Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1988 09 26
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Larry Brown, Todd Gerhardt and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recon~nendations: a. Final Plat Approval, McGlynn Bakery. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to A-2, Agricultural Estate District, Final Reading. c. Resolution #88-98: Accept Utilities for Carver Beach Estates Project ~84-9. f. Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Sidewalks/Trails along Laredo and Carver Beach Road. h. Resolution #88-99: Accept Feasibility Study/Authorize Plans and Specifications for Audubon Road, Phase I. j. Approval of Liquor License for City of Chanhassen. k. Approval of Liquor License for Anh-Le Restaurant, 566 West 78th Street. 1. Approval of Accounts. m. C~.ty Council Minutes dated September 12, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 7, 1988 Park and Recreation Con~nission Minutes dated September 13, 1988 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated September 15, 1988 Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. (E) AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR GRADVIEW ROAD SEWER AND WATER pROjECT. Councilman Boyt: I had a concern as I looked at item (e) which is the feasibility study. It appeared to me that staff was saying we don't have existing side yard easements. The terrains doesn't lend itself to this sewer and water project and all...signs, it's going to be very expensive. I would like to get some reaction from the public that are going to be assessed for this City Council Meeting - September. 26, 1988 as to their interest if it proves to be quite expensive before we invest in a feasibility study. I think we can make a reasonable estimate of cost without a feasibility study and see if they're still interested in putting this project in. A feasibility study is going to cost us something around $2,000.g0. I think we should find out how serious this area is about the system before we put it in. Mayor Hamilton: $2,000.g~ for this feasibility study seems out of line. P~nat would you guess? Larry Brown: That was the number that I had thrown out to Bill just off the top of my head before the meeting. I have no idea. Somewhere between $1,g00.gg and $2,ggg.gg... One of the key issues with the topography is obviously going to be locating trees by getting the tree removal... Councilman Horn: What percentage of variation do you think we'd get? Larry Brown: I'm sorry, what? Councilman Horn: If you were to use the estimated method that Bill suggested before we do the feasibility, what percentage would you give it for coming up to a number? Larry Brown: I'm not prepared to answer that. I don't know. Councilman Horn: There's no way to answer that? Larry Brown: No. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you this question. Have you had any other requests for this other than Mrs. Bernier? Larry Brown: Yes. Several. Councilman Gev ing: Who el se? Larry Brown: Mr. Harvey Will. Mr. Albert Sinnen and I'm not sure if Mrs. Anderson. Councilman Geving: So 3 of the 5 definitely have said they want it? Larry Brown: Correct. Councilman Boyt: They didn't say they wanted it at any cost. Larry Brown: That' s correct. Councilman Boyt: Larry, if you talked to some people, do you think you could come within 25% of the actual cost on a rough estimate? Larry Brown: Yes. If we did the mini-feasibility in-house, we could pull out a rough estimate, yes. Councilman Boyt: I don't have anything else. I'm ready to make a motion. City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: I have a couple comments. Mary Bernier is here I know, she may want to make a comment. She's been before the Council before. I know that she has talked to the staff previously about doing this and was hopeful that this project could be moved ahead without doing a feasibility study. Now to get to this point and now we're talking about making a rough estimate, coming within 25% without doing a feasibility study, I don't know why these things have to get this far down the road before somebody on the staff figures out they can do something without doing a full blown study. I know that the Berniers have a serious water problem. Other people down there have problems with their septic system. Here's an area within our MUSA line within the City which does not have sewer and water and they should have it. They're going to, I would guess, they're going to have problems or they do have problems with their water and sewer ar~ now and they're going to have additional probit=ms so if they don't do this, almost at any cost, it's going to be a reasonable cost. As reasonable as it can be done for. It's probably going to save them money in the long run because they're going to have to have additional things done to their sewer and water if we don't put in city sewer and water. It's a little frustrating for me to get to this point now to find that staff could have done and come up with some figures that would have helped us at this point, but I think we ought to move ahead with it as quickly as possible. Those people do not have water. Councilman Horn: How long is a feasibility study good for? Don Ashworth: One year. Councilman Johnson: How long will it take to do it? Larry Brown: Depending on the demand on the firm, I'm guessing probably about 2 weeks time. Mayor Hamilton: Bill, you wanted to make a motion. Councilman Boyt: I will make the motion that staff presents a close estimate without the feasibility study and receive approval from the residents prior to initiating a feasibility study. The intent would be, if the residents approve from the rough estimate, that the City would go ahead and fund a full blown feasibility study that we have to have. That's my motion. Councilman Geving: I want to question in it. Are you asking that all five of the neighbors agree before we proceed with the feasibility? Are you willing to accept 4 out of 5 or 3 out of 5? This is very important because I agree with the Mayor that we have to do scmething in that area. They're only a few blocks from an area that is not being serviced by sewer and water. I think we have to be, you mentioned that the residents, I think we should have at least a majority and to me 60% is a pretty good figure. If we have 3 out of the 5 that already say they want it, they need it, to me that's a good percentage. Councilman Boyt: I'll accept 3 out of the 5. I want people to go into this realizing that this is an expensive project and as Tom said, if it's worth it, fine but I would think we could very quickly give them that information and if they say I won't spend $15,000.00 for the system, then we don't have to invest $1,000.00 of the City's money. City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Then how long do we need to wait when their septic systems fail to tell them they have to put it in, which has happened in other areas of the cormaunity? It's no different than other areas Bill where people had not put in city sewer if they could. Their septic systems are failing as they are here. They must put in city sewer. Councilman Boyt: Tom, does that mean that we're going to say to these people, you're going to take city sewer whether you want it or not? Mayor Hamilton: That is exactly what has been the case previously. When you have failing septic systems, you don't have any choice. In this case they also have failing wells. Councilman Boyt: I would say, if a majority of the Council is in a position where you're going to say, we're going to require you to have sewer and water, then let's start the feasibility study. I would rather have them know what it's going to cost before we do that and that's why I made a motion the way I did. Mayor Hamilton: The only problem I have with your motion is that it simply delays it longer. It's going to take two weeks for Larry to come back with the figure, approximately what it might be. Then it's going to take 3 more weeks to do a feasibility study. Now we're probably looking at spring before the project could be started. Councilman Boyt: If Mrs. Bernier says that she's going to take this at any cost, I'll withdraw my motion. Mayor Hamilton: Mary, would you have any conment? Mary Bernier: I don't want to talk for my neighbors...I don't know what it costs. Mayor Hamilton: What's exorbinate in your opinion? Mary Bernier: I don't know. I have an idea that we do need it. Mayor Hamilton: If you had to have a new well put in and a new septic system put in, what is that going to cost? Mary Bernier: $4,000.00. Mayor Hamilton: For both? Mary Bernier: No, for t~he well. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, then if you had a failing septic and you had to put in a new septic field, that's probably another $4,000.~g. Mary Bernier: Probably. Mayor Hamilton: How soon can you have an estimated figure Larry? Larry Brown: I' 1! have that for the next Council meeting. City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Can you have it sooner than that? Larry Brown: Sure. Councilman Boyt: We can pass this so that all it requires is, as Dale said, 3 out of the 5 property owners and it never needs to come back to us. Mayor Hamilton: That's true. I think if Larry comes up with a figure, a reasonable estimate and comes to you folks and say this is what we feel, within reason, it's going to cost and you agree to it, then I see no reason to bring it back here. Larry can go ahead with a feasibility study and the project can begin. Would that be acceptable to you Mary? Mary Bernier: Yes. Don Ashworth: The feasibilty step stage is one required under State Statute so if you were to do that, you should authorize the feasibility study this evening subject to the Engineer getting data. Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that. Councilman Geving: I agree. Councilman Horn: I have another question. How much extra time will this take for Larry? We make the assumption that the staff time is something that we have plenty of and I don't believe that's true. How much of your time is this going to take to do this? Larry Brown: We're looking at about 15 hours worth of work to do this. Councilman Johnson: ...half a week. Mayor Hamilton: Is your motion then Bill to do... Councilman Boyt: As Don proposed. Councilman Geving: I'll second that motion. Councilman Johnson: Could we right underneath, if our staff, if their time crunch after they look at all their schedules and everything else we give them the rest of the evening tonight, works out to where it'd be best that they go off and have a mini-feasibilitybe done by OSM in the same timeframe, under the same criteria, would that be... Councilman Horn: Only if the data can be used on the final. If it's going to end up costing us more money, more time. Councilman Johnson: But see if he does it, the data may not be useable for the final feasibility study and it would be a duplication where if OSM does it, the data may be useable where we may save money in the long run. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a decision that the City Manager and the staff should make. It's not as if we've never assigned them work to do in the past that's going to take hours. City Council Neeting - September 26, 1988 Councilman Horn: So we're not limited to the staff doing a mini-feasibility study? Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that was part of the motion. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to authorize the feasibility study for Grandview Road sewer and water project subject to the Engineer getting the data. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and the motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: Albert Dorweiler: My name is Albert Dorweiler and I live along Bluff Creek there. They raised the road 4 feet on the highway there. I come out of my driveway when I go out. They raised it 4 feet and it's like that .... paper for me to get off in the wintertime and also, it's very dangerous to come over the hill, there's a blind hill there. I feel it's very unsafe for me to drive out of my driveway .... I called Bill Engelhardt. He says, I'll take a look at it. I've been fighting with him for a month and a half now about this. I also told Bill Engelhardt about, I've got Vine Hill there and I'd like to have a sign put up, blind driveway. You told me that I could see the road. There's nothing that they can do. I also called the City of Chanhassen and Gary, he's the City Engineer, he told me that it's a State road. There's nothing they can do. Is that true? It's a State road? Don Ashworth: It's a State Aid road meaning that the City has to comply with State Aid requirements. Whether or not there's been a request to the State asking if we would be able to put blind intersection. Normally that is considered by the State. I'd like to have both of these issues researched and brought back to the Council. Mayor Hamilton: We'll look into them for you Al. Councilman Geving: Let us know if you don't get this resolved. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF LONE CEDAR CIRCLE, RALPH KANT. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and ~e motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Jo Ann Olsen: The property is located south of Lake Minnewashta. It has ...right-of-way just to the south of it and adjacent to TH 5. The applicant is requesting to vacate a portion of the Lone Cedar right-of-way. The City does not have any intention to improve that road to the south. The two lots and to the east have direct access to TH 5. The lot further east is mostly wetland and will not be developed. The current applicant has a driveway onto Lone Cedar which does have direct access onto TH 5. The applicant has conferred with the engineering department and also with MnDot and the applicant has spoken with the City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 owner of Lot 3 and he has no objections to the partial vacation of the right-of-way. The applicant is going to be providing Lot 3 with a driveway easement across the vacated right-of-way should he ever want to have access to Lone Cedar rather than from TH 5. Councilman Boyt: One question I had, and maybe Larry can answer this, is the layout of the private drive. It looks to me, just looking at the transparency here, that we have a considerable distance between where the private drive is going to be and TH 5. Larry Brown: For which lot? For the subdivision or the neighboring lot? Councilman Boyt: No, for the proposed subdivision. Larry Brown: Yes, there is approximately 250 feet I believe from the existing driveway. Councilman Boyt: What I mean about a distance from that private drive out to TH 5, what looks like a little strip it's created along there. Do you know how deep that strip is? It can't be 250 feet. 15 feet? It would seem to me as though, it might make more sense to pull the drive over closer to TH 5 and create more lawn in that lot rather than creating a 15 foot border on the other side of it. I'd just like some reaction to that thought. Is that private drive drawn in where you really want it to be? Councilman Horn: There's a big berm in there. Councilman Boyt: Okay. The other question that I seem to recall in reading this was, there's a MnDot approval involved in this. Is that right? Larry Brown: That's right. I put that condition on there solely because, as a vehicle exits out of the subdivision driveway and tries to access TH 5, it could have an impact to TH 5 which is how that operates. I'm recommending that MnDot review that so it does not have any adverse impacts to TH 5. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see us approve this with the understanding that it's approved based on on MnDot's approval for the access. I think the whole thing hinges upon that. If MnDot doesn't give their approval, I don't think we should be creating a situation that they're stuck with. Mayor Hamilton: One of the conditions is that the applicant shall obtain written approval from MnDot. Councilman Boyt: I guess that's really most relevant to item l(i). Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anything else on the vacation? Counc i lman Boyt: No. Councilman Horn: I'm just kind of curious what the ~mpact would be on TH 5. They'll be exiting to Lone Cedar Point. What's the impact to TH 5? Larry Brown: If there's not enough separate distance between the driveway and TH 5, what tends to happen is the vehicle will turn off and it will be askewed -- ~ity Council Meeting - Septen~oer 26, 1988 angle to the oncoming traffic. We all know that askewed problems can sometimes create a visib~_lity hazard as the cars pull out onto TH 5. Councilman Horn: You're saying you can't get enough access onto Lone Cedar to get a straight shot to TH 5? Larry Brown: If it's too close to TH 5, the car will not be perpendicular to TH 5. Mayor Hamilton: If they're going to turn east. Well, either way I guess but east is more difficult to make the turn than going west. Councilman Johnson: Is there a problem with the present driveway? Where they are at the present? Larry Brown: The comment was intended to _have the new driveway share in the existing driveway versus the distance that I've originally listed. Councilman Horn: So if there isn't a problem now, it shouldn't be a problem in the future? Larry Brown: Not if they share the same driveway. Councilman Horn: I don't really see a problem with TH 5. With that berm and that elevation difference, I don't know what problem that would be. Councilman Geving: The question that I had had to do with the easement to Lot 3, Block 1 and the applicant, in my view should place that in written form. think that that would be a reasonable request. That you would get a written request from the applicant and that it becomes a part of the record. The other comment that I have is also in regards to the proposed driveway for Lot 1, Block 1. Now is that going to be the new driveway Ralph? Could you answer that? Lot 1, Block 1. Ralph Kant: It would be on the existing circle drive that already exists. We would utilize that. Councilman Geving: And you already have at least lgg feet there at the present time, is that correct? Ralph Kant: That's correct. Councilman Geving: The only co~nent that I would have made there, in cases like this, we like to have the City Engineer review the road construction to make sure that separation is 10g feet but I'm going to take your word for it. think it is. I've been out there several times so that's a condition I think you already wrote in and there won't be any problem with that. I pass. Councilman Johnson: I have nothing on the vacation. Mayor Hamilton: I have nothing either. It looks fine to me. Is there a motion to approve item 2, the vacation of Lone Cedar Circle? Councilman Horn: I would so move. City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: I'll second it. Do you want to put the conditions as suggested by the four conditions? Councilman Geving: I'd like to have the one item that I suggested included. That the easement be in writing as a condition. There would be five conditions. Resolution #88-100: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Vacation Request #88-5 to vacate a portion of Lone Cedar Lane as shown on the site plan dated "Received August 15, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall suk~it plans for the construction of the driveway for Lot 1, Block 1 to the City Engineer for approval prior to final plat review. 2. The applicant shall obtain written approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the construction of the driveway onto Lone Cedar Road prior to final plat review. 3. The proposed driveway for Lot 1, Block 1 shall maintain a minimum separation of 100 feet frc~ State Highway 5. 4. A 15 foot utility and drainage easement shall be centered over the 12 inch diameter watermain for the entire length of the right-of-way to be vacated. 5. The easement shall be in writing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (I) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR KANT SUBDIVISION. Councilman Boyt: I don't have any problem with it. I just wanted to see us resolve item 2 first before w~ went ahead and approved the plat. So I recon~nend approval of item l(i). Mayor Hamilton: I'll second your motion. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat for the Kant Subdivision pursuant to the City Manager's recon~nendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CHANHASSEN HILLS TRUNK WATERMAIN SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT ROLL. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Larry Brown: I'm speaking for Mr. Don Patton who came in this evening. On Parcel No. 25-02317, it should be on the first page of the assessment roll, the fourth one down, we have found a discrepancy in that particular parcel so we are reconxnending that the Council approve the rest of the assessment roll as you see City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 fit and the Council make an exception of that parcel. Mayor Hamilton: Ed Dunn? 2317907 Larry Bro~: That' s correct. Mayor Hamilton: That's Ed Dunn according to my list. Councilman Ge_ving: Can I ask what the error is? Larry Bro~: Just in some of our methodology, there was some land that was dedicated to the City, park open space which Mr. Patton should be created for. I'm sorry, Mr. Dunn should be credited for. Councilman Geving: The total of $79,ggg.00 is not correct? Larry Brown: That's correct. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Hamilton: Do you have comnents on this Don? Don Patton: I think we explained that in our meeting with staff today. There was a cross of the laterals on the watermains. A cross there. One other bit of explanation. We've had some difficulty with the areas and also the name. Ed Dunn is not the o~er of the land. It's in the Lake Susan Hiils Partnership with two partners you s~e on there. We've been working very well with staff and also with the County trying to file with the district. We didn't make it for the deadline for the Council. Councilman Geving: In your letter of July 25th, you ask for a certain negotiation regarding the deferment of assessments. Did you meet with our staff and did you get any satisfaction in your reply? Don Patton: (Couldn't hear his answer on the tape.) Don Ashworth: That's correct. We just talked before the meeting and DOn has asked me to check on the availability of the Green Acres designation for a portion of their property. It's been my prior experience that that is handled totally by the County and I'll check on it and get back to Don. Mayor Hamilton: Is that acceptable Don? Don Patton: There's two parts to this. One is the taxes. Don is right, that is a County issue. The things that my letter addressed was the County referred me to the City and a lot of this assessment of this trunkmain is going on agricultural land. The point of my letter and the point of my question to the City Manager was asking for a deferment of Green Acres assessments of the watermain. Don Ashworth: I'll check. Mayor Hamilton: You will work with Don. City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 Don Ashworth: I'll have the City Attorney verify, in fact you've heard the question this evening, it makes it easier for .me now...repeat it. If you would verify or research the question posed by Mr. Patton and respond back to him on that. Roger Knutson: I can answer part of it right now. The City has nothing to do with Green Acres. Green Acres is a lot. It's listed by the County. We can not determine eligibility for it. For assessments... Don Patton: You'd better work it out with the County because they're saying you do. Roger Knutson: They're wrong if they said that. Ask to check with the County Attorney. There's no question on it. Mayor 'Hamilton: We'll try to clarify that for you Don. Don Patton: I'd like for you to direct the City Attorney to work with the County Attorney and get back to me. I'm tired of going between two governmental agencies... Mayor Hamilton: I think when you're in develo~ent that's part of your job but we have already told you that we will work with the County. When we say we, that includes all of the staff so that's already done. I will move approval of the Chanhassen Hills trunk watermain supplomental assessment roll with the one exception which needs to be further clarified. Councilman Horn: No. 25-00231700. Don Ashworth: I think we're in a position ready to adopt even that parcel. It's simply a matter to reduce from that particular parcel the acreage associated that has been dedicated to public. We can put it into a future packet but it's strictly a matter of separating that assessment to show that portion of it that is public versus that portion that's still private. Larry Brown: We have met with, as Mr. Patton stated, we met with him this afternoon and I believe, unless he felt differently this evening, we are in agreement as to what should be assessed and what should not. Mayor Hamilton: I think we should see that back so we have an opportunity. Councilman Johnson: So that assessment will get split between the City and the... Don Ashworth: That' s correct. Councilman Johnson: So the amount of that assessment on there wouldn't change except it would go against two different people? Don Ashworth: Right. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I understood Larry to say there would be a change in the amount. 11 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Don Ashworth: A change in the amount assessed back to Mr. Patton[ Mayor Hamilton: l~ne total dollar figure does not change? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Technically you don't assess yourself but the benefit is still assigned back to the City. Mayor H~milton: Does the Council want to include that parcel or do you want to have it come back to us so you can see what the split is? CounciLman Geving: Well, we still have time to do this. I got the impression from your letter Don that it's important that we adopt the assessment roll tonight so it can be certified to the County. Don Ashworth: Right. I'd like to get the clock rolling and be able to certify. There's no question, I will put it in an upcoming adninstrative section, the actual split but I was hoping to get the roll adopted this evening. Mayor Hamilton: In that case, I will include the parcel designated as 25-~231790 on the assessment roll and staff will include that in our packet in the future so we can see what the split is. Councilman Horn: I'1t second that also. Resolution #88-1~1: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adopt the Chanhassen Hills Trunk Watermain Supplemental Assessment Roll including Parcel No. 25-~2317~0 and staff will include that parcel in a future packet so Council can see what the split is. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Richard Gay: I'm Richard Gay from Your Majesty's Valet Cleaners and the letter that I had given to you folks explaining our situation regarding why we held the money in escrow and now through a letter from Mr. Ashworth, I understand that we are in dialogue and working towards a resolution of our problems so I'm prepared to pay the water bill tonight. I do have a check with me here. Mayor Hamilton: I just hope the Council understands that Mr. Gay had been holding the dollars for his water in escrow because he wasn't satisfied with ~e way he felt he had been treated through the development process in the downtown project. It was perhaps the only little piece of leverage he had to work with the City and of course, it didn't work because we can certify that to the County and it goes on the taxes so the landlord doesn't end up paying it but there have been, and continue to be some difficulties working with Mr. Gay's business in giving him the same business that he had prior to the downtown development. I've worked quite a bit with Mr. Gay and the staff trying to resolve these issues and hopefully we're close to doing that. I was not happy to see...placed down along side your building this evening. That did not make me happy at all but neverthe less we try to press forward and try to resolve all of your issues. I 12 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 appreciate your coming here and I appreciate your paying your water bill. YOu can just bring it up here. Anyone else from the public who would like to make con~nent about certification of utility bills? I would like to make a couple of comments. I guess as I always do when I see this list because I think it's wrong, terribly wrong that people do not pay their water and sewer bills. I know in some con~nunities when a business, in particular is behind in their water bill, they are shut off until they pay their bill. I think we need to take a tougher stance on that. There's no reason why, even though we charge rather exorbinate interest rates on these water bills, there's no reason why the rest of the community should carry a few people who choose not to pay their water bills but instead to have it certified to the County so they can deduct it off of their income tax. There are some companies in town here who have not paid their water bills. John Pryzmus and his companies. Lotus Realty Services. Kim Bloomberg has a home on here that has a water bill and that home sold so I don't know, Don how you resolve that? That should have been settled with the sale of the home. I'm surprised to see that. It's ~all but nevertheless, those are things that you, I happen to know that that's the home that he built and he sold it. That should have been cleared up at the closing. So those are things that we should look into somehow but the business people are just rather upsetting. When you see John Pryzmus on here, it's $1,800.00 for water and sewer bills and that's for his business. I don't think that's right. Anybody else have comments? If not, I entertain a motion to certify sewer and water bills for the County. Councilman Johnson: So moved with the exception of Your Majesty's Valet and the one that's marked off on the back. Mayor Hamilton: Don Jones? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: I second your motion. Councilman Horn: It appeared to me that the list was much shorter this year than usual. Is that true or is my memory failing? Councilman Geving: It seems like the dollar figures though are bigger. Don Ashworth: In response to some of the points that were raised by the Mayor. It should be noted that some of the businesses are interconnected. In other words, there's one service coming into the property. The Colonial Center has basically one service into that area. The s~e way with J0hn Pryzmus. Actually the service for the 78th Street property goes through the Kallstad property. There's a meter after the Kallstad's so you end up, to shut his off, you would be shutting off the Kallstad's there as well. On payment from Your Majesty's Valet, I'm not quite sure how I should handle this. The total there is in the amount of $2,911.00. However, the penalty portion has been put on in the amount of $400.00 or $500.00. Councilman Horn: $582.27. Don Ashworth: And that is not in this. 13 Council Meeting - Septe~r~ber 26, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Isn't that a service charge? Isn't that a penalty from this point on? Don Ashworth: I would have to verify it. To be delinquent, you have to be from a previous quarter. So simply because you have not paid the bill associated with this quarter is not technically delinquent so these bills have to be unpaid as of basically July 1st, June 1st. Anytime prior to that date. Whether or not this represents an accumulation of January and March, I don't know. Mayor Hamilton: I think Mr. Gay has demonstrated his willingness to work with the City and he's paid $2,911.00. I think if there's a minor penalty attached to that, he's probably not going to complain. I guess my thought was, if the penalty that you're showing on here is a service charge was as of tonight when you certify it and anything that was paid tonight or prior to tonight was the amount that was due. Don Ashworth: Any portion that deals with certifying it to the County, that portion would be deleted. So in other words, if you paid this prior to our certification, I have a feeling though that a portion of this goes back 3 to 6 months. Resolution #88-102: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Certification of Sewer/Water bills to the County with the exception of Your Majesty's Valey Cleaners and Donald P. Jones. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Horn: I don't ~hink I got an answer to my question. Is this higher or not than what we usually see? DOn Ashworth: The total has been around $20,000.00. I didn't look to see the total number of businesses. I would say that it's slightly higher. It seems to be $3~,0~0.0g to Councilman Horn: It looks higher to me. Don Ashworth: ...maybe between $3g,0gg.00 and $40,00g.00 which is more than the previous. FINALIZE ASSESSMENT ROLL, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Mayor Hamilton: We had asked Gary to bring some information back to us on a few. I guess I personally wasn't satisfied with the answers I saw. Anything you want to present Gary or does your report stand on it's own? Gary Ehret: I think the report is pretty self explanatory. Don Ashworth: A copy of the recon~nendation was hand delivered to Mr. Pauly, Russ Pauly. Harry was out of town a week ago last Friday. I don't know, is Russ or Harry here? I felt that from conversations that I had had with Harry before he left, that if we could bring the assessment roll in under the amount basically shown as of literally a year ago, the original, that he would accept 14 City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 that. I believe that the recon~endation being made by Gary Ehret does in fact do exactly that. Again, Harry is not here. Mayor Hamilton: One thing that I was concerned about is the 3.4 feet of property which we just kind of moved in on as part of the Heritage Park Plaza. I hope that that is followed up on. We obviously took part of his property and he should be compensated for it. I hope that that is accomplished and I was hoping to see a dollar figure here so we'd have some idea of what it is we're spending for that. There must be some way of determining what the value is. Gary Ehret: I can give you a rough idea. We're talking about roughly 3 feet by 80. About 240 square feet which is about half the size of this council chambers. If we use figures that occured in that area, we'd be talking about $250.00 to $750.00. Don Ashworth: It should be noted that that case is still before the Commissioners as far as reviewing the amounts. The property that was taken for the realigned Great Plains Blvd. had been appraised by the City at one amount and Mr. Pauly is looking to a different amount. I'm quite sure that we're not going to be able to resolve this issue until we come down to a point where the Court basically makes a decision as to which of the two numbers are more reasonable. I doubt very much that Harry would sign off on this 3.5 feet without knowing what's going to happen with the remaining 20,000 square feet. Mayor Hamilton: Do councilmembers have any questions? If not, I would move approval of the finalization of the assessment rolls for the downtown redeveloument project. Councilman Geving: And I will second that. Councilman Horn: I think Tom again, the real issue was communication with the business owner. I'm a little surprised, I don't recall exactly the resolution of the issue of how we started developing our property before people had signed a release. Could you refresh my m~nory on that one Roger? Roger Knutson: I did not personally work on it. People in our office did. There are similar circumstances, one person signed a release, I don't know who it was, to sign on the bottom something that nullified the release. Mayor Hamilton: That was Brown's Standard. He said they could go on the property to survey but no heavy equipment and we just moved in and dug it up. Roger Knutson: That was a mistake. Someone did not catch that con~nent on the bottom of the release. Councilman Horn: Who's supposed to do that? The project manager, the City Attorney or who? Roger Knutson: Hopefully we should. They probably went ahead before they got our, a lot of things could happen. Sometimes contractor's go ahead before they get permission to go ahead. Perhaps someone in our office didn't catch that note. I don't know the answer. 15 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Councilman Horn: One general complaint I've heard, that things were done without our input. We didn't know things were going on. Councilman Johnson: Some people never signed their release and we went ahead and did it anyway. On this particular 3 1/2 feet, I don't think anybody ever talked about. It was kind of an oversight. Roger Knutson: Maybe we didn't get the information that was needed. I don't know. Councilman Johnson: It's kind of a problem I think with a lot of developments where city, municipalities, state or anything, is doing something. They forge ahead sometimes and they slip up. Councilman Horn: I think what we have to keep in mind is how they would view this in a private development. Mayor Hamilton: An even better way to do it is, how would you like to be treated, if you were the business owner that's being affected by this and I think we failed to look at it from that angle. In some cases it hurts people a lot. Resolution #88-1~3: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the finalized assessment roll for the downtown redevelopment project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. TH 101 REALIGNMENT: A. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFY REALIGNMENT OF TH lgl. B. OFFICIAL MAP REQUEST TO DESIGNATE TH lgl REALIGNMENT. Mayor Hamilton: We still have a public hearing that is open and has not been closed. If there are members here from the public who wish to make additional co~unents prior to us speaking, they may do so. Pat Hallisey: Excuse me Mr. Mayor, did I understand that we were to speak before they gave a presentation or will we have an opportunity to speak after he gives his presentation? Mayor Hamilton: I would generally have you speak before but I think seeing how there's been some changes, I think Fred should present the changes first so the public understands where we're at. If you have additional comments to make and some new information to present to the Council, I would entertain it at that time. Fred Hoisington: We have four members, well three members of our team here this evening that will be serving, two of which will be resource people. One will be assisting in presentation. Don Ringrose of BRW is with us here again tonight. Howard Preston who will be making part of the presentation as BRW's in-house project manager for this project. Mitch Watson of Benshoof and Associates is here to answer questions with regards to traffic aspects of the study. And of 16 Ci_ty Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 course Gary Warren has been a part of the study throughout the course and even though he's on vacation, I have input to the site. The purpose of the meeting this evening is to select an alternative. We've been kind of rushing towards this for 6 weeks and the time has about arrived where from all the alternatives that we've evaluated, a selection will need to be made tonight. What we're going to do is we'd like to talk a little bit about traffic. A little about costs and then I'd like to come back and do some evaluation of the alternatives for you. Now, one note before we get into the presentation of traffic and costs. If you'll note, we have eliminated alternative 1 because it was essentially the existing system. ~ae one from which we are departing. And one where we expect significant problems by Year 2005. Alternative 5 which is the north leg option, which is not agreeable to MnDot. Alternative 7 which is also not agreeable to MnDot primarily because of the local road connection at the end of TH 101's north leg. So we've eliminated three but we've added one. Alternative 2A which is sort of a combination of a 6 and a 2. That really came from discussions with MnDot and discussions of our designer or planning team thereafter so we're throwing one in and throwing three out for various reasons. Now what we'd like to do is have Howard Preston present briefly, some of an overview of the traffic situation and the process associated with each one of those alternatives. Howard Preston: Just to briefly go through the alternatives, again, just to document what we've done since the last time you were here. This is alternative 2 which is the Dakota Avenue option. The alternative that was added that Fred talked about was an al terantive 2(a) which includes the north leg at Dakota so we would have a full access intersection at Dakota but we could also then include the south leg of TH 101 being in the Market Blvd. alignment instead of on the existing alignment as was originally proposed. Just to briefly go over some of the items that we've done. Benshoof and Associates when through and analyzed the traffic volumes and how the different alterantives would impact the traffic volumes. Impact the travel routes and what we've got shown, for example, is some of the average daily traffic volumes Year 2005 and would result with this particular option. I think the only significant features are that because we have a common section with TH 5 and TH 101, the volumes on these two segments are slightly higher than we would have if we would have, say alternative 3 which kept TH 101 on Lake Drive. Those additional volumes were on these co~on sections. The other item that would be of importance is that the volumes on this site of Lake Drive are in the range of 2,400 to 6,000 vehicles per day which are volumes typical of collector streets not of arterials so in this option the function of Lake Drive as a collector is maintained. The primary volumes are on your arterial TH 5. That was one of the key issues of this particular option. The other items of importance, the letters indicate expected level of service in the peak hour in the design Year 2005. E,D,C, that typically, we would be looking to do something else at this intersection to try to prove that level of service E but D and C are acceptable levels of service on an arterial system like this. So the key points I think are that this particular option maintains full access at Dakota. It has a full access intersection at Great Plains. It could have a four legged intersection down here at Market also. Intersections tend to work. Great Plains needs some improvement and the volumes on Lake Drive are typical of collector streets. Those are the key points. Councilman Johnson: Before you go on, on 2A, would that change Market to a D and Great Plains to a D probably because Market becomes a big intersection? 17 ~C~[ty council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Howard Preston: I don't think we tested that. It was something that came up after we had done the testing. The possibility of this option. EVen if it changed this to a D, that would still be an acceptable level of service. I don't really know ~nat would happen. ~e really didn't test that alternative. I don't see this getting worse. If anything, there would be more traffic put over here so I would expect tJ~e shift to be slightly worst here. Probably somewhat better in this particular intersection. Councilman Johnson: How close are we between D and E in that intersection? Howard Preston: I don't recall what the numbers were. Fred Hoisington: Slightly. Councilman Johnson: So 2A may actually get to acceptable... Howard Preston: It may bring this up, yes. The idea would be, with 2A, this being designated the TH 101 route, this is the route that would be signed. Not this route and the new roadway were constructed, we would expect most if not all of the through traffic to actually use this intersection so the turning volumes would be taken away from this intersection and added down here so that would definitely be the direction that the highway serves. It would improve this slightly and possibly take this one down. Councilman Geving: Before you move on, under this proposal, what would you propose to do with the existing TH lgl south leg in front of the Legion? Howard Preston: If the 2A were proposed? Councilman Geving: Yes. Howard Preston: On the rest of it, we propose that that could be removed and redeveloped as part of whatever development goes in. Councilman Geving: Vacated or become the City's? Howard Preston: Certainly. Vacate it. There'd be no reason to keep it in there unless the property owner wanted it. I would expect that if a parcel that large were to be redeveloped, the chances of that roadway being exactly where the developer wanted it would be pretty slim. It certainly could .be vacated and the developer put in a local street. That would be the function. There would be no reason to have ~ny kind of a collector or arterial function. It would simply be a local street providing the land access. Councilman Geving: The second question I have is, south of your proposed are you thinking ahead to the possibility of tying into TH 212 with that al ig nmen t ? Howard Preston: Yes. This is set up, it can hash that along there. We just tied that into a point we thought would be a reasonable location to tie into. Councilman Boyt: Where you have the Hidden Valley addition, 6,000 trips a day, what is it now? 18 City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 Howard Preston: I can't answer that. I don't know2 Councilman Boyt: Is your feeling that this is quite a bit higher than w~at it is now? The same as? Howard Preston: Yes, it would be higher simply because if these being the Year 2005 volumes, this parcel is developed. This is at full development and fully occupied. That's the kinds of things that would be added in. The trips generated by additional con~nercial development in that area are included in that 6,000 number which it wouldn't be that today. Councilman Boyt: We have a commercial concern that feels that they located on this because it was a high traffic area and if we go to 2A, what's the impact on them? Howard Preston: The function today, in your transportation plan, Lake Drive is considered a collector street. I don't know what the volumes are but without any development here, the only real con~ercial development that's generated here is in this corner or traffic that's going between the neighborhood and some of this con~nercial development up at Dakota. I would guess that the volumes of Lake Drive today are probably less than that number