The URL can be used to link to this page

1986 08 04 11411 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 4, 1986 I Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. '!he meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving, Councilwoman Watson Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy and Bill Monk APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Hamil ton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Agenda as presented. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconderl to awrove the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: 1. a. Resolution #86-52: Resolution in Support of the City of Mounds View Regarding William's pipeline. b. Resolution #86-53: Schedule Creekwood nri ve Assessment Hearing for September 8, 1986. III All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson asked that item l(c) be removed for further discussion. 1. c. Accept Red Cedar Cove watermain as Municipal Facility. Councilwoman Swenson asked why this sewer system was private. Bill Monk stated that sewer systems are nothing but service extensions for lines that already exist along the lake. '!hat line was put in as part of the north service area back in 1973. That is a municipal sewer system. All they are doing for these townhouses is extending the services from that line. It is all services, just a connection. III Councilwoman Swenson stated that it appeared on the map that one of the buildings was placed on a driveway and she was wondering if this would cause any problems. '!he development on the southeast looks like it is right on the road am also the second section. Bill Monk stated there was a 24 foot private road that goes through the area to service the lots. It is a private road and is not to be maintained by the City. The City has no control over it. Councilman Geving stated that the applicant requested in his letter of July 15, 1986, a reduction in the letter of credit but Councilman Geving saw nothing in Bill Monk's letter of August 1, 1986 mentioning that. Councilman Geving asked if there was a reason for that. Bill Monk stated that reductions in letter of credit are handled administratively to 25% based on construction complete. At that point in time, we go no further down until the Council approves all the improvements which are not being asked for right now. They still have things to finish so the 25% is still being held am will 1 -' " r'I f' 4-"_'~ ~ _?- City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 continue to be held until the Council gets something saying it is finished and I the applicant understands that. 1. c. Resolution #86':'54: Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept Red Cedar Cove Watermain as a Municipal Facility. All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATION: Jay Johnson stated that there may be an error in the Minutes of the July 21, 1986 meeting regarding the Chanhassen vista matter. From what the public had heard, the Council was voting on the Preliminary Development Plan and you were requesting that the Final Development Plan be considered after the rest of the information for Final Development Plan was submitted. What the Minutes state is that both Preliminary and Final Development plans were passed. Mr. Johnson wanted to bring this to the Council's attention so they could review it in greater detail when they came to approving the Minutes later in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT WIDTH VARIANCE REQUEST, GALPIN BLVD., PATRICK MINGER. Barbara Dacy noted that neither the applicant or the land owner were in the audience as of yet and asked if the Council wanted to continue this matter I until they arrived. The Council decided to proceed with Approval of Minutes but to continue to keep the Public Hearing open. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Cbanhassen City Council Meeting dated July 14, 1986 as corrected by Councilman Horn. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Cbanhassen City Council Meeting dated July 21, 1986 as amended on page 58. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting dated July 9, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried. Lot Width Variance Request, Galpin Blvd., Patrick Minger. Public Present: Dean Fe1tmann Roger Schmidt Jay Gustafson Thanas o. Klinge1hutz Pat Munger 8241 Galpin 8301 Galpin 8341 Galpin 8551 Tuiga Circle 7604 Erie Avenue I 2 I I I 44~ JL /-:r:- e..D City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Barbara Dacy indicated the applicant and land owner were now present. Barbara Dacy: 'Ihe parcel is zoned R-lA, Agricultural Residence and is located on the east side of Galpin Blvd., approximately 1/2 mile north of County Road 18. 'Ihe acreage of the site is 22 acres and two lots are being proposed consisting of a 10 acre parcel and 12.5 acre parcel. On this graphic, the shape of the property line contains a 50 foot wide strip as you enter the normal part of the property then it bends arourrl to the east and then back to the southwest again abutting Galpin Blvd.. It abuts three separately described parcels that are under separate ownership and you can see the tie marks here are tied into some of these existing parcels. 'Ihe lot pattern in here has existed for a number of years. On this 50 foot strip exists a driveway that serves the house that is located at 8241 Gilpin Blvd.. You have in your packet, an 85 should have been an 82. What is being proposed is a variance to the required 180 foot lot width requirement for lots in a rural area. 180 feet is achieved for Parcel B but for Parcel A, the only means of access is through this 50 foot wide strip. Because this has existed for a number of years prior to the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance and because the shape of the lots in here are so unique and unlike any other lot configuration in the immediate area, Staff is recommending approval on the Lot Width Variance for granting access to Parcel A through this 50 foot wide strip. A secondary issue regarding this piece is the issue of whether or not this should be platted or if it should continue to be described as basic lot descriptions. It is unlikely that this area will ever be resubdi vided to be served with water and sewer services and the City, County and School Board would likely have to live with these metes and bounds descriptions. 'Iherefore, Staff is recommending that the Council approve the split. We have no reservations regarding the subdivision. However, we are recommending that it be put into a plat format. Also, that an opportunity be made to those adjacent property owners to be included in the plat so that conceivably you would have Lots 1-6 in that division instead of very long descriptions that now exist. Again, we recommerrl approval subject to the survey stamped "Received July 16, 1986"; obtaining an access permit for the subparcel; and third, we recommend that the area be put into a plat format instead of a metes and bounds description. Patrick Minger: You are recommending plats be platted, I have gone through a time schedule with the City and that takes 2-3 months and by the time I get my building permit, that pretty much shoots this construction season and I was just informed of this Friday. I am looking for a resolution here so that I can speed this up somehow so I don't ruin this construction season. It seemed like the split is being approved but you are asking me to do something else here that is going to hold it up. Don Ashworth: I don't see a problem with that. Other large parcels we have allowed the issuing of one building permit on that parcel during a perioo of time that the plat is being processed. We should be able to handle this in a similar fashion. Bill Monk: I understand this is a lot of record right now? Barbara Dacy: Yes. 3 -t144 City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Bill Monk: As a lot of record, he could get one building permit and that would probably solve the problem. I Patrick Minger: My question would be then, you are asking that all five land owners be in this plat. Would there be a problem with these other lam owners? We are involving three other people here that maybe don't want to be involved. Mayor Hamil ton: '!hat wouldn't effect yours, no. Patrick Minger: WOuld that effect this plat? Mayor Hamilton: Not your part of it. You already have metes and bounds on the existing one. Don Ashworth: '!he way Staff wrote that was that adjacent property owners would be offered the owortunity. We couldn't force them into joining into this plat but this was all subdivided out of one parent parcel. To do the work, you have to survey the entire parcel. Really, it is the same cost as far as I see it to Mr. Volk, the applicant, to carry out platting of the entire parcel. Therefore, the adjacent owners should be able to come into this plat with literally no cost to them. I would highly recommend that you consider this. I notice one of the owners is here. Mayor Hamil ton: I know two of them are here, Roger and Jerry. Do you have any comments on part of the platting process? I Jerry Gustafson: The only question I have is what is going to happen to Parcel B then? Barbara Dacy: It is my understanding that he did intend to sell it to his daughter am son-in-law but it can be conveyed on 21. Mayor Hamilton: How about the planning process, Jerry? Do you have any problem with being a part of that am having your parcel platted rather than being metes and bounds? Jerry Gustafson: Do I have any questions regarding platting? No, I don't. Mayor Hamil ton: Roger, do you have any problems? Roger Schmidt: en the surface I don't see anything. Could they change some farm folks? Can they do that, is that legal? Mayor Hamilton: Meets and bounds is just lengthy and not a real concise way of dividing land am if you go the plat route, it will be definite. It would probably help more with corner markers than with what you have now, to put monuments in the ground. Councilman Geving: I would say there would be a big advantage if you ever tried to sell this property if it were platted. You wouldn't have as much entanglement with the banks or finance company. It is to your advantage, I I 4 145 City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 I think Roger, to do this. Roger Schmidt: In other words, have it all surveyed together? My property was surveyed not too long ago but what you are saying is having it revised. I don't see any problems with that. Dean Fel tmann: I own the property right next to Pat. Pat and I are going to be neighbors. I'm not familiar with metes arrl bourrls and I welcome the benefits of being platted. Mayor Hamilton: '!he only time metes and bounds is done, it is done with perhaps you might start at Corner A where there is a fence post that goes to Point B where there is a tree to Point C where there is a rock and it goes on arrl on like that. When you plat the grourrl arrl you actually put a monument in the ground, a steel stake that says it starts at this and goes to here, another steel stake arrl it delineates your property much more clearly. Mr. Feltmann, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Gustafson stated that is what their property has now. It is staked out, so platting would just change the wording of the legal description. Mayor Hamilton stated that a plat description would be more a paragraph description as compared to probably a couple pages of description with metes and bounds. I Councilman Geving: Also, I would say that there will be future redevelopment as what I see as Lot A and B arrl maybe even some of those other lots that are several acres in size. I can actually foresee that in the future, that you are not going to keep 10 and 12 acres in a parcel. That is going to be broken up at some time just like this was broken up. Mayor Hamil ton: I guess what I am hearing is that the residents here don't have a problem with it and it would be something that would possibly be born by the applicant. The cost would be born by the aWl icant. Do you have any other comments Jerry or Roger? Councilman Geving: I do have a comment though. When I saw this, that there might be an opportunity, since we own the cemetary and was assuring ourselves of access off that access road or looking down the pike a little bit, making sure that we have another access. If we were, in the future, going to obtain additional acreages to the east of our cemetary. I think I would be interested in getting an easement for another access through that in the south, for example. '!his might be an opportunity to do that. Do you see how this could be done Bill? We could word this or work this into the format. Bill Monk: I guess I haven't looked at it from the standpoint of the cemetary only because there is so much frontage along Galpin for the cemetary. Mayor Hamil ton: I think that is a separate issue. I Council Geving: It is a separate issue but it is one that I talked with Merle Yolk a lot about, at some future time we are going to get more acreage onto that cemetary and I want to make sure that we can get another access. 