1989 10 04
e
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 1989
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tinl Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner
Conrad: I'm going to start out with just an item of interest. Did
everybody receive a copy of Dave Headla's note of resigning. He has sent
that to the City Council and myself. He said it was effective October
15th. I always feel there's a loss when somebody resigns Dave because when
you've been aJ~ound and you have some experience, I think it is a loss to
the cOIl~unity but you've talked to me about reasons and I sure know why
you're doing it. I thank you for the time. I don't know what's the right
date for your resignation. As you said, there is SOllie flexibility. I'll
talk to you about that. Thanks for your time. You always seem to bring up
different perspectives and I don't know what Jo Ann's going to do without
you around here.
e
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON 3.95 ACRES
OF PROPERTY ZONED lOP AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARK ROAD AND
PARK COURT, ROME CORPORATION.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report.
Conrad:
report?
time.
Roman, do you want to present your proposal or react to the staff
It was pretty clean. We haven't heard one this clean for a long
Roman Roos: Well a little history basically. The site, as Paul eluded to,
is a 4 acre site. Originally was two lots but when they put in Park Place,
which is a cul-de-sac to the north...they reconfigured that general area
and Illade that into one... What I'm proposing to do is much like I did on
the last building in Chanhassen that I did in 1985. The lot is large
enough to sustain two buildings. The second building about 17,500 and the
reason I'm leading you into this is having to do with that curb cut. My
option would be downstream to build a second building on that site. At
that point in time I could have put a curb cut in just for that building so
instead I shifted it to make it a common easement for both lots at such
time as I might split that property into two. The building is a multi-
tenanted building. Therefore the amount of parking on the eastern side as
you see... The distance from the corner to here is approximately 65 foot.
I did want to say in terms of the industrial park, there are quite a few
curb cuts...
e
(Roman Roos stepped away from the microphone and was not picked up on the
tape. )
--
Planning Comntission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 2
e
Roman Roos: ...I'm no~ aware of any situation in the park now that has
that type of situation that has created a hazard. The other thing in
consideration would be a cul-de-sac...The building will bring probably
abont 40 new employees into Chanhassen. ...As far as the staff report, the
picture that I have, the landscaping. We went a little heavy on the
landscaping with intent also and I gness I'nl pretty open for questions that
you people might have regarding the overall site plan.
Conrad: Good. Thanks Ronlan. Anybody else have comments?
Batzli: Do we have to close the public hearing?
Conrad:
It's not a public hearing. We'll start Dave down at your end.
Headla: Any particular reason you chose those kind of apple trees? Crab
apple trees.
Ronlan Roos' answer was not picked up on tape.
Headla: The reason I, and I'm going to dwell on it a little bit, some crab
apple trees will keep their apples over the winter and the birds will feed
on them.
e
Emnlings: These do.
Headla: And I ShOllld have been able to tell you the name of those trees
but I can't but I'd like to see if y6u can do that. I think that would
help... Then the other one, you have junipers and red cedar. When one's
next to the other, I was hoping to get some information on this today but I
wasn't able to but whenever you see apple trees, you never see red cedar by
them because you've got...from the tree and that becomes quite
obj ectionable. If you go to the crab apple tree, I think you need some
expert advice on it. If you can look at it to see if the Junipers could
affect those apple trees. The other con~ent is, Jo Ann did you talk to the
fire department again?
Olsen: Yes.
Headla: How do they feel about that coming down on the eastern side of the
building?
Olsen: They had no objection to that. They had reviewed it and they were
comfortable with it. They felt that they had the access points on both
streets and that's what they needed and the circulation.
Headla: Okay. That's all I had.
e
Conrad: What's your comnlent on the access?
that staff has. The 3 curb cuts versus 2.
That's the bone of contention
Any cOluments?
Headla: I think I've got a 51% preference to see the access there. I
could be swayed awful easy. I think the staff has got some good arguIllents
Planning ConlIuission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 3
e
but the other party has some good arguments too and I think it's real
close.
Batzli: Curb cuts first. I actually think I like the plan better with the
2 curb cuts. I'm not a traffic engineer though but it makes sense to me to
have them there.
Conrad: To have two?
Batzli: To have the two. Well the two on the south. Those two.
Ellson: Leave it as it?
e
Batzli: It makes sense with the future expansion and everything else to
have that access in there so you don't need another one for the future
expansion. Otherwise we're going to get into a situation where we just put
it in on West 78th where they have to redo it so they can get the internal
flow. Or else you're leaving yourself open because you're going to end up
with another one in the future expanded lot. I would rather have it
planned at this point than down the stream having to force one in there. A
couple of questions of Paul I think. I think just for clarity sake, don't
we normally include in the motion the plans dated stamped received
whatever? So whoever makes the motion may want to include that as part of
the nlOtion. Something that I'd like to see in I guess I brought up befoJ~e.
Whenever we see a future expansion on a site plan, potential future
expansion, I would actually like to see it become a condition that we're
not approving the future expansion and I don't know how the other
con~issioners feel about that but I'd like to see it. I think the City
from tinte to tinte has rnaybe regretted that they were somehow taci tedly
approving futllre expansion when in fact nobody's really looking at it that
hard but I think the applicant gets a false sense of security that the
future expansion is, since nobody said anything bad about it, it's a go at
a later date. I'd like to hear some comments on that. The only other
thing I had was the drainage to the north I think. Is that currently into
a wetland or where is that going to?
Roman Roos: There's a storm sewer along the property line.
Batzli: But what was the holding pond or something?
Krauss: It was an area that was created or utilized with our industrial
park and was designed to recei ve all the wateJ~. Now it does have sonte
wetland characteristics which may have occurred over the recent years. It's
located entirely off site.
Batzli: So they're not within 75 feet or whatever the heck? They're not
going to need that type of approval? There's not going to be any kind of
requirement for a skin~er or anything else draining off of the blacktop or
anything like that?
-
Krauss: We didn't include that. It certainly could be and the other point
is they have to get Watershed District approval as well.
Planning Cormuission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 4
e
Batzli: You know I don't know. There was no discussion of that in here
but it appeared that they weren't going to initially drain into the storm
sewer system. It looked like it was going to be draining into a holding
y:etention pond or sOIllethi ng.
Krauss: No, it does go into the systeIlI. What's temporary though is the
irnprovement on Park Place right now are only there temporarily. There's no
storm sewer in Park Place. When you rebuild the sty:eet next SPy: ing, it
will have curb and gutter and storrn sewer and we're asking that the system
be designed so when we put in the final line, that they all hook together
and run into that retention area.
Batzli: I guess I'd like engineering or whoever to look at just to make
sure that they're engineering it properly. That's the only questions
I have.
Roman Roos' cormuents were not picked up on tape.
Batzli: So it's really not even being subdivided as an outlot?
Roman Roos: No. Absol utely not...
e
Conrad: I kind of like seeing the thought of the direction and to me it's
more persuasive in terms of allowing the 2 curb cuts on Park Road. Now I
think if Roman comes back in and when he subdivides and wants an additional
curb cut, I think it depends what we do here tonight, how many we allow but
I think on IllY part, if we allow 3 now, there'd be a ten:ific aIllOunt of
resistance to add an additional one when he subdivides later on so I really
like seeing an overall plan like this.
Batzli: I agree. My only point was that we're not approving this building
or that particular location or configuration. I mean the setbacks.
Whatever hasn't really been studied by staff or us.
e
Ellson: Right. There's an assurnption that might go along wi th it that you
just want to protect yourself against. I like the plan. I like the rear
loading and I like the landscaping. It was so refreshing to see a lot of
landscaping for a change versus always asking to add a little more and
things like that. I think it's a good use of that area and like Ladd
said, I like the idea of seeing the idea of the expansion. One of my pet
peeves is just seeing the word outlot and you have no idea what the whole,
you know here we are planners. We like to see the whole plan even though
it's not an approval li ke that. I don't really have a probleIlI wi th the
extra curb cuts now that I've heard the explanation and again the plan of
what he's seeing in the future. I think then it's natural that people from
that building would go in that way and the people in this one would go in
that way. In that context it makes sense so I don't think I would have a
problem with allowing that there. It sounded like there would be about 40
additional people that would be in this case now splitting up these two
which would pretty much stagger how busy it would be. I can't imagine it'd
be too busy. But I like it. Do you have tenants? You said this one's
going to be a multiple tenant.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - page 5
e
ROIlIan Roos: We have one tenant and we're working on the other.
ElIson: What kind of company? I'm just kind of interested.
ROfnan Roos' answer could not be heard on tape.
En~ings: I'd like to ask on page 5. In that little table you've got under
lot coverage. Just the line that says lot coverage ordinance 70%, proposed
75%. I know there's that note under there. I wasn't clear about what that
line was telling me.
Krauss: What that was telling you is we took a look or I asked the
developer's architect to take a look at what the total site coverage would
be with both buildings that they're showing on the concept and it exceeded
the requir.enlent. Then we discussed how you could bring that into
compliance and it's a relatively simple task since the site is so over
parked. There is no variance now since that entire concept future phase is
going to be a vacant lot.
~mlings: But the actual lot coverage with what is being proposed.
Krauss: Is considerably less.
_ ~Intings: Do we know what that number is?
Krauss: No, I have not worked that out.
Enmtings: But it's certainly well wi thin?
Krauss: It's probably 40%.
~~ings: Alright. As far as the curb cuts are concerned. This looks like
a real reasonable and natural way to have the curb cuts and I guess I like
it there. You're not getting too much support from us tonight on this
but I tell you one thing I'm concerned about is when we talked about last
week, the last time we met, about that infamous Lot A and the PUD for the
supermarket. I think I or somebody asked what the regulations are in terms
of how close you can have a driveway to a corner and the number 300 feet
stuck in my mind. Didn't I hear that?
Olsen: That was on West 78th Street that we used with Charlie James'
property.
~Imings: So that doesn't apply to this situation?
Olsen: That was a busier intersection.
e
Enmlings: Now is there a standard in this area for how close a driveway can
be to a frontage?
Krauss: No.
Planning Comlllission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 6
e
Conrad: Why don't you just talk to us about this. I'm going to ask the
sallIe questions so I'll jump in here. It sounds like so far we're pretty
receptive to the 3 curb cuts so Paul tell us the other side of the coin.
Give us some negatives.
Krauss: The negatives fall into a couple categories. Basically you have,
every time you introduce a new curb cut, you introduce turning moveIllents
because obviously people are going to stop their cars and turn out. The
more turning rllovelllents you have, the more places you have to look for
oncollling cars as you're driving down the street. More places there are for
potential interaction between cars going in different directions. There's
no firm rule about how many there should be or how far they should be apart
from one another typically except that the general rule of thumb is you
want to minimize them and I can't argue that there aren't a lot of curb
cuts on that road right now. There are and there's probably, is my
opinion, more than are warranted given the levels of traffic. Having 40
employees or however Illany employees sounds innocuous enough, except you
have to realize it's an industrial park and they all tend to arrive and
leave at the same time. I'm not going to tell you that there's definitely
a traffic accident in the making here with the proposal the way it sits
right now. It's really a matter of normally accepted practices and rules
of thumb.
e
ErllIllings: The Red Splendor Crab is the one that holds it's apples. The Red
Splender Crab is the one that holds it's apples all winter. That happens
to be the one that holds it longer I think than any other one.
Ellson: Did you just look that up or you knew that? Well good for you.
Ellmlings: And I like it. I agree with Brian's notion and I agree it's good
to see what people are planning to do in the future on the balance of the
lot but I think it is important that we have some kind of a statement in
there that we're not giving any consideration to that even though it
appears here and that there's to be no approval, iIllplied or otherwise for
approving a plan that's in front of. I think it's nice to make that real
clear. Those are all the comments I have. Otherwise I think it's a real
nice plan. I keep thinking this Lot 2, if it didn't have Park Place over
here, you'd certainly have an access on each side of your building and I
wouldn't see any reason to treat it differently just because he has that
other access opportunity way up Park Street. I think it's an advantage to
having the corner and I'd leave the accesses the way they are.
Erhart: I think it's a real nice plan. I think the additional landscaping
overcomes illY concern for the reputation of the developer.
Roman Roos: I love you too Tim.
e
Erhart: It's a good plan. Regarding the curb cuts. I understand the
issue of the curb cuts close to the intersection. We're obviously, our
business is right across the street and down a bit. Yeah, you do get some
people running into each other. We had one the other day. Some guy
scraped a car a little bit. We're right in the middle of the street so I
don't know how these things happen. Essentially it's a four lane road. I
Planning Cormuission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 7
e
mean it's wide enough so if someone makes a left turn, you can pass on the
right. If someone's slowing down to make a right turn, they can pass on
the left. I guess my feeling is the nuisance factor of not having a curb
cut outweighs the potential danger of it so I guess I would tend to lean to
allow the curb cuts. I also agree with Brian's idea of adding a 10th
reconmlendation so that's it.
Conrad: I'm persuaded to allow that curb cut only because I see the future
expansion. Property only having one and I would be real critical if the
next subdivision came in and had 2 so I would only grant the 3 this time
if I felt real comfortable that the future expansion was only going to use
the one curb cut. Other than that it looks like a good one. Good project.
I like it. Anything else? Is there a motion?
Erhart: I'll nlOve that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the
City Council of Site Plan Review #89-8 dated 9-6-89.
Ellson: 9-8.
Enmlings: Received 9-8.
--
Erhart: Received 9-8-89 with all the staff recommendations except for
number 3. We delete the first sentence and change the second sentence to
start, redesign curb cuts as required as it remains. Add item 10. Site
plan approval does not include approval of the building designated on the
plans as future expansion.
Ellson: I'll second that.
Conrad: Discussion.
Batzli: Do you want to talk about the rust on the trees?
Conrad: My concern hasn't been incorporated.
Enmt1ngs: Oh, the future expansion.
Erhart: You wanted...
Conrad: The only reason I'd vote for the 3 right now is if I'm convinced
that that's all we're going to have on this 4 acre property.
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why we encouraged Roman to
include that developnlent concept was for this very reason. So we could
assess those sorts of impacts. At such time, it isn't one parcel right now
and through the subdivision process, if it's ever subdivided off in the
future, we can always whip this concept out and say this is what we
intended to do.
e Ellson:. Would that be typical to remember to do that or is that just
autonlatic to do that?
,
L
Planning Conmtission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 8
e
Krauss: It's automatic to look at background and to actions associated
with the property and that would be one of them.
Conrad: See we're kind of over-riding your staff report which I don't like
doing typically on technical issues but I feel we're getting sonlething or I
think in the future.
Krauss: No, I'm saying it's fine. I'm not disputing that point but your
concern I think was to ensure that there isn't another access in the future
and I think we can do that adequately through the subdivision process and
by having this concept and your hearing on this item tonight.
Conrad: So Roman can come back and say I want to subdivide this 1. 5 acres
off without a site plan. He could do that couldn't he?
Krauss: He could subdivide it off. At that time we would reconlmend that a
cross access easenlent to serve both proper ties be recorded against it.
Conrad: But wouldn't he have the right to come back in and have a second
access to that?
Krauss: Theoretically.
e Roman Roos: Ladd, can I address that a little bit?
Conrad: Go ahead.
Roman Roos: From the day I conceived the project, the intent was I wanted
the truck traffic behind both buildings. That's the reason for this curb
cut here in order to service this building and this building. Now the
purpose of the second curb cut is exactly what you're eluding to. I wanted
to not have a lot of curb cuts in the front of the property on the building
so with this servicing the truck traffic, hoping the truck traffic can go
back out that way...this should be car traffic and it was my intent, as I
already told you, to eventually probably split that property line. I have
no problem with the green space. I have no problem with...
Conrad:
I hear what you're saying.
Roman Roos: So I did have intent from day one. I don't have a crystal
ball and I can't tell you what's going to happen 5 years downstream or 2
years downstream but my intent at this point in time is to do that such
that this would be a cross over easenlent. That's all I can say about it.
Conrad: But you're also telling me, you would have a tough time getting a
second access in on the subdivided...
e
Ronlan Roos: I guess if at that point I needed a second access, it would
hurt me on this building, the width of the building. Okay, that's number
one. Number two, if I needed a second access, I would probably have to
sell my soul to get both Council and Planning Con~ission to agree to that
but I think if that did, there would be some logical reasons behind it and
probably would not, should not be denied based on every other type of...
Planning Comrnission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 9
e
and office in the industrial park. My intent at this point in time is not
to do that.
Conrad: I think I'm persuaded he can't do it so I don't need the language.
Erhart moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recol1ffilend
approval of Site Plan Review #89-8 dated "Received 9-8-89" for the Rome
Office Building without variances subject to the following stipulations:
1. Provide trash storage enclosure buil t wi th 111aterials compatible wi th
the building or store all trash internally.
2. Roof rnounted HVAC equipment should be provided wi th a screen
constructed of Illaterials compatible with the building exterior.
Details should be prepared for staff approval prior td City Council
review.
3. Redesign the remaining curb cuts as required to facilitate truck
turning movements. Reduce the grade on the remaining Park Road and
curb cut from 10+% to less than 5%.
-
4. Revise the landscaping plan to illustrate seeding or sodding of the
phase II building area. This area is to be kept in a maintained
condition until construction occurs.
5. Project approval by the Riley purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District.
6. utilize concrete curb and gutter and design it to connect to
improvements in Park Place that will be installed by the City. Add an
additional catch basin at the Park place curb cut. All storl1l sewer
located in public easement or ROW shall be reinforced concrete pipe.
