Loading...
1j. Minutes 1 �• CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dimler, Councilman Wing, Councilman Workman, and Councilman Mason STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul ' Krauss, Todd Hoffman, and Sharmin Al -Jaff APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to 1 approve the agenda with the following amendments: Councilwoman Dimler wanted to discuss item 10.5 along with item 7 and Mayor Chmiel noted that item 8 was to be tabled per the applicant's request. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve ' the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: ' b. City Code Amendment Prohibiting Unauthorized Removal of Stop Work Orders, Final Reading. ' c. Liquor License Transfer, MGM Liquor Warehouse from 530 West 79th Street to the Market Square Shopping Center. d. Approval of Accounts. ' e. City Council Minutes dated September 28, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 2, 1992 ' Planning Commission Minutes dated September 16, 1992 g. Final Plat Approval and Planned Unit Development Agreement, Ches Mar Trails, Craig Swaggert. A. CITY CODE AMENDMENT ALLOWING THE SALE OF INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR WITH A ' WINE LICENSE, FINAL READING. Mayor Chmiel: I just want to cover item 1(a). There should be a correction on ' Ordinance Code concerning the sale of intoxicating malt liquor. On the sixth line, serving of feed. Should read, serving of food. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Final Reading of ' City Code Amendment allowing the Sale of Intoxicating Malt Liquor with a Wine License as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. r 1 t City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 II AWARD OF BIDS: LAKE ANN PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM, CITY PROJECT RA -350. II Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, City Council members. The position where I have been at times coming into you with a price over budget, this is my pleasure to bring ' I you this recommendation this evening. Seven bids for this project were received as summarized on the attached bid tabulation. We had a target budget for this I project of $60,000.00 with a cap of $65,000.00. Of those expenditures, a maximum of $55,000.00 being the actual construction contract. The plans and specifications were prepared to include a base bid and two alternates for this I project. Alternate A was the inclusion of irrigation for the shelter and spectator seating areas. And Alternate 8 was the inclusion of irrigation for the ballfield infield areas for dust control. The low bid, including both I alternates was $45,497.00. Approximately $10,000.00 less than anticipated from Innovative Irrigation of Coon Rapids. In reviewing the bid tabluation, it can be seen that this bid is very competitive. A favorable one for the City. Preliminary reference inquiries which have been completed to date indicate that 11 Innovative Irrigation is a reputable company. They are currently under contract with the City of Waconia irrigating eight fields at their athletic complex. It is recommended that the Lake Ann Park irrigation project, including the base bid II and both alternates A and B therefore be awarded to Innovative Irrigation of Coon Rapids, Minnesota in the amount of $45,597.00. That work would be initiated and most likely completed yet this fall pending reasonable weather. I Otherwise they'll wrap it up in the spring. Councilman Workman: So moved. II Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Resolution $92 -114: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to I award the bid for the Lake Ann Park Irrigation System to Innovative Irrigation of Coon Rapids, Minnesota for Alternates A and B in the amount of $45,597.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. II Councilman Wing: Just as a point of conversation. You don't intend to let him think that it's a $10,000.00 credit to his benefit? I Mayor Chmiel: No. But it's nice to see that he's watching for our money as well. I AWARD OF BIDS: LILAC LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 91 -4. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On Thursday, October 8th bids were received and opened for the Lilac Lane Improvement Project No. 91 -4. II A total of 8 bids were received with the low bid being received from Aero Asphalt Inc. in the amount of $60,186.85. The engineer's estimate for the project was estimated at $54,000.00. Therefore, the low bid is about *6,000.00 II over what we estimated. It appears that given the time of year, the relatively small size of the project and in discussing with the contractors who bid on the project, there seems to be enough work out there that they're not all that II hungry which has caused the low bid to be received somewhat higher than the estimate. But given the time constraints associated with this project and the commitments made to the overall Teton Lane /Ithilien subdivision development, it II 2 - II II City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 is recommended that the City carry forward with the project and award the low bid to Aero Asphalt in the amount of $60,186.85. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I think that that's not a bad bid but I think we should give it to the engineer because he was at $54,000.00. 1 Charles Folch: Bill will have to rent some equipment I guess. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion? Or is there a motion? ' Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of bids for Lilac Lane Project No. 91 -4. Councilman Workman: Second. Resolution $92 -115: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to award the bid for the Lilac Lane Improvement Project No. 91 -4 to Aero Asphalt, Inc. in the amount of $60,186.85. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REJECT ALL BIDS FOR 1992 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROGRAM, PROJECT 92 -11. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On Tuesday, September 22nd bids were received and opened for the 1992 sewer rehab program, Project 92 -11. Unfortunately only two bids were received for this project, both being exceedingly over the engineer's estimate and exceedingly higher than what staff and the engineer believe would be representative for the project. In discussing this matter with the plan holders list, it appears that again contractors have plenty of work going on. The uncertainty with the amount of time left in fall construction. All apparently effected the way this project was bid. It is staff's recommendation that it would be wiser use of our dollars to reject all bids for this project and take the 1992 allotment of $100,000.00 and roll that into next year's sewer rehab program along with the '93 budget to allow for a larger project and hopefully get more efficient bidding. Get better use of our dollars. So therefore staff recommends rejecting all bids for sewer rehab project 92 -11. Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. , Resolution 192 -116: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to reject all bids for the 1992 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program, Project 92 -11 and that this allocation be added to the 1993 budget. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS 1992 BOND SALE, DAVE MACGILLIVRAY, SPRINGSTED CORPORATION. ' Dave MacGillivray: Good evening Mayor. Members of the Council. This is an informational item requiring no Council action. We simply wanted to present our recommendations that are in your packet concerning the competitive bond sale of two issues. $3,630,000.00 general obligation improvement bond. $1,350,000.00 general obligation tax increment bond. We will have the public sale of these on October 26th and be back at that time with the results of those. Just briefly, 3 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 the two issues. The improvement issue funds two projects. The Upper Bluff circle and 86th Street water. The bonds we repaid in large part through the collection of special assessments. There's a small annual tax levy forecast because of the 86th Street water has $94,000.00 of deferred assessments through Green Acres. State law. Tax increment issue funds the City's share of two road programs. This issue would be repaid in total through tax increment revenues. We've sized that issue so that both issues are under $5 million in total because that exempts the City from having to send the Feds a check for the arbitrage ' problems so we anticipate we'll be back probably in the spring with the balance of the tax increment projects and that, I think affords some benefits for the City. I'll be glad to take any questions that you have. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If you have adjustment, what is the rates going for on bonds right now? Dave MacGillivray: We forecast these, the tax increment issue about 5%. The improvement issue about 5.5%. 5.44%. The improvement is longer. That's why it's slightly, the rate is slightly higher. Municipal bond rates, particularly ' those of a shorter term, which these are, are still extremely attractive both in terms of what's happened year to date and historically these issues will probably be some of the lowest you'll sell in quite a while so. The tax exempt market is still very, very good. The arguments are equally divided on whether ' to sell them before the election or after the election. So I think you just, either way I think historically they look very good. ' Mayor Chmiel: The only thing I see in this whole thing is that we have to provide 55 copies of the official statement. Dave MacGillivray: To the purchaser. Yeah, that's the official offering ' statement. That's somewhat industry practice and is associated with the size of the issue. ' Mayor Chmiel: The only reason I object to it is I almost have to sign each one. Dave MacGillivray: No, we have a way of doing that. You don't have to sign the I bonds either anymore. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Any discussion? ' Councilwoman Dimler: Sounds reasonable to me. Councilman Workman: No. It's good to see Mr. MacGillivray though. Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is. You know he looks much younger since he has had his beard off. And I thought it was his brother. Dave MacGillivray: I'll keep that in mind. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Dave. Can I have a motion? No, we don't. We ' have to get together with the last one. I might suggest that you save that one so we don't have to reprint one more time. 1 ' 4 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A BLUFF LINE PRESERVATION SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, SOUTH OF DEERBROOK DRIVE, LOT 8, BLOCK 1, DEERBROOK, JAMES STELLICK. Sharmin Al -Jaff: This application appeared in front of you originally on September 28th. The variance was for a zero setback from the edge of the bluff. City Council tabled action on this application and requested that staff work with the applicant to come up with a better alternative. The applicant has revised the plan. The house has been setback 30 feet from the edge of the bluff so as far as setbacks go, it does meet it. However, there's a clause in the ordinance that requires no grading takes place within 20 feet of the impact zone. Well with the plan as it stands right now, there is grading within 20 , feet. We have worked with the applicant. We came up with our version of the grading which we think would work with this house design. Right now the grading could be processed administratively. However, just in case the applicant didn't agree with our conditions, we decided to bring it in front of you and let you make the decision and hear the applicant's view. So we're recommending approval with conditions outlined in the report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Does the applicant wish to discuss this? Or in agreement with staff or what is your thinking? James Stellick: Thank you. Good evening Mr. Mayor, Council members. We stand ' by our original position where we feel that the original plan met all the requirements of a variance. However, at your direction we have met with staff, as Sharmin mentioned. We have moved the house back. We have also elevated the house artificially to where it now stands almost one full story higher than the adjacent house. The purpose for that was to maintain a walkout view while disturbing the ground on the bluff site as little as possible. We essentially elevated the house. We do feel however that the elevation of the house now is 907 at the basement level. The bluff line itself is approximately 906 at the south or southwestly portion of that site. The bluff line does vary in elevation. We feel, and by the way tonight was the first time I've seen this plan. I did not have it prior to tonight. We feel that we need to grade from the 907 basement level down to 906. Wherever that might go. I don't believe we'll have to grade on the easterly side where the garage is. We'll have to fill probably 2 feet to build the garage so there shouldn't be any substitute grading there. But we do feel we'll have to grade to get drainage and to get a view which is why we're considering this lot. Down to the 906 level. Which is I believe somewhat different than this plan, although I haven't had a great opportunity to review this yet. That's it. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Does Council have any questions? Michael. , Councilman Mason: Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom. Councilman Workman: Do on this map, they cannot grade within what I call the. Sharmin AI -Jaff: This is the bluff impact zone. Councilman Workman: And the other dark line is where they intend to grade? ' 5 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: Pardon? II Councilman Workman: What is the overlapping? Paul Krauss: The dashed line is the grading proposal. II Sharmin Al -Jaff: This is where they intend to grade. All of this... 1 Councilman Workman: So we don't really have the bluff on here? The bluff line. But it's out there somewhere. Sharmin Al -Jaff: This is the bluff line. II Councilwoman Dimler: The orange one. 1 Paul Krauss: The bluff setback, or the bluff impact area extends from the bluff itself 20 feet back. I Councilman Workman: You're saying this is grading. The way I read this, this is, you're saying they want to grade this? Sharmin Al -Jaff: They are encroaching into that 20 foot bluff impact zone. , 1 Councilman Workman: Okay, I see what you're saying. What are we losing by having them raise this house so far out of the ground? And they can do that. 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: They can go up to 40 feet up from the grade. 1 Councilman Workman: They can go 4 stories or 3 stories? Sharmin Al -Jaff. As long as it's below 40 feet. 1 Paul Krauss: Your question is raising the building elevation by filling, what do we gain or lose by that? That's not an uncommon strategy. I mean a lot of people do that to make walkouts where walkouts would otherwise be difficult to 1 do. If you recall, the original proposal here was to do a traditional walkout by basically taking the bluff and cutting it off so that your basement level would normally be down below grade so you just remove the grade and all of a I sudden you then have an exposed basement. In this case, to get the walkout this current plan is to elevate it up high enough so that it is actually a walkout. It will be more visible I suppose from the bottom of the bluff because it's being elevated but that's a trade -off. At the same time, this is 30 feet II further back from the bluff. Councilman Workman: Yeah, I just get concerned about this is clearly not the 1 house that they would hope to build, it would appear. They're going from a, it sounds like maybe a three level? Paul Krauss: No, it's the same house. 1 Councilman Workman: It's just with the walkout. II Audience: It always was a walkout...sitting much higher on the hill now. II 6 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilman Mason: It's the same house. They just want to grade more than the City wants them to grade. I mean that's the bottom line isn't it? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilman Mason: We need to decide what's going to get graded. , Mayor Chmiel: That's it. Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: No comment. Councilwoman Dimier: I just had a quick question about the runoff. Something about an adjacent parcel to the west. Is that another property owner that's going to have problems with their drainage coming their way? Paul Krauss: Potentially. That's something that can be avoided if this lot is ' graded properly and all we're doing is putting the owner on notice that when you come in with your building plan, we want to make sure that that drainage is handled. ' Councilwoman Dimier: Okay, so with your recommendations that you've set before us here tonight, is that properly addressed? You're not concerned about it? Okay, thanks. Mayor Chmiel: If you're looking at that 906 elevation and they're talking 907, clarify that for me. Paul Krauss: The ordinance, well there's a couple things that go along here. The original request was for a variance to grade out over the bluff line... , Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That was with the deck. Paul Krauss: Right, and the building itself was within the bluff setback area. ' Currently the building and decks are now pushed the required 30 feet back so technically there is no longer a variance request but the applicant is proposing to grade in the bluff area which requires approval of a grading permit. Now it's a small enough volume of dirt that I can sign off on that administratively. However, we were already scheduled for the variance tonight and we were not certain, but had reason to believe that the conditions that we would come up with on that permit would be somewhat objectionable to the applicant. He's got the right to appeal our findings to you so we're asking you to make an evaluation on that, rather than bump the item for another 2 to 4 weeks and put the time delays on it. Now in terms of the 906 versus the 907. The 906 in this area is defined as the bluff edge. Everything 20 feet upland from there, uphill from there is the bluff impact area. This proposal, this proposed grading plan that we were given has substantial destruction of trees in the bluff impact zone. So while the house is outside of it, and above the 906, the grading is within it. Now the ordinance allows you to do the smallest amount of grading that you can do necessary to accommodate a home. It does allow thinning of trees to get views. It doesn't allow clear cutting. The way we perceived this is that we saw the culprit as being, there's a small knoll there. It's kind of a penninsula of land that's very high and it's actually elevated 2 to 3, 4 feet above the rest of the bluff line. And that area is significantlly wooded but if 7 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 1 anything is truly blocking the view, it's that knoll and that knoll is something 1 of an anomoly. It is higher than the rest of the bluff. When we looked at that we thought, well that is something of a hardship. That's right smack in the middle of the lot where you would want to locate the home and where the best views of this home are going to be. So the proposal that we came up with was ' okay, let's sacrifice the knoll, which is technically in the bluff impact zone, as an acceptable amount of grading. Allow the home to be put in properly to allow some of the trees to be cleared for the view. tie couldn't support the ' mass grading that was being requested but we thought that that was a reasonable compromise. 1 Councilman Workman: You mean mass grading under 1,000? Paul Krauss: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Paul. Is there any other discussion? Councilman Mason: Real quick comment. Considering my inclination, because of ' the delicate nature of the bluff line, my inclination would be not to allow any grading at all. I'm comfortable with the compromise that staff has come up with on this one. And I'm willing to support the staff recommendation. 1 Councilman Wing: So moved. Councilman Mason: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: You moved it. I don't know if you realized that. • Councilman Mason: Well I kind of thought maybe I did. Mayor Chmiel: Yes you did and then Dick seconded it and I'll open this up yet for discussion. Anything more Tom? Councilman Workman: Yeah. I'm trying to figure out, I'm trying to make sense of the compromise. If they build the house where it is, on this plan, but can't ' grade within 20 feet, what are they going to do here? Paul Krauss: You are going to be grading within 20 feet. Under this compromise they're actually removing the knoll and a substantial amount of trees that are in the bluff protection area. Councilman Workman: To me it's kind of splitting hairs a little bit I guess. Mayor Chmiel: Well, to a point I think you're right. But yet to go off into the bluff line area of which are within our ordinances, if we have gone from ' what we were allowed 2 weeks ago and are compromising to what staff has come up with a conclusion indicating that the grading in the bluff impact zone shall be limited to the area of the knoll located about the 906 elevation. Okay. And ' that to me is at least understandable with that. But no other grading shall be permitted in the area and plans shall be revised accordingly. Paul Krauss: Now, if I could clarify that too. They are entitled to do whatever grading is necessary outside of that bluff impact zone. And that 1 8 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 II grading would be normally reviewed as it always is with the building permit to make sure that everything drains correctly. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: So could you explain, just how are we infringing on the ordinance by allowing this? II Paul Krauss: You're not. Councilwoman Dimler: Are we setting a precedence? 1 Mayor Chmiel: No, you're not. Paul Krauss: The ordinance allows for this type of grading with the approval of II an earth work permit. And it lists some standards for guidance as to no mass cutting. No mass grading. Drainage handled properly. We think that that's I being done in this case so it meets the guidelines for issuance of an earth work permit. Councilwoman Dimler: So we're not setting a precedence by going against our 1 ordinance? That's what I wanted to know. Paul Krauss: Well, in essence you're not even granting a variance at this point which I think would be more precedent setting. II Councilman Workman: But aren't we within that impact zone? II Paul Krauss: You would be partially within that impact zone and that is allowed by ordinance. Councilwoman Oimler: Oh it is allowed? II Paul Krauss: Yeah. 1 Councilman Wing: One of the applicant's presentations Paul was what we did last year and the year before and the year before and this neighbor was allowed this II and I don't want to hear another neighbor come in and say, well we let Mr. Stellick do this and after all this work on the ordinance, suddenly we're yielding on it. You know, which came first, the proposed house or this ordinance? 1 Councilman Workman: ...we've got a railroad track below the lot here. I don't know. To me being able to allow somebody to reasonably use a lot that has a II bluff on it means we should allow them to reasonably, and I think that's where this compromise has come out. To reasonably use and I don't know these people personally but I would think that they are living there for a reason and they II have the good fortune to own the lot and build there. And the characteristics of the lot, they don't want to go and destroy the whole bluff line either. But rather use the bluff line. I'm putting thoughts in their heads maybe but use the bluff line to make the home that they want to make. And this ordinance is II going to be around a long time and it's going to be like this every time, I know it. Because you may as well buy a third acre lot in the middle of town if you can't take some reasonable advantage of the reason you bought that lot. You II know what I mean? 9 1 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: At y that particular time Tom, if they were to do what they wanted to do originally, they would have been in violation of the ordinance. Councilman Workman: Right, and that's why I think we've kind of come back. Mayor Chmiel: And that's why I think we have come back to what is termed as a compromise to what staff has pulled together. And I think that compromise is justifiable from that standpoint. Councilman Wing: If it weren't for your stupid law, my house wouldn't be 75 feet from the shoreline I'll tell you that. Councilwoman Dimler: I just have one question Paul. Do you see an adverse effect here of the grading on the bluff impact zone? Paul Krauss: I honestly don't think so. You've got to look at it from a number of perspectives but the one that is probably most important here is what are you looking at when you're looking at those homes where you and I were that day on the railroad tracks looking up. Well, in this case the home will be set back the proper distance, which the adjacent home wasn't because it was built before the ordinance and that's highly visible. This will preserve a lot of the trees up to and over the top of the bluff. It will have a view corridor. The idea is 11 not to make the home invisible but it will have views over and out over the river valley. But it will avoid that kind of situation where we've seen homes perched out over the edge or destroying all the vegetation in the area. I think I it's a reasonable thing to do. Councilwoman Dimler: So you stick with your recommendation? II Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call the question. All those in favor upon staff recommendation with items 1 thru 4, as part of that recommendation. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: You want the question called? Mayor Chmiel: Say aye. Councilwoman Dimler: I think we're supposed to hold on calling the question. II Mayor Chmiel: I did call the question. Councilwoman Dimler: I know but you vote on this, because there might be some I further discussion. Is that correct? Mayor Chmiel: Well, discussion has been going on and it's time that termination can be called by the Chair. After further discussion has been going back and forth. Councilwoman Dimler: Will our Parlimentary please comment. II Councilman Workman: So they're going to build their house where we've sort of agreed they can build their house but not just be able to grade. i 10 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 11 Mrs. Stellick: We're not going to build our house there at all. James Stellick: Maybe there's some misunderstanding. We feel we need to grade 1 down to 906. If we cannot do that, we do not buy the lot. We do not build the house. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And it does say 906 on the staff recommendations. Paul Krauss: They're allowed to take the knoll down to the 906. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Just the knoll in itself. Councilman Workman: To me that's the property rights and within reason. 1 Mayor Chmiel: We still have it open for discussion. Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I wanted to vote on calling the question. Mayor Chmiel: Parlimentary procedures would allow me to do as I moved. 1 Councilman Wing: It's my understanding that this is going to be the requirements on the grading permit at any rate. This is what you intended to put on the grading permit. We're just supporting that. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Paul Krauss: It's avoiding the need to have a separate appeal that would come up before you in a month. Councilman Mason: I think Councilman Workman certainly asks a real valid 1 question about property rights of owner versus what city's have decided. What is best to have on that lot. And I certainly think that the ordinance that we passed for Bluff Creek is a very good one. And it appears that staff feels, and as I've said before, agree. If they're allowed to do all the grading they would want to do, there would be some damage done to that Bluff Creek lot line there. Or the line there and if that's the case, what's the purpose of the ordinance. And I don't mean, I don't mean to put you on the spot but obviously this is an issue that we're certainly at odds with but I think all of us passed this ordinance in good faith. Councilman Workman: And I agree. I was there to pass it too and we need to do it. But the reason we have a variance board is to look at individual cases and I think we did that. We got the house. We got the deck. We got everything back. We just didn't quite make it with grading. You can't move, it'd be a very rare case when we'd take this house 50 years from now and be able to move it back. In 50 years from now trees will be as tall as you can believe and 11 trees and brush and things grow. And presumably they'd do a job of redoing whatever they graded and so that's why I'm taking these on a one lot by one lot basis and that's why, and they're upset tonight and I don't know who the owner of the lot is but he's upset tonight probably because he's got a lot that maybe he can't sell if it can't be used. If it's. i 11 1 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilman Mason: Well it can be used. Maybe not just the way they want to use J Y Y it. Councilman Workman: What I said was before is, you may as well buy a large lot in Timberwood. You may as well buy a large lot in Timberwood which is a good mile from the bluff. Councilman Wing: t g After the work and effort that went into that ordinance, I think the days of coming in and building the house you want out over the bluff line through the trees down into the valley are over. Councilman Workman: But they're not. Councilman Wing: Oh they are. Councilman Workman: No they're not. The house isn't in the setback. Councilman Wing: I'm not saying that you no longer have. When the ordinance passed, we took that right away as a government agency. Saying protect that canyon area...it's done and you longer have the option under this ordinance just to come in and put your house where you want it. How you want it. Those lots are going to be utilized in a slightly different manner. There's no question about that. Councilman Workman: And nobody's disagreeing with that. I'm not disagreeing ' with that. We have a rule that says you can't build a deck within 30 feet of your back lot line. We allow for variances for those all the time. That's what a variance is for. And so I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree with the ordinance at all. We're allowing him to move a knoll and some other things. II We're being a little too selective I think and that's why I said where I think we're splitting some hairs because we would be letting them do quite a bit anyway and they are moving earth within this zone anyway. I mean we're almost ' there and for them to. Councilman Wing: Cutting out a hill right in front of their house. II Councilman Workman: So to me we're just about there and for us to be able to go, it's a dead issue obviously so. I Mayor Chmiel: Ursula, any other? Councilwoman Dimler: I think at this point, because if it were a home that were ' there, I'd probably go ahead and approve of it. Because of the timing here, the bluff ordinance was in place. They are looking at buying the house. They have plenty of time to work with staff and so forth and in this case I will support the staff recommendation. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that, we have a motion on the floor with a second to support staff recommendations as indicated, items 1 thru 4. II Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded that the City Council approve staff's authorizing an earth work permit to James Stellick for Lot 8, BLock 1, Deerbrook, subject to the following conditions: 12 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 1 1. Grading in the bluff impact zone shall be limited to the area of the knoll located above the 906' elevation. No other grading shall be permitted in this area. Plans shall be revised accordingly. 2. Grading plans shall be designed to ensure sheet drainage along the bluff. 3. Only selective tree removal in the bluff area needed to provide a view shall 11 be allowed. 4. Type III erosion control shall be installed and maintained. 1 All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT PROJECT 92 -3; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CONTINUED FROM 9/28/92); AND AUTHORIZE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE RIGHT -OF -WAY. 1 Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Following the last hearing, staff, the project engineer, the adjacent land owners and representatives for the Target site met for a rather lengthy meeting to discuss some of the outstanding issues that needed to be resolved. Basically all parties left the meeting with full acceptance and concurrence of the alignment that is being proposed. The only real outstanding issues, if you will, associated with the project from a property owner or development standpoint are the issue related to locating accesses which are more or less a design detail type element which for all intensive purposes could be resolved during the preparation of plans for the project. Then some other, one of the other issues is related to outlining how the assessment methodology is going to be handled. At this point it is staff's recommendation that we proceed with ordering of the project and associated improvements with the defined revised alignment and allow for a discussion on access locations and assessment methodology to occur at a future meeting. At such time that all adjacent landowners and effected property owners could be available to attend that meeting for discussion. We have our project consultant engineer here with us tonight. Jim, do you care to add anything to the presentation tonight? Jim Dvorak: I guess only that I'd be happy to answer any questions that any of the Council members or staff may have regarding the revised report. The numbers and how any of those were determined. And then any of the improvements that are proposed... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I just had one question. If we had tabled the other segment of item number 8, does this really need discussion right now? We don't know if it's really necessary for us to proceed. Charles Folch: Well from a timing standpoint, it certainly would be beneficial to sort of get ahead of the game if you will and ahead of the development program as it relates to grading and their contracts and such. You'll notice in the manager's comments that the recommendation tonight is a contingent type approval given that the associated HRA and city development contracts are 1 executed. It's advantageous from the timing standpoint to make the approvals tonight. I'm not sure what impacts it would have to the development if it did not proceed tonight. It doesn't look like there's a representative from RLK 1 13 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 here tonight to answer that question. ' Don Ashworth: If I may Mr. Mayor. When we had the meeting with the owners, everyone was in agreement we should move ahead with the project, even knowing that there was some stalmate positions as it dealt with HRA, potential assistance over to Target. The primary issue is, they do not like what is 1 referred to as the pay as you go form of assistance. That's basically the only type we've used. And so they're kind of remeeting with their groups to see if they understand this and how it works. Again they, as of a week ago, two weeks ago, wanted to see this onto this agenda. Charlie James still wanted to come in and talk about potential median cuts and the method of assessment on the 26th. Then today we received the call asking that Target be deleted as a part of the development proposal process. We're simply believing that they have not resolved internally some of these other differences and that's the reason that they asked to have that one pulled. And this item will be back on the 28th to resolve some of those smaller items. I think this is probably the third or fourth meeting we've had the engineer. The only benefit I can see is, Charlie James was quite adamant about wanting to see the City get on with the process. If we were going to condemn his property, get it started. I guess that was one of the points he continued to make and he put in writing. That would probably be the only thing that would be slowed down if we tabled action for 2 weeks. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there any discussion? Richard. ' Councilman Wing: The word contingent makes this safe for me. Is there any chance that if Target did not come through that we would go with the old 1 alignment? I mean is the new alignment an agreed upon, done deal? Is there any discussion there anymore? Don Ashworth: Well it's agreed upon. All parties are in agreement but it's ' ' really contingent on Target being in there. I would say if Target would disappear, you'd look to, each of the intersection points have been defined based on traffic volumes anticipated to go in and out of Target. You probably wouldn't do those in exactly the same fashion if they're not going to be there. You surely wouldn't put a traffic signal to gain access to a pumpkin field, right? 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I think you should. Councilman Wing: Access isn't the concern. I'm only talking about alignment. Whether it goes north or it goes, takes the curve out and goes south. Does that alignment make a difference? Don Ashworth: I would say then that it would move back to the old alignment. Councilman Wing: Which may be better for overall development at some point? 1 Don Ashworth: The current plan is solely driven by the desire of Target and their beliefs that it would be cheaper and better for them if the road was moved 120 feet to the south. Councilman Wing: But Charlie James isn't here. 1 14 1 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Don Ashworth: I should note that the project consists of both the improvements in the existing town section that includes the signals and activation systems associated with the Fire Department as well as the westerly portion of the project. We have had those two hooked together, split apart, hooked together, split apart several times over the course of the last 2 to 3 years. Depending on how long this goes before a decision is reached by Target as to whether or not they are going to build or not build, we're going to have to detach them again and start the efforts again back with the existing, because there's a number of improvements that need to be made to the existing part of town. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I think that whether Target's going to build or not build, Target's got a lot of money tied into it right now and I don't see them trying to walk away from it except I'm not sure what they're really looking for yet. Councilman Wing: Is it possible that road, if some circumstance could in fact go further north or even further south if different scenarios came in? Or is the new alignment the one that you want? That you need. Is there a question on the alignment? I mean why now go with the new alignment. Get it done. It's in, and you develop accordingly. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Well if Target doesn't go there, somebody else will. There's no question. Councilman Wing: Okay, but is this alignment better than the northerly alignment and is this the alignment we prefer regardless of who goes where and when? 1 Mayor Chmiel: This is just accommodating Target with this particular alignment at this particular time because before, as Charlie James indicated, there were things that were tied in back when he had drafted his proposal for the City and agreed to by the City. And now with the changes that we're looking at, I think by moving it to the south portion it would have tendencies, at least in my opinion, be the right location for whatever ultimate might develop from now, amen. Councilman Wing: Well that's where I wound up with after all the discussion. Irrespective of who goes where, when or how, this new alignment is really a better choice and we ought to just go with it and get it done once and for all. Mayor Chmiel: Because thereto, the alignment in itself for going across with 1 the north service road is more in line to where we want it than any other location. Councilwoman Dimler: But yet as we're saying, we're discussing here traffic signals and all that and that would certainly all change. Mayor Chmiel: Well the traffic signals might just go by the wayside, depending 1 on what would go in there at that particular time. Councilwoman Dimler: So, but we're going to approve preparation of plans and 1 specifications here without really knowing about number 8. Mayor Chmiel: That can always be dropped. 1 15 ' .1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 • Councilwoman Dimler: I'm kind of uncomfortable with doing. I was comfortable with doing it before, having Target there. And Mr. James having a written 1 agreement that he could still get his things in next time we meet. However, with both parties both out, I feel a little uncomfortable approving anything until we come more together. Charles Folch: I think Don makes a real good comment from the standpoint that if Target does not go in, at the very least it eliminates the need for at least a mid -block signal. We can certainly go ahead preparing plans under the 1 assumption that some sort of major retail development is likely going to site either on James or Burdick's property. Each are pretty well laid out and they're conducive for that. If for some reason that does not appear likely to occur in the next 3 to 5 years, it's hard to tell, then maybe at the point in time when you approve plans and specs there could be some changes made but there's also some advantage to getting in ahead of the game with these ' improvements before you really have these major retail developments generating the traffic down there. Mayor Chmiel: We may get a Macy's or someone like that. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Mega Mall. Okay, but we're talking about 4 lanes there and you're saying that has to be regardless of what comes in there? Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah, right. Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And I did want to discuss the median. The landscaping in the median because the comments I've heard from the public here, they love the way the east side looks but they don't want us to continue that because of the visibility problems that we're having. So we might want to go without any landscaping in the medians on the west side. Or at least not that much or different types. Lower vegetation. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. You're right. The first ones that went in they put way too much. Ask me, I'll tell you all about that...but anyway, that's true but I still think that some greenery is going to be needed within and make sure that the visibility is there from a sight lines be taken from cars and so on. 1 Making sure that the visibility is good. Councilman Workman: Ursula, are you saying don't do anything until we know? Councilwoman Dimler: Well we've got two pieces of the puzzle missing right now. I was comfortable with one piece missing. I could kind of picture it and yet ' with two pieces missing, I'm a little uncomfortable. Councilman Mason: Charlie's okay with this though. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but it wasn't his first choice. Councilman Workman: But didn't we already have plans and specifications from before? 1 16 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Charles Folch: Two sets as a matter of fact. Councilman Workman: I mean we're not, our track record isn't, this is the 1 corner from hell. Councilwoman Dimler: Well what's wrong with the old alignment then? If that's 1 what Charlie James... Councilman Mason: The thing about moving ahead tonight is, is we do get to lay some groundwork and I share Ursula's concern about authorizing some things that we're going to say wait a minute. We don't want this stuff. Now I'm hearing you're saying that's not an issue because we can always renig. Not renig but there are plans. We can change them if we want to. The nice thing I see about moving the road south some is we get a real nice landscaped area in that corner that we would not get if we didn't. And my understanding from the letter we all got from Mr. James and what not is that he is okay with this proposal. So I guess I'm in agreement with what the Mayor is saying. Even if we don't get a Target in here, it's just a matter of time that we get somebody else and we're going to be probably have that amount of traffic anyway. Councilman Wing: I'm interested in just getting the alignment decided on and that portion done and the rest is all contingent. Nothing's going to happen. All I'm really saying personally is the alignment tonight. I'm saying let's go with the south and get it done. Charles Folch: And as Charlie points out in his letter that you have in your packet, he just wants to know where the alignment is going to be so he can market his property. Right now he can't do anything with it. Councilwoman Dimler: That's true, but he did say something about the parcel 1 that's going to maybe have long term effects that the City is not taking in condemnation that might be useless to him. With the new alignment. Does anybody recall that? Councilman Wing: It gives him his land back is what happens. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it does. A certain amount of land. Plus at least knowing where it's going to be and that's what he's looking for the condemnation for. I don't recall that part of it. Councilwoman Dimler: Let's see. Where was that. Mayor Chmiel: Item 2, fair and reasonable access to my property. I am told by SRF that the right of way and alignment will accommodate almost any plan so the Council can approve the alignment on the 12th without committing the issue of access to the James property. I would ask that we resolve this matter as it pertains to the James access only on October 26th when I can be present to answer your questions. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and that can still be done even if we approve the 1 alignment tonight? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 1 17 1 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilman Workman: If we took the plans for this part of the road, I was talking to Charles this weekend. We had a good little hoot about this. If you take the plans and kind of did them cartoon like that, it looks like a dog's tail wagging. These plans go back and forth. The only thing I'm concerned about is that authorizing preparation of plans and specifications tells me that we're going to. Mayor Chmiel: Well I have changed my side because I thought the north one would have been better before but until I've seen what the south one would do in 1 comparison, it clearly to me is a better way to go. Councilman Workman: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? ' Councilman Wing: Oh that specific, alright. Councilman Workman: Engineer's recommendation. 1 Councilman Wing: Okay with the condemnation proceedings which is an issue with James. Mayor Chmiel: It's all part of the agreement that came with that. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Resolution #92 -117: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the West 78th Street Detachment Project No. 92 -3 (formerly Project No. 87 -2) and initiate the condemnation proceedings for the acquisition of the needed right -of -way through 1 the James property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR STREET NAME CHANGE FROM MONTEREY DRIVE TO KERBER BOULEVARD, B.C. BURDICK. Todd Gerhardt gave the staff presentation on this item which was not picked up on the microphone. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Just one question. In connecting Monterey to Kerber, does that mean that we will widen Monterey to meet Kerber from one end to the other? From the east line to the west line or are we going to move that in entirety? And I can't remember, is there a curb cut going in there right now on Monterey? Todd Gerhardt: No, the curb lines will be readjusted. Councilman Wing: I'll so move. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. 1 18 11 _l City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Councilman Wing: I was going to recommend James Burdick Boulevard but in lieu of this, this is fine with me. Councilwoman Dimler: I think it's a great idea. I'm just wondering if anybody 1 would have a problem with the change of address. Mayor Chmiel: The only concern I had was with the property owners and I think 1 the property owners were in agreement. Is that correct Todd? Councilwoman Dimler: All of them in agreement? ' Todd Gerhardt: Did I attach...letter. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. ' Todd Gerhardt: In there were letters from. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, and that included everyone? Everyone responded? Todd Gerhardt: Every one of those property owners... Councilman Workman: It will be the Burdick BRW Boulevard. Resolution 192 -118: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to change 1 the street name of Monterey Drive to Kerber Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SITE PLAN REVIEW CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING PHASE II, 480 WEST 78TH STREET, COPELAND- MITHUN. Charmin Al -Jaff: The applicant is requesting the construction of Phase II, a 1 10,600 square foot addition to the Chanhassen Professional Building. One feature of this site that is left up the discretion of City Council is the canopy that would cover the area between the two phases. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of construction of the canopy. As far as access is concerned, the applicant is requesting a right turn lane as well as a median cut. We contacted SRF, the City's transportation consultant engineers. They recommended approval of the right turning lane. They thought that would improve traffic movement on West 78th. However, they recommended against a median cut on West 78th. The sign covenants accompany the site plan. Basically they are requesting a total of 14 wall mounted signs. It's limited to the north and south elevations of the building. All signs would be illuminated. We are recommending approval of this site plan with conditions outlined in the report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess I had one question. There was quite a controversy when we had the other building in and adjacent and as close to the street as we did. Is this building going to be the same location with the same setback requirements? 19 ' 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Sharmin Al -Jaff: It will maintain the same setbacks. However, this one is a one story building comparison to a two story building. It won't be as imposing to the street. Mayor Chmiel: Right, and now we're removing the canopy portion and having a center or going directly in with a median? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Between, and that I think would probably blend better and look better as well as them having that curvature over the top. Without that canopy there I think it would probably look at lot better. I had just one other ' thing here. Parking for the area. There's going to be 299 stalls. That meets our specific code requirement for parking. Yes and no huh? ' Sharmin Al -Jaff: There was a package that was pre - approved. That's how many parking stalls you can get with the site. We believe that it will work. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But there will be an additional 18 stalls that are going to be built with Phase II now. Sharmin Al- Jaff: Correct. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. One of the things that the Planning Commission discussed was about eliminating sidewalks and putting in parking stalls. Sharmin Al -Jaff: That has been taken care of. Mayor Chmiel: That has? ' Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yes. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. I guess those were the ones that I really had. Any other questions? Ursula. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess in relation to the location of the building too, and I wanted to know, we are going to be talking or have talked or sometime in the future we're going to be talking about making 4 lanes out of all of West 78th Street. I'm wondering how that's going to be done with the location of the ' present building there already and are we, with the approval of this one, are we complicating the issue further? Councilman Mason: I can respond to that. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. 1 Councilman Mason: Because Don Ashworth and I talked about it and saw the plans and actually drove down West 78th and walked it out and this, that and the other thing, and it certainly will be even closer to the road than it is now. But ' it's not going to make it any more difficult than it already is. To approve this. 1 1 - 20 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, if we approve this one, it will not complicate that process? Okay, thank you. 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: One option that was looked at also was removing the center median altogether. Councilman Mason: To doing what? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Removing the center median. 1 Councilman Workman: They'd parade you down the street if you said that louder Sharmin. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Well if we do that there, we certainly don't want a median on the west side though right? We just approved a median on the west side. Councilman Mason: I'll bet you the median stays. Mayor Chmiel: Right. 1 Councilman Wing: On number 8, coordinator site improvements with the HRA. Define site improvements. Sharmin Al -Jaff: Parking mainly. Landscaping. Councilman Wing: Alright. 1 don't mind the HRA going into land acquisition and development and making decisions but once we get beyond checkbook, I don't like it going from the HRA to the Planning to the Council, HRA. They're not our planners. They're not, with all due respect Mr. Mayor, and even to go before the Council. I don't think any set improvements have to go back to them. If they approved the money and the project and I think the site improvements go to the Planning Commission and the City Council. They're not elected to make those decisions I don't think so number 8 concerns me greatly. I don't mind them being informed. I don't expect to see decisions of landscaping occurring at HRA. That's my problem. Sharmin Al -Jaff: May I respond? Councilman Wing: Yes ma'am. I'm sure the Mayor's going to. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I was but if she says what I'm thinking. Sharmin Al -Jaff: There was a development contract drafted 2 years ago, 3 years 1 ago. And the HRA agreed at that time to complete all the public improvements. That was part of the deal. Councilman Wing: Public improvements. Okay, you're taking. Paul Krauss: In this case the parking lot on the site were considered to be public improvements. Councilman Wing: Alright. 21 1 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: And only because it was part of that contract. But other times when situations occur as such, and the contract can be revised, to put it back to Council and Planning to making sure that...everyone's wishes. Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: Another question. On page 6 of the report, condition 7. ' It says to amend the development contract between the HRA and the 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. I wanted 1 to know if this is in violation of the original agreement for Phase I. Mayor Chmiel: I guess it would be if it's an amendment. A violation to the agreement. Sharmin Al -Jaff: Unless you amend this, correct. If you agree to this amendment, then there won't be a violation. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but if we allow it, but it is not protecting the Riv is what I'm saying. I'm concerned about protecting the Riv. So if we allow this amendment, it was not protecting the Riv. ' Paul Krauss: The original amendment, if I recall correctly, concerned any doors on the west side of the building. There was a concern that if there were doors over there that people would use the Riv parking spaces. What's happening here though is you're having entrance doors on the north and south sides of the building. Your individual entrances that happen to be within that area but ' they're oriented differently. They're oriented to the back parking lot. Councilwoman Dimler: So you don't think that that's going to be infringing upon the Riveria parking lot. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, is that a requirement of Code? Fire Code? ' Paul Krauss: No. Councilman Mason: The doors? Mayor Chmiel: The door to the west is what I was thinking. Because in the event that there is a fire in the main area for the north or south, the accessibility for those people to get out would be to the west. ' Paul Krauss: What you see on the graphic there is the individual tenant spaces. Depending upon how the building gets divided up, each one will have a door to ' the street which we encourage because it improves the pedestrian flow. It kind of encourages people to walk. But the main doors will be to the north with your access parking. That's oriented to the parking spaces specifically to this building and not to the Riv parking lot. So it's achieving the same goals. I Councilwoman Dimler: Has anyone checked with the owners of the Riveria to see if this amendment is acceptable to them? Sharmin A1- ,Taff: They've been publically notified but no, we haven't actually called them up. 1 22 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Your main concern is the encroachment on their parking spaces... Councilwoman Dimler: Right, because I know they were real concerned about that originally. Sharmin Al -Jaff: May I point something out? The applicant has moved this door to meet the 20 foot setback. So this is no longer an issue. I'm sorry, this one is no longer an issue. It's only good for...that we're recommending that. Councilwoman Dimler: That you need the amendment for. Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. ' Paul Krauss: There are no parking spaces in the front of the building. It's basically just for people walking down the street. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, one issue. Something was lacking as I went through this. I guess my memory just came back now on the issue, maybe it was Planning Commission. I think Mr. Copeland addressed it. But access to this goes through the Riveria and then goes and walks around this whole parking situation back there is a disaster zone and I think it ought to be dealt with. I just wonder if Mr. Copeland can address the issue of parking behind and the access to that parking and the fact that it runs into the Riveria and then it comes around. Is that in his best interest and does there need to be a change made as this project goes. Why are we running all of his traffic into the Riveria parking lot? Why aren't they separated? Because it's a city parking lot. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: I think Sharmin may have an answer. Sharmin Al -Jaff: If you won't allow this access point, then most of the traffic will be routed through here rather than through the Riveria. Councilman Wing: Is that an assumption? Charles Folch: No. Paul Krauss: You're talking about a westbound traffic lane and that's the first entrance they're going to come to. Councilman Wing: Then that solves my concern. Councilwoman Dimler: But if you're coming from the west, there's no median cuts so you can't use that. Paul Krauss: In that case you have to go up to the corner and come back. Councilwoman Dimler: Come through the Riv parking lot. Paul Krauss: No. You basically come through the same one. Just at Great Plains you turn the corner. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but you could go through the Riv parking lot and come back around. The way it is right now, you're able to do that. And actually they're 23 , City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 all city parking lots, are they not? Okay. Councilman Mason: I don't know, this may not be the time or the place for this until we get but I see all those doors 6 feet away from the road and I wonder a little bit what that's going to look like. Mayor Chmiel: Close. ' Councilman Mason: Yeah. Too close. 1 feel kind of stuck on that one. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what we felt once the other one was constructed where it was and the reason for that is the additional parking spaces they could acquire for that to meet their needs and this is just going to conform with the same alignment from the existing building that's there. Councilman Workman: Those doors aren't going to be any closer than the ones on the current structure and that's not a problem. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it will be because it gets a little narrower there. If my memory serves right. Look at Bernie's building right now where it's at. It's right up to the sidewalk and there isn't much more than about that 6 feet or 8 ' feet or whatever it might be up. Can anybody shed some light on that? Mr. Copeland. Bob Copeland: I'm Bob Copeland. This is a plan prepared by the City's ' engineer... You'll see that the new. Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin will set that stand up for you there. If that will help. Why don't you put it right in front of the podium so the camera can pick it up as well... ' Bob Copeland: You'll notice that the proposed building will be the same distance away from the road as the existing building is, or at least... And remember the city wanted to build it here. Our original plan had this building back and the parking in front. The City wanted it up close so that's why it's ' there. Mayor Chmiel: That was done to screen the parking basically rather than having ' parking in and adjacent to the. Bob Copeland: Well, the planners at the time said that they wanted a city scape. They didn't want buildings that had parking between the roads and the ' buildings. They wanted buildings up near the road so that was the idea at the time. So this is what we have but this is... ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. To me it has a bit of an illusion where that new proposed structure seems to set forward more than what the existing one as shown there now. Or am I. Bob Copeland: Well these are... Mayor Chmiel: Are they? 1 24 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Bob Copeland: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: It sure looks like there's going to be. Bob Copeland: Here the road...little bend right there. But this distance from the curb line to the building will be the same... Mayor Chmiel: The same, okay. Does that answer your question? Councilman Mason: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? ' Councilman Workman: To me this is going to look marvelous here. I've been waiting for this. Mayor Chmiel: Nothing against your building Bernie. Councilman Workman: And nothing against Bernie, who knows that. But I think this will finish what was started and yeah, Bernie's not proud of that building either I don't think, is he? It's three buildings in one. I think this will look good. I do want to talk about the canopy. I've always thought that canopy would be there. By not having the canopy, are we just creating another alley? An alley of no distinction. I think the canopy kind of added some distinction. I guess maybe I'd like to hear what Bob has to say. Bob Copeland: I don't know whether you've seen this old rendering to give you an idea of what it might look like with that. This is the canopy structure right here. 1 Councilman Wing: Bob, is the intention of that canopy to be relatively, just a roof line continuation or relatively quality entry? Bob Copeland: Well the roofline would be a continuation of the Phase II. Councilman Wing: Yeah, but then the overall effect of the canopy inherent with , the building. Kind of a quality looking appearance to it. When I think of a canopy, I just think of this continued roof line with a straight bottom across. Bob Copeland: Well it would be a similar construction as the building itself. Councilman Workman: I think on the other side of the street we have kind of a continuous building and sort of with the Dinner Theatre and so I'm not sure I understand what would be created by breaking this up. Mayor Chmiel: I think somewhere in the report I read that this would create a monolithic structure. Councilwoman Dimler: Right. My problem with the canopy is I like the way it looks but if I understand it correctly, it's $80,000.00 to $90;000.00 that the HRA is going to pay and I'm not real sure I want the taxpayer to be paying that. So I wouldn't go for the canopy just for that reason. 25 , City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Don Ashworth: But in each e on of these, the assistance generated from the project goes back into the project itself. So I mean it's really a part of the ' new taxes generated by this facility that would be put back you might say into this facility to again kind of make it look like one overall project. Bob, if that's not in there, will that still have the appearance of one kind of ' structure? At least seen as something that was designed as kind of a part of the whole or is it going to kind of separate it and make it look more like the alley concept that, I can't remember somebody had brought up. Mayor Chmiel: Tom did. Bob Copeland: I don't think it will look like an alley. I think there's 60 or 70 feet between those two buildings. So that's I think a lot of distance there. And the buildings will be of identical materials and construction. The only difference being of course the height of the two phases. Mayor Chmiel: To me by not having it there makes a good fire break. In the event something were to happen. Councilman Mason: Well I'm a little, I think it's going to be really nice to have that done. I'm a little claustrophobic walking by that building now and I'm having a little trouble going along with the canopy there. I think it'd be ' nice to break it up a little bit. But it's really going to be nice to have that started and done. Councilman Workman: Well the HRA is not buying the canopy. Mayor Chmiel: No. Don Ashworth: The agreement that we had, would be if it was decided by Planning Commission and City Council at a future point in time when Phase II was built, and it was decided by those two bodies that it was a desired attribute, that the I HRA would pay the cost of having that canopy constructed. That was the original agreement from 4 or 5 years ago. Mayor Chmiel: It'd be one of my suggestions that we don't have. I don't think it would create that alley that Tom has indicated. I think that would provide a safety factor in the event that if there ever were a fire, that would be a fire break inbetween those two rather than spread all the way across. Although the I fire department's very close. But nonetheless, I think the openness might create some desireability and to have that center island in there for cars to pull in probably would be a little better than what's existing. If in the event ' that, and I don't see any real need for semi's to come in and out of there. There's other ways they can get to it but if they were to try to go through there, clearances would be I think a problem as well. They wouldn't make the ' turn, number one. Number two, they wouldn't make those clearances. So I think, I don't know. To me that openness I think would probably be more of a plus than having that canopy and yet we'll save that $80,000.00 or $90,000.00 as well. Councilman Workman: I said this...trust me Paul. I don't know, does Bob care if the canopy's on there or not? Maybe it doesn't. I think, and Richard was talking about don't let the HRA make any artistic decisions. But we, or at least I and I know some of the other members of the Council kind of fought the ' 26 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 hotel to keep that front awning on the front. Can you imagine that hotel without that on there? I think everybody kind of agrees, geez we're glad they put that on there and they were going to put this little, there weren't going to put nothing I believe. And they were going to make it 4 feet long or something. Be a little stub or something. Councilwoman Dimler: But that's different. That's part of a building. Mayor Chmiel: That's a projection out and that's for the convenience for the people coming in and unloading and going into the hotel. Councilman Workman: I mean a semi driver's going to drive through there and clearly we're going to have a problem but I don't think. Mayor Chmiel: Even a tall truck. Just an 8 or 6 wheeler. Councilman Workman: Well, that's what insurance is for. I'm not going to worry about that. But you know, to me I've always imagined this thing with that and I don't know. Maybe Bob and Brad and everybody else, maybe it's not worth fighting for, I don't know. But to me you've got either two separate buildings or kind of a continuous flow with the canopy. Councilman Mason: It's starting to sound like beat up on Councilman Workman , night here. Councilman Wing: Tom, a lot of people that are much more artistic and better ' qualified than you have said no to this issue and I don't know what gives you the thought that you, you know looking at that drawing I've kind of got mixed emotions... The Mayor brings up good points of being practical but I'm kind of semi seconding with Tom. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think it looks great. I said that but I just don't want to spend the money. Councilman Wing: The money's an issue. I guess that's a turning point for me if that's the fact. , Councilman Workman: HRA money though. Councilwoman Dimler: I know but it's taxpayer's money. 1 Councilman Workman: But every dollar that goes into the project is being taxed back. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you benefit back. That's true but I guess I just don't know whether that's a real benefit. , Brad Johnson: Just to put this in perspective. We're not pitching it one way or the other. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone and please state your name and address. 27 , City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Brad Johnson: We're not pro or con this. It's your money and not our money. And we feel that you should make the decision and it has no ecnomic value. Originally it had I guess some aesthetic value. We didn't come here to propose it either way. So you don't have an architect telling you how great this would look if it was there and that type of thing. I think we can revisit this again. II We're not going to pull a building permit and we're not going to finalize the redevelopment agreement with the city for another 3 or 4 months I don't think so we're mainly getting the plans approved so that we can go ahead and primarily the site plan and the signage plans so we can go ahead and lease the building. So if you'd like to have us revisit this prior to our process, I think we can do that. Don't you think so Don? I don't think you have to spend an hour on that. I miss it too. I always thought it was going to be there so, but you know there's some pros and cons at the present time as to whether it's a good thing. This hangs in my office so I look at it and I don't know what it's going to look like if it doesn't look like this you know. II Mayor Chmiel: That's item number 4 on our recommendation. Is the city must decided whether or not a canopy should be built between the two phases of the I Medical Arts building. It doesn't say today. It doesn't say tomorrow. Brad Johnson: I think you're going to spend all night talking about this maybe and so I don't think you have to. You can recommend that it go, you know this I still goes back to the HRA for the redevelopment agreement. If they feel like they'd like to spend the money, you know maybe they could come back and suggest it. Mayor Chmiel: I just like that word monolithic. I Councilman Wing: Is anybody tonight addressing architectural standards of this building? I guess then I'll comment. On the little towers. The ones I'm looking at in the city kind of add a roof line but when we really get down to push and shove and you look in them, they're artificial. They're fake. They're I maybe just a little bit trendy and I just wonder if they were at all functional or if they were sort of classy or they had a touch but they look like they're an add on and they look like they're put on because it's sort of matches a certain I design standard right now. And I'm starting to dislike them because they're starting to look kind of cheap and artificial and an add on so just a comment. Councilman Workman: You mean the top towers? ' Councilman Wing: The little look outs. I Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can have a mannequin on the top there and appear like someone's waving. Councilman Workman: They're useable. It's a historical thing in that we're a German community. When the Germans come to liberate us, we're going to be up there in the tower. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, sorry I started this. Councilman Wing: One lantern if by land and. 1 ' 28 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilman Mason: Something like that. Councilman Wing: We need a motion of some sort here. t Councilwoman Dimler: Wait a minute. We need to talk about signage too. Councilman Mason: Yeah, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we have to address those things at this particular time. All we're doing is looking at this as a site plan review for the structure in itself. Councilwoman Dimler: But they might want some input as to what we'd like to 1 see. Councilman Mason: How's the sign ordinance coming along? 1 Councilman Workman: It kind of died on the hoof for now. Sharmin Al -Jaff: It's being worked on again. You'll have a meeting. ' Mayor Chmiel: They do have the sign covenants as you see item 9 within it. And that pretty much covers all the things. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess the question was on the illumination on the north side because of the apartments there. 1 Councilman Mason: It was commented somewhere in the report and I think people agreed to it that the parking lights were brighter than. Councilwoman Dimler: And they're turned off business hours but there was an argument as to what's after business hours for some people is 10:00. Especially if you have accountants and lawyers and those kinds of people in there. 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: I pulled the language from Phase I and it was the recommendation that you made. You came up with that lights be turned off after business hours so I just stayed consistent with Phase I. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. I think it's a good idea but what are business hours? I guess has that been established? Mayor Chmiel: I think there were concerns because of the Heritage Park Apartments so those lights were off at a specific time rather than constantly 1 being on. Councilwoman Dimler: What's been done with the present building? Sharmin Al -Jaff: I was up there yesterday at night and the lights were out. That was around 10 :00. So what time do they turn the signage off? I don't know. Councilwoman Dimler: No complaints? 29 , r City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Sharmin Al -Jaff: No complaints at all. Councilman Workman: To me I'm ready to approve this. I think we just have them do what they're doing now over there. I mean there's not a whole lot of difference. I would however, on page 2 there. That last paragraph about the 11 sign covenant and how staff is proposing changes. I would bolt for the door if I read that and I wouldn't develop this project but knowing what we went through on the other half but I guess we'll know more about that later. I'd move approval of Site Plan Review, Chanhassen Professional Building Phase II. Councilman Mason: Second. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Site Plan Review #88 -17? Councilman Workman: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: And with a second. Discussion. Councilman Wing: And with no decision on the canopy at this time? Councilman Mason: Yeah, are we scratching number 4 from that? Mayor Chmiel: Well that is not saying that we have to come up with a conclusion on it right now. At least that would be my suggestion. They will be pulling a permit but the construction won't be there and I think that can be looked at a ' little later time yet. Councilman Wing: You choose to deal with that at a later time? Mayor Chmiel: Right. It still is carried as item number 4 within with that clarification. Sharmin Al -Jaff: Does that mean we have to take it in front of you before they apply for a building permit or can they proceed with their building? Mayor Chmiel: I think they can proceed with their building permit but the discussion of the canopy still remains open. Whether it should be or not. I'm ready to go without it right now but I think Council is wanting to look at that a little closer. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm ready to go without. ' Councilman Wing: I think maybe a majority is willing to vote right now. Mayor Chmiel: Then I'll restate the question. We have a first and second with some additional discussions regarding the canopy to either have it in place or ' not. And I'd like to make that as a clarification to the motion as well as a second that this should also be discussed at this particular time. Prior to that motion. And I feel that the part be included into that motion would be to ' eliminate the canopy at this time. Councilwoman Dimler: I'd second that. 1 30 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: And go from there. Councilman Mason: That's fine with me. 1 Councilman Workman: We're going to eliminate it? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. • Councilman Workman: I thought you were saying we were going to wait on it. 1 Mayor Chmiel: That's what I said but I then restated it as you are discussing. Councilman Workman: I'd just as soon leave the option open. I will filibuster. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, there's a motion on the floor and a second. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there is a motion on the floor and a second to eliminate the canopy. Councilman Workman: Then I'll withdraw my motion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The second has to withdraw his motion as well. Then I would re- entertain a motion for the acceptance of the site plan review #88 -17 as shown on a site plan dated September 18, 1992 subject to the conditions number 1, 2, 3, 4 being eliminated indicating that the canopy should no longer be part of the building. And items 5, 6, 7 and 8 with the sign covenants 9 to go through each of those respective items a, b, c which each of the numbers. Councilman Wing: I second that for discussion. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Councilman Wing: I favor the canopy but not for $80,000.00 of HRA money. I agree with Ursula. If the developer so chooses and it's important put it in but not with city money. Councilman Workman: Could you repeat the motion? It's as the Planning Commission? Councilwoman Dimler: But without the canopy. 1 Mayor Chmiel: But without the canopy. Councilman Workman: And who's motion is that? Mayor Chmiel: I made the motion. ' Councilman Wing: I seconded it. Mayor Chmial: Ursula seconded it. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: And he thirded it. 31 , 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilman Wing: Oh. I thought you had a new one. Councilman Workman: I guess I preferred the leave it in as an option until a later date. 11 Mayor Chmiel: But as they go ahead and move forward acquiring their permits for this, it should be pretty much in place at this time. Any other discussion? Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve Site Plan Review $88 -17 as shown on the site plan dated September 18, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1 1. No restaurant may be located in the western one -half of the Phase II building. ' 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior. 3. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along West 78th Street. ' 4. No canopy shall be built between the two phases of the Medical Arts Building. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal's memo dated August 6, 1992. 6. 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 7. All HVAC equipment placed on the ground must be screened with landscaping. 8. Coordinate site improvements with the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 9. Sign covenants shall meet the following criteria: a. Wall Mounted Signs: 1. Signs are only allowed within a continuous 2'2" high band 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 project above or below the designated sign area. 2. All signs shall be comprised of individual letters and /or 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 having a ' maximum of 14 signs total on the north and south sides. Copy is restrictied to the tenant's proper name or service offered, i 32 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 4. Signs on the north and south elevations shall be illuminated. The lights of the signage on the north side of the building, facing the Heritage Park Apartments, shall be turned off when business hours are over. b. Free Standing Signs: 1 1. Mounument Sign: One single sided monument sign for building identification (not tenant identification) may be placed in the southwest yard between the building and the sidewalk. The top of the sign may not exceed 4 feet in height. The dimensions of the sign may not exceed 2 feet high by 14 feet wide. The copy shall have a maximum height of one foot and be internally illuminated. c. General: 1 1. One non - illuminated temporary real estate sign which advertise sale of the building or space for lease within the building. This sign must meet the City's current sign ordinance requirements. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. ' 3. Stop sign shall be installed at the exit point proposed on West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Roger Knutson: It was addressed to me, this one's mine. Only because Paul went home. I was just supposed to relate to you that the Planning Commission has recommended approval. Two boats. There was no one in opposition...acceptance. Councilwoman Dimler: What about the swimming raft though? 1 Mayor Chmiel: That was included in the Planning Commission's recommendations. Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: So they recommend two boats with a swimming raft. Roger Knutson: That is correct. Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval. 1 Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Councilman Wing: I would ask Ursula, just as a friendly amendment, include a notation of the deck setback zone as part of the approval process. So that's 33 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 clarified. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Isn't that part? I mean that's understood. Councilman Wing: I'd just like it in the permit so it's documented. Mayor Chmiel: Also, those boats being moored outside of the swimming beach area. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I'll accept that. ' Councilman Mason: So will the second. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Non - Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association allowing no dock, two boats to be moored outside of the ' swimming beach area and within the dock setback zone and a swimming raft. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' HIGHWAY 5 FRONTAGE ROAD PROJECT, LETTER ACKNOWLEDGING ROLE OF MNDOT AND CITY. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, do we have any questions on this item? ' Councilwoman Dimler: I do. Councilman Wing: Oh, okay. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I've got a thousand things. Mayor Chmiel: I don't have a lot. ' Councilman Wing: If I moved acceptance, would that allow you to cover your issues on discussion or do they go beyond that? Mayor Chmiel: Well, one of the things I want to make sure is that if they don't know, I'm sure that people should be made aware. All property owners in and ' adjacent to Highway 5 on the north side of TH 5 are well aware and be notified again that this will be taking place with MnOot's proposed construction of Highway 5 from County Road 17 to Highway 41. And that all property owners in and adjacent should be well aware because we're talking about two different ' things. We're talking about a service road to the north. We're talking about a service road on the south but the south service road is not going to be located approximately as close to Highway 5 as what the north side will be. The south ' side's going to meander several hundred feet from point to point and so with that I see we have a return and we voted on it and thank you for your comments. No, we're discussing item number 11 which is Highway 5 frontage road project. ' And we're discussing some of the different things on it and what's going to be taking place. There's some questions that I have but maybe with your infinite wisdom you can provide us the assurety that what we're talking about doing here is the best thing for the City. ' 34 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Don Ashworth: No question in my mind that it is in the best interest of. I find it very difficult to believe that we're going to be able to carry out the construction of that north frontage road and using solely dollars from the city. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we can't afford it. Don Ashworth: I just can't see where that's... I do believe that that's an integral part of the plan and I think that's a very important part because for citizens from the main portion of town to be able to travel safely out to Lake Ann Park and similarly from new residential areas that are going to be created to the west, to similarly get to Lake Ann and even into downtown because if you look at that north frontage road, it's kind of a continuous way throughout the community. That's going to be the most logical way to get into the downtown area. Then the question becomes one of how could you, if you can't do it with city funds, how in the world could it get done. I think that the Bill Morrish plan, and taking that over to Mn0ot and the Mayor has been very important in 1 those series of meetings with Crawford and finally getting their agreement to incorporating that as a part of that project. They will act as the, help me with the acronym Don. RUG? GUR? Mayor Chmiel: The RGU. Regulated Governmental Unit. Don Ashworth: As a part of this process which literally makes it a slam dunk to ensure that we do get Federal and State dollars. There is a cost to the City associated with it but what's occurred is over, it started out with them at approximately $2 million and ourselves at $1 million. Now we have them for $2.5 million and ourselves at $500,000.00. Our costs are primarily for the things that we would want over and above what it is that the State might ordinarily build. I would propose that the funding for this come out of three tax increment districts. The larger district which goes between CR 17 and Audubon. McGlynn, which is between Audubon and CR 117. And by the time that this project is finalized or the major portion of the costs being paid, there will be a third district and my own, I believe that would exist between CR 117 and TH 41. If that didn't exist, the other two could split it. But with Opus coming on line, or at least starting to look to development of that property. That could be well over a million square feet of new development just in the Opus development area. This simply puts us in track to be able to ensure that the frontage road project does occur with Highway 5. The only thing I feel sorry for is that the north frontage road isn't being built today. That's the only regret. Mayor Chmiel: Well it should, yeah. The question I was just going to ask on that, with MnDot looking at putting the balance of this road in by 1996? Don Ashworth: The same, they would build it paralleling Highway 5 construction. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Would there be any chance for MnDot to get that service road in prior to that time? Don Ashworth: Once we've completed the EA, I would see that would be good strategy for potentially you and I to meet. with Bill and see what we can do to push up the schedule. Because at that point in time they'd have it approved. It would simply be a matter of what's the logical construction date and we could go on the premise that we did in his office from, whatever months ago, that this 35 -- City Council Meeting October 12, 1992 should be looked at as freeing up the construction for Highway 5. They could literally move it to the north frontage road. Open up the whole area. They could save almost 6 to 12 months of construction. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and using that, they could also use that road as you said. As egress on there and really pound at getting that completed, Don Ashworth: Once they have finished the EA process to ensure that it is incorporated and the Fed's have agreed that it's a part of that project, that ' would be the time that I'd walk over there and say, okay. Now how do we accelerate it's construction. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, alright. Good. The other point, when you were gone. We mentioned the fact that making all of these property owners fully aware of this situation. On both sides of Highway 5. That this process is in place and it's going to be moving and give them some timeframe. Don Ashworth: Isn't that really part of the agenda of the Highway Task Force? Mayor Chmiel: I think it is but yet just to double check and make sure that no one misses, I think that that probably should be done. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would really stress that point because I know ' that we've had discussions and Mr. Gorra came in and some other people came in to discuss their concerns. I mean this heavily impacts some property owners and for us to even have gone this far in the process without them having been ' involved, I'm just amazed. I think we're going to run into some problems there. Mayor Chmiel: There was some notifications in news media about some of this ' taking place. Councilwoman Dimler: But I mean them being directly as property owners notified. And then also, just a second. I asked last time too that, have we ' got any idea what it's going to cost us? I see here that all frontage road right -of -way costs will be a city expense. Do we have any idea what that might be and do these estimates up here include that land acquisition cost or not? Last time they didn't. I don't think they reflect it now either. Don Ashworth: They do not. I don't have that number for you. Councilwoman Dimler: Because that might be quite expensive. And would that come out of HRA? Is that what you're saying? Don Ashworth: Well yeah. All of the costs would be eligible costs under all three of the districts so it's going to take the total cost and dividing it by three and back to each one. But the issue, you bring out a good point. ' Especially as it relates to, how many of the existing parcels are they proposing to take? For example, it's going to be a total taking for Kerber. Is that taking seen as something that MnDot would be, if for the highway right -of -way they need to take his property, then our being in the northerly portion of that ' property is not a major expense. If we have to take his property in total, including his house, that's going to be a higher expense. 36 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: And also possibly you're going to be knocking out all of Swings, which is a total taking. I mean these are major impacts on these property owners. I think they should be involved in the process. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I should withdraw that portion of what I said before. What we should do is just get the service road in from CR 17 to Lake Ann Park and then let MnDot acquire all the additional right -of -way that they have to because they're willing to put that service road in for us in and adjacent to it. That would be their dollars being spent to acquire that right -of -way. , Don Ashworth: Why don't we table action on this and potentially have an additional meeting with MnDot. There's some major dollars that are on the table in terms of our agreeing to the construction through Lake Ann which, by the way is not that much. 5O feet or something. We may be giving up the opportunity to really use that to ensure that we get as many MnDot dollars into the project as we can, which would include right -of -way acquisition. Or at least some better...than what we have now. Councilwoman Dimier: That seems a more reasonable approach. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion to table this particular item until further discussion is done with MnDot? Councilwoman Dimier: So moved. Councilman Workman: Second. ' Councilwoman Dimier moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the Highway 5 Frontage Road Project, the letter acknowledging role of MnDot and City until further discussion is had with MnDot_ All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPOINTMENT TO THE SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT BOARD. ' Mayor Chmiel: Being that Mr. Mason is going to be going over, it would be nice if Mr. Wing consents to the fact that he would just serve on that board. Either fully or for an interim period until other Council people are on board. Councilman Wing: You do whatever you want. I won't be at the meetings but will 11 it sound good? If I'm at home I'll go but between the Fire Department and the City and another item. Mayor Chmiel: You wife won't allow you. ' Councilman Wing: Well I simply can't get them all off. Mayor Chmiel: And I wouldn't disagree with that. Councilman Wing: I don't mind the time. I just simply cannot schedule the time. Councilman Mason: I was just going to say. We don't have to wait until someone gets sworn in. I mean right after the election someone could be appointed ' 37 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 ' couldn't they? Mayor Chmiel: Sworn in or sworn at. Councilman Mason: Well a little bit of both probably. I mean someone could be appointed as soon as, well by the November meeting couldn't they? Councilman Workman: What is the rule? We have to have a City Council member? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Two City Council members. Councilman Workman: I think we can, they only have monthly meetings. ' Councilman Wing: I'll take it in the interim. There's no problem with that. I'll be happy to do that. I just don't intend to. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would someone make a motion? Councilman Workman: I would move Richard Wing to the Southwest Metro Transit Board. Councilman Wing: I'll second it. ' Councilman Mason: Can he do that? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes he can. ' Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to appoint Richard Wing to the Southwest Metro Transit Board. All voted in favor and the lotion carried. !' COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: REVIEW ANIMAL ORDINANCE SECTION REQUIRING THAT CATS BE LEASHED, COUNCILMAN WORKMAN. Councilman Workman: I was going to bring this up. There's a couple in town. They've got ticketed. It's another one of those ordinances where I have two neighbors and they have cats and they don't bother me so those people are allowed to let their cats run free because it's really an ordinance you don't enforce. We don't enforce cats. But if you live next door to somebody who doesn't like your cat or your cat happens to go to the bathroom in your kids sandbox or other, then you have a problem. Then you call up City Hall and say, ' my neighbors got a cat and obviously that's a protection. That's why we have the ordinance. There was a couple in town who were quite angry with the fact that they had to keep control of their cat. I'm reminded of the politician that I heard at a State Conference Committee and he said, trying to get all these groups together was like herding cats. Imagine that. You can't herd cats and you see you can't verbally command a cat and you can't, you know what I mean? My dog, he'll stop at the property line when I tell him. Her to. So cats are ' kind of different. I understand why we have it as a protection for the people who do have neighbors who have cats running all over and they don't like them but it's another one of those ordinances where people, it's selective enforcement. I don't like my neighbor so I'm going to call up on their cat. Or 38 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 I don't like my neighbor so I'm going to call up on their dog because it's hardly an ordinance that we can enforce. But since those people aren't here to back all this malarky up, I guess I'll leave it go and then when I can get together with them, like the last meeting in Oecember...so we ban them from the parks. Even on leashes you can't take a dog in the park so we've got all these people with pets. People and pets are coming out of their ears and they've got noplace to go and have you ever gone by a house where they've got a cat on a leash? It's the funniest thing you've ever seen. It's almost as funny as a rabbit. A rabbit on a leash and so while we've got the ordinance and one sentence, all dogs and cats must be on a leash. It's really an ordinance that is selectively enforced. And we can talk about that later. REQUEST TO MODIFY SPEED LIMIT ON TH 101 BETWEEN HILL STREET AND WEST 78TH STREET, COUNCILMAN WORKMAN. Councilman Workman: I was at a party earlier this summer and a lot of neighbors ' in my neighborhood where we live by that corner. You're all familiar with that corner and the traffic is getting more and more every day. And they all complained to me, of course on one of my days off, that we've got a problem with speed on that corner. Can't you do something? Suddenly it was my road. What I found out was, through engineering and Dave Hempel is that they went out there, MnDot, and they did a study. And the study said everybody's going 45 mph out there. In this corner where there's. Councilwoman Dimler: 50. Councilman Workman: Everybody's going 50 mph out there and so we're going to set it up 45 right. It was at 40. Now we're going to set it at 45 because that's what everybody's going. Well in that case we should have downtown ' Chanhassen at least 50 okay. I understand their reasoning but I don't believe they're taking into account the corner and the fact that that boat access and fishing house and the winter access is all coming out there. People taking lefts and rights and they're coming around that corner so fast. I live near there. I hear the squealing and the screeching all the time. Not to mention that if you're going to make a left coming the west into my neighborhood, there's no turn lane by the apartments and so people in the wintertime are going, tripping and spilling over into the ditch. And there's police cars and everybody else out there. I think it's ludicrous that they raised it. They should have left it alone. If anything, my desire is to work with staff and the City Council and I'd like the City Council, I don't know if we can. Maybe they can help me direct staff but I'd like staff to work with MnDot to somewhere just north of the curve, start to slow these people down somehow. Now granted I understand from 4 years on the Council that just putting a sign up and saying 20 mph doesn't mean they're going to go that way. But to start slowing them down on that corner because they're, you know. And they're getting to that intersection down there and we're going to read the Taco intersection and they're cruising into that intersection, so. Mayor Chmiel: Charles, could we on existing speed limits, number one. Get that speed reduced even though MnDot's saying that they were going 50 so they put it down to 45 when it was 40 previously. Secondly, on those signs, can we put radar patrolled? That has tendencies to start slowing people down when they see that. 39 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Charles Folch: To answer your first question. The City itself of course does not have the jurisdiction to be able to by themselves lower that. Number two, what I would foresee happening here. With the future completion next year if everything goes well, of the north leg TH 101 improvement project, you're now creating an urban section from the southerly access of South Shore Drive back ' towards, it's going to be a signalized intersection with a double crossing of a railroad track. I'm confident MnDot is going to be very interested at our request to revisit that issue of speeds in that general area. What also may be ' an appropriate idea is, I might even be able to bring in MnDot's traffic enginee. At a future Council meeting we could invite the effected neighborhood in and maybe we can basically discuss with the traffic engineer from MnDot what ' the concerns are and maybe that would bring things to a head. As far as adding the additional information on the speed limit signs, as far as radar patrolled. Certainly we can, that's a sign that's accepted and we could certainly attach that to the speed limit signs. Whether or not that will guarantee reduction or not of course is not know. Mayor Chmiel: I think people sort of respect those signs, at least I do. And ' more often than not I'm also known as a lead foot as well but I think the point being is that that's not the only area that needs it. I think we need it on downtown because when I had that radar gun and I was checking speeds, we were getting 45 and 50 and we had that many because many of them were at the 30 mph ' speeds or at 35 but there are a slight few that go 50 mph down our main street, which is 78th and I have real concerns with our pedestrians within the city. And I've been having discussions with some of the business people in downtown ' saying, they have a hard time trying to get across 78th Street. And they're not elderly. I mean they're young enough and agile enough where they can move but yet something has got to be done with that. ' Charles Folch: The only, well one adverse long term effect that I can see is if you're going to put some sort of secondary information like radar enforced on, that may have an impact initially but over time, if it's not enforced. If the ' people aren't seeing patrol cars out there, they aren't seeing people stopped getting tickets written, after a few months they'll learn to ignore the sign. ' Mayor Chmiel: I'm not advocate of giving them tickets just because of giving them tickets. I'm concerned about the people within town and I've asked Public Safety to get our radar out there on a more frequent basis than what we're ' doing. The Sheriff is sitting on 78th early mornings and zapping people coming through. And yet it doesn't seem to do the trick and maybe giving tickets, citations is the way to go. I'm not advocate of it by any means but somehow we're going to have to start slowing them down just like they do when you're ' going into Excelsior. You get into Excelsior and by God you slow down to 30 mph. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Everybody does. Mayor Chmiel: And if you don't, you know what happens. ' Charles Folch: It is enforced and that's the key right there. Councilman Workman: On county roads, and that is a county road all the way to ' Excelsior right? 1 40 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 ' Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilman Workman: Does MnDot set those? Can they set those speed limits also? Charles Folch: They have jurisdiction of speed limits over all roads. Councilman Workman: Because see in all the arguments that we've ever used and clearly in their memos you know about, you know we take the median speed that everybody's going and then that's what we do. Clearly people would be going 50 through that area of Excelsior. , Charles Folch: Taking the 85th percentile is just one of the criteria if you will they use to evaluate it. They also look at the geometrics of the road. The curves. How the spacing of the driveway and other type of intersection accesses. So 85 percentile speed is just one factor. It does play a big role but certainly if there's a lot of driveways or a sharp curve, they certainly won't allow that speed to be posted. Councilman Workman: Can we maybe try to attempt to get this together for the first meeting in November? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Charles Folch: You bet. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Councilman Mason: One real quick comment, and I did mean to get this on Council ' Presentation. It seems like every time I read through the administrative packet there's always a letter from another community thanking somebody on the Chan staff for helping them out. For the fine job they've done and it's, once again I think it just shows what the good things that are happening in the city and it's fun to read those letters. Nice to see them in there. Mayor Chmiel: It's good to bring that up. Thank you. Can I have a motion for adjournment? Councilman Mason: So moved. , Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Mayor Chmiel: John, did you want to say something before we close it? John Pryzmus: No, I just came on by. I seen in the paper that there was a deal on the frontage road... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we talked about it some and in fact we were requesting that the City notify everybody again as to where it is. What we're looking at. What the status is. What the timeframes might be. And I think what they're looking at is probably about 1996 so... (The tape ended at this point in the discussion.) 41 1 1 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.. 1 Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager 1 Prepared by Nann Opheim • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 42 1 /11 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 7, 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes, and Joan Ahrens I MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician PUBLIC HEARING: ' LUNDGREN BROS. PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 41, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND ADJACENT TO 7305 HIGHWAY 41 (HAZELTINE BOULEVARD): A. REZONE 93 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PUD. ' PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. B. PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 112 SINGLE FAMILY ' LOTS AND 8 OUTLOTS. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. ' Public Present: Name Address ' Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros, 935 E. Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. ' Ken Adolf Ron Peterson Schoell & Madsen, Inc. Wetland Specialist Bruce Buxton 401 Golf Course Drive, Baxter, MN Thomas W. Green Box 5055, Brainerd, MN ' Tim Keene Larkin - Hoffman Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparral Lane David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd. ' Paul Savargen 9950 No. Shore Road, Waconia ' Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is ' Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President of land development for Lundgren Bros. at 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata. As you may recall, we were before you not too long ago with this concept plan approval and at that meeting the Planning Commission embraced our concept almost entirely and passed it onto the City Council for their review. At the City Council meeting held recently, they also accepted the recommendations of the Planning Commission and also agreed on a couple other fine points that we ' had presented to the City and approved that concept plan approval and as you know now we're back before you for the preliminary plan approval. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 2 ' Before we go any further, let me just introduce the development team to you in case you have any questions of those professionals that I can't answer. To my immediate right is Ken Adolf. He's our consulting engineer and he's with Schoell and Madsen. To his immediate right is Mr. Ron Peterson and he ' is our wetland specialist. And over here in the corner is Mr. John Uban and he's a principle with the firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, and they have attended all the meetings previously with me. Because you're already so familiar with this proposal as we've pretty much covered most of the details conceptually during previous meetings, out of courtesy to you and I know you have a full agenda, I ' thought what we would do is go directly to the recommendations in the conditions. Since we last met, and since the City Council meeting of a couple weeks ago, there have been some additional conditions imposed upon this approval and I thought it would be important for us to go through ' those this evening and clarify some of them and discuss the remainder. What I'm handing out to you is what is on the overhead and basically it is just a repeat of the recommendations that you have before you in your packet with below it, or in the margin, our comments and I'll just go through these as quickly as I can and if at any time you have any questions or you choose to interrupt me and ask a question, please do so. On some of these I will actually have our engineers or the planners or the wetland specialist address them. Under the first items related to the approval of the PUD, we have no comment on either number 1 or number 2. On the recommendations in the conditions related to approval of the preliminary ' plat (92 -4PUD) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions. We are requesting that you delete what is being proposed in the recommendation and inserting in it's place the following. The front ' yard setback for each lot may be a minimum of 20 feet from the street right -of -way. The intent being to minimize the impact on the natural features of constructing a new home on each homesite. The lots that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lots 1, 14 -19, 37 -43, ' 52 -57, Lots 62, 65, 73, 74 and 78 -81 in Block 2. In addition to these lots, staff has also recommended similar flexibility on the following lots. Lots 22 -24, Lots 30, 31, 46, 47, 58 -61 and 66 -72 in Block 2. The reason ' that we are asking for that is because if it states as proposed that they shall maintain a 20 foot period. That means that that has to be the setback. 20 feet. Now the idea, and I think that we're on the same wavelength as the staff on this and of the Planning Commission for that ' matter, because we discussed that at a previous meeting. The idea behind the flexibility is to insure or to give the capability to move that structure around a little bit to try to maybe save something. There might ' be a tree there. There could be something to give you that flexibility but if you say that everyone has to be 20 feet, what happens if at 24 feet you'd save a tree? We think that flexibility is an important item. The ' next item, number 2, we do not have a problem with. Item number 3, we would prefer to modify that and the reason that we would prefer to modify it is based upon my discussion with the Fire Marshal Mr. Littfin and he had concerns about reducing the cul -de -sac diameter to 100 feet and we indicated to him that that would not be a problem for us. We could maintain that larger diameter and we could work with that. Batzli: Excuse me one minute. Jo Ann, Was this originally done? Dropped down to 100 in order to reduce the grading. Was that the only reason that we had done that? 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 3 Olsen: Right. Yes, we're fine with that. Terry Forbord: And we /agree with engineer Dave Hempel in that the collector street right -of -way should not be reduced to 50 feet. We think because of the nature of that roadway and the fact that there will be a I sidewalk there, that we should leave that at a higher, and I'm not exact sure what right -of -way you're proposing. What is that, Dave? Hempel: 60 feet. 1 Terry Forbord: 60 feet, okay. Olsen: That condition just referred to local streets. Not the collectol Terry Forbord: On page 2, items 4 thru 7, we are in agreement with. On item number 8 of the same page, right now the recommendation, the condit tr of this recommendation states that the area shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetati . What we are proposing instead would be that a tree removal plan, approve by the City staff, will be required for each lot in the subdivision prior to the issuance of a building permit. There shall be no clear cutting 111 permitted for any lot except for the placement of the house pad and utilities. Clear cutting is defined as removal of any vegetation with a 4 inch caliper or more at 4 feet in height. And I've taken this paragraph, from a developers agreement between the city and Lundgren Bros on the Summit at Near Mountain and it's worked quite well. It was actually I think proposed by the city. The reason that we're proposing this instea is because the way that it's written now, you couldn't build any .home. couldn't build any streets and you couldn't put any utilities in which would preclude us, obviously we wouldn't be able to proceed. Batzli: Can I interrupt you one more time Terry? 1 Terry Forbord: Yes sir. Batzli: Have you guys seen this before? Or did Terry just give this to you guys as well? Olsen: Just now. ' Terry Forbord: I did not get a chance to get this to them. We had the staff report late Monday and between now and then there was no time to respond and get back to them. Krauss: Excuse me, did you want us to raise some questions or can we ra e some questions on some of these? Batzli: Yeah. Yeah. I'd rather now have to go back through it so if ylt have questions, you bring them up. Terry Forbord: We could back up if you'd like. 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 4 Krauss: Well this is on number 8. I think we're comfortable up to that ' point. Olsen: Terry is correct in saying that that's the wording for Summit and ' we've had some difficulty in the tree removal plans where you'll have a tree removal plan. You'll see that the house pad is showing the removal of some of the trees that you had intended to save. Then you're out on the site. It's between you and the homeowner and well, that's where I have to ' have my house. So you end up losing trees that were supposed to be preserved. And this is, I was just kind of roughly this up right now but the blue area shows the trees on the site. The solid blue areas are the ' trees that are being removed so the highlighted areas that have not been shaded in are the treed areas that are... Anyway, you can see that the house pads will still have room in the clear areas and these are the areas ' that we're saying are to be shown to be preserved. That's one of the whole reasons that the PUD has been proposed and is being accepted. We're sayins that fine. We've agreed that those are all to be saved. Let's save them. And they are not in areas where the utilities are going to be going. ' They're beyond the house pad area and this is what we did with the Willow Ridge PUD and it's been working very well. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair? Batzli: Yeah. ' Terry Forbord: Perhaps there's just some confusion in the language and the understanding. What I was interpretting what staff's condition was, was that the areas in blue would not be able to be, they'd have to be in a ' preservation zone. And obviously there's streets and there's house pads it there and that would be very difficult. It was just my interpretation of what I was reading. Is it my understanding that the area then that's in ' white is the preservation zone? Olsen: Right. The area that you're showing. That plan shows all the vegetation. It shows the vegetation that's being removed and our intent was the vegetation that's not being removed, to be preserved. John Uban: Maybe I could. Some of our confusion I think came from the ' point that when we were before you last time, we had discussed not removinc as many trees and allowing the home placement. The actual building of the home to be fitted into the trees that could be saved and not torn out ' during the construction process of putting in utilities, building pads and the roads. We do have some places on this particular map where we anticipate the home and the woods will meet. And there may be the need to remove some trees based on the construction that we actually find happeninc when we're out there and do the final plans. What we don't want to happen is to have that construction process, the final design and siting of each home to be inhibited by a preservation area that could use some adjustment. So what we were suggesting is, rather than the strict preservation based or our preliminary plan at this point, that a preservation happen later on after we're better able to adjust. That's why we suggested this different wording so each site could be looked at specifically. II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 5 1 Batzli: Let me ask you this question. On the plat we're looking at, if you come around the podium and you look up there, you show trees and thell house pads aren't anywhere near those preservation areas that Jo Ann has drawn up there. Now I don't understand. I mean you two are missing each other I think. Jo Ann is saying there are tree preservation areas which will be deeded as tree preservation areas. You haven't shown on your pl here, clearly not anywhere near any house pads or anything else. Is there a problem with preserving the tree areas that you show us tree areas on e plat? You can save other trees. Terry Forbord: Yes. Batzli: We're not telling you to cut down all the other trees but we're, saying these trees in particular are ones that we want preserved. John Uban: The actual drawing and putting an easement on the plat prior c construction may not accurately show the edge that will actually be crea ec when you put each one of the homes in place and make those final adjustments. We may decide, and hopefully we'll find some trees that wel can save in the construction process. It may be in a sideyard or a fron of a house. We may wish to move the house back or twist it a little bit and...adjustments may be inhibited if we too early set a line that says I this is the line for tree preservation. Hopefully, the process we had suggested with individual site plans that show how that tree preservation works would be the best way to match the home with a site and have that 1 preservation take place. Batzli: But see I see a big difference between your condition, which sa s nothing about tree preservation area. All you're talking about is t'ou'r going to submit a tree removal plan. This would be a preservation area which would be part, it would run with the land. Am I right? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. We don't have a problem with the concept of I what you're saying. Here's where the problem exists and we're already starting to feel this a little bit in a previous development. When we t F academically about these kinds of things and we try to create in the narrative what's going to happen, we try to draw these lines to scale of inch equals 100 and 1 inch equals 50 feet. And all that looks real wonderful but if any of you have ever even done any landscaping your yar or done any kind of work where you actually get out into the real world al you're dealing with dirt and you're trying to make some things work, I mear that fine line disappears. I mean it disappears. There's no such thing a fine line. That fine line becomes 10 feet. Becomes 15 feet. And it � becomes impossible to do something. For instance, if you're building a home, you've got to have a perimeter around that home of probably of anywhere from 10 to 15 feet minimum, just to be able to function and to II operate and everything's going to be wrecked inbetween. Unfortunately. It'd be neat if there was a better way but so far there hasn't been one developed and all we're saying, it's where that envelope, that building envelope meets the preservation zone is where the adjustment somehow need to be made and that's where it gets real difficult to start dealing with. As far as everything beyond that, everything beyond that envelope or tha construction zone, I don't have a problem with having a preservation zon But what happens is that, if you clearly try to say here's exactly where Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 6 i it's going to be, well then you say, you know how do you predict what a ' house that isn't even there yet, how it's going to fit in that. And so somehow I think that it's important that, and this is what we do in other cities as well and this is what we've done already in this city. We bring forth, here's the plan. Here's the house for this lot. Here's the tree preservation plan for this lot, and it works quite well, or it has in the past. Batzli: How do you react to my comment that your tree preservation, well your tree removal is not equivalent to a tree preservation area which is a condition of approval? ' Terry Forbord: Like I indicated, we don't have a problem with a preservation zone. I think it's the language or the semantics that we come up with right where the construction envelope touches that zone. What is it going to be? The way I interpret this right now, and maybe I'm being too paranoid too. I mean that's possible but I'm the guy that has to go out and live and breathe it and make it work. And what we're already ' finding is that these are very difficult parameters. I think that it's fair to say and I believe that you would agree with me. You trust that we have the same motivations that you do and I trust that we're on the same ' wave. We want to save as many trees as possible. It's to my benefit. It's to my customer's benefit but I do know for a fact that when I get out there it's not as easy as what you see on those pretty drawings in the real world and so we're trying to figure out a way to make that work. And maybe somebody has a better idea than I've been able to come up. Batzli: But we don't gain a preservation easement though. Terry Forbord: I'm willing to grant a preservation easement outside of the building zone, as long as we have that capability that we're not going to have that problem. ' Batzli: When does that happen though then? ' Emmings: That has to happen early. Krauss: Yes. It has to happen now with the plat and frankly that's all ' we've ever asked for. We are not trying to pick and choose homes that you have to shoot uh, I'm sorry. Trees that you have to shoehorn a home inbetween. We frankly have found over the years that this tree cutting plan, and it's not only with Lundgren. It's been used in a lot of projects, is a meaningless exercise. I mean I will save every tree that I don't have to cut down. Well, that's nice. We're not trying to restrict the type of homes. We're not trying to restrict' where you put the home. ' We're saying set up a reasonable pad. Set up a reasonable area for the deck. Where there's trees coming into that lot, set up a reasonable line beyond which cutting should not occur. Now if they can pick and choose and save trees between there and the street because they shoehorn the house in, more power to them. But we don't want to get into the business of regulating individual trees like that. That's too difficult. We just don't want to do that. ' Terry Forbord: I agree 100% with what staff just said. 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 7 1 Emmings: Then how do you define the no cutting zone? ' Krauss: They're obligated to show us a building pad on each lot. If it's a 15 foot clear zone beyond that, so be it. You just boot the line further back. It's no different than establishing a no cut line around IL wetland. You make your best estimate of where it is and you shoot that line. It's not a new technology. , Terry Forbord: I think we're talking the same language here. In fact we want to take this even a step further in that it's possible that some of the trees in this area that are cross hatched, that are shown for remova will actually be there when it's done because we'll be trying to save th tree and then try to get the house in behind it. So from the comments that I've just heard from staff, I think we're talking the same language. Ho precisely you put that in a narrative and make it so, I'm not exactly su� but I know we're talking the same language. I do not have a problem putting it in a preservation zone beyond the building pad and I think that's what they're saying also. Emmings: I have a question here. We've called these conservation easements in the past and now we're calling it a preservation area. Is ' that the same thing? Krauss: It's one in the same. Olsen: It's one in the same. I think with Willow Ridge we did call it preservation. We switched over so that's why we're doing it. And then just one final thing is that we were basing it on this plan that you see I here and even in our narrative of the report, we did point out that they are showing the trees right up to the edge and aren't providing that 15 foot area around the house pad and that we do want to have the plans to II reflect that. To be honest and say that, when they show the reduced grading, they now show it right up to the house pad and we're saying, well really you're going to be 15 feet beyond there and so that's what we are agreeing to. That yes, there will be removal of trees beyond that. Not ' right up. We understand the house pads. That they won't. Emmings: Jo Ann, essentially so I understand. Are the areas you've outlined as the preservation areas on this map, at least roughly the sam as what we're seeing in dark green? Olsen: Well we're both using the same information but this is not what 1 you're going to get. I honestly believe that there will be less trees preserved than what you see on both of these plans because they are not showing that 15 foot leeway around the building pad and that's one of th � reasons we pointed that out in the report was just to say that the tree removal has been reduced but yet the plans aren't really showing all that will be removed. ' Emmings: But the area that will be in the preservation zone is yet to be agreed upon between the staff and the developer? We're just saying ther� s going to be one. II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 8 I Olsen: Well there will be a plan similar to this and if Terry wants to adc I that 15 feet, then yeah. That would be the plan that we would go with. Terry Forbord: And I think you can even add to that by what I've just stated previously. Is that it's possible that some of those trees that are I now scheduled to be removed will not be removed. And again, these things are, it's not an accurate science. When you're driving you know a Laterno or a Caterpillar, dual engine, I mean it's just not that precise and so I what you try to do is you try to save it as best that you possibly can. What I'm hearing is that we're in 100% agreement with the staff. Is what I am hearing here and these are things that when you get into the actual final design documents, these things become a little more fine tuned and I then actually in the developers contract you get further into the language so I don't see this as a problem based upon what I've heard. I Batzli: So even if we said something like, the areas as substantially shown on the plans or something. These are the areas that we're trying to preserve. You're comfortable with that. 1 Terry Forbord: Yes sir. Batzli: Okay. I Terry Forbord: Are there any other questions related to number 8? Number 9 was that this has come up before you folks and I think you directed the I staff to work with the applicant. It went to the City Council and they deleted this item. And because staff felt that it was important they had requested that it be placed back on. And this requirement basically would I require that the applicant would provide the city with "as- builts ", locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. Let me give you a little bit of background of what this means. An as -built would be an 1 engineered drawing that would show you a cross section of a building site that would show the depth, width, height, all drawn into detail of what was done on a lot in a subdivision if it had soil corrections done. For each I lot that had them. Now, in many subdivisions there is a considerable number of lots that have soil corrections done to them and it's because yon have to make your site balance and make all the dirt work and the water I flow where you want it and the roads have to go and the house pads, I mean it's a complicated thing that you're trying to do. And so in some areas you're going to end up either adding dirt or you're going to be trying to cut dirt and if some of the existing dirt that's there is poor dirt or if I it's an organic nature and it has some, it compresses and it does not become firm, you can't build a house pad on it. So you have to go througl of stripping of that out and then you put in dirt and lifts of maybe 1 foot I or 2 foot and you compact it with a roller. Then you put in another lift and you do that until you get it to the elevation that you want to get it at. The problem with all this, and it works quite well, but if you had to do an engineered drawing for each lot, you would add $400.00 to $500.00 of I cost to each lot and you'd have a piece of paper that did not solve your problem. Now I think that in my discussion with the building inspector, the problems that they have had in the past typically. Not always but I typically have been when they have a developer who is not the builder. Anc if he's here, I'm sure he can address those. I don't know if he's here or II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 9 1 not. But in the case with Lundgren Bros. we are the builder. We do the work in there. We build the homes and we're there from the very beginnif to the very end. Now there's two situations that, two solutions or remedies that we have as a builder. If in fact we have corrected the soil on a lot, and then we sell a house to someone and it's typically like a corner of a house may just get off the building pad a little bit because you might want to tilt that house just to take advantage of the way the streetscape is or the way the cul -de -sac is. Or maybe it just looks bet r tilted so let's say you just tilt a house a little bit so typically if t s condition does happen, and this is the fear of the Building Inspector, maybe the corner of a house would just be off the edge of a "corrected building pad ". Okay there's two choices you have if you're the builder.' One, you can move the house back into an area where the soil is suitable Or two, you dig down further until you hit suitable soil and then you add additional courses of block. And now some of you may have heard this ty i of terminology before. Those are your two choices. Okay, so by having as -built doesn't solve either one of those problems. You wasted $500.00 and it didn't solve a problem. Now when I asked the Building Inspector, e agreed he had never had a problem with Lundgren Bros. on any situation 1 E this. That we had always gone ahead and if in fact we did go off of a building pad, that we always went about and built and constructed the housE in the manner that there would not be a problem. But the situation obviously just is one of those additional layers of regulations that you' could add and it wouldn't have to be just confined to this type of situation, that keeps adding to the prices of homes and it doesn't solve the problem. And I asked the Building Inspector, what would this provid� you with if in fact you had this? He said, well obviously what he could dc is he could have it to scale. When we submit for the building permit, h could take the house, reduce it to that scale and kind of jockey it arou on to see if it was on the building pad. But what are you really doing there again? You're dealing with drawings at 1 inch equals 100 feet. There's absolutely no accuracy whatsoever when you're doing something lilt that. You could not take a drawing reduced to that size and come up and say yeah, now you're on the pad. Now you're not. I mean you could be off 5 feet easily so from a realistic perspective, that's really not going t give you anything. So we would request that that item be deleted and wh we would rather do is what we're doing right now. We'd like to, the Building Inspectors come out. They inspect the dirt. The pad before th footings are poured and we would be happy to provide them with whatever information that is normally done. We've never been asked this in Chanhassen before. We've never been asked it in any other city that we've ever worked in 23 years and we feel it's just a level of bureaucracy thall wouldn't really help solve a problem. Batzli: Why is this in here? Krauss: Because the Building Inspector asked it to be. We have had, thJI Building Inspector has had problems. There have been homes that have slid off their building pad. I would agree with Terry that the situation whet those happened, I think there were 2 or 3 of them that happened, is not really germain necessarily to this situation because that was a project that had mass site grading. It was a cornfield. That's not the way thi is going to be developed. We have asked Steve Kirchman to think of some alternative measures that are less onerous that satisfy him and his II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 10 department. We assume that there don't e e are. I really don t know how to advise you on it. It's not something we have expertise in. The condition is worded such that alternative options should be looked at and we're not bound by one method or another. So I'd like to leave it in or leave it with some sort of a provision or provisionary note that says it should be resolved by the time it gets to the City Council. And at that point we car ask the Building Inspector to defend that or make that case themselves. ' Terry Forbord: We have added our recommendation to there and maybe that would suffice with what Paul just said, in that the applicant shall work with the Building Official to assure that each home is constructed on suitable soils. Krauss: Initially I would say that that's fine. I mean either way you read it, any alternative is possible. So the alternate language is fine. Batzli: Well, if for example the applicant had to receive approval of the city building official and he was requiring as- builts because he wasn't ' convinced that it was suitable soil, they'd have to provide that, right? Krauss: Correct. Yeah, and this is a new requirement for the Building Official. And we'd like him to research it a little further. But again, we don't have a good answer for you tonight. Ahrens: Couldn't we just change similar to other and leave... Krauss: Sure. Terry Forbord: Any further questions on number 9? Hearing none, item 10 and 11 are fine with the applicant. Item number 12. We would like to replace 12 with the following. That the applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development. ' The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. And individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D (cul -de -sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time of the exception parcel connects to the water and sewer service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the cost of installation of said improvements to said properties through credit of a trunk and sewer and water assessments. I think that our consulting engineer, Ken Adolf can explain this engineering item better to you than I can. ' Ken Adolf: The two locations that are requested as far as sewer and water extensions are the north side of the development. Sewer and water ' extension in this area from the north plat line, and another extension in this area to the corner of the exception. And also sewer and water service from the cul -de- sac... The developer is agreeing to do those but is requesting that some consideration be given to reimbursement of the costs ' for those extensions to serve other properties. The lift station which serves this entire area is located right there. So there's a fairly long connection required just to get from the lift station to the development. And if these facilities are going to serve other properties, we feel there's some basis for having some of these costs considered either trunk 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 11 improvements or some reimbursement or credit to the current assessments this property. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could address that condition. One other condition that was deleted I guess was the modified version was the applicant shall extend sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat II boundary. There is a small piece of high ground east of the subdivision that would be very difficult to serve with sanitary sewer when that parc develops. We anticipate sewer would be brought in from Galpin Boulevard r south of the property on up. There's a low ravine area that would have to be crossed and rather doubtful that there'd be elevation to service it a be a gravity so it is our recommendation then that Street A, at the easterly edge of the plat, that sewer be extended to that plat edge. Unl the applicant has other provisions to serve that parcel to the east. Ken Adolf: I forgot to address that that's an extension in this area. lie most easterly lot is right here and that house is really on the west portion of that property. It's kind of the top of the hill. This street grade is going to drop off fairly sharply and in order to service any of this area in the Song property would require lowering the sanitary sewer • considerably in this area. We feel that this area of the Song property would be better served by sanitary sewer being extended through the Song" property from the south. Terry Forbord: To the forcemain that's being constructed as a part of t trunk sewer project? Ken Adolf: Well actually it'd be a gravity sewer... Terry Forbord: What increase in depth would you anticipate in that collector road of the sanitary sewer if in fact it was extended in that portion easterly? 1 Ken Adolf: This street drops 10 or 15 feet in elevation from this point tc the plat line. 1 Terry Forbord: So the additional depth of the pipe. Ken Adolf: The sewer would have to be at least that much deeper to servile it. Terry Forbord: I think these are engineering items that the engineers cil possibly get together and work through. Batzli: Yeah. What I would suggest is that you have your consultant to to our City Engineers to see if that would even be feasible because I do t think that we can vote on that yea or nay without knowing whether the depths and everything else would work out. Terry Forbord: I think it's fair to say that Lundgren Bros, when we meet" with the City Engineers, as we always have in the past, we've always come to a conclusion that's been workable for the City and for us and so I thilk it's just a matter of having that opportunity to do so. Planning ommission Meeting 9 October 7, 1992 - Page 12 Emmings: What about the other changes they're suggesting there tonight... Hempel: Yes, typically the City would refund a portion of the service costs to the exception. We've done it on similar plats. Vineland Forest ' Addition. However, as far as the trunk sewer and water assessment, the City has not typically refunded those costs back to the developer. The cost the City would refund would be a lateral type assessment or cost for installing that section of main to service that parcel. The trunk sewer and water costs are assessed on a unit basis which, depending on the acreage and so forth, is how we arrive at the number of units to be assessed on the parcel. Therefore we would request that that be eliminated in their proposal. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. We'd like to go on record saying that a lateral ' benefit reimbursement would be acceptable to Lundgren Bros and we think it would be fair. Are there any other questions on number 12? On number 13. The existing business that's on Lot 1, Block 1, we've been asked to require to connect that to urban services. That business is going to be demolishec on January 3rd of 1994 at the latest. If the current owner can find a place to relocate to, then he will be moving sooner. I think it wouldn't be well advised to spend the kind of money to hook up a building to sewer and water that was going to be demolished in that short of a period of time period so we would ask that that would be struck from the recommendation. Krauss: We could agree to that. Terry Forbord: Number 14. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard ' specs and detail plates. We've asked that, except for the condition in recommendation number 3 above, which discussed the right -of -way reduction and also discussed leaving the cul-de-sac at 120 which everybody seemed to ' agree with, that shall be constructed in accordance with the latest editior of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Everything else to that remains the same. Emmings: I don't understand the change you're making. Terry Forbord: The change is if you look at item number 3, or condition ' number 3. It states that the preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street rights -of -way from 60 to 50 and reduce the cul -de -sac radius from 120 to 100. We've already discussed that item and it's already been acceptable but I believe the City's standard specifications show 60 foot right -of -ways and that's why I'm saying except for. And I think they'd agree with that. Hempel: Yeah. No, we've comfortable with that. Terry Forbord: On page 5, 22 thru 24 are, we're in agreement. Page 5. ' Did I skip a page? Emmings: Yeah, there's a page missing. Terry Forbord: Page 5, or mine are out of order. Excuse me. Page 4. 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 13 Emmings: Our's are too. Terry Forbord: How can those copying machines collate out of order. I' not figured that out. I apologize for any inconvenience. Emmings: You could work for the city if you do something like that. Terry Forbord: Number 15 and 16 are okay. And number 17, we would ask that that be modified so it would state that the grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation and we've struck the areas related to drain tiling because we do not know where existing drain tile on the site and we do not know if there's any proposed drain tiling. An so I'll let the engineer deal with this and discuss this because he's th one that has alerted me to this. Ken Adolf: Well as Terry said, it's really impossible to show the exist "c_ drain tile because no one really knows where they are. We do know that there are a number of tiles in the area. As far as proposed drain tile, where existing drain tile are encountered, we're proposing that those wol,c be, by encountered I mean during the construction process we're proposing that those would be either repaired or connected into some storm sewers that the drainage patterns would not be altered. Hempel: The reason why Mr. Chairman I believe that comment got put in there is one of the plans did show an existing drain tile through one of the wetland areas. Also, the plan showed a proposed drain tile to conne" the two wetlands I believe and we just would like to see that information also on the grading plan. Terry Forbord: It is true, we have discovered one drain tile. The drainage patterns, as our wetland specialist can tell you, would lead one to believe that the site is laced with them but we don't know where they are. They probably will be discovered once construction starts out ther And so it's difficult to put them on the grading plan now because nobody knows where they are, except for the one or two exceptions that exist bu I can assure you there are more than that. Batzli: You don't go out there with your little bent welding rods and k' c of dozz around there? Terry Forbord: I always wanted to learn how to do that. Batzli: It works. It works. I've had to find drain tiles that way. i Terry Forbord: Are you available on weekdays or weekends? Well, Mr. Hempel, do you have any recommendations how we could maybe amend this? II Hempel: I believe we could amend it to include any wetlands or drain til s that are encountered I suppose during construction. With the as -built construction plans, that these drain tiles be shown on the record drawin . Batzli: If they find one when they're grading, would they be required t fix this? Would it hurt something if they switched it somehow or took o a section? Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 14 Hempel: The city is laced with drain tile systems and what we've found in the past is you're better off to connect these to a storm sewer system or reconnect the drain tiles to keep the drainage pattern that's going. If you interrupt the drainage pattern, you could cause a problem upstream which you may become liable for in the long run. So we have, in the past typically reconnected any drain tiles back up or connected them into a storm sewer system. ' Batzli: He added to his proposal that the wetland mitigation area is then a known existing and proposed tiles or whatever and also include that they will report any that they find and may be required to connect them or work with staff if they find them. That would be satisfactory? ' Hempel: That would be acceptable, yes Mr. Chairman. ' Terry Forbord: That is acceptable to Lundgren Bros. On number 19, the only modification that we have added to there is the word drainage. That would be in the third line I believe where it says now, it presently says ' an easement shall also be provided. I just added a drainage easement shall also be provided along wetlands. I think that was in the intent. I'm pretty sure by reading further on in the text. Is that correct? ' Hempel: If I could maybe just ask Jo Ann. Typically wetlands, do we have a conservation easement over those as well as a drainage easement or, have we in the past? ' Olsen: We do have conservation easement also. ' Hempel: Okay. So the final plat of the development can reflect the drainage or drainage utility easement over the wetlands. However, the final plat cannot reflect a conservation easement on that document. Any conservation easement is dedicated through an easement agreement. So I ' think the language that we use by an easement covered both types of easements. A conservation easement and the drainage easement. ' Terry Forbord: That's acceptable to Lundgren Bros. I thought they were talking drainage. So number 19 is okay. Emmings: Well now, wait a minute. It only does talk about easements for U drainage and utilities. That's all 19 talks about if you read it. So should we add something there? Olsen: The intent was also to protect the wetlands. Emmings: It doesn't say that. 1 Terry Forbord: So the appropriate. Emmings: Conservation, drainage and utility easements should be conveyed. ' If we just add the word conservation in there will we do what needs to be done? Olsen: Are you on the first sentence? II 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 15 Emmings: Yeah. If I just add. Ahrens: But is the purpose of a conservation easement to provide access...? Olsen: Right. So it is the second sentence. 1 Batzli: But the conservation easement is over the wetland area but you 1 want it for. Olsen: It includes the wetland area. The buffer. Batzli: So your number 25 doesn't cover it? Olsen: Yeah, that covers it. 1 Emmings: 5o we can leave 19 the way it is. Originally? Is that what we were saying now? Olsen: I don't think it makes that big of a difference. Terry Forbord: That would be fine with Lundgren Bros. On number 20, I'll let the engineer describe that to you. Ken Adolf: This is probably one of those items that could be worked out' with the city engineering staff...but the request, or the condition I should say was to extend the storm sewer which right now is going to end at that point and to extend it to this storm water basin. We feel that rig now this is discharging right at the existing wetland and there's really is need to extend the storm sewer any farther. ...surface very shallow swale... I don't see the need for the storm sewer extension. Terry Forbord: What we're trying to avoid, is we're trying to avoid putting a bunch of pipe in the ground where it's not needed. That's the issue. Hempel: Staff's issue on this is you're essentially discharging the sto sewer in the middle of the resident's back yard. we're saying extend it tc the rear property line which is the sedimentation basin limits or the 1 wetland limits. In either case there's going to be a drainage utility easement over that. The rear yard to provide maintenance and drainage wayE so we just felt the resident would end up having an undesireable ditch section through it's back yard and one way to resolve that is to pipe it with storm sewer an additional 30 -40 feet of pipe. Ken Adolf: I guess extending it to the rear property line is fine. ThatlE a shorter distance than the entire distance to the basin. Terry Forbord: To make sure I understand what the two of you are saying You're saying extend it to the rear property line? Okay. I think this another item that the engineers are agreeing to agree. Batzli: Well Jo Ann, is there an issue of them putting it directly into' wetland? Were we trying to filter it somehow? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 16 il Olsen: I think this is different. Is this the same drainage? This is different. II Hempel: This case is different than what Jo Ann had previously indicated about connecting the storm sewer between the wetland and had the pristine I spring water traveling through it. What we're concerned about is the discharge of the storm sewer in the middle of the back yard also creating erosion problems. Typically the outlet of the storm sewer is at the II sediment basins so discharge is at water level. Not up above which would have the potential for being an erosion problem over time. Olsen: This is what we're talking about is. My issue is these wetland 1 basins, this drainage would come in... Hempel: Again, I'm sure it's an issue that can be worked out during the I plans and specs review process. Emmings: Now does piping it to the rear of Lot 33 solve the problem as far as you're concerned? I Hempel: I think it's two different issues. 1 Emmings: Oh it is? Alright, then I don't get it. Obviously. Olsen: The piping that they're talking about is coming from the street. I Drainage. And this over is overland drainage. Emmings: But 20 addresses storm sewer lines. II Olsen: Right. Emmings: So now if we've got two issues here, which one are we talking 1 about in this condition? Batzli: We're not talking about Jo Ann's. 1 Olsen: Not talking about me. Emmings: Okay. So you don't have an issue here? Alright. 5o now, does 1 giving it to the rear of the property line make everybody happy? Hempel: Happier. But we can work it out during the plans and I specification process to arrive at a comparable spot where the pipe should discharge. Terry Forbord: I think that the item that I do agree whole heartedly I with, and I don't believe that is what we're doing but David had indicated that he doesn't want this going right through somebody's yard. Well neither do we. And I can say that for the record. It's not our II intent to do that. But we do believe that we can reroute that water or route that water without having to put in pipe. 1 Batzli: Well, what happens if we say that you'll work with the City Engineering to do this or an other alternative acceptable? II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 17 Terry Forbord: That F r hat is acceptable. Yes sir. Batzli: Okay, what's next? 1 Terry Forbord: Well because my pages are backwards here, I'm going to go back to the previous page. Onto number 25. 1 Olsen: That's fine with us. Terry Forbord: The only reason we eliminated G and H is because those ' are areas scheduled for future development and I'm pretty sure that the thought was the same between us and staff and I just clarified it. Okay onto the last page. I'm not sure if my numbering is correct here but for the last item I just stated that all conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit as shown below. Because we had requested that some of those be changed so if we move into the wetland alteration permill #92 -9, we would like to delete item number 2 and I will have Ron Peterson, our wetland analyst address that. Ron Peterson: Thank you Terry. Could I get that mitigation plan for thl corner of the site? Just by way of re- orienting you to this portion of the site wetland basins. Batzli: Excuse me a moment. Can everyone hear? Okay. ' Ron Peterson: Wetlands 7 and 7A lie immediately to the north and east o the storm water pond that's shown on this plan. These basins are very, very marginal remnants of a larger wetland that appears to have once existed in this entire area. And are just barely wetlands. And the reason for that is that there appears to be an extensive tile system under that whole area. What is occurring is that we're getting drainage coming in from the east. From the Song property that enters these two small basins and essentially disappears. It enters the tile system at I that point and then re- appears at the northern most head of Basin 1C. Which essentially takes on a ditch like character from there. It flows to the south. Now maybe Ken can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't kno that we have a problem in routing that drainage to the mitigation area versus the storm water pond. I don't know that it necessarily would nee to be piped but perhaps I think a swale was already shown in the plans. But I see two options for dealing with these basins, and the reasons behind those options would be related to making sure that we don't end uil with some type of a drainage problem with the adjoining lots. One would be to essentially encourage the continued drainage of that area. In other words, and I think that's what we applied for initially, was to drain those two basins so that all of that water goes to the south and could go into the mitigation area. In that manner we could make sure that that flow doesn't end up turning up in somebody's basement or elsewhere. The other option would be perhaps to provide a little bit more fill around the edges of the house pads in those lots and then even excavate those basins slightly deeper so that they form an amenity and then have those again, discharge to the south. I think to maintain thos areas in their current condition is more or less going to just leave a couple of soggy spots off the back ends of a couple of lots that aren't I going to really serve any particular wetland functions and aren't going Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 18 to be an amenity to the lots adjacent and they're � nt nd they re going to be rather soggy places for the kids to play in, is what they're going to be. Olsen: The reason that we stated in there that it could be, that wetland 7 could be maintained is that on some of the plans it still showed that it was existing and that the house pads could still meet it so we were saying that if it didn't need to be removed, don't. I agree with what Ron's saying. If it's just going to be kind of a worthless mushy area, that's not a major issue with us. We do strongly feel that the runoff should be routed to the new wetland mitigation pond. And I don't think it can be a drainage swale. I believe that's a hill. So I don't know, is it? I can't see on here. - Hempel: The grading plan that we looked at indicated a hill there kind of sloping down towards the house pad and. 1 Olsen: So therefore it would have to be piped. Hempel: Yeah, it's going to be rather difficult to put a swale in there. We felt a pipe would have to be installed. Ron Peterson: Perhaps we could get some clarification about what the ' problem is with running it through the pond. I mean if it goes into the pond, I don't know what's. I mean the mitigation area that we're creating should have wetland hydrology without having the additional ' drainage. Essentially all we're doing is bringing two higher areas down to the grade of the existing wetland on either side so that we should be getting wetland hydrology even if we don't get this drainage. U Olsen: Well it was, it's just not to waste that drainage because it was good drainage. And in working with our wetland consultant, they were saying, it was just something that he really remembered when he was visiting the site that there was a high amount of runoff coming into that pipe from the Song property and that was very high quality runoff coming from another wetland system that carries wetland vegetation with it. All ' the other nutrients. I guess he was saying it would be a real waste to have that go to a storm water pond. That it would be beneficial to have it go to the new wetland mitigation area, and we agreed with that. Batzli: Well let me see if I'm even coming close to tracking what we're talking about here. The current wetland 7 and 7A, they're not high quality wetlands, correct? Olsen: Correct. Batzli: So you're trying to take the water and get them out of a not, very high quality wetland and put it down into the newly created one which is about 4 or 5 lots to the south? ' Olsen: They are currently directing that into a storm water pond that's adjacent to the mitigation pond. We're just saying direct it to a different. I mean it's not that much of a difference. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 19 Ron Peterson: I think we can probably find a way to engineer that. I mean I think, we think that would be beneficial too to run that water in there. I'm sure that between the engineers we can work out a way to get' that in there. Olsen: Into the storm water pond? This is where it's being proposed toll be directed to a new storm water pond. What we're saying is that it should instead be directed to the new wetland area. Terry Forbord: ...water quality? ' Olsen: It's good water. It should go to the wetlands instead of a storm water pond. ' Terry Forbord: We don't have a problem with that. Batzli: Okay. , Terry Forbord: Okay, the last item that we had a concern with was the next item, item 3 and Ron will address that as well. 1 Ron Peterson: Perhaps you could leave that same graphic up there for another moment or two. The concept behind the wetland mitigation plan this area is to blend these two areas, or three areas into existing wetland basin 1. The three different parts of it, 1A, B and C. And for that reason we have tried to match the grades of that wetland area and perhaps maybe take it down another half a foot to a foot. The reason fo� that, or for trying to replace what's being lost as close to in kind as we can. And I don't think we have a problem with making some minor changes to add a little bit more diversity in these areas to get a I combination of open water and emergent vegetation but we thought that 6 feet was possibly a little too deep to suit that purpose and is going to result in an awful lot of excess material that we're going to have to I waste somewhere and I don't know exactly where that material would go. The second part of this recommendation regarding getting into that part of Wetland 1C that lies between those two mitigation areas and deepening that as well. We've been trying to avoid extensive modifications to existing wetlands because the other wetland agencies that we have to dea with will view those as adverse impacts, even though all we're doing is perhaps changing one wetland type to another. In recent months we've been on other projects been required to actually mitigate for changes we've made to other wetlands. And so we're trying to keep our mitigation in line with our impacts and leave any existing wetlands we can alone as t much as we can. Olsen: Okay, this is what we were proposing was to combine the mitigation for this whole area, and to increase the depth so there is I some open water. We agree that you should try to mitigate in time but this area is such a large wetland area. It's really pretty low quality and we shouli really add some open water and just a diversity would be very beneficial. I agree with what he's saying though by increasing the/ amount that's going to have to be removing from a wetland that would have been altered to begin with. That's probably a good point and so we I should probably modify the condition that this be two new basins then. .1 ' Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 20 11 Add increase depth to this and they don't necessarily have to alter this one. Terry Forbord: That is agreeable with the applicant. ' Batzli: Okay so Jo Ann, what ever happened to the conditions we used to put on when people did things like this that talked about slopes and undulating bottoms and muck and all that good stuff? ' Olsen: Well they're doing that with the one wetland. And that's essentially kind of what we're requesting for these other ones. Batzli: But we're not putting that condition in? Olsen: They already did it with the one, but no. We could put it in but ' some of the mitigation that's being proposed are going to reflect what exists there and then those really wouldn't really match so it wasn't an easy condition to do as a general condition. ' Batzli: Okay. But those conditions are still what we're trying to achieve? ' Olsen: Yes. Batzli: Do you follow the change they made to condition 5? Okay. Do you have anything else Terry ? Terry Forbord: Just a follow _ up on your comment to what you were just describing. Those conditions are not a problem for us. As long as we ' don't have a consistent 6 foot depth in these. We think that's a little over kill and extreme. It ends up causing other problems with other agencies and things and we're trying to avoid that. That is the end of ' our comments. I think we may have a couple comments regarding some of the issues related to the buffer strips and I think Mr. Uban has some comments on those. John Uban: Sorry, I was distracted for a second. Terry Forbord: Okay. We were just talking about the buffer strips and the setbacks. John Uban: When we put together our plan and so forth, and showed the ' setback to the wetland, 40 feet and then accommodated a 10 foot buffer strip, it was our understanding that when we met with staff and had talked with them, that this basic process was, the setback was to the wetland. And then you created a buffer strip in which you maintain natural vegetation in there. In that setback area. And what has transpired as either a misunderstanding or somehow we're not, didn't track exactly what was the intent of the setback and as we read the staff ' report, as it's been amended and handed to us this evening, that they are indicating that the setback is from the buffer strip. Not from the wetland. And we will do our best to accommodate within the development those adjustments and the fact that we ca-n narrow up some of the streets by 50 feet versus 60 and looking at that type of flexibility, we will Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 7, 1992 - Page 21 adjust to best meet that condition. There may be a few spots where it 1 may not exactly fit and we would hope that the flexibility within the PUD and so forth would allow a 5 foot variance here and there where it may b necessary. We don't think it's a big problem and we will make our adjustments accordingly'but we did have some confusion on the real inten and how the ordinance was being interpretted and applied to this condition. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Jo Ann, we never got your response or rebuttal if you will from their recommendation to modify condition 1 of the II preliminary plat. They listed a lot more blocks and lots if you will. Did you have any reaction to that? Olsen: No. We're agreeable to what they're proposing. I guess we were' just trying to go one step further and to point out lots where the 20 foot front yard setback would be very beneficial. It would reduce the impact to trees, the wetlands and grading. And so we're just playing it ' out that those lots should have the 20 foot front yard setback. Again that's the whole purpose of the PUD. We're just concerned a lot of times where the setback would actually be 30 -40 feet and that would actually b impacting more than what is being shown or believed to be happening now. Batzli: But given their, assume for a minute that they have a conservation easement around the trees and assume that they need to put I the 40 foot buffer from the wetland. Would you still be uncomfortable with allowing them flexibility to move it around, which is what their proposed wording gives it? ' Olsen: Right. What they're doing is fine. I don't think we need to be as strict as I was. Batzli: Okay. This is a public hearing. If there is anyone else who would like to address the Commission. I invite you to do so. If you'd come to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record,' we'd appreciate that. Tim Keene: Tim Keene with Larkin, Hoffman, Daley and Lindgren, 7900 I Xerxes, Bloomington, and I'm here this evening with Tom Green and Bruce Buxton on behalf of Mills Fleet Farm. Property owners to the south and west. Just a quick question for either of the engineers. It wasn't clear from the drainage plan, and I believe it's wetland 6 in the southeast corner. Will that be discharging off site and if so, which direction? Batzli: I think it's 1C. Wetland 1. , Tim Keene: Well it's in the extreme southeast corner of the site. Emmings: Can we get something up on the board so he can. Olsen: Yeah. This shows the wetland that you were asking... ' Ken Adolf: I believe the question was, is the storm water basin in this general area, number 6. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 22 Tim Keene: Correct. ' Ken Adolf: That's going to discharge off site. I guess indirectly it does. It will discharge into this large wetland...which will extend ultimately off site. ' Tim Keene: Okay. Will that be wholly contained within the property controlled by Lundgren Bros or will it be effecting our property off site? ' Ken Adolf: As I said, this will discharge into this very large wetland complex so we don't expect that given the size of this wetland, that ' there will be any impact at all. On site or off site. Tim Keene: Okay. ' Batzli: Is the property that you're here representing, do they abut this wetland? Is that the issue? Olsen: On the south side. Tim Keene: I'm not certain as to the extreme boundaries of the wetland and Tom, is that contiguous to? Tom Green: I'm not sure. ' Tim Keene: Yeah. It's hard to say from that site because the site information, once you get off the developed portion is not any level of detail. That was our only question. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, as with any storm retention pond, the city does require that the pond discharge at the pre - developed runoff rate from the sedimentation pond. So the volume of water or the discharge rate of the ' water will be at the pre - developed runoff rate. Overall I would anticipate the overall volume or the amount of runoff would be slightly increased with the added impervious surface through the development but ' as Mr. Adolf has indicated, there's a very large wetland to the south of this development. ' Batzli: So you wouldn't envision having to put in some sort of pipe or culvert at a certain elevation in that wetland is so large? Hempel: That's correct, no. ' Tim Keene: Okay, thank you. ' Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the commission? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Batzli: Joan, do you have some comments for us? 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 23 Ahrens: I feel like I just sat through a staff meeting. I think that a lot of this stuff should have been worked out before coming to us. I'm saying that not just staff but for Lundgren Bros because we've been II here for almost 2 hours discussing things that you're in basic agreement on. Besides that, I'm not going to go over each condition that Terry has discussed here. I'm going to go along with the staff report oll this and with everything that's been agreed to tonight between the developer and the staff. The only condition that I kind of have a problem with is condition 8 that deals with the tree preservation area. II I guess I'll be satisfied. I think Brian you proposed to insert some language. I'm not even sure because I didn't write it down but I think it was something about the areas...proposed tree preservation areas will be...eventually agreed to by the staff. 1 Batzli: I think I said something about the areas substantially as shown on the plans will be protected in that they're going to work with staff to get a final designation. But I would like some comfort from us. I agree with you that what we're looking at is the area that we think. It's substantially that area. I don't mind if they've got to move in 5 feet or 10 feet because that's where the house pad goes. I agree with Terry I that looking at this plan with these scales, there might be a couple of minor adjustments but I would like to be assured that it's substantially what we're looking at is going to be preserved. ' Ahrens: And if that can be done with the language that you've stated, I guess that's all we can do but I agree. I think that that area should' be preserved as it's shown on that plat. I guess the questions that remain open I guess I'm going to defer to the city's expertise and allow them to work those things out with the developer. Do we see this again? Batzli: No. Do you have any feeling, we talked about this last time a I little bit. The issue of the private park versus public. Or 50 foot easements or do you have any concerns with those or the islands? ' Ahrens: Well I understand the park issue has been resolved by the Park and Rec Commission. They weren't too crazy about the private park. I I don't personally like the idea of a private park. I like to see public parks going into neighborhoods. I don't know why developers wouldn't be welcomed to that idea either. But I don't think that we have anything to say about that at this time anyway. 1 Batzli: Well we could recommend. Ahrens: Okay, I recommend that it be a public park. That's going to bel a collector street going through and it's going to be eventually there's going to be kids from other neighborhoods riding their bikes to it. There's going to be a trail along TH 41. I mean who's going to, is the Association going to be, going to take turns monitoring the park to make sure there are no outsiders in the park? Batzli: Well the thing I don't want to see is something that we've 1 talked about in a little bit different setting and that is the problems we've had with some private beachlots. You know, who enforces these things? Who patrols them? If this is a private park and there's a part 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 24 there, are we responsible? Are the neighbors responsible? Who's responsible to these and that's kind of bothered me. It also bothered me, I think I brought up last meeting. The kid rides his bike over from the Song property, if Lundgren doesn't develop that and somehow include it. And does this mean that he really doesn't have a right to play ' there? Ahrens: Well if it's a private park, I guess not right? Batzli: Well that's the issue. Ahrens: What was your other question? ' Emmings: Islands. Batzli: Islands. Easements. The roadway easements. How do you feel ' for example about a 20 foot setback from the road with the reduced right - of -way? How that impacts? I think you get, if this is, well actually the collector street, are there any houses that will be pulled up on a collector street 20 feet from it? Olsen: They're proposing some. Batzli: Are they? Ahrens: That are going to be what? Olsen: 20 foot setbacks. ' Batzli: There was a comment in the report about Lake - Lucy Road. That this isn't going to be the same as Lake Lucy Road. Do you remember that Jo Ann? Ahrens: Right. They said that. Olsen: The justification for not having the 80 foot right -of -way. ' Batzli: Yeah. Is it Lake Lucy Road on the east side of, is it Powers that's real. What's the one that they've got the houses tucked in. It's ' a collector street. Ahrens: That's on the east side of CR 17. Lake Lucy Road, they have all the problems all the time because people drive too fast on it. Batzli: It seems very narrow and it's a collector street and it seems like we're constantly talking about it. How is this different from that? i Krauss: There are some similarities but there's some differences too. There's fewer homes on the frontage in this proposal than there is on that street. That street has very small lots. The biggest problem on that street though is that curve where you come onto Nez Perce. In coming around that curve and not being able to see around it and cars then manuevering and turning north into Vineland Forest. The street itself we had some complaints from residents on it when some of the 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 7, 1992 - Page 25 platting was occurring. That they didn't wish to encourage thru movements in front of their homes. Unfortunately, that's what that street's designed for. It is a thru street and so that part of their questions couldn't be answered but most of the problems there come from that, it's probably about a 15 mph curve down to Nez Perce. Batzli: Well it seems to me that there's always a lot of human activity around that road and it seems ill suited to be a collector and I'm wondering how we're avoiding that kind of situation here. Or aren't we? Is it because the lot sizes are small so it's just kind of a dense congregation of kids playing out in the street? Ahrens: But really there's not even any development on this side of Lakil Lucy there so it's not like there's a lot of homes. They're small lots on the south side of Lake Lucy. Krauss: No, it's the same up and down. ' Ahrens: On both sides? Batzli: It's both. You could drive up and down. Krauss: There were a few vacant lots up to the summer but they're now built on. You know that's a perfectly straight shot. Each home is 90 feet apart. There's no variation in lot width. There's no change in grade. There are those tough intersections. In this case, I'm not even sure. We do have a wider street section anyway being proposed. That wall built to a very narrow street section. They're proposing to compromise some on the right -of -way requirement for a collector street but what's the street width going to be there? ' Hempel: The street width is like a local street of 31 foot back to back wide street. Where the proposed street in Lundgren's would be approximately a 39 foot back to back. Batzli: So this would be 8 feet wider than that road? Hempel: That's correct. Krauss: It's also going to have a trail along side it. Batzli: I guess I'm just thinking, if we have a lot of buffer zone and preservation in the back yard, the place to play will still be in the II street because we'll have small front yards, and granted there will be the private park which hopefully will be where the kids go to play or at least in the cul -de -sacs but I've noticed a lot of activity on that road. Ahrens: One more comment. It doesn't, are there going to be no parking" signs posted in the cul -de -sac? Is that what's being proposed by the Fire Deparment? 1 Hempel: That's correct. 1 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 26 ' Ahrens: That doesn't, I mean that doesn't make any sense to me at all. Cul -de -sacs always have lots of people parking on them. Who's going to be monitoring that? It's so unrealistic, I can't even believe that it's proposed. Olsen: He's making that requirement as a result of the cul -de -sac islands. Ahrens: Right, but you know and I know and everybody else knows that people are going to still park on those cul -de -sacs so why doesn't the ' city just fix the problem and make the area bigger or get rid of those, islands if they're unworkable for the city instead of setting up unrealistic expectations. ' Hempel: Well that was our initial proposal was to have those islands deleted. However, we've been kind of advised through the Planning ' Commission and City Council that they like the idea and to maybe work from a design standpoint to enlarge the cul -de -sac and to make it so we can have vehicles park there and still facilitate the turning movements of a fire truck and school bus, garbage truck and so forth. So it may ' require additional pavement in the cul -de -sac to do that if the applicants willing to do that. ' Ahrens: ...like the idea of an island there but are people going to like having no parking signs in their front yards? ' Emmings: No place for guests to park. Ahrens: Yeah, no place for anybody to park. It's just... I think the islands have got to go. 1 Batzli: I thought it was my understanding from Dick Wing and I won't quote. I'll kind of quote. I'll paraphrase. His line was, if we can get close, hose lengths are no problem. Are what we're talking about here is the fact that they won't want to back up? Hempel: I believe that's the Fire Marhsall's contention. If they get down a cul -de -sac and it's the wrong cul -de -sac for whatever reason, turning abilities are constricted and they end up backing out. ' Batzli: If for example we have people parking all the way around the cul -de -sac, could a fire truck turn around in there anyway? ' Hempel: No. You're correct. They would not be able to. They would however be able to jockey back and forth easier than with an island obviously. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, may I. We had purposedly deleted this portion of our presentation because it would be redundant because we have already given it to you before and to the City Council but we are prepared to addressed each of those issues. The City Fire Marshall himself has a diagram that he shared with us. It had the City of Plymouth's logo on it and I've seen it many times because we've. developed more lots in Plymouth than anybody else. And what is an acceptable turn around, and there's 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 27 or 4 different variations. There's one called a hammerhead. I mean there's just a number of different types of variations of what can be done by an emergency vehicle in the event they needed to turn around. I' the event they couldn't'go through a cul -de -sac. In the event it was closed. I mean they try to figure worst case scenarios, which they should because precious minutes could save somebody's life. When we met with the Fire Marshall, he shared with us schematics of turning radius oil the equipment that the City of Chanhassen has. Including their new vehicle that they purchased within the last few years. We talked with ' him about his concerns about turning that vehicle around in the event somebody was parked in the cul -de -sac. Whether they were on the outside of the cul -de -sac or whether they would be against the island, because we have the same concern he does. We don't want anybody to get hurt but aril people making a bigger deal out of this or is there really another way around this? And so what we're tried to do, is we've figured out a way to answer that question. Now if you remember, the largest truck that th city has is a boom truck and it has a boom up on top of it and it's high off the ground. So John if you would maybe put those up on the overhead and then you can describe your overhead to the Planning Commission. John Uban: This is a diagram that we were given that shows...and this shows the turning radius... Terry Forbord: John, can I interrupt you. Can you describe to everybodj what each one of those lines is. John Uban: I'll be glad to. The line with the dash, this is right -of -way right here. This is 120 feet of diameter for the right -of- way. These are lot lines radiating out from the cul -de -sac. The home, II we've shown one home with a car and so forth so you can envision then instead of driveways all the way around... Here we show the island and cars parked on the edge and you can see that the template and the equipment can move around the cul -de -sac with cars parked on the inside.' We also then looked at what happens with cars parked on the outside. Batzli: Assuming for a minute that the front edge of the fire truck is right at the curb as you drive it there. What's the clearance between the back of the truck and those parked cars? John Uban: Through here, all of 6 feet approximately. 1 Batzli: 6 feet between the back of the fire truck and the car, the way you've got it drawn? John Uban: Right here. Batzli: Yeah. 1 John Uban: Approximately 6 feet. I might be, you know depending on the cars that stick out. ' Batzli: Yeah, and if they're parked several feet away from the curb. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 28 John Uban: If they're parked out and away from the curb, certainly. The condition that we found that would happen with the cars parking around the perimeter of the same cul -de -sac. What we found is that the outer edge, that is the turning radius, it's not the center island that restricts the movement. It is the parking on the outer edge which happens no matter if you had an island or not. And so that is the ' condition where there is difficulty in getting the equipment to move around the outer edge. The best way and the only way to manuever them is for the vehicle to come up into the cul -de -sac, back halfway around the other side or a third of the way around, and back out again. Any cul -de -sac, this is the method that has to be used for turning the vehicle around if there are cars parked all the way around the outer ' edge. Islands or no islands, that is the situation. The island is actually in the center where few movements are actually made so that it actually helps the drawing of where the cars can park... Now this is what we have proposed. This is within 120 foot cui -de -sac width or ' right -of -way and approximately 90 feet then where the cul -de -sac curves. We also have another design that we will be showing to the Fire Marshall for his review which shows 50 foot radius or 100 foot deep of curve. And this then gives us a lot more room for the occasional parked car and when we compare it what Plymouth has, they have 80 foot. So if we have the difference between 80 feet and 100 feet, that gives us 10 feet on either side which can accommodate a parked vehicle and still allow some movement of most vehicies...except for maybe a semi -truck or something like that, through the cul -de -sac without ever having to stop or make any adjustments with an island in the center. ' Terry Forbord: I think the most important thing that one needs to remember is what Chairman Batzli has stated. That if there was no island in this cul -de -sac, that vehicle would have difficulty turning around if cars were parked within the cul -de -sac. The Fire Marshall's concern about cul -de -sacs isn't if there was a fire in this cul -de -sac as if it was a fire in a different cui -de -sac and they made a mistake and went to the wrong place. That's what his concern is. Because if there was a fire in this cul -de -sac he could pull the vehicle straight on it and I guarantee they'd fight that fire. They wouldn't say, oh I can't get 1 close enough. I'm going to leave. But they are concerned if they're in the wrong cul -de -sac and they have to go away. And the way that they would do it, if they couldn't not turn around as indicated, they would do ' what is really what is done in a hammer head approach. They'd pull in and back up and drive back out. Ahrens: Have these plans been shown to the Fire Marshall? ' Terry Forbord: He showed us the plans and we're showing. Ahrens: ...plans been shown to the Fire Marshall? Terry Forbord: These plans are renditions that we made after he gave us the information and we illustrated it for your benefit. ' Ahrens: Okay. I think they can go back to the Fire Marshall and see if this is acceptable to the Fire Marshall. They look fine to me...so that 1 should be taken care of outside of our group. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 29 Terry Forbord: And I think his memorandum indicates that too. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Do you have anything else? Jeff. 1 Farmakes: I'd like to back up Joan and say that I think we could have saved ourselves an hour here at least if this had been worked about before the meeting. In fact I'd like to compliment Lundgren Bros. I wall at your home on Lake Lucy Road. Your model home. I asked questions about the conservation easement along next to the wetland and acting as customer and they answered all the questions correctly in regards to tha so my compliments. That isn't often the case by the way. Batzli: Undercover. ' Farmakes: That's right. I was undercover for the city. I guess first of all I'll address the issue of this amended piece here. I support the City on 8. Whatever they feel comfortable with. I think the idea of th� tree preservation thing is a good one. And how they want to reword that would be fine with me. The rest of the 9, 12 and 20, whatever they can work out with the city and them is fine. The rest of them, it was my • understanding that you're in agreement with them. So I'll leave that. Some of the stuff that disturbed me is stuff that we talked about already so I'm not going to go at great lengths about it. I'd just be repeating myself. But the issue of these long cul -de -sacs is not very wise for us to pursue. I know that the Council has approved this and I'm in a minority here. I don't think that everything that we should be doing design wise for the city should be customer driven. That there are a lo � of very educated people telling us not to do this who's profession it is to design and actually build the city and maintain it. And yet we continue to approve these type of things. These long cul -de -sacs which would be B Street which is basically one long private road. And I think that the original idea of G and I, connecting them was a good one and it reduces any of the cul -de -sacs that are there in this development to being at least fairly short. I think we're being kind of arrogant on owl part by ignoring this type of advice that we're getting from staff. Getting from noted city designers. Professional opinions. At least fro what I've read in that regard. We also don't deliver the mail. We don' pick up students. Deliver them every day. We don't do the type of functions of plowing streets and I think we're ignoring what they're saying to us by encouraging this type of development. For the issues of ' J and H and some of the other comments. I'll support the staff on. If they don't think that that would be appropriate based on their earlier recommendations, I'll support them on that. That's it. The issue of till islands. On the issue of maintenance, I'm not sure if that's still been explained. If there's a city concern on that but the turning radius, if in fact the Fire Marshall says it makes no difference for safety. Batzli: Thank you. Steve. Emmings: I guess I don't have too much to add. I agree with everybody ' else on the preservation easement on the trees. I think that we've got to have that ahead of time and not at the time of issuing the building permit. On connecting G and I, I do agree with Jeff's comments. And I 1 think we also, Dave did you tell us that they are going to be utilities 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 30 that run on G and I streets and will run between the cul -de -sacs as if there were a street there? Hempel: That's correct. The utility extension will be between the two cul -de -sacs and service part of that subdivision. ' Emmings: So you'd just have easements across those yards to get in there for, so there will be sewer and water and all that? ' Hempel: That's correct. Batzli: Jo Ann, just remain me once more. If they did connect those cul -de -sacs, do they lose any lots? Olsen: No. They showed that they actually gained a lot. Is that correct? Terry Forbord: That's correct. We would gain lots by doing that. The only reason we did it... Emmings: I know people like cul -de -sacs and I actually, there was a time when I was, I didn't like cul -de -sacs at all. The only reason, it seems like the marketplace says people like to live on them and I recognize that. I've been told it enough times by enough developers but this is an awful long one. You know when you start all the way up there on A street and get down to here, that's a lot of cul -de -sac so I think it's a ' minority viewpoint anyway and especially on the City Council so, but I just wanted to let you know. I still think too that options to push B Street to the east ought to be preserved. But I mentioned that last time and nobody was interested in that either. ' Batzli: You'd have to build a bridge over the wetland. Emmings: Well I don't know. Or you move it up a little to the north and go around. They say that's not much of a wetland anyway. But I don't think any of those things are going to happen. So that's my comments on ' that. I don't think I have anything else. Ahrens: Brian, can I say just one more thing? ' Batzli: Yeah, please. Ahrens: I also thought that, I said this at the last meeting that G and 1 I should be...I don't think that's a minority viewpoint. Emmings: Maybe not. 1 Batzli: Matt. Ledvina: Well I don't have too much more to add. I would support the conditions that staff has generated and also the modifications which have been discussed tonight. I think Lundgren has pretty much addressed the issue regarding the islands and I think that's a nice feature for the subdivision so I'd support that. I also support the connection of the Planning Commission Meeting ' October 7, 1992 - Page 31 two cul -de -sacs. So I think that would, it would improve the 11 serviceability of the development. Batzli: What do you think about, since four people have now said they II support connecting these cul -de -sacs. If in fact the City Council decided that or Lundgren you know, lobbied them that they really didn't want to connect these, would it make a difference to anyone on the Commission that they drop the island on these lower cul -de -sacs to improve safety, if that's a concern? In other words, we're talking long cul -de -sac and if they did have to back out of this thing, it would really be quite a back so would that impress anyone? That that would be ll an option if the Council decided. Emmings: It doesn't sound like islands are the... ' Ledvina: It doesn't appear that that's an issue as far as the information they had there. ' Batzli: Well they would be an issue if people were ignoring the no parking and they were parked all the way up and down. Someone has a party. There's cars parked all the way up and down, maybe it would be helpful. Farmakes: Actually if the island wasn't there, when I go into a cul -de -sac, usually I park within and not on. Batzli: In the cul -de -sac across from me, they park a boat and a truck I out into the cul -de -sac so you've got about a 30 foot object sticking into the cul -de -sac so I don't know. I don't know why an island would hurt but anyway. ' Farmakes: I actually agree with them. I think it's a dead space really. Ledvina: No other comments. ' Batzli: Tim. Erhart: Well Brian, you know I've been here for 6 years and I tell you,' we've been talking about cul -de -sacs in every other development for 6 years and you know, flexibility's nice but this is anarchy, and I agree , with Joan and the others that said that some of this stuff could have been worked out ahead. But I'll tell you the real problem is, we've got a lot of subjects where we have no policy. If we don't have ordinances, we ought to at least have some policy on some of these things. It's a free for all. I mean one day, depending on who the commissioners attend a certain meeting or whatever seems to be the mood that night. That developer gets stuck with the short cul -de -sac. He has to have short I cul -de -sacs. A nice guy comes in, or a guy like Terry comes in with a slick message and you know, everybody loves long cul -de -sacs and we're worrying about, now we're worrying about the City Councilmen. What they're saying these days. And it's not just cul -de -sacs. It's the islands. It's the entrance islands. Now all of a sudden we've evolved new thing called a tree preservation zone and I've been trying to get on this agenda now all summer is a discussion to set a policy for tree ' Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 32 preservation because I tell you what, we haven't even talked them out because Paul already has stated in a report that we've got some problems ' with the tree preservation zone that we're already applying and I personally think there's a big problem. I'm not going to get into them right now because it's a waste of time. Because I tell you, I've just ' listed a whole list of as -built drawings. I mean I could go on and on and on. Why do we sit here and discuss in front of all these people and work until 10:00 at night because some city official here decides that he wants to go to Paul and says he wants as -built drawings. And it's not ' Paul's decision to tell him no. It's a policy decision. You can't make that in front of every developer that comes in here. Because the next guy that comes in is not going to be as good as Terry and he's going to get stuck with as -built drawings. We've got to decide here to set some policy on some of these issues. I think it's a great plan. I'm not surprised that there's a little confusion about the setback thing. I ' think we've really got to make sure in our new wetlands ordinance that that's clear because it's a change from what we had. I think that's probably the confusion. The note that it's a change so I'm glad you're willing to go with that. And it looks like there was pretty much agreement...it looked like you were comparing the notes Steve. Other than that, I quite frankly a couple years ago we probably would have moved to table it until it came back. I remember when Dave Headla was ' complaining about 12. Thank goodness we're not going to do that here. We're not going to see you on this one again. I think it looks good. That's all my comments. Batzli: Okay, thanks Tim. My comments, oh go ahead Terry. Terry Forbord: Just a brief comment. The reason we've continued to ' pursue some of the items that I've heard being discussed here tonight primarily is the islands, the lack of connection between I and J, and the medians was because that's what the Planning Commission passed onto the City Council. The Planning Commission already said that this is what they wanted and they passed that onto the City Council and they agreed with you. And so that's why we're back because I think the vote was 4 to 2 before. I think it was Commissioner Ahrens and Commissioner Farmakes ' were opposed to the islands and the medians and everybody else was for them and they also wanted the cul -de -sacs. So that's why we continued to pursue it. It is what we wanted. Council agreed with you. ' Batzli: Thank you. ' Farmakes: I think we're also ignoring though that that was staff recommendation that we connect. That was part of the staff report. So I don't think that's inconsistent with their policy as far as at least, I haven't been here that long but as far as I know, they've always been opposed to long cul -de -sac situations. I believe it's 1,500 feet. Erhart: If you don't put some rules on it, if you don't put some ' measureable things on it, it's irrelevant. Farmakes: I don't think this is an ordinance. I think they've been consistent with their recommendation. II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 33 II Krauss: It actually used to be an ordinance. Before my time there was a 500 foot length which is fairly standard in most communities. II Erhart: You don't have, what's a long cul -de -sac? What to you is a long cul -de -sac might be different to me is a long cul -de -sac. II Farmakes: 1,500 feet, was that the? Krauss: 500 feet was. II Batzli: We used to say and turn around 1,500 or something. Emmings: That's because we have one that's that long. I think that's 1 where that number was from. Batzli: So that was our rule of thumb? 1 Emmings: Yeah. That was the bad one. IL Farmakes: I remember this issue first, when I was here first coming up the issue on TH 101 where there was already an area a long cul -de -sac. Emmings: That's where we first ignored that policy. The Commission sail let's stick with it and the City Council said no. Let's have a long cul -de -sac. I Ahrens: We tried to be consistent. Erhart: Is there a policy? I Emmings: I think there has been. I think the Planning Commission has always said, let's not have them... 1 i Erhart: Well I guess my point is, in our office we have a policy it's in writing because I don't think anybody can use a verbal policy. Particularly in a situation that's complex and so many people involved. 1 Emmings: We have a policy but it's writing them down. Batzli: Thanks Tim for your comments. I think they're good ones. I all would express a little bit of disappointment that some of this stuff wasn't handled. I understand that Lundgren didn't get the report until 2 days c or what have you so that doesn't give them much chance to iron out their issues with staff and I think the problem may be us trying to push some these things onto the calendar before you're able to work out all these things with the developer. And I'm not sure where that pressure comes from, although I have a good sense of where it does, to get these thingslir the calendar but you're probably in the awkward position of, too much of this is resolved behind the scenes. We complain that we're not part of Ile process but we were just part of the process and we didn't like it. So the future, to the extent that these kinds of things can be resolved, I think the Commission in general would be grateful. I like the developme in general. I have mixed feelings about the cul -de -sac issue. I like t islands. I'd like staff to, obviously the developer's going to work wit 1 r Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 34 the Fire Department on the island issue. I think if it would help to redesign, if it turns out that we have a long cul -de -sac and it would help ' safety at all to remove the islands on those particular, you know on the end ones. The fire truck goes down the long cul -de -sac and he's going to run, that's where he's going to have the most trouble. And to the extent ' it would help, I guess I'd at least have recommended staff maybe look into that as an alternative if, I get the sense I should say, that we're about to recommend that the cul -de -sacs be joined. And maybe this all goes away ' then but if we don't and it's still an issue because the City Council either overrules us and puts the cul -de -sac back in, maybe staff might want to take a look at that as an alternative which would help safety. I agree with the changes that we talked about. I've been glancing over Steve's ' notes and I think I agree with most of what he's about to say so I'd entertain a motion now if we have one. And I do appreciate Lundgren working. I think they have been fairly sensitive here to the wetlands and trees and grading and things and hopefully if history repeats itself, they'll be sensitive to that as they develop this project so looking forward to good things. Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Rezoning from A -2 to PUD with the conditions, the two conditions in the staff report. ' Batzli: Second. Is there any discussion? ' Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning from A -2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: ' 1. The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of the preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval. 2. All conditions of the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: Move on to the preliminary plat approval. ' Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat ( #92 -4 PUD) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions. Condition 1 will read as proposed in the handout given us by Lundgren Bros. Number 2 will remain as is. Number 3 will reac as follows. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right -of -way from 60 feet to SO feet except Street A and maintain the cul -de -sac at 120 feet. And then I'm going to add to that one that ' cul -de -sacs must be large enough to facilitate turning around of all emergency vehicles in the city of Chanhassen, taking into consideration cars that might be parked either on the inside or outside of the turning radius. And no parking signs may be required. Number 4 thru 7 will stay as they are in the staff report. Number 8, we use the version from the staff report with the following modifications. The first sentence will ' read, the area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. And then the second 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 35 i sentence will stay as it is. Another sentence will be added that the precise delineation of the areas for tree preservation shall be agreed uir between the developer and staff. 9 will stay as it is in the staff repo but we'll change the word similar to other. 10 and 11 will stay as they are. 12 will stay as it is in the staff report. And as an aside here I 1 say, with the understanding that the work that has to be done between th developer and staff with regard to the extension of the sanitary sewer on Street A. 13 will read as proposed by Lundgren Bros in their handout tonight as will 14. 15 and 16 will stay as they are in the staff report IL 17 will read as follows. The grading plan shall be amended to include t wetland mitigation areas and any known or proposed drain tile systems. Furthermore, the developer shall also report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. 18 and 19 will sly as they are in the staff report. 20 will read as follows. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No. 6 or some alternative design acceptable to the City Engineer shall be developed. 21 thru 24 will stay as they are in the st f report. 25 will read as proposed by Lundgren Bros in their handout tonight. 26 thru 30 shall remain as they are in the staff report. Time out, we've got two 31's. So 31 as it appears at the bottom of page, oh okay. 31 will stay as it is in the staff report, as will 32. 33, I propose that cul -de -sacs G and I be eliminated and that road be pushed, II that I street and G street be connected. Batzli: Is there a second? Farmakes: I'll second that. Batzli: Discussion. ' Ahrens: Good job Steve. Batzli: I'm probably about to vote not in favor of the motion. Not because it wasn't beautifully crafted but only because of the issue on t e cul -de -sacs and I guess in talking about it last time, I think we had agreed and there was probably a different mix of people here, that we li c it. And I'm not convinced one way or the other whether it should go in I'm going to vote against this probably just to alert the Council that it's not I think a heartfelt unanimous decision, at least by all of us on the' Planning Commission but thank you Steve. Any other discussion? Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat ( #92 -4 PUD) to create 112 single family lot with the following conditions: 1. The front yard setback for each lot may be a minimum of 20 feet from the street right -of -way. The intent' being to minimize the impact on the natural features of constructing a new home on each home site. The lots that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lie 1, 14 -19, 37 -43, 52 -57, 62, 65, 73, 74 and 78 -81, Block 2. In addit r to these lots, staff recommends similar flexibility on the following lots: Lots 22 -24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58 -61, 66 -72, Block 2. 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 36 2. Each lot shall maintain a side yard separation of 20 feet between each principal structure, including decks. The applicant shall be required to submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foot separation is being maintained. ' 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right -of -way from 60 feet to 50 feet except.Street A and maintain the cul -de -sac at 120 feet. Cul -de -sacs must be large enough to facilitate ' turning around of all emergency vehicles in the city of Chanhassen, taking into consideration cars that might be parked either on the inside or outside of the turning radius, and that no parking signs may be required. 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping ' along Hwy 41 within the subject property. The exterior landscaping plan must be approved by city staff. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by city staff. 6. The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2 shall be removed by the applicant ' prior to the filing of the final plat. 7. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 shall be vacated by BMT and cleared no ' later than January 3, 1994. The applicant shall be required to receive demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings. 8. The area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation areas ' will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. The precise delineation of the areas for tree preservation shall be agreed upon between the developer and staff. 9. The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all ' corrected house pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication ' fees at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement for future trail construction along the western border of the subject property abutting the right -of -way of State Highway 41. 11. The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility ' easements for construction of the lift station within the development. 12. The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant and city engineering staff shall work together regarding extending the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 37 1 (cul -de -sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the tim the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provide the City will refund a portion ofthe connection fees to Lundgren Bro . 13. The existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to connect to t municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer systemic operational. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be removed after January 3, 1994. 1 14. Except for the condition in Recommendation 3 above, all utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the late edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with the final platting. 15. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire 1 Marshal. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits oI the regulatory agencies such as MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR and MnDot. 17. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation 1 areas and any known or proposed drain tile systems. Furthermore, the developer shall also report to the City Engineer the location of any 1 drain tiles found during construction. 18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations 1 verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10 year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predevelopeil runoff rate for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. Drainage plans sha be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. 1 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access to maintain the ponding areas. An easement shall als be provided along wetlands and each side of drainageways from the st ►r ponds or wetlands. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shal not be less than 20 feet wide along the lot lines with the exception where utilities have been combined in the same easement area. In thlle areas the easement width shall be increased to 30 feet. 20. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shal be extended to sediment basin No. 6 or some alternative design acceptable to the City Engineer shall be developed. 21. The applicant shall construct a 36 foot wide gutter -to- gutter urban 1 street section along Street A. The remaining streets may be constructed to City urban standards (31 foot wide back -to- back). 22. Both the business and the existing home shall change their addresses In accordance with the City grid system once the streets have been 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 38 1 constructed with the first lift of asphalt. Driveways shall also be 11 relocated to take access off the interior street (Street A). 23. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher quality type wetlands. Type I erosion control shall be around the remaining or lower quality wetlands and sedimentation ponds. 24. The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easement ' through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. 25. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetlanc areas within the subdivision, including outlots except for Outlots G and H which shall be replatted in the future. 26. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter ' into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. ' 27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDot. These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 29. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul -de -sacs with center islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No I Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This will depend on the size of the cul -de -sac and the ability of the fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parking in the cul -de -sac. ' 30. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. 31. A 10 foot clean space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 32. All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit. 33. Cul -de -sacs G and I be eliminated and that I street and G street be connected. All voted in favor except Batzli and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Batzli: Your reasons Tim. Erhart: ...reason you have to be consistent on previous Planning Commission. And I still, as I say, I don't agree with this tree ordinance thing and I guess that by itself wouldn't. cause me to vote no on it but I think we haven't thought that through and where it goes with the lot owners on the end. I think we're imposing this on a couple of developers already. Planning Commission Meeting 11 October 7, 1992 - Page 39 II Finding ourselves writing things like, I mean it was a little shocking to me that we, I thought you misread item number 1 where it said we shall 11 maintain a 20 foot front yard setback. Terry, I have to commend you on that. I thought you we're just a little off base but what it really is, that's driven by this tree thing. We have put people's safety, we have t trees over people's safety in our thinking in this thing and it's crazy. Emmings: What's the safety issue? No front yard? Erhart: No front yard. And then we've had years of a real policy...an II ordinance where we said you have a minimum of 30 yard setback. And then all of a sudden somebody gets a wild hair that this tree is worth more t r anything and next thing you know we're demanding, we're going to our developers and demanding that we don't exceed the 20 yard setback. Emmings: See I think it's more than that. I don't think it's just the I trees. I don't really connect those two in my mind, although I think sometimes it works out to be the trees. But I think we've also heard people talk about the fact that their back yards are more valuable to people who live in developments like this than their front yards. I'm going to be real interested to see what a development with 20 foot front yard setbacks look like. I've got real reservations about it. Erhart: You've got one down by south of the one we just approved. Sout1 of, north of Lyman Boulevard where you have these tree preservation easements. 20 foot setbacks. 1 Aanenson: Stone Creek. Erhart: Yeah right, Stone Creek. II Emmings: Well yeah but you can't see houses there yet. But I want to see what they look like when they're in and I don't know what it's going to I look like and I've got real reservations about it but. Erhart: Well I certainly do. 1 Emmings: But I think it has as much to do with, you know if you've got people use their back yards for a lot of recreation. I think you're try' c to create a little bit bigger back yard and you have all the easements w the wetlands too, not just trees. Erhart: Historically they would go in and make good old American decisill. This is their land and if they wanted to remove some trees and make a ball yard, that was their perogative and now we're getting into telling people now how to run their home. II Emmings: Folks used to shoot their neighbors when they got mad at them too. Batzli: I don't agree with that because this is a PUD and we're preservlig more than what they would have had to preserve had they gone in there with a standard subdivision and they could have done exactly what you're proposing with a standard subdivision, and we chose to preserve natural II II 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 40 features and that was a decision we make by doing this this way. But I agree with you. Erhart: ...20 foot setbacks. ' Batzli: Well then I say, why did you vote to change the zoning to PUD? I mean let's just do it as a straight subdivision. l Erhart: I think it needed a PUD but this 20 foot setback is only one thine as part of what we've got for the PUD. Ahrens: What's the setback on the house...is that about 20? Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord speaking. To be honest, I just don't know right off the cuff like this. ' Ahrens: It looks like about 20. Terry Forbord: I believe that it is. An example also is in Near Mountain. Near Mountain has setbacks like that and I've mentioned that before and I know it's an older subdivision so it's difficult to remember back. That ' was 10 years but those are 20 foot setbacks. I apologize, I did not hear the vote. What was the vote? Batzli: It was 4 to 2. Terry Forbord: Okay. In favor or? ' Batzli: In favor. So the motion does carry and my reason again was, only on the issue of whether to link the cul -de -sacs. I don't know that we fully looked at that and so I have a hard time voting to link them up. I'n ' not opposed to linking them up. I just don't know that we really addressec that so, is there a motion on the wetland. Oh, this is well after the fact but I just noticed this. That we approved this without referencing the plans. Emmings: Yeah, and there were 42 plans here and I don't know, do we need a reference to a particular plan? ' Olsen: Well I thought we had the date September 9th in there. That's the date of the plans. The official copy that we got. Batzli: Our motion was made by looking at these plans so for the purpose of the City Council, yeah okay. Is there a motion on the Wetland Alteration Permit? ' Erhart: What did you finally agree with on 3? ' Emmings: I can take a shot at it if you want to get going. Planning Commission, I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -9 with the following conditions: 1 and 2 as they appear in the staff report and then 3, modify the version that's in the staff report by just changing the second sentence. The second sentence will read, the proposed wetlands to the north and south of Wetland 1C shall 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 7, 1992 - Page 41 be combined with Wetland 1C. 4, 5, and 6 shall be as they appear in the staff report. Batzli: Is there a second? Ledvina: Second. 1 Batzli: Any discussion? Emmings: Did that do what you want it to? 1 Olsen: Well I don't know that you can do the first sentence and the second sentence together. I think if they're combined. 1 Emmings: Well that's what you said. You said you still want them to go to 6 feet on the parts they were creating but not to do the part in the mid e I thought. Olsen: Right, but I don't know if that means combining them. Emmings: I don't either. Olsen: ...I think what we agreed to was, what we meant by combining the was that they would be the whole, the middle part. The wetland 1C wouidlle graded also so you'd have one basin. But now I think what we've said is that rather than having to mess with the wetland that wouldn't have been 1 touched, that you have just two basins on either side of it. Emmings: So that won't be combined? Olsen: So essentially it's not being combined. Emmings: What will be between the. 1 Olsen: Existing Wetland 1C. And you'd have basins on either side of it. What we had proposed is that they Would be combined and be one basin and they were concerned with the dredging out wetland 1C that wouldn't have I been altered otherwise. Emmings: So you're actually thinking those two basins will have borders all around them? Batzli: There won't be any flow between the... Emmings: Okay, I misunderstood that. How can we fix it? Fix it. Batzli: Just eliminate the second sentence. Do you like that? Olsen: I think that, yeah just using the first sentence. That takes care of it and I'll need a change of at least 6 feet. They don't want it to consistently 6 feet. ...the 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to those shall have a depth. Batzli: Shall have an undulating depth in places 6 feet. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 42 1 Olsen: Right. And then remove the rest. Batzli: And then eliminate the second sentence. How's that for a friendly amendment. Olsen: Sounds good. Batzli: Who seconded this? 1 Ledvina: I did. ' Batzli: Do you accept that? Ledvina: Yes. Emmings: That's fine. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -9 with the following conditions: 1. The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland 1A shall not be replaced. 1 2. The runoff currently entering Wetlands 7 and 7A shall be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to Lot 28, Block 2. If possible, ' Wetland 7 shall be maintained in its current condition and location. 3. The three proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A, 1B and 1C shall have an undulating depth of at least 6 feet in places. 4. A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback ' and dimension (not including the buffer strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan. ' 5. The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer strip required is being met. The applicant shall be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. 1 6. All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 43 1 PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT APPROVAL TO REZONE 178 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATED AT THE SE QUADRANT 0 HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41 AND NW QUADRANT OF WEST 82ND STREET AND HIGHWAY 41, GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK, OPUS CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Bruce Buxton 401 Golf Course Drive, Baxter, MN Thomas W. Green Box 5055, Brainerd, MN Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparral Lane John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc. Ken Adolf Schoell & Madson, Inc. Ron Peterson 7101 York Avenue So, Edina Harry Adams 115 West 82nd Street, Chaska David K. Dungey 105 West 82nd Street, Chaska Peter Olin Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Michele Foster Opus Corporation Bruce Perkins 125 West 82nd Street Paul Paulson 3160 West 82nd Street Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Commissioner Erhart left during discussion of this item and was not present for voting on the motion. Michele Foster: My name is Michele Foster. I'm Director of Real Estate' Development for Opus Corporation and I'd just like to make a few brief comments. We were pleased to be able to spend a great deal of time with city staff on Monday afternoon so we won't need to spend a lot of time tonight trying to clarify the staff report since you've been through thail process once this evening. Opus is very pleased to be part of this project. We are not the land owners but we have been selected as the developer for Gateway West Business Park. We understand the importance lid the prominence of this site in Chanhassen and to the city and that's par y what attracted us to the site. Both it's location and access. It's visibility. It's natural amenities and it's our intent to develop this park as a high quality mixed use business park similar to many other business parks that Opus has developed throughout the Twin Cities. I think Opus is recognized,for the quality that we aspire to in our business parks and we expect to perform and implement the same kind of standards II Gateway West. As Kate mentioned, there are a number of issues and we're • embarking on a very complicated process for this property and time consuming process. We, by no means have resolved many of the issues. Basically our goal through this part of the process is to identify what those issues are and work with the city and the city staff as cooperative y as we can to come up with a development concept that works both for us, e landowners and the city of Chanhassen. John Uban, who you saw a few minutes ago wearing one hat is also the group that we are working with a the planning consultants for the project and John would like to make a brief presentation. Basically giving you our perspective on the development concept that we have presented for the property. .1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 44 1 John Uban: Thank you Michele. I'll show you a few overhead transparencies ' and I'll leave a number of them out because maybe staff has really reviewed a number of the issues, the comprehensive plan and so forth. What I'd like to show is just generally how we have viewed the site. How we have organized it really to work in a way that we think addresses the many needs ' that we see the property being used for. There are future goals or future policies of the city that we cannot address at this time because they have not been completed. This obviously will take more work with the various task force and so forth. But what we're trying to do is develop a park that has a very individual identity within itself, yet works well with the surrounding properties. Adheres to good, responsible environmental ' standards and provides wonderful opportunities, not only for employment but also for recreation. And what we're looking at is an overall perspective. One that takes the cooperation of both the landowner, the developer and the city to really make a project that everyone is proud of. One of the ' elements in this is saving what I think everyone recognizes is the most visible, the most prime corner of the site and saying, let's do that last. Let's wait for the best use possible to come forward and it's one of those ' things I think that everyone can get excited about. Get involved with and the city and the developer can really work together to make something very nice happen there. We have two cities that are very interested. Chanhasser ' and Chaska in how the area looks and it's going to be difficult for us to adhere to every one, each individual's concerns about aesthetics and so forth. But we are committed to developing the best possible set of standards that will work with development and at the same time meet public standards for aesthetics. If I could show you then. Basically outlined it the different colors. In yellow are the wetlands and in green are the woods. And you can see most of the environmental features are on the eastern edge. So when we looked at this particular part of the site, we said let's make this the area for park. It has very nice woods in it. It attaches into the industrial that is developed to the south in Chaska, and we're hoping that a park can really develop out of these natural features. ' And then allowing those edges that are all along the highway, State Highway 41 and 5 to then develop with normal industrial /commercial type development. On the edge over next to the Arboretum we do have another ' wetland which we either see as being used partially for development or for...but we have tried to work it into our development plan so it does create a nice edge for the adjacent uses. Basically as shown in the ' comprehensive plan we have indicated from TH 41 and 5 connecting road pattern. This pattern...to conform with what is in the comprehensive plan. Again and connect a frontage road system on the south side and then to connect at the appropriate places to Highway 5 and to Highway 41. These ' highway connections have been reviewed many times with MnDot and we have been working with them in detail to coordinate how to enter the property. At what point and how to grade and so forth. The actual development plan, ' well the other thing that we've looked at, I know there are some concerns about how the right -of -way will be handled along the south side of Highway 5. This is the plan we just received a few days ago from MnDot that has been completed by their consultant Barton - Aschman. And this conforms to what we always have understood to be the right -of -way for Highway 5, except for the small dip in this area which is for slope easement. But primarily we're still working with MnDot to coordinate their needs for right -of -way, ' both on TH 41 and on TH 5, grade considerations and access and we'll continue to do that. The actual plan that we have developed shows our 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 45 ' collector street, frontage road that will access the properties to the east. The property to the east is mixed. There are large wetlands and II there are areas that are out of the wetland and there are lots of woods. This is a transitional piece of property. Transitional in the sense that it is heading towards more residential uses as you get to Galpin and 117 ' This frontage road system then will connect to 117 and service those developable pieces as it goes through that area. What we're proposing ther is all along the eastern edge as shown in this green area. To have this area be park. The dark green are the trees and the wetlands are in ther We proposing a pond. It doesn't have to be there but we thought parks li e to have water and this was our presentation that we also made to the Par Commission. We've been before them and we have a number of issues I thi to really work out with them on what is the direction the City wants to take with parks and we have some ideas. I'll show you a sketch of it later. Also, within this development we're showing, right at the corner' this area that we want to hold for a very good development. For a very good piece of improvement that can really be a landmark for the city. And we will work with the city staff and develop some scenarios to see what works and what works best. Obviously we're going through the PUD proces to get some flexibility. To get some of the things that have been addressed in your PUD ordinance and we're looking for that mixed use type of development where we really can't pull in a variety of uses into an I area. And we're looking at the potential of institutional, commercial, industrial, office, corporate office, whatever works there the best. And we're willing to wait for that. Obviously getting utilities to this are is the critical part of the whole structure because utilities really are sort of the end of the extension as planned by Chanhassen at this point. There is this opportunity to get some utilities through the city of Chas and that would allow us then to start development on the southern edge, directly adjacent to the industrial that's there today. And we have bee working with the exception along Highway 41 and we'll continue to do that. To work out a reasonable way or incorporating their property and this II development or attaching and selling to them a parcel that would then gill them full access to 82nd so they could develop their parcels independently. So we would include then in our planning so that the whole area is consistent with access and other treatments. Water tower site. Things lie this we will obviously continue to work with the city. Overall, we're trying to prepare a concept here. It isn't really the buildings or the parking that we're illustrating on this. It's basically the land uses. The road alignment. The park and open space and how we're generally goi to treat and work with this property. And the details we'll work out with city staff and we'll be back obviously with a preliminary PUD with a lot' more information. Our scoping EAW. Traffic studies and so forth as we proceed on. We'll have a lot more detail about the kinds of building standards and so forth that are typical for an Opus park. Just to help illustrate some of the things that we're trying to do that we want to hay' be part of the focus of the park. This is an aerial photo. This is the exception along Highway 41. And part of the buildings are not actually along the exception of the out buildings but the two homes are. It's a single parcel that happens to have two houses on it. Then this is 82nd Street and this goes down. This is down into Chaska. These are the woods that are really nice upland woods that we're proposing then to be a foca point as you come in on 82nd and then this park area would extend on to e east. How this works, if I can get these to line up. Our proposed road r II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 46 1 would come off 82nd Street, start looping through the land to the east and 1 this area is the area of park that we're proposing... With the park, at the present time we're proposing approximately 10% of the land as park and that is without the, we have 56 acres of upland out of the whole 178 acres. 22 of the acres are wetlands and so when we subtract those things out, our 1 net land, if we take 10% of that, it gives us about 15 1/2 acres and we have about 16 acres here of upland park that we're creating in the park atmosphere. The wetlands of course we're not counting. The parks 1 department is considering acquiring or additional land for other activities. We think that it may not be wise to take land that with an industrial base that creates a fairly high tax value and employment for the I city, to consume a great deal of that for park purposes. We don't know if the city wants to head in that direction and that's why we want to look at some other ways the park area may really be expanded without taking too much more of the industrial property. So what we've shown on this graphic I is the extension of the collector road all the way through to Gaipin and here, this area, there are wetlands through here. This is a DNR wetland or the south side. Here's the wetland up on the north side. This is I developable and this area in here is not wetland but it's marginal soils but it is very suitable for baseball fields and so forth. And what this does then, it combines all these woods together with a field and other activities and connects that all the way out to Gaipin where you have a 1 proposed school just on the other side and residents. And this system then will also attach to Highway 5 so it preserves and gets parkland right up tc Highway 5. It preserves the very large area of the woods and then it 1 connects with these kinds of activities, both the residential areas and the industrial. We think this combination will really work out well and is the kind of planning and vision that we would like to work with the city to seE 1 if this can take place. So it's this combination of working together and looking at potential of adjacent properties to really make the whole industrial park, business park work for the community. We'll be glad to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. 1 Batzli: Thank you. This is, did you have more? I'm sorry. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone else that would like to address the I commission, please come to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Paul Paulson: My name is Paul Paulson. My address is 3160 West 82nd I Street and my 10 acre parcel was indicated on the map earlier this evening. I have one question and several comments. First of all the question. On page 3 of the staff report. The first paragraph and the section labeled 1 site characteristics. I'll just read the last few sentences and then I'll ask the question. The other residence is owned by the Paulson's and is 10 acres in size. Staff is recommending that these excemptions be included it I the proposed layout of this project. Future street and utility access to these sites needs to be assured. If possible, they should be acquired. The question I have has to do with the last sentence. If possible, they should be acquired. It's not clear to me what's to be acquired here. I Whether it's the city and street access or our property. I guess I'd like clarification on that. I Aanenson: Well our first choice would be that they be all planned together and not separate because as we're doing the PUD zoning, we'd like them to 1 II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 47 1 be uniform in architecture and control and that sort of thing. So that would be a first choice. That that be all part of the same development,` understanding yours is a larger piece and you have separate access. But obviously the next thing that we are concerned about is that your piece be not excluded from this as far as how that road is how they have access into that off of West 82nd and the same with the Wrase's. That they not e excluded as far as access and those sort of issues. Paul Paulson: Speaking of access to the property, in looking at the concept plan, it appears that the southern portion of my current easemen appears to be proposed to be a private drive. And I have a concern. We I would prefer that to be a city street rather than a private drive. Batzli: Where's he talking about? Aanenson: He's talking about this. His property is right here. He's gli an easement. 60 foot easement that comes out... Paul Paulson: Now the staff report indicates that the city would prefer, that that be a city street. But it appears to be a private drive in the concept plan. On the map here. Aanenson: That's one of the issues that when we look at the traffic stuIt that these are some of the things that we'll have to, we're just raising these as issues. These are things we'll have to do further investigatio, on and see which is the best way to serve that property. As I mentioned before, that piece that's adjacent to you, this piece right here. It's a dififcult piece to be developed and well have to go through the wetland alteration process to see even how much, because that's a significant wetland there, how much buildable area and where that access is going to e coming to because they're splitting the parking lots. It's a tough piece to develop. So we have to look at where their accesses need to be and 11 Paul Paulson: One of my concerns is that the plan doesn't seem to take into account the surrounding land use on Lot 19, which is the lot direct south of my property. To the north of my property is the Arboretum. My property has residential use. To the west of Lot 19 is the Arboretum. nc also to the south of Lot 19 is also residential use. To the south of 82 Street is the city of Chaska and the City of Chaska comprehensive plan calls for property to the east of their ravine trail system, which you c see on this plan. It starts just at the sourthern most point of the easement and extends south. So the Chaska comprehensive plan shows commercial development to the east of that line and residential developmlit to the west of that line. So Lot 19 has residential use both to the north and the south and the Arboretum to the west and it doesn't seem that it • a consistent use with the surrounding property. So that's a concern. Aanenson: Can I just clarify that. Your property is guided for commercial industrial so if you were to come in tomorrow and propose something. I think what we stated in the staff report, we don't know what their timin is on that and as things develop and we look at access, that we look at what type of use goes in there and how it's laid out and the height and lle impacts and those sort of things. We look at that more carefully. II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 48 Paul Paulson: It may be that it's guided for commercial use but the fact of the matter is, it's residential use. Aanenson: Certainly. And you may be there 20 years. Exactly. That's ' what we're saying. We'll look at that when they come in and as this develops. Krauss: But the concern is raised that the site plan or concept plan does ' not reflect the surroundings very well, we agree with. We've said that in our report. That's one of the things we want them to look at. ' Paul Paulson: Okay. So it sounds like you have maybe similar concerns but I just wanted to make it clear that I believe the plan that produces commercial use between two residential areas may be in conflict with the ' current use. In regards to Lot 19. Also, I believe given that the comprehensive plan calls for my property to be guided towards commercial use, that even so the plan does not take into account my property and in fact I am to become a captive of the development. If I'm landlocked ' without consideration for my property in the plan, my property has been severely depreciated for future use consistent with the City of Chanhassen's comprehensive plan since my property will be precluded from visual access from 82nd Street, traffic coordination within the plan and also signage issues. And so this is a problem if in the future my property is to become part of commercial development in this area. Given that Lot 19 does not appear to be a consistent use with the surroundings, I believe that the plan has a natural stopping point along the eastern part of my property, including the easement. And my easement would make a natural western boundary for the development. This would be normal and consistent ' with the Arboretum property north of my property. My property, the Arboretum property west of Lot 19 and the residential area south of Lot 19. Given the existing land use on the north, west and south sides of Lot 19, ' Lot 19 I believe should not be included in the PUD but should rather be used as a natural or creative buffer or transition zone between the existing uses and the PUD. I am absolutely and vehemently opposed to any development west of my easement under any circumstances. Any consideratior ' of the PUD west of Highway 41 should be mixed use taking into consideratior possibly multi - family residential for appropriate blend and transition of use and higher commercial use along Highway 41 corridor and east of Highway ' 41. I guess the problem I'm having is partly a matter of transition. I believe that there should be a transition from the western edge of the project into the higher commercial uses of the east. I request the staff ' not to give concept approval to the portion of the plan west of Highway 41 since I believe some of the investigations underway and including wetlands review, site design and park areas are not sufficient at this time to justify approval of that part of the PUD west of Highway 41. Also, two ' parties directly affected by the plan were not given notice of this meeting, namely the Landscape Arboretum and the City of Chaska. I request of the Commission continuation of this meeting and at this point I cannot ' be supportive of the PUD as it is in regards to that portion west of Highway 41 but am supportive of the overall concept of commercial and light industrial development in the general area. Specifically east of Highway ' 41. In general I think it looks like a really nice project. I am impressed with some of the sentivity I've seen to the quality of the project. How it fits in with the interest of the city of Chaska and II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 49 1 Chanhassen. But I do have problems with the western part of it. The we side of Highway 41. Batzli: Your name was again, sir? Paul Paulson: Paul Paulson. II Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? 1 Bruce Perkins: My name is Bruce Perkins and if I can use this for a second. I live at 125 West 82nd Street with my wife and again, I am als addressing a problem with Lot 19. On page 4 of the staff report it says West 82nd, everything south of West 82nd Street is a business park. Tha 3/4 true because from here over,it is designated as business park but this portion is Chaska city park and that runs down that whole ravine. And tir portion of course is residential. So the staff report really didn't cov or look at close to...82nd Street. Also, I guess I would like to ask whoever's in charge of this, these two buildings were removed about 2 ye is ago, yet they show on the drawing. And Paulson's house, which is direct effected by this, isn't even on here. And it seems too easy to look at this property and say, well there's nothing there. Not to worry about i . I guess I would ask whoever's doing these drawings to include the Paulso e house and to remove the buildings that are no longer there. Batzli: Sir, do you know is your house and the house I guess directly 1 the north, in Chaska's long range comprehensive plan, are you aware of their plan document and whether they have included you in their park? Their office industrial park. Or whether your long range zoning is that, does that stay residential? Resident: Yes it does. Batzli: It does stay residential? Okay. Paul Paulson: Excuse me, I do have a coyp of the Chaska Comprehensive P r with me tonight if anybody wants to look at it. Batzli: Okay, thank you. It Bruce Perkins: In our residential, and I know this is growing and I don have a problem with that but currently we have 11 acres of property and during the summer it's nice and secluded. In the wintertime we can see IF security lights on these properties across TH 41 and I'm also concerned,lif this were developed, it brings a lot of light all night into the residential area, which I think degrades the area. I can see we may hav some problem here but my concern really has to do with Lot 19. I guess lie other recommendation I have is to include Paulson's house there and remove the 2 buildings that aren't there. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address this Commission? II Peter Olin: My name is Peter Olin. I'm Director of the Arboretum. I 1 would like to make, if possible, some general statements and then some specific concerns. First of all I was real pleased to find that Opus was II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 60 to be developing this because they have a record of quality development one we're obviously very concerned about what happens on those corners. The Arboretum is a major state and regional resource. We have visitorship now of 200,000 people and that's on an upward trend. It's qualities are it's unique plants, research in trees, shurbs, fruits and vegetables. It's diverse native sites. It's spectacular beauty and it's prominence as a place of human refuge and respite for visitors are it's qualities. The Arboretum is concerned about any and all development which comes to it's borders and the impact of that development on the Arboretum's qualities. ' The potential impacts from any of the developments is in general, the goal of the Arboretum is to preserve it's integrity and that's the integrity of the site by ameliorating any negative impacts of adjacent development. Anc in particular our concerns are visual impact, and that's with any commercial development, especially fast foods, gas station type development. Or whatever commercial might go in there. It's also a concern I think as a gateway to the Arboretum and as well as the gateway tc ' Chanhassen. We're concerned about air and perhaps water pollution impact from the concentration of cars on that site and on Highways 5 and 41. Certainly the air quality will be effected and it will effect our research and it could effect our collections of plants. The water we're not sure because we don't know exactly how that's going to work. We haven't seen any grading. Noise and possibly light pollution impact. Greatly increasec noise, especially from the commercial areas. Come and go traffic will wort to destroy the restorative aspects and the solitude of the Arboretum's character, especially when it's right up on it's borders. Commercial development, parking lots, and the like will denegrate the edges of the 11 Arboretum which will essentially begin penetrating in both a visual and physical sense further into the Arboretum. The edge of the development if not treated carefully, both at the land use scale, this conceptual scale, ' as well as the detail design scale, will be detrimental. And it's going tc be detrimental to both the Arboretum and the gateway to Chanhassen. There could be some adverse impact on the current and proposed apple and other tree research along Highway 41. By the roadway cuts that are probably going to go in there, parking lots and building construction. Further and lastly the pressure to sell off our corners of TH 41 and TH 5 becomes all the greater as these high intense uses occur on the other corners. There'! already pressure to do that. We have some specific concerns about this plan. On the west side of Highway 41, I'll just reiterate some of the onee that were said but there's a visual impact of development on the Arboretum. Of the buildings and the parking lots, especially Lot 19. But also Lots 15 and 20 and 22 is an intrusion into the residential development along the Arboretum's boundary. The impact of grading these sites on the Arboretum property and the potential runoff impact again we don't know, because we ' haven't seen it but that could be quite dramatic given the condition of that particular site with a depression in there. The impact of parking lots, as I mentioned right on the property line. We find that to be ' without any consideration of buffering. Then the lack of buffering considerations throughout the site. The impact of commercial development proposed for Lots 20 and 21 on the Arboretum is they are obviously not ' serviced to the major portion of the industrial development as it's stated, because if they were, they'd be in the center of the development. We recommend that again there's no conceptual approval of anything on the west side of Highway 41 because even conceptually there's simply too many questions which have not been answered. On the east side of Highway 41, we 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 61 11 are very concerned about the city's proposed water tower which will be visible from most of the Arboretum. And that's a major visual impact an it is our concern. Maybe that can't be helped but it's certainly someth g that was news to me when I received this package. I did get it yesterday afternoon. The fact that the parking lots are all in front of the buildings, which they could creatively be clustered behind the buildings again at a conceptual level but nonetheless an indication that this is s t of a development as usual. The location of the proposed entry to Highway 41, which we had talked about perhaps lining up with some future entrancll to the Arboretum, is actually in a location which makes it very, very difficult to make a reasonable entrance into the Arboretum there. So we probably would not consider that in the future if that were to be the location. Again, if the commercial development's to support the industr 1 development, it's not located to suggest that. It should be more centre . What it suggests to me are fast food chains that's right there on the highway. Which brings me to the lack of, it's already been mentioned, lite lack of any indication of what happens on the corner of Highways 5 and 4 which it says in there is going to be, in their letter, institutional educational office /industrial or commercial which to me means it could b e nice big commercial development. Strip development or anything else because that's going to pay a lot of money for it. I'm glad that the ci y is asking that that be some indication of what happens. The proposed pa , which I think is admirable, and it is preserving the wetlands and the wo lot, and again when John showed this expanding into the next property it not really what might happen there because it's someone else's land. It does make sense and it makes my comment perhaps not as valid but it doesirt have much of an opening to this particular development. It's sort of a back lot and not much of a park or a focus to the area. I think if it's considered in a broader context, it does make a lot more sense as a park' There was a comment from the staff about removing the treed islands and I guess I would object. I think the more trees we can get, especially in wide expanses of paving, can only help to ameliorate some of the negativ effects of all that paving. Do you have a little campaign on with that? In the concept, I think in general really could be reworked to reflect t kinds of quality development that Opus does and hopefully in the details we get that but I think even at the conceptual level it's important. I guelp just to summarize, the Arboretum is a unique and regional resource. It Ill happens to be located in Chanhassen, Chaska and Victoria. In order for it to continue as a valuable and unique resource for research, education, beauty and a place of refuge and respite, it must be guarded by not only the University of Minnesota and the Landscape Arboretum but by the citie in which it lies. The Arboretum must, I can't read my writing here, continue to be a large tract of land and it has to be defended visually it well as buffered from noise and air pollution. If it's not, we'll soon • lose this valuable resource and I think it's something that absolutely has to have a lot of consideration. Thank you. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? David Dungey: May I just briefly? Batzli: Yes. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 62 David Dungey: My name is David Dungey and I live at 105 West 82nd Street which is, may I? Batzli: Yes. ' David Dungey: I'm this guy here. As you may have already guessed, I have a concern with a large parking lot being perhaps directly across from my home where my wife and I moved 18 1/2 years ago because of the Arboretum and the agricultural nature of the area. I agree with Dr. Olin and the ' rest of my neighborhood...more eloquently than I ever could express their concerns that Lot 19 I think is thrust into an area inconsistent with the intent of serving Chaska, which I'm sure you may not have any concern about 1 at all but. I don't know how you guys get along with Chaska but. I just think it would be real difficult to remain living next to a light manufacturing plant say with perhaps round the clock shifts. Cars coming ' and going. A driveway that empties onto a gravel road that is intended to remain gravel for quite some time. The area to the west of the ravine system again is going to stay residential. It just seems like you've got E finger of industry pushed into rurality just because you can so I ask that you consider...concerns too. Thanks a lot. Batzli: Thank you. 1 Harry Adams: I'm the last one. My name is Harry Adams. I live on 115 West 82nd Street with my wife and youngster. I live between David Dungey and Bruce Perkins and it sounds like we met before this meeting. All of uE started considering this plan today, or yesterday. I would just move to second the good recommendations of the earlier speakers for the neighborhood use and I would hope that, I would second the good things saic about the Opus people and I would hope that your staff and the Opus people ' would keep us in the loop and I think things would go a lot better if you could do that. Thank you. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Paul, are the people in Chaska on our list to be notified of the various meetings? 1 Aanenson: Some of them are. Krauss: Some of them are but we can certainly expand the list to make ' sure. Batzli: If any of you did not receive notice, please give your name and address to Paul before you leave tonight so that you do get notices. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? ' Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Batzli: Matt, we're going to start with you. Ledvina: Okay. Well I think that this site lends itself to a PUD and I agree with that approach. I really don't know what would constitute an ' acceptable concept plan for us to approve tonight. I don't have a good 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 63 1 feel for that. I understand that we'll be seeing this a number of different times as it goes through the preliminary plat and the other st s but I am uncomfortable with some of the things that have been discussed the residents in the vicinity of this project and primarily the concerns as it relates to the development west of TH 41. I think that the transitioi is a very important one to me and there may be a way of doing that in thit area but there's going to have to be some well thought out plans to really reduce the impact of the proximity of residential and light industrial office, if it can be done at all. So let's see. I had some comments abut just generally, I was a little bit confused as to what the direction or what staff really thought about the proposal. They indicate I guess in the proposal summary, one of the last paragraphs indicated that the proposal r we do not believe that the City's many goals have been met by the concep plan and then three sentences later it says staff is recommending the PUD concept be approved. So I'm confused there. Aanenson: Well the purpose of the concept is to try to outline all the issues that need to be addressed. You need to have a starting point and c this is a beginning and we reflect, as Michele mentioned, we sat down wi them Monday for a couple of hours and we said okay, before this can go forward this kind of causes the rest of the things to happen. We've outlined all the other issues. All the ones you just heard tonight. Thil EIS. The traffic study. How this is going to be serviced by the sewer. • All those issues are the next step and it won't come back. It may be 6 months. It may be 9 months before you see this back but they needed a direction to know what needs to be addressed to go foward so they come foward with a concept plan and ask for some direction. The comments you ve heard tonight are some of the same concerns that the staff has and they' aware of that and they need to know what direction to go to proceed. That's why it's a concept. Ledvina: Okay. I have a concern about the location of the water tower. ) I know it was discussed in the report regarding the engineering considerations of locating it in the highest elevation. That's fine but I also have concerns as it relates to the visual impact of that. We're attempting to focus this as a gateway...so to speak and I look at the situation with the water tower at, by Ridgedale and you see that water tower on 394 as you go by Plymouth Road there and it dominants the whole landscape there. And I think that the water tower should be located in 11 another site. Well, it could be in this area but just off the road a bi It can't be right on the road here so I would very much like to see an alternate location there. I guess in general, I feel that this does 1 represent a good concept overall and I think it's great that we take a large piece of property and not be afraid to put it together as a comprehensive type of development, which this very much is but at the sa time I'm very concerned about the residents' opinions and also the Landscape Arboretum's opinion and I guess at this point I don't think I would support approval of the concept plan. Batzli: Okay. Steve. 1 Emmings: Let's see, where to start. This should be a PUD. There's no question about that. I frankly would probably be almost be happier if t s was blank because what's on here is very difficult for me to accept even 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 64 though I know it's a concept stage. There's some things I like about it ' but it's scares when you know the most valuable piece of the property has nothing on it. That's just, I have to know more about the corner before I could even approve a concept plan. 5o while I think they've done some things that are nice things. I like the park area. It makes some sense. I like the road that comes down from 41 and you come into a T and you see out into that whole park area you know. That's kind of a nice thing. But I'm not voting for a concept plan on this piece of property without seeing more ' about what's in that corner. I think it should be tabled and it should come back. Just as an example. If we look at Lot 7, there's a building drawn on there and a parking lot and there's 7, what do you call the little ' lines that show grade? John Uban: Contours. ' Emmings: Contours. There's 19 of them in that building and it's not even that big a building which means, I don't know, does that mean there's a lot of grading going on there? I thought one of our goals for this piece of ' property when we went on the bus tour for the Highway 5 study area and everything else. One of the big goals was to not do too much with that topography. Really somehow, and I don't know if it's possible to do anything there without doing a lot of grading. I don't know but when I see that, that seems to fly right in the face of the kinds of things that we were looking at that time. I've also seen a plan for this piece of property that was done by, as part of the Highway 5 study that had the buildings arranged more in a, it was almost in tiers that was all oriented back to the wetland area which made a lot of sense to me. That plan I think did go out of it's way not to, to leave the topography that's there • in place and orient itself more inward than outward which made some sense to me. And I don't know if Opus has those plans or is aware of those plans. Michele, were you aware of the fact of the presentation that we hac ' from the Arboretum where they were proposing an entrance to the Arboretum out there? Okay. That's an opportunity that ought to be pursued exhaustively. It seems like a tremendous opportunity again from the standpoint of having this system of roads that would go around Highway for ' local trips and to have the Arboretum on the end of that with an entrance is an opportunity that shouldn't be lost. I agree that that piece of property that's on TH 41, that's an exception now has to have internal access on this thing. At least to 82nd Street, if nowhere else. Lot 19 is incredibly inappropriate. There is no way that that should be sticking out there like that. Everything west of TH 41 looks kind of inappropriate but ' especially is 19 and close on it's heels is Lot 22. That building is jammed in there in a way that just looks ridiculous to me. I don't know what you can do there but that looks just awful to me. Peter Olin mentioned the parking lots all in front of the buildings and again, I know this is a concept plan and I assume this stuff is just thrown in there but it does feel like just more unpleasant development without much thought and I don't like that. The way the whole thing is laid out, the fact that it should be a PUD, I have no quarrel with whatsoever. Batzli: Are you on the Highway 5 Task Force? 1 Emmings: Yeah but I haven't been getting notices of meetings. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 65 Farmakes: Neither have I. 1 Emmings: And I didn't get notice of, the last one they held I never got" notice. Farmakes: Or if I did, I didn't see it. , Emmings: I found out after that it had been held. Krauss: Well we haven't had any since then. We're in the process of finalizing the Phase II contract and we expect to have another meeting end of October, early November. We're going to set the date in the next coup e days. Emmings: Please. That's something I'm real interested in. Krauss: And one of the concerns we had was that we very much wanted to I include the Highway 5 Task Force, get them involved in a project of this magnitude. You can't ask people to sit and give their evenings to plan r the corridor and then take one of the most important pieces out of that context. So in essence though, I think it's got to be recognized, -we're asking Opus and their planners to do something that's very difficult. We're asking them to design to a plan that doesn't exist yet, to a set oll policies and standards that we haven't agreed on yet. Emmings: But. 1 Krauss: But there are some general concepts. Emmings: You bet there are. There's a lot out there and as a matter of" fact, like I say. Tell me the name of guy from the University. Aanenson: Bill Morrish. 1 Krauss: Yes, they've been given Bill's. Aanenson: Yeah, they've seen that. 1 Emmings: If they're talking to him, then they're talking to us because Bill's been a real significant leader in that regard and so if you're talking to him, I think you're talking to the right person. And he is t one who drew that initial plan which may not suit their purposes and I understand that but well, I've said my piece I guess. ' Batzli: Thanks. Jeff. Farmakes: I'd just be repeating myself. Most of the items were just touched on that I have listed on my little page here. But again I'll ju say that that corner of that highway to the north and south is certainly just fundamental to all the work that's been done up until that point. 1'e Highway 5 corridor plan. It's an extremely important piece of property. Just overall for the aesthetics of the city and I couldn't agree more that where our thinking is and the work that's been done up until that point," don't know how it applies commercially, which is also an important point 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 66 11 I don't want to beat up Opus because I think that they're really a fine developer. I'm glad they're out here working on this piece of property but a lot of the design considerations took in what I thought were the sensitivities to the Arboretum and to the adjacent area to the west of TH 41 which is definitely a concern. And again, I'd just be repeating myself ' to call out these lots or repeating Commissioner Emmings here. But I too think that actually the direction that he had was more focused on the drive that came in from the east and for some reason the parking or, I don't know if it was developed where it was realistic commercially but the way that that was structured was much more pleasant and much more in line with an overall effect of taking into consideration of the adjacent property and • uses than just maximizing the property at hand. That particular piece of property. It seems kind of almost punitive to take the position to punish the existing landowner of that particular piece because it happens to be there but it is an enormously important piece to the city. And the ' Arboretum and I'm sure Chaska, if they were here tonight. But going back to the effect of I think we should table this also but I agree that this should be a PUD, if that's any headway at all for anyone. ' Batzli: Is that it? Farmakes: One more comment. When they bring in a concept plan, it would ' be appreciative if, particularly because of the sensitivity of the area to the west, if,we could move the chart over a little farther and see more of what's actually to the west. The comment that one of the individuals made ' here, I think that that's a necessity to see more specifically of what's happening in the surrounding areas if we're going to develop the property to the west of TH 41. ' Batzli: Okay, Joan. Ahrens: I too agree with just about everything that everyone has said so I far. Including the comments Matt made about the water tower. I remember going on that bus trip with Bill Morrish a long time ago and looking at the site from the bus and he had this vision. One of those vision things. 1 Emmings: Our guru. ' Ahrens: For that corner and this isn't exactly it. And I don't even know what it was but I think talking to him would clarify what we're trying to say to you tonight. I don't like any of the stuff west of TH 41. It kind of reminds of the controversy that's going on now around Yellowstone Park. The ranchers who want to...to the border of the park and they're saying you can't do that because the health of the park doesn't stop at the borders. You have to be sensitive to everything that's going on around the park and I know that unless we go in and buy this land or the Arboretum buys it, maybe they should do that. Emmings: Just ask the Legislature for it. Ahrens: But you know, realistically it's tough to dictate that someone should leave their land vacant because we just want them to do it because ' it's the right thing to do. Although I do think it is the right thing to do. I think that that area should be preserved. I think this has to go 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 67 1 back to the drawing board. There's some things that I like. I do like e park areas but they seem a little isolated over there. I don't understa what this looks like. 3 don't understand the buildings and, it looks li a lot of stuff is real close together in here with a lot of pavement. And so this has to go back to the drawing board. That's it. , Batzli: Thank you Joan. I think one of the, well I mean there's obviously several issues that have been touched on. Not the least of which is som of the treatment of the development west of TH 41. Issue of the gateway Potential gateway into the Arboretum. Whether this jives with our corridor, Highway 5 corridor study vision. Some access issues into some accepted lots. And I think maybe one of my biggest problems, the Lot 1 which is kind of vacant and nebulous. And I know that, I don't know tha the recommendations that are there right now give us comfort that these things will be changed and I don't know that we can draft them right now For example Kate, I know you made, you discussed at great length and ver nicely that they would have to give us some more concrete thought. Aanenson: What we asked them to do was plat it. Show how the road can through there and maybe be lot in 5 -10 acre lots like they show on the r t of it. If they do want to leave it out for a bigger use, they come back and tell us specifically so we can run that past you. What specific use they're looking at. We feel the same uncomfort level and we need to knoll what's going to be there. What we're asking them to do is tell us more specifically, or lot it out so we can bring that back to you. Batzli: But where is that in the conditions? Aanenson: It's in the report. ' Emmings: There's a lot of stuff in the report that isn't in the conditions and we do that a lot of times on concept reviews. We tell them these aril our concerns and they're not necessarily in the conditions. So I don't think that that's unusual really. Batzli: But in this case that's half the development. , Emmings: Yeah. Aanenson: It should be, right. Batzli: The other thing I think is just the overall sensitivity to the site and maybe that wouldn't normally be in a condition but here I thinkl.t has to be. Steve pointed out Lot 7 which looks like it has about a 30 or 40 foot drop over the length of the building. That's serious grading. There's parking lots over similar contours and I doubt they're going to have a parking lot with that kind of a substantial hill in it. And thes things concern me from the standpoint that conceptually PUD makes sense. Some of the alignments may make sense other than the fact that they don'll do what we want it to do with respect to the Arboretum. So maybe it doesn't make any sense at all. And I'm wondering I guess what concept I would be approving if I voted for this tonight because clearly the overa concept doesn't mesh with what we've thought of for this site. Yet the PUD, the park, the general types of uses do make sense. I'm kind of i Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 68 wondering if this is salvagable tonight or if the applicant doesn't want to ' table it and come back, I get the sense that the Planning Commission would recommend that the City Council not approve conceptual approval. So I'm at a loss here as far as would the applicant like to kind of take a second shot at it or, because I get the feeling that the Commission isn't going to ' be in favor of approving it. We've had several people say that they would move to table it or would like to see it come back. ' Michele Foster: I'd like to respond directly to that. And if the feeling of the Commission is that they cannot support the plan this evening, then we will certainly agree to continue the item until we can come back and better address some of the issues that have been raised this evening. I dc want to make a couple of comments, one of which is that the property is guided for industrial and office use and I was not part of the discussions that the city went through at the time that this property was considered for that designation. I do think that it's only fair to say that yes, there is going to be some significant grading that needs to occur on this site regardless if an industrial and office park is going to occur here. Now I understand we may not have addressed that very well. We're also not at that stage of the development process to be able to show you grades and grading plans so we have a little chicken and egg problem here of trying tc come up with something that clearly you need to feel comfortable with at a stage where we don't have a lot of very clear direction which is why we're going through this process. And I understand that there are a number of visionary things that the City would like to see happen here but I'd also like to say that there is some boundaries in which an office and industrial park can function. And it does probably mean that the property can't stay in it's current state and there are going to have to be some significant modifications to what you see there today. But I also understand that ' obviously we need to go further in addressing some of the concerns that we've heard this evening and putting as much detail to that as we can and we would be, not pleased but if the Commission so chooses to postpone any action on this until we come back, that's acceptable to us. Batzli: As a general conceptual thing, and I don't mean to tie your hands ' on this. Are you dead opposed to putting some sort of buffer where Lot 19 is? I mean are you opposed to doing some of the things you've heard from us tonight? ' Michele Foster: No, and in fact that's partly why we sat down with the staff on Monday. We sat down with representatives from almost all the city departments to try to understand those issues. I think we'd probably be the first to admit that the property on the west side is very challenging given the numerous objectives that we need to try to accomplish there regarding buffering and the Arboretum and access and wetlands and we probably don't have the perfect solution there. So no, we understand the issues that are raised in the staff report and that's why we've not objected to any of those. We understand that this is a starting place from which we have to go to the next level of detail and try to incorporate ' those kinds of concerns. That's what we thought the process was about. Not that we were trying to get some kind of approval that tied your hands in terms of getting the kind of development that you want to see there. ' This to us is a starting point and the kinds of comments that we've gotten, while challenging at least tell us where we need to head and what we need Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 7, 1992 - Page 69 to deal with. But like I said, there are some boundaries around which eir the most creative among us and I'm a developer, not a planner or a designer but we are dealing with a number of very complex and sometimes conflictir goals that we're just going to have to try to sort out as we go through this and balance them as best we can. Farmakes: As you understand the Highway 5 study that was done earlier fin the city, do you feel that the marketplace would keep the city from, and Opus, from producing something that is special there? Something that's different. ' Michele Foster: I'll be honest with you. I can't, I mean I have not myself spent a great deal of time analyzing what was in that document so really can't address that. We will go back and do that and look at it a be in a better position to respond to that question the next time we com to see you but I'm not really prepared to answer that very well tonight. Farmakes: Perhaps there's something we can do to, are you comfortable P1111 that they've taken in the information? Krauss: ...I'm sure Bill would be willing to come down and kick some 1 things around. Again, we laid these things on the table. We weren't exactly sure which way to go. We do view this as the start of the proce and we'd just like to get as many opinions at this point on the process we can do that when they do go through and make changes, they're the rig changes. Farmakes: It would certainly seem to me from that plan that the whole cll> of this thing would be where that road would enter from, coming from the east. Krauss: But see there's responsibilities on several sides of several of these issues. If a road's going to be aligned to provide a new entrance into the Arboretum, which is a fine idea, there needs to be a commitment from the Arboretum to build their side of the road. And again, we wante to get these things on the table so that people can start looking at the need to make these decisions. ' Farmakes: And for that to really, sort of the back bone of what his desigr for that concept area was, that if something like that was altered too much, you'd lose a lot of gas out of it. There'd be, you'd lose a lot o the effect. Like you said but it's the egg and the chicken. It would s rr to me that if we could keep getting a type of communication, maybe even more human communication involved it's their understanding of what we've ' come up with. Where we're thinking so that there's... Aanenson: I guess where the staff was coming from too, we can't really 11 lock into a design until we've looked at some of these other issues. I mean we need to look at the traffic. We need to do the EIS. We need to look at the wetlands before we know what some of these buildable lots ar and some of the topography issues so they kind of, all these issues need c kind of run parallel. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 70 Farmakes: My concern would be the valuation of what the realities of the marketplace would be comparatively to what aesthetically we would like to do. Because I don't know if we're terribly familiar. Michele Foster: We'll make sure that you hear that so I don't think you need to worry. Farmakes: It's sort of a two way communication thing. ' Batzli: But I agree. I think with Chaska's planning comments in a broad sense and apparently that's all really, give the opportunity to look at it in kind of a broad things to look at it. Consider it and I think those are ' some of the same things we're looking at for better or worse. I hate to agree with them but he's right. No, I'm just kidding. We like Chaska. Sc I would, as long as the applicant doesn't mind, I guess I'd like them to gc ' back and review it a little bit more with staff. Is there a motion to table? Emmings: So moved. ' Ahrens: Second. • ' Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission table the Concept PUD for Gateway West Business Park for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION SITE ' EROSION /SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. Public Present: ' Name - Address ' Bruce Buxton 401 Golf Course Dr, Baxter, MN Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. 1 Bruce Buxton: Can I get a copy of the schedule? ' Batzli: You can if you want one. Emmings: I don't know why you'd want to do that to yourself. ' Ahrens: You can have my copy. ' Emmings: And mine. Bruce Buxton: The reason I ask is because I'm an engineer and... Emmings: I don't think that will help. r Planning Commission Meeting II October 7, 1992 - Page 71 1 Batzli: The minute we approve this, you can have one. Emmings: You can have 5 of them. 1 Krauss: Well actually, feel free to give yours out Joan but I'd like to keep the rest of them to give them to the Council. This isn't the final, printing. We do have some corrections. Batzli: I'm going to keep mine. 1 Emmings: You're asking us to vote on something that I have no idea what the hell it is, you realize that? il Krauss: I had to write a report on something I had only the foggiest id . Krauss: Okay, there's no one else in the crowd that wants to address thll Commission. Ledvina moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted 1r favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings: I just have one question. Dave, should we do this? You're an engineer, should we do this? , Hempel: Yes. We have put together. Emmings: That's enough. I Hempel: Okay.' I Emmings: Nothing you say is going to help me understand this. Batzli: Does anyone else have any comments in regard to adopting this ill our ordinances? Ahrens: No, I think it's a great idea. I've been waiting for this for 11 long time. Batzli: This is actually fairly significant from the standpoint I think that it goes hand and hand with the wetland alteration permit process an setbacks and things that we're going to talk about. Because we are I th k now on the verge of shrinking the setbacks and things like that and we need something to enforce and to make sure the wetlands are protected as we m e closer to wetlands here so, this is actually a very important part of th process. So it's something the wetland, the swamp committee has been working on in connection with these consultants. So I think it's a good" step. Is there a motion? Ledvina: Ah yes. I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recomme that the amendment to Sections 18 thru 62 and 20 thru 94 referring to th Chanhassen construct site and erosion and sediment Best Management Practices Handbook be approved. Batzli: Is there a second? 1 II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 72 Farmakes: I'll second it. ' Batzli: Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approving the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code concerning construction site erosion /sediment control requirements as presented in the Best Management Practices Handbook. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE TREE PRESERVATION ' BOARD. Ahrens: I'd like to nominate Tim to the Tree Preservation Board. 1 Emmings: Absolutely. Second. Batzli: I don't know that Tim really wants to preserve trees, from what 1 I've heard. Emmings: Tim and I share a lot of opinions about that. Batzli: You're not a tree hugger either? Emmings: No. Not if they're on my property. I don't want the City ' telling me what to do with any tree on my property. Ahrens: Oh one of those. 1 Emmings: I'm taking down three oak trees you can't get your arms around. It's costing me $500.00 a tree. You ask why I do that to myself. 1 Batzli: Why? Emmings: I have to. I have too damned many trees. I can't see anything and there's a lot of reasons you might want to take down a tree. I still have 20 you know. ' Ledvina: They're not dead? Emmings: No. One is dying and the top fell off a second. But I sure wouldn't want to have to come to the City and ask if I can take these trees 1 down because I don't want them where they are. Ahrens: Did you write that down what he's planning on doing to his trees? Krauss: Yes, we'll send the police out there. ' Farmakes: The tree police. Emmings: I welcome you to come to watch. When you get there all you'll dc is hear the chainsaws and I'll be running. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 October 7, 1992 - Page 73 11 Batzli: Paul, how often does this Tree Board meet? Krauss: We have no idea yet. I'm assuming it's going to be monthly. II Batzli: What are they going to do exactly? Krauss: It's going to be a 7 member group. One Planning Commission, on City Council, one Park representative and four residents. Batzli: Is this why we haven't, have we even talked about Tim's proposal on the tree conservation easements because of this or because we're runninc out of time? Krauss: Well, sometimes we run out of time and sometimes we run out of I Tim. I mean it's been on the agenda a lot. Batzli: Yeah, and we keep on not talking about it. I Ledvina: It's always continued because he's not here. 1 Ahrens: Is that why Tim left tonight? Emmings: Yeah, he's mad. 1 Batzli: Is there someone that would like to serve on this Board here? Present? In the room? Joan? Okay. Well, why doesn't everybody think II about it. Let's do this next time. When is this going to fire up? Krauss: Within the next, I honestly don't know. Probably within the net 30 -40 days. Batzli: Okay. We can wait one more meeting then. Krauss: Yeah. II Batzli: See if somebody steps forward. 1 Emmings: Well, he has strong opinions. Batzli: He has strong opinions so he may want to be on it and so let's 111 wait for next time to see if he does want to be on it because I would rather appoint somebody that wants to be on it than. Ledvina: I might want to be on it too. II Batzli: We'll wait for next time. l APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzii noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 16, 1992 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: II Batzli: Do you have a 30 second report from the Director, Paul? II II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 74 Krauss: No. I e m an do you want one? ' Ahrens: No. Emmings: No. Batzli: Unless there's something we really need to know, because I didn't look at this part. Krauss: Well yeah, I mean things, real visible things. Target is moving ahead. Emmings: How's Target going? Krauss: Well it's got a problem. The site plan's been approved. The ' Rezoning's been approved. The issues outstanding concern the final configuration of the street and it's supposed to be resolved at next Monday's City Council meeting. So that's going ahead. The Bluff Creek ' sewer project should be going ahead, we hope. It's all been, an issue of getting some final easements. Normally sewer projects aren't important but this one is because it's the major pipe south of Highway 5 so, this is what ultimately reaches out to the project that we talked about a few minutes ago. Apart from that, I guess that's about it. Ledvina: Who's Don Buckhout? Krauss: Don Buckhout is a fellow with the DNR who Bowser asked to manage this wetland rules. Ledvina: Okay, that's fine. Emmings: On this thing, our work fist. Number 14, sexually oriented ' businesses. Krauss: I thought we finished that. 1 Emmings: Well yeah, I don't know why it stays on here. You know it's at the Public Safety Commission and is going to the City Council so why don't we get it out of there. Ahrens: Is the only thing you were concerned about? Batzli: What did we do on that? We said we couldn't come up with an ordinance. Krauss: Well we determined that it wasn't really a matter of zoning. It's more a matter of licensing. The only, there were two approaches. One is the designated combat zone. The other was to define it and then regulate it, license it and say you've got to be so many feet away from sensitive land uses. The licensing approach was the one that seemed more likely which took it out of the purview of the Planning Commission. It's not a zoning issue. So it was bumped over to Public Safety and Roger Knutson wrote an ordinance, I guess pretty similar to, a standardized ordinance 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 75 1 that's been adopted. In fact it makes for rather interesting reading. mean the definitions. Emmings: No, I read it real slow and several times. Did it include tree huggers? 1 Batzli: To make a comment. I recall that, well I don't recall the discussion going quite that way so I guess I'm interested that the Publi Safety Commission not only looked at it but they came up with an ordinan when I thought it was our position that we didn't want that kind of ordinance. I think it does effect the public land use and so I disagree from the standpoint that because it's licensed doesn't have anything to 41 with use because it will significantly impact a lot of uses if you licen one. Krauss: Well, the context was, I mean I think we all agreed that we had 1 some First Amendment sensitivities and had some difficulties with the process. We also had difficulties with, I mean this was not an issue yo brought up. It was an issue the Mayor brought up and it was one that we were being asked to come up with something and then move it along. The only zoning based option you have is the combat zone designation. You can't ban these things so you're then forced into allowing them someplaci that's a legitimate commercial site. So what are you going to do? Are u going to say between 78th and 79th Street, between Market Blvd. and Great Plains Blvd. That's our combat zone. That's where these things can go. Well I don't think anybody was ready to consign over any part of Chanhassen's downtown to this kind of stuff. And I really don't remembe the exact discussion at the meeting but I remember that it was considered not to be a zoning approach and that if anybody's going to do anything about it, the Mayor really wants something done, it ought to be put into the hands of Public Safety Commission because the concern is more one of social impact I guess. And they took a look at it and they were somewhat hesitant to do much with it at first. But the ordinance was developed a refined a little bit and it's one of licensing. What you actually wind up doing is you require these uses to get a license and some of the obligations of the license are that you don't have a criminal record and 1 all those kinds of things. The same as the liquor license that they administer in Public Safety. The other thing is, the only thing that has any relationship to land use is it establishes 500 or 1,000 foot separatin between those uses. Emmings: And,other uses. Krauss: And other uses and then uses such as schools, churches. Farmakes: As I recall though, the second part of that discussion was th legal opinion that you got. That just seemed to back up what our concer were in the first place. At least that was my interpretation of even reading that and you people are the lawyers but, that seemed pretty va to me still. How many possibilities for hourly billings there so I couldn't make anything out of that. Krauss: That ordinance that ultimately came out of the Public Safety, a it hasn't gone to the Council yet. Scott Harr's got to take it to them, s 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 76 1 virtually identical to the one that Bloomington's adopted. Minnetonka's adopted. A number of communities have adopted. It gets rid of the worst abuse. The situation I think was up in Ramsey where you had a pornography store open up next to a daycare center. It gets rid of that. But no, there's absolutely no way to prohibit it in total. Farmakes: It's pretty late here but I have one quick comment. When I was out getting water there, the designer who's working with Opus. 1 Emmings: Uban. Farmakes: Yeah, he made a comment to her that he was asking, what vision? So you might want to follow up. We might want to follow up closely with that to make sure, because I firmly believe that Morrish did enough work there that you can see a direction that's happening, the interaction ' between that frontage road coming in from the east and the Arboretum itself and what he worked out there I think was pretty outstanding so. ' Batzli: The amazing thing to me though, even beyond that, is that Shardloy gave us a presentation on behalf of the Coalition of Highway 5 owners 2 year ago that did a much more sensitive job all the way along. It was at least better than what this, this thing just looked like a bunch of roads with big buildings. Krauss: Actually I've got a copy of that original one... ' Batzli: Maybe over time it's soften. Krauss: I think so because when I first saw John Uban's plan, geez I've seen this one before. Batzli: Okay, so was it that one? Krauss: Yes. Batzli: Okay, so they haven't changed it at all. Krauss: They just took the shopping center off the corner and made it a ' blank spot. The road alignment changed a little bit. Farmakes: Is the Arboretum moving on doing their work on their end for other there? Krauss: To the best of my knowledge, no. Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :55 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 ' Chairman Schroers called the joint City Council and Park and Recreation Commission meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.. ' COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Jan Lash, Dave Koubsky, Randy Erickson, Fred Berg and Wendy Pemrick COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Andrews CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Chm Councilman Mason, Councilman Wing, and Councilman Workman CITY COUNCIL ABSENT: Councilwoman Dimler 1 STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, City Manager; Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist (The recording of the first portion of this discussion was poor quality and some people were not sitting near microphones. Therefore the Minutes 1 are somewhat incomplete.) Hoffman: ...I've laid out a possible discussion agenda this evening. I ' think what I'll do is just go through them. I'll make some very brief comments and then the group as a whole can take up the discussion from there...and just see how long each item takes...if we get into a time crunch. We have about an hour and 20 minutes to go through this and then ' we need to adjourn... First item on the agenda is the Park and Recreation Needs Assessment and Opinion Survey which is about a better than a 6 month effort by the time it... The opinion survey was started ' and it was mailed out in July of this year and...tabulated. With the help of our capable _City Manager...as well as 1,054...which were tabulated. As is laid out in the comments there, the original thoughts for why this survey was going to be put together was the discussion about the possible development of the Bandimere site. That 25 acre plus park down in southern region of Chanhassen. Work going on concerning and starting to research... The other things...survey was a position on trails. Trails stood out as...trail system first. Acquisition of open or natural land for preservation second. Park and ballfield improvements to City Center Park...third. Acquisition of parkland for future ' community use is fourth. Development of Bandimere Park...fifth. Sixth is the development a municipal golf course and seven, installation of lights at Lake Ann... Interesting to note. Many people said they were willing to $5.00 per month to get these type of things done. When you ' break it down in that type of a question, how much individually per month would you be willing to pay to take some of the fear out of it. If you add up all 12 1/2 thousand residents at $5.00 per month, you come up with ' a fairly sizeable amount of money... Other interesting thing is the age breakdown. If you look at the family structure and only 6% and 4% respectively have high school thru junior high. So kids in this community are 13% elementary, 14% preschool. Very, very young. If you then read through the Villager covered this article... Reactions from 1 ' Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 2 the floor. Oh by the way anybody who did, under 100 asked for a personalized response by phone which I will be making contact back to ' those people...and then as well, approximately 50% had additional comments. Those additional comments will be tabulated by subject... ' Lash: So people who were dissatisfied...did they say specifically what they're dissatisfied with ?... Ruegemer: The important keynote too is, some of the comments that came ' back, are you satisfied with recreational programs which are more geared towards the CAA program, which is a separate organization from the city. A lot of the questions that did come back that were not satisfied were ' geared more towards that specific area. Hoffman: People lump together the Athletic Association and the city. ' And as you can well imagine some of the comments... Councilman Wing: ...trails... ' Hoffman: Trails are a pretty big issue... Lash: Put the two categories together, one in favor of a trail system and one in favor of only trails on major roadways is 58 %. Councilman Workman: I think the Council has, wherever possible done ' that, except one exception and that was Audubon Road...which should have probably been done but it seemed like it was going nowhere. It wouldn't have been connected with anything for 20 years anyway. But it probably would have been easier now. Mayor Chmiel: ...I mentioned to you, what is our saturation presently... MUSA line. And what's going to be our needs outside of that MUSA line... ' should we sit back as a city and look at developers and give them guidance...have the developers put these parks in for their particular development. And in doing so, eliminate the need for the city to do much of anything except maintenance and upkeep... Have we looked into that further... Hoffman: ...other communities are acceptable. My opinion is...all ' private parks. Moderation is fine but I don't... Mayor Chmiel: ...they would put those parks in. They would make...less ' cost to the city...everybody that says, I want our park. Why can't we get it? And what they don't realize...and so where do we hit that happy medium... ' Schroers: I think it would be nice to have the developers develop what we call the neighborhood parks. However I think if we set up our own specific guidelines asking the developers to conform to our standards and the type of amenities that we'd like to see in these parks, and the size of them, they would probably say... That could happen. I'm not saying it would. Mayor Chmiel: But, you don't know until you test the waters... Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 3 Lash: We have kicked that idea around before...know several ears ago Y g we talked about not necessarily the private park but having the developers develop the parks...donating the property we would give them specs. Thi, is what the park's going to look like when you're done and go ahead and do it. We design it, they provide it but then I think...got into the maintenance of who's going to maintain it...city park. City neighborhooll park the same as they are right now but at least we would get the developed right away as the homes are going in. Schroers: Well this developer going in right across the street here is I doing one but what he's doing in terms of what we would do if we were developing a neighborhood park is very, very small. And I'm kind of afraid that in a specific development, people in that development once they had their park established would say, this is our park and we...fee good about other members of the community... Lash: Why would it be any different than the way it is now? Except it would just be there faster. Hoffman: The Lundgren premise is that that's a private park for the people who live there... Schroers: Well I think that Don really keyed when he said that they would have to meet the City criteria and City specifications and they would have to understand in no uncertain terms that that area was open to the public or to the residents of the city. Not specifically their neighborhood and if you could make something like that float, it'd probably be great. - Lash: You know and we're here for the residents. We're not here for th' developers...they have to...or if it means they have to raise the price of the home $2,000.00, the park is there. It's developed. Schroers: There's all kinds of incidentals. What about park and trail I dedication fees? I mean we kind of depend on those fees also to develop and maintain the community parks and I know that that's the first thing that they're going to ask for. When we develop the park but you're goin� to have to waive the... Lash: ...waive the fee if they donate property. This is the same thing... (Someone was making a comment which was not heard on the tape.) , Mayor Chmiel: ...how many other parks are we going to need outside of the existing MUSA line now? . ..density is not going to be quite as much in that particular area as we have now within the MUSA area so I... for I the southerly portion of the city. And if that portion still have the Lake Ann Park. We have the park right off TH 41 which is... How do we make all of this flow? How can we... It's hard to tell. We don't know l but I think this is the time, it probably should have been 10 years ago...but right now we'd better start looking ahead because by that time the clock... 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 4 Hoffman: Your visions are right on. The current shortcoming of our comprehensive plan...does not identify the... What the comprehensive ' plan does do is identify park deficiency areas or areas...so when a development comes in... Mayor Chmiel: ...those are the kinds of things we should be thinking about... Hoffman: And as your comment stated, that does take us right into the ' second possible discussion item on the agenda. What is our future of Park and Recreation in Chanhassen ?... ' Lash: Are you talking specifically...or more philosophy? Hoffman: Very open ended question. Philosophy is a little dry... ' Councilman Mason: My personal feeling is I would hope that Park and Rec continue... I've had more people being so pleased with the fact that the city has set very high standards for development. We are working on ' what's going on on Highway 5. We're not being led around...and my own feeling is that I would certainly hope that Park and Rec would feel that same way. I don't think...stand aside and react. It's too late... Councilman Workman: The future of Lake Ann all the way around. Wait until Prince...is there going to be a continuous walkway around that? That's one of the things this city is lacking is...enjoy walking ' completely around and I guess they can. I guess you can really walk around Lake Ann if you want. ' Schroers: That's identified in the master trail plan...acquiring it at this point. But it is definitely identified. 1 Councilman Workman: Any development that happens around that lake will...or Prince, will trigger acquisition? Todd Hoffman's answer was not picked up on the tape. Councilman Workman: Gorra mentioned a golf course in there. How realistic is that? ' Hoffman: He said it before the Council so... ' Councilman Workman: What would be the City's intention with Bluff Creek? Mayor Chmiel: We're looking at that...and there's potentially... ' Councilman Workman: That could be done with a referendum probably. Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah, very definitely. No question...But it is. ' That's something that we should think about. Councilman Workman: But I mean if people aren't willing to raise their taxes a buck or what is it, a buck a month? A buck a month and that Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 5 kind of thing, I'm not sure they're t g, s e hey going to, because I know the mood out there is real tight. Mayor Chmiel: Right and if you're getting the kind of reaction I'm getting for a buck here and a buck there...A silent majority unfortunately are not coming out...and I don't blame them. Right now it ' is tough times for everybody... You've got the jail and the Justice Center too. So everything's going to come at once. And the school can be anywhere from $30 to $50 million yet and that's still...people who aril in a position, have lived here all their lives and most of what they own and if they get can't...and I get a little concerned about that. Councilman Workman: Which brings up my mobile home concept. ' Mayor Chmiel: But it is. There's all kinds of different things. Schroers: Unfortunately, the people when they do these surveys, this is, sent out to them as an individual and what their particular needs and wants and desires are and they don't really have the luxury of looking a the big picture, so to speak as we have. I'd be willing to bet that man people who filled out this survey have no idea the percentage of elementary and preschool kids in the city and what kinds of facilities they're going to need. And if they did understand that, I would think that they would have probably shown more support for the development of Bandimere. I mean that's something that, just because they say that they're not in favor of Bandimere, that's not going to fly in 15 years because there's going to be kids all over that need facilities and then we're going to be shortsighted in their opinion for not having done something about it. ...So why wasn't it done 10 years ago. Councilman Mason: Which leads to being proactive and getting into the education mode. Lash: You know I can't help but just flinch a little bit at the term ' proactive just because in the history of this...between the Commission and the City Council and I think it stemmed from the Commission's and it was labeled proactive at that time. Reaction to things and another word ' we could call it maybe, more aggressive and I think that there were feelings that it was too aggressive. That the Commission was coming up with ideas that people didn't support. I think like, if you look at Bandimere as an example. We look at that as being proactive. We see that there's going to be a problem down the road but we do a survey and people say I don't want Bandimere and then the next month we come out with a referendum and ask them to vote for Bandimere and it fails and then in 5 months we come out with a referendum and we ask them to vote for Bandimere. You get this reaction from people that we're aggressive. That we're trying to force things on them that they don't want. They don't want to pay for and then you end up getting kind of getting yourself in a bad situation there and I don't want to see that happen again. ' Councilman Mason: I think's that's true but I think there's a difference. See I think we're maybe getting to semantics here and I understand some of the history of beforehand but when I think of 1 ' Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 6 proactive I think of the codes that developers have to meet. It's not an issue for those people. They know when they come to Chanhassen they have to meet this high standard. It's not like they're going to drop, they're just going to plop a development in here. The reason for that is because this City has taken a stand. Said this is what we need. This is what we ' have to have. I agree with you. I think if you do a survey and people don't want to do Bandimere and the Park and Rec turns around and wants to do it, that's probably not a good idea. But there are perhaps some other things that could be looked at. Like the need for more land and see to me proactive is things like, we see this survey and we have to get the word out to the community that in 5 years there are going to be so many rug rats flying around here. We don't have the space for it. What do ' you folks want to do? Lash: Yeah, I think that was the whole point of the survey. To find out where people felt on this before we started sticking our necks out and getting ourselves in that position where we would start to be giving the message that we know what you need. We know better than you what you need and so we're going to give it to you whether you want it or not ' because we know better than you do. And people don't like that attitude. Schroers: I think we learned our lesson from that program, all of us that have been here long enough have experienced it. I think what we need to do is try and find alternative sources of funding. I don't know what is anticipated in industrial development in the community but if we could tap into park fees from industrial development and turn those fees over to develop or help develop Bandimere, that's one possible avenue to pursue or to look at and then I think we need to do some brainstorming and see, look for some other possible ways of funding. It just can't go ' back to the people. I mean we all sit here and we all pay taxes and how much does everyone of us sitting here, how much deeper do you want to dig into your own personal financial situation for these things? Maybe ' there's a better way. Councilman Mason: I wonder if another thing that we're not going to find ourselves up against is a lot of the younger, newer people that are ' moving into Chan are eager to have all this stuff. There are a lot of people who have been living here a long time who don't feel that way and I think it's becoming an increasingly sensitive issue. Don addressed ' that too. I think it's something we all, the Council, whatever Commission you're on... That's a tough issue. Hoffman: If we're going to knock off this agenda. Page 2 we have, what ' are our priorities? There's a list there which came back as a result of this survey. To improve that list, are their top priorities...other priorities? ' Councilman Wing: It seems to me, I think without being proactive...and I can start with Minneapolis. I can show you what that city would look ' like if somebody hadn't been proactive. If anybody's ever walked through Carver Park, I want to show you what that would look like today if somebody hadn't been proactive. We all fought it, we didn't like it. I didn't want sewer and water. I'd like to show you Lake Minnewashta if ' somebody hadn't been proactive. The trail system costs money. Park and Rec Commission Meeting II September 22, 1992 - Page 7 Acquisition of open and natural land for preservation, and acquisition o1 parkland for future community use. Big ticket items. It can be budgete for but there's simply going to be a tax increase or a referendum with the bonding... Park and ballfield improvements at City Park. That's a desire that can easily be budgeted for. Easily...so those are enormous things. ...Bandimere Park could be developed out of city funding...but 1 these other items are referendum items. These other items are big ticke items but unless there's a consensus, unless we move, unless we choose to be proactive, we've got nothing because the developers are moving and I growing and moving and grooving and they're moving faster than I can, I can't keep track of what new developments are coming in. So I'm proactive. I have three kids in college and..., you've still got to look 20 years down the road...and say we've got to make some decisions. The 1 trail system, Tom wants his basketball court...the trail system is open to everybody from the baby in the backpack to the older couple walking around throughout this entire city. I think that's the greatest gift well could give... Acquisition of natural open land if we don't have the.. Where are we going? I think those decisions have to be made now. They ought to be...tonight. We'll do it. Let's have a referendum. Let's se how much money we can get... I'm going to vote yes for a referendum in terms of land for the parks. That's a big decision for me. I can't afford it right now. What's the option? The option is to do nothing and that's the easy way out. I think.,.referendum. The City and community 1 has to decide. I'm not going to spend this type of dollars...but I really feel that even though people are hurting today, the majority are going to say, I think they're thinking in the 90's and saying we've got to start preserving land. My own opinion is that a referendum would get ' fairly good support on some of these issues. Hoffman: I heard this story today. 30 years ago the City of Roseville 1 went out and planned it's park system. They said how do we want to do this? Acquire it piece by piece as the City develops, or go out and buy the entire thing. 30 years ago they went out and bought the entire thin" for $825,000.00. Bought the entire city's park system. Councilman Wing: ...in today's dollars but the point is, $10 million I today is going to be $60 million tomorrow and the same arguments are going to be there. I was dumbfounded, I was really surprised the community did that. But this is for tomorrow and our kids and future generations. These are really intangible items... 1 Councilman Mason: But again, that's an education issue. You know if, I live in Carver Beach. Triple Crown is right next door to me. I can almost guarantee you 98% of those people would say you bet, I'll pay $3.00 a month for a trail system. I've got a 2 year old and a 4 year of and...so I agree with Dick on that. I think if it's done right, and you do the old education. You go out and get the vote, I think you can ' probably win. Lash: I agree with that too but then when I look at the survey and it says 48% of the people do not favor raising taxes to accomplish it, what II do you do? We feel that way but. 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 8 11 Councilman Wing: But 58% comes in and says we want this and this and this and we like this and this. Then they turn around and say, but we I don't want to pay for it. Councilman Workman: People are paying $3.00 to $10.00 to $15.00 a day to haul their kids somewhere else to do these things. And when you II mentioned basketball courts, I like basketball courts. We need some indoor basketball courts in this town and I've said it 100 times. We've got the worst facilities here in the metro. If you figure out the cost I that people are taking to send their kids to play hockey somewhere across town at 3:00 a.m., there's all sorts of different costs. I'm not one to stand up and scream about hockey but. II Councilman Mason: I think the issue too is well made. When you send out a survey like this, it's like a wish list for anybody. But if they get the whole picture. If they see some of these figures, but I don't think I certainly nobody else has the big picture like you folks do about what's going to be happening... It seems to me the key is to get that word out. I Lash: I have to laugh when I look at the priorities for people because the last one was installation of ballfields at Lake Ann and Lake Susan and that's what we just voted to do next year. The first thing we're going to do but that's because we know we can't develop Bandimere and we I need to have more ballfields and so that's the cheapest way of getting another balifield is by lighting it. So I think that we're trying to get around some of these high buck items by doing little band aids here in I the best way that we can. Schroers: And the fact that lighting and that sort of thing has...every I year as well as the land values too so we thought this was something viable that we can do and get a pretty good bang for our buck and get it accomplished. I like what you're saying about the trail system and the acquisition of the open space and for future parkland. That seems like a I big lump to swallow. I wonder if there is some way that we can put those three items, like the trail system, the acquisition of open space for just natural land for preservation and the acquisition of parkland for I future community use. Lump it into one referendum item and then provide information such as we've just been discussing along with the items so that people get to see some of the bigger picture and understand that I there is no other way of funding these things and if they are indicating to us that this is what they want, they are going to have to fund it through the referendum process. I Lash: My fear is that the acquisition of open or natural land is always going to be the piece that's just on the other side of their backyard. If they want an open space, they want the open space by them. They don't I necessarily want the open space somewhere else. Councilman Mason: Part of that's education too. I'm telling you right now, I'll go door to door if it helps. I Councilman Wing: So would I. II II Park and Rec Commission Meeting a September 22, 1992 - Page 9 Councilman Mason: And that's the commitment that's going to have to be done. Councilman Wing: This is clearly, the referendum is a big ticket... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there's a lot of dollars...and as I mentioned, two other things that are going to come... One, that's already taken place and the other is supposedly it will come up in probably the early part o '93 are the schools. There again they're going to weigh the different things as to what's going to best suit... Education in my estimation... 1 Trails are needed and I've always supported on major roads. Marjor areas. Within the residential developments, I think it's stupid. My own opinion. There's no need for that kind of thing. You know people walk II down the streets now and they're not being hampered or endangered but I see the needs, as I've said a long time ago, along TH 101. I'd like to see us probably try to sit in with Eden Prairie, even though we can't ge it on our side. See if we could go on a cost share basis with Eden Prairie along TH 101 because those people need an access to get back int town. They're still going to have to cross TH 101 but nonetheless that's the only place you can put it because there's no other place along TH 101 on the Chanhassen side that you can get the trail. You need one along CR 17. Powers Boulevard. You need that extending off and out along TH 101 as well because some of that is going to develop in a short period o time and you get a lot of people out there. There's a whole host of different areas, major areas that those needs are there. We're going to put in one along TH 5 from Powers Boulevard all the way to TH 41 with that road and I assume we're going to have, or I would presume. Not assume...that trail should be somewhere along that particular part and I think MnDot will probably put that in. Lash: Which one? ' Mayor Chmiel: Along Highway 5 extending west. On the north side of the highway. You eventually are going to have another road on the south sid� as well and that's got to be looked at before long... There's a whole bunch of things that we see and I know that you're aware of these things sitting on the Park and Rec Commission. You even have something along I TH 7. That's not a great populous there but we're putting it on Minnewashta Parkway. We'll have a sidewalk system there. So you're going to have to loop that in somehow and eventually CR 117 is going to be built over a period of years and that's another system which will coma right down. 5o you can still bring those people in either by bike or walking or doing anything to come back into downtown. Councilman Wing: You just described a major trail system all inter connecting in... Mayor Chmiel: But not within residential areas as we had on some of I these... Schroers: As those residential areas develop they more or less connect I themselves to the trail systems through their network of streets. They pretty much are designing their development around the major arteries that are in the area. They have to fit in and conform. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 10 11 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we don't have to tell people where to go to follow the park system trail. Or the trail park system through whatever 11 residential neighborhood. ...if they have signs. Schroers: I think what's real important that are trails go somewhere. I mean you can't just have a trail. I mean if we were running a trail along Highway 5 out to TH 41 and it stopped right there, there was no place to go from TH 41, it would make much sense to run a trail all the way out there. But as it is, what we have in our plans, to connect it to 11 the Arboretum and also to the Lake Minnewashta County Regional Park and also in the plan is to try somehow to go along Highway 7 and connect into Minnewashta Parkway and make a big loop so that you can get to where you want to go and that's absolutely essential. It doesn't pay to spend a dime on a trail that won't take you anywhere. Councilman Wing: I think that your comments on other issues such as schools is...we should be doing what's best for the City long term... you've given up your right to the future at that time. Then you're going to live with it. Mayor Chmiel: Who's the...school referendum on? Don Ashworth: You want to do a special. You want to do it as a part of the general election, then there's really no cost. I don't know that I would agree that we have to do a referendum. I think the Council and Park Commission can...much more proactive for our overall park system... Frontier Trail. There really wasn't a desire to do it at that point in time. Now I hear Council members saying yes, we want them on more major type of roads. As Don had described, every one of these roadways through ' here are going to be going through upgrading in the next 5 to 10 years. Moving from a rural section into an urban section is the point in time when you can put in the bike lane. We have a policy in place that everyone is in agreement. This is what we want. Communicate it now to ' the County. These things... It deals with parks and right now we're looking at obtaining additional park fees somewhere in here, on the school site may become a park for us. Opus, we'll look to a park in there. If you look to any of our neighborhoods, this park was put in as development occurred around it. We had some growing pains in that whole process but we did it. All of these parks basically went in as ' development occurred. We did it. We lived within the budgets. Yes, some of it didn't come on quite as... I really have no fear that we can, as this area develops, we're going to be able to create green spots throughout here and we're going to be able to do it without the necessity for a referendum. We may want to look to some supplemental to it so that, like this one here. The entire development almost had... We had some additional funding we wouldn't have to wait until the last house is done before we could put in the last piece of equipment. I don't know if it will take a...referendum, especially as it deals with the trail system. One of the things we should do is have a joint meeting with the Park Commission and the HRA. If there is any agency around here that has ' money, it's the HRA. That's kind of a joke staff line but. Lash: You know that was one of the priority things on the survey and I think the Commission feels this way too. ...and with the new HRA plan 1 • Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1 September 22, 1992 - Page 11 for, what is it called? Central Park here. That's got a big impact on II City Center and that's one thing tonight I hope that we have the time to look at because that's a big issue for me. If we end up losing a facility when we're already at a crunch and trying to figure out what toll do with it and if that's something we can use HRA funding for, in the right area, that would be a nice thing to be able to develop and it wouldn't cost any tax dollars. Don Ashworth: Don and I have talked about that. That actually is right on the edge of the district but with moving the road from this side over to that side, I perceive that the HRA literally is acquiring parkland. At least it would be my position that they should replace the parkland that they take. If that means buying the Hanson property up here and i improving that, that's what should be done. Lash: That's my opinion too. Schroers: What I would like to see is, we have a standard right outside' the door here. This trail system that runs along Kerber Boulevard is used continuously. It's beautiful. It by- passes two community parks. I One an active use park. One an open space or preservation area. Whatever you want to call it. Passive use park is the terminology we use on that but that should set the standard. If we could set up the whole i city on a system like what we have here on Kerber Boulevard, we'd be looking good. That's wonderful. Where did we get the money to develop the trail system along Kerber? Don Ashworth: There again, if the Commission is working with the I Council. You've got a clear direction. This was done as a public improvement project so when we built the roadway, we built the trails on both sides. It did not have to come out of the Park and Recreation budget. But it was done as just a part of the overall improvement. You've got a similar opportunity to do that again back like with Laredo and Great Plains Boulevards and some of those...but the decision at that point in time really wasn't to do that. Schroers: Shame on us if we ever miss an opportunity like that again. 1 Lash: Well if you're talking about Great Plains and trying to equate that with Kerber. I mean Kerber goes like Larry says, past Chan Ponds. Goes past the school. It goes past City Center Park and it comes i directly into downtown. So you've got, that's a high useage area right there where Great Plains Boulevard is just, if I'm thinking, that kind o runs behind St. Hubert's? Ashworth: Yeah, on the west side of 78th. Lash: You know, I mean that's a totally different layout in my mind. 1 Schroers: Right, but as we're formulating the whole program here, what 1 we're talking about is the main arteries and they will pretty much all. Lash: But if Great Plains was passed up, I look at that as it's not a main artery, so. 1 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 12 Hoffman: I see this really as a pep talk. We have the Comprehensive Plan. If you do not agree with that comprehensive trail plan, you need to say so this evening so changes can be made but the routes which Don described and everybody.else describes are on this piece of paper but right now they're just a bunch of lines... Schroers: They are prioritized also though, right? Hoffman: The comments there...completed 2 or 3 miles for the past 10 years, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about it because this would be in place... You have the comprehensive plan. That tells us where. Don's comments in regard to the upgrading of our roads are...in my ' discussions with Charles and the engineering department, we keep in very close touch and then back down to the County as to what's going on. Then...the comments about these little segments that go nowhere. Those ' scare me because correct, they don't go anywhere right now but the last leg of Audubon didn't go anywhere. We had some residents who didn't like it but everybody sits here tonight and says it's on our comprehensive plan so we should do it. But then that opportunity did not go with it. So we have to make some hard and fast decisions but then when we're faced with residents who say no...comprehensive trail plan but I don't want it in front of my house, then we have to stand united and continue to say ' no. That's our goals. Our City's comprehensive trail plan. We'd like to see that go through...and those are the hard decisions. When we leave this room united... ' Lash: Yeah, and I agree with what you just said but there's just no way that we could have ever done 3 or 4 miles every year at $100,000.00 a mile when our revenues were only $30,000.00 to $40,000.00. Hoffman: But in unison with road projects, Minnewashta Parkway and... ' Lash: And we've done that when we could but. Hoffman: For most cases, that's correct. ' Schroers: I think we're looking at the major trails and the major connectors to be done along with road improvements and upgrading. That sort of thing. And then the smaller connectors on the comprehensive plan through development. When the developers come in. We're worried they're taking the dedication or asking them to develop the trails and in that mode, the entire system should be able to be developed. ' Lash: Don, did you say earlier that almost all of the things marked on here in the next 5 to 10 years would be road improvements? That we would be able to accomplish this then without... Ashworth: I think so. I see Pleasant View is on here. That's one we missed because we...but most of the others, except for...That still is going to have to be addressed. Literally Crosstown drops onto that roadway...two lane road. Lash: So the question we have to ask ourselves is, do we want to wait 5 to 10 years to accomplish this at minimal cost to us or do we want to get Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 13 it sooner and ask for tax dollars to accomplish it? Mayor Chmiel: I believe you'd be throwing money away if you were to do 1 that Hoffman: Yeah, I wouldn't advocate that. The thing that a referendum 1 could do is, you could ask for a pot of money because on some of these, the city's going to have to ante up out of their pocket for a portion. If they don't have it available, then we might lose our opportunity. But 11 go out to the voters and ask for a pot of money. $3 million for, well we're going to spend it. What are you going to spend it on? We're going to spend it when an opportunity, a trail comes up and we can pay a portion of it...but I'm not an advocate of going out. I don't believe that the trail referendums which failed, even though they failed by a very small margin, the map which went out corresponding with that referendum, you couldn't have bought all those trails with that money. I Mayor Chmiel: We're going to be fiscally responsible... Ashworth: Even if you made the decision, yeah. Let's go out after. Yo1 can't. Where you've got rural sections, the ditches, you haven't got a place to put a trail system in so I mean, even if making the assumption you put $300,000.00 towards any one segment, when you've got nowhere inside of there, you've got to spend the $3 million to do the road improvement along Minnewashta Parkway. Then you could spend $300,000.00 to put a trail next to it. But until then you really can't do it. 1 Councilman Workman: Let me ask a question about the possible community type of center and I would never again advocate that it goes to a referendum. But in fact the HRA is probably the only way that could be done. While we're upgrading, the hotel's adding on and Filly's is becoming a movie theatre and conference center and all sorts of other things. Then the possibility of gyms in there but that's not even the 1 first phase. We've got a school...to me where we're not planning is in that area of facilities as the population gets bigger and bigger and bigger. And what we talked about before, the cost of taking your kids down to the community center in Chaska, which I've been to once. Frankly it's not convenient for me. Gymnasiums, just simple gymnasium space. I don't need whirlpools, saunas, huge weight rooms and all the other stuff Just simple bare bones facilities so people can play basketball or floor ' hockey or Jazzercise or whatever. Is that out of the picture? Is that then...I know the HRA is going to have more money than they're going to have things to spend it but. Schroers: The position that Park and Rec took on the community center issue as it was proposed previously was that we're not going to touch it with a 10 foot pole. When people start breaking down the door and demanding a community center and a place to provide us with those kind o needs so we know we'll have their support in trying to acquire it then, I mean that's the way we felt about it after we really got slammed for II trying hard. Councilman Workman: Well that's because.it was going to raise taxes and you start getting into, would you be willing to spend about the price of/ Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 14 a pizza month on this? People get real suspicous. Wait a minute. I've heard this before... It's not going to get done unless the HRA. I've know this for years that it's not going to get done unless the HRA does it and the HRA can do it better. And the HRA, we're doing this community center type project down here with all this other stuff going on. I mean ' we're proposing a million, million and a half city center park out here in front of the front step out there and just one person shows up, we held that public hearing open for 5 months and he just counted the trees and said there's just too many damn trees. But he thought it was a good ' idea. That's about a million and a half in land acquisition and trees and shurbs and all sorts of stuff. Not that the HRA was a good place to hide these things but they go off really without any fanfare and the ' HRA's done an awful lot for this community and they're going to be able to do a lot more and that's why it's unfortunate for me, and people who leave the HRA that, you know the good years are coming. You're going to be able to really get some accomplishment out of that. Schroers: I think the Park and Rec maybe needs more exposure with the HRA. We've really had very little to do with them in the past and aren't that knowledgeable in what we could accomplish if we work together with them. I Koubsky: I agree with you too Tom. If you look at this survey and you look at the number of small kids that we've got, we're living in Minnesota. It's cold in Minnesota and there's nothing for these kids to do from November until April. Councilman Workman: They've got some kind of gymnasiums with ceramic at the elementary school and St. Hubert's is ceramic. Both of which are... ' no inside. They're ceramic tile inside and they're really worthless. And those kind of things. I don't mean to have this big, I've never intended that the city should have what Chaska has. But a bare bones ' that looks nice facility where people can do things. It doesn't have to be real expensive. I know you get into that hockey thing and I'm not a hockey nut and that's a huge, huge cost but community type center with rooms and I would say three gymnasiums or something so that a walking 1 track on top and a place where people can go in the wintertime with kids. Mayor Chmiel: You don't want a T'aj Mahal. You want just a small castle. Lash: Then you've got hockey people saying, well if we're going to put that in there, then we need an ice rink. Then you're going to have, you ' know you get all these different groups of people who say, well I don't want that unless we're going to have racquetball courts because I like racquetball and I don't want it unless they're going to have an ice rink. Councilman Workman: Well an ice rink is a broader base thing and I went to high school down in Chaska and everybody that played hockey was from ' Chanhassen. That's where they all came from you know. And so I think this is a hockey area and I don't think the City could go wrong with that. I personally it isn't as close to my heart but it's something I think the City would probably use too. It's something within the scope ' of what I think the HRA could do. And I know that we're going to 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 15 eventually, I know that it's going to eventually become very, very much loud and clear that this community's going to love it. What you have is l and I think most of us have kids. Erickson, you don't. Yeah you do. Erickson: I've got a dog. Councilman Workman: ...well my daughter's already 7 know you. And so there's such a short time span where people say, well the little park right behind me. They put this two phase like playground equipment. First phase is in there. Great. People think I got that because I'm onll City Council. Second phase is 1996. My gosh, she'll be 10 or 11 by then where she won't even use a swing. But there's that short little time I span in there that, yeah. This segment now and then another segment in two years because these people will say, well my kid's getting ready for college you know. So you've always got this flushing and it's a constituency that keeps changing. I think open spaces and trails have never changed. You can walk on them when you're 17 and you're walking o them even more when you're 69, right Don? But those community centers for the youth keep flushing through here. You know what I mean? The I youth keep flushing through here. I don't mean to set up an expensive minor league training camp for any hockey teams or college teams but they're doing it. They're just not doing it here and it is costing this community dollars to go somewhere else. Lash: It's not that people don't support it. They just don't want to pay for it. , Councilman Workman: That's exactly what I understand. Lash: Not that they don't want it. They just don't want to pay for it., Schroers: They also know what's around. They know what's in Eden Prairie and they know what's in Chaska and when it comes time for us to II develop a community center, we're going to have to conform to standards. I mean I think that it would be hard to sell a facility that offered limited experiences. I think we're going to have to kind of conform to , what is state of the art and look at things like having some convention space. Something like that available that we could rent out portions of it and generate some kind of maintenance, upkeep, operation type money from the facility. Councilman Workman: Chaska right now is discussing very heavily their community theatre complex. I mean they're going way out here. And you I think Chanhassen would be taking the lead with the Dinner Theatre and everything in town and Prince and we're a rather theatrical community. But I kind of looked at them and said gee. They really are looking aheail here at some different things and they're spending some dollars on some things that the community could easily say, well we don't need that you know. It's one of those things and I'm not one of your artsy craftsy guys but I think it would accentuate Chaska. Let's face it, they need something. They need culture down there... Schroers: Maybe they could get some culture from us and we could get some funding from them. How are they able to do all that? 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 16 Councilman Workman: Well they stuck $8 million of tax increment ' financing. They didn't go to any bond referendum for that community center. Mayor Chmiel: I still don't know how they did it. Councilman Workman: Well they did it. I mean they stuck, nobody voted ' on it. They did a lot of testing of the community to see if they would like it. Polling by professional firms and said okay, we're going to go do it. They jumped in and they did it. Now they've got a nice plaque on the wall. The Council members. So they're doing all that stuff because they're running out of things they can do you know but the money's there and they set it back and get 18 cents back on the dollar. ' Mayor Chmiel: No, they're just trying to get it... Koubsky: The thing about Chaska too is your basketball courts, your hockey rinks, a lot of those are the schools. We have a grandiose vision to put in an elementary school out on TH 5 anal... You're saying okay. If we put in an elementary school, you've got to build a big gym that isn't made for elementary kids. It's made for the populous. Why not ' think about Jr. High. Okay, that doesn't have enough room for a Jr. High. Well let's find an area that's got enough room where we can build...some tennis courts or basketball courts or something... ' Mayor Chmiel: We're already looking at that right now. Lash: But who knows down the road how long it's going to be before there's another...that could be a long time. Koubsky: The school's are coming... ' Lash: But the HRA can do whatever they want. They have the money and you know you go back to the old community center thing that you were ' talking about earlier, the Park and Rec had very limited involvement in that. That was a whole separate body at the time. I think both times it went for referendum I don't think the Commission was involved. Maybe ' it's something where there needs to be a joint effort between the Commission and the HRA funding. Schroers: It was a task force actually that was formed for that. ' Lash: And there again, that was another one of those things where it was, people felt like. 1 Schroers: There was friction. Lash: Yeah, there was friction involved and it was, man we just voted it ' down and now here it is again. We've got this small faction of people who are on this one issue and they're going to keep giving it to us until we just roll over and take it. And that irritates people so they vote ' against it and it's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. They just do it to send a message like, and don't do it to me again. And so if we can get the facility. I don't think it was that people did not 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 17 want the facility. They just did not want to have to pay for it. But i1 we can get it... Councilman Workman: Well you know, on that Highway 5 and Market the Citll has been talking about for years at least. Barton - Aschman entry monuments. There's going to be, you all know this, it's going to be about 8 feet tall. Brick wall on the northeast corner. Chanhassen. It' going to have like a maple leaf on it in a circle but for half a year or � more, we had some basic prototypes about what was going to be there and these five guys, including myself on the HRA went ooh... I mean we coul decorate a bathroom you know. Lash: That's because there's no women on the HRA. Mayor Chmiel: I don't agree with that. We can always bring a newspaper' Councilman Workman: And so we have this big thing, this big huge thing and I swear to God I wasn't going to approve that. If there ever was a phallic symbol it was it, and no way. So we're looking at this thing yo know and we didn't know and we finally, all of a sudden Jeff Farmakes from the Planning Commission who's a real creative guy came in with a great simple design and we could say that's, we jumped and that's it. Let's go, move on you know but they're not that creative and I think they want help to...But I think that's the risk taking body. Not risk taking ' but $27 some million bucks to fool around with or send to the County. And that can get it accomplished. Mayor Chmiel: That's what the incentive of TIF is really, and everybody I know is aware of that but I'd just like to reiterate...because of thos TIF dollars, if we didn't have those dollars, we couldn't do half the things we do within the city. And sure, it should be given to the Count and School District if it wasn't being used for TIF but nonetheless, we IN still have a certain amount of things to accomplish in this town and the only way to accomplish it is through the HRA through the TIF. Lash: You know is there some way that you guys can educate people as to how that works. I mean people don't have a clue so when all of a sudde a community center gets built and you tell them no tax dollars were used for it and they go yeah, right. I mean they don't believe that in a second and they figure somewhere along the line they're paying for this but just nobody will tell them. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Give them the number at City Hall, 937 -1900 and ask for Ashworth. Ashworth: I'll make a copy of that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, maybe in our next newsletter we should put somethinil pertaining to that. Berg: I would bet that a sizeable majority don't know what the HRA is. 1 Lash: Oh they have no idea. Nobody knows what that stands for. If I ever used those letters, they have no idea what they stand for. They Park and Rec Commission Meeting ' September 22, 1992 - Page 18 ' have no idea what TIF is. What it stands for or what it is. Councilman Workman: Well it's just capturing the excess that you've got ' a lousy gas station that's making $2,000.00 in taxes a year and now you're going to put a Target on that's going to make $100,000.00. The increment is the $98,000.00. You keep sending the County the $2,000.00 they're always getting but now you clean the joint up and you've got $98,000.00 to take care of the waste and put into the sewer and help clean up the site. So you've got this extra money for all these years that's generating to help with other projects. And so it's kind of like. 1 Lash: But then people look at that and say, well wait a minute. Target's going in, the reason I want Target to go in is because it's going to go 1 onto our tax base and it's going to lower my taxes so when they hear that 98% of it is going to go to, main street then they kind of. Councilman Workman: But it eventually will and because you're helping ' them with a lot of their facilities, it's one of the reasons why they'll come in. ' Hoffman: It still is helping you Jan in that those TIF dollars that are being collected, the State does not see those so they look back on here and they say, your revenue poor because you're only giving them $2,000.00 so we can give you a lot of State Aid money. So the State Aid money goes into Chanhassen to get your taxes low. That $98,000.00 which you collected off of Target, it's a wash. It doesn't effect you. That's even harder. 1 Lash: And you're trying to tell someone that their taxes are staying low. Councilman Workman: In theory what we do is, we take the $98,000.00 and give it to the County and then the County would disperse it to the School District and they'd disperse it back to us. But how much would we get back from the County? 18 cents. 20 cents on the dollar. So rather than $98,000.00 we get, and then. ' Mayor Chmiel: Just recently Don and I sat down in a discussion of whether or not TIF should be... We did an analogy and a study and that study so indicates that we're better to continue with the TIF than to completely eliminate it because once it's eliminated, those taxing 1 dollars that were to come in, that you can entice people to get here, are no longer there and therefore the School is not going to get those kinds of taxes. 1 Ashworth: Or the County either. ' Lash: Because the businesses won't come here to start with? Mayor Chmiel: That's right. And we sat down. We went through that here just 4 weeks ago. And it just pays for the City to continue with it. I ' have been an advocate of saying, okay. Let's cut the years on it so we can turn it back over and we've done some of that but to continue that, 1 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting II September 22, 1992 - Page 19 it's not in the best interest for the City or the School District nor th' County. That's what it really boils down to. Lash: Do you see what I'm saying? I mean I feel like I'm barely involved and have been for a few years and I still don't get how this all works. So then you look at average Joe Blow out there, they don't have a clue and no matter what you do, they think they're getting the short end of the stick. And they just don't get it. 1• Councilman Mason: And there's nothing you can do about that. You know those of us that were here for the Highway 5 Task Force. We had that bi' deal where all the concerned citizens could come in. There were 15 people in the room. 3 of them were attorneys for Eckankar and Fleet Farm. 10 people were involved, there was one person from the community.' You know and that unfortunately is I think the burden, those of us that are interested in city government or how things work have to face because they will be here... Lash: I always figure the answer is, put it in the paper and then I fin out I'm the only person in town who reads the paper... I mean I have enough of a knowledge that I can handle it but I know there are people..' Councilman Workman: ...people who don't want to understand. I think Chanhassen was one of the leaders. I was in a Transit meeting. A Legislative Transit Subcommittee meeting down at the State Capitol about' a month ago and Byron..., a Minneapolis legislator who thinks he's quite bright, and he named Chanhassen specifically as a community who's developing at the expense of all of Minneapolis. I mean there's this us' and we and them kind of deal and we're operating in, I think because of Don Ashworth, we're operating and taking advantage of laws that really no longer exist. Pre -1979? Pre -1979 tax increment that really how many I other communities did that? Ashworth: Eight. Councilman Workman: Eight in the state and so we've even got a bigger advantage. And so that's why it's difficult and it is. It's too late to say we should just get out of it because gee... I Hoffman: Well we're going to wind down. It's not surprising that much of the discussion centered around dollars this evening. That's what the funding of the annual capital improvement program is going to talk about' Currently we're a fairly new community so it's not surprising that we charge when new people come into town to build parks. But we're also spending that new money to come back and retrofit old parks. Update old' parks. In other communities, that's not the case. Those old parks, established areas are finding that there's no more funds. The question there, how long do we rob Peter to pay Paul. I mean the till runs dry all some point. It's lucky that we're continuing to develop at a fairly rapid pace so we can continue to do that. But we need to put some thought into that area. Golf course, we talked about that briefly. II Erickson: Wait a minute. I had a question on the golf course. I'm a little naive, new to a lot of this kinds of stuff. But a couple meetings II Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 20 ' ago we mentioned about this golf course thing and you said there isn't a golf course that doesn't make money. Could a golf course be the money tree for us? I mean can that beef up the parks? I mean you may not be able to put in a trail system but could that bring in $20,000.00 a year ' that we could use to upgrade and keep parks going? It might cost, I mean didn't you, wasn't it even said that you could finance this at Norwest Bank to buy this thing and pay it off and then in 20 years we've got a ' money tree standing there that's bringing in money to pay for all of our parks. Am I naive? Is that what I heard or, you guys know numbers better than I do. Is that true? Hoffman: It depends on who you talk to but most people would say you'll make money. Then you will say, you can mismanage the operation, the land purchase, anything and if that is one that's managed, you'll still come ' out ahead. Others will say no, it's tougher than that. But if you include the acquisition cost. ' Mayor Chmiel: It's a real controversial kind of thing. Some of them, and we've gone over this extensively, where they say they're making the dollars. It's a big money tree. In some instances that money tree does not go back into the general fund. It's directed in different locations but sometimes the way it's directed is not the fiscal way to go...and therefore the cost to the city in operational as well. It depends on, and I think Don can...as well, things that we have talked ' about and thought about and really contemplated on how and what is the best way to go. As we mentioned a golf course over here. We don't want to see that develop. I don't want to see that develop. Maybe the best ' thing is to get an... The other question is, are they willing to sell. And if they are willing to sell and they know we're a buyer, they're going to hold us up. And so you have to really watch that. When we first started the new golf course, those first five years you can only ' take x number of people on board at that course because it takes time to build that course up to get it at full capacity. So it takes time with that as well. Erickson: The thing I'm really thinking is an investment today so that 15 years down the road we have a money tree. ' Councilman Workman: I think where golf courses get into trouble is in their bar and kitchen and their fancy clubhouse deals. If you're looking at Bluff Creek with their half built clubhouse, you know a tin shed but ' golf courses are jammed at $22.00 a. throw and I know I stood before the Park and Rec and a lot of people wanted open space. Well, this is open space with a turnstile on it that will help pay for it so you get your open space. Yeah, you wouldn't want to walk out there in the middle of a Sunday afternoon for fear of getting hit but for a lot of the year, those are just nice open spaces for cross country skiing or whatever. ' Hoffman: If you're making the payment on Bluff Creek today and you wait until there is another plan or development and say, well wait a minute. We don't want you'to develop that. We want to buy it as a golf course. You're going to pay much more dearly at that time. Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 21 Councilman Mason: I think one thing we do have to remember with the 1 Bluff Creek thing is, there's an awful lot of land there in that ravine that should be preserved. And certainly something to think about is if we were to acquire that golf course, then we've accomplished an awful lot. There are a lot of if's there but. Lash: I think last year when we toured there, we said it. Councilman Mason: Right. Right. Lash: If we could get this, it's killing two birds with one stone. We're getting the golf course, which you know it maybe would make a mone tree for us later and we're preserving that area and that's very important to us too. Schroers: I've never been actually on that course. Is that a decent golf course? Councilman Workman: With a couple of changes on some holes. See the biggest problem with it, and a lot of people who golf, like I do, don't like it just because it's not maintained very well. The traps aren't necessarily raked every day and after a rain, if a trap isn't raked eve day with a machine, it's not really a trap. The ball just kind of rolls on the dirt, or gravel. And trimming and you can tell it's not really I well taken care of and so it's a big enough money tree for these people that yeah, what the heck. People are coming here in droves and paying big bucks and I'm not taking care of it. And you know the very first hole is a par 5, dogleg left that if you hit it too hard, it's going to I go down the hill and you're done. I mean it's like how do I get my driver out on a par 5 and try and pinpoint where I'm going to land my ball. You need to straighten that out. 1 Schroers: You've got to practice more. Is that a 9 hole course? Councilman Workman: No, it's an 18. 1 Erickson: The number I heard, and please take my sources into account, a bartender told me, who's a very close friend of the son of the guy who II owns Bluff Creek and I don't know..., he said they pull in about $8,000.00 a weekend on that course. That's a weekend. Schroers: Is that above and beyond operating costs? t Hoffman: We're going to finish up here...our meeting. Central Park. W touched upon it briefly. I would hope we have the HRA's backing when they come up and knock out a ballfield and that type of thing, that we g ahead and acquire that vacant piece of land to the north and do some refurbishments up there. City Center Park is an area very important too" The 1993 Park Acquisition and Development CIP will be coming to you. It's been developed by the Park Commission and will be coming to the Council as part of the budget process. Thanks Don. Preservation of ope space we talked about. Highway 5 corridor. We touched upon a few times Jim Andrews is the member of the Commission on that task force. If you have particular concerns in that regards, please see Jim... 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11 September 22, 1992 - Page 22 The joint Park and Recreation Commission and City Council portion of the meeting was adjourned. Chairman Schroers called the regular Park and Recreation Commission meeting to order at 8:30 p.m.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berg moved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated August 11, 1992 as amended by Randy Erickson on page 33, deleting the first sentence in the sixth paragraph, and on page 38, changing the phrase "Nerf Hockey" to "nerd hobby ". Also, approving the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated August 25, 1992 as amended by Jan Lash on page 40, changing the statement under Fall Recreational Schedule attributed to Lash to Hoffman. All voted in favor and the motion carried. LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CONCEPT SITE PLAN REVIEW: GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK, OPUS CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Michele Foster, Opus Corporation, P.O. Box 150, Minneapolis 55440 Tom Kordonowy, Steiner Development, 3610 So. Hwy 101, Wayzata 55391 Howard Dahlgren, Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban, 300 1st Avenue No, Mpls Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers and Park Commissioners. Before we begin I believe it would be appropriate to introduce the folks that we have here in the audience. Michele Foster in the second row is the Director of Land Development at Opus Corporation. The other gentlemen, I'll let them introduce themselves to the Commission and let them address with you what their connection with this project is. Howard Dahlgren: My name is Howard Dahlgren. I'm the past President of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Land Planning Consultants...Tom Kordonowy 1 who is the President of Steiner Development...partners. Tom Kordonowy: ...resident of Chanhassen. I have four Chanhassen and I ' enjoy the City very much. Hoffman: Thank you. The concept review which you have before you is for an office /industrial planned unit development on 178 acres of property 11 currently zoned agricultural estate. The location, as you can see by your location map, is the southeast quadrant of Highway 5 and 41. In the northwest quadrant of West 78th Street and Highway 41. We reviewed this map throughout the meeting but I believe it would be appropriate... significance in size. Again, the proposal is in that southeast quadrant of Highway 5 and 41. The boundaries to the west would be Highway 41, State Highway and the Arboretum... This also runs directly into the City ' of Chaska... Back to the east you have a vacant parcel of property slated for high density residential to the north and lower density or single family residential to be developed immediately east of that where we run into Timberwood... As you can see, it's a significant... To go through the adjacent, the current zoning again to the north is agricultural estates. To the south, the City of Chaska and their 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 23 industrial park. East, agricultural and then west again, agricultural and the U of M Landscape Arboretum. In regard to the City's Comprehensive Plan, it identifies this area of the city as park deficient. Specifically the plan labels the area which encompasses this proposed development as Park Deficiency Zone No. 7. The acquisition of significant park area which incorporates as many of the natural features offered by this site referring to the tree cover, topographic diversity, developable land, vistas, wetland areas, is highly desireable. The applicant as a part of their narrative, as you have read, has currently identified slightly less than 30 acres of property as parkland. The vast majority or so be it, the majority of that property however is wetland II and currently is in that state. The area which would also include a holding pond which is necessary to mitigate the filling of wetlands on this site, and for storm water retention. The open space identified on the current sketch plans are comprised of two separate parcels. Lot 17 and Lot 18 being 5.9 and 24 acres in size respectively. Nobody contests that area such as those being identified as parks are beneficial. However, labeling these areas as park is not necessary to protect them all wetlands. As you know, no park credit fees, no credit to park fees are given for the dedication of wetlands as public space areas as a part of a development proposal. The wooded and upland areas of Lot 18 would earn II the applicant partial credit of park fees. Excluding any park fee credits, this proposal would generate in the area of $350,000.00 in park fees revenue. The City standards for a community parks call for a site totally in it's entirety, 25 to 50 acres. Community park affords natura features of varied physiographic interests as we discussed earlier. A community park is an area of natural or ornamental quality for outdoor recreation such as walking, viewing, sitting, picnicing and may incorporate areas for field and court games. Proximity to community facilities and resources obviously is also important. The concept plan submitted to date, which you have before you, takes the first few steps in creating an area offering these qualifies. Again, just as the city recognizes the importance of these areas, I believe the applicant does as well. We just need to work through the process of coming to an agreemen of what that all exactly means. In addition to your packet you have before you an aerial topographic view which shows you in better clarity how this site lays out. The large blue line which you have laying before you, that will show you a little bit better exactly the areas which are 1 currently identified as parks and open space and how they actually look in the field. So please feel free to refer to that as we go through this. As far as the recommendation in regards to the City Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission request the applicant provide, as a part of their proposal, a community park site. This site to include sufficient land of suitable character and topography to include natural vistas, affording sufficient area for viewing and picnicing, a designated 8 foot wide bituminous trail with multiple access points connecting the wooded and upland portions of the site with picnicing and viewing areas and the street plan and sidewalks. 1 Sufficient area for the possible construction of two ballfields, a basketball court, a double tennis court, and sufficient upland areas to buffer these amenities, very similar to what you see at Lake Susan Park in the community at present. This will require the designation of considerable more property than called out on the sketch plan. However, it is desireable that all parkland conformance be contiguous or lie next 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 24 to each other, meaning both the active components and then the wetland components as part of this proposal. This park shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as well as allowing for sufficient egress and ingress and parking areas. Conversations today ' with some of the representatives we have here is that, this may certainly be possible that it needs to make economic sense and we don't dispute that. Any property the City would be desiring to acquire, the applicant ' would certainly be compensated for. Which fund that comes out of may, is still not answered. As you discussed tonight, the applicant will come in for a financing plan under TIF, Tax Increment Financing. A portion of the park or the facility which eventually is realized here, could be ' financed as it was at Lake Susan with those TIF dollars. A portion of it could be financed with park fees as eluded to that this development would eventually maintain at $350,000.00 or better in park fees. So I'll be ' interested to hear what the commission, what your thoughts are in regards to the comprehensive plan and what that means to this area, as I'm sure the applicant will as well. Comprehensive trail plan is somewhat ' simpler. More simple. The comprehensive trail plan calls for a location of an 8 foot wide bituminous off street trail on the north and west perimeters of the site, being Highway 5 and Highway 41. We can anticipate that the section of trails to the north will be completed in ' conjunction with the next phase of construction of Highway 5 as we discussed this evening. This trail when constructed, will lie on the north side of the highway. In regards to Highway 41, the applicant has ' not incorporated into their sketch plan the section of trail identified in the City comprehensive plan. There may be good reason for that in that the applicant has had conversations and the City would certainly be ' interested in entering into those as well with MnDot so that the desire of lowering the road level there at Highway 41, when you turn south off of Highway 5 and you directly begin to ascend that steep hill. It would be to everyone's benefit to bring that down. At the time that that road ' project would be undertaken, that would be a very reasonable time to go ahead and put that trail system in. But again with the timeframes and the forecasts of MnDot, I'm not sure that we want to hang our hat on ' that. Those roadway projects can drag out for 5, 10, 15 years depending on funding sources, etc. Dependent upon the likelihood of the State doing so, at the proposed time we may concur with that position. It's up to the Commission and City Council to decide. This section will at ' itself terminous the one going south on Highway 41. It will be an important link with Chaska's trail system. In regards to interal pedestrian traffic routes or sidewalks, they are necessary as a part of ' this plan and will be addressed by the Planning Department and Commission. The minimum amount of revenue this development could generate in trail fees upon it's completion, excluding any credit, is ' $114,000.00. The recommendation in regard to trails is that the Park Commission request the applicant to incorporate into their proposal and site plan the construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of State Highway 41, beginning at State Highway 5, extending south to the existing West 82nd Street. This construction is to be completed by the applicant in accordance with the city standards, •specifications in regard'to trails. In consideration for that construction, trail fees will be reduced accordingly. That recommendation can be amended as a part of my previous comments in regard to the lowering of the road and that type of thing. If you would like to 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 25 1 see the trail go in at that time, I would amend that recommendation to elude to that. Upon the Commission's request to being incorporated, int the Gateway West Business Park plan, the Park and Recreation Commission will have a second chance to look at this and review their proposal. Schroers: Thanks a lot Todd. I think that staff laid this out very well. This is a familiar format that we've seen before. It's understandable that unuseable area such as wetlands would make good park and good natural areas. However, we need property that will also support' active use as we are park deficient in that area so a balance of both natural area and active use area I think is what we're going to be striving for here and that was put down quite well in the recommendation' I believe. I'm looking for input or discussion from other commissioners. Lash: I have two quick questions for Todd and the applicant I guess. I The first one would be, is there any timeframe that anyone knows of for TH 41? Do you have inside information? Michele Foster: We have had conversations with MnDot, with Evan Green all MnDot as far as road improvements for Highway 5...and our request to include the access on Highway 41. There's no definitive time table, although he has indicated that they are looking at the 1996 timeframe but' feel if there is significant interest on the part of both the cities of Chaska and Chanhassen, that there may be some pressure that can be brought to bear to find funds in order to move that up on the schedule. I We are certainly very interested in having that happen because we feel it's very important to the development of this property to improve that access and I think from conversations with both the Planning Department of Chanhassen and with the City of Chaska, that there would be significant support for seeing that, those improvements made. But until we get further along in this process and the City has taken some more definitive approvals for the concept that we're talking about, we haven'1� been able to bring that pressure to bear at this point but we are prepared to do that... Lash: But the farthest down the road would be 1996? 1 Michele Foster: That's what they say today. Berg: Is that tied in at all with the completion of 212? Michele Foster: No...it's a separate issue. There may be some improvements there now. I think they...to be more improvements there an it's a question of I think...to make that priority for the State, as they are open to that discussion. Berg: Because I was under the impression they were going to be looking at redoing TH 41 when 212 connected. Have you heard anything about that? I'm wondering if the way that 212 is being. ' Michele Foster: To the best of my knowledge, no. But again, that issue still needs to be addressed in terms of timing, both from our interest II and I think the same for the City as well. Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 26 ' Koubsky: Michele, for this development would you wait for that improvement before you developed or would you develop and then incorporate MnDot's plan? ' Michele Foster: Well I think we need to understand what their timing is going to be for those improvements. It really is our goal to see those improvements made sooner rather than later. But no, this project is not ' going to wait for the Highway 41 improvements but it is our goal to get those done....as we can and that's why it's our position that we would like that portion of trail not have to be installed immediately. When from a planning purpose it makes sense to understand that but I'm not sure that it makes sense to require the installation... It may also be possible then to use State or Federal funds to install that portion of trail as part of the improvements. It would be nice... Koubsky: That looks like a pretty small issue on this whole thing. ' Michele Foster: In the whole scheme of things, it is but. Lash: Then Todd my question for you is, in your recommendation regarding the trail it said, in consideration for this construction, trail fees will be reduced accordingly. Do you have any idea what it would be? Hoffman: Again, in regard to the construction of the trail, upon ' finishing my report the discussions came out about lowering Highway 41. I would not be an advocate of pursuing development of the trail with park development fees by the applicant in light of recent information being ' brought forward. Chairman Schroers, I believe it would be valuable at this time if the applicants do have any prepared statements, that the Commission could take those. ' Schroers: Yes. Okay, thanks. If there is anything that any of the applicants or the representatives of this project wish to share with us, we'd be happy to hear it at this time. ' Michele Foster: Well I'd like to defer to Howard Dahlgren at this point. His firm has been the planning consultant firm for the project and we'd like to give a brief presentation on what our rationale was in developing ' the concept and then I can just make a few brief comments after that really about, clarifying our position on the staff recommendation. So with that I guess I'd like Howard... Howard Dahlgren: Thank you very much. We've put together a few transparencies that I thought might be helpful for the Commission to ' understand our proposal... By the way, I want you to know that it is our objective here to do this park pretty well. It's a great piece of land. It's important to the city of Chanhassen and Chaska in the sense that it's the gateway to Chaska from the north and gateway to Chanhassen from the west. That's why we're...we want to do the right thing in the right way at the right time. There are some things we can do and there are some things that we cannot do. But working together, we want to have the best results here. That's why... 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 27 (Mr. Dahlgren's presentation was not being picked up on the tape as he was standing away from a microphone.) 1 Schroers: Okay, could I ask for a little interpretation on that. When you say that the 15.9 of useable land, are you talking about the high I ground and treed area? It's the forested area? Howard Dahlgren: Some of it, as you can see from the photo, some of it I has, much of it has trees. Some of it does not. As you can see here, I think the land that showed trees... Here you can see, the wetlands are shown on here in the dotted line. The trees are shown on here in the lighter green. That shows the relationship of the trees and the overall' park site... So the answer is, there's high ground with trees. There's high ground without trees. Schroers: Is there high ground without trees sufficient enough to have I playing fields, in your opinion? Howard Dahlgren: Well I think if we leave this as it is, if you move I this pond somewhere else, maybe in here or somewhere, there would probably be enough room to put one ball diamond in here. This we can do without your acquiring any land. Now if you're going to extend...then ' you'd have to acquire it. We don't really want to sell more land since this is the only industrial land that's out here on the west side. We feel that it's in the city's interest to develop this tax base...for it'll best useage which we think is for industrial purposes... If you want additional parkland, perhaps it ought to be...residential areas or a pasture area...east and to the north. I'm not trying to plan your park system. What I'm saying is, our intention here is to develop a fine, ' high quality industrial park. And because of the economic...it's difficult for us to not...we'd like to be able to develop this over a period of time...so it winds up to be in the interest of everyone, the I City and over time... The bottom line is though, we want to do a fine job here. We cannot, we weren't even aware of the fact that you wanted to have us provide a 25 to 50 acre park. We simply can't do that. We could do this. Maybe there could be some adjustments...but we cannot provide a 25 acre park here... I would suggest that perhaps land that i designated for residential might be acquired cheaper than land that's well located for high quality industrial... 