5 ~ 1';'7> J: L'-V '- -.... City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Bill Monk: As this comes back in final plat form, we can research that more and talk to the applicant about the option of a service drive. I Mayor Hamilton: '!he request is to su1:xHvide a 22 acre parcel on G:llpin Blvd.. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor H3.mil ton seconded to close the p..1blic hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Subdivision Request #86-17 granting a variance for a 50 foot lot width for Parcel A and creating two lots. Ole 10 acres and one 12.5 acres subject to the survey stamped "Received July 16, 1986" and obtaining an access permit from Carver County and that the area be put into a plat format instead of metes and bounds description. All voted in favor and motion carried. AUTHORIZE A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Don Ashworth: The Housing Redevelopment Authority has recommended that we move ahead with the feasibility study of the downtown area. '!hey have acted to approve that from their side. Any actions that they carry out must also be approved by the City Council. '!hey are asking that the Council, similarly, act to approve that to authorize a feasibility study. The work to be done would be to review sewer, water, streets for the downtown plan as it has been prepared by the HRA. I Resolution #86-55: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to authorize the feasibility study for the downtown redevelopment project. All voted in favor and motion carried. REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, CHANHASSEN MEADOWS APARTMENT BUILDING, KEVIN MARINAN. This matter was approved at the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting held just prior to the City Council meeting. SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST, NORTHWEST CORNER OF CR 117 AND TH ~ TOM KLINGELHUTZ. Barbara Dacy: The variance is to allow an off-premise sign advertising the location of the subdivision in another location of the City. At present the sign ordinance does not allow for off-premise signs. It only allows for on- premise signs for advertising the availability of lots for sale on a particular subdivision. Because the intent of the ordinance was to regulate the sale and leasing signs on the site of the subdivision itself, Staff is recommending denial of the proposed sign variance request. The Planning Commission action was to recommend denial of the sign variance request as well. However, the Commission also directed Staff to take a look at the existing sign ordinance as to what could be done to allow these type of signs on a temporary basis. That discussion on an amendment to the sign ordinance is scheduled for the Planning Commission sometime this month. However, in the meantime, they felt that the erection of this sign was not appropriate and I they recommended denial. 6 I I I -,i. "'. R f, L'~, ' ,.1 );.. .c:: U City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Tom Klingelhutz: When I needed a sign, I knew it was a crummy sign that I put up there but it got me five sales so it was worth putting up am it just proves the fact that I need a sign. I just want to put up a 1i ttle sign out there with an arrow on it saying that you've got a development down there. I know you guys don't like signs, particularly some of you, but it is really qui te important. Mayor Hamilton: In reviewing the Planning Commission minutes, I agree with some of the comments Tom makes there. I think we do need to be sensi ti ve to builder's needs to advertise that there is a home for sale. ESpecially when the building site is not on a road that is not really in the public's eye all the time as you are passing by and I would suspect that some of these other developments that have already been awroved are going to have requests from those builders to come in and do the same thing. You do occasionally see signs in communi ties when you are driving aroum the metro area, I don't know that they need to have a huge sign, I think Tom made the comment if you just had whatever development was going on am an arrow pointing back there. There are two of them going on near where he is and that would accomplish something for both of them. They could see to take that road to get back to the development. Councilman Geving: I would have to agree that it is a flea market looking sign. It is a plastic sign that doesn't add much to the corner am I'm surprised that the City hasn't forced you to take it out of there and remove it but here are my comments. Basically, we do everything in this community to promote our town and promote development and in this case, we even provided public financing, I think for this project so what I'm saying is I think I wouldn't be offended by a sign if it were a nice wood material, wood construction. That it was put up on a temporary basis to advertise the new location of a development for a period of three to six months or whatever would be appropriate. I know we have done that in Chaparral am we have done that with others. I think if the site were properly selected and it was a sign that looked good, small enough so that it wasn't obtrusive. 24 square feet would fit what I am thinking of as a sign and that after a period of time it would come down am would be moved to another developer's area or another developer would have his own sign so I'm not offended by the ability for a communi ty to try to sell or market what we have already provided in terms of an approval for the project. We approved the project. We said let's build a development at pheasant Hill and we are talking about a place that is several miles down the road. You don't get a lot of review, people coming out here unless you have some way of getting the word out to them so I am kim of in agreement that not that Tom Klingelhutz or any other developer, but if it is a developer who needs the exposure to get the project off the ground. So those are my three or four comments. If the sign is nicely done, it is there for a short period of time, not to exceed six months or whatever or until a certain portion of the project has been built, I'm in favor of it. Councilwoman Watson: I went to see this sign. It definitely goes with the piece of property it sits on. The whole thing out there is a real match fit. I can see why you picked the one you did but in an effort to improve the situation. If there is to be a sign, it has to be a whole different sign then the one out there. 7 ~i ,610 .h. ~C->' City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Tom Klinge1hutz: I'll take this one down tomorrow but I would still like to I be able to put a small sign up there that says Pheasant Hills down the road. Councilwoman Swenson: You have already broken the precedent at Brook Hill so I don't see any difference between that and this for allowing a sign on the corner of TH 101 and TH 5 with an arrow on it and I certainly don't think we should discriminate against Tom as long as we let somebody else do it. Councilman Horn: Not as long as the sign is neat. Councilman Geving: Could we start with some of the questions and things that we have heard. I would be in favor of authorizing a sign, not to exceed 24 square feet in wood construction, nicely done and for a period not to exceed six months. Councilman Horn: Wouldn't the appropriate action be to amend the sign ordinance to allow this type of sign? Mayor Hamilton: We could say we would like to send this back to Planning Commission for an amendment to the sign ordinance. Until it is complete we could go along with Dale's suggestion and allow a sign of the size he has suggested that would not be a permanent sign but a temporary sign until such time as the ordinance amendment is completed. Councilman Geving: And remove the old sign effective tomorrow. Tom Klingelhutz: I'll take it down tomorrow. I kind of planned on doing that anyhow. I Councilwoman Swenson: Just for the record Barbara, would you state the existence of the highway sign for Brook Hill on 'ill 5, that is on their property, is that correct? Barbara Dacy: That is correct. Councilwoman Swenson: The one that Council approved is how large? The ones to go on off-premises? Barbara Dacy: 6 square feet. Tom Klingelhutz: Can this be a sign with cedar posts on each side with the sign in the middle and it can be double faced not to exceed 24 square feet? Mayor Hamilton: That 24 square feet, wood grain construction, not lighted, double faced with nothing other than the developnent name and an arrow. Councilman Geving: Not to last beyond December 31st. You had asked for October, Torn, in your prev ious comments. You said something like three months but if we get into October and November, that is still a pretty nice period of time here. I would say up until Christmas. I 8 I I I r::' .!.;'~:~ City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: I remember that we did make an allowance for a small sign for the Chaparral on TH 5. As I recall there was a time limitation given, it seems to me Barbara and you can go back and see, there was 60% completed or 70% which is long enough for sign exposure. Torn Klingelhutz: <:nce you get 60% completed in your area, you have word of mouth exposure which is better than anything in the world. Councilwoman Watson: You could take this sign down late this Fall and it could go back up again next building season but it wouldn't have to sit out there all winter. I'm just saying the sign would just look crummy and fall down during the wintertime. Councilman Horn: Are we saying then that this sign would comply with the provisions of the future sign ordinance? Mayor Hamilton: Not necessarily. We are allowing to put up the sign until such time as the sign ordinance is amended arrl then we would review it again so it would comply. Councilman Horn: So we could have it comply at that point? Councilwoman Swenson: Nothing will prevent any developers from corning in and having a like situation granted? Mayor Hamilton: Until the ordinance is granted. Counci lman Geving: It is possible. Don Ashworth: I would suggest that the Council approve the sign and send it back to Staff to develop corrli tions that would be similar to your previous comments and will bring back basically what you stated here this evening in a written form with a time frame similar to Chaparral, etc.. Councilwoman Swenson: Can I make a recommendation that we approve a design and I think the one that Tom probably is recommerrling. A wood sign, a nice attractive looking sign so that we don't have a variation of heavens hnows what. We approve for one type, this type of sign only otherwise we are going to have signs for Pepsi-Cola allover the city. Councilman Horn: Is there any estimated time frame for the Planning Commission to get back to us with their recommendation? Barbara Dacy: It will be scheduled for their August 13th agerrla so that is next Wednesday and then if they do recommend to order a public hearing at that time, the earliest would be the first meeting in September so it could get back to Counci 1 at the end of September. Councilman Horn: So it should be at the errl of this building season? Mayor Hamilton: Bob Siegel from the Planning Commission is here and I would just like to ask Bob, in looking at the minutes of your meeting when this was 9 lL.: City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 discussed it seemed like the only comment that was really carried through everybody's comments was that it was not in the intent of the ordinance to allow this type of thing. Do you have anything to add to that? I Bob Siegel: No, I was not at that meeting but I do know that the Planning Commission is just trying to abide by the policy that has been established and not flucuate too drastically from those pol icies. We do need changes in the ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: Well, now you have an opportunity to make some changes in the sign ordinance. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded for approval of the Sign Permit Request #86-6 for placement of a temporary off-premise sign at the intersection of TH 5 and CR 117 with the conditions that it be a nice, attractive sign constructed of wood, that it not exceed 24 square feet, and that it be taken down by December 31, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried. ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR WATERMAIN TRUNK EXTENSION TO CHANHASSEN HILLS. Bill Monk: Back in a meeting in May, City Council authorized appropriation of a feasibility study for a trunk water main extension down to an improvement for a preliminary plat that was approved for Chanhassen Hills. In the past, the meetings have been so busy that we haven't had an opportunity to have any I type of consultant presentation. What I would like to do in this case, it is pretty straight forward but I would like Keith Anderson of Donahue to just run through the report. It is pretty straight forward but it includes a number of issues and then get into a Council and/or public discussion. The report was just finished last week. It was mailed out to all the affected property owners and I have heard from several. They may be here tonight, I'm not sure. Based on the comments at the meeting, Council can make a decision whether to accept the report or whether to table acceptance until they call a Public Hearing but I would like to ask Mr. Anderson to just run through the report briefly and then he will answer questions. Keith Anderson: I have a few overheads that I will use to explain the project and talk a little bit about the engineering background first of all, then I'll describe the project, talk a little bit about the cost process am proposed assessments developed for the project. This exhibit is from the water plan prepared by OSM last year. The project area for the feasibility study that we are talking tonight is the Chanhassen Hills area south of Lake Susan. The OSM report developed a water trunk system for this portion of the city and the plan incl uded an 18 inch water main around Powers Blvd. As far as Lyman Blvd., a 12 inch main across Lyman Blvd. and back up this direction. Now that the preliminary plat for Chanhassen Hills is on the table so to speak, we have al tered this scheme a li ttle bit. This map shows a smaller area. Lyman Blvd. is down here on the southern end of the map. What we have developed now is a plan that would take the 18 inch water main starting at the point where it terminates now at Powers Blvd., extend it down Powers Blvd., probably on the I west side, although that is a detail that can be worked out in design, am extend it down to a point located about here and then strike off toward the 10 I I I 1! r::: ~ .. '~-._~~' j t_ City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Chanhassen Hills development with a 12 inch water main. '!he 12 inch water main would enter the plat, go down the streets within the plat am thereby provide lateral benefit to the lots adjacent to the water main and terminate off at TH lCH. This next exhibit zeros in on the plat itself. This shows again the area of the proposed water main. 18 inch line down Powers Blvd., 12 inch water main across the Youngblood property, entering the plat here and then going down below the streets as a 12 inch water main and providing lateral benefit to the lots on either side am terminating out here on 'lH 101. Those lines would probably be extended under TH 101 and terminate on the east side in a hydrant so that way it could also provide service to the phase V which is located here on the east side of TH 101. Project costs: It is estimaterl that construction cost would be foum in the construction contract for the construction of the water main facilities on the order of $339,000.00. The standard overhead that is used is about 22% representing engineering, legal, administrative and so on as overhead costs. In this case, that amounts to about $74,600.00. That gives a total construction cost here of $413,600.00. We put in an allowance for easement acquisition, this would cover the easement if it is necessary to pave the easement, between Powers Blvd. and Chanhassen Hills plat. We included $3,000.00 for that. That gives the total estimaterl project cost of $416,600.00. '!he last thing would be to discuss a little bit about the proposerl assessments. This graphic again backs off a little wider area. Powers Blvd. comes down the center here. Parcels that are numbered on this graphic within this area are parcels which will receive trunk benefit from the proposed project because they could directly connect to the trunk water main at Powers Blvd. once it is installerl so the proposal is to assess these parcels for the trunk benefit on the basis that has been used in previous water projects am that is assuming 1.85 units per acre am that is the number that allows for typical platting in this area where you have to make allowances for wetlam areas, steep slopes, street right-of-ways am all the rest of those things that modify an overall piece of land. It comes out to about 1.85 units per acre am that checks about with the density involverl in Chanhassen Hills. '!hen the assessment rate for the trunk benefit would be $650.00 per unit. The assessment begins when you have a parcel am you take acreage times 1.85 units per acre times $650.00 per unit and gives the trunk assessment. Then the Chanhassen Hills plat, the benefitting area within the plat is shown here. '!here are two types of assessments that are proposed here. First, there is the overall trunk assessment. Again, for the benefit to the overall plat constructing a trunk water main, there are 232 units proposerl within the plat so to get the trunk assessment take 232 times $650.00 per unit and that gives the trunk benefit. '!hen in addition, we calculated a lateral benefit. As I mentionerl before, the water main would go down the streets within the plat, the lots basically on either side of the water main would be in the environment from the construction of the pipe am those lots we would propose to assess lateral benefit. In most cases we have taken the short side of the lot, usually the front footage. The front footage is tabulated and is annexed in the back of your report and you can compare them to the lot numbers that are shown on this graphic. My first consideration of a corner lot, what we have done is to take the short side of the lot so the front footage of all the lots can be similar. We don't penalize long lots or lots that have two sides that goes onto the street. '!hat summarizes the 11 ~, pc. r'<) t, h."}; J:.. 'Lli .c,~ City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 proposed assessment and what that comes down to in dollars is right here. I believe that is tabulated on page 2 of your report if you want to refer to it. The first eight references here, the reference numbers being the numbers on the left side, refer to the parcel numbers on the exhibit that I showed a minute ago. These are the parcels outside of Chanhassen Hills development. Parcel numbers, owners arrl the acreages are all listed in this table arrl the resulting assessment is listed out here on the right. Again, that is 1.85 units per acre at $650.00 per unit. We have also included the Chanhassen Hills trunk charge which is 232 units at $650.00 a piece for a total of $150,800.00. Finally, the Chanhassen lateral assessment which is 2,589 front feet at the rate of $24.59 per front foot for a total of $63,605.00. Total assessment then is $576,434.00. That would be subject to some revision. I would have to get into the details of assessments in the property in terms of precise acreage of the assessed parcels. The proposed assessment is considerably in excess of the project cost and the money in excess of the project cost would go into a water main furrl to be used to furrl other ongoing arrl major water main improvements. I guess one thing I forgot to mention or explain was the order of this $24.59 front footage charge. That is in the report as well. That is based on cost of a 6 inch water main along the alignment in the plat arrl also the cost of services to the property lines, hydrants, fittings, pipes, etc., it comes out to approximately $24.59 per front foot. That is in the range of typical values for lateral water main benefits. Typically $20.00-$25.00. That is it. It is a relatively straight forward project as far as the presentation I have. I will be happy to answer any questions. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to ask, you are planning on cutting across the wetlarrl at Powers Blvd., is that correct, to Chanhassen Hills? Kei th Anderson: This is a schematic type of alignment at this point. I'm not sure that we go through a wetlarrl or not. Councilwoman Swenson: It is park area. I believe it comes off of Lyman Blvd. arrl goes toward Lake Susan. It is a valley. Let me ask you this. How far north of Lyman Blvd. do you foresee the land cutting across. Keith Anderson: It is on the neighborhood of 1,000 feet. Councilwoman Swenson: How much destruction does a water main make? It seems we keep on making exceptions to our wetlarrl ordinance for the City arrl I'm not sure that was the intent of the ordinance. I I Bill Monk: Some of the things when Keith arrl I were looking at this, two of the things we looked at closely. The water main will come down just about to the north side of Hillside Oaks where the lots were platted, not the street, but where the lots were platted up along the county road to north line is right here at that northern most lot. We're not going any further than that. The second thing that we did do was, we took a look at all the 1980 plans for this area over here, I think it is called Lake Susan West. All those plans I showed coming down to about this point where it would end because the train did get routed down below that so we came down to the south 1 ine arrl what we were thinking is we would pick the alignment if this thing goes to plans and 12 I I I 153 City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 specs, we would pick an alignment that would not go through any open water or anything like that but would carefully choose an alignment through here. To take through a 12 inch line we would be going anywhere probably from 20 to 40 feet wide am then restoring it. With that type of terrain am groum cover, we do eXPeCt that it would, within a year, basically all you would see is where scrub brush am stuff like that had been removed but it would grow back quickly. '!he impact would be minimal. We did come down to a point here. Orignally it was looked at up here. We are coming down to a point where are trying to narrow the section and then when the plans are actually done, we know the line may actually em up moving across here at an additional alignment but this does not effect Hillside Oaks and also it should not effect any develo~ent here because again, we are trying to be on that south line right between those two developments and cut through minimizing disturbance. Councilwoman Swenson: Of course you know when Lake Susan West was approved, I don't think we were as conscience of the wildlife and wetlands as we have become since then, but a 40 foot swath. Well, I guess it has to get over there somehow, I guess you don't have any other way to get there. Bill Monk: The other option would be to take it all the way down Lyman. We did look at that also. What happens when you take it all the way down to Lyman is that you do then include the Hillside 03ks development which is already serviced by a series of wells and do you assess them or don't you. As you run across Lyman you get involved with the parcels on the south side am it introduces in more problems then we thought should be handled down in that area right now because it is outside the urban service area am look for the narrowest place again to come through that would give us a rough alignment. Councilwoman Swenson: The service area goes how far south? I know the section to the west is not in. Bill Monk: '!his includes the properties in the urban service area in here. The only piece missing is, of course the Hills plat which is over in this area. Here is the Hillside Oaks subdivision. '!his line basically is for the south am west line here is the boumary for the urban service area so we didn't want to go any further down with alignment because then if you start to grow with any properties outside, looked at the line coming across here to minimize length and so on. '!his property up here is Chan Lake Business Park First through Fifth. They have already been assessed full trunk am we are not proposing that they get any further trunks at this point in time. Councilwoman Swenson: Well then in the future, what will we do to serve that Hillside area? I can foresee this coming not too far out as some people do. Will that just be shot? Can that just go right down there byexteming... Bill Monk: The two places that it would go down would be one going down TH 101 the other going down this alignment am third, an extension further down when the time is right, down here and then along the connecting line. That line would probably then not have to be a full 12 inch but the other thing you get into is we are beginning to get to the southern edge of what our system can handle am as that development occurs am the next stage down here... 13 ~ r;" . ii f~ ~.; )1_ ~)L:~ City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 *At this point in the discussion a tape change occurred. I Resolution #86-56: Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to call a Public Improvement Hearing set for September 8, 1986 for the Chanhassen Hills water extension and to defer action on the feasibility study detailing extension of a municipal trunk watermain along County Road 17 to the west boundary of the Chanhassen Hills development until after the Public Improvement Hearing is held. All voted in favor arrl the motion carried. CHANHASSEN VISTA: A. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET. B. REVIEW DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. 'C:" APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT, PHASE I. D. APPROVE CONSTRUCTION PLANS ANDSPOCIFICATIONS FOR PHASE 1. Barbara Dacy: I just want to cover two areas of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The first area is the process. We have been involved in a number of meetings and I just wanted to briefly summarize what has occurred. '!here are two EAW's submitted. The first EAW was confirmed in the sketch plan review and that proposed 124 lots at that time. In between the sketch plan review arrl the preliminary plat application, the applicant submitted a plan for 129 lots and at that time Staff advised him to prepare an EAW to reflect I that. The comment period ran from May 19, 1986 to June 18, 1986 in which time two hearings were considered by the Planning Commission. '!he first hearing May 28, 1986 arrl the secorrl hearing June 11, 1986. In between those two hearings the applicant revised the plan to reduce the number of lots from 129 to 124. You will recall that that plan included the filling in of the Type 3 Wetland revision excluded filling in of that area. After the Planning Commission meeting on June 11, 1986, Staff contacted Greg Downing at EQB arrl asked if the EAW had to be revised again for the third time. His statement to me was that because the revision was being done to reduce the number of lots and because it appeared that the revisions were intending to meet the concerns of the Commission, he stated that a revised EAW was not needed. Therefore, you are reviewing the second EAW. What the Council is determining tonight is whether or not an environmental impact statement is necessary. There are four major areas of concern during the development review process and that was also highlighted in the EAW. One was the steep slope areas. ouring review arrl as a condition of approval, the City instituted a conservation easement along the steep slope areas arrl also the Council attached a corrlition requiring each lot to submit a specific erosion control plan. '!hat is the lots that abut the porrl area. The secorrl issue was the wetlarrl arrl storm water runoff issue. The applicant did revise the preliminary plat to exclude filling in of the wetlarrl area on the northeast. An additional sedimentation porrl was established in the southwest area south of the existing pond. '!he third issue that was brought to Staff's attention was regarding the existing building arrl the amount of debris that exists around that building existing on site in the northeast corner of the property. Staff has been out to the si te to inspect. I There is broken concrete and insulation. As a recommendation of approval of the EAW, we are recommerrling that that be removed in conjunction with 14 I I I ~~h n .. iI-. J, ---.......".~. City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 initiation of construction of that phase which may be this Fall. However, in no case shall it remain to starrl beyond August 1, 1987, so in either case it has to be removed by next year. Finally, there was major concern regarding the connection in front of the existing neighborhood, along Frontier Trail to Kerber and Blvd. and as you recall, your action at the last meeting was to table consideration on whether the physical street connection would be made until additional information was brought back to you at a future meeting. Based on the mitigated measures that were identified in the EAW arrl the conditions of approval, Staff is recommending that the Council establish a negative declaration meaning that an environment impact statement is not necessary subject to three conditions: 1. Based on the plans and conditions established at the July 21, 1986 meeting. 2. Removal of the building and debris in the northeast corner of the site by August 1, 1987 or if possible, sooner in conjunction with the construction of that particular phase. 3. Further information be submitted concerning physical street connections of Frontier Trail to Kerber Blvd.. Jay Johnson, 7496 Saratoga: I was one of the only citizen commenters to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, which I provided verbal comments to the DNR, DAQ, NPCA arrl the Water Board arrl written comments to the City. One of the biggest subjects is that mess at the end of Frontier Trail. We have a knot hole mosquito ordinance. I was over there this afternoon to look at it again and emptied five different containers of water while I was over there that are starrling there arrl collecting water. We need to act on this place immediately if we have any concern over knot hole mosquitoes in this City. We have an ordinance, we need to start enforcing it. I have fourrl evidence that hazardous materials have been disposed on this site. I have brought some of it with me if you would like to see it. I am a professional environmental engineer. I have been for 11 years. I do this for a living. Investigate these type of sites. I investigated one last week arrl am going out to investigate another one this week. '!his one, I doubt if when you do the investigation, the NPCA has asked for in this area, which a letter from the NPCA to Bill Monk states that they have asked Mr. Segal to hire a consultant to investigate the site to determine if hazardous materials have been released. I believe that is the NPCA1s recommendation is that we investigate this si tee There have been paints disposed of on this site as one item, probably the primary item would be flammable materials from paints that may be in the water in this area. I can1t determine what was in these paints because the cans are so old that are sitting out there that you can1t tell what the brarrls were hardly anymore but there is one area where apparently somebody has dumPed a five gallon can of paint on the ground there. This is illegal disposal of hazardous materials. I can1t do that at any of the si tes that I manage for hazardous waste. I think this is one of the main things I want to be looked at arrl considered. Whether an environmental impact statement is required will probably depend on what they find by preliminary review of the grourrl water arrl the grourrl in that area but in order to really do a good 15 15~ City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 review you have to remove the concrete here and some of the other crap that is I there that our knot hole mosquito ordinance should be covering which we discussed several Council meetings ago, I brought that place up for consideration for that. The other thing is from the phasing that we have been told about earlier, the Segal's have been talking about 1988 for construction in that area, not this Fall. They said that was phase 3. We are doing Phase 1 this Fall, phase 2 next Spring and maybe next Fall. Since we have never gotten a written phasing thing, we don't know what the phase is but that is my main comment on this that there obviously has been combustible, flammable materials under NPCA regulations. This is a hazardous waste that has been disposed of at this site. Helen Vogel, 7197 Frontier Trail: We have been led to believe right from the beginning and Mr. Segal can sit there and shake his head, but he has told us on more than one occasion that it was going to be in three phases and it would not get to the end of Frontier Trail for construction until the very earliest 1988 and he can sit there and shake his head but that is exactly what he said at every meeting that we had and now suddenly he is going to start it this Fall. When is this going to happen? Could you find out when this is going to happen? Mayor Hamil ton: We will get to that. Are there any more questions? If not, then perhaps Mr. Segal could clarify a couple of questions. Saul Segal: 'Ibe south side of the pond is going to be developed first but we I would also like to grade the north side, which would be the second phase, and that would only be a strip along the creekbed and it would extend all the way to our eastern border but we would not connect with Frontier Trail. Frontier Trail would be the third phase if it gets connected, but the third phase would came where Frontier Trail normally connects into our property. Jay Johnson: discussing. 