Loading...
1988 06 13CMANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. ~he meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCI~ERS PRESENT: Cbuncilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman' Geving and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Lori Siets~ma, Todd Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGfI~DA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the followirg changes: Councilman Johnson wanted to move item 5, Bluff Creek Drive Boadway Improv~ts to be placed on the Consent Agenda and to move item 20(c), Update on Sprinkling Ban, I~quest Ordinance Amendment to the Visitors Presentations so the residents present at the meeting could bear t/~ update as well. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended 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 recommendations: a. Besolution 988-49: Approval of Downtown Redevelofm~.~nt Phase II Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids. b. Resolution 988-50: Authorization to Amend West 78th Street Feasibility Study. c. Besolution 988-51: Accept Utilities in Chanhassen Vista Fourth Addition. d. Resolution 988-52: Accept Utilities in Saddlebrook Addition. f. Resolution 988-53: Approve Preliminary Assessment Roll for Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project No. 86-13 and Set Public Hearing Date. g. Resolution 988-54: Approval of Plans and Specifications for Minnewashta Meadow~ and Authorize the Advertising fox Bids. h. Approval of Ordinance No. 87 Amending Section 20-263 (6), Final Reading. i. Approval of Ordinance No. 88 Rezoning 2 acres from A-2 to MF, Final Reading. j. Approval of Findings of Fact, Driveway Access Permit on Pleasant View k. Approve 1989 ~ Grant Application Projects. 1. Request to defer Park and Trail Dedication Fees, Mike Sorenson. m. Final Plat Approval, Lake Susan Hills West. 262 City Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 n. Richard Ersbo, 1211 Lake Lucy Road: 1. Preliminary Plat Approval to create 5 single family lots. 2. Wetland Alteration Permit to develop within 200 feet of a Class A Wetland. r. Reassign Conditional Use Permit, Jack Brambilla. t. Approval of Accounts. u. City Council Minutes dated May 16, 1988 City Council Minutes dated May 23, 1988 Planning Cc~mission Minutes dated May 18, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 1, 1988 Park and Becreation Cc~m~ission Minutes dated May 24, 1988 Public Safety C(mmission Minutes dated May 19, 1988 v. Resolution #88-55: Bluff Creek Roadway Improvements. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Roger Knutson: Just one small correction. I don' t think it' s necessary to pull it but there's a typographical error in item l(j) which our office prepared. On page 2 of that item, the first line refers to, in the road east of Mr. Hanson's lot. It should be in the road west. I got my directions backwards. If you just ~ant to note that one change. TH: Will Mr. Hanson be made aware of that change or already has been? Gary Warren: Yes. CONSENT AGENDA: (E) APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR STRATFORD RIDGE ADDITION, BOB PIERCE. Councilman Boyt: The only comment I have about this is on the tree removal plan and I'd like to see our develol~ent contract language changed to reflect this as well. The applicant is required to submit a tree removal plan but it doesn't saying anything about the City having the ability to approve or disapprove of that plan and I would like to see the plan must meet approval by the City Ergineer added to the language. Mayor Hamilton: .That's item (k) so you want to add to that, the applicant should supply tbs City with a tree removal plan that will be approved by the City Engineer. Anybody have a problem with that? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Develolz~ent Contract for Stratford Ridge Addition with the noted changes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - JUne 131 1988 CONSENT AGENDA: (O) DEVELOPMENT SITES LIMITED, LOCATED WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO AUDUBON ROAD I~DIATELY NORTH OF THE CHICAG0-MIL~UKEE RAILROAD TRACKS. Mayor Hamilton: Tne reason I asked to have this off is I would like to see us develop some type of a plan to review areas that may be proposed for lar~ swaps within and without the MUSA. I'm not convinced that this would be my ntm~ber one priority if we're going to take and swap some lands inside the MUSA and then take others out. We're nearly out of single family residential property. That would be a concern of mine. We're moving ahead with a project here that I guess I question ~hat it's going to bring the ccmm~unity but yet w~ refuse to hardly even talk to people like Mills Fleet Farm who could bring a facility here and to the Merle Volk property ~ahich could have generated a great deal of funds for this community. I felt, in reading this, that we may be applying a different standard for this than we have to others and I wasn't too happy to see it on here. Primarily again is if we're goirg to swap lar~ts, I'd like to ~ us come up with a plan of how w~'re, what lands would we put in the MI]SA and what lands would we swap them with ar~ how do w~ go about designated those lands? Anyone else have any comments? Councilman Geving: I think the vehicle for doing that is the housing plan that we're working. You talked about single family. Wouldn't a Mark Koegler involv~nt in the (k~prehensive Plan be a part of that kind of arrangement Barbara? Barbara Dacy: As a part of our ~ Plan update process we are looking at all of the lands directly adjacent to existing MI]SA area to see if they can be served by gravity sewer so you could include ~ into the M~SA. The l~nd swap on this piece took place in 1984 so we are finding as we are developing there are these small chunks of property that can be added to the MUSA but we are undertaking that study. Mayor Hamilton: The c~m~ercial development that may take place here does not require 12.2 acres. The comnercial development that's going to take place on this property does not require the 12.2 acres. Is that right? Councilman Johnson:' There are t~ outlota. Barbara Dacy: You ~ to add in 12 acres in order for the industrial subdivision to apply. Mayor Hamilton: Why? Barbara Dacy: Because 12 acres is outside of the existing MUSA at this point on this site. Mayor Hamilton: But what I'm saying is, they're talking about doing some single family housing on the south end of this piece of property. The whole piece of property is not required for their develolament. Barbara Dacy: The single family housing, they can only develop at a rate of 1 unit per 10 acres so they would not need sewer and ~ater at this time. Mayor Hamilton: But if it's inside the MI]SA why would we do it that way? If w~'re putting 12.2 acres inside the MUSA then you can have sewer and water to it~ Why wouldn't we do it? Why would we say okay, you can divide into 10 acre lots? Barbara Dacy: Tne single family area that you're referring to is way outside the MUSA. It's about 1,000 feet to the west of it. The parcel is 60 acres in size and the single family area covers the w~stern 40 to 50 acres of that piece. The only area that can be serviced by gravity sewer is the 12 acres that we're proposing to add. Councilman Geving: I think you've got a good idea though T~n. There could be scme areas where we need either single family or comnercia] or industrial and Tom has got a good point. Let's build it into the Oanp Plan. Mayor Hamilton: Or develop some type of a scheme ourselves so that we know when someone comes in and makes a request such as this that it's a prioritized piece of land that we want to have inside the MUSA or we don't. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following consent agenda ibsm pursuant to the City Manager's ' · recomnendatlons. Development Site Limited, Located West of and Adjacent to Audubon Road immediately North of the Chicago-Milwaukee Railroad Tracks: 1. Besolution 988-56: Lane Use Plan Amendment to amend the City of Chanhassen Year 2000 Land Use Plan to add 12.2 acres to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and to change the Land Use Designation from Agricultural to Industrial. 2. Rezoning of 5.6 acres from A-2, Agricultural Estate to IOP, Industrial Office Park, First Reading. 3. Preliminary Plat Approval to create 5 industrial lost and 2 outlots on 62.86 acres of property. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (P) APPROVAL OF ARCHITfL"T'S AGREfMENT, FIRE STATION, EOS CORP. Mayor Hamilton: The next one is item (p), I asked to have off because I merely wanted to have the City Attorney review tb~ standard form of agreanent between owner and architect to make sure that we don't end up in the same situation that we were in previously with another architect we dealt with. I'm just asking that the City Attorney review this and if there are any changes that need to be made, that they would ccme back to us on the consent again. Does anybody have a problem with that? Councilman Johnson: So you're approving pending review by the City Attorney? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Councilman Boyt: I have another question as long as you pulled it off. Jim, I have a question for you on this. I see that when we went back and fine tuned the drawings that we added a parapet and I'm curious as to what that is and what it's function is. A $10,000.00 parapet because of the higher doors. City Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 265 Jim Chaffee: We're talking about the fire station, additional apparatus space. They were originally designed in there right from the very beginning. Because of the difference in size in one bay to the other one, to make it look even, we had to add a parapet over the existing bays just to make it look even otherwise you're going to have to step up where the new one is going to be. Councilman Boyt: Is a parapet like a false wall? Jim Chaffee: Well, it's a wall. A real wall. Councilman Boyt: It's a wall but there's nothing behind it. Jim Chaffee: Right. Councilman Boyt: I have another question on ~hat's the 5% contingency fee for? I didn't understand that. That's $2,~.00. Jim Chaffee: That's for any contingency that may arise. Mayor Hamilton: Foresea~ problems. Councilman Boyt: So we're saying on a $45,000.00 contract that they ~nt $2,000.00 float in there? Jim Chaffee: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Is that fairly typical? Gary Warren: Yes. Councilman Boyt: It's a nice business. Councilman Johnson: They have to sper~ it to get it. Don Ashworth: That' s our money though, ghat' s our contingency. ~hat' s not being paid to then. Councilman Geving: It gives us a little float. Gary Warren: It covers the bidding climate. Unfore~___~ changes in the field which is typical. S~metimes it runs even up to 10%. Councilman Boyt: My last c~mment on this item is I would like to see that color renderings be minimized. So ~ your architect comes in and says we want to give you a two perspective color rendering of this with people star~ing out front, I would like you to turn that down. Mayor Hamilton: That shouldn't be necessary I wouldn't think. Councilman Boyt: I wouldn't think so but I can assure you that they will get the opportunity to buy one of those. City Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Architect's Agreenent pending review by the City Attorney for the Fire Station. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (Q) APPROVAL OF FORMAL COMMITS, LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF LAKES CLEAN-UP PROJfL-~. Councilman Johnson: In the resolution, the second Whereas, it says whereas public access is required, I'd like to change that to desired. I'm putting sc~e must words in here a little bit. Tne second paragraph, Now Therefore be it resolved the City of Chanhassen will comnit to this attached schedule and instead of saying so as I'd like to substitute in, to attempt to provide public access to Lake Lucy and Lake Susan. You don't think it will fly? Councilman Geving: No. Councilman Johnson: We're committing to attempt to do it? Councilman Geving: That's what they want is a commitment. Councilman Johnson: We're comnitting to attempt to do it. If it's not feasible, if it's not possible. We'll do everything in our power to do it but. Mayor Hamilton: ~ney want us to provide it period and that's all they want. Councilman Geving: They want a comnitment Jay. And it is required, not desired. Councilman Johnson: Under what laws is it required? It's desired by the DNR and they are holding us blackmail to do it which is, I'm just trying to drag my feet a little bit against it. I don't like a gun stuck up my back. Councilman Geving: I think if we are wishy-washy about this particular co~mi~t the project will fail and w~'ll go through a lot more comments on this thing. Councilman Johnson: I'm looking to protect us in the future. Councilman Geving: I think w~ all understar~ what you're getting at but I read it too and I had the same feeling but I do believe that if w~ go through and are not totally coa~itted to this, they'll back off of the total project. Councilman Johnson: Are we fully committed to providing a public boat access to Lake Lucy? Mayor Hamilton: You bet. Why not? Why shouldn't we be? It's a public lake. Councilman Horn: Ail lakes are public. Councilman Boyt: I think that Eden Prairie was smart in protecting their money and saying they wouldn't make theirs available unless we indicated that we were going to provide public access to Lake Lucy. There are some possible ways we can provide public access and have minimal impact on Lake Lucy. I think that City Oouncil Meeting - June 13 ~ 1988 267 those need to be worked out and Lori l~u were going to go to a meeting or you haven' t gone to it yet. Lori Sietssma: Yes, we did and basically the meeting involved finding out what would qualify as an access ar~ there are two things they said. It has to be equal to whatever the riparian bxm~eowners have rights to on that lake. If they can have a ski boat, than you have to have an access that will launch a s~ boat. ~he other one was one car/trailer parking space for 20 acres of lake surface. Councilman Boyt: I think that one of the questions that we have to ask ourselves is are we prepared to limit boat use on Lake Lucy as we have on Lake Ann. If we are than we have an access possibility that has minim~ impact on the shoreline of Lake Lucy. If we're not, than we're talking about something that's going to be quite a bit bigger. I think that's an important issue. Councilman Johnson: How many acres are we talking? Lori Sietsema: It would require 7 car/trailer parking spaces ~ahich they're willing to deviate a little bit. Sc~e of' those could be on the street. They wouldn' t all have to be off-street. Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill has a good point. We're going to have to have a public bearing to have the lakeshore and the people around Lake Lucy come in here to ~ if they'd be willing to do that type of thing. ~hat's a good idea and I don't see any reason why they couldn't do that. We can att~ to move ahead with that type of a thing. I think it would be really neat. Councilman Boyt: What's our constraint as far as paying our $8,30~.~? Do we have a deadline we have to pay that by? Jo Ann Olsen: They're just waiting to start. ~hey're looking for this and then when they get the go ahead. Mayor Hamilton: We're not saying that we have to have a public access that is going to launch speed boats. We're just saying a public access. Councilman Horn: That's exactly the procedure we used on Lotus Lake and it turns out that enough people use Lotus Lake ar~ live on Lotus Lake were not willing to give up or limit their horse power so this is the type of thing we go through everytime we have an access issue. Councilman Johnson: A lot less people on Lucy. Councilman Horn: Yes, I'd say we have a much better chance on Lake Lucy. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to see us pass the motion or pass the resolution with that idea in mind that the Park and Bec hold a public hearing ar~ take c~mment from the people around Lake Lucy. They ~ to be willing to do the same ty[~ of thing as we're doing on Lake Ann. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask another question of Lori. Did we look at or talk to the DNR on the alternative of us doirg the treatment of Lake Lucy? Part of the cost that they're giving us is for them to cc~e in arid do the fish City Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 kill on Lake Lucy and for them then to restock Lake Lucy with non-rough fish. Did w~ talk to them about whether they'd see us do that for them? Lori Sietsema: They said that it w~uldn't be possible for them to do the fish kill if we did not provide access. They couldn't kill the fish and they could not restock it and they couldn't install the aerator so that would have to be done by the city. Councilman Johnson: Would it stop the whole project? That sounds like they are relenting a little bit if they say... Lori Sietsema: Tney wouldn't give us a firm, I don't know. Jo Ann do you remember? Mayor Hamilton: I think we're getting a little off the track here and I don't want to. We've got a long evening ahead of us and we're talking about things that have nothing to do with what we're talking about right now. Councilman Johnson: We're cc~mitting here to giving public access and we're not sure yet whether we have to make that cc~nitment is what they're saying. They're looking at an option... Mayor Hamilton: ~ney are. We do have to make that cc~mitment to have a public access on that lake. How that public access functions is s~nething that we have to determine yet but it seems, to start talking now about us doing a fish kill, which we have no capability of doing and restocking, which we don't have the capab i 1 i ty. Councilman Johnson: We're not starting talking about this Mr. Mayor. I talked about this a month ago or whenever it was where this last came up and I asked staff to look into this. They have and now they're presenting us an option. Mayor Hamilton: That's fine but it's not the ibs~ that we're concerned about tonight. We need to pass a resolution stating that we will provide public access on Lake Lucy. Councilman Johnson: Even though we have an option that staff is still pursuing. Jo Ann Olsen: It's not a favorable option. Councilman Johnson: I guess you can believe staff or not but we need to move ahead with this. Any other questions on item l(q)? Councilman Boyt: What we're voting on then is we're really saying that we're coa~nitted to putting s~me sort of public access on Lake Lucy and we are going to then go through the appropriate process to decide what sort of public access that will be? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Well, this is a major decision we're making. This might be scmething where it would be helpful to have public input since all we're talking about is delaying the project for a few weeks. We're not talking about killing the project. 269 City Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 Don Ashworth: Are they not considering a PCA reshifting dollars and they consider this has ~ held up a year... PCA, I think is the one who is taking the strongest position. ~ is the one who talked about potentially we could do the kill. Maybe not but it's PCA that's saying, we have our money involved in -chis. It's been going on for a long period of time. We need a cc~mi~t from you people. If it's not made within the timeframe that we're talking about, those dollars will be reshuffled ~re else. Mayor Hamilton: I think they recall what's happened with the Lake Ann access and we hassled then for years on that project and we still continue to hassle then, or some of the neighbors do. I think they're sick ar~ tired or screwing around with us. Councilman Horn: I think something we can't forget either is the DNR always has the right to go in and establish their own public access on any lake. We're not going to stop them from doing that. Mayor Hamilton: We can go through the process and put in an access like Bill had said and if the neighbors agree to make it a quiet lake, that's s~nething we can do. Otherwise, they can put in their access and they will do it. ~bey'll buy the property, put their own access in ~ they'll run it the way they darn well please. ThOse are our choices. Councilman Boyt: But aren't we saying t~at we're going to buy the property amd put in the access if it has to be a power boat access? Councilman Geving: We haven't said that. ~hat's ~ahat I thought would come out of the pq. blic hearing. Councilman Boyt: But I 'm saying Dale, if it does, aren't we saying that it will. If they say we won't give up our motor boat... Mayor Hamilton: I think we're saying we'll provide a public access. How we provide it hasn't b~. determi~ yet with who's funds. Like Lake Ann. We provided the public access. It was with their funds. We went through the condennation of the property but we bought it basically with their funds. Don Ashworth: Staff tried to protect the City in here as well. I know the time table requires that a ~ application be received. There are ceiiirgs on those. It limits the City's participation to 25%. If we get into a situation where the only land that's available is $300, 00~. 00 or some other type of option, we have a reasonable basis for why we could not complete it. Similarly we have a caveat regarding Lake Drive East which is a major heart of the decision of Lake Susan. Resolution 988-57: councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn secor~ted to adopt the resolution outlining the City's c~mi~ for public access on Lake Lucy and Lake Susan for the Lake Riley (~ain of Lakes clean-up project and at the same time directing the Park and Recreation (kmmission to develop a public meeting schedule date. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ~~y Council Mseting - JUne 13, 1988 CONSENT AGENDA: (S) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT, CHARLES ERICKSON SIDE YARD VARIANCE REQUEST, 3621 IRONWOOD. Councilman Bolt: Having read the Findings of Fact, I think this is an ill advised variance. Even though the Attorney finds that the City could defend it, w~'re basically putting the burden on the adjacent property owner when that piece of property is developed. I just don't find an overwhelming need to support this variance and so I would like to see us turn it down. Mayor Hamilton: I still think it's a good variance for all the reasons stated. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Findings of Fact for the side yard valance for Charles Erickson, 3621 Ironwood. All voted in favor except councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson w~o opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. VISITORS PRESENTATION: 20(C) UPDATE ON SPRINKLING BAN, REQUEST ORDINANCE AME~tXMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY DIOR. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, there are really two parts to this. There's an update and then there's the requested ordinance amenclnent. On the update, as most of you might be aware, on Saturday, June 4th there w~s a critical water shortage that occurred in the City and the Fire Chief was so notified by water personnel on duty. After consulting with the City Manager, the Fire Chief did implement by his authority under the UFC a complete and total sprinkling ban in the City of Chanhassen. That was Saturday evening. Sunday during the day the. Fire Department was out in force enforcing the total watering ban that the Chief had put on the day before. On Monday everybody got together and decided on w~at the best course of action was to take in light of the emergency that was occurring... (A tape break occurred during Jim Chaffee's presentation.) . ..enough water capacity to suppress a fire. Those were the emergency conditions under which Dale Gregory made his decision. Once w~ had the total ban in effect, w~ started looking at an easing of those conditions under a permit system. We got control of it under the total ban and then w~ ease into a permit syst~n whereby we would issue permits to people who came in with special considerations such as newly seeded lawns or newly sodded lawns or some special conditions requiring watering of their gardens. To date we've issued over 125 permits for those conditions. We are keeping a relatively good handle on the water capacity and we se~n to be in control at this point in time. Pretty much that's where we stand right now. Mr. Mayor, do you want to get into the amendment to the ordinance? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we want to complete that while we're on it. 10 City Council Meeting - JUne 13, 1988 271 Jim Chaffee: Okay. (]ne of the problems that w~ found while researching the different avenues of restrictions was that under our present code we have provided for what amounts to civil penalties. I think Roger might be able to address this better-than I. That because of the way our Code is worded, once we provide for civil penalties under our Code, it takes away any kind of criminal violations or criminal penalties for that sectio~ whereby we can not then, as Code Enforcement Officers, issue citations. We can only handle it through a civil process which would be a little bit time consuning, especially in the case of the sprinkling ban. Instead of issuing a citation and hopefully putting a stop to it immediacy, we have to follow it through what I would consider even a monthly process of $50.~0 a day penalty and if they don't pay we add it onto their bill ar~ it really wouldn't in effect prevent people from watering their lawn at that moment in time. Roger, is that basically it? Roger Knutson: Exactly it. Jim Chaffee: Okay, so what we're asking is that the Council. consider just eliminatin~ that to~] mention of having any kind of civil fines in that particular section of the Code. That's all it is. JUst eliminating that one section and leavirg the rest the way it is. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions of Jim on the sprinkling? Councilman Geving: JUst one cc~m~t. I think the biggest thing is notifying people in the commmity as to what the status of our sprinkling ban is. When it w~nt on it was kind of by word of mouth by the firemen going door to door. The next I knew the firenen came to my door ar~ told me and then I saw it on the TV. Now we' re in it. The question is how do we now infom the people and I think the best thing to do is to just exactly do what we did this week. Get your coements into the Villager where everybody in the ccemunity will see it in print and also use the electronic media. Go to the TV stations. I think that was very effective and I suspect in order for that to happen we would have to do it with the publication of the Villager. The cycle would have to be something so that Mary could pick it up in the Villager and carry it so that's the only thought that I have is when we get finally to the point where we're in pretty good shape and we can come off the total ban and go to some other level. Jim Chaffee: Those are good thoughts ar~ we' learned last year that commmications is the best tool that we have and we're going to try and keep that up with Mary's help. Councilman Horn: ~ho makes the determination of who gets granted a permit and who doesn't? Jim Chaffee: That's up to Dale Gregory and Scott Harr. Councilman Horn: So if somebody has a garden that's dying, will they get a permit or who decides ~ahen they are a significant enough garden to be dying? Jim Chaffee: To my knowledge they have not denied a permit yet. Councilman Horn: I can't imagine anybody's garden that 'isn't dying. 11 272 City Council Meeting - June 13 ~ 1988 Jim Chaffee: That is correct Councilman Horn: So it would seem to me that anybody could ccme in and request that. Jim Chaffee: One of the other restrictions we had is that even under the permit system you can not leave an unsupervised sprinkler syst~n. You have to hand hold the hose and water that way. That's another way we gain control. People aren't just going to leave their sprinklers out and forget about them. I don't know how long you can sit there and hold a hose. It depends on how dear you are to your garden but those are one of the other restrictions that we put on. Councilman Horn: What about, I don't think you mentioned anything in here about watering from buckets. Is that okay? Jim Chaffee: Yes, you can water with buckets. councilman Horn: So can you wash your car with a bucket? Jim Chaffee: It's one of those things where we don't think we can enforce somebody from filling up their buckets in their house and going out and dumping it on their trees anyway. I guess it would be a judgment call for the people out doing the enforcenent and if they see somebody washing their car with buckets of water, I don't know that that's going to happen all that often where it's really going to crimp our water capacity. councilman Horn: I guess my point is, I think we're getting a little too fine in detail on what we're restricting. The major use as I see it is the unattending sprinkler. I think we could accomplish what we're trying to with that without getting into such great detail of what we allow ar~ what we don't. You can have buckets but not this. Jim Chaffee: That could very well be. Hopefully, God willing we'll get some rain and we'll get out of this just as soon as we can. Mayor Hamilton: I think I had asked once before that we somehow or the staff come up with some type of a method to have different levels of sprinkling bans so that when you go to Level 1, if we have a total sprinkling ban like we have now, you could tell us what that includes. If it continued to stay bad and we were still losing ground, what's the next level that gets shut down and then the next. We've never done that and I think it would make our job a lot easier if we knew at each step as we go along who's going to be shut down next until we get to an ultimate, you get a glass of water a day or something but I think we need to have something that gives us an outline so the public will know where we're at. That ties in with what Clark's saying. Gary Warren: The difficulty in that and I guess we have internally set up, tried to be systematic on how we approach the ban, is that up to this point and our reservoir certainly will provide us a little bit better buffer to the system but up until this point the three-quarters of our users, depending on 100,000 gallons of elevated water here, we've gone down very rapidly and we had the luxury of a lot of transition time to get to that point so we should be able to be better at that with the larger reservoir on line. 12 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 i'83 Mayor Hamilton: My cc~ment too that the public has responded extremely wall to the ~nergency and we've ~ able to gain groun~ rather than continue to lose it. It's the use of all the medias. The South Shore, the Villager, the Herald. We need to use the~ all to get the word out, not just one, to be most effective. Councilman Boyt: I would propose, since we're considering an ordinance change, that we also look at changing the wording, to follow up on Clark's point possibly. As it reads now it goes, determining which water may be used from the City's water supply system and then it gives the specifics that Clark just talked about. I think we should strike the specifics. That gives us flexibility to restrict whatever needs to be restricted at the time rather than saying we're going to particularly limit lawn, garden, irrigation, car washing and the list goes on forever so there's no real r~ for a list. I think in the ordinance we r~ to also address that on a temporary euergency basis the City Manager and Fire Chief can decide, that this does not have to be strictly a City Council action. As we've demonstrated, we don't have the ability to respond that quickly. I would suggest those two things be considered when you ~mit the change. Councilman Johnson: I think we ought to just also change the title from sprinkling restrictions to water use because we're not necessarily only talking sprinkling. If we have a water use energency, we're restricting water use. If that includes shutting down Gary Brown's car wash so I can't drive down there and wash my car since I can' t use my bucket in my front yard. ~nat's a suggestion for the charge there. The other thing is the current total ban was put on as an ~nergency under the Uniform Fire Codes e~ergency procedures. As I understand it, the omergerm-y has ~t passed. We're now into a watering ban that has been put on by City staff versus an e~ergency watering ban that was authorized. For a continuing watering ban, I see that the Council has to pass, right now the Council has passed a resolution, an even-odd watering ban, not a total watering ban. Councilman Boyt: No, we did. Councilman Johnson: At what point did we pass the total watering ban? Mayor Hamilton: Last Monday. Councilman Geving: We had a special session. Mayor Hamilton: Last Monday after we met with the Board of Equalizatio~ we talked about it and we passed a ~atering ban. Councilman Johnson: We didn't pass a resolution. We just discussed it with staff. Nobody ever voted. We w~ren't in a formal session. It was not a legal ~m~cting at all. Mayor Hamilton: What do you mean it's not a legal meeting? We were certainly in session weren't we? It' s a legal m~cting. Councilman Johnson: We had closed our Board of fk~ualization meeting. Mayor Hamilton: We were still convened. We were not adjourned. It's a legal ty Council Y~eting - JUne 131 1988 meeting. We're dealing with an emergency issue. Tne ~nergency has not passed. I haven't seen it rain here. Councilman Johnson: To my recollection w~ were adjourned. Mayor Hamilton: We did adjourn. Not until after. Don Ashw~rth: Staff recorded that as a Council action. Councilman Johnson: I didn't realize that. Do you want this voted on tonight? These changes? Mayor Hamilton: We need t_he ordinance amendment voted on. This would be the first reading. Councilman Johnson: DO we need a first reading for this ordinance? Mayor Hamilton: For an ordinance amendment you need to have two readings. This would be the first one for this one. Councilman Boyt: I would like to make a motion that the City .amend Section 19-28, the water use ordinance and that we amend it to read, whenever the City Council or on a temporary ~ergency basis the City Manager and Fire Chief shall determine and then it shall read as it now reads through the fourth line down which says city water supply system. We'll put a period there and strike for lawn and garden sprinkling, irrigation, car washing and other uses specified therein. Then w~'ll strike the section that indicates what the penalty will be. Is that in accordance with your reco~nended changes? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Horn: I' 11 second the motion. , Councilman Johnson: JUst one little item. You're putting a period after system. I'd like to have a resolution ~ow say uses as specified in our resolution so that our resolution, it will be obvious that w~ will specify what water restrictions we're going to put on. So we can't just say water restrictions. I'm saying, city water supply syst~n uses specified therein. Talking about the resolution I guess it would be. Councilman Boyt: I'm alright. It's okay? Mayor Hamilton: Read it again how you want to change that please Bill? Councilman Boyt: I'm suggesting three changes. The first change is that we include, on a temporary ~m~ergency basis the City Manager and Fire Chief as being able to make the decision to put us on a water use restriction. The second change is that in the fourth line it says, city water supply system. I'm suggesting that we put a period there ar~ strike what's between that and the existing end of the sentence, specified therein. Tne third change that we strike the $50.00 for each day of such violation so that in fact people can be fined $750.00 a day. Mayor Hamilton: I have a question where you say, limit the times and hours 14 2'75 City Council Mseting - June 13~ 1988 during which ~a~er may be used from the water supply system. I think if w~ don't, I think people are accustomed to a normal ban now of sprinkling and washing cars. T~ose two things I think are the most nonnal. If you just say you can't use the water supply syst~n, does that mean I can't flush or do dishes? I think we need to be, you want to make sure that they understand that it's sprinkling of yards that really draws the water down. Councilman Boyt: Well, then let's get to Jay's ite~ where we indicate in the resolutio~ what would be restricted. I think Clark makes a very good point of let's keep this as general as we can and if there is a concern that we're going to create an unncessary wariness o~ the part of people, then we need to loosen that up. Mayor Hamilton: If you're not so specific then you're going to have an awful lot of questions and it makes it more difficult for the staff to enforce it. Councilman Horn: Let's be specific. Let's put it as to an unattended water use. Mayor Hamilton: That'd be fine. Unattended watering use is that would cover anything you could think of probably. Councilman Geving: We already provided for a permit basis. Don't you think that should be built back in here? We are providing for a permit to be acquired fr(x~ City Hall for specific purposes such as the lawn, seeding and the new sodded lawn. I think that should be put in here too that the City may provide permits in cases where new seeded lawns, sodded lawns and whatever, extreme e~ergencies, a pennit can be provided by the City for that. I think that could be put in here. As long as we're already doing it, let's make it part of the ordinance. Don Ashworth: Listening to each of these things, if you had something that would say, it my by resolution limit the use, times, and hours during which water may be used. We would then develop three different resolutions that you literally could pick out which would gradually get more restrictive in terms of the use. ~he first use would be an odd/even type of allowance. ~he second one would be unattended and the third would be a total ban. You could go that again by resolution. Mayor Hamilton: You'll incorporate that into the Section 19-28 then right? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Are we going to change the name? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Water useage restricted. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to ~ Section 19-28 of the City Code to read as follows: Section 19-28. Water Use Restricted: 15 186 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Whenever the City Council or on a temporary e~ergency basis, the City Manager or Fire Chief shall determine that a shortage of water supply threatens the city, it may by resolution limit the use, times, and hours during which water may be used from the city water supply system. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRAM. Mayor Hamilton called the Public Hearing to order. Being there were no cc~m~nts from the public, Mayor Hamilton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: A good bit of this may be more relevant to item 14 and if it is, just tell me and I'll be happy to wait until then. I think that we have to do this in the context that we're living with a school systom that refuses to acknowledge that they're goirg to have increased class sizes. Along with that, if we just accept that as a given for a second, then I think the other thing that we have to look at is that we're actually subsidizing some housing and if we're going to subsidize the housing, I think we should insist upon the very best construction and to me that includes a building exterior. It includes the relative sound proofing of the building and I think the issue of fire resistance is important but that's been addressed. So there's really two issues that I think are in our control that r~_~cd to be addressed as we look at this whole plan. One of those is that we're building the best possible building that we're going to be happy to see t/Tere for the foreseeable future. I guess incorporated in that is that the building be as quiet as possible, which is always an issue in an apartment building. Mayor Hamilton: So you're saying that there perhaps should be different standards for housing of this type than for anybody else? Councilman Boyt: I'm saying if we're putting the City's money into it, I want to put the City's money into the best possible project. I think it gives us some leverage. Mayor Hamilton: In other words, use potentially different standards for this type of building than for others? I guess I would see some problems with that. Don Ashworth: ~ne Housing and Redevelolanent Authority has placed a priority on the housing project for the past two years. One of the difficulties has been financing. Financing for any type of a housing project is very, very difficult at this point in time. One of the vehicles that was found to potentially help them, or there are two vehicles. One is by obtaining tax exempt financing and to obtain tax exempt financing you need to designate at least 20% of the units as elderly and low andmoderate income. ~nat subsidy is really cc~ing from the federal government in terms of the lower bond sale. The City is taking no risk on those bonds. They are in no way pledged by the good faith of the cc~nunity. The second form of subsidy that's being provided is from the Housing and 16 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 2_77 Redevelo~t Authority and it represents an ~ount being offered to the developers to insure that x number of those units, in this case 12, w~uld in fact receive a $200.0~ per month subsidy. To the extent that that falls within the pervue of the City Council, I'd almost have to ask the City Attorney. I think though that the Council has authority in terms of the general powers to approve or deny the request for the federal subsidy which is really again, not something directly out of our pocket. In other w~rds, through the lower interest rate. The third point though, as I believe the answer will really come in item 14. I think the developer is prepared to sta~d in front of you and to go through the quality of construction that they are proposing. This also is an issue that the HRA will be addressing this next Thursday night. Councilman Horn: Just a concern. What typically happens, as w~ four~ out when we've gone through goverm~ental agencies to get assistance on things, they sound like a good deal up front but there are so many restrictions going in that you end up spending more money than what you get back fr~m it. I want to be careful that this doesn't become that type of a program. That we put so many restrictions on it that no one would ever use it. We looked into HRA type of subsidized housing before whe~ we had the ecor~anic housing crunch going on as a means to develop this city and we asked all of the developers to come in and we talked about a program to set that up. None of ~ were interested. They didn't ~ant to get involved in a government type of subsidize even though it wasn't what we consider the typical subsidized housing. They didn't want to be involved in a gov~t program because of the concern over escalating costs once they got into it. Just like our Lake Riley Chain of Lakes things. The further you get into these programs, the more restrictions keep escalating. I think we have to be very careful not to contribute to that. Don Ashworth: If there is any ~cern that the quality of construction is not going to be at the level that you want, maybe you should table the it~ until you hear number 14. If you approve this and then end up trying to deny 14 because of architectural concerns that you have, I think you'd have a probl~. Councilman Boyt: So you're really saying vote against this if we've got any architectural concerns? Don Ashworth: No. Councilman Geving: Just to do item 14 first. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table action on the proposed housing plan and program until it~n 14 has been discussed. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. ' REVIf~ LANDSCAPING PLAN, CURRY FARMS ADDITION. Mayor Hamilton: I think we've looked at this many times. You received a letter from the Kerber's this afternoon. Perhaps each of you had an opportunity to look at it. Do you have any ~ts Barb on the co~ments made by the Kerbers? Barbara Dacy: I haven't received the letter yet that y~u're referring to. 17 278 City Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 Councilman Horn: It was only addressed to councilmen'~ Barbara Dacy: Unless you wanted me to run through what's in the report, I can do that. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I see you've got an overhead. Why don't you put it on and perhaps we can just talk about a few of the changes that the Kerber's would like to see made. I think basically what they're asking for is a little increased density in their trees. Councilman Boyt: If the developer doesn't have any problem with that, maybe that would be a question to ask and then we could just do away with this. Mayor Hamilton: Did the developer receive the letter? If you're going to communicate with people, you've got to do it with everybody. Larry Kerber: I think my wife dropped a couple letters off at City Hall here. Don Ashworth: I'll take the call on the City Hall one. I got the letter. I talked to Karen. I said, did Barb make copies of this for the entire Council? I went to Barb's office. She was in a meeting. I simply went ahead and made copies. I was convinced that Barbara is the normal relay person so therefore I made the copies just assured that she already had it. Barbara Dacy: Well, I can go through the letter. As far as the right turn lane and the berming versus the screening. The Kerber's are correct in saying that during the original Council meeting approval of May 4th of 1987 that a representative frown Centex stood up and said, we will look at either berming or screening of the area between the contractor's yard and Devonshire Drive. The Council is fully aware of the process .that has occurred since then. Then at t/he May 9th, 1988 meeting when the item was up to interpret what the condition of approval was, the Council did ask for staff to ccme up with a reasonable solution to look at screening of the corner from turn lane and s~ne type of screening along the south and west lot lines. Berming in the area in front of the turn lane, because of the ditch section there, I did not propose that because I thought we could take better advantage of the evergreen trees by wrapping them into the Kerber property and matching where their existing elm trees now are at the moment. Secondly, a berm up in this area right next to the ditch section, they may be able to achieve scm~e of that height anyway because I understar~ that you did agree to put in some fill in this area for the evergreens to match the street grade so if you wanted to increase that with fill a little bit, I think that's fine. Because of the amount of trees that we're proposing in here, 16 - 8 foot berms and you have a fairly narrow strip of land in this front area, berming, I did not propose that but took advantage of what the applicant had already indicated that they would plant. As far as the evergreens along the south and west lot lines, again the direction was to try and put to a reasonable solution so w~nt to the ordinance to use as a guide for ccmnercial and industrial properties. The ordinance requires 1 tree per 40 feet and that calculated out to 15 trees. Upon the Kerber's direction, tried to cluster them in the southwest corner to provide maximum screening ability possible but recognizing that there's a large expanse here and changing grades. There's no way that you can screen the entire backyard of the Kerber's property or vica versa. Tae intent being is to try and establish something right-of-way 18 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 279 so we can get a growing stand of trees there. I know the Kerber's expressed to me that 15 trees is not a reasonable solution ar~ they have obviously indicated that here also. Mayor Hamilton: The developer is here. Did you have a chance to read the letter? John Speiss: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Did you have any omm~nts? John Speiss: Right now we accept the plan. Larry Kerber: I have a few c~e~ts. First of all I'd like to, I guess you're always looking at this as just screening for a-contractor's yard. This is really three issues. T~_re's an entrance lar~scaping. ~here's a right turn lane that starts somewhere up here, cuts across .my driveway and all along my property. That's the issue that I'm saying is not addressed. I think that at the last m~cting Mr. Mayor, you indicated there should be sc~e type of berm or s~mething on the right turn lane. This is the issue that I'm saying is not addressed yet. I've got, I don't know how long the turn lane is 250 or 280 feet long. I have nothing other than this little bit that's going to wrap on this corner. So we got a right turn lane issue that r~nains. We've got their entrance landscape planting. We've also got some type of plantings to cover up a contractor's yard. They could be affecting three different people. In this situation they just all happen to be affecting my property. Another point I'd like to make, of the 15 trees here, when I talked to John Speiss, I have 13 trees planted down here that will be destro~ when they fill my property. I said you don't have to plant tbs~ back for me I said as long as you' re going to provide so~e screening. He said at that time they were talking about, he mentioned something about 10 foot on center trees. I said fine. Don't replant my 13 trees, put them up in there so take my 13 trees out and we've got 2 that are actually theirs. Of the 16 trees here, their original plan called for 11 - 12 footers. I suggested cutting the a~ount of trees down using the same dollar figure. That's how we came up with 16 - 8 footers, serving the height. The trees are going to grow. I'm going to take care of them. ~hey're going to grow so that's how I come up with, this plan over the first one only gives me 2 trees more. I would just like to see something along here and I'd like to ~ sc~e more trees hack here. This is not drawn to scale obviously yet. I stuck stakes out there and a 40 foot tree on center, or a 20 foot.., another poing I'd like to make is fr~m here to here their property is now in so~e points 10 feet higher than mine where it used to be lower. I have 150 trees that I had planted putting on my line that are now 3 feet tall. It will take them 7 to 8 years to even reach their height. Another 10 to 12 years to get 5 to 6 feet above it so screening on my part is going to useless in these areas here. I've already got these areas screened. Further screening frc~ my part is just almost going to be useless. Another thing I'd like to point out, these trees are not mine. They're not giving me trees. They're not giving me anything. They're putting ~ on their lots. They're going to bec(x~e the property of these hcmeowtsers. They're not my trees so I just wish you'd consider that in determining how many extra trees we can get here. Also, I'd like to see sor~=thing done here. Scmething definitely stated. Mayor Hamilton: You've got a line of poplars along there now. 19 280 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 .. Larry Kerber: Yes, Chinese Elm aud they are dead and dying. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, that's what I said. ~hey're a little thin right now. Larry Kerber: Yes, and in the winter everything drops on ~. There's no protection. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I don't expect them to replace the trees that you had attempted to plant there and haven't made it but are those trees that are there, those Chinese Elm, are they going to have to be replaced? You' re asking them to replace those with something? Larry Kerber: No, I'm asking to put s(x~e type of buffer out on the property line. The elm trees I have are back in. I'm asking the~ to put something out there because the trees I planted, like I say over the winter they go bare and now they're starting to die ar~ before it was no problem but now with, I would say 50% or more of the traffic using this entrance, I've got all kinds of start and stop traffic here. I've got more noise. I've got more visibility to my yard than I had before. When people drove 45 mph past my place, it wasn't that much of a problem. Now it will be. Mayor Hamilton: It will also be a problem, I don't know how close you can get the trees or how much room there is to plant trees on that turn off because as that's plowed and you throw snow up with salt and all that, it's going to kill whatever is planted there I would think. Larry Kerber: It would have been nice, I agree with you, to hold that road over further and I think I asked to have that done and nothing was considered or if it was considered I never heard. Yes, I agree with that. John Speiss: Carver County won't allow any trees to hang into that 100 foot right-of-way. No green can hang into that area period. Mayor Hamilton: It can't hang into it but it can be up to it or scmething. Larry Kerber: I talked to I assume the same person, maybe you talked to somebody else. Apparently you didn't. I can plant or anything can be planted up to the lot line which is 10 feet from the edge of the blacktop. Barbara Dacy: Just to clarify a couple of things. I guess when we were out on site Mr. and Mrs. Kerber, I didn't understand that you were meaning all the way along the front of your property. We looked at the wrapping of the evergreens to resolve that sight distance issue with the County and we can still wrap the evergreens up to the property line and you had indicated that you were going to remove the first four. As far as berming along here, I just want the Council to be aware that there is a ditch section between those trees and the edge of the pavement. What Mr. Kerber is saying, you would have to remove all those trees and start grading in there. Larry Kerber: You don't have to move. Tnose trees are back so far. I've got 20 feet on the side of those trees for new trees to be planted before I get to my property line. 20 285.'_ City Council M~eting - June 13~ 1988 Barbara Dacy: But you're also saying that you wanted to berm in this area and I'm just saying that you've got a ditch section on one side and then you're into your gravel area and so on. I'm just saying we didn't discuss that. Larry Kerber: I know we didn't and I think I mentioned it and I didn't know you didn't ur~erstar~ it. I thought you just didn't ~mnt to address it. I'm sorry about that. I'm not saying I'm going to berm there. I'd like something there. Planting something. Planting s~me type of that allows for all the noise and the traffic ar~ sight into my yard. Barbara Dacy: The way I understood it ~as that you' re going to put in the fill area here. We would take. advantage of those 8 foot evergreens. Allow Centex to go on your property and make a screening in that, what I would call a little hole as you turn into the proposed new street. I don't know what else to say to the Council. Councilman Johnson: I think that (~entex has ~n awful generous to a point. They've really done a lot of negotiating with you. The back lot line is your backyard, not your contractor's yard. I consider your contractor's yard up front. As I understand your conditional use permit, you're supposed to be keeping your equipment and stuff in that big building up front ar~ as a contractor you're required to k~ screenirg your.self, which are your elm trees that are dying that you're going to have to replace to maintain your contractor's yard. I don't see why they don' t, there seems to be a big gap in here where the trees aren't in this Lot 1 where the outlot ends and then there's a gap there. Why is the gap? Barbara Dacy: That's where the model ~ is right now and the side of the garage faces north so there are not any window views of the property. The primary view from this hc~e here will be in this direction. ~' Councilman Johnson: Okay, the primary view isn't towards the contractor's yard at all? Barbara Dacy: From this house. From the rear of the h~mes along the w~st lot line they will be looking into the back of Kerber's property. Councilman Johnson: So what do those 5, the bottcm of that L there, there are 5 trees. Those 5. That's protecting the view into the contractor's yard for who? Barbara Dacy: For the folks who will eventually end up living here on Lot 1. Councilman Johnson: But you said they don't look towards the contractor's yard. They just look across a corner of Larry's backyard. That view isn't towards the contractor's yard at all. So if they could take those 5 trees and put ~ along the w~st line and give him some more screening along the w~st line. ~'nose trees don't "_c-~u~, the screening is not to protect Larry's view but the other people's view of Larry's contractor's yard, as I understand con~ractor's yard screening and what we pass in it~n 14 was to protect, was because there was a contractor's yard there, not because of Larry's backyard which is a tree farm as I'm hearing 150 trees planted back there. It sounds like we can take ar~ just move those. Otherwise, I think it's a pretty good plan. Councilman Geving: I believe that in all of the develounents that we've seen, 21 188 City Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 this developer, Centex H~mes has been more than reasonable in attempting to work out a landscaping plan with the Kerber's. I don't believe that I have scc~n at any time a better plan because if I were living in one of those homes of (~entex and I was looking into the Kerber's area and it was objectionable to me, I would plant my own trees. I've done it. If I lived in an area and I didn't like the view that I had, I changed it. I didn't expect that someone would change it for me. So I think what's being proposed here by Centex H~mes is very reasonable. We're talking about a dense cover. The Black Hills Spruce is a very dense, nice tree and it will grow. I've got several in my yard and they grow to about 30 to 40 feet. T~y're probably 10 to 15 feet wide. You eventually will get nice cover. As far as having to have Centex Hc~es put trees or some kind of berming onto the Kerber property, I don't think that's appropriate at all. I think that that's a natural function of your right-of-way for any State or County highway. That's why you have right-of-ways and I wouldn't want to see a bunch of trees on the corner there that might obstruct the view. It would be a dangerous situation. I believe the plan that's been laid out here and shown to us on tbs screen is appropriate and the developer has been more than reasonable. At this point I think it's a personal issue between the Kerbers and the developer and they can cc~promise and work this out. I don't believe it's a Council action. That' s all I have. Councilman Horn: I think Larry's pointed out that there are really two issues. One is the screening issue which I think both parties share responsibility in. Just as this is a conditional use area. ~bat that means in my mind at least is that we allow a certain use until development surrounds it to the point where it's no longer practical to allow that use to continue. I can certainly empathize with the Kerber's trying to maintain that use as long as they can. I think, at least in my mind that would be my reason for requesting screening, to cut down the ccmplain~ and to continue the conditional use. The other issue though, as Larry pointed out this evening is the screening to the right turn lane. I believe in his mind he believes that that is directly as a result of this develo~m%ent and I take a look at when right turn lanes are put in. We just installed a lot of right turn lanes along TH 7. Those could c~me in any time whether develo~ent happened or not and they may not happen at the time the development happens. The Highway Department can always come along and make those requirements so I don't necessarily think that a right turn lane is scmething that we find fault with the developer for creating. I think that's a fact of life along any type of major highway. As Dale said, if they're in a right-of-way area for that, that can happen anytime so in my mind I think it's been right to take a look at these issues and try to mitigate as many of the problsms as would happen. I think we've done that. I think we're trying to continue a reasonable use here of a contractor's yard for as long as it's possible. Scmetime it may not be possible but at least at this point, I think we've taken reasonable assurances to allow that. Councilman Boyt: I have a question of the developer. One of Mr. Kerber's requests is for some 6 foot spruce trees on the west part of the property line. S~me additional ones. I would think that would be a reasonably minor expense. You've shown quite a bit of flexibility so far. Would that se~m like the last thing you could do? John Speiss: I guess the plan as shown now is something that you can call it the third c~mpromise. It's one more tree. One more berm. One more, one more, one more. You can go on into the night. At some point you just have to, the 22 City ~ouncil Meeting - June 13~ 1988 288 · · only ordinance is 1 per 40 feet. We taken all the trees and put ~ into the 1 per 20 the 1 per 40, there's no other ordinance. This is something that nobody, that the City would require to do here is in the ordinance for. It's just s~mething that sesms like just one more ar~ just one more to us ar~ one more like anybody else. Councilman Boyt: Well, that is half an answer but let me pose a different possibility to you. I think that part of how w~ got into this was in workir~ through the development with the City w~ created some problems for Mr. Kerber and you as the developer and we as the responsible party in the City have worked to ~c if we can't minimize those problems. That's how we got where we are tonight. Part of how we got there was that our language was somewhat vague. We said screening that will meet the agre~mmnt of both parties. I think what we're looking at tonight is getting pretty close to having that sealed as to just what that means. In a sense I don' t feel that it's one more, one more. It has been kind of a slow death in c(xning here. I think we're at the point though where we're making some final decisions. I personally thing that 4~ feet on center is a pleasant diversion but hardly a screen. If 5 or 6 more 6 foot spruces is what it takes to settle this thing, give~ all the land that's been moved around. All the trees that have ~ planted. The roads that have been regrarded. It se~ms like a pretty minor sort of thing. John Speiss: Relative to 5 trees, yes. If you had to buy 5 trees, how relative would that cost be? Councilman Boyt: We're talking about a different frame of reference here I think in a sizeable develo~:ment but gentlem_=n I would suggest that we have, through our work with this developer, flooded Mr. F~_rber's back lot this spring which would be a rather unus,,~l spring to flood anything. That yes, the developer has worked well with us ar~ I would suggest that we put in a request that 5 more 6 foot spruce trees be put in on that west line where the trees are now. I think that the right turn lane is an issue that really ~s to be resolved betwee~ MnDot ar~ whoever has the concern with them. I don't really feel, although the developer led to that lane being put. in, I think that's an issue that the Kerber's are going to have to work out some way or another. I would strongly recc~mer~ that we reduce those on centers from 4~ feet to 20 feet. Mayor Hamilton: To pick up on what Jay was c(~amm~ting on, those 5 trees that would be on the back part of the lot there Barb. Where that h~e, that would be, it's facing kind of northwest. ~ey don't see~ to really be screening ~ either for the home or for Larry. If you took those 5 and interspersed then along the right turn lane instead of having th~n there, it would see~ to be a better use of the trees to me. Then I had a question of Larry. You said you had 13 trees that you're ~oing to lose. ~hat I want to have clarified is, are they transplanting your trees sc~=place or you're just losing them? Larry Kerber: No. They' re gone. I said well, I' 11 forego those trees, don' t put then back on mine. Put th~n up on your berm so 13 of those 15 trees are trees they're not going to replace on my own property. Therefore it makes 2 of those trees are theirs. Mayor Hamilton: Let me ask you again, those 13 trees are yours that are on your property right noW? 23 .~,./.~ City Council Meeting - JUne 13, 1988 Larry Kerber: Exactly2 Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that's what I was trying to figure out. If those are actually your trees that are going to be transplanted into their property. Larry Kerber: Tney're going to be gone. They're going to disappear. They're going to excavate over thsm. Mayor Hamilton: Why don't they transplant them? Why kill them? Larry Kerber: At this point in time I don't think it's, the trees are all leafed out. I think it's more expense to take them out of the holes, put them in a t~mporary hole or ball thsm and then put th~m back in than it w~uld be just to level them. Barbara Dacy: Tney're small deciduous trees versus evergreens. Mayor Hamilton: How about the 5 trees there Larry that would actully be at the back of that home? Larry Kerber: Okay, those and I don't know if Barb remembered this, when I got my original contractor's use permit, we walked down and I showed 'you my garage that I was going to build. I showed you my road down. I showed you my lower garage and I showed you my stockpiles where I keep my supplies. You said fine. This is fine, that's no problem. I keep stockpiles down there along the lot line of that house. The house on that property, it's deck overlooks mine. The house is tilted at an angle towards my property line. I'd definitely like to keep those 5 but those 5 are kind of drawn out of scale. We're trying to cover a line 235 feet long here by trees and we're ~mitting the garage which is 24 feet deep is all we' re really doing. Mayor Hamilton: What difference does it make if those 5 trees aren't there? Are you afraid someone is going to see your stockpile? I don't know what differnce that makes. Larry Kerber: I worried about that guy in that house objecting. Mayor Hamilton: If he knows it's there when he buys the house, how can he object? I would think those 5 trees would be better for you to be along the right turn lane w~uldn't they? Larry Kerber: Sure. Fine. As long as I'm not confronted with probl~ls with this guy here which he's now sitting 10 feet above my property. Mayor Hamilton: If that guy doesn't like it, he can plant s~me trees on his property so he can't see it. Larry Kerber: That's fine with me. I just want to avoid trouble with these people moving in because they're all sitting so much higher than me now where that land used to lower. Mayor Hamilton: Tnat would seem to me to be a better solution. If whoever buys that home doesn't like what they see out their backyard, they can put their own 24 City (~ouncil Meeting - June 13~ 1988 darn trees in there and then take those 5 and put them along, intersperse them with what's there now on Larry's property which would be Chinese Elm. Barbara Dacy: Up in here, so w~ would have the 8-8 footers plus the additional 5-6 footers up arourz~ here. Gary Warren: The turn lane Barb, maybe you could show ~ where it starts though. It really isn't up near the house at all. It's in front of the garage. Larry Kerber: It starts 20 feet north of my drive~ay. At least that's where their stake is. That's where the line is supposed to be painted. It's supposed to run diagonally across my driveway. ~ it hits my driveway it starts grading out. Gary Warren: So really any of the plantings along a turn lane however are really scrccning more your garage aren't they than the house? Larry Kerber: It's going to cut down on noise. ~he view into my yard is what I 'm looking at. When they slow down to make a corner. Mayor Hamilton: It w~uld protect that whole yard. Looking into his yard there where he's got his big garage and your equi[z~ent ar~ stuff. It w~uld se~n to be ~mll placed plantings. It w~uld make that look better fr~m the road and it w~uld certainly cut down the noise for the Kerbers. Barbara Dacy: Or what w~ could do is just alternate 8 and 6, 8 and 6 all the way. Larry Kerber: As long as they give us a number, I'm sure ~ can w~rk with that. Placement is no probl~. It's just a number I guess is what w~'re looking for. Kathy Kerber: I was going to say that there is also still right here be~ this garage, unless you drive down the road ar~ you don't see it, actually the garage for this house kind of sits on an angle and right in here it is open and coming from down here, you can see in there. I do a lot of work in my gardens and I don't enjoy people stopping and watching me and pointing at me. I've ~ a lot of that. Mayor Hamilton: Do people do that frequently? Kathy Kerber: It's right in betwee~ this and tt~ corner of the garage. I'd like to see a little more fill in there scm~-~f~_re so I get some kind of block from that. Councilman Boyt: I think w~ can resolve this very simply by tying it down to a certain number of trees ar~ let thsm put the trees anywhere they want to put them but w~'ve got to walk out of here with a decision once and for all that this is the number of trees that are going to be planted. So how many is that going to be? Councilman Geving: Right now do w~ have 15 and 167 Is that the number? 31 trees? Larry Kerber: Yes. 25 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Councilman Geving: And all we're talking about is moving them in the right places? Are those 5 on the west, are they already planted? Larry Kerber: No, there is nothing planted. Councilman (~eving: So the 31 trees are just on the plan? Larry Kerber: Yes. Councilman Geving: I agree with the Mayor. Put them wherever you want them. Mayor Hamilton: Is that a motion? Councilman Geving: Let's make a motion and I'll make the motion that we agree that 31 trees as decided here tonight. They're 6 and 8 foot spruce I believe. I have a note here that says they are 16-8 foot Black Hills Spruce. In the south, what are those Larry? On the south property line, what are those 15 trees? Larry Kerber: Tnose are supposed to be Black Hills. Councilman Geving: Black Hills Spruce as well so we're talking about 31 Black Hills Spruce total? Larry Kerber: Yes, I guess. Is that what you're going to vote on. I wanted to see a few more trees. Most of those 15 are mine. Not mine but what they don't have to replace for me. I would just like to see s(xne additional trees. Councilman Boyt: Let's make it 35. That's 4 more trees. That's as many I wanted. Councilman Geving: Tnat' s almost $200.00. John Speiss: A tree. Councilman Boyt: We're talking about a sizeable development. $200.00 is not going to... Mayor Hamilton: Plus Larry is losing 13 trees that they're just taking of his and not replacing them. Councilman Geving: My motion is for 35 6 and 8 foot Black Hills Spruce to be planted near the site. I don't care where you put them. Mayor Hamilton: That can be an agreement between the developer and the Kerbers. Councilman Geving: Placenent is up to the developer and Mr. Kerber. Councilman Johnson: Dale, you want to include the rest of those trees on the tree schedule that they agreed to? Councilman Geving: Tney're already agreed to the other, everything else here is agreed to. Is that correct Barbara? The plantings and the landscape plan so 26 City Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 really only inter~ir~ for the Black Hills Spruce. The total is 35. Mayor Hamilton: I' 11 second your motion. Councilman Johnson: How is the 6 ~ 8 split so w~ don't argue? John Speiss: One question then and that is, as to the placene~t, there's Carver County who is concerned about where w~ place those trees around the right-of-way and with spacing. We'd like that determined just to make sure that everybody is satisfied being 10 foot on center, wherever or 5 foot on center, wherever it has to be. We ~ to work that out. You don't ~nt to plant th~m next to that right-of-way so that Mr. Kerber ever decides to develop his property, we're cutting down trees to get access into his property or cutting down trees so we get the proper sight distance from that Devonshire Drive onto CR 17. That's a very important concern. , Councilman Johnson: And that's controlled by the County. John Speiss: That's correct and it states so in that letter frc~ Bill Weckman. Barbara Dacy: ~hat we can do is revise the plan and have Carver County review it ar~ sign off on it as to placement arour~ the intersection. Councilman Geving: On those Black Hill Spruce, using that same formula that you had before, that will be 18-8 foot and 17-6 foot. That's ccmirg right off the landscaping plan. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the landscaping plan for Curry Fan~s Addition to include planting of 35 Black Hill Spruce trees, 18 - 8 foot trees ar~ 17 - 6 foot trees with placement to be agreed upon between Centex and the Kerbers. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE ~ TO AMEND SECTION 21-1251 2(A) TO PERMIT ~ ON- PRf~ISE DI~IONAL SIGN~ THAN THE REQUIRfD FOUR SQUARE FEET, FIRST READI~, DATASERVo Barbara Dacy: The Planning (kmmission acted on this way back on May 4, 1988. The Cc~mission felt that a sign ordinance ~sdment was not appropriate as requested by the applicant. Staff had sugges~ a sign size of 9 square feet. The applicant has proposed a sign size of 12 square feet with a nm~ber of directional signs for on-prep/se signs. At minim~ though the Council should be aware that th~ ordinance should be amended to provide for a maximu~ height of the directional signs on site. ~he applicant is here. Dan ~son: I have a couple of things I'd like to show you. It ~ms brought up at the Plannirg (kmmission that there weren't any similar signs of 12 square feet. We felt you're zoning for a large industrial office park and asstm~ing that the large sites., is 40 acres. Our original request was for a variance on the DataServ site is 70 acres but as an ordinance ~m~]ment, we'd like to propose a threshhold of 40 acres to allow a larger sign. We did find s(xne, if I could borrow your projector, I have about 5 pictures of signs in nearby co,inanities that are very much like what we're talking. This is, as you can see 27 ty Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 from the top of the sign, this is Eaton Corporation which is right down TH 5. They have a number of signs like this on the pr~nises. They are very much like what w~'re talking about and almost exactly the same size. Councilman Horn: The sane number of employees and deliveries? Dan Ryerson: Probably a little less. This is the present DataServ sign. Tne one at their ~den Prairie center. This is just about exactly what we've proposed here. Jonathan. Again, a bigger sign actually. That is 8500 Normandale in Bloomington. Here's another one there. Again, this one is a little bit bigger than 12 square feet. I think to answer some of the questions that Planning Commission had raised that w~ wanted to show that either by ordinance or by variance, on larger office park, industrial sites, there are many examples of signs this size for directions. Finally what we did was, just by w~y of illustration on relative size, using just a plain sign board which w~ stood up on the DataServ site and it is, you recognize the building there, this is taken up by Lake Drive and TH 5. Tnis little square right down here and along this street which would be one of their turn intersections, is that sign. ~nis is just to illustrate that such a sign from the nearest public right-of-way and anywhere off of that is almost invisible. councilman Horn: I have no problem with considerations such as this. My only question is, why is this suddenly a problem when CPT had no problem? Dan Ryerson: I don't know why CPT had the signs that they did. Some of them are still up and they're really s~nall. I don't know what their volume was. DataServ right now has a truck deliver and coming and going of 40 per day. These are large trucks. That is in addition to ~m~ployee traffic which is increasing and eventual employee occupancy on that site is estimated to be 750. There are also plans which I apologize, I came into town late today and wasn't able to pick up the drawings but DataServ does have s~me future plans for expansion on this site which will probably ccming to you at some future date. If that happens than there's going to be an even greater need for on-premise directional signs. I know it's been suggested that the ordinance that a 4 square foot signs talks about increasing the number of signs. As a design consideration why we don't think that would work, because we have a number of points of entry into this site or intersections inside the site where we need to direct this traffic. If we increased the number of the ~maller signs, we'd have to put several of them around at each of these points. To our way of thinking, that begins to look like clutter as opposed to one nicely laid out sign that contains various directions. This way to parking and this way for trucks and receiving and shipping. The actual number of signs would be kept down to a much more aesthetically pleasing level and we think the present nunber of four signs allowed in the ordinance is good. The height restriction that's bc-~n_ proposed by the Planning Comnission of 5 feet wouldn't be any problem at all. Really what we're asking for is an ordinance that would allow us, instead of simply displaying a message on the top 1 foot of the sign that's 5 feet high, that w~ be allowed to fill in a little bit in the bottom of it and give several directions. We don't think that would have any cluttersome appearance to anybody who would be looking at the site driving by it and our planners tell us there's a safety and convenience... councilman Johnson: Barb, do you have an overhead of this? You:re requesting three signs from us and you show in your illustration a wide angle picture of 28 City Council Mseting - June 13, 1988 the farther away sign and say this is what it's going to look like where there's two signs right on the public right-of-way ar~ you don't show us a regular angle picture of those signs. Photographic trickery to minimize the impact of that sign by sticking, in other words I'm a little perturbed at your little illustration here where you throw that little further away sign and say this is what it's going to look like. Mention the 12 foot sign that you want to put right on the public right-of-way. We've got Ma Bell cc~ing in and asking for something that nobody else wants to ask for. Dan Ryerson: No trickery was intended. For example the Eaton signs that w~ showed do have that appears. They are right by the public right-of-way. Councilman Johnson: You're asking for signs right by the public road but you show us a picture of the sign that's a couple hundred feet back. Dan Ryerson: The Eaton signs and the others that we showed in the slides ~_re not. They were right up... Councilman Johnson: They're not in Chanhassen. D~at's the second size of sign. You showed us your main sign at the DataServ, Bell South, whatever you want to be called, facility in ~kten Prairie but what about the secondary signs such as these are at your site there? They are snaller. Dan Rl~rson: That was the secondary sign. Councilman Johnson: But the one down the drive. That one was on the corner there wasn't it? Dan Ryerson: The main sign had the big DataServ name. This ~s one that has the several directional indicators on it. Councilman Johnson: I'm not opposed to a large multi-unit ctm~lex having some signage to discern this ~y versus that ~ but whem there's only one c(xnpany, I don't have a problem with putting the ~y name on top of the sign but I don't see a 3~0% increase in the size of sign to do it. I have no problen if there's a multi-unit area, large industrial area ~ehich is not ~hat w~'re asking for here. They're asking for each sign to have 12 square feet versus 4. I 'm going to have a problem to go to 6 square feet ~hich is a 5~% increase in the size of sign. If there was more com~i~ that w~ needed to put the c~ntkqny logo on so that the truck drivers would know which cc~pany they are entering at. Right now there's only one ~y on the road. There's no need for the truck drivers to be terribly confused. As written, I totally agree with the Planning Cxm~nission's r~ndations and w~ just keep it the ~ay it is right now and I'd like the~ to look at how w~ would discern ~%en you have multi units within one area. If you had CPT and DataServ ar~ the Press and several people where there is a possibility of confusion, those directional signs I think should, especially if two or more ccmpanies share a driveway, that there should be someway to look at those but that's a totally different issue than we're being asked to address here tonight. I 'm really upset om this one to tell you the truth because I just ~ a big company coming in here trying to push a little town and let's change our ordinance because we feel we need a bigger sign and I don't ~ any justification for it. My cc~pany I work for has probably 4 to 5 square foot signs. I we~t out and looked at them and truck drivers haven't had a hard time at all. We've got three docks ar~ quite a few trucks ever~]ay. Not 29 190 · City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 40 but we have drivers that come in routinely to pick up some of our materials that have never been there before and the 4 square foot signs are fine for them. That's the w~y I feel about it. Councilman Geving: I really don't have any comments on this. Councilman Horn: I just wondered if staff has done any looking at other businesses in the City to see what w~rks for them. If similar type of smployee counts ar~ similar amounts of truck traffic. Barbara Dacy: No, we did not. We did look at, for example the directional signage with the Press and s~me of the ones in the Business Park but we did not specifically analysis the truck traffic and so on. We did check with other cities. Our main concern was on the sign size was that how much ability is there to provide a number of directions. Our concern was the larger the sign theoretically you get more directional messages on there. More arrows. More ability to direct traffic so we came up with 9 square feet based on the ability to get at least 3 or 4 messages on a sign and tied it to a threshhold of a minim~ of 40 acres. We did a minimal amount review of other businesses. Councilman Horn: Are there known problsms at this site? Were they brought to your attention that known problems to date at this site? Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Horn: I guess the only other comment I'd make is I see we have a m~mber of the Planning Commission here tonight if he wishes to con~ent. Councilman Boyt: I w~uld gather that the sign ordinance is there because we want to minimize the impact of signs on the neighbors. If that's the rationale I would think that there should be scme room to allow for some sort of signage that had minimal impact. That the impact of the sign should be take~ into account as much as the size. If you're putting a sign on the back end of 40 acres it could be a heck of a big sign and I'm not going to read it from outside the property. It would be nice to have s~me sort of flexibility to take into account where the sign was in relation to the people around it. When I look at the actual layout of the sign and look at what you have out there now, what I see from TH 5 looks fine to me. In other words, your sort of logo sign if you will is nicely done. It seems to be large enough so that people should have no trouble finding it. I agree that you need some means of getting people to the right location. It doesn't seem like your road layout is all that difficult to direct people to. I have a little probl~ with the sign that's out by TH 5. ~ne directional sign that's on your interior roadwork but looks like it will be quite visible from TH 5. It se~ms to me like that would detract from your illuminated sign out there. Dan Ryerson: ~ne one that we showed in the enlarged photo? Councilman Boyt: You have the nice ill~inated sign but then you have off to, I guess it would be the east side of it, your directional signage. So it's also going to be visible from TH 5. Dan Ryerson: ~nat would be certainaly visible from TH 5. Any of thsm. Tne point is, the proportion to the site which actually is ...million square feet, 30 City Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 the visual impact of the sign basically the size of a card table is almost nil. Councilman Boyt: I guess to make it simple, I see no overwhelming reason to not grant this change in our ordinance. To me the difference of up to 12 square feet seems like it's still talking about a fairly small sign ar~ as a business you should have s~me flexibility to decide the best sign size for your operation. My concern is signs like the one facing TH 5. I think that frc~ a city standpoint, I want the front of your building to be unobstructed unless maybe it's trees ar~ as few signs as possible. So frcm that standpoint, the prospect of a 4 square foot sign looks pretty good to me if it's going to be fronting TH 5. If it's well back on your property as the ~ are by the building, than I have less trouble with the 9 square foot sign. It's back where it's unobtrusive. I think we need some means of controlling the visual impact of a sign when we write this ordinance or change it. Mayor Hamilton: I have absolutely no problem with charging it. I think often times signs can be an asset to the way a building looks and they are obviously scmething that you're going to maintain ar~ keep up well because you want your building to look good. I'd be more concerned with the way the front yard looks out there with all the weeds growing than I am about tt~ way the sign looks. I think you have a beautiful logo and we're proud to have, at least I'm certainly proud to have your ~y in ~ and I'd like people to know that you are here. Consequently, I am very much in favor of your having signs and advertising yourselves. Not a billboard but certainly signs that are the size you're talking about. I'm always kind of miffed when we go out and try to recruit people to come into our coemunity ar~ we tell ~ how happy we are that they're going to move here ar~ then ~y asks for a sign and we're just about telling to move out of town again because we don't want anybody to know you're here. I just don't quite understand that philosophy but at any rate, I'm glad you're here. I'm proud to have you a part of our co~mmity ar~ I would like .to ~___ you put some addition signs so irregardless of how difficult it is for your truckers to c(x~e in or people to c~me in and visit you for whatever purpose, that they can find where they're trying to go to so I'm going to move approval of an ordinano~ amenclnent to Section 21-1251 2(a) to permit on-premise signs for industrially zoned land in excess of 40 acres shall not exceed 9 square feet. The maximin height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet frem the' ground. The number of signs shall not exceed 4 unless approved by the City Council. Councilman Geving: I' 11 second that motion. Councilman Boyt: He wants 12 square feet. Councilman Geving: The reccem~m~dation ~s 9 frem the staff. Barbara Dacy: The applicant is requesting 12. Staff's original recoemer~ation was 9 so if you want the applicant's request it should be 12. Mayor Hamilton: I have no problem with that to 12. I guess I didn't see that here. Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion as changed. 31 292 City Council Meeting - JUne 13~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: I do have some discussion on it. As far as Bill's point about beirg next to public right-of-way being ~naller and as you get back in there, his picture does show that. Tne picture he shows us is that when you have your sign interior to the property than it's not intrusive. If you put the 12 square foot sign up at the front of the property facing TH 5 as proposed, it gets more intrusive. My counter would be that going with the 40 acres and all and also adding that within 150 feet of the public right-of-way signs should be limited to 4 square feet. Interior to the property by 150 or greater feet, signs should be only 9 square feet. [~p to 9 square feet. So when the sign is further away frcm the people so you can still get th~n in. As far as this goes, we still can't put their name on this sign. We haven't changed to allow them to place their name on directional signs. Barbara Dacy: Tnat's our interpretation of the definition of directional signs. Councilman Boyt: I'll second that amendment. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not amending my motion. Councilman Boyt: You don't have to amend your motion. We have an amenctnent to it that' s seconded. Mayor Hamilton: I didn't hear him move that he wanted... Councilman Johnson: I so move. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded an amendment that on-premise directional signs within 150 feet of the public right-of-way may be up to 4 square feet. On-premise directional signs greater than 150 feet from the public right-of-way may be up to 9 square feet. Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt voted in favor of the amendment. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn and Councilman Gevirg voted in opposition to the amendment and the amendment failed with a vote of 3to 2. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to amend Section 21-1251 2(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, first reading, to read as follows: On-premise signs for industrially zoned land in excess of forty (40) acres shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet. The maximum height of on-premise directional signs shall not exceed five (5) feet. The number of signs shall not exceed four (4) feet unless approved by the City Council. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. BROOKSIDE MOTEL, JOSEPH NOTERMAN, 789 AND 790 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDME~ TO AMEND SECTION 20-773, THE BF DISTRICT, TO ALLOW RECRFATIONAL CAMPING FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FOUR ~TIONAL CAMP/TRAILER SITES. 32 city Council Meeting - June 131 1988 Joseph Noterman: All I really requested was four t~oorary spaces frcm May 1st to November 1st but I guess in order to accomplish this w~ have to go through all this rigamaroll. We're located on TH 212 on the corner of TH 1~1. The State has a piece of property to the west am~ the~ there's a fruit star~ right to the west of that ~hich hasn't been mentioned in these findings. ~han you're familiar with the property that you rezoned to a trucking ccm~pany. Well, that's a garbage company and they're parking tanks t/~re. At the'time I didn't know they were garbage. I thought it was a trucking firm so all I'm asking really is for these four temporary spaces. I'm at the mercy of the Council I guess. Tony Noterman: I'd like to address the Council if I might just for a couple of minutes regarding the request. I'm Joe Noterman' s son, Tony Noterman. In going through the report that has ~ apparently suhuitted by Ms. Dacy to both the Planning (km~nission and the Council, there's some conclusions that are in error in here. Apparently when they were going through this thing they were thinking that these were going to be one night stands on these campers. They aren't going to be. F~ rents to the track workers and the seasonal so they're at least a month, two months, three months at a time so the portion that she says there's going to be increased traffic, it just isn't going to happen. You're going to get them coming in, they're going to stay for lengthy terms of time. He's only asking for four more spots. He's not asking for all year. It's just going to be the May 1 through November 1. ~he syst~n, o~-site sewage syst~n that he has right now is, by the admission of I believe Ms. Dacy or scme other gentl~nan from your City Council, the system is adequate to handle it. One point on page 3 of the presentation given by then says, and I quote, "based on the location of the ~F district and because the proposed use is not cc~patible with the intent of the district." I guess I fail to see where this would not be compatible with the intent of the district when you're going along a major TH 212. ~here's a number of conditions that I thought were supposed to have ~ presented to tl~ Council tonight as alternatives by the direction of the Planning (km~ission. We haven't received anything of that nature at this point in time. Do you recall were there any conditions or alternatives done up by the planning staff? Barbara Dacy: No, there was not because we wanted to det~ine whether or not the Council would in fact be agreeable to amending the ordinance. If they so act on that tonight than it was going to be staff's recommendation that if they want us to develop conditions for a conditional use permit review, that they direct us to do that. We just wanted to wait ar~ see how the Council would react to this. Tony Noterman: Didn't Mr. Conrad though ask you to prepare some different alternatives to pres~t to the City Council tonight? Barbara Dacy: Okay, that must have been different alternatives other than the zoning ordinance amendment process. Tony Noterman: Right. Barbara Dacy: There is none. Tony Noterman: There is none other than this? 33 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Barbara Dacy: Right. Tony Noterman: Well, one other final thing gentlemen. We pay approximately $5,000.00 to $6,000.00 on a year on a piece of property that has no other use. He's 67 years old. Tnis is his sole income and we would appreciate giving some fair consideration to this matter. Thank you. Councilman Johnson: My only comnent is this is an expansion of a non-conforming use and I don't see any reason to expand a non-conforming use. Councilman Geving: No co~nent except to say that had this not existed prior to 1972, it probably wouldn't be allowed in our city at all. Councilman Boyt: I guess I ' 11 expand the scope a little bit. We' re talking about a change in our ordinance which doesn't just apply to this one operation. I don't think that a recreational vehicle sites are something we want to endorse so I would be opposed to changing the ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: I have no additional oamnents. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to deny the Zoning Ordinance knendment to Amend Section 20-773 to allow recreational camping facilities as a conditional use. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 1, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT, KK DES IGN. Councilman Geving: We granted the variance and it was a rather unique situation. Tney've done a nice job on Red Cedar Point. Actually the building is not going to expand anymore than what is there now. There is a patio there and the variance was granted unanimously. The two conditions requested by the staff were passed. WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A STABLE, DALE COLLINS, 3931 ASTER TRAIL. Councilman Geving: This again was passed unanimously by the Board with the condition, several conditions actually. One is that w~ wanted to make sure that there was an effective way of making sure that the manure was removed from time to time and Dale Collins indicated that the had an agreement with Mr. Brose that that would be done. Also, we determined based upon the site review and in looking at the site that really the best location for the stable was exactly where it was placed on the exhibit which we entitled Exhibit 1 shown on the third page of your handout and also we relied heavily upon Mr. Dave Headla and his input as the stable permitting process so we did approve this unanimously and it's been passed. It's a new stable and it's not for retail or cxzm~rcial SUBDIVISION OF 5.5 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, LOCATED EAST (IF TH 101, 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF CR 14 AND ADJACENT TO HALLA NURSERY, ROBERT J. BURESH. 34 City Council ~eting - JUne 13, 1988 Jo Ann Olsen: This subdivision ~ms first applied for with the January 15th deadline so it does c~me under the 2 1/2 acre requir~ent. The main issue with this is the eama~ent which serves the property, the David Halla property and Paul Graffunder's. The issue is whether or not to improve this to a public street or maintain it as a private easement. Mayor Hamilton: That was to be resolved by the property owners. Has it do you know? Jo Ann Olsen: What we are having done is having ~ determine, the applicant's Attorney write us a letter. Roger Knutson: We asked for an opinion that both property owners in the new plat approved w~uld have tb~ right to use that property. It w~uld be on record ar~ then would have appropriate disclaimers for the develol~nt agreement. Mayor Hamilton: Do we have that yet? We don't have that yet? Jo Ann Olsen: No, we do not have that yet. ~hat could still be a condition of approval. Othe~ than that, the lots they have acceptable septic sites. They mcct the minim~ acreage required so it meets all the conditions of the ordinance. We are recomner~ing the City Council to choose whether to be improved to a public street or maintained as a private eamaaent and then we have specific conditions under each choice. Mayor Hamilton: Do you have anything you would like to add to that Mr. Buresh? Robert Buresh: Other than I was just reviewing this...I noticed that staff's recommendation talked improving it to a public street or a private road and if it be a public street the Halla's w~uld have to do a new subdivision and they did go on record, at least Don Halla w~nt on record on May 18th at the Planning Ccm~ission mcctirg and Don Halla states that he's not going to replat. I just wanted to point that out. ~hey have no intention to replatting to help it become a public street. Other than that I'm available for questions. I would like to move this thing along. I asked by Attorney to work with the City Attorney in anything that is necessary to resolve the issues...when I first became involved in this property that I have the right to the easement and these questions k~ c~ming up and my Attorney keeps assuring me that everything's okay and he is now putting this in writing. So I'm just available for questions. Councilman Johnson: How long ago was it that, it was May when it w~nt before the Planning C~mission and the Planning fk~mission gave co{~ition 1 that you verify that you have the right to use the easement. How far along are you on this a month later now? verifying whether you have the right to use this easement? Robert Buresh: My Attorney has sukmitted a letter to the City Attorney verifying this. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so this is verified now? Roger Knutson: I know there's a letter fr(x~ his Attorney on my desk. I have not read it. I' ve been in meetings since 8: 88 this morning. It arrived this 35 ty Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 morning. Robert Buresh: I have a copy of the letter with me. Mayor Hamilton: That can be a condition of approval. That's not a problem. Roger Knutson: I think that'd be fine. Just make it a condition of approval. That doesn't have to be taken care of until final plat. Councilman Johnson: I 'm glad that you' ve got it. I'm in kind of ornery mood this evening you've probably noticed, to say the least and I'm glad you've come through here. A lof of the people tend to wait to the last minute to do these things so we've got this. I don't think we' re ever going to get that public street straighten out because this is as much of an argument here as what we had earlier this evening betwe~ two folks and I don't think we'd ever get to that compromise. I'm in favor of going ahead with what the Planning Ommlission has rec(m~nended here. Councilman Geving: I want to ask RDger one question. B0ger, on this sketch shows this easement line in here. That would be the only access that we would have to a public street onto TH 1017 Roger Knutson: Correct. Councilman Geving: And it's my understanding we can not landlock the Buresh's. They can not be landlocked. They have to have scme access out. Isn't that correct? Roger Knutson: Tnat's the last thing in the world you want to do is landlock scmeone, that ' s correct. Councilman Geving: So they certainly have sc~e rights to the use of that easement to get to TH 101, is that correct? Roger Knutson: That's one of the things that's being resolved. It appears that they do. I just wanted some further guarantees. I think that can be worked out. Councilman Geving: Taat's the only question I have. It seems like it's a straight forward deal to me. They have to have access and the only feasible access since we're not going to be able to deal with the Halla's, at least I don't think we're going to be able to. I can't see why the Halla's would agree to replatting just for this purpose. They have no need to. We can't force ~ to do it. I would say that the private driveway is probably the only way we can go. That's the end of my c(mments. Councilman Horn: I think that we don't have a choice unless we ask the developer to wait until the next yearly review of the development. As I recall mentioning the last time the review came up with the Halla's proposal that I was concerned by tb~ fact that everybody had suhnitted these proposals because of the commitment that we had to make to get the Lake Ann Interceptor of 1 in 10 so everybody jumped in to get their 2 1/2 acre plots in with no intention of ever developing ~. However, we do review those once a year and have to extend them. It appears to me that that would be the appropriate time to ask for a 36 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 replot and a public street, t~fortunately the timing is not right with what the developer is requesting. What I w~uld lik~ to see happen, Roger can confirm whether w~ can do this or not, would be to give a t~rary ~t to let t~ start developing his property. At the tim~ that their review cc~es through for the Halla property, we ask them to replot, make this a public street before the time runs out on this proposal. Is that appropriate? Roger Knutson: I'm not sure I understand. They already claim they have an easement there so there's no t~m~orary easen~mt we'd be giving ~. Councilmmn Horn: The question as I ur~erstand this is to whether we allow an easement, private street or whether we ask for a public street. We have no way of asking for a public street because it w~uld require a replot so at this time that's not even an option for us. Unless wa w~uld force this gentle, an to work out an agreement with the Halla's to provide a public street. Roger Enutson: I don't know if this is feasible but the City Council could order that that easement be condemned and make it into a street right now. You have that authority. I'm not suggesting that you want to do that but you can do that if you ~ant. Councilman Horn: I don't think we want to do that. Councilman Geving: There are tw~ bc~~s. That's pretty tough. Roger Knutson: I didn't think you wanted to do that. Councilman Horn: No, we don't want to do that but I think whe~ the timeframe comes up again for the develolmnent that has not occurred, it would be appropriate at that time to ask for the replat? Boger Knutson: We could put s~mething in the develoim~nt contract that says, if and when the City Council exercises it's discretion to make this into a public street, take it over or ~hatever, they will fully cooperate and they will agree to their half of the assessments aixt stuff like that. We could certainly put that into the develolmment contract. Jo Ann Olsen: I just wanted to make a quick comment that the Halla's already have preliminary plat approval. It's just final plat that they'll be coming through ar~ I don't think we can force them to replat at that time. Councilman Horn: Do you think they're going to develop it? Councilman Geving: I think they got the message loud and clear the last time we met. They had one year. I think they're going to do it. Councilman Boyt: Gary, I have a question for you. When this is a private drive, what's the quality of the road surface that they have to put in? Gary Warren: A gravel surface basically. Councilman Boyt: How long is this private drive? 37 298 City Council ~eting - June 13; 1988 Robert Buresh: In front of my property alone it goes 300 feet on the north side and another 300 feet on the east side. Councilman Boyt: 1,600 feet? Robert Buresh: ~ne Teich's and Graffunder's have at least another 600 feet in total there and mine is well over 1,000 feet. Gary Warren: It looks like about 1,400 to 1,500 feet. Councilman Boyt: I think that's a real dile~na that we're going to put two houses on the end of a 1,400 foot private drive and we need the best possible road surface frc~ a public safety standpoint. I don't know how we go about getting that but I would certainly think that we want something better than a gravel surface. Recognizing the tremer~ous cost problem, I don't know how to overcome that. Tne other issue is maybe we want a 60 foot eas~nent instead of a 30 foot easement. 50 foot easement instead of a 30 foot easement. What's typical? 50 feet? Gary Warren: 60 feet in the rural. Councilman Boyt: It would seem to me that if we're thinking about long term develol~nent. Wa have, in my opinion, a driver's nightmare down in this part of town that we've created with long cul-de-sacs. We apparently have no way out of it given our comnitment in that area. I would ask that we consider two, I!m sure wm're going to make this a private drive so when we do that, we consider a 60 foot easement and we consider a better surface than a gravel road from a public safety standpoint. Councilman Geving: Where you going to get the 60 feet? You've got to buy that land from sc~nebody. You can't make a decision to say we're going to make it 60 instead of 30. You have to buy that easement from someone and it's probably Mr. Halla and he's not going to give to you reasonably. You can't just make that decision. Mayor Hamilton: Tne problem is it's a private driveway basically and I don't know that we can require anybody to make that wider than what they want to make it nor can we require them to put any kind of surface on there other than what they want to put on there. If you're going to buy a house in Mr. Buresh's subdivision, that's what you're buying. You're buying a gravel road, whatever happens to be there in that easement and I think you clearly understand that when people purchase that. Tnat it's not the greatest road and if they happen to have an emergency and the emergency vehicles have a difficult time getting through, they know that ahead of time. Councilman Boyt: It's buyer's beware is what you're telling me? Mayor Hamilton: Absolutely. Councilman Boyt: What about all the concerns we heard here about upkeep on the road? Now you indicated you're willing to contribute to the upkeep of the road but it's a bigger issue than two people. 38 City Council ~eting - June 13 ~ 1988 299 Mayor Hamilton: It's not our probl~. It's a private drive. Councilman Boyt: Tnis is going to be the problem of the people who move into that development and are they going to be wary enough to know that before they build a house? Mayor Hamilton: I would certainly think so if they're building a house in there ar~ if they don't, than they shouldn't be considering looking at property like that. Councilman Boyt: Isn't there scme sort of consideration we can put on, actually on this development that makes that obvious? That indicates you are at the end of a privafe drive? That you're responsible for maintaining? Gary Warren: Covenants. Councilman Boyt: Can the City put those on? Roger Knutson: You can put it in the development agreement. Mayor Hamilton: ~ne Abstracts is going to indicate that anyways. You're going to have an easement agre~nent in the Abstract on the property. Roger Knutson: Anyone who is checking the title always checks access. It's one of the first things you have on property ~ you get to it. Councilman Horn: I don' t think there's any in herent safety issue in a gravel road. Councilman Boyt: We don't ~ to debate it I guess. I'd like to see scmething in the development contract that calls attention to those issues. That's all I have. Mayor Hamilton: I haven' t any other cc~ments. Councilman Johnson: JUst to follow up on one thing. Mr. Halla still claims that they don't have the right to use his 30 foot easement anyway. Mayor Hamilton: That has to be resolved. Is there a motion to handle this item? Councilman Boyt: I move approval. Mayor Hamilton: With the conditions? Councilman Boyt: Right, as stated by staff. Councilman Horn: Ar~ the develol~m_=nt contract saying that t~ will allow... Gary Warren: ~hat was that last thing? Councilman Boyt: And a develolmmm~t contract that will allow us an ea~mmmt at a future date should it be required. 39 Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Councilman Johnson: You're doing it per Planning Commission recommendations? Mayor Hamilton: Six conditions. I'll second your motion. Barbara Dacy: Just point of clarification on the future eass~ent. You realize that the easement area that I think the Council is talking about between TH 101 and the Buresh property is not part of the plat. Are you getting back to the Halla extension idea? Is that what you're talking about? That the applicant should be aware that if the Halla plat, his extension expires and replats, the City w~uld be looking at a public road in that area. Councilman Boyt: So this current developer isn't repsonsible for that? Gary Warren: So that would be in the develo~x~ent contract? Councilman Geving: Not in this one. It's a note for the file. Councilman Horn: And it goes to the future property owners here so they're aware that they could be assessed at some point for a street. Gary Warren:' The point that I was jotting down on the develo~nent contract was to put something in regarding notification that it is a private drive and maintenance is the responsibility of whoever... Councilman Geving: That would be good. Councilman Horn: Tnis is really on the flip side of that saying today it's a private drive but at some point be aware that it may becc~m~ a public street. Mayor Hamilton: If some conditions are met sc~ay. Councilman Boytmoved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Subdivision Request #86-32 for the preliminary plat for the subdivision of 5.6 acres into two single family lots to be serviced by a private driveway with the following conditions: 1. ~ applicant shall provide doctm~entation which verifies that the subject property has the right to use the 30 foot easement. 2. The applicant shall provide a driveway access plan which shall address a turnarour~ as requested by the Fire Inspector. 3. ~ne approved septic sites must be staked and roped off prior to construction on the site. 4. Type I erosion control shall be installed along the south and east sides of Lot 2, Block 1 prior to the competent of any grading. 5. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. 6. ~ne developer shall be responsible for ~aily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction or construction traffic frc~ this site. 7. If and when the City Council exercises it's discretion to make this into a public street, the applicant will fully cooperate and will agree to their 4~ City Council ~eting - June 131 1988 i91. half of the assessments. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SI~ PE~IT VARIANCE REQUEST TO S~CTION 20-1260 TO CONSTRUCT AN 80 SQUARE FOOT PYLON SI(~, 615 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUPERAMERICA STATION, ~ MUEr.r.RR. Councilman Boyt: I thought that the idea of allowirg a non-conformance, grandfathering in, was that when it was changed, it w~uld be changed to cc~ply with the ordinance. The ordinance says 64 square feet and suddenly we're saying well, but his present 78 foot sign is okay and if he wants to change it we want to protect his at 78 square feet. Do we want to chan~e the ordinance or do we want to get the signs in agreement with the ordinance? Can somebody help me out with that? Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you can help me out with that. I'm not sure I understand. Councilman Boyt: Maybe I confused you on the item. My understanding is that this sign was grar~fathered in. It was a non-conformance. Right? Jo Ann Olsen: No, it was approved by a sign committee? The 78 square foot sign? That was approved by tt~ City. Councilman Boyt: When it was installed but when we wrote the sign ordinance, wasn't the maximu~ then 64? Yes, says Barbara. Alright, so this was a non- conformance that was grandfathered in and now it's coming up for a change and at that point I w~uld think that we w~uld want to move it in conformance with the ordinance. Either that or the ordinance is wrong. Mayor Hamilton: That's why he's asking for a variance because he can't get in conformance. Councilman Horn: Why didn't he ask that the ordinance be changed? Mayor Hamilton: I think whs~ you get to signs, if we did that we'd charging the ordinance every other week to conform. Try to get everybody's sign in conformance. I think if you read the Minutes of the Planning Co~mission meeting, there's a standard size sign for that particular business and that's all he's tryin~ to do is put up the smallest one that they make. Consequently he needs to ask for a variance because he can't meet our specific requir~ent. Councilman Boyt: They did mention that thsy do make those signs where they can't have them 80 feet or 120 feet, they do make a smaller version of that sign. They have to special make it but it's available to thsm. To me it sounds like the ordinance ~s to be looked at. If this person is saying it's not appropriate for his business, than maybe it's not appropriate for the other businesses. Mayor Hamilton: You're probably right. Especially based on the c(mm~nts made by the applicant that the size of their signs in taken frcm an average of c~munities around the area or wherever they deal with and that's how the make their standard size sign. Isn't that what the c0~ment was that you made? 41 ~City - Council Meeting June 131 1988 Roman Mueller: Yes, that's correct. I'm Rc~an Mueller with SuperAmerica. On it, when I was going through the staff report, I'd also like to point out that in your ordinance, the most restricted for that area is called out, states that there's also a 80 foot ground sign available to us in addition to the 64 square foot pylon sign. We're only asking for the 80 square foot on the pylon sign. No ground sign and yes, this is based on from around the country of what size signs we generally deal with. Councilman Boyt: I don't understand why this is a variance request. TO me it looks like the ordinance covers it under a conditional use request. It's 80 feet and as I read the ordinance it said from 64 to 80 was a conditional use. Jo Ann Olsen: The reason we did that is because the ordinance for non-conforming signs states that it has to meet the district with the most permitted use and the permitted use is 64 square feet. That's why we're going for a variance because the permitted [me is for a 64 square foot sign versus having to put them through a conditional use permit. Barbara Dacy: Tne most restrictive rules apply and that's the 64 square feet. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I agree with that. If it can't be a conditional use. If the ordinance says you can have a conditional use between 64 and 80, why isn't it a conditional use? Jo Ann Olsen: Again, because we went with the most restrictive permitted size. Mayor Hamilton: Then w~ need to change our ordinance I guess. As Bill says, we need to look at doing some adjusting there. Councilman Boyt: That's all I have. I like the idea that it's 20 feet high and as far as that's within our ordinance without any changes. Councilman Horn: Does staff have any knowledge of what other oil company signs are? In other words, what's the square footage on Standard and Holiday? It seems kind of strange if there's only one gas company out there that has signs that are larger than anybody elses. Barbara Dacy: As far as the ordinance is concerned, I really r~r a lot of discussion with the Council that one week that we went through the zoning ordinance and we really looked at the sign size issue for 64 square feet and the Council's determination was if it's going to be larger than that, than we establish the conditional use permit process. I think we did a fair amount of study to that through the zoning ordinance. Councilman Horn: I guess I don't have a problem with larger signs but to me the reason seens kind of flakey. Because our company doesn't build a sign that size. I'd like to hear the answer. ~ Mueller: I'm afraid I don't have an answer directly to your ommnent but I do have a stat~nent about what we are required as a petroleum company retailing gasoline on the street. We have to post our prices to the public. We are then handicapped in our sign sizes because we have to put that down below amd in that 80 square foot is our pricing as required by law .... is the issue but that is one of the reasons that service stations have larger signs on them. 42 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Councilman Horn: My question was your company relative to Star~ard and the Holiday. They have the same restrictions. Roman Mueller: Yes, they do. I don't know what their sign sizes are. I honestly don't. I only deal with our signs. I know in many locations they're larger. Many locations they're m~aller. ;~ain, depending on the local ordinances as in this situation. Councilman Horn: To me that's a key issue to making a decision on this. ~hat do we allow other similar businesses in town? If w~ don't know that, how can w~ have any data to base this decision? Mayor Hamilton: That's why I think Bill's saying our ordinance ~s to be reviewed because w~ apparently have the wrong size signs. We need to go out to the people who make signs and ask ~ what the standard is. I don' t think w~ did that last time. Barbara Dacy: Tae ~ and the Holiday stations had their's installed 'prior to the ordinance. If you want to table the item until we can research, that's fine. Mayor Hamilton: I don' t know why w~ should have to do that. Councilman Gevirg: Rcmm~n, is your sign a standard 8g square feet? Is that what the cc~pany makes for you to go out and put up? Roman Mueller: The 80 and the 130 square foot signs. Those are our two standard sizes. Councilman Geving: So 130 is your next size? R~man Mueller: That's right. Councilman Geving: Nothing lower than that? Councilman Geving: ~hat would the 4 foot reduction do to you if we drop the height fr~m 24 to 20 feet? Bmman Mueller: We have no problem with dropping the height. We would actually prefer that. Councilman Geving: Site location down there, it seems like you could see a sign for quite a ways so I don't think the 20 feet would bother us. I have no othe~ Councilman Johnson: I think if you drop that bottom third of the advertising section off where you're advertising your Instant Cash or if we changed to where we allo~sd 64 square foot of named logo sign and for gas stations allow so many square foot of pricirg information, that that sesms reasonable. As I read ar~ read and reread this Section 20-1260, Non-conforming. uses, I don't see why we can't issue a cor~itional use permit here. It says it would then be conforming 43 ~ty Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 to the size provisions of the most restrictive zoning district. Tne signing provisions of the most restrictive zoning district allows a conditional use permit up to 80 square feet. Can we issue a conditional use permit as if this was the most restrictive zoning district? I'm confused. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps we can have Roger clarify that seeing you don't believe what the staff has to say. Roger would you please clarify that? Roger Ig~utson: I guess I have to ask a question of Barb? What is the most restrictive zoning district in which the use is allowed and what signs are allowed? Barbara Dacy: The Business Highway District. Roger Knutson: And in the Business Highway District, what can you have for sign size? Jo Ann Olsen: Taey're under the same one, t_he BG and the BH and that would be 64 square feet or 80 square feet in conditional use. Barbara Dacy: Section 20-1303. Roger Knutson: I think it's not 100% clear but I would suggest that perhaps I would have said get a conditional use permit. Barbara Dacy: If the Council obviously feels that the variance is not appropriate and wanted to have the applicant withdraw the variance application, he would have to readvertise and start over with the conditional use permit if you feel more comfortable granting a conditional use permit versus a variance. It just delays the applicant. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make a motion. I move that we table this matter. You have an existing sign. I think it must be functioning and I'd like to see us do this properly. To do that we need more information as Clark and others have pointed out. Councilman Horn: I second that. Councilman Boytmoved, Councilman Horn seconded to table the sign permit variance request to Section 20-1260 to construct an 80 square foot sign for the SuperAmerica Station at 615 Flying Cloud Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: I hope this isn't going to cause you any probl~. Tnat's not the motion I would have preferred to have seen but you can function temporarily with the sign you have. Roman Mueller: Is there a time on this study? Councilman Boyt: Sure, the next Council meeting. Roman Mueller: Are you going to canvas only service stations in this area or 44 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 are you going to look at thsm more~ ~ ~ Mayor Hamilton: I think our question is more internal right now as to whether it should be a conditional use or a variance. I don't think at this point we're going to start talking to sign manufacturers to find out what standard sizes of signs are. That's a bigger probl~ ~m need to deal with down the road. Councilman Johnson: During discussions I didn't get a chance to ask a couple questions. Mayor Hamilton: Save them for next time. We're going to see it again. Councilman Johnson: If he already know what the questions are then he'll have the answers? What is the cost to make it 64 square feet? Roman Mueller: A 64 square foot sign w~uld cost me about Councilman Horn: As opposed to? R~an Mneller: The one I have now? 8 by 10, 80 square feet? Pr~aanufactured for about $5,0M0.~0. Having one custcmed made or purchasing one premade is about the same amount. If I was to buy the 64 square foot mass produced, I could probably buy it for about $3,5M0.00. Councilman Horn: So the cost w~uld be the same? R~man Mueller: About the same cost. Councilman Johnson: So where's the hardship for a variance? Councilman Boyt: Did you say you already have the 80 square foot? ~ MA~eller: I already own the 80 square foot signs bought them in bulk by our stores. So actually it w~uld cost me $10,000.00. Councilman Geving: I think it would be fair to answer your question Roman. You ask for a date. Let's say the first _n~'ctirg in July. That gives us a month. Councilman Boyt: Do we ~ that? Mayor Hamilton: That w~uldn't be until July llth. It could be on as early as the 27th of JUne I w~uld think if you could work this out. Barbara Dacy: Yes we could place it on the agenda on June 27th. If the Council at that meetirg determines that a conditional use permit is necessary, we're talking not until August until he can get heard by. Mayor Hamilton: It would se~a to me that you and Roger ~ the ones who are going to determin whether it's going to have to be a variance or a conditional use. I don't think that' s up to us to det,rmine. You' re the one who' s going to reccam~ to us which one we're going to go with. Barbara Dacy: Okay, my r~endation still stands as a variance. 45 ~City Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: There' s some confusion on that issue and that' s what we' re trying to clarify I think. That's the reason for the tabling I believe. Councilman Horn: That's part of it. Tne other part is finding out what current sign sizes w~ have in this city because if we're way out of line than we should change our ordinance. Councilman Johnson: R~man, the 80 square foot sign you currently have, is there a possibility that some other station, is the same sign used nationwide? I mean you're not going to eat that sign and just let it sit in the warehouse. I'm sure you'll find use for it. Rc~an Mueller: I'm down to three stores in the State of Minnesota right now. That's it. This is one of them. The other one is in Mankato and the other one -is downtown St. Paul. Councilman Johnson: Could they use an 80 square foot sign in either of those? R~man Mueller: St Paul I have three faces on two sides for a total 6 faces and each one of them is well over 80 square feet. Tae other one is in Mankato and that's gettirg a 10 by 13 sign. Right now we're just going to adjust the placement of it with the City. Could I use it? Potentially yes. At what time I don't know. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR A 60 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCAT~ SOUTH AND ADJACENT TO CHAN VIEW, HERI~I%GE PARK APARTMENT PARTNERS. Mayor Hamilton: We also tabled item 3 to go along with this item. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Cc~mission recommended approval of this item. One of the major issues of discussion at the Planning Commission meeting was the traffic issue and those concerns were voiced from people that live in the neighborhood to the north of the proposed site. T~e concerns were about regarding the removal of the stop signs at West 78th Street and Great Plains Blvd. and as we noted in the staff update, we know that the Council is well aware of MnDot's position on traffic control along this stretch. We put a note that this only confirms that the City's intent to try and realign TH 101 as soon as possible and get the north/south traffic out of downtown and on it's own realigned roadway. In a nutshell, this overhead reflects the original building location and building configuration on the site. What is now proposed is more of an "L" shape building which is located on the site approximately 70 feet now further south of the lot line to the existing 2 1/2 story apartment building but it is 10 feet closer to the west lot line. The applicant has sutmit~ a good landscaping plan to maximize so that the yard areas around the building is providing for good yard space. The Planning Cc~mission also adopted t_he previous conditions of approval that were impose~ during the 1987 review as well. I know that the Council is concerned about the design and exterior quality of the building. I now see that the architect is here for the applicant that could probably better address those questions. Brad Johnson: I thought maybe first of all we could review the process that we're going through to get everything in order since we did change them around a 46 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 7 little bit. You have before you two decisions to make. One is the inducems~t resolution for the bonds that w~ plan on usirg to finance that and that's the part that you tabled. Inducement resolution will allow us to use housing revenue bonds to finance the project and those of course have no on-going direct obligation other than to the project for payment. In addition to that, as you also have before you a housing plan, the city has no updated plans. Is that right Barb? We had to redo the housing plan as a part of our condition for the bond so that's also in there. I think both of those are somewhat formalities in bonding processes. The second thing is that w~'ve bccn asked, w~ formed a new partnership to own the project ar~ we were asked by that partnership to redesign the building to fit with what they perceive is a better plan and design. That's what we're sukmitting to you. It's ~ approved by the Planning fk~mission with their recommendation. We've had basically no neighborhood, we had a meeting on our own with the neighbors and the Planning ~ission meeting and in both cases their only concern ~as 78th Street intersection so you guys can take care of that on it~ 19. I'd like to introduce Tc~ Z~walde who is the architect for the project ar~ then back in the corner is Jay Weiss. He represents Weiss Construction who will be a general partner in the project. T~m Zumwalde: I understand there ~.re some questions or comments concerning the elevations. Let me first tell you why we're goirg through this process. Brad mentioned...and what we found is we did ~ marketing ...Maxwell of Minneapolis and also got s~me input fr~m the contractor in terms of cost ar~ both of those w~re important factors in taking another look at the design and configuration. The original building was kind of a question mark shape with a lot of angles in it and what happened as a result of that is you end up with a lot of pie shaped units with minimal exterior wall and a very wide space in the inside of the building. Marketing felt that ~s not very desirable. It also a lot of pie shaped ro~s. Another thing was wherever you hit one of those angles you have s~me real severe structural problems. It's very costly so we looked at those and we looked at the costs that it w~uld take to accc~plish that and could that money be better spent elsewhere in the building? Loo~ at a new design and a new design that is virtually the same square footage as the original. I think it's perhaps 2M0 square feet bigger. Scmething like that but almost identical. The same height. The same unit count. Eve~irg. The big difference is that the average unit size increases 24 square feet. The units are muc~ more marketable. The buildirg is fully sprinkled now. The units have washers ar~ dryers in them. A lot of amenities that we w~ren' t or w~uld not have been able to originally offer in the program. Those are basically the reasons why we've taken another look at it. In terms of the exterior, we're looking at pretty much the same pallet of materials that we were looking at originally. Certainly the same type of character. The original building was a combination of brick and horizontal lap siding. What we're looking at on the proposed building and unfortunatley I don't have it colored for you but I think you can see pretty much the configuration. Again, we've got brick ar~ we've got a series of t~) different types of lap siding breaking at the third level. You can see the darker divider. We also have balconies in all of the units now versus the original proposal which had either balconies or bay windows. ~he balconies will project from th~ facades of the buildirg so they break up what is perceived now as a longer plan and I think will be successful in bringing down the sale of the building. We had the tower initially. We've maintained that element. That's still the focal point of the building. That's pretty much it I guess. Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill had scme concerns about the construction of 47 ~City Council Mseting - JUne 13~ 1988 materials~ Councilman Boyt: Let me deal with probably one of my bigger concerns. Soundproofing that's going into it. I w~uld assume that this is probably built as a typical apartment is built and that's not soundproof enough. Tc~ Zumwalde: The guidelines for an apartment building are party walls...which are standard. You find t_hat pretty much in...housing. Apartments. It doesn't matter. It's kind of an industry standard. There are ways of increasing it slightly but again the cost of it is considerable to do that. We're certainly going to meet all the standards. There's no question about that. Councilman Boyt: Tell me what this rating of 50 blocks in terms of sound intensity. Does it block my neighbor's bass frcm their stereo? Tom Zumwalde: Probably not. Councilman Boyt: One of the things, when w~ take 60 people and we put them together and if this was your apartment building without city assistance, this would be an interest of mine but it wouldn't be as concern but the City is becoming involved in this and as such, I think one of the things that we could do is we can say to people, there are 60 people living in here but once you get inside your doors, you're a unit. You're not bombarded by people frc~ the outside. That makes your place very attractive and I think that it's worth the possibility of say for instance double sheet rocking which is fairly inexpensive really since you're only putting a finishing coat on the outside surface. Tom Zumwalde: Let me explain it a little further. Party walls that you have to use in an apartment project have to have tests run on them... Double layer of drywall is certainly one of ~... What we can do if you have something specific in mind in terms of an STC... Councilman Boyt: It's been a while since I've seen those ratings so the general idea is let's block stereos for instance. I know that a total block is completely unrealistic but we can probably block 90% of it and so I'd like to see your work on that and with the prospect that we're going to go above the industry norm for an apartment building. The other concern I had was really more a maintenance of the exterior. I recognize this is certainly a cost factor but what is going to s~mething like an all brick do to your cost? You currently have about a third brick now and the rest of it is lap siding. T~m Zumwalde: It increases it. Perhaps Jay could address that. Councilman Boyt: Give it to me over like 30 years. When we consider maintenance of the lap siding versus the brick. Jay Weiss: There are maintenance costs incurred. However, as a reserve it is set up manually that we pay for those expenses of exterior maintenance so that'a requirement of the lender to have a reserve set up so without it the dollars sit there and just accumulate. ~nis program better uses the dollars for the intended use. I never looked at 30 years to be honest. We can only give square foot costs in terms of installation. 48 City Council Meeting - JUne 13, 1988 Oour~ilman Boyt: I look at the apartment buildings that are there by the railroad tracks off of TH ifil. Don't those have brick exterior ar~ we don't have any city money in that building do w~? So I think there is an advantage in having an exterior that's going to last at least 30 years or longer and it would be nice to know how much that's really going to cost us in terms of rent. Eventually all these things get reflected back into rent and I think we have a lever from the public money standpoint that we wouldn't normally have. Mayor Hamilton: I think you also need to consider who's going to, what market are they attempting to reach for people to be in there and the more you continue to add in such as brick which is very expensive, if you're going to require that, than you to continue to cut out the bottom level of people ~ho can afford to be in there. If the City is going to be, as you say involved in the funding of this through tax increment financing, it would --.-~-~ to me that we may want to have as broad a base as possible. People who can afford to rent in this building. Councilman Boyt: Yes, I agree with you and it's my understanding that there are 10 units that we're providing for senior citizens or how many units Brad for senior citizens? Brad Johnson: This building is designed for 24. It's an adult building and the target market is over 55 years old. We also set it up so that 24 of tl~ units have been set aside for low to moderate income at the expense of the developer. That's the kind of building. We can not do an FHA building that's specifically for seniors so if we can target the rent to seniors initially. Their concern is we don't build it for seniors than what do you do? We don't have a true senior building where you've got a ruling senior, they just don't do that right now. They used to do it. Mayor Hamilton: So are your re, ts flexible enough so as the cost of this building continues to go up, the people who are going to be able to rent in here will r~main the same? Brad Johnson: The problem that we have is we can put an all brick exterior on this ar~ we're already capped on our rent. That does not increase the rent. In other words, the lenders say you can rent this for so ~ in Chanhassen but the amenity package and the exterior package does not increase t/~ rents. They take out the dishwashers too...so washers and dryers and things that we're putting inside the building but things on the outside do not. We added another $60,000.00 worth of exterior, there's no way that we could be reimbursed for that building cost. The money that tl~ City is assisting this project, I might also say the building was previously approved as the same type of siding it has. Wood ar~ brick. The money that the City is assisting this project on is going to directly to the tenants. Not the developer. In other words, we're going to develop, how we're doing it is that the other issue is the tax ex~pt nature of our clients and by providing 24 units for low ar~ moderate inccme qualifies us to offer this at about 2% lower interest rate. We have an agre~mmTt with the City that the money that they give us in assistance, that we've requested will be repaid to the City in addition to all of this so that's how it works. The additional fur~s that have to go back in the district, the agr~----ments that are involved. The first agreement had to do with additional land. T~ second one the City is advancing us approximately an additional $40,000.00 a year of tax revenue that will pay for this ar~ that will be used then to basically subsidize 49 ~y Council Meeting - JUne 13~ 1988 those 24 tenants. However, the developer is required also to pay back those funds over a 12 year period. Don Ashw~rth: I was just going to basically say the same thing. Maybe just a slight twist on it. The performer that the HRA looked at in establish a subsidy level considered two portions. One to the developer and one to the units ~elves. Set up to try to turn this and reduce the number of years. The subsidy level right now turns positive in the 6th year or from the 6th to the 7th year. The total agreement though is written over a 12 year package. We have been pushing for the performer to maintain that 6th to 7th year position. Additional costs that we may put into the project, what that will do is keep the project from turning positive to the 7th, 8th, 9th year. In other words, reduce the monies that Brad was talking about that would be repaid to the City so there is s~me benefit to us in not pushing through additional costs. I'm not saying that we shouldn't look for the best materials and the best project. I'm just saying, you can not look at those as though they're dollars that they're just simply going to absorb. We probably will absorb them. Councilman Boyt: I think that if we're looking at 12 years here and then basically, as I understand it, the building is privately owned. It's operated like any other apartment building. Is that correct? Ar~ I'd like to think that we have a building that's going to be standing and as pretty as it looks like it's going to be today, 20 to 30 years from now. There's certainly plenty of examples of buildings that are of this nature so that's why I-'m a little concerned about a w~od construction exterior. Tom Zumwalde: I know what you're saying about brick...it's a major, major cost. If you look around at a lot of what I consider newer luxury developments around town, tt~y are for the most part wood sided. It's not a cheap, chinsey material and this is... I think to put the brick on it would push it w~y into the cadillac realm and that's really out of the realm of... Councilman Boyt: I've got just a couple of questions and then I'll stop. There are 24 units that are low to moderate inc(m~. There are, I saw the figure 5 units that are handicap accessible? Tom Zumwalde: Three units. Councilman Boyt: Isn't that set by the size of the building? Okay, well I would think that it's well worth the City's money to improve the sound barrier. That just makes it a better place and it's not all that much more expensive and I will give up on the brick. Councilman Horn: No con~ents. Councilman Geving: I think this is certainly s~mething we've been w~nting in Chanhassen for a long time to increase our housing base with a major complex such as this. I'm certainly all for it. I'd like to know a little bitmore about where this lies in relationship to Chan View. How much further back from Chan View is this location now than it was previously? I'm quite surprised that we didn't get a lot of homeowner input on this but apparently it's also the fact that we have a buffer there now. We already have apartments on those corners and people are used to ~ and I don't think that they feel this is a threat. It's actualiy a major improver. How many feet would you say that would be? 50 City Council Meeting - JUne 13, 1988 1! Tc~ Z~u~alde: The original proposal ~s approx!,~tely, almost the same distance fr~ Chan View. Barbara Dacy: It met the setback in the front ~hich is 25 feet off of Chan View. Councilman Geving: Then the street will be lined up with Huron. The street I live on so I could omme right into the apartment cc~pl~ when I get to be 55 and ready to occupy it. I'd like to know are these units, are these units that are going to be sold? Strictly a rental arrange~a~t. Strictly rental and you are marketing for an age group in the 55 seniors, let's say rather than young married with children? Brad Johnson: Yes. The building has been basically designed as an adult building. One bedroom, den. One bedrocm and then two bedroom swingle units which means they've got a living room in the middle and a bedroom and a bath off of two, each bedroom and a bath are off on either side. Generally speaking those types of units are designed more for adults. One or two adults living in it. I won't say that we won't get a lot of children but we've got quite a few and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just the building isn't limited to that. The other thing is that we've got quite a bit of new units that are c~ming abroad that are more designed for families. TWo bedrooms. Three bedrooms in different configurations. Young families don't te~] to like to have their children not next door to them. Councilman Geving: Brad have you thought of any security measures in the parking areas? Is there going to be a parking garage for each of the units? Will there be a security type of arrangeuent that you'll have there? Brad Johnson: There will be a push button operator for each person to get into the garage. It's a fully secured building. You just can't get in. Councilman Geving: Okay, so you thought about all those angles. wet Brad Johnson: What we're trying to do is fulfill, ve listened with the neighborhood over in that area ar~ they would like to see this, at least one of these types of buildings go in put in there. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you a question about your lar~scaping. I don't see too much about the landscaping plan or what I would ~_"~c as I drive down Huron ar~ look at this facility. What kind of shrubery? Plow's it going to look to the viewer? Tom Zu~walde: Through your ordinance you require so many trees planted arour~] the perimeter of the site and that ~ms volunteered. A fair amount of buffer type of... As you get out here along Chan View, there is bezming along this side and again the trees every so far with a shrub lining. Then again a perimeter landing along this side. We'll have to develop that patio area in here and ultimate connect it to trails... Councilman Geving: What about the recreational facilities? Is there anything in the building itself designed for the residents? 51 ty Council M~eting - June 13, 1988 Tc~ Zumw~lde: Yes, in this corner of the building there's 3,000 square feet on the first floor that is a party room, com%lunity kitchen, bathroom. Councilman Geving: Where they could put on an open house type thing? And there's a kitchen in there? Tom Zumwalde: Yes. Councilman Geving: Just another quick question. What are one of these units going to cost to be when I get to be 55 and want to move into it a single unit. Brad Johnson: Let clarify that. Through the City participation w~'re setting aside 24 units that will go to low to moderate inc(mm~ which means that the people living in that unit will have to or 60% of the median income for a single or family. That's in the range of $12,000.00 to $16,000.00 a year and they can spend a certain percentage of that money for their income. That's just for the 24 units. We've also set that aside primarily for the senior citizens. That's the 55 and older group. If w~ can't find that group in town, than w~ have to rent it to everybody else. The other 36 units are open to all adults at our market rate and our rate of rental runs scmething like $350.00 at the low end and up to $675.00. Now the units ~selves we can not, this is another rule, we can not take a two bedroom unit and not rent it as a subsidized unit. There's no special units. It's just the individual. Each unit will have it's own thing and we'll have a base rent period. If a person qualifies for a unit, there's no, it's not like a Section 8 housing or something like that where we've got a certain kind unit. We'll basically have the same kind of units available to everybody. Councilman Geving: That's the kind of questions I'm getting from the residents in the community now. How much does it cost? What are they going to look like? What are the amenities? I'm hoping that you'll be providing the newspapers, we've got all the papers represented here tonight, with that kind of information. Brad Johnson: We've got to go through this process first. Councilman Geving: You'll get it. Or~ other question since you did indicate that you're going to have balconies, are those going to be cement balconies or are they going to be wood? We had a big probl~n over in Eagan I believe with a fire on the balconies and that kind of thing. What are the balconies going to look like? Tc~ Zumwalde: In fact I was reading the Minutes from last year. They are wood. The construction of the building above the garage is wood frame and the balconies will also be wood. As I recall in the Minutes last year, I believe the City has an ordinance... Councilman Johnson: I don't have a lot of questions on this. I see where Bill's coming from. I can't support you right now Bill on this because I can't get a grasp. I don't know what that cost differential is. From where they're coming from the standard building thing going up to the next step and how much noise reduction you get with that next step. If you said the base noise there's not much that stops it. My neighbor who lives 200 feet, more than 200 feet away from me, his base goes blasting through my walls and I've got extra sized walls 52 City Council Mseting - June 13, 1988 201 and everything. I see where you're coming fr~m but in this case we don't have enough information to go with. I can't put s~m~ethirg on here that's going to kill this project. I think this project's important to the City and potential cost increased to this project, like you say a double layer drywall, when you start talking 60 rooms, you're talking a lot of money. I'm not sure if you're going to have a significant increase. I think apartment management can control sound in an apartment. Just like the apartments I used to live in in Texas, it took the manag~3nt to do it. There was nothing I could do about it. We had a rock and roll group four apartments down. ~here was nothing I could do about thsm as far as construction wise. Otherwise, I see this as a benefit to the City. Mayor Hamilton: When you build your walls, I guess just to follow up on ~hat Bill's saying, are they 2 x 6, 2 x 8 construction? Do you do a single wall for two sides or do you actually build 2 x 6 walls? Tom Zu~walde: Typical w~uld be a 2 x 4 stud with s~me...on one side and 5/Sths on the other side for sound insulation. There are 6 plate 2 x 4 studs staggered on that plate... There are a whole variety of ~. Some of ~ increase the fire rating more than they increase the sound deadening so I would have to go back to the book and look at... The increase in sound deadening isn't that great even in a really significant wall. It only goes up to perhaps 55... It costs more to do it than you realize. Mayor Hamilton: I know sc~e of ~ do a double wall which I would think would improve it a lot or go through a 2 x 6 wall so you get 'additional insulation in there would help I would think. Brad Johnson: I guess the best thing is there has been a tremendous increase, since many of you live in apartments, in apartment sound proofing and if anybody is really interested w~ have one that was built to this spec that is currently being rented if you want to go visit one, we'd be more than happy to buy you lunch and drag you over there. It's in St. Louis Park and it's basically the same standards as this building. It's designed for seniors. Councilman Boyt: I think this is an issue that if there's a way that we can put a condition on this that leaves the issue op~ so we can look at the cost trade- off, quiet is one of the most expensive things we can buy anywhere. This is an opportunity to build s~me more into the building if it's at all economically justifiable. I just think to make that decision without the chance to examine is to miss an opportunity and I'd like to see us create a window so we can look closer. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. Is quiet the most expensive thing we can buy or the most precious? Councilman Geving made a motion to approve the PUD amendment as presented by staff and Mayor Hamilton seconded tt~ motion. Councilman Boyt: What about adding s~mething on the sound? I don't know exactly how to word that but do we need... Barbara Dacy: ~at they w~re discussing is that condition 4 requires that the facia plan c~me back. If you wanted to add s~mething in that condition to address the sound proof issue. 53 Council Meeting - JUne 13, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: You'll get another shot at that review of their building plans specifically. Councilman Geving: We'll see that again so we won't have to include it tonight. You understand what we're trying to do so come back to us with that. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve PUD Amendment Request #87-1 subject to the plans stamped "Received May 12, 1988" and the following conditions: 1. A detailed utility plan showing water, sewer and stormwater connections as well as fire hydrant locations shall be suhnitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. 2. A revised landscaping plan shall be sukmitted indicating the additional plantings to be located between Chan View and the parking area. 3. A pedestrian walk-way shall be provided on the site in conjunction with the development plans for the retail projects to be developed to the south and east of the parcel. 4. Detailed facia and signage plans shall be su~xnitted for Planning Commission and City Council final review prior to building permit issuance. 5. Iaa~oval of the existing single family residence shall be accomplished prior to building permit issuance. 6. Detailed lighting plans shall be sukxnitted prior to building permit issuance. 7. All parking areas shall be lined with concrete curbing. 8. Cxm~liance with the comments as noted in the Building Department m~norand~ dated May 25, 1988. 9. Ccmpliance with the comments in the letter from BR~ dated May 25, 1988, specifically #6-#11 on pages 1 and 2 and #1 on page 3. 10. ~liance with comments as noted in the Fire Department m~no dated May 27, 1988. 11. Items referred to in BRW's letter be specifically spelled out regarding storm sewer. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. PROPOSED HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRAM. Resolution ~88-58: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Housing Revenue Bond Program and Housing Plan for construction of the Chanhassen Heritage Square Apartment Complex. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 54 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the agenda to discuss iten 16 before item 15. All voted in favor ar~ the motion carried. FINAL PlAT APPROVAL, lAKE RILEY WOODS S(X]TH. Barbara Dacy: The applicants are requesting final plat approval ar~ the first two pages of the staff report identify that most of the conditions, of I should say all the cor~]itions that were required to be addressed prior to final plat have been addressed. The other conditions will be incorporated in the engir_---~r's review of the plans and specifications which will follow later. The primary issue of concern for the applicant and staff is clarification of Council's action on April llth regarding the road easenent. This is the lot where the road easement ~as required by Council to be located. The applicant had originally intended to sutxnit a letter to put forth his position but be preferred to make a presentation tonight. Quickly just from Staff's standpoint, we had interpretted Council's action to be that an easement should be reserved through Lot 3 for possible connection into the Halla subdivision. ~hat we wanted to do was look at if the Halla subdivision was to be finalized within the next year and final platted, we wanted sc~e questions answered so that we could come back to the Council with some type of means to construct the road if and when Halla ever develops. We did determine that we could carry out road construction from the road into this subdivision, into Halla's subdivision through special assessment public improvement process. If that occurs, we are recommending that this portion of Lot 3 be give~ to the City as an outlot so we have control of the land and that the develol:ment contract provide that LOt 3 will waive their rights to object to any future special asses~nents. If Halla does not file his final plat nor if he does not develop our concern was that you would have a 60 foot easement existing through the middle of Lot 3 with no possibility of it being constructed and the Council is well aware of those issues where we try to connect streets 10 or 15 or 20 years down tl~ road. It just creates a lot of problems so in any case, the applicant is here ar~ is basically asking the Council not to require the road through on Lot 3. We have prepared r~ations as to how to proceed depending upon Council action and clarification of their motion from April llth. Mayor Hamilton: Dido' t we discuss the F~] la' s subdivision after we discussed this one? Barbara Dacy: Right. Halla's preliminary plat was approved prior to action on this plat. We did discuss the Halla plat during this iten on April klth. Councilman Boyt: He was here and talked about it. Mayor Hamilton: George or Jim, did you have anything you wanted to add to that? Jim Peterson: Not necessarily anything to add. I don't know that we ever really stated our position...staff and Council recommendation and made every effort to work with staff and Council on this. Originally when we w~nt to the Planning Commission, the Planning Ommission recc~m~ed that we work with staff to try and create an emerg~ access for this project. Since we have worked so closely with staff it was my impression, we knew we couldn't back onto CR 14, 55 l~ty Council Meeting - June 131 1988 Pioneer Trail. We had the ravine in the back ar~ west side and geogra~hical...work with staff to try and find a solution. Then at Council we were requested to provide an easement, which we did. I got the impression that Mr. Halla held the key here to this and my opinion has been all along, or our opinion as the developer of this, that action is now unnecessary and could be detrimental. In reviewing his original staff reports, we find that Mr. Madden the Fire Inspector had said that w~ are in ccmpliance with the Fire Code. Scott Hart, the Assistant Director of Public Safety has said that he sees no specific need for a second access road. Larry Brown in one of his original recommendations stated it is recommended that the right-of-way r~main as shown on the plans stamped "January 7, 1988" which included no secondary easement for access. So with those staff recommendations in mind, when I personally think about the road connection, I have concerns for our neighborhood and the traffic would short circuit or try to circumvent the stop sign out on CR 14 and cut through here and this connection will in fact increase traffic into the subdivision. Also provide traffic that's not indigenous to the local neighborhood. That if Halla's plat is ever developed, all of his traffic will come through our neighborhood. I've heard from the neighbors that traffic at the stop sign on CR 14 will back up all the way to their house which is right across from Lake Riley. People back up that far at 5:00 and 6:00 and know that this road is here and they can cut through and turn south, I think they're going to use that. Taese are people that are...and I think their concern is how fast can they get home. Thirdly when I look at the cost for that particular piece of road, just the cost of the road construction itself I would estimate if I were doing it at $50,000.00 to $55,000.00 plus the land cost. I personally can't see how that piece of road is worth the economic impact. If I look at the further econ~ic impact, what it would do to the neighbors buying property from us who all of a sudden have road on two sides of their house, if I were a consumer looking at their house I would pay $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 less for their unit easily just because they have a road on two sides ar~ a possible road where people are going to be shortcutting. To me it would make a lot of sense if we' re connecting two neighborhoods, for greater ease of road maintenance, snowplowing but I don't see where it really does any of this. If the Director of Public Safety doesn't have a problem with it. Tne Fire Chief doesn't have a problem with it. The economic, if we provide Lot 3, we waive our rights to object assessments on Lot 3, you've given us an unsellable lot. I can't see where anybody would buy that lot. Your original directions provide an easement that would cause the least amount of cost and damage for both those... ~nat's basically our position. One, we don't think that the economic cost potential and the inconvenience and hazard it would create for the neighborhood is worth it. I would have no objection to a connection that makes for a smooth flow provided as a secondary and a lot of develo~ents we looked for that secondary access because it save us a lot of road cost for one thing but it also creates smooth flowing neighborhoods. I don't think this is the case so from all of us... If w~ have to give the eassment as a condition of plat approval, re basically hostage. I guess we've stated our opinion. We don't feel that it's of benefit to us, the neighbors or to the conm~anity. Originally like I say, I just went along with the Planning ~ission and the Council and I appreciate the opportunity to state our position. Councilman Johnson: I'm still for the easement here. I don't fool myself to think that we're going to actually have a road going through there for a considerable length of time but if in 20 years from now we are resubdividing this area into 15,000 or 20,000 square foot lots, this 2 1/2 and 5 acre lots 56 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 17 putting more and more houses on it, that easement becxam~ extremely important. That gives us the ability to get that. Right now you have, I forget what the number of lots are, 15 or 16, so you have 16 households being serviced on this fairly long cul-de-sac. Now you're going to, in the future when sewer ~ water comes through, you're going to have 3~ or 4~, if they do ever subdivide. It may become such a neighborhood that nobody would ever charge their house and always leave it 2 1/2 but we see lots of these 2 1/2 acres that are legally subdivided or gone right down to 15,0~ as soon as I want to retire and move in town to the new apartment building, I subdivide my big lot and create a little more profit to it. That's what we'll see in 1~ to 2~ years. I'm not as muc/7 for the ]muediate connection here as reserving for future Councils and for future people the ability to get that street in there when there's a lot more people there. As far as waiving the rights of special assessment to that one lot, that one lot is not the only benefitting. You're giving a second access to all 16 lots for emergency purposes. I believe all 16 lots benefit from this street. Not that one lot. In fact that one lot, if anything, is hurt more than benefitted because of having then two streets on the side of it. I'd hate to put the cost of that street against that one lot. If I was going to spread the cost it would be spread against the whole subdivision. I think that's the extent of my Councilman Geving: There se~ms to be some confusion on whether or not the City Council opted for the easement and after reviewing my notes on it, I thought it was pretty clear that that's exactly what we did. ~hat we reserved an easement for future use so I want to lay to rest any thought that there was some confusion on the part of staff in interpretting our Minutes from the night of April llth. It was very clear to me that that was the. vote ar~ I too agree that many times when w~ request these easements, not for today but we're trying to look ahead as best we can in the future. There's a lot of if's here of course because the if is the connection to the Halla subdivision and we don't know where that's going or whether that will actually happen but the preservatiof of the easement I thought was a good decision on April llth and I still feel that way. Councilman Horn: I think we have to be reasonable as to how far in the future we look. I don't see the scope of this type of develolm~nt changing. I think it's going to stay this way forever ar~ I think it's much more desireable as a development for these people to have a cul-de-sac. If we're going to screw up a lot at least, potentially a whole develolm~m~t for some future down the road which I don't think w~'re going to ~__ for 30 years or more in this area, at that time when people do come in and t~ want to have more building permits and subdivide these areas, we can put a requirement on ~ at time that they have to a~ongst ~lves come up with some type of secondary access road but I think w~' re looking too far in the future to put this ki~d of requirement on today. I agree at some point we may want to do that but I think the whole purpose behind our subdivision in the unsewered area ~s to provide enough area to allow that planning to occur when the subdivision occurs and I don't think it's necessary at this point. Councilman Boyt: Dale I agree with you. I don't think there ~ms any question that we approved that easement. ~er, I also feel that we don't want to have this easeuent hang out there for 2~ years. I think what we're really trying to do is, what I'm trying to do is clean up the road connections with the Halla develoB~ent and if that c~mes in the next year so w~ don't get a chance to 57 ~ ~ity Council Meeting - June 13 ~ 1988 replat it, than w~ don't need this road easement because w~'ve got nowhere to take it. But until that happens I think w~ definitely do need it and I'll say again that I am shocked if the Fire Chief reco~nends the approval of an 1,800 to 2,000 foot cul-de-sac. Dale Gregory: I'd like to make a clarification. Tne Fire Chief has never seen this plat. It's the Fire Marshall... Mayor Hamilton: It was never stated that the Fire Chief had anything to do with it. Councilman Boyt: Pardon me. I misstated. Thank you for clarifying that. Councilman Johnson: The applicant misstated it earlier. Councilman Boyt: I think that we've all talked about cul-de-sacs and kind of know where we' re coming frc~ on these things. I think protecting the easement for the next year is not an exceptional hardship on the developer and I'd like to see us protect this until we can see how the Halla develol~nent is going to come out. Chris Brandle: I live adjacent on the property to the north. Would the cost of that road ever be assessed against my property? Mayor Hamilton: I don't know. I haven't any idea. Councilman Boyt: I don't think you're going to connect to it. Mayor Hamilton: Is it abutting? Gary Warren: Are you fronted on CR 147 Chr is Brandle: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: It's hard to say. It depends on how you develop your land. You've asked an impossible question. Chris Brandle: It means a lot of me right now whether this road gets pushed through and if I'm assessed for it in the future. Mayor Hamilton: We can't answer your question right now. If you had a proposal on the table of how you're going to develop your lar~ and how it's going to to fit in with the Halla' s. Chris Brandle: My land is developed. My land is as is. They're putting a road up the back side of it. If there's a chance that I'll be assessed when that road goes through, I'd like to know now so... Mayor Hamilton: If you're not benfitting frGn it, I can't imagine you'd ever be assessed for it. ~he only comments I have, I don't think it was a unanimous vote that we k~p the easement and I'm sure I was not in favor of it simply for the reasons stated by Clark. It's not necessary and as I recall it just didn't fit in with Halla's. Although we don't have all of Halla's plat here yet to deal with so it's not something that I'd like to even retain for right now. If 58 City Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 it ~as a subdivision within the ccamunity, 15,000 square foot lots, then I like to ko-ap neighborhoods connected but when you get out into the rural areas where you've got 2 1/2 acre lots or larger, I see no reason to connect one to the other. It's the same thing as across the street whe~ we had Lake Riley Woods and Dave Hanson's. It's the same thing. It didn't make sense to connect those two ar~ it still doesn't to me to connect this one. I see no reason to connect to it at all. So from my standpoint I don't see any r~ for the easement. Councilman 6L=ving: I think T~n this is another one of those areas where Mr. Halla's plat is going to trigger s~me things and we should be putting those notes in the file. If it doesn't happen a year from now and we don't need this, I'd agree with Bill to let it go, until we see ~hat that plat looks like. Mayor Hamilton: Except it makes it harder for the developer to try to go ahead and he's going to have to, how does he sell the adjoing lots. Try to tell somebody you can buy this ar~ maybe there will be a road next to you and maybe there won't. It's hard for the~ to put a value on a lot because it may be of less value if there's a road adjacent to it. It just makes it a more difficult process for the~. Councilman Horn: I think you're talking about more than just that one lot. You're telling several other lot owners that they may not be living on a cul-de-sac which makes a terrific difference to ~. You're telling 9 other property owners out of the total 16 that they may not have a cul-de-sac and I think that's a significant impact on the development. Mayor Hamilton: I just can't see any positives to having, eve~ if we had Halla's plat here I just can't see a positive of connecting the two. I just don't see how it could be a positive impact. Let's see, Barb needs final plat approval and you also ~ just clarification On what Ms on the llth, is that correct? Barbara Dacy: If you are going to reconsider the easene~t, than you ~ to move to reconsider it. Councilman Horn: Since I wasn't here can I make that motion? Councilman Boyt: No, you weren't from the prevailing side. I don't think any one of the three of us is interested, from what I heard. Councilman Geving: I think I disagree with Mr. Boyt on this. I think that a person who misses a =ting on a crucial vote can bring it up for reconsideration. I'd like to have the Attorney's advice on that. We have done it in the past. I think Clark has a right to vote on this or bring it up for reconsideration. Don Ashworth: You've taken that position before. In fact the Court tested it in the McDonald's issue ar~ you were the one Councilman Geving who had brought that to the forefront.. Again, it went through the Court process and the Court sustained the position that you had that right so if you are not present at a meeting, you can vote to bring up that motion. Councilman Boyt: I want to be sure I understar~ this. You're telling me that any ite~ you vote on when I miss a meeting I can bring up for reconsideration? 59 ty Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Councilman Geving: I would say yes. That's my opinion. Councilman Horn: I would like to reconsider this item. Councilman Boyt: If the Court's tested it I'm sure not going to contest it but Robert's Rules would contest it. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to reconsider the easement in L'.¥~ ~.i i~-~y Woods South. Councilman Horn and Mayor Hamilton voted in favor. Councilnmn Geving, Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the final plat for Lake Riley Woods South as shown on the plan stamped "Received May 19, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a develol~nent contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvenents. 2. The developer shall obtain and cc~ply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 3. A revised plan showing the changes in the horizontal roadway aligrm~ent as discussed previously in this report, shall be suhnitted for approval by the City Engineer as part of the final planning review process. 4. An 18 inch minimu~ diameter culvert shall be installed underneath the proposed access onto Pioneer Trial, CSAH 14. 5. The proposed road file shall include a 0.5% grade for a minimum distance of 50 feet prior to the access onto Pioneer Trail. 6. Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be utilized on all distrubed slopes greater than 3:1. 7. ~ne typical rural roadway section shall be revised to a 3 inch bituminous wear course as per the City standards for rural construction. 8. Trail and park dedication fees shall be accepted in lieu of trail and parklarr] and if the road or an emergency access is connected to Great Plains Golf Estates, the Park and Recreation Ccmnission shall review it for the trail along the proposed road. 9. Sutznittal of stormwater calculations to determine predevelolanent rates. 10. T~ City will not sign the plat mylars until Carver County has approved the construction drawings. 11. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the proposed street into the subdivision. 60 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 All voted in favor except Councilman Horn ~ho o~ and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, CounciLman Geving seconded to ~mer~ the agenda to discuss itsm 19 at this point in the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW FINAL OgNFI(~3RATION FOR TH 101/WEST 7BTH STRRRT INTERSfL~TION. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know Gary if there's really anything you need to present us. It's pretty clear off your drawing what you're going to do. C~ry Ehret: I don't know if you have any questions. I did not bring a larger exhibit than that which you have. You may have a question, one thing I want to offer as a revision to this. There was some confusion at FgiDot, I called ~ on this again after this came up. The correction I'd like to make is that on the westbour~, that yeild sign can not in anyway be a yeild sign. That's got to be a stop sign so that will not be a yeild sign. Mayor Hamilton: Why did you call that to their attention? Gary Ehret: It would have c~me up sooner or later. Legally they can not in a condition such as this where they have to stop that turning vehicle, particularly the one that would go southbound, they have to have a stop sign on the right side of the vehicle. Mayor H~ilton: This thing here that appears to be 4 feet wide. ~at is that going to be? Gary fhret: That is going to be similar to what you ~ on a typical freeway type application. It will essentially a median, concrete median. It's curb and gutter. Mayor Hamilton: It's not going to be any taller than a curb though? Gary Ehret: No. This is not a huge, obtrusive. I w~uld propose to put in surmountable curb so you don't have a probl~ with snowplows, that kind of thing. If a ~ for some reason got in there cockeyed and his wheels would conveniently roll up and over so it would only be a typical mounts_hie curb that you might have in a s~bdivision. Mayor Hamilton: It appears like that's going to extend far enough back so you won' t be able to, coming from the south to go east on TH 101 you can't cut across and go in the driveway to get into Kenny's. You have to go down to the corner of Great Plains. Gary Ehret: T~at's correct. That would be a probl~a mov~nent. The other thing is w~ have to pull it up to t2~ point of curvature so that the driver as t~ approach westbound can see that median approaching. You see ths~ typically they're a little bullet shaped and an arrow to the right to keep ~ to the right and that's a part of ~hat you're seeing as a probl~a right now. Councilman Johnson: I've actually got t~) thirgs. One that entrance to Kenny's is too small. I was trying to get out w~stboumd, scmebody was trying to get in 61 Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 the eastbound and my little Horizon and their station wagon, we both couldn't make that existing opening. Is that going to be changed? Gary Ehret: You're talking about the Cenex station there? Councilman Johnson: Yes, where the Cenex station and the Kenny's. Is that the final or is that just temporary? Gary Ehret: No, we just left those two in right now so the Cenex station could continue to function while they're in business. When they would cc~e out, there would be one driveway there and it would be bigger than what you're seeing right now. There's tw~ in there right now. Councilman Johnson: Yes, there's two in there and the one most eastward on it, I believe is non functional and that one definitely is going to have to be made larger to be fully functional. Tne other problem was something I was going to stick on Council presentation and when I saw this here it fit in real well with this one and it fit in with nt~nber 14 in that further down this road is the old intersection and we can't put stop signs on that intersection because this is TH 101. I've talked to Barb on this and a few other folks. Actually my wife came up with a very interesting little idea which is down at TH 5 and TH 101 by Gary Brown's turn TH 101, take it east along TH 5 to where we have it on TH 5 so TH 5 and TH 101 ~ the highway and then at the next intersection go back north again so this becomes a city street and we can put the stop sign down there again. I would like to get the other councilmen's reaction to rerouting. We're going to be rerouting TH 101 in the future to get a new intersection to the east of this anyway and this will ~ a city street. We have the opportunity in the more near future to reroute TH 101 and regain control of West 78th Street and be able to put the stop signs up there like it should be. I just bring it up here because it's related to this whole series of intersections are all interrelated. Barbara's told me there's a lot of things but staff needs sc~e direction before they start looking at that. Taey may even have the legislative approval do that. Gary Ehret: Tne one thing I can offer you is this is a legislative trunk highway so it actually would, I'm not saying you can't do it but I think this body would have to pass a resolution requesting that be carried through the legislature. It could be done. Councilman Johnson: Otherwise I think this looks pretty good. My wife would rather see it look more like the regular rest of downtown with some little trees and stuff in there but I like it just as a curb myself. Councilman Geving: Was there some reason why you had that median at 4 feet. Was there a standard for that? Gary Ehret: That's MnDot's. They actually wanted 6. Councilman Geving: Another question is, when I'm driving east and I get to this point here where I want to turn left onto West 78th, is there going to be any other signage there other than that pull over to the left lane and than make your maneuver? Gary Ehret: There will be for the driver who's making the left, there will be 62 City Council Meeting - JUne 13, 1988 left turn sign at the start. It's not on this plan but there will be, in fact it's in there right now. When he gets up to this point, there will be nothing in here for that driver. ~nis driver as he turns will see the keep right slmbol. Councilman Geving: It's kir~ of a free-for-all, I guess that's the best way to continue because that person turning left could possibly mcct the person c~ming north fr~n the ~moco station at that point and there's no yeild sign there. I've got to ask the Mayor a question, talking about signage. ~at are we going to call main street? Is that another issue for another time? Mayor H~ilton: Yes. Councilman Geving: Okay, I don' t have any other questions. Councilman Horn: What happens to the yeild sign here that was right on the corner by the Pony Express? c~ry Warre~: It's still there. Councilman Horn: It's not on this drawing. Gary Ehret: It will still be there. I intended to show just the critical changes. Councilman Horn: My next question is, when TH 101 gets rerouted, that would seen to be appropriate but what you're really doing here is you're giving left turning traffic off fr~ West 78th Street priority over TH 101 with that yeild sign there. That doesn't ~ right. I'm surprised the Highway De~t would let you do that. ~-tbound West 78th Street making the left turn gets priority over TH 101 traffic. Gary fhret: That's a good point. One I 'm going to have to review. Gary Warren: Because of the yeild sign? Councilman Horn: Yes. Don Ashworth: You can't have it any other way though can you? Gary Warren: You can't stop that traffic there because that would back up into the intersection. Councilman Horn: So we've got to get TH 101 out of there? Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Horn: ~he probl~ I have with Jay's proposal is not only would we he making every northbound traveler on TH 101 to make a left turn ar~ drive TH 5 but on the whole, I think this really cleans it up a lot. I don't like this 4 foot layer either for different reasons. That's the last thing to thaw out in the spring so your road stays sloppy for a long time. Apparently ~47Dot doesn't care about that. Gary Ehret: The reason for that width is primarily due to signage. You have to have the clearance for the sign. You can't make the islar~ as wide as ~ sign. 63 2~ty Council Meeting - JUne 13, 1988 Councilman Horn: Could you make that black at least so it melts at the same rate as the road because that's the last part to melt and it just keeps your road wet. Gary Ehret: You're correct and that's pretty typical. Councilman Horn: I think it would be a great improvement over what we have. Councilman Boyt: First, thanks for this rendering. I love it. The other part of it is, what about making the 6 inch curbing sort of a rolling curb so that it's not that difficult to be driven over. Gary Ehret: What I propose to make that is a mountable curb like you have in your new subdivisions. Councilman Boyt: I can see why you don't wsnt to encourage traffic to turn in where you've got that turn in there to the Cenex station. Is that in the long term plan? Is that where we're going to actually have a turn in? Tnat close to that particular corner? Gary Ehret: That location is pretty close, yes. Councilman Boyt: Doesn't that invite complicating an already difficult corner? Gary Ehret: To be quite honest with you, I'd prefer to have it completely gone but there's a lot of opposition to that. There's a lot of reasons why you wouldn't w~nt a driveway on that side of the road or that part of the site rather than just the one off of Great Plains Blvd.. We can look at, we have looked at moving that a little further to the east. At s(~e point we get to the point where we then again encourage the crossing traffic plus we're too close to Great Plains Blvd. so it's 6 to 1, half a dozen of the other. Councilman Boyt: So it's a problem that we're going to have to live with is what you' re telling me in s(m~e shape or form. Gary Ehret: Well, we can not move it too much further east less we again invite cheating around the end of our island. Councilman Boyt: Is that a problem out there now? Is it? Okay. Gary Ehret: I think there's quite a bit of that going on. Councilman Boyt: We're taking 4 feet out of the roadway that's already narrow. Alright, there's no ~ to delay this. I think that it's an improv~ent over what we have now. It will probably work. I'm all for it. Mayor Hamilton: One other thing Gary, I'd like to see you in the right turn lane going westbound on West 78th to put a turn arrow in only going that way to keep sc~e people are going to get up in that lane and they'll say, oh yes I wanted to go left. So you've got an arrow only to the left and an arrow only to the right. Gary Ehret: I would propose also that you add a stop bar in there. 64 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Councilman Johnson: What's a stop bar? Gary Ehret: It's the big 20 or what are they? 12 or 24 white striping. It just tells a person. As a drive I personally think they help. It's kir~ of like the crosswalk. You kind of know where you're to go. Councilman Geving: Did you go down to the Church with the striping ar~ all of that too? Any signing there in front of Pauly's? c~ry Ehret: We'll have the transition striping in there. I did talk to What' s your specific question? Councilman Geving: Well, we had gotten several letters from Pastor Nate about the crossing there and how we might try s~me different things. I just wondered if you had any ideas. Gary fhret: Yes, I do. We talked to MnDot ar~ basically have their blessing on either of two options. There was a lot of confusion on where the no parking zone did or could stop and start in that area. I talked with the~ again today because I knew w~ were cc~ing and I wanted to make sure of their position. They basically have taken the position and it ~ms in that letter to the Pastor, it was hard to read in there. Essentially the position is they will allow parking to start 1~0 feet from the east side of the Pauly building which puts it very close to th~ west edge of the church. It does essentially pull our ability to park people on the south side of the road almost back to the front of the church. The other alternative t~ said they would consider or agree to would be just east, if you move Just east of the Pauly building by F~ritage Park there, they would allow us to put in a one car pull off parking bay. That's about all we could get in there before you start to interfere with the corner of the church but that's the second alternative that they said they could agree to is a little one car pull in bay there. Councilman Geving: That was your idea Tom. Mayor Hamilton: Yes. I thought it ~as important to do that for handicaps or elderly to be able to get off the flow of traffic to drop tbsm off. Gary f~ret: I guess I would want some direction on that. Councilman Geving: Let's try that first alternative ar~ see how that works out before w~ do any major landscaping. ~e second one would require... Gary Ehret: Would require a little extra cost. The first one is just scme striping and a couple of signs. Mayor Hamilton: You might do up a little drawing. Nothing fancy, just kind of give us an idea of what it would look like with the one turnoff. Councilman Johnson: ~hat would it cost to figure the cost to do the turnoff and draw the little drawirg? Not color of course. Gary fhret: I've got most of that done. It would take me an hour or two to put together a little meno that could get into the next administrative packet or 65 ~y Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 JAY KRONICK, PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO WEST 78TH STREET, 1000 FEET EAST OF DAKOTA AVENUE/TH 5 INTERSECTION: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SH2TION 20-714 TO PERMIT RETAIL GARDEN CENTERS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. B. LAND USE PLAN AMENDM~qT TO AMEND THE YEAR 2000 LAND USE PLAN TO REDES IGNATE 1.7 ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL. C. REZONE 1.7 ACRES FROM IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT TO BH, BUSINESS HIGH~AY DISTRICT. Mayor Hamilton: Jay's probably still in Washington right? Barbara Dacy: He couldn't make it to the meeting but he still would like the Council to go ahead and act on it. Mayor Hamilton: I think it's a good idea for that area. Probably fits pretty good but I just didn't want to rezone the whole thing. Barbara Dacy: Maybe we should take each issue at a time because the Commission raised those traffic ar~ land use concerns with items B and C. They really had no problem with the garden center use in the district as a whole. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request ~88-7 to amend Section 20-714, Conditional Uses in the BH District as follows: (5) Garden Centers. All voted in favor and the motion carried. B. LAhD USE PLAN AM~NIIMENT TO AMEND THE YEAR 2000 LAND USE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE 1.7 ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL TO ~IAL. Councilman Geving: Couldn't we get two lots out of that? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Tne total parcel size is 3.7 acres as now zoned and on the Land Use Plan, the west half of that is zoned BH and the east half is IOP. The applicant wanted the entire piece zoned as Business Highway number one to look at scme site plan designs for his proposed garden center ar~ number two, he still wants to reserve the possibility of creating another commercial lot in that total 3.7 acre site. I should note that the northerly half of that site, the City is looking at retaining an easement for a retention pond to be consistent with the Bart Engineering storm water report so the affected use of the property is probably about 2 1/2 to 3 acres. Councilman Horn: Why do we need Met Council approval on that? 66 r City Council ~eting - June 13, 1988 208 Barbara Dacy: Because the Land Use Plan is approved by the F~tropolitan Council. It's a minor amendment. They're not going to have a probl~n with it. Councilman Johnson: Is this parcel owned by the same person and his parcel is split half lOP and half, this is what, about the second third time? The auto service came up this year. No matter ~at ~ccms to go to this property they want it either industrial or commercial. Barbara Dacy: The auto service proposal wanted to keep 'basically both industrial and c(mmercial zoning designations on it but just flip flop it but after we showed them our storm water management report that said that we should create a pond in the back of the property, that killed that idea as well as the Council did not amend the ordinance to allow mini-warehouse in IOP. Councilman Boyt: Maybe you can explain the difference between (b) ar~ (c) and how they fit together. I understand the land use plan and what we're really sayirg is we're taking some of that land that is already zoned c(mmercial and we're proposing to zone 1.7 additional acres of ~cial. Barbara Dacy: The west half is zoned business highway ar~ it's designated on our Land Use Plan as commercial. The east half is designated as industrial and zoned IOP so what t~ want to do is take the industrial, tt~ Lane Use Plan, the IOP and the Zoning Plan and change that all to BH and commercial. Just the east half of the site. Councilman Boyt: And both (b) and (c) then address that one issue? Barbara Dacy: That's correct. So that we have our Lar~ Use Plan and Zoning-Map consistent. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Now we're at the heart of the issue to me. If I might, I think Brian Batzli on the Planning Cc~mission made a good point in that it makes sense to have this be all or~ zoning district but we have some leverage when it ccmes to changing zoning in terms of the kind of develolsment that we allow in. That we lose once we grant this. It's sort of playing backwards with the whole arrang~nent but it's reality. I'm a little concerned, even though staff has indicated to us that their study sho~ there's no traffic impact by what we do. That's a very difficult corner to manipulate and this unknown 1.7 acres out here of additional lot, we don't know if it's going to be a fast food restaurant. A gas station. There's any ntm~er of possibilities. I'm wary of allowing the whole situation to be dealt with when we don't know about that 1.7. I think a garden store fits there nicely ar~ I'd like to see him put it there.' If we can arrange it so he can do that and still retain maximnm control over this unused land, I'd like to see us work that out. Councilman Horn: How would we do that? With a conditional use under that zone? Councilman Boyt: Once we grant the zoning to the whole piece, it's my understanding that we're governed by our own ordinances. Councilman Horn: I'm saying as an alternative would we want to go with a conditional use for that piece instead of a total rezoning? ~y Council ~eting - June 13, 1988 Barbara Dacy: I think what Mr. Batzli was suggesting is, you've now approved the ordinance amendment to allow a graden center as a conditional use in the first place so his suggestion was hold off on the Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning until he files his conditional use permit application. Then you would act on the whole ball of wax together. Councilman Horn: Grant a conditional use permit rather than rezone it? Barbara Dacy: You would have to really take those actions simultaneously. Councilman Boyt: How do we deal with this dangling lot that we don't know what's going to be developed on that one? Barbara Dacy: The applicant is requesting that you have the whole thing rezoned to Business Highway Ccmmercial. In order to decide on the rezoning issue the Council has to feel satisfied that all of the uses in the Business Highway District, you feel is appropriate for that eastern half of the property. If you rezone it to BH, you can expect we could have an application for any permitted use in that district or potential application for a conditional use. Councilman Horn: Isn't this the same thing we ran into with McDonalds? We were concerned about a strip food area but we rezoned a larger area than what they had requested so in effect we have a whole corner down there that was rezoned? Barbara Dacy: ~hankfully I wasn't here for that application. Councilman Geving: Yes, we split it into just that one lot. Mayor Hamilton: We just own that one lot. Councilman Horn: Couldn't we do something similar here? Get rid of the dangling portion? Barbara Dacy: It's already, the western half is already zoned as BH and what you' re saying is you would prefer not to act on the rezoning for the eastern half until you... Councilman Horn: Until we know what that use is. Barbara Dacy: In effect what the Council is doing would be tabling action on the Land Use Plan and the Rezoning. Councilman Geving: He still could go ahead with his garden center. He's got approval for doing that Barbara. There's already a zoning ordinance amer~ment to permit the garden center. Barbara Dacy: Yes, he can still go ahead. He is in the process of preparing that site plan. I think his preference was to try and get the whole site zoned so he could possibly not have to be bound by that zoning district line running right through the middle of his property and issues about setbacks and parking area and so on. Mayor Hamilton: I'd rather see him come in with a plan then so we have some idea of what he's doing. He don't have any idea what he's doing. 68 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Councilman Geving: He wants the utmost flexibility but at the same time he wants to be able to bend that property to his liking and maybe we won't like what he's planning to do. Mayor Hamilton: Since w~ haven't even ~ a plan I'd move that w~ t~_hle items 15(b) and (c) until a plan ccmes in to us. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to t~_ble the Land Use Plan Amendment to amend the Year 200~ Land. Use Plan to redesignate 1.7 Acres as a conditional use in the BH, Business Highway District and to *_able rezoning of 1.7 acres fr~n IOP, Industrial Office Park to BH, Business Highway District until a site plan is sut~itted. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ANNEXATION/DEANNEXATION REQUEST, MERT.~. VOLK. Don Ashworth: Staff is recommending that two counci~rs fr~m the (2mn City Council be given an opportunity to meet with two members of. the Chaska City Council to discuss this issue. I have a feeling that they have pretty much detemined what they'd like to do and I see this type of a meeting as being an opportunity for each of the two sides to say where they are and if there is any hope for salvation, it would c(a~e out of that type of thing. Otherwise, I think their coarse of action is pretty well set in talking with their administrator. Councilman Horn: Do you know who their representatives are? Don Ashworth: No, I do not. Councilman ~eving: I think it's the Mayor. I talked to him briefly, Bob one night ar~ he was very much in favor. Wasn't it your impression too Jay? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Councilman Geving: We talked to Bob one evening and he would very much like to sit down ar~ talk. Councilman Johnson: Dale and I m~.t monthly with two me~bers of the Chaska City Council because w~'re on the Southwest Metro Transit Board. Councilman Horn: Who are they? Councilman Johnson: The mayor and... Councilman Geving: Gayle Kincaid. Mayor Hamilton: She's not on the Council. Councilman (~eving: But Bob was the one that mentioned that he would like to sit down on a personal basis. I think the Mayor should be involved and one of the councilmsmbers. Councilman Johnson: The Mayor's previous and I don't know if current business 69 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 as representative of Merle Volk where he represented Merle before us and all I think eliminates him from consideration on this one. I hate to say that. Councilman Geving: I disagree with you. Mayor Hamilton: I don't have anything going on with Merle. Councilman Geving: I disagree with you on that point. Maybe there was mane historical background on it. I think the two mayors should get together on this if Tcm is willing spend the time. Mayor Hamilton: I have no interest in his property financial or otherwise. Merle is just a friend of mine. Councilman Johnson: I know you came and represented him before the Planning Cc~nission. Councilman Geving: At one time. Councilman Johnson: This year. Mayor Hamilton: Tnat's right. That's because he was in Arizona and he asked me to do that. It doesn't matter. Councilman Geving: Personally I think the two mayors and two other council- members, whoever they are. Mayor Hamilton: It makes no difference to me one way or the other. I'll be glad to meet with then. That's fine. I don't care. If I don't, that's fine too. Councilman Boyt: Who wants to do this meeting? I think Dale, I've heard you talk about not giving up one square inch of Chanhassen. Councilman Geving: I still feel that way. Councilman Boyt: You might be a good person to be in that if you understand we're negotiating. Councilman Geving: But I feel differently about it. I don't want to give us anything that we don' t get an equal amount in return. That' s my view. I t' s not a question of giving something away. I want something of equal value and equal potential for develol=nent. Councilman Boyt: I think that represents the common feeling here. I don't think we should be necessarily limited to two. I think if other people want to go. I'm not going to be here so... Councilman Geving: I'm not opposed to the deannexation. Roger Knutson: I think two is a good idea. If you have 3 or more council members you have a meeting. You have an official City Council meeting and you have to go through all the requirements of Statutes on the subject. If you keep it to 2 or less than you can just get together whenever you please. 70 City Council Meeting - JUne 13, 1988 S1 Mayor Hamilton: How about Clark and myself? Maybe we can work out a time. Does anybody have a probl~n with that? Clark's here a lot of the time. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we probably have one thing to negotiate with here ar~ that's time. We can offer them the opportunity to clear this up quickly or the opportunity to take as long as we can drag it out. That's not a tremendous lever but it's worth s~mething to all the parties. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not even sure that we have that. I think if it goes to Court they just act on it immediately. There's not much of a time delay. It just goes boc~, it's in. Roger could probably address that better than I but I don't think there's much we can do to stop it. Roger Knutson: The first step is the municipal ccemission and it depends on if t~ get together. It's usually pretty fast. If the party doesn't like the results there they can take it to Court after that. Councilman Boyt: And that means time. Roger Knutson: Streets. Councilman Johnson: We could take the northern 40 acres and straighten out the property line as easily as deannexing the southern 4~ acres. Councilman Boyt: Don, I assume that they weren't interested in talking to us about the Reuter C~posting C~mplex? Don Ashworth: All of those issues again go back to ~=tro Council and whether or not the City of Chanhassen could serve those properties with sewer and water and Metro Council just stays very fire in their position that Chanhassen can not in any fora allow the development of those parcels. As this issue might head into the annexation cc~mission, the issues will be one of ~hat it is that Chanhassen can't do ar~ what it is that Chaska can do. That's the real dileuma. Councilman Horn: Would it be appropriate to have Marcy Waritz? Councilman Geving: Why? Councilman Horn: As M~t Council is pulling the string on this thing. Met Council is the one that's saying that we can't provide th~ service and Chaska can. She's on Met Council. Mayor Hamilton: Yes from that standpoint but just the annexation/deannexation she doesn't. Councilman Geving: I think what the mayor of Chaska rec~emended here was a ~mll congenial meeting of the mir~s. Not to get a lot of people involved. Councilman Horn: I think the Met Council should be aware of what they're getting our cities into. It makes sense for one city to do this and it doesn't make sense for another city to do it just because of scme rule they have. Mayor H~ilton: What we should do is just ask Chaska if they want to have her. 71 Council M~eting - JUne 13, 1988 If they don't care, that's fine. Let's invite her~ Councilman Johnson: One thing Chaska wants out of this is to be able to complete the road system through their ir~ustrial park. I have no problem with Chaska building a road through that 40 acres. Councilman Geving: Just the way it is now? Councilman Johnson: Yes. If they want to come in and pay for a road and put it through... Councilman Geving: It's a bigger issue than that. Mayor Hamilton: Why would the owner want to do that? Councilman Johnson: I didn't say the owner would want to. That's what Chaska wants to do. Councilman Geving: But that's what the owner wants. The owner wants to develop that property. Mayor Hamilton: Well, we'll meet with them and see. REFERENDUM R~.ATED AUTHORIZATIONS: AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AERIAL LADDER FIRE TRUCK. Don Ashworth: I think all of these items are interrelated. I presented them under one. It' s late in the evening, I ' 11 try to go through them quickly. The Fire Department is asking for authorization to move ahead with plans and specifications for the aerial fire truck. It was approved. I don't see in terms of other types of bonding options where this it~n really affects any other options that we have. Staff is recon~ending to authorize the preparation of plans and specs. Councilman Johnson: So moved. Councilman ~ving: Second. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us look at these more as a package since they affect our bonding rate or our ability to cover thsm costwise. Mayor Hamilton: You mean you don't want to take each one individually? Councilman Boyt: I mean I want to take all three of them. Mayor Hamilton: ~nat's what I said, you don't want to take them individually. Councilman Boyt: Yes sir, that's right. Mayor Hamilton: I don' t know that it makes any difference. 72 City Council Meeting - June 13~ 1988 205 Don Ashwurth: I was wondering if maybe I just answer questions rather than to repeat each of the sections. Councilman Boyt: I would like to ask, as I understood it, the community gave us the authority to go out and purchase parklar~. I don't see it on here. Don Ashworth: There's no reason ~hy the Park Omn~ission can not start the effort to look at that parkland. If you want to include any fora of motion encouraging them to do that. I do not see where that could in any way be a bondable it~n for this year's bondirg program. That's the reason I did not. Actually though, one of the options does show it as bonding for that this year even though the actual acquisition would not occur this year. Mayor Hamilton: Along with that I think Bill, one of the things in the and I don't remember where the beck it was it showed scme of the grant applications that w~ could potentially apply for. One of them included requesting purchasing funds to purchase property in the southern part of the city. I tl~ught gee, seeing how w~ don't have the dollars to bor~ for it this year why don't w~ suhnit a grant for that portion? If we were to get a significant portion of that or all of it, we would then have those dollars available to use for something else I would think. We may as well try it first and if we don't get it, fine. We still have authorization to go ahead and buy it even though we don't have the dollars this year. Councilman Boyt: I like that idea. I see the fire truck arxt I see the Lake Ann Park expansi~ but I don't see the park in the south and I think tb~ situation about that parkland is maybe we don't need it today, but I would like to get it located. I like tl~ possibility of going out ar~ maybe getting some purchase agreements lined up or at least getting the right to purchase that property in the future. We might be able to seal up a piece of lar~ with very little money changing hands. Mayor Hamilton: Buy an option on it. Councilman Boyt: Sure and I think it's important that we begin moving in that direction. I don't know if we need to add that to your referendum related authorizatons or not Don. Don Ashworth: Only to the extent that if you feel that clearer direction should be given to the Park Omanission so that they start that search process, you could so do that. Councilman Geving: I thought we had already given that direction when we passed the bond issue. That they would start looking for a piece of ground. Lori Siets~na: The Park and Recreation Cc~mission has ~---~n... I haven't pushed them because of all the things that have ~ going on this spring but I was prepared to put that on the agenda towards the end of the ~ or early fall. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see the~ develop the objectives they're going to use in finding this place and run those by us before they go out and look. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think they should look personally. They should have staff or scmebody should be looking for land for them and have some options of 73 ~4ity Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 what lar~s are potentially available. Councilman Geving: Get some realtors involved too because they sometimes have scm~e insight on some of this available land that w~ don't have. Councilman Boyt: Can w~ get that started pretty quickly? I'd like to raise another question. Lake Ann expansion. I thought that Jay had a hot idea about 6 months ago. You got your letter off to the Corps of Engineers. Are w~ going to spend money on an engineering fee when we might get this contributed to us? Councilman Johnson: They don' t do engineering. Councilman Boyt: ~e have to do this anyway? Councilman Johnson: This is the grunt work. Move the dirt and stuff like that and that is not until 1989 or 1990 because they couldn't do anything this year as their letter came back in December, I got in January. It's gone out in the packet scmetime or another but the Lake Ann issue is, to me very hot in that we are in desperate need of more ballfields here. We don't have regluation Little League field. We have Little Leaguers who want to play Little League ar~ we can't play Little League in this town. MDre softballers want softball. We've got more Pee Weers that want to play Pee Wee and everything else. Don Ashworth: I should note under that item and that's the selection process. If we go through scme type of a review process let's say with the Park Cc~mission, we would not get that project going in 1988. It would be 1989 so if you want to give staff authority to move ahead with that selection process, I think we could start work in 1988. If not, in 1989 and that just comes back to the point you raised of what importanc~ is it to have it start in 1988 versus 19897 Councilman Johnson: We've got a design. We've had a feasibility study. Are we pretty well ready to go on Lake Ann as far as now we've got to calculate to move the dirt? Don Ashworth: At this point in time, almost any engineering firm could pick up the planning work that'S been done and turn that into a specific set of plans and specifications. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following referendum related authorizations: Resolution ~88-59: Authorization to prepare plans and specifications for an aerial ladder fire truck; Resolution 988-60: Authorization for Lake Ann Park expansion, consider engineer selection process ar~ preparation of plans and specifications; and Consider initial bonding of 1988 election authorizations including potential 1989/93 Bonding options. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. 74 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 207 SELfL"T TASK FORCE MEMBERS: TRAILS E (/)~{{~ITY CENTER. Mayor Hamilton: Unfortunately Don pointed out some difficulties of moving ahead with the community center ar~ rather than trying to get a group together and than tell them that there isn't anything to talk about, which would ~ kind of ludicrous at this point. As much as I hate to put it off I guess we're going to have to. Councilman Horn: Maybe we could get a group together to explore alternative funding sources. Councilman Geving: But can't we at least get the group started and start doing some preliminary planning and the possibility of looking at locations that may not be available to us in another year? I'd hate to miss an opportunity if there's a site out there that is there today and it would take an option to secure it and tie down for us if it were the spot we wanted that ~ity center. I think we're missing an opportunity if we don't fora the group and start looking at sites. ~hat's my feeling. I just know there's a nu~_r of people in our commmity that are anxious. They feel a little cheated that this thing got beat down the last time and they're confident that they can proceed. These people are just enthusiastic enough to want to get together and start this ball rolling and I don't want to inhibit ~. It's hard to turn people off. You can't get that back if you do. Councilman Horn: We had a window of-opportunity that's closed. Mayor Hamilton: A few people in town slanmed it. That's tl~ probl~u in trying to get people back together. If you're on a ccmuittee and they tell you, well you can be on the comnit~ and we're really not going to do anything. You can look at s(xne land and there's no money to really ~lish anything. I'm not so sure you're going to get a whole lot of enthusiasm. .. Councilman Geving: I'll tell you one thing, if that's true we. better tell then officially. Not just these few people but I'm talking about the commlnity. There's a lot of people out there that are interested and I get calls fr~n time to time and I know you people do too ar~ they'll say what's happening with the comuunity center? Is it going to be a referendun item this fall and I get another crack at it so if there is information here that we should pass along to the people officially, we should do so. Put the chips on the table. Councilman Boyt: I agree with that. I don't think that the voters were misled. They were told all during the campaign for the community center that this ~s a one time shot and that we didn't have the slightest idea how we would fund a similar center at a different location. A lot of people chose not to believe that. I like your idea of identifying a site but can we identify a site and lock it up without going back to the voters for scme sort of approval? Mayor Hamilton: For 3 to 5 years. Councilman Johnson: Option money? What does an option on a site cost? 75 ~Y Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I don' t know that it' s that expensive but I think that the reason that it lost last time was some public concern about location. So this comnittee gets together, they choose a location, they say this is the one. Let's spend s~ne option money on it and 5 years frcm now for some reason what happens if people don' t like it. Councilman Horn: It comes up for referendum and they say, hey you didn't give us any choices. The site was already picked before w~ had the referendum. Mayor Hamilton: Plus .you option money could be very expensive because what you're doing is telling that person to take the property off the market for a 3 to 5 year period of time. I'd want plenty to do that if I had a piece of property that was prime develol~nent property. Don Ashworth: You'd never get it. I don't think anyone would give you like a 5 year option. That takes away their potential for so many years. On the other side, I think the two sites that you have as alternatives are the Eckankar site adjacent, to Lake Ann. You're going to get a second crack at that as a part of any replatting of that property so we're going to know. Before they really can do something, they've got to bring scmething in. At that point in time you say, in whatever year we want you to change this and we start the negotiation at that time. That's the best chance to get a best price for that particular property. The other one is the Charlie James property and that would really be the residential property on the north side there. He's got literally a number of sites as he goes across that northern boundary. I just can't tell you is that going to all be sold out in 6 months. 1 year. 2 years. Charlie would not give us a 5 year option, I know that. Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to just keep it in mind and notify everybody and reconvene when we have an opportunity. Councilman Horn: I think the people would like to get the word out that we're not moving forward. Councilman Geving: I really would like to have something go in the papers. Councilman Boyt: I think the City should prepare something. Don Ashworth: We'll prepare an article. I'll send this report to all of the members and I will invite them to discuss this and potential options at some date. Tuesday at 7:30 or something like that. Mayor Hamilton: The trails are the same way I suspect. You can't put in any trails if we don't have any money for that either. Councilman Boyt: Sure we do. We're talking about a lot less money there. Mayor Hamilton: Yes but we're talking about a timeframe that's a ways away also. Councilman Boyt: I don't think so. I think the trails, we're in good shape there. Don Ashworth: Let's understand. I'm not sure if we're working in the same 76 City Oouncil Meeting - June 131 1988 purpose. The idea would be to establish a task force ~hich would determine whether or not this issue should be re-presented to the voters. If their recommendation is yes it should be f~-presented, than to literally go out and sell it to the community. It lost by 2 votes. The question beccu~ one of can this co~nittee find out what we~t wrong the last time around, resell it to the community and put it back on the ballot. A secondary question is going to be when would that go onto the ballot? For the fall election first or would a special election be held in 19897 If you do fall that really takes care of a real funding problem that I have but I can tell you it's going to have a much more difficult time in passing. Councilman Boyt: More people are going to vote and you think it will bring more voters out against it? Councilman Johnson: I don't think it will be more voters out against it. There was scme miscc~municati~. It was not advertised. The entire western, around Lake Minnewashta was under the impression because somebody was passing the word around, misquoting T~n ar~ they were passing the word arour~ that there were no trails designated to be built on Lake Minnewashta. I talked to a n~nber of people who said yes, I would have voted for that if I ~ had a trail in my Mayor Hamilton: So we can get the trails together? Don Ashworth: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, get the trails coumittee together. Maybe readvertise. Councilman Johnson: The only two wanting to get on there are special interest on horses. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you can e~courage Don, when you notify these people had asked to be on the co,musty center to expend some of their energies working on the trails cc~uission. We can certainly use that. Councilman Johnson: Someone in the Minnewashta area that is pushing for trails there. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Boyt: What about the merry-go-round? Let's take care of that. Mayor Hamilton: If you remarker the Excelsior Amusement Park, there was a merry-go-round a~d a carosel building there. ~ae carosel is currently at Valley Fair ar~ the building is in Victoria. It's the original building and it was moved when they tore down the Excelsior Amus~ne~t Park. A person bought it and they were going to make a horse ring out of it. The owners of th~ lar~ are developing it into a golf course and housing project and they ~mnt to get rid of that building. They're either going to burn it down or knock it down ar~ when I heard about this, as a kid I w~nt to Excelsior Park and I remember that building so I went out there and looked at it and it's in pretty good shape and I said gee if there's some way we can get that moved into Lake Ann or s~meplace in Chanhassen that would be, I think just a great thing for a park. I mean to 77 ~y Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 tell you I've been working like all my spare time that I have trying to figure out how we can move this third3. I've had structural engineers out there and movers and contractors and everybody trying to tell me if the thing is worth moving and if we should do it or can do it or can't do it. I've been working with Don trying to figure out if we have some funds to restore it and put in some footings to set it on once we get it moved. I do have a contractor who's willing to help us move it. We can use his equipment and he'll donate time and energy and materials to help us move it. I haven't heard back fr~m the structural guy yet. He was trying to get a hold of the guy who moved it the first time over to it's current location just to figure out how it was done. Councilman Geving: How big is it? Mayor Hamilton: It's 80 feet across. It must be about 30 feet high. It's a round building. It's just a beautiful building. I think there would be so many uses for it in the park. Did you go out to see it Jay? Councilman Johnson: Yes, I went out and I had my mother and dad were visting and we all went out there Sunday night. It is beautiful. It is the type of thing that you'd hate to see anybody knock down if you could save it. It's a piece of Americana that if they burned that thing down it would just be a loss. To get it, like Tc~ was saying, in the winter we could pour water in there and have an enclosed ice skating. Right now they teach lessons out here in the wind at these open rinks. They could teach th~m in there just as easily. Councilman Boyt: It could be a band shell. Councilman Johnson: It's huge. Tall. 30 to 40 foot tall. It's good structure. Tnere's some rotted ~d on it here and there but in general it was pretty solid in places that I could kick and hit and see. Councilman Boyt: It needs a new roof. Mayor Hamilton: It needs to be reshingled. Councilman Johnson: Yes, it would need to be reshingled and stuff but in general, for a building of this age, it was in good shape. I'd like to look at historical preservation monies from the State Historical Society. County Historical. Donations. Whatever. I don't know what is this guy's schedule though? Mayor Hamilton: He's on a real tight. He calls me daily. What are you going to do? Are you going to take this thing or not? I keep putting him off. Councilman Johnson: Because that's our proble~ is time to get all this arranged. Mayor Hamilton: ~ne thing is if we tell him we'll take it, then he'll leave us alone ar~ he'll give us like, he said then, as long as I know you're going to take it, that's fine. He said than I won't worry about it until say August or so. I think we can arrange it by that time. Councilman Boyt: What do we need to do tonight? 78 City Council Meeting - June 131 1988 209 Don Ashworth: Council should be aware that you're talking about, this is just a general figure, I did send B~{ out to take a look at it, we're talking about a total cost estimate of about $50,800.08. It could be the total cost. Now how mu~h of those can be offset by grants and other things. Can we get some lower costs through donations? That could all help. Cost of new construction probably w~uld not be significantly more but you have this whole historical site thing. What I would suggest is that staff be authorized to try and negotiate a moving contract that would be $5,888.88 to $10,888.88. That w~uld be cc~ing out of literally the proceeds associated with the fmprov~mm~ts for Lake Ann Park. What w~ w~)uld have to do then as a part of developing the overall impr~ts for Lake Ann, would be to put this structure up and to carry out all other improvsments associated with Lake Ann within tt~ total bonding authority that's been granted to us. What that does is a whole bunch of things. It gives staff the ability to move right away. We can give him the go ahead. We can literally carry the structure over here if we wanted to ar~ not reassemble it until we had everything else in order. If w~ absolutely could not find that we could resurrect this and also carry out all other Lake Ann improv~ts, which I do not believe that that would be a probl~ but ~ w~uld always have the option at that point in time to burn it or... Councilman Boyt: Not for $58,880.88. Don Ashworth: I'm not saying that but I mean if the worse of all things occurred, I see that's the limit of our liability, $5,888.88 to $18,888.88. Councilman Geving: Let's move that we authorize $18,800.00 for this project. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman G~ving seconded to authorize $18,888.88 to move the Excelsior ~mus~ment Park ~rry-go-Round building to Lake Ann Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: In a related issue, w~'ve ~ offered K~rver's barn. I've got a soft spot for barns. That building is, I gather, pretty sturdy ar~ I've looked at it several times. It's a nice looking barn. We can get it moved for about the price it would cost us to build a typical park shelter and we've got a better building. We should be looking at that. Mayor Hamilton: I brought that up quite a while back and I couldn't get any support for that. Councilman Boyt: You got my support. Mayor Hamilton: I wonder how that one would work out at Herman Field? I bet that would be a good thing to have out there. Don Ashworth: I do have a cost estimate on that one. I'll bring it ar~ include it in the next adminstrative section. .A[~INISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: REUTER~TING FACILITY, CITY PLANNER. 79 210 City Council Mseting - June 13~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: The Planning Cc~mission passed it? Barbara Dacy: Right and it's going to Chaska Council June 20th and I thought if you had anything that they wanted to tell Chaska Council. Mayor Hamilton: Tell them to pass it. It's a $10,000.00 project. SOUTHWEST C(~LITION OF ~ITIES, COMMENTS ON TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN, CITY PLANNER. Barbara Dacy: Just a reminder there's an official meeting this Thursday here in the Council chamber between 5:00 and 6:30 and Don Bolling will talk more about the traffic c(xrments in your packet and Tc~, you've been noted that you've been asked to make the welcoming r~marks. Councilman Boyt: Should we talk about the grocery store for just a minute? I think that s(m~ehowwe need to differentiate the City into parts. When the HRA takes action on the grocery store, that's not the City Council taking action on the grocery store and people need to be told that. I'm thinking of Thursday. Don Ashworth: That item will be back to the HRA this Thursday and I have tried to keep the Council abreast of that. If I'm hearing Councilman Boyt, you'd like to see more information going out to the public that this is a Housing and Redevelopment Authority action, not necessarily the City Council. Councilman Johnson: Most members of the public don't see the differentiation between the HRA and the City Council. Mayor Hamilton: I have every confidence in the HRA. I think it's a good group. Don Ashworth: Realize and the Council should keep abreast of this because one of the otpions there is for bonding and the bonding approval requires City Council action to authorize that. Mayor Hamilton: I think we talked about this when I was first elected, we talked about whether the HRA and the Council should be the same body. We kicked that around a lot and at that time there were no councilm~mbers...on the Council be on the HRA which we had done ever since then. That's always s~mething we can consider again whether or not the HRA or the Council should be the same body. In some towns it is. In scme towns it's completely separate. In other towns it's like we have. It's s(m~ething we've considered several times over the years. Councilman Boyt: I'm not opposed to our current system. It's just that I know that people look at us all as one group and if the press could do sc~=thing to help us indicate that it's not the City Council that voted to bring a hardware store in cc~petition with our existing hardware store it helps a little maybe. Councilman Horn: I think through the develo~m~ent of the downtown, the Council would be probably be happy that they were not the HRA. 80 City Council F~eting - JUne 13, 1988 Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 azn.. Suhnit~ by Don Ashworth City Manager 81