The URL can be used to link to this page

1989 02 01 e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 1, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Annette ElIson, Brian Batzli and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION REQUEST FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD ON PROPERTY ZONED BF AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TH 212 AND THE EAST SIDE OF TH 101, PATRICK BLOOD AND NANCY LEE, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT. Public Present: Name Address e N.A. Monroe Verne Severson Linda Seavick Margaret (Christoff) Jim Sellerud Pribula 565 Lakota Lane, P.O. Box 115, Chaska 675 Lakota Lane, Chaska 508 Lyn Park Lane, Minneapolis 55411 4949 Queen Avenue No., Minneapolis 55430 730 Vogelsberg Trail Steve Hanson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. - Patrick Blood: I'm Patrick Blood. I'm one of the owners. When we first came into the property, we came in with the idea of contractor's yard as such. A lot of people, they hear contractor's yards, to simplify it I guess is more or less like a garage type area. We planned on some warehouse. I'm sure you're all aware of our first plans. At the time we presented this first idea to the Council, we at that time didn't have too much knowledge of what the cities were going to have to do as far as mandating their recycling programs. We actually work 6 different cities at this time. When we found out of all the stipulations and everything in recycling, it sort of changed our position on the piece of land. Not that we don't want it. It's just that we've always had the intentions of putting a respectabie recycling center up. If you want to call that contractors yard besides, well, I guess that's where it lays. Since we've started 4 years ago, we've been parked behind a barn in one area which was behind 2 homes. We've had no impact in that 2 1/2 years at that facility. The facility that we are at now is a 3 bay garage Lester building. We are renting a portion of this building. When we moved in, we actually improved that facility by just cleaning it up and even the people that are around that facility have no complaints of what we're operating with now. But what we'd like to see now is not much change in what we presented the first time around. It's what the idea of eventually putting up a recyclable center where people can come and drop off their recyclables. A ~ e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 2 lot of people will then again say, well, we've got storage. The facility that we're thinking about putting in there, or are going to try to put in, isn't like a sort separation like the Reuter plan that I'm sure you're all aware of. Ours will be more or less a transfer station from one truck to the other. Delivered to the markets that day and whatever storage is left over will be from that day and then disposed of the next day. In order to do this, we need a little bit more room. When we had first brought this to the City's attention, we were only going to utilize the first 5 acres of this piece of property with the intentions of down the road either selling or utilizing the rest of the 8 acres in the future. Now we see with the City's help and maybe the County's help, I just touched on Carver County and that, with everybody's help maybe we can put in a decent, respectable recycling center. That's where our intentions lay. This will in fact have to utilize the whole 13 acres instead of the 5. The plans will probably have to extend over a longer period of time because everything is so iffy in the recycling that new ideas are coming up every day and we just have to go with the flow. But that's our intentions for this piece of property. I'm sure everybody in the cities nowadays know that this type of facility is the thing of the future and we're all going to have to have it. In order to have it and have a decent one, we're all going to have to work together to make sure it is. That's where Nancy and I stand. I just hope the City feels that together we can make this a respectable clean place. Whether you put it in the contents of contractor's yard or recycling center, I don't know. e Conrad: Okay, thanks Patrick. Why don't you stay there for a minute. steve, clarify something for me. Patrick is talking about something different than what we originally saw and we don't know what's different. It may be bigger or traffic. Something's changing but we don't know what it is and he hasn't told us because maybe he's not sure right at this time. Our options right now is, based on what you laid our for us, is he can reapply later on. We can basically turn down the extension and have him reapply but tell me a little bit more about the difference? We can extend this but if we extend what he's got, he's really asking for something probably different than what we originally saw the first time through. I'm guessing. I don't know. e Patrick Blood: Maybe I can fill you in a little bit more of what we've been thinking about as of now. You can work with us or whatever you like but what weld like to see, being that this is also new and so many new ideas coming into this industry, what we'd like to do is maybe put it in phases. Approximately the same as what we got up there but naturally the building, the first building that we do establish up there will have to be more or less a garage area and an office area to even get started and to put possibly in the main grading or whatever. Then possibly down the road, extend in phases rather than all at once because there's no way I can stand up here and be truthful to everybody and say I know exactly what's going to happen and it's going to go in this way. That's impossible at this point. But I do see going in and maybe doing the grading. Being able to utilize a transfer type facility so we can transfer the recyclables from one truck into the other. Possibly putting up the garage building area with the City's approval and everything and then down the road, depending on the new methods and everything they come e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 3 up with, a source recycling center of some kind to where we can abolish as much of the garbage as extreme as we can get. Conrad: I think we have to understand a little bit more about what you're talking, when you're talking recycling, I don't know what we mean yet so hang on. But going back Steve, if Patrick wants to intensify what he's currently got, he has to come back in for another conditional use period? Hanson: That's correct. Conrad: I'm not sure what we're really, if we turn down the extension tonight, what's the impact on the applicant? Obviously he's got an approval to do what he wants to do right now but basically if we continue that approval, it's kind of like saying you've got that but there's no guarantee that we're going to let you do anything beyond that. I think what he needs is a consensus of the future. You don't want to just put in Phase 1. You may want to go through Phase 4 but if we don't let you go to 2, 3 and 4, you don't want to do 1. I guess mechanically, Steve what do you think we should be doing here? e Hanson: I think there are a couple things that can happen. What they obviously want to do is protect what they have at this point in time. Secondly, I thikn they're being very up front in saying, we're going to be doing some other stuff with recycling but we don't know what it's going to be yet because a lot of the cities, including Chanhassen, have not made that decision. I think some of the cities are looking at doing essentially a one year trial period, if you will, on recycling to see what's going to work and how that comes out and how that's done affects what they're going to want to do in dealing with that. It's kind of a dilemma. On one hand when that happens, they're going to have to corne back and adjust the conditional use permit. There's two ways. You can look at it from the standpoint of, well if you know they're going to have to amend it anyway, then it doesn't make sense to extend something that you know isn't right. Is that creating more of a problem or less of a problem? I think in all honesty it's really a toss up. Conrad: Before we get some more comments here, tell us a little bit about what you think recycling means. In terms of your operation, what is recycling? You said people are corning in and dropping off. Who's dropping off? What is this future recycling center that you mentioned? e Patrick Blood: I guess the only way I can explain it now and give everybody a good idea, is Reuter's has got a sort separation. The garbage truck comes in, he dumps it on the floor and then people pick it apart on the floor, then it's shoved into these conveyers. From conveyers it goes up into the rest of his operation, whatever separation goes on in his building. What we are going to go into and most of the cities are going with this, is curbside recycling. It's the only way actually to do it. When you get into curbside recycling, you get away from dumping the garbage on the floor. The people are actually doing it on the curb which is a lot safer for them and a lot cleaner and when it comes to our end of it. e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 4 Conrad: The consumer is separating you mean? e Patrick Blood: Right. That's what the curbside service is all about. Once this operation is done at the curb, we pick it up in separated vehicles. We bring it in. We put it in, right from one truck or trailer, whatever we pick it up in, into a bigger truck or trailer and it goes right off to market. There is no dumping it on the floor. Plus we're only dealing in glass, aluminum, paper, recyclables. Maybe the only thing that might be a little contagious or dangerous or whatever you want to accept it as is maybe like car batteries which we put on a pallet until such time as you get 25 of them and then they go to market. I think when it comes to the garage end of it, it's like Eden prairie now. They are going curbside recycling with the remainder going to Reuter so that almost eliminates your storage of garbage at our facility. The only storage we will have at our facility from one day to the other is your aluminum, glass, paper, your different kinds of metals, anything that's recyclable today that there is a market for. And if you think about it, about the only thing that might be a little contaminating about that is your car batteries which that problem can be easily solved as far as storage goes. Just don't store it for very long and make sure you've got, you put it on the right kind of things to where acid won't get into your water stream and stuff like this, which only makes sense. That's the type of facility that we're doing. We've got our equipment coming. We're setting up in this particular way and this piece of land is what we'd like to utilize down the road with the City's and the County's, here we haven't really touched into it. I called Carver County just the other day and asked them what type of, if there was any such thing as funding towards these kinds of operations now that it's all coming into being. They said, yes. I haven't really touched on it but like I said, it's the thing of the future. It's here and everybody's got to do it. It's just a matter of where do you want it in your city. How do you want it done and do you want a good facility or do you want somebody to just walk in and do it any old way and that's never good so it's better to be up front and work with everybody. Emming: I'd just like to know when you talk about recycling, do you foresee that people will be driving to this center? Patrick that's garage this. a part Blood: Yes I do. For everybody's convenience .in this City, what they need because how many times have you had a tire in your and didn't know where the heck to bring it? Different things like It's convenience to the people and it's just got to be there. It's of the service. Emming: Then would there be someone, would you have hours that it would be closed at certain times? Patrick Blood: Yes. e Emmings: And how people couldn't get into the site? Patrick Blood: Yes. e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 5 Emmings: And how do you foresee people handling that? Patrick Blood: There are two different ways we can do this because when you start collecting aluminum, well right now you're talking the possibility of theft. They're coming out with a container now for different types of roll-off equipment and these containers are divided up and they've got lids that can be locked down and locked up. What can't be stored inside, can be locked up outside. Then you've always got the option of fence. During the open hours, naturally people, it will be