The URL can be used to link to this page

1986 01 13 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 13, 1986 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 Roger Knutson REVIEW AND APPROVE LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR AGREEMENT, DICK NOWLIN: Dick Nowlin: As a preparatory remark, this was a very difficult agreement to draft. Lawyers are great at using forms to draft new forms for new agreements. This one is brand new; it is brand new to the Metropolitan area, and it is certianly brand new for the lawyers involved in the drafting of it. How to phrase the words and what to require took a lot of words. It was not a simple document to draft. There are now five lawyers involved in the drafting of it. With each lawyer there is more input and more modification. Everybody has got to try to feel comfortable with this thing. I think part of your concern was that this looks terrible and looks slanted against the city. A lot of that, in part, can be explained just because it's so complex. We have exceeded to some of the complexity, but everybody seems to be adding more and more and more. I think that is because they don't know what they are doing. It is such a brand new ground area that you are better off putting in too many words than too few. I hope Chanhassen doesn't get the impression that the Met Council is mad at them and that this is a bad idea just because of the tenor and tone. Peter Bachman, attorney for the Met Council, apologizes if the tenor and tone is setting anything off you. . That is not their intention. His job is just to get the policy commitment expressed in October into language that everybody could live with. He has been working with the waste control commission to try and get the language and every other aspect in a way that they could live with. He is more than anxious to do anything further that he can with you, but also, he didn't hope that the document complexity, etc. wouldn't be translated into something negative for Chanhassen. We met over there again, on the behalf of Eden Praire because City Attorney, Roger Pauly, reviewed the document and he raised some of the same questions that Roger Knutson did. The question about legislating away the zoning authority and also the question relating to the special assessment procedure and when you have to have your hearing before. That session was supposed to be a short one and it went from 8:45 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. I think in the end, with additional modifications, I think everybody went away from it with the position that they could probably recommend it to the Eden Prairie City Council. That won't happen right away, but I did want to let you know that it did happen. I think there is even further opportunity to modify this one, in slight ways; definitely incorporate some of the provisions that we were able to get through with Eden Prairie's proposal today. That is just the general background. I know you all have questions on Section 6. . Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -2- Mayor Hamilton: The problem is, I think, Dick, is that we have all discussed section 6 with the staff and with everyone who is here and we have all raised questions and I none of us like it. What we hear is whether you like it or not it doesn't really make any difference because it isn't going to change. I would like to write a letter to the Met Council and tell them what I think about the whole thing, which probably won't help much either. But at the same time, I hope that they understand that we don't care for their tactics and for this type of a contract. It was certainly good that Roger had an opportunity to review this and that he pointed out those things that we need to consider and not do certain things because it is very important that we be very careful and not approve anything until everything has been met. Dick Nowlin: I think that is entirely correct. I have been serving as special coun- sel on these, but throughout I have wanted to have the City Attorney take a look at them too. I think it is very important that he has. You are the people that have to live with it. I was charged with getting this thing together. I can assure you that the provisions "generally" are the only way we could have gotten the Lake Ann route designated. I can't say, from your standpoint for sure, whether you want to live with this. Mayor Hamilton: The thing that keeps coming back to me is that they put us in what seems to me to be a position of no negotiation. There are just saying take it or forget it. I guess I have always felt that we haven't been in that position because we have suggested an alternative to the forcemain, which a lot of people now agree is a better alternative. If we were to say that we don't agree with this particular agreement and take it back and do it over or forget it, how long is it going to take them to come up with an alternative to their forcemain or to go ahead with the for- cemain? They are going to be in court for years on that forcemain if they think they I are going to try that. We are dealing from a stronger hand than what I think we are being given credit for. I have always felt that we are just not playing all of our cards. We have got a few aces and we are not playing them. Dick Nowlin: I hope that is not true. We certainly went over the environmental scheduling difficulties way back when. I think that led to, with the amount of money involved in the payment which, obviously, could have been higher in both cases. I think you could certainly reject the whole thing. Don't feel as though you have to accept this thing as is. I have got a feeling that they don't want to change a whole lot. They went through the resolution process and they said they were going to build this thing down through here, they want 1.6 million ($482,000) from Chanhassen, and in exchange if we put it through this rural area we want these growth control things. It wouldn't be a total breach of faith to turn around and say, hey, we don't want to do it that way. They are very anxious to get this thing settled too. They see the Lake Virgina choice as no solution. They are quite anxious to resolve this. They see this agreement as not terribly one sided, from their standpoint. Councilwoman Watson: I get the feeling that they saw us coming. It is almost like a game we have played. We will tell you we want the Lake Virginia Forcemain and then we will give you the interceptor and then we will have you over the barrel we have always wanted to have you over in the first place. We will get all of these things out of you that we wanted, but we didn't really have any leverage with you until we found something that you really wanted. Now we have what you want and now we are going to use this as leverage to impose a lot of things on you that they don't feel they probably could pull off in any other way. It is hard not to read it and feel that way, given our past experience with that organization. I Mayor Hamilton: Would those things, that I think Carol is talking about, especially item 3 under 6.1a, are those sanctions going to be imposed on us at some point anyway, irregardless of whether or not this gravity and sewer........... I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -3- Councilman Gevinq: That is a key element in this whole thing. Dick Nowlin: I was prepared to respond to that question. Item one (1) they have already, that is in your comprehensive plan as a matter of fact. That middle area is excluded by virtue, it seems to me, simply the reference to the Metro Council MUSA line. Mayor Hamilton: They changed it 10 years. Dick Nowlin: Right, from 1990 to 2000. That would come by virtue of their authority relating to the development framework. The numbers are already in the development framework system. That will result in a requirement to change that number. Yes, it may be two years or three years down the line, but they will not compromise on that number and they do have the authority under 175, and enforcement mechanisms to bring that number to effect. Item two (2) is the sewer capacity allocation. That is currently in the development framework document, but will also be put in the sewer policy plan. That is applicable to all other communities in terms of sewage genera- tion through 1990. They are advancing you a little bit, because formally they would have to adopt that development framework chapter for that to be ensconced in stone, from their standpoint. True, this says put it in your compo plan, but even if. you didn't put it in your compo plan they could use other enforcement mechanisms to make that operative visavis any future development. So you are putting in a compo plan, but the numbers are already generated and it will follow through the public hearing process in the development framework. Councilwoman Swenson: In Bill's staff report he mentions that Chanhassen needs the interceptor to relieve the threat of a sewer cap for the existing land within the existing MUSA. Apparently, the point is that we are going to have to have it for our industrial growth, is that what you are talking about, Bill? You refer to the down- town area that is going to need that extra capacity; how is item two (2) going to affect that, vice versa? Bill Monk: The point that I was trying to get across was that we have a fair amount of land still within the MUSA line, i.e. the Kerber farm, the industrial area, etc. There is two ways that you can kind of be restricted by the Met Council and the Metro Waste. l)They will put a sewer cap on that kind of tells you what they are shooting for in terms of flow from your community, but the other problem comes up when there is a physical restriction that is in the way to either back up a cap or to force a certain cap, such as the western communities have right now. Basically, what I am saying is the 1.3 may start to restrict us before we have full development, but if we don't get the forcemain replaced with an interceptor somewhere soon, they are going to be able to enforce that 1.3 beyond just verbal and legal means, but basically by having a physical restriction in place that we can't exceed. So the 1.3 in itself may restrict us, but they have shown in their history that they will bump those numbers up as your development gets close if they have the facilities in line to allow that bump to occur. What has happened in other communities is as they approach their numbers, physical restrictions get involved so that they just can't bump your number up as you develop. That is bad in that Chanhassen's number "1" selfish con- cern with this interceptor issue all along is that we don't or we get out from behind the eight ball and we get out from behind a physical restriction and work it more into a written restriction; something that we can work with and perceive with. Dick has pounded that thought into my head for about two years now and I have finally come around to agree with him that we have to get rid of the physical restriction and then work on the paper restriction. Councilwoman Swenson: The bottom line is that the way it is now, we are definitely going to run into trouble. Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -4- Bill Monk: Yes. Councilwoman Swenson: And if we agree with this, even though this says we can't, we have room for negotiations. I Bill Monk: Yes, we do. Councilwoman Swenson: So actually, in essence, even if we don't like the ter- minology, it is really in our favor to have two in there as it is written and get the interceptor. Bill Monk: We have made sure that there is language in here to go along with section two (2), that if we go through the development framework changes, and that 1.3 changes are a part of that process, whatever comes out of that process will dicate. So two (2) isn't quite as scary as it was when they first wrote it. One and three do become almost more important because of that. That's all I was trying to get across; not that you have to approve the agreement, but I guess I was trying to go back through some of the reasons why the agreement is so important. It has been so long since we have been working on this thing, that even I start to forget where we started. Dick Nowlin: Look at it this way, you know the process for transportation improve- ment program funding in the Metropolian area. You have to wait for years a lot of times to get anything on the list. From 1972 on, because the infusion of federal money, basically income tax mo~ey coming back to the states, there was no list for sewer improvements done by the waste control commission. They did everything pretty much real quick. That big spigot is now turned in another direction for the fact to I payoff the deficit. There will undoubtedly be a prioritized list of when improve- ments get done on the Metro Waste System in the next two or three years. Once that happens, it is very easy to say, "Chanhassen, you got a problem, you solve your problem." You can impose an infiltration inflow I and I program which cuts down on the amount of sewer instead of us having to build a pipe. That was kind of behind this whole thing all the way through. If we don't have a physical pipe running down through the community it is going to be very easy to say, "It's your problem, not ours." If they do that, then the solution is going to be a lot more than 1 million dollars. The the I and I projections to begin with were enormous, plus you don't have the capacity. Item three (3) is no different. I don't no where you are in the process of considering that. I can say that one way or another they would get you on that, sort of. If they litigated under 473.175, I suppose theoretically they could get a community to insert a rural area low density standard similar to that. They haven't done that. They haven't litigated with any community. Councilman Horn: Based on what? Dick Nowlin: On the theory that if you don't do that you have a high degree of potential creating pockets of semi-urban development in a rural area, which will eventually need sewer. Councilman Horn: I followed everything up until the last portion. Dick Nowlin: munities have have failed. The proof they would come in with would be the number of times the com- had to build lateral pipe out to pockets of on site sewer systems which There are a lot of them throughout the Metropolitan area. I Councilman Horn: Based on old technology. I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -5- Dick Nowlin: Absolutely, old technology. Councilman Horn: So they have no proof or basis on modern technology, only what hap- pened in the past. Dick Nowlin: They bring in experts to say they have got proof on modern technology. So, in other words, the 201 programs and things we have had are We should not even start those because they are doomed to failure. Councilman Horn: obsolete also. Dick Nowlin: I am saying that is what they would do to try to prove that. You would be in a position of saying 5 acres will work or 2! or 3 or 1. You don't have to go to 1 and 10 and this and that. It is real likely that a court, it seems to me in the end, will say hey, "I looks to me like everybody else out here in the Metropolitan area has gone to that 1 per 10, or 70 percent, what's your problem? Councilman GevinQ: I think the point that Clark was trying to make is that this is very heavily slanted against community sites as ours in Carver County where we have a large land base and we are going to need some small developments in the rural areas of 2! or 5 acres, we are just going to have to in order to move that land into develop- ment property. This is really going to hurt us. Councilman "Horn: The other thing that we have is that's one of the few options we have to increase our tax base to pay for some of the improvement~ that they forced us to do, like the north sewer service area because they wanted to clean up the lakes. Dick Nowlin: What do you want here? Councilman Horn: We want that out. Dick Nowlin: I can't get it all out, but are you telling me that you want to have the ability to have some kind of various provision in this section so you can cluster? Councilman Horn: Yes. Dick Nowlin: We talked about that today because Eden Prairie came up with the same thing because of their bluff. They were saying that they could probably live with the overall density, but they need some ability to do some developing. Their response was, sure that's fine, show it to us in a comp plan ame~dment here. This is the over riding policy we have got. This does not mean there is no variance possibi- lity. This does not mean there is no cluster. Councilwoman Swenson: In going back it seems to me, the main concern of the Council has been that by putting this line in that we were going to hook into it somewhere or another. So the area that is basically effected by number 3, it seems to me is that portion of the undeveloped land that is contiguous or within the MUSA line. Is there some way that we can alleviate their major concern in that area and leave us the rest of our area. There is a lot more south of Hwy 5 and south of CR 17 in this city than just that particular area. I guess my particular resentment on this was that you are telling us what we can do with the entire city, which is really not affected by the watermain. I can understand their wanting to protect themselves because this has been a major concern. I think I would be willing to listen at least to a restriction within that area, but not for the whole city because I don't think that they have the right to tell us what we can do with the whole city. I do think that there is a Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -6- reasonable area for them to "request" so that we don't get pushed into the use of that forcemain or tie into it. I resent them trying to, as Carol says, sort of forcing us into modifying our entire city zoning in an area that really isn't an issue in this particular instance. I Dick Nowlin: They have gone over this thing a long time and they are going to say prove it to us that you will never have any problem down in the southwest area. Councilwoman Swenson: What does the southwest area got to do with the forcemain? Dick Nowlin: Assuming hay wire, you have got doing that well. They If they have to extend after 2000 is applied. you allow some kind of cluster development that somehow goes to pump it, but they are saying community systems are not still say somebody may have to extend a sewer out of there. a sewer out here, then the whole deal of not growing until Councilwoman Swenson: But we are still talking