The URL can be used to link to this page

1n. Minutes 1/. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 1990 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. ' COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Paul Krauss, Todd Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dinler seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions to Council Presentations: Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss pooper scoopers, Councilwoman Disler wanted ' to review the interview process for commissions and Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss recycling costs and Hospitality Suites Hotel. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. ' RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chmiel drew a name for the recycling prize. ' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwaran Dirtier moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Resolution #90-6: Authorize Preparation of an Updated Feasibility Study for the Section of County Road 17 from TH 5 to the Lake Drive West intersection just south of Purgatory Creek. c. Resolution #90-7: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study for Phase II-A of the Downtown Redevelopment-Country Suites Hotel Site Improvements. d. Resolution #90-8: Authorize Feasibility Study Amendment for Extension of Dell Road South of Lake Drive East (DataSery Property) . e. Approve Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids for Test Well and Optional Observation Well Construction for Well No. 5, South Lotus Lake. ' f. Ordinance Amendment Requiring a Certificate of Occupancy on Single Family Homes, Second Reading. g. Approve Agreement Terminating Minnegasco's Contract with WAFTA. i. Approval of Accounts. ' j. City Council Minutes dated January 9, 1990 as amended to correct the spelling of Dan Dahlin's name. Planning Commission Minutes dated January 3, 1990 k. Resolution #90-9: Approve 1990 Budget Resolution. 1. Resolution #90-10: Authorize Preparation of Modification to TIF District No. 2 Economic Development Plan. r1 - City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 II m. Resolution #90-11: Approval of Resolution Requesting a Time Extension from the Metropolitan Council to allow the City to complete revisions to the Comprehensive Plan due to an Amendment to the Metropolitan System Plan. i II n. Resolution #90-12: Resolution in Support of the City's Grant Application to Metropolitan Council to acquire recycling bins. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Terry Beauchane: My name is Terry Beauchane. I live at 240 Flying Cloud Drive IIor it's the same as Highway 169/212. I have 3 items and I don't know if I'm appropriate here about bringing up the Moon Valley issue which I was here about a month ago. IMayor Chmiel: We have that on the agenda as item 7. Terry Beauchane: So that will be brought up at that time? IIMayor Chmiel: Right. Terry Beauchane: Okay. The second it I brought up again a month ago at the IICouncil meeting was the disposition of the Tri-Y Drive In restaurant. The burned out Tri-Y and I've not seen anything on the Council agenda or heard anything about what's going on with that. IIMayor Chmiel: I think staff has been reviewing that and as yet have not come back with reconzrendations. But they're in process of looking at that. IDon Ashworth: Do you know, Jim, will quickly be able to respond to that item? Jim Chaffee: I do not know. Right after the last Council meeting that it was brought up by...Scott Harr to look into it and I have not heard back from him. Mayor Chmiel: Would you have them follow up on that to come up with a Iconclusion? I'm not sure as to what our ordinance specifically spells out. That there is a certain portion of that building burned and not rebuildable, then that should be leveled. ITerry Beauchane: I guess I'd just like to comment on that. That structure has been that way for probably 6-8 months or longer. The third item I'd like to just get on the record and it concerns TH 169 and indirectly or directly, II IIdepending upon how you look at it, Moon Valley. The proposed, and I understand it's coming up at a planning session for additional storage sheds on TH 169 and in general any and all other development that is going on down at that stretch II of the highway. I don't know if you folks are aware of the traffic problems down there. Everyone is aware of the traffic congestion and the amount of traffic that that road generates, especially in the suiemertime when we get the racetrack going. When we get the parks going down the other side of Shakopee and IIthen of course Moon Valley gets in operation with their big dump trucks and all the rest of it. I would somehow like to see somebody do something about that traffic problem and not continue putting more and more turn in type traffic on 1 2 I City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 r ' that highway. I've contacted the Department of Transportation in the past. They have said nothing. I've contacted the Sheriff's Department. The Highway Patrol. Still nothing and people keep getting killed down there. Literally killed. My daughter was in an accident last year. My neighbor was in an accident. He almost got killed. Last year my mailman literally got run over from the backend by a cement block truck that was waiting to turn in to Moon Valley. That's how bad it's getting down there but nobody seems to be able to do anything about it. I guess I look at the City Council as being the first course of action. Obviously you may not have direct power over the State of Minnesota and their state highways but you certainly have enough power over allowing more development, more structures and more traffic. Congesting that highway down there. We literally take our lives in our hands when we have to turn into our own driveway to get off that highway, and I mean literally. I don't want my kids to be killed nor does anybody else down in that area and I think if any of you people have ever driven that highway down there during rush hour, you'd understand what I'm talking about. Mayor Clmiel: I've driven it. Many times. Terry Beauchane: And I would welcome anybody to come down there and sit on that stretch of highway for a 12 hour period during rush hour and see what's going on. Like I said, this is an indirect consequence of like the Moon Valley operation. The sheds and now additional sheds are going to be put up there, storage sheds, which is just going to complicate the problem much more than it already is and nobody seems to want to do anything about it. Councilman Johnson: You keep mentioning the additional sheds. Would you fill ' me in on this? Terry Beauchane: There is a proposal coming up in front of the Planning Commission I believe next Tuesday possibly, unless it gets postponed again. Next Wednesday. Paul Krauss: Yeah, Mike Sorenson had approval to construct a single cold 1 storage warehouse down there. Although it wasn't clear... Mayor Chmiel: Located where? Paul Krauss: Off of TH 169 in the BF district. Terry Beauchane: Directly across from SuperAmerica gas station. ' Paul Krauss: Up on the hill there. It was a heavily wooded site and basically there's no trees left on it now. There's one building. It was really designed for ultimately 4 buildings. We have sane issues with the proposal we've been working on with him but he's going to apply for 3 additional buildings identical to the first one on that same site. ' Councilman Johnson: In reviewing this, will you check to make sure that those buildings are being used only as cold storage and not as office facilities. I Paul Krauss: Well we've been involved with that since last September Councilman Johnson. There are some ancv alves there. It's not being used as an office. It's being used as storage but it's heated which may or may not be... 3 11 1 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 IICouncilman Johnson: Are they doing maintenance inside of it? Paul Krauss: No. One is used for a plumbing storage. The other is for seaplane j equipment and there's an electrical contractor and a concrete contractor there. To meet building code and the needs of their tenants, they heated it and to meet II the building code, they also put in a bathroom. Both of which weren't anticipated at the time the thing was approved but were authorized at some point after that. ICouncilman Johnson: But there is nobody there all day? Paul Krauss: No. Not to the best of my knowledge. Don Ashworth: Paul, are they not also looking at the general BF district. Talking about the Planning Commission. Where is that in that process? ' Paul Krauss: That hasn't been real active right now but the Planning Commission in the past has asked to look at the possibility of eliminating the BF district and reverting that area to agricultural zoning. We're having a discussion with I the Planning Commission on things they'd like us to do during the coming year at the next meeting. That's being discussed as one of the its that the Planning Commission wants to look at. Terry Beauchane: Why don't any of these discussions and plans and so on ever involve the traffic down there? That's what I don't understand. Councilman Johnson: We don't have a lot of jurisdiction over. it. Terry Beauchane: Somebody should have jurisdiction over somebody getting murdered on the highway. Councilman Johnson: One thing that is going on right now, there are several things going on. Terry Beauchane: There are too many things going on is what the problem is. ICouncilman Johnson: Tom is on the Southwest Metro Transportation Group. Councilman Workman: Something like that. Councilman Johnson: Something like that but you know we're working very hard on getting TH 212 taken off of there to where it's only Highway 169. IITerry Beauchane: I understand all that but what happens in the meantime? That's the question. What happens between now and 10 years from now while we're waiting for the new TH 212? ICouncilman Johnson: You're going to see more traffic. Terry Beauchane: We're going to see more deaths. We're going to see more people dead. One of there might be my kid. What happens in the meantime? Councilman Johnson: Do you have any suggestions on what we can do? 4 r City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Terry Beauchane: Yeah. Stop anymore building down there. Stop the trucks. 1 • Councilman Johnson: Stop the trucks. Terry Beauchane: Stop the trucks. You put the storage shed across from Super America. The people coming into that storage shed, a lot of them are coming from Chanhassen-Shakopee and they have to make a left hand turn across the highway which splits into two lanes right there. Now if you want to know how many accidents they have down there, go down and talk to the attendants at Super America. They have better statistics than the State Highway Department does. You want to know how many accidents are caused by the Moon Valley, the big trucks coming out of there, they go north so they're going across traffic at about 5 mph and you've got cars zipping up that highway at 65 mph. Whether they're supposed to be going that fast or not is inmaterial. , Mayor Chmiel: Are there any signs in and adjacen to there in relation to trucks hauling? Terry Beauchane: There is nothing there. I even suggested to the Highway Department, when they rebuilt a culvert underneath the highway right in front of our driveway. When they rebuilt that, I suggested that they put in right hand turn lanes, passing lanes to get around while we have to stop to get into our driveway. They wouldn't do it. I then suggested the stretch of highway from SuperAmerica up to our driveway, that they at least paint a no pass yellow line down that whole little piece of highway. 3/10th's of a mile. They wouldn't do it. I even offered to pain the damn thing myself if they'd give me the paint. That's how much attention we get down there. Now we're not going to get it from the State obviously. The County, they could care less. I've never even seen anybody from the County down there. You people are my last resort. How many people have to get killed? Mayor Chmiel: Let us look into this a little more in detail and core up with same conclusions and see what can be done. Councilwoman Dimler: If I could rake a comment about stopping the trucks? That sounds like a good idea but personally all the trucks that came from South Dakota and you know where the grain terminals are in Savage there? Terry Beauchane: Yep. Councilwoman Dirtier: There are 4 or 5 of theca down there. There is no way that ' they can get across any other way than to go TH 169 and across the river. You would really...they have no way to get to market. Terry Beauchane: I understand that. The direct traffic on the highway, that's 1 a big enough problem but now you people are allowing more construction and more activity on that highway where you have cross traffic across the highway. That's creating even more of a problem. That you do have a control over. Mayor Chmiel: That's something as I say, Don maybe can make a statement. Don Ashworth: Again, it sounds like the primary issue is the additional storage 5 1 r IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 IIsheds and that is coming up to the Planning Commission. You should make your presentations to them. After the Planning Commission acts, it will come back to City Council. You'll be discussing that at a future date. You may wish to ask IIthe City Attorney between- then and now to provide an opinion as to your ability 1 to deny those storage sheds based on potential increases of traffic that it may generate. I have some real questions as to whether or not we can do that but I think Roger should respond to that question when the item comes back to City Council. IITerry Beauchane: But the same holds true for Moon Valley and then any other potential construction or rezoning that may go on down on that stretch of highway. It's not just the shed. Don Ashworth: I agree and later on we'll be talking about Moon Valley and you may wish to speak again at that time. Councilman Boyt: We certainly have the ability to, we may not be able to turn down the request to expand but we can certainly put conditions on it that will do more to guarantee traffic safety just like we did at TH 41 and TH 7. Just like we've done on a number of other times. IICouncilwoman Dimler: You mean with signs? ICouncilman Boyt: No. Building turn lanes. Putting no cross dividers. We can work with the State to do a lot of things along there. 11 Terry Beauchane: Or slowing down the speed limit. Putting in no passing zones. II Councilman Johnson: No left turns. i IITerry Beauchane: Thank you. Mayor Chanel: Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else wishing to make a presentation to the Council? PUBLIC HEARING: ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION, REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A LOT CONTAINING A DOUBLE BUNGALOW INTO TWO SEPARATE LEGAL LOTS, 7611 AND 7613 IROQUOIS, ANITA THOMPSON. IIPublic Present: Name Address IIKevin Velgersdike 7610 Iroquois IPaul Krauss: The applicant is requesting approval to divide the existing lot in half. The lot contains at the present time a duplex have which would be divided down the party wall. City Code requires that the Council approve metes and II bounds divisions which this is. We think there are two issues with this II proposal. The first is that the lot does not meet the 20,000 square foot minimum area now does it meet or do the individual lots meet the 50 foot frontage that are required for duplex haves. In fact duplex homes are allowed 6 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 , in the R-4 district and this is an RSF zoning. Basically what you have there is a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. We believe that the City Council could however approve the metes and bounds division by finding that while the existing dwelling and lot are non-conforming, that the proposed action does not really intensify the use and that's what we believe to be the case. Fundamentally there's a duplex on the property now. There would continue to be two dwelling units on in the future. They would just be divided. We believe that this interpretation could be applied if you choose to do so since the lot existed prior to the date of enactment of the ordinance. We also note that there are similar hares and lots, duplex hares and what not, in this area so 11 there's a standard if you will for non-conforming situations. If the Council believes that their request should be considered as an intensification of a non-conforming use, their request could be resubmitted back through the Planning Commission and further evaluated. Staff has discussed this proposal with the Public Safety Department and they're raising a new issue that's not in the report. They'd like the hire or they want the hire to be brought up to Code for duplex dwellings which requires fire rated walls and what not inbetween separate services. They've asked that we not allow, that we authorize approval of the plat if you choose to do so but that we authorize ourselves not to file it until they've improved the property and have had an approved inspection from Public Safety. So we're recommending that that be added as condition 4 but we are recommending that it be approved. Mayor Chniel: Thank you. Is Anita Thompson here? Is there anyone representing her? Is there anyone in opposition of the proposal that would like to address it? Please step up and state your name and your address please. Kevin Velgersdike: Kevin Velgersdike, 7610 Iroquois. Just two points. One, r I'm not aware of any other similar double bungalows on the street of Iroquois in that area. Smaller lots. I believe the regaining haves on that are single dwellings on Iroquois. My other point is, of concern I guess more, would be in subdividing these two, are they going to be two individual residences and if so, what is going to govern the maintenance of these two residences? My main concern would be leaky roof. If the one owner has to replace the roof, the other owner doesn't really want to spend the money. Am I going to be staring at a building with two different colored shingles at it. Painting and such so I guess if the Council okays it, I would like to see some sort of an agreement on maintenance on that property so that an agreement to the fact that it's maintained consistently. There's no problems. I've lived in townhares and have always been ma hers of associations that regulate the grounds care, the building care and such so that would be my one concern. The whole idea, I don't necessarily oppose as long as it's regulated. Mayor Chr,iel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue? As I said, this is a public hearing. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public , hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Johnson: Do you mean to say that it currently doesn't meet duplex 11 standards? Paul Krauss: No it doesn't. Duplex requires 20,000 square feet and 50 foot of 7 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 1 Y frontage. Councilman Johnson: No, I mean the house itself. The Public Safety side of things or is it designated...twin home standards? I mean duplex and twin homes IIare two different things on the building codes I believe. Paul Krauss: Yeah. Excuse my use of the semantics but it does not currently I meet the requirements for having two separate ownerships on the same dwelling. It's been preliminarily reviewed by our building department and they're going to be looking for things like a fire rated wall, which may mean the construction of Ia new interior walls. We're not sure but there would be a requirement for two separate utility services and those sorts of things. In all likelihood we don't believe it's old enough that it probably does not. IICouncilman Johnson: Thank you. Councilman Workman: I guess in regards to some of the requirements, I think IRoger would agree that we can't make homeowners paint their house or do a certain thing to their roof other than maybe putting buffalo chips on it or something. I have a good friend of mine in Eden Prairie who lives in a twin II home or a duplex, I'm not sure what the difference is and he's a very, very picky fellow. In other words, keep things painted and neat and clean and mowed, shoveled and everything else. His neighbor isn't that way but he's attached. Half the time the owner was renting it to other people so he wasn't there and he Ididn't really care. But my buddy while frustrated, never would have done half the house. Painted half the place a different color or put different shingling on or anything to offset the whole. As picky as he was, he wasn't going to do something like that and maybe there's people who wouldn't care but I don't think you'd well the place if it was half of a mess like that. That's certainly going to hurt your resale with what the next door neighbor does so I think they IIautomatically end up working in tandem but I don't think we can put covenants on that house to tell therm how they have to do things. Roger Knutson: Sometimes you're surprised by what other people do but no one Iwho was advised would ever buy half a twin home or a duplex unless there were party wall agreements in place. Unless there are maintenance agreements in place and that sort of thing. Enforcing those is a private matter and sometimes they don't work. I can't believe that someone would buy one of those things without having it in place so I'm assuming it will be there. Councilman Johnson: First time home buyers would do a whole lot because they IIdon't know any better. Roger Knutson: But if they hire a lawyer. IICouncilman Johnson: They don't enough to hire a lawyer. IRoger Knutson: It is possible. Mayor c iel: You're plugging for business Roger. ' Roger Knutson: It is possible. It is possible that it could happen but it sure would be foolhardy. 8 I City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 , Councilman Boyt: I would suggest, this is a rather interesting dilemma. On the one hand I agree with staff that this shouldn't have care through as a request for a variance. I don't think I could have, I would have voted against it if it was, and will if it becomes a request for a variance. I think that this, it wasn't built to be a twin home and I think we stand to create a problem when we allow it to go under two owners instead of one. The things that we've eluded to, the neighbor mentioned and in all reasonableness they shouldn't happen. But we sure put the opportunity out there for it to happen. If it was designed and built as a twinhome it would have, one, it would be up to Code but the other one is the way it would be laid out would provide a certain amount of insulation in the two homeowners from each other. So that on the one hand, that tells me that we really shouldn't do this. Or at least I shouldn't vote for it. On the other hand, we've got the rights of somebody who owns a piece of property and a house and they're saying what I want to do is I want the opportunity to sell this in two separate pieces. So that's what I see as the dilemma and I'm not sure that I've worked out an answer yet. I'd be happy to listen to what others have to say about it. I don't like either one of them I guess is what I'm saying. Councilwoman Dialer: I guess my, I wish Anita were here because I'd like to ask her why and get a little bit more insight as to what her particular situation is but my feeling right now is that I don't want to create any potential problems which I can see this would be, especially since it's surrounded by single family. Mayor Qirael: I guess basically that's a part of my concern. That being a ' single family residential area. TO go into a twin home sort of disrupts things to a certain portion within that specific area and how does that really apply to the area in itself as far as the values on the homes. What is that going to do for the residential single family residential within the area? I guess I have some concerns about that. Councilman Johnson: It's an existing building though. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I know it is. Councilman Johnson: One thing I see of it to an advantage, the only advantage I see of it is now you're going to have half of it occupied by an owner versus a renter. In general owners will take better care of their personal possession than a renter will take care of somebody elses personal possession. Mayor Chmdel: Unless you get a good renter. Councilman Johnson: Oh yeah. There's good renters. One of my 3 renters I once had when I was stuck with some rental property unfortunately was good. Mayor Ch oriel: 1 of 3. Councilman Johnson: 1 of 3. The other 2 still owe me money. Councilman Boyt: We certainly have no guarantee of it but it would seem as though, I think it's fairly common for people in this situation, for the owner to live in half of it and rent the other half. Councilman Johnson: That's what's happening now I believe. 9 IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Boyt: I think from a maintenance standpoint po and various other IIthings, that's ideal. We have no way of guaranteeing that that would happen. j They could conceiveably rent both halves out. Mayor Chmiel: I guess the concern as I've mentioned, it bothers me just a little. I know if I was located within an area and someone wished to do that to that particular building, I'd probably be a little leery about it because it does change the complexity of the area. It's a hard judgment call. It really is. I Councilman Johnson: Paul, have you met Mrs. Thompson? IIPaul Krauss: No, I have not. Councilwoman Dimler: ...her half and own it and yet sell the other half off? Ithat feasible? Mayor Chmiel: That could possibly be. I'm not sure. Councilman Boyt: You make an awfully good point when you say that this area isn't zoned for twin homes. IICouncilman Johnson: It isn't zoned for duplexes either. Mayor Chmiel: It's all single family residential. ' Councilman Workman: Nothing's going to change by the zoning though. Councilman Johnson: It's still going to be a non-conforming use. It's an 1 existing non-conforming use without enough lot area. tot frontage or anything for a duplex or a twin hare. The only thing that's going to be different is you're not going to have renters in there. We'll have two different owners to work with. Councilman Boyt: You're not guaranteeing that you won't have renters. Somebody Icould easily buy that and rent it out. Councilman Johnson: That's true. IIMayor Chmiel: No question. That can always happen. Councilman Johnson: With any single family you can do that too. I think that Ithe requirement to bring it to twin hare standards definitely needs to be in there because there are sane definite safety considerations and also they may have trouble getting insurance and stuff on their half of the home if they don't have those fire walls inbetween. There could be some problems right there. And that in itself might be of a big enough expense to Mrs. Thompson that she may not do it. I'm not sure, if we're going for the fire rated walls, that's basically putting another slab of drywall, as I understand this, over all Iadjoining walls on both sides. So you'd have two pieces of drywall and then doing the same thing in the attic. Building a wall through the attic and all levels. 10 .City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 1 Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? 1 Councilman Johnson: If she wants to pay the money, I'm for it. I'll let her do it. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I still have a real concern about this Jay. Starting something within that residential area with two. Changing it. A lot of people who have built their own homes there and have bought homes because it's strictly residential and single family and this is changing that whole complexity of it, at least is my opinion. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Changing it closer to what they have. Everybody in their own ownership. It may be eliminating a rental. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you're talking about taking one individual home and putting it into two. Councilman Johnson: This is two now. This is a duplex. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Councilman Johnson: An existing duplex where she rents out half of it. Councilman Workman: I'm just thinking, we can talk about all the combinations it might be but we're always going to, we'll eternally have a rental situation there as it sits. Potentially we would have two ownership situations. We could potentially have two renters situations right now too. I mean we could always have that combination everywhere but I think we're going to eternally having renting situation if it stays as it is because nobody's going to be able to buy the other half. Councilman Johnson: Did notices go out to all the neighbors on this? Paul Krauss: We would have notified our normal list, yeah. ' Councilman Johnson: How long ago? 2 weeks? Councilman Workman: I think it's just a situation that is existing. Changing , the zoning and what we call it doesn't do a whole lot. As it sits, it should have never been allowed in the neighborhood. Mayor Chmiel: In the first place. I agree. When did you get your notice? Two weeks ago? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I know the people that live next door to this. By 1 the way, the map is wrong. It's across the street from that lot that's shown on the map. I don't know if that makes any difference to it. I think it kind of showed your house on the map. ' Councilman Workman: At this stage I don't know what would be lost. Councilman Johnson: I'll move approval with condition 4 that the hone be upgraded to twin have standards before the plat can be filed. 11 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 IIMayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: I'll second. IIMayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion? Don Ashworth: Staff would have a question in terms of, let's assume that the current ordinance requires separate water for each unit. Separate sewer line. Would you be looking to that in that? Is that part of the consideration? ICouncilman Johnson: Separate sewer line would be awful difficult. I can see how you could put in separate water meters for both and separate gas meters and separate electrical but separate sewer line, you have to replumb the whole house. Don Ashworth: Staff had anticipated there might be a single line. Require easements so that when we get over there and repair it but if the current Istandards would say each one has a separate waterline and a separate sewer. Councilman Johnson: How about as feasible but primarily interested in the Ipublic safety side of it? The fire walls. Mayor Chmiel: That's mandated by ordinance or by the State. ICouncilman Johnson: The fire walls? Mayor Chmiel: Right. IICouncilman Johnson: Yeah but see, it's an existing house. By doing this split we can make them put in the fire walls but if she doesn't do the split, then she Idoesn't have to put in the fire walls. Councilman Boyt: Oh I don't think that's true. ICouncilman Johnson: That is true. Councilman Boyt: You're saying that once the Fire Marshall determines that Iyou're not in compliance with the Code he can't enforce it? I don't believe that. ICouncilman Johnson: It's not new construction. Mayor Cbmiel: You're saying once she had someone in? ICouncilman Johnson: If she pulled a building permit to do anything in that house, we could make her change the walls. Is she in compliance with the duplex codes? IIJim Chaffee: I don't know that right now. IDon Ashworth: I'm sure she is not though because no building 15 years old is currently in compliance with new codes. Councilman Johnson: So your house is not either Bill. 12 11 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Don Ashworth: Nor is mine. Councilman Boyt: I don't know that single family residential fire codes have 11 changed. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Councilman Boyt: But I know that if the fire inspector canes out and inspects our place and chooses not to do any enforcement, that's negligence. I'm sure that that would make it. , Don Ashworth: No. A good example is adjacent to your furnance you have to have a fresh air return caning into that furnance area. That's a new requirement. I don't have that in my home. It's not a matter that my house is going to burn up or yours but they believe that that's a good requirement for all new construction. Now I guess my question is, do we force Anita to run in that fresh air return adjacent to that furnance because that would be required under ' new construction. Mayor Qimiel: What about Minnegasco? What are their requirements? Can two people have one furnance and split costs accordingly and do they have to have individual furnances? Councilman Workman: They do in rentals. , Jim Chaffee: I don't think they have any requirements one way or the other. Mayor Chmiel: They do with double metering. I know they have something. Jim Chaffee: But as far as if you want to rent your home out and you only have ' one... Mayor Qrmiel: But who's the responsible party for that bill of the two being there? Jim Chaffee: TO whoever the bill is sent to. Councilman Boyt: I would think, as much as I normally hate to delay items from one agenda to another, that there's two things that it would be good to know. One of them is this discussion we've just had. What are the facts rather than ' what are your and my estimated idea of the facts. The other one is, I really think that this is going to amount to quite a dollar expenditure and does the applicant really want to pursue this if this represents a $10,000.00 or $15,000.00 expenditure? Maybe we need a little time to get those questions answered. Councilwoman Dimler: I would be in favor of tabling as well. I would like to hear Anita's. Councilman Johnson: I'll withdraw my motion if you'll withdraw your second. I Mayor Qhmiel: Both have been withdrawn. 13 Ca.ty Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 I Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to hear Anita speak as to why. I'd like to take her reason into consideration. II Councilman Johnson: Then I'll move to table this for staff to inform Anita one, of this requirement for the twin home standards so she can evaluate the effect upon herself on that. And to answer some of these other questions that have been brought up here. IICouncilwoman Dimler: Second. IICouncilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table a request for an adminstrative subdivision to subdivide a lot containing a double bungalow into two separate lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL DIRECTION OUTLINING ISSUES CONCERNING REGULATIONS OF CIGARETTE SALES. IMayor Chmiel: This basically I think should have been labeled as a reconsideration. Councilman Johnson: No, this is a different one. 4 is the reconsideration. Mayor Chmiel: Oh, I'm sorry. This is yours Jay. Sorry about that. Go ahead. 11 Councilman Johnson: Well basically I think we've talked about this twice before in that we've been working on reducing the availability of cigarettes to minors II in the City and one of the means for minors to get cigarettes is shoplifting. I-1 When those cigarettes are prominently displayed where shoplifting is very easy, it becomes even a more utilized method of obtaining it. It also has other ' repercussions I believe on the kids even though they're just trying to get cigarettes but what's next type deal on shoplifting. I talked to the new manager over at Brooke's and asked him what his monthly inventory showed on his cigarette shoplifting. He said it was very high recently. The source may not totally be minors. He does not know exactly why. As a matter of fact, I have observed an employee several months back basically shoplift a pack of cigarettes. Open theta up and have a woke when they had smokers in there. But I that employee's no longer there. But they said in the recent months they have had a very high losses on tobacco products. I've only looked at two of our facilities, Brooke's and Kenny's. I didn't go over to SuperAmerica over on TH 7 and TH 41. I meant to but never got there. And I didn't look at the Super Q as IIto what their effect is. Most of the displays they have can be fairly easily moved behind the counter or a lexan shield put around the front of that, to where it's a clear shield. You can still see the display but you can't reach in from Ithe front and get at the cigarettes. I did find out that the cigarette companies pay to have their displays placed in these stores. These special displays where you can get your sunglasses with a pack of cigarettes or whatever ' it is that they give you to try to entice you into buying cigarettes. Those displays, the merchants are paid to have those in there so there will be an effect on the merchants with that. I'm not sure how much they get paid for it. I can't imagine that it's a too terribly big amount but I'd like to see, I do IInot see it as a big infringement upon the merchants' profits in comparison to the harm and it may even save them money in shoplifting expenses as we go. I/ 14 11 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Mayor ( i iel: By having them contained behind the counter? Councilman Johnson: By having them contained behind the counter. Especially the cigar and tobacco products. At both of these locations, the employee cannot see those products whatsoever. They're completely dependent upon somebody to reach under and pull it up and hand it to them. Any 4 foot tall kid can shoplift that stuff real easy. Their pockets are right at the same level. It's a little harder for an adult. He might have to lean over a little bit. But I would like to go ahead with an ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Tom. ' Councilman Workman: I can hardly believe it Jay. My question is, how can you tell a level headed councilmember. You can tell by the fact that milk canes out both corners of his mouth. We have an issue caning up, item number 4 Jay. Item number 4 is just about identical and you just gave me my argument and you're on the other side of the issue. Number one. The cigarettes over at Brooke's, most of them in this display case are in rather large packages. ' Councilman Johnson: Not the cigars. Councilman Workman: Not the cigars, okay. Any kid that inhales cigars ought to ' because he won't do it again okay. You don't see kids out behind the warming house over here at the rink inhaling Tiparillos. Those cigarettes are in packaging that's large. Either it's a 2 for 1 deal with free dice or cards or something or lighters or something so they're very difficult, they're not this size. They're not the size of a can of pop or smaller. I guess what I've been getting at with the whole thing with the vending machine situation is don't concern ourselves with their inventory. Okay. I know that things get stolen but the stuffed olives might be stolen too. We're not worrying about, I don't want to concern ourselves with the inventory problem. Okay. That's the issue with the cigarette vending machine. We don't want to keep them behind the counter because the bartenders are stealing or somebody's stealing them. Okay? So what you're saying is move them all back there and they're safe. Councilman Johnson: From the kids. Councilman Workman: Well there's kids working at Brooke's. 1 Councilman Johnson: You have to be 18 to work there because they sell beer. Councilman Workman: They do? They don't look 18. But I'm getting old. And , Jay, when we take on a group like this and the attorney for the Coalition for something vending was in here and he talked about a lot of the same issues and everything else. I can guarantee you that the, people who own those racks are going to be in here doing the same thing and applying pressure to Jay Johnson and saying, you can't do that. And you just got done saying that it's not an infringement on retailers or their profits. , Councilman Johnson: I said not a major infringement. Or significant. Councilman Workman: Well I didn't hear major. I Councilman Johnson: Maybe I said significant. 15 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 IICouncilman Workman: Then when we go to the vending machine, we're going to get to that, I can hardly wait. Then you're saying we should keep them in the vending machine because they've got an inventory problem and they're getting t IIstolen. You see what I'm saying? Councilman Johnson: No. You're trying to pull a separate issue into this issue. ICouncilman Workman: No, what I'm saying is, let's keep it all clean. Because when you tell one place they can do something and another place is unable to do that, then that creates even more of a hardship. So when we tell one place that they can put a switch on a machine but this person over here doesn't have that machine, well he can get one if he pays $5,000.00 more to get it and that we're opening a hole in our ordinance and start doing things. I'm just saying, in one IIsituation you're saying inventory behind the counter. One you're saying not. Councilman Johnson: No. I think you've got everything mixed up here. I'm ' trying to put the sane control at a Brooke's as you're putting at a bar. I want only adults to be able to get at those cigarettes. Okay? That's the reason that we're saying that vending machines are outlawed currently in the city of IIChanhassen with cigarettes in then, because we don't want children or minors. I'm not sure if I'd call a 17 year old a child but we don't want minors getting at the cigarettes. Well there's a huge loop in that thinking if you allow them uncontrolled in a Brooke's or a Kenny's or any other place, where it's really a II hang out for the younger children. The ones that we really want to protect. II Those kids 10-12-14 that we don't want than to be able to start smoking. Those are the kids that aren't going to be able to get into a bar and fake their way I ny into going after a machine anyway. I don't know many 12 year olds can fake an ID to get into Filly's but as long as you brought up the next thing, the difference is that these cigarettes are uncontrolled by an adult. In the machine with the remote switch controlled by an adult, those cigarettes are IIcontrolled by an adult. These we now have uncontrolled cigarettes sitting out there. All I want to do is try to put together an ordinance where we can control this substance. I think it's the same thing you want to do. We want to II control it whether it's in a vending machine or control it whether it's in a II supermarket. If we had a Target store here, they have racks with cases of it there. I know the SuperAmerica may also have, I know the SuperAmerica in Eden IPrairie has a little section where you can go in and pull cases of cigarettes out. And I've seen the ends of those cases opened. Where's somebody's opened the and of the cases and they're only selling cases. They're not selling individual packs so somebody had gotten in there and stolen sore cigarettes. 11 That's what I'm trying to prevent. How this drags into the vending machine issue I don't fathah yet. ICouncilman Workman: Well so then if as an owner of Brooke's, if I can get a case that's electronically controlled by the person behind the case, that would be okay in Brooke's also? With a door to pop open? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. As long as the adult has control, the supervisor, whoever has control over who gets their hand in that case. IICouncilman Workman: Do you want to include that in an ordinance for this? Councilman Johnson: If we can come up with some kind of wording. I don't think 1 16 I City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 that's as feasible as a cigarette machine but if somebody wants to add, I won't , include that at this time unless somebody requests it to be included and they showed that there is such a feasible device. I can see some real liability problems if you have an electronic door on it because you're going to have to have it close. Grab somebody's hands. Are you saying that you want this to continue to be freely and openly to... Councilman Workman: No. I'm just saying, don't concern yourself with the 1 inventory of a store. Councilman Johnson: No. I don't care about the inventory. I'm saying they've 1 got shoplifting going on. I'm not saying, and I think that part of that shoplifting is by children. Mayor Chmiel:iel: I think what you're saying, because of the availability as to where it's located within that store, that's why the kids are taking the cigarettes. i Councilman Johnson: Right. I can't prove that there's children taking it but I know from personal experience as a young child that that does happen. And it does happen with cigars. I was very sick one day. Councilwoman Dialer: Jay, would you answer a question for me. The ordinance as it's proposed here, you're saying it has to be behind the counter. Is that what you're saying? Councilman Johnson: That's what I was saying initially. I Mayor Chmiel: Rather than having them out on the counter in front. Councilman Johnson: Right. I Councilwoman Dialer: And if they're on the counter, they have to have a shield in front of them? ' Councilman Johnson: Right. Councilwoman Dimler: They can be on the counter but shielded? , Councilman Johnson: Right. To where they can only be accessed from the rear. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess I don't have a problem with this and I see I/ it as a supplement to what we've already done rather than in opposing to. It's going one step further in assuring that our youngsters are not able to... 1 Mayor Chmiel: Having that accessibility. Councilwoman Dialer: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any further discussion? Councilman Boyt: Well, it seems as though maybe Ursula has it in that it's a modification. It sounds like what we're really talking about is controlling the point of sale of tobacco. I would go along with the staff report that suggests I 17 IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 IIthat this not be aimed at cigarettes but that we aim at tobacco products since r what we're doing here is giving direction to staff to draft some kind of an ordinance. That we probably ought to look at having one ordinance that II addresses the controlled sale of tobacco products somewhere along this line and that's not to complicate Tar's ordinance or the ordinance that he championed but simply to kind of try to tie it all together in one piece somehow. Maybe subsection (b) of that ordinance. I see no reason, well let me put this positively. It makes sense to me that we would control the sale of tobacco products in Chanhassen in same reasonable fashion. IIMayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think that that's a good idea and I also viewed the attorney's opinion. He said the City does have the authority to enact such an ordinance basically protecting the public health and the primary benefits from the ordinance would be the prevention of theft and making it more difficult for children to obtain cigarettes. And I agree with that position. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that maybe one of the things that we want to think about in the next few weeks though is we probably don't want to be a test case. I think a good question for the City Attorney to address is if we're going to became one. I'm not particularly interested in spending our tax IIdollars to fight the tobacco industry. They have a lot more money than we do and it could be real expensive. So I'd like to at least get an opinion on that. IIRoger Knutson: Whether someone is going to sue you, no one has told me they're going to. Hopefully they would not. You are not alone in thinking this kind of regulation. They would pick on you or pick on someone else or pick on anyone they don't really. No one is threatened or rattled sabers yet. Councilwoman Dialer: Plus the ordinance has public hearings yet too. We have that whole process to go through so we have plenty of opportunity for more II input. Mayor Chmiel: And I don't think, I don't object to us championing these kinds of things Bill. I think we're at least putting the City in the proper direction to have elimination of kids basically starting a habit that can be a direct, not as a benefit for theme and could be a health hazard. Councilman Boyt: I agree with you. I think we all agree on that point. I guess I would like a little more information about our liabilty if we get pulled into court. IIRoger Knutson: Because of concerns, there have been a few lawsuits and there's a body of law growing on the subject. If you want, I can have a brief for you and an update as to where things are. Councilman Johnson: If we fail to pass an ordinance that protects the children of this city because we're afraid of lawsuits from the tobacco industry, we're not doing a real good service to our city. Once they sue us, then we'll have to cross that bridge. IMayor Chmiel: Cross that suit when we get there. Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: Was there anybody here from any of the, that would like to 18 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 address it? i Mayor Chmiel: From Kenny's, Brooke's. Councilwoman Dinler: A merchant's point of view. i Councilman Workman: I guess a couple of my points, in regards to Bill as it relates to Jay. Bill, I think what I'm getting from Bill's point is I've put a lot of effort into the cigarette vending machine ban and it went through nice. Okay. Very soon we're going to talk about maybe kind of going back on that. What I'm saying is, once you decide and once we decide that we're going to do this to every store and every Holiday, SA, Q or whatever is no longer able to do this, a representative and some money and a nice tidy ordinance to change our idea and everything else, to care back from our stance or a lawsuit or something is a wrong time to start thinking about it and coming back. That's what I'm saying because you've got things nice and tidy. Well then people start throwing money around and spending time in our meetings or doing something else and the next thing you know, we're trying to moderate back from something that's currently tidy. That's what I'm saying. So now's the time and the public hearing is the time to think about whether or not we want to get into that mess and I'm with you. I want to and you know where I stand on this issue but then let's, once we say okay. Now we're going and we're going to do it, then to go back, it's like Teton Lane. What are we doing? Councilman Johnson: You're talking the next issue I do believe. i Councilman Workman: As it relates to this. Once we get both feet in the concrete, let's jump in the river. i Councilman Johnson: I think we need to inform like Cooper's about this before... i Councilman Workman: These industries are rather slow. They react after things have happened but they do react. And when the reaction comes and they do use this as a test case, that's the wrong time to think about the impact. Councilman Boyt: I agree with that. Mayor C v iel: Yeah. Can we have a motion? Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move that we direct staff to prepare an ordinance limiting the point of sale of tobacco products to areas from behind the counter, not accessible to the general public. Councilman Workman: I'll second it. i Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to direct staff to prepare an ordinance limitng the sale of tobacco products to areas behind the counter not accessible to the general public. All voted in favor and the motion carried. i 19 i II ,City Cot}ncil Meeting - January 22, 1990 IICONSIDER REQUEST FROM DANIEL DAHLIN AND JOHN DOREK TO ALLOW THE SALE OF CIGARETTES BY VENDING MACHINE THROUGH THE USE OF A REMOTE CONTROL COIN BOX ELECTRONIC UNIT. Mayor Chmiel: This would be basically for the reconsideration but before we get into discussion, I'd like to read a letter that I received from the Minnesota IDepartment of Health and it was addressed to me indicating and saying, I wish to commend you and the City Council of Chanhassen for your recent action prohibiting the sale of cigarettes from vending machines. 'You've taken a very caring step towards protecting the health of youth in your community. IChanhassen's vending machine prohibition sets a very positive example for communities throughout the state and I am pleased to see that several other cities have initiated similar prohibition. I congratulate you on your contribution to the advancement of Minnesota as a great state of health. Sincerely yours, Sister Mary Madonna Ashton, Commissioner of Health. I thought it was nice that she took out time to even recognize the fact that the City of IIChanhassen has taken that position. So with that I would like to hear any discussion as to what your thoughts are regarding reconsideration. Councilman Boyt: Maybe the public. IIMayor Chmiel: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the issue? Dan Dahlin: Yes. My name is Dan Dahlin and I'm the fellow who was here 2 weeks ago. The packet that I gave addresses sane of these other issues about access _1 as well as the vending machines. That's not an industry type of a packet. That 11 came from a police officer in the city of Woodbridge, Illinois. Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to just sort of summarize. There's an awful lot of 1 information that you have here. Councilman Johnson: We're not going to be able to read this. Dan Dahlin: Yeah, that's why I was thinking, as I discussed before, if we could put this over until the next meeting and then during that time you could read that and I could also demonstrate to sane people how a remote control device. tMayor Chmiel: Table this for a 2 week period? ICouncilman Johnson: Well I'd like to ask staff if they've cane up with an answer on sane of the questions I called in and asked about on Friday I guess. I think it was Friday. As far as what kind of penalties we can assess if the switch is gerryrigged to where it's always on and anybody can just throw money Iin and it will always go or if that's physically possible with this device. Don, did anybody have a chance to follow up on that? Don Ashworth: Roger? Roger Knutson: Depending on what your ordinance would say, but as I understand your ordinance, the idea is that you have to have a device that has to be functioning and your ordinance could provide that if you don't have that device or if it's not functioning, you're in violation of that ordinance and you lose I/ 20 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 your cigarette license. Therefore you can't sell cigarettes. You can do things 1 like that. Councilman Johnson: Could we put a time period before they can reapply for a license? They can reapply the next day for a cigarette license after they lose their first license and came back and say well it's fixed now? Roger Knutson: Again, you would be the author of that ordinance. It'd be your ' ordinance. You could say, out of business for a year. 6 months. 3 months. Whatever you word it. Councilman Johnson: A reasonable time period. Councilwoman Dimler: I also have a question on the device. I went to see it and it is, it's a device like a garage door opener. Is it a garage door opener? Dan Dahlin: I believe it is. I believe it is. Councilwoman Dimler: From my own experience I know that there is only so many frequencies and sane garage door openers operate other people's garage doors. Ours does operate other people's and other people's operate ours so my question is, if the minors got a hold of this and decided to try their garage door openers, would they work? Councilman Johnson: Is it on the same frequency as a garage door opener? ' Dan Dahlin: As we had demonstrated to you, there were those 8 switches and they would have to in that frequency so I imagine sure, a child could go and buy... Councilwoman Dimler: It's feasible that my garage door opener would work on it then? I Dan Dahlin: If you walked in there, sure with your garage door. I would imagine there's some tremendous probability against that. Councilwoman Dinner: And there's only so many frequencies. Councilman Boyt: You mean there's 8 code switches? 1 Dan Dahlin: Yes. Councilman Boyt: I'll bet you $100.00 that you can't open it in 24 hours. , Councilman Johnson: With 8 switches, that means 256 combinations. Mayor Chmiel: Depending upon how many times they go there and keep trying. Councilman Boyt: The combinations of 8 different numbers? You couldn't work it out if you did it every minute in that period of time so that combination is next to foolproof. Councilman Workman: Not necessarily. I Mayor Chmiel: No. I don't agree with that. 21 i IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: But if it happened to be on the same frequency. IIMayor Chmiel: Not at all. That still can be worked out. Councilman Boyt: I'm not saying it couldn't be worked out but I'm saying it's Imore foolproof than the lock on our front door. Councilman Johnson: I've had mine about 10 and I've got the same 8 switches. IICouncilman Workman: And Jim's is about 8 and he says his opens about 1/10th of the garages in the neighborhood. ICouncilman Johnson: Mine only opens mane. Mayor Chmiel: Everybody tonight going bars try your garage door openers and see how many open. Councilwoman Dinler: Cur ara a door opener happens to open Chuck's folks so 9 g Pe PPe Pe it's lucky that we know them and their's opens ours. But I'm sure there are others that can open ours that we don't know. Councilman Johnson: 8 switches is 256 different frequencies. It wouldn't take IIyou that long but we don't know if it's on the same frequency as a garage door opener either. The frequency ban assigned... Councilwoman Dimler: I'm assuming, I mean he said it was a garage door opener. ' c 3 Councilman Johnson: Well it looks like one. Are you an electronic's expert? IIDan Dahlin: No, I'm not. Councilman Johnson: You can tell on the inside by what the frequency, it will tell you what the frequency range is. You can compare that to. I mean a different garage door opener brands use different frequency ranges. Councilman Boyt: So it's pretty unlikely anyway. Councilman Johnson: Oh yeah. There are people who have built devices that for a lot of money could run through those frequencies in a matter of seconds and 11 determine what it is. Councilman Boyt: Okay, I'll take my bet back then but did we get sane answer to the penalty question that you asked? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Revocation of the license for a year. Could there be any kind of automatic or any fines involved in that? II Roger Knutson: Violation of your ordinance would be a misdemeanor but the actual levying of a fine would be by the district court. IICouncilman Johnson: Right. Roger Knutson: Any charge would go to court and try to decide. 22 11 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 11 Councilman Johnson: So the best thing, if we discovered this open like this would then bring a minor in. Let the minor buy the sales and hit them up for selling to a minor which is a much worse offense. I Roger Knutson: Cross misdemeanor. Mayor Chmiel: What's a gross misdemeanor? $2,500.00? ' Roger Knutson: •$3,000.00 and a year. Councilman Boyt: Well I would maintain that we have a pretty simple issue, in spite of our recent discussion. We have what I gathered was something about the spirit of the ordinance that staff seemed to be talking about in their report ' and we have undoubtedly, I agree with Tom's point. The simpler something is, the clearer and easier it is to enforce. I lean towards the spirit of the ordinance but as I recall a few weeks ago, that was the direct I was leaning in and it didn't make any different then either so my sense is that we're probably going to keep the same ordinance we've got. I don't think there's any point in laying this over 2 weeks. I think we can assume the thing works and make a decision. What do you guys think? , Councilman Johnson: I think here we're controlling the point of sale which I think is the spirit of the ordinance. We have an adult who is making that decision. Whether they put them behind the bar and the adult decides to hand it to the guy and sell it to them or decides to push the button and allow him to get it that way, it makes no difference. It's the adult that has to make that final decision. I don't see what the difference is from selling them behind the bar or selling them remotely like this. I could even see the, even though this one is better than using some kind of token system where only your certain token would work but tokens I don't think are that good because slugs can be made. I think this would meet the spirit of what we're trying to do is control the sale of cigarettes to minors. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a few comments too. Like I said before, I did go , and look at the device. I was very impressed with it. It worked in their situation. I did rake it clear at that time that I was concerned about the other cigarette vending machines in town. Mx. Dahlin has the most updated machine which is easily adaptable to this device. There are other machines in town that are not that easily adaptable. It would cost more and maybe not have such tight control. And because we can't just write an ordinance for one person in town, we have to consider everyone, I have already called Mr. Dahlin and told him that I intent to keep the ordinance in the nice clean package that we have it in instead of it opening up for law enforcement headaches. Councilman Workman: My concerns, they remain. There are an awful lot of questions with this device. Not that it couldn't work fine. Possibly used as an excuse. Possibly used erroneously. Spend more city staff time checking on devices. Sending minors in. We're not interested in sending minors in anywhere. Teat's up to the Public Safety Department. So my wish is that the ordinance stays as clean as we can keep it. The City of Waconia, our neighbors to the west have done likewise. I think we set a precedence when we say and tell some of the people we've been telling what a great ordinance it is and people have been telling us, Sister Mary Madonna, the newspapers and everybody 23 IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 IIelse that we're going to back down, back way down on this now. 1; Councilman Johnson: Now you say it's way but. IIMayor Chmiel: I think I feel just exactly as what you've indicated. I liked the cleanliness of what we had already adopted. I think at that particular time IItoo Mr. Dahlin, you had an opportunity to indicate sane of those concerns at that particular meeting but I'm not sure whether you had everything pulled together or not for that particular time to discuss it at that public hearing Imeeting. I guess I too like to see it just remain as is. I feel more comfortable with it, even though that's probably a device that can be worked. There's always that potential and the laws are the problem. So I guess I'd lean quite heavily towards remaining with the existing ordinance as we have. IICouncilwoman Dialer: So then it makes no sense in wasting staff time. IMayor Chmiel: And it would require a four-fifths majority to change that for reconsideration to even go to it and as you can see, you don't have that. IICouncilman Boyt: No it doesn't. Roger Knutson: I believe it's a simple. IIMayor Chmiel: Is it simple? Councilman Boyt: Whatever it took to pass it the first time. tCouncilman Johnson: Well you don't have that either. IICouncilman Boyt: Well for the sake of orderly progress, I'll move approval and then Jay if you'll second that, we can take a vote and this will be decided. Councilman Johnson: Sure, we'll second that. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to reconsider a request from IDaniel Dahlin and John Dorek to allow the sale of cigarettes by vending machines through the use of a remote control coin box electronic unit. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor. Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman and Councilwaman Dialer voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 II to 3. 11 I RECONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS. Paul Krauss: At the last meeting the ordinance regulating convenience stores and other uses having gas pumps was approved. Since then a problem has surfaced relative to it's enforcement and the Amoco reconstruction that has been underway or been on the boards in the city for quite sane time. When we first presented this report to you late last fall, we indicated in the staff report that we _ didn't believe that this ordinance should become effective on uses that had already been approved by the City and in fact at that time we indicated to you a 24 City Council Meeting - January 22; 1990 • 11 that Amoco was in for a building permit on that station, which in fact they were. However, what happened in the intervening time. Mayor Chmiel: Was the permit issued? Paul Krauss: The permit's been issued in the last 2 weeks. They came in with I the permit materials and then the glitch was that the site has to be reworked through PCA before the permit can be issued. Consequently, the permit was not issued until 2 weeks ago and construction hasn't started and probably won't start until spring. The problem is that the current ordinance requires a 250 foot separation between gas pumps. The Amoco station right now has a 197 foot separation between it and the Holiday which was increased to 214 feet with the new building plan. Since it was not our intention that it be applied to the existing uses and it wasn't discussed but we didn't believe it was the Council's intent to do so, we proposed an amendment to the ordinance that would clarify that relative to the Amoco station and allow it to proceed as is. We feel that something like this is necessary because in the City Attorney's opinion to us that until something is actually built in the ground, it could be stopped by changing the ordinance. In this case, they have not broken ground yet. Mayor Chzr►iel: Okay. Thank you. Any discussion? Is there anyone wishing to address this particular subject at the time? If not, we'll bring it to the Council for discussion. Councilman Boyt: Can I make a motion? I Mayor Cmiel: Sure. Councilman Boyt: I would move that we reconsider the second reading of the , Zoning Ordinance as stated in 4.5 of the staff report. Councilman Johnson: Second. , Councilman Workman: What does reconsidering mean? Councilman Boyt: Putting it back on the agenda. ' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to reconsider the second ' reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment modifying restrictions and locations for convenience stores, gas stations and automotive service stations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I Roger Knutson: Now that it's back on the table, do you want to vote on it? Councilman Boyt: I thought we were just reconsidering it. r Councilman Johnson: Next agenda. Councilman Boyt: Do we want to do it now? Mayor thmiel: Okay, we voted on that for reconsideration. I Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to reconsider right now? 25 1 11 ;City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 1. IICouncilman Boyt: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: I moved against the ordinance to begin with so I suppose I ought to vote against this. I'm real confused. 1 Councilman Boyt: As I recall the discussion that set this up over a year ago, or just about a year ago. The question then came up about were we trying to impact existing stations. Convenience stores and so on. We really weren't IItrying to address the ones that we had already approved, at least on a concept plan somewhere. So I think this reconsideration keeps in the spirit of where we were trying to head. The ordinance isn't going to prevent anything that's 1 already been approved except for the Amoco station and they're not in a position where they can change their layout anyway. Mayor Chniel: Exactly. Councilman Johnson: I would agree with that in that I think the whole time period of this we have been, it's been my impression that we weren't talking about the Amoco and the other sites that have already been approved to not develop but any future sites. 1 Mayor Chmel: Well, that was part of the concern at that particular time. II Future sites and what we can have where. I think we've addressed those specific f issues now. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: I'm still real confused here. You're saying that the ones that are in existence are not subject to the new ordinance. Is that what you're saying? IIMayor Chmiel: I would say that those are probably grandfathered in right Roger? Councilman Johnson: The ones that have been approved even. The Amoco site. Councilman Workman: Has the Amoco site been approved? 1 Councilman Johnson: Yeah, we approved then last year. And Charlie James' site. Paul Krauss: Well the ordinance as written would not apply to Charlie James' II m site. It specifically only applies to sites for which a building permit has II been issued prior to the effective date or the rebuilding of an existing use. 1 Councilman Johnson: And Charlie would have to comply with this? Paul Krauss: Yes they would and I've been in contact with one of their staff people and told than about this and said, two months before you want to build 1 the thing, you'd be required to have a conditional use permit. They would meet the standards. ' Councilman Johnson: That's no big deal. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If not, can I get a motion? 26 1 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 II Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the second reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to convenience stores and uses having gas pumps and amend it to make it effective only on uses approved after the date of adoption. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A PORTION OF LOT 31, MURRAY HILL AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PLEASANT HILL, LOCATED ON MURRAY HILL ROAD JUST SOUTH OF MELODY HILL ROAD, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Paul Krauss: The City is proposing to divide a lot containing a city water I tower and sell a portion of it to Mr. Kreidberg. Mr. Kreidberg owns the parcel located to the south. The purchaser intends to add the area to his lot but has indicated that it would not contain any new housing nor would it be further subdivided in the future. The City would retain ownership of the water tower property itself and also over a trail easement that would run from Murray Hill Road to Minnetonka Junior High located to the west. The Planning Commission reviewed the item on January 3rd and recommended it's approval. Based on the foregoing, staff recommends approval without variances subject to the conditions in the staff report. i Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone wishing to address this specific item one more time? If hearing none, we'll bring that right back to the Council. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Subdivision Request #89-23 as shown on the plat dated December 29, 1989 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot 2 be shown as Outlot A on the final plat. 2. The north 20 feet of Outlot A is dedicated as a trail easement. 3. The property cannot be further subdivided or any new residences be built I on the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried. DISCUSSION OF MOON VALLEY RIFLE RANGE, 100 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE. Paul Krauss: Last December, after hearing concerns raised by area residents, the City Council directed staff to report back on the Moon Valley gravel quarry. The report was to contain background information and options for enhancing the City's control over the operation. Staff has worked with the City Attorney to prepare this report. The first item concerns the rumored expansion of the operation by the acquisition of additional land. We reviewed property tax records and can find no recent acquisitions, at least not at the County. We further note that the current site is separated from the homes on I believe it's Erie Drive by an intervening parcel owned by a party named Teich. At that point too we should say that we believe the City is in a position to prevent additional acquisitions pertaining to this site. That the non-conforming grandfathering portion of this item pertains only to the property that was owned 27 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 II IIby the operator at such time as the ordinance was put in place requiring a permit. And we believe that the City again is on good grounds to prevent the l purchase of additional land at it's conversion to a gravel quarry. As we indicated last December, the operation itself is non-conforming since it does II not have a conditional use permit and one is required for mineral excavation in the A-2 district. As near as we can tell, the records indicate that they did apply for a permit sometime I believe in the early 70's but no action was ever completed on it. However, due to it's age, this is a grandfathered use. In addition, due to the nature of mineral extraction and legal precedence, we really feel we cannot view this type of non-conformity in the usual light. That is, usually non-conformities aren't allowed to expand but in this case gravel ' quarries by their operation are continually being expanded. The one exception we see in Moon Valley is the new operation that was used to excavate clay near Pioneer Trail last year. In discussions with the City Attorney we don't believe IIthat this is grandfathered in since no permit was obtained and believe that it is in direct violation of the existing zoning ordinance. Should the City Council wish to take action to regulate this use, the clay mining, we believe that there are several options to be considered. As far as the clay mining goes, again we think it's a non-permitted illegal use of the property and that the City's in a position to require that activity cease on the clay excavation. That that portion of the site be restored. Our belief is based on the fact that the operation is new. It's physically separated from the gravel pit and is used to mine a different material than gravel. Options relative to the gravel pit are somewhat more complex. While we're not likely to be in a position to stop IIthat operation in it's entirity, we believe that we could require, in fact they obtain a permit from the City. If the City Council wishes to go this route, we would recommend that a new ordinance be drafted that would provide specific IIstandards for regulating mineral extraction. Our current ordinance doesn't do a very good job of that frankly. This ordinance could include requirements i relative to site screening and buffering. Environmental protection. Site restoration. Limits on noise. Dust. Hours of operation and other related Ratters. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on how to proceed. These alternatives, each involve considerable time and effort and some degree of legal exposure for the City. However, we're prepared to respond as directed by IIthe City Council. Thank you. Mayor Chrriel: Thank you Paul. Any discussion? Anyone wishing to address this? Is there anyone here from Moon Valley by chance? Is there something that you'd like to say or address Council on and if you would, you can come up to the microphone. IITerry Beauchane: I guess I'm not sure how to put this. Mr. Boyt read the proposal that was just read by the Planning Department and I guess I'm not completely clear on exactly what all that rreans. It was a mouthful to digest. IIAre we saying in effect that, if I understand this, that the existing or the original Moon Valley operation can stay in operation to whatever extent it wants as long as it doesn't go beyond the original boundaries of Moon Valley? Of the Ioriginal Moon Valley operation? Paul Krauss: To a point but let me phrase it a little differently. What we're saying relative to the existing gravel quarry is that we don't believe that the II City's going to be in a position to stop them from mining gravel on the site. If directed by the City Council however, we believe that the City could require that they obtain a permit and that conditions could be attached to that permit. 28 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 1 Terry Beauchane: For the existing or original operation? Paul Krauss: Exactly. ' Terry Beauchane: Okay. And those conditions would be? Paul Krauss: Well they have yet to be developed but what we would do is write 1 an ordinance that specifically requires conditions of approval that could cover a wide variety of items. Terry Beauchane: And that would apply to the original excavation or mining operation? Paul Krauss: Yes. 11 Terry Beauchane: Okay. And then we have the second part of the issue which is the mining of the clay north of the original Moon Valley. Paul Krauss: Right. And I believe that that's a separate item or could be handled separately. That that is in fact a violation of current codes. It represented a considerable expansion of the site or complete relocation of the operation to a different area. Terry Beauchane: Am I interpretting that to mean that they should never have 11 dug that hole in the first place without getting a permit? Paul Krauss: Yes, that's our opinion. , Terry Beauchane: And then that means if that's the case, they would have to reclaim that land and put it back to it's original condition? Paul Krauss: If the City Council wishes to follow up along those lines, yes. We would recommend that the site be restored. I Terry Beauchane: And the third part of what you're saying then is if anyone wants to mine land within the city of Chanhassen, they would have to come under this new ordinance that you're proposing or might propose? Paul Krauss: Yes. Terry Beauchane: With all of it's restrictions and/or whatever? I Paul Krauss: That's correct. I Terry Beauchane: Am I understanding that correctly now? Okay. The one thing I did not hear any discussion on or brought up I guess was again, as I mentioned at the beginning of this session, the traffic problems. Mayor Chmiel: That we're going to look into and then if we have to address. Terry Beauchane: Would that or could that be a part of this new ordinance also? Mayor Chmiel: As a condition? 29 City Council Meeting - January 22; 1990 ITerry Beauchane: As a condition or whatever. ' Paul Krauss: Traffic could be one of the its that you could look at. You wouldn't be in a position to stop it but you right want to require turn lanes or something else that improved it. IICouncilman Johnson: However, it would be tough to enforce those on Moon Valley because of grandfathering conditions. IITerry Beauchane: Well that all depends on how you look at it. Councilman Johnson: ...permit to continue a non-conforming use. How you could get him to have to put in turn lanes, etc., etc.. That's going to be very difficult. But any new operations. Mayor Chmiel: Could you even, and I'm sure they don't want to be out there 11 during peak traffic flows. Terry Beauchane: Who doesn't? ' Mayor Chmiel: Let me finish my statement. I'm sure that Moon Valley doesn't want to be out there during those peak hours as well because it could be a detriment for them as well as anyone else. Could that be incorporated in the operating hours to avoiding peak flow of traffic? Paul Krauss: Conceiveably yes but I guess I would defer that to Roger. I 3 } 11 Roger Knutson: It certainly is something that would be a condition of seriously i look at, I think that right work. Terry Beauchane: I guess I bring up the question based on the traffic problem being that that is a U.S. Highway controlled by the State of Minnesota. Does the City Council even have authority to. Mayor Chmiel: We're controlling what's coming off the site, not the highway. IITerry Beauchane: I guess I'm referring to like turn lanes, passing lanes and that sort of thing. Now you're talking about... IMayor Chmiel: That would have to be discussed with the Highway Department to see whether... Terry Beauchane: So we're leaving it up to then then. Ebr that part of it. IIMayor Chmiel: Yes. We don't have jurisdiction over that road. IITerry Beauchane: Then I guess we already know what the answer. Mayor Chmiel: We can make recommendations to them. IITerry Beauchane: And we know what's going to happen with that. Nothing. Mayor Chmiel: Well we never know. 30 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Johnson: It depends upon how much pressure gets put. 11 Terry Beauchane: We've been trying to put pressure on down there for years. I guess that's all the comments I have. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Councilman Workman: Two points. Number one, Paul. Are you saying that Moon Valley couldn't purchase the Teich property, make a gravel pit out of that? Mayor Chmiel: They could purchase it. It's our belief that they couldn't use it for a gravel mining operation or that we could stop them. Councilman Workman: What's the immediate concern? Then my second one, we'll 1 keep it short. Isn't this an issue of a much larger magnitude rather than a City's problem? This would seem to me to be down in a protected wildlife area. I guess maybe it's not in the protected wildlife area but adjacent to, etc.. That this is an issue for the EPA or somebody with bigger and better contacts. Mayor Chmiel: Fish and Wildlife? ' Councilman Workman: Because I mean it's such a high impact thing. All up and down, if we go by the EPA. After saying you can bury garbage on the bluff down there too but I think our only option after, I think the next option after removing all this fill is going to be Met Council request to bury trash there to fill it in. Is this something that we should all be worried about and who can we, as a little City Council ask for help in jurisdiction or is it just us? 1 Paul Krauss: Councilman Workman, I think that first of all, if we did pass an ordinance that required a permit and did put them through those hoops, that we would notify all the other agencies to find out what, if any, leverage or interest they had in it. Right now most of those agencies that might have an interest in it don't have any reason to be there and they're not affecting a wetland. There apparently were same improvements on the site to keep the more serious erosion on the gravel pit side and not going into the Minnesota River. It's my understanding that there was some interaction between the Minnesota River Watershed District and the operation in the past. Yeah, I think a lot of those agencies would be interested. You erode away a major bluff line that's visible over a large distance, a lot of agencies it would be, but there's no vehicle for them to interact on it right now. If we required a permit and put that through and sent that out, there may be same potential lease for those agencies to review it and make their concerns known. Councilman Workman: Is Met Council going to ask us to bury garbage there? I Councilman Boyt: You know how to make this exciting don't you? Paul Krauss: I don't know. ' Terry Beachane: You bring up a good point. How are they going to fill in that hole? Councilman Workman: I mean that's a permanent scar. 31 City Council Meeting -- January 22, 1990 I/ - I Paul Krauss: Yes it is and there's a lot of creative things that can be done with gravel quarries although, the Byerly's in St. Louis Park is a gravel quarry as is everything south of Southdale. They can be used but it takes a lot of effort and design ingenuity to do it. 1 I IIMayor Chmiel: What you're saying about Met Council Tam, that's probably very true. They're looking to make a proposal that they have jurisdiction over all matters and supercede counties or cities and mandate that you put a landfill where they want. ' Councilman Bout: Let's hold that for a future. Mayor Chmiel: I just thought, he threw it out and that's very. Councilman Johnson: That would require a mandatory envirnonmental impact statement probably at this point. ICouncilman Workman: That doesn't mean a whole lot. Councilman Johnson: No, it doesn't mean a whole lot. IIMayor Chmiel: Have theca go through the process themselves. But anyway, go ahead. You're done? Okay, Jay. Do you have anything? II Councilman Johnson: I think we should move at due speed to put in a permit ordinance for this. If anybody wants to go do extraction other places, I think ,- , you know there has been some consideration. Who was it? Ursula, who is it that I sells the sweet corn, farms over there? 'y Councilwoman Dimler: Peterson. This is Sever's brother. ' Councilman Johnson: Oh, Sever's brother. Okay. I only know Sever so okay. Now I know Sever's brother. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Why don't we let him address it. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, because there was some talk of mining clay out of I your land and I'd like to see that done with proper permits and everything. The people on Bluff Creek Road would be very interested in that not happening. My friends I know there. IIDarrel Peterson: I don't really see any problem here gentlemen. Mayor Chmiel: Could you just state your name and your address. IIDarrel Peterson: My name is Darrel Peterson. We own 180 acres right to the east of Moon Valley and there is no hole being dug anywhere. What they're I digging is still 20 feet above the highway and I don't think you have to worry about any dump going in there later. I think what we have to look at is property rights here. I think property rights are just as right as civil rights. I as a neighbor don't have, can't tell him what to do nor can he tell II me what to do. Nor if all of us get together can we tell him what to do. They haven't been doing anything that's bothered anybody. There's no law's been broken. There's no victims to any crime. I think we're just stepping out of 32 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 line a little ahead of time and before you get a little too foolish, I'd like to read you a little something out of the Supreme Court decision of June of 1987. Get my glasses on. A major property rights decision. The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that landowners must be compensated when the government regulations bar them even temporarily from using their property. The court by a 6 to 3 vote said regulations such as zoning ordinances that impose new limits on an owner's use of land may amount to the taking for which the Constitution requires just compensation. A little farther down it says, in recent years Court have sear, more willing to recognize that some land use regulations can have the same affect as public ownership. The Supreme Court said, let's see here. Temporary takings which deny...all use of his property are not any different in the kind from permanent takings for which the Constitution clearly requires compensations. The decision made clear that once sore court has found that an owner's land was taken by regulation, government officials may amend the regulation, withdraw it or buy their property but whatever the government does, it will have to compensate the owner. So that's where I stand. Any questions from you? Councilman Johnson: I've got no problem with that. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yep. I don't argue with that. Councilman Johnson: We're not going to say he's got to quit mining gravel out of there. We'll say he can't go beyond his property limits. We may say that he can't get within so many feet of his property, just like you can't place a house on your property line. Darrel Peterson: You see there's a buffer zone on Dicky Teich's. I don't know who's complaining. Somebody driving by from Shakopee or Chaska may not like it but that don't give them the right to say what they can do and what they can't do. As far as, if you look at the property, if they would go through, they've got a big gully behind there. If they'd go through there and level that all out, it would be a much nicer site when they get done than when they started. According to who? My opinion is just as great as yours isn't it? I live there. Councilman Johnson: He's on the other side. 1 Darrel Peterson: I'm on the east side. Resident: You've got about 1,000 yards between you and the hole. Darrel Peterson: My land, I grew up on the hill and I overlook the hole. I Resident: They dig that hill between me and the gravel pit Darrel, I'll look right at a bunch of dump trucks... I Darrel Peterson: But they can't take it because Dicky Teich owns it and they're saying... Resident: But if they sell it they certainly can. Darrel Peterson: But they're saying they're not going to allow that. I Resident: ... 33 1 IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 IIMayor t oriel: Gentlemen, this is not an arguing position here. If we can just sort of... IDarrel Peterson: But we have a gravel pit there and what I'm saying, it's better to let than do their thing and finish it than try to stop something in Ithe middle here. I beg your pardon. But what I'm saying is they have the right to do with their property, they're the ones that are paying taxes on it. You pay taxes on yours. We don't tell you what color to paint your house. ICouncilman Workman: The argument is, if he does buy the Teich's and we're leaving the gravel pit alone. If he does buy the Teich's and then does buy part of yours and part of yours and it keeps going out. That's what the concern is. IIDarrel Peterson: Fine. But within his own property rights, he's got the right to do what he wants to. He's grandfathered in there. That's what I'm saying. ICouncilman Workman: Yeah. That we know. Darrel Peterson: And we go to great lengths to give somebody civil rights but IIproperty rights are just as much. Councilman Johnson: Now would you like to see him 20 years from now pull all his equipment out and leave? Darrel Peterson: I don't think he intends to do that. IICouncilman Johnson: No, when the gravel's mined out. We've got this big hole j there. 1 Darrel Peterson: It's not a hole. Councilman Johnson: Well we've got a big scar with no vegetation growing on it ' and only rennents of sand and gravel. No possibility of any vegetation ever growing back on there other than what grows in gravel but it's no longer useable for mining. No longer economically. Do you think we should any kind of regulations as to restoration of that area? IIDarrel Peterson: But don't you think that he as the landowner is going to do the best he can to get the most dollars out of that? That's going to make a beautiful site when it's leveled down. Councilman Johnson: It may cost him more to restore that site. There are many examples in this country where businessmen have walked away from a site and just left it because they've gotten as much value out of it as they want. So this permitting of the site will give us the same rights as they do on the big mines. The big coal mines where they have to restore the site after, this is strip IImining. That's all this is. Our permit is going to require them to restore the site before they leave the site. Maybe even phase restore the site to where the entire thing, restrict how many total acreage of the site can be opened at one II time before restoration starts. It's not going to be breaking any new grounds. 1 II It's not going to be much different than other mining operations. We're just trying to control, protect the environment and protect the city here. I/ 34 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 • .1 Darrel Peterson: Yeah, I would agree if we had a hole being dug but there's no hole being dug. The hill was taken out but it's still way high above the highway and if you go just a little farther back towards the railroad tracks, there's another big gully in there. Councilman Johnson: Put my house on top of a hole and I fall into a mine, there's no hole there because, never mind. Darrel Peterson: Anyhow, you understand what I'm saying. 1 Mayor U- r►iel: Okay. Is there anyone else? Jerry Ripkara: My name is Jerry Ripkema and I am employed by G & T Trucking which operates Moon Valley. Just to a couple issues. We have no intention of buying the property next door and mining straight through. There's no intention of that. I don't know where that came up from but that's not an intention of ours to purchase more property and to do mining towards the west. As far as to the traffic issue, since we have purchased that property I have been continually on the State to help us and do things. In fact, there is in fact truck hauling signs out there and they are because, I'm sorry. The signs say trucks entering and those were put up by us continually on the State to get those put up and that's the only reason they're there. We have tried to get turn lanes out there and the State has not done anything or won't address that issue at this time anyway. As far as traffic, in the trucking business time is money. I do all the scheduling. I do not attempt to schedule when our traffic is the highest out there. There's many times where we could be hauling on Saturday and we do not haul on Saturday because of the traffic load out there. At $.80 to $.86 a minute with a truck you can't have than, sitting in traffic so we're very aware of what goes on out there, believe me. We have done a number of things to control the water. It was brought up that the Watershed District has been there. and they have been there and we have dug ponds up on top. We've put dikes in. Some culverts and things like that to control our runoff up there. I think that we do a better job now of containing it than before we purchased the property. Also, as far as to the restoration, we have already started to bring or put black dirt back on the slopes so it is a flat slope. Right now I'm working at about a 4:1 or 5:1 so that as we work our way around, we will be restoring that piece of property. It makes no sense for us that when we're done that it's just there because we hold that property in value when we're done and we want to be able to sell it for the highest possible price so we are doing same things and will do it but you can't do it until we mine the material out. So I feel that we are addressing same of these issues. Terry Beauchane: I've got same questions. I guess first of all, the issue, let's see the last one concerning restoring it. Now I'm not positive but I was just up there a few weeks ago and on the southwest side where the steep cutoff is of the mining operations, I don't see how you could put black dirt in there under any circumstances when it's straight up and down. It can't be restored. Not without taking the hill down. I don't care what anybody says. If any of you people have ever been up to that mine and looked at it, it's a straight drop off. It is not a hill by any stretch of the imagination. Secondly, do you own Moon Valley? Are you the owner? You're not the owner. Then you cannot say that the owner of the existing Moon Valley will or will not buy the Teich property next to it right? I don't understand what your relationship is with the owner of Moon Valley and the mining of Moon Valley. Are you leasing the 35 I I IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 IIended looking at it. I don't know what my decision was but, I mean I know what • my decisions were but I can tell you what, it was sifted over again long after we did. That's 2 months. tMayor Chmiel: I haven't seen anything has really. happened after that. TO come back and say, this is what we really did. This is the way it's going to be. IICouncilman Workman: I'm not looking for more power but I think out of a responsibility kind of thing because I think it is kind of confusing to a lot of people. But it's something for discussion and I thought I'd bring it up at this point. Councilman Boyt: My last point on this is that the value in having the HRA Iseparate, one value is that they supposedly then don't have to deal with the politics of the situation. But it's not working that way. There is I think the HRA not only is politically sensitive but we're the ones that pay the price as IIyou pointed out. So it is pretty political and it doesn't achieve that advantage that it should have. Well, good topic. Paul Krauss: I can just clarify the hotel issue. The Council is getting the IIhotel back. Basically you gave the developer sane guidelines and you said this is the site plan. The only way to change it is to go back through the Planning Commission. They are in the process of doing that. At the sane time Iconcurrently Todd was going to run them through the HRA but ultimately it will be your decision and it will be on a meeting in February. Late February. Councilman Boyt: So they decided to take their time huh? Paul Krauss: Yeah. ITodd Gerhardt: I also told Bill that HRA has architectural reviews. That architectural review is limited to basically color and materials to be used... and it's more of an update to them. They're providing subsidy and everything. ' They'd kind of like to see what the thing's going to look like and then they give architectural review to certain aspects of color and materials to be used in that... City Council has final review on all sites plans... ' Councilwcvan Dimler: So you're saying it's our fault? ICouncilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.. Sulmitted by Don Ashworth City Manager IPrepared by Nann Opheim 74 r City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Redevelopment Authority. I Councilman Boyt: That's really not my issue. That may be a good issue. Councilman Workman: Well the issue is that I have to look at it twice. Thank , heavens because I don't understand it the first time. But there is, believe me, out there, there's a big question out there in the public about who takes responsibility for this stuff and more often than not they're going to give it to you and me. Maybe we made a decision on it. Maybe we didn't. Did you ever catch yourself trying to remember if you did or if you didn't? I now know for a fact that I did somewhere along the way because I'm on both. I'm guilty. Whatever happened, I'm guilty but I think it's something that the Council, in a discussion with Todd today and this is not out of dissatisfaction for any members of the HRA but it's something that maybe we ought to look at. Chaska doesn't have an HRA. We've got a lot of maybe the big issues that we've wanted to, out of the way. I don't know what the legalities of it all but if we want to take the responsibility, to be responsible as Council people, maybe that's what we ought to do. , Councilman Johnson: That's what the City of Minneapolis does too. Their Council is the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. I Councilman Workman: It's a non-elected situation on the HRA. I myself would feel more comfortable if the City Council were making sorry of those decisions and it would take out a lot of the glitches. It's just something I think for discussion that we ought to talk about. Councilman Johnson: I think it was done partially for workload but it really hasn't achieved that. Councilman Boyt: It would if we quit running the same issue in front of both groups. Staff has got to figure out where the buck stops and put it in front of that group and then it'd save one of us sane work. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I guess I have a comment on that and that is that ' the BRA is not elected. The public sees these things. Gets upset and you know the road, the narrowness of the road is a prime example. When I looked at the model out here it was beautifully straight. It was two lanes going each way. There was no median and I looked at that and I said what happened. I talked to HRA members and they said, I don't know who changed the plan. I talked to Council members and they said, I don't know who changed. I talked to staff, we don't know who changed. Nobody would take responsibility for changing it. The public is frustrated because they don't know who to go after. They can't go after staff. They can't go after HRA but they can go after, and that's when they're angry, they go after that vote. Councilman Boyt: Well, they did that last November. Councilwoman Dimler: It doesn't matter really who made the decision. The Council gets the ax so therefore, as long as we're the ones that have to take the ax, we should be the ones that have the final say. And maybe the only say. Councilman Workman: It had to do with the shurbery. We had a small committee, Don and I and Bill on the shurbery. Public Safety ended up looking at it. HRA 73 11 ICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 ICouncilman Boyt: Well you know, we had the solution back in January and we r didn't hang tough on it. That was when we could have stopped it. I don't know what your neighborhood is like but when I drive through my neighborhood, there's very low involvement right now with recycling. Mayor Chmiel: Now my area has been good. ICouncilman Boyt: Well, I wished you spread the faith over to. My neighborhood has generally been a very high participater in leaf recycling and that sort of I thing but for same reason they're not hanging in there with this particular item. A lot of money. A thousand dollars a truckload. Okay, well so that's all I had on recycling. I don't know if anybody else wants to respond. Mayor Chmiel: No. Hopefully we'll have that word out a little more than what it's been. I Councilman Boyt: Did you see what the County gave us? We spent $45,000.00. Did you see how much the County gave us? ' Councilman Johnson: They haven't given us anything. Councilman Boyt: I'd be embarrassed. Mayor Chmiel: We haven't gotten it. Councilman Johnson: That's what we ,say _the17 should give us. IICouncilman Boyt: That's right, they haven't give it to us now. Okay, the Hospitality Suites, that was also I believe, that was in the HRA packet. Tom gets to look at that and I was mentioning this to Todd beforehand. I think this is what I consider a classic example of how we spread the responsibility and get nobody to hold accountable. Hospitality Suites was in front of the City Council and we told thaw what they could and couldn't do, and I thought very clearly. Whether it was right or wrong. So now I look at the HRA pack and I see this. The same issues in front of the HRA. Now Todd tells me the HRA is going to read that and they're going to be smart enough to realize that they're really not II voting on those issues. But in there I see the reduce the thing by 12 feet. I see the canopy issue. We're going to put a post up so we can change the canopy. If I was than, I'd be confused about it. Where this starts and stops. You I mentioned earlier tonight how close the Medical Arts Building is sitting to the road. I remember the night we voted on that. I look at that, that's our responsibility that that sits 10 feet off the road. I think it was driven by a parking issue. The parking issue is what drove the dog gone old City Hall to II sit at an angle. But to me it's very important that we have one group, whether it's the City Council or the HRA and they vote on that and it's done and we don't take the hotel or another one of these issues and run them through both groups to see if we both vote the same way. Councilman Workman: Can I make a strong suggestion? ICouncilman Boyt: You're our HRA man. Go to it. Councilman Workman: It may be the City's time at this point to make the City IICouncil the BRA. An Economic Development Commission rather than the Housing and 1 72 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Workman: I mean they should have that right. 1 Councilman Johnson: They have the right to an interview before the Council. I remember a few years back of Ladd and several people on the Planning Commission saying, I don't feel right interviewing the guy I've been sitting next to for the last 3 years. Mayor Chmiel: Yep, they- did bring that up. I Councilwoman Dimler: Plus you don't feel comfortable making your comments. Don Ashworth: But then they're not going to interview the new candidate? Is that what I hear you saying? Councilwoman Dimler: The ones that are reapplying should not be a part of the interviewing process because otherwise they're in a sense interviewing their opponent is what they're doing. ' Don Ashworth: Okay. Councilman Boyt: Let's start with Hospitality Suites Hotel. Mayor Chmiel: I thought it was recycling costs first. 1 Councilman Boyt: Okay, you want to start with recycling? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's what you had first. ' Councilman Boyt: Is the tape finished? Well, I was in hopes that it would be. We've-got at least half the newspaper people have gone have because this is really considered just a frustration to share with the Council. The recycling costs were in the Admin pack. It figures out to $169.00 a ton of which 75% of that ton was newspaper. A $45,000.00 cost, give or take a few thousand but that was in the ballpark of what Paul suggested was probably a reasonable figure for 9 months service. What we've missed in this, and I think if we went back and checked the record, I was probably one of the people pushing the hardest to get recycling started back in April of a year ago and I'm glad everybody all voted to do that but in spending that $45,000.00, it's more what's sort of tragic to me is what we haven't done. We've picked up 268 tons of things that would have gone into a landfill somewhere and that was good. On the other hand, if we didn't spend the $12,000.00 it would have cost us to clean up the whole city in terms of tires, refrigerators, water heaters. Anything laying out that people couldn't haul off. That was a quote we had of about a year ago. 12 grand, they'll bring the trucks in and they'll haul it out. We could have used that money, what was left of the $45,000.00 to hire a full time employee to go out and work on educating all of us to be more aware of the costs of not recycling. Work with the businesses in town who already have a pretty good record. TO have an even better record in recycling and we didn't do that. I think it's just a shame. I guess that's all I want to say. Mayor Chmiel: What's the solution to it though? 71 I City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 IICouncilman Workman: I don't think people have park and rec issues on their mind in December anyway. IIi1 Councilman Johnson: It's a good time to have them. Councilman Workman: But they're not thinking about the beach and the park. IIThey're not using those things as much. Don Ashworth: Some quick points if I could. Some of those letters came in very IIlate. I know some of them, Wing's for example was dated December 21st or 26th or somewhere in that area. Quick question for Roger. In terms of, I know that the policy to have the commissions interview mothers who 'are reapplying is a local decision. That's something that the Council decided on. It's a Council policy decision that was made. I think it was more like 2 years ago but anyway, in the last few years. If Council wants to change that and have that come directly to City Council so if a commission member wants to reapply, instead of IIinterviewing with that commission, it would come directly to City Council. That's a decision solely of the Cit r'CotI? l: ' Roger Knutson: Correct. Don Ashworth: How about the decision regarding, so I would like to take and either have it voted on tonight or at same point in time because without voting on it, there's no other place that this is written as to what your policies are. The second point, regarding continuing until they're set. Continuing until the Council selects a new person. Now that's really under State law but can the IICouncil also have a local policy that would say we don't really care if under state law they could continue, we want the term to expire on December 31st? ` ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, put it on the next agenda. Don Ashworth: Okay, and get responses to each of these questions? II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Workman: Maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe Ursula does one thing IIand maybe I have a different concern. Don, you said that a commission member shouldn't be interviewed by the Commission itself. It should go straight to Council? I think maybe the point is that if I'm a commission member, should I ' be a part of the process to interview other people? Councilwar1an_Dinler: Yeah, that was what I was saying. IICouncilman Johnson: If you're also a candidate yourself? Councilwoman Dimler: Right. Councilman Johnson: Ursula makes a good point. II Councilman Workman: And does that person even need to be interviewed after so many years? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I don't think they need an interview. 70 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1996 Councilman Workman: I think it would behoove the department head to get the I process going 2 months prior rather than a month after, you know what I mean? I know right now we've got 3 people up on Park and Rec. I understand there's a problem getting some candidates and stuff and it's not just them. The HRA, it's everything. If your term is up, it's up. If it creates a quorum problem, then the department head beware. Councilman Johnson: Oh, you're saying if the term is up, it's been the policy , in the past that they would hold over until they've been replaced. Councilman Workman: Right. I'm saying I think we have the ability to think ahead and see that there's people's terms up. Let's take care of it before. Just like the City Council. Councilwoman Dimler: Two months prior. Councilman Johnson: One time that that's not a good idea is during lame duck season. Okay, where a lame duck Council apppints new commissioners. Appoints themselves onto the next commission. Things like that. In other words, an election year, this year caring up, if we had things expiring_next December 31st and on November 30th if Bill and I and Don don't get re-elected or if we don't run or whatever, that we then get to make these appointments. I think it's appropriate maybe to hold off on the appointments during that time. I think we did that, or tried to do that a little bit. We did that when you all came on board I believe. We held same of the appointments off so you could be involved in same of the appointments. Councilman Workman: Then maybe they shouldn't be during calendar year. Maybe ' they should be made in May. Terms should expire in May or something. Councilman Johnson: That's a good idea. 1 Councilman Workman: I buy that point. I'm just saying. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, not have it be so close to year end. , Councilman Johnson: There's nothing sacred about December 31st. Councilman Workman: Other than it's going to change everybody's term. But you know, just so that department heads, and I'll department heads and Todd you're the HRA department head aren't you. That we get the action going for the December 31st in October or something. It's public safety. It's everything. So that we don't have, number one, gaps because now those people are doing a favor by saying, well I'm just not going to come because I'm not a member anyway. Councilman Johnson: That's rotten time of year, December. It's Christmas, Thanksgiving, Christmas holidays. i Councilwoman Dimler: And advertising at that time is. Councilman Johnson: It's useless. Everybody's running around. They're trying 1 to buy the last Cabbage Patch doll. I think the thing we brought up of moving all the commissions to different than January. 69 IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 ICouncilman Workman: I don't know if it was down on the lakes, Lake Harriet and r stuff, that was one of the biggest, most political issues they ever faced down j j ' there. Are you prepared to take on all comers in that? Councilman Johnson: Sure. I'll take then, on. IIMayor Chmiel: You might be standing by yourself. Councilman Hoyt: It wouldn't be the first time would it Jay? 1 Councilman Johnson: No, it wouldn't be the first time. ' Councilman Workman: I don't know, there's something holy about. Councilman Johnson: Letting your dog do it on somebody else's lawn. IICouncilman Workman: Well. I'm not promoting that now. Councilman Johnson: How can you argue against a pooper scooper law? IICouncilman Workman: Well you wait. I'm just telling you, you wait. It's an inventory thing. When you're starting to tell people about territory. 1 Councilman Johnson: Territory? Well you know, we actually have a law in this city against dogs going on parkland. You can't bring your pets, and I --� personally believe that if you clean up after them, I don't see a problem with I pets in the parks too. There are certain areas you may not want thew, in because you can't clean up after they pee and you don't want, you know the kids rolling a hill don't want to go in that. There may be same, but I think there's room in IIa park for a pet too. But anyway. I'd like staff to look into pooper scooper ordinances. IICouncilwoman Dimler: I have a question I guess and a recommendation for the interviewing process that we have for our commissions. I guess it's been only within the last 4 years that the commissions themselves have interviewed the Iapplicants and I guess I think that's a fine idea until you get to the point where people have expired terms and they are wanting to be re-applied and yet they sit in on the interviewing process of the new applicants. I think that ' might be a conflict of interest there and I think that it makes some of the other commissioner members uncomfortable because they, with those people that are reapplying and also into the process they're not comfortable with stating Ihow they really feel. So I don't know what to do about it but I would say that we'd have to have some guidelines as to the people with the expired terms that are reapplying would not be in the interview process. So that they're not interviewing the new applicants. IICouncilman Workman: I agree with that I'd also go along with, and this is for department head's sake, that if your term's up, it's up. ICouncilman Johnson: No, automatic reappointment? I 68 City Council Meeting - January 22; 1990 i Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to give your reasons? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, it's like I said before. I agree we should have something. I think this is too restrictive. I'd like to see what you come up with for the second time around. Maybe I'll vote for it but I am concerned about having our permits and everything be too costly here that they'll go around us. Councilman Johnson: I think this will be cheaper. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Well hopefully. If that's what it ends up to be, I'll vote for it but if it gets to be too expensive to develop here in Chanhassen, they'll go around us. Councilman Hoyt: The most expensive part of it is time. Councilman Johnson: And when you have a recipe, it's a lot cheaper. APPOINTMENT OF A CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS. Paul Krauss: There's really no presentation on that. As you're aware, 1 Councilwoman Dimler has announced that she will no longer be able to serve on that Board. We're looking to have a replacement for that. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to make a recommendation that Jay be appointed to be a representative to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilman Johnson: Okay. Councilman Workman: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to appoint Jay Johnson to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: I Councilman Johnson: Well again this morning I observed, as I went to work, somebody caring off the back school yard with their dog. I can only imagine what had transpired out behind the school but I know what the playground monitors' opinions are of the people who bring their dogs for their morning dump on the playground. Not only that but in everybody else's yards and everything else. I saw one guy over in Chan Hills, whatever it is. Behind the McDonalds. That subdivision, walk along a sack and a pooper scooper and I stopped my car and got out and thanked him. I said you're the first guy I've seen in this town do that. You know, thanks. I didn't know you had a dog. I think it's a responsibility of a pet owner to clean up after it's pet whether it's in his own yard or sommebody else's yard. I cleaned my yard up when I owned dogs. Whenever they did wander next door, we went and cleaned that up. We do have a leash law which is not terribly watched but I think we're getting to the point that I'd like to see a pooper scooper law. 67 , 1 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 underneath. No mention of the outside lighting which he put a lot of money into. Spent a lot of money and, but that went through on building permit. We said hey, that wasn't on your- site plan so you had to turn off his lights. He's ' turned off his lights and they said they're going to turn them back on in another month and it's been quite a few. Mayor Chmiel: He's saving money. Councilman Johnson: ...They'll never save as much as what they've got in bulbs in the place. IMayor Chmiel: Yeah they will. I Councilman Johnson: Yeah, probably. How do we prevent that? Is there anything in here that would say, if it wasn't presented in the site plan? It's an error. It's an omission and they're going to claim, oh geez we just forgot. IICouncilman Boyt: I think there is. It talks about, in there it talks about the spirit, the intent of what was passed. That if staff feels that it's not in keeping with that, then they'll bring it back to us. Councilman Johnson: How does the building inspectors review that when they're reviewing and they see these lights? Unless they really go through every one of II our things. Paul Krauss: Well, to a large extent it's a matter of the building inspector_'s -' Ibeing aware of what our concerns are and when they see these changes out in the field coming back to us and saying, _hey I think this is something you ought to know about. ' Councilman Johnson: This is in plan review they should catch this. Paul Krauss: Yeah, and we should catch it in plan review as well and we've ' changed the in-house procedure on that a little bit so we're more on top of it than we were before. IICouncilman Johnson: Okay. So adminstratively you've made changes since that happened? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ICouncilman Johnson: Good. IMayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second for the acceptance of the first reading with modifications and suggestions and recommendations that have taken place. Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Division 6 entitled Site Plan Review, to Revise Ithe procedure, expand on development standards and require financial guarantees for landscaping and other site improvements, including researching the posting of signs and such other recommendations by the City Council. All voted in favor ' except Councilwoman Dimler and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 66 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 one of the conditions because it was on there, we write _.it onto s, form so the developer knows it and the building inspector knows it and they've been very conscientious about it and coming back to us and saying what type of erosion control are we looking for or telling us that it was knocked down and they told the guy to put it back up or they'll threaten to stop ,wp;ke..,We're working on perfecting our adminstrative procedures but I think we've done a lot in that direction and would continue to do so. _ _�: : ,;� : �:` •Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do we get these particular,plans in for developments, do we have ti�ds�e certified by a PE?' ' Paul Krauss: They have to be prepared by a registered professional I believe. , Now grading and engineering plans have to be signed off by the... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, okay. Technically they're not showing what they should on those drawings as to what that property is. We can go back to that particular PE and technically they could be in violation of their issuance of their professional engineering. , Councilman Johnson: What does that do? Mayor Chmiel: The point being is that they have to have everything on that 1 drawing that is exact as what's there because they're certifying to that. If they don't, then we have that to go back on. Paul Krauss: Yeah, I think there's same truth to that Mayor. The problem is that the engineer that designs the grading plan isn't out in the field affectuating it and they won't be held liable for the actual construction unless they are then project managers on that. Basically it comes down to you have to keep on top of these things. Councilman Boyt: I'll give you an example and I guess the reason this is an 1 issue is because the example is right outside my back door. When they built a house, they moved the erosion control. _Ttley�filledrin we ands , ,,.,1,then they.,., dug their basement and we signed of�' on-that baby; Not we the City Council but staff did and in investigating it, staff said well, gosh. You know it didn't look like that on the map. Now I don't know who we go back against but I know that they filled in 15 feet of wetland intentionally. , Councilman Johnson: A lot of things have changed since then. Mayor Chmiel: Oh sure. 1 Councilman Boyt: Well it's 2 years. No, actually it's less than 2 years ago. Councilwoman Dimler: Colonial Groves are still filling it in. Councilman Boyt: Well that's, how many years ago was that they got that approval? So, I'm just saying that I'd sure like staff to figure out an answer to that so that we don't have to worry about it. Councilman Johnson: I've got one other question. SuperAmerica at TH 7 and TH ' 41. Site plan review that came through us did not illustrate that the canopy was going to be lit on the outside. We talked a lot about the recessed lighting 65 IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 ICouncilman Boyt: Well it's saying, in this particular case it's saying preservation of the site. It's saying, what are our standards. One of the standards of preservation of the site is that you've staked off those areas. s I don't know, you may not like that. I'm just suggesting that that's a point that I'd like you to consider. ' Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure if it should go here or someplace else. Councilman Boyt: Maybe somewhere else. There's two things, well one that I think we need to address that isn't addressed here and probably doesn't need to 11 be addressed here related to this. I've seen in the last year, 2 years, several examples of where staff has signed off on building permits that in fact shouldn't have been allowed but either the drawing was erroneous. Well, that's II generally what's happened is they- don't draw in the wetland on their plan so staff permits the deck and you go out there and that baby is.laying right next to a wetland where it shouldn't be so I think something that, again another case I where I had the building inspectors-care down and look. A building site was approved. All the erosion control had been knocked down. They came in and they grading right on top of the trees they were suppose to save.. I think that somehow we need a pre-site inspection. That the building officials should be II given the right, since they're going to go out and look anyway, they should be given the education so they can say, whoops. Your erosion control isn't up. Put it up. IIMayor Chrdel: Does staff have enough of that time though Bill? Councilman Boyt: With the building inspectors, they're going to be out there I anyway. Mayor Chmiel: But they don't look at it beforehand though. 1 Councilman Boyt: It's a good question. It's an area where when they don't look though, the site ends up suffering and sametimes the environment ends up suffering. Good question as to whether they have enough time but I'd sure like to see that looked at. I think this ordinance is a good one and I'd like to see it passed. IIMayor Chriiel: Don? Do you have something? • - Don Ashworth: I think Paul had a point. ' Paul Krauss: As to the erosion control types of issues,- we're approaching that in two different ways. Whenever a site plan is approved, it requires erosion 11 control. We're talking about a 'fairly, you know If it's a site plan it's a fairly significant development. We do go out there and do a pre-grading analysis and walk the site with the developer. If tree preservation was an issue, we make it a condition that we walk the site with the,developer and make II sure the area is staked off. We can modify the grading if we need to because we see some things out in the field that weren't picked up. Relative to single family development, that's sort of handled differently. When we have a II subdivision that's approved that illustrates erosion control off the back part of a lot. What we're doing now is we've got a procedure in house where we go back through the subdivision files everytime a building permit is requested to see what specific conditions were attached to that lot. If erosion control was 64 ' City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 , come up to me and say, you don't have any rights to tell me to move this , building or to require that the parking lot be moved to save a tree or whatever because in the ordinance all it says is that you're doing a review. It doesn't say you're entitled to do anything with that review. This ordinance hopefully addresses that concern and says well here's the beef. We do have the right to look at these things. Councilman Johnson: We're placing conditions on site plan reviews and we have ' no ordinance saying we're allowed to. It's the same argument I have with the State a lot of times. State air pollution group is requiring air toxics review of all air permits. Or almost all air permits. There's no law in this state requiring that but they're doing it. Nobody's challenged then yet. That's what we've been doing here. I'm sitting two faced. When I'm sitting at work complaining about the MPCA and then I come in here and sit down and do the same darn thing and tell these developers, hey you've got to do this because the 5 of us say you have to. Our laws and rules don't say it. We should have the laws and rules agree with what we do. Councilman Workman: I'd move approval of the first reading of the proposed amendment to Division XI, site plan review procedures of the zoning ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? I'll second it. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment. First, I suspect we all agree with this but I think what this really does is it uses the staff better than we maybe have in the past. It allows the Council to do what I think we're best at which is setting policy and begins to get the staff into the implementation of the policy. That I think is an improvement. It should save the applicant time. I know one of the things that was in the Mayor's platform when he ran for office was saving applicant's time. I think another thing it does is to sane extent it takes sane of the politics out of specific applications. One, there are a whole ' class of things in here you don't have to have a site plan review for which isn't really a change from our current ordinance. The other one is it takes these changes which we've occasionally seen cane back to us, rather minute changes sometimes, and does what we do with then anyway. How many times in the last year have we said to staff, go work this out? Now by ordinance, we're saying to then alright here's what we consider to be a reasonable guideline for you to work it out. I like this. There's a couple of things I'd like staff to • think about when they came back for the second reading. One of those in point, under the general category I guess. E, Site and Building Plan. This is a grading and drainage, it's point 2 under (e) . Existing natural features (topography, wetlands, vegetation) as well as proposed grade elevations and sedimentation, storm water retention ponds and erosion control. Just a simple addition that I think is right in the spirit of what you're trying to do. I think on the next page, Section 20-110, item (c) is about as close as I can care to where I think we're getting at some of the items we've put into development contracts. The preservation of the site but I'd like to see.staff consider adding there is that all areas to be saved will be staked off. I think, as I say, I think we've done this with trees and in other areas we wanted to protect of late so I'd like to see staff consider adding that to that point. Staking off of areas. , Councilman Johnson: This isn't an implementing ordinance though. I 63 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 and Council. [ I Councilwoman Dimler: I agree the neighbors should be notified but I mean do we ' need this so restrictive an ordinance to accomplish that? Mayor Chmiel: This is still the first reading. Maybe what we can do is get the Iadditional recommendations that everyone is making. Councilwoman D& ley : _ My other question is., does the buildings that are going -up - downtown, the HRA, do they have to comply with this? Because we're talking II about harmonious and those kinds of things. Mayor Cbmiel: I would say so, sure. IICouncilwoman Dimler: And already we're getting comments that the Medical Arts building is nothing like the people expected. IIMayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's out in the middle of the street. II Councilwoman Dimler: It's too large. It's in the middle of the street. Good golly, what are you people doing. So I guess I'm not in favor of asking someone else to do something that the City hasn't done. I Paul Krauss: The HRA sponsored buildings go through the same site plan review that anybody else would have to go through. Also, the process here is not new. I mean we're doing it now anyway on any building other than a single family or Iduplex hone that's developed in the city. We're not proposing to change that. Councilman Johnson: But you do it without rules. ICouncilwoman Dimler: But you're getting more restrictive. Paul Krauss: The only areas that this is more restrictive that I can recall I specifically deals with the prohibition against metal buildings unless you're in an agricultural area. Everything else basically gives guidelines for how you're going to review things but doesn't say you shall have such and such at your ' front door. It's basically-the process. Councilman Johnson: Aren't metal buildings already restricted somehow or another? 1 Councilman Boyt: No. We tried to. We never got it passed. It never really got out of Planning Commission and every time it did, we sent it back to therm Iand it died in a quagmire of administration. Councilman Workman: Wasn't this drawn up because of number 7? Wasn't that our ' original intent, point 7 there? Paul Krauss: Number 7 was discussed with you earlier, yes. ICouncilman Workman: Wasn't that why this one? Paul Krauss: Number 7 in the staff report. I guess too, in reviewing some - ' projects, we needn't go into particulars on which ones. I've had developers ' 62 Citrt Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 , Councilwoman Dimler: How easy do you want to make it for people to develop? I Councilman Johnson: If it was easy, everybody would be a developer. Councilwoman Dimler: And you're right. Sane other cities might have this but they're probably city owned. Are they? Paul Krauss: In Edina for example I think they tell the developer what it ' should look like. If You're interested, why don't you let us cane back to you with more information. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, give us more information on that but I would be, I guess I speak in favor. How much do you expect the permit to go up if we have the signs? , Paul Krauss: I don't know yet. _r)o„' -:tr, _.t o.:- Mayor Chnael: 72 cents. , Paul Krauss: We also need to re-evaluate our permit structure as it is. It hasn't been done for a while. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I do have some other general comments and that again is, if you want us to, I'm not in favor of approving this tonight because I think again it's too specific. I do favor general purpose description. I do favor a general guidelines but I think when we get to the point where we're restricting everything, again I think it might be too costly for anyone to develop in our town. I think I'd really caution against getting so restrictive that they're not going to come to Chan. They're going to go around us. Councilman Johnson: Actually what we're doing is giving then the formula. Right now they came in and they don't know what we want and they try this and they say, I don't want that. They put in 3, 4, 5 different plans I've seen come in for something and here... Councilwoman Dimler: But here, in Section 20-121 we're asking then to do the same. If any major changes shall require another site plan application. Councilman Jphngonc ,‘Major cbangesw,sr c. gin._;: r, _- - riot ., i ,rug.- Councilwoman Dimler: So this person is going to have to come back even with this in place, they'll have to come back if we're not satisfied. Mayor Chmael: But that's tongue in cheek. If they come in and they propose a , development and they want to make a change to that development, I think those adjacent property owners should be the ones who should be informed as to what's really happening. Councilwoman Dimler: But isn't that already a part of another ordinance? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so. , Paul Krauss: No. The site plan review would be the procedure to go back through and renotify and take another look at it through the Planning Commission , 61 i IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 IMayor Chisel: How many do you think we'd need? Two? Three? II Paul Krauss: No. Considerably more than that. You'd want to have them up j during the period at which this item is under discussion. Same of these things are for quite a while. Mayor Chr-iiel: Yeah, but how many signs do you think you'll have up at one time? Paul Krauss: I wouldn't be surprised if we had something on the order of 12 or I 15. Mayor Chmael: That many? IICouncilman Johnson: We had two rezonings today. Mayor Chmiel: I'm thinking that there, I was thinking probably a half a dozen IIat the max. Now you say a dozen at one time. Paul Krauss: If you're looking at rezonings, conditional use permits, I subdivisions and site plans, you're covering a lot of ground. • Councilman Johnson: It depends upon the condition. If we're talking a conditional use permit for a business to come into an industrial park, I'm not I too sure if we need to put up a sign because almost all the lots out there are going to require it right? I can see a rezoning. Going from residential to industrial. I'm not sure if within an industrial park we'd need to put up a r ' sign for somebody's going to cane in for a conditional use permit. Would a lot of them need that or a site plan? Paul Krauss: Well yeah. Now that's a good point Jay and what we can do is IIclarify where these things are required. Councilman Johnson: A convenience mart within a residential zone, you might II want to put a sign up. I think we should specify what the signs, what information should be provided by the sign. How it should be located. What the size of print and that kind of stuff on. The minimums and let the developer put it up. Make it his responsibility to do it. Not city staff because I don't think we can get a good grip on how much it's going to cost us and then charge him back. IIMayor U iel: And if that individual developer doesn't put it up, then their application doesn't proceed until once it is up. II Councilwoman Dimler: I have a comment on that. I guess after having gone through the process, and I'm sorry. We tried to get a temporary sign to advertise the booster garage sale for our high school and we had, Kay Boyle was in here 5 times trying to cote up with just the right sign and each time the City rejected- it. I'm sorry, but on behalf of this poor developer, if we're going to do the signs, they've got to be city because then if we break our own ordinances, okay but I just think it's too much of a headache for this poor IIdeveloper to go through. Councilman Johnson: We have same examples. I i60 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 few that doesn't require it. This ordinance will institute that. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance on January 3rd. They had raised some questions regarding the adminstrative review procedure and clarifications to that and that was done on the January 3rd meeting and they did 11 recommend approval. One thing that also warrants some discussion with this is the Planning Commission asked us to look into the possibility of requiring the posting of signs on properties that are undergoing subdivision or rezoning or conditional use permit. Whatever public hearing is coming before the City. A number of communities do that. Edina, Bloomington, Minnetonka. I think Burnsville just in our area. We strive to notify as many neighbors as we can of an item but invariably our mailing lists aren't perfect. There's somebody gets excluded. Nobody reads the legals in the paper. The paper's here, excuse me for that but nobody does and you find that the signs are an effective tool. Now the signs are not particularly, they're not in the ordinance here but we've core up with a couple of proposals for you to look at with signage if you'd like us to pursue it. Same communities require the developer to install the sign. They basically tell them exactly what it's supposed to look like while other cities own the signs outright and you have to purchase the signs and then your city , crews to install them. If we had a choice, my own preference is to have city owned signs and look towards raising the permit fees if we need to to cover the costs for doing that. That way we're assured that they're put there. They're all exactly alike. They say call the city if you have any questions and that they're put up properly in a proper place. But we'd ask you to consider that and direct us as you wish with that. With that we are recommending approval of the ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul. Any questions? Councilman Johnson: I like the signs. 1 Mayor Chriiel: Yeah, I do too. Sign postings should be done. That's something that I like for notification. Councilman Johnson: I think there's something about rezoning that signs are required but it also says it is not a grounds for denying the rezoning if they don't put up the signs. So do you know how many signs we've ever put up for rezoning in this town? Mayor Chmiel: Zip. 1 Councilman Johnson: I've seen one. It sat out in front of Lake Ann when we originally rezoned the Lake Ann area a number of years ago and that's the only one I've ever seen. Right on TH 5. That's when people are wondering what's happening to a piece of property. Not everybody reads their mail. Mayor Chr-►iel: You're right. I agree. People have that opportunity to take a look at it and see that sign. Once they see that sign, then they can form their opinions. I'm a strong advocate of that. 1 Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we're frankly not certain what the cost of acquisition of those things would be. If you'd like what we could do is I could talk to public safety or possibly we could get out and get same information back to you on the cost of acquisition. 1 59 i IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 ICouncilman Workman: I would second it with instructions to planning staff to continue to look at options. I want to keep Paul busy. IICouncilman Boyt: Sure. As long as it's not real high on your priority list. Councilman Workman: I think when we looked at, you're right, in the past 4 I years people, churches scraping every ounce together. Well, we just saw first hand that it's became more commonplace across America that there are some church organizations that are pretty good at making big dough and owning big property I and it can happen again. Then it will be a hot button and they'll say who was on the Council. Councilwoman Dimler: You know churches weren't our only intent. Councilman Workman: No. Absolutely not. I Councilman Johnson: I think the size makes a lot of difference. What other facilities might go into a residential setting where we assume they're going to be a small facility and they could come out to be a very large facility and have IIan impact. Beyond churches. Daycare centers or whatever. I don't know. Mayor Chmiel: Are we on TV in Rochester? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to deny Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding establishing maximum lot size for church developments at 15 [-- IIacres. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO DIVISION 6 ENTITLED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE, EXPAND ON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIRE FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS, FIRST READING. II Paul Krauss: Staff prepared the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance relative to site plan review procedures because during our use of the ordinance in recent months we became concerned that there's not a lot of meat to the II existing site plan review. There's not a lot of guidance as to exactly why we're doing the procedure and what we're looking for. Basically while the ordinance allows us to require site plan reviews, there's no purpose listed or there's no standards for us to review these things against. The draft ordinance we believe accomplishes a number of things. It includes the establishment of an intent statement. Exactly why we're doing site plan review and what we want to accomplish. It includes grounds for the city to require modifications to the I plan. We oftentimes approve a plan contingent upon doing something to it. Right now that's not technically in the ordinance for us to do. We believe that the ordinance require, well it does propose enhanced public notification which II we would be in favor of. We would apply the same standard to this as we do to other uses that are reviewed in public hearing. One other thing that it does accomplish is something that we've talked to you before about is requiring bonding for landscaping and site improvements so that most of the time you'll find that sites open or request a certificate of occupancy before all the landscaping's installed and we have not really had an effective hook into these people. In other words, their money sitting in the bank that's... That kind of Ia requirement is commonplace in other Twin Cities suburbs where we're one of the 58 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Workman: I thought that just came in. I Councilman Johnson: I think the old building's in there someplace. Councilman Boyt: They had to buy sane extra land to do that. They bought it , from the junkyard which was probably an improvement. Councilman Workman: It's unbelieveable. But anyway. Do we throw this out and start all over or do we have to pass this just to keep thinking about it? Mayor Chmiel: I think we should drop this in Paul's lap to come up to see if he can expand on each of those four restrictions that we have presently. To make those additions to that and I really don't know how. I guess my only concern of this whole thing was at the given time was the dollars that this city is going to lose in the amount of taxes. That was really- my real concern. I didn't want to see us lose that. By taking a whole chunk of parcel of 174 acres and encompassing it into a church property. That was my concern. More specifically when you look at the other churches we have within our community and just having one built. Councilman Johnson: I think you have to say all non-profits. If you're looking at non-profit tax, you're going to have to say all non-profit. You can't be specific against one class of non-profit. Mayor Chmiel: That's probably very true but somebody else can come in and try ' to buy. I know we have a church standing in the wings right now just waiting to care in again. They're talking 85 acres. Councilman Boyt: There's a very telling issue here and that is, if you look at the Planning Commission Minutes. If you look at our current attendance. You'll see that this is not a hot issue in this community. Maybe it was when it was related to other issues but as a stand alone item, it's not pushing people's hot button right now. Mayor Chmiel: I think we've got to get those hot buttons pushed though. I Councilman Boyt: It's nice if we can anticipate what they're going to be. I- agree with you. I think that I for one would be against increasing the standards that we currently have for churches because I think that a typical church that's come in front of us in the last 4 years or 3 years has been an operation that's trying to pull together enough resources to build a building. The tougher we make those standards, the more we're limiting those. And if it's a zoning issue as to whether we want them, in residential and as Paul said, we already have in place some constraints about road size and the depth of the lot and that sort of thing, I think that issue is pretty much where we're going to end up leaving it even if you spend more time studying it. I think when you look at tax exempt as the 40 pages or so of Minutes from, the Planning Commission demonstrate, it's an issue that's tough enough to cross the i's of just about everybody that tries to study it and I just don't feel confident that we're going to work out a good answer. So I think we ought to scrap this and move on to issues that we can deal with. So I would more denial of the zoning ordinance amendment, Division 6. I 57 IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Definitely. IICouncilman Workman: Let's get to the bottom of this thing. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, it doesn't do what we wanted it to do. ICouncilman Johnson: We all had different wants. I think it did bring up a good point though that you brought up is how do we control the intensity of use. That's just kind of a vague thing to me. Councilman Workman: And like I'm saying, that building will be there for our lifetimes. Churches come and go and then you have a building there that may be I the use that will be next will be a tax use but then something's going to go in there and then what's the intensity and what's going to happen. Councilman Boyt: Well we take care of that. We have all sorts of ordinances that allow us control over the way in which people use their property. None of that centers around how much land they can have to do it that way. IIMayor Chn►iel: Maybe some of the things that you said Paul previously. Limited by what roads are in and adjacent. Jay mentioned that too. II Paul Krauss: At the present time, our CUP for churches has four criteria. The site has to be on a collector/arterial road. That the structure has to be set _ back 50 feet. The parking area is set back 25 and no more than 70% of the site be covered with impervious surfaces. We could look to expanding those in some way. I'm not sure how exactly but you're still looking at minimum criteria. In terms of intensity, the way your ordinances usually deal with intensity is it requires that you have more land the more intense the use gets which is sort of the opposite direction that you want this to go in. I don't know that it's going to achieve, I mean some of those things might be valid for us to look at in terms of CUP review for churches and they probably are but I don't know that IIit's going to put a cap on the maximum size that you're going to get. It just means that the bigger the church, the more land they're going to have to buy. Councilman Workman: What happened with the big church, Baptist church in Eden Prairie that they just put up? This big spire? Paul Krauss: I've seen it but I don't know anything about it. Councilman Workman: I mean isn't that prime commercial? Paul Krauss: It's in that office district. Councilman Workman: Isn't that prime commercial property? IIMayor Chmiel: I would say so. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, for except I think they owned it for a long time. IICouncilman Boyt: Yeah, there was a church there before. They just rebuilt. Dramatically rebuilt. I ' 56 City Council Meeting - January 22; 1990 Paul Krauss: If you're looking for my recommendation, I guess I'm not sure I exactly how to advise you. The tax exemption issue is one that's real difficult to deal with in the zoning ordinance because it's just not structurally made up to do that. In terms of siting criteria for churches as a conditional use, sure. We could look at better guidance in the standards we have now for when you have a new application for a church. It wouldn't necessarily prohibit a church from going in but says that you have to meet these minimum standards before you're allowed to go in. We could look at traffic. We could look at some other things and you can get a handle on that but whether it would stop another act if it came down the road, I don't know. Councilwoman Dimler: Is it possible to do something like this? We take our geographical area and we determine how much of the land is already, percentage wise tax exempt and then from that draft an ordinance saying that only so much more tax exempt land can be in and it's a very general type of an ordinance. Paul Krauss: I don't believe we could and I'd defer to Roger on it but you know, the federal government defers tax exemption, we don't. I don't know that we can say we'll accept so many square feet of tax exempt land. Councilwoman Dialer: In other words, once we have that ordinance in place and we already have so much tax exempt land, anything that wants to cane in at that tax exempt status, that ordinance, we'll be able to say sorry. We're filled up with tax exempt entities. Councilman Johnson: I don't know if we'd want to. Councilwoman Dimler: You can't do that? I Roger Knutson: You can't regulate who buys land in your community. You can regulate what they do with it when they own it but you can't say this group can't buy or this group can. There's a cap on how much you can buy. Councilwoman Dimler: No, but can say that you can cane in and even though we can't interfere with your tax exempt status in anyway. Roger Knutson: We do not confirm tax exempt status. That's been pre-empted by a piece of real estate in the case of the State of Minnesota. 1 Councilman Johnson: I tell you, if the University of Minnesota wanted to care in and put 100 acres of research center out here. I Councilwoman Dimler: They could. Councilman Johnson: I'd welcome then for one because it'd probably spurn a lot , of other things. There's a lot of tax exempt things that are good for a city. I'm not sure if we want to go off and just say we don't want tax exempt. In fact the City is probably the biggest tax exempt. I Councilman Workman: So are you saying we should scrap this? Throw it out? Councilman Johnson: Pretty much. Councilman Workman: Are you Bill? 55 II ;City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Johnson: We are rather unique with the regional qu eg park, the Arboretum. I guess those are two of the biggest. Care Tanadoona is pretty good size. I II don't know how big it is. But those are great resources too. I mean we take, I think we use both of than in our advertising of the city and the quality of life in our city. Mayor Chmiel: So I guess it gets back to. Councilwoman Dialer: Trusting the County Assessor. Councilman Workman: But wasn't the whole idea being that we thought that this large church was an improper use? IICouncilwoman Disler: No. For that amount of land. Councilman Workman: Yeah, so getting back to what Jay says and what I'm getting at with the parking, the intensity in an area where nobody ever dreamed that kind of intensity would be or that kind of use. ICouncilman Johnson: Because that's on Powers. If that was on some other smaller street, I'm not sure that that intensity is as bad as it is at that particular one. I would hate to have seen that one on Lake Lucy which would be, IIthat intensity on Lake Lucy might be a problem. Which becomes then, okay even a Lake Lucy boat ramp. Is that an increase? What's the intensity of something like that impact on? How do we control intensity of use? 8 II Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, if it's a tax exempt, church is on this I big piece of property. It's tax exempt. There it sits for eternity tax exempt. IIChurch comes. Church goes. Uses change. Maybe the use will change. Maybe it will still remain tax exempt. Maybe it will became Jimmy and Tammy Baker's Crystal Palace. Maybe it will be something else but it will be tax exempt and we'll have a new intensity there that we have no control over. You know what ' I mean? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. 1 Councilman Workman: The church is built and for it might be now, it might be something different tomorrow. Churches change. We know that. Colonial church moved in and moved out. We've got things moving around but the thing could IIbecome a tax exempt something else. Councilman Johnson: See I'm not too wild about tax exempt. I don't see that Iwe're going to have half our town tax exempt or 25% ever get tax exempt. What I'im more concerned about is intensity of use and we somehow control non- compatible uses. In that particular case I don't think we're going to see enough traffic out there that's going to cause an intensity of use problem. Mayor Chmiel: I guess we're leading right back to what is the best thing to do to control that portion of tax exemptness and if there's another means of doing II it, as Tom has indicated with the parking. I think that's the direction maybe II we should go. I 54 City Council Meeting - Jantary 22, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Probably. Councilman Workman: It's churched owned. Sure. Councilwoman Dimler: So those are the kinds of things. Also, I guess I'm not really in favor of, we'd have to include public land. We can't restrict parks to 15 acres. So in a way I agree that this does not do what we want it to do. But I also, this was not just directed at churches but just because Eckankar did bring it up but the intent was to limit the, that they couldn't take the whole parcel out in taxes but I guess after talking to the County Assessor, I feel 11 reasonably assured that he has the authority to limit that. So I guess I think if we want to throw it out, that's fine with me. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I follow right behind what you're saying. I agree with ' that fully. One of the things that I had written down at the time. Paul, could you make a list of the properties that we presently have that are tax free in the City of Chanhassen? , Paul Krauss: I would assume we could yes. I'm not sure exactly how we'd go about it but why don't you let us look into it and get that for you. I Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to see that and of course one of my major concerns too was to limit the tax impact on a community. To limit religious institutions, no way and that's not anybody intent... Councilwoman Dimler: But we could potentially end up with all of our land, valuable land being tax exempt and we won't have a very good tax base. I Mayor Chmiel: That's part of the concerns that I have. Councilman Johnson: TH 212 is going to take up an awful lot of... I/ Mayor Chmiel: We have to provide those services for each and I think as you look at many of the existing churches that are in locations, you're not talking 15 acres. You're not even talking some 3-4 acres. Councilwoman Dimler: We have the regional park already. We have the Arboretum. We have quite a bit of land already off the tax rolls so that was my main concern is that we don't get into a problem here where most of our land is tax exempt. Councilman Johnson: We're taking more off all the time. As we build a subdivision and put sane on, make it more intense. We put in a neighborhood park and that's well it should because there has to be... Mayor Chmiel: You have to provide that. That's right. That's a little different thing. , Councilman Johnson: And churches are necessary, as we grow, we're going to be putting more churches into this town. I Mayor Chmiel: No question. No question but I think somehow we have to circumvent that too. 53 i IICity Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Workman: I'll keep mine quick. I think they're correct. I mean this isn't going to do what we want it to do. I think we knew that from the very beginning. I don't believe that this Council has the intent of restricting I churches. The Planning Commission gathered that. I believe Eckankar did initiate this discussion and churches were looked at because of them but I believe that other non-profit institutions ought to be directed also. My opinion remains that 800 parking stalls in a residential area off of CR 17 is an improper use of that property. Dividing it up and dicing it up and having the church own many different parcels doesn't accomplish anything. I think we need IIto attack this from a parking stall situation. I don't know how we did that. We just got done talking about it. We didn't talk too much about churches in there or non-profits or anything else but it remains a poor use of a residential area and I think the Planning Commission to assure that we're just picking on Ichurches or Eckankar is erroneous. I pick on Eckankar with the rest of the other uses that might go in someplace where I think it's an improper use. So I don't know where we left the parking issue. We talked about apartments and quads and duplexes and everything else but we didn't figure out and talk about churches I think. Councilman Hoyt: We didn't do anything on a maximumi. I think we did something IIon the number of spaces required but nothing on a maximum. Councilman Johnson: We were doing minimums. ICouncilman Workman: Don't they have an 800 car capacity there or 800 person capacity? 800 person capacity in that church. IIPaul Krauss: That sounds right. Councilman Workman: But how many parking stalls did we allow? IIPaul Krauss: 1 per 4 I believe. Councilman Johnson: You know Tom I don't think what you're really meaning is parking stalls but intensity of use. Traffic. Trips per day and that kind of thing is what we should be concerned about within residential and other zoning IIclassifications. However, in this particular case a church is a service to residences. It's a little hard to say that but I agree with you. We have to look at the intensity of use of property. You wouldn't want to put a drive in as the house next to me. Put in a drive thru window or something. IICouncilman Workman: I'm just saying, a big large parking lot in a residentially zoned piece of acreage is not, and I think we all felt that. It got to be a much larger issue but what it came down to was it was... Councilman Johnson: I think it's broader than the parking lot though. If you IIhad something that only had 10 parking spots but constantly had cars coming through, that would be non-compatible too. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have a few questions knowing what's coming up IIfrom St. Hubert's and I'm not sure that we don't want something in place because one of the things that Father Barry has been proposing is to build a senior citizens center. Now just becuase that's connected to a church, is that to be - Itax exempt? 52 • City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilman Workman: My comment would be, if anybody gives a rip, my comments would be. Councilman Johnson: Anybody under 30 is not allowed on this at all. I Councilman Workman: I am 30 Jay. That's right. You didn't recognize my birthday. I would go along, anybody that could get involved. I even thought about it at one point in getting involved if I could so I don't know about the age thing but I would like to, I would say that if we cannot get enough people from Chanhassen itself proper, that whatever we decide isn't going to get a whole lot of action or involvement from the seniors that we do have in town if they're not interested in getting too involved otherwise. If we can't get enough people, that would be an indication all on it's own if we can't get enough seniors from Chanhassen. ' Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure we'll have enough. No question. We'll still have 2 or 3 more coming from St. Hubert's. Councilman Workman: Well thank you for listening anyway. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion that we have to have on this? t Paul Krauss: I don't think so. It was an informational item. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING ESTABLISHING THE MAXIMUM LOT SIZE FOR 1/ CHURCH DEVELOPMENTS AT 15 ACRES, FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: This ordinance orginally came out of your review of the Temple of Eck proposal during which you discussed the possibility of instituting a 25 acre minimum on churches. The basic concern being the property tax impact of churches and the impacts on surrounding residential properties. Ultimately your recarnendation was that the Planning Commission consider a 15 acre cap. The City Attorney drafted up an ordinance that the Planning Commission discussed twice and really raised a number of mixed emotions on their part. I guess to boil it down, they felt a concern that churches were singled out. That if the issue was tax impact, that it should also apply to all tax exempt institutions. Campfire Girls or whatever. I guess basically philosophically the Planning Commission had a problem with this approach towards regulating churches to the extent that they ultimately recommended it not be approved. We brought the ordinance up to you for your consideration. It pretty much does, well it's a cap that you were looking for in terms of the acreage requirement. In discussions with the City Attorney, we have a pretty fundamental question as to I/ whether or not it's going to achieve your goal and one of the questions with this, and that Roger can get into if you like, is the fact that churches can own multiple pieces of property under this ordinance basically getting around it. As long as all those pieces of ground were used for church purposes, they would all be tax exempt even though only one has the building on it. So frankly, we're not sure if this is going to do what you'd like it to do and we await your direction. I 51 i City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 IICouncilwoman Dimler: For a senior study I think you can. Councilman Johnson: No I can't. IIJudy Marshik: I would suggest that you do consider a couple of providers based on my past experience. What they do is they provide for same tugs and pulls in the task force itself when they're coming down to what is the final service mix II and it's good to have different points of view. In addition, you do need same people to implement and the seniors will not be the people that will be implementing any of the findings so if you want to educate a couple of providers 11 along the way, it's not a bad investment again. Pick a few good ones in the area and educate them. I Councilman Johnson: And there are volunteers that work with seniors who are not seniors. Not all volunteers who work with seniors are seniors. And I'm very concerned about this. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying Kathy works as a volunteer for Scott/Dakota Carver County? IICouncilman Johnson: I'm not sure if she's a paid me her or if she's a volunteer. Paul Krauss: She's a paid staff member. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. See, that's what I'm saying. 11 Councilman Johnson: But I know Kathy very well. I'll support Kathy completely on this because I know the type of person she is and how dedicated she is. IICouncilwoman Dimler: I'm just saying that I would like to see it made up of the people that are Chanhassen residents that are actually the senior citizens that know what their needs are. IICouncilman Boyt: But that's what the survey's all about. I don't care who you put on there. I think, how can we make this controversial? IIMayor Chmiel: You're right. They're looking for 6 or 7. We'll have more than 6 or 7 and those... 1 Judy Marshik: They're really going to be steering the market research now so there will be 10 interviews which you will have findings from. Focus group findings so it will be pretty hard to phony that stuff up. ICouncilwoman Dimler: We're not going to eliminate same of these people that want to work. Do you understand what I'm saying? Are we going to incorporate everybody? Is there a limit of numbers? IIMayor Chmiel: I think the more you have. Judy Marshik: The more the merrier. Up to 12 to 15. Something like that. Councilman Johnson: Some of these people can drive the seniors there. I 50 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 1 Mayor Chniel: Yeah but Bill, I agree with that but I don't want those kinds of people to influence the other people as to what they think their needs basically are. i Councilman Johnson: Kathy works for the same group too. Councilman Boyt: Right but usually this thing canes down to having enough 1 people to carry out the work you want the task force to do. I'm real confident that this is going to be a challenge for this group to get enough bodies. When you've got people that actually volunteered for it, I'd sure hate to say to one of those people, no. Especially when there's only 3 of then. Mayor Chniel: I'm still going on the criteria Bill that it's not a resident of Chanhassen and I think that's what we have to look at. Councilman Boyt: Well we disagree about that criteria. That's all I'm trying to establish. I Councilman Johnson: One other volunteer I have, which Hugh's not a volunteer because I haven't talked to him yet but my wife has volunteered to be on this. That took a little arm, it didn't take much arm twisting. Councilman Boyt: She's not a senior citizen. Mayor Chniel: No, she's not a senior citizen. Councilman Johnson: Neither is Kathy Dorfimer. How do I know? I know Kathy 1/ very well. Councilwoman Dimler: Maybe we can't take her either. Mayor Chmiel: Strictly seniors. They know what the needs basically are. Councilman Johnson: Here's somebody who works with seniors as a provider, a I service to seniors. A professional. Just because you're not a senior does not mean you're not concerned with seniors. Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that. S Councilman Johnson: I'd like to be on the committee but I don't have the time anymore. Councilwoman Dimler: But if you're not a senior citizen you can only speculate what they needs might be. I really want to hear from the people that are living I it. Councilman Boyt: That's what the study is all about. , Councilman Johnson: My wife does meals on wheels okay and it's one thing that she's going around and talking to seniors that she gives out the meals. She is aware of some senior needs. Just because you're a senior does not, because you're not a senior. That's age discrimination and this Council cannot be in age discrimination. I 49 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 IIfrom the other two. You may have more than 6 or 7. [ I Judy Marshik: That would be fine. They don't all come to a meeting anyhow so it's nice to have a little extra if they drop out. Mayor Chmiel: And that's one of the points one of them made was that most of March he's going to be gone so by having these people on it, just keeps rotating IIwith some leaving and some coming and going. Councilman Johnson: Which churches did you work with? IIMayor Chmiel: With the Lutheran Church of Living Christ, St. Hubert's, Family of Christ and the only one I didn't get a hold of was Cindy Shepherd. IICouncilman Boyt: I can check with her if you want. Councilman Johnson: You may want to, we have other residents that, Mt. Calvary IIreally covers and St. John's, St. John the Baptist Catholic, a lot of the seniors on the north side. That's a group that we really have to include in here. 11 Mayor Chr►iel: Well we have this in the paper too requesting and we didn't get any so I decided that we'd better go out and just hit a few of then, anyway. Those that are contained within the city. IICouncilman Johnson: One person I was thinking of used to be a resident of Chanhassen. He's recently moved a little further west out on a lake now and IIhe's retired which is Pastor Hugh Gilmore who used to be our pastor at Mt. Calvary. He was instrumental in getting a senior's highrise I guess or apartment complex. He's been involved with seniors for a number of years and he's a senior himself now. Mayor Chmiel: In fact I heard him speak at the senior citizen day that they had just last week. But there again. IICouncilman Johnson: He's a former resident. IIMayor Chmael: Right. As a former resident, I might have sane question. I do want to get residents within the city. Councilman Johnson: I think we need to talk to him though on... Mayor C oriel: Good. Why don't you do that? ICouncilman Johnson: Okay. I'm not sure if he's in town right now. I haven't seen him for a few Sundays. Mayor Chmiel: I saw him 2 weeks ago. Councilman Boyt: I don't know Joan Lynch but I'd like to make a pitch for the 11 idea that somebody who works for Carver/Dakota and Scott County Community Action Agency probably has a vested interest in what's going on. I 48 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 got into it, it was pretty clear that what it's going to do is point us in the right direction but we will probably have to do further analysis of these recommendations as we go along. It's a fairly limited scope and we have a fairly limited amount of funds to devote to it from our Block Grant so we've kept the approach as narrow, it's actually as wide reaching as possible but it's going to deal in generalities and not dollar specifics. Councilman Johnson: It's a first step. I Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I understand that and I agree with that but I think when it cares to, we can identify all kinds of needs and if we don't have the money to pay for them, we're wasting our time so I would like to have at least a little bit of a handle on the approximate which doesn't have to be exact. Judy Marshik: I think very likely what we'll be able to do is give you better I an estimate of need and one thing I always say to people that are planning for needs, if your budget doesn't permit for it this year, it's often wise to look at what are. I Councilwoman Dimler: It's something we could work toward. Judy Marshik: Exactly. What is most acute and then what might be secondary and so on. Councilwoman Dimler: It'd be nice to have a little, as we're going, kind of an idea of how deep we're in. Councilman Johnson: See I think we're in total ignorance of our senior needs right now. That's why I've been pushing for this. 1/ Mayor Chmiel: I think it's adviseable that we have something so we can have reference to. Councilman Workman: What is a senior? 55? Judy Marshik: A senior is what you call a senior. There's a lot of different I definitions. It used to be the retirement age which was mandatory at 65 but retirement law is changing so much now days that the definition of seniors is kind of slipping and sliding around. Some people define them, at age 50 believe it or not. Some at 55. Some at 62. Some at 65. Some at 70. Sane at 72. Depending on what the program is. Councilwoman Dimler: So all we know is with each passing day there will be more and more of us. Judy Marshik: Yes and we're all getting closer with every passing day. I/ Councilwoman Dimler: Also, I guess I'd like to comment on the make-up of the committee. I agree with you Don that it should be Chanhassen residents. That's just my basic feeling and I think although it's nice to have professionals, I really would like to hear from the common folk. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's the way I basically feel about that too. We do have the names. We'11 get those to you and hopefully I should get a few more I 47 i II ,City Council Meeting - January 22; 1990 IICouncilman Johnson: Oh yes. There's a lot of jealousy you know. Everytime we've talked about this in the last 3 years there's been, a large portion of the people there actually live in Chanhassen. They go to that. I Judy Marshik: That's what I heard. It seers like a lon g drive to me, especially for seniors. IICouncilman Johnson: See, you don't realize how far north Chanhassen goes. It's very close to Chanhassen up there. IIJudy Marshik: Oh okay. So it might be a good match for sane of those northern seniors but not such a good match for the southern part? II Councilman Johnson: Right. See you're way down here. These seniors up in this area, Christmas Lake, they're a lot closer. IIJudy Marshik: Sure, they're right on the other side of the lake. Yeah. Councilman Johnson: Because of sane noise out there, I couldn't hear all you were saying about finding new people but I've got a few suggestions. One volunteer. Mayor Chmiel: I've got a bunch of names. 11 Judy Marshik: It's prudent to get smart seniors on this task force and I'll tell you why. It's like your investment in the future because at some point F I/ you're going to need sane people to care in and give you testimony on issues pertaining to this center and market research becomes a way of educating a mall core of people as to what is happening in the community. They can serve as a sounding board for you in the future so I really appreciate it when we can get a group of articulate and people who serve on behalf of other seniors. Presidents of senior clubs or organizations but people in more of a leadership role because they tend to take their responsibility very seriously and they also track what we're doing and they care and when I'm gone, they're still here and they're still reporting on behalf of whatever they learned on that research and kind of keeping you on track with what they feel is needed for the com ►unity. So it's an investment for you. It's a good time investment I think. Mayor Chmiel: Great. Are there any other questions of Judy? IICouncilwoman Dialer: I had a question as to, and I didn't see it. Maybe it's in there but I didn't have time to read it real thoroughly. Are you doing a cost analysis as you go in your study? Of the final product in July, I would IIlike to know what cost this is going to be and what you expect the City to bear. Judy Marshik: I am really a market researcher. I am less of a program Idesigner. I did put in that we would project to you what the needs might be in terms of senior expectations for the center and what kind of space and resources might be required. I would assume that an architect or program planner would IIneed to be the person that would put in same of those resource costs. Paul Krauss: The purpose of this study was to get a general handle on what the needs were. What the availability of services is. What we could look forward IIto and what sort of things we should attempt to program in the future. When we 1 46 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 what would happen if you were to set up a senior center here in the community rather than using the one that you have been using in Excelsior. We want to find out what impact that will have on the center in Excelsior as well as what impact that would have on your community. Then finally we'll wrap that all up in a report to you and give you same recommendations as to how to proceed and that's why it's important to have seniors involved. Mayor Chmiel: Just one other question that I had from same of the people that I talked to. Their concern was when they might be meeting. Would it be during the day or would it be evening? Judy Marshik: Entirely at their option. As far as I'm concerned. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Many of them have the time during the day and a lot of them don't like to go out in the evening. Judy Marshik: Sure, that's entirely at their option and I know a lot of seniors don't like, especially in the wintertime, traveling out after dark. It's 1/ difficult to see and sometimes slippery so I'm sure we can work on that. The second page really goes through four stages of the market research for you and tells you what we're going to be doing, 1, 2, 3, 4. One, we're going to get same background and do the demographic analysis. Two, we're going to go out and talk with some people nominated by the project task force as being wise and smart people on senior issues and find out what they think is happening in the area. The third thing we will do is a mailed out survey to area seniors and the fourth thing we will be doing is some focus groups when we have some recommendations in mind and see what they think of the recommendations. Then on the last page of that handout is the time table and we're working on item one on the time table tonight in January to meet with the Council. To get a task force organized and to get your input. If you have anything in addition to the proposal. Information you want to see when a report comes back to you. What will you need in it to help you make up your mind whether to proceed with organizing services within the city itself or continuing to rely on the Excelsior center so you may want to think about that. Anything else you want to pop into the pot and then in February we hope to get started on the task force I meeting process. That's just kind of a nutshell. Councilman Johnson: Are you aware of the Excelsior center's losing their building? I thought I heard something. Judy Marshik: That's what I had heard and I believe I put that in the background to this report. Councilman Johnson: That could have a very big impact. Judy Marshik: Yeah, we need to explore what's happening with funding up there I/ and with the building. Councilman Johnson: Some of the people up there have the impression we're 1 trying to compete with them, and I don't think we are. Judy Marshik: Oh really? I I 45 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 ill Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to send the proposed ordinance pertaining to excavation and mining to the Planning Commission as IL their top priority and that the ordinance be brought back to the City Council at their first meeting in March. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SENIOR CITIZEN STUDY, JUDY MARSHIK, CONSULTANT. Mayor Chmiel: Is Judy here? Judy, would you like to come forward please. Maybe while you're coming up. I took an opportunity to call each of the 11 churches in town to see if we could get sane senior citizens to participate in this senior citizen study. I did call three different churches and I was able to, Lutheran Church of Living Christ, St. Hubert's and Family of Christ and I tried getting a hold of Cindy Shepherd and I wasn't able to but I have cane up with four different names of seniors who would be willing to assist and I'm going to be getting a couple more yet from St. Hubert's and hopefully if I IIcontact Cindy, to have someone from their church as well. But I just wanted to mention that I've talked to Zelda Hinzland who has consented. Dick Neiland has. Floyd Tapper and Einar Swedberg so we do have people who would be willing to sit and discuss. Paul Krauss: Don, would we also be using the 2 of the 3 people that we discussed the last time? 11 Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something we can discuss. The Council. I have a feeling, I'd like to take people from the community. I want people from Chanhassen and I appreciate Joan Lynch extending her services to be incorporated IIin this from Shakopee but I'd like to keep this to the people of our community. [-- Your floor. IIJudy Marshik: Okay. In light of the lateness of the hour. Mayor Chmiel: 1:00 gets late. Councilman Johnson: Nobody told you item 8's usually about 8 after midnight. Judy Marshik: I'm glad you didn't tell me that. He did say it might be after I/ 9:30 but he didn't say how late. You've received a copy of the proposal already so I just pulled out some pertinent sections and thought that it might help to refresh your memory as to why I'm working for you and what it is I'm going to be Idoing on behalf of the City over the next 6 months. Essentially there's 3 objectives to the study. One is to do a needs assessment for the City and try and identify what's happening in the area demographically. What's happening to your senior population. I'm sure many of you are extremely well read, a very articulate group as I had a chance to observe. You know that there is a graying of America taking place and very likely Chanhassen is part of the silver surge so we will try to find out what the numbers are projected for seniors in your IIarea. That is a nationwide trend. It is a Minnesota trend. It is a metropolitan area trend. We'll just have to find out what's happening here. You're a somewhat younger community and growing very rapidly so just getting a handle on what the percentages are will be helpful for you I'm sure. I will also be looking at what services are available in the area and will be getting same opinions from your seniors in the area as to what's strong and what's weak about city services for seniors. The second thing we'll be doing is looking at 11 44 i City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Paul Krauss: Yeah, if you're going to impose a deadline, I would ask that it be the second meeting in March but we would take the first. Councilman Johnson: That's why I didn't say the second because I knew you'd ask , for the first one in April. Mayor Cniel: The second Tuesday of the month. ' Councilman Johnson: Tuesday? Councilman Boyt: Well, whatever deadline we set, I'm sure they'll meet it and the biggest deadline is that these folks are going to want to open up for business and they need to know what conditions they can open up for under. I Councilman Johnson: Before the frost cares out of the soil they'll want to mine clay. 1/Mayor Chmiel: February, March. They still won't be in there. Councilwoman Dimler: I'd also like to see something to the wording, as reasonable control too so that they have sane guideline. We're not looking to get real specific here. Keep your machinery in repair and that kind of thing. Mayor C hmiel: Yep. I/ Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I think maybe some additional clarification is in order. Once we generate this ordinance and it's published, the ordinance would I be on the books but then we have to go and make that ordinance effective on Moon Valley. I guess I'd defer to Roger on how that might be brought about and how long that might take. I Roger Knutson: The next process would be, as envisioned by me anyway, is that your ordinance would say even existing uses must came in and get a permit. Gravel permit or an excavation permit or mining permit or whatever you call it. Then you have to give them a reasonable amount of time to get their act together and came in and apply for and paying the permit. So if you pass the ordinance in one meeting, you can't expect them to have a permit in 2 weeks. It will take 2 months, 3 months. In the meantime of course they can continue to operate because they are a non-conforming use so the process takes a bit of time. Councilman Johnson: But not the clay operation? The gravel operation. I/ Councilman Workman: We just have to act as soon as we can. That's all. 1/ Mayor Qrmiel: I think as most expedient as we possibly can. Councilman Johnson: How about targeting to have it back to the City Council the first meeting in March as a target? Well he wanted to go for the second. Councilman Boyt: I'll second it. 11 43 i City Coiuncil Meeting - January 22, 1990 I Councilman Johnson: Yes. Right. Now they're not grandfathered for that. I'd like to prevent that operation from starting up in the spring. Councilman Workman: Second. I Councilman Johnson: I think I should say Attorney and staff rather than direct it just at the City Attorney. Councilman Workman: Jay, maybe what you ought to do is direct the City Attorney to look into what we can do to do that rather than tell him to do it. He's zealous. And advise us therein. IIMayor Chmiel: I think that's good. That's a good idea. Any further discussion? 11 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to direct the City Attorney and City staff to look into the matter of preventing any further clay extraction from the Moon Valley gravel pit at this time. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II Mayor Chmiel: The second portion of that, we need also regarding the proposed ordinance. -1 Councilman Johnson: I move that we move the proposed ordinance forward to Planning Commission and request Planning Commission to put it as one of their top priorities and the Planning Department to place it as one of their top priorities to get an ordinance back to us as soon as possible. Mayor Chmiel: Pertaining to the excavations of mining? I/ Councilman Johnson: Yeah. The excavations and mineral r,inings within the City of Chanhassen. Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Councilman Boyt: Well I would ask that we set a time limit. IIMayor Chmiel: The most expedient. Councilman Boyt: How about a month? IICouncilman Johnson: That's not enough time for Planning Commission to even consider it. You publish it. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so. For theta to notify everybody. That does take a little bit of time. How fast could we move on that Paul? You'd probably have a better handle. 11 Councilman Johnson: Could it be back the first meeting in March? IIMayor Chmiel: This being the 22nd of January. That would give you 5 weeks. 11 42 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 ' some of those too. Roger Knutson: I have a list of ordinances from lots of communities and where there's cross referencing and comparising which we just received today and which I'll pass out. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see the Planning Commission rove forward on this on high priority. Councilman Boyt: I think that's what I'm saying Jay is, this is one of those projects that a year ago this came up and nothing happened, almost nothing happened until a few months ago when we received a citizen complaint. I hate to see us end up in the middle of the summer still trying to get this on our agenda. I Councilwoman Disler: I agree with you but I do want to have it go through due process. i Councilman Boyt: Oh sure. Mayor Cmiel: Yep. Okay. I think we need a motion. There's been a lot of I discussion on this and I think more specifically we should deal with what's presently before us on the Moon Valley portion of the clay extraction. Councilman Johnson: Do two separate motions on that? I Mayor Cmiel: And I think we should probably have two separate motions on this too, yes. I/ Councilman Johnson: Could I ask the representative whether they plan on continuing that clay operation next year? I'm sure what's going to happen here is we're going to direct the City Attorney to try to prevent you to. Jerry Ripkesa: I don't know how I want to phrase it. I guess it's our position that that property was purchased as one piece of property as a gravel pit. We have clay in front as well as in back. Clay is a term for a type of material. There's from sandy clay to CH clay to CL to CA you know. If it was sand back there, it really wouldn't. Clay is sand material to me. It doesn't really matter but that's our stance anyway. Councilman Johnson: Given that, I'd like to move that we direct the City I/ Attorney to take what action necessary to prevent further mining of clay from this gravel site. Councilwoman Dimler: For what reason? I/ Councilman Johnson: Based on what he says, that this is a change of operation. It's at a different location than the existing gravel pit and it is not the mineral that is grandfathered in. The mineral grandfathered in is gravel which is considerably different in chemical composition than clay. Gravel is not just a big piece of clay. Clay is a totally different mineral. I Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but then they can in the future when we have the permitting process in place they can come in and try to get a permit to do clay? 41 ,City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: I do believe that, I agree with Mr. Peterson that the owner has the most vested interest and he's going to, unless they're not interested and I understand that there are sane people that are not interested. However, that's their right to be uninterested in their equipment. You know, sane people don't keep their cars up either. I get a little uncomfortable when we try to get to that type of regulation. I do believe in same reasonable general guidelines but not to get too specific. So I'm not in favor of passing this as it is right now but I am in favor of looking at... ' Mayor Chmiel: That's what I think we're looking at. Is having a drafted ordinance to see what we feel once it's pulled together. I too feel that what you're saying about this, there are same concerns and some concerns that should be addressed and some of these concerns could possibly be eliminated. But I think for the overall benefit of the city, I think it's something that we should have in place and I specifically think of the City of Maple Grove just as sort of north of the City with the amount of pits that are existing that have not been addressed and they're there. Nothing growing except for a few trees and a few things of that nature. That's really bad there. If you have an opportunity, just take a look at it. You'll never forget it. Councilwoman Dimler: So how do we proceed with this? I Mayor Chmiel: I think what we have to do is send it back to Planning and back to staff and over to the Attorney to see that each of these issues can be addressed and upheld in court if that's the case. Councilman Johnson: Has this been passed in Lakeville? Roger Knutson: This ordinance, yes. Councilman Johnson: How long ago? i Roger Knutson: Last year. Councilman Hoyt: I would suggest that, well I guess I'm always reluctant to not I send something to Planning Commission of this sort and yet I hate to see us delay this. This is the time when we need to pass this because this spring, it's going to open up and I'd really like to think that we would have had the permit before us before they begin mining this year. Especially that clay pit. I think part of whatever motion we draft should direct the City Attorney to take action against that and stop it for now. But with this ordinance, I'd sure like to think that we can get it done in the next 6 weeks. I/ Mayor Chmiel: That's something I think we can move on rather quickly. I/Councilwoman Dimler: But that doesn't mean it can't go back to Planning. It should have due process and I don't want to see something rushed here. If there's a real good ordinance that we keep amending. I Councilman Johnson: I'm sure there are some people out there who are considering selling their clay and would like... I Mayor Chmiel: There are other ordinances that are in fact operation on these. I beleive Brooklyn Park has them and so does Osseo. It might be well to look at 11 40 • City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Paul Krauss: Excuse me Bill. There's another aspect to this report that's kind of buried at the back and it pertains to how the City regulates grading permits in general. We'd like to, and we've held off on drafting an ordinance to deal with that because we think there's sane problems right now with how we deal with grading permits. What we would propose to you and we've come up with a comprehensive ordinance is methods to deal with that 1,000 cubic yards or less and procedures for handling that. So we wouldn't just leave it hanging Bill. It would be taken care of in the same ordinance. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Good. Councilman Johnson: And that would be separate than mineral extraction. Paul Krauss: Yeah. For example, if you're a homeowner and you want to bring 400 yards of black dirt onto your property or something like that, we would want to be in a position where we could authorize a permit subject to conditions. Councilman Boyt: As long as it's covered someway. I just didn't want to create 11 a hole without any control. I think in item, 7-4-12 where it talks about standards for the extraction site location that 30 feet from the boundary of adjoining properties is not enough. I would suggest 50, maybe 100. We're generally going to be talking about very large sites and the way I'm thinking of this is how far from, a property line can somebody drop off 200 feet? I don't know what the right number is but I'm pretty sure 30 feet isn't enough. In 7-4-15 which talks about operations, noise, hours, explosives. That sort of thing. Point number 1 talks about a maximum noise level. I think that's good. I think we might want to add just a general intent line that says every reasonable action shall be taken to control the noise of operations below the maximum allowed. Again, that's somewhat vague but it also says that our intent is that people do everything reasonable to control the noise. Then in item 4, I think there's a very good point in there about the MPCA and Environmental Protection Agency and such. I would suggest that we add to the last line where it says, we prevent all drainage into streams, lakes or wetlands. As has been pointed out in some of our other ordinances, a wetland is not a lake. A lake is not a stream so we should have all three of those covered. Mayor Chmiel: I think that those are good points Bill and there are others within here that need to be addressed and looked at as well. ' Councilman Boyt: But I support this. I think we should move forward with it. Councilwoman Dimler: If I could rake another comment. I guess my general direction is that I do support some, as we said, reasonable controls but I'm wondering if what we have here isn't a little bit too restrictive already. I think like under 7-4-14 under appearance and screening at the extraction site. Item 3 is all buildings and equipment that is not being used for a period of one year shall be removed from the site. Again, how do you prove that it hasn't been used? What constitutes use? I mean those kinds of things. They just drive me up a wall when I see them in there. I think we tend to get too restrictive and that rakes me a little... 11 Mayor C oriel: It's the same thing in item 1 and 2. Machinery shall be kept in good repair. Abandoned machinery and inoperable equipment... 39 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Roger Knutson: Even though this is a non-conforming, apparently non-conforming use, a wealth of case law that indicates that you still have the right to I il regulate this existing use to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Such obvious things as slopes, excavations so no one is injured, buffering, runoff control, erosion control, dust control, traffic. Things like that. You can't put then, out of business. Just because they're a non-conforming use does not mean that you cannot regulate them. You can regulate them. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So we're going to be basi ng our concerns on pu bli c health, safety and welfare? My other question was, now how can we, and I think I heard Paul say that even if, they have the right to buy the Teich property but they will not be able to mane it. On what basis can we stop them from mining? Roger Knutson: It will be outlined in the ordinance if that's the direction you go. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, we don't have that right now? Okay. Mayor Chmiel: That's what we're looking for. Councilman Johnson: Do you have an idea how that would happen? What we could I put in the ordinance to make that effective? Roger Knutson: When they cane in for a permit, we'll permit the land they own. Councilman Boyt: That wouldn't stop them from coming in for another permit. . Roger Knutson: ...if they met the criteria under your new ordinance for a new I mine for example, yes. They'd be entitled to a permit. Presumably, not prejudging your ordinance, I would guess it's a fair assumption that you're not going to allow a gravel mine with any intensity 10 feet from someone's hare or 150 feet for that matter. You can have certain buffering and certain criteria. Councilwoman Dimler: And this new property would have no grandfathering? It cannot extend their grandfathering? Roger Knutson: That's what the ordinance would provide. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. That's all the questions I had. Councilman Boyt: I'm in favor of this. I'm a little surprised we don't already have it but I think all we have to do is look at the clay mining that took place over a year ago to realize that the City needs someway of knowing what kind of mineral extraction's going on and having reasonable controls. Not unreasonable controls but I think the ones laid out in the ordinance that's proposed, at least for further study, is a good one. I've got a few changes that I would suggest and I guess that's the limit of my comments. In item 7-4-4 which talks about when permits will be required, it says we're not going to require a permit if you take less than 1,000 cubic yards in a calendar year. That's a lot of ground. I mean you say that's a small amount but 1,000 cubic yards is, you're going to notice a hole in the ground. Councilman Johnson: That's a grading permit. 11 38 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Darrell, did you want to say something? Darrel Peterson: I guess I feel that we have to respect other people's property ' as they respect mine. As far as runoff on these hills, no matter, whenever it rains you're going to have runoff. That's just, whether it's running off a gravel pit or running off of farmland or whatever, rain is rain so we can't condemn rain. That's an act of God. And that culvert was in there many years ago so that's not a problem and I think, like I said, the thing is there and you fellows that want to stop it, it's going to be worse than if you let it finish up. But any questions? Councilman Workman: Only in that Darrel, when we have new construction we ask people to put up a silt fence, bales, etc.. When you have disturbed hillside that silt is going to run off the hill in greater quantities and higher volume into a wetland because it is disturbed. There's not any vegetation growing on it because it's been stripped. That's the only point that I think that we're raking. Darrel Peterson: Yeah, but it doesn't do that much damage nor does these things that you talk about, do that much good. I farm around them all the time and it's a bunch of foolishness as far as I'm concerned. A big waste of money. Councilman Workman: I might agree with you on that because usually they're not working anyway but I'm just saying, this is a very large area that's been stripped. We have pictures of it and everything else but with open sand and gravel, a big downpour could literally run tons of gravel into a protected wildlife refuge. Darrel Peterson: Yeah, but you get runoff no hatter what. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If not, let's bring it back to Council. Jay, do you have something? ' Councilman Johnson: I think we need to put together a mineral ordinance permitting mineral extraction ordinance that requires a permitting conditional uses. Make it a conditional use or whatever and that we have controls on sight lines. Runoff criteria. Environmental criteria. Whatever traffic criteria we can cane up with that is fair and equitable to not only this site but every possible, all the sites. We can't try regulating just one particular site. There may be other sites where sane mining may occur in this city. The need for , clay in this area may become very great in the future when Eden Prairie's landfill opens up. Chanhassen is a site where we have various deposits of clay that several people are going to want to mine and we may want to get an ordinance to control that mining. Not only here but elsewhere. So I think that ' up until now there hadn't been a very big need for a mineral extraction ordinance but I think in the future we may have one. So I think we really should do this. 11 Councilwoman Disler: I have a couple of questions and I guess Roger's probably the best one to ask. I just want to rake absolutely clear in my mind as to what ' grounds are we basing that we can ask for a permitting process at this point when we haven't in the past? I 37 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1990 rights to mine it or what is the relationship here? I don't understand it. r -1 Jerry Ripkema: ...relationship. On the issue of who owns it and who does what I don't think that has anything to do with it. Terry Beauchane: Well you stand up here and say that you have no intention of buying the Teich property but you don't own the Moon Valley property now. You may not be hauling out of that Noon Valley forever. He could just as well call another trucking firm in and start hauling out of there and get rid of you right? Is that not right? Mayor Ch iel: That's always potential in any... Terry Beauchane: Well no, but he's making the statement that he has no intention of buying the Teich property. He doesn't own Moon Valley. It doesn't make any difference what his intentions are. Mayor C oriel: And I guess we're not in a court of law to be asking these ' questions. Terry Beauchane: No, but I'm trying to clarify some issues here that I don't think are quite realistic or legitimate here of the points he's bringing up. And I guess the third point is, you say about the runoff and so on and so forth. That may well be that you are taking steps back in the pit area and so on to control some of that runoff but is it not also true that a big culvert was dug and put under the highway right in front of the entrance of Moon Valley and it now goes under the highway and drains out into the wildlife area that's owned by 1 II the government? Jerry Ripkema: That culvert was put back in in the 20's I believe. Terry Beauchane: That culvert was just put in last year because I saw them r digging it. Darrel Peterson: There was a culvert in there way in the 20's and it was big ' enough for me to walk through. I used to play in it. Terry Beauchane: Well okay. Then I guess it was refurbished, expanded or whatever but in any case, that culvert now serves as a runoff from the mine. I gave you pictures of that about a month ago. Of the culvert. Now that runoff is coming from the pit and is going into a wildlife area. A wildlife refuge area which is owned by the government. Darrel Peterson: No matter what hills you live by. The runoff from my hills. Terry Beauchane: I don't care. If you're destroying somebody else's property, issue it's beyond the ssue of your own property. I guess that's my point. If it's destroying or interrupting or in any way affecting someone else's property, then it's not just an issue of that property owner. It now becomes an issue of all the property owners around it and in this case it is now becoming an environmental issue. I think Tom Workman brought up a very good point about that. Maybe it is time to get the EPA involved. I guess I don't have anything else to say. 11 36 P CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING I JANUARY 17, 1990 ' Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli ' and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planning Intern and Dave Hempel, Senior Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 3.9 ACRES INTO ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT OF 1.49 AND AN OUTLOT OF 2.42 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 2150 ' CRESTVIEW LANE, THOMAS AND JEAN SHIVLEY. Public Present: ' Name Address Thomas and Jean Shively Applicant Mr./Mrs. Michael Schultz Applicant Don Kelly 2081 West 65th Street Dick Vandenberg 6474 Murray Hill Road U Dick Herrboldt Mancino 6464 Murray Hill Road Mr./Mrs. Sari 6620 Galpin Blvd. Paul Krauss presented the staff report. ' Conrad: Just one general question before we open it up to the public. Why do you think it's critical to have that access going to the south? We see the land, the property down there below it. Is it your general feeling ' that there's no good way for internal circulation within that parcel itself to have two accesses? Is that really the bottom line? I Krauss: Pretty much Mr. Chairman. What it boils down to is we've got a great unknown down here. There's some very large ownership. Our Comprehensive Plan, it's been in there for a while, shows some sort of an extension of Lake Lucy Road from that general area but that leaves a I considerable area in the middle to serve. What we found is that we've got a series of cul-de-sacs that keep coming off of the highways in town. Ultimately we may prefer to see several of them connected. At this point II we're not making that recommendation. We're just simple trying to provide an option for serving that property since there is no road in that vicinity right now. IConrad: So within this Paul, you're just doing. . .going to have two accesses? II Krauss: Mr. Chairman, we may well have another access in there. Right now there's a long private driveway that winds it's way back in here. It I fl Planning • Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 2 I serves I believe two homes. The driveway itself may not be an ideal I location for a public street because there's quite a bit of property back in there. At some point we may have something that loops through. If they ultimately decide that it should terminate on the site. . .road to the south. Conrad: .. .is it staff's opinion that this is too long a cul-de-sac. . . Krauss: We are concerned with that and we're concerned with the quality of II the street, the way it sits right now, yes. Conrad: With that we'll open it up for public comments. If the applicant is here and would like to make a comment, we'd sure like the applicant to start off and give us their perspective. Jean Shively: Members of the Commission, my name is Jean Shively. Shively's Addition and I guess I would ask the commission at this point to II keep in mind some of the factors that Mr . Krauss has raised. I would ask you to consider the fact that the property to the south is currently outside of the MUSA line. The property to the south is under private ownership with no immediate plans for development and I also ask you to consider the recommendation made from my perspective. The particular piece of property we're talking about here is 4 acres. The subdivision that' s being requested is at the request of the purchaser's of the property for financing purposes only. So far in the discussion of this subdivision, they've been asked to dedicate property for a trail . They've been asked to II dedicate property for a cul-de-sac to serve the potential development of the outlot and now in addition they're being asked to dedicate property for some speculative, potential development of property to the south. So what began as a 4 acre parcel is gradually dwindling down to a parcel of a much smaller size. I would ask the Commission to keep in mind that at this point all of the property is being purchased by one purchaser. It is not being purchased for speculation or for development. I guess my concern is, II most particularly with the second part of the recommendation which is the extension of the proposed right-of-way dedication to the south. I recognize that because of the subdivision and regardless of the intent of the purchasers, there have to be provisions made by the City to serve the outlet in the event there is development there and it's my understanding, though I don't intend to speak for the purchasers, that they don't object II to the first part of the road dedication. I would also ask you to keep in mind that as long as that property is in the ownership of a single family, that is under their control . However, the concern that I have is with the extension of the right-of-way to the south which is to serve property that II I don't own and they won't own. The potential is that the City on it's own and sometime in the future if there is development to the south could unilaterally have the absolute right under those easement agreements to put a road through their backyard. I don't know if any of you have visited the 11 property and what doesn't show on your map there is that out of the 4 acres, appoximately 2 of it is wooded and it is the 2 acres around the outside of the property so that the extension that they're talking about to II the south is through one of the most attractive portions of the property. I don't like to basically oppose a request without at least considering some alternatives. It seems to me even Mr. Krauss has recognized the II possibility of the extension of Lake Lucy Road or I would suggest another 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 3 I alternative and that is, in the event that the outlot is to be developed in the future, whoever would be making those plans would once again have to come back to the Planning Commission and it would seem to me much more appropriate at that time, if the extension to the south is needed either for the development of the outlot or for development of the property to the south, that you could deal with a developer and make those arrangements. I believe that they have acknowledged that they don't know if the document that you have in front of you is the best location for that extension to the south. It's impossible to tell and to the best of my knowledge, there are absolutely no development plans by the current owner of the property. My serious concern is that I know government can not take private land from ' a private citizen without compensation. My concern is that in the event down the road, if this entire dedication goes through, the City once again could unilaterally put a road through the landowner's backyard destroying and diminishing the value of that piece of property substantially and the landowners would have no control and no recourse and as a lawyer, that situation makes me extremely uncomfortable. I think we can serve both the purposes of the City and the purposes of the landowner by allowing the ' dedication of the right-of-way to serve the outlot and leaving the extension to the south when everyone involved has a much better idea of what they are intending to service. I would also suggest in reference to the cul-de-sacs along CR 117, I believe the reason for a great number of those is the fact that all of those properties back up to the intermediate school so unless they want roads going through their football fields, there is a very logical reason for it. Are there any questions? Don Kelly: Hi . I'm Don Kelly and I live at 2081 West 65th Street. You've got the advantage over me because you've got 2 name tags. Are you Mr. Conrad? Okay. Brian Batzli is not here? Conrad: Sometimes not. ' Ellson: That's Brian. Don Kelly: Okay, so Jim Wildermnth is not here? Ellson: Right. Don Kelly: Alright. I think you were here before when I, you were on the City Council weren't you when we talked about the path before? ' Conrad: I've been here. Don Kelly: You've been here when we talked about the path before. I came when Curt Ostrom was developing the property just north of the property I we're discussing tonight and requested that a path be included from West 65th Street through that development to the intermediate school. At the time the school wasn't open but it seemed possible that we would be interested in having a path. Fortunately the City agreed and included in the development agreement was a requirement that the developer include a path. The developer failed to include those easements on the deeds that were filed. City staff failed to monitor his performance in that regard. IAs a result, no path was provided from West 65th Street through to the I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 4 I intermediate school . The proposal you're looking at includes an easement along the north side of that property which goes from the intermediate I school to the east edge of the property and there's a suggestion in there that this pretty much solves the whole problem because now all we need to do is chat with the Kelly's or the Boudrie's and get an easement through to ' West 65th Street. Okay. The top horizontal part of that red line is on West 65th Street. The bottom horizontal part of the red line is the easement that's being discussed in the Shivley Addition. The vertical part " of that red line is an easement that is roughly in the area of the property line between my property and Lot 5 of the Pleasant Hill subdivision. The people that own Lot 5 are not going to voluntarily provide that easement. It frustrates me to think that after spending a lot of time trying to plan II ahead and to make sure that we have appropriate trail easements, that the City should come back and say well boy, did we ever blow it but boy it's a good thing you own that property and we can get the easement from you. As II a matter of fact, they didn't even contact me in this regard. This was something that I learned when I called to find out what was going on. The corner of my house is 24 feet from that property line. I have a good sized lot but my house happens to be in that corner. If we put a pedestrian easement in there, we're looking at having that easement within 14 feet of the corner of my house. That is the only area in my lot where we have any privacy. That is not the type of an arrangement that I had hoped we'd have to provide a trail easement for the people on my street to the school . It II would be satisfactory for my family because we could trot from the corner of our lot down the easement and get to the school. But I 'm not interested only in providing something for my family. I'm interested in providing ' something for our neighbors and the people with younger children that may be moving into those houses as other people move away. If we're going to irritate somebody by condemning land for a trail easement, it would seem more logical to put the easement on the boundary line between Lots 5 and Lots 6. From West 65th to Murray Hill Road and then go through the water tower property. So what we're looking at is a request for a trail easement " that goes from the school to nowhere. The other thing that I notice sitting here this evening is when they talk about the right-of-way easement the City does have an ordinance restricting cul-de-sac streets to 500 feet. So Crestview is already a non-conforming street. Extending it further into II a subdivision would lengthen it. The suggestion that the road to the south is to serve the property to the south is kind of silly because obviously the only manner in which that road would be extended would be to loop it. II So if they're concerned about serving the property to the south, it makes more sense to consider a cul-de-sac street coming north from the south from a street that goes through that subdivision. Thank you. Conrad: Good comments. Just for clarification. Where would you like to see a trail put in? Could you go up there? Obviously you're not wild about where it's slotted for now. Don Kelly: My wife suggested that the trail would go in here over her dead body. Our neighbors here would have the same reaction to having it. This easement taken by condemnation. If the City is going to do that approach, then the trail through here would be more convenient. The trail that's marked on there looks kind of convenient because it goes down the end of the street and then up the property line. In actuality, that street is, r Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 5 i that again is an old map. That street ends in a cul-de-sac now. Maybe 5 years ago we dedicated property to the cul-de-sac and the street was vacated to the west of the property so that the street does not in fact go through to the west property line. There is a utility easement that goes along to the intersection of my lot and Lot 5 and then there's a utility easement that goes between Lot 4 and Lot 5. But what would actually happen, unless we actually went through and took out trees and put in woodchips and so forth to make the trail follow that, what would actually happen we would have people walking up our driveway and across the lawn and back to the back lot. It wouldn't be very practical that way. A trail going through the other way to the street would tend to have people go down the street and down the, trail the way we would intend to. Conrad: Okay thanks. Other comments. Dick Vandenberg: I 'm Dick Vandenberg, 6474 Murray Hill Road. My lot is Lot 4 that abuts the Shively property on the Murray Hill cul-de-sac so I would be affected by this proposed trail as well. For some reason I thought the trail issue was dead back there but it's not. I have the same problem Mr. Kelly has in that the trail would come within 20 feet of the back of my house and I have a lot of glass back there and it would really infringe upon our privacy. I think that type of thing is fairly intrusive, not to mention being a security risk as long as it's open to the general public. So I would object to that. I would make one comment. The trail as it exists now informally goes between 5 and 6. I believe the Kelly's children cut through there and other kids do. We have children cutting through the back of our yard too. I don't object to that. What I do object to though is something in writing and in the law that says that the public has access to that. I don' t mind neighborhood children going to school through our yard but I do object to a legal right for the public to go back there. It's highly intrusive and I strongly object to it. Dick Herrboldt: Councilmembers, my name is Dick Herrboldt and I live at 6464 Murray Hill Road. Right next door to the last speaker. Emmings: Which lot? Dick Herrboldt: Number 3. And I feel as opposed to the trail as Dick does for a variety of reasons. The first one being that I think we have an environmental issue here which nobody has really talked about. That is that there's a lot of trees in that area which would obviously have to come down if you're going to put a 6 foot wide trail through that area. At the present time we have several dead trees in our backyard that we're leaving there for the purpose of supporting an abundance of birds, including woodpeckers and various other species of birds and if any of you would like to come over and look at my trees with their 10 foot long trails of woodpecker bites in them, I'd be glad to show it to you. The security issue is a major issue for me also. I came from South Minneapolis where my I home was burglarized 4 times. The reason why it was burglarized was because of it was accessed to the back of the house and I think by opening up a private trail to this same area, we're going to cause the same sort of ' problems. There's also a danger to people walking through that area. It's very wooded. There's a lot of old trees and like I just stated, there's Planning Commission Meeting I January 17, 1990 - Page 6 I dead trees in my back yard. I can imagine people wandering off the path in a windstorm and having branches fall down on their heads. There's a lot of II dead timber back there at the present time and I expect to keep it that way. The other reason is there's also a water problem back there. All of the water in that cul-de-sac drains into my backyard. The Minnetonka Watershed people built a dyke back there with a large culvert so the water , II everytime it rains, collects in my yard and this water often extends over into the area where you're proposing to put the path. So I think that's a major problem that we need to look at. So I'm very opposed to the idea of II putting the path through for those reasons. Would like you to consider them. Thank you. Michael Schultz: Members of the commission. I'm afraid I'm the guilty ' party who started this ball rolling. I'm the purchasers of the Shively lot and I guess as long as we' re on the trail, I wanted to say a few things about that. I was at the Park Board meeting where that trail was discussed II and the message I was getting is that the trail was something the neighbors wanted and it's been educational tonight to learn that every neighbor who felt the need to come out, has opposed the trail. We would oppose it for II many of the same reasons. Some of them selfish. Some of them not. The privacy issue is a concern of ours. Security is a concern of ours. The major concern is, the impression I got at the Park Board meeting was that this trail was used and that we were just simply putting an easement in so 11 kids would not have to break the law to use the trail. Since that meeting I've seen what was supposedly the trail and there is no trail there so to speak. There's no path that is beaten through the woods. It's not I existing and if anything, apparently the kids are using the Shively's back yard rather than the trees and we don't have any opposition to kids using the woods or even the back yard to get to school but we would oppose a formal taking pursuant to the split that we're proposing for this trail and II especially in light of some of the opposition. We would join that. I wanted to echo some of the things that Jean Shively said about the proposed roads. I think in terms of the cul-de-sac, the proposal 1(a) , we II don't have opposition to that. I think that makes sense. It's true. We don't have any intention of developing that land but for purposes of the subdivision I think there needs to be some access if that was ever to be done and we don't oppose that. The road to the south though is a real problem for us as purchasers. For one, that kind of an easement detracts from the value of the property significantly even if it's never used. It would be one thing if the City had a plan that this road was going to access a development or even a conceiveable development that was somehow in the works. That's not the case. The owners of the property have no intention of dividing, the current owners of the property to the south have I no intention of dividing. Even if a development did go in there, there's a great question as to whether the road would be more appropriate at some other point. Some other part of our property or some other adjoining property. There is no sense to putting the road in where the Planning Commission has recommended. It doesn't go to any calculated development. It's very speculative and if it didn't hurt the value of the property, we wouldn't care but it detracts from the property significantly. It can't be I sold. It can't be transferred without a potential buyer knowing of that easement and having a legitimate concern for it. We would ask that if the commission is going to approve the division, that they approve the ' 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 7 ' cul-de-sac 1(a) and that you do reject the road to the south. And if it becomes appropriate at some time in the future, then at that time it should be considered. If we have to come back in and subdivide, then the commission will have it's opportunity to require a road to the south at ' that point. Thank you. Conrad: Other comments? Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino. Property owner to the south. We have no intention to develop that at the moment. We bought the property to buffer ' ourselves and to lead a private lifestyle back there so we have no pressing desire to develop it. In fact, anything that really puts a gun to our head to try to develop it is something that we'd like to discourage. I think that, as I understand it, the requirement of subdividing right now does not ' grant permission to build on that outlot. Is that correct right now? That to build on it would require another platting and another review? At that time, I think it is appropriate that if you feel you still need the road easement, then to address it at that time rather than at this time. I guess that's about the end of it. Conrad: Thank you. Other comments? Anything else? Dick Vandenberg : Dick Vandenberg again from the Lot 4 on Murray Hill . A month or so ago I believe one of my neighbors granted an easement or donated land to the City so that Murray Hill Road and some of the back, maybe perhaps 65th Street. Perhaps that was the intention. Anyhow, he granted an easement for access to the water tower as well as the school property for children to walk in. I believe a walkway is going to go through there so this proposed walkway here may be a redundancy. Emmings: Would you say that again? Where is this walkway that you're ' talking about now? Dick Vandenberg: I ' ll point it out to you. Right here. It was city property and I believe Gil Kreidberg bought it and then donated 10 feet of it or whatever it was. You all know about that better than I do. Emmings: . . .through there from the street all the way back to the water tower itself. Dick Vandenberg: But it was my understanding that the intention of that easement along with access to the water tower was to have the neighborhood children to have access to the schoolyard which would eliminate this proposed pathway here. Don Kelly: That provides access from Murray Hill to the school. Is doesn't provide access from West 65th. Dick Vandenberg: Neither does the proposed pathway. Conrad: Okay. Anything else? Planning Commission Meeting 11 January 17, 1990 - Page 8 I Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in , favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. &timings: Did all of these people. Park and Recreation took the action to recommend the trail that we're discussing. . .is that right? 11 Krauss: Yes. !timings: And were all these people given notice of their consideration of II that? Do they get a chance to hear public .input or does that happen at this stage. Is that designed to happen at this stage? Olsen: It's supposed to happen at the Park and Rec. Emmings: And so are there provisions that Park and Rec have that they're 11 suppose to give people notice before they take an action like this? Olsen: I believe so. Resident: We were never notified. Don Kelly: There was a published notice and mailed notice of this hearing 11 tonight and so we all just planned to come tonight. We didn't know there was another meeting. !ratings: I guess the problem here is that, we run into this time and time 1 again where Park and Rec is making a recommendation and they, like we, who recommend to the City Council and we're not supposed to override what they do. We don't have any jurisdiction over what they do but it seems to me that this has been very poorly considered by Park and Rec because they didn't have input from the neighborhood and I don't know what we can do about it except to put that on the record. I think it ought to go back to II Park and Rec. My understanding when I looked at this design was that they already had the easement that's vertical on there and all they needed was something to connect it over to the school and that's, it seems real half baked to me anyway. Conrad: And I'm not sure what Park and Rec's role in public. They try to get public involved but they're not necessaril_ ublic hearings 11 like we do. This is really the forum for public hearings. Emmings: But when we're mapping something across somebody's property, it II seems to me we ought to give them notice. I think that's basically outrageous. Conrad: It's one of those cases where nobody wants a trail across their property. Emmings: Right. But you know, if there's a workable system there. For II example, and I don't know if this is the way it should be resolved, but if this already exists. If it gets from this road into the school property and if there's already a custom in the neighborhood whereby the kids down II here can cross here and cross here, I don' t know why we have to do that. I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 9 I Maybe you do. Maybe there are good reasons to do it. Conrad: And we don't know enough. Emmings: Right. But they ought to have their input when it's being planned. When it's being put on a map I feel. But anyway. Let's see, with the road to the south off the cul-de-sac, the extension of Crestview and the road that goes to the south, would all of the areas be buildable that you're leaving? Krauss: What we tried to do is locate it so this is a buildable lot. If you extend it, the center line of Crestview out across that property, you wind up with an unbuildable piece of ground. It would. . .so what we did is we used this very large cul-de-sac and figured that we curve it a little ' bit to the north. Get them up that. . .and have a lot. But that presented a problem with part of the right-of-way is on Lot 1. This part right here and the rest of it's on the outlot and since the only time that property is together is right now before the subdivision. This is the time that that has to be obtained. Emmings: Since this is an outlot that's being created, an L shaped piece, it's been suggested here and it is correct isn't it that before that was subdivided, before it would be buildable, they'd have to come back in here again and that road to the south could be required at that time. Krauss: Yes sir . That' s correct, and we discussed that with them. The concern that we had with that was a matter of timing. If the outlot is platted first, prior to development being proposed on the property to the south, that works fine. If it's the other way around, then we have a lot that we'd have no connection to or we lose an option for when that lot to the south develops. ' Batzli : Except the lot to the south isn't in the MUSA line currently. Krauss: That's correct. Emmings: One speaker mentioned a 500 foot maximum length on cul-de-sacs. I'm not familiar with that. Is that accurate? IKrauss: No. The Code is somewhat open ended. It expresses desire to limit the length of cul-de-sac but is not specific. Conrad: It used to be. It used to be 500 feet and the City was real uncomfortable with cul-de-sacs. I think over the last couple years philosophy has changed a little bit. I think emergency services is still II not real comfortable with long cul-de-sacs and I think they generally are a hazard. If we feel we are protecting the citizens and providing services that allow emergency vehicles to access their house and fire, storms, what 1 have you. There's a valid case for having a second access on a long street. II Emmings: Do we know how long this one is? How long it would be. If that were all the way in, how far would that cdl-de-sac be? 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 10 I Don Kelly: It's 800 feet from the beginning so we'd add the length you see II there. Batzli: Adding at least another what? 200 feet? ' Krauss: Dave is scaling it off right now. Dave Hempel : It's approximately 900 feet to the end of the cul-de-sac , right now and it would be another 250 feet with the new cul-de-sac so a total of roughly 1,200 feet. Errmings: Ordinarily and in the past I've always been for, I've always 1 supported connecting these things or making the connection over when we have the opportunity to do it. I don' t see doing it in this case. I II guess I'm persuaded that, the thing that bothers me about doing it I guess is that if the owner of that piece wants to keep it all together in private ownership, I wouldn't like to see a road going through there. I know that at some point there's, I wouldn't like to see this road. Having this , platted down, obviously makes sense. . . Having this, I think that could be a matter that gets arranged in the future between the property to the south if and when it develops or when they come back in to plat that outlot. , So I don't have real strong feelings about it but I tend to not want to put, I 'd support the plan not to put the road to the south. Conrad: Arguments will be just as strong when they come back in to plat the outlot. Errmings: But then, I guess it seems to me, maybe we'll know something then II that we don't know now. Maybe we'll know better whether we need it or not. If they were here platting the outlot, then I'd want it there now. If they were asking now to plat that whole piece into lots, I'd say let's put the ' road there. But if everybody's intention in that area, however brief, is to keep that all in one piece, I don't see any reason to put a road through the middle of their backyard or even to give the City the opportunity to do it. Essentially it will allow access for parking to the south. , Conrad: More than likely when the new development goes into the south and there will be one, they won't want to hook up. They'll probably feel real ' comfortable keeping it within their property. Errmings: And there may be an adequate way to do that. Conrad: Therefore, what you're suggesting here, and so if that develops first, what you're saying is you've kind of closed down the option of giving a secondary access to this parcel. 1 Errmings: It doesn't bother me on this one as it has in the past. Like I say, in the past I've always supported the connections. This is a change for me. On this one it seems reasonable. I think that's all I've got. I 11 don't have anything else. • I 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 11 I Elison: I love this area over here. It's everything I think people move into Chanhassen to see. All the wooded lots and the spacious area. I ' don't like thinking about future development either and I know that nobody at this point has a plan to develop either the south or the other one but I don' t think I 'd be doing my job if I didn' t think more than just at this point. I think it's up to us to look at planning the future and that might be 25 years from now but I'm leaning towards leaving that access down there. I agree with Steve about the trails. I don't know that it's, I can say that I go on record. I think that was a bad way to handle it. I don't think I can go and change and take out the trail recommendation because that's not, in my opinion, I don't know. Maybe I've got our charter wrong but it's not a Planning Commission issue as to where a trail goes although I share everybody's opinion that if it's a neighborhood trail and the neighborhood doesn't want it there, then who's it helping. But I think addressing the outlot with both streets allows us to plan for all the possibilities. Maybe all the property owners right here have no plans to develop and then these will be the property owners and we won't have to worry about it. It's the next ones and the ones after that that I 'm more ' worried about so I 'd support the south access. At least getting it at this point and hoping, because I said, I love this area, that it never does develop. But I think we have to be prepared for what might come. ' Batzli: I guess on the trail, I would personally feel comfortable changing the Park and Rec. IIElison: I don' t know, can we do that? Batzli: I don't know if we can but I 'd feel comfortable doing it. ' Conrad: We can make some suggestions. Batzli: But now knowing what the entire trail system looks like in that 11 part of the woods, in this case. I don't know that I can say yes or no. If there's an alternative way to get through the water tower lot that's reasonable and the kids know about it, I don' t know why we're trying to ram this one through. But I would like to see it go back to Park and Rec and allow these people a chance to express their views to them. Or if that's not possible, at least give them plenty of advance notice as to when this is going to go in front of the City Council and so the City Council will have a chance to hear them. Paul, if you wanted to make Outlot A buildable without subdividing further, at that time would you be able to get the southern portion through there? Krauss: Yeah. You would still have to go through a subdivision request basically to change it's status from outlot to buildable lot and at that ' time we could presumably ask for additional right-of-way. Batzli: Maybe Dave can answer this but is Crestview currently up to a standard, minimum standard road, up through where we're, up through this ' portion that you're adding? Hempel: No it is not. It's actually narrower than our typically 31 foot wide street. I believe it's around 20 foot wide. I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 12 Batzli: So it's a narrow street but we're taking the full 50 feet there? II Hempel: That's correct. Batzli: And why on this jog, it seems to jog to the south and then back and then you want to jog it back north again? Hempel: A slight alignment change in there, yes to line up. 1 Batzli: That entire alignment shift is to get enough depth to that first lot to make it buildable? Krauss: Yeah. Out in the field, it actually is not as severe as it seems. The cul-de-sac there is oversized and it appears as though it's an S curve II but it would actually be a fairly mild curve that could take place inside that cul-de-sac bubble. Batzli: But it's on a narrower road? It's still on the 20 foot road width " there? Hempel : Leading into the cul-de-sac, yes. I Krauss: The cul-de-sac is newer. It would be built to a different size. Batzli : I guess I talked about the trail. As fax as extending Crestview, II I guess I would be in favor of extending it to the west but not to the south for pretty much the same reason Steve had. I just don' t see it being developed and I think as and when it is, I think that will be plenty of opportunity to extend it southerly at that point. Ellson: It's when the south is extended that you're in the quandry is what II it °comes down to. Batzli : Well, I don't see the MUSA line changing in this area. Is this part of our request? This portion? Krauss: Yes. Conrad: A whole bunch of pressure. Batzli: What's the status of that right now? Have we submitted that? Krauss: Oh no. No. Batzli: Do you think it's going to go through? , Conrad: It will go through. Krauss: We're going to give you a schedule at our next meeting next week II that anticipates hopefully submitting it to the Metro Council by July. I IPlanning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 13 1 Conrad: I think just for those of you who are here. For 2 years we've been trying to figure out how the City grows and where it grows and right now the City's run out of land for a lot of things. Residential being one. A lot of pressure. A lot of people wanting to sell. A lot of developers ' wanting to come in. There's a real great case that can be made, whether you like development or not but there's a real great case that there's not enough land in Chanhassen for new residential. This is one area that by chance will be possibly sewered. We're close to the MUSA line which is ' where you can sewer and there's a real good chance that that area will be extended so there will be additional sewer possibilities which means additional residential. Anything else? ' Batzli: No. Ahrens: I agree with Annette about her reasons for approving the southerly extension of Crestview, or the right-of-way to the south. I think that there will be future development on there, I guess especially if the MUSA line is moved. I think that, and I don't have a problem with extending ' Crestview into the cul-de-sac area either. I'm in favor of that. The trail easement, I have some questions about that. First of all, I realize the neighbors say they don't have a problem with the kids walking through their back yards or wherever they want to walk right now but there may in ' the future be a homeowner that says I don't want kids walking through my yard. I 'm going to put up a fence and they're not going to be able to even get to school . My question is, how do the kids who live on Crestview Lane get up to the school? Dick Vandenberg: Through my back yard. There's a fence that runs between ' my yard and Boudrie's. The access to our cul-de-sac is through out of my yard. That's the way they come. . . They take bikes through there. There's a boy on our cul-de-sac that's the same age as a couple of boys on Crestview and that's how they get between there and I don't object to that. 11 But if the trail goes through there, I 'm going to put a fence up and they won't have access because the back of my property is 20 feet from that trail. ' Ahrens: Paul, do you know if there's any plans for connecting a trail for the kids who live further south up to the trail that. .. Krauss: Not to the best of my knowledge, no. Ahrens: So how do those kids get to school? I can't figure that out. Conrad: Take the bus probably. Ellson: I wouldn't doubt it. Dick Herrboldt: This trail does not go, that's it. Nothing leads to it and when you're on the trail. Dick Vandenberg: Here's the way they typically come from Crestview. Right up through Shively's driveway here and then across this fence right into here. I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 14 I Ahrens: To me the trail would make more sense if it connected to the south " for all the kids that lived on Crestview also. Krauss: I really don't believe we're equipped to talk about the trail . There's a lot of history to it and it took place outside of the Planning Commission context and it was through the Park Board. There was originally supposed to be a trail platted with I believe the Murray Hill subdivision , and it was a requirement of approval and for some reason it was never obtained. Consequently the land was so old and the owners who purchased it weren't aware of it and had a different feeling about it. I don't want to say it's a Park Board issue, that the Planning Commission doesn't have the II right to comment on it, but it's one that's difficult for us to present to you. There is a lot of history attached to it. Ahrens: That's what I 'm trying to understand. I'm trying to understand , the reason why there's such a short trail there. It doesn't seem to connect anywhere or help any of the other homeowners who live so far away and I think we don't have the power to change the Park and Rec's decision. II I agree but I 'm still trying to understand if there's any other reason for that...especially when there's a trail this close. Krauss: Again, I don't know the history on it. I've been at several City I Council meetings concerning the sale of the land up by the water tower where this was discussed. The City's aware that if this trail system went through, would have to obtain the land from Mr. Kelly. Right now the only aspect of the trail that's being considered is that portion of it that's on the Shively property. It won't go anywhere unless the City manages to obtain the rest of it. , Conrad: Okay, thanks. One question Paul . In your mind the 900 or 1,000 foot cul-de-sac that we potentially could create, I didn't see a comment in here from the Fire Marshall or somebody. In many cases in new developments ' we've gotten from comments saying dangerous situation. If tree falls, whatever and I didn't see that in here and I'm trying to, my biggest concern is for the neighborhood period. Are we creating even a greater, are we creating a rish by having a 900 foot cul-de-sac? Especially for the people at the end. I haven' t been sold one way or another on it. I think staff has looked at it from a future standpoint for connecting to the south II and that's obviously what your job is. That's why you're the City Planner but right now it does appear to me, the south could develop independently. But a case could be made that a 900 or a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac is unacceptable. Especially when we had a standard of 500 feet in the past and even that we were totally comfortable with. But I can't react. I don't know if we've got an unacceptable situation. My decision on cul-de-sacs or on the road to the south or not at this point in time is do we have an unacceptably long cul-de-sac and we do have to find a solution based on city standards and good planning. Krauss: Well the logic on cul-de-sac decisions doesn't change from issue I to issue. Public Safety staff would generally prefer to have another means of ingress and egress so they can insure that they can get in there in times of emergency. Planning departments, planning staff typically r Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 15 recommends to connect streets if it's at all possible. Ultimately you could have a scenario where you had county roads and cul-de-sacs if every developer did what they wanted to do. On the other hand, we don't diminish the value of cul-de-sacs. They're very attractive places to live and they certainly have their place and occasionally a particularly long cul-de-sac makes sense if there are no alternatives. In this instance we believe there may be an alternative. We're not really sure at this point but we didn't want to foreclose on that. Batzli: Ladd, let me ask you a philosophical question. Currently the cul-de-sac is 950 feet long. By extending it to the south, you aren't remedying the problem. Conrad: Not today we're not, no. Batzli : You're not going to remedy the problem until , really there's not an additional problem until the L shaped lot subdivides further. You're not adding further capacity to that road until that time. Conrad: Right. If you have that there however and a new developer comes into the property of the south, we' ll have a real easy time in making sure that access issues are solved simply because we have that access to the north. Batzli : What's the distinguishing, I mean you can always have that person stub a road northerly at that time and wait until the L shaped property subdivides as well . In the meantime you can, it might almost be a third access issue. You may require the person to the south to provide their own adequate access. But you're not comfortable with that? I can sense. Conrad: No. My preference is to not do it because I like cul-de-sacs in the neighborhood concept. I get real uncomfortable with safety issues however and just general problems with a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac. I don't know that that's smart. I think 500 foot cul-de-sacs where you only have 8-9 houses, I think that's different but here we have more. I 'm kind of uncomfortable from a safety standpoint and don't know that we're going to solve it in the long term. The easiest time to solve it Brian, at least not exclude something, is right now. Generally I'm going to sum up my comments. I don't like the trail where it is, and we don't have enough information in front of us. It seems like the property to the south, we haven't thought about the property that's going to be developed to the south and how they access the school grounds. To me that's more important than the 8 houses that we're talking about right now. It seems like there's a better solution of having a casual trail , and maybe there's no such thing but between some lots that people are already using. Bottom line, I'm not privy or I haven't seen all the information on the trail discussion. It seems like a very old issue. It seems like something happened that really got us into this situation that I don't understand the way that we check on some of these things but just in general, it doesn't seem to be the right way to do it so my recommendation to the City Council is really to review critically where they're putting the trail. If we need a trail , and if that's the only place to put it, then I go along with it but right now I don't think that's the wise way. And I still do see some Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 18 f Ellson: We're hoping like you said, to propose it in July so that would probably make it spring or something. Conrad: One thing I failed to do as we made that motion and Joan, what I always do is I make sure that the negative, those that don't vote for it, I highlight their key reasons for not voting. So Annette, can you summarize briefly? Ellson: I agreed with staff recommendation for the access to the south because of future development. That I think we should have it ready in case. Ahrens: I agree. I think that we should get access when we can. It's � l very hard to go back and try and get access when you need it. . . PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 10.1 AND 10.2 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RR AND LOCATED OFF OF DOGWOOD, EAST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA, JUST NORTH OF CRIMSON BAY, PETER AND DEANNA BRANDT. Public Present: Name Address Kurt Laughinghouse Represenative for the Applicant Peter and Deanna Brandt Applicant John Getsch 7510 Dogwood Road Ed Getsch Dogwood Road Ken Daniels Owner of Proposed Lot 1 Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: Jo Ann, could you summarize for me your recommendation? What, in terms of the clearing. Olsen: What we pointed out was that if the road was to be a full rural standard street must be provided in here, that actually if you drive out here you just kind of go -> real easily and that's where it's already cleared. We're just pointing out that rather than clearing additional land and leveling the topography, it would be less expensive to install the street there. You wouldn't have as wide of an area. Conrad: Yeah. And that is your recommendation? Olsen: Well our actual recommendation is that they provide the 60 foot. : I We don't require conditioning 100 foot right-of-way to be dedicated.. . We're just pointing it out that that's probably the best location for a road. Conrad: Okay, we'll open it up for public comments. Is the applicant here or a representative? Mr. Laughinghouse. I've seen you here before on this Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 19 I issue. Kurt Laughinghouse: Yes sir . Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I sure have. And the issues haven't changed an awful lot. I 'm representing Mr. and Mrs. ' Brandt who are here. They are the purchasers of what is proposed Lot 2. The south lot. Subsequent to their application the northerly lot was purchased by Mr. Ken Daniels and he is here this evening . I know that some of the other neighbors of this property are here and they probably have something to say. To set the stage a little bit for those commissioners who weren't here a year ago. The owner of this entire 100 acre property, Tim Foster who does live here in Chanhassen and has for some 10 years, ' applied to divide the 100 acres into 4 lots. It was one 80 acre lot and this 20 was divided then, or proposed to be divided into the 10 that you see on the south and two 5 acre lots. Ultimately the Planning Commission recommended and it did not go to Council , a lot of road development and in effect Foster withdrew the application. He then subsequently sold the 80 acre parcel to another party and a home is being built on that property. Now with this 20 acres we propose to simply divide it into two 10 acre lots. I think the fact that it's being platted is almost a quirk in the law in the sense that these 10 acre lots are hardly, it's hardly an urbanization of this property. It's really only a matter of getting to the zoning but because it is a plat, then the City has a review and that is why we're discussing all these roads and streets. I guess the short series is that it's an awful lot like, if you've read all this transcript from a year ago, the story is the same. This land is not being subdivided. It's not being developed. Foster bought 100 acres of property. Ultimately he now proposes that 3 homes be built on a 100 acres of property. It is not as though it's urbanized and we don't know whether urban services, sewer and water will be delivered in 5 years or 50 years to this area. Probably a lot less than 50. Probably a lot more than 5 years. It's when the urban services are delivered, sewer and water, is when we should deal with paving streets and things of that nature. I feel. Sewer and water are going to come in from the east along TH 41. Along Tanadoona. And that 80 acre property will develop before these 10 acre properties are reached. I think that's the reason that I propose that you not require the 30 foot easement on the north side of what is Lot 1 here. When the 80 acre property is developed, and we all agree that someday somebody, if not the current owner. Their heirs or somebody that they sell the land to, will develop 11 that property. When that happens, all of the terrain, that whole 80 acres will be considered. Having that 30 acre easement there might even be a distraction as to what the best development of that 80 acres is or what the best development of the whole 100 acres is. If this subdivision is approved, each of these owners can only put 1 house on the 10 acres. This is rural zoning, and that's all they hope to do. Someday in the future either they, and they'll deny it, with they and their heirs will subdivide ' the land. We know that. But that is when all of us should get together again and decide the best way to lay out streets and lots in this neighborhood. We understand fully and we agree with increasing that II right-of-way on the west side of the property to the full 60 feet and that means that these owners will dedicate 40 feet. We do not agree that that should be paved. In fact we feel very strongly that the road will not be developed in the future in that area. The lake lots are long lots. Sewer IIand water service will probably go on the other side, on the lake side of 11 Planning Commission Meeting I January 17, 1990 - Page 20 I all those homes, if that ever happens because that's the only way that you can put gravity sewer in there. Be on the lake side of all those lake II homes. And so I think it would be murderous to take the 60 foot right-of- way where we propose to grant it just for a matter of for the record let's us say and then pave that. Now there is, as was described by Ms. Olsen, a 40 or 50 foot wide power line easement that is utterly devastated as we all " know and that only happened about a year and a half or two ago. There' s no reason in the world to believe that that is where a street will go in the future. Just because there are no trees there now, by the time sewer and II water arrives, at this point in the world, that might be 20 years from now. There could be 20 year old trees on that property. The owner of the 80 acre parcel intends to bury the power line through his property. I think II that the owners that are purchasing this property may well do it. I know that the neighbors to the east would like to see that power line buried and I inquired a couple days ago with Minnesota Valley and it's about $3.0011 a running foot to bury that power line so that may be what will happen there. Then that land may grow up and we may have an oak woods there instead of this power line easement. So I think, and that just underscores the point that this is not a development. It is a plat and technically therefore it's subject to all requirements, a street and all this and so forth but it really is just two 10 acre lots on a 20 acre lot and ultimately is 3 lots on a 100 acre parcel. It is a very modest request of I the city so. We agree with all the staff recommendations except for two points. One is that the Lake Drive should be paved. We think it should not be paved. Secondly, that the 30 foot easement across the north line of the property, we feel that that should not be required mostly because we , simply do not know where roads are going to be needed in the future. So I probably said more than I need to. If there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer them but some others may want to speak to this. Thank you. , Conrad: Thank you. Other comments? John Getsch: I'm John Getsch. I'm at 7510 Dogwood Road. Just own the property there. The proposed subdivision as it's laid out there, as brought our earlier , is at the end of a mile long cul-de-sac. It really just, as Mr. Laughinghouse said, they're just dividing that lot if half which is not a major problem but planning for the future is the big problem here. Whenever this has been brought up before and the subdividing, it seems like whoever wants to subdivide it, does not want to have an easement " on their property. The problem's never going to get taken care of until some easements are put in there. As we just saw in the earlier problem, when there's no provision put in there, they don't get an easement now out of there, there's going to be a fight and they're going to come back and say, well it's got to come when the 80 acres is developed. It's got to come all out of the 80 acres because the easement was granted earlier. I think there needs to be plans now, somehow of getting a road out and it has II to be started now. 20 feet along the properties that are along the lake, there really isn't any other easement other than that coming all the way in there. The other issue is the easement for the power lines. How is that going to be handled and put back in there. The problem with the trees and moving the road over where it's proposed there is acceptable. That's what we have talked with Kurt when he was trying to develop this before and said it's got to be put on. It doesn't make any sense to go in there and rip 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 21 II out 150 year old trees when the power company already died it for you. And nothing's going to grow there as long as the power company sprays it every year to keep it from anything coming back. The other issue that was brought up, I think it was last fall. I can't remember, was a trail coming through from the south. Some type of trail and there was talk about something easement. I know it's not in here that there is nothing showing for any plan of that. It just deadends coming off of Crimson Bay there. You'll see there was an easement granted up to the edge of the property through Crimson Bay and nothing has been done to follow that and that was brought up in the last meeting when this was looked at and they were talking about running all the way around the 80 acres. Running I think it was around to the east. Running along the south edge of the property and then up along the east, cutting through to the Campfire camp property and then through up to the park. Olsen: The trail easement, I forgot to point that out. They're proposing a trail easement along in here. John Getsch: Okay. So that is part of the. . . Olsen: Yeah. I forgot to mention it. John Getsch: Those are the only real concerns I have right now. For future planning, to get the easement because there is no other way of improving that road right now unless the people along the lake want to have their garages and homes ripped out. It's the only way. There's no place to move towards the lake. Thank you. Ed Getsch: My name is Ed Getsch. I 'm at the very end of a 5,000 foot cul-de-sac which doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is the potential of widening what the power company did to the property about 2 ' years ago. The way it was proposed earlier that they develop the road in purple but not take any trees down and that's a little difficult to do. They either have to put the road where it's cleared or they're going to have to clear 100 foot wide swath through the woods west of the present power line. I don't think there's even an easement there at this point. I think it's only there because it was run 50 years ago so I don't think there's any defined easement there. I ran into a problem about 6 months ago I wanted to run underground electric up to the power pole and the Electric Coop said well that's fine. You can run it up to the property but you're going to have to get an easement from the neighboring property to go II over to the power line which is another 80 feet. Well, I think if they're going to develop this. He doesn't want to call it a development but it's turning into a development, is that they either get their act together and I do it all or don't do anything. Clean the road out. Put it in or do nothing because we don't have access to the power lines. Maybe we'll have access someday. Maybe we won't. If it's cleared up in easements now, where the road is actually going to go. Where it's going to be cleared and 1 where the power lines are going to go so we know where we can get our access if we want another access to those other lots. Right now all of the last 7 lots are under one ownership so it's not really a problem right now I but it could be in 10 years where if we want access to the road that's now in blue up there, we're going to have to cross somebody elses property to I Planning Commission Meeting I January 17, 1990 - Page 22 I get to it. So I think they need to define where the road's going to go and say what. They're saying we want to have it where the clearing is now. Jo ' Ann says let's put it where the purple is. Well, the two aren' t the same. They're about 80 feet apart. So that's all the complaints I have. Kurt Laughinghouse: It was something that wasn't described. Because of , the topo on here, there's an awful lot of things that are hard to read. But if I may, this is the same. . . These are the 7 lots that Mr. Getsch has described that are under one ownership. The power line, and let me start II again. There's a 20 foot easement that runs from here, in fact it runs all • the way back down to TH 41 but then runs along the back edge of these lots and there's a little small partial cul-de-sac in here. That is currently ' owned by the City. The 20 feet. This proposal is to dedicate 40 feet or use easement, whichever it is, 40 more feet so there is a 60 foot ownership by the City here. Now, this land is in 150 year old oak trees and it's not our intention at all to have that paved. The power line runs approximately " because Ed said, 80 feet from this point parallel to the road. And it runs down here along the Arboretum fence. It is that that was cleared at least 40 or 50 feet wide. What we didn't describe but it is hard to see in this 11 topo so you didn' t realize it but there is an easement in favor of Lot 2 over Lot 1. It will be for ingress and egress purposes and we already have a description of it and will run from this point across a long power line and will terminate as Jo Ann Olsen described a 40 foot cul-de-sac. To cityll standards. I think permanent. . . Hempel: All weather. 1 Kurt Laughinghouse: All weather. Be an all weather driveway. These purchasers, and they're both here to speak for themselves, want to live in , this rural situation. We all know that someday it will be developed. In the meantime, they do propose to use the power line with an all weather driveway as do all these 17 homeowners along here. They have a 20 foot actual city owned road. So just to clarify. We agree completely with the II Getsch's. This land under this right-of-way should not be developed into a road. Should not be paved. It is old oak trees. Then as a practical matter, a driveway will be an easement and we agreed to that. Put in a development agree in yesterday. Will go over the power line in this fashion to lead to access to this property. I hope that eases the concern. Ken Daniels: I got Lot 1. I just bought it. I don't know, I do know the II owner of the 80 acres. Only because he plays golf at my golf club and he called me today and found out that I had bought that. Now the Lot 2, I don't know that person. I just met him tonight. My intent was not to put II a number of houses or ever subdivide Lot 1. My only purpose in agreeing to allowing that easement across was to allow Lot 2 to have ingress and egress off his property. I don't like carving up easements over Lot 1 on the north or on the west side of that property. I understand the guy in Lot 2 II needs to get in and out of his property and that's why I agreed to that. I don't think that I should be stuck paying for all these things however and • I just don't see number one, the easement on the north side of the road. It doesn't make sense. To use easement you'd have to get the guy with the 80 acres to give you another 30 acres back and he's going to have to come in and plat that property if he wants to develop it. As far as a power I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 23 I line going across that property, I would like to see it buried too. If there's reasonable cost for doing that, I 'd be happy to pay for it. I don' t mind giving this other party an easement but I don't want to build him a highway through that property either. Okay? Thank you. Ed Getsch: My main concern is preserving what's there rather than destroying any more. Also, how do we get to the power lines when they're buried? Now if they bury them along the easement for the road, weave in and out of the trees, the easement that's on that drawing. But if the power lines are buried over where it's now cleared or anywhere in that clearing, we have to cross at least your land to get to it and that needs to be addressed somewhere along the line. Otherwise I believe in property rights for the owner. So that's all I'm concerned about. Peter Brandt: I'm Peter Brandt and I'm the purchaser of Lot 2. I just want to voice sort of my objection to putting a paved road in. If you've been out there before you'll realize that there are no paved roads. The road that goes out there right now is a dirt road. Putting in a 60 foot paved road at this point is going to look, first of all it's going to be ridiculous becaue neither of us can subdivide and have no intention of doing so. Secondly, all we're asking for is a driveway and putting a 60 foot driveway in doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Especially Iwhen you go back to some of Kurt's comments in terms of if the whole area is going to be developed, you really have to look at the whole 100 acres. You can't just look at the two 10 acre parcels that are being subdivided today. Emmings: Why? I mean I think that' s exactly what we're doing is looking at the two. I don't understand that at all. Maybe you could tell me why. Peter Brandt: Well first of all , the two 10 acre arcels are landlocked p c at this point. There's property owners on all sides of us. There's 80 acres on the north side and the west side and then on the south side, the Minnesote Arboretum has an apple orchard on the south side and then the Crimson Bay development is also on the south side. tEmmings: We've all looked at this, this is the third time in the last couple years so we're pretty familiar with it. But this is, the thing that's in front of us is the division of 20 acres into two 10 acre lots. It's not the division of 100 acres into three lots. Peter Brandt: Sure. And for that reason, I don't personally see a need for a 60 foot paved road pretty much in the middle of nowhere. It's going to connect up to a dirt road. The other thing, in terms of the easement through the trees, we object very strongly to taking any trees out. One of the reasons we're interested in the land is because it's wooded. Although a very small portion of our property would actually be affected by it, as far as we're concerned, any trees taken out are too many. Especially given the fact of the power company has already gone through and taken trees out for us. Hempel: Mr . Chairman, if I could just clarify the city standard road width for a rural. It is a 24 foot bituminous mat with 6 foot gravel shoulders. I Planning Commission Meeting I January 17, 1990 - Page 24 Not 60 foo t pavement. Conrad: Thanks. Other comments. I Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Joan. What are your questions? Comments? You don't have the background the rest of us do so you're. . . Ahrens: Yeah, why don't we start with Steve. I pass the buck. Conrad: That's fair. Any questions at all? Ahrens: I don't understand some of this. First of all , there's a 20 foot roadway that the City owns on the west side of Lake Drive. Right? There's ' going to be, the road that is proposed to be put in is on the east side of Lake Drive. Right? So there'd be Lake Drive but it'd just be, so there'd be no access for.. .Lake Minnewashta. Conrad: Yeah, that's a good question. What would be the process, would there ever be a way to connect? , Olsen: To connect? Conrad: Those lots that are currently serviced by the current road. By 11 Dogwood. Let's say in 20 years, what would be a process to hook them into the new right-of-way? Olsen: The right-of-way right now is being proposed where they wouldn' t have it. They would be adjacent to it. If the right-of-way went up to where the clearing is right now. I Batzli: They'd be on a long cul-de-sac there. The people currently on Dogwood. Conrad: So there's really no benefit to those people for this particular road. The right-of-way that we're talking about right now. Even in the future, there is no long term benefit for them. They're still going to have a separate access to their own property. Batzli: Ladd is talking about if we go the power line route, you're going to get a Y shape and the people currently on Dogwood. E'imings: I didn't know you were talking about the power line. Conrad: Oh, I'm sorry. I knew that. Ahrens: That's what I was asking about. The power lines. Wouldn' t there II be a piece of land on Lot 1 that would go between the power line route and the access? I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 25 Conrad: Yeah. Still under the ownership of those owning Lot 1 and 2. Ahrens: So there would be no access. Conrad: Not unless they sold it. Olsen: Or if it was all acquired as an easement now but that would mean that Lot 1 would be giving up about 100 feet. It's never been done. Ahrens: I'm going to go with that for a second . I do have a problem with this provision, one of the conditions provided by staff. That Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 waive any rights to contest future assessments.. .Dogwood. I don't understand why they can do that. I don't know if that's possible. 11 Olsen: It's been done before like in development contracts and such where. Elison: That's if you don't recommend the street. 11 Olsen: Right. They're saying that at this point that they do not want to have a street but at some point that the street does need to be improved to provide the safety, the standards. Then at that point we want it to be II made clear that. . . Elison: You could have got it now but we chose not to so we can get it later. Olsen: They always can still contest it but we kind of let them know that at some point it will happen. Batzli : It's certainly making it of record as to those lots so that people purchasing it will have noticed that the street was deferred to a later time. Ahrens: They have notice of the objection. IIBatzli : Yes. Whether they object or not, you can always object. Conrad: You don't have anything else or do you want to think? IAhrens: I 'm going to think about this. Batzli: Just an easy question first. Have they ever decided where the septic sites would be? I have a tough time deciphering these. It already currently shows them? IIOlsen: On these plans, it should. Batzli : Oh. Okay. Those little dotted guys are septic sites? IIOlsen: Yes. The soil borings were performed years ago. ' 87 or so but they were all approved. IIBatzli : Things like that don't change over time? I Planning Commission Meeting I January 17, 1990 - Page 26 i Olsen: No. I Batzli: You wouldn't have a requirement to go out there and do it again? Olsen: No, you wouldn't. I Batzli: Okay. Why aren't we, I remember hearing in past conversations why we're not going to connect to Crimson Bay Road but explain to me why we're 11 not going to do that. Olsen: In looking at the options we were thinking that the access onto like TH 5, . ..Dave input too but that that was going to be difficulty. It's " already a bad intersection. When we went through this process before, in front of the Planning Commission, at that time it wasn't felt that this should be the connection to the south. We agreed to have, that's still an II option and we have looked at the cross sections and it can be accomplished. Still meet the City standards. Batzli: It seems to me that we just got done talking about long I cul-de-sacs and here we have an even longer one. I don't know. It's obviously a very narrow dirt road at this point. Olsen: It was sort of a compromise between the staff and the applicant. They did not agree to having it go to the south. . .options for future connections and that's why we were going back to the east because in the all the feasibility studies, a lot of them showed roads going back through II that section. It's still a possibility. It wouldn't be able to accomplish. . .unless the property from the Arboretum would come down. Essentially that splits Lot 2 into 2 lots also. If you do improve the street. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I think the major factor why we're not considering the southern connection is because of TH 5. The intersection there, if you ll add traffic to it, it's going to get worst. We're looking at future upgrading of TH 5, the State is I should say, and at that time they're really requesting limited access. They might have only right turn, right II out in that intersection also. Emmings: Does the upgrading go west, that the State is looking at, go west " of TH 41? Hempel: Some day it will. I Emmings: But it's not now? Hempel: But not in the immediate future, no. I Conrad: So it's not topography? It's traffic you're telling me which is kind of new information. ' Hempel: Topography is difficult also but it could be managed. I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 27 I Emmings: They told us that topography was the thing, the reason we shouldn't do it the last time it was here is my recollection. Conrad: Yeah. That's where I was at. Steep grade and some other stuff. Obviously engineering wise we can do anything but I guess I 'm not swayed by traffic on TH 5 there. It seems, and I've always thought this, it seems like a nice solution for an access to that site but I was swayed by ' topography. It couldn't be done reasonably well and I guess I need confirmation that that's still the case. Olsen: Part of the reason is we do have new topo for out there and it showed that it's not as steep as what the original topo showed. Even on the plan, if you actually go out there, it doesn't look as steep and that's why, we did pursue the south access again and did show that it could be done. Hempel : The grades are more gentle up here the power lines are though. Actually where the right-of-way is proposed, the slope is much steeper. Conrad: On the Crimson Bay development we have an access or we have an easement going to the property line don' t we? Olsen: It's 25 feet past. Conrad: Is the grade more than 7% going up? Hempel: I believe it was in the 7% to 10% range, yes. Conrad: What's the vegetation like? I haven't visited that. Hempel: It's heavily wooded going up the hill. Conrad: Okay. Brian? Batzli : Is this area within the MUSA line expansion as well? Krauss: No. Batzli: Why isn't it? Just out of curiousity. Why did we jog it up right there? Did we cut it at TH 41? Was that our line? Krauss: It actually cuts off before you get to TH 41. That area on the north side of TH 41 was designated as a study area. Then it picks up north on TH 41 a ways. 11 Batzli: That corner on TH 41 and TH 5 was the study area? Okay. Krauss: It was felt that that was more area for residential development than we could justify based upon our expectations of growth at this time. Batzli: I guess I look at this being a little bit different than the last I one in that I think in order for Lot 2 to develop, which at some day it probably has to, I think we do need to have some sort of improved street Planning Commission Meeting , January 17, 1990 - Page 28 I and I think now's the time to get it. An interesting question raised though is if in fact they do bury the power line and then you're looking at a long delay over a period of time, I don't know that it makes sense to put it where the power line is now, although that seems like the best option right now. But in a matter of years, if they do go through with it and buy the line and they quite cutting the trees, if you're looking down the road, " that's a heck of a question as to where you're going to put it. Conrad: Well, you go back to the current road. And you' ll take 40 feet of the trees that are there. Ellson: And they'll be older than the other ones that are 20 years old. Batzli: Well, they might all be dying by that time. If you put a road in I next to the power line, would it fit in the right-of-way? You'd be taking out more trees yet wouldn't you? , Hempel: Some additional trees would have to be removed. I think the slopes extended out approximately 80 feet wide through there. Batzli: If we took right-of-way now, you wouldn't necessarily have to include. It could be a private drive at this point couldn't it across Lot 1? Okay, I don't have anything else right now. I Ellson: This one, I mean I only saw this one time. I don't have all the history of the other people but it's always been confusing to me so I'll be the first to say that. But the different street choices really threw me for a loop and I guess I had almost the same questions as his at the end. I mean you're looking at Miss I want to save every tree I possibly can. I hate the thought of going in and taking them just for the sake of right now II two more lots. I like the idea of getting the easement so that we could build it and bring it up to the standard as the density increases or something but I really didn't want to do that right now and I wondered if II what we're proposing here in the motion is to bring it up to a standard like right now. It shall be built to City standards. In other words, as soon as they get it, we're going to have this long dirt road and then just this great looking little piece down there for one person and I 'd rather not do something like that but I'd like the capability later on to say okay, now we want it. We've got that easement, we'd like to do it about now. If we have that with maybe just changing that number 1, that's the way I'd like to see it going. Conrad: Can you react? I Ellson: They're shaking their heads. Olsen: The way it's written right now is that it would have to improved at 11 this time. Ellson: But we could like. . . 1 Emmings: We could propose that as an alternative. 1(a) .. .like they said but not require improvement. 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 29 I Elison: Okay. You're right. And that's what I 'm looking to do. Emmings: Just a couple of things. On page 6 of the staff report, under lot frontage, it says Lot 2 has 100 feet in that the ordinance requires 200. And then it says that no variances are required and can you rationalize that for me. Olsen: That's one. . . Emmings: So it would need a variance. Is that a variance that they have to go to the Board of Adjustments for or is that something that we give them by passing this? Olsen: We've done it before. . . Emmings: Well, what's required? Olsen: Technically we take it back in front of the Board of Adjustments. Emmings: So this needs a variance for lot frontage, at least for Lot 2. As far as the road thing goes, to me I believe what should be done is that we should get the 40 feet off the west side of 1 and continue to Lot 2 as it's drawn on the big map that we have and not have them develop it until , for the present. I don't see any reason of bringing that end of things up to a standard that the rest of that long , long road doesn' t meet right now. Temporarily they' ll have their own system of private driveway which seems very reasonable to me and seems to fit the character of what they're doing ' and everything else so I'm fine with that. I do think, it wasn't in our report this business of them putting a cul-de-sac on the end of the private driveway that would be up to city standards but that is commonplace? Olsen: Yes. It's going to be. . . Emmings: It's not there as a condition. It might have been mentioned. Olsen: We're showing it on the plan. . . II Emmings: No, they're talking about doing it at the end of the private drive. Is that right? Hempel: On the common lot line between 1 and 2. Emmings: But that's on their own private system of road that they're doing. Hempel : That's correct. ' Emmings: Alright. I think that should be in there as a condition that they will provide plans and specs for a cul-de-sac at the end of the private drive that will satisfy the City Engineer because that gives us ' finally a place for things to turn around down there even if it isn't in the best place but I think that's an important thing to have now. I don't Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 30 I like the provision where they waive rights to contest future assessments. I think that's awful. I think if they dedicated the, if we're forcing them to give us that easement across there to build a road in the future, when ' it comes time to build that road, they're going to get assessed and they should have the right to come in and complain all they want before they get assessed. It's good to let off steam. I think that the road needs to be II where it is. I think we've got to add the 40 to the 20 so we don' t cut off the properties along the lake and I think what ultimately ought to happen out there is that that damn power line ought to buried and it ought to be buried in the road right-of-way. That solves everybody's problem. I don' t ' think the power company would have any problem with that. If there was an easement out there, they'd be happy to use it. Would that be right do you • think? Hempel: I would say so, yes. Enimings: So I think that's a good solution. It will fit everybody's ' problems. I have a question about, I wonder Mr. Brandt, is he still here? You understand that you can't put in a dock or a boardwalk or move any II vegetation or do any dredging or anything to that shoreline without coming back here for a wetland alteration permit? Peter Brandt: Yes. I Emmings: Has that been explained to you? Peter Brandt: Yes. 1 Emmings: Okay. And I wondered, as far as Mr. Daniels is concerned. Do you have any, has anybody said you'd have any lake access from your lot? Ken Daniels: No. I'm looking for somebody. I was just talking. . . Emmings: Well, forget it because I'm watching you. I'd advise you, if , you're planning on that, to read our regulations. There can't be boats on docks. If you're not an owner of the property, you can't put a boat on the dock and things like that. There are a lot of rules regarding that and I don't know. You're buying a real nice big lot real close to a real nice lake that I live on and I just want to make sure your eyes are open when you're going in. I Ken Daniels: I'm buying the wooded lot. Emmings: That's good. This is just a question out of pure ignorance. On II Lot 2, the septic sites are a long ways from the house. Is that common? I've never seen septic sites so far away from a house before. Olsen: That's not where they have to be. What usually happens is that they'll bring in new soil borings once they have the location of the house. Emmings: If for any reason those happen to the be the only sites, is that I any problem? I don't know. Is it uphill or anything so they'd have to have a pump station? • Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 31 i ' Conrad: You can always pump it. Batzli: That's a long ways up the hill though. 1 Emmings: It's just a matter of cost though. It's their problem I know but. 1 Hempel: I guess I'm not that familiar with septic systems. Emmings: My only comments then would be, I would change condition 1 such that it was essentially like the alternative 1(a) so that we require dedication of the 40 feet at this time but don't require any upgrading until the whole road, something is done with the entire road or something 1 else happens out there with development such that it makes more sense. I think that condition 6 should be expanded because it says any access to Lake Minnewashta would require a wetland alteration permit and I know what that means but I think that that condition ought to be expanded to say there'd be no dock or boardwalk or dredging or removal of vegetation or any activity in the area of the shoreline without a wetland alteration permit so its very, very clear what we're talking about there. I think that I/ there should be a condition on the cul-de-sac at the end of the private drive that one will be done that will be designed that meets the approval of the City Engineer and I think that we should strike this business about them not contesting future assessments. That's all I have. ' Conrad: You said you only had a couple of comments. Jo Ann and P Paul, tell me about, I 'm vacillating. I really like the power line as a potential access to that site simply because it's been stripped and it looks like the right place to do it but then I go back and say when we do that then we've got some acreage that we've separated from this lot and that doesn't seem ' right. So then I go back and say well let's add 40 to what we've got. To what's currently there. When we do that and we do upgrade this part of the road someday and I should have gone back. I thought I was real clear what I was going to vote on tonight and I should have driven back there and taken a look but what do we need to cut down? If we expand it to 60 feet, what's going down in terms of woods? ' Krauss: We haven't done a study of that. Dave hasn't looked at that in detail yet but you can see that where that cul-de-sac occurs, it's quite steep. The steeper the grade, the wider the cut is to kind of pinch a cul-de-sac into the hill there. It would be a significant cut. Olsen: It would all be cleared. The full 60 feet. Conrad: I have another major problem and I'm still not convinced that that access to the south. I guess I haven't seen enough information on that or been brought back up to speed on a potential connection to Crimson Bay ' development. Boy, it seems 6 months ago, a year ago, whenever we saw this last time, it sure seemed like that would be a nice way to access this area and we're losing some potential here and that bothers me a little bit but I don't have enough information to react to that. Are you two, and I guess I've got to just put, ask you the question, you're both convinced that we • Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 32 - i don't need it and it's not smart to do? I just have to say that. Krauss: A real definitive answer, I don' t think it's as definitive as that. We think that it's possible to put through a connection to the south and it would not be a bad thing if we were in a position to do that. What II we think made it possible was that power line cut. You see the problem with that cul-de-sac, where the cul-de-sac would be located off the existing street is what you're doing is you're rolling off down a hill into a fairly steep area. What the power line easement does is it stays up nice ' and high where it's relatively flat and it allows a much more gentle grade back down to the existing street in Crimson Bay. One of the things we looked at though in doing this was when this was looked at before, the direction we received was that we should not proceed with that connection II to the south. That it was looked at and was dismissed. So then we looked for some alternatives to that. Conrad: Was that us that did that? Do you recall. Olsen: No, there were other comments somewhere along the line with TH 5 being added and with the other. The last time it was up, I think there were more comments made that not to have the street improved at this time. Take the easement but not to have it improved. I Conrad: It could be done you're telling me but right now you're not convinced of it. You're convinced we've solved some access problems some other ways. Maybe on the north of this will help a little bit but you're 11 convinced that we really don't need the access to the south. There are more detrimental things that could occur? Olsen: No. Krauss: We would still prefer the access to the south if it were feasible II to do that. The problems with that are that if you're going to do the access to the south, you have to look at relocating the street onto _where the power line easement is. Conrad: Which is what you recommended. Basically in the staff report you recommended that. Krauss: Which is what we would prefer but there's really a problem with it II in that we'd be stranding property or the dedication be wider than we're normally entitled to. I Conrad: What's a normal dedication? Krauss: 60 feet. I Conrad: Isn't that what you asked for the power line? Olsen: .. .power line but to keep it all within right-of-way and not to i split another piece, you'd be taking almost 100 feet of right-of-way. Batzli: Otherwise you'd be leaving that Y cul-de-sac. i Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 33 Olsen: You'd be splitting from other land. Conrad: I now what you mean. Who cares? Do we care? Olsen: Who cares? Conrad: We might. I might not. This is a real problem area. I think you've got to make some hard decisions on solving the problem here. What's the negative of running the road through to the south? We've got to cut a lot of trees down? We've got some elevation problems possibly? Krauss: Running the road through to the south on the power line easement, if that were to be done, would result in considerably less tree loss than putting the cul-de-sac in where it's illustrated with the right-of-way. Emmings: You're going to have to condemn property out of the Arboretum. Krauss: Yes. Olsen: And there's traffic. And then if that road is improved, you're splitting Lot 2 into two lots. Emmings: Can we condemn State property? I never even thought about that. Can you take State property? Krauss: No. Emmings: I wouldn't think so. I don't know really. Conrad: So the Arboretum has the land between the Crimson Bay. Emmings: To the east of Crimson Bay. Conrad: I don't want to go through there. Olsen: You have to. To connect to Crimson Bay, you would need to improve. . . Hempel: You'd have to improve a portion of it from the end of the cul-de-sac to the subdivision. Olsen: Right now you have an easement. Conrad: That's what I'm trying to connect to. Emmings: But you need another 25 feet on this side. Then you'd wind up condemning it out on that side. Conrad: Can' t do that. Emmings: You know Ladd, on that connection south, I remember my own feelings that it was real important to do it and I remember stall telling Planning Commission Meeting Jame ry 17, 1990 - Page 36 Hemp el: There was talk of the possibility of another access point out onto TH 41 but that would take MnDot approval also. I guess we feel that is a possibility. Conrad: Yeah, I think I saw that once upon a time. One more. Batzli: One more south of Tanadoona. Conrad: Yeah. I don't mind the balance of the, I know Steve you're - 1 concerned with some of the other issues in the staff report. I guess things are foggy enough in my mind that I don't mind some of those. Some of the staff comments in there. Any other comments? Joan, anything that you want to jump back in after you've heard us mish mash the thing up? Ahrens: I just wanted to say one thing. That the southern access to Crimson Bay Road, I think the biggest issue there is getting the land. Even if we could get the land, I'm not sure it's good public policy to take State land . Conrad: Can't do it. All you can do is not preclude that option right now and require an easement up to it. It doesn't say it's going to, it's just like our previous one. It doesn't say we're going to do it but you could require an easement and therefore the purchaser right now knows that in the future we may want to run a road through. It may prevent his decision to ' ) buy that property. In my mind, that's the last thing I want to do is divide his parcel up as he comes out here and wants to live on 20 acres. I would love to live on 20 acres and I 'd never want to exclude anybody from wanting to buy that and use it that way. On the other hand, our job is to say well, downstream what's going to happen and that access might be the right one. Ahrens: I'm not sure, I think maybe my point was missed on that about acquiring the land from the State. . . I'm not sure that that's the best public policy. Conrad: To buy State land? Ahrens: Well, that's Arboretum land right? And the Arboretum land would have to be acquired in order to have access to Crimson Road. Conrad: Right. Batzli: But it would benefit all the people in there. Elison: When it turns into a development but it's the same principle. Batzli: But you wouldn't be purchasing the land until you needed it. You wouldn't even ask the Arboretum unless you needed that access when it developed. Elison: But are we saying that we want to take State land to help people develop this? The bottom line is, is that a good way? • Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 37 Ahrens : I don't think you can anyway but even if we could, I don't think it's. . . Conrad: It could be less costly in the long run. Anything else? Is there a motion? Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989 with the ' following conditions. Number 1 would be basically what's down as option 1(a) . That it would require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of Lots 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of-way for the full 60 foot rural street right-of-way but improvement of that right-of-way would not be required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive is improved or until development in that area would require improvement. Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5 would stay as written by staff. Condition 6 would be expanded. Essentially stay the same but just be expanded a little bit to say that any access including a dock or boardwalk to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging, ' or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. Then I'd add the condition 7 that would say that, there will be a cul-de-sac at the end of a system of private driveways that serve the owners of Lots 1 and 2 and plans and specs for that cul-de-sac shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval . If the parties decide not to use the system of private driveways but rather use Lake Drive somehow, then they' ll still be responsible for providing a cul-de-sac at the end that meets the approval of the City Engineer. The end. Conrad: Good. Is there a second? Ellson: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? Olsen: Since the street won' t be improved, then we should also have a condition that there shall be easements across Lot 1 for access to Lot 2. I know that they said that they're providing that but. Emmings: Well, but Jo Ann if they don't give an easement, they always have the right to use Lake Drive so let them worry about it. That's what I think. Hempel: Mr . Chairman, condition 2 should maybe be deleted if you're not proposing to improve the street to city standards because it will not be a public street. Public improvement. Batzli: What would they have to do for the cul-de-sac? Hempel: We could make it conditioned upon building permit approval. Emmings: So that's probably not really a public improvement? Hempel: That's correct. r Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 38 Emmings: Yeah, that makes sense to me. There aren't any other improvements? Okay. Then number 2 could be striken. It doesn't mean anything. Conrad: And that's going to be a condition of what? If it's not here, the ll improvement of the cul-de-sac. Emmings: It's still a condition because that's my condition number 7. That there will be a cul-de-sac that meets his approval but we don't need all development contract for a public improvement because we're not grading or paving a street or building the shoulders or whatever. Conrad: Okay, do you agree with eliminating number 2 then? Emmings: Yeah I do. ' Ellson: I'll change my second also. Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend , approval of Subdivision $89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989 with the following conditions: 1. Require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of Lots 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of-way for the full 60 foot rural street right-of-way but improvement of that right-of-way I would not be required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive is improved or until development in that area would require improvement. 2. The developer shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from II the Watershed District. 3. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east II boundary of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm and along the south boundary of Lot 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm from the southeast corner of Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay subdivision. I 4. The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. 5. Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging, or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. I 6. There will be a cul-de-sac at the end of a system of private driveways that serve the owners of Lots 1 and 2 and plans and specs for that cul-de-sac shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. If the parties decide not to use the system of private driveways but rather use Lake Drive somehow, they will still be responsible for providing a cul-de-sac at the end that meets the approval of the City 11 Engineer. All voted in favor except Conrad and Batzli who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. I IPlanning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 39 11 Conrad: Brian, the reason for your negative vote? Batzli: I would prefer to see further study on the route taken by the power line with potential connection to Crimson Bay Road at a future time. Other than that, I think it's fine. Maybe access along Lake Drive is the way to go but I don't think that was studied because I think staff had the impression that we weren't interested in that and I think that we :night be if there was further thought given it. ' Conrad: I second that opinion. ' PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO ' CLARIFY LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS. Conrad: Jo Ann, just as a point. This is a public hearing. Were notices sent out? 11 Olsen: We sent out to all the people who have been interested in it. ' Conrad: To associations with beachlots by chance? Olsen: No. EImings: Was there published notice? Olsen: It was published in the paper and then we sent it to those who have been involved. Ellson: Who have come to these before. Batzli: Does this apply retroactively to any of them? Would they be grandfathered in? Conrad: They will exceed this standard. Olsen: There's a condition in here that says we can go back. ' Conrad: So they weren't invited. Do we care? Ellson: So what, do you want to table it? • Conrad: No. ' Ellson: Just be sure they're notified for the Council. Conrad: No, that's not fair either. I don't think they'd have any issues with this. They typically have what they want. They've met the standards. They have a beach, their own lot and we're not taking any of their rights away. ' Enmings: Right. That's true. Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 40 Ellson: Convince yourself? Conrad: So the question right now is, do we all believe that. You don't II believe that? Terry Forbord: When you open the public hearing. 1 Conrad: Right. We haven't. Or at least I don't think I have opened it. Let me know if I have and I' ll stop talking. I think we haven't affected anybody but we probably should, it's after the fact. To send them a notice for the City Council. I think that's real negative because it's the last second and what have you. ' Olsen: We've notified everyone that's ever been interested or has come to public hearings concerning recreational beachlots. ' Conrad: Over what period of time Jo Ann? Forever? 2 years? Olsen: You know like Georgette Sosin and. . . I Conrad: So how many do you think you sent out? Olsen: Probably about 6. . .there's more focus than just on the Robert ' Pierce beachlot. Conrad: Everybody comfortable going ahead? ' Ellson: I can sleep tonight going ahead. Emmings: I guess what I want to know is, we've got an ordinance and it ' tells us what we've got to do from notice and have we done it. Olsen: We have, yes. , Emmings: Okay. Ahrens: You've notified everyone who was required to be notified? Emmings: Publication I think is all that's actually required and that's been done. Ellson: It's not like for property owners and all these other sorts of things. Conrad: Sometimes we like to go the extra mile. Ellson: And we did. We went not only the paper, which is all we had but II we also contacted anyone who's been following this before. I'm comfortable with it Ladd. Let's move it. 1 Conrad: The paper doesn't count. It legally counts but it really doesn't count. Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 41 ' Ellson: But we've also been going after people who were following this. It's not like we hand picked them. Conrad: 6 people. Ahrens: I'm comfortable. ' Conrad: Okay, we'll proceed Jo Ann. ' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. ' Terry Forbord : Good evening. My name is Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President of Lundgren Bros . . In reading this document that staff sent me, which was very gracious of them to do so, this is really the first opportunity that we had being that we weren't developing any properties similar to what ' we' re considering at this time that really was applicable to this so in reading it and trying to get up to speed with it, I was really impressed on how much effort everybody's put into this and reading all this and I could certainly tell that as being stewards of the City and it's waters and it's many fine lakes, that you had certainly agonized through a lot of this. Being a past public official myself, I've been in exactly the same situation on the same issue. In talking to some of the people that I see who's names are listed in the Minutes here, I'm not sure if everybody did know this meeting was happening tonight because nobody mentioned it to me and I'm quite surprised just to see myself here because even in reading ' this and talking to some of these many people over the last 30 to 60 to 90 days. These people seemed real interested in it so I kept kind of looking at the doors all night so something, I don't know what exactly took place but I saw it in the newspaper but the reason I saw it in the newspaper is because I make that a habit because this is what I do for a living. But I'm here primarily because Lundgren Bros. currently or recently has secured the opportunity to develop a piece of land on one of the significant lakes ' within your city. I can't at this time share with you where that is or whom the seller is because I have not submitted by application to staff, which I will be doing so shortly, and it wouldn't be fair for me to violate that trust that I have with the seller at this time. We also are talking to many of the other landowners within the City who own lakeshore property or they have contacted us within the last 12 months. I'll give you a little background of where we're going as far as real estate developers in the 90's and how that will probably, to what degree that will probably impact the City of Chanhassen. Lundgren Bros. has been fortunate in that many of the things that we have done have worked out quite well from us in ' our land planning and the amenities that we have included in our subdivisions, some of which are in your community. We've certainly made some mistakes but luckily we're doing a few things right and it's working well for us. We do not think that we will be able to continue doing what we have been doing and be as successful. In other words, what we're going to have to do is we're going to have to get better at what we're doing and it's really quite simple why that is true. I'm sure you all read all the same stuff that I read on just the social and economic trends that are I Planning Commission Meeting 1 , January 17, 1990 - Page 42 happening right before us. The demographic trends. There's going to be fewer buyers. A majority of them are going to be in certain age groups. II They're going to have less time. They're going to have more discretionary income and a whole slew of other things that are going to change their housing habits in the 90's and years to come. We have, and not just us but " certainly the experts and we try to listen to them and also make our own decisions based on their analysis, is that we are going to have to provide a far greater amenity value in neighborhood communities than we have been able to in the past and precisely recreational amenities. Because people II want to recreate as close as they possibly can to home. Now we're fortunate in the Twin Cities area that we have such a strong park system. Hennepin Parks Preserves, etc. and the numerous public accesses that have , been put on city lakes. We are fortunate that we have those but they also create a problem in their own right, as you probably have had to deal with in your own city and that's congestion in areas where those public accesses have been developed. The trends by I guess I would say the people on the , cutting edge of real estate development in looking into the future and trying to say, well how do we provide people with these types of things and still stay environmentally sensitive with what we have is to try to spread the use of recreational areas out over possibly greater areas and keep them more controlled rather than putting them in densely small areas. The urban land institute has done numerous studies on that just within the last 5 years and recreational development throughout the United States. Certainly " the National Association of Home Builders has been directly involved in conjunction with that former body in trying to find out how we can best do ' this well. And we have gone to numerous seminars all around the country sponsored by them and and planning institute on how to provide the things that we feel people are going to want in the 1990's. That precisely some of those things are directly related to recreational beachlots. I mean they're not always called recreational beachlots. Every city has a different name for it it seems like but for what we're talking about here tonight, that certainly is the issue. My only concern in reading this, and I'm not exactly sure if I totally understand every aspect of what is proposed here and what went into it but I know as stewards of the city and planning commissioners what you try to do is you try to put something together that accomplishes a whole lot of things. It's real tough to come II up with a perfect system and oftentimes some of it is subjective because you really don't know and numbers are pulled out of hats and say, well this sounds like a good number and why is it a 100 feet versus 95 feet or 105 feet. You have to pick something so you pick something. My concern in reading this, was that sometimes by picking numbers or putting in certain phrases, you somewhat handcuff your own abilities and you certainly handcuff the potential for maybe nicer development. Now I know what you're II more afraid of is the negative development and you end up trying to put some rules in to control that but if in the meantime of what that does is that it makes it very difficult for a developer to bring in a proposal that II you may really want to see. It may make it difficult. I wasn't sure, I didn't get a chance to read fax enough into this to see if what is proposed here would also apply to PUD's. That was a question I had tonight for 11 staff. If it does apply to PUD's, it would still stymie some of the creativity that PUD's exist for. Conrad: It would. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 43 Terry Forbord : Okay. I' ll get precisely to an item in here that I see. There's actually 2 or 3 sites. I'm currently working on 4 proposed developments on significant water bodies in the western suburbs and I 'm going through these very same issues with the staffs in those communities. Because it's as important to us as a developer who's going to have millions of dollars invested in a recreational community, it's as important to us or ' maybe even more so that we don't screw it up. Because if it turns sour or it's an environmental problem or it becomes a negative marketing scenario or whatever, we have a tremendous amount to lose. And so what we're really ' trying to do is to work closely with cities and I support recreational beachlot ordinances. Don't misunderstand me. We are all for that. We think they need to be, you have to have some kind of constraints of what can be done. My only fear is, will this make it impossible for me to bring ' you a development that I think you may be happy with. Now there's always the variance that one can come in and apply for to the ordinance but in going through this. Conrad: Let me just really quickly get in, what you see in front of you tonight really was a response to one particular change. The ordinance previously had a 100 foot minimum lot depth. The words that you see here tonight are to solve that so there is some flexibility in the 100 feet. So we haven't reviewed other basically. We haven' t really, this ordinance has been on the books for multi years and really what's in front of us tonight. I You're addressing a whole lot of other things that weren't issues as we reviewed this. We took what we had before and basically the wording is to provide some intent for this ordinance but also to provide some flexibility so that we can follow up the intent more than the absolute numbers. What is in here has been elimination of a couple numbers which is what concerned you for flexibility purposes. Basically the draft tonight in front of us gives a developer of a beachlot a little bit more flexibility so if one end of the beachlot is only 90 feet, that doesn't preclude that from becoming a beachlot. So I just wanted you to know what we're reviewing tonight. I think you're addressing a much broader scale. We'll listen but it's not in ' our, it wasn' t in the scope of this change. Terry Forbord: Okay, just to make sure I understand then one of the primary concerns that I did have .in here. This 100 foot number, is an ' issue in here and it's the depth I believe from the ordinary high water mark to the lot line which could be.. . ' Emmings: That's been taken out. Terry Forbord: Okay. I must be misunderstanding what I'm reading here and I apologize if I am. ' Emmings: That's alright. Conrad: 100 feet was a standard before. It no longer is there. That doesn't mean that it's not going to be there. Elison: After it goes to Council right? I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 44 1 Conrad: Well even after I talk about it. It is the elimination of that number. Instead we replaced it with the intent of a buffering from the surrounding area. If you developed a property as a Lundgren Bros. development, I think you would be concerned with buffering and distance from the neighbors. , Terry Forbord : Absolutely. Conrad: Because it's part of your parcel . But this also talks about , buffering it from one development to the next, the neighbor on either side so that's what we're trying to get across here. Terry Forbord: So the 100 foot number has been removed? Conrad: It's been removed. Emmings: Well , in this proposal. I think Ladd's understating the case a little bit. I think that what's written down here as proposed as the change to the ordinance adds not a little flexibility but a lot of flexibilty. Elison: As long as it meets our intent. ' Emmings: And would provide you with broad guidelines that would allow you to come in with, the old statute was very rigid. This one is very flexible. Terry Forbord: It was rigid. It was a little easier to understand what I had to deal with and here it's kind of ambiguous but that's okay. , Conrad: And that's a problem because we haven't set a mark for you for a developer and that's a problem that I have with the way it's worded right II now. Terry Forbord: But there's some benefit to that because you still have the final say anyway. But I do have a couple just recommendations under Section 20-263 under intent. I would just recommend a couple that are just word changes because I picked them out, I just took words out of your own paragraph and placed them in other areas but based upon experience, it says, it is recognized by the City that the use of lakeshore by multiple parties. Rather than say is, I would say may be because that's an awful assumptive to say that they are an intensive use because they necessarily aren't. They may be. They could be. And I would just recommend that you, 11 it was just a thought. Furthermore, an intensive use of lakeshore that may be present conflicts with the neighboring uses of lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same lake. Further, beachiots generate complaints II and it says because. Basically that should say, I mean in our opinion, further, beachiots may generate complaints because if they are not maintained the same standards. Because what you're assuming that if you have a beachiot, it's going to generate a complaint and that's not necessarily true either . Just in the tours of some of the finest developments anywhere in the United States and southern California and Florida and Arizona that I've gone to, there's not very many beaches in I • Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 45 I Arizona other than man made ones but you'll find that it can be just the converse of that. Conrad: The good beachlots are maintained and the bad ones aren't. Terry Forbord: And there are some single family home lots on the lake that are absolute the pits so in just reading your own here, I'm not sure, I don't think that's what you really meant. So I would just suggest, it's very well written and I think Commissioner Emmings is the one that kind of led the charge in this and he's done really a good job. If I could just suggest those few changes to that because I think it continues with what you were really trying to say there. But if that 100 foot number has been eliminated, I guess I was reading it out of another part of the staff report from a previous meeting, that we wouldn't have a problem with it. ' The reason we would, if you want me to get into that, there's a whole bunch of planning reasons why that 100 foot number could become a problem. Because you may end up in an area, let's say that from just an ecological reason, environmental reason, that this ended up being the best place to put the dock but it was only 75 feet from the lot line. Well , then what do you do? What if you had to cut down an acre of beautiful 100 year tree stand to put the dock there because that was the only 100 foot spot so there's a number of reasons why that number can become a, could become a problem. That's all I have to say right now but if you have any questions regarding anything, I 'd do my best to answer them for you. Conrad : Thank you. I think basically this ordinance, the way it's written sounds like it's solving the key issues that you have. Other public input. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Joan, what do you think? IAhrens: I don't have any questions and I don't have really any remarks. I can see that has gone on forever without me so I think that it's, I'm in favor of the ordinance as Steve's written it now. IBatzli : I think this gentleman's comments regarding the intent statement are accurate and I would prefer to tone down the intent statement to may be an intensive use and his other suggestions. I had one question as to why 7(c) was eliminated and my last question is, in the proposed ordinance, attachment 7, it doesn't appear to me that the intent statement got in there. Is that correct? 1 Olsen: What's on the back of the report is what the City Attorney came back with, his rewording. We took that ever further to make an intent statement. Batzli : This isn't the final one? Okay. Could you address why 7(c) was Ieliminated? I Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 17, 1990 - Page 46 I Olsen: I think the reason that that was removed was because it was placed elsewhere. It just wasn't, it got into Section 13. It's just saying that II it does have to have the buffer. We felt that it didn't need to be repeated. I think it's referring to paragraph 13. 