The URL can be used to link to this page

1992 09 28CHRNHASSEN CZTY COUNCZL REGULAR HEETZNG SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7=30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL~EHBERS PRESENT: Mayor Cheiel, Councilman Mason and Councilman Wing. Councilman Workman arrived after the Consent Agenda. COUEILtE~ERS ~BSENT: Councilwoman Otmler STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Charles Folch, Paul Krauss, Sharmin Al-Jeff, Todd Hoffman, Scott Marr and Todd Gerhardt ~PPROV~L OF P~: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda as amended by Mayor Chm~el to add an Adm£n~stratJve Presentation regarding sever assessment for an /ndtvtdual. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLZC RNMOUNCEttENTS: None. CONSENT RGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the folloulng Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution ~92-X07: Accept Street Improvements In Minnewashta Highlands, project 88-6. b. Re~olutjon t92-10~: Metes and Bounds Subdivision of a 1.5 Acre Parcel Into tuo lots of 29,172 and 20,000 square feet,-8412 Great Platns Boulevard, Eugene Klein. c. Reraolution ~-1~9: 1992 Bonding Program, Set Sale Date, October 26, 1992. d. City Code Amendment Allowing the Sale of Intoxicating Malt Liquor with a Wing License, First Reading. e. Approval of Accounts. f. City Council Minutes dated September 14, 1992 Public Safety Commission M~nutes dated September 10, 1992 g. R~olution ~9g-110: Approve Resolution SupPorting a Constitutional Amendment Creating a New Property Taxpayers' Trust Fund [n Minnesota. h. City Code Amendment Prohibiting Unauthorized Remora! of Stop Work Orders, First Reading. voted in favor and the motion carrted. Mayor Chmiel presented a b~rthday cake to Don Ashworth and everyone sang Happy Birthday. City Council Meeting - September 28, [992 UTSTTOR.PRESENTAT!ON$: None. ~JBL~C HE~RING: ~MENr~IENT OF Y~AR XUI! ST~TEI'IENT OF PRO3ECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR THE URBAN HENN£PZN COUNTY COHI'IUNZTY DE~ELOPI'IENT BLOCK GRANT. Mayor Chmiel caIled the pubIic hearing to order. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, simply this ts one of the periodic number of changes we make to the Block Grant funding program as needs become apparent. What we're proposing to do is reallocate $5,000.00 we had set aside for Old Village Hall handicapped accessibility and $500.00 that's remaining from our handicapped accessible totlot at Chan Elementary Into the Senior Services Account so we can use it towards the sa[sty of the Senior Coordinator. We found out that to spend the $5,000.00 on the Old Village Hall, we had to do $20,000.00 worth of study so it just didn't seem to be very worth while. As to the other project, we wanted to reallocate approximately $2,000.00 that remained unspent into the housing study that's ongoing. That senior service plan we were able to do in-house and with volunteer assistance and with the donation of printing work from Instant Webb so we were able to get the product done for free so we'd like to put that money to good use elsewhere. So we're recommending that you approve a resolution reallocating those funds. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone at this time who wishes to state an opinion in regards to this? This is a public hearing. Something that we've worked very hard on in acquiring and through some of the problems that are coming up, we are trying not to lose these CDBG funds. And hopefully we can continue with this and assist with things within the community. If seeing none, I'd ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing #as closed. Councilman Workman: If I read this right then, in light of the letters that are going back and forth about the legality of Hennepin County giving us these funds, where are we? Are we planning on where we're going to get the funds in future years or how long are we hiring Dawn and are we going to be able to pay for Dawn next year if we don't have these? Well, you're saying we're going to have what, $14,000.007 Paul Krauss: Approximately. Actually a little more than that this year. Councilman Workman: Is that subject to them maybe saying no, we aren't going to get those or is that 1995 or are we looking at the future? Paul Krauss: It's a good question Councilman Workman. We are having problems with the Block Grant program. We have commitments to go through the fiscal year that started in July. So these funds are given. That's not a question. The question is next year. Councilman Workman: At July? Paul Krauss: Yeah. As to whether or not, you know how Dawn's position is funded, that's something that's going to be brought up to you in the budget City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 process over the next couple of months. The dollars that are available to hire the Sentor Coordinator can be used for part-time coordinator, fu[[-ttee coordinator, whatever is chosen. Yes, we've stated a desire to bring Dawn on full-time but that's something we're going to need to make a case for you over the next month or two. Having these funds available allows us to spend tt on whoever's doing it full-time/part-time so it's not'a commitment to a full-time position. Councilman Workman: So I mean this is going to get us through this year but we would be committng, hopefully funds [ike any other employee.here. Paul Krauss: That's true. Unless we can get the problems with the Block Grant resolved and we're still hopeful that we can. It's conceIveable that as of next July there would be no Block Grant funds available and [f Dawn or whoever's put on full-time tn that capacity, at that point [t would be entirely the City's responsibility stnce we wouldn't have access to Federal funds; . . Councilman Workman: What's the percentage of chance that we might not have those funds? : Paul Krauss: It's kind of hard to guess. The ~ayor and ! and Don ~shuorth have been working real hard on that. Congressman Ramstad's office seems to be doing a lot for us in that regard. I think we have about a S0/50 shot. Mayor Chm£el: I think just to make everyone aware, we get these funds through Hennepln County and because of the residences that we had contained within the city, we kept receiving these funds. But because of the highway coming through and knocking out the residential homes within our city, within Henneptn County, this is supposedly to throw our ability to acquire these funds from Menneptn County. But because of the State taking these properties, the residences, through no fault of ours but because of the.expansion of H[ghway S, we felt that we had at least a leg to stand on'to still acquire those spectf[c funds because if the Highway Oepartment didn't come through, take out those residential homes, we would still be getting those block grants from them. With just a little background information.' So hopefully what we've done'is we've written to both our Senators and our Congressmen requesting.that they support this measure and introduce into some existing legislation as a rider, that this be an acceptable situation because of what we have gone"through,. So hopefully with that, and Congressman Rams[ad has been working on it rather dilligently and hopefully we will get that through. · : '~. ..... . Councilman Wing: ! think that's the best paying Ii[tie chunk of [and I've ever seen. The dollars here are [992 budget dollars being rea~located tn [992 totally. The only plug ! want to put in ts we talked about seniors-and senior supervisors and a lot of downtown sen[ors'but the eenLors that aren't healthy enough and can't make it.to [he'.senior center are being'cared for by the Sojourn Center out west and [ don't think'that should be overlooked and [ think even as Oawn comes on, as dollars becomes available or'dollars are'needed at Sojourn, should be kept tn this program. .. Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, I think as you're aware, and with some of your interest and participation, Sojourn has been getting I think $3,000.00 a year City Council Meeting - September 28, [992 for the last two. As long as we continue to get the funds, we're happy to continue working with them. Mayor Chmiel: $o with that discussion, a motions on the floor with a first and a second. Councilman Workman: ! don't think there was a first and a second. Mayor chmiel: Yeah, we called to close it. We closed it. We've already gone through that. We are now in process and ! asked for a motion. There was a first and a second and you had comments to make. Councilman Workman: Okay, I'll buy that. Resolution ~1~2-111: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Nason seconded to adopt the resolution reallocat/ng Year XVI! Community Development Block Grant funds. Al! voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBL:[C HE~d~ING: WES? 78TH STREET DETACHflENT PRO3ECT 92-3; AUTHORTZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPI~CIFICATZONS. Public Hearing: Name Addresa Jim Dvorak B.C. "Jlm"& Brlgitte Burdick Charlie James Dick Koppy Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch 4930 Meadville, Excelsior T.F. James Company RLK Associates Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. At your regular meeting on March 9th of thls year a publlc hearing was held concerning the supplement report to the feasibility study for the West 78th Street detachment project. At that hearlng, it became obvlous that there was st111 some ooncerns between the adjacent property owners concerning access locations and control. Therefore, we deoided to continue the publlc hearing unt11 such tlme as these outstanding issues could be resolved. During that time process that followed, staff became aware that Target was interested in developing on a site adjacent to the detachment roadway. Bus to potential major impacts that a retail development such as this would have on the roadway, staff concluded that it would be in the best interest to delay completing this feasibility study until Target had officially chosen a site location and submitted conceptual site plans for city review. These submittals have since transpired and at the last meeting on September 14th, conceptual PUB approval was given for the Target site plan and tonight, later on in the agenda, further approval processes are scheduled for the Target proposal. A number of meetings have occurred between staff and the Target people and Charlie James, the property to the north of the detachment, to acquire information and input on their concerns related to design and other aspects of the project and staff and the consultant have attempted to incorporate these relevant concerns into this revised project proposal. Tonight we have our project consultant engineer, Jim Ovorak here to give you a presentation on this current edition of the project. I think he's passed out City council Meeting - September 28, 1992 some revised information concerning the project cost, preliminary assessment ro11, and some figures. Jim. 3im Dvorak: A good portion of the work that's been done to date on this project concerns the area between Pouers Boulevard and Kerber. As the original study that ae brought to you in Hatch, basically changed the design done in 1987 to a 5 lane section ~tth left turn lanes and medians. This is really an extension of that based on some of the input us'ye received from the Target development, ahich is supposed to be about in this site. Kerber would be over just off to the east of the graphic here' guite a bit of discussion has taken place to date on all the various entrance locations and number of accesses and ahere our signals and such should go. We are basically standing aith what us.had... have shown here a schematic ahere ae have one what we're calling a full access or main entrance road that uould serve both the north parcel and the south parcel. At that point ae are nov proposing this south signal. That signal #as not part of the original... The other driveways that are shown reflect what was proposed on the Target site plan in'this location and then a couple of drive locations to the north that may or may not.be used to serve the. 3ames parcel. Rlong with this, this is a schematic of Powers.Boulevard, north'and south. This is actually like north is up then. West 78th in this location, TH 5 here and' then a future frontage road off to the asst.' HnOot ~as reconstructing Highway 5 this last construction season and the original plan ~as to have HnOot reconstruct Powers 8oulevard to approximately this location: Because of the delay in this project, West 78th currently is hitting at Just about this point. They could not do that construction so that has no~ become part'of this project. So this project really encompasses all of Pouers Boulevard from Highway 5 to the north to this touchdoan. Here again'you can see the medians. Channelization. Hinimum of 5 lane sections. Turn lanes divided.and that type of-thing. guess [ mould also like to point out that all the amenities and types of improvements that were initially expected to take place with the project are still in the numbers that we present. In other words, the lighting and the landscaping, sidewalks, and those types of things. Signal systems, they're all still in the project and in the dollar'values I'm'going to present' In addition to the project proposed west of Kerber, there are some modifications that are also being...to the east along with several signal systems to promote traffic flow throughout the city's downtown area~ 'There are some turn.lane ~ork that is proposed betaeen Kerber and Laredo on the north side and between Kerber and Harket on the south side. There's some-widening'and-nose reconstruction to allo~ for thru turns and to facilitate'turns and-those types'of things. It also would allow to get the radius back where they need'to-be developed in'the' sections so that we have the signal systems properly placed so ~e don't have to go back and revise those in the future when the ultimate width is constructed. Work at the east end of to~n at Great Plains and ~est 78th, revising that intersection. There's a clock to,er and some median work extending the t~rn lane and such. The costs of everything I've been talking about is approximately $2.3 million. Slightly higher from the original study ! believe was-'about'$1.9 or closer to $2 million dollars. The added cost is, number'one in the extra work encompassing Powers-now; Number two, the.signal'at the'Target'entrance. Rnd thirdly, a little bit'more lane'and width ~ork that'is now proposed on ~est 78th and that area. This $2.3 million is only'for Kerber; or'~est-78th between Powers and Kerber and Powers Boulevard. The ~ork that is comprehended from Kerber to the east has been kind of putting a footnote here on the bottom. $784,000.00. That is for the remaining signal system, interconnect some of the City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 work that has been requested as far as your receiving a pre-emption and controlling traffic signals at City Hall. We've kind of also threw out, because really the assessments for the project are dealt with in the numbers up above in the $2.3 million and the $784,000.00 for that other work is comprehended to come out of some type of general obligation funds. I have then a revised assessment table or project financing table. The proposed street assessments have been computed now to approximately $180.00 per front foot. That is the assessment for grading, paving, sidewalks, and that type of work. He have not included the signals, the landscaping or the lighting system in that street assessment. With that then ue have storm drainage assessments. Sanitary sewer and water will be totally assessed so we're looking at approximately $884,000.00 being assessed. $1.4 million being then general obligation amount from the city for a total of $2.3 million. Here again the $784,000.00 for the work between Kerber and Great Plains will be considered to be part of the general obligation amount. There has also been included in the revised table, an updated assessment roll. You probably can't read this it's so small. I guess I have extra copies of the feasibility for anybody who needs it. Oust see me and I can get you that. Basically this breaks out how the storm drainage, sanitary sewer, watermain, street assessments are proposed. There's one other item to note here. The signal at the Target entrance and the James parcel to the north and that signal is mainly there to adequate serve the proposed development. Based on that we felt, along with staff that it was fair to assess that signal to the properties to the north and the south and that assessment has been made on a square foot basis for each one of those parcels. With that then I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone has or... Mayor Chmiel: Jim, just one question that I have. You're talking about general obligation. That really is not general obligation. It comes out of HRA funding so it's two different things. If it were that, then we'd have concerned citizens coming after us with a particular amount. Those are dollars that are through the TIF district. Jim Dvorak: So they're all funded and set aside through the tax increment financing? Mayor Chmlel: That's correct. That's correct. Councilman Wing: Could Don Ashworth, or either one, the $784,000.00 then for the east portion, that does not lnclude any proposed widenlng or the yellow zone you showed us the other night at HEAr Don Ashworth: Yes it does. Councilman Wing: It does. Jim Dvorak: It does. That includes all the widenlng from what we're calling the first phase or what, through meetings with staff and the Public Safety folks, what we thought was needed to adequately serve the downtown area today. It also moves the curb back, as I said before, at the intersection so signals could be properly placed today so they won't have to be moved in the future when all the widening is done. City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Charles Folch: Flgures 3 and 4 show the proposed Improvements east of ~tarket Boulevard as far as the widening, the median treatments and such. Mayor Chmiel: What does that do to the center median in itself? Anything presently with our existing lighting and trees and everything else that we've put in there? Dvorak: Most of the widening has been accomplished on the outside. Mayor Chmiel: The outer limits of the curb portion. Councilman Wing: Show me the wider~ng. That's where I'm getting lost... Jim Ovorak: If you look on your figure, or up here, there's a dashed line that's on the inside of the heavy black lines. The heavy solid line is what we are proposing today or where the curb line would end today. So some areas are being widened. Some are being left alone and only say the intersection noses are being pulled back to allow for turns-and that type of thing. Mayor Chmiel: What ts the total number of feet that that's going to be moved back? 3ia Dvorak: It varies. We proposed to, you have about 1~ or 18 feet there today. We need 28 feet for two lanes so we're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 or 12 feet in width. Obviously there's some landscaping items that will have to be dealt with. Possibly some sidewalks, hydrants, street lighting, that type of thing. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. We'll go out first to see if'there's anyone here at this particular time that would like to address this issue. This is a public hearing. Jim, if you'd like to come forward. Please Just state your name and your address. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: B.C. "Jim" Burdick. I'm from Excelsior. I Just saw this report about 10 or 15 minutes ago-and I think it'd be very nice if they'd send us one ahead of time. That's number one, and then we could come a little better prepared. And the first thing that concerns me is that 35~ for legal and administration and flscal. That seems-awfully high and I hope that you elected officials would take a hard look at that. I've never seen one that high but I haven't seen as many...but I know originally-ti was 20~, the figure tn there and at that time the Council questioned it very thoroughly. Why there needed to be 20~ for those items. In other words, a third of it for the legal and administration to me seems, it just doesn't make sense almost. Secondly, the drawing here, to. em at least isn't very clear. ! guess don't want to use the word not professional but not very clear and difficult to understand. This scale and all and I think a study should be sade of much better drawing and a study should be made of it by you folks and by the City Engineer and others. And the third item is on the assessments here. It seems kind of strange. ! have a number of lots here that only...down here, for some reason are assessed about $50,000.00 so I'd like to object to that on a temporary basis. ! don't,mean I can't meet with whoever made these.decisions and iron it out but'it Just kind of, $50,000.00 coming down from Heaven or some other'place. ~nd it's kind of strange Burdick Park 2nd Addition isn't assessed a bit there. One time we'd city Council Meeting - September 28, lgg2 agreed to have Lots 3, 4 and 5. Brian had in Burdick Park 2nd Addition assessed and now Lots 3, 4, and 5 are not assessed in Burdtck Park 2nd ~ddition. I assume that thls ls Burdick Park. That's means first additlon and I belleve it does. And I believe those are the four things I had and I can most certainly get together with the engineers next week. Not this week. Perhaps you've heard that hunting season is open and if there's any questions of me, I'd be glad to, or any comments whlle I'm standing up here. Mayor Chmiel: Can you be reached by portable phone when you're hunting Jim? B.C. "Jlm" Burdlck: Yes, but. Mayor Chmiel: I want you to know that we just got this this evenlng as well at the same time as you had an opportunity to take a look at this as well. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes, and I thought this was a big Improvement from your administration. The agendas came out on Thursday noon instead of Friday at 4:00 and other information was submitted to the interested parties much earlier and I'm not complaining about this one time Mayor Chmiel because recently it's been very good in getting information out in a timely manner. Mayor ChmieI: Thank you Jim. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address us at this particular time? Charlie James: I'm Charlie James, 2715 Maplewood Circle West. I guess for me the issue of West 78th Street and Target has become something like the stations of the cross. My cross to bear has been the ever changing plans for West 78th Street so it's kind of whip me, beat me you know. I'm not sure what station we're at here tonight but ! can tell you this, 4 years, 3 months ago I signed a developers agreement with the City for a plat and project that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. These are the plans that went out for bid on that project. A complete set of architectural, mechanical, electrical plans. These are the specifications that went out for a11 that we paid for. They weren't done at city expense, for all the utility connections, sewer, water, everythlng to service our property out there. I've lent Jim, where are you Jim? I lent Jim a pile of stuff about 6 inches high of all the stuff we had about the grading plans and the soil tests and this is what ! have left over in my file. These are all reports and borings and field reports and bills for all the gradlng that we did out there. Part of that gradlng was done to prepare the lot that we have out there that will be obliterated by this alignment and part of that grading was done pursuant to our developers agreement wlth the oity to dig out 16 feet of dirt along that right-of-way and build the sub-base to MnOot specifications. To the best of my recollection, I sought no variances or special treatment at that time. I donated the right-of-way for West 78th Street as this was contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. And the City agreed to build the street in the developers agreement that I signed with the City. That development agreement 4 years and 3 months ago provlded for four full access points on West 78th. The plat was drawn to center my lot lines on shared driveways. We have before us tonight yet another set of plans with a new City Council Heet[ng - September 28, 1992 alignment proposed as recently as September 5th by Eyan and then revtsed just last week by Strgar and I think Jim, that's why we d£dn't get this tnformat£on because everybody's been humping to get this done for the Target thing and I just got my feasibility thing today and also today was the first time I saw the plans that are being proposed here tonight. I guess gentlemen, we must resolve th£s issue. I can't take another month or another year of uncertainty. For over 4 years Z've been prevented from marketing my land because I don't have access to a public road for 3 of my lots.