7. Erosion controls are to be in place prior to start of work on the site
and maintained until site restoration is completed. Additional erosion
control may be required along the south property line by staff to
prevent erosion into Park Road.
8. Add a fire hydrant on the parking lot island located off the northwest
corner of the building.
9. Providing lighting and signage details for staff review.
10. Site plan approval does not include approval of the building designated
on the plans as future expansion.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
e
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 10
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A BANK AND OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED BH,
HIGHWAY BUSINESS AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARKET BOULEVARD
AND WEST 79TH STREET, CROSSROADS NATIONAL BANK.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Torn Mo:r:k: Thank you. My narlle is Toni Mork. I'm the President and CEO of
Crossroads National Bank which perhaps you've heard is a national bank
charter currently in organization. We have our charter approved. It was
approved in March actually and we're currently in the final stages of
getting the bank actually organized. This is a project that's been near
and dear to my heart for about the last year, give or take a week or so.
Although I've been in this cha:lllber on numerous occasions dealing with the
HRA, I can't tell you how pleased we are to be here to present our plan for
our building to the Planning Con~ission. I'd be more than happy to answer
any of your questions about the bank and the developnlent of it but I know
that's not really why you're here tonight. I will answer any questions you
might have afterwards but right now I'd like to turn it over to David Shea,
the principle of Shea Architects who has been doing our development work on
the building.
David Shea: Thank you. I'll give just a brief overview of the building
and the location and a little graphic. ...temporary location. We're
planning the entire facility. Obviously the main building is from here,
some sort of a...as well and trying to locate a temporary facility so that
we can easily construct a building without creating problems on the site to
the traffic flow around this. Provide parking and mininlUm disruption in
the future so the temporary facility, all the curb cuts would be in place.
Most of the paving...curb cuts, landscaping for that so we'll be able to
establish a presence. Signage idenity early and then discuss as staff has
suggested that we have it taken down within a week after we get certificate
of occupancy on the building itself. There's no problenl with that. The
items that were discussed as far as landscaping and we agree with all of
those and I think as part of the development process, with this additional
curbing here, we maintain the...trees. We have a special condition along
the railroad area there. We obviously want to have the public, customers
focusing on the building so that we felt that a strong screening approach,
a framing approach of the site on that side. The building itself, we've
done a number of financial institutions and this is an excellent site for
this kind of an institution. We have a strong parking area to the side to
acconmlOdate the custonlers to the back and we have expansion areas wi thin
the building itself that will be used for office space. Rental office
space that will provide a future expansion area within the building itself
for the growth of the bank and then as staff points out, the additional
opportunity to add onto the building in a like manner out into this area
with sintilar architectural treatment so we can maintain the integrity of
the building and really complete the visual aspect of the mass of the
building and we can acconmlodate the bank's future growth. The site plan,
as I nlentioned, works out very well in that we separate the driving flow on
this side from the main pedestrian and from the parking area. They're
different customers. A lot of people never go inside a bank. Maybe once
at a bank once and then after that they use the drive in completely so a
Planning COIlmtission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - page 11
'e
-
very simple easy approach to that. I think the staff's recoIl~endation of a
deceleration lane is important and I think it can be aCCOIl\I1:lOdated within
the flexibility of the plan itself and I think we can work with staff too
to be able to accoIl~odate that. The materials on the building would be,
and it's hard to tell from the model but it's an all brick building...at
the base of the front column in these areas here. We have a long roof that
again picks up some of the gabled roof in making the building, it
accomplishes a couple of things. It aCCOIl\I1:lOdates a high ceiling inside. It
picks up some of the elements that are in town itself. The coloration of
it. Browns. The bronze colors. Those are, as we've gone through the town
and looked at a number of different structures in the town, this is a
building of perIllanence and we have a limited Illaintenance building. I can't
say maintenance free but...a limited maintenance building that will be here
for a number of years. It's a solid building. Insulated glass and Illetal
frames and all the type of things that are necessary for a permanent
building. The signage area to the side, we really extended the canopy out
which is part of the building. We've tried very hard not to Illake a canopy
and a lot of times you see this in a drive in bank that are really
appendages to the building. stuck onto the building. We felt very
strongly that the architecture of the building has to be maintained from
the end of the last drive-in unit, potentially a ATM unit on the outside.
Going in and becoming part of the same architecture for the building
carrying frOIlI one side to the other. Than when the future addi tion comes
on, you can see it outlined here, it's a relatively simply job of carrying
that progression of the architecture down. The brick, the metal and the
stone faces and all of those. Generally we believe we've worked with the
bank's needs as far as internal layout. The orientation of the entrance.
The orientation of the drive in area. Trash enclosures are screened off.
with staff's recoIlmlendations on landscaping. We're going to look into the
cedar rust question. There are a couple of crab trees and if there are
spruce trees around them, I'll have to look into that but we've spent a
great deal of time working from the inside of the building out and from the
overall property so we get a good traffic flow and we feel that we've
accomplished that. There are a number of iterns though on the staff report
that are beyond the architectural area that Tom would like to talk to.
They expressed SOllIe concern about cross easements and future areas so TOIlI,
if you'd like to do that and I'll be available for questions.
Tom Mork: The questions or cOIlmlents we have concerning staff's
recoIlmlendations have to do with some of the conditions and SOllIe of them are
really cOIlmlents but the first one relates to number 3. We have absolutely
no objection to a deceleration lane into our drive-up. In fact it's my
sense that as we are atteIllpting to be as user friendly as possible, that a
deceleration lane would actually work to our advantage and so the impact of
that, in sliding the building over 13 to 20 feet is really an insignificant
issue to us. Furthermore, the pedestrian sidewalk in place I think is also
user friendly and we're very supportive of the notion. My one question is,
who pays for it and perhaps we can just get a clarification in terms of
paying for it and also maintenance of it and so on.
e
Conrad: Why don't we just talk about that.
Tom Mo:t~k: Sure, okay.
Planning Con~ission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 12
e
Olsen: We bel ieve tha t the Ci ty would be paying for those iIllprovernents in
Market Blvd. in the sidewalk.
e
Tom Mork: Okay. Thatld be part of the entire improvement process? Okay.
Good. The next item of comment is number 4, regarding the cross easeIllent
issue. When David tells you that welve spent a great deal of time in
financial resources to develop the plan that we do have, hels not kidding.
I I III a banker and I' ve never gone through the developnlent of a building
before and frankly 11m appalled at how quickly you can spend money on
developing a plan but we also are very jealous of our inlage and we covet
the kind of image that we are attempting to create in putting up a very
professional building and in building our own staff and our own corporate
identify if you will. Our concern about kind of a carte blanche cross
easement has to do with our limited knowledge of what will be developed on
the site to the east of us. We would prefer that that cross easement be
linked to a specific use of that property. Inasmuch as our sense is that
if we are unable to control that cross easement and access to both
properties, the presence of a tenant on that site that we find
objectionable gives us some cause for concern. For example, if itls a
restaurant or sonle other kind of business that tends to create a problem of
litter, itls our sense that we would like to segregate ourselves from that
and so we would ask that that cross easement be linked more to a specific
use of that piece of property than it is currently worded. Finally and
also I think also in connection with the site to the east has to do with
number 12 and that is, asking us to illustrate how the easterly parking lot
will be Illodified. We have absolutely no problenl in working with staff to
try to clarify that as much as we can as soon as we can find out exactly
what will be developed on that easterly site. We have a little bit of
problenl predicting what itls going to look like and how exactly our parking
will be treated. We have looked at it frOIlI an overall standpoint and welve
looked at sonle potential parking configurations but until a defini tive plan
is in place, we have a little bit of a problem giving more of a
clarification or a commi tnlent on that respect so those are the only
COIl~ents that I had. You've already addressed one of them so.
Conrad: Thanks Toni. Anything el se from your group?
Toni Mark: Not in terms of a presentation. I guess we I d welCOIlle questions.
Conrad: Okay, weIll go around our group here and see what our comments
are. Tim, weIll start at your end.
Erhart: On this slow down lane, 11m a little curious on our desire to have
a slow down lane. That means that actually this lane is going to be an
additional lane to the east of the right-of-way. Is there something
different about that that you wouldnlt want a slow down lane then on the
intersection of West 79th Street and Market Blvd. or is it because that
streetls wider?
e
Olsen: Market is going to be a main entrance into and out of the city so
thatls why we felt it was necessary on Market because thatls where youlre
going to have the cars.
e
e
.
Planning Coptntission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 13
Erhart:
to have a
objecting
down lane
Yeah okay but then why isn't the same thought process require us
slow down lane. If we want a slow down lane here, I'm not
to that at all. I'm just questioning, then.don't we need a slow
for the same argument over here?
Krauss: There is one. The way it's designed is that you have two lanes
conting northbound froPt TH 5. One of those lanes drops out at the
intersection. It's basically a turn lane.
Olsen:
there.
Then there's a median here.
There are two.
That's why one of the lanes is lost up
Erhart: Oh so it's more than a single lane up there where down here it's
two lane?
Krauss: Right.
Erhart: Okay. Just testing you. Secondly, it appears to me the cross
easement is a requireptent due to the fact that you don't own, the developer
doesn't own the property where the drive is isn't it or do I misunderstand?
Olsen: The drive is on top.
It's over a property line.
Erhart: So I mean a cross easement is not a function of you not
controlling your property. It's because you have your driveway on somebody
else's property so I don't understand why you feel, why you're making this
request.
David Shea: We very easily could maintain this line right here and have
our entrance right over here. This had come up at an earlier discussion
about trying to do this and where we feel we can contain and have a
landscape barrier cOPting right down through here. Have a full intersection
entrance in off of here and maintain our space entirely separate from this
over here. I guess we're showing this because we're talking aobut it
tonight and we do feel that we can maintain...
Erhart: Who's asking you to put that double wide entrance in there?
David Shea: Is it traffic engineering in the City or is it anyone else?
Toni Mork: It's HRA.
David Shea: That talked about it before.
Tom Mork: Part of the HRA's concern was that we develop a common entrance
to both sides of the site. I mean our preference would be that we could
control our own access but it really does not make a lot of sense if we can
control our intage. I guess that's really what our concern is. We would
prefer to have our own but this particular configuration I think is an
accomodation to the HRA's concern initially.
,~.
e
Planning Con~ission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 14
David Shea: They don't even know if this entrance would be the right
entrance for whatever facility they have here. I mean they may want it
over here. They may want it right here so we're sort of guessing. This
building could be over here. We don't know that and we put it on that. We
feel that we could very easily separate ourselves out that way as we have
over here and here and maintain this as an entity.
Erhart: Yeah, and I don't even know how we should respond to that.
Batzli: Who owns the land to the east there?
Olsen: HRA also owns that and as Paul and I were just discussing, it's
fine with us if they just have the one entrance right on their property.
Then that removes the cross easement.
Krauss: When we first reviewed this, we looked at the possibility of
eliminating one of those entrance points and coming up with a central
access. We had always assuI1:led from the start that we would have a shared
access point there. If in fact that was going to be a segregated access,
we wouldn't want it on the property line because then you wind up with the
sanle si tua tion you get when you dr i ve into ci ty Hall where there's 3
driveways coming together and you're never sure which is the street and
e which one you turn down.
Erhart: Well it seems to me it's, if you go in there and turn right or
left, it seenls to me it's going to be confusing traffic rather than the
traffic intersection being on the street, it's going to be right in there.
David Shea: Frankly we feel very comfortable with doing that and then
somebody else if they, I mean they want it here. They may want it over
here.
Batzli: What is the driveway setback? How far over would they have to
move their driveway?
Olsen: There is no setback for the driveway. If it's going to be shared,
which it might be in the future. Again, we don't know, then there's no
setback like for the parking area.
Batzli: But if they were to move it to the west, how far would they have
to go?
ElIson: From each other you're saying?
Olsen: For a driveway, 10 at the most. If they're going to separate them,
they have to have a strip for the landscaping.
e
David Shea: I think fronl the center to this we're about 5 feet which
provides you with a 5 foot barrier on the side and I guess when this
property comes to staff and then we could go through the question about
cross easements and that at that point and decide whether or not you want
to conlbine this entrance but if we move this entrance down here, then it
gets close to this separate turning areas and the set of things from here.
e
Planning Cop~ission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 15
This one feels like it should be separated out and when and if this gets
developed in some fashion, then we could, these people corne back and talk
to staff and then conle back to the bank and discuss a shared entrance at
that point or maybe the entrance is here and we don't have to concern
ourselves with it at all. Maybe they only need one entrance onto this
space. It's premature but we don't want to preclude. The bank does need
that and does need that kind of a traffic flow inside here that can be
separated out.
Conrad: Yet on the other hand it restricts. If we allow a third access.
Erhart: What's going to happen is there will be too Plany curb cuts.
Conrad: Yeah. We're restricting what's happening to the property to the
east because we're not going to allow two curb cuts within 20 feet. We
won't go over Paul's head again. Now twice in the same evening.
.
Krauss: Whether you do or you don't go over my head, that's up to you but
this kind of a movement internally can be handled very easily with
extension of the traffic islands down there to divert it. This is a fairly
cOPlmon design. I guess we feel sort of strongly that preserving that
multiple use of that curb cut's an important factor. If that cross access
easement isn't taken at the time the subdivision goes through, there is no
leverage to get it in the future. If it's not used in the future, it's not
used but this site over here is not that large and we've seen a few
different proposals but there's nothing firm for what might happen here but
it may well be that this site needs two access points. The s~mle as the
bank. One over here, one over here. You've got a real problenl wi th
turning movements there. Both this site and if there's retail use on the
other site, generate fairly high volumes of traffic conting in and out. If
you have traffic slowing down and turning and accelerating and leaving
within close proximity to one another, you've really got a hazardous
situation.
Conrad: A problem I have though is you've got some cross traffic and the
scenar io that I see, if you've got access conting from the property to the
east trying to get to an exit, you've got some cross traffic there based on
this particular design which is not good at all.
Krauss: But you've got to realize though that this is about 40 or 50 feet
back in here before that turn occurs. There's quite a few entrances that
are designed that way.
Batzli: The one that I can think of that's poor is the one at 7 Hi
Shopping Center conling across from the Cub. Straight across where you have
that type of a...
e
Krauss: Yeah, that one did do it but the one I was thinking that was
better is on the other side of the street going into where Cub ,is and
Westwinds.
Batzli: Yeah, that's a good one. That's designed much better. Okay,
we'll do one like that.
':-,~
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 16
Conrad: Why do you need 3 curb cuts in this?
David Shea: Let me explain. In a situation like this where you have very,
very different types of traffic here you don't want to nlix the traffic
flow. This is the drive in traffic. It conies in off of Market Blvd..
Separate use. Comes in here. Does their business and exits back out.
There's no need to blend that traffic and there's no need to eliminate a
great quantity of landscaping that does form the front of the building in
this area here by having another roadway that comes across and then you end
up with serious cross traffic on the street in the parking lot with cars
coo~ in, park, backing out and with these people are actually looking for
IHore of an express approach. They're in the dr i ve in slot for a few nlinute
and back out on the street and their business is done in a very short area.
If you start bringing them through the parking lot, you're starting to
create more congestion in the parking lot. More potential difficulties for
turning. This is a relatively narrow parking area here. If you further
restr ict it wi th a dr i veway that nms through it, it really damages the
retail nature of the bank and the convenience nature of the bank and the
custOI'ner parking right at the front. That's why when we do these types of
facilities, it's almost like two separate buildings. This is one flow.
This is another flow and we try to keep those things separate.
e
Conrad: You could separate those flows internally though however but I
won't belabor that point. I hear what you're doing.
Batzli: Is the road to the north of the bank, is that a one way a certain
way there? That driveway.
David Shea: This is 24 feet.
essentially an escape hatch.
This is two way back here. That gives
...and back out to Market Blvd. here.
EIlmting s: You can't.
Krauss: That's a right-in.
David Shea: Okay, I apologize. You can go into the drive-in and go around
that way.
Erhart: In listening to it, I think your perception of the problem is
probably compounded by the fact that you're showing a curb that turns to
the left and that this double driveway appears to serve your whole space. I
think if you redraw it and take that curb out there, then your entrance
really becomes slightly to the north of that and I'm not sure you're
concerned about people perceiving that you're part of a McDonalds or
something quite as much as you might think. But the other hand, I think
staff has a legitimate concern that that business next door, whatever it
might be, needs more than one access point. There's no way you can get 4
access points.
e
Tom Mork: We have allowed for whatever is developed here in the future is
going to be part of an overall development. We understand how jealous the
City is of this particular plan that it's going to develop favorably.
-
,e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 17
However, over time needs change...and you may be right. We may be do over
react but we just tend to be real protective of our image.
Erhart: The last thing is that you have the enter only and I don't quite
understand why that would be. It seems to rile that someone coming in and
wanting to exit out onto Market Blvd. and go north, it just seems logical
to me, you have 24 feet on the drive up to the north, that they would want
to drive along the north boundary and turn right out that exit and go.
What's the purpose of the enter only there? It seems like a nuisance.
Tom Mork: I think the initial concern was with the median being right
here, that having both in and out traffic it was going to confuse this
particular intersection. Staff put a more technical term.
.
Krauss: Market Blvd. over there, this goes back to one lane in each
direction. Southbound is actually sort of a lane and a half and there's
actually going to be a turn lane built into the llledian to allow them to
turn into this site. You're very close to the railway tracks and we're
concerned with introducing a lot of turning movements and encouraging
people to go out and sort of square out to the north through there. We'd
rather they went through the legitimate intersection and got into the flow
of traffic before they head across the railroad tracks. We initially were
concerned with having any access up there and basically worked this out as
a best possible compromise and there's been some design effort in going
back and wo:rth wi th BRW who's working on the roadway improvelllent proj ect.
Erhart: Is there going to be cross bars at that intersection? Your
concern was that someone would go out of there and just adcelerating where
they wouldn't be watching?
Krauss: There's just a lot going on there.
Batzli: So you said there will be a cross arm at the railroad track there?
Olsen: There is going to be a crossing.
Tom Mork: I guess I'd like to say that I think that staff has been very
sensitive to our needs and we fully expect that when the building is
operational, 75% of our transactional volullle comes through the drive up so
it is a high traffic area and I think they were very supportive of our
concern in that respect.
David Shea: And the best way of doing that is keeping the turning motions
as simple as possible by leading people through a drive in. I think that
we agreed that that's the best way, the best compromise for that particular
area.
e
Erhart: Your landscaping there, is that the same as the landscaping shown
here or is there a difference?
David Shea: This is a little more schematic but we do have a landscaping
plan. It should be the same.
""~
e
Planning COI'l\Ildssion Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 18
Erhar t: I guess it's the saIlle.
Torn Mork: The landscaping in the model, the PlOdel was done ini tially when
the HRA was doing architectural approval and we had to put the model
together and then we did the actual landscaping.
David Shea: That does not relate to this but I think this should relate to
your packets.
Erhart: I see that. I was looking at the first page. That's all my
questions.
EPlIldng s: I guess on the cross easements, I think we should preserve tha t
at this time. Number 6 talks about the pylon sign and I guess there will
be no pylon sign. Is that right?
Olsen:
Yeah, they've now subpdtted a plan just for the monument right.
EIllIllings: So when we say, have they provided detail on the pylon sign so
can we essentially delete number 6? with respect to number 12, I guess I
agree with the COIlIDlents of the applicant. Is there any reason we have to
review their plans for the parking lot now or couldn't that be done as part
~ of reviewing the expansion?
Olsen: Right.
EP~ings: It really seems to make more sense so I'd go with them on that.
Then I have one more. On number 7, this is going to sound awfully cynical
and I don't mean it to sound that way. I know you've put a lot of time and
effort into planning this and it's very nice. Anytime I see anything
that's temporary, it scares the pants off me. I went to the University of
Minnesota and went to tePlporary... for follow-ups for classes. Buildings
that were supposed to last about 4 years and we're still, there 25 years
later. I guess what I would say is just put a cap on this temporary
facility and say sOIllething like, add on the end, or 2 years from the date
of approval of the site plan, whichever comes first.
Tom Mork: I guess if you're going to do that, what I would ask is you
would go back and look at the purchase agreement that we have negotiated
with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority... I think it is 2 years froPl
the date of closing on the property that we COIllIllence construction and we
have done that because we are under some potential constraints from a
regulatory standpoint as to when we can actually put up the building. As
of today we can do it right away. We just aren't in a position to do that
as of right now. We'd like to but this is our best attempt to comproIllise.
We share your sentiment 100% and we think spent a great deal of time
convincing the HRA that it's not our intent to be in a modular building.
e
Emmings:
I'm sure of that.
TOPI Mork: Our pJ~inlary competition recently built a 2 million dollar
building and we're real sensitive to a competitive image as well so I guess
if you're going to put a sunset on it, I would ask that it be done in sync
e
.
e
Planning COI1mlission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - page 19
with the. I would prefer that you not do it but if that's the sense.
EI1mlings: Now I know I want to do it.
TOPI Mork: Then I would ask that you coordinate it with the purchase
agreement.
~~ings: Well this purchase agreement though, it sounds like it sets out a
time by which you must start construction of the permanent facility and I
guess what I'm saying is, well I guess we could go. How long does
construction take once it's started?
David Shea: 6 to 7 months.
EI1mlings: Maybe we could go a year froPI...
Batzli: Approval of the construction. What does the City enter into
before they start the contract? The developP\ent contract?
Olsen: This one wouldn't have a development contract. They'd have to get
a building permit.
~Imings: I think what we should do is say that the ternporary facility
could be there for a maximum of one year after whatever the date is when
they've got to start construction.
Erhart: Why don't you just make it a Plaximum limit of how long a temporary
facility can be there period?
ElIson: Right.
Headla: Steve, I agree with your comments.
I had 24 months max iplurn.
Erlmlings: What?
Headla: I had the same concerns and what do you think about just saying
frorll the tiple the temporary building goes up, you've got x number of months
and then it's got to go?
Erhart: Right.
Headla: Because I was looking for the wording they had in here and that
was the key that said hey you've got to have a limit on it.
~~ings: But my understanding is they're going to put the temporary
building is going to go up right away.
TOPI Mork: That's correct. A tePlporary building will be there in all
likelihood 30 to 60 days before we even have an opportunity to open the
bank for business.
Erlmlings: And then they're saying they have 2 years to commence
construction so it seems to me we've got to go.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 20
e
ElIson: That's if you want it tied in with that. How long do you want a
ternporary thing here?
Conrad: How long do you want a temporary building?
ElIson: Do we want a mobile home kind of set up there? I mean it'd be
nice if... I'm not sure if I want to wait 20 years.
Emrnings: Well I don't know.
Torn Mor~k: I think there' s pr~obably some real strong misconception that
we're talking about in terms of a modular building. This is not a
corregated metal side Illobile home with a hitch on the h~ont and wheels.
It's a permanent building. It's really no different than a modular home...
EIl~ings: I'll tell you, to be very honest with you since you raised the
point. When I looked at the, I thumbed through the staff report at hOllle
and I saw this as the temporary building and I thought, what the hell are
they doing? I thought that was your building. I hadn't opened the plans
yet. That is grotestque. It may not be grotestque. It may not be bad and
I don't mean to insult you but if you had come in with this as the plan for
your bank, I don't think we would have approved it.
.
TOIlI Mork: We understand that entirely. Wi th all due respect to your
concerns, we have the same ones. I guess the one thing that I would like
to emphasize is that we are not dealing in an environment where we are
always totally afraid to do exactly what we'd like to do. We are severely
governed by the control of the current state of the Department of Treasurey
that nlay or nlay not have objections on when we actually start our building.
As of now, there's nothing there but in light of the current turnloil in the
financial institutional industry, with all the problems going on with the
Savings and Loan Industry and the bailouts, frankly we have sonle concerns
that the environment might change and I guess I do have a little bit of a
probl~1 in saying a 2 year sunset. I would much rather ask that you give
us 9 months from the date of cOIl~encement of construction because it is our
intent, and we don't have any option, but to start construction on this
building and I believe. ..and I guess I would just ask you to give us the...
Emluings: I would think that assunting that what happens if they don't start
construction in 2 years under the contract with HRA?
Tom Mork: We forfeit the property.
En~ings: Okay. Well that's pretty strong. I guess if they have 9 months
fronl the da te they have to conmlence construction under their agreenlent wi th
the HRA to get :rid of this temporary building, that would be fine by me.
Toni Mork:
. . . is a 9 month tinle frame long enough?
e
Erumings: Well 6 months is what they said when I asked the question before.
David Shea: Sonletimes you have landscaping and a few things like that that
if we get the season wrong, you have to wait until May and June to do the
-
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 21
.
landscaping.
Erllmings: Is that going to keep you from moving in the building there?
Batzli: That's not going to affect the Certificate of Occupancy though?
David Shea: No, but I think building completion sometimes, no that's true.
EP~ings: What'd you say? You've got to take down the temporary building
within 9 months after you start construction of your permanent facility.
TOPI Mork: A:r:en't we accoPlplishing the same thing by doing this as saying
we'll have the building on the site within one week of the Certificate of
Occupancy? The thing I guess I'm concern about is, a 9 month time frame
may be realistic but what's happen if weather conditions should extend that
or there are material shortages or something like that?
Ep~ings: I think it's long enough. I think it's too long for a temporary
building but I'm willing to go that long.
e
ElIson: My biggest concern with the whole thing was the temporary. Why
are we allowing this? We don't usually let people come in. I've never
seen, if someone wants to do a dry cleaner but they'll set up a smaller
facility. Why are we even doing a temporary thing? Is this typical? I've
never seen it in the couple years I've been here and it makes me uneasy
that norrually we don't let sornething in unless they're ready. They've got
the money. They're ready to develop. What have you and I'm a little
uneasy that we're tied to the financial conditions and everything like
that.
Olsen: In just looking at the circumstances, I guess we really didn't have
any great concerns with it I guess. We just had faith that they would be
moving ahead with it. They have supplied the details of the facility. The
temporary facility to have the building department look at to see whether
or not this was a halfway decent. Would it be safe. Things like that and
everyone felt confident that it would be okay.
TOPI Mork: Maybe if I could add to this. We have froPI the date of our
project approval, 1 year to put together our capitalization so that takes
us to next March 10th. From that point on we get another 6 months to get
the bank actually up and running. I have never started a new bank and it's
something that isn't done very often but I can assure you that there are an
awful lot of details that I never imagined involved in starting a bank from
scratch and frankly, what's rnost important to us is that we start
getting...This is not an ideal approach to it. We recognize that but under
the timing constraints that we're living under in terms of getting our
charter operational...this is the best alternative. I hope that maybe that
timing constraint that you're not aware of...
e
Krauss: I just want to add that in my experience, it's not an uncommon
practice for banks to do this. Health clubs will put a trailer out at the
site as they build it to get membership rolls. Apartment projects will put
model hOIlles on a si te. It's a fairly common practice around the Twin
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 22
e
Cities. As long as it's under control with a sunset, I haven't had much
problem with it.
Olsen: And they are Illaking all the necessary iIllprovements to the si te
which is usually where staff doesn't budget you know when it's just going
to be gravel but they are going to be paving everything and putting all the
utilities in and landscaping.
ElIson: Well I guess I don't have as much experience as many of the others
but I'm just uncomfortable I guess with that and the precedence that it
might be setting for everybody who wants to go out and get going but
they're not quite ready yet but boy when I get up and moving, then I'll do
it exactly what you want. We're blessing it. I don't know and I don't
like a time frame of like 3 years existing like that either. I guess I'm
trying to picture the whole city growing and that just doesn't seem like a
nice way to start it off and it's so different than most the people coming
through here. Like we got to get started and can we get moving. We want
to break ground right away and this one is, is it okay if we don't do the
main stuff for 2 years, 9 months and that sounds like an awful long wait I
guess to me. You can tell I'm on the other side of the coin.
e
Torn Mork: I guess I'm concerned that we're c)'~eating an iIllage that we're
not anxious to get in a more permanent building which is not at all the
case. If things go the way that we would like them to, we hope to start
construction next year. Next sumIller. But by the saIlle token, in dealing
with the HRA, we asked them to consider some of the regulatory requirements
that a dry cleaner doesn't have for example. We are dealing with a
national bank charter and federal regulator and it does sometimes impede
progress as you deal with bureaucracy so I don't want to leave here tonight
with the impression that we aren't as anxious as you to be in a permanent
hOIl\e.
Emmings: If I can interrupt Annette. When you say that, what I hear
anyway is that there is the possibility that things will not go the way yor
plans are structured. That it will not allow you to start building the
bank maybe when you want to start building the bank and I guess that's the
possibility we're trying to address by putting on a cap on the length of
time you can be existing in a temporary building.
TOIlI Mork: And I think that's what the HRA was concerned about too and
that's why they put the forfeiture clause in there for a period of time.
EIllIltings: Now it's our turn.
TOIlI Mork: And I understand your concerns and I really don't have any
problem wi th them as long as it doesn't impose a tiIlle table that is
contrary to what the HRA has asked us.
EIllIltings: Well we don't want to do that. I don't.
e
Ellson: The only other cOIlIDlent I had was that we've got 2 of these next to
our cOIllpany also and I still wouldn't like it as a bank but one other
things is about the people next door. I don't think that we really can do
Planning COf(mti ss ion Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 23
e
much to allow you to pick the type of tenant or approve the people next
door. I think that if you want to buy the land, that's probably as close
as you COllIe to being able to give it away to whoever you want but I don't
think we can put anything in there about the cross easements and who the
neighbors would be. What are the hours going to be? A lot of tillles when
businesses will tell us their working hours, sometimes we'll...
Tom Mork: Well yeah. I'm looking around because I'm not certain if our
competition is here.
Batzli: They'll be watching the TV.
ElIson: It's on television and I'm sure they're all tuned in.
Tom Mork: Frankly right now we would expect the drive in to be open at
least ft:Of(1 7:00 a.f(l. to 7:00 p.f(l. and we'll be open for full service
banking at 7:00 in the lllorning as well. The lobby, we haven't established
the closing time but it will be 5:00 or 6:00. Somewhere in there. Those
are some organizational details we haven't quite worked out.
e
Batzli: It was funny because when I first saw the temporary building, I
thought of a little trailer that they had in the Bank Excelsior's parking
lot there while they were remodeling. That's all I could think of was this
little, anyway. You had to be there to see it. I don't have a problem
with the two year starting period. I guess whether it's 9 months or a
year, whatever, I guess I'd like to see some sort of sunset but I also
think that they're going to have a lot of red tape to go through to do a
lot of things and I don't know that us imposing some sort of tillle table
that they're going to have to be in here asking us for changes later. I
don't know what the point is of lllaking it too compressed is. I don't know
what the difference is between 9 f(lonths and a year for instance. They say
6 months. We say 9 months. I mean what are we really trying to do? Are
we trying to let thenl bui ld a bank or are we trying to put a prod in their
back?
Conrad: Well let's ask Jo Ann or Paul that same question. When we approve
a site plan for any other company in town, are there limitations on that?
ElIson: The approval lasts for x length of time?
tI
Conrad: How long have we approved it for before they...
Olsen: I believe it's unlimited. The building permit I know that that
runs out in a year.
~~ings: But this is not the same. They don't have to start building.
ElIson: But we're talking about this precedent kind of thing.
e
Conrad: So anybody who comes in here and gives us a site plan, Jo Ann, as
long as they own that land, that site plan lasts forever and we don't say
it runs out? If you don't develop it the way we've agreed to.
e
e
-
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 24
Ellson:
I reIlleIllber that Dav id Stockdale. Didn't he run out...
Olsen: Well conditional uses have that liIllitation and variances have a
liIltitation. I just can't reIlleIllber if site plans do.
Conrad: What about in the downtown district? What zone are we?
Olsen: Site plans don't.
Conrad: We're in the general business district. We're not in the CBD.
Olsen: No.
Conrad:
If we were in the CBD, what would the restrictions be? Any?
Olsen: Time limit?
Conr ad : Yeah.
Olsen: It would all still be a site plan and that one doesn't have a
limitation.
Emmings: No limit on what Ladd?
Conrad: How long our approval lasts before something occurs? Before the)'~e
is construction.
~~ings: That's a different question though. I don't want to limit that.
I don't care about that.
Batzli: That's already limited by the HRA. They have to start within 2
years of closing or such and such date.
EmIli i ng s :
I don't care.
Conrad: You don't care? Because that really dictates how long your
teIllporary faciU. ty stays.
EIllIllings: What I care about is how long, on this major entrance, this major
new entrance to Chanhassen, how long these two temporary buildings sit out
in the parking lot. That's what I care about.
Conrad: Sure.
I agree. Does that anything to do with the building?
~lIllings: Well yeah sure.
building gets built.
I suppose they're going to disappear when the
Conrad: They'll take them down for sure. They don't want them there for
guarantee. They don't want that building there so the question, in my
mind, the question is how long do you want those there period regardless of
when they built the building.
Ernrn i n g s :
I don't want them there at all but I think they've got needs.
Planning Commission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - Page 25
e
Conrad: And I'm trying to dissect whether we have any standards for
related type, not absolutely the same issue but I'm conce~ned that we may
have sOIlIething up for 2 yea~s and it doesn't come back fo~ review and I'm
not sure I want to ~eview it but I do have concerns. Brian?
Batzli: But really, what you said is true. They will be there in essence
a rninimu.llI o~ a Illaximum of 2 years from closing. Tempo~a~y buildings
because by that time. Well 2 yea~s plus 6 months approximately. Or 9
months if they slip a little but I don't know when that period begins
either. When that 2 year pe~iod starts.
Emmings: When they sign their agreement with the HRA it sounds like.
Batzli: When does that happen?
Tom Mork: The 2 year period starts in May.
Batzli: Last Mayor next May?
Toni Mo:r;k: This cOIlling May.
Conrad: So 2 years from May plus 9 months.
e Batzli: You're into about what, 1994 there or something. 1993.
Conrad: It's a long time.
Tom Mork: In the worse case scenario, it would be 1993.
Batzli: Well to get onto sOIllething else for a Iltinute. I don't quite
understand this easterly parking lot and what the City is looking for in
terms of the applicant illustrating proposed modifications. Would that
parking lot have to be modified if the adjacent parcel is developed? Would
they share a parking lot? Is that what we're envisioning?
Olsen: Every plan that we have seen has shown that all of it acting as one
site. We were just pointing that out that is that is going to be proposed,
that we would like to see exactly how that was going to work to see how the
circulation would work.
Batzli: If they in fact shared a parking lot and the single entrance?
Olsen: Yeah, so it might be premature to ask fo~ that now.
Batzli: But if we don't ask for it now, in essence the bank controls
whether or not they want to share parking or not so it would be up to the
developer of the adjacent parcel unless that's in their agreement with HRA
that that's going to happen.
e
Olsen: That it's going to be shared?
Planning Comnlission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - Page 26
e
Batzli: Unless it's in the ag~eement with HRA, it's totally at the
discretion of the bank whether they want to share the parking lot. It
sounds to me like the bank doesn't want to.
Toni Mo~k:
I wouldn't say that.
I really wouldn't.
Batzli: The bank's strong inclination is to potentially not want to share
a parking lot with their next door neighbor from the sounds of it.
Conrad: Why is it up to the HRA?
Batzli: I'm just saying if that's part of their development agreement but
it doesn't sound like it is.
Olsen: I don't know if it is.
Conrad: But they don't have anything to do with site planning.
Olsen: And the new site plan on the easterly lot, if that showed that they
would be sharing the parking, then they could show how that's going to
impact. . .
Batzli: Right.
I 'nl just trying to tie in why are we asking them for this?
e
Con~ad: Only for flexibility in the future so we wouldn't have to give the
next property to the east 2 additional sites and curb cuts. This may save
a curb cut. If they share parking.
Batzli: Well that's what we're asking for. To the entrance. I'm just
talking about this parking lot. Why are we asking for shared parking was
my question.
Olsen: I don't think we're asking for shared parking.
everything we've seen has shown.
It's just that
Batzli: That it's developed as, okay. It doesn't. It says in 12, the
easterly parking lot shall be modified when the adjacent parcel is
developed. I'm assunling the adj acent parcel is to the east. In any event
I guess I would rather go on and delete that particular paragraph 12. I'd
add a new paragraph 13 that the future addition designated on the plans
isn't a part of this approval. The question, did public safety ever review
the canopy and the height of the canopy?
Olsen: Yes. They got all the plans.
Batzli: Because on their checklist they just said something like we'll
nlonitor or I don't know what they said. They're supposed to have 14 feet.
They say we'll review building plans so that's going to be reviewed at a
la ter tinle?
e
Olsen: When the details come in. Brian, I'nl sor~y to interrupt but 13,
future addition, is not included in this?
Planning Conmd.ssion Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 27
e
Batzli: Yeah. Then I was going to ask about the railroad track and this
enter only. The distance from the railroad track but it sounds to me like
you guys have reviewed that and thought about that pretty carefully. Those
were my questions. Wait a minute. I wanted to bug Tim because he didn't
even say anything about deceleration and he's an engineer and I just wanted
to bug him about that. It should have been negative acceleration. Okay.
Erhart: Duly noted.
Headla: I like their express lane. The way they handled the traffic. I
don't have any problenl with the curb cuts there. When I look at Excelsior
and the two banks together, I think those curb cuts make people make
decisions before they get into a problenl and then try to make a quick
decision. I like the curb cuts for the express lane and I'd support the
curb cuts for your own property there. On your reconmlendations, there's 3
memos there as attachnlents. Tha t' sthe question 4. Do those attachments
go wi th the recomnlendations? In those memos are not included in your
reconlIllendations.
Olsen: The building officiali that all has to be, when they come through
with the building permit, that's when they meet all of those conditions.
Headla: Pardon?
e
Olsen: The building official, from Ron Julkowski, that memo. What he
points out, that is all verified and has to be met when they get the
building permit. Same with the fire inspector. A lot of the things they
can't address until they do get the detailed plans of the building.'
Headla: How about the one from Julkowski where it said also plans must
have Minnesota seal from State Inspection Departnlent? Now is that part of
the recoll~endations? Are you saying that the attachments are not part of
the recoI\lIllendations?
Olsen: They have to submit that for the building permit. That's part of
the submi ttal requirelllent.
Headla: Oh, it's not part of the recolllIllendation? It's part of another
process?
Olsen: Right.
Batzli: I think part of the confusion is that it seems to me that we used
to have kind of a blanket statelllent that the things frOlll a such and such
menlO dated a certain date are included as part of this approval process and
we're not really seeing those anynlOre.
Olsen: Okay.
e
Batzli: Did something happen?
ElIson: Different people come in and you want different...
Planning Copmlission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 28
e
Olsen: Right. Then you didn't want those general conditions.
Batzli: Did we say that?
Olsen: I've heard that.
Batzli: Who said that here?
Conrad: Everybody said that. Everybody.
Batzli: Well we've said we didn't want as many conditions I thought.
I don't recall saying we didn't want a general condition.
Conrad: Anything that's standard. If there are standard conditions we've
always, the Planning Cop~ission said don't include them because they have
to include them only if they really had to be highlighted.
Batzli: Okay, I see what you're saying.
Conrad: I think Dave harped on this and now that he's resigned, it doesn't
matter.
Headla: You're going to revert huh?
4It Olsen: I'll give each person a different set of conditions.
Batzli: So the conditions that are in these attached reports that aren't
in here are general conditions. They apply to everything that everybody
comes through here does and that's why they're not in here.
Olsen: Right. And the specific things, when they come in with the
building permit, that's part of the building permit application and that's
where the fire inspection.
Conrad: You see you don't know that. Only Jo Ann and Paul know that those
are general conditions. We the lay folks don't know if they're general and
typical or if they're special for this particular deal. That's why
sometimes it's good to have 33 conditions out there because then we know
they were incorporated from other memos. This way it's saying to staff, we
trust you. You know what you're doing.
Olsen: We usually just point out ones that apply to the site plan.
Conrad: But we are the ones who are harping on keeping the nUPlber of those
things minimal.
Batzli: Paul looks like he really wants to say sOPlething.
e
Krauss: Well I don't really. The stuff from Ron Julkowski for example is
more informational than conditional as to something that you would view.
It's an informational resource for these people that when they prepare the
plans, he's going to be looking for those items so it's just a useful thing
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - page 29
e
for them. It's not really consideration for the Planning Con~ission
specifically.
Headla: That's a good explanation on that one. I was going to come back
with plans must have Minnesota seal but you're giving them information that
this is what you're going to expect. Fine. I don't have a problem with
that then. Then let's go to the Septernber 12th Illerno to Jo Ann. At the
bottonl on the page. Those time tables may be further affected by si te
preparation difficulty, the bank's growth, weather conditions, or factors
beyond the control of the bank. In any event, it appears to us that the
bank will occupy it's modular facilities and so on. When I read those
words it says you've got to put a time limit on it. There's no reason why
we shouldn't put a time limit on it. Give them 24 months or whatever but
put a time limit for that facility to be gone. The modular one. I've got
no problem with keeping the feet to the fire. Also, if you really ru0n
into like severe weather conditions. Sonlething totally out of your
control. I don't believe that Council's going to be unreasonable but
they've got to do something to keep your feet to the fire to get the job
done otherwise what's your incentive. You could leave it up there a lot
longer.
Tom Mork: Well we do have incentive. We'll forfeit the land if we don't
build the building within the time frame.
e
Headla: You've got to get that building removed. I really thing we should
have a time limit on it. You've covered everything else.
Batzli: What do you think about the easement? The cross easeIllent. Do you
think they need it?
Headla: My point was that I don't object to the curb cuts in that
location. I referenced Excelsior and I think those curb cuts are good
because it forces people to make a decision before they get in there and
they can put in a curb cut that will serve their purpose.
Conrad: TonI, did you have you had the charter?
Tom Mork: Yes. The charter's been approved.
Conrad: So really it's a financing deal right now? Just going to make
SOllIe comments as I go through here sequentially in the staff report. I do
like the cross easement that the staff has recon~ended. Not that I agree
that we're going to do it. I like the flexibility to be able to do it if
necessary. It makes sense to me on the eastern property line. Question of
staff. The time and temperature sign are permitted without a permit. How
conle?
Olsen: It's in our ordinance.
e
Conrad: So it says anybody can put a time and temperature sign up and
there's no pernti t required where all other signs require a permi t?
Olsen: Yeah, it's under the signs without a permit. Garage sale signs.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 30
e
Conrad: That's real interesting because I think that type of a signage can
be more objectional than others so I find that, I don't know if we care
right now. We've got enough stuff to look at.
Olsen: It's always more than time and temperature.
Ellson: That's right.
Conrad: They're really consumer oriented. I like thell'1 but I just find
that we control every nit and nat and we're really restrictive except for
something that's really, it can be very obtrusive and it just seems like it
should be under the same guidelines as any other signs that we have. In
terms of the temporary facility, I didn't see anything about lighting in
your l:ecomrnenda tions.
Olsen: Parking lighting?
Conrad: Parking lighting yeah. The word temporary says well they're not
going to do much yet so we don't have to worry about it yet I feel real
uncoll'lfortable. We are granting occupancy to that si te yet in the plans, in
the presentation there's nothing on lighting and 1'11'1 worried we're treating
tell'lporary as if it's, ah, maybe something will happen and then we'll really
review them when they put up the real building so what have we seen about
lighting in there?
e
Olsen: They have to supply all the parking lights that are going to be
required for the permanent structure.
Conrad: Don't you normally report to us on lighting or do you wait until
it gets to City Council?
Olsen: Whether or not they're shielded?
Conrad: Yeah, shielded types.
Olsen: We've looked at that but anything that doesn't 11'Ieet it, then I
usually point it out.
Conrad: Okay. Have they presented the lighting to you?
Olsen: It's on the plan. The actual detail of the lighting, no. Do you
have that on?
David Shea: We can supply that to staff. A shielded lighting fixture.
e
Conrad: I'm not worried about it. I guess my deal is, there's a mentality.
we're working on a temporary structure here but really it's a permanent
occupant. You're in business. you've got traffic there. So if you can
make a note that City Council should be reviewing that or making sure. Or
at least review the reviews by the time it gets to City Council. I don't
want to see it because I know you've got it under control.
Planning COIllmission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - page 31
e
Olsen: As fa~ as that sign, I had ~ead that w~ong. It's unde~ p~ohibited
signs. It's excepted. It says motion signs o~ flashing signs except time
and tempe~atu~e signs and ba~ber poles.
Enmlings: What section a~e you ~eading from?
Olsen: That's Section 20-1259.
Con~ad: So this is not a motion sign?
Olsen: Well it's a motion sign but it's an exception to it.
K~auss: It's an exception to the motion sign and would ~equire a permit.
Olsen: I think we put that in the ordinance with the first bank. With
Chanhassen Bank.
e
Con~ad: Unde~ tempora~y facility. Tempo~a~y facility. Has anybody f~om
Public Safety, we have a check list in he~e that they've gone th~ough and
it deals with fire and hydrants and stuff like that but it ~eally didn't
talk about secu~ity. When a bank moves into town. Do we care? What is
public safety ca~e about th~eats of situational deals with the bank? I
didn't see anything in any ~eport saying we're concerned with a tePlpora~y
facility so staff says we're not concerned and it's governed by the
gove~ning forces that gove~n financial institutions and we don't have any
specific cares about a tePlpo~a~y facility as a bank for security fo~ theft
and ~obbery? Nothing?
Olsen: They do review it at thei~ public safety meeting. They always hold
one on eve~y Friday and they didn't point that out.
Con~ad: But it's a standa~d checklist that's associated in here.
Olsen: That's specifically more with fire, that checklist but they do, the
whole public safety department. public Safety Di~ector also ~eviews the
plans.
Tom Mork: Excuse me. A~e you specifically conce~ned about the impact that
bu~gla~y calls might have on local law enforcement agencies o~ our own
security devices within the building itself?
Conrad: Again, I'm working with this word tempora~y. You know, have we
really thought out, a~e we applying the standards that, I don't think we
have any standards because nobody's told me about them for a bank PlOving
into town, that are different than a grocery store moving into town. I'm
just raising the question just to make su~e that the staff is not treating
this as a tempo~ary facility. That it's a real bank moving into town and
has the public Safety Departnlent given us their feedback on it and I didn't
see it here so I don't know that I have a concern with what you're doing
tha t 's Plore...
e
Tom Mork: I can assure you that we're under some pretty stringent
requi~enlents in ternls of secur i ty and we wouldn't get a bond in cOPlpl iance.
Planning Cornmission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - page 32
-
Conrad: I guess my only other con~ent is the time frame. I think
everything else I'm cOIllfortable wi th. There's some adntinstra ti ve stuff but
the time frarne and I'll let somebody make a motion and I'm not going to
steer that motion but it seems like the applicant has 3 1/2 years to build
this and I don't know. It seems kind of loose. I think it's good to have
anothe~ bank in town. Sometinles when you hea~ us talk it seems real
critical and anti new stuff but that's certainly not the point. I think
Chanhassen's growing and conSlUllers will benefi t by that but I do have a
problem wi th the time f~arl\e for bui Id ing . I don't have a solution for
that. I think it should be in sync with what the HRA said yet my personal
opinion is saying that I'd really like to see that bank up in 2 years.
Emntings: From?
Conrad: Now. But I'm looking for the negatives and I don't know that we
set a precedent. Who else is going to come in and ask for a temporary site
and use this as, if you put a Illodular home or a mobile home in a
neighborhood, the neighbo~s would be in here inmlediately. They wouldn't
allow it for a day. Well, in the business conmlUnity, it may be a little
bit different and this is more permanent in nature. That's not a typical
mobile home with wheels on it but, I'm looking for negatives to say we
should put a definite 2 year limitation or something on it and I'm not sure
we set a precedent because I can't think of another business that's going
to COllIe in and ask for that.
e
Batz1i: You can't do it that way because you can't judge in the future
what's going to come through the door. The question is, what would happen
if anothe:t~ one did regardless of who it is that conIes in and asks for it.
We give it to them.
Conrad: And based on tonight we'd have to give them 3 1/2 years to build
the structure.
Enlnlings: No you don't.
Conrad: Why not?
e
~~ings: Because. Just because 3 1/2 years seems appropriate for this
applicant, you always get to conside~ the facts. You don't have to
autonlatica11y do this time what you did 1ats time if the facts are
different. The next one isn't a bank. The next one doesn't have problems
with satisfying federal ~egu1ations. The next one, you know you can,
believe me, be able to distinguish. The point to me here Ladd is this.
We've dealt with this same issue on tenlporary conditional use permits.
Anytime anybody says temporary, I want to know what the end is. Temporary
means forever unless there's a cap and I think we ought to, I think they
should be accon~odated because I think the~e should be a second bank in
town too and I don't want to discourage them but there's got to be some
reasonable limit out there beyond which they're just got to take that
tempo~ary building off that property.
Conrad: Do you see any other negatives?
Planning ComIllission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 33
e
EIlmdngs: No.
Conrad: Having this less than attractive building. Were those your words?
EmIllings: A little stronger than that.
Conrad: Is that a negative to the downtown community at all?
EmIllings: I don't know.
Conrad: Is it a negative?
Headla: I think their teIllporary building looks very reasonable. If you
look at the way it's constructed, it's appearance. They try to fit it in.
Conrad: Any other negatives with letting it be out there for 3 1/2 years?
EmIllings: At the longest.
Conrad: At the longest.
ElIson: I see a precedence. The one next door will start putting up his
tit while he's building his.
Batzli: This is going to be, I mean you don't just put these up. I mean
there's a cost involved.
Ellson: I know but you could actually be, starting to make a lot of money
with very little expense because you're in a really SIllall building. You've
saving up to do what you really want and Chanhassen is literally giving you
that option to help you finance the building you always wanted in the first
place. We would never the let site plan come in with that modular building
and so you're basically saying we will take second rate for how long?
Because it would never have been approved to be a building on it's own as
it is so we're automatically taking a major concession for the city for the
applicant's benefit.
Conrad: Is it going to detract from neighboring property values right now?
Probably not. I don't know. I like a cap but I'm looking for some real
negatives that would say there's a reason to put a different time frame on
it and to be honest, I just can't. As Illuch as I don't like teIllporary
facilities, I don't know a good way to set a time frame and probably the
best is to tie into the HRA which I'm not really convinced of but I don't
have a better.
e
Tom Mork: I guess I'd like to add one thing and that is, I don't know what
you have in your minds as to what the economics of a modular building are
but I can assure you that to acquire this building is about $120,000.00
building. We're looking at putting a minimum of $80,000.00 of improvements
into the site just to get it, or at least that's our preliminary estimates,
just to get the teIllporary site prepared so we're talking about a couple
hundred thousand dollar outlay of capital so.
-
e
e
Planning COIl\I'nission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - Page 34
ElIson: Ve~sus a 2 million dolla~ bank o~ something like that. I don't
know.
EIl~ings: I'd like to add something on anothe~ issue he~e.
Batzli: Do we need a motion here?
Con~ad: Not yet.
EIllIltings: I wanted to add~ess the sign. I do not ag~ee that you can have a
time and temperatu~e sign wi thout a pernli t.
Headla: They agree with you.
~~ings: Oh, I'm so~~y. Did I hear w~ong? I thought you said that they
didn't need to have a pe~mit.
01 sen: Right. That' s whe~e it had come out w~ong. It was unde~ the
p~ohibited signs as an exception and I meant that, to put it in that it
didn't need a permit but it does still need a pe~mit.
~lIltings: Okay, fine.
Con~ad: Any othe~ discussion on the length that we'~e talking about? If
not, I'll ask for a motion. A~e you going to make a motion?
Tom Mo~k: On the app~oval of the addition to the building. We'~e talking
about a 4,000, potential 4,000 squa~e foot addition he~e that would be in
snyc a~chitecturally with the ~est of the building. Do you view that in
the sallie 1 ight as you do wi th the previous appl icant? That it's something
you wanted to look at into the future? I guess I'd just like
cla~ification.
ElIson: That we're not approving that right now. Is that what you mean?
Batzli: We would want .to see it again because it Illay have an affect on
impervious surface coverage and some othe~ things.
Conrad: What would t~igge~ that Jo Ann? Just automatically on the
building extension o~ addition, anything t~iggering that to come back to us
other than the fact that we said we would want it to come back?
Olsen: If they hadn't shown the addition at all, even to us an~ then had
come in and wanted to do it, we would make them go th~ough the site plan
review.
Conrad: But now they have said that the~e Illight be one and basically,
because they did, it would be kind of up to you~ disc~etion as to whether.
If it met all the ordinances, you ~eally don't need to bring it back to us.
Olsen: In the calculations I thought they had included, they did include
the addition so that's why we we~e saying that we would feel cOIllfortable
e
e
.
Planning COI1lIuission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - pag
35
with allowing the addition without coming back fo~ the site plan.
Con~ad: I don't know that we want to see it but I think B~ian's point is,
we have not app~oved it and therefore it's going to be a staff decision on
whether to b~ing it back to us in the futu~e.
David Shea: That's fine. We'~e wo~king on the idea that the hard su~face
coverage and work with staff to make sure we get a master plan for this
site and it'd be up to staff's discretion to bring it back.
Conrad: Is there a motion?
Batzli: I I110Ve that the Planning COI11I1dssion recommend approval of Site
Plan Review #89-6 for C~ossroads National Bank as shown on the plan dated
September 22, 1989 subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 thru
5. Delete 6. Condition 7 with the following added at the end,
notwithstanding the fo~egoing, such teI1lpo~ary facility shall be removed
within 9 months of the issuance of the building permit for the pe~manent
bank facility. Conditions 8, 9, 10, 11 as written in the staff report.
Delete 12 and a new 13. Future addition designated on the plans are not
part of the site plan approval.
EI1mlings: Second.
Batzli moved, EIllmings seconded that the Planning Commission reC0I11I11end
app~oval of Site Plan Review #89-6 for Cross~oads National Bank as shown on
the plan dated SepteI11ber 22, 1989 and subject to the following conditions:
1. The property shall be platted and recorded with Carver County.
2. The City shall process a rezoning of the property as part of the
platting p~ocedu~e.
3. The site plan shall be revised to include a right turn deceleration
lane on Market Boulevard and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk on the
east side of Market Boulevard. The site plan shall be revised to
reflect additional right-of-way necessary for the deceleration lane and
sidewalk and to maintain required setbacks.
4. The applicant shall provide cross eaSeI1lents for the joint access on
West 79th Street.
5. The applicant shall provide revised landscaping plan providing
necessary landscpaing on the berm between the parking area and West
79th Street.
6. The teI11pOrary facility will have to be removed within one week of the
permanent bank facility receiving a certificate of occupancy,
notwithstanding the fo~egoing, such temporary facility shall be removed
within 9 months of the issuance of the building permit for the
permanent bank facility.
Planning COIlmtission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - Page 36
-
7. The applicant shall comply with any and all Wate~shed Dist~ict
~equi~ements.
8. The ci ty wi 11 Illoni to~ the si te fo~ e~os ion cont~ol p~oblems and if
deemed necessa~y, addi tional e~osion control Illay be required in the
future.
9. Exact storIlI sewer connections and design shall be verified in the field
and approved by the City's Engineering Department prior to
construction.
10. The ex it on West 79th St~eet shall be moved a minimUIl'\ of 100 feet from
the West 79th Street/Market Boulevard intersection.
11. Future addition designated on the plans are not part of the site plan
approval.
All voted in favor except Annette Ellson who opposed and the Illotion carried
with a vote of 5 to 1.
Conrad: And your reason?
e
Ellson: I guess I'd like to see if they can begin building in May, I'd
like to see it start in May to be built. I don't think we're getting that
sort of guarantee.
Conrad: Okay, that goes to City Council October 23rd.
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, we had indicated with the applicant that we would
attempt to work with them on getting that facility. If you approved it
tonight, getting that facility up yet this year. Consequently we were
going to try and take it to the City Council next Monday.
Conrad: Ah. Next Monday?
that temporary facility up,
in. The curb cuts are in.
The only difference is, we
in. You will not let them
Okay. Paul, just a quick point. When they put
the site has been approved. The .landscaping is
Obviously sewer, water, everything is there.
don't have the building 'but everything else is
go in until...
Krauss: What we would have is we would have the modular building up.
There would be pavement around that modular building. There'd be
landscaping around that but the rest of the site would be graded,
presumably graded flat and seeded and just left undisturbed. The rest of
the site is where they're going to be building so there's really no way to
be planting around there.
Olsen: Or put the curb and gutter in.
e Conrad: So we have a temporary landscaping plan?
Krauss: Well actually, the way they have it situated, it's a permanent
landscaping plan. The building fit in there so they could put in the
e
e
e
Planning COlllIuission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 -
Page 37
permanent landscaping and curbing a~ound it.
Conrad: Don, why don't you tackle that when you, you've hea~d what we'~e
talked about tonight.
Olsen: They can also do some of the pe~imeter landscaping too.
Mayor Chllliel: Did you say it's going to be on the 9th?
Krauss: We talked to Karen about it yesterday.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, EIl~ings seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning COIl~ission meeting dated September 20, 1989 up to page 40.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Conrad: Paul, do you want to lead us through on that? Do you want to go
th~ough your particular minutes or notes to us?
Krauss: Yes Mr. Chairman. I don't know if there's anything specifically
that warrants any discussion except for possibly the Vineland Forest
status. As I indicated, the Vineland Forest plat went to the Council
several times for consideration since you saw it. We tried to clarify the
road access issue. After reviewing the alternatives, the Council
ultimately settled on an alternative option for access that was developed
by staff that ran from the southeast Nez Perce, Lake Lucy Road to the
northwest over to Peaceful Lane up to Pleasant View as the optimum way.
It's not an ideal way but the optimum way that's remaining to us to serve
the entire area. The applicant was then directed to prepare a plat in
consideration of that alignment. That was brought to the Council and there
were SOllie other issues that cropped up resul ting from engineering details
with how that access is going to be made. We think that their resolveable.
Their engineer is getting some 1l10re topographic data and we're talking to
different property owners that would be impacted so we expect to go back to
the Council with that. One thing though that warrants pointing out though
is in reviewing this I callie up wi th a couple of potential problellls or at
least issues of concern with the way the ordinance is structured. There
were two factors that probably warrant SOllie consideration on your part and
some work on my part to see if we can resolve them. One is that the
ordinance allows for reduction of f~ont yard lot width or lot width at
~ight-of-way on cul-de-sacs and it's not specific as to where on
cul-de-sacs and how you apply that. In wo~king with Jo Ann, it's appa~ent
that the City in the past has allowed reductions of lot width on outside
curves as well whether or not they're on cul-de-sacs. I think it's a
worthy thing to do. If you have the straight 90 foot frontage everyplace,
you wind up with a g~id system and that's just not how the City's
developed. I think what we need to look at though is some flexibility in
the lot width standard to account for that so we clear up the anomaly in
the o~dinance and don't have a variance situation. Related to that is
there was another variance that was created for a lack of frontage at
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - page 38
e
right-of-way for a neck lot. The lot had 30 foot of frontage on Pleasant
View. Because of how we aligned the road, there was a sufficient area
stranded between the new street being proposed in Van Eeckhout's division
and Pleasant View. There was sufficient area for 3 lots but it didn't have
frontage. They were proposing to use a neck lot configuration that only
had 30 feet of right-of-way on Pleasant View. The subdivision ordinance
says that's fine. The subdivision ordinance says you can have up to 4
hOllies on a private driveway. The RSF district doesn't say you can have
any. It says you need 90 foot of frontage for every lot. You can't have
it both ways and what I'd like to bring back to you is a proposal to look
at some sort of proposal for some sort of neck lot configuration or some
standards that we might use if we're going to use private drives to access
properties that couldn't otherwise be accessed by a public street. Those
are the two issues that I think evolved out of the Van Eeckhout decision
that really warrants some further investigation on your part.
e
Conrad: Sounds reasonable. My only reaction is sometillles when we, and I
think we should and we should put it onto this list that we have of all the
projects that are out there so we can make sure it's someplace. The only
comment I have quickly on that is sometillles when we do these things it's,
we're assisting a developer to squeeze out the maximum amount of lots out
of a piece of property. In general I think I support some of what you're
talking about but my only concern would be, I'm really not too interested
in letting the developer really lllanipulate that land to the point where
he's just squeezed every possible square inch into a building so that would
be my only COllnent but let's add it to the list and address it. That's
another thing we should do Paul, as we build up that list and I don't know
where it is right now or I've got a copy of an older one. We should sort
of prioritize those for you so we've got you working on the things we
really care about or you should persuade us that it's a significant issue
that you should work on before other items. Is staff satisfied with Van
Eeckhout because we had problems wi th it. It seellled like a silllple deal
when it first callie in. Are you satisfied that it's being solved
adequately?
Krauss: Pending resolution of the techincal aspects of making the
connection, I think we are satisfied. We looked at all the options for
serving that property. I mean we really expanded the study area and did an
overall access concept plan and there's about 6 ways of serving it. Some
of thelll are really...
Olsen: Two cul-de-sacs.
e
Krauss: Well, yeah the one with two cul-de-sacs. There's the one to the
east that runs into a 20 foot retaining wall at the bottom of a 70 foot
bluff and obv iously that had some problellls but we really tr ied to develop a
plan that served all the remaining vacant land there in a reasonable way
and then provided some cross access through the neighborhood for public
safety reasons. Like I say, it's not the ideal way. If all the property
was vacant right now you'd probably do it a little differently but given
the remaining options, it's the best.
e
e
e
Planning COI'l\ptission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 39
OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF AESTHETIC ASPECTS OF THE HIGHWAY 5 AND 101
CORRIDORS, FRED HOISINGTON.
Hoisington: Mr. ChairPlan and Plenlbers of the Planning conmtission. We are
getting very near the end of a study of the TH l0l/TH 5 corridor. The
study really had three purposes. We've already satisfied some of the
purpose for the first one and the one that really percipitated the study to
begin with, had to do with the official mapping of the right-of-way of TH
101. As you know, we took that through a series of alternatives, four
different alternatives. We were here. You recommended an alternative and
we went to the City Council and they have selected the alternative that you
see here and I believe it's in the process now of being officially
described and recorded, I hope, at the County Courthouse because that's the
ultimate final step for official mapping. The second purpose, that one
already having been accomplished, was land use and we have been here.
We've been talked a little bit about land use with you but that's to be
considered as part of your comprehensive planning program and all we're
doing in this case is recopmlending certain land uses and the idea being
that YOll can change them and incorporate thenl in any manner you feel is
appJ~opriate when you do the conlprehensive plan. The third purpose though
is one that was really begun by the Planning Conmlission and that had to do
with the aesthetics of especially the TH 101 corridors and the entry into
downtown Chanhassen. What we did was develop a corridor aesthetic concept
really for TH 101 and TH 5 and the two are very different. I'm not going
to spend a lot of time on TH 5 but I think it's important that you
understand the differences between the two. I have sections here. You can
al so see them. Maybe we can lay them out. I won't put thenl up there thi s
evening. The concept for TH 5 is one where we have a rather polished
appearance. One where the theme is already sort of begun in Eden prairie
or it will when that stretch of roadway is completed and we see that as
sort of the transition area from the entry to Chanhassen into downtown
Chanhassen and we expect that to be planted with trees on both sides that
will essentially define the roadway. Define the views that people have.
In some cases screen the uses that are there but to kind of create
openings. Openings and closures as you go along the highway. We're
talking about some berming along TH 5 and there's a plan that's more
detailed than this and by the way, this extends all the way out to l84th.
In the median in TH 5 is, for the most part, depressed. The only places it
will not be depressed will be at intersections and at the intersections we
will have curb and those are all required pretty much by MnDot because some
of those areas are very snlall so it will be curbed. Have turn lanes and so
forth for TH 5. Now. One of the most important parts of TH 5 I guess is
also that the legislature did with the tax bill, pass the City'S funding
request which is for the extension of the tax increment district which also
will provide the funding for construction of this intersection of TH 101
and TH 5. A very critical part of the whole plan and one we were very
concerned would not be approved but it has been so things are going quite
well in that respect. Do you have any questions on TH 5? I know you don't
want to spend a lot of time.
Ellson: When you're saying depressed, you're just saying...
Planning COIUIuission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - Page 40
.e
Hoisington: We'~e trying to drop it out of sight. That's really what
MnDot is doing on the remainder of the stretch. One of the things we are
doing however on TH 5, MnDot had not recommended, was we're suggesting that
it be an urban section with cu~b and gutte~ on the outside. Not on the
inside. The idea is that if we do it on the inside, we end up with sort of
a flat surface. We talked about this befo~e. Really what you end up with
is g~ass in the~e and then you have a nlaintenance problenl. One that
requires mowing. One that nornlally will resul t in weeds at SOllIe point in
time. It doesn't Illean we're going to escape that. There will be some
g~ass. It will be grass medians but it will be depressed. We're trying to
drop it out of sight in that case.
Erhart: Are you saying the edges are going to be ditch o~ curbs?
e
HoisiI;tgton: No. What we're proposing is essentially it will be curbs on
the outside, ditch in the median. The median I think is 24 feet. Now TH
101 which is really another reason why this whole plan was begun, we're
talking about two concepts. Two different alternatives. The prinlary
alternative was one that had a median, a 24 foot median throughout the
entire stretch f~om TH 5 down to TH 212 or the alternative to that is to
have no median but have turn lanes of course at all the intersections.
There hopefully wi 11 be a very I iIlti ted nUIllber of intersections along thi s
roadway. They will be liPlited on the points that we're showing on this
plan. In other words, there will be no others than that. One of the
advantages of having no median at all is that you will not have a
maintenance problem. There will have to be no extraordinary costs
associated with that and you will also be able to have a variable width
right-of-way where you can move in and out as you need right-of-way to
accoIllodate the roadway and you will save some space. What we're suggesting
to you is that even what you'll save isn't space or right-of-way so Pluch as
you will save the landforIlls to a g~eater extent, along the roadway than you
can if you would have a median in the center. Now if you do, you still
have turn lanes of course at each one of the intersections but you have
those choices and you'll have those choices throughout the period of time
it takes to get this built and of course we know that's not going to be
built for another perhaps, there's more funding coming along for TH 212 so
Illaybe this will be built sooner than I think but I still think it will not
be built until the timeframe 1995 to the year 2000. So you've got a lot of
time to make that decision.
Erhart: If it's 24 feet, what is it? Concrete? Grass?
Hoisington: No. Tim, think of this as polished for the most part. Think
of this as rural. It is today. It will not have conu:uercial along it or at
least a very lintited amount of comnlercial and our thinking is that
everything that's done through here ought to rep~esent a more prairie or
open, non-landscaped type of env ironIllent.
tit
Erhart: Why? I mean that's going to be all" developed by the time the
road...
Hoisington: It will be residential. Almost all residential. Everything
from here, with the exception of the open space, to here will be
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 41
-
residential and of course conmlercial and office up near the highway itself.
Now it doesn't mean we're not going to have landscaping. We have fill
sections and berming and in the areas where, let me just explain to you
what happens. The road comes down a hill, drops down into this area where
the creeks goes through, conies back up and then conies up and flattens out
here at the top and then begins to go back down again. The area where we
have a significant fill is here and a fairly good cut is in here. Actually
right here at A and B it's just about flat. Just about where the brown is
at that point. Because of it going up and down and because of, it requires
more right-of-way to accommodate the roadway so we end up with 200 feet.
Erhart: And the scenario with the 24 foot median, what does that nlean?
Hoisington: Okay, what we're doing in the case of that median as well is
trying to drop it out of view. It's going to be prairie grasses and
flowers and things of that nature both in the median and on the side
slopes. The median will be depressed again. Now again, the edges, one of
the things we tried to struggle away fronl in this case, because we wanted
to look more rural, we wanted curb and gutter but we can't do that because
we add at least another 50 feet to the right-of-way if we have a rural
section. If we have ditch sections in other words. We have to accommodate
not only the inside slopes but the back slopes as well.
e
Erhart: And what's the disadvantage of having curb and gutter on the
outside?
Hoisington: No disadvantage except that we'll not, it isn't as much in
keeping with the rural kind of environment that we would expect to carry
out wi th the rest of the development. It's ITluch rnore than urban ci ty kind
of street. There's nothing wrong with it. It's just not entirely
consistent.
Erhart: If that's all going to be residential, what's driving you to make
it look rural if it's residential?
Hoisington: Well, I'm not sure that maybe rural isn't exactly the best
term to use. It is not to be polished. It will have berming in the areas
where we can accomnlOdate berming. It will include plant ITlaterials on the
berITls and in areas where there are residential homes and because of that,
there will be stretches through here that will be landscaped and bermed and
it will look rather urban. Again, I don't see that the curb and gutter is
a significant department but I guess if you were a purist and you were
trying to achieve things with prairie grasses and flowers and so forth, you
would do so in it's entirity and not have curb and gutter because really
that's not the type of thing you'd see there. I don't have a serious
problern because we're saving a lot of space. We're saving a lot of trees
and we're saving a lot of cuts and ditches and so forth by putting it in
so I can...
e
Headla: Before you go on, let me ask a question.
of fill and a lot of heavy cut in there. Why did
for doing that?
You talked about a lot
you, what's the rationale
Planning Commission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - Page 42
e
Hoisington: The ~ationale is the g~ade itself. The p~esent ~oad, as you
know, TH 101 it went whe~e it went because it was easy to go the~e. It
didn't have to go up and down so what it did was it went this way instead.
Ca~s don't d~ive ve~y well in those kinds of st~eets anynlO~e and the only
way we could avoid cuts and fills would be to use the old alignment where
it was relatively flat. When you do ac~oss some of the contou~s, fo~
example the hill conies down here which ~eqllires in o~de~ to keep the slopes
from being too steep, or the grade from being too steep, you have to fill
to balance it out so you have this coming down to a low point which is in
here and then coming back up again so you have a certain amount of fill in
this area in orde~ to accommodate...
Headla: What kind of g~ade a~e you talking about? Is it 7%?
Hoisington: What we're doing he~e now? I think the rnaximum is 4%.
Headla: No. You want to change it to 4%. What is it now? If you were to
put that road in without the cut and fill.
Hoisington: Oh, if you were to put no cut and fill in, you'd end up
probably wi th some 10% or rl\ore on a maj or roadway which would be
unacceptable.
e
Headla: I didn't realize it was going to be that steep.
Alright.
e
Hoisington: So some of the things we're trying to represent here. Again,
berming with some plantings on the berms and we've had some people in he~e
who live in SOllie of these areas who have been very concerned about that and
tha t we show SOllie concern for them in 1 ight of the road going where it
goes. In addition to that, we have a number of things that are happening
along the al ignlllent in the way of natural features that we're trying to
incorporate and preserve wherever we can. All of them don't relate to the
roadway itself but as you know the~e is a wetland that's right out on TH 5
which is a Type 7 wetland. A wooded wetland. Not the highest quality but
nonetheless a wooded wetland and a certain percentage of that will need to
be preserved. No matter that it's not of the highest quality. One that we
already had some questions about happens to be the one that would be in the
southeast quadrant of Lake Drive and TH 101 where we actually move Lake
Drive to the north to avoid it and that is a very high quality Type 7
wetland. Most all of that will be p~eserved and you don't replace Type 7
wetlands, at least not good quality ones because you don't grow trees.
Again, a wooded wetland once gone is gone. Of course we have the wetland
that is located here which is a substantial open space and the Wards and
the people that a~e working with them in terms of developing the property
are agreeable to having a large area of that land set aside for open space
and that is a Type 3. All of this is and of course the creek corridor
comes through he~e as well. Then we have wetlands down he~e on 86th. A
ve~y good Type 3 that pe~haps was created, according to Al Klingelhutz,
because of the blockage of d~ainage but it looks like a ve~y good Type 3
wetland and of cou~se then we have the big Type 2 wetland which is located
down he~e at the f~eeway interchange will go th~ough and another Type 3 is
located further to the south and we'~e treating all of those, the idea
being to prese~ve them. Perhaps SOllie shaping of thenl but nonetheless,
Planning Conlnd.ssion Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 43
-
protecting and incoJ~porating thenl wi th the development rather than to
destroy them. One of the goods things about dealing with it upfront and
early, I think all the people who own land along here know and understand
what the program is and all of them basically agree that that's the way
those wetlands are going to have to be treated in the future.
Erhart: On the berrns that you're putting on there. What. are you putting
on top of the berms? Are you just going to leave them grass or are you
going to put evergreens up?
Hoisington: No, there will be evergreens in those cases. We can't get the
berms high enough to do the entire job of screening.
Erhart: I don't think we should try to do that.
Hoisington: I don't either so in all the cases where we're berming, we'll
have landscaping on top.
Erhart: Yeah. I think that's really required because I think there's
nothing worse than an eIllpty berIlI.
EIlIIllings: I can think of things worse. How about your clothes being on
fire for exaIllple?
e Erhart: So even though you're not showing it here, you're going to have
SOllie evergreens and hardwood trees like on TH 5.
Hoisington: Sections.
Erhart: Sections so it will be an in and out kind of thing depending on
where houses are located to screen them exactly.
-
Hoisington: And we also want to support that with... All of that we'll
address. Caring for those properties that are affected by this roadway and
that was one of the COIllI'litIllents we made when we put it theJ~e. Selected
that alignIl\ent was those kinds of things. One of the things of course that
Tim had really percipitated was this discussion of even a wider median. We
really struggled wi th that and there are a nUIllber of things and we've gone
through this before. One of the deterIllining factors is the road to the
north. Market Blvd. that's under construction right now which has a very
lirlli ted. Really what it has is nothing there in the way of a median
because of the turn lanes and so forth. I think there's a very narrow one
proposed which means we have to transition into that on this side. The
only place that we could probably go slow enough or control speed well
enough so we could do something in the median and perhaps in the way of J-
barriers or sOI1lething like that built up with plant I1laterials in them,
would be in this first stretch because most of the rest of this roadway
will be designed for 50-55 mph speed limit and at a later date, probably
will operate at about 45 mph. I think we should expect that it's going to
when develo~lent is fully completed here, operate at about that speed which
means you really can't do much in the median. You can't build a median
wide enough to accommodate trees or fixed objects but what we proposed to
do is not to build anything in this median, this 24 foot median. If that's
Planning COllmlission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 44
-
what you elect to do, that in fact represents an impediment or a danger to
drivers should they happen to go into the median in the course of not
driving. So everything in there will be plant materials of a more native
variety. Wetter materials in wet lowlands and drier high ground plants and
flowers and grasses in areas that are very high built and don't require
very much moisture. Very low maintenance. The idea is to have a minimum
amount of maintenance on this roadway and MnDot now is very much on a kick
of using the kind of treatment that we're proposing here and while I have
in the past had SOllie lllisgivings about it, if MnDot is willing to make a
cOllmli tlllent to it, to control it and do what needs to be done to manage it,
then that can be a very appropriate treatlllent we think for this stretch of
roadway into Chanhassen.
Erhart: What are we doing where you have long large sidecuts?
Hoisington: ...This is natural ground right now and these are the cut
slopes. Curb and gutter on the outside. Dropping the median as much as we
can out of sight and then at the tops of the slopes we do have plant
IlIaterials.
Erhart: So you are showing a curb there?
e
Hoisington: On the outsides, curbs.
Erhart: Is that what you have here is the outside curbs? Oh I
misunderstood you. I thought you were having ditches.
Hoisington: No, no ditches. We can't. What we're saying is if we have
ditches, then you have to come down, ditch and then back out here.
Erhart: Okay. That's what I was trying to get to earlier.
Hoisington: No ditches.
Erhart: Again, I guess what I don't like to see is a big long open sidecut
which is grass. I think you ought to break them up with trees. Some are
sidecuts with grass, some trees. I still think if you take 35 going from,
or 494 where they've lllixed in clumps of trees and stuff. It really, really
looks nice.
Hoisington: There are some things that can be done in some of these areas
here in the way of sumac and all of those things have turned gold in the
fall. That's red in the fall. The gold plants that also turn in the fall
and are just beautiful and some of those are at 494. We can do any of that
in there. The closest we must stay away from with these trees are these
clear zones. They have to be maintained open but other than that, yes,
something could be done in there with that respect. Bikeway, we're going
to let you decide where it goes. It will go on either side but we couldn't
conclude which side.
e
Conrad:
I like the wildflowers. I think that's neat.
-
e
e
--
Planning Commission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - Page 45
Ell son: I've never seen that. Is it someplace right now? I know I was at
a place...wildflowers, I didn't see a wildflower in there.
Hoisington: Soruetimes you don't even recognize what you're looking at.
E~mlings: I drive by a place regularly where they just don't cut where
the~e are wildflowe~s.
Ellson: Like what? The daisy looking kind of things?
E~m1i ngs: Sure.
ElIson: That's what I picture as wildflowers but I was by this golf cou~se
and the little things that are wildflowe~s...
Headla: Fred, can I make a suggestion? You mentioned sU~lac to accentuate
the fall colors. Why don't you accentuate some winter colors like dogwood
which has a beautiful ~ed bark all winter long.
Emmings: And yellow. The yellow dogwood too.
Headla: Yeah. If you put some of that in because we have so much
beautiful fall color here and if you'd kind of help winter along.
Hoisington: I think we would probably tend to use the dogwood, the red
assure down in the fill slope area and the seed. One of the places I'm
most concerned about. I'm not quite so concerned about the cuts as I am
about the fill because you literally can't put anything of woody nature in
the fill slopes but you could put dogwood, and it's an appropriate species
for that particular location as well. We'll give some conside~ation of
tha t. I thi nk maybe we should...
Conrad: If we didn't have the ditch the~e, was that a choice that we had?
We did have a choice?
Hoisington: You could eithe~ have a ditch or you could build it up with a
curb and simply just have it flat.
Conrad: And that would be a grass?
Hoisington: A grass. You could do the same thing that we're doing here
but it would call more attention I think to the flatness of...
Conrad: But we couldn't do anything on that. There would be no plantings
basically because of the speed?
Hoisington: No. The only thing you could put in there would be things
that would tend to be higher maintenance in nature. Evergreen type of
materials would not grow large enough...
Conrad: So Ti~l, is this the vision you have for the new entrance to
Chanhassen?
Planning Commission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - Page 46
e
E~ha~t: Well yeah, I like this. The landscaping whe~e you'~e b~eaking it
up with a se~ies of varying clumps of g~ass and then eve~g~eens and maybe a
few ha~dwoods and va~ying. Yeah, I like it.
Batzli: You say that you'~e talking about p~tting some p~ai~ie g~asses in
the~e. A~e you talking about the type of grass that's in front of the old
CPT plant where most people look at it and they just think it's not mowed.
Hoisington:
I don't know what CPT has.
Batzli: The natural prairie grass. They spent millions of dollars to
plant it and then eve~ybody thought they just didn't mow their lawn.
Conrad: As much as I like prairie grass, that really does look.
e
Hoisington: We worked on and we're still working on a project in Vandais
Heights for H.B. Fuller. We're doing their nlaster plan for the corporate
headquarters. We did not do the master plan the first time around but the
architects decided that there would be priairie grasses in the parking lot.
prairie grasses aren't there today. They were planted. They died. They
do not work very well in those kinds of corporate settings. You have to
manange them carefully. They're going to have to mow th~s material
periodically to keep it down. Ideally it should be burned but it's going
to be very difficult for them to burn it adjacent to the roadway and they
wouldn't want to spend the time for the City to control it in that manner
but they do have to conlnli t to mow. They or the county, whoever ends up the
owner of this roadway in the future.
Erhart: What the difference here Fred is that on TH 5 they're just going
to plant standard grasses along the side?
Hoisington: What we're suggesting to thenl here but what they are proposing
is SOme application of wildflowers and so forth here but we're suggesting
that they not do much of that. Another plant material of course that is
beconling very popular are these ornamental grasses. These sort of hybr id
grasses and if you go out to the Arboretum you see some of those. They're
really neat stuff.
Conrad: The tall grass?
Hoisington: Just beautiful things. The flags on them. Wonderful things
and what we like to see are some of those perhaps along here but not so
much wildflowers and not so much the tall grasses where we don't think
those are necessarily appropriate on TH 5. We think they're going to use
more of the main priai~e than we expect or hope. We expect to see a
change. When they get to Chanhassen, we expect to see a change.
Conrad: Does this become drainage down here?
e Hoisington: Yes.
Conrad: Is it appropriate, and I think you're trying to create, I think
we'~e telling you to put different trees in there which may sort of tamper
Planning cornlltission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - Page 47
e
with a vision of a p~ia~ie o~ with wildflowe~s but would cattails wo~k int
he~e? Is that just soolething that would not be visually pleasing?
Hoisington: If you can get down low enough so cattails can live, yes.
Cattails would be compatible with this. In most cases you won't have any
places that a~e quite low enough Ladd to keep, cattails like a little
water.. What you'll end up with are, the~e are different kinds of gr.asses
that g~ow down low than g~ow high on the contou~ but cattails are lowe~ yet
than what these grasses will be and so I don't think you'll see any but I
have seen them growing right next to those where the water's available in
the llledian to do it. The only place we can think of would be right down in
this, the lowest part of the site but even then I don't think the median
will be that low. I think it's going to still be suspended because of the
fill.
EIlmdngs: You know that spot whe~e there are cattails.. .TH 7 and then you
turn to go into Excelsio~? The~e a~e cattails the~e in the median on TH 7.
But when you stop there, you can not see the oncoming traffic. They get
tall enough so they can't be close to the intersection. You cannot see.
They took them out of there.
Hoisington: They aren't unusual to have in median settings. In fact there
are some on TH 5 along the ditch section on TH 5 and as long as they're not
on the curb or in an intersection condition, they're just fine. They're
wonderful to have.
e
Conrad: They can be pretty.
Hoisington: We'll give SOllIe consideration to what we can do to supplelllent
this in the fall and winter with materials.
Conrad: In the creek area, Jo Ann, you know the creek area that we've got
down here. Is that a resource that we're, how does the Park and Rec treat
that area? It's really pretty. We don't have access to it and to my
knowledge Park and Rec doesn't have any plans to use it as a trailway.
Anything.
Olsen: Is that the one that goes into Rice Marsh Lake?
Conrad: Right.
Olsen: Because they do have a trail around Rice Marsh Lake as part of
Hidden Valley PUD but whether o~ not they have a trail planned to go along
there, I'm not sure.
Ed Hasek: Jo Ann, it's supposed to extend from the top of the lake...it's
supposed to follow that creek.
e
Conrad: So does that impact this design in any way?
Olsen: But that would be going through the open space.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 48
e
Conrad: You've got to get there. Do you want parking there? Do you want
to be able to get people to this as a trail head that's leading you
in? That's the only thing I'm thinking of.
Hoisington: I don't think we would want to have it as a trail head.
Ed Hasek: It's between two other points. Probably Marsh Lark and...
Conrad: So where do you park to get on the trail?
Ed Hasek: Either of those two areas...this would just be a crossing.
Conrad: It would start froIlI the park.
Ed Hasek: I can't illlag ine tha t you wouldn't to interrupt the travel. We'd
certainly like to take a look at it.
Hoisington: The:t~e Iltight be sonle grade separation opportuni ties there to
get that all the way through so that really should be looked at and we do
have some fi 11 there and I' III not sure just what the total wi 11 be. It's
going to be a long pipe if we ever did that with an actual trail but.
e
Ed Hasek: It Illay not be necessary. It may be able to be accoIlUllodated in
that grade if there's a means for doing it. If it's not on a curve or
anything. If you've got the appropriate sight lines and all those things.
Certainly cross country skiing, snowmobiling is still considered to be
something that we're looking at. Horse trails. Whatever else. I don't
recall exactly...
Conrad: How much of this was guided by financial concerns?
Hoisington: I don't think we really. I think the only thing that really
gave us any concern at all was the additional right-of-way cost and I'm
still concerned about that, associated with trying to get a sufficient
Illedian more than what we're proposing to do. I don't think it was done
because it's cheap. I think it was done because we thought it made sense
to do this. You still have landscaping. What you do is you enhance the
edges. You really are doing things along the edges rather than in the
median in this case and we're using the median efficiently. It's
reasonably low maintenance and we think it has the potential to look more
attractive than a typical roadway looks. If you look qt freeways and look
at the medians in freeways, what do you see? I mean you see open spaces.
You see a lot of weeds. You see some low areas where water ponds. More
than they'd like them to. It's not a very attractive envi:t~onIllent at all.
Batzli: St. Paul's not bad.
e
Hoisington: There are some areas and people have used that as an example a
number of times. It is a very attractive roadway. There are others. It
isn't that all of them...
Batzli:
It had to have cost a fortune.
Planning comlltission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 49
e
Hoisington: I don't think cost really was the thing that determined it. I
think we were working on the basis, what Illakes sense on this. What
represents a reasonably attractive entrance to the city and we think this
does that pretty well.
Conrad: So what you presented was one lane in each direction with turn
lanes?
Hoisington: One lane in each direction?
Conrad: Two lanes?
Hoisington: This is a four lane road. Two lanes north, two lanes south.
Conrad: And are there turn lanes in addition?
Ho isi ngton: Turn lanes, that's correct. Whether or not you have a rlled ian,
you have to have turn lanes.
Conrad: Okay. Anything else?
e
Hoisington: Thank you IllUch for your time. The only thing I'm having
concern about now is until such time as the legal descriptions are filed
with the County Clerk, you don't have that authority to withhold building
permits. You're on kind of shaky grounds so that has to be done. If it
hasn't been done, it has to be done.
Erhart: Has Council approved it?
Krauss: The official mapping has been approved but it has not been filed
with the County.
Hoisington: Well do it tomorrow. It does take forlllal legal descriptions,
meets and bounds or whatever...
POTENTIAL ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS TO REQUIRE FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR
LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF SITE
PLAN APPROVAL.
e
Krauss: I can do that real briefly. It falls into the context of another
amendlllent to the Ci ty Zoning Ordinance that I see as being something to
consider. Basically in the short time I've been here it's become apparent
that the ci ty has sOlllething of a problem insur ing that landscaping is
installed as we anticipated when the thing was improved and in a timely
Illanner. Landscaping is generally the last si te improvement to go in and
you know, the architects that were here earlier indicated the usual problelll
in that oftentimes you're pushing a building season to finish up a building
and you're into October-November. You reasonably can't install the
landscaping. What I'd like to propose and what is normally done in most
suburban areas that I'm falltiliar with, is requiring a landscaping,
financial guarantee independent of anything else. Either a bond or letter
of credit. The existing development contracts that we have don't cover
.....,j
Planning COIlmdssion Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 50
--
landscaping very well. In fact they really don't cover it at all.
DevelopIllent contracts are only done with subdivisions and they basically
cover public improvements and landscaping is a private iIllprovement. Now,
there's no question that when you approve a site plan, you have every
expectation that exactly what you approve is going to be installed and we
can use the court systeIlI if need be, if it goes that far, to insure that
but it's a rather clumsy process. What we'd like to have is a financial
guarantee that we have their money in the bank and if they don't install it
in a timely manner, we'll use their bond or letter of credit and install it
ourselves. As I say, this is not an unusual requireIllent. It's not a real
stretch for Chanhassen. It's sOIllething that most developers expect that
develop elsewhere and what we'd propose is something on the order of a
financial guarantee that's 120% of the estimated cost of the landscaping
and that we'd want to withhold that for one full growing season past the
date of installation because if anything's going to die, it dies in the
first yeal:. If we get the go ahead from you to investigate it furthel:,
we'd come back with a drafted ol:dinance for you to look at.
Conl:ad: Any discussion? It makes sense to me.
Batzli:
value?
I like it. The only question is, who determines the estimated
-e
Krauss: Thel:e's a couple ways of doing that. At
BachIllan's catalogues and you figure it youl:self.
to have a l:eputable landscape al:chitect give you
You know they can go out fOl: a contl:act and they
val:ious times I've had
The easiel: thing to do is
an actual cost estimate.
give you a bid sheet.
Conr ad : Do it.
Krauss: We'll add it to the list.
LAND USE MAP DISCUSSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Krauss: The notice is a little misleading because in the memo that I
handed out, we indicated that we'd be wOl:king on the land use plan but
we're not pl:epared to give that to you yet so what we've done in the
inteJ'~im is tl:Y to refine the policy stateIllents Ol: goal stateIllents that we
looked at a few weeks ago. Most of them, well, the fil:st fOUl: of them I
guess al:e eithel: revised or new based on direction that you gave us. Item
1 or policy 1 was changed. I fOl:get the exact wording we had befol:e but we
talked about natul:al aIlleni ties and we were asked to use the tel:Illinology
natul:al assets. The ol:iginal policy also I think focused on pl:esel:ving
them in l:esidential areas. The direction that we got fl:om you was that it
doesn't necessal:ily have to be pl:eserved in a residential area as long as
it's pl:eserved and incorporated reasonably into their development, it could
be anywhere. We tried to make that change. Item 2 or policy 2, we were
given some direction that seemed to imply that the, you wel:e wondering
about the career?
--
Conl:ad: They're just making fun ovel: thel:e.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - page 51
e
Krauss: Oh yeah, that was, I don't know if that was a Freudian slip or
what. Jo Ann and I saw that.
Conrad: I kept thinking, what could they have meant.
different letters.
I kept substituting
Olsen: We think c~eeks.
e
Krauss: We think creeks. It's a stretch I grant you. Item 2, you
indicated that you could accept a lot of interntixing of development as long
as the development controls were stiff enough to guarantee that you had
high quality develo~lent. We're not proposing changes to the ordinance
here but we tr ied to focus in on developrnent cont::rol s tha t pJ'~o:mote, rev iew
the development controls basically to make sure they either promote high
standards or that they're changed to make sure that we have those high
standards and can achieve them. I think that will become critical because
you're going to have SOllIe, what you formerly considered incompatible land
uses. Possibly industrial office against residential interfacing and you're
going to want to lllake sure that they become compatible or that they're
forced to become cOlllpatible. policy 3, we got at SOllIe of the existing
make-up of the town in the original set of policies and I don't know if
this responds to it exactly but what we did is Mark Koegler and I came up
with the existing development breakdown. A little bit is a devil's
advocate but basically it says if you're content with the feel or the image
or how you react to the town now, if we perpetuate that percentage
breakdown of land uses as the rest of the City's developed, then we have a
reasonable shot at making that you know what the con~unity's going to
bee OllIe because that's what it is now. In essence it would just be larger.
Batzli: Did you include agricultural?
Krauss: No. We only included the developed property and the recreational
property and wetland weren't included either.
Batzli: What happened to that then?
Krauss: It was just factored out. These are just the land that has been
developed.
Batzli: But IllY point I guess is that when I looked at this I was just kind
of amazed. You know I was kind of shocked that if you developed it by this
you would change the entire feel of this con~unity because of the fact that
so much of it is agr icul tural. This would beCOllle a bedroom comnlUni ty based
on this kind of a mix eventually. If this is your long range plan.
Erhart: Why not just insert the word developed? I hear what you're
saying. Just correct this item 3, solve that problem by adding,
Chanhassen's current developed land use mix consists of the following. See
so you're narrowing it down to that.
-
Conrad: But this is a direction. We're not talking about a historic.
This is setting a goal and what Paul is saying is this is a mix that makes,
I think part of this was from things that I was talking about whenever we
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 52
e
were talking about it. I want a mix that is economically sound and that
potentially pays for itself so we're not over extended in multi-family
because that might be a drain and that we have enough industrial con~ercial
to compensate for that.
ElIson: And I thought we had decided we didn't have enough. I nlean
I thought we had discussed that we didn't feel there was enough?
Conrad: I took it that Paul changed. If this is historic, then I don't
ag:tee with the numbe:ts. But if it's the future, you know, is this
histo:tic?
K:tauss: This is what it is today.
ElIson: If you like what it is now, let's t:ty to keep it and I thought we
all sonlewhat discussed that if we kept it, the numbers showed that it's
going to be a bu:tden.
Enmlings: plus you need flexibility because now in the legislatu:te that
sc:tews around with p:tope:tty taxes, you':te going to want to change you:t mix
f:tom tinle to time as they change what :tevenue you can get f:tom those uses.
So I don't think, you su:te don't want to cast it in pe:tcentages. I don't
know. It seems like a big mistake.
e
Con:tad: What would you do?
Enlmings: The goal is to have a conlmuni ty, a heal thy comrnuni ty whe:te
d:tiving adequate :tevenue f:tom it's p:tope:tty tax base to suppo:tt itself.
Now what that nleans f:tonl year to yea:t, who knows.
Batzli: But you can't change it once it's developed. You have to have
some so:tt of plan, you':te :tight. That's a good goal but the question is,
as you':te developing, you':te not going to be able to develop at RSF and
then the legislatu:te's going to change and say oops, we want indust:tial,
let's change it.
EnlInings: No, but this year we may be p:tonloting comme:tcial and we rnay be
busy setting aside conmlercial because conmle:tcial is paying fo:t itself o:t
industrial and we may want to change that late:t.
Batzli: I guess I keep on looking at this as...
Conrad: But we can.
ElIson: If the intent :tight now to change it to con~e:tcial is because of
that and we see that that has changed, that would be good logic to change
it. I don't know.
Enlmings: I don't really see any reason to put nlunbe:ts down.
e
E:tha:tt:
I ag:tee with Steve.
Planning ConlPlission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 53
e
Emmings: We're going to determine it. We can encourage it but the
developers are going to decide how it's going to develop.
Batzli: But we can influence it greatly by how we zone the city too.
Ellson: I think we can decide how we want it developed.
Conrad: My biggest concern, you know we have a concern that we have enough
land zoned fo:t COI1lIlIerC ial. Zoned for i ndustr ial and you're just sayi ng
Steve, well the builders will figure that out.
Enmli ngs: No, we do have to have a map of the zoning.
Conrad: But what's going to guide that other than...
Ennings: It's arbitrary except to the extent it seems to me that you have.
You know you have to have some land set aside for industr ial for exarnple
and that's an important issue now because our property's going up and so
we've got to figure out, if we need nlo}:e ind ustr ial land, where is it.
Let's zone sonle but you do it according to SOllie mix of numbers whether
they're these or any others is absolutely arbitrary. You have no idea but
you still have to do it. But when you talk about it being guided by what
exists, that doesn't make any particular sense to me.
e
Conrad: Paul is saying it's sort of worked.
Enmti ng s: No.
Krauss: No. We put these nUIllbers in here. A little bit is a devil's
advocate and also a little bit to give you information of where we're at
and now so you can COIlIpare it relative to what you presented within a few
weeks in the form of a map.
~mlings: This Ladd is what developers have done to us so far.
Krauss: But you know, this is also the natural developnlent of the city.
This is what's happened to date. We've influenced this. Developers have
influenced this. Natural factors influenced it but that's what you've got.
There's a risk I think in regulating land use based on revenues that you
might generate or what you're expectations might be. I can recall in the
late 70's when the land planning act was first out that a lot of towns said
well, gee we have no industry now. We need some tax base so they lllake 35%
of their town industrial. They never really thought much further than
that. They just assumed it was on a map. Sooner or later it would fill up
and it just didn't work that way. You know 15%-20% industrial, that's not
an unreasonable nUInber but again, we basically threw this in here more so
that you know what you've got now and can compare it.
Enmtings: This is real hard. I don't know how...
-
Conrad: ...1 know Steve what you're saying as far as percentages but on
the other hand, you've got to set some guidelines. The multi-faIllily
}:esidential, we have found that they may not pay for themselves and we have
Planning COIlInlission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 54
e
another obligation is to make sure we have enough con~ercial industrial
land from now until the year whatever so how do you guide that? What is
it? Do we just sort of draw stuff on the map and say let it go that way?
Enmlings: It seems to nle it goes that way. Look at the map Fred put up
here tonight. It would be nice if he were here now so we could ask him.
What guided you in making, I guess maybe it had to do with what's around
it. There's a road here so there are some of the land you designate for
uses because it had access to an arterial or whatever but as far as the mix
goes, boy I have no idea. I don't know. You've done this more often than
I have. What's guided it in the past?
Conrad: Not a thing. We're trying to take, and maybe it doesn't work and
maybe the numbers are not there.
Ellson: I don't think it's possible to make it into a pie and necessarily
hold to it but I think you should have a goal in mind or a guidelines of
so:me kind. That's why I like the idea.
Headla: How do you specify the goal or guideline?
e
Ellson: That's why I'nl saying, the nunlbers don't, it's like oh, we're at
75%, stop. I don't know if we'd necessarily do .that but it might throw up
a flag to tell yourself, reIllember what you wanted. Now, do we really want
to do this now that sooleone wants to rezone it and it makes us go back and
think again and maybe then we find out the property values aren't there and
then we think back and say okay, back when we decided we didn't want to go
more than 75 single family was detrimental. Now it's not but it's just a
Illechanisfn for the flag to go up is what I'm thinking so you can bring it
back to their attention as you're looking at things.
Conrad: I think sonle key, single family is what's left over after you look
at the other things. You can do a lot of stuff. We can look at it in
different ways. One issue. How much multi-family residential do you want?
Seriously. That's an issue. Do you want to just let it happen and
every time we let it happen, there are problems with letting it happen.
EIllmings:
If it doesn't pay for itself, do you want it in here?
Conrad: Absolutely. I think that's a big question because and I don't
have a whole lot of answers and I'm not trying to zone people out of the
cOIlmlunity but on the other hand, I 'Ill not trying to subsidize theIlI either.
I have no reason to subsidize anybody else to move out here. I personally
don't have that need.
~~ings: Could we have a policy to provide a good mix of housing
opportunities for people that ntight want to work and live in Chanhassen.
e
Conrad: That's fine as long as I don't have to pay for their street
improveIllents. Ser iously.
Ellson: And that's a mix but we can decide how much of a mix.
Planning Con~ission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 55
-
Conrad: I don't have to make that sacrifice. I can find that mix in
Excelsior. I'll just move over there and talk to....
Erhart: Get rid of the multi-family completely then in that case.
Conrad: In that case, yeah which I don't think is right but on the other
hand, r'm not crusading for a 80% multi-family.
Batzli: You're conservative but not that conservative.
you're telling us?
Is that what
Conrad: I think there are sound reasons to have multi-family, especially
around the downtown area. Espec ially for certa in segnlents of our
population. I have no reason to go out and try to lure that. I think I
want that to take care of a market need. In other words, if there is
demand internally, I think that's just fine to satisfy that need. I don't
need to go out and create, bring in multi-family developers because they
can make money on it.
e
Erhart: ...when I first got on the Planning Con~ission I thought yeah, we
can make plans and by golly that's just the way this city's going to
develop but in reality what happens is you set plans and then all of a
sudden the nlarket then goes it's way and a few years later you've looked at
your plan compared to what the nlarket did and you realize that well, it
went fairly close but now we need to adjust it because that market is
telling us we're getting nlOre industrial or the tax base requires. What
you do is you sort of set a plan and then you monitor it and you compare it
and you adjust. You don't really dictate what the City's doing. It works
hand in hand with the marketplace. I think you can set out and say hey
this is what the land use mix is to date and then go on with another
paragraph that says this has worked for the City today but we'll attenlpt to
kind of follow this but maintain flexibility depending on what revenue.
Depending on what happens to revenue, taxes and the market for land and
kind of keep it a little bit nebulous but I agree with Steve and I really
don't believe anynlOre that we dic,tate 100% what happens in this city. I
just don't believe it.
Conrad:
I don't think we ever have.
Erhart: But when you set these numbers and these hard percents and say
we're going to maintain this mix of use, you're fooling yourself into
thinking that we do dictate this ntix. I don't think we do.
Batzli: We could dictate this mix tomorrow if we wanted to by rezoning the
entire city industrial.
Erhart:
It won't stick.
tit
Batzli: No. I agree with you. We're not going to do it but the point is,
if we go out and try and rezone everything that's going to be along TH 212.
Everything that's going to be along TH 101. Everything on TH 5 industrial,
office, whatever we want to do, you can definitely influence this. I'm not
saying you're going to control it but we have it, and so I don't want to
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 56
e
COllie np wi th an exact nUIllber but I want to come up wi th SOllie kind of, it's
not even a percentage so much. It's kind of where Ladd' s cOllting from where
it's a mix and make sure we've got enough that we're bring in.
Conrad:
It's more philosophy than numbers.
EJ:llmings: I have no trouble with that at all. I agree with that.
Erhart:
terms.
I agree with that.
If we can somehow state this in philosophy
Conrad: We want enough light industrial that does this, that and the other
thing but I don't know what the nUIllbers are but I thirk, I'm comfortable
wi th tha t and not nUIllber s.
EIllrnings: The influencing COllies when you have a developer or a business is
looking for a place to locate and they come to your cOIllIlluni ty and they say
what have you got that you've put on your map as office/industrial? Then
they go look in those areas. That's how you get to influence what happens
I think.
ElIson: Or else people go to a corner that's not that and come back and
ask you to make it whatever they want.
--
Erhart: Change it.
ElIson: Right. Like TH 7 and TH 41.
EIllllling s : Tha t ' s
live with that.
here and then I
really disagree
okay. This is supposed to be a...process. I guess I can
I'm real uncolllfor table wi th, when I saw these numbers on
saw it said we should attempt to maintain this mix, then I
with that.
Conrad: But by staff putting that down to stiIllulate or whatever, what I
want to be assured of. By taking the nUIllbers out I want to be assured by
somebody that we have the right mix. That we have enough land to guide us
to the future for the things that are going to offset maybe some drains. I
don't want to just say philosophically well I want to do it. I want to put
sOlllebody on the I ine to say we think that there's a real good chance that
if we maintain this kind of balance, your taxes aren't going to go up.
Batzli: Yeah, but we asked for that.
Conrad: And that's probably impossible.
Batzli: We asked for a study of economic impact of various uses and we got
something but you're not going to get something that's better than that are
you? Do you think you're going to get something better than what that
study was?
e
Conrad: No. But are you convinced that we have the right, if our city.
Brian like you said, if our city continued to develop with this mix, is
that good or bad? Is that economically a good direction or bad
Planning Conmlission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - Page 57
--
di~ection? Does it keep the indust~ials seconda~y to the single faIllily o~
do we becoIlle an indust~ ial . COIlIIlluni ty?
Batzli: If you tell whethe~ Chanhassen is going to get thei~ own school
system o~ continue to be split. If you tell me what the state and national
economies a~e going to do and the legislatu~es a~e going to do. If you
tell me how quickly they move the MUSA line, then I'll let you know.
EIlIIlling s : I know.
Batzli: The~e's a lot of facto~s that you can't control so you don't know
what the optirl\um Illix is go ing to be.
Con~ad: I think Ladd's got the best idea though. What he started out and
he said residential is everything else because I think, the central
business district, we know where that is. If you add in whe~e you want a
little con~e~cial. Maybe taking into consideration TH 212. If you say,
where are we going to go fo~ more industrial stuff? plot all that out on a
map and probably what's left is ~esidential. I think that's true.
EIllIuings: And that Illay be the way to do it. Go after the small ones first
to make sure that you've got those so you don't wind up being totally one
thing which is residential and that could happen. It's possible. It
wouldn't be a good ~esult.
e Con~ad: Well, I don't ag~ee with that stateIllent. There's nothing w~ong
with a residential conmlunity. Nothing w~ong with it. You get the Illix of
people. All the things that you like in a residential town. And a lot
less headaches.
EIllmings: No. without the rnix of cOIllme~cial and indust~ial in the~e, that
would ~eally add to your tax base and you'~e in a lot of t~ouble.
Con~ad: Right.
Batzli: I think you just waffled on that one.
Con~ad: Okay. Let's go onto 4.
Krauss: 4 we also modified a little bit. The~e was a more direct
statenlent that industr ial developIllent should only occu~, well basically it
says that now, that should only occur on collector or arterial streets I
believe it was the fi~st time a~ound. . And there was an implied cap on how
much development we should allow based on highway capacity. . This changes
the focus of that a little bit based on the discussions that we hea~d.
Still saying that highe~ intensity development should occu~ whe~e you have
an adequate transportation system but also it tends to shift the
responsibility a little bit with the developer that if they want to develop
in an area that has an inadequate system, that they should work with the
City to cor~ect that. That it's not entirely our obligation. That we'll
work wi th theIlI but that's ita cost of development and should be ~esolved.
e
Planning Corll[ldssion Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 58
-
Batzli:
what does the words higher intensity add to this as a goal?
Krauss: The peJ~sumption is that a single family development being lower
density scattered over a larger area doesn1t focus on traffic problenls.
Doesn 1 t create traffic probleIlls to the nlagni tude that an office park or a
series of apal~tIllent buildings or COmllleJ~cial development will.
Batzli: Even though collectively they will have the impact on it?
Krauss: Collectively they will.
ErhaJ~t: That nUlllber 4 there is allllOst so vague it 1 S, you allllOst have to
wonder what it says. Should we get more specific? Are we talking about 2
things? One, truck traffic and two, traffic associated with like a high
densi ty condos where you're talking about just a lot of cars and lllaybe Illake
a statement in that paragraph about each.
Batzli: But you're getting back to our original discussion on this is I
would prefer that this is even made broader and then if you want to
iIllplelllent it wi th var ious procedures to get spec if ic about truck traff ic
here. This there. The general goal should be, development should occur
only in areas having adequate transportation support syst~1 period. That1s
the ul tillla te goal. Then you want to illlplelllent it by tal king about truck
traffic and improving impacted roads as a condition to approval and that
type of thing. I thought that's where we were kind of going to go with
this whole thing.
e
Headla: Why did yon say that1s the ultiIllate goal? If someone has an area
and they want to pay for their road developlllent, what do you care?
Erhart: Yeah but individuals don1t pay for road developnlent.
Headla: Well look at the bakery down here. Didn't they help pay for that
road iIllpl~ovement?
Olsen: Audubon?
Ellllldngs: Didn 1 t that COllie out of the tax increment?
Conrad: My impression was that they got money to do that.
EIllmings: I think we did that.
Olsen: We did part of it but I think they were also assessed some of it.
Headla: But anyway, if a corporation puts in money to improve the road, I
don1t see anything wrong with that.
Batzli: No, I don't either. If they want to improve the road. If the
goal is that having an adequate transportation support system, if they make
it adequate, then it would be right for developlllent.
-
Headla: True.
-
e
e
Planning Co:rnIllission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 59
Batzli: If they want to put it in and it's inadequate and they're not
going to improve it, then it shouldn't go in.
Headla: That's right.
Erhart: That's fine if it really works that way. I wasn't aware that we
actually asked people to pay for improvernents to publ ic roads.
Olsen: We don't ask thelll to pay. It's just th:rough asseSSIllents is all.
Headla: We should ask theIlI to pay for fire trucks too when they have big
buildings.
Conrad: Tim, I think you've seen Steve's format for working that. I'm
sort of holding Steve back here because he's got some ideas on how he would
refoJ~llla t SOllie of these goal s. So why don't we wa i t in terlllS of how you see
nUIllber 4 because I think when Steve tal ks about what he'd 1 i ke to have us
do, I think it will solve your concern.
EIlIDlings: I'll tell you what I did on transportation. This is really half
baked and I'll try and get a little more work done on it and get some
copies out for review but my notion was for each area we're interested in,
to state the subject. Have a real short statement of the goal. Have a
very short description of what exists now so you know what you're talking
about. Have an intent sta teIllent and then have, 1 i st a few exalllples of
things we think are important at the time so it kind of gives, flushes out
what you're talking about. I'll tell you what I did on tJ:ansportation,
since we're talking about that right now. I stated the goal there as
provide a variety of systems for safe and efficient movement of people and
vehicles. It seeIlIS to me that's what we're tryi ng to do. We want to I110Ve
people aJ~ound. We want to IllOve vehicles around. We want that to be
efficient and we want it to be safe. And for a description, I put down
Chanhassen's transportation system consists of State and County roads, city
streets, sidewalks, trails, IllaSS transit with potential for light rail and
parking facilities. I arbitrarily described that as a transportation
systeIlI. I had trouble with the intent. Now Tim's given me some ideas
here. FOJ: exalllples I just put down, pedestr ians should have safe access
via sidewalks and trails to schools, parks and other areas of the city.
COlllIllercial traffic should have access to industrial and commercial areas
frOll1 aJ:terials without having to use residential stre.ets. Local and thru
traffic systems should not obstruct each other. Just enough, I don't know
how many other examples you'd want to have but that way, the thing I want
to do is have real big broad statements of intent and then a few examples
to flush it out so we don't get cornered. I don't ever want anybody to
think that it's exclusive. Then the other thing you have to say of course
is all your policies have to be considered together. You can't talk about
transportation withollt talking about natural environment or natural assets
because everytillle you build a road you're taking thelll away. You've got to
balance them all together too. That was another thing but I don't think we
have to write them in that I1lany areas. I've written one for the natural
environIllent. I've written one fOJ: transportation and I was starting to
work on one for land use and I don't know how many other areas there really
-
e
e
Planning ComIllission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 60
are. The land use one is going to be hard and it's going to be kind of
long.
Conrad: There's a lot of Iller. i t to what I saw that you wrote. Paul, I
think what I'd like you to do is take a look. Steve's going to type this up
and if you could take a look at it and then just sort of r.eact to it. Does
that work for what we're trying to do? There's a lot of good logic. It
may break down and be a mish mash. I'm not sure if we can pull it through
all the different areas that we've got. It does wor.k for a couple. I know
that but I 'Ill not sure what kind of exercise it's going to be to work it
through all of our goal staternents. But anyway Steve, if you could type
that up and especially the first page. I think the first page I felt
pJ~etty comfortable wi th.
Erhart: I Illight add, I think one of the problellls you've got in trying to
figure what intent is, I think intent and goal is the sallie thing.
EIllIlti ng s : We 11 it is.
ErhaJ~t :
fOlIlla t.
Therefore, trying to make it two separ.ate is wor.ds.
I would just eliminate one or. the other.
I like the
EIl~ings: Really when I worked out intent on this one, it sounds the same
and so maybe that's just unnecessary.
Headla: In theory, that's excellent but if it's so good, why hasn't
another city taken it up?
Batzli: We're just naturally good.
ElIson: Because he works for us, that's why.
Headla: Is there anyway you can sear.ch out to see if somebody else has
followed this philosophy?
Krauss: I'm sorry. Which one specifically now?
Erhart: The format her.e.
Headla: The format he's suggesting.
Krauss: Oh, that format fr.ankly is what they taught us in Planning School.
EIllIllings: Another successful effort at reinventing the wheel.
Headla: I'd like to see if the city has used it.
Krauss: Sure.
in that forIllat.
I think some of the existing goals and policies are set up
They may not be as specific.
EIllIltings: That's the probleIlI wi th theIlI I think.
Headla: I'd like to see if the City's used it and how successful it is.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 61
e
Conrad: Dave, if you layout a goal that gets demonstrated, it seems like
it would be workable doesn't it?
Headla: But if it's so good, then other people should have used it already
right?
Conrad: Not necessarily. No, I don't buy that. What would be the
negatives of laying out goals? You like goals and objectives and standards
of peJ~forPlance and that's what he's doing.
Headla: Absolutely and I said, I think it's an excellent idea. However,
if it's so darn good, why hasn't someone else done it?
Erhart:
I'm sure they have.
Headla: Okay. Let's see what success they've had with it. Let's identify
one or two and see what success they've had.
EIlIfnings: You know Dave, success. Whenever you've got a goal or a pol icy
or a contract or anything else, it's only as good as the people that are
working on it to impleIllent it. The words mean nothing.
e
ElIson: You're basically saying how did you write the goal. Not how well
they get impleIllented.
Headla:
I'm not going to disagree with a statement like that Steve.
EIllIllings: Words don't Illean a thing.
It's the people who are doing it.
Headla: So what we've got is adequate because we've got excellent people
here.
~lIllings: Yeah. You could go right on with what we've got. There's no
reason to change it if you look at it that way. Or you could have nothing
at all. The probleIlI is that the people change and I guess it's a way to
try and transmi t what you are doing to the new people that COllie.
Headla: If you think about restructuring, I think you can learn an awful
lot by looking at what someone has done and see the success and maybe learn
froIlI that.
Erhart: you'd like to get through some of these tonight?
Conrad: I guess I'd like to go through the balance of these real briefly
to see if we have a reaction to them. I'd like Steve to type up what he's
got. Give it to Paul and Jo Ann and then I think rather than having them
COllie up wi th this Illag ic stuff, trying to read our Ild.nds, I think we have to
COllie back and spend an hour and a half or something really putting those
philosophies, those goal statements down. That's us. I just can't say
it's city staff doing it. I think it's us. I could see Paul and Jo Ann
actually taking it once we get past that oJ~iginal statement. That original
e
Planning Comn\ission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 62
e
goal but I don't know that I want then\ trying to outguess us on what we're
thinking.
Erhart: Have we decided on a format?
Conrad: We're having them review what steve is suggesting.
Batzli: Can we have that distributed to us right away after he, I'd like
to see it and think about it a little too.
~~ings: I think the more creative part might be in thinking of good
examples to illustrate the goal because I don't think it matters that much
what you say for the goal but if we can think of good examples of things
that have happened in the past that we liked and illustrate the goal with
those exan\ples, those specific exarnples, then we'll really be giving it
SOIlle 1 i fe .
Conrad: But did anybody come up with any new goals other than what Paul
and Jo Ann listed here?
Batzli: Yeah.
Conrad: Did you? What is it?
e
Batzli: They don't say anything about preserving open spaces. I still
don't like the natural assets. They didn't include IllY open spaces.
Conrad: Okay, he .ruined by point. I think it's real critical thinking
about what are those 6 or 8 goals for the City. I think we could go along
with this. Again, they're trying to read our minds. I just want to make
sure that we. I d idn' t see anything about people moveIllent in here and
maybe we don't have that as a goal. It's something that we've got to talk
out. In terms of park space and park, even though it's Park and Rec, do we
have a philosophy for recreation for the conIDlunity? I see those two.
Batzli: That's open spaces too.
Conrad: Yeah. So I see those two things but I guess I really want to
challenge us to think. I'm not, a lot of these are more technical. Where
you develop first. That seenls, I don't know what I think about those. I'm
not sure. You service obviously the gravity, the places that can be served
by gravity first. Is that a goal statement?
~Inlings: No, that's an exa!llple of an inlplenlentation of the goals to !lIe.
Erhart: It's a policy.
Kr auss : Wherever it fi ts in though, it's a real in\por tant di recti ve for
how the plan gets structured because that's one of the critical factors.
-
Conrad: Right but when you say okay, I'm nlov ing out to, or somebody comes
into Chanhassen and wants to see where we're going, that seems more
adIltinstr a ti ve to !lIe. Yet I can under stand why you're sayi ng tha t that's
Planning Comnlission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 63
e
really going to guide where we put that site.
ElIson: But if you did it like Steve had said, you'd be tying it in to a
broader goal.
Erhart: To make my point clear. I like Steve's format but for us to get
sOIlIethi ng done here, we ul tillla tely got to get a list of pol ic ies that say
specific things like we're going to develop gravity flow areas before
non-gravity flow. We've got to get there. We've been struggling with
format now for two meetings and I like format starting out with goals so
when you get to policies, policies are consistent with each other and when
staff and City regulate the city to those pOlicies, you achieve your goals
but you cannot avoid getting done having policies by the time we get done
here. If we're going to be so generic that all we're going to put down is
goals, we're not going to get anything accomplished.
Batzli: We're going to put down examples and some of those examples lllay
well be written in a policy format.
Ellnings: But this zoning ordinance, that's loaded with policies.
Batzli: But to develop a gravity flow area certainly isn't within the
zoning regulations as they currently exist. I mean that is a grand large
scale philosophy of how do you want to develop the city in what order and
you're talking about developing that portion of the city first. That's
certainly not regulated by the Code.
e
Emmings: Why do you want to develop those areas first?
Erhart: What?
EllIlllings: Which one are you talking about? Gravi ty flow?
Erhart:
I'm talking about gravity flow.
Emlllings: Okay, l.et's talk about that one. Why do you want to do that?
Erhart: Because it is a minilllUm impact on cost to the city so your goal is
to maintain, or reduce taxes while allowing people to rnove into your city.
The goal is, to get the highest econonlic value out of the land at the
minimal cost to the city. That's the goal.
Emlllings: Develop the land in such a way that the cost of the illlprovelllents
to the City, the necessary illlprovelllents to the city is...
Erhart: Is minimized so the policy is, you develop it. So as we go
through this and I think we're going to spend 3 or 4 hours doing this but
for every pol icy that you come up wi th, we can COllie up wi th a goal and when
you get all done, all the pOlicies, you'll have 5 or 6 or 7 goals and all
the pol icy sta telllents you've got, you'll be able to insert thellI in those
goals. And that's Steve's format that he's working on.
.
Planning Copmlission Meeting
Octobe~ 4, 1989 - Page 64
e
EplIlIings: I'm just calling them exa:mples I guess. I didn't want to put
them down as examples because I don't want anybody to take this and say,
okay he~e a~e all of the policies in the city of Chanhassen and if I follow
those I'm in because our policies will change over time. I want to give
them exaPlples of what we mean because their specific case Play or Play not be
in there o~ we Play want to change ou~ policies and I don't want to be
co~ne~ed. My fear is being corne~ed.
Erha~t: I would suggest in addition to Steve typing his fo~mat up, I would
suggest that we have staff develop a list of goals. Not policies but the
next time we discuss this so we've got something on the table to wo~k on so
we can make some progress. Try to cOPle up wi th a list of pure goal s.
Epmtings: I disagree with you. I ag~ee with Ladd. I think we're starting
over and asking them. They'~e sitting there wonde~ing what the hell we
want and I think we ought to do it ourselves.
Batzli: Well, it might be the kind of thing where eve~ybody goes home and
thinks of like what are the 10 goals you want to see.
ElIson: General, gene~al te~ms.
~~ings: I don't think the~e's even that many.
e
Batzli: I know but if that's what it takes. Because some people will have
different goals obviously.
Con~ad: A~e we going to have tiple at ou~ next Planning COPIPtission rlleeting
to have a wo~k session fo~ us?
Krauss: I don't know.
Olsen: You have Oak View Heights.
K~auss: What we we~e hoping to do was have a special meeting in about 3
weeks to actually, hopefully show you the fi~st draft, the first cut at the
plan.
Olsen: I think we need to do this fi~st.
K~auss: I think we can do it in tandem a little bit. Maybe keep getting
mo~e and mo~e guidance as to what should be in the~e and rllaybe that will
help to gel the conve~sation.
Con~ad: That might be ~eal tough. Then we'll water it down and it won't
be any different. He~e's what I'd like us to do. Let's see if we can get
some time in the next meeting fo~ a wo~k session. Even if it's an hou~.
T~y to keep the agenda down if we can.
Olsen: Well it's just those two i tePls.
~ Con~ad: So Oak View Heights will be a piece of cake.
Planning COIl\Illission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 65
e
Erhart: If we can limit it to just say, on the next meeting let's try. to
all agree on just goals so when we get out of that meeting, we've got our
goals.
Ellson: We're all bringing in like 6 so get your highlight.
Conrad: Go through the comprehensive plan that we have, that you should
have at hOIlle and take a look at the goals that were laid out there and
think about what your neighbors would like to have as goals and Dave, I'd
sure like you to come back to represent, well no, Steve represents the
western fringe. You should come back anyway. And then we'll crank through
that and Steve will get your. You're going to type that up and give it to
staff. Staff should really show it to, you'll get it out in our packet for
the next meeting so everybody can see what the format is and then even you
can see what he's talking about.
Krauss: Is a special meeting, if it occurs in about 3 weeks, going to be
acceptable?
Conrad: Probably. In terIlIS of interviewing, what direction did City
Council give you in terIl\S of interviewing? Any direction? I noticed they
received Dave's letter of resignation.
Krauss:
I haven't had any opportunity to spe~k to the mayor about that.
e
Conrad: Have we listed the vacancy? Have we published the vacancy? Let's
do it as quickly as we can but I would like you to talk to the mayor and
see what he'd like because over the past time, we've had difference. Just
talk to Don. See if he wants us interviewing. Treating candidates up as
no rIlla 1 .
Krauss: Is that the normal process?
Conrad: Yeah, but they've also had some other ideas. I don't want to
wait. In fact the next meeting we should have, if we could get it
publiShed, we should be interviewing candidates real quickly.
Batzli moved, ElIson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m..
SUbIlli tted by Paul Krauss
Director of Planning
Prepared by Nann Opheim
.