13 was actually saying that you need the buffer . Saying the whole thing. I think it was just , repeating that. Batzli: I guess I'd have to go back and look at the original ordinance again but that's all I had to comment. I think it's actually a good improvement to the ordinance. Conrad: Annette? , Elison: I like it. I agree that we could make it a little more gentle with the term may. I especially liked having an intent statement. I think " it's worth thinking about when we write some other sticky ones because it will make interpretation by anybody years to come a lot easier. Conrad: Oh biased Mr. ERmings. I Emmings: Please understand, I didn't take a lot of time because I opened up my dictater and basically threw up and sent you what I did but. I agree ll with the changes that the staff has made. All of the changes they made, made it better. I further, I think that in that first sentence in the intent statement it should be changed that it may be an intensive use and the second sentence, that because could simply be changed to when. That ' they generate complaints when they're not maintained and that would solve and I think those are appropriate changes to make. The only other thing I thought of. I thought of two things since. One would be in the very end II where it says to the extent feasible, the City may impose these conditions even after approval of the beachlot. I question whether we could really get away with that. I think it's important to try to. If the City finds , it necessary based upon conflicts with the use of other property, I think I'd add there, or upon failure to maintain property and beachlot equipment or something like that just to make it clear that failure. A conflict in use or a failure to maintain can set off a process whereby we can go back II and try and make them adhere to some kind of a standard. The other thing I thought of was, I know for a fact that the beachlots on the lake I live on have expanded noticeably since I've been there. There is no baseline. I II don't know, particularly for ones that were grandfathered in, which are probably all of them on Minnewashta, we don't know what they started with because they shouldn't be able to expand the use of them without coming in and getting under our ordinance. And there's no baseline there and I just 11 wondered if there should be in the ordinance and this is maybe a separate issue to be taken up later. Some kind of a reporting requirement in 1990 or 1991 where they have to tell us what they have for equipment. Fill out II a form. What do you have for equipment on your beachlot. Who has boats on your beachlot. How many boats and what kind are parked at your docks. What sizes you've got so that we have, finally, a baseline for all of these beachlots for the future if one looks like it's expanding. I thought maybe 11 instead of, I've always thought in the past that we should go around and photograph them. If you go out real early on a Sunday morning, everything is just sitting there and you could just photograph them and you'd have for II I IIPlanning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 47 a record but even better than would probably be to just have a recording ' requirement. A one time reporting requirement because they're all run by associations. We could have them report so that we have a database. The other thing I'm waiting to hear is your comments on the 100 foot. I thought that was very provocative. Conrad: I just want to react to your recording deal. How many beachlots J g many do we have in town? 10 or 15? Jo Ann, do you recall? ' Olsen: More than that. Conrad: We're talking about an adminstrative function. Nothing that's worked in here. ' Emmings: Yeah. I guess so. Olsen: We've done that. I mean we've done what, just like drive out in the. . . but to get them to fill out something and sign it. . . Ellson: I mean they come and go. Olsen: It's not that much, that many that we couldn't do it. Conrad: It might be interesting to photograph and to compare to what their permitted to be doing or to set a standard. Emmings: But you see the ones that are grandfathered in, when you say what they're permitted to do doesn't mean anything because they were never approved as beachlots anyway. They're just there. Batzli: But at least you'd have a baseline photograph for the future. Emmings: Exactly. Same idea. But you can' t compare it back. You could only use it as your baseline for the future. Conrad: The intent. I think there are a couple words and I think our friend from Lundgren made some good comments. The only thing that I 'd like in there, where it talks about the intense use of lakeshore. I also want to say the intense use of the lake. It says lakeshore but really the best safety valve, the best safety a lake has is a standard for how many houses can go on the lake. When you allow multi units to use a small piece of lake, it does intensify. Not only the land use but the lake use so I think there are a couple places where that could be stuck in and I'll let staff figure that out but I really do believe that the original intent of the beachlot was to protect the lake and the surrounding property owners. It ' was a 50/50 deal and I would like that in there. And then I think some of these other words, the may's or might's or whatever, might soften up that but I still like the intent statement. I think it's pretty good. Speaking ' of the 100 foot. As we take the 100 foot standard out of this ordinance and Jo Ann I'm going to pick on you because you know this better than Steve and you've been around with this one for a while. The thing that we fall back on as we take that 100 foot out are the intent to buffer statements 11 but we don't have a standard so we don't have any buffering standard. So I Planning Commission Meeting II January 17, 1990 - Page 48 what do we use when Lundgren Bros. comes in and says well , how do we review " this? Before we said 100 foot was a buffer or it did something. What can we fall back on in terms of a distance. We can fall back on bushes and things like that to buffer but what do we set for a standard now? The standard is gone. ' Olsen: Right. For the depth. You still have the area and the frontage. Conrad: Does that do it? , ERmings: Sure. I think so. You've got 200 feet and you've got to have 30,000 square feet. You've got 150 feet of depth. Conrad: See, I think you're right. Is Steve right on that? Batzli: That's an average depth. We had this conversation in detail , numerous times. You can have, my example was a million foot deep piece that's 1 foot wide. You could have a flag in essence and not have a deep lot. Di-mings: But there we can resort to our intent statement and the rest of it to prevent the weird anamoly. You're never going to find anybody who's II going to want to devote, having 200 feet on a lake dedicated to a beachlot in this town in these times is saying something. They're not going to want to stretch it to 800 so they don't have much depth. I Batzli: That's true. They'd have to have it be extremely. . . Conrad: Let's talk about a situation, one end of the beachlot could be 10 II feet. The other end could be 200 feet. Is that a problem? Ellson: Not if you buffer. I Conrad: So as long as we buffer that 10 foot we're okay. Does that make sense? ' Ellson: Right they're probably put everything down at the long end. Conrad: Well, we'd force them to do that. ' !timings: Exactly. Conrad: We're taken out the 4 foot standard. The arbitrary 4 foot I standard which was always arbitrary but tell me now, at least that gave me a clue or gave me an indication that we weren't going to, let's talk about , the property that we saw tonight on Minnewashta next to Crimson Bay. They potentially, well no longer could but let's say there was 100 acre there. Let's say and it used to be 100 acres with, and that is a beachlot potential right there on the site that we saw tonight. Okay. Now we have II 100 acres. Well, no longer do we have. We have 20 acres but let's pretend it was 100 acres. Now they potentially could get, so on 100 acres we could probably 3 units per acre out there. I don't know, whatever the number might be so there could be 250 homes accessing that beachlot. And it's all 11 I 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 49 1 contiguous and that was another , I think whether contiguous is in here. Still in the ordinance, that was key but it could have been. In this property, if they didn't do what they did tonight, they could have had 250 houses contiguous to a beachlot and what would our ordinance do in that situation? Emmings: A certain number have to be within 1,000 feet also don't forget. Olsen: Right. Emmings: But I don' t know how that affects your hpothetical but that's 1 another requirement. Olsen: For urban recreational beachlot, 80% of the dwelling units which ' have the rights have to be within 1,000 feet and then for rural recreational beachlots, a maximum of 50 dwelling units. So you still have that. Ellson: So if you had your 100 acres, you would not find 80% of the people within 1,000 feet. Olsen: That'd be 250. Ellson: No way, yeah. Conrad: I'm sorry. Explain that to me one more time Jo Ann. I'm looking at that but make me understand. Olsen: What that's saying is that 80% of the dwelling units which have the right to access, shall be located within 1,000 feet. What that used to mean is that you could only have the area right to the recreational beachlot could only go a certain. It couldn't go across the street and down 1 the block. Then for rural , we just amended that so that would limit where they were going to be outside of that 1,000 so we said we need to limit the number some other way. . . 1 Emmings: And to put that in perspective Ladd, if you look at what's being done out there, this 20 acres. This line right from here to here is 1,259 feet. So that other 80 acres that's out here isn't going to be within the area that can be served by the beachlot under that standard. Conrad: So only those houses that would appear in Lots 1 and 2. Emmings: Or if sewer was out there so they could subdivide those. Basically it would be that area or something like it. Not too far off. 1 Conrad: Is that a proper interpretation Jo Ann or Paul? Olsen: Right. These 80% need. . . Conrad: So if 20 houses were in those two parcels, another 20% of that 20 or another 4 houses could have beachlot access rights so we're talking about 24? Not the other 200 that could have been wrapped into it. I • Planning Commission Meeting I January 17, 1990 - Page 50 Emmings: But there's another thing that operates here too though Ladd. And maybe this gentleman would speak to us about it but you've got a great big parcel of land. When you're building on lakeshore, you want to put your houses on the lakeshore. There's a lot of value in selling a house on lakeshore. I don't know that you want to be chewing up all your frontage ' in beachlots. Conrad: No. What you want to do is shrink the amount of beachlot but you II tell all the property owners that they do have lake access. That's what has been done. So the smaller , you're right. Emmings: There's some kind of a trade-off. I Conrad: There absolutely is. You don' t want to give away a lot of your lakeshore because that's really sellable and very profitable but you do like, 90% of the development's going to be off the lake and what's the sales tool you use to sell the property or sell the house? Hey, you can go, we've got a beachlot for you. It's a great sales tool and it's a great " amenity but the problem is the intensity of use. I don't like the 4 feet because that was, I remember when we got that. That was, we've never applied it. You've reported it but it's never made a difference so I don't !' think that's a fair standard but I don' t want to lose the standard of, you know again the intensity on that property, I don't want to lose that. Olsen: Maybe under the section 13 that's saying to insure appropriate I buffering, the City may impose conditions. Maybe you could add something like a (g) just saying that we could limit the number of households. Conrad: I don't have a magic number and I don't want to do that. I want II to feel assured that we haven' t through this really opened up a vastly expanded use of that small beachlot. That's what would happen. Olsen: We haven' t changed. Conrad: Other than the 4 feet. We haven't changed anything Jo Ann other II than the 4 feet and we're probably okay. I just want somebody to tell me we're okay. Emmings: You're okay. ' Conrad: You've had your hand up. Go ahead. Terry Forbord: Thank you. Two things came up that reminded me that I 11 didn't address a couple issues that I thought I should point out for your benefit. Conversely to what you were just discussing, the exact opposite is happening. We no longer will be developing lakeshore lots. All four of , our major projects in the Twin Cities, three of them being on significant Twin Cities lakes, there will be no lots platted on the lake. The lakeshore will become common area for the entire neighborhood community. The DNR supports this because all of a sudden what you're doing is the public beaches, the public accesses are so intensified that they're polluted and it creates a problem with traffic and so the DNR supports the II 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 51 11 recreational beachlot concept as I 'm discussing it because now what you're I doing is taking a private area through private development and creating a nice neighborhood community. You're making it so a person who never could afford to have water at their doorstep so to speak because they can't afford a half million dollar home. $150,000.00-$175,000.00-$185,000.00 home now, those people can go take their children right down to their beach and they can fish off their pier. Maybe they have a boat landing where they can use it during the daytime hours. I mean these are the kind of things you're going to be seeing in the 90's in the more successful developments. One of the things that I didn't point out. Conrad: Let me jump on that. You've got some property up on Silver Lake that you're now building on in the Near Mountain area and there was a potential for a great passive access there for all of your new residences and Peter was in here and he put, he did not want to and this was within ' the last 4 months or 6. He did not want to provide access to Silver Lake. Contrast that to what you just said. Terry Forbord: The reason is economics and on the front end you have to plan from the beginning. You can't be down into the final amendment of a PUD and try to make that all work from an economic standpoint. You have to start it in the beginning. It can't kind of change. It'd be nice if you could and we actually have two projects it would be nice if we could do that in but economically it's got to work or there's no sense even doing it. That's a good point and those are points that planning commissioners should ask so they understand what the developers are doing. It's not a game of mirrors or a smoke contest or anything. It's pure economics. We feel that and what I 'm describing to you for our future developments, if we plan it right from the front end, we can make it work economically for the long run. But I did want to point out one other thing while I had an opportunity to speak is that we felt also that the 30,000 and 20,000 square II foot requirements were possibly a little too strict. I can't remember how the ordinance was written. I think it had a number of units off the lake or some formula for figuring out the number of docks and it was somewhat restrictive as well but this makes it a little even more restrictive. Emmings: This is not a change. That's always been there. Terry Forbord: This has always been there? I apologize. Emamings: No, that's fine. 11 Conrad: Let me jump in on that one because you brought it up. If you put 1 house on the lake you need about that much lakeshore or square footage for a house. A single family residences. You need 20,000 feet. What's II the difference and that's one family of 3 'or 4 people using that 20,000 feet. Now what you're suggesting, by saying that's too much, you're suggesting having multi families coming into the same lot. See that doesn't make sense. Terry Forbord: Correct. See but you're assuming that single family dwellings are less intense than multi family and is not necessarily true. I IImean because I have lived on Lake Minnetonka and the people next door to I Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 17, 1990 - Page 52 me, I've had 50 people over every day of the week in the summetime and you can go down to one of the nicer townhomes communities on the lake and there'd be nobody on their beach all week long. So what you'd think normal " situations that's the way it would be but it doesn't mean that it always holds true. Conrad: Not always but primarily if we allow, what do we allow for a beachlot Jo Ann? How many motorboats? Olsen: Overnight storage is 3. r Conrad: So on a typical summer weekend, you are going to have 3 motorboats going most of the time. Single family, you will have one because there's only, there's typically only one major motorboat so I really challenge the less intense. I don't buy that argument. I think the numbers are there generally. Not always but the numbers really indicate if you've got 20 families using a lot and you can have 3 overnight boats, there are going toll be 3 boats moving on Saturday and Sunday. Terry Forbord: That's possible. The other thing they can do is go down toll the public access in the public beach and intensify that smaller area as well rather than dispersing it around the lake so there is a couple of things to look at. Jo Ann raised another question that's going to probable " come before you and that's the 1,000 foot distance or the 80%. In areas where there is this type of development where the lakeshore, the complete lakeshore is common area, you can see how that may pose a problem for you II in the future on some of the development of your other lakes. Emmings: The test to me on beachlots is this. There's one within 3 or 4 houses of me and it really impacts me very little. By God, it impacts the poeple next door to it. Terry Forbord: It could. That's possible. I Emmings: No, it does. Not could. It does. Ellson: That particular one? I Emmings: Yeah, and I don't mind having one four lots away but if somebody was proposing to put one in right next to me, I'd be really -violently 11 opposed to it and I wonder if you wouldn't feel the same way. Terry Forbord: Well to me the way I would look at it is what is the proposed use. How is it going to be regulated and how are they going to buffer it. Many of the same things you brought up tonight. Emmings: So you think that our approach then isn't a bad one? , Terry Forbord: Oh no. I think your approach, I commend you highly for it. I think all cities should do this but what they need to realize is that recreational beachlots are going to become more commonplace. One of the problems is that when you start talking that, what you usually do is look back and see what you've got. You look at, this is a recreational beachlot II 1 .Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 53 because this is one we've had here for 20 years and here's one for 10 years. Emmings: And it's 25 feet wide and you've got 150 houses. Terry Forbord: We're talking about 1,000 or 1,500 feet of recreational beachlot and you will see more of that. As much as can be provided and make economic sense because then the average person can have a piece of the. . . Conrad: There's a lot of logic in what you're saying. If you came in, I really like those concepts. I don't think we'd close down figuring out how to make that happen. Terry Forbord: Okay, well thank you very much for letting me talk. 1 Conrad: That's okay. Okay, I was talking wasn't I? I think I finished. We're all satisfied that we haven't intensified or allowed more folks, a vastly intense use of that. I think that makes sense to me. 4 feet is 1 out. That' s it. Is there a motion? Ellson: I 'll move the Planning Commission recommend amending Section 20-263 of the Chanhassen Code by adding what's in our packet. Changing the intent statement to add, use of lakeshore by multiple parties may be an intensive use of the lake that may present conflicts. And the line that says, further, beachlots may generate complaints because if they are not maintained . Also, the last paragraph, to the extent feasible, the City may impose such conditions even after approval of the beachlot if the City finds it necessary based upon conflicts with the use of other property or failure to maintain property. With those changes. Were there any other changes that you wanted? Oh, maintain property and equipment? Emmings: Oh yeah. Ellson: Okay. We' ll add equipment. Emmings: I'll second it. The only discussion I have is you changed, it should intensive use, in the intent statement, intensive use of lakeshore and lakes. Is that what you meant? You just wiped out lakeshore and just put in lakes? Conrad: I wanted both. 1 Ellson: Okay. You're right. I changed it to just say lakes. Conrad: I wanted lakeshore and lakes. Ellson: Okay. I'd be willing to change that. Emmings: And then the rest of the sentence may need a little alteration. Ellson: To sound better. • 1 I Planning Commission Meeting , January 17, 1990 - Page 54 Emmings: Yeah. Because it says, that may present conflicts with neighboring uses of lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same lake or the lake itself should be added then. Batzli: Steve, in the intent statement where you said that we require the following conditions for recreational beachiots. We used to be a little II more broad and loose than that by saying that something about we could impose other conditions. In other words, the following standards apply to recreational beachiots, conditional use, in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed. Do we want to give ourselves that luxury still or are these the only conditions you will ever? Emmings: I think under 13, I did that with the buffering. The last ' sentence in the introduction of 13 says, the City may impose conditions to insulate beachlot activities including but not limited to. I did it there with the statement of what I felt was kind of the standard items. 1 Batzli: So you're really, you' ll have the ability to adjust buffering capabilities but not other conditions? If other unique conditions arise, you really may not have that capability. Emmings: Well you know, I wouldn't be adverse to that change. Batzli: I don't know. I didn't know if you had considered that or not. Emmings: No, not really. I Batzli: Would we ever feel comfortable in imposing a condition that wasn't in here? Emmings: Yeah. I think so. If something just stood out as being necessary for. . .because of some unique feature, I don't think we'd have any problem with that. At least under 13. I don't know about the other sections. Batzli: I guess I would have proposed that we would have left that in II there so that the last sentence of the intent statement reads, therefore, the City requires the following conditions for recreational beachlots in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit. E mings: I like that. Conrad: Say that again. ' Batzli: The last sentence would read, therefore, the City requires the following conditions for recreational beachlots in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit. Emmings: Sure. That gives us flexibility and that's good. I think. Ellson: Where would you put it? 11 . 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 55 Batzli : Right at the tail end of the intent statement. Between the word beachlots and the following. Ellson: No problem. I'd be happy to amend the motion to add Brian's comment. • ' Emmings: Second. Ellson moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend amending Section 20-263 of the Chanhassen City Code by adding: ' Section 20-263: Intent. Based upon experience, it is recognized by the City that the use of lakeshore by multiple parties may be an intensive use of lakeshore and the lake that may present conflicts with neighboring uses of lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same lake or the lake itself. Further , beachlots may generate complaints because if they are not maintained to the same standards as single family lakeshore lots. Therefore, the City requires the following conditions for recreational beachlots in addition to such other conditions that may be prescribed in the permit: and by amending Section 20-263 (7) as follows: 11 The maximum number of docks on a recreational beachlot is three (3) . No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beachlot unless the beachlot meets the following conditions: (a) Shoreline of at least 200 feet per dock, and (b) Area of at least 30,000 square feet for the first dock and additional 1 20,000 square feet for each additional dock. and by amending Section 20-263 (13) as follows: All recreational beachlots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other property owners from beachlot activities. This buffer may consist of topography, streets, vegetation, distance (width or depth) , or other features or combinations of features which provide a buffer. To insure appropriate buffering, the City may impose conditions to insulate beachlot activities including, but not limited to: (a) Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas, docks, racks or other allowed recreational equipment or activities; 1 (b) Hours of use; (c) Planting of trees and shrubs; (d) Erection of fences; I/ 1 Planning Commission Meeting I January 17, 1990 - Page 56 (e) Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming; painting and upkeep of racks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and debris; (f) Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon the intensity of the use proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of access. To the extent feasible, the City may impose such conditions even after i approval of the beachlot if the City finds it necessary based upon conflicts with the use of other property or failure to maintain property of equipment. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried. I (Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and turned the Chair over to Steve Emmings.) PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE RSF DISTRICT STANDARDS DEALING WITH LOT FRONTAGE AND ACCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS. Public Present: I Name Address Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros. , Vice President I Emmings: Has everybody read the material? Is there anything you want to II add to what you've already read? Krauss: I'd be happy to respond to questions. I guess all I'd say- is, II this is arising out of a need that's become apparent during the processing of our subdivisions and having worked on these things over the years, that we just needed a method of legitimizing these things. The standards that are being proposed are pretty tough. This does not provide an easy out for somebody that wants to avoid a public street. Enimings: Okay, this is a public hearing so we'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody that's got comments? Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros.. Actually I support Mr. 11 Krauss' proposal. There certainly are, this does legitimize the need for private driveways although I may at times think there's a need far greater II than Paul's at the time but it's a great concept because there are times, just from an environmental standpoint, that it really doesn' t make any sense to put in a street. Oftentimes we get conditioned into thinking with II if we put in streets, that's a good thing to do. The bigger and the wider and the longer and the more pavement and that's not always really what's in I .Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 57 the best interest of the land, the City, the public. Remember somebody has to pay for those streets and those get attached to the price of the homes • so sometimes putting in streets aren't the best thing to do and private driveways, in the right situation, certainly are a good idea. Paul, certainly pointed out a couple areas in the existing ordinance that really didn't deal with this correctly and he's done a really good job in the way he's presented this. Emmings: Do you have any comments on the neck lots and flag lots? Terry Forbord: No. I pretty much can support this and endorse this. There's a time, certain situations that may come up where you might have to ' deal with it differently but there's a variance proceeding that one can go through. I support this. 1 Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings: Paul, this basically clears up things that we've been talking about for a long time. This ordinance. Isn't that right? Krauss: I hope so, yes. Emmings: Okay, let's go around for comments. Annette? 11 Ellson: I like it. I think it answers what we've been trying to accomplish and I am not about to try to make it better . I think it's perfectly fine. Batzli : My only question is, it seems to me that we had a situation not really like this but kind of in what was Vineland? Now one of the concerns there was that they were putting the road in the guy's backyard. We were talking about a sideyard setback from the road that was proposed to go up through the neck. How do you address something like that? It's really not addressed in here necessarily other than you would allow a private drive if 11 there were fewer than what, 4 homes or whatever? Krauss: Yeah, but there is language and I doubt if I can find it but II there's language in here that allows you to set some sighting criteria for a private drive recognizing that particular problem. It will also allow you to impose some landscaping requirements if necessary to minimize impact because these things do run near people's backyards. That is a problem with them. But I think it does give you the flexibility to do that. It's number 5 on page 2 of the zoning ordinance amendment. The driveway shall be designed to minimize impact. upon adjoining parcels. The City may 11 require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts. Batzli : Okay. So in Vineland they had more than the 4 parcels so this wouldn't have helped that particular situation. Krauss: Well the way Vineland ultimately shook out is that there was only one home that became a neck lot access from Pleasant View. I/ i Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 58 I Batzli: Yeah, but as originally proposed it would have served what, like 20 lots so they wouldn't have been able to do the private. I Krauss : No. We didn't support that concept from the start. Batzli: Well it was a big cul-de-sac. But assuming that that was the only I access into and out of there, you'd still have a problem in situations like that where there was more than 4 homes. Still have a sideyard setback problem for certain neck, flag accesses so this as originally proposed by II the developer, this wouldn't have helped that particular homeowner. Krauss : No, and specifically it's intended not to. If you're platting IF more than 4 lots, almost invariably, you can put a public street in. There's really no reason not to. Batzli : But that's the question. How intrusive can a developer be into an II existing homeowner's sideyard by serving, let's say it was 160 lots? That's my problem with it and I don't know that this addresses it and I don't think it's intended to. Krauss: No, it isn't and that's a problem that occurs anytime you're developing a new public street or private drive that's in proximity to somebody elses property line rather than being centered within a large parcel. It's an issue that, typically you want to keep the roadway centered so those who benefit are the ones who are impacted by it. That's a rule of thumb and we do that with all public streets. This ordinance is real specific. It's only dealing with those situations that for very specific criteria we can't serve by public street. And yeah, that situation, that scenario may develop but unlike with public streets where the design is basically handled in the subdivision process, this gives you II the authority to move the private driveway around. If you want to save some trees on a property line, you can require that it be shifted. If there isn't landscaping, you could require that it be installed so in some II respects you probably have better control over the private driveways under this ordinance than you do with the public street. Batzli : But let's go back to Vineland for just one second and I agree with II what you just said but if they would have put a public street in there, wouldn't it have been reasonable to require them to not have it shifted all I the way over to the east on their property line so it was only 24 feet away from this guy's house. Wouldn't it be better to be able to force them to center it on their own neck portion even if it was a public street and not a private driveway? That's what we weren't able to do and he was trying to put in the 3 houses on the west side and run the road right along the property line. That's what the adjancent property owner was objecting to. We still have that problem. I Krauss: We still have that problem. Elison: This won't be the one that's going to solve that. I I • Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 59 Batzli: Yeah I know but I was hoping like maybe we were working on something to solve that problem too. But I like this. Don't get me wrong. I , I was hoping that this was going to solve that. The other problem's still in the mill I guess. ' Emmings: We don't have it as a work item or anything. Batzli: No, and I had it on my list. Emmings: I agree. It's something that's always bugged me when I see them put in a road and all of a sudden the person who had a yard now has ' frontage on the sideyard. Krauss: Well you know, if you reflect back for a moment to the first item we had tonight where we proposed that road dropping to the south. The purchaser and the realtor suggested that we require, that we put that road right up against a neighboring property. His proposal to us was that rather than put this road over here, which impacts a new lot that comes like this, he said why don't you just drop it down there. I said, well we have a fundamental problem with that because that's making this person over here a corner lot and. . . ' Emmings: Now other than jawboning , do you really have any way to prevent him? I think there ought to be, even if it was. . . Batzli: But see at times you may want it there. That's the difficult part. Krauss : First of all , it can' t be any closer than 30 feet or we're violating our own standards. If we do that than we have to go through a variance procedure. Emmings: What can' t be closer than 30 feet? A paved street? Krauss: If we plat a new road less than 30 feet from somebody's house, Iwe're creating .a variance situation. Emmings: House or lot? IIKrauss: House. Ellson: But for now in this what do you think Brian? Batzli: I like this. I've said that. We got off the track. That's all I have. Ahrens: I'm not aware of the past problems with Vineland but I think that this is well written. Emmings: I agree. I only have a couple of things. I just don't know, I circled two words as being, they're looking funny to me spelling wise. Curvalinear on the first one. Maybe that's the way it's spelled. It just Ilooks funny to me. I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 60 r Batzli: I think there's an i in there. Emmings: Instead of an a? Batzli: Yeah. I Emmings: That's what I thought. But I didn' t look it up so I don' t know. And then over on the other one, under Section 1, paragraph 1, it says unfeasible and that's a funny word to me. I think it's either not feasible " or may be infeasible. Krauss: Where are we now? Emmings: Unfeasible. I don't recall ever seeing it before. Again, you could refer to your dictionary and see. Then the only substative comment II I've got is down under the second group of numbers in number 1, it says private driveways. The reason this is interesting to me, I live and you should know, on a system of three houses are served by a private drive and , it's a very, very nice arrangement. It works real well. We share. We all hire one guy to plow and share the cost in a real reasonable way and it's just very nice. I really kind of like it but here it says, if it serves two or more homes, it has to be a 7 ton design paved to a width of 20 feet. " My two neighbors have an asphalt drive and I have just rocks because I like just rocks and it's not 20 feet wide. I'll bet it's 8 feet wide. Krauss: Well there's a real good reason for that and that's the Fire Code. II Emmings: Well okay. Ellson: And he's going to come after you as soon as this goes into law. Emmings: What's the problem? I Krauss: What's the problem is we can't guarantee that we can get our fire trucks down an 8 foot wide street or an 8 foot wide driveway. Ellson: With gravel especially. Krauss: We're not talking about serving one home where you can sort of bull your way through if you need to. We're talking about serving 2 or more which is a fairly significant amount of traffic. There's more of a likelihood that you'll have an emergency situation. Fire code requires a 20 foot wide paved surface with a turn around area that they can maneuver in. Now that turn around area is not a 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac but you can flare out driveways and such to make it work. Emmings: But just a minute now. You're talking about actually paving a 20 I foot width. A standard driveway. Krauss: For a single home, may be 10 feet. I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 61 Emmings: I think that's awful unless you absolutely, fire trucks are not 20 feet wide. They may need some maneuvering. Krauss: They're not 20 feet wide, no. They would fit in a 12 foot drive lane but they oftentimes have to maneuver around one another. Ellson: If a parked car is there or something. Krauss: If it's not plowed to it's full width. Emmings: What's a little odd to me here is that you've got, if I 'm just one house on a driveway, do I need to be 20 feet wide paved? ' Ellson: It says serving 2 or more. Batzli: Do you just require then that portion of the driveway that's serving the common portion of the driveway? Krauss: That's correct. And if you have a driveway that serves two homes, one behind the other, after you pass the first home, the driveway could then flare down to 10 feet. Emmings: Oh, alright. Batzli : But this doesn' t say that I don't think does it? ' Emmings: See in my situation again, everybody comes in on the same long piece and then it all splits off. If it's only the common portion, I have no problem with that. Krauss: If you'd like to clarify that so that it is the common P ootion, I don't have a problem with that. That's what it's intended to mean. Emmings: Okay. Then that makes a lot of sense to me. And I 'm grandfathered in. tEllson: You mean there's no way to go after him. Batzli: Do we need a motion or something? Emmings: That'd be good. If no else has any other comments. We'll have a motion. Ellson: I move that the Planning Commission approval proposed ordinance changes on, I supposed I should give the Ordinance Number. rEmmings: Yes. Ellson: Amending Section 20-615 as set out in the staff report and 18-57. Emmings: Is there a second? Batzli: I'll second it for discussion purposes. I Planning Commission Meeting I January 17, 1990 - Page 62 1 Em!ings: Alright. Discuss. Batzli : Are you going to go with the amendment that the rivate driveways, only those common portions. P Ellson: Yeah, reword the section to be a little more clarification to that. Batzli: Then I like it. , Ellson: I didn't think it needed an amendment to it. I figured he was just going to write it that way but you're right. We're going to get legal. Emamings: Okay. So you're amending your motion then. To allow the staff to clarify that in that section they're talking about the common portion of the driveway and may be certain other things like when one house is behind the other. Again it will be past the first house or something like that. That's what you're amending your motion to? Ellson: That's exactly right. Eamings: And you agree with that? Batzli: Yes. 1 Ellson moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of amending Section 20-615 and Section 18-57 as presented by the II staff with clarification in Section 18-57 on the common portion of the private driveways must be paved to 20 feet in width. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Emmin s: We have a report from the Planning City 9 P g D�,rector on the Cites Council meeting. Does anybody want to make any comments about that? Ellson: I was really surprised with that number 3 item. Krauss: Everybody in the audience was real confused as was I and the City II Attorney. Ellson: What was the vote? Krauss: It was unanimous. Emmings: Is it okay to change the second reading in midstream like that? Krauss: Yes. I `Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 63 I Ellson: What does this do to that applicant? Krauss: He claims that, he told me quite a bit earlier on that he could live with 1 1/2. Ellson: So what they want to propose would allow him to have 1 1/2 but then they want this new R-16 that's going to allow 1 and 1 outside? Where will we put these R-16's? ' Krauss: Really there's a couple of problems, there's a lot of problems in our ordinance but one of the problems was R-12 density does not really support apartment development in the manner to which you're accustomed to seeing it. It's not intense enough. Then we have the problem added to the fact that we have a very restrictive hard surface coverage requirement. First we take out the park. Then we take out the wetlands and then we only allow him to build on 35% of whatever 's left. Emmings: That's called creating open space isn't it? Krauss: It does that. Ellson: It saved the oak trees I remember . Krauss: But Brad Johnson pointed it out and I had to second his feelings on that, that there is a problem with that and if they truly want some ' multi-family development, that they ought to look at that. And they felt that that was a reasonable way of providing that type of development. The upshot up of it being, the long and the short of it is, through a fairly convoluted approach, the City Council sort of did what you recommended. Emmings: . . .the fact that number 7, we've got a special meeting in one week and I suppose everybody's taken note of that. That we' re having an extra meeting. Krauss: Yes. And we will provide pizza for dinner. Emmings: Pizza? That's new. Batzli: I thought everybody should notice that in number 4 they increased it to 250 feet which I think I wanted. Ellson: Yes, I recall that. And I noticed they had that storage tank Ismell thing. Krauss: I need to get them to reconsider that second reading though. II There was a problem that surfaced in that, Bill was concerned that the Amoco station, he felt the Amoco station and the Holiday station would meet the requirement. Therefore, the ordinance wasn't restrictive enough. In fact, the Amoco station does not meet the requirement. They had come in ' for a building permit late last, before early winter. They never received it. I was unaware of that for a while but apparently there's a problem with the PCA. They had to clean up the site so we issued the permit last week and when an ordinance comes into place, our City Attorney keeps 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 64 telling us that the ordinance is in effect until the building, unless the building is erected already. Elison: For heaven's sake. So now they don't qualify? ' Krauss: Well technically they don't, no. Elison: Good, they have to have a service station there like we always wanted. Krauss: So what we're saying to the City Council is we didn't intend that. ' In fact when the ordinance was drafted, we had language in the commentary that said we didn't think they should apply to existing permitted uses. That was never put into ordinance language so we're going to ask the Council to see if they want to modify that before it gets published. Emmings: Anything else? I suppose we should say we're happy to see in our packet this time both the report on what the City Council did and our revised work schedule. Since we bitch about it not being there all the time. I Krauss: Didn't you know we'd get them both at some time or another? Emmings: Since you got them both in there, I think you ought to be 1 complimented. I'll do that. Elison: I just have one request. Can we go back to numbering these things " like we used to when it was on number 1. Someone had a 1 on here. And that was number 2. I get this packet all over my dining room table and then I can't put it back in order. Do you remember when we used to do that " Jo Ann? Emnings: Annette, can't you put your own little numbers? Ellson: Well I could but it was so convenient when it was done for me. One of those minor things. I don't ask much, let's face it. I APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Ahren seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 3, 1990 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: I thought we were going to discuss this week, and I don't think it's a very good week to discuss it since we're kind of short comissioners II but we were going to discuss our own priority for our work list this week. Elison: Oh, choosing our favorites? Batzli: Choosing our favorites and those that we don't think are moving along fast enough, kind of taking a more proactive role in. ' Elison: Like some of these aren't even ours. Recycling of oil? 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 65 Emmings: I think everybody ought to be here. Batzli : I agree. But I think that that should be part of the discussion ' next week or in 2 weeks or whenever. Krauss: At the regular meeting? Batzli: Yeah. Ellson: I want you to know that I'm not going to be here February 7th. I'll be out of town so I'll turn in what I think from this list. How does that sound? Emmings: Is there anything else? Elison moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss Director of Planning Prepared by Nann Opheim I I I I I 1 \t PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION E.Fte REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 9, 1990 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Jim Mady, Jan Lash, Dawne Erhart, Curt Robinson and Ed Hasek IMEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Schroers STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor ' ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Boyt: I nominate Jim Mady for Chair. IIRobinson: I second it. Mady: Do I hear more? IIHasek: I 'd like to nominate Sue Boyt for Chair . IBoyt: Oh, I don' t want to be chair. Hasek: Sure? II Boyt: Yeah. Lash: Well I 'd like to nominate Larry Schroers for Chair. Boyt: Did you ask Larry? Lash: No I didn' t. . . Sietsema: I asked Larry if he would be interested if he was nominated and he said he would if nobody else wanted it. ' Hasek: We can solve that real easily. . . Boyt moved, Robinson seconded to elect Jim Mady as Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor except Lash who opposed and Mady who abstained and the motion carried. I Boyt: I'd like to nominate Ed Hasek. Mady: Second. Other nominations. I Lash: I'd like to nominate Curt Robinson. I have a question though about this now. We have members who's terms are expiring. 1 Mady: That doesn' t matter . I 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 2 II ILash: It seems like we' re kind of putting the cart before the horse. Boyt: We have to do it now. If an officer is. . . IIRobinson: I 'd nominate Larry Schroers. Hasek: I think the way we ought to do it is vote for those who want it, even if you may vote twice and if there' s a tie, then we' ll break it. Sietsema: I 'm confused. Sue made a motion to nominate IHoffman: Ed and Curt. Sietsema : Ed, okay. And Curt seconded that? IMady: I did . I Hasek: And Curt moved for Larry and I seconded that so we've got two people. What we' re going to do is just vote for both and in the event of a tie, we' ll do it by single vote. I Sietsema: I think you need to vote on Sue ' s motion first because it was made first. IIBoyt moved , Mady seconded to elect Ed Hasek as Vice Chairman for the Park and Recreation Commission. Boyt, Mady and Hasek voted in favor. Erhart, ILash and Robinson voted in opposition. The vote was tied 3 to 3. Robinson moved, Hasek seconded to elect Larry Schroers as Vice Chairman for I the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor except Sue Boyt who opposed and the motion carried. y IMady: The only other thing, did Larry indicate. . . Sietsema: No. IMady: The last thing that I know of. . .meetings. In the past we've gone with the rotating chair. That is part of our organization. Is there any motions on that? IHasek: I'd like to make a motion to continue to rotate the chair . 1 Boyt: Second. Mady: Any further discussion? 1 Lash: I would be in favor of just letting the same chair . . . I think it looks a little more professional when someone's willing to take responsibility. I think everybody' s got a good feel for everything . . . II II Park and Rec Commission Meeting Y 1 January 9, 1990 - Page 3 1 Hasek moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission continue to rotate the Chair for meetings. All voted in favor except Erhart and Lash and the motion carried. Sietsema: The only other thing then is setting your meeting date days. In II the past it's been the second and fourth Tuesday. Mady: What are Council dates this year? Sietsema: The second and fourth Mondays. Mady: And that didn't cause us any problems this year did it? 1 Sietsema: No. They get your Minutes before you do so. Mady: Okay. Any preference on the Commission. We need a motion to set the meeting dates. Robinson moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission continue to meet on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month. All voted II in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hasek moved, Boyt seconded to approve the Minutes of II the Park and Recreation Commission meetings dated November 28, 1989 and December 12, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 REVIEW CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH PARK. Public Present: 1 Name Address Dave Blanski 9350 Great Plains Blvd. Robert Eickhalt 9390 Kiowa Trail Kevin Finger 9151 Great Plains Blvd. Arlene L. Finger 9201 Great Plains Blvd. Craig Halverson 9283 Kiowa Trail Wendy Pemrick 9251 Kiowa Trail Hallie Bershow 9271 Kiowa Trail Eldon Berkland 9261 Kiowa Trail Karen Hasse 630 West 96th Street Paul Zakariasen 600 West 94th Street 1 Jamie Heilicher 9280 Kiowa Trail Fred & Judy Amrhein 9350 Kiowa Trail 1 Sietsema: The closing for the Bandimere property happened just before the New Year. We now own the property. Previous to that we had directed Mark Koegler to prepare a concept plan including some of the facilities that we IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 4 II had brainstormed that we would like to see it in the initial stages . We II asked him to put that down on paper so we could invite the people in the area in to see where the boundaries are and how it would fit and what the topography looks like. Mark is here to go through the two plans that he' s IIprepared and then I would think that we would open it up. Mark Koegler: When the commission met back in August, we looked very II conceptually at a number of options . We talked about facilities to do within the park and some kind of an overall layout scheme. It was at that time that it was decided, the list that' s on the screen over there. Two Little League fields. Two Babe Ruth fields. Two soccer fields. Two II tennis courts . Parking for 300 or so vehicles. Room for concession and practice areas and other open space associated with some of the ball diamonds and then a picnic area with the desired facilities to be located I in this park. I want to come back to and talk about parking a little bit but I ' ll skip that until we've gone through a brief presentation of the amenities. What we have done since then, the most important ingredient is we have obtained contour information which was unavailable so everything we I looked at up through the August time frame was very conceptual . Taking though the direction from the Commission we got at that time and in looking at an alternative, we derived Option A, which I ' ll run through quickly. I For a point of reference on that particular exhibit, north is to the right so maybe I should turn that as people are used to looking at it. North is at the top. Is that in focus or is that as good as it gets? That' s as I good as it gets. TH 101 then is on the left side of that particular exhibit coming kind of from the bottom or the south and winding on up along the west side. Alternative A is basically the scheme that was talked about back in August. We had laid that out and done some very preliminary II grading work. Just enough to assess the impact that that particular scheme has on the pipeline that runs through the property. That' s the dashed line you can see starting up at the top and drawing at an angle down on through. I Option A has parking for about 300 plus vehicles. There are two soccer fields as a part of that scheme. Their dimension is 225 x 360 so they' re on the larger end of the acceptable range of soccer fields. As I indicated, the layout is virtually identical to the one we talked about II back in August. The actual field elevations of the softball and Babe Ruth facilities vary over a range of approximately 20 to 24 feet in difference in elevation so you end up with a stepped effect if you will between some I of the ball diamonds and allow some slopes for seating and casual observing of games and so forth. This particular scheme identifies a picnic area that's down at the extreme south end. The tennis courts are located on the I west in conjunction with the parking that is along the west side of the facility. The scheme the way it' s laid out presents a could of problems. One of them I think is rather significant. The first is that regardless of the grading scheme, we can make some adjustment but this particular layout I is likely to end up with excess materials so we may be facing or trying to find a home for a certain quantity of dirt. In preliminary estimates, they turn out to be about 15,000 yards of material but I 'm sure that can be I brought down as some of the elevations change but there will be some surplus out of this particular scheme. The more acute problem that I referenced is the impact that this has on the pipeline itself. The Babe Ruth field that' s on the bottom on that drawing on the south side, a corner of that is on about 8 feet of fill . When you get up to the northern Babe r Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 5 I Ruth field which is kind of in the middle of the park, we needed a 6 foot 11 fence situation to achieve a layout similar to what is shown here. Obviously that sets up a roller coaster kind of effect that would involve a . . .location and the significance of that or ramifications of that are unknown right now. We have tried to get some preliminary work from William's all along and basically they defer any final comment until it' s submitted to their engineering people in Oklahoma. It is a major change to the pipeline. I don't want to underscore that any less than is necessary but it is important to note that. Option B has been assembled to remain essentially sympathetic in the same kind of overall layout that you had talked about before with parking on the west side and facilities for seating as you head easterly through the park. Option B breaks up the wheel kind of configuration that we had with the ball diamonds and locates them, given some of the dimensional characteristics of some of the fields. For example, the Little League' s being at 180, we' re able to tuck one of I those in if you will at kind of that southwest corner allowing some of the larger fields to exist then onto the east. This whole scheme has been laid out to attempt to minimize the amount of encroachment on the pipeline and it does that. In fact there is virtually no encroachment at all in the pipeline itself. There is a minor amount of filling that projects into the easement which again we'd have to be reviewed by the William' s but seems to be consistent with some of the things that they have verbally told us in II field. This particular scheme has ballfield elevations that vary 13, 14 feet total so again we have a certain amount of stair steps for topography if you will . It has a larger picnic area than the site on Option A because the field is basically tucked further back to the lake side. Further away from the Kiowa area. The soccer fields that correspondingly fit into this particular plan are two 10 x 330 so they' re slightly smaller than those that are shown in Option A. However , again they're still well within the normal confines of a soccer field sizing. There is a slight amount of excess material on this one but it' s not significant and in all likelihood it will be utilized in some of the berming and so forth that you'd want to do on the north side because there II are a couple of residences that are rather close to the park on the north side. I think there has to be some sympathy shown there as to how that' s treated . I referenced in my opening comments about the parking . To date we have talked about parking accommodating about 300 cars. I guess one of the things I would suggest that the Commission do this evening is to address that and see if you think that's an appropriate number. I would suggest to you that perhaps a smaller number would in fact serve the needs of this park possibly in more 200 to 250 car range. The parking lot can always be designed so it has some overflow capacity that would be a grass II field area. At least initially and in the long term, 10 years or 20 years if you need it, it can be expanded. Initially I guess a recommendation would be that the parking we' re looking at right now is probably oversized and unnecessary to do. . . Again, that lends some additional open space. . . probably to the park itself. So in summary, both of these options I think are sympathetic to the concept that you looked at in August. We have a benefit now of having contours so we know what will fit on the property and II of the two, clearly the second derivation, Option B has very little to no impact at all on the pipeline. It certainly presumably could be constructed after approval by Williams. I would entertain any questions, II Mr . Chairman, that the Commission might have. 11 IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 6 I 11 Robinson: It says that the approximate location of the pipeline. Is that pretty good Mark? Right next to the ballfield? Do you feel confident that the Plan Alternate B, there is room to get those fields in and not Ibothex the pipeline? Is that right? Mark Koegler : Yes . We always label things like that approximate. There is a plus minus there but it's pretty minimal. That is virtually the I location of the pipe. It was located and surveyed and William' s participated in that. That' s the same time incidentally that they checked the depth of the pipe which I think is at the maximum of 42 inches and ' generally it' s about 36 inches undergrade. Robinson: Also, you talked about relocation of the pipeline. Is it Inecessary to relocate it or dig it deeper? Mark Koegler : I guess that term would encompass any variety of approaches. Whether it would be a rerouting or simply a changing of the elevation. We I have some concern with Alternate A that there is enough horizontal distance to literally make the transition that needs to be made with the cut and fill situation that Alternate A presents . Lash: What' s this darker black line? Mark Koegler : We had talked previously about some kind of a conceptual I trail that would connect some of the neighborhood areas and so forth so that' s just been shown as a concept that there would be some kind of movement from the Kiowa area on into the park and from the parking area on Ito the facilities and so forth. Erhart: Are there going to be any natural barriers between the homeowners and the ballfields there? Mark Koegler : In terms of the site, you all have obviously walked it. There's rolling topography there. There's land that's been tilled over the years with the exception kind of kind of the west and southern sides where some of the tree cover exists. There will be some tree removal as a result of the ball diamond construction along the west side. It is fairly ' minimal. We attempted to hold those grades up the slope as much as you can. As far as the distance to Kiowa or to the neighbors to the north, the only thing that can be accomplished there is plantings and screenings . I There literally is nothing there right now. Some berming on the north side is a definite possibility. In fact it' s shown on this plan, there' s 4 to 6 foot berms along the north side. The area of Kiowa becomes one of distance. The closest diamond is about 250 or so feet away from the I property line there. They are approximately the same elevation. If you look at the Kiowa homes in the middle, there's probably about the highest elevation. It drops a little bit to either side. That middle point is I about the same elevation the ball diamond will be at. The outfield of that Babe Ruth field there on the south end. So again, we' re at about the same elevation. It would simply be a factor of distance and planting plans and possible berming along there but the distance is so great that berming II would probably. . . Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1 January 9, 1990 - Page 7 I Mady: Any other questions? I Hasek: Yeah. I 've got a couple. What size ball diamonds were you talking about for the Babe Ruth fields? ' Mark Koegler: The Babe Ruth are shown, depending on who' s standards you use, they range from 180 to 200. Right now we've shown 200 on there erring on the conservative side because it' s easy to pull the boundaries back 20 • feet if you in fact want around the east. The Little League, I 'm sorry. The Babe Ruth is 310. All the fields have been identified as having all of the associated areas that are necessary for dugouts, batter cages , practice areas, the whole bit. They will sit on the property. Hasek: You mentioned concessions. Where would you anticipate that to go in Plan B? Mark Koegler : Most likely at kind of the hub there if you will of the 3 ball diamonds. ' Hasek: That' s a pretty small space in there. Mark Koegler: Well there' s about 100 feet of distance between there. I We've got some 3: 1 slope transitions in some of these areas but there could be a bench created there to get a small concession stand in. Again, depending on what size you're looking at. I think there are alternate locations adjacent to the parking lot a little further to the north also. Hasek: Where the trails meet there. I Mark Koegler: Right. Where that comes in. Hasek: How many parking stalls do you have shown in Plan B? 1 Mark Koegler: Plan B, if I remember right, is 330 on it right now. Hasek: Okay. How many are in that north bay adjacent to that resident on the north side there? Mark Koegler : I could get you a number . I'd have to scale something off. I think a quick guess would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 60. Hasek: So if we dropped that bay as a future area for parking and maybe created it and surface it so that it would accommodate grass parking for overflow. At least we could get some parking. . . Mark Koegler: That would be our suggestion. That that probably at least initially and probably for quite some time to come does not need to be hard surfaced. In talking to Todd, we' re worry about some of the programming . With the youth programs down here, we just simply don' t envision a great deal of overflow parking at any time. It would be there if needed but it doesn't appear to be needed. IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 8 I Hasek: Okay. You don' t show a trail connection down to Kiowa . Is there a reason for that? Mark Koegler : There is on the plat map where that trail abuts , there is a right-of-way section shown there on the plat. Now I don' t know, we haven' t checked out to see the fact that it' s dedicated right-of-way. There' s driveway coming. . .through there and some of the residents are aware of the status of that land . Hasek: . . .the old Bandimere Park though. I Mark Koegler : That could be created. Sure. On the map there' s a little square that you can see in the old park and that' s the play structure that' s there right now. II Hasek: Is it possible that there might be an area that could be graded out for a winter rink in that area or I don't know, maybe the residents don' t really care because they've got the lake. IMark Koegler : There's a couple possibilities there. One of the things I skipped over . We' ve just taken a very, very preliminary look at drainage I and you can pinpoint a little bit more what you want to do. That is a ponding area that' s shown down there below those soccer fields on the extreme east side and it's quite likely that that could be worked into a skating configuration. It is a retention pond . It would be very gently sloped. Erhart: What would happen to that neighborhood park there? Is that included in that soccer deal here? Mark Koegler : Part of it would be, yeah. Part of that would be leveled I and filled. You'd have kind of a terraced effect where you'd have a 10 foot elevation or so difference between the soccer and coming down into the existing neighborhood park. There is still land there to serve as a neighborhood facility for some open space. You can put a half court Ibasketball in there if you wanted to. You certainly could retain the play area that' s there and have skating and so forth so we tried to retain that for strictly a neighborhood function if you will and it is separated I somewhat topographyically and just in the distance. But there' s a fine line there. We don' t want to make it too convenient because we don't want to have anybody parking on Kiowa and being able to walk into the park. IRobinson: Do you know the likelihood of TH 101 routing in that area? Mark Koegler : Yeah. IRobinson: It will be? Hasek: It will be unchanged. Mark Koegler : We have laid some geometry in there on the curve so that if it is ever improved, it won' t impinge on the ball diamonds there. You can Iget the 40 mph curve in there. If by chance somebody ever in the course of Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1 January 9, 1990 - Page 9 I time wants to do that. It won' t disturb the park. You'll have to argue about the trees and everything at that time but it won't impact the park. Hasek: Just one last comment Mark before we move on. Something that you kind of missed or I kind of missed when I looked at these things. Is it possible that when you bring these things to us in the future they can really pop out where the trees are so we know what's happening with those? Mark Koegler : Sure. ' Hasek: I can see them on here when I look real close but' they just don' t. . . ' Mark Koegler : They're on a computer generated survey kind of mode which is admittedly kind of hard to read. Mady: Okay. I 'd like to open it up now for public discussion. If you would, when you're making your comments, please come up to the microphone. State your name and address for the record and give your comment and we' ll hopefully be able to answer any questions you may have. Carol Dunsmore: I'm Carol Dunsmore. I live at 730 West 96th Street. We 11 are south of the park area. First of all I 'd like to ask what residents were notified. Like how many number of feet did you send out the notice to? Sietsema: I think it' s 500 feet or abutting. Everybody that was abutting it and I believe 500 feet was the measurement. Carol Dunsmore: Okay. I 'd like to request that any future discussion , about this topic, that West 96th Street does get included. We have 18 homes on that street and the majority of the residents that I talked were very interested in this and were surprised that they did not get a notice about this. So I 'd like to make sure that West 96th is notified next time. I have worked a petition and I ' ll read it to you. We the undersigned request the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission to designate a horse I trail/cross country ski trail around the perimeter of Bandimere Park. Whatever it' s going to be called. I 've temporarily called it Bandimere Park. I have 38 signatures so far . -I'm going to continue to work this II petition. I don't know if the Commission would want my petition now or at what point in time. Mady: I ' ll let you know where I stand. . .ask the question. As long as we know that that' s an interest, I don' t see any reason why you need to give that to us right now. If you're continuing to work on it, that' s fine. Carol Dunsmore: I 'd like to hear your discussion on that topic. Even Mark' s too with, he' s knows the topography better than I do. Mady: Any other discussion? Questions. Comments. ' Jamie Heilicher : Hi . My name is Jamie Heilicher . I'm at 9280 Kiowa Trail which is the northwest edge of that park area. The main question I 've got II I IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 10 11 is, are there are going to be any segregation between the residential I property and the park itself as to fencing and so forth? The way I 'm looking at it here, my property basically I have right now about 200 feet on the current park and with the addition of the new park, will add about 150 feet onto my property. The way the ball diamond or the soccer field is, my property' s within probably 30 to 40 feet there minimum from where people are going to be on a regular basis during the soccer season. I 'm just I curious if there's going to be any way to protect my property from people walking through it. There's a sharp corner up there and part of the park is right there where the pond is and then all the way down along the southern edge of the park here there is a good size space but there' s still I access for the general public to be walking through residential property. But I 'm just wondering if there' s0 going to be any fencing and so forth around the park. ICarol Dunsmore: Me again. First of all , where is the entrance to the park going to be for cars to access the park? Also, there's two houses on the I west side of TH 101. I believe it' s across from the Finger ' s. Two new houses. They would be just south of the nursery and they are very interested in this too and surprised that they did not get a notice of the meeting and they would like to be included from now on too. IISietsema: The Finger ' s? ' Carol Dunsmore: No. They're across TH 101 from Finger ' s. There' s two houses on the west side of TH 101. Kevin Finger : My name is Kevin Finger and the Finger ' s were notified . My I address is 9151 Great Plains Blvd. . I also own the property at 9201 which is about 600 feet along the northern boundary of the park. My first point that I want to make is very unselfish and that is, I don't think any park 1 should be developed here or anything at all done until a bike path connects it because you members or whoever approves this park in the end will be responsible for the kids getting hit by cars. I run from my house and unless it' s really nice and I can absolutely know that I can run on the Ishoulder without sinking in mud, I don' t run because it' s dangerous . I mean especially when they've got trucks hauling dirt. My God, those guys go 60 mph on TH 101 and it' s terrible. If you don' t have a bike path connecting this, don't put this park in. If you don't have the money, too bad because the City of Chanhassen' s going to get sued otherwise. My next point has already been raised, communication. Last year when it was first I brought up, I said when you were looking to buy the property, in fact you had already signed it, signed the purchase document. . . (There was a tape change at this point in the Kevin Finger ' s discussion.) . . .This park does not impact my property like a normal neighborhood park. This is major . It impacts my property in a major way. I'm glad to hear there are some berms planned. I 'd like to know exactly how are they going to go all along the northern edge or exactly to what extent that the berms are going to be put in. I would like to see berms put in and fencing I because I 'm on the northern edge. In the summertime, winds blow from the south. I 'm going to get all the garbage otherwise. If there's fences up, Park and Rec Commission Meeting I January 9, 1990 - Page 11 I it will stop the paper . Another question I had, again when this was all put together , it was talked about that there was going to be a lot of grading that was need to be done and we were talking about having people being trained in and the Army Corps of Engineers or something, doing the grading because they thought it would save money. I don' t want any trainees. I don't know who' s going to do it but they better be top rate people because I don' t want anybody touching that dirt around that pipeline within 2,000 feet of my house if they don't know what they' re doing. If that changes , how does that change the cost structure. Another thing is , I II don't want to see a horse path around that park. It takes away from the privacy as is. I don' t want to see people riding horses or skiing by my house on a regular basis. I bought that property in the middle of a corn field and soy bean field because I thought that' s what it was going to be for a long time. Wrong. I 'd like to keep it as best as I can. On the petitions, I 'd like to see how many immediate property owners signed the petition. I guess that' s all I 've got to say. Thanks. ' Don Sitter : My name is Don Sitter . I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. but in effect I'm the last kind of house on the end of Kiowa Trail there. I have II just a few questions . Who's the park targeted for and what is the useage that you expect it to have? Who is the park mainly for? What leagues will be playing and how often? Boyt: This is a children' s park. It' s aimed at meeting the needs of the children play soccer, Little League in Chanhassen. Don Sitter : Okay, so it' s just additional fields for the. . . Okay. I have II just a couple of concerns about drainage and I 'm no ecological engineer here but I assume these fields are going to have the normal ag line and I traffic and whatever else I assume the slope is running towards Lake Riley there and I 'm wondering if considerations have been made to make sure that we' re not getting additional flow into the lake. I think there' s kind of a wetlands area there that helps trap some of that and I just want to make sure that that doesn't get disturbed so there's no impact on the lake itself. I heard mention that the access to Kiowa Trail was going to be either minimized or diminished. I would like to also state my agreement II with that. To keep the traffic away from Kiowa Trail would be very helpful to the surrounding neighbors . The other question, I think about a year ago there was considerations for buying a piece of the lake property to attach to this. Has that been tabled forever and ever , amen or is that still a consideration? Mady: Nothing' s forever but we' re not planning on buying it. ' Don Sitter: Okay. I would like to voice a very loud opinion if I can that you do not purchase the lake property and try and make this a lake access park just for the impact and what it would do for Lake Riley. I guess that' s why I like to see that you' re discouraging traffic onto Kiowa Trail because that will help discourage the people from walking across. One of my concerns is that there are 2 or 3 major old lots right across from that II little finger and it's going to be real inviting to just kind of use that as a parking , and there' s no homes there right now. There' s no control and it'd be real easy to just kind of think that's part of the park. You've ' 1 IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 12 II got to discourage that as best we can. The last comment I 'd like to make I is bike trails. Is there any chance we can, I don't know how but connect up to Eden Prairie' s bike trail system. Is there plans for that at all so if we get into here, we can somehow connect up? II Boyt: It's real important that people who are in favor of bike trails, let the Mayor know because 3 of us worked our tails off trying to get a bike trail system passed . The other half of the people up here do not want II them. The Mayor doesn't want them. Two other council members don't want them. They think you all don' t want them. So if you want them, you have to let them know. IMady: To answer your question though, our trail plan does work so it connects with Eden Prairie. If we ever get it passed, it would connect to Eden Prairie. IIBoyt: Even with Chaska. IMady: It' s designed to do that . Lash: I don' t think that was a real accurate description of the feelings II there. I think you've got. . .support them on a major corridor such as TH 101. Robinson: I take exception to that too. I ' ll speak for myself as to what II my opinions are. Mady: Can we get back to the topic here? IIDon Sitter: I 'd like to see bike trails and I 'd like to see them connected to Eden Prairie . Whatever trail system exist so we can all recreate together. I guess my last question, I 'm not quite sure how often you see II this park being used . Is this going to be an every night, every field active all the time? Will there be lights for evening activities? I Mady: There' s a good chance in the future but I don' t look for it in the next 5 to 10 years. IDon Sitter : Okay. Thank you. Dave Blanski : My name is Dave Blanski . I live at 9350 Great Plains Blvd. . I believe it was Mr. and Mrs. Dunsmore that stopped by my house tonight at II 7:00 and I was in the bathtub to tell my wife there was a meeting here. I was disappointed I wasn' t notified being an adjacent property owner , just across the street. I think Mr . Finger' s made a very good point. According 1 to that plan, it appears to me that your access is onto TH 101 in that northern most parking lot. Is that correct? Isn' t there a problem with sight lines there with the curves? I come up there at least once a day I from directly across the street and it' s bare. When you start dumping 300 cars on there, you need turn lanes or something in there. Have you thought that through? IIMady: That' s one of the questions I have for Mark later . I Park and Rec Commission Meeting I January 9, 1990 - Page 13 I Dave Blanski : Okay. Then along with that, certainly the point about some II sort of walking path. Is there any sort of study that' s been done. How many kids do you expect to come on their bikes or will they be brought by their parents? Boyt: They're not going to be coming on their bikes . It' s not safe. Dave Blanski : How are you going to stop the kid when his dad' s at work or II his mother doesn' t have a car? They're going to get to that ball game. That coach is going to be. . .so you've got to think about this. Boyt: We have. . . ' Dave Blanski : But you just told me they're not going to come on bikes. That makes me sound like they're. . . ' Boyt: I can't imagine people letting their kids out there on bikes. Dave Blanski : I built there for the peace and quiet. I lived near a park 1 in Blaine for 20 years. I was 1 mile from the park and from, I usually work construction so I didn' t get home until late but certainly from supper time until dark every night, all summer , it was very loud at my house. So 11 if you' re telling people that are only 250 or 300 feet away that they' re not very close, that' s really a misconception because they're going to hear that park everyday, all summer and it' s definitely going to have impact. The point about the fence is very well taken. They have put chain link around that entire park because the trash was blowing literally miles. I guess I 'm just reiterating other folks comments but they're important. II It's already done too far . I personally felt that it was unfortunate that the City Council would purchase a choice of prime property that could have aided the tax base when what you're doing there, soccer fields and ball fields are perfect on low ground that is normally flat to start with and the other advantage of the low ground is that the noise doesn' t carry. You're up on a hill there. It' s going to carry for miles. Those are my only comments. ' Mady: Does anyone else wish to speak? Okay, Mark are there any specific questions you'd like to address before we comment? ' Mark Koegler : There are a few and there are some of them that I presume the Commission would want to address because they' re more policy related. I noted some items that were brought up. Sight distance. I' ll focus on that first. TH 101 is not a desireable roadway. We' re all aware of that. This is the best location that we've got along TH 101. It will afford minimal sight distance. It meets MnDot criteria. We would like to see it , more, get a more detailed grading information. We' ll look to the south particularly to make sure that if we have to do some gradings and cutting of slopes in there to enhance that sight distance, it can be done. It is II targeted the best location we've got given the property. The who will use the park question I think was addressed by the Commission' s previous discussions. I think we had identified an age breakdown of like 7 to 18 year olds. It was identified as the youth park for the City of Chanhassen I I/ IPark and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 14 I Segregating youth activities from adult activities that would occur at Lake I Ann. Regarding berms on the north. We had shown berms along the north and certainly we'd be very willing to work with the adjacent property owners and to do some sections for them if need be to show them how that would work and get their input on the size of the berms and planting materials and so forth because I think that is a very legitimate concern because both of those homes are close to the property line and we're looking at being relatively close to the property line. The entrance was touched on as far Ias sight distance. It is kind of bisecting that northerly leg of the parking, if you will. It's a little bit skinnier on the exhibit there. Fencing was the issue that was brought up. It' s kind of policy issue. I I think you came across that recently in some of the other parks and I think that' s appropriate for the commission to address that and not me. Regarding the horse trail , that is a difficult issue. It has been raised in the past that there was interest that wanted to have western trails through the city. The City's trail plan does speak to accommodating that on some of the trail segments that are further to the west of here. So they' re kind of lineal segments along Bluff Creek and some of those are. I This park, in my opinion right now, is too tight to accommodate equestrian trails. The City Council in their approval action for this park also identified that in the future this park may be expanded , roughly doubled in ' size to the north as it sits here. It was specifically stated in the Comprehensive Plan, it would show some kind of expansion of this park in the future. If that' s done, it might be adequate to have enough room to I get around but certainly along the northern part of the property, unless you're willing to pull out of some of the facilities, I don' t think there' s room to accommodate a trail in that area . It certainly would be too tight to the property to the north and too tight to the soccer fields involved I there that exist along there. Along the east side it gets a little easier to accommodate but again, where do you go with it. If you had the property to the north, maybe a looped segment could be graded . Could be part of ' another trail . I think that's something we can still look at but I 'm not overly optimistic of how a loop can be accommodated in the first phase of development. Hasek: Just a quick question. Were you talking about a loop around the park or an alignment along TH 101? 1 Carol Dunsmore: I'd take anything but my first choice was around the perimeter . Hasek: Around the entire perimeter? Carol Dunsmore: Right. Can someone point where the access is off of TH 101? I can' t tell from the drawing. Mark Koegler : Sure. It' s right here. Dave Blanski : . . .cut that hill down before you get to it? Mark Koegler : That location may shift 20 or 30 feet one way or another . That's the general location. We don' t have a lot of room to play there. IIWe worked with the State on TH 101 before and the State always is I Park and Rec Commission Meeting I January 9, 1990 - Page 15 I sympathetic and it creates problems with the driveway that you have also. There's problems there too so we can't get too close to your driveway. It' s I threading the needle. Dave Blanski : Well it doesn' t matter how close you get to the driveway? Mark Koegler: Yes it does. MnDot. . . Dave Blanski : . . .over that hill at 45 mph. I had a guy come up the other II day as I pulled out of the driveway and he come up right behind me and followed me all the way to Chanhassen about that far behind me. He was mad because I pulled out in front of him. I Mark Koegler : At the next meeting that you review this topic, we may give you some specific information on sight distances. Exactly what they are. . . , Mady: Can you speak to the drainage? Slope? Mark Koegler: Yeah. The gentleman certainly is correct. It's a rolling site that ultimate drains toward Lake Riley. That will not be changed . The Watershed District will be involved in the review of the drainage plan that it ultimately is created. We will have to have a ponding that will retain the water and control the outflow into Lake Riley so it doesn' t exceed what it is at the present time. Those concerns, I guess the only assurance I can give him at this point is that they will be addressed. We' re not at that stage yet in terms of level of detail . We have looked at 11 just in terms of the position of the ball diamonds at creating swales that come through for example kind of along that trail area to accommodate the water so it gets down to where that ponding area but it hasn't been calculated beyond that in terms of specifics. Mady: Anyone have any questions? Hasek: Well let' s just go through some of the things that were talked about. We kind of mentioned fencing I guess. Obviously fencing to protect neighbors is important. There ' s two options. We could build a fence or they could build a fence. There' s nothing to preclude anybody from putting II a fence on their own property to protect it. It' s a matter I think of whether we want to enclose the park in a fence and exactly to what degree II that is done. Rather than fencing I think I 'd like to see plant materials and some rows of things incorporated in berms and keep the fencing to a minimum if it's at all possible. Bike paths. I agree. We've got a bad problem out there with bike paths. We have the same problem on TH 101 that I we've got on Minnewashta Parkway as far as I 'm concerned. Very narrow alignment. Very soft shoulders and no place for anybody but an automobile on that road so I think that that has to be looked at. I don' t think it II necessarily has to preclude development of the park and I 'd hate to see the park slow down simple because of lack of attention to bike trails and paths. It's something that maybe we' ll get. . .dead center now and be able to show, start getting what we need out there. Sight lines on TH 101. I think MnDot has standards and MnDot' s in charge of that road and they' re not going to allow us to do anything out there that' s not legal by their standards so I think that will pretty much take care of itself. I agree I IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 16 i that it's a youth park. It should be kept a youth park. I think the horse I trail, my idea of horse trails I guess is not to mix the, especially. . .on a site like this because children and horses and snowmobiles all on one small park site. We've kept from doing it at Lake Ann and I think there are I other places that you can put snowmobiles and trails rather than in community sized parks. Those are my comments. Lash: I wrote down a lot of the comments that the residents made. They I brought up a lot of good points and I certainly think that we should consider all of these when we' re looking . . . I think it helps us do a better job in trying to work with the property owners. I guess I would be 1 kind of leaning towards the fence in at least the areas where we have abutting property owners. . . I 'd want to look at that. Possibly some areas can be bermed and landscaped and. . . that' s necessary. I guess I agree with I I don't remember which resident said this. I didn't get his name but the deal with the grading by the pipeline. I know it was brought up at one of the meetings and we all seemed kind of surprised by it and I guess personally I have some concerns about it. I think maybe we rushed into it a little bit and I think that' s too bad but it's done. I think we have to try and do the best that we can with the pipeline and work around it and still trying to make it the quality that we want it to be. I 'd certainly I like to ask the residents to continue giving us input and hope that everyone who wishes to be notified of these meetings , make sure they let Lori know so you can be notified. Mady: On the fencing issue, it' s one of those things that we' re going to have to take a look at. Serious look. We' re fortunate in this park in that it' s probably only half the boundary of the park that. . .since we do IIhave TH 101 virtually, at least 40% of it. I 'd caution the residents on, if we put fencing in, I don' t know that we' re going to be putting gates in everybody's yards so they have easy access to the park. That' s something that' s going to have to be thought through. The bike path issue. I worked pretty hard on this on the trail plan. For the 4 plus years I 've been on the commission. We need bike paths real badly. A few months ago , maybe it was just last month, I asked the Commission to again seriously look at the Ibike trail issue and mentioned TH 101, both north and south in the Chanhassen areas as well as Minnewashta Parkway as three roads that need them desparately. We' re not getting a lot of support at this point in time I from the Council and it has to come from the grass roots level . Pipeline. It' s there. It' s a fact of life. It appears that Plan B will allow us to put up parking area. . .as minimally as possible. Pipelines run throughout I the country. There are houses built directly adjacent to , roads built over them, parks running across them. William's doesn' t have the best track record in the world but there' s not a whole lot we can do with it. This goes. . .comments the site that was selected. The commission and the council IIlooked at somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 sites in southern Chanhassen. We were restricted by the referendum as to where we could look and Chanhassen blessed, sometimes blessed with rolling countrysides, Iespecially in this part of town. Flat ground in this amount of space doesn' t really exist that we could find. At least not that could be utilized. This may not be the most ideal park in the world but it was a heck of a lot better than the other 4 or 5 sites we looked at. I guess I ' don't know how to respond to your question as to why the neighbors weren' t I Park and Rec Commission Meeting , January 9, 1990 - Page 17 I notified as. . .early fall . I 'm trying to remember back then. I guess all I can remember is we did direct staff after Council approved pursuing the park, to start going with plans to this park. We, through the community meetings, have dealt with the referendum and the discussions with Council and the discussions with the commission had a fairly good idea of what we were looking for in a youth park. What things we needed in a youth park. It's good that you're here tonight. It ' s the only way we can make decisions that will work. I guess I don' t know what else to say about that issue. The berming , we can up up as many berms in as required and Mark has II done a good job in the past. Lake Ann is an ideal situation where the hills are laid out so people can get good sight lines yet they met residents. . . We' ll just have to address those as the site plans, the landscaping plans come in front of us. The question about the Corps of Engineers doing the grading. This is the Corps of Engineers Reserve. I guess in no way did I ever expect these to be trainees. They do this work all the time. There is a two year waiting period to get on their list of projects that they' ll do so we' re not hiring some big machine school with rookies coming out there. We' re looking at saving the City a sizeable amount of money. We' re talking about moving a lot of dirt and this is an idea that was brought up at the City Council probably 2 years ago. I can remember it being discussed. . . Sietsema: If I could just interject. There' s no guarantees that we would II be put on their list either . Mady: The last thing I 've got on my list is parking space. Mark' s showing ' 300 in the design. I did a quick listing for myself. If you took our 4 baseball diamonds, 2 teams per field. That' s roughly 20 players and maybe a few more per field. So you' re looking at maybe 100 people there. One car per individual . Maybe a little more. Soccer . . .probably not more than II 50 spaces. Tennis maybe 10. The rest of the park maybe 10. That' s about 150 so we can cut back from paving 300 spaces. Now I wouldn' t like to see us paving more than maybe 150, 200 at the most. Finally, I don' t know if anybody else has talked about it. Maybe it ' s just a foregone conclusion but my personal preference is Plan B because it impacts the houses on Kiowa Trail the least. In the future it' s my feeling that as the City grows and II we certainly won't be able to put more and more and more parks because land is very expensive. It may be necessary to light these fields and I don' t foresee that in the next 10 years but it's something you have to review comments on it right now. By keeping the fields as far away from the residences that are there, we can minimize maybe a splash of light into the yards. I did have one question for Mark on the field layouts. It deals with the Little League fields in the curve of TH 101 Mark. I think I was trying to figure out where the sun' s going to hit the batter ' s eye in that park. Although I know we' re not. . .we should try to be aware of that. Those were my comments. I Erhart: I also favor Plan B. I like the idea of cutting down on the parking spaces and opening up more open areas. I 'd like to see staff work , with the neighbors. Putting in natural barriers or fencing would be called for around the perimeter to protect the neighbors property. A bike trail is a very good issue here. I support it 100%. I understand that we do have a safety problem out there and in the future we are going to be I/ IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 18 II talking about prioritizing and modification of the trail plan here. I will II be pushing for bike trails along major corridors. I 'd also like to encourage the neighborhood park be given back to the people along Kiowa Trail. Mark said he's getting, where it is right now. . . IIBoyt: Do you mean separate from the way it is now? Erhart: No. The way it is now. I very much support that. IRobinson: I'm not going to repeat all of the concerns that have been heard. Every one of them is very legitimate and I think you've got to look I into all those. There are really some good concerns. I prefer at this stage Alternate A. I realize that it causes some concern with the pipeline. I think we' ve got to do some checking . This is forever . If it takes a II little extra effort or money or whatever to do it the right way, I think we should do that. I like the hub concept of the 4 fields in Plan A. The tennis court location is where we talked about it next to the parking lot. Soccer fields are larger and I think this is what we talked about. . .except IIthe pipeline is a problem. Boyt : I liked A better too. Does it costs money to submit A to IWilliam' s? Sietsema: No . IIBoyt : If the pipeline is rerouted , who pays for that? Mady: Good question. IBoyt: Well , I think we need more information on it. I 'd like to see us submit Plan A first with some of the parking taken out and if it' s out of II our range financially for the pipelines . If William' s says no way, then we' ll look at B. I think fencing is something that we' re going to need to look at, especially for that trash problem. Now Hallie, we had talked about half court basketball . Is that something that some of the neighbors I would like because now would be the time. If you guys would like something like that in your neighborhood park area. I (Hallie Bershow' s answer was not recorded due to a tape change.) Boyt: If there' s something like that that you'd like to see in that little piece of neighborhood park, now' s the time to ask for it. IIHallie Bershow: I asked for the tennis court. IIBoyt: Oh, that' s right. That' s it. Mady: I had one last thing. We don' t have an area for a play structure I somewhere. We' re going to be bringing in kids into this park. They' re obviously going to be bringing in their families and usually you have some of them playing Little League. A good majority of those people are going to have kids. . . It' s something I don' t see in the plan. II I Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 19 Boyt: There's an existing play structure. Mady: That's an awfully small one. Lash: I thought we talked earlier about having one. It ' s not shown on here but that was my understanding. Mady: It' s not shown. . . Lash: I think that' s the spot that people wanted it. Mady: Is there any other comments on the commission? I 'd like to ask, after you heard our comments, is there any further comments from the audience. Keep it short but are there any? Resident: Is there a time frame on this? I Sietsema: We're at a very preliminary level at this point in time. We're not looking to develop probably for a 4 to 5 year time frame so the time line is real loose at this point in time. Resident: You don' t expect to start work for 5 years? ' Sietsema: Well, like the best case scenario would be I think a 3 to 4 years and it' s more likely that it would happen in a 4 to 5 year time frame. Depending on budget. Mady: How much do we need? Sietsema: $200,000.00. Staff has a couple of comments before you close it II off. I would just want to make sure that these are the facilities that when we talked about it earlier and in the past it was just, we were in a brainstorming session of what our ideals were. What we'd like to see done II in the park. To put them on paper and bring the neighborhood in and get their reaction and their ideas. Todd brought up a very good point tonight before the meeting. We don' t have right now, or what we have right now for girl 's softball is very tight. We may want to consider taking one of the Babe Ruth fields out since we have a Babe Ruth field at Lake Susan Park going in and making that a girl 's softball facility for girl 's youth softball which would be the junior high age. Hoffman: 9 to 19. Sietsema: 9 to 19 aged girls. That may be something we would want to consider. Again, now is the time to move the pieces around and to explore all the possibilities. We' re not anywhere close to taking this to Council . 11 Mark and I will be working on all the concerns that have been brought up and bringing it back to you again. Probably again after that, before anything is, a final recommendation before a master plan is put together to I send to City Council . So I want us to be sure that we've looked at all aspects of the youth, since this is going to be our youth complex and leave no stone unturned. It ' s a very good point to bring up that the II neighborhood uses, the neighborhood needs should be addressed at this point I/ 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 20 I in time too since we are incorporating that park in the overall plan and ' showing it being encroached upon. Now with these soccer fields going in, it's very likely that we would take that existing soccer field that isn' t an appropriate size, taking that out of there so we could free that flat open area in the lower portion up for other things if things are needed for that neighborhood. I don' t think that it would be a problem to put ice skating in there or a half court basketball or volleyball or something like that in that area if those are the types of facilities that the Ineighborhood in that area wants. Hasek: The City Council , or actually the Planning Commission right now is I going through the process of updating their Comprehensive Plan. Part of what they're looking at is where residential , commercial , industrial and so forth are going to expand in the City. And maybe it might be a good idea from us to take a look at that plan and get an idea from Planning II Commission, city staff as to what they project the need impact is going to be in this area before we take it much farther . ISietsema: It' s on our next agenda. Mady: Lori I 've got a question. Your comment on girl ' s softball is very valid. We usually forget about it. Currently they're playing in our neighborhood parks which is not a good situation. We' re creating a Babe Ruth field at Lake Susan community park. The current baseball field at Lake Ann. I just really can' t remember , what are we talking about. . . 1 Sietsema: Softball. Adult softball . When this park opens, we' ll have 6 adult softball fields at Lake Ann has been the plan. Mady: I just couldn't remember. I think we need 2 Babe Ruth fields in town. I believe we need, if we' re going to put girls softball here, I think we need two fields and that might be a way of freeing up a little II more space in this park. Making down size the fields a little and it just loosens up the park. It' s something. It' s hard for me to really brainstorm right now. I can see. . .a couple weeks to think on something and Ilet it settle out. Hasek: I don' t think we have to make a decision. IIMady: No. But it would facilitate Mark doing his design. . . Hasek: It seems to me like if you've got Babe Ruth fields in there and you Iwant to downsize to real softball is pretty simple to do. Boyt: I 'd like to throw out another suggestion. We have a picnic area designated. Maybe make it just than just a little picnic area. Something where the teams can gather for their team picnics. Maybe some, I hate to say covered shelter after what happened at Lake Ann. Sietsema: Go ahead. Say it. Boyt: And more play equipment. I think we need much more play equipment. There will be lots and lots of kids here so Mark, I 'd like to talk about 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting t January 9, 1990 - Page 21 I picnic area near water . Mady: Water in the park would be nice. ' Resident : . . .that play area. I think there' s a tendency in those play areas to make them for kids that are too young and not enough for that sort II of intermediate group. And so after they're 3 or 4 years old, they don' t want to be there anymore but you get a lot of kids who are 6 and 7 coming along and they have nothing to do. Not enough. It' s easier for a little kid who can play up a little bit but the older kids don' t tend to play down. They can go down a 4 foot slide so many times. Boyt: We've been kind of looking at different kinds of playground ' equipment pieces that fit different needs of different ages. Resident: I mean it's nice to have some but like the little play lot ' that 's on Kiowa Trail is really for a very young child and it 'd be nice to expand it to something that could accommodate a different age group. Sietsema: That play structure at that site was designed as a first phase of as many more as we want to add actually but it is definitely add onable. To add the next phases as a higher level age group to use. Mady: I would caution the commission though. When we' re looking at play structure, if we add a play structure to Bandimere neighborhood park, that we do as a neighborhood, that we still have a major play structure in the community park that is separate from Bandimere. Otherwise you're going to encourage people to go down into the neighborhood park and that's not really what we want to do. We want to try to keep impact up on top. Keep II the neighborhood park fairly loose. Boyt : We want this park. . .are we going to have all the water and wiring coming into the park or are we going to need more. . .electricity? Sietsema: That' s totally up to you. Boyt: Okay, I think we need that in the first phase. The first time we go I in with this park, put it in. Mady: It' s always more fun to try and put it in later . 1 Erhart: Lori , while the neighborhood is represented here, I guess I 'd like ' to get some comments from them about their idea of opening up the soccer field and keeping that a little bit more open to the things they might want put in there and if people are interested in that and want to keep it a soccer field? I know I had some phone calls on that. I Mady: You're talking about the neighborhood park. Resident: As a wife of a soccer coach, they' re a very small, small field. II It' s really an inadequate field. I think we'd love a tennis court down there but otherwise I don't think there's any strong commitment to that soccer field. 11 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 22 I Resident: That area has very, essentially no parking. The obvious parking ' problem with the number of people in that field, obviously causes that problem. IMady: You're talking about the existing field? Resident: Yes. ISietsema: The existing field that is there was put in as a temporary field to solve some immediate needs that we had with the younger aged soccer players. It was, I don' t believe in anybody' s mind that it was meant to be I there as a permanent facility. Just to take care of what we needed right now. ' Resident: It works well just as a playing area . It ' s a nice playing area now when it doesn' t have drawn in soccer lines. . .so it works well . Mady: It' s nice for a neighborhood park to remain fairly open so when the kids want to play, get a small baseball game or soccer , touch football , they don' t have to worry about fences and benches and those kinds of things. Okay, is there any further comments you wanted to make? ILash : I seem to recall when we went through this the first time, we did kick around the idea of basketball and even. . . ' Mark Koegler : My notes show you did discuss hockey. I note a question mark behind it which I presume meant that it wasn't resolved. I Boyt : We are in desparate need of more hockey rinks in Chanhassen. We only have two? I Hoffman: Two outdoor hockey rinks that we currently have are adequately serving the needs. There is unscheduled time at the outdoor facilities. They tend to prefer indoor ice time. ILash: So you don't think there' s a need? Hoffman: Currently. IILash: Well , I think it' s something we should rule out. Say in 5 years , the City will have. . . 11 Dave Blanski : Could I just respond to the man with the mustache. I apologize I don't know your name. You commented that sight lines were not a problem because the State was saying it' s okay. I 'd like to respond to Ithat. I think you have a lot more. . .bureaucracy than I have. I 've been building roads for 32 years and they make a lot of mistakes. And please, take some consideration to some right hand passing lanes and right turn Ilanes so people can get in and out of there safely. They approved my driveway exit and I would challenge you to leave it. Come on over and visit me. Pull out of there a couple times . See if you feel comfortable with what they've approved. • Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 23 I Hasek: Is that the one that' s just over the top of the hill? ' Dave Blanski : Yeah. Hasek: Yeah, I parked there. Dave Blanski : And you're going to be down the hill , right from there? So you're going to have the cars coming over the hill . You' re going to have those people coming out of there with little kids. Women drivers that perhaps don't drive a lot, some of them. It's a bad deal . Lash: Is that something that we have, can do anything about or engineering 11 or is that totally out of our? Hasek: Sure. We can request that the State regrade that road and pay for II it if we'd like to. Lash: No. I 'm talking about some right turn in and left turn lanes. ' Things like that. Just something . Mady: Gary looked at the entrance/exit problem prior to purchasing the land didn't he? I remember when we walked the site with the Council we were talking about that. Hasek: That was the first thing I brought up was sight lines. . . ' Sietsema: Yeah, and the plan would go to engineering for review and through Mark' s engineering department as well to make sure that those concerns were taken into consideration. Mady: Yeah, our number one concern is usually safety. Unless there' s any other comments, I 'd like to thank the residents for coming in. We will notify you if you sign the sheet on the table there. I suggest strongly that you sign that with your name and address so that you can be notified. We' ll take Carol ' s comments as to notifying as many people as possible and II staff will try to remember that. Sietsema: I will update the list. I Mady: It's helpful to have staff input. We've got a number of people here tonight. That's really helpful. We really appreciate it. Hasek: I think part of what' s happening is we have a responsibility to notify within a certain distance by law and that's what we do. If you live beyond that and you don't get a notification and you want to get notified, II please let us know but we' re only going to continue to notify the 500 feet unless you let us know that you want to be notified. I live on the other side of Lake Minnewashta and this park has something to do with me as well . II I guess I don' t expect to be notified over there because I 'm not exactly in the neighborhood but it's a community park so everybody in town is impacted by it. You as neighbors have to decide what the limits of that impact on 11 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 24 1 your directly is and that' s why it' s important that you sign up and let us Iknow if you want to be notified. Lash: Can we push a little bit at the paper to get our agendas published? Do they. . . Mady: We have to pay for that don' t we? Sietsema: Yeah. Lash: Oh we have to pay for that? IMady: Yes. Sietsema: The price of an ad. ILash: I guess I certainly would be in favor of that. I think there' s always, well not always but occasionally there's an item on our agenda that Iinterests people. Resident: In talking tonight, someone asked the question about lights. At the last meeting we were at, you said adamantly that there would not be 1 lights and today it was a much more, well you know if we have the money we'd put them in. ' Mady: I don' t know who did but I would never have said there won' t be lights there. Never 's a long time. ' Resident : That was the comment. Lash: I recall that. IResident : You said absolutely. There won' t be lights in there because that impacts. I mean that shines on the lake. We were one of the few people on our road who voted against the street lights just because it I destroys the beauty. You' re out in the country. You want to look up at the stars and you can' t look up at the stars anymore. You have all those lights on. It affects more than just the park. IHasek: I think the lights would be a function of demand. If we ran out of facilities. Right now we're punching a lot of things into the neighborhood parks. We' ve got overflow activities happening in neighborhood parks and Iwe're trying to draw that out. That' s why these community parks are being developed . To take that activity out of neighborhoods and put it into these larger community parks. If the demand dictated that we needed lights Ito push the use of those into the evening hours to expand the use of them, that would be the time that they would occur. I don't think we'd put the park in, put the lights in and have them sitting there unused for 4 or 5, 6, 7, 10 years. Whatever the case is. The demand is going to dictate when Ithe lights will want to go in as they did out at Lake Ann. Resident: If this is a youth park, why do you have to have anything going 1 on after 9: 30 at night in the summertime. You don' t. Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 25 I Hasek: 9: 30 at night is too dark to play ball in. Resident: 9: 00. Hasek : I play softball . 8: 00. . . ' Resident: I play softball until 9:00 on a church league in the summer . Into August. Hasek: And it gets difficult. The light level is very difficult. Resident: Yeah, but we play til then. I 'm saying, if this is a youth park I why do they need to light the fields. They don' t. Hasek: They don't until the demand is there sir . That's what I 'm trying ' to tell you. Resident: But I've dealt with this city enough. If you put something in and you say at the outset the idea is this is designed not to have lights , it has some bearing down the road . If you put in the Minutes that hey, we know there' s going to be lights very soon, then somebody' s going to point to this 5 years from now and say, see. You guys were at that meeting and they said that there would be lights so there you go. Hasek: I think what I 've done is indicated to you at least my feeling ' about when the lights will go in. Resident : That you' re in favor of lights . ' Hasek: Absolutely. When the demand dictates it. Resident: What about the people. That demand dictates? What about the people that live around the park that you bought without any notice to the public before you signed the purchase agreement? Hasek: I don't understand the question I guess. Resident: You bought the land. You signed the purchase agreement. Then I you had a public hearing in regards to the purchase agreement. It impacted the neighbors immediately around there and you didn' t talk to us beforehand. 1 Hasek: Yeah we did. Resident: No you didn't. I Hasek: Not about the purchase of that particular piece of property but we did talk to the entire community about purchasing the piece of property and 1 it was left to us to decide which one to buy. This is the one that was determined was the best to suit the community. Resident: I don' t think that was an exact terminology. 1 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 26 I I Mady: In any event, that' s a moot point. Thank you for coming in tonight. We will be discussing it again in the future and please sign the registration sheet so we can notify you in the future. IIResident: Are there copies of Alternative A and B here available? Sietsema: Yes. Back on that table. IHasek: Just as a matter of record. . .there was some choice made by some of the commission members as to which plan they liked better . I guess for the Ilast issue that was brought up, I originally and still think that Alternate B is a better choice. It moves the ballfields away from the residents. A bigger buffer . I know that it tends to jam facilities into one corner of the site as was indicated early on. . .expand this park. I think this I Erhart : Can we be, could we use some direction Lori as to what plan we Ishould submit? Mady: Yeah, the comment was made by the commission as to requesting that IPlan A be put in front of the William's . Sietsema : Yeah. If that' s what you want to put in a motion for direction to do that. Unless you want things to be revised further before you submit II it. Lash: . . .are they about having specific? Would they just be looking at 11 the impact on the pipeline itself? They don' t care about all the rest of the area? ' Sietsema: Right. Lash: I guess I certainly would see that we'd have nothing to lose by submitting it and seeing what their reaction is. Seeing what costs are and 1 then we'd be a lot more informed to make a decision. . .costs nothing to do that. ISietsema: Right. Lash: I just think we'd have more information to work with and make a more ' intelligent decision. Mady: Sue, do you want to make the motion since. . . Boyt: I move that staff submit Plan A to William' s Pipeline and come back to us with the information. Lash: Second. I I Park and Rec Commission Meeting I January 9, 1990 - Page 27 I Boyt moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to submit Alternative A to William's Pipeline for review and report II back to the Commission with the findings. All voted in favor except Hasek and the motion carried. Hasek: For the reason that I think that it ' s not necessary for the design g of the park to impact on that pipeline and it seems like just a little bit more waste of time. ' SITE PLAN REVIEW - SHIVELY. ' Michael and Kathy Schultz - 5224 Irving Avenue So. , Minneapolis Sietsema: This is a proposal to subdivide 3. 9 acres into 1 lot of 1 1/2 acres and an outlot of 2.42 acres. This subdivision comes very timely for the City in our quest to make a connection between West 65th Street and Minnetonka Intermediate School . The plan calls for a trail making that connection and past efforts have just haven't panned out. We have made the connection from Murray Hill Road to the Minnetonka Intermediate School which is this property here through the water tower property. West 65th Street is here. This property that' s being subdivided would be located right here. The Wolf's property here, they have agreed to sell the City a linear piece of property along the southern boundary of the Pleasant Hills II subdivision. However, that linear strip varies from 4. 15 feet to 8. 15 feet. It's not wide enough for the full width of a trail that we would need. We would need at least 20 feet. Therefore, in this subdivision we are, the staff is recommending that we acquire a 20 foot dedication for trail purposes and that in return for that dedication that we would pay the fair market value for the 20 foot which would be roughly .20 acres . Hasek: I don't understand. You' re asking for the dedication of the land and then we' re going to buy it? Sietsema: Well we'd have to comepensate and since there's a building on the site, there would be no trail dedication fees that would be due with this development. 1 Hasek: Okay. So you're purchasing? Sietsema: We would actually be purchasing the trail width from them. Hasek: The whole site from the one site or where the house is? Sietsema: We would purchase from whoever owns the property. Shively's. So what staff is proposing is that, it's a unique situation. In a large subdivision we would require a trail dedication and we would either credit II on their trail dedication fees or we would outright require it and not give them any credit if it was a very large subdivision. However , this is such a small piece and there's already a building site on there so there' s really no trail dedication fees due unless they build on the outlot, which II 11 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 28 I they've indicated they' re not planning to do. Therefore, what we really need to do is outright purchase the property from them at the fair market value. Hasek: Okay. So there is no dedication. We' re just asking to purchase an II easement? Sietsema: Right . IILash: I just have to clarify this. So to subdivide 3.9 acres , but the building's already there? Sietsema: Right. Lash: So why are they. . . ISietsema: For financing purposes they' re dividing the property. Lash: Oh, okay. And then one other question I just had. Down at the very bottom of the map where it shows that little street and it just says street. Beyond it says west. Is that Crestview? If I looked at the big map, would that be Crestview? II Sietsema: Yeah. 1 (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting .) Hasek: And you' re buying Lot 1, Block 1 of that subdivision? III Michael Schultz : Yes. Hasek: And this is what they're trying to do. IIMady: You' re buying the entire lot? I Michael Schultz : Yes . We' re subdividing . . . Essentially when we bought the property, this was kind of an unknown. We didn't hear about it until recently. I don' t know how strongly the commission feels about it. Personally one of our concerns is that the area in question is heavily I wooded. It' s kind of in a wooded area of trees and our desire would be that it not go through and one of the concerns is that not only for the privacy involved in the lot and between the neighborhoods but also that a I path of that nature would possibly would be a gathering ground for high school, junior high school students . In that with the heavily wooded area, that it might turn into kind of a congregating area and possibly may not be I good for either our two young kids and possibly not for the junior high school kids either. I don't know how kids get to school now. Sietsema: Could I answer that? They're going through that. That' s how Ithey're getting there. It's just not 'a legal trail alignment and what the purpose of sticking with our trail plan and pursuing that is to make a legal trail alignment so that the kids aren't actually trespassing. Right 1 now that' s how they' re getting there. 11 • Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11 January 9, 1990 - Page 29 Michael Schultz: Just from a practical matter and not exercise my domain II of property and say kids can't cross there, I 'm just concerned that with a path there, that there's going to be a traffic route and. . .possibly other kids overflowing from the school and the junior high and just hanging out there because there' s lots of places to hide in the woods and do whatever kids want to do in an area where they won' t be seen. There are lots of young kids in the area. . .that's a concern of ours. I don' t know what the other alternatives are. I suppose this has been something that kids have been doing and getting there some other way or maybe through this path but II obviously the kids are getting there somewhere. I 'm just real concerned that it' s going to be. . .and change the characteristic of the land, the lot II and the neighborhood. I 'm a little uncertain why the other neighbors didn' t come tonight. Maybe they're. . . Mady: Some of the neighbors are the ones that actually requested we do this. Kathy Schultz : But it's on our land? I Michael Schultz: I think Jean basically had taken the stand that, Jean Shivley, was that she did not. . . It does make a difference on the purchase II of the property because that. . . That's our concern and I think we would not II favor that. Hasek: When is your purchase agreement to be signed? I Michael Schultz: Well it's conditioned on trying to get the approval . Hasek: When 's the closing? Michael Schultz : It would be sometime in mid-February and I think this issue is to be heard on Tuesday on the. . . Sietsema: It' s Wednesday going to Planning . Hasek: Next Wednesday? Sietsema: Right. I Michael Schultz: That's all . Hasek: Who' s going to present the subdivision to the Planning Commission? II Michael Schultz: . . .Hanson is the agent. Hasek: Did anybody ask him to come tonight? ' Michael Schultz: He was coming on Wednesday. He really doesn' t have any manifest to be here. . . Kathy Schultz: I 'm Kathy Schultz. I have a question. Why do you need the extra land on either side of the blacktop and how wide is the blacktop? in 11 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 30 II I Sietsema: If it were blacktopped, which isn' t necessarily a given, depending on traffic levels, but basically the reason we take at least at a minimum of 20 feet is so that we can work with the topography and the natural amenities. We don't want to be taking down large trees. We don' t II want to be cutting down big hills. We want to do it with as minimal impact as possible to what' s there so if we only have, typically a trail like this would be 6 to 8 feet wide so if we only have 8 feet, that' s where it' s got I to go and if that happens to be the 8 feet where all the big trees are, we don' t want to have to take the big trees down so if we have 20 feet to work with, we can move it over here or over here and find the path of least resistence. IKathy Schultz : What are some other alternatives to this? Are there any alternatives? ISietsema: The alternatives are really not very many. ' Mady: We did look at going between lot lines through the Pheasant Hills and that failed. Sietsema: Well it literally went within 3 feet of a home. To go between II lots 5 and 6 of this development right in here. That was looked at but like I said , it goes right by a home. One of the other things, alternatives that was looked at was to go up this way and through here and I those people weren' t in favor of it either and they're not subdividing so we'd have to go through condemnation to get that property from them. I Kathy Schultz: And how does it work with us then I mean as far as condemnation? If we were drawing up a plat for subdividing, even though we're not subdividing? IISietsema: The subdivision, if the City goes with what staff is recommending, would then be approved conditioned upon the acquisition of the trail . Of property for trailway so the City would require that you Isell that to us. Kathy Schultz : They can require that we. . .that we sell it? ISietsema: Yes. Hasek: It' s part of a subdivision. If the property were, if you were I simply buying the house and weren't subdividing the property, it would sit there. We would have to wait until somebody else came in and subdivided the property and at that time it would. . . IIKathy Schultz : Okay. So it doesn' t actually have to be subdivided. I mean we' re just doing this for financial . IHasek: If you didn' t subdivide the property, you wouldn' t be here. It would just be. . . I 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting t January 9, 1990 - Page 31 1 Mady: We have the opportunity now, that's why we' re looking at it. If you were just simply buying the property without subdividing, you would have the opportunity. The people that live on West 65th would have to wait. Sietsema: If you were not subdividing, we would either have to purchase it 11 from you as a willing seller or we would have to go through condemnation. As a subdivision, the City has, because it's on our Comprehensive Plan, the City has the rights to require conditions of approval of the subdivision and this would then become one of those conditions. ' Kathy Schultz: Okay, we understand that then. I guess it' s just, I 'd like to make a plea not to do it too because, and that makes a difference about I buying the property. We' re coming from the City and we really want some privacy and for me and for my husband and our children, we feel that it would be a great intrusion. I don' t want to have to. . .children hanging out, the junior high school kids hanging out in our backyard basically. Especially along that line because there isn ' t a lot of land between us and this path that you' re talking about putting up. It' s the shallowest part of our property as far as division between us and the other neighbors. I guess I 'd just like to put my plea in not to do it because it really does affect the integrity of the land and our feelings for the land . . .and I 'm hoping that it does but depending on this outcome I think does make a difference for us whether it works out for us. Hasek: Can you point out for us on maybe that map, because it's the largest one, where the Wolf residence is? 1 Sietsema: The Wolf property is right here. Hasek: Yes, but where' s the residence? Where' s the house? 