The URL can be used to link to this page

1986 07 07 I I I -COP] Jl.~e REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 7, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson called the meeting to order. '!he meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present: Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilwoman Watson Members Absent: Councilman Geving, M:lyor Hamilton Staff Present I Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Barbara Dacy and Todd Gerhardt I APPROVAL OF AGENDA: i Councilwoman Watson requested the addition of talking about Tomac. Counc~lwoman Swenson reqeusted the addition of reconsidera- tion of the Terry Cobk request and discussing the institution of an amendment to Chanhassen's PUD proposal system. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the Agenda as amended, Councilman Horn seconded. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following consent agenda item pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: la. Donation of Two Bleachers from Chanhassen American Legion. All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: Diane Prieditis, 7401 Frontier Trail: I'm representing the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. We have requested to be on your agenda for discussion of the regulations and control of the public access and we would like to be put on the agenda to discuss this. You have received letters from the Association and there has been some discussion from one of our members with Mr. Ashworth and we are just waiting for a response. Councilwoman Swenson: '!his has been discussed. I have talked with both Mr. Monk and Mr. Ashworth about this. Lotus Lake Homeowners Association's concern was that the launch would be opened prior to Labor Day weekend and things would get away from us. In the best estimates that we now have, we are not likely to have any action on that until after Labor Day as far as opening it is concerned. However, you are not forgotten and when it does come up, you certainly will be notified. 1 r c.~_'0 ..L. '-'...; -t) City Council Minutes ~ July 7; 1986 Jack Melby, 40 Hill Street: I would like to speak to you about a neighborhood problem or possibly get on the agenda or maybe you can adivse which course to follow relative to a sewer problem we have in our area. About 8 or 9 years ago the main sewer line was put through the properties of Melby, Segner and Arseth. At that time it was ditch about 40 or 50 feet wide, 20 feet deep. Since that time it has sunk causing a real swampy corrlition in all three of our yards. One of the problems has been that it was filled up with clay and that doesn't absorb water all that well. Now, I think it was in 1978 or 1979, the City did agree that they would do repair on the sewer project but one of the neighbors who was involved in selling a home at that time complained. Therefore, it was put off so it wouldn't cause any more problems but we certainly would like to readdress that issue. We've done all we can as neighbors to repair it but it is beyorrl us right now. We also thought now that this construction project is under way, it would be easier arrl less messy to go ahead arrl do it arrl maybe have good fill adjacent to those properties. I Councilwoman SWenson: Bill, are you apprised of this situation? Bill Monk: Yes, I am anticipating that on July 21st Staff will be corning back to the City Council with the calculations for the porrling within the boat access property as directed at the last meeting and at that time I will be including in that these very items to see if we can't handle the situation all at this point in time because as Mr. Melby says, the timing is pretty much right given the work that is already being done down there. So the Council can anticipate seeing that on the 21st. I Councilwoman SWenson: Is that okay Jack? Jack M:=lby: Yes, thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDER WATER STORAGE FACILITY AND TRUNK LINE EXTENSION IMPROVEMENTS. Councilwoman Swenson stated that since there were only three voting members present at the meeting, this item would be opened for public comment but the actual motion on the subject would be tab1erl until June 14, 1986. Bill Monk: This is a public hearing to talk about some major water system improvements. About six months ago the City had a water study completed that went through the entire city looking for system deficiencies and setting up a final rough grid in terms of sizes arrl mains that still remain to go in to facilitate the rapid development the City has been experiencing. Orr-Sche1en-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. (OSM) was retained for that study. They went through the study, came up with an overall grid. This shows a very rough form of existing trunk lines am proposed trunk lines as they would exist or would ultimately exist in the urban service area to service deve10:PTIent in town. Central fimings am the most important findings in that report included basically this graph which went through our existing am requirerl pumping capacity, demarrl for summer time usage, demand for fire and also looked at storage requirements. In the end I 2 I I I City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 it became very evident that the city's storage requirements, the bottom line in this graph, was deficient and the projected deficiency in 1987 was over half a million gallons. Based on that finding, City Council authorized preparation of a feasibility study to review the findings of this report in more detail and come back with a detailed recommendation on improvements that were necessary. Working with the consultants, Staff did go back. '!his is a poor quality reproduction but I think it will give the overall intent, this shows the existing lines within the portion of Chanhassen that is experiencing the most rapid growth and in going through the OSM report, findings were translated into improvements. The recommendations for a water storage facility were quite explicit in terms of, should they be located within the expanding area or the low surface area of the City which would put it in the area shown on this map. '!he best site in Staff's opinion for that major reservoir is on a high knoll just to the east of Powers Blvd. and to the north of where Lake Lucy Road intersects. At that location a surface reservoir can be installed instead of a elevated tank giving the city several benefits in terms of ultimate storage and use of a facility and cost per gallon of storage provided. In addition, a weak spot pointed out in the OSM report was in moving water from the two existing wells. Well #2 at the end of 76th Street and Well #4 in the business park, up to that tower no matter where it would be located in this low surface area. Particularly the 18 inch trunk that was not completed along Kerber Blvd. and the lack of a trunk line along County Road 17 between 78th Street and Greenhill Shores. Those two trunk lines are noted as the heavy dash lines on this exhibit. Staff then went through in terms of how the improvements would be paid for, what properties would benefi t, as in any improvement project. What the City has found recently is that the City can no longer afford to extend the trunk lines and major facilities rendering major sites usable without looking at defraying the up front cost by assessing the benefit back to the properties that would derive immediate use. In this particular case, properties 1 through 5 that would abut the trunk lines on Kerber and Powers Blvd., will in terms of collection trunk water charges at time of assessment as versus at time of ultimate connection. Again, City had to look to defraying these major costs as we go through this type of major expansion of our facilities and the cost of the improvements is about 1.6 million dollars and we are looking at assessing approximately $450,000.00. In essense what is being proposed here is to take the trunk unit charge of $650.00 per unit and translate that charge into area wide assessments that would be assessed to these areas on some development rate. In looking at many of the plats that have come through recently, Staff is recommending the rate of 1.85 units Per acre be used in assessing $650.00 charge Per unit. That development rate takes into account such things as green space, unusable slopes, wetland areas, park land and other uses that we have seen on recent plats and does get us back into what I believe is a very reasonable assessment rate for trunks. It is important to note that what is being proposed is to assess properties 1 through 5 using that rate for their entire acreage. This was SPecifically related back to the cross of the trunk lines in streets right adjacent to the properties but instead was intended to relate back to development potential of the site and the ul timate need to use the trunk facilities for their proposed development. It has been pointed out that the trunk line cost in through here without taking the tower into 3 ([;1 ;y City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 effect or approximately $409,000.00 to $410,000.00, where as proposed assessments are in the total of just over $450,000.00. Again, the intent here is not to assess just the trunk lines in the street but to assess trunk benefit as per recent developments and using the connection charge or trunk charge that the City has had in effect since 1980. In this case, again the overall project cost exceeds 1.6 million dollars, $450,000.00 of which is being assessed. The bulk is being financed or recommended to be financed via rescheduling of existing general obligations that are going off-line at this point. Using that assessment method am projecting into the properties involved, properties 1 through 5, in the feasibility study we did go through am list the owners of the properties, the acreage of the properties where trunk lines had not been assessed yet. There is one parcel, the John Brose estate which is 51 acres, 5 acres of which has been assessed for trunk benefit so the balance is being proposed would be assessed at this point in time. Using the $650.00 per unit am the rate of development of 1.85 units per acre, the assessments of the five parcels are shown there totalling $452,140.00. This may seen a little bit unusual for the City to look at assessing those costs up front but I really don't believe it is. Since between 1978 am 1980 when the City reassessed the north service area, I think the City finally realized that as major improvements are made through areas to be develoPed, the City could no longer afford the luxury of waiting for the properties to develop but instead would have to look at assessing major land holdings for the benefit they receive as the lines go through. I believe with the assessment rate proposed am all five parcels within the past year or so having some type of development potential associated with them, in some cases in a number of forms, that the assessments are reasonable am that these assessment would then off-set any water connection charges for trunk benefit at time of building permit. In this case the City would be assessing these costs potentially next year or assessing them over a number of years so that as development occurred and houses were built, trunk water charges would