manned during the hours it is open for the people that bring in their stuff. So all the hours that it is open, it will be policed. The hours that it is closed, it can be locked up, fenced up. There are all kinds of different facilities for policing as far as even putting dogs on the property to keep the theft rate down. I guess that's about all I can say. - Nancy Lee: I'm Nancy Lee. I'm the other half of Admiral. We just received a couple of these letters here and I glanced over them and it seems like the neighbor's biggest concern is that it's going to be smell like you're living in a garbage can. As Pat had mentioned, there really is no storing of garbage. The garbage we have is in the trucks and the trucks go to the dump all the time to empty. Several times a day. We don't want that smell there anymore than the neighbors want it there. So there is no storage of garbage and there is no problem with rats and things like that. We don't have garbage anywhere but in a sealed truck. The garbage truck with a packer. Another reason we thought that property would be so nice was because the horderl ines are TH 212 and TH 101. The back of it is railraod tracks and the other side is other commercial buildings. The only house that you can see from that piece of property is on the far end of the land that we haven't designated to build on at this point and that's up above the railroad tracks and I don't know how much they can see in. I noticed they said, they were worried about the houses looking down into garbage trucks. There's no feasible way they could see them unless they come out on the road and look over our property. I know people have a general feeling when you say garbage company, you're thinking filth. We foresee sod and flowers and trees and nice things. We don't foresee a pit. As a matter of fact, there are some resident's households around there that, I would never let my property get like that. I guess I just feel there's a real misconception that people feel that a garbage company is filthy and we would like to prove them wrong. - Verne Severson: My name is Verne Severson and I live at 675 Lakota Lane. We're the owners of the property just north of this proposed site, across the railroad tracks. We have a few objections or concerns I guess I'd like to discuss with you. These concerns have led us to object to this. First of all, I guess the most important is that we're concerned about the impact of the traffic in that area. The traffic at this intersection, at TH 101, TH 212 and TH 169 is really terrible the way it is now. It's almost impossible during sometimes of the day to make a left hand turn off TH 101 onto TH 212 and adding a facility down there that involved people driving in and out and large cumbersome garbage trucks, seems to only compound the situation. It certainly wouldn't help it. Second, we feel that adding a facility for storage and maintenance of garbage trucks in our neighborhood can only reduce our property value. We would welcome e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 6 e neighbors who are willing to come in and help make the area look nicer and I understand. I believe they're intentions on doing this. However, the fact is, in the public's mind, a waste facility is still a garbage facility and when it comes time to selling your property and the perspective buyer realizes that there's a garbage facility in the neighborhood, it's going to have an impact on it. There's just no way around that. Thi rd, I guess we feel that, and thi s is more of the same points, we feel that adding a facility like this in our neighborhood and in Chanhassen and such a highly visible area of Chanhassen as this is, isn't really wise city planning because this is after all the southern entrance of Chanhassen. People coming from the south, from the racetrack or from southern Minnesota. That's the first entrance into Chanhassen. The first place they're going to see and I guess we don't think that leaves a good impression of the city if it's right on a main road. Fourth, I think especially based on what we heard tonight, that this is stretching the definition of a contractor's yard. I think you city planners have to look at that more carefully because now we're talking a recycling center which means people driving in. There's a business going on. There's going to be a lot of noise generated. That's a lot different than a contractor's yard where you're just storing and parking vehicles that's used in construction business. I glanced at the City Code and their definition talked about vehicles used in construction business and not a business such as this so I think you've got to look at that. Finally, I guess it's questionable whether this really does enhance the tax base of that area. I think there could be another, more wise use of that piece of property than this kind of facility. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns. I have a letter where I spelled this out and addressed to Steve Hanson. I have one question, if I may. What is the next step on this? All you people do is, not all you do but you make recommendations to City Council. Conrad: In two weeks our recommendation will go to City Council. Verne Severson: Is that meeting open to the public? Conrad: It sure is. We conduct the public hearing and gather the input from whoever wants to speak to the issue. At City Council level, they can entertain comments from the audience if they so choose. I find it typically real valid to stick with the issue through City Council. Emmings: They see a verbatim transcript of transpires here too. Verne Severson: How are we notified of the meetings or do we just have to watch? Conrad: In this particular case it is scheduled, not it's not scheduled. Hanson: It's not scheduled yet. In all likelihood it would be on the e meeting on the 27th rather than the 13th. Conrad: But because it's not a public hearing, then the individual property owners are not specifically notified like they are for a public hearing. So the thing you do is either call City Hall and find out what's e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 7 going on and when or you watch the Chanhassen Villager where the agenda is posted. One or the other. As Steve mentioned, he said in all likelihood it's going to be on the 27th but he hasn't turned out the agenda. Verne Severson: I guess in summary, I'm all in favor of recycling and whatever but I think this is the wrong site for that kind of facility. I think they should find another site that won't compound the traffic problems and maybe isn't so close to... - N.A. Monroe, 565 Lakota Avenue: My property is north and east of this proposed facility. I oppose this facility and I'm sorry to have to do this because I believe in private business and I'm a small business person myself and I really hate to come out against somebody's little business but that is just not the correct site for this kind of an operation. TH 101 is somewhat hazardous now. In fact, if we get more snow tonight, there will cars sliding down that road tonight. Having garbage trucks and industrial trucks moving up and down TH 101, I think would be extremely dangerous. Last year we had a cement truck that went out of control on Highway 101 and killed the driver down at that site. The school buses that carry children from Chanhassen, the drivers have orders not to use that highway when the buses are loaded with children. The Salton bus company will not permit it's buses to go up and down TH 101 when they're loaded. It is somewhat dangerous. We had a semi jack knife down there at the bridge again and right at that site. It tied up traffic for half a day about a year ago. It's just not a good location for that. You're going to need a holding tank for your washing and I don't know how large a holding tank you can build but I know they have perpensity for leaking and overflowing. I think you're going to need a location that has water and sewer and somewhat level property for all the handling of these materials. That's a beautiful, quiet rural area and there are a lot of very expensive homes. Not only on our side of TH 101 but over on the Hesse Farm. I don't know if those people are aware of this development. I think you have several over there that look down on it. I'm not sure. You can see them coming up TH 101. I think anything that increases industrial traffic on TH 101 will create a hazard. Thank you. - Jim Sellerud: My name is Jim Sellerud. I live at 730 Vogelsberg Trail which is not an overlooking site but it's on the hill going up or down. I appeared before you a year ago and I came off rather mildly I think. I indicated some concerns for the City's general approach to that entrance area to Chanhassen and the traffic planning there. I guess I figured at that time it was going to be so obviously inappropriate to place this use there that I didn't have to come off very strongly but I guess you were led to other conclusions. I think it's appropriate, as I see it appropriate for all the Planning Commission is to enhance all areas of the City. That is to promote their best use and sometimes it's said, highest and best use but I think you ought to be interested in having all areas of the city come to some fruition either as a residental area, agricultural or whatever and not to leave parts of the City out and not to have them left over areas that kind of are the catch all to use. Business fringe sort of has some of that connotation. Other conditional uses I think maybe habitually fall into some of those but I think in fairness to these people, I think you should, or fairness to any kind of development, your e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 8 e endorsement or approval should indicate a whole hearty approach to what they're doing and promote not just a minimal kind of activity but hopefully they will prosper. As you hear them speaking, they're very interested in prospering and that their activity would grow in the City and the conditional uses should not overwhelmingly burden that activity. Yet when I read the conditional uses that were imposed on them in the past, it sort of sounded like a begrudging approval. That well you can do it but, and then there was 26 or whatever conditions that seemed to have been a burden on them. Financially I think some of the things would be kind of stiff as a capital investment to get into unless they are figuring on some bigger kind of activity. I think you ought to look to a 20 year plan where they're going to be, not just what they're starting out in the first or second year but you should behind their dreams for 20 years down the line, as you would with any business. I guess with that in mind, I think it's even increasingly inappropriate to say that's the place to put this kind of facility. I guess I have faith in them that they would maintain a clean yard. There would be no rodent problems. No odor problems and maybe no visual impact problems. Maybe it would operate like a UPS where you'd have clean items come in, clean items go out and the public would have some access to those sites but if you'd envisioned a UPS facility that I happen to have a business near one, it's a traffic generater. As they get busier, there's traffic coming in and out. say they look forward to having the public in general coming in and that site. To further endorse the traffic concerns, if you picture site and maybe the map shows enough detail, when you come under the railroad bridge, vehicles coming this way, if they were to make a left hand turn, would have to stop, come almost to a stop. Mr. Teich came down on his tractor a couple years ago. He navigated that for probably 50 years but he rolled his tractor there so you almost have to come to a stop in order to make a left hand turn and certainly with increasing traffic turning to make a stop to take a left hand turn onto that site. To make a left hand turn and make a stop here, with the current traffic volumes during most times of the day, traffic is going to back up behind you. You'll have one vehicle behind you or 2 vehicles behind you also stopped. Soon you've got 2 or 3 vehicles stopped up behind there, you're immediately under this bridge. In terms of sight lines, you're not going to see those cars or vehicles stopped in that traffic lane. Right now people are...Mr. Teich's tractor going up and down the hill once in a while. But you're going to have an immediate hazard and an increasing hazard with any turning operations that this might involve. Whether or not you put in turning lanes or not, you're going to have a hazard that presents itself to unsuspecting drivers. For the other way, you'll be able to have a right turn onto their property without as much difficulty but with the TH 101 alignment that I see here, everything is aimed at increasing traffic volumes on TH 101. Purely from a traffic standpoint, if the access is on TH 101 rather than as I hoped any of these uses down here would be off of TH 212, as I talked to you a year ago, it's just inconceiveable that you would promote any use that would be more than a residential use on that site. Any business use whatsoever is inappropriate I think coming off at that point and certainly not to promote additional uses with the public. Calling for the public to come in and off that site. I also am concerned about the flavor of that whole south part of the city being the entrance to the city. The HRA or the They off the e e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 9 e City put up the nice sign over here saying Welcome to Chanhassen. I think those of us who live a little further south like to think it's welcome to Chanhassen down at the Y as well. That's our front door rather than I hope it isn't the backdoor next to the alley. I would hope that you people wouldn't approach it that way. Some of the conditional uses that have been permitted down there tend to fall in that catch all kind of category. Where do we put them? Somebody bought the property. Well, we've got to let them use it. I think the Planning Commission can be more aggresive in permitting uses. Looking down the line, I guess I've got a couple other questions on the, I'm not sure if you're the present owners of the property. The Teich house was burned by the City some time ago as a training exercise. It stands partially burned. Partially standing.