The URL can be used to link to this page

1992 10 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR NEETING OCTOBER 12, 1992 Mayor Chmlel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. HEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dimler, Councilman Wing, Councilman Workman, and Councilman Mason STAFF PRESENT= Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul Krauss, Todd Hoffman, and Sharmin Al-Jarl APPROVAL OF AGENDA= Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda with the following amendments: Councilwoman 0imler wanted to discuss 1rem 10.5 along with item 7 and Mayor Chmlel noted that 1rem 8 was to be tabled per the applicant's request. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEHENTS: None. CONSENT AGENOA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the Ctty Manager's recommendations: b. Clty Code Amendment Prohibiting Unauthorized Removal of Stop Work Orders, Final Reading. c. Liquor License Transfer, HGM Liquor Warehouse from 530 West 79th Street to the Harket Square Shopping Center. d. Approval of Accounts. e. City Council Minutes dated September 28, lgg2 Plannlng Commission Minutes dated September 2, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes dated September g. Final Plat Approval and Planned Unit Development Agreement, Ches Mar Trails, Craig Swaggert. A. CITY CODE: AHENIDI'I~NT ALLOWIN6 THE SALE OF INTOX:IC,~TING I'tALT LI~JOR #TI'H A MINE LICENSE;, FINAL R~AD:]I:NG. Mayor Chmlel: I just want to cover item l(a). There should be a correction on Ordinance Code concerning the sale of intoxicating malt liquor. On the sixth line, servlng of feed. Should read, serving of food. Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the FIna! Reading of City Code Amendment aZZowing the SaZe of Intoxicating Hair Liquor with a Wine License as amended. Al! voted in favor and the motion carried unanimous[¥. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 AWARD OF BIDS: LAKE ANN PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEH, CITY PROJECT RA-350. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, City Council members. The position where I have been at times coming lnto you wlth a prlce over budget, this is my pleasure to brlng you this recommendation this evening. Seven blds for this project were recelved as summarized on the attached bid tabulation. We had a target budget for thls project of $60,000.00 with a cap of $65,000.00. Of those expenditures, a maxlmum of $55,000.00 belng the actual construction contract. The plans and specifications were prepared to include a base bid and two alternates for thls project. Alternate A was the inclusion of irrigation for the shelter and spectator seating areas. And Alternate B was the inclusion of irrigation for the ballfleld infleld areas for dust control. The low bld, including both alternates was $45,497.00. Approximately $10,000.00 less than anticipated from Innovative Irrigation of Coon Raplds. In reviewing the bld tabluatlon, it can be seen that this bid is very competitive. A favorable one for the City. Preliminary reference inquiries which have been completed to date lndlcate that Innovative Irrigation is a reputable company. They are currently under contract wlth the Clty of Waconla irrigating elght flelds at thelr athletic complex. It is recommended that the Lake Ann Park irrigation project, including the base bid and both alternates A and B therefore be awarded to Innovative Irrigation of Coon Rapids, Minnesota in the amount of $45,$97.00. That work would be initiated and most likely completed yet thls fall pendlng reasonable weather. Otherwise they'll wrap it up in the spring. Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Resolution &32-114: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to award the bid for the Lake Ann Park Irrigation System to Innovative Irrigation of Coon Rapids, Minnesota for Alternates A and B in the amount of $45,597.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: Just as a point of conversation. You don't intend to let hlm think that it's a $10,000.00 credit to his benefit? Mayor Chmiel: No. But it's nice to see that he's watchlng for our money as well. AWARD OF BIDS= LILAC LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 91-4. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On Thursday, October 8th blds were recelved and opened for the Lilac Lane Improvement Project No. 91-4. A total of 8 blds were recelved wlth the low bld belng received from Aero Asphalt Inc. in the amount of $60,186.85. The engineer's estimate for the project was estimated at $54,000.00. Therefore, the low bid is about $6,000.00 over what we estimated. It appears that given the time of year, the relatively small size of the project and in discussing with the contractors who bid on the project, there seems to be enough work out there that they're not all that hungry whlch has caused the low bid to be received somewhat higher than the estimate. But given the tlme constraints associated ulth thls project and the commitments made to the overall Teton Lane/Ithilien subdivision development, it City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 is recommended that the City carry forward with the project and award the low bid to Aero Asphalt in the amount of Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I think that that's not a bad bid but I think we should give it to the engineer because he was at $54,000.00. Charles Folch: Bill will have to rent some equipment I guess. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion? Or is there a motion? Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of bids for Lilac Lane Project No. 91-4. Councilman Workman: Second. Resolution ~2-~5: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to a#ard the bid for the Lilac Lane Improvement Project No. 91-4 to Aero Asphalt, Inc. in the amount of $60,186.85. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REJECT ALL BZDS FOR 1992 SANITARY SEWER REH~BZLZTATZON PROGRP~. PRO3ECT 92-11. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On Tuesday, September 22nd blds were recelved and opened for the 1992 sewer rehab program, Project 92-11. Unfortunately only two btds were received for this project, both betng exceedingly over the engineer's estlmate and exceedingly higher than what staff and the engineer believe would be representative for the project. In discussing thls matter wlth the plan holders list, it appears that again contractors have plenty of work going on. The uncertainty with the amount of time left in fall construction. All apparently effected the way this project was bld. It is staff's recommendation that it would be wiser use of our dollars to reject all blds for thls project and take the 1992 allotment of $100,000.00 and roll that into next year's sewer rehab program along with the '93 budget to allow for a larger project and hopefully get more efficient bldding. Get better use of our dollars. So therefore staff recommends rejecting all bids for sewer rehab project 92-11. Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution f92-1~&: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to reject all bids for the 1992 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program, Project 92-11 and that this allocat/on be added to the 1993 budget. All voted fn favor and the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS 1992 BOND SALE. DaVE NACGILLIVRAY, SPRINGSTED CORPORATION. Dave MacGillivray: Good evening Mayor. Members of the Council. This is an informational ltem requiring no Council action. We slmply wanted to present our recommendations that are in your packet concerning the competitive bond sale of two lssues. $3,630,000.00 general obligation improvement bond. $1,350,000.00 general obligation tax increment bond. We will have the public sale of these on October 26th and be back at that time with the results of those. Just brlefly, City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 the two issues. The improvement issue funds two projects. The Upper Bluff circle and 86th Street water. The bonds we repaid in large part through the collection of special assessments. There's a small annual tax levy forecast because of the 86th Street water has $94,000.00 of deferred assessments through Green Acres. State law. Tax increment lssue funds the Clty's share of two road programs. Thls issue would be repaid in total through tax increment revenues. We've sized that lssue so that both lssues are under $5 mi111on in total because that exempts the City from having to send the Feds a check for the arbitrage problems so we anticipate we'll be back probably in the sprlng with the balance of the tax increment projects and that, I think affords some benefits for the City. I'll be glad to take any questions that you have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If you have adjustment, what is the rates going for on bonds right now? Dave MacGillivray: We forecast these, the tax increment issue about 5~. The improvement issue about 5.5~. $.44~. The improvement is longer. That's why lt's slightly, the rate ls s11ghtly hlgher. Municipal bond rates, particularly those of a shorter term, which these are, are still extremely attractive both in terms of what's happened year to date and historically these lssues u111 probably be some of the lowest you'll sell in quite a while so. The tax exempt market ls st111 very, very good. The arguments are equally dlvlded on whether to sell them before the election or after the election. So I think you just, either way I thlnk historically they look very good. Mayor Chmiel: The only thing I see in this whole thing ls that we have to provlde 55 coples of the offlclal statement. Oave MacGillivray: To the purchaser. Yeah, that's the official offering statement. That's somewhat lndustry practlce and ls associated with the slze of the lssue. Mayor Chmiel: The only reason I object to it is I almost have to sign each one. Dave MacGillivray: No, we have a way of doing that. You don't have to sign the bonds elther anymore. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Any discussion? Councilwoman blmler: Sounds reasonable to me. Councilman Workman: No. It's good to see Mr. MacGillivray though. Mayor Chmiel: Yes it ls. You know he looks much younger since he has had his beard off. And I thought it was his brother. Dave MacGillivray: I'll keep that in mlnd. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Dave. Can I have a motion? No, we don't. We have to get together with the last one. I might suggest that you save that one so we don't have to reprlnt one more tlme. City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF AOJUSTH~NT$ AND APPEALS FOR A BLUFF CIN[ PRESERVATION SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, $O~TH PF DEI~RBRQOK DRIVE. LOT 8. BLOCK 1. DEERBROOK, 3AHES ST~LLICK. Sharmln Al-Jarl: Thls application appeared in front of you originally on September 28th. The variance was for a zero setback from the edge of the bluff. Clty Counc11 tabled actlon on thls application and requested that staff work wlth the applicant to come up with a better alternative. The applicant has revlsed the plan. The house has been setback 30 feet from the edge of the bluff so as far as setbacks go, it does meet it. However, there's a clause in the ordinance that requlres no gradlng takes place within 20 feet of the lmpact zone. Well with the plan as it stands right now, there is grading within 20 feet. We have worked with the applicant. We came up with our verslon of the grading whlch we think would ~ork with this house design. Right now the grading could be processed administratively. However, just in case the applicant didn't agree with our conditions, we decided to bring tt in front of you and let you make the declslon and hear the applicant's vlew. So we're recommending approval with conditions outlined in the report. Thank you. Mayor Chmlel: Thank you. Does the applicant wlsh to discuss thls? Or in agreement wtth staff or what is your thinking? James Stellick: Thank you. Good evening Mr. Mayor, Council members. We stand by our original posttion where we feel that the original plan met all the requirements of a variance. However, at your direction we have met wlth staff, as Sharmin mentioned. We have moved the house back. We have also elevated the house artificially to where it now stands almost one full story hlgher than the adjacent house. The purpose for that was to maintain a walkout view while disturbing the ground on the bluff site as little as possible. We essentially elevated the house. We do feel however that the elevation of the house now is 907 at the basement level. The bluff 11ne ltself ls approximately 906 at the south or southwestly portion of that stte. The bluff line does vary in elevation. We feel, and by the way tonight was the first time I've seen this plan. I did not have it prior to tonight. We feel that we need to grade from the 907 basement level down to 906. Wherever that might go. I don't belteve we'll have to grade on the easterly side-where the garage is. We'll have to fill probably 2 feet to bulld the garage so there shouldn't be any substitute grading there. But we do feel we'll have to grade to get drainage and to get a view whlch ls why we're considering thls lot. Down to the 906 level. Which ls I believe somewhat different than this plan, although I haven't had a great opportunity to review this yet. That's it. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Does Council have any questions? Michael. Councilman Mason: Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom. Councilman Workman: Do on this map, they cannot grade wlthln what Z call the. Sharmin Al-Jaff: This is the bluff impact zone. Councilman Workman: And the other dark line ls where they lntend to grade? City Council Meeting -- October 12, 1992 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Pardon? Councilman Workman: What is the overlapping? Paul Krauss: The dashed line is the grading proposal. Sharmin A1-Jaff: This is where they intend to grade. All of this... Councilman Workman: So we don't really have the bluff on here? The bluff llne. 8ut it's out there somewhere. Sharmln Al-Jarl: This ls the bluff line. Councilwoman Oimler: The orange one. Paul Krauss: The bluff setback, or the bluff impact area extends from the bluff itself 20 feet back. Councilman Workman: You're saying this is grading. The way I read this, this is, you're saying they want to grade this? Sharmln Al-Jaff: They are encroaching into that 20 foot bluff lmpact zone. Councilman Workman: Okay, I see what you're saying. What are we losing by havlng them false this house so far out of the ground? And they can do that. Sharmin Al-Jarl: They can go up to 40 feet up from the grade. Councilman Workman: They can go 4 stories or 3 stories? Sharmin A1-Jaff: As long as it's below 40 feet. Paul Krauss: Your question is raising the building elevation by filllng, what do we galn or lose by that? That's not an uncommon strategy. I mean a lot of people do that to make walkouts where walkouts would otherwise be difficult to do. If you recall, the origlnal proposal here was to do a traditional walkout by basically taklng the bluff and cuttlng it off so that your basement level would normally be down below grade so you just remove the grade and all of a sudden you then have an exposed basement. In thls case, to get the walkout thls current plan is to elevate it up high enough so that it is actually a walkout. It wlll be more vlslble I suppose from the bottom of the bluff because lt's being elevated but that's a trade-off. At the same time, this is 30 feet further back from the bluff. Councilman Workman: Yeah, I just get concerned about this is clearly not the house that they would hope to build, it would appear. They're going from a, it sounds 11ke maybe a three level? Paul Krauss: No, it's the same house. Councilman Workman: It's just with the walkout. Audience: It always was a walkout...sittlng much higher on the hill now. City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilman Mason: It's the same house. They just want to grade more than the City wants them to grade. I mean that's the bottom line isn't it? Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilman Mason: We need to decide what's going to get graded. Mayor Chmiel: That's it. Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: No comment. Councilwoman Dimler: I just had a quick question about the runoff. Something about an adjacent parcel to the west. Is that another property owner that's going to have problems with their drainage comlng their way? Paul Krauss: Potentially. That's something that can be avoided if this lot is graded properly and all we're doing is putting the owner on notice that when you come in with your building plan, we want to make sure that that drainage is handled. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so with your recommendations that you've set before us here tonight, is that properly addressed? You're not concerned about it? Okay, thanks. Mayor Chmiel: If you're looking at that 906 elevation and they're talking 907, clarify that for me. Paul Krauss: The ordinance, well there's a couple things that go along here. The original request was for a varlance to grade out over the bluff line... Mayor Chmlel: Yes. That was with the deck. Paul Krauss: Right, and the building itself was within the bluff setback area. Currently the bulldlng and decks are now pushed the requlred 30 feet back so technically there is no longer a variance request but the applicant is proposing to grade in the bluff area whlch requires approval of a grading permlt. Now it's a small enough volume of dirt that I can sign off on that administratively. However, we were already scheduled for the variance tonlght and we were not certain, but had reason to believe that the conditions that we would come up wlth on that permit would be somewhat objectionable to the applicant. He's got the right to appeal our findtngs to you so we're asking you to make an evaluation on that, rather than bump the item for another 2 to 4 weeks and put the time delays on it. Now in terms of the gO6 versus the 907. The 906 in this area ls defined as the bluff edge. £verything 20 feet upland from there, uphill from there is the bluff impact area. This proposal, this proposed grading plan that we were glven has substantial destruction of trees in the bluff lmpact zone. So whlle the house ls outside of it, and above the 906, the grading is wlthln lt. Now the ordinance allows you to do the smallest amount of gradlng that you can do necessary to accommodate a home. It does allow thinning of trees to get views. It doesn't allow clear cutting. The way we perceived this is that we saw the culprit as being, there's a small knoll there. It's kind of a pennlnsula of land that's very high and it's actually elevated 2 to 3, 4 feet above the rest of the bluff line. And that area is significantlly wooded but if City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 anything is truly blocking the view, it's that knoll and that knoll is something of an anomoly. It is higher than the rest of the bluff. When we looked at that we thought, well that is something of a hardship. That's right smack in the middle of the lot where you would want to locate the home and where the best views of this home are going to be. So the proposal that we came up with was okay, let's sacrifice the knoll, which is technically in the bluff impact zone, as an acceptable amount of grading. Allow the home to be put in properly to allow some of the trees to be cleared for the view. We couldn't support the mass grading that was being requested but ue thought that that was a reasonable compromise. Councilman Workman: You mean mass grading under 1,0007 Paul Krauss: Yes. Mayor ChmieI: Okay, thank you Paul. Is there any other discussion? Counc£1man Mason: Real quick comment. Considering my inclination, because of the delicate nature of the bluff line, my inclination would be not to allow any grading at all. I'm comfortable with the compromise that staff has come up with on this one. And I'm willing to support the staff recommendation. Councilman Wing: So moved. Councilman Mason: I'll second it. Mayor Chmlel: You moved it. I don't know if you realized that. Councilman Mason: Well I kind of thought maybe I did. Mayor Chmlel: Yes you did and then Olck seconded it and I'll open this up yet for discussion. Anything more Tom? Councilman Workman: Yeah. I'm trying to figure out, I'm trying to make sense of the compromise. If they bulld the house where it ls, on thls plan, but can't grade within 20 feet, what are they going to do here? Paul Krauss: You are golng to be grading ulthin 20 feet. Under thls compromise they're actually removing the knoll and a substantial amount of trees that are in the bluff protection area. Councilman Workman: To me lt's klnd of splitting halts a llttle bit I guess. Mayor Chmiel: Well, to a point I think you're right. But yet to go off into the bluff line area of whlch are withln our ordinances, if we have gone from what ue were allowed 2 weeks ago and are compromising to what staff has come up ulth a conclusion indicating that the gradlng in the bluff lmpact zone shall be limited to the area of the knoll located about the gO6 elevation. Okay. And that to me ls at least understandable with that. But no other gradlng shall be permitted in the area and plans shall be revised accordingly. Paul Krauss: Now, if I could clarify that too. They are entltled to do whatever gradlng ls necessary outside of that bluff impact zone. And that City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 grading would be normally reviewed as it always is with the building permit to make sure that everything drains correctly. Councilwoman Oimler: $o could you explain, just how are we infringing on the ordinance by allowing this? Paul Krauss: You're not. Councilwoman Oimler: Are we setting a precedence? Mayor Chmiel: No, you're not. Paul Krauss: The ordinance allows for this type of grading with the approval of an earth work permit. And it lists some standards for guidance as to no mass cuttlng. No mass gradlng. Dralnage handled properly. We think that that's being done in this case so it meets the guidelines for issuance of an earth work permit. Councilwoman Dimler: So we're not setting a precedence by going against our ordinance? That's what I wanted to know. Paul Krauss: Well, in essence you're not even granting a variance at this point which Ithtnk would be more precedent setting. Councilman Workman: But aren't we within that impact zone? Paul Krauss: You would be partially within that impact zone and that is allowed by ordinance. Councilwoman Oimler: Oh it is allowed? Paul Krauss: Yeah. Councilman Wing: One of the applicant's presentations Paul was what we did last year and the year before and the year before and this neighbor was allowed this and I don't want to hear another nelghbor come in and say, well we let Mr. Stellick do this and after all this work on the ordinance, suddenly we're yieldlng on it. You know, which came first, the proposed house or this ordinance? Councilman Workman: ...we've got a railroad track below the lot here. I don't know. To me being able to allow somebody to reasonably use a lot that has a bluff on it means we should allow them to reasonably, and I thlnk that's where this compromise has come out. To reasonably use and I don't know these people personally but I would think that they are 1lying there for a reason and they have the good fortune to own the lot and butld there. ~nd the characteristics of the lot, they don't want to go.and destroy the whole bluff line either. But rather use the bluff line. I'm putting thoughts in thelr heads maybe but use the bluff line to make the home that they want to make. ~nd this ordinance ls going to be around a long time and tt's going to be like this every time, I know it. Because you may as well buy a third acre lot in the middle of town if you can't take some reasonable advantage of the reason you bought that !or. You know what I mean? City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: At that particular time Tom, if they were to do what they wanted to do originally, they would have been in violation of the ordinance. Councilman Workman: Right, and that's why I think we've kind of come back. Mayor Chmiel: And that's why I think we have come back to what is termed as a compromise to what staff has pulled together. And I think that compromise is justifiable from that standpoint. Councilman Wing: If it weren't for your stupid law, my house wouldn't be 75 feet from the shoreline I'll tell you that. Councilwoman Dimler: I just have one question Paul. Do you see an adverse effect here of the grading on the bluff impact zone? Paul Krauss: I honestly don't think so. You've got to look at it from a number of perspectives but the one that is probably most important here is what are you looking at when you're looking at those homes where you and I were that day on the railroad tracks looking up. Well, in this case the home will be set back the proper distance, which the adjacent home wasn't because it was built before the ordinance and that's highly visible. This will preserve a lot of the trees up to and over the top of the bluff. It will have a view corridor. The idea is not to make the home invisible but it will have views over and out over the Fiver valley. But it will avoid that kind of situation where we've seen homes perched out over the edge or destroying all the vegetation in the area. I think it's a reasonable thing to do. Councilwoman Oimler: So you stick with your recommendation? Mayor Chmiel: There's a motlon on the floor with a second. I'll call the question. All those in favor upon staff recommendation with items I thru 4, as part of that recommendation. Councilwoman Oimler: You want the question called? Mayor Chmiel: Say aye. Councilwoman Dlmler: I thlnk we're supposed to hold on ca111ng the question. Mayor Chmiel: I did call the question. Councilwoman Dlmler: I know but you vote on thls, because there mlght be some further discussion. Is that correct? Mayor Chmlel: Well, discussion has been golng on and lt's tlme that termination can be called by the Chalr. After further discussion has been going back and forth. Councilwoman Dimler: Wlll our Parllmentary please comment. Councilman Workman: So they're going to build their house where we've sort of agreed they can bulld thelr house but not just be able to grade. 