just because there isn't any other con~nercial development there to generate that kind of traffic. Lake Drive is functionally classified as a collector. It's built to collector street standards as far as the street width and the curb and what it looks like. It's those kinds of forecast volumes that's certainly in the range of what's typical for a collector street so I think we've maintained the function of, this alterantive maintains the function of Lake Drive as a collector street. That's what you planned for all along so that there'd be no change from what you had planned. Councilman Boyt: One last question and Don you may need to research this one in the next few minutes here, I'd like to know what taxes we're receiving from the two apartment buildings we're proposing to take out. I'd like to know how that translates into, if we took that tax money and borrowed against it, how much borrowing capacity we have because that's the true cost of taking them out of there, as I see it, and I think we need to know that figure. Don Ashworth: I missed the question. Councilman Boyt: The question is, how much tax money are those two apartment buildings generating? Two part question. Second part. How much could we borrow if we made those sorts of annual payments? Do you follow the logic? Don Ashwor th: No. Councilman Boyt: What I'm proposing is, let's suppose the tax payments on those apartment buildings are $20,000.00 a year, and the City gets a certain portion of that. ~he County gets 80% of it or between the County and the State but that's lost income to the City. I'd like to anticipate what the lump sum burden of that lost income is and I think one w-ay of estimating it is by determining how much money could we borrow if we made those sorts of payments as sort of a lump sum and we could hold if we look at it in that fashion. I think we need to know what it's .costing us to take the apartment buildings out. It's basically 19 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 lost taxes, not just the cost of the buiiding. Howard Preston: There's one other item I should point out to these alternatives. It shows up on these overheads. We calculated some estimated costs for the different alternatives. We included in those costs, costs for roadway construction, roadway removal, some right-of-way costs and the way that these two come out, Alternative 2 basically $2,800,000.0g. Alternative 2A is $3,400,000.00 and basically the difference is that cost of constructing TH 101 along the Market Blvd. aligr~nent. Those are the two costs and at 2.8 million and 3.4 million... Councilman Geving: Have you got the land acquisition costs in there? Howard Preston: Yes sir. There were estimates for land acquisition costs included in those. Councilman Geving: Have you got taking costs in there? Howard Preston: Fred would probably explain but yes, there are some costs for the land for the buildings. For relocation costs. There are estimates of those. I guess I would like to caution you that these, we did the best job we could but we did not have detailed plans so we couldn't really calculate lineal feet of curb and gutter and square yards of pavement. These are using typical costs per lineal foot for a four lane divided roadway or a two lane roadway right-of-way. I think what's important is the relative difference between the alternatives. Not necessarily the absolute value of any one of these. We talk to MnDot about...and their reaction was generally favorable to alternative 2 and ZA. This is alternative 3. This is the alternative that was presented originally to the Planning Con~nission and Council. It has TH 101 on a new alignment down through the Redimix plant that brings it down onto the Lake Drive alternative and then south. The key n~bers that would probably be interested in are volumes on TH 5 are generally 33,000 to 4g,00g. The previous alternative, because of common section, we're up in the 43,000 to 46,000 range. The other key item, as volumes on Lake Drive with the range of 15,000 to 16,500 vehicles a day. The key point there is, those_ volumes are really not typical for a collector street. Lake Drive at this point would no longer be a collector street. It could be an arterial. Those are arterial types of volumes and so the function really of this particular piece of roadway, even though it would remain the same as far as it looked, the function would really change. It would be handling significantly higher traffic volumes. The levels of service at the intersection B which are acceptable. I think those are the really two key items associated with this particular alternative and then the estimated cost, 3.1 million dollars so i~t's slightly higher than the cost of alternative 2. Slightly less than the cost of alternative 2A. Councilman Geving: The big difference here then is what from your standpoint in terms of taking of the cement plant versus the taking on the Chanhassen Meadows Apartments? Do you have any kind of estimated dollars on that? Howard Preston: I don' t have them with me. Fred, do you? It' s in there. There's obviously a cost. I didn't put the right-of-way cost. Councilman Geving: It's somewhere in that 3.1 million. 2~ City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Howard Preston: I believe the right-of-way costs were less in this particular alternative than on the previous alternative but I don't r~member the exact numbers. Alternative 4 was the alternative that kept the continuity of TH 101 but it aligned the roadway and the alignment of the road pretty much destroys this con~ercial property. Goes through the Legion club and then gets back onto the alignment going south on Great Plains Blvd.. Volumes the same as before. The level of service, this level of service is significantly better than before because whereas it was a four legged intersection previously, it's only a T intersection now. The volu~nes again are the s~me. The volumes on the different leg of TH 101 approximately the same. Lake Drive would pretty much remain the same as it's collector functions but volumes of 1,800 vehicles a day at the east end and about 8,000 vehicles a day at the west end. I guess the key difference here, if you check the estimated cost, this was about 4.5 million dollars. This was the most costly of all the alternatives and it was basically because it involved the most roadway construction. It also involved the most right-of-way acquisition. Both north and the south of TH 5. Questions? Councilman Geving: I'm surprised you kept that particular option in. It really messes up two of the best pieces of commercial property in the con~nunity. Howard Preston: There's no question that the right-of-way acquisition is very large. Maybe a bit more than what the dollars indicate. Alternative 5, as Fred indicated, the north leg option, was dropped from the rest of the process because MnDot found that unacceptable. Alternative 6 is what we call, originally called the Market Blvd. alternative. The north leg of TH 101 at this location. ~he south leg going away at Market Blvd.. Again, because we have a con, on section, we have volumes in the low 40's. Again, on Lake Drive, because there's through traffic, the volumes are again in the range of 2,800 to 6,500 vehicles a day. Typical of a collector street and you have levels of service at the intersection set up basically acceptable. The estimated cost for this particular alternative is approximately 2 million dollars and I believe that was the lowest estimated cost of any of the alternatives. Questions? Councilman Geving: Can it work? Can the short stacking distance between Great Plains Blvd. and to the right, to the new intersection we're proposing to the east, right there, can that work? Howard Preston: I think so because again, we will be routing the TH 101 traffic through this direction and the left turn back in this direction. I guess we haven't gone through and done a cuing analysis yet. That's more or less something that happens at the detail design level but with the distance that we have here, the way it's shown now is the turn lanes at our north leg, the length of it and the turn lane here are equal. I guess for schematic purposes that's fine but the detail design, we probably wouldn't do that. There's a cuing analysis that we go through where you take into account the number of vehicles and signal time and things like that. Because this kind of volume would probably be 10 or 15 times greater than this left turning volumes, I'm sure we would end up with a significantly longer turn lane in that direction. Right now, I don't know for sure one way or the other but I'm reasonably certain we could get something going to accomodate... Mayor Hamilton: There should be plenty of time to change lanes from before they enter onto TH 5 from TH 101 until they're going to turn off on Market. That's quite a distance. That should be able to be accomplished without a great deal 21 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 of thought° Howard Preston: MnDot felt significantly more comfortable with this kind of intersection spacing between the north and south legs of TH 101 than they did with a lot of other options. I guess generally speaking, they favored any option that increased that separation. So that's why they reacted fairly favorably to having the intersection at Dakota° I guess there's one other item that we've shown a right turn in, right turn out situation on the north side at 78th Street and the right turn in and out at Dakota on the south. MnDot's indicated that they don't think that they would find this acceptable. This particular design on the north side. They didn't have much of a problem with the right-in and right-out on the south side frc~n a design standpoint but they thought that, because of the turning moves and the close separation between TH 5 and West 78th Street, that they would find that very difficult if not impossible to support so that's really questionable at this point whether or not there would be any access between the westbound lanes of TH 5 and West 78th Street. Councilman Horn: Does this pull the light out at Great Plains and TH 5? Howard Preston: No. The traffic signal would stay. Councilman Horn: What MnDot has always told us in the past, the reason that you can't move traffic sufficiently is that you have improper spacing between traffic lights. This puts the traffic light situation much close on TH 5. Howard Preston: Right. There are computer software that we have that if you run the volumes of intersection spacing through, we've shared the results of that with MnDot and it indicates that there can be a degree of coordination in all the traffic signals along there. Signals here, here and here do not preclude the possibility of coordinating the signals. If, by putting additional intersections in, the degree of coordination comes down slightly, but we can still get sa~ne degree of coordination, it's not quite what it would be if there were fewer intersections. It would certainly be better if there was an intersection there but it doesn't eliminate the possibilities of coordination with our signals. Councilman Horn: Does MnDOt use your software sequencing...? Howard Preston: They have it available. I don't think they use it very much. Councilman Horn: In trying to reduce the levels from things are sequenced today, I would say it's unacceptable. Howard Preston: I don't think they have any sequencing out there today. The other thing is, during very, very high traffic periods, it gets more difficult to maintain that coordination. It's easier to do it ~nen the volumes are less than at their peak. So TH 5 will be two lanes and basically the motorists passing the n~lmber of intersections, it would be pretty difficult to maintain... Councilman Horn: The key factor to me, and I'm really not comfortable that we've adequately addressed the criteria that we keep the traffic flow moving on TH 5. I know we hinted at it in one of our, item number 2 I believe it was, but I'm not getting a warm feeling that that's really been taken into account on the full plan. 22 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Howard Preston: It has to a degree. We've taken the volumes that Benshoof and Associates have generated for each of these alternatives and we have our software program set up for each of these alternatives and run it through. We look at the results. The results come out that indicate that it can be coordinated. There is a degree of coordination agailable and it varies slightly from 19% to 25% or something of the cycle length for all of the alternatives so there really wasn't any one that could answer with no, it couldn't be coordinated or any other one that was clearly better. So if there was a degree of coordination available regardless of the alternatives. Councilman Horn: But if that technique is not being used, it's faulty to assume that even though it can be done that it will happen. Howard Preston: I go through that analysis. It doesn't mean that the hardware that's out there now is capable of being coordinated. The idea is, I think if TH 5 is entirely upgraded, there will be a new signal system put in at each and everyone of the intersections which is capable of coordination. I know MnDot has made great efforts to coordinate traffic signals wherever possible because of the efficiency. Fuel efficiency kinds of things and because it just moves traffic better. Councilman Horn: I don ' t know where. Howard Preston: I've not done one for M~Dot but I know they have coordinated systems. TH 10 through Moundsview is a coordinated system. Robert Street in West St. Paul is a coordinated system. There are some places up on, I believe it's 252 that has coordinated signal systems. Those are new hardware. I don't know if MnDot, the old hardware they've got out here is capable of doing that but that's something that they do regularly now and I would fully expect that with the construction of TH 5 you will get a coordinated signal system with the improvements. Councilman Horn: I would make that a mandate. Howard Preston: I can check for you if you like. I can call MnDot tomorrow and talk about it if you'd like me to check about it. Mayor Hamilton: I know you have a problem with MnDot. Now is probably not the right time to take them to task on this. Councilman Horn: It's a real key for design criteria. Mayor Hamilton: We've got to have a system that works. There's no question about that. I would think that MnDot has confidence if it's going to work. They're supposedly the experts at this and I think we have to rely on somebody. Howard Preston: Ail of their new signal eqiupment is capable of coordination. I think that's the key point so I think they're looking at coordinated systems as much as possible. Councilman Johnson: On the intersection of TH 101 and 78th, you're saying that MnDot does not like being able to come off of TH 5 and making that left hand movement and then crossing the tracks. So what we may end up with is only local 23 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 traffic going to the industrial area to the east of there and to the Taco Shop and concrete plant? Howard Preston: That is correct. MnDot, their unofficial comments. You have to understand, I thought they were very responsive at our meeting when we had asked them some questions. We asked for their reactions and it was kind of spur of the moment kinds of things and they just indicated they thought their staff would have a problem with this particular design. The reason is, it would almost difficult to make this movement. It's very difficult to make that movement, particularly with trucks. Almost impossible. Councilman Johnson: But we're doing it. Howard Preston: It's something I think that MnDot, since it's there, it's been there for a long time, they live with it, it's not something they would want to design. Mayor Hamilton: Would they then eliminate the railroad crossing there? Howard Preston: No, they didn't say they would have to eliminate that. There would still be some use for...there. It's best that there would be no access between the westbound lane of TH 5 and West 78th Street. Councilman Johnson: My other problem is on the other side where 78th comes in does not meet TH lgl on a perpendicular fashion. So if you're turning there to get and go south, then you're taking more than a 90 degree or less than a 9g degree, whatever, sharper turn. Howard Preston: That's a good comment. Again, I think we can take care of some of that detail design if we had to by turning the roadway slightly. It's not necessarily a great design but it was something that... Councilman Johnson: One thing that really amazes me, as somebody who drives this road everyday, is how many people turn off of Powers Blvd. way out here on the west side, comes clear across town, cuts across the railroad tracks and gets on TH 5 rather than using the Powers Blvd. intersection, that's to avoid the lights, exactly. Howard Preston: I think in the future what will end up happening is, I'm relatively certainly they'll end up at a traffic signal at that particular location. Councilman Johnson: I think that intersection is right now one of the worse in the City as far as hazards of trucks and the crossing traffic and everything else. I'd love to see something done with that intersection. Even if it's closed off. Not closed off completely but I personally don't like 78th Street going that far. We've got four different places you get onto TH 5. The fifth one that could support the people, almost everyone of those folks could have just gone down to Powers and gone. Councilman Boyt: I would like to move the process along a bit. I think that we went through a very detailed analysis. I'd like to know how that turned out. I don't want to see us discuss alternatives in depth that didn't get any support. Why go through something that nobody likes to begin with? I'd like to see us 24 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 narrow this down to the couple that seemed to do well in the criteria and see what they are. Mayor Hamilton: We seem to have it narrowed down to those that MnDot would support a~d I see no reason to discuss anything other than that. Howard Preston: MnDot indicated support for alternative 6. Mayor Hamilton: Right, we looked at several others and you've shown us that they won't support so we have 2, 2A, and 6 basically is what they will support. Howard Preston: That's correct. Mayor Hamilton: So I see no reason to talk about anything else. Councilman Boyt: My understanding was that MnDot supported all of the~. Howard Preston: They said they basically preferred 2 and 6, is what they came down to because that maximized the spacing between the off-set legs. Mayor Hamilton: 2A was thrown in at the very end and they said they could support that also. Fred, do you have something additional you wanted to say? Fred Hoisington: Yes, we're going to wrap it up with the analysis your honor. You will recall that when we first formulated a list of criteria, we had 15 and we began to divide those up into wants and musts. In the process of eliminating musts and throughout the process, the first one to go was the MnDot's acceptance. We felt that no matter the alternative, MnDot had to accept it. So that was... Now as this process along the dynamic line, we've had a couple that, one that you knew about and another one Ghat occurred right at the very end of the process, the elimination of the traffic safety and design standards. We felt that was a must. Everyone of the alternatives would have to meet that. That would be acceptable to the City. And also the ability to meet the accelerated TH 5 schedule. In that case we scored all the alternatives the same which meant there was no reason to have it scored at all so we are now down to a total of 13 total criteria upon which the evaluation has been made. In addition to that, we established scoring system. I just want to explain to you briefly how it works and I'm going to use the residential, or impact on remaining residents as the example because it's the one probably of most interest here. What we're essentially using is a 4 point system with 4 points being at least the existing situation or better. Maintaining that situation, as far as impacts on remaining residents are concerned. 