Loading...
1991 02 25CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1991 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILHEMBERS pRESENT: Hayor Chmtel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing, councilwoman Dtmler and Councilman Mason STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashuorth, Roger Knutson, 3o Ann Olsen, Paul Krauss, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman and Scott Harr ApPRO~L OF AGE~: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda with the following changes and additions: Hayor Chmtel pulled off the Public Announcement regarding Girl Scout Week off the agenda until the next meeting; Councilwoman Oimler wanted to discuss the agenda for the City Council's goal setting meeting and Councilman Wing wanted to discuss the ordinance for trees and plantings. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Council.oman Dimler moued, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the folloNtng coneent agenda 1rems pursuant to the C1t¥ Hanager's recommendations: b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-576(3) regarding Contractor's Yards as an Interim Use, First Reading. c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-41 by adding language stating that amendments shall not be adopted that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, First Reading. d. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-406 regarding Variances to the Wetland Ordinance to Following the Procedure as stated in Division 3, Variance of the Zoning Ordinance, First Reading. e. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Revise Article U, Flood Plain Overlay District, First Reading. h. Set Special Meeting Date for the Board of Review. 1. City Council Hinutes dated February 11, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes dated February &, 1991 m. RespZ~tion ~91-15: Approve Resolution Designating Al1 Hunicipal Buildings as "Smoke Free". All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 A. APPROVE REVISED SOUTH LOTUS .LAKE BOAT ACCESS STUDY. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Councilman Wing: First of all I'd like to make it very clear that my comments in no way reflect upon Todd Hoffman. It's just a general statement and I kind of wanted to just express my appreciation to you regarding your questioning the South Lotus access cost. Although new on the Council I've been active in the clty on an advlsory commission for many years and one thing I've become nervous about ts when I hear the experts say or the advisory or study reports from the experts. I think they need to be routinely flagged and again Don, I would Just thank you for speaking out and doing that because we've saved several thousand dollars and accomplished what we set out to do versus had we just gone ahead wlth that report word by word. A comment I guess I wlsh to make is I think that studles and reports that are done by the so called experts, I would 11ke to see studied by staff. Applied to Chanhassen specifically and possibly even trimmed prlor to reachlng Council, or at least wlth recommendations. If you had not spoken up that night, we would have gone ahead wlth that as such and perhaps spent money unnecessarily. I see the very worse thlng that could happen if staff did study these and try to apply them to the City and even trtm them was that we mlght trlm a 11ttle bit more and I'm not convinced that that's a negative solution. That's my only case. I would just suggest to staff that when these cases do come in, that they be carefully reviewed as they specifically would reflect upon Chanhassen and could they be trimmed and cut prior to a Council presentation in case we should miss lt. Mayor Chmlel: Thank you. Would you like to make a motion to approve then item Councilman Wing: Yes, I would approve it. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Revised South Lotus Lake Boat Access Study and Authorize Preparation of PIans and Specifications. Al! voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. F. ZONING ORDINANCE AHENOHENT .TO AHEND SECTION 20-29(0) CHANGING THE FILING OF AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT'S DECISION FROH 10 DAYS TO 4 DAYS. FIRST READIN. G. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Item l(f) has to do wlth the Zoning Ordinance amendment changing an appeal to the Board of Adjustment's decision from 10 days to just 4 days. I really agree with it but I dld ask Paul just now, ! have one case scenario where it might be a problem and that would be if someone goes out of town for 2 weeks. Does not see thelr notloe. The meetlng is held. It ls approved. The 4 days go by. The person comes home and the structure is gotng up and they didn't know anythlng about lt. I'm wondering if we can cover those ktnds of, there are people that go south for the winter. You know a neighbor may not notlfy them. I know 6 days won't help in that case but just if you're out of town for 2 weeks and this would all transpire and you wouldn't have any recourse. And you may be very aggrieved wlth the structure that's golng up next to you. I don't know. I just want to throw it out for discussion. If there is some way we can cover that. City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Is there any discussion? Any feelings? Roger Knutson: Maybe I can make just one brief comment. First, as far as someone being out of town. If they forward their mail, they're going to get not a notice of the decision but they're going to get a notice of the hearing. So if someone comes up and they're going to put up something next door to me and I'm out of town and I have my mail forwarded, I'll have plenty of time to get. You know Z won't know what the Board of Adjustments is going to do but Z can at least dash off a letter. Call a friend and have a friend show up. Something along those lines. So there's still opportunity to be heard. I mean if you don't have your mail forwarded and you're gone for a long period of time, Z guess there's, at some point I guess the world must go on. And as far as after the decision making, Z think the experience has been that most people who are really concerned about it probably, not always but generally participate in the hearing. They show up either by letter or in person and make their comments.and although it's true that someone might, that's basically the only way you're going to know what the decision is unless you happen to call City Hall later. And again, if you're out of town and can't appear, you can always call City Hall the next day and find out what that decision is. The basis for this is, balancing the need for everyone to have an opportunity who dislikes a decision to appeal with the fact that in the summer when you have a short construction season, and most of these things don't get appealed. Very few do. Audience-' Oh no. Roger Knutson: We're faced with no one being able to go ahead until after that 10 days is run. And oftentimes people come in at the last minute and they need their building permit. They didn't realize. Oftentimes someone comes in, they didn't realized they needed a variance and all of a sudden they're stopped. It's balancing that type of concerns. A lot of people get going versus the need to get people informed and have the right to appeal. So all and all I think the Planning Commission and staff feel that was a good balance. You're right. It is possible that someone won't know about it. Councilwoman Dimler: It could happen. Roger Knutson: It could happen. It certainly could. Councilman Mason: Roger, do you have any idea what percentage do get appealed? Roger Knutson: Maybe Paul can answer that but I'll bet most people, virtually every appeal slnce I've been lnvolved here has been by the applicant. I don't recall a situation where a neighbor has appealed. Maybe they have in the last few years but. Paul Krauss: Well I think there was one down on Lake Riley and it was the lot that had the contamination by the aviation fuel. When that variance first came in, Z believe there was, it was contested by a neighbor but that's the only one. That's 1 in 3 years. Mayor Chmiel: That's a highly irregular kind of situation as well. City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Don Ashworth: And I don't recall an appeal that ever occurred after that nlght. In other words, we knew that nlght or even in advance of that nlght that they were proposing to appeal if it didn't go the particular direction. Agaln, I don't know of any in let's say over a 10 year pertod of time where there's been an appeal. A day later, 2 days, 10 days or 20 days. The other part was, a typical application process is at least 6 to 8 weeks. I don't know from the tlme though, that lncludes our processing time. What ls the lead tlme from the time the homeowner gets the notice of the proposed hearing until maybe the 4 days later? Jo Ann Olsen: 10 days. Paul Krauss: Yeah, lt's 10 days so lt's about 2 weeks prior to the meeting that the notices are sent out and then you have the whole following week. I mean for the variance we heard tonlght, somebody would appeal it Friday afternoon at 4:30. Mayor Chmiel: Just one clarification. As we have it from 10 days to 4 days, conceiveably if it started on a Friday it would go through Monday. Should we say 4 working days? Councilwoman Oimler: I thought that was the intent. Don Ashworth: That was the lntent. Hayor Chmiel: Is that the intent? Paul Krauss: Well since the meeting's always on a Monday, the following four days are always. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not going to press real hard for it. I just wanted to bring it up as a possibility so if everyone seems to be comfortable with it, I will move item (f). Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-29(d) changing the Filing of an Appeal to the Board of Adjustment's Decision from 10 days to 4 days, First Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. G. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, LAKE SUSAN HILLS 6TU ADDITION. Councilman Mason: On just the landscaping and the trees. On the second page of the packet I just wanted, it says applicant shall provlde i tree per lot and additional landscaping along entrance and boulevard. Developer shall provide $150.00 per lot. What is i tree per lot typically? Paul Krauss: Well it's, in fact I was talking to Councilman Wing about that and I believe that's what the Councll presentation ls golng to be on. That lsa subdivision requirement that basically says that you get 1 tree per lot plus City Council Meeting - February 25, ~99~ seed or sod of disturbed areas. It's rather minimal I'll grant you that but it's also been only the last year or two that we've actually had an enforcement mechanism in place to guarantee that. If your next question is could we do more or should we do more, probably yes but that gets into another issue. Councilman Hason: That maybe is the next question but not here. Well yeah, I was just curious as to what 1 tree and $150.00 gets for landscaping. I would guess probably not a whole lot. Paul Krauss: We make people give us letters of credit or cash escrow of $750.00 figuring $250.00 for the tree and $500.00 for the seed and sod. And the seed and sod doesn't even cover the entire lot. It's only those portions of the lot that are disturbed by the construction. Councilman Mason: Okay. Jo Ann Olsen: This was just, to give you background. This was part of the PUD agreement. That $150.00 so this is a little unusual. It was part of the whole PUB agreement. Councilman Workman: Can we have Councilman Wing maybe bring up his comments now? Councilwoman Dimler: Just briefly. Councilman Workman: Okay? Can we maybe have Councilman Wing discuss this now? I have an alternative view. Maybe you guys know my view but I'd like to hear maybe Councilman Wing's in relationship to all of this because, Mr. Mayor is that okay. Mayor Chmiel: It certainly is. I have a little point here I'm trying to clarify with Oon. Go ahead. Councilman Wing: On the Council Presentations one thing I wanted to address and request the Council's consideration of. If we look at prior generations that came into Chanhassen and took the timber off the land for agricultural use. This used to be a hardwood forest and as our precedessors came through Chanhassen for agricultural purposes or whatever, they logged off all the trees and then it became agricultural. Well now we're coming in after those folks and we're taking the land back from agricultural uses and we're putting in roads and houses and blacktop driveways and so on and so forth and I just felt that maybe we could start giving a little more back and try and reclaim some of the land. I'd like to use the term reforest but use it very, very sparingly. Councilman Workman: Relief. Councilman Wing: Well, relief is a fine word if you'd like to use that. The one tree has troubled me and I was just wondering, if the Counctl would suggest a change to the City Ordinances, specifically Section 18-61 that requires I tree and if they would at some future point consider having staff look into altering that section to up that to 3 trees. Speciftoally 2 in front, i in back. One of which must be a maple. All 3 must be hardwoods and so on and so forth. I think the cost would be mlnlmal. I think the impact on the City's future would be City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 great and I think it would be legacy if we could start adding additional trees. I think for folks to come in that are working hard for these homes, to put the trees lnto thelr mortgage ls one thlng but to have to come out and forest their lot at a later time, is increasingly difficult. I'd just like to enoourage some of these open areas, specifically thls one tonlght. I wlsh we could have stopped it earlter and had these additional lots coming into Lake Susan with additional trees right off the bat. I wish we had an ordinance in place so my only point here Mr. Mayor ls I would like to just ask the Council's consideration of perhaps havlng staff look at changlng thls ordinance to require additional trees, additional landscaping. Posslbly at entryways to these housing areas we could have pine trees set in wlth thelr signs. I thlnk there's changes we could make that could very easily reforest the city without great cost or lmpact. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I sort of agree with that positlon Dick. I know in the last 2 years I've reforested my particular piece of property with 57 new trees. Councilman Wing: That's not excessive is it? Mayor Chmiel: No. No. Plus the fact I probably had about 15 or 18 there previously. But I'm a flrm bellever in dolng a 11ttle bit of reforestation. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, my original request was going to be for 6 and I chickened out. Councilman Workman: I think we've got the right, I think we're on the right trlp down the road. I think we're riding in the wrong bus on this thing. Because we discussed thls a little blt prior and I have the opposlte vlew that the ordinance should never have been put in, at least not like that. In other words, have the developer put the tree in or 3 trees or 6 trees because when Z come in and I'm a new homebuyer, I don't want anybody fooling with my mortgage in the flrst place. But what klnd of trees really matters to me? Now Z oan't think of a developer that might put in some strange tree. I don't know. Sumac or something. Councilman Wing: The ordinance has an entlre page of trees you can choose from. Councilman Workman: Okay, but what I'm saying is if the developer's going to be putting. Is the developer golng to have to put these trees Paul Krauss: Not necessarily. Councilman Workman: In many cases they will. Paul Krauss: Well what we've been trying to do is give the greatest amount of latitude. For those of you on Councll for a while, Tom you may remember we started enforcing this a year ago October I think and at the time we had a lot of developers complaining about enforcing it even though it had been on the books for 10 years prior to that. What had happened is it was sometimes written lnto development contracts and then development contracts were volded out after the roads were built and it was just a lack of enforcement. What we tried to do is make it as easy as posslble whereby we alert people, we wrote lnto the zonlng ordinance and the subdivision code. We had to work this out with the City City Council Meeting - February HS, 1991 Attorney to get it in both places. We then required that, we put notice on the bullding permit. In fact the thing's a pr£nted form now that comes with your bulldlng permit that says you're obligated to put in! tree and seed and sod and if you don't, you have to deposit escrow to get your Certificate of Occupancy. Then you have, after you get your CO, if we have your $750.00 guarantee tn the bank, we will give you a full growing season to install that so [f you the homeowner want to have a landscape architect or a nursery come in and give you a landscape plan and see where that tree ts supposed to fit in, you have that entlre basically flrst year to do that and we'll be happy to work with the homeowner to do that. $o we tried to give them as much flexibility to the homeowner to make that declslon as possible. If you just, we looked at maklng the developer do it up front and I've seen cities where you have a bunch of vacant lots and driveways cut in and a tree and a tree and a tree and what happens ts, as soon as the bulldozer comes In to put in the foundation, the tree gets torn out. $o I think that was the most effective way to do it how we structured it now. Councilman Workman: You're saying what then? It's up to the owner of the home to have 1 tree in? Paul Krauss: Well we make it, the obligation is when you take out the building permit, it's written onto there. How the builder