about an area that is north of CR 17. There is no way you are going to move the sewer line through an empty area and go down to the southern section of Chanhassen. Mayor Hamilton: He is saying you may want to if you have got a failing system down there. If you have got cluster of homes and you have got a failing system, how are you going to handle it? You have got an interceptor a half mile away. Dick Nowlin: They will come back and they will say that in Medina last year we had to extend a sewer pipe from Plymouth to bailout some home systems way out in Medina. They have horror stories that they come back with on that stuff. I think there are ways. We haven't got into this one in depth. I did bring it to you before and we did talk about it. I felt more comfortable today when Eden prairie raised the same thing. What do we do?, Can we cluster? I Councilman Gevinq: I am surprised we haven't gotten a real lot of pressure from the large land owners in the community or even realty groups to push and lobby for reducing the bite in number 3. I am really surprised. We have got a lot of big land owners out there who want to develop and are looking forward to developing their land and they want to make that investment start to payoff. The moment that they come in with their first plan and they are faced with this, there is going to be some very angry people. Unfortunately, the word on this just hasn't got out. Dick Nowlin: Eden Prairie has got this, to the north of you they have got this, to the west of you they have got this, Carver County has had this for years. You would be surprised what the development community knows out there about what is going on here. I think you may find some isolated people real upset. Mayor Hamilton: What is the next step? You said you met today and questions were raised about clustering. Is there going to be a rewrite now? Dick Nowlin: For the rewrite we are trying to get together with Roger, Don, or who- mever Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning this week. The one thing that needs to be done soon is to address this business about the improvement hearing because they I have given until February 19 for Eden Prairie to sign up on the agreement. Eden Prairie raised the same question about the improvement hearing being necessary because of the levying. They don't want to go any beyond February 19. Somebody needs to get going on that improvement hearing if this thing is going to go. I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -7- Councilman Horn: If we were to turn this down, do you think that they would go back to the forcemain? Dick Nowlin: Yes, I think they would. I think they would give it a try. Councilwoman Watson: So it is kind of what I said it was, because they know now that their forcemain is not better than the interceptor. Dick Nowlin: I am on one side. They don't know that at all. Start from 12 million dollars versus 6 million dollars. That is all they look at. Councilwoman Watson: But they did decide on the interceptor. Dick Nowlin: But we worked very hard for four years wanting them to decide that. Councilwoman Watson: They knew that they stood to gain some things they wanted by this. I can't believe for one second that they didn't see that opportunity. Dick Nowlin: They weren't in the business of trying to tie more development restric- tions on you. They didn't go with Lake Ann just to tie Chanhassen up tighter. I guarantee that. They wanted to run it right across the country. They would go any old way to get over there. We turned it around. We got it coming down through here because we thought that was the best long-term plan solution, cheapest, etc. They said, okay, if that is what you want here are the conditions: 1) you fork over some money, because it is going to partly be a local facility; and 2) you tighten your growth control so that you make sure that there won't be that premature spin-off stuff. It wasn't their idea to go that way. Councilman Gevinq: I don't think that we have given it our best shot yet. I still think that there is room for negotiation in this. If we could build in a variance into number 3, I think that is the key. I think the other thing is, I don't know what kind of controls there would be or ability to change the contract once the pipe was started in the ground. Once the pipe is in the ground and moving south to the Lake Ann Interceptor area, its there. Maybe at that point we can say now we have got some room to negotiate. At least we have gotten to that point. They can't go back on us with the forcemain. Dick Nowlin: You are absolutely right that there is time to explore number 3. This was just presented to you and I know it is a big bite. They knew it was a big bite. Nobody was fooled on whether or not it would be a tough thing. That doesn't mean to say it is not a difficult decision. I think there is room to work on that. I did want to point out, there are more scary features here. This is in response to Roger's concern about giving away your legislative authority. The way this thing works, if the land use side of this is changed, you still get to pay $54,000 a year for 20 years. They are holding onto the right to modify and to limit the use of the pipe. In other words, you could still be paying the $54,000 and have constricted use of that thing under this agreement. They are saying that is to make sure that you follow through on the committment once it is in there. But, on the other side, it is one way they tried to get out of the business by contract, taking the legislative authority and zoning away from the City Council. You can breach, the only problem is $54,000 each year goes into that place that you don't get to use. Mayor Hamilton: When are you scheduled to meet with them. Dick Nowlin: This week. They are going to the systems committee a week from tomorrow, and then to the Met Council on the 27th of January. What they wanted before they went to the Met Council was staff concurrence and informal concurrence Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -8- that the draft that had been worked out was acceptable. The didn't require Eden Prairie to sign until the improvement hearing is all done and I am sure they would do I the same for you. So formal city action wouldn't have to occur until sometime in February. But they promised they would not revise the agreement again once all staff parties involved after this review etc., we worked out something, that's it. They will run it through, but they won't run it through again. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would like to see them respond to Roger's concerns and how they are going to be handled, and I would like to see if a variance process could be stipulated in item 3. Dick Nowlin: Is there any way you could begin the public improvement cess. I know Eden Prairie's process takes 30 - 45 days to get done. set a motion and cancel it if we are not able to reach agreement than back and say we need another month. hearing pro- I would rather to try and come Don Ashworth: I think you are going to need that month anyway, Dick, because of the recommendation regarding the zoning ordinance issues. Dick Nowlin: I think I will talk to Roger about that. I think we have got some changes today that may solve that problem, but I see the improvement hearing problem. Bill Monk: Eden Prairie with theirs has already done a feasibility study and knows the area, basically to be serviced, whereas Chanhassen would have to work to put that together to even get a listing of the properties involved. Even if we were to speed things up I don't know whether we could really have a meeting before March 3rd and I don't know if that would be soon enough for you. We could call a hearing for March 3rd and proceed towards that. If it doesn't work out or if the City decides to balk for any reason between now and then it would be easy enough to cancel a hearing. We could proceed on that. I Don Ashworth: Normally, you have a feasibility study in advance of calling a hearing. If I heard what Dick was saying correctly, that with a joint powers agreement you do not need to have completed that feasibility study. So you can call that public hearing without that document. The Council could initiate that this evening. Roqer Knutson: You have to have something to base your public hearing on when you get there. Bill Monk: We would have to get the benefited property and decide how much is to be assessed and work through, basically, a report in place of a feasibility study. Because it is a joint project that is legal and possible. So the Council could tonight call for a public hearing, but I don't see it being possible before March 3rd and we will have to hustle to even accomplish that. If Dick thinks it is possible to get past these zoning issues, we could call the public hearing for the 3rd and we would proceed accordingly. Mayor Hamilton: We might as well do that to get the ball rolling. Don Ashworth: The agreement does do some things in Chanhassen's favor. Take item I number one, if you look at their numbers associated with the development framework process, there are more acres in our existing urban service line than is needed by the City of Chanhassen. If this agreement does not go through and they come back to .us with just the development framework numbers and say to Chanhassen, "you must reduce 400 acres out of your existing MU5A line," or even restrict the MU5A line. I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -9- That's up to negotiation, but by having that number fixed in here, it is a benefit to Chanhassen. The second one, the 1.3 million gallons a day, is the same type of thing. The development framework numbers show a number significantly less than that, so by agreeing to this number they have come up. Item number three, there is a question of how soon they will get you on that, but they will force that. When we met the last time with Dick, we were talking about moving to a 5-acre standard and hopefully that would be negotiable. If I here what the Council is saying tonight, go back to them, look for some variance process or some other mechanism to bring us back into that 2! to 5-acre frame. Otherwise, I don't really see anything in this agreement that is overly harsh. Councilwoman Watson moved to set the public hearing date for March 3, 1986 and directed Dick Nowlin and staff to renegotiate Section 6A(3) of the Sewer Facility Agreement to include a variance provision for 2.5 acre or 5 acre minimum lot sizes. 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. RULES Qf PROCEDURE: Councilman Geving moved to adopt the Rules of Procedure for the conduct of City Council Business as presented. 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. OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER: Mayor Hamilton moved to designate the South Shore Weekly News as the official city newspaper subject to the newspaper receiving their certificate from the Secretary of States Office stating that they are a legal newspaper. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. Councilman Horn: Why hasn't that been done in the past? Don Ashworth: this year. They did receive it last year, but they just have not received it yet Roqer Knutson: The statute requires you to before January 1st, but at the Secretary of reason, it is taking three or four weeks to apply before January 1st. They States Office, in this case for I get through the paper work. applied some Councilman Horn: But the Herald already has theirs, correct? Roqer Knutson: They applied much earlier. Councilwoman Swenson: Are you getting copies of the paper down into Chaska. I have had a numerous amount of calls down there and there is a tremendous resentment in not being able to get this paper down there. ~ Judson, representative from the South Shore Weekly News: I am not quite sure of the circulation situation. I can mention it to my editor. Councilwoman Swenson: It seems to me that there was some discussion about it and they were supposed to at least have it down in Cooper's. I think this is extremely important that these people down in the southern part of the City have access to it. I have also run into some people that can't even get it in Chanhassen. I am really disgusted about that. ~ Judson: I know what you mean, the southern part of Chanhassen is very difficult sometimes just to even find a newspaper. What we were thinking of doing was some Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -10- kind of a subscription drive through the local hockey organization where we would donate a certain amount to the local hockey to just bascially break even on the printing costs. Councilwoman Swenson: That's fine, except, since your paper is not going to be covering the school news as thoroughly as it is covered down there, people do not want to buy two newspapers. It was my understanding when this was discussed that the paper would be available for free at stands at various locations around the city. I Mayor Hamilton: I think there is still money available in the budget to send out the newspapers to some of these people. Councilwoman Swenson: I think it would be an excellent idea to list in the paper the places where this paper may be picked up. Councilman Gevinq: Maybe we can identify those specific people. There might be some people who don't shop in the direct Chanhassen area and aren't able to get this paper. Maybe those are some of the people we could put on some type of a list to get this mailed to. Mayor Hamilton: If people call you should have them call the City Hall and they can let the people know where the locations are. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, and Councilman Geving. Councilwoman Swenson abstained. Councilman Horn was opposed. Motion carried. OFFICIAL DEPOSITORY: Councilwoman Swenson moved to designate the State Bank of I Chanhassen as the official depository of the City and authorize the Mayor and Treasurer or Manager as authorized signatures for all City checks and the following persons be authorized to enter the safe deposit box: Mayor or Treasurer or Manager. The Mayor's facsimile signature to be used on all City checks. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CITY ATTORNEY: Councilman Horn moved to appoint the firm of Grannis, Campbell, Farrell, and Knutson as the City Attorney. 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. BOND CONSULTANT: Councilwoman Swenson moved to appoint the firm of Juran and Moody as the financial consultant for the City. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ACTING MAYOR: Councilman Horn moved to appoint Dale Geving as Acting Mayor to serve in the absence of the elected Mayor. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried. WEED INSPECTOR: Councilwoman Watson moved to appoint Mayor Hamilton as weed inspec- tor. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor I Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. FIRE CHIEF: Councilwoman Swenson moved to appoint Art Kerber as Fire Chief for a two year term. I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -11- HEALTH OFFICER: Councilman Geving moved to appoint Dr. David McCollum as the City's Health Officer at a fee of $1.00. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CITY AUDITORS: Councilwoman Swenson moved to contract with Voto, Reardon, Tautges & Company as the City's Auditors. 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. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendation: A. Adopt Amendment to Ordinance 5-A Regarding 201 Program Septic System Requirements, Including the Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes, First and Second Reading. B. RESOLUTION #86-1: Accept Pioneer Hills Improvements. C. Approval of Animal Impound Agreement, Bloomington Pound. D. RESOLUTION #86-3: Approve Resolution Regarding Utility Rate Increase. 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. MINUTES: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the City Council minutes dated December 2, 1985 as presented. 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. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the City Council minutes dated December 16, 1985 with the noted corrections. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to note the Park and Recreation Commission minutes dated December 3, 1985. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. 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 December 11, 1985. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. 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 December 18, 1985. 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. APPROVAL Q[ FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LAKE LUCY HIGHLANDS, MERRILL STELLER: Bill Monk: This should be quite fresh in the Council's mind. Mr. Steller is before the City Council with a rural plat just to the south of the existing Lake Lucy Road and to the east of CR 117. It includes the realignment of Lake Lucy Road and inclu- Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -12- des 19 rural lots and one outlot. As I said before, the project does include the realignment of Lake Lucy Road, which is a municipal state aid street so there will be heavy city involvement with that project. The Council has previously authorizied a I feasibility study to start to get a handle on the improvements and the costs and adjustments associated with that. Tonight, before the Council, is approval of the final plat for Lake Lucy Highlands and the development contract for that same deve- lopment. In the memo that went to the Council there were several issues that were raised. The one that needs to be addressed in addition to finalize the development contract regards the park easement as it would follow along the high water mark of Lake Lucy across Outlot A and Lots 4, 5, and 6, which has been recommended by the Park Commission. Councilman Horn: The concern you had for the feasibility of the trail, was this discussed with the Park and Recreation Commission or just something that has come up since their recommendation? Bill Monk: This is one of the reasons that we are moving to formalize relations with the commissions because it really did not come up. I did not meet with Lori Sietsema, the Park and Recreation coordinator before the meeting, and I don't know as whether Don did either. It did kind of slip by us a little bit. So whether a full discussion took place at the Park and Recreation Commission, I am not sure. I guess we took a harder look at it after seeing the Park and Recreation recommendation to try and give as much information to the Council as possible. That is what we are trying to avoid in the future. Councilman Horn: The concern is that they don't have a chance for rebuttal. Don Ashworth: One of the problems, however, is that a lot of times items will come I up at the City Council and the Council will discuss it and potentially come out with a solution that we really hadn't anticipated going into a particular meeting. You take a look at it afterwards and say, "does this really work," and recognize the amount of marsh land, etc. around the lake, it would be very difficult for a trail through that section. We did not try to deprive the park commission of that infor- mation, it was simply a matter of knowing that they would be considering that format. Councilman Horn: I wasn't suggesting that it was an intent of anybody to deprive information. It's just kind of the way that things evolve; one group looks at it and then staff has time to look at it and they have time to think about it and they form another opinion and then another group looks at it and in the meantime, the first group may have had a problem with that, which has already past. It's just the way things evolve. I am not sure it's the most efficient. Councilwoman Swenson: Under Effect of Subdivision Approval, 1.02; why are we varying from two years to three years on this particular contract? Bill Monk: One of the reasons we are is because of the involvement of the state through the municipal state aid process. This whole right of way issue has concerned me. We are moving on a L986 time table, trying to move forward. What I am seeing is there are a lot of unexpected and unforeseen stumbling blocks in the state process. It has been so long since we have worked through one. I am concerned, that through no fault to the city, that the project may be delayed. If it is delayed as we go I through whatever steps we have to, what we are trying to do there is to give the developer the length of time it might be necessary to guard against that type of a situation. It was not that we were favoring this developer over any other, it was more that we have a different agency involved that we don't normally have involved. But to safeguard everybody, we put in the three years. I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -13- Councilwoman Swenson: There will not actually be any assessments since these are going to have their own septic systems, etc. So they won't have any sewer assessments or water assessments? Bill Monk: The only assessment will be street. Councilwoman Swenson: Only the streets, and that is going to MSA. Bill Monk: Primarily; I think a small or a partial amount of local assessment to the benefiting property, but it will be, I think, small in comparison to the project. Councilwoman Swenson: What about the internal streets? Bill Monk: The one cul-de-sac will definitely assessed to the benefiting property, but again, the cul-de-sac cost in relation to lake lucy costs will be a small portion of the project. Councilwoman Swenson: You mean everything will be subject to your review and appro- val? Bill Monk: The Council will see the plans, specs, and the feasibility study. As far as the improvements, the costs, and those things go, that will all come back to the Council. This is just the plat and development contract. Councilwoman Swenson: I have one suggestion and that is in the event that we do not approve the recommended trail easement along the lake, that a specific notification be given to the Park and Recreation Commission the reasons for this, and that is because we can't see any continuation beyond that point. Councilman Gevinq: I believe I was the one that initiated some of the discussion on the trail easements along the lakes and the only reason for doing that is I didn't want to miss the opportunity for discussing it and bringing it to the Park and Recreation Commission's attention that this is an opportunity for us to maybe carry out that trail easement as a part of our overall plan. Now that we have had in put from staff and we have had a better chance to look at it, I do realize that the ele- vation there would be such that we would be splitting the Outlot and probably lots 4 and 5 practically in two with such a trail easement request. I would like to offi- cially backoff from that stance. However, switching my thoughts somewhat, we had also proposed that night that we would have an extension placed on the proposed lake lucy Road in the eventual reconstruction of the remainder of lake lucy Road from Galpin Boulevard all the way over to Powers Boulevard with a bikeway and trailway of approximately a four foot minimum for the entire extent of that new road. I would like to make sure that this happens, even though we are only talking about the lake lucy Highlands Plat tonight. Bill Monk: That is a part of the feasibility study and will come to the Council next month. Councilman Gevinq: The other thoughts that I had on development contract, under 2.02 (A.), it indicates here that the building inspector shall be authorized to issue building permits only for those lots having access to an existing improved public street. Are you speaking there, Bill, of the existing lake lucy Road? Bill Monk: Yes, there are some lots also on 67th Street that does exist as gravel right now that would have access to an improved public street. There will be some Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -14- difficulty if they build as construction actually occurs, but we are trying to allow maximum flexibility in getting building permits until a construction contractor is in hand so at least the developer can get started. Councilman Gevinq: My point here is that I would like to see, if at all possible, that we specify those lots on the plat so we would know specifically which lots would be given the building permit on the existing streets. I Bill Monk: What I would do then, if the Council wants them specified, would be to put them in 2.02 (A). Instead of the plat they would have to go in here because they can't be shown on the plat. Roughly that the lots that we are looking at are lots 11, 12, 13, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. lots 9 and 10 would be issued permits also because they are going to access with that private drive, so they will actually have access. Councilman Gevinq: My recommendation is to include those specific lots in Section 2.02 (A). Councilwoman Watson: On that private drive, when we discussed last time about some kind of a cul-de-sac or a "T" or something on there, how many lots are actually going to access on that private drive now? Bill Monk: Four. Councilwoman Watson: That would be 9, 10, 11 and 12? Bill Monk: It would be 7, 9, 10 and 12. lot 8 has an existing house on it and has a I drive that comes down to the front. lots 7 has a very low area, you can see the easement on it, so the lot will definitely be built towards the north and will have easy access to that driveway. Councilwoman Watson: What is on the end of this private drive? Is there any means of turning around outside of lot 7's driveway? Bill Monk: On a private driveway, the city does not dictate what the construction is except that access is available. That would be up to the individual owners to construct and maintain. Councilwoman Watson: My only other comment is on the second page of your memo: This office views the resulting lot area variances required as negligible in impact and totally justified. I have yet to see a variance yet that wasn't stated that way. They are all negligible and justified. Bill Monk: It is only required because of the additional 14 feet in right of way. Mayor Hamilton: I think this is a good development. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the final plat for lake lucy Highlands as pre- sented; also approved the development contract agreement for lake lucy Highlands without the trail easement as per the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation I and further that Section 2.02(A) be modified to specify the buildable lots. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -15- FINAL PLAT AMENDMENT FOR ~ LOTS, CHAPARRAL 4TH ADDITION, LARRY LAUKKA: Barb Dacy: The subject parcel has been known as the Chaparral 4th Addition located east of and adjacent to Kerber Boulevard. The property is zoned P-l based on the approval that was given for the Chaparral Additions in 1979. The proposed request is to amend the final development plan for the 4th addition to increase the number of lots from 47 lots to 55 lots. The proposed gross density of the 55 lot subdivision is approximately 1.88 units per acre and the net density is 3.36 units per acre. Although there is an increase of 8 lots over the previously approved plan from 1979, the proposed plat is only utilizing 56 percent of the developable area; whereas the original plan used 62 percent of the land. The addition of the 8 lots will not significantly increase the overall Chaparral density. The proposed lot sizes range from 11,700 square feet to 20,000 square feet. The average lot size is 12,967 square feet. The median is 12,000 square feet. Previously, the applicant had proposed alternating side setbacks of 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. The appli- cant has withdrawn that request and is proposing to maintain 10 foot side setbacks on each lot. However, the applicant is requesting a reduction of the front yard setback from 30 feet to 25 feet, and they specifically requested it in those lot areas that contained a significant amount of vegetation, therefore, to locate the structure closer to the road and maintain as much of the trees, etc. as possible. Staff recom- mends approval of reducing the front setback down to 25 feet, but we would ask that it be implemented throughout the entire subdivision and that would ease our administra- tive enforcement as individual building permits come through. Grading and drainage issues; the Outlot in the eastern portion of the property will contain a retention basin and a controlled outlot. At the Planning Commission meeting there was concern and questions raised as to the development restrictions along the drainage way along the southern part of the property. Staff contacted Bob Obermeyer from the Watershed District, the members of the audience felt that there was a 200 foot setback measured 100 feet from the center line of the drainage way on both sides. Staff verified that with the Watershed District and they do not consider this a creek, they consider it as a drainage way and, therefore, that setback requirement that they require in the busi- ness park is not required here. The Watershed District did submit their comments and they are included in your packet as well. There was also concern about the volume of water that would be retained in the Outlot and its impact on the existing homes in the Carver Beach area. That area is not designated as a wetland on our official wetlands map. The grading and the amount of work that they have to do on the Outlot will have to be submitted as detailed grading and drainage plans, which will be reviewed by our Engineering office and that will come back to the Council on a future agenda, as is done with other preliminary and final plats. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the Council accept park dedication fees for each of the lots. As you will recall, Meadow Green Park across the street was created across the street during the original plan approval for the Chaparral additions and was intended to serve this area along Kerber Boulevard. There were only certain lots in the Chaparral 3rd Addition that were given park credits. Finally, the proposed landscaping, the deve- loper is proposing one boulevard tree per lot as is required. However, staff is recommending that there be additional berming along Kerber Boulevard, which is a major collector and that they submit a little more detailed plan on berming and additional vegetation along the collector. Staff is recommending approval based on the seven conditions contained in the staff report. The Planning Commission also recommended approval based on staff's recommendations. Dale Beckman: I am with the firm BRW and I have been working with the property owner, Dr. Schroeder, who is here this evening, and Mr. Laukka, who is the developer for Dr. Schroeder. The only thing that I would like to say is in the course of the past years we pursued this project, I think we have made some fairly significant changes to the project based primarily on input from staff, the Council, as well as Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -16- the Planning Commission. We hope that you find this change that we have made at least favorable. We have, I believe, made changes that are more sensitive to the environment to that site. It is a difficult site, but it is a beautiful site. We I feel that some of the changes that we are proposing with this plan over some of the original development plans that we have reviewed for the Chaparral 4th Addition are an improvement, especially the implementation of cul-de-sacs, having additional lots that are on the cul-de-sac, using the cul-de-sacs to make grade changes, thereby allowing us to preserve more of the natural trees on this site. With that I am pre- pared to answer any questions that you may have with regards to the project. Councilwoman Watson: I certainly like this a lot hoped to be down to 47 lots, we are 8 over that. square feet, which is a significant improvement. don't go out into that swamp area. more than I did before. I had We don't have any lots under 11,700 I like the idea that those lots Councilman Gevinq: I am pleased that you have taken many of the recommendations of our Council. In consideration, we come back to a plan that I find very acceptable in terms of quantity of lots that your are platting. I still have a question, though, on the drainage. I am very much concerned about where all this water is going to go to the south into that drainage ditch. I was quite confused by the Watershed District's opinion on that particular project because for a number of years we have been fighting the Watershed District over this water that is eventually ending up at Carver Beach. They don't seem to feel that this is a problem and I find that there is going to be more water than we realize in that ditch. Also, the retention pond, how long are you going to retain that water? How is it going to be constructed are the comments that I would have and, of course, we have built into the approval pro- cess a condition that you will not get the approval on this plat until those questions are satisfactorily answered. You might talk to us a bit about the drainage, if you will. Also, before you leave tonight I would like to see, if you brought with you, some of the schematics of your homes styles. Did you bring that as a part of your presentation? I Dale Beckman: We provided the staff at the Planning Commission a booklet of them. I didn't bring any additional ones with. What we have tried to do is provide some of the pamphlets of the various builders that Mr. Laukka has used on his other sub- divisions. Basically, the handouts that we had were very similar to the ones that we passed out to you at the last June meeting. Councilman Gevinq: Would you address that drainage issue for me? Dale Beckman: Our attempt with the drainage and grading plan that we have worked out and the preliminary discussions we have held with the City Engineer and the Watershed District was to try and bring as much of the drainage as we could into the existing storm drainage system, which is in place on Kerber Boulevard, which comes down and empties into the ditch. The same holds true with the drainage along the major interior outlet that comes down, again trying to collect as much of that water and bring it into the existing storm drainage system, which is in Kerber Boulevard. The areas that we have shown drainage, will be from this intersection coming down to the cul-de-sac. The water that would come from that is virtually what falls on the street and very little, if any, from the back lots. These lots still continue to slope and we would anticipate building styles to be such that that drainage continues I off that direction. Therefore, the lots that we started looking at, that will have an impact on it, are the lots through here, most of which step back so that drainage goes through the natural weeds environment. We have another cul-de-sac in this area, which we have a small drain pipe that would come down. On the southerly most cul-de- sac, another small drainage pipe. I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -17- Councilman Gevinq: That is the one that I am most concerned with. Dale Beckman: This is the one also that the Watershed District has expressed some concern to us and their comments are, "we want to see the final drainage plan, we want to see how you intend to control the drainage that would come off of this." There are several methods that we have looked at on a preliminary basis, including energy dissipators, not just the surge basins, but a regular energy dissipator which would help reduce the speed of the water that would come into this area creating a pipe with a zero flow rate on it so that it comes down very slow moving and I actually prefer that because the energy dissipators are fairly massive structures which really don't fit into the environment. The other method would be to try and take as much of the water just over land having a small relief pipe, but having an emergency overflow which would take it down to a natural ditch. We don't anticipate a great deal of it because these lots are falling off. There is very little water that comes to the pond. Councilman Gevinq: I guess the question I would like to make sure we address is that I have looked at that ditch. It is probably six feet or more in depth. This is pretty steep right now. We had a real bad experience down in the Chanhassen Estates area where we had major construction our there. This is the same type of thing where if we don't watch how that water is dissipating into that area and let it run, we are going to create an awful lot of erosion. Make sure that gets answered in the final spec. Dale Beckman: The one part of this whole program, I think, we felt was a very big plus to the project was the plan, which was really worked out through the engineering staff, of creating the sedimentation basin on the east end of the site by having a controlled strucuture placed across this area so that in a lOO-year flood we are controlling the outlet of the water. We do not flood areas outside of the property. It stays within that low area out there utilizing as much of that grass area to purify the water that is coming into that area before it is discharged into Lotus Lake. Councilman Gevinq: Sometimes I wonder if we have ever really learned anything. I know we put that one in behind your house, Clark. Does that work? Councilman Horn: I think it slows it down. Dale Beckman: The Watershed District has quite a bit of experience on this with Bob Obermeyer. In the preliminary discussions we have had with your staff and with Mr. Obermeyer, we have recognized that there is some grading that is necessary in this ditch, type of energy dissipators throughout that ditch area. What we want to try and work with is using as much natural stone, or whatever we can to keep this a natural setting for this area. The Watershed said, "you provide us with the infor- mation relative to the velocity of the water, the volumes of water coming through there, we will entertain your plan, rather than having to pipe all the water down there." Councilman Horn: I think the difference though, Dale, is that area is totally rip- rapped. This area doesn't have that. The energy doesn't cause any problem where that rock bed was put into place. This is a different situation as I see it. Dale Beckman: We have talked with the Watershed District and there are areas that will require rip-rapping for stabilization of the bottoms. Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -18- Councilwoman Swenson: I have had some calls from some of the citizens that live down there and they are very much concerned about that. There were comments about rip- rapping this thing a long time ago and they are not in favor of it. I can see your I water dissipating there, but now you were saying something about the area in the northwest coming down onto Kerber Boulevard and adding to it. How much do you figure that would be an increase in flow? Dale Beckman: I believe this is all a part of the additional design that was with the Chaparral 4th Addition in looking at the original development plans. This was a street that was originally planned to come in and around and loop into this area. The catch basins were installed at the intersection to pick up water coming off of that. I believe, right now, the system here is under capacity because this property hasn't been developed to it. Councilwoman Swenson: I don't think it is under developed because we have been having a problem with water gushing down through there for a long time, so there is already a quite a bit of water that is going down through there. I can't believe that this is not going to increase it. I know that there is going to be massive problems if we attempt to put in any energy dissipators. This is a very sensitive area and certainly anything that it is going to create unpleasantness for the people who are living down there is going to cause a lot of problems. Dale Beckman: We agree, and I think part of what this plan is trying to do is using the natural elements out there to filter sediments out of this. The original plan was to pipe all the water from Kerber Boulevard all the away down to the lake. Our feeling was, with the staff recommendation, that by providing this basin here, we are going to purify the water that comes out of this area that comes into lotus lake. Councilwoman Swenson: I understand that. Also, I would just like to make a comment, I guess I am not entirely pleased with what we have. We have an average request for 15,000 square foot lots. We wind up here with a 12,000 and we are suppose to be happy about it. This company has been here two or three times before starting with lots that should have never been presented, but they had to be I understand. Now we are saying this is great, but you are still under what we have tried to request. I guess I don't see any necessity for those additional lots. I agree with Mr. Conrad, I don't see a necessity for them. I don't see that the majority of your lots here are well under 12,000 square feet, again, we have maybe 6 lots that are in excess. I say this because I am not pleased and I want it on the record that I am not accepting this because I think it is so great. I Councilman Horn: I understand that we are developing only 56 percent of the area as opposed to 62 percent of the original plan. What is not clear to me is what the area of the impervious surface is of this plan over the original plan. Dale Beckman: I am not sure I can give you a specific acreage or square footage on that. I would like to try and represent to you what we have tried to do with this plan over the original Chaparral 4th Addition. When we came back we realized the comments the Council made on it that you are not interested in small lot concepts. So then we took a look at the plan to see how we could improve on that. I would like to show you a couple of exhibits with regards to the Chaparral 4th Addition. Some of the problems that we had when we came around the first time, we were somewhat mislead I in looking at this in the number of lots across this back side, which are the so- called "large lots," basically some of the same type of things that you had seen pre- viously with our previous plans. I believe there are 8 or 9 lots along this area on the back side where they slope down into the tree areas that are in the 18,000 to 25,000 square feet area, but yet the interior lot sizes are in the 12,000 square foot I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -19- areas and then again there are a few lots down in these areas that are in the 30,000 square foot range. That is what we originally looked at. The tree line you see represents the same tree line that we had before. We then took the approved grading plan for the Chaparral 4th Addition and highlighted the areas that were to be graded. You can see what happened to the vegetation and through the area. We said there has got to be a way to improve on it. The Council has said they were sensitive to the actual area of the sight and what can we do to improve on it. One of the things that we came up with was to try and fit cul-de-sacs into these sloping areas so that we can make the grade changes without having to come in and tear out all of the trees. What we are trying to do is come in and custom each lot to fit the terrain so that when we come in with a home with a plan that we are going to be sensitive to this. One of your original conditions in the PUD agreement was that the building inspection department looks at each lot to see how many trees can be saved, but yet the mass grading plan that was reviewed for the 4th Addition showed that there wouldn't be a lot of trees left in the areas that are more sensitive. Yes, we have added some lots, and we could get our square footage up similar to some of the previous tech- niques and similar to some of the Chaparral 4th Addition lots had done before, but we are really looking at what is buildable and what is not and returning the rest as open space to the city and trying to fit the cul-de-sacs to fit the terrain, thereby saving more of the trees. That is the only point that I am trying to make. We feel that we are going to be doing less grading on the site than what was proposed ini- tially. As far as impervious areas go, I would have to guess that we are very close to the same amount of street distance that there was previously.. Councilman Horn: So the overall runoff is similar to that proposal? Dale Beckman: It will be less because we are only developing 56 percent versus 62 percent. That is a 6 percent reduction over the entire site of water. That would be a harder packed surface. The actual amount of water, if you take the streets as being totally impervious, we are about equal at that. As far as disturbing areas and J increasing runoff from that, we would be less than what was prevlously proposed. Councilman Horn: Disturbing the areas and add more areas of impervious surface aren't necessarily the same thing. You can recover something that has been graded, but you are going to have more roof tops here than what you had before, so I don't understand how you are going decrease the amount of runoff. Dale Beckman: With 8 lots, an average home of 900 to 1000 square feet, that would be 8,000 square feet over 29 acres. I don't believe that would have a significant amount of runoff. We could measure up and compute what the quantity of runoff from the streets are, but I believe we are looking at about the same amount. Mayor Hamilton: I like the plan and I think that Larry Laukka & Associates have been very sensitive to what the Council has asked in the past and I think they came up with a very nice plan. I am very much in favor of it. I like the idea of saving as many of the trees as possible. Dale Beckman: Approximately 50 percent of the homes in the subdivision now will be on cul-de-sacs. We feel that is a possitive move. That was something the Planning Commission was very favorable with, they liked the creation of the neighborhoods that the cul-de-sacs created. I think the most possitive part of the cul-de-sacs is that it really allows us to preserve a lot of the trees in this area.. I really feel that is a plus to the plan. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the the final plat amendment #85-2 PUD for 55 lots, Chaparral 4th Addition, as depicted on the plan stamped "Received November 26, 1985" with the following conditions: Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -20- l. That the front yard setbacks be reduced to 25 feet for all lots. 2. That a trail easement be dedicated over Outlot A. I 3. That utility and street details meet all city standards for urban type construction. 4. That silt fence be installed along the construction limits and that restabilization of graded areas take place immediately following construction. 5. Approval of a final drainage plan by the City and Watershed District. 6. Submission of deed restrictions. 7. Submisstion of a landscape plan for berming and plantings along Kerber Boulevard. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. Councilwoman Swenson: Do we discuss the trail easement over the Outlot? Barb Dacy: I forgot to mention that in my presentation. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that Outlot A be dedicated as a trail easement. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR RESCHEDULING QI ASSESSMENTS, ~ POPE: I The above item was removed from the agenda per the applicant's request. SUNNYBROOK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: a. Preliminary Plat Approval. ~ Rezoninq from P-4, Planned Industrial Development District lQ ~ Planned Community Development District. ~ Wetland Alteration Permit Approval. ~ Site Plan Approval. ~ Authorize Revised Feasibility Study. Barb Dacy: The proposal is by the Sunny brook Development Corporation. They have filed four applications for Planning Commission and City Council review. The process began in September of 1985. The preliminary plat and the rezoning issues from P-4 to P-3 for the proposed use was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission sub- ject to the conditions contained in the staff report. However, they tabled the site plan request until the members of the lake Susan Homeowners Association could be pre- sent, as well as a member from the Ward property. The site plan issue was considered again on October 9, 1985. Both groups were present. The Planning Commission again tabled the site plan review feeling that four additional items still needed to be addressed. 1) That the applicant submit a detailed lighting plan; 2)The a building elevation be prepared; 3)That the applicant process a wetland alteration permit; and 4)That some type of agreement be reached on the road realignment. On December 11, I 1985, the site plan and the wetland alteration permit request was brought to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the site plan and the wetland alteration permit subject to the 10 conditions contained in the staff report. I should also mention that you have received the staff reports and the I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -21- packets for each of the Planning Commission meetings. At the October 9th meeting the Lake Susan Homeowners Association did present a letter that's dated October 7th and that has also been included in your packet. Item A is the preliminary plat approval. What the applicant is proposing to do is replat existing lands in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park to create two parcels. The parcel that you see here outlined in blue is a 33 acre parcel which the applicant intends to locate the hotel and accessory facilities on. As a part of this plat they are proposing to realign Lake Drive East by removing the exsisting alignment and realigning that to the north of the existing wetlands. Part of the reasoning behind the realignment from the applicant's perspective is to create a deeper parcel. What is intended as you look on the site plan is that the hotel is located along the bluff overlooking Lake Susan. It is to be accessed by a paved drive which will travel between the two existing wetlands and there will be a covered bridge over the paved driveway. There are two considerations with the realignment that had to be addressed. l)As far as the construction impact, could the road be realigned and there were two sets of soil borings and tests taken. The results of those tests were, although there are localized areas of poor soils, certain construction practices could be used and could construct the road in the realigned manner. The realignment also drew concern about the impact onto the wetlands. In fact, the city, if the realignment is chosen, will have to process its own wetland alteration permit. 2)The impact of the realignment to the adjacent pro- perty, the Ward property. As you can see here on the graphic, the realignment moves Lake Drive East approximately 300 to 400 feet to the north. The Planning Commission felt that although the realignment was reducing the amount of developable area, they felt that there still remained enough area for a future resubdivision. However, staff feels that we should alert the Council that there may be additional costs incurred when the city does acquire the right of way through the Ward property. Although the realignment does not render this area useless, it does reduce the amount of develo- pable land. As you look on your site plans and look at the detailed topo, you can see the realignment was brought down in such a manner to hit the cross slope area and to preserve as much of the high area in the Ward Estate as possible. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat based on the condition that you see in your packet. Should the Council approve the preliminary plat request, staff also recommends five additional conditions. Bill Monk: This is a copy of the preliminary plat that is now approved. It involves a platted street going from CR 17, across the Third Addition and comes all the way over to the east side of the Third Addition, which abuts the Ward property. What is being proposed at this point is to take this existing right of way, which has already been platted, and vacate the area which has been cross hatched back to this point and replat a curved alignment for that frontage road up between existing wetlands in this general vicinity. As Barb stated, at first I was very reluctant to proceed with this because of assumptions I had made based on some soil borings, but the applicant has come back with extensive soil borings which show the area of bad soils to be much more localized in length and does exist for approximately 120 feet where extra construc- tion would have to occur to make sure that we can live with the settlement that will occur. The reason that the Ward property is involved in this, even though the replat of the street does not directly include the Ward property is because the intersection on TH 101 where Lake Drive East will have come out is basically set because Hidden Valley has come in and site distance and grading problems create problems almost anywhere else that we try and come out. So, where this road gets platted as it comes to the west edge of the Ward Estate has a great bearing on how that street will-make its connection. When we looked at the realignment of this road, the realignment was approximately 75 feet or more further to the north. We did swing it down somewhat to get into the cross slope area. This is the existing alignment as platted, to this point. This denotes the alignment between the Opus/Sunny brook property and the Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -22- Ward Estate. The existing alignment is platted to this point. The existing realign- I ment, which I have tried to sketch out as carefully as possible, comes up around in here. Originally, when we came through that alignment it was up in this area. We have moved it down to try and get into this area of cross slopes, whereas the existing alignment is more in a low area down in this vicinity. The real reason for this map is to show the difference between the two alignments. This is Highway 5 with the right of way for Highway 5. The southern right of way is right in this area, so the depth of the lot goes from this area down to this proposed realignment. You can see the change in area that occurs between the two alignments as proposed. In the middle of the Ward property, in this general vicinity, is a low area that may well have to stay as development plans are paved for this site. This area is pretty well set and will not be changed by either alignment. But this area, from their property line over to that wet area is being impacted by the realignment. This map is basically to show the difference; whereas this was a little over 500 feet before, it's about 275 feet from the right of way down to this realignment. You get some feel for the impact as it goes to the adjacent property. Councilwoman Swenson: Bill, I am concerned with the traffic flow on that road. Are those bends going to be condusive to problems when the high traffic level gets moving in. Bill Monk: There is no question that the final alignment will have to meet certain criteria for allowable curves and design speeds. It will have to be designed for 40 mph minimum speed alignment with the curves that go with that. I have laid those cur- ves on this, they do fit just marginally to the alignment as it is shown. So, yes, it will meet minimum design standards. Councilwoman Swenson: Do we have an anticipated traffic study on this road? I Bill Monk: No. We have done some estimations on an average daily traffic and assume that it will not take long once the frontage road system is complete to reach 1,000 cars per day average daily traffic, but beyond that, no specific study. It is seen as an intergral part to the industrial park that this frontage road system be completed to take the load off intersections on Highway 5. Councilwoman Swenson: The only other concern that I have is the visibility to the present residence on the south end of the lake. I am having difficulty trying to visualize how bad that might or might not be. I happen to live on a lake that has a tremendous apartment complex and I don't find it objectionable. I wouldn't want it to be any greater than it is, but we don't find it as disturbing as one might have suspected. I don't know whether this is going to be any worse than that. I guess my recommendation if we proceed with this is that I would like to see the lighting closed down earlier than the 2 a.m. figure, but that is a detail that we can get into later. Wanda Squire: I am with Sonny brook Development. By realigning the road, that is quite important to the way we have planned our site plan. We see if it remains where it was originally platted here, we see all of this land literally unusable. Our con- cern is with the aesthetics of the site, in addition to being able to utilize as much of the land as possible. This also makes a very nice entrance into our site. Councilwoman Swenson: I think we can visualize this and I apprieciate what you are saying, but I guess we have to weigh that with if this is going to create a safety problem on that road, I guess that would have to be taken into consideration. I I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -23- John Ward, 5916 Hanson Road, Minneapolis: I would like to speak on behalf of the Ward Estate. We have been to several meetings on this and I think the people from Sunnybrook have the idea that we maybe against their development, which is not true. We are not opposing their development, we are just opposing the effect that it has on our property due to this road realignment. That is the only thing that we would like to address ourselves to. Since the Planning Commission meeting in December, we have consulted real estate appraisers and professional planners and we have been informed unanimously that it will have a significant effect, if realigned, on the value of our property. That is where our concerns lie. A concern that you should also take into consideration, based on what these professionals have told us, the use of our land after that realignment and the effect it will have on the city. Keep in mind that Highway 5 curves through there, people driving along Highway 5 are looking straight ahead at that property and at our property. When they come in there I would like you to ask yourselves a question in your own mind, what would like to have them see on what is left of of our land? There isn't going to be too many options. There will be significant value changes and significant use changes. We haven't had time to have a professional plat diagram approved, but we have been told, professionally, that there is an alignment that can be made based on what we have been informed by the city, based on the soil borings that we have been given that would conform with all the state grading standards and all the requirements of building such a road as has been proposed. We would offer this to the Council as a compromise. If the Council feels that the road has to be realigned and strictly realigned for aesthetic purposes for the Sunnybrook Development, I can obviously see their point, as anyone can. If they can do that on a compromise basis without affecting our property and we have been told professionally that it can be done. We would like to show you on this rough diagram how it can be done and we can provide the actual plat later. As we understand it, the existing wetlands in this area, the proposed Lake Drive from the feasibility study would run directly through here. The realignment would take it in this fashion through our property. At the property dividing line we would go from a 600 foot original proposal on the feasibility study down to a 275 foot parcel of land, reducing it by a little less than half. That is the existing Highway 5, not the four lane Highway 5 that will be there in a few short years. With the setback requirements and with the left over land between this roadway and the new Highway 5, that will be a piece of land that will be suitable for very limited purposes. It won't be suitable for corporate users, industrial users, or for anything that would be nice and siteful. It would be usable for fast food restaurants, muffler fixing shops, maybe a small repair shop. We have been told that it is not suitable for a large industrial or a commercial user. We would suggest, as a compromise which would not affect their aesthetics at all, that when the grading is done on their property and the creation of a new ponding area here, that that ponding area be moved to the south and to the west ever so slightly allowing them the same type of drive through these two ponding areas. The same type of rich facility that they envisioned in their plan with a nice safe access onto this new Lake Drive East. It can be done, we have been told, if this is moved slightly. We are not altering the existing one in any way. We are talking about the one that is going to be created and changing this location slightly, bringing this radiant curve down here and bringing it in approximately at the property line where the original Lake Drive East was proposed. They could have what they want, essentially everything that they want, we would not have our property diminished, this property would remain available for a nice deve- lopment, not for a small special use. That can be done at very little additional cost. In the wetland alteration permit, the information that we were given that was done on this property where this road is proposed to be moved, if we are reading this correctly, there are some spots in here what is referred to as muck and peat going down over 50 feet. It took in some spots only two drill taps of a hammer to go through a foot of soil way down deep, as opposed to taps that should be in the teens for a good solid road base. There is no question that if this alignment goes Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -24- through, there is going to have to be modifications of the grading, there is going to have to be back filling, and there is going to have to be some engineering changes to I build this road. If that is going to be done, we don't think we are asking a lot to have this slightly moved to have this area be moved in a southwesterly direction. They can alter that road a little bit and bring this right down here. We are not damaged in any way and they have exactly what they want. We will offer that to the Council, if that road is going to be changed, we would ask you to consider that. Councilman Gevinq: If that proposal would go through, would you withhold any comment regarding the payment for the loss of land that is now being suggested by our staff? John Ward: We would withhold that until we could get together with Mr. Monk......... Councilman Gevinq: What I am asking is would you have no objection, if that were the final proposal, the Ward property and its estate would have no objection to the alignment as you propose it or any severability of the loss of land? John Ward: If it was brought back at the property line? Councilman Gevinq: The question that I really asked is would you withdraw any objec- tion or severability of the land in payment for loss of land if your proposal were to be the one that was selected, because I think there will be some taking of land in either proposal. John Ward: I would have to discuss that with my legal counsel. Al Klinqelhutz: I am wondering how the road is going to be paid for. Is it going to be assessed against the property owners or is it going to be a state aid road or what? I Councilman Gevinq: It's an MSA road. ~ Klinqelhutz: So the state has got tax dollars involved, which is yours and my dollars, right. I am looking at this road and seeing a considerable larger distance to go to the north side of the pond. I know the area quite well, I know that State Highway 5 as originally proposed ws going to be on about the alignment where this road is proposed. They took soil samples there and they found 60 feet of peat and muck. How much more expensive is it to build an extra 400 feet of road through 60 feet of peat and muck and to put it on the south side of the pond where you have got solid footing. I guess this is a question that I as a taxpayer am asking to sort of justify putting that road on the north side of the pond besides the adverse affects on the Ward property if the alignment is as shown on that map. Jim Murphy from Lake Susan Homeowners Assoc.: We feel that we are either the oldest or the second oldest neighborhood in the city. Probably the only other neighborhood would be the core of the city itself. Five years ago we were here and we felt we worked out an agreement with you, both the Planning Commission and the Council. We felt we negotiated with you this P-4 zoning and that was something acceptable to you and was something acceptable to us. When we started with those negotiations, what we were looking at was single family on that side of the lake. So we felt we negotiated a compromise and it was P-4. Now, just five years later someone else is trying to I change that and, of course, we are opposed to that. I would like to point out what we are losing because of this. What we are showing here is a P-4 zoning and what is permitted is manufacturing type uses, research testing, office, wholesale and ware- housing. We are for all of these. There is nothing in the sense of retail here, no commercial and accessory uses that have to be compatible, as you all know. P-3, I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -25- which is what someone wants to rezone it to includes the following uses plus many others and all of these we are opposed to: multiple family, administrative office, medical, financial institutions, restaurants, theatres, motor vehicle, service sta- tions, private clubs and lounges, garden supplies, laundries, taverns, tennis, off sale liquor, all the things that people want right next to their 'home. As far as we are concerned, these commercial uses just opened things wide open. We realize that this is not an issue yet, but we would like to talk about lOP because I think it had an impact, at least with the Planning Commission on the decisions thus far. With the lOP zoning we feel just as conglomerate as a P-3 and a P-4. That's really all it is and I think everyone agreed to it. So this is what is being proposed for the area. It was pretty much those uses that we have just talked about. What we feel has hap- pened with the lOP was that the Planning Commission was locked into it. This is something that they are proposing, therefore, they had worked a long time on anything that we might work on like this and at the end we get tunnel vision. They decided, I feel, on the lOP as an appropriate use for the north side of the lake. Therefore, their actions, I feel, are pretty much based upon what they were proposing for the new zoning in their plan. As you know, this is pretty much what they went along with as far as rezoning the plat and everything else. What we would like to do is offer some alternatives. Some of these alternatives are P-4, which it is now zoned for, and which we are in favor of. With the Sonnybrook Development we are looking at commer- cial right across the lake. We feel if you rezone this, it is obvious that some other areas are also going to have to be rezoned commercial. The Ward,property probably has even more of a right to be commercial and a higher type use. I think ultimately this , is what you have to consider now and this is what is going to happen. One thing about the lake. You may be saying or you may be assuming that it is a buffer. A lake is not a buffer. It doesn't have an elevation to cut out either the noise or light or any- thing else. It is though our neighborhood is backed right up to this land use. It is not an effective buffer. What was mentioned earlier i~ that the lights would be turned off at 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. I don't know what your habits are but that really won't affect me. More than likely I am going to be in bed at that time of the night. When those lights are on or when those activities are on, that is what we are really concerned about. In that development they are going to be in competition with us. They are going to be there on weekends, there are going to be there in the evenings, I think their parking lot has 354 cars which may be expanded for another 100 spaces, they have room for 50 patrons, they are going to depend their business on turnover, they have bars and restaurants that really accomodate a lot of people, so there is going to be a lot of activity. That activity is going to be in direct conflict with our leisure time. Now I am going to talk about alternatives. What's important in a Planning Commission is transition, we always here of transition. Why can't we have transition. An lOP maybe in this area, R-3 here, and maybe an Rl-b, and it is con- tinuous all around the lake from what's being proposed. We consider this to be a good alternative. This is the first thing that we were trying for and that went to P-4 and that was a compromise. One thing that you really want to be concerned about is this lOP or Commercial that you are proposing backs up right to the neighborhood in this area. There were some comments mentioned about the roadway. I would also like to make some comments. It is a very curvilinear alignment. As you noticed your engineer said it meets minimum design. What is wrong with good design? What we have here are reversed curves backed up to reversed curves. That is not a good design. In our type of climate it is so easy to cross that center line and be on the: other side of the roadway. We have all experienced that. With this type of an alignment, that is what is going to happen. It's not loaded well, a roadway like that. : What this is going to require is more roads are going to be built. They are going to have to build a longer road into their development. Someone else, if this road is further away, is going to build a longer road to get access. That is another consideration. Another alternative, lOP north of the road. Another one would be IOP-l (we are saying that is the same with Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -26- P-4), what is wrong with that? That is a good transition. We are compromising people, we know that we have to move and bend. Let's let the lOP go south of the road somewhat. We still have our IoP-l that we have just made up, which is the same I as P-4 in this area, but a smaller area. That is something we could accept. We think that this type of a transition is very important and something we would like to see. A couple other comments. I think the building height is 48 feet and the shore- line zoning says 35; why change that? That 35 restriction is a good model for something that is as sensitive as a lake. This is a small lake and we are very con- cerned about the surface. It won't take a lot of activity to interfere with what the lake can accomodate. We are concerned about their asking for a walkway down to the lake and a gazebo, which would in the setback limits, which is also something that we obtained five years ago. If that walkway is built at least it should be secured or something where it would zig-zag so we can't see up and see all the way into their development. We ask that you disapprove the zoning and that you stay with the P-4 or something similar. We hope that you won't zone this to P-3. Councilwoman Watson: On the realignment of the road, if this is a MSA road and we move it, then Sonny brook isn't going to bear any of the expense of the additional........ Bill Monk: Under the existing feasibility study which has been completed for the platted alignment and for the possible extension through the Ward Estate, the cost breakdown is for two-thirds of the cost, in the study anyway, to be borne by the local developers. One-third of the street cost being borne by the city through MSA because there is no oversizing of the streets occurring because of the MSA. In an industrial area the MSA standard is the same as what the city requires for normal construction. Since there is no oversizing of depth or width of section, the city has come up with a minimum criteria that for an MSA street the city will participate to the level of one-third of the grading and the street costs. So if that proposal stayed the same for the realignment, two-thirds of the realignment cost would go back to the local developer and the city could be eligible, unless a revision was made of that at the time the study was looked at or it was assessed, the city could pick up one-third of the costs for the grading and street construction. I Councilwoman Watson: I am just concerned about one-third of what? The difference between the original alignment and this new alignment? Bill Monk: Yes, basically, that is what you would be looking at. Councilwoman Watson: There could be a significant difference in those. Bill Monk: Yes, the numbers haven't been worked out yet because normally until the Council looks at a preliminary plat and decides on the plat itself and the land uses, the study is not done. This case is no different. We are waiting until those deter- minations are made before a modified study is done. There are going to be some extra costs associated with the realignment. How extensive they are because of the soils at this point it is not known. But the extra costs, if pro-rated out using the existing criteria, would be two-thirds/developer and one-third/city. Councilwoman Watson: But it would be very difficult for me to form an opinion about that realignment without knowing exactly what the difference would cost. If that is I literally as full of peat and muck as Mr. Klingelhutz has stated, then we are going to be bearing one-third of a significantly larger cost than with the original align- ment. These MSA funds, we have a lot of places to put them. Bill Monk: There is also the possibility that as we go through the feasibility study that the city may say that we will fund the equivalent of one-third based on this I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -27- alignment and the developers pick up all costs associated with the realignment. Those options are there. I am saying if the criteria that was used for this existing alignment was pushed out for the realignment, that is how the breakdown would occur. That does not mean that the city is already lined up for one-third of the costs. The same is true that if the realignment is approved, the Ward Estate is found to be negatively impacted through the improvement process, that cost may also be passed onto the developer who proposed it. Those decisions have not been made by the Council and would come back as a part of that feasibility study for Council con- sideration. Councilwoman Watson: Where we start this upward sweep on this realignment, why is that started where it is and not back further so that it is a more gradual thing. Is there some significance to where that realignment begins? Bill Monk: Yes there is, really to leave as much property to the north as usable as possible. Again, we placed minimum designs on it so that we would not be rendering more property than needed to be on usable, the curve could be reduced. I pushed that, but the proposal is not to do that. Councilwoman Watson: How far is the actual building from lake Susan? Barb Dacy: It is about 320 feet. That is a straight line distance. Councilwoman Watson: How far is the gazebo and those things from the lake? Barb Dacy: perty. The gazebo is approximately 100 feet. So it is not on city owned pro- Councilman you call A, pick up the Gevinq: I recognize that there is quite a wetlands to the north of which the existing wetland. Is there a pipe underneath that road there now to water from the north? How does that drain across? Bill Monk: I believe there is free flow under the driveway that gets back and forth. I have never actually located a culvert or anything that goes through there. ~ Klinqelhutz: There was a drainage tile. That whole area used to be farmed. I assume that it is still in there, but I think Mr. Bloomberg cut a road to get back to the lake through the low lying areas and he took out some of the peat and I think he severed the drainage tile at that time. The only drainage there would be the draw from underneath the road through the peat back into the tile on ~he other side, which exists down by Mr. Ward's driveway into that revene. Councilman Gevinq: I guess that is the reason I asked that question. I see that ponding area grow some years and it gets quite large and that water comes from somewhere and I suspect it comes from the north and also to the east almost to the point where someone mentioned it was over on the Ward property, the western most part of the Ward to the north. Does that present a problem to us by putting in that pro- posed road? Bill Monk: There is no question that, and in some of these I will refer to Al and A2 and A3 as the wetlands area, but shown on the map wetlands Al will act basically as the major outlet for the wetland area no matter which configuration is chosen, but all wetlands will actually act as one and will be connected under basically any pro- posal that would go forward and would become a part of the drainage system that would drain to the west. That becomes more critical on the realignment, you are correct. Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -28- Councilman Gevinq: Have you contacted the Lutheran Church on this proposal, and what was their comment, if any? Barb Dacy: I contacted the pastor twice by phone and he was going to arrange an appointment with me, but we never got together. ~ Klinqelhutz: The reason I mentioned the peat and muck is because I used to farm this entire farm here for several years. When Minnesota Highway 5 came in they had staked out a different route than where the present Highway 5 is. They had told me not to plant that into a crop that year. After they did the soil tests they had to go into land that I had planted a crop and I asked them what the reason was that they moved that and that's when they told me that they found considerable amount of peat and muck up to 60 feet deep all along the north side of that area where the proposed alignment is at this time. Also, Bill, when you said the developer, would that be just to the land that would be effected by this or would that affect the other proper- ties to the east and to the west to the extra cost of putting in this extra amount of road and extra road work? Bill Monk: At this point I am not sure exactly how that would be put back to the other properties. It would be difficult to propose that it go back onto the Ward Estate in any way, but that would basically be up to the Council to review the feasi- bility study and make a determination of where they believe those extra costs should reasonably be placed. It is impossible for me to say at this point. Councilman Gevinq: That is a very good question that Mr. Kligelhutz raised and it kind of goes along as to why I asked the first question, and that is when we get into these things we have a tendancy to throw all of these kinds of costs back on an area. We want to make sure that if there are benefits that they get assessed properly, but if there are no benefits, that someone way to the east or way to the west who are affected by this proposed realignment might be bearing some costs that they get no benefits from. That is why I go back to the church property because at some point in time they are going to have to build another road to get to the access for an egress for that church. It might be either a case where we have the proposed Lake Drive road or it might be a considerable length. The proposed realignment might make a real nice road for them, I don't know. Again, it is a matter of cost and those people and others will be very concerned about how these costs are going to be passed back to them. Bill Monk: The church presently has an easement, as I understand it, across Opus property to get to Highway 5. It has always been my understanding that at the time this road is contructed that they will relocate their access onto Lake Drive East. I I Michele Foster, ~ Corporation: I would like to make a couple of comments. This road realignment has not been suggested without a significant amount of soil testing that was done at the expense of Sunny brook Development because of the concerns that your City Engineer had and was reluctant to spend more city time and investment in the project so I think that Mr. Klingelhutz's concerns are ligitimate but this pro- posed alignment is based on actual recent soil tests that indicate that it is feasible to build the road in this location. We have done cost estimates on our own. Basically, the additional cost is going to be the surcharge in that portion of the road that is along the northern portion that is closest to Highway 5. Those addi- I tional surcharge costs may not be significant. The cost estimates that we put together for that surcharging were in the neighborhood of around $25,000 or $30,000. If that is split on a two-thirds/one-third basis that is not a significant amount of cost that the city is being asked to contribute to the project through state aid funds, if in fact, that is the recommendation of the Council. In terms of the road I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -29- realignments affect on the church, the original alignment as we had suggested would have required that we provide another easement to the church to bring a driveway down in this area running north and south to get access to the church. That is, in my opinion, a very efficient or desirable way for the church to get access. It is also our agreement with the church that the church would not be assessed for any of those assessments. So the church is not going to be impacted from the assessment perspec- tive. In terms of the additional assessment costs, both Sunnybrook Development and Opus have discussed those costs and fully understand that there are additional costs associated with it and we are prepared to assume our share of those costs as special assessments because we feel it is a better alignment. One of the things that concern us about the existing alignment and concerned us even from the beginning was the fact that if the wetland areas are not joined to the properties to the south, we are basi- cally left with 12 acres of undevelopable land because of those wetland areas. What this allows us to do is consolidate those wetland areas, save them and use them as an aesthetic advantage for the project that Sunnybrook is developing. There has been a great deal of time and effort and thought and concern about the city's position in trying to establish the new alignment. I guess we feel that it is a good proposal. It is not significantly more expensive to the extent that we are willing to take the share of those costs and we think that it is a good alignment and it still meets the objectives of the city. Councilman GevinQ: If we take the northern most tip of the proposed realignment, could you tell me, Bill, the elevation of the middle of that right of way? Bill Monk: Basically it would be several feet higher than the existing driveway ele- vation in that area. Councilman GevinQ: If we stayed with the existing alignment, what would be that ele- vation? Isn't it considerably higher than the proposed realignment? Bill Monk: Elevation-wise, it would be somewhat similar and could be a little bit lower. It would be relatively the same, I am not sure. Councilman GevinQ: I have stood at the northerly most point of this proposed realignment and looked to the south towards that field and there is a very definate hump there where the existing alignment is. It has to be considerably higher. , , Bill Monk: How the street would go through, it might not actually lay right on the terrain, it might cut through, I really don't know what the differential in elevation would be. Councilwoman Swenson: Orr-Schelen certainly didn't agree with your engineers. They took two borings and decided they wouldn't continue with the feasibility study because they didn't figure it was a proper place to put a road. Bill Monk: OSM has not been involved in this since those borings. They did those borings and they did happen to take those borings in the worst place. The Braun Engineering study was done after that to determine the exact limits of that real bad area. They did not go as far as OSM or I had anticipated. Since the Braun study, I have not asked OSM to review any of the data or be involved in incurring any costs beyond that point, so there has been some data change since OSM has looked at it. The Council should be aware of that. Councilwoman Swenson: When I talked with you this afternoon, Bill, I understood that the additional cost of moving this road would be borne by the deyeloper. Now I am a little confused when there is a question as to whether this would be the case. In no Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -30- way do I feel that it is the city's responsibility to payor underwrite the aesthetic value of the development. I don't think that this would be fair to the citizens of this city. Do we have any idea of what the ultimate cost of this project will be? Wanda Squire: The total financing on the project is $10,000,000. That takes into consideration our construction, our financing, our end long financing for the mortgage and our cash flow. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I am not in favor of putting it in this particular spot. I don't like changing the zoning. I think P-4 is the correct zoning for that piece of property and the uses that go with that particular zoning are the uses that we have looked at in the past and felt would be compatible with the land use in that area. I would like very much to see the Sunny brook Development done in the City of Chanhassen, but not in this particular spot. I continually feel that we are trying to put a square peg in a round hole and we keep trying to force this. Personally, I don't think that it is the right spot for this particular development because of the zoning and because of the road, which is certainly questionable in my mind. Jim Murphy: I appreciate your comments. There has been a lot of comments about the road so I am going to make a couple more comments since that seems to be real impor- tant to you, although we feel the social impacts are more important. With the road, the accident rate is going to be higher. You can't put a cost on it. Even if they pay for that road you are going to own it, the accident rate is going to be higher. The other thing is site distance for driveways. I don't think that has been checked out. That site distance for the church may not be adequate, I don't know. As Mayor Hamilton mentioned, we are really concerned about the social aspects. He talked about it in terms of the zoning, but I am talking about it in terms of the social aspects. There is going to be a real social impact to us. I can't over emphasize that to you. If you don't believe that, I have got some lakeshore for sale. But, I think you would agree with me. All of the activities are going to occur on the weekend and the week nights at the same time that we occupy our residencies. I don't think that is right and I thought five years ago we agreed that it wasn't right. Councilman Hor~ My train of thought goes along with yours. We have looked at the Sunnybrook Development for some years and it is such a gorgeous type of development, we want to see it in the City of Chanhassen. Obviously, it would be even better by this realignment. There is a question of how far we can go to make it look right and there is more to it as we have heard than just how a building looks. My initial thoughts on this is I saw how the site would look with Sunnybrook versus how the site would look with say a diesel builder on it and this appeared to be far more pleasing until you consider the weekends/evening aspects. People usually go home at night from their job, but they don't go home at night from the country inn. Obviously, it would be very handy for the industrial park to have something like this close to them. I think there are other sites. In fact, we did have another site in mind pre- vious to this one which would also accomodate this site quite nicely. I appreciate all of the work that they have put into this thing and no way do I want to discourage them from going ahead with this, but I have trouble seeing how it can fit into that area. As I think about what the zoning change really means, the zoning for P-3 doesn't give me the image that the Sunnybrook Development gives me. When I read what that zoning means, it tells me one thing and when I visualize Sunnybrook, it tells me something else. I think that, perhaps, you can get the wrong feeling about what the rezoning would do if you think of it in terms of Sunnybrook. We have to think of it in terms of what the zoning ordinance says. Councilwoman Watson: I am always concerned when we change the zoning on one piece of property in an area like this. It seems like when you change one, you end up changing everything around it, ultimately. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but I I I I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -31- somewhere down the line this particular zoning and this 33 acres is going to affect the zoning of the property next to it and then on the property to next that and pretty soon that whole are is going to take on a different character. It just works that way, not that it has to. We don't have to rezone any other property along there for any reason, but one particular use usually brings in the same kind of use. Wanda Squire: I would like to give some answers to some of the statements made. First of all, yes, if we do not get a site plan approval on this site it will defini- tely discourage us, mainly from a financial standpoint. This is not a major real estate developer. We have acquired our financing for this project, specific to this site, specific to market feasibility studies done for this area for this site. As many of you are aware, we have gone through this process about a year ago and put a lot of money into developing another site. Unfortunately, that property was bought out from underneath us before we were able to close on it. So we started this proce- dure allover again on another site. This site being one that we felt was very appropriate for our project. Our concern was that it was a part of an industrial park. We wanted to protect what went in around us becuase we did not want 500 McDonald's down the street from us or a big factory right next door to us. That was one of the reason's for acquiring this whole section of land so that we had some control over an area that we could buffer our site with. The market that we are appealing to with our conference center are executive retreats, weddings, the type of atmosphere that is very peaceful, quiet, serene atmosphere, which is another reason for the acreage. Obviously, over looking the lake is a plus. As far as the trail and the gazebo, we are aware that we do require DNR approval on that and we will go along with whatever the DNR recommends. The area between the inn and the lake will be left natural with the exception of a winding trail to preserve the natural terrain. As far as moving the pond is concerned, that had been discussed earlier and I guess that is, right at this point, a financial and a technical feasibility question that I will leave up to our architect and the City Planners. We are open to pursuing that further. As far as the lighting plan is concerned, at the Planning Commission meeting we asked for input from the homeowners and how they would like some of the changes implemented. We got no feedback. We went to great lengths in moving the parking lot and rearranging the site plan, etc. to accomodate their needs. We are very concerned with the homeowners and their concerns, because many of theirs are ours when you hear about the type of a market we are trying to appeal to and the type of atmosphere we are trying to create. If 2:00 a.m. is a problem, I guess we are open to discussing what the people want to see. I don't think we are real hard to live with in that area. In looking at this drawing across the top here, this shows the elevation on the south side of the lake as it comes across to the back of the inn, the trees are very dense and very high in that area. Our architect has indicated to us that the majority of the building will be hidden by the foliage and obviously in the summer hidden more than the winter. The lights from the windows will probably be seen more from across the lake than from the parking lot. The parking lot will be on the other side of the building. Noise is a big concern to us, especially on the lake. If we are having a wedding service on the lawn, we would just as soon not have a lot of noise coming from the lake either. I think we can be real compatible to the homeowners if we both show consideration for the others in that area. I personally feel that our site, the project that we have put together here, is a more appealing site for that project than a diesel factory. Granted, we will be there evenings, we will be there on weekends and unfortunately that is just a fact of life. We feel also that our project is an asset to this community and we will be doing a lot of joint marketing with other businesses in the area and other natural resources in the area. We plan to have a great, aggressive marketing program and try to attract people to the community. Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -32- Barney Schlender: A couple of comments in reference to Mr. Murphy's comments. I feel that we have gone to great length and supplied everyone with a lot of honest facts and figures. I think Mr. Murphy's opinions right now are just opinions. I I think he is making a lot of assumptions. I can understand his selfish opinions, as I look at them. We also will be owners of property on the lake, but in essence, we are going to be developing a model $10,000,000 facility. If anyone has a problem with accepting that, I have a hard time understanding that, really. As far as the road- ways, I think as far as it being a crooked road and not beneficial to whatever they are trying to accomplish, I think they are very wrong. I think it will kind of be a senic roadway. Why do you have to develop something straight; just because it is crooked it is wrong? I guess I really disagree with everyone on that. As far as Ms. Squire's opinions, I want to back her up 100 percent because I think as far as the basis where we are coming from, I think it will be a very beautiful project. If there are some aspects of it that we have to work out as far as realigning of the road, we are very open to that. Councilwoman Swenson: I am just wondering if you made any overture to talk to the homeowners association down there? Wanda Squire: We have met. We have already met with Mr. Murphy in his office prior to our meeting with the group of homeowners. Barb Dacy was present at that also. We presented our plan to them. Our concern at that time .was if I was a homeowner and I didn't know what was going on and I heard a lot of rumors, I would be concerned too. Our intent then was to inform them as to what our plans were so that we could draw out their real concerns and we could address those. I think we have done a fairly good job of incorporating their concerns and modifying our site plan. Kathy Holtmeier: They have contacted us, but we weren't called into the City Planner I until after they had rezoned the property. Our basic concern is that we don't want that property rezoned because everything will probably be rezoned after that. Mayor Hamilton: It hasn't been rezoned. Kathy Holtmeier: What I am saying is that we went into the public hearing with the Planning Commission and at that point it was moot because they had already approved the rezoning. So, yes, we were looking at the project, but we were trying to address the issue in the Planning Commission of whether or not you should rezone it and that is why we are here for this particular meeting. Mayor Hamilton moved to deny the preliminary plat approval for the Sunny brook Development Corporation proposal. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn for discussion. Councilman Gevinq: Is the project feasible without the realignment of the road? Barney Schlender: Anything is feasible, but I guess at the same time where does the problem lie with the realignment of the road, in all honesty. As far as any curves or anything which we have to do to realign it to satisfy the Wards or the City, we are open as far as that goes. This has not been drawn to scale, so maybe some assumptions are arrived at a little bit differently than what they should be. Councilman Gevinq: The reason for that question was some people mentioned the factor I of safety of the realigned road. Other people mentioned cost. Who is going to pay for it? I am absolutely opposed to having any city dollars being involved in the realignment of the road. The other reason is if it became an issue with the Wards, I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -33- that is another factor. You have to look at that as well. That is why I asked the question, if that were the only thing holding up this project, would the project still be feasible without it? Barney Schlender: The site plan could be revised, I am sure. How can you say at this time that you will not have any problems with where the other road was? Councilman Gevinq: I don't know. Barney Schlender: You are going through an area there also, which I would say is questionable. Councilman Gevinq: The reason I asked that question is we are at the point right with this concept, it is being measured by five people right now. It just maybe one or two little items like that which tip the scale one way or the other. Councilman Horn: I guess I am questioning our zoning. Does it need to be rezoned for this type of a use that we put into our current zoning? Barb Dacy: The issue before you obviously, is you are deciding on the preliminary plat and there have been a lot of references made to the proposed zoning ordinance and the virtues of P-4 and P-3 and I have not had an opportunity yet to go through my staff report and maybe answer some other questions. If you would like me to do that I can. The rezoning request is from P-4 to P-3. As you will note in the report, number 18 of the permitted uses of the P-3 District allows the Council to decide whether or not the proposed use is consistent with the general character of the P-3 District and consistent with the objectives with the District. The P-3 District allows industrial uses, it does allow some commercial uses such as restaurants and will allow recreational facilties. The homeowner's association pro- vided you with a list as I did in the report. What you have to decide is whether or not the hotel is consistent with the other uses in that district~ The P-3 already allows industrial, commerical and to some degree multiple family. It is, in essence, implying that those three types of uses are consistent in some manner. What you have to judge is; is a hotel use, as proposed, consistent with those other uses? You use the types of impacts to judge that consistency. land coverage, taffic, noise, etc. Staff's recommendation has been that the hotel use is, in some cases, less intensive than a manufacturing use. The proposed land intensity of the parcel is 18 to 20 per- cent impervious surface. The impacts sited by the homeowners association as far as lighting and noise and the walkway down to the lake can be addressed in some type of manner on the site plan approval. The parking lot was reoriented to the west part of the lot to reduce the impact on the lighting and the visual impact from the south side of the lake. Those are site specific concerns and as you stated eariler, Mr. Horn, yes you do have to consider the overall objectives of the P-3 District and look at this Use and ask the question, "is this appropriate in this particular area of this city?" As to what it can do to adjacent properties, this area has long been held to be a part of the business park and that was established when this part was zoned P-4. In my own mind I have to believe that, whether the road is realigned or not, the immediate vacinity of the TH 101 and Highway 5 intersection, there will be pressure to go commercial in that intersection anyway, whether the road is realigned or not just because of its location at a major intersection. However, based on the past City policies, etc. this area is guided as industrial on the land use plan. The intent of the Planning Commission in the new district (which the homeowners refer to as the lOP District) is to provide a mixture of uses and between industrial and this type of facility to provide conference areas, etc. and to promote, what I would call the business park or campus image. I hate to talk about a proposed ordinance, Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -34- because you can't base your decision, approval or denial, on what mayor may not hap- pen. I just wanted to relay that is the intent of the Planning Commission at this time. They haven't even acted officially to pass that onto you yet. Michele Foster: I have two comments, one along the lines of what Barbara was saying which is our experience in the Twin Cities is that this is sort of a classic case of how difficult it is to create a mixed use park within the context of a lot of existing zoning ordinances. Almost every office and industrial park that we are building in the Twin Cities, a hotel or conference center is something that we are actively promoting and is wanted by the businesses that locate in the park. Unfortunately, in .this case I think we are dealing with an ordinance problem in trying to create a mechanism to implement that sort of a use as opposed to trying to promote a lot of commercial uses, which we don't want. We want to develop the park as industrial, but then a park needs those sort of support services. While it may appear that the intent is to spot zone something now so that it can creep into the adjacent land. That is certainly not the intent. Unfortunately, this is perhaps the only mechanism that we have to create that sort of use. The second thing is that if the Council would feel more comfortable placing some conditions on the approval, such as that any additional costs due to the realignment have to be borne by Opus Corporation and Sunnybrook Development, then please feel free to make those con- ditions as a part of your approval rather than rejecting the proposal out right. If it has to meet minimum traffic standards, which it has to do anyway being an MSA street, if the Council would feel more comfortable stating that as a condition of the approval, then please do that. We would rather try and find solutions to those problems and make those conditions in the approval then have you deny the project when there maybe other alternatives to solve these. I urge you to look in that direction if there are things that you want to restrict or condition the approval on. Councilman ~ It appears to me and my hang up with this zoning ruling is the ter- minology of what I would call "hotel." Obviously, this is not a Radisson South. The architectural styling is more similar to what you would find in a residential area than it is of a Radisson South. Another proposal may be to set up a term called a "Conference Center," which this really fits into, and make that appropriate to a P-4 zoning. My other real concern is the additional cost the city would bear with this road. With the type of amendment that I have just heard, I could be much more com- fortable with this type of situation. Councilman GevinQ: The question is, is the plat that we are being presented with include the existing roadway alignment or the proposed realignment? Barb Dacy: The proposed realignment. Mayor Hamilton: Right now we are strictly dealing with the preliminary plat. We haven't even discussed the rezoning. That would be the next issue. The rezoning should be the last issue. Barb Dacy: The reason that it is second is that the plat creates the 33 acre parcel and the realigned roadway. If the Council chooses not to approve the plat, then it was staff's belief in the ordering of the request that it would render the other issues moot. Councilman Horn: When we talked about additional costs of the realignment, I would assume that you would be referring to any type of agreement that would be reached with the Wards also? I I I I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -35- Michele Foster: I am not sure I know the answer to that. I would suspect the answer is no partially because it's not clear to us, in our mind and it hasn't been even during the original alignment. If you will recall, the Wards were not pleased with that alignment either at the time that we came in. There were concerns at that time about whether the road ought to go through and whether it ought to go through there and how much they were going to have to pay for that. We have tried not to link this proposal with the extension of the road through the Ward property. We know that's the city's long-term objectives, that it will some day go through the Ward property, but it is not our requirement that the road go through. If the road were to cul-de- sac at that point for a period of time before it went through the Ward property, that is fine with us. It is really a city objective of both timing and road acquisition than it is our objective or Sunnybrook's objective. In a sense, we have looked at the costs and the issues as they come up to the Ward property. If you are asking us if we are going to take on extra costs for the Ward property, I guess we are not real excited about that and I am not sure what it means. Councilman Horn: We don't either. So in other words what you are saying is that for purposes of this discussion you would be satisfied if the City would decide to never put that road through to TH 101 but to terminate it into a cul-de-sac at that point. Michele Foster: At some point. Councilman Horn: At this point to the east. , Michele Foster: That was our thought when we brought the initial alignment in, which was if we wanted that road to go through, one possibility would be to have it dead end at the Ward propertery until such time as the Ward property was ready to develop. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, and Councilwoman Watson. The following were opposed: Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Horn a~d Geving. Motion denied. Councilman Geving moved to approve the preliminary plat approval Development Corporation as marked "Received November 25, 1985." by Councilwoman Swenson for discussion. for the Sunny brook Motion was seconded I I Councilwoman Swenson: I think Clark is onto something here and I would like to figure out how we could do this. As I understand, one of the major concerns of the neighborhood is rezoning. Is there anything that we can utilize to put in the capa- city of the existing P-4 industrial use so that we can make this complex legal to the P-4 zoning. Roqer Knutson: conditional use that. You could amend the P-4 District to add as either a permitted or a for this type of use (the conference center/hotel), you could do Councilwoman Swenson: Would that satisfy some of your concerns? Jim Murphy: I would say no. We are opposed the commercial use. We are looking for a transition or a buffer which would be more appropriate prior to the single family, that is what we are really concerned about. Really, it would not. Our other concern is that adjacent areas then every time something that comes along that looks good to you and is commercial, you are going to add it as a conditional use? That doesn't make sense. Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -36- Councilman Swenson: I don't think so. I think we have a very unique situation here. I think the problem that I am confronted with and why this is so difficult is because I think this is truely a unique and colorful concept and I think it would be a defi- nite asset, not only to the industrial area, but from a standpoint of being in this city. If there was somewhere else where these people could take this, I would be de lighted. Jim Murphy: We agree. It is a great development and we mentioned that before to them, but isn't there somewhere else in the industrial park that we can have this buffer. I hope there is some other place because we also agree that it is a fine development. But, if they get in there and they have a $10,000,000 investment, there is going to be a lot of pressure on you to then zone adjacent properties to com- patible uses with them, and that is more commerical. Then there is the fact that it is going to be a tremendous social impact on us. The Lake Riley development does things like residents do. They talk about weddings. Weddings are great and while the wedding is going on it is very sedate. How about afterwards, what happens then? Councilman Gevinq: I made the motion as that if this does get approved, I would like to see no dollars charged to any citizen through assessments because of that road realignment. That would have to be one of the conditions on which we would approve this project, if it does get approved. The following voted in favor: Councilman Horn and Councilman Geving. The following were opposed: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson. Motion denied. I Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to recommend that the developer and the residents get together to see if there is some way that you can resolve some of these dif- I ficulties. I think that if you sat down together, maybe you could come out with something that would equitable for everybody. That is the only suggestion I have. Wanda Squire: I think people are maybe under estimating the amount of dollars it takes to put together a site, to put together a feasibility study. We are talking about many, many thousands of dollars. Councilwoman Swenson: I am sure this is true. We also have many thousands of dollars in private homes that feel that they are going to be adversely affected. It is incumbent upon this Council, I believe, to listen to both sides. Since we can't come to a definite agreement at this point in time, I think the only solution there would be is for you to try to sit down with the homeowners and see if you can come to some agreeable solution. Councilman Gevinq: We understand those comments. It is part of doing business and we realize it costs you a lot of money to come before us. Councilwoman Swenson moved to table this item until after such time that the deve- loper and the residents have had an opportunity to sit down together and discuss this matter. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Gev~ng. No negative votes. Motion carried. SOUTH LOTUS LAKE: --- ~ Award Construction Contract for South Lotus Lake and Boat Access. ~ Approve Land Exchanqe Aqreement. ~ Approve Development Contract for Plat. I I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 "':'37- Award Construction RESOLUTION #86-3: bid of $190,461.37 ments. Motion was Contract for South Lotus Lake and Boat Access: Councilwoman Watson moved the adoption of a resultion awarding the to B & D Underground for South Lotus Lake and boat access improve- seconded by Councilman Horn. Councilman Gevinq: The only problem with making an award an official act is once it is printed and mailed it becomes an obligation to the city. If for some reason B.b. fell through tonight, for any reason that contract with Mr. Bloomberg fell through and we didn't acquire the site............... Don Ashworth: These are all being handled simultaneously. Councilman Gevinq: The only question I had is make sure that it is not a condition and Bill is comfortable that it couldn't be a condition of 8.a.? Don Ashworth: You can make it a condition by making sure you are sitting down in one office with all documents. Everything has to be signed at the same time or nothing is. Councilman Gevinq: I am satisfied with that. Mayo~ Hamilton: Who is B & D Underground? Are they a company we can rely on? Bill Monk: They will be furnishing a performance bond in the amount of 100 percent of all work. That will be a part of their contract. For what checking we have done we have found at least three jobs that are similar in size, and th~y have only been around for 3 years. We have checked with suppliers to make sure their suppliers were all paid and their subcontractors were all paid. We have checked their sub- contractor's list and we know almost all of those individuals who are on that list and have found basically no reason to not award them. They will have to put up the formal guarantees and we will proceed with that The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Approve the Land Exchanqe Aqreement: Councilman Horn moved to approve the Land Exchange Agreement as presented. 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. Approve the Development Contract for Plat: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the South Lotus Lake Developmenti Contract for submitted. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. negative votes. Motion carried. plat as favor: No APPROVE BUSINES PARK 5TH ADDITION FEASIBILITY STUDY: Bill Monk: Some time ago Opus petitioned for a feasibility study for the replat of the 5th Addition, which is the west portion of the existing business park north of Park Road. That study is now done. Again, we get into some very bad soils that are a major portion of this report and basically spurred the report in the first place because the soils allow development on the original plan. I have asked a represen- tative of RCM to come tonight to do a brief presentation of their report to go through it. Dick Potts of RCM is here to go through the report for you. Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -38- Dick Potts: As Bill mentioned, opus did petition for this project, they petitioned for straight sanitary sewer, water main and a storm sewer. The Council ordered the engineering study on September 25th. The petition is a replat of the original Chanhassen Lakes. It has a side location that has now developed into 6 lots in Block and independent Lot 1, Block 2, which has now developed into a parking lot and an Outlot. The project consists of construction of a cul-de-sac called Park Place north of the end placed Park Road. During the original development plan of the business park an area to the south was as a fill area for the potential development of the lots abutting up on Park Road. We specifically did soil borings along this align- ment. There is currently, in this area through here, 12 feet of fill that has been placed a few years ago. Overlying and existing top soils in additional up to 10 feet of peat. Laboratory analysis of those soils projects a long term sum of that roadway area of about 6 inches. Long term being 20 years. With that in mind in conjunction with Ron's report and revealing stuff with your staff we have recommended a two phase construction of that roadway. Phase I would be to strip that top soil out of here just to get the vegetation out of there in a placement of the earth and surcharge. That surcharge would be placed hopefully this year up to approximately 15 feet of fill over the proposed grade. With 15 feet over the proposed grade, that would remain in place approximately 6 months and would settle and allow it to crest those underlying soft soils. It has been indicated that through the worst areas are in about in the middle here and it has been anticipated somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 4! feet of settlement with the surcharge in place. While that settlement is in place, plates and tubes will be installed so that the surveyors can monitor that settlement. When no further consolidation is ongoing, that surcharge will then be removed. That would be anticipated 6 months after placement. Additionlly, along this proposed storm sewer route, stripping and surcharge would also need to be placed. That is phase I. After that surcharge is removed, we are recommending a rural type roadway be installed with a 12 inch aggregate base in the first layer of asphalt. Rural to allow the drainage to proceed off into the sides into the ditch sections on the sides or in the fill sections. If you put the curb and gutter and a final surface in the first year or even into the second year, you are just looking for trouble from your maintenance people. With 6 inches of settlement occurring at curb and gutter is going to be constantly removed and replaced and the blacktop is going to have to be continually patched. To help us and to help the maintenance people to minimize that settlement, we are anticipating the gravel base and asphalt going in there. Ron also indicates that if 6 inches is anticipated over the 20 year period, half of that would occur in the first three years (half being 3 inches plus or minus). That is the reason for the two phase construction. Also during phase I would be installation of the storm sewer route. It is designed a ten-year return period, it is consistent with the developers current plans, it is designed for him to expand into his proposed parking areas. An additional catch basin will be put down on the intersection here to tie into the existing system to prevent water coming down around this corner and collecting down here, we can pick it up straight. We have kept conversation with Riley Pergatory Watershed District and there is no problem connecting to the exsisting pond. This was built and consistent with the overall drainage plan. There is no problem anticipated from the Watershed District. Figure three in your report shows a watermain. The project site being in here is currently ringed on the south by a ten inch watermain in Park Road and a 12 inch on the west and on the north side of the site on Highway 5. The developer indicated in his study that he wanted a watermain looped around Lots 4, 5, and 6 to provide service for a water- main and provide for fire protection. The lots abutting Park Road, of course, can be served with a water service and with the fire hydrants down here would present no problem. With development of Lots 4, 5, and 6 not being firmed up at this time by Opus, we are requesting that the watermain installation be delayed until further de- velopment plans can be received for either of these three lots. Granted, if Lot 5 is chosen to be developed first, domestic watermain or line can be brought in here to serve it but you are going to have some problems with the fire fighting depending upon I I I I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -39- the size of that building, depending on the square footage, depending on an office/warehouse, what's stored there. A more detailed analysis of which part or all of that main has to be installed. I think when that development of 4, 5, and 6 is brought to your attention then one of two things has to happen, either all of or a majority of that watermain loop has to be put in to eliminate any liability from the City's point of view, to get access to these hydrants and for fire protection of these buildings. Again, we are delaying the construction of the watermain. On the easier side of the project is the sanitary sewer, sanitary sewer along Park Road, trunk main headed up to Highway 5 and a line that was run in here on a previous easement that was consistent with the previous development. Now with the replatting of that, this falls in the middle of a building site where the developer will rip this stretch out of here. He can then get service from Lot 6 off of here or here. He can get service for the lots running on Park Road off this main. We are going to extend a short piece in here to provide sewer service to Lot 5 and one to Lot 4. That's the easy part. Costs are also included in there based on our best judgment. Again, Phase I is the street grading. That's charging for a rural section, aggregate base and the first layer of asphalt, storm sewer along the easement line which is consistent with this proposal, sanitary sewer, the total construction cost to include all administration and legal. Phase II is the curb and gutter, releveling the settled areas, additional asphalt and filling in the ditches that were constructed in Phase I and doing some more turf work. That cost is $58,000. Future watermain at $86 punches out to be about $110,000 depending on when that is constructed, that will, of course, increase with inflation. Proposed assessments to be shared equally and proportionately by the six lots in Block 1. These are the acres per lot which we have got from the developer. One last item that we have included in the feasibility is a project schedule. The staff report and we are asking for a recommendation that the study be approved and we are also asking that the public hearing be waived because it was a full petition and will be assessed against the Opus property and to authorize the preparation of Phase I work. RESOLUTION #86-4: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving the feasibility study detailing utility and street improvements for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition, waive the public improvement hearing as requested by the owner, and authorize preparation of construction plans and specifications consistent with the study. Resolution seconded by Mayor Hamilton. Micnele Foster: I have two comments, one of which has to do with the staff's alter- nate recommendation for the water alignment going to the north as opposed to the west. The implication of the study is that that is a benefit to the property to the north and yet they are not being assessed for it so I guess I raise a question whether in terms of the water line, that lot ought to be included as part of the benefitted area. The second comment is, I think, a question which is, if the Phase II street work is delayed for three or four years, how does that affect the availability of the special assessment reduction program to companies that build in the meantime? Is there any way that they can receive that assistance later because they are going to get hit with assessments of another $2,000 an acre if they build between now and the time that the road is put in four years from now. That's a concern I have in trying to market the property. I Councilman Horn: I thought that was triggered at the time a building permit is taken out. Councilman Gevinq: appraised value. I think we have to have something constructed in order to get an Michele Foster: That's my point. What if someone should build a building in 1986 when only part of the assessments are assessed then they would get reduction based at that time on the reduced assessment really because it isn't the full assessment. Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -40- Later they are going to be hit with more assessments that really according to the way it works now are not eligible for reduction. It just creates a problem in that we know those assessments are coming later but we can't give them any benefit today. Don Ashworth: The special assessment reduction program is through the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Michele has approached them and they have scheduled their next meeting for January 30 and the issue you are presenting is a part of that agenda. I Bill Monk: As far as the water issue goes, the line does go adjacent to the sound studio lot on the corner. That has watermain already on two sides. It will use that watermain for all its use. Whether this watermain goes in to the south side of that property or along the east side of the property we believe it's more economical to put it in on the east side. I don't believe there is any way that we can show benefit to that parcel with the watermain being down probably at the base of the slope. For that reason we are not including it and I see at this point no way to include it. Thatls our reasoning behind that proposal. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. TRANSIT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND APPOINTMENT QI REPRESENTATIVE: Councilman Geving moved to appoint Mayor Hamilton as representative. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Mayor Hamilton abstained. Motion carried. REVIEW TAX FORFEITED PARCELS lli CHANHASSEN: Bill Monk: It is the recommendation that the assessment for Lots 3007 through 3012, Carber Beach, which is designated as number 4 on the reference map, be reduced from I $4,130 to $480 and secondly, that the tax forfeit land sale as noted on the attached certificate be approved with the City making application to acquire number 7 on the reference map, which is a number of lots in the Carver Beach Road, CR 17 area. Councilman Horn: This means the City is going to bid on them? Bill Monk: No, what we are doing is approving the sale and putting in claim for one of the parcels for City purpose, which would be drainage. Something has occurred in years past where a parcel has been split bascically creating a parcel with no public frontage, etc. As such, I don't think that we can carry a full unit assessment on that and actually have anybody pick it up. So I am recommending at this point that the situation be corrected and the assessment be changed to an area assessment con- sistent with how the others have been done. Councilman Horn: Explain to me again how the City can pick up this land. Councilwoman Swenson: On number 4 we are recommending a reduction of $4,130 to $480. The rest are alike except for number 7, right? Bill Monk: Right. Item number 7 basically is all peat and wetland areas. We do use that for significant drainage purposes for a large portion of the Carver Beach area. I am proposing, since the buildability on all that property has been shown through different soil tests by different developers to be unreasonable and uneconomical, that the City submit a claim for public purposes, be it drainage or park purposes, I and that the City wishes to acquire that property and have it removed from the tax forfeiture sale. That is what we would basically be doing. The state has to approve this. The DNR may even step in and say that they want it for wetlands, but I doubt that they will because of the size. As a part of approving this sale, the City should make application to pick that parcel up at no charge. I I I Council Meeting, January 13, 1986 -41- Councilman Horn moved to approve the the assessment for Lots 3007-3012, Carver Beach to be reduced from $4,130.40 to $480.00; and further approving the tax forfeit land sale as noted on the certificate with the City making application to acquire Lots 701-769, 877-888, 894-906 and 916~941, Carver Beach for City purposes. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No!negative votes. Motion carried. APPROVE LAKE RILEY DIAGNOSTIC STUDY AND AUTHORIZE GRANT SUBMITTAL: Bill Monk: There is quite an ambitious grant submittal that is talked about in my cover memo. The thing that has to be remembered is one important thing, and the item 13 supplement has a proposed resolution on top and that is the City is not committing, at this point in time, to anything but submitting the grant. We are not committing to expending funds. I don't like to do things that way, but we didn't think we could really pass up the real potential in 1986 that we could get this thing approved and that potential is really going to disappear in 1987 because so many more lakes in the whole region become eligible for the funding. In reading the report, though, you get feeling that of $750,000 to the city, that may pick a major portion of that cost. That is not correct because if DNR participates to the level that they have suggested that they would, that would be matching funds. If we had a $750,000 project, the grant would be 50 percent of $375,000. DNR is talking of participating to a $300,000 level or higher. If they did, that would leave only the difference for the agencies and the cities to pick up. The potential, therefore, for some real improvement at low cost is very real and that is the reason that we kind of jumped on it and want to try and get something in for a possible grant in 1986. The main! thing is only the application is really being approved at this point. The Watershed District is the lead agency on this, the City is not. RESOLUTION #86-5: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution approving the submission of the grant to the Clean Lakes Program with the stipulation that Chanhassen retains the right to withdraw its participation at any time until grant agreements are executed. Resolution 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. APPOINTMENT !Q BOARD QI ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS: Councilman Horn moved to reappoint the 1985 members to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, being, Willard Johnson, Chariman, Dale Geving and Carol Watson. Mayor Hamilton as alternate. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, and Councilman Horn. Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried. SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES, PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE: The Council discussed and decided to set up a work session only, not a formal meeting, for the 14th of April at 5:30 for the proposed zoning ordinance. Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Kathy Sundquist