2 points being where increases in traffic volumes will be closer to remaining residents and that being sort of a worse situation than the present, possibly acceptable situation and then a zero score for anything that in fact changes the collector street function of a street. In other words, with substantial volumes of traffic onto the street. The entire scoring system is of this same nature so I won't run through all of them. Now, what we did, after we had the scoring system and the criteria, w-as ask the Council to weight the criteria. It was a bit of a struggle but we got it done. What I got is a new chart. What we did was multiply the score times the weighting, the average weighting given by the Council. We actually can come up with a scoring or total points for each one of these for your review. Now I thought I could do this for you. As you can see by the one we sent out last week, I found out quickly I could not do it for you so what you have here 25 City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 represents your own conclusions about how this whole thing works. Now let me just explain briefly that the criteria listed up and down, 13 of themf the alternatives of course across horizontally. The Council's average weightings under the weight and then the points, the score beneath one of them from zero to 4 in each of the columns preceeding the first column with the number above it and then the multiplication of score times the weight equals the point in each one of the second columns for each of the alternatives. Here's what the results show. That alternative number 2 and ZA score the highest and they are very close to be exactly the s~e, within a point of one another. That 2 and 2A score best on the accessibility criteria. They provide the best access for all existing developments, residential and commercial and industrial. The 3 and 4 score best in matters of continuity, traffic separation. In other words, if you look at the_ top cluster in each of the 3 and 4, the first three items, 3 and 4 get almost all their points right there and then beyond that of 3 and 4, lots of zeros so not many points scored once you got beyond the first three which were continuity, level of service and traffic separation. Now our recommendations to you are these. Essentially you have three acceptable alternatives as far as the team is concerned. Those alternatives are 2, 2A and 6. Now, I'm not going to be so presumptious as to say I can tell the difference between 2 and 2A in this case because the difference is very close. I think if were, and we tried this with a computer, we did some manipulating of the score and it's almost impossible not to end up with either the 2's or the 6 as the preferred alternatives. Obviously you can shift costs or add a great deal more weight to costs and end up with shifting all the way to 6 as your selection. Or you can shift more towards business property, other business property accessibility and you can in fact show a greater difference between the 2's and 6. This represents your weighting. We think it's a reasonable weighting of the criteria and our recommendation would be for you to deal with this in sort of a priority fashion. I guess I can't say that I would recon~nend wholeheartedly that you start off on 2 and that be the only thing you pursue in the course of this process. What you have to do is look at 2 as perhaps the one that would be the preferred alternative and begin to work towards that end but we as consultants prefer 2A to 2 for the simple reason that we think the system works better under 2A than it does under 2. If for any reason it can not be accomplished 2, 2A, that 6 would be a second priority and one that would be continued to be pursued should the 2's not be achieveable by the City. We think they certainly can be and we recommend that would be the beginning point for the establisb_ment of priorities. So with that your honor, I would simply open to questions. ._Mayor Hamilton: I think what I'd like to do is ask, since the public hearing is still open, we need to receive comments from the public, if there are any additional conxnents so we can close the public hearing and then we can have questions. Is there anybody from the public who would like to make additional comments that we have not previously heard? Mark, do you have something we have not previously heard? I don't want to hear anything that we've heard before. We've already got it. We've read it. We've heard it. Mark Eidem: 2 or 2A would be a primary target for Chanhassen residents. I' 11 make it as simple as that. We'd like you to approve that one. Pat Hallisey: I'm Pat Hallisey. I'm a partner of Blue Circle Investment Company. ~ne people who own the commercial development where the Q-Superette is located. I've written you on two different occasions. This is an extreme urgency and importance to this issue and I'd like to take a few minutes of your 26 City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 t~ne to address some of the issues that I have written to you about. One of the reasons that I feel that it's imperative that I do that, I listen to Councilman Boyt this evening ask a question relative to the commercial concern. What we were addressing, or what I heard Councilman Boyt addressing in that question was the 6,000 cars a day projected at the west side of our develoi~ment where the current TH 101 is. To us the concern is not what the count is today or the 6,000 cars that is projected under that particular plan. As I pointed out, in our planning process, we were led to believe that TH 101 would always be in it's current position. We had to go through certain processes in our planning in order to accomodate the future TH 101, the TH 101 we' re meeting then in the future. In accordance with that thinking, the important number becomes the 20,000 cars a day that you see from Alternative 2. That is why we built there and that is why we built there for the long term. That is the importance that we're trying to address in our communication. As I pointed out to you in our written communication, this was an issue of great importance at the time that we planned and made our investment. It was also the major issue to our major tenant. As I addressed in one of our letters, that should you relocate TH 101 from it's present course, that tenant has the option to vacate his premise leaving us with a mortgage and no income. That's not a real comfortable position to be in. Particularly when we did make that decision to go ahead based on all of the past city's planning recommendations that were made to us by staff, Council and the Planning Commission at the point when we made our investment. With respect to some of the differences between 2 and 2A, I'm sure it's obvious to you that I favor plan 2 because it's the only one of the three that we see being considered that leaves TH 101 in it's present location. I guess you could call that selfish interest but at this point in time, it's a matter of survival so if that's selfish, we're guilty. Some of the differences that we see in 2 and 2A is number one, we do not feel that the current 2,500 cars a day on TH 101 south of TH 5 warrants a $600,000.00 expenditure to improve. That is the approximate traffic count on TH 101 south of TH 5. We feel that if you leave TH 101 where it is, you can defer that $600,000.00 expenditure out to the point where it becomes necessary. It's not an issue you have to deal with at the present time. We also feel that if you leave the TH 101 alignment where it is, at the point where it does become necessary to upgrade that stretch of TH 101, you are not now faced with acquisition of a total new right-of-way. You have a right-of-way that simply needs to be straighten and widened. Therefore, again reducing the cost. I guess I do have some co~nents on the criteria that the consultants have given. I have not had the opportunity to review the Council's criteria but what I see briefly, I think it falls far closer to our feelings as far as criteria. Some of the problems that I have with your consultant's criteria was that there were two areas that were completely unweighted. That was public acceptance. They gave absolutely no weighting to how the public felt about the plans and the other was residential access. If you look at those two items, you'll see that plan 6 scored the lowest in both of them, therefore if you had a weighting system attached, plan 2 or plan 2A would 'come, according to the consultant's report, a whole lot different story. We also felt that there was a skewing of a very major item and that was the access to the downtown properties. That was weighted at 8 when access to other business properties was weighted at 3. The real point here is that all three of the plans you're now considering have identical weight, or identical downtown access. Therefore, if we had a lower weighting for that because they're all identical and a higher weighting to access to other business properties where number 6 ranks very low in comparison to 2 and 2A, you would again have a difference in your consultant's scoring. 27 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Again, I don't know what specifics went into developing the scoring On evaluating the development impacts. We felt that plan 6 was basically, or plan 2 and 2A would basically two apartment buildings, have considerably less impact overall on the business community of the City of Chanhassen than if you put plan 6 in. That would have an impact on your c~nent plant, your taco shop, McDonalds and Sinclair to say nothing of our shopping center. I had the opportunity before the meeting started tonight in the parking lot to visit with Councilman Geving for just a couple minutes and it was just an off the cuff conversation. I did not have any idea, in fact I was asking the councilman if he had seen anything like this so I might have a couple minutes to review it and he had not seen it either but the councilman asked me how business was comJ. ng J.n our development. I informed him that business is on the updeck. We knew that at the time we built it that it was a growing process. I informed him that we are just in the process of opening one new tenant in our development. This was a tenant that agreed to a lease prior to this whole issue of TH 101 realignment coming up but to try and underscore what we thought was important, what I think was the important part of that conversation, we had another tenant that was very, very interested in leasing space from us. He was weighing two possible locations. One in the City of Chanhassen. One outside the City of Chanhassen. As this issue arose, I had to be truthful with him and tell him that there was a possibility that TH lgl would be relocated from the west side of our shopping center. At that point in time he having to make an investment decision said I can not afford to locate in your project if you don't have TH 101 at our door. Those are the 20,000 cars that make a great difference to us. It's not just us, it's the people who want to lease space from us. I guess that concludes my con~nents and I thank you for listening. Lloyd Grims: My name is Lloyd Grims and I represent the McDonalds franchise... Given that the comments that we would have made have already been made, I won't be redundant and go over those points. I think it's suffice to say that the analysis presented...and we haven't had an opportunity to see before this evening but certainly...suggested all along that the alternative 2 is a very reasonable, cost efficient sensible from a traffic standpoint alternative. We would support alternative 2 or 2A. Given that there is an impact. We have no adverse impact from either of those two alternatives. Our concern is the accessbility that is provided by the Dakota Avenue interchange. That coupled with the concerns for the local residents as well as some of the other considerations .... all those variables are weighted together, and even when other businesses accessibility...it still c~mes that alternative 2 is a very acceptable alternative. One that we think is...from an economic standpoint and the City's economic standpoint and we support that and ask that the Council make a recon~nendation for alternative 2 or 2A. Jack Boardman: My name is Jack Boardman. I'm here with Frank Kramer representing the Kerr property. One of the things that we had when we started, the items that we just wanted to, not necessarily to speak in favor of one option or another, but just add input to the dialogue. In alternative 6, if I understand that correctly, that is 2 million dollars. In item 2 and 23% it was 2.7 and 3.4. A couple of questions regarding other options, mainly number 3 which had the most impact as the original location for TH 101. Alternate alignment 3 in effect cuts through the western edge of the Kerr property. In looking at and in going through the past few months worth of dialogue on that issue, and working with staff over the last couple weeks after we kind of got a feeling that there were going to be a number of different options discussed, we 28 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 wanted to take a more positive tact as the planners and the owners of the Kerr parcel met with staff, reviewed the idea of what would happen to that parcel is option 3, the original alignment of TH 101 were taken into effect. What we did is, we looked at the idea on this plan, which in effect looks at combining our parcel with the VFW parcel into a larger development and I think this councilman mentioned earlier that these two parcels are prime for development. We obviously agree. If TH 101 were to go through here with the major buffer along the south side to allow it to be compatible with the residential areas, we could see our parcel combining with the adjoining parcel in a development project that in this case, we're looking at approximately... Mayor Hamilton: Let me interrupt you for a moment. Option 3 is not any longer an option so there's really no sense in discussing it. Jack Boardman: Really. Okay, thank you. Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet and I live at 8071 Hidden Circle. I represent residents of the Brookhill development. First of all I want to thank you for making it clear that option 3 is no longer an option. We still await your final decision which really shows where you're at but so far I really have to thank you in the name of the residents for having listened to our concerns. I'd like to just take a few minutes to try to make this brief and explain a little bit how the position of the residents evolved. Mayor Hamilton: Uli, I'd like to interrupt you. I think we know the residents position and I think it's really germane at this point that we know how your position evolved. We have a decision to make tonight. You've seen the information before us. We have a lot of discussion to do yet. Unless you have some additional new information, then present that. I don't want history. Uli Sacchet: Okay, no history. No history tonight. I agree. Looking at what is presented, Option 2, 2A and 6 as being the options is certainly in line with what the residents position is. However, I'd -like to narrow it down a little bit. The position of the residents, and we certainly feel for the concerns of the Superette. However, the residents position is very clearly in favor of the Market Blvd. option. They also asked for the Dakota intersection be further investigated which now has been done and is combined in the option 2A. In terms of talking for the residents, I have to say that the residents of the Brookhill development would favor 2A. Plus, I'd like to point out to you that the question was raised, what happens to these intersection levels, C, E and D on that drawing. The question was asked, would it be a D, D and D? It seems to me if you compared this to option 6, which is basically the answer to that question. It would be D, D and D more than likely. I'd like to point that out because I believe it is of importance. However, as a second option to the residents, I would believe that number 6 would be favored over number 2. With this I thank you. Steve Peterson: I'm Steve Peterson and I live in Chanhassen Estates. Looking at 2, 2A and 6, I just think that the children in Cnanhassen Estates can get downtown much easier and safer with 2 or 2A. ~nat's ~portant to me. Len Arneson: I'm Len Arneson. I own the Sinclair. I just wanted to say that or 2A would keep me in business and make me able to pay the taxes in the future days so thank you. 29 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson with the downtown develo~nent group[ I guess as I look at 2A or 2, and I'm just going to point this out for your conclusions, is that it does discourage traffic from the downtown area. Currently as you know, we do a lot of surveys and we're finding that 30% of our business currently in the downtown area, that includes the MGM, 78th Street, 79th Street, comes from the Eden Prairie sector. I think this is as subtle as our little turn where we put that intersection in at 78th Street and Great Plains Blvd. instead of letting it go straight, we made the turn. You currently have a lot of people who want to come down TH 101 and turn right onto 78th Street ar~ shoot into the downtown area. I think this, and this is subtle, discourage them and encourage them to cross the street into the McDonalds area, which is fine with me, or go left...as soon as you hit downtown. A lot of our service stations, and we've done checks on credit and checks, it's just subtle. Now maybe it's just in the design of that corner but it's important to the downtown area that the turn there is an easy one for people to get into downtown. I just want to point that out. Either in the design or whatever, that that turn remain intact. Thank you. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Johnson: I was just looking over Fred's rating system. His method of scoring this. The residential impact on 2 and 2A, he game them a 4 which means no impact on residents. We're eliminating two apartment buildings... Fred Hoisington: ...the effect that the traffic would have on those. What we did was crank that into the development impacts later in the process and that nt~nber appeared to be number 12. We said that you would get lower scoring if you lost residents there so we do have really two different things there. One of it is impact on remaining. The other one is impact on residential and other land uses. CounciLman Johnson: That's important to me too because we have a lack of affordable housing we've been told by the Met Council. We need to get more affordable housing in town and that's some of our affordable housing here in town. I think the mitigation of that is going to be to put in some more affordable housing someplace. I'm really torn between the options. I see options 2 and 2A answering a lot of problems at an increased cost. I see the choice between 2 and 2A as being almost a deferred choice. That you could do 2 and further study how TH 101 realignment south of the realignment occurs. Whether we do 2 now and as that intersection fails, we could at a future date do 2A to relieve the Great Plains intersection problems. That would merely delay that or restudy that. I think that we have to try to get that out of an E situation. That needs to be looked at a little more. Whether we can get that intersection up to a D as is but 2A does eliminate some TH 101 alignment probl~ns that we already have. Of 2 and 2A, I actually favor 2A right now except for I don't like the total. I'd like to see what the alternative of keeping TH 101 at Great Plains looks like in the future. How that affects the businesses. It's almost pr~nature there of seeing what the two sections that are being affected by Th 101, how they plan on developing and how that will affect... Whether they'd rather have TH 1~1 on the east or the west side of their development. It's almost like we're putting too much into this current City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 stab at it. I think we can do 2 and decide on whether alternate 2A should be done in the future. 6 is acceptable to me also except I would, if we're going to do 6, I would like to redo the intersection of 78th Street and TH 101 to basically eliminate the railroad crossing at that point. Having those two railroad crossings right next to each other is going to be really tough for the railroad. We just went through a tough negotiation with the railroad to get Market Blvd.. That's all my comments. Councilman Geving: When I first looked at the alternatives, I was quite pleased with what I saw in alternate number 6. Primarily the fact that it was the least cost. Less than 2 million dollars and there were some other factors that I kind of liked because it meant taking the cement plant, which I felt we could probably acquire easier. It would be more beneficial to the community in the long run than to eliminte one of our Meadows apartment buildings. But the more I looked at it and realized the closing of the access to Dakota Avenue really made my decision for me and as far as I'm concerned, I would like to recommend to the Council that we close that option out and eliminate for further consideration number 6. Going on, I kind of like the idea that our engineers and our consultants have had several weeks now to really hone this problem down and I think we've worked at it to the point where it's great to see it down from a number of alternatives to less than 3. I like alternative 2A for the simple reason that I think it's a long term solution. I question however, the capability of being able to acquire the necessary right-of-way for $600,000.00. I'm not so sure that that's really a feasible number. The fact that we do have greater separation from the ~V~rket intersection all the way down to the proposed retaining of the intersection on Dakota Avenue is a big plus for me. I like 2A and 2 almost equally except that there's $600,000.00 difference and I think I'd prefer, I think we're talking $600,000.00? The gentleman did state and he was absolutely correct, that the existing TH 101 would force us not to buy any additional land. It may strengthen our ability to meet the accelerated TH 5 schedule because we're really not having to build another road for TH 101. It's there. The only thing we really have to build is that new intersection down at Dakota Avenue and the crossing of the railroad tracks. I feel too that the rating that was weighted by the Councilmen pretty much bore out different than I had thought originally. The fact that 6 falls out now at 140 points. For the $600,000.00 in difference in price, I kind of like, in my opinion, alternate number 2 for the reasons that I mentioned. Timing for building TH 101 and meeting the TH 5 schedule. The highway is there. There's no acquisition costs. We don't have to build anything. I think the key to this whole thing for me is the fact that it meets all the previous criteria that we established and that was the separation from the residential area of Hidden Valley. It retains the access to our downtown businesses. It retains the access to our existing businesses to the American Legion club. To the Q store and an access across Great Plains to our downtown area. Another major factor is that it removes traffic from TH 101 off of our main street, St. Hubert's church and school. That's a real key am important safety consideration. Alternate 2 is historic. It's the movement pattern that we've been used to for many years and as far as I'm concerned, there's really no change. I think that's the best alternative and I'll leave it at that Mr. Mayor. I would vote for alternate number 2. Councilman Johnson: Before we move onto Clark, I missed a question I wanted to ask the City Manager. I think all the councilmen would like to know about is on the financial impact of this and how the different alternatives, our ability to pay for those alternatives and how they get complicated. 31 City Council Y~=eting - September 26, 1988 Don Ashworth: It comes down into Mr. Mayor, whether or not you feel a decision might be made this evening. The financial impact may be a part of even another meeting where we look at all three alternatives. Now that we've narrowed it down, maybe we need to narrow it down even more and to consider some of the cost implications as a part of that renarrowing type of position. CounciLman Geving: I hate to bring this up but I think it's important. In our decisions and deliberations on all of the alignments, the particular alignments that I'm referring to have to do with the taking of an apartment building at the Meadows. For some of you that were not here when this was proposed a number of years ago, we didn't know what was going to happen to TH 101 in it's realignment when this proposal c~e before the Council. Rather than turn down the application to build this apartment building because we didn't know how many years it would be before we got to this point tonight, we decided to go ahead and build that Meadows Apartments and we knew then that some years down the road this would be a possibility. This is something that was cranked into our thinking on the Council the night we approved this particular plan to build a fourth Meadows Apartment building. That's all I have to say. Councilman Horn: Well Dale, I wish you wouldn't say we decided to build that. The developer decided to build that even though he knew that we didn't know exactly where the alignment was. But I look at the whole process that we've had here and really trying to pick a choice is a very overwhelming choice. It's been pointed out to me several times I'm the analytical type so I really like the method that we used to pick this and to me it really cleared up the issue. As far as I'm concerned, it really pointed out dramatically that 2 is the best overall compromise and it also does give us the option of going to 2A at some point in the future to give us more time to study it. So I think the process has worked well and I have to compromise with number 2. Councilman Boyt: Clark, true to form you're a man of few words and I appreciate that. I've got a couple questions. I think that was one of the thi~%gs we were supposed to do. Fred, I've got a question of you. On this alternative 2 in front of us or more specifically 2A, is it possible that we could build this third intersection to the west without building the TH 1~1 attachment south of it and reserving that right in the future? Can we get MnDot to give us that third intersection if we don't in~nediately build the TH lgl? Fred Hoisington: Get this one if we don't build this one? Councilman Boyt: No, if we don't extend, alternative 23t. If all we do is ask MnDot to put the intersection in there and maybe connect the north part to Market Blvd., will MnDot build that so at some future date we have the option to extend it south? Fred Hoisington: I'm not sure to what degree they would build that in this phase. Certainly they have to build it to connect to the north side in any event. We had asked them that question specifically. I think what we're comfortable with here is, if you chose to use this and of course again, we prefer 2A because we think the whole system functions better with 2A. Nonethe- less, you could function with this and still continue to hold that in advance until such time as the dollars were available or whatever and it could be built. We can work on that Bill. See what they're willing to do with this with respect 32 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 to building the entire thing at this point. Councilman Boyt: One possibility is to look at future development along that area that would be vacated if TH 101 was shut off where it is now. If that became developed, it might come back to the earlier Market Blvd. intersection. I have another question, Don did you find out about the tax impact of removing those two apartment buildings? Don Ashworth: No, I did not. Not in terms of the question that you posed. Councilman Boyt: So we have no idea is what you' re telling me? Mayor Hamilton: Not right now. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Coming into the meeting I would have been able to present that. ~nat we did do was we showed the cost of taking those two units. Councilman Boyt: But we don't know the lost revenue? Don Ashworth: I firmly believe that it is minor when you consider the age and ~]e City's receiving of 20% of the tax amount. Councilman Boyt: Okay, thank you. Fred, the question on the railroad crossing in alternative 2, we have that X sitting right on top of the railroad. Is that really feasible? Fred Hoisington: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Amazing. The Q-Superette traffic, we've talked about that a few times. You mentioned it, Mr. Hallisey I believe it was mentioned it's 2,500 trips per day currently under the estimate for alternative 2, if we go to 2A, it still retains 6,000 trips a day, if we use what you estimated for alternative 6, which is a similiar sort of connection so we have 2 1/2 times the existing traffic. Is it your feeling Mr. Hallisey that under 2A, that 2 1/2 times or 2.4 times the existing level of traffic would cause that person to void their lease? Pat Hallisey: There's absolutely no doubt in my mind. The 2,500 or 6,000, in accordance with our planning, were not accepted. We knew that at some point in time the widening of TH 5 and the leaving of TH 101 where it was at, that we would be approaching the 20,000 level of cars per day. That's what the investment was... Councilman Boyt: Barbara, it seems to me we've talked about realigning TH 101 before. Have we not said that that's a possibility? Barbara Dacy: The option to realign TH 101 through the con~ecial site was brought up during the broadened study area report which was completed in August of 1986 I believe. I can't recall right now how that one sided with the planning. Councilman Boyt: Then I think 2 and 2A are certainly where we're headed. I think that we should be able to make a decision tonight since those options are awfully close to the same, to move in that direction. That would free up some 33 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 other people to make some decisions they need to make. I feel that Brad's cor~nent about access to downtown is something that certainly should .be added into the considerations of 2 and 2A. We don't want to make it more difficult for people who want to leave TH 101 and the way that X is laid out right now, it certainly would so maybe we can reconform that a bit. I think the most J~mpressive thing about the process for me is that we went through a process. I was very impressed by your work Fred in laying out the criteria and giving it weights and that. I honestly believe that we got a better decision because the neighborhocd got involved than we would have had without it. I remember thinking back %fnen it was first presented to the Planning Con~nission that putting this traffic on TH 5 was not going to work. I've been convinced otherwise and I think that's because of Planning Commission, neighborhood, and your work. So along with Clark, I'm impressed with the system you used and I would support either of those two alternatives, 2 or 2A. I hate to see us lose alternative 2A as a future possibility. Mayor Hamilton: Fred, perhaps you could answer a question for me. What is the time frame that MnDot needs to have a decision from us on what the exact alignment is that we need to designate? And is their concern only the alignment as it goes down TH 5 from the current intersection or, I don't know exactly what their concern is. Do they care north and south of TH 5 where the alignment goes? Fred Hoisington: No. I'd have to say that that's not a big item for them. I think what they're mostly concerned about is, that we can put a bid package together that dovetails with theirs for TH 5. According to BRW, that's possible. We don't think that's ean impossibility with any of the alternatives that we're currently considering so what we're looking at is really trying to have something that would be to them by let's say January or February when the bid packets. If we can dovetail that, then we can be right on the accelerated TH 5 schedule. Mayor Hamilton: The reason I'm asking that is because I agree with the other councilmembers that 2 and 2A are certainly the best options. I certainly favor 2A over 2 because of the long term effects of it but what I think we need to do is to, what I'd like to see us do is approve alignment 2 and 2A because we need to continue talking with the County, with Hennepin County who we have already begun dialogue with about participating in the financing of this project. I t!~ink if we were to use existing TH 101 going south, they may have less interest in helping us fund this than if we were to realign it to a new one going down Market. I think we need, what I'd like to do is talk with them further and identify some of the costs and see what their participation might be. If the State is only concerned about the alignment on TH 5 and where that might fall, then I think we can tell them where it's going to be and we can continue our dialogue with other people who are involved in this project and to more clearly define our finances and how we're going to pay for this. I think that will help us filter out ~nich one we select, whether it's 2 or 2A. It may end up being a combination of both. Selecting 2 in the interim moving towards 2A as has been suggested previously. If I could get the Council's backing on that, I would appreciate that for identifying the alignment. Selecting both of them. I have so moved. CounciLman Horn: I'll second it, 34 City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton moved~ Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amenclment to identify Alternative 2 moving towards Alternative 2A as the realignment for TH 101. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: We also need to do the official map requesting to designate the TH 101 realignment. You were going to say something. Barbara Dacy: That was, the City initiated application for the original alignment across the New American Homes property. By your motion, in effect the items (a) and (b), the original application by the City is...so no action is needed on (b). Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would like to reiterate what Bill had said. Thank the neighborhood for becoming involved and for giving us your input. It was very helpful. We appreciate it. SITE PLAN REVIS~W FOR A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER, NEW AMERICAN H(~4ES. Mayor Hamilton: I think we've seen their whole plan and we tabled this at our last meeting pending on what was going to happen with the TH 101 realignment so do councilmembers have any questions of staff or do you need anything further presented? Bill, anything additional you need? Councilman Boyt: Well, the neighborhood wants it. They've told us they want it. At least some of them want it. Everything seems to be in order. We last time talked about screening. Staff feels it's well screened. I have no objections. Councilman Horn: I think we've covered all the issues last time. Councilman Geving: I think we can move ahead with the site plan approval. I will make the motion to approve the Site Plan Review for a 40,000 square foot shopping center for New American Homes with the three conditions as shown here on the attached staff engineer's report. Are there any other conditions? Councilman Horn: I will second that. Councilman Johnson: He said the three conditions on the staff engineer's report. Councilman Geving: Of the 17th. Councilman Johnson: Right. There's also compliance with the recon~nendation of the Fire Inspector's msmo of July 19th on the front. Councilman Geving: I'll include those two conditions as well. Councilman Horn: I'll so second. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Site Plan Request #88-6 for a 40,000 square foot shopping center gased on the plans stamped "Received September 9, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 35 City Council ~eeting - September 26~ 1988 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's reconxnendations contained in the August 17, 1988 memorandum. 2. Compliance with the recor~nendations of the Fire Inspector as contained in the memorand~n dated June 9, 1988. 3. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval calculations which verify that adequate pressue flow conditions will be available to the site which would support the building sprinkler demand along with the demand required by the fire depar~]ent. 4. The site plan shall be revised to include an additional access from the southwest corner of the site onto Lake Drive East. This access shall be of adequate width to support two-way traffic. 5. An erosion control plan shall be suhnitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to the coa~encement of any construction or grading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: I will vote yes only because they meet all of the ordinance requirements but I don't think it's a good project. I think it's going to create vacancies in other areas of the City and I don't like that. LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST, 6961 NEZ PERCE DRIVE, MARIE HILYER. Councilman Geving: The lot area variance was approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. This is a separate lot of record since the 1930's and there had originally been a house on this lot. So we approved it unanimously and the motion passed for a 8,422 square foot lot. Mayor Hamilton: The home burnt down a couple years ago and it's been sitting vacant ever since. Councilman Boyt: I think every time one of these comes up, I wish the City would inventory all these lots. This one's a little different in that it had a house on it but we need to know the undersized lots that are lots of record. I think we need to make some sort of decision about some better way of handling this than having an 8,g00 square foot lot. I'd like to begin by asking that the staff at sane point in the next 6 months, inventory and give us a report back with that inventory of the lots of record under 15,ggg square feet that aren't occupied. Mayor Hamilton: Just at Carver Beach, I hope you mean? Carver Beach ].n particular is difficult to do because you have all those 25 foot lots that are owners all over the world basically. It's hard to figure out who owns them. Councilman Boyt: I'm not after who owns them. I want to know where they are and I want us to look at, once we know how many, look at some way of working through ~nis other than one lot at a time. 36 City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: The problem with that is, and I'm not trying to argue with wha% you're attempting to do because I think it's a good idea but the difficulty is that you'll have one person will own three of those lots and then somebody else will four of them and so forth and then one person like Louis Woitilla for a long time was good at trying to get enough together so he could build a house on it and he had done that several times which was good because he managed to combine enough to build some homes. Unless you have someone willing to do that, you're going to have a lot of them in that area well under 15,000 because there are multiple owners on all those parcels. They're totally unbuildable now but someday somebody may still come back and they've managed to put that together and say now I have an 8,000 square foot lot and I'd like to build a house. Councilman Geving: I think that would be very hard to do Bill. It only becomes an issue when it becomes an application before us for a variance. I don't think it would be very easy for the City staff to arrive at what you're trying to do. I like what you're saying. I think it'd be very desirable but it'd be extremely difficult to find out who the owners are of literally thousands of parcels. There are lots of parcels. I'm talking about 20 fot lots. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps staff could take a look at it in a cursory way and see if it's going to be a major problem and report back. If it's going to be a significant problem with many, many hours, then tell us that. Would that be adequate for you? Councilman Boyt: Sure. Councilman Johnson: Can I ask a quick question? If 5 or 6 lots are currently under separate ownership, one person buys all those lots up, does that become a lot of record then that could be a house placed on it with all they have to do is get a variance because he's purchased from other people all these small lots to put it together or does he have to purchase enough to get... Mayor Hamilton: No, it does not become a lot of record. Barbara Dacy: They would have to get 15,000 square feet. Councilman Johnson: So if there is one '25 foot lot there, it's totally unbuildable? Councilman Geving: That's right. Mayor Hamilton: That's what they are. Councilman Geving: And that's why a lot of them go back on taxes because they can't do anything with them. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE RURAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HWY. 41 APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF TH 5, WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. Mayor Hamilton: I think we've looked at this several times previously. I guess I was under the impression that they had already been approved. 37 Council Meeting - Septe~mber 26, 1988 Jo Ann Olsen: ~nat was approved was the zoning ordinance amendment to allow churches outside the MUSA line. They're located on TH 41. %he Planning Co~rnission reviewed it several t~nes. They did recon~nend approval with the conditions recon~nended in the staff report. The applicant is proposing a church which will be serviced by a septic system on TH 41. It's meeting all the requirements for setbacks. It does the two acceptable sites provided. There are several conditions that apply to the conditional use permit. They are all pretty minor details and staff is recon~nending approval of the conditional use permit as stated in the report on page 7. Mayor H~-nilton: I'd more approval of the conditional use permit to locate a church in the RR district with the 12 conditions as outlined by staff and as recon~nended by the Planning Comnission. Councilman Horn: Second. Councilman Boyt: Larry, it was my understanding that there was a question of MnDot. Larry Brown: Yes. Late this morning ~MnDot came back and posed a statement back to the City that they would not allow a public street to access at the same point as a private driveway. In other words, if they granted this driveway permit, we would be ousted, if you will, from that landing spot where Lake Lucy Road had been planned to pass to TH 41. We've tried to contact MnDot today without success to find out the exact logic but were unable to do so. Councilman Horn: Would it be possible to reroute this driveway to Lake Lucy at some future point? Barbara Dacy: Klqat we would have to do is reroute Lake Lucy right now or we'd have to look at another alternative to reroute Lake Lucy. Councilman Horn: We can't put the driveway where we would have had Lake Lucy before? Councilman Geving: Let me say this, we have not put Lake Lucy Road on any map that I'm aware of. We haven't designated any alignment. We can put that in later. We can go ahead and make this approval for the Baptist Church. At some point they could hook up to that road when we put it through. Mayor Hamilton: Staff was just calling it to our attention that the perceived alignment as they would see it now, would conflict with this. Barbara Dacy: As far as topography and we're voiding a lot of trees and so on, this was a preliminary alignment that we had looked to. So this could force a more expensive alternative. Councilman Boyt: As I understand this Larry, what MnDot is saying is if we allow a private drive here, that we can not put Lake Lucy on top of that private drive at some point in ~he future? Larry Brown: That's my understanding, yes. Councilman Boyt: So it's not a matter of a private drive joins Lake Lucy at 38 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 some point in the future. That won't work. Is that right? Larry Brown: ~nat's correct. Councilman Horn: Aren't you concerned with the number of accesses to the highway? If you eliminate one, you could have the other? Larry Brown: That's correct. Councilman Geving: Isn't it my understanding that there is an allowance for a driveway access every 500 feet on TH 417 Am I correct or very close to being correct? Larry Brown: I'm not aware of that. Councilman Geving: I think I'm reasonably accurate. Councilman Boyt: This is an important issue. I don't want to see us commit to a private drive that then forces us to put Lake Lucy Road 500 feet from here at a minimum. I think we're talking potentially a lot more money to make that connection and that's a piece of information we've got to have. I think until you can resolve this with MnDot, we should table this. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I can't see clearly on their plan there, why cOuldn't, if Lake Lucy were to go through here someday which is certainly a number of years away, why could their access be onto Lake Lucy and then onto TH 417 Larry Brown: Again, I've tried to contact MnDot to find out their logic but right now the statement is, if you do in fact pass this driveway, permit onto TH 41, we will not be able to access TH 41 at the same place where Lake Lucy accesses. I apologize for not knowing the logic but they were not available at this time. Mayor Hamilton: I can understand that if they are one and same access but if the parking area dumped onto Lake Lucy Road at a different point further up, I don't understand their logic at all. Councilman Geving: Al, are you aware of the situation on TH 41 for this piece of property? I think you're familiar with that roadway. A1 Klingelhutz: I'm quite familiar with it. 5he present alignment, the property that was sold is right here which came before the City Council to see if they could build on that in that area. I believe ~Dot had said the access is s~mewhere over in here. They missed the access on that survey eassment but then there is another access right here. Right to the south of this property here which would probably be the best access for the new Lake Lucy Road because it wouldn't sever their property over here. Councilman Boyt: What's the terrain like? A1 Klingelhutz: This is all high ground here. There are some trees in here but you wouldn't be getting as close to the pond. Councilman Boyt: Isn't it quite steep ground Al? 39 City Council Meeting - Septa~oer 26, 1988 A1 Klingelhutz: It isn't that steep. The steeper area is right in here. From this point this way and up here it starts to level off. Councilman Geving: I asked that because I knew you were familiar with the property. You had originally sold the other property. A1 Klingelhutz: Right. This could really make a nice Lake Lucy access sometime in the future right here. It comes out just about across from the park access. Bryan Pike: MnDot has also informed us that our access, they were a little bit hesitant. They've already issued us a driveway permit also. They said that they were hesitant because of the vision coming over the hill right there on TH 41. They said, in discussing the road possibility, that probably the City would have a hard time getting that access point as a 60 foot city street. Mayor Hamilton: What is your time frame now? What is a critical time line for you? Bryan Pike: We need it built. Mayor Hamilton: I realize that but Councilman Boyt is suggesting that this be tabled. How does that affect where you want? Bryan Pike: We're meeting in another church facility in Excelsior. It was a temporary situation. We were hoping to build this fall. We've been delayed by many things. I've got a few things I'd like to say but what MnDot told us is, there's no way and I had him call the City to tell tham that since they've issued us a driveway permit, they will not allow a roadway permit on top of that driveway permit. Also, the present easement that was given to the owners of the property, that we gave the owners of the property, doesn't follow the access place. That needs to be renegotiated anyway between us and them. That 60 foot easement that was put in there, Lake Lucy was put in there and it doesn't continue on any other map. On any other property. On his son's property. It's not there. It was put in when they thought of subdividing this into several lots and we came along a~d purchased the whole thing. We never anticipated a 50 foot setback on both sides and all of that. We were thinking, we didn't want to landlock them. That's what we were discussing. A1 Klingelhutz: A 6g foot easement was put in there as to not lock the property to the rear landlocked. It goes to the eastern edge of their property line. From there on there is no easement. Bryan Pike: There is another problem too. The DNR says that we already in the 150 feet from that pond and where that easement is on our side is 120 feet fr~m the pond so that easement has got several problems. That possible Lake Lucy extension has got a lot of problems. Councilman Boyt: I hear problems and see problems all over this when I look at it. I think you could be helped if we could clear up some, we might be able to deal with this easement situation a lot better if we had some resolution about where we're going to put our entrance to Lake Lucy Road, or at least we knew what MnDot's feeling was. The easement creates a lot of problems for you and the 5~ foot setback. I would think it would be worth the couple of weeks to 40 City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 clear that up. the 50 feet. If we don't need that kind of road width, maybe they don't need Bryan Pike: We'd really like more than anything to continue on, even if there are conditions put on it along the way. We need to start the process with our architects. If we don't, we will not be able to get that building downbefore frost and we can not afford to build during the winter. Councilman Boyt: It seems to me, it looks like the building isn't the problem, it's the parking lot. Bryan Pike: No, the building. If they'd allow us, if you allow us to rid ourselves of that easement, that building, we want to shift that building up on the hill. That's where we originally wanted it. The 50 foot setbacks were thrown at us so we had to go back. It's not a major move but it is a move. We do have another problem of hooking up to the Metro Waste line. That's a major thing also. Councilman Boyt: I'm going to let other councilmembers delve into this. I just want to make a couple points. I understand the logic, somewhat, of not allowing the connection. It's hard to understand for me but I can see that if we allow one, we then open ourselves up to everyone that's at all close to that interceptor to have a similar argument. Although it fits here, I think what we should do is allow them to build on their secondary septic site or allow them rather to use the secondary septic site. It's closer to the church. It saves them a lot of money and it just looks like a better situation all around. I am concerned about the road as I mentioned. I think we are better served if we get some of these issues cleared up and possibly, if we can get another chance to start, I'd be for that though I'd sure hate to eliminate our options when we've got so much questions. That's all I have. Councilman Horn: I wasn't too surprised to see Met Council's response. I guess I don't see the logic in not allowing these people to hook up. Somewhere that logic seems to be locked up in the Met Council someplace. I believe their logic is allowing us to grow and they don't want that to happen and I don't agree with that but I'm not surprised that they wouldn't let you do that. I wish you could do that. I think it would open the door for us. As you're probably aware, we were lucky to get the line in in the first place. But now that they have it there and not be able to use it makes it somewhat frustrating, but that will happen. Hopefully it will happen before your septic system fails. I don't have any other problem with this. I think it's the same issue we get into... We don't have our road structures planned before development occurs. We've seen that over and over again. A lot of it happens because our major intrastructures are put in place but some of it happens because we don't anticipate the growth. In fact, we try to control sue of it to the areas that we have planned. I think in this case what's going to happen on Lake Lucy Road will be far enough out in the future that we'll be able to make some adjustments on that site. I don't think we can hold th~mup. Councilman Geving: I'd like to see us go ahead with this project. I've been in contact with Pastor Pike a number of times and staff over a number of issues. Primarily the septic system issue and the placement of those septic sites. I believe that it's pretty definitive now that you're going to have to have your own septic system and I think that actually will work out best for you. They 41 ©/~d[ty Council Meeting - September 26' 1988 keep referring to an agreement that was made. Are you aware of an agreement~ either Barb or someone? Barbara Dacy: That's the sewer facility agreement. Councilman Geving: Okay, what does that basically say? That you can't hook up to it for the next number of years? Barbara Dacy: Right. You can't hook up into until all vacant, developable land becomes developed and/or the Year 2900. Councilman Geving: I was confused a little bit about an item that appeared in the engineer's report asking for the concrete curbing on the parking area. That was subsequently changed then to bituminous curbing. Was there any reason for that Larry? Why did you make that recon~nendation or your staff make that recon~nendation? Larry Brown: Normally we request the concrete curb and wall to the bituminous, or excuse me, along with the bituminous paving. However, the applicant has come back and dealt with staff and said, look, that's just not reasonable. An unreasonable cost so as a compromise we said okay, at least put up the bituminous curb and direct the drainage where it should be. Councilman Geving: Okay, and I would agree with you on that. I agree with the applicant. Bituminous in the rural area is certainly more than sufficient. I have no probl~ns with this Mr. Mayor. I'd like to see us approve it with the conditions that we've got. Councilman Johnson: My comments are in tune with the other con~ents that have been made this evening. I see Lake Lucy Road as being a problem here and obtaining this easement through here, is this easement already on the property? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Councilman Johnson: It's an existing easement that goes nowhere. It isn't connected in the future and it's causing them to move their church further back than they want. It looks like much more grading to be done...to put a septic system within the trees. I don't know what the alternatives are but if we could, and I don't want to fix the architect's plans on the church. If we eliminated our...Lake Lucy alignment which sounds like MnDot doesn't want it at that point anyway. They'll allow a driveway but not a Lake Lucy because those sight distances aren't far enough for a Lake Lucy type road. That would effect where he wants to place his church. He reduces cost by placing his church further forward. In the loug run, it would be helpful for him to delay it if we could in two weeks have a decision on Lake Lucy. I think it's partially up to the church as to whether they want to, whether staff could come down to anything more definitive from MnDot and Lake Lucy in the next 2 week period. I think it's 2 weeks before tl~e next Council meeting. I actually had no problem with a gravel driveway mostly because hhe church I went to had such within the urban area for 7 of the years. We were a small church. We had 2g families at our church. Within 10 years or, I forget how many years it was, we did upgrade that to concrete or whatever. Mayor Hamilton: You're comfortable with the bituminous? 42 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Councilman Johnson: If he's comfortable, I'm comfortable. Mayor Hamilton: I wonder if we could just add a condition 13 then that says staff would continue to solve the private road alignment and easement problem. It seems if we just continue to work on that and resolve it to the satisfaction of the church and the County and the State, I would think that that would satisfy everbody's needs and they could move ahead with their construction. Any objections to that? Councilman Johnson: Would that include the realignment moving the church up and their septic systems? Mayor Hamilton: The easement is what's causing them to have to move their church at this time so I think that easement issue needs to be resolved. If that's resolved to their satisfaction and benefit, then they can put the church back up on the hill where they wanted to if they're so inclined to do so. I don't know what all is involved in the resolution of that easement but whoever needs to get involved should. Whether it's our staff or the Attorney's or your people want to be involved in that and Larry. You should move ahead with that and try to resolve it. I don't know what the easement's for, but that should be able to be resolved. Also working with the road to, I don't think we're going to establish an alignment for Lake Lucy but staff may be able to take a look at what A1 suggested as to where Lake Lucy Road maybe able to come through there, south of their property and see if that could be worked out in the future. That's my suggestion. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to add another condition. I don't have it indicated specifically in my notes. As I recall, it made quite a difference where they put their septic system. As I also recall, it seems to me that the forester said it wouldn't make much of a difference in terms of removal of trees. Do you recall that? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Councilman Boyt: I think that we should allow them to use the secondary septic site. It saves them $12,500.00. Bryan Pike: We're hoping if we can move the church, to drop the septic site right where the church is there instead of being up in the trees. That landing in between the trees is quite... It doesn't sound like it is an inexpensive adventure at all. We wanted to lay it inbetween the trees. Councilman Boyt: I think you should have the option to do what you want on the septic system on either site to be available. Mayor Hamilton: So you want to have a 14th is to be able to use the secondary septic. Councilman Boyt: I would modify the existing condition on septic systems to include that note. Barbara Dacy: Jo Ann and I were just talking. To clarify for the record, if you move the building and you're going to locate another septic system site, new 43 Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 soil borings are going to have to be taken. That includes a review by Machmeier and Anderson. So there are costs involved. Mayor Hamilton: You're looking at sc~ne significant savings so I'm sure the offset is insignificant. Jo Ann Olsen: If they move the building and parking lot, we can just review that in house? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit ~88-9 for a church to be located outside of the MUSA line with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must receive preliminary plat approval for the subject site by September of 1989 unless the property owners agree to have the parcel remain as one undivided lot. 2. The two approved septic sites must be staked and preserved prior to receiving a building permit and either septic site may be used as the primary site. 3. Provide a landscaping plan which provides screening between the vehicular access areas and abutting right-of-way as required in Section 2~-119~ of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The applicant shall receive an access permit from MnDot prior to installation of the church driveway. 5. A fire lane must be installed for the entire length on either the east or west side of the building. The fire lane, at least 2~ feet in width, must comply with the City of Chanhassen's requirement for all weather surface meeting urban standards. Whichever side is chosen, a clear access must be maintained by designation of a "Fire Lane". 6. The main driveway shall have "No Parking Fire Lane" signs installed. 7. The applicant shall provide a revised grading plan with storm sewer calculations which verify the preservation of the predeveloped runoff rate and all storm sewer capacities as part of the final review process. 8. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 9. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. lg. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off site clean up caused by the construction of this site. 11. Ail erosion controls shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading, and once in place shall ra~aJ.n in place throughout the duration of 44 City Council M~eting - September 26~ 1988 construction. The developer shall be responsible for periodic checks of the erosion controls and shall make all repairs promptly. All erosion controls shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced. 12. A revised plan which shows bituminous parking and curbing shall be submitted as part of the final review process. 13. Staff shall continue to work towards resolving the private road alig~ent and easement problem. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 10.75 ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6720 GLENDALE DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, COUNTRY OAKS, DAVE JOHNSON. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Co~mission recon~nended approval of the proposed subdivision. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant attempted to address the first condition regarding the lot frontage issues in Block 3. This represents the drawing that was submitted to the Planning Con~nission. Your blue line drawings have been redrawn to show a bubble. After we met with the developer, he also submitted this option which creates a T intersection and a cul-de-sac which meets all the lot frontage requirements and resolves some of the concerns that the engineering department had about the bubble option on the full size blue line drawings. Therefore, we're recommending, staff is recommending that the plat be redrawn to reflect Alternate ~2, this option. The second thing, another thing that the Planning Commission gave is that the Park and Recreation Commission review the subdivision and reco~nended that park dedication fees be paid instead of reserving land for parkland as originally recommended. So the conditions on number 1 and 2 have been amended for Council action. The remaining conditions have remained the same from Planning Commission action. Mayor Hamilton: Barb, could you respond to the question that I had. This afternoon I asked Don about the builder. You were trying to research Shorewood. Barbara Dacy: Yes. I had called Brad Nielsen in Shorewood when the applicant first applied and Jo Ann spoke to the Manager in Shorewood today. There have been no problems with that developer in that coaxnunity. Mayor Hamilton: That's not what I had heard. That's why I had asked that we have a look. I understand the builder has caused some problems there. Councilman Boyt: I think we have an issue here that we've dealt with a few times before, never very well unfortunately, and that is, this develop borders lots of 21,000 and 22,000 square feet. Those people are not going to be able to resubdivide their lots. So clearly 21,000 and 22,000 square feet lots are now going to abut lots that are I believe, at least as I looked at the earlier blue line, considerably smaller. I think the developer should take that into account. I think the lots should be closer to a matching size when there's an existing lot of record. I'm not happy when lots make 25% change in size in a new development. I don't know what I can do about that but I'm not happy with it. The other thing, this builder made a very good point I thought during the 45 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Planning Con~nission Minutes when he said he was used to paying this park and rec fees and trail fees up front when he developed a property rather than piece by piece. I think that makes a lot of sense and I think the City should look at that possibility. Now, one of the critical points in this development is the recreational beachlot. It's my opinion that this represents an expanded use for that recreational beachlot and that should not be grandfathered in. Although it doesn't represent a larger property use possibly than the grandfathered, it certainly represents an increase in use by putting 27 more single family homes in there. We talked about adding 75 people to a fairly small beachlot. I don't think that's in keeping with our ordinance and I don't think it was in keeping with the spirit of the grandfathering. I don't think we should grant it. That's all I've got. Councilman Horn: I have a problem with the beachlot issue also. It appears to me that if we use this technique, in effect what we're doing is offering a blank check to any area for subdivision that's not developed yet. We have no idea how many lots are going to be in there and I don't think that's appropriate. I think everybody's pretty clear that I don't really care for beachlots in the first place and I think this really gives an opportunity to have it abused. I was really distressed to see that they can go ahead and develop and use the existing beachlot. I guess I'd like further clarification as to why we can't call that a greater intensification of use. I know it isn't in the land area but obviously the number of users increasing has to be an intensification of use. Barbara Dacy: I'll ask Roger to help me out on that one too but the way we looked at it was, they couldn't increase the number of boats and docks and structures that were on the property at the time we did the ordinance. We looked at the original document creating the right for the Pleasant Acres Homeowners to use the recreational beachlot and that was a recorded right along with title of the ordinance. Councilman Horn: I would say that this condition has changed since the land did not develop before we made major adjustments to our beachlot ordinance. I think it should fall now under the pervue of our latest updated beachlot ordinance. I'm not happy with that. I think the other area that I have a concern has been addressed by eliminating the 1 acre lot. To me that was totally unrealistic for parkland. I have no other problems with this. Councilman Geving: I'm glad that you both have hit on that same issue because I think the only control we have on recreational beachlots is the fact that they are generally a conditional use and to grandfather th~ in and forever have them available for expansion once they're fully developed, takes us completely out of the ballgame. We lose our control, i would like to have Roger be directed to pursue this and really research the item. I just can't see us losing this control. Regarding the 10th condition which was to me a language problem. I think this is a very general, wishy-washy condition. Subject to City approval of language, the applicant shall provide restrictions on the Block 3 lots in order to maintain the ponding site. What does that mean? Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission added that condition to insure that the hc~neowners buying the lots containing the stormwater pond would not alter th~n in any way. 46 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Councilman Geving: Can you tighten that up? I like what you just said. If that was the intent, then that's what we should put into that condition. Barbara Dacy: There will be a drainage and utili~ eas~ent placed over the Councilman Boyt: That pretty much takes care of it, if it's enforced. Councilman Geving: I just felt that this condition 10 was far too general. It didn't mean anything to me. Roger Knutson: They give us ownership by easement or a deed on the pond site. No one messes with it. That's all there is to it. Barbara Dacy: The Council can choose to eliminate that one. Councilman Geving: I don't know if I want to eliminate it but I would like the intent that you stated, the reason for putting 10 in there. Councilman Boyt: Why don't we just say that they'll maintain the ponding site contours? Councilman Geving: That'd be fine. Is that acceptable to you Barb? Can you work that in? Let's reword that. Barbara Dacy: Restate it and say that the-contours shall not be altered by owners of lots. Councilman Geving: You were at the Planning Con~ission meeting, I suspect, the night this was voted on. Can you tell me why Dave Headla voted against it. Barbara Dacy: Dave had a number of issues with the subdivision. He felt strongly that the developer wasn't addressing some of the homeowners' concerns. The Minutes speak for themselves. Councilman Geving: It just left a blank here for me anyway. I really didn't get the feel. I know he lives in the area. I'm finished Mr. Mayor. Councilman Johnson: I would like to avoid the intensification of that beachlot. This may have been planned as a further extension, outlots on Pleasant Acres and that they would be extended and they would have use of this beachlot but that was a long time ago. I can't see how they're going to add this many more families to that beachlot without intensifying the use of that beachlot. Do we know how many boats are allowed for that beachlot? How many docks are allowed for that beachlot at this time? Are there any docks allowed? Just one? Jo Ann Olsen: There' s one dock there. Councilman Johnson: How many slips on the dock? Barbara Dacy: We have it upstairs in the file. Councilman Johnson: It doesn't have slips as I've seen it and that's what we'd want to keep there. I do think they do understand that if there are only three 47 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 slips there now, they can't now put four slips in or five slips in. There's only going to be_ what they've got. I hope the language that you were talking about on that !0th condition would be that the homeowners are informed. A lot of homeowners don't look real closely at those easements and everything that go on there. They've got this little swale back there and they say, gee that's kind of nice and they get out their tractor and they redo the swale to make it look like what their backyard wants to look like. Not realizing what they're doing. I'd like to see_ txhat condition 10 says that the developer inform those homeowners that they can not alter that swale to their desires. Most times yes, you've got a 30,0gg square foot lot here. Well, you can do a lot with a 30,ggg square foot lot, as the real estate agent will tell you but they fail to mention that half that lot is going to be a stormwater pond. I'd like to see that in there that the homeowners are not only they can't do it but they're informed that they can't do it. It's one thing to say you can't do something and it's another thing for s~ebody to actually tell you. Beyond that they've done a good job of matching most of our concerns. I like the cul-de-sac better than the bubble or just the curve. I think it adds to the subdivision to have that little cul-de-sac in there. I think those lots become more of a premium type lot than they were previously. I like the cul-de-sac option. Those are my concerns. Mayor Hamilton: Where is that exit? Yes, where does it go to? Barbara Dacy: The intersection here and then cut-de-sacing up in here now. Mayor Hamilton: Those other streets are just stopping. Is that because there's not a turn around or a cul-de-sac? Is that because we suspect that someday there might be an additional development there? Barbara Dacy: Yes, that's correct. This could be extended to the Hallgren property to the southwest. Mayor Hamilton: Shouldn't there be a temporary cul-de-sac there? Barbara Dacy: That's ~ option that the Council may wish to do. Mayor Hamilton: How are we going to plow that if we don't have someway to turn our trucks around? Barbara Dacy: As a matter of fact, I think Larry was dying to speak about that. Jo Ann Olsen: Public Safety said they didn't need one. We addressed that with public safety and they said they didn't need a temporary cul-de-sac. Larry Brown: Certainly snow storage in the wintert]~ae could be a problem with this alternative but if the Hallgren, Mrs. Hallgren is very sensitive to their problem at this point wants to see no further development go through her property at this time... I'd like to point out one other thing to the Council, as stated in our report, one of the things that you will be forced to address at a later date through the plans and specification and review process is, this area will be_ required, at least from the infotIaation that the applicant has provided me thus far, will be required to have a lift station to afford the sanitary sewer service. I want to make sure that the Council is aware of that. 48 City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: How large is the beachlot? Do you know square footage approximately what it is? Barbara Dacy: It's got to be about 30,000. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, and the adjoining one that we denied just to the south was what, about 45,000 or s~mething? 40,000 square feet. That had a lot of length. ~his is a smaller rectangular. ~ne one that we denied had, if I remember right, about 500 feet of lakeshore and this one has what? I certainly have the same concerns that we're talking about allowing I don't know, how many more? How many people are on that one already ar~ we're talking about allowing 27 more yet the adjoining property, a larger beachlot, we're telling th~ they can't use it at all. It doesn't make much sense to me. One of the things that I would like to make the builder aware of and anybody who purchases a lot in there should be aware that the Hallgren's have for years raised horses and I believe she still does show horses and has horses on her farm. You can just bet your last dollar that when sc~neone builds a house there, they're going to come in here and bitch because they got the smell of horses next to their house, next to the barn that's been there for the last 50 years. So you better make anybody who's buying a lot aware that there are horses there and we're not going to tell the Hallgren's that they can't have horses there. They've been there for a long time and they can stay. Tney run a nice operation. I guess I still am a little concerned about the turn arounds. We should have room. I see a snowplow going down that street and just dumping the snow onto the Hallgren property which I don't think is right. That's a low area and that's where her horses graze. I don't see why she should have to accomodate another developer's snow r~moval. So some type of a turn around or cul-de-sac would be a better proposal to somehow take care of the snow on their own property. Those are my only con~nents. Councilman Boyt: Tom, I'd like to react to the turn around. If we put a turn around in there, which I'm certainly not opposed to that if we'll sign it that it's a thru street. If we'll put something on there that indicates that this is going to go thru someday but I think we're sending a signal that will come back to create problems for us if we make it look like that's a cul-de-sac. Mayor Hamilton: I don't have a problem with that. Call it a temporary cul-de-sac. Put a T turn around which doesn't have the appearance of being something more permanent. The truck still has someplace to push the snow and to turn around. Councilman Horn: You said Public Safety said that there's no problem with not having a cul-de-sac there? Jo Ann Olsen: When I asked them, they said they did not want a turn around at that location. Councilman Horn: Were they addressing it only from a safety standpoint in the sum~er or were they looking at it from a maintenance view also? Jo Ann Olsen: I think they were just looking at it from a fire standpoint. Councilman Horn: So from a maintenance view, it's still an issue. 49 Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Mayor H~nilton: I would recommend adding a condition then that there be at least a T turn around and that the applicant work with the engineer to come up with a design that's acceptable for the engineer for use of maintenance vehicles. Councilman Horn: Or should we say, not even specify a T intersection but say some method of alleviating a maintenance problem? Mayor Hamilton: Right, specifically snow removal. Councilman Horn: If we're going to do that, I think that it's a given that the lot size is not going to drop below 15,000 square feet. Councilman Geving: We're already averaging I think 17,000 so I think that's a pretty good assumption. You can't go below 15,000. Councilman Boyt: I'm interested in minimums. Councilman Horn: The ones that are affected are 15,031 and 15,910. Councilman Boyt: They were. It's hard to say now with the change. Barbara [lacy: We could arrange for a temporary easement. Councilman Boyt: Or permanent. Barbara Dacy: The signage of the easement could be worded as such that it has to be reconstructed and the lot returned to it's original state. It's temporary. Councilman Horn: Let's include that in the condition. Mayor Hamilton: What are the sizes of the lots directly to the south of that new development? Barbara Dacy: The lots on the north side are under an acre but the lot on the south side is the Hallgren property. Mayor Hamilton: I realize the Hallgren property but it also borders on the new development there. Stratford Ridge. Jo Ann Olsen: Those are almost all 15,000. Mayor H~milton: Anybody else have anything they wish to add? Mr. Johnson, do you have any comments you wish to make? Dave Johnson: Yes. I'm not sure where to start. One of the things that concerned me was, but I don't think this is the place to address it, I am the builder and the developer in Shorewood and all the comments that I have had from city staff or Council and Planning Commission have been quite favorable. You took me by surprise when you said that there had been some concerns about the builder over there. That bothered me and I'd like to dig into that a little further later. I don't think this is the proper forum. As it relates to the 50 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 alternate plan 2 that we're discussing with the cul-de-sac in, I guess I don't agree that that's the best choice. I think the bubble or the half a cul-de-sac is a better choice. The one lot, if you were to turn the light back on there, the one lot right there, that happens to have street on three sides of it which is not real desirable. Now I know the reason that Larry explained it to us that he did not like just having a bubble on the curve as your blueline copy shows, is fr~m a traffic engineering and safety standpoint .... totally delineated for someone coming around the curve but I did, one of the projects that I had developed in Burnsville had a similiar arrangement and it was never even discussed. This is a new plat in Burnsville. ~ney put on right in on a curve and there haven't been any concerns about the traffic issue. I'm willing to go, I don't have a problem with doing either one. I still want to state my case that I feel the blueline copy you have is the better, both aesthetically and equally as good from a traffic standpoint. You've got curves rather than square corner, 90 degree corners. I guess I think a case can be presented for that particular one. We don't have a problem with putting a temporary T turn around or whatever you're referring to that as down there. That's not a problem. The public beach issue, which at the time I bought the land I wasn't expecting that to cause that much controversy. I did have my attorney check into it prior to purchasing it and he indicated that the fact that it had not been developed yet did not change the fact that those rights were given to about 100 acres I think. The fact that the people had gotten there first and effectively filled it up doesn't necessarily mean that the people who coming there last have any less right. Once again, I don't know how that issue could be handled at this level. I think your recon~nendation to your Attorney to check it out is a good one and I don't have a problem with it either. Although I did when I purchased the property, I was of course aware of the rights that I was getting and I had intended to market it accordingly. Other than that, I don't know that there's a whole lot more for me to say. Councilman Johnson: You did mention that you're looking at the property to the east to purchase .... outlot A to stay as your outlot and that you were going to be purchasing that. Are those parcels are not part of Pleasant Acres at this time? Dave Johnson: Not to my knowledge they're not, no. Councilman Johnson: So those would not be eligible whatsoever to utilize that beachlot. Dave Johnson: That is my understanding. If I were to purchase them, I have made several attempts but the owner is not real interested in selling but when he does, that strip that you refer to as an outlot, is of no practical use to anyone other than the person who owns the land next door so if I can't buy it his piece, perhaps when that's ready to be developed, they'll want to buy this little outlot. Mayor Hamilton: I think the blueline plan that we have Bill, doesn't that address the lot size a little bit better. We haven't seen the lot sizes on that thing up there but the 17,000 square feet and 16, 19 abutting the larger lots to the north. What size are those lots that you have up there? Do you have any idea what size those lots would come out to be? Barbara Dacy: On the north side? Those are approximately 15,000. 51 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Mayor H~ilton: No, I mean the ones in that development right now[ Ray Brandt: These lots are fairly close, maybe a little bit smaller than what we had. These lots are closer to 17,000 square feet and these are 15,000. This one is over 15,000 and that's a little bit, very close to 15,000, a little bit over. These three_ lots are not a lot smaller than what they are on the blueline. Councilman Horn: The same number of lots? Ray Brandt: Yes. Councilman Horn: This area would require more hard surface so I would sense that you're going to have bigger lots in the first alternative. Councilman Geving: Is this alternate 2 the developer's alternate or is it staff's alternate? Barbara Dacy: It's staff's recommended alternative. Mayor Hamilton: What's wrong with that half circle? I guess when I looked at this plan I thought it looked nice and I've seen those half circles around Minnetonka and they seem to work well. I don't know what the problem with it is. Larry Brown: It boils down to two things. One, when you approve that half circle, essentially you're approving 40 or 50 foot wide driveway in a roadway, if I can use that same analogy. Number 2, as stated in my report, as the driver comes around that curve, they look for the delineation of the curving and the surrounding attributes as to how the lots are set up. Without that, I feel with that degree of curvature, it's a poor situation at best. Councilman Horn: Have we done this before? Larry Brown: Right now we have one half circle that I'm aware of up on Lake Lucy Road occurring at Curry Farms. However, things get complicated when you take that and put it on a straight piece such as Lake Lucy Road and add it to the point of curvature in the middle of that turn. Mayor Hamilton: It's not going to be a high traffic area, probably ever. Councilman Geving: We always have the difficulty here of the lot line being reduced but they do meet the 90 foot setback where you build your house. We've always used that as the guide as far as I'm concerned in describing that cul-de-sac. We've got a lot of cul-de-sacs that don't meet 90 feet but they do meet it at the build line. Barbara Dacy: Are you talking about the blue line? Councilman Geving: Yes, I'm talking about the blue line. Barbara Dacy: With the bubble? 52 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Councilman Geving: With the bubble. I have no problem with the bubble. To me it looks like the traffic flows very well. From a maintenance standpoint, if we were to send our maintenance vehicles into this area, I'd far prefer them to come through here and do their plowing with that bubble than to have to drive up that cul-de-sac and plow that out. It seems to me that this flows a lot better and you get away from that three sided lot that you created there. That's my personal opinion because I do believe, the purpose for this entire effort was to eliminate the variances. Is that correct Barbara? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Geving: And we have done that with this blue line plan. And the only difference is the bubble here and I do believe that the setbacks are sufficient. Maybe not at the road. Maybe not when you drive in and see the, you're talking about 40-45 feet but there's only one lot that would be short and that's the middle one. Lot 3, Block 3 and I like the idea that these lots all abut larger lots back up on Glendale with the bubble. Maybe they're the same size there. I don't know. Barbara Dacy: If the Council ends up choosing the bubble option, on the plans there is a proposed cul-de-sac option. I don't know if that's the way the Council ends up going, whether or not you would, whether engineering would recon~nend the island within the bubble or not. Councilman Horn: Can we clear up a question first? Was alternative 2 suggested to eliminate the variances of the bubble concept? Barbara Dacy: It was suggested to eliminate the variances on the originally proposed plan that went to the Planning Coranission. Councilman Horn: So there's no variance differences between alternate 2 and the bubble? Barbara Dacy: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: Do you have a transparency of the bubble? Barbara Dacy: No. The blue line copy is... Councilman Boyt: I'm going to propose a change to it. It would have been easier with a transparency. If you will take the bubble and smooth out the bump side of it, and then take the existing roadway and pull it into that new angle so we've got a parallel road that sweeps the backside of that bubble. Councilman Geving: Use your pencil and draw that. Councilman Boyt: I've got it right here. Councilman Horn: It makes a sharper corner. Councilman Boyt: Well, that's not all bad from a speed standpoint. It comes in and swings around like this. Now we've created a bigger lot so we're using green space here instead of asphalt. We've got everything within 30 feet of here big enough. These lots are big enough so they can afford to lose a little 53 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 and still be 15,g00 square feet. You've got it covered[ CounciLman Geving: I don't have a problem with that. Councilman Johnson: They're back to their variance though. Councilman Boyt: No... Barbara Dacy: ...on the radius of the curve and so on. Councilman Boyt: If there's no variances here, there sure as heck can't be any variances required. Ray Brandt: Because it's not a cul-de-sac and your ordinance specifically says cul-de-sac. Councilman Boyt: that's not a cul-de-sac either. Ray Brandt: Well, it's a cul-de-sac. Councilman Boyt: That's not what we had in mind. Mayor Hamilton: We're not calling it a cul-de-sac. CounciLman Geving: Don't you think we could get a 90 foot frontage there on each of those lots? Ray Brandt: At the setback, absolutely. Mayor Hamilton: That's not going to change this any. Councilman Johnson: They're calling this a cul-de-sac. That's a bubble cul-de-sac so you're allowed to take frontage at... Councilman Geving: At 90 feet. Councilman Horn: But on a corner you couldn't. _~4ayor Hamilton: This side stays the same. All Bill's doing is changing this side to swing the road over. It's a change from where they were at but... Councilman Geving: Maybe it's an improvament. Sometimes if it's an improvement, we can handle a variance. We could pass that with the passage of the whole plat. Dave Johnson: I think it would be an improvement myself but I didn't want to...after the reception we got at the Planning Con~nission. Councilman Geving: I understand and that's why we have ~o be a little bit more reasonable. Councilman Boyt: I think what we're saying here Dale is, if this parallel road idea passes, that we're proposing that we change the setback ordinance. 54 City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 Ray Brandt: I think they talked about that at the Planning Co~mission too2 Councilman Boyt: I think our ordinance has to be flexible but I think if we've got a good point here, then it's up to us to write the ordinance so it takes into account and we don't have to grant variances everytime. Councilman Geving: I like what you've done here. I think that will make that a very nice transition into this neighborhood. Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor. What concerns me about your option is the curvature of the road heading back south. If the Council just wants to add a condition that would address I guess what I would call the Boyt option, that the applicants would prepare a drawing to show what you suggested but if that does not meet what the ordinance says or other engineering standards, that the Council indicate second preference. Don Ashworth: Of the two alternatives, I can understand what Larry is saying, but these are right-of-ways and the actual street sits within that area. If you start thinking about the street as being something inside of there, those curves become pretty dramatic. Of the two alternatives, I've got to believe that staff would prefer simply approving the blue line over the proposal that Bill has presented. I can understand the rationale of it but by the time you put the street itself inside of there, which again is one half of the area shown, boy that really becomes a twisted section. Councilman Boyt: I disagree with him because you can run the street right down the middle of those parallel lines and how does that change the angle of anything? Don Ashworth: But then why do we have all of that extra right-of-way? Councilman Boyt: We have that anyway. Don Ashworth: You're just going to run it right down and just turn it around, why do you have that? Councilman Boyt: Well, that's a reasonable point. One of the reasons you would swing it up is by creating a greater curve you get more frontage. Don Ashworth: The whole thing is avoid the ordinance requirement of the 90 feet at the setback and if I can repeat what Mayor Hamilton said, a bubble like that isn't that bad. It gives additional play area frontage in front of homes. Mayor Hamilton: Every neighborhood. It always happens. You can build all the parks you want, kids will play in the street. Councilman Geving: I kind of like the blue line with the bubble in it. We don't have any variances. It's clean. Larry Brown: Be advised that staff is trying to work with the applicant in setting up this plat to conform to the study which was done, the overall comprehensive study for this area. Although this street is not a through street at this time, it's staff's intention if the southern plat does come in, that parcel does come in, we'd be looking at making this a thru connection. 55 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Councilman Boyt: There are some advantages to putting an island out there~ We have one other subdivision here that has an island. Larry's shaking his head. He's nixing that idea. Mayor Hamilton: It makes it tough to plow. Is there a motion to deal with this i tern? Councilman Horn: I would move approval of preliminary plat for Pleasant Acres for the alternative that was suggested on the blue line with the conditions that are outlined by staff and also I'd like to keep the condition that the outlot not be improved until the Attorney has had a chance to study that item further. To go ahead with the plat approval. Councilman Johnson: The beachlot, not outlot? Councilman Horn: The beachlot, right. _And the recomnendations by staff and item 10 language changed to what Dale had recon~nended. Mayor Hamilton: 11 be the turn around? Councilman Horn: 11 being the staff having a method to deal with snow removal. Mayor Hamilton: Then 12 would be the Attorney investigate the beachlot? I'll second your motion. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Subdivision Request #88-21 as shown on the plat stam~u~d "Received September 21, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1. The preliminary plat dated "Received September 21, 1988" shall be revised to incorporate Alternate #2 also dated "Received September 21, 1988". All lots must be 15,g0g square feet. 2. Park dedication fees shall be paid for each lot at time of building permit application. 3. The applicant shall provide a soil borings report for each lot and along the location of the street prior to final plat approval. 4. The applicant shall provide an ~nended plan showing fire hydrants located not further than 300 feet apart. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these improvements. 6. The applicant shall service this area by gravity sanitary sewer unless their er~ineers can demonstrate that this entire parcel cannot be serviced by gravity sanitary sewer. 7. The applicant will provide the City with the necessary utility easements across this parcel to service this parcel by gravity sanitary sewer ulness 56 City Council M~eting - September 26, 1988 otherwise demonstrated that a lift station is necessary2 8. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 9. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with the necessary documentation to verify that the 100 year storm event and emergency overflow conditions for the proposed ponding site will not affect the adjacent properties. 10. The ponding site contours shall not be altered in any way by the homeowners ar~ the developer will inform the homeowners of this condition. 11. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to come up with an acceptable turn around on the street to alleviate maintenance problems such as snow plowing. 12. The beachlot shall not be approved until the City Attorney has done further research on it. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-814 TO PERMIT DAY CARE CENTERS IN A FREE STANDING BUILDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT. Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council need any additional information on this? Councilman Johnson: No, it se~ms absolutely the correct thing to do. Councilman Horn: Is that a motion? Councilman Johnson: I move we approve. Councilman Geving: I second it. Roger Knutson: So then we have the first reading. Councilman Boyt: I think we should add, or instruct staff to research a couple of areas between now and the next reading. Either add them now or instruct the staff. I think we need to have, in spite of the day care center in St. Louis Park passing the carbon monoxide and lead standards, I'd like to have something that indicates that the area which in these are located has to be within whatever reasonable standards we can find. Then, I think we need to be careful about noise and I think we should also be concerned about the percentage of green space. That there should be some sort of non-paved play area. I think the idea is excellent. Mayor Hamilton: If I can just build on your last item there because I'd like to see a non-paved play area that's adjacent to the building so they don't have to cross any streets to get to it. Or even a parking lot for that matter. It should be adjacent to the building. 57 City Council Meehing - September 26, 1988 Councilman Boyt: Ir~nediately adjacent to the building? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Barbara Dacy: l~ne open space that you're talking about is beyond the required play area that the day care has to have? Is that what you're saying? Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that, I know the State has requirements for an open play area. I want some green space. Barbara Dacy: Around that play area? Councilman Boyt: Involved in this thing. In the play area. Outside the play area. I don't care particularly. I want there to be green space around this with trees and landscaping and that kind of stuff. Councilman Johnson: Not just a fence? Sand on the ground up to a fence. Councilman Boyt: That's right. We're talking about a free standing building here. I think there has to be something, or we could use something about traffic. We talked, the Planning Commission talked a little bit about this particular location is apparently in an area where there's not a lot of traffic. I'd like to see something in our ordinance that indicates that that's a requirement. If you're going to make these free standing, that we want it to be on a cul-de-sac or a dead end or something. Mayor H~milton: I think it's going to happen sooner or later so I'll bring it up. I was thinking it and Clark was talking it and that's at some time we're going to need to test these places and other places for radon gas. I don't know what's involved in that but we're hearing so much about it, perhaps the staff is going to have to recommend whether or not it should or should not be done but I think where children are involved, it wouldn't be a bad idea to start somehow to do that now. I don't know the first thing about it but I think it's something that's certainly c~ing and it's something we're going to have to get involved in so we might as well start someplace and now is probably a good place for it. Councilman Johnson: Actually our building codes, I believe our heating and venitlating codes require interchanges that would prevent any buildup of radon gas within this area. Your radon gas generally occurs in areas that don't have air exchanges. Basements and stuff like this where you have a lot of surface area exposed to the ground. I would not envision them building a basement in this area. Probably slab on grade which is normal. Mayor Hamilton: Nevertheless, I think it's something that ought to be considered. Councilman Boyt: Let's add that to the lead, carbon monoxide and radon gas. We establish a reasonable standard for those. Councilman Horn: I think with radon it's a matter of, after the fact monitoring. It's not something you can establish on the_ front end. It's something that creeps in and you monitor after it's done. 58 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Councilman Boyt: Let's add to this thing sort of an annual monitoring of thoSe air pollutants and noise quality. There should be some sort of reasonable standard for permissible noise quality where children are involved. If we can lump that all into sort of one environmental condition. Add another one for the percentage of green space. I don't have a good clue as to what it is. I just know it needs to obviously have more than we would typically have in the office park. Barbara Dacy: What we were just talking about is looking at difference impervious surface ratio for daycare centers... Councilman Johnson: On the State noise standards, they do have standards. However, an industrial site is considered one noise level. Right now you don't consider children being a resident of an industrial site. You wouldn't want to put these next to a big steel foundry or lots of other places that are quite noisy. Our main noise producer besides the one with the compresser problems that we have at Victory Envelope are the highways and traffic noise. Councilman Horn: Usually it's the daycare that will probably be the most noise generater. Mayor Hamilton: We need to be aware of what's going next to these things. Councilman Johnson: I don't know if annual carbon monoxide, lead and radon. The radon monitoring is a bit on the expensive side right now. Councilman Boyt: $22.50. Councilman Horn: And that includes the test. Mayor Hamilton: Part of what I might have some difficulty with is, if we're going to allow daycare centers in the IOP, free standing, I would really have a hard t~e if somebody came along with a legitimate industrial office park use, that we said, well we can't allow you in there now because there's a day care center there. I don't think that's right. That would create a lot of problems for me and I don't think I could do that. Whatever is an allowed industrial office park use now has to be able to be put next door to a day care center. We can not deny it. So I'm saying that we have to be sure that it's not too noisy or not too polluting or not too anything. Whatever you allow, has to be allowed in the future. Just because you're putting a daycare center in should not change what else goes into that IOP. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we can't have both of these things. Maybe we can't put the radiator shop next to the daycare. We need a daycare. I think all of us agree that it would certainlybe a good thing to have one conveniently located there but I think in putting one wherever w~ put it, we're also indicating something about what we're willing to put next to it. Councilman Geving: Don't you think the market kind of wittles that out though? That selection process is made by the people who are marketing the daycare center or the business activity. They don't want to be located next to that radiator shop either. So they'll look for a location in an industrial park that doesn't have that, at least I hope they will. One of the things that I would like to see, since we're going to move in this direction and I like the idea 59 City Council Meeting - Sephember 26, 1988 because it's catching on and very popular. EVen in my building we have about 200 kids now in daycare but one of the first things they put up was a fenced area for kids to play in. It seems to me that was one of the first considerations for safety because there were an awful lot of cars in an industrial park area. Trucks, cars, vehicles coming and going and they're not expecting to see little kids. I would like to see us consider fencing the play area. Councilman Boyt: That' s a State requirement. Councilman Geving: Is that a State requir~nent? Fine. That's great. Also, in an industrial park, or at least the areas that we have here, there really aren't many sidewalks or places where teachers or whatever they're called, aides, can take these kids for a nice little walk. A little hike. That's another thing I'd like to see more of. Even in the industrial park here where, regardless of the advent of the daycare, places where they could just take a group and walk 2 or 3 blocks from the daycare center so I think that's something we may want to think about in the future but doesn't have anything to do with the zoning ordinance amendment obviously. Mayor Hamilton: I want to go back to the point I was making. I want to be sure that when a daycare center locates in the IOP, that we don't all of a sudden have them coming in here saying, well the building next to me is giving off fumes and it's bad for my kids and there's a couple of them that have asthma or something. As long as whatever is there and is allowed in the industrial park, meets the requirements as far as emissions and anything else, I don't think we can start getting ourselves into a tug of way. A daycare center is now there so now everybody's got to start being more restrictive and cleaning up their act even more than what they had to do previously when they were meeting ordinance requirements. Just to call it to everyone's attention. I perceive some potential problems down the road when they come in and say, gosh this guy is doing that and they're doing this. We're really opening up a can of worms here. Councilman Boyt: Let's approach it from the standpoint of a daycare center can not be located where any of these things may exist in terms of loud noises, polluted air. Once it's in there, I think it's reasonable for the City to say that our part of the bargin is that we're not going to put a radiator shop in next to you if it's not there now. You've got have more flexibility in the office park. I'm not trying to point out a radiator shop as being particularly polluting. I have no idea. I'm just saying, that we won't put someone in that we know up front is going to create problems for the daycare. We wouldn't want to do that, would we? Don Ashworth: I don't think legally you can stop them. Barbara Dacy: If it's a permitted use. Mayor Hamilton: That's what I'm saying. If it's a permitted use, they can go there. If the guy buys the property and he says I want to put my company there and I'm a permitted use in your IOP, I want to go there. How are you going to stop him? Counci]~man Boyt: I don't know. Back to the intent of this thing is, I don't think the market does a very good job when convenience is at stake. I think 60 City Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 that a parent is going to, I don't want a parent having to weigh a noisy environment for their kids against the convenience of picking them up next to work. I think the City ought to be able to give them some assurance that they won't have to. I don't think our industrial park is going to have any problems with these things anyway. Mayor Hamilton: It may not. We have a good industrial park but that doesn't mean that the situation may not arise that would cause a problem. That's the only reason I'm bringing it up. Make everybody aware that there are some potential problems there. Councilman Horn: I'm wondering, when you look at the clean air acts and the OSHA requirements, doesn't that cover what we're getting at? Councilman Johnson: Pretty much. Especially when Minnesota passed a new law in this legislature that everybody is responsible for any objectionable odor. I don't have the words exactly right but you have to mitigate, in~nediately take action to mitigate objectionable emissions. It doesn't even have to exceed given MPCA standards. It's really a fun one that MPCA is going to have to deal with. Councilman Boyt: May I suggest that we put three conditions in this approval? One of th~n being that staff research impervious surface. The other one being that the daycare centers be located on a dead end or cul-de-sac street. ~ne third one would be that noise, radon, carbon monoxide and lead is monitored. Mayor Hamilton: Is that acceptable to you? Councilman Johnson: In addition to the recomnended 3 so we now have 6? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Councilman Johnson: %hat's acceptable to me. Councilman Geving: I'll second it. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-15 to amend Section 20-814 as follows: (13) State Licensed Day Care Centers. Additionally, to add Section 20-292, State Licensed Day Care Centers: 1. The site shall have loading and drop-off points designed to avoid interferring with traffic and pedestrian movements. 2. Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual and noise impacts of adjoining residential areas. 3. Each center shall obtain applicable State, County and City licenses. 4. Staff shall research the impervious surface ratio. 61 City Council Meeting Sep%ember 26~ 1988 5. Day care centers shall be located on a dead end or cul-de-sac street. 6. Noise, radon gas, carbon monoxide and lead is monitored. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-814 TO PERMIT DAY CARE CENTERS AS PART OF A MULTI-TENANT_ BUILDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT. Councilman Johnson: Here you even have more of your potential of a noisy tenant moving in next door but if you're sitting there selling stocks and bonds out of your multi-tenant and somebody moves in next door and starts moving air hammers, you're going to be complaining anyway. I'll move acceptance of this one with the additional three requirements. Councilman Boyt: Take item 3 off Jay and the dead end/cul-de-sacs. Councilman Johnson: Right. The three listed by staff and tl~ two additional. Councilman Horn: I' 11 second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-14 to amend Section 20-814 as follows: (14) State licensed Day Care Centers as part of a multi-tenant building. Additionally, to add to Section 20-292, State licensed Day Care Centers: 1. The si-te shall have loading and drop-off points designed to avoid interferring with traffic and pedestrian movements. 2. Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual and noise impacts of adjoining residential areas. 3. Each center shall obtain applicable State, County and City licenses. 4. Staff shall research the impervious surface ratio. 5. Noise, radon gas, carbon monoxide and lead is monitored. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ROSEMOUNT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: A. CONSIDER TIF AGREEMENT WITH HRA. B. LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT. C. AUTHORIZE FFASIBILITY STUDY FOR LAKE DRIVE EAST/MARKET BOULEVARD. Don Ashworth: I wanted to make sure that the Council was fully abreast of what actions had been taken by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Insofar as 62 City Council Fk~eting - September 26, 1988 the Purchase Agreements, I wanted you to be aware of those. No action is required on those. The TIF agreement is basically an agreement to insure that the HRA will pay back over to the City money needed by the City to pay off bonds. The final one is the authorization for the feasibility study for Lake Drive East and Gary Warren presented that as a separate m~morandum dated 13-C. I would entertain questions on items 13-A or 13-B if the Council has any. Councilman Geving: Ail you're looking for is a formality on (A)? On the agreement? Don Ashworth: Yes and really, it's a projection. It's only an agreement that the HRA is going to pay you the money necessary to insure that those bonds are paid off. Councilman Horn: I would move a resolution in acceptance. Councilman Geving: I' 11 second it. Councilman Boyt: I've got one con~nent. I think that staff should prepare for us what the area's we're negotiating in. I understand that there is a few areas in which there are going to be some variance requests and I'd like to know what those are before we get a whole lot further into this. Don Ashworth: It has been perfectly clear that the developer will have to go through any requests for variances. That the purchase and sale agreements are all solely subject to the applicant receiving the approvals necessary for the Planning Co~mission and City Council. It's the same formal language that is used by a private seller to another party where you would then have to come before the City in that process. We are absolutely in no way are we telling them that they will receive approval for any of those variances. Councilman Boyt: What I'm saying Don, not that we're promising them something but I think we're in the process of discussing items with them and the Council should be looking at what those are ahead of time. Don Ashworth: I do have a listing and I thought I had sent it. It goes through an outline of all of the tasks that need to be accomplished. Councilman Boyt: I'm talking about a green space variance or impervious surface var lance. Don Ashworth: Are you aware of anything? Jo Ann Olsen: They don't have to receive that...under 30% impervious surface. Todd Gerhardt: We did a swap with, there's a 4 acre of land for park dedication that has been chang~ to 2 acre so...park dedication and trail fees. Councilman Johnson: Is that the only variance that we know of at this time? Todd Gerhardt: There may be some wetland alterations. Mayor Hamilton: Dealing with those ponds and the road right? 63 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Counci/man Johnson: Right [ Mayor Hamilton: We've already done that before so that shouldn't be a problem. Don Ashworth: It's exactly the same issue as was presented for Sunnybrook. Jo Ann Olsen: They're altering it a lot more this time. Councilman Geving: But not from the road standpoint though on Lake Drive East or West. Mayor Hamilton: Well, we need to take a look at it. Councilman Boyt: That's all I'm suggesting is let's get the issues out on the table. Todd Gerhardt: ...and we haven't even selected a contractor yet and that selection should be made by the end of the week. Mayor Hamilton: Is there anything else? Don Ashworth: Not on 13 (a) or (b). There is the item for 13(c) which is the request to move ahead with the feasibility study for Lake Drive East. Resolution ~88-1~4: CounciLman Horn moved, CounciLman Geving seconded to authorize the feasibility study for Lake Drive East/Market Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the TIF Agreement with HRA as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. TREE PROTECTION POLICIES. Jo Ann Olsen: The DNR forester did an inventory...stands of trees and for us to use that as our guide on whether or not we would like to start up a preservation of forest in this area. He's offering his time to do that. Instead of using staff time they've got mass inventory of existing stands of vegetation...and present that to the Council on whether or not they want to pursue that to give us a little bit more foresight on whether those trees... Councilman Geving: I say let's do it. Councilman Boyt: It's a great idea. Councilman Johnson: Wetlands can be restored in a number of years, trees can't. Councilman Geving: It doesn't cost us anything and Alan Olson has been pretty straight with the City. He's willing to work with us. Councihnan Horn: Besides that, I think that we have some unique tree areas. Jo Ann Olsen: A lot of them have been on developed sites. 64 Ci%y Council Meeting - September 26~ 1988 Councilman Horn: We have r~mnants of the great woods yet which very few people have. Mayor Hamilton: You realize we spend more t~e and money worrying about the trees than we do about our children. Councilman Horn: I think four years from now you'll see that. Mayor Hamilton: Four years from now I'm worried about what my kids will be doing. Do we need a motion on that one? Jo Ann Olsen: No, I just wanted to know if it was worth passing along. DESIGN FUNDING REQUEST, TH 212. Councilman Horn: I was surprised to see this. We talked about this a couple of weeks ago and we have a meeting coming up next Wednesday and I intend to bring this issue up. Don Ashworth: Would you like to have it tabled? I recall we talked about it but I didn't know that there was any formal conclusion. Mayor Hamilton: Two weeks ago I brought this up. Councilman Horn: That's right. Tom brought it up two weeks ago and we said that we would pursue it at a coalition meeting. This item has not been discussed at a coalition meeting yet. Councilman Geving: I would move that we table this item. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to send a message to the coalition saying that we are not in favor of it. I think that would be a stronger position. Councilman Geving: Alright. Councilman Horn: What I intend to do as Chanhassen's representative to the coalition is to suggest that we use a criteria s~milar to what was used on the TH 5 funding and that was the cities that receive the most benefit pay the most. I think we should use a consistent criteria with TH 212. Councilman Geving: And I'd agree with you if you included the counties the same way. Carver and Hennepin. Councilman Horn: I think the general criteria was that the people who benefited the most, pay the most. That was the criteria used and I plan to suggest that on Wednesday for the criteria for this. I don't agree that what's suggested here does. This wasn't a recom~endation of the coalition. This appears to be Bob Lyndahl's reconm]endation. Mayor Hamilton: There isn't even a significant benefit here. That's a lot of money for no benefit. 65 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 Councilman Geving: For 16 months? It isn't worth itl Mayor Hamilton: I think I'd like to see you tie that in somehow. Using the criteria for TH 5 is fine but TH 5 had significant benefits to getting the job done. This doesn't guarantee anything. Councilman Horn: That's a secondary issue too. I think an issue is, would this be fair if we got a good benefit frc~n it? The other issue you're addressing now is, for this ~nat kind of benefit do you really get? Councilman Geving: I say we get no guarantee. Councilman Horn: That's always with the highway. Councilman Geving: Where did Bob Lyndahl get involved in this process? Councilman Horn: He's Chaska's representative. Councilman Geving: But I see he's an Attorney working with this Holmes and Graven. Councilman Horn: Holmes and Graven is not part of the task force. He works for them and wrote it on their letterhead as Chaska's representative. Councilman Geving: I got the impression he was working as an attorney, not as a representative from Chaska. Councilman Horn: No. That's not my impression anyway. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept the City Manager's rec~rmendation and to send that with Councilman Horn to the next coalition meeting stating that the Council is not in favor of contributing $10~,g00.0g in additional benefits. The criteria should be established by the coalition. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and the motion carried. Councilman Horn: I don't think we should send that message at this point. I think it should be discussed by the coalition first. Mayor Hamilton: Well, it gives you a stronger position. You already know where we' re at. Councilman Horn: I know where we're at. NEW/EXISTING INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. Todd Gerhardt: Staff is looking for some type of direction from Council on how they would like to...outlying districts out of our tax increment district. ...that would be the CPT site, Beddor site or some of those sites... Councilman Johnson: Do we have an economic development district for tax increment? 66 City Council M~eting - September 26~ 1988 Todd Gerhardt: We could create an economic development district in %here~ Councilman Johnson: Aren't they currently in one? Todd Gerhardt: No. Mayor Hamilton: Good idea. I think we should do anything possible to keep the businesses that are in our cor~nunity here and to encourage others to come. Councilman Geving: Regardless of where they're located. Councilman Horn: HRA addressed this. There's really two sides to the HRA. The only thing that we've seen so far is the downtown redevelopment but housing and redevelopment is the name of the agency and one of the things we looked at several years ago when we were in an economic housing slump in the City was getting the HRA involved in this to try and give a little incentive to some of our local developers. At that time there was no interest in it but I think it's good to address it again. Everybody's going to be interested in it now because of the way housing is going. Especially if the interest rates should start creeping up. Todd Gerhardt: Just to update Council a little bit, staff has received a 73 unit apartment, 8-plex complex for the James property. It should be in within the next couple of months. ~ney're going to be asking for special assessment assistance but they are within the tax incrament district. Staff will probably be carrying incentive progr~ns now for a business in Chanhassen and looking at bringing more...facility within the next week. We will pass... Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 67