1 Kathy Schultz: Yeah, it' s right there. Mady: One comment I want to make, the gentleman of the previous thing said it, Mr. Finger said it, he moved to Chanhassen and he was looking for open spaces and there were cornfields behind him. I moved to Chanhassen 6 to 9 II years ago and there was only maybe 6,000-7,000 people here. Now one councilmember said last night 12,000 people. We' ll be at 16,000 very shortly. . . .ultimately we can have 35,000 people. It's not going to be the II rural area that it is right now. It' s definitely isn' t the rural area it was when I moved here and so the wonderful dreams. . .they're just not reality in this city. Kathy Schultz: I understand what you' re saying. However , we didn' t come out here and move next to a cornfield expecting the cornfield not to be developed. We realize that Chanhassen is going to grow and we' re all for it. We really are. It's just that that is not a very big part of the community that to us it's huge. I think you have to take a relevancy of what you're talking about. I didn't agree with Mr . , I agree with what Mr . Finger said and I understand that but that' s not what we came out looking for. I fully expect things to be developed. I just don' t want them developed in my yard. I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 32 11 Boyt : I don' t think we have to put the trail through your yard . I think I this is a, there was a screw up in our history of when the easements were not taken when they should have been and I think the school district should arrange to get these children to school without cutting through Shiveley' s yard. IIMichael Schultz : It' s kind of a screwy trail . I don' t know what the Kelly's feel about it but it really is kind of a circuitous drop and then I where do you go once you get into the school yard? It' s kind of out in the back of the field. I don' t know. It seems like the school ' s been there a long time. 1 Mady: It probably is the way the kids go. Lash: I wonder , how many kids does this. . . Is it 6? IBoit: Does the school offer them an alternative? Are they bussed from this area too? What are the other alternatives? 1 Lash: If it' s just servicing people who live on 65th Street, and I don' t know how far that goes down but say it' s 10 houses or something and you' re talking just middle school aged kids, you're talking 3 or 4 kids. IMady: I 'm looking at this as not just a school but a park. It's a public piece of property. IHasek: I agree. I think the screw up came in the past and the intent is there and the unfortunate thing is once again we' re pushed to the wall . We II make a decision tonight that' s got to go on next Wednesday rather than having time to look at some alternatives. . . .too often. I would like very much to be able to connect that piece of property across. I know that there' s open property to the south but I don't know whether we have an I opportunity to cross that anymore. I know there' s a residence between the school and the pond right now. Is there an opportunity to cross that open area right down through here? Is there still something left in here? IISietsema: The mission or the goal is to get the kids that are living on West 65th Street over to MIS . Hasek: Do they bus? That was a very good question? Sietsema: Yeah, I believe that they do bus now but one of the things is that it is their neighborhood park. Michael Schlutz: It is except this trail is really just servicing the. . . IIAddition in Pheasant Hill and the people in Pheasant Hill are. . .it' s optimal for thos folks, I think it really is . . .basically 10 households. And sure, if they have an opportunity to use the backyard and dedicate a trail in the area . . . it' s really a minority. It' s fine as long as it' s not on their property I think. . . Kathy Schultz: I think you had a good point about the fact that if you Imake it a. . .trail, you're making a. . .it's going to become ride their bikes. II Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 33 And I think it could really create a major traffic problem for us and people who intend to use it. , Mady: What do you consider a major traffic pattern? Kathy Schultz: I just think people will tend to come from other places or II people who come to the park from other areas will come through there and wander through there and hang out in there. They' ll consider it part of the park. Maybe kids will come in there . . .and smoke their dope or do whatever else they do. . .and I really don' t want. . . I 'm not trying to sound hostile but that 's what's going to happen. . .and you have to look at that. Hasek: I want you to go down. . .to the Pond Park trail . It runs between 1 houses . I don' t know of any problems we've experienced in the 6 years or whatever it' s been in there. Kathy Schultz: . . .attached to? Boyt: It' s also very, very. . . , Michael Schultz : . . .densely wooded area . I just think it' s benefitting Pheasant Hill and I don't know how much it's benefitting the surrounding II community. I think it' s great for Pheasant Hill . If I was living there, I would be pumping for this. I guess it's Moline Addition. Lash: . . .how many people are actually going to beneift from it? I Sietsema: It's this 10 to 12 homes. Lash: How many kids use the Middle School? Sietsema: I don' t have a number of how many kids live on that block but it' s 10 to 12 homes. Hasek: I would tend to believe that there are a lot more kids that use that besides those 10 to 12 homes. That' s not, I don't think that' s really I the point. I think the point is, it' s like Susan said. Our opportunity was lost before. This is the chance that we've got. We've got some support from Kelly' s. We potentially have go some support from the Wolf' s I but there is an alternative. My kids could walk to school . It could be 5 to 6 miles for my daughter to do that but if I wanted to. She' s got bussing service but because these kids live close doesn' t necessarily mean that they have to, I guess in my opinion, be offered the opportunity to 11 walk simply because it's always been there. I 'm torn. I really am. It' s probably the first time. I usually am one side of the fence or the other . This one hurts a little bit. I 'd like to see the path go through to serve I those kids but I don' t necessarily think that it does anything for our trail system. I think it's an opportunity to provide a link for a very limited number of homes. If the point is to link the school to the community, then I think that opportunity to gain the little bit of land that' s still available to the south. We' re still looking at putting parks in. We' re still looking at putting a park in for that whole way up there which is park deficient. That area of the city is, in the Comprehensive ' I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 34 Plan that' s going to be coming out , it' s shown as all , that' s where the I residential is going to develop. That' s where the City is going to push for residential development so I think that that' s going to be coming down the road in the next few years. We' ll live without this trail connection for a while I guess is my opinion. . . Michael Schultz: . . .we don' t care if kids go through there. It's just if it becomes a trail , it's going to be used as a trail. IILash: Well I can' t compare you guys to Mr . Finger . . . You guys are not, you' re buying where it' s developed all around you. You weren' t expecting something to happen right by you so I guess I have some compassion for 1 that. . . Hasek: I think down the road here you' re going to subdivide that property as taxes continue to rise. Mady: You do have real nice property and it' s unfortunate that the people I from West 65th Street are using it. They came in front of us, I don' t remember , was it 2 years ago or 1 year ago. Requesting that we get them . . .to the school. Just because we only have one individual it probably sounds like we' re just going to forget about the people we heard previously I . . .of Chanhassen. I don' t know what the alternatives are but when we looked at this 3 years or 2 years ago, whatever it was , we could not get to Pheasant Hills. From the south, we do not have a. . .person at that point. ' This was the only alternative we had. So what we' re doing here is we' re writing this off. We' re just telling those people on West 65th Street, sorry. You're not going to have a legal way of getting in there. IIRobinson: . . .move that? Mady: Well Curt we looked at it a year ago. We didn' t have a willing I seller to the south. We didn't have a willing seller to the north. This was the only place we could go. Robinson: Right but we haven't made a decision on that yet. Mady: I'm just taking comments. Those are my comments. I Hasek: There appears to be a gap between the properties there. What is that all about? IISietsema: That' s the 4 to 8 feet that' s owned by the Wolf's. Mady: Plus the 20 feet from them. So you have a 24 to 28 foot trail of 4 to 8 feet right in here right? Hasek: Well we still have the option of taking all the trees. . . Mady: Any further comments? Motion? Robinson: I ' ll make a motion. That we recommend to accept park and trail IIdedication feet in lieu of the parkland and trail construction and require 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 35 I the dedication of a 20 foot wide trail segment along the north property line. Also, that we compensate the landowner for this dedication at fair market value . Lash: So you're going along with staff recommendation? Robinson: Yes. In total, yes. Mady: Second . , Robinson moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission II recommend to accept park and trail dedication feet in lieu of the parkland and trail construction and require the dedication of a 20 foot wide trail segment along the north property line. Also, that we compensate the landowner for this dedication at fair market value. All voted in favor except Boyt and Lash who opposed and Hasek abstained. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Sietsema: Really what you need to do. Lash: Just ask for a fee instead or something? Or what? That there be no II condition applied to the subdivision? Sietsema: It would then become a standard recommendation in case they ever put a home on the outlot so you'd recommend approval in that park and trail fees be accepted in lieu of land. Hasek: So what you're saying is what you'd be doing is setting a precedent , for the development of the other piece of property so they can't come in and say. . . Sietsema: Not if they build a home there. Only if they subdivide. Hasek: This applies, if they subdivide, this applies to the whole subdivision and this is the two lots of the subdivision. Sietsema: If they subdivide again, further subdivide this piece or if they subdivide the outlot or whatever , it would come before you again. But if they decided just simply build a home on the outlot, I don't know that it would come back. Hasek: Yeah. Because then it would have to become a lot of record and it would have to come back to us. It' s just an outlot now. We can't build on an outlot. You'd have to make it a lot of record in order to build on it. II Don Ashworth: Mr. Chairman, I 've been listening to your conversation. I think there' s some points that haven' t come out and that is that there' s a gate at the end of this property. It' s been there for I don't know for how long . It' s acted as an access through that area. I think if we don' t get this as a trail, we're assuredly saying that gate will close and I 'm sure that the children that have been using that for a long time will no longer II Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 36 I/ be able to. The trail as we required it through Ostrom seemed to be a IIlogical thing to do. It's still on file down at the County. I think if it would have come in past the City. . .we would have seen the trail going through there. Albeit 15 or 20 feet to the north of where it's proposed I right now. I think we' re losing an opportunity to provide access from 65th Street, that whole area, to the school . Hasek: Do we have access , we do have access obviously through the water IItower property? Don Ashworth: Yes. Hasek: Do we have access off of Melody Hill? Doesn' t that. . . That' s where the soccer fields are set up? IIDon Ashworth: I believe there' s a cut in the fence there. Mady: Who cut it? ISietsema: I'm not sure to the north. There' s a cut in the fence on the water tower property and I believe that the people that are coming off of Melody Hill Road come down Murray Hill and go through the water tower property to get into the school . There used to be something that was open north of that. However , that lot sold and they closed it up. It was a private fence and they closed it up so all the people that are on the north I end of Murry Hill and off of Melody, I believe are going through the water tower property right now. IIHasek : There is a. . .that belongs to Wolf' s? Sietsema: Wolf's . IIHasek: Okay. Does the path go only in that 4 to 8 feet? Sietsema: Well, a typical path. IIHasek: It kind of wanders all over the place? ' Sietsema: Right. The current existing path, it meanders. Hasek: Have we ever had any negative comment from the Shively's on that Itraffic going through there? Have they ever complained? Sietsema: I 've never received a complaint. IIHasek: I wonder if Public Safety has ever received a complaint. Don Ashworth: I know of none. ' Hasek: Was the gate put in there with the knowledge, I have to assume that the fence belongs to the school. II Sietsema: Yes. Park and Rec Commission Meeting I January 9, 1990 - Page 37 I Hasek : The gate was put in with the knowledge of the Shively' s? I Sietsema: Yes. Hasek: They've allowed the path for how many years? How long ' s the school II been there? Don Ashworth: Well I think Shively is a relatively new owner . I don' t think they' re had it for what? Sietsema: The gate in the fence has been there for years. I Don Ashworth: I was going to say since 1978. Somewhere in there. Mady: We do have the situation in the Chan Pond Park where a meandering I trail that wasn' t official but all the neighbors used it, existed and a party bought the lot and has been making numerous complaints to the neighbors and the City about people who trespass against their property so II it happens. Kathy Schultz : We don' t have a problem with people, if they want to continue using the trails, they can use it. It's just fine. We' re not going to say anything . . .people trespassing . It' s just a matter of if you make. . .uncomfortable in making it. They' re taking 21 feet and making it an established pathway system. I Hasek: See you' re still accepting the liability by saying you don' t mind . You accept the liability at that point. I Mady: You may sell the house in 5 years or 3 years like Shively did right now and then they put up a new fence or what have you and we don't have an opportunity. Kathy Schultz: See, you're asking for 20 more feet. Hasek: I 'd like to make a motion. I 'd don't know if it' s going to go anyplace or not but I 'd like to make it anyway. I'd like to make a motion that we go with staff' s recommendation and reduce the purchased property to II 10 feet and work within a 14 1/2 to 18 foot right-of-way total as opposed to a 24 to 28 foot. Mady: I' ll second that one. I Erhart: So you' re cutting it down to what? Hasek: 10 feet as opposed to 20 feet. I (There was a tape change during the voting of the motion.) Hasek moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend recommend to accept park and trail dedication feet in lieu of the parkland and trail construction and require the dedication of a 10 foot in I II Park and Rec Commmission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 38 wide trail segment along the north property line. Also, that we compensate the landowner for this dedication at fair market value. Hasek and Mady voted in favor and the rest voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 4. IIDon Ashworth: There may be a third option in that, and I guess I didn' t think of it until the question was posed, the trail 's been there for a I number of years. You may just want to direct the City Attorney to respond to the question as to whether or not the City already owns it. We've had useage for more than an 8 year period of time, there' s a strong possibility that he will come back saying that you legally own that through useage. Lash: Okay. I have a question for you people. You say that you don' t have a problem with the kids using the path but you have a problem with it I being a supposedly designated path. That will be paved and that it looks like it's a real official type thing so is there a problem with us getting it but just not paving it and leaving it so that it would then guarantee the useage by residents to use it but it would not be a paved trail? Michael Schultz: Why not just buy the Wolf path? You've got 4 feet there. IIMady: I don' t think the trail is entirely on the Wolf property. The existing trail does not stay on the Wolf property. ' Lash: So then we really would not have to take any property. I mean the kids would just walk around the trees like they' re doing now if it was not a defined paved. IISietsema: Well I don' t have where the existing trail is. It may be a portion on the Ostrom development. Maybe a portion of it on theirs and a portion of it on the Wolf property. All three and that would go along with. . . Did anyone second Jan' s to move for approval? Lash: I don' t think so. IIErhart : I want to hear more about Sue' s proposal . Boyt: Conservation easement? Where you maintain ownership of the property but it can be, I don' t know. We have conservation easements in other areas. They just maintain the trail . But you would ownership of the property. IIKathy Schultz: And you maintain the trail? The natural trail through there? ' Erhart: It' s there right now. Boyt: Although I think our conservation easements right now are nothing . Don Ashworth: I don't think you allow anything in a conservation easement. IIBoyt : Except for timber walls and. . . I Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 39 Lash: But there wouldn't be any? ' Mady: But they somehow end up there. Hasek: Don, could they grant the City a cross access easement or something II across that property? Don Ashworth: The easement that Lori is really talking about is just an easement for trail purposes. If we wanted to come back in there with sewer or water , we'd have to get an easement. That easement is only good for trail purposes. I don't know how to resolve your potential dilemma. I 'm hearing the commission say that it wouldn' t be a bad idea to reserve that for sometime in the future but you really don't want to build a trail across there that' s permanent. That' s kind of up to this group. If you make assurances to yourself and to these people that you' re not proposing to build up a trail . Hasek: I ' ll tell you what part of the property is. The issue comes to us II as a trail and yet none of the information related to the trails is on the plan . We end up with a line drawing that's got some topography on it. We don't know where the trees are. We don't know where the trail is and if the issue is really a trail easement, it seems to me like that that ought to show up on here. If I was bringing this before the Planning Commission someplace as a proponent, I 'd have pertinent information on it. Otherwise II it seems as though you' re avoiding the issue. Maybe what we should do is say we want to see this come back. We want to see the trail , the existing trail alignment is and where the trees are so we can make a rational decision on it. Bring it back to us . , Kathy Schultz: . . .we haven' t had any information. We got a phone call today saying that this is going on tonight and a week ago we got told , this II has been going on since last August. Trying to get into this place. A week or 10 days ago we got called, we got a phone call telling us about this easement so we haven' t really received any information. We'd like to see just what. . . Hasek: The point is, it's up to the property owner to put the trail . What I'm saying is, the information that is the issue tonight doesn' t appear on II the drawing and it's the property owner' s obligation to address the issue. That's what I 'm saying. If I were to bring this, if I were to propose a subdivision for you, which I don' t know if this guy' s a realtor or who he is, I would put the trail on here. At least to let people know what' s going on and I would have surveyed the trees along that line to show how maybe that trail doesn' t have to take up 20 feet. It only has to take a few feet. I'd like to see a little bit more information. . . Michael Schultz: He didn't propose the trail . Hasek: No . But we're asking for it. 1 Michael Schultz: Okay. So you' re saying. . . I IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 40 II Hasek: It' s just another piece of information that may have helped you and it may have helped us and it' s not here and it' s real difficult. I mean we're asking the question, where are the trees . Where are the fences? Where's all the other stuff and it's just not shown. I 'd like to see it. Lash: I 'm going to keep feeding on your ideas. We' ll be here until we come up with something that hopefully we can get done with it tonight even 1 if it has to go to Planning. I 'm not as familiar with this as you as far as a conservation easement. Is that something we could get and+ the kids can walk through there and they just continue the path that they' re on now or even if it turned out that they were a little bit on Wolf's and a little bit on all these other people' s, have it be on their property but not a defined trail . Not a paved trail . They just walk through the way they' re defining. IIHasek: That seems like we' re sidestepping the issue. I mean as a City we want them to go through there, we should do something. Take the responsibility for it. If we allow that to happen and something happens on II this piece of property and these owners are going to come back and say, we didn' t want those kids going through there in the first place. It ' s your responsibility and you were the ones that told them that they could . IILash: But they would be making the agreement with us , and I guess it would be a condition in that it' s okay for them to go through. IIDon Ashworth: A conservation easement can be defined almost anyway you want to. Around Chan Pond we put in there what could happen and what couldn' t happen. What would be allowed and what would not be allowed. So III think the answer to your question is yes. Hasek: Would that protect the City? IDon Ashworth: I guess I look at it, who knows what the future may bring . I mean 10-20 years from now you may very well want to have paved trails through there. I can' t believe that we' re going to put a paved trail IIthrough there at this point in time because, although. . .school and you get back over on the other side of the property and the trail just ends. We need that more south flowing connector. That 150 feet to get up to the IIother trail on 65th Street so until we resolve that, there' s no way you can pave it. Again, some form of policy decision, you could say we' re not even going to consider paving it for 10 years is not, that may sound nice but IIit's simply not legal. You can't bind a future commission. Hasek: How about if we leave it to be up to the Council to decide what kind of an easement it is. Just give them the direction that we'd like to I maintain the circulation. Let them decide what kind of an easement. That would give it at least some time to go through Council, to legal counsel to take a look at it. Maybe he has some recommendations. Don Ashworth: Or approve it subject to working out a trail easement that's acceptable to the Park Commission and they provide at the next meeting a II survey information. . . Or we could ask the City Attorney to draft something . Park and Rec Commission Meeting ' January 9, 1990 - Page 41 I Michael Schultz: I'm not familiar . I've been through these, I don' t see a II distinct trail through there. Maybe since I 've seen the property late fall and winter , it wasn' t real clear to me where the trail was and where it wasn' t. Boyt: It should be clear in the winter if they're using it. Michael Schultz: Yeah. I didn't see it. ' Boyt: We have a trail that goes out of our yard into a park and I was out on it today, and there's been a lot of people on it, and not from my family. It' s real clear where it is even with the snow. Michael Schultz: Yeah, I didn' t see any distinct trails. I 'm sure it' s used because it' s convenient but I didn' t know how frequently. I didn' t know how big an issue it was. Robinson: Well the negative people should try to come up with something positive here? Boyt: It sounds like some of us want something where they maintain ownership of the property and they get the use of the trail . Hasek: You see I don' t think it' s the ultimate solution. I don' t think a paved trail is necessary. I think that eventually there's going to be something else, at least I would like to see something else. Boyt: I don't see a paved trail as necessary at all . I Lash: Okay. So is it something that we sent to the Attorney? We' re ready to send this to someone else. And maybe he' ll say, yeah the City does have ownership or no or you could do this easement and then. . . He could help us with something that's sounds intelligent. But that would take too much time if you want it to go to Planning right? Sietsema: Right. And if they' re closing, I 'm sure they' re anxious to see II this get through the process. I was wondering if we could elaborate a little bit more on checking with the Attorney about the ownership of it through use. Don Ashworth: The only hesitancy I have there is it' s pretty obvious that ' you've had streets and what not that have been used for a period of time. For something like a trail , it can become more difficult. Again, the question can be posed back to him but if it does seem like we' re coming back to our initial. . . 1 Lash: If we did it that way, we wouldn' t have to pay anything so ultimately. . . Mady: Just an easement. i I IIPaxk and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 42 1 Hasek: How about if we do this? How about if we accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of the parkland, and this is in the form of a motion. And trail construction and require the dedication of a 10 foot easement for the purposes of cross access from 65th Street, generally from 65th Street across the north part of the property to the school property IIfor purposes of cross access for, I don't even know how to finish it. Mady: For pedestrians? IHasek: Yeah . For pedestrians and send it to legal counsel for opinion as to how best to facilitate that easement. IIMichael Schultz : Would the Wolf parcel be 8 feet of that, some portion of that 10 feet? Kathy Schultz: Or are you talking 10 in addition? Hasek: 10 in addition. We' re talking about your property. 10 feet off of Iyours. Kathy Schultz : With that you' re saying that you might cut trees down. Lash: No. Hasek: What we want to do is leave the path in place. That ' s what I 'd II like to do. Leave the path in. place. Leave the use the way that it is right now. I Sietsema: And it' s entirely likely that there' s not much of that trail on your property. I mean that' s definitely a possibility. When I saw the trail and was on it myself, it was very unclear who' s property I was on at that point in time. 11 Lash: If it' s just a natural path the kids are taking you know. IIErhart: We just want to keep it natural . Boyt: Second. IIMady: So the motion is to request a 10 foot easement from the Shively property. The north portion of the Shively property and that we send this on to the City Attorney for his determination as to how to word the 1 easement to allow for a nature trail . Hasek: For a cross access. IIMady: For a pedestrian type of nature trail . Unimproved. IHasek moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction and to require the dedication of a 10 foot easement for IIthe purposes of pedestrian cross access across the north part of the Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 43 I Shively property to the school property and to refer the issue to the City Attorney for an opinion as to how best to facilitate that easement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION OF COLLECTION OF PARK DEDICATION FEES. , Sietsema: As you may recall , at some point last year the Park and Recreation Commission discussed the possibility of collecting park I dedication fees at the time of final plat approval . I discussed this with Don and he has some concerns about it and some reservations about doing it that way. I also talked to or got the opinion of the City Attorney. Don is here to discuss it further. Don Ashworth: I saw the request and I recognize that you did it , I think II the primary issue probably is one of trying to get more dollars up front as a number of these new developments are occuring, we have those dollars . The problem with that is really one of, most of the developments, take Near Mountain, whatever . Trapper 's Pass . You probably have at least 10 different additions in there. He really did not come in and put in the full 300 lots. They did 20 at a time. Under State law, even if you' re collecting as a part of the platting process, it's only at the time of the 11 final plat so even though he' s got authority to, he has approval for the 300, when he brings in that group of 20 or 30, that' s when you could look to the collection of those dollars . Other communities that I 've been in, we have done that in collecting at the time of final plat. That typically II puts that responsibility over into the planning department part of the final plat documents or actually the collection of this check associated with development . For ease of adminstration, that probably would be the best way to do it. Just turn the thing back over and you have Paul or Jo Ann collect that fee as a part of again that platting process . I'm sure that in the next 1, 2, 3 years that as building permits came in, Lori would be looking at those and seeing whether or not this was Trapper ' s Pass 4th , 5th, 6th or 7th as they didn't pay and then 8, 9, 10 had paid at the time of final plat so they wouldn' t be charged. But at some point in time you would just switch back over and you really wouldn't be looking at the. . . permit at all . It'd be just at the time of the final plat. I think we lose a lot of money. When you have it at time of final plat, take the CPT property. If it was platted, which I don' t think that it was , occurred II prior to the ordinance requiring commercial/industrial charges against, or the park charge against commercial/industrial properties. That means that any existing commercial piece, and there are some exceptions. Burdick has ' platted all of his down in here. The question becomes one of, are we going to get that park charge. There was nothing in the minutes stating that the CPT property, which is now DataServ, would be required to pay a park charge. If we collect that though as a part of the building permit, then II every permit that comes in, new or old, has to take and pay a park charge. There's some exceptions. Lori goes back and she does check records but it' s a reverse process. It's a question of whether or not you have a 11 credit coming to you versus one of you, the City must prove that you're obligated to pay. That' s a big difference. What' s going to happen is pieces like the CPT/DataServ, which if I remember correctly was $65,000.00. You' re talking about a large amount of money. The same way with literally II I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 44 11 all of them. Lyman, Redmond' s, CPT, The Press. More recent, two new ones II behind the Press. That was a requirement to comply. We have no legal means. If somebody would push us on those right now, they'd challenge us on those, we probably would lose but as it stands, as it's just collected as a part of the building permit and everybody is required to do it. We've I never had anybody come in and say, we're going to challenge your right to do this. But I think once we switch it over and make it a part of the platting process and you get down the road a ways where every new plat is IIpaid in this way. . . Hasek: Are you saying that they would challenge the park fee itself? IIDon Ashworth: No. They would challenge your ability to collect the park fee against, let' s see. On Jim Burdick' s property, that' s a more recent plat. You take any buildings in the downtown area. A lot of that property ' has been there for many, many, many, many years. You don' t have any records that show what we've required at the time of platting. II Sietsema: Amoco' s a good example right now. Amoco just came in and they' re tearing down their old building and putting up a new one. Do I put a park charge on there? They didn' t replat . I Don Ashworth: I 'm sure the answer is yes . You have a park charge against them. Right. Although we may have some question, we continuously. . . IIHasek: Is it in the building permit charge? Don Ashworth : It' s one of the lines in the building permit charge. IISietsema: Surcharge. Don Ashworth: That' s the standard time of collection. Anyone who comes in ilknows that they have to pay those accordingly. Robinson: Don, do you think these four that do, Chaska , Champlin, II Burnsville and Bloomington, do you think they've done it on platting since day one then because that' s what you' re saying, the switch over period would be difficult. IIDon Ashworth: Lori keeps track of them right now and so even if somebody comes into the Business Park, she looks at the map and sees that they have 75% credit coming off that area versus where Rosemount had 0. 11 Sietsema: I think the answer is yes. Did you ask if Plymouth has always charged right up front? IIRobinson: Yeah. Sietsema: Yeah. IIRobinson: And he' s saying what' s difficult here is the switch over and looking back. II II Park and Rec Commission Meeting I January 9, 1990 - Page 45 I Boyt : . . .collecting from people that we might not have a legal basis to collect from and it's easier to do it the way we do it now because it's on I the form. Don Ashworth: We have lots next to you that have to be 2 years old . We collect a park charge if they. . .across the street. Lash: Because there' s not going to be new construction? Sietsema: Yes. Lash: In Inver Grove Heights and Plymouth, it says commercial building permits and housing plat. Would that eliminate some of these problems or not? The examples you were giving, most the ones I heard were for businesses. Hasek: The question then is, the point is that we' re trying to build the parks for the people. If the community develops with the people, we' re not getting the money up front so what' s the point. If it develops industrial II office and we collect it from commercia/industrial/office as indicated up front, we could build the parks but if it goes the other direction. If it turns out to be that everybody comes out to live out here and not to work out here and there is no demand for the office and commercial , then we' re collecting it the same as always and it's a moot point. Lash : Okay. I just have to say this to see if I have this clearly in my mind because maybe I 'm on the wrong track. I thought the point was, when a II neighborhood would go in, development would go in, right now what ' s happening are the houses are kind of dribbling in and sometimes it takes 5 II to 10 years for the development to be finished and we never get, the money dribbles in so we never end up with a lump sum and the people who are in the development for 5 years have had to live without a park. So if the platting was done for the neighborhood, we could get for all the lots in that particular neighborhood, we could collect the money up front and then put the park in so that as people dribbled into the neighborhood they would have a park. , Hasek: Yes. You' re correct. I read that backwards. Don Ashworth: That was my original goal but what I 'm saying is, even , collecting it at the time of platting is not going to solve that goal because truly when a plat, let' s use again Near Mountain. The only time you collect money is at the time of the final plat and they're up to again, II I don' t know 14th or 15th Addition back into the woods area. This is what, 3 to 5 years later? So even if we' re collecting at the time of final plat, you would have collected the final plat for 60 lots in 1985, 60 lots in 86. II You see what I 'm saying? So whether you' re collecting, as I see it, whether you' re collecting on a permit basis or on platting basis, I really don' t think that you' re getting that much more money in that much quicker . The other side of the coin, I think you're losing money because where you 11 have older lots that maybe didn't have formally in writing a requirement that they should pay so therefore there's nobody out there getting money from them. The only way we can get money from those is if we collect it at II 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 46 1 the time of the building permit. IISietsema: And the other point of that is , typically the way I 've witnessed it is that they do develop phase by phase and they configure the phases of what they figure they can do in a year ' s time. So we get that much money IIin that year ' s time anyway. Whether we collect it at the beginning of the building season or as they take them out and they take out 3 a week. By the end of the season, we have all that money in that same year . IIHasek: As opposed to having it at the beginning of the season for something. Boyt: And we' ve seen that it' s not enough for what we've been trying to do. We see that it' s not working out or we' re not getting the funds to do the park building that the realtors are selling to the people. IIMady: One thing we can do that we did talk about a little bit maybe is changing the City' s ordinance so that upon subdivision, final approval of IIthe subdivision, that they have. . .we require them to dedicate parkland or trails or what have you. That it gets done in the first phase and not when they feel like getting to it. Maybe that will cover at least a part of what we' re trying to accomplish . ISietsema: I think that' s only, it' s not realistic to think that like in Chan Hills for example. That where the park is actually located is in the IPhase 3. When they started their way up on the other end , they have not done any grading in that area so for them to put that road in in the first phase and get down there and do the grading for that area and it' s out in IIthe middle of a cornfield, isn' t realistic to ask a developer to do. Go out of the area that he' s actually working in. Part of the reason that we are able to ask them to do the grading and do that work in the park is because they' re there in that location with their equipment anyway. 11 Hasek: We've got a problem. We've got a problem that we've got all kinds of people, it' s never the people that are happy that come in here which is IImost of the people in town are happy with the way things are happening. We've turned out to be a reactive commission or reactive council in this city and we only react to the people that show up here which are the ones II that are complaining about something going wrong . That' s what we' re trying to do. We' re trying to get somehow resolve the issue. Give us a solution. Tell us something. . . IISietsema: Here' s another question to throw out to you. Do you want to develop parks before the people are there to tell you what they want in them? IIBoyt: That' s what we want to do. We know approximately what we' re going to put in and we want to get them started. That's what we've talked about. IHasek: I don' t think there' s anything wrong with putting a park in before people live there because it's no different than moving into a community with existing parks . I mean you don' t complain because, you know I wish I Iwouldn' t have moved into this community because it doesn' t have facilities. r Park and Rec Commission Meeting I January 9, 1990 - Page 47 I I want the park that's next door to me. If the trail was in your front yard and you knew then, you wouldn' t be complaining about the trail being there. You'd probably enjoy it. You'd know it' s there. You'd like it. If it's not there and we try to put it in after you move in, that's when the problems start. If the facility was there. If the play structure was there. If the ballpark was there. You'd use it and you'd be happy with it I think. Lash: I think more people would like that than to move in thinking it' s going to be there in a year and not getting it there for 10 years. Hasek : Well the point is, it' s not going to be there in a year and it probably only be there when they first move in but at least it's going to be closer to the day of moving in because we' re playing a game of catch up and we're always going to do that until some magnanimous donor comes in with multi or thousands of dollars for us to finish our park system up before people move into town. Robinson: Changing this isn' t going to make us well . It will probably help a small amount but then we've got the loss to consider of the downtown. Lash: Is it going to be just a temporary boost? That we' ll all of a sudden maybe get this little glut and then we' ll run dry for a long time? Is that a�possibility of happening? dry Hasek: I think it's going to be less of a game of catch up is what it ' s going to do. That's how I see this . I don' t think it's going to all of a sudden make it possible for us to develop parks before or while people are II moving into a neighborhood. Robinson: No, I don't either . Hasek: What it's going to do is maybe move it up a little. . . Mady: . . . If you want to put a street in the City of Lakeville, you put a sidewalk in with it. That' s the way it is. . . .discussing give or take. That's just a condition of putting in a subdivision in that city. I 'd like to see us move in that direction in this city. I think we could do the II same thing with the parks. If you want to put in a subdivision, maybe the condition is on the size of the subdivision. But if you' re going to have a subdivision that can handle 50 families, by God you'd better plan on doing something for that subdivision in year 1 and not in year 10 after we've got II 49 of them in here asking us how come we haven't done anything. Boyt: Yeah. This was our way of going about getting that done. It sounds II like Don doesn't think this is the best way to do it. It won' t balance out. Hasek: It's an adminstrative problem and I fully see what he' s saying. I II mean there's a good chance that we could lose some revenue and the loss of the revenue might set us back every bit that we think we' re going to move forward. I can see that happening. Maybe what we need to do is, I ' ll sit I I/ 11 Park an• d Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 48 I down and talk with John Shardlow, one of the consulting planners in 1 Burnsville, and find out what's going on there. How that's worked. If it was a benefit. If they started at the beginning. If it helped them catch up, what problems they've had with it. Maybe that's what we need to do is Ito go through here in just a little bit more detail and figure out if it can or if it can't work. It would seem to me, maybe I misread the Attorney's letter , but he didn' t seem to think that there was going to be quite the problem but maybe it's loss of, it wasn' t loss of revenue that he II was. . . Sietsema: He was strictly looking at whether it was a legal thing to do Iand how it would work. And it is. It' s done. But in most instances, I 'm pretty sure that when they enacted the ordinance to require park dedication fees, they started with collecting them up front at the time of final plat Iapproval and they don' t have this change over . Mady: Can I suggest that maybe what we do is table this item for 6 weeks and Ed can do some checking and the rest of us can do some thinking because I we kind of know what we' re trying to get at. We've. . .discussion and maybe come back in 6 weeks and see if we've gotten any place further with it. ILash: Also one of the things that, I ' ll just stick this in too, that we talked about was trying to get the developers to contribute more towards the development too. Did that sort of just die or what happened to that? Mady: Well our problem is , there is a 10% limitation. That' s the law. Sietsema: To contribute more land? IILash : No. To actually have to develop, put it in. IIBoyt: Develop the ballfields . Sietsema: We require them now to do, in most cases, to do the grading . IILash: No. We were talking about providing with specs as far as what we wanted in the park and giving it to them and saying this is what you've got to do. Give them the plans and specs and say this is the park they have to I/ put in. Erhart : . . .require them. Is that what you' re saying? IIBoyt: If we required them to do that, we'd be getting less land. Erhart : And we really need land. 1 Sietsema: The State law states that we have to be reasonable. Boyt : We can' t be greedy? Hasek: What is reasonable? I just talked to a gentleman over in Deephaven. He subdivided a piece of property on Lake Minnetonka and he had roughly 6 acres of land. Divided it into 3 parcels and his park dedication 1 • Park and Rec Commission Meeting il January 9, 1990 - Page 49 11 fee turned out to be about $60,000.00. The point is, not the land . It' s the user. Now where in the world are those 3 units going to get $60,000. 00 II worth of benefit out of the park system in the City? Is that reasonable? It's legal by what you say. 10% of the value of the land. Sietsema: And that will come back to, we base ours on density. When it I gets, when the land value gets over $12, 500.00, then we go to density and that' s where that all comes in. II Boyt moved, Robinson seconded to table action for 6 weeks on collection of park dedication fees to collect additional information. All voted in favor II and the motion carried. Michael Schultz: I wouldn' t be able to go to sleep without asking this II question. The first thing that bothers me, what would be the liability if this easement is proved, this conservation easement for us in terms of the children walking. . . I Mady: Legal liability? Michael Schultz: Yes. 1 Boyt: On a normal trail , we've talked a lot about the liability on a II sidewalk. There's almost none until he' s a huge glaring hole in the ground that you've dug to try and grab children. Michael Schultz: You'd have to prove gross negligence on the City. I Sietsema: You want to know what your liability is . Anybody can sue anybody. It's actually your property so if someone gets hurt on your property, they can sue you and they' ll probably sue the City but the courts are leaning towards, unless there' s something gross negligence, they're leaning in favor of the landowner because more and more you have to -take the responsibility of your own risk of traveling. But there are no II guarantees. Michael Schultz: I'm a personal injury attorney. I don' t do real estate II though but the question I have is, whether an easement grants any sort of safeguard? It sounds like it doesn' t. Sietsema: It just makes the City liable too. Because it is a public I thoroughfare or it is a public easement, then the City also has some liabilities. Michael Schultz: If that's the case, if the easement is granted, is that , something that' s compensated? IIKathy Schultz: To us? I mean you're the owners then? I mean if we' re the owners but you have an easement on it. Sietsema: Right. I I/ II Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 50 I Kathy Schultz: And there' s no compensation for us for giving you an easement? Sietsema: No, that' s not entirely true. There would be compensation. I don't know what that would be. Hasek: Would there? II Sietsema: Yes . Hasek: Would there be for a conservation easement? Is there compensation II for those typically? I mean there are certain types of easements because of, like drainage and so forth, would take easements up to a certain time. The question is, we don' t now what kind of easement it' s going to be. There are certain kinds where you don' t have to compensate. Robinson: I don' t think we can answer that. We're not qualified. fSietsema: Why don' t I refer your questions to the City Attorney and I can get back to you. IIMady: Call Roger Knutson, he' s the City Attorney. Kathy Schultz: And what was the park dedication fee you were talking ' about? Sietsema: Park dedication, right at this point in time is collected at the time a building permit is issued and depending on how much you paid for your property, typically it' s $500. 00 a unit. If you' re not building , I wouldn't worry about it. If you were to subdivide in the future, then each unit would be subject to, at this point in time, it' s $500. 00 a unit. IIKathy Schultz: You can see we' re city dwellers. Thanks. IAUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT: LAKE ANN, PHASE II AND CHANHASSEN HILLS, PHASE I. IIMady: One item of discussion. Staff is just taking into consideration the earlier comments during the Bandimere South Park property. IIBoyt moved, Robinson seconded to authorize staff to purchase the Phase II playground equipment for Lake Ann Park and Phase I playground equipment for IChanhassen Hills Park out of the Capital Improvement Program with budgeted funds. All voted in favor and the motion carried. IIAUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF SOUTH LOTUS PARK MASTER PLAN. Mady moved, Boyt seconded to authorize the preparation of a concept plan, Iwhich will then be brought back for the Commission and neighborhood 1 • Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 51 revisions, for South Lotus Lake Park Master Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Sietsema: Just one more comment on the South Lotus Lake one. I 'm going to 1 take, you have not given, basically brainstormed or given us any information as to what facilities you want, although there is money in the budget for tennis courts, ballfield, totlot equipment and that kind of stuff. So I 'm going to go with the assumption that those are the II facilities you want in that park and then whatever else looks like, that' s what we' ll try to fit in there. Boyt: Let's notify more people than we' re required to notify on this one. II Everyone over to Frontier Trail . Hasek: Are there any associations in there where you could notify the association president? Boyt : They're old neighborhoods. I Lash: Make sure you put it in the paper then. Sietsema: I will definitely try to get those that require public input, or we want public input, to get those in the paper . Mady: We don' t have an item 10, or at least we don' t have it in our ' packet. Sietsema: No. The Kreidberg Addition is simply, when you look back at the II water tower property. The water tower property, there' s a piece of it that looks like this that' s being sold off to Kreidberg 's that live right there. The City is preserving this portion to continue the trail through the water , tower property so they' re just selling a portion of that property. I wanted to just make you aware that part of the water tower property was sold but it did not impact our trail . Mady: Do the Kreidberg's know the trail is there? Sietsema: Yes . I Boyt: How much property is left in that section? Is that 20 feet? Sietsema: It' s over 20 feet. 1 Lash : Does the City own that property? Sietsema: Yes. Mady: Okay, so there' s no action required. I Sietsema: No. I put it on there for a remainder for me to talk to you about it. I/ II Park and Rec Commission Meeting • January 9, 1990 - Page 52 1 SITE PLAN REVIEW - CARRICO. Sietsema: The Carrico property, as you all know where it is and the history of it. They' re going through with their proposal to subdivide the I11. 67 acres into 13 single family lots . I had a difficult time trying to figure out what the recommendation should be on this. It's a difficult area for us to try to find park property. I think we should take what we can get. This is compromising our standards. It' s 4. 24 acres. A great IIportion of that is wet. One thing I did want to bring up though that kind of slipped my mind before is that our sliding scale on park dedication fees, if it' s more than $12, 500.00 per acre, then we go to a density. This he claims is worth $330,000.00 for the entire piece and with this density it's 9% of land value which would bring that is $30,000.00. So you may want to reconsider what my recommendation was and if you would prefer to have the money or to just give him a credit toward a portion of that and 1 require him to pay in addition. In all the calculations that the engineering department has done to date, Dave has indicated that he feels that the 988 contour line, up to that area will be consistently wet. Even 1 if they put in a little holding pond as they've shown. That is the amount of area that is likely to be wet after a normal rain for a matter of a week to 2-3 weeks or most of the season. So it is not to be assumed that we Icould put any kind of active park facilities within that 988. If we have a 100 year storm, which we seem to have every maybe couple years, then it would go up to the 990 and flow out of there. Drain out of there at the emergency flow culvert which is at the 991. So basically what I 'm saying , I without looking at it as what facilities can go on there, is that there is some useability. There is some portion of the property that will be dry and useable but probably not the typical open spaces and active areas that 11 we' re used to putting in neighborhood parks . But given that we' re so strapped for parkland in this area, people need open space and sliding hills and a low area to flood in the winter for ice skating and a place to put totlot equipment would certainly take some of the recreational , the pressure off the needs in that area. Hasek: There isn' t any spot for a sliding hill here though? ISietsema: If you start out at the road and slide into the wetland . II Mady: I talked to Lori about this item yesterday and asked her if it was possible to move the wetland into the corner to open up more parkland. I don't know if that's a possibility or not. IIBoyt : That was the other thing too, we alter the wetlands. Mady: So we get parkland. Sietsema: I can check with Jo Ann. I haven' t had the opportunity to talk to her about that yet but I don't know. It is a Class B meaning that it Ican be altered. I don' t know if it can be altered to that degree. Boyt: Normally we wouldn't recommend anything like that. It's just that we' re so hard up in this area . I I • Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 53 Mady: Otherwise, my only other thought on this whole thing is, we need parkland, what we do is we take, it looks like maybe 2 acres on the far west side of this property and let him keep is other 2 1/2 acres of wetland II and not give him any credit. We don' t need to give him for wetland . Sietsema: No. I would not recommend giving him any credit for the wetland r area. Just the area that is the dry but he would dedicate that all as one hunk. We would only give him credit for the useable area . Boyt: This $30,000. 00, is that total? Sietsema: If we strictly took money, the most we could get, if his figures II are correct. That it's worth $330,000.00, which he claimed in his appraisal . Then the park dedication fees would be $30,000.00. 2 acres at that price would then be, so we may not be better off. We can't play both II ends of the stick. Lash : But do we have to take whatever part of the property he' s offering? Sietsema: No. Lash: If we say this is not acceptable. . . I Boyt: We can say that . Lash: . . .and ask for something that' s better . ' Sietsema: What you could do is say we' ll accept the property but because it' s so compromised by the wetland area, that we will require the full I dedication or only give him 25% credit or maybe give him some credit . Boyt: If we wanted to ask for a different portion of his property, they would say we' re being unreasonable. They'd say we could have it if we want to buy it. Sietsema: We would have to compensate him for that. 1 Hoffman: We've gone through it before. Lash: . . .unreasonable for an area that' s so park deficient, it just I doesn't seem like it' s going to fill the need is it? Boyt: No. But it might. . . , Hoffman: You can't always put the full burden. . . Lash: . . .one lot at the very end here, or something. At least that would maybe be a chunk that would be totally useable. Is that being unreasonable too? I Mady: We've always tried to state it. . .just the ease of being able to maintain them. When you've got a third of an acre, you can't do a whole lot with it and it' s just a headache. I/ IPark and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 54 I ILash: No, but I mean in addition to what he' s. . . Boyt: No. . . .because of acreage. Lash: What if we locked off the one end and said we' re not interested in that. We want this plus this other acre on the end or something? 1 Erhart: You'd have to compensate him. Legally you can' t go in and just say, I want this piece and he has to give it to you. Boyt: We've done that before though. On a piece of property not too far. Sietsema: You have to compensate the person and it' s similar to the Oak ' View Heights where we felt we needed more than what he wanted to give. We have to compensate and if we' re requiring more land than what he' s required to give, then we have to pay for it . Hasek: He' s got how many acres here? Sietsema: 11 1/2. Hasek: So 1. 5, we could require 1. 5 or 1.6 and that would be compensation. ' Sietsema: No. Our' s is not 10%. Our 's is 1 per 75 people. 1 acre per 75 people. 1 acre per 75 people and this is 13 lots . It' s 10% on commercial industrial but it' s not 10% on residential. It goes by density on residential . So 1 acre per 75 and at 2. 8 per unit, it' s half that. We can IIrequire half an acre if we go. Hasek: What' s the point? fSietsema: I think that our best bet on this is to accept what they' re proposing and give them no credit and if he feels that he needs credit, he can argue with the Council . Say we ' ll take this compromise piece of I property but we' re not going to give you any credit toward the park dedication fee. 1 Hasek: We don' t even have to take it. It' s going to end up in a drainage easement anyway. Right? • Hoffman: There' s some of it that' s useable for us . Hasek: Well he's going to have to replat it then and try to sell it is what he' s going to have to do. There' s no way he' s ever going to get a IIbuildable lot on the west end of that thing. The only way is if he tried to move his road around and get one more lot in on that one tiny little piece of high ground. He' s got to go in for a wetland alteration if he I wants to resubdivide. I ran across this guy in church again the other day and they want something. They are just absolutely, one of these days they' re going to be in here. I I Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 55 I Sietsema: Well they've been in my office a number of times and I 'm working with them to see how fast we can convert those outlots into city property ' and see what the potential of one of them. Hasek: Of this one that's right above here. I Sietsema: Yeah, in Pheasant Hills. • Hasek: The piece that' s right on this little pond here. Be grading that. II Mady: Is it possible to table this pending your information from Jo Ann? Erhart: About the wetland alteration? Sietsema: I believe it's on the agenda for next Wednesday for Planning so we can. Hasek: Can I ask, how come we get these so late? Sietsema: Because that 's just the way the schedule is. Hasek: Then maybe what we need to do is change our meetings. I mean there I isn't any opportunity for us. We give it one meeting and we' re almost forced to. . . Sietsema: You can table it. You have that option but I just want you to be aware that that' s his process. But if you need more information, you certainly have the option to and the applicant then can decide whether he wants to go on to Planning without a recommendation from Park and Rec and 11 get that later and go on to Council or if he wants to postpone it before it goes to Planning. Mady: I personally want to find out about the wetland before I . . . ' Hasek: The simple fact is, if we can only get half an acre, I mean if you look at it. This is rougly 2 acres right here right? There' s 1 acre. There's a half an acre. What' s the point? Mady: I'm saying , if we find out that it' s legally possible to alter this II wetland , move it, we don' t have to require him to do it. He' s proposing to give this to us. Then we just say, we' ll take this knowing that we can then do something. Otherwise I 'm saying, let's not give him credit for anything we know we can't utilize. Boyt: But we might have 3 acres of useable land. Hasek: The potential I see, a real potential for 2. If we don' t have to pay for it, that's great. That's why I was kind of going through it. Boyt: We don't have to pay for it. ' Sietsema: He's not asking for any compensation above the park fee. IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting January 9, 1990 - Page 56 I Hasek: Give us that piece of ground that' s proposed park area . Lash: So he gives us this and we can say to him, okay we' ll take this plus the $30,000.00. ISietsema: I don' t think. No, he' s not asking for additional compensation. I Lash: No, but I thought you said we wouldn' t have to give credit by saying this is not that great of a piece. Sietsema: I 'm not saying that he won't argue but we can make that recommendation. With this sliding scale, it does have some things, it doesn' t all jive together. I Mady: If we were to say, let ' s take this whole piece hoping that we can do something with it. If we can' t do something with the whole piece and we still have enough. . .to maybe squeeze a play structure in. Hasek: No, this guy wouldn't want a play structure in his front yard and I wouldn' t want to put it there. Lash: O I' ll make a motion that we table this to get information from Jo Ann.Okay, Boyt: Second . I Lash moved , Boyt seconded to table action on the Carrico site plan review for additional information from the Planning Department. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ILash moved, Hasek seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. . Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator IPrepared by Nann Opheim I I I • 1