10 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Mrs. Stellick: We're not going to build our house there at all. James Stellick: Maybe there's some misunderstanding. We feel we need to grade down to gO6. If we cannot do that, we do not buy the lot. We do not build the house. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And it does say 906 on the staff recommendations. Paul Krauss: They're allowed to take the knoll down to the 906. Mayor Chmiel: Just the knoll in itself. Councilman Workman: To me that's the property rights and within reason. Mayor Chmiel: We still have it open for discussion. Councilwoman Oimler: That's why I wanted to vote on calling the question. Mayor Chmlel: Parllmentary procedures would allow me to do as I moved. Councilman Wing: It's my understanding that this is going to be the requirements on the grading permit at any rate. Thls ls what you intended to put on the grading permit. We're just supporting that. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Paul Krauss: It's avoldlng the need to have a separate appeal that would come up before you in a month. Councilman Mason: I think Councilman Workman certainly asks a real valid question about property rights of owner versus what city's have decided. What ls best to have on that lot. And ! certainly think that the ordinance that we passed for Bluff Creek is a very good one. And it appears that staff feels, and as I've said before, agree. If they're allowed to do all the grading they would want to do, there would be some damage done to that Bluff Creek lot line there. Or the line there and if that's the case, what's the purpose of the ordinance. And I don't mean, I don't mean to put you on the spot but obviously this is an lssue that we're certainly at odds with but I think all of us passed thls ordinance in good faith. Councilman Workman: And I agree. I was there to pass it too and we need to do it. But the reason we have a variance board is to look at individual cases and I think we did that. We got the house. We got the deck. We got everything back. We just didn't quite make it with grading. You can't move, it'd be a very rare case when we'd take this house 50 years from now and be able to move it back. In 50 years from now trees will be as tall as you can believe and trees and brush and things grow. And presumably they'd do a job of redolng whatever they graded and so that's why I'm taking these on a one lot by one lot basls and that's why, and they're upset tonlght and Z don't know who the owner of the lot is but he's upset tonight probably because he's got a lot that maybe he can't sell if it can't be used. If lt's. 11 City Council Meeting - October 12, 199~ Councilman Hason: Well it can be used. Maybe not just the way they want to use it. Councilman Workman: What I said was before is, you may as well buy a large lot in Timberwood. You may as well buy a large lot in Timberwood which is a good mile from the bluff. Councilman Wing: After the work and effort that went into that ordinance, I think the days of coming in and building the house you want out over the bluff line through the trees down into the valley are over. Councilman Workman: But they're not. Councilman Wing: Oh they are. Councilman Workman: No they're not. The house isn't in the setback. Councilman Wing: I'm not saying that you no longer have. When the ordinance passed, we took that right away as a government agency. Saying protect that canyon area...lt's done and you longer have the optlon under this ordinance just to come in and put your house where you want it. How you want it. Those lots are golng to be utlllzed ina s11ghtly different manner. There's no question about that. Councilman Workman: And nobody's disagreeing with that. I'm not disagreeing with that. We have a rule that says you can't build a deck within 30 feet of your back lot line. We allow for variances for those all the time. That's what a variance is for. And so I don't disagree with that. I don't dlsagree with the ordinance at a11. We're allowing him to move a knoll and some other thlngs. We're being a little too selective I think and that's why I sald where I think we're splitting some halts because we would be letting them do qulte a bit anyway and they are movlng earth within this zone anyway. I mean we're almost there and for them to. Councilman Wlng: Cutting out a h111 rlght in front of thelr house. Councilman Workman: So to me we're just about there and for us to be able to go, lt's a dead issue obviously so. Mayor Chmiel: Ursula, any other? Councilwoman Dimler: I think at this point, because if it were a home that were there, I'd probably go ahead and approve of it. Because of the timing here, the bluff ordinance was in place. They are looklng at buylng the house. They have plenty of time to work with staff and so forth and in this case I will support the staff recommendation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that, we have a motlon on the floor wlth a second to support staff recommendations as indicated, ltems 1 thru 4. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded that the City Council approve staff's authorizing an earth work permit to James Stellick for Lot 8, BLock 1, Deerbrook, subject to the following conditions: 12 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 1. Grading in the biuff impact zone shall be Iimited to the area of the knoll located above the 906' elevation. No other grading shall be permitted in this area. Plans shall be revised accordingly. 2. Grading plans shall be designed to ensure sheet drainage along the bluff. Only selective tree removal in the bluff area needed to provide a view shall be allowed. 4. Type III erosion control shall be installed and maintained. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON WEST ?8TH STRE:ET DETACHI'fENT PRO,.1ECT ~)2-3~ AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICflT~ONS (CONTINUED FROH 9/28/~)~ AND AUTHORIZE CONDEHNATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Following the last hearing, staff, the project engineer, the adjacent land owners and representatives for the Target site met for a rather lengthy meeting to discuss some of the outstanding lssues that needed to be resolved. Basically all partles left the meeting with full acceptance and concurrence of the alignment that is being proposed. The only real outstanding issues, if you wi11, associated with the project from a property owner or development standpoint are the issue related to locatlng accesses whlch are more or less a design detail type element whlch for all intensive purposes could be resolved during the preparation of plans for the project. Then some other, one of the other lssues is related to outlining how the assessment methodology is going to be handled. At this point it is staff's recommendation that we proceed with ordering of the project and associated improvements with the deflned revised alignment and allow for a discussion on access locations and assessment methodology to occur at a future meeting. At such time that all adjacent landowners and effected property owners could be available to attend that meeting for discussion. We have our project consultant engineer here with us tonight. Jim, do you care to add anything to the presentation tonight? Jlm Dvorak: I guess only that I'd be happy to answer any questions that any of the Council members or staff may have regarding the revised report. The numbers and how any of those were determined. And then any of the improvements that are proposed... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I just had one question. If we had tabled the other segment of item number 8, does this really need discussion right now? We don't know if lt's really necessary for us to proceed. Charles Folch: Well from a timing standpoint, it certainly would be beneficial to sort of get ahead of the game if you will and ahead of the development program as it relates to grading and their contracts and such. You'll nottce in the manager's comments that the recommendation tonight lsa contingent type approval given that the associated HRA and city development contracts are executed. It's advantageous from the ttmlng standpoint to make the approvals tonlght. I'm not sure what impacts it would have to the development if it did not proceed tonight. It doesn't look like there's a representative from RLK 13 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 here tonight to answer that question. Don Ashworth: If I may Mr. Mayor. When we had the meeting with the owners, everyone was in agreement we should move ahead with the project, even knowlng that there was some stalmate positions as it dealt with HRA, potential assistance over to Target. The primary lssue ls, they do not like what ls referred to as [he pay as you go form of assistance. That's basically the only type we've used. And so they're kind of remeetlng with their groups to see if they understand thls and how it works. Agaln they, as of a week ago, two weeks ago, wanted to see thls onto this agenda. Charlle James st111 wanted to come in and talk about potential median cuts and the method of assessment on the 26th. Then today we received the call asklng that Target be deleted as a part of the development proposal process. We're simply believing that they have not resolved internally some of these other differences and that's the reason that they asked to have that one pulled. And this item will be back on the 28th to resolve some of those smaller items. I thlnk thls ls probably the thlrd or fourth meeting we've had the engineer. The only benefit I can see ls, Charlie James was qulte adamant about wanting to see the City get on with the process. If we were golng to condemn his property, get it started. I guess that was one of the polnts he continued to make and he put in writing. That would probably be the only thing that would be slowed down if we tabled action for 2 weeks. Hayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there any discussion? Richard. Councilman Wing: The word contingent makes this safe for me. Is there any chance that if Target dld not come through that we would go with the old alignment? I mean is the new alignment all agreed upon, done deal? Is there any discussion there anymore? Don Ashuorth: Well it's agreed upon. All parties are in agreement but it's really contingent on Target being in there. I would say if Target would disappear, you'd look to, each of the intersection polnts have been defined based on trafflc volumes anticipated to go in and out of Target. You probably wouldn't do those in exactly the same fashlon if they're not golng to be there. You surely wouldn't put a trafflc signal to gain access to a pumpkin field, right? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I think you should. Councilman Wing: Access isn't the concern. I'm only talking about alignment. Whether it goes north or it goes, takes the curve out and goes south. Does that alignment make a difference? Don Ashuorth: I would say then that it would move back to the old alignment. Councilman Wing: Which may be better for overall development at some point? Don Ashworth: The current plan is solely driven by the desire of Target and their beliefs that it would be cheaper and better for them if the road was moved 120 feet to the south. Councilman Wing: But Charlie James isn't here. 14 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Don Ashworth: ! should note that the project consists of both the improvements in the existing town section that includes the signals and activation systems associated with the Fire Department as well as the westerly portion of the project. We have had those two hooked together, split apart, hooked together, split apart several times over the course of the last 2 to 3 years. Depending on how long this goes before a decision is reached by Target as to whether or not they are going to build or not build, we're going to have to detach them agaln and start the efforts again back with the existing, because there's a number of improvements that need to be made to the existlng part of town. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I think that whether Target's going to build or not build, Target's got a lot of money tied lnto it right now and I don't see them trying to walk away from it except I'm not sure what they're really looking for yet. Councilman Wing: Is it possible that road, if some circumstance could in fact go further north or even further south if different scenarios came in? Or is the new alignment the one that you want? That you need. Is there a question on the alignment? I mean why now go with the new alignment. Get it done. It's ln, and you develop accordingly. Mayor Chmiel: Well if Target doesn't go there, somebody else will. There's no question. Councilman Wing: Okay, but is this alignment better than the northerly alignment and is this the alignment we prefer regardless of who goes where and when? Mayor Chmiel: This is just accommodating Target with this particular alignment at this particular time because before, as Charlie James indicated, there were thlngs that were tied in back when he had drafted his proposal for the City and agreed to by the City. And now with the changes that we're looking at, I think by movlng it to the south portlon it would have tendencies, at least in my opinion, be the right location for whatever ulttmate might develop from now, amen. Councilman Wing: Well that's where I wound up with after ail the discussion. Irrespective of who goes where, when or how, this new alignment is really a better cholce and we ought to just go with it and get it done once and for a11. Mayor Chmiel: Because thereto, the alignment in itself for going across with the north service road ls more in 11ne to where we want it than any other location. Councilwoman Oimler: But yet as we're saying, we're discussing here traffic signals and all that and that would certainly all change. Mayor Chmlel: Well the traffic signals might just go by the wayside, depending on what would go in there at that particular time. Councilwoman Oimler: $o, but we're going to approve preparation of plans and specifications here without really knowing about number 8. Mayor Chmiel: That can always be dropped. 