'Ibis is on the north side of Frontier Trail that we are Would you be willing to start and clean the area up now? Saul Segal: We were going to clean it up when we started grading in the Fall, that is when we were going to clean it up. Helen Vogel: But you told us at meetings that construction wouldn't begin until 1988. Saul Segal: Several months ago when we first started, we did say that it would be the third phase and originally we felt we were going to just stay around Kerber but we found that the sewer and the storm sewer all drain towards the creek and so consequently we have to start with the road closest to the creek as our next phase when we started north. Councilman G:ving: I just learned tonight about some problem on the north side. I wasn't aware that there was some contamination there. If there is in fact something there, we should take action to immediately remove that or determine what the source is and how serious it really is. We have an I obligation to do that. In terms of this air quality and noise, I don't think I have ever seen a construction project where they have muffled equipment even 16 I I I -t r::; t7 _';;. C",,, r. City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 though they have said they would and it is in their contracts but if that is possible in this area, I would sure like to see that done because I awakened one morning not too long ago this Spring about 7:30 or so with some kind of vehicle down the neighborhood working and I think there are enough neighbors in Saratoga and that whole area of Santa Vera that would be very upset if on a Saturday morning bulldozers were out there am unmuffled so let's watch that. As far as the berming installation of evergreens on Kerber Blvd., I never saw anything on that. Maybe that will come in the next phase when we see some of the plans for what is going to happen. I haven't seen any of the double frontage lots along Kerber being proposed for berming. Barbara Dacy: That was identified under the landscaping plan. Councilman Geving: Which we have not seen, is that right? Barbara Dacy: Yes, it was involved at the last meeting. Councilman Geving: Of course, I am very much involved with trees and protection and preservation of trees and I want to make sure that whatever you do Mr. Segal, you do a good job of taking care of those trees on that land and that is involved with this whole area of Fish, Wildlife and Plants am how we are going to protect that area. As far as negative declaration, I have read all of the comments from the various authoritative entities and they are approving. I see nothing in here that would alarm us. In fact, I saw nothing in any of the comments that would give us a reason not to be for a negative declaration. Councilwoman Swenson: I do agree, I wasn't aware of this situation at Frontier and I do agree Mr. Segal, that I think that should be your paramount thing. If we've got hazardous material down there, that we've got to get out. Then we should ask Staff. Bill, can you conform this control? This letter of June 30th from Minnesota Control. Bill Monk: There is no question that the shed at the end of Frontier was a construction area for many years. I don't doubt that paints and other things were deposited down there. That is just a part of the business. If the Council wishes to reinforce condition 2, that can be done am direct the applicant to hire a consultant to formulate a report within 30-60 days or something, Council can do as it sees fit with the three comitions or add additional conditions to their approval. Councilwoman Swenson: I would really like to know if there is, because if it has been draining down we should really find out about it. I think this is an extremely serious situation. Don Ashworth: It is the old construction shed of Hansen and Klingelhutz. I was surprised at this letter myself and I did talk with Tom Klingelhutz asking him if he was aware of any hazardous materials that had been put there in the years that they used that development. He was unaware of any but I bel ieve Mr. Johnson is correct. Paints, for example, are classified as a hazardous material so if they are stored there, they should be removed but again Mr. Klingelhutz was not aware of any type of other chemicals that we typically 17 " r-:' .0 JJ.. !:~,~:; c) City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 might think of with hazardous materials. I Councilwoman Swenson: Is it possible that residents or people around have used it as a local dump? Don Ashworth: It looks like it if you go by the site. Councilwoman Swenson: I think we are all jumping on Mr. Segal's back here and this looks to me like this is something that has been around for quite a while and I think it is rather unjust for us to suddenly turn around to Mr. Segal and give him heck for the fact that it is there. I'm sure he will be able to accommodate trying to clear it up as fast as he can. It has been there for quite a while. I guess we have to be a little logical and a little bit reasonable aoout getting it out and I'm just as concerned as the next guy. I know we all are because we have all been very conscious of this type of thing as we have found fran other work that we have done. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I concur and I would think that Saul would be willing to clean that spot up as quickly as possible and when it says August, 1987 in one of the recommendations, I would like to move that up some. I would think that would be in your best interest to get that cleaned up also. Saul Segal: We would like to grade there this Fall and we would do that at the same time. I Councilwoman Swenson: If you are going to grade there Saul, are you going to put some seed covering on or are we going to have just a whole bunch of... Saul Segal: we will definitely seed. Councilwoman Swenson: Okay, so you will make all the necessary erosion control. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded a motion stating that the City of Chanhassen as the responsible government unit (RGU) finds that the environmental assessment worksheet for Chanhassen vista is adequate in assessing environmental effects as well as identifying mitigative measures subject to the following: 1. The plans and conditions established at the July 21, 1986 City Council meeting; 2. Removal of the debris and building at the northeast corner of the site in conjunction with initiation of construction of the development phase for that area. If construction does not occur, removal shall be completed by August, 1987. 3. Further information concerning the extension of Frontier Trail shall be considered by the Council to determine whether or not a physical street connection should be made. I 18 I I I 1hO --fUrv' City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 The City of Olanhassen establishes a "Negati ve Declaration" and finds that an environmental impact statement is not necessary. All votErl in favor arrl motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: '!he next item is the Development Contract. I think Don had something to say about that. Don Ashworth: You have the contract before you. It conforms with our standard contract. I should note that Staff has addErl in the sections askErl for by the Council. Specifically, special language regarding storm sewer requirements, conservation easement, Sections 5.01, 5.02, 5.03, erosion control by lot arrl setbacks where Council had afforded an opportunity for smaller setbacks for some lots. Section 4.04 is your park credit section of the Development Contract. I noted in there that I have met with the developers. '!hey have brought in information that really should have been lookErl at before. I think we spent a lot of time with the conservation easement and really did not get a good handle on the 11 acres that really were being dedicated by the developer and it involved approximately 6 acres of land that should be considered under our park ordinance as being larrl for which a credit could be considered. If the Council would wish to look for reconsideration that is being askErl for by the developer, there should be a motion by the Council after considering comments of the developer for reconsideration. If that motion would pass then the Council could vote on whether or not to provide a credit or not. In either case, Council should fill Section 4.04 for whatever typ:! of credit. I would also note that there was some portion in terms of the Minutes in regards to the lots where Councilwoman Swenson had carried out a discussion of the approximate 8-12,000 square foot lots in this development. The final motion appears to state that one of the lots be eliminated. I believe there is an opportunity for rearrangement so that you would not have that 12,000 square foot identical look and I guess I would ask Councilwoman Swenson to clarify her motion for those minutes arrl that would simply be again, a clarification rather than a change in motion. Councilwoman Swenson: I understarrl Mr. Segal has made a presentation to me that I will share with the Council and he has been able to adjust these lot sizes in such a way as to eliminate the congestion of the 12,000 square foot lots being compacted all in one without the elimination of the lot. I'm not sure I know how to do this. Don Ashworth: You are really clarifying your motion. It was your motion and it is up to you to clarify whether or not your intent was to have him rearrange the lots or whether your motion was to eliminate one lot. Councilwoman Swenson: I would be afraid that I would have to call for a reconsideration because at the time it was to eliminate a lot however, since that time, I am convinced that Mr. Segal has come up with a proposal that will satisfy the intent that we had. I feel that the Council, when apprised of this, will hopefully agree. I don't see any point in requiring that the developer eliminate a lot as long as he is able to demonstrate that he can accomplish the same thing. I will be happy to proceed by whatever means are necessary. Is that requesting reconsideration? 19 160 City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Don Ashworth: The clarification of Minutes would not be required to be considered as part of the Development Contract itself, no. It could be a separate item, yes. Mayor Hamilton: en a future agenda, at the next meeting. That portion was not part of this particular phase? Saul Segal: No, except I guess it effects the Park Dedication. It really effects everything. That is why I thought it should be brought up. Don Ashworth: If you do have either a clarification or a reconsideration that occurs typically at the meeting following whatever time frame you would consider but the City Council does not have to do that if they table it for a future agenda. Mayor Hamilton: What do you want to do Pat? Councilwoman Swenson: I will accommodate whomever and whatever. Mayor Hamilton: Do you want to move for reconsideration for this meeting here and now with this panel now? Councilwoman Swenson: I would just as soon unless the Council feels they do not have sufficient information. Mayor Hamilton: I think that can be clarified very easily once Pat decides that she would like to move for reconsideration this evening. Councilwoman Swenson: I will move for reconsideration subject to Mr. Segal's proposal. Councilman Geving: Are we only going to discuss one issue? Mayor Hamilton: For reconsideration, right. One lot. Councilman Geving: Are we going to discuss the other issue that has been brought up for reconsideration? Mayor Hamil ton: What is that? Councilman Geving: This is on the ponding issue. This is the very issue that Don brought up and that was a consideration of $50,000.00 for park dedication. Mayor Hamilton: That is already a part of our review of the Development Contract. That is a part of this already. Councilman Geving: Don mentioned that it had to be a reconsideration of the motion. Don Ashworth: That is a request for reconsideration as well. 20 I I I I I I ...