not be collected at time of building permit. Again, this is a major improvement package provided by the City. We haven't had anything of this magni tude for some time but the water problems that we are beginning and have experienced over the past several years together with the residential, commercial, and industrial growth that the City is undergoing at the present time, I don't believe that the City can wait any longer to institute some type of major water improvements. With that I guess I will answer questions from the Council and/or the public so the issue can be fully aired even if it has to be tabled for final action because it has been published for this evening. I I Rick Murry, BoT. land Company: A couple of weeks ago we inquired the piece that is shown here as Adella Kerber et al., and Thursday Bi 11 sent me this agenda with the proposed feasibility study so I haven't really had a significant amount of time to go through it and Bill's schedule and my schedule didn't allow us to get together. First of all, I understand this is a project hearing and not an assessment hearing so there will be another assessment hearing to discuss the reasonableness of the split? Councilwanan SWenson: That is correct. I 4 G ;""i I I I 7 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Rick Murry: Secondly, I would like to have some time, and I appreciate the fact that I will since this is being tabled, to fully understarrl the impact of putting the cost on vacant land up front as is being proposed at this time. In the past we have always workerl under the premise that when we pull our building permit, when we put a stress on your system, that is when we paid our impact fee for that stress that we were putting on your system. As I understand this, we are prepaying for that stress that we mayor may not at some point in time put on that system so I would like to have time to analyze that. Will there be public input at the July 14th meeting? Cbuncilwoman SWenson: There will at the assessment hearing. Bill Monk: I assume also that should Rick have time to review it and have something he would like to add as the Cbuncil reconsiders this i tern on ei ther the 14th or 21st, that he would be allowed to make comments at that point also. Even if we close public hearing, Cbuncil usually allows input at any stage. Also, of course, we don't necessarily welcome input but we always take input at time of assessment hearing also. Cbuncilwoman Swenson: I think what I would like to do when we are finished with public input here, that is if it is agreeable with the Cbuncil, I would just as soon leave the public hearing open and we will continue it on whatever date we establish. Rick Murry: Bill, will you let me know when that next date is? Cbuncilwoman Swenson: I am suggesting that we table it to the 14th of July which is next t-bnday. Cbunwilwoman Watson: IX> we know who is going to be absent next t-bnday? Don Ashworth: Dale will be absent, the Mayor will be here. Councilwoman Swenson: We will have four/fifths. It is amenable to four/fifths, but we will leave public hearing open. Rick Murry: One additional question. Where is Chanhassen Hills deve10flllent on that map. That is not inc1uderl in the extension? Bill Monk: Again, the proposal is to assess only those properties that would be able to derive irrrnerliate use of those trunks. Rick Murry: Right now there is some stress on the system without these properties having any development at all. Bill Monk: That is correct. Councilwoman Watson: I think that beautiful piece of land on the northeast corner of lake Lucy Road and Cbunty Road 17, it is a shame to put a reservoir up there. IX> something else with that property. That is beautiful. The view up there is so pretty. 5 01 <r.~ City Council Minutes ~ July 7, 1986 Bill Monk: '!he things that we have looked at, and again this map is very difficult to see, this represents the low service area, the dark line as it comes around. It is hard to orientate yourself with TH 5, it sweeps through down this area, County Road 17 is over here. What we did was we did a total graphic search of the area. Several of the items that carne into play is that looking at a storage requirement of about 1 1/2 million gallons, which I really believe we should not go over that because if we do we will be looking at system requirements much sooner than we really want to or should. with that type of storage requirement it becomes extremely expensive to build an elevated tank. What you are really doing is paying to build that storage up high and you are paying for the pipe or whatever type of structure you pay for, to get that 1 1/2 million gallons up in the air. Choosing a site that will allow ground storage you can allow one, for a pedestal for the building to get the elevation that to be water instead of some structure to get that water higher. What we did was we did a topographic search of the entire low region looking at areas in Near Mountain, looking at areas allover and trying to corne back into some structure that would be economical in terms of width, height and storage. There really is only one area in town that will facilitate that type of structure that allows us to get high enough am it is a very small area shown right over here. You can hardly see it on this scale but that elevation will allow the tower to be built, I believe in the most economical fashion and I believe it would be the City's intent to retain that hill as high as it is and build on top of it in such a way to leave as many of the trees around the hill as possible. I think we could have a very good looking facility over in that location. But I also know it is a shame to lose it to other uses. It is a very pretty spot. I I Councilwoman Watson: Can that property be acquired? Bill Monk: The cost of the tower does include what we estimate. Councilwoman Watson: The only reason I'm saying that is when the development went in there behind Wolcotts, remember he expressed some interest in selling some of it but it could not be sold because it was part of a Contract for Deed kind of arrangement and the property could not be separated from the main parcel until a certain portion of that property were paid or some such arrangement as that. Bill Monk: We, the City, I am aware of the owner but we have not approached the owner prior to any improvement being approved but I do believe the City could buy it. Whether reasonably or not at this point, I'm not sure but I believe we can. Councilwoman Watson: IX> you have site number 2 or Plan B? Bill Monk: No, not at this time. Councilwoman Swenson: In a situation like this, are adjacent property owners appraised of such a structure? I 6 I I I 9 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Bill Monk: '!hey would be if Council approved the project, then we would get into a more program of design. As that goes on, we would alert the property owners in the area. Mr. Halloran talked again about the development next to him. He is aware that this is being considered but I have not talked personally with the owner of the property and he will be appraised. Councilwoman Swenson: But you have talked with Walt? Bill Monk: Yes I have. Councilwoman Swenson: Does he have any adverse reactions to this? Bill Monk: He stated none. Councilwoman Swenson: What is the approximate size of the structure? Bill Monk: The structure would be approximately 90 feet in diameter and about 70 feet around. We have to get to the elevation of 1120 so we can alleviate a lot of the pressure problems and just service the city and that knoll is 10-2. It is the only 1050 elevation spot in the entire low service area so with a seventy foot elevation, we can get up to the 1120 that we need to without spending a lot of money to get that elevation at a lower site. Councilwoman Watson: So part of this will be submerged in the ground, then we would have the part that would be 70 feet above the ground. Bi 11 Monk: Yes. Councilwoman Swenson: Ib you have any hazard of a guess as to what comparable price would be somewhere else if we were to elevate the uni t? What the cost difference would be. Bill Monk: '!he cost per gallon for an elevated storage tank approximately triples. What we would do though if we do have to move to another site is we would not propose a 3 1/2 million gallon facility. Instead it would be somewhere between 1 1/2 and 2 million gallons which we would put on a pedestal so in essence the facility instead of costing 1.2 million dollars might approach 2 million dollars. It would not have that 2 million gallon or 2 1/2 million gallon emergency reserve down below but it would have at least have the same usable capacity of that initial 1 1/2 million gallons. Councilwoman Watson: So it would solve the same problem? Bill Monk: Essentially yes. Councilwoman Swenson: But is it not true that we would then have, in the not too distant future, be required to put up another one? Bill Monk: It would probably come a little bit sooner but this would service our imnediate needs beyond the year 2000. 7 10 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: When would you project then we would need, the year 2000 isn't very far away? I Bill Monk: If we were not to have that additional storage in the bottom section, I believe we would probably need another tower quickly after the year 2000 whereas with this it would extend somewhat beyond. Projecting out that far is extremely difficult with population demam for commercial and industrial and so on. Councilwoman Swenson: 'Ihe difference in quantity and the difference in price doesn't seem feasible to build a smaller one. Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table consideration of the Water Storage Facility and Trunk LIne Extension Improvements until dtlfle 14, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried. .:1"[,\ L'( APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the City Council minutes dated June 2, 1986 as presented. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilwoman Watson stated that she was interested in an update on how the goose population control program was progressing. Don Ashworth stated that it was proceeding without any problems as far as he knew of. It started a week ago Wednesday am he hasn't received any phone calls against it, but had received two favorable phone calls. I Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the minutes dated June 16, 1986 as amended. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson stated that for future reference, on recitations of Findings of Facts, it would be easier if the contents were written into the record. Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Planning Commission Minutes dated May 28, 1986 as presented with the noted change on page 26 of the correct spelling of Laredo Street. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated June 11, 1986 as presented. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson stated that on page 25, Mr. Erhart made a comment that the City Council should take note of: "Erhart: I really think that the City somehow owes the developer and owes other developers in the City some kim of a consistent policy on what minimum distances from access from that type of a major intersection so they can make plans on those consistent policies rather than trying to arbitrarily say, you ought to put that lot line here. I don't think that is I the right thing to do. <Xl the other hand, I don't think the City owes anybody any promises that streets are going to be here or there in the next few months or years ei ther . " 8 I I I 11 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Final Plan Amendment proposal to Replat OUtlot C of the South Lotus Lake AdditionTnto 14 Single Family Lots and one OUtiotfor 14 Multiple Famrry Uni ts instead of the Originallyrnte"'Iided 28 Townhouse om ts, West of and Adjacent to TH 101, Herb Bloomberg. - - -- *Note: At this point a tape malfunction occurred during Staff's presentation by Barbara Dacy. Barbara Dacy:...parking spaces and dumpster location, and as you can tell, there is more than enough room to meet the setbacks, etc. With the revised plan amendment, there are four or five double frontage lots that are created between the cul-de-sac and South Shore Drive. Recommendation is that access to these lots be gained from the cul-de-sac and that the landscape strip be maintained in this area to provide somewhat of a buffer between the street and those houses. '!here is a concern raised by one of the neighboring residents regarding buffering between the public park and private property and so on. This is an overhead transparency of the original landscaping plan that awlicant submitted. It is very busy in this particular shot, but basically what Staff is recommending is that in essence, this concept be retained. That there be landscaping adjacent to TH 101 and adjacent to the park boundary and a revised landscaping plan be submi tted to reflect the lot layout, etc. and show continuation of the screening between South Shore Drive and the proposed single family lots. If Council is to approve the final plan amendment tonight, there are four recommendations. ene, as I eluded to earlier, access for Lots 8 through 12, Block 2 be gained from the proposed cul-de-sac. Secondly, the landscaping plan should be revised to create a ten foot landscaPed area along the double frontage lots. Landscaping along TH 101 and the park boundary should be maintained. Third, utility and street construction comply with awlicable City standards for urban design. Finally, a detailed drainage and erosion control plan be submitted for approval by the City, Watershed District and DNR. Councilwoman Watson: We increased the size of those 14 lots and we decreased the size of the outlot and we decreased the number of units on the outlot. It just seems like that is going to be a little scrunched in there if you ask me. The outlot is decreasing but the units aren't. Barbara Dacy: That is why Staff went back and tried to determine whether or not a 14 unit building or buildings could be accommodated, built to setback standards and meet parking standards, etc., and it can be done. Councilwoman Watson: I guess I'm trying to visualize the single family lots, which are not large lots, but they are single family lots. Then over here we stick this little area, and it is going to be very high density, suddenly sitting on the end of this street is going to be this, the rest of it is going to be single family and we are going to have this one little pocket of quite high density housing and I guess I can't visualize in my mind how that is all going to work out. I don't think visually I find that very appealing and I don't know if it is compatible in such a little area stuck right on TH 101 there. I guess I just think the density of that 9 11,01.1 .Jl> ,.F.A City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 outlot is too high. '!here just can't be that many units within that. I don't think the density of the other part is low but I certainly think that the density within that outlot is pretty high because 14 units, to make them look anything like they match the rest of that neighborhood. I'm not opposed to the attached housing theory but I think that is way too many units for that 66,000 square feet. I'm not just wild about the 12,000 square foot lots, frankly. '!here are some big lot in here which always raises the average so that it looks better than it really is because you take a couple lots that are large. We've got a lot up here, for instance that is 48,000 square feet. I Councilman Horn: '!hose are all previously approved. We are just talking about the center issue tonight. Councilwoman Watson: I understand that, I really do, I am just trying to see if this little center area, the single family part isn't that big but you try to put 14 units on this 66,000 square feet, I think the density is too high. Councilman Horn: '!he tradeoff was the previous proposal and that was to have smaller single family lots and have a larger outlot. I think this concept makes more sense because typically, you put the larger size with the single family and here we are putting the smaller lot on the multiple family so, between the two tradeoffs I prefer this alternative. with regard to the lot sizes, I think the minimums are compatible with what has I already been approved and in fact, there is one at 11,400 on the previously approved portion so I guess I don't see a problem with this. Councilwoman Swenson: Barb, on this Staff Update, is that up-to-date? Barbara Dacy: Yes, after the Planning Commission meeting. Councilwoman Swenson: For the 9.3, is the units per acre on the reduced outlot size? Barbara Dacy: Right, 14 units divided by 1.5 acres whereas before it was almost two acres so it would have been 7. Councilwoman Swenson: Of course, it is no secret that I completely concur with the lot sizes. I would much prefer them larger and I don't like to see 10,000 square foot lots but as Councilman Horn has pointed out, that is not the point for tonight. I just want to confirm my total agreement with Councilwoman Watson that I also disagree with that. I have a couple of concerns with that apartment building. One being that it is a rapid switch from apartments to single family. We have always tried to have a more transitory development with maybe apartment houses, then townhouses, then maybe single family. I can't remember a time when we have gone abruptly fram an apartment complex. That proposed change down in Chanhassen Hills actually sets aside. It is really not quite the same because this is right on top of the street. I 10 I I I ....e'>ot lLc0 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Barbara Dacy: In the Chanhassen Hills case, the area for the multiple family was at the intersection of TH un and there was a new street and there were 8 single family lots across the street from that area. Again, that situation and this situation is similar in that you are approving the number of units. The applicant at this point, is indicating that it may come to this type of development pattern or it may be a singular building but the issue is whether or not the multiple family area is appropriate at that location for 14 units. Councilwoman Swenson: Are we required then to accept the designation of the outlot now or can that be done when the developer comes back for approval of development on that outlot? Don Ashworth: Did you address that issue with the Attorney? Barbara Dacy: The issue that I asked the Attorney was whether or not the Council could, through the plan amendment, actually reduce the number of units that have previously approved and Mr. Knutson's response back was that the Council in 1985 established that 57 units was an appropriate densi ty and number at that particular location. I guess if you wanted to make your motion to approve the 14 single family lots and development plans on the outlot would be resubmitted at a later date with no specific direction as to the number of units could be possible. Councilwoman Watson: Do we have an opportunity to ever change that number? Councilwoman Swenson: When it comes back, does it come back as a new proposal or does it come still as a portion of this one? Councilwoman Watson: Where we have to take the 14 units regardless? Barbara Dacy: It would be part of the PUD proposal because it is part of the 57 originally approved. Councilwoman Swenson: So we have a 14 unit development on there whether we accept it now or whether we accept it when they come in for a proposal. Barbara Dacy: I guess what I am suggesting is that if you want to review it and make a specific condition that it go through the Planning Commission and Counci 1 at time of development to assess the impact of 14 units. A separate review process. Councilwoman Swenson: I guess that was what I was thinking of today, maybe wai t and see because by that time it is reasonable to suspect that the development will be developed and we will be able to tell whether an apartment complex of that size will be incongruous with what is there. I think it is a little difficult looking at a vacant piece of property. It seems that this setting up on TH 101 being higher also that the single family's are going to be, may make it seem like a towering building but I think we can conjecture what it might look like. It is going to be a lot easier I think for Council to decide whether or not this is an acceptable application after the development has progressed to a farther extent. Does that seem 11 14 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 reasonable to you? I Councilman Horn: I can envision it being a single story unit. Councilwoman Watson: Yes, what specifically are these units that we are talking about, these 14 units? Brad Johnson, representing Herb Bloomberg: What we tried to do since the Planning Commission meeting the last time, was to adjust for the various problems or questions that were raised by the neighborhood, even to the point of catching Judy before the meeting to see if she would go along maybe with what it is. I believe it is correct that you approved 57 units in the PUD. One of the things that we are trying to deal with here is that it was not a specific project. We didn't know exactly what was going to go in that over a period of time. Councilwoman Swenson: Wait a minute. I don't think I can agree with that. We have a plat here that is approved so don't tell us we don't know what we approved. Brad Johnson: Okay, what we are corning back with, let me just explain why we are corning back. We are saying you have approved 57, 28 units and strictly from a market point of view, todays world, the next couple of years, single family homes, lots will sell in Chanhassen. There is a question as of whether we could attract a developer of townhomes at this time in that t~ of project. That is basically why the change was made. The second reason was, after a couple of us had looked at the this, Herb said why don't you do it this way because it would be a nicer subdivision when it is all done because you would have single familys. You have some fairly expensive lots down along the lake and we are going to abut that with fairly high density townhomes, so we carne back but the problem we are having is that this road, South Shore Road is already in so you have to deal with that situation. We've got some very large lots on the other side where we can steal land from if you are going to start this whole process allover. The Planning Commission was concerned about the size of the lots because