1 Schroers: Okay. Is anyone, have you done any kind of concept in regards to what type of park you think that's going to be? I mean for me sittinil here looking at what you're proposing, basically what we have there is what we would have to call a passive use park. A natural area. It wouldn't be a real high active use type park. It would be a natural are and our mission is to kind of look at our comprehensive plan and to acquire areas that are needed in park deficient areas and assign those parks a purpose and I think that when staff is asking for a community park here in the recommendation, that what we're looking for is a park that offers a balance of amenities where we have some nice natural areas/ like you're talking. The oak forest but we also, for it to be a community park it has to be something that the residents of the city are!' going to want to come out and enjoy so there's going to have to be some attractant there other just trees. Not that trees are not important. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 28 They're becoming increasingly more important every day and we wish that we could afford to have just natural areas set aside just to be left as that but I think our need indicates that we are going to have to provide some form of recreational opportunities in this area of the city. Howard Dahlgren: Yes, I think you're right in that all the ingredients ...However, it may be that a park like this perhaps in conjunction with some...it may be that your playfields are in another location. They may ' be contiguous to the school site. In Mendota Heights, they just bought new parkland contiguous to the school site on purpose and they use the facilities together and it's working extremely well. Everyone is saving money,..and it's a concept that has a lot of merit... But you are right. This site is not...but there's a lot of land out there yet on the west end of Chanhassen. Perhaps there's a site...that doesn't infringe on high value... Schroers: We have been looking in that area for quite some time and there is still some space available but whether or not and when it can be ' acquired is I guess something that we don't know at this point. Are there any questions? Lash: I have a question. First I'd just like to make a comment on your presentation in that it's one of the best presentations I've seen. The visuals were excellent for me to see where the wetlands and the tree coverage are. I've never seen one this good so I thank you for that. I have a couple of questions about the development itself. What type of buildings are these? Are these similar to what we already have in our industrial park over here? Sort of a one story type building or are they more office building type things or what's it going to look like? Michele Foster: As you may know, Opus Corporation has developed a number ' of mixed use business parks in the Twin Cities. Opus II in Minnetonka. Eagandale Center in Eagan. We're developing a new park in Plymouth called Bass Creek Business Park. We were involved in the development of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, although we were not the initial ' developer of that park. We consider this to be really an extension of that. Of all of that experience. But it is primarily going to be an office and industrial park. We envision most of the buildings being more ' low rise kinds of buildings. The office market is really not in a very healthy state and not likely to return to a healthy state for a long time. But we view it as a quality business park. I think we envision it ' as probably a step above the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park that we have been involved in. But it is going to be a mixture of building types and building materials but we consider the design standards in the covenants that are going to be implemented for the park are going to emphasize ' quality design. They're going to emphasize open space. Landscaping. It is our intent that we will be designing and building most of the buildings within the park and so we will have the kind of architectural and design control that will help ensure that that level of quality is maintained throughout the history of the park. So that's basically what we envision at this point. ' Lash: Okay, thank you. And then Mr. Dahlgren, you said you were talking, thinking of doing this in stages or phases. Do you have any 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 29 1 idea over how many years? Howard Dahlgren: Well, it will probably take a total of 10 years to do the total project.. Generally we'd start it in the south. We want to ge this road up through here as quickly as we can... Depending on the timing of the utilities, how much of this would be... Lash: Okay. And then looking at how this is divided up into lots I guess, what would you say the average size is of just, they all look lik, they're somewhat close in size there. I'm not very good at judging that. Howard Dahlgren: Michele...I haven't done that. Have you done that Michele? Michele Foster: No I haven't...I'd say around 5 acres it looks like fro' just the listing of the separate parcels. It's probably around the average of 5 acres. Lash: Okay Todd, then I have a couple of questions for you too. On the' east side of where this stand of oaks are, down in that southeast corner, you said that was zoned low density? Hoffman: Residential? Lash: Yeah. 1 Hoffman: Correct. Lash: And then just to the north of that is high density? And have you' seen anything come across for any developments in that area at this time? Hoffman: Not to my knowledge at this point but again, if you refer to the aerial which you have you'll see, as Mr. Dahlgren has mentioned, the extreme difficulty which is going to be met when that area comes in for development. The entire, let's just look to the plan. You can see the I fence line which is...and the wetland area which we are currently discussing. This wetland goes over the property line down into the O'Shaughnessy property. Lash: So okay. I mean you're reading into what I'm saying here which is fine, because that's just what I'm saying. We wouldn't be able to just collect the park fees here and use the money to buy property on the east!' side of the wooded area, because it wouldn't be developable? Hoffman: ...acquire as part of future development this knoll to continull with the preservation of the open space but contiguous to this site, which identifies park property there would not be, in my opinion, ground which is suitable for an active park. Schroers: And that is what you're, excuse me. That is what you have in your recommendation is that a parcel that will accommodate both. Active use and. ' Hoffman: Correct? 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 30 Lash: My thought here is pretty obvious of course was, could we just split it and have the park be on the residential side of this development with the oaks as the background to the west of it? Are you following me? But we couldn't do that? Hoffman: It doesn't work, no. 1 Lash: Okay. Then how far is this from the slated school site that's on TH 5? ' Hoffman: It's relatively close. Again, if we refer back to the... The current property line is that line right there. This is the O'Shaughnessy piece and then the school property. ' Lash: So it's right on the other side of...? ' Hoffman: Correct. Lash: Thank you. That's all my questions. ' Howard Dahlgren: ...this is the O'Shaughnessy parcel...I'm not sure that that that knoll would be undevelopable for a ballfield. We did not investigate that... 1 Schroers: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? ' Erickson: I have a question for that yet mapped out corner of that right at Highway 5 and 41. Right in the corner there, which is obviously a very prime site. What kind of things did you envision? How many acres is that empty space? Just roughly. Michele Foster: It's about, a little less than 30 acres... ' Erickson: What kind of, what range of things would you envision? I mean that seems like a very prime site. A Radisson hotel. Kentucky Fried Chicken or what? ' Howard Dahlgren: No Kentuckey Fried Chicken. A Radisson hotel possibly. Maybe a use that we don't even know. Erickson: Fleet Farm has what corner? Hoffman: Directly to the north. 1 Erickson: To the north of that. Howard Dahlgren: So we just don't know but we wanted to keep it accessible. Maybe it's industrial. Maybe by the time we get here, the office park is packed and we can put a first class office building here surrounded by industrial. What we're saying is whatever it is, it's something that... 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 31 Sch,roers: Are there any more questions or comments from Commission members? Koubsky: Todd, could you outline on there where exactly, you mentioned Lots 17 and 18 in your recommendation there. Can you kind of show us on one of these maps how that fits in. These are kind of filled with half copies and stuff. Hoffman: Lots 17 and 18...two locations which they outlined as open space...all the -areas that we've been talking about the open preservation areas... Koubsky: Okay now, for something that's 178.3 acres, what's the dedication requirement for that as far as land? ' Hoffman: It can be based on a premise of 10% of land value. Of land which is there. Or you can reverse the calculation and take a look at what type of revenues you're going to be receiving off of this and then II go back into negotiations to purchase parkland at the land value which was paid here prior to improvements. That is why the Commission has the chance to review development prior to it being developed because once II it's industrial park, you certainly wouldn't want to pay $1.50 a square foot to buy property out there in an industrial park for park purposes. Koubsky: So basically the volume of area of land we're looking at as potential dedication is 17.8 acres. Hoffman: Sure, potentially. Again, this 15.9 acres which is pointed ou here has not been verified by the city. It does include the ponding are which is currently included in there and would bring that figure down somewhat. Comments based on the information you've heard this evening that, I would agree that those areas set aside, the best uses for parkland but from the eye of a developer it's certainly the only use that that land could be used for so keep that in mind. As well the impact. The idea that this land is very valuable in the sense of industrial , ground. Again, I will not dispute that but if that is our premise, why do we have Lake Susan Park? Community Park. Why do we have the Lake Ann Park, which is some of the most desireable land that we have on the Highway 5 corridor. We have those simply because of action which we discussed in our previous meeting. That somebody had the foresight and the thought to go ahead and acquire those properties. If it was the desire of the Commission simply to accept the park dedication in this regard and take the $350,000.00 and pocket it and spend it, 10 or 15 years from now we're all going to forget what that money was spent for and we're going to have some open ground and ponding areas but we would not have a ballfield which can be utilized by our community for the next, or in perpetuity if it's an open park property. Those are some of the things that, as Commissioners you need to mull over. It certainly is noll to the advantage of the applicant to sell that property. The additional" property, whether it be a 5, 10, 15 acres of additional land, back to the City prior to developing it as industrial park because they're going to get paid less money for it as park property as part of your requirement I and your review of this site than if they develop it as industrial property and sold it at $1.50 a square foot for instance. We have not Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 32 ' talked about it. It's unfortunate but as we go through and we talk about open space and industrial sites and how nice they are, it seems we never talk about the actual employees. The people who will be working here. I'm not sure what we have on site. Some 14 odd buildings with 200 to 300 to 1,000 employees per building. Those are the people we're addressing this evening. It's not the industrial site. It's not the land use. Those type of things. It's the people that will be moving here who will ' have an interest, not only if they work here but those people who will choose to move to this community since they have jobs in this industrial site. So those are some of the issues that, as Commissioners we have to keep in mind as well as we move forward with the concept review of this proposal. Koubsky: It seems to me, I guess the point we're trying to get across in ' this development, addressing the developer, we do have a system at Lake Ann that there's quite a bit of industry around that area. The industries do utilize that property for recreation. Their own ballteams, ' picnicing and luncheons and what not. There are quite a few employees down at that end of town. We don't have something similar up at Lake, is it Lake Susan? Or Lake Ann? Hoffman: Lake Lucy to the north? Koubsky: Yeah, I'm thinking just right out here on CR 17. Anyway, what we're trying to incorporate here is, I'm not quite buying this wetland park or passive park. We do appreciate passive parks. We have just actually moved on one southeast of here but with this many people moving in, I think we need to provide some sort of recreation facility for them and their families coming in here. I think it would also improve the development and possibility sellability down the line for this if there's some area in this development and adjacent developments for people to ' recreate. For people to take lunches and practice with their ball teams. Softball teams. These guys are going to sponsor softball teams. They're going to play somewhere. They're going to also have a demand on our current park system which is being stressed now for ballfields and recreational facilities. I guess we're looking at this development potentially to help us out in that regard. To give back to the community a little bit which I think they're going to expect when they do move out ' here to reside and work. So I guess my feeling is, and I'm not in a position where I can say which are of this development I like best. I do understand your sewer. Your utility requirements. However, I think we need something a little more active in this area. It is a park poor or park deficient area. Granted we are going to have a school but that may turn out to be an elementary school. And how we're going to utilize that land really isn't up on the table at this point. So I guess personally I'd like, now that you know the recommendations of the staff, kind of follow along that line. We do have an option to ask for 17.8 acres and not accept any of the wetland as those acreages. It looks like we're possibly looking at 25 to 50 acres. We may be willing to purchase some properties. I'd kind of like to throw it back and have you digest these recommendations and thoughts and maybe let you strategise on how that ' would fit your development and come back. That's how I feel. I'm not willing to accept this proposal. But I'd like to work with you. Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 33 Schroers: I think that that is pretty much getting to be the general conception of the commission here. It would be nice if we could just pu away, put aside natural area and say this is nice. This is beautiful bu the people who currently live here. The people who are coming here. The people who are going to be your clients and customers who are going to 1 working in your development are going to ask for something I think more than just woods and lowland. In our other community parks, two of our premiere community parks we have lakes, a beautiful beach, boat landings that sort of thing and I think that we would be definitely lacking to accept an area like this as a community park and basically what we're offering, what we have to offer as a park here is forested area and lowlands, which are nice natural amenities but offer very little active I recreation use to the people in the area. Howard Dahlgren: Mr. Chairman? Schroers: Yes sir. Howard Dahlgren: Could I just comment on two points? 1 Schroers: Sure. Howard Dahlgren: First of all, in terms of the calculations...that if I you disallow wetlands for park dedication, you also take the wetland out of the total acreage because the intent is to provide park area to serve" he developable area. Whether it's residential or industrial. You cannot develop a wetland... That's why these calculations, we've taken out the 22 acres... You see it's kind of unfair to have us dedicate 1O% of wetlands when we can't use them. Then if you don't count wetlands... II Koubsky: Well that was an oversight on my part. I mean I'm certainly not here to. ' Howard Dahlgren: The other point is that not every developable park... necessarily provides active recreational space. I understand that I Ryan...here in Chanhassen has no parks at all... If you want the money here, we can give you the money too. Schroers: See what it would have to do is fit into our overall comprehensive plan for the city park system and we have that laid out an it is defined where we need parks and whether they need to be active or passive or a combination of both and we are following a format here and I trying to stay and remain consistent. If we accepted an area that was basically unuseable and we're not able to offer recreational activities in the area, the people who are living and working in the area I'm sure would find that an unacceptable. They would be standing here in front oll us asking us to explain our actions why we did that. That has happened before. Lash: The Ryan development was in an area that was not park deficient. ' This area is park deficient so that's the difference between these two developments. Howard Dahlgren: Maybe we're the first in the area to develop... Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 34 Schroers: To put things a little bit into perspective, h g how many acres Todd do we have at Lake Susan? Just to give us a general idea of what kind of space we're talking about. Hoffman: Total acreage, including the fringe woodland areas, the pond and then the active components is approximately 35 acres. Schroers: 35 acres at Lake Susan. Lash: Okay and my question is, to provide the active part that you have in your recommendation, what would we be looking for just to provide the active area? Hoffman: Again, as I've commented in my narrative there, it depends on how it lays out with buffer areas and that type of thing and topography but better than 10 acres in addition to the 30 acres which is there is probably a starting point. Schroers: I hope that Mr. Dahlgren and the other representatives of the developer here understand our position. A lot of the information that you're providing us is what you're going to have to sell to the City Council. We deal only with the park and recreation issue and that is the point that we have to look at. Our goal is to best serve the park and recreation needs of the city of Chanhassen and that's the criteria that we're going to follow. So whatever our recommendation is, it is ' certainly not to create difficulty but is remain consistent with our program and to try to develop the best park system for the City that we can as you are trying to develop the best industrial park that you can. Is there any further discussion? Erickson: I have a question Todd. And I think I know the answer but I want to hear it. Can you say with any kind of certainty what we can do ' with the new school site? Assuming that it would be elementary. Can you make any predictions? Any educated guesses as to what we'll have available there to make an active park? Hoffman: I can say with certainty that something will happen. What that incorporates as far as outdoor recreational activities, ballfields, soccer fields, football, soccer, is unclear at this point. It really depends on the design of the school and how much of the site it does consume. And then as far as indoor recreation, we need an additional gymnasiums. Those types of things. In conversations with the School ' District and the long range facilities task force, we certainly all agree that the city of Chanhassen is in a position of being able to assist in the funding of those type of components. So something will be there. It will be more than you would typically see at an elementary school site. But it might not be very dissimilar to what you find at City Center Park. Lash: But we're talking youth facilities, more than an adult ballfield. Softball field. Hoffman: Correct. 1 1 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 35 II Lash: I mean my suggestion would be, I can tell the direction that we'r going here and I'm certainly in favor of preserving the oak stand and th wetland and stuff but it would make a nice area for trails and that kind of stuff if we can acquire enough acreage abutting that to facilitate our active fields and then your wetlands the trees behind it would be sort o your backstop to the whole thing. You know it probably could turn out t il be something very nice and would not require 35 acres of prime property right in the middle of your whole development but could be all incorporated together. That's just a suggestion if you guys go back to your drawing board of trying to figure out how to put it all together. mean I would certainly want to see it incorporated somehow to preserve the oak area there. 1 Hoffman: Just to back up a few comments again which came up which I jotted down. In reference to the Ryan site, which you reviewed. The City did acquire slightly less than 10 acres of open space or park property as a part of that development. That's in addition to the park and recreation trail fees and park fees. If you recall, that is the sit which is part of the Bluff Creek preservation zone. The purchase of tha property is being coordinated through tax increment financing dollars. As TIF was used in that scenario, tax increment financing is the enticement for this development to occur. Without that financing package, the folks here this evening and the Gateway Partnership would II not be before you. So the City certainly has more resources in addition to park and trail fees in the 10e calculation. If you would wish to purchase an additional 10 or 15 acres up and beyond what we can receive through the dedication process, tax increment financing money will be there to purchase it. But if you're in the applicant's shoes and you have a parcel of land sitting out here and you could make even money or II slightly better selling it to the city, or you can double your money selling it to a perspective buyer, again which one would you choose. That is what I see is the stumbling block that we face here tonight. 1 Lash: What Ryan development are we talking about? I don't think I'm talking about the same one as you are. Koubsky: It's the one off Audubon. Hoffman: Chan Business Center. The triangular piece. 1 Lash: Oh, okay. Okay. I thought you were talking about Target. That's Ryan too isn't it? 1 Hoffman: Correct. This one is just off Audubon. Koubsky: South of Timberwood. 1 Hoffman: Kind of this area. The piece of property we just acquired is right in this location. 1 Schroers: Okay. Well we are not going to accomplish anything unless we do make a recommendation and pass it onto.Council and you know we're at very preliminary stage here. At this point, if there's no further discussion, I would ask if anyone is ready to entertain a recommendation 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 36 on this and I guess my opinion would be consistent with that of staff in 1 regards to their recommendation. Lash: Are you moving that? Schroers: No, I'm asking if anyone else will. If no one else wants to, I will. 1 Erickson: So you want the trails separate from the... Schroers: Yes. There needs to be a separate recommendation for the park ' and trails. Lash: Now this is going to City Council or are we going to make a recommendation that the applicant comes back with a different, what are we looking for? Schroers: Yeah, I think we're going to ask to see a concept of what we ' are recommending. So, does anyone want to make a recommendation? If not, I will. I recommend that the Park and Rec Commission request the applicant to provide as a part of their proposal a community park site. ' The site is to include sufficient land of suitable character and topography to include natural vistas affording sufficient area for viewing and picnicking. A designated 8 foot wide bituminous trail loop with multiple access points connecting the wooded and upland portions of ' the site with picnicking and viewing areas and the street plan and sidewalks, sufficient area for the possible construction of two ballfields with 300 foot fences, a basketball court, a double tennis ' court, a sufficient upland areas to buffer these amenities. This will require the designation of considerable more park property than called out on the sketch plan. However, it is desireable for all parkland components to be contiguous. This park shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as well as allowing for sufficient ingress and egress and we would like to see a concept plan of this recommendation. Is there a second? 1 Berg: Second. Schroers moved, Berg seconded to recommend that the Park and Recreation Commission request the applicant to provide as a part of their proposal a community park site. The site is to include sufficient land of suitable character and topography, to include natural vistas affording sufficient ' area for viewing and picnicking, a designated 8 foot wide bituminous trail loop with multiple access points connecting the wooded and upland portions of the site with picnicking and viewing areas and the street plan and sidewalks, sufficient area for the possible construction of two ballfields with 300 foot fences, a basketball court, a double tennis court, a sufficient upland areas to buffer these amenities. This will ' require the designation of considerable more park property than called out on the sketch plan. However, it is desireable for all parkland components to be contiguous. This park shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as well as allowing for sufficient ingress and egress and we would like to see a concept plan of this recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 37 Schroers: Okay. And we also need a motion recommending the trail dedication. ' Koubsky: Do we want to spell out, we do say it's going to require more park property. Todd, do we want to indicate how much property we might be interested in? Or the city interested in or how much property we think we'll need to put the community park site in here that we're thinking about? Hoffman: Rather than pinpointing a specific acreage, if you concur with the staff's recommendation of addressing the type of facilities which we would think to be desireable in this location. To allow the applicant II time to go back and take a look at the site. The contours which are there. The barriers to this type of development. It may be that you pick out Lot 14 or 13 or one of those lots which is adjacent to this and it works out very nicely. That may not be the case and you might have t� go back and redesign it. So instead of stating acreage, I would state the type of facilities you would like to see and then put them back to the drawing board. ' Schroers: Which is what we just did. Okay, so now can I ask for a recommendation on the trail portion. ' Lash: Now do we need to adjust that now from your original recommendation given the timeline of TH 41? Hoffman: I would recommend you do so and at this point, the two trails which are identified as part of the proposal, I would simply make the recommendation that as this development does progress, that it does 811911 itself with the Comprehensive Trail Plan. Or follow it as it is identified. However, somewhere in there I would make the recommendation that the trail, the eventual trail along State Highway 41 does exist on the east side since it will be the higher density use of the two sides o II the road. The Arboretum being a low volume type of use on the opposite side of TH 41. Lash: So you're just looking for us to take easements now and pace this according with development schedules of TH 41? Hoffman: I couldn't comment on whether or not easements were necessary,' but you may want to elude to that if easements are necessary. What you would want to say is just insure that the applicant does plan for that piece of trail. If in the development of the plan for the flattening ou of State Highway 41 there is not sufficient area in the right -of -way to accompany that, to allow for that trail construction, then it comes off into the private property and through our dedication of additional land,' or trail easements. That that be accomplished. Lash: And do we want to leave some kind of a loophole so that if MnDot, for some reason puts this improvement. Hoffman: 10 years off. Lash: Yeah, that we want to deal with it ahead of time. Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 38 Hoffman: Certainly. Lash: Okay. Who wants to put that together? ' Erickson: Where's Jim when you need him? Lash: Okay, I might. Todd, do you want to try something? ' Hoffman: No. Lash: No, I mean just a way of kind of trying to put it together. ' Koubsky: I'll give it a whirl. I'll move that the applicant incorporate into their proposal the plan for the construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Highway 41 beginning at State ' Highway 5 which extends south to 82nd Street. The construction will be completed by the applicant in accordance with the City standards and specifications in regard to trails. With regard to the MnDot, Highway 41 ' road construction schedule, we will allow for delay in the installation of the trail system. However, we reserve the right to move forward with that construction if MnDot appears to be delayed for what we consider an ' excessive period of time. Schroers: Very good. Is there a second to that? I will second it. ' Koubsky moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the applicant incorporate into their proposal the plan for the construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Highway 41 beginning at State Highway 5, which extends south to 82nd Street. The construction will be completed by the applicant in accordance with the City standards and specifications in regard to ' trails. With regard to the MnDot State Highway 41 road construction schedule, we will allow for delay in the installation of the trail system. However, we reserve the right to move forward with that construction if MnDot appears to be delayed for what we consider an 1 excessive period of time. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Schroers: Alright, the recommendation has been approved. Both of them and it will go to Council. Thank you very much for your time here this evening. I hope that there's going to be a successful way of working this out. ' CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION ON PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND OPINION SURVEY. 1 Schroers: We touched on that quite a bit actually in our joint meeting with the Council earlier and unless someone has something real relevant to add on this subject, I would like to move right through as quickly as possible. Erickson: Larry, I guess the only thing I want to say is, I think you've done a, Todd and Jerry and Dawn have done a real good job of compiling ' all the data for us. Very readable and I think they did a commendable job. Thank you. That was a lot of work I know. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting g September 22, 1992 - Page 39 1/ Berg: The only thing I'd ask in regards to this and it's vaguely related to the survey is I'd like to get some more information and maybe talk with some people on the HRA. That became very apparent to me that I don't know anything about what those people are about. That might help us in terms of what we're talking about here in the needs assessment. II that possible? Hoffman: Absolutely. Schroers: I think that that was a real strong signal that came through I in the joint meeting is that we need to become more familiar with the HRA and find out what opportunities may be available there. Koubsky: I think also what this survey told me is we had a feeling of how this would, the results may come out based on our experience with th park system...specifically demographics, age of kids. I guess when you look at the ages, you look at how things were voted for. Ideas expressed. There are some things that aren't surprising. We may have to educate the citizens of Chanhassen or inform them of current status of I some of our facilities and why we're concerned. Schroers: I think that's a good point. Okay. It's been an extra long night for most of us so let's just try to get through this as quickly as we can. If there is nothing more, let's move on to item 4. TREE PRESERVATION BOARD. 1 Hoffman: Tree Preservation Board, we do have item 4. Lash: ...who the applicants are, just out of curiousity. ' Hoffman: I have those upstairs. They range from folks who are in the tree to just everyday citizens so I can include that in an upcoming packet. Lash: Some other time? 1 Hoffman: Yeah, next packet. Briefly jumping back to the last item. Thanks Chairman Erickson for the words of thanks there. Dawn did all thll input and inputting 1,054 pieces is a big job. City Manager Ashworth developed the system to input that information. You will see this again when we bring back all the comments so you'll get to read page after pag of comments. In addressing Commissioner Berg's request. We can have a similar meeting with the HRA. As City Manager Ashworth briefly mentioned, I wrote a paper on tax increment financing for my information to gain more information about it for a class at Hamline. He seems to think it's very good and has distributed it to all City Council candidates for their information. I'll include that in an upcoming administrative packet as well. That will give you a preview of tax increment financing and then we'll go from there. You probably were surprised that the HRA is talking about doing some type of development in the downtown area with Filly's, behind Bloomberg's and that type of area. You're not surprised if you see what it looks like but they're talking about a convention center and including recreational components, that Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 40 type of thing so. Keep you up to date on that as well. In regard to P Y P 9 item 4, the Tree Preservation Board. Simply what we need to do this ' evening is to appoint a member of the Park and Recreation Commission to that board. That member, along with a member of the Planning Commission and the City Council will form the base of the committee. They will ' interview the 7 candidates and choose 4 of those candidates to begin the life of that 7 member board. So with that, I would accept nominations from the floor. ' Schroers: With that I would ask if there was a volunteer. How much is involved in this Todd? ' Hoffman: How much is involved in it? Schroers: Are you talking about a couple of nights of interviews? 1 Hoffman: Interviews should be done in one night and then after that, the meetings will be monthly for the first part of it but then after that probably bi- monthly or quarterly. ' Schroers: But the person that you're asking for from this, are you asking a Park and Rec Commissioner to become a member of the Board or ' just to be on the interview process? Hoffman: Correct. To be a member of the Board. Erickson: I'm interested in it. I presently,'I interviewed on Monday for a job in St. Louis. If I get that job in St. Louis I would be leaving. If I don't get that job, I'll be staying. ' Koubsky: It would be a heck of a commute for our meetings. ' Erickson: It would be a long drive. I guess I would go ahead and be happy to take that posit:._ f there's a very strong alternate should I leave. Someone who kn _ there's maybe a 50/50 chance that I'll be moving. Not passing or, -- roving on. Or if you don't want to mess 1 with that, you know I k - ere's lot of people here that are certainly. Schroers: When is this ring? How soon is this going on? 1 Hoffman: This will be i next City Council agenda and the next Planning Commission ages • I would think that interviews would happen ' mid - October. Erickson: I'd know by rr_ _. _. tober. ' Lash: Go for it Randy. Erickson: I'll voluntee it... I'd like to thank the Commission members for their suppo' No, I'll be more than happy to do that with the understanding that I -- )t tap on down the road... Park and Rec Commission September 22, 1992 - Pag= . Lash moved, Schroers sec- _=d to appoint Randy Erickson as the Park and Recreation Commission's :_,..resentative on the Tree Preservation Board. All voted in favor and t'r - ,otion carried. Lash: Now we get to he - :at Jim has to say about the Highway 5 Commission. Schroers: Do you just wJ : _ to move through these items Todd and give us what information that's zinent on this rather than. ' Hoffman: Sure can. If 1 _ -ed information from the Commission, I'll ask for it. ' HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR STUDY. Hoffman: Item 5, Highway _ Corridor Study is an informational item. Again, big things which - , happening here in the community which it is not surprising if we don'_ - ave a whole ton of time to talk about it. You only get 15 residents th, to talk about the vision of having a highway' system beginning in downt Not only beginning in downtown but the Eden Prairie border, the .itending out to TH 41, which is just not a swath of concrete which :,_._._d incorporate parkways, they call them frontage roads. We'd 1d,_ to call them parkways in Chanhassen. So if I you want to leave the do,. __ and go out to your house in western Chanhassen, you don't ha.: `.o hop on Highway 5. Fight the interchanges, etc. and the Waconia and . America traffic. You can get on I the parkway and drive hcr. As part of that, Jim Andrews, Commissioner Andrews is the represents_ =. :e from the Commission. He has requested that he get some support from Commission members essentially in regards t a few areas. At grade cr__ Commissioner Koubsky has talked about this. Those big, long at _• crossings are pretty scarey when you have to cross from Lake Susan _Ils West to get to Lake Ann. There are plans being made for at least c , under the road crossing. The two locations currently identified are ley Creek and Bluff Creek. Riley Creek being at the entrance of Lake ( Bluff Creek being out at the front door of the new elementary school te. The commission needs to identify, if yo don't identify which one ; ._'d like to, the Planning Commission and the • HRA will and MnDot will a it will go. Commissioner Andrews recognizes that so he'd like to discs that type of information which is important' to the Park Commission ar:.. ?et some recommendations and form some thoughts. Not only in r .rds to crossings but trails along the parkway and along Highway 5 and h_- that effects Lake Ann Park. It will consume a portion of Lake Ann Pa - .. The house at the entrance to Lake Ann will I be purchased as a part of .. - at. The tennis court will dissolve. The entrance into the park wi__ be realigned and much improved. It will come across from Park Drive ir,__ =ad of in it's current location. So there's lot of things that this s_....�y are going to effect in regards to parks an c� Jim just wanted to make s- you were up to date. Berg: I hate to reveal n-- ignorance but what is a below grade crossing?" Hoffman: Below the surfs___ Erickson: A tunnel. ' Park and Rec Commission September 22, 1992 - Page -: Lash: Is that much chear than a bridge, or whatever you call them? ' Hoffman: An overpass. E _Age. Yeah. Much cheaper. Much more sightly to have an overpass and''i__'re looking at this thing. We're not talking about a tunnel. Origina'_: they were talking about a bridge. If you 11 look on here, they had a .,ry nice picture of a bridge system in St. Paul but that's about a millio dollars a crack. So if you have double whammies, you've got two _llion dollars in bridges. Now what they're talking about is a glorif_::J culvert, which is a great big triangular culvert which then they put a facade on the side of the road so it looks like a bridge. So have a big huge culvert. You walk through that portion. You come c__ into the open, inbetween two highway systems and you walk under the ne = one to get across. Lash: Are you talking ala:._t, is it like at all over by Jonathan ' Elementary? You know whe 'ou go under Jonathan Boulevard that's a culvert type thing. Hoffman: That would be a _,nnel. This is would be more open and pleasing both to the eye _:d to the feeling as you cross under. Eden Prairie put a tunnel in. great big concrete. If you drive east and just when you come down : _D Mitchell Lake, they've got a tunnel crossing ' underneath there so if yc - e interested in getting, go up and park on the frontage road. Hop Walk on the trail and go down and see the tunnel underneath Highway _ that they've incorporated. ' Lash: So could we identi'. both of those as crossing spots? Hoffman: Certainly coulc probably not a very likely chance that that would occur. Schroers: But what's goi , to have to happen is that Jim is going to have to identify you kno _c address that specifically on an agenda item and we'll make a motion c _t Something that will not happen tonight. GATE ATTENDANT PROGRAM RE -DRT. Hoffman: Sure, okay. 3ur.. informational. Item number 6, have you distributed? Jerry will ickly distribute the Gate Attendent Program report. What I can tell _! is that essentially there might be some jumbling of the figures b„ween where the money was, revenue came from but the bottom dollars th__ the gate attendant program, made the same ' revenues that it did last ,ear and...Jerry, if you just want to simply touch on your report. Ruegemer: Okay. Todd dic touch on the numbers were surprisingly in ' close proximity from last ; 'ear. This report is used by our department just to track these annua_ sales from the annual park stickers and parking for picnics and m_ generated from softball parking passes and ' also including South Lotu: boat access, we can somewhat track the water traffic...as they enter t - e boat access while our attendants are on duty. If you just look, the firm page is basically a little bit of discussion 1 or evaluation or look bac from the report itself. What items were touched on. Where our mo was generated from. And also, if you take a i Park and Rec Commission Vaeting II September 22, 1992 - Page -3 II look at the second e a - :_nose are just totals from our gate house and P 9� just 9 a they were very close in numbers from last year. Even though it was a cold, rainy summer, I bel__ve we could have done a lot more had it been II nice. There are totals f 1992. What type of watercraft did come through the boat access. Sur total number and comparison from 1991. Watercraft total. Looking down at the daily passes there, it is broken I down between daily passes. seasonal passes, resident and then seasonal passes, non - resident. Thee figures are broken down and then the amounts are tallied up to get a s_s -total of $12,029.00. With the addition then of softball registration, parking passes, we do have that total times th� $75.00 per team. We do c:.-,e up with then $5,475.00 and then with the addition of Lake Ann picnic parking passes that were invoiced to those companies having picnics, we did come up with another $802.00 for a gran total then of $18,306.00. Taking into account then we will subtract the gate attendants total wages earned during the summer, administration time, printing costs of t: passes which is subtracted then from the grand total. We just briefly touched on, if you look on the back page w� have our gate attendants misted total hours worked times their hourly salaries, you get a grand total of how much is used for expenditures in I the hourly wages of our gate attendants. This report really is to kind of guide our department year to year and track our revenues and expenditures regarding Lake Ann. Picnic and parking passes and revenues generated from those. Jurt so we can track our...future and past totals from these and we can use :he information in assisting us in our development of our budget and planning for the revenues collected in future years. ...does anybody have any questions regarding the money I generated or expenditures of any kind? - Schroers: It looks like a ✓ery concise report. Good job. Koubsky: How much, you m. rationed some expenses. Sticker cost. PrintinII costs and all that. Any _cea how much that is? It looks like we made about $10,000.00. 1 Ruegemer: It would not ba that much. Just the printing of those passes are roughly around $800.CC. I PROGRAM REPORTS: SUMMER DISCOVERY PLAYGROU.D EVALUATION. 1 Hoffman: Dawn Lemme did prepare a very concise report on the 1992 summer discovery playground evaluation. It's very helpful to provide I information on what's going on on such things as, did you know that fossil making is not age a;:propriate for this group? That type of information stands out. Dawn, if you have any brief comments in regard to that program. We have concerns over numbers. Commissioner Andrews i� not here to discuss North Lotus but as you can see from the numbers there, 7 folks came out fc•, the program in a neighborhood which is significantly larger thar that you would think so...whether or not we I should discontinue North '_:tus and hear the rash of phone calls. Lash: All seven. II II ' Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 4 Hoffman: No, more people will call then because it's not there. We forgot to sign up last year, you didn't know that. ' Lemme: I really don't ha.e any. I think it's pretty explanatory on there. The reason for ha.,ing all the list of activities is so that next year we know what we did and what worked. So it's also... We had a really good summer. We didn't have any knock down...we didn't have any accidents. We didn't ha■e to call a paramedic. We didn't have any problems. We had good att'ndance even though we slipped from Chaska on our trips. We had a realLy good summer. The staff was excellent. They were organized. They had good time and the evaluations that came back, even though there weren't a lot, were overall good to excellent. ' Berg: We had some really lousy weather on Mondays. Lemme: It was always colt. The staff was wearing jackets... It got 1 sunny I think the week af=ar the playground. Berg: How seriously are >' u thinking of going two days? 1 Lemme: Very seriously. Lash: It used to be two , ways, didn't it? Hoffman: A couple of locations. ' Lash: How come we have 1: at Lion's Park in Victoria? Just out of curiousity. ' Hoffman: That goes back tc a carry over from when this program was offered through the School District. So when District #112 operated it, they offered it in East U-1.on, Victoria, Chanhassen, Chaska. Minnetonka offered it in Chanhassen, etc, etc, etc. We pick it up as a contractual service. If we wish to cDntinue that, we certainly can. Lash: I was just curious. And I just wanted to, Dawn mentioned too on ' the Science Museum. The Theatre thing. You had kind of a poor turnout. You know a lot of kids go to that for school so it's probably not like a real big deal in the summer to go. And once you've seen the ' movie. Lemme: Well it's the sam= with the Minnesota Zoo. ' OKTOBERFEST. Hoffman: In regards to 0'= toberfest. It's this Friday. We hope to see you there. We did not, we don't have to do anything so we didn't request that you folks were. All the service organizations are operating it. The Department does coord_nate the entire event and the publicity and we added a new attraction be_ng a petting zoo and pony rides which we think will be highly successful. The seniors are also getting involved in this and doing the sales of crafts and vegetable items. We have essentially every service organization in the city operating. The Lion's, the Park and Rec Commission Meeting II September 22, 1992 - Page 45 II Rotary, the Jaycees and Srowmobile Club. And the Seniors and the Chamber. II Lash: It sounds like the weather's going to cooperate. Hoffman: We hope so. Hot Air balloon's back, so hopefully we'll have I quiet winds so that can come up as well. Any Commission member presentations? COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Lash: Is there anything new with the, we didn't even talk about it when" we were over there. The swelter. Do they have a completion date in mind? Hoffman: Yes. We didn't get a chance to address it but the completion II date is past. August 28t - ,. We'll be at September 28th very readily her and once a contractor gets past a completion date, it seems like they should speed things up bu that has not been the case. Either in the utilities project or the s'r;elter project. Out of conversation with the representative of ALM, our contract is with and in regard to are you concerned as I am over freeze up. I mean you have to do caulking and concrete work and masonry and painting and freezing temperatures are jusli around the corner. He sta`.ed yes he was and he's trying to keep on the subcontractors to get this project done. But don't hold your breath. The snow's going to fly a things aren't going to be done out there. I And I've made every attempt, as you've followed in the letters which I have... It's all been fir- in the contract here. These are not empty threats in that they have $200.00 liquidated damages per day. So you're ' up to 30 days and that's sDign to be $6,000.00 which in their last payment request when they come in here and tell you, sorry but you're liquidated damages are $8,000.00. In conversation with the City Attorney, it's going to be very difficult to stick to those guns. Liquidated damages are a n ce thing to put in there but unless you can prove that the city did malntain damage because of the non - completion date, in this type of facility that's very difficult. They're probably going to hire an attorney for $8,000.00 and argue that and probably win. If the amount is less than that, they may not choose to do that. So I cannot predict what the liquidated damages is going to amount to. I Koubsky: Did they post a bid bond or performance bond? Hoffman: Yes. 1 Koubsky: So the City has the ability to recoup if they decide to get rid of that contractor. • Hoffman: Correct. But it`s. Koubsky: Finish the project, yes. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Hoffman: In regards to az.iministrative presentations, I'd like to bring 1 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting s September 22, 1992 - Page 46 you up to date on the current status of Dawn Lemme's position as Program 1 Specialist. If you haven't known, recently Judy Colby has left the employment under contract of the City as Senior Center Coordinator for the Senior Center. Dawn is in the interim assuming that role as Senior Center Coordinator workinG approximately 20 office hours in the senior center. The position of r Specialist with those duties as Senior Center Coordinator will be included in the 1993 budget request. Preliminary feelings are that that position will be approved. However, 1 until we actually get through the budget process, that is not 1000. Schroers: Is that congratulations? Hoffman: It's just a, we had two options at that crossroads. Either take advantage of the goon job and the excellent performance which Dawn ' has given the City and incorporate her position, which in her past experience did include seed or center coordination. Coordinating senior activities and put her int: that role in an interim basis and hopefully fund that position or we •=ould spend the $12,000.00 to $18,000.00 to ' $20,000.00 on a contract employee through a service organization that deals with seniors and senior centers. As part of that position, we do receive about approximates -' $15,000.00 in block grant money which will ' pay a major portion of that position's salary so. We're hopeful, but again I went through that =tape. It's a very nerve racking stage in your employment. Jerry went t'-. ough the same thing. Many other part time employees do. So there's -a, as we have discussed time and time again 1 with Dawn, there are no s_:re things. Schroers: Instead of con- ratulations we'll say, good luck. Anyone else have anything of interest in the administrative packet? Were you finished Todd? Hoffman: Yes. Schroers: Anything else? ' Koubsky moved, Pemrick seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. ' Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1