-<~ ,;"':,;-,,>-~ -~ t}:, j~~ City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Councilman c:eving: So the question I have is are we going to discuss one i tern, both items or are we going to negotiate because I think there is a lot of room for negotiation here with Mr. Segal. Here is how I look at it. He is asking for us not to eliminate one lot at the price of $25,000.00. He is also on the same hand looking for some park dedication fee in the neighborhood of $25,000.00. My view is it is an even split am it is a wash and we could probably negotiate both issues all at once. Mayor Hamilton: Dale, we need to decide first of all on whether we are going to decide both these items so I will entertain a motion for both the park dedication fees am the reconsideration of the removal of one lot as made in the motion of July 23, 1986. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded for a motion for reconsideration of the park dedication fees am Item 13 which stated the removal of one lot as made in the motion at the meeting on July 23, 1986. All voted in favor of reconsideration am motion carried. Saul Segal: I just wanted to show you a map of what was approved and then what was proposed to be changed. (Mr. Segal then handed out maps to the Council members). After Pat raised her objection to the concentration of 12,000 square foot lots, I asked our planner to go back am see if we couldn't accommodate that without losing a lot and he came up with this plan that I think does satisfy the intent of eliminating mass grouping. The most lots together are three and as Dale mentioned, it is true that when you remove an extra lot off of this plan, the fixed costs are all remaining the same. The streets are the same, the grading is the same, the sewer, water and storm are the same so the only thing that changes is the hook-up cost am the park dedication fees and that amounts to about $1,000.00. '!he net loss to the project is cost to $25,000.00. Are there any questions I can answer? Jay Johnson: Aren't we doing the preliminary development plan again? Doesn't this have to go before the Planning Commission? We've never had a public hearing on this plat. Last City Council meeting he brought another one. '!he public never has had a chance to review these plans that we keep seeing, the new ones. Mayor Hamilton: It's the same plat. '!he only thing that has changed is the realignment of lines of lots. There had been nothing added or taken away from what was approved. Councilman c:eving: When you realigned this, obviously there is no one that can be added. How many new 13,000 square foot lots have you got as opposed to what you had before? Saul Segal: we have four new ones but we have one less 15,000. Councilwoman Watson: When you're going to make some lots bigger, something is getting smaller. Saul Segal: We took 100 off of 15,700 and made it 15,600. '!he net result of this realignment, this is how we comparErl this to the others that were 21 1, 0.. 6?J ~.~()b City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 approved this past year. I think that comparison shows that we are the only I ones, I think that have met the 50% of the lots being 15,000 or greater. We are the only ones that, I think that don't have any lots that are less than 12,000 square feet if I'm not mistaken. Basically, when you look at our average square footage, we are among the top. When you look at the minimum lot size, we are the highest. Our averge lot width is right at the top with another one. ilir minimum width is the same, at the top and our gross density per acre is the thing that is at the bottom or the top, however you want to look at it. Dennis Karstensen: When the Planning Commission approved this, they had some concerns about too many small lots also. They suggested or at least some people did, taking four out of one side and one out of the south side. Saul Segal: I will pass out a sheet that I worked on. Councilman Geving: Ole thing I would like to have you do Saul, is show us exactly where this piece of property is on the plan. Saul Segal: '!he 11 acres is the land that I am dedicating for park and shoreway and pond and it probably includes this little strip here which doesn't amount to even an acre. '!he outlots that are trail ways. '!hat amounts to 11.2 acres. The pond that sits in the middle here of this property is 4.8 acres so our total dedication is 16.56 and if we remove the pond, it is over 6 acres which would be close to 9% of our gross acreage. When I look at the I park ordinance 14 (a) and 14(b), Section 202 addresses itself to if the City desires to take land for park p.lrposes, there is a formula to be employed to considered the amount of land that should be dedicated by the developer wi thout any compensation and the formula that is in the ordinance would lead us to a figure of 6% of the acreage to be dedicated for park purposes. Since we are dedicating up to 9% outside of the pond, it seems to me that we have satisfied the City Ordinance in that regard. '!he second section which deals with neighborhood park charge specifically says that that charge would be put in lieu of dedication of land not in addition to but in lieu of so it seems to me there is a double charge to this based on the ordinance of the City of Chanhassen. Now, the only reason I even thought of this, I develop land in other communi ties and whenever I give land that the City wants for park, and that is what this is because the City has always considered this park area, we get credit for that and we don't get charged for park dedication fees. Consequently, it seems to me that this is appropriate. Now, Dale is right, if you don't take a lot away from me that is worth something and I thought it was worth 50% of the park dedication fees and maybe I could pay 50% of the park dedication fees instead of not paying any. That is really what I thought was sort of a give and take between the City because I had asked the Staff, I pointed to the ordinance, I've gone over it. I had difficulty figuring out what all those things were, but I did finally by virtue of how I was told the charge would be per lot, was able to put these numbers back in and figure out what percentage of the land should be given to the City if they wanted land so I guess my point is that if I give 9% I have really fulfilled the 6% requirement and should not be asked to pay park dedication fees. I guess the I reason I am coming here, I have never developed a PUD with less than 2.1 units per acre. I'm really worried, to be honest with you, that I'm going to be 22 I I I C)~7 .l"o ..,~ ~v ~) City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 able to do it and come out all right with my head so that is_ why I have to watch everything and that is why I am coming and showing you. If I am interpreting your ordinance wrong; I am right here: Tell me so but I don't think I am and if I'm not; then it seems to me it is pretty self evident that I have met the park dedication fees just by giving the land but l~ke I say the lot means a lot to me and we should be able to work something out. Mayor Hamilton: Before we make any comments; I think I would just like to mention that we've got something new tonight that is going to be difficult to comment on until we have had an opportuni ty to study ita li ttle bi t and it also seems like this is something that should have been done; as you know quite a while back along with the other things that were taking place. It would seem to me that it is going to be difficult for the Council to decide on this tonight and I guess I would feel that until the Staff has had an oppor tun i ty to review it and go back to the Park and Recreation Commission for their comments on it; the park dedication fee; it would be difficult for us to sit here tonight and try to figure out if this is right or wrong or indifferent: I wouldn't feel comfortable deciding on it tonight and I know you have a lot of comments Dale so I would think about that first prior to perhaps making any comments: Councilman Geving: I will make it real simple to Mr. Segal. Would you be willing, if the Council were to give you the lot, and I have no idea how this will work out, that you would forgive the park dedication portion of this whole thing for the lot that you asking on an even up basis? We are talking about $25,000.00 no matter how you put it, in my view, which is the value of that park plan. Mayor Hamilton: So you are saying he can have the lot and go with park dedication? Councilman Geving: Yes. It is my view that land is worth an estimated value of no more than $4,000.00 per lot am you have imicated that you probably could have gotten another four lots out of there so we are really talking about apples am apples. Saul Segal: If we could get it approved tonight, I would say, yes, because I have to get going. I have to get started am if it gets too late, another two weeks, I won't get done this year. Councilman Geving: I don't want to give you any money for that park land. I think it is worthless. It's nice lam as far as a park is concerned am people are going to enjoy the amenities but there is no way in hell you could have ever gotten any lots on there. Saul Segal: My planner demonstrated that he could get four. Councilman Geving: I don't believe it. It's down in a hole. We would never let you do it so that is my proposal. Saul Segal: Would you be willing to put it to a motion. I said that if we could get it done tonight because if I have to wait two weeks I won't even be 23 258 City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 able to finish this development this year so I have to go along with it. I Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to realign the lots as indicated tonight for Enterprise Inc., Chanhassen vista #7728 for the sketch that has been presented dated 7-30-86 which shows making 13 lots presented by Mr. Segal which would be an amendment to the development plan printed July 24, 1986 and to 4.04 under Park Dedication fees, insert that the park fees the developer shall pay will be 100% of the park fee perceived by the Chanhassen City Ordinance. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Horn: I'm not terribly comfortable about our awroach to it but I guess I don't see a risk to us. Councilwoman Swenson: I agree. I have one thing that I would like to add on the building contract. I would like to make it a condition of the development contract that would control the hours of operation. Bill Monk: It is in Part o. If you look under the Plans and Specs there is a Sunday, Holiday and night work. It is part of the Plans and Specs. It is not a part of the Development contract. Councilwoman Swenson: I think it should be part of the Development Contract. In fact, I think we should include that in all of our development contracts henceforth. Bill Monk: We can put a section directly into the contract that would state I that. Councilwoman Swenson: I think if it is spelled out in the development contract, then you have less chance of difficulty and I think we should probably have it. From 7:00 to 6:00? Bill Monk: '!hat is what is in the section. No work from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. nor on Sundays or Legal Holidays. We tried to put Saturdays in there but the employees want to work on a couple of Saturdays. Councilwoman Swenson: Do we have in there the subject of the roads construction vehicles? Bill Monk: No, as in the memo on Part 0, that will be specifically covered by me at the pre-construction hearing and Saratoga will be put on and Santa Vera will be put on. Mayor Hamilton: '!hat could be part of 2.10. I have a note here about the ingress and egress during construction. It would come under street maintenance. Councilwoman Swenson: development contract. I would like to see these things spelled out in the I know by reference this is great but... Bill Monk: We will put both in. I 24 I I I -rr a T?'