15 City Council Meeting - October lZ, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: I'm kind of uncomfortable with doing. I was comfortable with doing it before, having Target there. And Mr. James having a written agreement that he could still get his things in next time we meet. However, with both parties both out, I feel a little uncomfortable approving anything unt11 we come more together. Charles Folch: I think Don makes a real good comment from the standpoint that if Target does not go in, at the very least it eliminates the need for at least a mid-block slgnal. We can certainly go ahead preparing plans under the assumption that some soft of major retail development is likely golng to site elther on James or Burdick's property. Each are pretty well lald out and they're conducive for that. If for some reason that does not appear likely to occur in the next 3 to 5 years, it's hard to tell, then maybe at the point in time when you approve plans and specs there could be some changes made but there's also some advantage to gettlng in ahead of the game wlth these improvements before you really have these major retail developments generating the trafflc down there. Mayor Chmiel: We may get a Macy's or someone like that. Councilwoman Dimler: Mega Mall. Okay, but we're talking about 4 lanes there and you're saying that has to be regardless of what comes in there? Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah, right. Yes. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. And I dld want to discuss the median. The landscaping in the medlan because the comments I've heard from the publlc here, they love the way the east slde looks but they don't want us to conttnue that because of the visibility problems that we're having. So we might want to go wlthout any landscaping in the medians on the west side. Or at least not that much or different types. Lower vegetation. Mayor Chmlel: Well yeah. You're right. The first ones that went in they put way too much. Ask me, I'll tell you all about that...but anyway, that's true but I st111 think that some greenery is going to be needed within and make sure that the visibility is there from a slght 11nes be taken from cars and so on. Making sure that the visibility is good. Councilman Workman: Ursula, are you saying don't do anythlng until we know? Councilwoman Oimler: Well we've got two pieces of the puzzle missing right now. I was comfortable wlth one plece missing. I could klnd of picture it and yet with two pieces missing, I'm a little uncomfortable. Councilman Mason: Charlie's okay wlth this though. Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah, but it wasn't his first choice. Councilman Workman: But didn't we already have plans and specifications from before? 16 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Charles Folch: Two sets as a matter of fact. Councilman Workman: I mean we're not, our track record isn't, this is the corner from hell. Councilwoman Oimler: Well what's wrong with the old alignment then? If that's what Charlle James... Councilman Mason: The thing about moving ahead tonight is, is we do get to lay some groundwork and I share Ursula's concern about authorizing some things that we're going to say walt a minute. We don't want this stuff. Now I'm hearing you're saying that's not an issue because we can always renig. Not renig but there are plans. We can change them if we want to. The nice thlng I see about moving the road south some is we get a real nice landscaped area in that corner that we would not get if we didn't. And my understanding from the letter we all got from Mr. James and what not ts that he is okay with this proposal. So I guess I'm in agreement with what the Mayor is saying. Even if we o~n't get a Target in here, it's just a matter of time that we get somebody else and we're golng to be probably have that amount of traffic anyway. Councilman Wing: I'm interested in just getting the alignment decided on and that portlon done and the rest is all contingent. Nothing's going to happen. All I'm really saying personally is the alignment tonight. I'm saytng let's go with the south and get it done. Charles Folch: And as Charlie points out in his letter that you have in your packet, he just wants to know where the alignment is golng to be so he can market his property. Right now he can't do anything with tr. Councilwoman Oimler: That's true, but he did say something about the parcel that's going to maybe have long term effects that the C£ty is not taking in condemnation that mlght be useless to hlm. Wlth the new alignment. Does anybody recall that? Councilman Wing: It gives him his land back is what happens. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it does. A certain amount of land. Plus at least knowing where lt's going to be and that's what he's looklng for the condemnation for. don't recall that part of it. Councilwoman Dimler: Let's see. Where was that. Mayor Chmiel: Item 2, fair and reasonable access to my property. I am told by SRF that the rlght of way and alignment will accommodate almost any plan so the Council can approve the alignment on the 12th without committing the issue of access to the James property. I would ask that we resolve this matter as it pertains to the James access only on October 26th when I can be present to answer your questions. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, and that can st111 be done even if we approve the alignment tonight? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 17 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilman Workman: If we took the plans for thls part of the road, I was talking to Charles this weekend. We had a good 11ttle hoot about this. If you take the plans and kind of dld them cartoon 11ke that, it looks like a dog's tail wagging. These plans go back and forth. The only thing I'm concerned about ls that authorizing preparation of plans and specifications tells me that we're going to. Mayor Chmlel: Well I have changed my side because I thought the north one would have been better before but untll I've seen what the south one would do in comparison, it clearly to me is a better way to go. Councilman Workman: So moved. Mayor Chmlel: Is there a second? Councilman Wing: Oh that specific, alright. Councilman Workman: Engineer's recommendation. Councilman Wing: Okay with the condemnation proceedings which is an issue with James. Mayor Chmlel: Tt's all part of the agreement that came with that. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmlel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Resolution ~2-117: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the West 78th Street Detachment Project No. 92-3 (formerly Project No. 87-2) and initiate the condemnation proceedings for the acqu/sition of the needed right-of-way through the 3ames property. All voted in favor and the motton carried unanimously. REOUEST FOR STREET NAME CHANGE FROM MONTEREY DRIVE TO KERBER BOULEVARD, B.C. BURBICK. Todd Gerhardt gave the staff presentation on thls item whlch was not plcked up on the microphone. Mayor Chmlel: Just one question. In connecting Monterey to Kerber, does that mean that we will widen Monterey to meet Kerber from one end to the other? From the east line to the west line or are we golng to move that in entirety? And I can't remember, is there a curb cut going in there right now on Monterey? Todd Gerhardt: No, the curb lines wlll be readjusted. Councilman Wing: I'll so move. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. 18 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Councilman Wing: I was going to recommend James Burdick Boulevard but in lieu of this, this is fine with me. Councilwoman Dimler: I think it's a great idea. I'm just wondering if anybody would have a problem with the change of address. Mayor Chmiel: The only concern I had was with the property owners and I think the property owners were in agreement. Is that correct Todd? Councilwoman Dimler: All of them in agreement? Todd Gerhardt: Did I attach...letter. Hayor Chmiel: Yes. Todd Gerhardt: In there were letters from. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, and that included everyone? Everyone responded? Todd Gerhardt: Every one of those property owners... Councilman Workman: It will be the Burdick BRW Boulevard. Resolution ~2-118: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to change the street name of Monterey Drive to Kerber Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SITE PLAN REVIEW CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING PHASE ~I. 480 WEST 78TH STREET, COPELAND-HITHUH- Sharmin Al-Jaff: The applicant is requesting the construction of Phase II, a 10,600 square foot addition to the Chanhassen Professional Building. One feature of this site that is left up the discretion of City Council is the canopy that would cover the area between the two phases. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of construction of the canopy. As far as access is concerned, the applicant is requesting a right turn lane as well as a median cut. We contacted SRF, the City's transportation consultant engineers. They recommended approval of the right turning lane. They thought that would improve traffic movement on West 78th. However, they recommended against a median cut on West 78th. The sign covenants accompany the site plan. Basically they are requesting a total of 14 wall mounted signs. It's limited to the north and south elevations of the building. All signs would be illuminated. We are recommending approval of this site plan with conditions outlined in the report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess ! had one question. There was quite a controversy when we had the other building in and adjacent and as close to the street as we did. Is this building going to be the same location with the same setback requirements? City Council Meeting -- October 12, 1992 Sharmln Al-Jarl: It will maintain the same setbacks. However, this one is a one story building comparison to a two story building. It won't be as lmposing to the street, Mayor Chmlel: Right, and now we're removlng the canopy portlon and having a center or going dlrectly in with a median? Sharmin Al-Jarl: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Between, and that I thlnk would probably blend better and look better as well as them having that curvature over the top. Without that canopy there I thlnk it would probably look at lot better. I had just one other thing here. Parking for the area. There's going to be 299 stalls. That meets our specifl¢ code requirement for parking. Yes and no huh? Sharmln A1-Jaff' There was a package that was pre-approved. That's how many parking stalls you can get wlth the slte. We believe that it will work. Mayor Chmie].: Okay. But there will be an additional 18 stalls that are going to be built with Phase II now. Sharmin Al-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. One of the things that the Plannlng Commission discussed was about eliminating sidewalks and putting in parking stalls. Sharmln A1-Jaff: That has been taken care of. Mayor Chmiel: That has? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. I guess those were the ones that I really had. Any other questions? Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess in relation to the location of the building too, and I wanted to know, we are going to be talklng or have talked or sometime in the future we're going to be talklng about maklng 4 lanes out of all of ~est 78th Street. I'm wondering how that's going to be done with the location of the present bullding there already and are we, wlth the approval of thls one, are we complicating the issue further? Councilman Mason: I can respond to that. Councilwoman Olmler: Okay. Councilman Mason: Because Don Ashworth and I talked about it and saw the plans and actually drove down West ?8th and walked it out and this, that and the other thlng, and it certainly wlll be even closer to the road than it ls now. But it's not going to make it any more difficult than it already is. To approve this. 2O City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, if we approve this one, it will not complicate that process? Okay, thank you. Sharmln Al-Jarl: One optlon that was looked at also was removing the center median altogether. Councilman Mason: To doing what? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Removing the center median. Councilman Workman: They'd parade you down the street if you sald that louder Sharmin. Councilwoman Dlmler: Well if we do that there, we certainly don't want a medlan on the west side though right? We just approved a median on the west side. Councilman Mason: I'll bet you the medlan stays. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Wing: On number 8, coordinator slte improvements with the HRA. Define site improvements. Sharmin Al-Jarl: Parklng mainly. Landscaping. Councilman Wing: Alright. I don't mind the HRA going into land acquisition and development and making decisions but once we get beyond checkbook, I don't like it going from the HRA to the Planning to the Council, HRA. They're not our planners. They're not, wlth all due respect Mr. Mayor, and even to go before the Council. I don't think any set improvements have to go back to them. If they approved the money and the project and I think the slte improvements go to the Planning Commission and the City Council. They're not elected to make those decisions I don't thlnk so number 8 concerns me greatly. I don't mtnd them being informed. I don't expect to see decisions of landscaping occurring at HRA. That's my problem. Sharmin Al-Jarl: May I respond7 Councilman Wlng: Yes ma'am. I'm sure the Mayor's going to. Mayor Chmiel: I was but if she says what I'm thinking. $harmln Al-Jarl: There was a development contract drafted 2 years ago, 3 years ago. And the HRA agreed at that time to complete all the publlc improvements. That was part of the deal. Councilman Wing: Public improvements. Okay, you're taking. Paul Krauss: In thls case the parking lot on the site were considered to be public improvements. Councilman Wing: Alright. 21 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: And only because it was part of that contract. But other times when situations occur as such, and the contract can be revised, to put it back to Council and Planning to making sure that...everyone'$ wishes. Ursula. Councilwoman Oimler: Another question. On page G of the report, condition 7. It says to amend the development contract between the HRA and the Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership to allow a public access door on the south face of the building within the 20 feet of the west end of the structure. I wanted to know if this is in violation of the original agreement for Phase I. Mayor Chmiel: I guess it would be if it's an amendment. A violation to the agreement. Sharmin Al-Jaff: Unless you amend this, correct. If you agree to this amendment, then there won't be a violation. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but if we allow it, but it is not protecting the Rtv is what I'm saylng. I'm concerned about protecting the Riv. So tf we allow thls amendment, it was not protecting the Riv. Paul Krauss: The original amendment, if I recall correctly, concerned any doors on the west slde of the building. There was a concern that if there were doors over there that people would use the Rlv parking spaces. What's happening here though ls you're having entrance doors on the north and south sldes of the building. Your individual entrances that happen to be within that area but they're oriented differently. They're oriented to the back parking lot. Councilwoman Oimler: So you don't think that that's golng to be infringing upon the Rlveria parking lot. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, ls that a requirement of Code? Fire Code? Paul Krauss: No. Councilman Mason: The doors7 Mayor Chmiel: The door to the west is what I was thinking. Because in the event that there is a fire in the main area for the north or south, the accessibility for those people to get out would be to the west. Paul Krauss: What you see on the graphic there is the individual tenant spaces. Depending upon how the building gets dlvlded up, each one will have a door to the street which we encourage because it improves the pedestrian flow. It kind of encourages people to walk. But the maln doors wlll be to the north wlth your access parking. That's oriented to the parklng spaces specifically to this building and not to the Rlv parking lot. So lt's achieving the same goals. Councilwoman Oimler: Has anyone checked with the owners of the Riveria to see if thls amendment ls acceptable to them? Sharmin Al-Jaff: They've been publically notified but no, we haven't actually called them up. 22 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Your main concern is the encroachment on their parking spaces... Counciluoman Oimler: Right, because I know they were real concerned about that .originally. Sharmln Al-Jarl: May I polnt something out? The applicant has moved this door to meet the 20 foot setback. So this is no longer an issue. I'm sorry, thls one ls no longer an lssue. It's only good for...that we're recommending that. Councilwoman Olmler: That you need the amendment for. $harmln Al-Jarl: Correct. Paul Krauss: There are no park/ng spaces in the front of the building. It's basically just for people walking down the street. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, one issue. Something was lacking as ! went through this. I guess my memory just came back now on the issue, maybe it was Planning Commission. Z think Mr. Copeland addressed it. But access to this goes through the Riveria and then goes and walks around this whole parking situation back there lsa dlsaster zone and Z think it ought to be dealt with. ! just wonder if Mr. Copeland can address the issue of parking behind and the access to that parking and the fact that it runs lnto the Rtveria and then it comes around. Is that in his best interest and does there need to be a change made as this project goes. Why are we running all of bls traffic lnto the Rtveria parklng lot? Why aren't they separated? Because it's a city parking lot. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: I think Sharmln may have an answer. Sharm£n Al-Jaff: If you won't allow this access point, then most of the traffic w111 be routed through here rather than through the Riveria. Councilman Wing: Is that an assumption? Charles Folch: No. Paul Krauss: You're talking about a westbound traffic lane and that's the flrst entrance they're going to come to. Councilman Wlng: Then that solves my concern. Councilwoman Oimler: But if you're coming from the west, there's no median cuts so you can't use that. Paul Krauss: In that case you have to go up to the corner and come back. Councilwoman Oimler: Come through the Riv parking lot. Paul Krauss: No. You basically come through the same one. 3ust at Great Plalns you turn the corner. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but you could go through the Rlv parklng lot and come back around. The way it is right now, you're able to do that. And actually they're 23 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 ail city parking lots, are they not? Okay. Councilman Mason: I don't know, this may not be the time or the place for this until we get but Z see all those doors 6 feet away from the road and ! wonder a little bit what that's golng to Zook like. Mayor Chmiel: Close. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Too close. I feel kind of stuck on that one. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what we felt once the other one was constructed where it was and the reason for that ls the additional parking spaces they could acqulre for that to meet their needs and this is just going to conform wlth the same alignment from the exlstlng buildlng that's there. Councilman Workman: Those doors aren't going to be any closer than the ones on the current structure and that's not a problem. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Lt will be because it gets a 11ttle narrower there. If my memory serves rlght. Look at Bernie's buildlng right now where lt's at. It's right up to the sidewalk and there isn't much more than about that 6 feet or 8 feet or whatever it might be up. Can anybody shed some 11ght on that? Mr. Copeland. Bob Copeland: I'm Bob Copeland. Thls lsa plan prepared by the City's engineer... You'll see that the new. Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin will set that stand up for you there. If that will help. Why don't you put it right in front of the podium so the camera can pick it up as well... Bob Copeland: You'll notice that the proposed building wlll be the same distance away from the road as the existlng bu£1ding is, or at least... And remember the ¢lty wanted to build it here. Our orlglnal plan had this bullding back and the parking in front. The City wanted it up cZose so that's why it's there. Mayor Chmiel: That was done to screen the parking basically rather than having parking in and adjacent to the. Bob Copeland: Well, the planners at the time said that they wanted a city scape. They didn't want buildings that had parklng between the roads and the buildings. They wanted buildings up near the road so that was the idea at the time. So thls is what we have but thls ls... Mayor Chmlel: Yeah. To me it has a bit of an i11uslon where that new proposed structure seems to set forward more than what the existing one as shown there now. Or am I. Bob CopeZand: Well these are... Mayor Chmiel: Are they? 24 City Council Meeting - October Bob Copeland: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: It sure looks like there's going to be. Bob Copeland: Here the road...little bend right there. But this distance from the curb line to the building will be the same... Mayor Chmlel: The same, okay. Does that answer your question? Councilman Mason: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Workman: To me this is going to look marvelous here. I've been waitlng for thls. Mayor Chmiel: Nothing against your building Bernle. Councilman Workman: And nothing against Bernie, who knows that. But I think thls wlll finlsh what was started and yeah, Bernle's not proud of that bullding either I don't thlnk, is he? It's three buildings in one. I think this will look good. I do want to talk about the canopy. I've always thought that oanopy would be there. By not having the canopy, are we just creating another atley? An alley of no distinction. I thlnk the canopy kind of added some distinction. I guess maybe I'd like to hear what Bob has to say. 8ob Copeland: I don't know whether you've seen this old rendering to give you an idea of what it might look like with that. This is the canopy structure rlght here. Councilman Wing: Bob, is the intention of that canopy to be relatively, just a roof line continuation or relatively quality entry? Bob Copeland: Well the roofline would be a continuation of the Phase II. Councilman Wing: Yeah, but then the overall effect of the canopy inherent with the building. Klnd of a quality looking appearance to lt. When I think of a canopy, I just think of this continued roof line with a straight bottom across. Bob Copeland: Well it would be a similar construction as the building itself. Councilman Workman: I think on the other side of the street we have kind of a continuous building and sort of with the Dinner Theatre and so I'm not sure I understand what would be created by breaking this up. Mayor Chmiel: I think somewhere in the report I read that this would create a monolithic structure. Councilwoman Dimler: Right. My problem with the canopy is I like the way it looks but if I understand it correctly, it's $80,000.00 to $90,000.00 that the HRA is going to pay and I'm not real sure I want the taxpayer to be paying that. So I wouldn't go for the canopy just for that reason. 