Loading...
1985 04 15 REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 15, 1985 I Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson Councilman Geving, and Councilwoman Swenson Members Absent None Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bill Monk, and Roger Knutson APPROVAL QI AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the Agenda as presented with the following additions: discussion of tenant in the Old Instant Web Building, the extension of item DII, Set Meeting Date for Field Review of TRI Properties Conditional Use Permit, for a trip also to Lake Lucy Road and Bluff Creek Drive, and discussion on The Board of Equalization Meeting, May 13, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. III CONSENT AGENDA, The following item was removed from the consent agenda for further discussion: l.c. Ordinance No. 22-B, Amendment to Nuisance Ordinance Regarding Tree Hole Mosquito, Final Reading. Councilman Geving moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: l.a. Final Plat Approval, Stoddart Addition, Russell Stoddart. l.b. Approve Construction Plans and Specification for Chestnut Ridge at Near Mountain 5th Addition. l.d. Amend Conditional Use Permit for Contractor's Yard, 6420 Powers Boulevard, Larry Kerber Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the March 11, 1985 City Council minutes. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Swenson abstained. Motion carried. I Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the March 18, 1985 City Council minutes with the following noted change: The City Engineer's recommendation D6 for the conditional use permit for landscaping contractor's yard activities, David Stockdale, one-half mile north of HWY 5 on Galpin Boulevard be changed to read as follows: Based on the revised plan presented at the Council meeting showing the reduction of the parking area by approximately 30 feet along Galpin Boulevard which dictates an 80 foot front Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -2- yard setback. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, No negative votes. Motion carried. The following voted in Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the City Council minutes dated April I, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CHANHASSEN PIONEER CEMETERY: I Councilman GevinQ: On item 86, having to do with Maintenance and Perpetual Care Funds, at the bottom of that section, I would like to include a statement that says an annual report describing improvements that have been made, and the annual expen- ditures from the previous year be made a part of our regular budgetary process. The planned improvements would be a part of a report due to the Council on where we are at on the cemetery; is it making it on it's own, or should we raise the rates. That would be the time that we would raise rates or look at the fiscal record of the pre- ceeding year. Also under section #10, Monuments, Markers, and Plantings, in the last paragraph under this section "These regulations and those that may be established by the City Council shall not affect monuments or markers or plantings already placed or planted on graves," (I would like to add the date of April 15, 1985 at this point.) Therefore, it should read: "These regulations and those that may be established by the City Council shall not affect monuments or markers or plantings already placed or planted on graves, as of April 15, 1985, except in those instances where such monu- ments or markers or plantings have become unsafe." I didn't see in here something regarding the City's responsibilities in maintaining the cemetery. I would assume I that we would treat the cemetery as though it were another park. Is that correct? The above first sentance was amended 5-6-85, Page 7. Don Ashworth: Yes, it is. Councilwoman Swenson: Under Section 616: Hours Open to the Public, has it been established who is going to open and close the gates and who will be the caretaker? Don Ashworth: All interments will be handled by Harold Kerber and he has agreed to carry out his responsibilities. But the care and different functions will be split between a number of people. For example, the receipting and maintaining the vault records will be maintained by Karen Engelhardt. Councilwoman Swenson: But who will open and close the gates at sunrise and at sunset? Don Ashworth: The cemetery is basically open at all times. There is no lock on the -, ga te . Councilman Geving moved approve the Warranty Deed Conveying Land to the City. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to approve the ordinance establishing ownership, operations and procedures, final reading. Motion was seconded by Concilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I I Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -3- Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the summary description on the ordinance for publishing purposes. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION D85-l6: Councilwoman Wastson moved the adoption of a resolution establishing the fees for the Chanhassen Pioneer Cemetery. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Viola Roers, Cemetery Treasurer: The last figure from the bank statement is approxi- mately $15,000. The only notice that I have had from the bank so far is a little interest in the amount of $13.00. Somebody should go to the bank with me. We have had our account with the Minnetonka Bank, and I suppose you would want to change it. I also have the saftey deposit key, so we will have to get that taken care of also. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the bills as presented: checks 0022393 through #022473 in the amount of $337,227.03 and checks 0024890 through 0025007 in the amount of $64,401.42. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS, ~ HILL STREET, WES ARSETH: This item was approved unanimously at an earlier Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting this evening. Therefore, there is no Council action required. DALE GUNDERSON, 815 CREEKWOOD DRIVE: ~ Appeal Decision ~ Deny Building Permit. ~ Street Frontage and Lot Area Variances. Mayor Hamilton: Will the Board of Adjustments and Appeals tell us what is happening and what their action was. Councilwoman Watson: It was unanimously denied, and they want to appeal to the Council. Mayor Hamilton: Is the applicant here? Roqer Knutson: The applicant's attorney indicated to me that he wasn't overly opti- mistic on what you would do with it, but he wanted the Council to consider. I believe he wasn't going to be here, but he wanted the Council to deal with it. The above first sentence was amended 5-6-85, Page 8. Barb Dacy: The property is located at 815 Creekwood Drive. It consists of two separate legally described parcels, lot A being one acre ascribed and lot B 3.56 acres ascribed. The property is owned by the Vogels and they acquired lot A in 1965 and acquired lot B in 1967. So by virtue of the two lots being adjacent to one another and under one ownership is considered a single parcel, being 4.56 acres. Back in late December or early January, a realtor came in and saw myself and JoAnn about the possibility of purchasing this lot. We, at that time, informed them of the variances that would be needed. 1) the 2! acre minimum lot area requirement, because you would be creating a sub-standard lot on lot A and 2) it abuts a private easement Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -4- and not a public street frontage. Several days later we met with the applicant, Oale Gunderson, and reiterated the same information. In January we asked the City Attorney to verify our interpretation and a letter was sent to another realtor. In March we received a building permit application for a home and the Planning staff denied the building permit because the variances had not been properly applied for and this is the first item that is being considered. I have an appeal to the Planning staff's decision to deny the building permit, and that was denied by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The second part, the variances, are 1) would be to the 2! acre minimum lot size for lot A and 2) creating another lot on a private ease- ment and not abutting a public street frontage. Councilman Horn: How large is the lot that is left in the little corner? Barb Oacy: I believe that is approximately one acre. It has a house on it and that is a separate parcel. Councilman Horn: So right now that would be a nonconformable piece also. Barb Oacy: The issue made here, they have the opportunity to conform one lot over 4.56 acres, and by transferring ownership they would be creating another lot, and therefore creating a sub-standard lot. Councilman Horn: Have they attempted at all to equalize the two lots to get it closer to the 2! acre limit. I Barb Oacy: No they haven't. They have mentioned that just once, but I informed them all that they would have to go through the platting process and receive the same type of variances. My understanding is that it was the Vogels intention when they I purchased the lot, was always to have it resold. However, they were not aware of our ordinances regarding the 2! acre limit. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to call on Councilwoman Watson for the reasoning of the denial from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilwoman Watson: The Planning staff had taken great pains at the beginning of January maybe three or four times to explain to them that this was in violation of our ordinance. from the information from the City Attorney and from our staff we felt that this permit indeed should be denied. We supported the staff's recommen- dations and the attorney's recommendations that this would indeed be creating a sub- standard lot and that due to the problems with the sewer systems in that general vicinity, we didn't feel comfortable creating the situation. Also, it is not abutting public roads and we felt that was a substantial problem. The staff has made every effort to explain to the applicant the problems involved. Councilman Geving: I felt that the staff interpretation of the ordinances was abso- lutely correct. What was attempted here was for us to create a sub-standard lot out of an existing conforming lot. We felt very strongly that the appeal should be denied. I believe that what we are talking about here is a very dangerous precedence that could be set by any number of people who have a small piece of acreage just over that 2! acre minimum that could somehow make us bend and break on some of these issues. I can't see why we should destroy the integrity and intent of the 2! acre minimum lot size. Councilman Horn: There is a little bit of difference in this particular request, rather than some of the others that we have had because it is located adjacent to areas that are already platted. The thing that strikes me is that the lot they are asking for is consistent with other lots in the immediate vicinity. I know when we I I I I Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -5- strike off a piece of property where there are no other platted areas around, I think we are really compelled to stick to our ordinance. I know that we have had other cases of 2; acres, but in cases of other lot sizes we have looked at, what is con- sistent with the area. I am wondering if that isn't something that we should ask ourselves in this case also, or if we just do that with regard to various ones that are not in the sewer area. Above fourth sentence amended 5-6-85, Page 8. Mayor Hamilton: That "is a good observation, but there is a problem with the 2; acre minimum lot size, especially when the opportunity is there to split the property in two 2; acre parcels. Councilman Horn: Did the staff, at any time, suggest to the applicant that he would probably have a better chance if the lot area did come closer to what is the required minimum? Barb Dacy: We have informed him of all the alternatives. If he appealed it he would still need variances or he could resubdivide and he would have to do that by the platting process. The applicant chose, on the applications that he made and by the recommendation of his attorney, to appeal. Councilman Horn: He could not subdivide by metes and bounds? Barb Dacy: Right. But under our new ordinance, because the parcel cannot be further subdivided, he would have to plat the property. Councilman Horn: It seems to me that we jus~ did one by metes and bounds for one that had a frontage configuration two weeks ago. Don Ashworth: If you have an area where you divide off the east 15 feet of lot, that is approved by metes and bounds, because is it just the east 15 feet of lot 2. That is a lot different than starting in the northwest corner, etc. Councilman Horn: The point that I am trying to and bounds was ever suggested to the applicant. there option was to plat this, they didn't have because of our ordinance. I don't know if they option. get at is that I don't know if metes It seems to me they were told that an option for metes and bounds ever heard the metes and bounds Barb Dacy: I advised them what the ordinance requires; that the property would have to be platted under our new ordinance. Councilwoman Swenson: We are not taking one piece of property and taking a piece off of it. There are actually two pieces of property with two legal descriptions, which would have to be combined and then platted. If it were all under one description now, I could see what you are suggesting could certainly be feasible, but it might get a little complicated if you try to take two pieces of property and separate descriptions. Councilman Horn: Another concern is that they are aware of all of the options. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps in Roger Knutson's letter, he will clarify that. Willard Johnson: As a third member of the Board, I don't know if Councilman Horn is aware of the property that if you split, even if you split it in half equally, it would not abut a city street, and that would be hard to press even if they split it because that would just open a can of worms. Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -6- Councilman Geving moved to table this item directing the City Attorney, Roger Knutson, to prepare written Findings and Facts and a conclusion denying the building permit and street frontage and lot area variances and bringing that infor- mation back to the next City Council meeting so the Council can vote on the Findings and Facts. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I OLD INSTANT WEB BUILDING, 581 WEST 78TH STREET: a. Subdivision Approval (Preliminary and Final) ~ Conditional Use Permit Approval. Fred Hoisington: What I would like to do is to background you just a little bit as to where we've been and then present the plans as they currently exist. We are really presenting two different plans. We did a site plan initially, that I believe everyone has received copies of. The first one that we prepared had a considerable amount of open space within the parking lot. What we were proposing was that in all of the areas throughout the entire parking lot, that there be islands, and landscaping, being organized the best that we could with the circulation system of parking within the parking area. This will always be the case when you have to deal with real situations, and not with an ideal situation which was more of what we were dealing with when we were trying to put together that plan. Is there a compromise that needs to be made. In the real world there are certain parking demands that are put on the site that simply do not allow for all of the things to be accomplished that we were proposing in the initial plan. What we did is we went back and revised the plan to reflect a bit more parking than what was available on the prior 'plan. Not as much as you think, but still some additional parking. I eliminated some of I the inefficiencies, and when I talk of inefficiencies such as snow plowing inefficen- cies it would be inherent with a plan that had as many islands as the prior plan did. What we have done is we have really shifted the open space, the green space, that existed on the site plan from out in the parking lot itself to a place closer to the building. In a sense, as a planner, I have difficulty with that and, in another sense we really have better spaces within which to accomplish landscaping now than we did on the initial plan. What I am talking about is all of the green spaces that are in a very close proximity to the building. In our prior plan, we were actually cutting into these to within ten feet of the building in all cases. In this plan, in order to keep the amount of work done to use the existing parking lot within the front area and still allow for some additional construction in the back, we are not now needing to cut as deeply into those areas and still are providing more parking than we were on prior occasion. When we calculated the parking before, we were figuring something in the neighborhood of 380 spaces as being required at full occupancy of the building including the community center. We had a very close balance between the parking that is available and parking that was demanded by the users for the occupancy of the building. We have learned some things since that meeting. We understand that there is a bit more going on in the bowling center than we had anticipated when we did the original calculations. So the numbers have changed some. We are not real concerned about that because I think there are ample opportunities to do things to resolve those type of problems. I only want you to be aware that you will be a bit deficient in parking and that as all Councils and HRAs must do in the course of dealing with downtowns, where you must playa roll in provisions of parking, is you are going to have to keep tabs on it. You may not have an immediate problem at all, but on the I other hand the potential exists to have a problem. These are the numbers in what we can provide and what we are proposing here with again minimum development and some rather substantial development of a portion of the property. A total of 354 I I I ~~ Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -7- spaces being provided immediately with this plan. A total of 390 spaces with the land as it currently exists. A total demand, initially for parking without occupancy of the community center, if given with the full occupancy, which may not occur imme- diately, would be about 420 spaces. If you have the building totally occupied, which is not a certainty, what we suggested to you is that you look in the meantime in ways to solve drainage problems, that you know that exist, a parking problem that you also know that exists, that you continue to look at how the roadway or access leads and all of these things can be satisfied in conjunction with one another. If everything were to be occupied in this building, assuming that you were right, assuming that the bands for parking will be as you think they are, then you could be looking in the neighborhood of a 100 car deficiency on the site. I do not want to get you concerned about that, I would like to just throw it up so you understand that you do have a continuing roll to play in this case to make sure that overtime things will work out. The most important part of the recommendation or our review has to do with the recom- mendations that exist on the back portion of the report, one of which had been con- sidered in great length, the gerrymandering of lines which Don Ashworth has been in the process of doing fo~ quite some time. It has created another lot which, I think, will benefit the City and with regard to patrol over what happens to the additional parking. The City should definitely hold off on the development of lot 3 until we know what the history is and we know how this thing is going to function and other- wise full development; that the owner of the building, Mr. Kirt, somehow balance usage of the northeast corner of the building with the available parking, we are re- questing an ajoining parking agreement with the ajoining owner or a usage that would have a lesser demand for parking in that particular part of the building; we suggest that you at least consider a pedestrian connection to link the new mall with the Frontier and Dinner Theater buildings; alternate ways of providing initial parking be considered and that you do, as soon as possible, a feasibility study to decide and determine what your greatest needs are and what your drainage needs are and what your access needs are and how they are going to be satisfied, which will be on both the west and south sides of the property, and also how much additional parking will be satisfied in fact that it is needed at a later date. We recommend that you consider that Mr. Kirt considers an alternate location for his dumpster. It is hardly appropriate in front of the building; that every effort, and Mr. Ashworth has been struggling with this for a long time and he has some ideas about how the building could be internalized, we think that is extremely important to this development and its viability and the quality of the development as far as downtown is concerned; that as much as possible, the parking lot be curbed and guttered especially in the areas of the closest proximity to the building; that the landscaping plan be sub- mitted for approval by the City Planner; that the variance be approved for lot 3, which does not have street frontage; and that you continue to work with Carver County for the purchase of land shown as excess right-of-way for County Road 16. With that we would suggest that you approve two staged site plans subject to the conditions and recommendations. In addition to the site plan itself, something has to be done to knit this building together. What Mr. Ashworth has asked us to do is to at least look at how that can be accomplished. I do not mean to suggest that this needs to be accomplished in absolute accordance with what I am going to show you here but the type of materials we are talking about are generally used so there is some consistency and compatibility between the issues. You are all familiar with the building, we have a wooden front, the grocery store has a plywood elevation with a mansard roof, the area in between is the cement block portion of the building that is the worst part of the building in terms of its appearance and probably in terms of the quality of the wall itself, and finally the fab-con portion of the building, which is not at all unattractive. It does rather look industrial, but it is not terribly an unattractive type of facing. How do you get all of these things together so it somehow looks like one building and not a one that's been added to which you all know is exactly what we Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -8- have. The first plan we tried to accomplish some way to relate this to the rest of downtown and carry out the theme that Mr. Bloomberg has had for years and to do that relatively inexpensively. The front of the building is going to be simply stained and the materials will remain basically the same. We have a couple options with the grocery store part of the building. We can either develop it with a sort of canopy effect, which does carry out the western theme or we can eliminate that and use a board and batten approach. But we are suggesting a wood material in this portion of the building. The center portion, or the cement block portion of the building is rather a critical one and we see a stucco type treatment there, yet showing a remarkable change from the front of the building to the back portion of the building. There are canopys over the entries. In this plan we happen to have an overhang, which would be a covered walkway. This is simply a stucco effect with a ceiling in the center and some posts drop down. When we got it done, we didn't like the looks of that particular elevation. We went back and took another look at it then and we cut off the canopy from the front of the building and simply ran it around the corner and ended it at that point. Board and batten stucco with no overhang at all, very simple and clean effect and probably much better than the prior plan. In the final back portion of the building leaving the back with stucco with wood on the lower por- tion of the building with a wood band along the top, in this case to take away from the top portion of the building and still to create a border for it. We prefer this kind of treatment. We are not suggesting at all that you apply this absolutely literally, only that you consider and look at the kinds of materials that we are suggesting. Don Ashworth: Brauer and Associates was hired by the City to insure that we looked at the total site that any of our clients were taking a look at what we were going to be accomplishing as part of this overall development. I think it is very important to remember that the only thing that we are approving this evening is the building plans for the bowling center. In terms of any of Mr. Hoisington's comments regarding the site plan, dumpster, and the layout, what we are doing here is setting a tone for how we want this section to develop. It is going to be up to Mr. Kirt to submit his plans and get approval from the Council before he can do one thing. Two to three weeks ago we had Brauer and Associates review the plan at that point in time. They identified that there were some serious problems with potential circulation. At that time we moved the bowling center people from one side of the building to the other, based on Brauers comments. We maintained a corridor section through this entire por- tion of the building so that we could accomplish that mall atmosphere as a part of any type of future plans. Similarly, every review by Brauer, we have modified what we are doing to make sure that we are going to be able to accomplish what we want to in the future. They have identified a parking problem. In the plat we have retained a portion of the property ownership to insure that we have adequate parking asso- ciated with the site. At the current time, if there is a developer who has a poten- tial problem, it would be Mr. Kirt, if he would walk in tomorrow. If the bowling center is approved this evening, which we are recommending, it should be in reaso- nable shape as far as parking for a temporary period of time. When Mr. Kirt comes in, we must resolve this road issue and the access as it leads into the site. I think we have used all of the input from Brauer to guide each of our decisions to make sure that we know, in advance, what it is we want to do tomorrow. I feel very comfortable with that. Going back to the parking problem again, the agreement with Mr. Kirt says that he cannot put any use in his portion of the building if he does not have suf- ficient parking for that use. So before he comes back with a restaurant, he would have to either develop additional parking in conjunction with Mr. Bloomberg or to change that use to one that would conform with the parking that he has here. I don't know of any section of the agreements that you have already signed that do not try to address, not only the current problem areas as well as the future. I feel I I I I I I Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -9- very comfortable with those. You must recognize that you have an existing building, and therefore it becomes difficult to have everything done tonight. What we can do is to develop through those agreements how it is that we are going to take and insure the green areas that are developed. We have addressed that again through those agreements and through recognition of the new north-south road. We have addressed the issue of parking in those agreements. Again, I feel very comfortable that the concerns raised by Brauer have been addressed in the plans that are in front of you right now. The last one on the facia, and Mr. Hoisington did not really stress this point and I feel that it is a major one, in that Mr. Dorek & Mr. Baden have agreed to fill the existing area adjacent to this building three to four feet and bringing that grade out, similarly the height of that wall, this is that loading dock area, that is a lower elevation. At the current time we are looking at a 24 foot high concrete block wall. It's not very attractive. By removing the top eight feet off that wall and bringing it down to the height of this loading dock and by filling adjacent to the building and bringing that up you have a treatment on this side that signifi- cantly reduces the amount of concrete block. It gives it more of an appearance of a commercial building rather than a warehouse. Councilwoman Swenson: I was over at the Prairie Mall and noticed something that I think would really look very nice here too. On the east side of the parking area in plat four, I think it would be very beautiful there if we had about a four foot curbed in area with about a 2-inch tree in each one of those things. That would also help to put in a lighting system for the parking aisles. I think that would really help to bring in the greenery and the outside attractiveness of the building. Mayor Hamilton: I can understand what you are saying, but my only problem is that it does cause problems plowing. Also, garbage also tends to collect in these areas and the wood chips seem to deteriorate fast. Councilwoman Swenson: That is just a matter of picking the garbage up. This also gives us exterior lighting for the parking area. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe we should ask Mr. Baden what his plans are for the lighting. Mr. Baden: I can't tell you just where, but Mr. Henning has talked about certain "candle lights" for the parking lights. In regards to the greenery close to the building, this creates a problem for us and that has to do with signing. You have to go 50 feet up the roof to be seen, that means 74 feet up to be seen. We do not want to do that and I am sure you do not want us to, so we are going to use part of the wall to designate what it is. If we have got trees and shrubs around that wall, then our only alternative is to go up because we have to identify ourselves. The sign would be located on the wall that goes back from the loading dock, which runs east and west. On the south wall we would probably have the word "BOWL" on the wall, illuminated. We do want to keep some of the trees away from the signing area. As far as the exterior is concerned, the only thing that we had planned different than what was proposed is that we are planning on a heavier wood beam and we would like to break up the stucco with vertical wood sections. Councilman Geving: Have you done this type of building before some other place or is this entirely new to you? Mr. Baden: No. This building is entirely new for us. Councilman Geving: the parking area. How do you feel about the islands that are being presented for What is your experience with islands? Mr. Baden: We have never had islands before. We did all of our shrubbery on the perimeters and by the building before. Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -10- Councilwoman Watson: I have a concern with our portion of the building. I am interested in that somewhere it is in writing that we cannot develop our portion of the building until the road is built. In putting this in writing, it would prove that we are complying with the rules as any other person has to comply with. Councilwoman Swenson: What do we figure as a time schedule for the road? I Don Ashworth: I would hope that we could move into that in 1986. The feasibility studies would begin in 1985 and ready for construction in 1986. Councilman Horn: Isn't part of what you are looking for here was to get rid of the industrial look of the building? Mr. Hoisington: The back portion of the building is inordinately tall, as ail industrial building must be. Ideally, you would either by cutting the build~ng down in size, which will be done in the center of the building and by filling you would diminish the overall size of that building accordingly. By the time you get done filling everything, you end up with a tremendous amount of cost that simply does not allow you to do this. You have to deal with ramps to get around that. Councilman Horn: Isn't one of the schemes that architects use to make something look shorter is to use a horizontal type of finishing method. Does a vertical tend to make it look taller? Mr. Hoisington: Yes, you can do that. It depends on what Mr. Dorek and decide to do with wood. The wall is going to be much lower in any case. to look like a very ordinary commercial building at that point and it is increase the attractiveness immensely there. Mr. Baden It is going going to Councilman Horn: It seems to me that your horizontal roof line that you proposed will make the building look much longer and the stucco type of treatment is fine. What I am concerned with is a vertical type look. I Councilwoman Swenson: What is your opinion, Mr. Hoisington, about having the islands in the parking lot with the light structures there? Mr. Hoisington: I have learned to like islands a great deal. One of the reasons that we included them in the prior plan was that we wanted to define the roadways and to provide parking spaces. Councilwoman Swenson: It does seem to keep you parking area in a more orderly fashion. Mr. Hoisington: Prairie Village Mall is maybe not the best example but they do do that there. The problem with it is, as it is with all shopping centers in Eden Prairie, they tend to run the door right by the shops and unfortumately you take your life in you hands when you cross the street. With each island that you put in here you have to weigh the benefits of the aesthetics versus the utility of the parking spaces. If you were to do that in this four bay area you would lose eight parking spaces minimum. Councilwoman Swenson: Would the lighting from an area like that be somewhat more aesthetic rather than flood lights coming off of the building. I Mr. Hoisington: As I understand it, they may flood the building wall itself for some lighting up close to the building. As far as into the lot itself, I am not quite sure as what will be done. Mr. Baden: There will be high level lighting that will be shining down onto the parking lot. I I I Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -11- Councilman Horn: Will there be curbs between each of the double rows of cars? Mr. Hoisington: The plans show no curbing at all. Councilman Horn: One of the things that I have seen with lots like this, is that whenever there is an open space, people tend to cut through those spaces and then pretty soon you have a traffic area that is out of control. Mr. Hoisington: I don't know if there is any real solution for that. When you begin to build curbs in the center you really have problems for snow plowing. I would rather have the good striping and maybe have the ends marked but not necessarily have the curbs in the center. Mayor Hamilton: One of the things that we are going to have to think about here is that we are already short on parking. I would rather wait until we have developed the area a little bit more. You can always go back and take a parking spot out and put in some shrubs on the ends. Rather than doing it now when we are partial on the parking, we should wait so as we develop it south and Mr. Bloomberg does something with the development to the south, that is going to alleviate that problem. Councilman Geving: That is the way I feel. I would rather go with a plan that shows eventual trees or curbing. Until we know what the market is and how many people are going to use this area, we would be better off with an open parking lot and build it from there, but, have the plan show it as an option for potential growth. Councilwoman Swenson: If we lose the shrubbery in the wall plantings that Mr. Baden suggests, we are going to have an awful bare area there. Mr. Hoisington: I think one of the things that you have to be concerned about is the parking lot coming up to the property line. What I would suggest to you is that over time, when this road is built that you give consideration on how you can provide a bit of a boulevard or a space between the parking lots. This way we would have an easement to plant some greenery. Councilman Horn: I think the concern is for tall shrubbery next to the building. Mayor Hamilton: You are still going to put low growing shrubbery next to the building, just so you are not blocking the signing, right? Mr. Baden: Yes, I believe there is even going to be a tree, but it is not going to be where it is shown there. Councilman Horn: What we want is something to highlight the entrance. The trees will suppliment that, not interfere with it. Councilman Geving: Mr. Baden, do you have a landscaping plan available. Mr. Baden: I do not have a plan as of yet. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the preliminary and final subdivision for the Chanhassen Mall, 581 West 78th Street, as presented by the Planning Department described and dated April 15, 1985 and approval of the building permit in accordance with the site, grading and facia plans as presented by the Planning Department as described and dated April 15, 1985. No conditions are being established other than the plan documents presented. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -12- following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn: I have a question about the negotiations with the County on the right of way on County Road 16. I Don Ashworth: We have contacted the County Engineer. Our general discussion with the County is that they consider a vacation. There is a question in there that they purchased it through the ownership position. The County would like to see this tranaaction completed between the County and the City or the County and the HRA. They do not want it as an application between the County and the developer. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit solely for the Bowling Center, Old Instant Web Building, 581 West 78th Street in compliance with the site plan presented by the Planning Department. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn: I would like to make one comment about the extra space in the building, what we keep calling the community center. I think what we really need to do is to get our community facilities moved back together again. I would not move to put any type of community facilities in there without a referendum. I think we need to find out where we stand on that relatively quickly. If I were to guess at this point, I would guess that a referendum would not pass for a community center. I think we need to know that as quickly as possible and know what we are going to do and make plans for the remainder of the bUilding. I would like to know what the intention is because the type of road and the whole parking plan is keyed on what the use is in the whole building and we need to find out what that is going to be. I Mr. Baden: I would like to know what we are limited to using in the building. As you know, there is a community center in the building with banquet facilities, there is some office space upstairs, and they are not part of a bowling center. I think that you are aware of what we are planning to use in there. Mayor Hamilton: These things pertain to your entire operation. Councilman Geving: I would like to see a project manager selected or appointed by this body to follow this project all the way through on a day to day basis, to report periodically to the Council with problems and resolution problems. We have some very tight deadlines to get Mr. Dorek and Mr. Baden down the road with the bowling center as well as Mr. Kirt. This person should be a HRA person, a Council member, or a staff member, and this being a full time job. This is a very important project for the city. Mr. Baden: I have been invloved with other bowling centers, none quite as complex as changing plans and so on, and it really has been difficult. I would like to thank Mayor Hamilton and Don Ashworth for being very patient. We thank all of you for you cooperation. We are putting in a first-class facility for you. Councilman Horn: How many leagues do you have signed up right now? I Mr. Baden: We are about at projection. We had a late start, but at this point we have about two full leagues a day. We are organizing leagues from the grass roots and it is much more difficult, but in this case it may turn out to be better. We are ahead of where we thought we would be. I I I Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -13- SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REDUCTION AGREEMENT, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, OPUS CORPORATION: Don Ashworth: Opus has found that there is a problem with the soils in the business park area and they have lost a couple of businesses as a result of that. Opus would like to address that problem. One way to do that is through a replatting and construction for the additional cul-de-sac street. Assessments right now are in excess of $20,000 per acre in that section. The construction of additional streets would increase those figures dramatically. The question becomes one of is there a mechanism under which the HRA, where you do have a cost that has substantially increased over what had been anticipated be considered under the program that they have. This is basically a question that should be brought back to the HRA. It is in their area of responsibility, but I was sure that the City Council would want to be aware of the issue. Being aware that this would be presenting a question to the HRA and to discuss whether or not the public included should be considered to correct that problem. Bill Monk will briefly outline the scope of the improvements and how that could correct some of the soil problems in that area. Bill Monk: Most of the dead soils as they exist on the property are to the imme- diate east of the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac does go through some of the bad soils itself. The intent is to put the buildings over towards Audobon Road where it starts to slope upward. The areas of better soil types would require the installtion of the street and utilities to service the new lot configuration. We could be looking at costs of between $150,000 and $250,000. With lots platted as they are now, it would be very difficult to develop because of the extreme amount of fill that has been put over the poor soil. Councilman Geving: How did you come up with the figures of $150,000 to $250,000. Would this mean the extension of sewer and water up in the cul-de-sac? Bill Monk: Some sewer would have to be extended up, but it would not necessarily be in the cul-de-sac. Most of the improvements would be to the existing lines that already surround the site. That would probably minimize the utility installation. Most of the cost is actually the dirt work and street construction. Councilman Geving: I noticed on the original configuration of lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 facing Audobon Road, I have always assumed that those would be lots that the buildings would be facing Audobon and now with this configuration as proposed they would all be coming off of the cul-de-sac. That made more sense. The Audobons con- figuration made some sense because the topography isn't all that bad along there. Bill Monk: When you move up into lots 8, 9, and 10 there is a considerable slope on the west side of the lots. Lot 7 and 11 are much more readily serviced. Councilman Geving: I think lots 7 and 11 would be buildable and possibly lot 8. Bill Monk: Opus has had a tremendous amount of research done, including soil tests and all kinds of data to show why the cul-de-sac arrangement was better. The staff has questioned the buildings A through E as shown on the second map, which would be a better layout. We are just trying to work with them to whichever way they think is best. There last option, I believe, was to put in no improvements. Counilman Geving: Don't you think, Mr. Monk, that you could get a lot out of the area to the east of the cul-de-sac. Bill Monk: The soil is too deeply damaged. Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -14- Councilman Geving: So, essentially, you would be taking ten lots and creating five. Councilman Horn: Which lots would not be accessible or usable by the current configuration? I Bill Monk: You would be taking lots 2 through 10 and consolidating them. So you would be taking nine lots and turning them into 5. Bill Monk: The reason that they are proposing the cul-de-sac is because of the e~treme poor soils on the east side together with slope problems for lots 8, 9 and 10 on the west side just gaining access to Audobon. With a conbination with those two, they feel that the best in line would be this cul-de-sac. Again that reseach and data collection was done by the Opus Corporation. This is their guess as to making as much of the area marketable as possible. Councilman Horn: Who reviewed the research on the original layout? Bill Monk: The City reviewed the layout as best as it could. There was torn-up lots, I think 7, 8, 9 and 10. There might be a frontage road, but that was never taken to a conclusion. As far as the soil types, I think that is something that occurs during the construction phase when the city and contractor was given instruc- tions on what to do with excess fill that was put in there and it was not done pro- perly, but it was the developers request. Bob Worthinqton, Opus Corporation: I have a couple of points that I would like to help with. We didn't discover the problem until after we had assumed ownership of the property. We had been under the assumption that the reduction program that the City had in place at the time was going to be more than adequate to help make the property I competative. We had several potential users look at the sites in this area and after analyzing it we found that we had some soil conditions and we began to wonder how deep and how far the soil problem was. We then put a temporary moratorium on the marketing and looked into the problem deeper and what resulted is what you see now, that being, we have poor soil and poor slopes. The only way that we can substantially take care of the problem is to use the configuration which you have seen this evening. If you put a pencil to it you will see that the assessments have increased dramatically. With the dramatic increase of cost, the question is how can we con- tinue to make these lots competative? We have a $30,000 per acre charge which will now be assigned to the configured lots. The only reason I am here this evening is to ask you to consider the concept which will allow us to respread the assessments and increase the amount of the percentage that are from the assessments that are already in this area. Councilwoman Watson: When I first read this, my first thought was - This is not the City's problem. In talking with Mr. Ashworth about it, my only concern was that we not give any future property owners of the business park an advantage that was not given to someone that came in earlier. Mr. Ashworth stated that these special assessments on these lots were at $20,000 per acre before so that they would have bene- fited in something that we had now, but didn't because it didn't exist then. So if you go to the 10 percent now on the $30,000 over, we wouldn't have over looked anyone with that benefit in the past had we had it in effect. When I heard that, then I wasn't as uncomfortable with changing that policy as long as no one would have bene- fited from it because it wasn't in effect then. So I guess I am fairly comfortable I with ten percent. I I I Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -15- Councilman GevinQ: In knowing those lots fairly well and picturing them in my mind, I think we would be fortunate if we could build five buildable sites on those nine lots right now. It makes a lot of sense to me for this marketing strategy to combine and reorganize the lots. I am very much in favor of it. I think it is the only way that we are going to market the rest of the area. We accepted this lot configuration thinking we could sell those lots. If the developer now tells us that it is going to sit there for a long time, we are not going to make any money on that either. I would rather work with the developer, even if it is going to cost $150,000 to $250,000 to reconstruct the area. Councilwoman Swenson: When these bond payments are being made, is the City footing the bill? Don Ashworth: No. Opus is making these payments. Councilwoman Swenson: So there are tax payments being made. If we reduce this assessment by 10 percent, then the reclamation will be after they have been sold or built? Don Ashworth: The way the formula works is to the developers advantage to get the development in as soon as he can because each time an assessment is paid, it reduces the amount that he can basically take advantage of. I believe Opus has tried to actively market this area. Councilwoman Swenson: I wanted to determine whether it would be activated prior to the contruction. Councilman Horn: I can see where an access problem exists on lots 8, 9 and 10. I am not quite clear on what the problem is on the other lots. What does the low soil have to do with the access on the other lots? Barb Dacy: The access issue was just another benefit of the replatting. replatting takes advantage better of the usable areas of the 7 or 8 lots the benefit of consolidating access onto a minor instead of interrupting five times. The and it adds a collector Councilman Horn: I have a problem with keeping ourselves competative with other areas. My only concern is that we may have some private covenants that keep us less competative than other areas too, which the City has no control over. I would not hesitate to go along with this assuming that our restrictive covenants do not drive companies to other areas. Mayor Hamilton: We specifically had a problem with this when Opus would not allow additional silo structures to be built, and that is when they moved to Waconia. That is one of those things that we have talked about a long time ago and we didn't want to lose complete control over the companies that are in this area and our abi- lity to work with them and to keep them in the community. We seem to have lost total control with that particular situation. We would like to know if there are any restrictive covenants that we may not be aware of that would hinder some company that may move into this area now after the City has approved this and put in the improve- ments and then a company comes back and wants to put on an addition or a silo or wha- tever and Opus says no. Bob Worthington: We hear and understand your concern, but I assure you that we are not going to artifically create any situation in the park that will discourage any com- pany. We are mindful of the City's interest in having quality development, which not Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -16- only has good business but also has a good business appeal in the park. You don't want us to put those types of uses in the park that will discourage the locating in other parts of the park. There is balance that we all have to try and achieve here. Councilman Geving: If this area is to be funded and resubdivided, do you have some potential sales for any of this land? I Bob Worthington: At this point in time we have a lot of interest. We have had more interest generated in the park than from the time that we built the park. I believe that is a reflection on where we are at in our economy and the fact that Chanhassen is now looked upon from a lot of businesses that this is where they want to conduct their affairs. So on that regard, we do not have any commitments, but we do have a lot of interest and we are feeling pretty comfortable that we can come up with a policy that has a reasonable reduction. We are not saying that we want that fixed on $30,000. We would have to come back once we have zeroed in on the final figures, because what we are dealing with now are estimates. Mayor Hamilton: We do not need a motion on this item. I think you have heard, Mr. Worthington, that we are well in favor of it. 1986 lAWCON GRANT APPLICATIONS: Don Ashworth: The Park and Recreation Commission has made a priority or at least what they would like to go ahead with for applications for this year. The Council should be aware that if you want other applications to be considered you should take this point in time to specify them. They are basically the same three that you have looked at before. The ballfields, access road and parking on Tract E are associated with the expansion of lake Ann, the shelter building at lake Ann and the third one I softball field lighting at lake Ann. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to see the old City Hall moved to the park for a shelter or something else at the park without destroying it. Councilman Geving: I would like to see it moved only if it can be safeguarded and utilized and not accessible for someone to tear it apart. Councilwoman Watson: And utilized with dignity. Councilwoman Swenson: We own the lot south of the lot that the building is currently sitting on. It is under the Historical Society and we should check to see if there is any possible funds available from them for this. let's give that parking lot back to Mr. Pauly and put it on our own land and see if we can get some money from the Historical Society to fix it up. We keep talking about the entry way into the City. What a better place for that bUilding. It is a part of Chanhassen's history and it should be restored. Councilman Horn: City Hall in that would like to see I agree with the grant applications, but my it sits quite appropriately next to old St. those two stay together. concern is with the Hubert's Church. I PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS lQ CREEKWOOD DRIVE: I Bill Monk: Back last fall, the City Council discussed the Creekwood Drive pavement. Two items were actually discussed. One of them was the possibility of moving access to the golf course so that it would come out on County Road 14. After talking with I I I City Council Meeting, April 15, 1985 -17- the City Attorney concerning that possibility, I think that is a viable option because the City is in a liability situation because we have allowed four residential units to go on that private easement as well as the golf course. I have concentrated more on the second option of going ahead with the paving of the public portion of Creekwood, which is about half of the existing gravel road as it exists in there, upping the City involvement in what the Engineering Department can do and also what the Street Maintenance Department can do out in the field using City equipment and getting the project cost down where they might be deemed as reasonable. At this point and time I would like to state to the Council that I still believe that the situation out there is very serious as far as dust goes. I am recommending that we start the process of preparing the feasibility study where I would meet with the residents, including the golf course and the nursery, to go over such things as the actual layout because it does impact the nursery, usage-question vs benefit, and the cost of the assessment issues and trying to come up with a formula that will at least move toward assessing the project on a combination of use as it would relate to bene- fit and still remain within the legal frame work that is dictated by the Minnesota Statute. So, at this time, I am requesting that the Council authorize an inhouse feasibility study to do detail work on this so that, if everything goes through, something still may be done this year. I really feel that something needs to be done. Councilwoman Watson moved to begin the process of preparing the feasibility study for improvements to Creekwood Drive. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving: The access to that road coming from the north is just terrible and I would like to make sure that when we do this, that all of that be considered. It is really dangerous. Bill Monk: We will not be able to widen the street, but on the access off of HWY 101 there is a culvert there, which makes it a bad situation, and is something for us to look at. Area Resident: We were here in November, and I think I speak for all of the resi- dents, we have really had it with that road and all we ask is that you make a motion. Can we have some idea of when we may be looking at some kind of an answer as to when we will know what the cost factors are and that type of thing? Bill Monk: I am going to try and turn it around in about 30 days. There will be a second meeting in mid May and it will be no later than the first meeting in June. But I am hoping for the second meeting in May. So I think 30 days is the soonest that I can turn it around. In 30 days the Council will review that and if they approve it I will call for a public hearing and everyone who would be assessed or impacted by the project would be notified and then we have to go through that. So there is a possibility that we would be looking at a project sometime in August. That is about as fast as it can go. In the meantime what we will do is move ahead with the dust coat faster than normal. But to count on anything faster than that would not be reasonable just because of the legal process involved. SET MEETING DATE FOR FIELD REVIEW OF TRI PROPERTIES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: --- - The Council discussed the above item and all agreed to set the date for the field review of TRI Properties for Monday, April 29, 1985, at 6:00 p.m. Council Meeting, April 15, 19B5 -lB- CONSENT AGENDA ITEM ~ Ordinance No. 22-B, Amendment to Nuisance Ordinance Reqarding Tree Hole Mosquito, Final Reading: Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to share a paragraph from an article on mosquitos in the Minnesota Journal: "In Minnesota the experts report that as a national leader in the mosquito production, mosquitos have an important health effect. Mosquito born diseases in the state include LaCrosse encephalitis, 21 cases in the past three years and Western encephalitis, 30 cases. The cost of medical care for a single case of LaCrosse encephalitis, which predominantly affects children, has been estimated to be as much as $20,000." I Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve Consent Agenda Item C: Ordinance No. 22-B, Amendment to Nuisance Ordinance Regarding Tree Hole Mosquito, Final Reading. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. BOARD ~ EQUALIZATION MEETING: Don Ashworth stated that the Assessor's office has a conflict on the 13th of May and they would like to move the meeting to June 10, 19B5. The Carver County Board does not meet until July B, so if the Council were to act on June 10, they would still have time to meet that July B meeting date. The Council discussed this issue and felt that since the meeting date had been set for quite awhile now, that the meeting would be left at May 13th. TENANT - INSTANT WEB BUILDING: I Councilwoman Watson questioned the Public Saftey Director's involvement with the tenants in the Old Instant Web Building. Don Ashworth, City Manager, replied that Jim Castleberry was assisting the Manager's office in vacating of the premises of all the existing tenants. Councilwoman Swenson moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager I