The URL can be used to link to this page

1988 04 11AP] Ma~ P1E Jo] CD ST~ APl al~ cit mot C0~ All C0~ RII SaI on NHASSEN CITY COUNCIL ULAR MEETING IL 11, 1988 or Hamilton called the mseting to order. The meeting was opened with the dge to the Flag. NCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Geving, Councilman Boyt and Councilman ,~son .~CI~ERS ABS~T: councilman Horn FF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Larry Brown, Lori Siets~ma and er Knutson ROVAL OF AGENDA: councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to cove the agenda as presented with the addition by councilman Boyt of a Hide trash pick-up under Council Presentation. All voted in favor and ion carried. SENT AC4~DA: Mayor Hamilton moved, councilman Geving seconded to approve following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's annexations: a. conditional Use Permit Approval for Food Processing Facilities and Site Plan Review for McGlynn Bakeries. c. First Reading of Rezoning, Subdivision and Wetland Alteration Permit Approval for Minnewashta Meadows, Gary Carlson. 1. Resolution %88-28: Minnewashta Msadows Subdivision Petition for Public Improvement File No. 88-2. e. Resolution %88-29: C~_ble Television, l~quest to Transfer Ownership. f. Resolution %88-30: City Hall Expansion: 1) Approval of Plans and Specifications 2) Authorize Bids 3) Approve Architectural Agreement g. Accounts Payable dated April 11, 1988 i. City council Minutes dated March 28, 1988 Planning Cc~nissionMinutes dated March 16, 1988 voted in favor and motion carried. SENT AGfa%DA: (B) SUBDIVISION AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT APPROVAL, LAKE EY WOOD~ SOUTH, GEORGE NELS~ ASSOCIATES. bara Dacy: It's obvious from the staff update that w~ wanted to follow up the street connection issue regarding this subdivision with the adjacent ~ivision to the w~st. That being Great Plains Golf Estates. Larry Brown City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 w~uld like to present the staff follow-up on this item~ Larry Brown: As noted in the staff report, this site is located south of CR 14 approximately 1/2 mile east of TH 101 ar~ directly south of Lake Riley Woods. Municipal sanitary sewer service is not available to the site and therefore on-site septic systems will be required. Similarly, municipal water service will also have to be provided by on-site sources. Tne issue of the proposed right-of-way, the street grades are in accordance with the city standards of 7.0% with the minimum being 5.0% which is consistent with the city standards. There are some minor changes noted in the staff report which the applicant is more than willing to w~rk with staff with to address those issues. ~ne main issue from the Planning Cc~mission stems from combining alternate accesses. The proposed cul-de-sac is approximately 2,000 feet in length. Tne Planning Cc~ission approved the subdivision contingent upon the applicant obtainng alternative sources of through traffic out to CR 14. We pursued the County in this matter and the county said that they would not support such an emergency access or a regular access. Due to the existing constraints of the ravines around the site and the bluff topography, the only other alternative was to extend this cul-de-sac over to the west to Great Plains Golf Estates, which as you're aware of, received plat extension on March 28, 1988. Obviously extension of the cul-de-sac would cause the loss of one lot from both of these proposed plats. The 2,000 foot cul-de-sac, although public safety felt that the single entrance did not provide a problem, from an engineering standpoint, being traffic flow, maintenance and emergency accesses are better facilitated with the alternative access. Tnat's all I have. Councilman Boyt: Larry, given the topography, where's the best spot for the secondary access if we considered putting it out to where the proposed Great Plains Golf Estates is now? What's the best way to get there? Larry Brown: Right where this line is drawn, (c) and (d), I had the applicant investigate that alignment and there's a diagram in your packet. Just to give you scme sort of feel as to what the topography looks like through there. It's fairly flat. Due to the ravine that surround the site, this is actually the only feasible site where you could possibly put a road through. Councilman Boyt: How long is the cul-de-sac if we put it through where you're proposing for the secondary entrance? Larry Brown: The cul-de-sac would be approximately 1,500 feet. Councilman Boyt: No, if we put through the secondary access you're proposing. Larry Brown: I'm sorry, approximately 500 feet. Councilman Boyt: I thought you said something about the original cul-de-sac was 2,000 feet. Larry Brown: This cul-de-sac that's being proposed on the plan is 2,000 feet. Councilman Boyt: So we're knocking 1,500 feet off of it with the secondary? Larry Brown: Well, I was referencing the 500 feet for this distance here. In actuality, you have a cul-de-sac situation through here that would be Ci es Pr. it de wh us op at I ch de al We pl o1~ d~ dc dl st dc O~ Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 i39 taimated at roughly 1,000 feet each way~ mcilman Boyt: You'd have a loop? The other question I have is, I'm erested in a trail on this. I don't mean to propose to put a trail on but !se are lots that are 2 1/2 acres apiece. I think it would be a fairly minor uest to ask to have a trail easement on one side or the other of this. 9bably on the inside of what I would propose to be the loop. So looking at initially, I think that anytime ~ have a c~ to avoid a 2,000 foot cul- -sac, w~ should take it. I think there have been a few times in the past en we've said that it's unlikely that we'll have a hook-up ar~ then it's cost when the opportunity has ~ available and we hadn't provided for that tion. I would suggest that we follow the Planning Cc~nission ar~ what I ink is Larry's recc~m~endation and ask the developer to make arrangements to least give us the easement, for a secondary access across what is now Lot 3. ~ould also request that we put a trail easement on what would then become the ~ide of that loop. ~ncilman Geving: Have you had a chance to talk to Mr. Halla about the tential linking of this subdivision plat with his? try Brown: I b~lieve Mr. Halla is here, the developer, ar~ we'll give them a ance to speak if you'd like. The developer of this plat had contacted him Mr. Halla had stated that he ~asn't in favor the idea. Is Mr. Halla here? vid Halla: Yes. I think I'd prefer to let the developer speak on his part ~st and then get involved afterwards. mcilman Geving: That' s fine. From my own perspective we' ve seen a lot of velopments like this and I don't think we have very many that are 2,000 feet though they have extended considerably over our original 500 feet maximum. have an opportunity to get a secondary access through the eventual Halla at. I think we ought to take that opportunity. We have to deal with issue it comes up and we're dealing now with this particular proposed plat and I o would go along with Bill's suggestion that ~ take the opportunity to get e easement so in the future can link up these two. I think we're missing an portunity if you don't do this so my recc~mler~ation is the same as Bill's. far as the trail's concerned, that's another issue but I'm more concerned )ut the road at this time. I guess that's the end of where the Planning remission left it with us to make the decision and I think we can make the ~ision. uncilman Johnson: I'm in agreement with both Bill and Dale on this but I n't believe that what we have to do is cut right along the aligr~ent section lled CD here. If we cut in at 90 degrees on the east property line where it ys 245 feet there, then take a turn and run along the Ward property line, we n't be cutting off much of his lot there. It's a four acre lot. Probably op that one lot considerably. We may be able to make some of that up and ill get the same nunber of lots out of this subdivision. We take that as an sment at this time. It will help both subdivisions for the safety purposes. is other, Great Plains had a fairly long cul-de-sac on it I believe also. I n't rem~a~r for sure whether he had multiple entrances there or not. You c what I mean. Instead of cutting straight through Lot 3, go around the edge Lot 3. City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 Councilman Boyt: What's the topography look like there? Councilman Johnson: It's flat there also according to the topo map. Larry Brown: If I may clarify something, the diagram that I had sketched out which was included in your packet was only for reference to the "T" intersection which I desired. I have talked to the applicant's' engineer and he says, if the Council decides they would like to see alternative access go through there, are willing to work with the staff in nailing down a final diagram for that. The one that I included wasn't necessarily intended to pinpoint the exact location. Councilman Johnson: I don't think you'll lose a lot from doing it. You've got several six acres and this particular lot in this case if 4.0 acres. It's more important in the far future when this gets further subdivided, when sewer is in there, to have with the number of lots in this subdivision, it's not as important right now but when these all get resubdivided 20-30 years down the road, having that easement in there, even if there isn't a road in there at this time, having t]~e ability to get a road in there in the future for future subdivision will be very important for our grandchildren or whatever. Mayor Hamilton: Is there a representative here from Nelson and Associates? Did you have anything you wanted to say about the comments that were made. Brian Olson: We drew the plat several times and because of the topography of the site, we found no practical way to give the second access. We also felt that since Mr. Halla's plat already had preliminary approval, that the actually link-up or connection would never happen. It's an question the Attorney can answer as to how easy it's going to be to get that. Also, w~ plan to start construction as soon as possible and we would like to proceed to finish our project. I'm not so sure that that's the intention next door. I'm wondering, if you desire to have us create something in here again, that may never happen. I understand the concern. Ideally we would prefer an easier piece of ground to work with in a double access situation but for this site, it isn't real practical or possible. If the Council so desires or mandates that that happens, we're more than willing to work with staff to accomplish that. Yet we would like to proceed with our plans here ~hough if possible and not table this for perspective planning. The season's here as far as we're concerned. We'd like to proceed. We also don't see a great deal of potential here for future sewer and water development with the size lots and the type of clientele that we've already attracted and are talking to. We have one gentleman that's made a cc~mitment for almost a million dollars on one of the sites. I don't think he's going to be further subdividing his lots. We're looking for consideration. It's not an effort to dodge or duck. We looked at some of these suggestions that staff had. Some of this is happening before I became involved with the developer and I don't know the complete history but there are instances where, because of the situation and the topography of the land that you perhaps permitted a less than ideal road situation and that's basically' what we' ve got here. David Halla: we have redrawn our plat three or four times to satisfy the Planning Commission and Council for their requirements. We did give tw~ accesses and changed the cul-de-sacs that we had originally in order to take care of our plat. I feel that it would be unfair to us at this point to say Cit giw si ti siO be May gue: cul. OC~ al~ ac~ togE if t prot prot It tra] Did or r char RogE plat Bark gra~ Bark Roge Barb Roge Council Meeting - April iii 1988 ~ make changes and give up an additional lot to run this one through. To an easement across where it's already ~ approved and okayed in our ation. There's a possibility of doing different situations on the existing : to the east of us that you're talking about tonight where another road can ut in rather than connecting through our property. Dr Hamilton: I'm not so opposed to putting it through as long as it can be ~plished without taking lots away fr~m either one of the developers. I ~ I'm concerned that we ~ to be fairly preoccupied with the length of de-sacs and as I drive around other c(xmmnities and -_"~c plats and plans ~rrirg in other cities, they've got cul-de-sacs that run for miles with no !rnative access and I'm kind of curious if we're the only one that gets so .~rned about the length of our cul-de-sacs. Having never had an instance ir in this town, that I know of, where an alternative access is ~ssary, I'm not so sure that it's scmething w~ need to waste our time at. 'e's no question that it could occur s~metime or we may ~ an alternative .