Loading...
1985 06 03 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 3, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving, Councilwoman Watson, and Councilwoman Swenson Members Absent None Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, and Bill Monk APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the agenda as presented with the addition of discussion in regards to a street light at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Highway 17. 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. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Final Plat Approval, Chestnut Ridge Sixth Addition and Trappers Pass. c. RESOLUTION 885-24: Approval of 1985 Tax Resolutions d. Initiate Process to Amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from Campus Business to Residential Low Density, Approximately 64 Acres at the Northwest Intersection of Highway 5 and County Road 17 (Highpath Farm). Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Geving. Councilman Horn opposed. Motion carried. MINUTES: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the City Council Minutes dated 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. Councilwoman Watson moved to note the Planning Commission minutes dated April 24, 1985. 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. SIDE YARD VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ~ DECK, ~ SHASTA CIRCLE EAST, THERESA ESTREM: The above item was passed unanimously at an earlier Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting, therefore, no action was required. Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -2- MINNEWASHTA GATE, SOUTHWEST CORNER Qf HIGHWAYS ~ AND LL TOMAC DEVELOPMENT: ~ Land Use Plan Amendment Request ~ Change Low Density Residential Land Use ~ Commercial. I B. Rezoning Request ~ Rezone Subject Property from ~ Single Family Residence ~ ~ Office Buildinq District and ~ General Commercial. ~ Preliminary Plat Approval for the Subdivision ~ ~ 7.9 Acre Parcel into Four Lots ~!..:..lL l..:.2..z.. 1.4 and 2.0 Acres for Commercial Development. Barb Dacy: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Highway 41. It totals approximately 8 acres and is now zoned R-l, single family residential. The request before you is 1) Land use plan amendment from low density residential to commercial, 2) Rezoning from R-l to C-2 and C-l and 3) A preliminary plat approval. There has been some history regarding this site. From what we could research, in 1968, the area was designated as service commercial and in 1972, as a part of the new zoning ordinance at that time, the property was rezoned to R-l single family. In 1983, there was a land use plan amendment request by Mr. Reutiman. This request was denied in 1983. The subject request has been before the Planning Com- mission and the City Council for a sketch plan review and twice before the Planning Commission for these items on April 24, 1985 and May 22, 1985. The proposal was of concern to the Planning Commission and to the neighborhood surrounding the subject parcel. The Commission felt that the traffic design was a crucial part of the design of the subdivision. I would like to review the traffic options that have been discussed in regards to this proposal. When first presented during sketch plan review, the applicants proposed a "T" intersection from Highway 7 closing Oriole Lane, "T"-ing into a new frontage road that would connect the new street through the subivision into the intersection of Oriole Lane. It was brought out during this review that there was concern raised regarding the left turn movement as you go west on Highway 7 and proceeding into the neighborhood. There was also concern raised on I this proposal because it would require the removal of the existing house there. Therefore, option two was prepared by the applicants. You no longer have a "T" intersection, but the Oriole access is closed and moved to the east. In the letter from MnDot, they are suggesting and we are recommending that median improvements be made on Highway 7 as well as right turn movements. It was felt that this option achieved two objectives: 1) to separate the commerical and residential traffic, meaning that there should be no reason why either direction on Highway 7 or 41 should travel through the neighborhood. There would be access onto Highway 7 and easy onto 41. 2) To maintain, as much as possible, the existing traffic pattern. We have a proposed connection from the existing Oriole Lane out onto Highway 7 and also keeping the 64th Street access open. Another option that has been proposed is to confine the access to the development from Highway 41. In the letter from MnDot, they stated that a 600 foot distance to another major intersection on 41 would have to be main- tained and also that 64th Street would have to be closed. In this option Oriole Lane would be open and there would be no access onto Highway 7, access contained from 41. The draw back to this particular option is that is does close 64th Street and there- fore, another access point into and out of the neighborhood. Traffic would have to come through the intersection and down into Oriole Lane. Another option that has been proposed is to keep Oriole Lane open, close the frontage road and access onto Highway 7 and create a cul-de-sac from 64th Street. While this, to some degree, con- tains some commercial traffic, there is still the possible traffic pattern of commer- cial traffic leaving the proposed area and passing through the neighborhood and going to Oriole Lane to proceed west bound on Highway 7. A fifth option that has been pro- posed would be to maintain the proposed access onto Highway 7 with the required improvements; the median and the right turn lane, the access onto 64th Street onto I Highway 41, but closing off the frontage road and the Oriole Lane access. MnDot says it has to be one or the other, we can't have two accesses onto Highway 7. This would isolate the neighborhood and still provide some sort of traffic from 64th Street into Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -3- I this neighborhood, but it will not provide direct access from Highway 7 west bound because the frontage road would be eliminated. The staff is recommending that if the land use and the rezoning request are approved and the Council does consider the pre- liminary plat, that option number two be selected as it creates a safer access point onto Highway 7, but still separates the commerical traffic by providing easy access from Highway 7 and onto Highway 41. Mayor Hamilton: What would the difference be if you put in a cul-de-sac off of Highway 41, 600 feet from the intersection? How far is 64th Street? Why would that have to be closed? Is that really close? Barb Oacy: MnOot's recommendation is that you can't have another full intersection so close to another one. Mayor Hamilton: How close is it? Barb Oacy: I would say 50 - 100 feet. Councilwoman Swenson: While that is open, what would the plan be? Would it be to close 64th Street all together? Barb Oacy: Yes. Councilwoman Swenson: What is the problem with coming in on 64th Street and going up and closing it off west of that? I Barb Oacy: Coming up 64th Street there would still be commercial traffic that could travel through the neighborhood. Councilwoman Swenson: traffic coming from the the shopping center and I think that waS the problem because I west and using Oriole Lane and coming that, to me, would intensify it. could see, on 4, around and coming into Councilman Geving: How about an option like a combination of 3 and 4 excluding the difference or improving a new road and making it come out directly onto 41 rather than making that bend there to the south. That would accomplish keeping 64th Street open, but still have an access to it. Barb Oacy: Are you saying keep 64th Street open or eliminate 64th? Councilman Geving: Eliminate 64th Street, but create a new access with this new one in there. Mayor Hamilton: So it would run right into 64th Street. Councilman Geving: You would put a "T" in there so you would have to stop. Councilwoman Swenson: Would you be able to continue to go west on 64th Street? Councilman Geving: Yes. I would propose you would straighten that line out right there where you could continue on into 64th Street. 111 Councilm.n Horn, Are you keeping Oriole L.ne open? Councilman Geving: Well, I haven't discussed that yet, I am just looking at 41. Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -4- ~ Oacy: You are still coming in on 64th and moving up? Councilman Geving: Yes. Barb Oacy: Are you keeping Oriole Lane open? Councilman Gevinq: I haven't discussed that yet, that is two separate issues. You can have two. You can either have a new access onto 41 and close Oriole Lane or you can have a new access onto 41 and close 64th Street. Councilman Horn: If you do this and don't close Oriole Lane you are going to have all that traffic coming in. Councilman Geving: That is what the next issue is, what are we going to do with the traffic? Obviously, if you do what I have just proposed here, it would dictate to us that we would have to close Oriole Lane and create an approved access off of Highway Seven to the east. Barb Oacy: What you are leading into is the land use issue and what you will be deciding is if commercial uses at that intersection are appropriate. Staff is recom- mending approval of the land use plan amendment because commercial uses should be located at major intersections and the opportunity should be there that the commer- cial traffic can be separated. The proposed rezoning pattern is C-l and C-2, the C-l to be located in the southwestern portion of the site adjacent to the single family. Permitted in the C-l district are administrative and executive offices: professional offices, medical and dental, legal professional offices and financial institutions. These are permitted uses by right. Conditional uses are residential uses, hospitals, mortuaries, research labs. The C-2 district is a little more intense and will be located in the northeastern portion of the site. Permitted uses are: offices, general retail sales, financial institutions, restaurants, dry cleaning, mortuaries and government buildings. As conditional uses: auto service stations, hotels, motels, parking ramps, private clubs and passenger facilities for mass transit. The zoning plan that was developed was based on that the C-l district is the least inten- sive of the commercial districts. Any use, permitted or conditional use, does have to go through an individual site plan process before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The City would have control as to where these buildings are placed in relation to the lot lines, set backs, additional landscaping, additional recommen- dations as far as lighting, screening, architectural features, ingress and egress out of the site. The concern was raised by the Planning Commission regarding the buf- fering of these uses against the existing neighborhood. This was one of the items that was tabled from the April 24th meeting. The applicants came back with a buf- fering plan which proposed 60 six foot Colorado Spruce planted along the western lot line and additional landscaping treatment at the entrance from Highway 7. Certainly, as a part of your review, if you deem that additional berming or additional screening is necessary you can certainly make those recommendations as part of the plat appro- val. Another concern raised at the Planning Commission was the concept of or creating commercialism. It is a concept that staff is concerned with also. To the west of the site is a non-conforming use, known as the Baltic building that has now changed hands to a travel agency. That is a non-conforming use and that site is limited to office uses only. It is still zoned R-l and we would not recommend that this be designated as commercial now or in the future. Similarly, we would not recommend that any of the area on the south side of Highway 7 be designated as com- mercial. Most of the existing patterns have been developed as single family develop- ments. Another concern was the property to the south, which is the property across the street across Highway 41. Staff analysis maintains that the existing designation I I I I I I Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -5- should be maintained because the land use plan amendment process affords the City an extra review process, not only by the City, but by the Metropolitan Council as well. The site across the street, staff believes it does not have the same traffic or total graphical opportunities as the subject property does, so therefore, that is our basis of our recommendation to leave it as low density. At the Planning Commission meeting, there were two motions. The first motion was to deny the land use plan amendement; that was tied 3 - 3. A motion was made to approve the land use plan amendment, that failed 4-2. 