Loading...
1985 09 23 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson, Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Geving Members Absent None Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bill Monk and Lori Sietsema APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the agen a as presented with the addition of discussion on the Bavaria Watershed, discussion rif the Bluff Creek Railroad and discussion regarding the AMM Meeting. Motion was sJconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votJs. Motion carried. I I I consent agenda pursuant to I I Valley, I CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the the City Manager's recommendation: a . Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Hidden United Mortgage. i b. Conditional Use Permit for a 10 Foot High Tennis Court Fence, Lot 4, Block 1, Christmas Acres, Todd Novaczyk. I c. Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Chanhassen Mall, G~ry Kirt. d. Approval of Engineering Service Agreement. e. Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Gardeneer, Inc., 6421 Hazeltine Boulevard. I Horn. The following voted in favor: Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. I Mayor No negative Motion was seconded by Councilman Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and votes. Motion carried. PUBLl C HEAR ING CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS: Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. public, Councilman Geving moved to close the public Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No Mayor Hamilton: It consistently having kind of thing. kind of disturbs me to see delinquent utility bills. There being ro comment from the hearing. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen negative votes. Motion carried. I people who are active in the community I I think they should be above that I Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -2- Councilwoman Swenson moved to table this item until the October 7, 1985 meeting. 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. MINUTES: Mayor Hamilton moved to note the Planning Commission minutes dated August 28, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to note the Park and Recreation minutes dated August 6, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: Councilman Horn: I have a question regarding the purchase of the video equipment. I thought that was a part of the cable deal. Don Ashworth: The Fire Department has requested this for the past two years. It has been stricken out of previous budgets. It was included in this years. The video store sold it to them at their cost. The terms of the agreement with Dow-Sat is you can come in and use this equipment any time that you would like to. The rule that you have to obey, however, is that whatever you film has to be turned over to them for public airing. So, legally, the Fire Department cannnot use that equipment. Councilman Horn: Can't they turn the tape over to the public? Don Ashworth: They could show it for airing and they would probably attract some interest the first time around, but I don't that there would be a continuous interest. Councilman Horn: I don't understand why we need a camera? Don Ashworth: They will take that camera out and set a car on fire, they will have people going in and putting out that fire and cutting people out, or whatever it hap- pens to be. They will then bring that tape back in and as a part of the next week's program, they will show that and analyze it in terms of who should have been where, etc. If a new guy comes on, they will have the tape there show the different types of evolutions that they have gone through. Councilman Horn: And that is all it will be used for. Don Ashworth: I will put out a memorandum directly telling them that they shall not use that for any type of personal use. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the bills as presented: check #022840 through check #022934 in the amount of $624,212.05 and check U025499 through check #025619 in the amount of $213,756.63. 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. FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 6290 AUDUBON CIRCLE, CRAIG GREENWALD: The above item was passed unanimously at a previous Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting. Therefore, no action was required by the Council. I I I I I I Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -3- SUBDIVISION QI 1.93 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS QI .80 AND 1.13 ACRES, NORTHWEST CORNER OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY AND RED CEDAR POINT, ROY LEACH: Barb Dacy: The subject parcel is located on the north side of Reid Cedar Point Road, approximately one-half mile east of Minnewashta Parkway. The subject parcel totals approximately 2 acres in size. Parcel A is the site that was recently approved for an 18 unit townhome project. They reserved 42 feet for an outlot. What is being proposed is a combination of this 42 foot strip with the northerly parts of this 3 acre parcel. Both lots exceed the zoning ordinance requirement and the Shore-land Management requirement for the lot area. Parcel B is 34,800 square feet. Parcel C, with the existing home is 49,261 square feet. Each meets the frontage requirement. Parcel B would be accessed by what was shown as Wilson Drive, but it is Hickory Road. Kirkham Road is a bigger street, but technically a pubic right-of-way and the pro- posed driveway will