contractually handles tt with the owner or the buyer we leave up to them. As long as we have somebody's $750.00 in the account, we don't care. Councilman Workman: But lt's never the builder's $750.00. Paul Krauss: It occasionally is. Councilman Workman: But lt's always going to end up to be the buyer's $750.00. I've learned to understand why seed and sod or sod even needs to be in there because of all the dlrt, whether it's blowlng or runnlng off or other, but Z don't think the 1 tree accomplishes qutte what we want to do. In that case, what we should do ls requlre that every lot in the city have 10 trees on it. If you don't have 10 trees on your lot, you're out of compliance. But once my tree grows up or once Z buy the house, I can cut down my tree and we don't have enforcement on that end of it. Paul Krauss: That's true. Councilman Workman: If the tree is not what I want or if the tree is in the place where I don't want it, which could very easily happen, then we've done nothlng. By requiring a bullder to put 3 trees where I and maybe I have a knack for doing my own yard and I want to do my own yard and I want to maybe watt that 1 year to do my own yard because next year I'm gotng to get some sod off of another place or something else, maybe I have that option. Maybe I don't. Paul Krauss: You would. Councilman Workman: I just don't see us accomplishing a reforestation here by requiring even the I tree because the I tree is so token. You're right. I mean if it's & trees, you're doing something but I tree is just laughable and that's the way the builder's I think take it. Plunk a tree in. Is it livtng or £sn't City CouncL1 Meeting -- February 25, 1991 it? Who cares. It's a tree in the ground you know but then ali the other situations where if I want to have that selection for myself as to where the locations be because ue just built my house in the middle of a cornfield. Councilman Wing: That's what I heard Paul say. You have the entire year to make that choice. Councilman Workman: Yeah but not if I'm comlng lnto the house and the bullder already has the tree in the ground. Paul Krauss: No, we don't do that. I mean we don't have the tree in the ground before the house is up. And in fact what a lot of the builders do, I believe Joe Hlller Homes does thls and Rottlund, when they were bulldlng here does, ls that and we've accepted thls that in lieu of paying the cash fee to us, they give purchase certificates to a nursery, specifically for a tree and sod to the homeowner. So there's a commitment, and they have an obligation to spend it and they can determine where they're going to go with it and what else they're going to buy and where they're going to put it. Right now too the specific requirement is that you have a tree in the front yard and I think that was designed to get at some sort of a boulevard planting type of...so that the trees, so you have tree lined streets. That's why, well there were no trees in the backyard at all. I can't defend the 1 tree requirement. I don't think it achieves a whole beck of a lot. I suppose it's better than nothing which is why we enforce it but it should be re-examined I believe. Councilman Workman: Well case in polnt. When we allow somebody or a developer to build in a heavily wooded area and we force them at the drop line and we do everything and don't do anythlng to trees. Don't cut down thls tree and we pick each tree. I buy the house. Half a million easy. I can do that. I move lnto thls nice blg house. Huge trees. I get out my chainsaw a week after I move in and I can start cutting those trees down. 100 year oaks for my fireplace and why not? Jo Ann Olsen: Some of those lots ue have tree removal plans and we'll require them to. Councilman Workman: I own my house. I've been there a week or a year or $ years. Jo Ann Olsen: Well yeah, I know. We've had that discussion. Councilman Workman: No, I don't think anybody's going to be able to tell me what Z can do. Councilman Wing: I've never met a person in my 11re that has reforested lot. Councilman Workman: A person could do lt. Councilman Wing: He certainly could. I've never met one in my life. Councilman Workman: So on the reverse slde, one tree does nothlng. City Council Meeting - February 25, 199l Councilman Wing: I'm agreeing. That's why I'm requesting more. Councilman Mason: Paul makes a point though. It's better than nothing. It's a step in the right direction and I agree. I think it needs to be re-examined. Councilman Workman: Well it lets us sleep at night but it doesn't do anything for, I just don't think it does a whole hell of a lot other than create a situation for builder/buyer and purchasing vouchers at nurseries. Mayor Chmiel: I think what we can do is have staff review this and come back with some specific suggestions. Oftentimes, I know from remembering back when I bought my first house, I probably couldn't afford the second tree. That sometimes presents a problem too. Who is responsible for putting those trees £n or how do those trees get there. That's something ! think you should review and come up with some suggestions. Councilman Wing: Could I just comment quickly on that Don as it was part of my thoughts on this. If I could have the floor for just momentarily? Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. Councilman Wing: The cost issue has been brought up numerous times and I don't wish to create any hardships for anyone but I am thinking about the young couple that's got every dime in this house and they're both working with young children. When I go out to buy a new car, I get a price down and suddenly the air conditioning, which is kind of a luxury, is $900.00 and I just cringe. I debate and all of a sudden I throw the air conditioner on the bottom line. It goes to the bank. I get the money and then I enjoy it for the next 3, 4, 5, 6 years. But had I not bought the air conditioning, I would have never, ever been able to, out of my paycheck, come up with the money to put it in later. So I'm saying that the people coming in, most people I think like wooded lots and trees, would appreciate it. If it goes onto the mortgage, it's out of mind. Out of sight and it's done. On the other hand, if these young couples or even myself would suddenly have to come up with $500.00-$600.00-$700.00-$800.00- $900.00 for trees, it'd probably be one of my last priorities. I think it's a way of accomplishing something. Giving something to Chanhassen and in fact the money is that bad of an issue, just maybe Chanhassen isn't the place you want to live then because we kind of are asking for.something back a little bit rather than just buy a house and move in in these lots. Mayor Chmiel: I like your analogy because they both apply. They cool down with your air conditioning in your car and eventually that tree is going to shade that house. Councilman Wing: Well there certainly are environmental issues involved. Councilman Workman: Money certainly isn't the problem. There are people that maybe can't afford thelr next meal in the oity and I'm not going to knock that. I'm just saying it's the principle of a matter that we're again telling people why they can, can't, should do on their property just as they're coming into town. Councilman Mason: Better tell them up front. City Council Meeting - February 25, J. 991 Councilman Workman: Well yeah, but I mean we're telling them an awful lot and the cost is going to them and this isn't the first thing we're telling them that they have to do. So I think this is the wrong way to go about it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Paul? I guess you have direction to review that and is there going to be a time that you'd like to see this come back? Councilman Wing: Next meeting. I wouldn't address that. I wouldn't address that. That's up to you. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor if I could. We've scheduled an ismues paper on all varieties and variations of landscaping, including this issue for the next Planning Commission meeting. Now it's just to get the ball rolling and to tell them what's in the ordinance and what we'd like to achleve. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Councilman Mason: Make a motion to approve this? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I'd like to have a motion. Councilman Mason: I'll make a motion to approve l(g), Final Plat Approval, Lake Susan Hllls. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to approve the Final Plat for Lake Susan Hills 6th Addition as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. K. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS. Councilwoman Dimler: I wanted to ask Don Ashworth a few questions about the approval of the accounts. They're usually on our consent agenda and normally I go along with them but thls tlme I dld have a few questions. I saw 14 invoices from 8RW and all of them had to do with contracts that date as far back as 1986. Some of them say for inspection and I guess I want to know, why are we having them inspect the project. Is it their project and are they inspecting thelr own project? Why aren't our city inspectors inspecting thls and why are we spending all this extra money? Don Ashworth: I think you'd have to go down through each individual contract. Councilwoman Oimler: Well I guess the one that I was thinking. When they say for project inspection. It's my understanding that lt's 8RW'$ project and we're lettlng them inspect their own project? Is the City not inspecting their own project? Is the City not inspecting thelr project? Don Ashworth: We employed them to inspect that project for us, yes. Councilwoman Dimler: And it's their project? 10 City Council Heeting - February 25, 1991 Don Ashworth: Well they are the engineers but the contract was awarded to Schafer Contracting for the main portion. I think $chafer had Z or 3 of the contracts. Who did the north side parking lot? We probably had 5 different general contractors. None of which being BRW. Councilwoman Dialer: The City inspectors never inspect it? The reason ! want to do this is because we ended up with the downtown the way it was and I'm wondering if that's part of the problem of why it happened the way it did. That they were inspecting their own project and there was no, what do you call it, balance there. The City really seemed surprised when it happened. Don Ashworth: You will employ an engineer who will take a project from kind of the beginning to the end which would include preparing the original feasibility study, preparing plans and specifications. When the contract is awarded to the low bidder, Schafer Contracting, they typically then will Carry out staking and inspection of that project to insure that what the contractor builds conforms to the original plans. Later in the agenda tonight we'll have Bill Engelhardt in front of us talking about Minnewashta Parkway. I think Bill's on that one. Bill Engelhardt: I don't think it's tonight. Don Ashworth: I'm sorry, but there's a good example of where you again have hired an engineering firm. They start the process and literally go through the end. Whether or not what we have there is a reflection of BRW, I guess in some ways you'd answer that question yes because what they have done is they have inspected the project to insure that it was in fact built the way that it was initially designed. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Is there anyway we could get the City involved in those inspections so that we have no surprises? Don Ashworth: I'm not sure if you're saying is there a way that we could hire another engineering firm. Councilwoman Dimler: No, our own inspectors. Our butiding inspectors. OD we have anybody that does that kind of inspection? Don Ashworth: Not within the building department. Within the engineering department. Dave Nempel is a good project engineer but we put him in charge of 50 other projects. For him to take on a more major project such as the downtown. Well I'll give you an example. They had two full time inspectors through BRW's offlce that all they dld was inspection in the downtown area. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, and then the other question I had is like we're talklng about a contract that dates what, back to 19867 Can you tell me a little bit about what that project is and why we're still inspecting it in 19907 Don Ashworth: The original project was anticipated to break itself down into two phases. The area north of the railroad tracks which would include all storm sewer, sewer, water and roadways within the downtown area. The second phase of the project, and it was known that that would take literally a 2 year period of time. The second phase was to construct, over the top of the railroad tracks because we did not have the approval to cross the tracks at Market Blvd., to 11 City Council Meeting -- February 25, 1991 finish Market 81vd and ?gth Street. That was the thlrd year. In the interim period of time, we had requests and positively acted to starting two new projects. One which was called the north slde parking lot project whlch became a separate project but was an extension of the 8RW work as far extending individual lateral, sewer, water, street lightlng and the south parklng lot project which included the parking lot from in front of the 81oomberg Oinner Theatre all the way on over to in front of Country Sultes Hotel. There lsa fifth project which is the West ?Sth Street Detachment. That project we have, where are we at Charles in terms of that? BRW did all of the lnltlal plans and specifications.My recollection is we're up to the point of literally blddtng lt. Charles Folch: Yeah, they're nearly complete with thelr plans and specs. They just need to currently right now right of entry on the Eckankar property to do some preliminary surveying to provlde additional information to flnlsh up the plans and specs and then they wlll be ready for approval and then to move into thc...bld process. Councilman Wing: None of these can be done by us? Councilwoman bimler: Well I guess that's the next question. When does that 1986 contract over and do you recontract? I klnd of have trouble approving this if it's so long ago and tt keeps golng from one phase to the other. I don't really know what we're approving here. Don Ashuorth: I'm trylng to look at what the services were. Each of those have been a separate contract. If you notice where it says project file. These were all coded by Gary and assuming, do you know did he hold these for a perlod of time or anything Charles? Why are we getting an influx of them at thts polnt in time? Charles Folch: These are dated as belng received on February 1st so we basically had them for ~lmost a month now. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you know why they're all coming in at the same tlme? Mayor Chmiel: Unless probably all through the month of December, as it shows December 31st. We probably didn't get them unt11 January and then we revlewed them. It probably took a little bit of time. That's why that's coming in together. Councilwoman Dlmler: Okay. Would it be feasible to wrlte a little blt about the project so that we know what we're approving? Don Ashworth: Sure. If you would 11ks to take and have these bllls held unt11 such time as we can get some additional information as to what it is, what speclflc servlce was provlded in each of these cases, I thlnk we can do that. Councilwoman Oimler: I'm just a little bit leery of always blanket approving everything without knowlng what we're approving. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would you like to move the approval of everything except BRW's7 12 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Right. ! move approval of everything except BRW awaiting an explanation of, little further explanation for our own information what those project costs are. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what could be done, being that these are from December 31, maybe Don can get back to you and if that's satisfaction, then proceed in payables. Councilwoman Oimler: That will be fine. Don Ashworth: I'll make sure that all Councilmembers receive a copy of what is sent to Councilwoman Dlmler. Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with the exceptions of BRW's bills to be patd. Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Accounts Payable dated 2-25-91 with the exception of Check numbers 042957 thru 042962 to BRW awaiting further explanation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. AUTHORIZE UPDATE OF FEASZBILZTY STUDY FOR TETON LANE AND LILAC LANE PRO3ECT 91-4, Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Counc11. This item was put before you at the last Council meeting and at that meeting there were some discussions raised, primarily revolving around a neighboring property owner who had testified that he had spoke with Mr. Oonovan on the prtor weekend and stated that Mr. Oonovan had no intentions of selling and/or developing this piece of property. Staff was then posed with the question as to whether or not we had actually seen any officlal purchase agreement for this property. We had not and there was also some question as to whether the City actually owned the 33 foot road easement that Teton Lane exists within. Thus this item was tabled pending verification of these items. I have since spoken with the developer and he has provided staff with a copy of his purchase agreement for the property which was dated in October of 1990. In addition I attempted to acquire a letter from Mr. Donovan himself. However, he was out of town. In his absence, Hr. Oonovan's real estate representative submitted a letter stating Mr. Oonovan's agreement in initiating the feasibility study which was based on a recent phone conversation he had with Mr. Donovan. On the other point I had also contacted Carver County Recorder's office and verified that the City of Chanhassen is indeed listed as the owner on the Certificate of Title for the 33 foot road easement covering Teton Lane. If this information that's presented tonight has adequately satisfied the Council's previous questions and if there are no other further questions concerning this item, then I would agree recommend authorization for Engelhardt and Associates to prepare the feasibility report update for improvements of Teton Lane from Lilac Lane south to Ashton Court and Lilac Lane west of Powers Boulevard. This would be conditioned upon receiving a cash 13 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 escrow or letter of credit from the developer in the amount of $5,000.00 to pay for the cost of the study. Mayor Chmie]: We won't move on that until we recelve that in hand? Charles Folch: Pardon me? Mayor Chmiel: We will not move on it until we receive the $5,000.00? Charles Folch: That's correct. Mayor Chmlel: Is there anyone else wishing to address thls? Yes sir. Come forward and please state your name and your address please. Jim Ostenson: Thank you. My name is Jim Ostenson. I'm with James Development Company. I'm one of the partners in North Shore Partners that's proposing to develop thls property. Zt appears that we've somewhat stepped lnto a hornet's nest and into a piece of property that has a lot of, comes with a lot of baggage Z guess. When we originally sat down with the staff last fall, we realized just by itself what a difficult piece of property this would be to develop with basically roads on three sldes and an adjoining clty to the north, whlch really wasn't interested in having development. And then at the same time to understand all of the controversy that went on in thls whole area ulth the Curry Farms development and the feasibility study that was done at that time. So it was suggested then that in order to resolve some of these issues that ue update the feasibility study which had been done 2 years ago, actually 3 years ago now in lg88, and try to determine where the Clty Council was with respect to some of the assessments that are going to be posed against this whole area. Teton Lane and Lilac Lane and that. We've also met wlth the Clty of Shorevleu to talk to them about what thelr status is regarding development. I guess one thing we're a little bit concerned about ls we've already glven the staff a check for $2,$00.00 uhlch was klnd of the original estimate of the feasibility study. Now we see that the feasibility study's gone up to $5,000.00 and actually it's just an updating of the same numbers that were presented 2 years ago. ~ guess we'll talk to staff about that and the consultant and see if there's some way we can pare that down but we would like to develop the property and we would like to get a feellng from the Councll as to, what your disposition ls wlth respect to assessments. We're only going to have 12 to 15 lots in that area. Something that thls project can't handle all by ltself. There ls golng to be beneflt that's golng to go to adjacent owners, including residents as well as people that 1lye on parcels of land that could be subdivided in the future. So we look forward to working with Chanhassen. We hope we can resolve some of these issues up front before we come in with our final plan to you. Councilman Workman: Sim, do you plan to have a neighborhood meeting of any klnd? 31m Ostenson: We u111. Definitely. We always do. You're invlted. Councilman Workman: I don't live in the neighborhood. Jim Ostenson: They're always fun to come to. 14 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? If not, thank you. Any other discussion? Councilman Workman: Maybe Jim again, you can answer this. Is the next intention to open up the barricade or was that going to be a requirement of this whole thing or would you be giving away your hand prior to the feasibility study or what? What do we have going up there? That's the wild nest of weiner dogs you're walking into up there. Jim Ostenson: I would really like to get some feeling from the Council as to really where the Council is coming from. We've presented probably 6 different plans to staff. We've shown access coming just off of Lilac. We've shown access coming just off of Teton. We've shown access just coming off of, Ithtnk lt's Ashton whlch ls to the south. We've shown thru roads going from Ashton to Lilac. We've had just numerous different alternatives. There are pros and cons on all of them. The major negative from our standpoint, we can make the traffic work and I think we can satisfy... The question ts, who's going to pay for the improvements, number one. And number two, are all of the Improvements necessary? Again, the feasibility study that was done has already outlined what improvements are necessary. The amounts and everything and the costs just have to be updated. But we're not predisposed to open up Teton Lane and take down the barricade. As far as we're concerned, we can come in off of Lllac. Brtng our cul-de-sac down south from Lilac in here and that would be it. We don't have any problem wlth that. But I guess somehow thls thing has to get off dead center and we have to realize before we spend a lot of money, as well as time, as to where the Council's comlng from with respect to assessments. Obviously we can't afford to improve the whole area. Mayor Chmlel: Well, my normal understanding is, when developers come wlthtn a community, they normally pick up the assessments for water, sewer and storm. At least that's the way I understand it. I guess I have no real problem if you chose to have an access of Lilac either but maybe somebody else has some other discussion. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I could. We've been worklng wlth Jim and had a series of meetings with him and I'll have to be honest that some of the desire to see that area opened or Teton opened ts coming from us. When we're getting an additional 15 homes In there, or whatever happens, and Mr. Oonovan's already subdivided the corner lot and we have additional lots that are probably going to get access off of Teton, we have to come before you tn good conscience and say we think that with all thls traffic that's being introduced, that we should try to avoid the two extraordinarily long cul-de-sacs that result. Partlcularly when the only thlng separating them is a barricade. Bepending on which alternative is used, it's likely that Teton Lane wtll be used to gain access into this property so lt's going to have to be tmproved from Lilac to some point. Whether it's ultimately connected or not's going to be your call but rlght now from what we've seen, we would feel obllged to recommend that it be opened. Jim Ostenson: Mr. Mayor if I might respond to your comment. I agree with, to the extent that a developer puts in sewer and water and streets, it's his responsibility to pay for lt. My only comment was that to the extent that a public road is improved and the developer pays for his half. The other half that's of beneflt to adjacent residents that will benefit from it in the future 15 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 and receive monetary value from it in the future, that would be assessed to them. To tile oxtent that they can use the road. Take advantage of the improvements that are installed in it. Mayor Chmiel: I'm just looking at the other answer that's going to come back from the other side. We can live with it just the way it is and we're completely satisfied and happy. Therefore there's no need and the only reason that it's going to be upgraded is because of the development coming in. Jim Ostenson: And again, that was when we looked at several alternatives, if ue came in from Lilac to the north, ue don't need Teton. Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's why I mentioned. 3im Ostenson: Yeah, maybe that's the alternative and that's certainly one that we've already looked at. And we've discussed with Shoreview. Is it Shoreview or Shoreuood? Mayor Chmiel: Shoreuood. Jim Ostenson: I always get them mixed up. Mayor Chmiel: It'd be a long ways. 3im Ostenson: They wondered what we were doing there. Shorewood. Mayor Chmiel: Well good, Thank you. Tom? Richard? Ursula? Councilwoman Dimler: I see that you do have a purchase agreement on record and this is not just playing around, That's the only thing I wanted to make sure of. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I need a motion to authorize a feasibility study. Councilman Workman: I'd move it. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Wing: Yes sir. Resolution.~91-16: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to authorize the feasibility study for the street and utility improvements to Teton Lane between Lilac Lane and Ashton Court and a portion of Lilac Lane west of Powers Boulevard (CR 17) conditioned upon the applicant/developer providing a total security (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to pay for the study and that the consulting engineering firm of Englehardt & Associates be designated as the engineer on the project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Workman: Don, is there any reason why a lot of the neighbors aren't here? The Natoli's? 16 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Mayor Chmlel: I dld specifically had a call from them and discussed thls with them. Councilman Workman: And? Mayor Chmiel: And you don't see them here this evening. ESTABLISH 1990/9~ LZOUOR LZCENSE FEES. Don Ashworth: The liquor license process is one tn which staff presents the proposed fee schedule for the following year, or for the current year to the City Council. Once you establish that fee, the individual applications are sent to the owners. So tonight's action ls not approving the liquor licenses themselves but solely one of setting fees. Coming into the 1991 budget we had not anticipated increasing liquor license fees. However, wlth the significant flscal crisis that has occurred at the State level, the number of cutbacks that we are looking to as a city, I felt that anytime we had the opportunity to relook at our fee schedule, the revenues derived from those, we should take that opportunity. Accordingly I am recommending that we increase those fees by generally 5~ over last year. I think that the fees have traditionally been linked to our police contract. We dld not carry out again that dlrect link this past year because again we had increased fees in 1989 but I would like to remind the Councll that we did make a relatively large increase in our overall fee schedule. What we're paying to the Sheriff's Department to assure that we have adequate patrol, etc. in our community. So again, staff is recommending a 5~ increase. Mayor Chmlel: I guess I don't feel too badly about a 5~ increase. I guess I have a question in regard to renewing these licenses. In any way when we do thls, do we provlde information back to each of the establishments? Information regarding checking IO's. Renotify them. Making sure their employees do this because we've had some situations occur withtn the community and Z thlnk it would probably be our place to do this agatn. To notify, just to make sure that everyone understands what the name of the game is and in the event that violations do occur, there can be revocat£ons of licenses. Don Ashworth: ! do not recall that the, the application process, the actual forms are quite extensive tn terms of backgrounds of owners, who ts actually operating the facility. Other type of information but you bring out a good point and that ts that along with that should be a restatement of the Ctty's, lt's more than a deslre. A mandate that we must have compliance with the laws dealing with the sale of liquor to minors. Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, and I realize lt's not the owner's fault but directly it is because of the people they hire and I guess It's from us to them and it's up to them to inform thelr employees. Oon Ashworth: That's a good point. We can easily insure that as a part of the packet that we do include an additional notice to that effect. Mayor Chmiel: Jim, would you like to say anything? 17 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Jim Jude: Yes I would. Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. Jim Jude from the Dinner Theatres. I'm here to respectfully resist any unnecessary new business costs. That said, if no one else ls here to say anymore in opposition to that, I've said my piece. I guess my question is or questions are, is this part of a more comprehensive plan to deal wlth the current and anticipated shortfalls in the budget? Can you glve me some idea of collectively what this 5% increase amounts to for those businesses? Mayor Chmiel: Totally? Jim Jude: Totally. How much that might offset thls shortfall you're talklng about? Mayor Chmiel: We're going to have a tremendous amount of shortfalls unfortunately this year, next year and the year after and the year past. Unfortunately all State aids are belng cut from the State and so lt's only a few other ways that the city can go back out and make sure that we can obtain our shortfalls as well. We don't 11kw dolng it but unfortunately lt's one of those situations that do come up. Jim Jude: Yes, and I respect that opinion and it's not, I don't think a 5% increase in what the fees are represents anything really terrlbly substantial. My questlon ls, as a total amount, ls it substantial to what some anticipated shortfalls may be or is there a more comprehensive plan to deal with other things and, keeplng that in mind, can we as retailers perhaps expect some more increases like this as this being the tlp of the iceberg or something? These are just baslc questions and perhaps you could shed some 11ght on that. Don Ashuorth: The total amount raised through the recommendation is $2,500.00 so the total fees collected are about $47,000.00. 5~ would be roughly $2,500.00. You might say well that represents a small amount but it ts the aggregate of all of those small amounts whlch have helped us get through thls State crisis. First reduction made by the State was $56,000.00. The additional cuts that have been outlined wlll brlng us to a level of about $146,000.00 ls our best guesstimate at this polnt in time. Mayor Chmiel had requested, just by coincidence, as a part of the Chamber wlll be meetlng tomorrow and he uill be making kind of a State of the City message at that polnt in time. He's requested that we go through proposed cuts whlch amount to general administration has outlined $30,503.00 in cuts. Public works, $75,155.00. Public Safety $22,211.00. Community Development, $4,635.00 and Park and Recreation $7,625.00. In aggregate that amounts to $140,000.00. Very close to our $146,000.00 goal of which this $2,500.00 will get us $2,500.00 closer to. Jim Jude: Right. Well we certainly are willing to share in the burden of that. My caution ls though, as these aggregates may mount up, these aggregate amounts that you're talking about, may put undue pressure on a lot of the retailers. I just would 11kw to remlnd us all of that and certainly appreciate lt. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Jim. Don Ashworth: I will make a copy of that available for all Councilmembers. I had wanted to klnd of elaborate on that memorandum so that you're fully aware of 18 City Council Heeting - February 25, 1991 what these comprise. Some of them are rather extensive in terms of giving up public works position. Delay in the engineer's position, etc.. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Any other discussion? Hearing none, can I have a motion? Councilwoman Dlmler: I'll make the motion to, oh what shall I say? Establish the 1991 liquor license fees as presented by Hr. Ashworth. Mayor Chmiel: Zs there a second? Councilman Mason: I'll second it. Resolution p)l-X7: Council,oman Dimler moved, Councilman Hason seconded to establish the 11quor license fees for 1990/91 as presented by the City I1anager. voted in favor and the mot/on carried unanimously. CONSIDER GAHBLIN6 PERHIT APpLICATiON FROfl THE CHILOREN'~ HEART F~ND. 3AHES DITTHER. Don Ashworth: The City I'll say has been fortunate, I don't know if that's the right word to use, but several years ago there was a real question as to charitable gambling and who should be allowed to carry out that charitable gambling within the community. A decision that was made that Chanhassen would be primarily looklng to the Chaska Llon's for carrying out that service. Over the years that has been very beneficial to the City itself. I think the figures I showed were, I have to relook at it myself. To date approximately $85,000.00 has been returned to the local park fund and with $230,000.00 being generated for the Hlgh School Endowment Fund. Approximately 2 months ago Chanhassen Bow1 made a determination not to continue working with the Chaska Lion's and tt appears as though have made a declslon that they would like to look to the Children's Heart Fund. My concern is that we really do not have any rules in place as to how it is we're golng to be looking at each of these different type of applications and whether or not by the lack of our policies, we are in fact encouraging one type of charity to potentially compete with another. Where one will give whatever percent back to the operator or back to, as a management fee versus another organization that may not give that same amount. There are additional rules that we should reasonably look at. For example, City of Chaska has a part of thelr ordinance says that it has to be a local organization that is carrying out the charitable gambIing. That's a requirement that we very weII may wish to see implemented in Chanhassen. Slnoe this is really the first application that we've had for a long period of time, staff is recommending that we deny thls application. That we refer the item back to Pub110 Safety Commission and ask them to look at each of these different areas and provide a recommendation as to ordinance modifications that might be looked at to lnsure that when we review charitable gambling, that we know that we're treating all organizations equally. Councilman Workman: I believe the Clty of Chaska has an ordinance that says no organization outslde the city's boundaries can do thts. It has to be a local community organization that can do it. Now we mlght be the lacklng for that organization in the city but Ithtnk if pushed, we could come up with that organization. I thlnk that's the direction we should be heading into to 19 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 maintain that control as soon as possible. Now originally I think 3ohn was going to go with somebody and I'm sure I understand the reason why Chaska did that because I think John Dorek ran into a problem with Chaska because he was going to maybe tell Chaska how they could, the Lion's, how they could spend the proceeds. You can't do that under State law apparently because he wanted them to take a percentage of it and put it towards an effort which would make bowling a high school lettered sport. You can't tell charitable organizations how to spend their money. So I think the only way you can guarantee that it's going to maybe be used ina local sense ls to get an organization that has local ties to the community and Z think we've been lucky that the Chaska Lion's have been so generous with us and the school district. It's been unbelieveable. But I don't think we can afford to allow this to get out of town. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. Fully agree. Any other discussion? Is the applicant here by chance? Councilman Hason: Just one quick comment. I really liked Oon's forthright comments about, clearly his opinion but how we do need to keep control of this. I think his comment about approving a moratorium on gambling permits until Public Safety Commission has reviewed the item is a very good idea. Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is. Indeed. Councilwoman Oimler: And I so move. Councilman Wing: Second. Resolution ~91-18: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to deny the Gambling Permit Application from the Children's Heart Fund and recommend that this item be submitted to the Public Safety Commission to determine whether policies can be established to govern future charitable gambling applications and the requirements for that process. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 78 ACRES INTO &8 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED NQRTHWEST OF LAKE RILEY ON LYMAN BOULEVARD. 30HN KLIN6ELHUTZ. Jo Ann Olsen: This was first reviewed by the Planning Commission last October and in the meantime a feasibility study has been initiated to look at bringing sewer and water to the site. There's also been qulte a few revisions to the plat to meet some of the conditions that staff and the Planning Commission have put agalnst the plat. One of the major ones was the addltlon of right-of-way from improvements to Lyman Blvd. and the addition of an outlot for parkland as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission. So lt's been reduced from 75 lots to G8 lots. As far as the plat itself, all the lots do meet the requirements of the ordinance except for 3. Those are Lot 5 in Block 4 whlch apparently does not meet the lot depth requirement and then Lots 1 and 2 in Block 5 which where the right-of-way currently exlsts for Lake Riley Road, they do not meet the depth requirement and they're not buildable lots. The applicant has submitted, today they faxed over a revlsion to Lot 5, Block 4 which would make it meet the lot depth requirement. Lots 1 and 2, Block 5, nothing could be done to those untll the improvements to Lyman Blvd. and Lake Riley Blvd. has been vacated so they understand this and it will become all one outlot, 2O City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 including Outlot O so that whole area could be combined into one outlot with a roadway easement going across it for the existing Lake Riley Blvd.. Councilman Wing: Which one's weren't buildable? Which lots? Jo Ann Olsen: Lots 1 and 2, Block 5. The ones by Lake Riley. Mayor Chmiel: Upper right hand corner. Councilman Mason: So Outlot O and 1 and 2 will just be an outlot? Jo Ann 01sen: Right. And where it says Lake Riley Road and where it shows like a new Lake Riley Road going through, like a whole triangular piece would be an outlot with easements golng across there for roadway. That just makes it cleaner and then in the future when everything, the new road is in and streets are belng vacated, they can replat it at that time. Mayor Chmiel: ...the total number from previously to what they are now? Jo Ann Olsen: 75 to 68. And now we're taking 2 more out. Essentially, temporarily. Mayor Chmiel: 66 with one out. Jo Ann Olsen: As far as the streets go, they're meeting all the requirements of 60 foot right-of-way. We are requiring temporary turn arounds until the streets to the east and west are connected for future development. Lyman Blvd., again they are providing the right-of-way for the future improvements and this right- of-way will also serve for a right turn lane and a by-pass lane. That was one of the concerns at the Planning Commission that there is going to be a lot of additional traffic on Lyman Blvd. now and that we need some additional safety factors. So the right-of-way that's being provided will allow for those and that will be part of the development contract and improvements of the site that they will have to provide those turn lanes. The private drive is referring to the farm that's up in the Outlot A. Right now it has to be provided with an easement to the north road and once the north road is constructed, we are requiring it to be removed. The private access to Lake Riley Blvd.. This will allow the wetland to be converted back to it's natural state. This will all have to be done through the Corps of Engineers and the ONR and the City. We have talked with those agencies and they all agree this is something that should be done. The south road, we have concerns that that's being located right adjacent to the right-of-way for Lyman Blvd. so we are requesting that that be pulled back. We can work with the applicant by using private drives to pull the building pads also back away from the wetland and away from that large drainage ditch. We think that they can still maintaln all the lots but we will be requesting that we work with them on realigning that because possibly, even though there will be boulevard area, that's a potential for traffic conflict with a cul-de-sac going right adjacent to a road. As far as utilities, again the feasibility study is in the process of being performed at this time to show the water means of access to the site. That will really determine whether or not it's feasible. It does have quite a long distance to go and it will be costly but that should be done in the next couple of months. The feasibility study. 21 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 The grading, there will be pretty much mass grading throughout the site and pretty heavy duty grading along the wetland and we are requiring Type III erosion control to protect the wetland from that. Also we are requiring berming along TH 212 and along Lyman Blvd. to provide screening from the adjacent lots. The drainage, the applicant is providing drainage ponds adjacent to the wetland to protect it from direct runoff. We are requesting that the ponds be combined into one large one that can be more accessible to the City maintenance crews. As far as landscaping, what we were discussing earlier tonight, the engineer for the applicant has stated the applicant has mentioned that he may be replacing 3 trees per lot for replacement of the trees. We have not confirmed that that is true. We're not making that a condition but we will be requiring replacement of the trees that are being removed and that would be one option. We are requiring additional landscaping along the Lyman Blvd. and again also along Highway 212 for screening. Park and Rec has reviewed the acception of Outlot B for parkland. It will be going back in front of the Park and Rec Commission to confirm that any increase or additional park fees that are necessary since the parkland is not as large as what was originally requested. They will also be required to provide trails along the roads. As far as the lots, we are also requesting that Lot 1 and Outlot E be combined. When you have a remnant outlot like that, it's usually hard to keep it maintained so we usually have it combined with adjacent parcels so that's what we're requesting that. We are recommending approval of the preliminary plat with all the conditions in the report. 3ust briefly on the wetland. They're not altering it. They are protecting it with the ponding adjacent to it. We have several conditions for that approval also and we recommend approval of both. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I like basically what's here with the changes that have been made. One of the only concerns that I have for a couple of those lots, they have enough depth to them. Concern for decks. Will they all be accommodating for decks when they bulld homes on these particular parcels? 30 Ann 01sen: They're all meeting the minimum requirements. Some of them might be tlght 11ke the Lot 5 in Block 4. Zt depends on when they sltuate the house. It depends on how big the house is. There's never a guarantee that they'll always have room. A lot of times now they put those garages up in front of the house and push the house back and then they still want to have the deck so they're meetlng all the mlnimum requirements as was stated durlng the Board of Adjustments meeting and we are trying to look at all the ones that do have decks to see if there ls room. There's a questlon on some of them along the wetland to the 75 foot setback but all we can do is 3ust try to keep an eye out for it. Mayor Chmiel: Is there someway we can convey that concern from the City to the developer? Jo Ann Olsen: Well we are requiring in one of the conditions that if it does have patlo doors, that they have to show on the survey that there's enough room. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Paul Krauss: If I may Mr. Mayor, just by way of digression, it occurs to me that the thlng we're trying to guarantee on these lots is that there be a minimum depth, buildable depth on every lot. What that magic number is, I'm frankly not sure. It seems no matter how much room we glve for a house to be City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 situated on a lot, somebody comes along and builds a bigger one than we could have ever anticipated. But you know, we may want to consider in the future adopting a standard that there needs to a minimum buiidabie depth of at least 50 foot on every lot. That would accommodate probably 90~ of the homes that are made or maybe a 60 foot minimum. Right now Jo Ann is working with this builder extensively and all the lots that are along the wetland have been redone so that there's more depth than there was when it first came in to us. We're doing the best we can to guarantee it given the current ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: I guess what I'm looking for is to eliminate the problems and frustrations that people have once they buy that house and once they're in it and they don't realize what they have to have. I think that somehow if we could convey this to the developers or builders that they at least be aware of it because I guess it's the same thing coming back in and causing a lot of problems. We can eliminate that problem before it starts. I'd like to somehow address that if we can. Councilman Wing: Somehow Mr. Mayor I feel it almost needs to be a condition because it's been such a problem. You brought up, I mean tonight was just a typlcal example. Would a condition in fact force that developer to discUSS thls with the buyer so there's no misunderstanding of what the conditions are? Mayor Chmiel: I don't know how we can do that. I guess that's what Z'm looklng for is some expertise. Paul Krauss: It gets lnto an area that's very tough to enforce. I've been in communities where there's conditions that are placed on an approval that the promotional literature disclosed whatever or that the bullder in discussing things with the proposed buyer disclosed something. But we're frankly not there and lt's tough to enforce that in any kind of meaningful way. Mayor Chmtel: I guess I'm not trying to put it as an additional burden for the builder or developer but somehow if they themselves can take hold of tt and convey that information, that's the way to go but unfortunately in the past it's not happened that way. Maybe we can take a turn around and with all we have to do but maybe we can look at that and gtve it some thought. Jo Ann Olsen: Just for quick clarification. We do have that as a condition on the wetland alteration permit but we could do a similar condition for the rest of the subdivision too. That lt's stated if there's a patio door, that they have to show on a survey that there is room. Mayor Chmiel: That would be acceptable. That would be good. I'd like that. Because it eliminates a lot of problems for everybody. I don't think the builders or developer's going to do that. Have those kinds of problems either. Councilman Mason: A couple comments. I'd really like to see the developers talklng about replacing the trees. I think this is what we've all been getting at and my inclination when I see that kind of cooperation with the builders, yeah we're all gettlng at the right track. I thlnk that's a real positive step. I have a question about how do you get a wetland back to it's original state when you put a gravel road through lt? 23 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Jo Ann Olsen: We're taking it out. Were you talking about Lyman Blvd.? Councilman Mason: Well, I can't find it in here right off hand but I read in the packet and you just mentioned that the gravel road that would be golng through the wetland, that will be taken out again? Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, it's an existing gravel road and it's obviously that the wetland at one time was one whole wetland. Councilman Mason: Oh, okay. I see. Jo Ann Olsen: It's going to the farmhouse. Councilman Mason: I misunderstood. Okay. That's already in place and it will be removed? Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah. Councilman Mason: Great, okay. Mayor Chmiel: All the contours, as far as engineering has had a chance to look at this as well? Charles Folch: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: It looks like it flows, from what I'm looking at here, all seem pretty good. Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Workman: Is the developer going to say anything? Mayor Chmiel: That was my next question. Bill Engelhardt: I'm Bill Engelhardt representing John Klingelhutz tonight and I guess the only thing we want to say is that we've tried to work with the city staff all through this project. It's taken us a 11ttle tlme on it. Even a few delays but we think we've got it down to where we're meeting all the city conditions and we contlnue to work wlth the staff and we appreciate all the help they gave us for trying to get this project...project for the city of Chanhassen. And all the conditions that are set forth, we basically agreed to them and we are committed to the tree planting. We realize that we have to do that and we'll be dolng some of that. Councilman Workman: I just have some questions about the Lake Riley Road and Lyman Blvd. hook-up. Is thls as we see lt, the way we want it to slt? And then, what's. Bill Engelhardt: What came up during the Planning Commission hearings was a concern from the neighbors along Lake Riley 81vd. and how we were going to deal wlth the, it was a smaller plece of property along Lake Rlley and as we got 1nrc it, we discovered that the thrust of their presentation was that they wanted to see those slngle famlly. And our orlglnal lot was a 11ttle bit too small for single family and as we started to look at realigning Lake Riley 81vd., their concern also was at the tlme trafflc volumes and would thls road be upgraded and City Council Meeting - February 25, lggl how would it be upgraded. About the same time that our plat was coming through, Carver County was finishing up their transportation study and they indicated that thls was golng to be a, what a mtnor collector or minor arterlal and they require a 45 mph curve through there. So once we put the right-of-way for that curve, for the 45 mph curve, we found that that helped our lot along the lake which then would accommodate the people by having that single family and everything came together. So what we've done is that we've said well we will plat that right-of-way on our property at this time so that's preserved for the clty so when you go ahead and you want to bulld that Lake Rlley Road or Lyman Blvd., you're going to have the right-of-way all set up and you'll be all ready to go and so that's how that came about. And that right-of-way's in there designed for the 45 mph curve to meet the County standards. We ran that past County Engineer, Roger 6ustafson and got his approval on it. Went through the City staff and they looked at it also. So that's why you see that right-of-way in there. So we're going to plat that right now so you've got it and it's preserved. Councilman Workman: And what happens to Lot 1 and 2 there? Bill Engelhardt: At this time we're going to make it an outlot and then once that road ls constructed, then the old right-of-ways would be vacated and then you'd come in with a replat for the outlot. Councilman Workman: Jo Ann, did I hear in here that Lot 24 had to be square? Block 3. Or had to have 4 sides. 