- It's a little indicative maybe of concern that they haven't fulfilled, typically what would happen, I would guess the City would ask that it be leveled and debris removed or whatever but it remains in an unsatisfactory situation. Down the line, I don't know what the Planning Commission has had any involvement in the use of the rail corridor. Obviously that's been discussed at the County level and somewhat at the City and probably before you. The indications that I hear is that, and read, is that they need wider right-of-way along that part of Chanhassen. It seems to me that appropriate uses through this area may be, it may be that some of us neighbors, you may hear some neighbors in that area saying, well no let's not have light rail transit or let's not have a trail corridor going through there but we already have that and it seems to me, from my personal point of view, I think that's an appropriate type of use for that southern part of the city. Enhancing connections to the corridor links which is TH 212, TH 169 and those support facilities. Hotels, motels, gas stations. They seem to fit. I'd like them to be in good condition. I'd like them to be run well but that's the kind of transition I think people expect coming into the City. I would guess 20 years down the line that that's a logical place for a transit stop connecting to Shakopee. People to park and get on the transit facility or something. I recall train rides or transit rides, some city's transits and the people who ride those look at what's along the transit routes. They enjoy certain aspects. Chanhassen has a beautiful route along there. Either for a bike trail or a transit facility and I hope that that area down there just doesn't become sort of the forgotten waste land for the city and you kind of let it develop into odd places and pole barns and so forth. Anyway, those are my concerns. I think some uses kind of fit and may be appropriate. I know Planning Commissions and City Councils are often, feel their hostage to previous councils and previous actions because, well, as long as somebody approved it in the past and these poor people have made some investment, well, we've got to let them have their. This is America after all, we've got to let them do what they can do. In this case at least, there's not been a capital investment. Substantial capital investment other than the property. If you're going to turn it around, as you should obviously, this is the time to do it. Let them come in with their bigger plans rather than let it slip in now because if they put in some capital investment on a small scale, the pressure will be on you to approve the next one and approve the next one as you see many of those. You've got many of those cases in your history. So I guess that takes care of my comments. e e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 10 Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: That land down there sewered? We all remember the discussion, we talked about the well and I think you people had some good documentation and good rationale. We got into quite a discussion on the traffic at that time but, you had a dock and you had a concrete building and... This time I feel I'm in the dark. I don't know what you're really proposing. I haven't seen documentation. I don't know enough about it to even ask really any questions. Before I could even make a recommendation one way or the other, I'd want to see some documentation on what you're proposing. I'm assuming this is grossly different than what you came in with a year ago. What I hear you say now and what I think you're doing, I can really support it if you're in an industrial area. Industrial park. But what I think you're proposing, and I haven't seen documentation, I'd be very skeptical about it in this situation. I think the traffic is an extremely serious problem there. I just shudder with that hill. I like to bicycle and if I start going down that hill and I have semis going down there behind me, I shudder about it. There's a lot of traffic on that road. The other one is, I just don't think that type of operation fits into that area in our business fringe district. Put it in another place, then I could support that 100%. e Batzli: I guess those my sentiments to some extent. I don't believe that what is currently being proposed fits the definition of contractor's yard. It actually fits the definition of junk yard in our Zoning Ordinance and I don't think junk yard is allowed in any district. I know solid waste landfill isn't allowed in any district and I can't find where junk yard is allowed. So that raises the issue in my mind of what exactly are they trying to do. If they're just trying to extend their application, which is what you got at, would they still go ahead if all they can do is build Phase 1, which we've already looked at because I have no idea of what phase 2 is but it sounds a lot like it's not a contractor's yard and I would never vote to put it in this district as a contractor's yard the way it's been described. I'm unclear as to what they really want at this point. Conrad: They want an extension. ElIson: I don't have anything new. I'm thinking exactly the same thing. I would want to see what the new thing is because it's not just an extension of the current, it's an ongoing, long lived type of set up and I can understand how difficult it must be when even the cities don't know how they want to handle recycling yet you want to be the servicer of recycling. Maybe something that somebody else has done in an areal that's already, maybe your input to the City will help them decide what the recycling should be if you came up with directions but gosh, I find it hard to say, okay let's extend it and then having it be something totally different so I'd rather see something totally different, if that's exactly what it's eventually going to be. e Emmings: I agree that since the plan seems to have changed. I don't see much sense in extending an approval for a plan that now is going to e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 11 change. I think we should act on a plan that we can see rather than something that's as up in the air as this seems to be. I think that the contemplation of having a facility that the public would use adds a dimension to the traffic that wasn't there before and I think is a very serious problem. I'm a little confused about what we did last time frankly. It seems like they have a conditional use. The staff report says they have a conditional use for a contractor's yard, conditional use permit for a contractor's yard but when I look under the conditional uses in the business fringe in the Ordinance, contractor's yard is not one of those. Hanson: I can clarify that. There was a change made to the Code prior to their application coming in that added contractor's yards to the BF district. I had that same question when I first looked at it and it does not show up in the most recently printed code but there has been an amendment that allows that as a conditional use in the BF district. e Emmings: Alright, then that clears that up. But, there is no conditional use for a recycling center. It seems to me we'd have to amend the ordinance to include a recycling center and attempt to establish, what we like to do with conditional uses, try and establish some standards and a recycling center I think has never come up. I don't know if we've ever looked at that in any detail. I don't recall that we have. That's another step that I think we'd have to go through either before or at the same time that we have a concrete proposal in front of us. Layered on top of this of course is the fact that we've recently taken some action or been looking at taking contractor's yards totally out and not allowing contractor's yards at all in our city. This is something that happened. since we approved yours and as I recall, we were pretty unanimous that we didn't want contractor's yards. That was going to be our recommendation to the City Council is that there not be contractor's yards in Chanhassen. They not be allowed here anymore, which is taking 180 degree turn since they were here and made their earlier application but I don't think we can ignore that. I'm the one that made the motion to approve this and I recall several times thinking that I had done the wrong thing. Frankly I look at this. Number one, I think we shouldn't extend it because we don't know what it is they're going to do and they've got to come in with a new plan anyway. Number two, I frankly think this is an opportunity to rectify what I think was a mistake in approving it last time. e Erhart: I think what I've heard tonight is definitely not a contractor's yard. It's a business dealing with garbage, garbage trucks, whatever but it's similar to a contractor's yard in that it's a business that has a lot of outside activity. Like any business, it's got to grow or it doesn't go. That's the nature of business. In that sense, it emphasizes what I've always said and that is that contractor's yards and recycling or garbage businesses out to be in industrial parks where they can grow without an intrusion into a residential area. I think it sounds like a great business. My personal feelings are, I think you're right, recycling is the future. I would like to see us take a positive stand on the whole issue and try to better understand what recycling is from the Planning Commission standpoint. I think I understand a little bit and I think we all think it's a good idea and we ought to be supporting recycling. If e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 12 that's the case, then I think we ought to take it as a task to find a place in the City as a designated district that we could not only allow to let Mr. Blood and Ms. Lee but perhaps encourage them and maybe even financially support building this kind of a business and putting in a place where it could grow over a 20 year period and support the City's effort on garbage recycling. ...1 just don't think it fits the contractor's yard description that we have which is essentially an area of use of land for building, excavating, roadway construction, landscaping and similiar contractor's. I voted against the last, the last time this came before us. I could go through and repeat all the things I think most of us said here. The thing that I probably didn't hit on last time is that when garbage trucks operate, they do make a lot of noise. Again, I think it just, because of that, it fits into an industrial site where that noise can be isolated from residential areas. I guess with that, again, I haven't changed my mind since the last time. The only thing I'd like to add is I'd like to see us take on the task of finding an area for recycling. Conrad: project? Steve, do you know what's happening to our current recycling It was scraped right? I was waiting to do that. Hanson: The facility down at the publtc works building? e Conrad: Yes. Hanson: Yes, that has been. We're in the process of putting together an RFP that we'll be taking to Council for their authorization to send out to contractors