but I'd like to go ahead with the summary anyway.
' This is approximately 11 1/2 acre site. The front portion of the lot abutting
the street amounts to.
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Stellick? Maybe I could ask you, you're indicating that that
line is not correct. Where would that line necessarily be?
James Stellick: I instructed the surveyor to set the house back 30 feet from
the bluff lot, the relevant line. The surveyor added the decks. If that was
not properly set, then it's extremely close. The decks were then put in by the
surveyor. I don't understand this line and.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is the illustration that we received from the
applicant that was shown at the Board of Adjustment meeting. I asked Sharmin to
' put the red lines on there so it was easier to see but nothing has changed since
it was last reviewed.
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Stellick, as you indicated just previously, you're still
' looking at complying with that 30 foot setback from the bluff line?
' 36
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
James Stellick: The house, as it sits, is 30 feet back from the bluff line.
The decks are not. The decks approach the bluff line and they can be cut back. 1
The Planning Department informed us that the proposed house must be set forward
on the lot so that no portion of the house encroaches within and no excavation
occurs within 30 feet of the bluff crest line. If this becomes a permanent
• order, the walkout rambler home we wish to build would have absolutely no view
to the bluff area. Obviously the views are a major attraction of this piece of
land. It's also the reason for the parcel's value as a home building site.
There are essentially two similar lots in that development. The adjacent lot on
the left side there and this lot. They do have bluff views. They also have a
steep bluff line that's not a shallow slope. Without a variance the property
cannot be put to use reasonable and appropriate for the Oeerbrook area. Almost
every, if not every home in the subdivision is currently a walkout. We've been
told that the city is not dictating the type of home we can build, yet if we
build according to the bluff ordinance, our home will have a hill behind it
which will totally obscure any views from the house. Admittedly, if we build a
2 or 3 story home, there's a possibility we could enjoy the views available on
our land. However, part of the justification for a bluff ordinance is to
maintain the pristine appearance of the bluffs. A 2 or 3 story home would
certainly seem to be more obtrusive than a rambler which would more readily
blend in with the environment. Unfortunately the reason we're leaving a two
story home in Eden Prairie is because our home with all of it's steps is
impractical as we take care of a parent who is paralyzed. Only a rambler type
home will accommodate our future needs. Planning staff and /or the Board of
Adjustments seem to have three concerns. First there's a concern that if we
place the home where we desire, trees will have to be removed. Of the total
site, approximately 9 to 9 1/2 acres are solid trees going down the bluff. The
amount of trees that we would remove would consist of less than 1% of the treed
site. We'd be more than happy to replace trees. We're going to try to ,
transplant trees that have to be taken out to put to the front of the site which
doesn't have any trees. The second concern has to do with erosion. We admit
this is a valid concern. We don't want erosion to occur any more than the city.
However, if this is the Counicl's concern, there's a better way to address this
issue. By assuring that the home is built with adequate and appropriate
drainage paths, erosion can be avoided. We would be willing to hire consulting
engineers, whatever would be necessary to avoid erosion. That would be the last
thing in the world we would want on our site. Thirdly, the members of the Board
of Adjustments expressed an unwillingness to grant a variance since this is a
newer ordinance. In our opinion, this is not a valid justification for denying
a meritorious variance request. The Board also stated that we had notice of the
ordinance when we submitted our Purchase Agreement. We don't deny this fact.
We did. However, we have a reasonable belief that we qualified for a variance
due to the nature of the land and the appearance and location of the other homes
in that development. It is our opinion that this site cannot be put to a
reasonable use without the variation due to the unique nature of the land.
Granting of a variance will result in alleviating a hardship and will further
result in ensuring the home on this lot will blend in with the neighboring
houses and the environment. In other words, granting this variance request
won't alter the essential characteristics of the area. In fact, an upper
bracket 6,000 square foot brick home will probably help increase the area
property values. A denial of this request will undoubtedly mean the market
value of this property will decrease markedly. If this happens, there's a high
probability that a home of far lesser value will be constructed. This should be
37
11
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
a real concern for the people of Chanhassen. As we all know, the taxes are
I directly related to property values. If what you were trying to accomplish by
this ordinance is conservation and beauty of the bluff area as well as the
purity of the water, you can accomplish this by allowing a walkout rambler with
proper drainage to prevent erosion. We respectfully request that you reconsider
II
the decision of the Board of Adjustments and grant our request for a variance.
We'd be more than happy to work with city officials to accomplish our objectives
in a manner that will benefit everyone. That's the end of the statement.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Are there any specific questions anyone may have to
ask Mr. Stellick? Michael.
II Councilman Mason: Just one. How close are the railroad tracks to where you
want to build right now Mr. Stellick?
James Stellick: The railroad tracks would be at the, I believe the survey, I
don't know what package you have but there is a survey. It's the south easterly
line of the site are the railroad tracks.
II Paul Krauss: The parcel borders on the railway.
Councilman Mason: Right, right. So about how many feet would that be from the
home?
James Stellick: Oh, 800 or 1,000. We're trying to get a variance so we have a
II wonderful view of a gravel pit is what we're trying to do here.
Councilman Mason: That's all I have for now.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thomas.
' Councilman Workman: Well you know I too, granted the rails aren't on that track
anymore. With that running directly by, what are the exact setback requests?
What are the exact setback requests into the setback? 10 feet?
II Sharmin Al -Jaff: Zero setback from the top of the bluff line.
Counciliman Workman: I know, but what are they requesting?
II Sharmin Al -Jaff: Zero. No setback. They want to build right on the bluff.
Councilman Workman: Right on the line?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct.
I James Stellick: The house is set 30 feet back. The decks encroach the bluff
line.
' Councilman Workman: I'm asking, how far are the decks into the setback? Zero?
Paul Krauss: They're on the edge of the bluff.
' 38
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. This is the edge of the bluff. The ordinance
requires a 30 foot setback. They're right on it. 1
Councilman Workman: Oh. So they're within 30 feet? They're 30 feet too far
in?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Workman: Because you have to be 30 foot back? 1
James Stellick: ..on the setback line there is that the scale that was picked
up was picked up from the adjacent lot. There is a scale on the survey itself
which is a different scale than that. So I believe you picked that up from the
adjacent lot.
Councilman Workman: Is there some question here as to whether this is an ,
accurate line or not now?
Mrs. Stellick: Yes. 1
Councilman Workman: I mean would this be, we can't resolve that tonight.
Paul Krauss: All we can do, unless their surveyor's willing to stake the line, '
we've walked the site several times. We were out there again this evening. I
mean it's clear from the illustration. It's very obvious when you're out there
where the bluff line starts. You walk through the trees a ways and then it 1
starts running down the hill. The bluff line ordinance does establish an
official elevation. Sharmin's tried to relate that official elevation to it.
It's pretty clear from the illustrations that we were provided by the applicant
that the decks are on the edge of the bluff line. Maybe they're 5 feet back one
way or the other, it's hard to tell with the information we've been given but
the decks are on the bluff line.
Councilman Mason: How about, the applicant is saying that the house is 30 feet
back. Let's forget about the decks for a second. The applicant I believe is
saying the house is 30 feet back. And you folks are in disagreement with that
right now?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. This is the 30 foot setback line and it's clearly in
the middle of the house. It runs through the house.
James Stellick: Sharmin, do you have the full scale survey?
Councilman Mason: Maybe while we're working that out, if we can come to an
agreement that the house is 30 feet back, can you live without the decks?
James Stellick: Yes. I'd be happy to move the house further back. i
Councilman Mason: Because personally for one the issue is, I think that
obviously that 30 foot setback was put there for a reason. And if you can move
the house back or if your scale, you know if we have an inaccurate scale here or
something, I think that's great. But we can't have things right up against the
bluff line'but it seems to me like we have to get this scale cleared up. 1
39
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
1
James Stellick: If I might add. The criteria for a variance as stated, the
' criteria includes, it says that the literal enforcement of this chapter would
cause undue hardship. The intent of the provision is not to allow proliferation
of variances but to recognize that in the developed neighborhoods, pre- existing
standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre - existing standards without
departing from them, meet this criteria. The adjacent house is approximately
the same distance back. It has a deck. It has more than one deck. It has a
pool that is closer to the bluff. My point is that we do conform with the
variance requirements. To be granted a variance. To have that. I mean we
could certainly cut back the decks. We could slide the house further to the
north. That creates a different problem. We're trying to solve a problem by
putting it that far out, as strange as it sounds. If you slide the house
further back, you have to excavate more if you're going to have a walkout house.
Again, a walkout house is the preponderance style of house in that neighborhood.
It is not a unique house. It's the way they all are. The fact that it is a
sharp bluff creates problems. If it was a gently sloping bluff, you wouldn't
have to get so close. But if you move this house back, as a walkout, you'll
have to gouge out a lot of earth and at the Planning meeting they suggested that
' that would not be approved either. So this again, by moving it closer, we
remove less earth, less disruption. Clearly, the reason somebody would buy a
house like this would be for the view. And if one is not allowed the view, or
to build the standard kind of a home for that site, the value's not there. And
this site, this plat was approved many years ago. Clearly with the intent of
marketing those homes. Or those lots as view lots. And the bluff ordinance was
passed I believe in October of '91. After two homes were built or were approved
' that do not meet the bluff ordinance. They encroach on the bluff and we're
asking to conform with what's already there. Unfortunately we need to seek a
variance to achieve that where the others didn't.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Paul, was that other house constructed prior to the ordinance?
Paul Krauss: The other house was constructed prior to the ordinance.
' Mayor Chmiel: This is the one that we had looked at at one time where they had
concerns about erosion occurring now?
Paul Krauss: The Bruce Bren home? I'm not sure. It may have been.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And the others that we had also looked at who were having
quite a bit of erosion of that bluff line and coming closer to the buildings.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the sites that you and I visited that had the severe
erosion were in a different area of the bluff. It's typical of what happens
there. But the home next door was built, was given a building permit prior to
the adoption of the ordinance. We did require the builder to go back in and we
' had them revise the plan so instead of pushing the pool out over the bluff, they
brought it back in but it was done prior to the ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: I just wanted to make that clarification, and that's the reason.
Okay, Richard.
Councilman Wing: I don't think Mr. Stellick wants to hear from me and for
$100.00 I'll keep quiet. I'm on record with the variance, Board of variance
1 40
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
denying this and I became frustrated because the loss of trees isn't the issue.
The type of house isn't the issue we're discussing. The view isn't the issue
we're discussing. I mean the view, everybody wanted the view and it was the
view that really prompted the ordinance in the first place because we're going
up and over and down into the basin and destroying the ridge line. So the
ordinance was hard fought with those issues at heart so I just drew the line and
said, this is an ordinance that I believe in. It's an ordinance I think we
ought to enforce and I don't care what type of house Mr. Stellick builds or what
trees, what he might choose to do with the trees on his property. What kind of
a view he can derive from this but what I didn't feel comfortable was giving the
variance against our new bluff line ordinance which I really believe in. I
think it's in the best interest of the city long term and whatever happens out
there just has to be 30 feet back from the bluff so I thought it was really a
simple issue and maybe I'm over simplifying it. I apologize if I am but I'm on
record as opposing it and I'm going to stand on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom.
Councilman Workman: Sure, take the easy way out. When I got the fuzzies for
this ordinance, I was standing at Bluff Creek Golf Course looking down into
nature. And I now know why I'm so frustrated by this thing is because not all
bluffs are created equal. Can we add that to the ordinance? This thing is
looking over a bed of granite which was a railroad track which will probably be
a light rail track, or a bike trail in the meantime, or something. And so when
I think of this bluff line ordinance, and I can hear Paul's teeth grinding, is I
had that view of that. Everytime we've had somebody contest this ordinance it's
always been something that looks a little different. It's always been kind of a
different situation which is why we have variances, but I imagined all the, as
we took the tour of all the endangered plant life and the steep ridges and
everything else. To me this lot is a little bit different. How far do we let
the decks go? I don't know. I'm not going to design their home like a previous
Council member may have but it's overlooking this rail line which is, granted
it's sort of a bluff but then you go down and then there's the tracks and
presumably there'd be another bluff. I don't know if tracks break it up but to
me it's overlooking something that's rather obtrusive. But I mean their lot
goes down to the tracks. I don't know. That's why I've had such a tough time
with this. And for the right of a property owner in this instance, I'm
sympathetic. It's easy for me to be sympathetic to what they're trying to
accomplish. Whether it makes sense or doesn't make sense to me. I don't want
to help them design their home. It seems like a magnificant structure. So I
wonder how much this is going to disturb and I know that's a compromise on the
ordinance but, do you get my drift? I'm not thinking very clearly perhaps but
it's, I've just been frustrated with it because I've never seen that pristine
bluff that I got so concerned about when I decided that I thought we needed the
bluff line ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Often times we don't know what's going to happen with that
particular bluff line. The amount of erosion that I've seen. That Paul and I
have gone out to several different residences last year trying to get some
appropriations to assist them so the erosion doesn't continue, which we have not
found any dollars that are likely to be found anywhere. And their concerns are
there, yet I don't want to see Mr. Stellick get in that same position where this
could happen to him as well. With that erosion. I'm not sure that it can't 1
41 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
happen. So 30 foot setback in my estimation is something that we have
' established to make sure that providing of that respective owner of that
property, the rights to be there without having anything to worry about and
that's why that 30 foot setback is there.
Councilman Workman: Well, I'll let his engineer worry about that.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's true. Now, the thing I've heard also is that
' potentially there could be something different within the scales that were used
to come up with those calculations. If there can be some verification to that
by his engineer, or civil or whoever you're having doing this, then we could
look at that part of it. Oo you have?
II Paul Krauss: We did recheck the illustration that was up there using the full
sized print with the scale that was provided and the line comes out to be in
I about the same place.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Have we had, have you had a surveyor stake out to where
' the house may be within that lot?
James Stellick: I'm sorry, I apparently wasn't clear. On the plat they first
did a schematic of the house and then reduced it down to the proper scale. A
I little cutout and then they literally stick it on the site. The instruction was
to stick it 30 feet away from the bluff edge.
Mayor Chmiel: But the decks are going to prevail into that setback requirement.
James Stellick: Yes.
II Mayor Chmiel: But yet you still have an alternative to move that back some.
James Stellick: The house or the decks?
II Mayor Chmiel: Right. The house back some so you could still accommodate those
decks and still be within the 30 foot setback requirement from the ordinance.
But as you said, there maybe some additional costs you're going to have to
incur.
II James Stellick: I'm not so concerned about the cost. It's the fact that the
Planning Director indicated that that's a different animal. You also have to
get a variance for your ground work. Your excavation. And that the Planning
Department would not accept moving the house further away from the bluff because
II in a walkout style home, you have to excavate to the bluff and that created a
different kind of problem. Again, I'd be happy to move it back.
I Mayor Chmiel: Paul.
Paul Krauss: You're not allowed to cut trees within the bluff impact zone which
is 20 feet from the top of the hill. You're not supposed to do any grading in
I there. The applicant is referring to, I think is basically saying, well if I
can't put the house on the bluff, I'll move it 30 feet back and then I'll cut
the bluff down and then...the basement. You can do all the grading you want to
11 do outside of that area. You can trim trees to get a view of the bluff line
1 42
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 1
from the home. But you can't, the way the ordinance is set up, you can't work
in that bluff impact area. It was intended not to allow mass grading of the
edge of the bluff line.
James Stellick: My point is that you cannot then build a walkout style home 1
which 1 believe every single house in that development is. You cannot build it
on that site period. And the intent it seems to me of a variance is to set
forth conditions whereby you vary. We meet those variance requirements in that
we are compatible with existing homes in the neighborhood which it says is the
test you have to meet. If the Planning Department stands on that issue, or the
Council does, effectively only a two story house can be built on that site away .
from the bluff. It would be I believe the first two story house in the
neighborhood and it does present a hardship for us, for the existing owners. We
can't build there anymore. And again, we can't build with that which is
compatible with the neighborhood. 1
Councilman Mason: I wonder if we could see if Mr. Stellick and either Paul or
the Planning Commission can work something out with the grading. I have a real
tough time allowing something within 30 feet of that bluff line. But if we can
push the house back with a minimum amount of damage, maybe that's something. Has
that been looked at at all? I mean have any plans been submitted or anything
like that? I mean is that out of the question? 1
Paul Krauss: We suggested that that be done in the recommendations.
James Stellick: I believe the recommendation was a two story home. Not a 1
walkout further back.
Paul Krauss: Well, we have no intent to recommend a specific style. It was 1
simply, I mean you could take that plan and basically put it back the distance
and then figure out the grading. We're not here to dictate what type of home
goes on there. 1
James Stellick: Again, how do you build a walkout style home if you cannot
disrupt the bluff and you move it 30 feet back? You literally would dig a hole
for your backyard. I don't understand how you do that.
Paul Krauss: Well again, I mean we have a number of lots in the city that
cannot accept walkout homes. Walkout basements. That's a fact. You even saw
on the recent Lundgren submittal where there were some lots that were going to
be prohibited against it because the grading was too severe. I've also seen
walkout homes made through grading where you can basically mound up dirt and
excavate it out. I mean there's ways of doing things. I'm not sure if these
things have been explored or not. Again, I don't think it's my staff's job to
design this for the applicant. We've suggested how it could be done. We're
willing to work with their engineer or architect to see if they're got a
modification that would do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think it's time to call the question. 1
Councilman Workman: I'd move to table this until further review rather than
risk granting or not granting. 1
43 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
1
Mayor Chmiel: To work it out with staff to see if it can be reached and
construction can be done according to Mr. Stellick's needs as well. But yet
still making sure we're meeting our qualifications. Okay.
Councilman Workman: It sounds like the Stellicks are agreeable to that.
James Stellick: Could you tell me a little bit what the timing of that would
be.
1 Mayor Chmiel: I think it could be back here within 2 weeks.
James Stellick: Okay. The Council meets every 2 weeks?
Mayor Chmiel: Our next Council meeting hich will the be he second Monday of the
month.
Don Ashworth: The 12th.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
Paul Krauss: We would be able to adhere to that deadline as long as we were
' able to reach some conclusion before Monday or Tuesday of next week.
James Stellick: I don't know what's being asked of me frankly. Even if that
site is correct, I believe though we still have a problem but we'll be happy to
try and work through that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Hopefully what I'd like you to do is
contact Paul to see exactly what you have to do so you're just not stumbling
around too and coming in with something that's not going to meet what they're
talking about as well.
James Stellick: Sure. And can I also get a copy of what was presented to the
Council for this meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see why not. Sure.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the appeal of the
Variance Request #92 -11 for further review. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
REZONING OF 20.96 ACRES FROM BG. BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT TO PUD. PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT; A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PUD AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE TARGET
DEVELOPMENT ON 10+ ACRES; AND AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING OF THE ENTIRE
SITE, RYAN CONSTRUCTION.
Kate Aanenson: What I'd like to do at this time is just go ahead and present
the update from the last time we met on this, which was conceptual approval. It
went to the Planning Commission on September 16th. Lengthy discussion, about 2
as
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
1/2 hours. They did recommend approval for the preliminary plat and the PUD as
well as the interim use permit for the grading and site plan approval They did
recommend some modifications to the conditions that staff had and I've shown
this in the report with some bold. Since that time there's been some other
changes and this thing, as you know with the West 78th detachment project is
changing. I'd like to bring you up to date on some of those modifications.
Some of these issues again were raised at the Planning Commission also. We did
recommend at the time of conceptual approval that the Burdick property be
included in the PUD. At the time of the Planning Commission we had one motion
so this property will be included in the PUD but since it's already been
platted, it's not included in the platting motion. One of the other issues that
was raised at the Planning Commission was the interim use grading permit. Matt
Dimier rents the space from Mr. Burdick and he has pumpkins growing on the site
and he was concerned about the timing of the grading permit. In addition, we
had recommended modification to the condition for the grading, number 9 that
grading be allowed only at the Target site at this time since we're not sure
exactly what's going to happen with the West 78th alignment. In addition, Mr.
James has asked that his property be excluded from the platting and from/the PUD
at this time and that piece would just be the upper most piece, whatever that
alignment turns out as so this Outlot C, or whatever remnant's left if it swings
down, B would be, at this time be eliminated from the PUD and the platting at
this time. The staff would also recommend that may consider going ahead and
recommending approval of that portion of a first reading. If it's excluded, we
could take it out of the second reading when we come back with the ordinance.
Whatever is your preference on that. The other issues that were raised at the
Planning Commission was lighting. Staff did put a recommendation, although the
Planning Commission brought it up but didn't make it a formal recommendation,
that lighting after hours be limited to security lighting only. In addition,
the Southwest Metro recommended that a bush shelter be located on the site and
we recommended that that be mutually acceptable with the staff and Target and
Southwest Metro of that exact location. Staff did have a condition in here,
number 10 under site plan review, that this project be combined with the West
78th detachment project. As you already made that motion tonight that that
condition or that project be tabled for 2 weeks. We had recommended that only
grading be allowed until that project's been ordered so, and then that's up to
your consideration. Peter Olin did look at landscaping of this site and had
recommended some changes which we recommend under the site plan. Under the pine
trees. This issue came up with the Planning Commission too, that more
evergreens be placed along the front landscaping along West 78th and those
evergreen trees be changed or in addition. - Austrian, more Austrian pines than
Jack pines. In addition, he the trees in the parking lot be changed
from some of the flowerings being shown 'to White Ash, Tamarack and
Red and Burl Oak. So we would recommend that condition reflect the
recommendations of Peter Olin at the:Arboremtum. - based on - that, staff would
recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat, site plan review and the
interim use for the grading permit subject to the recommendations of the
Planning Commission and the staff with those changes that were just outlined.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Would the applicant wish to make any
proposals at this time? -
Kate Aanenson: I forgot two issues real quickly. The one condition the
Planning Commission had that they're going to discuss now is they did recommend
45
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
a walkway between the Outlot B and the Target store. Target had concerns about
that and they proposed a modification including a meandering sidewalk with
additional berming. And the other issue was the facade treatment on West 78th
and I'll let their architects go through that with you but they've made
II substantial changes and the staff's pretty happy with the way that's turning
out.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Whoever is on.
II John Dietrich: Mr. Mayor, thank you. John Dietrich from RLK Associates. I'm
the landscape architect for Ryan and Target...Target site plan approval that
we'll be presenting tonight. Very quickly, here the site plan has been
submitted and is in your plan package. This is a colored up version of the
landscape plan which identifies a different cross section that we have available
that look at the site from 78th Street and Highway 5 to show how the site does
II fit within the entire context. This site plan was what was submitted in your
plan package. What we have taken here is the modification of the area north of
the parking lot along West 78th Street where we incorporate the curvalinear
II sidewalk between Target and Outlot B that will allow for pedestrian access
moving to the west with an opportunity to have some berming and a little wider
depth, approximately 20 feet of more landscape area and green space within this
I area. And I've kind of drawn one more cross section across that area that looks
at a greater width of the site moving from 78th Street into the parking lot.
Identifying a walkway. Some berming up to the...range and then we've also taken
the perspective as to how that sidewalk would look as we're standing out on West
I 78th Street so that we would have an opportunity to have a little more green. A
little more screening. Both of coniferous plant material, ornamental plant
material and over story canopy trees that will be marching along west 78th
I Street. In response to staff's recommendations...a couple of comments in terms
of the landscape plan. We have identified in the parking lot ornamentals that
are being placed within these islands. Those islands are smaller... It is our
II suggestion that we will be willing to leave the plan as is. I would recommend
that...and the sequence and the variety of plant materials that would give the
parking lot a greater amount of color and depth, especially from intermediate
size of screening. However, based on the staff's recommendation, we'd be
1 willing to put in one over story canopy tree of a larger caliper. Say a tree
that's 3 and 3 1/2 inch tree that would be of the same dollar value so that we
would be able to...staff's recommendation in terms of having over story plant
I material within the parking lot. But the planting islands will not allow two
canopy trees to be placed in that close together. Secondly, we would like to
have the pylon sign for the Target center be moved a little bit further to the
west so that it will be more in the corner of the site. Southwest corner. For
II instance down in the area of the retention pond. It would be a slight
modification with it moving a little bit further to the west.
II Mayor Chmiel: What's the reasons for that?
John Dietrich: The elevation...up a little bit and also a greater visibility.
II Mayor Chmiel: By how many feet?
John Dietrich: How many feet.
1
' 46
11
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Fran Hagen: It's a combination. My name is Fran Hagen. I'm with RLK also.
The combination is two factors. The road itself of Highway 5 is raising rather
rapidly so the difference between here and here is at least 5 feet as far as the
Highway 5 and then there's at least another 5 feet of grade difference just in
our grading plan from this point to here so we'd be raising it up 5 feet here
and the road would be 5 feet or more lower, I'd have to look at the grading plan
to see exactly...but we're talking at least 10 feet difference. Total.
Kate Aanenson: We don't have a problem with that. We already put a maximum 11
height and they've got renderings of the sign and we feel that that's fine.
Basically the design is fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
John Dietrich: That concludes my comments on the landscape plan. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you John. One question though Joh. I was just
thinking, what caliper of trees are we going to be putting in on the entirety of
that site?
John Dietrich: Typically 2 1/2 inches. For the canopy...
Margaret Fleck: I'm Margaret Fleck. I'm the Target project architect and I'll
be representing the architecture on the building. Specifically I'd like to
speak to the West 78th Street side, although we've made a slight alteration to
the entry side when we made the alterations to West 78th. Previously we've been
presenting an element that was perhaps a slighter darker on the base and then
had a form similar to this but was a little bit broader. What we've done in
response to several comments that were made both here and at the Planning
Commission, there seemed to be a feel that there needed to be more rhythm and
break up so we brought more change in the elevation massing and added an element
with a lower roof line. One of the things I know has been a concern is the long ,
expanse of the wall here in giving it some variation for pedestrians walking in
the area. And also the long expansion of the regular roof line. what this does
is these masses project out 4 feet to 3 foot 8 in this area and gives you a
variation that you can see. I'm going to provide you with something that brings
your eye down and away from this straight line and brings you into a scale
that's much closer to a human scale. You could stand underneath this and feel
very comfortable that it is a projection of 4 feet. We'll have lighting in
there so that it kind of accents this area. We may also be putting some
lighting across the way to try to spotlight these and give them more shadow
constantly during operating hours. And again they would shut off during other
hours. The roof line, and we have been maintained but we've added the smaller
roof line up at the front area here to duplicate these again and to bring again
another scale and variation in there. Previously you can recall the older plan.
We did have these elements but one of these was pushed back this direction and
one was more centralized and they broke it up into thirds. We've chosen to
shift them over partially because you started to lose the one that was over on
this end. You don't see it as much how it would change because of the grading 1
here but as you move out onto West 78th Street, the street line is about here.
So you really do lose the visual impact of it until you get right up to it. So
we chose to shift that over. There's also a great deal more landscaping in this
area as well as on the site plan. There's a great deal of landscaping in this
47
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
1
area and there's a great deal of activity with your bus stop that at an angle
from that approach, or from the other direction, this particular portion of the
elevation isn't going to be seen as much, and we wanted to get the impact where
it would really have a great deal of effect. Bring this perspective back up.
Again we're using a variation of two colors plus the roof line of metal standing
seam that adds another material and another color to it. Previously we had
shown this as a brown roof and we really feel that another color and perhaps a
closer to a primary color will give a great deal more variation to the whole
' aesthetics of the design. This was chosen to match the green that we standardly
use in the banding and it would alternate, if there's an objection to one
particular color, we could use another color. Right now we felt the green went
very nicely with the landscaping. Brought in again a color that would be fairly
standard to a residential building also whereas a blue or a red isn't as likely
to happen on a residential building. Are there any particular questions?
' Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have one. The roof portion as you've indicated, is
that going to be metal?
' Margaret Fleck: Yes. We were talking about a metal standing seam roof.
Mayor Chmiel: I know at HRA it was discussed. I sit on the HRA as well. There
seems to be some concerns with the metal on those. Is there any consideration
that can be done using something other than metal?
Margaret Fleck: I'm not sure what your concerns might be. We felt that it was
' appropriate. It does happen on residential buildings as well. It's not shiny
or you know, reflective. Can you express what the concerns might be?
Mayor Chmiel: I think some of the concerns that they had is that it have more
of a tile look or something other than metal. Anything other than metal, which
would soften it.
Margaret Fleck: Okay, I'd have to take that back. My initial thought is going
back to like an asphalt shingle that a residential would use and yet I'm not
really clear what type of Code implications that would have. But that could be
a possibility. Something that's still non - flammable type of thing. That would
have some possibility or something that perhaps even in a metal that has a
stamped, that type of stamped look on it could be a good possibility rather than
11 the metal standing seam, if that's what you felt was appropriate.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That was a lot of some of the concerns that was brought up
in discussion. I indicated that I would bring that up.
Margaret Fleck: Okay. There's also an embossed metal roof that has sort of a
tile look to it that I wouldn't have any problem using. I'm real concerned about
' actually going to tile because it adds a great deal of weight to the building.
Mayor Chmiel: Structually.
II Margaret Fleck: Your structure.
Mayor Chmiel: But for the sizes that you're looking there, the square footage
11 is not that great.
' 48
11
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 1
Margaret Fleck: It still brings in the same square footage per foot so, I think
we can effectively work something out on that and I can work with staff
definitely on that.
Councilman Wing: Before we get off that Don, were there any options? For
instance, could we shingle those roofs with wood shingles to make it soften the
building and make it look a little woodsey?
Margaret Fleck: Again, I'm real concerned about the fire rating of that. ,
Councilman Wing: That's the reason I throw it at Paul. Were there any options
with this?
Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, you're getting into a subjective area but
subjectively I'd have to say that a standing seam is pretty high quality. It's
used on the bank here. We had another bank plan that was going to use it
extensively.
Councilman Wing: This roof? ,
Paul Krauss: Yes. It's generally, I mean it's more expensive than shingling
and you know I question, we've been the prime advocates of pitching roofs
downtown but trying to obtain a residential appearance on 78th Street seems a
little bit incongruous of what we're trying to achieve there.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm bringing up the concern basically. Maybe there's something 1
other than a tile effect within the metal that could look a little different as
well as you've indicated. 1
Margaret Fleck: Yeah. These are, with the metal standing seam actually has a
standing seam on it so you get a vertical type of look to it which also breaks
it up the surface. Your tiles or your shingles would actually break it up again
horizontally. That might be tough to do without it being an embossed panel with
the metal.
Todd Gerhardt: The HRA's largest concerns or the project they've always used as 1
an example in the past, that they would prefer not to see happen in Chanhassen
would be like the Rainbow Center over in Eden Prairie where they took the metal
seamless roof, green to extremes over there. I mean it's a very green
development and driving by that facility every day has left an impression with
the HRA.
Margaret Fleck: Yeah, and I can understand that. That roof also doesn't have a '
true pitch to it. It's almost a vertical surface. This is a true pitched roof
and we've been very careful about keeping that 45 degree, 60 degree roofline
that would be true to a residential roofline. You can definitely see it here.
In fact that's one of the reasons the projections come out as far as they do to
assure that. So you're not going to get something that looks like a fence. It's
going to look like a roof and that's a big, significant difference. The green
would be fairly green.
Todd Gerhardt: Well not the entire development. You've got a mixture of red,
green, brown, brick. I mean it went green from Point A all the way around.
49
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
1
Councilman Mason: -Yeah see, that breaks it up well I think.
Margaret Fleck: Yeah. I mean the green is just an accent color here. It's not
intended on being dominant color.
Councilman Mason: I like the way that looks. I -don't like the landscaping but
I like the way it looks.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: I'm interested in the landscaping. Are we at that point yet?
Mayor Chmiel: We've discussed it but we can go back to it. I think what I'd
like to have them do is go through their process. And when you have your
questions, we can come back to that. Okay.
Councilman Wing: Well where's, I don't have Peter's letter. I didn't see it.
Paul Krauss: It came in just the day before yesterday. Or today.
Kate Aanenson: Actually I got it today. This morning.
Jim Teiusch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jim Teiusch and I'm
with Target. I'm their real estate person on this project. Just a couple of
issues that I'd like to touch upon that my colleagues have not, that relate to
the staff report issues. One being the West 78th Street which we all know we
went through at great lengths just before this. The one thing, comment that we
would like to have clarified in that is that as that alignment starts to take
it's final form, that perhaps it gets spelled out a little bit more specifically
as to who is doing what and the obligations of all the parties. I want you to
know that we're anxious to participate in this discussion and resolution with
Mr. James and the city and Strgar and others. I just want to reiterate that.
With respect to some of the landscaping issues. One thing that we'd like to
point out, or I'd like to again state is that we talked about the evergreent
type trees in the parking lot and staff has made some conciliation efforts on
the fact that we could go to some type of a deciduous type tree. I didn't hear
Kate mention perhaps that a locust type tree is an acceptable variety in the
parking lot in addition to the other species that you had identified. I'd like
to perhaps add that as one of the acceptable species of trees that would be
allowed. It does give us some of the Lacey effect. It provides a great deal of
visibility through the parking lots so people can see where they're going to the
store and so on. Also, one other point here had to do with the various
easements. The sanitary and water easements are called out in the report to be
public utilities. Those that lie on the Target property and those that lie on
Outlot 8. However, I find that there is no mention in the report that states
' that the storm sewer would be included as one of the public utilities and I just
want to ask that during the final platting process, if we could address the
issue regarding the storm sewer. Whether that is going to be public or not.
I Perhaps that can be clarified. It mentioned also the issue regarding the
pumpkins on the site. I just wanted to say that the staff report pointed out
that we were anticipating on starting this project sometime around the first of
October. That's incorrect. We wouldn't probably be starting this until at
II least after the 15th of October and I would suspect that perhaps by that time,
1 50
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 1
what with what the weatherman is telling us weather is going to be like in the
next few days, perhaps many of those pumpkins would be harvested. Those that
would not be, I'd also want to point out that we are going to be limiting
actually our grading on the area of Outlot 8 so there may be an opportunity to
either move those that are going to be involved in the grading on the Target
parcel to Outlot 8 and consolidate them so that they're not forced to have to
remove them from the site. With respect to our starting the project, there was
also mention in the report about restoring and reseeding the project by November
15th. I just want to point out that since we are starting October 15th, we will
perhaps be in the middle of our grading operations on or later than the 15th of
November making it very difficult for us to put down some seed and have it take
hold because by that time we're already looking at perhaps the ground starting
to freeze. We are going to incorporate the erosion procedures which we feel are
going to be adequate enough to make this site stable through the winter months
and then in the spring. There was a discussion a little bit earlier about the
realignment of the pedestrian area along 78th Street. One point I'd like to
make about that is that we actually moved the parking lot 15 feet farther to the
south, just not to give you the impression that we carved another 15 feet out of
the roadway right -of -way or something to create the landscape area for that
pedestrian link. In closing, since we're getting to a late hour here, I just
want to express Target's congratulations to the staff on their prompt
attentiveness to our project and we'd like to thank Don Ashworth, and Happy 1
Birthday Don by the way, and also members of the Council. Thank you.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Paul may I have displayed the landscaping that John from
RLK spoke about. Well, we have a big colored one don't we? Gentlemen, it's
that same old thing again. Visibility for my remaining property here. I have a
deal with Ryan and with Target that we can have a drive thru here and they will
not shut off the view anymore than... As I've spoken before, we started out
with half of my property being behind the Target and...between staff and so
forth and...but in meetings with Target and Ryan, it was agreed this would be
left open. And they've even gone so far as to put in a couple of, whatever they
are. Well, I'm worried about what they are over here in front of my remaining
property. So I'm going to first ask you to leave this open and then I'm going
to insist because this is part of my contract with Target and Ryan. A drive
thru and leaving this open as part of the agreement. Now, one thing that
particularly scared me here. John used the word Australian Pine. Australian
Pine for example, in Florida or Indiana and many places, it's considered about
one half as bad as milfoil is to Minnesota. It's a disease. It's a terrible
thing and many communities in Florida it's an offense and they...2, 3, $4,000.00
for planting a single Australian Pine because it just simple spreads. It
spreads a lot like Creeping Charlie but they grow 20, 30, 40 feet high. They're
dense. They're dirty. They go from one neighbor to the next to the next. And
that is the case of... I hope you will take no Australian Pine and leave this
open with my agreement. May I ask the engineer with Ryan just where this
driveway is going to be? It seems to have been changed again. I don't mean to
come up here and not know what I'm talking about but it's been changed at least
50 times...
Fran Hagen: It's still where it was proposed. It's just that all these notes
are covering it up on the landscaping plan so...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So it's still shown in that particular location. 1
51 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes. Yes. I guess that's okay.
John Dietrich: If I could just address the trees. You were asking about those
trees in front of your property there. I'll just point out that the trees that
are shown in the boulevard area were taken from the West 78th detachment
project. Those are going to be part of your project so those big trees right
here, that is what was proposed as part of the West 78th Street detachment. Our
landscaping starts once you get into our property. We're showing everything
' that will be there once the project is done and...little carried away carrying
it beyond the site but you'll see that also according to the West 78th Street
project design.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: You mean according to BRW?
John Dietrich: Right. According to BRW.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Well...
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that's sort of an agreement between you and Target as to.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yeah, I'll try to work it out but we had it in the middle
' here before.
Jim Teiusch: I'd just like to assure Mr. Burdick that we will work with him to
come up with a location that's mutually acceptable to Target and Mr. Burdick.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Okay, and no Australian Pines. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure Planning will find out where that's going to be located
one way or the other and works out as well. Okay, any others? Seeing none,
let's bring it back to Council.
' Councilman Mason: My, and I've stated it before, my big concern is what it will
look like for people driving down West 78th Street from downtown towards Target.
I'm still concerned about the landscaping along Target, although I like the new
plan. I think that looks good. I'm still concerned about the view of people
walking by there. I was at that Planning Commission and I still like the idea
of the sidewalk down the middle, although I understand their concerns. I
continue to be a little concerned about haw people will get from Target to
Outlot B. I personally don't think they'll use that sidewalk, although I must
say that new landscaping sure makes it look nice. But everything, we're
certainly moving in the right direction but I don't think there's any question
of that. I'm still concerned about the landscaping on West 78th, and just the
landscaping right next to Target. Not east /west of there at all. I think
that's fine. The landscaping just directly north.
Mayor Chmiel: Just directly north of the store in itself?
11 Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Between the drive and over to Monterey?
Councilman Mason: Right. That hunk.
1 52
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The building in itself. Is there anything that you can
address to that? The question that Mr. Mason's bringing up. 1
John Dietrich: With the landscaping that we do have along there, we should be
pointing out that with the West 78th Street canopy trees, boulevard and sidewalk
and then there's a row of...and they would be...lilacs so in addition to having
a canopy overhead, there would be a row of shurbs along the backside of the
sidewalk to take up that space between ground plane and about 2 1/2 to 3 feet.
Councilman Mason: And it will go up about 3 feet and is that on the top of the
berm then?
John Dietrich: That's on top of the berm and then the hill actually does fall
away so then you would be picking up the canopy of the trees there on the lower
side of that berm so that you would be basically double stacking the plant
material. We have the sidewalk edge, trees and then as the tree comes down, the
canopy would again pick up into the visual.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, yeah. The trouble of course is from October to May ,
which, I mean it's going to look great in the spring and summer but I don't
think, I still have trouble with October to May.
Councilman Workman: Well Target's motto is right on the money as I understand 1
currently and so you're collective job tonight is to get this thing built
relatively as cheaply as possible and get on the business with making money in
there in mass quantity. You don't need to be able to see this entire brick
building to know that it's there and so I'll leave our tree bulldogs here to get
it covered. I appreciate the extra touches. I always want to think that we can
do a little bit more about the outside aesthetics. This is a huge building and
I'm not sure I know quite the technology that's going to hide this building but
I do know trees and trees will hide it and more of them the merrier and I would
go so far as to say, triple your efforts on the trees because we'll still be
able to see your pylon sign from somewhere I'm sure. The only other point I
have and I like the way the parking lot is getting set up. I didn't care for
the Planning Commission's down the center. Is Target aware of some of our
tougher cigarette ordinances? I'm getting into the interior of the building
now. Are they aware of how they're going to be able to sell cigarettes? I was
over at the Eden Prairie store yesterday spending some money and.
Mayor Chmiel: And they thank you.
Councilman Workman: And they have what a lot of these places call which I call
the wall of tobacco. I hope they're aware that that has to be dispensed by
somebody. Are they aware? Has anybody ever talked to them? Is this a deal
buster? We've got a tough one here and somebody has to dispense cartons,
paraphenalia, etc. and I thought I'd bring that up right now midstream. So
that's about all I have.
Councilman Wing: The staff's worked hard on the exterior of the building and
Mr. Mason's covered West 78th Street and I have attended for the last two years
parking lot seminars at the University. We're talked about survivability,
landscaping parking lots, and what kind of trees and so on and so forth. On
item number 8 on page 27. Can you read me Peter Olin's statement again?
53
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I would just modify that to say, additional evergreen
trees including Austrian and Jack Pine be placed in the front landscaping. And
then the trees in the parking lot, instead of decorative, as John mentioned, the
two decoratives. Maybe go to one, a larger canopy and we'll give him a list.
The honey locust is acceptable. If they want a locust, that's fine. Peter Olin
said it was acceptable. We'd also add White Ash, Hackberry, Tamarack, Red and
Burr Oak.
' Councilman Wing: And there's a maple out that's very hardy for parking lots.