they said they were approving things over 12,000 square feet but anything under 12,000 they had not approved or just did not feel good about so we adjusted the size of the lots in the PUD up to the 12,000 am that is what the Planning Commission said so that is why that adjustment was made. The second concern was why don't you exit onto the street here am the real reason there is that there is a 14 foot drop from Lot 9 down to South Shore Drive and that just is not a good way to come into a parcel, so that is why it exits that way. The City, Barb has suggested and Herb has agreed, that we landscape this section here so now we are down to dealing with the outlot. As Judy says, this just keeps changing. tbw, as I understand a PUD, when we get into the final multiple unit, am tell me if I'm right or not Barb that we put on that property, don't you actually when it gets into a multiple, approve the unit design also? I Barbara Dacy: The design of the building? I Brad Johnson: Yes, in sane cases we are actually having to do that. 12 I I I 15 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: Architectural design approval. We haven't done it recently but we used to do it. Brad Johnson: We are doing it some places so that is why I asked the question. Barbara Dacy: In the past, for example in the Chan Hills development, there has been a specific number of units assigned to an outlot but there were no specific development plans at that time. Brad Johnson: What we did then is said it is a little confusing, this is a transitional area. Okay, there's no doubt about that and I think a lot of people envision the apartment buildings to the east and just plotting one on that particular parcel. As Herb said, it would be very difficult for him to sell those lots and then plat a big blob of a building on there and not deal with the transition. So what we did is we drew up over here an example of a transitional development which is basically cluster homes of fours and twos. When you drive into the area you will see a two family located here, and these would be for rental, they are not big scale units in square footage. Chanhassen needs some smaller rentals with garages other than houses so what we have here is a concept. There would be a two family home with attached garages, then four units with attached garages here, here and here. Now that was just one example of how you could lay that out to solve this transitional problem which we all agree exists. You leave a lot of open spaces, there is no outside parking and it looks somewhat residential and in scale, some of the homes in this area will probably be as big as these four units when they are all done because these will be maybe in the area of around 1,600 to 2,000 square feet of living space plus the garages and these would be in the area of 3,200 square feet of living area plus the garages so they are not overly big and they would normally be two stories. Probably not splits, probably not full basements. That is how you build them for rental rather than real expensive for sale. That is just an example and then there is also a requirement that is part of this development that we have to put in a walkway to the parks which again takes away something. These are all concessions that have happened over a long period of time trying to get this plot together, but that is the idea. I talked with Judy before the meeting because she is in the neighborhood and is concerned and it seems to me that the process that we could agree upon, and I guess we would just as soon not have the 14 units taken away at this time by directive, and as long as Herb owns the land and maybe there is some way to do it, we agreed we would start with the neighborhood the next time around so that they could have their input then corne back to the Planning Commission for full afProval for whatever would go on there. I would say there are probably two, in todays world of development, two things that could happen to this site. One would be something like this or even a little less, a little more scattered than this is or the other one is a little senior project that we keep talking about which would be more of a group home or something like that. More of a 14 unit house basically is what it would look like. I think that might be too small and Chanhassen still doesn't have enough older people but that is probably the only kind of building you could justify putting in there in that kind of a scale. 14 unit apartment buildings, 12 unit apartment 13 16t City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 buildings just aren't built even on those big of sites. They just aren't economics so he may em up suJ::xjividing this off into four lots with three fours and a two. I guess it is a matter of proving that the site plan would work at the time we come in for approval am we all appreciate what you said Carol, but this is the kind of transition we envision. We don't envision a big apartment building am I think at the last meeting, I don't think anybody really explained that. If you can put it in Barb, we agree that we have to come back through for approval. I Councilwoman Watson: Would you have trouble with our holding off on the actual design of that outlot? Brad Johnson: The outlot has to be there. Councilwoman Watson: I understam the outlot has to be there but the 14 uni ts there.. Councilwoman Swenson: I still feel when they come to develop that outlot, that what we would like to do would be to have full si te approval am design approval and the whole bit at the time. Brad Johnson: I think that is fair. We talked about that with Judy this morning or just now, I think you agree, that is what we would like to do because that is how that should happen. We would just as soon not lose the right to the 14 though if we can show we can put them on the si te and we think that is a fair transition but this is the last of a fairly cumbersome thing and one of the things that we will promise to do is start with the neighbors so the PeOple will have a better chance of feeling out what the look would be. Normally in this kind of thing we would probably come in with an elevation so you have a fairly good feeling of how it would look and look at it from one direction. Herb's problem is that if he doesn't do that he isn't going to sell those lots backing onto there am he understands the partical part of that. I Councilwoman Swenson: I would just have one comment. I have no problem with the number of lots but I would still like to reserve SPecifics, if we can legally, on that 14 units until we see how the rest of the development shapes up. Brad Johnson: I think that is a legal questions more than... Councilwoman Swenson: Agreed, but in any event I wouldn't want to see you go through the whole cycle over. Brad Johnson: We are assuming that is exactly what would happen. Jack Melby: I guess I had one question. Lots 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 22 it looks like, are those all multiple family units? Barbara Dacy: Those were the previously approvErl townhomes. I 14 I I I 117 City Council Minutes ~ July 7, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: '!he only amendment to the original plan now concerns the Block 2 and the outlot. Councilman Horn: I have a question for Barb. Did you say you were recommending some type of a screening between the two rows of single family homes? Barbara Dacy: What I am recommending is being maintained is along TH 101, the park area and along South Shore Drive which goes through the double frontage lots along the edge. en the new plan, the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac are double frontage lots. Councilman Horn: So it is because of the double frontage lots? Is that consistent with what you are requesting with other people? Barbara Dacy: Yes, it is a specific requirement of a subdivision ordinance. Jack Melby: I have a question and it relates to this, but I don't know how directly. On June 20, 21 and 22 we had all kinds of water problems with runoff from this development into Lotus Lake. I would simply ask, Bill was involved with this a great deal and I think Don was there that weekend, that those instances simply be recorded in the public record, the kinds of problems that they had. I have to thank Bill too for responding so quickly. Wish we could have had all those things done before he got there. There was runoff and I want to thank Bill for responding so quickly. Barbara Dacy: '!hat is all a matter of public record. Bill Monk: There is a memorandun on file. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the Final Plan Amendment Request #85-4 for 14 single family lots and one outlot on OUtlot C, South Lotus Lake Addition, based on the plan stamped "Received May 28, 1986" instead of the originally proposed 28 townhome units, reserving any definition or designation of the outlot, development site or densi ty until the new proposed development for that outlot comes in based on the following conditions: . 1. Access to Lots 8 through 12, Block 2 be gained from the proposed cul-de-sac. 2. '!he landscaping plan should be revised to create a ten foot landscaped area along double frontage lots. Landscaping along T.H. HH and the pa.rk boundary should be maintained. 3. utility and street construction comply with applicable City standards for urban design. 4. A detailed drainage and erosion control plan be submitted for approval by the City, Watershed District and DNR. All voted in favor and motion carried. 15 18 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Don Ashoworth: '!he only thing I would add is that we did state that we would relook at the drainage from this area and I just wanted to make sure it was clear, for the record, that the reanalysis would be done as part of this project and may change the actual project itself. I Sign variance Request for an Off-Premise Temporary Leasing Sign at the "SOUtheast Corner of HighWays ~ and 41, Chaska Investment. - -- Barbara Dacy: '!he sign is located in the southeast corner of Highways 5 and 41. Staff advised the applicant that the existing sign was illegal under the terms of the sign ordinance and advised them either to apply for a variance or have the sign removed. Therefore, you have this application before you. '!he sign ordinance only allows off-premise real estate signs for example, for industrial and commercial parks such as Opus Development. However, there are specific restrictions on that allowance, that being that the sign has to be located in the same property of the business park and has to be removed within a certain time period. '!his particular application is advertising a sign that is not within the community. It is zoned in an agricultural area and Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the sign variance request based on the fact that it is contrary to the intent of the sign ordinance. '!he applicant dropped off the letter that is before you tonight to me today. He couldn't attem tonight's meeting and he asked me to distribute the letter and convey his apologies for not being able to attend. I Councilwoman Watson: It almost sounds, when you read (I) that based on ownership, the sign isn't off-premise. They own all the lam where the sign sits all the way back to the proposed site. It is and it isn't on the same piece. Based on ownership you would have to say that he owns all the land between the sign and the property. Barbara Dacy: Typically sign ordinance regulations are regulating signs for on-premise structures advertising the sale of goods or the offering of a business on-site. I could own parcels all along TH 5 and have each of those parcels developed but the sign ordinance is not allowing me to have the right to erect signs that are on another piece of property advertising. Councilwoman Watson: I understand that but when you read it, it is almost like. . Councilman Horn: '!he sign is there now? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Horn: I drive by there every day and I've never seen it. Councilwoman Watson: I drove by there today am didn't see it. Councilwoman Swenson: We haven't permitted and the first time we do we are going to establish precedent am how do you get out of it. I 16 I I I City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to deny the Variance to Section 3.13 (b) (2) for an off-premise sign, Chaska Investments. All voted in favor of denial am motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: T.H. '2 Corridor Study, City Planner and Engineer. Barbara Dacy: There is a public hearing scheduled on July 16, 1986 at Minnetonka City Hall that is going to be going over the alternatives that you have before you. What BRW, the consultant will do, is review the intent of the study and the purpose and objectives, etc., then we will disburse the attending public into different rooms to discuss each of these sets of alternatives. Meanwhile, Staff is in the process of reviewing these alternatives am we wanted to alert the Council that this will be going on and the item was brought to the Planning Commission last month. If I can just briefly go through the areas that are directly affected in Chanhassen, if I can indulge your time here. '!he Corridor Study group, the project management team which consisted of representatives from each of the participating communities, MnDot and Met Council spent a lot of time trying to determine what the purpose am function of TH 7 is. The way BRW is analyzing the function of the highway is as an expressway whereby transportation mobility and safety are the most important criteria. to adjacent land and uses is secondary, so the primary function here move people from Point A to Point B in a safe am efficient manner. first area that is of interest to Chanhassen is what they call this Excelsior Area West. I might note that, it is kim of hard to see, but the set of alternatives further east down to TH UH, depending on what happens there may effect what happens here in the west. This review tonight will just kind of summarize the highlights. '!he first alternative, the major highlight is a very controversial issue, is the Galpin Blvd. entrance onto TH 7 and Murray Hill Road entrance. What the consultant is proposing is that Galpin Blvd. access be closed, a frontage road be constructed between those two areas and realign Mayflower Drive to the south. '!he intersection at County Road 19 would be fully improved and some of the direct access points for the surf shop business, etc. would be closed. '!here is no doubt that this will generate a lot of input from the neighborhood in that area and that is exactly what the alternative is intended to do. Bill and myself reviewed this am it was the Engineer's suggestion that an alternative would be that Galpin have a right-in/right-out and that there would be no need for a connection between the two roads. The realignment of Mayflower ori ve is between Shore wood and Chanhassen and that raises a whole different set of issues as far as cost am who is to P'ly for that. Again, the intent of the study is just to look at the alternatives and generate some input am a little later down the line is to make some type of recommendation. '!he different between this al ternati ve and the second one that you have in your packet is primarily the width of the TH 7 right- of-way. '!here isn't an appreciable difference other than the second alternative is trying to accommodate more lanes along the north side of TH 7 or more right-of-way width. Access is to The 17 06 City Council Minutes ~ July 7, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: Then there really isn't any difference between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2? I Barbara Dacy: Except that the right-of-way of TH 7 is larger on the north side. It is hard to tell. Council woman Watson: I like one about as well as I like the other, not at all. Murray Hill Road is making a simple issue and making a complicated one out of it. When you use Murray Hill Road, you are going to come across on Mayflower to get back to Galpin Blvd. which is the only viable road to get to TH 5 from there. It is really taking the long way around to get to the same place. Do you know what Mayflower Road is? That silly little thing through the woods there. Barbara Dacy: '!hat is what is being proposed is that would have to be realigned first because otherwise the turns are so sharp, etc. that would have to be done before the installation... Councilwoman Watson: Realigning through the swamp that runs on one side and the cliff on the other side certainly will be an interesting experience because there is a swamp on one side and a cliff on the other. Councilwoman Swenson asked what was the proposal for Galpin Lake Road. Barbara Dacy: Those hash marks there means that would be closed am that would be realigned into a frontage road into the west. I Coucilwoman Swenson: So if we are going north, we could still make the cutoff on Galpin Lake Road but we would have to go all the way back to Murray Hill to get onto TH 7? Barbara Dacy: Right and a suggestion that Staff is making back to the consultant is that perhaps they should consider a right-injright-out at Galpin and therefore the need for a frontage road connection would not be necessary. At least it would still allow traffic to travel east. Councilman Horn and Councilwoman Swenson suggested that they close Murray Hill Road and keep Galpin open. Bill Monk: You have to realize that traffic engineers don't always look too close at the area they are concentrating on. The premise that this is based on is a sound one. '!he major intersection that they are trying to protect here is County Road 19. You can get another full interchange which is always what you try and go for, at what is referred to on this map as Murray Hill. Spacing between those two roads, County Road 19 and Murray Hill Road is just about enough to accommodate lane switches and everything else that you take into account whenever you do a traffic analysis. By leaving Galpin Lake Road in there as it is, there is no question from a traffic perspective that it screws things up as far as spacing between the interchanges. '!he traffic engineers of BRW, I'm sure have grasPed on that because they can have a full interchange at Murray Hill, that if they can realign traffic as it is trying to get to TH 7 that they can accomplish the I 18 6)[ I I I 6J1. 11.. Ed 1:. City Council Minutes ~ July 7, 1986 same thing: If Mayflower could be_ realigned as shown; I believe this could work but I think that if is so big, I'm not sure it can be accomplished because I don't think that if Mayflower was realigned so the turns were made free am you would not have to stop, you would not be rerouting terribly because that section of Galpin Lake Road from Murray through Mayflower up to TH 7, is dead wrong both horizontally am vertically. There is bad sight distance, there is little right-of-way, there are houses very close to the edge of the road am it is not a good section of road, especially when you have cars coming off of County Road 117 at 40' mph plus speeds so I don't think the realignment is a bad one, I do question whether it can be accomplished. Councilwoman Watson: '!hat was really my question was if Mayflower could actually be made to run 1 ike this. Bill Monk: '!he other problem I have with this is the frontage road. I'm not a big believer in frontage roads that askew. I have a real problem with people making that turn, especially eastbound traffic on TH 7, turning on Murry Hill am trying to get onto that frontage road to go home on Galpin. It is extremely close with no setback and that is really the reason that I think a right-injright-out on Galpin to allow some traffic to continue to use that and get away from the frontage road system would work without impacting TH 7 to a tremendous degree. I guess I do fim sound what they are trying to do in terms of separation of intersections, getting away from multiple liT" intersections into more full operation intersections. That is what this plan attempts to do. Tb me it hinges on Mayflower and that was one of my major comments to Barbara is I don't know whether Chanhassen is going to sit tight and wait for Shore wood to make a move on a major street realignment that effects our access to the highway. Councilwoman Watson: tbw what you are talking about is a backup onto TH 7 because people would be come off of TH 7 and be trying to go onto that frontage road and there is no real distance between the frontage road and TH 7. Bill Monk: The only people trying to make that move would be the people on that existing portion of Galpin but there is enough people there that I am concerned. All it takes is a couple trying to make that crossing and you've got all kinds of screwy turning movements but it is important for the Council to understand the concepts that the traffic engineers are using and they are not totally unsound in terms of minimizing intersections and so on. Councilman Horn wondered why they don't make the access roads right in the first place instead of trying to correct it after it has became a problem. Councilwoman Swenson: If you had a right-injright-out on Galpin Lake Road, your left turn traffic going west would still have to come off onto Murray, then they have to go all the way around Mayflower then back up. '!he Coopers, for instance who live on Galpin Road right on the corner there, would have a gay time. 19 22 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: It would be a long ride to go to Shore wood Shopping Center to go shopping. I Counci woman Swenson: And likewise to get out if they wanted to. Councilman Horn: I think we should petition to leave the Galpin Road exit open. Councilwoman Watson: At least the right-on/right-off would solve some of the problems for Galpin that aren't solved here. I don't think we can solve them all and still keep the accesses on TH 7 down but the right- on/right-off at least would make some sense so when they are coming back from Shore wood they could get off there and not drive all the way back around. Councilwoman Swenson: '!he only good thing I can see about this is, if I may be facetious for a moment, is that PeOple on Galpin Road are going to have to come down to Chanhassen to the grocery store because they aren't going to want to go all the way around here to Shorewood. Council woman Watson: '!hey are going to go the back way and further complicate the access to 64th and TH 41. Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat's conceivable. Councilwoman Watson: Absolutely they will because if you were going to go to Shorewood Center from the Galpin Lake Road area based on this, why would you ever bother to go down to Mayflower and get on TH 7. You would just wander around, take Mayflower, go on back to Chaska Road and get on TH 41 straight across the intersection. I Councilwoman Swenson: I do agree though Bill, in looking at this, I can see a very dangerous situation here, particularly if there aren't any lights, of PeOple coming from the east and making a left turn on Murray Hill. Even if they are going right straight ahead. But you are talking about potential stacking problem with 250-300 feet off of Powers Blvd., that being a right turn and here you are talking about crossing a highway and this highway is devastating as it is. I've got great reservations about that. What the answer would be, I guess that is my only comment. Public: '!he only question I have is why isn't one of the alternatives to make a full intersection of Galpin and County Road 19? Councilwoman Swenson: You mean with that little chute off of 19 there? Public: Sure, that is the way it exists on what you are calling Murray Hill Road. It's the angle of the road coming in. '!he triangle is all there. The streets could be lined up. I'm saying that is an alternative in my opinion. Councilwoman Swenson: I guess what they are trying to do there, and correct me if I'm wrong Bill, is with the "y" as it sits now, you have two I 20 I I I 23 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 exits onto TH 7 from County Road 19, this would eliminate one of them. Is that correct Barbara? Because as you come south on 19, you can veer to the right or left. No you can't. You come off right, that's right. It's a right turn in both instances but in any case there are two accesses. Public: What I am saying is make that one so you have a full intersection am that is what they are trying to do just west of there. Council woman Swenson: Follow the existing road rather than cutting through the middle of the "y". Publ ic : Yes. Barbara Dacy asked if the gentlemen from the public was going to attend the meeting am he answered he planned to, yes. Councilwoman Swenson: Would that allow for a right-off of TH 7 onto 19. If you go on a curve like that... The three council members discussed how the "Y" could be designed. Councilman Horn: Let me ask a question. Are we going to have any input in this or is this cut and dry? Barbara Dacy: N:>, that is why it is on the agenda tonight for input. Councilman Horn: But they have al ternates here that we would say, these aren't the alternatives we would even pick. How do we get to pick from these if we don't get to pick from any options? Barbara Dacy: I think what you are saying is you would favor one al ternati ve over the other am we would suggest another one am those type of statements have to be made and we can give that back to the consultant. This is by no means cut am dry. Councilman Horn: Carol hit it right on the head. We don't like either one of them. Jayne Partridge: I live on Hummingbird Road. <Xle decision that seems to be made is to make TH 7 a limited access road. I'm not aware of that decision having been made by any body, it is just expected. Who made that decision Barbara? Barbara Dacy: What the consultant has tried to do is determine the difference as a criteria, transportation, safety, mobility, lam use, environmental impact. The representatives from all participating communi ties have about 8 or 9 cri teria. Right now over on the east communities, which is most important, immediate access to existing development, access to future development or mobil i ty or the safety of the highway. Of those 8 or 9 criteria, everybody ranked in the order of importance am the criteria that was laid the highest was transportation of mobility and safety so what is being done is to improve the quality of the 21 ~.{t City Council Minutes ~ July 7, 1986 intersections along the corridor, minimize the number of access points, try and consolidate it as much as possible and improve the overall safety of the highway. In doing so, there will always be, if you eliminate one access, you may open another, there will always re those sets of trade- offs and how does that fit into this overall criteria best. The consultant at the meeting will go through that in a little more detail. I Jayne Partridge asked a question regarding on who pays for a road that borders on two cities. Barbara Dacy: That is an excellent question. It is between the two communities. That is our concern too am that is always going to re an issue and especially in these studies because it is going to effects all of us. Again, the intent of the study is more of less a preliminary planning process to come up with a set of recommendations and then it will be up to the comnunity as to whether or not they want to go ahead with them. Jayne Partridge: This is a published meeting where they are looking for input on the 16th? At the City Hall or High School? Counci lman Horn: That is Minnetonka City Hall, not Excelsior. Barbara Dacy: I will briefly go through the remaining areas. The next area is TH 41 area which we have all become very familiar with over the last year. Staff did not give the consultant the original Tomac plan or anything, didn't make them aware that there was a proposal at that corner so it is interesting to see what has come back. Their first proposal is similar to what was considered a year ago except for the frontage road. They have the frontage road going through an existing house there where the previous proposal, as you recall, the road bent up to the north around the house then begin to the proposed access drive. What would be required at that location was a full intersection or the median would have to be adjusted to account for a left ham turn in. The difference between this and obviously, the Oriole Avenue intersection would be closed. Under the secom alternative, similar to this year's proposals by Tomac, except for the right-in only off of TH 7, what was proposed here is just an access off of 'ill 41 into the development am out to 64th. I guess our concern we conveyed to the consultant was our concern about traffic that would go back through the neighborhood am the reasoning being that at least traffic from the west using TH 7 would not, if you were fami1ar with the area you might re more apt to use Oriole Avenue to get into the development whereas if there was a right-in from TH 7, it would be a quick way into the development. We have advised the consultant that at the meeting that they at least include a third alternative showing that right-in at that location. I Councilman Horn: What was wrong with 1? Barbara Dacy: OUr concern was in terms of a traffic stampoint, I guess there is nothing wrong with it except that the connection from Oriole Avenue is going through the existing house am also kim of promotes a more direct east-west pattern through the development. I 22 I I I 2~ _7,~. U! City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Councilman Horn: You are just talking about these other roads in here: I'm just looking at what it would do as far as TH 7 and TH 41, but why would they put this internal street in here through a house? Barbara Dacy: Again, the intent is to eliminate access on Oriole Avenue while maintaining a connection between the neighborhood and giving them an access to 64th Street and through the development. Councilman Horn: But they can come down to 64th and up again. Councilwoman Swenson: That piece coming out of Orchard Lane and going into the development is absurb. '!hat is the very thing they have been talking about because it is going to be directing all that traffic right into Orchard Lane and Sandpiper and they will take that right down to TH 7 to get away from the congestion of the corner. Councilman Horn: If you pull that little neck out of there from the extension of Oriole Lane over to the center of the development, that looks like a perfect alternative. Barbara Dacy: '!hat is what Staff has advised the consultant to include as a third alternative. Councilwoman Swenson: Barbara on that same alternative 1, they also show a road coming in off of TH 41 right through the middle of the development. There is a right off of TH 41 that goes into the development. Has anybody surveyed that terrain? They would have to have a bridge for TH 41 to the solid land. '!here is a gully in there. Barbara Dacy: Your concern was the gap in the topography? Councilwoman Swenson: '!here is a gully along TH 41 there that looks like it is half way down to the Orient. Barbara Dacy: As I recall, that is the approximate area that was approved by MnDot to achieve the appropriate amount of distance from the intersection in that area. Council woman Swenson: I thought the purpose of this was to eliminate the accesses onto roads. I guess I really have a problem with that whole design from that standpoint. I like the idea of the right-in from TH 7. Barbara Dacy: The last is the Lake Minnewashta area. The intent in this particular area, as you all know, there are a number of direct access points from those existing subdivisions that have been there for a number of years. '!he intent is to minimize the amount of intersections and again improve those intersections that would be appropriate. What is being proposed is an improvement at Arbor Avenue and Seamans Drive in Shorewood, then at Dogwood Avenue, then at this point a creation of a frontage road for the two streets to the west of Dogwood, Elm and Fir Tree Road, that those access points would be closed and a frontage road connected into the Dogwood Avenue intersection. '!hen, what the consultant is saying is 23 26 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 closing the access at Greenbriar Avenue and construction of a frontage road connecting to Ironwood, close that access am then over to Minnewashta Parkway, realign the intersection at Minnewashta Parkway up to Church Road. I'll start at the em here, on the realignment of Minnewashta Parkway is identified in the comp plan as one that should be accomplished. '!bis plan shows that it can am it is achievable. One of our concerns is that the frontage road system again is very tight and what is being proposed here is actually linking a predominately large portion of the neighborhood am routing that through this frontage road system at this realigned intersection. An alternative that we are proposing to the consultant is elimination of the frontage road idea between Ironwood and Greenbriar and at least maintain Greenbriar open as a right-injright-out. As far as Dogwood intersection and frontage road system is concerned, the scale of this thing is so small, we went out am drove it. There is no question that existing properties would be impacted but again the intent is to look at minimizing the number of interruptions onto TH 7 am trying to consolidate an access point. '!be only difference between 1 and 2 again, is that on 1 as opposed to 2, all that 2 is doing is expaming the right-of- way again, primarily on the north side of TH 7 to account for four lanes am medians, etc. Everything else is the same. What they are trying to show is that when it is fully improved that most of the improvements would go on the north side so that is the difference between 