~s but when 2 1/2 acre lots or better, to tie tt~ tw~ neighborhoods ~ther, I'm not sure it can be a requirement, although it'd be nice someday hey both continued to subdivide, as s~me of the people have said, it ably ~ould be a good idea to have the easement at least so it could be put ,ugh if so desired. As far as the trail in there, again, it's the same .leto I've had with a lot of other areas ~here trails have been suggested. egins nowhere and it ends nowhere. It doesn't go to anyplace and maybe would tie into something at someday too but to request and require that a 1 be built that doesn't a~lish anythirg, doesn't do a whole lot for me. you have anything to add? cilman Geving: I'd like to hear fr~m our Attorney on the question that Mr. a raised or someone raised about the status of Mr. Halla's plan. Whether ot at this point, if we decided to make that linkage, wa can go back and ~e that. ~ Knutson: Change Mr. Halla's plat? What is the status of Mr. Halla's ? ara [lacy: It ~ms approved for preliminary plat last s~mner. It ~s ted an extension of the preliminary plat approval just recently. ~ Knutson: When does that extension run out? ara Dacy: July 1, 1989. ~ Knutson: The preliminary you're giving an extra year and a half? ~ilman Johnson: The final was given an extra year ar~ a half. Knutson: To bring in a the final? ra Dacy: Right. Knutson: At this point it's really tough to go back and open that up. you get through the preliminary plat approval and he c(x~plied with the [tions of that plat approval. 142 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I've got a couple things to add. First, the trails haven't picked up much discussion here. I think anytime we're looking at lots that we would have so little impact on asking for a trail easement, it's a good idea to ask for it. I'm not saying that we're going to build the trail tomorrow. I'm simply saying that ~e don't have to go back and purchase land in the future that is available to us now simply for the asking so I'd like to see us ask for a trail easement along what is going to be for a time a long cul-de-sac. Mainly because I think it's always good to give people an opportunity to consider walking someplace besides in the street and someday we might like to build a trail. On the possibility of going back and asking for this road easement for secondary access, I think the point that Roger has made that it's certainly going to be difficult to go back and ask Mr. Halla to adjust his plan now in some ~ys begs the question because I'm skeptical that ~e're going to see a final plat in here in July, because as soon as w~ see a final plat, as I understand it, then that changes the value of that land. Is that correct? Barbara Dacy: The value is determined by the Assessor's Office. I know that Scott has told me that once a plat is filed there's a three year grace period that will continue to assess a base on the use of the land as is even though it's platted for single family detached use. Tnat was his most recent interpretation. Councilman Boyt: That puts a wrinkle in it. I personally think that we're making a mistake. Anytime we approve a cul-de-sac that's this long when we have some sort of potential release. I think Jay's proposal of laying it along the property line is probably the least impact to everyone involved and I hope we have a motion that indicates we will do that. Councilman Geving: This is for the road now you're thinking? Counc i lman Boyt: Yes. Councilman Geving: I do want to cc~m~nt to the developer that the Council has an insight, in my opinion, a historical perspective that I don't believe you understand or can appreciate. W~ have seen a lot of large developments that were picked up years and years ago that had no intention of ever developing but now they've been passed on several times to different members of the family and now, due to economic conditions throughout our community, we're seeing a lot of development that people never intended ever to develop 20 years ago. Because of that, especially in our northern area, we're finding that the lots are being broken into smaller chunks especially for economics. ~ne economics of today's world, people can't pay the taxes or don't want to continue to pay the taxes. People are getting older and they'd just as soon move on to a condo. We're seeing a lot of that so just for your perspective, when you see these big lots 20 years from now, they will be broken once ~ get sewer and water in there. I guarantee you. That's all I have to say and I just want to reiterate what you said Bill, I do believe we should take every opportunity to gather as many trail easements as we can as we approve these plats because you never have another opportunity. Once that passes, it's gone. Just like we heard from our Attorney, once we miss a plat, we have lost the opportunity to make a change on it and I don't w~nt to lose that tonight so I'm in favor of securing khat trail easement. I don' t want to lose a lot for the developer but I do believe that it would be proper for us to get the easement however, for a potential link-up at sc~e future time. Cit Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 .%cilman Johnson:' The trail does not start nowhere and go nowhere'because ~e also planning a trail along CR 14 out there so the trail will link to the tr~l syst~n. It should fit in quite nicely and again, w~'re only asking for an~asement at this time. Scmepla~ in the future if the people in the area pet [tion us for trails in the area, we already have the ~t and we can put th~ trails in. Without that easement, if we get petitioned or some future Cot %cil gets petitioned to a trail in, there's no ~ay they can because they'll ha~ .~ to obtain those access from 16 people. I would like to see that trail acc .~ss and I think personally, it should go on the north side of the road. Thz: would be the least number of households affected. It appears that there's as~ice of area bet~en the roadway and the neighboring properties there Lots 2 and 3. I'd rather have one side or the other, I'd just like to put a condition that a trail eas~maent will be shown on the final plat. After lcc ting at the contours I hate to say it, but my little idea of running along the east property line is down on the side a hill that's at about 15% grade and it ,ay not work too well. I would like the motion to say, if at all possible, en¢ [neeringly feasible, that we obtain a road easement for possible future cot. ~ction to the west. Saying that we have not had the situation as of yet is th~ same thing as saying I haven' t had a traffic wreck that killed me yet. It onl f takes once and who knows. In fact, in this case, I'd even be willing for a 1 )t area variance on Lot 3 for that easement to allow that. If we had to sug Cou cl( eng Cou wit suk lin Am ~ down the lot a little bit to get that easement. I don't think we need an variance at this time because it's only an eas~m~ent, it's still a part of property. The variance would ccme in at the time the street was built and City took it over as right-of-way, kn I correct there Barb? ~ra Dacy: Right. The easenent, as an easement, the area is still .~lated as a part of the lot area. I guess I 'm kind of concerned. I don't to throw water on the fire here but if you're looking at an eas~nent in aligrment of C and D, it's almost better in that case to require the ~ction because an easement would just chop the lot in half. They wouldn't ~le to build within that easement. Otherwise, an ease~_=nt would have to be !fred along the northerly lot line of LOt 3. Is that what you're Iesting? ~cilman Johnson: Yes, the northerly lot line I suggest as the east/west of it and then run up to it. Instead of startirg at the corner of Lot 3, er to where the allot of C intersects, that C-D site section intersects road. Further up where I had originally said, is quite st~cp and would be [neering wise quite difficult to get in there without owning the property door. ara Dacy: And the full 60 feet of width. ~ilman Johnson: Yes, theoretically we could go along the property line half the width or scmething and go for future, whenever the other ones are ivided along there that we get the other half of the road. It se~ms to up with the lot lines on Great Plains Golf Estates better to keep it all is property. I'm definitely for t/~ trail. )tion was made at this point with the following discussion. City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Are you saying easement or road connection? Councilman Boyt: I'm saying an easement for both of those things. Councilman Geving: What's the, width of your proposed trail easement? Councilman Boyt: Whatever a standard easement width is. Not that w~'re going to put an 8 foot trail in there or whatever but we're not going to use 20 feet. ~ 20 foot easement is to give us a little room to flex around tine geography. Councilman Geving: Tne motion has 13 items to our conditions, is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: 9 changes, k~ can just change 9 so it would say, instead of park dedication fees, it would be say trail eas~nent or 20 foot eas~nent shall be acquired and that park dedication fees shall be accepted J.n lieu of parkland. Councilman Boyt: We're still taking the fees. Tney're not building the trails. Councilman Geving: We would do both. We'd still get the trail and park dedication fees and now we're asking for the easement. I'm asking, we have apparently added 12 for the trails and 13 for the road? Councilman Boyt: Right and what I'm basically trying to do here is give them the green light to go ahead and do your develolmnent stating that this be worked out with staff as to the best location. My intent being that we're not going to take a lot away from you and we're going to work with Mr. Halla so we minimize the impact on that side of the develoimnent as well. Councilman Johnson: Are you including the Wetland Alteration Permit in your motion also? Mayor Hamilton: His motion was l(b) which includes the Wetland Alteration Permit unless you didn't intend it to be? Councilman Boyt: I didn't see any problem with the wetland alteration. Councilman Johnson: Either did I so if you motion included that, my second includes that. Mayor Hamilton: I would just say it seems kind of foolish to try to pass a motion that our Attorney we've hired to give us legal advice is telling us it isn't going to work. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. ~his Council seems to not like to listen to what the experts tell us I guess. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Wetland Alternation Permit for Lake Riley Woods South for George Nelson Associates and Subdivision 987-2 as shown on the plat stamped "R~ceived January 25, 1988" with the following conditions: le Re Se 0 e g 11. 12. 13. Al3 CoU ViS Council M~etlng - April 11~ 1988 SoJ. 1 borJ. ngs are sulznitted to the city soil consultants and the consultants approve two acceptable sites per lot prior to the final plat approval. The developer shall enter into a develofxnent contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to .guarantee the proper installation of these public improv~ts. ~ne developer shall obtain and cc~ply with all conditions of tf~ Watershed District permit. A revised plan showing the changes in the horizontal roadway alignment, as discussed previously in this report, shall be sutxnitted for approval by t?~ City Engineer as part of the final planning review process. An 18-inch minimun diameter culvert shall be installed underneath the proposed access onto Pioneer Trial, CSAH 14. The proposed road file shall include a 0.5% grade for a minimum distance of 50 feet prior to the access onto Pio_~cr Trail. Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be utilized on all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. The typical rural roadway section shall be revised to a 3-inch bituminous wear course as per the City star~a~ for rural construction. Trail and park dedication fees shall be accepted in lieu of trail construction ar~ parkland. Also, a 20 foot trail easement shall be granted where the developer and staff feels it is appropriate. Sukmittal of stormwater calculations to determine predevelol~ent rates. Carver County shall review final construction plans prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide plans for a secondary access for emergency purposes with Carver County and City Engineer approval. A road connection ~t shall be sought and worked out With staff that would do the least damage to Lake Riley Woods South and Great Plains Golf Estates. voted in favor and motion carried. ry Brown: Bill, your motion, does that mean 3~u're telling the developer to ahead and construct the cul-de-sac as proposed with just the eas~nent there? ncilman Boyt: Yes. ITORS PRESENTATION: There w~re no visitor presentations at this meeting. PR~ MIN5 Bark of t deny Doin show acce stre are have prop All ordi requl feel Elli~ poin{ ~sn in W Mayo] overt what Bark~ Council Meeting - April 11~ 1988 [MINARY PLAT FOR FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FAST OR AND ADJACENT TO ~ASHTA P~Y, ~-WI~.r.. ~ra Dacy: At the March 14th meeting the Council considered the subdivision lis property and tabled action until Fittings of Fact could be prepared to that particular subdivision. The main concern was the proposed access ~ on Minnewashta parkway. Now the applicant has sut~itted another plat lng the creation of a cul-de-sac into the site and instead of having tw~ s points to Minnewashta Parkway there would only be one, that beirg the t. Proposed are five lots. Lot 5 is 20,000 square feet. Lots 2, 3 and 4 .5,000 square feet and Lot 1 at the top is 18,375 square feet. Lot 1 does 95 feet of street frontage along Minnewashta Parkway although ~ahat is ~ is a part of the lot that would receive access ffcm the cul-de-sac. .ots meet the lot width and lot depth requirements of our current ance. The Council has three options on the site. The applicants are sting that you consider this plat rather than the other plat that was dered on March 14, 1988. So the three options are, you can either approve ,lat with the recom~_=nded