- I don't care at this point whether use the existing alignment or that presented tonight by Strgar. Atl I ask four things. Number one. [ want a fair pr[ce for my [and:that's be£ng taken that recognizes all of my plans, my costs, my engineering, the grading work that ams done, the sol1 work that ams done, so[[ testing, the engineering. Number two. ! want adequate access to my remaining land that is no less than that provided in our development agreement that was'signed over'4 years ago with the City. at that point in time BEg did a plan and you can see here, the orange, or purple [ guess lines here represent the lot lines that were prepared in our plat and the yellow represents driveway locations that were agreed upon at that time ahere the two lots are sharing driveways. Number three. I-think there should be, and ! want a fair assessment apporttonment"that recognizes that ! graded the old right-of-amy. Graded my site, on top of ahich you're going to place this road if this alignment goes. and I would also-like the assessments to abide by the development agreement as to the burden that I would bear. There was very specific language in that development agreement as to what my costs would be because of the money that I had expended out here. The fourth thing that would like is an expeditious condemnation. Basically for the last 4 years guess I've been living under, for lack of better words, what I'd call an ~nverse condemnation. Where the uncertainty leaves me unable to market my land. like it to be part of the public record tonight that 'if you adopt this feasibility study, that the clock will start to tick on the notice period for condemnation so that I'm not left taisting out'in the wind on this thing. don't want to hold up the Target project but ! don't think we should just approve that and then let this thing Just go for a longer period of time. With regard to tonight's feasibility study, I'd like to note that 1987 ! was to pay $333, it ams proposed that I would pay $333,000.00 and those numbers at that time did not reflect what was in the developers agreement. In 1987 that was updated. In February of this year, Strgar came up with $372,000.00 as my' share and tonight, based on the information I received earlier today, it's being · proposed that Z mould pay $46&,84S.00. I guess when I'-look at this drawing of tonight's feasibility study, I guess the first thing that I'd like to point out, and I've colored this up here. This [sa large s~ale drawing that 3ia was good enough to give ee this morning, after staff had had a'chance tO look at it and I added the color here, and the pink represents my original plat L£nes and the pink here represents the lot on which we, had approval to. build a shopping center, and this shoas some additional right-of-way'here that with this alignment will be taken off of Lot 4. What"my concern'is here ts that my developers agreement and my understanding aith'-the city had always provided for a full turn movement 300 feet back that would be centered on these lots. and that isn't the case here. I note that there's enough width in the right-of-way to provide that so ~'d very much request that of the Council'tonight'that they would make that part of this feasibility report. The other thing is, I noticed here that this distance here is 320 feet and this driveway location here has been moved. Under the plans that were presented bY Ryan on the 5th of September, the driveway going into Target's'northwest corner is that shown City Council Heet£ng - September 28, ~992 biue and their west property line corresponded with this to the edge of this blue area here. I tried to draw that in as cIose as I couId. I guess what happens for me is that somehow, in ali the original pIans through this process, this driveway aligned with my Iot here and the idea was that these two Iots uouId share a driveway. Now thts has been moved today about 80 feet to the west with the results that I get a fuII turn driveway movement into the center of a iot. The Iack of a fuii turn movement here combined with this is going to number one, piace an undue financiaI burden on me because I'lI be forced to deveIop some sort of frontage road system in here that wasn't originalIy contempIated. I won't have direct access to some of these Iots and if we had moved this to where I'm suggesting it was originally here, you'd have a 320 foot spacing here. 320 foot spacing here, if it was located back to where it was originally and 320 foot spacing to this point. So by moving the stop light approximateIy 85 feet east back to where it was, we'd have 320, 320, 320 foot spacings. In reviewing these assessments here tonight I noticed that they're up over 40~ s£nce we started this process. The street has gone from $92.00 to $180.00. Storm drainage has gone from 5 cents then to 7.7, now to 8.8. The uatermain has gone from $24.00. Then to $25.11. Now to $29.00. The sanitary sewer has gone from $16.91 to $26.19 to $28 I think that's .66. Is that right Jim? So the way the assessments are proposed here and considering what's being done to my property, the closest analogy that I can draw for you folks on the Council is, th£s is the equivalent of making me pay for the ammunition for my own assassination. I thlnk thls ls klnd of cruel and unusual punishment. think that the assessments should recognize number one, the development agreement costs. Or the costs as they were outlined in my development agreement with the city. They should recognize the cost of the fill in the new right-of- way and in the old right-of-way that I placed. And they should recognize the extra cost that I'm going to incur because the street is being proposed to be lowered by Ryan to a grade lower than that contemplated by BRW and that wlll force us Into some extra grading and retain£ng wall situations. I guess I've given you a lot of information here. I guess I'd just like to summarize four points if I could that maybe you might think about in making a motion about this tonlght. As I said, ! guess I'm reslgned to whichever way thls thing ls going to go but I'd ask you to consider four things. Fair price for my land that recognizes all the costs that I've enumerated. And again, adequate access to my remaining land to the north. And I think if we can move, tf [ could have some time to work wtth Strgar, and they've been just terriflc to work wlth, but every time you think you have an agreement with them, then someone else down the thing changes tt around so you never know. It's 11ke hlttlng a movlng target constantly on this thing. But if we could space those entrances out at 320 feet, I'd 11ke to restore that full turntng movement lnto my property onto the north so I'm not forced into a frontage road or other types of situations and with all those attendant costs. And so that we're also in conformity with the developers agreement and the understanding that I had with the ctty 4 years ago. And as I just stated, on the number 3 was a fatr assessment apportionment. I don't expect that to be accomplished this evening but I'm raising It for the record thls evenlng. And then number 4, the issue of an expeditious condemnation here. Without any of th£s gentlemen I'm being asked to pay almost half a m1111on dollars for plans that I feel diminlsh my property. I support the Target project and my philosophy on this has been, go along to get along or get along to go along or whatever the expression ls but now we've ktnd of come down to the wire here and everybody's been working real hard to meet their time table and to get this thlng approved and I'm afrald that I'm klnd of coming up lO City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 short here. ! guess in summary, ! want to be careful how ! phrase this because it's a public meeting but. In summary i'd say, [ don't mind being relunctant but necessary participant in a fornication, and ! don't mind the sweet lies whispered in my ear. !'d just like to be kissed a little bit along the way. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. !s there anyone else at this parttcuZar time? Dick Koppy: Mr. Mayor, Council members. I'm representing Target and Ryan tonight on this West 78th Street alignment. Mayor Chmiel: Will you give your name please. Dick Koppy: My name is Dick Koppy. I'm with RLK ~ssociates. I have three basic items to comment upon. Before I make those comments I'd just like to say that Target and Ryan are in favor of this roadway change that you're, looking at tonight ~ith some comments. I think part of the problem we hear in this chambers tonight is probably a little bit related to the tight'timelines we've had on this project, particularly today ! know Hr. Burdick mentioning he just sa~ the report before the meeting. We in fact looked at the report this afternoon and the feasibility cost estimates for the first time. 'So there is some tight time decisions that are guiding what's happening tonight. I o~n't think that's the City's fault or problem in terms of how this came about. would like to see the project continue and register a few comments or concerns that could be worked out as you go into final design on West 78th Street. The developer Ryan, in concert with Target first suggested the realignment of West 78th Street back in late ~ugust, early September. In fact on September 9th we made a new submittal, a revised submittal to the City that had the realignment shifted about [20-125 feet from ~hat I call the BRW plan. One of our first concerns, it's a little hard to see on the sketch on the screen but one of our first concerns is the roadaay alignment that we submitted-on September 9th is not what you see on the screen. The alignment has been-skewed into what we call Outlot B to a degree ~here you now, instead of having 5.2 acres of developable land in Outlot B, we're down to 4.5 acres. So we've lost about 3/4 of an acre by sliding the road do~n further. If.you'd like to look at a-schematic that we put together, we can show you the difference and ho~ that happened but I think as I look at it, SRF has tried to straighten the roadway out so t-hat you take out just about all of the curvature and that's caused the roadway to be moved further into Outlot B. That's a concern. That doesn't mean that this alignment won't work but it's a concern of ours because Outlot B is getting smaller. that's concern number one. Number t~o concerns the access that you look at for Outlot B and Target. Target and Ryan together agree to move the signal. To' move the traffic signal that will be'placed with the West 78th Street project from the entrance right in front of the Target store to the entrance that you see now on the sketch in the center of the Target entrance and Powers Boulevard. 3im maybe you could just point to where I'm referring to so the Council members kno~. Okay. We've agreed, Target and Ryan has agreed to move the signal to that point from the Target location where previously it was planned to be located. They did this because they felt i't would help the overall development of property on the south side of West 78th Street and also on the north side of West 78th Street. They also felt it would help access'conditions for Outlot B. One of the access conditions for Outlot B that has been in all of our submittals is a free right turn in and out from West 78th Street for Outlot B. That has 11 City Council Heeting - September 28, 1992 been omitted from the plan you see on the screen and Ryan would like to be on record as indicating they feeI that that right turn in and out is very important for the deveIopment of those Iots on Outlot B. We don't understand the reason from a traffic engineering standpoint that that free right in and out would be a probiem. There are several ways of looking at that and handling it if it does appear to be a traffic problem. For example, adding a longer r£ght turn lane from the signal back and including the right turn in and out along that turn Iane. But ue wouId like to see that looked at a l~ttle bit more thoroughly. The third point I'd like to bring up is the assessment information. Primarily reason Target and Ryan brought up the realignment ks because they felt it would reduce cost. It would reduce cost because of soil problems along the south side of the former West 78th Street right-of-way. Oifferent acquisition costs with 5ames. With the 3ames property and several other reasons. But the primary reason the alignment change was brought up was to reduce cost. In looking at the assessments which we received this afternoon, the assessments for the Target property for roadway costs, just purely roadway costs, have gone from $69,475.00 to $142,200.00. Outlot B assessment cost for the roadway have gone from $48,900.00 to $90,900.00. Our question is why are the costs that much higher, if at all? We don't understand that. There may be a reason for it that can be g£ven to us that we couId understand but I wouId suspect, because of the tight time periods, we haven't had a chance to discuss that with the city staff. Those are the three comments. Thank you for the opportunity. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else at this time? Seelng none, I would ask for a motlon to close the public hearing. Councilman Nason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: A lot of this is becoming a little more overwhelming and I think most of the Council feels to come up with a decision on this and I don't like tabling things but from what I see here, there's some cost flgures that are alarming to me. From where they were to where they are now. Some of the proposed changes that have been. suggested by both parties as far as Target and Hr. James. The assessments too, there's some questionability on now these came up with where they're at rlght now. My one suggestion is going to be to table this item unt~l ue get some additional information. I wouldn't want to base an oplnion on thls thls evening at a11. Just right off the top of my head. I'd like comments from Council. Michael. Councilman Mason: I couldn't agree more. There are certainly, the report I think has raised all klnds of questions that we don't have answers for tonight and I agree wlth you. I thlnk one of the problems wlth this has been the time table. I think all of us have felt some pressure to get this done and I, we've got to live wlth it and we have to do it rlght. Councilman Workman: I agree. You know the facts and ftgures that Charlie James brings up are, he ! think sald them politely. Ithtnk lt's certainly a good foundat£on for a lawsuit that's going to cost us a lot of money. He says he doesn't mind the alignment as long as he's treated fairly and cost and everything else. We don't know where those costs are coming from. And we've at least graciously had the courage to rename thls project 87-2. It used to be 92-3. I've been looking at this for 4 years too and darn it, I'm leaving the 12 city council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Council the end of this year because of it so. ! can't believe we're still, read the staff report Charles and I kept asking myself, why are we doing this and ! don't know that I really found a good answer as to why we're doing this and causing all this new commotion when we've been trying to get this done for so long. I'm ready to get it done but not~ I'm knowing tonight that we can't. Mayor Chmiel: I think it's Richard's turn to make comments. Councilman Wing: I support tabting it but on a full agenda, as complicated as this is, I can't handle it and I don't think it's fair to have an agenda sit through a process that gets bogged down like this so I'll go along with tabling but only if we hold a special meeting where this is the sole item. ~nd I mention that because Target is an enormous retatl center coming in. R~esome traffic studies projected for the future. We're going to annihilate, I live in Excelsior. ! say this repeatedly because ! care about downtown Chanhassen but 7 stop Lights are being suggested for this small stretch of road. Right now we're just having some traffic problems. We're talk/rig 7 stop lights and I think the impact of this is significant. We're talking about time lines. It was brought up by my colleagues. I don*t think we have any t/me lines. I think we have to do this right. Business and government move slowly and [ think they move slowly for a reason. I don't feel bad about tabling thts. There's some real tmpact issues but in particular, as this goes to the next meeting, whenever this is and again I'm requesting a special meet/rig, I'm real curious about the 3ames property and costs he's incurred. I mean [ look at all this grading, this theoretical road that's been cut through all these years. Rnd ! Just sense we have some liabi[/ty there and that he's got some real legitimate complaints. Target comes in and complains because they're losing .7 of an acre but Mr. 3ames was just here telling us he's Losing a lot more than that over all the years so I almost have no sympathy for Target. It's almost humorous to hear thetr complaint based on the enormity of some of these other complaints we've got so there's got to be a balance on here. People are losing .some and gaining some and I don't know who's side's on who anymore. I enjoyed your humor if nothing else. That's about all I got out of it tonight. -Well it was. It was dry, sarcastic humor and I love it. That's what I thrive on. So ! would move tabl/ng after your discuss/on Hr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The only other discussion I'd have with that is whether th/s would warrant separate additional meeting. I don't think that it would. I think what I'd request is that we have an abundance amount of time at our next Council agenda and have that as a lighter Council agenda to really deal with this respective issue. My suggestion would be for each of Council to sit do~n with Charles and maybe Strgar and /f ~e need be, ma)be have more than one or two or three or maybe all four or five of us but I then ~ould also request that the newspaper be present so there's not a violation of an open meeting law. Councilman Wing: One other question I'd like to be handled as part of the next meeting, and that's as we discuss the 3ames property, he talks about his access, whether there's t~o access, three or four or s/x, I guess I don't know and I don't know /f that's s/gn/ftcant to me but 1'd 1/ks to take the worst scenarlo use of that property, be it 7 fast food restaurants or a Wal-Mart or a Double K-Hart, ~hatever the case is but what would /mpact that land the hea¥/est or it's maximum Land use and then make sure that ~hatever accesses am're Looking at in our t/me line to appease Target on the south s/de will /n fact handle the 13 City Council Meeting - September 28, lg92 north side under the worst scenario. So with it's maximumlland use, does the existing access provide Mr. James with what he needs under the worst scenario or does he in fact need four? Can we supply him the proper access with what we're giving him now? And I'm really questioning whether what he has currently proposed is going to be adequate should he determine to use maximum land uses. Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion would be that we stop in and see Charles as early as tomorrow, if you have time, or some specific time make arrangements so your concerns can be indicated and also have some discussions with Mr. Ashworth as well. So we can come up with a conclusion to what we're really going to really do wtth this phase. Councilman Workman: I'll second the motlon. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the West 78th Street Detachment Project until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Oon. Don Ashworth: Going along with that, I heard Mr. Burdlck say that he would like to meet with the engineer and I believe that Target would as well. Those meetings need to occur prior to next Monday or Tuesday to ensure that we can get the packet report out next Thursday for that Council meeting. $o really any type of meetlng should hopefully occur thls week, if at all possible. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: If we meet tomorrow, if it's in order at all, I'd like to come to it...because tt vitally effects me. Mayor Chmiel: I think many of them will be coming in on an intermittent basls. Not all at one tlme maybe Jim but yeah, anybody's welcome to come in and sit in and have your discussions with Charles and make those known back to us. We'll get that information as well. And we've wrltten down pretty much each of the respective concerns that you have. You have four items and Charlie James has four and Target has a couple others so that's what we plan on dolng. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: ...tomorrow would be an excellent day for me. Charlie James: Mr. Mayor, I want to advise the Council that I've got a whole serles of alrline tickets that have been pre-purchased that are going to have me out traveling about the country from this comlng Thursday through the 19th of October. I'll be available to meet tomorrow and Wednesday or whenever but then there's golng to be a perlod of time when I'm golng to be gone. ! guess the last time I was gone is when the HRA had that meeting at the fire hall so please don't hold a meetlng wlthout me but I guess the other thing ls, the second to last thing ts, I was wondering if Mr. Knutson could comment tonight on whether lt's appropriate maybe, if thls ls golng to be an alignment or something, that we're looking at some sort of condemnation. Either partial or total or whatever. Whether we can't somehow get the clock tlcklng on this or something. 14 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: ! thlnk it might be a 11ttle bit premature until Council comes up w£th a conclusion prior to having our attorney provides those comments. Roger Knutson: Just a comment. At this point, I don't know what to condemn. So I can't condemn anything. Charlle James: Alrtght. Well then I guess the third thing I was going to say, you know I'm not trying to come in here tonight with some seering indictment. I mean thls is just the way lt's been. Strgar has been accommodating and Oon has given me all the time in the world to come in and rant and rave and pound on his desk and everything and I mean basically everybody's been working real hard to try to get something that they all think is going to be in the best interest of the clty so I'm not condemning the process or I'm not potnttng a finger or anything and I don't want to obstruct anything but I'd appreciate an opportunity to work this out. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. When we get to a point of maktnga decision, hopefully in two weeks, part of the action you w£11 be taking will be to authorize condemnation of any properties necessary for construction of the roadway. So Mr. James' concern is proposed to be addressed as a part of actually orderlng the project. If and when that occurs. Mayor Chmiel: Airight, thank you. CONSIOER PETITXON FOR A ~ p~KI~ ZONE {gl QtOCT~J~ CIRCLE (CONTINUED FRO~ 3ULY 27· 19~2). Publtc Present: Name Carol Anderson Marge Kelly M. Kate Kaaz Jean Hyak 51 Choctaw Circle 100 Choctaw Ctrcle 155 Choctaw Circle 120 Choctaw Circle Scott Hart: Mr. Mayor and City Council. This request for a no parking area has been discussed at two Public Safety Commission meetings wtth each Public Safety Commissioner going out to the area to take a look at it. In seeking the least restrictive alternative to this request, the Commission has recommended that safety concerns regarding beachlot traffic be addressed by cutting back the follage to improve visibility and by erecting no parking signs by the beachtot access area. Public Safety Commission was concerned w~th the fact that apparently one of the owners of the primary lots that would be effected was opposed to no parking signs so that the Comm~ssion felt that concerns expressed needed to be carefully reviewed. It was the understanding of the Publtc Safety Commission that in addition to the concerns about, visibility to the beachlot entrance, the other concern was the interaction between vehicles and young people on bikes and playing in the street. It was the consensus of the Public Safety Commission that the area's not conducive to excessive speed and that the roadway should not be used as a play area. Rnd that the least restrictive step 15 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 at this point would be to address the beachlot visibility issue to start with. I would also be happy to have extra police patrol conducted in the area. The Commission acknowledged that on occaslon many vehicles may park here or at any given spot in the city. Situations like weddings, holiday parties or graduations sometime result In Increased parking demands. Also people occaslonally need extra parking such as when guests are present, a child is home from college, or a recreational vehlcle ls being used and the Public Safety Oepartment ls relunctant to be put into a position of issuing citations for these occasional uses. In public safety we try to balance the rare need to get through and occasionally congested street with a convenience of some people uslng the on street parklng. Because the commission feels that the least restrictive first step is to improve visibility in the area and increase police patrol in the area, not only to deal with traffic violations but also deal wlth bicyclist, etc that might be using the street inapporpriately, that the best step would be to, which ls the recommendation of the Clty Engineer, the Pub110 Safety Director and the Public Safety Commission that the City Council establish no parklng at the beachlot access and to dlrect the Publlc Works Olrector to have that follage cut back so visibility is improved. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone from the neighborhood that would like to provide any comments? Please come forward and state your name and your address please. Carol Anderson: My name ls Carol Anderson and I llve at 51 Choctaw Circle. I think that a no parking sign should be established on both sides of the street. Both north and south because even though it may be an inappropriate use of the street for children to be on there with their bicycles, it is the only place in our community outside of Highway 101, whloh is extremely dangerous, for the children to play. We are an enclosed, small community of only 42 houses and our children need some place for them to play. They rollerblade on the streets. They use skateboards on the streets. They ride their bicycles on the streets. We have many small children that walk dogs and just play on the street. And we're very afraid that we're going to have an accident and somebody's going to be badly hurt or killed. I thlnk we've been discussing tonight the Target center. We've been discussing changing streets. I think we should keep in mind that the 11fe of a chtld is more important than any of the things that we've discussed so far and a no parking sign would probably greatly increase the chance that we wouldn't have that klnd of an incident. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Katie Kaaz: My name is Katie Kaaz and I'm President of the Homeowners Association on Choctaw Circle. I've spoken to Scott Hart, who has been very, very helpful. I've spoken to Dave Hempel, who has been equally helpful. And I understand, I mean I've heard the ruling of the Safety Commission but I guess before each of you vote, I would really 11kw to understand your reason why. mean I feel very comfortable coming up here after this presentation about the money for Target and asking for two no parking slgns. ! mean that seems like pretty reasonable request. You're proposing putting two signs on either slde of our beach stalrs. That has never been the issue. Because In front of one of the homes you already have a fire hydrant so nobody's ever parked there anyway. People don't come up there and park in front of the stalrs. The problem that everybody keeps forgetting is that we have two blind curves. City Council Heetlng - September 28, 1992 Unfortunately they're in front of the Hyak's residence at 120. We don't feel that two no parking signs is an unreasonable request by any means. There's no, our neighbors are all very friendly. There's no big battle going on in the neighborhood because of this but I need to understand a lot better than I do already why we're being turned down, if you do turn us down before I give this up. I mean I don't want it to take over anybody's.life but I need to understand why you would say no to two blind spots. And.I guess you were out. I don't know. And evldentally when you were there, there were no cars. No people. No nothing. It's a very busy street or we wouldn't be here. The other things, I think all the people that are work£ng on the Target project, they are all Chanhassen homeowners and taxpayers, are they not? I mean all of them? I think they should all be required to buy homes in Chanhassen and live here. Thank you. Scott Hart: Hr. Mayor, ! have to return the compliment from Katie. ! wish that everyone of these issues that we.take a little bit different perspective on could be as pleasant and downright enjoyable to work on. And ! want her to recognize, as we discussed regarding this, that the commission's not denying their request.. They're merely taking a look at the [east restrictive approach because of the fact that one of the property owners is apparently not in favor of this. There are several things that we might be able to do without the additional no parking. Katie and [ discussed getting the 'digital radar down there to take a more exact reading with her and some of the association people to get a stronger feel for what the speed issue Is. Some of the ideas I've had is perhaps we could work with the neighborhood association: Maybe do something on bike safety with the kids and the parents t-o work together on that. And of course ! think that having increased patrol response in the area really he[ps as well. The commission's not rejecting Katie and the nelghborhood's request at all on this. In fact I think along with-some of the Council's encouragement, that they really spent a lot of time taktng--a look at this. What the Commission has attempted to balance is the safety issues along with the convenience factors that sometimes require on street parking. If the Council goes ahead with It, we'll certainly enforce it. Again,-It's Just a balancing, not a rejection of Katie's request and the homeowners. I think they'.ye been very articulate'and patient in their request. This has really been on the table for a [title bit longer than most no parking requests are. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I know there's a lot of consideration been given to tt and I'm sure that Council's been up on that particular street. In fact the one day, one of the days of the several days that I 'have driven up there and parked and I also had the radar gun and took some readings on that street. 20 mph was the highest speed that ! had recorded, unless my radar gun was off. Sometimes during the afternoon. Late evening. One specific day that I was there, I oould hardly get my vehicle through that street because.... Katie Kaaz: Because of what? Mayor Chmie[: Because of a party within the neighborhood. There were cars just all over. Two cars could not go through on that particular day if they tried. Even to get an emergency vehicle through there would have been rather difficult in the event we had to have our large fire engine going through. And so I've been up there probably about 5 or & different times at different intervals to see what the given problem ts. And I realize that often times people coming 17 City Council Meeting - September 28, ~992 into the neighborhood or sometimes the people that cause a problem with the speeds, and anybody that drives that even at 30 mph on those turns, is very how shall I say, dumb. And it really is because I drove that back and forth and I tried that several different times. Even at 30 I slowed down and slowed it down to 20 and 20 is a good safe speed within that street. It's a shame we can't post it at 20 because of all that particular turns. But that's almost next to impossible to do. Yes, you have an arrow that shows it at 20 mph. Right. I'm saying post it completely with 20 mph is what I was thinking. So yes, you're right. There is a curve sign on there that is posted at 20. Carol Anderson: The 20 mph speed sign...going downhill. Mayor Chmlel: You're right. That's an automatic momentum that you do pick up. Is there anyone else that wishes to address this? Okay, if not, I gave my blurb. Rlohard. Have you had an opportunity to be there? Councilman Wing: Well, I've been out there numerous times and speeding is really perceived. I don't know how many radar runs I've done in the clty in the neighborhoods with complaints and we've never ever come up with speeders. That's the problem and the Sherlff backs us up on that statement. But the speeding, we're getting lost on issues here. We weren't discussing speeding. If speedlng's the lssue, then we've got to do something about speeding. So let's forget that one and if we open up the no parking, we're going to increase the speed because there's golng to be easler access to get through the neighborhood, so set that one aside. Also we brought up the entire neighborhood tonight. That's never been discussed. If you have a neighborhood problem, then we've got to deal with the neighborhood problem but we're talking about the beach access, summertime primarily and chlldren comlng in and out of that beach access. The dangerous ourve. Never tn the previous meetings that I've been at, have we discussed a neighborhood problem. It's been the beach, access to and from the beach and parking in the beach area. We've only talked about no parking signs in the beach proximity. Not up at the top of the h111 or at the bottom. Katie Kaaz: That's not what the original petition said. I don't know who lnterpretted it that way but that was never our petition. It was not in the petition that was in our presentation. Marge Kelly: ...we even trled to clarlfy that. The beach access has never been a problem. Councilman Wing: Well we're talking about this curve primarily. We're not talking about. Katle Kaaz: The curve across the street from that. The beach access stalrs ls, it's not in the middle of the curve but it's over on the other stde of the street. Councilman Wing: You're concerned about no parking on the curve though, not the entire neighborhood right? As ue had the x's drawn last time. The no parking dldn't start at TH 101 and go to the top of the hi11. Katie Kaaz: No. 18 City Council Meeting - September 28, [992 Councilman Wing: So my point is, the no parking was primarily on the curve. What am I missing here? Hayor Chmlel: This is the petition here. Carol Rnderson: Could I say something? Hayor Chmiel: Sure. Carol Anderson: The point of this is not whether anybody has been speeding. Nobody is speeding around there. The point is not whether we have access to the beach. We have wonderful access to our beach. The point is we have a blind curve curving from a westerly position into a northerly position and when a car is parked right in this very narrow curve, right here, and kids are coming down the street on a bike like this, and a car's swerving around the car that's parked, they're going to hit that child and there is no way that even at 20 mph that car is going to stop. Rnd certainly.that child is not going-to stop unless they hit each other. It has almost happened many, many times. That is the point. We need something saying nobody can park right on that specific curve so that there's no swerving out and nobody will can hit. That ks the point. Thank yOU · Councilman Wing:. So I'm reading the original petition here and that's what I was referring to. The original drawing included the two houses, [2[ and [20 on both sides of the road. Scott, it's my understanding then that you feel that a conservative approach to this, in lieu of that problem which is a known. I mean the curve is obvious. They're cutting back all the brush on the east side of the road in particular and then with the no parking.-across from that beach, pretty much opens up that curve area enough that that might suffice as an initial start. Scott Hart: Councilman Wing, you bring up the fact that the issues are varied here and it's tough to, one of the difficulties we've had between the engineering and Public Safety departments has been difficulty grasping just exactly what the primary concern was and that's why we're'talking about things like the speed issue and the beachlot issue because these have been issues that have been brought up. This is one that I wouldn't mind one bit losing on my recommendation because I understand the empasstoned need-and plea of the neighborhood and like I said, Katie and the people have been absolutely delightful to work with. Always listening to my perspective and'working back and forth and giving us the time. Whatever we do,.signs alone aren't going to take care of this problem. I feel bad the podium's kind of sticking in it's way there. We ran into this problem at the intersection of White Oove and what was it, whatever the other intersection was. Where we put up signs to limit cars and then we had a young man on a bicycle go through a stop sign right'in front of a car that wasn't doing anything wrong. So while the no parking might help, and it's not the opinion of the City Engineer or myself that that would solve the probolem. What I really think we need to do is work with the neighborhood on the bicycle useage in the area because we just pick whether it's a necessity or not, we just can't endorse using city streets as play areas. I.understand, I'm the father of two young kids myself. That's just a fact that I've got to say. If you do go with the signs, I think we really need to do some work with the kids in the neighborhood and the family to make them realize that 'signs, City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 reall~ one of the reasons that Charles and I have been relunctant to recommend and endorse signs is they really create a false feeling of security. And even if there's no parking signs there and the kid's still coming across as enthusiastically as children wtll on their bikes, car versus bike, there's only one winner and one loser on those. So again, this is one that I guess I wouldn't mind losing because Charles and I just don't feel that the signs are going to do that much to create the safety that the neighborhood might think it will. But if you go ahead with it, I would like some direction or encouragement that we get our CSO's out there. Maybe we can do a neighborhood thlng or have kids and families in here to work together on It because it has to be a two part approach. It's tough to take a strong stance agalnst thls neighborhood and I don't want to do that. We just don't feel that the no parking signs will provlde the amount of safety that maybe we can by worklng with the kids and getting more police patrol out there. Councilman Wing: Just so lt's clear in my mind...question for the neighborhood association. I agree with you on that curve. It's really treacherous and I also thlnk reallty ls lt's a playground. I mean we can say all we want but the kids are going to play in that street and use that hill. And my interpretation is you really need no parklng from the very top northern most part really down to the most southern part at the bottom of the ht11. Along that entire curve and you've asked for just 120 and 121. It really just covers what, about 40-50 feet either stde of the beach area right on the main part of the curve. Is that really adequate or would we in reality for your neighborhood be best that no parking almost the entire neighborhood. Keep cars off that street and leave it open. Katie Kaaz: I honestly don't know. I guess I would defer to the people, the experts on that. The only that I know is that there is a problem with a curve. As far as how to rectlfy the thlng, I don't know. I mean [ can't see taklng no parking, I just don't know how big a hunk we're talking about and I'm saying thls with... Jean Hyak: It's my house that we are talking about. My property that has most of our frontage is down on the road. We have 17 feet back. It's a pie shaped lot so the whole front. Councilman Wing: Can you accept just Mr. Harr's initial reaction here where we cut back as much of the foliage as we can, give some no parking and just see how that works out as summer progresses. I think we're open to do whatever you see necessary. Katle Kaaz: The cuttlng back of foliage helps when you're approaching 120, the Hyak's home. Then you still have that second blind curve as you go past their house and approach 130. The spot there where you cannot see what you're golng to. Councilman Wing: I pass. Mayor Chmlel: Thomas. Councilman Workman: The only thing I was concerned about was, is there a problem with the Hyak's having no parklng in front of their home now? 20 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Jean Hyak: Well that's what we're talking about. Councilman Workman: That was the problem last time and you still have that same problem. Jean Hyak: Well, in some ways because I think I'm the one who probably brought up speed. Those kids really, because the times they're going too fast, not so much the cars being parked there. It's because they're going to too fast through the curve. So I probably brought tt up that it had more to do with the speed than. Councilman Workman: But if you don't have parking tn front of your house, are you prepared for that? Jean Hyak: Well this is why I'm here because if there ts no parking, where is it? Is it going to be the entire... Councilman Workman: Katie's house. Katie Kaaz: Her husband brought up a very, very interesting point that.I had not thought of. No parking signs are put in front of 120, he's going to park across the street which ts right across the street anywhere so that tf I'm not home or I come down from the top of the hill where I live, I'm going to go around the cars on that curve, I'm going to be in the other lane of traffic at the curve. So so you follow me? Hayor Chmiel: Yes. Katie Kaaz: Yeah. That's a bigger problem. Coming and going... Councilman Workman: Well, I think tt was Carol that said, you know you have an extremely small enclosed neighborhood of 42 houses and this is. Carol Anderson: 44. Councilman Workman: Sorry. This ts rare tn that we've had a lot of these kinds of discussions but they've always been because thee outsiders from outside our neighborhood are coming through here and not looking after-our kids. Not our own neighborhoods aren't looking after our own kids. This ts kind of rare, you know what I mean? ! know you're talking about teenagers. Carol Anderson: And friends. And their friends. Councilman Workman: And ignorant friends. We'll add that. And usually a properly placed shout at one of these vehicles.or a very ripen tomato will get the point across. If this neighborhood wants to take the whole street and make it no parking, I'm for that. Whatever this neighborhood wants is what I want. However, they can't agree that that is the case. We've had a lot of discussions over the years about the premise that Scott laid out that a parking sign is not going to save your kids from getting killed and /'ye had people beat me over the head that a sidewalk will save lives. Well people get killed on a sidewalk too. 21 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Katie Kaaz: But Tom, the no parking sign is not going to but you're going to be removing an obstacle... Councilman Workman: Well and when there's the perception of no obstacle, then I can see people coming in and saying, geez it's a racetrack out there because they can really just scoot around that corner and there's no cars to even think about. So if the neighbors are prepared to have no parking in front of their homes, that's fabulous with me. To me this circle, the curve all the way to the top is basically the same all the way around. Maybe there's a steepness or a grade change but if they wanted to go up all the way around the bend, ! wouldn't have a problem. This is such an enclosed neighborhood. The neighborhood should have a say in how they want to do it. Katie Kaaz: One last thing and I'll be quiet. If that in fact, if that becomes the case, then I need to take a revised petition back to our homeowners because they signed a petition that said one thing and Z'm representing that. Councilman Workman: You may have to move from the neighborhood. Katie Kaaz: I probably will. Councilman Workman: You understand politics. At least Z know we got that. Katie Kaaz: I just think that... Councilman Workman: I don't mean to tell you what you have up there. I've just heard enough of these traffic situations and people came in and said, if we would just get a stop sign in here, I'm sure that everybody's lives in our neighborhood would be saved and Public Safety and MnOot tells us that doesn't mean that you're not going to have a problem. You can have a stop sign that I kid will be going by and he'll be expecting a car to stop and it doesn't stop and then there's this false sense of, anyway. Then if we're going to go all the way around the bend, then that is another perhaps petition drive and I know Katie doesn't have enough to do but Z don't know how we want to treat this. If we want to approve what Public Safety has said to go along with now and revisit it in 30 days. This is something that effects these people and they want it and however, I don't know that we're going to be able to best or adequately do that tonight if we don't know what it is can do. Mayor Chmiel: We can start World War III by going back with a petition as suggested. I guess that's almost what they'd have to do ls go back and have the entirety of that street no parking. And have everybody make that request for no parking. Katie Kaaz: I would be more than happy to get a committee or a group together to work with Scott and...safety thing. Mayor Chmiel: z think that would be well advised. Katie Kaaz: If you'll let us come back...compromise is the name of the game. I just don't know. I don't want the whole street no parklng. Nobody wants that. Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor? 22 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Scott Hart: I hate to delay this anymore but Charles and I were just talking. The primary concern of the Commission is that they did not feel that they wanted to force this upon one of the two individuals who would be primarily effected with no parking in front of that residence when the Commission wasn't absolutely sure that, or dldn't feel terribly confident that the signs themselves would do what the homeowners association would like. Charles and I have come up with a possible compromise here that actually was recommended by Dave Hempel initially and that is to cut the no parking off so that half of the lot of the owner that's not supportive of it would st111 have some parktng but the majority of that curve would be left open. I just asked Charles if he could support that right now and he said he's got to do some geometrics work and take a look at it. Could you give me some time to work with Katie? I think maybe there's a compromise here beyond one or the other. If you don't mind waiting just a little bit more Katie and you and I can talk. - Mayor Chmlel: Pretty soon you're going, to have all the kids off the street so it's not, other than sleds. Marge Kelly: Actually. if you"d give us a little path out of the neighborhood to let kids leave the neighborhood... Mayor Chmlel: I understand. Michael, did you want to, everything's been said? Councilman Mason: Everything's been said. I guess one quick question. What percentage of traffic would you say on Choctaw Circle is non Choctaw Circle people or their friends? Marge Kelly: The mailman... Councilman Wing: If we pass this tonight as stated, it would put no parking up Initially. It would cut back some fo[iage that needs cutting back. And our agreement is that they form a committee to look at the long term effect of thls. This is maybe a good start with what we've got tonight but then let the committee form and come back wtth a real proposal if there's a need. Maybe this will solve your problem. At least we've done something and this may suffice. Zf not, the committee is more than happy to come back wlth Scott and this can be changed Just like that. It's not anything, it's your neighborhood. Councilman Mason: ! believe the neighborhood is saying they don't care about the no parking on the beachlot there so if we do that. Councilman Wlng: No, they're asking for no parking on bothlsides. ?his is just one side right now so I'm going-to move approval of this with the understanding that you're more than welcome to'revamp this-and come. back with-another-petition because I think this ts a start and.it's'going'to get something established right now there with some no parklng and some of that foliage cut back, which needs to be done anyway, and I am fully prepared for-you to be back and state whatever you want done permanently. Katie Kaaz: I'm sorry, you said you were going to vote for the approval of thls. This being partial no parktng? Trimming back trees? 23 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Councilman Wing: That's going to get done. Mayor Chmiel: No parking by the beachlot's approach. Councilman Wing: And full expecting you to be back, but with an open door. Katie Kaaz: You've got a fire hydrant on one side anyway so you can't park there and on the other side, nobody parks there. Councilman Wing: The no parking is going to be there anyway. Mayor Chmiel: Let us go from where we're at right now with coming up with a conclusion as to Scott working with them to see what other avenues are there and if those avenues aren't there. Councilman Workman: I'll second his motion. Mayor Chmiel: You will, okay. There's a motion on the floor with a second. Let me finlsh what I'm saying before you get your second. But what Ithtnk should be done ls to get that worked out. And if it can't be worked, then go to no parking on the entirety and see if everybody would be in agreement with that. Katie Kaaz: What happens to Scott's recommendation just a few minutes ago that we post no parking on part of the hill on one side? Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, he dld mentlon that. Scott Herr: What my suggestion is Katie is that, in fact I'd like to meet with you and your representatives rlght now after we're done. But that suggestion hadn't gone too far for I don't think the neighborhood liked it before. But I want to talk to you more about that and then the Clty Englneer and I can lay out some engineering concerns and take a look at that and see if we might able to at least partially meet everybody's request. So that's what they're recommending is that we go with what we recommended so that I've got some more time to work wlth you and the neighborhood and see if we can't meet some compromise for you and the one person opposing it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor and I'm going to have to act on that, wttha second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to restrict parking on the west side of Choctaw Circle, 20 feet each way from the existing beachlot access and cutback/remove vegetation within the right-of-way on both sides of Choctaw Circle adjacent to the beachlot entrance to improve visibility and direct staff to work with the neighborhood to work on some long term solutions. Councilman Wing and Councilman Workman voted in favor; Councilman Hason and Hayor Chmiel voted against and the motion failed with a tie vote 2 to 2. Mayor Chmlel: So it kills it. You're right back to discussing it with Scott to come up wlth a conclusion. 24 City Council Heeting - September 28, 1992 INTERZI~ USE[ PER~I];T FOR EARTH ~/tlTNZNG OF P, ~L P~T. NORTH OF HZGHI~Y 212 AND EAST OF THE CHZCAGO ~ NORTHIJI[$TI[RN Rt~;[I-WAY. TOff Z1JIERS. I~OON 9fd. LEY AGGREGATE. Public Present: Name ~l;Ires~ Michae! Tsoyk£n Harsha Lawrence Dennis & Cathy Bartholow Paul Kilker G.W. Burtsch Richard Vogel E. Jean Ttschleder Steven ~uinn Richard Sathre 99410eerbrook Drive 610 Bighorn Drive 984l Oeerbrook Drive 788 Lake Point 8556 Irwin Road, Bloomington [05 Pioneer Trail /85 Pioneer Tra[l 9390 267th Street West, Lakevtlle 150 So. Broadway, Wayzata Paul Krauss: Thank you Mr. Mayor. ! think this is the th[rd time this will be up to the Council. We've gone through, there's been a series of requests for additional information that we've tried to respond to and the request itself has changed somewhat since it was last here. If you remember back to your August 24th meeting, one of the questions that was raised was, there was questions regarding the functioning of the infiltration basins relative to the actual location of the sand. It became clear at that point in time that there was some soil boring information that was not in the possession of Mr. Zw[ers but was [n the possession of the contractor that was going to haul the material to Eden Prairie. Hr. Zwters' engineer got ahold of those soil borings shortly before the last Council meeting and it became clear that there was less clay on the site than they had originally anticipated. That the sand was closer to the surface than they had believed. Well there was a couple of good things happened with that. The amount of clay that could be removed from the site is reduced. We now are assured that the infiltration basins are going to work. The down side of it was that it required a new grading plan which [s why I pu[led it from the agenda for your last meeting. We kept the neighbors informed. We've had several mailings as to what the changes are and when this thing is actually going to be heard. And it's back before you tonight. Now this request is somewhat different from the original one. In basic layout it's similar though. It still amounts to peeling off the black dirt, removing a clay layer, putting the black dirt back on it, reseedtng the area. As before, there will be no trees lost through this. A couple of on site erosion problems will be fixed through this and these infiltration basins should help other erosion [n the area by providing a means for the water to infiltrate rather than going over the bluff or down £nto Moon Valley itself. The amount of yardage for the clay being removed is reduced from 250,000 yards to 200,000 yards. Of possibly equal significance is one of the major points of content[on or concern on this proposal was the related proposal to locate a sedimentation, I'm sorry, infiltration basin in the southwest corner of the site. In this area right here. There was concern that that involved some tree loss. It was associated more with the gravel mining operation. It's not a clay operation specifically and also the potential impact it could have views from adjacent nearby single family homes. Given all the concerns that were ra£sed about it, the inability to satisfactorily resolve those, the fact that this really isn't part of the 25 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 clay mlning request, we've recommended that you delete that from the proposal. You do have the option of modifying the request in the manner such as that. We thlnk lt's the reasonable thlng to do at thts polnt. It simplifies up the issue. The issue then becomes only the clay mining operation at the top of the h111 whlch ls relatively stralght forward. There lsa time deadllne on lt. The original time deadline I believe was supposed to be July of lgg3 but that was when this proposal was going to be approved in July of 1992. We've suggested a September 1, lgg3 deadline be imposed. With that we are recommending that the IUP for the gradlng be approved. You should also be aware that the Environmental Quality Board did recetve the petition that you had received earller regarding £AW. We still don't believe the EAW ls warranted but note that you have to take an action accepting the petttion and making a finding that EAW ls not required. So with that we are recommending approval of the modlfied clay minlng request as 'proposed. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is the reprsentatlve here that would like to address the issue? Rick Sathre: Yes, your Honor. I'm Rick Sathre with Sathre-Bergquist in Wayzata. I'm representing Mr. Zwiers. As I understand it, the staff is recommending thelr Optlon No. 3 in the staff report as they've listed on page 7 where they suggest that there's really 4 alternatives. One, approving the application the way it was presented and requested. Secondly, denying the application. Third, modffytng it as they suggest. And fourth, proceeding with an EAW. I guess we've shared together with you the length of this process and we'd like to bring it to a close. We'd like to see an action taken but we, myself and Mr. Zwlers are st111 convinced that that southerly pond is a good idea for the long term, even though in the short term it results in some further disruption in the area. We contlnue to request that you conslder the application with that south pond. It does give you a may to in effect leverage that approval and requlre some restoration or tree planting in the gravel pit that otherwise wouldn't be possible to do. To require. And I think that's pretty significantly positive. Additionally, that south pond would provlde for additional seepage into ground water rather than allowing water to continue downstream and further erode other places. The staff's done, continues to do a terrific job of bringing you up to date. If you were to do what I have asked, which is to consider the request as lt's been asked for, that would mean that in the staff recommendations for approval you'd be strlking number 1, which says eliminate minlng activity on the south pondlng area. Secondly we would, no matter how you proceed, I guess some of the other recommended conditions probably are partially satisfied at thls point but maybe that's not a very big issue. So in conclusion, please react to the request as it's presented and we, and tlme is of the essence to us. Minnesota is a short construction season and so we'd like to end the process as soon as you can. Thank you. I'd be happy to answer questions. Mayor Chmtel: Are there any questions? Okay. Mlchael. Councilman Mason: Well, modification of the request. If we do that, the ability to requlre reforestation on the bluff and the exlsting gravel pit would be lost. Rlght? Riok Sathre: Yes. City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Councilman Mason: I mean what will that do for erosion for Bluff Creek? Paul Krauss: Well the erosion that occurs on the mine face dumps directly into the Minnesota River at Rice Lake. We are in the process, you know you approved the permit with conditions for the gravel pit back in May. We are working with their engineer to gain resolution of issues with that, one of which is erosion control. Erosion control across the gravel mine is easier if there's a way to intercept the water upstream. You lose that without that pond in the southwest corner. However, there's ways to pick up that need to provide sedimentation in the gravel pit itself and that's what we're working with Mr. Sathre on. So it's not a total loss. It makes it less efficient but it's a problem that can probably be dealt with. Councilman Mason: Staff is recommending deleting the south pondtng so ['m assuming that you feel, [ mean Bluff Creek is obviously a very sensitive area. You're comfortable with what you can come up with with Mr. Sathre and their engineers to take care of that problem? Paul Krauss: Well, as ! often stated with the gravel pit, ! mean you're dealing with a situation that we wish wasn't there in the first place. Councilman Mason: Right. Paul Krauss: But they are obligated to provide us with a workable erosion control plan and one that's going to be in effect as they're operating as well. We believe that can be accomplished. Councilman Mason: I'm fine with not having an EAW. I think staff has pretty much satisfied my curiousity on that. The way staff has recommended the interim use permit, deleting that ponding area, [ ~ould go along with that. [ don't like that ponding area in there. That's where I'm at. Mayor Chmiel: Thomas. Councilman Workman: How big is that pond? Paul Krauss: How big is which pond? Councilman Workman: That you propose to eliminate? Paul Krauss: He does have that information. I neglected to put it in since we weren't recommending it be constructed. Rick Sathre: Can [ use your graphic? Let me get my notes out and we'll go through that. Councilman Workman, you're asking how big the basin itself, how big the bottom of the pond would be? Councilman Workman: How much fill will you be taking out of there? Rick Sathre: Okay, well different question than I thought you were asking. This is a strong ridge line, a high ridge line that separates the pit area from this lower north facing wooded area. Wooded slope. There would be right here, there'd be about 75 division. Here there'd be 60 feet. Here there'd be 50 27 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 feet. Right now it's a ridge line and this plan shows creating a pond to intercept the water coming from the north. And additionally provide a place for water from the northerly portion of the mining operation to drain into as well. To allow that water to seep into the ground. Right now the lowest point is up here. Councilman Workman: $o from the current elevation it would go about ?0 feet deep? Rick Sathre: On the average, I would say that would be about right. Councilman Workman: I think Lake Harriet's about 70 feet. Rick Sathre: It wouldn't be 70 feet of water but there'd be a 70 foot excavation. Councilman Workman: Paul, with deletlng that, how does that effect the September 1st date? Paul Krauss: I did not have a chance to ask Mr. Zwiers about that...could st111 adhere to the original July deadline. I simply assumed that if that's what they told us it was going to take to take the materlal out, and they're getting thelr approvals 2 1/2 months late, that it was reasonable to push the deadline back. I wouldn't want to go any further than September i however because if you want to restore a site before stuff stops growing, you need to have the black dirt down and the seed spread and the erosion control and whatever else up by that September I date. If they could still adhere to an earlier date, I'm sure not opposed to it. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, are you going to take comments from the neighbors again? Mayor Chmiel: Yes I will. Only to the point that it's not, if there's something new to be Injected, then it should be brought up. We do have the Minutes of the prevlous meetings with us and we have had a chance to revlew those. So hopefully there wi11 not be any reiteration of what has been discussed previously. Councilman Workman: Well I think I'll hold off until I hear. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. Councilman Wlng: Well staff has made a real effort here to separate the north parcel from the south parcel and the tie ls the proposed infiltration basin. And if they want to take the clay out, I'd 11ke to stlck on the clay issue which is the north parcel. And I have no problems with that and so the staff recommendation addresses the north parcel. The clay and the only suggestion I would have is that the hours of operation on Saturday are from ?:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. I don't need that in my neighborhood. Now if they're golng to be having enormous mining going on. And I don't get up before 9:00 so I don't expect the trucks to be golng before 9:00 and ! don't think they ought to be going after 5:00 on Saturday so I would, as part of my approval, I would approve thts with the exception of the Saturday operation would have to be 11mlted to more 28 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 reasonable hours to allow people to sleep in or enjoy their tranquility of their property. So that's the north parcel and that has only to do with clay. The minute we start talking about a proposed infiltration basin, we're now talking about cutting down the bluff line. We're now talking about sight impacts. We're now talking about neighborhood inputs that are going to have some credib£1ity because it is going to effect them and what they see and what they do. And it's going to remove about, as I see it, about 5 acres of trees which may or may not get planted and so on and so forth so we're really altering the bluff line. ! see that entire issue of that infiltration bastn is solely related to the south parcel. I'd rather deal with it at a separate time as a separate issue as it effects the south parcel. Then if we so dectde to have the infiltration basin, wonderful. So I intend to support the staff recommendation for the clay removal with the hours altered for Saturday. Mayor Chmiel: 9:00 to 5:00. Councilman Wing: Well I'd suggest 9:00 to S:O0. Councilman Mason: Would you accept 8:30? Councilman Wing: Elimination would be fine with me. Councilman Mason: If I could just comment on Councilman Wing's about the hours. We did talk at the last meeting that, and it does say here, that if Saturday does become an issue, that can be changed fairly quickly. Mayor Chmiel: As I've gone through all of this, and Z have some real concerns yet, in regard to what's going to be accomplished and what's not going to be accomplished. As you're well aware, the amount of litigation that we've gone through on the other parcel has taken quite a bit of staff's time, city's money and a lot of different things that have been added to it. My concern ts how are we going to be assured that everything that has been discussed is going to be covered and be done. Zt doesn't give us any guarantees and all it can do is give us another point of litigation back into the Court system, and that bothers me some. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor. I frequently said it and ! said it again in the report. I can't attest to Mr. Zwiers' character commitment anymore than Z can to anybody elses. But the fact is, we're trying to treat this request in the same manner we treat any other development proposal in the city and that is to make clear and concise conditions. Where necessary, to get them recorded against the property and to take a sufficient enough Letter of credit that if we, with periodic inspections conclude that the applicant is defaulting on the conditions of approval, we have the ability to go in there and rectify the situation. I don't know what else we can do. We've got a fairly sizeable letter of credit request on this. It's something on the order of $118,000.00. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Has that been increased from what tt was previously? Paul Krauss: Sizeably, yes. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay. I guess that's really where I'm coming from. I don't want to throw away good money after bad when it comes to this. Put some 29 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 more money out from the city to represent us to make sure that ue approve our points, and yet we approve our points and the folks have gone along with us. And that's one of my real concerns. I don't particularly like that and rather state that as I have. I too am going to hold my position on this until we have some people within from the neighborhood who wish to address this at this particular time. Is there anyone here who wishes to address this? Must have worn them out. Okay, if there's no one wishes to really discuss this with us, I'll bring it back again to Council. Oh, I do have one. Richard Vogel: I'm Richard Vogel from 105 Pioneer Trail and I guess that the staff recommendations if that resolution was passed that way, I'd be comfortable wlth lt. ! dld brlng some plctures along which I think show the 5 1/2 acres on that southern parcel. Or 5.2 or whatever it is that would be taken out. There are mature trees on that parcel. It would open up the vlew to the mlnlng for some people on Oeerbrook or Oeerfoot Trail and it would also open up some views for Dakota Avenue whlch is on the west side of the rallroad tracks. And if you want to see these pictures, that's fine. Otherwise. Mayor Chmiet: Yeah, we'd like to take a look at them. Just give them to Tom. Is there anyone else? If not. Councilman Mason: I'd like to move approval of Interim Use Permlt $g2-5, Earth Work be approved with the waiver of setback standards and subject to the conditions 11sted in the staff report and I'm wondering if Counollman Wlng wtll accept 8:00 to 5:30 on Saturday. Councilman Wing: No. Councilman Mason: Okay, what are you people comfortable with? Now come on, they've got to make a living too. Cathy Bartholow: I...out of my home. I live with this Monday thru Friday...and I'd rather not have this open on Saturday at all. Councilman Wlng: The only reason I came up wlth that is when I was out wlth staff walking the property over on Oeerfoot, which they're worried about the noise, the deafening nolse from the tractors, the O-9's and the trucks beeping on a construction site was overwhelming that morning. I said cripes, is thts noisey. That was just one house. Now if we get an enormous operation golng, it's really clanking down there and I don't know what's fair and reasonable. I'll accept anythlng you want to put out but I thlnk Saturday's a day of rest as far as I'm concerned. As far as from 7:00 to 5:00 Is pretty long work hours in a neighborhood ltke that. Cathy Bartholow: Maybe I will say something...or is it too Late? Mayor Chmiel: No, be my guest. Please come up to the microphone. Cathy Bartholow: I've spoken before. I'm Cathy Bartholow from ~841 Oeerbrook and thls ls just an ultlmate compromise, lsn't that what they were saylng earlier. I think we're okay with this but work with us a little bit on Saturdays and maybe we can be flexible...but lt'd be ntce not to have to deal 3O City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 with it on Saturday. And just what we've said before, if we're going to compromise on this, I guess we want the assurances that things are done r£ght. Councilman Wing: I'll second whatever the motion Mr. Mason chooses to put forth. Mayor Chmtel: I'd just like to shoot to Tom before we request a motion. Councilman Workman: Well that's why I asked staff about the September 1st deadline. Was that taking into account the pond being out of there? Was that taking into account 20~ less clay removal? Paul Krauss: No. It really didn't. Again, it's just a matter of movtng back the originally perceived date of approval. Again, there was no magic to it but that's the outside I would ever recommend that you go because of the need to restore the site. Councilman Workman: I guess then what I'd like to do at the very minimum, to modify the motion is to keep the September [st date but then to el£minate the Saturdays or to move that date to something like August 1st or other and keep the Saturday. I think I would prefer no Saturday. But given that we went from 250,000 to 200,000 in clay remora1 and then subtracted that rather deep pit on the south side, that September 1st, and again I'm no expert on hauling but that we could then eliminate the Saturday for convenience of the neighbors. Councilman Mason: Is that a friendly amendment there Councilman Workman? Councilman Workman: Yes. Councilman Mason: That's fine. Councilman Wtng: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard, do you have anything in addition to say? Councilman Wlng: No. Mayor Chmtel: Okay. Councilman Mason: So the amendment tt stands then is, Interim Use Permit ~92-5 as staff stated with the exception of no hauling on Saturday, Mayor Chmiel: And the elimination of item number 17 Councilman Workman: Correct. -. Mayor Chmiel: From staff recommendation. Striktng that. Councilman Mason: No. No, no. Councilman Wlng: No, you want to leave that in. Councilman Mason: No, we want that tn there. 