be accessing for lots across the Kirkham right-of-way. There is a 22 foot wide easement along the easterly portion of Parcel B. This easement provi- des lake access for Parcel C only. Staff has recommended that a right-of-way be platted in Parcel B for a turn around for the city maintenance vehicles if needed. The Planning Commission was concerned about this, asking staff to research if that much right-of-way is needed, etc. We worked on it a little bit more. The Kirkham Road right-of-way is only 30 feet wide and what we are proposing is to reserve this area on the plat for a turn around, if needed. It would be constructed by the City maintenance crews and there would be no charge or assessment back to the property owners. The Commission was also concerned about the reservation of the easement along the east side. There is an existing dock on the lake now that serves the owner of Parcel C. With the subdivision of the Parcel, Parcel B has riparian rights and has rights to have a dock. In our staff report we stated the requirement in the water surface usage ordinance regarding the ability for a guest boat to be stored overnight. The Planning Commission felt that this was a private. matter to be deter- mined between the two homeowners and that there be one dock ther~ with the maximum number of five slips per dock, as any other dock. The Planning Commission action, therefore, was to approve the preliminary plat with the condition that the engineer and the applicant work out an effective solution for the cul-de-sac, which we have done and which is the right-of-way as you see here. Councilwoman Swenson: Is the applicant aware that there will bej a sewer and water assessment? I remember that particular lot was included in that north service area and then we chopped it off because it wasn't serviced by a public street. Now we are being told that it has a public street. As long as he has been totally aware of the fact that this is the case. It is understood, is it not, that you will not be able to put a dock on the 20 foot easement? Barb Dacy: Correct. Councilwoman Swenson: Will his lot that the people who having problems with this? this run with the land so that if Mr. Comer ever sells buy it, we aren't going to run into future Councils I Barb Dacy: I did insure the description for Parcel B as far as the plat is con- cerned, we will have an easement that will run with the land to provide lake access. So your concern is then if the ownership changes, then they are going to affirm that they have the ability to construct a dock? Councilwoman Swenson: Yes. Do they have? Councilman Horn: No. Councilwoman Swenson: This would not be a debatable subject then? Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -4- Bill Monk: No. Councilman Horn: - to having a slip correct? I assume that the ordinance is written that the access of Parcel C on the dock is purely at the pleasure of the new lot, is that I Barb Dacy: Yes. Councilman Horn: There needs to be nothing else written into convenants that he has more than that use, and he is aware of that? Barb Dacy: Yes. Supposidly, they have agreed to share the dock together. Mr. leach has stated that to me. Councilman Horn: And he will only have one boat on it? Barb Dacy: Mr. Comer will. that recommendation not be ability to contain five is But what the Planning Commission recommended is that imposed. It is a private agreement on the dock and the up to the property owners to decide that. Councilman Horn: But that is contrary to the beachlot ordinance. Barb Dacy: The Commissioners felt that what is written in the surface usage ordi- nance, they felt that staff is taking the wrong interpretation of that. They felt that the guest boat provision did not apply in this case. Councilman Horn: I think that they are correct. They are not talking about an adja- cent owner and they are talking about a guest who would come and stay overnight and I use their boat. That is not the case here. That is basically what is happening on lake Minnetonka. They are cracking down very strictly on this type of thing where you sublet a portion of your dock out to someone else. I tend to agree with the Planning Commission. We are not talking about guests here. Barb Dacy: The Planning Commission's recommendation was that it is a private agreement and Parcel B will have the right to have a dock and the ability to dock five boats as any other riparian owner. However, whether Mr. Comer will have a dock is purely up to them. Councilwoman Swenson: That is not the intent of the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance was to prevent people from renting a space on the dock. The problem I have with this is I can see that this is precisely what we were trying to have happen. Mayor Hamilton: saying, I don't problem you get lake to use the It is simply a matter of enforcement. I agree with what you are think that was the intent of the ordinance. That is the same type into with any other beachlot where you are allowing people off the lake that weren't really intended to in the first place. of Councilman Horn: I think my concern is, if I interpret with what the Planning Commission said, is that it is a private matter. I disagree with that. It is a matter of ordinance. By saying that I think they are condoning this activity, and that is not the intent. I Councilwoman Swenson: How do we control something like that? Mayor Hamilton: I think all we need to do is say that the owner of Parcel B has the right to put in a dock