conditions. Two, deny the plat or three, if you there is a substantial change, a third option w~uld be to ser~ it back to lanning (km~ission. Hamilton: Does the applicant have any comments? Schwaba: When w~ were here last time we discussed the situation to the where you felt that if w~ could create the five lot situation, we've got ul-de-sac... Our original plan was to have an additional driveway. ~nat t satisfactory so we worked it over and although w~ have that little flag Ere ~ still meet the lot size requireuents... Hamilton: Barbara, I asked you this afternoon, did you make up an ~nd of the surrour~ing area? I thought it might help everybody to look at ~he other properties around there look like. :a Dacy: The property is outlined in green. This is Minnewashta Parkway here arrau Mayoz Earl then urger lots Ido great acre their this hc~es mill · The adjacent lots to the east and south are all' substantially larger ~he proposed lots. They have an odd kind of a flag lot situation ~t. There's a shared driveway to the site. Hamilton: Are there any residents that have any comments or questions? ~atherington: My property lies to the east and goes to the north and D the west of the entire Fischer property. The developers don't ss to ~tand that they are out of line with their request for five lots. These ire quite obviously small. They do not fit the neighborhood in t/~ area. : previously given testimony here ar~ the hand-outs that I gave to you and ~eel that over the past year all the develo~x~ents that have ~n approved .s council, the great quantity of those approved have been half acre or ~ lots. Maple Shores Drive do. T~ have reasonable size lots of a half ir more. I don' t understand why these people don't ~ to get it through heads that we just aren't going to tolerate, if there's anI;way possible, any lots and cutting up a piece of property in this way when it borders that are worth between a quarter of a million and half to three-quarter n dollars. It's just not right and therefore w~ strongly object. lq cit ho~ we] amd is _ f .Coundil Meeting - April 11, 1988 Borchart: I live just east of the property .... what Mr. Heatherington ;. Lot 1 of Maple Shores has a house on that hasn't sold· It's a nice ~ but it just doesn't fit the neighborhood. It's too ~nall. It's a very built house ar~ everything. Now we er~ up with say 3 to 4 more houses don't sell in the neighborhood and I think that house was done almost 2 s now. You start getting hcmes in the neighborhood that don't sell, the hborhood goes down very quickly and all of us have a substantial investment we' re taxed very high. We feel that it should be the way the neighborhood Js~OiLarson: I'm the son of F. Wilmer Larson. Our property is directly to the · I'm in ccmplete agreement with my neighbors in saying that the lot Eli ar~ Mel pre sp~ all de~ tu! dif don day but C, ou sp~ not' don One: CJ~u cle :s are too ~nall. ie Schwaba: Something I'd like to add. I appreciate the neighbors comments our intention in the property, we have our first buyer right here. Rich >y and we have no intention to spec any homes there. We are going to have -sold homes only so we'll be building custxxn built homes to buyer's :ifications and there won't be any houses sitting there for sale. They will be sold. If you want to add that to your conditions... ~ilman Johnson: From what I see, I would think this would be a great ~ivision with four lots. Unfortunately, in my opinion but fortunate for the .~loper, they meet all the requirements of the City. I see no grounds to it down. The flag lot, while I think that our rules should read erently and the 90 foot frontage should be on the point of access, they t read that way. I feel like, I guess it was a state legislator the other that put a paper sack over his head and voted yes. He had no other choice he didn't really want to vote yes. In here, I think it would be a ,tiful subdivision 6f four lots· I see no grounds to do anything. If it · ~ all the points of our ordinance, we're being arbitrary ~ capricious or :ever. I don't know these legal words here but if we turn it down just Luse we want to turn it down, that's not being fair to the owners of the ~rty either. I would love to see larger lots· Tnat's all I have. Lcilman Geving: Originally on March 14th we talked about the possibility of .ng four lots· We also talked about the possibility of denying the second :ss to Minnewashta Parkway so we advised the applicants to go back arzt do a law. Based on that advice they've done that. They do meet all the :ifications of nearly all the subdivision requirenents that we have. I'm pleased with the access for Lot 1 but it's a far sight better than having access off of Minne shta Parkway. I'm more concerned personally about the ~r and water hook-ups. I don't know if we've ever done this .before Larry. I t recall that we've ever made a "Y" situation where two hc~m~s are served by sewer amd water hook-up. Do we have other instances like that? Brown: Yes, we have quite a few of then as a matter of fact. cilman Geving: Where are they at and have we had any problens with that? y Brown: No, we haven't had any problems as long as the sanitary sewer n-outs, as I requested, are there such that our ability to gain access to e services. 11 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 Councilman Geving: Do you know specifically where you can locate either one of these situations? I don't recall that this has happened. Larry Brown: Off hand I don't know but I could certainly find those. Councilman Geving: So you don't anticipate any probls~ns having two h~mes connected to a singular sewer hook-up or to a water hook-up with a "Y" situation? Larry Brown: Not with a "Y" situation, no. Councilman Geving: I would like to have that read into the record because I just want to make sure that that doesn't happen. Have a detrimental affect somewhere down the road. I believe that the conditions that we've posed and forced on the developer have been met. I too would listen to the neighbors and if it becomes a condition of approval, I would put in that there be no spec hc~es built. They would have to be sold before they can be built. We don't really have any control over a lot of this. I don't even know if we can control that could we Roger? Could we make that kind of a condition? Roger Knutson: I don't really think you can. Councilman Geving: I don't believe so either. It's a nice gesture on your part and I believe w~'d want to accept that as a condition but I'm quite positive that we couldn't follow through on that. I thank you for the suggestion. I have no further comments. Councilman Boyt: I'm in sympathy with the surrounding neighbors. I think t_hat this plan is an improvement over what you brought in the first time. It deals with my concern about traffic. I think that you can put in your Covenants that something be sold and the plans be approved before you actually close the sale on the land. I appreciate your willingness to do that. I think you should. I'm bothered by a 162 foot driveway. I think whoever goes into that piece of property is going to have a challenege in front of them. Tney're going to have Minnewashta Parkway, which may front their house and they're going to have 162 feet of driveway to deal with in the wintertime. I don't think that's going to be the first lot that sells. Now, how do we get out of this dilemma because unfortunately, and I do think it's unfortunate, the city ordinances allow 15,000 square foot lots regardless of what's surrounding th~ but I think the Council has in the past d~monstrated an ability to work with the developer to minimize the impact on surrounding hc~es. What I would suggest is that we put in as another condition, that this developer develop a berming, screening combination that will shield the hemes that are on the property lines. I think that landscaping certainly improves the value of a lot and in this particular case, it's needed so the people adjoinging have a minmized impact. Whereas we can't require that you have the hcmes c~mitted to before you sell the property, I would certainly appreciate your putting that in a Covenant and I would propose that whatever motion we recommend here, include that they come back with a landscaping plan that will serve to screen this development frc~ it's neighbors. Mayor Hamilton: I guess am pretty much in concurrence. I think it's unfortunate when you have smaller lots in an area of larger homes. The only mitigating thing there is that the people who are living there now, the 12 City Council Meeting - April 11~ 1988 Heatheringtons and others could have bought this property, I suppose to keep it at the larger lots, but the developer does meet the ordinance requir~nents. We do allow 15,000 square foot lots. That's the way the ordinance reads. I don't particularly like the flag lot. It is a long driveway. I don't have the same concern as Bill about the winter because whoever buys it is going to know that and it's up to them to clear it. The screening, the only c~m~_nt I would make on that is, I don't think it's a bad idea except gemerally speaking it's going to be, the back of these houses are going to be on the back of the other homes. I think the other homes on the lake face the lake so you've got back to back. I'm not sure how often you look out the backdoor at what your neighbors house looks like. You have backyard to backyard affect rather tlman if you're looking at the front, then I could be more concerned about that except perhaps in the south side. I guess it would depend on how the property lays out and whether they're looking at their neighbors. Other than that I don't have any problem with it only because it _n~cts the ordinance requirements. Councilman Johnson: Also, it's uphill. This property is uphill fr~n the property to the east of it. It would be real tough berm and shield the downhill edge of a hill without massive regrading. I don't think it can be done. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps that's s~net/~ing we could leave up to staff to look at. Councilman Boyt: Larry, have we seen their grading plan? Larry Brown: Not as of yet, no. One of my first conditions was corrective grading to improve the sight distance. Councilman Boyt: That's the sight distance is a traffic problem rather than a screening problem. What I hear the neighbors saying to me is that they don't want this. If they're going to have to have it, I think we need to do what we can do to separate it. These lots are close to Lake Minnewashta. That's certainly going to make ~ valuable lots but I think w~ can set the~ apart a bit at really not a tr~nendous amount of expense. I would like to see ~ develop a landscaping plan that moves to do that. I think we've done that in other areas where w~'ve had develol=nents impacting on near-by homeowners and it's reasonable to do it here. Mayor Hamilton: Again, I guess I don't disagree with you but Jay's ~t certainly needs to be listened to if you're trying to screen up the hill, it's kind of hard to do so if that's something you want in there. I guess what I was att~npting to say earlier was that should be left up to staff to investigate and if they feel that a landscaping plan is in order that would in fact improve the situation, the views and whatever, then that ought to be done. But if in fact you are going up the hill, if you bern it and landscape it, you're not going to a~lish much is my only thought. Councilman Geving: The only difference though T~n, even though there's about a 12 to 14 foot difference between Lot 2 and the lot to the east, there could be some landscaping whereby they might plant some fairly good sized pines or some kind of tree and at least block the view or diffuse the view because that's quite a high incline here. 13 City Council .Meeting - April 11~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: If you planted American Pines they get to be 70 feet tall. Councilman Geving: I would think we could make that a provision. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd like to have staff look at it and see what they think if that would satisfy your needs. They could come back to us with the plan. Councilman Boyt: It would satisfy me as long as, if they couldn't work it out, if this could not be resolved, then I think it should come back to us but if it can be resolved between staff, the developer and the neighbors, I think it should. Councilman Johnson: Do we have to see a grading plan? Do grading plans have to be approved by us? On other places we've approved grading. Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Councilman Johnson: So we could just have that landscaping, if feasible, will be reviewed by staff and sukmitted with the grading and the constructions plans for the cul-de-sac. Something of that nature. Roger Knutson: The final plat also comes back to you so you get the packet again before anything is built. Councilman Johnson: We don't know how far down the cul-de-sac's going to go or anything. We don't know if there's going to be massive grading on the site or anything at this point. Generally this is information that should have come to us with the preliminary plat, now that I think about it. The applicant is slightly deficient. Mayor Hamilton: Condition 8 states very clearly that grading, drainage and erosion control plan for each lot will be required as a part of the building permit application process so that's something that needs to be sukmitted and if you wish to see it, we'll see it then. Ellie Schwaba: You had mentioned that you would like it to be a condition that we were in agreement with the staff and neighbors .... I don't think we' 11 ever that the approval of the neighbors... Councilman Boyt: The neighbors, unfortunately I think, are having to come to grips with it. There are going to be lots here. Given that reality, I think what I'm trying to do is give them the flexibility to screen as much as is reasonable to screen. That's why we' re putting staff in here as sort of the negotiator, the mediator. I don't expect either side to be unreasonable but I expect an every good faith effort to be made. Roger Knutson: So we're clear. Tne City Council is not saying this is subject to neighborhood approval. All they're saying is, we are asking staff to get input from the neighborhood and try to work something out. Ultimately whether it's worked out or not, it comes back to this body and this body makes the decision. Not the neighborhood. Not you. ~ais body. 14 City Council Meeting - April 11~ 1988 Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve ~ revise~ preliminary plat stamped "Received April 4, 1988" for the Schwaba/Winchell subdivision subject to the following cor~itions: 1. The accessory building on Lot 3 should be 'removed. 2. The nine conditions rec(mmended in the Engineering me~orandun dated April 7, 1988 and January 14, 1988. 3. Landscaping feasibility plans be worked out by the staff and if possible be returned to the City Council with the final plat· . All voted in favor and motion carried. LAKE ANN PARK FEE SCHEDULE. Lori Siets~na: Council tabled this item at the last meeting and indicated that consideration should be given to eliminate the parking fee at Lake Ann. ·..elimination of the fees we have on the budget, the fee flucuates from year to year and maintenance costs are difficult to extract from one park. You can see in the memo that the staff report, I pulled out some of the more obvious maintenance costs that Lake Ann incurs and they ccme to, which includes the beach program, satellites, gate attendants, Lake Ann stickers and ballfield lights. It comes to roughly $2M,MM0.MM. The revenue generated last year was around $17,M00.~0 which is coming pretty close to covering those costs. Staff is recxmmmending that the parking fee gradually be decreased starting with the 1989 budget. Preparing for that in the 1989 budget which... Mayor Hamilton: I think that's basically what we had discussed. Ail of us I believe we were in agreement that we'd like to see, certainly the residential park sticker fee be reduced to zero or scmething that's less than what it is today but that to begin with next year's budgetary process would be appropriate. Am I speakirg correctly for everyone? Councilman Geving: You bet. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see it start this year if we could. It won't be that big of an impact. Councilman Geving: We've already got the stickers made up and we're ready to start the season. Councilman Johnson: But there's no price on the sticker. Councilman Geving: No but I think the budgeted itsms have ~ set. Councilman Johnson: I don't ~nt to go to zero this year. Just cut a buck off of each· Councilman Geving: I read the cc~xnents from the Park and Bec and I think it's appropriate to scale this down over the next several years. Next year at budget time we'll lop off accordingly and in a couple years we'll be back exactly where we wanted to be. I'm satisfied with it. 15- 148 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I agree with the basic intent. I have a question. Somewhere in here I remember reading something about non-resident fees were in some way tied to resident fees? What's the relationship there? Lori Sietsema: Because it was a LA~20N funded park, the non-resident fee can not be more than double the resident fee. So if w~ lower the resident fee to $3.00, the non-resident fee can not be more than $6.00. If you eliminate the resident fee altogether, you have to eliminate the non-resident fee as wel'l. Councilman Boyt: I agree with what I read in the Park and Rec Minutes and I r~r Tom making the point last time we discussed this, we certainly ~ant this park accessible to our residents. What we're saying here is if we reduce this, where are we going to come up with the $17,000.00 we do not now have. don't know where we're going to find it but I think this is a case in which we r~cd to continue to charge some sort of a fee to in some way reflect the costs of operating this park. We have a number of parks in this conmunity that have no charge to resident or non-resident. This happens to be the one diamond park we have and we charge a very ~all fee to use it. I think if there's any reduction made in the fees, it should come from the Park and Rec Commission. They should investigate this and they as a group should make a recommendation to the City Council. Sue Boyt: We did. Councilman Geving: I thought that's what I read. Councilman Boyt: As I saw their recommendation, correct me if I read this improperly, they recoa~ended what we have in front of us which is the fees for 1988 be the same as the fees for 1987. Lori Siets~n~a: Tnat's correct. They discussed whether it should be eliminated or not eliminated and there was a split decision. There were people on the commission that thought we should eliminate it all together but the majority voted that it should r/m~ain the same. Councilman Boyt: And that's why I think this is a decision that should go back. I think we should leave it the way it is for this year. I think we're all in agreement. Let's leave it the way it is for this year. I'm simply saying that as far as direction to the Park and Rec, I would like to see the direction read, go back and look at this issue and then they decide, if there is good justification to reduce it, then come back with that recon~endation but I don't ~ant that recommendation coming fram another group. Sue Boyt: We spent two meetings on this item. The second meeting we had more information than the first meeting and the majority of the Park and Bec Conmission voted to maintain the fee schedule. Mayor Hamilton: May I make a suggestion then. I've been thinking about this and because it's LA, EON grant driven, I think what other towns do is they'll charge a fee because there's lake useage. Now why couldn't we move our little 'ticket house back to some point where if you're going to use the picnic area and the lake with your boat or whatever, there would be a fee for that. Ballparks and tennis, the areas other than the water don't require a sticker. 16 City Council Meeting - April 11~ 1988 That's just an idea because I think other cities do that. For instance, Bound Lake, I think you need to have a sticker to get into the lake area in ~den Prairie but you can go over there and play ball. You can run around the park. You can play tennis. You can do pretty near anythirg you want to. You don't have to have a sticker for it. Lori Sietsema: As long as we charge a uniform charge. If we're not charging too much for the non-resident. They don't really care. They would just as soon see us eliminate the fee too. Mayor Hamilton: We may ~ to make some adjustments to our parking and I think that is perhaps scmethirg that the Park and Bec would want to look at ar~ look at this idea and see if it has any merit. I don't know, maybe it's a idea. Councilman Geving: I like your idea T~m because is what's driving the ~ahole thin~ is the ~ grant. That's what's drivirg the fact that if we collect a fee, it can' t be more tlman twice as much as our regular fee. I personally think that the park should be free and available to anybody who wants to use it. I don't care if they're fr~m f~en Prairie or Chaska because our kids play in Chaska and ~den Prairie ar~ they take their ballteams over there. It bugs me that when people c~me to Chanhassen they have to go through the gate and be charged. I kind of like T~'s idea of moving the gate back, let Park and Rec work this out but move it back and then charge just for the lake access. Lori Siets~sa: I know that ~ON will not allow us to charge just for the boat access. That definitely will not fly but if we're charging for the ~hole park and the access happens to be in it but if you include the beach in that, that's s~mething I'd have to check into. Councilman Boyt: I think in reality we can't charge sce~=or~ to launch a boat at that park. Mayor Hamilton: We're not. Councilman Boyt: I think going along with ~hat you gentlemen have said, we should advertise that anyone can launc~ their boat free. Lori Sietsema: We can charge at the boat access. We can charge to launch the boat. It can't be more for anybody. It has to be a uniform fee so if someone c(m~=s in and wants to launch their boat and they're a non-resident and all they want to do is launch their boat, t~ can get a season ticket that's $5.~0 just like the resident fee, that they just are launching their boat. Mayor Hamilton: We're not telling them we're charging then to laur~.h their boat. It's a parking fee. Lori Sietsema: We can charge to launch the boat as long as it's not more what we charge tt~ non-resident. Mayor Hamilton: What I'm saying is, we're not telling them we're charging anything to launch their boat. It's a parking fee. You can come in here and all we're charging you for is to park your car and trailer. It costs you nothing additional to put your boat in the water. It w~uld sea~ to me that 17 City Council Meeting - April 11~ 1988 might solve the issue. We need to pay for the upkeep of the parking lot, consequently we charge for people who park there. Councilman Johnson: What about the people who drop their boat off and go h~me with it? Mayor Hamilton: I'm just trying to look for a way we can resolve this and still bring in some funds. Since the beach and picnic area is the most heavily used, and since that's where ~ spend most of our maintenance dollars and clean-up, with lifeguards and all the other things, it seems like that's where we should try to recover s~ne portion of what our costs are and not from the tennis players. Councilman Johnson: Like ~ said earlier, approve it for this year and then ask Park and Rec, as Council direction that we w~uld like to see the fees reduced or eliminated. In the overall city budget, $17,000.00 to' $20,000.00 is a fairly amount of the overall city budget. Mayor Hamilton: It was my idea to lower it and I still think it's a good idea. I don't have a problem with continuing on as we are this year. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to continue with the fee schedule that's been established for 1988 for Lake Ann Park by the Park and Recreation Commission. That the Park and Recreation ~ission review this item early in the year (i.e. January), to take a look at s~me of the ideas that have been suggested for alternative methods of charging fees at Lake Ann Park for 1989. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would like the Park and Rec people to receive this portion of our verbatim Minutes. It would be my position that if they propose reducing the fees, that they also look at where we're going to find the money to pay for the expenses of operating this park. EVALUATION OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD, LOWELL CARLSON. Barbara Dacy: I scheduled this item for Council consideration tonight for tw~ options. Either one, the Council can go along with the Planning Commission's recommendation that was decided at their meeting on February 17, 1988 or to table this it~n again to allow the applicant to prepare another plan. I was concerned that if plans didn't get submitted, that this item might be further postponed and this item has bcc~n up in the air for the last 2 1/2 to 3 years. The applicant did sukmit this morning a proposed site plan locating the building on the lot. I know the Council does not like surprises and I'm going to com~it a cardinal sin by handing out a site plan the night of the meeting but I just wanted to pass that out. The two options for the Council, either you can table the item again or if you want to go ahead and proceed with ratification of the conditional use permit. Mayor Hamilton: I think before you pass those out, I would rather ask the Council, and it's my feeling that I would rather see this put on at least our next agenda so ~ would have an opportunity to review his plans and perhaps to 18 ..- City Council Meeting - April 11 ~ 1988 talk to Mr. Carlson prior to that meeting rather than sitting here and trying to go through his plan and struggle with it right now. It's not going to hurt anything, as I see it, to table it and I would like to have an opportunity to look at the plan in some detail rather than to talk to Mr. Carlson about it. Rather than sit here this evening and I know the place is a mess. I probably dislike it more than you do but at the same time w~ need to be reasonable. Councilman Boyt: The plan looks very, very simple. Mayor Hamilton: If you've had an opportunity to review the plan them you're ahead of the rest of us. Councilman Boyt: Amd that's why I'm saying to you, it amounts to a few boxes on a piece of paper. It's that simple. I think that we have the Planning Ccmmission making a very strong recommendation and all but one support it. I don't k~pw that there's a lot to be gained by delayirg this. T~ weeks is not a big deal. Mayor Hamilton: Anytime I'm dealing with a persdn's livelihood and we're asking to discontinue a conditional use ar~ put him out of business t~x)rarily with that, I want to be very careful about that. ~hether it's a good business or a bad, that's not the issue. It's just you're still talking about a person' s livel ihood. Councilman Boyt: We're not putting him out of business. We're simply saying that the expansion of his business may be inappropriate. I think that we have seen a general disregard for the interest of the City here and that it's fairly important that we put an end to that. Mayor Hamilton: I agree with that. Along with that I would like to see us put a deadline on this. I don't believe we have in tt~ past, any specific date that says either you have to conform or c~me up with a reasonable plan by a certain date but if you think this plan is so easy to look at, if you think it w~uld just take us a matter of seconds to look at. Councilman Boyt: Ask Barbara. Barbara Dacy: The best way to show you is to hand out the plan. It merely sho~ where the proposed building is going. Mayor Hamilton: I guess the c(mment I'd make right off you don't know where the hell anything is. Barbara Dacy: King Road is located along the bottom of the property. ~ne east property line is on your left har~ side. The building is approximatley 12,~M0 square feet in size. 27 feet in height and it's a metal polebarn construction. Councilman Geving: This building in the middle here, is that what we're looking at? Councilman Boyt: No. We're looking at this building. Mayor Hamilton: Another thing, it is a simple plan but I don't see anything with this to tell us how it's going to be cleaned up what's there and I'm 19 150 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 really looking for that. Mr. Carlson, did you want to make a comment? Lowell Carlson: We've got another full plan that follows there. ~ne storage area is going to be taken out... Wayne McCorney: Everything is going to be stored inside. Everything that's on this site will be inside. Mayor Hamilton: That's got to be an awfully big building. Are you going to pile it to the ceiling? Wayne McCorney: It' s 26 foot. Mayor Hamilton: ~nere's enough junk up there to fill up a couple sheds. Wayne McCorney: He might throw a few away ...but other than incidental vehicles outside, everything will be stored inside. You've got to realize that a lot of that junk, that you consider junk, is in fact the building. We're just going to clean up a lot. ~nen there are like 25 vehicles, this is a pretty good size building, they'll fit in nicely. His entire operation will fit in nicely. It's going to be cleaned up and it's going to look like the other pole buildings, indoor arenas and horse buildings around there. It's going to be no different. We have agreed also with the Planning CC~mission, we told th~m you name the color if you like and we'll put your color on. If sc~aebody wants it to match their eyes, we'll do it. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that's very important. Lowell Carlson: See, you might say okay, the stuff is there. The only way some of those vans, there's storage in there. You can look or do whatever you want to do. I've got noplace to go with that... I can't throw the stuff outside. It's stuff we use on jobs. Steamers, hauling materials and whatever. Campers, compactors, everything we' re using except our...but there' s wood out there and stuff, I've got to agree with you. But the problem is, where do I go with it? If I get rid of the van and that, throw the stuff out in the yard, what's going to store it to keep it dry. I don't have another choice .... then I can get rid of the vehicles. The vehicles, that's no problem but you can't just do it without a building to some of it in. Mayor Hamilton: I think we understand that. Councilman Boyt: Having read through the rather thorough discussion of the Planning Cc~mission, it would seem to me that what we're looking at here is a business that's expanded. It would se~n to me that we're looking at a business that's out of character with the neighborhood. I recognize and I agree with you that this is a bit of a dilemma when you have some valuable materials and you've got to store them where you can maintain them but for the Council to agree to put up a 12,000 square foot building, 27 feet high, se~mlS to me to be dramatic at least. If we're going to pursue this, there's a couple things I'd like to see done. First one is, I would like to see this go back to the Planning Con%~ission. I'd like to see the neighbors notified that this is going to be proposed. The other thing I'd like to see a good faith effort. I want everything cleaned up that isn't currently stored in something. I think on your part you're saying I want to move in the 20 City Council Meeting - April 11~ 1988 27J right direction because you're asking the City to approve an expansion ts your business. I'm not comfortable that we can do that. Councilman Geving: I unders~ a little bit about where you're c~ming fram. I don't know if you've expanded since 1972 or not. All I know is it's a real mess out there. I get the impression in the discussions that you had with our staff, that you are makita3 an att~. You are trying. The mere fact that you're here tonight with your Attorney is an indication to me that you do have good faith and that you're making an att~ to show it. I have to agree however that we're looking at a plan for the very first time. The Planning C~m~ission has not seen this plan. It would he unfair for th~ to have us approve something tonight that they have not seen. I also read in my notes that you are lookirg at the possibility of a 2,000 square foot building rather than this 12,000 square foot building so that's what I was kind of looking for tonight because the notes appear to me, it says Mr. Carlson appears to be willing to construct a 2,000 square foot building initially. I don't know where that note came from. Then secondly, there was a request scmewhere down the line for a waiver of the permit fees. ~nere would be no way that I could see that happenirg and I don't think this Council w~uld allow that to happen so we can forget about that. I don't think it would be proper for us to act on this tonight other than to tell you that we appreciate your good faith Mr. Carlson and your attempt to clean up that area. Councilman Johnson: I get to looking at this upside down drawing here with the south property line on the top and everything and as I understand it you've got a 30 foot, no I guess it would only be a 10 foot sideyard setback here but there's a house right next door there if I remember the property right that you're putting up a big building that's basically going to block all their sunlight in the evening, 27 foot tall. It's a beck of a building. I'd like to see a lot more information in here. What's going to be utilized in the building? What's the layout? What's the exterior like? Can it be moved further frc~ the property line so you're not squished up against your neighbor like that? He's pretty close to his property line there fr~m looking at the edge of the junk piles near his house. I see that there's a lot more information here to show us that this building is actually going to clean up the situation in hand. A layout showing that the trucks are going to sit and here's how the trucks are going to be. We're going to have spccd racks here for puttirg in plumbing parts or what. All I see is some amateurish sketches, lines drawn on a piece of blueprint paper. I think this is a ~ay to clean it up. I'd like to see landscaping also to hide this buildirg a little bit. Some trees and shrubs and whatever. It doesn't ~ to be 27 foot tall. How big is the biggest truck coming in and everything? This is a residential family area as far as the zoning. I have a real probl.cm with putting this big of a structure in this type of zoning area. When we redid the zoning, it was a time to protest the zoning but I've got to see a lot more information about what this is goirg to look like. Mayor Hamilton: There's a building, it appears to be 'similar to the size just to the north of Mr. Carlson's property. Are you familiar with that building? What size that is? Barbara Dacy: Isn't that Headla's building? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, how big is that? 21 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 Lowell Carlson: I think that's 60 by 150 or something like that~ Mayor Hamilton: It's not 27 feet high. Lowell Carlson: He's got three of them. He's got a riding stable ar~ two other big. Mayor Hamilton: They're quite a ways back, they're further back than yours I think. The one that stands out is certainly the one just to the north of yours. I don't think that's 27 feet tall. I'm not too good at heights but... Wayne McCorney: It's a little bit different than his. He's got 14 foot sidewalls and there's a peak in our sidewalls. It's a round roof so the total to the peak would be about the same size. · Mayor Hamilton: I think it's not out of character for the area and if it would help clean up the mess that's there, I would certainly be in favor of it but I agree with Dale, it should go back to the Planning Cc~mission for their review and comment of this plan and along with looking at the plan, whatever you need to go with it to show us how you're going to clean up and I think the Planning Commission should at least discuss some deadlines. They'll say it's got to be done by and put Mr. Carlson on a schedule so we're not sitting here a year from now still messing around with this thing. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see if it's possible to move this back into the property further away from the road, berming between it and the road and shrubery and stuff to somewhat hide the building more than have it sitting basically as close to the road as my house is in my little subdivision. 30 foot from the road is not very far at all. Just sc~e suggestions that might help the overall affect. Mayor Hamilton: Hopefully that will come up in the discussion at the Planning Cc~mission. If not, you can throw that out. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table evaluation of the building permit application to determine ~liance with Conditional Use Permit for a contractor's yard for Lowell Carlson and return it to the Planning Commission for review. All voted in favor and motion carried. Lowell Carlson: If you use that top line for the road, as far as setback, my property line goes clear over to the last lane and then down below the hill, the whole road is like on my property or whatever. ~hat's the way it's laid out so when you're saying 30 feet back from the edge of the road, you still got another 15 or 18 feet or whatever and whatever happens to that when you change the road I don't know. Will they move the road over or stay there or whatever? Councilman Johnson: I'm trying to get that thing as far away from the road where it's the least impact from the road for the people driving by as possible. Mayor Hamilton: He's the last guy on the road. 22 City Council Meeting - April 11~ 1988 CouDcilman Johnson: ~ road goes all the w~y around and there are some houses behind you there. Lo~ll Carlson: Yes but when you get down to the bottom, the ~ahole road is on my ~roperty. That's not a question I wanted to ask. Councilman Johnson: So it's a private road? , Lowell Carlson: Yes, it was put in there years ago. . Couhcilman Johnson: The road's not even shown on the drawing so w~ have no idea of that. Lowell Carlson: It don't show the lot line but on the bottom it's the road. Walale ~-Co~y: It's ~ plowed. The City's ~ takirg care of it for yeaks. It ' s a public road. Councilman Geving: I think ~ahat we're trying to say here Mr. Carlson is... this building to the west and to the south. Mayor Hamilton: Let's let the Planning fkm~ission do that. · Lowell Carlson: See, this is wha~ I was saying. This stuff w~uld be gone and this stuff would be gone... Like you said, show the clean-up. Mayor Hamilton: I think you have to c~me up with a plan. Lowell Carlson: Where can I show that? Councilman Johnson: Are you going to have concrete floors? What are you going to have inside the building? Draw little cars inside there. Trucks inside there. Racks inside there. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we care what's inside that building. We care what's outside right now and where that's going. Lowell Carlson: The Planning Cc~nission they ~mnted a fire, now you build a building and I give them their color and a nice building and now they want to put up a berm and cover the building up. ~f~at's pretty impossible to do because I 'm on the south side of the road and the wind blo~ ar~ covers the building with snow in the wintertime. I don't know about some of these things. Councilman Boyt: I think in terms of good faith, it's important that you start making progress on cleaning up before, you get your building built. You can do that and that to me would demonstrate your intent to take care of this probl~. Lowell Carlson: Okay. I would love to take anyone of you out there. Ail the stuff's that put on pallets, we stacked it ar~ we spent all this rammer putting the stuff on pallets. I pick it up with a forklift. We got rid of a lot of stuff. There's still sc~e there. I'm not done ar~ Barb ar~ Jo Ann, they cc~e over before I torn that building down and checked it as far as the type of building and that... 23 ":' City Council M~eting - April 11; 1988 MERLE VOLK LAND EXCHANGE, CITY OF CHASKA/CITY OF CHANHASSEN REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: I am asking that the Council reconsider this and I'm doing it on the basis that as I see this item progressing, I truly believe that we're creating a lose-lose situation for both the City of Chaska and the City of Chanhassen. The property under question is an integral part of their planning process for their industrial park. Without the ability to include the Merle Volk property as a part of those plans, they are significantly hindered in their ability to develop that overall business park. They have approached the City asking us to consider again, some form of a lar~ swap or whatever else it would take to allow them to develop that property. Without our approval, I think that we really leave them with no choice but to try to approach the municipal commission presenting their position regarding why this property should be annexed to Chaska. If that does occur, I think that they have a reasonable position in that presentation and I do not w~nt to create a situation again where the City of Chanhassen potentially gets into a lose position without at least trying every other solution. From Chanhassen's perspective, and I know there are a number of different opinions on City Council as to what it is that we should receive as a part of this land swap. The only thing I can state is that as the property currently sits, it can not be developed. Metro Council has stated that we can not develop that property. We can not see sanitary sewer to it. It will really never have sewer or water. It will never be in a position of being able to be developed industrially or c(x~ercially. The value of the property is $2,500.00 to $2,800.00 per acre. The lands proposed by Chaska as part of the trade are $2,500.00 to $2,800.00 per acre land. We have one additional issue and that revolves around an existing businessman, Gedney, who does need to take the work through, how to provide fire services to his facility. Without question I can approach the City of Chaska and ask that that be handled totally separate from this issue. However, City of Chaska is aware of the fact that we have looked to the potential swap of the 18 acres associated with Gedney's future expansion and quite frankly I think they see this whole issue as being one of reasonable. For them to act, we ask, very quickly saying we're going to treat Gedney's issue totally separate is probably not very realistic. Again, I think that they will but if we look at the broader perspective, one of trying to develop a win-win situation for both ccmm~nities, I think that the land swap really makes sense. ~ne fourth and final issue that I present is one that not every situation has to be one in which you cc~e out with everyone cc~ing out exactly the same at one point in time. We recently approved the substation for NSP. That facility will pay taxes in excess of $100,000.00 per year. That facility could just have easily gone onto the Chaska side of the border as the Chanhassen. Since Chaska will be paying about 50% of the taxes from that facility, there was a great deal of apprehension by them in terms of again, potentially paying taxes and those dollars flowing back to Chanhassen. Yet we reasonably looked at the situation in terms of where the best location for the substation should reasonably be, approved this Chanhassen site and Chaska went along with that proposal. If we were truly looking at it in terms of a win-win or everyone gets exactly the same type of thing, I don't think that Chaska would have agreed to that position at that point in time. Those are basically the positions that I'm asking reconsideration on. I think that again, without looking to some form of reconsideration, we will have created a lose-lose situation for both ~nities and I don't think that is going to be something that's health for either one of us in years ahead. 24 Cit~ Council Meeting - April 11~ 1988 i51 May$r Hamilton: Since I was the only minority vote and the one that has to mov.-~ for reconsideration, is that correct? Don Ashworth: It has to be a m~nber of the prevailing side and the prevailing sic% was that the item not be considered so it would have to be one of the otl~ .~r ms~bers. Ma~ )r Hamilton: Do you wish to make such a motion Jay to reconsider? Co~'~ilman Johnson: What we asked the~ to do was ccme back with a better swap. Maypr Hamilton: I'm asking you if you'd like to make a motion to reconsider. Cou$cilman Johnson: No, I'd like staff to do what we asked ~ to do. I've gotI scme suggestions. MayOr Hamilton: Dale, will you make a motion to reconsider? Councilman Geving: No. Mayor Hamilton: Bill? Councilman Boyt: I will. It even surprises me. I think to get to ~ahere you want to go Jay, reconsidering it may be the best way to get there. I would lik~ to ~_-~c us discuss it. We can always discuss it and vote down that reconsideration. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to reconsider the request for the'. Merle Volk Land Exchange with the City of Chaska and City of Chanhassen. councilman Boyt and Mayor Hamilton voted in favor, councilman Geving amd councilman Johnson voted in opposition to the motion and the motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2. councilman Boyt: Actually I was hoping we might discuss this motion because I think there's a point that we didn't discuss the first time and I'd like to run that by Jay and Dale to see if it's convincing. Jay, I agree with you. ~hat I thought we did the last time was sent it back saying continue to talk. I didn't sense that we said we didn't %~nt to work this out. We simply said that that didn't se~m to be an equitable arrangement. I think Mr. Ashworth has done a n~ce job of pointing out to us that there are s(x~e considerations here that weigh in this. As I explained to Mr. Ashworth earlier this afternoon, I think that for me, we simply are not receiving something of equal value. I know that this is a subjective sort of situation and D~n proposed that there might be ano.ther alternative here. T~at we could turn this into a win-win, which I think currently stands at a win-lose. I don't think it's necessarily a lose-lose yet, although it could become that. Tmere is the possibility of generating s~me tax dollars that Chaska and Chanhassen could use together. Do~, do you remsmber that discussion? Would you briefly review that for the rest of the Council? DO~ Ashworth: The reason I didn't go into it longer in my opening was because I think it could take a long period of time to develop. The entire tax 25 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 increment law and especially as it applies back over to school districts establishes a situation where, let's assume that the 7 mil levy is approved by the school district. As those 7 mils are applied back over to tax increment districts, it actually creates a windfall situation for those districts in that to insure that property taxes are equal on one side of the district line versus another and we don't have a good example of that here but there are co~unities where businesses on one side of the line are paying taxes ar~ you have buildings of equal value on the other side that are within a tax increment district. The way that's taxed then is they calculate the amount of taxes that are necessary for school, county, etc. and they totally eliminate the value associated within the tax increment district. So let's assume that mils were 125 mils, it goes up 7 mils to 132. That 132 mils then is what then w~uld be applied over within the tax incroment district. In other words, you then have created a situation where the district would be generating, let's say 7% additional taxes. The suggestion that I had earlier discussed with Chaska and they have not explored it with their Council, but let's assume that the vote was favorable as a part of the school district, if that were approved, each of the two districts, both Chanhassen's and Chaska's would stand to gain a windfall over where they currently are with tax incroment of generally 7%. That is an amount of money betw.=en the two districts to fund a number of different proposals one of which might be an ice arena. My suggestion was that might be considered on lands currently owned by the school district in Ch~s~. Bill's point was that since there's a very favorable position being offered to Chaska as a part of the Volk property, that potentially Chaska would join us in seeing these combined dollars to build an ice facility in Chanhassen that would be a joint or would be a school district type of a facility. Again, I've received support from Chaska in that area recognizing that it has not gone back to their Council. The consideration as to where it might be built has not been really discussed. Councilman Boyt felt that for him to be able to vote for this type of proposal that he would have to see something to be of more equal values and that potentially this type of solution might do that. Is that correct? Councilman Boyt: What I'm proposing is that I think we generate in this situation, the opportunity to raise some money that the two co~m]nities could jointly agree would be spent to build a facility in Chanhassen that would serve' the area. I think we all like what Tom said last time we discussed this, that this certainly helps the County and School District by making this property more valuable. I happen to think that we have a better negotiation position than Don thinks we have and I think this position could lead us to the gaining of some tax dollars that we could spend to benefit the whole area. That's why I would like to see staff take that idea back to Chaska and do what they can with it. Councilman Johnson: That's what ~ asked for last time. If we reconsider this, that doesn't get that. Mayor Hamilton: It's a vehicle to accomplish that. It's very clear and Bill's idea was correct. Do you wish to make a comment Dale? Councilman Geving: Sure, I've been waiting anxiously. I think it's totally inappropriate for the City Manager of our city to make a proposal such as the one being made here tonight. He has taken a position in favor of the applicant whom we've not seen on at least two occasions. He's not here tonight. He's 26 City Council Meeting - April 11~ 1988 th~ one who originally proposed this land swap. -Where is he? Where is the la~d developer who wants to move into the direction of Chaska and w~ have a city manager who's willing to sell us out. In my opinion, it's very inappropriate of Don, for you to come before the Council and take that po~ition. We have not had this in the past. ~hen an applicant cc~es before ~ Council we react accordingly. We have not done that in this case. I, for one, voted to give staff the direction to go back and I believe we asked for ~ things. I' 11 read the~ to you. That we wanted a fair exchange in tenns o.f ifunding an equal value piece of property. Secondly, we wanted an equal sl~e and access as the Volk property. T~.irdly, we wanted a piece of property not on the floodplains but somewhere north of Pior._~_~r Trail. Those w~re the th~ conditions that I remember on the night of March 14th when we directed st~ff to go back and do that. Now tonight, with the reconsideration in our har~s, what are we reconsidering? The same thing that we talked about on March 14~h. Nothing has changed. Usually for a reconsideration there has to be a change. There has to be a reaso~ to reconsider it. I thought we gave staff ve~ good directions. I don't believe that ~as taken. I don't b~.lieve that what they're att~npting to do, the City of Chaska is not giving us fair and equal value in the proposal that I have before me because there's nothing changed. The land that they're proposing south of the Arboretum is worthless land to us. We could never develop that. That acreage means nothing to us. In ifact it will probably be bought and added to ~ Arboretu~ and be tax free. There's no value there. Then again, why should we want land that's in the floodplains next to Gedney's? I see no value in that. That to me is not a fair and equal exchange that we asked for on March 14th. I don't believe, again, that I'm willing to give up one ir~/~ of Chanhasse~ territory without juSt and due compensation in like quantity and in like value from the City of Chaska. To think that you' re so naive to think that the City of Chaska is wiiling to pay for and fur~ an ice arena through Chaska and Chanhassen to be located in Chanhassen, and I ' ve ~ arour~ here 22 years, I don' t think that' s going to happen people. I really don't. I believe that there is a potential here for bringing something back to the City of Chaska for consideration but on!.y under the conditio~m that we originally proposed to staff. Give us scme. thing of equal value. Give us something north of Pio ~cr Trail that we can develop and give us s(~ething of equal size. In terms of what has been Presented tonight, that a municipal community can make this decision if (~aska wants to proceed with it, if t~ want to proceed along those lines, let the court decide. If they really want to go that far, let the court decide. I think we've got a very good defense ar~ that is that we want something of equal vaIue. As I read this anlysis from"Don, I couldn't believe what I was reading. I Still believed Don worked for the City of Chanhasse~. I still believe that he .gets paid by the City of Chanhassen and to take up the standard for a de~eloper who isn't even present, I don't think should ever be allowed. ~cially when we directed staff to come before us and make a presentation and to meet with Chaska and make another proposal and cc~e back to us again. You didn't do that. Staff did not do that. I can't vote for a reconsideration. I wa~t to consider only what we talked about before. Nothing has changed. Take our original proposal, ~t with Chaska ar~ talk about s(mle alternatives. I've got sc~e alternatives. I've got three or four pieces of land that I think are app. licable. They are very nicely located to areas that we can develop and I'll show then to you on the map if you'd like but what bothers me is that we were able to meet here tonight and ask for a reconsideration on something that the applicant probably doesn't even know anything about. We're making the proposal and that's very unusual. The fact of the matter if, I know of very few 27 City Oouncil M~eting - April 11, 1988 instances when staff or the manager has ever made a proposal such as this one tonight for reconsideration. It normally comes through the normal process fr~m a developer or someone who is making application for a change. So again, I think this is totally wrong for us to take this approach. I think Bill, you may have gotten an idea that has merit and going back to the Chaska people and asking what they can do to make us an equitable swap but I don't believe we've done that. My view is that the March 14th recon~nendation to the staff stands and reconsideration in my view should not be considered. We just have not met what we think is an equitable and fair exchange. Mayor Hamilton: Do you have anything addition? You've stated it three times. Councilman Geving: I've stated it three times because I really am concerned. I have nothing more to consider. Mayor Hamilton: I have a couple of co~nents. I guess I'm absolutely appalled by Councilman Geving's co~nents about the City Manager. I think we need to take our blinders off sometimes and to realize that what we need to consider are those things that are best for the entire area. Just because sumeone doesn't happen to like the applicant, who in this case is the City of Chaska, I don't think it's right to condemn the City Manager, the rest of the Council, anybody else who happens to get in the way. We have an obligation to the residents of this city, to the county, to the school district to do the very best we can to generate funds for the whole area and to attract business out here. If deannexing a part of Chanhassen into Chaska so it can develop industrially and bring out more strong industrial users to this area, which will also create residents for our comm]nity as well as for Chaska and Victoria and other parts of the County, then I think we need to give that absolutely every possible chance to pass that we can. We don't just throw it out because of our own selfish ideas and whims. As far as a fair exchange, what's a fair exchange and what's a piece of ground? What the hell is the difference if we've got 40 acres worth x number of dollars in exchange for 40 more acres of x number of dollars? I think we need to look, again, at the total picture and not just a little piece of ground. We need to look at what the piece of ground is going to do for the area. We need to look at what kind of income that can generate for the school district. For the county. For the city. It's going to build houses. It's going to bring people out here. To say that the City Manager should not have done this, I commend Don on doing this. I think he took the initiative because he had been gone on vacation and the staff took up a msmo that he had only partially written. If you read his cover letter you'd perhaps understand that. He was merely coming back saying his m~no was not cc~plete originally and he wanted us to reconsider something that he had additional comments to make on. Just because the mentality of just because we haven't done it before, stinks as far as I'm concerned. If we haven't done it before then that's an opportunity for us to do it now. I guess maybe s~netimes I'm a non-conformist but I think to say that we've never done this before carries absolutely not one iotas worth of anything as far as I 'm concerned. It just gives us another opportunity. If we haven't done it before, w~ ought to do it now and w~ ought to reconsider these things ar~ let's look at th~n for the value of them, not because of our own selfish interest. So it's unfortunate that sc~e of us can't look past the end of our nose but I think we've got to try to do that and not be cond~nning our staff in public, as we talked about many times. The staff does an excellent job and I think in this case the staff continued to do an excellent job. 28 Cit' Cou Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 =ilman Johnson: I also would like to support staff on bringing this back for the reasons that he did brirg it back to us but I also think that wful nice of the City of Chaska to plan their roads through the City of ssen. If you look at their plans here, it also goes into the other Merle roperty. They have roads planned in more so after they've annexed this 40 ~cres, they've already got the roads planned furthe~ into Chanhass~n for the ne~ ~ step which, if that's more Merle Yolk property, maybe it's... I think th~ re are s~me areas out here that are available like I showed D~n and I think t~ ~ ~ should continue to work with the City of (~aska. I don't like that lit ~le 22 acre piece up there. I don't think that w~ needed 40 acres for 40 ac~ .=s. If we get 50 acres for their 40 acres or %~a~, as long as it's an eq~ itable trade. Sc~ethirg that, in the old times that you'd be willing to sp]t on your hand and shake on but right now, I don't know. ~nere are several pie ces here that Chaska could, right now I think we've got their minim%~ offer. Let's do s~me negotiating and find that middle of the ground. We've only got om offer so far, let's not jt~p on it. A lot of people never take a first of J er on a house. When you go to buy the house, you always offer ~ a beck of a lot less than you think they'll take but a first offer, just negotiate yo~~ way back up. Here's a first offer, let's start negotiating. ~at's my f~!lings. If we voted and everythir~ had to be north of Pioneer Trail, I'm not su. 'e because I don't think the property they're talking about is within the fl. ~dplain down by Gedney because it's on the north side of Gedney, not on the so~ lth side of Gedney. I think it would he a good idea to have the first re: ~ond as a part of our negotiation to help out our businessman down there. I th nk that's a very good suggestion. It has some value to the City because it he.!ps out. If he expands into that area, that helps us out with the tax base. Tb ;re are several other little funny jogs in our property line here ~here we cai adjust our property. We may end up having to take a little more than 40 ac~es for them to get their 40 acres. I'm willing to let them put their street through and th~n go ahead and develop up north of these 40 acres. I don't see an~ reason why the City of Chaska can't go ahead and put their street through a~l long as they want to psy for the street and put it right through the 40 = res and they've cc~ple~ their street plan. If that's ~lat they're trying t~ do, if that's what they want to do, we can help thsm complete their street pi m. Tmey can put in an application to complete their street plan through b~ =e. The City can buy it fr~m Merle Volk and they can he the developer ar~ d~ ;elop it as city property. The City of Shor~ owns a park in Chanhassen. ~ncilman Geving: I'd like to make another statement. yor Hamilton: We're going to move onto the next its~. uncilman Geving: Won't you give me a chance to rebut what you said? yor Hamilton: No, absolutely not. You made your comments, I made mine. at's all we ~ to have. uncilman Geving: You made a shot at me that I'd like to respond to. .yor Hamilton: Well, you made shots at everybody. .uncilman Geving: Are you cutting me off? yor Hamilton: We're moving onto the next item. 29 City Council Meeting - April 11; 1988 Councilman Geving: You're cutting me off from making a con~ent~ Mayor Hamilton: You voted no and you made your comment. All of us made comments so that's all I need. Once around is enough. . Councilman Geving: Thank you very much Mr. Mayor. I'll remember that. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COUNCILMAN JOHNSON, GIRLS SOFTBALL DONATIONS, DISCUSSION ITEM. Councilman Johnson: I haven't spoken with Gary Meister who was trying to organize a traveling girls softball league. As of the last time he had talked to me, bm had raised $240.00 frcm local businesses and various folks in trying to get a sponsor for the traveling girls softball league. ~nis would be to help purchase the uniforms, equiunent and the like for the team. I'm trying to figure out ways and I think it would be a good thing for the City to have a traveling sports team that travels around the Twin Cities and literally around the county if they get into the tournaments and we have some very good girls, young girl softball players. I'd like to see that somehow the City help out this effort. Tais is my idea at this point. I'm not coming to you as a board m~mber of the Athletic Association that's sponsoring this team also. It was my idea. He's been working for about four months and he's come up with $240.00. You can't start a traveling girls softball team, you can barely buy the shinpads and bats and balls and stuff with that kind of money and won't have decent uniforms. If nobody else will buy the uniforms, I'd like to see that we could do something to match businesses or something to help encourage this effort. I don't know what is legal or not. I heard that we my not be able to do this kind of support. I'm not sure. Whatever is legal. Even it's only a couple hundred dollars. Last time Gary talked about it, he was talking about a minimum of about $1,000.00 to get the basic team. A really nice team with good uniforms and everything with the matching uniforms and shoes for everybody. His first budget when he was really dreaming about this was about $2,400.00 but then he came to reality when he started trying to raise money. I guess they're looking at selling pizzas or whatever they have to do to try to raise money to have this team. They also need a good pitcher, a fast pitch pitcher. They're trying out pitchers right now. Even this winter they were practicing in the grade school. They are a dedicated group of young women that are a benefit to the City. They went to a State tournament last year as kind of an imprc~ptu thing. They had never done fast pitch under those types of rules before and it was kind of awakening for thsm but they're ready to go after it this year and win a few games. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like it would be a difficult thing for the City to support. When you start supporting one you' re going to have th~n all up here asking for money for uniforms and equilmnent. Has this been discussed at the Park and Rec? Councilman Johnson: No. I brought this up after seeing that no further donations were ccming in and they were kind of stuck. Mayor Hamilton: It's always difficult for any sports team I guess to find the money to buy their uniforms and to survive but gosh, I don't think the City can 30 did Dot to t~ whE is: pr( w~ p~, CoL scm CoL dot Co% Co% bu~ no] ju~ Co% Council Meeting - April 11~ 1988 ~t donating anything for a team like this. I realize that it certainly Ld be a good thing to do but w~'re opening Pandora's box I would think if we s~mething like this. Ashworth: I think you've got a good suggestion in that it should go back :he Park and Recreation Om~mission. There are a number of programs that ~ look to each year and they should be making the input or a decision as to ~er or not this may or may not be a progr~ that they could endorse within ~]get potentially the following year and part of it, as far as the 'legality ~e, I think should be explored at that level as well. In that the City can ticipate in programs that basically we operate to the extent.that you're ~iding almost a donation type of a thing over to another group. That's re you run into a problem. Again, I think the its~ rightly should go to kand Rec. ncilman Geving: How much money do you ~? You mentioned $24g.gg or ething? ~cilman Johnson: $24g.gg is what they've collected so far. Their largest ation has ~ from a firm that's not even in the City and it was $1gg.gg. .=rwise, they've $2g.gg here ar~ $1g.gg there and $5g.0g here. ncilman Gevirg: You've contacted all the normal business channels? ncilman Johnson: Yes. As a matter of fact, Gary reads the newspaper. If sees the name, if we talk to somebody in here, Schwaba today, he'll probably e a letter out to them t(mlorrow. Anybody that appears before any city iness interest. He's going after everything. Originally he went after our hal sponsor donation list. I'm only talking $20~.~0 or ~ahatever. Something t to help th~m to where the kids don't have to raise as roach ~lves. ncilman Geving: How old are these kids? ncilman Johnson: I believe it's the 14 to 16 year old range. Ma~or Hamilton: Okay, let's send this back to Park and Rec and they can discuss it there to see if there's anyway to help ~ out at all. Co~ilman Boyt: I would like to ~--, staff directed to bring back to us a proposal for having a city organized pick-up of items that a trash collector doesn't normally take. Things like old washing machines. Things that have a ts! to Iii ti] mo] dency sometimes to end up in people's backyards waiting for an opportunity be hauled off. I think the City is in a unique position to do that ar~ I'd e to see tt~ staff come back with a recommendation. or Hamilton: I'd like to see you include, specifically in there, tires. t people do I think is drive out in the country ar~ they throw their old es out because it costs you $2.00 a tire to take ~ to a landfill if not e than that. ncilman Geving: Can the landfills even take tires? er Knutson: No. I tried. Mine are still in the garage. 31 City C Counci excell Once i Mayor strong BLUFF Barbar packet sure i City. here a This i existi 1~1 ac termi years. rec~m~ possib suppo~ crossi figure constr not e~ this ~ proce~ adds ~ 212 wi the ns interd inmrC act on this s ,uncil Meeting -April 11, 1988 man Geving: I like Bill's idea. I think a citywide clean-up is an ~t idea and it should be sc~ethirg that becomes a routine in our city. the spring and once in the fall and the City has the resources where e ths~ available to do. I like your idea. ~milton: And that tire thing, Oouncilw~man Swenson has always been so on tires that it creates breeding places for treeholem0squitoes so if come up with some creative ways to get rid of tires. (kxx~ idea. ~)INTE SUBDIVISION, CITY PLANNER. Dacy: This is the colored version of the reduced plan that was in your The only thirg that I wanted to elaborate beyond what I stated in the s a little more description about the new TH 41 corridor. I'm not too any of you have eve~ heard of that in your past experiences with the Here is Pioneer Trail right here and Aubudon Road and CR 17 is right ~ the proposed TH 212 corridor slices through this site up on the north. TH 41 would extend straight through the site in a north/south manner. a perspective of Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie where you have ~ in place TH 41 right here, proposed TH 212 corridor over here and TH loss the river and then 1-494 and CR 18 over on the east. If you called ,t today and said what about new TH 41, they'd say y~s, it's on o~ur long ~rov~ent plans and the number of probably matches the amount of · There was a river crossing study that was done in 1978 that looked at .sting crossing, this new crossing and the CR 18 crossing. That study ~ded that this new crossing along with the CR 18 be looked at as soon as .e. In fact, recommended this crossing over the CR 18 crossing but wa the last 10 years the political impetus for constructing CR 18 gained through the last 10 years. Currently Met Council wants-to delete this g and this corridor fr~m their transportation policy plan. Y~Dot has that say if an alternative north/south corridor across the river is not cted, then you're looking at vehicle volt, es on existing TH 41 of about to 30,000 average daily traffic. Now Chaska obviously is really ~d about what that does to their downtown. Here w~'ve got a classic we have a long tern improvement. We have money to build it. We have n an official map in place because it hasn't ~ deciced who's going to impl~nenting agency and yet Chas~ has a development proposal pending at m-y time. You need to know that during the Planning Omm~ission's update for transportation plan, we are going to be re~mm~ending that the City .is as a study corridor in the plan. Currently right now this is not entified although the County's plan does identify it. The EIS for TH 1 help us out in this study corridor in that we will be able to look at ~ for an interchange at this area and what type of direction the ~rge should take and what does that do to the vol%m~es and the traffic ~ to the east on TH 212 or the extension of Powers Blvd. and the ~rge of TH 101 into Eden Prairie. So, what the City of Chaska is going .ooking at and what their staff is reoc~m~ir~, neither the Planning ~ion or the Council has acted on it, is that what they're going to do is the first phase of the develolmment in the extr~m~ southwest corner of ~. Rezone that so the developer can get started on that and reserve open space and not act on it until s~me future answers are addressed. Chaska Council could come back within the next month and say the long 32 We pre re~ fol t~ wi gtc Council Meeting - April 11~ 1988 , improvement for new TH 41 is so far away that w~ just can't deal with it. )refer to look at maybe having MnDot analyze another interchange for ~sed TH 212 and existing Audubon. If that's the case then obviously the ~rcial area that's proposed in this area here is directly affected. Chaska [ly holds the key as to whether or not this is going to reserve a corridor new TH 41. That's an update ~n the traffic situation. We made sc~e other ~_nts about potential trail connections. The developer did confirm with me ~y that they will construct a trail along the east side of Audubon Road that match up with the current trail plan that Chanhassen has. )r Hamilton: It se~ms kind of ludicrous that the State w~uld expect a ~ing community like Chanhassen to even designate a corridor for TH 41 full well that TH 101 has ~ proposed for the last 35 years and has happened. TH 101, nothing has happened there so now we're suppo~ · up more property and tell landowners they can't develop their land there's a potential that 50 years fr~m now there might be a road going :e. I have a real problem with that. Geving: Can I ask you, where did this idea for the proposed TH 41 fr~m? Dacy: It originally came out of sc~e of the traffic ntm~bers and lies for TH 212. Even with TH 101 and CR 18, ._t~.... projections by MnDot is existing in place TH 41 is going to be overloaded. There ~s to be crossing across the river to take away the pressure on TH 41. Geving: let me ask you, why should we be anxious to tie up all of very nice developable lar~ north of Lyman Blvd.? That open space there we've got just lots of room to maneuver in the future and I just can't see it I just can't see bringing TH 41 in. This is the first time I've sc_---n it on' map and I can tell you, I'm not in favor of it. I would prefer to keep TH 41 it' s at. If it' s heavily volu~ed, upgrade TH 41 but don' t bring it ove to the east. We're going to have all we can handle with straightening out TH .01 and the TH 212 corridor and yet bringing in another, a third it~ that's proposed TH 41 realignment. I just don't see it. Hamilton: The State can't even fund one intersection for TH 101. Cou Cou ter ter pro 1971 cou ilman Geving: It's silly to put that on our maps. lman Johnson: Does that run right through Gedney Pickle? Dacy: Fairly close to it, yes. There's no question, just as any other improv~ent, there are impacts to not only existing land uses but the · in here is awfully rough. It's the classic case that we have short planning versus long term planning. We do know that we there will be, and there have been a ntmg~r of traffic studies to confirm it, .~ is going to be a need for another corridor in this area. In fact, that study said that this one should be prioritized over this one so all that eally want to look at is what has changed in the area and can we survive ~out it. cilman Geving: In fact, don't you go right through the middle of the new ~rlane Estates or whatever that is that Otto is developing? 33 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 Barbara Dacy: This is a conceptual aligr~ent. Councilman Geving: I know that but we're already developing a lot of those areas and then to put a highway right through the middle at this stage of the game, it's never going to happen. It's not even realistic. Mayor Hamilton: As you look at TH 41 as it goes south of TH 5 now, it w~uld appear as though there is adequate room to enlarge that to a four lane without a great deal of difficulty except when you get into downtown Chaska where you would be, I think there are four lanes there now. You would slow it down some but there' s roan. Barbara Dacy: If you remember with Wally Otto's subdivision, that's exactly the alternative that the County wanted. They required extra right-of-way on Galpin so if this couldn't be achieved, they could look at widening Galpin. Councilman Geving: We'll have 500 h(x~es in that area before that's ever even put on paper officially. Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Tell me what this discussion has to do with the Chaska develo~ent. I saw it run right through the middle of the Chaska develo~m~ent but I don't understand why we're talking about it right now. Barbara Dacy: We're talking about it right now because Chaska has to determine whether or not they want to approve the plan without reservation for some type of corridor or if they just want to go ahead and say forget new TH 41. If you're going to build it, then you're going to have to acquire all these homes at that time. Councilman Boyt: I think we should tell Chaska that if they w~nt to deny this plan to allow for the new TH 41, we'll certainly look at the new TH 41 more seriously than we are right now. Can we go to the development? I think staff's recon~ended responses to Chaska certainly fit the direction we'd like to see them take. I would like to see us notify everyone in Hesse Farms and any other developments north of this within reasonable distance, that this is happening and the dates in which Chaska will be considering it. I think that the citizens in that area should certainly go to the appropriate council meetings. Mayor Hamilton: May I suggest, that perhaps we notify them. I don't think I'd want to rely on Chaska. Councilman Boyt: I think we should notify them and I think we should send the staff report with the notification. Not the whole thing but the two pages that staff summarizes it. I would like to editorialize for a couple of minutes here on this. I think in looking at this development, there is the possibility that developers of this size will go to Chaska rather than come to Chanhassen and I consider that a big relief. When I see 12,000 square foot lots as an average, it makes our PUD development look pretty good and I see with some regret that Chaska is burdened with the inability to develop the same quality develo~m~ent we can have in Chanhassen. I'm appalled, if I read this correctly, on page 6 of the proposal, that they are talking about developing 344 acres and they're giving 7.5 acres in park. I can't believe that that's a reasonable park amount 34 City Council Mmeting - April 11, 1988 fo. del Cot as' we: C~ that number of people and it's certainly not what ~ would ask for. Maybe e developers will go down there if they want to have that kind of 'elol~nent. That' s my editorial. ~cilman Geving: I'd like to have you discuss for a minute the ~cial ~cts of this. The comments in tl~ analysis indicated that if the coemerci~ available in this plat, that it would draw away fr~m the potential for mercial on our proposed TH 212. Can you give us scme insight into that? Barbara Dacy: Right. Mainly I was referring to the c~emercial in the rural ar~a and not s .Pecifically along the TH 212 aligrm~ent but since our rural area is Inot going to be serviced by water and sewer for many, many years, the proposed ccem~rcial at this location is at a major intersection ar~ it will sea. ye a neighborhood purpose. (kmmercial belongs there where urban services ar~ provided. It takes scm~ pressure off. CoUncilman Geving: The reason I ask that question, I know Jim Curry is very interested in the commercial plan for the proposed TH 212 corridor just south of this Lake Susan Hills develolm~ent. I'm sure that he's going to continue with th9se plans because that's... Could you show me the proposed Pioneer Trail re, light? I didn't see that on the plan. Ba: 'bara Dacy: Here's TH 212 here. Here's existing Pioneer Trail and then the pr~ posed Pio~r~cr Trail ends up in this fashion. Then it would parallel TH 212 ful ther to the east and then it would cross TH 212 and connect into this ex sting aligrm~nt down where Buck's are. Councilman Geving: I'm sure there are property owners along there that are going to be very interested in that realigrm~nt. Don't we have a developer or t~ that are working in that area now? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Sever Peterson and they were all in abundance at our n~ting on TH 212. COU mo! kee t~ it sb ncilman Johnson: On the north side of TH 41, I think the problem occurs e on the south of the new TH 212. I am wondering if they could probably p the al igr~ent with TH 41 and take it to four lanes or whatever, down to new TH 212 arzl then the new river crossing would just be the south side of that runs down there. That seems to make more sense to me. Rather than rting a whole new highway. B~bara Dacy: just constructing this? Cou Bar ar~ ncilman Johnson: Right and then expanding the existing TH 41 going north. bara Dacy: That's an option and Chaska obviously with the downtown, they really concerned about bhe future impact of additional traffic and what t does to downtown so that is an option. Councilman Johnson: They could even do a by-pass up north of TH 212 as a TH 41 by-pass rather than cut through the middle of Chanhassen. We're already cut by to~ darn many roads. TH 5, TH 212. Everything .in the world just cuts us in pie,-es. They do have the roc~ so that's what they should work on as far as I'm cot ~emed. How soon are their meetings? 35 155 City Council Meeting - April 11~ 1988 Barbara Dacy: Planning Commission is Wednesday evening and the Council meeting I have. to verify. Mayor Hamilton: I wish you w~uld rsmind us when that is. If this gets on the agenda at Chaska. Councilman Geving: I like Jay's alternative for the TH 41 because it still gives th~n river crossing. Councilman Johnson: And it cuts the traffic out of downtown which is what they don ' t want. Councilman Geving: But north of that, I just can't see. Councilman Boyt: You're saying that this is going to the Planning Commission this Wednesday? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Boyt: I would like you to contact the homeowner association people in the relevant develol~ments so the presidents can let them know what's happening. Mayor Hamilton: Is someone from our staff going to attend that meeting and make cxxmnent? I wish you would. Barbara Dacy: I have a conflict that evening. I did attend the last one though o Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.. Suk~itted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 36 ·