0id I read that in here? Block 3, Lot 24. Jo Ann 01sen: I thlnk that was from an old one. I thought they had fixed that. It doesn't look like it. Councilman Workman: Well, is it flxed? Was it 10 feet almost? Jo Ann 01sen: The reason we point that out is Just sometimes it's difficult for setbacks. Councilman Workman: That's okay there? Jo Ann 01sen: Thls one you can still do because you can still take pretty much a stralght 75 back from that 10 foot and then you have the 30 feet all along the cul-de-sac and the street. Bill Engelhardt: ...those 23 and 24 are good sized lots... Mayor Chmtel: Okay. Any other discussions? Councilwoman Dimler: I just have a questlon real qulckly about, there was some discussion at Lyman Blvd. may at some point become a County road. Has that been completely dispelled as it's never golng to be or what's the discussion on that? Jo Ann Olsen: It's still discussion once the road is improved. Paul Krauss: The Eastern Carver County Transportation Study projects where would those roads be improved over the next 10-15 years. There's implications for thls being a County road but there's no approval yet to do that. That's Z5 City Council Heeting - February 25, 1991 something we need to work out with Roger Gustafson and the County Board long term. This may be a question that you'd like to ask too. Z'm going to have a presentation for the Council on the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. Z believe the earliest we could arrange it is the first meeting in April where we'll have Roger there and the consultant who did the study. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. But right now, approval of this would not interfere with that? Paul Krauss: No. What we're getting is we're getting the right-of-way reserved whether it's a county road or a city road. Whoever. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? If hearing none, I'd entertain a motlon. Councilwoman Oimler: I move approval of the preliminary plat. Whatever. Mayor Chmiel: To subdivide the 78 acres into 68 single family lots7 Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, did we want to make any adjustment to the recommendations? Hayor Chmiel: Yes, with one addition into the conditions. I think Jo Ann has already written that in. Councilwoman Dlmler: Okay. Councilman Workman: Well I would second it. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Preliminary Request ~0-10 for Lake Riley Hills as shown on the plans dated January lO, 1991 with a variance to permit a 220 foot offset between the intersection of South Road and Lyman Boulevard with the following conditions= 1. Review the preliminary plat to provlde for the following: a. Lot 5, Block 4 shall have a depth of at least 125 feet. b. Lots 1 & 2, Block 5 be platted as an outlot (combined with Outlot D) with roadway easement across the outlot for Lake Riley Boulevard. 2. The applicant shall remove the gravel road bisecting the Class A wetland lnto 2 wetland areas coordinated with City staff, Department of Natural Resources, Corps of Engineers and Flsh and Wlldllfe Service. 3. The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan with detailed information on the slze and type of trees being removed and wlth a landscaped plan provided for the replacement of over 4 caliper inch being removed. 4. Approval is conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. 26 City Council Heeting - February 25, 1991 5. Outlot E in Block 3 shall be combined with Lot 1. Block 3. 6. Plans shall be drawn and submitted to the staff for approval for a berm and screening along Lyman Boulevard and between Lot 1, Block 1 (combined with Outlot E) and Lot 1, Block 3 and along Highway 212. ?. Final plat approval will not be granted until the findings of the feasibility study being prepared by OSM, Inc. are known and the City Council takes appropriate action to provide municipal water and sewer servlce to the site. 8. The developer shall provlde current planned right-of-way grade and elevation information for the future Trunk Highway 212 improvements for the segment of roadway through the subdivision. Nolse abatement measures such as earth berming shall be shown on the plan along the southern border of the Hlghway 212 corridor. The developer shall submit plans and specifications for the street and utillty improvements for City Council approval. In addition, supplementary information such as flow calculations for the sanitary sewer and storm sewer segments verifying pipe capacity shall also be submitted. Temporary cul-de-sacs on North Road shall be barricaded and signed designating them to be temporary in 1leu of future road extensions. 10. The developer shall provide the following easements: a. Easements over the temporary cul-de-sacs. b. Easements over all sanitary and storm sewer extensions outside of dedicated right-of-way. c. Easements over the detention ponds and the corresponding maintenance accesses. d. Standard drainage and utllity easements. e. Oedication of all rights-of-way. The developer's engineer shall review the total capacity of the ponding basin needed to meet the predicted retatnage requirements and verify that the proposed ponding area can be accessed for City maintenance. 11. Wood fiber blankets will be required for slope stabilization on all rear lots bordering the wetland area and on all areas where slopes are 3:1 or greater. Type III erosion control shall be installed around the wetland and all proposed detention ponds on the project. The entlre site shall be seeded and mulched immediately following completion of the grading operation. 12. The developer shall provide a registered engineer's report on so11, footings and structural design and certification verifying that the grading and dralnage has been oonstructed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of building permits. 13. The developer shall work with staff on refining the South Road cul-de-sac location and configuration in an effort to improve the buildabtltty of the adjacent lots. The developer shall also prepare plans for city approval 27 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 and construct safety improvements on Lyman Boulevard at the intersection with West Road. The improvements to Lyman Boulevard will involve a right turn lane for west bound traffic and a by-pass lane for east bound trafflc. 14. The developer shall receive Watershed 01strict, Pollution Control Agency, Health Department and other applicable agency permits. 15. The aplicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provlde the necessary financial securities associated wlth the project. 16. Dedication of Outlet B as park. For this dedication, the applicant will receive 75~ park fee credlt. The remaining 25~ or $125.00 per lot wlll be paid at the tlme of building permit applications. 17. The developer shall construct a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the southern boulevard area of West Road in lieu of trail fees. 18. The applicant will grade Outlet B according to a grading plan provided by the City. Additionally, to approve Wetland Alteration Permit for Lake Riley Hills Subdivision as shown on the plans dated January 10, 1991 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provlde a drainage, utlllty and construction easement over Outlet C and the proposed pending areas and the 866 contour shall be the edge of the protected wetland. Any surveys for lots adjacent to the Class A wetland will provide the 866 elevation wlth verification that the home and any further improvements such as porches or decks will malntain the 75 foot setback from the 866 contour. 3. A development contract will be recorded agalnst the property and will protect both the Class A wetland and the pending areas adjacent to the wetland wlth a conservation easement and not allow any alteration to these areas. 4. This approval ls conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of Preliminary Plat ~gO-lO. All voted [n favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: I mlght make one suggestion. These blue l£ne drawings, let's put them up on top here. Zf Jo Ann needs them, there's no sense in golng back and having more and more plans developed or printed I should say. We'll save a tree. Jo Ann 01sen: I don't need these back. It's end of the road for these. 28 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE, PROPERTY LOCATED M~RTH OF HIEH#AY 5 3UST EAST OF 6REt~T PL~INS BOULEVARD ON #[ST 79TH STREET: A. PRELIH~NARY PL~T TO SUSp~¥IDE. T#O PARCELS INTO ONE LOT AND TMO OUTLOTS. LOTUS REALTY. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,238 SO, FT, BUILDING.I C. AUTHORIZE FEASIB~_LZTY STUDY FOR ~¥EHENTS TO ~EST 79TH STREET FROH TRUNK HIGHWAY 101/~REAT PLA/NS BOULEVARD EAST TO CUL-DE-SAC. Mayor Chmiel: This was held as a conditional use hearing by? 30 Ann Olsen: Yeah, it's a site plan. It's not a conditional use. It's a site plan. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that was my question. Thank you. Because I don't remember there was a public hearing on it. How shall you rephrase that? Paul Krauss: =3ust delete action on that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: We've had a meeting since the Planning Commission as far as this property and-all the adjacent property on that kind of penninsula. One of the thlngs that staff has always wanted ls to replat the whole piece to make it clean. Since we the City is in a purchase agreement with purchasing some of the other properties, we have agreed to require all those properties that come in with a plat, including the Valvoline site. And in doing so, to keep the Valvoline site able to move ahead wlth the site plan, we are going to plat, or not plat but to create the Valvoline property as a metes and bounds. We can do that in the Planning department by just stamping off on that description. So that's what we will do and again a condition of that, along with the other properties would be that they would have to all be replatted. So this would get rid of the problems with those outlots too because they'll be platted into adjoining properties. The conditions of approval that we had as part of the subdivision that was reviewed by the Planning Commission will still be conditions of approval, that metes and bounds approval by a development contract being drafted by the City Attorney's office. That is being done and once we get that, they will all be recorded with a metes and bounds. So to make a long story short, you're no longer acting on the preliminary plat. You're going to be creating it as metes and bounds and just adiministrattvely stamp off on. All the conditions, just to make you feel comfortable, will still be a requirement of that and will be recorded against the property. $o really tonight we're just moving ahead with the site plan review and the feasibility study. I can answer questions on that if you want. Mayor Chmiel: Have we ever done this before 30 Ann? 3o Ann Olsen: Creating metes and bounds parcels? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 29 City CouncJ. 1 Meeting - February 25, 1991 Councilman Workman: Of thls magnitude? Jo Ann Olsen: Created just one metes and bounds parcel, sure. We've done that. But never if that was going to be the final form and this is just temporary. We're just creating this so that lot exists for Valvoline to purchase from Brad, from Lotus Realty so they can continue with their site plan improvements. $o there's a lot created for which those conditions can go against and maybe Roger can, but we've already started the process of platting this lot. Even as it's being created as a metes and bounds. Mayor Chmiel: Well some of the points here, and I understand Brad's position. He is proposing all this but do ue have the approval of the adjacent property owners as to what he's basically suggesting? 3o Ann Olsen: That's going to be, that's part of the purchase agreement that they do have to provlde that. Actualiy it's the City. Mayor Chmiel: Do we have that now? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know. It's part of the agreement. Purchase agreement. Paul Krauss: Do we have signed affidavits or whatever from all the property owners lnvolved that they agree to the plat? I thought it was something they were talking to Brad about. Todd Gerhardt: I thought that was lncluded as a part of the development contract that they would be signing. Paul Krauss: That Brad's got to provide... Todd Gerhardt: I would think that Roger... Mayor Chmiel: I would think that we would move on that untll once we had. 30 Ann Olsen: Well we won't. We won't stamp off on the metes and bounds until we have all that wlth the development contract whlch actually you do approve. The development contract will be comlng back to you wlth all the conditions. So we've already initiated replat of the whole property too. So there's two thlngs golng at once. Mayor Chmiel: Roger, shed some light. Roger Knutson: I'll try to. If you wtll, this one got a little ahead of the ballgame. Understandably because these thlngs happen sometimes. There's an attempt to clean up the whole area so rather than having one little small plat here, one 11ttle small plat, plat the whole thing. And so rather than plat thls now and then have to replat it, let this one go by metes and bounds subdivision on the condition that they enter into an agreement allowlng the plat, agreelng to the conditions. If they don't, they don't get the metes and bounds subdivision approval. They need the metes and bounds subdivision approval so that master planning process does not hold up their building plans. 3O city council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Todd Gerhardt: And as a part of that development contract, there will be separate agreements with each of the property owners that are playing a part of that plat to sign off and agree to platting the property. So that would be Brown, Minister's Life, and then the HRR. Roger Knutson: Remember, the basic difference between metes and bounds and platting is just ease of legal description. It's a lot easier for the county to follow. A lot easier for us to follow. On the ground you don't notice the difference. You can impose the same conditions on a metes and bounds subdivision as you can on a plat. Still require development contracts. Councilman Workman: Isn't the terminology master plan a little generous for this area? There really is none. Isn't Valvoline actually a product from the lacking of a master plan? Paul Krauss: Councilman Workman, I don't know. This is a tough property. There's a lot of individuals involved going a lot of different directions. It looks like it's failing into place. It's failing into place because the HRA is buying 3 of the lots. Councilman Workman: On the other end. Paul Krauss: On the other end and where the street is. Oddly enough we don't own the street right now. We have an easement over it and there's other land. It's falling into place because Brad Johnson is working out an arrangement to buy the building from Minister's Life and if he fails to do that, he still has Minister's Life approval to work something out because they are getting an expanded parking lot or potential for an expanded parking lot out of this which they need because it's something the Hanus building now, there's not enough parking. It's also falling into place because Gary Brown's Car Wash is now getting, it's on a very tiny lot. The building is in a very odd location and that won't change right now but Gary Brown will have sufficient land so that in the future there's potential to redevelop that property correctly. There's a whole series of actions over the last 12 years that got us to this point and unraveling it's kind of difficult. But utilizing the agency or the HRA with Brad running around trying to get the agreement of both property owners, I think it's coming together to the point where we can guarantee you that the thing's going to be replatted. That 79th Street is going to be improved to a good standard. That that area is going to be, public rights-of-ways are going to be cleaned up with the junk cars going out and the trucks going out. It's going to be landscaped. Brad Johnson has plans to add detailing to the exterior and to landscaping for the Hanus building. I'm not sure that Gary Brown has any plans for the car wash but he has the potential now to do that. Plus you've got the site plan for Rapid Oil here tonight that hopefully is a good quality site plan and is well landscaped and fits in. Unraveling this thing is something of a nightmare. I mean it's taken us a series of meetings over 3 or 4 weeks to do it. More than that, it's rather cumbersome but we can't help that at this point. Councilman Workman: So, do we have to take these separately and go on metes and bounds first? 3o Ann Olsen: The action. 31 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Councilman Workman: Needs nothing? Jo Ann 01sen: Needs nothing r£ght. Zt's just to kind of let you know the change in course that we're taklng. We st111 need to review the slte plan, whlch I can do a little summary on that if you want. Roger Knutson: No action ls needed on the metes and bounds subdivision. Paul Krauss: You understand the plat is belng prepared now and we'll be bringlng that back before you as soon as we have lt. Jo Ann 01sen: And you'll have the DC in 2 weeks, or on the 11th as far as the metes and bounds subdivision. As far as the slte plan, the Planning Commission did recommend approval with the conditions that were in your report. The applicant has submitted a new plan that showed sort of an island and arrows to dlrect traffic. Staff was initially saying to reroute the traffic so that there'd be no crisscrossing of it and no traffic conflict. The Plannlng Commission dld not feel as strongly that that was necessary and that lnstead some directional slgnage and again like an lsland could direct the trafflc and prevent any of the safety hazards that staff felt that there might be. The applicant has that and he can show you tonlght. They brought it to us on Frlday so we dldn't have tlme to review it in the report. Also, they've added some additional landscaping whlch lmproves the slte over what was proposed in front of the Planning Commission. We still are recommending that some of the, that additional trees be provided. It's st111 a lot of bushes and we want some more hardwoods and evergreens. Other than that we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. I'm sure the applicant's here and he would want to step up and talk. Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontlet Trail. I'm not the applicant but I'm the promoter I guess of this. I'd like to introduce Rick Hauser who was not at the last meetlng who was one of the, would be classified as the developer and then we have Valvoline, Bob Hikulak who will handle the presentation and your questions relatlve to the slte ltself. $o Bob. Bob Mikulak: Good evening. I have a lot of information. A lot of different thlngs that I could cover. Keep it short. I'll leave it to if you have questions in regards to anything such as the waste oil treatment. I have a letter and some information on lt. Plctures of the buildlng and so forth. The initial, if we take a look back to what the Planning, what we came through in the Plannlng Commission. I guess Z went back and dld some work wlth 1rem number ~ which was to take care of what they called the internal, guiding internal trafflc including slgnage, curb cuts, center lslands and strlpes. If I can look at, somehow allow you to, do you want these up in front here? Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you get the. Brad Johnson: It's not there. i~ayor Chmlel: Well, somebody borrowed lt. However's the most comfortable for you to do it. Whatever's best. City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Bob Mikulak: I'll just hold it if that'd be fine. If you can see it I guess. What we did is, based upon the revlew that we had last time, I guess my understanding of it was to go and present what we did here and what we did is came back with a center island there which divtdes the traffic and provides additional arrows on the pavement there. We did have enter/exit slgns on the outside of it originally. We included two additional in the center so there are a total of 4 now providing enter/exit. In regards to the landscaping, we took a look at the north and south ends and connected the two adjoining planting beds on the south and dld some additional on the north. Per talklng I guess a little bit to 3o Ann on Friday, she didn't get it until after the report was prepared, we looked at that a little bit and left it for Paul. Or, I'm sorry, not Paul. Charles, to look at the traffic. We did talk today and I guess he has a little bit of something he mlght want to brlng up and describe. I guess at this polnt he feels that the first one might be better than the second one that we put together here so he may want to go back to what we originally presented here and you might have some input on that. I'll let him do that. I guess in regards to the landscaping, if we are going to continue addlng more at thts polnt, I don't know what, I guess Jo Ann did look at it a bit. Currently we have 52 plantings on the site. If we're golng to go into additionally adding additional trees and we're going to I guess request to step back on the plantings. Basically we've got so much on the slte that lt's gettlng to the point of being totally landscaped. I don't know if either one of you want, if you want to brtng up what we talked about on the traffic flow and if we can get that resolved. I'd be open to discuss that with you or answer any questions that you mtght have. Charles Folch: Hr. Mayor, members of the Counct1. In our previous review of this site plan, it was our recommendation that, to reverse, basically reverse the circulation direction of the trafflc movement through the site. Basically when I take a look at an entrance like that, I evaluate it from two main perspectives. One ls to try and minimize any unnecessary traffic movement conflicts. The other thing I'm concerned with is also trying to eliminate anythlng that may potentially confuse drivers as they try to ingress and egress from the site. Basically with those two premises, those were the basis for recommending the reversing of the traffic circulation pattern. At the Planntng Commission meeting it was recommended that posstbly some sort of island or medlan type situation might be developed to try and mltigate that situation. However, in looking at it, the way it's currently set up, I don't see really any improvement to those two baslc concerns. On a third note, basically the width that is proposed for that opening is 42 feet wide. City ordinance requires a maximum of 36 foot wide entrance for a commercial entrance to a slte. $o there are certain things that are conflicting but basically if I was to look at the two site proposals that are shown, ! think the lesser of the two or the better in a sense, would be the other or the original proposal. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As Z look at that, it looks like you've got two arrows and they're shown coming in. On the opposite side it has one in and one out. Now you're saying that is at 42 feet as opposed to what city standards are 36 maximum? Charles Folch: That's correct. Mayor Chmiel: If you narrow that down, you've got approximately about 9 foot width for each car. About 36. That'd be right. If you've got 2 vehtcles going 33 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 you'd have 18 feet on each side is what you're saying. Charles Folch: Well sligh[ly less. They're showing a 2 foot, basically a 2 foot curb median there so you actually would 34 feet split between 4 lanes so about 8 1/2 foot per lane. 3ust to make it clear though, our first preference would be to of course see the site modified to change the circulation pattern to a counter clockwise. That would allow vehicles to come in, make a right hand turn, and another immediate right circulating around counter clockwise. Uehicles would leave the site basically hugging the east curb line and therefore you basically have an efficient and safe movement of traffic through this site. Bob Mikulak: It still doesn't eliminate all congestion. You have congestion regardless of anything. I mean you're going to have it exiting the site no matter how you do it. I don't care what we came up with. We can go back to our original plan and it had the two, the entrance and an exit, you still have congestion leaving and coming onto the site via a left hand turns which you can't avoid. Charles Folch: I guess I'm not necessarily trying to address any congestion issues. The two main issues that I mentioned previously or wanted to try and eliminate any drlver confusion as they come ln, enter and leave the slte. And number two is to eliminate any unnecessary turning movement conflicts. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Does anyone have any questions regarding this? 42 foot as opposed to 36 which is allowable? Bob Mikulak: We would have no objection to dropping it down and meeting the 36. It just makes it tighter and I guess a little smaller than what you would normally have for a drlve but if that be what you want, 36 will work flne. Charles Folch: If I might comment on that particular alternative. 8 1/2 foot spacings for lanes ls relatively narrow. Normal parklng stalls are 9 x 19 or larger. Mayor Chmiel: So you're saying the 42 feet would still be acceptable? Charles Folch: Well I'd prefer to see the 36. I guess my preference is to see the alternative that doesn't have the medlan at a11. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, the median strip out. That could present a problem with the center medlan there as far as snowplowing and gettlng in and around it and how many cars it'd probably come over that when it's slippery. Do you do wheel alignments there? Bob Mikulak: May have to huh. Not currently. Councilman Mamon: What's the rationale for the median being there? Bob Mikulak: During the Planning Commission meeting it was brought up by one of the members that that would help us regulate and control. The orlglnal concern was the fact that a car coming, can you still hear me? A car coming out of here and across here would then cross the traffic here on our site and exlt. The 34 City Council Heeting - February 25, 1991 median was then to come through to eliminate that. I guess that's why or how the median, island, whatever came into play. Councilman Hason: How often, we're talktng 36 to 42 feet, what are the chances of having 4 cars meet there? Bob Mikulak: I can tell you what our car count is or what the site is based on initially, whlch is about 25 cars per day or 2 an hour. ~pproximately. Councilman Hason: Well yeah but that's kind of misleading isn't it because you don't, I mean you have busy times and. Bob Hikulak: I'm following that up by, what we're going to have is an area obviously of some hours with no cars and sometimes of our peak times, /f you want to call it that. Based upon the h/story with the other 300 sltes that we have nationwide and our busiest stores here, it's very uncommon for us to have any more than 2 cars inslde the facllity and 2 or 3 waiting. People just don't wait around any longer once they know our business. They'll come back when there aren't, so the slte does not generally have a whole lot of cars on it. Our busiest weekend, Thanksgiving weekend, would be the el primo or really the most cars on it but Z would tend to thlnk that you could probably have 4 or 5 cars waiting. If we looked at the parking spaces, the parking in our type of facllity ls primarily used for the employees themselves. The customers, I don't know if you're familiar with our establishments a little bit but it's more or less a drlve up. You sit in your car and somebody comes out of the facility and chats with you about what you have questions need answered and you pull rtght ln. Get the services performed and pull out without getting out of your vehicle. $o there won't be a whole lot of in and out parking situations either. Councilman Workman: Todd, you do have that larger blow-up of the facility? You had it at the HRA meeting. Todd Gerhardt: I don't know if I got that back... Brad Johnson: The site one? Todd Gerhardt: No, it's a 5 x 8 photo of what the facillty will look like. Brad Johnson: Oh, he gave it to me. It's hanging in my office. He's got one. Do you have a photo of what it will look like? Bob Mikulak: Here's an illustration of a couple of sites. Is that what you're requesting? Brad Johnson: No. That one photograph that you handed out. color photograph. Bob Mikulak: Oh, a rendering? Brad Johnson: Yeah. City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Councilman Wing: One thing at the Planning Commission wasn't really answered. I understand you have an oil separater. All the oils are collected and recycled. Bob Mikulak: I've got a little sheet here if you want me to about dealing with waste oil. I gave out to Planning Commission. Councilman Wing: No, the waste oil's not the issue because that's being recycled and collected and there's a separater. The only other question I had uas the number of anti-freeze recycles you're dolng because that's golng rlght into the sanitary sewer, as I remember you saying. So if you're dumping a large copuous quantities of anti-freeze, as you company ever considered recycling that rather than just dumplng it lnto the sanitary sewer? Bob Mikulak: Do we have a current recycling program, no. Councilman Wing: Have you considered it? Bob Mikulak: Have we considered it? They've looked. Valvoline ls part of Ashland 0il and Ashland 0il itself is very progressive in that fact. Currently you know, I guess I'm not really a chemist. All I can tell you ls what, I go through and see the reports and so forth. Anti-freeze in it's actual make-up, the way they make it up ls not what you would call, according to EPA, have any problems currently right now. So they do not have any plans currently to work with that. I thlnk the plan ls more to make the anti-freeze compatible wlth just general outright spilllng rather than belng concerned with how to treat it with a neutral base. In other words, manufacturing of it is belng changed. Councilman Wing: The only reason I bring that up. We just approved 3/4 of a mi111on dollars to clean up the Clty's water as it flows out towards the flyer in treatment and it's a ltttle discouraging to encourage a business to come in and actually add to that clean-up that we're golng to have to do anyways. It's not clean water that's going in there. I'm just wondering if it'd be possible, I don't know if Jo Ann or Paul can look lnto thls but could thelr sanitary sewer effluents be checked or in some way inspected to see if they're in fact addlng to the problem we already have? And I understand that anti-freeze lsn't necessarily an issue and it's not even, it's not on a hazardous materials list but lt's certainly not clean water golng down. You know if there's large amounts of this being done. If it's not a major part of your business, then maybe lt's not an lssue but I just brlng that up for conversation. I think that the Minnesota PCA is suggesting that it's a recycleable material and if possible, mlght be 1deal to go along that 11ne. I would certainly want to encourage that rather than dump it down our sanitary sewer whlch we're already paying to try and clean up. Bob Mikulak: I guess I can only say that as soon as something does come out with what we could do with it, we would have that. Our company or subsidiary or sister company, Igloo is the first manufacturer to come out with the air conditioning, you know the pollutant. We were the first one to patent a recycleable machine for that so that capability does enter, we will obviously have it. Currently that technology doesn't. Councilman Wing: I just want to make one other comment. You know all the meetings I've attended, the issue of the landscaping has been significant, 36 City Council Meeting - February 2S, 1991 whether it's been Council or Planning Commission or staff. Another Councilmen from a neighboring City Council and another City newspaper made a statement that I sort of felt comfortable with and this woman clearly stated that it's not going in her neighborhood. And [ don't know what happened in Minnetonka and I've seen it neither here nor there. The building aesthetically, I don't see as an addition to our city yet and I don't want to in any way incringe upon your right to do business here and I'll probably use the service so in lieu of the fact that I don't like the building, to me it's just block and plastic with a sign sticking up trying to attract highway. I wish our signage ordinance was a little more aggressive at this point because I'd like to curtail what this building represents but in lieu of that, the issue of landscaping which you seemed a little nervous about. It's a real key here and if this is sitting on a wooded lot, it kind of obscures itself and 20 years from now this building isn't going to be any more attractive if all these trees we're requesting have matured, what's the impact going to be on an attractive wooded lot and I think by adding landscaping, Valvoline is coming in and adding something to the community. So what you're taking away aesthetically and perhaps in terms of pollution, at least you're giving back something that kind of offsets my negative feelings towards this so I would encourage the Council and staff to pursue the issue of these trees and maximum landscaping. From my personal concerns at least. Bob Mikulak: 3ust to answer you why we do that. I guess I've answered it a few times. The reason obviously why we exist is due to marketing and the ability to attract people at our establishment. If we plant ourself in a wooded lot, the only way we get business is by somebody driving past on TH 5 coming into us. Councilman Wing: No, I don't think hardwood trees that are of the shade is going to do much to your signs or your building. It just gives it an aesthetically pleasing lot. I'm not asking you to cover the building up with shrubbery. I'm asking for tall shade type trees which I think staff has asked you to improve upon and include more of. I would agree. I wouldn't ask you to cover that building up with just landscaping shrubbery but I don't believe that maturing hardwood trees in fact do that. They're going to be up and above the building within a few years. Mayor Chmiel: By the time you have that building in place for 3 to 5 years, if your trees still have not grown by then, you'll become well established in that particular area and they just would be automatically attracted to you. Bob Mikulak: We love your thinking. We wish that obviously that happens. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Do you have a specific recommendation Richard on that landscaping? Councilman Wing: Well I have to refer to Paul because it's been batted back and forth and I know that, I believe Planning requesting more shade trees. More hardwood trees as part of it. Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, there's a condition in there. Councilman Wing: But are we talking about lots or just a couple more or are we going to outlot the lot? 27 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Paul Krauss: ...we've asked for 3 hardwood trees along 79th Street boulevard, on the north side of the site. Jo Ann Olsen: Another conifer in the back on the south side. Councilman Wing: I guess my number one request was that south side so that TH 5... Paul Krauss: We're proposing replacing bushes with coniferous trees because here's...nobody should have to look from TH 5 into an opened garage door from the back. Councilman Wing: Flow about the southwest and the southeast corner? Why couldn't we add a minimum of 2 to 4 trees? And we're talking deciduous now. Not blocking trees which is, let's call them ornamental hardwood shade trees to the south side. Or the east. Wherever the trees would physically fit is I guess the areas I'd like to see filled in. Again, not with blocking or not with the intent of covering up the building but whatever hardwood tree was elected to be there. By the way, in my opinion, Ualvoline is going to gain as these trees mature. It's going to wind up on an attractive wooded lot with a building that's going to be sitting there rather than just stark. I don't see that we're in any way affecting your marketing whatsoever. If we start talking the pine trees and so on, those become blocking trees and I'm not asking for that. Paul, my opinion is there's a lack of deciduous trees in the plan at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Under the recommendations Jo Ann, Planning Commission action. I don't see anything there although I know it was discussed because I sat in at that particular meeting. Bob Mikulak: Number 3 I believe is the one that addresses. Mayor Chmiel: All deciduous trees with the 2 1/2 inch caliper. Bob Mikulak: It says in the last portion I guess. Mayor Chmiel: But it doesn't say total. Bob Mikulak: It doesn't state anything about number. Mayor Chmiel: Total numbers of what they're looking at. Jo Ann Olsen: Under the new conditions on page 14, the conditions in front of the City Counc11 we have revlse the landscape plan to add the 9 trees, relocate bushes and extend berm as outlined in updated staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you're right. Councilman Wing: Being the Planning Commission's here, would it be appropriate to ask if they had any, what thelr final thoughts were on thls? I'm kind of curious where they left it in regards to the trees. Mayor Chmiel: Well, as it indicates here, they added an additional g more trees. 38 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Bob Mikulak: Is that additionally 9 more or Just have a total of 9 trees? Paul Krauss: No, it was actually 9 more. 3 hardwoods along the boulevard and... Bob Mikuiak: Well that's an excessive requirement. Paul Krauss: ...the bushes at the corner of the building... Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure you realize that the area you're going into is going to be one of the gateways into the city. We have some concerns with that. Bob Mikulak: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: And I think Valv~lin_e is the type of company, more specifically Ashland and I know Ashland quite well. I don't think they'd have too much concerns with it. Bob Mikulak: Well, I guess I can only tell you based upon what I do all around the country for them. Mayor Chmiel: Well, Chanhassen's a little different than the balance of the country as well, or at least we think so. Bob Mikulak: It's a prime community, otherwise we obviously wouldn't want to be here either. We like that. Mayor Chmiel: That's probably true. But one other question too before we go much further. And I assume that you're going to also have a location for waste oil to come into your particular facility? Bob Mikulak: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: To be in compliance with, isn't it MPCA's requirements? Bob Mikulak: I can give you what I gave the Planning Commission... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? Did you see that one? I think what we mentioned is some different changes. Specifically one of the ones Charles had and the ones that Richard has brought up. Tom, did you have a concern there too? Councilman Workman: No sir I did not. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright any other discussions with this? Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I'm just not real clear whlch pattern, traffic pattern we chose. Did we? Mayor Chmlel: No. We dld not choose the traffic pattern for access of site as yet. Councilwoman 01mler: Is that something we should do? 39 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Charles just to discuss that a little bit further. Reiterate just rather briefly on those. Charles Folch: Maybe if you can, if you have in your packets and can turn to the two figures that are shown in detail there. Councilman Mason: Is there a page number on that anywhere? Charles Folch: It follows the application. Mayor Chmiel: 15. After page 15 and then go 2 ,,ore pages. Charles Folch: Figure No. 2 is the circulation pattern which was proposed at the time this was presented to the Planning Commission. At that time it was our recommendation based on the concerns that I mentioned before, to reverse the pattern to pattern number 3. However, the applicant-explained that there would be some additional cost factors and difficulties in reversing the structure of the building in order to facilitate the circulation pattern for Figure No. 3. Basically it appeared that the Planning Commission agreed with them on that. think therefore that's the reason alternatives such as providing the lsland median were looked at to try and improve the trafflc conflicts and try and control trafflc a 11ttle better using the clockwise circulation pattern whlch was originally proposed. My flrst preference would be to see a circulation pattern such as No. 3. However, we're basically down to two concepts. The Flgure No. 2 or the new pattern which, or the new schematic which was presented tonight ulth a median. I would recommend reverting back to circulation pattern No 2. Mayor Chmiel: I was almost golng wlth you wlth 3 Charles and let me tell you why. It's because of the access coming into the site and you have the parking spots. Anybody that so chooses they can park wlthln that particular area. Normally as you go the opposite direction all the way back in there and around, that flow of trafflc golng agalnst the graln of trafflc comlng back out wlth the parking spots located causes a problem as I see it. Charles Folch: Exactly. Councilwoman Oimler: I agree that No. 3 is the best to me too. Mayor Chmlel: Do you understand what I'm saying? Bob Mikulak: Yes I do. Mayor Chmiel: I see that as more of a plus for you than a negative but I don't know what it does with the rest of the building. Bob Mikulak: This concept here I guess is what we came back with in answer to the Planning Commission. It helps somewhat with people who enter the site and hit it by mlstake. You have an opportunity to pull in and park and get out of that parking spot wlthout causing conflict to a11 of the other traffic flow. There may be other people golng through the slte at the tlme. It's an improvement I guess. Basically I'll go with, you know whatever. 4O City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Can you tell us why you dldn't like No. 37 Bob Mikulak: This one? Jo Ann Olsen: It's Attachment No. 3 but they're referring to the. Mayor Chmiel: Counter clockwise as opposed to clockwise. Paul Krauss: The reverse. Bob Mikulak: Okay. I guess I went through that explanation on. If I start at the beginning, I guess first of all it comes back to the development of the site. Pros and cons. You know you're going to obviously say a bunch of things. We have developed 300 sites. We do know what we're doing somewhat when we develop them and how we located the building obviously is in the prime front corner. We set it to the rear of the lot so it has the TH 5 there. We currently chose the selection or the traffic flow into the building for a couple of reasons. Number one is if we have the cars coming per No. 3 drawing, we have vehicles stacking on the side which is exposed to TH 5. It's very hard to attract business when you have vehicles parked out front. You and I, basically nobody wants to wait today. That's unfortunate but that's just the way the things are and business operates. If we were to have vehicles stacked there, we have a situation where we'll be losing business. And if we lose business, then we obviously can't stay in business. We don't want that to happen. So we put the cars to the other side which is along that so called east border. It is somewhat restricted and hidden from the traffic view on TH 5 where we're basically gaining our business. If you take a look at how the building is designed, it's not merely I guess when we came in and talked about it before everybody thought we'll just flip the building over. It's not just a simple mechanics of flipping the building over. There are a lot of interior components. The steel work. There are a lot of things that go on the inside of the building. I'm not the only one that takes this building or site plan and reviews it. There's a total list of people that obviously check through it and say this is the way we ought to put it together so what we had is a culmination of all the expertise, be it here locally and in Lexington, Kentucky who put this together as the best way that we can operate this facility and hopefully generate the 25 cars per day that we need to make it economically feasible. So what we're doing is we're looking at obviously getting the ultimate out of that piece of property to make our business function. If we go ahead and start cutting back on the ultimate, we obviously then are taking a larger risk economically that it doesn't work. Mayor Chmiel: I would think that going counter clockwise, again going back to No. 3, will give you additional vehicle parking because lt's a greater depth to it coming into the facility. Bob Mikulak: But we don't need any more than a couple, and people basically turn away at that point. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I've seen as many as 5 cars parked in each double 11ne and I happened to have been the sixth because I needed an oil change quick. I went to the one on TH 7. I belleve there were 5 cars, Iin the bay, 4 others slttlng and I was the next one there. But as I look at the traffic flow coming in a 41 City Council Meeting -- February 25, 1991 counter clockwise position, that gives you additional parking so there's no congestion being out on that street. Councilman Workman: He's talking about the view from TH 5 though. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, well still that's. Bob Hikulak: You know we've got a total of 12 spaces that can stack up to 79th before it gets there. Obviously you have your opinion and we have ours. We're taking it based upon all the other sltes that we've deslgned and how we put it together. I'm not the only one that goes into that so. Mayor Chmiel: Are ail the sites the same size as what you have here now? Bob Mikulak: Actually this is a luxury. We have a little bit more room than we do at a lot. We have some that are on corner sltes uhlch are qulte tlght. The piece of property here is quite large. I can show you a few other illustrations of corner sites and of other regular sltes if you want. I can show you where we have this exact, this slmilar situation only to what would be to the east. In Mlchlgan we have a joint access slmlllar to thls trafflc flow and so forth ls the same and it works. The adjoining property also using that access. Our lnltlal plan was to have two curb cuts. Councilwoman Oimler: After hearlng you say 25 vehicles per day. 0id I hear you correctly? Bob Mikul~k: Correct. Councilwoman Dlmler: Okay. I don't see that as a traffic hazard. I guess with that I would stick with No. 3, the counter clockwise pattern. Bob Hikulak: But we don't have a traffic hazard or a traffic problem. Councilman Workman: You'd rather have No. 2 wouldn't you? Bob Mikulak: I want our plan based upon. Mayor Chmiel: Based on what they have there Tom. Councilman Workman: I guess Z always get a little nervous when somebody says they know their business and we want to tell them how to run their business a little blt. I thlnk Council's concern is that as trafflc's comlng ln, the potential that the exiting traffic, or the egress. Is that the egress? The egress ls crosslng the ingress and that doesn't look good on paper and it probably doesn't work good or feel good to an insurance agent if he's in the room. But maybe how that could be flxed is to slow the trafflc that ls egressing out of there with maybe something of a speed bump so they're got to slow before they shoot out of there. Councilman Nason: How fast can they shoot out of there anyway? I mean it's not like they're golng to be lead footlng around that oorner there? 42 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Councilman Workman: But in that sense then why should we be worrying about which way they come in? councilman Mason: Maybe we shouldn't be. I mean I'll admit. Councilman Workman: That's my point because they're saying stack the cars so that people can't see that they're stacked and they can get in there. That's a free market decision that they're making and once these people get inside this lot here, why should we be worrying about which way they come in or out of their building? Councilman Mason: Yeah. Z was at the Planning Commission meeting for this and I originally liked No. 3 a lot better but I guess I'd go along with what the Planning Commission decided that if they really think it's better for their business and the Planning Commission was happy with it, No. 2. I'm assuming, you've got stacking for 7 cars and 2 in the bay right, so that's 97 Bob Mikulak: Correct. We show that you could ultimately have more back past that if you wanted to. We could have a few more cars back here. Ultimately I guess basically when 12 cars stack outside,...79th there's a conflict with the street itself. Councilman Wing: I agree with Mike. I was at that meeting and I think the Planning Commission discussed this at depth and with the changes and the small amount of traffic, I was actually wondering at the meeting why we were even discussing traffic because it was such a minimal thing at that point. Now if we get up to 80 cars. Mayor Chmiel: You figure 25 cars in a day. Bob Mikulak: That"s 2 an hour. Mayor Chmiel: And I went through there in probably about 3 1/2 minutes. You didn't have any other vehicles in your facility so I had 3 people working on it at one time. Bob Mikulak: They"d like to do that on the oil alone. Mayor Chmiel: But that's just about 2 hours and 5 minutes out of the full day. I'm taking it 5 minutes each for each car. Of course it probably takes you 10 so that's. Bob Mikulak: ! would say 10 to 15 minutes is an average time that they are servicing a vehicle. The traffic flow that we generate on this particular site or on many, the amount of cars that you're going to have criss crossing is almost non-existent. Councilman Wing: I would move on this issue Mr. Mayor that we follow the Planning Commission's recommendation along with the changes that were made and described here. I guess I would like to finalize the landscaping issue which, if I can read this .... applicant to increase the landscaping on the site and that was not necessarily to put in more crab apples or barberry bushes. It was talking about hardwoods. Along West 79th Street, I'm asking for additional 43 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 hardwoods wherever auailable. Minimum of, let's see, minimum of. Mayor Chmlel: We have g in here already, g additional. Councilman Wlng: Okay. Paul Krauss: g additlon trees, 6 of whlch are conlfers that are designed to screen the garage doors. Councilman Wing: Yeah, ! want 6 deciduous. I want 3 in front and 3 in back. Councilman Mason: What have you got against conifers? Councilman Wlng: Oh I love them. Those are blocking. Councilman Mason: That's what ue want here. Councilman Wlng: No, they don't. Paul Krauss: If I may. 6 bushes are being proposed to be replaced by an equal number of conifers. Up in thls area over here, there's a proposal for 3 deciduous trees. There are already 3 trees somewhat ornamental but trees located on thls 11ne and 2 on that. Councilman Wing: See I'm looklng at this picture that has a lot more trees than he wants and thls ls what I'd like it to look like. And here's the large deciduous that are up above the building kind of shading and addlng to this wooded lot appearance. I'm looklng for this wooded lot appearance in 20 years. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but I think in adding those g trees, they've indicated uill take care of that concern wlth staff's revleu of the finalized report. So you made a motion. Is that a motion? Councilman Wing: Well that was just to move on that parklng lssue. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Workman: We're golng to move on the whole thlng? Councilwoman Oimler: On A and B? Mayor Chmlel: I think we have 3 different portions. Three different items. Preliminary plat to subdivide into two parcels and that was covered. Conditional Use permlt for the construction of the 1,238 sq. ft. and authorize feasibility study for improvements to Wes~ ?gth Street from TH 101/6rear Plains Blvd. east to cul-de-sac. Those will take care of about the entlrety of that particular property. Councilwoman Oimler: Do we want to discuss the C portion separately? Mayor Chmiel: That would be the last part of it...feasibillty study for improvements. City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Councilman Mason: I have a question. What's going on wlth this 42 feet, 36 feet thing? Paul Krauss: It become a moot point if we go back to the original design that had a 36 foot curb cut. Charles Folch: I guess that would be my questlon too Mr. Mayor. Are we looking at approving this concept or approving the original or just allow them their original circulation pattern? Councilwoman Oimler: I don't know because I'm for 3. Mayor Chmlel: My understanding was that they're going either No. 3 which is counter clockwise as opposed to clockwise. Councilman Workman: That wouldn't be mlne. Councilwoman Oimler: But see that's not what they ended up with. I recommended No. 3 and. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I already stated my posltlon as to why Z thought the other side was fine. I'm amenable to. Councilwoman Olmler: So you answered the question. Councilman Workman: What's the question? Councilwoman Dlmler: Are we going with the origlnal or the new? Councilman Wing: My request was that it, if we moved on, I was going to support the new one. Councilwoman Oimler: Which ls what Plannlng Commission approved? Councilman Wing: Yes. Councilman Workman: And my decislon was to allow the business people to declde how they want their inner worklngs to work. Charles Folch: Tom are we deallng with the median concept or just the open driveway? Okay, just the open driveway. Councilman Workman: From my standpoint. Councilwoman Dimler: So you're going back to the original? Councilman Workman: Right. My point was, that they've built 300 of these or whatever and they know. Councilwoman Dlmler: That's different from Rlchard who's going with the Planning Commission and I'm going with 3. Mayor Chmlel: Put a little clarification on that. 45 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Councilman Mason: Yeah, I think we need that. I think we need some clarification. The median is the Planning Commission one right? Bob Mikulak: No. This is the one I brought...very first. This is the one I brought to the Planning Commission meeting. Councilman Mason: Right. Bob Mikulak: The Planning Commission asked for a median with additional signage. Councilwoman Dimler: So that's what you come up with? Bob Mikulak: So I add additional signage. councilman Mason: And that's still going the way you want the cars to go right? Alright. Paul KFauss: But we're not recommending it. I don't want to complicate it further but if, our first choice was flip the direction around. If we're going to keep the direction the way it was originaliy proposed, we'd prefer to go with the original concept. We don't believe that this one that's on top here is very safe and has too large a curb cut. Councilwoman Oimler: So you're going with the original? Bob Mikulak: Thank you. Jo Ann Olsen: We like No. 3 though. Councilman Workman: The one behind Paul? Paul Krauss: The one behind. Counciiman Mason: But it's not the traffic flow we want there? Councilwoman Dimler: No it isn't. Mayor Chmiel: It's not the traffic flow per se. Too many ideas and too many concepts. Councilwoman Dimler: So, all those for 3. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. As we see what we're discussing, we have one of two options to go and one is to either clockwise or counter clockwise and it looks like it's clockwise position with the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the access into the site. And the landscaping portion, making sure that that width is 36 feet wide. Is that right Charles? CharIes Folch: That's correct. 36 foot wide. Councilwoman Dimler: That is not what staff recommends however. City Council Meeting - February Mayor Chmiel: I know but we have two different ways of going. Councilwoman 01mler: Is that the one you're moving that one? Mayor Chmlel: No, I'm not movlng lt. I'm just clarifying different things we've got going. Councilman Workman: Is there a motlon? Mayor Chmiel: I'm looking for a motion from the floor to approve the proposals accordingly or make suggestions and recommendations to what is shown. Or to go along with staff's recommendations. Councilman Workman: Well so really what we've got a probiem wlth ls trees and ingress and egress. Am I correct, are we down to that? Mayor Chmlel: Yes. Councilman Workman: Well I'll make a motion. To add 3 more hardwood trees to the site and go with what would be Oiagram 2 or the original darker green and allow the applicant to operate hls business as he. Mayor Chmiel: Point of clarification Tom. You said 3. In here we have revised landscaping plan to add g trees. Councilman Wing: We want 3 additional hardwoods. Brad Johnson: Above that g. Councilman Wing: Above the g. Yeah, there's only 3 hardwoods on the property. Bob Mikulak: There are 3 hardwoods in that g that you're talking about. Councilwoman Dlmler: We want 3 more. Councilman Wing: 3 additional ones to the south or wherever they can be put reasonably. And I'll second the motion. Councilman Workman: So then is my ingress/egress thing clear? Mayor Chmlel: Your ingress and egress ls ina clockwise position. Councilman Wing: I'll second that motion. Mayor Chmlel: Any further discussion? Councilwoman Oimler: I just want to clarify that we're not voting on 5(c) at this point, just 5(b)? Mayor Chmlel: No, we've not discussed that as yet. Okay, we do have a motlon on the floor with a second to approve basically the preliminary plat (a) and (b) wlth the proposed access to the site wlth the additions of the trees and in a clockwise position. City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Site Plan Request ~1-2 for Valvoline Instant Oil Change facility as shown on the plan dated January 15, 1991 with the following conditions: 1. Relocation of the trash receptacle and enclosure to where it meets the required setback. 2. The traffic circulation plan shall be in a clockwise manner as shown on Diagram #2 in the staff report. 3. All deciduous trees to meet a 2 1/2 inch caliper and coniferous trees must be a minimum of 6 feet in height at time of planting. Revise the landscaping plan to add the 9 trees, plus 3 additional hardwood trees, relocate bushes and extend the berm as outlined in the updated staff report. The financial guarantees for landscaping improvements shall be required at time of building permit issuance. The applicant shall meet with staff for their approval regarding landscaping on the north and south side of the site. The applicant shall be permitted one pylon sign not to exceed 64 square feet in area and 20 feet in height, not more than 4 directional signs not to exceed 4 square feet in area and 5 feet in helght, and one wall slgn not to exceed 15~ of the wall area. Any lettering or symbols on the backllt barrel wlll be considered wall slgnage. 5. All roof top equipment shall be screened. Screening shall be provided by elevated parapets or by screens constructed wlth materials compatible wlth the building. Exterior wood slat fences are not acceptable. 6. The applicant shall provide existing off site contours for all areas within 100 feet of the property line including ?gth Street. The applicant shall also coordinate the boundary slte grades wlth 79th Street in order to establish a compatible grade match. ?. The applicant shall coordinate and provlde detalled information of the storm sewer connection to the proposed storm sewer along ?gth Street. Refinement of the slte drainage scheme will need to be performed, particularly near the driveway access to ensure that the flow is directed towards the prlvate catch basln. Runoff calculations prepared by a professional engineer and a contributing dralnage area map ls required. 8. Existlng sewer elevations and service elevation connections are required. 9. The applicant shall be required to install a city standard concrete apron at the drlveway entrance. 10. There shall be no outside storage. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: The next item is item (c), authorize feasibility study for improvements of West 79th Street from TH 101/Great Plains Blvd. east to cul-de-sac. Ursula, you had something to say? 48 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I wanted to discuss 5(c) a little bit and it's not that I disagree with the feasibility study. I just get a little nervous that everytime I read that ue should be giving it to a consulting firm because they've done and they know best and you know all this. We're going to save money. Well, I'm ail in favor of saving money and I just don't think that this is so difficult that another firm, consulting firm couldn't jump in there probably for the same price. I would like to see it go up to bids and let's see because we never know what we're talking about here. What costs are we talking about? Mayor Chmiel: Well either that or ue could have staff go out and get a recommendation for another engineering firm as well. Councilwoman Dimler: Whichever way but I'd like to see a little bit more openness there. Otherwise we're always just saying well this firm is familiar and therefore let's hire them again. I'd like to see somebody else have a shot at it. Councilman Workman: Hasn't it already been designed by them? Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know. Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. Councilman Workman: ~ thought it says that they have some alternatives. Mayor Chmiel: That ue discussed last time and it's our understanding that the prints are available for anybody and ue have them on file. Is that correct? Charles Folch: They're actually rough sketches that we have on the alternatives. Mayor Chmiel: But any existing drawings, whether BRW has them or whoever, those basically are ours in the first place? Charles Folch: That's correct. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, so what procedure would we go through to try and open this up to other consulting firms? Mayor Chmiel: There's a whole bunch of different firms that could be applicable to this. One that I'm sort of familiar with would be Bonestroo. I don't remember the total names but Otto Bonestroo from, where is he from? Paul Krauss: Bonestroo, Rosene and 4nderlik. Mayor Chmiel: That's the one. Counciiman Workman: BRA. Mayor Chmiel: Or whoever else. Councilwoman Dimler: How do we go about though. 49 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Mayor Chmlel: Just a minute. We'll get Don. Don Ashworth: Staff will come back with some alternatives and recommendations to give to Council. Mayor Chmiel: We can move on thls wlth that recommendation for change and come up wlth some other. Councilman Workman: I'll second Ursula's motlon then. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Resolution ~1-19: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to authorize a feasibility study be prepared for improvements to 79th Street conditioned upon approval of the site plan for the Rapid 0il development and that the developer provides a letter of credit or cash escrow to pay for the cost of the study. Also, directing staff to come back with recommendations for an engineering firm to prepare the feasibility study. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilwoman Dlmler: Z guess I have a, as Z looked over the agenda that was presented to us here, I guess it was on February 7th when we were settlng the date, Z see that we're golng to have publlc works, park and rec and publlc safety and finance come before us with their goals. My understanding was that we were going to set our own goals and I guess that's what Z would prefer to see at this time. Is that we set our goals and then later have a session with them to see how our goals flt lnto thelr goals. Does that make sense? Any other comments on that? Councilman Wing: I'd llke to do that at some polnt. I don't know if it needs to be done, I think you've got this set up and you have approved this and you'd 11ke to pursue thls meetlng. Mayor Chmiel: Right and then I think we can establish something beyond that at another time. Councilman Workman: So you're saying we wouldn't meeting with staff? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. My suggestion is that we still meet with staff. Councilwoman Dimler: At this first goal setting sesslon? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilwoman Dlmler: And then we set our own goals after we meet with them? Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Don Ashworth: I think you'd be feeding into the process staff is going through. Much llke the budgetary process in that there is, staff presents goals that they're hoplng to achleve wlthln publlc safety, publlc works and the Council has SO City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 an opportunity to interface with those and say well, that sounds good but I really would like you to take in and add whatever. We accumulate all of the council's statements, staff and bring back a proposed program so that, let's say by your missing on that day, my missing, we're still going to have opportunity into the system. Councilwoman Oimler: I guess my idea was that rather than us fitting into their goals, that it should be the other way around. That we would set our goals and they would fit theirs lnto ours according to my thinking. Mayor Chmiel: Well some of the things are necessities within the City with thelr respective goals. Each of the departments. Councilwoman Olmler: Right, right. Mayor Chmiel: And I think what we have to do is look at that first and then you can blend in some of your goals back into that as well. The way Don and the way I had discussion with Oon and he's been doing it thts way wlth staff, ls to get 4 or 5 goals from each of the staff members. Each staff member then pursue that as thelr goal throughout the year and go on a quarterly basis of checking to see where these goals are. What's been accomplished. What hasn't been accomplished and why not. Councilwoman Oimler: But there's no hard feelings if we don't go along with their goal and say forget that one? Mayor Chmlel: Oh no. Councilwoman Dimler: See I don't llke to be put ina position where I'm havlng to deny someone their goal then. You understand? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: I'd rather see it done the other way around. Councilman Workman: These are '92 goals? Councilwoman Dimler: Or '957 Mayor Chmiel: These are '91 goals. Believe it or not and if we don't get going with this, they'll probably be '92. So my suggestion would be this, that everybody was alrlght for March 2nd rlght? Councilwoman Oimler: No. I had a call today that March 2nd doesn't work. Mayor Chmiel: Too bad. Councilman Workman: March 2nd is not good. Don Ashworth: Ursula had called me and I have a conflict on that particular day. 51 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and Norma called me today and asked me for alternate dates. Don Ashworth: Right, and I had given those to Don but we were going down through them. Mayor Chmiel: But it looks like nothing fits in with anybody. Councilman Workman: All the way through April7 Mayor Chmiel: Oh, that's ridiculous. Councilman Workman: Why don't you guys just all tell me your goals and I'll sift through them and let you know what I come up with. Mayor Chmiel: I figured I could schedule mine anytime that anybody had time. Councilman Wing: And I'm willing to do the same. Councilwoman Dimler: The 2nd is not good for me or Don. The l$th we can't. Mayor Chmiel: The 16th or the 22rd. It looks like there's 1, 2. Tom, you couldn't make the 23Kd7 Councilman Workman: 22rd, no I cannot. The 30th I can. Councilwoman Dimler: The 30th is fine. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, the 30th you had. Ursula has 30th okay. Councilman Mason: I can't the 30th. Councilman Workman: I can make the 6th of April. Councilman Wing: We could work on '92 goals. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we'll have to and review the first 3 months goals list of what's being done. And revlew that at the same time. Councilman Mason: It sounds 11ke next year when we do this we'll have to start plannlng thls calendar in November. Mayor Chmiel: No, let's go back to September. Councilwoman Dimler: April 6th then? Councilman Mason: Can we all agree on Apr11 6th rlght now? Councilman Workman: Sure. Mayor Chmlel: April 6th? Don Ashworth: This far in advance has to be open. 52 City Council Meeting - February 25, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: April 6th is fine. Mayor Chmiel: April 6th ls fine with me. April 6th. April 6th. Going once. Golng twlce. April ~th it ls. Councilman Wing: I just want to let the Council know that at a semlnar that the City sent me to, and now I'm sorry that I picked up this that you know, I know enough now to be dangerous. Councilman Mason: I doubt that. Councilman Wlng: At thls seminar, I lmproved my knowledge of tax increment financing by over ?00~. I only absorbed less than 1~ of what they told me. A mayor from a neighboring clty, and this will be comlng publlc very soon so, they did have a Council retreat with a facilitator, which I mentioned to Oon, where they sat and they all threw all thelr dreams for the clty lnto a plle and then they voted on the top 5 recommendations or goals. One of them was concretely to improve the downtown business situation. That was their first one. ~nd then they went on down the line. Then they brought staff in and sald, here are our goals. How can you help us implement these and what I'm looking for Don and Council ts long term goals within a reach of this Council. 3 to 5 years. 2 to 4 years. And more of a policy statement than anythlng else. $o I'm hoping that at some point this year we can create that to go into next year a little stronger maybe. I'm hearing every commission saylng, where are we golng and what do you want us to do. I don't want these piecemeal things that we have to argue about. I'd like people to come. Mayor Chmiel: Let me just ask Todd what the city manager said from the City, we won't say the city. What was hls response? I loved it. Todd Gerhardt: Goal setting? Baa humbug? Mayor Chmiel: Well that's putting it mildly. I appreciated it. Councilman Wing: The mayor from this city, I won't name names but she said it was a wonderful experience. Mayor Chmlel: Oh it ls. There's no question. Alright, we have ~prll 6th. We have one more. Don Ashworth: We did that one earlier. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10=15 Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 53