It's not on that list because he just pointed that out. I'd like to see us drop
flowering, shrubbing, oranmental trees in the parking lot which do nothing
11 except look cluttered in the wintertime and break down in the snow drifts
and I'd like to see a parking lot primarily be canopy trees, which is
recommended by State standards as I see it. Giving shade in the summer
primarily. People flock towards those and that's going to Crean some bigger
islands for survivability and I think the minimum is you have to have enough
impervious surface to cover the crown area and if that gives up some compact
parking, they've lost some compact parking. But I think as long as you're
concerned with West 78th Street and landscaping, and then you open this enormous
pumpkin field, I think the parking lot's inadequately landscaped but at the very
minimum to meet Peter Olin's standards so I think it's working on behalf of the
' city and coming up with good recommendations. So I would like to drop any
ornamentals from the parking lot and add the mixture of evergreens. Well, the
bigger trees with the canopies. I think that would really be an addition. And
that may make some alteration of those islands.
John Dietrich: May I address that comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
John Dietrich: Just to reinforce all of the parking lot islands will be
irrigated so that the entire site will have irrigation, especially in the
parking lot and that will be critical for the survivability of the plant
material. Secondly, in terms of total plant quantities. If we're just talking
' ornamental, evergreen and canopy trees. We have approximately 200 of those
plant materials on the site and if we would go back to Codes and what would be
necessary for Codes, it would be approximately half that. So we have already
come up and basically have doubled the approximately quantity in terms of value
for the plant material on that site.
Councilman Wing: In terms of the City's long term growth, Mr. Workman suggested
' tripling it and I'll go along with his suggestion but at the very least some
more canopy trees in the parking lot so we'll 425 trees and it seems like a
pretty small request for a project this enormous.
Mayor Chmiel: You're probably not aware of this but we're known as tree city.
John Dietrich: I see it right behind you.
Mayor Chmiel: And we do look at that very strongly. Other than that I think
everything else has been said. There's no need for me to reiterate. Some of
' the things, I expressed by concerns on two of those things previously. Walkway.
Australian pines. I like safety within a parking lot but I'm not sure that
54
11
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 1
that's going to give it just one specific area either. With that walkway that
was being suggested. I understand that you've had some problems with those as
well within the St. Louis Park store. And that could continue to give you more
problems. So with that I would entertain a motion.
Councilman Mason: I just want to put a quick plug in for tamaracks. I heard
that. It'd be kind of fun to have some tamaracks and see that gold in the fall
here. That would be alright. That would be cool. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion for accepting and rezoning 20.96 acres
from BG, Business General to PUD, Planned Unit Development, preliminary and
final PUD and site plan approval on 10+ acres?
Councilman Wing: How does that motion effect our comments tonight?
Mayor Chmiel: To include those if you so choose to the additional comments that
have been already provided by staff.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, so the record is clear. This is an ordinance so is this 1
your first reading on the PUD ordinance? Have I got that right?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. '
Roger Knutson: So what we'll do is we'll bring you back an actual ordinance in
ordinance form incorporating this evening's comments. In other words, staff
recommendations. You'll have them all in writing when you vote on it at the
next meeting.
Kate Aanenson: Hopefully with the West 78th detachment. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Okay. So what you're saying Roger is.
Roger Knutson: A motion for first reading of the PUD.
Councilman Workman: Wouldn't some of those items be included in the site plan
approval?
Roger Knutson: You can dispose of that this evening. The only one you can't
dispose of this evening is the rezoning or you could give preliminary approval
of all of them and bring them back for final approval next time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So what you're saying is you can have preliminary approval 1
on this at this particular time with final at the next particular meeting. Does
everyone understand that?
Councilman Workman: I think everybody's concerned specifically about 1
landscaping so where does that fall into? The final PUO?
Kate Aanenson: It'd be under site plan. As Roger said, give it preliminary and
then we'll approve that in the final. We'll make those changes.
Councilman Workman: So moved. '
55 ,
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Councilman Mason: So moved on the preliminary PUD approval, is that correct?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Mason: No, we're not on site plan yet, right?
Roger Knutson: You're just moving first reading of the PUD.
' Councilman Mason: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion? Anything should be included Roger?
Councilman Wing: And then our suggestions then would be in the final.
Roger Knutson: I understood your comments this evening. We'll incorporate them
' as best we can and bring them back to you in writing in the PUD ordinance for
second reading for the adoption if you so desire.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading
of preliminary and final plat to rezone 22.03 acres of property zoned BG,
General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development as shown in the Rezoning #92 -6
' and PUD 992 -5, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the requirements of the final plat.
' 2. Compliance with the standards of the PUD zone outlined in the staff report.
Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the development.
Compatibility with all signage, lighting and landscaping.
3. Pitched roof lines are required on all buildings on Outlot B. Target shall
have a parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment. Pitched roof elements
' shall be introduced on the entry portion and the West 78th side of Target.
4. Not more than two fast food restaurants are permitted on Outlot B.
' 5. All site plans shall be consistent with the overall impervious surface
coverage. The average impervious surface for the entire PUD shall not
exceed 70 percent.
6. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall
be used. Color shall be allowed on the Target store only.
' 7. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces /outlots shall be landscaped or
covered with planting and /or lawn material.
' 8. Each site shall be allowed one monument sign near the driveway into the
private site, wall signs on not more than 2 street frontages. The signs
are subject to the standards of the sign ordinance.
' 9. Target and Outlot 8 are each allowed one free standing pylon sign.
10. Lights shall be a shoe box fixture and light levels shall not exceed 1/2
' foot candle at the property line.
' 56
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
11. A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the entire length of West 78th Street. A 8
foot bituminous trail shall run the entire length of Powers Boulevard. 1
12. If the revised alignment for West 78th Street is not selected, a revisec
concept plan must be submitted for Outlot B for city approval within 30
days of the City Council's action on this request.
13. Location of the road shall be shown in site plan dated September 9, 1992,
and the number of outlots shall be limited to four. Each building parcel
shall proceed through site plan review.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Kate Aanenson: Did that include the grading and the site plan?
Roger Knutson: You haven't dealt with preliminary plat, site plan review and 1
interim use permit.
Councilman Mason: We've got site plan review and interim use permit right? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess that's all.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, three more to go.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, site plan review. We have two more to go yet. '
Kate Aanenson: Three.
Mayor Chmiel: Or three more. Site plan review. This is where City Council 1
approves Site Plan Review #92 -2 as shown on plans dated September 9, 1992 and
subject to the following conditions of items 1 thru 12.
Councilman Wing: This is where...and you're saying it doesn't matter at this
point?
Mayor Chmiel: No, not at this point.
Councilman Mason: I'll move Site Plan Review *92-2, items 1 thru 12.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Kate Aanenson: With the modification correct? 1
Roger Knutson: Subject to the modifications you made.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. That's already brought up. Okay, clarification. ,
Councilman Mason: Subject to modification.
Jim Teiusch: Excuse me. Are those clarifications the ones that we addressed
also?
Mayor Chmiel: Correct. ,
57
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Jim Teiusch: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything that was previously discussed and staff has agreed to.
' Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Site Plan Review
#92 -2 as shown on the plans dated September 9, 1992 and with the modifications
made by staff, subject to the following conditions:
1. Subject to Compliance with the conditions of the Preliminary and Final PUD
and Plat *92-5.
' 2. Pedestrian access be provided between Target parking lot and Outlot B. A 6
foot sidewalk shall run the length of West 78th Street (See Manager's
Comments, Page 28 -29).
3. The 3 facades shown on West 78th Street shall have back lighting.
4. Lighting shall not exceed 1/2 foot candle at the property line. After
hours lighting shall be limited to security lighting only.
5. Signage for the monument sign shall not exceed 8 feet in height with a 6' x
' 6' foot sign area and for the pylon sign, 34 feet in height and not exceed
144 square feet in sign area. The monument sign and free standing sign
shall be consistent with the plans submitted in the September 9, 1992 site
' plan. The wall sign shall not exceed 6' x 34' for the Target sign and 6
for the pharmacy sign.
6. The development shall comply with all development standards of this PUD
' zone.
7. A protected crosswalk (stop signs) shall be placed at the entrance to the
' Target Store.
8. Additional evergreen trees shall be placed in the front landscaping and
' trees in the parking lot shall be changed from a decorative flowering tree
to a tree with a larger canopy (over story).
9. The West 78th Street elevation of the Target store needs to improve the
' appearance.
10. The West 78th Street detachment project needs to be ordered before building
' construction can begin (excluding grading). Access to the James property
shall be resolved as a part of the Detachment Project.
11. Southwest Metro Transit shall work with Target to find a mutually
acceptable location for a bus shelter.
12. The HVAC will be obstructed from view by the parapet wall regardless of the
' surrounding elevations.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Mayor Chmiel: Interim Use Permit.
58
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 i
Councilman Wing: I'll so move Interim Use Permit #92 -6. 1
Councilman Mason: But we've got to be careful of the pumpkins.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think they have some concerns about it as well. Is 1
there a second?
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Interim Use Permit
192 -6 as shown on the site plan dated September 9, 1992 and subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant needs to submit information on interim detention ponds and /or ,
drainage systems for the site given that storm systems will not be
constructed until next spring.
2. The applicant shall show on the plan location of topsoil and poor soil
stockpiles.
3. The haul route for material to and from the site shall be limited to Trunk ,
Highway 5 and County Road 17. Construction trucks and vehicles shall
access the site at approved rock construction entrance only. The applicant
will be required to maintain haul route clean of dirt and mud, etc.
4. Working hours for the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday with no work occurring on holidays. '
5. The applicant shall submit an administrative fee and letter of credit prior
to commencement of grading operations. '
6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency
permits such as Watershed District.
7. The entire site shall be restored and seeded by no later than November 15,
1992.
8. The city shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure
preservation of the trees and location of snow fences.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Kate Aanenson: You skipped one. The preliminary and final plat.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Mason: Okay, I'll move preliminary and final plat 192 -5 of 19.85
acres. Items 1 thru 10.
Councilman Workman: Second.
59 1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
1
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Preliminary and
Final Plat for 19.85 acres as shown in PUD #92 -5, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Plat easements needed:
A. 20 foot wide utility easement over Lot 1 for public portion of proposed
}
watermain.
B. 20 foot wide utility easement over existing 18 inch watermain through
Outlot 8.
C. 30 foot wide utility easement over proposed sanitary sewer through
Lot 1.
' D. 30 foot wide utility easement over existing 8 inch sanitary sewer
through Lot 1 and Outlot 8.
E. Cross easements, ingress and egress, shall be granted with Outlot B and
the Burdick Park Addition property.
2. The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications for
Construction shall govern construction of all public improvements.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required agency
' permits such as PCA, Health Department, Watershed District, etc.
4. The applicant shall be responsible for a share of the costs involved in
constructing one or more traffic signals on West 78th Street between Kerber
Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (appropriate cost sharing formula has yet to
be determined).
' 5. If the West 78th Street detachment intersection with County Road 17 is to
be shifted south, approvals will also be needed from MnOot and Carver
County. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the city for
' all costs associated with soil corrections within the new roadway
alignment.
6. Storm sewer plan shall be revised to reflect site plan for Outlot B.
7. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street.
8. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees.
9. Submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm sewer,
' water and sanitary sewer.
10. Approval from MnDot, Carver County Traffic Engineer, and the City shall be
' secured to relocate West 78th Street.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1
1 60
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Councilman Mason: But we still don't know where West 78th Street is going, and
that's okay with this? 1
Kate Aanenson: It's all coming back at the same meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that will all be back. ,
Councilman Mason: Right, okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. We're done now.
RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NW1 /4 OF SECTION
10 AND NE1 /4 OF SECTION 9 (JOHNSON/TURNER/DOLEJSI SITE); CALL PUBLIC HEARING,
PROJECT 92 -5.
Councilman Workman: So moved. ,
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles. There's a motion on the floor with a second. 1
Resolution 192 -112: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
receive the feasibility report for trunk utility improvements in the NW1 /4 of
Section 10 and NE1 /4 of Section 9, (Johnson/Turner /Dolejsi site) and call for a
public hearing to be held on October 26, 1992. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH MINNEGASCO, FINAL READING.
Don Ashworth: We recommend approval as presented. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Motion to accept as recommended.
Councilman Workman: The Minnegasco?
Mayor Chmiel: The Minnegasco. ,
Councilman Workman: Is there a Minnegasco representative here? I suspect as
such. '
Mayor Chmiel: Oh yes, maybe there is. Would you like to come forward. I was
looking for Kimberly.
Roger Schoeb: Kimberly is unavailable this evening. My name is Roger Schoeb.
I'm from rural St. Peter, Minnesota. Director of Local Government Relations.
I'm representing Minnegasco this evening and also Kim Roden who was unable to
attend. As I understand it, I haven't been too involved in this but I guess Kim
has visited with your staff and your attorney and ironed out some concerns and
issues. I guess from my understanding the only thing is, is the term of the
franchise and we are requesting a 20 year renewal. We pipe gas to Chanhassen in
1960 and our last franchise was for 25 years from 1967 so we are requesting a 20
year renewal of that franchise.
61 ,
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. We have come back with a 10 year and one of the
reasons, we don't know what's going to be happening. Things are changing too
II quickly so therefore we are proposing within our franchise a 10 year portion.
Roger Schoeb: Okay, I just might add that, I've renewed franchises the last two
' years, about 18 of them, and we all, we got 20 year franchises except in one
community where it was less than that and it was because of their City Charter.
The reason we propose at least 20 years is because we have, we are under so many
mandates by the OPS, MnDot, Minnesota PUC. They regulate our rates. We like to
I have a long term for gas supply planning. For long term planning and also for
rehabilitation of the present system too...we get our reasonable rate. Thank
you.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. And also so it's a little easier to go out in the money
market to get a better rating for dollars.
I Roger Schoeb: Try to keep it a AA, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Do we have any discussion?
II Councilman Workman: I had a discussion today with Kim, and I said well I don't
know anything about it. I'm letting the Mayor tell me what to do on this. But
' she got into talking about the 10 year and she said, you want it 20 year and
then we said we wanted a 10 and I said gee, why don't we make it a 15 or
whatever and she said that it's a non - exclusive contract. It's a non - exclusive
II franchise. The City may award... It made it sound like, and I maybe talking to
Roger, you can get in and out of these things and it really doesn't matter if
it's 10 or 20 so why not make it 15. Well, I'm going well something doesn't
make sense here. If it doesn't make sense if it's 20 or 10, why don't we make
II it for 180 you know. And so somebody needs to clear that up with me onto what's
going on.
' Roger Knutson: First a suggestion. If it didn't make any difference, they
wouldn't be talking about it.
Councilman Workman: Well, that's what I suspected.
I Roger Knutson: I would have to say in all probability it does not make any
difference. But we don't know what the future will bring. I mean it is
I possible for example, you can dream up scenarios where you'd want to cancel
this. Where in 10 -15 -20 years you have five gas companies knocking at your door
offering you better deals and you want to get into a bidding war. That doesn't
happen now. But who knows what's going to happen in 10 or 20 years. This just
keeps your options open. The unforeseeable.
Mayor Chmiel: That's true. And that's my reasonable for it basically. Roger
II and I have discussed this as well as Don and changing times are here. Utilities
no longer are going to operate the way they have in the past. And I feel that
providing our constituency of the city a better opportunity, I would just as
soon see that.
Roger Knutson: In all probability this franchise would be like it's
predecessor. The predecessor hasn't been read for 25 years. It goes in the
62
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 1
drawer unless there's a problem and there haven't been any problems. So in all
probability once you approve this it will go in a drawer and no one will see it
for 10 years.
Roger Schoeb: And I think this one is very similar to the one that was granted
25 years ago. There's not a lot of changes other than possibly the franchise
fee was included.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that was the only additional thing that we had put in. If 1
in the event they ever wanted to go to it. We're not suggesting a franchise fee
at this particular time.
Roger Schoeb: Right. You're just protecting yourself which is good.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion? If not, I'll entertain the motion
that we set the ordinance granting Minnegasco, a Division of Arkla, a Delaware
Corporation, a nonexclusive franchise to construct, operate, repair, and
maintain facilities and equipment for the transportation, distribution,
manufacture and sale of gas energy for public and private use and to use the
public grounds in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota for such purposes and
prescribing certain terms and conditions contained within the ordinance. Is
there a second? '
Councilman Workman: I'll second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the final reading of 1
an ordinance establishing a franchise agreement with Minnegasco. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Roger Schoeb: That was for 10 years then?
Mayor Chmiel: 10 years. Right. Thank you. 1
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FIRST READING. 1
Councilman Workman: I move to table this.
Mayor Chmiel: You want to table it? ,
Councilman Workman: I so moved.
Councilman Wing: Second. '
Councilman Workman: I'd like 'to give it a little bit more thought. '
Councilman Wing: What more thought?
Councilman Mason: Okay, I move to pass it. '
Councilman Wing: No, you already have a motion.
Councilman Workman: No, I'm going to move to table it unless anybody. ,
63 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Councilman Wing: Ill second it.
II Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to Amend Article VIII of the City Code concerning Planned Unit
Development Regulations for Residential Districts. All voted in favor and the
1 motion carried.
Councilman Wing: Well, wait a minute. Just out of curiosity, where's the
discussion going to come from? When and how?
Mayor Chmiel: I think probably what we should do is just get back to it now.
II Paul, you can put it at the bottom of the pile here. I've got a whole bunch of
things I want to talk about and it will take probably, it would probably behoove
us yet to maybe have some more discussions and see.
I Councilman Wing: This is approved and done and discussed for a year other than
the minimum lot size of 10,000. That's the only question. I mean everything's
passed except that one number.
Mayor Chmiel: 10,000 square feet.
Councilman Wing: And I'm willing to go with the 10,000 square feet...
II Councilman Workman: If Wing can stretch this meeting out long enough, I would
like to stretch other meetings out.
Councilman Wing: Well that's good. I just want to know.
Mayor Chmiel: We tabled this so we'll have to have some discussion with it,
II give me a call.
Councilman Wing: Well I just hope that Paul is still here, number one. And
II number two, that the Statute of Limitations doesn't take effect.
APPOINTMENTS:
II A. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CHANHASSEN TREE BOARD.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd so move that Councilman Richard Wing be appointed to the Tree
I
Board as representative from Council.
Councilman Mason: Second.
II Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Councilman Richard Wing
to the Chanhassen Tree Board. All voted in favor, except Councilman Wing who
abstained, and the motion carried
B. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
I Mayor Chmiel: Recommendation by the Mayor would be to have Mike Mason on the
HRA.
II Councilman Wing: So moved.
1 64
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 1
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? 1
Councilman Mason: I didn't hear a second.
Mayor Chmiel: I made the recommendation. 1
Councilman Workman: Can we do some sort of a background check or something?
Councilman Wing: We did. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I did.
Resolution $92-113: Mayor Chmiel coved, Councilman Wing seconded to appoint
Councilman Mike Mason to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. All voted in
favor, except Councilman Mason who abstained, and the motion carried. 1
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: The Wartman special assessment. 1
Roger Knutson: I have about a half hour presentation Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Basically because the individual is not able to have his.
Roger Knutson: He can't afford to have it fixed himself. The City, there's
open sewage running out into his backyard. Staff recommends that you adopt this
which will allow us to do the work and assess the cost to him.
Mayor Chmiel: I would so move. 1
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to allow the city to repair a
sewer system on the Wartman property and assess the costs. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. 1
Councilman Workman: Now that you've all, currently the HRA would have 3 members
of the City Council. A majority. Does that make it an economic development
commission yet?
Mayor Chmiel: Not yet.
Roger Knutson: You can have 100% City Council members on your HRA and it's
still an HRA.
Mayor Chmiel: Because at the end of the year you're going to be gone. 1
Councilman Workman: That's what I mean. It will be one and the same still.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion for adjournment?
Councilman Workman: No, I have a couple things. Because I wasn't here at the
very beginning, I want to bring them up very quickly. What I'd like to do, the
65 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 •
' couple could not be here. They had a problem with our leash law as it pertains
to cats. And I would like to have staff bring that up. It's very clear in our
ordinance, animal, dogs and cats shall be on a leash. They have a problem with
that. They'd like that addressed by the City Council and brought up at a future
Council meeting as soon as possible. My second one. Speed on TH 101, in which
I live near the corner of there. They did a traffic study. I've got the
paperwork from Dave Hempel. The fax's from MnDot. My neighborhood is screaming
now, and as you know there's the intersection of TH 101 from South Shore Drive
on what would be the easterly, right in that corner. MnDot did a study of what
' the traffic is doing down there. It had been 40 mph and they increased it to
45. This is an intersection where people are getting in and out near a corner
with boats. The public landing and everything else. I'm going to bring this up
at a future meeting. I'll report to the mayor as to when that would be soon. I
think it's outrageous that they increased it at that intersection. They should
have reduced it somewhere north of that intersection on TH 101.
Mayor Chmiel: 35 is what you're saying?
Councilman Workman: Something. I mean we've got people.
I Mayor Chmiel: Isn't there a turn there that has a marker on it what speeds can
be?
Councilman Workman: It's 45 now. They increased it. They said that's the
median speed. That's what people are going. Well it doesn't take into account
II the fact that the boat access there is there and people are trying to pull out,
even without a boat. And so I'm going to fight it, even if I have to do it as a
citizen. I move adjournment.
II Councilman Wing: No, wait. As long as he's gone, is Don Ashworth still here?
On one of the forthcoming agendas, could we have Arboretum Boulevard, Kerber
Boulevard landscaping back on for discussion, being the Mayor has not been out
I planting trees. And I was going to join him.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm all for it. In fact I'll help go out and dig it.
II Councilman Wing: That one's been lost in the dust here a little bit.
Don Ashworth: The other part is, we've made an application for State funding
' and so I saw those two as dove tailing together but it's really too late. It
will be Spring of '93.
II Councilman Wing: Yeah, but I don't want to see this dropped. Maybe those guys
will come in and instead of S12,000.00...whatever.
Don Ashworth: Oh well, we've got that down. I don't know if it's half but
II close to it. 6 to 8.
Councilman Wing: I'd like to see it on the agenda then. Or so moved, if that's
11 the case.
1
66
_ 11
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 1
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11 =23 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
67 1
1
il
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
II SEPTEMBER 2, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
I MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Brian Batzli,
and Jeff Farmakes
1 MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Emmings and Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner
U I; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician;
and Don Ashworth, City Manager
I PUBLIC HEARING:
METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A 1.5 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 29,172
AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
I
AND LOCATED AT 8412 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, EUGENE KLEIN.
Public Present:
1 Name Address
I Gene Klein
Norm Grant 8412 Great Plains Blvd.
9021 Lake Riley Blvd.
Joe Eickholt 8408 Great Plains Blvd.
II Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
1 Gene Klein: My name is Gene Klein. I live at the 8412 Great Plains
Blvd.. I worked with Sharmin on everything and as far as I can see, I
I have no problems with anything.
Batzli: Okay. So you agree with, have you seen the staff report?
I Gene Klein: Right. I agree.
Batzli: And you agree with those conditions?
I Gene Klein: Right.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. If anyone else
I would like to comment on the proposal before the Commission. I'd
encourage you to step forward to the microphone. Give us your name and
address.
I Joe Eickholt: Good evening. I'm Joe Eickholt. How you doing Gene? I
live at 8408 Great Plains Blvd.. I'm next door to Gene and I just walked
1 in the door so I haven't had a chance to see where the site of the house
is and the type of house that is proposed. Is that possible to review?
Al -Jaff: None of that is available right now. It's only a subdivision.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 2
Joe Eickholt: I see.
AI -Jaff: They're just proposing to divide the property into two parcels.
Joe Eickholt: Okay. So there's no plans for a home at this time?
' Al -Jaff: A house, no.
Joe Eickholt: I see.
' Krauss: Maybe I should clarify something. The City is not in the
business of approving particular house plans. We approve the lot it sits
on...setbacks and open space ratios and that sort of thing but beyond
that, it's up to the owner...
Joe Eickholt: Okay. I saw you just put that up. Is that some type of a
' proposal for setbacks you do?
Al -Jaff: No, that's the existing structures. The garage is going to be
torn down and a residence will replace it.
' Joe Eickholt: Okay.
' Batzli: At the time that the residence comes in, what approvals will the
applicant have to go through? Does it just require a building permit at
that time?
' Al -Jaff: Correct. As long as they meet a minimum square footage, they
should be fine. They meet the setbacks. That's all we really look at.
' Joe Eickholt: Okay. I mean Gene and I, we've gotten along real well and
he's been the best of neighbors and I just, I did have some concerns
about a structure going up there. As far as how it would affect my
' property next door and activities and so on and so forth.
Batzli: Do you live to the northeast?
Joe Eickholt: Yes.
Batzli: So you're closer to the metal garage than the current house?
Joe Eickholt: That's correct.
' Batzli: Do you have any other comments, or?
Joe Eickholt: No. I guess I don't.
' Batzli: Thank you.
Gene Klein: If I can address Joe. Basically the structure that's there
' now is going to be torn down and that would be where the house will be
built. In that same location...
1 E
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 3
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the
Commission?
Erhart moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: I have one for 5. No alteration or tree removal shall be
permitted within the 75 foot setback. Is going to be permanently or is
that just during the subdividing of the lot?
Al -Jaff: It's extremely steep down there. 1
Erhart: Okay, but let's say a guy comes in and builds a house. Somehow
we think that, this action doesn't pertain to the guy that's building th,
house. It pertains to Mr. Klein. In my opinion. Isn't that correct?
Batzli: It would depend on who built the house, wouldn't it? '
Erhart: This doesn't pertain to the guy that's building the house.
Al -Jaff: It runs with the land. Whatever conditions we have, usually I
run with the land.
Erhart: So we're saying, it's real steep there so. '
Al -Jaff: And wooded. We would like to preserve that area. Because if
they remove anything, this could cause erosion into the lake. That's th'
only reason behind it really.
Erhart: That's the only question I have.
Conrad: Nothing.
Ledvina: No. '
Batzli: Jeff.
Farmakes: There are State conditions covering the 75 foot setback too I
isn't there? The DNR also requires a setback?
Al -Jaff: Correct. And that is 75 feet so they are covered here. '
Farmakes: I have no further questions.
Batzli: What are the other permitted or conditional uses in RSF here? 1
In this zone. Is there any use that would allow him to keep his garage?
Al -Jaff: No. None. '
Batzli: If that was the main structure, it was a conditional use allowe
in that zone, couldn't he keep his garage?
Al -Jaff: It's an accessory structure. You can't have an accessory
structure without a main structure.
II Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 4
I Batzli: Assume for a minute that there is a conditional use that would
be allowed in that zone where that would become the primary structure.
Is that outside the realm of possibility?
II 1-Jaff: Correct. It would be permitted in an Agricultural Estate
district for instance. If you have more than...or more but not in an RSF
I district. Am I answering your question?
Batzli: It just seems stunning to me that by subdividing he's forced to
tear that down. But he's agreed to it, so I don't have anything else.
I Erhart: I'll make a motion. Did everybody get a chance? I'll move the
Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #92 -10 as shown on
I the plans dated July 31, 1992 and conditions 1 thru 6 as stated in the
staff report.
I Conrad: I second.
Batzli: Any discussion?
Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #92 -10 as shown on the plans dated July
II 31, 1992, subject to the following conditions:
1. It is preferred to have a single access to service both Parcels A and
I
B; however, should the applicant wish to provide a second driveway
access, a permit will be required from MnDot. If the existing
driveway is utilized to service both lots, then a cross access or
I driveway easement in favor of both properties will need to be
recorded at the County.
II 2. The following easements and right -of -way shall be provided:
a. Dedication of fee ownership of Highway 101 right -of -way.
I b. A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement centered over the
existing sanitary sewer through both lots.
1 c. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line.
3. The applicant may want to consider petitioning the city for extension
1 of trunk watermain facilities at this time in lieu of drilling a
well.
4. The newly created lot will be required to connect to municipal
1 sanitary sewer and pay the appropriate connection fees.
5. No alteration or tree removal shall be permitted within the 75 foot
I setback from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Susan. Trees
designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other
means acceptable to the city.
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 5
6. The existing garage on proposed Parcel A shall be demolished prior t'
recording this subdivision with Carver County.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 10.600 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD,
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 480 WEST 78TH STREET. (PHASE II)
OF THE CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING_
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the
public hearing to order. •
Bob Copeland: My name is Bob Copeland and I am the applicant. And I'd
like to just address a few of the recommendations that the staff has
given the Planning Commission here and just kind of go down them one by I
one if I may. I'm on pages 6 of the staff report. On item number 1,
regarding a restaurant, we've already agreed to that so we don't have an
problem with not having a restaurant in the western one -half of the
building. Item 2 is really three parts. The first one is eliminating
sidewalks projecting into the parking stalls. Our drawing isn't very
clear on that and what we really intend is to have two sidewalk
projections into the parking lot. And this is consistent with the
building that exists there now and it's consistent with the plans that
the City had prepared by BRW. We also have shown four areas which would
be striped on the pavement where cars could not park. And I think these'
are the areas that are causing the problem and we will eliminate those.
And by doing so, we should be able to be have the number of stalls that II the staff is after. Sharmin, would you agree that by doing this, this
will be satisfactory to the staff?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
1
Bob Copeland: Okay.
Al -Jaff: Then you would be in meeting with what was approved in '89. I
Bob Copeland: Right. The next item is to eliminate the access door to
the building on the north face, and that's the parking lot size of the I
structure. We had already agreed to that in our development agreement
with the city and so we will go along with that recommendation. The next
item is provide more detail on the roof. I'm not sure if anymore detail
is required at this time. Is there anything? Related to that.
Al -Jaff: No, we discussed that earlier.
Bob Copeland: Right.
AI -Jaff: Basically we wanted to find out whether the top of the dormers'
extend like so. Into the roof so it would break it down a little bit
rather than having one massive roof. And it does.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 6
Bob Copeland: Okay. The next item is that we'll have no unpainted
aluminum on the exterior, and that's fine. Item 4 is erosion control and
we'll certainly agree to that. Item 5, I guess that's just up to the
1 city and the HRA about the canopy. Whether the City wants that
connection or not. We can see advantages and disadvantages and we're not
pushing for it one way or another.
1 Conrad: Architecturally, what does it look like?
Bob Copeland: What does the canopy look like?
Conrad: Yeah.
1 Bob Copeland: I have a rendering here that was prepared some years ago
if that would be helpful. I only have one so you can pass it around and
see what it would be like.
1 Ledvina: The separation between the two buildings is 72 feet I see on
the plan. Is that correct?
Bob Copeland: That sounds like more than is there. If someone scaled
that from the drawing, and that's what it shows, then.
' Al -Jaff: I contacted BRW and had them survey it for us. They didn't
have time to send us plans but what they surveyed was 72 feet.
Bob Copeland: Okay. I don't know that that's wrong. It just seems a
' little.
Ledvina: So the canopy would be 72 feet?
1 Bob Copeland: It would be if it was constructed.
1 Ledvina: That's huge.
Bob Copeland: The canopy is not part of our proposal at this time.
Ledvina: You could put another building between there.
Conrad: Yeah, I like that in what was original. So that would continue
' the roof line all the way over. And basically the advantage of the
canopy is purely, is weather or what was the advantage of the canopy?
Bob Copeland: Just aesthetics? And that's a matter of opinion. Some
people like it. It sort of identifies an entry to the project.
Conrad: And you can enter the two buildings from underneath the canopy?
Bob Copeland: You would not be able to, no. There is no entry planned
for either building there. While you're looking at that I'll just touch
on some of these other points. Item number 6, we will certainly meet all
the conditions outlined by the Fire Marshal. Item number 7 is regarding
amending the development agreement to allow an entry within 20 feet on
the south side of the structure and certainly we go along with that.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 7
Item number 8 is screening HVAC equipment. That's fine. I just added m,
own item number 9 which really wasn't touched on too much, or somewhat
briefly, and that is the cut in the median to allow access to the
building so that someone coming from the west can take a left turn into
the project and, we have requested that and we feel that that is not
really a problem and is not inconsistent with other situations that the
City had. Has done in recent years. We think it's just a matter of
opinion as to whether it's a safety problem. We don't feel that it is. II
Also, it's become very important to us because we have one tenant that's
moving out of our Phase 1 building because of the access to the property
and others have complained about it although they haven't threatened to
move out. But we've just become aware that that access, being able to
take that left turn there is very important to our tenants.
Batzli: You want the left turn between the two?
Bob Copeland: Correct. '
Batzli: Phase 1 and Phase 2?
Bob Copeland: Right. If you're coming from the west and you are about
even with the Riveria, you wouldn't necessarily know that you should tur
there and if you miss that turn, then you have to go about 800 feet down
to the east to Great Plains. '
Batzli: Paul, where's the stop sign?
Krauss: Signal? '
Batzli: Signal going in?
Krauss: There's one at Laredo and one at Great Plains and then further II
to the west. We have very significant reservations about the median cut.
We have regularly recommended against them where it provides anything II
less than access to a major site. The only time we considered making onli
was when on the north side of Market Square which serves 130,000 square
feet of retail, and even then after the bank proposal was dropped, we
decided not to make the median break. We're dealing with roads that are I
going to carry extremely high volumes of traffic. Anytime you introduce
a turning movement, you're introducing difficulty. You're also
destroying the landscape median to accomplish it. This site has
relatively good access. It does have access to a median break. I guess
that doesn't show it as well as, we brought this here for a different
reason. But you can see there's a...right here. Here's a full median I
break going between the main part of the lot for the Frontier Center.
Here's the right -in, right -out only. Here's the other access... Frankly
this site's got better access than a lot of others we have here in town.
If anything, we're looking at modification to 78th Street to handle the
more traffic and frankly this is a step in the wrong direction... I mea
we just came from a meeting this morning where we are denying Target and
another property who wanted two full median breaks and, 3? Four or
three.
Aanenson: Three full median breaks. -
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 8
Krauss: And we would not give them that. They're limited to two
that serve both north and south sides of 78th Street. And that's for
117,000 square foot store and outlots.
Batzli: Do you have anything else on the curb cut Ladd?
Conrad: Not right now. We'll come back to it.
Bob Copeland: Okay. Then as far as this revision to our sign covenant
that starts on page 6 and goes onto page 7. We don't have any problem
' with the part on page 6 but at the top of page 7, a significant change
was made to what we proposed and it starts out saying that a tenant may
have no more than one sign. On this project with people driving by on
one side and then accessing the building on the other, we feel it's
important to have tenant signs on both sides. And at least have the
ability to do that. And we have that situation on the existing building
' where we have some tenants with more than one sign and we want to have
that ability for this second phase too. We don't see that it creates,
should create any problem and we don't really see why there would be any
objection to this.
Erhart: You're asking for one sign per side?
' Bob Copeland: We want to allow a tenant to have up to two signs. Up to
and including two signs. Not more than two.
' Erhart: One per side.
Bob Copeland: One per side. We'd be happy to put that in there too if
that further clarifies it. But you can't see more than, you can't see
the north and south side of the building at the same time so it, I don't
know why anyone would object to this. But you can understand how a
tenant might want to advertise that they're in the building to people
driving by on West 78th and then identify where they are within the
building to people parking in the parking lot on the other side of the
building. So we think it's a reasonable request.
' Batzli: Explain to me a little bit what kind of tenants you're expecting
to have.
' Bob Copeland: Well, we have some, they're sort of called quasi - retail
tenants. They're kind of inbetween office and retail. People like
chiropracters. Legal offices. Dental offices. Accountants. That kind
' of thing that have people that walk in a lot and they could either be in
a retail space or an office space. We also have the sports, well I don't
know what they call it now. The business health group with Waconia
Hospital is thinking about relocating their, portions of their business
in there too. But virtually every tenant wants signage these days and
it's a real important issue to us.
•
' Batzli: As you're probably aware, we've gone around and around on the
number of signs on Phase 1 so this issue isn't foreign to us. Do you
have anything else?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 9
Bob Copeland: Just a couple more things. On item 4, it's stated, or II
it's proposed anyway that the signs on the north elevation or the parking
lot side be non - illuminated. We just as soon have them be illuminated,
just like the signs are on the south side and on both sides of the Phase
1 building. I think these signs are going to be that high in the air.
You know they won't throw off a lot of light. I can't imagine that the
residents in the single family homes to the north are quite a ways away II
from even the parking lot and there's a lot more light thrown off by the
parking lot lights themselves than these neon tubes that would be within
the fixtures. So we'd like to have the ability to have those signs
illuminated.
Farmakes: Do you consider your tenants or your quasi retail office
tenants, whatever they happen to be, lawyers or chiropracters, conducting
business after 5:00?
Bob Copeland: Could well be. Some of them could. 1
Farmakes: Do you think they'd be open until what?
Bob Copeland: It's dark at 5:00 in the winter. 1
Farmakes: No, I'm asking what time do you think they conduct?
Bob Copeland: Well I don't know, you know. Probably not late into the 1
night but certainly after dark during the winter months. The last point
I want to make then is on the changes that were made to what we proposed'
under the section that's entitled, (c) General. Number 1. There's a
restriction in there on the size of real estate signs. This would be
temporary signs for leasing the building, that kind of thing. And what
we had proposed is that the signs comply with the current ordinance at
the time that we apply for a permit for that kind of sign. And we don't
want to be bound to these restrictions. We'll just comply with whatever
your sign ordinance is when we put up a sign. In other words, these
dimensions and so on, may be more restrictive than an ordinance that you
may have in place 6 months or a year or 2 years or 5 years or whatever
from now.
Batzli: You may be better off under these.
Bob Copeland: Well, we'll take our chances. We'll live with whatever II
your code is or your ordinance is at the time that we apply for a permit.
In other words, we just want the same treatment as everybody else has,
that's all. In this regard. ,
Batzli: Anything else?
Bob Copeland: No, that's all I have unless you have other questions of I
me.
Batzli: We'll probably have some questions a little bit later on. Than'
you.
Bob Copeland: Okay, thank you.
1
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 10
1 Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission at this time?
It's a public hearing. Is there a motion to close the public hearing.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: I was a little confused on 2. Have you worked that out or is
it still a question whether or not it's consistent with phase 1? Page 6,
2.
Al -Jaff: No, we've worked it out.
Farmakes: You've eliminated the sidewalk issue?
' Batzli: Let me just touch on that. I mean sidewalks were a huge deal
when we first looked at this regarding walkways through the parking lot
' to the apartment building to the north and that type of thing. Does this
all tie in with the massive amounts of discussion that went into it last
time? I'd hate to just kind of say yes, it's been worked out.
' Al -Jaff: Maybe I shouldn't have called them sidewalks. There are 6
doors, 6 access points on each side. ..walkway that intrudes into the
parking area and that's where we are losing our parking spaces.
Batzli: Since we don't know what kind of, well I guess we kind of know
what sort of uses these things are going to be. I always thought that
the number of parking spaces that we needed depended on what the uses
were in the building. How do we know how many parking spaces we need
right now?
' Krauss: Well, let me approach that from a different angle. We're
dealing with a redevelopment project in here that has parking that serves
a multitude of uses that we already know is extremely short or close or
' tight on parking. And knowingly give up stalls right in front of the
doors just so we can paint out some spaces, for visibility or for
whatever reason, it seems to be something that, a luxury we can't afford.
If there's an ability to increase landscape islands in the parking lot
and that kind of thing, we're the first ones to propose it but this is a
parking lot that's running very tight.
' Batzli: But how does it tie in with getting the people through the
parking lot safely?
' Krauss: I guess neither Sharmin nor I are familiar with the discussion
Mr. Chairman. I mean this took place before either of us were here but
the parking lot itself, as you see it today, I mean the parking lot can
be constructed consistent with the plans that were approved 3 -4 years
' ago.
Batzli: But see I don't know that we were really looking at this phase
' that closely when we did it.
Al -Jaff: There is a master plan and this parking scheme does not fit
with what is out there. In this case they are...from the Riveria parking
1
Planning Commission Meeting '
September 2, 1992 - Page 11
area. ...this is what exists.
Batzli: That's what currently exists? '
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Batzli: I'll come back to this. Jeff, go ahead. 1
Farmakes: Since I was not here when you did Phase 1, I'm assuming that
what you're going to work out is going to be consistent with what you di'
on Phase 1 with that issue.
Al -Jaff: Correct. 1
Farmakes: Going to line 5, comment on the canopy. This is the original
concept here? I think the overall effect of the canopy makes the
building, the group look like a lot nicer. It breaks up the roofline.
That's a lot of roofline for one. I again have not been involved with
your original issues on this building. It seems to me that canopy makes
the overall effect of the entire development look a lot nicer. I'm not '
sure what practical purposes it serves since that information's not in
here.
Krauss: It serves no practical purpose. It was a design feature. '
There's no physical connection between the two buildings that can be
accessed through.
Farmakes: Well it is, I guess it's an effect that it makes it look more
attractive and breaks up the long expanse of roofline. And makes it look
like there's something more than two long pitched roof buildings. I get'
back to 8(a) where the applicant said 9. There already is a 9 so I don'
know how you want to classify that request for the entrance issue. I'm
not a traffic engineer. I'll support whatever staff comes up with that.
Getting 2 on 9. This is consistent, the 12 inches? What was worked out
with the City Council on the signage issue that we went in Phase 1?
Al -Jaff: Correct. '
Farmakes: So that's consistent, okay. On the issue of three. I can
understand the applicant's concern that the people understand where the
store is when they come up from the, it would be on the north side of th
building. However, don't they have to drive past the south side before
they enter primarily? The north is not the primary entrance. Am I
correct? Would you drive through the south and then traverse to the
parking lot?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Farmakes: So you would have a basic understanding of where positioned in
that building that would be? The signs are placed where the place of
business is.
Al -Jaff: Well, there are two accesses that they could.
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 12
Conrad: There's no guarantee Jeff they're going to pass.
Al -Jaff: See the Colonial shopping center. They use the access off of
1 Great Plains Boulevard, then they won't be able to.
Farmakes: So a fair statement is that they may or may not?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Farmakes: Alright. That's a valid concern that the tenant has on 3. On
the issue of the illuminated sign, however that does concern me that that
would be on the side of residential area. That those are illuminated
after 5:00 or after it gets dark. So I would support that they be non-
illuminated on that one side. To sum up this thing here, I still am
terribly uncomfortable with how this whole thing is worked out. That
there's a quasi, to quote the applicant, a quasi retail office area. It
seems to me that what happens eventually is that visually anyway, the
11
effect is that it becomes a retail area. And if we're looking for some
diversity in what we have going on here, in the future I hope that we, if
we're going to have a quasi retail area, that we zone quasi retail area
' that we know is going to turn out to look like retail when we plan.
That's the last of my comments.
' Batzli: Did you like the idea of the curb cut in the center of the
building? The curb cut that the applicant is proposing?
Farmakes: I would defer to the staff on that. On the issue of that
' access.
Batzli: Matt.
Ledvina: Okay. Looking at the canopy issue, I guess I would agree that
that kind of unifies the whole development there so I would support that.
' I can see the increased traffic on West 78th Street and I definitely
would concur with the staff on deciding not to put that median cut in
there so I would not support an EA condition. The additional sign for
the tenant, that seems reasonable to provide identification on the north
side of the building. That's fine. Non - illumination for the north
elevation sign, I agree with that point. And I feel that in terms of
specifying the square footage of the sign, etc., I guess I would agree
with the applicant that they be allowed to meet the ordinance
requirements. Whatever they might be at the time that they apply for a
sign permit. So I agree with simplying I guess 9(c)(1). And that's it.
1 Batzli: Sharmin, is the sign covenant which accompanies this site plan,
that's what you're talking about for the purposes of these various thing?
The front /back illumination. That type of thing. That will become part
of this covenant that's attached to the site plan?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
' Batzli: Is there a reason why we were specifying the real estate sign?
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 13
Al -Jaff: That's what in the city code right now. It's not proposed to 1
be amended. Kate is working on amending the sign ordinance and that
section remains as is.
Batzli: Okay, so we're. not gaining anything or losing anything really b
just saying that they need to comply with the standard?
Al-Jeff: No. 1
Batzli: Ladd.
Conrad: Briefly, real briefly. I like the canopy. I like how it looks.
I'm not paying for it but I like what that does. The median cut. I
guess I don't like the traffic flow into the building, period. It's just
real cumbersome. No matter where it is, it's real cumbersome. I don't,
you know by the Riv, I don't like how that goes in. I don't like passing
traffic going through the turn by the clock tower and meandering around II
to the back. It's just real sloppy.
Batzli: Well sure, you didn't support me when I tried to get that curb 1
cut closed though did you, 3 years ago?
Conrad: I don't know. Maybe it was late at night and whatever. But
it's just. - 1
Erhart: You're not negative on it are you?
Conrad: It's real cumbersome. I'm amazed we're doing this stuff and
then if Target moves in, we have other problems along 78th Street. So
yeah, I don't want to, I think if the engineer says we shouldn't have a
curb cut through the median, that we have to pay attention but still I
don't like, I don't like the access to the site, period. And I think
with Target moving in, I would hope we're doing some work on the entire
West 78th Street. I would hope so and I think this should be part of
that. The right place for people to enter is under the canopy which we •
may not build. But you know, that's where it should be. I think
absolutely that this is a retail center. Absolutely has to have two
signs. One on 78th. One on the other side. The illuminated, I'm not
sure about. It's facing residential. Even though it's retail, I don't
know that we were, I think we were thinking office at the time and there
wouldn't be signage back there. I guess I'm not real comfortable
illuminating it. There very definitely has to be a sign over there. Ha
to be. Just no doubt in my mind. The free standing signs and all the
restrictions, I'm just assuming that all, well for the monument signs.
No. No, I'm not even. There's a statement in here, the copy shall have 1
a maximum height of 1 foot and be internally. Is that a standard or are
we making that up?
Al -Jaff: We're making that up. That is what they are requesting in
their covenants so.
Conrad: So they're comfortable? You're comfortable with that?
Bob Copeland: We bought that...Phase 1.
1
4
' Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 14
Batzli: If the Council agreed to...Phase 1. That's consistent.
Conrad: It is consistent?
Batzli: That's what staff said. Consistent with Phase 1.
Conrad: Then I really, when I start dictating copy size, you know, we
can dictate signage size. I don't have a problem with signage but when
we start saying copy, geez. That's not our business but if it's
consistent and the applicant is comfortable, I won't make it an issue. I
want to move on. And then I feel comfortable with the applicant saying,
hey apply the current ordinance and in terms of the general signage.
Yeah, let's just do that. So that's all.
' Erhart: Okay. I too, I was really sold on this project when Phase 1
came in because I really liked the canopy. So we'll add that to the
' stream of positives regarding the canopy. The question is, the building
setback the same from the curb as Phase 1?
Al -Jaff: Yes it is.
Erhart: We certainly don't want to have it any closer. You know I guess
my feeling and I've probably stated it 100 times up here is what we
' should do, unless there's a better plan coming, it sounds like there is
on West 78th Street. I couldn't agree with Ladd more. We've got to do
something. And without getting into it, the easiest would be just to get
rid of the center median and put a third middle lane where people could
turn. You know which is a turning lane. Get rid of the center median
completely and it solves all these problems because really, quite frankly
if you're going to make a curb cut, as Ladd said, you'd make it under the
' canopy and eliminate the curb cut between the Riveria and the west end of
the building. So I don't know.
' Krauss: 78th Street is going to be modified a little bit and it's going
to be extended. Strgar- Roscoe who's doing work for us has proposed some
modifications to make turning movements more adaptable there and at Great
Plains to fix the intersection there. Long term, in fact not very long
' term given the speed at which things are happening, they're telling us
that we're going to have to widen that out to, we've got 16 foot lanes
now. We're going to need the added lane width probably on the outside to
' get a full two lanes in each direction. As far as the appropriate place
for the full median cut, yeah. I agree that that situation back there is
somewhat confused and a compromise. The Riveria wanted their curb cut.
The Frontier Center didn't want to lose theirs. The one curb cut that we
have there serves both north and south sides equally well of that curb
cut. It is kind of messy but that was a design that evolved after
several years of effort and the City actually owned all those parking
lots. We built them.
Erhart: I kind of find it humorous because people always talk about how
' scarey it is to drive on TH 101. I live down on TH 101 and there's only
one thing that scares me in this city and that's trying to cross West
78th Street at Market Boulevard.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 15
Krauss: Well that's true and the Council's already authorized the II
signals to go in.
Erhart: That's great.
II
Conrad: Paul, I don't understand. Even looking at this. If we care
about the...of this building, there could be a lot more people here or II
over there. Look at what we're having them doing. They're coming in
here and around there and then we have them make a 180 degree turn to
back here. Some of that stuff just doesn't look right. You know, it's II
just not well, that's not how we should be pushing people around. I
don't know the other alternatives but that's not efficient and in the
same center we're pushing, they have to go all the way down through the
stop sign. Well, if they hit the Riv and they know how to turn, and the
know how to go through the parking lot. See what we're doing is we're
pushing people through a restaurant parking lot and then we get them into
the medical professional center parking lot. You know, geez.
I
Erhart: My turn again?
Conrad: I'm sorry.
1
Batzli: He got that off his chest.
Erhart: It would seem to me the simplest, moving on to signs. It seems'
to me the simplest is just adapt the same signage agreement that we spent
so much time on in Phase 1. I'd just offer that as a simple solution. I
would agree with the applicant that we should allow one side per sign.
also agree that it doesn't seem, I just can't imagine a illuminated sign,
neon lighted sign effecting someone in that apartment building. Maybe '
I'm not naive about that but secondly is the other building does allow
it, correct Sharmin? Illuminated north side signs. Phase 1. It was
allowed.
Al -Jaff: I don't know. 1
Erhart: Do you know? 1
Bob Copeland: It is allowed and there are two.
Erhart: And lastly, if it doesn't make any difference and the applicant'
wants to see it read, comply with current city ordinance, I don't, I
guess everybody seems to be agreeable to that. If it makes the applicant
more comfortable. And that was it.
I
Batzli: Why do you want to give them what Phase 1 had for signage when
none of us liked it and really one of the few reasons we gave it to them '
was that we were bushwhacked by an oversight from prior staff?
Erhart: Well I'll have to look back here but actually I think I liked
it. Now I'm trying to remember how that all went. I remember we had
discussion one night. I didn't like the original signage which were all
the light color and then there was one that came on that was gold. I
guess if I remember right, and I think Ladd and I agree that we should II
II
I Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 16
II not have allowed the sign on the front of the, what do you call it? The
porch or whatever. That's where I think we ended up saying. The mistake
was not, we should never allowed signs on that porch.
II Al -Jaff : Dormers.
I Erhart: Dormers. What you call the dormer areas. They were fine in the
background but what really made the ugly was on the dormers and maybe
that's the area we ought to look at.
1 Batzli: You don't mind the signs that are currently that building?
Erhart: The ones that are on the main part of the building, I actually
II like the logos and the color.
Batzli: Do you?
II Erhart: Yeah. Better than what we saw a year ago. Just these gold
stamped letters that looked like something out of, you know you go down
to Target and, everybody's turning now. Ladd, don't look at me that way.
Farmakes: I've always had a problem, not with the signs but with, as I
said before in my statement, the content of the building. I think it's a
I mish mash and I think the purpose of, you have to admit anyway that there
are a lot of professional buildings and a lot of office buildings that do
not have signage. And again, allows for some diversity and this thing is
kind of an apparition. It's kind of retail but it says it's an office
II and professional. I don't think the signage enhances the building in any
way, shape or form. But it obviously enhances communication of potential
customers for the business. So it's serving it's purpose. I have no
;' problem with it being consistent. That's a consistent development.
Batzli: Well but, if you're trying to direct the type, well there's two
II issues. One is, are we trying to make this one look like the other one
so we should let that kind of sign...in there just to make it look
consistent? Second issue is, if you really want to direct the type of
tenant that's going to go in there, you know the more retail oriented
II things are going to want the neon lights. Whatever and the more
"professional" type things, they might not care if it's neon.
II Farmakes: Is that not what the building has been approved at?
Batzli: I don't know that we approved what.
1 Farmakes: Well, if you offer them office and retail, according to the
market that's been developing here, it's becoming retail. They obviously
want retail signage and they want to be open after 5:00. So I mean
II that's where the direction's leading.
Batzli: Right. But did we approve it as retail?
II Farmakes: Well, you're getting back to what we discussed then in Phase
1.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting ,
September 2, 1992 - Page 17
Batzli: But I never envisioned this as retail. I viewed it more as 1
office. Professional office services.
Conrad: Office services, yeah. And as talked about then, it's a matter
of, whether service or retail, you can accomplish the same thing with th
signs. Bringing traffic in. The question is how well do you do it and
we sure fought that one the last time through. 1
Farmakes: We were mixed however. If left up to the market, what you're
doing is visually you're going to get all retail. So you lose any
diversity you might have from having business within and having a
professional...
Conrad: I don't know. I don't know. ,
Erhart: What do you mean?
Conrad: If I had a service business, I'd put it there and I'd say, this'll
is a plus to have a sign out on a high traffic area.
Farmakes: Well, there are some professionals that are going into Eden I
Prairie Mall. Dentist, for instance. They want to be in a mall setting.
That's what they want. They want to be a retail setting. And there ar
other people who want to be in a professional building. Somebody
accesses their business, they don't want to come by with 15% off in the
window. So it's just a question of what it is. I'm not positive for it
one way or the other. It seems to me that what we've got here is sort oll
an either or.
Batzli: But you still would...the size.
I
Farmakes: I think the cat's out of the bag. I think if you're going to
be consistent in the building, we should be consistent with what Phase 1
is. Especially if there's a canopy there. Basically what you've got is ,
one building. One development.
Batzli: Phase 1 differed a little bit in that it's internally accessed
and there was some sort of prohibition about the number of signs that it
had I thought.
Al -Jaff: There's a limit of 7 signs on Phase 1 on the south side of thel
building versus there's no limit on this one.
Krauss: In trying to echo Jeff's comments. That was our position I
initially that this was an internally accessed, two story professional
building. You go down to the Southdale Professional Building and it's
full of doctors. It doesn't have signs all over it. Now, they made the
point that this is a mix type of building. Rightly or wrongly, that was '
what was approved there. But whatever we thought with that, the single
story building is probably a lot more clearly retail oriented by design.
Batzli: What kind of retail are you talking about? When you say retail
what are you envisioning?
' Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 18
' Krauss: I don't know. i mean I can tell you what I'm envisioning but
maybe it'd be more important to see what Bob is, but maybe you want to
have a Xerox printing store in there. Maybe it will be a chiropracter's
office. I mean I think you can conceiveably have a mix that's not too
much different than Town Square. Another Travel Agent. We've already
heard that there's going to be some professional office space in there.
11 Those kinds of uses are very adaptable these days.
Batzli: Yeah, and like those types of uses would want those kinds of
signs. Travel agent, a copy center, those kinds of things.
Farmakes: Sure, posters in the window. Fly to Jamaica.
' Batzli: I'd like to see the canopy constructed, although I don't know
that I agree with Ladd's comment that we're not paying for it.
' Conrad: I didn't mean that. I said I was not paying for it. Well,
yeah.
Batzli: We're all paying for it aren't we?
1 Conrad: Yeah. See my comment wasn meant, I had nothing financially
motivating it one way or the other. If it's coming out of my pocket,
then I might be concerned.
Batzli: I think it's coming out of all of our pockets.
' Krauss: I know that Mr. Copeland's position that the HRA would pay for
it. I have no reason to dispute that but I don't know that to be fact or
not. I assume, it's part of the HRA's agreement.
' Farmakes: Would there be signage on the canopy?
' Krauss: No.
Farmakes: So you have some sort of thing worked out with that
originally?
Krauss: There was no, the signage was allocated by tenant space. There's
no tenant space.
Conrad: Eastbound traffic enter here.
' Batzli: We had discussions originally about whether fire trucks and the
like could fit underneath the canopy and whether this was, whether a
center island could go in there. Whether the fire trucks could manage
that. All that kind of good stuff. Have we looked at it in view of
having a canopy on here so that we're not approving something that's
going to burn down and our trucks sit out on the road watching it?
' Krauss: Well again, that's not an issue that I'm particularly familiar
with but it sounds like your desire is to carry forward a recommendation
that the canopy be considered and we can certainly have our Fire Marshall
make sure the turn radii are acceptable. Honestly, one of the reasons
Planning Commission Meeting
II
September 2, 1992 - Page 19
why we're going to be modifying a little bit the turn radii on 78th II
Street is our fire trucks are having trouble negotiating. So yeah, we
think that it can be done but it's got to be done right. And throw it all
the curb cut has to be wide enough.
Batzli: I guess for the life of me, I don't know why they'd be driving
underneath a burning wooden building. Come to think of it. Okay. The II
signs, I don't like but I'm never going to get rid of them. I think the
temporary real estate sign, they should have whatever they're allowed to
have. I don't necessarily like the illumination to the north but if
we're going to give them on the south, I don't see why, I don't see the II
distinction unless these are going to be so bright that they would bother
the residents across the parking lot. And I want to make sure that the
staff reviews the Minutes from the meeting when we discussed people
traversing this parking lot. There were a lot of safety concerns given
the routing of the traffic through the back end of the lot. And there
was talk about where we put the sidewalks. How to get people through II
there and I want staff to go back and look at that stuff so we don't hav
to recreate the wheel here to make they're addressing those concerns.
Safety issue through this parking lot, given the fact we're driving
everybody through the Riv, then along the back of the building, there ar/
going to be people moving along the back of the building at a relatively
high speed and that has to be addressed. Those are my comments. Is
there a motion?
II
Conrad: Sure. I make a motion that the Planning Commission approval
Site Plan Review #88 -17 as shown on the site plan dated August 3, 1992 II
subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following changes/
On point number 2, instead of eliminate sidewalks between the parking
stalls, we will substitute, the applicant will eliminate four striped II
areas or the appropriate number of parking spaces to...the parking
situation into compliance with staff recommendation. Everything stands
through 5, 6, 7, 8.
Batzli: Do you want to modify 5? II
Conrad: No. Yeah. The City recommendation that a canopy connect the II
two phases for point number 5. Under point number 9(a)(3), change the
requirement that the tenant may have one sign per side. Number 9(a)(4),
based on what I heard here. That we will allow the north signage to be
illuminated unless staff can present a stop strong argument against it. II
Under 9(b), stands. 9(c), to allow the current ordinance and it's
restrictions to apply to the general signage for real estate signage.
And point number 2. Tha staff should review the traffic movement within!'
the Riveria and the professional building as well as traffic movement
along 78th Street to make sure that it's appropriate for Chanhassen in
the long run.
II
Erhart: I'll second it.
Batzli: Is there any discussion?
II
Farmakes: I have a question on 3. Under the sign covenant, page 7. You
said on four sides of the building. Does that mean that one now is two II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 20
or three sides?
Conrad: Are there three?
1 Farmakes: Yeah, I thought we.
I/ Conrad: I said one side. Okay.
Farmakes: There's four sides to the building.
Conrad: Good point. The intent is to have no more than two signs.
Ai -Jaff: That's good. A tenant may have no more than two signs.
Farmakes: What about the illumination? Is that being dropped?
' Batzli: Let me ask the question on the number of tenants. Currently
this is being built out for 6 tenants. If you split some of these spaces
and we limit it to the tenants rather than the size of the building, just
by way of example. Let's say you put a wall through the middle of one of
these spots and you rented out one to each side. Would you want to have
each tenant having a sign on both sides of the building?
Conrad: Ah boy. That's a real good point Brian and we struggled with
that on the first phase.
Farmakes: Signage to the north and south.
' Batzli: Could we limit it to no more than 12 signs maximum?
Conrad: I don't know how to address that. Yeah, we don't want it over
signed obviously.
Farmakes: You can limit the numeric by eliminating the signage to the
north and south.
Batztli: 6 signs.
Farmakes: No more than 2 signs per, rather than say side, say no more
than 2 signs per tenant. That will limit them correct to a sign to the
north and the south.
Conrad: But still they could potentially chop that building up. I don't
' think that's realistic but potentially they could chop it up to put a
sign every.
Farmakes: Well they can have up to. If they're a major tenant and they
1 go through to the back, but I mean the idea being is that someone can
access the business to the back and see that it's there. If it's a
different business, well then the point is made. But I don't know how
' you'd limit how many tenants there are to the building, I mean other than
fire code.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting ,
September 2, 1992 - Page 21
Batzli: Well, if you're trying to make it look like the other building II
though, which is what I thought was one of our intents here, you don't
want to have 15 signs on the front, and 15 signs on the back. If that's
how many tenants there end up being. The applicant will probably tell m�
that's not realistic but if we're trying to keep the signage looking
similar to tie the buildings together then.
Farmakes: There's a height restriction. You should get a similar
density to the signage as you would in the other building. Unless
somebody took several lower units. They have a height limit on the
signage so that would limit the size of the sign.
Batzli: What's going to drive it is the tenant and the management. I
want a sign or I'm not moving in kind of a thing and if they can do it, II
they'll put it up.
Farmakes: Right. But your concern is that there be too many. Not that,
there be too few, correct?
Batzli: Right. I would just limit it to 6 signs per side of the
building.
Conrad: Does that work?
Bob Copeland: Well, we have 7 on the south side of Phase 1.
Farmakes: Same width? 1
Bob Copeland: The building is the same.
Conrad: That makes a maximum of 14. 1
Batzli: That would at least make it look similar.
Conrad: I'm not trying to do that. I'm just, I don't care. 1
Batzli: You don't want it over signed? 1
Conrad: Yeah, that's right. But I don't know how to deal with that.
Farmakes: The City Council can screw around with that. 1
Batzli: Put it in there, 14.
Conrad: So I'd amend under 9(a)(3) that a tenant may have no more than 1
two signs with the building having a maximum of 14 tenant signs.
Batzli: Who seconded that, do you know? 1
Farmakes: Are we restricting signage to the north and south face of the
building? ,
Batzli: We haven't so far I don't think.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 22
Al -Jaff: Do you restrict 7 to the north and 7 to the south?
Conrad: Well, they're not going to put it under the canopy. I don't
think anybody's going to put it on the east.
Farmakes: You're seeing a use like a Subway over here on Market. You're
/I seeing two signs on the corner of the building and wrapped. We get two
signs right next to each other identical.
Conrad: Yeah, I guess I would restrict it to the north and the south.
How about you Tim?
Erhart: I thought that was in the staff report, so just add it to this.
Bob Copeland: It already says that it's...
' Farmakes: The amendment though was referring to the sides of the
building.
Batzli: Any more discussion?
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #88 -17 as shown on the site plan dated
August 3, 1992, subject to the following conditions:
1. No restaurant may be located in the western one -half of the Phase II
building.
2. Revise architectural plans as follows:
a. The applicant will eliminate four striped areas or the
appropriate number of parking spaces to bring it into compliance
with staff's recommendation.
11 b. Eliminate the public access door on the north face of the
building within the 20 feet of the west end of the structure.
c. Provide more detail on the roof line.
3. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior.
' 4. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along West 78th
Street.
5. A canopy shall be built to connect the two phases of the Medical Arts
Building.
6. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated August 6,
1992.
7. Amend the Development Contract between the HRA and Chanhassen Medical
Arts Limited Partnership to allow a public access door on the south
face of the building within the 20 feet of the west end of the
structure.
1
r
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 23
8. All HVAC equipment placed on the ground must be screened with
landscaping.
9. Sign covenants shall meet the following criteria: 1
a. Wall Mounted Signs:
1. Signs are only allowed within a continuous 2'2" high band II
near the roof line on the north and south sides of the
building, including the projections over entries. Signs
shall be attached directly to the building siding and not II
project above or below the designated sign area.
2. All signs shall be comprised of individual letters and /or 11
logos. Letters shall not exceed 12" in height and logos
shall not exceed 24" in height.
3. A tenant may have no more than two signs with the building II
having a maximum of 14 signs total on the north and south
sides. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name or 11
service offered.
4. Signs on the north elevation shall be illuminated, unless
staff can present a strong argument against it. Signs on thl
south side shall be illuminated.
b. Free Standing Signs: 1
1. Monument Sign: One Single Sided monment sign for building
identification (not tenant identification) may be placed in
the southwest yard between the building and the sidewalk. II
The top of the sign may not exceed 4 feet in height. The
dimensions of the sign may not exceed 2 feet heigh by 14 feet
wide. The copy shall have a maximum height of one foot and I/
be internally illuminated.
c. General: 1
1. One non - illuminated temporary real estate which advertise
sale of the building or space for lease within the building
must meet the City's current sign ordinance requirements. II
2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any
signage on site. 1
3. Stop sign shall be installed at the exit point proposed on
West 78th Street.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: And this goes to the City Council September 28th as well. Okay
1
1
I/ Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 24
PUBLIC HEARING:
NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA
SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present:
' Name Address
Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive
Jean Wood 6341 Cypress
Pamela W. Illies 6221 Cypress
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the meeting to order.
Jean Wood: My name is Jean Wood and I live at 6341 Cypress Drive. On
' your map it's marked Dartmouth but it is nonetheless, we call it Cypress.
Kate has stated very clearly our request. Where we do have some
historical points I think to point out is on the 7 boats that sit on the
boat rack which is located at the head of our marina. You really can't
see it but it's a series of posts. About 30 feet long and like I said,
there's room for probably, or as the City noted, 7 boats. We have no
history in our Minutes as far as whether they were motorized or not
' motorized to be quite frank so I approached the Chair. The Chairman of
the committee who oversaw the dredging and the building of the boat rack
about what was the history about that running from the installation in
'77 thru '81. He said that there have been over the years small boats,
including small boats with motors and he identified them as being motors
no larger than 15 horsepower. He said that most motored boats only
stayed there for a few days and the motors are taken away, simply because
1 we have had three incidents, and I can't tell you when these incidents
were, of motors being stolen from the rack. And so basically they stay
down there only for a few hours or a couple of days. It's not a storage
' rack for motorized for the entire season. That's not our tradition. And
so what we would ask is that in your recommendation that you do give us
some leeway or some flexibility for small 15 hp motors to be down there.
' Are there any other questions about the plan or the history? I had to
delve into this in great detail so I know all kinds of things now.
Batzli: You're bursting to tell us?
Jean Wood: No. No.
' Batzli: Okay, does anybody have any questions? This is a public
hearing. We may have some questions for you a little later. Would
anyone else like to address the Commission?
' Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, Dartmouth Drive, Excelsior. I'm on the
lake. I have lakeshore property but I am a member of this association.
Have been on and off for the 12 years since 1980. We have definitely
researched and proved that there 18 boats in 1981. This is one
association that has not grown. I've been here many times with others
that have expanded on their dockage and their boats. It's a very
maintained property. It's 2 or 3 acres, as Kate pointed out. I'm in a
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 25
little bit of a bad position here because in 1981 I was secretary -
treasurer of the association and I happen to be this year also. However,
I disagree with the association on the boats that are on the head of thei
marina. There were no motorized boats there. I kept a non - motorized
rowboat and a canoe there and my recollection was that there was one
other non - motorized boat there at the time. So I wouldn't want to see
that expanded because if you put a 15 hp, I mean you could wind up with II
some pretty large fishing boats and that sort of stuff and it would grow
too much. So I'm in kind of a bad position, on this one guys but my
recollection, and I was secretary - treasurer at the time, was that there II
were no motorized boats there. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Pamela Illies: Pamela Illies, 6221 Cypress Drive. I'm also an
homeowners association member. My husband and I have lived at that
address since August of 1980. My recollection of the time in question, 1
1980 -1981 up until present date is that the site at the head of the
marina which is being called a storage area, is really more a temporary
pull your boat up on here to do minor repairs. Leave it for the day
while you go home and have lunch and go back out to go fishing. I have 1
at various times in the 12 years I've lived there seen small motorized
boats that have been pulled up in that area. Whether they've been pulle
up there and left for a longer period of time than a day or two, I can't
say.
Batzli: Could you point one thing out for me before you sit down? Can II
you show on the map where the raft is normally located?
Pamela Illies: Yeah, the raft is right here.
Batzli: Okay, that's for the non - motorized boats.
Pamela Illies: It's about 30 feet. 1
Batzli: Okay. How about the swimming raft?
Pamela Illies: The swimming raft? 1
Batzli: Yeah.
Pamela Illies: The swimming raft is normally set on the side here I
believe. Isn't that pulled over on the side here and then it's for
storage and then it's brought up to approximately this location. '
Batzli: Right out in front of the mouth of the.
Pamela Illies: Right, that's correct. '
Mary Jo Moore: There hasn't been a swimming raft in, well there was one
in '81 but there hasn't been there since. There really isn't any 1
swimming...
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 26
11 Pamela Illies: Yeah, the swimming raft is a portable raft and I don't
think it's even in existence at this point.
Batzli: You've requested one in this application though.
Pamela Illies: We'd like to be able to put it out again.
' Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a
motion to close the public hearing?
Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: We don't have our Lake Minnewashta. person here. Jeff, go ahead.
Farmakes: I guess I'm a fairly, do you have an explanation as to why the
inventory differs so much from the request? For instance, boats moored.
It says no, no, no. And these ladies are saying that there are boats
moored there.
11 Aanenson: No, moored would be if they're anchored out into the water.
Farmakes: Okay, boats docked.
i Aanenson: That's how we're interpretting that.
Farmakes: Okay, so boats docked. There's 10 and then there's 18. I'm
■ sorry, I'm on the wrong line. Are you comfortable with the documentation
i that you had with 12 in '81? They obviously differ here so what?
Aanenson: The evidence of the letters that they provided to say that
other people that have, that's provided for you to make that
interpretation but from what I've read, it seems like it's legit. I mean
obviously who did the inventory.
Farmakes: There might have been 6 boats out on the lake.
' Aanenson: Exactly. The person that did the inventory made a note that
there was space for 20, whatever that means but it seemed like there was
a capability of having that many boats on the water at that time.
Farmakes: The number I have on my sheet here now says 9, on seasonal
docks. Or excuse me, 8. There are 9 you say?
Aanenson: That's how many they would like, yes.
Farmakes: Okay, so is that, you had more docks and you hadn't put them
out that year or what is the?
Jean Wood: No. According to the inventory...showed 10. What we're just
claiming is 9 and what we're saying is that the 10th dock is not put out.
Farmakes: So right now currently there's 9, not 8 correct? It says 8 in
my packet here.
t
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 27
Batzli: As of June, 1991. Our survey showed that there was 8.
Aanenson: In 1991 or '81?
Batzli: '91, correct.
Mary Jo Moore: There was one dock that was temporary, voted on by the
association on an annual basis.
Jean Wood. That was not put in. And it was not put in. 1
Mary Jo Moore: It was in in '81 but not in this year.
Farmakes: Is it common to have a swimming raft when you don't have a
swimming beach?
Pamela Illies: If you want swimming you have to have either a raft or al
beach, you know.
Farmakes: But I mean the issue is, do you promote swimming there? 1
Pamela Illies: No. No.
Farmakes: So the purpose of a swimming raft is, if you don't promote II
swimming is what?
Mary Jo Moore: The raft hasn't been there for 10 years actually. 1
Farmakes: It shows that the raft's been there since '81. I was just
curious to know because you don't have a swimming beach listed there.
Pamela Illies: The raft was there in the early 1980's because there were
families with teenage children. That situation no longer exists.
Families with children have younger children now. We'd like permission 11
for a swimming raft so that in 5 or 6 years when my daughter is a
teenager, if they want to put a swimming raft out there so our kids are
not going...to swim, we'd like the capability of putting it out there.
So we would just petition the City Council to not tell us we can't have II
one...to be able to put it out again when we have children that would
like to use it.
Farmakes: We're not really discussing that here. Whether you can or
can't. What we're discussing here is what you had in '81 and that it's
not expanded and we're trying to be consistent with all the. 1
Jean Wood: Correct, we had it in '81.
Pamela Illies: We had it. 1
Farmakes: That's what I said. I was just curious to know what you had
planned there because there was no beach. I guess I would support the II
issue of limiting boats on the storage so that's not abused. Maybe
clarify that. Other than that I don't see where they're being
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 28
11 inconsistent on what they had. ...marina and this is not what we have
been seeing from some of the other applicants. I have no other comments.
11 Batzli: Matt.
Ledvina: I had a question for the association there. How many peirs or
docks are there right now out? As of this date.
Jean Wood: As of this day we have 7 out.
Ledvina: 7 as of today.
Sean Wood: 7 as of today.
i Ledvina: Okay, because I may have miscounted but I took a drive by there
today and I believe I counted 6. 4 on one side and 2 on the other side.
Is that correct?
Pamela , Illies: My raft is there. It's laying on the side and hasn't
been put out there.
' Ledvina: Okay. Will it put out this year?
' Pamela Illies: Pardon?
Ledvina: Will that be put out this year?
11 Pamela Illies: Not this year it won't, no.
Batzli: I thought I was late.
11 Pamela Illies: There was a change because of the weather last year and a
lot of docks poles being actually destroyed by ice so every association
member, at our last meeting, chose to change the type of dock and we had
to actually destroy our...docks and purchase new docks for the area. And
it took a few of us a little bit longer to get our financial act
together.
' Ledvina: Okay, what's the minimum number of docks that have been put out
in this location?
Jean Wood: Minimum?
Ledvina: Yeah.
Jean Wood: Minimum number?
Ledvina: Right.
Jean Wood: I guess what's out now which would be.
Ledvina: The 6 docks.
Jean Wood: 6. I miscounted. 6.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 29
Ledvina: Okay. I guess I talked to Kate about this issue a little bit II
and I guess it's my understanding that what we're trying to do is verify
our grandfathering conditions and as it relates to grandfathering, if th
use is decreased or if that use has ceased and as a grandfathering
status, that they're not allowed to go back to an increased level. So d
you want to comment on that a little bit Kate?
Aanenson: Well, I think the gest of that is correct. I think this is all
anomaly again because of the number of piers. Normally most of the
beachlots would put it out every, their one dock every year. But that's"
the way we interpret it. If it goes beyond a year and they haven't put
their dock in, then the grandfathering right would go. We haven't even
established a level of use yet on this one so I don't know. I didn't go
out and inventory it this year. I can guarantee you next year after
we've got all these permits in place, staff is going to go out every
year. Maybe it needs to be over the 4th of July weekend if that's the
peak of the summer and determine whether or not they're in compliance anil
we're going to do that. But I'm not sure, we haven't even approved the II
level of use yet at this beachlot to say whether or not they're, I think
that's a question for Roger Knutson to see if he feels that's something
we want to look at and say 6, if that's what you're getting to.
Ledvina: Right. It's generally 2 boats per dock, is that correct?
Jean Wood: Correct.
Ledvina: Okay, and you're saying that in all of the years there were at il
least 8, is that correct?
Jean Wood: At least 8 docks out?
Ledvina: Right.
Jean Wood: Normally at least 8 docks out and a 9th was out in the early
1980's. And this past year, as we have changed our docks over, like shell
said, some got bought a little later and are not in yet.
Ledvina: So will those docks go in this year? i
Pamela Illies: They may not go in this year. They're planning to do it
next year for sure. I mean ours is purchased and it's laying there.
It's a shared dock situation so the other householder, we said we'll buyil
it, you put it in. He didn't put it in yet.
Jean Wood: He also underwent triple by -pass surgery. It's an older 1
couple.
Ledvina: Well this is kind of a tough issue because there's, we've heart
many or a lot of testimony about the use of, the overuse of Lake
Minnewashta and the number of boats on the lake and such and if we can
support, if this grandfathering situation is such that now we've
decreased the use to 6 docks, maybe that represents the prudent
limitation that we should take on this particular lake. I don't know. I
guess I don't really have a strong feeling on it at this point but I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 30
11 think we should look at that as a commission and see if that's a viable
thing that we should do as part of the provisions for grandfathering, so.
I just wanted to raise that issue. Otherwise, the other items that were
requested, I guess I would support that the storage area be for
non - motorized use boats only and other than that, no other comments on
the application.
' Batzli: By non - motorized you mean you have to take the motor off it
before you store it?
Ledvina: Right.
Batzli: Okay. Ladd.
Conrad: I agree with 18 boats and 7 non - motorized. And Matt, you know I
buy some of what you're saying. I don't know that we've applied it to
any other beachlot. Therefore, I'm not picking up on what you're saying.
There's some logic there but we really haven't used it. If we use that
same logic. We haven't used the boats per dock logic on anything we've
done. We're not using boats per riparian lot. There's a lot of things
' we're not using which should be used because that regulates intensity.
That's the point of the ordinance but in this exercise, we're not using
it. We're establishing 1981 and therefore, I don't know where to go with
' your comments.
Ledvina: Well, it's just that let's say they had kind of, and let's go
to the extreme situation. Let's say they had abandoned all use of the
beachlot for 10 years and then all of a sudden this year they went out
and put in 10 docks and where would we be on that issue.
Conrad: All we're doing is establishing '81 level.
Batzli: The original intent was to keep the intensity from increasing
over the level that it was at in the first instance when the City had
adequate records, which was '81. You raise kind of like a law school
exam question. Well, what do you do about it? We haven't been doing
that. We haven't been applying that. The one we looked at a couple of
' weeks ago where they had 20 boats or whatever it was on one dock, if you
look at that from year to year, there were some boats missing from that
dock each year but we didn't, the fact that they were able to trot out 15
different years of we always had at feast this many boats and up to 18.
Okay, you've got 18.
' Ledvina: Well they demonstrated the use every year. There was never a
fluctuating use that I saw.
Batzli: Well there was, in the number of boats each year.
Ledvina: Well, the number of slips have essentially remained constant.
That's the way I saw it anyway but.
Farmakes: Isn't the general intent of what the useage was, and that it's
not expanded. We're not requiring that everybody put their boats in by a
certain date and take them off by a certain date. And that these checks
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 31
are done at the same interval under the same conditions so. It seems II
unreasonable to assume that somebody might not take their boat. Take it
boating somewhere else for, or have it out on the lake when the study's
being taken and it seems that they demonstrated here, by the City's own
statement that they had 10 docks and that you figure 2 boats per dock,
that's 20 boats. That's '81 so.
Ledvina: I understand the rationale that's being discussed here but I I
think there's a whole concept of grandfathering. I see that when you say
that something's grandfathered, you allow that use but then over time, II
you assume that will go away based on a changing situation. I think am
I wrong about that?
Batzli: Well that's fairly accurate but if you look for example at theil
seasonal docks, we have three different inventories here. '81, '86 and
'91 and they're fairly constant. I don't think we can say that they've
lost something based on one season of use that isn't done yet, and
especially.
Ledvina: Right, I know. I'm not saying that the season is done and
maybe they will put those docks in and get 9 docks but I guess it's kind,
of a grandfathering philosophy and maybe, you're saying it doesn't apply
to this situation.
Farmakes: If you boat, you know that sometimes the boat needs repair. II
Sometimes it's very expensive. Sometimes you take it out for the season.
Sometimes the dock needs repair. Things don't always, like I said, you III
don't put it in in May and take it out in September. Sometimes there's
some variance there. As I said, I think the City's own study shows that
the variance has been pretty slight.
Batzli: On a philosophical level, I agree with you but I don't know tha
we've done that to the other applicants on this situation. And I think
that's kind of what Ladd has said. It was philosophically you may be II
right but we haven't looked at it that critically at the other ones so
much as we tried to establish the maximum use that they had in '81 so
that they couldn't exceed that. 1
Ledvina: I guess when this whole issue was described to me, it was
described as a grandfathering situation and maybe it's something
different.
Batzli: Well I think we all assumed that use on the lake intensified
over time so we were going to cut them back to what they had in '81. I II
don't think anyone ever envisioned that the use had decreased since that
time.
Ledvina: Right. Well I agree. ,
Batzli: Forgive us. We're getting philosopical up here a little bit.
Ledvina: Okay, well again I'll take that approach but I just wanted toll
it was described a little differently and if that's the way we're doing
t
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 32
11 it, then again I can reconsider and look at the request as it exists and
see that that's reasonable.
Batzli: Ladd, did you have anything else? Okay.
Erhart: Kate how does, we have this lying boats on land on the other
forms? On the other beachlots, do we have a line called boats on land.
Was that on the?
' Aanenson: Pleasant Acres had it too.
Erhart: Okay, so we allowed boats on land?
Aanenson: Well, I think what you did on Pleasant Acres is you took some
of the boats away from the dock and allowed those on land to be counted
because they also had a canoe rack too. So I think you combined those
I two.
Erhart: Does the boats on land include the canoe rack generally?
Aanenson: No, they've been separate.
Erhart: They've been separate so we put provisions in that state that it
11 cannot be motorized in the past or have we not addressed that?
Aanenson: Well I think the only other instance I can recall that we've
done is Pleasant Acres and that they've had, I think they had 5 we
allowed them. We counted that towards our total of 14.
Erhart: So those could be motorized?
Aanenson: Correct. But then they specifically had canoe racks and our
ordinance says those are non - motorized.
Erhart: Right. I guess my feeling on these boats on land, I mean any,
if I'm wrong. Any beach you can pull up a boat on land and walk down the
1 street and go have lunch. I'm not sure that this really, I'm not even
sure it's worth talking about to be honest here. To me if there's 7
boats on land, if that's what they want, that's fine with me.
' Farmakes: Isn't storage considered overnight?
Erhart: The impression I got is that they don't really leave them there
' with the motors on. The motors disappear. Or am I wrong?
Batzli: No, I think that's what. I think what they said though was that
there were several that are kept there overnight on a continuous basis
' and there are others that show up and disappear as people use them for a
day or a week.
' Erhart: Do we stop other recreational beachlot users from doing that?
Do we have anything in our code that disallows that? Not really.
Batzli: I don't know if that's storage or not. Do we regulate storage?
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 33
Aanenson: Well if it's at the beachlot. I mean yeah. I think we say II
that you can only have two canoe racks, you can only have so many boats
at the beachlot and those are counting towards the total number of boats
which makes 25. And basically in 5 years from now, if they still have 2�
but they have a different look that they're pulling up, how do we
regulate that? I just want when I go out next year or two years from
now. '
Erhart: Okay, so we're regulating total number of boats, not just number
of spots on their dock for a boat? ,
Aanenson: Well the ordinance says you can only have canoe racks. So
this doesn't fall into a category so what we're trying to do is establis
so when someone goes out there to look at this in 5 years, what was the
intent of this and that's what we're trying to clarify in the permitting
process. What is our intent? We're trying to make it as clear as
possible so when we go out later we know exactly what was meant. That's"
really the intent. It's not addressed in the ordinance.
Erhart: Okay, 7 boats on land. Wasn't there one other one where we
talked about the swimming raft being a concern about safety when it was II
in the line of boat traffic?
Aanenson: Several. 1
Erhart: What did we do in those?
Batzli: We required buoys I think in some instances. 1
Conrad: We permitted them.
Erhart: We permitted them but.
Aanenson: I think a lot of them are used for water skiing purposes too.
Erhart: I just think we should just be consistent with what we've done.
I think it is a safety issue but if we've allowed them on the other ones
then I think that's what we ought to do. Was there a requirement for
buoys, do you remember?
Batzli: I thought we did. I thought we required buoys on at least. ,
Aanenson: Well the ordinance says if you have a swimming beach, it
requires it to be buoyed off. As far as the raft, that discussion has II
come up a lot and they're usually out past where the swimming beach is. II
You know they have to be, the ordinance requires that they have to be
marked with reflective anyway. If it's a device in the water. So that'
how it's...
Erhart: Well if that's consistent, then I guess I'm pretty much, I go
along with what they're requesting. 1
Batzli: Is that it?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 34
Erhart: Yep.
Batzli: What is this seaplane deal? They didn't ask for anything on the
seaplane. Do they need anything on a seaplane if they're going to keep
it there? This '81, they had a seaplane there. Is that still there
ever? No? Okay, good. I would, in this instance, approve the 9 piers.
1 If I can find my sheet. Non - motorized, 7 boats on land. I guess total
boats at the dock, 18. I would prefer, on larger bodies of lakes, rafts
are a little bit more regulated as far as how far out from the shore they
can be. Things like that. I don't know if we regulate that so much. My
concern is not that the raft be marked because I don't care if people hit
that with a boat. What I'm concerned about is someone swimming from the
shore out to the raft that gets hit by a boat that's pulling out. And
I rafts unfortunately for people in their teens, having once been in my
teens, are a drawing magnet to swim out there at night. If you have
people coming in and out at night and you're parking your raft right out
in front, it's very dangerous. You're creating a very dangerous
situation and that's what we're concerned about. And I don't know that
we're going to tell you that you can't have a raft but before you say I
want to keep my kids close to go swimming, you may want them to be as far
' away as possible, I guess is what I'm trying to tell you. So having said
that, is there a motion?
Farmakes: Motorized?
Batzli: I would say non - motorized boats on land. Now it's going to
' regulate itself because they don't have a launch so I don't know why
you'd park a big boat down there with a big motor. I really I guess you
know, my father's had several motors stolen over the years so I can't
imagine anyone keeping their motor down there anyway. You buy the Sure
Locks and they just hacksaw right through those. As long as they don't
make too much racket anyway so. Is there a motion?
Conrad: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the Minnewashta Shores Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot permit per
their request allowing motor vehicle access, 4 off street parking, 9
piers, 7 non - motorized boats on land, 18 boats at dock.
Batzli: Second. Any discussion?
11 Conrad moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Minnewashta Shores Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot
permit per their request allowing motor vehicle access, 4 off street
' parking, 9 piers, 7 non - motorized boats on land, 18 boats at dock. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: When does this go to City Council? Do we know? Do we have a
' date?
Aanenson: 28th.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 35
PUBLIC HEARING: ,
NON- CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR LAKEVIEW HILLS
APARTMENTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present:
Name Address ,
Marge Anderson 8800 Lake Riley Blvd.
Donna Bohn 9201 40 1/2 Ave No, New Hope 111 Ray Luis 9071 Lake Riley Blvd.
John Bushey 9000 Riley Lake Road, Eden Prairie
Batzli: Kate, are we continuing the public hearing? Do I have to open 11
that again?
Aanenson: I believe we closed that public hearing. We did commit to 11
renotices and I believe that that was done. I'm not sure if anybody's
here.
Batzli: Okay, so this is a public hearing but it's a separate and new II
public hearing because we noticed it?
Aanenson: We just noticed it for, if the people wanted to come and hear"
more information. I'm not sure it was noticed as a public hearing.
Batzli: Okay,, well I'm going to treat it as a public hearing for the
time being. For Lakeview Hills Apartments, why don't you give us a staf
report of what's happened.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. 1
Batzli: Now, just to clarify one point. Our City Attorney has suggested
to us that we cannot make a condition of granting or moving this permit II
along, any kind of restriction on access to the beach or deny it because
of the problems that they've had. The police problems.
Aanenson: That's correct. What you're directed is to establish the 1
level of use in 1981.
Batzli: Okay. Is the applicant here? Are you the applicant? 1
Marge Anderson: I'm not sure we ever had an applicant because we were
never at any other meeting but I'm Marge Anderson and I'm the Assistant II
Manager on site all the time and I can state that we very consistently, II
especially this year, have questioned people as they pull in, if we don't
recognize them, saying this is a private beach. You can't launch here.
We've also put up signs that say, boats. Private property, no
trespassing. Unauthorized boats and trailers will be towed at owners
expense. And to my knowledge, and I've been down there quite a bit this
year, and we have residents also helping us when they don't recognize II
somebody to say, you can't come in here. Where I've seen the boats come
in is when I'm going around the other side of the lake past the public
beach and boat launch area. Pioneer Trail has only no parking just so II
i
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 36
11 far just beyond the apple orchard and I see boats and trailers parked
just beyond those signs. Like 8, 10, 12 of them and I see people walking
back towards and that's where the excess boats and I'd love to see fewer
boats be out on the lake because we really do try and control it from
Lakeview Hills. But that's on the Eden Prairie side and they don't think
that we have much control over that. Yes, we have had some problems with
1 a few parties. We've had to call the police. We've evicted a couple
apartments of very young people that after talking with them, they just
wouldn't comply that we don't want a party complex. We wanted a quiet,
nice place for people to live so we've already, two of them are
completely gone. Asked to leave. Whenever we see a problem like that,
we don't want any wild parties down there. We don't want police
problems. We just want it to be nice for everybody to live. I don't
know what else to say.
Batzli: If we have any questions, I'm sure we'll ask in a few moments.
Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? It's a
public hearing, or at least I'm running it as one for the time being.
Ray Luis: I'm Ray Luis. I'm at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd., across the bay
' from the beachlot. At the last meeting I expressed some concern about
several issues. One of course was the noise. I understand that we're
not, that is a separate issue but the issue that I still would like to
address is the issue of the effect on the lake that the boat launch ramp
has. First of all, the DNR has created very strict rules about
controlling potential spread of Eurasian Milfoil by boat trailers and the
use of boat launch ramps and by having a launch ramp that's not
controlled, it opens up the lake to additional hazard from uncontrolled
Eurasian Milfoil exposure. The other issue is the issue of erosion.
I don't know if the DNR has standards on boat launch ramps but as I look
' at the boat launch ramp that's on the beachlot, I see a partly earth
filled and partly gravel launch ramp that has strong evidence of erosion.
Whenever a rain occurs, I don't see anything to stop soil from eroding
down into the lake and erosion is a known problem for keeping nutrient
levels of the lake under control. So I'm very concerned about that and I
think that in this particular case, the overall good of the lake, and the
lake quality, is to be used by the public and supported by the State,
' should be considered as a higher priority than the established right and
I think it's purely a matter of convenience for the use of the launch
ramp by the apartment dwellers. It's really not very much trouble to
11 travel the quarter mile and use the launch ramp. The public launch ramp
and that's what the rest of us do. And by doing that, I think we would
take one more step to insure or help insure the quality of the lake. So
I'd like to have that considered as the permit review process takes
' place.
Batzli: Thank you.
' Aanenson: Can I make a comment? ...staff to look at having someone come
out from the DNR to see if there's separate ordinances that, separate
' from the permitting process that they may not be meeting and we can
certainly look at that.
Batzli: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 37
John Bushey: I'm John Bushey. 9000 Riley Lake Road in Eden Prairie and'
I live just to the east of the beachlot in question. I have a couple
questions. First of all, is the application also for a boat launch? Is
that included in what they're asking for? '
•
Batzli: Yes.
John Bushey: That is included. And the other things, as I understand II
it, are for 10 parking spaces for boats or 7 boats and 10 parked cars or
something like that and then the 30 foot dock. I guess I'd like to stall
that I agree with Ray Luis on the erosion issue. I've been studying then
erosion problem into Lake Riley and this is not the only place where it
is a problem but the sediment load into the lake is very high and this i
definitely a source if you go and take a look at it right now. You can
see erosion down through the gravel and into the soil. And it's not the
type of location that shows any evidence of maintenance in that sense,
other than just dumping more dirt to be washed down in with the next
rain. I don't have any problem at all with the request for a dock on th,
use of the beachlot. It seems like a reasonable thing for the people who
live in the apartments to have good use of the beach. I don't see a nee
for a boat launch there. I don't know, the question is the type of, is
there any limitation on the type of boats that the 7 boats are supposed
to be? Canoes or?
Batzli: No. 1
John Bushey: Any boats?
Batzli: Any boats.
John Bushey: If you take a survey through the parking lot, I think
you'll see a lot of trailers with, the parking lot of the apartments. No
the beachlot. You'll see a lot of trailers with boats and with, hold
snowmobiles and the like and if that's going to be the appearance down
there, as viewed from Lake Riley Road or Lake Riley Blvd. on each side o`
the city line, that's not a very attractive thing to be looking at is a
bunch of boat trailers parked out there. And I think you should take
that into consideration. Is there really a need to park boats on
trailers a couple hundred yards closer to the lake than where they are
already, particularly since you've got to drive down to use the trailer
anyway. So why not just keep the trailers up the parking lot where they
are now. I guess as suggestions, which seems like a reasonable thing to
do is to go ahead and grant the use of the dock and some limitation on
the boat parking to canoes which are not easily transported. Or don't I
need trailers to transport anyway and keep the boat launch, close the
boat launch to alleviate the erosion problem and make it a more pleasant
swimming area anyway if you don't have launch traffic going on there. S
it seems like that might be a reasonable compromise for the use of the
lot and good of the people on the lake. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? II
Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 38
11 Erhart: I don't have any problem with any of the things requested there.
I would like to address the boat launch. Do we have any right at all to
ever close a private boat launch?
' Aanenson: That's what I was just mentioned before. That's something
that maybe we need to have the DNR go out and our staff too to look at,
if there's erosion and those sort of things, that we can address
separately as far as a policing kind of a thing. They are, the boat
launch is grandfathered in but maybe there's other things we need to do
to...that situation.
Erhart: Well okay. I think that's one of the questions...I'm not even
sure if we even have the right to even regulate or to remove one.
Aanenson: Well there's certain standards they have to meet, certainly.
Erhart: Well yeah, that's not what I asked. Second thing is, I guess
' that's what I did ask. The second thing is that I agree, you know we
have this storm water utility fund and all the committee meetings around
and then the first thing we're trying to get a hold of is any erosion and
' so, with regard to that, if there's erosion here, we really ought to go
out and get a handle on that and then come back with some ways to control
this thing. I'm not suggesting we eliminate it but I'm suggesting that
' if they're going to have it, we get a handle on what's going to be
required to protect the city's water and the neighboring citizens. And
it may apply to all private boat launch. I don't know how many private
boat launches we've got in the city. That's it.
Batzli: Do you feel comfortable that the applicant has demonstrated that
they've always had parking of boats down on the beachiot itself? Enough
to support that continued use.
Erhart: Without any survey? How much are we expecting them to, I don't
' know. How do you expect them to supply?
Batzli: They haven't supplied anything.
' Erhart: Have we asked them to? Okay, we're not relying just on our lack
of a survey.
Batzli: I'm not. I mean I think we've heard, there was tests, I should
say there was a fuzzy picture that somebody gave us that there was a dock
there. We know there was a dock there. We know there was a launch
there, based on what we've heard from everybody coming in. I've never
heard from anybody that there's always been storage of boats on the
beachiot.
' Farmakes: If there was a launch there, why does it say no under 1991?
Marge Anderson: We don't store the boats at night down on the lake.
' There's no parking... People have to remove their boats back behind our
buildings after they're through boating...or whatever so we don't
actually store them overnight down at the lake.
Planning Commission Meeting
II
September 2, 1992 - Page 39
Farmakes: How long have you had a boat launch there? '
Marge Anderson: Forever.
II Farmakes: So the inventory's mismarked?
Aanenson: I did it in '91. I may have missed it when I was out looking'
so.
Donna Bohn: ...one of the residents...prior to 1977 and...showed a dock,
and provided...
Aanenson: They have it.
Batzli: Yeah, we have that. The issue we're discussing is whether therII
has been boat storage on the beachlot.
Donna Bohn: I think what we're talking about... II
Batzli: So you wouldn't feel uncomfortable if we limited any boat II storage to non - motorized boats down there?
Donna Bohn: No.
Marge Anderson: First of all...on a regular basis we don't have II
overnight boat storage.
Donna Bohn: Any larger boats...stored behind the building. II
Batzli: Okay. I think that's what you were saying. That there's boats
back in the apartment building parking lot right? I'm sorry, can you ,
come forward and give us your name.
Donna Bohn: My name is Donna Bohn and I am the property manager. And II
the loud parties that you have heard about are not all coming from
Lakeview Hills. And while you have provided us with a police report,
those are not all necessarily residents from our property. I understand,
from the police that they've had a major problem this past year at
various lakes, not just Lake Riley. We have a caretaker, several
caretakers, two maintenance people, a manager, and assistant manager
there. When we're notified of any of these happenings, we try to first II
go down there and break it up. Get the people out of there. If not,
then the police are called but the idea there is this property has about
52 acres of land and several hundred feet of lakeshore. This particular'
part that they use for a launching is for their resident's use. Last
year we put up a fence. We posted private parking. Violators would be
towed. This year we put up another sign because last year the people
that come off the street or maybe down the road had torn it down. So we
are doing a lot of policing out there to try to keep this as an amenity
for the people that we rent to. That's part of the reason that they
drive out to Chanhassen to live at this little property. It's affordabl'
housing is what it is and we'd like to maintain that dock space and the
ability of the residents to bring down a canoe or a fishing boat. They do
a lot of fishing off of the dock too.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 40
Batzli: Thank you. Where were we? Tim, were you done? Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: I didn't even know he started. What did you say?
' Erhart: I said we ought to deal with the launch in terms of regulating
it and maybe that ought to extend to the off street parking as well.
' Again, I'm not opposed to it but maybe in this situation where we're
talking about apartment which is different than all the rest, is it what
was concerned here is that we in fact assure that there's a real effort
made at this being used by the residents in terms of the parking and the
' dock and the launch and all that. Maybe we could write that in as an
additional requirement so that we can go back later when it's not being
done.
Farmakes: A sticker or a gate or something?
' Erhart: Well, we just write it that they're required to assure that the
facilities are...and then later on when it's not, then they have to
perform whatever's required.
Ledvina: That goes against the grade of what Kate said about as it
relates to the attorney's opinion as to the use.
' Aanenson: I guess it's a police matter. I think we can go down there on
an inventory. If we go down there and we look up license plates and we
find out that they're not, then we send them a letter and they're in
violation of the ordinance. If we do that enough times and they'll come
up with some other method to make sure that it's controlled.
Batzli: What ordinance are they in violation of? I missed that.
i Aanenson: We're giving them a permit. They have to maintain that level
of, we've given them a permit that said they can do this. Whatever you
decide you're going to give them and if they've not followed that, then
they're in violation of that permit.
Batzli: Well let's say some people come from Eden Prairie and some from
Chaska and some from Lotus Lake and they launch their boat there and they
park their car down the road. What ordinance have they violated? If
they don't prosecure for trespassing, we have no control over that.
Aanenson: I'll have to ask the City Attorney on how you do that.
Batzli: What we were still suggesting, even though we're not supposed to
be, is some level of control.
Aanenson: I agree.
Batzli: So your control mechanism doesn't help with at least what we
were talking about.
t Aanenson: Yeah, we're back to the level of use and the only thing we can
do is if they're not complying with that level of use.
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 41
Batzli: But if, it seems to me that the level of use is limited to the 1
residents of the apartment building and that would be a legitimate level
of use because that, in theory your private beachlot is just used by the
owners which, or in this case tenants. That may be a legitimate
condition.
Aanenson: Well that's what I'm saying. Then they're in violation of thll
permitting process and then you'd send them a letter.
Batzli: If we include that as a condition. 1
Aanenson: I don't think you have to include it. I think it'd still be
in violation but that would be up for Roger to say how we do.
Batzli: So when you make the motion. Ladd.
Conrad: The control is not good on the beachlot. And that concerns me
great deal. If only from the standpoint of checking for milfoil but ails/
in terms of unauthorized use and you can't tell me that the city and the
police should be checking down there. And I don't think that management
has the ability to provide constant checking. So in my mind this is an
uncontrolled beachlot. We may not be authorized to controlled it in this
permitting process but we will have to go back and look at the beachlot
ordinance because it's just not controlled the way access to a lake has II
to be controlled. And I'm not, you'd have to live there next to the
beachlot to control it, and you don't. And you can't be there at
midnight so there's something missing and we have to find that solution.
I don't really have a problem with what is being asked for, yet nothing''
been proven to me that it was there in '81. There's no information that
I have in my packet that tells me what it was used for. There was a
little picture but I just have very little information to make a decisio,
on it whereas all other non - conforming beachlots came in with a lot of
information and they put some energy into this and sometimes they sold
more than what they really had rights to but they put some energy into II
it. I don't see that here. And again it's not to the point where I
don't think you could run a beachlot with allowing the things that you're
asking for because I think basically it's not abusive but it's not being
managed properly and that's what concerns me right now. And I don't kno�
how to solve that right now in terms of approving, well. The only thing
I can say is, I don't know what has been approved or what was there in
'81 at this point in time. We don't have control on the beachlot. It's"
urgent in my mind, even though the season's over with that we somehow
have to find a mechanism that allows lots like this, and all beachlots to
have some control, especially when it's removed from, it has a distance I
away from really the people that it's for.
Batzli: You ask a lot of good questions.
Conrad: Again tonight we can table this because I still don't know
enough to tell you the truth. That's not solving my real problem
however. My real problem is we don't have any control on this beachlot.,
Zip. And I think the managers are saying they try, and I don't dispute
that. I don't have any reason not to dispute that but the point is, it's
impossible to control that lot unless you put some kind of controlling I
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 42
device on it. And whether that's a keyed gate or something, we can't
have cars going through there that potentially can have milfoil. We can't
cars going through there that are potentially not the residents of the
' Lakeview Apartments and until that happens, I'm just not comfortable
granting a permit.
Batzli: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: When we talked about this specific application about a month
ago a question was asked, who's burden of proof is it as it relates to
the use in 1981? We don't have any information. There was no survey
done in 1981. We didn't know it existed apparently so we do have a shred
of evidence that was supplied by Leo Ganglehoff and it says that there
11 was a dock in 1981 and that there has been a dock there since the day I
moved in. Included is a photo of a dock in 1977. We also had discussion
and testimony from some of the individuals, the public that attended and
' I distinctly recalling someone mentioned that that dock was used for a
period of two years as someone's deck on their house. So I think that
discussion would cast a big of a shadow of doubt on the information
that's essentially the only shred of evidence that we have. So going
' back to the theory that the association has to prove their case, I don't
believe that there is any substantial evidence in this situation.
I think there's also the concerns that have been raised previously with
' the uncontrolled activities there and erosion. The milfoil. All very
serious issues. I guess at this point I think the, we tried to impress
upon the association the need to provide the information and perhaps it
doesn't exist. So I would either be in favor of tabling this application
or denying it on that basis.
Batzli: Jeff.
' Farmakes: I'm I guess a little confused about what we're supposed to be
doing here tonight. It's my understanding, based on what I've read here
' and what I've heard the applicant say, that we've got to be consistent
here as to how we're addressing this to the other beachlots, even though
it's an apartment building. I don't think we were clarifying that
there's any difference. This is a non - conforming recreational beachlot.
' The first thing that I look at here is, I don't think that our citizens
are on trial here. I don't think they have to provide beyond a
reasonable doubt that they had a dock there. If the city staff is
' comfortable that there was some documentation to this, or taking into
account that the city didn't inventory this area. Perhaps there's
something in the tax records or something that there was a developed
' beachlot there. It seems to me that some situation can...there as to
what an established use was in 1981. It's not listed on here and the
only thing I see here from the city is that they didn't inventory it. So
I think just as a pragmatic issue I think and some of the other evidence
that we saw from some of the other beachlots, I don't know if it would
stand up in a court of law or something and I'm not lawyer but it would
seem to me that for the most part we took some liberty with that, that
' they were telling us the truth. I agree with the issue of, if we
establish that issue and that we agree that that use was there in '81,
and that they're not asking or expanding whatever that use was, and
that's clarified to where the staff is comfortable with that, then the
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 43
issue of the launch, certainly I agree with that. That it's uncontrollell
and measures should be taken but I'm not sure that that's part of this.
Of what we're looking at here. I thought what we're dealing with here i
the expansion beyond '81 and there's so many different problems with the
recreational beachlot or dredging out a marina or each one is sort of
different and if we get into saying yes or no to the present day
development, rather than looking at it as an expansion from '81, we're
sort of getting away from what we've been doing. So what I'd like to do
is to sum up, is to establish what the use was in '81 where the City's
comfortable with that and then deal with any of these other issues. If 1
you want to table that and deal with that later, I have no problem with
that.
Batzli: Do you think that we have an acceptable evidence of what was on 1
the beachlot in 1981?
Farmakes: Presently, I think we have one photograph. However, the city,
has admitted that there may have been. They didn't inventory it. So
unless they have, I'd say a reasonable case that there wasn't any there,
they should sit down and try to come up either with something or take till
position that comes up with a guesstimate as to what they can live with
both parties.
Erhart: That's the point. Staff is not saying that there wasn't 10 off 1
street parking lots in '81.
Farmakes: I would assume that taxation, whoever came and looked at the 1
property every 6 years, has a figured use in there. If they have 120
feet of developed Lakeshore, then you've got, you're getting taxed
differently.
Conrad: Yeah, but that won't tell you whether there were stalls for 10.
Farmakes: Correct. Maybe there's neighbors. Maybe there's somebody,
some more people other than this one photograph. Obviously it's a littl
light.
Erhart: Well I guess my view is, Brian if you don't feel that there well
10 parking spots, or if you want more research that needs to be done, I
think staff should do that and just table it. Where there isn't much
information here. I don't think it's left to us to be the research agen
on this.
Aanenson: I don't think it's the staff's position either. We haven't II
done any research. We've always asked the applicants to provide that fo
us. The ones that were surveyed, we just said this is our best
information. If you've got something other than that, then you need to
present that. We have never gone.
Erhart: Do you feel that 10 parking stalls is appropriate for this?
Aanenson: That's really for you guys to decide. All we're doing is
presenting. I wasn't here in '81.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 44
Erhart: I know...as it is today.
Aanenson: Can the beachlot hold that many? Certainly. It's a big
1 beachlot.
Farmakes: When were the stalls put in? There must be a record of
' whoever put them in. Who built them?
Aanenson: Frankly, I don't think they're stalls. They just pull over.
It's a pull over.
1 Farmakes: Well the purpose of what we're doing here, correct or wrong,
that we're not supposed to be expanding the use from '81.
1 Batzli: True.
Conrad: Okay, then the point is that the 10, let's just take one point
on the off street parking. There realty aren't any stalls there.
Farmakes: That would be an expansion.
1 Conrad: So 10 is an expansion.
1 Erhart: Then we shouldn't say stalls on the form. It's says off street
parking. What does that mean? Does it have to be asphalt? It doesn't
say it has to be asphalt. It doesn't say it has to have lines. Do the
' other ones have asphalt and lines?
Aanenson: Some didn't, no.
Conrad: Nobody's asked for 10 off street parking.
Aanenson: There's no rules in this one.
Batzli: I think the more difficult thing is, and if you're looking at
this with an eye toward, we're comparing it some other beachlots and the
difficult thing is, in this apartment I'm sure they've had one heck of a
1 lot more turn over.
Aanenson: I was going to say, it's transient by nature. It's much more
1 difficult for them to provide information.
Batzli: And they won't have Minutes. They won't have little dues
1 collected for, I mean I don't know what they're supposed to give us.
Conrad: But it's their job to do whatever it takes.
Erhart: Let's try another approach here. Let's say we come back and
approve that street and following that it would be logical to actually
put stalls in because now the street's got curb and gutter and
1 everything. How would you do that and how many could you hold
reasonably?
Aanenson: Parking on the street or parking in the beachlot?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
II
September 2, 1992 - Page 45
Erhart: No, on the beachiot. II
Aanenson: It's a pretty big beachiot.
Erhart: In the area you have, could it support 10 asphalted parking lot
with lines?
Aanenson: Yeah, I'd certainly say it could. II
Conrad: I don't know that you'd want that there.
II
Erhart: I'm not saying you want it. I'm just trying to, versus what?
Conrad: I just don't know that the beachlot's purpose is to store cars.I
Erhart: No, but there's other beachlots with off street parking. How
are they doing theirs? 1
Aanenson: Well most of them use, and I think that's what they said is
that they go down there. They park their cars while they launch their II
boats and they pull them out at night and they pull them behind the
apartment building. I think they stated that they're not sitting there
overnight and that's what Frontier Trail does. That's what a lot of the
do. They pull their boats down there and leave their cars there while
they're in the water.
Erhart: That's on street parking? Or it's off street.
II
Aanenson: Off street.
Erhart: So they just drive it out in the lot. 1
Aanenson: When they're done at the end of the day.
Erhart: Do they have a single access point? Here you just pull off to II
the side. So everybody backs out on the street again to get out of it.
Is that correct?
II
Batzli: Probably turn around on the lot.
Aanenson: You can turn around on the lot. It's sufficient size.
II
Erhart: Then it supports 10.
Batzli: Well, just to put in my two cents worth. I think from what II
we've heard, there was a beachiot there. There was probably a dock. I
don't know if there were boats there or not. I don't know if there was
offstreet parking or not. We're trying to determine whether, trying to
limit the use of this back to '81 levels. I'd like to ask the applicant
you know, do you have any records or any way to determine what was there
in '81? 1
Donna Bohn: I'm sure that we can dig them up...if you look at the
picture you can see that there was a pontoon boat and fishing boat on thll
II
11 Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 46
II side of that...
Batzli: ...it doesn't mention off street parking. It doesn't mention
' the 7 boats. I mean it's clear from looking at that that picture there's
at least 2 boats but I think what the commission is not yet comfortable
with in it's own mind is that there is no other evidence at all up to the
II level that you're requesting and our task here tonight is to determine
what that level was. So what it sounds like we're going to do is table
it and let you have a chance to demonstrate to us that you did have these
kinds of things back in '81 because right now there's nothing in the
11 record at all, and we need to do that to be fair to the other applicants.
We made the other applicants do this and I think we're going to have to
ask you to do a little digging. Is there a motion?
II Erhart: yeah, I'll move to table the decision on this.
I Farmakes: Second it.
Batzli: Any discussion?
II Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to table the Non - conforming Use Permit for
a Recreational Beachlot for Lakeview Hills Apartments Homeowners
Association for further information. All voted in favor and the motion
II carried.
Erhart: Let's make sure that we've got for Kate exactly what we want to
see when we come back with this. We want to see more information from
II the applicant about the 10 parking lots. That's one issue. Or the 10.
Batzli: The off street parking. The boats on land.
II Erhart: And the boats on land.
II Batzli: I'm comfortable that there was a beachlot there with a launch
and a dock.
Erhart: Yeah, so you don't have to waste any time with that.
II Batzli: I mean I'm sure that as digging up other information, that's
going to be in there as well but Ladd, are you comfortable with those
II things? I mean I just lightly said I'm comfortable that there was a
beachlot there.
1 Conrad: Yes.
Ledvina: I guess I would like to see more documentation on the dock.
The existence at that time. If that's possible.
1 Conrad: Again, this can be a resource that is real valid for the
Lakeview Apartment owners. Don't get our comments wrong because it can
I be a good resource but again, I think we have to make sure that it's the
right resource in that neighborhood and also it's got to be controlled
and that, I guess I, well. As a separate item but it's still what I'd
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 47
like to have staff report back on is how we can get our hands around the i
control issue.
Erhart: What's the current ordinance? ,
Conrad: And if that means revoking the beachiot, this permit, because of
abuse or something, I need to know that. 1
Aanenson: We'll also look at the boat launch issue and the erosion.
Conrad: And any kind of ordinance changes that just doesn't single this'll
out but ordinance changes that really reflects on control for boat access
and primarily again I'm real concerned with milfoil. Obviously Riley ha
it but there's absolutely no reason that we have to continue adding to i
and that's an issue that I think deserves some attention on all lakes,
and I think this issue, this particular property is a little bit
different but there may be properties like this in the future. So I
just, I would hope that we could talk to the applicant a little bit
about, I'd rather negotiate a deal on that so we can somehow get some
control rather than changing ordinances. But if that's what it takes,
we're going to have to do something in an ordinance to somehow get our
hands around unauthorized use of that property.
Batzli: Okay. Thank you very much for coming in. Due to the, are you
sitting around waiting for the fence? I would rather table the fence an
get onto the other stuff.
Al -Jaff: That's fine. '
Krauss: Before everybody leaves, I think we'd like to renotify them of
the next time this is going to be on. Since this is a holiday and with
Target being on the next agenda, I'm not sure we can turn this around to
the next meeting. So we'll send out notices.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING FENCE REQUIREMENTS. (TABLED) 1
Batzli: If you guys want to pass the fence, you can.
Erhart: I think we ought to do the fence when Steve is here. He's big
on this fence thing.
Batzli: Well I live on a corner lot, I don't like this. Okay.
Farmakes: Do you have a fence? 1
Batzli: No, but I was thinking about building one. I'll have to run to
Menards tomorrow.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated August 19, 1992 as presented. ,
1 Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 48
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Krauss: Well I really don't want to waste time going through it unless
' you want me to but one thing I do want to tell you is when you get home
tonight, in your mail you'll probably find a brochure for the State
Regional Planning Conference that's here at the end of September. I
' think it's a pretty good conference. There are some good tracks in the
thing. There are some specific things for Planning Commissioners that
may or may not prove to be of interest. You don't have to go to it all.
It's over in the St. Paul Hotel. 23, 24, and 25 of September. If you
want to go, let me know. We'll pop for it.
Batzli: There's a big legal seminar coming up on maintenance and
managing wetlands. Did you see that? It's one of the people that we've
got hired as an expert is going to speak at it I think. I'm going to fax
you a copy tomorrow.
1 Krauss: It's in Brooklyn Park?
Batzli: I don't remember. I'll fax a copy to you tomorrow. I was
interested in seeing that. Did somebody from Larkin, is speaking and
somebody from I think one of the people that we've hired as an expert
somewhere along the line. Or I've heard their name. Anyway. It just
struck me as you were talking about that other.
Krauss: Like I say, if you do want to go, we'll gladly pay for it.
1 Conrad: I went through that real quickly and I didn't see...stuff that
you think we should be attending.
' Krauss: Well there's a lot of design oriented stuff that might be kind
of interesting. There's some specific wetland stuff.
1 Conrad: Why go if we know it all?
Krauss: I can't answer that. I think it's unfortunate the brochure came
out about 3 weeks later than it should but I think it's got a good range
of things. We have, I got Bill Morrish to do some discussions there...
Erhart: One day? Is it a one day seminar?
' Krauss: No, it's actually 3 days but Planning Commissioners, for a
nominal fee I can have you folks drop in and drop out at your leisure.
1 Erhart: And where is it?
Krauss: St. Paul Hotel.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Batzli: Anything on our ongoing issues? Or can we blow right by that
and get onto the good stuff. Did you change the status of anything on
here?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 49
Krauss: I always change it. 1
Batzli: You probably took something off, and we didn't even notice.
Ledvina: Look at the asterick.
Batzli: Yeah, but he puts these astericks on there and it's like he
corrects the spelling and then that's a change or something. Or he movell
it to be reviewed by Planning Commission in, it used to be July and he
moved it back to September.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
Batzli: Let's do entry monument and stuff like that here. This is open"
discussion. Or do you want to do Fred first?
Krauss: Well I'll leave it up to you. In interest of the last hour,
which project, I guess I'll ask the City Manager. Which project do you II
see as more timely? The monuments and the...
JEFF FARMAKES - ENTRY MONUMENT AND PAULY. PONY, PRYZMUS CORNER DESIGN I
CONCEPTS, REVIEW AND DISCUSSION.
Krauss: Just briefly, because I want to bounce this back to Jeff. For II
the last couple years the HRA has been looking into entrance
monumentation at major intersections on Highway 5. The reason is to make
sure people know that they're entering Chanhassen. That this is not jus
another community of strip roads and tip up buildings. That this is our r
downtown and there's been, one of the primary entrance points that's been
looked at for media work is the Market Blvd. one and TH 5. There's been
a series of designs...working with an architectural firm and they've
developed a couple and the HRA was not terribly enamored I guess with an
of them and City Council wasn't either. I think everybody had their
favorites but one of the things the Council did is they said, well we're
not able to make a decision at this point. Why don't we throw it open t
see if we have a creative resident or two that might come up with
something. Well Jeff filled that role and actually came up with some
designs for an entrance monument and also for the Pauly, Pony, Pryzmus
block which again, I don't think we'll have time to get into tonight.
He's done a lot of work and was quite creative on that and came before
the HRA with some success. I wasn't at that meeting but I believe, what'
I heard is that they were quite comfortable with what Jeff had proposed.
Now if you recall back to January, we had agreed with you that we would
try to bring you on stream with HRA developed projects so that you have II
input into them before they're set in concrete. So that's why we're
bringing to you these three things tonight. And with that maybe Jeff, if
you want to explain the...
Farmakes: Well, part of what you said is correct. I actually worked onl
the monumentation sign as a part of the presentation that I made that had
to revolve around city identity. On how the City's handling identity.
Identity being a logo useage and buildings, architectural and other uses
I did this as an example. Not this particular drawing but a different
drawing dealing more in relationship with image of the leaf and type and
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 50
so on. It was more in a generic form. It was a generic discussion. Not
necessarily as a monument solution. This was somewhat revised based on
Barton- Aschmann, and I can't remember the other firm. But anyway, this
11 was revised and then I brought it back at their request at the second HRA
meeting and on this particular piece here, I could describe, I don't have
anything prepared here but basically it's an element of a 3D sculpture
with bronze and copper of the image of the leaf and then something to
encase it so it doesn't fall over, on a Chaska ashlar, limestone type of
semi circle which basically I think you've seen here. Some time ago they
brought forward a skirt design which this actually evolved from. For a
landscaping plan at TH 5 and Market Blvd.. We just saw the one plan I
think at that time. And that was just an example that I used because it
was sitting around here as to incorporate some of the critique issues
revolving in signage. 5o we wound up with this. And it deals with the
elements of readability of type. Of image and it hasn't been evaluated
to actual site testing which still concerns me. That hasn't been done up
to this point. At least as far as I know. In other words, the size
relationship as it is. I used the same size relationship as the
architect who originally was working on the concept and it's quite close.
Within a few feet. Paul, is there anything more there that I'm leaving
' out?
Krauss: No. I don't think so except that you elude to the fact that
this fits into a background. This is one element of, there's a
landscaping scheme behind it and I think we still have the open water
part. Basically the other elements if you'll recall. There was one
option that had a 50 foot high, somewhat monolithic...with a maple leaf
cut out of the interior lighting and the other one was an equally high
clock tower kind of like the clock tower we have here but on stilts.
Farmakes: I think there were two. The landscape plan that the architect
came back with. One was nothing back there and some flagstone and some
prairie grass. Is that right? I didn't go through the designations of
all the plantings but I think.there was like a prairie grass thing. And
then another one was more of a formal planting in the center of the semi
circle and then kind of failing back into some larger ornamental tree.
' Krauss: Getting a sense of presence at that intersection is kind of
tough. It really is on the edge of where the prairie starts in our
community. It's quite open and you've got 8 lanes of traffic and turning
' lanes. It really needs to be of significant size.
Farmakes: And again, the site testing issue though, there's two
questions of a monument. One is, that you can see it from 20 miles away.
' For example would be a highway type sign that you see coming into Hinkley
that's 120 feet tall. Another issue is that it identifies a place and
that you see it in a reasonable amount of time to identify that it serves
' the mark. This is not as tall but it, at approximately that size it
should be able to be seen from a considerable distance down the highway.
As a structure or to identify this is Chanhassen. But again, site
testing would be the issue here where they take character letters cut out
at that size. Site evaluation. Whether or not if it's built up or the
ground level is built up at all or contoured. All that needs to be •
evaluated.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 51
Batzli: You say this is a Chaska brick yellow kind of? 1
Farmakes: I'm referring to the Chaska brick which is an early pioneer
stoning product that they have around here. An ashlar pattern which to
me is a random building pattern. That's a concept sketch. It's not a
building plan so you might want to pass that around because it's quite
faint from here. -
Batzli: Well what do you want, is our purpose tonight Paul to take a
look at it and tell the HRA to go with it or is our purpose tonight to
just say, say what?
Krauss: Well, it's kind of tough. I mean this particular one is kind o
tough with you because you're not, I guess we didn't plan to give you th
three options to go with but it seems to me the HRA is focusing in on
this design. See this is a real early stage. I mean the thing is not
finalized to come to you for a site plan approval for example. '
Batzli: But if we hate it, you want to know that now?
Krauss: Yeah, that would help.
Batzli: Okay.
Erhart: Where does this go? 1
Krauss: Just south of the bank.
Erhart: That's the only one? Just one of these.
Krauss: Well we're doing other things at other intersections but they
likely to be different.
Erhart: This is the big, most expensive one. What does it cost to buil
something like this?
Krauss: I don't know what the cost is.
Farmakes: The indication that they made, they have a budget obviously
but the indication was that it was actually less than what they had
originally envisioned. I think they had a 60 foot tower or something II
behind there plus the skirt.
Erhart: What is that? '
Farmakes: I haven't seen the budget. The overall working budget for
that item. I didn't design it to budget.
Ashworth: $60,000.00 to $80,000.00. This will be a fraction of that
amount. I don't know what fraction but under...
Erhart: For this monument? 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 52
' Ashworth: I have not asked the Barton - Aschman to do a revised estimate
on this one but Jeff.
Farmakes: Well, the basic building materials are there minus the brick,
60 foot vertical element behind it. It's a bit bigger. It's slightly
bigger. The stone is relatively, if you get a nice produce that's
' relatively low cost and has high durability. There's some items around
here that have been here for 110 -120 years. The sculpturing and the
green fatining should limit any type of maintenance to pretty minimal.
You get again a quality image versus say precast plastic or something
like that where with the copper, you get a varying look. It's not flat
grained. It's probably the closest example that you'd see around here of
that would be the water, Northwest Airlines when you go in there. The
waters I think it is. The green fatina letter, copper lettering.
Batzli: Well, I personally like it. I just hope I never am the one that
has to retuck point it in about 50 years but. I've had to do that on a
' couple of Chaska brick buildings and I'm better at hitting my thumb than
the end of the chisel after about 3 days of that. So does anybody hate
it?
1 Conrad: Just a couple of questions. Why is the ring around the outside
of the leaf? Jeff, is this for support? Is it a design element?
' Farmakes: You have a three dimensional sculpture, it's kind of a
serrated edges there if you're doing a leaf. You have to beef up the
leaf a little bit to make sure that somebody doesn't come by and kick it
' in. If a brass element or bronze element goes around it, it's going to
give it some stability.
' Conrad: If you weren't concerned with stability, would you design it
differently?
Farmakes: With that image and the amount of the weight that that would
be, I would be concerned about stability.
Conrad: Really?
' Farmakes: Yeah, definitely. Somebody could get hurt.
' Conrad: So you're talking, how big is that leaf? 4 feet?
Farmakes: Probably at least that. Probably closer to 6. Between 5 and
6 feet. Plus if it's 3 dimensional, there's going to be some weigh to
111 it.
Conrad: That's another thought. You picked the leaf obviously. I know
' why but did you ever have any inclination to put like a...random
sculpture there? Something that's...
' Farmakes: Actually, the purpose of this is potentially a vertical
sculpture or something could go behind there at a later date. In the
garden area. But the issue of the leaf I think, that's another issue
that we talked about. That's another kettle of worms which actually this
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting '
September 2, 1992 - Page 53
started from. It was discussing the issue of how unfocused Chanhassen'
identity is becoming as far as signage goes. We use several different
applications but the leaf seems to be the most readily identifiable
useage that we've got to this date.
Batzli: The only concern I actually have is, would be that if we did
choose a maple leaf, which is Maple Grove, Maple Lake. You know if youji
talk about trademark, likelihood of confusion, everybody and their moth
uses a maple leaf. So it is the most readily identifiable but yet people
don't necessarily identify it with Chanhassen. 1
Farmakes: You're correct. We didn't identify it. The name reflects
that, as I understand from the history, but the other issue is that,
really we need to be identified by the communities that we surround.
Obviously there's going to be other areas that are going to use tree
symbols or leaf patterns. It seems that the leaf identifies us from the
communities that surround us. We also use a sailboat which is used by II
and Minnetonka so that, the point I guess is not that I made
and a different issue than this, was that we should firm that up or look
at that. It hasn't been looked at in a long time and it's I think
circuit goes back to when this was going to be kind of a western dell aril
the development that you see over by MGM and I'm not sure how relevant
that is.
Batzli: Yeah. Well I think this is a real good effort and I applaud II
those efforts. I think you did a nice job. I think you're right. You
do want to concentrate probably on the communities surrounding us. Usir,
Maple Grove and Maple Lake aren't, I think Maple Plain probably uses a
maple leaf too but I guess that's not so big of a concern. I think it's
the arrival and the identification. You have arrived in Chanhassen.
Farmakes: Subliminally, those types of elements are natural elements
too. It gives it a positive image to the city. It's one that
generically acceptable as being a good thing. Good pleasant image. 1
Batzli: Well I guess I'd like to see him proceed in this fashion unless
you guys would like to voice your displeasure one way or another. That''
what we're here for. If you don't like it, say so.
Ledvina: I think the concept is very good. I like the idea of breakin
Originally we had a solid wall all the way across and that was the firs
thing that we saw. Essentially from a plainer perspective, a rectangle
and this gives it just so much more interest, in my view. So I like it a
lot. 1
Conrad: I like the dimension of the brick on the bottom. I guess I'm
just thinking that, I don't have a need to project maple leaf.
Chanhassen says who we are and maple leaf has never, you know we're not
Daytons where you show a logo and you know that it means Daytons. 5o I'
struggling saying okay, is the maple leaf what I want to see there? And
I don't have a real, I like the foundation a lot. I think that's neat. I
I'm just questioning whether we have to project the leaf.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 54
11 Farmakes: Typical city useages are logos on cars. On police, fire,
water towers. They tend to be more viewer friendly.
' Batzli: Viewer friendly but it's used in connection with the services
that the city is providing. It functions no differently than any other
service or trademark.
' Farmakes: Sure.
Batzli: It's recognizable that this is Chanhassen service. Water tower,
firemen, policemen, whatever.
Farmakes: No question but like any other trademark, they typically throw
' more in than type to allow for some creativity of image.
Conrad: Tim's the art critic.
Erhart: It looks great to me.
Batzli: Okay, let's move on to the next.
1 Krauss: As this design gets refined, we'll make sure you get another
look.
FRED HOISINGTON - CONCEPTS FOR DOWNTOWN HOTEL EXPANSION. T
RES AURANT,
CONVENTION AND ATHLETIC CENTER ON THE OLD INSTANT WEBB /BOWLING CENTER
1
SITE. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION.
Krauss: The next one, I guess the last one for tonight, is a real
exciting project that's coming together very rapidly. It takes place in
an area that's been a problem from a planning standpoint for years.
Nobody's quite been able to figure out what to do with the back of the
' Dinner Theatre area with the bowling alley area. And it's taking on new
prominence given it's location from the new intersection. The City's
been rapidly developing some plans over there for a conference convention
center. We asked Fred to come here tonight to give you an overview of
' how it lays out. Again, this is a project that's not fully developed but
if rapidly, the design is rapidly materializing so you're getting an
early peak at it and I don't think we have any elevations or anything
' like that to show you yet but Fred's going to tell you about the layout
and how it comes together.
Fred Hoisington: I'm beginning to believe that there's a conspiracy to,
whenever Fred's name is...don't get to him until after 10:30.
Batzli: You just made it by 2 minutes tonight.
1 Fred Hoisington: I remember only one time I think that I've ever been on
before 10:30 so we're right on schedule. At least I am. Paul called and
' indicated that it would be appropriate at this point if I would present
some preliminary ideas about how the south side of West 78th Street might
be redeveloped. As Tim and Ladd and Brian know, we've been struggling
with this last project...at least the city in that case owns the land but
11
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 55
in this case, this is a very difficult project to put together with some`
very good reasons for that. As you know, those of you who have a close
sort of relationship in this area, everything faces onto West 78th Stree
for the most part. The bowling center does have a slightly different
orientation to the west and slightly to the south. But because it
orients in that direction, this is the back side and it's not only the
back side but it's downhill. It's not on the same level as West 78th I
Street so our problem has always been, how can you make it, whatever
happens here, either orient to the block to West 78th Street or create a
new focus on the back side. And we've never found a use. That's alway
been a problem. We've not been able to find a use that's a viable use
for this location because of it's tendency to be rather invisible. Let
me tell you just briefly about some of the alternatives that have been
considered. The ones that preceeded... The one alterantive that has II
been thought about to a great degree is trying to create a commercial oriO
retail kind of focus on the back side. That's very difficult to do but
it can be done. It can be done by orienting the retail to Market Square"
across the street and essentially obliterating everything that's in the
back part of this block. It doesn't relate well to everything else
that's occurring here but if the market is there for some additional
retail in this area, this could represent a fairly good interface.
Across the street from Market Square. Another alternative is kind of JI
leave it as it is. I say that, re -use the buildings as they're currently
be re -used for permanent use or at least use the ones that are vacant. II
And what that says is we have a very difficult...who's best use is
probably a building center, lumber yard or something of that nature. So
if we're looking at keeping what's here, we're looking at sort of quasi •
commercial or retail sort of use out the back side which is not
consistent with the Comp Plan. Not consistent with the zoning. As you
know some of the uses that exist in this building over the past several
years have been contrary to your zoning code but Paul has been very
generous in allowing sort of an interim use of these buildings and that'll
been fine. But I don't see that that's long term future for this side of
the street. The third alternative, broad alternative sort of is
recreation /entertainment center. The neat thing about that is, the
ingredients are already here. At least some of them are. This one being
the most important. This one being supportive in nature but there are
possibilities for other things that would interconnect this and perhaps I
create it's own focus and allow for the total reorientation of the block
to the back side. Now let me tell you some of the things that we've had
to consider in this case. We have been forced to look at. We know for II
example, and I'm assuming you do as well, that the scene shop wants to
move and the scene shop is currently in this building. If you recall and
they would like to go someplace else and there's been some discussion th
scene shop could go into the Frontier building, the lower...or that it
might reasonably expect to have another location. We know that the hote
and the restaurant or that the hotel wants to expand and that there may
be a need for another restaurant here. Or a restaurant. We know that II
the hotel meeting space is deficient. They need some and that the hotel
itself is willing to make commitment to build some of that kind of space
here and we know there needs to be a linkage of that space and of the II
hotel to the Dinner Theatre. Filly's elimination would be helpful.
That's been part of the reason that we've had difficulty with anything
occurring here and probably one of the reasons that the community center
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 56
was not approved in this location in the past because it was not a
compatible land use. We also need to create a focus but we have to
mitigate as much as we can the adverse side of this block. The railroad
tracks are not a real plus here and the back side of the Dinner Theatre
is not either and it sticks up in the air a long ways so how do you
create something that is a barrier but that also makes sense in this
location. Then the City has some meeting space needs. There is
' apparently a need for some city recreational development. Not
necessarily here but this seems an appropriate place for it if the right
blend of ingredients might occur here. There's a need for pedestrian
access to link the whole thing together and of course there's the need to
phase, the need to satisfy political realities. But nonetheless, the
existing condition, a very difficult one and one that needs to be
addressed, could be addressed in a number of different fashions. Some of
the things that were considered, in the way of concepts here, were those
that eliminated everything. Those that re -use everything. Those that
re -use portions of, especially the bowling center building and built then
' new development and attached it to it. And the conclusion we reached
after all of that as far as preliminary fashion. I don't mean to suggest
to you that this was the final because a feasibility analysis that still
' needs to be done with respect to this project and that's one of the
reasons that important to the Planning Commission to give us at least
some feedback. But this is the one that seems to be the most
' appropriate. If we can expect the convention type facility here,
someplace in this development I think we can expect a community center
element in this block. That gives us the focus for the back side of this
block. And all of that element constructed in this area... The bowling
' center, according to this plan would perhaps be public owned by the HRA
and operated by a private developer. Something...perhaps the same person
that is there. The Cinema is something that we kind of use
' interchangeably and I don't know if Paul...parking analysis for this or
not. We're kind of, a couple of the proposals that have been thrown out
by Mr. Johnson, Greg Johnson has been, there might be a cinema, there
might be a restaurant and there might also be a bowling center and so
we've evaluated a number of those and we have some parking...with a
cinema and a bowling center and some ancillary use here, in addition to
all this going to be supportive to the parking that's here. So the
I distribution isn't perfect...overall parking would be adequate. One of
the things that would help us a great deal in screening the south side of
the Dinner Theatre would be able to go, be able to build a building in
this location. And a scene shop would be an appropriate use because this
relationship is a very strong one. Building that they are currently in
is inadequate and clearly incidental part of the Dinner Theatre complex
so if it could be designed correctly, this could be a very important part
' of this whole complex. To say nothing of what it would do to screen the
Dinner Theatre from the south side from the views from TH 5. So this,
one of the reasons that this concept is elongated as it is is because of
that along with...lose is a degree of efficiency in the complex itself
because of that very elongation. The hotel's here. This is the
expansion proposed and essentially what these people are saying is, if we
can get some of these elements in place, they will expand. The meeting
space is an existing building. The retail, we're suggesting perhaps a
restaurant would occur in this gap next to the Dinner Theatre and that
this all could be re -used or new. We're not willing to state at this
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 57
point to which it ought to be because it...distant future before anythin1
occurs in this particular case. What we're saying is that there should
be two phases. First phase will include the auditorium and convention
and athletic facility and it would be built perhaps, and a pool. Perhapl
this much could be built in phase 1 and the private sector could respond
and the scene shop, the restaurant here, hotel expansion, meeting space
and then the cinema and /or restaurant in this location. So we have a II
real, truly public /private sort of partnership of making this project
work. The second phase then would be either a community center, if in
fact it is politically correct to have a community center here, or to 11
have the option to have retail as that element. And so there you have
it. This sort of puts everything together. It uses all of the space
that's here. Retaining the park and ride lot. Providing for bus parkin
for the Dinner Theatre in this location. Perhaps elsewhere but it does
work marginally in this location. And we think finally all the
ingredients may be here for the project and I guess we'd like your
feedback and know where you stand and... ,
Batzli: Market Square is just across Market Blvd. there so we're looking
at the back side of a big Festival Foods or whatever it is. Does this
tie in at all to that or how are we, it looks like you've got it
landscaped a little bit along that edge but are just kind of ignoring it
and saying well, we're looking at the back side so forget it. Let's just
concentrate here. ,
Fred Hoisington: We're really not looking at the back side. We are
looking at the wall. We're looking at the side of Market Square. And
we're really leaving this much, well really all of this pretty much as i
is. This will tend to focus or orient south. Of course Market Square is
here and orients toward West 78th Street. The two are sufficiently
different but they don't necessarily have to interrelate but I don't see,
them in conflict at all. It seems to me the two can co -exist with
whatever their respective orientations with no problem at all.
Krauss: One of the real important orientations to view this from too
if you're eastbound on TH 5 or if you're coming north on the highway up
to Market Blvd., you're confronted with that red neon bowling sign on a
40 foot high tip up panel building and then the back of a former lumber 11
yard and over the tops you kind of see where there's the church steeple
and the oak trees and the town gets nice again. We've often talked abou
ways to get new facades on the building. Well in one fell swoop here
this pretty much does it for us. And it's real interesting to see how
the views are developing there. Stand out by the new bank and look back
this way. That's probably the most, that is going to be main street
Chanhassen. That is our million dollar street, if we have one.
Fred Hoisington: What we're getting...to carry through what Paul is I
saying is, as part of the proposal, not only would this all be built...
everything new from here to here but we would also rennovate this
building facade...
Batzli: What do you think Ladd? '
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 58
Conrad: I don't know. It looks pretty. First reaction is, it looks
like we're pushing everything indoors. You know we have a community
center and stuff like that and I guess I have, I like to see walkways and
' places outside for people. I'm sure you have parking situation that is
really a concern but that's my first reaction is we've got stuff inside.
And I don't know what the uses are that should be there. I think it's
accomplishing some of the things that staff or Fred want to. I'm just
trying to sink into, do I want people. It looks like a big shopping
center from looking down on it and I'm not real wild about big shopping
centers. I kind of like places for people to walk. If we've got a
community center, I'd kind of like to think that people could be outside
by that center. But I know the restrictions. I know there are parks
close by but that's my first reaction. The other thing is we have the
Soo Line there. I assume we're not part of, that's not going to be used
for anything. And Fred you said, it's a liability. That is a liability.
We can't, there's no asset value in the road right there huh?
' Fred Hoisington: Well Ladd we can do some things in the way of
landscaping and one of the things we talked about for a long time and one
of the things that we're proposing here is to perhaps some of that
existing Soo Line right -of -way could be acquired. And if not, to do some
landscaping within their right -of -way as a part of this. It is an indoor
sort of environment. There's no question about that and we'd like to see
' an internal connection that would come from the hotel expansion and come
down into this lobby and continue along the back side of the main space
in the front end of the retail and the Dinner Theatre. We think that is
kind of a critical part of this whole concept. On the other hand, we
don't preclude, this is only a concept. This is not the detailed final
plan and we are not precluding an exterior. We see this whole outside
edge here is also providing pedestrian access so I don't necessarily look
at it as a totally internalized thing. I think it has some...
Conrad: Do you feel it fits in with all the, the negatives about malls
' these days? There are a lot of negatives on shopping malls.
Fred Hoisington: What kind of negatives are you talking about?
' Conrad: Places that people really don't want to go to. I guess you
track from the Star and Tribune.
Fred Hoisington: The regional malls, people want to go to the regional
malls. I mean there's no question. There's a real strong attraction
there. When it comes to the smaller malls, you have so many of them that
' we over supplied the marketplace and as a result people are not going
there because there aren't enough dollars to spend on all of these
centers.
1 Conrad: The regional malls, people are looking for a controlled,
predictable environment. Is that what you're providing here? Or is this
just a collection of stores? Is this a mall?
' Fred Hoisington: Well, I don't know that it.
Conrad: What is this?
11
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 59
Fred Hoisington: First of all we have, it's a mixed use development. II
Conrad: Sort of back to back. You do have a corridor in there but
they're buildings are sort of back to back.
Fred Hoisington: Well no, this would not have a corridor. The corridor
would be through probably this area. In this fashion. Upgraded...and sll
you wouldn't tend to have an orientation. This would tend to be somewhall
separate_ from this but there would be ways to penetrate it so you could
interconnect it.
Krauss: Ladd, if I could too. I think you've got to put it into the
context of the downtown as a whole. We have been developing a pedestria
enabled or oriented downtown. Very much so. I mean compared to just
about anything else.
Conrad: I don't buy that. 1
Erhart: I don't either.
Conrad: You find somebody walking downtown Chanhassen. We're doing a
terrible job in my estimation.
Krauss: But the framework is there. It's hard to make people come
downtown unless there's something to come down for. This is one of the II
destinations. One of the problems is we never had a good destination
type of use to go back here. What's a destination? Well the hotel's
going to expand. They need a swimming pool. They need convention
facilities. They'll use that. If there's a pool, it will be a public
pool that people can use. Come in there to use that. The bowling
alley's a draw in it's own right. Movie theaters are a draw in their ow,
right. A community center, if that's done is a draw in it's own right.
This thing is also virtually across the street from a major new downtown
city park with an outdoor amphitheatre that's going to be developed, II which is right outside of City Hall. I mean it's basically, you walk
across the street and you're there. It's also within walking distance of
the shopping area. I've been telling people that, I think we're going til
have a lot of walking seniors start coming in as soon as the shopping
center opens up. There's not been, I mean the infrastructure's there.
We've developed a downtown that's actually a pretty friendly place to
walk. It's got nice sidewalks. It's a comfortable place to be. It's II
set up for it. There just hasn't been any reason to do it.
Erhart: Well, not only that but you can't, without the traffic lights, II
you can't walk. You can't cross West 78th Street.
Krauss: Well, signals are on the way.
Conrad: And you really can't walk. You know we've got people walking
across it. We've got sidewalks on one side of the road. I guess I know
what you're saying Paul. There's some things there but again I'm lookinll
at this and I'm saying well, and we're in the very preliminary stage
here. And we...and I think it's meeting some needs but I'm challenging
the thinking of, drive your car. Park it and go into someplace. What
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 60
II are we doing to facilitate it for people and then the community center.
I guess I've never though. There's just a lot of issues that I don't
have a clue on. I guess my idea of a community center is not always
I indoors. There's an outdoor part to a community center but I guess
that's the indoor part and the outdoor part will be in the park across
where it is now.
II One of the marketing concepts that I heard them talking about for almost,
I guess an abbreviated community center. It was more adult orientated
II which would tie in more with the conference center, marketing type plans.
I don't know how that affects the overall outdoor activity and
concentrating the younger kids and so on.
I Fred Hoisington: It's clearly more of an athletic club than a community
center.
I Erhart: What you're showing? So it's what, for adult?
Fred Hoisington: More of an athletic club.
1 Erhart: So more for adults than kids?
Fred Hoisington: I would think that both adults and kids could use it
I but it will be, I hate to use Flagship as an example because it wouldn't
be like a Flagship...but nonetheless, it would tend to be more of those
kinds of uses than it would to...community center.
II Erhart: So it would be like a Flagship. Unlike or like a Flagship?
Fred Hoisington: Well, like a Flagship in that that's an athletic club
I as opposed to, this would have gymnasiums, racquetball courts, pool but
probably a smaller pool. It would tend to have things, no hockey. None
of the things that kids are attracted to but I'm not saying kids won't
II come here. Kids will come here but it's just that it tends to be more of
an athletic type facility than it does a community center type of
facility. So it is compact. It's small. But Ladd, regarding your
concerns about pedestrian access. Unfortunately, all of the things that
I are occurring here are the sorts of things where people drive to one
store. Shop. Get back in the car and leave. This does not, it has a
synnergy that a shopping center has and you probably would never see
I that. Watch Market Square and see how much pedestrian movement you'll
get over there. What you'll find probably, and I...all people but I am,
they will go to the grocery store. If they need to go to another store
1 at the other end, they'll drive. They will not walk and yet the walking
capability is there.
Erhart: Are you done?
1 Conrad: Go ahead.
I Erhart: I guess my view is just the opposite. I think you ought to make
it an indoor. I think you've got a great idea here and what you want.
You've got the hotel. You want people to come there for a whole weekend
and never have to go outside that building in the wintertime.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 61
Conrad: But they have to.
Erhart: Why? 1
Conrad: Because they're not connected.
Erhart: ,That's what has to be changed. ,
Conrad: Well but you have to go outside.
Erhart: No. 1
Fred Hoisington: How do you mean go outside?
Conrad: You said that there's one connection.
Erhart: You can get through from the hotel. But I think what you ought,
to do is expand that and make it an indoor, large courtyard in there
where you have a two story courtyard with a lot of glass ceilings. Where
you have sunlight come in and put in like an outdoor restaurant only it''
indoors. Where you have tables and you have the feeling that you're
outdoors in the wintertime and if people could come to those hotels and
spend 2 or 3 days in there and hit all the things with the family. You
know you've got the theatre, the bowling alley, you've got the movies. II
agree 100 %. It should be an athletic club. Not a place for the local
kids to play hockey. A place where people can come in and come in for a
whole weekend and just go nuts on entertainment. Plus sell associated
things like the scene shop and maybe other kinds of things. You have 2 t
or 3 different restaurants that are unique so every night someone could
hit a different flavor. But I think what's missing is the interior
courtyards so people don't, because right now I tell you, the whole
building is, once you're in there, it's kind of like you're crawling
through caves to get from one point to the next. It's dark. It's dingy
Tiny. Go down to the basement. What you want to do is take it like a II
mini - Southdale so once you're out, you know the retail space and
entertainment faces into this courtyard and once you're in there, you
feel, you know it's January but you're warm and you forget this feeling
of, you're inside. It's strictly entertainment. I think entertainment,'
you're hitting right on with that.
Fred Hoisington: All of this will be of course...This, we have suggeste,
or would encourage, would also be, but we need to be realistic and we're
not...to say, that it needs to be...but we would sure like to see this
whole thing designed as a unit. What I would do is express those kinds II
of concerns and when the design occurs in this thing and really what
we're doing is creating now only sort of an envelope and we're showing
you a way to service it and showing you some of the interconnections tha
can be made here and solving some of the problems that exist with this
site but there's a lot to do. I mean all that design has to be done. We
don't do that. That's to be done by an architect and your ideas are
good...perhaps optimistic because we probably won't have. '
Erhart: Hey, I wanted a median on TH 101 south remember? With the
trees. ,
II Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 62
II Fred Hoisington: I remember.
Conrad: Show me again Fred. From the hotel, where can you get to?
II Fred Hoisington: Okay,'from the hotel. You come through the hotel
expansion and you can get down into this complex.
II Conrad: But you can't get to the bowling alley and you can't get to the
theatre so its all outside.
II Fred Hoisington: How do you mean outside?
Krauss: No, there will be internal connections to the bowling alley.
1 Fred Hoisington: There will be a way to get through this and into the
bowling center. This will be essentially, you'll be able to get through
this entire complex inside. Not all from the outside.
I Erhart: The way you see it now, it's essentially halls.
1 Krauss: Not necessarily.
Erhart: Narrow corridors. One 8 feet high.
1 Fred Hoisington: I don't think that's the case at all. We're looking at
an escalator type access here. Very open. High ceiling.
I Krauss: Keep in mind, you've got that grade transition to make and it
does allow you to make atrium type spaces in there.
I Fred Hoisington: We're looking at the two ends here tend to be more
solid elements because...and probably a multi- purpose meeting space would
be...on the inside here that provides some light penetration. So you end
up with a very light kind of feeling in this whole area. But then the
I
challenge is Tim, to make this connection into the bowling center so it
works so you can actually come in here and continue through this...
1 Erhart: So the main thing, the closest to what that is is like the
downtown Minneapolis area, the newer hotels that where you get around.
You go through escalators and different floors and glass and stuff and
I it's not open like Southdale but it's a combination of some halls. Or
like the sikyway system. Some halts. Some open. Which is kind of neat.
I guess I'd like to see more, you know I guess the more open space you've
got obviously the better you feel in January when you're in there. On
1 the other hand, that costs a ton of money.
Fred Hoisington: ...your concerns here as I am in this part that is
1 developed right here.
Farmakes: Even the present building, if you're in the back, it's quite
II cavernous. It's not like the front that you're describing. There's some
big open spaces back there. It's quite deceptive.
Erhart: In where?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 2, 1992 - Page 63
Farmakes: In the back of.
Krauss: Where Hooked on Classics was.
Farmakes: Yeah, back in there. Back some of those open areas. There's
quite a bit of space back there.
Conrad: Why not put an atrium in the middle?
Fred Hoisington: You could design an atrium. You essentially have an II
atrium right here.
Erhart: Expand it a little. We're saying expand it more so that, 1 mea
let me ask you. How do you, where's the main entrance to all these
entertainment points? Is it from the outside or is it from the inside?
Fred Hoisington: Well you've have both. The bowling center will want
it's access here. The cinema will want it's access probably about here.'
Erhart: So you can't get to it but all from the inside?
Fred Hoisington: No, there will be way to penetrate through here, excep
, P
we need a way to also close it off. So that they can operate...so you
will have a way to enter right here, a way to penetrate here, a way to
penetrate here, and a way to penetrate here and a way to penetrate here.II
So you'll have several ways to get into this complex. And then...on the
inside becomes a walkway through this area. It'd be pretty much glass.
It will be very appealing in it's design the way the architect proposes.'
You'll have a connection then through the bowling center and into this
complex as well. That's going to be a little bit more challenging
because you know where this is currently. It's right behind the lanes..'
but all those things are design issues and short of tearing this down,
there are going to be some things that are gong to be a little bit more
difficult to do. But they can be done.
Batzli: Matt, did you want to throw in your two cents worth?
Ledvina: Well, 1 like the concept plan here. I think it deals with a II
lot of difficult elements and there's consideration on a grand scale and
the views and the overall property. So I do like that.
Batzli: How about you Jeff?
Farmakes: I like this thing a lot. I had the opportunity to look at, bill
at some of these HRA meetings where they're going over this thing. In
regards to Ladd's comment. I don't think in our lifetime Chanhassen is
going to be a main street type town. I agree with the things that you ,
say and I hold those suspicions too. We have designed our lifestyle to
cars and we have set pedestrians behind the cars. They come second and
unfortunately all you have to do is look at how our city is. It is buil
for cars first and pedestrians second. You're not going to get a lot of
people traffic going up and down unless they're going to access their ca
out in the parking lot. But that doesn't mean that we can't do some
things to buffer that. I think our city has expressed an interest...the ll
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 64
ground cover and the impervious surface are up there. I really like that.
Boy, that would be nice if we could get Target to do some of that on
their open end on the west end. Or even enough just to break up some of
the visual sight lines of pedestrians walking through the area. So you
don't see one big mass of cars. It's broken up with some tree buffering
and not just an occasional oranmental but some serious coverage. The
other thing is I think, what Paul said about the parks in the strategic
areas of town. At least that would offer the city some area to soften
the overall effect of what's on there because even what's not colored in
there to say the northeast, that's all parking lot there. To the north
' of the center, that's all parking lot. We're basically in a sea of
parking lots and anything that we can do to change that I think it's
great and what is in that turn area to the south side is, I think would
' go a long way to help that out. I like the idea just from the marketing
concept of turning and not trying to make one thing suit everybody and
the issue of how we look at a community center. There is different
' needs for recreation from adults to children. I don't know if we should
put one before the other in how this comes down but I really think that I
like the separation of how this is. One of the things I was
uncomfortable when they were discussing this thing on the HRA is that it
' was going back and forth between a community center and a conference
center and a retail center and again, I get kind of uncomfortable when
they were flopping around back and forth and I really think that as a
' conference center and an adult type recreation area, that those types of
things would, those make sense to me. And then the nice thing about this
is that it's using some of the existing structure that's already in
place. I think it's a nice concept.
' Erhart: Well if I could just repeat. To not confuse what this is. That
is so important to define what it is that you're going to service. If
' you have a bunch of different stuff muddled together, it's going to be a
financial failure.
' Batzli: Okay.
Conrad: Brian, what do you think?
' Batzli: What do I think? Better to make this work and to make it be
successful, it has to draw people and there has to be movement within the
various aspects I think and in order to do that, if you put in "skyways ",
' like they have some of them in St. Paul. They're dark. They're tunnels.
They're after thoughts. They're hallways down buildings that they
decided they were going to wall off and let the public walk through them.
They're not inviting. There's nothing on the walls. They're not
particularly kept up well because the management of the whole building
takes care of it so you know, they put in the minimum amount necessary
before the tenants scream. To make this successful, I think it has to be
' open. Something like Tim was saying, some sort of an atrium. Restaurant
or some central place. Some central focus to the entire. To me it's
kind of a mass and the analogy of a rat going through tunnels kind of,
you get a feel of geez, they're going to have all these. I don't know if
you've ever been to the, up to Banff and they've got this big old lodge
up there. Banff Springs Hotel. And it's beautiful. It's great. Built
in the 1800's but they put in all these retail shops in the lower level.
Planning Commission Meeting
II
September 2, 1992 - Page 65
There's something like 30 shops and that's their big drawing card. You II
don't even have to go out of the hotel the whole time you're in Banff.
Well you feel like a rat down there. They've got windows. They've got
them but it's the little maze like, you know and they've got low ceiling
and you're down there and you just say, ooh. It's not inviting. It's
not friendly. You walk in the shop and it's suddenly nice but this
little maze of tunnels to get you around between them is very uninviting'
and very threatening and you simply can't find your way around down
there.
Erhart: I think the key is that once you're in there, that you feel that
the front of the stores are facing you. Even though occasionally you've
got to go through a hall or something to get to it but that once you're •
in, you don't have to carry your wool coat around to go and do what
you're going to do. You can spend the whole weekend and leave your coat
in the hotel room and roam. 00 what you want. The athletic club or you
go to the play. You go to lunch. 1
Batzli: If the focus was almost turned inward.
Erhart: Right, that's the way I see it. Look inward.
II
Batzli: It's nice from the standpoint that it does some things for the
city. it hides some views. It solves some problems but I think we can I
go a step further and make it better and maybe that costs a lot more
money and maybe nobody's interested in doing it that way but that's where
I'd like to see our focus. 1
Fred Hoisington: Brian, let me just respond to that. I don't think in
these, through this complex you need to be concerned. That can all be
designed to work very well. Have a very appealing.
II
Batzli: But s'e I picture what you're going to design is the Yorktown
Mall where you've got a glass front and an internal sidewalk, or Ridge I
Square does the same thing I think. You know it's, you've got doors
going in and you've got glass on one side. Then you have what is in
essence a mall with a covered, enclosed walkway along the front. I thin
what we're saying is if you turned those front pieces around so that the
face inbetween the buildings, and I don't know if that's possible because
the buildings that you have in existence already face West 78th.
Fred Hoisington: You have a grade change. Your concerns are legitimate
I mean I don't mean to suggest that they're not at all. I am again, I
like to see where this whole element designed as the movement can someholl
or another do the kind of thing you're talking about.
Batzli: If it's a two story atrium, it doesn't make a different if I
you've got a grade change. I mean the fronts of those stores might be.
Fred Hoisington: Figure out a way to do that. What the city or HRA
would have to commit to do is take all of this. No choice. You have toll
take it all. And you've got to give the architect when the time comes
essentially everything that's here and tell him, now these are the kinds
of things I want to achieve and I think you have the private sector is 11
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 66
' going to buy that because they keep telling us all this stuff is just
fine. I'm not convinced of that. But that's the way to make this thing
come together in a totally integrated fashion. Other than that, to keep
this you have a barrier in the center...
Erhart: This could be really something unique in this part of the
country if you can get ahold of the whole thing and make it really an
entertainment center. Inside entertainment center. I think you're
looking at quite something.
Conrad: Going back to the railroad tracks, what are the plans? What's
happening?
Krauss: It's going to continue to be used.
Conrad: It's discontinued?
1 Krauss: No, no.
Conrad: It is continued and that's going to happen, that's going to be
11 continued forever?
Farmakes: ..a couple of trips a day or something?
Krauss: It's used almost as frequently as it was before. It hasn't
change much but they've been selling off to these short line railroads
for a long time.
Farmakes: Well now you've got a place to put the old depot.
Krauss: It appears at least one in every sketch of anything to do around
here.
Fred Hoisington: We've had it in here several times. Then it's been out
1 and then it's been in and then it's been out...not a viable use. If I
were you, I would simply, we hope you kind of endorse the concept but I
would have no hesitation if you wanted to go further and suggest a more
integrated kind of thing. I think the footprint is here. It's only a
matter of how you can do it better to make it all work together.
' Erhart: Well I don't know, I guess I'd like to see us challenge the HRA
to look at a bigger concept. Not bigger in terms of footprint but bigger
in terms of what it's going to be.
' Farmakes: Square feet?
Erhart: No. Well maybe. No, more in terms of pizzaz.
Batzli: It needs sizzle. It has no sizzle right now.
Erhart: Yeah, I have a feeling it's just not going to make it. The
ingredients are there but they'll all be viewed as separate things.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 67 II
Farmakes: What if they can design the structure around the atrium that
you talked about and that there was a primary entrance focus at the sout
and the north and west. You can see it from TH 5. You can see it from
Market and you can see it from 78th. '
Erhart: Yeah, I agree. It doesn't have to be one entrance. There can
be numerous entrances. It's like a shopping mall.
II
Farmakes: It would be nice to have something to the south in place of
what's there now so at least visually you could know that something's '
there.
Erhart: I assume that the whole south would be redone.
Farmakes: But I mean, usually there's a focal element. 1
Ashworth: I wasn't going to talk. We have sent out proposals for a
construction manager for this project. Those have to be in by September'
17th, in which case Todd and I will go through those and set up
interviews that will occur in front of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority on September 24th starting at 5:00 to 5:30 that afternoon. Th'
specific task given back over to the construction management firms have
included, how will you carry out that corridor construction and
demonstrate to the HRA that your firm is the best firm to be considered '
for that activity. What is your experience and what is the best, show u
what you might do with this convention center area including auditorium,
ways to get people around, escalator, the pool, the glassed areas, etc..
I think you're going to find the proposals as they come in that
afternoon, very exciting. Maybe in a similar degree to the storm water
management when we brought in the 3 -4 different firms and had them kind
of competing for why we should select one of those firms for that
particular process. I would invite Planning Commission members to come
in during that process. Listen to what some of these people have to say.
I think that they're going to, you're going to be surprised. They're
going to be addressing the same issues that you're talking about tonight'
They've already identified the importance of some of those same issues.
1 think that I'm really looking forward to the 24th. I really believe
that we have five firms out there that could head this project up. Make
it something that would be very worthwhile for the city and I anticipate
that the HRA that night, the 24th, will make a selection of one of those
five firms.
II
Erhart: So you right now have to decide whether you're going to tear
everything down other than the bowling alley building and the Dinner
Theatre or whether they might save something buildings? That's all up i'
the air yet?
Ashworth: Well, no. I' mean the portion of the Instant Webb building 1
that's currently owned by Bloomberg will go down. The back side of
Merlyn's will go down. Bloomberg has responsibility to remove those.
The two, the scene shop and the other building will go down. You're
literally talking about new construction throughout the entire area. Th'
only spot that might be considered for rennovation would be the Merlyn's
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 1992 - Page 68
i existing building and then the building for the Guys and Dolls. The
barber shop type of thing.
Batzli: Thank you. Does Fred need anything from us tonight? Okay.
•
Fred Hoisington: Really this is going to be in the hands of the
construction manager. And that process will continue and you just need
to kind of keep tabs on what's happening as it progresses.
' Erhart: It looks exciting.
Batzli: Yeah, I think so. Thank you for coming in. Can we table our
tree conservation easement?
Erhart: Yes, yes, yes.
' Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Mann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 16, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli, and Jeff
Farmakes. Ladd Conrad and Tim Erhart arrived during the discussion of
item 2.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Planner
II; and Charles Folch, City Engineer
1 PUBLIC HEARING:
NON- CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA
CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Batzli: Do we have a staff report Kate?
Aanenson: Can we see if there's anybody here? I don't see the
Association President here.
Batzli: Sure. Is someone here from the Association from Minnewashta
Creek? No. As I recall, this was tabled last time because we didn't
know what they were applying for. Do we know what they're applying for,
even though they're not.
Aanenson: Yes, they've resubmitted a new application. I can go through
the report if you'd like.
Batzli: Why don't you do the condensed 30 second version of what's
changed since they came in last time.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Batzli: Just to clarify one more time. They had in in the inventory in
1 '81 and '91, boats on land but they're not requesting any boats stored on
land correct?
Aanenson: Correct.
Batzli: Okay. Thanks Kate. This is a public hearing. If anyone would
like to speak on this issue, could you approach the microphone and give
us your name and address. No one wants to speak. Is there a motion to
close the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Matt, why don't we start with you. Do you have any questions?
Ledvina: Well, I was looking through the documentation. There's one
letter here by Terrence Thompson, Sr. and he's got these signatures that
attest to the fact that he was there. Kate, was there another one for?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 2
Aanenson: No, there wasn't a letter. The only other evidence was
provided at the May 6th meeting where Mr., I'm not sure how you pronounce
his name, got up and spoke and stated to the fact that he had a boat in
the water prior to that. The same amount of time so it's basically
documentation in the Minutes.
Ledvina: Okay. Other than that I really don't have any other questions.
I think that they're going ahead and they're making provisions to improve
the safety of the beachlot by adding the buoys which I think is a real
1 good thing. Other than that, if those two boats were docked in 1981, I
should say moored, that would seem, the request to continue that would
seem reasonable. Other than that I don't have any other items. The
chemical toilet, is that something that's.
Aanenson: They do have a conditional use for that and it's separate.
11 Ledvina: And that's A -okay. So that's it for me.
Batzli: So we're approving this. We're not actually approving the
' portable chemical toilet other than in conformance with whatever
conditions were placed on that from our other conditional use permit
process?
Aanenson: They do have a separate conditional use.
Batzli: So if we make a motion to approve this, or recommend approval,
should that be somehow reflected that the use of the portable chemical
toilet is governed by a separate conditional use.
Aanenson: That might be good.
' Batzli: Steve.
Emmings: I read my comments from our last meeting and I took a position
at that time that I didn't think they should have any boats at this one
and I'm going to turn myself around 180 degrees on that. They've moved
' these boats in front of this property this summer and I've kept my eye on
it and it seems to be working over there. And if that's what they want,
I think it's primarily a policing function of the Association there and
so I guess I'd vote for in favor of approving this. The only question
I've got is, just as an example Kate. I thought we weren't going to get
into picnic tables and grills and all that kind of stuff.
Aanenson: We're not.
Emmings: But on the request, they haven't requested any. I know they
' have some. They had them in '91. They had them in '81, just for picnic
tables for example. But we're not in any way eliminating their right to.
Aanenson: No. When we issue their permit we'll take that off as part of
it. As long as we're on that, can I make one other clarification? Where
it says swimming beach, it says no but they are requesting that. So
really the only things you're making an interpretation on is the number
1 of boats to be moored, because they're not asking for a dock. And then
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 16, 1992 - Page 3
by ordinance they can have a swimming beach so really all we're looking II
at is the number of boats and they're not asking for anything on land
either.
II
Emmings: Okay.
Batzli: Jeff. 1
Farmakes: On these enumerable requests, I'm just sticking with the '81
census, if there is one and I'm going to stay with that. I think that's
what we should do to be consistent. If the City Council and staff want
to make an exception on the issue that they didn't have any boats on the
site in '81 moored, that there were no moorings out on the lake and now il
it would seem to me two was an expansion. And if you want to make an
exception on that and you have some justification for that. I don't see
any here but in a reasonable compromise or whatever you want to do that
or in the interest of doing that, I'll leave that up to staff. The issull
of the raft and the marker buoys. If you're going to have a raft, I
wholly support the marker buoys but again, if that is an expansion, the
raft and the buoys. According to the census, there were no buoys or a
raft at that time. So again, that's an expansion of the use in '81. An
�
again, if the issue is one of compromise, I don't feel a burning desire
to hold that up if that's the situation that the city's worked out.
II Batzli: Okay. My perspective on this I guess is, they've provided som
evidence that they did have some boats moored. I'm willing to accept
that. I think that the reduction in the number of boats on land from 4 I
to 0, 2 boats moored and a swimming raft, I don't think is, when they
demonstrated that they had the 2, I actually think there's been a
reduction in the use of the beachiot here and swimming raft I think is al
reasonable thing to approve so I'd vote in favor for the swimming raft
and 2 boats being moored. Does anybody else have any other comments?
Otherwise, I'll ask for a motion.
II Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the Minnewashta Creek Non- Conforming Recreational Beachlot with 2 boats
moored, with the swimming raft and the marker buoys and also with the
understanding that the chemical toilet is governed under a separate II
conditional use permit.
Batzli: Is there a second? 1
Ledvina: Second.
Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 1
approval of the Minnewashta Creek Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot
with 2 boats moored, with the swimming raft and the marker buoys and all
with the understanding that the chemical toilet is governed under a
separate conditional use permit. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
II
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 -- Page 4
I! PUBLIC HEARING:
RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PROPOSES REZONING 20.96 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM
BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A
PRELIMINARY PUD AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TARGET DEVELOPMENT ON 10+
ACRES, AND AN INTERIM U PERMIT FOR GRADING OF THE ENTIRE SITE, TARGET
DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
' Name Address
Bill McHale Ryan Construction Co.
Fran Hagen RLK Associates
11 Eric Johnson RLK Associates
Margaret Fleck Target Corporation
Ursula Dimler 7203 Kiowa Circle
11 Dave Dimler 7203 Kiowa Circle
Charlie James T.F. James Company
B.C. "Jim" Burdick Excelsior
Mike Mason City Council Member
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report for this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
Bill McHale: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name
is Bill McHale again and we would specifically like to address what we
saw as the main issues 2 weeks ago. Specifically the general
architecture of the building, the elevation on 78th, landscaping and the
parking lot and also Outlot B. The main thing I think you're looking at
Outlot B is you shouldn't feel hamstrung about approving any concept per
se here. I think that that concept has been backed off somewhat. In
fact the HRA has voted to go ahead and acquire this property whether or
not there is a purchase agreement in place with Ryan. So that they can
make more control over it in the future. Understanding that that was
' tough to get a handle on and maybe it was causing more concerns with the
Target parcel unnecessary. I've got Fran Hagen here tonight from RLK who
can bring you through some sections that we had done through the site.
Hopefully to get more comfortable with the landscaping in general and
' Margaret Fleck from Target is also here to go through the building,
architecturally with the rendering and explain what she's done since the
last time we were here. Fran, why don't you go through the sections
first.
Fran Hagen: To start with my name is Fran Hagen. I'm with RLK. At the
1 Planning Commission meeting previously, in the concept level, there was
concerns about the views from West 78th. We hope that some of these have
cross sections will help illustrate the points we were trying to make
earlier about the views from West 78th. This first section, the top one.
The top section is this section right in here at the very east end of the
site. I'll put it down here so you can see. East end of the site here.
You can see that we are burying part of the building, and that's what we
were discussing earlier. There's the, at this end over here is the plaza
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 16, 1992 - Page 5
area that was discussed up in the easterly corner. We have a small
retaining wall up to about 6 feet at the very east end going down to a
couple of feet or 1 foot about 20 feet, 30 feet into this site. Not veil
extensive because we've buried the building partially to make up some of
that grade difference. Let's see. You can see here the parking. There's
more grass in this area because again, it's way over here. As I
illustrated. It's not actually through the parking area. That is what
this illustrates a little bit clearer over here and that is, this sectio
here, BB. You see at this point the grade has come down a little bit so
we're not as, we're quite a bit above the building elevation. We have
the parking. We have landscaping. We'd like to point out that since thl
last time you saw it, we've added landscape islands interior to this
parking area along with a string of islands through this area here. We
also found by going back and looking at using the standards of the city
for a parking lot dimension, that we were able to pull the whole parking
lot area up 20 feet to get more green area, as far as impervious area for
the site. I mean pervious area for the site, not impervious. 1
Batzli: How wide is the road through to Burdick's? A standard width
road? 1
Fran Hagen: Ah yes. It's a one way road. It will be two way up at this
far end. This parking lot to the north of the Target Center, or Target
store is a one way diagonal parking system so you would come in on the II
south portion and then there's a turn around to come back. Well, you
could also make a maneuver here and this is 30 feet, or what is it. 20,
I'm not exactly sure what the standard is but it would be whatever the II
city standard is. I believe that's 25 feet.
Batzli: How wide is the sidewalk on that edge of the building?
Fran Hagen: Right along here, 5 feet.
Batzli: And does that lead to nothing at the east end then? 1
Fran Hagen: On the east end, well there is an emergency exit. Or yeah,
an emergency exit at this point right here. 1
Batzli: And then it continues on to those bushes?
Fran Hagen: It would basically end where the parking is, yes. Basicalll
from the parking over.
Batzli: Okay.
Fran Hagen: You're indicating maybe some type of tie for the Burdick
site? I guess I would point out that there is a sidewalk right up here.
In fact there's sidewalk proposed all the way along West 78th and I woul
tend to feel that most of the people would be walking that direction.
Aanenson: If I could make a clarification with the Fire Marshall. We'v
also asked that that sidewalk is part of a fire code thing. That the har
surface also go over towards the exiting doors. That's in his report so
part of that is the sidewalk that sort of is again a fire, for them to II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 6
11 get access to those doors. Around the corner.
Fran Hagen: Are there any other questions in regards to this section?
I'll move to the other portions of the main parking lot with the next
section.
11 Batzli: One other question. Assuming then that people walk all the way
to the corner and don't cut through the parking lot because you've got a
retaining wall that's about 6 feet there, is there then a sidewalk that
comes down across the island through the main drive to the front of the
store?
Fran Hagen: Yes there is. Once again this parking on the north side of
the building is going to be designated as employee parking. It will be
circuited so that the lights stay on after the store is closed. But that
was being designated as employee parking. That's about the number that
' they need for their employees.
Farmakes: In reality A and B are superimposed on one another. There
actually would be more trees extending back from Outlot B. We're also
seeing trees in the background of A?
Fran Hagen: Yes. Yes. Well, those sections, they're not superimposed
' if that's what you mean.
Farmakes: No, I understand that but they are in reality.
' Fran Hagen: There's actually more trees.
' Batzli: There'd be more cars too.
Fran Hagen: The next two sections again are views from West 78th.
Through sections from West 78th into the parking lot area. The top one,
' CC, is right in this area here. What we're trying to show there is as
the road bends away from the site, we are able to get a larger massing so
as you're looking down West 78th from down in the main part of town, we
' will be able to put more of a massing of trees here so that you get more
of that green appearance than say you would normally have in your 20 foot
setback. I think we're approaching 40 feet wide at that point and
there's quite a massing of trees proposed in that area. And again,
' you're not seeing the full magnitude because we're showing the trees that
actually are in that area. But as you're looking from west to east,
there'd be more masses of trees and I'd call your attention to the
' landscape plan to see the exact number and species of trees that fall
within that area.
Batzli: So we're looking west in that scale? In that view there.
Fran Hagen: No, you're looking back east again because.
Batzli: We're at the back of the building.
Fran Hagen: Well the building would be over in this area, if you were to
1 see it in the background because you're looking this direction here so
Planning Commission Meeting f
September 16, 1992 - Page 7
the building would start right about there off in the background. And
also it cuts through I guess these islands right in here. That's what
those two islands are shown as. This bottom elevation is stepping back II
from West 78th, say going up maybe on the Charlie James side of the road
there. The north side looking down at the building. This is somewhat of
a better view of how many trees. You can see the trees that are up here
up on top of the hill but you can see the ones where you just see the
heads of the trees. You can see that those are the ones that are down
inside the parking, which is lower than the road. West 78th. Any
questions on this cross section? The last two cross sections came about"
kind of in reference to what City Council had requested some views of.
These are from the Highway 5 side. Starting on the Highway 5 side of the
project. The upper most section here, Section DD, would be straight out"
from the building at a 90 degree at the top of that overpass. Or
approach to the bridge. So that is roughly in this area here. It is
showing the, it's before the truck dock. It's going through here showin
the mass of trees that exist now. Those aren't trees that we're
planting. Those exist now. Other than the one tree up in here, we are
proposing a string of ash and I believe they are down along where we are
grading. But this mass of trees exists now and that's what the City is II
trying to preserve as a screen partly and also just to preserve the
existing mass of trees. This section, which is called EE, would be
roughly starting here on Highway 5 and kind of looking across the
parking. Through the parking area towards the building itself. And you
can see that's the entrance area of Target. We have a high portion there
and you can see how much we are depressed down from that area, and you
get a somewhat picture of the massing of the trees and also... If there"
any other questions as you're going along, I'd be happy to answer them.
Now, I'll turn it over to Margaret.
Batzli: This was in lieu of the computer aided graphics. 11
Fran Hagen: I guess I skipped over the landscaping itself. Do you want"
to at this point address the specific landscaping or is that something?
As we had mentioned, since the last time we were before you, we have
tried to provide more green area on the site and in the parking lot
itself trying to break it up a little bit. What we've proposed in
addition to previously submitted first of all is a string of, we're
taking advantage of the allowance in the Code of some compact car.
Actually I think we're allowed quite a bit more than what we're proposini
here but what we're doing is putting these smaller islands of two
ornamental trees in each one of these islands and they will all be
irrigated I believe. Isn't that a city requirement?
Folch: Yes.
Fran Hagen: I believe it is. I know it's a Target requirement from a II
previous discussion we had.
Krauss: We'll make it one.
Fran Hagen: We have a string of trees here. String of islands to try to
soften that up, as we mentioned. We've also, because of the ability to
tighten down the dimensions and such, we found more green space down in II
i
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 8
1! through here. Specific trees, at the previous meeting was discussed
putting a few trees in front of the building. Those are the ornamental
' crab apple type of trees. I don't see the specifics there. We've got
quite a mixture of different trees. I don't know specific you want me to
get at this time but we've got marshall ash along this roadway here.
Over in here, especially where height is going to be a big, we want them
to get up high and fast to try to soften the view of the Target from West
78th. Then we also have them proposed over here where they'd be dwarfed
by the existing trees anyway if we tried to put anything other than
something that grew fast and large, especially an ash. We have pin oak
and lindens scattered in a lot of these different islands. The pin oaks
actually are not in the islands except this large island here. Those pin
oaks are in this more landscaped mass area.
' Batzli: How do pin oaks do with salt?
' Fran Hagen: This is Eric.
Eric Johnson: I'm Eric Johnson. I'm the landscape architect for RLK
Associates. And with the salt that you're talking about, the pin oaks we
have located here in the back side of the building where we won't have to
worry about a salt spray at all. We've got the pin oaks that are set
farther back into, away from the parking area here. There are the three
' that we talked about in this larger island area. But due to the size of
the island we'll be able to set them back farther to get away from any
splashing. This island here will be irrigated as well to...the salt
' spray and take care of that particular row of trees.
Batzli: I was thinking snow removal. People might use that as a place
' to pile snow.
Fran Hagen: Just given the nature of this parking lot, it's actually
sloped this direction and given the nature of this large area, I'm
' relatively certainly that snow removal will be in this manner. Just in
looking at it from ease of, this is the most logical place for snow
removal, not to mention all the depressed hole of ponding area.
1 Batzli: Do you have any questions on the landscaping that you want to
talk about now?
Farmakes: I'm concerned about the interior area. Are we talking
ornamental sizing? Let's say for instance on the double areas that are
on, just to the left or right of the center line of trees.
Fran Hagen: Yes, those were called out for G and I. Those are crab and
hawthorne.
11 Farmakes: So what type of heights are we talking there?
Eric Johnson: With the hawthornes we're looking at, they generally get
about a 15 to 20 foot height as far as that goes. They're a rather wide
spreading tree. 5o they work very well for screening uses. We also have
along the front space here overstory trees. Along the center islands
here, we have the overstory trees also with the mixtures of... We've
Planning Commission Meeting i
September 16, 1992 - Page 9
been mixing ornamentals in there so we don't have continual., the same
species throughout the parking lot. One thing's to give the parking lot
a little bit more character. With the ornamentals we bring in different,
in the springtime we bring in colors as they bloom and they also work
well with the screening. And as far as different species in the parking
lot, just...we want to avoid monoculter throughout the parking lot. But
with the alternation of the ornamental trees as well as the deciduous
overstory, we get a varying heights that will help screen out. The
ornamentals will work well with the 15 to 20 foot height, keeping as a
person looks forward, out towards the building. Their eye would be
blocked that way. With the large overstory deciduous tree, as your eye
looks up, it's drawn upward, that takes care of the sight lines from
above. And it acts as almost a two level of screening as far as that ,
goes.
Farmakes: Are these shown as maximum crown cover with a mature tree?
Eric Johnson: Right now actually these are not. The ornamentals we hav
drawn here have about a 10 foot spread right now and with those, there'd
be about a 15 or 18 foot spread. With the crabs there and the hawthornell
can even get to a 25 foot. They're rather wide. These are the honey
locust here. Those will get to a height of about I'd say 35 to 40 feet.
And right now with your drawing, they're showing a 20 foot crown and
those will max out to about a 30 foot crown with those. They get rather"
spreading also with maturity. So this is about a 5 year type of plan
showing here. These will get much larger.
Farmakes: As a general rule of thumb, you're saying that these crown
areas indicated here, they'd be about 30% bigger when they're mature?
Eric Johnson: I would say more like about almost 50 %. 50% as far as th,
overstory deciduous here. About 30% as far as the ornamental.
Batzli: What's the expected life of a locust? ,
Eric Johnson: The locust, we've seen many mature trees, especially since
these islands will be irrigated, that will definitely help in the life II
span. But I've seen some up to 50 -60 years that have been quite large.
Farmakes: There is no landscaping at all in the area to be directly to II
the south. There's that little strip there and then it's all open up.
Your pylon sign I believe is indicated to going there. Is that correct?
Fran Hagen: The pylon sign was indicated here. When they come in for II
the actual sign approval, which I understand is a separate approval. I
know there's been some discussions about possibly moving it more towards
the west just because of the grade difference here. This road is going II
up so fast. They want to get it as far west as they can so that, given
that your height requirements... The reason for leaving this open, as I
mentioned. part of the reason is just where can we put the snow. I knoll
that there's been discussions about cleaning it out this way, number one
Number two, if you remember the grading plan, or I'm sure you have copies
of that, this is a steep slope. 3:1 slope going down to the ponding are
itself. In fact, during a high water storm or 100 year storm, I would
r
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 10
say at least 50% of that area will be covered with water. So there are a
lot of trees that would be sensitive to that kind of environment. So the
trees are kept up on the bench. If you're looking at the grading plan,
there's about a 20 foot..area that's flat on top of the hill. And that's
where those trees are shown.
Conrad: We just discussed the parking lot. You gave more green space to
the bottom. I'm not sure the green space at the bottom really counts
because you're looking over it from the highway. But you compressed the
' parking lot. Why didn't you take that as an opportunity to add some
green space in the middle to break it up a little bit visually? In other
words, take 20 feet of that green space at the bottom, run a strip
' through the middle of the parking lot. Maybe meander a sidewalk through
that. You added the space. Why...do that?
Fran Hagen: Well a sidewalk wouldn't give us the pervious surface first
of all. We were trying to up the impervious. Or we're trying to
increase the pervious surface of the site.
' Conrad: Because we were over the ratio?
Fran Hagen: Well the ratio was high on this site but the total package
of this with this is below the 70% required. Margaret, did you want to
address that at all as far as, we did look at that type of a layout.
From a maintenance standpoint, there were some reservations on Target's
part as far as maintaining the.
' Bill McHale: That came up with staff several times and RLK I think did
draw a pictorial for Target but Target's tried this before in other
' locations. One specifically in St. Louis Park and they've had terrible
luck with it. It's not just the volume, the lack of use. They've had a
lot of problems. It doesn't handle the carts movement through, the carts
through the lot. And based on not being able to achieve that, they
' thought the next best option was to expand the green area to the south.
They have determined that they just functionally cannot live with a large
pedestrian path through the middle of the lot.
Conrad: See I'm surprised at that. You would think that that would add
to this, and Knollwood is not a good example. I'm real familiar with,
' that's a cockeyed parking lot. --
Bill McHale: We're talking about St. Louis Park on Highway 100.
' Conrad: Yeah, that's the Knollwood shopping.
Aanenson: No, no. Knollwood's on 7. Byerly's and Target. They go
between the two.
Conrad: Ah, okay. I'm surprised. I would think that that would add to
' the ability to get out to the lot.
Fran Hagen: Were there any other specific questions on the landscaping?
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 16, 1992 - Page 11
Farmakes: On other Target stores, do you normally do on site storage of 11
snow removal?
Bill McHale: Yes. i
Batzli: Thank you. We may have some questions later.
Margaret Fleck: Down at the bottom here I brought in what we standardly
begin with when we go out on a site. It is the basic Target building. I
is the basic footprint we use and exterior that has been accepted by the
Target Vice President and from there we go beyond that when required.
Here in Chanhassen we've worked a great deal with the staff and of course
here at this meeting previously. The building here has a 22 foot 8 II height of a parapet and in doing sight line studies, we have raised our
parapet to 26 foot 8 to cover all of the HVAC rooftop units and have
shifted the satellite dish to the back so that we're guaranteed that it
will not be showing by any of the sight lines. The sight lines we workel
with were Highway 5 at the peak. Down a little lower and then 78th
Street in several areas.
Batzli: Is back east? ,
Margaret Fleck: I had to shift it back into the roof further. We I
i
normally place it, the satellite dish is normally placed very close up
because of where it drops down into the communication area that we use it
for and I've shifted it back and that has, because the roof's sloping to
the rear, it accomplishes having it covered with the 4 foot parapet. '
They're exactly flush with each other. The only way you would ever see
anything on this roof, or should be able to see anything on this roof now
is if you're above the parapet height.
Farmakes: Which would be the entire Highway 5?
Margaret Fleck: No. Highway 5 is not above the parapet height. Highwal
5, the spot elevation I took I believe was 878. 978, excuse me. I got
my base number off there. And our parapet height is.
Aanenson: Well the bottom elevation is 958 plus.
Margaret Fleck: Yeah, 984. So there's a 10 foot difference. Or a 6
foot difference there. Our parapet is 6 feet higher than the spot
elevation I'm aware of being the top elevation of Highway 5. This was an
earlier sight line study that was done. I don't know whether you were
ever handed one of these. I know that I did work with Kate and Paul on
this. Since then we have been able to verify the height of our satellit
dish, and again I said we've shifted it so that we're assured that it
does not show. So nothing should show any longer. If there's any spot II
on Highway 5 that goes above it, which I have not found from my topo
elevations, yes. It's going to be seen but it's going to be, if
anything, way back here where I do not have topography on this point.
All along my building I've got the topography and it is not above the
parapet height. Moving along. What we have done is, our normal standar
building does have some changes in the front but we've included more
changes. One in particular is this area in here that works out as a '
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 12
gateway and then also is capped with the metal standing seam roof. And
then we've added another massing here that begins to reflect the m sses
on the West 78th Street side. We've also taken the two toned buil 'aing we
11 have here and with the additional 4 foot height, we worked with the lower
color and then added the two color bands that we normally use on our
Greatland stores. The blue and the green and then added the red up
' higher so that you get more break in the building. When we're working
with the projections that project out even further than the base
building, we have dropped the parapet, or dropped the wanescoat down to 3
foot 4 and that's again to accentuate that massing projecting further out
than another part of the building and you'll see that here and you also
see that we've used a brown band to kind of again project that and make
it pull out even further than just what you would see from the fact that
' you get shadows. On the West 78th Street side here you will see these
masses and in working with the staff even further, we have come up with
the fact that all the masses will have the legs like this and actually
look like similar to entries. They'll be recessed. This projection is 4
feet so you'll have a 4 foot overhang there and we'll be putting some
downlights in so that during the evening they will be lit up and this
wall won't be just extremely dark. We do use some security lights and
wall mounted lights to light our parking lot that would be on this side
but these will be specifically to accent these masses.
' Batzli: You said each one of those masses will look like the one on the
far right?
Margaret Fleck: Correct. And that was something we worked out with the,
oh yes, thank you. We did bring you a perspective this time. Excuse me,
and this begins to show how much the front repeats and then you begin to
see what the actual massing will do at the West 78th Street side.
Farmakes: I have a question or clarification? The previous landscape
drawing showed the roof elements being red. These are taupe color like
' they are here?
Margaret Fleck: Yes, that was our intent was to use a similar color to
this down here. I'm not sure why they were accented as taupe or terra
11 cotta on the other areas.
Farmakes: No, they're red in the landscape drawings.
Margaret Fleck: Like a terra cotta?
' Farmakes: They look like red to me.
Margaret Fleck: Okay. Well we hadn't intended on making them Target
red. I don't think that that would be, they're there as elements to
' reflect a residential motiff and that certainly wouldn't be appropriate.
We may choose to do that in some other area but I don't think Chanhassen,
that's an appropriate color to choose for. Are you interested in a
particular color?
Farmakes: No, I just noticed the two different colors and I'm asking
which one are we looking at?
Planning Commission Meeting '
September 16, 1992 - Page 13
Margaret Fleck: No, it will stay the taupe or, my intention was for it
to be a little bit shinier bronze color. Get a little bit of a polished
metal color to it. Almost an iodine. I can't talk tonight. Again, a 1
polished color. It would get a little bit more reflection than you're
seeing here.
Batzli: What is that top treatment going to be? What's the materials
that top treatment?
Margaret Fleck: Meaning right in here or are we talking about the roof '
itself?
Batzli: Yeah. 1
Margaret Fleck: It will be a metal standing seam roof. The reason you
see the lines is because it will have a slight panel piece and then it
will come up as a trim piece. The one thing I haven't mentioned is the
fact that at the parapet, right at the termination we'll be doing some
beveling. Moving the block back and forth to give you a corbelled effect
with the masonry itself. '
Farmakes: I just have a general question for you, as far as style goes.
What is the reason behind the building having such a limited glass areal'
Margaret Fleck: We really don't need the glass. We don't display
materials out on the exterior. All of our sales is in the inside and it'
a reachable, sellable material. The only glass we need is the glass tha
we need for the entry doors and that's what we put in now.
Farmakes: It's not a security issue? A styling issue? You just don't
need it?
Margaret Fleck: Well, I think there's a security issue with it also. A
one point we did have a little bit more glass. This front modual here
is, the longer front modual is our offices for our merchandisers that are
in the store. And at one point we would have given them glass but we
don't find it one, that they necessarily need it. And two, it is a
security problem. It's better if we don't have those openings. We've
very careful about our doors also.
Farmakes: So there aren't versions of this particular unit elsewhere '
that have more glass?
Margaret Fleck: Earlier on versions. Perhaps 5 years ago to 10 years II
ago or possibly stores that we have purchased and take overs we've done
to stores that are already existing. Where we've just lived with what
was there. '
Batzli: Do you have an emergency exits on the front of the building
here?
Margaret Fleck: Yeah, there's several of them. Well no, I shouldn't.
Yeah, there's two of them. There's these two here, which will be painte
out the same color as the base and these two here, which there will be a
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 14
light above those in the evening. And of course they're never intended
on being used as entries. They're only exits.
' Farmakes: Isn't there also on your plan more lower landscaping that's
not shown here? Does that screen need more area there?
Margaret Fleck: In this area? At this moment, no we had not put that
in. Unless something was mentioned somewhere else that I'm not aware of.
At this point it was major trees. Oh, the sign. Do you want me to show
them the sign?
Aanenson: Sure.
1 Margaret Fleck: These are the two signs that will be being placed. This
is the pylon sign and this is the one that will be being in placed by the
one driveway. And again, they're the two tones that we're talking about
' here.
Batzli: Okay, thank you.
Margaret Fleck: Thank you.
Batzli: Do you have anything else?
Bill McHale: No, except to answer your questions, I think that's it.
Batzli: Okay, we'll probably have some in a little bit. This is a
public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
commission at this time?
' Dave Dimler: Hello, I'm Dave Dimler of 7203 Kiowa Circle here in
Chanhassen. And I am presently leasing, along with my brother, Burdick's
property. And I would like to address a concern that we presently have a
' crop of pumpkins on that land and I'm here to address the issue of the
grading permit. We would like to get our pumpkin crop out this year and
that would go of course until Halloween on October 31st. That's where
' our concern is. Is just that we can get our profits out of that. We
have put a lot of time and money into getting our crop in .and we would
like to see the proceeds.
1 Emmings: Did you have an agreement with Mr. Burdick about being able to
get your crop out? When you leased the land from him.
Dave Dimler: The lease goes until December 31st.
Emmings: Alright. So you've got rights there?
' Dave Dimler: Yes, we do have rights.
Emmings: Okay.
' Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Charlie James: I'm Charlie James. I think you all know that.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 15
Emmings: Is that all you want to tell us?
Charlie James: No, but you know being here tonight kind of reminds me oll
the old story about the town hypochondriac that hears that there's a new
doctor in town so he figures he'd better go check this guy out and see if
this guy can tell him what's wrong with him. So the guy goes down to th
doctor's new office and there's no one in the waiting room but there's a�
big sign there and it says, initial consultation $150.00. All subsequent
visits, $25.00. So when the doctor comes out to greet the man, the man 11 jumps up and goes, nice to see you again. So that's what I'm saying to
all you tonight. Nice to see you all again.
Batzli: I really liked the chicken and the pig one the other night.
I've been telling people that at work. They all think it's original.
'Charlie James: First of all I want to say that I support this project
and I think they've got a really good looking building here. I'm in the
development business and I'd be happy to be their neighbor. I think
they've done a good job. Really what the issue comes down to for me is,
what's going to happen to West 78th Street. And as you probably all
know, I've been kind of held hostage for the last 3 1/2 years. We had all
building that was approved by your Planning Commission and City Council 3
1/2 years ago and I executed a development agreement with the City that II
said that that street was going to get built and well, I guess we all
know the rest of the story. I met this morning with RLK and this
afternoon with Don Ashworth. And we're following kind of a two track
approach here. We're trying to work, see what happens if we go with thell
existing right -of -way that I prepared according to MnDot specifications.
According to my development agreement or whether we'd go with the
realigned location as proposed on these drawings here tonight. In a
nutshell my position is I don't care. I have two concerns. Number one II
is, the development agreement that I had with the City and my entire plat
was based on driveways located in a certain position that were full II access driveways. So I want to make sure that I maintain the integrity
of access to my northern property. And second of all, this isn't a
Planning Commission issue, it's an HRA issue. I want to get a fair pric
for my property which recognizes the grading, the soil correction, the
architectural plans, mechanical engineering plans and so forth. So I'm
flexible on either way we can go there. Paul told me, Paul Krauss, told
me one time when I was asking what this PUD was all about. He said, I'm!.
paraphrasing Paul here. He said the purpose of a PUD district is not to
subvert the ordinance but to get a higher quality product. That's there
some trade -offs involved but the net result should be that the City gets"
a higher quality product. 1 don't think we should forget that part of
this PUD is Outlot B. And the Council the other night asked that this
matter of West 78th Street be resolved by September 28th and I agree. I
would like a resolution by September 28th. I just can't be left twistin
out on the wind any longer. I can't have, I understand where these folk
are coming from. I empathize with them. I know why they need to get this
dirt in and let it settle over the winter. I'd like to see them get
going. But on the other hand too, if we get so focused on letting this
happen and not enough attention is paid to Outlot B, I'm going to be
sitting there for another year or God knows how long. I mean if we take"
the pressure off the resolution of this 78th Street issue. So I'm
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 16
flexible on that. I'm trying to work with the parties. I think we had a
productive meeting this morning. I had a very productive meeting this
1 afternoon with Don Ashworth. He's going to the HRA tomorrow. So I guess
in summary I'd just say,, I'd like a resolution of this thing by September
28th. I've just got to know where I stand on this road. And otherwise
Target will proceed and I'll be just kind of left twisting in the wind
again. So I support the project and my opinion as a developer, I think
they've done a good job on the building. Like I say, I'd be proud to be
their neighbor. And I guess in closing, I'll just tell you the rest of
that story. The doctor comes out and says come on in. Let me hear what
your problem is. So the doctor's thumping the guy on the chest and he
goes, oh God, this is bad. This is bad. And he thumps him some more and
' goes, oh. This is bad. He says, let me hear you breathe. The doctor
says, this is bad. And the patient says, doc what's wrong? What's
wrong? Am I going to live? What's going on here? And the doctor says,
well if you just keep doing what I told you to do during our initial
consultation, you'll live. Thank you very much.
Batzli: Can I paraphrase something you said? You don't, I think I heard
you say that you don't care where the road goes but you need a
resolution. Was that true? You don't care if it's moved south?
Charlie James: No, really they're HRA issues. Let me tell you what some
of the issues are here. If you want to know.
Batzli: Give us the Reader's Digest version.
' Charlie James: You guys know I can't do that. You've known me long
enough. Basically if we go with this kind of realignment here, what will
' happen is, where the existing alignment that we had previously. It kind
of came down here like so. So I'd be getting that alignment back plus a
strip here. I don't know, maybe 12 to 30 feet wide. And I guess what I
would like to see here. I didn't speak up during the first Planning
' Commission meeting. I was trying to show my support by being here and
keeping my big mouth shut. I figured it was better for me to be here and
keep my mouth shut than to not be here and have you wonder why I wasn't
' here. So I wish I would have spoke out about that issue about the right
turn, right in thing here because that kind of complicates the
negotiations that are going on right now. But if we go with this kind of
an alignment, which is fine with me, what I'd like to see is this
entrance closed. I'd like to see a signal here and if Target wants a
signal down here too, that's fine with me. I'd like to see some sort of
cul -de -sac come in here to serve these properties and then I'd like to
have, I had a full access point approved. This is 210 feet back from the
center line from the property line. I had a full access point approved
300 feet back. So in order to facilitate this, if I'm going to
' accommodate everybody here by kind of getting blown out of the water, I'd
at least like to have some good access retained on my property to the
north. In order to facilitate that, I'd like to see this closed. We've
had some discussions with Strgar about a signal here. I understand
' Target works here. There's some issues here as to whether or not I'll
ever be able to build a driveway here but we're talking about that.
Basically my property's on a slope. Their property's on a slope. They
want to lower the grade of the road so they have less of a slope into
Planning Commission Meeting !
September 16, 1992 - Page 17
their property but that raises the slope up into my property. So I'm 11
trying not to get brain damage about this. We're trying to work it out.
I'm hoping were gonna. 1
Batzli: Why does a right turn in and right out effect you across the way
there?
Charlie James: You know in talking to Strgar, they start out with the
best case scenario and then they kind of enumerate what happens there.
And so the best case scenario, if I'm going to have this, is to have
nothing over here. Then the next case scenario would be on and on and III
think there's some sense to having this traffic coming off of a
controlled intersection and according to Strgar and the conversations
we've had, the difference in travel time here. Coming from this
direction westbound. The studies have shown that as I understand them,
most of the customers are going to come from the north and the west and
from the south. They're certainly not going to come from Eden Prairie II
back this way. So they're going to be entering from this direction here.
5o what Strgar is saying is that the travel differential and time between
being able to turn here and simple going down to a stop light and turninll
here to get in, really is insignificant. But what does make a big
difference for me, if I'm trying to do all this stuff to accommodate this
development, is if all this traffic's coming from the west, how the heck'
do they get into my property up here where these two lots were where I
had a driveway granted? Are they going to drive all the way down to the
Chanhassen Dinner Theatre and do a U turn in their parking lot to come
back? So these are just, I'm just giving you sort of an idea of some of 11
the issues that are trying to be worked on there.
Batzli: Are you looking for a full intersection then at the entrance toll
your?
Charlie James: Here?
Batzli: Yeah.
Charlie James: No. I'm looking, there'd be a left turn lane there and II
there'd only be a movement to the north here. By eliminating the thing
to the south, that's like the second best or you know, on this enumerated
list of scenarios, that reduces...conflicts there and facilitates me
having access into the land. Because I feel that to lose that access toll
my land to the north is really a down zoning because then it turns it
into like a destination visit like an office or something where you've
got to sit there and go, get on your personal computer and go, now how d
I get to this place. Now I've got an appointment at 5:00 and rather tha
convenient shopping. So those are some of the issues and I think we're
starting to have some productive meetings now and I'm trying to be
flexible both ways. There's some other issues that there goes some
existing alignment. I want to be accommodating. I want to facilitate
this development. I think it's good for Chanhassen. I think this
project will give people who have never had a reason to come and even
stop in Chanhassen before, a reason to come here. Shop and that's going
to help your downtown merchants. And it's going to help me and things
across the street. So I support this project but I have to, you know I'l
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 18
being asked to change this. Change that. Change this, and there's only
so far I can go before the negative impacts start to outweigh the
positive benefits and so those are the issues that we're negotiating now.
I'm hoping that in the next two weeks we'll be able to solve these issues
to everyone's satisfaction.
Batzli: Okay, thank you.
Farmakes: Can I ask you a quick question? Yeah, you mentioned that your
marketing studies show that customers are coming from the north, west and
south.
Charlie James: I believe that's what was Strgar did. They did a traffic
study.
Farmakes: Earlier they considered coming from the east.
' Charlie James: Fran, is that right? Didn't Strgar's study show that the
majority of the traffic would be coming from, eastbound on West 78th
Street from the west.
Aanenson: There's a chart in the staff report.
1 Fran Hagen: There is a chart in the staff report.
Farmakes: I took that to mean from the east period. From the east on
TH 5.
Krauss: The east on TH 5 and down TH 101. Powers Blvd. is a very minor
player in the traffic forecast.
Farmakes: There was a high percentage of people coming east on TH 5.
Less on TH 101 and TH 5 coming from the west. Is that correct?
' Bill McHale: You may want to go up on the overhead and show them.
' Fran Hagen: This won't work on that overhead.
Bill McHale: Oh...
Fran Hagen: Coming from this direction, I'm sorry from Highway 5 and
Powers, the total of, I'm sorry. Coming up Powers is a total of 1,071.
About 300 are turning this direction. It says p.m. peak hour movement.
' They didn't go to Highway 5. Unfortunately, they just show it. I don't
know if this was included in your packets.
Aanenson: Yes, it was.
Fran Hagen: But 78th, they have 421 at Kerber it appears. If I'm
reading this correctly. 421 coming straight thru to the, or coming, it's
not saying that the destination is here necessarily. This is p.m. peaks
for the entire roadway. This is not specifically one site's destination.
Kerber at this intersection they're showing a total of 427 making this
movement into Monterey I guess it's called when you go south of West
1
Planning Commission Meeting II
September 16, 1992 - Page 19
78th. 123 going north on Kerber and 421 going thru that direction to th�.
west. Coming down Kerber itself, very minimal. 88 turning turning
towards the Target side.
II
Bill McHale: How about coming off of Powers going east on 78th?
Fran Hagen: That was the 300. That's all that's shown there is 300 1
coming around this corner here.
Bill McHale: Okay, so we've actually got more traffic coming from the II
east than the west.
Fran Hagen: Yes. 1
Charlie James: That doesn't jive with what's in the report here because
they talk about generating 7,000 trips a day.
Fran Hagen: This is just a p.m. peak count.
Charlie James: Okay, but I'm saying, they're talking about 7,000 trips II
day just to the Target. Somewhere in here.
Fran Hagen: Right. Strgar- Roscoe, I do not believe addressed Target
specifically. They were addressing all the different business districts II
that are along the West 78th. Am I right Kate?
Aanenson: That's correct. That whole super block. 1
Fran Hagen: That's what this report is. The whole super block. Not
just Target. These numbers do not mean that 300 are making the turn at II
Powers and West 78th and coming to Target specifically.
Conrad: Did they know Target was a factor?
II
Krauss: Oh sure, yeah.
Farmakes: So you're actually showing more trips on Monterey during peak,
hours than you are showing coming east on Powers and 78th?
Emmings: That's what it says. 1
Farmakes: I'm not a traffic engineer but that doesn't sound right to me
to a dead end street with...
Emmings: A dead end street with no business except one little one. I
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else that would like to address the
II
Commission?
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Good evening. B.C. "Jim" Burdick from Excelsior. II
First of all, please don't change those figures on Monterey. Now maybe
Paul would help me a bit by pointing at certain items. Paul or Kate. I
went along with 5 or 6 different things that I didn't care about in my
purchase agreement with the HRA or the City of Chanhassen. And one of II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 20
It the things that is favorable to me in agreement is that there should be
good access between the Target parking lot and our two lots. And I just
wanted to bring this up. This is part of the agreement. And secondly,
it's very important to us, we want a semifore at Kerber and 78th. As
they just said, by the way I didn't have anything to do with this report
or paying for it. To route traffic on Monterey but there's going to be a
lot of truck traffic there if nothing else. And we no longer want to
call it Monterey. I'll bring that up again but I corresponded with Todd
Gerhardt about 2 months ago about changing Monterey to Kerber. Everyone
' of the property owners has given me a letter saying that it's fine with
them. They'd like to have it changed to Kerber. Somebody from Market
Square, Chaska Tool and Ryan Construction and Target. So I'm going to
put that as Kerber. Anyway, it's quite essential to us we have a
semifore at Kerber as part of this deal because as you folks can see,
these two lots have been hurt quite a bit by the configuration. The
configuration of Market Square which largely faces to the east and a
' configuration of Target which faces to west. When they originally
started doing on this, the Target store was an angle facing northwest.
Whereas we finally agreed that they could turn the store so we'd actually
be behind this store so we do want these two items to offset part of this
damage. That would be the very good access from Target's parking lot and
a semifore at Kerber and 78th. That's all unless there's some questions.
Batzli: The current way that they have the access aligned through the
parking lot, you consider that adequate? You're not asking for more than
what's currently in the plans are you?
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: No, just one entrance.
Batzli: But you've looked at the plans and you're comfortable with
what's currently designed?
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Well strangely, I probably haven't. This plan's
been changed no less than 50 times. I have about this thick on a table
in my office and which is the latest one, I never know.
Batzli: But that's a one way into his property isn't it?
Krauss: No.
Batzli: Two way?
Aanenson: Oh two way, yeah. You can go both ways.
Bill McHale: You can go either way.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes, I'd want two way.
Fran Hagen: Out of his property there's no, it's a straight up shot.
Out of his property it's straight up this way because you'd be following
the right side of the road and you'd be straight out. That's why we
inverted so the parking comes in this way and comes out this way so it
was a straight in shot to his property. And coming out of his property,
again you would come in through here and you would have to go like that.
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 16, 1992 - Page 21
Come through this parking and turn. It's two directional here but it's
one way coming to it.
Batzli: Okay. You confused me earlier. Does Mr. Burdick then gain som1
sort of driveway easement recorded against the Target property?
Krauss: Well actually, that's a reasonably good condition for the plat."
In it's entirety it's all in one PUD so we have the ability to do that
easily.
Aanenson: That's why we wanted to include him in the PUD to make sure II
that that access was maintained and he is part of that.
Krauss: But it will be in separate ownership. It should have a cross
access easement. As should all the lots on Outlot B.
Batzli: Yeah, okay. Thank you. Go ahead. 1
Charlie James: If you look on page 14 of the, I don't know if these are
all sequentially, but it was the August 29th. Third paragraph it says,
Strgar- Roscoe has looked at the traffic generation and completed future
peak trip generations for West 78th Street and Powers based on complete
development of this area. Both sides of West 78th as commercial. Even
with total development, traffic will not exceed the design capacity. Th
ultimate ADT for this area going south on Powers, south on Powers and
east on West 78th would be 3,830 or an increase from the current levels
of 800 trips. So you're going to have 3,000 more cars coming up to the 1
north. The projected ADT's from Powers Blvd., coming here running east
onto West 78th Street would be 10,071, an increase of 7,000 trips. This
increase occurs only on the short section of Powers between Highway 5 to
West 78th Street. North of West 78th Street there will be a 10% increas�
in traffic over existing levels. So that in fact verifies this if you
reference page 14. For the traffic counts.
Batzli: Okay. Is there any other public comment?
Mike Mason: Mike Mason, 833 Woodhill Drive. I suspect I'm speaking moll
as a Council member now but I just have a few concerns. The discussion
about the middle sidewalk. As I'm looking at that I'm thinking, if I was
shopping at Target and I wanted to go to a restaurant, I'm not going to
walk to 78th Street. Hike up there and then go back down 78th Street an
come down. There is a middle sidewalk on the Target in South Minneapolis
and Hiawatha so it has been done, unless it's been removed. I'm also
concerned about lights and how long they'll be on. After hours, that
kind of thing. Security lights, fine. I mean I know it has to be done
but how much more light is there going to be in Chanhassen because of
this? Also, the landscaping on West 78th, as I was just sitting talking'
with Councilwoman Dimler, evergreens sure would be nice as opposed to
deciduous trees. The trouble with deciduous is, in the winter we don't
see much. Just on the West 78th side there.
Aanenson: I think there's a mix. I can double check.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 September 16, 1992 - Page 22
11 Mike Mason: Yeah, and there may be enough evergreens there now but just
as I've been spending a lot of time to think about this and thinking
about the presentation from Monday. Just some concerns that I'd either
1 be bringing up now or at the next Council meeting, so thanks.
Aanenson: Could I just make a comment that we raised in the staff report
to make sure that it's clear that Target has a lighting policy that's
inconsistent with our's. We specifically made that a condition because
that was brought up before at the Planning Commission and that's the half
foot at the property line. Their standard is one foot. We did make note
11 of that as a condition that they meet our standards for lighting.
Eric Johnson: If I could address the issue of the evergreen trees. We
have looked at evergreen trees in the widest portion of the island. Of
the areas between West 78th and the Target parking lot. The reason we do
not have more is the concern for the salt spray on these coniferous
trees. The coniferous trees have a very bad problem with the salt spray
and survival rate is rather low when they're planted close to the road.
That was the reason why we did not include more coniferous trees. We do
have them here at the widest point because they're able to set back from
the spray and their survival there would be pretty good.
Emmings: There's some in that parking lot just to the- north too isn't
there?
Eric Johnson: Right here in these two. Along the parking lot area, the
speeds generated should not spray the salt that much but along West 78th,
' when you get the higher speeds, salt and the snow is kicked farther out.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anymore public comment? Is there a motion
11 to close the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: I'd like to start out with the sign first. I've got a couple
questions about the sign. I have heard 34, 30 and 36 feet on the pylon
' sign. Which one are we talking? The plans show 34. The copy shows 36
and, is the ordinance 30?
Aanenson: On the PUD, no. We didn't put a specific height regulation on
this because we weren't exactly sure where the placement would be and to
get their visibility. That was one, we left that open.
Farmakes: Okay, which one within the figures of 34 and 36? Which one's
the, the sign here says 34.
Aanenson: Right. I'm assuming that's what it should be.
Margaret Fleck: Again, we're a little concerned to commit completely
until we actually get the sign set up. I understand that there is a
' specific permit that needs to go out on that. Because of the proposal,
either to set it here or in here, it's a low dip point and of course the
pylon sign's probably the most important to be able to visually see off
1
i
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 16, 1992 - Page 23
of Highway 5. With Highway 5 at the height it's at, we could end up 11
losing 10 -15 feet of that base of the sign.
Farmakes: So you haven't chosen a location? II
Margaret Fleck: No, we haven't chosen a location or truly a height.
II
Farmakes: Would that be taken care of at a later date?
Krauss: Well actually as a PUD, it should be designated on the site pia
since the normal sign ordinance doesn't apply in a PUD unless you deem i
to apply. Now in this case we've been fairly restrictive on signage. I
mean we're limiting the number of pylon signs. If you go back to some o
the original meetings we had with Morrish and the HRA and how the site
plan developed in the first place, we always acknowledged that Target was
going to need a fairly large single, architecturally designed pylon sign
because we've got the building tucked back behind the trees we're trying '
to save. If you want to put a maximum, not to exceed 40 feet, I think
that would be a good number. I mean they can shift that sign down on the
site and see what works the best and we can work with them. But it
should be written into a set of sign covenants that are adopted with the ll
PUD contract.
Farmakes: So your answer is, we can take care of that later?
II
Aanenson: No. 40 feet. A maximum of 40 feet.
Batzli: Shall not exceed 36 feet. II
Emmings: That's what it says now in the condition that's here.
II
Batzli: It says they're entitled to one.
Farmakes: If they have a case for changing that later, they can do that"
later?
Krauss: Sure.
II
Farmakes: The next question I have in regards to the sign is the color
of red then. Is that the more blood red that's on the tower or is that II
the warm red that's on the Target's logo?
Margaret Fleck: I'm sorry.
II Farmakes: The red that you're using here, that you're indicating here o
the plans. Is that on a white plexiglass and is that a 185 red or is
that a darker red that you're using in the architectural item?
II
Margaret Fleck: ...when you say 185, you're talking.
Farmakes: I've seen Target as a very bright red and I've also seen it all
a darker red.
Margaret Fleck: It was intended on being a bright red.
II
11
' Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 24
Farmakes: I don't know if that's on purpose or if it just happened to be
that way.
' Margaret Fleck: ...back lit or not back lit...
Farmakes: Is it off white? Is it bright white? Is it cream? What is
that?
Margaret Fleck: I believe it's bright white.
Batzli: Yellows to a fine cream over the years.
Margaret Fleck: Not if we can help it.
Farmakes: And you're showing that as a gray, so the red pole that's
described in the copy here, that's not a consideration then?
1 Margaret Fleck: The pole being described, are you thinking of the
narrative?
1 Farmakes: I was talking about the pylon. The red pole.
Margaret Fleck: ...no.
1 Farmakes: So that then will be a gray or that will be the color of the
building?
' Margaret Fleck: The base will be the brown color...
' Farmakes: Okay, so that's not as the plan that you have it there? That
you're holding. Color wise. That would be a more tan, taupe, whatever.
Margaret Fleck: That was...
' Farmakes: Okay. I'm not sure on the entrance. Just the questions that
I have listed here based on going through the material here so for a
moment if we can get out to Outlot B. When we have 50% of the surface on
Outlot B, or the buildings on Outlot B, don't we have a maximum cap then
that the sign can be? Say for instance if they have no windows or
whatever on the sign facing the highway, is that 15% of the entire wall
of the building? Or do we have a maximum? Not to exceed.
Aanenson: We don't right now, no.
1 Farmakes: Okay, I know Minnetonka does. That'd be a concern of mine.
That we don't wind up again like with something that we have with Holiday
' or something. That we have a very large wall so you wind up with a very
large backlit outdoor billboard. Bigger than the pylon sign. Jumping
back to the landscaping and tree preservation. On the plan they show an
area on Outlot A and I asked Paul about this earlier. He answered my
' questions but I just want to go over it so it's on the record. There is
on page 15 comments as to sort of eludes that the applicant will be doing
the thinning out and I want to clarify that that property is the HRH's
and they will be, if not doing that themselves, contracting to have it
1
Planning Commission Meeting I
September 16, 1992 - Page 25
done. Where the property borders next to the truck delivery point behinI
( Target, there still is a, from the tree chart a significant overflow of
oaks into that area and I'm wondering, is there an agreement as to how II
those will be trimmed? •On the plan it shows that the crown cover comes
quite close to the actual impervious surface area. Is that, is there a
tighter landscape version of that than what we have here?
Krauss: Commissioner Farmakes, we share the concern in that area. It's
kind of hard to tell with this level of plan development exactly what's
happening. We've been reviewing it with an eye towards pulling things '
back to the minimum required. Some of this is also going to have be
staked out in the field before grading work starts and we'll make
decisions out in the field. We put in, we have a standard condition for l
tree preservation that allows us to do that and to modify grading plans
in the field. Even up to requiring small retaining walls if that works.
So you're really not certainly until the thing is staked out.
I
Farmakes: I haven't walked through the whole thing. Is that bordered
area that goes through there, are those full mature oaks? 70 year oaks
or, it just shows oaks on there. '
Krauss: It's really mixed. I've walked it a couple of times and Pica
Drive is really the dividing line between the better quality material
which is to the south and the lesser quality. Although when you view it
in a distance it looks kind of bulky and green. That stuff's to the
north. Scattered in amongst it there are some quality trees that some o
those are inevitably going to be lost but the better quality stuff is
further to the south and again we're going to meander that line as much
as possible.
Farmakes: With Outlot B, again we're going back to Outlot B. The fast I
food areas. Is there, it puts a limit of two in this but you're doing a
PUD and the limit of 2, if Target controls that property, is that still I
site application type situation where they have to still get city
approval, correct?
Aanenson: Correct. 1
Farmakes: So if say a Hardee's comes in and they want to build an orange
plexiglass building, is that?
Krauss: You've got it tied up every which way from Sunday. I mean
basically the zoning on the property will be the PUD designation with
those limitations and provisions of the PUD contract, one of which is
that you're limited to two fast foods. Another of which is that the fas
foods have to be architecturally consistent with the theme that's
established by Target and recognizing the fact that they're in downtown 1
Chanhassen. So if it doesn't meet those goals, you're under no
obligation to approve it.
Farmakes: Okay. And the signage for it, let's say we get Hardee's. I'll
just using that as a good example. The Hardee's as it stands right now,
the proposal is 15 %, two sides of the building and a pylon sign for each 1
then building? Or how many pylon.
II
' Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 26
Aanenson: One pylon sign for the rest of the outlots identifying all the
outlots. So if there's four, they get one pylon tign. Then they each
' get a monument sign only. For each parcel, and then the wall sign.
Farmakes: Okay, I'm confusing maybe the'monument and the pylon sign.
The pylon sign then would have a height level then of.
1 Aanenson: 8 feet.
' Farmakes: 8 feet.
Aanenson: Monument?
' Farmakes: Pylon. I'm talking about the pylon sign. Not the monument
sign. You show pylon on, let's see. That's page 8. Staff is proposing
one free standing pole sign to be permitted for Target and one on the
' other buildings in Outlot B. Is that then the outlot generically when
you talk about that or a building? Say a Hardee's or.
Krauss: I'm sorry, we were chatting.
Farmakes: Okay, on page 12. Paragraph, or excuse me, Finding. One for
the other buildings in Outlot B.
' Aanenson: One free standing sign exceeding 8 feet.
1 Farmakes: Per building?
Aanenson: No, no, no. No, no, for all four outlots. One.
1 Farmakes: For all four?
Aanenson: Correct.
1 Farmakes: Okay. Next question I have is on there's a bituminous trail
mentioned on 20. I had heard somewhere in the background that Chanhassen
wouldn't be building anymore bituminous trails. I sure hope that you
reconsider the Park and Rec Commission is recommending an 8 foot
bituminous trail along Powers Boulevard. The City's had really a bad
record of bituminous trails. Just really an awful record. It is, I
certainly hope something for the City to look at to avoid using that and
go to something that is more useable for people than a bituminous trail.
The example that I'm using is the one on Lake Ann where there's a
' bituminous trail dug out and then they wound up putting in a paved
surface. Everyone uses the paved surface. To go on with strollers and
so on. I hope you really reconsider because that bituminous trail that
' the City had worked on for, it must have been 6 years at least, never got
any better and actually got worse. It was a good collection point for
old shoes and beer cans when they brought in whatever fill they were
using. They kept on redumping it every other year and I hope we don't
' wind up with something like that. And lastly, the study, the traffic
study. For some reason I keep on being told that this has all been
worked out but I just have a gut feeling this is going to wind up to be
something that is what it wasn't supposed to be. And I'm looking at
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 16, 1992 - Page 27
these peak hour numbers that we've got here. I drive on that road 2 -3
times a day and something just isn't right about that and I'm sure there
are smarter people here, some of the traffic managers or City Council
people that can question that further. Something just doesn't seem righ
there. And having worked on some studies and, not on traffic studies but
sometimes studies can say what you want them to say. I hope you look
long and hard at that.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Steve.
Emmings: What happens to Outlot C? That will become.
Aanenson: That will go back to Mr. James. 1
Emmings: Okay. As far as the discussion in the staff report concerning
the development standards and you stated their position and the staff's
position. I take it that I didn't compare what you'd written there with I
what wound up in the conditions but I take it that the staff's position
on all those points made their way into the condition.
Krauss: Yeah.
Emmings: Okay. Generally I think it's better than it was. I don't
understand what, when you talk about these, let me find the language
here. They talk about the facades on West 78th Street having back
lighting. She explained that they're going to change the design of thos
and that there'd be some.
Aanenson: Right, that's what I mean. They'll be lit.
Emmings: So the lighting that's coming down on the side though that '
you're calling back lighting? Just so I know what you mean.
Aanenson: Yes.
1
Emmings: Alright. And as far as Outlot B is concerned. Somebody said
something earlier about the HRA buying that. The gentleman from back
here said something about that. Now I don't know what we're doing
tonight, you know there are conditions in the preliminary plat approval
and the PUD approval that effect what can happen on Outlot B. But now i
there a plan to change the ownership of that so we shouldn't be worrying
about that?
Krauss: Our recommendation to you is not to worry about anything other I
than the fundamental development concept of Outlot 8, which is also
somewhat up in the air right now. There's a lot of negotiating going on
between Ryan and Mr. Burdick and Mr. James and our City HRA, and it
should all, I hope become clear who's doing what to whom and when within
the next 2 weeks.
Emmings: But you want us to ignore that? '
Krauss: Well yeah. I think the thing for you to look at is how is
Outlot B laid out and keep in mind, Outlot B is laid out right now based i
' Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 28
upon a shift of 78th Street which is looking increasingly like it's going
to happen. But we're not even sure of that because the City's got a role
in this and we have to build 78th Street and we're not looking to
I engender a lot of increased cost by shifting this. There's a lot of
things that will be decided by the time this gets to the Council meeting
in 2 weeks. Coincidentally, when this item gets to the City Council on
' the 28th, the City Council is also going to be hearing the, is it letting
the project Charles? Or issuing the contract?
' Folch: Yeah, that's correct. The continuation of the public hearing
which was first held last March will basically retake place again on the
28th, or is scheduled to. The Council on Monday night passed a
resolution to basically continue the hearing that night.
Emmings: Hearing? What hearing?
' Krauss: On the construction program for 78th Street.
Emmings: Oh, okay.
1 Krauss: So all these things, and we've got that actually on the agenda
before Target so the City Council's going to make the final decision. Now
if some of those decisions have a bearing on what Outlot B looks like,
' either because of final arrangements between the property owners or
because the road shifts back to where it originally was, we've thrown a
condition in here that says, within 30 days they have to bring a revised
' plan for the concept for Outlot B back to you for your approval. The
Target site stands alone. I mean throughout all this the Target site
plan itself isn't doing anything at all.
' Emmings: Well but the action, we're taking on the preliminary plat and
the rezoning, that effects all the properties?
' Krauss: Yes it does.
Emmings: And the site plan effects, is only directed at the Target site?
1 Krauss: Correct.
Emmings: And the interim use permit effects all the property again?
1 Aanenson: Correct.
' Emmings: Really it's all that's south of 78th Street. Alright. I
understand that I guess. One objection I have, oh and then, well do you.
' Batzli: Steal my thunder, please.
Emmings: Geez, frightening. If the two lots that are east of the Target
building, north of Pica Drive, that's included in the, not in the
' rezoning but in the PUD?
Krauss: No, they're one in the same thing.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 16, 1992 - Page 29
Batzli: Yeah, they'll be rezoned to PUD.
Emmings: I'm sorry, they're not included in the preliminary plat but
they're included in the rezoning.
Aanenson: They're in the plat.
Krauss: No. They're already platted.
Aanenson: Oh, they're platted, yes. I'm sorry, right. 1
Emmings: They're already platted so they're part of the PUD but not part
of this preliminary plat. Alright. 1
Batzli: How can you do that?
Krauss: All the underlying. The description of what was advertised andl
the legal description for the rezoning covers the entirety of it.
Batzli: I agree. 1
Krauss: The plat only covers that portion of it outside of those two
lots that Mr. Burdick is going to continue to own. 1
Batzli: Well you've got it set up as one motion that we're approving
rezoning and preliminary plat and then you're going to eventually need t
include as one of the conditions a cross license or something. Easement
of the driveways which will effect that. Don't you need two motions
then? One just for the rezoning which you'd include in that one
condition and that'd be the plat. You'd have to include it in there.
Emmings: I don't know.
Batzli: Okay, I'll let Roger worry about it before the City Council. 1
Krauss: It's a situation where we have willing buyers, willing sellers,
and all of us are agreeing to do it so it's not as though the cross I
access easement needs to be forced onto the situation. I'd like you to
make a condition that the cross access easements be provided.
Batzli: Well see my concern is, in our motion to rezone, we don't have 1
anything which indicates what we're rezoning. In our motion. 22.03
acres. It doesn't say when. Doesn't say where.
Aanenson: It references the site plan though.
Batzli: But the site plan.
Aanenson: Includes all the.
Batzli: Okay, if you looked at the dotted lines and kind of guessed, 1
maybe it does.
Aanenson: We can do exhibits, make the two exhibits if you'd like. 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 30
Emmings: Well I think you can tell from the preliminary plat plus we
know... The cross easements for ingress and egress between Lot 1 in the
new plat and Outlot B and also between the Target site and the Burdick
' property, should that be under number 1 on the preliminary plat
conditions? Are those plat easements?
1 Aanenson: Yes.
Krauss: They'd be recorded with the plat, yeah.
Emmings: Okay. So that's where that should appear?
Aanenson: E?
Batzli: E, yeah.
' Emmings: And then I guess the only real reservation I have is having two
fast food restaurants out on Outlot B. On that basis alone I'd oppose
this motion. The preliminary plat. But other than that, it seems to be
' a pretty good plan to me.
Batzli: Matt.
' Ledvina: One thing. that I wasn't quite clear of was the grade change on
West 78th Street. Is that actually part of this proposal? Meaning will
there be West 78th Street excavated that foot and a half.
1 Krauss: Well, again I mean that gets into, there's been a lot of
previous designs with this. The original design of 78th Street always
lowered 78th Street by, 2 feet? 2 -3 feet?
' Folch: At that one particular location.
' Krauss: At the main entrance into Target. The current proposal would
result in it being lowered marginally further. But again those final
plans need to be laid out and there's some peripheral negotiations
' between Mr. James and Ryan and how the sites might balance earth wise.
Ledvina: Will that work on West 78th, be part of the interim use
permit? Or would they propose to leave that alone?
1 Krauss: No, that's a city project.
' Ledvina: Okay. 5o there wouldn't be any road work done this year then?
Krauss: Well, if the contract was let, it would be let for spring start.
' Folch: Correct, spring of next year.
Ledvina: Okay. But the grading work will be, the grading work for this
site would be done this year right? This fall?
Krauss: For the Target store, yes.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 16, 1992 - Page 31
L I think the modified views look really good. I think that the ll
...features are really going to improve the building and I'm happy to see
the changes that are made. I guess we haven't talked about the walkway II
connecting Outlot B and,I think that that should be part of the proposal
I would support the staff in desire to make that a part of this. Other
than that, I don't have anything else.
Conrad: Are we giving Target the exposure that, are you comfortable with
the exposure you're getting on Highway 5?
Bill McHale: I think that what's their concern with what the pylon.
...they realize with trees there...
Conrad: I guess I don't want to hide you. I really don't. 1
Bill McHale: They're trusting that the pylon will take care of that.
They know that the block of trees effectively screen. That was somethini
that staff wanted...
Conrad: And we haven't restricted that pylon to the point where it's
not.
Bill McHale: I don't think so.
Conrad: Okay.
Batzli: Ladd, given the fact that they have absolutely no landscaping toll
the southwest of the building, we're looking over a pond. We're looking
exactly at the top of the building from the road and we're looking at a
couple hundred thousand square foot parking lot or something. Are you I
serious that you think this thing is hidden?
Conrad: Coming from the east.
Batzli: Okay.
Conrad: And I really don't, I honestly don't have a problem with giving"
you know we constantly appear at times we're trying to hide some things.
I think if we do things in taste, we can do it very well and we can give
the folks who are moving in the exposure. '
Emmings: But Ladd, you're worried about hiding the biggest thing in
Chanhassen. I don't know if you have to worry about it.
Conrad: No, people will find it.
Farmakes: Anybody that wants to.
Emmings: Gee, where can it be?
Batzli: Traffic on West 78th Street. What's planned for 78th Street? I
Folch: What's currently and has been on the table for some time, at
least as it relates to the portion of 78th Street between Kerber '
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 32
I! and Powers is to reconstruct the detachment section to a four lane,
divided urban roadway with right and left turn lanes. And we hope to be
11 able to reinitiate the process and continue forward with this project
starting on September 28th's Council meeting by completing the public
hearing and ordering the project, authorizing preparation of plans and
specs. The other portion of the project as it relates to the segment of
West 78th Street from Kerber to Great Plains Boulevard is kind of a side
or sub project, if you will, of this overall downtown improvement. That
will involve, at least at this, in the interim, reconstructing if you
' will the segment between Laredo and Kerber to also a four lane divided
section consistent with what the new construction going on between Kerber
and Powers. Basically that segment will involve moving both the north
curved line and the south curved line to add additional lanes and
providing the right turn lane to southbound Market from eastbound 78th to
southbound Market. Exactly what will happen with Laredo to Great Plains,
is not yet been decided. There's some ideas on the table as far as what
' we can do to improve the traffic serviceability in that area. Some of
the ideas on the table involve some minor widening. Some median noses
being tapered back to allow better turns for trucks. And overall,
' there's the issue of traffic signals. Strgar's study has basically
provided justification for signals at least 3 intersections. That being
Great Plains, Market Boulevard and also Powers Boulevard. Both the
volume standpoint and an economic standpoint. But there's also unlikely
to be the need to look at potential signals. I mean we have other
non - volume type needs at the intersection of like Laredo where you've got
fire trucks, emergency response vehicles coming out. A lot of other
traffic at Kerber. There's still a lot of things apart from the traffic
signal standpoint that need to be worked out. Traffic signals are a big
thing. They're expensive. It's a big change to the downtown.
1 Conrad: Could Target move in without modification to 78th to the east of
Kerber? Would you allow, having 800 cars on a peak hour coming through
from Highway 101, is that tolerable? Could it handle 800 an hour? The
way it is now?
Fo1ch: Without signals, that's tough. Without at least having some sort
of traffic control, that's a tough question to answer.
Conrad: Can it handle it with one lane as it is?
' Folch: So much as handling thru traffic or as much as handling, I think
where the problem lies in is not so much handling the thru traffic as it
is the side streets that feed the downtown. The cars that need to come
' out and have safe access. Have safe time intervals. That becomes a
problem. The more cars you throw on the main drag.
Conrad: I don't know, I think one of the bigger problems here is traffic
handling and until there's a plan in place to handle the traffic, we can
make the visits to Target or anyplace, we have to be really comfortable
that we have the traffic system in place. And Target's a huge draw.
Absolutely huge and if these are accurate numbers, I can't assess that.
Obviously. Somebody hired to do this knows their job but I also know
that Target draws from a huge area and will draw from a huge area and
we'll just have to make sure that the systems there.
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 16, 1992 - Page 33
Krauss: Ladd, just to reassure you. The 78th Street construction plan II
as Mr. Burdick and Mr. James know have been going through evolutionary
changes. I mean this is about the third or fourth design and through it/ it's because we finally have an understanding of what's happening on ,
78th Street. Now when Market Boulevard, when Market Square was approved,
at a staff level we became very concerned that 78th Street in front of
Market Square was only two lanes. And had some reservations about even
that working. Now the improvement that's going to occur with this
project is one that the city wanted to do and has needed to do on 78th
Street• for years. It's just going to finally get done. We have added II
that second lane in each direction. There are some.
Conrad: Ah, but you're talking from Powers. 1
Krauss: From Powers over to Market, yeah.
Conrad: Yeah. I'm not uncomfortable with that. I think you have that I
under control. That's new stuff. I'm worried about the old stuff. I'm
worried about where a lot of your traffic is coming from.
Krauss: I mean Strgar's telling us, I mean as Charles pointed out, they'
are some inherent design problems that I think we've all encountered in
the originally rebuilt section from Laredo on over. That the turn radii
are kind of tight. Some of the turn movements don't work very well and ,
Strgar has come up with plans to improve that. Long term, by the year
2000 I think is the number that Strgar uses, the year usually uses, that
other section too is going to have to be four lane. But they didn't see'
that as an immediate need. You need to have those safety improvements
down there to make turning easier but you don't need the fourth lane all
the way through. 1
Conrad: That's real surprising I guess. I think with Festival coming
into town, they're a good retailer. Market Square. They're going to
draw and you combine a Target, you're going to find out that we have
traffic folks. And I'm going to...but I'm not convinced Paul. I'm
really not convinced that we've got a traffic system in place coming from
the east. I'm comfortable from the Powers that it's okay. But I
certainly am not comfortable coming from the east and I don't see a
sequence right now that says hey, we're going to be able to tolerate
traffic coming from the east. I'll let that one lay but powerful
retailers coming in. And powerful draw from the north. Just a last
couple points. I think they're doing a lot of really neat things about
the elevations. I'm still not comfortable on the north elevation. Just
some basic things that always bother me a little bit when you put
employee parking on your main street, that bothers me. But I won't, I'mli
not going to press that. I think some things have been done, how do you
break up a 380 foot wall? That's, and does it count. Whatever we do, II
does it count? That one I've been struggling with and I've tried to loo
at the elevations that came in tonight and say geez. I've bet you I've
driven downtown 20 times trying to figure out how this will look down
there and how it fits in and it's just a hard thing to comprehend,
especially when we, I think what we've done so far is really pretty nice
downtown. I really like how, there's obviously some problems here and
there but overall it's a pretty good community feel. Then I try to sink!'
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 34
this in. Yet on the other hand I know what the future of retailing is
and it's of the Targets of the world that do it and so how do we sink it
into the downtown area and have we done a good job? Is the question.
You know it's a matter pf who's paying for it and how much did we pay for
it and again, does it really count? I think a lot of the design elements
that Target's put in are real nice and I'm comfortable. I like the front
elevations. I still think that breaking up the parking lot with a green
strip, a green sidewalk would have helped break up the parking lot. I'm
not convinced we need to add green space to the south. That doesn't
count. A strip down the center I think would break it up a little bit
and I like that idea and I still feel it's important. When you talk
about a PUD, you try to connect everything and I don't know that we've
really done a good job of connecting. You can get there. And I think
somebody could come back and say, well people aren't going to walk
anyway. They'll use their car. That's probably the truth. But again,
the green strip in my mind going down the center of the lot, that maybe
had a sidewalk, would break up that massive parking lot. Big chunk of
property. In terms of the elevation, I haven't heard anybody else
concerned about the elevation. I think everybody's saying that the roof
line has done it. I'm not convinced it has but it's tough to sink what
I'm looking at here again back with what, we're looking at a little bit
different things. I think I would too like to see something breaking it
up in the wintertime and I heard our consultant in terms of what an
evergreen would do with the salt spray and I know that's the case. They'd
be dead but still we have to break that north up. The north elevation up
and I think I'd like to challenge them to figure out how to do that. I
thought there might be other ways to break that elevation up but they're
all expensive ways. So I guess the bottom line is, we've done something
where this is Chanhassen's, this is the major downtown tenant of
Chanhassen and I guess I still think there's something missing from that
' view. I think everything else is pretty good. I like all the other
things that I've seen about Target coming in.
' Batzli: Give me a for instance. How would you do it?
Conrad: How would I do it?
Batzli: Yeah.
Conrad: Well I think, there's some what I say are probably costly things
' and I probably would have put a little bit, I don't have a real good
solution. Especially when you think that there's going to be a community
area across the street on 78th. At first I wanted a big plaza there. A
people plaza. Friendly. I didn't want a parking lot for employees on
West 78th. Even if they took it off the blueprints, that would have made
me happier. I just don't like to see employee parking. Usually you hide
employee parking. You put it away someplace. You let your real people,
your customers take the higher visibility type of parking areas. I would
have made that, and I'm not sure the connection to Mr. Burdick's property
is important but I understand why they're doing it. That never made a
' whole lot of sense to me and I would have used that as a green space area
I think and it's probably impractical and it's probably something that
HRA would have to fund. Probably whatever I'm saying is a financial
impact on the HRA. But what I was saying before was that, you've got to
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 16, 1992 - Page 35
put it in light of what's happening across the street when you've got a II
little bit of an area for people so then why do we need another plaza
right by Target. So that sort of takes the wind out of that idea. I'm
not totally sure what would do it right now. The broken, I guess the
only thing that I see on this elevation, the roof line hasn't been broken
• and that to me, that's what we did on Market Square. We broke the roof
line. We paid for it but we broke the roof line. On this elevation we
haven't and so it's still, we've done some things that are kind of
cosmetic but it's still flat line. And that would be my only other
comment on that. 1
Batzli: Thank you. Tim.
Erhart: Well it's obviously not going to follow my recommendation from I
last meeting and move the entrance to the corner or have two entrances.
One facing west and one facing south right at the corner. So combined
with moving the parking lot way off to the west end and so the north I
parking lot could also be customer parking lot so I guess I won't go on
that anymore. But I will try to answer your question because I think
while we've made some improvement to the north side, I think we can go all
little bit further following the theme that's been outlined here.
Specifically what I would like to see is to add one more of what you call
a facade punch out so there are four evenly distributed there and then t
take those and make the inside of it or the area between the two columns
appear as a window display area. Now it may not have to be real glass.
It may not have displays but to give it a different, if it's just more
block behind that, or tile behind that, I just don't think it's going to l
be viewed as breaking up the building. Yeah, there's going to be some
corners and angles and a slanted roofline but I think the way to really
make it work is to put glass back in there and maybe back light that.
Batzli: But in the section they showed us, if you're up on the road, or
on the sidewalk, you're not going to be able to, you're not going to get"
Krauss: The bottom one there. That's the view from up on the road.
Aanenson: There's another one that's a better one. It shows the
retaining wall. You can't see most of that parking lot.
Erhart: What are you saying?
Batzli: I don't know that what you're proposing would help. It depends
on who you're trying to break up the view for. If you're trying to brea
up for people in the employee parking lot, I think you're remarks would
be.
Erhart: People on West 78th Street. He asks me what I'd do and now he
argues with me. Okay, I'm not going to tell what I'd do after this one. I
Batzli: I just don't know if you have stuff down here, windows or
whatever, if you're even going to be able to see it from up here. I
liked Ladd's idea of breaking up, because that's what you're going to be
able to see. For years until these trees do something and this is
actually a bad view. This is the one that probably actually... 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 36
Erhart: Well I'm not convinced that the jagged roof line is going ( J gg g g to
give you much of an improvement. I think the problem is that, well yeah.
' We'll make you Chairman again. My view is to see a 300 foot wall of
block and I guess to me it's not the roof line so much. You know trees
are only going to have leaves 5 months out of the year. Greenhouse
' effect keeps going the way it is, it'll only be 4 months of the year.
Farmakes: So you're talking about reflective glass or display?
Erhart: Something. Something that it's not block or tile behind there.
I just don't think, some different color or something. I think it's an
improvement to volunteer to make the second and third like the first one
' but as you pointed out, now you're going to make all three such that the
back wall is actually further back.
' Margaret Fleck: ...what you're referring to these masses.
Erhart: Yeah. Yeah, what's in the back of those masses?
Margaret Fleck: The back or the darker color we tried to push it back
even further.
Erhart: But it's still block or tile. Same material that's on the rest
of the building.
Margaret Fleck: Correct.
Erhart: Yeah, and I'm just saying that it would look better if you would
make that glass or baked enamel steel or something that would even make
' it look more like a little bit like a storefront. It's a great
improvement to make...
' Margaret Fleck: We've already dropped it, and you really do have a
change in your plane and as far as, I mean we might be able to go to the
lighter color here which will pull it down even further. My concern with
' putting another material in there is glass, it's going to be...glass that
breaks very quickly. It's not going to be vandal proof. There's going .
to be a lot of maintenance costs with that. We could go to possibly a
polished tile that for three masses or four masses is going to, we're
' really touched immediately. The lighter color, maybe even going to a
smooth block rather than a rock faced block which would give you a
different surface.
Erhart: I'm not an architect but I'm just giving you some general.
' Margaret Fleck: At the same time, there is a great deal of...so you're
getting a great deal.
Erhart: Well it's certainly an improvement over the other two, the way
' they're drawn. And I think if we just carry it one step further and get
that material on that back wall that's substantially different than the
rest of the building, would probably do it. And again I'd put one more
in there and make them equally spaced. You already have, what is that an
emergency exit door and an employee entrance door.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 16, 1992 - Page 37
Margaret Fleck: We trees and...even numbers. That's why we stayed with ( the three. Five would be crowding the elevation.
Erhart: Oh, I think five would be crowding.
Margaret Fleck: And the number three really works better for breaking u,
the... If you start putting a fourth on here it's going to even it up,
and the masses don't have any effect whatsoever. There's really a big
difference with a person picking up their perception on that.
Erhart: I can't see that. Those are my points with regard to that. I
Margaret Fleck: The other comment that was made was the actual I
consistency of the parapet height. We could...height area but again
that's tricky with avoiding the visual of avoiding the rooftop units. We
could raise the parapet greater but at 26'8" I have a tendency not to
want to do that any more than you're already there. 26 foot height is..'
And again, on this side perhaps they could do that. I'm a little
uncomfortable...in this direction that works to actually use masses on
these portions a great deal already... ,
Ledvina: Could you raise the facade punch outs and have that metal roof
portion above the top of the building line?
I
Margaret Fleck: We could lift it up so that it slightly projected above
it but I wouldn't recommend it being brought even with that because agai
then you're bringing your mass up to the height of the other and you're
not getting your variation. You really aren't getting your variation an
you're getting a variation of your metal roof. Where here you needed a
variation in your height itself.
1
Farmakes: What if you had a softer scattering effect?
Margaret Fleck: It really does work better for terminating this as I
working with it. Massing wise we played with it up higher, medium and
this works the best as far as aesthetically being balanced.
Farmakes: What if you had a softening effect on the areas on either sidII
of, you're referring to them as parapets?
Batzli: Yeah, masses. 1
Margaret Fleck: These masses?
Farmakes: Yeah. Now go a little more to the, inbetween there. Yeah. U
above there you have some shadowing that's caused by the curving of the
block. Falsify that so you break up those masses with some shadowing. I
Margaret Fleck: You're saying change the surfacing here?
Farmakes: I'm talking about the visual effect when they're talking about
along 78th. If there's wide expanses of block. Flat block. Is there a
way that, what you're done on the front is quite nice where you've broke
up the shading with the curving of the block. Is there a way to falsify
II
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 38
that either, if not the whole building, partial so you have some shadow
play on those wide, flat expanses?
Margaret Fleck: Right. You've already got shadow plays in here.
' Farmakes: I understand that. It's the area inbetween. As I'm looking
at the one on the front.
' Margaret Fleck: The curving ends up causing a great deal of projection
out. We don't have a great deal of area over in there to be playing
with. The 4 foot was the maximum projection. These curves are, you'd
have to follow through with an 8 foot radius. It gets to be very
' difficult. Again I can add another one of these but that's about the
best I can do.
' Farmakes: What is the project of, I don't have the.
Margaret Fleck: 4 foot. But again, I'm concerned about the balance of
that as far as four of these getting... I can certainly shift this over
and break it up that way. But I believe very strongly that there was a
very careful look at.
' Conrad: ...boring though. As much as you've tried to break it up, it's
still. And a little bit of that is because we don't have landscaping
projected in there. But on the other hand, we're not going to have the
landscaping, it's going to take quite a while until that landscaping
really starts breaking up this side of the building.
Erhart: I think Jeff was onto something. It's too bad you couldn't add
' those curves in there. But those require a minimum of 8 foot difference.
Why did you put the curves on the west side of the building?
' Margaret Fleck: Those are pretty much standard...
Erhart: Making that center one wider might do something for you. Making
it a triple column mass.
' Margaret Fleck: That's a possibility.
Erhart: Yeah, that might do it.
Margaret Fleck: Bringing this out...give you some variation...but we'll
' work with that. You know I hear what you're saying, that you're feeling
it's boring and largely because of this flat surface. I hoped that the
perspective could give you some of the... I also would prefer to call
it, subtle and strong statement. It's not truly a boring building.
Erhart: Oh, I didn't say that.
' Margaret Fleck: But it's also not, we're not trying to be zooby. We're
trying to be pretty subtle about our building. We want it to look stable
and strong. We want it to be something that over the next 20 -30 years,
11 we don't have to do a lot of changes to and it doesn't look out dated in
your Chanhassen area, which I'm sure you can think of buildings that
1
Planning Commission Meeting I
September 16, 1992 - Page 39
II
have. Or do. I think it's a strong statement and I think it will
( 9 last
as well as anything...buildings do.
Farmakes: What if that last one was just shifted over more? Do you finJI
that area on the far right by the entrance where they're closer together,
do you find that less offensive than the one to the left that's a farthell
expanse? First of all there's trees in there so this...
Erhart: Can you break it up with clumps of evergreen trees planted righ
next to the building?
Margaret Fleck: No we can't because we show sidewalks being...fire and
there's already overhangs approximately in that area. There's pretty II limited space when you're talking about that sidewalk over on the side.
Erhart: Right on the end, on the east end there. In fact you've shown 11
think, well you've shown shurbs there but you could cut the length, righ
by your hand there. One down, right there. Up one. That end of the
building, you could cover up that end with evergreens and make the
1 building look shorter. And then move that one mass over a bit.
Farmakes: My eye goes to that open area between those two. But not so
much to the one to the right. So if they moved that over a little bit, II
then you saw a little bit up above the site like, or the roof line.
Margaret Fleck: ...what you're talking about this point in here?
I
Erhart: Yeah, in other words take what you're got room for landscaped
there and really make that mass really dense evergreens. The building
looks shorter. That will make the building look shorter.
II
Margaret Fleck: Yeah, I definitely believe that needs to shift over...
Erhart: Right, and then move that one over. Is that what we're saying?"
Margaret Fleck: And then shift this one over and cross double this II one... We can certainly can work with that.
Conrad: Let me ask the Planning Commission something. We're all, and I
have no idea... We've got trees to the south that are blocking the
highway vision of the back of the building. Do we want to rob from thosil
trees? Do we want to rob from that property? I have no idea how we do
that. I know the agreements are in there but it probably means cutting '
down trees there. And that footage to the 78th Street side, so you can
create a green, more of a green belt.
Erhart: You're talking about moving the building back?
I
Conrad: I'm saying moving the building back.
Batzli: No. II
Farmakes: I think by a slight shifting you'd get the effect. If you II raised those up so it broke the roof line coupled with the trees, you'd
II
1 Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 40
get more of a storefront type look to that. Break it up quite a bit.
And it's deceptive to look at it because it's all opened up. There are
no trees sitting there. There will be. •
•
Margaret Fleck: It's also very deceptive to look at a full elevation and
think you're ever going to see it that way...especially from the depth
you have in here and sidewalk. When you're visually standing here...
you're going to see an expanse of about 100 feet is your angle of vision
and maybe you'd turn and look all the way across this but it's going
' to...
Farmakes: If you broke the roofline, the outcropping roof; how, did you
' look at that at all?
Margaret Fleck: I'm real relunctant to do that. Partially because it
' means that I would have to have an absolute...
Farmakes: I'm talking about playing with the roof line. I'm talking the
roof elements that you have and the part that sticks out. You're talking
about sticking those up above the roof line?
Margaret Fleck: I do really not recommend that because one, it just
doesn't balance properly... It's just not my desire to avoid doing that.
The idea that you're looking for something to break it up and give it
some scale in the residential motiff. This gives a motiff of about...
It just doesn't give you any benefit. It causes you greater height.
Farmakes: I guess what you're sort of competing with here I think is
sort of a mind set. We still think of ourselves as a small town. We're
' not but we think of ourselves that way. We keep on gravitating to the
old small town where you have an irregular roofline. You don't have the
long straight line. And to a certain extent I agree with you.
1 Margaret Fleck: Well we're giving you an irregular roofline. It's just
you guys are concentrating on the back line behind.
Farmakes: Well anytime that you get a long expanse of a linear line
around here, people get uncomfortable. And as was said before, you're a
big fish in a small pond.
Margaret Fleck: Something we could play with is just a very minimal
change to not only the beveling, or the corbelling up but possibly one
single row of block and playing around with it and taking it out but it
wouldn't be extreme again. It's not something that's going to be...but
even in your small town building, like a two story motel, you don't get
much of...
1 Erhart: Okay, thanks. One last thing. Like Jeff, someone who drives
back and forth between the industrial park and downtown 3 times a day, I
' much prefer the southern route of West 78th Street. I never could quite
understand why we were making such a break to the north other than at the
time the argument was that the stacking distance was required. Now
apparently, how are we resolving that? I prefer the southern route.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 41
1
Krauss: The currently illustrated one.
Erhart: Okay, that's it. i
Batzli: I have a couple of things for Kate and Charles. We have some
easements here on our first motion and I thought that we needed an ,
easement to the NURP pond, etc. Do we have that in the conditions
somewhere?
Folch: That's correct. It's the easement for the pond's already shown II
on the plan.
Batzli: So these are in addition to the ones shown on the plan? The
ones we've got right here then in condition 1.
Folch: That's correct. We've got our NURP pond to get any sediment and'
stuff coming out of the parking lot.
Batzli: Where's the water draining off the roof? Do we know? '
Fran Hagen: Yeah, three access points on the back of the building. It
all drains to the back of the building and it's all piped out. It's not
spillways. It's all piped in three locations. Basically up in this.
The exact location is yet to be worked out based on this. It will eithe
be three or two piped directly right into the storm sewer system. The
utility plan currently shows the storm sewer line coming along this side'
and coming down here and then they'll get into the pond.
Batzli: Is the roof of the building a gravel /asphalt kind of thing?
Fran Hagen: I'm sure that that's...
Batzli: In our experience with these kinds of buildings, do we get any I
sort of oil or anything draining off these roofs? Do you know.
Krauss: No. ,
Batzli: No we don't have any? We don't have any problem with the storm
water.
Krauss: You see an oily sheen on every sidewalk after the rain, no.
That doesn't happen. Once the thing is dry, it adheres.
Batzli: Okay. So we don't need any kind of skimmer or anything else foil
what's coming off the roof?
Krauss: Well we're probably going to have a skimmer on the pond. '
Batzli: On the pond. I'm talking about our drainage off the roof.
Krauss: Well but everything is going to go into this pond so it's all
going to be going through the skimmer before discharged.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 42
Batzli: It's discharged from our storm water into the pond project.
You're going from the back of the building, around the building into the
pond.
Fran Hagen: Correct... This parking lot has a storm sewer...The parking
' lot drainage would come in at this portion in right about the middle...
Highway 5 and there will be a skimmer on that also...I think that's what
you're looking for with the oil.
' Batzli: Right. When we say there's only two fast food restaurants, are
we counting the one inside the Target?
Krauss: No.
Batzli: Okay. The submittal of all required site utility improvements
1 including storm water, sewer, sanitary sewer, etc., condition 11. Haven't
they already done that?
Aanenson: They may have done that, you're correct. That was mine in
' addition to Charles' so if Charles feels comfortable that they've met
that, then you can•stike that.
Batzli: I mean are we expecting more?
Folch: Well we'll be getting a.
' Batzli: Or this apply to Outlot B I guess as well eventually, does it
not? These conditions.
Aanenson: Yes. It's for the entire.
Batzli: So we don't have everything for Outlot B so this is a good
' condition to have here?
Folch: Yeah, and from the standpoint that the applicant has submitted
between conceptual and this stage here, the actual construction plans for
the public improvements so that's another basic set of documents which we
approved. Review and approve. But that has been submitted. We've sent
drawings back so that will also be a part of the final process. So I
' would say, we need.
Aanenson: Well, except it applies to the whole PUD so you're right in
that respect. Target's met that but it could apply to the Outlot B too.
Or Mr. Burdick's property too.
Batzli: The site plan, number 14. Site plan shall be consistent overall
impervious surface coverage. Does that mean that we're approving the
impervious coverage that's above what we normally require?
' Aanenson: For that site but we're taking the whole balance meets, is
underneath the 63.
Krauss: What you're doing is the gross hard surface coverage is going to
be well under the PUD standard. But to achieve that as sites are brought
Planning Commission Meeting II
September 16, 1992 - Page 43
II
in on Outlot A, we don't want them to exceed the total that they've
committed to. So it's something that you're going to have to review and"
cumulatively add up as each site plan comes in.
Emmings: You just said Outlot A. You meant B.
Krauss: B. II
Batzli: Okay. So in other words, future site plans for development will
be consistent.
Krauss: Yeah.
Batzli: Okay. What I would like to see regarding the sidewalk issue is,
I would like to see some sort of sidewalk. I'd also like to see a
requirement that there be stop signs and a huge crosswalk in front
similar to what they've done at the Cub store in Minnetonka. Stop signs
on either side of the entrance. Big crosswalk.
Krauss: Oh yes, okay. The Cub does that regularly. I know what you I
mean.
Batzli: Yeah. I would like to see some sort of pedestrian, I mean we'll
done a lot of work on a lot of things but one thing they haven't done
anything on, in my opinion is handling people within the site, unless you
count walking up and down the aisles between parked cars handling people '
Maybe that's not important to us. Maybe we don't care. Maybe we're
trying to get people to walk or not walk from store to store. But the
whole concept of our downtown I thought was to avoid having a group of '
little mini -malls next to each other that you get in your car and drive
and it's supposed to be conducive to walking. I don't see that we've
made this conducive to walking at all.
Aanenson: I did leave it as a condition. So it's in there as a I
condition even though it's not reflected on the site plan.
Batzli: Yeah, well but the applicant is saying they're not going to do 1
it. And we haven't really talked about it much other than we're saying
yeah, we like it. '
Aanenson: I said they have to do it. That's in the conditions so we're
expecting, before we sign off on it, that be shown on the site plan.
Unless you take it off.
1
Batzli: Well yeah, I know. Pedestrian access, I mean I can meet your
condition by putting in a 6 foot sidewalk from the edge of their parking!'
lot to the outlot and I've met your condition.
Aanenson: Right.
Batzli: And I don't think that we handle the people. I don't think the II
handle the people from the sidewalk up on 78th Street to the front of
their building very well. And I don't think they've handled the people II
through the parking lot. And I imagine, what I'd really like to have
II
Planning Commission Meeting
Septem
er 16, 1992 - Page 44
I! them do also is put some, a little cart racks in their parking lot.
They're probably going to lose parking spaces though so they can't do
that but I always crash into their carts in the parking lot. But anyway.
I'm very cynical that this thing is_hidden. I think we've hidden a wall
that deserves to be hidden. I don't think we've hidden them. I noticed
quite cynically that they haven't put any landscaping to the southwest
and they thought of a very good excuse not to have to do that. Since
nobody else complained about it, I won't complain too much but we have a
very broad expanse there where they're highly visible. They are a big
I building. They have a huge parking lot. We're up above grade a little
bit there from the highway and that concerns me. People are going to see
them.
Aanenson: Where the retention pond is? Where we want to get access to?
' Batzli: Yeah. The retention pond. So there's not much landscaping
between the corner of the, southwest corner of the building all the way
out past the retention pond area.
Aanenson: In here?
Batzli: Yeah. There's no landscaping as far as I can tell. I'd like to
' see, as part of them looking at the northern part of the building,
I guess I'd like to see them maybe try and throw some more evergreens
into the employee parking. I think they've only got four of them in
' there. And that may help also but if we're going to play around with it
as a whole unit of looking at those masses and looking at the trees and
from the sounds of it, they're willing to look at that and juggle it a
little bit more. So I don't know if we can say much more about that.
None of us has really spoken about the request we had to delay the
grading until October so they can get their pumpkins out. I don't know
how anybody else feels about that.
Emmings: Well, if he's got a crop in and he's got a lease, my
recollection of that is, once you put a crop in, you've got a right to
take it out and that'd be a private matter between him and Mr. Burdick.
If he doesn't get his crop out, he's going to, whoever takes it away from
him is going to owe him for it.
Batzli: The lighting policy of the parking lot and things like that,
we've in the past, it seems to me, required people, gas stations and
such, to not have their signs lit after certain hours or things like
' that. Do we have any control over that here? Do we care? Do we want
them to light their whole parking lot all night long? Have we talked
about that with them?
Aanenson: It's my understanding that they put in their narrative that
they do have timers on some of those and if you want to be more specific,
we can put that in.
' Batzli: I don't know, one of the comments by our concerned citizens was
that we avoid putting too much light in our downtown area. The thing
that I saw was a limitation on the strength of the light at the edge of
the property. Not a curtailed, you know for security purposes, I don't
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 45
have a problem with them lighting things that have to be lit.
P g g g I also
understand there will probably be people working at night to restock. I
don't know exactly what their policy is but I don't want to make it
unsafe environment for those people coming in and out from the employee
parking lot or so that vandals start spray painting the side of their
building or something. But I would, I don't know that they need to light
their whole parking lot and I don't know if that's addressed. And I
don't know if it needs to be addressed or if Target has a policy that
they do or don't do it. I don't know.
Aanenson: Sufficient lighting for security.
Batzli: Paul, on these types of conditions, do we normally tie any of II
them together?
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, in this case it's, I mean normally we do yes but II
this, everything is being packaged up into a unitary PUD contract in thi
case. It will be taken care of.
Batzli: Trust me. Okay. I like what they've done on the north side oft
the building so far. I think if they do a little bit more, I think all
of us are going to be pretty pleased with the results, or I sure hope so.
I think they're going to be a good addition to the city. My last comment
was on the Mr. James' concern about closing the right -in /right -out. I
think that would be detrimental to Outlot B but on the other hand, he
does need access to his property to the north and if we're lowering the
grade of the road at the main entrance to the Target, does that in fact
make it too steep to get into his property? Do you know Charles?
Folch: If the north, if Mr. James' property is left at it's current
elevation, yes. It would make it too steep. Some sort of modification,
either to the elevation or to the access location would need to be looked
at. 1
Batzli: Don't we want intersections that are directly across from one
another?
Folch: That certainly helps to concentrate them that way. You can
coordinate and control them with traffic control devices, yeah.
Batzli: But if we go any steeper at the entrance to the Target, do we 1
have a problem with ice in the winter or people not being able to make
that grade at the traffic light if they stopped at the light and then
trying to get going again? Is that the concern?
Folch: Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. We wouldn't, from staff's point of
view, we wouldn't want to see the entrance into the Target site any
steeper than it is now. Now would we want to see it potentially any
steeper into the James property. On the north side. So we're hoping
that this issue can somehow be resolved between the two property owners 1111 and /or with our help in any way that we can do that but we're certainly
hopeful that the property owners can work this fill elevation situation
between themselves here.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 46
Batzli: But with the urren we're develop t way we e going to slop 78th Street,
with the improvements, are we making the problem worse to get into his
property? Are we lowering it right now?
Folch: The current plans would lower the road about a foot and a half
and I believe the Target proposal is looking to lower it another foot and
a half so a total of about a 3 foot difference.
Batzli: Okay, but right now on the plans it's a foot and a half.
Folch: That's correct.
' Batzli: Does that make it a problem to get into Mr. James' property?
Folch: I don't know. I guess I'd have to ask Mr. James. If his
engineer has responded to that or not. That was the plans that, that is
based on the plans that we've had on the table for about a year and a
half and it hasn't been until this proposal has come up that I've heard
that it was a problem.
Batzli: Okay. Those are my comments. If there's any other discussion
or a motion.
Conrad: I just have another comment. What's our sign ordinance say in
terms of signage on a building? How many wall signs can we have?
Aanenson: What we're recommending for this one is they have one pylon
sign. We said a maximum of free standing sign, maximum 36 feet in
height. And then they'll have one, low profile sign 8 feet in height and
' they'll have one wall sign facing Powers Boulevard.
Conrad: What could they, based on our sign ordinance?
1 Aanenson: Have an additional wall sign on the West 78th.
11 Conrad: I keep looking at the 78th Street side and nobody, my impression
is nobody lives here and it's like I'd like to have a signature.
Batzli: You mean like a Target sign?
Conrad: Yeah. I don't think I've ever asked for more signage but
again, I guess I'm still struggling to make the 78th Street side
friendlier. And maybe the pylon sign will help do that. Or the monument
sign. I don't know.
' Batzli: Where's the monument sign go on there?
Aanenson: I was just informed that they also want to put a pharmacy
sign.
1 Batzli: They want to put a who?
11 Aanenson: A pharmacy sign.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 47
Margaret Fleck: It's 2 foot high and 20 feet wide.
Batzli: Where do you put that, on the front of the building? 1
Margaret Fleck: On the front of the building, right in here.
Batzli: So you go in the emergency doors to get there?
Margaret Fleck: Well no, you don't go in the emergency doors but that'll
advertising and it just happens to be located in that module.
Batzli: I'm just being silly, I'm sorry.
Farmakes: Wouldn't that be inconsistent with what we do?
Aanenson: Pardon me? '
Farmakes: That'd be inconsistent with what we do?
Aanenson: Well we say 15% of the wall area. 1
Farmakes: That's advertising...instead of the name of the retail
operation. Wouldn't that be the equivalent of putting hot dogs or a col"
beer?
Emmings: What kind of hot dogs? 1
Farmakes: I guess I've never found signage to ever make a building more
friendly.
Conrad: But Jeff you wouldn't like to see the 78th Street side?
Farmakes: It might be more informative but I don't know if it would makil
it more friendly. So I agree with some of what you're saying. I don't
know if it's a positive versus. We're trying to make it look nicer. I
guess another tree might be, get my vote versus another sign. 1
Batzli: Does the Ridgedale store have a sign on the north side of the
building? It does doesn't it? Sort of a rectangular one.
Krauss: It faces Highway 12, yeah.
Farmakes: The one thing that worries me about putting superfulous
signage on a building like that is you obviously stock a lot of different"
things. And it's pretty common knowledge of what's in a Target.
Margaret Fleck: A pharmacy's unusual for the Target. ,
Farmakes: All the ones I've been to have had pharmacies.
Margaret Fleck: Only in Minnesota and it is a necessary. In fact, not 1
all the stores in Minnesota will necessarily have them. Smaller markets
do not have them.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 48
Farmakes: You're seeing the drive in farther than Minnesota for this
Target?
Margaret Fleck: Pardon?
11 Farmakes: You're seeing the drive in farther than Minnesota for this
Target?
Margaret Fleck: No, but it's just to our advantage. Pharmacy is a
fairly unique thing to have in that store.
Farmakes: I'd be against any additional signage at all.
Batzli: Is there a motion?
' Erhart: Is this number 22 conditions on the first one. Does anybody
have any changes other than the time? I mean we talked about a lot of
ideas here.
' Emmings: Yeah, to add the easement is 1(e).
Erhart: Is 1(e)?
Emmings: Yeah.
Erhart: Can you make the motion?
Emmings: Yeah, I can. I'll move the Planning Commission recommend
preliminary approval to rezone 22.03 acres of general business to PUD and
preliminary plat approval as shown on PUD #92 -5 subject to the conditions
in the staff report with the addition of a condition that will be 1(e).
Those would be cross easements for ingress and egress between the Target
parcel and Outlot B on the one hand and the Target parcel and the Burdick
property to the east of the Target building on the other hand. And as
long as it's my motion, I'm going to say that, I'm going to change number
12 so there are no fast food restaurants permitted in Outlot B. Now
that's the end of my motion.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Erhart: Help me. Your problem with fast food restaurants are, is it the
food?
' Emmings: No, no. I go to them and I don't mind them. I'll tell you
where I think they belong is right back there on Monterey behind the
Target building. In fact I've advocated that for years that that be a
strip of fast food restaurants. This is one of the most prominent sites
in Chanhassen and I wouldn't even care if they had some fast food
restaurants if we can mess around with the design of the building a
1 little bit. I'd like not to see drive thru's. I don't mind fast food. I
wouldn't mind a fast food restaurant out there like an Arby's.
Conrad: What do you want there?
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 49
Emmings: I don't want to see a Target and I don't want to see a Burger
g r
King.
Erhart: You want close• architectural review of those?
Krauss: You have that. They're going to have to be built. 1
Emmings: Here's my problem. You can argue with me all you want. I'm
not going to change what I said. You can vote it down. If you say
there's a maximum of two fast food restaurants, there will be two fast
food restaurants. I'm sure of it.
Erhart: You don't care as long as you have strong architectural review."
Emmings: Yeah, and I might not want it then too. But other than that I
could be talked into, an Arby's that was built right, even a McDonald's
that was built right. I don't know about drive thru but this is such a I
prominent site, all traffic from the west, this is the first thing they
see of downtown Chanhassen and I sure don't want to look at an ugly
buildings. And most of those buildings are not the kind of thing I'd
want to see out on that corner. So that's my reservation. I don't mind
fast food restaurants.
Erhart: Maybe item 12 ought to, instead of dealing with fast food, the 1
term fast food restaurants at all, maybe item 12 ought to deal with
architectural review of those restaurants in Outlot B.
Aanenson: We have that in there. That's already in there.
Erhart: Maybe you should just strike 12.
Emmings: Yeah, that'd be fine with me. Just take 12 out.
Krauss: I should tell you that 12 is already written into the purchase 1
agreement between the HRA and the.
Erhart: But there's a little bit of implication there that McDonald's 1
could come in with their standard design.
Krauss: No. There's no question they can't. 1
Aanenson: No, we changed the zone.
Krauss: I guess, we took, when we drafted up these original agreements,!
we put the expectation that if nothing was done the probability would be
all 4 or 5 or 6, depending on which plan you had, were going to be fast in
food. And came it from the standpoint that 2, while we felt it was
reasonable, could well be perceived as being pretty onerous for the
developer but we felt that that was consistent with the quality of
development that we wanted to see there.
Farmakes: So there potentially would be a total of 6 signage.
:1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 50
Emmings: Well why are we asked to pass a condition that's already part
of another agreement? I mean this is just * *.
Krauss: Well, you modify your, I mean the HRA condition is a part of,
well the HRA authorized the purchase of the property from Mr. Burdick and
the resale to Ryan and to do that, there were sets of conditions like
everything is going to be done as a PUD so you can review it that way.
Things are going to be architecturally similar and consistent with
downtown. Just general terms so there's something to hang the
development on. And in doing that again, we threw in the thing about the
fast foods and we approached it from the completely opposite end. Is
that again we had an expectation that if we did, weren't up front about
this, we would wind up with all the outlots being fast food.
Emmings: Well I take it we don't have to worry about that because it is
a PUD and we can control that?
11 Krauss: As long as there are appropriate conditions in there, yeah.
Emmings: Well, now that just confuses me because if it's already, is it
already a condition?
Batzli: Does that condition run with the land? They can't do it anyway
no matter what we put in this?
Krauss: That they can't.
Emmings: It seems to me that's all written.
Krauss: You can probably further limit it. I mean I supposed you could
further limit it. You couldn't allow 6 is what.
Emmings: Well, I don't know. If this isn't in here, what posture are we
on?
Krauss: Well.
11 Emmings: Or let me ask another question Paul. I told you what my
concern is. Is the prominence of the site and I don't want to see
standard buildings there but you're telling me we've got lots of
architectural control over it. If McDonald's comes in and says we want
ours right out on the corner, are you telling me we'll be able to tell
them you're going to have to build it to look like all our other
' buildings in downtown?
Krauss: Yeah.
Aanenson: We said, they all have to have pitched roofs, etc, etc.. All
the standards that we just built in this whole PUD.
' Emmings: And no arches? Or little ones. Or little ones with pitched
roofs on them.
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 16, 1992 - Page 51
Krauss: You have the latitude to do whatever you want within reason with
the architecture and we fully expect and it's written into here that it
means that when Hardee's comes up with orange building 37, you say go toll
South Dakota. You're going to build it, and frankly most of the fast
food operations these days are sophisticated enough to know that they
build to the style that's being requested. And we wanted to lay out
enough parameters so they know what we were looking for.
Emmings: Could we tell them if you want to have people come in and sit
down and eat or come in and take out, that's fine but you're not going till
have drive thru. Could we do that?
Krauss: Theoretically you could do that but the business is such that II
the drive thru is the business and they go hand in hand.
Farmakes: How do we define like let's say a Bakers Square? They have 11
drive thru for some food items. Is that defined as a fast food?
Krauss: The issues are blurring but Bakers Square serves through waiter
service. At tables and that's their primary. '
Farmakes: So that's how it's defined then?
Krauss: That's a standard restaurant and we do, the ordinance does
define the difference between standard and I believe they call it
convenience food restaurants.
Farmakes: Where you could still have a drive thru if you have waiters?
Krauss: Presumably. 1
Erhart: I don't think there's any harm in making item 12, that all
future buildings will meet some kind of architectural standards and we I
don't know what they are today but.
Aanenson: That's what they are right here. We spelled them all out. Th
colors that you can use. The screening. The lanscaping. Everything.
The lighting. It's all spelled out for this whole development.
Emmings: 15. That applies to everything that's in this one applies to II
everything that goes into the PUD. Even off the part, even on the
Burdick part. So maybe it's alright.
Erhart: Well, it's your motion. I'm just trying to. ,
Emmings: Okay, well maybe I'm over reacting a little bit here. What do
I do now? I made my motion. 1
Batzli: No one seconded it yet. Your motion is dying on the vine.
Emmings: I don't know. '
Conrad: Just withdraw it.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 52
Emmings: I'll withdraw my motion. Thank
Y you Ladd. Y
Batzli: I'm sorry, did you amend your motion at all?
Emmings: I withdrew it.
' Batzli: You withdrew it?
Emmings: If you'd pay attention.
Batzli: We were trying to correct another informality here. Another
condition you had totally ignored.
11 Farmakes: ...train of thought when you were crescendoing. Sorry.
Erhart: Okay, I'll make a motion that's exactly the same as Steve's
motion but leave item 12 in as is. Change item 20 to read, concrete.
That's it. Any second?
' Emmings: Now wait a minute. Change 20 to read what?
Erhart: 8 foot concrete trail.
t Aanenson: Instead of asphalt you want concrete?
Erhart: Is that what you want Jeff?
Farmakes: Pardon?
Erhart: Isn't that what you want, concrete trail?
Emmings: But isn't concrete harder to maintain than asphalt?
' Farmakes: I'll tell you, I've lived next to, I think the only bituminous
trail in Chanhassen and it's a disaster. It's now grown over along with
' the beer cans, the old socks.
Erhart: This is essentially, this is going to utlimately be a sidewalk
isn't it?
Krauss: When we say bituminous, we mean paved with asphalt.
Farmakes: It was described to me as a bituminous trail that is, when I
was involved with the Park Commission, bituminous trail is a chip trail.
Erhart: Oh no, no.
' Batzli: Asphalt.
Farmakes: Okay.
Erhart: Leave 20 as is. Call for a second.
' Farmakes: I'll second it.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 53
Batzli: Discussion.
Farmakes: Can I add one thing? 1
Batzli: Go ahead.
Farmakes: On 17, is the site, should that be outlot site? Or it just II
says site. It doesn't say building site.
Aanenson: Each parcel. Each separate parcel. There's four parcels in II
those outlot.
Batzli: Well, do we know there's four parcels in the Outlot? 1
Aanenson: We don't know. As long as they can meet the standards.
Krauss: Well no, I think though Commissioner Farmakes is correct. The I
intent was that there be, are you talking about the pylon? Oh no, that's
correct. I'm sorry.
Batzli: What's a site?
Krauss: Each parcel. 1
Aanenson: Yeah, I think parcel would be a better way.
Batzli: So currently there's one outlot. '
Aanenson: We're not talking about the outlot. We're calling the
individuals parcels within. The four, if it's four. 1
Farmakes: Okay, it says each site and in the same sentence it says, into
the private site. Is that that there's a difference between"
a private site and a site?
Aanenson: No. Same thing.
Batzli: I'm confused. What four sites are you talking about?
Krauss: The conceptually illustrated ones on the outlot. 1
Batzli: 5o we're approving those today? We're not approving those?
Aanenson: No, no, no. ,
Krauss: You've approving the development concept, the layout of how tha
thing's supposed to work.
Batzli: I thought you told us we didn't have to worry about that Paul.
Krauss: Well what I told you is that, if the roadway changes, we have t1
bring that back to you. As each development comes in, you will be
looking to review the site plan on each individual one. But we need a
framework to hang it on and that framework is where should the road go,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 54
and that may be modified. And what kind of, architectually what kind of
context it is and lighting scheme and that kind of stuff.
Batzli: The road into the outlot we're approving tonight. We're
approving the concept that there's four sites within the outlot. Is that
' all we're approving?
Krauss: That's right. That's it.
Batzli: Is there a condition that says that somewhere?
Krauss: It's on the plan.
Aanenson: We've approving the plans, as they're shown.
' Batzli: Well on the plans there's buildings. Proposed building pads for
christ sake.
Krauss: That you're not but the basic layout, yes.
Batzli: I hear a lot of, don't worry about it but I'm worried.
1 Farmakes: Does this signage that's worked out, four pylon signs. Four
wall signs.
Krauss: Two pylon signs.
Farmakes: Two pylon signs. Okay, so the site refers to Outlot A and B?
' Krauss: No.
Farmakes: What? You've got me totally confused.
' Aanenson: 18 says, Target gets a free standing sign and the Outlot B
gets a free standing sign. What 17 says is, each site, if there's four,
they each get a monument. If it's five, they each get a monument. What
' we've approving tonight is four. They're showing four proposed.
Farmakes: Okay, so there's two pylon, four monuments and eight wall
' signs. Is that correct?
Aanenson: Correct.
' Farmakes: Excuse me, I'm leaving out the monument sign on Target and
their wall sign. So add one to each on those. That's five and nine and
two pylon signs.
Emmings: I don't know that we're, we're approving two pylon signs. We're
approving a monument sign for each site and then the rest of says, signs
' are subject to standards of the sign ordinance. So whatever.
Farmakes: I was just confused on the total.
Batzli: Is there any other discussion?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 55
Conrad: We spent 2 1/2 hours on this and the one change, what change did
you make?
Erhart: Item (e).
Conrad: We've essentially done, okay. Everybody's comfortable with the,
traffic issue? And we haven't really told staff or anybody to do
anything in terms of the 78th Street elevation.
Batzli: I quite honestly don't think that staff knows what to do with II
it.
Conrad: I just want to make sure everybody knows that we haven't said, II
with the motion that's there, we haven't said anything about traffic.
Everybody's comfortable with traffic.
Erhart: I don't think so but I don't think this motion has anything to II
do with traffic.
Batzli: Traffic is going to be the site plan review. The next motion ,
isn't it?
Conrad: You're rezoning which means that you're rezoning it to a use
that generates traffic. I don't know if the site plan.
Batzli: I don't know either.
Erhart: We want Target here. We like the site and we're going to have
to deal with the street design and I agree. Maybe this traffic study
needs to be reviewed. I'm not going to change the site plan for that.
Emmings: They're telling us they've done the traffic study and that it
works and I sure don't have any way to...with that. 1
Erhart: All we can do is review it.
Folch: Basically you're going to have both these projects tracking ,
simultaneously. Outside of the grading work, which is proposed to be
done this year, both projects are going to be occurring simultaneously
for the most part next spring and summer. 1
Aanenson: I think Brian may have a good point though. I think you could
make a condition on number 8 that they, that under the site plan that, Al
added one already about a crosswalk but you wanted, so under site plan. II
7 would be a crosswalk with stop signs in front of Target. Number 8 may
be that these projects track together as Charles just mentioned. The
West 78th detachment study and Target proceed together.
Emmings: And that'd probably be the place too to Ladd, to talk about
that north elevation. Because that site plan deals strictly with the
Target.
Conrad: Right. Absolutely, that is the plan. ,
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 56
Batzli: The condition I guess I'd like to see added to this particular
motion is that, condition 23. That our approval tonight is not an
approval of Outlot B as depicted or development of Outlot B as depicted
on the site plan other than to locate the road and the number of sites,
limiting the number of sites to four.
' Aanenson: Do you want to add each site must come througth site plan
review?
Batzli: Yeah. Who seconded the motion?
Emmings: Well, you're amending it.
Erhart: Yeah, I agree with that.
' Emmings: You're going to amend your motion, I'll second that.
Batzli: It was a friendly amendment. Do you want us to actually vote on
it?
Emmings: You're the chair.
Batzli: Okay, it was a friendly amendment and you guys both agree.
Okay, any more discussion?
Erhart moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
preliminary approval to rezone 22.03 acres of BG, General Business to
PUD, Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat approval as shown in
PUD #92 -5, subject to the following conditions:
' 1. Plat easements needed:
' a. 20 foot wide utility easement over Lot 1 for public portion of
proposed watermain.
b. 20 foot wide utility easement over existing 18 inch watermain
through Outlot B.
c. 30 foot wide utility easement over proposed sanitary sewer
' through Lot 1.
d. 30 foot wide utility easement over existing 8 inch sanitary sewer
' through Lot 1 and Outlot B.
e. Cross easements for ingress and egress between the Target site
and Outlot B to the east and between the Target site and the
Burdick site to the west.
2. The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications
' for Construction shall govern construction of all public
improvements.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required agency
' permits such as PCA, Health Department, Watershed District, etc.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 57
1
4. The applicant shall be responsible for a share of the costs involved
in constructing one or more traffic signals on West 78th Street
between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (appropriate
cost- sharing formula has yet to be determined.)
5. If the West 78th Street detachment intersection with County Road 17 II
is to be shifted south, approvals will also be needed from MnDot and
Carver County and the applicant would be responsible for performing
all necessary soil corrections within the new roadway alignment. ,
6. Storm sewer plan shall be revised to reflect site plan for Outlot B.
7. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street. '
8. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees.
9. Compliance with the standards of the PUD zone outlined in the staff II
report. Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the
development. Compatibility with all signage, lighting, and
landscaping.
10. Pitched roof lines are required on all building in Outlot B. Target
shall have a parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment. Pitched II
roof elements shall be introduced on the entry portion and the West
78th side of Target.
11. Submittal of all required site utility improvements including store II
sewer, water and sanitary sewer.
12. Only two fast food restaurants are permitted. ,
13. Approval from MnDot, Carver County Traffic Engineer and the City
shall be secured to relocate West 78th Street. '
14. All site plan shall be consistent with the overall impervious surface
coverage.
15. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry materia
9 Y y
shall be used. Color shall be introduced through color block or
panels. Painted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target store only. II
16. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces /outiots shall be
landscaped or covered with planting and /or lawn material. 1
17. Each site shall be allowed one monument sign near the driveway into
the private site, walls signs on not more than 2 street frontages. '
The signs are subject to the standards of the sign ordinance.
18. Target and Outlot B are each allowed one free standing pylon sign.
19. Lights shall be a shoe box fixture and light levels shall not exceed"
1/2 foot candle at the property line.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 58
20. A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the entire length of West 78th Street.
An 8 foot bituminous trail shall run the entire length of Powers
Boulevard.
•
21. All development in this zone is subject to all the standards of the
' PUD zone.
22. If the revised alignment for West 78th Street is not selected, a
revised concept plan must be submitted for Outlot B for city approval
within 30 days of the City Council's action on this request.
23. This approval is not an approval of the development of Outlot B as
depicted on the site plan other than to locate the road and the
number of sites to four and each site must come througth site plan
review.
' All voted in favor except Conrad who opposed and the motion carried with
a vote of 5 to 1.
' Conrad: I don't believe the traffic issue on West 78th Street to the
east of Target has been resolved.
' Batzli: I'm sorry, on West 78th and to the east?
Conrad: To the east of Target.
Batzli: On Monterey?
Conrad: On West 78th.
Batzli: Moving on we have a site plan review motion. Somebody want to
take a crack at that one? I think we've perhaps got a condition 7. I
don't remember, what was your condition 7?
Aanenson: Crosswalk with stop signs in front of the store. Number 8
was, just track the completion of the West 78th detachment project.
' Batzli: So that would tie in with making sure there's access to the
James property?
' Erhart: 8 was what?
Aanenson: Tracking this with the completion of West 78th, the street. So
Target doesn't open before the street's there.
Emmings: Well, should we also be tracking it with development of the
' James property at least insofar as we're sure we're not giving him, or
don't we have to consider this? At least in terms of access points.
' Krauss: That's going to have been resolved by the 28th.
Batzli: Trust me.
Krauss: Trust Charles on this. one.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 59
1
Folch: Yeah, if we get all the parties together on this, I think we can.
Emmings: And then 9 was going to be, well whatever, the wall. The great"
wall of Chanhassen.
Batzli: Number 9 is going to be the wall. 11
Emmings: You've got to do this one Ladd.
Batzli: He's going to oppose it again. He wants to get his little 11
points on record. I can see it coming a mile away. Okay, anybody want
to make a motion? Please.
Conrad: Just a quick comment. On 5, the wall sign shall not exceed 15%
of the wall face. Why do we have that in there? That's our standard
anyway. 11
Aanenson: Do you have the dimensions on that wall sign? We can just
plug those in if they have them already.
Krauss: That would be preferable.
Emmings: Well, shouldn't we be saying the wall signs won't be anything 11
different than they appear on the plan?
Aanenson: They're 6 foot x 34. We can put that number in.
Emmings: Wall signage shall, well we should just take that out. The
wall signs are on the plan. 11
Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Site Plan #92 -2 as shown on the plans dated September 9, 1992 with the 6
conditions as outlined in the staff report, with deletion of the last II
sentence in paragraph 5. And add condition number 7. That a crosswalk
with stop signs will be added. Is that enough?
Emmings: In front of the entrance? 11
• Erhart: In front of the entrance, yeah. Okay. Condition number 8.
Tracking this with the Charlie James property. Is that? 11
Aanenson: With the West 78th.
Erhart: With the West 78th as Kate has worded. And number 9 is to 11
review to improve the appearance of the north wall consistent with the
comments and discussion at the meeting tonight. 11
Emmings: I'll second that.
Batzli: Any discussion? Do we want them to review their or control the 11
lighting policy of the parking lot? Or improve condition number 4. Is
anybody else interested in doing that?
Emmings: I guess not. 11
11
II Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 60
11
Batzli: Nope? Okay. It will be raised at Council again I guess.
I That's okay. It's kind of late in the game to raise it. I thought since
one of the Council persons got up and spoke on it, we might want to at
least take a look at it. Okay. Seeing no further discussion, I'll call
II the question.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #92 -2 as shown on the plans dated September
II 9, 1992, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Subject to compliance with the conditions of the PUD #92 -5.
I 2. Pedestrian access be provided between Target parking lot and Outlot
B. A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the length of West 78th Street.
II 3. The three facades shown on West 78th Street shall have back lighting.
4. Lighting shall not exceed 1/2 foot candle at the property line.
1 5. Signage for the monument sign shall not exceed 8 feet in height with
a 6' x 6' foot sign area and for the pylon sign, 36 feet in height
I and not exceed 144 square feet in sign area. The monument sign and
free standing sign shall be consistent with the plans submitted in
the September 9, 1992 site plan.
II 6. The development shall comply with all development standards of this
PUD zone.
I 7. A crosswalk with stop signs on either end will be added in front of
the Target entrance.
II 8. The Target and the West 78th Street Detachment project shall track
together through the process so they are built simultaneously.
9. Review the site to improve the appearance of the north wall facing
1 West 78th Street consistent with the comments and discussion of the
Planning Commission.
I All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and the motion carried with
a vote of 5 to 1.
1 Batzli: I'd take a look at the lighting of the parking lot. I don't
want them turned on full blast all night. The next we need to pass a
motion on the interim use permit to get the grading done. Does anyone
have a motion here?
II Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Interim Use Permit #92 -6 as shown on the site plan dated September 9,
II 1992 and subject to the staff conditions 1 thru 8.
Emmings: Second.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting II
September 16, 1992 - Page 61
II
Batzli: On condition 5, is there a typo? Is the word and, should that
be an? I was just confused. I mean it's a small point.
II Aanenson: Submit a? An administrative fee.
Batzli: Okay, so they're submitting an administrative fee and letter of"
credit, okay. What's the difference between an administrative, so the
fee is the city fee?
Aanenson: Correct.
II
Erhart: Number 8. It says the City shall inspect the site before
grading begins to ensure preservation of trees and location of snow
I
fences. What does that mean?
Krauss: Well, it's kind of a standard condition we have. 1
Erhart: What is location of snow fences?
Aanenson: Defining the lines of grading.
1
Krauss: We require that they be marked. The no cut area.
Erhart: Alright, so you're going to define the line by the installation
okay and location of snow fences. Okay, that assumes you understand that
we're putting in snow fences to delineate that.
II
Krauss: They're putting them in, yeah.
Batzli: Do we normally have a little condition that talks about erosion'
control. Is that in here?
Aanenson: It's part of the Watershed approval too. 1
Batzli: That's Watershed?
Krauss: Well no, we normally have our own condition. What's unusual in ,
this case is the Watershed District reviewed it before we did and had the
same conditions we would have supplied.
Folch: Actually, the erosion control that was shown on the plan, we 1
didn't require any additional erosion control be placed on so if you're
approving the grading plan with this, that erosion control is sufficient"
Batzli: Okay. Any further discussion?
Ledvina moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 1
approval of Interim Use Permit #92 -6 as shown on the site plan dated
September 9, 1992, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant needs to submit information on interim detention ponds
and /or drainage systems for the site given that storm sewer systems
will not be constructed until next spring.
II
II
11 Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 62
2. The applicant shall show on the plan location of topsoil and poor
soil stockpiles.
3. The haul route for material to and from the site shall be limited to
Trunk Highway 5 and County Road 17. Construction trucks and vehicles
' shall access the site at approved rock construction entrance only.
The applicant will be required to maintain haul route clean of dirt
and mud, etc.
' 4. Working hours for the grading operation will be limtied to 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday with no work occurring on
holidays.
' 5. The applicant shall submit an administrative fee and letter of credit
prior to commencement of grading operations.
6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency
permits such as Watershed District.
7. The entire site shall be restored and seeded by no later than
November 15, 1992.
' 8. The City shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure
preservation of the trees and location of snow fences.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20 -1023. HEIGHT OF FENCES AND
' SECTION 20 -1019. LOCATION OF FENCES.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, I've got to bring Steve home.
' Emmings: You know, we could make a motion on this next one.
Aanenson: We've got a big agenda next week too so tabling's not going to
' help.
Farmakes: Let's get it done.
' Erhart: I move it.
' Krauss: Could you also open and close the public hearing.
Batzli: This is a public hearing? I open the public hearing. I'd 14e
the record to show that there's no one here from the public that wants to
comment on our Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
' favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Does anyone have any comments on this?
Ledvina: No.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 63
Batzli: I have comments on this. I hate this. I don't think it'
's
necessary. I don't know why we're doing it. I'm going to vote against
it. Anybody else have any comments? 1
Erhart: Why did we start this?
Emmings: You hate this?
Batzli: I live on a corner lot. I don't like it.
Emmings: You want people to build 6 foot fences in their front yards?
Batzli: I don't care if they do. ,
Erhart: What initiated this ordinance review?
Aanenson: We've had people request to do that. '
Krauss: Over the years it's caused us problems. People have blocked II sight lines. We never had any regulations about it. People have asked
questions about it.
Batzli: Look at the guy across the street from me in a PUD that has
about a 10 foot, you know he's as close to the road as he can be. He
needs a fence and this wouldn't allow him to do it and you're asking him
to sit in the middle of the road on corner lots in a PUD when they've go
a small lot.
Erhart: He bought the lot.
Batzli: Well yeah. Mr. Liberal. I think this is totally unnecessary.
If they're going to do it, they're gonna do it on a case by case basis.
If you want a personal attack. I think this is intrusive. It's II unnecessary. If we're going to do it, we should limit it a little bit
more to close to the intersection or whatever you're really trying to
protect here. The sideyard of a corner lot in a PUD, well what in
essence would be a sideyard but it's sometimes a front yard, I think thill
is too intrusive into that. If you guys want to go look at a fence
before we act on this, I would encourage it. To go look at the fence
right across from me on Fox Hollow Drive and take a look. See if you II hate that fence. It's more than 3 feet. And it's necessary for him to
use his back yard at all. He has no back yard other than the area that's
protected by the fence. Otherwise he's minimum distance away from the
other house. Minimum distance.
Emmings: This doesn't prevent him from building in his back yard...
Batzli: It would be along what's considered the front yard because it's"
a front yard on a corner lot is on too many sides.
Aanenson: You have two fronts, yeah. ,
Batzli: He's got two fronts. He would not have any area of his yard
that I think would, he would have any privacy in under this ordinance.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 64
11 Farmakes: Would that be an exception to the rule? Could he ask for a
variance?
' Conrad: I think you should tell the home audience that it's Steve's
anniversary tonight.
Batzli: It's Steve's 25th anniversary and we aren't going to let him go.
Conrad: It's 5 minutes to 11:00 and he's dead.
Erhart: Well what do you want to do here? I mean do you want to delay
it?
1 Conrad: Let's table it.
Aanenson: We've tabled it three times and the next agenda will be just
as crowded.
Batzli: Well but you never got my comments until now. Now you have my
1 comments. Now you know what you have to take care of. Go look at Chip
Brown's house, right across from me. I don't know what it is. 151 Fox
Hollow. Whatever it is. Look at his yard and you tell me how he could
have any privacy without building the big fence?
Ledvina: That's an existing?
1 Batzli: But you're putting PUD's in all over the place with the minimum
of 10,000 square feet. We have to cover this issue. On a small lot
where the guy's got a house right on his side. He's got two front yards.
The only thing he's got is this little piece of back yard that needs to
be fenced.
' Erhart: Okay, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend.
Emmings: Did he build this fence after you moved in? That's all.
' Erhart: Could you get some control over the audience? 1 more that the
Planning Commission...
' Batzli: All because it's along the front yard that's built along the
road.
I Erhart: Section 20 -1019, location of fences as noted above.
Ledvina: I'll second that.
Aanenson: This area right in here, as long as they stay on that
triangle.
' Batzli: Any fence on the front yard setback shall not exceed 3 feet in
height. That's the ordinance. That's the wording.
Emmings: This is a corner lot right here. Here's the example. This is
his rear yard. This is his front yard. This is his side yard.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 65
Batzli: No, his rear 1
ar yard is to the back projection of the picture. All
the way up. Yeah, that's his back yard. He has 10 feet on the side. 1
feet on the back where you're saying his back yard is.
Aanenson: He's got the side yard. This is his back.
Batzli: That's his side yard. The way you've got it drawn because the II
road is going on the right and on the left in that V.
Aanenson: What that reflects is the sight distance so you can see.
That's what that line is.
Batzli: Isn't that where the road is? 1
Aanenson: Yeah.
Batzli: Okay, then I'm saying is, is the only part of his yard that you 1
can do anything in is part of the front yard?
Aanenson: Outside of the sight triangle. '
Batzli: This is front yard and that's front yard. His only part that he
has that he can do anything in is back here. There's a house on this
side. So if he, his fence sits right here. That's what he's got fencedll
6 feet so that he's got a deck in his back yard so he doesn't sit on his
deck and watch all the cars go by all day long. And this would be
considered front yard. He could not put the fence up. That's the 3 fool
fence that he's got that he needs in this configuration.
Krauss: I think we've got to continue it now. Well, you still have a
quorum.
Batzli: I'm just going to vote against it. You guys can vote. You'll II
have a majority.
Erhart: Do you have an understanding. Does Brian understand what you'r
proposing?
Krauss: I don't know but if you want to continue it.
Batzli: The ordinance clearly says, in a corner lot you can't have
anything higher than 3 feet in height if opaque. He's got an opaque
fence. He needs it. 1
Erhart: Are we doing something here we don't want to do?
Batzli: No, I'm saying that if we've got small corner lots, and you're 1
tucked up against the house on one side, which you're going to do in a
10,000 square foot lot, you're going to have one area that's useable as a
yard in those situations. And this will not allow those people to have II
any privacy in their one little part of their yard.
Aanenson: So you're asking us to look at those small lots and come up ,
with some different language?
11
1 Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 66
Batzli: I don't know.
Aanenson: Or not use it at all?
Batzli: I don't know.
Erhart: I guess I don't understand. I mean this guy's got his, he's set
back 30 feet and he's got a whole back yard there.
' Aanenson: He's saying in those instances where people don't have that.
Batzli: Well I don't know.
1 Erhart: If you have a specfic example.
Batzli: He can't be pulled 30 feet back to have the 6 1/2 foot, I know
he can't get that. But anyway. Maybe I'm wrong. Go look at this lot
and tell me that this meets the ordinance, because I think something like
that's reasonable. If we're going to allow real small, dinky lots like
that. Anybody have any changes to the Minutes?
Aanenson: So it was tabled?
1 Batzli: Yeah, we're tabling it unless somebody wants to bring up a
motion?
Erhart: You didn't hear a motion did you?
Batzli: Okay, we closed the public hearing. All in favor of tabling say
1 aye?
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
' amend Sections 20 -1023 and 10 -1019. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
1 Commission meeting dated September 2, 1992.
ONGOING ITEMS.
Batzli: Are there any items that we need to be looking at?
Krauss: Oh yeah, we do have probably our biggest development the city
ever had. 190 acre office /industrial park at the corner of TH 5 and TH
41. PUD concept plan is on your next agenda.
1 Farmakes: Which corner?
Krauss: Southeast.
' Farmakes: Any major tenants we should about?
Krauss: I don't know of any yet. It's a concept.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 67
1
Ledvina: TH 41 and 5 did you say?
Krauss: Yes.
•
Ledvina: Across the street from Fleet Farm?
Batzli: How is this coming in in relation to our corridor study?
Krauss: Well, they're both ongoing at the same time. '
Batzli: Is there any problem between the two...
Krauss: I keep stressing to the folks at the corridor study that you're'
hitting a moving target. That there's things happening all the time and
to the best of our ability, we're going to give people the opportunity to
preview them and have some input. The question of a moratorium was
discussed with the Council a couple times and they did not want to pursull
one. So we're going to have to try to make sure that things don't happen
so rapidly that the Highway 5 corridor study ceases to be as functional
as it could be because a lot of things are already developed.
Farmakes: If the sign ordinance, when are we going to get that?
Krauss: Well Kate's going to be wrapping that up probably in the next '
month or so. We had just got so busy over the summer.
Farmakes: I understand. I was wondering how that's going to apply to II
some of the stuff that we're talking about. For instance, the 15% of the
cap. Whichever one is the least. That type of stuff. I mean we seem t'
get into that a lot and waste a lot of... One thing of interest. The
Lundgren house on the development up here. On the Lake Lucy Road. The
model house is the short little lot. Remember that lot we were arguing
about. They answered all the questions right. The salesman answered I
everything truthfully and when it got to the issue of the setback from
the wetlands, he said go ask the City. We don't want to get into telling
you specifically. He didn't know who I was and he answered all the
questions correctly. On the setback and the tree preservation area and '
so on, which in point of fact made it kind of a not too good sale. I
mean when you were looking at it, because when he answered the questions
they were actually to his detriment in trying to sell the house. I was '
surprised however, the pricing on the homes is higher than some of the
general discussion that we had heard. It's in the mid 200's.
Krauss: Yeah, that's the price range that staff kind of expected it was'
going to wind up. I don't know if it's because Lundgren kept on telling
us that every time we improved the site, it was goign to cost more money'
but.
Farmakes: I think if we get a radio in, it will be up to closer to
$275,000.00 but it was a nice house. '
Ledvina: Where was this?
Batzli: The Ersbo property. 1
1
i Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 68
Farmakes: The Lundgren development and that was the one that we figured
had about 10,000 square feet.
1 Krauss: Useable on that lot.
Farmakes: Right. And that's where they put the model home. It's in that
Parade of Homes.
Krauss: Now it was actually an 18,000 square foot lot but when you
knocked out the wetland and.
Farmakes: Right. Yeah, and they got to bulldoze right to the 60 foot
' mark. Or 80 feet or whatever it is. It's like whacked down.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS:
Batzli: Administrative Approvals?
Krauss: We have one that we're working on right now for Lyman Lumber is
11 expanding one of their office buildings on site. Kind of back in there
they want to double the size of it but it's, when you take cumlatively
all the square footage in that complex, it's a very small increment. I
' think you probably won't be able to see very much, if any of it from the
highway.
' Batzli: Just out of curiosity, can you give us a 30 second update on
what's happening with the mining permit to mine the north part of Moon
Valley? I read your letter or memo or whatever it was to the City
Council and I didn't understand what. They're going to be able to get
less clay out of there? Was that the upshot?
Krauss: Yeah, it was supposed to be on last Monday night. One of the
big questions has always been, because they're using the infiltration
basins instead of normal ponds, where's the sand layer because they've
got to get into the sand. And we had conditions in there to demonstrate
it. Well the only information we had was antidotal that Tom Zwiers had
his cousin Jerry who works for him go out with a backhoe and he said the
clay's down 12 feet. Well, it turned out that there were soil borings
and it came out at the previous City Council meeting. They weren't in
' Zwiers' possession. They were paid for and taken by the firm that's
contracting to take the stuff off and haul it to Eden Prairie. Zwiers
and his engineer found out about it. Apparently they knew about it for a
while but they were not able to get access to it until last week. Late
last week and showed the sand was closer to the surface than had been
represented so there's no question the ponds will work but there's less
clay to remove so, on the basis of the fact that they need a revised
grading plan, I yanked it from the agenda. Now the thing that's causing
the most confusion on this is the thing that caused some confusion here
was that third pond that's kind of straddling the old pit and new pit.
' And what does it do to views and how many trees do you lose? I was going
to recommend and will be recommending to Council that they just ax that.
I mean it's not technically part of the clay project. It's still
confusing to people. I thought the trade -off was a good one for getting
reforested the bluff face but if it's causing too much grief, let's not
1
Planning Commission Meeting
II
September 16, 1992 - Page 69
1
go with it. As to what's happening on the gravel pit, I'm supposed to be
in Court tomorrow on the gravel pit. They still have not complied with 11
the conditions of approval and we're going back to the Judge and asking
him to shut them down.
Batzli: Do we want to talk about our tree conservation easement? 1
Krauss: Not me.
Batzli: Kate want to talk about it? 1
Aanenson: No, I don't want to.
I/ Krauss: This is our perpetual eleven o'clocker. Target went longer tha
I expected. Do we have a motion to table our tree conservation easement?
Ledvina moved, Batzli seconded to table the tree conservation easement 1
discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in 1
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss II
Planning Director
' Prepared by Nann Opheim II
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1