~ lL \U;~ 5]/ City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Mayor Hamilton: en item 6, street signs, I was wondering. As part of Triple Crowns Development Contract, Saul, I don't know if you lookerl at that, they do some extra things with stop signs they put up. Have you had a chance to look at that. I thought it was really nice. Saul Segal: I haven't. You mean they have some up there now? Mayor Hamil ton: No, not yet but as part of their overall development. When they put in a stop sign at a corner they kind of build it into a wood frame. I just thought it lookerl really nice am if you could incorporate that into yours. Councilwoman Watson: IDok at Near M::>untain. Pleasant View and TH 101. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to have that as part of the Development Contract as Point 1.06 that they look similar to Triple Crown Estates. Jay Johnson: What was the motion? I thought the motion had something to do with park dedication fees being swapped for the land? Mayor Hamilton: That is correct. The lot was not excluderl am the lot line rearrangement was agreed to and the developer will pay 100% of the park derlication fees. Jay Johnson: D.:>n' t you go through the rest of the contract at the same time? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we went through the whole thing am that is what we were taking comments on. It is a standard development contract that we use with every developer am it is everything that we can think of. We adderl some things. Jay Johnson: Councilwoman Swenson, when she was talking about that Sundays, Holidays am night work. The paragraph that they referrerl to said that they can operate on Sumays, Holidays and at night with the approval of the owner or the engineer. Mayor Hamilton: In an emergency situation I believe it says. Jay Johnson: No, I think we should change that to owner or City Engineer. Otherwise the Segal's can say, yeah, let's work on Sunday. Helen Vogel: Does all this just awly to phase I? You are just approving Phase I now. Mayor Hamilton: The Development contract is for Phase I, right. Helen Vogel: Because I was questioning when you said the construction traffic would be on Kerber Blvd. but when it comes to the Frontier Trail area, the construction traffic won't be on... Mayor Hamilton: That will be the same also. The ingress and egress will be off of Kerber Blvd. 25 -.JlGo.. JLC;O City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Dennis Karstensen: There is one thing a few of us saw on the conservation easement, the Minutes approved last time, there was some mention about trail access to the conservation easement area and that was not listed in this conservation easement included in the development plan. I Bill Monk: Condition 12(c) was that you would have trail access and that was not a condition, that was not put into the development plan. Don Ashworth: That was the section off of Kerber, the little triangle. Jay Johnson: The trail system may very well go along these PeOple's property within the conservation easement. The site of the trails have not been decided at this time. Mayor Hamil ton: I believe that is right and I don't think it needs to be at this time. Jay Johnson: It doesn't have to be decided but we need within the conservation easement permission to build trails on these PeOples property which we did not put into the conservation easement. Greg Frank: We SPecifically asked Lori to define where the trails would be so that we could dedicate that to the City for park rather than have trailways go through private property because of the liability insurance so consequently, Lori and Bill Monk and Barbara were all in and said here is where we want the I trails and we adjusted our lines to dedicate that to the City. Mayor Hamil ton: The next item is the approval of the Final Plat, phase 1. Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded a motion for approval of the Final Plat, Phase I for Chanhassen vista stamPed "Received July 25, 1986" subject to revision of street names am amendment of the boumaries of Outlot B or submission of an access easement across Outlot C. All voted in favor am motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: We also have the approval of the construction plans and SPecifications for phase I, I believe that should say. Bill Monk: I'll talk primarily on the grading plans. Tb orientate yourselves, north is in this direction, the existing Saratoga Addition is along the east line, which is on the top of the page. Phase I plans include grading sanitary sewer, water mains, storm sewer am streets for the southern section, all south of the existing pond. The sanitary sewer, not shown on this plan but again, I will just point out if there are questions I can go off the detail sheet, is extended from a manhole behind an existing duplex. It will have to be run through an easement in the plat am will service am run down all the streets to service the lots on individual basis. The water main will be the same. Basically the connection will be made at the em of Santa Vera where all are running to the west side of Kerber Blvd. in anticipation of the trunk line that is going to be run down sometime in the future and that I will come down and service the cul-de-sacs and individual lots. Storm sewer has been looked at quite closely. Again, the intent is to catch up all of the 26 -t' r-',' If'>. 1- (j <iJ} City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 I I water from street sections, divert a majority of it down through two piping systems. One to Cascade Court down to the low area on the west side of the plot, the other comes down Santa Vera to Kerber and then be piped down to that same area. Both pipes go all the way down to the plat area so as to get it away from the erosion problems that we have run into in this same area. Additionally, a pond will be created down in the corner. As I recommended as one of the conditions in my writeup, it is being suggested that this pond be increased in size substantially so we can handle not only sedimentation, which this pond will basically handle, but also recontrol and run runoff from the site and increasing this pond size that can be done with a grade control on the outlet which the Watershed District is also requiring so that we can minimize the effects at any time on the existing pond but not increase the water being outlet in the existing creek and down to Lotus Lake. The sedimentation basin could then be increased in size as this area to the west would be dedicated and a sizable pond would probably be created at that point in time. It is recommended at this point that this porrl hold water arrl you would then have wood designed into with this outlet pipe to allow elevational changes which would handle the flow through here but this would not be handled as a dry pond set up. Other items on here important to note are the change in elevations along the Saratoga Addition between approximately Lots 3 and Lots 8 a berm will be constructed along the east edge of the property and a low area created about in the area of this catch basin. Water off of the site in these backyards will be directed towards that catch basin and south by the berm and taken down to the west. We looked at that in some detail and that will specifically address the concerns of the neighbors in this area. Water from the backyard in this vicinity are intended at this point to drain through a swale that will come out towards the Kerber Drive ditch. There is a flat area on the school property in this vicinity. We will fit the contours in that area and believe that the water will drain across that area and get down eventually to West 78th Street. That is a quick synopsis of the storm sewer. As far as site grading, there is a couple of things I guess I would like to point out. On this portion of the site, the trees on the site are pretty much relegated to what would be the northern portion and are located here. In some instances grading will be done around the trees in an effort to save them. These are mature trees and I don't know exactly how many there are, between 12 and 15 trees probably in this vicinity but the plan does accommodate... *A tape change occurred during the City Engineer's presentation. I Bill Monk (Con't) ...walkouts will be constructed to buffer the visual impact that you would have on that 6 feet but another reason that build up must occur is again, sanitary sewer is very shallow and will only accommodate certain things. Grading on the plan as shown is extensive. It does include grading across a major portion of the site but can be handled on the site and the dirt work does balance quite well. As far as the erosion control goes, I did say I would have a plan but what we have done is because of the problems we have had on other projects, the City has come up with two standards. One is using the fabric that we call Fence-Type I that reinforces the fabric with steel posts instead of the wood posts which causes the problem that we have experienced with the wood. The Type II fence that we have started to use is a staked down hay bale with a snow fence behind it which worked quite well for 27 JL '74- City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 the City on the South Lotus Lake project. What I have done on here is go through am put Type I in green and Type II in red am expanded the lim its of the erosion control. I believe the slopes along the northwest and also in this area along the extreme slope should be perfected in the initial stages using the fabric with the steel posts as backup. Also enlarge the areas where that erosion control will be used in several other areas on site and also backed up the fabric in two locations. Qle in the pond and one in the backyard areas here abutting Saratoga so in these two instances, actually be a double protection. First you would have the hay bales with the fence then behind that you would have the fabric staked in. Also put a series of hay bales check dams in this area because a lot of this drainage will be directed in this manner over towards Kerber then down along this existing ditch. Until the pipe is in, I believe there is a real possibility for a lot of water and sediment erosion to occur in this area and have to put three check dams in that area. I am recommending two conditions be placed on the plans that have been subm i tted. One that the pond adj acent to Lot 4 which is down in this area, be enlarged to retain the increase in site generated runoff caused by the development to cause minimal if any impact on the existing pond from a water quantity or elevation standpoint and second that the erosion control be expanded to basically to adopt this plan. That this would become Exhibit A with the enlarged silt fence section and hay bales. With that I guess I will answer questions. Councilman Geving: How much water will that secondary pond hold that you are going to dike back in the middle there? Bill Monk: The pond can be made to basically hold back the 100 year event. Basically we have been playing with different things and working on different arrangements. Councilman Geving: I guess I need to know, how large is this control structure going to be in height and width? Bill Monk: The control structure would just be a pipe that would be immersed that you would never see. It would probably be a 8-10 inch PVC pipe that would be laid in backwards so as the small pond fills up, the head would force it through the pipe into the larger pond so it would not be a structure as such, it will just be a pipe arrangement would be the outlet. Councilman Geving: How much water will that small pond hold in it's maximum? Will there be enough water in there that it becomes a danger to small children playing in the area? I I Bill Monk: With the existing pond there, it will hold water and probably could hold water to an elevation of between 2-3 feet because if you get less than that you end up with kind of a swamp which is stagnant and can cause problems. I suppose that it could in the end be a problem but with the conservation easement and everything kind of buffering the area, that was seen as preferable to a dry pond which is very difficult to maintain. It is more aesthetic but it could indeed be somewhat dangerous being in such close I proximity. "There is just a lot of water to let out in that area. 28 ...,.. f7 t:; JL {J (!jl City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 I Councilwoman Swenson: I have a question on the section in Special Conditions. In Section 3.0-6 going back again to the holiday and Sunday work. There is no work should be done between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. nor on Sundays or legal holidays without the approval of the owner or enjineer. I would like to eliminate "without the approval of the owner or engineer." However, work necessary for emergencies or for the protection of equipment or finished work may be done as required and approved by the City Engineer, which covers the wi thout the approval of the owner or enj ineer. I think that is redumant. Bill Monk: we will put that in the development contract also. Councilwoman Swenson: we have to concur. Let's not have any contradictions. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded for approval of the construction plans am specifications for phase I of the Chanhassen vista as prepared by McCombs-Knutson Associates with the following conditions: 1. The pom adjacent to Lot 4, Block 4 be enlarged to retain the increase in site generated runoff caused by development for a 100 year stormwater event. Additionally, the pom be provided with a controlled outlet. 2. Erosion control be expanded as detailed on Exhibit "A". I All voted in favor am motion carried. Jay Johnson: May I just make a brief comment. I believe the public has been taken out of the consideration of the development because we have no say so in this part of the development plan which was preliminarly was supposed to be accordinj to the rules am laws governing this was supposed to be given to us before we had the public hearing before the Planning Commission as far as preliminary development plan. The plblic has not had their right to review this information tonight. I just want to make that statement. I believe the public has been left out am many of us feel that. Mayor Hamilton: I totally disagree with you and I will drop it there but thanks for your comment. APPOINTMENTS: A. B. C. '!WO VACANCIES ON PLANNING COMMISSION. REAPPOINTMENT OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSIONER. - - SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION MEMBER. I Mayor Hamilton stated that in light of all the development that is occuring within the City and because of the close working relationship the Council has with the Planning Commission, he felt it was in the Council's best interest to interview the candidates for the vacancies on the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Geving concurred with the Mayor's corrments. 29 11 ['FG City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table the appointments for I the two vacancies on the Planning Commission until after the City Council has had an opportunity to interview the candidates. All voted in favor of tabling the appointments and motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson: Does Council have the discretion that the Planning commission has for closed interviews? Don Ashworth: No, any decisions on the Council with a couple of exceptions but this would not fit into those exception area. I will relay the question to the City Attorney before you would go through those interviews I will have responded but I am quite confident the answer is no. Councilman Geving: I just want to make sure that we respond back to the Planning Commission of our action and why we are doing this. We feel it is in our importance to look at all these people and still take their recommendations. Mayor Hamilton: It's not a rap on the Planning Commission because I think their recommendations have been good in the past but for the reasons I stated I think we should talk to them. Resolution #86-57: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to reappoint Clark Horn for a second term as a Commissioner on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn who abstained. The motion carried. I Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to appoint Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Geving to the Southwest Area Transit Commission as the members representing the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS. Barbara Dacy: '!he essence of the memo is to consider your comments and input regarding the proposed schedule that Staff has proposed regarding the Comprehensive Plan. We believe that it is an ambitious schedule. However, we feel that it is better to be ambitious because there is a real need to adopt a plan especially to be consistent with the zoning ordinance to conform to the Sewer Facility Agreement and basically state the information that is in the plan. We feel that the work involved in the plan will not consist of a lot of changes. Basically, it is just to update and conform with the policies that have been established in the last 2-3 years. '!here may be a couple of parts on the Land Use Plan that may be decided by your action on the Zoning Ordinance but we feel that we can accommodate that through the process. Councilwoman Swenson: When do we start the zoning? Barbara Dacy: I think you set the third Monday in September. '!he 23rd of September. Councilwoman Swenson: Are we going to have a crash session on that. I 30 'TfR'Fj fi '7 {-' _._ I-J , City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 I Councilwanan Watson: We are going to do it virtually that week. Councilwoman Swenson: Of course, as you found out, the Planning Commission is sort of backwards because we will be finished with the Zoning Ordinance prior to the Comprehensive Plan so actually we are going to conform the Comp plan so it is a little backwards. Barbara Dacy: '!he Comp Plan was adopted in 1982 and that was per direction of the Zoning Ordinance but it has just taken this long to get the zoning ordinance to where it is now. Mayor Hamilton: It did seem rather agressive and I guess my only thought was that rather than being super agressi ve an:] not meeting the deadlines that perhaps it should be loosen up a little bit and be a little more realistic. We don't seem to ever meet these deadlines ever when we set them up. Councilman Geving: <Xle comment Tom, the Planning Commission encourages attendance by the Council members at their sessions and I think it is a good idea. '!he only problem is sometimes you get involved in their discussions and tend to carry it too far. I think if we can just go and be quiet and not be a participate I think we would be better off sometimes. I Robert Siegel: The intent of this new consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, we could be making some changes now as a plan that are contradictory to what you people are doing on the zoning ordinance and if we have some input on that type of action, we will know immediately if the plans conflict. '!his is just to maintain some sort of consistency during this period to two very similar types of policies. Councilman Horn: Sometimes it is better for Staff to pass on to other commissions what Councilor another commission is thinking before as Dale says, we can go there with the full intention of not being involved in a discussion an:] when you are called by name to give your comment, it is very difficult to pass up. . Councilwoman Swenson: I was just going to say Bob, one of the things that presents a bit of a problem when you are working on these things, an:] I understand that Planning Commission doesn't want their Minutes passed onto us even if stamped on approved until it has actually gone through which means that sometimes it is a month or more before we get your comment. <Xl something like this I would think it would be more helpful to us if we received the Minutes or at least these particular Minutes. If your Minutes are stamped unapproved this means that we don't have to approve them but I would sure like to see them instead of having to wait a month or six weeks before we get them. 1987 BUDGET-WORKSESSION. I Don Ashworth: I had put that onto the Agenda at a point in time where it appeared as though Chanhassen vista would not be on. Given the hour, I would suggest that we table that. 31 ,: ['70 JL t cJ City Council Meeting - August 4, 1986 Mayor Hamilton moved, COuncilman Geving seconded to table the 1987 Budget Worksession until a later date. All voted in favor am motion carried. I ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Bill Monk: This is a little bit awkward but you got a letter today and I would like to read it into the record I guess. You have copies in front of you. Don is the only one who knows. At this date I feel an obligation to let the COuncil know but I would like to read it. This letter is to notify you of my decision to resign from the position of Chanhassen City Engineer effective September 10, 1986. I have accepted a similar position with the City of Crystal. My decision to leave Chanhassen was a very difficult one. I have always enjoyed my working relationship with Don as well as the report I have experienced with the City COuncil. There is nothing about Chanhassen that is driving me away. Instead my decision was based on a desire to acquire work experience in a fully developed community coupled with a general restlessness that imicated a change was needed. There are many work functions that need attention prior to my departure but I am confident that most can be put in order. My new employer has also expressed his willingness to provide the time for me to work with you. Meeting with the City on a periodic basis until a replacement is hired. Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Don and the City Council for providing the assistance am the freedom I have enjoyed for the last five years am to say that I truly believe that I, as well as the City, have come a long way in the I past five years. I do this with much regret am a lot of reluctance but I truly believe that it is time to move on. I hate to do it at the em of a meeting but I'll be telling the p.lblic and I guess that I wanted all of you to know personally and not to get it after the fact. COuncilman Geving moved, COuncilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor of adjournment am motion carried. Prepared by Nann Opheim I 32