and use it. The person of Parcel B can give the person of Parcel C an easement to cross his property to get to the lake. I I I Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -5- Councilman Horn: I think it should be pointed out exactly what the intent is of the ordinance. It is not intended for two households to use the same dock. This provi- sion is only an over night guest type of thing. Barb Dacy: The Planning Commission did not have a problem with the two lots sharing the dock in that it was a private agreement, and they have some problems with the easement. Councilman Horn: That is not what the ordinance says. Councilman Geving moved to approve the subdivision #85-15 (1.93 acres into two lots of .80 and 1.13 acres, Northwest corner of Minnewashta Parkway and Red Cedar Point) as depicted on the Preliminary Plat dated August 30, 1985 with the following conditions: 1. That Parcel B be allowed 1 dock; 2. That a 40 foot diameter cul-de-sac be platted on the eastern border of Parcel B and will be shown on the Final Plat; 3. That a sewer and water assessment for lateral trunk benefits be placed at the time and date of issuance of the permit. 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. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ~ MANUFACTURING/WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOR VICTORY ENVELOPE, 14.5 ACRES ~ THE SOUTHWEST CORNER Q[ ~ II AND HIGHWAY 1L FORTIER ASSOCIATES: Barb Dacy: The parcel is located on the southwest corner of the Hwy 5 and County Road 17 intersection. A couple of weeks ago a replat and a series of vacations were processed to eliminate the proposed Park Circle and eliminate the previous lots to create one lot. The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 147,593 square foot warehouse/manufacturing facility for Victory Envelope. The only recommendation that we do have on the plan that is the parking area along the front that the two driveways be connected. Our other recommendations are as follows: We requested additional landscaping during the initial landscaping plan review and the applicant has revised that landscaping plan and submitted that to my office this morning. Our proposed condition of approval is that maintaining that of the Planning Commissions. Thirdly, approval and compliance with all Watershed District and DNR conditions. Fourth, at the Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended that restabilization of all disturbed areas outside the construction limits be restabilized within two weeks of grading completion and no later than November 15, 1985. However, the Planning Commission did not institute that recommendation in their approval. Fifth, recom- mending that the developer be responsible for removing the existing curb in the dri- veway entrances and construction of new concrete aprons; and finally, all bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete curb. The Planning Commission action was to recom- mend approval, but with the amendment to condition number two regarding the landscaping plan to be worked out to the applicants and staffs satisfaction. Councilman Geving: I have been down Park Road the last few days looking at United Mailings area and what they have done with their parking. When you look at it, you can't really see the parking at United Mailing. I like that berming affect. I would like to see the same thing to the north for Victory Envelope. I don't know if the height of that is going to make a difference. Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -6- Barb Dacy: The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan this morning. I have not had an opportunity to review it, but there is a slight berm there and addi- tional vegetation. That is one of our objectives to screen the parking area and the loading area as well. Darryl Fortier: We are going to have some difficulty trying to screen these lots. The site is sloped. There is a fall from a 950 elevation up here down to a 920 down here. The building is going to sit at a 944 entrance elevation. The street is going to come in at a 934 elevation. We are going to have a 10 foot difference. That slo- pes up and away and because we have no parking for the first 100 feet, it is really difficult to create a berm that is going to obstruct the view of the parking. We have generated a small berm in the front for the future parking. We have a berm the height of the head lights so you can see the top of the cars, but you cannot see the base of them. We have also created some additional landscaping including evergreens that will add some winter interest. We have tried to respond that way. The creation of a berm for this particular application will be very difficult. Councilman Geving: You mentioned that the berming on the west side or the placing of the willows would hide the building. It has been my experience with willows that they grow fast and don't last very long. They are not very perminent. Is that a true statement? I Darryl Fortier: I believe that is a true statement. A willow is a very soft tree and it grows very rapidly and provides a very dense cover. The branches are so thick that they are difficult to see through. The reason the landscape architect has cho- sen willows is because we have a very substantial modification to the drainage way. We have a creek which comes through here and we have approximately a 100 foot set- back. We have to create two ponds per the DNR's request and the Watershed's request I at this location. We, therefore, just aligned that area with willows to create an almost continuous barrier. Councilman Gevinq: At what point do we get into the grading standards for the parking lot, etc. The only comment that I want them to be, and I know the Council wants them to fit whatever else we have done to United Mailing and Instant Web. Councilwoman Swenson: In referring to the creek, what provisions are you making to take care of that? Darryl Fortier: As I mentioned, there is a fair amount of work that this going to be going on in the property. The first requirement we have for the contractor is he must immediately install erosion control measurements in terms of continuous snow fence and hay bales immediately adjacent to the creek before he is allowed to proceed with excavation. This should catch the run-off and silt. Mayor Hamilton: On the parking lots on the northwest side and the south side, where is the run-off on those parking lots going to go? Is that going to go directly into the creek or what is going to happen? Darryl Fortier: We have two large retaining ponds. One will take water from the rear of the building and off the building and the other pond will take water from the front. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve Site Plan #85-5 for a manufacturing/warehouse I building for Victory Envelope, 14.5 acres on the southwest corner of CR 17 and Highway 5 as depicted on the site plan stamped "Received September 5, 1985" with the following conditions: I I I Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -7- 1. That the front parking area be connected to the west access drive at the initial construction phase. 2. The landscaping plan will be worked out to the staff's and the applicant's satisfaction. 3. Approval by and compliance with all Watershed and DNR conditions. 4. Restabilization of all disturbed areas outside the constr~ction limits within two weeks of grading completetion, but no later than November 15, 1985. 5. The developer is responsible for removal of existing curb in the driveway entrances and construction of new concrete aprons that will facilitate continuous gutter flow along Park Road. 6. All bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete curb. 7. Reinforse the buffering of the creek area prior to const~uction. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. Bill Monk: The Council should be aware that condition number four was adopted by the Watershed District and will be required by the Watershed District. If it cannot be met, their permit will be void. Whether the Council adopts that or not, I want to make that known to both the applicant and the Council. Mayor Hamilton: Is that going to cause a problem for you, Mr. Fortier? Darryl Fortier: As I presented to the Planning Commission, yes it is. We will have to prehaps, go back to the Watershed District and ask them for permission to violate that. It simply means that construction cannot start this year and will be delayed until next spring. Mayor Hamilton: I would rather leave it out of our conditions for approval and have you go to the Watershed District and have them work it out for you. And if you go back to the Watershed, please let our staff know what the decision is. Councilwoman Watson: Watershed District. We would then leave item 04 out in lieu of the decision by the The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I CONSIDERATION Q[ MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS FOR APARTMENT CONSTRUCTION, GENE REZAC: Don Ashworth stated that Mr. Rezac will make a presentation. He1stated that Mr. Rezac is asking for the Council's consideration for mortgage revenue bonds to allow for the construction of apartment complexes south of lake Susan and he cannot proceed at the present time because the ordinance prohibits mortgage revenue bonds for resi- dential construction. Gene Rezac stated that they would like to develop 120 rental townhouse units. He stated that with all the new businesses, this is something that Chanhassen needs and that the purpose is to provide homes for those who cannot afford to buy homes. He continued to say that before they can go ahead and spend a lot of money, they need an inducement resolution allowing them to use housing revenue bonds. He stated that they would be willing to allow the City to put qualifications on the bonds. He stated that due to conventional interest rates, it is almost impossible to complete a project like this without having a lower fixed-rate interest and that no financial institution is willing to put a cap on an interest rate for a project of this nature. He added that the property taxes that are going to be generated from this project will be at least $120,000 a year. Mayor Hamilton stated that he thought the discussion was going to be more on revenue bonds and for the applicant to try and convince the Council to change the ordinance to allow for residential revenue bond funding. Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -8- The Council discussed this matter and felt that before they can proceed with any type of an answer, they will need to be supplied with more information on revenue bond financing. Councilwoman Swenson moved to table this item until the Council has been supplied with a sufficient amount of information on residential revenue bond financing to make an intelligent decision. 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. A P PRO V A L ..QI FI N ALP ARK PL AN FOR SOU T H LOT U S L A K E BOA T A C C E S S : Mark Koeqler: I would like to highlight the changes that have been made since the previous items that you have seen. With the upper area, there have not been too many significant changes. We have pulled some of the plantings out of the island areas, which has been an economy move. Focusing on the lower portion, first of all the access was shifted a little bit. We shifted it back to the northwest a little more as far as we could. There is now approximately 45 - 50 feet in there, which is 15 feet more than we had in the previous layout that you had seen. The landscaping plan, much the same as up above, has been changed to reflect the shifting of the access and a couple other factors. We have changed a few things along this portion of the project. We have come in with a very dense planting. You will note that there is a fence that runs about 250'-290' along this property line. That has pre- sently been put in as a 4 foot high chain-link fence. It is intended to serve as an additional barrier without looking too institutionalized. We think that with the dense plantings that are going in, that really won't be seen too much from the park side and will be more visible from the residential side of the project. Again, we have pulled some plantings from the island areas. The improvements that we are pro- posing in here, depending upon what the market is going to be at the time of bidding, may run that portion of the project over by 4 or 5 percent. We may save that amount of money on some other item when we get into the final plans and specs and the bidding on these things. The theme down below is essentially remaining unchanged despite using a few less plant materials. We are still emphasizing all the activi- ties being on the opposite side of the residential area. Councilman Horn: How much more would a cedar fence be along there, rather than a chain link? Mark Koeqler: The chain link fence in that portion, the estimate was somewhere within $1,500. I would estimate that it would be 25 to 30 percent more for an equivalent fence of wood. Councilman Horn: I think that would be much more aesthetic and pleasing and you wouldn't have to worry about the institutionalized look. Mark Koegler: The other approach that we could take there, if it was desirous to have a chain link fence, some of the fabric coated fences in the dark colors. That cost, again, is quite a bit higher than the standard fence. Councilman Geving: Why did you go with the 4-foot fence. Mark Koeqler: That was a starting point. I believe the position that we have recom- mended all along was to keep the park as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Councilman Geving: and apparently the any place where we In our earlier discussions we were talking about berming the area reason that you got away from berming is that there is just isn't can get enough dirt to make the berms. I I I I I I Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -9- Mark Koegler: It isn't that simple. The problem there is that we need a drainage swale down in that lower portion. Councilman Geving: If we did go to some kind of a six foot fence, I think our inten- tion here was to keep people out of this side of the area. That is really what we intended to do. I would like it to extend all the way to the end of that lot. I would also like to see something else in the middle of your picture there. I see that to be something to mow and maintain. Is there a better aggregate of something with a low maintenance? Mark Koegler: The reason that is and you will note that the one on this side is seeded and the other one is sod. This is going to be another depressed drainage swale. Councilman Geving: How wide is that walkway? Mark Koegler: That hasn't been defined yet. We are using a 6 foot walkway in the lake Ann area and I think this one would be more narrow than that. I would suggest a 4 foot walkway. Councilman Geving: What are the plans for the gateway in the upper area? Mark Koegler: To date, there hasn't been a decision if there will be a gate house or if there will not be a gate house. When and if that decision is made, we will accommodate that along the right-of-way section down in here. We have adequate area to bring in a gate house to control that entrance. Don Ashworth: We do have the pump house below. It is proposed as a part of the ini- tial construction to put in posts with chain that would be unlocked in the morning by our water people as they are going to this facility and it would be locked in the evening as a part of the police activities. I am convinced that this will provide security and safety for this facility. If that is wrong and we do have a problem, Mr. Koegler has designed it in such a way that we can put a gate house at that faci- lity. Councilwoman Watson: Are we going to wait for the problem to exist before we put the gate house in? I would rather not wait until we have a disaster on our hands before someone says, lets' put up the gate. Don Ashworth: We are putting in the gate initially. Based on the record at lake Minnewashta and the boat launching there, the gate house was not really necessary as part of just the boat activity associated with that park. They did put in a gate house, but that includes the entire park area. We will be opening and locking that facility every day. let's wait and see if we have some type of a problem or not. We should be able to react to any type of a problem within a very quick period of time. Councilwoman Swenson: I disagree with you. this seven days a week. But I think that on imperative. It won't cost that much to have holidays. I would not propose that they have weekends and holidays it is positively someone in there on weekends and on Don Ashworth: On Dale's response regarding the fencing. I talked to Mark on this issue and we designed it to the lower standards trying to consider what it was that Mr. Melby would like to see. The farther that fence goes back, you have got some severe grades in there and it is very unlikely that anyone would walk back that addi- Council Meeting, September 23, 19B5 -10- tional length that the fencing is being proposed. It would be almost impossible to get there. The six foot fence is going to have more of a visual impact. From the staffs standpoint, we don't really care. We designed the smaller standard to be less obtrusive to the property owners. I Jack Melby: My comment people out of there. I line as you can manage. of water influenced the is the ability to catch there would be that I am really more concerned about keeping would rather see a six foot fence as far along the property Also, Mark had stated earlier that the storage and retention need for a berm. That has been one of our primary concerns high velocity of water running off that hill. Mark Koegler: We had looked at that when we were going through the preliminary sta- ges of engineering. We feel that we can control the velocity of water coming down which eventually discharges in the swale area to prevent the erosion problems that, I believe, you probably fear. What we will be coming back with on the 7th of October is the detailed engineering plans for this Council and any other residents to review and that will actually have the calculations to the numbers. But the work we are doing now on that does detect that we will be able to accomplish that objective, that we will be able control the run off with the upper pond, with the lower pond with catch basin and storm sewer system that we are designing. We will certainly be pre- pared to present that in its fullest form on the 7th. I know that has been a very legitimate concern all along. It is not one that we have been trying to get around in any way. Jack Melby: A couple of items that I referred to in my letter of July 24, 19B5. I am speaking for my neighbors who are not here tonight. We requested that alcohol not be allowed in the park to help prevent needless vandalism and noise. We would like I you to consider that. Mayor Hamilton: It is already in our ordinance. Jack Melby: Also, we would like to see one or the other down there, the park or the access, but not both. We don't want to absorb too much in that small neighborhood. The last thing we are requesting is a balance sheet that would show us, in terms of what is transpired with the park and everything associated with that. I think we have a general curiosity there. I don't know if that is a legitimate thing to ask or not. Mayor Hamilton: That is a moot question because it has already been approved and the funds have been cleared and the park is going to be there, but you certainly can see them. Area Resident: Is the road paved? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Area Resident: Is it not possible for that to be a gravel road? Mayor Hamilton: It is probably because we have a lift station down there and we need to get our vehicles down there. It is going to have to be plowed in the winter and it is going to be a whole lot easier if it is a paved surface. Area Resident: Why does the path have to be paved? That just gives us another coin to run on. I I I I Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -11- Mark Koeqler: You are right, anytime you put in a hard surface !YOU get an increased run off. The effect of a 4 foot path through here is virtually negligible compared to the surface that is in there. There'have been certain considJrations from the . I beginning of this project in terms of access to the general public. I think that is reflected by the states requirement to p~t two parking spots dOW~ here for the elderly and the handicapped individuals. In previous conversations with the state, they are also concerned about how easy it would be for somebody to get to the parking lot down below. It is consistent with the DNR's thinking that that Jould be paved because it is easier walking up a grade on a paved surface rathe~ than an aggregate surface or a chipped surface. The other problem we have is due to the steep grade. If we use chips, which would probably be the easiest walking, th~y will, again, wash out constantly. We will then have more maintenance problems bec~use those will get into the storm drainage system which will cause problems there ad well. Reviewing those circumstances, we really felt that the more narrow bitumi]lous walkway would be the best way to go. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the final park plan for South Lo~us Lake boat access as presented with the following changes: 1) The fencing be changed from four feet to six feet high, and 2) to include a gate house to control the number of boats using the lake. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The foliow{ng voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Council~en Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ~ CODE ENFORCEMENT ~ DOWNTOWN AREA: Mayor Hamilton: This is a review item so we would be aware of w at is happening and who those are who are in violation. I would like to make a comment on the letter from Tonka Insulation & Kurimchak Builders. The letter stated t11at it was appropriate to have their semi trucks parked near a lumber yard. There is not a lumber yard there anymore. I am not sure why they feel that they need to have their trucks there. They are no less an eye sore than any other truckj Don Ashworth: I believe her point was that she didn't feel that it hurt to have them parked in that lower section and that nobody could really see it Mayor Hamilton: There are certain places to put these type of tjings and this is not the appropriate place. Councilman Geving: I like the way we are handling this whole pr cess and I think we are really making progress. Councilwoman Swenson: tion of our ordinance. Brown's Standard. They ,:, There are a couple of free~standing signs that are'in viola- They are underneath the ptice signs of b th Holiday and are illegal. Don Ashworth: I will pass these things along. Councilman Horn: What about when it comes to storing trucks. T e hardware store has this big van type vehcile that they need for their business. adverti1ement sign. There :0:::'01ion be'o"oe it io tley ho"' things io I Don Ashworth: That is Hardware Hank. They use it as an is really no question about that. I don't know if it is moved every day. Councilman Horn: I think it is part of their business. it? Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -12- Don Ashworth: It is apparently driven to and from work because it is moved every da y . Councilman Horn: So that is the criteria, if something is moved every day, it is not in violation. Don Ashworth: The practical effect is that they are using it as an advertisement vehicle. Councilman Horn: removed at night. There is a difference if it is used every day or whether it is Is there a difference? Don Ashworth: It makes a difference as far as prosecuting on the basis of storing or as it being a sign. I will pass the question along to the attorney's office. In my mind it is a sign even though it is a mobile sign. Would the Council like to see that truck out of there? Mayor Hamilton: No. Councilwoman Swenson: I think that it is part of his business. It is not a free standing sign. You have got to give these people a chance to make a living. BAVARIA WATERSHED: Councilwoman Swenson: On the Bavaria Watershed there are three sections. The rest of it is Chanhassen. There is one little piece that is part of Victoria. There were some other sections. Chaska petitioned to have that withdrawn from that watershed because it really didn't flow into it. Two of the parcels that were involved do not flow into it either. The charges for the studies and the eventual recommendations are going to be paid for per acreage involvement. We have very little. I won't have the actual costs until tomorrow night. I doubt if it will run more than $500. I did talk to Bill about this and we should write and see if those can be removed. One should belong to the Minnehaha Creek and the other to Bluff Creek. AMENDED 10-21-85, PAGE 3. REVIEW MSA ALIGNMENT Qf. lAKE lUCY ROAD BETWEEN f.!!.12. AND f.!!. 117: The City Engineer reviewed a sketch plan of a rural plat on the Steller property south of the existing lake lucy Road and east of Galpin Boulevard. The Engineer pointed out that this plat was not consistent with the existing MSA alignment designation for future lake lucy Road. At this time it is necessary to make a deter- mination of the future alignment for lake lucy Road in this area so that the Steller's can plat their property. The Engineer recommended that a corridor be platted through the Steller's property to accommodate for the City's future need for an east/west connector between TH 41 and CR 17. Mayor Hamilton: When did that all come about, the realignment? Bill Monk: lake lucy Road has always had that state aid designation every since I have been here. That gives it no real official bearing as far as the road goes, except that years ago when the state aid system was designated, about five years ago, that it was seen that lake lucy between CR 17 and TH 41 would be a major street and take a fair amount of traffic between TH 41 and CR 17 as it represents the only place that you can get through. Councilwoman Swenson: Is there a road there now? Bill Monk: No. It is a future designation for a possible road. The intent of the alignment is to get some straight through road that will hook up TH 41 and CR 17 I I I I I I Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -13- somewhere between TH 7 and TH 5. Whether that road takes the existing alignment and then comes down of CR 117 and over to TH 41, that is something that I wanted to discuss at this point and see how the Council would want to go. Mayor Hamilton: What is the reality of that ever happening? Bill Monk: Merrill Steller has come in with a sketch plan. He is aware that lake lucy Road has been designated across his site, but the City has never really discussed the realignment in this area. Mr. Steller would like to see the state aid designation changed to move along the existing lake lucy Road alignment and swing down CR 117 and then west over on some future alignment back over to TH 41. I am concerned if we do that we will be increasing the congestion on CR 117 with the intersections for Crestview Drive, Crestview Circle, West 63rd Street and lake lucy Road coming in right at the crest of the hill. At this point I am asking whether the Council wishes to consider acquiring the right-of-way for the lake lucy Road rede- signation