31 City Council Heeting - September 28, 1992 Paul Krauss: That's the one that requires them not to do that. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Items 1 thru 13. Nou are you also Iooking for the eIimination of the EAW? Paul Krauss: Yeah. I uss informed by the Environmental Ouality Board that you might act on it somehou. Act on the request. Hayor Chmiei: Okay. That to aIso be inciuded in ~ith the motion. Councilman Hason: Sure. Roger Knutson: Hr. Hayor. So the record's ciear. Your decision is based upon the Findings of Fact as set forth £n the Planning Oirector's memorandum and the recommendation of the Pianning Commission. That's the basis of your decision. So the record's clear. Hayor Chmiel: I uould think that that ~iI! be correct. Councilman Wing: We're eliminating item 2. No Saturday operations. I'm missing something. CounciIman Hason: We're not eliminating item 2. We're eItminating the portion of item 2. CounciIman Wing: Of Saturdays. Hayor Chm£el: Right. And you're saying to eliminate, to hav£ng this Honday thru Friday and exciuding national hoIidays. Is that uhat I'm understanding? Councilman Hason: Yeah. They wiI1 be alIowed to work Honday thru Friday, 7:00 to 6:00. Hayor Chmiel: No~, is that acceptable to the applicant? Or does that cause a problem? I don't think it's going to change Council's position but at least I'll listen. Rick Sathre: Well, the ~ay I understand your action, or the proposed motion, it would be denial of the southerly pond? Hayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Wing: And deletion of Saturday operations. Counci[man Nason moved, CounciZman ~ing seconded to approve Zntertm Use Perm[t ~92-5 for earth work with a waiver of setback standards, subject to the following cond/tions, and approve Reso[utton ~2-~1~R stattng that an E~# [s not required: ~. Plans be revised to eliminate mining activity in the area referred to as the south ponding area in the planning report. 2. Use of explosives to support this operation are prohibited. Hours of 32 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to G:O0 p.m., Monday thru Friday, excluding national holidays. 3. Dust control shall be the operator's responsibility. If conditions persist which make dust control ineffective, the City Engineer may require temporary halting of operations. 4. The applicant is required to phase site restoration in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. He will provide staff with a written phasing plan for approval pr[or to the start of operations. 5. The applicant shall pay an inspection fee of $900. and provide the City with an acceptable financial security (letter of credit or cash) in the amount of $118,075.00 to cover the costs of site restoration and repairs to Pioneer Trail. Znspection costs in excess of the $900. fee shall be billed to the applicant at a rate of $30.00 per hour to be paid within 30 days of receipt. Drainage plans to be reviewed by Bonestroo Engineering prior to City Council review. Fees for this shall be paid by the applicant. Fees for Bonestroo's services will be billed to the applicant. The current bill is for $117.00. The applicant must demonstrate that the underlying sand layer is located at the elevation described on submittal plans prior to the start of mining. If the sandy layer ia deeper than expected, alternative drainage plans must be developed for city approval. 7. Provide permanent drainage easements in favor of the city over the retention basins. Orainage calculations are to be provided to demonstrate that the ponds are properly sized. Place notice in chain-of-title that current and future owners are responsible for keeping the basins functional. When development occurs, the city-would'normally accept responsibility for the ponds. The applicant must demonstrate that all ponds have bottoms located in the sand layer or structured outlets will be required. A clay liner is required on'the west edge of the north pond to protect the adjacent side slope. The applicant shall provide the city with an as-built grading plan of the ponds to ensure that they comply with approved specifications upon completion'of operations. 8. Provide and maintain an erosion control plan acceptable to the City Engineer. Oesignate black dirt stockpile areas for approval by the City Engineer. 9. Comply with conditions of project approval by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed Oistrlct. ' ' 10. The applicant's engineer shall prepare a plan to repair erosion damage found at the two locations on the north site described in the report. The plan is to be submitted to city staff for approval prior to the start of operations. This plan is to be undertaken as a condition of approval. 11. All mining operations and site restoration shall be completed no later than September 1, 1993. 33 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 12. Tree preservation areas shall be clearly marked prlor to the start of operations by snow fence. Trees and forested areas designated for protection that are damaged by mlnlng must be replaced on a caliper lnch basls. i3. The property owner shall file a notice in the chain of title permanently relinquishing all future rights to mine the property. All voted in favor except Mayor Chmte! who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Councilman Wing: For reasons? Mayor Chmiel: My reason being is that I'm not sure we're going to get everything that I think we're going to wind up getting. Councilman Wing: Do you have a solution? Mayor Chmiel: I wish I did. Councilman Mason: You're okay with the EAW? Councilman Wing: Well you included the negatlve finding on that. Was the EAW included in that motion? Paul Krauss: Yes. Councilman Wing: Was that part of the motion? The EAW. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That was part of it. Okay, we'll go right alon to item number 6. FINAL PLAT FOR WASHTA BAY COURT, HINNEWASHTA PARKWAY AND LI)DEN CIRC~... DANA 30HNSON. Paul Krauss: In May of last year the Council approved a subdivision request on Lake Mlnnewashta. You may recall that there was a marginal variance involved. Lake lots, riparian lots were requlred to be 20,000 square feet. These lots were very marginally short of that. And the City Council dld recommend that they be approved. The request tonight is to flnal plat the subdivision. However, there is a proposed change in the conditions. Outing the discussions on this request, the applicant voluntarily at one time suggested that they would only have one dock for two lots. I'm not really sure it was crltical to the discussion at the time but it became part of a condition. In his request for the final play, they'd like to amend that so they could in the normal manner have one dock per lot which is what's normally allowed by Code. Staff does not have an objection to it. It seems to be consistent with the way we develop along lakeshores and we are recommending that the preliminary be approved with that revised condition. That about sums it up. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Is the applicant here? 34 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Dana Johnson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: OD you wish to address that? Or are you in agreement with staff's recommendation? Dana Johnson: I'm in agreement with staff. Mayor Chmiel: Well we'll talk to ourselves for a few short minutes while, It's your turn Richard. Councilman Wing: ! have no comments on this Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any etther and Tom is not here and maybe we'll just walt for a quick, short minute. He's having discussions tn the hall. If he's eating cake, we'll move this right along then. Councilman Wing: One reason [ don't have any problems with this because they've stated clear that they intend to share one dock. They have one dock which is really becoming the norm...but the point here was to intend to have two docks. That question is, I think for the future, It's proper to plat it this way. But it's my understanding they intend to have one dock and that's really what fits best here so. Mayor Chmiel: Have one dock for two lots. But somewhere I read this Paul, if I understand, you're suggesting that there be two separate docks. Paul Krauss: One dock per lot. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Each lot having one dock. Paul Krauss: Right. Mayor Chmtel: At least that's what I thought was here. With that, can I have a morton. Councilman Wing: I'll move final plat Washta Bay Court, Dana Johnson. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Wing moued, Councilman ~ason seconded to approve final plat 192-3 for #ashta Bay Court as shown on plans dated September 9, 1992 uith the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall supply the City with a development plan indicating the proposed house pad elevations, including the lowest floor and garage floor elevations. 2. The applicant shall supply the City with a finished grading plan showing existing and proposed finished 2 foot contour elevations for review and approval. 3. Each lot should be restricted to one driveway access point, in an effort to limit the access points out onto Mtnnewashta Parkway. 35 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District and Oepartment of Natural Resources permits, if any. 5. No additional variances will be granted in the future. Park and trail fees are due at the time of building permit approval. 7. An escrow of $135.00 is required for recording of the final plat and attorney fees. All voted in favor, except Councilman Workman who was not present during the voting, and the ~otion carried. flPPEflk DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT$ AN~ APPEALS FOR. ~ BLUFF LINE PRESERVATION. SETBACK YARZANCE REQUEST, 9981._DEERBROOK DRIVE, 3AHE$ ~TELLICK, Sharmin Al-Jarl: The applicant ls proposing to build a single famlly residence on a property that is withtn the bluff area. The ordinance requires a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. The applicant ls proposing to bulld with a zero setback to the bluff. The location where the applicant is proposing to place the residence w111 destroy a large number of trees eventually that w111 cause erosion and it would defeat the purpose of the bluff protection ordinance. There are other deslgns the applicant could pursue. We can't flnd a hardship. We are recommending denial of this application. On September 14th the Board of Adjustments and Appeals revtewed thts application and they dented It unanimously. Councilman Wing was strongly opposed to approving this variance and recommended that it be carrled in front of the Counctl and so it ls In front of you today. Again, we are recommending denial of this. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is Mr. Stellick here? James Stellick: Good evening Mr. Mayor. Council people. I'd like to spend a few minutes to go through a summary. This is the first time I've seen this. I was not privy to the report to the city as an applicant apparently. I don't feel that that line ls correct but I'd like to go ahead wlth the summary anyway. This is approximately 11 1/2 acre site. The front portion of the lot abutting the street amounts to. Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Stellick? Maybe I could ask you, you're indicating that that line is not correct. Where would that line necessarily be? James Stellick: I instructed the surveyor to set the house back 30 feet from the bluff lot, the relevant line. The surveyor added the decks. If that was not properly set, then it's extremely close. The decks were then put in by the surveyor. I don't understand this line and. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is the illustration that we received from the applicant that was shown at the Board of Adjustment meeting. I asked Sharmin to put the red 11nes on there so It was easler to see but nothing has changed slnce it was last reviewed. Mayor Chmlel: Mr. Stellick, as you indicated just previously, you're ertl1 looktng at complying with that 30 foot setback from the bluff 11ne? 36 City Council Heeting - September 28, 1992 3ames Stellick: The house, as it sits, is 30 feet back from the bluff line. The decks are not. The decks approach the bluff line and they can be cut back. The Planning Department informed us that the proposed house must be set forward on the lot so that no portion of the house encroaches within and no excavation occurs within 30 feet of the bluff crest line. If this becomes a permanent order, the walkout rambler home we wish to build would have absolutely no view to the bluff area. Obviously the views are a major attraction of this piece of land. It's also the reason for the parcel's value as a home building site. There are essentially two similar lots in that development. The adjacent lot on the left side there and this lot. They do have bluff views. They also have a steep bluff line that's not a shallow slope. Wtthout a vartance the property cannot be put to use reasonable and appropriate for the Deerbrook area. Almost every, if not every home in the subdivision ls currently a walkout. We've been told that the city is not dictating the type of home we can butld, yet if we bulld according to the bluff ordinance, our home wtll have a hill behind tt which will totally obscure any views from the house. Admittedly, if we build a 2 or 3 story home, there's a possibility we could enjoy the views available on our land. However, part of the justification for a bluff ordinance is to maintaln the pristine appearance of the bluffs. A 2 or 3 story home would certainly seem to be more obtrusive than a rambler which would.more readily blend in wlth the environment. Unfortunately the reason we're leaving a two story home In Eden Prairie is because our home with all of It's steps is impractical as we take care of a parent who is paralyzed. Only a rambler type home w111 accommodate our future needs. Planning staff and/or the Board of Adjustments seem to have three concerns. First there's a concern that if we place the home where we desire, trees will have to be removed. Of the total site, approximately 9 to 9 1/2 acres are soltd trees going down the bluff. The amount of trees that we would remove would consist of less than tX of the treed site. We'd be more than happy to replace trees. We're going to try to transplant trees that have to be taken out to put to the front of the site which doesn't have any trees. The second concern has to do with erosion. We admit this is a valid concern. We don't want erosion to occur any more than the city. However, if thls ls the Counicl's concern, there's a.better way to address this Issue. By assuring that the home ts built with adequate and-appropriate dralnage paths, erosion can be avoided. We would be willing to hire consulting engineers, whatever would be necessary to avoid erosion. That would be the last thlng in the world we would want on our site. Thtrdly, the members of the Board of Adjustments expressed an unwillingness to grant a variance since this is a newer ordinance. In our oplnion, this is not a valtd justification for denying a meritorious variance request. The Board also stated that we had notice.of the ordinance when we submitted our Purchase Agreement. We don't deny thls fact. We did. However, we have a reasonable belief that we qualified for a variance due to the nature of the land and the appearance and locatton of the other homes in that development. It ts our opinion that this site cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variation due to the unique nature of the land. Granting of a variance will result in alleviating a hardship and will further result in ensuring the home on this lot will blend in with the neighboring houses and the environment. In other words, granting this variance request won't alter the essential characteristics of the area. In fact, an upper bracket 6,000 square foot brick home will probably help increase the area property values. A denial of this request will undoubtedly mean the market value of this property will decrease markedly. If this happens, there's a high probability that a home of far lesser value will be constructed. This should be 37 City Counctl Meeting - September 28, 1992 a real concern for the people of Chanhassen. As we all know, the taxes are directly related to property values. If what you were trying to accomplish by this ordinance ls conservation and beauty of the bluff area as well as the purity of the water, you can accomplish this by allowing a walkout rambler with proper drainage to prevent eroslon. We respectfully request that you reconsider the decision of the Board of Adjustments and grant our request for a variance. We'd be more than happy to work wlth clty officials to accomplish our objectives in a manner that will benefit everyone. That's the end of the statement. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Are there any specific questions anyone may have to ask Mr. Stellick? Michael. Councilman Mason: Just one. How close are the railroad tracks to where you want to build right now Mr. Stellick? James Stellick: The railroad tracks would be at the, I believe the survey, I don't know what package you have but there lsa survey. It's the south easterly 11ne of the slte are the rallroad tracks. Paul Krauss: The parcel borders on the railway. Councilman Mason: Right, rlght. So about how many feet would that be from the home? James Stelllck: Oh, 800 or 1,000. We're trying to get a varlance so we have a wonderful view of a gravel pit is what we're trying to do here. Councilman Mason: That's all I have for now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thomas. Councilman Workman: Well you know I too, granted the rails aren't on that track anymore. With that runntng d£rectly by, what are the exact setback requests? What are the exact setback requests lnto the setback? 10 feet? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Zero setback from the top of the bluff line. Counciliman Workman: I know, but what are they requesting? Sharmtn Al-Jarl: Zero. No setback. They want to butld rtght on the bluff. Councilman Workman: Rlght on the 11ne? Sharmin Al-Jaff: Correct. James Stelllck: The house ls set 30 feet back. The decks encroach the bluff line. Councilman Workman: I'm asklng, how far are the decks lnto the setback? Zero? Paul Krauss: They're on the edge of the bluff. 38 City Council Heeting - September 28, 1992 Sharmin Ai-Jaff: Correct. This is the edge of the bluff. The ordinance requires a 30 foot setback. They're right on it. Councilman Workman: Oh. So they're within 30 feet? They're 30 feet too far in? Sharmin Al-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Workman: Because you have to be 30 foot back? James StellIck: ...on the setback ltne there is that the scale that was plcked up was picked up from the adjacent lot. There ts a scale on the survey Itself which is a different scale than that. So !belteve you picked that up from the adjacent lot. Councilman Workman: Is there some question here as to whether this ts an accurate line or not now? Mrs. Stellick: Yes. Councilman Workman: I mean would this be, we can't resolve that tonight. Paul Krauss: All we can do, unless their surveyor's willing to stake the line, we've walked the site several times. We were out there again this evening. I mean it's clear from the illustration. It's-very obvious when you're out there where the bluff line starts. You walk through the trees a ways and then it starts running doan the hill. The bluff line ordinance does establish an official elevation. Sharmtn's tried to relate-that offtctal elevation to it. It's pretty clear from the illustrations that we were provided by the applicant that the decks are on the edge of the bluff.line. Maybe they're 5 feet back one way or the other, it's hard to tell with the Information we've been given but the decks are on the bluff line. - - Councilman Mason: How about, the applicant Is saying that the house is 30 feet back. Let's forget about the decks for a second. The appitcant-I believe is saying the house is 30 feet back. And you folks are in disagreement with that right now? : Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. This is the 30 foot setback i/ne and it's clearly in the middle of the house. It runs through the house. James Stellick: Sharmin, do you have the full scale survey? Councilman Mason: Maybe while we're working that out, tf we can come to an agreement that the house is 30 feet back, can you live without the decks? James Stellick: Yes. I'd be happy to move the house further back. Councilman Mason: Because personally for me' the.issue ls,-I think that obviously that 30 foot setback was put there for a reason. And if you can move the house back or if your scale, you know if we have an inaccurate scale here or something, I think that's great. But we can't have things right up against the bluff line but it seems to me ltke'ue have to get this scale cleared up. 39 City Council Meeting - September 28, James Stellick: If I might add. The criteria for a variance as stated, the criteria includes, it says that the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. The lntent of the provision ls not to allow proliferation of variances but to recognize that in the developed neighborhoods, pre-existing standards exlst. Variances that blend wlth these pre-existing standards wtthout departing from them, meet this criteria. The adjacent house is approximately the same dlstance back. It has a deck. It has more than one deck. I~ has a pool that is closer to the bluff. My point is that we do conform with the variance requirements. To be granted a variance. To have that. I mean we could certainly out back the decks. We could slide the house further to the north. That creates a different problem. We're trying to solve a problem by putting it that far out, as strange as it sounds. If you slide the house further back, you have to excavate more if you're going to have a walkout house. Again, a walkout house is the preponderance style of house in that neighborhood. It is not a unlque house. It's the way they all are. The fact that it lsa sharp bluff creates problems. If it was a gently sloping bluff, you wouldn't have to get so close. But if you move this house back, as a walkout, you'll have to gouge out a lot of earth and at the Planning meeting they suggested that that would not be approved elther. $o thls agaln, by moving it closer, we remove less earth, less disruption. Clearly, the reason somebody would buy a house 11ke this would be for the vlew. And if one is not allowed the vlew, or to bulld the standard kind of a home for that site, the value's not there. And thls slte, thls plat was approved many years ago. Clearly wlth the lntent of marketing those homes. Or those lots as view lots. And the bluff ordinance was passed I believe in October of '91. ~fter two homes were bullt or were approved that do not meet the bluff ordinance. They encroach on the bluff and we're asklng to conform ulth what's already there. Unfortunately we need to seek a variance to achieve that where the others didn't. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, was that other house constructed prior to the ordinance? Paul Krauss: The other house was constructed prior to the ordinance. Mayor Chmlel: This ls the one that we had looked at at one tlme where they had concerns about erosion occurring now? Paul Krauss: The Bruce Bren home? I'm not sure. It may have been. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ~nd the others that we had also looked at who were having qulte a blt of eroslon of that bluff line and comlng closer to the buildings. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the sites that you and I vlsited that had the severe eroslon were in a different area of the bluff. It's typlcal of what happens there. But the home next door was built, was given a buildtng permtt prlor to the adoptlon of the ordinance. We dld requlre the builder to go back in and we had them revise the plan so instead of pushtng the pool out over the bluff, they brought it back in but it was done prior to the ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: I Just wanted to make that clarification, and that's the reason. Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: I don't think Mr. $tellick wants to hear from me and for $100.00 I'll keep quiet. I'm on record with the variance, Board of variance 40 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 denying this and I became frustrated because the loss of trees isn't the issue. The type of house isn't the issue we're discussing. The view isn't the issue we're discussing. I mean the view, everybody wanted the view and it was the view that really prompted the ordinance in the first place because we're going up and over and down into the basin and destroying the ridge line. So the ordinance was hard fought with those issues at heart so I just drew the line and said, this is an ordinance that ! believe in. It's an ordinance I think we ought to enforce and I don't care what type of house Hr. Stellick builds or what trees, what he might choose to do with the trees on his property. What kind of a view he can derive from this but what I didn't feel comfortable was giving the variance against our new bluff line ordinance which I really believe in. I think it's in the best interest of the city long term and whatever happens out there just has to be 30 feet back from the bluff so I thought it was really a simple issue and maybe I'm over simplifying it. I apologize if I am but I'm on record as opposing it and I'm going to stand on that. Mayor Chmtel: Tom. Councilman Workman: Sure, take the easy way out. When I got the fuzztes for this ordinance, I was standing at Bluff Creek Golf Course looking down into nature. And I now know why I'm so frustrated by this thing is because not all bluffs are created equal. Can we add that to the ordinance? This thing is looking over a bed of granite which was a railroad track which will probably be a light rail track, or a bike trail in the meantime, or something. And so when I think of this bluff line ordinance, and I can hear Paul's teeth grinding, is I had that view of that. £verytime we've had somebody contest this ordinance it's always been something that looks a little different. It's always been kind of a different situation which is why we have variances, but I imagined all the, as we took the tour of all the endangered plant life and the steep ridges and everything else. To me this lot is a little-bit different. How far do we let the decks go? I don't know. I'm not going to design their home like a previous Council member may have but it's overlooking this rail line which is, granted it's sort of a bluff but then you go down and then there's the tracks and presumably there'd be another bluff. I don't know if tracks break it up but to me it's overlooking something that's rather obtrusive. But I mean their lot goes down to the tracks. I don't know. That's why I've had such a tough time with this. And for the right of a property owner in this instance, I'm sympathetic. It's easy for me to be sympathetic to what they're trying to accomplish. Whether it makes sense or doesn't make sense to me. I don't want to help them design their home. It seems like a magnificant structure. So I wonder how much this is going to disturb and I know that's a compromise on the ordinance but, do you get my drift? I'm not thinking very clearly perhaps but it's, I've just been frustrated with it because I've never seen that pristine bluff that I got so concerned about when I decided that I thought we needed the bluff line ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Often tlmes we don't know what's going to happen with that particular bluff 11ne. The amount of erosion that I've seen. That Paul and I have gone out to several different residences last year trying to get some appropriations to asstst them so the erosion doesn't continue, which we have not found any dollars that are 11kely to be found anywhere. ~nd thelr concerns are there, yet I don't want to see Mr. Stelltck get in that same position where this could happen to hlm as well. With that eroston. I'm not sure that it can't City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 happen. $o 30 foot setback in my estimation is something that ue have established to make sure that providing of that respective owner of that property, the rights to be there without having anything to worry about and that's why that $0 foot setback is there. Councilman Workman: Well, I'll let his engineer worry about that. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's true. Now, the thing I've heard also is that potentially there could be something different within the scales that were used to come up with those calculations. If there can be some verification to that by his engineer, or civil or whoever you're having doing this, then we could look at that part of it. Do you have? Paul Krauss: We did recheck the illustration that was up there using the full sized print with the scale that was provided and the line comes out to be in about the same place. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Have we had, have you had a surveyor stake out to where the house may be within that lot? James Stelllck: I'm sorry, ! apparently wasn't clear. On the plat they flrst did a schematic of the house and then reduced it down to the proper scale. A 11ttle cutout and then they literally stick it on the slte. The instruction was to stick it 30 feet away from the bluff edge. Mayor Chmiel: But the decks are going to prevail into that setback requirement. James $telllck: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: But yet you still have an alternative to move that back some. James Stellick: The house or the decks? Hayor Chmiel: Right. The house back some so you could still accommodate those decks and still be within the 30 foot setback requirement from the ordinance. But as you sald, there maybe some additional costs you're golng to have to incur. James Stellick: I'm not so concerned about the cost. It's the fact that the Planning Director indicated that that's a different animal. You also have to get a varlance for your ground work. Your excavation. 6nd that the Plannlng Department would not accept moving the house further away from the bluff because ina walkout style home, you have to excavate to the bluff and that created a different kind of problem. Again, I'd be happy to move it back. Mayor Chmiel: Paul. Paul Krauss: You're not allowed to cut trees utthln the bluff lmpact zone uhlch is 20 feet from the top of the ht11. You're not supposed to do any grading in there. The applicant ls referring to, I think ls basically saylng, well if I can't put the house on the bluff, I'll move it 30 feet back and then I'll cut the bluff down and then...the basement. You can do all the gradlng you want to do outside of that area. You can trim trees to get a view of the bluff line 42 City Council Meeting - September from the home. But you can't, the way the ordinance is set up, you can't work in that bluff impact area. It was intended not to allow mass grading of the edge of the bluff line. James Stellick: My point is that you cannot then build a walkout style home which I believe every single house in that development is. You cannot build it on that site period. ~nd the intent it seems to me of a variance is to set forth conditions whereby you vary. We meet those variance requirements in that we 'are compatible with existing homes in the neighborhood which it says is the test you have to meet. If the Planning Bepartment stands on that issue, or the Council does, effectively only a two story house can be built on that site away from the bluff. It would be I believe the first two story house in the neighborhood and it does present a hardship for us, for the existing o~mers. We can't build there anymore. ~nd again, we can't build with that which is compatible with the neighborhood. Councilman Mason: I wonder if we could see if Mr. Stellick and either Paul or the Planning Commission can work something out with the grading. ! have a real tough time allowing something within 30 feet of that bluff line. But if we can push the house back with a minimum amount of damage, maybe that's something. Has that been looked at at all? I mean have any plans been submitted or anything like that? I mean is that out of the question? Paul Krauss: ae suggested that that be done in the recommendations. James mtellick: I believe the recommendation was a two story home. Not a walkout further back. Paul Krauss: Well, we have no intent to recommend a specific style. It was simply, I mean you could take that plan and basically put it back the distance and then figure out the grading. We're not here to dictate what type of home goes on there. James mtellick= ~gain, how do you build a walkout style home if you cannot disrupt the bluff and you move it 30 feet back? You literally would dig a hole for your backyard. ! don't understand how you do that. Paul Krauss: Well again, I mean we have a number of lots in the city that cannot accept walkout homes. Walkout basements. That's a fact. You even saw on the recent Lundgren submittal where there were some lots that were going to be prohibited against it because the grading was too severe. I've also seen walkout homes made through grading where you can basically mound up dirt and excavate it out. ! mean there's ways of doing things. I'm not sure if these things have been explored or not. Rgain, I don't think it's my staff's job to design this for the applicant. ~e've suggested how it could be done. We're willing to work with their engineer or architect to see if they're got a modification that would do it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think it's time to call the question. Councilman Workman: I'd move to table this until further review rather than risk granting or not granting. 43 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: To work it out with staff to see if it can be reached and construction can be done according to Mr. Stellick'$ needs as well. But yet still making sure we're meetlng our qualifications. Okay. Councilman Workman: It sounds like the Stellicks are agreeable to that. James Stelltck: Could you tell me a little bit what the timing of that would be. Mayor Chmiel: I think it could be back here within 2 weeks. James Stellick: Okay. The Council meets every 2 weeks? Mayor Chmiel: Our next Counc11 meetlng uhlch u111 be the second Monday of the month. Don Ashworth: The 12th. Mayor Chmtel: Yep. Paul Krauss: We would be able to adhere to that deadline as long as we were able to reach some conclusion before Monday or Tuesday of next week. James Ste111ck: [ don't know what's belng asked of me frankly. Even If that slte ls correct, [ believe though we still have a problem but we'll be happy to try and work through that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Hopefully what I'd like you to do is contact Paul to see exactly what you have to do so you're just not stumbling around too and coming in wlth something that's not going to meet what they're talking about as well. James Stellick: Sure. And can I also get a copy of what was presented to the Council for this meeting. Mayor Chmiel: I don't see why not. Sure. Councilman Workman moved. Councilman Hason seconded to table the appeal of the Variance Request ~92-11 for further revie#. All voted in favor and the mot/on carried. REZONZNG OF 20.9& ACRES FROH B~, BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT TO PUD. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPHENT; A PRELTHINANY AND FINAL PUD AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE TARGET DEVELOPHENT ON 10+ ACRES; AND AN INTERIH USE PERHZT FOR GRADING OF .THE ENTIRE SITE. Ry. AN CONSTRUCTTON. Kate Aanenson: What I'd like to do at this time is just go ahead and present the update from the last time we met on this, which was conceptual approval. It went to the Planning Commission on September 16th. Lengthy discussion, about 2 44 City Council Nesting - September 28, 1992 1/2 hours. They did recommend approval for the preliminary plat and the PUD as well as the Interim use permit for the grading and site plan approval They did recommend some modifications to the conditions that staff had and /'ye shown this in the report with some bold. Since that time there's been some other changes and this thing, as you know with the West 78th detachment project is changing, i'd like to bring you up to date on some of those modifications. Some of these issues again were raised at the Planning Commission also. We did recommend at the time of conceptual approval that the Burdtck property be £ncluded in the PUD. ~t the time of the Planning Commission we had one motion so this property will be included in the PUD but since it's already been platted, it's not included in the platting motion. One of the other issues that was raised at the Planning Commission was the interim use grading permit: Hart Dimler rents the space from Hr. Burdick and he has pumpkins growing on the site and he was concerned about the timing of the grading'permit. [n addition, we had recommended modification.to the condition for the grading, number 9'that grading be allowed only at the Target site at this time since we're not sure exactly what's going to happen with'the'West 78th alignment. In addition, Hr. 3ames has asked that his property'be'excluded from the-platting.and from'the PUD at this time and that piece would just be the upper-most.piece, whatever that alignment turns out as so this Outlot C, or whatever remnant's [eft if it swings down, B would be, at this time be eliminated.from.the PUD'and the platting at this time. The staff would also.recommend that'you may cons[der going ahead and recommending approval of that portion of a first reading. If it's excluded, we could take [t out of the second reading when we come back with the-ordinance. Whatever is your preference on that: The other issues that were raised at the Planning Commission was lighting. Staff did.put a recommendation, although the Planning Commission brought it up but'didn't make'[t a'foreal recommendat[on, that lighting after hours be limited to'security lighting'only. [n addition, the Southwest Hetro recommended that a bush shelter:'be located on the'.site and we recommended that that be mutually acceptable with the"staff and.:Target'and Southwest Hetro of that exact location.' Staff.did have a condition tn here, number 10 under stte plan review, that this proJect be combined with the West 78th detachment project. As you already made'thai'motion tonight that.that condition or that project be tabled for 2 ~eeks. We had'recommended-that only grading be allowed'until that project's been ordered so,'and-then that's up.to your consideration. Peter'Oltn did look at:'the landscaping of this'site and had recommended some changes which we'recommend'under the s[te plan.' Under the pine trees. This issue came up with'the Planning Commission too, that more evergreens, be placed along the front landscaping along West 78th'and"those. evergreen trees be changed or in-addition.I Austrian, more Austrian-pines than 3ack pines. [n addition, he recommended"the trees'~n'the:'.parking 1or'be changed from some of the flowerings being'.shown',to White Ash, Hackberry, Tamarack.and Red and Burl Oak. So we would recommend that-.your'condtt.[on-reflect the. recommendations of Peter Olin at the Arboremtum. Based on..that,'staff, would recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat, s[te plan review and the interim use for the grading permit subject to the recommendations of-the Planning Commission and the staff with those changes that were just outlined. Hayor ChmIel: Okay, thank you Kate. Would the applicant wish to make any proposals at this time? '" Kate Ranenson: ! forgot two issues real qulckly. The one condition the Planning Commission had that they're going to discuss now is they did recommend 45 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 a walkway between the Outlot B and the Target store. Target had concerns about that and they proposed a modification including a meandering sidewalk with additional berming. And the other issue was the facade treatment on West 78th and ['11 let their architects go through that with you but they've made substantial changes and the staff's pretty happy wlth the way that's turning out. Mayor Chmtel: Good, thank you. Whoever is on. John Dietrich: Mr. Mayor, thank you. John Dietrich from RLK Associates. I'm the landscape architect for Ryan and Target...Target site plan approval that we'll be presenting tonight. Very qu£ckly, here the site plan has been submitted and ls in your plan package. This lsa colored up verslon of the landscape plan which identifies a different cross section that we have available that look at the slte from ?8th Street and Highway 5 to show how the slte does fit within the entire context. This site plan was what was submitted in your plan package. What we have taken here ls the modification of the area north of the parking lot along West 78th Street where we incorporate the curvalinear sldewalk between Target and Outlot B that will allow for pedestrian access moving to the west with an opportunity to have some berming and a little wider depth, approximately 20 feet of more landscape area and green space wlthln this area. And I've kind of drawn one more cross section across that area that looks at a greater wldth of the slte movlng from 78th Street lnto the parking lot. Identifying a walkway. Some berming up to the...range and then we've also taken the perspective as to how that sldewalk would look as we're standlng out on West ?8th Street so that we would have an opportunity to have a little more green. A 11ttle more screening. Both of coniferous plant material, ornamental plant material and over story canopy trees that will be marching along West ?8th Street. In response to staff's recommendations...a couple of comments In terms of the landscape plan. We have identified in the parking lot ornamentals that are belng placed wlthln these islands. Those lslands are smaller... It is our suggestion that we wtll be willing to leave the plan as is. I would recommend that...and the sequence and the varlety of plant materials that would glve the parking lot a greater amount of color and depth, especially from intermediate size of screening. However, based on the staff's recommendation, we'd be willing to put in one over story canopy tree of a larger caliper. Say a tree that's 3 and 3 1/2 lnch tree that would be of the same dollar value so that we would be able to...staff's recommendation in terms of havtng over story plant materlal wlthln the parking lot. But the planting islands wlll not allow two canopy trees to be placed in that close together. Secondly, we would 11ke to have the pylon slgn for the Target center be moved a 11ttle bit further to the west so that it wlll be more in the corner of the site. Southwest corner. For lnstance down in the area of the retention pond. It would be a sllght modification with it moving a 11ttle bit further to the west. Mayor Chmiel: What's the reasons for that? John Dietrich: The elevation...up a little bit and also a greater visibility. Mayor Chmiel: By how many feet? John Dietrich: How many feet. City Council Meeting - September Fran Hagen: It's a combination. My name is Fran Hagen. I'm with RLK also. The combination is two factors. The road itself of Highway § is raising rather rapidly so the difference between here and here is at least 5 feet as far as the Highway 5 and then there's at least another 5 feet of grade difference just in our grading plan from this point to here so we'd be raising it up 5 feet here and the road would be 5 feet or more lower, I'd have to look at the grading plan to see exactly...but we're talking at least 10 feet difference. Total. Kate Aanenson: We don't have a problem with that. We already put a maximum height and they've got renderings of the sign and we feel that that's fine. Basically the design is fine. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. John Dietrich: That concludes my comments on the landscape plan. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you John. One question though Joh. I was Just thinking, what callper of trees are we golng to be putting in on the entirety of that site? John Dietrich: Typically 2 1/2 inches. For the canopy... Margaret Fleck: I'm Margaret Fleck. I'm the Target project architect and I'll be representing the architecture on the building. Specifically I'd like to speak to the West 78th Street side, although we've made a slight alteration to the entry side when we made the alterations to West 78th. Previously we've been presenting an element that was perhaps a slighter darker on the base and then had a form similar to thls but was a 11ttle bit broader. What we've done in response to several comments that were made both here and at the Planning Commission, there seemed to be a feel that'there needed to be more rhythm and break up so we brought more change In the elevation massing and added an element wlth a lower roof line. One of the things I know has been a concern ts the long expanse of the wall here in giving tt some variation for pedestrians walking in the area. And also the long expansion of the regular roof line. what this does is these masses project out 4 feet to 3 foot-8 in this area and gives you a variation that you can see. I'm going to provide you with something that brtngs your eye down and away from this straight line and brings you into a scale that's much closer to a human scale.' You could stand underneath this and feel very comfortable that it is a-projection of'4 feet.' We'll have lighting in there so that it klnd of accents this area. We may also be puttlng some lighting across the way to try to'spotlight these and give them more shadow constantly during operating hours. And again they would shut off during other hours. The roof line, and we have been maintained but we've added the smaller roof 11ne up at the front area here to duplicate these again and to bring again another scale and variation in there. Prevlously you can recall the older plan. We dld have these elements but one of these was pushed back this direction and one was more centralized and they broke it up into thirds. We've chosen to shift them over partially because you started to lose the one that was over on this end. You don't see it as much how it would change because of the grading here but as you move out onto West 78th Street, the street line ts about here. So you really do lose the visual impact of it until you get rtght up to it. So we chose to shift that over. There's also a great deal'more landscaping in this area as well as on the site plan. There's a great deal of landscaping in this 47 City Council Meeting - September 28, 199~ area and there's a great deal of activity ulth your bus stop that at an angle from that approach, or from the other direction, this particular portion of the elevation isn't going to be seen as much, and we wanted to get the impact where it would really have a great deal of effect. Bring this perspective back up. Agaln we're uslng a variation of two colors plus the roof line of metal standing seam that adds another materlal and another color to it. Previously we had shown this as a brown roof and we really feel that another color and perhaps a closer to a primary color wlll give a great deal more variation to the whole aesthetics of the deslgn. This was chosen to match the green that we standardly use in the banding and it would alternate, if there's an objection to one particular color, we could use another color. Right now we felt the green went very nicely wlth the landscaping. Brought tn again a color that would be fairly standard to a residential bulldlng also whereas a blue or a red lsn't as likely to happen on a residential building. Are there any particular questions? Mayor Chmlel: I guess I have one. The roof portion as you've indicated, is that going to be metal? Margaret Fleck: Yes. We were talking about a metal standing seam roof. Mayor Chmiel: I know at HRA it was discussed. I sit on the HRA as well. There seems to be some concerns wlth the metal on those. Is there any oonslderatlon that can be done using something other than metal? Margaret Fleck: I'm not sure what your concerns might be. We felt that it was appropriate. It does happen on residential buildings as welI. It's not shiny or you know, reflective. Can you express what the conoerns mlght be? Mayor Chmiel: I think some of the concerns that they had is that it have more of a tlle look or something other than metal. Anythlng other than metal, which would soften it. Margaret Fleck: Okay, I'd have to take that back. My initial thought is going back to like an asphalt shingle that a residential would use and yet I'm not really clear what type of Code implications that would have. But that could be a possibility. Something that's st111 non-flammable type of thing. That would have some possibility or something that perhaps even ina metal that has a stamped, that type of stamped look on it could be a good possibility rather than the metal standing seam, if that's what you felt was appropriate. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That was a lot of some of the concerns that was brought up in discussion. I indicated that I would brlng that up. Margaret Fleck: Okay. There's also an embossed metal roof that has sort of a tlle look to it that I wouldn't have any problem uslng. I'm real concerned about actually going to tile because it adds a great deal of weight to the building. Mayor Chmiel: Structually. Margaret Fleck: Your structure. Mayor Chmiel: But for the sizes that you're looking there, the square footage ls not that great. 48 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Margaret Fleck: It still brings in the same square footage per foot so, I think we can effectively work something out on that and I can work w/th staff definitely on that. Councilman Wing: Before we get off that Don, were there any options? For instance, could we shingle those roofs with wood shingles to make it soften the building and make it look a little woodsey? Nargaret Fleck: Again, I'm real concerned about the fire rating of that. Councilman Wing: That's the reason I throw it at Paul. Were there any options with this? Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, you're getting into a subjective area but subjectively I'd have to say that a standing seam is pretty high quality. It's used on the bank here. We had another bank plan that was going to use it extensively. Councilman Wing: This roof? Paul Krauss: Yes. It's generally, ! mean it's more expensive than shingling and you know I quest[on, we've been the prime advocates of pitching roofs downtown but trying to obtain a residential appearance on 78th Street seems a little bit incongruous of what we're trying to ach[eve there. Mayor Chmiel: I'm bringing up the concern basically. Haybe there's something other than a tile effect within the metal that could look a little different as well as you've indicated. Margaret Fleck: Yeah. These are, with the metal-standing seam actually has a standing seam on it so you get a vertical type of look to it which also breaks it up the surface. Your tiles or your shingles would actually break it up again horizontally. That might be tough to do without it being an embossed panel with the metal. Todd Gerhardt: The HRA's largest concerns or the project they've always used as an example in the past, that they would prefer not to see happen in Chanhassen would be like the Rainbow Center over in Eden Prairie where they took the metal seamless roof, green to extremes over there. -[ mean it's a very green development and driving by that facility every day has left an impression with the HRA. Margaret Fleck: Yeah, and ! can understand that. That roof also doesn't have a true pitch to it. [t's almost a vertical surface. This is a true pitched roof and we've been very careful about keeping that 45 degree, 60 degree roofline that would be true to a residential roofline. You can definitely see it here. Zn fact that's one of the reasons the projections come out as far as they do to assure that. So you're not going to get something that looks like a fence. going to look like a roof and that's a big, significant difference. The green would be fairly green. Todd Gerhardt: Well not the entire development. You've got a mixture of red, green, brown, brick. I mean it went green from Point A all the way around. 49 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Councilman Mason: Yeah see, that breaks it up well I think. Margaret Fleck: Yeah. I mean the green is just an accent color here. It's not lntended on being domlnant color. Councilman Mason: I like the way that looks. I don't like the landscaping but I like the way it looks. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions? Richard. Councilman Wlng: I'm interested in the landscaping. Are we at that polnt yet? Mayor Chmlel: We've discussed £t but we can go back to it. I think what I'd 11ko to have them do is go through their process. And when you have your questions, we can come back to that. Okay. Councilman Wing: Well where's, I don't have Peter's letter. I dldn't see tr. Paul Krauss: It came in Just the day before yesterday. Or todaY. Kate Aanenson: Actually I got it today. Thls morning. Jim Tetusch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Counctl. My name is Jim Tetusch and I'm wlth Target. I'm their real estate person on this project. Just a couple of lssues that I'd like to touch upon that my colleagues have not, that relate to the staff report lssues. One belng the West 78th Street whlch we all know we went through at great lengths just before this. The one thing, comment that we would 11ko to have clarified in that is that as that alignment starts to take it's flnal form, that perhaps it gets spelled out a little bit more specifically as to who 1s dolng what and the obligations of all the partles. I want you to know that we're anxious to participate in this discussion and resolution with Mr. James and the clty and Strgar and others. I just want to reiterate that. With respect to some of the landscaping issues. One th£ng that we'd like to point out, or I'd 11ko to agaln state ls that we talked about the evergreent type trees in the parking lot and staff has made some conciliation efforts on the fact that we could go to some type of a deciduous type tree. I dldn't hear Kate mention perhaps that a locust type tree is an acceptable variety £n the parking lot in addition to the other species that you had identified. I'd like to perhaps add that as one of the acceptable species of trees that would be allowed. It does glve us some of the lacey effect. It provides a great deal of visibility through the parking lots so people can see where they're going to the store and so on. Also, one other polnt here had to do wlth the various easements. The sanitary and water easements are called out in the report to be publlc utilities. Those that 11e on the Target property and those that 11e on OutIot 8. However, I find that there is no mention in the report that states that the storm sewer would be lncluded as one of the publlc utilities and I just want to ask that durtng the final platting process, £f we could address the lssue regarding the storm sewer. Whether that ls golng to be publlo or not. Perhaps that can be clarified. It mentioned also the issue regarding the pumpklns on the slte. ! just wanted to say that the staff report polnted out that we were antic£pattng on starting thts project sometime around the first of October. That's incorrect. We wouldn't probably be startlng thls untll at least after the 15th of october and I would suspect that perhaps by that time, 5O City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 what with what the weatherman is telling us weather is going to be like in the next few days, perhaps many of those pumpkins would be harvested. Those that would not be, I'd also want to point out that we are going to'be limiting actually our grading on the area of Outlot B so there may be an opportunity to either move those that are going to be involved in the grading on the Target parcel to Outlot B and consolidate them so that they're not forced to have to remove them from the site. With respect to our starting the project, there was also mention in the report about restoring and reseeding the project by November lSth. I just want to point out that since we are starting October lSth, we will perhaps be in the middle of our grading operations on or later than the lSth of November making it very difficult for us to put down some seed and have it take hold because by that time we're already looking at perhaps the ground starting to freeze. We are going to incorporate the erosion procedures which we feel are going to be adequate enough to make this site stable through the winter months and then in the spring. There was a discussion a little bit earlier about the realignment of the pedestrian area along 78th Street. One point I'd like to make about that is that we actually moved the parking lot 15 feet farther to the south, just not to give you the impression that we carved another 15 feet out of the roadway right-of-way or something to create the landscape area for that pedestrian link. In closing, since we're getting to a late hour here, I just want to express Target's congratulations to the staff on their prompt attentiveness to our project and we'd like to thank Oon Ashwortho and Happy Birthday Don by the way, and also members of the Council. Thank you. B.C. "Jim' Burdick: Paul may I have displayed the landscaping that John from ELK spoke about. Well, we have a big colored one don't we? Gentlemen, it's that same old thing again. ¥isibi[ity for'my remaining property here. I have a deal with Ryan and with Target that we can have a drive thru here and they will not shut off the view anymore than... As I've spoken before, we started out with half of my property being behind the Target and...between staff and so forth and...but in meetings with Target and Eyan, it was agreed this would be left open. And they've even gone so far as to put in a couple of, whatever they are. Well, i'm worried about what they are over here in front of my remaining property. So I'm going to first ask you to leave this open and then I'm going to insist because this is part of my contract with Target and Ryan. A drive thru and leaving this open as part of the agreement. Now, one thing that particularly scared me here. John used the word Australian Pine. Australian Pine for example, in Florida or Indiana and many places, it's considered about one half as bad as milfoil is to Hinnesota: Zt's-a'disease. It's a terrible thing and many communities in Florida it's an offense and they...2, 3, $4,000.00 for planting a single Australian Pine because it just simple spreads. It spreads a lot like Creeping Charlie but they grow 20, 30, 40 feet hlgh. They're dense. They're dirty. They go from one neighbor to the next to the next. And that is the case of... ! hope you will take no Australian Pine and leave this open with my agreement. May Z ask the'engineer with Eyan just where this driveway is going to be? It seems to have been changed again. I don't mean to come up here and not know what I'm talking about but it's been changed at least 50 times... Fran Hagen: It's still where it was proposed. It's just that all these notes are covering it up on the landscaping plan so... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So it's still shown in that particular location. 51 City Council Meeting - September B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes. Yes. I guess that's okay. 5ohn Dietrich: If I could just address the trees. You were asking about those trees in front of your property there. I'll just point out that the trees that are shown in the boulevard area were taken from the West 78th detachment project. Those are going to be part of your project so those big trees right here, that is what was proposed as part of the West 78th Street detachment. Our landscaping starts once you get into our property. We're showing everything that will be there once the project is done and...little carried away carrying it beyond the site but yoa'11 see that also according to the West 78th Street project design. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: You mean according to BRW? John 01etrich: Right. According to BRW. B.C. "3tm" Burdlck: Well... Mayor Chmiel: I guess that's sort of an agreement between you and Target as to. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yeah, I'll try to work it out but we had it in the middle here before. Jlm Telusch: I'd just llke to assure Mr. Burdlck that we u111 work with him to come up wlth a location that's mutually acceptable to Target and Mr. Burdlck. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Okay, and no Australian Pines. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure Planning will find out where that's going to be located one way or the other and works out as well. Okay, any others? Seelng none, let's bring it back to Council. Councilman Mason: My, and I've stated it before, my big concern ls what it will look like for people drlvlng down West 78th Street from downtown towards Target. I'm st111 concerned about the landscaping along Target, although ! like the new plan. I think that looks good. I'm st111 concerned about the view of people walking by there. I was at that Plannlng Commission and I st111 11ke the idea of the sidewalk down the middle, although I understand their concerns. I continue to be a little concerned about how people wlll get from Target to Outlot B. I personally don't think they'll use that sidewalk, although I must say that new landscaping sure makes it look nice. But everything, we're certainly moving in the right direction but I don't think there's any question of that. I'm st111 concerned about the landscaping on West 78th, and just the landscaping right next to Target. Not east/west of there at a11. I think that's fine. The landscaping just directly north. Mayor Chmiel: Just directly north of the store in itself7 Councilman Mason: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Between the drive and over to Monterey? Councilman Mason: Right. That hunk. 52 City Council Meettng- September 28, 1992 Mayor Chmlel: Okay. The butld[ng tn ttself. Is there anything that you can address to that? The question that Hr. Hason's br£nging up. John Dietrich: With the landscaping that we do have along there, we should be pointing out that with the West 78th Street canopy trees, boulevard and sidewalk and then there's a row of...and they would be...lilacs so in addition to having a canopy overhead, there would be a rom of shurbs along the backs[de of the sidewalk to take up that space between ground plane and about 2 1/2 to 3 feet. Councilman Mason: And it will go up about 3 feet and ks that on the top of the berm then? John Dietrich: That's on top of the berm and then the hill actually does fall away so then you would be picking up the canopy of the trees there on the lower side of that berm so that you would be basically double stacking the plant material. We have the sidewalk edge, trees and then as the tree comes doan, the canopy would again pick up into the visual. Councilman Hason: Yeah, yeah. The trouble of course ks from October to Hay which, ! mean It's go[ng to look great in the spring and summer but I don't think, I still have trouble with October to May. Councilman Workman: Well Target's motto is right on the money as I understand currently and so you're collect£ve Job tonight Is to get this thing built relatively as cheaply as possible and get on the bus[ness with making money in there in mass quantity. You don't need to be able to see this entire brick building to know that it's there and so 1'11 leave our tree bulldogs here to get it covered. I appreciate the extra touches. I always want to th£nk that ae can do a little bit more about the outside aesthetics. This is a huge building and I'm not sure I know quite the technology that's going to hide this building but Z do know trees and trees will hide it and more of them the merrier and I would go so far as to say, triple your efforts on the trees because we'Ll still be able to see your pylon sign from somewhere Z'm sure. The only other point 1 have and I like the way the parking lot Is gett£ng set up. I didn't care for the Planning Commission's down the center. Is Target aware of some of our tougher cigarette ordinances? I'm gett[ng into the interior of the building now. Are they aware of how they're going to be able to sell cigarettes? I was over at the Eden Prairie store yesterday spending some money and. Mayor Chmiel: And they thank you. Councilman Workman: And they have what a lot of these places call which I call the wall of tobacco. ! hope they're aware that that has to be dispensed by somebody. Are they aware? Has anybody ever talked to them? Is this a deal buster? We've got a tough one here and somebody has to dispense cartons, paraphenalia, etc. and I thought I'd bring that up right now midstream. that's about all ! have. Councilman Wing: The staff's worked hard on the exterior of the building and Mr. Mason's covered West 78th Street and I have attended for the last two years parking lot seminars at the University. We're taLked about survivability, landscaping parking lots, and what kind of trees and so on and so forth. On item number 8 on page 27. Can you read me Peter Olin's statement again? 53 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I would just modify that to say, additional evergreen trees including Austrian and Jack Pine be placed in the front landscaping. And then the trees in the parking lot, lnstead of decorative, as John mentioned, the two decoratlves. Maybe go to one, a larger canopy and we'll give him a ltst. The honey locust ls acceptable. If they want a locust, that's flne. Peter 01in said it was acceptable. We'd also add White Ash, Hackberry, Tamarack, Red and Burr Oak. Councilman Wlng: And there's a maple out that's very hardy for parking lots. It's not on that list because he just polnted that out. I'd like to see us drop flowering, shrubblng, oranmental trees in the parking lot which do nothlng except look cluttered in the wintertime and break down In the snow drtfts and I'd 11ke to see a parking lot primarily be canopy trees, which is recommended by State standards as I see lt. Glving shade in the summer primarily. People flock towards those and that's golng to mean some bigger lslands for survivability and I think the minimum is you have to have enough impervious surface to cover the crown area and if that glves up some compact parklng, they've lost some compact parking. But Ithtnk as long as you're concerned with West ?8th Street and landscaping, and then you open this enormous pumpkin field, I think the parking lot's inadequately landscaped but at the very mlnlmum to meet Peter 011n's standards so I thlnk it's worklng on behalf of the city and coming up with good recommendations. So I would like to drop any ornamentals from the parklng lot and add the mixture of evergreens. Well, the bigger trees wlth the canopies. I think that would really be an addition. And that may make some alteration of those islands. John Dietrich: May I address that comment? Mayor Chmlel: Sure. John Dietrich: Just to reinforce all of the parking lot islands wlll be irrigated so that the entire site will have irrigation, especially in the parklng lot and that will be crlttcal for the survivability of the plant material. Secondly, in terms of total plant quantities. If we're just talking ornamental, evergreen and canopy trees. We have approximately 200 of those plant materials on the site and if we would go back to Codes and what would be necessary for Codes, it would be approximately half that. So we have already come up and basically have doubled the approximately quantity in terms of value for the plant materlal on that site. Councilman Wing: In terms of the Clty's long term growth, Mr. Workman suggested trlpllng it and I'll go along wlth bls suggestion but at the very least some more canopy trees in the parking lot so we'll 425 trees and it seems like a pretty small request for a project th18 enormous. Mayor Chmiel: You're probably not aware of this but we're known as tree city. John Dietrich: I see it right behind you. Hayor Chmiel: And we do look at that very strongly. Other than that I think everything else has been sald. There's no need for me to reiterate. Some of the things, I expressed by concerns on two of those things previousIy. Walkway. Australian plnes. I 11ke safety wlthin a parktng lot but I'm not sure that City Council Meeting - September that's going to give it just one specific area either. With that walkway that ~as being suggested. I understand that you've had some problems with those as well within the St. Louis Park store. And that could continue to give you more problems. So with that I would entertain a motion. Councilman Mason: I just want to put a quick plug in for tamaracks. I heard that. It'd be kind of fun to have some tamaracks and see that gold in the fall here. That would be alright. That would be cool. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion for accepting and rezoning 20.96 acres from BG, Business General to PUB, Planned Unit Development, preliminary and final PUD and site plan approval on lO+ acres? Councilman Wing: How does that motlon effect our comments tonight? Mayor Chmlel: To include those if you so choose to the additional comments that have been already provided by staff. Roger Knutson: Mayor, so the record is clear. This is an ordinance so is this your first reading on the PUD ordinance? Have ! got that right? Kate Ranenson: Yes. Roger Knutson: So what we'll do is we'll bring you back an actual ordinance in ordinance form incorporating this evening's comments. In other words, staff recommendations. You'll have them all In writtng when you vote on it at the next meeting. Kate Ranenson: Hopefully with the West 78th detachment. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Okay. So what you're saying Roger is. Roger Knutson: A motlon for first reading of the PUD. Councilman Workman: Wouldn't some of those items be included in the site plan approval? Roger Knutson: You can dispose of that this eventng. The only one you can't dispose of this evening is the rezoning or you could give preliminary a~q~roval of all of them and bring them back for final approval next time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So what you're saying is you can have preliminary approval on thls at this particular time with ftnal at the next particular meeting. Ooes everyone understand that? Councilman Workman: I think everybody's concerned specifically about landscaping so where does that fail into? The final PUD? Kate Aanenson: It'd be under site plan. As Roger said, give it preliminary and then we'll approve that in the final. We'll make those changes. Councilman Workman: So moved. 