hopefully at the next council meeting that that would be authorized which would be a one year, if you will, test period is what we're looking at right now. It's kind of an educational thing and a test program to get it going which a lot of the cities are starting and some of them are farther ahead of us and some of us are farther behind. Conrad: Who's spearheading any kind of recycling effort here? Is it the City Council? Hanson: Staffwise, Jo Ann is so that's been part of the time lag. She and I, as a matter of fact, just met today about getting that to Council at this next meeting. Conrad: Any community pressures? Any community members talking about recycling in your brief period here? Hanson: I've gotten several calls. Both in response to what was there before and it not being there now. Also, just because of the publicity that had been out before about when is the curbside recycling going to start taking place so I think there has been an interest out there. I don't have any way of gauging how strong that is. e Conrad: Well, we're doing a miserable job. I guess we can take some of the credit because we haven't been doing much in terms of forcing those issues and assuming that somebody else is doing it. It's real pathetic. I hope we start doing something more aggressive. In terms of the issue at e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 13 e hand, on the one hand I'm really glad you're in here. You're really up front with us and I appreciate that. Usually that's the positive. Now the negative comments. It sounds like you have something different in mind than what you're talking about because of recycling. I'd want to, when we grant a conditional use or something, I really want to feel comfortable that we're encouraging businesses, one of our people in the public hearing said, I think you want to encourage it for a period of 20 years or so. We want to think it's growing and prosperous and we can count on it and whatever. Based on what you're saying in terms of your growth, I honestly don't think, and I'm speaking for myself, but I think I can read the Council a little bit, at least the past Council and probably the Planning Commission, I just don't think we could grant you additional ways to grow down there based on what your needs are. It's sort of out of sync with what our visions are of contractor's yard. In fact, it's not in sync at all. Therefore, what I think is appropriate is what Tim said. I think we have to give a directive to staff and say, where do we locate something like this in Chanhassen? Economically, what makes sense? I have a hard time believing that in our industrial park can economically hold a recycling center but I don't know the economics. I don't know that but I think it's up to the Chanhassen staff and the groups to at least try and figure that out. I think it's something that we need. I think we have to decide if Chanhassen needs to designate a zone or an area or whatever where recycling can take place. But what I'm hearing tonight, I think it's really inappropriate that, based on what I hear the direction is, and I want to make sure that we can take care of you. I don't think it's in your best interest if we extend the current permit because I know that your needs are going to be different than what we have given you permission to do and I know that in the future your needs are out of sync with that land use and you won't be able to do what you want to do. I think we need an area where traffic can come. Residential. Where community members can drop off the recycleables. I think we need a safe area. I think we're going to have a lot more traffic on TH 101 based on the large amount of folks moving into the area and for a variety of reasons. I really think it's appropriate right now that we not extend this. That we see that there could be another request made for a future, there should be another request made at minimum where we can take a look at what your plans are. I think we should be forced to say, we like where you're going for the next 20 years and not say, we see what you are today. That's not what you want from us and that's not what you want from the City. That would be a risky business venture. I would never do that if I were you. Anyway, those are my comments. Erhart: I move to recommend denial of the extension of the conditional use permit for Admiral Waste Management's contractor's yard. Ellson: I'll second that. e Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission denial of the Conditional Use Permit Extension Request for yard for Admiral Waste Management. All voted in favor and carried. recommend a contractor's the motion e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 14 Conrad: At the same time Steve, I guess based on what Tim was saying, we have to do something in this area. One, recycling in this community, we've got to do something but I think in terms of where can we locate a recycling center. What zone makes economic sense? It's easy to say, put it in the industrial park. Boy, that's a convenient way out but I think we have to find out, if the economics are there. If we really bel ieve the economics are there. If Chanhassens wants a recycling center. If it fits into some kind of recycling program. I think we have to do some legwork on that and I don't know if you would take that project yourself or get some feedback from City Council. I guess they have to give you the feedback because I think it is a little bit of a time consuming job. Hanson: I think they will. Conrad: I have that feeling. Hanson: One other point, and Brian made an excellent point and that's, when you read the section that defines what a junk yard is, it's pretty tough not to put anything associated with trash or recycleables, whatever, in that category that isn't allowed anywhere. Specifically not mentioned in any of the districts. e Batzli: It's almost enumerated as a nuisance. The nuisance section. Conrad: Pat and Nancy, I thank you for coming in. We didn't say all the nice things that maybe you wanted or whatever. I guess I want to encourage you to stay involved and maybe we can help out and do something. I think what you're seeing is we're just not sure that where you want to go is in sync with that particular spot. Patrick Blood: We fully understand. I guess all we can say right now is, we're still into this business and if we can be a help to Chanhassen, we are licensed here and this is our business so anyway we can help, we'd be more than happy to. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1, 2~ 3 AND 4, BLOCK 2, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION INTO ONE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 77TH STREET AND EAST OF QUATTRO DRIVE, VER-SA-TIL ASSOCIATES, D.J. BOGEMA, APPLICANT. Steve Hanson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. e Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: I've got one comment. It seems inappropriate use of staff's time and energy for you to have to prepare this presentation. In the future could you guide us someway so you wouldn't have to prepare this and come e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 15 back and use your energy to better use? Hanson: Some cities, to handle this type of a thing, would set up what might be called an adminstrative plat or a minor plat or whatever. It would be handled more or less as a consent item. In the case of this where it's fairly straight forward and it wouldn't make any sense not to approve it once you approved the site plan because they couldn't build the building now. Headla: We're going through stuff where you're just using your energy where it could be probably better used. In the future if you could guide us on something like that. Hanson: We would hav~ had this coming with the site plan previously but there was a delay in getting the plat document available when the site plan was because it was something we turned up when we were reviewing that so it threw us off two weeks. Conrad: David, it is a public hearing which we have to have. Have the floor for a public hearing and we need the staff to make this up. e Headla: I just had a question, is there some way to avoid that? particular type of set up. This Conrad: I don't know if we could figure out the rules. Emmings: I think we want to try and have this folded into the si te plan so we do it all at once and that would pretty much take care of your objection I think. Elison moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat Case #89-1 based on the plans stamped "Received January 11, 1989" subject to the following conditions: 1. Final approval of the site plan for Ver-Sa-Til by City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Headla moved, Elison seconded to note the summar of Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 18, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and the motion carried. OPEN DISCUSSION: CONTRACTORS YARDS. e Hanson: I had hoped that we could just have a general discussion of it. I wanted to give you somewhat of a comparison between the contractors yard, the conditions that apply to it as it is now versus what Mark has included in his recommendation and that staff report and I believe that that's on the, it might be the third page of his. I don't have the first e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 16 e page. The part 11m looking at is actually the fourth page. On item, it's numbered 2 and the differences between what he has there and what's presently in the Code. First of all, the minimum lot size has changed from 5 acres as it is presently and increased up to a 10 acre minimum lot size for a contractors yard. (b), that's what is in the ordinance now. (c) is what's in the ordinance at this time. (d) is a new section limiting the total square footage for the storage buildings. presently there's no limitation on that. Then (e) is a change and the first sentence there is new. That outdoor storage areas shall be limited to 500 square feet in total area. Under the present ordinance, there's no limitation on that outdoor storage area. Then, hours of operation are the same. Light sources is the same. Outdoor speaker systems are the same. The last section is a new section that all vehicles and equipment relating to the contracting shall be stored within the building or within a screened area so that it's clear that those have to be non-visible from other areas. Then there's one section under the present conditions that has been deleted under this proposal and that's the requirement on the one mile separation between contracting yards. That's not included in the proposal that Mark had prepared. There's a graphic up here that lId just like to point out a few things on this because we talk about this agricultural area. The A-2 area is really everything south generally of that line so it's this area in here. The green areas are essentially open space areas. Areas committed to, a golf course down here and the Arboretum. The area shown in the yellow are for the most part, subdivided areas with 2 1/2 acre lots or more in some parts and also some odd parcels that are less than 10 acres. ...couple areas that would not be available for... The red areas on here are existing... There is the one mile restriction left in. In looking, this is approximately a mile. You're looking at some slivers in here that would not be covered by one mile radius...so if that one mile limitation is left on there, I think there are only a half dozen parcels that would be available... The area that's shown in orange on there are nurseries. Again, there's been some discussion on whether a nursery is a contractor's yard... The couple other areas that are noted on here that have conditional use permits... Hidden Valley extraction plant down here. An electrical substation here and driving range here. We also have a couple contractors yards up in here that are not in the A-2 district. They were approved prior to that limit so they were grandfathered in... My reason for going over that is simply just to provide some background and a jumping off place if you will on what the Planning Commission is looking at. One of the things too, I think we had talked about briefly when Tim had asked about where the contracting yards were and where it was sitting. The old Council had looked at this and looked at the recommendation from the Planning Commission and Mark's report and essentially it was a 4 to 5 decision at that point in time. There was no formal recommendation but saying, yes, the Planning Commission should proceed with that. There was some discussion whether they should wait for the new Council to take their position and look at that. When I went back to the Minutes, they basically said no, let's take it back to the Planning Commission. Probably should have brought that back earlier than now but I wanted to get it back before you and see what direction you wanted to take as far as looking at some type of an amendment and the time frame you want to look at as far as setting up public hearings. e e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 17 Conrad: Does anybody, with taking a look at Mark's recommendations, should we be pursuing this right now? Contractors yards aggressively? Batzli: A zoning change? Conrad: Yes. Emmings: I don't know. Wouldn't the thing to do be just to schedule a public hearing? We don't have to stake out a position on this until, I don't think we want to until after the public hearing. Conrad: I don't know if it's, to have a position. I think it's our role to float this in front of the public. I guess the only, see if anybody cares. The only ones that are going to show up are the contractors but I think it's our goal to do that. Batzli: There might be a couple people next to some contractors. Conrad: Possibly, yes. Emmings: I think we should pursue it. I think it's one of the things we've been wanting to get at. 4It Conrad: Basically when I went through the Minutes of City Council, other than Hamilton, everybody else felt comfortable going ahead with it. Basically going to a less intensive use of some sort. I don't know if I read a consensus to get rid of it but certainly a less intense use I sure heard. I think what I read here, in Mark's is certainly getting us to a less intense use. The question is, do we send it back to City Councilor do we go ahead with it? My reading, we don't know where the new Council is. On the other hand, we certainly can go ahead on our own. It's a question of whether we bounce it back up to them for another shot at it, see if the new Council's interested or if we just go ahead ourselves. Headla: I'd like to see what the new Counc i I has to say. Send up a tr ial balloon and see how they respond. Conrad: Basically what you say Dave is, let's take Mark's comments here and pass it up for an informational item as soon as we can schedule it and see if the Council has any comments or a different set of direction but noting the fact that we want to schedule a public hearing and are interested in any comments they may have. Emmings: We're playing a lot of tennis with this thing. Couldn't we just say that we'd like to have a public hearing set up on this unless the Council disagrees or unless the Council feels like we shouldn't proceed? That way it doesn't have to come back. They can just go ahead and set it up. 4It Erhart: The other thing is, that after the public hearing, it still goes to Council anyway. e Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 18 Conrad: But it's always nice to incorporate new thoughts in before. Emmings: with 3 new members, I think it would be good. Give them a veto on it. Just say, let's go ahead. Let's set up a public hearing unless they think we shouldn't. Hanson: Are you thinking that we would go ahead and incorporate Mark's recommendation? Conrad: That's my next. Yes. Headla: I'd like to throw out something for discussion to see what you think about making an addition to that. It's a very difficult th~ng to measure but we don't talk about noise at all but when somebody comes here to talk about contractors yards, noise, I think it's been brought up every single time. It was brought up again tonight. Remember the Lyman Lumber? One of the big objections was the noise. Lyman was very responsive to that but I'd like to see us, whether we need guidance on how in the world you can even word it to make it meaningful because I really think you ought to talk about some type of noise control. The contractors yard near me, I can't complain about, that's get noisy once in a while during the day. That part isn't bad but I think at times it can be excessive in some of these places and we should have some way of controlling it. e Emmings: Steve, do you ever deal with contractors yards a great deal in your background? Hanson: No, because we didn't allow them in the agricultrual areas, in all honesty. We looked at them as an industrial use. Have a different license for them. Conrad: Dave, I buy your idea on noise but I don't know how you write something. Headla: I bet 5-10 years ago, we would have responded the same way when you say, what do you do for sight? How can you measure and somebody says, well, let's put up a big fence. Those were new words at one time. I think maybe we should have new words for the sound nuisance. Emmings: I think they're restricting the hours of operation. That's what that was getting at. Headla: It can be a big benefit. I think that's one of the primary reasons that was put in there in the old ordinance. Batzli: I think with larger sites, ~ 10 acre site, you're going to have less noise as well unless they take up the whole site. The point is, that here it's a much less intensive use. They don't have, 500 square feet of outdoor storage is nothing. e Hanson: One thing I hadn't mentioned there. Item 1 on that page with those changes, is a modification of the definition to a contractors yard. What it clearly does is it makes that contractors yard an accessory use to Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 19 - the individual living on the property. That's a major deviation from where we are now. Headla: That in itself can help quite a bit. Conrad: Any other recommendations in terms of what's in front of us here? Batzli: If we change the definition of contractors yard, do we currently allow them in the lOP? So you really can't change the definition of contractors yard up at the front of this section. Hanson: Good point. Batzli: We're going to have to call it something else. ElIson: There's your junk yard. There's the definition of junk yard maybe. Batzli: I think there has to be an easier way unless we just, I don't know if we can do it in the definition section to define it one way for one district and another way for another. That would be easier than trying to amend a bunch of different sections. e Emmings: We can face that after we decide what we're going to do because I guess what we're looking at, if we're going to make it less intense, we're either going to say there aren't going to be any in which case we can just leave it alone. Leave the definition alone because it will still fit in the lOP. If we take that route, we don't have that problem. It's only if we take the second choice of saying it's going to be an accessory use. Then we've got the problem. We can figure something out then I suppose. Hanson: One place where we might try to define that is, presently you have standards for a contractor's yard in the agricultural and residential districts. You have a group of those districts and then under the industrial it's also a conditional use. They are separate criteria in that part of the conditional use regulations so it could be defined differently to cover it in that area. Batzli: That would be a good way to handle it. Erhart: Ladd, are you looking for comments as to how we should, what's the next step? Conrad: Additions to what Mark, do you see anything that we want to change as we pass this up to City Council for a veto or as we set Steve forward to set up a public hearing. Do you see any other changes in this? e Erhart: Do you normally go to a public hearing with just general comments? Do you go out with a specific plan of this is what we want to pass? I guess we assumed that we were going out with specifics on a public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 20 e Hanson: We need to have a draft, if you will. Erhart: Okay. Then it seems to me that we have to decide either between the plan that Mark is recommending, which is the elimination of contractors yards in the A-2 district or the alternative which is we feel that we have to allow them someplace even though nobody else does. Then we have to pick that one. ElIson: Council. the A-2. I thought we already decided. That's why we passed it up to City I thought we had this discussion. We all pretty much said no in Erhart: That we were going to eliminate them? ElIson: Right. And then we went up there and they got some comments and now it's back here. Erhart: So then we're not really considering the alternative? Emmings: But don't we want to have, let people comment on both of the things that Mark has laid out somehow? Maybe we ought to have a public hearing on... e ElIson: We're kind of wishy washy then. Erhart: Don't get me wrong. I'm just for eliminating and my question, I was just wondering where we were going. Emmings: We can have a public hearing on a proposal to eliminate them in the A-2 or have a public hearing on a proposal to deintensify their use or eliminate them. I guess I don't know if we have to have... Conrad: We have to have something to react to. Emmings: But if we say, we want to have public comments on a proposal to eliminate them in the A-2, then how will people see this alternative plan of Mark's so they could comment on it? Conrad: They won't. Emmings: But don't we want to hear what they've got to say about that? Conrad: Unless we do it through a staff presentation. Unless we float the elimination up there by staff for the public that shows up. They can comment on the alternative that we looked at. e Hanson: The other thing you could do is have, rather than a formal public hearing, to talk about the two different options but to still try to generate some interest is to have a workshop type or just have it on the agenda as a discussion item that we would advertise. Then get some public input and then do a formal public hearing on one of the alternatives. We've got to publish the amendment to the ordinance for the public hearing. I'd rather not publish two because I think it's going to be... Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 21 - Elison: I would agree to do something like that if we were split but we were pretty much all together. Why would we want to present it any other way? We were all for eliminating them. Why would we even bring it up? Not that we're trying to outsell ourselves but we already feel strongly this way, and granted they can come forward and say no, I like my neighbor. He has a neat contractors yard or what have you and maybe that will open our minds later to the other alternative but right now, we're all voting this way and we sent it forward and now you look like you're maybe changing your mind. Erhart: That is a point. If we did get a lot of negative response at a public hearing to eliminate them, then you could always go back and come back with the alternative. Emmings: On the other hand, just looking at it from the other side, you're saying, we've got two proposals in front of us. We'll only show the public this one so they can comment on it and we'll keep the other one behind our back. I don't know, the whole idea of the public hearing it seems to me is to get... Ellson: But this one is the most drastic. So if we get a lot of negative, then we can pullout the happy medium. - Batzli: I think we should have Ladd write a lengthy letter to the editor explaining the differences between the two plans. Conrad: I'll do that tonight. Batzli: No, but I agree. I think we kind of made the decision that we don't like them in somewhat of a vaccum in that we haven't been reported in the local paper recently and I don't think the public comes in and reads our Minutes. I would prefer to present both. If we have an option and it's going to slow it down by a week or two, I'd rather do that. If the public's interested, they can come in. Headla: But how do we get to the public to get them in? Batzli: But they have the option. Emmings: That's right. All you can do is provide the opportunity. You can't make people come in and comment because we've held a lot of public hearings where all we had were crickets. Headla: But if you can give them the option, give them the option. You can tell them, just come here and read the Minutes or you can give them a plan. I think you've got to be more up front with them and say, hey we want to talk about contractors yards. - Emmings: I guess the only question is how aware you want to make them of the two options that we looked at. Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 22 e Headla: I think Steve should come in at the next meeting with a plan. What we should publish at this public meeting. Conrad: When we passed this up, we asked City Council for their comments. I didn't read their comments to say get rid of it altogether. That's not what they said. So what you're doing is, we passed it up to you folks but we're going to go off and get rid of them altogether. Dave, you didn't say that. You like the small ma and pa, as I recall. Headla: Yes, definitely. Conrad: So the question is, do we want to, it's sort of go back and study it some more Planning Commission and here we're saying, we thought about it again and we're going to go out and have a public hearing eliminating them. Steve, you're saying, let's get more comments. Batzli: I don't even know if he's saying that. He's saying let's see if there are any comments. I don't think there will be any but I'd like to see somebody have the opportunity. Conrad: I don't think we're in sync with what the City Council is saying. Or at least the past City Council. 4It Batzli: By saying that? Conrad: Based on our attitude right now, I don't think we're in sync with what they're thinking. Emmings: What if we advertise a public hearing as a public hearing on the adoption of an ordinance amendment to eliminate or restrict, pose it in the alternative, contractors yards in Chanhassen. Just hold that public hearing and if you want to, publish a proposed amendment to eliminate and a proposed amendment to restrict so they can read all that and comment on all of it. Can we do it that way? In the alternative? Because it seems to me that that would, if anybody's going to comment, that's going to fire more people's imagination than just something real short that says we want to eliminate them. Headla: I like your point Steve but I think we should have a brief definition of contractors yard because I don't know what you would consider a contractors yard and my wife's definition might be quite a bit different. Conrad: If we want to get people's input, I think we've got to get Steve to float the story over to the Villager. That's the way to get any kind of background rather than through a public notice. tit Hanson: I think if you're wanting to create people's interest, publish that you're eliminating contractors yards. Emmings: That would grab the attention of the contractors yards folks but if I'm a neighbor to one, I may see it as an opportunity to get it done but I also may think, it looks like it's done. I guess it depends on, do Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 23 e we hold a public hearing because we're obligated to or because we want to get some comments? I think the more you put out there, the better chance you've got of getting a better input if they see that the thing is up in the air. I don't think many people will show up other than people who have them. Conrad: Just the contractors and a few people that might get notified. That receive the notification that live close by. Erhart: I think you're going to get frustrated trying to get a lot of comment on it. I suggest we simply look at it from a pure planning point of view which is the way Mark has looked at it and I think your history has looked at it. Our stated goal is to eliminate intrusive uses and I think it's clear that this is an intrusive use in the agricultural and residential area. I'm not against getting public opinion but I think in this case, since it's only directed at such, the real focused issue is only going to be on those contractors, it's the only people you're going to get up here. I'm not too sure we're going to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish. I'd be more inclined, if you're uncomfortable Ladd that we're not in line with the current Council that is opposed to going out with a vague thing, that we go back to Coucil and get their opinion. I just don't think we're going to get that much out of the public hearing process. e Conr ad : I agree. I think we're going to get nothing. Erhart: If you're uncomfortable, let's go back to the new Council. Conrad: What I'm saying is, we sent it up the first time to get their input. We got their input that said, reduce the contractor's yards but they didn't say eliminte them. When I say reduce, reintensify contractors yards is what I read their minutes to say except for Tom Hamilton. Yet what Mark says, to get rid of them altogether and I guess with a new Council I guess I'm just more interested in feeding them back to them right now. Getting their comments and then take to the public either one or the other options. I think the public is, in this case, I don't think we're going to get a lot. Emmings: You can pretty well anticipate that. Right? It would be surprising to hear anything new. Conrad: The contractors will be irritated and they'll be here. The public thinks it's probably a benfit so they don't have anything to lose and everything to gain and they probably won't show up. If we think it's a deal that they should show up, then I think we should make an effort to floating the story in the Villager. What do you want to do? e Hanson: In light of the decision made on the earlier extension of the contractors yard in the BF district, we haven't talked about that. I'm not sure if the Planning Commission would want to include the BF district also or do we want to just talk about the A-2 district? I heard a lot of what some of you were saying is that is probably not an appropriate use in that location. That causes me to say, well maybe we ought to be, I don't ~ Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 24 e want to say let's open pandora's box but on the other hand, I'm also a little leary about do a little amendment here and do a little amendment in a couple more months for something else. I tend to fall back and say, I'd like to look at it more comprehensively if we can without saying, let's spend 6 or 8 months rehasing a bunch of things. I guess the contracting yard in the BF district is one thing some consideration ought to be given to. The other thing that we've talked about on pr~vious applications is definition between the nursery and the contracting yard. As far as the type of use that occurs on there. That's caused some confusion for some of those people as well as staff in advising someone when they come in on a nursery type application. It's kind of splitting hairs in some respects. Conrad: Don, what do you want us to do? Have you talked this issue with the new members at all? No chance. Okay. ElIson: Maybe they should look at it. You're probably right. It could be a whole different point of view. I'd hate to go to the public with our recommendation and then have it be 100% different than theirs. Ping pong it back up there again, right Steve. And I think you made a good comment. Take a look at everything. Look at that highway and the works instead of just.. . e Erhart: I'd agree. ought to include BF. If we're going to get more comment from Council, we Batzli: Then we might as well look and see if that thing should be zoned BF to start with then. Let's start with A. Erhart: That proposal has already been made in a separate series of documents. Batzli: I know it has but nothing's happened has it? Conrad: We don't have a good alternative for that property. Batzli: We just don't want to change it to agricultural again. Conrad: Agricultural on TH 212 is kind of foolish. Fringe business means we had nothing else to call it. 'It was good for nothing and therefore we wanted to accommodate what was there and not intensify anything but we've been intensifying stuff. Erhart: You can accommodate what's there. Conrad: We've gone way contrary to what originally the fringe business was and that was just to keep it conforming. Take it out of the non- conforming category so we had some kind of control on it but since then, we've been developing the area and some of it made sense. e Erhart: Whatever we perceived the evils of non-conformance is, I just don't think outweighs what we got ourselves into and that is that it's growing. Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 25 e Batzli: Well, staff told us to do it that way. Emmings: Can we have maybe a different zone where there are no permitted uses. There are no standards. There are no conditional uses. It's called the Twilight Zone and just put things like that in there and hope they go away. Erhart: If we go back to the Council, let's try to keep the thing moving so we get it back and get something to a public hearing because I think we all see where we're going and the more we wait, the more we're going to invite another contractor yard application and then we're going to have a problem. e Conrad: I guess what I'd like to do is, Steve, have you give City Council a brief presentation and we're sticking you into something that you don't have a whole lot of background in but I think we should introduce him to the subject. We should say, the Planning Commission at this point in time, based on the consultant's opinion, is feeling that they should be eliminated altogether and we're looking for their feedback again because of the new City Council members. At this point in time, I don't know what we're floating a motion or anything other than having you give them a presentation to give the new Councilmembers some background on this subject but also to say, we're still, there's a leaning down here to eliminate them altogether. probably on a 5 to 2 vote. I'm just guessing that not everybody's in favor of the eliminating them. Does that make sense? Can we do it that way? ElIson: Yes, let's do it that way. OPEN DISCUSSION: HIGHWAY 101 MEDIANS. e Fred Hoisington: Tim has really raised a very good question because we've dealt with all of these roads. The major roads of the downtown streets and so forth. As one can well see, there have been a number of medians proposed throughout a good share of the redevelopment area of the City of Chanhassen. But unfortunately, there are some very significant limiting factors. Did they get a copy of the memo by any chance Steve? Okay. What's proposed right now is something, well that's really not the correct one but at least it shows the median situation in regards to Market Blvd.. The point Tim is raising, it has to do primarily with this stretch of TH 101 and future TH 101 on the south side. We have a number of things working against us. When the alignment of Market Blvd. was established north of TH 5, what happened was we took a limited or minimum right-of-way through here so we only have about 80 feet I think it is in that location. Now that that has been pretty much established, the question is, how do we tie into it and we're very limited as to how we can tie into it. We're committed to have to have a 6 foot wide median at the nose at TH 5 so that the two intersections north and south can tie in and be directly across from one another. What that tells us is, that if we want to widened the median further, and really that's kind of Tim's question is can we widened it more and landscape it and so forth, then we would have to do that south Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 26 e of the intersection and we have some real problems there because of the curvature that exists from, as soon as you take away from the intersection and then you go south and then you'll curve again. In the future, when you get back on either the temporary or the future permanent alignment of TH 101. Those are 5 degree curves. What that requires is that you have no fixed objects within a median within 65 feet of the travel surface of the roadway which means that if you were to provide a median of 65 feet... Headla: I'm not sure what you said there. e Fred Hoisington: Let me go back and hit that a little bit again. As you leave the intersection of TH 5, you pick up these curves which are 5 degree curves which are rather significant. As we understand what BRW is trying to do is to keep those from having to have super elevations. Super elevation meaning tilt of the road. Keep people on the road as they traverse those curves. But what it does, because the curves are there, it throws you into, potentially into the center or the median and MnDot for example, has very strict standards about what you can have within those areas. For example, on TH 5, just looking at, can we get landscaping in there? Can we get mounds in there? Can we get a guardrail or something that will protect the people from coming back and forth across the lanes? And what they kept telling us was, no. Along the edges you also have to keep a certain slopes. I believe they're 6:1 slopes if they're hill slopes. 