Loading...
1984 12 03 .. 't . -f. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . J f REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 3, 1984 Acting Mayor Geving called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened the meeting with the Pledge to the rlag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson Councilwoman Swenson Mayor Hamilton came late llill Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Roger Knutaon JoAnn Olsen, Bill Monk Mike Thompso~, Planning Commission APPROVAL or AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the agenda as presented with the addition of discussion on advertisement for bids for City Newspaper for 1985, Plumbing Inspector for 1985, and Lotus Lake Estates Beachlot. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson requested that item b. (Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Cold Storage, Warehousing and Outdoor Storage in C-3 District) be ~emoved from the consent agenda for discussion. Acting Mayor Geving moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. rinal Plat Approval, Eickholt Addition, Kiowa Trail. c. Set Public Hearing Date, TRI Properties Driving Range, Conditional Use Permit. January 21, 1985. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CARVER COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MEETING: Al Klingelhutz reminded the Council that on December 11 there will be a presentation by the Carver County Waste Management Board held on the proposed site in Chanhassen. Hayor Hamilton came at this point in the meeting. ~ or BIDS, CODIrICATION Q[ ORDINANCES: Two proposals were received, one from Sterling Codifiers and one from Municipal Code Corporation. The City Manager and City Attorney recommended the Council accept the proposal from Municipal Code Corporation. RESOLUTION 184-63: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resol~tion accepting the proposal from Hunicipal Code Corporation not to exceed $10,000 and authorize the Mayor and Hanager to sign the contract and to trasnsfer $11,000 from the 1984 budget to the 1985 budget. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in fsvor: Hayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Hotion carried. . i f. ; 1 r ~" --~.,-~--...----------~~....... . Council Heeting December J, 1984 -2- ; i HINUTES: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the November 7, 1984, Council minu- tes. Hotion seconded by Hsyor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Hotion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the November 19, 1984, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Hayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Hayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilwoman Swenson abstained. Hotion carried. ~ Councilwoman Watson moved to note the October 24, 1984, Planning Commission minutes. Hotion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Hayor Hamilton, Councilwomen,Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Hotion carried. BEACHlOT ORDINANCE: GeorQette ~ - This is con~~~ning the outlot ordinance which we, of course, have been dealing with, particularly"over thia last few months and because of our concern with the ordinance itself, I would like to make a request that three things be discussed at your earliest convenience. That is, 1) that the ordinance be reviewed by the Attorney General's office. It's been brought to our attention that municipa- lities have the option of presenting ordinances to that board and that they will give you a written opinion, I believe it's free of charge, as to the constitutiona- lity of that document and we thought that could be additional help to determine whether that ordinance needs to be amended or changed in order to be a fair and strong ordinance. The aecond thing we would like it that the Planning Commission review this ordinance again, particularly with the information coming from the Attorney General's office as well and again at that time was to re-evaluate whether in fact that ordinance ia fine the way that it is or if there is something in it that needs to be changed so that again it will be fair for the whole community. The third thing that I would like you to consider is to place a moratorium on beachlot requests until both of these points have been taken care of so that at the time that a request is made in everyones mind this ordinance has been reviewed, has been checked out and there is further feeling that it is one that we can all stand behind with great security. DNR REQUEST LQ ESTABLISH A WILDLIfE MANAGEMENT ~ ~ CHANHASSEN: moved to table this item to December 17, 1984. Hotion aeconded by The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Hotion carried. Hayor Hamilton Councilman Horn. and Swenson, !!ff! RIDGE SUBDIVISION REQUEST: Hayor Hamilton - We have several issues to discuss, one is the wetland alteration permit, another is the subdivision request for preliminary plat approval, rezoning request from R-Ia to R-I, land use plan amendment request from Parks/Open Space to Residential Low Density. ~ Dacy - As you will recall, the land use plan amendment request wss tabled from the October 15th meeting at the request of the Council to find out more information about the existing wetland on the site. Staff has done that and contacted"the agen- cies that were requested to be notified. The applicant has submitted in the mean- time the preliminary plat application which proposed 12 single family lots~ All of the lots meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements and the Shoreland Hanagement requirements for riparian and nonriparian lots. The applicant, also at the same time, is requesting a rezoning from R-Ia to R-l and we are recommending approval of that rezoning action as well. . I ~ . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . ) . Council Meeting Oecember 3, 1984 -3- .Bill Monk _ The proposal does call for a 50~ reduction in Class B wetlands aa defined by the City. The intent is to put a road across the western portion of the wetland and use the remaining wetlands, restructure it for drainage and wetland pur- poses. It is a 50~ reduction in area but the proposal is to deepen the area and in creating the new wetlands to create a larger volume for sedimentation and just storage of water on an interim basjs before it would be passed on to the south. The Council all has copies of the plat which would show the roadway. Another handout that was made available to the Council tonight and also to the people in the audience that shows an aerial photo showing the site superimposed on that aerial, the existing Class B wetlands and also Class A wetlands that is to the south of the property that will remain entirely undisturbed so the Council could get a better overall view of exactly what is occurring. The area in yellow is as close as I can come to the existing wetlands. The solid orange road, in this area, is the proposed wetlands as it would be redesigned' to a lower elevation and does represent about a 50~ reduction. The dashed line is something that did come up at the Planning Commission meeting and had been talked"about with the developer briefly that it was proposed to disturb as little in here as possible so that we would not be disturbing what we had considered to be a buffer area but if a straight area transfer was being looked at because the area of the wetlands was deemed as most important there is the possibility that this wetlands could be restructured, this area disturbed and lowered and the wetlands basically ahifted from this side to the far aide. It could almost be an even trade. I think it's about 90~ and it could be stretched. Councilwoman Swenson - Where is the sewer line going to come in? ~ Monk - The sewer is in Sandpiper right now and through lateral extension it would come in from the north. Councilwoman Swenson That's going to diaturb the wetland. Bill Monk - It would disturb the same area as the roadway is going. The sewer and the water would go underneath the blacktop. The area is all being disturbed wherever the road is going. The only other area outside the road that is being pro- posed to be disturbed is where the storm sewer would come off and go down towards the Class A wetlands. Councilman GevinQ - I appreciate the effort that's gone into research as I had earlier requested. The Council had requested that comments be made by the Soil Conservation Service, rish and Wildlife Service, the watershed district, etc. and all of those are in our packet and very well explained. I particularly like the comments by the Soil Conservation Service and their recommendations. Anything that may come out of tonights meeting I would like to include specifically those Soil Conservation notes. I think those recommendations are right on. As far as the wetlands are concerned Bill, I take exception to some of the statements that you made in Planning Case memo of November 9th regarding this propossl. It seems to me that if you were to reduce the wetland surface by as much as 50~ you would be creating quite a bottleneck. Almost as if you were to take a balloon and fill it with water and then squeeze the end of it by 1/3 or as much as 1/2. That was is going to have to go someplace and I believe that the 958 elevation.at the road level and the ponding area built to 948 leaves a big hole that we don't have there now. I have a hard time believing that if you drop that area that much to the 948 level you are going to be passing water through that at a much faster speed than 'we now have. I have been out there on days when that water comes from a very big area, all the way from Pope's Pond snd we spent nearly two or three years trying to solve the Pope's Pond problem. We finally got it solved snd now we are going to screw it up in my opinion. What I am saying is I don't know whether or not we can go in there and tske that foot and a half or two feet of peat that's in there, dig that out ~own ~ ~ . , t' fo. t. , t I Council Meeting December 3, 1984 -4- to the clay surface and then attempt to put that peat right back in that same hole doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and in fact it's in violation of our current ordinance. Now, the fact is that that peat, if it's going to be used at all it should be removed from the site. I am not so sure that you're really correct on what you are attempting to do with that peat. If you dig that hole and it has three or four feet, I don't think there is very much vegetation that will grow in there. You are going to destroy those cattails that are there now. My whole proposal on " this wetland is that it should be left alone and that we should move the road to the furtherest western most part of this lot and eliminate Lot 12 and bring it in as I hsve depicted it on my schematic and I think it can be done. My proposal would be to let the wetlands alone completely. By destroying that wetlands and attempting to build a road road over it, I would say from a City standpoint, we are asking for a lot of potential problems in the future. ,The most significant major problems thst we have been faced with and have had to face time and time again is where we have disturbed natural drainageways. That water is going to find its location. It's going to find its level exactly where it is no~ and I think that in order to avoid all of that by simply moving the road over to the furtherest most psrt of this entire plst will hsve eliminated most of those problems. We eliminate one lot. We can preserve the wetland which is, I think, what we are all after and we can shove the house that's designed for Lot 11 back and steal a little from Lot 10 and I believe you can still maintain your 15,000 square feet. It just seems to me that the more you mess with that ponding area and the now existing area that we call a wetland you are asking for a lot of probl~~s. If we put a road in there I would propose that the City not accept that road for at least one year after the road has settled and it meets all of our standards because we are not about to put a heavy roadgrader or a snowplow or any other vehicle across that road until the conditions have been met and it meets our specs. Also, in terms of the drainage from that area, if you are expecting that water to drain out, filter out and find its cour- seway down to the Class A wetlands without causing msjor destruction, I think you are asking for a lot of problems. I can't see that happening and if you are not going to ask the. developer to pipe that, either with a concrete pipe or metal pipe someway, I think we are not doing our job. Lastly, I think that in order for this project to succeed, if it does get approved tonight, I am going to ask for substan~ tial escrow account so that all of this restoration work and all the development work in building that pond is assured and we don't end up with a mess a year from now. I Councilmsn ~ - I think that based on what Bill has told us that flow for flow sake will not be a problem becauae flow is a volumetric type of thing snd if you make it narrower and you make it deeper your volume is going to move pretty much in the same way it did before. What I sm concerned about though is the filtration section. I think Dale also brought up an excellent point about the road. We have accepted wsy too many roads that two years later we have to redo because they have been built over insufficient foundation and I think for those reasons it would make sense to take a great deal of care to make sure that we don't overlook this filtation issue and thst we also have proper road bed to build upon which, from what we can observe when we look out there, would be quite a task at this point. Mayor Hamilton - I can certainly agree with Dale. I guess I have never rea'lly liked where the entrance to that development was coming and not being much of a designer I didn't know where to put it. Your idea certainly has a lot of merit, Dale. I don't like destroying the wetlsnds if there is any way we can avoid it. l Councilman ~ - This was the same proposal that you had made Bill, as an alternate. . ~ I I I . . . ~ . . I I I I I' ~ . Council Heeting December 3, 1984 -5- ~ ~ _ It's just a possibility. There is no question that it's one of the options that could be looked at. Councilwoman Swenson - I would like to remind the Council, the Wetlands Ordinance was put in place not only from a standpoint of infiltration of water but also for the preservation of our wildlife and disturbing that is a serious problem. I think we should try to accommodate this developer to the best of our ability but at the same time I strongly am adverse to disturbing that wetland. Hayor Hamilton _ As far as disturbing the wildlife, that's part of urban develop- ment. That's going to happen as a natural thing. I don't like it any more than you do but it occurs any time anybody builds a home anywhere you are disturbing the wildlife. Councilwoman Swenson _ If we are not going to take this into consideration then we should take another look at the ordinance. That's a very important part of the ordinance and I think it's particularly important in this particular case because there is evidence of good wildlife there. I like Dale's idea. ~ ~ _ I do allude very briefly to the proposal of moving the road in the November 9th update. Two options exist to minimize the wetland reduction. The first would involve the westward. realignment of the north-south entrance road out of the existing wetland at the expense of lot 12. I just wanted to make sure there is no confusion, complete alteration or I think, extensive alteration of the wetland would still be required. You would not be changing the area and, therefore, the wetlands would basically be functioning as it is now but the one thing that you have to realize is the wetlands as it exists now does not function in terms of handling or retaining the volume of water. Basically, the water passes over top and it does not work as a sedimentation basin would. If that is the option that is chosen and it is an option, I guess we will have to look very carefully at the wetlands and there is a good chance that some lowering of it, perhaps not as extensive as the road going in and moving it over and lowering it so that the wetlands was between five and six foot below the roadway but some work within that wetlands is going to be required so that the City can get both the flow through and some storage. That has to be done because if the City does not require it the watershed district is going to. The watershed district says you have to have 24 hour retention of on-site water which would be just from the subdivision. That wetlands as it exists right now will not give that so that some structuring is going to be needed and I want to get that point across. Councilman ~ - You commented on the matter of removing the soil and digging down to clay and putting the peat back in which I think is necessary to get the wildlife re-established again. Bill ~ _ It's been done. It's not an easy thing to accompliSh. It's very sen- sitive type of operation any time you displace something and try and put it back. It did work in the Chanhassen lakes Business Park, it will work. You will find that with this type of peat that you usually get very fast growth and it returns pretty much as it is and that's the reason that you don't take it away be~ause it will spur the same type of growth. lastly, to just respond, the City has been working quite hard through the development contract process, number one, to make sure that we have strict financial guarantees that a project is not atarted until we know that it can be paid for through its completion. Number two, there are strict provisions about road construction, what we will accept, what we won't accept and that there is a one year guarantee on all streets. Those issues, as sensitive as they are, because of the problems that we have had in the past have been addressed over the past three years quite constantly to the point where I am now satisfied that wh~n we Council Heeting December 3, 1984 -6- e accept.a project that it is done right in the first place but also we do have a guarantee and money in reserve from the developer on a guarantee basis that if it isn't right within that year that it will be corrected. Councilwoman Swenson - I~ order to put in that 28 foot road, how much of that land on either side is going to be disturbed at the time of construction. 8ill Honk - The road is going in at a level grade like this, I would say you would need about a four foot buffer on either side. You would be disturbing about a 36 foot swath because the grades are not extensive. In some areas it goes out a little bit further but you find that as you go out really you are only disturbing a front yard setback area so that you are making slopes and whatnot where the houses will go. Depending upon how far you are cutting in or filling in to a specific area it can range quite considerably but as thia comea off of Sandpiper it is relatively flat. I don't think there is any real danger that we would reduce the wetlands any farther than shown because the terrain is fla~.but every effort has been made by the developer to distur~ as little as possible. I believe the plan as submitted is reasonable. It does have several drawbacke and those drawbacks have to be looked at. . Councilman ~ - Our ordinance does make provision for reconstruction and I think the methods that Bill has outlined are relatively sound methods. The only question I might have ia not so much the shape of the area of the wetlands but it is the abi- lity of the wetland to filter off the nutrients based on the fact that it does have a smaller area. In my mind that is the main significant feature of this thing that we will not actually be reconstructing this wetland to its original position. Not that it has to look the same as the original wetlands as long as it will basically function the same. I think that's what our ordinance calls for and there might be some other mitigating circumstances in fact we have this other Class A wetlands along the edge of lake Hinnewashta that would mitigate that but I think in my mind that's the biggest question and that is that we will not have the filtration. I am fully comfortable that it will satisfy the flow requirements, maybe even exceed the current flow requirements and from what Bill has told me I am comfortable with the fact that it will reconstruct itself as a wetlands but I don't think it will have the same capacity. ~ Harper - The idea is to reconstruct the wetlands and he is concerned that is not sufficient area and he is right, it is small, however, we could provide an absolu- tely identical area and that's, to me, the real