55 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Councilman Mason: So moved on the preliminary PUD approval, is that correct? Mayor Chmiel: Rlght. Councilman Mason: No, we're not on site plan yet, rlght? Roger Knutson: You're just moving first reading of the PUD. Councilman Mason: Z'11 second that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion? Anything should be included Roger? Councilman Wlng: And then our suggestions then would be in the final. Roger Knutson: I understood your comments this eventng. We'll incorporate them as best we can and brlng them back to you in wrltlng in the PUD ordinance for second reading for the adoption if you so desire. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the ftrst reading of preliminary and final plat to rezone 22.03 acres of property zoned BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development as shown in the Rezoning and PUD ~)2-5, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the flnal plat. 2. Compliance wlth the standards of the PUD zone outlined in the staff report. Architectural compatibility wlth all buildings in the development. Compatibility with all stgnage, lighting and landscaping. 3. Pltched roof 11nos are requlred on all buildings on Outlot B. Target shall have a parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment. Pitched roof elements shall be introduced on the entry portlon and the West 78th side of Target. 4. Not more than two fast food restaurants are permitted on Outlot B. 5. All slte plans shall be consistent wlth the overall Impervious surface coverage. The average impervious surface for the entire PUD shall not exceed 70 percent. All materials shall be of hlgh quallty and durable. Masonry materlal shall be used. Color shall be allowed on the Target store only. 7. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces/outlots shall be landscaped or covered with planttng and/or lawn material. 8. Each slte shall be allowed one monument slgn near the driveway lnto the private site, wall signs on not more than 2 street frontages. The signs are subject to the standards of the slgn ordinance. 9. Target and Outlot B are each allowed one free standing pylon sign. 10. Llghts shall be a shoe box fixture and light levels shall not exceed 1/2 foot candle at the property 11ne. city Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 11. ~ 6 foot sidewalk shall run the entire length of West 78th Street. A 8 foot bituminous trail shall run the entire length of Powers Boulevard. 12. If the revised alignment for West 78th Street is not selected, a revisec concept plan must be submitted for Outlot B for city approval within 30 days of the City Council's action on this request. 13. Location of the road shall be shown in site plan dated September 9, 1992, and the number of outlots shall be limited to four. Each building parcel shall proceed through site plan review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Kate Aanenson: Did that include the grading and the site plan? Roger Knutson: You haven't dealt with preliminary plat, site plan review and interim use permit. Councilman Mason: We've got site plan review and interim use permit right? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess that's all. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, three more to go. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, site plan review. We have two more to go yet. Kate Aanenson: Three. Mayor Chmiel: Or three more. Site plan review. This ts where City Council approves Site Plan Review #92-2 as shown on plans dated September 9, 1992 and subject to the following conditions of 1rems i thru 12. Councilman Wing: This is where...and you're saying it doesn't matter at th£s point? Mayor Chmiel: No, not at thls point. Councilman Mason: I'll move Site Plan Review ~92-2, items 1 thru 12. Councilman Workman: Second. Kate ~anenson: With the modification correct? Roger Knutson: Subject to the modifications you made. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. That's already brought up. Okay, clarification. Councilman Mason: Subject to modification. Jim Teiusch: Excuse me. Are those clarifications the ones that we addressed also? Mayor Chmiel: Correct. 57 City Council Meeting - September Jim Teiusch: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anything that was previously discussed and staff has agreed to. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Site Plan Revie# ~92-2 as shown on the plans dated September 9, 1992 and with the modifications made by staff, subject to the following conditions: Subject to Compliance with the conditions of the Preliminary and Final PUD and Plat #92-5. 2. Pedestrian access be provided between Target parking lot and Outlot B. foot sidewalk shall run the length of West 78th Street (See Manager's Comments, Page 28-29). 3. The 3 facades shown on West 78th Street shall have back lighting. 4. Lighting shall not exceed 1/2 foot candle at the property line. After hours lighting shall be limited to security lighting only. 5. Signage for the monument sign shall not exceed 8 feet in height with a 6' x 6' foot sign area and for the pylon sign, 34 feet in height and not exceed 144 square feet in sign area. The monument sign and free standing sign shall be consistent with the plans submitted in the September 9, 1992 site plan. The wall sign shall not exceed 6' x 34' for the Target sign and 6 for the pharmacy sign. The development shall comply with all development standards of this PUD zone. 7. A protected crosswalk (stop signs) shall be placed at the entrance to the Target Store. 8. Additional evergreen trees shall be placed in the front landscaping and trees in the parklng lot shall be changed from a decorative flowering tree to a tree wlth a larger canopy (over story). The West 78th Street elevation of the Target store needs to improve the appearance. 10. The West 78th Street detachment project needs to be ordered before building construction can begin (excluding grading). Access to the James property shall be resolved as a part of the Detachment Project. 11. Southwest Hetro Transit shall work with Target to find a mutually acceptable locatlon for a bus shelter. 12. The HVAC will be obstructed from view by the parapet wall regardless of the surrounding elevations. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Interim Use Permit. 58 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Councilman Wing: I'll so move Interim Use Permit Councilman Mason: But we've got to be careful of the pumpkins. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ! think they have some concerns about it as well. Is there a second? Councilman #ing moved, Councilman 14ason ~econded to approve Interim Use Permit ~92-6 as shown on the site plan dated September 9, 1992 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant needs to submit information on interim detention ponds and/or drainage systems for the site given that storm systems will not be constructed until next spring. 2. The applicant shall show on the plan location of topsoil and poor soil stockpiles. 3. The haul route for material to and from the site shall be limited to Trunk Highway 5 and County Road 17. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrance only. The applicant will be required to maintain.haul route clean of dirt and mud, etc. 4. Working hours for the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday with no work occurring on holidays. 5. The applicant shall submit an administrative fee and letter of credit prior to commencement of grading operations. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits such as Watershed District. 7. The entire site shall be restored and seeded by no later than November 15, 1992. 8. The city shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure preservation of the trees and location of snow fences. voted in favor and the motion carried. Kate Aanenson: You skipped one. The preliminary and final plat. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Councilman Mason: Okay, I'll move preliminary and final plat 4)92-5 of 19.85 acres. Items I thru 10. Councilman Workman: Second. 59 City Council Heeting - September 28, 199~ Councilman Hason moved, Councilman ~orkman seconded to approve Preliminary and Final Plat for 19.85 acres as shown in PUD ~2-5, subJect to the following conditions: 1. Plat easements needed: A. 20 foot wide utility easement over Lot i for public portion of proposed watermain. B. 20 foot vide utility easement over existing 18 inch watermain through Outlot B. C. 30 foot wide utility easement over proposed sanitary sewer through Lot 1. O. 30 foot wide utility easement over existing 8 inch sanitary sewer through Lot 1 and Outlot B. E. Cross easements, ingress and egress, shall be granted with Outlot B and the Burdick Park 6ddition property. 2. The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications for Construction shall govern construction of all public improvements. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required agency permits such as PCA, Health Oepartment, Watershed District, etc. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for a share of the costs involved in constructing one or more traffic signals on West 78th Street between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (appropriate cost sharing formula has yet to be determined). 5. If the West 78th Street detachment intersection with County Road 17 is to be shifted south, approvals will also be needed from MnOot and Carver County. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the city for all costs associated with soil corrections within the new roadway alignment. Storm sewer plan shall be revised to reflect site plan for Outlot B. 7. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street. 8. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees. Submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm sewer, water and sanitary sewer. 10. Approval from HnDot, Carver County Traffic Engineer, and the City shall be secured to relocate West 78th Street. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. 6O City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Councilman Mason: But we still don't know where West 78th Street is going, and that's okay with this? Kate Aanenson: It's all coming back at the same meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that will all be back. Councilman Mason: Right, okay. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. We're done now. RECEIVE FEASIB~TTY ST~H)Y FQR TR~ UTll. ZTY l~)rrs 10 AND N~/4 OF SECTION 9 (30HN$ON~Yl)OLE3SZ SITE); C~.L [q~IC PRO~ECT 92-5. Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Charles. There's a motion on the floor utth a second. Resolution ~92-~2: Councilman Workman moved, Councl]Jan #tn~ 8econ~ to receive the feasibility report for trunk utility JJprouements in the )flJl/4 of Section 10 and NE1/4 of Section 9, (3ohnson~urner/Oolejst 8/ts) and call for a public hearing to be held on October 26, 1992. All voted tn favor and the motion carried. ORDINANCE ~STABLXSHI~ A FRANCHZ~ AGREE~'NT #ZTH MINNEGP. SCO. FIN~. READ/PIG. Don Ashworth: We recommend approval as presented. Mayor Chmiel: Motion to accept as recommended. Councilman Workman: The Minnegasco? Mayor Chmiel: The Minnegasco. Councilman Workman: Is there a Minnegasco representative here? I suspect as such. Mayor Chmiel: Oh yes, maybe there is. Would you like to come forward. ! was looking for Kimberly. Roger $choeb: Klmberly is unavailable this evening. My name ls Roger $choeb. I'm from rural St. Peter, Minnesota. Oirector of Local Government Relations. I'm representing Minnegasco this evening and also Ktm Roden who was unable to attend. As I understand it, I haven't been too involved in this but I guess Kim has vlslted with your staff and your attorney and. ironed.out some concerns and issues. I guess from my understanding the only thing is, is the term of the franchise and we are requesting a 20 year renewal. We pipe gas to Chanhassen in 1960 and our last franchise was for 2S years from 1967 so we are requesting a 20 year renewal of that franchise. 61 City Council Heeting - September Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. We have come back with a iO year and one of the reasons, we don't know what's going to be happening. Things are changing too quickIy so therefore we are proposing within our franchise a 10 year portion. Roger Schoeb: Okay, I just might add that, I've renewed franchises the last two years, about 18 of them, and we a11, we got 20 year franohlses except in one community where it was less than that and it was because of their City Charter. The reason we propose at least 20 years is because we have, we are under so many mandates by the OPS, MnOot, Minnesota PUC. They regulate our rates. We like to have a long term for gas supply planning. For long term planning and also for rehabilitation of the present system too...we get our reasonable rate. Thank you. Mayor Chmlel: Thanks. And also so it's a little easier to go out in the money market to get a better rating for dollars. Roger Schoeb: Try to keep it a AA, yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Do we have any discussion? Councilman Workman: I had a discussion today with Kim, and I said well I don't know anything about it. I'm letting the Mayor tell me what to do on this. But she got into talklng about the 10 year and she sald, you want it 20 year and then we sald we wanted a 10 and I said gee, why don't we make it a 15 or whatever and she sald that lt's a non-exclusive contract. It's a non-exclusive franchise. The City may award... It made it sound like, and I maybe talking to Roger, you can get in and out of these thlngs and it really doesn't matter if it's 10 or 20 so why not make it 15. Well, I'm going well something doesn't make sense here. If it doesn't make sense if lt's 20 or 10, why don't we make it for 180 you know. And so somebody needs to clear that up wtth me onto what's going on. Roger Knutson: First a suggestion. If it didn't make any difference, they wouldn't be talking about it. Councilman Workman: Well, that's what I suspected. Roger Knutson: I wouZd have to say in all probability it does not make any difference. But we don't know what the future will brlng. I mean it is possible for example, you can dream up scenarios where you'd want to cancel this. Where in 10-15-20 years you have flve gas companies knocklng at your door offering you better deals and you want to get into a biddtng war. That doesn't happen now. But who knows what's going to happen tn 10 or 20 years. This just keeps your options open. The unforeseeable. Mayor Chmiel: That's true. And that's my reasonable for it basically. Roger and I have discussed this as well as Don and changing times are here. Utilities no longer are golng to operate the way they have in the past. And I feel that providing our constituency of the city a better opportunity, I would just as soon see that. Roger Knutson: In all probability this franchise would be like it's predecessor. The predecessor hasn't been read for 25 years. It goes in the City Council Meeting - September 28, [992 drawer unless there's a problem and there haven't been any problems. So in all probability once you approve this it will go in a drawer and no one will see it for 10 years. Roger Schoeb: And I think this one is very similar to the one that-was granted 25 years ago. There's not a lot of changes other than possibly the franchise fee was included. Mayor Chmlel: Yes, that was the only additional thtng that we had put ln. If in the event they ever wanted to go to it. We're not suggesting a franchise fee at thls particular ttme. Roger Schoeb: Rtght. You're just protecting yourself which is good. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion? If not, I'll entertain the motion that we set the ordinance granting Minnegasco, a Division of Arkla, a Delaware Corporation, a nonexclusive franchise to construct, operate, repair, and malntain facilities and equipment for the transportation, distribution, manufacture and sale of gas energy for public and private use and to use the public grounds in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota for such purposes and prescribing certain terms and condltions contained within the ordinance. Is there a second? Councilman Workman: I'll second. Nayor Chm[el moved, Councilman #orkman seconded to approve the ftna! read[rig of an ordinance establish[rig a franchise agreement .[th N/nnegasco. A11 uoted [n fauor and the mot[on carried. Roger Schoeb: That was for 10 years then? Mayor Chmlel: 10 years. Right. Thank you. ZONING ORDINANGE AHENDHENT TO AHEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY COOE PLRNNED UNiT OEu~optlENT REGULATIONS FOR REST_I~NTIAI. DZSTRICTS. FIRST REAOZI~. Councilman Workman: I move to table this. Mayor Chmlel: You want to table it? Councilman Workman: I so moved. Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Workman: I'd like .to give it a little bit more thought. Councilman Wlng: What more thought? Councilman Mason: Okay, I move to pass it. Councilman Wing: No, you already have a motion. Councilman Workman: No, I'm going to move to table it unless anybody. 63 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Councilman Wing: I'll second it. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Article UIZ! of the City Code concerning Planned Unit Development Regulations for Residential Districts. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Wing: Well, wait a minute. Just out of curiosity, where's the discussion going to come from? When and how? Mayor Chmiel: I think probably what we should do is just get back to it now. Paul, you can put it at the bottom of the pile here. I've got a whole bunch of things I want to talk about and It will take probably, it would probably behoove us yet to maybe have some more discussions and see. Councilman Wing: This is approved and done and discussed for a year other than the minimum lot size of 10,000. That's the only question. I mean everything's passed except that one number. Mayor Chmiel: 10,000 square feet. Councilman Wing: And I'm willing to go with the 10,000 square feet... Councilman Workman: If Wing can stretch this meeting out long enough, I would 11ke to stretch other meetlngs out. Councilman Wing: Well that's good. I Just want to know. Mayor Chmiel: We tabled this so we'll have to have some discussion with it, give me a call. Councilman Wing: Well I just hope that Paul ts still here, number one. And number two, that the Statute of Limitations doesn't take effect. APPOINTHENTS: CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CHANHASSEN TREE BOARD. Mayor Chmiel: I'd so move that Councilman Richard Wing be appointed to the Tree Board as representative from Council. Councilman Nason: Second. Hayor Chmtel moved, Councilman Nason seconded to appoint Councilman Richard Wing to the Chanhassen Tree Board. All voted in favor, except Councilman Wing who abstained, and the motion carried B. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPHENT AUTHORITY. Mayor Chmiel: Recommendation by the Mayor would be to have Mike Mason on the HRA. Councilman Wing: So moved. 64 City Council Meeting - September 28, ~992 Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Councilman Mason: I didn't hear a second. Mayor Chmiel: ! made the recommendation. Councilman Workman: Can we do some sort of a background check or something? Councilman Wing: We did. Mayor ChmieI: I did. Resolution f92-1~3: Mayor Chmiel ~oved, Councilman gtng seconded to appotnt Councilman Mtke Mason to the Houstng and Redevelopment ~uthority. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who abstained, and the mot/on carried. ADMZN/STR~T~VE PRESENT~TZONS: Mayor Chmlel: The Wartman special assessment. Roger Knutson: I have about a half hour presentation Mayor. Mayor Chmlel: Basically because the Individual is not able to have his. Roger Knutson: He can't afford to have It fixed himself. The City, there's open sewage runntng out into his backyard. Staff recommends that you adopt this which wtll allow us to do the work and assess the cost to him. Mayor Chmiel: ! would so move. Councilman Workman: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman #orkman seconded to allo~ the city to repair a sewer system on the Wartman property and assess the costs. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman: Now that you've a11, currently the HRA would have 3 members of the City Council. ~ majority. Ooes that make it an economic development commission yet? Mayor Chmiel: Not yet. Roger Knutson: You can have 100~ City Council members on your HRR and it's st111 an HRA. Mayor Chmlel: Because at the end of the year you're going to be gone. Councilman Workman: That's what I mean. It will be one and the same st111. Mayor Chmlel: Can ! have a motion for adjournment? Councilman Workman: No, I have a couple things. Because I wasn't here at the very beginning, I want to bring them up very quickly. What I'd 11ke to do, the 65 City Council Heeting - September 28, 1992 -. couple could not be here. They had a problem with our leash law as it pertains to cats. And Z would like to have staff bring that up. It's very clear in our ordinance, anlmal, dogs and cats shall be on a leash. They have a problem wlth that. They'd like that addressed by the City Council and brought up at a future Counc11 meetlng as soon as possible. Hy second one. Speed on TH 101, in which I 1lye near the corner of there. They did a trafflc study. I've got the paperwork from Dave Hempel. The fax's from MnDot. Hy neighborhood is screaming now, and as you know there's the Intersection of TH 101 from South Shore Drive on what would be the easterly, rlght in that corner. HnDot dld a study of what the traffic ls doing down there. It had been 40 mph and they increased It to 45. This ls an intersection where people are gettlng in and out near a corner with boats. The public landing and everything else. I'm going to bring this up at a future meeting. I'll report to the mayor as to when that would be soon. think it's outrageous that they Increased it at that intersection. They should have reduced it somewhere north of that intersection on TH 101. Hayor Chmiel: 35 is what you're saying? Councilman Workman: Something. I mean we've got people. Hayor Chmiel: Isn't there a turn there that has a marker on it what speeds can be? Councilman Workman: It's 45 now. They increased lt. They sald that's the medlan speed. That's what people are going. Well it doesn't take into account the fact that the boat access there ls there and people are trylng to pull out, even without a boat. And so I'm going to fight it, even if I have to do it as citlzen. I move adjournment. Councilman Wing: No, wait. As long as he's gone, is Don Ashworth still here? On one of the forthcoming agendas, could we have Arboretum Boulevard, Kerber Boulevard landscaping back on for discussion, belng the Mayor has not been out planting trees. And I was going to joln him. Hayor Chmiel: I'm ail for it. In fact I'll help go out and dig it. Councilman Wing: That one's been lost in the dust here a little bit. Don Ashworth: The other part ls, we've made an application for State funding and so I saw those two as dove taillng together but it's really too late. It wlll be Spring of '93. Councilman Wing: Yeah, but I don't want to see this dropped. Haybe those guys wil1 come in and instead of $12,000.O0...whatever. Don Ashworth: Oh well, we've got that down. I don't know if it's half but close to lt. 6 to 8. Councilman Wing: I'd like to see it on the agenda then. Or so moved, if that's the case. City Council Neeting - September 28, 1992 Councilman #orkman moved, Councilman Nason seconded to adjourn the meeting. /ill voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting ~as adjourned at 11:23 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Hanager Prepared by Nann Opheim 67