Loading...
1988 04 25CHANHASSEN CITY ~IL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 25, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. ~he meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Geving, Councilman Horn ar~l Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESf~T: Don Ashworth, Gary W~rren, Barbara Dacy, Lori Sietsema, Larry Brown, Jim Chaffee and Pat Farrell, City Attorney. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve th~ agenda as presented with the following additions: Don Ashworth wanted to place an item from the Administrative Section dealing with Gedney under the Administration Presentations. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSf~T Ac, F.~)A: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda it~ns pursuant to the City Manager's recommenda- tions: d. Conditional Use Permit Request for Outdoor Display of M.=rchandise for sale, James Freeman and Brambilla's Inc. e. Site Plan Review for Expansion to City Hall, City of Chanhassen. f. Resolution 988-31: Re-establish Public Hearing Date for Tax Increment District. g. Besolution %88-32: No Parking Resolution on Bluff Creek Drive. 1. City Council Minutes dated April 11, 1988 Park and Recreation C~m~ission Minutes dated March 8, 1988 Park and Recreation ~ission Minutes dated March 22, 1988 Park and Recreation C(m~nission Minutes dated April 12, 1988 Ail voted in favor ar~ motion carried. i(A) APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPMCIFICATIONS FOR STRATFORD RIDGE, Rf~BERT PIERCE. Councilman Boyt: The only problem I have is the map is wrong. If you look at the last page of the map, or if you just take my w~rd for it, you'll see there are two canoe racks. I want to be very clear that those canoe racks should not be approved or I would move to approve this without the canoe racks. Mayor Hamilton: Why can't they have a canoe rack? Councilman Boyt: It has to do with our beachlot ordinance amd specificcally I don't believe this has ~ granted approval as a beachlot so I don't think we should be approving two canoe racks when those are in fact approved. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to ask Barb first of all to clarify that. City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Barbara Dacy: Right. /~rently the applicant must have made an error because the issue of the canoe rack and the docks is still being discussed at the Planning Commission level in regards to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment so that issue has not been resolved at this time. Councilman Johnson: What about the sand beach? Barbara Dacy: The beach was approved. Mayor Hamilton: Your motion Bill is to approve this with the deletion of the canoe racks? Gary Warren: One other condition that inadvertently was not typed. It's in the discussion section. It was the restriction of the services for Lots 2 and 3 of Block 2 would be required to be taken off the Stratford Ridge itself and not Minnewashta Parkway. It's in the discussion but it didn't get in the conditions so w~'d like to add that also. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Plans and specifications for Stratford Ridge Project File No. 88-3 deleting the canoe racks and the addition by the City Engineer that services for Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 would be required to be taken off of Stratford Ridge and not Minnewashta Parkway. All voted in favor and motion carried. i(H) ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ORDER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR MINNEWASHTA MEAIXI¢;S. Councilman Geving: I think the Engineer did a great job on the feasibility study. The only conment that I have has to do with financing. This is being proposed as a public improvcmlent project and the problem with it, as I see it, I'm hoping that any approval of the feasibility study at this stage of the game doesn't lock us in to having the City Council eventually approve this as a public improvement project. Secondly, I believe that we should have some ground rules by which wa play on public improvements. I'm still not convinced in my mind that we have adequately set up our goals for this year in terms of how many dollars we're going to allow for public improvement projects. It seems to me last year and the year before we had established a goal of about 3 million dollars as I recall. I don't know if that's been done this year. Also, when w~ do this, it's really as an incentive to do a particular thing for a developer. In this case it's a number of single family hc~es probably is the only way that this particular project can be built if it's assessed back to the eventual owners of those lots but my question is to the manager and whether or not we have established a goal for this year on the amount of dollars w~ would objectively look at as public improvement goal. Have you dont that Don? Don Ashworth: As you stated earlier, we have maintained the goal or the maximum you might say of about 2 to 2 1/2 million per year. Going into this year we have had very few, if any, requests for public improvement financing. This project is really the only one that I'm aware of that w~ will look to bonding for. In addition Kerber Blvd. was approved so late this past year that bonding did not get included in that project this past year. With notice to and again, I'm not sure if 78th Street detachment, I do not see where that's City Council Meeting -April 25, 1988 are under consideration. Councilman Geving: Okay, so you don't feel that this is a problem in the public improvement portion of it? Don Ashworth: Not again with the number of projects that currently' are before you. Councilman Geving: Just another question Don. ~hen w~ assess against the project on the general obligation bonds and the project is let, we add another percent to the financing charge. Does that 1% cover all our administrative costs so we're not in effect financirg the project and doing the administrative portion of this for the developer? Are you satisfied that the 1% is sufficient? Don Ashworth: Actually w~ studied this issue, it's ~--cn a while back that that amount has ~ increased so we have ~_n using 1 1/2%. That's primarily to insure that you have adequate coverage on the bonds as assessments may be collected over the next 20 years. In addition to that, the Council does see and staff prepares an administrative charge that's associated with each project and that is a separate percent. The percentage there is fr~m 3% to 5%, if I r~m~ber the schedule correctly. 5% for the first 1 million dollars in construction ar~ then it starts reducing after that to 4% and 3%. Councilman Geving: Okay, I'm satisfied Don. I just ~mted to bring that particular point up. Resolution 988-33: Councilman Gevingmoved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to accept the feasibility study and order Public Improv~ent Project for Minnewashta Meadows pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and motion carried. l(I) APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR KERBER BOULEVARD IMPROV~M~TS AND AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE BIDS. Councilman Boyt: On Kerber I have a c(mm~t and a question. I'd like to know, I saw a figure of half a million dollars here and I'd like to know how we got there. I read the description of how we got there but a half a million dollars is a lot of money to me. Tell me about how the charges have impacted upon that amount? Gary Warren: Fr~m $5~2,000.~0 to $535,000.007 Councilman Boyt: I must have misread it. Okay. Gary Warren: In the feasibility study we were talking about a $502,0~0.00 project. As I explained in the report, tt~ additional trails, we've had s~me · additional storm sewer that we are having to install but basically it's $5~2,0~.~ versus $535,0~.00 which is our current estimate. City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Boyt: Okay, now my other concern. I certainly am pleased to see that we're going to be able to put a trail on both sides of a rather busy thoroughfare. I think that the City should refrain from dumping any dirt without a wetland alteration permit. I'm disappointed that that has continued. I think the City had months in which to apply for a wetland alteration permit and you haven't done it. You need to do it. Mayor Hamilton: Good point. I had mentioned that a long time ago. We ~ to be not following the same rules that we establish for other people. We didn't put haybales up when we should have and that whole project has been a little remiss in it's operation of functions so I think we better do it the same as other people are doing. Did you have anything else. Councilman Boyt: No, I'm willing to vote to pass this provided we see a wetland alteration permit the next time we have a council meeting. Resolution #88-34: Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Plans and Specifications for Kerber Boulevard Improvement and Authorization to take bids provided the Council sees a wetland alteration permit application from the City at the next council meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. i(K) ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DATED APRIL 25, 1988. Councilman Geving: Check No. 30154 on Page 2, there's an item here for ~50.00 for a 22 caliber handgun for Helene Haapala. Could you tell me who that is and what is that for? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I'd be happy to respond to that. I don't think Jim Chaffee is here. I asked him the very question today. The handgun was purchased for Steve Madden so it could be used only when he needs to dispose of an animal of some kind. He said we're out there beating them over the head with baseball bats or sticks or whatever they can find and it's not a very humane w~y to treat animals if it's scmethir~ you need to dispose of. So that's the purpose of the handgun is merely for animals if they need to be put away. Councilman Geving: I just didn't know who the person was. Tne other question I have has to do with Check No. 30172 for the newspaper editor. I'm not opposed to our newspaper, I think we've had a very good deal of literature that's gone out through the newsletter. I'm wondering if the Council at some future time might want to reconsider whether or not the newsletter is really necessary anymore. We might consider that at some future discussion. We're getting such good coverage with South Shore and the Villager and other means. At one time the newsletter was the only means by which we could get information to all of our citizens. I'm only bringing this up Mr. Mayor for some future consideration by our staff. Mayor Hamilton: Isn't that part of what goes into that newspapers Lori, isn't that part of the Park and Rec program that we put out. Put together all the information that's happening in the Park and Rec Department for a period of time? That then goes to the Villager and South Shore and we do need to pay that. City Oouncil Meeting - April 25~ 1988 Councilman Geving: Okay, so we're not duplicating, is that ~hat you're saying? Mayor Hamilton: No. Councilman Horn: ~hat time period does this cover? Don Ashworth: It's quarterly ar~ this was a little higher than usual. It's an hourly service. Our quarters many times hit three times a y~ar instead of four. Councilman Horn: Since it's quarterly, it seems to be a pretty s~all price to pay for that. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Accounts Payable dated April 25, 1988. All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: CHAIN OF LAKES P~T, BOB OBEY%MEYER AND CONRAD FISKNESS. Conrad Fiskness: I represent Chanhassen in the Riley/Purgatory/Bluff Creek Watershed District. I'm the only Carver County or Chanhassen representative on this board. I'm one of five. I know that you've got a full schedule and I won't take up a lot of your time but if you would indulge me a minute or t~D I'd just give you a little bit of my personal history with regards to the Riley Chain of Lakes. In 1966 I moved to Chanhassen, it will be 22 years ago this month. I rented a place on the west shore of Lake Riley. Th~ water was really quite clear. I could stand on the top of that knoll looking down and see fish swimning in 3 to 4 feet of water. In 1968 when we moved, Lake Riley had a blue-green flourescent scion over large portions of it so what had gone wrong in two short years, obviously we were overtaxing that system with the two treatment plants that were emptying into Rice Marsh Lake. About 1970-71 the ~den Prairie Interceptor was opened and since that time the diversion of effluent from these treatment plants and other private syst~us has been diverted away and I think we've ~__-~n_ a slow but steady impr~t in the quality of those lakes. There have been continuously rough fish and Rice Marsh has ~ a feeder of nutrient and sediment into Lake Riley every time we get a big rain. In 1969-72 I was a member of the Park and Recreation ~ission for the City ar~ while I was on that Board we entertained more than one proposal to do something at renovating the lakes in Chanhassen. There were one or two members on the board that felt that a very important project at that time. However, obviously nothing came of it. About 1986 the EPA approached us, our Watershed District, and had this idea that they wanted to present to us and it was basically the renovation of the entire Riley chain. They wanted to develop a denonstration project. I think over the last 2 1/2 decades they've been doing a lot of individual projects. I happened to he witness to one of the very first ones they did in lake renovation in Waseca and Clear Lake was highly successful. They've done many others. Our Watershed District has participated in the renovation of Highland Lake. We've participated in the renovation of Round Lake in ~den Prairie and so the facets of this progr~ have ~ tried in pieces around the area and even within our own watershed district but now across the whole broad systsm. What the EPA apparently would like to do is City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 dsmonstrate that they can do something in an urban area. ~ey've done it outstate so we have a unique opportunity in this municipality. Actually there are two municipalities, ~den Prairie and Chanhassen plus two counties, Hennepin and Carver, that are affected. Logically when you start crossing boundaries, an organization like the Watershed gets organized around the hydrology, as probably the clearing house that can best serve to implement that. So they've come to us. I think that we've done about all the homework on it that we can do. We've done a lot of negotiating. You're going to have a lot of questions. I've got our Attorney here to answer any questions that might relate to that side of the issue. We've got Bob Obermeyer from our consulting engineering firm with us to answer technical questions. Before I then open it up to questions that you may have, I guess I w~uld like to address one thing that showed up as co~m~ents in the packet of information sent out by the City and that is, the concern for the quality of Lake Ann. Let me assure you that as one who was involved with identifying that site and laying out the plans for that park and getting the bond issue passed and designing it and finally getting it built, I'm not about to stand idly by if so~=one cc~es along with an idea that might harm Lake Ann so you have my assurances that I 'm going to watch that every bit as closely as you might. I guess with that, do you have any questions? You've got Bob and Fred here or myself and we' 11 try to address any question you might have. Mayor Hamilton: Conrad, do you need to have any kind of an approval from us tonight or are you just here as an informational? Conrad Fiskness: Tne EPA would like to get an answer from us on May 4th. We have our next regular meeting on May 4th and they would like to find out what, I guess should have addressed one further issue. To make this thing work, EPA will basically put in half of the money and another very large portion of that money will be in the form of the services provided by the DNR. Tne DNR will do the fish kill and the restocking. However, one of the requirements that is on the DNR is that there has to be public access to a body of water for them to be able to engage in the restocking. Obviously Riley is not a problem. Lake Ann, there's access there. It leaves Susan and Lucy. I don't think that Rice Marsh is regarded as a lake. So we do need tm things. There is the sharing of the funds. ~den Prairie has acted. In fact I was just handed the reuslts of their action tonight and they have decided that they will go ahead contingent upon favorable action by this body and then the other thing is we need some sort of a con~itment that the City of Chanhassen will basically befall some of thsm to be able to somehow or another provide or arrange for the access to be for the two bodies of water in question. Fred can probably elaborate on that a little bit more if inadequately or inaccurately stated that. Mayor Hamilton: Lake Susan will have public access as soon as the industrial park develops to the point where we can have access to the parcel of property that the City owns there. You know where the city well is and the park area, we don't have our own access to that which makes it difficult to put a public access in there when we don't have the right to get to our own property so that's been holding us up on that lake. Lake Lucy I believe we've been working on to gain access to that lake so I think those things are moving along pretty well and will be accomplished soon. Perhaps other council msmbers have questions to ask. I don't want to spend a lot of time because I prefer to see this on as an agenda item where we know we can spend some time on it at a later date but I would like the councilmembers to at least give you a feeling of City Council Meeting - April 25; 1988 whether or not we would be in favor of expending the money. I th'ink you had mentioned to me that we're lookirg at approximately $8,300.00 that the City might spend to accomplish an approximate million dollar project which se~m~ to be a pretty good trade-off to me. Councilman Geving: You're asking for us though to give you some kind of a commitment tonight. We not meet again until the 9th of May so that exceeds the 4th of May. Fred Richards: Maybe you can help me out here. I think you've ~---~n more in contact with these people. The only concern we have is the EPA ar~ the DNR has put a deadline, the PC has put a deadline to complete our work plan by September. In order to back up ar~ n~t that deadline, we need to make a commitment to both the federal and state authorities that we will plan to enter into the work plan phase of the project. There's no magic that we receive your approval tonight but we would like to do that because our next meeting and we'd like to get back to ~ state and federal agencies to finish the negotiations for the contract that we enter into. Mayor Hamilton: I believe we would give you our approval but we can't guarantee you that we're going to have the access to Susan and Lucy by a specific date. That's my concern. We'll accomplish that but I can't say it's going to be by November. Conrad Fiskness: In anticipation of that, what we ~ant to do is describe exactly to the state and federal authorities what we could present to the~ and see wh~ther or not that meets their approval. In talking with Bob we think that it does if we can gain access up to-the chain without acquiring the direct access now but just simply weigh that out for ~ and say, we believe this to be sufficient. If not, you tell us rather than waiting to go forward saying we finally got the fee title to the public access. Councilman Johnson: As I understand, this project is going to be a multi-year project and the access, the first year it's a study. 1989 looks like fish barriers and fish kills not even starting until 1990 frcm my brief reading over this. The rehabilitation project so there's a few years to get that access going. I'm totally in favor of this project. We have to be very careful that we're not getting too overly enthusiastic. Rice Marsh Lake seems to be the biggest problea. I want to make sure that the action is taken there to alleviate some of the phospherous problems going down. Mayor Hamilton: The problem is upstream, as Conrad was explaining it to me. It started downtown with all the run-off here but Rice Marsh has kind of filled up with nutrients and that's what ~s to be cleaned out to help Riley specifically. Councilman Johnson: I'm not 100% sure about public access to Lake Lucy. It's a fairly ~nall lake and it's going to be tough to get public access to it because there's swamp land on all sides of it. We just had a citizen trying to get his canoe into it and be needed to dredge a 400 foot long, 16 foot wide channel through a wetlands. Fred Richards: Without belaboring it and maybe we need to come back and get into it in further detail but I think it's important to understarz~ that it's City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 approximately a $990,000.00 project. Half comes from the feds. Half comes from the state and local agencies. To the extent ar~ we're relying of the $450,000.00 if you will, from the state and local share, much of it will come from the DNR. If we can't provide that public access, the local cost then will come from the Watershed District and the two municipalities so I think we have to be, not overly anxious and extremely cautious that what we say we're going to deliver, we can develier. Otherwise it's going to come back to haunt the local units of goverr~uent. So we can't get into it a little bit. Councilman Johnson: I think we need to look at technical feasibility of providing access to Lake Lucy without buying somebody's house, to remove their house to put an access in. If we're talking eliminating Lucy off the project will cost $100,000.00 or something, we'll have to look seriously at that but the first phase of this $8,300.00, I see no reason why we can't go onto that but we have to be aware there are going to be some severe problems with Lucy getting access. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not so sure how severe they are but just so the Watershed District is aware that there is a potential problem there. Councilman Horn: You're saying that the whole project would be in jeopardy if we couldn't get any one of these accesses? It appears to me that after you put the fish taps in and cure the problems, the fish kill and restocking would be more of an individual body of water type of thing. Why would it foul up the whole project if, for instance, you couldn't do that on Lake Lucy? What has that got to do with the overall intent of what we're trying to accomplish here? Fred Richards: councilman Horn, I understand the problem is that the DNR won't put in the money to do that if we can't assure them access to do the entire project. So what we can't do is spend some money to do a part of the project and the DNR then won't put in it's money to use to be counted for the matching local grant, to match the federal funds. ~ney've indicated to us, and Bobby maybe can expand upon it, is that unless we can assure th~ of the absolutely whole integrated project, that they will not go forward so we don't want to go forward spending either the City of Chanhassen's money or Eden Prairie's or the Watershed District's and then get caught with the tab of picking up the whole amount of the local share if the DNR won't go forward on it. councilman Horn: So really it's another tactic for the DNR to get what they're really looking for. There's no logic behind it. Fred Richards: They think they're logical and approaching it in a reasonable fashion but they're just simply saying that they have enough places to spend their money without being able to do a part of the project that they've identified is how they look at it. Councilman Horn: Let me ask this-question then. Let's say that the City of Chanhassen will go on record saying we don't oppose the DNRgetting a public access to Lake Lucy. Would they then take the burden to make that happen,. which they have said they would do in other cases where we wouldn't? Fred Richards: As I understand this particular project, the proposal went in and the funding came out of the Clean Lakes Act with the EPA predicated upon City Council Meeting - April 25 ~ 1988 the local units of goverr~ent doin~ tw~ things. One, providing a local sponsoring agency which the Watershed District will serve as that coordinating" role. Secondly, that the local units of govermment will provide the local access. Upon that basis, the EPA made the grant award ar~ the DNR then, through the Division of Fisheries said they w~uld do that project provided that this occurs. I think it's incumbent upon the local units of goverrm~s~t to do two things. One, provide the access and two, be willing to undertake the necessary part of the work study program prepared by Bob (~ermeyer of Bart Engineering as to this non-point source pollution analysis ar~ what possible ur~ertakings migh~ the local units of goverrm~nt do to address this particular issue as it relates to the overall project. fbuncilman Horn: So what you're asking us to do is give you concept approval to s~ething that w~ have no idea what the breadth of commitment is to us? Fred Richards: Maybe I better take a minute. We've set this up in stages so that there are check points all along tt~ way so people can out out before there's an expenditure of money. One of the early chec~ints is the access question. The second one them is the work study program which is a total of $50,000.00. One-half to be spent by the local units of government and one-half by the EPA. The~ you stop so you are making a financial c(mmitment, as is ~den Prairie, as is the Watershed District of $8,000.00 s~me odd dollars but then look at the work study progra~ as to what is all entailed and if anybody doesn't want to go forward with it, w~ have an opportunity to opt out of the program so as not to encourage additional expenses or commitments or undertakings that none or any of the local units of goverrm~nt are not willing to undertake. Councilman Horn: So you're saying this $8,300.00 then is just to get to the first stage? Fred Richards: That is correct. Councilman Horn: What are the additional a~ounts if we ~_re to carry this through to the conclusion an~ be involved for us to c~mit to? That didn't c~me out clearly in there either. Fred Richards: We believe that there should be little, if any, further financial commitment and undertaking but that then is kicked in by the federal monies in total and the DNR Fisheries, then they ~ a cc~ih~ent to do the five water bodies program. Put in the fish traps and the~ restocking the lakes. That's how we get to the total grant. With us, us referring now to the three local units of goverrm~ent, putting in the initial funding to get us to the work study program so everybody knows the prudient cc~mi~nts. Councilman Horn: So we'd be c(mmitted to the $8,300.00 plus free access to all the lakes which we don' t know what that would cost us? Fred Richards: That is correct. And there is scram soft costs, if you will, about looking at it from a staff's standpoint, looking at possible regulations. Possible ordinances. Things of that nature as to what might be put in place relative to non-point source pollutions and run-offs from fertilizers and whatever, might have adverse impacts upc~ the water q~al ity fees for the five water bodies. l~C~ity Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: It appears to be an important project~ Councilman Boyt: Tais is one those great ironies of where it's too good to turn down and too bad to take. The DNR has not shown me that they're very friendly to local bodies of government. An example in point is the Lotus Lake boat access where I think the City has been pretty well jerked around by the' DNR and I'm very relunctant to turn over any boat accesses or have them constructed with DNRmoney. Conrad, I would really be interested at some point in talking further about how we can protect Lake Ann and still open up Lake Lucy because it se~ms like the most financially feasible way to put access into Lake Lucy is to dig some sort of canal between the two and I don't see how that would protect Lake Ann at all. Have you thought about possibilities there? Conrad Fiskness: I haven't personally. In fact I just found out about that idea when I got this. That hasn't really been put in writing to us. I-think that it's really, from my standpoint, to early to even speculate on that and I haven't seen any technical analysis of what that involves. The engineer just told me it's about a 1 foot difference in elevation between the two and 1 foot out of Lake Lucy, I'm not sure. Councilman Boyt: I appreciate that answer. I think we're going to confronted in a few weeks with a neighborhood that lives on Lake Lucy that's going to be very unhappy about us opening a park there and I can imagine that that neighborhood would be even more unhappy if they thought that was going to be a public boat access some day. On the other hand Tom and then I'll be finished. It's worth $8,300.00 to me to get through the first step because the rewards are tremendous. I just don't like being bribed to do something that I don't want to do. Mayor Hamilton: ~nat's true. I don't disagree. Tae DNR is difficult to work with but I think the long te~m benefits are such that we can't afford not to do it. Even if it doesn't benefit us in our lifetimes, it would benefit our grandchildren and our children's children and so on and hopefully we can accomplish the project. I think you've heard, I think Clark is in favor of it even though he doesn't like being manipulated by the DNR so I think you go with our approval. Resolution 988-35: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve spending $8,300.00 for the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project for the First Phase to begin immediately. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving: I'd like to make sure that we get back to the Council on an agenda at some future time because it's very important that w~ get all the information w~ can out to our homeowners. The people who live on Lake Lucy, Lake Ann, all the w~y down the chain. Tnose are the people, as Bill said, who are going to be watching and looking and possibly be surprised and we don't want any surprises so at the earliest possible time, we w~nt to make sure that we get back on the agenda and we can have an evening to talk about this. Councilman Johnson: I'd also like to see what the cost for the Lake Lucy work. As I can read right now, the only Lake Lucy work is the rehabitation and what cost that single project is. How much it is as far as the whole picture. I 10 City Oouncil Meeting ' April 25~ 1988 realize you r~cd every dollar the DNR spends there, the EPA spends a dollar on non-point sources or whatever, if it's significant to r~ove it from the project or if the City is willing to pay that part of the cost themselves because that's a little lake. I'd hate to see six more boats on that lake during the day. It may w~rk out. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Jim Wehrle: I am the president of the Near M~untain H~meowaers Association and I had given some thought to stoppirg into the m~cting this evening in any case but after city action that was taken in my neighborhood today, I think I had 300 irrate homeowners calling me insisting that I do so. My question has to do with the construction of or erection today of no turn signs in and out of our subdivision. For the last several years we have had free access in az~ out of our development and although the exit from our subdivision onto Pleasant View is on scmething of an angle, it's ~ relatively easily negoiated and presented no great difficulty in making a right turn. There's been s(~me difficulty perhaps on the part of school buses turning off Pleasant View into our development because of the angle that was put there but nevertheless w~ all bought our h(m~=s with the understanding that w~ had this egress from our develoImmm~t. Even on your agenda this evening, pres%m~_h_ly you will be approving a new addition to Near Mountain that will once again develop an additional point of exit or entrance into Near Mountain that will presumably be unrestricted so w~ don't see the justification. I'd like to ask if you could have your public safety or engir, ce_ring or whatever department possibly address this ar~ get these things taken do~a~ as soon as possible. Mayor Hamilton: Are you aware of that C~ry? That it was put up? I hope somebody' s aware. C~ry Warren: Yes, I talked with Jim earlier and public safety is actually looking to get signs put up so they could enforce the conditions of the approval of the original develoI~ent which goes back 4 or 5 years ago. I don't know if Jim wants to com~_nt about the public safety. Oouncilman Horn: It's not a public safety issue. This body decided that that's the way that access would work. Mayor Hamilton: I don't recall us ever saying that there would be no right out onto Pleasant View however and I can't imagine that we're going to try to cut off another neighborhood fr~m having egress and ingress s~me one neighborhood to another. It doesn't ~ to make a lot of sense to me. Jim Wehrle: I guess that's a lot of our cor~cern is the confusion over the issue and we've ~ in there for several years now and if this body, when they approved the PUD or whenever, wanted that done, why w~_ren't those signs put up 4 years ago. Who at this point in time suddenly authorized that these signs go up today after we'.ye been in there for years and this has presented no safety probl~ and the representative of the City that erected ~ today told all the irrate citizens that stopped and inquired, that it was not a safety issue. Mayor Hamilton: I think what we need to do is have Gary look at it and Jim and if there's no reason why those signs should be up there, that should cc~e back 11 City Council Meeting ' April 25, 1988 here for our review and approval with the public safety recommendation. I would think it should go to that body first. Jim Wehrle: In the meantime I'm afraid we've got a lot of citizens that are going to be running illegally through these signs. Can they be taken down until this is resolved? Mayor Hamilton: I think they should be taken down. Gary Warren: We'll put some covers on them so they're not active. Councilman Johnson: Didn't this come out of the people further down Pleasant View that didn't want the traffic? Mayor Hamilton: That's always the case. Councilman Johnson: So it was a decision and it was an error on the City's or the developer's part not putting th~ up 5 years ago. In order to make the change I think we ought to talk to the Pleasant View people. Mayor Hamilton: I was here 5 years ago and I don't remember that we were going to do that and you weren't here so I don't know how... Councilman Johnson: I actually r~ember it because it made some newspapers or scmething. Jim Wehrle: I guess I'd just point out what the apparent inconsistency or possibly even the irrational logic behind making that no right turn and.yet we've got a new exit coming out of the development being approved here tonight that's not going to put that restraint on it. Will there be some sort of opportunity for public comment when this is discussed? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Jim Wehrle: Is is safe to assume.that will be at the next meeting of the City Council? Don Ashworth: Probably not if it does go to public safety first. It may go to one of our co~ittees but I'll get a hold of you Jim. Mayor Hamilton: If it goes to public safety, you'll be notified of that meeting also and you can come there andmake comment. PUBLIC HEARING: REALLOCATION OF YEAR XIII COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Hamilton: This is last year's funds? 12 City Council ~ting -April 25, 1988 299 Barbara Dacy: That's correct. It expires on December 31st of this year. Mayor Hamilton: What did w~ do at tt~ last meeting, I've forgotten? Councilman Geving: Year XIV funds. Barbara Dacy: Yes, that's correct. We allocated Year XIV and the two options remain for your approval. Councilman Johnson: I personally like the housing rehabilitation program and thing w~ could spend the entire $26,5~7.~ for housing rehabilitation in certain parts of the city.. I'd like to so move actually. Councilman ~ving: I kind of like the idea of taking the $26,5~.~ ar~ moving it into our demolition program. We're not moving fast enough, in my opinion, in the downtown area and if this w~uld speed up any of the activity, take on another building that has to be torn down anyway, my feeling is that $26,0~0.~0 would fit very nicely in that. My motion would be just the opposite if I could make a motion at this time. My feeling is that the $26,500.0~ could accelerate our downtown redevelolm~ent and I'm in favor of that. Councilman Johnson: Also could double the cost. ~nere's a sticker in the Hennepin County grants that you have to follow certain wage practices on the entire project that you associate this money with. In other words, all our bidders are going to have to go back and look at the entire downtown project urger certain wage scale requirements that they mentioned last time. Councilman Geving: I would like to refer myco~ments to ~ person that made tt~se coements as a staff r~ation and see if that really is a true staba~ent or not. Barbara Dacy: When Mr. Blackstad was here, I recall the discussion being that he made the Council aware of the Davis Bacon Act which does establish certain guidelines as far as wages and affirmative action policies. Yes, there will be an adminstrative "cost". Councilman Geving: Is it significant? Barbara Dacy: No. Primarily it will be my time and/or Todd Gerhardts in adminstrative contracts, going out for bid if necessary but it is an extra item. Councilman Horn: I know we've spent scme money on the rehabilitation programs and I think there were s~me areas that were needed there. I guess my thought in this ~s that I doubt that it's going to speed up the downtown process at all and it's a question of where's the best use of this money. We could, even thought it's a fairly insignificant amount cce~pared to ~ overall budget, it will help to offset some of the downtown costs but I don't think it's big enough so it makes a big difference. If we can get s~me good use out of the housing rehabilitation program, I think we should do that. Councilman Boyt: I think when we had the earlier discussion it was indicated that we could easily spend all the money on housing rehabilitation. I would 13 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 differ with staff the Davis Bacon Act is very serious and if w~ require our contractors to go back through and give a certain percentage of their jobs to women and minorities, you're going to grind city develol~nent to a halt. I think there's a better reason for voting on housing rehabilitation. It upgrades the tax value of that property. It brings more money into the City and in the long run would be well worth the $26,000.00. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I don't think it's going to, if w~ spent this downtown it isn't going to s~ anything up. As Clark said, it may defray sc~e of the expenses frcm some other fund but you can only go so fast and things have to take a natural progression. I think we' re moving as fast as we can possibly go at the present time and there are some homes that I'm sure will qualify for these funds and it would be nice to see those folks have an opportunity to have access to them to improve their structures. I guess I'm in favor of using them for the housing rehab program. Resolution ~88-36: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to reallocate the $26,507.00 frem the Year XIII Community Develof~nent Block Grant Funds for housing rehabilitation. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to amend the agenda to discuss Consent Agenda item l(c) at this point in the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (C) BERNIE HANSON, 19,048 SQUARE FOOT COMqERCIAL BUILDING. Councilman Boyt: The first is fairly simple. I think in our ordinances we have the stipulation that prohibits chainlink fence with interwoven opaque material. Barbara Dacy: Chainlink isn't prohibited. Councilman Boyt: No, but when you interweave the plastic through it to make it opaque o Barbara Dacy: Not to my knowledge. I can check real quick. Councilman Boyt: Okay, if you'll check that while I go through the rest of it. Whether we have it in our ordinance or not, I don't think it does anything to enhance a very nice looking building and I would much rather see you look at some sort of wood fencing. I think it would accomplish the purpose and it would look a lot nicer than chainlink. So that's one point I would like to change in the conditions is that we move away from chainlink. Tnen, I think there are several co~nents in here to flamnable and hazardous. Maybe it's implied in this. I would like to see all flammable and hazardous materials identified with the Fire Department. I note that there's going to be some attempts made to get a floor plan. I'd certainly like to see that happen with the known materials identified in that and I think they should be clearly labeled in the storage containers that they're in. I have a question about the trail eas~nent. There's a trail easement through this area, is that right? 14 City Council Mseting - April 25, 1988 Barbara Dacy: Not to my knowledge. On the north side there's one but there's no trail in this area. Councilman Boyt: Okay, so we have a trail across the street? Barbara Dacy: On the north side of the railroad tracks. Councilman Boyt: Then I have another question. In terms of architectural drawings, did the City cover the expense or did HRA cover the expense of these architectural drawings? Don Ashworth: The HRA, yes. Councilman Boyt: Is that going to be reimbursed? Don Ashw~rth: There has ~n no reguir~nent by HRA to date to seek reimbursement of that amount, no. Councilman Boyt: I gather that that's not in our d~main to dictate to them if they should seek reimbursement. It w~uld se~m tome that once this is approved, that the HRA has a~lished it's purpose of getting the idea out in front of people and it w~uld be reasonable to expect ~ to be reimbursed. In looking at the way in which material is stored, I'm curious as to how this is different from what we currently have on main street. I'd like an answer to that. Do you want me to continue to ask questions? Mayor Hamilton: Well, if you'd like a specific answer right now. Councilman Boyt: I would like to have a specific answer to how this creates a different outside appearance than what we currently have. Barbara Dacy: It's different in that the current outdoor storage that you see on the north side of West 78th Street is proposed to be located in that fenced area in the northeast corner of the building. The only thing that would be dissimilar is that the outdoor display of merchar~lise, one of the conditional use permits there's a specific number of equila~ent that is being permitted to be displayed outdoors during hours of operation. The amount of storage, that you see up there now on the north side of West 78th Street, you will not see at the new location on West 79th Street. If you want me to follow up on the fence question I can. The ordinance does not prohibit a chainlink fence with the slats in it. What it prohibits is the chainlink fence with the barbed wire ends. The other advantage to the chainlink fence with the slats in it is that it will allow ventilation to go in ar~ out of that area because there will be stored vehicles there, fumes, etc. and gas. There will be a separation between the top of the fence and the roof structure. It will achieve the screening requirement that the City is after. . Councilman Boyt: I definitely want the screening requirement to r~main intact. I think that you certainly have that airflow with the right kind of wood fence and it looks much better. I appreciate you looking that up Barb and I agree that it's certainly an improv~ent if we cover the storage that's happening outside. I just have a couple more points. Is Mr. Derhaag here this evening? No. I would really appreciate him putting on his letterhead that he's operating out of Chanhassen rather than Chaska. I do agree with the Planning 15 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 Commission that six vehicles, if you will, displayed outside in front is sufficient. I think there should be a limit on that. I want you to be able to display your materials but I want it be a fairly small amount. Mayor Hamilton: Don, would you respond to the question on the plans? Don Ashworth: I simply wanted to bring out, the property in question is under condemnation. If the City can achieve the movement of a local business without going through that condomnation process, it reduces everyone's cost associated with the process. Secondarily, if you're not able to achieve the movement of an individual from a housing redevelopment authority standpoint, the recommendation made was we want to insure that we get done everything within our power to insure that a local businessman has had the opportunity to move within the community. To the extent that the expenditure was made under those guidelines, I think it was a worthwhile expenditure. Councilman Geving: I have no questions except I have a co~ent. I want to make sure all your logs are inside of whatever area that you have Bernie and not visible from the street. I'm sure that's going to be taken care of within the chainlink and the opaque area that you're talking about. I have no other questions. Mayor Hamilton: I had a couple of questions on the fuels. I know with Mr. Derhaag being a professional racecar driver, they must mix fuels or do something with their fuels. They don't drive with straight gasoline. Bernie Hanson: They use a fuel that has such a low flashpoint that you can throw a match right over it. It comes under a different classification with the Fire Department. Mayor Hamilton: Again, it's Bill's comment that I'd like to follow up on because I know that they do special things with fuels and I'd like our public safety people to be aware of what he does specifically. Bernie Hanson: It falls within that certain classification. I don't have the specs. Mayor Hamilton: And then on the fence, I also have a problem with the chainlink fence. If the Council will remember, when w~ asked Mr. Hanus to put a chainlink fence around his property to screen it and to put the slats in to make it totally opaque so it could not be seen. We then went back and told him to put a wood fence up in front of it because you could see right through it. It just does not do an effective job of screening. I wouldn't want to have to do the same thing there. He ended up with two fences. It cost him twice but it just doesn't hide or screen. You can see right through the darn thing. Bernie Hanson: I think the present plan as we've discussed it, it would be a chainlink fence with a wood type structure like you're talking about or some use as a screen would be built on the outside of it. You have to have the chainlink for security. Mayor Hamilton: Just as long as it's a fence that's opaque. Bernie Hanson: The wood materials in the plan is to screen. 16 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: I have the same concern as Bill does. I don't want to see the same stuff there as you have now and I realize why it's there. I understar~ that but I don't want to see it down there. Is the building a metal building? It wasn't clear to me what type of builing it was. Barbara Dacy: Yes, it will be a metal building. Mayor Hamilton: I thought we had talked about not havirg metal buildings. Can you refresh my m~ory on that. Barbara Dacy: ~ne intent of that ~s to prohibit polebarn type of construction but this w~uld have a finished exterior and wood studs and metal construction materials that will be finished with a light gray exterior ar~ a dark gray with red trim on the windows. Mayor Hamilton: So the appearance is basically not of a metal building or is there any wood on it? Bernie Hanson: The appearance will not look like metal. It will match almost what you're building there on main street with the shadow lines and the different materials and so forth. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Bsguest for the following uses: a. Outdoor display of merchandise for sale b. Screened Outdoor Storage c. Automotive Service Center d. Small Vehicle Sales with the following conditions: 1. The fencing be, in some manner, wuod exterior. Nothing interwoven in tt~ chainlink fencing. 2. The flammable liquids clearly identified and a record of what it is and where it is recorded with the Fire Department and Public Safety Department. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Horn: The thought occurred to m~ that I didn't see any c~m~nts when this ibsm came up to the HRA. Why don't we see ~ Minutes along with our packets? A lot of the same questions w~re talked about in this project. Don Ashworth: That's a good point~ I should make sure that we do that and I'll make sure that in the future we do try to have those in there. RECRf~TI~ BFACHfX)T REQUEST, SUNNYSLOPE HC~fE~NNERS ASSOCIATION: A. VARIANCE TO THE LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA REQUI~ FOR A R~CREATIONAL BEACHLOT. 17 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 B. CONDITIONAL USE PE~4IT REQUEST FOR R]DCREATIONAL BEACHLOT ACTIVITIES2 Mayor Hamilton: Item A, the variance to the lot width and lot area was before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals this evening. Dale, perhaps you could tell us what the disposition was. Councilman Geving: Mr. Mayor, we asked that Willard Johnson who's the Chairman of the Board of Appeals cc~e before the Council and state what happened at the Board meeting. Willard Johnson: As you know this has been before the Council and Board many times. Mr. Burke indicated that he would like to come before the full Council and we passed it on to the Council because we supported the ordinance referring to beachlots and the recommendation of the Planning Con~ission. Mayor Hamilton: So you didn't make any recommendation at all on it? Willard Johnson: No, w~ passed it on following the guidelines of the beachlot ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to ask the Council, I don't know if Jay'and Bill have had an opportunity to see all the material that's gone by on this but there's been a lot of it. It's been here several times. If you want additional information from the staff, we can do that. If not, we could perhaps get into a discussion and resolve or attempt to resolve this once and for all. Nobody apparently needs a staff report so what I'd like to do is ask if there are homeowners here who have c(mm~ents to make. I would like to here them first. Joy Tanner: I live at 9243 Lake Riley Blvd adjacent to Lot 37. I have Lots 38 and 39. About 10 years ago when my property, we were going before the Board for variances for the lakeshore property, it was the first time that the feeling was held regarding that property being used as a beachlot. It w~sn't a good idea then and it didn't meet the ordinance requirements at that time with the information that we had regarding the purchase of our lot. We went ahead and bought our property and felt really quite safe in that the ordinances would prohibit the use of a lot there as a beachlot. Tne ordinances have become more restrictive and it still doesn't meet the requirements. I'm opposed to it now as I have been for the last 10 years. Steve Burke: I live at 340 Deerfoot Trail, one of the homes in the Sunnyslope Homeowners Association. We're again here before the Council and let me just state, when Joy mentions back in 1978 or 1977 when she bought her property, I do believe that the City did not have'any beachlot formal ordinance. That I believe w~s in 1981 or 1982. We have owned the property since 1977 so the property has been in the hands of Sunnyslope for a long time. This is the third or fourth time before the Council and each time we have withdrawn the application because in the previous presentations the City, it was clear that the City was going to deny our request, not necessarily for the beachlot but for the dock and boats. Well, what we're doing here today, we' re presenting our case one more time for the City. Sunnyslope owns an R-l, I don't know if I'm zoning it correctly, an individual single family hc~e lot. It's substandard in size. Only 50 feet wide by 110 feet deep. It is the exact same size as Mr. Paul Olson who is out here, who is the neighbor to the irm~ediate 18 C.~ty Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 e~st. He has the lot the same size as w~ do. He has a dock. He has the right to store three boats. As the owner of that property, the riparian rights for a lot, our lot is one dock and thre boats. We are willing to petition the City and ask that you designate that under a conditional use permit as a recreational beachlot as long as w~ don't lose the rights that we have today which is one dock and three boats. As I think all the counci~rs and hopefully legal counsel knows, w~ are in court on this, or at least we have filed and reading from the City's Answers to our Second Set of Interrogatories, one of the statements from the City is that the cc~plaint should be dismissed for failure to exhaust adminstrative re~:.dies. When asked by our Attorney what those remedies are that we have not exhausted, the answer is "Sunnyslope Homeo. wners Association withdrew it's application for a conditional use permit before the City acted upon it. The plaintiff's must apply for a conditional use permit and allow the City to act on it." We're here to allow the City to act on it. I'm just hoping that the City does not cause additional delays and additional expenses for us with no, to me it sour~s like our re~dy is to come here. With the City saying this is a renedy, we're here and I just ~ant to conclude by stating if, as has ~_n stated in the previous times I've ~ here, maybe not the first time that the developer Allan Gray was here, that I don't feel the granting of a variance in this case is a precedent setting variance in that it would be a precedent setting case if you had another h~neowners association that was established before your recreational beachlot ordinance. ~at has owned property since 1977. A lot that has the riparian rights to install one dock. We originally applied for four and then when the City changed it's ordinance down to three boats per dock, we have reduced it to three. We are looking for the right to utilize that lot as any other h~neowner would that built a house. We're just saying we don't want to put a house on it and there was mention at the Board of Adjustment and Appeals that they felt that the intensification of the lot is too much. ~he ordinance calls for 4 feet of shoreline for every hcme serviced. We have 12 homes, 4 times 12 is 48. We have more than enough shoreline. Yes it's a ~nall one but as stated in our application, neither of the lots to the left or right or within 1,000 feet of our development is available. We can't buy something else to expand upon it. We have ~ ~ers for a while so I'm here pretty much based upon the legal counsel's or the City's answer to our original lawsuit saying that I should bring it one more time before you because this is the remedy. It's not the Court's and I hope this is the remedy. Thank you. Jack Melby, 40 Hill Street: I just simply want to state that personally I oppose beachlots for any reason. For all the reasons that people have gone through over the past several years. They just simply pr(~note overuse of the lake and I think it's simply a vehicle for developers to make additional money. Councilman Boyt: It would be my understanding that they can now use this lot to swim at. Is that right? Barbara Dacy: It has not been approved for a recreational beachlot. Councilman Boyt: Let me back up Barb. They have owned this piece of property since 19797 Steve Burke: Since 1977. 19 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Boyt: Okay, the record I had was 1979. I'll accept 1977. I would imagine that you probably were using the land somewhere in that period of time around the late 70's. Is that correct? Steve Burke: No, I believe w~ began using it in 1980. I owned the first house to go up. I moved in in 1980. Councilman Boyt: Our ordinance w~s established March of 19827 Barbara Dacy: That' s correct. Councilman Boyt: Don't we typically grandfather in uses prior to the ordinance? Barbara Dacy: Yes, we usually do but in this case, w~ had no doc~entation since the 1984 application that there was a dock installed on the property or activity used as a beachlot. Councilman Boyt: Now let's take the dock out of the picture for a minute. What use were you placing the lot to prior to 19827 Steve Burke: Prior to 19827 I believe, and I'd have to check my exact calendar but prior to 1982 I'm not sure if 1982 is when we first reinstalled the dock. I think the question that you're asking is were we installing docks and the answer was no. I was the only h~meowner there until, I believe the second homeowner was Lot 12 but he has since moved and so have the Cutters who are here but when I moved in I did not own a boat and I did not own a canoe so there was a dock that was resident on the grounds, uninstalled. It has since been given to the neighbor Paul Olson here when we went out and bought a wheeled dock. He has it installed. He fixed it up. There were some rotting timbers in it. He has installed it on his property so on the day that the City came around and inventoried the beachlots, this was considered part at least right or wrong, the City felt that this was a beachlot because it was part of that... They came out and the day they photographed it, there was no dock installed and there were no boats. One of my discussions previously and I'll review it again, is that had they, the day they come around to photograph that dock, the dock been installed and had I had a big party of friends and 5 boats tied to it, the City would have grandfathered in 5 boats and one dock. But since I was the only out there, I may be wrong on that, Tc~ is shaking is head, but had it been in-use on that day, I don't think this matter would even have cc~e before this body because it w~uld have been indicated that they're grandfathered in. So we had a dock uninstalled and I don't know if the sumner of 1982 or i~ it was a little bit later that we finally installed the dock. Councilman Boyt: I guess what I'm trying to get at is, is there any use for that piece of property by this Association? Barbara Dacy: By the Association, no. It could be used as a single family lot however. Councilman Boyt: So you're telling me that the Association owns this piece of property and they can place it to no use other than stand on it? 20 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 Barbara Dacy: ~ney can sell the property for the construction of a single family hc~e. Councilman Boyt: I understand the property has use but you're telling me that the Association can not use it to in any way interact with tbs lake. They can' t swim from it. They certainly can' t put a dock in. Barbara Dacy: Unless the Attorney would have a different interpretation. Pat Farrell: I agree with that. Councilman Boyt: That makes it tougher. I think I would be as surprised as Steve is going to be if the Council approved this this evening. I think one of the things the Council should move to do is the Association has no use for that piece of property and it should not be taxed as a beachlot as it is now. They're currently paying taxes as msmbers in an association with a beachlot. I think that' s inappropriate. Mayor Hamilton: The property is assessed at it's highest and best use and if that's single family, that's what it should be taxed at. Councilman Boyt: I don't know. It's just not being taxed for ~hat it currently is. Mayor Hamilton: It just depends on ~hat the Assessor does. Highest and best' use. Councilman Boyt: I believe that through experience. I think this is another case that points out that the City needs some means of controlling developers beyond simply the size of the lots and the type of streets they put in. From what I read in the Minutes the developer clearly misled some of these people. It would be my intention that 5,500 square foot lot should not be approved by this City for a beachlot and I would not intend to approve it for a single family lot if there was anyway I could vote against it legally. ~nat's all I've got to say. Councilman Horn: When did you first request the first conditional use permit? Steve Burke: I would have to go back through these. The year, the summer w~ installed the dock, wa felt wa had that right. We installed the dock and then s~metime later that sunaer is when the City came to us very matter of factly saying you don't have a permit yet for your dock ar~ we said, oh sorry. We needed a permit? We figured we had a right to do it. At that point w~ came to the City for the first application. At that point, everytime w~ watched the beachlot ordinance get changed, it either became very restrictive and now it ~-_~s to be liberalizing a bit to the benefit of other developers that are c~ning before the City but the first time we installed the w~-c--cled dock, later that simmer is when we were cited and we came forward figuring that it was just a matter of fact that we came forward and applied. It was made clear at that point that ~ didn't have the right. Councilman Horn: My understanding of the way the conditional uses work is that you are grandfathered in on a conditional use if you had a conditional-use in existence at the time the ordinance was put into place but you didn't. As far 21 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 as you, Sunnyslope Homeowners Association having ownership of that lot in 1977, it's my understanding that your developer owned that lot until that point. In fact, from.a city perspective there w~s no actual application for a conditional use from your Association until 1984 which was after the ordinance was in place. ~nerefore, any grandfathering would have occurred had you had a conditional use permit in place before our ordinance was put in place which I don't believe is the case in this. Steve Burke: ~ne developer has in the past, and I don't know what year but it's on file upstairs, he had made application to the City before I moved in so it has to be prior to the sum~er of 1980 for, I'll call it a recreational house that he had. He has actual formal plans upstairs that are still on file and you received a lot of resistence from the then neighbors, many of who have left, some who are still in the neighborhood and he withdrew that because at that point there was so much resistence and he had no homeowners. One of the concerns was who would monitor the building that he had an architect draw up and was prepared to build at the time. Mayor Hamilton: I think rather than carrying on a dialogue with Mr. Burke all the time, w~ should just make co~nts and if you have a specific question to ask you can get to that. This dialogue is going to go on all night if we continue with it. Councilman Horn: I think my point Mr. Mayor is that I think Mr. Burke misled this Council in his concept of implying that he had a grandfathered use. I think it's very important that this Council be fully aware that he did not have a grandfathered use and in fact, whether he had an application in or not is totally irrelevant in this case. It's whether he had an accepted conditional use permit at the time and that was not the case and it never has been the case. That's my only point. Councilman Geving: Of course this lot has a lot of history. It goes back to the time that I first moved here and there was a house sitting on that lot at that time. It burned down and it laid there in a rubble for many, many years. Finally some of the homeowners or whoever got together and maybe we enforced, 'Mr. Allen Gray agreed to clean it up but it sat there for a number of years and then finally the City, it seems like there were several applications came in for a conditional use permit and then the beachlot activity arose. Sitting on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, we have seen this issue five times. We had hoped to resolve this in May of 1986 and I thought it was done at that time and that we gave the homeowners assocation the opinion that this was a lot of record for a single family hc~e and it should be used as such. There are other homes in the area adjacent to it that are of the same size specifically so there really is another use that this lot could be used for. We're not going to take your property. We're not denying you from the potential of selling it or using it for a single family home. ~nere is sewer in the street. It has been stubbed in specifically for this lot. I recall when we put in the sewer for Lake Riley, we made sure that the stub w~s placed for this particular lot and we have consistently said that it's a lot of record as a single family home and it should remain as such. I just have to go with our ordinance. Even though it's been amended several times, it never did meet even our minimum requirsments way back when. As' far as I'm concerned, it never should have been granted a recreational beachlot status so I stay with the ordinance as we have written it. I stay with the fact that it can be used for another purpose and I 22 Cihy Council Mseking - April 25, 1988 encourage the hcmeowners association to seek out the possibility of building a single family home on that lot. I have no other questions. Councilman Johnson: I'm sorry our lawyers have dragged you here for this. I know that it was a legal point that because your applications never came full round that your application actually had to come full round. I'd like to know why staff, I guess I do know, you want a legal opinion fr~m the Attorney on this so staff's asked us to table it actually until we get the legal opinion. Mayor Hamilton: No. Councilman Johnson: No? I saw the w~rd table. Mayor Hamilton: I don't want to table it. We don't have to table it and we can come up with the Findings of Fact. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to deny it and get your lawsuit to parition and we'll find out what happens. Mayor Hamilton: The only comments I have is, I guess when Allen Gray owned that property and began developing it, I don't recall ever havirg an outlot as an issue with that whole subdivision. We had a lot of probl~ns with that ~ahole subdivision with Mr. Gray and that whole process but I just don't ever recall that this was an outlot for that subdivision at that time and all of a sudden it popped up. I don't know if Mr. Gray just decided he had so much trouble with that subdivision that he was just going to turn over everything and decided to give that lot to the homeowners. I think he had s(~me other plans, tennis courts and s~me other nice things there that were never accomplished and instead of that I believe he just gave ~ this outlot ar~ said y~u' can have this but I'd have to review that. I'd have to review that and ~ just how the things progressed but it's ~ a difficult subdivision to deal with and I agree with Jay. I don't think there should be allowed. It's too s~all and I think it should go into court ar~ get it decided once ~ for all. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the variance request to the lot width and lot area requir~nents for a recreational beachlot and conditional use permit request for recreational beachlot activities. Also, to direct the City Attorney to prepare a Findings of Fact that can be used to substantiate the reasons for denial. All voted in favor and motion carried. Steve Burke: We got one step past this last time and that was you asked for legal opinion from the City Attorney and you got a legal opinion last time. At that point when the legal opinion came down, that's when we withdrew it. We want to proceed with our lawsuit. Mayor Hamilton: You can withdraw it now. Steve Burke: We're not going to withdraw. Mayor Hamilton: I have moved for denial. Steve Burke: I'm just going to ask a general question. We're now going to he 23 placed in another holding pattern while they basically photocopy what they said last time and I'm wondering why the City was unwilling to take the Attorney's recommendation from last time and act on that to get this thing resolved so w~ can get our dock? We feel we have... Mayor Hamilton: I think this is standard procedure for us. Last time Roger Knutson was here. This time Mr. Farrell is here and he's heard the testimony and he will come up with the Findings of Fact and talk to Roger and I'm sure he'll have it back to us in very short order. I suspect we'll have it back here in a weeks time or sooner. Pat Farrell: Next meeting. Mayor Hamilton: Next meeting we'll have it. We're not trying to delay you at all. We'll get it just as quickly as we can. LOT AREA VARIANCE TO PERMIT A HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON AN EXISTING 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED ON WOODHILL ROAD, LOTS 2763-2766, CARVER BEACH, R AND R LAND VENTURES. Mayor Hamilton: ~nis item was before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals so Willard, can you inform the Council what the disposition was. Willard Johnson: We discussed it. It's a lot of record and we granted the variance being it's a lot of record, unanimously. SEVER PETERSON, PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve preliminary plat extension until January 1, 1989 because of the proposed TH 212 corridor. Without the corridor having been approved and finalized at this point, Mr. Peterson doesn't know how it's going to affect his property. Until he knows how it's going to affect his property, he can't go through a platting process. All voted in favor and motion carried. HSZ DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 7 AND TH 41: A. REZONING FROM OI, OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL TO BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE 3 ~RCIAL LOTS. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,920 SQUARE FEET RETAIL CENTER. D. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET. Mayor Hamilton: This is an item that's been before us many times also. We have new developers of this property who have presented a plat to us. Barbara Dacy: At the Planning Commission meeting on March 16, 1988, the Planning Conmnission covered a number of issues and the Planning Conxnission Chairman is here tonight, or at least I thought he v~s. The major issues that were discussed at the Planning Co~mission meeting dealt with the rezoning issue, the traffic and the transportation alignments and various it~{ns on the 24 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 site plan. I'd just briefly like to review those and point out some additional information that has ~ made available. As far as the rezonirg action is concerned from the office institutional to the neighborhood business district, the Planning Oan~ission felt more c(mtfortable with this proposal because of the creation of the BN district in the new Zoning Ordinance. Now the neighborhood zoning district specifically controls height to one story for the types of uses that are proposed. It also establishes a 50 foot building and parking setback from adjacent homes and requires a strict amount of screening to be constructed between residential and c(mmercial properties. Further, it provides for a specific list of neighborhood oriented uses. Another item of this proposal that seems to gain more acceptance than previous proposals ~s the traffic separation from the co~m~rcial develolament to the adjacent neighborhood. Basically what that entailed, at the Planning (km~ission ~s a discussion of two options. Option 1 being vacation of existing 64th Street and realist of 64th Street further to the south of TH 41 so that a full intersection could be created into the development on TH 41 according to MnDot standards, approximately 600 feet south of TH 7. ~nis option proposed an extension of Oriole Lane down to it's existing terminous and then east adjacent to the Gowen and the Reed property. Another option that ms discussed at the Planning Cc~mission meeting, as labeled on your plans as Option 2 or staff has kind of called it the Z option, would crisscross through the Reed property. Again, allowing for the full intersection farther to the north. I think it's fair to say that the Planning fkmmission felt that a reconnection to TH 41 for 64th Street was important. They also agreed with the neighborhood ~ts that there should not be assessments created out of this road construction project · and the cost, if one of these options or another option to connect it to TH 41 should be born by the developer. The Council does have that option to require that. Since the Planning Cc~mission _n~cting there have ~ two additional alternatives suggested by the developer. ~hat w~'re calling as Option 3 is the construction of a cul-de-sac at the southwest corner of the co~nerci~ site on 64th Street. ~nis option would not make a connection back to TH 41. Option 4 is the same principle however it goes farther into the Reed property and would provide for future resubdivision of the Reed property. We know this is a change from the Planning Omrmission. However, it is staff's recc~amendation that a reconnection of 64th Street is very, very important to the neighborhood in this area. As you can tell by this overhead, this is TH 7 on the north, TH 41 over here, that this Washta Bay Road/Orchard Lane neighborhood has no access into and out of the area other than 64th Street and TH 7. There is no ability to cross or connect to Dartmouth Drive to the w~st because of the w~tland area. Closing off 64th Street would force all of the residential trips onto TH 7. TH 7 is a minor arterial and serves a different purpose. It's purpose is to move traffic between two points at a fairly rapid s~ and without a lot of interruption, l~etaining the connection of 64th Street would allow traffic coming out of this neighborhood to go south on TH 41 and provides a second means of ingress and egress. Therefore, what staff is recommending Council to take direction on is whether or not 64th Street should be reconnected to TH 41. It's our rec~m~er~]ation that it should be. That either Option 1, 2 or some other option can be evaluated in more detail when the Reed property would come in for platting. Condition of approval that was recc~m_~ded by the Planning Cc~nission ~as that that plat for the Reed property would be approved by the Council before construction could occur on the commercial property. As to the site plan issues, three items that w~'d like to follow up on. One, there was concern about landscaping along th~ western border of the site. That the landscaping would extend to the TH 7 property 25 ~ty Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 line. The applicant has amended his plans to add ten 6 foot evergreen trees to extend the landscaping along the Ziegler property line and all the way up to TH 7. Another concern w~s the concern from the Watershed District about ~ater quality on Lake Minnewashta. The applicant has revised it's plan to provide for an on-site storm water retention. The applicant has also revised the lighting plan to take better advantage of pole standards and so on and to create lighting structures that are constructed in such a manner to protect glare from going onto adjacent properties. The Planning Commission and staff rec~ation r~ains the same from the March 16th meeting. However, we w~uld recommend that you would adopt the revised plans. If you'd like, Larry Brown can address the on-site retention issue and the lighting plan issue, if you want to go into further detail on it. Larry Brown: As stated in the report, kind of at the 12th hour, concerns came up regarding the water quality as this proposed storm sewer pipe w~uld discharge into the Herman Field Park. Not the park itself but the wetlands down by Herman Field Park. In going back to the Watershed District with these concerns, they revised their initial reco~m~endation and stated that they w~nted additional on-site ponding. The plan that you see before you tonight addresses those concerns by constructing two ponds. One up here in the northeast corner and the one you don't see, because this is the old transparency, is the one that on your plan shown in the southeast corner. Tnese ponds do provide adequate sedimentation and the Watershed District has given their verbal approval on these. As you know, they will not give their formal approval until the Council acts on these. The other issue was the lighting concept plan. Since the neighborhood had brought up such a great concern about the glare, they designed out or speced out special lighting fixtures similar to the ones that you see in the City Hall lots and kept the full heights at 20 feet such that the glare would not be affecting any other adjacent lot owners. They have gone as far as taking this to a lighting consultant and had this plan analyzed to make sure that the glare would not be affecting the adjacent property owners. With that I'll leave it open to Council questions. Mayor Hamilton: What I'd like to do is have the developer, do you have a presentation you'd like to make? Roger Zahn: My name is Roger Zahn. I'm president of HSZ Development. I!d just like to give a little bit of background on our approach to a number of the issues that we saw with respect to this property as w~ studied it and looked into whether or not ~ should go forward with this develo~m~ent. Having read the Minutes of the past Council and Planning Con~ission meetings and tried to take into account the concerns raised there, many of th~ legitimate and trying to solve those problems. In our approach to the development, we have tried to a great extent to listen to the neighbors and if they had a preferred approach that we might take, w~ tried to take that and work with th~m~. That has caused us to kind of change directions a little bit more often I think than staff would like us to do and perhaps we've caused a few concerns on their part by doing that but we have done it in an effort to cooperate with the neighbors. The cul-de-sac ideas that have been discussed and that have been brought to you since the Planning Commission ~m~cting were basically the neighbors preference. The Reeds and the Gowens, in our discussion with th~m initially they saw a little bit more of the idea of moving a road all the ~y through onto TH 41 a little bit more favorably and I think in analyzing their own situations, they would prefer to do it this ~ay and that's fine with us. So we drew up some 26 City Council Meeting - April 25 ~ 1988 concept plans showing that and it's also fine with us to put the road through. If we had a preference w~ w~uld agree with the Reeds and Gowens ar~ the other neighbors that thing that way, that the cul-de-sac approach w~uld probably be the best and it is our preferred approach at this time. At this point I think I'll turn, so you can ~, we've got scme presentation boards and we've got John Uban from Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban here to discuss the plannirg issues that he has worked o~ and we've got J.D. MacRae fr~m Heise, Ryan, MacRae and Associates to discuss the architectural concerns and also Brian Larson frc~ Barrientos and Associates to answer questions that you may have regarding any engineering. Craig Johnson also frc~ that firm regarding landscaping. I think I'll turn it over to John at this point. John Uban: You're all very familiar with this. I will briefly show this to you. To give you an idea of some of the things that we looked and had to deal with as we were trying to develop a good develolm~ent scenario for this parcel. This is a 200 scale aerial photograph. The subject property is right at the intersection of TH 7 and TH 41. This piece is isolated in a sense frc~ the neighborhood in that it really doesn't share access into the neighborhood itself and really is incumbered by the extr~ne exposure to the highway syst~n which actually makes it a good site for doing s~mething like neighborhood c~m~ercial. That's the attack we took and yet at the same time, all the residents in the pattern of develolmment that has happened in the past, really spoke to try to separate the traffic systsms frc~ ~ two uses. So we looked at a method of doing that. We worked with the neighbors to really c~me out with the best plan. Also to the S~)uth is a major Hennepin County park and open space system. ~he actual property is divided up into many single family plots onto the west and we have on Oriole Drive the connection of 64th over to TH 41 the way it exists today. That connects to TH 7 and loops back across into the neighborhood and to the west. So we looked at the land to the south owned by two individuals to see what kind of options we had. We also looked at the area circulation and did studies and we looked at the basic water drainage systsm. Here we found that there were scme ponds put in place by the Highway Department that were draining the norther portions of the site but primarily most-of it came through a very informal fashion and found their way into a marshland just before it entered the lake which is a good natural system to take care of the water. So now we've only tried to augment that to meet the criteria of the Watershed District and the City so this water is now handled the best way possible. We've studied this and solved sc~e problems. There's water that comes across the road. We've looked at all of those develolm~nts. In our discussions, staff has already reviewed the options that we've looked at but we . did several things. We met with MnDot. We tried to w~rk out problems that they had. Proposing to add a lane, a by-pass lane and then a deaccerleration and acceleration lane for the entrances. What we've developed then is a piece of land with it's own full access which separates it completely frcm~ the neighborhood and this went a long way to really get the use integrated ~ith much better architecture, lower buildings, good landscaping, good setbacks, low glare lighting, all these features to really make it work. We also worked with MnDot to try and develop a solution to a very dangerous situation. It is very difficult for westbound traffic to make a left turn onto Oriole Lane so we worked with them and they will now, this ~, be restriping that section of the road for a dedicated left turn lane because in the past people have ~--n sitting in there, high s~ traffic cc~ing up behind them and they're sitting there waiting to make this se~ningly innocuous left turn ar~ it's very dangerous. People have almost gotten hurt so we've w~rked to try and solve 27 City Council Meeting ' April 25~ 1988 that problem and we thing w~ have worked that out now with ~Dot. This development looked at different ways of putting access into the land to the south to give them future development potential. Really what we've done is opened up the realm of possibilities and what could happen, there are several different solutions. This one looped through and followed the existing right-of-way here but some of the neighbors didn't want this road. Didn't want to finish out some of the platted roads that were in the area. So we looked at another system in which 64th was kept in place that then hopped down to the Reed property, followed the property line out then to TH 41. This worked except maybe the timing isn't quite right for both parties at the same time and then we would not extend Forest Avenue either. The neighborhood did not want that to happen. So that's what led us to the final solution. ~nat's maybe not the best name for it but hopefully it's one that will work very well. The cul-de-sac idea really is only the first phase of the previous kinds of solutions that we looked at. One in which Mr. Reed can develop a few lots, culminate 64th Street into a safe cul-de-sac and then it offers the platting and the continuation of the street that could open up the rest of the land in Mr. Gowen and Mr. Reed on out to TH 41 so it does resolve that deadend issue in that it can be cc~pleted. It does not use other existing right-of-way. It doesn't have to although the City certainly has the choice of completing the road syst~ that exists and eliminating the other cul-de-sac. This also has the potential, and is requested by the City for safety purposes as an interim solution to this cul-de-sac is to provide ~ergency access right up into the site itself which we can do if it's really required so all of this is really designed as a first step. These tw~ landowners are not developers really. They're people who own the land, have owned it for a long time and are not necessarily in a good position today to really jump in and take on all the responsibilities of develo~m~ent but this is a solution that they can live with and it gets th~m into working with their land on a slower pace. We think this works very w~ll and will solve all the problems with circulation for the site itself. It works with the standards of MnDot. It helps revive a solution that should have been looked at a long time ago with the left turn lane into Oriole and it really starts the develo~x~ent pattern I think working out very successfully. We've worked hard. We've met with everyone and we think we have before you tonight the best solution we can produce and I think you' 11 see, when you see the product, the site design, that it really is going to be a very good development for you. I' 11 turn it over now to J.D. to go through that development unless you have any questions of me. Councilman Boyt: How long is your cul-de-sac? John Uban: This small one, I'll measure it exactly. A little over 500 feet. Councilman Johnson: Ail the way. Councilman Boyt: There's a second entrance there Jay on the bottom. John Uban: I'm measuring from this to this. Councilman Johnson: All the way up. That's your one and only entrance. councilman Boyt: No. It comes out another part of TH 7. 28 City fbuncil Meeting ' April 25~ 1988 John Uban: There are different ways of looking at it. If you .~m~lt -to measure it frcm TH 7, obviously w~ have' several_ hundr'ed more .fe~t ~there..but- there's a platted road through here that forms.'a'-road.. ' -.PhYs'~zcally i.t i's not in place but it's platted rightLof-way.° ' · .. . Councilman Boyt: That other one is another. 600 or. 700 feet up. to TH 7? That. extension? ' · ' " ' " Councilman Johnson: Where Orchard inter.sects... ,- Councilman Boyt: I think I've got the idea. John Uban: If you're measuring fr~cm TH. 7, this is over .500 feet. · Councilman Boyt: Like about 1,000. ., John Uban: ~nat's why we're providing the option of doing this. ~ landowner then can pursue the dedication through easements and dedication right-of-way for the completion of the roadway. J.D. MacRae: My name is J.D. MacRae. I'm with Heise, Ryan, MacRae and Associates. We're the architects on the project. To go quickly through the site issues first of all. Again, reorientating, TH 7, TH 41, full access onto TH 41 and a right turn lane only off of TH 7. We chose to build up on TH 7 two outlots that would be sold off for commercial uses. Then pulled our site back away frcm TH 7 feeling that the highest visibility is TH 7. The best useage for those lots then, for that intense type use on that outlot would be up on TH 7. We then orientated the building along the south property line. Following the property line. We ori.entated' it' that' way' ~or .two reasons, one, the intersection wi~h the'sto~ light..-Full Visibility of'the project.. The- most sighted for the retailers. Secondly', trying to reduce the impact, of our building on the neighborhood to the west which was of great concern. The impact to the south obviously, we have a 1.gt of.building along there but due to the height difference between this piece of property and the property to' south, they're really looking up through a berm and seeing very little of the building from this height. We then have an. accessory building .which is on the west side. Again, trying to minimize the a~ount of burl'ding there with a maxim~m~ amount of square footage that you can put on this site...We .then have the parking out in front with some drive-up parking along the center.' The parking meets all the requir~nents of the. City. The setbacks to the PaVing are actually about 59 feet I believe we 'have here rather than t~e 50 foot setback. Most of that is due to the grade difference frc~ about this point to this point and the r~-ding for the slope and the berm up on top to the landscaping which we'll get to in a moment. Well, we can get to it right now. We have a landscape plan here which has been amended, is not amended on here, continuing landscaping up to TH 7 as Barb had discussed. We have fir trees all along the perimeter of the property intermixing other types of vmgetation and bringing in Scotch Pine. Then down below it we have s~ac. Craig Johnson: We have deciduous shrubs. J.D. MacRae: Along this portion of the berm. We then have deciduous trees out in front that are thin, light trees so again the visibility is easy to -.--c through. We have an arcade of trees on each side of the entrance making 29 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 somewhat'of a parkway en%rance 'off' of TH '7.' ~nen' land~caPi~'g out' .in. here.. With that landscaping, this all meets down here. The 'lands'caping ~lo~g the perimeter, we've also incorporated berming along the top of. this hillside here to help screen the residential. We have sight section A, B,'C- and D which' are reflected here showing a typical two story house and it's proper elevation and the relationship of distance and height to our project. Through this accessory- building we would actually berm up onto the back of the building and carry the berm up scxnewhat higher and then scotch Pines argt the deciduou~ trees .... The sight line actually from eye level on the second legel'cutting across, I believe we see about a foot of the accessory buildi.ng. You.g~t into the small side of the retail center itself, again here cutting thro(aghl you see about the same amount of building. Not taking into consideration that we have landscaping on top of that that is there year round. On the back side, Section C and D, we're just showing there is obviously no develogment down there. These are the existing contours coming up the hill and again showing the minimal amount of the building with the berm itself and then the landscaping up on top of the berm. The biggest concern we have with the berming was to hide the cars and hide the parking lot so we're not looking at a parking lot. Looking at a minimal amount of building. Making the smallest amount of impact. Getting to the actual building itself, along the front side, the street side, we have windows, full height from the sidewalk 9 feet high. We have a canopy that carries across the face of the building that sticks over the sidewalk so you can walk underneath the canopy. ~hen we anchor at each end of the building, this is sort of a shorten elevation, this is the actual elevation to make sense of how long it really is. We have .anchored. ~ach side .Qf building' with an architectural el~n~nt' 'that sticks up above' 'the .top of. the -'~' building and using brick and kock face"co~cre, te bl.o6k, we t~ied, to make a real pretty elevation here and' here. Agaih, with'the glass ar~ co~re~el columns going across here, the signage will be incorporated into the canopy. We then wrap around the corner here carrying the brick .back. to about a two-thirds point and then~ it's a rock' faced-block mask that Sticks 2'8" here' and' then wraps around the back side of the building. We've clad the roof of the canopy ar~t '' the roof of these two elements in a red .standing se.a~ roofing.. This black mass you see back behind is another metal roofing tlsat i~ being used as a 'sC~een'ing element for the rooftop units. It runs the continuous length of.the building. Again, it has the two-thirds point back, wrapping arour~ this concrete mass and then coming around the back of the buil. ding a short distance and terminating. We chose to do that for tv~ reasons. One, the intersection'of TH'7 and'TH 41 is slightly higher than the floor height here which means someb~y sitting in their car would have the opportunity to look up onto the roof and see not the roof but would see the rooftop units. We think that's very distracting and not good looking. Two, as we drive along this side on TH 41, TH 41 is as high as our building is and you actually have the opportunity to look down upon the building. Again, trying to lessen the impact of the rooftop unit. I'll leave you with, and we have a rendering to give you sort of an image idea of what kind of a center we're talking about. A very high quality, nice materials. Again, the sign band up in the canopy. The canopy going back. Many people walking along the sidewalk. Only two cars, I don't know how they got there. Then our tall element up here. Again, the tall decidious trees out in the parking lot for minimum impact. Mayor Hamilton: Anybody from the neighborhood like to make ccmmm~nts? ..If you'd like to, now is your 'chance.- Preferably if there is somebody.' ~epresenting the whole group I'd 'appreciate hearing from them '~a'thei than each individual. 30 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 Gene Conner: I'm the next door neighbor to Bob Wagner on Orchard Lane. Bob poked me and said okay, it's your turn. I feel like I've kind of ~n subjected over the years to the Chinese water torture with this project. I must admist that I do have to congratulate the developers for finally coming up with s(x~ething that at least ~ like a reasonably intelligent approach to the project. I really can't say that for previous approaches. I still have reservations. It's been said over and over-and over again that that area is not suitable for residential. I really don't believe it. Since that:s ~--n said so many times it's almost bec~e a thing with me. I drive around and I look at residential develo~x~ent areas that are close to highways much busier, much bigger than that one and see really nice places being built close to intersections. That property also has enough contour in it so that residences could have been built in off 64th Street with, I think .the-highways w~uld not have bothered ~ at all. I built facing TH 7 and I don't have a probl~ with TH 7 and I think there is s~me property' in there, most-of the property in there could have ~ utilized with more screening toward the highway than I had. But the Council in all their wisdc~ has decided that that's not going to be residential. I still think it's suitable for the OI that it's presently designated. I guess I'm not sold on a c~m~.rcial type develo~t in there yet although this is far better than what we've had in the past. I do have tw~ areas of concern with this however and that is the t~ pieces of undeveloped property in front of it. I mean as sure as God made little green apples, the next approach is going to be for a full blown c~ercial on those lots because they're facing right out on the highway. It's creeping ccmm~erciali~. I just know in my own heart that if this goes in, that is going to go full blown c~m~ercial out there. Maybe not with this Council. It's easy for this Cbuncil to say it won't happen but down the road you people won't always be here. Again, my congratulations however to the developers, a very fine presentation. Ben Gow~n: I'm the adjacent property to the south of Reeds. U~der the latest proposal of the cul-de-sac, I see where I'm not involved one iota now or in the future. If I've got that wrong, please correct me. Another thing, it was mentioned by Barb earlier that.during the Planning meeting it was stated by her that Reed's plotting was a part of the discussion. I don't think that was a fact in the Planning meeting. Otherwise, I'm for the c(mm%recial corner. I think there's only one way to do it and that's com~rcial. Bob Wagner, 2511 Orchard Lane: Of course I couldn't pass up the opportunity to c~me up here and talk to you guys again. I'd like to take you back to your August 3rd Cc~mission meeting in which you met without the luxury of us, the hcmeowners, and Mayor Hamilton talked to Councilman Johnson and he said if the ingress and egress on that property could be resolved to Councilm~n Johnson's satisfaction, would he be in favor of c(m~nercial and he said yes. I think that's still a major issue fr~m what I've heard tonight. I'm not sure I've heard the proper solution. We've talked about two options, two of which were discussed at the Planning Cc~mission meeting. TW~ of which were discussed for the first time tonight, at least amongst us ~ers that are here. One of those I have heard is very disturbing to me ar~ that's where we talk about an ~ergency route, if you will, back up into tf~ shopping center which to me means we're distroying the privacy, we're tearing down berming, we're not protecting the residential any longer. Of course I understand where that's c~ing from. We have 1,000 foot or l_onger cul-de-sac which is against the Code I believe. I'm more opposed to the entrance back into the shoppirg center than anything and I think that deserves a lot of discussion. I think it destroys City Council Meeting "April 25~ 1988 the concept that we were trying to sell in the beginning which is keep it separate. Councilman Boyt made a statement on August 3rd, he said to vote on that we've got to be able to show that there's a significant portion of the neighborhood that supports it. I've heard Ben get up and say he supports it. I have yet to hear anybody else in the neighborhood get up and say they support it. I don't know what you consider significant but I don't consider one or two neighbors significant. I think I 'ye heard a lot more neighbors opposed that for. Councilman Geving.said s~mething a little bit better quality, bring that back or something that could sell the quality angle. Keeping it separate from the h~=owners. Low density. Bring us back something that's good quality, low density, good separation from existing homes. I think the one point in that that should be discussed is intensity. I think if you look at the records and if you look at previous proposals, this may be less intense by 1,000 square feet but you're not considering the other property up front yet to be developed and I would challenge that to the question of intensity. Mayor Hamilton made a ccmm~ent in that meeting about, I'll quote, I can't for the life of me figure out how they can complain about noise, talking about the neighbors, or whatever it was they were complaining about that far away from the road. I think they're complaining about something that isn't a problem and I think I'm being realistic and they're not. I think if that's true Mr. Mayor, then residential would fit there. If noise isn't an issue. Going back to the Planning Commission meeting, the last meeting we attended, it was stated by Barb Dacy that as to this application, what we're saying is they can't start building here until the City has resolution on the street connection issue. From the staff standpoint, that's the major issue and that is to get the traffic connection back to TH 41. That's on page 15, about the third paragraph. I still think that's the issue tonight. I hear a sense in change in direction. I guess I'm just concerned that it's adequately discussed. There is a presentation on this board that shows two buildings. (~e is the 26,000 square foot building but there's another building placed off to the side in the presentation that is not part of what they're planning on developing. That particular building sits right behind Ziegler's hc~e and-that would in fact create a privacy issue with them in that it would protect them from the shopping center. I just want to point out to you that's really not in this phase of development unless they could find a builder but I think the way they're presenting it, it's not in there although it's in the picture. The statement w~s made about the berm and the statement ~as made that it's somewhat higher than the parking lot. Having lived through this in front of my house with what was the Baltic property, somewhat highwer is a very disturbing term to me. I'm still looking for the landscaping and the evergreen trees that was reserved with a letter of credit at that time. It's still not there today. That's back in 1979 so I think, somewhat higher is a rather elusive term and I think you ~cd to do a better job of finalizing what that is. We talked about the view from TH 41 as we listened to this and the fact that somebody could sit in their car and possibly look down, at least slightly on the units on the top of this building, I'd like to point out to the Council that I live on the hill higher than TH 41 and I'm going to have the opportunity to look down across the whole roof, not just part of it. I think that's an issue. A ~nity issue. Maybe very much a personal one but with good reason. I've been here before and I would like to see something directed in that area. We talked about the pleasing look. I call it the Canterbury stables look with the two cones on top of the roof. I would ask you to verify that that's within the height limit of the Building Code for BN. I think it might be out of that area that's approved. I think that's the major issues. 32 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 77 Gary Reed: My brother and I own the property that's adjacent to the shopping center on the south. As far as the shopping center going in, it just depends on what Mr. Zahn is going to do for us. If w~ vacate the street, we have approximately five sewer and water syste~ that we're not currently paying for along the street so that is the reason for the extension of the cul-de-sac into the property. We felt that that would be a good cc~prc~ise to vacate the street. That we would then be able to develop around the cul-de-sac area which would give us a little more depth into the property. Then the drainage situation that is currently there, where it cuts through the property, would have to be dealt with if this concept were to be accepted. We have a lot of drainage that comes off of the West Jr. High or whatever it is now, the Middle School, that comes off of their parking lot ar~ cuts through our property and it can be a torrent at times so I think .we're looking for the developer to look at that situation too because it would certainly be a part of his drainage problem and we all met at one spot there. We would hope to also be applying for a BN type zoning on probably the front 3 .1/2 acres and residential then around the cul-de-sac area. We feel that being back up to the shopping center, Ben Gow~n has conditional use running on the other side of us ar~ then to the south is the park and school and so on, that we would also. apply in the future for a BN for the frontage along .the highway. We asked Roger for a permanent easement into his parking lot so that we would then have two exits. One on TH 41 and then into his parking lot for that frontage. Then develop the back lots as residential at some future plat that you would have that comes before you. These are just some of my thoughts on it. We would be in favor of the cul-de- sac idea that's being proposed as we could work it out with Roger. Councilman Geving: Are you in favor then of that second access into the shopping center, from your property to the north? You're the one that worked out and negotiated with the developer? Gary Reed: In the front part of his parking lot we would ask for an easement over his parking lot so that if we did develop it, we could then be part of his entrance and exit. We could exit out ours and then we would have no impact on the neighborhood .as far as traffic flow is concerned. Now if you're talking about the ~mergency access to the back. Councilman Geving: That's what I'm really'talking about. Gary Reed: I think if that's handled properly, there shouldn't be any traffic back through. My wife and I were concerned about the people that walk up to the school, we suggested to Roger and he agreed that putting a bike path up through and along the shopping center and then that would double as t_be e~ergency entrance into the cul-de-sac area if an e~ergency vehicle ~ed to go in there. Possibly leave a notch in the berming. At that point, I don't think it would bother anybody. I guess I hoped a little bit about protecting the rooftop units on the front of the building but I would certainly like to see ~ protected on the back side too. I wouldn't like to look at the~. Councilman Geving: So you're in favor of the project as it's being proposed tonight? Gary Reed: Well, as the amendments go on, as long as w~ ~Drk things out. 33 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 Larry Brown: Point of clarification. I think Barb had put up on the overhead there, and correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Reed but I believe that was the entrance that you w~re in favor of. The one showing on the right hand side. Not confused with the one that the applicant had shown. Gary Reed: That was the easement I had discussed with Roger and this concept, this isn't exactly laid out the way it would be probably. The Concept is the same but I would prefer it. being forward here so, this isn't really to scale. I have 155' feet in here. My house and my sons house would 'be built on that and then I would like another 100 feet or 150 feet in the lots here and another 100 here... Councilman Boyt: How many acres do you have? Gary Reed: There's approximately from, I'm severing this off so the rest would be probably 7-7 1/2 acres or so. Councilman Boyt: So you're looking at about half of that BN? Gary Reed: Yes, just enough to put one business on the property. We've had the drive-in up there for years you know and I've been talking to some people that would reconstruct that idea and make a restaurant. Put an extension on the Reed's Drive-in thsme. Operated for years and it was an asset to the community. Paul Kerner, 6351 Minnewashta Woods Drive: I'm just here on behalf, we want to see s~me commercial develounent at that location. I just wanted to show my support. Mayor Hamilton: We should take them one at a time and look at the rezoning frcm OI to BN first of all. After that we'll look at the preliminary plat and see if we can't hammer out something that's workable there. Jay, do you want to start? Do you have any c~ents on the rezoning issue? Councilman Johnson: Since this is the first reading of rezoning and the change to our ordinance on the cause for rezoning, and we're putting conditions in the plat and site plan review and stuff, we prevent a second reading until we've satisfied the other conditions, I don't have a lot of problem right now with the rezoning because it's not a total rez0ning at this time. I believe that BN is better than OI for the neighbors in t_hat the OI is three story buildings maximum at this time and possibly in the future will even be taller buildings in the future so theoretically four years down the road, we could see a six story office building in this area if one of the premise t_hat we have, the three story restriction on is because, one of the reasons is because the fire trucks can't fight a fire at this time. ~ne new platform truck we'll have a couple years from now, we may b~ changing that ordinance. It's quite possible that OI in this area, we could have a fairly extensive, several hundred square foot office building placed in this area that could cause even w~rse problsms than the BN. Even currently you could put three stories worth of office buildings in here which could be a considerable amount of square footage of area. A lot of ~ployees. A lot of traffic. A lot of potential problems. Site wise, a three story building is a heck of a lot harder to berm away then a one story building. Given this is the first reading and it's not final until 34 City Council Meeting -April 25, 1988 165 the second reading, we're not actually rezoning it tonight, until we get the single issue here is access and I'm going to talk more about access and I think everybody else is going to talk more about access on the next p~ases of this but to me, this section should either be residential or business neighborhood. Right now w~ don't have anything before us saying go residential. Business neighborhood to me would be better than OI for the residents in the neighborhood. Councilman Horn: I'll just repeat ~hat Jay said. I think the BN makes sense. I think the BN makes a go~d transition for this area. Councilman Geving: Bill, do you have any ~ts on just the first issue please. The rezoning issue. Just limit it to that at this time. Councilman Boyt: I have a hard time separating this out into four issues. I' 11 make an att~Ept. I think that the strongest tool. that we have is the request for rezoning and that takes a four-fifths vote. I was happy to be r~ninded of what I had said earlier by Mr. Wagner. It's always nice to be haunted by one's quotes Mr. Wagner. I would suggest that it's somewhat difficult for me to know, I know this issue is probably beaten down a lot of the neighbors and it must be hard to get up and rally the troops one more time. I have heard that there is some sense that this is better. Whether it's good enough or not I think is something we have to ~ out bet~.~.n now and when it's finally improved. My guess would be that this developer is determined to meet all reasonable interests of the neighborhood and I would anticipate eventual approval. You show me that a significant part of the neighborhood is in fact opposed and I' 11 vote against it. By significant I mean somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% to 70% of the neighborhood is opposed to this kind of develolanent. I'd vote against it. I think it's i~t upon the developer to meet the concerns of the neighborhood. I think the neighborhood has said that yes, the developer is moving in that direction. We have this zoned, it's kind of an unfortunate zoning. I think Jay has mentioned one reason it's unfortunate. I think another one is, it's taking a valuable piece of property out of circulation in the cc~mmity. I think the thirg that will k~cp this piece of property from developing residential is it's c(mm~_rcial value. They can't afford to put a house there because the land is potentially worth that much. I think you've seen that over the years. You've -_c-~n~ it with four different attenpts to develop it cc~m~rcially. As far as the preliminary reading, I think that it's very important for the developer to show a significant support from the neighborhood. I don't see a significant part of the neighborhood saying that they oppose it so I think it's incumbent upon the neighborhood to do that. This is pouring gasoline on the fire but I happen to agree with you that since a conditiopa] use for a BN is a convenience store with gas pumps or an automotive service station, I would be inclined to think that what we're really looking at here is a screening system. I think it's a fairly good screening from that but I would anticipate that the use right off of TH 7 would be more intense than the shopping center. It's all projections so how do I know? Put simply, I like what I see. I think that there has been a good bit of adjustment to the concerns of the neighborhood. I don't see a significant portion of the neighborhood .speaking against it and yet I want you to know that I will star~ by my earlier quote. Councilman G~ving: I think that we have come a long way in this develounent 35 8O City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 from where it was jus% several years ago. I think that the developers have gone back to the homeowners and made a really significant attempt to work with the homeowners. I got this impression and that w~s the marching order that w~ gave to the developers. To meet with the homeowners. Work out the problems. Try to keep the separation as was mentioned earlier from the homeowners and don't impact th~m in terms of asse~mlents. This is your project and it's very important that it remain your project. If there are improvements to be made in your area, they should not impact upon the homeowners in terms of asses~nents for roads and whatever is going to be constructed here. I think we'v~ come a long ways in terms of trying to look at that corner. Now two years ago, we made an attempt to look at this as an office institutional area. We thought offices might be the way to go. It just didn't happen and I guess the market research and the studies will indicate that there just isn't a demand, a great d~nand for office at this time. Certainly not at that location. I think it's time to develop this property. I think it's time to develop that corner. In time it will get developed. Whether it's now or at scme future time. The concern that I have is that we continue to look at the separation of the development from the homeowners both on the west and to the south and I'm very much concerned about the drainage issue. There's going to be a lot of water coming south and to the southwest. It's happening now in fact and we're going to intensify that with any kind of construction. Tne big concern of course is the highway issue. I know we're on the rezoning issue but it all has to do with rezoning. I'm for rezoning personally because I think until we resolve that we can't go onto the other issues on the preliminary plat and look at where we're going. For the record, I'll be for rezoning this from OI to BN. Mayor Hamilton: It's certainly been a difficult piece of land to work with over the years and I like the plan I see. I know that office industrial space on the strip for instance, has between 17% and 25% vacancy rates. It's understandable that somebody wouldn' t want to come in here and put in any office/industrial. It's just not in demand for it right now so I'm very much in favor of rezoning this to BN. I think it's a good use for the corner. I also feel that to reply to Mr. Connor's co~nent, I think if there had been somebody who wanted to do, felt it was a good residential corner, it's been available for so long that someone would have been here requesting to do that. It appears that this is the use that the people with the money who want to invest it to do something, this is the use they want to use it for and I think it's a good use for that corner. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Rezoning Request 985-2 to rezone 7.63 acres fro~ OI, Office Institutional to BN, Business Neighborhood, First Reading as legally described in the proposed plat application. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE THREE ~ERCIAL LOTS. Mayor Hamilton: We have Outlot A and B which will be developed at a future time and the Lot C which has the retail strip center on it which we have before us. 36 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Johnson: My main ccm~t on this o~e is rewording of condition 1 which currently reads, approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon the vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, approval of final plat of the Reed property. I think we've got a real problem with Options 3 and/or 4 because I see this as an extreme, extreme might too far, I see this as a public safety issue and a public convenience issue. When we cul-de-sac that property, that forces these homeowners living on Oriole and that area, they have to exit onto TH 7. I hate exitirg onto TH 7 up there. I drive up there every once in a while and I purposely go down Oriole and around on 64th Street so I can get onto TH 41 where it's ranch safer to drive. Somebody in a Trans ~%m might have a better chance tlman me in my Horizon. I appreciate the developers pointing out to MnDot that you can make that left turn lane in there and hopefully that will w~rk. That's one place where I saw death cc~ing in my rear view mirror one day. What I'd like to do is redo this number 1 to make it a little more restrictive. Say, approval of the second reading of the zoning ordinance change, preliminary plat and site plan should be contingent... Mayor Hamilton: What page are you on? Councilman Johnson: Page 11. Under City Council r~tion. First it~m~. Say approval of the second reading of the zoning ordinance change, preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon the vacation of 64th Street right- of-way, approval of a final plat for the ~ property with no commercial, i .e. retail, business, neighborhood, etc., access to the relocated 64th Street. Then continue on the way it is. In other words, the purpose for moving 64th Street in the first place is to-prevent com~cial traffic from being on 64th Street. That's one of the things the neighborhoods have complai~ about over the years is that traffic. That was the neighborhogd, concern that I'm addressing here. The movement of 64th Street to the south side of the Reed property and then rezoning the Reed property BN and allowing an access from this BN onto the commercial property has done absolutely .nothing. All we did was separate. If the Reed property can be serviced from the existing entrance on the proposed shopping area without having to have their own access to TH 41, which MnDot won't allow them to have anl~ray, without having access to 64th Street, then it could work. But at no time will I vote for any plan that closes 64th Street's access to the TH 41 for any significant period of time. It. can be closed during construction. Mayor Hamilton: We're still on (b). Councilman Johnson: That is (b). Mayor Hamilton: You're talking about (d) now. You're on 64th Street. Councilman Johnson: That's right. Condition 1 talks about 64th Street. If we don't approve this then (d) is just out the window anyway. ~hat's the length of my real comment on this. I do want to compl~ the developers here because they have gone a quant~ leap I think from the last develolm~ent I saw when I was here as a citizen, the citizens frc~ this area were also here protesting Copperwood Develolm~ents or whatever it was back then and we have made some improvements here. I think there's ro~m to work and we might actually get this accomplished. 37 CtyCouncil Meeting - April 25~ 1988 Councilman Geving: I just want to go back to the Watershed retention of the stormwater to assure ourselves that that's going to be retained on-site and the staff update is correct as far as the record is concerned there in that the indication was that it's going to be retained in tw~ places. Is that correct? Larry Brown: ~nat's correct. On the southeast and northeast corner. Councilman Geving: You've calculated this out and this will work? Larry Brown: I have checked the applicant's calculations and they are true to form. Councilman Geving: I still believe that w~'ve got to get 64th Street out to TH 41. I just feel that somehow or another that's got to happen. I will continue to ~rk in that regard. I have no other ~nts about the platting. I think we're in good shape here and I'll go along with that. Councilman Horn: My biggest concerns are the transportation. At one point we thought we found a way to eliminate the left turn on TH 7 which seemed to me like a good way to go. The problem I'm really having with this whole thing is when I put together a whole transportation thing in a vacc~ it makes a lot of sense to go one way but when I hear what all the neighborhood concerns are and the developer concerns and the people who have property and they want to develop in that area, this scenario isn't quite simple. I guess we have an ultimate access to Herman Field now but my first impression on this is that I w~uld somehow develop another access to Herman Field and I'd get an alternate out to TH 41 and I'd take as many accesses off of TH 7 as I could. But understanding the realities of what w~'re living with, I would support the last recc~m~endation which is to put a cul-de-sac in. I think that's the best compromise with all the bodies and the all the people who are concerned about this because it is going to impact the neighborhood. There's no question about that. I think we've got to be sensitive to minimize it. I'm also concerned about this emergency access frcm the parking lot. I 'm not so sure how we' re going to handle that and I want to make sure that we don't misuse that and have bicycles and trail bikes and everything else going back into the neighborhood through that area. I want to make sure we handle that. Just to s%~arize, I think what we have here is the best compromise. Oertainly it w~uldn't be the plan that I would have come up with the first time I looked at this without hearing all the input but I think it's workable. Councilman Boyt: No comments. Mayor Hamilton: I have no problem planning and creating three ~ercial lots on this particular piece of property. I have a little problem with the first condition that says that approval of this is contingent upon approval of a final plat for the Reed property. I 'm not sure we can do that, number one. Mr. Reed could just, if he wanted to, drag his feet and change his mind and do everything he can think for the next 20 years and never reach an agreement so I'd like to ask Pat, that doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable thing to put in a condition. Pat Farrell: About half an hour ago I starred that particular point with a question mark. I'm not so sure that that is an appropriate condition. As I understand it, there is not a preliminary plat or any sketch plan or anything 38 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 by Mr. Need at this point. I understand where you're trying to get to. I think it's appropriate for the Council to apply pressure, if that's the right choice of words, upon the developer to acquire this right-of-way and the layout of the Reed property and that it all be considered but that's not the way to do it. Mayor Hamilton: I would prefer to __--c us put conditions in that the develop continue to work with the Reeds as far as developing their property and getting access to it. We could actually leave 64th Street as it is for this parcel to develop as long as the developers need to work with the Reeds to continue to come up with the proper layout for their property. Pat Farrell: One of the things, as I understand this layout, you may have to go to the Rccd property to accomplish the connection of the street. One of the things that you could put in there that in the event that access is not obtained through the Reed property ar~ the City has to come in with it, the developer pay for it. That might be a little bit tough but it's the only thing that I can think of at this point. You're going to ~ that and it's going to cost money unless be plats. If be chooses not to plat, you have a problen that requires a solution that requires money. Barbara Dacy: Two points of clarification. The property couldn't go ahead and build with the full access onto TH 41 and with 64th Street there. MnDot has said, if they ~ant a full access, 64th Street entrance has to go. Mayor Hamilton: They said that specifically? Barbara Dacy: Right. In their letter that's attached to the report. If I can, maybe the Attorney can help me out, if the words in the condition are not phrased the right way, maybe we can work together to reword that so that it is appropriate but the point being is that the intent is that the City wants to insure that the realigned 64th Street is connected to TH 41 and we ~ant that surety prior to then building on this lot. The intent being is that the only way we would get to this point would be to have an assurar~e that the development contracts there which is usually as a result of a plat application. However, if you're saying that a plat is not necessary but some other type of assurance, staff's objective in any case was to make sure that 64th Street would be reconnected. Mayor Hamilton: I understand that and I think that's a good idea. ~er, to tie it to another person's platting of their land is unreasonable I think to the developer in this case. Pat Farrell: Illegal too. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, illegal. Let's come right out and say it. As a cor~]ition of the develofa~ent contract I think it could be put in there that the developer ~s to continue working with the Reeds. ~hat I was trying to say is that we'll attempt to work with the Reeds ar~ with the developers to accomplish this so that it's fair with everybody but allowing the developers to continue with their project so this thing doesn't sit here for another couple of years. 39 y Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 Gary Warren: I think, and we're trying to stay on each item here but as I prepared by staff memo for the vacation issue, it goes over and over here how can you spec even in a development contract performance for HSZ of an item that at this point is almost out of his control. That being the Reed property. I'd be uncomfortable a little bit I guess even trying to write a condition that says you have to provide a connection of West 64th Street to the Reed property or w~rds to that effect in that it would be pretty difficult to really enforce. Even with a letter of credit or anything like that. That's why I approached it saying the call would have to be made is can w~, with a cul-de-sac and a reverse scenario with a lot of our subdivisions that we end up dealing with, where we try to preserve right-of-way for the future. Here you've got one and you're being asked to vacate it. The question is can you live with a cul-de- sac with full intent that when Reed or Gowen or both c(x~e in that we would push through at sc~e time in the future. Otherwise it gets pretty urm%angeable from my perspective. Mayor Hamilton: It's kind of whatever works. Whatever is going to work is what ought to be done. If cul-de-sacing 64th Street and closing it on TH 41 is what has to be done so it can move forward then I think that should be done so this project can move ahead and then you can still continue to work with the Gowens and the Reeds to accomplish whatever is going to happen there and the developer will be involved in that. ~ Gary Warren: If someone wondered the assessments that are presently against the Reed property are a legitimate issue that needs to be dealt with here if we would vacate a portion of West 64th Street because there is access and there are assessments that need to be paid and that could be a job of HSZ if the Council would choose to go with this cul-de-sac. Pat Farrell: I don't see that that requirement is so ownerous. I think we're all making too much of it. I think the requir~m~ent that there be a connection to the other road is a legitimate requirement of plat approval under Minnesota Statute and even the cost of that road could be appropriately charged against the developer. That's not to say that the Reed's ought to have a free ride. There ought to be some discussion back and forth of that but I think this Council could legitimately require that as a condition of plat approval. Ben Gowen: I'm just confused here. You're talking about a cul-de-sac terminating in the middle of the Reed's property and yet you're talking about connecting to TH 41. Now if you connect to TH 41, I'm back in the picture very definitely. But if you cul-de-sac in Reed's property, I'm out of the picture. In any case, I'm for the development. Mayor Hamilton: What we're saying is that we want to connect to TH 41 at some time. When that happens is not clear at this time. Staff is saying we want that and the Council is saying we want that connection to be made someday. If it has to be a bsmporary cul-de-sac now for a period of time until the Reed's decide how t_hey w~nt to develop their property, that's a possibility but we don't want to condition everything on the HSZ's development by what the Reed's are going to do. Ben Gowen: You better continue then, Reed has to plot his land so that it can be continued. 40 City Oouncil Meeting - April 25, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. That's what we're trying to get d6n~2 Ben Gowen: It's not fair to him. Mayor Hamilton: We're trying to be fair to everybody. We're trying to make sure that everybody's r_~s are taken care of and w~ can move ahead here. guess I wish w~ had this worked out ahead of time with the legal counsel. We could figure out some way to handle this item. Councilman Boyt: Can we strike "approval of" in what's in parenthesis there and then accept what's left? Councilman Geving: I think we should. Barbara Dacy: I'm sorry, what are you referring to in parenthesis? Councilman Boyt: Approval of final plat for the Reed property, just strike that phrase. Mayor Hamilton: Good idea. Councilman Horn: I think the TH 41 issue is something we have to deal with later. I don't think we can tie it to this. councilman Geving: When we see Reed's plat. * A motion was made at this point with the following discussion. councilman Johnson: The rest of this thing talks about the execution of a development contract with the City of Chanhassen. I believe staff was looking at a development contract for developing 64th Street to TH 41. A letter of credit, etc. the rest of that is in reference to the realist of 64th Street to TH 41. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's exactly what we're saying is going to have to Councilman Johnson: You can't execute a develolz~ent contract until you have approval of final plat. I don't what we just gained by getting rid of that. Mayor Hamilton: You're not tying it up with the Reed property. The thing can move ahead. Councilman Johnson: We're going to have to get a develolm~nt contract from sc~ to develop. As I read this... Mayor Hamilton: We're talking about HSZ's property. Not the Rccd property. This does not pertain to the Reed property. Councilman Johnson: It used to be until we removed that one. The develolz~ent contract... Mayor Hamilton: No. All it ~aid about the Reed property was approval of the final plat for the Reed property. It didn't say we were having a develolanent 41 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 contract with the R~ed property or anybody else. All this pertains to the HSZ property. Councilman Johnson: Okay, then YOu're going with the rest of this. So they have to have 64th Street completely realigned to TH 41 prior to the approval of the preliminary plat and site plan? Mayor Hamilton: ~nat's what it says here. As far as I'm concerned, you could have a t~mporary cul-de-sac until such time as the Reeds want to develop. There's all kinds of way you can solve that problem. Councilman Johnson: That's what we have to do here. Your motion didn't talk about the temporary cul-de-sac. Mayor Hamilton: That's why we have discussion.. Councilman Johnson: I'm against the temporary cul-de-sac if you're going to discuss temporary cul-de-sacs. Councilman Boyt: My problem is that we're talking about 64th Street. Can't we just vote on these things one thing at a time and take the issue and if we've got an issue with 64th, do it then. Mayor Hamilton: They're intertwined. You're talking about one issue. We're talking about one item on the approval process of the preliminary plat. This is one of the conditions and in one of the conditions it talks about 64th Street to TH 41. You can't eliminate that. We're going to get back to it and talk about it s~memore in a few minutes. Councilman Boyt: Do we have a motion on the table? Mayor Hamilton: Yes we do have a motion on the floor. Councilman Boyt: I call the-question. Mayor Hamilton: Tnere is still discussion. Jay was talking about it. Did you have additional questions? Councilman Johnson: As I understand your motion then we get exactly what I want with the exception of I would like to see something in condition one that restricts commercial access to 64th Street. One of the original complaints of the neighbors is that it would increase the traffic up Oriole and through their subdivision if commercial had direct access to 64th Street which is what the previous plans had. Councilman Horn: This doesn't have that. Councilman Johnson: Me Reed had stated that he wants to put commercial on the front 3 acres of that which will then have access to 64th Street. Mayor Hamilton: That's not a part of this. Councilman Horn: Not necessarily. 42 - City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Johnson: It could Mayor Hamilton: That'd be a whole other issue. Councilman Horn: That's th~ whole point. We can't put a restriction on what the Reed property is in respect to this property. That will take a whole other plat when that ccmes in and then we' 11 see... Councilman Johnson: We could at least talk that our intent is not to put comnercial traffic on 64th Street so that when the Reeds, a future council can look at our minutes and when the Reeds come in here and say okay, the whole 64th Street was realigned to avoid comnercial, one of the purposes was to avoid commercial traffic on Oriole Lane. Mayor Hamilton: Well, you said it. Future Council is not bound by anything we do so it doesn't really matter if we say it or not. Councilman Johnson: It matters if we say it because it might help sway the future council one way or the other as to what we are thinking at the time. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision Request #85-7 subject to the plat stamped "Received March 7, 1988", the grading and drainage plan stamped "Received April 6, 1988", the utility plan stamped "Received April 6, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, execution of a development contract with the City of Chanhassen, filing of a letter of credit with the City of Chanhassen frcm a recognized financial institution authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of Chanhassen's reasonable approval, and real igrm~ent of 64th Street to TH 41. 2. The applicant shall enter into a develo~t contract with t/~ City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the public improvements. 3. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of tl~ Watershed District permit. 4. Hay bales shall be placed and staked around all storm sewer inlets. ... 5. Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. '. 6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 7. Calculations verifying adequate pressure conditions for the sprinkler systen of the proposed retail building should be sukmitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. The proposed sanitary sewer and watermain systems internal to the site will be constructed and maintained as private utilities. Tne City of Chanhassen 43 170 City Council ~eeting - ~pril 25j 1988 will not be responsible for any maintenance of the utilities (with the exception of public storm sewer drainage facilities) internal to the site. 9. An acceptable traffic sign and pavement marking plan shall be sut~uitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. Specific plans and specifications which address the specific alignment, installation and erosion control for the proposed storm sewer system must be sutm~itted and approved by the City ~gineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The applicant shall sukmit a revised erosion control plan subject to the approval of the City ENgineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. All voted in favor and motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,920 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to start by saying to the neighbors who are here, I think you have a good point in which to use leverage and that's in how this site is developed. I think you're going to have to show s(x~e inequities in how it's developed to sway somebody else on the Council if you want to defeat the zoning change. On how it's developed, the Planning Co~xuission made comment about Scotch Pines. I wasn't aware of this but one of the Planning Commission members said that they occasionally brown off. Is that right? Does anyone know? You're using a lot of scotch pines. Craig Johnson: They actually turn purple. That's the fall color. They do get dark purple. Councilman Boyt: They don't defoliate? Craig Johnson: Well, all pines do. They go in cycles of 3 years perhaps. It depends on the species but all pines drop their needles in cycles of 3 to 5 years but then each year they grow them again. Taat's the way the pines work. Councilman Boyt: I think what you're after and what I'm after is a visual screen that fortunately would get higher every year and I would like to see some sort of blend so we don't have all of one kind of tree. If for some reason they get struck by a disease, we're out of a visual barrier. So maybe you can blend in s~ne other appropriate types of pines that are dense. I have a question about grading. Is there extensive grading going on on this property? It looks to me like there is extensive grading. What's the depth of the cut? Larry Brown: The depth of the cut would be fairly minimal. It's going to be t_he fill amounts along the southwest corner, the grading along the southwest corner that's going to be... Councilman Boyt: So we're talking about how much fill? How many feet? Give me a sense of what we're talking. 20? Alright. I would like to see that as you develop this concept, I think that some sort of maybe a two tiered pine arrange~nent so that it's not just single trees in sort of a row even though 44 City Council Meeting - April 251 1988 your row appears to be somewhat staggered, that w~ really make that very dense. I w~uld like to see, I appreciate the gentleman's comment about more total roof screening. It sounds like you've done a good job from the highway and from a good bit of the housing in looking at your perspective. I really think that the view of the roof, as you agree, is very important and w~ should make every effort to make it a pleasant view for those who are going to-have to look at it so if w~ can screen off any kind of structures up there. That's all I've got. I'm sure interested in other eo~ments from the Council. To me the acceptance of this in the neighborhood is going to de~ a great deal on what it looks like. It appears like it looks pretty nice from the highway. What's it look like from the neighborhood? Councilman Horn: Did w~ ever get an answer to the question about the height of the building beirg appropriate? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Mr. Wagner raised that issue also. The Zoning Ordinance states that the maximu~ height is one story and his question was whether or not that met the Building Code. Although I'm not exactly familiar with the contents of the Building Code, tl~y will have to meet that. There are portions of the elevation that do extend above 20 feet and that's the Canterbury approach. The height of the occupied area will be I think approximately 17 feet in height and it is our interpretation that that met the one story requirsment. Whatever the Building Code says, we have to do anyway. So if it has to be reduced, it has to be reduced. Councilman Horn: I guess my only concern is I'm not a real fan of the vinyl clad vinyl, fDviously if somebody ~nts the green stuff, well, now we've got red and black stuff but that seems to he what everybody is building with these days. Currently I don't believe our ordinance is quite clear on that issue. I know we had a tough time defining what's an acceptable metal and what isn't. It sesms like that corregated clad metal is fine but if you've just got corregated metal, that w~uldn't be fine. My particular preference is not for that kind of appearance. Councilman Geving: I think it would be appropriate again for J.D. to c~me back up here ar~ persent that landscaping and berming plan one more time ar~ give us an idea on your board here. I want to know whether or not we' re looking at it from the west or we're looking at it from the south. Tell us again what kind of berming you're planning on the w~st side ~ahich faces the residential area and potentially to the south where there could be s~me residential properties looking to this site and also the extent and type of greenery that you'll have. The types of trees. How tall they will be and so forth. Craig Johnson: First of all, let me introduce myself. I'm Craig Johnson from Barrientos and Associates. We are landscape architects ar~ engineers. Initially we went through the process of the Planning Cc~mlission approval, developing and screening, etc. the issues. On the west side, we also have extended the scotch pines. There is potential for a berm to run from the right-of-way line to approximately this point here. That berming the~ would be accented by conifers. ThOse conifers, we selected the scotch pine because 'of their rapid growth first of all and their ability to withstand drought ar~ the soil conditions that are on the site. We could intermix, I don't see any problem with intermixing species. Particularly if s(~ething ~ very linear and the contrast would be very nice. We also introduced deciduous 45 City Council Meeting - April 25~ .1988 trees. The Norway pine to break that up also in view of the contrast to the deciduous and conifer trees. They're used limitedly on the w~st and south because they do not provide winter screening. We've maximized the south and the west with evergreens. Be it Austrian Pine and Scotch Pine and we've broken that up with deciduous trees and Norway Maple. Taen we go to the setback screening in this general area. We exceeded the Planning Con~ission's requirements in regards to overhead canopy or tree and an additional screening. Plant material would be planted at grade to provide, I believe it was 80% opaque in the winter screen. Internally we've used a lighter Honey Locust, the Sunburst Honey Locust which would allow for light shade and some view into the retail center which is very critical to the developer but also adds some shade for vehicular and users. For the entrance we decided to create, increase the impact of the sense of arrival by developing a canopy all the way up through and then orientating that to the center of the project site. This canopy would be made by the Little Leaf Linden. It has a very nice spring bloom and I think that is just another accent to the sense of arrival. The flowers are also very fragrant so the drive in will be visually and... Councilman Geving: On day one when you open the center and the landscaping is in, how tall will those trees be on the west side of that development? Craig Johnson: We're proposing to use 6 foot trees at time of installation and also a 12 foot. We place the 12 foot in the most strategic location adjacent to the building and we've also introduced I believe some 12 foot at this point also. The back side would mainly be 6 foot and then this first stretch would be a 6 foot tree. Councilman Geving: How high is that berm on the west side? Tell us what the view is from Section A? Are we looking from the west to the_ east? J.D. MacRae: This is the south face and this is the section. This would be on the west. Councilman Geving: Ziegler's home for example. J.D. MacRae: Right. Looking up through what we call the auxiliary building. You have heard that building won't be built right away so it would be bermed up and dropped back down to a flat building surface. This section is just further south of this one. This one actually cuts into the middle of the center. We're showing at this point we've got about a 4 foot high berm here. This point we're also 4 feet high. As we get along the 'back side, due to the incline, we' re showing a 2 foot berm on the back side. Now again, as was brought up, at this point we're 18-20 feet high. The thought was that being that the property continued to fall off or stay at the same level. When you get down here, you're looking up into the buildirg through the berm. You've got Section A that went through the auxiliary building. Section B that went along a portion of the building. Section C is cutting through the building on the w~st end. Section D is cutting through it on the east end. Section E the grade starts coming UP as 64th comes up and meets TH 41. The grade difference' is very minimal. Here we've got a 3 foot high berm. Councilman Geving: I'm satisfied with that. I just want to advise you though that this is the thing that Mr. Connors and Mr. Wagner ~re referring to. It always sea~s like the developer shows these kinds of scbanatics to us. They 46 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 look really good. We approve the project and the landscaping is the last thing to go in and they generally skip so I assure you that we'll be watching for that kind of thing not happen on this project. Councilman Johnson: Do we have any financial assurance that if landscaping doesn' t go in, that we have any way of putting it in? Gary Warren: We'll have a letter of credit. Councilman Johnson: The letter of credit will cover landscaping? Gary Warren: It will cover everything. Councilman Johnson: I don't have a lot of problems with this. Mayor Hamilton: I don't either. I think it's a nice plan. I'd just like to see the same type of materials used on this building as is being used downtown. I like that retail west or whatever it's called. I don't know if it's the same thing or not but if we can do something similar to that it w~uld look nice. Barbara [lacy: The only thing that's metal is on the roofing. The remainder is concrete and rock faced block. Councilman Johnson: I will have to revert back. I did mean to mention that there's one thing that we've doing with residential areas on trees where somebody, there's one down here where they put in Marshall ~_~less Ash to every front yard, straight in a line. If a disease c(m~es through like the Dutch Elm or whatever that affects Y~rshall ~..'-dless Ash, it wipes tbsm all out. That's why I think I'd like to see a mixture of your evergreens along the back to where if s~mething is going to c(m~e in that's going to wipe out scotch pines, that we don't lose all the trees across the back. If we have a mixture of Scotch or Marshall or whatever. Something that w~uld be slightly different. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Site Plan Request #86-2 for the construction of a 25,920 square foot retail center based on the site plan stamped "Received March 7, 1988" and the lighting, landscaping, utilities ar~ grading plans stamped "Received April 6, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1. Ail bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete curb. 2. The building permit for the retail center will not issued until the City has approved the vacation of 64th Street including suk~ission of financial sureties and execution of the develoI~_nt contract to insure that 64th Street will be realigned to intersect TH 41 in another location. 3. Compliance with all conditions of the Subdivision Request 985-7. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. 47 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET2 Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Gary Reed: I guess I'm a little confused on what you've struck from the Planning Cc~mission. It seems like I've lost a little bit of bargaining power. I guess if you don't approve, ar~ I guess I understand that you approve the concept of the cul-de-sac without extension of that to TH 41, is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Gary Reed: ~hen if it is extended, then I would not be able to get a BN type of zoning on my frontage there. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: No, I don't know where you came up with that. Councilman Johnson: I tried for that and it didn't get put in the motion. Gary Reed: I'm just trying to sort this thing out. Mayor Hamilton: We can't deal with something that's not before us is the whole thing. You say you want some BN... Gary Reed: I'm just trying to get a feel for where I'm at with the frontage. Mayor Hamilton: What I'd like you to do is make comment on the road. The partial vacation of West 64th Street. Gary Reed: I can't really make a comment on it if I don't know what it's going to do. At this point I'm for that concept. Not extending West 64th Street and cul-de-sacing it. I guess you guys heard t_hat there was some future plan for reconnecting it. Well, I have no future plan for that. The only future plan I would have would be maybe utilizing a lot on the south side if there was s(xne way to get into Ben's property if that would work out. But according to your cul-de-sac plans, I guess that wouldn't be a viable... I think another comment would be that it sesms to me they want the road realigned with the school exit. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: There's been some discussion of that but I don't think that's real critical. Gary Reed: If they did then we would be dealing with Ben so it's not all on my shoulders. Ben Gowen: I think it's pretty important to figure out what your plan is for connecting. If you connect it, it makes a lot of difference where and how you're going to do it. Can you give us any clue what you plan on for the future connection? Mayor Hamilton: That's something that's going to have to be worked out with the property owners. It's pretty hard for us to say. Ben Gowen: When? 48 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: As soon as possible2 Ben Gow~n: Before they start building or what? Mayor Hamilton: That's right. Ben Gow~n: Then you're requiring them to connect to TH 417 Mayor Hamilton: That's right. Ben Gow~n: Do you have that perogative to require that? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. Ben Gow~n: I doubt that. Mayor Hamilton: That's up to you. You can talk to your attorney I guess. Ours tells us we have every right to do that so that's what w~'ve done. Ben Gow~n: Then if you're going to connect, how are you going to connect? The drawings you' re showing here don't show it on my property except for tha very last 20-30 feet. ~%ese are sketches I realize but if it's a sketch, let's talk about what the reality is. Mayor Hamilton: We're talking about partial vacation of existing West 64th Street and how 64th Street gets reconnected to TH 41 is s(anething w~ just, that's something that the developers are going to have to work out with yourself and with the Reeds and see where it comes out. If they can't reach an agresment, then the City is going to have to go through a condemnation process to acc(m~lish it. We can't sit here tonight and say w~ know it's going to connect up here, here or here because we haven't any idea. It's going to connect up with TH 41 s~eplace. Ben Gow~n: That ~asn't my understanding com/ng in here tonight. You guys are really going to connect it up regardless. Mayor Hamilton: That's what the motion that ~as passed, that's what it contains. Ben Gowen: It doesn't se~m very fair. Mayor Hamilton: I thought you were in favor of it just a minute ago. Ben Gowen: I'm in favor of the project, yes but not in being told what is going to happen to my road. I'd like to have a say so. Mayor Hamilton: You'll have a say. I'm just telling you right now that we don't know where 64th Street is going to connect back with TH 41. We don't know that yet. It's going to connect up with it scmepla~. That's going to have to be worked out with you, with the Reeds and with the developers. Roger Zahn: I may have waited too long to make this omanent. I was trying to address your concern about waiting until we get to (d) to talk about 64th. We have worked extensively with the Reeds and with Mr. Gow~n arid we have no 49 ~ity Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 objection personally as far as being the developers to connecting up to TH 41. This proposal came as a result of our listening to them and proposing it the way they wanted to have it done and that's the way ~ w~uld like to see it also. Am I to understand that you have already voted. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I don't know how else to say it so that you understand it. If I could draw a picture or something, I guess I'd do that but... Roger Zahn: So you are going to condemn 64th if w~ can't w~rk something out? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, that would be our only choice at this point. Roger Zahn: Could w~ come back and ask you to cul-de-sac it at a future point in time? We have worked hard with those people and that's clearly what they want on their property. It isn't really that we want to do any one of these things in particular except we want to work with the people in the neighborhood and that's what w~'ve tried to do and we've talked extensively and that's really what they want. It seems like somehow this deliberation got taken out of their hands and it certainly wasn't our intent. We'll cooperate with whatever you folks what us to do but we do want to support th~n. That wasn't our intention to get this thing set up that way, not at all. Councilman Horn: It was my intent that what we were proposing was what you recommended with the cul-de-sac. That ~smy intention and I thought that was how we changed th~ wording. That's my impression of what w~ want it to be. Councilman Johnson: I very clearly stated and restated that that's not what we're voting for. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to take a shot at this if I might. I think all we did was say we took off a constraint on you that said that Mr. Reed's final plat had to be approved before you could do anything. Then I think we had said all along, the Planning Co~ission had said that we think that it makes sense to eventually have this hooked up to TH 41. I don't see that we've changed anything except we said to you, your project does not have to wait until his project is approved. Mayor Hamilton: Item 1 of the Planning Commission's approval did not change other than to take out the Reed's necessity to have their plat approved. Nothing changed other than that. Councilman Horn: It doesn't work. Councilman Geving: I have to reiterate. My intention and my thoughts when we approved this was that we were only striking a few words which left out the Reeds from their approval of their plat. Also there's a bottom line, there's a very last line of that particular condition 1. It talks about 64th Street and that should be struck as well. Tne very last 6 or 7 words of that condition 1 should also be struck because it refers to the realigr~ent of 64th Street. It's my understanding that what we voted upon w~s an intent at some future time to realign 64th Street to TH 41. Just an intent. At sometime as Mr. Reed comes in with his plat, that would be worked out. What we voted upon w~s the cul-de-sac that was shown to us on the plan. That's the way I read it. 50 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: That's because that's what I had said that if you want to cul-de-sac it t~m~orarily until at some point it gets to TH 41, then that's fine. Councilman Johnson: That's why I pointed out that this last sentence was there and that w~ were saying that they couldn't cul-de-sac it. I thought I said it quite clearly. Mayor Hamilton: Did you want to leave in, and alig~nent of 64th Street? Councilman Johnson: Yes, and I pointed that out and you didn't leave it in your motion. Mayor Hamilton: Both Clark and I had struck the last, where it says "and realigrm~=_nt of 64th Street to TH 41." Both Clark and I had struck that fr~m condition 1 as well as, approve of a final plat for the Reed property. ~nose were the tw~ items that we struck from condition 1. Gary Warren: The motion didn't strike the last phrase of it. At least the way I copied it down because I still had the question in my mind. Mayor Hamilton: My motion was it only struck the part dealing with the Reed property. It did not strike out the realignment. Councilman Geving: But T~m it can't w~rk unless you do strike the"last part. '. Mayor Hamilton: That's fine with me. I wou].d just as soon cul-de-sac it. Temporary or whatever. I guess what I was saying all along was do whatever it takes to make the whole thing work and it ties back to TH 41 at some future date than that's what ought to be done. Councilman Geving: But that's the future and w~ can't... Barbara Dacy: Maybe the City Attorney should advise as to how the Council can clarify the intent and/or the wording on condition 1 on the preliminary plat for the record. Pat Farrell: You could have a motion to reconsider. You could go back to resolution whatever it is or motion whatever it is and make a motion to reconsider that to clarify the intent of the Council. Restate it deleting the last, whatever those words ending at approval and deleting approval of the final plat of the Reed property if that's really what your intention is. Councilman Horn: Right, and I made the second and I fully intended that that was not part of the motion. Mayor Hamilton: I think w~ ~ to finish the one that w~'re on. ~ccing how we have a public hearing open and then we can go back. Is there anybody else from the public who has a c(x~m~nt about the vacation of West 64th Street? Any additional information? Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearin~ was closed. 51 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: I think it's prsmature until we find out how 64th Street is going to be connected up. We can't close the people's lifeline to TH 41, or your driveway. How can we vacate something until we know how w~'re going to replace it? Until the 64th Street issue is resolved, this should be tabled. This is a premature application for vacation. Pat Farrell: One thing that you could do is, you closed your public hearing. You could move to table that matter until a later time. Councilman Boyt: Before we consider the move to table, I think that the issue for me is, our intent on what we're going to do with the connection to TH 41. To move to vacate is to take an existing entrance and exit out of that picture. So the question to me is, are we taking that out permanently 'or are we taking it out until such time as there is an opportunity to put it back in? I like the idea of tying that particular question down sometime soon. If it se~ms appropriate to table it, I w~n't vote against that. It just seems to me at sc~e point soon we have to decide what kind of connection do we want and that's going to impact on this gentleman's ability to develop that corner. Mayor Hamilton: .I see no reason why the development can't move ahead prior to doing any vacation of 64th or coming up with the realigr~ent. It doesn't have any affect on what's happening on the property to the north, just so long as it gets done and I agree with you. Councilman Boyt: I would argue Tom that this is a critical issue to the rest of the development. I don't think we have to vacate it until somewhere down the road but I sure think we have to tell them what our intentions are. Mayor Hamilton: Sure. That's exactly what I'm saying. councilman Boyt: How can we do that if we table it? Mayor Hamilton: We'll table it until as soon as we can get it back on the agenda and work with it more clearly. Somehow it's got to be worked out and I don't think we're going to solve anything here tonight. I would rather table it so staff'can work with the Gowen's and the Reed's and the developer to come up with something that's going to work. All I'm saying is I think that can be going on while the develo~x~ent is going to proceed or whatever else they need to do to continue on with their develo~ent. It doesn't stop that. Councilman Boyt: I see two of the neighbors saying, at least two of the neighbors we want a cul-de-sac. Councilman Johnson: ~ne two property owners. Councilman Boyt: What I'm very interested in is what do the people say who might be using 64th as a current entrance/exit off of TH 417 That's another affected group and I think we need to hear from them. For that reason alone we might want to hold this up. Councilman Horn: The vacation of West 64th is a clear indication that the intent of the overall plan was to create a cul-de-sac and this portion would be vacated. I think the request to require that 64th go out to TH 41 is a total change in direction from what was being proposed and what these four conditions 52 5 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 change in direction from what was being proposed and what these four 'conditions we w~_re asked to vote on tonight represented. To me w~ clear this thing up by accepting the cul-de-sac as it is, it's a permanent plat and later when the Reed's develop and the Gowen's develop and they decide that they want to have a proposal come in where it makes sense to run that through, w~ should deal with it at that point but at this point the request is to have a cul-de-sac at that point and we don' t r~_~ 64th Street anymore and that's ~hy we have the request to vacate it. I believe, as I said before, that's the best cc~pr~mlise for this develol~nent at this point, and we should go ahead and proceed that way. As a matter of fact, I thought that was the way we had decided to proceed initially. We w~uld deal with the issue of 64th ~ahen further develolmmmTt took place. Therefore, I go along with the partial vacation. I think what that's telling us is that in no plan is there any attsmpt to leave 64th the way it is today. I don't see that in any of the plans that there is an att~ to leave it the way it is today so I think it's appropriate to vacate it and I don't think it's necessary for th~n to have it to proceed with the project. Councilman Geving: I think it's premature at this time-to consider the vacation of 64th Street and I' 11 tell you why. It's a very legal matter. You vacate a street and you've just given it back to the property owners. We're not prepared to do that tonight. We don't know what we're going to do once we have made that decision. The property owners have it as of the moment that we vote on it and I think the Council w~uld agree with me on that. It's a very legal situation so we're pr~nature on this. I think we need to buy some time until we work out exactly what we're going to do with 64th Street as far as vacating it. In fact, the preliminary plat and the site plan is contingent upon the vacation of this street. That is again going back to the n~nber 1 issue that we're going to bring back after this is over so I think tonight we need to table this matter and bring it back with some good intelligence of what we're going to do with the vacation. We can not vacate it. I'll tell you, we can not do it tonight. That's how I feel about it. We should table this matter for further consideration. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded 'to table the request for partial vacation of West 64th Street for further consideration. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to reconsider it~ 8(b), the prelJminary plat request to create 3 commercial lots. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving: My feeling is we should drop the last wordage of condition. 1. Put a period after "reasonable approval" and strike "ar~ realigr~ment of 64th Street to TH 41" and strike the words "approval of a final plat for the Reed property". Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to anend condition 1 of the Subdivision Request 985-7 to read as follows: 1. Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, execution of a develol=ment contract 53 l~C~ty Council Meeting - Apr~.l 25, 1988 Chanhassen from a recognized financial institution authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of Chanhassen ' s reasonable approval. Ail voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried. Councilman Johnson: I think what you just did, I hope you attend the funerals of the people that get killed on TH 7 because now they're taveling TH 7 more often. This exit to TH 41 is a crucial exit to those people living on that street and you just closed it. Councilman Geving: We understand that. Mayor Hamilton: Closed what? Councilman Johnson: You just closed 64th Street. Tney no longer have access to TH 41. You say sometime in the future. Frontier Lane was sc~et~ in the future, it was many, many, many years in the future. ~nese people are going to have to contend with TH 7 who now drive TH 41 because we're closing their only access and I don't think that for this commercial development that we should put our citizens in a safety predicament making th~m drive a much more intense, making the primary and the single exit out of this residential development to State Highway 7 is ridiculous. They should have an exit to a less intense highway, a less used highway other than TH 41. A safer route to get out onto the highway. Then they can go back up to the lights and have a red light protecting them from those oncoming eastbound cars as they try to get on if they're trying to go westbound. Have you ever gone up into Oriole Lane and tried to go westbound on TH 7? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. You can do it. CounciLman Johnson: I'm going to totally vote against it. It's a prime public safety issue. Councilman Horn: I'd like to ask how this precludes another exit? Ail we're doing here is just... Councilman Johnson: You just gave them a cul-de-sac. Councilman Horn: Ail 'we gave ~ here was the fact that we didn't tie this redevelol~ent to another development on somebody elses property. We have not vacated existing 64th Street. All we're taking it out of here is saying that that is not a condition to approve this development. Councilman Boyt: I think Clark we are saying contingent upon the vacation of 64th which does mean closing it off. 7~nis is what we're going to do. Mayor Hamilton: Contingent upon though. It hasn't been done. Councilman Boyt: That's right. It hasn't been done so the vote as to what happens about the exit will turn upon our tabled matter. What I understand 54 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 you' re doing, with what you currently struck, is simply taking out the reference. You're not eliminating the ability. Barbara Dacy: Despite the option, connect or reconnect, you're going to have to vacate a part of 64th Street in order for the developer to get full access onto TH 41 so the intent of your condition is you're not making a specific stats~ent at this time as to whether or not it should be reconnected. You're stating that you're reserving your option when the Reed comes back in for a potential plat. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: I think that's pretty accurate. Barbara Dacy: The intent of the staff report ~as, again, that will come back in a fairly similar manner. The recommendation being that the City w~uld not file the resolution to vacate the street until s~mething is resolved. Either connect or reconnection so it's the cat catching it's own tail or the dog or scmebody in Canterbury Downs. In any case, you're going to seeing the issue in very similar format with the same type of options. Gary W~rren: Which means MnDot will not issue an access permit for the development and their new driveway access on TH 41 until the City vacat~ our connection so w~'re still tied in there. Mayor Hamilton: We've got to have more information on this and clarify s~me of this stuff that filtered .out. Pat Farrell: Is the preliminary they're approving is the cul-de-sac on the - Reed property? ' Gary Warren: The one I had on the screen, the last one, is my interpretation of what you're approving. Pat Farrell: Which one? Gary Warren: The short cul-de-sac not on the Reed property. Barbara Dacy: That's the one that's not on the Reed property. Gary Warren: Otherwise if this is the version, than you're tied in with the platting... Pat Farrell: Just to clarify, my only point is you ought to nail down ~hich one you' re talking about because you've seen tw~ of ~. Mayor Hamilton: It has to be the first one because w~'re not tying this to the Reed property. We've already eliminated that. Barbara Dacy: So the Council is saying this one? Councilman Geving: Can w~ call it Exhibit A or s~mething. Barbara Dacy: Option 3. 55 City Council M~=eting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Johnson: That cul-de-sac happens to be on somebody elses property, not HSZ ' s property either. That' s on Schmitz' property and Reed property. Mayor Hamilton: Put a T on there on the HSZ property. There are a lot of alternatives I think that we haven't even looked at. Councilman Boyt: What do we gain when we pass this? I will admit to being a bit lost. It seems to me as though what the developer is trying to do is make some progress knowing what should be his next step and MnDot is saying if you guys don't vacate 64th Street, the guy can't have a major entrance and exit to his operation. We' ve tabled that issue. Now we' re ccming back and we' re sanitizing number 1. What I read, number 1 now says that the gentleman is eventually going to need to post a letter of credit for his development and that' s about all. Mayor Hamilton: That's normal. Councilman Boyt: Yes, but I'm saying that doesn't say... Councilman Johnson: We haven't solved anything here tonight unless we solve whether or not the realigned 64th Street is going to reconnect to TH 41 and at what time period does that happen? Without that we've w~sted a lot of time tonight. We can't just cul-de-sac it like this. We can but I'm not going to. I'm saying that prior to vacation of 64th Street, those people need an exit to TH 41 and they need a road connecting all the way from TH 41 to where the old 64th Street used to be and that's the position I'm taking on this prior to any vacation of the other one. We can approve a preliminary plat but the preliminary plat doesn't have that cul-de-sac on it. The preliminary plat shows a vacated street but then a condition of approval of the preliminary plat is that we vacate the street and then we go to the next.argument. We haven't solved anything yet. Mayor Hamilton: If that's the case, and if that's what you really believe, then what the City has to do and we should do i~mediately is start condemnation process and just select a place where the road is going' to go. Based on what the developer is saying, they've worked with the neighborhood and they have not made progress and so rather than tying this to the Reed property, the City will have to go through a condemnation of property and force the road through. That's an option we have to take a look at also and I think those are the options we don't have laid out for us tonight and that's what we need to look at. And I don't agree that we haven't accomplished anything. We've come a long ways. Maybe there's been a lot of gum beating but this is not an easy issue to deal with. Councilman Johnson: Could I ask staff a question? Mayor Hamilton: Is it something new that we haven't dealt with before? Councilman Johnson: It's something you brought up. Can the City condemn scmebody's property to put a new street in for the purpose of allowing a commercial development to develop in this area? Pat Farrell: Yes. 56 .1_7¢ City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: So now we have before us, we voted to reconsider it~ 1. We're on 8(b) but item 1 of the conditi~. We have striken approval of the final plat of the Reed property and at the last line, and aligr~m~nt of 64th Street to TH 41. Councilman Horn: Unless I misunderstand Something, our choices are we can have 64th go through or we can have the main entrance to this develofz~ent. Barbara Dacy: 64th realigned. Gary Warren: One or the other. Councilman Horn: Realigned to go through or? Gary Warren: 64th 1,100 feet south. Councilman Horn: 1,100 feet south of the R~ed property or farther south? Gary Warren: 1,100 feet south of the center line of TH ~ which puts you into the Reed property. Councilman Horn: So if people really want that to go through to TH 41, then they don't want to approve this cul-de-sac? Barbara Dacy: Right. That's the issue. Either the cul-de-sac or you reconnect to TH 41. Mayor Hamilton: And that's why I'm saying their option is we should start condemnation process if those are our choices. Councilman Boyt: And that's why we tabled it is because we don't know, .so let' s vote ~n this. Councilman Geving: I think we're still alright with condition 1. -. Councilman Boyt: Ail condition 1 says is the whole thing falls apart if we don't vacate 64th Street. Does anybody have trouble living with that? Councilman Geving: No, because it' s going to happen. Councilman Johnson: Because we're really not saying how they going to cul-de-sac... TRAPPERS PASS A[X)ITION, LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES C~ PLEASANT VIEW ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF H~Y 101, L~ BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION: A. SUBDIVISION OF 32.5 ACRES INTO 34 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCTA POND WlTHINA CLASS B WETLAND AND DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET. Barbara Dacy: Briefly, I know the applicant has sutmitted a letter to each of the Councilmembers objectirg to three conditions ~n the plat. One of then being the tree r~moval plan. Secondly, in regards to the Park and Recreation 57 10 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 Co~ission's reco~menda%ion for trails and third, the requirement to re- establish the storm water retention pond as a w~tland. Staff has no further comments. Mayor Hamilton: Hello Peter. I see you guys have a lot of stuff here. Does the Council need to see all of this? Peter Pflaum: I' 11 just quickly talk about the three points. The biggest issue is the sidewalk. We're opposed to the sidewalks because w~ don't think it does anything for the project. As you know we have a PUD that's in two communities. It was zoned I .think in 1978-79. The 600 units, I suppose in your project were almost 70% done and now all of a sudden we're adding just a little portion of the project, some 16 lots really and now you have a new provision in there. I don't think it's in the ordinance. It's a new policy and I think it really serves no purpose in our planning of development and is not consistent with the planning of our development and really isn't any benefit to the people living in the Planning Unit Development, your own residents. I can see if we're doing a project from the start, we're starting the project and that was a requirement. If the project was approved in 1978-79 and had all the additional subdivisions we've done. What you're really doing is causing us to put a sidewalk that's about a quarter mile in length. It goes nowhere. It leads into our subdivision and stops so that's briefly, sort of co~on sense doesn't se~m like. I don't mind putting the sidewalk in if the residents want it and it serves some purpose but in a Planned Unit Develo~ent such as this where everybody decided to be a member of that Planned Unit Development because of the way it was set up, I think it really serves no purpose and is really probably a detriment. The other two issues are smaller in significance. One deals with the pond. All we're taking about doing, I think we spent a lot of time at the Planning Commission talking about a pond. The wetlands is about 7 1/2 acres and w~ want to open up, Rick can show you that red area, we want to open up a portion of it. The only reason we' re doing that is to try to make it a little more attractive. Tne reason we're buying this piece of property is to create another entrance to our project. So we want to landscape it and we thought that this ~as a treatment that would look aesthetically a lot better. The major issue at the Planning Commission w~s the treatment of the edge of the marsh is on the east side next to Pleasant View. What we would request is if we could just have an edge that goes graded right down to the pond so you can see the pond. Your wetland ordinance I think says it's got to be some kind of, what's the ~rd Rick? Rick Sayther: A fair amount of shrubs and sc~nething to screen the water frc~ the people so the water fowl would have more privacy I think basically. Peter Pflaum: We'd be willing to put some kind of vegetation that was low profile around there as long as you could see it and was low maintenance so that was a big issue there. The other one was one more of pride more than anything else in that you passed a provision now I guess that requires the developers who are working in the woods to suk~it some kind of plan for the staff's approval before we take trees down and our point is, we've been on the site and done some 170 homes in the woods, most of them in the woods and we haven' t had any problems and we think we take pretty good care of the %pods and that's the reason we bought the site. It troubles us to have to go to staff and have them review anything more than is absolutely necessary. I can see if we had caused some problems but I don't think we have and I think we've planted 58 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 far more vegetation than we've ever taken down from that site anyway so those are the three issues. The first one is obviously of the greatest concern and that is the sidewalks. Mayor Hamilton: Taat meadow there, or whatever you want to call it, the w~tlar~ area is really nothing but a meadow. There's hardly ever any water there. There's a little bit there right now but normally that's just marsh grass isn't it that gro~ in there Barb? Barbara Dacy: There is ~ater standing there from time to time. Mayor Hamilton: I think there's a little bit in there right now but very seldom do you see any water in there so I'm curious. I guess my question is why are w~ requiring or wanting to put something arour~ it. Barbara Dacy: Something around it? Frankly I don't know w{~at Mr. Sayther was referring to. The intent of the six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service are to re-establish the pond as a w~tland area. Slopes to foster habitat and so o~ and recreation of wetland vegetation. I didn't get the point from the Planning Cc~mission that it was the intent to screen anything. It's merely to keep the wetland appearance. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that's fine. That sounds like what they're doing is to do that. Rick Sayther: I'm sorry if, I thought one of the six itens in the Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines was in effect to create a barrier so people wouldn't intrude on the waterfowl. I'm pretty sure it said that. Councilman Boyt: Yes, item (f) says that. Barbara Dacy: I guess I'll eat all my words. Mayor Hamilton: I guess from my standpoint, as far as the trees are concerned, as I drive through Near Mountain, if there's been a tree that could stay, i~ stayed. It only adds value to your property. I think as you drive up through there, some Of those houses, I don't know how you fit the~ in there with all the trees on scme of those lots. You have done a nice job. of preserving the trees o Councilman Horn: C~viously that requirement wasn't put about because of the work you did but there are some areas we could show you to show you why we've done that. Councilman Boyt: Let's talk about access to Lots 15 and 16, Block 4. I'm not sure I understand exactly how scm~b(x]y is getting to Lot 15. Could s~neone show me that. I'm curious as to where it's frontage comes from. Rick Sayther: LOt 15 is this lot and it fronts on the existing road. As you come up Pleasant View, this is the double right angle intersection. If you turn and go up Valhalla and Iroquois, there are existing homes on these lots, this one and this one, so LOt 15 would just beocm~s one of the neighborhood area as would 16. 16 would take it's access right in the corner. 59 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Boyt: 16 doesn't have fronkage? Rick Sayther: Yes it does. Councilman Boyt: Where? Rick Sayther: It has frontage on an unimproved right-of-way here but it also w~uld access right at the corner of the two. Councilman Boyt: Don't we have a standard about the number of feet of frontage? Barbara Dacy: The standard is t_hat you must abut 90 feet of lot width adjacent to a public right-of-way. The ordinance does not state improved versus unimproved. We interpret it as because there is access into the property, given the existence of Pleasant view Road and Indian Hill Road, that that would be adequate. Councilman Boyt: How wide is that right-of-way? Barbara Dacy: As shown on the plat here, it's shown as 30 feet wide, the existing right-of-way and then the extension of Indian Hill is 15 feet. Councilman Boyt: Are there any other roads in the subdivision that are 30 feet wide right-of-way? Barbara Dacy: In what subdivision? Councilman Boyt: The one we're talking about here, Trapper's Pass. Barbara Dacy: No. Everything is 50 feet. Councilman Boyt: Why are we making an exception here? Barbara Dacy: Because that's an existing platted right-of-way as part of the Pleasant View Addition plat that was created in 1950. Councilman Boyt: When they put in a develotznent in an urban area, don't they bring the roads up to urban standards? Barbara Dacy: Yes sir. Councilman Boyt: Are they bringing this road up to urban standard? Barbara Dacy: The existing section that's out there now will provide access to the property. There would be no ~r~cd to create an urban section road along the front of Lot 16. Larry Brown: We had looked at possibly getting a roadway easement on Lot 16 should the need accomodate the extension of that road to the south. Being that that road essentially, to borrow a statement, goes nowhere and ends nowhere, we felt it wasn't necessary. 60 City Cour~il'Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Boyt: So what ~'re doing is ~'re taking, let's take the property that's to the right of that which isn't currently posed for develolanent. Is that property also going to be developed off the unimproved roadway? Barbara Dacy: That appears to have frontage on Pleasant View Road. Councilman Boyt: It's a rather large lot isn't it? Rick Sayther: The backs of all these parcels in here have frontage on the 7 1/2 acre wetland. You can see on that overhead the corner of that same right- of-way. Michael Pflaum: Councilman Boyt, perhaps I could shed a little bit of light on this situation. It's a little odd. This lot here and this lot here are to be retained by the seller. They're not incorporated with any subdivision. It is the requirenent of the County that all of the property be platted but these two lots are not part in the truest sense of... As a matter of fact this lot is built upon right now with a house on it. Councilman Boyt: Well, my concern is that when we accept it as a lot, we're saying s~meone can build on it and I'm not sure that I want to encourage people to build on an unimproved road with a 30 foot wide possible road surface unless...trail systen is to lead into this park, is that right? Now the Park and Bec people spent a fair amount of time talking about this. We have in the Near Mountain area, which I believe is part of this develofxnent, people putting together a request for stripping their road. ~hat they're having problems with the road that we call a road/trail ccm~ination. They're hoping that when it's striped they' 11 have a little protection out there so I think there is a concern in your neighborhood. There's another concern, the neighborhood would like to have 20 mph spccd limit signs so they apparently think that there is some hazard in being out there on our trail which is right on the road. I think that the City Council has changed it's philosophy about what's a safe trail. Frcm my part, I'll never vote to put a trail on the road. It's cheaper. Maybe it looks nicer for the person who lives in that house but it's definitely not safer and I wouldn't want my kids out there riding around on that road and that's all the kids have to do to get from one place to another because they can't walk on people's grass so they're out there with those cars. Dangerous. I agree that it is an inconvenience to have a trail in my frontyard or anyone's frontyard but it's worse to have kids out in traffic. I have every sympa~ with the Park and Rec's determination, l%~moval of trees. All we're asking you to do is get together with the DNR. It's a very easy thing to do. I agree with your statsment and in talking to some of the neighbors out there, I think there's a sense that you're very reasonable here. I think the City is very reasonable. On the third issue of the wetland, it is a wetlar~ because there is water 6 inches below the surface all the time and there's a hard pan underneath it that keeps that water up in there. What I see by way of a pond entrance at the other side of the develofxnent, it's got a fountain in it, or at least the water is going up a considerable distance. Is that how you perceive of this development? This end of it? Peter Pflaum: It probably would be on the one there. There are two ponds on either side. The one on the north, if we're going to put a fountain in or s~all one to pipe it over there where it's right near the entrance. Not the 61 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 one further south that's in the w~tland so we don't inter~ to put a fountain in the one in the wetland. Councilman Boyt: I know that the City has taken the opportunity from time to time to improve wetlands. This is a wetland that I gather is serving a pretty vital purpose in terms of holding water before it enters Lotus Lake and this last sum~er it held water several feet deep so it has a purpose. You have an opportunity to improve it. I think that as I read your comments in your letter and to the Planning Commission, your concern was that you didn't want to run a shallow layer out from the shoreline on 30% of the shoreline and you w~nted to discourage weed growth by making it more than 4 feet deep. I can understand that if w~'re creating a reflecting pool but I think we're dealing with a situation where we've got a wetland. I think wetlands are nice. I think we're lucky to have as many as we do and I would like to see you improve this wetland, not change it's whole character. I guess that covers it. Councilman Horn: I guess I would like an explanation of where the requirement for sidewalks came from with respect to this particular request. Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Cc~mission reviewed this item on March 22nd. The trail plan that showed where all the trails are on the little map does not show where they are on streets that have not been platted yet so there is a statement within the trail plan packet that says that all streets that aren't cul-de-saced, an off-street trail should be acquired. That's where that came frc~. Based on that, they made the recommendation. Councilman Horn: So a c~ent sidewalk is what you call the off-street trail? Lori Siets~ma: Yes. Councilman Horn: And that requirement wasn't in existence when the first part of the development was platted? Lori Sietsema: That' s correct. Councilman Horn: Are we asking for them to extend it any further from the particular area that they're asking for approval this evening? Lori Sietsema: They will connect to on-street trails but they wouldn't necessarily be connected to where we don't have off-street trails. We don't have that easement on those lots but w~ will be striping that street to connect a trail that's connected to the street. Councilman Horn: But are they confined to the area that they're asking for approval? In other words, are we extending our trail method outside the area that they're asking for approval on or just confining it to this particular portion? Lori Sietsema: Taere is on-street trails outside of this section that they're proposing to develop. · Councilman Horn: Right but I mean, of what we're requiring tonight, is it included just in this approval? In other words, what I'm asking is to put a trail on any other portion of the development does not cover this approval. 62 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Boyt: They already have a trail. It's on the street. Lori Siets~za: It's on the street and they'll connect to those on-street trails but they won't be constructing off-street trails. Councilman Horn: Could you draw for me on this plan ~ahere that sidewalk w~uld go? It's easier to visualize than to try and read through the description such as meets and bounds description. I'd rather -~ a plat. Lori Siets~ma: It would go along this road, along Timberhill Road, Oxbow and then up to Trapper's Pass. Councilman Horn: So it does go outside the area that they're asking approval of tonight? Lori Sietsema: It connects to the streets that are existing outside. Peter Pflaum: The area we're seeking approval for runs about 50% up into the existing PUD. Scme of the land from the existing PUD and add it to the land we're acquiring down here. Councilman Horn: What is your gold area there that you're defining? Peter Pflaum: The gold area is the lam~ we're acquiring. That's the land that's being added to the land in the PUD. Councilman Horn: Confusing. We've got so many different designations. I'm just confused as to exactly what you're looking for. I got the impression from Peter that said that we were going beyond the area of approval. Michael Pflaum: I think what Peter ~ms referring to was an area north of this line is the existing PUD in which there were no trail requirements. Because w~'re c~mbining scme of the land up here and some land outside the PUD, suddenly there's a trail up inside. Councilman Horn: As far as the tree issue, how much of a problen is that for the developer? How long does that take? Barbara Dacy: Up until this point, we have not had any problems at all with the tree removal plans. I wanted to make clear that we're not recommending that the DNR would come out to the site. $~at w~uld he sutx~it~ is along with the Certificate of Survey for the construction of the individual single family h~me, that they identify on the plan the construction zone and the area around the house pad that they're goirg to be removing trees. We've ~ impl~mmenting that with the Shado~mere Subdivision and other subdivisions that we've approved in the last year and a half. It's more administrative for us. Gary Warren: The building permits, that' s ~hen you' re getting it in. Quite honestly, the hcmeowner and a builder wants to keep as many trees as they can. I think the real purpose it served at Shado~mere was to do the DNR forestry concept plan to give the developer some idea as he was laying out lots. Once you get in the building phase, I guess I haven't observed that people have been going in and r~oving trees anlanore than they really have to. 63 ~y Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Horn: What I'm trying to get at is, it w~uld appear that it's sc~ething that the developer would have to do anyway for his own people when they develop an area so they know the plan and layout of the lot. ~nis tree goes, this one doesn't. Gary Warren: A lot of it will have to do with how the site grading balances out and whether he has to do any soil correction on the lots because they like to do that with heavy equipment out there and then s~metimes you're taking more trees than you would with a select property. Councilman Horn: Is it normal that they come in with a plan anyway? To develop a plan as to what trees go and what trees don' t? Gary Warren: Not unless we require it. Councilman Horn: What's the problsm in doing that in extra time or do you think there would be a debate as to which ones you can take and which ones you can ' t? Peter Pflaum: It's just another piece of paper that we have to sut~it. What you're really telling us, us and the homeowners, is we don't know how to take care of the trees in the area and it's really offensive to us and it's just another bureaucratic step, that's all. Of course we can do it but the thing that sort of bothers us as developers, if any homeowner buys it, he can take down any tree he wants and nobody cares. What I'm saying is, I think we've d~monstrated that we take care of the neighborhood. Take care of the trees and we don't need somebody watching over us. That's all we' re saying. I guess it's just that simple. We think we're doing a good job. We haven't had any cc~plaints and we all have enough paperwork and enough people to check with, why add another step? Councilman Horn: It's like a lot of the laws. Taey don't help the people that aren't causing the problem but we had other people causing a problem unfortunately it creates a problem for you. Peter Pflaum: But you have the power to waive it. It doesn't have to cross to everyone. councilman Horn: I'm not sure our Attorney w~uld allow us to be selective on this. Pat Farrell: No. You have an obligation to enforce the ordinance across the board. Peter Pflaum: Is this an ordinance? Barbara Dacy: There is a section in the zoning ordinance. Councilman Boyt: Nothing bigger than 6 inches. Mayor Hamilton: When we went to using a forester to help us do it, that's not part of an ordinance is it Barb? 64 City Oouncil Meeting - April 251 1988 Barbara Dacy: The requirement for the forester, that's not part of the ordinance. The issue is the r~noval plan. Mayor Hamilton: That gets written into the development contract. Councilman Boyt: While she's looking, I'd like to point out that the forester was put in there to protect the new--buyer and the City of Chanhasse~ in that the forester w~nt through and said that tree's going to die because of where you put your road. l~at tree's going to die because of where you put your house. It hasn't ~_n six months ago that the paper talked about the number of homeowners, not people who bought in your particular division, but a number of h~meowners who had bought houses with beautiful trees to have them1 die within 6months to a year after they moved in. The forester can prevent that because he can tell the developer that tree will not make it, take it out now. That's how the forester can help you and help the people move in. Mayor Hamilton: Did you find the tree removal? Barbara Dacy: Section 20-1179. Tree r~noval regulations. It goes on to list several standards that are available to the Council to require during subdivision approval. Councilman Geving: I think it's important to apply our standards across the board and it may he an inconvenience for you guys but it protects us. The big thing about this particular extension of your develo~x~ent is that it follows the phased approach that we started a long time ago. I see this as just a continuation and I think we're probably into what? The third or fourth phase or wherever you are, so I don't see anything major here as far as the subdivision that we're looking at. The only thing I do want to question is what is the cost for the sidewalks that are being proposed? What w~uld be the cost to you? Michael Pfl~um: About $25,000.00. Councilman Geving: Over and above the striping ar~ what had been required in the past? Okay, this is a new requirement. You feel that the City has changed it's ~ay of doing business since we started this PUD and Lori, are we doing this now across the board in all of our new subdivisions? Even extensions of old FJD's where they're phasing out and finishing up the final development? Lori Sietsema: The Park and Becreation Cc~nission has stuck very closely to what they adopted as their trail plan so I w~uld say yes. Councilman Geving: But in this particular case a developer has built out probably 75% or 80% of the develo[mment and at the very last part of the development now we're interjecting some new rules that says we're going to put in some sidewalks. Is that correct? Lori Sietsema: I think what the Park and Recreation Cc~nission w~uld say is they are able to make it safe for the people in this section of the subdivision of this FJD. It ~sn't done at the beginning but at least in this section there will be safe places for children ar~ adults amd people to walk and ride bikes. 65 Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Geving: From an Attorney's standpoint, are we on solid ground? Pat Farrell: Yes. Councilman Geving: We are? Okay. Tne only other co~nent that I have to make is in regard to the Fish and Wildlife reconm~endations for the ponding areas and I think they're right on track. Tnese people are professionals in their field and they've looked at the site. They've made these recommendations and I think they're solid so I'd like to stay with them. Councilman Johnson: I'm totally in support of the sidewalks leading to the park. ~ne people in part of Near Mountain now don't have access. There should have been a trail through the one place to arrive it down. I don't know if there is a trail platted there. I'm not sure. ~nere is a wide spot between two h~mes that runs out to Pleasant view and the place disappears, the berm disappears. Is that supposed to be a trail there? Michael Pfla~m~: Yes, that was deeded to the City two years ago. Councilman Johnson: Okay, we need to get a trail in there so that people can get out there. Lori Sietsema: It's scheduled for this sum~er. Councilman Johnson: Great. Just to go on and complete our trail syst~ so these trails inside the thing actually go someplace. Now we have trails that start scmeplace and they end up at a park. How about that? I'm for doing a few more things on the wetlands that aren't on here. I have condition 7 and 8 and I'm all for the six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife people on the pond. I'd like to see on the west side of that pond, not necessarily on the east side of the pond, your ~mergent vegetation. They talked about 30% of the edge of the pond. ~nat doesn't mean you have to put that on the east side of the pond. I think you can have a nice clear water pond on the east side with the cattails or whatever on the west side so we meet both requirements. I'd like to see a conservation eassment all the way around this wetland to enable the City in the future to provide more wildlife habitat on there without having to go to each individual homeowner and say, if we looked in the future to taking this meadows wetland and further developing it, we can make it into a little prettier area that wetland habitat. It's kind of an old fazm field type habitat right now and I'd like to see it maintained for future generations that we have a wetland here. I'd like to see all homeowners be informed in writing and deed restrictions that the lots contain a city protected wetland and further alterations of said wetland will require a wetland alteration permit from the City. Did you write that down? What I'm trying to do protect that wetland for the future. (~ the clearcutting of the trees, cutting of trees, I'm absolutely, you've got to have that plan. Go over to Pheasant Hills. There's a new hc~e that was built. The homeowner said I don't want any trees so the builder took them all out. We've got this nice little stand of trees, they took all the trees right down to a swamp. They filled dirt in right down to the wetland area. No wetland alteration permit that I ever heard of. No clearcutting plan or anything. All of a sudden I went driving by there and where there used to be trees, there's now sod. The entire back. F~ sodded his entire yard. Pushed it right down to the wetlands and that's what we're trying to prevent. Those cases, those abuses. I've seen what you've done and you've 66 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 done an excellent job. I applaud you completely but there's other people out there w~ have to protect ourselves from and you're not one but w~ be lax on you and the next guy c~mes in and says, w~ll you did it for him, do it for me. I'm a good guy too. If that hc~eo~ ccmes in and says I don't want any trees, I'm working on s~me ordinances to help protect that later. So anyway, when we get to vote on this, I'd like to see two item, s added. One is a conservation easement 25 horizontal feet from the edge of the wetlands, approximately. ~hat we can then preserve that wetlands and that will be right in the people's deeds so they know that they can't mess with that ~:~clands. Let the people be informed of that. That's the rarge of my comments. Mayor Hamilton: I'm still not in favor of putting in sidewalks. I don't think they're needed. They haven't ~n in tt~ rest of the subdivision. I see no reason to start now. You put in a sidewalk, where are the kids going to ride their bikes? They'll be in the street. They'll probably walk in the street too so I think it's fine in a new subdivision. It's just as well when you start it, you might as well put tbs~ in. It's not needed here. You do a really good job with the trees. I think ~ted on that before. ~y owns a piece of property and they wanted to cut all the dang trees down, I guess that's their business. If they like grass more than they do trees, it's up to them to do what they want with their own laz~. Councilman Johnson moved to approve the Subdivision Request 979-2 for 32.5 acres into 34 single family lots with the 17 conditions outlined by the Planning C~ission with condition 18 as follows: 18. That a conservation easement be established around the wetlands in Block 4, Lots 1-9, extending 25 horizontal feet upland from the edge of the wetlands and that the ho~=owners be informed in writing of the conservation easement and the restrictions of their activities within the conservation easement. There was no second and motion failed for lack of second. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision Request 979-2 subject to the following conditions: 1. A tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building permit application for Lots 1-5, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2, Lot 1, Block 3, and Lots 7-14, Block 4. 2. Cc~pliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit. 3. The developer shall enter into a develoIz~ent contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these improvoments. 4. The developer shall obtain and cc~ply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit and the permit from the Department of Natural Resources. 5. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of any grading, and once in place sl~mll r~main in place throughout the duration of construction. All of the erosion control measures shall remain 67 ~yCouncil Meeting - April 25, 1988 intact until an estalbished vegetative cover has been produced, at which time r~noval shall be the responsibility of the developer. 6. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stablize slopes greater than 3:1. 7. All street and utility improv~nents shall conform to the City's standards for urban construction. 8. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer details for the construction of the barricade on the dead end of Trappers Pass bet~=en Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4 with the plans and specifications. 9. Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side of the Class B wetland along the rear of Lots 1-9 of Block 4. The City's standard detail for the installation of Type II erosion control (staked bales and snow fence) shall be placed on the grading plan. 10. Details for the construction of the proposed retaining wall along both sides of Trappers Pass dead end shall be sukmitted as a part of the plans and specifications review for approval by the City Engineer. 11. Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4, as depicted on Sheet No. 1 of the plan set dated February 18, 1988 shall be revised to show the correct property boundaries. 12. The driveway for Lot 16, Block 4 shall be constructed such that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois Avenue. 13. The plans and specifications shall show a drainage swale along the con, on lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which will serve as an energency overflow swale for the ponding site of Lot 2, Block 3. 14. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front and rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and utility eas~nents for ponding sites and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on the final plat. 15. All private drives shall access internal streets to the subdivision. No driveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant View Road. 16. The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the time of plans and specifications su]mlittal and design adjustments made accordingly, if necessary, to facilitiate proper conveyance of stormwater under Pleasant View Road. Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Mayor Hamilton voted in favor; Councilman Boyt and councilman Johnson voted in opposition and the motion passed with a vote of 3 to 2. Councilman Johnson moved, councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-5 to permit develo~ent within 200 feet of the Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be constructed within the Class B wetland with the following conditions: 68 City Council M~eting - April 25; 1988 1. To improve the quality of the w~tland, the holding ponds must meet the following six conditions established by the Fish and Wildlife Service: a. The basin will have free form. b. The basin will have shallow enbankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of energent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. c. The bain will have uneven, rolling bottc~n contour for variable water depth to (aO provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of energent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with ~ergent vegetation. d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) on botban of basin to provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. 2. Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction of the pond within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall provide details on area of construction for the pond within the wetland and how the re~aining wetland will be preserved. 3. The erosion control fence shall be continued across Lots 7 and 8, Block 4 to completely protect the wetland from any construction activity. 4. All structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots 1-9, Block 4) ~ust meet the 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetland. 5. The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting alteration of the wetland area on Lots 1 through 9, Block 4 beyond the 914 elevation. 6. The developer shall make every effort in it's pond design to improve the wetland and make the wetland an attractive useful wildlife habitat. 7. That a conservation easement be established arour~] the wetlands in Block 4, Lots 1-9, extending 25 horizontal feet upland from the edge of tbs wetlands and that the homeowners be informed in writing of the conservation easement and the restrictions of their activities within the conservation easement. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton ~ho opposed and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: As I gather this wetland, a conservation easement may not accomplish very much if the wetland isn't very noticeable in it's location. I can see where we want to say to the people that the w~tlar~ itself should not 69 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 be disturbed. I can support that. I have a little difficulty telling %hem that we really need this 25 foot extension out from the wetland if in fact the wetland is very marginal and you're telling me it's very marginal. Councilman Johnson: The 25 is kind of a buffer area because you don't know exactly where it is. It's a pretty flat area and it's plus or minus 10 or 20 feet on where somebody would interpret it is so that's why I wanted the extra feet in there. Barbara Dacy: Maybe I can resolve some of your concerns. Number one, we would retain a drainage easement over the edge of the wetland area. Nukmer two, the intent of condition 5 on the deed restrictions, that's consistent with what we did on Kurver's Point. That the deed restrictions be recorded on those lots to make them aware that they can't alter that wetland without a wetland alteration permit. Third, we do have that 75 foot structure setback anyway so I think you can achieve the same intent that you're after with basically, (1) make sure that they don't touch it without authorization and (2) that area around the wetland to be preserved. You can't put any structures in that setback. Councilman Johnson: The conservation easement does one more thing. It gives us access to it for conservation purposes where utilities easement gives us access to it for utility purposes. Barbara Dacy: Right. ~ne most recent version of the conservation easement, that is correct. It just depends on how much control the Council actually wants to take on this particular area. Michael Pflaum: Excuse me, what was the motion? Councilman Johnson: I think ~ added the conservation easement. Barbara Dacy: The six recommendations from the Planning Co~m~ission plus a 7th, a conservation eassment. Michael Pflaum: And where does the conservation end? Councilman Geving: 25 feet. Barbara Dacy: From the edge of the wetland. Michael Pflaum: What is the definition of a conservation eas~_nt? Councilman Boyt: You can't mow it. You can't plant grass. You can't do anything in there really. Michael Pflaum: With all due respect, I guess this issue is a dead one because ~ have met all of them. Councilman Johnson: That's right. But they can't go in and sod. Homeowners will do strange things. Peter Pflaum: Is this something you require of all wetlands? A conservation easement all around them? 70 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: Quite a few2 Mayor Hamilton: Yes, w~'ve been pretty consistent on that. Peter Pflaum: Have you extended the easement outside of the wetland? Councilman Johnson: In many cases, the Chan Vista down here, it's up the side of the hill some 40 feet or so. Vertically up the hill. It's almost three- fourths the way into the property there. Of course, that's a city park too. Councilman Geving: We have it on the north end of Lotus Lake where the Pleasant View Boad runs along the lake.. (1~ the lake side, that's a conservation easement. Property lines do not extend across the road and down to the lake. Michael Pflaum: It seems a little harsh on the homeowner. They're already giving up a significant portion of their property to wetlands. To tack onto that 25 feet that isn't wetland... Peter Pflaum: It's argumentative whet/%er it's a city created wetland. Mayor Hamilton: I can't disagree with you. Councilman Boyt: Why 25 feet? Councilman Johnson: I'm willing to reconsider 25 foot and go right with the utility eas~nent. To make it a lot easier on the platting, they only have to draw one line. The marginal side of this. Barbara Dacy: I think that would be good if the Council took that direction because the Chan Vista example versus this example, they are totally different. Mayor Hamilton: That was the intent of your motion was to actually go with the utility easenent. That was your intent. Let the record show that that's what the motion was. Councilman Geving: I'd like to have the motion reconsidered. Councilman Johnson: Let's do it the right way. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to reconsider the motion on the Wetland Alteration Permit for the Trappers Pass Addition. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: The question I'm asking is, granted that the distance is I think excessive, although I voted for it but have we clearly got this meadow protected? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Boyt: You can't build within 75 feet of it? Barbara Dacy: Yes. 71 24 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Boyt: Can you put a shed up within 20 feet of it? Barbara Dacy: No. You have a 75 foot setback. Councilman Boyt: You can't put anything in. What about a fence? Barbara Dacy: A fence, yes. You can go along the lot lines down to the edge of the wetland. You can't go into the wetland because that w~uld be protected by the easement. Councilman Boyt: ~nis is a meadow. It's going to be hard to tell where the grass stops and the meadow starts right or this is a low grade wetland. What kind of steps is the City going to take to show people where it is? Barbara Dacy: It is defineable out in the field. It's fairly clear from going out there that you can observe it. And you could have the developers stake the edge of the wetland, the contour elevation. Councilman Boyt: If we give up the 25 feet, will you go out and stake the edge of the wetland so people know where it is? Barbara Dacy: As a matter of fact, isn't there erosion control being proposed around certain portions of it also that defines it. Gary WRrren: Put the erosion control barrier right down to the edge. Councilman Johnson: The survey on the Chan Vista, they put permanent stakes in at the conservation easement along the lot lines. Gary Warren: Well, t~porary stakes. Rick Sayther: We would actually set the lot corners on the lot lines at the easement line. It'd be kind of needless to go out in the wetland and pound irons in the ground. Tnat's where the lot line would be. At the eassment line. Councilman Boyt: So you'd be willing to take responsibility for notifying the owners as to where the wetland actually existed? The 25 feet gives us a cushion Tom. If nothing else it says you can't do anything within 25 feet of it so you're probably not going to cut down into it and if you would help us establish that same limit, than maybe we don't have the need for the 25 feet. Rick Sayther: We could help you establish it but on the one hand we're saying, put something out there that people can see. On the other hand we're saying keep it natural so the vegetation can grow on it. Councilman Boyt: Well, the people don't have to see it forever. It's the idea, if they're never told, if it appears on the deed, they're going to miss it. If they go out there and there's a stake, I've got confidence that it will... Rick Sayther: I think a combination of the doc~m~entation and the stakes being up and the fact that you show the people on the survey that the homeowners have 72 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 should be adequate for them to know where it is~ C~ry Warren: Restrictive Covenants would serve the same purpose. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve rte Wetland Alteration Permit I~est %88-5 to permit develola~ent with 280 feet of the Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be constructed within a Class B wetland with the following conditions: 1. To improve the quality of the wetland, the holding ponds must n~ct the following six conditions established by the Fish ar~ Wildlife Service: a. The basin will have free form. b. The basin will have shallow e~ban~ts' with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of ~mergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. c. Th~ bain will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (aO provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding 'in shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of ~mergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation. d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) on bottcm of basin to provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetlar~. 2. Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction of the pond within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall provide details on area of construction for the pond within the wetlar~] and how the renaining wetland will be preserved. 3. The erosion control fence shall be continued across Lots 7 and 8, Block 4 to cc~pletely protect the wetland frem any construction activity. 4. All structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots 1-9, Block 4) must.meet the 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetlarz]. 5. The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting alteration of the wetland area on Lots 1 through 9, Block 4 beyond the 914 elevation. 6. The developer shall make every effor~ in it's pond design to improve the wetland and make the wetland an attractive useful wildlife habitat. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried. 73 ~ Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: I'm going to vote against it because I'd like to see the conservation easement put over the top of the utility easement to give the City... Councilman Geving: You can vote against it but that's not my motion. Councilman Boyt: I think you're accepting the conditions that the developer just agreed to Dale? Councilman Geving: That's correct. Councilman Johnson: Tne conservation easement gives us rights for conservation purposes to that area where a utility easement, which you're asking for, does not give us those rights. We still have a w~tland alteration but I'm just trying to give a little more extra rights. AWARD OF BIDS, DOWNTOWN ENTRY MONUMENT. Don Ashworth: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority agreed on this past Thursday to approve the bids for the clock tower and the one entry monument. The other entry monument is an assessable cost back against the Bloomberg ~nies. Accordingly, only the City Council can make that award. Staff is recommending that the award be made for that one item realizing that the bid again is for three items. You are only approving one of those three. Councilman Johnson: Which one? Mayor Hamilton: ~nat's for the entry monuments. Entry monuments are assessable back to... Don Ashworth: ~=ally only the one of those and that is the gazebo and the cost on that is the $70,900.00. Councilman Johnson: Has Bloomberg Cc~panies who's going to be assessed back and pay for this construction on their property basically, have they looked and have they said that they would like this construction cc~pany, the low bidder, to do this? Have they reviewed the construction company and they don't have a problem with it? They believe they'll get a quality product from them? Don Ashworth: They reviewed it. They did have an opportunity ths~selves to take a bid on it. They're concern with the price, because they were hoping it would be less. They were informed at the beginning of the project that the cost w~s estimated to be in excess of $60,000.00 so they're not overly .surprised and if they w~uld be, I would anticipate that them being present tonight. Resolution 988-37: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the award of the bid of $70,900.00 to Morcon Construction for the gazebo entry monument with the provision of assessing the $70,900.00 back to the Bloomberg Ccmpanies. All voted in favor and motion carried. 74 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 BOAT TRAILER PARKING ON SOUTH SHORE DRIVE~ Jim Chaffee: Without belaboring the issue, I think everyone is aware of the DNR move last year that effectively took control of the South Lotus Lake boat access away from this co~nunity. We believe because of that things are going to become a little chaotic at that access this sun~ne~ especially in regards to unreasonable parking. In that regard, we have come up with s~me ideas. One of t~ is a prophylactic measure when it cc~es to parking. We don't know as of yet just how far out the unreasonable parking will extend but we do believe that it will for sure exter~] to the South Shore Drive area. Because of that we are suggesting that we effectively adopt a resolution that would prevent the parking of enpty boat trailers and vehicles attached to or vice versa, on the South Shore Drive area and the other streets connected and that's it. Councilman Horn: They were already out of har~ this weekend. There were trailers parked all the way up both sides of the access and along the street. In fact, a fellow called the Sheriff on one because he parked up on the grass and one was ticketed. Mayor Hamilton: I still think, as I had said quite some time ago, that we ought to, along with having no parking, we should have a fine system set up and I wish w~ had it in place right now. $50.00 fine for parking where you shouldn't park and get towed i~iately and it costs you $50.00 to get your car back. It costs you $100.00 if you park where you don't belong. It's the same doggone thing that Minneapolis and St. Paul do for snowbirds and ~[ see no reason why we shouldn' t do the same thing here. I think it would solve the problem real quick. They're not going to do it again. Councilman Geving: ~hat happens now if you ticket a person? Jim Chaffee: It's a standard fine set down by the County. $5.00 to $10.00. I'm not sure what it is. Councilman Geving: They'll come back. For $5.00 to $10.00, they'll come back again. Mayor Hamilton: How can we accomplish that Pat? Do we have to have an ordinance? Pat Farrell: You would have to have a special ordinance to accc~plish what you're proposing. To accomplish what Jim was talking about, you would have to have a special ordinance. Councilman Horn: Do you think what you're proposing here is going to do the job? I don't like to see no parking signs every 10 feet either but do you think if we just do what you're suggesting? Obviously you've check it and it is enforceable. Have you made it clearcut to the people who are going to be using it? Jim Chaffee: It may or may not be. We checked this out when we first found out what the DNR was proposing with Roger ~nutson. He said that is enforc~hle. We settled on that idea because, as you stated, we don't like to see no parking signs posted up and down the roadway and as long as this is a restricted access area, people have to go by those signs to get in. Roger City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 indicated that was good enough. Mayor Hamilton: We also talked about at the Public Safety Cc~mission, putting up no parking betwee~ signs so no parking frcm one sign to the next so then you don't have as many signs. It's just a way to eliminate having signs every 10 feet or whatever is required. I know a lot of people here frc~ the neighborhood about this issue and do you have any c~m~ents or questions or suggestions? Jack Melby: I think the idea is an excellent one. Obviously, there is no controls now and as I have witnessed it for about a year... Not only in the summertime but in the wintertime. Sunday as an example, I think there were probably 15 to 17 boats and trailers parked in that area up and down the hill and in the residential area and I don't know how you're going to put a stop to that other than putting up signs up that say no parking. I agree with you Tom, placing a fine on them. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, a significant enough fine so they won't do it again. That's the only way to stop th~m. Jack Melby: That's the only way it would work. A $5.00 fine is a good afternoon recreation. Mayor Hamilton: If it costs them $100.00 and they've got to walk a ways to get the car back, I think they're really going to think about it twice. $50.00 fine for the ticket and $50.00 for the towing, the contract for someone to tow thsm and they've got to find someway to get their car out. No different than what Minneapolis and St. Paul does and I think we should do the same thing. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, if you would like, we could table this issue for the m~ment. I think some of the Lotus Lake homeowners think that time is of the essence but if you wanted to table it, I could work with Roger or Pat to develop an ordinance along those guidelines. Tnat certainly is a very good way of preventing a reoccurence. Mayor Hamilton: I think w~ ought to go ahead with what you're talking about. Put signs up right now and then we can continue doing other things as we go along. Don Ashworth: Could they not, Pat, put an ordinance on first reading this evening that basically violators would be towed? Pat Farrell: They could. Don Ashworth: Have it as a part of this issue. Pat Farrell: Go ahead with the resolution and post them. I'd like to spend a little time making sure that we've got an ordinance that's going to, because once you start towing and people start screaming, it's tough... Don Ashworth: We have two readings on ordinances so that's my point. Put it on first reading this evening. You draft it and it will be on second reading two weeks from now. 76 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Pat Farrell: First reading of an ordinance providing for the prohibition of parking of automobiles and boat trailers within certain defined areas in the City of Chanhassen and providing for the tagging and towing of the violation thereof. Councilman Horn: I'd like to ask the h~owners, would you object on a t~porary basis at least of having no parking signs of any type on that street until we get this in place because I don't think w~ have any no boat trailer parking signs but w~ may have scme no parking signs that w~ could put up in the interim. I'd like to see s~mething up t~norrow. The only thing we'd have to do then is, I'm sure would be just purely no parking signs until we get the other signs. Jim Chaffee: I checked tonight also with the developer, Herb Blocmberg and he's in favor of not having any cars parked on that South Shore Drive. Councilman Horn: And you people all have enough ro~m in your driveways for cars don' t you? Fred Oelschlager: ~at's ~rary. ~l~at are we talking about for ~rary? Councilman (~_=ving: A month maybe. Tw~ weeks. Don Ashworth: Can't we order signs and get them here right away? Mayor Hamilton: We could put up the no parking signs that says no parking. That should be clear enough. No parking period. Fred Oelschlager: And then what are we talking about on time on the fine, as far as when would that possibly be set up? Mayor Hamilton: Pat's going to review that and talk to Don and then they'll c(x~e back with a r~ndation as to exactly what it should say. Councilman Geving: It could be as early as May 9th. Fred Oelschlager: So in other words, we'll get s(m~ething going by then? As far as the sign, you're going to make up a sign no parking now~ it would be nice to have a large sign right at the entrance as you drive down to the lake if you're not going to put signs around the rest of it explaining the situation and the fining and the whole works. Don Ashworth: Just to clarify, I understand what you're saying Clark in terms of having signs up as soon as possible. Yes, we have signs on hand but before we can go out and put a sign into the groutS, we have to get every one of the utility ccmpanies out to mark the location of their underground utilities in that area. I would like to take and move ahead with whatever special order that would be required to get t~e right signs up at each of the neighborhoods or at each of the entrances. We may be adding to the time process when we're trying to cut it down, is what I'm saying. Councilman Johnson: I think the signs that are being proposed by Jim here that say no boat trailer parking within this neighborhood could, if we ordered, I 77 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 guess there's tw~ streets co~ing in, three signs. One that we need the utilities to place it to find out where they are at the two entrances and one as the boats are going down, we have some existing signs there that we could tack a sign on right now that we don't have to check utilities on because there are already utilities checked out. We've already got the post in the ground. Anybody that's going to ~mpty a boat trailer by going down the boat ramp will have to pass by that sign that will say what's just been recommended. I don't know why we have to restrict it only to this neighborhood. Is there any reason to park boats with trailers anyplace on any public street? That's kir~ of dangerous in that it's a low visibility type thing. Easier to hit than a full car. I don't see any reason to have an empty trailer parked anywhere on a public street in Chanhassen. Mayor Hamilton: What if you went and bought a trailer for your boat and you wanted to park in front of your house before you went to put your boat in and the cop comes by and gives you a ticket? Would that make you feel good? Councilman Johnson: Can't you put it in your driveway? Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we can start doing that. Councilman Boyt: I think that although I'm sure that s~me of the people living on Lotus Lake won't be happy with this, we have to be reasonable when we put a penalty on somebody. I think given that you're going to have two signs up there, I can assure that some of the people are going to make a mistake and park there without realizing it's no parking. Anytime you don't have a no parking sign every 20-30 feet, you're going to have people who are just flat out looking for an opportunity to park, they don't remember seeing a sign and they pull it over there because they're in a hurry to get back to their boat. I don't think towing 'is a decent w~y to treat people especially given the way cars are built today. You're taking a big risk when you pick the front end of a front end drive car up. Mayor Hamilton: That's in the contract with a tower. Councilman Boyt: Maybe it is but we let people park all over the place in Lake Ann and we don't even ticket them much less tow them. I recognize that this is in front of people's houses and we want them to have the opportunity to use their streets. I just think we need to use some other moderate force to enforce this ordinance. It certainly has to have teeth in it but we have to be reasonable. Councilman Horn: I think that comes out when we review the ordinance. We're not going to write the ordinance tonight. I think our direction tonight should be, let's put an ordinance in place that makes sense and let's direct staff to do scmething as quickly as possible to get the problem stopped. We' re not going to tell you where to put the poles and all that. Whatever you can do the most quickly to alleviate the problem. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see progressive fines. Mayor Hamilton: Let's let Pat and Don work that out right now and let's see if we can't get some signage up. 78 City Council M~eting - April 25, 1988 Jim Chaffee: If I could ask Pat one question. If the Council passes the resolution tonight ar~ w~ do not get signs up there by this weekend ~ fr~m the w~ather reports this weeker~ is going to be a real nice w~ekend, t~m~eratures in the 70's, w~uld my deputies still have enforc~nent powers to go and advise people at least that they can not park there without signs? Pat Farrell: Did you say without signs? Jim Chaffee: Right, without signs being in place. Jack Melby: Down at the access there are signs up saying no parking. Jim Chaffee: I'm talking about on South Shore. Mayor Hamilton: Put ~ on saw horse until you can get, get a tripod thing and stand them out there. Fred Oelschlager: Bill, I have to disagree with you on a couple things here that you said about the Lake Ann. That's a different program out there. You don't have homeowners around the area. You don't have the lake with the power boats on it. It's quite a bit different. Cars staying there don't bother anybody. Here they're infringing on a lot of different situations and you said the people who live on Lotus Lake may have scme who care and s~me who may not care. Councilman Boyt: No, I didn't say that. I said that I'm sure that the people who live there, many of fl%sm would like to have a house dropped on anybody who does anything to the lake. I'm saying that we need to be reasonable with these people. 'Just as we would expect to be reasonable on any other penalty that we put on. I guess I'm opposed to towing as an automatic first step. I think that' s a real shock. Fred Oelschlager: The only thing is, the n~ber we have c~ming in there, you want to have s~meone handing out warnings everyday. Councilman Boyt: It's not a warning. I would see something that's got a penalty to it and as Tcm has said, we' 11 get to that. Resolution 988-38: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the first reading of a resolution prohibiting street parking of boat trailers on South Shore Drive, South Shore Court and Hill Street and to post signs indicating "NO BOAT TRAILER PARKING ON ~Y" at both entrances to South Shore Drive from Highway 101. Also, to have staff prepare an ordinance establishing penalties for the no parking to be brought back for a second reading. All voted in favor ~ motion carried. Georgette Sosin: When are we planning to actually have scmeone there, as w~ discussed? Who's going to be monitoring the traffic situation arxt handing out papers to explain how the boats should go in the lake because even with the no parking signs we're going to have problems. When are going to begin this because it's an early season. Lori Siets~na: Opening fishing. 79 City Council Meeting - April 251 1988 Councilman Geving: May 14th? Councilman Johnson: Can ~e get somebody earlier? Lori Siets~ma: We've had applications, it's just a matter of when we can get them hired. That's what our goal is. If we hire them before that, I'll get them out there before that. Councilman Boyt: Last summer I didn't see it in terms of any kind of enforcement. I was on the lake enough to notice that there was a lot of things not happening until we hit the high water period and I would like to see the deputy sheriff out there on a routine basis. Mayor Hamilton: That's been talked about at Public Safety Cc~mission meetings and we're going to do everything possible to have the patrol boat out there as often as possible. Now that we have an access there I'm sure he'll be here more often. There was not an access for him previously. Councilman Boyt: He wasn't out here last summer very much was he Tc~? Mayor Hamilton: They cover such a wide area. They've got one boat and he covers the whole county. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we ought to buy him a boat. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconced to approve the following for the Public Safety Com~issi~: That the City Council reappoint Richard Wing and Candy Takkunen to tm (2) year terms on the Public Safety Cc~mission with terms to expire in December, 1989. That the City Council appoint Wayne Wenzlaff and Craig Blechta to the two (2) newly created positions on the Public Safety Commission with terms to expire in Decem~r, 1990. The the City Council accept the resignation of Public Safety Commissioner Cliff Bohlmann and appoint Bill Bernhjelm to the Commission vacancy. This term is to expire in December, 1989. That the City Council appoint first alternate Barb Klick to replace Co~missioner Jim vonLorenz should he resign prior to the expiration of his present term (December, 1988) or in the event he does not seek reappointment. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: As a person who was involved in initiating the expansion of the Public Safety Commission, I want to say, and I tried to get a hold of Dick 80 City Council Meeting - April 25~ 1988 ~;irg and couldn't get a hold of him, I didn't sense that there was an overwhelming ~ to get this filled quickly. I'm disappointed that we're not interviewing any of these car~idates. I'm disappointed that w~ have not s~n~ any of the objectives the Public Safety Oarmission had in filling these positions. I don't know if they took geography into account. All I've got, and I've said this every time, I think that w~ start people off the wrong way on c~nissions when the council does not interview thsm. I think that this was an opportunity in which w~ could have begun working out this system of having objectives that the Council and the Cc~nissions agreed would be followed when people were sought and we didn't do it. It's not to say that these people aren't good people and worthy of being on the Comnission. It's just, I don't see why we're doing it this way. ~nat's all I've got. ~ayor Hamilton: Just to comment, we had ten candidates and all excellent people. It was not an easy task to select them. We looked at everything we could think of into consideration. Councilman Boyt: Are we finally done with this way of appointing people? Mayor Hamilton: I don't know. We've talked to the staff about what we want to do and I guess it's up to them to come back and start changing things. Councilman Horn: It was going to come back as an it~ and I haven't seen it yet. RESO[AVflON ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE PROPOSED HOUSING PLAN. Resolution 988-39: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the resolution establishing June 13, 1988 as the public hearing date for the proposed housing plan. All voted in favor and motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: TH 5 UPDATE, COUNCI~ HORN. Councilman Horn: The bott~n line is, by 1990 we're going to have a four lane highway up to Park Avenue in the Industrial Park which is a change and that's planned and scheduled by MnDot. Mayor Hamilton: We got a bill passed and we got sc~e funds. CGMPOSTI~ FACILITY IN CHASKA, COUNCI~ JOHNSON AND COUNCILMAN GEVING. Councilman Geving: I think we ought to forget about this tonight Jay. Councilman Johnson: Yes, we're all very tired. Unless everybody has digested this huge thing. Basically there's an f~viror~ntal Assessment Worksheet that's out for the Chaska, proposed cu~posting facility in Chaska. If we want to c~m~ent on it, it has be to by next Wednesday. The necessity, of c(aunenting on it is we don't have to. We're not required to comment one way or the other. I 'ye r~nded that, in fact I've already sent my personal comnen~ which I've attached here, have been sent in and I believe that the EAW provided is in many cases almost lip sevice to the enviro{m~_ntal issues involved. There are 81 ~C~ty Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 lots of questions to be answered and the primary one, which they keep avoiding, is how much heavy metals and toxic organics might be in the c~mpost going in and I think they need to be forced. Tne m~r~er from Met Oouncil tells me one thing about they don't give t~ enough data. They say they give you more data. It's just back and forth when you talk to the two. Totally opposite. Councilman Geving: I didn't think their EAW was complete. It was purposely incomplete in my opinion and secondly, they had an incorrect site plan shown on all their exhibits. Councilman Johnson: I talked to the MPC and they say they have a heavy metal problem with their fuel pellets and they say they don't. I got that from the head of the Solid Waste Division of the MPCA. When I talked to him he said they have a problem but they can't control the pellets because too much metal is in it and they say no, that's wrong, we don't. Either the State's wrong or they're wrong but they won't give us data to show us that they'.re right so I'd be very suspicious. Councilman Horn: Is this a combined reconm~endation of both Jay and Dale for this resolution? Councilman Johnson: It's my recommendation. Councilman Geving: But I agree with it. I was at the meeting. I agree with Jay. Mayor Hamilton: At the cc~posting site, do they make DRDF up there? Councilman Geving: No. Mayor Hamilton: They don't process it there? Councilman Johnson: No. We had a 12 minute video tape but I don't want to play it at this time. Resolution #88-40: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adopt the resolution presented by Councilman Johnson and Councilman Geving pertaining to the Environmental Impact Statement for the Reuter, Inc. Solid Waste Cc~post Plant, Chaska Arbor Park, as a Council recom~endation. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I have one question on this. Is this going to be a tax paying entity or is it going to be owned by the City? Councilman Geving: It's private enterprise. Councilman Boyt: What do you suppose the taxable value of this is going to be? Don, have you thought about that at all? Don Ashworth: 10 million. Councilman Boyt: We've got a trade now. How about if we offer t~, we!ll take this little chunk of ground and they can have the piece they want? 82 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Geving: This is a biggy~ Councilman Johnson: The reason they want that piece is to give this guy driveway's through it both ways. Reuter wants that piece. Councilman Geving: Beuter ' s actually holding the whole property. Barbara Dacy: You still have the sewer issue too. If it's in Chanhassen... Councilman Boyt: Does it need a sewer? Councilman G~ving: Ch yes. Councilman Johnson: Met Council wouldn't let them put in Dahlgren because of a lack of sewer. Beyord the citizens, Met council was also sayirg you can't put that out in the farmland. When w~ get that, we'd have to rezone it to A-2 again... Barbara Dacy: Unless (lhaska would agree serve it by their utilities. Councilman Boyt: They're looking for negotiation chips. This is handy one. Councilman Geving: This is a big facility, let me tell you. Councilman Horn: I think w~ should think about it. It's an interesting Councilman Johnson: But I certainly wouldn't want, that's even more reason to ommnent on this. ~OWN SIGNAGE CONCE~, CITY PLANNER. This it~n was tabled until the next City Council meeting. CITY HAIL EXPANSION, VERBAL UI~ATE, CITY MANA_GRR. Don Ashworth: The issue is I received Housing Redevelolznent Authority approval. We have, as a part of the downtown plans, they included modifications to the parking area cc{ning back into City Hall. Some of the concerns the Mayor had regarding outside improv~nents and we're doing all of those. Landscaping as you go around the side. As a part of that, staff has concerns that would carry out certain improv~ts on this new city hall. Specifically we're doing an atri~n. We're doing other planting materials, etc.. We're going to end up taking a lot of those materials back out as we look to a second addition associated with that facility. The other thing was, as Councilman Geving had gotten a hold of me before saying be would really liked the overall plan but one of .the things that he felt we were definitely missing here was additional conference areas associated with City Hall. I developed a plan in concert with EOS that can develop that additional conference room as a part of that. Take the area that's shown on our long range develofm~ent plan for a courtyard area which is nothing more than a design 83 ~ty Council ~=eting - April 25, 1988 very similar to what they have at the Dinner Theater. In other words, the corridor sits and you can lead a person from one portion of City Hall to the other. A person goes in that back door and is mistaken and wants to go to the front, they can take and move frcm the one area to the other. Put a conference area adjacent to that that can function in the evening and operate. Again, the HRA agreed to pick up the additional cost associated with that corridor area. I felt uncomfortable asking them for the cost associated with the conference room portion. I'm estimating that that could be upwards of $60,000.00 because of heat, air conditioning and all things that go along with that. Tnere would be no rest rocks because it serves basically off of exisiting city hall. If I could do that within our overall budget as w~'ve established it and again I may have to come back for some minor portion of it but I'd like to pick up at least half if not more of that cost factor within the existing budget. Asking you to really let me move ahead with building of that corridor area including the conference room. I think it accomplishes a lot of long term solutions. We don't do scmething and then end up taking it back out again. Mayor Hamilton: Good idea. As long as you can do it within the budget. Who wanted to do Gedney? Don Ashworth: Gedney is in the Administrative Section. I have the City of Chaska doing a Joint Powers Agreement where they will jointly respond to police and fire calls. What I forgot to do is w~ also need to join in that agreement. They and us will be jointly responding to fire calls at least for the next one year per iod. That ' s it. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim 84