4:1 if they're cut slopes and you can have no fixed objects within those areas so we have a serious limiting factor in terms of being able to put trees in no matter here because of the curvature. Because of the speed. It's design for 50 mph. Everything south of here will in fact, once it's realigned and so forth, be essentially whatever a State Highway is on there and it would be designed for probably 60 mph but when you're up in this end, while it might be signed for that, more than likely it will be 50 to 55 mph so there are certain things you simply can't do within those areas. Now what could be done, I suppose if we kept those the same, we could somehow broaden them on the east side, the right-of-way out in order to get a sufficient median to have the clearances that would be necessary but we have a freeway section there is what it amounts to. Until we head down far enough south that we do not have that anymore and then we would transition back into a regular, narrower roadway as such. Or the other thing you can do is take these 20 foot sections, and this is not a good representation because there are a couple of roads, and you can do some landscaping of a shurbery type in there as long as you don't impair views at the intersection and those kinds of things. That's something that's still, I would think, open because we're only in the feasibility study phase. When we're beyond the feasibility study phase and into the design phase and there is landscaping that's part of Lake Drive East and TH 101 project. It's only a matter of hooking it up with those plant materials. If the Planning Commission feels very strongly about either widening the right-of-way another 45 plus feet I believe in order to accommodate that, or to add shurbery like landscaping in those medians, we can take that back and get consideration to that. e Erhart: The reason I asked Steve to have this conversation was that, at one time in the last discussion that we had on the transportation section of the Comp Plan revision, we had talked about providing essentially a Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 27 - median on TH 101 south of TH 5, between TH 5 and the freeway entrance, the planned freeway entrance because that would be the entrance to the downtown from people coming form the City to the Dinner Theater or down to the hotel and all the retail shopping and so forth that we're going to have in the downtown area. Since we felt that, it appeared that there were some projects underway that Barb was working on to realign that whole section, which I think is what, about 2 miles maybe? Fred Hoisington: I think a mile and a half. Erhart: A mile and a half, that if we had the opportunity to put it on our Comp Plan to get the easement width to put in a median with some trees on it. I also want to make sure that I'm clear that in the downtown area where the purpose of the street is for access to business, I'm generally opposed to medians. I want to make sure that my interest in this is not to encourage more medians in the downtown area but I think in this area where it's, essentially it's a route into town with limited access because it's a state Highway, with the proper planning and get trees in the median, it would be a really nice feature to the town. Right now it's a 45 mph road? The present TH 101 between downtown and the south? Fred Hoisington: I think it's 45... - Erhart: I guess it's signed at 40 or something. I guess I'm a little surprised that you're trying to achieve a 55 mph zone through which is really a residential area. I'm not too sure, do we really want that? Fred Hoisington: There are a number of things that are going to happen. First of all, there's some chance that if TH 101 isn't turned back to the County, which the State is hoping will happen, then it will be a State Highway probably at some point in time down to TH 212. If on the other hand, it is turned back and it's either the County or the City that happens to be the recepient of it, we're all going to have more control over what happens there in terms of speed and so forth. I don't want to say that it's going to be designed to make sure that it's the safest roadway and designed more to highway standards to make sure that it will work depending on who's it is when the time comes. We don't think MnDot would approve anything less than what you see here in terms of curvature radius and so forth as long as there's any prospect of it being a state highway. Erhart: You're saying we can't limit the speed at this time if say we wanted to design it at 40 mph? Fred Hoisington: No. What BRW is doing is designing this to the least lowest possible standard they can. The lowest possible speed that they feel they can get away with. The reason we have primarily 50-55 posted road is because practically that's how fast people will be going. It's actually being designed for higher speed than that... - Erhart: What speed limit would allow you to put...? Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 28 - Fred Hoisington: When you have a 310 mph speed limit, then you have clearances. The only clearances you need to be concerned with fixed objects in straight stretches of roadway are just enough for the distance for snow storage temporarily. You don't need hardly any clearances for 310 mph. 410, you begin to press it a little bit. Then at 510, of course you're into it. I'm not sure just what it would come down to. It goes from zero at 310, essentially zero at 310 to 65 at 510 and someplace inbetween. Erhart: The area that I'm thinking about, there's some awful nice roadways in west Bloomington that have been put in in the last 110 years. If you go straight east on pioneer Trail until you hit 18, and then beyond that there's a two lane street with turning lanes and a median with pine trees and evergreens going east. Then turning south and then there's another one that turns north that goes up to the shopping center and stuff. I believe those are signed at 410 mph. It used to 182nd. I don't think they call it pioneer Trail anymore. I'd like to get the other pepole's opinion but I'd sure hate to miss the opportunity to make this entrance right. The whole thing is going to be reconstructed over the next 5 to 110 years. e Fred Hoisington: This section will be built now. We have some latitude... Of course over the longer haul, we have an opportunity, if it's not going to be...we'll listen to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and go back and talk with the engineers and I guess the City Council as well. But at least you can give us an impression on where you want to go. I'm the only one that's spoke, I don't want to be the lone duck here because if... Brown: My only concern with this is, I understand the motive here. It'd be a nice venture to go out and put trees and create a nice aesthetic point to this what is surrounded by the entrance to the City. My only concern is, we've heard talk time and time again about how traffic is inevitably going to increase on here and are we building another "white elephant"? I don't know. I hear Fred saying that from a design standpoint, we should be designing this roadway at a 510 mph or 55 mph design speed. Not only for safety, what we call a forgiving design if a driver screws up, they have a potential to recover without causing serious harm. But also to have a facility that's going to enable us to continue down the line in handling this projected volumes. Emmings: I want to be sure I understand. Are we only talking about, is Tim talking about only a median from TH 5 south on the portion that's going to be built now? That you indicated is going to be built now? Is that what you're talking about? Erhart: I'm probably talking about south of that. Maybe even Lake Drive East south. When you get into the area where you have retail businesses, then I'm no t . . . e Emmings: But where are you proposing this median end? It would go all the way down to new TH 212? Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 29 - Erhart: Let me say it this way. I think it starts at TH 212 and it goes north and I'm not too sure where it ends but it ends when you get into downtown, wherever that is. I don't know. Emmings: So you're thinking about continuing it north of TH 5? Erhart: Oh, no, no. Definitely not. When you get into the City retail business district, then it's done. Free access. Emmings: My other question is, that portion that goes south of TH 5 is being designed for speeds of like up to 60 mph you're talking about Fred? But there's a practical matter, the traffic on the north side, on the continuation of that road, that will all be a 30 up there is that right? Fred Hoisington: North of TH 5? Emmings: Yes. On Market. Fred Hoisington: Yes. Emmings: So that people that are going to continue on TH 101 have to turn right or people that are, most of the traffic that's in that area isn't going to be moving at 50 or 55 because they're either going to be coming off a turn or they're coming up to a stop light probably right? e Fred Hoisington: Yes. Emmings: Couldn't that section, at least that section in there be signed lower because of that? Couldn't that be signed down to 30? Fred Hoisington: You're primarily talking about the stretch between Lake Drive and... Emmings: No, let's talk about that whole section that's indicated as being wider there. Into the curves where you start. Say you're coming north and you come around to that curve, what if that was signed for 30? Fred Hoisington: I think the day will come when that could happen. When it comes under either the City's or the County's jurisdiction, I think that could happen. I think as long as MnDot has this road, the possibility that they would have it, it's being designed to MnDot's standards. MnDot would not accept...would not accept a design that would be only 30 mph. I think the day might come when we can sign it for that. e Emmings: Because as a practical matter, by the time someone hits Lake Drive East, you sure as hell don't want them going 50. There's nothing they can do that will allow them to do 50. This is kind of new to me. know that we have talked about TH 101 being an entrance to the City off 212 but I also recall talk that they thought that a lot of the traffic that was coming west from the metropolitan area to Chanhassen would be coming on TH 5. I don't know to what extent we know or have tried to figure out what the volumes of traffic will be on say the stretch of TH 101 between TH 212 and TH 5. I TH Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 30 e Fred Hoisington: We know about what those will be...down to TH 5. Emmings: Are they going to be big numbers or is that going to be a lot of traffic? Fred Hoisington: On the south, if this is TH 101 and on the south leg, we're probably going to be in the neighborhood of 12,000 to 15,000 vehicles a day on that stretch of TH 101. Emmings: When you say that stretch of TH 101, you're talking about the stretch between new TH 212...? Fred Hoisington: It will progressively reduce from TH 5 south. The point nearest TH 5 will be in that 12,000 to 15,000 range. North of TH 5, TH 101 will carry between 15,000 and 20,000 vehicles a day. Emmings: How about coming west on TH 5? Fred Hoisington: The sheer volume on TH 5? Emmings: Coming west on TH 5? e Fred Hoisington: In the 2005, I bet I don't have those numbers here but they are large numbers. Emmings: Bigger? Fred Hoisington: Bigger than what I'm talking about. Those numbers are, it seems to me they were 30,000 to 35,000.00. Somewhere in that neighborhood. Emmings: Then the question becomes, if I knew that this was going to be the major traveled route into Chanhassen, I'd be more interested in Tim's plan but it sounds to me like, if you wanted to, and like Tim says, now certainly is a heck of an opportunity but I don't know. It sounds like still most traffic is going to be coming west on TH 5. Conrad: The costs to improve that with these embellishments, my understanding in the past because I think I brought this up a while back, talking about a divided highway coming into the highway, my impression was that any additional cost would be City funded. Is that right? e Fred Hoisington: Yes. Of course a lot of what is being done here is City funded either through assessments or tax increment or whatever. At least for the first stretch and then if the urgency is there that MnDot needs to pick this project up and complete it at some point in time down to TH 212, then when they know it's their project, then they will carry a good share of the cost. However, additional right-of-way that might be associated with the median and so forth, that would be landscaping. They'll put medians in, they're putting them into TH 5 now, but those aren't going to be landscaped ones either. I suspect would be both cost to the City for right-of-way, for improvements and for maintenance. We do not think Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 31 e MnDot, MnDot will not maintain trees in that median. That's the City's responsibility. Headla: carries Fred, to help me better understand traffic flow, what road today 12,000 to 13,000 cars a day? Fred Hoisington: I'm trying to think David. Erhart: Currently, I think