before it is lost through platting. Councilman Geving: I guess this is the first time all of us have seen this align- ment. What is wrong with carrying that lake lucy Road from the east all the way to the west and using t~e present alignment to the north and following the section line directly west to CR 17. Bill Monk: The big problem with that is you do traverse a large .wetlands to the west near TH 41. Also the road has to back up to all the existing housea along I Crestview and along Crestview Drive in this location and some of those houses are very close to the back lot line. It has never been seen fit to go down there with the existing houses. When the designation was made, I can only assume that it was made to try and get more of a pass to the south that would expose this large parcel to development in the future. After looking at the contours, this is basically the alignment that we would have to follow to meet the area designations if we wanted a straight through intersection at CR 117. Mayor Hamilton: Well, I will ask you again, what is the reality of that ever hap- pening? I~ that going to be a county road? Bill Monk: Possibly. It is a municipal state aid road. It is our road. I think that it is a very real possibility to think that we could construct the road as a part of this plat within the near future. In trying to look at the long term and how we will get traffic between TH 41 and CR 17, I thought it should at least be brought back to the Council. I am a little bit hesitant to write it off from the long term City development. It is very unlikely that we would allow a plat and then look to buying it at some future date. So if we don't move now to try and get the road incorporated into plats as they go in and then purchase the right-of-way as those plats are being put in we are basically just saying that the existing alignment is the way it will be. Mayor Hamilton: If we go ahead with that, what happens to the existing alignment? That remains there also? Bill Monk: If the City would not want to plat the realignment, the state aid layout would be modified to follow the existing system. Mayor Hamilton: Go the other way, if the decision is to plat that what happens to the existing road alignment? Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -14- Bill Monk: The western portion of lake lucy Road as it currently exists would become I a cul-de-sac and the current intersection would be closed. Traffic from this new deadend would be routed to the new alignment which would work quite nicely. Councilwoman Swenson: It looks like to me if we go through with it like that, we are really going to make a major impact on this development. Councilman Geving: He is going to have to have some City streets in there anyway. This is just another street. Mayor Hamilton: I certainly like that alignment a little better than what is there now. You would have a much better access onto CR 117. Councilwoman Watson: It depends on how much traffic you are going to put on there. Mayor Hamilton: If it continues to grow there is certainly going to be more traffic. Councilwoman Watson: When you open up roads like that, those type of streets do not limit themselves to residential type traffic. You end up with trucks and that kind of traffic. Bill Monk: I believe as the downtown develops and we continue to have more develop- ments in this area, we are going to need some cross streets to get the residential traffic through to the downtown area. There is not a lot of truck traffic or busi- nesses up and around these areas that would traverse this area. They will continue I down CR 117, TH 5, etc. Councilwoman Swenson: assurance do we have balance of that road If we were to acquire that road site through Stellers, what that when the time comes we are going to be able to acquire the there? Bill Monk: The City has no assurances, but as the property to the west develops the western extension of lake lucy Road would be platted. Councilwoman Swenson: What is your recommendation, Bill? Bill Monk: We plat the right-of-way. Councilman Geving: I think we need a show of Council hands on this because Bill needs some direction. Mayor Hamilton: I agree. Councilman Geving: I agree. Councilwoman Swenson: I agree. Councilman Horn: I agree. I Councilwoman Watson: I agree. Mayor Hamilton left at this point in the meeting. I I I Council Meeting, September 23, 1985 -15- ~ ~ PROGRAMMING UPDATE: The City Engineer reviewed the four stages of improvements scheduled for the widening of TH 5 including the anticipated timing for each. The improvements included a full widening to four lanes on TH 5 between West 78th Street in Eden Prairie and CR 17 in Chanhassen. All improvements are presently slated to be completed by 1990. SET SPECIAL MEETING DATE: -lake Ann/Virginia Forcemain Alternatives -Development Framework Process The Council discussed certain dates for a special meeting for the above two matters. It was decided to hold the meeting on October 16, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. BLUFF CREEK RAILROAD: The City Engineer reported that the railroad would now be starting at an earlier time. They will begin construction in October instead of February. AMM (ASSOCIATION ~ METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES) MEETING: Don Ashworth reported that the AMM has extended an invitation for a meeting to be held tomorrow, September 24th, at 7:30. Councilman Geving moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Kathy Sundquist