1 am 2. I Councilwoman Swenson: Barb, on Greenbriar, if you had a right-in and right-out, you are saying to eliminate the frontage road there? I Barbara Dacy: Between Ironwood and Greenbriar. Still keep the Ironwood connection over by the frontage road to provide access. Councilwoman Swenson: Ironwood is the street directly west of Greenbriar? Barbara Dacy: Right. Councilwoman Swenson: Am I following this, if you have a right-injright- out there am if you don't have a frontage road going west, somebody in Greenbriar would have to come down and go all the way down and go to Dogwood to make a left ham turn. Councilwoman Watson: '!bat's right. Bill Monk: You see we don't see the frontage road system as proposed as being any better because this is better than going down to Minnewashta Parkway to make a left and then make another hard left to get onto the frontage road to come back to Greenbriar. We really don't see that as any better but again, consolidating the access points is... Councilwoman Swenson: Consolidating your access points is in the interest of the safety of persons, I have to submit to you that I don't really see that this one at Church Road (also known as 15) and Minnewashta Parkway is particularly good. '!bat is a killer point there. I 24 I I I 27 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 The Council members discussed the angle of the road and what a dangerous access point onto TH 7 Minnewashta Parkway is. Councilman Horn: I think we have to consolidate some of those accesses. Councilwoman Swenson: I agree but there is no way to get from Greenwood west. There are no streets in there on the south side. What I'm trying to say is if we eliminate that road without leaving an opening at Greenbriar, I guess I would rather see one at Greenbriar or at Elm or Fir, one of the two, rather than all the way down to Dogwood. That seems like a long stretch there. Councilwoman Watson: The only thing about Dogwood though, you see is that it is right across from Eureka Road, it is directly across from that so it makes a natural intersection from both sides of the highway. Councilwoman Swenson: I guess I have a concern making PeOple come all the way down here and then going left. It is going to create a lot of traffic on Dogwood and I suspect if I lived on Dogwood and Shore Drive too, I guess I would be somewhat less than enchanted. Councilman Horn: I think they could leave Greenbriar oPen and still have a frontage road in there. Councilwoman Swenson: But like Bill said, his major concern again is the stacking for a left hand turn onto Minnewashta off of TH 7. Councilwoman Watson: Except there won't be as many people attempting that as there would be in the other situation. There is simply less traffic when you get that far west. Councilwoman Swenson: Bill, wouldn't it be true that at a certain point in time when the traffic did get, of course there is a lot of traffic that goes out toward Hutchinson on that road during the rush hour. Councilman Horn: I think they could make that loop on the frontage road and down on the lower Minnewashta to give those better stacking distance. Councilwoman Watson: You mean at Greenbriar? Co unci lman Horn: rb, at Minnewashta. Councilwoman Swenson: I don't think there is any development in there if my memory serves me right so in other words Barbara, if that Minnewashta Parkway that goes east instead of having that little hook in it, was straighten out, the frontage road was straighter there so you would actually have almost a "T". Vbuld that make it better Bill? Bill Monk: It could be moved to the south as part of any development that we might see on that. Councilwoman Swenson: That would allow for a better flow of traffic there. 25 00 .L! (.,J'\ City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Councilman Horn: I think do that am leave Greenbriar over. Right- in/right-out and also have the frontage there. I Councilwoman Swenson: Yes, because if they want to go west, they can go to Minneawashta Parkway. Councilwoman Watson: Because you are not going to have much stacking distance problem at Greenbriar. It is a very residential area, there is no through traffic or anything. Councilman Horn: You aren't going to force everybody to go down to Shorewood. Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat is what worries me is having all that traffic going down through the residential area. Jayne Partridge: I would just like to stress that 117, which is a major access road from the south into Excelsior am you've got all that development going in there, between you and Excelsior and TH 7 and Shorewood. For years the Shorewood residents down there have been trying to cut off all of that County Road 117 going down on Galpin. '!hey don't want it in front of their homes any more than we want it in front of our homes. If they are successful in cutting that off, then the only other way that you can get through down there, is either to run it through or realign Mayflower down there. And if you realign all of Maylfower, the frontage I ends at Shorewood so Chanhassen is going to have to take a very strong stand on that or it is going to all go through on the area with 14 foot wide streets. It's not just area traffic, it is traffic from the Jonathon Industrial Park and that is a major problem. '!he business of the far side of Minnewashta, that road is also needed am how 'is the plan there with TH 41 with the Tomac Development we were talking about, if I understand that correctly, one of the things they would like is to have Chaska Road come into that so if you don't have a frontage road along TH 7 in there, and the next place you drop back is Chaska Road. All these things are com ing together and it can't be seen as an isolated thing. I look at the City Council and City Administration as being the ones that should protect our neighborhood from this kind of thing suddenly going through it. Councilwoman Watson: I think BRW am these traffic engineers are not necessarily cognizant of what local traffic patterns are. How people actually will do something as opposed to how it looks like thay might do it logically, but I think a lot of that traffic is going to get thrown back into Chaska Road in that area. Councilwoman Swenson: Why did they choose Murray Hill Road Barbara? Is there a rationale for that as opposed to Galpin Lake other than the continuation from Water Street? Barbara Dacy: Bill, correct me if I'm wrong but I think it is because of the separation between the County Road 19 intersection and Murray Hill for that type of full movement. I 26 I I I C';;!fh L-d V City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: (bing back to what we said, if that County Road 19 was aligne::1 toward the west so it ran across arrl met with Galpin rake Road and the Water Street exit was closed off, that brings then to Murray Hill Road to come arourrl to Galpin rake arrl get out. Jayne Partridge: Most of the traffic when you go south and west and if the Christmas rake Road intersection is close::1 off, that leaves really nothing to the south between Vine Hill Road until you get to Murray Hill Road. Councilwoman Swenson: We do know that the objective is to spread them out. The question I suppose is to try to achieve it in the least painful manner or do it the way we want it. Barbara Dacy: After the public hearing in July, there will be another one in late August, early September base::1 on the input they have gotten from the July meeting, they conduct another one. Councilwoman Watson: I think the thing you have to remember on something like this is that Excelsior, Shorewood, Minnetonka and all these cities are going to be in there to see that they get the best deal for what they want. Nobody else is going to protect your interest. Councilwoman Swenson: I would recommerrl then that all interested parties make every effort to attend and put your two cents worth in. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilwoman Watson talked about the editorial that appeared in the Excelsior Weekly News followed by Tomac's rebuttal the next week. She didn't understand the process completely of how properties annexed to another city happens. The reality of another city taking over an isolated piece of property like that so Chanhassen looses control over what happens to something that could effect an area of Chanhassen that the City has been trying to protect. It is kind of frightening that a bunch of people who have no stake in this situation at all will ultimately decide whether Chanhassen keeps that piece of property or whether Shorewood can have it. Don Ashworth stated that for the past 100 years it has been literally impossible for an annexation or deannextion to occur unless the two cities involved came to agree. '!his law was changed this past year and a report on the impact of that new law will be given to the City Council in the near future as it relates to this annexation issue. Mr. Ashworth didn't feel Shorewood would look to an annexation of this type. One of the questions is how is it served with municipal services, i.e. water, etc. Shorewood has a good working relationship with Chanhassen and areas that abut to Chanhassen, Chanhassen has provided services to those people. Councilwoman Watson stated that it might be up to the legislature to decide whether Shorewood wanted it or not. 27 30 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Don Ashworth stated it was a petition process to the Municipal Annexation Board. I Councilwoman Swenson stated all the Council members had received the Findings of Facts regarding the Terry Cook issue. She wanted to request a reconsideration for the next regular meeting on July 21, 1986. Don Ashworth stated that if the Council wanted to vote on a request for reconsideration, that should be voted on this evening. If it passed, the i tern would then go onto the next regular agenda which would be July 21, 1986. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to request a reconsideration of the Terry Cook issue. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilwoman Watson requested that the City Attorney be present at the meeting on July 21st. Councilwoman Swenson: 'Ihe next thing I would like to address and this is strictly something that has come up because we have had, it seems, a lot of confusion in semantics regarding density, median density, average density and distribution of lot sizes and so forth and so on. I notice in reading the Planning Commission minutes that they seem to have as much problem as anybody else and I know personally it took me a long time to try to get used to it and just about the time I think I'm accustomed to it, I find that I'm not. It would appear to me working on the basis of lot sizes strictly, we would all be speaking one language. I have made up as a result of that concern, plus the concern of the protection of our natural resources. I would hate to see Chanhassen become just another part outside a big city where our trees and our open spaces and all this preservation of our wildlife, goes down the drain in the path of progress. I would like to see, from listening to our citizens, I feel this is what our present citizens what and I'm sure they want it for the future. At the same time I recognize that we have to be equitable to developers who do come in. As a result of that, I have come up with some objectives and recommendations which merely state a starting point. Rather than waiting until the 21st to bring this up, I would like to ask that we consider discussing this on the 14th in the hopes that the Council as a whole can arrive at some closer figures, if you will, which in turn we might request the Planning Commission to address at their next meeting which would be the 23rd. If we wait longer than that we will be into August, then into September sometime. Since we are planning on picking up the zoning ordinance in September, it might be a little confusing to try to handle both at the same time. Now, if you understand exactly what I said, I wish you would tell me what I said. I think we needed a starting point. If it sounds at all feasible to you, I would like to bring up a general discussion next week. I Councilman Horn: I'm not sure I totally understand it yet but we can discuss it then. I certainly like the idea of having something of a short cutting although I'm not sure that is what this is. I 28 I I I 31 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: Actually what my intent here is Clark, we know we can't preserve all of it, but my ho~ would be that for instance, if we have a 30 acre development and we find a stand of trees that we feel shouldn't really be cut down for building. Let's say we can take 10% of that pro~rty or 3 acres of that and it wouldn't have to fall into the responsibility of maintenance because my proposal would be to leave it in it's natural state. This being that we don't have to put pathways through it, we don't have to mow the lawn, we don't have to do anything other than keep it for a natural preserve where ~ople could wander through if they want to or watch the butterflies or the birds or whatever it happens to be. In any case, the trees will be there. C1>viously we can't just take this land, therefore we would have to make a comparable exchange either in lot sizes or a specific number of lots. I figured it out today, if we worked on the premise of 10% of the area that we were to give them, 10% of the total number of lots and allow that to be smaller than the established 15,000 square feet which we have in subdivisions. This works pretty much the same. I worked on the premise of three 15,000 square foot lots ~r acre which actually there wouldn't be because (a) you don't have 45,000 square feet in an acre and (b) you have to take out the streets, etc.. It actually comes out to about 2.5 or 2.7 after you take out the street. Barbara Dacy: I think it is 2.5. Councilwoman Swenson: Which would mean that the comparable number of houses, let's say 3 for the sake of this figure here, so you would be taking the equivalent of 9 lots out of their development. If we were to give them 9 lots then that could be under the 15,000 square feet. This is an exchange economically. I'm not sure if they would consider that they could sell those 9 lots and sufficient amount of money to make up for the 9 lots that you are losing. Councilwoman Watson: Shouldn't we really save our comments for next week? Basically. My questions get into when you are sitting in the middle of a development and how we deal with something with private properties all the way aroum it or we have a little path that would have to run through it. I can see difficulties especially like the two developments we have along Kerber there with the tree issue. One where they are cutting them all down and one where they argued endlessly over how they couldn't have 90 foot frontages because of the trees and all this and you have both issues there. I am wondering if something like this couldn't be incorporated into pri vately owned, when the developer puts the house in. Once the lam is owned of course, if the ~rson who buys the lot wants to chop down all the trees, we can't solve that problem. Councilwoman Swenson: I discussed that with Barbara today. That seemed to be the intelligent approach but you lose control if you do that. Now this is not mandatory. The City doesn't have to request this dedication if it is not viable or feasible, then obviously you aren't going to do it but if it is on the perimeter of a development, even those up on Kerber, I think we could have saved some of those. Perhaps quite a few by making an exchange of this type. I think it is important to have a minimum lot size regardless. 29 06JJ cu~ LJ City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: '!hat part I have no argument with whatsoever. I'm just trying to figure out how the City owns sections of trees here and there. I Councilwoman Swenson: Obviously you can't make this a little tiny plot but if you have a street that runs to this property. I grew up in Chicago and we had a forest preserve that was maybe 3 miles from my house. We used to hike out there am you took a normal street to get out there am there it was. '!here were developments around it, of course, it was probably 40 acres. Councilwoman Watson: I grew up a mile from here and there were a lot more trees. Councilwoman Swenson: I guess that is what I am trying to keep. I see all of this going am we are working on one-third of the overall city and prety soon we are going to wake up and see we are just another city of houses am streets. If this is what everybody wants, then this is fine but I don't think this is what everybody wants. I'm trying to get a start here, that's all. I recognize this is poorly done but it is the best I could come up with. Councilwoman Watson: No, I think it is excellent and I think we should discuss it. The issue has come up and I certainly did receive communications of that nature, I also received two phone calls from people who walk back I in that area. They decided to take a walk back in what is being developed now and they were very dismayed at what they saw. Councilman Horn: Are there a lot of big trees down that road? I couldn't get in there. I could see a lot of scrubby stuff that was knocked over. Councilwoman Watson: '!hey have done a lot of cutting. '!he one who argued endlessly about the trees is the one down on Kerber a li ttle further, this one I guess I don't recall the discussion so much about the trees. Don Ashworth: Pat had contacted me earlier today am was looking to getting some clarification for lot size and how that is determined. Staff supports that because we are not really using a consistent number with different developers. When someone comes in the door we have a real difficult time telling them exactly what the rules will be or won't be, so we support this type of thing. I suggested that we put, that Councilwoman Swenson bring this up this evening, inform the Council of her concerns am that we attempt or that I put this item on the agenda for this next Monday rather than trying to take some action this evening because I know the Council has wanted to try to think decisions through instead of taking action, so I would put this item on for the 14th. I would like to have more time than that but as Pat notes, the Planning Commission meeting is the 23rd. If we miss the 23rd, we move into August 13th am all of a sudden we are back into our ordinary zoning ordinance review time. I think we can try to put something together for you before next Monday night. Realize it would have to go out of here on Friday and if it is coming from I 30 I I I E-"'n fJ'i; u0 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 the Attorney's office, we are going to have to carrier this over to him or someway get this sheet to him tomorrow and then try to get carrier something back by Friday. We are talking about a matter of a couple days. We will attempt to do the best job we can. Some of it may be presented on Monday night. Somewhere in that process I would like to again take a tour of some of our different sites and talk about how some of those may have worked. wtus Lake Estates, when that first came in, they had a problem potentially developing that. That was one of the questions they posed at that time. Should we consider that a park area and I think if they would have used any type of a clear cutting technique, we would all be sitting here today saying why didn't we pursue that option of a park. '!he actual construction technique that they used following the side of the hill, provided very little destruction in that particular plot. I would like to take you up into the Near Mountain area and look at how that development is occurring back in the tree area. Give you some feel for what they are doing in that area and also some potential problems that I can see with this dedication or even an exchange. You can see some different things in there. You can see some wooded areas that are really dead, there is no way you really want them. '!here are some other areas that you may have some concerns over and then maybe finishing up with the lot form. We will again try to have this item on for this next Monday so maybe we won't end up with a sPecific position for the Planning Commission but one that we want them to study. Barbara Dacy: If you wanted a public hearing on the zoning amendment ordinance on the 23rd, that is now impossible because we would have had to have the legal ad in on last Friday. We can bring the item up at their meeting (Planning Commission). Councilwoman Swenson: w= need 21 days? Barbara Dacy: No, 110 days but we have to get the ads into the newspaper 4-5 days in advance of that. Don Ashworth: My thoughts were to get it onto the 23rd to make them aware of the Council concern. Hopefully, they will set the 13th of August for the public hearing. '!here are really two issues. One is the zoning one which could almost move ahead very quickly although we have had some different concepts there too. Planning Commission may very well want you to research this over a pericrl of one or two meetings before they set up a public hearing. Councilman Horn: I think this is wrong to decide how this relates to the park dedication and the whole thing. Councilwoman Swenson: I guess to me the most important issue of the whole recommendation however, is the elimination of the requirement of a Planned Unit Development. Councilwoman Watson: Yes, I agree with that completely. I don't know as ,though we have ever really seen one. 31 ~~- CL!J ...- City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: What I would like to see is to the Planning Commission in a position to say to somebody, if you want a planned unit development, show us what it is going to do for the city am then we will tell you whether or not you can have it. I Councilwoman Watson: It is real tough to tell the p1annErl unit developments from the subdivisions. You can't and I guess that is what, I'm not trying to make a joke when I say I guess I'm not sure we have ever had one, it is just hard to tell the difference between the subdivisions am the PUD' s . Councilwoman Swenson: Well, they haven't been in the intent. If you read the intent in our zoning ordinance am study it, I think you will fim that we have not been conforming to the intent as stated in the zoning ordinance. Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All votErl in favor am motion carried. The meeting was adjournErl at 113:135 p.m. . Prepared by Nann Opheim July 113, 1986 I I 32