8asically the Planning Commission said that they could not deny it as proposed nor could they approve it as proposed. You were given the minutes in verbatum of the meeting. Again, the format of this proposal is structured in the three items. The land use plan amendment is first. You will be deciding if commercial uses are appropriate at that corner. If you deny the amendment to commer- cial all together, the other two requests are mute. However, if do decide that com- mercial is appropriate, then you can proceed onto the rezoning and then to the plat if you so desire. Todd Thompson: I would like to go over some of the different ideas that we actually had and where we started. When I first decided to take the options on this property to try and develop it, I had originally been looking just at the corner on Highway 7 and Highway 41 and I went and talked with Bob Reutiman and he didn't have any problem with that because he has been sitting on this and he would like to sell it. I came into the City and told them what I was planning to do and it was a different person involved at that time on the Planning Staff, and he said that he thought that was a good corner for what I was proposing. I had proposed to build a Diary Queen Braiser here. As I got involved in the actual planning stages, it became obvious to me that this was spot zoning and I was going to have a lot of problems with that. Not only was I going to have to run the roads and the utilities from one of these corners across properties, but there was a big question in my mind as to what another individual might do with the surrounding property. So I entered into an agreement with the two property owners to actually work with the entire parcel. The last issue before you in 1983 was 4 acres in a "T"shape, there was a motel proposed, which I also thought was spot zoning. After I really got to that point in time, I started looking at the- different accesses and started working with the City and highway department, and our initial thrust was to come in off Oriole, because it is an existing access point. We thought we could route the traffic in here, bring it through this lot in some sort of frontage system and actually service the property that way. After really taking a look at that, it became obvious that Oriole Lane, not only was not safe, but it was going to be extremely disrupting to the entire neighborhood to funnel all of the cars in here. At that point in time, I was actually circulating around in the neighborhood talking to some of the people and decided to move the access farther east. What that meant, as Barb Dacy pointed out, is that we were going to bring a "T" in, remove the house, and try to funnel the residential into the residential and the commercial into the commercial. Again, we worked with the highway department on that and with the planning staff and with our own engineers. That was better than Oriole Lane. It funneled the cars over here so that the people didn't have all the people driving through the neighborhood. The problem became then, that the homeowners in the area felt that the integrity of their neighborhood would be threatened by moving this house. I think they are right. I think leaving this house here, at this point, in the neighborhood keeps the integrity of the nieghborhood intact and does separate this from the residential. We got permission from the State Highway Department and they went along with it and it created an entrance over here. In order to service the neighborhood with the access this far east, we had to go around the house some- how, if we were to leave the house there, and we did get highway permission to run the frontage road this close to the highway. I still don't think that this frontage road is the best alternative. In taking into consideration one of the other concerns Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -6- of the neighborhood, strip zoning, I think having this frontage road does present the possibility on the road to strip zone, in some fashion, this quarter of the property, west of the actual intersection. This would be where the access point would come in, you could put a frontage road through and connect right at the drive of the Baltic Corporation, which has been a big bone of contention with everybody. It then provi- des access to this strip of property. I think if we eliminate the frontage road, there is still access to the neighborhood for safety vehicles from this point and from the access farther to the west. I think that is one of the major concerns in closing off 64th Street. If we close this off, safety vehicles would have to go to the intersection and through and over into this area somehow, and that is not a very good situation. My real intent in doing all these different designs is to provide a distinction between what is commercial and what is residential. There is a lot of good points about having the access coming off 64th Street or off Highway 41, but I think there is a lot of negative points also. I think that the access that we have created has more positives than anything else that we have come up with. This has been through a long process. As far as the actual land use of the property, I had a blow-up photo done so that I could see what there was around the area here and try and get a feel for really what this corner is all about. There is total commercial land to the north, across the highway, you've got a conditional use permit at Baltic to the west, the old West Junior High School, as far as I know, is 90 - 100 percent full of businesses at this point in time. I don't have any doubt in my mind that this is a major intersection. I also don't have any doubt that we can provide access to this intersection to the property here and separate it from the residential neigh- borhood. I think if you really look at the areal photo, you see the gravel pit here, you see an awful lot of open land here, which the owners would like to have rezoned at some point in time for multiple, I see land over here where the owners would like to have rezoned for commercial and multiple, I see all commercial up here and I also see the neighborhood here, and I realize that there is a lot of big concerns involving people's homes. We do plan to buffer the property, I think that is a given. We can't develop without buffers. How much buffering and design will it really take? We have some plans that show it. There has been talk that people would like a higher berm down in the southern part. I don't have a problem with putting a higher berm in there, that is not a difficult thing. The problem that I have right now, we have been before the Planning Commission three times, we were delayed once, this is our second time back to the Council and we haven't even been able to get off go. We can't plan unless someone is willing to work with us. It gets a little aggravating to always have people say, "this is single family residential." It's not, and I think once we get beyond that point, we have to make a decision just exactly where we are going. That is what I am asking for tonight. Let's make a decision as to where we are going. We are asking for a land use amendment change and I don't think that is unreasonable. I would like to get from you, some sort of direction. I would also like Jim Christianson to talk a little bit about the direction where we would like to go and how we would like to proceed with our zoning amendments and other issues that we have. Jim Christianson: I am an attorney and I have been working with Todd Thompson on this project. I would like to talk about the process of the zoning a little bit. It seemed to me, in sitting through the Planning Commission, that in part while it was important to discuss what it would look like when it is all done, when they took that question as being the only question, they got ahead of themselves to a certain extent and we started to hear things about "I won't look at it as a commercial unless I know that it is all C-l or all C-2" and we got lost in the question of ultimate use before looking at the first question, the comprehensive plan question. Looking back, comprehensive planning is a relatively recent thing in the development of cities. It is statutory, and the cities have an act of it. The comprehensive plan, I I I I I I Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -7- as Barb Oacy mentioned, in Chanhassen there were a number of areas that weren't designated, you couldn't decide at the time the comprehensive plan went into place and exactly how they should be used. They were designated R-l, not because they were primarily residential areas best for single family, but because R-l gave the City the most control over how that area would be developed when it came time to develop it. This, I think, is one of those areas. To not have done it that way would have left open too many options and it would have been a hard area to control and it might have gone on being a gravel pit, which is certainly not something anybody wanted in that quarter or would want now. Taking the comprehensive plan, you go through and you spend a number of years and as the area grows and as other things develop around, finally a developer comes in and says "I think economically, that I can figure out a way to do this. This is what I want to do, but the first step is that I have to have the comprehensive plan amended to allow a commercial use, not a specific commercial use, but commercial uses in general." Once again, that doesn't mean any commercial. That means it can be commercial and then it is decided how it is zoned and what spe- cific uses can be used on the site. So the second step in the process is you go to the zoning. You look at your zoning code, and there is a number of commercial zoning categories. The two that we are looking at are C-l and C-2. I think one thing that needs to be corrected, which you are probably already aware of, is I think that the C-2 is not general commercial, I think there is a C-3 that is the more general com- mercial, C-2 is one that talks about a compact commercial area where the primary objective is probably to serve the area right around it. I think that probably ought to be looked at somewhat as an amenity, not as something that is going to tear the area down. Some people probably say that this guy doesn't live out here, so why is he talking about it. I live on Como Avenue up from the fair grounds. The fair grounds are not he best thing to have in your neighborhood, but the local service station, the local hardware store and those things that are nearby are good neigh- bors. I think that is something that shouldn't be overlooked, in that commercial neighbors can be good neighbors. Residential neighbors can be just as bad a neigh- bor, if you don't take care of your yard, if you don't take care of your house, you are a bad neighbor. The same way with a business, if you don't take care of your business you are a bad neighbor, but there can be good commercial neighbors, and we shouldn't forget that. When you go to that, you should remember all the way along is that there are protections. The zoning code has several steps that you have to go through, even after it is zoned, that doesn't mean you can go in there and build wha- tever you want. In the zoning code you require a site plan review, you have clear landscaping requirements, you have the berming protections, there are setback requirements, and you have parking requirements. There are a number of things that give protection to make sure that commercial use that does go in there is a good com- mercial use. I just want to make sure that when you are looking at this, that you don't say there is no way to do it because any commercial use is a bad one. I don't believe you will do that. I think the basic thing behind this is that you look at the health, the welfare, and the general good to the community. If we looked at just the general good to the property owner, we would say that he should be able do wha- tever he wants unless it is a dumb thing. If we looked at just the good of the surrounding neighbors and say that they should do whatever they want and be able to control their neighbor, that is fine when they are controlling their neighbor, but they probably don't want the same thing going to the other way, so there is a balance there. A part of that balance is how does it affect the whole community? Here there is improved saftey along the highway, according to MNOot, on the accesses in and out, the plan allows for even more improvements as you go along and looking at the impro- vements to the traffic, the other thing is that it provides services for a larger area than just these immediate neighbors. I think that it is one that can be balanced as between the two kinds of uses. Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -8- Rick Sathre: We recognize that in northern Chanhassen, this is the principle corner. This is the most important intersection in that part of town. As such, in these nodes of intersections of importance, that is a wonderful place to provide the neigh- I borhood opportunity for shopping for convenience. As we looked in this corner from Excelsior west to this important intersection, we see that there are many many uses that the neighborhood needs. With the potential for a good traffic circulation pat- tern and for the needs in the area, we saw that a commercial use of this property was appropriate. There was a problem, certainly, because the neighborhood is relatively close and we have to plan a way to provide protection from both the traffic stand- point and a use standpoint. We have chosen to propose a C-2 service type use on the intersection on the corner because, again, we think that is appropriate. As we moved into the site and away from the corner, closer to the neighbors, we were torn between proposing some sort of a multi-family residential use and a commercial use. I think there is every opportunity to be a better neighbor with a high quality commercial office area rather than a multi-family area. Both could be done good or bad. I like the fact that a C-l office in this area immediately abutting these people, would resemble a quieter neighbor for the weekends and the evenings. I think that the landscaping of either the residential use of this property or commercial would be made pretty. I think on the weekends and in the evenings that the quietness of that C-l use would be the better alternative. We have a buffer as we go west and I think a lesser commercial use would be a better neighbor. We have many options for streets and we have only been looking for the best one, as the staff and MnDot has. I think we can work to that if you think what we are doing is appropriate. We can find the best access alternative if the use of the property that we proposed is deemed appropriate. Mayor Hamilton: I know there are a lot of the residents here from the area and we have received a great deal of input from all of you, so if there is a spokesperson I that would want to speak on behalf of the group to tell us something that you haven't already told us in all of the letters and petitions, feel free to speak. Pete Throdahl: I live at 6345 Minnewashta Woods Drive. I don't know if I am the spokesman for the entire neighborhood, but a couple people have asked me to speak. I would like to start off by saying that I am really sorry that Mr. Thompson is getting aggravated with this process. That aggravates me when you say that. You are dealing with neighborhoods that have been here for years, people that are here, this is there homestead, this is where they live, the developer comes, the developer goes, he deve- lops his property and moves on. If we can't take a little time to do this right and if you are aggravated by that process, I think we have a problem starting off. I think everybody would agree, if we are going to do anything with this corner, we want it to fit and be right for everybody. I think the traffic is the major issue. I know in the Planning Commission the thought was how to solve the traffic problem as part of the plan rather than having that come on after the fact that if is rezoned and if you do whatever and then all of a sudden we get into the traffic problem. The feeling that I have, is there a way to get the traffic as a part of the proposed plan so we know what we are dealing with? I just feel that we have to get the traffic question resolved. In terms of the traffic question, and this is my personal opi- nion, is that option three provides the most opportunity for isolating that corner from the residential area. Option three is the cul-de-sac off of Highway 41. The problem from the neighborhood standpoint is the closing of 64th Street and that is not particularly palpable for the people in the neighborhood. To me, this is the most logical way to separate these two things and I think that is what the neigh- borhood is really trying to do. We are all reconciled to the fact that something is I going to happen in there. I don't think anybody is arguing that it should be single family detached units. That is the main concern. I think the other concern, and one I I I Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -9- expressed, again by the Planning Commission, is the fact the area be a C-l designa- tion for the entire area, which I think is really what they were after. I won't speak for them, but I think that comes out in the minutes. If the neighborhood would have to compromise, I think the C-l would provide the control and provide the type of uses that we feel that we could live with, with the proper bermings and screenings and everything else. The immediate neighbors do have a problem looking into that site. I think that has been addressed in several different ways, but it has to be addressed more in terms of the final plan approval. In terms of the overall develop- ment and the commercial uses for that corner, I think that it is great that the deve- loper is trying to provide commercial services, but I have never heard the neigh- borhood going out and saying, "Let's find a developer so we can get commercial services into this neighborhood. I think the developer is doing what the developer wants to do, which is to develop property and make his money, and I have no problem with that whatsoever, but I think that has to be compatible with that neighborhood. There are enough questions on the east side of Highway 41 as to what that property should be used for. I really don't see the north corner as commercial. The residen- tial comes right in and there is no other expansion that you are going to have. As for the Junior High, for example, the school district would have sold that building a long time ago if they were really going to get out of it and I think there is a lot of question as to what the eventual use will be. So from the neighborhood stand- point, what we are asking for is if it is going to go commercial, that it be no more than a C-l designation and that a tractive pattern is established before you get to far into this thing so that you know what you are dealing with. Hud Hollenback: I have been trying to stay fairly active as far as Highway 7 is con- cerned because we have had problems there between Highway 41 and Minnewashta Parkway for a number of years. I was fortunate enough to be invited to a Public Safety Commission meeting to talk about Highway 7 and a highway patrolman attended who patrolled that section for a month or so and I believe he said that section between Highway 41 and the fire station was worse than Highway 5. He's not saying Highway 7, per se, is worse than all of Highway 5. Highway 5 is very. very bad, but this par- ticular section is worse, and I would like you to just visualize going west on Highway 7, past Excelsior toward Highway 41 at 55 mph and all of a sudden you see a signal light, a left hand turn signal, a right turn into Shorewood, incidently, we will call this the gate, Highway 41. When you are about to enter the chute where you narrow down to actually one lane and on your right you will see people coming in from Shorewood and merging you will see Linden Road going right, people dropping off there and see people hooking lefts into Oriole Lane and all this while cars are racing toward that one lane roadway. I cannot visualize working or whatever, that taking a left hand turn even with a light and stacking to take a left into this supposed sub- division. Unless you have a slip lane that's five miles long, I don't know how you are going to do it. Where else in the country have you gone through an intersection at 55 mph and all of a sudden you are hooking a left. I think we have to remember that this isn't Richfield, this isn't 30 mph. That is one of my biggest concerns is how we are going to get people west bound off of Highway 7 into whatever it is. One other comment; if it goes C-2, you are talking about people dropping in off the high- way on the way to South Dakota or wherever that are not familiar with the area for gasoline, etc. People like that who are unfamiliar with the hazzards are going to create all kinds of problems, traffic-wise. If it is C-l, those people are going to be familiar with the hazzards. One other quick comment, selfiShly, we are very vulnerable out there along Highway 7, whatever we do Shorewood reacts. We have no control over Shorewood's politics. I think whatever we do in the way of rezoning ought to be discussed openly with Shorewood so that they have no suprises because I don't think too many of us really are in favor of a strip of commercial between Highway 41 and Minnewashta Parkway. That is my other concern. to ~ ~i Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -10- ~ Warren: I live at 6340 Elm Tree Avenue. I would like to add one thing. I was at the Planning meeting two weeks ago and something came up quite late in the meeting that I am not sure everyone was aware of and that is that the estimate we heard for the traffic in and out of the development as it is proposed would be around 4,000 I vehicles a day in and out of this particular area that is being proposed. I think there is a real concern there. Another concern that ties in with that is that a beautiful job has been done with the regional park and we hope that is going to be used more and more frequently. As a regional park is discovered and more and more people come from the metro area to use that park, that corner that is being talked about, is going to attract people who are unfamiliar with the traffic patterns there. I am just reinforcing what Mr. Hollenback said and I think we have to give that a lot of thought. Four thousand cars in and out of there a day as it is proposed, I think that is totally unjustifiable and compromises the safety worse than it is now. Councilwoman Watson: Should we discuss the traffic, or where should we start? Mayor Hamilton: We need to discuss the land use amendment request, and if it were to be passed, there should be a traffic plan that goes along with it. Councilwoman Watson: Mr. Thompson made a comment that this was not low density resi- dential. It is. At this point in time it is still low density residenital property. That may not be the best use for it. I am not thoroughly convinced of that. They are building houses at the intersection of Highway 18 and Crosstown and a lot of places. People are buying them and living in them and they seem to be perfectly content. I am not convinced that this cannot be residential, perhaps not single family residen- tial. What I have seen most at busy intersections have perhaps been single family attached units being 8-plexes, 4-plexes or other multiple units. As far as the traf- fic as I look at the options, and I was looking at it staying residential or nothing over C-l, I liked option number two. I was not looking at 4,000 cars a day. I was looking at service stations and dairy queens where people would be staying only 5 minutes and then leaving. Last sentence amended July 1, 1985, page 1. I Councilman Gevinq: I have talked to a lot of the people in the area and I truly understand their situation. I think the neighborhood concerns are equally as impor- tant as the concern that they have for maintaining the integrity of the area, the homes that are there, and the residental homes that are adjacent to the proposed development. I would like to see that be maintained and whatever buffer is necessary to do that. I would like to see us maintain a single family area and I think that we can also have some kind of residential housing in the area that would not necessarily be high density, but something that could be covered in our C-l zoning. I am not in favor of the C-2 zoning at all. The things that are important to me are the neigh- borhood concerns, I want to maintain that, I would like to see us keep a low profile in that area in terms of a lot of activities and it is obvious from the statements that have been made that this is a key corner in our whole City. For that reason, I think we have to be very careful in what we do if we attempt to put any new hazzards onto Highway 7. I would much rather see the traffic pattern not be changed on Highway 7. I don't think there is enough area to put in slip lanes from the corner of Highway 41 to whatever new intersection is planned east of Oriole Lane. I like the combination of options 2 and 3. I originally thought that option 2 was probably the best, but it all depends on how we impact the whole area. If, indeed, we decide as the Council, to make the whole area C-l, then, maybe, an alternative to that 64th Street access off Highway 41 is more appropriate ending up with a cul-de-sac in the middle of that C-l area. That C-l gives us a lot of opportunies for various styles of development. Those are basically my comments. I am not in favor of moving Oriole Lane at this time until I see what we do with the whole area, but whatever happens, we are most concerned with what happens on Highway 7, in my opinion. I I I I Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -11- Councilwoman Swenson: I am going to come up with a compromise and I am going to suggest that we maybe take Block 2 as multiples, possibly duplexes or 4-plexes. I think the people would be much happier with a C-l, but from what I have heard you are real concerned with that so I am making this concession. I would make Block 1, C-l, Block 3 would remain single family, as it is now. I suggest that as the road traffic that we take option 2 and instead of having any left hand traffic for Highway 7, we would have a right in and a right out. I know there has been an opposition to mixing the two, but if you look at the map you realize that your little frontage piece there is just a shot so if you come off Oriole Lane you can just have a small turn onto Highway 7 and you are really not getting into the commercial area at all, but I would certainly not recommend anything except a right in and a right out on Highway 7. If we should consider this, I would like to know how we are going to handle the upgrading on 64th Street. I am sure the use is going to be intensified and I guess I want to know where the responsibility for that is going to come. Councilwoman Watson: What about Block 2? Councilwoman Swenson: That would be residential and I am open to whatever that may be. I am open to discussion on Block 2 because I don't think that the residents are going to be happy with a multiple dwelling in there. I think that they would be a lot happier with a C-l. Councilman Horn: I think my comments are close to Councilwoman Swenson's when it comes to the access on Highway 7. I am very concerned about accesses to all of our major highways and what I have found that has messed up highway traffic the most are accesses onto the highways in high speed areas. I would like to close off half of the accesses that we have for major highways in the city because then, I think, we would have a road system that would work instead of the one that we have now. I think that the fact that we have a situation up there now where a left turn onto Oriole Lane is totally out of the question. We shouldn't have a traffic situation like that. There was absolutely no planning that went into that. If we are going to have commercial in that area, my preference would be to option five and then extending the median down to the point where there cannot be a left turn from Highway 7 down into the subdivision, having a right in and a right out and extending the median to a point where it would be impossible to make a left turn from Highway 7 to the south. As far as the commercial areas, I also agree with Councilwoman Swenson that I think that if it were me I would rather have a low profile commercial use next to me rather than a multiple dwelling. I am still open on what I would like to do with the zoning between the C-l and the C-2. I think there is a possibility for putting a C-2 in there. Certainly there has been commercial precedents set on that corner. We have had a drive-in on that corner, we have had a green house on that corner in the years past. I don't see that we are setting a totally new precedent by putting commercial in there. I have talked to people on that corner that have lived there for years and years who say that is the only use for that corner. But now I understand there is this relatively newer residential area over to the west. But this strip along Highway 41 has been commercial for many years. Cermak's were on over here, we had several cases down along Highway 41 that have been commercial. I realize we went through a rezoning to put that into a residential and I am sure that came from pressure in the neighborhood. We got a lot of pressure from the neigh- borhood not to go along with the Baltic proposal, and in my opinion, it upgraded that area immensely getting that old Cermak green house out of there and putting in what's there now. It is a very attractive looking building and I think it has done a lot for that area. I am concerned about high traffic volume generated and my biggest concern in this whole proposal is keeping this commercial area to a point where we don't have a clogged traffic situation. ~~o~ -- Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -12- Councilman Geving: Councilman Horn, you mentioned closing off Oriole Lane. What would you do for the residents to get into that area and to get out of that area. You didn't mention anything about 64th Street. Would you address that. Councilman Horn: I would leave 64th Street open. People who are heading west on Highway 7 and wanted to get into that residential area would either travel farther down Highway 7. The obvious preferable route would be to make a left turn where there is a controlled intersection on Highway 41 and come in down 64th Street onto Oriole Lane. That is the way people should be doing it now. I Councilman Geving: And upgrade 64th Street. Councilman Horn: Yes, and close off Oriole Lane. I don't think there should be any left turns off of Highway 7. The reason that's the dangerous area it is, is because you have all those entrances out of Minnewashta Parkway and all those places onto Highway 7 and people are making left turns. If you wouldn't allow any left turns along turns at controlled intersections only and that is the way you control traffic and that is the way you get safe intersections. Last sentence amended July 1, 1985, page 2. Councilwoman Swenson: I can understand the right ins and the right outs. I was over in that area this afternoon around 3:30 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. and on Highway 41 the traf- fic was unreal. It is almost as dangerous to make a left turn off of Highway 41 as it is to make a left turn onto Highway 7. Councilman Horn: My feeling is, and I was thinking of it in terms of what I consider a normal working person going to work in the morning and coming home at night, when he comes home at night he makes a left turn onto Highway 41 and then has a right turn directly into that residential area. Councilman Geving: when you go to work Highway 41? That works fine then, but what are you going to do in the morning and you are coming out of Oriole Lane and you are turning left on I Councilman Horn: I don't know what the traffic pattern is at that time in the morning. Councilman Geving: I don't know either, but I can tell you it is going to be dangerous. I think it is going to be just as bad turning left there. Councilman Horn: turn onto Highway Oriole Lane off. You still have the option of going up through and making the right 7, going up through the commercial area. I am proposing closing Councilman Geving: Are you still going to have a right out? Councilman Horn: Yes, a right in and a right out. Councilman Geving: Then I am with you. I don't have any problem there as long as there is a right out. Councilman Horn: The only reason why I pick option 5 over option 2 is that I think that option 5 gives a greater separation between the commercial area and the residen- I tial area. Councilwoman Swenson: That's true. I suggest that we open this because it does give them the option of making an egress there. I I I Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -13- Councilman Horn: That to me, is a residential question. If the residents would prefer 2 over 5, I wouldn't have any problem with that. To me, it makes more sense from the traffic control. I was responding to the question in trying to isolate the commercial from the .residential because to close that off it certainly is isolated. There is not going to be any commercial traffic going through the residential area. Councilman Geving: Is it your proposal that if we closed Oriole Lane that you would leave that frontage road open? So to get to Highway 7, you would have to come all the way down to 64th Street, then go north and hit the new slip lane, turn right and then you are on Highway 7. Councilman Horn: My proposal would be the resident's option. separation from the commercial area, we will close that off. want that for the access to Highway 7, we will leave it open. on that. To me, it is their preference. If they want the If they think they I am open either way Mayor Hamilton: Being a gateway to the City, which that piece of property really is, I would like to see it nicely developed over there whether it is residential or com- mercial. I understand the neighbors concerns that you don't have commercial right next to your property and I am not sure why, because if it is nicely done I don't think it is really going to bother you at all. It probably won't bother you as much as multiple family homes. However, I am not so sure that I agree with the C-2 zoning. I can see C-I on most of it and possibly C-2 on Block 1, Lots 2 and 3, but leaving Block 2, Lot 1 and Block 1, Lot 1 as C-I, and leave Block 3 as it is. I would have to agree with Mr. Thompson that there has to be a better proposal con- cerning the traffic flow. Maybe there is another alternative someplace. I am not sure that anybody is going to come up with it. It seems to me to separate the traf- fic from the residential area, which is a concern also, would be to have the entrance off of Highway 41. Then you end up closing off 64th Street, which is a problem also. So I really haven't seen a plan I like as far as the traffic is concerned. We have worked with the neighbors up there in trying to figure out how we can handle the accidents that are happening on Highway 7. There have been a number of deaths that have ocurred on Highway 7 through accidents, and we don't need any more of that, we don't need to jeopardize new people coming into the area. It is a bad situation, and I am just not sure how we can make it any better, or if we even can. The traffic and being the gateway to the City from the north are two very important concerns of mine. I think it can easily be developed as C-1. Councilman Geving: Do you have a preference for an option for the traffic? Mayor Hamilton: I like option 3 the best where you come off of Highway 41, but as I said, you then end up closing off 64th Street and that may not be what the residents want either. But it does separate the commercial traffic that you are going have from the residential traffic. That may be more acceptable to them than the other alternatives where they are totally separated. You don't have to worry about any commercial traffic going through any part of the residential area. Councilman Horn: Option 3, as I see it, keeps Oriole Lane open. My concern is the closer we can get this right-in, right-out to the light, the slower we are going to see the traffic. If we keep it back there a ways, the traffic tends to be faster and tends to slow down as you come up to the traffic light. That is why I favor option 5 because I think a right-in, right-out when you are at a slower portion of the traffic flows. I think we are improving the situation because we are eliminating this dangerous left turn into Oriole Lane by going with option 5. To me, left turns are the worst thing you can do in the safety of a highway. r Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -14- Mayor Hamilton: The only thing there is, if you close off Oriole Lane and you don't put the frontage road in, then the residents there have a much farther distance to drive to get to Highway 7 themselves. It may be a lot safer, but it is going to be I farther for them to drive. That may not be what they want to do. If you leave Oriole Lane as it is now, perhaps improve that intersection so there is a right-in and a right-out and then close off 64th Street and have the commerical traffic coming in off of Highway 41. From all comments from the people, it seems as though that was one on their major concerns was to separate the commercial traffic from the residen- tial traffic. If you go with option 5, you still have the possibility of mixing the two. They are still separated some, but not as much as if you would go with option three. Councilman Gevinq: I think the developer has a proposal here that the MnDot people have said they have no plans to upgrade Highway 7 at all. If this development goes through, and if we build an access onto Highway 7 because of this development, it is going to be done right and it is going to be paid by the developer fUlly. If we go with this option 3, that still keeps Oriole Lane open and any improvements that have been made to Oriole Lane, they won't be made by the developer. We will pay for those costs. I don't think that the taxpayers would go for that because this is forced on us. Without this development, we wouldn't be thinking about doing this. I think if this project goes through and it is caused because the developer comes in with plans to change something, then we ought to do it right and we ought to make the developer pay any amount of improvements that are made to this area. That is why I want to stick to one of the plans that shows that as part of this proposal. Mayor Hamilton: So you are not concerned with the resident's concern about separating the traffic, commercial and residential. Councilman Geving: I am concerned. But I want to make sure that the residents don't I get stuck paying for something that we wouldn't have done otherwise. Mayor Hamilton: But they may prefer to pay for it if they get what they would like to have. Councilman Gevinq: It never really works out that way. Councilwoman Watson: On option 3, if you brought that cul-de-sac in, you could still have 64th Street come off of that or some proposal of that sort where 64th Street would still come onto that, but if it came out at an angle or something that it wasn't an easy option, they could still maybe use that option for the neighborhood. But it still probably would end up being the choice of the people because it isn't going to be the quickest way out of there. Councilwoman Swenson: The only problem I would have with that is if they leave any kind of a left-in motion off of Highway 7 that people coming from the west in order to avoid the light are going to come in through Oriole Lane. From a safety stand- point, I would like to close Oriole Lane, since they can't go west or down to 64th Street. I realize that is not popular. As far as the frontage road, the neighbors do not have to use it if they don't want to. There will be no reason for anybody coming into the commercial area to come around there into the residential. I don't think you are going to get any residential traffic from that. If we designate it, like Councilman Horn said, as a right-in and a right-out, we eliminate the danger of left hand turns coming off of Highway 7. We give people the option of going in I around on Highway 7 or 64th Street or farther west off of that road. Can we ask the residents what they think about this? I I I ~ Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -15- Councilwoman Watson: Is that basically option 2? Councilman Horn: It is a choice between option 2 and option 5. Councilwoman Swenson: The only difference between option 2 and 5 is that on option 2, the frontage road is open and I have made the exit onto Highway 7 as a right-in and a right-out. At the point where the median divides the highway, they can't make a left turn coming from the east. Pete Throdahl: My only problem with the right-in and the right-out is the fact that if someone wants to come out and go west on Highway 7, that will be prohibited in what you are talking about. Councilwoman Swenson: At this particular spot, yes. Pete Throdahl: You are going to come back down to 64th Street and go back up through the neighborhood and wind up out onto Sandpiper. Councilman Gevinq: They are probably doing that right now. Councilwoman Swenson: They could go down to 64th Street and onto Highway 41 to Highway 7, which would certainly be a lot smarter because if this road is as dangerous as everybody says, everybody must recognize that a left hand turn is dangerous. Therefore, going up Sandpiper Trail is still going to give them a left hand turn, wouldn't it be smarter, it seems to me for prudent people, if they want to go west would be to go down to 64th Street and take the light, which is a lot safer than going out on Sandpiper Trail. Pete Throdahl: That is my only point is that as long as people don't start figuring out that they can short cut the light in the corner and getting out onto Highway 41 by going back up through the neighborhood on that type of a proposal. I am not disputing what you are saying. I think that is the right way. Councilman Horn: If you had your choice of option 2 or 5, would you rather have this in or out? Pete Throdahl: an entrance for that fact, that I am only speaking for myself, I think what the development and robbing us what we have would give us a way to get out that way. you are doing is creating had all the time. Given Bill Monk: Just a comment. If the City proceeds with full access only on T.H. 41, in the long run, we will be committing to signalization of the 64th Street intersec- tion at some point in the future. I am concerned that the T.H. 41 access will not provide the safe access point everyone is searching for even though it does comple- tely separate the commercial and residential traffic. Councilwoman Swenson: In your opinion, do you believe the full access on Highway 7 is less dangerous than forcing it down onto Highway 41. Bill Monk: I felt that option 2 was the best whether or not the frontage road is there. I would have to agree with Councilman Horn that this was more of a residential option as to whether or not they wanted to keep that access that close, but after meeting with MnDot, finding out that, physically, a left hand turn lane could be put in on Highway 7 and with a good site distance that we could get it at, I believe that option 2 would work as designed. I believe the right-in, right-out would also work. But you would have to look at Highway 41. That is going to increase in traffic significantly. /.,^/..... lU"6Juncil Meeting, June 3, 1985 -16- Councilwoman Swenson: Which type of designated commercial do you feel will generate the greatest amount of traffic, C-l or C-2? Councilwoman Swenson: Since we are concerned about the traffic generated, can we alleviate that problem by going with a C-1? I Bill Monk: C-2. Councilman Horn: Moving this intersection up to here would certainly mitigate any traffic going down to Chaska Road, if we did that. Bill Monk: I would argue with that. If you are going to offset intersections you want to offset them at least more than 100 feet. Two hundred, if possible, to get away from conflicting turn movements, people trying to turn left onto each street. You are creating a real bad turning situation, especially because there is not full bypass lanes, etc. I would strongly recommend against it. Mayor Hamilton: There is a motion in order to either deny or approve the land use plan amendement requested to change low density residential land use to commercial. Councilwoman Watson: Could we review one more time what C-l is? Barb Dacy: You are making a motion for the land use just for commercial and you will be doing the zoning in the next motion. A. Land Use Plan Amendment Request ~ Change Low Denisty Residential Land Use to Commercial: Councilman Geving moved to approve the land use amendment request to change the low density residential land use to commercial - C-l. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Watson opposed. Motion carried. I These minutes were amended July 1, 1985, with the following comment: Councilwoman Watson: The reason that I was opposed is that I would like to see a combination of low density residential and commercial C-l. B. Rezoning Request ~ Rezone the Subject Property from .R.::.!.J.. Single Family Residence ~ f=lL Office Building District and C-2, General Commercial: Councilman Horn moved to designate Block 1, Lot 1, and Block 2 as C-l and Block 1, Lots 2 and 3 as C-2. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Geving moved to rezone Block 1 and Block 2, all lots, to C-I designation, with Block 3 remaining at R-l. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Watson opposed. Motion carried. ~ Preliminary Plat Approval for the Subdivision ~ ~ 7.9 Acre Parcel ~ ~ ~ 1.4 and 2.0 Acres for Commercial Development: Todd Thompson: I would like to table the proposal on the preliminary point in time for two weeks. into 4 Lots -- plat at this Councilman Geving moved to table was seconded by Councilman Horn. Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Motion carried. the preliminary plat approval for two weeks. Motion The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. I SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR ~ SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LOTS, EAST QI AND ADJACENT lQ KERBER BOULEVARD, ROGER SCHROEDER: Barb Dacy: This request is a Council and the applicants to the site of the old Chaparral sketch plan, discuss what 4th Addition so this is a good opportunity for the is being proposed on the site. This is area on the east site of Kerber Boulevard. I I I r Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -17- The owner of the property is Dr. Roger Schroeder, the developer is laukka & Associates, the consultant is BRW. I would like to go through what has changed on the sketch plan from the original one that was submitted to the Planning Commission. The sketch plan has reduced from 93 lots down to 72 single family lots. The density of this project for this site itself is only 2.5 units per acre. The average lot size, as proposed, is 10,979 square feet. The median lot size, meaning the exact middle, is 9,300 square feet. Of concern to the Planning Commission, originally, waS the amount of additional units that this was going to create as far as the overall density of the Chaparral additions. The proposed plans would add 25 units to the originally considered 47, and would raise the gross density of the four additions from 3.16 units per acre to 3.39 units per acre and, likewise, the net density would also be increased. The comprehensive plan recommends a development density of 1 - 3.4 units per acre. The street design has changed also. Originally, the applicant had proposed a street looping around and down around the slope of the property to the east and now three cul-de-sacs are being created on the road moving west. This, obviously, improves the consideration for the slope. The buildable areas of these lots would then be confined to area immediately in and around the cul-de-sacs so the slopes could be preserved. The applicant is requesting consideration of reduced set- backs of 25 feet in the wooded lots so that additional area could be maintained to retain additional trees and a 30 foot front yard setback on those lots which are not wooded and that is consistent with the present R-l setback requirement. The appli- cant is also requesting an alternate five and ten foot side yard setback scheme. The intent being to cluster the driveways, create a landscape strip and maximize the open area between the two housing units. Typically these would be, the smaller setback would be on the garage side so that the visualization as you proceed down the street would be to cluster the driveways and to avoid the occasion of driveway-garage- garage-driveway, lot after lot after lot and would create an alternate open spacing between the living units. There was also concern at the Planning Commission meeting regarding park dedication. Based on staff's research, the Chaparral 4th Addition was part of the consideration of the overall plan and Meadow Green Park was used as some of the land dedication. Only some of those units in and around that park were given reduced park dedication fees. The Park and Recreation Commission has considered this sketch plan and recommended that park dedication fees be accepted for each of the lots and that a trail easement be retained in the area where the applicants are pro- posing ponding. The landscaping plan the applicant is proposing, staff believes, is one that pays a lot of attention to detail, not only street features, but interior lot line landscaping designs, which we have not seen in some other subdivisions. Additional buffering is proposed along the major collector. ~ laukka: Roger Schroeder is the owner of the property. Mr. Schroeder and I have been discussing the possibilities of the total venture here in terms of develop- ment, for about Ii years now. We have concluded with this plan that we are going to present to you tonight. I am developing this property with Roger Schroeder and orchestrating it's finality, insofar as the construction of the development and the improvements of the property and through a variety of different builders, possibly. We are looking, today, at concepts and we now have had some experience in three dif- ferent communities doing a similar project larger than these. In the Burnsville/Savage area, we have a 192 lot development which is very similar to this. We are doing a very similar project in the Coon Rapids/Fridley area, a 150 lot development. What we tried to do in those developments was to take our own knowledge and experience in land and improving property in conjunction with our house building experience over the years and see if we couldn't generate an affordable housing pro- duct that wouldn't be distorted by small lots, small house thing, which most com- munities have rejected. We spent some time with the planning engineering department and what we have found together with the experience over the years, that we can, ~ Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -18- indeed, do a job and produce housing and produce properties that will generate a variety of housing that a community, the site and the developer can be relatively proud of. We need to do a job with land, architecture, planning, and landscaping and I many other things and to do it properly, we can make a project work, at whatever price range. We think this all starts with a good land plan and a good concept. If we can do that we can induce reasonably good architecture at moderate price ranges. This project would be positioned specifically at a modest cost housing product, which would be around $100,000. With proper kinds of controls and a proper kind of base to work from, pretty good housing and pretty good people can come from it. Peter Jarvis: There are three or four elements that I would like to emphasize. In terms of the overall site plan and the exhibit that you are looking at is the plat, which gives all the dimensions, as well as all of the the quantitative dates, which I don't think needs to be repeated. First of all, we have with the input, scaled back on the number of lots and increased the average lot by 15 or 20 percent. We also went back to some very, very large cul-de-sacs to create "little residential neigh- borhoods" within a much larger development. We have done this in more than a dozen single family attached projects in the last two or three years with Mr. Laukka and other clients and I might add we have done it in other communities where they have had a very adverse reaction to cul-de-sacs in the past. But, it is a planning prin- ciple, which I strongly adhere to in terms of single family housing. One of the reasons for the very large cul-de-sacs in this project are to work with the slopes that exist. Secondly, and more importantly, to create the landscaping that you are going to see, that does a factastic job in poping out the neighborhood focus point at the end of a moderate size lot program. The lots vary tremendously in size, from about 7,500 square feet and range up to 40,000 square feet, which I believe is the largest lot. The larger lots are to the east and along the north edge, where we have very dense vegetation and where we have slope conditions. Plus, we have the I larger lots either in width or in terms of depth that suffer the consequences of being up against Kerber Boulevard. Major vegetation, not foundation plantings, front yard plantings and not the driveway median plantings, will be planted to instantly breakup the whole backyard effect that we have typically in any kind of subdivision. They will go in either along the traditional street front or on common rear lot lines where there is no vegetation. All of the driveways are internal, there are no lots that face and orient to Kerber Boulevard. We have kept, at least to the minimal possible, the number of double frontage lots, irrespective of corner lots. We are working with the intersections that were proposed here many years ago when this pro- perty was also planned differently as part of the overall PUD, so the access con- ditions have not changed. Barb Dacy talked about the driveways and the clustering. Again, I think it is a very important design feature. This begins to show the kind of dimensions you then get between curb cuts and it's on the range of anywhere from 120 to 150 feet depending upon the pair of lots that might look alike and the heavy landscaped areas, that you will see in larger scale, are the areas between the drive- ways. The mail boxes become clustered as well. There will be a clustering of mail boxes between the driveways, which will serve four units, being two units on one side of the street and two units on the opposite side of the street, because the experience we are having with the post offices now, is that they will only stop on one side of the street. You will see the post box details, which again, is one of the design refinements that whether it is for moderate lots or even small lots. Some of the projects that you are going to be looking at average about 2,000 to 3,000 square feet smaller per lot than what we are proposing here. The ultimate image, in terms of the design details, is exactly the same. We try to have some design coherence throughout the entire project with covenants maintaining that. There will I be low maintenance, very lushly and heavily landscaped islands, depending on their size. My understanding of the means that have transpired between your staff, the I I I - - i. Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -19- Watershed District, adjacent developer, property owners and Dr. Schroeder, there has been basically the agreement in concept of a storm drainage solution which this pro- perty can bring to bear with a major retention, filtering, peaking kind of pond in this area that is rather vital as it has been explained to me from an engineering standpoint to the Western Hills and Hilloway subdivisions, all of which have a signi- ficant amount of real estate that is in the basin that will either sheet drain or through pipe, bring water to this area, have it filtered in effect cleansed naturally before ultimately going into Lotus Lake. With the implementation of this project, not only will this land be made available, but the improvements will take place that are required to satisfy this subdivision, this subdivision as well as this property here. I think, in effect, in a range of two to three months, especially with the Watershed District people to arrive at a solution, which I think from an engineering standpoint makes good sense and is relatively equitable in terms of the benefiting properties. That will occur in the dedicated open space, which also will clearly have drainage easements. Our understanding, at least at this point, that over and above this dedication there will be contemplated some kind of a fee in addition to that, but that of course, is a future issue. The implementation of this project will solve what is a drainage problem for several properties, not just the property that is proposed here for development. ~ Laukka: The decisions that you folks have to make are based on; what am I getting and what is going to happen to our community, what is it going to look like, what kind of criteria are we setting for the future. There is always a certain tre- pidation that sets in to City Councils whenever you are talking about doing something different. This is different. I think these lot sizes are different than what you are use to, the criteria that we are establishing is different than what you are use to. I think it is that very thing that I am going to ask for you to consider because I do believe a project like this has a way of setting some precedent. It certainly has south and it has north. I have tried to take the experience I have had from attached housing, where we are putting housing together, stacking them up, etc. and get people to live in densities of 4, 6, 8 and 12 units an acre, we have found out that we just can't build architecture, we need to do something else with the site itself. We tried to do that here. In paralleling the driveways, it is a small idea, but it works. It works to the extent that we take the garages and we relate those garages on the common lot line and we separate them by five feet and we do something in between that area, the median strip. It begins to set the tone for the develop- ment because what we are trying to do is create a minimum of 90 to 150 feet of green grass, driveway, and curb cuts. It establishes at least the same kind of residential feeling that we developed over the years when we were developing 150 foot lots. When we plat this development we pre-plat, pre-locate, and pre-site the garages in the curb cuts. That is where the garage will have to go, so it is an element. It doesn't sound like much on the surface, but when you go out and visit developments you can see how that tends to open up the space. The criteria is established in terms of how these houses are built. We require, by covenant, that there is a mini- mum of the two foot jog in the garage. The landscaping that Peter Jarvis talked about is a key question. I wasn't allowed to do the cul-de-sacs in some of the other communities, as I tried the City Engineering Department, as many communities have established over the years, rejected the improved cul-de-sac because of the public maintenance question. We have established a set of covenants on this property and with those covenants is a homeowners association. This is not a big gory, hairy homeowners association. It really has a couple of things to do. The association is an involuntary association. All property owners have to belong to it and the cove- nants are involuntary as well, they run with the land. The covenants set the cri- teria for the development in perpetuity. It decides that the cul-de-sac islands are their responsibility and they are then funded through the association so that r~,j. {:~~ {, .,..1 Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -20- annually they can take care of those islands in terms of maintaining the grass, shrubbery, trimming, etc. Because it is in the public right of way, if the home- owners association fails to maintain those islands and they become an eye sore, the I City has the right to come in there and black top them out and assess the property owners for it. With the homeowners association, we have developed a tool that will run with the land forever and their primary criteria is to maintain the landscaping and the common elements that we introduce into a single family detached development. The cul-de-sac is one of the things. The entrance monumentation is another thing. It is a small detail by itself and you can get along without it. But if you add it and do it right, it can began to set the tone for the development. It is the homeowners association's responsibility to maintain the entrance monument, and the mail boxes also. Councilwoman Watson: The density is way too high. There are 45 lots that are under 10,000 square feet, which is 5/8 of the housing in this project. In the old plan, for Chaparral, there were no lots under 10,000 square feet. I would propose that there be no lots under 10,000 square feet in this project, with the lots having 90 foot frontages and on the cul-de-sacs they at least have 90 feet from the building setback line. There should be nothing less than 10 foot side yards. You think you solved the problem by telling them you have to put a garage on there. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals solved a situation for a Near Mountain project tonight where we have the small lots. They can't even build a deck without coming in for a variance because the lot is simply too small for them to do anything they want. You can build a house on it, and the people are not in the house long before they may want to build a deck or a three season porch, etc. They don't fit. The lots are too small. There is no place for them to go with anything they want beyond what they have built originally. They have to come and get a variance. That is not what the variance program is for. Another thing is the homeowner's association taking care of I the cul-de-sac plantings. There are some people from my neighborhood here who know all too well how difficult it is for neighborhoods to take care of the entrances, mail boxes, etc. It is not as simple as it sounds. Councilman Geving: I was a part of the original Chaparral project and the developer came in with the idea that he was going to develop the entire area in about three years and then be gone. A few things happened and the development didn't take off as planned. We phased the project fairly well. I thought, in reality, we would be seeing this phase certainly by 1982 or so. The development turned out quite nicely. If you drive through Chaparral right now, I am very pleased with the way the Council directed the developer to build a very nice part of our community. The lots are a very good size, the homes that are there were built by a variety of builders and I think this is a real addition to the community. We approved this particular plat for 47 lots. You are proposing 72. I feel that you are way, way too high in density. I don't know what the figure should be, but I think Councilwoman Watson had the right idea, in order for you to get some direction from the Council, it might be best to set a minimum lot size. I can't see building on 50 foot lots in Chanhassen. We had several developments like that. We recently had a very big proposal from a developer and we turned it around because it isn't what, I think, the market is in Chanhassen. So that is one thing that you could take a look at and come back with another propo- sal for us because I am not content with 72 lots and a lot of 7,200 square feet is just too small. I would like to have you look at the cul-de-sacs, the size of the cul-de-sacs, the overall density, the net density, take away the swamp area, take away the acreage that can't be used and work only on the area that you are going to build on. I definitely don't want another project where we have five and ten foot I side yard setbacks. I would like to see you go 10 and 10. Another problem with this particular project is drainage. It has been a project for many years. In fact, part I I I i-; r Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -21- of this project on the eastern part, Mr. Klingelhutz owned as his phase of Western Hills. It couldn't be built because the Watershed District gave him a real bad time and forced him into delaying that project forever. It still hasn't been built. I am quite surprised if the Watershed District is allowing this to happen without piping. They are really hot on piping. We had to put through a $260,000 project for something similar to this when we intensified the density of the area. There will be a day when all the residents of this particular Chaparral area are going to be assessed for the storm sewer improvement area project. I don't think we have addressed this whole area for storm water as well as we should. Take a look at that. I am not too convinced that the homeowner's association system will work. We have seen a lot of developments in Chanhassen and to expect homeowners to cooperatively get together and repair mail boxes, I just can't see your covenant to force that to happen. The question is; are we really building affordable homes? We have several projects now in the $80,000 to $100,000 area. I think they are selling. I think it's a part of what we need to do in Chanhassen. That particular site is a very nice area. If you do it right, you will do it with far less density. I didn't get a feel whether or not all of these homes were going to have basements. Are you proposing basements for all of these homes. Larry Laukka: Yes. Councilman Geving: I didn't hear tonight a proposed time frame for this development, if it is approved. Larry Laukka: Two years. Councilman Geving: I do like what I see here as far as your plans are concerned and I think you are showing some innovation and it is a pretty nice plan. I like the fact that you are attempting something new in Chanhassen. Councilman Horn: I understand what putting your driveways together like that does and I know what it does as far as creating an open space, but sometimes that gets kind of monotonous to see that pattern created throughout the whole thing. I realize with lots so small you have to do something to create some type of an open space. But I think if the density question were addressed as has been suggested, there wouldn't be a need to position driveways like that, maybe there will be some way to break that up. I like the idea of the cul-de-sacs. I am a real fan of cul-de-sacs in a community. I think it makes it a real desireable area if you can cut the traf- fic pattern down by creating cul-de-sacs. I am all for that. I like the overall flow through the development. I like the wood treatment on the stops signs. To me, there is too much metal around. I also like the gate approach, but the density is what I have a problem with. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to follow up on Councilman Geving's statement regarding the Watershed situation. When we first went through this, there were six conditions that the Watershed District required. You said you talked to the Watershed District, and the reason I ask you this, Mr. Monk, is because if you remember a while back we had a major problem with flooding of the creek into Carver Beach. That cost us a few bucks. I certainly don't want to see a repeat of that. I would like to see a report when this goes farther from the Watershed District, I want them notified on this and report to us on it. Bill Monk: I was involved in presenting the idea to the Watershed District. I didn't think much of their initial proposal to pipe the water all the way from the pond that already exists in Chaparral right down to Lotus Lake because I thought it 'rf {) Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -22- would have a tremendous adverse affect on Lotus Lake. To use the eastern portion of this site, which is a lowlands right now, and to develop it into some type of a basin, which would allow some economical way of handling the drainage from this side I and the site to the south, which was Western Hills Third, which would allow the creek to be kept as a site amenity, but also to stabilize and to use it. But more impor- tantly to use that low area to its fullest advantage and filter out the water on its way to Lotus Lake, because piping it is not the answer because you are just piping everything with it and I have never agreed with that. Don't think that the Watershed District engineer is sold on the idea. He's not. But after the meetings and talking with him, I thought that there was a realization on his part that this plan could work. I genuinely think that the plan, at least as far as the Watershed District is concerned, that this can work and it can work without a major drainage project. It's going to go up into Greenwood Shores and get everybody. There is still a lot of work to be done with the drainage plan. What is being proposed here, from the drainage standpoint, is very feasible and economical. It is an important factor, there is no question about it. When we first got into this, we went to the Watershed District rather quickly to make sure that they wouldn't shoot the concept down altogether. But the idea is to use a pond, and allow discharge to collect from all surrounding developments in this holding basin. Allow the creek to be stabilized and then have an outlet control structure that would outlet under, what I call the Moulten Driveway, and then into the creek going east. Instead of piping the water straight through allowing no sedimentation anywhere along the creek, but to use the low area and to allow for an upgrading of a basin, while not increasing the amount of drainage that comes down into the area, but instead rerouting it down to this basin so that the creek can be upgraded and then protected. I think it really can work and I think it will do a lot to control sedimentation and the erosion that comes through here and has come through here over the years. I really believe the concept is a good one. Councilwoman Swenson: I am concerned about piping too, for that very purpose. I Everything is going into the lake. Mayor Hamilton: I have never been in a homeowner's association. When you talk about the association maintaining these various duties, do they pay a fee into a fund and then they can hire somebody to do that or do the people themselves have to do the maintenance? Larry Laukka: I am very surprised about the comments about the homeowner's asso- ciation. A homeowner's association is properly constructed and properly organized and they do work. They are involuntary, they are funded by the property owners, they are managed by professionals. The homeowners don't get together and say we have to paint the mail boxes on Saturday afternoon. It doesn't work like that, and I agree 100 percent with that. Associations tend to work and it works because we employ some of the same tactics and some of the same principles that we have found in attached housing. What we are trying to do is move away from attached housing. There is a preference for homeownership, there is a preference for yards, there is that pre- ference in this community as well as there is in this country. What we have tried to do is to take the principles that we have learned in attached housing and bring it to detached housing including the control factor, the architectural control, the pro- perty amenity area, and maintenance controls that do work. It is essential to this development, whether it is this one or the next one that you'll see somewhere down the line. Those kinds of details become part of the plan, because it's those details and the control of the details which create a really good project. I Mayor Hamilton: I would concur with the rest of the Council as far as the density. As I look at your plat here, on the east side there are six rather large lots there, which certainly inflates the average lot size for the whole project. When you look I I I G~ 0'. f Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -23- at Block 2, there are several 7,500 square foot lots in there. It would seem to me if you took the four largest lots in there and then you eliminated 2 lots out of that block and just spread that over the rest of the lots you are going to come up with a lot better average. I don't think that we are talking about real significant changes, but I think that we are going to need to eliminate a lot here and there and spread that throughout the rest of the lots. Larry Laukka: I am a little bit confused, because I hear density isn't any good and there is something wrong with the small lots, and 10,000 square feet is one good average and 47,000 square feet is another. I would like to know a little bit more about your thinking in terms of density. I am almost turning back to 1968. I am hearing some of the same stuff that we heard back then in second and third suburban tier communities. I understand the frustration that comes to your desk when you have to look at something that is not what you have had. It's not the conventional approach. Councilman Gevinq: In 1979 we approved a plan for this phase of the project for Chaparral. This plan was to include 47 lots. The net density was suppose to be something under 3, in fact I believe it was 2.56. That is what we were looking for in 1979. My thoughts on this project haven't changed since then. I like your con- figuration and if you can get it under 3.0 for a net density, I think you are in the ball park. I would like you to put three homes on one acre of land. ~ Laukka: Why? Councilman Gevinq: Because I think that is what fits right now and that is what the whole Chaparral project is. This is phase four as far as I am concerned, in my mind sitting back five years to finally follow through on this project that was going to be completed in 1982. This is just a continuation of that whole Chaparral project for our community. You have just happened to pick it up and make a run for it at this time. But that doesn't change the land. That land hasn't changed out there, it is still a hill site. It still looks the same to me that if you could take that piece of land and put three homes on it, just like we planned in 1979, you would be in the ball park. In 1979 we had a plan for this piece of property. The plan shouldn't change just because five years have passed. I think the plan should still work. It is just a continuation, a 4th continuation, of the Chaparral project. You happen to be different people here tonight making a presentation. The piece of pro- pety remains the same and it will set in very nicely with phase 1, 2, and 3 that is already existing and being built to completion at this time. If you do it that way, if you carry out phase 4, it will fall right into the overall scheme of what we intended some time ago. Larry Laukka: I understand then, that in this community there have been no modifica- tions to plans ever? Mayor Hamilton: There have been a lot of modifications, as you know. I don't speak for the rest of the Council, but I would certainly think that what Councilman Geving was saying was the plan in 1979 is certainly not something that I would have to live with either, but at the same time we have tried to maintain a little bit larger lot size in this community over the years and what you are showing here, as far as your minimum, is 7,500 which is your smallest. We have tried very hard with all of the developments to maintain at least an average of around 10,000 square feet for a lot size, that being the smallest in the development. There have been some where there have been smaller lot sizes, there is no question about that. We have felt in our looking at the general development of the overall City, that perhaps right now we have got as many of those that we need. This is a nice piece of land and we would like to see it developed into little bit larger lots. Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -24- Peter Jarvis: When you talk about density on a project, what are you talking about, ultimately, other than people for a number of units per acre? If you took the site and treated it like a pool table and filled the hole area and put the storm water in I a pipe, eliminated the pond, or create a pond the would still satisfy the Watershed District, put the drainage ditch or creek in a pipe, you ended up with a net develo- pable density somewhere in the range of 21 or 22 acres at 3 units an acre. You bulldoze the hill, you tear down the trees, you have a development line substantially different from that, it would all be within the context that your subdivision regula- tions when you break the site. You would be in the mid 60's with the number of units, not 47 units, and you could vote against it, obviously, in terms of a previous zoning committment. But I do think to have a line set toward a PUD that was approved in 1979 and not be the least bit responsive to six years of changes and innovation and market conditions and pricing realities, is a little closed minded. Councilman Geving: We have had the small developments. We are building 300 homes right now, exactly the kind that you are talking about. We have had the 10,000 and 8,000 square foot proposals. We are building those now. That is why this Council wants to turn that around. We needed some of those smaller developments, they have happened and now we are ready to look at something else. Peter Jarvis: The market analysis that has been done by two different clients of mine, both of whom have left Chanhassen as opposed to exercise options that they have in property for conventional single family lots. In their judgement, conventional housing by your definition is somewhere between a five and six year absorption. It is very clear that you don't agree with their assessment, but that from a market absorption looking at the last 7 or 8 years, their assessment is that there is five to six years on the market today ready, in effect, to either take a building permit or take the next sewer and water extension. Councilwoman Watson: One of my major concerns is that we have some proposals on the small lots and I keep hearing the market analysis and it is not that I don't believe that. My concern is that the market analysis changes very quickly. It was the market analysis that told us a short time ago that nobody wanted to live in anything but a 4-plex. That market analysis has changed to single family homes. I think we want to be careful that we don't develop too much of today's market analysis without any concern of what people want five years from now. I still want to be living in this community and proud of what occurred. I think we have pretty much saturated ourselves with little tiny lots and would like to go back a little bigger lot. Peter Jarvis: I think your point is a good one in terms of saturation. Ultimately, you could be sitting around here in three years doing revised PUD's for all of the projects that you have approved this year, which is a risk and a responsibility that any municipality has because not many of us in the business, being consultants or developers, are smart enough to keep up with the rapidly changing times. I do want to point out, though, when you say tiny lots, the lot size here at a minimum is on the average, 30 percent larger than the lots that were platted in 1929 in the country club section in Edina, and not to use that as an example, but when one drives through there today, they have weathered relatively well and there aren't too many people that are embarrassed about living on a 5,000 square foot lot in that subdivision. Councilwoman Watson: The people didn't move to Chanhassen for that particular point. They came this far out and suffered the lack of services and the lack of some of the amenities that you have closer in because they wanted more property, they wanted less density and they wanted to live in a more rural area. I I I I I ti Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -25- Peter Jarvis: Less density in terms of people per acre, would you argue to 2! units per acre across the whole piece of real estate. Would you argue with me that 2! units an acre is high density? We are talking about the number of people. Councilwoman Watson: I can't look at it in that way. Peter Jarvis: But that is density. The whole basis for zoning in this country deals with impact development which is caused by the number of people, the number of housing units, or traffic or sewage or water, all of which ultimately ties back into the gross number of lots and the expected number of people that are in those lots or the number of vehicle trips a day. Density is not size, per se, that is a design issue, but that is not density. Councilwoman Watson: Density, to me, is size. Peter Jarvis: Is there any way to summarize an overall consensus in terms of speci- fic direction so that we can advise Roger Schroeder and Larry Laukka about how to proceed or whether to proceed. Is that possible? Mayor Hamilton: I can poll everybody. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy these homes whether the lot is 7,800 square feet or 40,000 square feet. It is like any other development, if there are people willing to puchase that lot, nobody is forcing them to do that. They are doing it by their choice of the size of the house and lot that they want to live on, I certainly don't think anybody here is going to develop something that they can't sell. We need housing similar to this for this town. If we are going to continue to attempt to attract industrial development in this area, we are going to have to have some homes. Councilman Horn: I like to try to balance housing types and natural amenities with a piece of property. To me, this is a very high amenity piece of property. It can justify a smaller density type of a development. I think if your development were sitting out in the middle of an open field that had no natural amenities of hillside and trees, it would be appropriate for us here because the land doesn't have the ame- nity factor that this piece of property does. The whole objective, and I think what Councilman Geving was alluding to earlier was the whole concept was looked at. The properties out near the highway had less amenities, the density was considered higher. This was looked at as a more higher amenity piece of property which we have the larger lots, and the bigger homes. That is the concept, that I use at least, when I judge what type of a development is appropriate for a piece of property. If this were out in the middle of a flat field with no trees, I wouldn't have a problem with some of the lot sizes that are on here, but on this piece of property I really don't feel this is appropriate. I think some of the compromises that the Mayor has suggested on eliminating a few lots to bring it more in line, not necessarily down to the figure that was approved in 1979, but at least get some of the smaller lot sizes out of there would be appropriate to me. Councilwoman Swenson: I am on record from previous proposals that I am not interested in anything that has less than 10,000 square foot minimum lot size, and that doesn't mean average, and 10 and 10 minimum side yards. Councilman GevinQ: Don't get me wrong. I have worked hard for the City and I want to do this right and I think we have done a lot of right things in Chanhassen. The direction that we have tried to give you tonight are some ideas. I am not in favor of 50 foot frontages. I like the 10,000 square foot lot. If you can approach the three units per acres, I think you are in the ball park. I also agree what has been said about the 10-10 side yards. With a few small adjustments, pulling of a lot here and there on each of those cul-de-sacs, I think you can accomplish that. Council Meeting, June 3, 19B5 -26- Councilwoman Watson: I would like to see 10 and 10 side yards and no 50 foot fron- tages. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ GRANT FUNDS, APPROVE APPRAISAL FOR LAND ACQUISITION: I The Council reviewed the required appraisal for the land acquisition project for the Instant Web Building. The Council felt that the proposed fair market value was "fair and just compensation." RESOLUTION 8B5-25: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution establishing the fair market value of $150,000 and authorized the City to make an offer to purchase the Bloomberg parcel. Resolution 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. STREET LIGHT ~ LYMAN BOULEVARD! HIGHWAY 17: Councilman Geving: Sometime ago we put a light at the south end of Audubon and if any of you people drive north on Highway 17 at night, go to Lyman Boulevard and you can hardly see where the turnoff is. I don't know how to do this, but it should be fairly feasible. Whatever it takes, I recommend that we put in a street light at that point. Bill Monk: The only reason that it hasn't been done in the past is because electri- city hasn't been available. Now electricity has been run into that subdivision. The County should put the street light in because it is two county roads that intersect, but I recommend that we do it. CARVER COUNTY ASSESSING APPEAL: Don Ashworth: I gave you a copy of the briefs. posal from before. I still feel that we should contract for 19B5 and 19B6, 19B6 is optional. Carver County has rejected our pro- put in writing, again, that we would I Councilman Gevinq: Mr. Klingelhutz keeps telling me that we have got to get going on the 19B5 contract. Don Ashworth: Without a contract the County will double charge the City at the end of this year. In all likelihood, the County will reject our proposal to hearing to a contract unless we give up our appeal. The City Attorney is saying, they are not offering you anything, they are coercing you into not pursuing this appeal and you have a legal right to do it. The problem is, as it stands right now, "Joe Citizen" looks at it and may believe that it is the City of Chanhassen which is trying to not be cooperative, and even Mr. Klingelhutz looks at it and says, why doesn't the City enter into a contract? I think we should at least say that we are willing to enter into a contract and write a letter to them and let them, in writing, say no. Councilman Horn: You should tell them that we want the same kind of contract that they have offered the other cities. Don Ashworth: In our previous attempt to settle we agreed to pay the amounts for 19B3 and 19B4 with the excess amounts that they have certified being applied to the amount of money that we would owe them for 19B5 and that we would enter into a contract for 19B5. They rejected that proposal. They said that they were going to levy the amounts for 19B3 and 19B4 that was in their pockets, they weren't going to give us any additional credits. If you wanted to enter into 1985, we would have to stop our law suit, but I don't have any of that in writing. I I I I (-;- '-/'. Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -27- Councilman Horn: Isn't that in the minutes. Councilman Gevinq: I don't think so, because isn't that pretty much a discussion between yourself their attorney? Don Ashworth: They have done most of this in the privacy of their attorney's office. So what was actually said, I don't know. lEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE: A brief discussion was held on the attendance for the league of Cities Conference. No action was required on this item. REPORT Q[ THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ~ CARVER COUNTY GOVERNMENT: The Council discussed the report of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Carver County Government. Mayor Hamilton moved to direct the City Manager to prepare a letter to the Carver County Commissioners office stating that the City Council is in favor of the commit- tee's findings. 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. lAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR/lAKE VIRGINIA FORCEMAIN: Bill Monk: In the packet there is a cost analysis that has some major impacts on the City in terms of cost sharing that I am sure that are going to become a part of the lake Ann Interceptor. At this point, I am still not sure what they are recommending. Don Ashworth: They have not come down to a recommendation. There have been some alternatives to present. The staff will be coming down to a recommendation letter by this week. The meeting that has been shown for this Wednesday, June 5, has been delayed. We will be meeting with the systems chairman yet this week. Bill Monk: The two options that we have been looking at are putting a forcemain all the way across northern Chanhassen with no chance of hookup for the City or to run the interceptor down into Eden Prairie. The big item that we have been pushing on is that with the interceptor you do have a larger cost up front but if you take a look at it over a longer period of time at their usual of 20 years, in the end it will start to equal out and the cities will end up with something to show for it and they will have a better system overall. The two systems that have been included now show over a four year period and you can see one of the reasons; the equivalent annual cost for the Metrowaste between the two systems are coming to the point where they are almost equal, it's just over a half million dollars a year when you look at it over a four year period, but that takes into account some type of cost sharing. That's what the balance of the report is about. The formula in here takes into account local flow plus local costs and combines them into what I would consider a fair type of cost sharing set up where the City would be able to build the intercep- tor that would cost us about 1.4 million dollars, for our local costs, $482,000. It doesn't look that bad. We still have to come up with a way to pay for it. There is a lot of details to be worked out, but it looks like if we are going to push for the interceptor, that some type of cost sharing by both Eden Prairie and Chanhassen is going to have to be a part of that. I think, myself, that it is something that we can live with and show the residents that we have something for our dollar. That is where we stand right now. If the Council has any comments on this one way or another, we need to know as we go in because I have a feeling that they are going to shoot the details right way and as soon as these meetings go on they are going to be wanting to get us out to do the work on the cost sharing or whatever. Council Meeting, June 3, 1985 -28- Councilwoman Swenson: Do we pay for this thing on GO or what? Don Ashworth: Some of the details that I have suggested would include 1) we cannot I assess or in any way pay for something that we are not going to be able to use. So they are saying that our use area, we can't expand into our growth area until 1990 or 1995 or 2000, and I think 1995 is a reasonable date. If you were to pick out the year 1995, then the cost to the City should not start before 1995. At that point in time through a contractural arrangement, we want to be sure that we can get that con- nection for any contributions that we are going to agree to today. From the technical standpoint on exactly how we would carry that out, I am not sure. I am anticipating that Roger Knutson would say that we would have to conduct the special assessment hearing, now. In other words, when this thing would start in 1986 or 1987 and inform those property owners that they had a chance to speak and you literally turn right around and defer any type of action for a period of years. You would want to make sure that you did not get into the same type of problems we've had in the north ser- vice area. Councilwoman Watson: Would you have to hold a hearing ten years from now or would it just happen? Don Ashworth: It would just happen. But again, Roger Knutson would have to go through the detail. We have learned a lot in the north service area in terms of making sure that all property owners as the property changed hands they were advised of this. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM ~ APPROVE EMERGENCY DISPATCH RESOLUTION: Councilman Geving: I was only concerned about the bill and reimbursement aspect of this. Have we had any problem with this? Don Ashworth: We have never billed and we really don't intend to. emergency situations. Right now you have mutual aid for disasters. the tornado in New Brighton, we came in and helped out. This is only for In the case of I Councilman Geving: You are basically assuming then, at some future date we may be in the same fix and they will loan you their person. RESOLUTION U85-26: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolution approving Consent Agenda item l.b., Approve Emergency Dispatch Resolution. Resolution 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. Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn Horn. The following voted in favor: Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. the meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilman Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager kjs I