25 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Don Ashuorth: But in each one of these, the assistance generated from the project goes back into the project itself. So I mean it's really a part of the new taxes generated by this facility that would be put back you might say into this facility to again kind of make it look like one overall project. Bob, if that's not in there, will that still have the appearance of one kind of structure? At least seen as something that was designed as kind of a part of the whole or is it going to kind of separate it and make it look more like the alley concept that, I can't remember somebody had brought up. Mayor Chmiel: Tom did. Bob Copeland: I don't think it will look like an alley. I think there's 60 or ?0 feet between those two buildings. So that's I think a lot of distance there. And the buildings w111 be of identical materials and construction. The only difference being of course the height of the two phases. Mayor Chmlel: To me by not having it there makes a good fire break. In the event something were to happen. Councilman Mason: Well I'm a little, I think it's going to be really nice to have that done. I'm a little claustrophobic walking by that bullding now and Z'm havlng a 11ttle trouble golng along with the canopy there. I thlnk lt'd be nlce to break it up a little blt. But it's really going to be nice to have that started and done. Councilman Workman: Well the HRA is not buying the canopy. Mayor Chmiel: No. Don Ashworth: The agreement that ue had, would be if it was declded by Planning Commission and City Council at a future polnt in tlme when Phase II was built, and it was decided by those two bodles that it was a desired attribute, that the HRA would pay the cost of having that canopy constructed. That was the original agreement from 4 or 5 years ago. Mayor Chmiel: It'd be one of my suggestions that we don't have. I don't think it would create that alley that Tom has indicated. I thlnk that would provlde a safety factor in the event that if there ever were a fire, that would be a fire break lnbetween those two rather than spread all the way across. Although the fire department's very close. But nonetheless, I think the openness mlght create some desireability and to have that center lsland in there for cars to pull in probably would be a little better than what's existing. If in the event that, and I don't see any real need for seml's to come in and out of there. There's other ways they can get to it but if they were to try to go through there, clearances would be I think a problem as well. They wouldn't make the turn, number one. Number two, they wouldn't make those clearances. So I think, I don't know. To me that openness I think would probably be more of a plus than having that canopy and yet we'll save that $80,000.00 or $90,000.00 as well. Councilman Workman: I said this...trust me Paul. I don't know, does Bob care if the canopy's on there or not? Maybe tt doesn't. I think, and Richard was talklng about don't let the HRA make any artistic decisions. But we, or at least I and I know some of the other members of the Council kind oF fought the 26 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 hotel to keep that front awning on the front. Can you imagine that hotel without that on there? [ think everybody kind of agrees, geez we're glad they put that on there and they were going to put this little, there weren't going to put nothing [ believe. And they were going to make it 4 feet long or something. Be a little stub or something. Councilwoman Oimler: But that's different. That's part of a building. Mayor Chmiel: That's a projection out and that's for the convenience for the people coming in and unloading and going into the hotel. Councilman Workman: Z mean a semi driver's going to drive through there and clearly we're going to have a problem but I don't think. Mayor Chmiel: Even a tail truck. Just an 8 or ~ wheeler. · Councilman Workman: Well, that's what insurance is for. I'm not going to worry about that. But you know, to me I've always imagined this thing with that and ! don't know. Maybe Bob and Brad and everybody else, maybe it's not worth fighting for, I don't know. But to me you've got either two separate buildings or kind of a continuous flow with the canopy. Councilman Mason: It's starting to sound like beat up on Councilman Workman night here. Councilman Wing: Tom, a lot of people that are much more artistic and better qualified than you have said no to this issue and I don't know what gives you the thought that you, you know looking at that drawing I've kind of got mixed emotions... The Mayor brings up good points of being practical but I'm kind of semi seconding with Tom. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think it looks great. I said that bat I just don't want to spend the money. Councilman Wing: The money's an issue. I guess that's a turning point for me if that's the fact. Councilman Workman: HRA money though. Councilwoman Oimler: I know but it's taxpayer's money. Councilman Workman: But every dollar that goes into the project is being taxed back. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you benefit back. That's true but I guess I just don't know whether that's a real benefit. Brad Johnson: Just to put this in perspective. We're not pitching it one way or the other. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone and please state your name and address. 27 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Brad Johnson: We're not pro or con this. It's your money and not our money. And we feeI that you should make the decision and it has no ecnomic value. OriginaIly it had I guess some aesthetic vaiue. We didn't come here to propose it either way. So you don't have an architect telIing you how great this wouId iook if it was there and that type of thing. I think we can revisit this again. We're not going to puIi a buiIding permit and we're not going to finaIize the redeveiopment agreement with the city for another 3 or 4 months I don't think so we're mainty getting the plans approved so that we can go ahead and primariIy the site pian and the signage pians so ue can go ahead and iease the buiiding. So if you'd Iike to have us revisit this prior to our process, I think ue can do that. Don't you think so Don? I don't think you have to spend an hour on that. I miss it too. I aIways thought it was going to be there so, but you know there's some pros and cons at the present time as to whether it's a good thing. This hangs in my office so I iook at it and I don't know what it's going to look iike if it doesn't iook Iike this you know. Mayor Chmiel: That's item number 4 on our recommendation, Is the city must decided whether or not a canopy should be built between the two phases of the Hedical Arts building. It doesn't say today. It doesn't say tomorrow. Brad 3ohnson: I think you're going to spend all night talking about this maybe and so I don't think you have to. You can recommend that it go, you know this still goes back to the HRA for the redeveiopment agreement. If they feei like they'd Iike to spend the looney, you know maybe they couid come back and suggest it. Mayor Chmiel: I just like that word monolithic. Councilman Wing: Is anybody tonight addressing architectural standards of this building? I guess then I'll comment. On the little towers. The ones I'm looking at in the city kind of add a roof line but when we really get down to push and shove and you look in them, they're artificial. They're fake. They're maybe just a little blt trendy and I just wonder if they were at all functional or if they were sort of classy or they had a touch but they look like they're an add on and they look like they're put on because it's sort of matches a certain deslgn standard rlght now. And I'm starting to disllke them because they're starting to look kind of cheap and artificial and an add on so just a comment. Councilman Workman: You mean the top towers? Councilman Wing: The little look outs. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can have a mannequin on the top there and appear like someone's waving. Councilman Workman: They're useable. It's a historical thing in that we're a German community. When the Germans come to liberate us, we're going to be up there in the tower. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, sorry I started this. Councilman Wing: One lantern if by land and. 28 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilman Mason: Something like that. Councilman Wing: We need a motion of some sort here. Councilwoman Dlmler: Walt a minute. We need to talk about slgnage too. Councilman Mason: Yeah, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we have to address those thlngs at this particular time. All we're doing is looking at this as a site plan review for the structure in itself. Councilwoman Dimler: But they mlght want some input as to what we'd like to see. Councilman Mason: How's the sign ordinance coming along? Councilman Workman: It kind of died on the hoof for now. Sharmin Al-Jarl: It's being worked on again. You'll have a meeting. Mayor Chmiel: They do have the sign covenants as you see item 9 within it. And that pretty much covers all the things. Councilwoman 0imler: I guess the question was on the illumination on the north side because of the apartments there. Councilman Mason: It was commented somewhere in the report and I think people agreed to it that the parklng lights were brighter than. Councilwoman Dimler: And they're turned off business hours but there was an argument as to what's after buslness hours for some people is 10:00. £specially if you have accountants and lawyers and those kinds of people in there. Sharmin Al-Jarl: I pulled the language from Phase I and tt was the recommendation that you made. You came up with that lights be turned off after business hours so I just stayed consistent with Phase I. Councilwoman 0imler: Yeah. I think tt's a good idea but what are business hours? I guess has that been established? Mayor Chmiel: I think there were concerns because of the Heritage Park Apartments so those lights were off at a speclflc time rather than constantly being on. Councilwoman 0imler: What's been done with the present building? Sharm£n A1-3aff: I was up there yesterday at night and the lights were out. That was around 10:00. So what time do they turn the slgnage off? I don't know. Councilwoman Olmler: No complaints? City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Sharmin Al-Jaff: No complaints at all. Councilman Workman: To me I'm ready to approve this. I think we just have them do what they're dolng now over there. I mean there's not a whole lot of difference. I would however, on page 2 there. That last paragraph about the sign covenant and how staff ls proposing changes. I would bolt for the door if I read that and I wouldn't develop thls project but knowing what we went through on the other half but I guess we'll know more about that later. I'd move approval of Site Plan Review, Chanhassen Professional Building Phase II. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Site Plan Review ~88-177 Councilman Workman: Correct. Mayor Chmlel: And with a second. Discussion. Councilman Wing: And ulth no declslon on the canopy at this tlme? Councilman Mason: Yeah, are we scratching number 4 from that? Mayor Chmiel: Well that is not saying that we have to come up with a conclusion on it rlght now. At least that would be my suggestion. They wlll be pulling a permit but the construction won't be there and I think that can be looked at a 11ttle later time yet. Councilman Wlng: You choose to deal ulth that at a later tlme? Mayor Chmlel: Right. It stLll is carrLed as item number 4 within wlth that clarification. Sharmln Al-Jarl: Does that mean we have to take it in front of you before they apply for a buildlng permit or can they proceed wlth thetr building? Mayor Chmiel: I think they can proceed with thelr buildlng permit but the discussion of the canopy still remalns open. Whether it should be or not. I'm ready to go without it rlght now but I think Council is wanting to look at that a little closer. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm ready to go without. Councilman Wing: I think maybe a majority is willing to vote right now. Mayor Chmiel: Then I'll restate the question. We have a first and second with some additional discussions regarding the canopy to either have it in place or not. And I'd 11kc to make that as a clarification to the motlon as well as a second that thls should also be discussed at this particular time. Prlor to that motlon. And I feel that the part be lncluded into that motlon would be to eliminate the canopy at thls time. Councilwoman Oimler: I'd second that. 3O City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: And go from there. Councilman Mason: That's fine with me. Councilman Workman: We're going to eliminate it? Councilwoman Oimler: Yes. Councilman Workman: I thought you were saying we were going to wait on it. Mayor Chmiel: That's what I said but I then restated it as you are discussing. Councilman Workman: Z'd just as soon leave the optlon open. I will filibuster. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, there's a motion on the floor and a second. Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, there lsa motion on the floor and a second to eliminate the canopy. Councilman Workman: Then I'll wlthdraw my motion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The second has to withdraw his motion as well. Then I would re-entertain a motion for the acceptance of the site plan review ~88-17 as shown on a site plan dated September 18, 1992 subject to the conditions number 1, 2, 3, 4 belng eliminated indicating that the canopy should no longer be part of the building. And items 5, 6, 7 and 8 with the sign covenants 9 to go through each of those respective items a, b, c which each of the numbers. Councilman Wing: I second that for discussion. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Councilman Wing: I favor the canopy but not for $80,000.00 of HRA money. I agree with Ursula. If the developer so chooses and it's important put it in but not with city money. Councilman Workman: Could you repeat the motion? It's as the Plannlng Commission? Councilwoman Olmler: But without the canopy. Mayor Chmiel: But without the canopy. Councilman Workman: And who's motion is that? Mayor Chmiel: I made the motion. Councilman Wlng: I seconded it. Mayor Chmial: Ursula seconded it. Councilwoman Olmler: And he thirded lt. City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilman Wing: Oh. I thought you had a new one. Councilman Workman: I guess I preferred the leave it in as an option until a ].ater date. Mayor Chmiel: But as they go ahead and move forward acquiring their permits for this, it should be pretty much in place at this time. Any other discussion? Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Site Plan Review ~88-17 as shown on the site plan dated September 18, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1. No restaurant may be located in the western one-half of the Phase building. 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior. 3. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along West 78th Street. 4. No canopy shall be built between the two phases of the Medical Arts Building. 5. Meet all conditions outllned in the Fire Marshal's memo dated August 1992. Amend the Development Contract between the HRA and Chanhassen Medical Arts Llmlted Partnership to allow a public access door on the south face of the buildlng wlthin the 20 feet of the west end of the structure. 7. All HVAC equipment placed on the ground must be screened with landscaping. Coordinate site improvements with the Chanhassen Houslng and Redevelopment Authority. Sign covenants shall meet the following criteria: a. Wall Mounted Signs: 1. Signs are only allowed wlthln a continuous 2'2" high band near the roof line on the north and south sides of the building, including the projections over entrles. Slgns shall be attached dlrectly to the buildlng siding and not project above or below the designated sign area. 2. All signs shall be comprised of individual letters and/or logos. Letters shall not exceed 12" in height and logos shall not exceed 24" in height. 3. A tenant may have no more than two signs with the building having a maxlmum of 14 signs total on the north and south sides. Copy ls restrictied to the tenant's proper name or service offered. 32 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 4. Slgns on the north and south elevations shall be illuminated. The lights of the signage on the north side of the bu£1ding, fac£ng the Herltage Park Apartments, shall be turned off when business hours are over. b. Free Standlng Signs: 1. Mounument Slgn: One slngle slded monument sign for building identification (not tenant identification) may be placed in the southwest yard between the bulldlng and the sidewalk. The top of the sign may not exceed 4 feet in height. The dimensions of the slgn may not exceed 2 feet high by 14 feet wlde. The copy shall have a maximum height of one foot and be internally t11um£nated. c. General: 1. One non-illuminated temporary real estate sign whlch advertise sale of the building or space for lease within the building. This sign must meet the Clty's current slgn ordinance requirements. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any slgnage on site. 3. Stop slgn shall be installed at the exit point proposed on West ?8th Street. voted in favor and the motion carried. NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONA~ ~EACHLOT= MINNEWASHTA CREel( HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Roger Knutson: It was addressed to me, this one's m/ne. Only because Paul went home. I was just supposed to relate to you that the Planning Commission has recommended approval. Two boats. There was no one In oppositlon...acceptance. Councilwoman Oimler: What about the swimming raft though? Mayor Chmiel: That was included in the Planning Commission's recommendations. Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilwoman Dlmler: So they recommend two boats with a swlmmlng raft. Roger Knutson: That £s correct. Councilwoman Oimler: I move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Councilman Wing: I would ask Ursula, just as a friendly amendment, include a notation of the deck setback zone as part of the approval process. So that's 33 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 clarified. Councilwoman Oimler: Isn't that part? I mean that's understood. Councilman Wing: I'd just like it in the permit so it's documented. Mayor Chmiel: Also, those boats being moored outside of the swimming beach area. Councilwoman Oimler: Yes, I'll accept that. Councilman Mason: So will the second. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Non-Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Hinnewashta Creek Homeowners Association allowing no dock, two boats to be moored outside of the swimming beach area and within the dock setback zone and a swimming raft. Al1 voted in favor and the motion carried. HIGHWAY 5 FRONTAGE ROAD PROJECT, LETTER ACKNOWLEDGING ROLE OF MNDOT AND CITY. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, do we have any questions on this item? Councilwoman Dimler: I do. Councilman Wing: Oh, okay. Councilwoman Dimler: I've got a thousand things. Mayor Chmiel: I don't have a lot. Councilman Wing: If I moved acceptance, would that allow you to cover your lssues on discussion or do they go beyond that? Mayor Chmiel: Well, one of the things I want to make sure is that if they don't know, I'm sure that people should be made aware. All property owners in and adjacent to Highway 5 on the north slde of TH 5 are well aware and be notlfied agaln that this will be taking place with MnOot's proposed construction of Hlghway 5 from County Road 17 to Hlghway al. And that all property owners in and adjacent should be well aware because we're talking about two different things. We're talklng about a servlce road to the north. We're talklng about a service road on the south but the south service road is not going to be located approximately as close to Highway 5 as what the north slde will be. The south side's going to meander several hundred feet from point to point and so with that I see we have a return and we voted on it and thank you for your comments. No, we're discussing item number 11 which is Highway 5 frontage road project. And we're discussing some of the different things on it and what's golng to be taklng place. There's some questions that I have but maybe with your infinite wlsdom you can provide us the assurety that what we're talktng about doing here ls the best thing for the City. 34 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Oon Ashworth: No questlon in my mind that it is in the best tnterest of. I Find it very difficult to belleve that we're going to be able to carry out the construction of that north frontage road and using solely dollars from the city. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we can't afford it. Don Ashworth: I just can't see where that's... I do believe that that's an integral part of the plan and I think that's a very important part because for cltlzens from the maln portion of town to be able to travel safely out to Lake Ann Park and similarly from new residential areas that are going to be created to the west, to similarly get to Lake Ann and even into downtown because if you look at that north frontage road, it's kind of a continuous way throughout the community. That's golng to be the most logical way to get into the downtown area. Then the question becomes one of how could you, if you can't do it with clty funds, how in the world could it get done. ! thlnk that the Bill Morrish plan, and taking that over to MnOot and the Mayor has been very £mportant in those serles of meetings with Crawford and flnally gettlng thelr agreement to incorporating that as a part of that project. They will act as the, help me wlth the acronym Don. RUG? GUR? Mayor Chmiel: The RGU. Regulated Governmental Unit. Don Ashworth: As a part of this process whlch literally makes it a slam dunk to ensure that we do get Federal and State dollars. There is a cost to the City associated wlth it but what's occurred is over, it started out with them at approximately $2 million and ourselves at $1 m£111on. Now we have them for $2.5 mlllion and ourselves at $500,000.00. Our costs are primarily for the things that we would want over and above what it £s that the State might ord£narily build. Z would propose that the funding for this come out of three tax increment districts. The larger district which goes between CR 17 and Audubon. McGlynn, which ls between Audubon and CR 117. And by the time that this project is finalized or the major portion of the costs being paid, there will be a third dlstrlct and my own, I belteve that would exist between CR 117 and TH 41. If that didn't exist, the other two could split it. But with Opus coming on line, or at least starting to look to development of that property. That could be well over a million square feet of new development just in the Opus development area. Thls slmply puts us in track to be able to ensure that the frontage road project does occur with Highway 5. The only thing I feel sorry for is that the north frontage road isn't belng bullt today. That's the only regret. Mayor Chmiel: Well it should, yeah. The question I was just going to ask on that, with MnOot looking at putting the balance of this road in by lgg6? Oon Ashworth: The same, they would build it paralZeling Highway 5 construction. Mayor Chmlel: Right. Would there be any chance for MnOot to get that service road in prior to that time? Don Ashworth: Once we've completed the EA, I would see that would be good strategy for potentially you and I to meet with Bill and see what we can do to push up the schedule. Because at that point in time they'd have it approved. It aould simply be a matter of ~hat's the log£cal construction date and we could go on the premise that we did in his office from, whatever months ago, that thls 35 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 should be looked at as freeing up the construction for Highway 5. They could literally move it to the north frontage road. Open up the whole area. They could save almost 6 to 12 months of construction. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and using that, they could also use that road as you said. As egress on there and really pound at getting that completed. Don Ashworth: Once they have finished the EA process to ensure that it is incorporated and the Fed's have agreed that it's a part of that project, that would be the time that I'd walk over there and say, okay. Now how do we accelerate it's construction. Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, alright. Good. The other point, when you were gone. We mentioned the fact that making all of these property owners fully aware of this situation. On both sides of Hlghway 5. That thls process ls in place and it's going to be moving and glve them some timeframe. Oon Ashworth: Isn't that really part of the agenda of the Highway Task Force? Mayor Chmiel: I think it is but yet just to double check and make sure that no one mlsses, I thlnk that that probably should be done. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would really stress that point because I know that we've had discussions and Mr. Gorra came in and some other people came in to discuss their concerns. I mean this heavily impacts some property owners and for us to even have gone thls far in the process wlthout them having been involved, I'm just amazed. I think we're going to run lnto some problems there. Mayor Chmiel: There was some notifications in news media about some of this taking place. Councilwoman Dimler: But I mean them being directly as property owners notified. And then also, just a second. I asked last time too that, have we got any ldea what it's going to cost us? I see here that all frontage road right-of-way costs will be a city expense. Do we have any idea what that might be and do these estimates up here include that land acquisition cost or not? Last time they didn't. I don't think they reflect it now either. Don Ashworth: They do not. I don't have that number for you. Councilwoman Oimler: Because that might be quite expensive. And would that come out of HRA? Is that what you're saying? Don Ashworth: Well yeah. All of the costs would be eligible costs under all three of the districts so it's golng to take the total cost and dlvidlng it by three and back to each one. But the issue, you bring out a good point. Especially as it relates to, how many of the exlsting parcels are they proposing to take? For example, it's going to be a total taking for Kerber. Is that taking seen as something that MnDot would be, if for the highway right-of-way they need to take his property, then our being in the northerly portion of that property is not a major expense. If we have to take his property in total, including his house, that's going to be a higher expense. City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: And aisc possibly you're going to be knocking out ail of Swings, which is a total taking. I mean these are major impacts on these property owners. I think they should be involved in the process. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I should withdraw that portion of what I said before. What we should do is just get the service road in from CR 17 to Lake Ann Park and then let MnOot acquire all the additional right-of-way that they have to because they're willlng to put that service road in for us in and adjacent to lt. That would be their dollars being spent to acquire that right-of-way. Don Ashworth: Why don't we table action on this and potentially have an additional meeting with MnOot. There's some major dollars that are on the table in terms of our agreeing to the construction through Lake Ann which, by the way is not that much. 50 feet or something. We may be giving up the opportunity to really use that to ensure that we get as many MnOot dollars into the project as we can, which would include right-of-way acquisition. Or at least some better...than what we have now. Councilwoman Oimler: That seems a more reasonable approach. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion to table this particular item until further discussion is done with MnOot? Councilwoman Dimler: So moved. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the Highway 5 Frontage Road Project, the letter acknowledging role of HnDot and City until further discussion is had with MnOot. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPOINTMENT TO THE SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT BOARD. Mayor Chmiel: Being that Mr. Mason is going to be going over, it would be nice if Mr. Wing consents to the fact that he would just serve on that board. Either fully or for an interim period until other Council people are on board. Councilman Wing: You do whatever you want. I won't be at the meetings but will it sound good? If I'm at home I'll go but between the Fire Oepartment and the Clty and another item. Mayor Chmiel: You wife won't allow you. Councilman Wing: Well I simply can't get them at1 off. Mayor Chmiel: And I wouldn't disagree with that. Councilman Wing: I don't mind the time. I just simply cannot schedule the time. Councilman Mason: I was just going to say. We don't have to wait until someone gets sworn in. I mean right after the election someone could be appointed 37 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 couldn't they? Mayor Chmiel: Sworn in or sworn at. Councilman Mason: Well a little bit of both probably. I mean someone could be appointed as soon as, well by the November meeting couldn't they? Councilman Workman: What is the rule? We have to have a City Council member? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Two City Council members. Councilman Workman: I think we can, they only have monthly meetings. Councilman Wing: I'll take it in the interim. There's no problem with that. Z'11 be happy to do that. I just don't lntend to. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would someone make a motion? Councilman Workman: I would move Richard Wlng to the Southwest Metro Transit Board. Counciiman Wing: I'll second it. Councilman Mason: Can he do that? Councilwoman Oimler: Yes he can. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to appoint Richard Wing to the Southwest Metro Transit Board. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: REVIEW ANIMAL ORDINANCE SECTION REQUIRING THAT CATS BE LEASHED, COUNCILMAN WORKMAN. Councilman Workman: I was going to bring this up. There's a couple in town. They've got ticketed. It's another one of those ordinances where I have two neighbors and they have cats and they don't bother me so those people are allowed to let their cats run free because it's really an ordinance you don't enforce. We don't enforce cats. But if you live next door to somebody who doesn't like your cat or your cat happens to go to the bathroom in your kids sandbox or other, then you have a problem. Then you call up Clty Hall and say, my neighbors got a cat and obviously that's a protection. That's why we have the ordinance. There was a couple in town who were quite angry wlth the fact that they had to keep control of their cat. I'm reminded of the politician that I heard at a State Conference Committee and he sald, trylng to get all these groups together was like herding cats. Imagine that. You can't herd cats and you see you can't verbally command a cat and you can't, you know what I mean? My dog, he'll stop at the property line when I tell hlm. Her to. So cats are klnd of different. I understand why we have it as a protection for the people who do have neighbors who have cats running all over and they don't like them but lt's another one of those ordinances where people, lt's selective enforcement. I don't like my neighbor so I'm going to call up on their cat. Or 38 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 I don't like my neighbor so I'm going to call up on their dog because it's hardly an ordinance that we can enforce. But since those people aren't here to back all thls malarky up, I guess I'll leave it go and then when I can get together with them, like the last meeting in Oecember...so we ban them from the parks. Even on leashes you can't take a dog in the park so we've got all these people with pets. People and pets are coming out of their ears and they've got noplace to go and have you ever gone by a house where they've got a cat on a leash? It's the funniest thing you've ever seen. It's almost as funny as a rabbit. A rabblt on a leash and so while we've got the ordinance and one sentence, all dogs and cats must be on a leash. It's really an ordinance that ls selectively enforced. And we can talk about that later. REQUEST TO HODIFY SPEED LIHIT ON TH 101 BETWEEH HILL STREET AND WEST 78TH STREET, COUNCILHAN WORKHBN. Councilman Workman: I was at a party earlier this summer and a lot of neighbors in my neighborhood where we live by that corner. You're all familiar with that corner and the trafflc is getting more and more every day. And they all complained to me, of course on one of my days off, that we've got a problem with speed on that corner. Can't you do something? Suddenly it was my road. What ! found out was, through engineering and Dave Hempel is that they went out there, MnOot, and they did a study. And the study said everybody's going 45 mph out there. In this corner where there's. Councilwoman Dimler: 50. Councilman Workman: Everybody's going 50 mph out there and so we're going to set it up 45 right. It was at 40. Now we're going to set it at 45 because that's what everybody's going. Well in that case we should have downtown Chanhassen at least 50 okay. I understand the£r reasoning but I don't beIieve they're taking lnto account the corner and the fact that that boat access and fishing house and the winter access Ls ali coming out there. People taking lefts and rights and they're comlng around that corner so fast. I live near there. I hear the squealing and the screeching ali the time. Not to mention that if you're golng to make a left coming the west into my neighborhood, there's no turn lane by the apartments and so peopIe in the wintertime are going, trlpplng and spllling over into the ditch. And there's police cars and everybody else out there. I think it's ludicrous that they raised it. They should have left it alone. If anything, my desire is to work with staff and the City Council and I'd like the Clty Council, I don't know if we can. Maybe they can help me direct staff but I'd like staff to work with MnDot to somewhere just north of the curve, start to slow these people down somehow. Now granted I understand from 4 years on the Counctl that just putting a sign up and saying 20 mph doesn't mean they're going to go that way. But to start slowing them down on that corner because they're, you know. And they're getting to that intersection down there and we're going to read the Taco intersection and they're crulsing lnto that intersection, so. Mayor Chmiel: Charles, could we on existing speed limits, number one. Get that speed reduced even though MnOot's saying that they were going 50 so they put it down to 45 when it was 40 previousIy. SecondIy, on those signs, can we put radar patrolled? That has tendencies to start slowing people down when they see that. City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Charles Folch: To answer your first question. The City itself of course does not have the jurisdiction to be able to by themselves lower that. Number two, what I would foresee happening here. Wlth the future completion next year, if everything goes well, of the north leg TH 101 improvement project, you're now creating an urban section from the southerly access of South Shore Drlve back towards, lt's golng to be a signalized intersection with a double crossing of a railroad track. I'm confident MnDot ls golng to be very interested at our request to revisit that issue of speeds in that general area. What also may be an appropriate idea is, I mlght even be able to brlng in MnDot's traffic enginee. At a future Council meeting we could invite the effected neighborhood in and maybe ue can basically dlscuss ulth the traffic engineer from HnDot what the concerns are and maybe that would bring things to a head. As far as addtng the additional information on the speed 11mlt signs, as far as radar patrolled. Certainly we can, that's a sign that's accepted and we could certainly attach that to the speed 11mit signs. Whether or not that u111 guarantee reduction or not of course ls not know. Mayor Chmlel: I think people sort of respect those signs, at least I do. And more often than not I'm also knoun as a lead foot as well but I think the point belng is that that's not the only area that needs it. I thlnk we need it on downtown because when I had that radar gun and I was checking speeds, we were gettlng 45 and 50 and we had that many because many of them were at the 30 mph speeds or at 35 but there are a slight few that go 50 mph down our main street, whlch ls ?8th and I have real concerns with our pedestrians withln the clty. And I've been having discussions with some of the buslness people in downtown saylng, they have a hard tlme trying to get across 78th Street. And they're not elderly. I mean they're young enough and agile enough where they can move but yet something has got to be done with that. Charles Folch: The only, well one adverse long term effect that I can see is you're golng to put some sort of secondary information like radar enforced on, that may have an impact initially but over time, if it's not enforced. If the people aren't seeing patrol cars out there, they aren't seeing people stopped getting tickets written, after a few months they'll learn to ignore the sign. Mayor Chmiel: I'm not advocate of giving them tickets just because of giving them tickets. I'm concerned about the people within town and I've asked Public Safety to get our radar out there on a more frequent basls than what we're doing. The Sheriff is sitting on ?8th early mornings and zapping people coming through. And yet it doesn't seem to do the trick and maybe glving tickets, citations is the way to go. I'm not advocate of it by any means but somehow we're golng to have to start sloulng them down just 11ke they do when you're going into Excelsior. You get into Excelsior and by God you slow down to 30 mph. Councilwoman Dlmler: Everybody does. Mayor Chmiel: And if you don't, you know what happens. Charles Folch: It is enforced and that's the key right there. Councilman Workman: On county roads, and that is a county road all the way to Excelsior right? 4O City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilman Workman: Does MnDot set those? Can they set those speed limits also? Charles Folch: They have jurisdiction of speed limits over all roads. Councilman Workman: Because see in ali the arguments that we've ever used and clearly in thelr memos you know about, you know we take the median speed that everybody's going and then that's what we do. C[early people would be going 50 through that area of £xcelsior. Charles Folch: Taking the 85th percentile is just one of the criteria if you w111 they use to evaluate it. They also look at the geometrlcs of the road. The curves. How the spacing of the driveway and other type of intersection accesses. So 85 percentile speed is just one factor. It does play a big role but certainly if there's a lot of driveways or a sharp curve, they certainly won't allow that speed to be posted. Councilman Workman: Can we maybe try to attempt to get this together for the flrst meetlng in November? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Charles Folch: You bet. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Councilman Mason: One real quick comment, and I did mean to get this on Counctl Presentation. It seems like every time I read through the administrative packet there's always a letter from another community thanking somebody on the Chart staff for helping them out. For the fine job they've done and it's, once again I thlnk it just shows what the good things that are happening in the city and it's fun to read those letters. Nice to see them in there. Mayor Chmiel: It's good to bring that up. Thank you. Can I have a motion for adjournment? Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Mayor Chmiel: John, did you want to say something before we close it? John Pryzmus: No, I just came on by. I seen in the paper that there was a deal on the frontage road...' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we talked about it some and in fact we were requesting that the City notify everybody again as to where it-is. What we're looking at. What the status ls. What the tlmeframes mlght be. And ! think what they're looklng at is probably about 1996 so... (The tape ended at this point in the discussion.) 41 City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 Submitted by Don Ashuorth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 42