solution. Councilman GevinQ - I guess if I were a builder and I had a choice of building on high ground or building across a wetland, purely economics, I think I would build on high land every time. Other than the fact that you are going to get pOSSibly $25,000 out of a lot, lot 12, you may end up spending twice that much getting the peat out of the hole and moving it and recreating that wetland. ~ Harper - As far as supporting the road, I have absolutely no hesitation saying it will do an excellent job of supporting the road and the utility systems that are in there. " Councilman GevinQ - The proposal is, the developer who is attempting to get as many lots out of a piece of land as possible for economic gain and I have no problem with that, I would do the same thing, but what I am trying to do is preserve a wetland ,that is truly a wetland. It's a case of moving a road where it logically should be and preserving a wetland where it has been for a long long time. I hope it stays there for a long time. I II ~ I I I I I I [I I I I I I I ~ I l I Ir- t I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I I I Council Meeting December 3, 1984 -7- Councilman ~ - Bill, I missed in your original presentation this option of extending the wetland out and still maintsining the filtration. Bill Monk - The second option would include a trading of lands so that the existing wetlands being displaced would be replaced with equal area to the north and east. It is somewhere between 90 and 100~ in size and does disturb an area which on the original plat was shown as undist~~bed buffer. This disturbs an area that would exist as slope right now and does disturb back towsrd the houses quite a bit closer back but it could be done. The size of the wetland to start with is somewhere bet- ween 1/3 and 1/2 acre. How much sedimentation they are getting now and how much nutrient stripping is hard to say in a wetland that size but a 50~ reduction is a reduction. You can get by disturbing that area and getting back in there, just about an equal trade-off in area. The placement of the raodway as it is now simpli- fies the drainage as much as possible. Any situation can be handled. If the road were moved over different means would be used to get the water from the low spot over to the lowlands. Councilman Horn - Could the potential for erosion be any different with either option? [!l! Monk - If the road was moved to the west you would have to be more conscious of the land to the west becsuse you would be moving the road over towards what exists as a little bit of a side hill now so you would have to become conscious about sta- bilization of that slope in the long term so that you wouldn't have an erosion problem. Susan Conrad - Having worked on the wetland ordinance I am just concerned that maybe Bill knows something that we didn't become acquainted with when we were working on this. from all the scientists that we have talked to mitigation never or it took a great deal of time to come back to what a natural wetland was. Randy Herman - Bill, are we still in somewhat agreement that even if the road was shifted to the west that we would still be talking about a 30~/3J~ reduction in the wetland size even with a shift? Bill Monk - I have taken a look at that and I guess if the Council's direction was to avoid as much of the wetlands as possible I guess we would have to take a look at how far the road could be moved over. Whether it could actually be zero at this point I am not aure. We would have to take a look at it. Whether we can get entirely out of the wetland and stay out of the wetlands on that high side would have to be looked at. There is a possibility of some percent but I think that 50~ could drastically be reduced. Randy Herman - I think that's an issue here. I think it's going to be difficult shifting that road to achieve s zero disturbance of that wetland. If that's what you are after, if that's what you are after then provide a different access. This access was granted in trade for another parcel of property to the City. I have serious doubts that shifting that road will mean we are not going to disturb that wetland. '. Councilman Geving - I don't think zero is reasonable. Something greater than 10~ and less than 50~ would be a significant reduction of the damage done to that wetland. As far as another lot is concerned, you are the developer I am not worried about that. I am worried about how this development is going look once it's built. Randy Herman _ I am not concerned about that lot. The point you brought up earlier is a valid concern of mine and that is shifting the road and losing a lot, if I looked at that and said, look, the reduction and work that had to be done otherwise ,------- ,",- --.__. ---,- ..~.--..._--. Council Meeting December J, 1984 -8- would more than compensate for that, we would have drawn the road in to the west initially but it doesn't work out that way. There is compensations, tKere is costs ...that are going to be borne one way or the other. What we try to look at was the ~overall, how the water was going to flow, the long term, yes, we need to disturb the wetland but in the long run it will be a more functional development. ~ Harper _ What if we did move the road'all the way to the side and we build a house to the other side. In other words did not lose the lot there and in the area of the house we had a little disruption of the wetlands. There would be less disruption of the wetlands area and we still wouldn't lose the lot. Mayor Hamilton - That's certainly an alternative. Ralph Haqman _ 6J61 Minnewashta Wooda. Aren't you in effect creating a dry wetlands? Jim Harper Yes. Ralph Haqman _ That means that there would be little water in it at any time. Jim Harper _ The idea would be to leave some unevenness in the thing ss it is now. Pockets of water would be retained just like they are now. If you had standing water then you wouldn't have the kind of vegetation that you have now. . Howard Schmidt _ I have seen water stand there as high as three hours, not even coming through that 24 inch culvert. That culvert is half the water only. The rest is coming from allover the neighborhood. We get a lot of water in that area. I don't know what you are going to do with it even when you are talking about putting a road on Lot 12. Councilman Gevinq _ I know we are going to have to disturb some of it. I just don't want to destroy all of it. Councilman Horn - Bill, do you think the proposal as it's presented this evening represents the overall best complex or do you think that if you work with the deve- loper you could come up with some other proposal that would better satisfy the overall ponding issue that we are talking about? Bill Monk _ What I would ask the Council is if the Council members as a whole are not comfortable with major portions or any portion of the proposal tonight that they give some direction as far as what items, disturb the wetlands as little as possible if that's the general direction then we go back with that in mind take a look at revisions can be done with that in mind. If that coupled with any reduction in the wetland area, those things can be looked on. I guess the answer to the question is the developer has come in with what he considers a reasonable plan for development of his property. It calls for a 50: reduction in the wetlands. It comes down to whether you believe that to be reasonable or not and I guess with the possible area shifting to the north and to the east, I agree that the plan as submitted is reaso- nable but it does have several drawbacks. Those drawbacks such as the disturbance of the existing area are such that the Council feels that they are of majo~ impor- tance and should not be changed, yes, another plan could be drawn up that would modify to try to take those things into account. There will be repercussions to that plus the loss of a lot. One of the problema that you might find with the shifting of the lot is all of a sudden that house is too close to the wetlands. It does not mean that other problems will not crop up. I believe the plan as submitted is reasonable. It does have several drawbacks. I I ~ I I I I I I [I I ( I I I I ~ , I. Ie Ir I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I ~, 1- I . " . . .'.';,j.., .._....->o._'_"_=-.,__~._ Council Meeting December 3, 1984 -9- Councilman Horn - I think they are trade-offs. ~ ~ - Yes, they are. Councilman Horn - In my mind I would be willing to take a risk in the reconstruction of a wetland if 1 felt the overall result justified it and would be that much better. What I am asking for is a" technical opinion as to whether we could get something that's even better. ~ Honk - I think if we hit the ssme area and we do enlarge the wetlsnds to the east and to the west so that we insure that we do get the same area that there will be no major negative impact. I am not going to say that it is the best plan or that it is the only plan but I believe that it will give the same affect as far as the engineering aspects and the drainage aspects, whether it has the same aesthetic and whether it has the same as far as it disturbs an area and affects the wildlife and that type of thing are things that are-basically not addressed. I am not sure any- body really can. Councilman GevinQ - We heard a comment and a new prop~sal by the architect on this project that there was a possibility that there is other plans and that they were at least willing to look at snother alternative. I don't care if you can get another lot out of there as long as the lot is buildable and it doesn't end up with a wet basement and it meets all of our other City requirements. I am more concerned about preserving that wetlands. Mayor Hamilton moved to amend the land use plan for this property from Parks/Open ~pace to Residential Low Density. Councilman GevinQ - I will second your motion due to the fact that I think it was an oversight. Councilwoman Swenson - Don't we have to have a land transfer before we can do this on the HUSA Line? Hayor Hamilton - This is shown on our land use plan right now as Parks and Open Space and all we are saying is we wsnt to take it off the Isnd use plsn for Psrks and Open Space and make it Residential Low Density. ~ Dacy - On the agenda, I guess maybe what also should have been included that was included in the staff report is that we are recommending when you act on the Land Use Plan amendment that you also act to include it in the Urban Service Area so you would be extending the line to include the seven acres. Mayor Hamilton - We have already taken care of that on the other side. Didn't we exclude a portion of Hillside Oaks? ~ Dacy - You acted on the other request. ~ Ashworth - You have land available to make the designation. You could, this " evening, assign that seven acres. Councilman GevinQ - I think there might be a better seven acres in the City. Bob Eide on Lyman Blvd. has about a ten acre parcel that fits better in my opinion. If I were to trade ten acres with the metropolitan people, that's the ten acres that I would like to go for. "- .'~"- .._...._--~-_.'-- .--____--o"'-~ Council Meeting December J, 1984 -10- Mayor Hamilton - 1 would like to see staff make a recommendation as to what ten acres we are going to trade off. We have got land available that we have taken out Line so'l don't think it has to be this one for that one. e of the MUSA !!.!!.!!!. Dacy - That's correct. Mayor Hsmilton - All those in favor signify by saying aye. Councilman Horn - Aye. Councilman Gevinq - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Hayor Hamilton - Opposed? Councilwoman Watson - Aye. Hayor Hamilton - Hotion carries. Next, the rezoning request from R-la, Agricultural Residence to R-I, Single family Residence. Hayor Hamilton moved to rezone from R-Is to R-l, Single family Residence. Councilman ~ - Second. Ha~ Hamilton - Those in favor of the motion say aye. . Councilman Gevinq - Aye. Councilman Horn - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Hayor Hamilton - Opposed? Councilwoman Watson - Aye. Hayor Hamilton - Hotion carries. Subdivision request for preliminary plat approval. Hayor Hamilton moved to deny the seconded by Councilwoman Watson. Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Hotion carried. request for preliminary plat approval. Motion The following voted in favor: Hayor Hamilton, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Roqer Knutson - Could you state your reasons for the record why you are denying it. " Hayor Hamilton - Basically, because we want to see another plan. We had asked for alternative plans the last time Randy was here and I think we saw the same plan ,again that was presented at that time and I would like to see the road moved and I on't care how you try to align that, if you want to come back with a plan that moves the road and still fits a house on Lot 12, that's fine or if you can work it out some way as we have said so that you are not reducing the wetlands by 50~, something less than that 1 can't give you an exact number but I think you have a feeling from what you have heard.tonight on what we are looking for. .1 1 ~ I I I I I I [I . I .1 I I . ~ . I I I Council Meeting December 3, 1984 -11- Councilman Ho~ - I don't think we are going to insist that the road move. What we are looking for is something that leaves the wetland the way it is now with the same area. Mayor Hamilton - I would like to see some assurance like the study that was done on Lake Lucy Road where if in fact the road is put through the wetlands and we do destroy part of it it is still going to handle the run-off from the neighborhood area and you are not going to have water backing up across the road. Councilman Geving - The Pheasant Hill project which came through the Council several months ago, we had asked that they go back and do a wetland study for us, a water drainage study and I don't know who the firm was but they made a presentation that was excellent. Bill Monk - Consulting Engineers Diversified was working for the City on a par- ticular project. It was a petitioned project and part of the feasibility study which was done they submitted a detailed drainage. Councilman Geving - I think that was the one thing missing from your proposal tonight, Randy, and I would urge you to maybe get a copy of that from the City and see what we are after. Councilwoman Watson Councilman Geving. Watson and Swenson, moved to deny the wetland alteration permit. Motion seconded by The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton - Again, for the same reasons. We would like to see an alternative and we have asked for something less than 50% of the wetlands be disturbed. ~APLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION REQUEST: Barb Dacy - The applicant is proposing a 13 lot subdivision east of and adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway and Lake Minnewashta. The proposed lot sizes meet the riparian and non-riparian lot requirements for the Shoreland Management Ordinance and the City Engineer has recommended several changes to the plat as far as the existing and proposed watermain and the sanitary lateral be shifted between two of the lots. We are recommending approval of the subdivision as submitted and subject to the City Engineer's recommendation. Councilman Horn moved preliminary plat approval for Maple Ridge Subdivision, Planning Case 884-6, plan dated November 8, 1984, with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMII REQUEST, CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 710 AND 720 WEST 96TH STREET, RONALD LANDIN: Councilman Horn moved approval of a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard, Planning Case 84-17, at 710 and 720 West 96th Street. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONDITIONAL gSE PERMIT REQUEST, CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 1180 PIONEER TRAIL, RODNEY BEUCH: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard, Planning Case 84-18, including the recommendations of the Planning Commission. 1. Expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in this application must be approved by a conditional use permit. 2. All equipment must be stored within a building or the outside vehicle storage area must be screened on all sides with adequate fencing of at least six feet in height. Council Meeting December 3, 1984 -12- Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I LAKE DRIVE EAST FEASIBILITY STUDY: Bill Monk - We had a petition for the City to prepare a feasibility study of impro- vements necessary to develop by the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Third Addition. It goes from County Road 17 over to the Ward Estate property. A little bit later a secondary request came from Opus to expand the feasibility study to include improve- ments for Lake Drive East from County Road 17 to Audubon Road adjacent to Outlots D and F in the original Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. That has now been completed. I have worked with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron to prepare the study that the Council has received. A method was made to make sure that all affected landowners got a copy of the report. I have had a chance to talk to many of them about their likes and dislikes of the report. I think the study on a whole brings out the points that it needs to. It goes through the improvements through the potential assessments and covers the items that it needed to cover. I tried to do an overview of the City's state aid system because Lake Drive East all the way from Audubon Road to past CPT is a part of the City's state aid system. We can receive a lot of monies from the State when construction occurs. One of the premises of the report is that the City set a policy of a minimum MSA participation of 33 1/3%. One of the major premises of the report is that the frontage road should go all the way through to Highway 101 and that should be explored to the limit at this point even though it has a major impact on the Ward Estate because the thought of a 3,000 foot cul-de-sac to service a major proposal that would include something like the Pen Industrial Center did not sit well as we did look at this particular project. Lake Susan Hills owns all of the property to the south of what's in the report called Section 3 and they will be saying to the Council that they think development of that section of road is prema- ture at this point and they are not sure they are looking to have it go through at this point. I am asking that one of the sections be amended. I am requesting that as the Council looks at this that if they approve it in any fashion, allow a rede- signation of the assessment method for what is referred to as Section 1 based on a conversation I had with the developers some time ago and subsequently forgot. It has a minor impact on the overall assessments to Outlot A, Outlot B, and Lot 1, Block 1, but has already been agreed to in their private agreements and I don't see that it would cause the City any problems to change the method on assessment and I take the blame for not having it included in here originally as it should have been. This is the first step towards an improvement hearing at which time the Council would have to take stock and actually decide on which of these project sections to include or not include. I Bob Friqaard - One of the things I might comment on, Bill mentioned the Ward pro- perty had not petitioned, we had looked at the topo of the land and made a tentative alignment through here. As I am sure all of you are aware, the grades on Highway 101 when we start getting a little bit farther down there is terrific site problems and so forth. The Highway Department recommended earlier in a letter to Bill that any road that comes in from the east be south of the Legion Club. We did take that into consideration and looked at the possibility that this road could be swung up a little bit farther. We felt it would be better a little bit lower. Michele Foster - I am here representing Opus Corporation and Alscor Joint Ventures who is actually the property in both Section 1 and in Section 3. We appreciate the City going forward on both of these sections of the feasibility study. The intent on our part is to encourage development in both of these areas of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park which heretofore we haven't been able to because we have needed the improvements. Bill did deal with a couple of the concerns that we had but I would like to comment on those as well as a couple of other issues that we are par- ticularly concerned about. In terms of Section 1 which deals with Chanhassen Lakes I I I I Council Meeting December 3, 1984 -13- Third Addition, Bill has already commented on the fact that it's very important to us that the assessments in that section be spread on an area basis as opposed to the method which is outlined in the report. We did have discussions with Bill on the legal documents in which we sold the property because the property actually spe- cified that the improvements will be spread that way and both property owners at least in that section agree that that is an acceptable way to spread the assessments and we would very much like to concur with Bill's amendment to the feasibility study. The one major concern that we have with the recommendations of the feasibi- lity study is that it is very important for us in that section to go forward. I don't know if anyone is here from Pen Properties and we don't pretend to speak for them but the main reason why we went forward with the feasibility study and asked for it in this section was in order to accommodate their development and their deve- lopment plans for 1985 as well as make Out lots A and B accessible for development and while we certainly understand the desirability of punching the road through that was not at our request that that section was added. We very much feel that it's terribly important to our development and to the Pen Properties development that a phasing of that road be allowed. If, for some reason the Ward property can not be acquired for the roadway then we have essentially stopped development in that part of the business park and that's a very real concern to us. We would ask that if the City choses to move in the direction of putting the road through that at least there be some cut-off point in 1985 where, if accommodations can't be made that we can at least go forward with all or part of Phase I improvements. There are a couple of design questions that I won't deal with those because that's not what we are really here to talk about. The only other concern that we have in this section of a general nature is that the storm sewer connection which proposed to come down from the railroad tracks through Outlot A is proposed to be an assessment that is spread against our property and this is a line that is totally really unnecessary for our development. It's accommodating drainage needs from the north and we feel this would more appropriately be a City cost rather than something that would be spread against our property since it's truly a larger drainage issue than affects our pro- perty and is really not needed for our property. We had no comments on Section 2 obviously since that is not our property and it was not our request that that be added to the feasibility study. We have a small comment on Section 3 which is that the watermain which is proposed to connect in County Road 17 down to the new Park Drive, again, we feel that because this is not totally development related for Outlot 0 that, again, it be considered as a City cost similar to the water loop method of financing that is proposed for the section in Audubon Road. Neither one of those are terribly important issues but we do think that from a policy basis that the City ought to look at that. The only other overall comment that we have has to do with the MSA percentage and we certainly appreciate the limit that the City of Chanhassen has in its MSA fund to make available for these projects. Bill mentioned that the planning for Outlot 0 is somewhat tentative and I have to say it is still that way. The reason we asked for the feasibility study on Outlot 0, Section 3, is because we were working with a major corporate user who was interested in a large portion of that property. It's very possible that we may choose not to go forward with the installation of those improvements until some later point in time but we support Bill's recommendation that the 33-1/3 be a minimum percentage and that, hope- fully depending on the timing of the improvements that there might be more funding that the City might choose to make available for these projects. As you know the assessments in this park are not low and the lower you can keep the assessments I think the better job we can in helping to market and be competitive in the develop- ment of the properties. Those are our general comments and we can answer any questions. John Ward - I would like to speak in behalf of the Ward Estate. We have had a timing problem here. We had the death of Mr. Ward less than a month ago and we were just advised of this feasibility study about two weeks ago. We met with Mr. Monk. He was very helpful and outlined what was ahead for us but we really haven't had a chance to Council Meeting December 3, 1984 -14- get organized. We are just getting started. We really haven't had enough time to analyze the feasibility and to go into this with any depth. We don't in any way here want to appear obstructionists towards the City or towards the private developers in I this industrial area but we would ask that you appreciate our concerns and our timing difficulties. We think there is a third alternative that temporarily should be pursued and that would be to cul-de-sac that road so that the development portions can proceed at this time. If there is a concern for emergency access, I believe currently there is a gravel lane of some kind coming from the church parking lot, possibly that could be slightly improved, not open to the public but available for emergency vehicles to access the development that would go on on these parcels. Our concern is that the road as proposed here would go through our property without proper analysis of the affect it's going to have on the value of this property, espe- cially the portion that is along Highway 5 which is the most significant portion of the property. We are concerned that due to the northerly swing of the road it may in fact diminish this property to a great extent. In addition it could cause a real pinching effect here on Highway 101 by having these intersections, we don't have an accurate count but I would say those sights somewhere around 400 feet at most, bet- ween the two intersections and we think that could be a real difficulty as it relates to the traffic pattern here and as it relates to the property that we are involved with. We would ask that the feasibility study stop at the point that it was origi- nally requested for by the people from Opus and the people concerned with Lot 1, Block 1 and that it not go beyond this. As I understand this from my conversations with Mr. Monk, if the road was installed and cul-de-saced there would be no addi- tional improvements and at a later point, without additional cost here, it could be extended on. There would be no need to dig anything up or alter anything except to remove the slight cul-de-sac area. I think that would afford access to the property. You would have safety covered if you had a extension of that gravel road for emergency vehicles only and would allow the development plans to go forward without I putting us in a bind at this point when we have so many decisio~s to make. We would really appreciate that you would consider the feasibility study without Section 2 included at this point. Councilman Geving - I think John's proposal is reasonable. They are trying to get organized. They are trying to see the best way that they can manage that property. I don't know how many acres are involved, do you know John. John Raiche - Approximately 77.5 acres but that includes the property on the other side of 101 as well and all the way down to Lake Susan. As set forth in the feasibi- lity study, the area shown as benefitted probably only covers about 12 acres north and a little bit south of the proposed road and they are talking $350,000. Councilman Geving - I think it's premature from the Ward standpoint to expect them to proceed with Section 2 not knowing how they might to develop their property to the best advantage and maybe this would buy them some time. I do see your point and it's a valid point that you have a piece of property there that maybe the way this is pro- posed would break through the middle of it and destroy some buildable lots. Mayor Hamilton - By accepting the feasibility study like their plans at all. We are not doing anything. What we at it and this is something that could possibly happen. that. it is, is not are saying is It doesn't do going to affect we have looked any more than Councilman Geving - There was some question in here, it indicated that if we move rapidly this could be done by 1985. I think that's the thing that they are talking about. I I I I Council Meeting December 3, 1984 -15- Don Ashworth - The next step in the process would be the public hearing step. That's what we are looking for is authorization to move into public hearing although I recognize that you may not want to move into or not know exactly how or if that road should go through the Ward property, if we do not include that in the public hearing process we could not consider putting that road through. If we do keep it in through the public hearing process, the Council could drop it out in six or eight weeks. That provides you with greater alternatives if during the next, what period of time, Bill, how soon would this go back to public hearing? Bill Monk - It would depend on the petitioners. How fast they would push it through. The City usually waits until the petitioners come back requesting the public hearing based on the feasibility study but it wouldn't be in less than four weeks I am sure and would probably would be in 60 days if Opus wanted to move quickly. Don Ashworth - I would recommend that we move into the public hearing stage including the Ward property recognizing full well that if it is your intent that you would like to be dropped at that hearing that could be done at that time. Bill Honk - A couple of points that were raised, to make the Council aware, Ms. Foster was talking from Opus about the drainage, there is an open cattle pass under the railroad, Instant Web put a large pipe to handle run-off from the highway in. The plan does call for piping or handling that water as it would come across thie property and they are asking for greater City participation because it is handling a lot of off-site water. Basically, the position the City has taken to date is that handling water across your site is basically the landowners responsibility. Some option that the City could look at would be a greater participation through MSA on perhaps 33% of all drainage costs instead of just 30% of the roadway drainage system which basically we get funding for so that is an option. That is what is being discussed at this point. The report is not a means or an attempt to force development on anybody. I can appreciate the special probl.ems that are in this particular instance. This is an option that could be looked at. Don's points are good ones in that if you adopt it as is that can then be reduced at the public hearing but the project can't be expanded at that point. The intent here really was a technical one in looking at this and trying to visualize this with a cul-de-sac. This fully deve- loped knowing or having seen initial Pen Industry layout, knowing how this might develop and the situation that could occur on this road, the problems that we have encountered over on Dakota is a similar instance with a single access situation and the problems, I feel strongly that a second way out is needed and that this repre- sents the way to do it, whether at public hearing when we decide that the timing is right I am not sure but that is the basis for its inclusion in the report. RESOLUTION 884-64: Councilwoman Watson moved the adoption of a resolution accepting the feasibility study for Lake Drive East from Orr-Schelen-Mayeron, Consulting Engineers. Resolution seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFERS AND CLOSING ~ PARK FUND MONIES: Councilman Geving moved to table this item to December 17th. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT lQ ALLOW COLD STORAGE, WAREHOUSING AND OUTDOOR STORAGE ~ C-3 DISTRICT: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the final reading of Ordinance 147-AV. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting December 3, 1984 -16- ADVERTISEMENT FOR ~IDS FOR CITY NEWSPAPER AND PLUMBING INSPECTOR, 1985: Councilman Geving asked that the position of Plumbing Inspector be advertised as other persons may be interested in bidding on the job. He suggested an option for the official City I newspaper for 1985, Excelsior Sailor. Mayor Hamilton stated that he has talked with representatives from the Sailor but with the mergers that have taken place with area newspapers, they don't know if they meet all the state requirements to be an official city newspaper at this point. lli ZlZ/BLUFF CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT: The City has received construction plans as well as a DNR permit application as prepared by MnDOT concerning replacement of a culvert under TH ZlZ on Bluff Creek. LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR/LAKE VIRGINIA FORCEMAIN: The City Manager presented a report on the progress of this item with the Metropolitan Council. PROPOSED TIMETABLE FOR SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCES: Mayor Hamilton felt the schedule of meetings between December lZ and January 9th was during the busy time of the year and wondered if it was realistic. COMPARABLE ~ORTH PROCESS: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the City Manager's recom- mendation. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. LOTUS LAKE ESTATES BEACHLOT: Councilwoman Swenson moved to adopt the findings of fact as presented in the Council packet. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Mayor Hamilton voted no. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I Don Ashworth City Manager I