it says TH 212 carries 20,000. Fred Hoisington: I think that's about right. I'm trying to think of what CR 4 in Eden prairie carries today. We did a project on that a couple years ago and it seems to me that was carrying about 12,000 to 18,000. Somewhere in that range. County Road 4 north of TH 5. Headla: That gets pretty crowded at times. Fred Hoisington: That gets very crowded at time. That's a significant volume of traffic. Headla: The other question I had is, I think earlier you said there's another option besides trees in the median. If we take another 45 feet to the east, what option is that again? e Fred Hoisington: I think I blew it because I'm not sure, I believe the clear zone has to be 65 feet all by itself so we would have to have enough median essentially for these curves now to accommodate trees and I believe we'd have to have somewhere in the neighborhood of 130 foot median in order to be able to have some mixed trees there. Which means we'd have to acquire additional right-of-way through an easement to accommodate that at 50-55 mph. Headla: To me that's cast in concrete. We're going to have to live with that so to me I don't even want to talk about that. That's what we've got to do. Now how do we live with that type of problem? But you think we need a 135 foot right-of-way? Fred Hoisington: The clear zone has to be 65. I'm not sure but what you can offset, for example the trees there, depending on which way the curve is going. For example if you're coming into the curve so that you can go across and into the median, then you have to have a 65 foot clear zone. On the other side, I don't believe you have to have the same clear zones David but I'm not real sure. I'm not the traffic engineer in that case. We could look at that a little bit closer if you wanted us to but it would take a substantial median in order to be able to accommodate trees now. Not shrubs. Things that would stop a car, slow it down, would not be a problem. A 4 inch or larger caliper tree would be of course omitted. e Conrad: Tim, do you see anything else besides trees in the median? Is there something else that you envision there besides that? It's starting to look not real practical. Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 32 e Erhart: I just don't believe you'll ever see 55 mph signs there Ladd. Maybe let's just put some concrete in there. I just can't envision that road at 55 mph. That's the one that I guess surprises me. Headla: But isn't that a given? Conrad: But let's say if it was 30. Erhart: Well, I'm thinking 40-45. Conrad: Well, let's say if it was 30 and real slow. You would envision trees in that entire red median area? Is that what you're thinking? Erhart: Let's say between TH 212 and Lake Drive East. Conrad: You really want a boulevard type? Erhart: That's the vision I have. Like Bloomington has in a number of their throughway boulevards. They're really nice. Conrad: Does that mean a dividied road basically? Are you hung on up trees or is it the divided road? e Erhart: It could be grass. it's a bad idea... A few evergreens. Kind of landscaped. If Conrad: No, no. I'm with you. I felt a boulevard was the way to fly. There's going to be a lot of traffic here but I guess I don't know what we can and can't do but I'm not hung up with doing it right at this intersection where we have the curve. I'm thinking, what do we have, if not an economic drain and I don't know what that means. Erhart: What you're getting to is, let's just make sure that on our Comp Plan, at least south of this area, that we maintain a plan where if we do have opportunities to get wider easements or if we start talking about realignment, let's pick a number Fred that allows us some flexibility in the future to put in a grass median. Fred Hoisington: Why don't we also pose a question to the engineers regarding the future speeds of lesser amounts here and see if maybe that's not a future possibility. Something you might not do right now but you could do when the time came when the speed was lowered. Emmings: A median of the width you're talking about, how would you even get onto Market Blvd. or off of Market Blvd. onto this road? Fred Hoisington: You would not be able to obviously do it right in this spot. You have a transition out. e Emmings: Conrad: So who cares? You know it's going to cost an arm and a leg to do it. I see. Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 33 e Headla: That's what bothers me. Conrad: You know we're not talking about 25 cents to pull this baby off. Emmings: We're talking about a median of over 100 feet. That's what it sounds like. It would look nice. Erhart: I'm not suggesting that we get ourselves in the position of a 100 foot median. Not at all. Headla: Even if you make it that wide, that may help the trail situation too. We may get some benefit from that. Batzli: What trail are you talking about? Headla: We might get some benefit from that. Erhart: I think Fred has come up with some good issues. ElIson: I thought that's a good way to leave it. Just leave it as an ultimate possibility. e Erhart: If the Planning Commission is still thinking the boulevard good idea... is a ElIson: It's on our wish list. Let's put it that way. Conrad: If we drop it, we're going to drop it and I don't think anybody's going to pick it up so the point is, do we want to pursue it aggressively or shall we, I think Fred researched it a little bit. The issue is, do we put more money into a major entryway into Chan. It's not the main one but 18,000 or 15,000 cars is a big one and do we care about having anything more than just a normal highway? That's the issue. Are we comfortable having a freeway just to dump people off on a standard looking highway and are we willing to pay for it? Batzli: I think that's the biggest issue. I think in principal it's fine and it'd be nice to have an attractive gateway, showcase boulevard into the City but if it's going to cost $100,000.00 a foot, who needs it? Emmings: And it doesn't sound like most of the people are going to be coming that way so they won't get to see it anyway. Conrad: But 15,000 a day is a lot of folks. 15,000 to 18,000 down on TH 169, that's a lot of people. e Emmings: But it's going to be more than twice as many up on TH 5. you're going to spend money to beautify it and make an attractive entrance, it doesn't sound like this is really the entrance. If Conrad: This is one we have an opportunity on. Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 34 e Ellson: Isn't this the one where people are going to be passing through. This isn't the group that's going to be coming in necessarily, that traffic is going to be people going to work up north and things like that. Welcome to Chanhassen everyday with gorgeous boulevards versus people from out of town coming to the Dinner Theater. That's obviously going to be the absolute main entrance I think. Erhart: Actually Fred what you were talking about is the acquisition costs of a 50 to 60. If it's a 50 foot median, you're talking additional 50 feet of additional right-of-way. Headla: I think we ought to have some idea of the cost here. Conrad: What do you want? What are you asking for? The cost of what? Emmings: We don't usually get this practical. ElIson: We get to say, nice idea. Let somebody else decide on the money. Headla: I keep thinking about north out of TH 5, CR 4, that's a pretty adequate road. Yes, they could dress it up a little but if we have to acquire another 50 feet to put a median in there, I'd say forget it. That sounds like an awful lot of money and I'd bet 98% of the people that drive e on that, do it day in and day out. ElIson: That's what I was thinking. It's not like new visitors. Headla: If you drive CR 4 in the morning like I do, school buses and the same people time after time after time. Conrad: Fred, what would you guess if you put a divided roadway in there all the way from new TH 212 up through TH 5? Let's say we put a median in of 15 feet wide. Ballpark it. Fred Hoisington: Are you talking about the additional cost? Conrad: Additional cost, yes. Fred Hoisington: It would depend, it could vary allover the place. How much right-of-way is dedicated as opposed to purchased. Right now we're faced with purchase of right-of-way. Not dedication but we're hoping that in subsequent phases the property owners will be in a positions where they'll need to plat and therefore will need to dedicate to provide roadway. That's why we're not taking anymore right now. Right-of-way is a big part of that whole equation. The additional cost for the roadway itself, Larry you're really better at figures... ElIson: There you go, pass the buck. ~ Conrad: I knew you were here for a reason Larry. Brown: Do you have a hat to pull the rabbit out? I don't know. I've discussed this matter with Roger Knutson many times on land purchase and Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 35 e his response to me was good luck in trying to pin down a number. It can vary across the board so radically that you really can't even begin to estimate. Conrad: Oh come on. $200,000.00? Headla: Is the swing 10 million dollars? Brown: There are BO many factors, I wish I could even begin to estimate but I'd be pulling a number straight out of the air with no logic at all. Erhart: I calculated out a mile and a half with 30 foot median at $20,000.00 an acre is approximately $110,000.00. Conrad: For purchase? Erhart: For purchase. Trees are extra. Batzli: $2.00 a square foot. Erhart: Yes, but land isn't $2.00 a square foot... Conrad: On the Comprehensive Plan but probably hasn't been adopted yet, e we did say to consider the option of making this a boulevard, as I recall. Fred Hoisington: Did you establish a right-of-way by chance? Conrad: No. We haven't adopted that part of the Comprehensive Plan. Fred Hoisington: Would you want us to at least look at that right-of-way width and to look at this other thing with the speed? If we have control, when we have control, what would we do? Conrad: Yes, I think so. Fred Hoisington: In sort of a broad general way. We could also talk in terms of broad costs but not tonight. Conrad: Anything else tonight folks? Batzli: What happened to our blending ordinance? Hanson: Blending ordinance? Ellson: That was on Mark's to do thing. Mark said yes, if only I could do blending as good as this contractors yard thing. e Emmings: We're talking about blending subdivisions together so you don't get a bunch of little lots next to a bunch of big lots. Hanson: You'll have real problems with that. Erhart: Also, there is this proposal at that whole BF district. Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 36 e Hanson: I've got that down here. This is a list that I've got so far. Emmings: Why don't we hear what's on your list. Hanson: Update the zoning map. Contractors yards. Complete the Comp Plan update. Minor amendments to the MUSA line such as Carrico. By the way, I did talk to Met Council and they said there's no way they would consider anything. ElIson: Surprise, surprise. Erhart: From the developer? Hanson: From the developer but not the case from us. What they said is if he wanted to amend it, they would only consider it if it carne from the City and there is some reliance on doing those minor amendments based on the last amendment that they did do. Convenience store moratorium. We haven't talked about that one yet. The wetlands map and tree cover mapping. A-2 and BF districts. The south end of the County. Sign code ordinance. Update the zoning ordinance. Computerize land use files. Development procedures and check list. Headla: I want to go over the tree ordinance. e Batzli: The tree overlay ordinance? Is that the one you're looking at? Hanson: Mapping the existing mature stands? Headla: That's different than in case a builder comes in and mows all the trees down. I want us to look at that one. Conrad: Next meeting I would hope we could start building plans. Our work agenda and whatever. Our next meeting, I think it'd be good to keep the agenda to a minimum so we could get into some of these issues and start talking about what we want to accomplish for the corning year. Make that more of a working session where we throw you the laundry list or you have the laundry list. Headla: I've said several times, we've got a maple leaf, I'd like to see more maple trees but the trend is to conifers. Then I look up here and t see fir and I look at the new podium and that's made out of fir, I think we're headed for the coniferous forest. Emmings: Put a needle up here instead? Headla: Make it a pine cone. , Batzli moved, Headla seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.. Submitted by Steve Hanson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim