The URL can be used to link to this page

1987 05 04255 ~ANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL ~GULAR MEETING ~AY 4, 1987 .~ayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. ~ne meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. ~4BERS PRESENT: Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson ~4BERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt ~TAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann 91se~ and Pat Farrell, City Attorney .%PBROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the followin~ amendments: Councilman Horn wanted to discuss no parking signs at Carver Beach and Councilman Geving wanted to move item 9 behind item 2 on the agend~ All voted in favor ar~ notion carried. ~DNSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's rec(mmendations: a. Preliminary Plat Extension Approval, Mike Sorenson. b. Final Plat Approval for North Lotus Lake, Herb Bloomberg. e. Renew Water Ski Slalom Course Permit, Lake Minnewashta Ski Club. fo Accept resignation of Corpian from the Park and Recreation Cxm~nission. g. City council Minutes dated April 20, 1987. Planning Coumission Minutes dated April 22, 1987. Public Safety Commission Minutes dated April 23, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: RECONSIDERATION OF CONDEMNATION RESOLUTION FOR THE GROUND STORAGE RESERVOIR SITE. Mayor Hamilton asked the City Manager if this ~ed any more discussion before a motion for reconsideratio~u The City Manager stated that it was up to the council to take additional information now or just rely on the information presented at tt~ meeting held just prior to the City Council meeting. Oouncilman Horn wanted to know if Staff feels that normal procedures on notification were followed in this case. Don Ashworth: The question is one of, is there formal policy under which the City will send out notices to all abutting property owners. Notices were sent regarding the Council holding a public hearing and it did deal with the water tower as well as the trunk water lines. That hearing was required as a part 256 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 of the special assessment project. Mr. Owen's name does not appear on that listing as his property was not proposed to be assessed as a part of that project. It has been Staff's belief throughout the process that Mr. Owens has been apprised of the process and what it was that we were doits3 and as such, has had the opportunity for as much input or maybe more so than was used for the selection of the water tower in the main part of town, the well house at Lake Susan or other public facilities which by State Statute do not require a specific public hearing just to build that facility. Councilman Horn: So he did not receive any formal notification? Don Ashworth: He received the letter from Bill Monk in addition to, Gary can you help me out in terms of other forms of notifications that were given to Mr. Owens? Gary Warren: Tne letter from Bill, as you mentioned was a formal, written notice and then Staff has had several meetings with he and the planner in the interim during the process here since I've been onboard where we've talked about the site numerous times and how, as you saw, he had different alternatives for with or without the tower. Councilman Horn: Before our approval? Gary Warren: That was before your approval of condemnation. I think Bill Bonnet had the date of February llth or thereabouts. We've been in discussion with them on what Art was proposing for subdividing. Pat Farrell: The record of the Council should reflect that Mr. Owens was at the public hearing. Bill Bonner: He was not at the public hearing. He wasn't informed of it. Pat Farrell: There was a published notice in the paper. There were two notices published in the paper and attached to the packet. In perusal of the Minutes that Mr. Owens presented in court today reflect there was participation by Mr. Owens around this period of time so it's not as if it came like a bolt of lightning out of the sky is my opinion. Arthur Owens: I think the thing that we're concerned about is that anything that we have received has not been specifically for this property. When I got the first letter that they were concerned with us as one of three properties. August 11, 1986 was the date of that letter. At that time there were three properties involved. It was narrowed down to three. When I read the notice that was sent to me by Don, I received it today in the mail, about the published notice and it has nothing to do there with even the three properties. It's just that they are considering this thing. I think it's misleading Council for you to say that we have been informed right along. When you have to hold a public hearing to move a dog house 5 feet out of it's particular point or your appeals group has to do these things, why doesn't it sound legitimate to hold public hearings for something like this going up? Why we didn't crawl back under the legal thing. I really think the Council should consider that this be a natural part of doing business anytime it's 257 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 public usage, the same procedure should be gone through so that property owners and neighbors are aware of this. None of you m~n want this to be a hidden deal ~ it has been hidden from us. We were not even informed when you were going to be voting o~ the eminent domain. You would think when it comes to that point at least we would be informed of that but no, nothing. Just that the COuncil took action last night. I don't think tt~ COuncil wants this. I really don't. I think you've been misled on it and I'm not saying it's intentionally because I don't think anybody is going to do it intentionally but I think you've been misled on our desire to have the water tower there. We have never desired it there. Until I read some of the fine print, we thought that the water tower, if you want to have the water tower there you would have it no matter what. We didn't realize that we could · object to the specific place that it has to be. Can you show a necessity that it has to be there or are there alternatives and I go through the Minutes and I find there are alternatives. COuncilman Horn: From my perspective on that, I don't feel the other alternatives are adequate. My only concern is not so much the eminent domain but the method. I think you should have ~ informed ahead of .time that your site was the site selected and if there was any problem in that whole thing, that's the problem I see but from my perspective, I don't see that there is any other site that's suitable or adequate and I'm sure that you would come to this conclusion. Don Ashworth: In the timeframe of Bill Monk's departure and putting a new engineer on board, we employed temporary services who I think was an excellent engir_~cr but I think some of the things that might normally have been done, the courtesy type of things saying we have now finished that selection process and in fact your site has been chosen, did not occur. The COuncil was aware of the fact that Mr. Owens has granted us permission to c~ne in. That we did some topographic work for him. That we fixed a drain tile and other things during that process but we never did get back ar~ say your site was selected and that's a shame. Mayor Hamilton: I think one of the things that this COuncil and previous councils has always tried very hard to do is to make sure that tt~ public is informed and to be certain that we follow .procedures as they should be followed. Perhaps, you stated Art, that we thought and felt that as a COuncil we were following correct procedures. I guess I feel you certainly weren't uninformed but perhaps you should have ~ more informed about the process that we were going through but it certainly wasn't the COuncil's intent to not have anyone informed. I'm always happy to hear anybody up here on any issue that we're discussing and the rest of the COuncil I'm sure feels the same way. COuncilman Geving: I think sometimes we make an assumption that people read the newspapers and get the information from the legal notices which is a requirement that we have from a legal standpoint ar~ maybe the departure of Bill Monk was really what fell through the crack here. I'm sure that Bill would have followed up in every case that I'm aware of. He would have the courtesy of calling on you Mr. Owens and I personally apologize for that because we normally don't operate that way. We normally would have talked to you personally and I'm sure that this interim period, we happened to have 258 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 gotten caught in a bind here and we don't like to operate like that but it did happen. Arthur Owens: I know traditionally the Council has never done this and that's why you think you understand the workings of it and you find out you don't after the fact and that's why we're asking for reconsideration and an oportunity to have some additional input. The time allotted tonight, the 25 minutes was a rushed deal and it's difficult. We might still come to the same conclusion. I'm not saying that we won't but the idea is that it was not handled properly. Councilman Geving: You mentioned additional input. Do you have anything other than what you presented earlier or Mr. Bonner presented that's additional information? Arthur Owens: I really have questions as far as the engineering is concerned and some of the reports that were given here would lead somebody to believe that they were reading this and I suppose this is about what you were hearing is that that extra storage was going to be real helpful when in fact that extra storage is not real helpful. It's just a way to get the water up higher. It's cheaper to build it down there but the extra storage doesn't mean hardly a thing and I think that's important. Tne need is for 1 1/2 million gallons up through the year 2000 and that's what you would have on another site with no particular problem at all so that extra storage is not a big deal. In fact it's explained in the Minutes, if you look a little bit farther, it's explained why it isn't that important but as some of these things go, if you're anything like me, you can hear some things but it takes a while for it to gel that you understand exactly what's being told to you. Gary Warren: Just to clarify what Mr. Owens' is saying, when you refer to extra storage when you're talking about the 2 millions gallons that supports the 1 1/2 million, there is a definite need for the extra 1.5 million gallons. Councilman Johnson: I think it was unfortunate that the original public notice went out to everybody that would be assessed but not the property owners that was involved and t_hat was unfortunate circumstance. I really have gone over all this and I don't have much to add. It's something that's happened and we're really sorry that this happened. If I remember correctly, when we were considering back in February the eminent domain issue we asked is the owner was there and I tend to remember that, I don't have the Minutes in front of me but I was surprised the owner wasn't here at that point and now I can see why. Councilman Horn: I think the question was asked at that meeting specifically whether Walt had been notified. Councilman Geving: ~nat was one of the points that you missed when you came in later. There was a discussion Mr. Owens brought up earlier in the meeting in the Minutes that question was asked. That Walt had been asked about this. Apparently he had indicated affirmatively t_hat he saw nothing wrong with it. Arthur Owens: Yes, in the March 7th Minutes and he was asked and he was told 259 City Council ~ting - May 4, 1987 by Bill Monk that I had no objections. Up to that point Bill Monk had never talked to me. Pat Farrell: Weren't you made an offer with respect to the property or an appraisal discussed back sometime in February prior to the time whe~ resolution authorizing condemnation? Arthur Owens: That' s correct. Pat Farrell: My only point is, there may not have ~ a formal notice but people fr~n the City were dealir~ with Mr. Owens telling him what the City's appraisal w~s and making him offers. Bill Bonnet: At that point Mr. Owens thought he had no other alternative but to accept the fact that the City was going to have a water tower at this point. We asked Staff on numerous occasions to keep us fully abreast of the meetings at which point we could share with the Council Mr. Owens' desire to not have the water tank so at no point did we say we would be very happy to have this water tank if you will pay us x dollars. I think Mr. Owens' posture throughout this has been that he did not want to have the water tank. He wanted to build his home on the wooded knoll and as I said, we were simply looking for our time to tell the Council that and I called to get some other information was told that the public hearing was two nights ago and I had asked to be notified myself as w~ll as Art. Mayor Hamilton: I think we've beat that to death. Perhape we did not get out the notification to everybody that we should have. I think there is some responsibility on a property owner when something like this comes up to keep themselves informed also when your property is going through a process of condemnation. To know when meetings are going to occur and to make a call themselves. I guess from my standpoint, I'm not willing to reconsider this because I don't think it's going to change any. That's my personal opinion and the other Council members can say theirs. It's something that's ~ed. It's something that I don't think is going to decrease the property values in that area. I don't think it's going to be a visual eyesore to anybody. property can still be built upon ar~ there will still be taxes generated to the City. You are going to receive fair compensation for your property and it's something that the City needs badly plus the additional half million dollars that would ~ to be spent by taxpayer's dollars be spent to put the tower someplace else in a different configuration, to my way of thinking are adequate reasons to keep it where it's at. Maybe other council members would want to make their comments or if someone would like to make a motion to reconsider, you can do that also. Is there a motion to reconsider? Hearing no motion to reconsider, I think we ~ to move on. GROUND STORAGE RESERVOIR SITE ~TICS, BOB FRIGAARD, OSM. Bob Frigaard: This would be a view as your are co~ing up CR 17. It shows that there is approximately half of the tank that is going to be protruding above the trees. Mayor Hamilton: How many feet is that? 26O City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Bob Frigaard: We tried to shoot the trees as best we could to get the top elevation of the ones that are remaining and we probably would have somewhere between 35 and 40 feet of tank showing above the trees. The total tank is 70 at the high water level and about another 5 feet above that depending on the type of tank and top we put on there. What we're recommending is as low a profile as possible. Councilman Horn: What kind of trees are those? Are they fully grown? Bob Frigaard: Yes, the ones that are closest. are sc~e birch but they are primarily oak. Back on the other side there Mayor Hamilton: Is it possible to plant some other trees in there like a White Pine or something? Bob Frigaard: Yes, we've been talking with Barb and discussing aesthetics and so forth and I think she had suggested some evergreens up in there so even during the wintertime there would be a little bit of screening. After the tank is up and it's spotted where it would be benficial or some additional other trees but like I said, we kind of selected a tank that has the lowest profile on it. You can have one with a higher roof on here but we were thinking of trying to cut that profile down as much as possible. I guess basically I kind of wanted to show you before we finished the plans and specs and also get the Council's input as to what they would like to see on the tank. I have three examples here. One basically with nothing on it. Just a plain tank and for lack of anything else, we just kind of shaded it a light tan, earth colors. Colors are purely up to the Council to decide. Whether they want to make that decision tonight, they don't have to. That decision can be made after the tank is under construction. We'll spec the paint and say please list a paint chart ar~ we'll select the color later so that does not have to be made at this time. I would like to have some input as to what you might like to see on the tank. We've taken, as on this view here, your symbol of a leaf and just to start conversation basically is what we've gotten this for and then we have the other one with the words Chanhassen on there. You do have a rather long name of a city so you start to get a little bit of wrapping around and then there again, just the plain color tank so with that, I would like any input you might want to give me or direction as to what you might like to see. Councilman Geving: I kind of like the maple leaf myself. Councilman Horn: I agree. Councilman Johnson: I like the maple leaf better than the writing. Mayor Hamilton: I think it accomplishes what we want. It's some identification. Bob Frigaard: Tnere again, like you've got kind of a dark color on the wall. I know your stationary has some greenish to it but you're starting to blend a lot of colors in. Sooner or later you're going to have to make a decision on 261 ~.ity Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 ;olor and like I say, if you want to make it tonight you can go ahead. If you ~on' t want to, you don' t have to. .~ouncilman Geving: Have you seen our flag out in front of the building that's ~ind of a light tan? I like the darker color like this and light background. Db Frigaard: That's what I was thinking. If you had like a real light tan brown background with a dard brown leaf on it. If you want that leaf, I ~ould picture this view as kind of facing south. You would have a similar ,iew a little bit to the southwest as CR 17. If you want to put one on two ~ides, you can do that. There is room in that size tank. With the words, you ~tart wrapping around, you're going to get a little cumbersome. ~ayor Hamilton: I think the maple leaf is sc~ething we all would like to see. ~ob Frigaard: Okay, we'll proceed with that and do you want to select a color ~ow do you want to let that go? ~ouncilman Johnson: I'm in favor of kind of an earth tone. As unobtrusive as ~ssible. ~b Frigaard: What we can do is bring you some color chips once we've got a ~ontractor on board. We'll spec out the paint. No problem there. Just select color and the price isn't going to make any difference what color it is. )riginally in my plans with Gary I had hoped to have the plans ar~ specs ready Eor you at your next meeting. Because of what's been happening with the land, we just kind of fell off so I will now try to have those for you at the first neeting in June. I don't think it will effect our schedule. We will still .%ave this thing on line by the middle of June 1988. ~ouncilman Johnson: Would it be possible to see just one view from the south masically, from a few other positions? This doesn't look like a terribly .%ard sketch to do. As you come from the north on CR 17, as you're over on the east side of it. ~ob Frigaard: As you come from the north, you're are going to have a very similar view. The foliage is not quite as thick. Right down below the hill, at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and CR 17, you are looking straight up Oetwee~ all these so there you would get pretty much the full tank but if there was no foliage, you would actually get less tank because of the angle that you're looking at it so the farther away you get, probably more of the tank you will see. X~NTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, ~ary Ehret: What I would like to do is basically give the Council a brief recap of the utilities, the intrastructure, the scope and nature of the improvements we're talking about. I would like to have Jim Lasher of our firm Oriefly review the architectural design elements then I would like to come back to myself and just touch on the costs and the construction schedule and where we would go from here. What I've chosen to do is use our large landscape board just to try and illustrate the scope of prudence that we're 262 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 talking about. JUst to refresh the Council's mind. What we're looking at are the street and utility improvements for all the downtown area essentially starting on Great Plains Blvd. at TH 5, up to West 78th Street and West 78th Street over to Kerber Drive. Construction of a new north/south connection road west of the bowling center. Tne reconfiguration of West 78th Street in front of the existing retail area. The reconstruction of Laredo Drive to Chan View and the construction that's not shown on this board but the construction of the new bowling alley road to approximately this building line. Parking facilities west of the bowling road and then parking facilities behind the existing retail complex at West 78th and Great Plains Blvd.. I do have with me our feasibility report but essentially I can tell the Council that specifically in regard to. the sanitary sewer, the watermain and the storm sewer, our plans and specifications are virtually identical to what was presented in the feasibility report. The only exception to that is north and behind the Kenny's complex we talked at the feasibility stage about the fact that that line was in a real questionable condition. We did choose to include the reconstruction of about 200-300 feet as I recall of line in that area. It could be removed from the plans and specifications but the line is in bad shape. That is the only exception to what was included in the feasibility report. In terms of the roadway improvements, again, I am not aware of any major deviations whatsoever with the exception that in our feasibility report, the little chunk of Great Plains Blvd. south of the railroad tracks was listed as Phase 2 but that is included as Phase 1. Primarily because to make the storm sewer improvements, make the sanitary improvements, to make watermain improvements, we have to enter that area and once we tear it up three times for three improvements, we might as well finish it off so that chunk of road is included in the plans and specifications. With that I think I'll just turn it over to Jim briefly to just touch on the design elements and come back to myself and I'll give you a couple pieces of information and we can go to questions. Jim Lasher: Tne two items that I would like to show you tonight are the entry monuments and the clock tower developments that we've come up with. Generally speaking, a clock tower is in kind of the format of a grandfather's clock and by it's shape, you can notice we have hands here with a pendulum type situation down here. Basic materials are wood columns with rock faced block which is presented being proposed for Retail West, we would like to pick up that material and reuse it in this area and then a lap siding and cedar shake roof. The clock presently has two faces as shown on this plan view on these corners. On the other two sides we developed similar to this but would not have internal clock works which could be added at a later date if you did want to turn this into a four sided clock. We moved onto doing a primary, secondary, tricherary signage system for the City to announce specific locations such as retail businesses or some other kind of singage purposes. This would be a primary, secondary, tricherary. This being the smallest sign which you would use possibly to located one specific business or a group of businesses. This could possibly be used to locate a specific area such as the Chan Mall or something in that area and this could possibly be used to located a major complex such as possibly the Dinner Theater. These signs could pretty much function as they stand with the possibility of one, two or three different messages on each one depending on how big and long the letter size would be. Generally speaking if you see this person right here, this sign 2'63 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 star~s about 5 feet tall, this about 4 and this about 4. Don Ashworth: Jim, if you could go back in terms of the location of the clock tower. I think it's important that what it is that's trying to be stated in here. You have a major view as you're coming up this new road into the community and that is the same point that you have traffic coming along ~xisting 78th from both directions. If you could point that out. Jim Lasher: Generally coming through our new entry road is Great Plains Blvd., there is knoll that is proposed in the edge of this roadway here and this is where the clock tower would sit. The two sides which we proposed, one side would be pointed facing towards this direction and the other side would be pointed facing towards this directior6 You could basically tell time from these two directions right now. At a later point in time if you want to add faces to actually be able to read it from the back, that's also possible too. The entry monument is basically proposed to be located at this point right here upGn crossing the railroad tracks and entering into this median developed street pretty much where the new bituminous pavement begins. ~nis location we see as being quite important. One, it's up on a knoll and number two, if there is a highly visible stature as they come up this hill here and bending into the new road, this has a very prominent locatio,. TP~ opportunity to take an entry monument and relocate it to the smaller configuration either at the other end of the complex off of the intersection of West 78th or possibly a smaller version as well down here at the new intersection on TH 5. The entry monument itself takes the basic geometry shown on the clock tower and works those into a statement about the city itself. ~nis lattice work on the back I kind of like to refer to as the window to the City arz] at nightime we have vegetation behind it and there would be up lights underneath the trees kind of generating the theme that this is a very evergreen type situation and there is an awful lot of vegetation. These two vertical elements will bring tt~ statement out that there is something of importance here and then we have a sign system that would be occuring right down here backed with neon. This system as you see in the plan, this one is lower ar~ the other one is high, the sign face actually acting as a retaining wall. The quantity of plant material around here, what we're proposing is some evergreen arxt some deciduous groupings in the back. Potential relighting of this area, there could spotlights along the face to actually bring this out as a whole or just lighting individual side view... That's something we could pretty much discuss. As far as the architectural features, that's about all I have to talk about. I' 11 turn it over to Gary and he can discuss some elements. Gary Ehret: I just wanted to mention a couple other things. In the course of developing the plans and specs since we last appeared in front of the Council, we've had a pretty tight timeframe. I think that I reviewed our manpower schedule and we've had anywhere from 8 to as many as 12 to 14 people working on this full time for the last two months. That kind of gives you a feel for this. I also reviewed, just to let the Council know, we haven't bccn going along on our merry way with blinders. We've spent something in the neighborhood of 200 plus hours with internal review of the Staff so there has ~ a ton of detail and effort put into this thing. The other thing I wanted to mention briefly is that as we produce the plans and specs there were a number of coordination issues, traffic issues, special unique problems that we 264 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 tried to address and we attempted working with Staff to address as many of the access problems, special problems that we could. There were some very difficult issues to address. A lot of the elements went very well. We worked closely with Barb on the Retail West proposal to try and coordinate those facilities with what we're proposing. We've met with the Dinner Theater people. Herb Bloomberg, Clayton Johnson to work out the coordination between their site and ours. We also worked with the bowling center. We worked with Chanhassen Bank up on the northwest corner of Laredo and West 78th Street so we spent a lot of time with a number of people gathering input. We've also worked and had some very difficult questions to address in the area of the existing retail complex here. Parking issues, access, etc. and that has also been very difficult but we think we have a solution that will work. That fits the conditions we're trying to achieve. Tne thing I wanted to mention to the Council now is simply costs. Where we stand. An indepth issue which could be kicked around an awful lot. Our bid tabulation that will go out to the contractors has 255 bid items I believe. Somewhere in there. Everything from bidding removal of a sign to tons of asphalt so the numbers on this thing are quite big but where we stand, attempting to relate apples to apples. Feasibility report, what we presented to the Council earlier and plans and specifications as they sit based on the engineers estimate, the two as they sit currently are almost identical. About 2.7 million dollars. Page 45 I believe of the original draft feasibility report, our Phase 1 or initial construction cost was I believe 2.79 million. You have to jossle the numbers a little bit but essentially that's exactly where we sit and we feel very comfortable that this project will be built in it's current condition for 2.7 or less. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, maybe we can get to some questions. Councilman Johnson: Is this the same plan that we saw all year last year? Jim Lasher: Tnis was the plan prepared for presentation I believe on January 17th. Councilman Johnson: Tne plans I was looking at upstairs is slightly different in that you clump the trees and give it some open space. Is that true? Jim Lasher: I guess the best way to describe this is kind of a free hand sketch of what I was hoping to interpret into the construction documents. In the packet itself you will see the massing of trees, especially in the medians, are much tighter and the green spaces along the center median are much wider. Councilman Johnson: So you attempted to give better view to the businesses. That was one of my concerns before. Jim Lasher: That coupled with the choice of plant material that would be in medians is a very low growing type shurb so in essence what I hope to achieve is maximum height shrub of 2 1/2 feet and the bottom branch of trees at 7 for a total of about 4 1/2 clear view between and the driver's eye being about 3 1/2 feet, I anticipate they will have a clear view. 10 265 City Council ~ting - May 4, 1987 Councilman Johnson: You have a combination of fast growings and slower growing? Jim Lasher: Generally speaking, shurbs can come in many varieties but you buy compactus variety, a latin term that most all the shrubs come in when you buy them. Councilman Johnson: I saw you had quaking aspen. I believe those are fairly fast growir~ trees. rim Lasher: They are fast growing. When you get a compactus shurb it's a ,ery slow growing so we've got a combination of all those incorporated. Councilman Johnson: What kind of timeframe would it be before we would start to take sc~e of these trees out? Scme of the faster growing, shorter lived. Jim Lasher: I would say, estimated from the Arboretum from the best information that I received is the approximate l ifespan for a quaking aspen or poplar tree is about 45 to 50 years. Councilman (~-=ving: I don't agree with that. Councilman Horn: No. Councilman Geving: I have a number of questions. We've seen a variation of this before and we're here tonight to grant approval of the plans arzt specs and the next act would to be proceed with bids. I'm a little bit concerned about sc~ne of the things that I've s.~. I don't believe that we're ready yet for the clock tower and some of the signage. ~nis is the first time I've seen s~ne of the signs and that's s~nething we could take care of later ~ get on with the more important things. The road construction and the redevelopment that has to take place. I think we could pick up on the signs later where we are more in agreement among the Council as to what we really want. The last time we met I remember a comment an~ a concern by Mr. Klingelhutz regarding the entrance to his property. Gould we look at the please on the east end of the development. Mr. Klingelhutz had a question ar~ a concern about the placement of the roadway and the parking for his facility. Did you meet with him and have you discussed that with him? Gary Ehret: We have. Staff, I believe has also met with him. Our initial plans ar~ specifications provided a right-in/right-out only in this location. since then we have had discussions. Tne discussions centered on providing an access through this parking lot to this roadway so that the area would not be limited to right-in/right-out only. Traffic coming southbound could enter the parking lot. That can be accomplished. I do not believe that has ~_n incorporated into the plans and specs at this time. That can be quite easily done. Councilman Geving: I want to make sure that we don't miss the opportunity like we did with Mr. Owens to make sure that we're in total agreement with these people as we move forward so whoever has that responsibility, I want to make sure that A1 has been involved and is aware of what we're doing. 11 266 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Don Ashworth: Right after that meeting, I brought in Fred Hoisington and since have had Fred meeting directly with Al. A1 would like to consider construction of a new facility so he's had questions regarding how could that new building fit in. Would the City similarly extend the parking area over into his property so we've been giving him alternative sketches. The last position back to Gary is one of, it's up to Al. Does he want to leave that road through in which case we'll leave it or does he want to come through the parking lot. Councilman Geving: Just so we're in contact and keep this avenue of communications open. I have received two calls regarding the road construction period. Some of the business people are concerned that we may be shuting down their business during this construction period. For example, the bakery and any of those businesses, Lawn and Sport and so forth. How are we going to deal with those people so they can stay in business for a period of several months I would imagine? Gary Ehret: Right now we anticipate, if everything goes as we hope, that we would start construction roughly July 1st. I would anticipate that by roughly October 1st, it may go to November 1st, somewhere in there, the roadways would be essentially completed. We may not have all the landscaping in. We may not have the final lift of asphalt in but what we're talking about is July through October as the primary difficult period. Councilman Geving: I'm Bernie Hanson and I'm trying to run my business, are you going to put me out of business from July through October? Gary ~ret: Absolutely not. What we are going to do is through the specifications and the plans, but primarily through the specifications and our requirements of the contractor, require the contractor to construct the roadway, tear it up and reconstruct it in at least two phases. The simplest being we would do the south half and then the north half or vice versa. Also, we will at all times require the contractor to maintain driveway access to all businesses. At times it may be difficult but we have included in the plans and the specifications the requirement to put down planks too so you can cross construction areas. They will always be required to keep driveways and access open. Councilman Geving: Okay. Could you tell me a little bit about the height and the materials in this clock tower? Jim Lasher: Looking at a rough side cedar post column, wood lap siding with a 1 x 6 facia that's drawn in white. The concrete base unit are 8 x 6 x 10 rock face block and precast concrete cap as shown here. ~ne clock face is a standard clock face item which is currently being proposed to have one neon band around the outside for illumination and a single neon band that goes down the center with red cables drawing down to the edge to the base pendulum area which is just a red metal section connected to the base of the wiring. ~e basic footing construction is shown like this. Councilman Geving: What's the height? 12 267 ".ity Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Iim Lasher: The height from this base here to the top is 22 feet. buncilman Geving: Is it var~]al proof? I'm thinking of this neon area. Jim Lasher: The neon as presently proposed is to be installed within a 2 inch Dy 2 inch by 2 inch steel channel with a lexan face so you would have neon inside a steel channel with lexan face. You would have to beat on it with a baseball bat. Councilman Geving: I don't know if I'm ready for that kind of a design yet. It's a little bit modernistic for me. Gary Ehret: If I could offer one comment. It goes back to your first comment and that is, we discussed with Staff quite extensively the idea behir~ issuing two bid packages. The first being the ~ of bid package that you would expect to see whoever your favorite contractors would bid oD. The second bid package being speciality items. The clock tower, signs, the entry monuments ar~ it makes an awful lot of sense to do that and would not require an awful lot of work on our part and we could delay those speciality items into next year as far as that goes but it would give us more time if you chose to review Councilman Geving: That's just my personal opinion. Personally I don't think I've scan_ the best design for those. That's my feeling that we can improve on what you've shown us. I have two other questions. (]ne has to do with the potential for sidewalks on the north side of the street or walking trail or s~mething that we had mentioned earlier. Is that still in the plan? Jim Lasher: We have presently proposed to add a sidewalk that is going to run basically from Laredo all the way down to existing Great Plains Blvd.. That will service all the existing businesses along West 78th and the in turn connection and offer a method of circulation after the project is completed. There will be some additional sidewalk arour~ connecting actually at the City Hall, running through the bank property edge and connecting back up over here at Laredo, coming back dowr~ There will be a sidewalk proposed that actually gets in the plans and specifications along the face of the bank over to this crossing right here and a bike path picking up this point moving down along the north/south collector going all the way across the base and picking up back here and just kind of making a big circle. Councilman Geving: One other comment. Are we going to maintain a motif for this downtown area? We're starting tonight with the first development in the downtown area. Are we controlling that or does that fit in with what's being presented here tonight? Jim Lasher: To the best of my knowledge, from Retail West, which we've had someone look in to, have chosen the wood and rock faced block basically for the designs they proposed. I think as far as the motif goes, we could keep going with something, I think a 12/12 pitch ~ a roof is a very strong image and continue that image in whatever type of development came along would be very important. 13 268 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Councilman Horn: I like the overall concept. I don't think anything has changed much from what we've reviewed. I don't believe that the HRA has reviewed this particular clock tower and sign. Isn't that correct Don? Don Ashworth: That ' s correct. Councilman Horn: It's the first time I've seen it. Are we being asked to approve that in our specifications tonight? Don Ashworth: We brought back the one package. If the Council would like additional time especially recognizing that the HRA has not looked at the details like this clock tower, we could hold off the decision on those speciality items until your meeting of June 1st. That way it could be presented to HRA on May 21st. Councilman Horn: I think that's a good idea because I think those are key elements to the way this thing cc~es off. Both the signs and the clock tower. I'm really happy to hear that they listened to what we said about not having green tin on any of this stuff. S~mething just isn't right about that clock tower. I'm not sure what it is. I agree with Dale. Or the sign. Also, I think we asked last time if they would consider a different type of tree and I didn't hear any comment on that. Jim Lasher: From the research that I did at the Arboretum speaking with Mr. Peter Owen out there who is the director at the Arboretum, speaking about material choices, it just came down that if I was to keep within the concept of the oak savannah, this is the strongest statement and I do, as Gary pointed out, an offspring of a cottonwood which is something maybe that you're thinking of, does in fact have a 30 to 50 year lifespan and they have some out at the Arboretum presently. Mayor Hamilton: I have no other comments other than to say I was surprised to see the clock tower proposed and the signs. I would like to see that on a future agenda item. It certainly was a surprise to me and I don't like surprises so let's look at it at a different time when we can spend a little more time on it. Other than t_hat, I like the plan and the sooner you can get in the ground the better. Councilman Johnson: During the presentation it came up with a bike path around here, has this been reviewed through Park and Rec? Jim Lasher: Yes, it has. Councilman Johnson: And what were their comments on the bike path? I know Tuesday night they are considering the trail plan. Jim Lasher: I spoke with the developer and with Park and Rec department here about the person who is coming up with the trail plans and this entry point is consistent with what they are planning at the present time and in fact, Mark Koegler, I did send him a plan of our proposed location. 14 269 ity Council ~ting - May 4, 1987 Ashworth: Yes, we did bring in the other Jim and Mark. Mark is in the of developirg that plan so it's not really cast in concrete. In fact two of them have been working hack and forth so Mark's up/down lines idn ' t cross Jim' s. #B7-35: Mayor Hamilton moved, Gouncilman Geving seconded to the plans and specifications ar~ authorize the taking of bids for the Redevelopment Project with the exception of the clock tower and iignage. All voted in favor and motion carried. lman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to move item 3(b) to 9 on agenda. All voted in favor and motion carried. Warren asked if the council could discuss Consent Agenda item l(d) at point because a representative was present. A~.RNDA: APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER REQUEST, LAKE LUCY ROAD. ,ncilman Geving: My concern here is that this is a very major change order $43,493.00 through a $7~0,~00.B~ bid and my concern is one, why wasn't this up at the time the feasibility study was made? I~ also concerned .of impact or the potential impact that this could have to the homeowners who assessed 20% on this project. I would like to have you respond to that also respond for me a comment here that there could be other reductions that could level this out. Could you give me those three items Brown, McCombs and Knutson Engineering: When the project was first ~roposed by the soil borings by STS Consultants, there were little pockets of unsuitable building material for a road bed and fortunately, although soil borings were taken very often, we can't obviously hit every one of Therefore, the plans, it was proposed to place draintile all along Later on the contractor suggested maybe we should wait until we open the existing roadbed and find out what problem areas we have and then ~ide whether we need the draintile. That accounts for the possible , a good share of th~. Geving: Let me ask you this. If this link of unsuitable soils is 165 feet long and 4 to 5 feet deep, it's hard for me to realize that this wouldn't have been picked up at the time the soil borings were made. That's an extensive length of roadway to have ~ missed. I don't understam~ that. That piece of roadway is not that long. Larry Brown: ~he soil borings were ordered and taken, if my memory serves me, every 50 feet or 100 feet and at that time it was not picked up on the borings. Councilman Geving: ~ho did the feasibility study? Do you know Gary? Gary Warren: M~-Knutson. 15 270 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Councilman Geving: You're the guys. Like I said, I can't hardly believe that you would have missed 165 feet of 4 and 5 feet deep peat. Now tell me, what impact is this going to have against our homeowners on the assessments? Larry Brown: I'm sure the assessment will be increased. Councilman Johnson: Tnis is 6% of the total. Larry Brown: Keep in mind, I'm not going to guarantee that the reductions are going to balance out this change order but from my calculations recently, it will take approximately 80% of it out. Councilman Geving: At what point are you in the contract though so I could be reasonably assured we're not going to run into another area of peat? Larry Brown: All the common excavation has been done and the roadbed has been placed. Councilman Geving: Tnen the third question I had was on potential for anticipated reductions. Would you explain those to me please? Larry Brown: Yes. As I mentioned before. ~nat reduction was done. ~ne draintile pipe that was placed. It was proposed to lay that draintile all along Lake Lucy Road. In opening up the subsurface and taking a look at it, we did find the problem spots, place the draintile but a lot of it was deleted. It just wasn't necessary. Over the past few years there has been an extensive amount of Class V placed for a good solid base. Councilman Geving: How much as we going to be able to save by not putting it in against the $43,000.00? Larry Brown: It' s estimated about 80%. Councilman Geving: So we're really losing 20% of the ~43,000.007 Larry Brown: Taat ' s right. Councilman Geving: That's my only concern. I just felt that somebody messed up in the feasibility study and has come back to be a fairly major change order. Councilman Horn: I think that was a good catch. It's inconceivable when you work in a city like we do that's notorious for peat, especially when you look at a road like Lake Lucy that's been terrible for years, that this would have been missed. Mayor Hamilton: I had a hard time with this one too Dale in that at some point I think there has to be some responsibility by somebody involved in this to take some brunt of the cost of it rather than passing it on to the taxpayers. It may have meant the difference of not doing the project the way it's being done had we had this type of bid in the first place and I think it shows poor workmanship or poor quality of work on the engineer's part and I 16 271 2ity Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 ~eally feel bad about that. It's an unfortunate thing that happened but I .~rtainly hope it doesn't happen again. Duncilman Johnson: When you say the engineer, I would like to comment that the soil borings given by his consultant that he hired showed it to be good. do work with soil borings and it's hard for me to believe that we missed a 4 D 5 foot deep seam of peat with two soil borings in it. Larry Brown: If I may make ome other comment. ~he preliminary plat that was iven to McCombs-Knutson, there had ~ an error in it at the time the soil ~rings were taken and that might account for a portion of that bad soil. ~eir~ that the cul-de-sac mentioned Stellar Court was 10 feet off-line. It ~s shifted 10 feet. buncilman Geving: I still don't think that's a good excuse. ~his datum thing is 30 feet wide. R~solution 987-36: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve ~e Change Order Request for Lake Lucy RoacL All voted in favor ar~ notion carried. X)NDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR MINI-STORAGE FACILITIES ON PROPERTY ZONED B-F, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF TH 212 AND STOUGHTON AVENUE, GARY BROWN. ro Ann Olsen: Just today we received these letters. One is from the LCR brporation and the other one is from the City of Chaska. The letter from 2haska states that they feel that the mini-storage should provide sewer arx] ~ater to the site and that they are not in total agreement that that is an ~cceptable use for that area. The letter from LCR is commenting that the reduced requirement for Gary Brown's mini-storage proposal versus what they w~re required to provide for mini-storage in the Business Park. ~ouncilman Geving: How do they propose us getting sewer ~ water to that site? It doesn't make much sense does it. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe they would like to pay for it. Councilman Geving: We're only about 10 miles from the nearest connection. Don Ashworth: I think they have water ~ sewer that's relatively close. I don't know if they are proposing. Councilman Geving: I didn't see an offer in here. Councilman Johnson: Do you remember a previous, was it last Council meeting the City of Chaska had a letter in our Administrative Section saying that they couldn't extend it out to Merle Volk's property for sewer and water to that point according to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commissior~ It should be pretty much the same here if they say they can't go past the boundaries there. 17 272 City Council Meeting - May 4~ 1987 Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit with Staff's conditions ar~ then they also added three conditions which is the applicant shall provide fire protection for each building and the site plan shall be reviewed by someone knowledgable in fire protection. The applicant shall provide four soil borings for City approval to determine if two treatment sites are available and third, that everything stored on the site must be stored within the buildings. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Staff has met with the applicants twice and we have also had the plan reviewed by our fire expert. As far as the septic system, the applicant has suggested providing a holding tank and we've consulted our consultant, Roger Machmeier, and he has stated that for a small use, a holding tank would be permissible on the site. Another issue was also the fencing and the fire person we talked with stated that a chainlinked fence would be preferable for safety protection. Steve Madding, who we spoke with about fire, also stated that they wanted turn arounds on the site provided for the fire trucks. Tney also wanted the walls of the buildings to be completed up to the ceiling so there would be no attic area. Tney also recommended that the heat protector be provided within the building. Finally, a second means of access is going to be provided by one of the applicants who lives adjacent to the property. So essentially all the concerns have been met. The applicant has provided us with a new plan. F~ has provided a turn around area for the fire trucks. This is where the easement will be provided for the secondary emergency access. We will be working for the detailed landscaping plan. Other than that, the plan now meets what the Planning Commission's hesitation on the conditional use permit. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the conditional use permit with the addition of suk~ission of an emergency access agreement and the installation of a 1,500 to 2,000 holding tank plus installation of a one gallon toilet, a spring loaded faucet, a float alarm and a man hole over the system if located underneath a driveway. Mayor Hamilton: Gary, do you have any comments you would like to make? Gary Brown: No. We've met everything that we've been asked to do. We would like to pick up a permit tc~orrow and build this thing. Councilman Johnson: On the prints here they have two signs noted. Right at Stoughton and Th 212 there is the word sign and over by the storm water detention area a big word sign. I see no mention of what is intended here. Are you putting up signs here or is that just the County sign that's sitting there? Gary Brown: Taere is one by the berm area up front. There will be a sign yes. Councilman Johnson: And that's an off-site sign? Gary Brown: Right. According to the way I understand it, we can put a sign also on TH 212. We can have one on each highway. Councilman Johnson: Does the sign have to be on your property? Barbara Dacy: Yes. 18 273 City Council ~ting - May 4, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Is this on your property? The one up at the point of TH 212 and Stoughton? The one that's not supposed to be there_ There is one by your e~trance and it says sign here and sign here. There is on sign down here. That' s a guy' s frontyard. Gary Brown: That's not ours. Our sign would be down by the entrance and be on our property. Jo Ann Olsen: The signs will have to go through the sign penuit process. Councilman Johnson: I went down a~t looked at the site. I do agree with Chaska, this is the entrance to their City and I have nothing on here showing me what you want to propose as far as an elevatioo. Give me an idea of what we're looking at here. All I see is roofs. I can go from the worse to the best and I have no idea what I'm going to see here. Gary Brown: Grading will stay approximatey where it is. ~here is very little grading. Councilman Johnson: I mean construction of the building. Gary Brown: One story. Councilman Johnson: I would like to ~c an architectural design of it to see what this is going to look like. Gary Brown: You have that here. Councilman Johnson: We have that? Mayor Hamilton: Did you want Gary to explain how high it is or are you going to keep him frc~ answering? Gary Brown: There are 7 foot poles so that means you have about 15 feet to the peak of tbs ceiling. 29 gauge metal. The same thing that pole barns ~ machinery sheds and that stuff. Councilman Johnson: I'm very concerning on painting, the looks and whatever of this. Gary Brown: So are we and that's why we're going with colored metal. Black buildings always bleed through ~ you are forever painting it. If you get colorclad metal, it's on there arxt it stays on there. Mayor Hamilton: Do you have a copy of the elevations there Jo Ann? fo Ann Olsen: Yes. ~ouncilman Johnson: It's more a structural drawning than anything else. ~ouncilman Horn: What Jay's asking for, isn't that si~nething we typically require. It "-_~s like we review this type of a drawing. 19 274 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Generally. Last year they went to great expense for rock face and everything else that the downtown wanted. I just went over to Eden Prairie and looked at one over at Eden Prairie today and it's the same. Nice looking brick and everything. I'm concerned... Gary Brown: You've got to remember we're building between Gedney Pickles and the dump. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, just keep in mind where they are proposing this site to be. The one that was proposed for the Industrial Park was a totally different ballgame. It was in a different area completely. councilman Johnson: The City of Chaska se~ms to be concerned about it too. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe Chaska ought to tend to their own business. councilman Johnson: Just because the City of Chaska on the other side of the railroad tracks is dumpy is no reason for us to...I don't think Gary is putting anything up dumpy, I just don't know what he's putting up yet. What's your color scheme? Gary Brown: Earth tones. We went through the color schemes and everything with Staff. councilman Johnson: whatever? Staff, did you have any comments on color scheme, Jo Ann Olsen: Earth tones. councilman Johnson: Why concrete curb and gutter? I saw some of the folks on the Planning Commission had trouble with this. I think Gary was saying that they want concrete curb and gutter in here on some areas. I'm not totally sure where you are looking for it and how many feet you're talking about. Why are we asking for this? Gary Brown: Since that time we have come to the agreement that it's going to be rolled asphalt around the outside. It's going to be field all the way around this thing. Barbara Dacy: If I can clarify. We had agreed that you would construct a 4 to 7 ton paved surface but our recommendation still stands as to the perimeter of the site which is going to be concrete curb. Councilman Johnson: What perimeter are you taking about? Gary Warren: The exterior perimeter of the parking. around buildings. Outside the parking area. Not internal curbs Councilman Johnson: Tnat looks like a whole lot of linear feet ofcurb and gutter. Gary Brown: You're right. 20 275 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Gary Warren: To be consistent with the Ordinance and also trying to control drainage off the site somewhat that the curbing is . .. Councilman Johnson: It certainly will last longer. There is one storage area up in Roseville where the back of the storage areas people operate businesses out of. I want to make sure that we are not going to allow that here. That has happened in the past in other locations. Gary Brown: There's not even electricity inside the buildings. Barbara Dacy: It's not allowed by the Ordinance. Councilman Johnson: Have any neighbors had any cmmmants since this? Mayor Hamilton: The neighbors are Gary Durgee ar~ one other person. Councilman Johnson: I went out and looked at it, like I said, and most of the neighbors have their own shielding as far as the opaqing of tt~ fences. It would just be the traffic out on TH 212 driving by that would have the view. I guess I don't have a lot of problems with the opaqing since the neighbors in the area are pretty well sheilded by their own shurbery and fences. You said your partner in on this is one of the neighbors? Gary Brown: Yes. He lives right next door. Councilman Geving: I think one item we should have included here on page 6 is item 11. We talked about the chainlinked fence all the way through this but didn't include it as one of the conditions so I would like to include that as number 11. To add the chainlinked fence of 6 feet that wraps around the entire storage facility. I'm very much in favor of this project and I'll tell you why. When we did the zoning designation for this particular area of TH 212, we designed it for business fringe and businesses such as yours was really what we had in mind. Open storage areas, I really wish we could have put Roman Roos' building down there. It would have made it a lot easier but this is what I had in mind when we put this together. I had a couple questions on this detention basi~ It's listed as item 4 in there. I didn't see any plans of that going to be done. Could you explain that Barb where that detention basin is going to be placed? Jo Ann Olsen: It shows on the plan. The huge area on the north here. Councilman Geving: It's kind of natural low area there anyway. Gary Brown: It's a natural swale down in there now which we are doing a study on it through the engineers. Councilman Geving: ~ere is this lamdscaped area that's going to be sodded? Gary Brown: The front berm area. Right along Stoughton Avenue there and then the berm along the other side there will be Councilman Geving: I have no comments. I'm very much in favor of the 21 276 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 project. It's an improvement to the area and I really don't case what Chaska has to say about the sewer and water and other comments. Councilman Horn: I don't have any cc~nents. Mayor Hamilton: I don't either. I think it's a good project. It's the type of project we wanted in that area as Dale has said. I'm not sure why there has been so much trouble with this project. I feel bad about that. I really do because it's a very straight forward project and an awful lot of screwing around for a cold storage facility but I'm glad to see we're to the point where it can be approved and get on with building it and get some storage accomplished. Any other questions? Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit #87-2 subject to the site plan stamped "Received April 30, 1987" and the following conditions: . One tree for every 40 feet be provided along the berm between the vehicular area and right-of-way and the berm must be two feet high. . A description of the plantings proposed meet the minimum standards of six feet high (evergreens) and two inch caliper (deciduous). 3. The landscaped areas must be sod or seeded. . A detention basin should be included in t_he site drainage plan and be designed to limit the on-site run-off to the pre-development rate for a 100 year storm event. Se If possibl'e, align Stoughton Avenue site access with driveway access on the south side of Stoughton Avenue. 8 Parking areas and access drives shall be paved with a dust free, all weather surface built to a 4 to 7 ton capacity. . Concrete curb and gutter will be required only along the outer edge of the perimeter drive around the site. 8. No outside storage is permitted. 9. Suhnission of an energency access easement agreement. 10. Installation of a 1,500 to 2,000 holding tank, plus installation of a one gallon toilet, a spring loaded faucet, a float alarm, and a man hole over the system if located underneath a driveway. 11. Chainlinked fencing at 6 feet high be around the perimeter of the storage area. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. 22 k 277 City Council ~ting - May 4, 1987 CENTEX HOMES CORPORATION, PROPERTY ZONfD RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT THE NO~T CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 17: A. SUBDIVISION OF 53 ACRES INTO 81 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER CLASS B WETLANDS. Io Ann Olsen: This is a subject made up of two parts. The first one is a subdivision proposal and the second one is a wetland alteration permit. It's 81 single family homes in the single family district. The net density is 2.13' units per acre. The lots layout is within six lots and there are some variances that are required. Eight of the lots didn't meet the 90 foot minimum public street frontage requirement. Six of them are on cul-de-sacs and three of them are flag lots. The cul-de-sac lots could be adjusted with the lot line being adjusted and Staff did recommend that those lots meet the 90 foot street frontage requirement. The flag lots required a variance and the Planning Commission did approve those variances. Sume of the lots also required a variance to the 150 foot lot depth requirement a~d those were also approved as a part of the subdivision approval. There are also sume triangular lots and Staff recommended that those be adjusted. We have spoken to the applicant and he _ha- shown some preliminary designs for making those more standard configurations. As far as the streets, the site is adjacent to CR 17 and Lake Lucy Road. It also is adjacent to Teton Lane which connects with Lilac Lane which is partially within Chanhassen and partially within Tnorewood. The City of Shorewood has su]~nitted two letters stating their concern with the development using Lilac Lane and has requested that the City include Lilac Lane on any feasibility study if Teton is moved to be improved as a public street. Ca_rver County has approved the access location onto CR 17. As far as utilities, sewer and water is available through an internal watermain and also along Lake Lucy Boad. Ilrainage, the applicant have worked very hard to maintain the natural characteristics and have provided a ponding system that is maintaining the existing run-off. The drainage is consistent with the City and Watershed District ar~ is being protected with an easement. Vegetation, the applicant again has worked closely to preserve much of the vegetation and the only areas that are going to be impacted is where the street constructions will take place. Staff is recommending that a conservation easement be granted along the 982 contour al(ax3 the southern wetland area and the 992 contour around the northerly pond where the park area is. We are also requiring silt stablization ar~ erosion control. As far as the Park and Recreation Commission, they reviewed the proposal and determined that the area was park deficient and recommended that the development provide park area. The applicant is proposing approximately 6.38 acres of active park area and the Park Commission has reviewed this park proposal ar~ has approved it. They were concerned with the wet soils but the applicant has assured them that it will be drained adequately after every rain storm. That you will be able to use the field within 24 hours. They are also recommending a trail along Lake Lucy Road, an off-street trail and internal trails around Roads D, B and G which will also connect with the park. There are several outlots with tt~ subdivision. Staff is positioning that these are unbuildable until they meet the City's requirements. Finally, the street name, Staff is recommending that Teton and Lake Lucy not be used just to reduce any confusion. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision with the condition 23 278 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 that Teton Lane shall be improved to an urban section and shall connect the subdivision with Lilac Lane and that Staff will work with the City of Shorewood to address the concerns on the impacts of Teton and Lilac Lane and if the street configuration is changed, that the preliminary plat shall again be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Also, the subdivision is next to Larry Kerber's contractors yard and we are requesting that the applicant landscape or berm part of the property so the property owners would not be impacted by the contractor's yard and we are also requesting that the developer be responsible for notifying lot owners that there is a contractor's yard at that property that has. been approved by the City and will remain there until they decide to move or ceases to do business. So we added those two conditions that the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing landscaping for the lots abutting the contractor's yard and that the applicant shall be responsible for informing potential lot owners that a contractor's yard exists. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps the developers would like to present their overview of the project. Tom Boyce: I'm the president of the Minnesota division of Centex Homes. Centex Homes is a subsidiary of Centex Corporation which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. We're currently building homes in 21 cities across the country. In Minnesota we're a relatively small builder I guess building between 150 and 250 homes per year. We're currently building projects in ~den Prairie and Bloomington. We hope to build one here in Chanhassen and are planning projects in Apple Valley and Mendota Heights. In Curry Farms we will be the builder as well as the developer. We will be building homes in primarily two price brackets from $110,000.00 to $140,000.00 and from $140,000.00 to $200,000.00 because of the two distinct areas we've got there on top of the hill and the low kind of standardized lots. For the most part it will be primarily what we would classify as a move up neighborhood. We started the project back in October and I met with the Staff and the neighbors a couple times. At least at the Planning Commission meeting one of the major concerns was more with Teton Lane and Lilac Lane than really with the 'project. I guess we've tried to deal with that as best we think we can. We looked at a number of alternative plans to serve the upper portion of the site as well as Teton. Saw the possibility there of us purchasing Teton and actually dedicating it back to the City for potential future improvement later anyway. I have a couple other people I would like to introduce and I can have them walk through the plan briefly with you. Dick Putnam is with Tandem Corporation and Tandem is the planner for us on the project. Keith Nelson is right behind him with Westwood Planning & Engineering, the engineering consultant on the project and Kevin Clark is next to Keith and he will be the project manager for Centex out there on a daily basis. I guess I would like to ask Dick to kind of briefly go through the plans and then we're here to answer any questions that you or the neighbors would have. Dick Putnam: I'll try to be very brief. Between the Park and Rec Commission and the Staff and Planning Commission, I think we have beat most of the issues around and if you get a chance to go through your packet and look over the Planning Commission discussion that went on for a couple hours, I think most of those issues were pretty well discussed. If I could I would like to 24 City Council ~ting - May 4, 1987 highlight what some of those major concerns were. Maybe we could start with the easiest one. There was a major concern initially about the project that the property was being overdeveloped. We looked at probably eight to ten different ways of developing the site ranging from 100 units of single family under your Planned Unit Development Ordinance with 12,000 foot minimum lots to what we'll call a larger lot concept which is reprsented here on the plan that's before with roughly 80 to 81 lots. I guess through the process of hearing what some of the folks around the site had to say, the Staff and then looking at some soil borings, and I can appreciate the discussion you had about Lake Lucy Road. When we took an extensive set of borings throughout the property, we found the soils were very variable. From bottomless where the auger never did hit anything that was worth a darn to 3, 4, 5 feet of bad soils with good underlying materials so the soils really changed quite a bit throughout the site. That provided us with s~me very. good informatior~ As you might expect the poor soil areas correspond to where they were low. That's nothing you would expect except in one area which was right up here where there is a riding ring today which is right off of by Teton. Evidentally, that was a marsh at one time because under about 4 or 5 feet of reasonably good soil was about 8 feet of organic soils. You wouldn't know it by looking at it so every once in a while you get surprised. What we looked at was if you can put a plan together that had some densities that made sense in the scope of what the City of C~anhassem was looking at in your Zoning Ordinance as well as some of the concerns that the neighbors brought, we'd be money ahead i~. out goes the Planned Unit Development idea with smaller lots and a little higher density and back to your more conventional zoning approach, The other thing was that since we were on the cutting edge of the MUSA line and the Urban Service line is on our western boundary and then again on the southern boundary on a portion of Lake Lucy. The areas west ar~ south are outside of the MUSA. We had kind of the unique situation where abutting owners, some of which would be very interested in the ability to connect to sewer, others bad absolutely no interest whatsoever and wanted to make sure that our project wasn't going to force them into sewer service and urban costs. One of the things we did do quite consciously was in the southwest portion of the site, which is the knoll and primary wooded area, we tried to make those lots as large as possible to reduce the grading and just basically cut the streets in and let what amounts to custom homes go in on rather large lots, 30,000 to 50,000 square feet. I guess that responds a bit to the terrain as well as some of the quality and size of the neighbors adjacent to us. Another thing that was brought up that we tried to address was the park issue. I think that was quite well discussed at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. The plan that you have in your book which is a blow-up of the park area shows some changes in the grading in that area that will allow some development of park facilities in the future that the Staff and Park and Rec Commission felt were important there. The plan has changed slightly. After the Park and Bec Commission meeting we provided a trail connection, parking area and made sure that the park area was large enough to accomodate the facilities that the Staff had outlined to us. Ballfields, tennis courts, totlots, that sort of thing. Keith might touch a little bit on the issue of how the ponds and that sort of thing work. Basically, this is a revised grading plar~ You can see that there are a couple pond ing areas in tt~ park. Those are connected with storm sewer and the other portion of the property is graded so it will work for those facilities. The other issue that we dealt 25 280 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 with early on in the project was the question of wetlands. What we had on the site in terms of wetlands and what we ought to be doing with tb~m. We were made aware early on by the Staff that the City was very concerned about wetland protection as well as wetland enhancement so the Staff had arranged to have a biologist from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Elizabeth Rockwell out to the site who looked at the site and basically her recommendations and her appraisal of it were included in a letter to the City that basically came back and said that there is one good wetland area which is in the southwestern corner of the site which has water on it. The balance of the site is, through years of agriculture draining horse operations, farming, whatever, really didn't degrade it to the point where it isn't functioning as a wetland really at all so what we did was look at it and said to enhance the site, first of all. Deal with the poor soils that we have in some of those areas. Provide for a water detention system, ponding area that will help in clearing up the water and that sort of thing. Holding the water on the site before it can be discharged in the natural drainage to Christmas Lake and also take the water that comes from off-site. There is drainage through the site in really three directions. East of CR 17 where the pond is there is an overflow here. There is a wetland area that's north of Lake Lucy but flows into our site coming from the south and there is a culvert system going under Lake Lucy Road. There is also a ravine on the western portion of the property by Jim Donovan's property that comes up back and hits a little lake that's up here. Those three areas provide drainage into our site. Tnat drainage then goes out under CR 17 through a wooded ravine down toward Christmas Lake. We're all very aware of Christmas Lake. In fact, Keith Nelson, our engineer, is a skin diver in Christmas Lake so we were well aware of the concerns about the water quality going off the site and I think the system that Westwood has designed will work very well in that case. It also provides some zip and pizazz frankly to the back of the lots with ponding and some natural areas around those ponds should make for better lots quite frankly. The other thing and I'll just touch on it with this map, because of the terrain that we have, where we have probably 60 to 70 feet of grade change on that site, if you go look at it right now you would say you need a mountain goat to get around. That's both good and bad. From our perspective for homesites, if you're trying to provide $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 homesites, it good and we've been able to keep most of the trees that you see which are located, lucky for us, along the slopes and by the same token it allows us to put some homesites on top of those hills. Both on the southwestern portion and up where the riding arena is today without really disturbing very much. It results in big lots that we think will be some really, really nice homesites. That's the good news. The bad news is that because those lots are in a strange shape, we call them flag lots or some rather odd shaped things, they don't necessarily meet the requirement that says 90 feet 30 feet back from the street. They may be 150 feet 70 feet back from the street but they aren't 90 feet at 30 feet. I guess what we've ~-~n asking is, in a lot such as number 5 for example, which is up here off of Road G, at the building pad setback we're at about 110 feet or more in width. Unfortunately is you take a straight 30 foot setback because the street curves, we're probaby closer to 60 feet and we've got an easement for another flag lot as well as a trail easement coming there also. We think that's an awfully nice lot. The lot is very large square footage wise but doesn't really meet that standard so what we would be looking at is, wherever we building, if we choose to build 40 or 50 feet back from the street rather than 26 281 City Council Meeting -May 4, 1987 a straight 30 foot, that we would have to have a 90 foot minimum setback and we feel on all of the lots in the project that won't be a problem at all. The flag lot like number 6 or number 5 in the same instance or down here, 13 is probably the most vivid example, where we build going across that lot with the minimum at the front with a 90 foot setback, we think that would meet the requirements that your city has. Lastly, I guess I would just hit Teton Lane and Lilac Lane. As Tom mentioned, Boad G really is on the Teton Lane alignment. I guess early on whe~ we talked with some of the neighbors ar~ got a jist of what some of the issues were, where some folks would like to see 4 or 5 homes on the site instead of 50 or 80. There is also concern about :access. What we found was that Teton Lane is a private easement, 33 feet. It's owned by Mr. Carlson who owns this chunk of property which is listed as an exception. It provides easements to I think there are probably 13 or 14 separate people listed on that document surrounding this area. It became evident to us that there were some very different opinions as to what the status of Teton Lane should be and what it will be in the future. We heard a lot of stories about somebody tried to give it to the City back 15 years ago and the city wouldn't take it ar~ a number of other things. Th~ bottom line for us was that this site has a lot of exceptions that we're buildir~3 around such as Mr. Loris' house or Reamer's house up in here or Carlson's property or the Kerber property or the Jacques down on Lake Lucy Road. We're really kind of fitting in, if you will, to an existing neighborhood. Granted some of the homes are very, very high value an~ some of them are very not very high value ar~ they may be within 300 to 400 feet of one another. It's very, very difficult to take a $300,000.00 or $400,000.00 house versus a $70,000.00 house that are 400 feet from each other ar~ come up with a compatible type. I think you can appreciate the problem. As it related to Teton, we felt that the solution was to acquire the right-of-way ar~ provide that to the City as public right-of-way to do with what you choose and that would mean talking to all of the affected property owners who have access to it and finding out if it should be closed off. If it should be improved. If it should be a mat of asphalt applied to it. If it should be given back to the people who take their access from it for them to maintain but one way or the other for the City to be in a position I guess to determine what happens to it rather t/man currently the situation where the fellow who owns it is not real wild about continuing to pour gravel ar~ oil ar~ money and new culverts ar~ all these things on it because he doesn't feel it's his responsibility for everybody to use it so our solution is, we've gone out and signed a purchase agreement contingent on approval with Mr. Carlson to purchase the right-of-way that you see here that cuts across this property as well as the 33 feet of right-of-way that he has that goes out to Lilac Lane. We would improve Lilac Lane within the confines of our site and that little road H that provides access to Reamer's property and we would do that at no cost to anybody else then we would convey the right-of-way from that link, which is roughly the pillars if you've been out there. If you are used to that area, it's close to where the pillars would be. To provide that right-of-way to the City and they would then make some judgments on what to do. It's going to take a while. If you were at the Planning Commission meeting, you would have gotte~ the j ist that there is no simple solution at this point in time. The letter from Shorewood which I did have occasion to talk with the City Manager today from Shorewood, didn't really provide anything any easier to understand either because I wish we would have known about the meeting and ~ allowed to attend the meeting. 27 282 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 I mentioned to him that I think he ought to have a couple positions presented rather than the one that was presented by some folks who talked to the Shorewood Council so at this point the solution to Teton is at least we're providing the right-of-way ar~ it allows something to happen in the future. Quite frankly there are very few units, there are about 18 units in our project on top of the hill, if you count Loris' house and Reamer's, that's about 20 units that are in the general area that would conceivably use this area as well as the existing one or two homes that access it right now so the number of units that would go north would be fairly small to begin with and I guess the traffic wouldn't really be a significant number. At this point maybe what I'll do is ask Keith to very quickly explain the drainage system for you and utilities other than the sewer and water on all the streets that you would normally expect but the drainage system Keith maybe you can touch real quickly on. Keith Nelson: As Dick indicated I am a diver so I do have a special interest here with the water quality on Christmas Lake. Just to go over the drainage here, it's sort of complex. There is a lot of drainage from off-site that does drain through this site. There is a large wetland basin up to the west that does drain through a ravine to the proposed ponding areas and out through culverts. There is drainage from this wetland area that there is presently storm sewer through Lake Lucy RDad and empties into another wetland basin that's located south of Lake Lucy Road and again through other culverts. A drain that does contain north and then it goes out the same point out through CR 17. There is another large wetland basin on the east side of CR 17 and there is a controlled culvert and controlled inlet that does discharge into he site and again flows through the site back to this ponding area and out back under CR 17 through this 36 inch storm sewer pipe. We looked at a storm water management plan for the entire area. We've looked at possibly restricting some of the flows off-site to utilize some of that existing ponding boundaries that are available and again we did this same thing on site with the construction of five ponding areas and we can really restrict the rate of flow in the developed condition at approximately one-third of what the flow is now in the peak rate of flow in the undeveloped condition so again for grade restrictions we are really dropping down the amount of run-off that will exit the site via this area in pond #4. During construction phase you want to minimize erosion. There is extensive grading around the site. Not in the wooded areas but in other portions of the plat. ~nese wetlands that we are going to be construction are going to be constructed such to enhance a wetland type growth and vegetation. A ponding area will be constructed to clean 1 and 3 feet beneath the outlet pipes proposed that will restrict rate of flow so these areas will act as pumps as say basins or sump traps during the construction phase which will catch a lot of the sediment. During construction the first thing we would do is excavate out these ponds, construct the berms, trying to hold the water, contain it on-site and before the outlet culverts are construction, and we won't put those pipes in until all the grading is done and turf is established. We will seed and mulch everything upon completion of grading. What we will do to these berms is construct like a rock filter. We'll actually put in a large pile of rock as part of the berm and what that will do is let the water trickle through and will filter out a lot of the sediment and will hold a lot of the sediment back in the ponding areas so again I think we're really going to minimize the 28 283 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 effects downstream, mainly Christmas Lake. I have forwarded a copy of my drainage plan to th~ Watershed Engineers. They have reviewed it. They have no problems with it and we will be making a formal Watershed Permit appl icat ion. Mayor Hamilton: ~nat concludes all of your presentation? Perhaps we can start with Clark. If you have any questions or comnents you wish to make. Councilman Horn: I like the layout. I think the park worked out fine. The storm sewer system looks good. I like the protection for Christmas Lake. One question I did have though is that you only showed us four housing types. I didn't see any housirg types in what you would call your other section. These obviously are the higher priced hemes. Tom Boyce: The house you have right there is $120,000.00 to $140,~0.00 house. We try to give you a range. Councilman Horn: Every one of these is a two story or split level. What about ramblers? Tom Boyce: We don't build any ramblers. Councilman Johnson: I would like to say I appreciate all the time you've do~e in the saving of the tre~s and a lot of the work you've done here. I think it's an outstandirg project as going. On the north side it's pivotable on Teton Lane. Without Teton, the whole north side falls apart with that being an extremely long cul-de-sacs and no real way to get out without having to go into the neighbors to your west and back down somehow or another and with the wetlands and stuff in there I don't think that's feasible at all. It's an extremely difficult piece of land to develop in there and I really appreciated all the hard work you're doing on this including the lot that you're putting together on here. What is your phasing plan? Tern Boyce: We would be working fr~m the south to the north. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so there is some time on Teton Lane to work it out. Tom Boyce: Maybe Dickwould like to seme them__ some alternate plans. We've looked at I guess 7 or 8 different plans. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I was impressed at the Planning Commission meeting of how many different plans you had. I think you were up through F or G. Tom Boyce: There is another way to serve the area to the north ar~ you probably saw it at the Planning Commission meeting. The only way to do that is through the area right now that's proposed as park which may mean some other things would ~ to shift around I guess. How does the City feel about long cul-de-sacs? Councilman Johnson: I personally am very much against long cul-de-sacs from a public safety point of view. That's why to me Teton Road is very pivotahle to get to the people in Block 6, Lots 1 through 6 in an emergency would be very 29 284 City Council Meeting ' May 4 ~ 1987 tough without Teton Lane and Lilac Lane and the cooperation of Shorewood so for a city of our size it's going to be a challenge for you and our city. Are we going to be starting a feasibility study on Teton Lane in the near future or how does that work? Mayor Hamilton: Tnat's a possibility that we'll get to here in a few minutes. Don Ashworth: That's a recon~endation of approval. Councilman Johnson: I would to see that the park entrance between Block 6 and Block 5 be a more direct route to the park. If there was some way to work it in between Lot 5, Lots 1 and 2 or 3 and 4. ~ne more direct access, that would make even Lot 6 a more nice remote lot rather than having a trail around that lot. For somebody that really wants their privacy back on that flag lot. On the lots like Lot 5 of Block 5, I would like to see us make sure that the houses aren't built up towards the front of the lot. Is there anyway we can do that Barb or Jo Ann? Tom Boyce: I have absolutely no problem addressing that in the development agreement. Put it so the house has to be built where it's at least 90 feet wide? I have no problems with that or deed restriction. Jo Ann Olsen: You just have a minimun setback that you can't get any closer to t_he road frontage. Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying is on a couple of these lots, to be specific Block 5, Lot 5 at the 30 foot setback he has about 70 feet and this is on a turn which is similar to on a cul-de-sac. If he goes back another 20 foot he'll hit his 90 foot width. I'm saying is there some way we can assure that he'll be back that additional 20 foot to hit that 90 foot width so the homeowner can't come in and say I want mine 30 foot up and then he builds it that way. Jo Ann Olsen: The only thing that would stop him from being able to do that is the width of the house. The sideyard setbacks would prohibit that. Councilman Johnson: Unless they build the house deep and narrow. Jo Ann Olsen: You can make it a condition that it would have to be set back at however many feet. Councilman Johnson: All housing setbacks have to be at 90 foot width is what Tom suggested. That could be an easy condition on here. Mayor Hamilton: It would be in the development contract. Otherwise it can't be done. Councilman Johnson: Okay. There are several of those. I agree with the triangle lots. I don't like triangle lots personally. I hear you are getting rid of those. Is there something being done on Block 2, Lot 5 which has a 81 foot frontage? Just as you come in on Road B, second lot in. Is that going to be readjusted to give us the 90? We have the 90 at the housing setback on 30 285 City Council Meeting -May 4, 1987 that one but there is no reason for it on a straight street. If we have a curve or a cul-de-sac, there is a reason to use the house setback. Jo Ann Olsen: I believe the lot lines can be adjusted. Councilman Johnson: Are we requiring that adjustment to be made in here? Jo Ann Olsen: It was in the conditions. In the condition that said all lots shall meet the 9~ foot frontage requirement. Councilman Johnson: Okay, that is part of condition 1 so that will be done. Councilman Geving: I have a few questions. Basically I want to make sure that the comment regarding the various lots that the Staff indicated could be adjusted will be and I~n looking at your staff report on page 3. Six of th~ lots which require a variance can be adjusted. Have those been adjusted? Jo Ann Olsen: They haven't yet but that's part of th~ conditions that they must be. Councilman Geving: Is there any imagination that could be used on the three triangular lots that they can look to scxne kind of a scheme? Could you show me how you might do that? Dick Putnam: What we end up doing is just expanding Lot 12. All the lots have plenty of square footage in them so what we do is we but off th~ back yards here on 9, 8, 7 and 45 and just create a larger, deeper backyard here and then t/aese are wider in the back. That's what I reviewed with the Staff. Councilman Geving: Okay, so Lot 12 will be extended to the south. I was a little bit concerned about Lot 6, Block 6 art] it's access however you do have a substantial size lot there and I think we can build a pretty nice home on that lot. It's rather st~. Normally I would object to that but I think we can fit a house on there. Also on Lot 13, Block 2 is a very narrow corridor there but I don't have the footage here but it's a big lot arzt off that cul- de-sac I think we could also make that. I had some other comments regarding the Teton Lane. I don't know how that's all going to work out in response to Shorewood. You may not he doing us a great deal of a favor by dedicating that back to the City because then it becomes our problem and from there I don't know what we're going to do with it because eventually it's going to have to be, if we go through the feasibility study ar~ build the road, somebody is going to have to pay for it. We'll have to take up that issue but I'm not so sure we're really getting a favor by picking up that roadway. Do you have any thoughts Staff on what could be done there? Barbara Dacy: Again, the preliminary plat as proposed shows a connection to Teton Lane to Lilac Lane. The Planning Commission was very specific that if the Council, as part of the plat approval does not recommer~t improvement of Teton or including Teton at all in it's plan, that it go back to the Planning Commission. It does result in long cul-de-sacs ~ if the Council chooses not to improve Teton Lane or require it's improvement then Staff is recommending that we take another look at the access issue. However, Staff is reoommertling 31 286 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 that the connection exists now and we are recommending improvement of Teton Lane as well as the Council initiating the feasibility study process. Councilman Geving: Okay, we'll address that later. Is there a Park and Rec Commission member here tonight? If not, what were their comments in regards to this? Is it basically a lowland that they are going to be picking up? 6.38 acres. We talked about getting a swamp, an area that can be improved. Mayor Hamilton: If I remember right, didn't they say that it was quite lowland but you were going to do some improvements in it to try and eliminate some of the water. Tom Boyce: It's a very flat lowland. ~nere is no drainage out of it. What we're going to do is go back in there and improve it. Build the ponds to hold the water. Councilman Geving: I guess I know that it's quite low in there. My personal feeling is we'll take the 6.38 acres but I'm not sure about park dedication refund of any kind. Tnat will have to be worked out by the Council to off-set the addition of parkland that we would accept. Do you understand what we're talking about? Dick Putnam: Not exactly, no. Councilman Geving: Well, it's a point of negotiation for the Council to accept your 6.38 acres but at the same time we wouldn't necessarily have to give you 100% credit for that land. It might be a 50% credit for park dedication fees. Currently our park dedication fees run about $400.00. Better than $400.00 per unit. We might give you a 50% reduction because of the land that you're giving us for the park but not necessarily 100% so that anybody buying a home, picking up a permit would still have to pay possibley something towards a park dedication fee to develop that park. Do you understand now what I 'm saying? Dick Putnam: I guess we do. What we talked with the Park and Rec Commission about was, rather than giving you land we were giving you a park. Councilman Geving: But now you're talking to the Council. Dick Putnam: I'm talking to the Council the same as I'm talking to everybody and that is we can do one of two things. We can give you a park that's developable, seeded, ready to go, that's dry and going to meet all your conditions that the staff and your engineers will approve the grading for and will do the grading as part of our project and that will more than meet our requirement for park contribution. If what you're telling us tonight is, well gee whiz maybe... Councilman Geving: I'm not telling you gee whiz. Dick Putnam: Maybe the land isn't good enough as a park and there should be a park contribution on top of the improvements we're going to make to the land, then yes, you're right. We better talk about that right away. 32 287 City Cour~il Meeting - May 4, 1987 Councilman Geving: That's a Council decision. We make that decision. Don Ashworth: I think we r~ to come back to the Council potentially. We could meet as well Councilman Geving and go through the level of grading that is proposed on this site. I have some concerns as well as to ~ suitability of those soils. You are absolutely right, we've got to make sure that they will be dry ar~ the level of improvements that they are goir~3 to do to those, to the property, could greatly off-set the necessity for additional monies. I feel confident that Lori ar~ myself have ~ working with them in that area. I'm sure we're aware of your concerns and we will bring the item hack to you. Councilman Geving: Okay, that's fine. I have just one other comment. I think I had a note or two on the plat itself. I had made a comment regarding Lot 5, Block 2 and Block 2, Lot 7 and you have made those adjustments. Is that what you're telling me Jo Ann? For the lot width? Jo Ann Olsen: Not yet but they will be. Councilman Geving: How about the road that we identify as Road I. Isn't that a rather unusual cul-de-sac? Is that an unusual cul-de-sac for maintenance? Jo Ann Olsen: It is kir~ of a bubble but the reason it is designed was to protect the wetlands and the slope area and vegetation. Councilman Geving: Do you agree with that? From the Staff's standpoint you agree with that? Jo Ann Olsen: From the Staff's standpoint we saw several different street alternatives ar~ this one preserved the area the best. Councilman Geving: I have no other cc~nents. Mayor Hamilton: You said you were going to do not only the developing but the building. Will you allow other builders in the area? If I came in and wanted to buy a lot and have scmeb(x]y build there, you don't allow that? Tom Boyce: Usually not. It's certainly not our intention at this point. If the interest rates are at 17% tomorrow ar~ somebody wanted to buy a lot it would be difficult for me to say no but no, that's not our intention. Mayor Hamilton: There are a lot of people here. Is anyone here that would like to make a comment or ask a question about the develoI~ment? Marc Simcox: I live on Lilac Lane across from Tetoru I think the big concern that I have and that most of the residents have is that a lot of people are going to pay to improve the road that is going to serve only one individual who lives on that road presently but in order to really serve a development and that's the major concern. I've ~_--n done quite a bit of work to try and discover what exactly is going to occur and I keep finding that everything is being proposed and improved prior to finding out exactly what's going to happen Teton Lane which we're really concerned about. As it presently sits, Teton Lane is abutted on two sides by one property owner who has approximately 33 288 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 800 feet on one side and then three others who own about one-third a piece. Out of all the property owners only one of those actually uses Teton Lane. The others exit and go on Lilac Lane which of course in most cases would have to approved at least for drainage. The way the develo~x~ents ~n proposed now, there has been no northern access but to cut down the length of the cul- de-sacs on the northern side of the project other than through the use of Teton Lane. One thing was mentioned in the Planning Commission and the plan was covered and turned over pretty rapidly, I didn't get a chance to see how the road layouts worked but that used and addressed the possible use of this path. The cul-de-sac here, I guess it's Road E where it goes over Road G. The cul-de-sac in the corner of your Block 3, Lot 15. That was used at one time when the sewer was being constructed on Lilac Lane for temporary access. I spoke with t/he County today about that because we were informed at the Planning Commission meeting that the Council didn't want the access there so I did speak to the County and they said they have no objection to that as long as it's a safe intersection with proper sight distances. I think the sight distances there are probably better than they are at the proposed exit on CR 17 and Road D. There would be some extra grading involved to do that but the costs would not come out of the Teton Lane abutting property owners to provide that access. It probably isn't a whole lot different distance wise if that was used than if Lilac Lane and Teton Lane connection was used to access those cul-de-sacs in an smergency. Mayor Hamilton: What's going to be proposed, so we don't go on about Teton Lane all night, is that we're going to suggest that a feasibility study be conducted to look at not just Teton but the alternatives to that particular road and how that may fit into the project then we can take a closer look at that and look at just one issue and discuss that and see how that is going to be resolved. Marc Simcox: Tnat's in a feasibility study? Mayor Hamilton: You bet. That's what the study would be about. Marc Simcox: Tne plat is not going to be approved as it exists until that has ~n taken care of? Mayor Hamilton: No, that's not true. The plat can be approved with the condition that the feasibility study needs to be cc~pleted on Teton. Marc Simcox: The one concern of course by the property owners there is that the City and the developer want the feasibility study to show the Teton Lane is required, that's exactly what the feasibility study will show. Right or wrong that's the way they are feeling. What we would suggest is that Teton Lane would be used for access onto the development and the rest of it dedicated to the City until such time that that property may be developed 20 years in the future and the City can then go in and do something... Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what our feasibility study will tell us. When it should be developed and in what manner and how the road configuration should be for the develo~ent. 34 289 City Council ~ting - May 4, 1987 Jim Donovan: If I might I would like to step up here and just show you something here. Ihn the owner of this piece of property here. I own from here up to Lilac and from Lilac down to here. This is the road that we're talking about Teton here. I'm concerned that this road here would then become a public road if was deeded to the City of Chanhassen for the benefit of the development down in here. The taxpayers here are not the largest taxpayer in this thing here now. I would be virtually thrown out. I bought this piece of property, came from Bloomir~3ton two years ago and I 'dreamed about this thing for 14 years and purchased this piece of property and the adjoining piece over here and now I see this happening for the benefit down here. Not for the benefit of the people here. I can assure you I will put this in writing and anything you want, this will never, never, in my lifetime, ever be developed. These people here are going to have to pay. I'm going to have to pay for the benefit of this thing. Mayor Hamilton: That's what the feasibility study will show. Jim Donovan: I understand that but I just want to impress upon you that the people here feel that the feasibility study is a foregone conclusion that it's going to say that for the benefit of this we're going to be sacrificed because of bigger tax benefits to the City of Chanhassen then what this property now gives. Mayor Hamilton: I hope we can do a better feasibility study than that. Just because you have property there ar~ you're not benefitting doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be charged for the road at this time. Jim Donovan: Somebody has to be charged for the road. I understand that. What we're saying is that this is not necessary to have the exit go here. It can go out here to CR 17. Lilac Lane is a very bad exit right now. It's very bad. Oome out here onto CR 17 would be much better. We don't know what a feasibility study, if we're allowed to have input into a feasibility study or can we come to a hearing or is there a hearing. Mayor Mmmilton: Absolutely. Where the feasibility study is completed, it will be put on an agenda and it will be discussed at that time and all alternatives will be looked at will be discussed ar~ opened to the public as is any other meeting. Jim Donovan: Okay, thank you. Barbara Dacy: Just to further clarify Mr. Donovan's comments. Before we discuss the feasibility study, the first action before the Oouncil is the subdivision preliminary plat approval. If you approve a plat as proposed you are in essence looking at a connection to Lilac Lane via Teton Lane and obviously the property owners are proposing instead of doing that, offering an alternative to make a connection to CR 17 by a second access so there is a second option proposed tonight. Tae first option is what the developer has proposed on the preliminary plat and the second option is what you just heard from Mr. Donovan and Mr. Simcox. Just to reiterate that subdivision approval is first ar~] that would really dictate authorizing the feasibility study to improve Teton Lane. By approving the proposed plat, you are giving direction 35 290 .. City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 to improve Teton Lane. Mayor Hamilton: To authorize a feasibiilty study not to improve it. Barbara Dacy: Right, I just wanted to clarify that. Jim Donovan: We're not being sacrificed, is that what you're saying? Barbara Dacy: No, I'm just saying that they are offering a second potential access plan. Mayor Hamilton: Tnat needs to be considered in the feasibility study. Don Ashworth: I don't agree. In the feasibility study we will look to the other access. If that is the recommendation per the Planning Commission recommendation, they would have to look at that new access. Barbara Dacy: Then the developer would also have to indicate to use some type of phasing plan so some of the lots that could be affected by this secondary access are not affected so we're not approving final plats until the feasibility study is complete. Don Ashworth: That's fine. I don't see where it's a problem though as I would hope to have this completed within the next 6 to 8 weeks and I'm sure it will be a more difficult process but I think we faced Creekwood, Bluff Creek and a number of other challenges and I think we can face this one as well. Marc Simcox: Just to make sure that we have this correct because we heard this a couple different ways. We were told before that the feasibilty study does not decide whether or not it's done. ~ne City Council approving a plat decides that it's going to be done. The feasibility only decides how it's going to be done. So if the Council approves the plat, it is going to be done. The Teton connection is going to be made. Mayor Hamilton: Not necessarily. If we approve the plat, we are also saying that a feasibility study needs to be done to look at Teton Lane improvement and alternatives. Councilman Johnson: Tonight we're approving a preliminary plat, not the final plat. There is a considerable difference here. The preliminary plat says that this is a way we can do it. ~ais is a way we see to do it. There is a feasibility study going on. There can be changes made between now and the final plat. Marc Sim~ox: We're real concerned about that. Tom Boyce: We can certainly final plat the south half of the property first and plat the upper half as an outlot. I guess that's what we had intended anyway. To final plat the southern portion of the property. 36 291 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Larry Ksrber: They are proposing I think it's their main entry from my south property line, is that correct? Councilman Geving: That's correct. Larry Kerber: My concern would be the amount of traffic coming by my place. You are going to be putting in a road, I won't benefit out of that road. It will run approximately 10 to 15 feet from my property line and I would just like to see that road, their main entry road contained within, at least one lot within the perimeter. I look here at other projects in the area, I can't fir~ too many with the main entry accesses another abutting property owner. I don't know what's going to happen with Teton but I can end up with all the traffic coming in ar~ out of that project at my property. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know bow you can figure you can get all of it. Lake Lucy Road is going to get some. There will be another entrance sce~91ace. Councilman Horn: A proposed alternative as I see it would be on both sides of it. They have a main street road B on the south and then a proposal on the north o Councilman Geving: He could get hit with both of them. Mayor Hamilton: Potential yes. It depends on what the feasibility study Councilman Horn: Somebody is going to lose in this thing. He's either going to have a road on both sides of him or it's going to go out to Lilac. It's not going to stop. Mayor Hamilton: We'll consider that. It's something else we need to take a look at. Larry Kerber: Yes, I would just like to see something between the road. A Lot if there is anyway they can rou~e it just because of the special type of operation I have going on there. Councilman Geving: I was thinking in Larr~s case, when I looked at this plan, I was kind of boping we could curve that Road D between Lots 20 and 21 and leave a single family home abutting his land. That leaves a problem though with Lot L Could the developer work that out? The reason I'm saying this is because when I looked at this plan, I ur~ers~ what Larr~s saying, if we could have a buffer there of one lot, Lot 21, I think that would solve Larry's problem and get him another 100 and sc~e feet away from that road. Dick Putnam: What our interest is quite frankly is to build the largest berm and put the most vegetation we can right there. If you recall in the Staff Report at the Planning Commission the recommendation was that we screen off the abutting lot which is Lot 1 from that property. The reason being that Larry has a contractor's yard and three stall garage for equi~nent ar~ a parking area right there. The last thing I want to do is put a bouse there because when be starts equipment at 6:00 in the morning it's not a 37 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 particularly good thing but by the same token, the best neighbor from our perspective is quite frankly a road and large berm and plantings and rocks and that sort of thing. That will go a long ways to solving any of his concerns, which isn't for his house because his house is on the other side of all that equipment. It's the concern that the people driving by there will object to that particular use in the future so our interest is to build a screen that he won't bothered by us and likewise by him. Councilman Geving: I'm not so sure. I haven't been out to Larry's place recently but if I looked to the south from his garage, I don't believe there is a whole lot of land that you can make a berm with. Larry, when you look at the area to the south of you, doesn't that go down? Isn't that a depression? Larry Kerber: It drops off almost from my property line, is the start of the drop off and it drops off quite severely. Councilman Geving: I don't know where you're going to be the berm. Dick Putnam: The first thing we have to do is we have to fill the area where the road goes because you have to have a flat grade not like Lilac so it's going to be flat. Right now it drops off but there is going to be dirt brought in there to bring it up. In the process of bringing that up, I told Larry what we will be doing is building a very large berm. If he wants us to put part of it on his property and move the trees he has put in on his side up higher, we would be happy to do that do we'll do it on our property but I think our interest, in this case, are entirely the same. We want to build a separation that's permanent and I think that's what he wants too. Councilman Geving: Dick, could we call that area to the north of the road there, just as you come in and to the north, could we call that an outlot? Dick Putnam: Sure. Frankly it might be easier to make it part of the public right-of-way if you would like and just come right across like that. That might be a posibility or we could keep it as an outlot, whichever is easiest. Councilman Geving: What do you think? Don Ashworth: That sounds like a solution for both sides. Councilman Geving: Just so we have a separation there. I think that's what we're looking for. Dick Putnam: Tnat's our interest 100%. Councilman Horn: Is the biggest concern going up to Lilac the assessment or is it the actual road going through? So they are both equal? Marc Simcox: I would say that the assessment is one of the biggest issues because there are so very few people to absorb that assessment. Tne impact on Lilac Lane, I don't know how the grading would be done and how they can improve the grade as you come up from Mill Street because it's a fairly steep grade and also continues steep to the south and also drops to the north. I 38 2'93 City Council Meeting - May 4~ 1987 don't know how that grade will be improved] It's already now~ anybody .who. drives up that road can tell you it's a constant wheel spinning all year round on that road and as an access, I don't know how the grading can be changed] Also at the top of the hill you have to make an immediate left turn onto Teton which is also a grade and that's a real problem in the wintertime for people to get up. I live right across the street from Teton ar~ so far I've had two vehicles in the last four years that have come over my wall and it's about a 8 foot drop or 7 foot drop] Mayor Hamilton: _Okay~ I think all those concerns will be addressed in the feasibility study. Councilman Geving: I want to ask a questin of the developer~ Would you be iwilling to pay for the improvement of Teton to Lilac? Tom Boyce: No I wouldn ' t. Councilman Geving: The answer ' s no. Dick Putnam: We can purchase some of the property on either side of it, sure. Tom Boyce: I guess I tried that at one point. Councilman Geving: I'm placing this question before you because you are really the major contributor to creating this problem. Tom Boyce: There are other alternatives to develop the site. This is the alternative that we felt was best and I guess Staff felt was best and was the one we presented. We did look at access to the northwest. We don't own that property and we looked at acquiring a number of other pieces in there but quite frankly it just didn't make c~mmon sense. Dick Putnam: If you just focus in on this F business, this reflects what I think was suggested. Oonnection out through the city property and I guess you do have some control over what's done here because you own the chunk of property in question which is this triangle right here. This represents a connection through Lot 15 onto our site and we talked to the Staff about that. To be perfectly honest with you, the reason we proposed what we proposed was that the road that's there today is not going to be maintained by the guy who owns it anymore. That's just a fact of life. I don't know if Mr. Carlson is here tonight but he quite frankly is not going to continue it and there are people asking him for dust nuisance control and all this business and it was pretty obvious to us that semething was going to happen here between the neighbors. Not us but between the neighbors. The other reason was that the Staff had ir~icated the City would like to see a public street connection. Not only for what happens with our project but just for the area in general ar~ look at it from a total perspective of public street access of all the properties. Public Safety, the neighbors pointed out very eloquently that Lilac Lane and Teton are terrible in the wintertime. You can't get up. If somebody has a heart attack, you'll never get an ambulance up. They convinced me that they ought to have another way in and out so what we did is said okay, here's a way to connect it. Quite frankly, we'll plat it and over the course 39 294 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 of the feasibilty study and the time it takes to resolve the issue, if alternate F is what you want us to do, we'll revise the plat here so it won't bother anybody. Tne dust control problem the gentlemen has ain't going to be resolved. Jim Don.van: It's not going to be there. Tae dust is not going to be there. Dick Putnam: The problem is going to be that people who have access to it today will continue to have access. We have not built one thing up there and the folks are having problems and they have called the City and they complain, whatever. Mayor Hamilton: Taanks very much for your comments. I think that's plenty. Franc. Loris: I have lived up there for 19 years now. I've walked many times by that road from Carlson...so all of a sudden this company is coming in and they are picking it up and they are going to improve it.J)ut that's not true. I would have bought it from him but just the road, not those old shacks. I would be willing to do that right now but not for a public access. I would maintain it too because after all I've been up there for 19 years and I guess it's for my use as well. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that's something else that should be included in the feasibility study is talk to Franc.. I think a motion is in order. We have two items before us. A subdivision of 53 acres into 81 single family lots with the conditions as outlined by the Planning Commission and the Park and Rec C~m~nission and a Wetland Alteration Permit to alter a Class B wetland. Councilman Johnson: When does the feasibility study get approved? Mayor Hamilton: That's item 13 of the conditions. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Curry Farm Subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat dated April 2, 1987 with the following conditions: lo Lot 13, Block 2, Lot 6, Block 5 and Lot 15, Block 3 shall receive a variance to the 90 foot lot frontage requirement with all minimum house setbacks at the 90 foot lot width and all other lots shall meet the 90 foot frontage requirement. 2, The triangular lots shall be changed to reflect a more standard lot configuration. 0 Teton Lane shall be improved to an urban section and shall connect the subdivision with Lilac Lane. . Se An access permit for Road D shall be requied from Carver County. A conservation easement at the 982 foot contour shall be provided around the westerly side of the pond in Block 2 and along the southerly side of the park area. 40 r 295 Council Meeting - May 41 1987 6. A conservation easement at the 992 foot contour shall be provided along the northerly side of the park area. 7. All necessary drainage and utility easements shall be provided. 8. The cor~itions as established by the Park and Recreation Oommission dated Apri 9, 1987. 9. The applicant shall provide acceptable drainage calculations for the determination that the park area will drain properly. 10. The outlots shall not be considered buildable. 11. The street names shall not contain the names Lake Lucy or Teton. 12. ~e conditions as established by the City Engineer in his report dated April 17, 1987. 13. Staff shall work with the City of Shorewood to address their concerns on the impacts on Teton and Lilac Lane ar~ if the street configuration is changed, the preliminary plat shall again be reviewed by the Planning Ccumission. 14. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing landscaping for lots abutting the contractory' s yard. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for informing potential lot owners that a contractor's yard exists. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilto~ moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit ~87-6 with the following conditions: 1. The Class A wetland shall be preserved by a conservation easement established at 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. 2. The applicant shall provide drainage easements over the por~]ing areas throughout the site and not allow any alteration to the areas. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: What will the timeframe be, Barb or Gary, you'll be doing the feasibility study? Gary Warren: I would say 6 to 8 w~eks w~'ll be done with this. Mayor Hamilton: Be sure to include the alternatives that we looked at and be sure to talk to Franco so we can pursue that avenue also. 41 296 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 SWINGS RECREATION LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TH 5 AND CR 117, JOHN PRYZMUS, APPLICANT: a. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO AMEND THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO ALLOW GOLF DRIVING RANGES, MINIATURE GOLF COURSES AND INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO FILL IN A CLASS A WETLAND. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE GOLF COURSE, AND AN INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS. Mayor Hamilton: ~nis item has been before us before. I think Jay is probably the only one that hasn't had quite as much input as the rest of us had. Barbara, is there anything new that you might want to present that we wouldn't be aware of or haven't seen in the past dealing with this item? Barbara Dacy: No, not at this time. I guess if you're just going to consider each item, we're available to answer questions and the applicant is here. Mayor Hamilton: Let's begin with A, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. I%squest to amend the A-2, Agricultural Estate District to allow golf driving ranges, miniature golf courses and indoor hatting buildings as a conditional use and it's my understanding John that you want all three of those to be considered and not separately? John Pryzmus: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council have any discussion on this item 6(a)? Councilman Geving: Yes. This is a major departure for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. To include not one of these particular items, the golf driving range but also the miniature golf course and the indoor batting facility. This issue has a long history and after a lot of deliberation and our Minutes indicate that we still are looking at, in my view, a conditional use permit process and the only thing that's acceptable to me as a councilman is a golf driving range facility. I don't believe that the miniature golf course meets the intent of our Zoning Ordinance. It is in fact a retail facility. A commercial facility and it fits more appropriately in a commercial setting and I can't for the life of me believe that we would even attempt to consider the indoor batting facility in what I would call an agricultural district that is intended for at some future point a rural residential area in the year 2000. We're talking about an interim facility plan for this land use. I would say that if anything should go on that land, and I believe it should be utilized. There has been a substantial amount of development there in terms of trees being placed there. There has been an alteration of the area including the creek area. That a landowner does have some rights to develop a portion of his property even in an interim use. I feel that the golf driving range for my purposes at least, does meet an interim intent of our Ordinance. I think that could fit with the idea that there would be a small shed facility and I'm thinking in the area of 500 square feet maximum to house a tractor and whatever office facilities there are for the issuance of clubs and counting of 42 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 balls and things like that. That there will be no commercial e~terprise of this property. No vending whatsoever of pop, ice cream or any other such commercial ventures. ~hat it be strictly for the recreation of golfing and the driving range. So therefore, Ibm saying that there would be no vending or concessionaire type activities. We would fence it completely with a 6 foot wire mesh fence. I think that would be appropriate. Show us a site plan with a landscaping plan John. We r,_~ that. I want to see where you're plantings are and what they will look like in years to come and under no circumstances will I think that we could even consider an alteration to the wetland that's existant o~ that property. Do not violate that wetland ar~ I have in our packet tonight from Dr. Rockwell whom I know and have worked with for a number of years, an opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service that says there should be no alteration to the wetland. Now if you can do your facility, you can drive balls and collect the balls under those circumstances, I feel that you could hold a facility out on that land and run a profitable business. That's the end of my comnents. Councilman Johnson: I tend to agree with Dale on this. Especially on the wetlands part. I believe that you can get tbs wide bodied tire or whatever vehicle that could navigate on the wetland more the tractors that are there now would just fall into the wetland basically. There's no way you could pick up the balls with those existing tractors. You would have to have the little tire or whatever to be able to navigate within the area. I~m not terribly opposed to, like some of the Planning Commission members said that they were not opposed to having the putt-putt or mini-golf in conjunction with the driving range. ~ne mini-golf by itself I'm totally against out there but in conjunction with a driving range as a smaller enterprise, IR not terribly opposed to but I would totally agree with Dale and the Planning Commission on no further alteration, it's already ~_n altered, to that wetlands. Councilman Horn: Just a clarificatior~ I believe the question was, we're asking for a zoning ordinance amendment to include all three. If I heard Dale and Jay right they said they would not go along with that. Councilman Geving: That was tt~ intent of my stat~nent, yes. Councilman Horn: It seems like that's all I heard. Mayor Hamilton: From my standpoint I think what I've seen John on your plans is an overintensificaton of the use for the land. I don't think the batting thing fits. I certainly think a driving range is very useable there along with the miniature putt and if you were to put a mini-golf thing there that's similar to the one on TH 101 and TH 7, which I think is a real nice facility and does a good business, I could certainly see that as an asset to that area. I think an indoor battir~3 facility may be something that our town could use but I don't think it fits on that piece of land so I agree with the other council members. You've asked for three things and I havem't heard anyone agree that all three should be in that particular location. I guess a motion is in order om item A. Councilman Geving: I will move to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amer~ the A-2, Agricultural Estate District to allow golf driving ranges as a 43 298 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 conditional use. I think the other items that I hear would fall into the Conditional Use Permit itself as a part of that and those conditions however would also include the Planning Commission's recommendations because this is an amendment to an Ordinance. There have to be some other things that we would place in the ordinance to structure it and that is, (1) location is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or arterial streets to TH 5 or TH 212. We're trying to look to the future not just at this particular facility but to the amendment to the Ordinance. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset and that adequate parking and submission of a landscaping plan shall be in conformance with Article VIII. No site shall be located within 500 feet of a single family residence. We'll discuss that in a minute because there may be a conflict but that should be one of the items. I would like to add another item, that there would be no vending of concessions on the site. Any building for the purpose of storing golf driving equipment such as the ball retriever, the tractor and small office would be limited in size to 500 square feet, and be painted in an earthtone. There was no second and motion failed for lack of second. Mayor Hamilton: John, did you want to say something? John Pryzmus: I didn't know if you wanted to see a plan or anything like that. Mayor Hamilton: We were given copies of your plan unless it's changed since we got it. John Pryzmus: No. The only thing I would like to mention is that I spent a lot of time today and the last couple days, I have 100% backing from the business community, my peers, what they see is a need out there for the community. I went through different areas in the community to find out the residents and people who don't have businesses in town. Basically they were 90% for it. The 10% that didn't sign the petitions either didn't know enough about the project to sign it or their husband or wife wasn't home so they wanted to make a joint decision so I feel here that we have community support of just about 100% for the project. Batting cages are a big part of it. My financial backers won't be involved if I don't have the total project so I won't be able to go into a financial contract with you if you limit this it just a driving range. Basically I have a driving range out there now so I just wanted to let you know that I've done a lot of homework like you've asked Dale. I hired the architects. I hired the engineers. I've done everything that the City, we've moved things around to the west and north and south and have done everything that I could possibly do with Staff basically to be told that I don't have any more than I had before even though you took it away. That was a matter for the courts to decide. Really it comes down to I've spent about $10,000.00 with plans and what have you to get the same thing I got three months ago. If you were going to tell me the same thing, why didn't you just tell me that three months ago that no matter what you do. No matter how many plans ar~ architectural drawings you get because it isn't going matter. It don't matter what the people of Chanhassen want. It's what you personally want that matters. 44 299 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Jack Roberts: We weren't here for this part of it but it's news to me that somebody was goirg to be developing a driving range and mini-golf arz] hatting cage. I grew up in suburhan Chicago and one of my favorite sports as a teenager, going with my dad ar~ later on in high school and college with my brothers, there was ...which was a farm type of place with a double decker driving range and mini-golf course ar~ outdoor hatting cages and we spent one hell of a lot of time there doing all three at one time. We didn't go there just to do haseball because if you put up a hatting cage someone in this town who might need it for all the kids like my three sons who are 9 and 10 years old, where are t~ going to go just to go hatting and not be able to buy ice cream or a can of pop and can only do it from sunrise to sunset. Well, that's real good hours in April, May and September. It seems like when you're a teenager you may want to be out past 8:~0 at night. If this business would fly, I think something like 1~:~0, 11:00, 12:0~ at night during certain times of the weeks. I think at least a can of pop or nibble of chips or candy hat or gum something like that would be appropriate if you're going to run a business ar~ unless you don't have kids that play hasehall and golf, this area could use something other than just the nice mini-golf that's up on TH 7 ar~ TH 1~1. Where is there a driving range that you can go to and not have to be a member or feel that you have to play 18 holes. I heard George Prieditis on my softball team tonight said we could go to a hatting cage in St. Paul. Where is the closest hatting cage for the kids that are in haseball or for dads, for a bunch of jocks who just want to go out and hit and not go down to the metrodome for two days of the year and try and make the team down tliere. There may be a ~ for something like this in the recreation area in not too far away from downtown Chanhasse~ ar~ what is that site doing right now? It's vegetating. I don't know about wetlands and all of that... I just heard about this in the last half hour but I spent hours at a place like that when I was a kid and I still play haseball and I still play golf and I love it and I got kids that I would like to take to do that right now because they want to practice and rather than in my hackyard or at Chan Elementary where we pound solfballs or golfballs. That's where people practice their golf in Chan right now. I think maybe, maybe there is a ~ for this here and if you guys could work s~nething out. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think anyone is saying there is not a ~ for it. What we're saying is the location is not in the area that we think it should be in and the use of that particular piece of land is probably not suited. Jack Roberts: Couldn't you use draintile or pipes or something to... Mayor Hamilton: We deal with what we see presented to us. We don't talk to the applicant ar~ tell them how to do his plan. We can't do his planning for him. Any other comments. Councilman Horn: The motion would be then if we decide we don't want to give all three of these, the motion would be to deny the zoning ordinance amendment at this point. However, what I would like to see happen is to see this go hack and have a Zoning Ordinance amendment that would include golf courses as well as driving ranges because I was just as appalled as the Planning Commission to find out we don't have a place to put a golf course in Chanhassen. I think it's ridiculous that Bluff Creek has to be a conditional 45 300 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 use permit. I would like to have this whole ordinance looked at. Mayor Hamilton: I was surprised to see that also. We missed that somehow, golf courses, and I have no problem with miniature golf courses either. I don't have any problem with indoor batting buildings if they are put in the right place. Councilman Geving: Where else are you going to put them? Councilman Johnson: I haven't looked at that question yet. Without looking at the question and having the Planning Commission give me advice on that question, I think it's a good idea for ~ to review that first. Councilman Horn: That's why I think we're premature in suggesting a zoning ordinance amendment tonight. This is a specific request for a zoning ordinance amendment for this project. For those three uses. If we're saying that we're not going to allow those three uses, our only option is to deny this request. Now we could go beyond that and say we want the Planning Commission to look at some type of a zoning ordinance recommendation to us for allowing golf courses and driving ranges and mini-putts or whatever we want to include in that but I don't think that's the form of a motion. The motion is either to accept this or deny this as I see it. Councilman Johnson: Dale's motion was to accept one-third of it. My motion is to accept two-thirds of it. Councilman Horn: But why make a zoning ordinance when you haven't studied the issue? Why not cc~e back with that unless it's tied to a specific proposal? Councilman Johnson: Tne additional issue is the golf course. Barbara Dacy: Yes, there was a specific request for driving ranges, miniature golf course and then indoor batting buildings and therefore we processed a request in light of that. We did not specifically advertise for golf courses. I think the two though are vastly different. I think what's being proposed tonight is a different intensity than a golf course is and a golf course would require a separate and different review process than a driving range. That's why Staff went ahead and process this request. We can go back and pick up golf courses at a later point but we came from the standpoint that you didn't have to have a golf course in with the amendment to go along with a driving range. Councilman Horn: I understand that. Mypoint is that if we're not going to amend all three of these uses this evening, it isn't necessary for us to amer~ any of them this evening. Mayor Hamilton: ~hat's true. We have two options. We can either do it that way or... Barbara Dacy: So what you're saying is they are either appropriate in the A-2 or they're not. 46 City fbuncil Meeting - May 4, 1987 Councilman Johnson: And my motion says that two out of three of them are appropriate if they are together. Mayor Hamilton: I agree with Clark. I have no 'problem with indoor batting buildings but I don't think that was allowed for in our ordinanoe revision either. Why don't we also take a look at that and see where they would be allowed. Councilman Johnson: General recreational facilities. Take the step beyond. It could be more than a batting cage. There are other sports recreational facilities that could be commercially available. Barbara Dacy: Right. The indoor batting building term is very specific and the Zoning Ordinance does generalize in the business general and business highway. I think it says sports clubs and or commercial recreation so that type of use could be allowed in our cc~nercial district. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe that needs to be specifically outlined so applicants would know exactly where they could propose to put this thing. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow driving ranges with miniature golf courses as an accessory to the driving range as a conditional use in the A-2 District with the following conditions: le The location is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 amd TH 212 and access must be from a collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. 2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. . Provision of adequate parking areas and 9,~ission of a landscaping plan in conformance with Article VIII. 4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of single family reside. . Any building be small and earthtone in color for dispensing of golf balls. . That golf courses be taken back to the Planning Commission to review what zoning district golf courses belorg in. Councilman Johnson and Councilman Geving voted in favor and Councilman Horn and Mayor Hamilton opposed. There was a tie vote, 2-2. Councilman Horn: My recommendation would be to deny the request that's before us and ths~ put this subject back to the Planning Commission to clarify each of those issues and give us a reocam~dation. Barbara Dacy: To clarify each driving range, miniature golf course. Councilman Horn: The golf course, the indoor hatting, address all four of 47 4 City Council ~cting - May 4, 1987 those issues. Where they belong and make that part of the overall zoning ord inanoe amendment. Mayor Hamilton: And get a recommendation back from the Planning Commission as to where they should be as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Councilman Geving: The problem though is you can't think of everything. Let's say that the applicant would have asked for indoor archery for example or some other recreational pursuit. He didn't. He just happened to go with batting here and that could go in another whole area that we haven't even discussed here at any time so there could be any number of other recreational items that are going to be proposed to us as council members and we'll have to handle them on a one per one basis and not everytime be brought to the council. Our ordinances are never going to be able to adequately answer all the questions that people are going to pose as a proposal to us. Mayor Hamilton: But they can do a better job than what we're doing now. We can go back and look at indoor batting facility. If that's in a general recreational use than we better have a definition of a general recreational use. What does that entail? Does it entail indoor golf? Indoor batting? Indoor archery? Indoor shooting? Let's be more specific about indoor. You can list 100 things and say those are things that are included. Councilman Geving: Maybe I'm getting kind of where Clark's coming from. I always like to look at the issue in front of us. The issue is a request for indoor batting area, a miniature putt-putt area and also for a golf driving range. That's really what we're talking about and we're being asked to amend our Ordinance to include those as conditional uses for this particular piece of land. Now we can either accept that or deny the request or we can accept that with conditions and alter the request and not completely deny it but approve the portions that we prefer as four council people here tonight and let the applicant go about his way and start developing this. Mayor Hamilton: But that was my reason for the question to the applicant when we started this. He wants to have all three of them. Councilman Geving: Then he's taking a high risk. Mayor Hamilton: That's why I asked John that question when we started. He wants to have all three of them or nothing. I guess that's the way I look at it. Councilman Geving: He might get nothing. Pat Farrell: You ought to have that on record. Councilman Geving: If that's what he wants then I agree with Clark. Mayor Hamilton: Is that true John? Do you want all three to be considered? Do you want all three or nothing? Basically that is what you're saying. That's what I asked you at the beginning of the meeting. Do you want all three of these to be considered and passed or none of them? 48 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 John Pryzmus: I guess if-you want to make an amendment to include the driving range and miniature golf as it's proposed without the batting cage, I will take that at this point. Mayor Hamilton: Would you include golf courses in your motion? Councilman Gevirg: No and I think the reason why we don't have that in front of us tonight, that' s another issue. Councilman Johnson: Dale, are your miniature golf courses only associated specifically with driving ranges or are they going to be an allowable use? Councilman Geving: Yes. I'm putting this in as an auxilliary use with a outdoor golf driving range. Mayor Hamilton: ~hy? Councilman Geving: Because I can't see putting up a miniature golf course in an A-2 area as a separate commercial enterprise. I think it bas to go along with the intent of what we're talking about here and that's a golf driving range facility. I want to put them together. I don't want to see an applicant come in for example with a miniature golf application for the Hesse Farms or someplace in the A-2 District and here we carve out a one acre miniature golf because it happens to fit our Zoning Ordinance and it would be approved because it wouldn't cc~e before the Council. It's an approved and legitimate business and I want to see those. John Pryzmus: Can I just mention one thing? On the square footage of the building for the clubhouse. 500 square feet, I don't know if I can even get one tractor in there for storage in the winter and I would prefer to have all my equipment stored inside in the winter. I dealt with Staff and I will be taking the dome down and putting something different there and I could build a nice looking building with windows all the way around it so the manager can watch and make sure everything is running smoothly and also have a garage door so I can park my equipment in in the winter but 500 square feet is about the average size of a bedroom. Councilman Geving: No it's not. Councilman Johnson: That's 22 by 22 basically. Councilman Geving: I figured it out because it's about 22 by 22, about the size of a normal garage or 20 by 25. I just picked the number John. Give me a number. John Pryzmus: The thing about it is, the slab out there is 30 by 40 that I already have poured and that would house both tractors, power mowers and what have you. I could cut that dowru I can always have part of it in a patio but I'm just thinking that 500 square feet, I get a couple tractors in ar~ then I still have equipment sitting out and everybody's mad at me because I don't have everything in house you know. 49 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Councilman Geving: Okay, Staff recommended 800. Would you buy 800? John Pry~us: I guess if I can get it in. Councilman Geving: I'll amend my motion to include an 800 square foot shed. Councilman Horn: I'll amend my second. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment request to amend the A-2 Agricultural Estate District to include a golf driving range and miniature golf courses as an accessory use to golf driving ranges as conditional uses in the A-2 District with the following conditions: lo The location is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 and TH 212. 2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. . Provision of adequate parking areas and su~ission of a landscaping plan in conformance with Article VIII. 4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of single family residences. . The building to be constructed on any site would be a maximum of 800 square feet, painted in earthtones to house the facility. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. B. WETLAND ALTERATION REQUEST TO FILL IN A CLASS A WETLAND. Mayor Hamilton: I believe a good share of that wetland has been filled through the years when there has been plowing and agricultural activities occurring on that property. I believe that the applicant also may have filled in part of that so I asked the Staff today if that in fact still is a Class A wetland. If it does have the grasses and the standing water and everything else that's required to be classified as a Class A wetland. I guess IR not convinced that it is any longer whether by the applicant's doing or somebody elses so I'm not sure if we're really talking about a permit for a Class A wetland. Is it really a Class A wetland? By whose definition also? Barbara Dacy: It is a Class A wetland by definition of the City Wetlar~ Ordinance which was adopted in 1984. Mayor Hamilton: There are marsh grasses and cattails and all that sort of thing growing out there? Barbara Dacy: There is a small amount of reed grass as Dr. RDckwell pointed out. The area is not good for habitat however, the vegetation in the soils do indicate a wetland. However, it is obvious that the site has been cultivated for in excess of 50 years it was a site for tree farm. The quality of that 50 .City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 portion of the wetland is really in question and the applicant submitted a letter detailirg the history of the use of that particular site. As was pointed out in the report, the portion of the wetland contained in the site is approximately 4 acres and that's the remaining part of ~ original alottment totals 78 acres and extends to the northern part of the property. Councilman Johnson: I walked this wetlands several times now. There definitely are peat grasses and your aquatic vegetation trying to sprout up what was moved on top of it. We've got star~irg water in tbs pond that used to be kind of the feed to the top of the wetlands from the appearances of it. Goirg from his proposed tee line down 200 yards, it's not much of a wetland anymore so on your prints, the top half of it has pretty well been filled by 6 inches to a foot of soils. The lower, especially beyond the 250 yard range, which is a pretty good golfer, personally I can't make the 200 yard range, is still muc~ peat soils without much filling going oD. There has ~_n some grading going on in there. As it exists, I'm not a soils expert to tell you how much it can hold as far as tractors or anything. I think you could probably operate fairly easity down to the 200 yard point. Betwee~ the 200 and 250 creates a problem and beyond 250 is peat that most anything is going to drop into. With good grass down to the 200 that shouldn't be a lot of problem. I wouldn't want to see any more alterations down to the wetlands as it is. I believe there is some recommendations that said if we did allow alterations, they wanted a permanent sedimentation basin at the bottom. If this is all grass, you're not going to be getting much sediment coming out of it. What would we be trying to settle in the sedimentation basin? Or are we looking for a nutrient basin to take out the nutrients from the soil? Gary Warren: I looked at it from .that star, iht as a buffer zone betwee~ what would be remaining as wetland versus the activity that would be conducted on the site. From fertilizers or anything else that would have to be uti 1 i zed out there. Councilman Johnson: Tnis is pretty much the headwaters for what, Bluff Creek I believe. At this point Bluff Creek is only a foot or two wide ar~ that feeds a lot of our chain of lakes so the headwaters must be protected and that's where I 'm coming from in protecting this wetlands. Councilman Geving: The only comment I want to make, I'm not too concerned about the wetlands as I am about staying away from the creek are~ That was the problem we had before. I do respect Dr. Rockwell's recc~me/~dations. Councilman Horn: I just think we should k~ it as it is. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I don't s~_ any reason why it can't partially be filled in at least up to the 954 elevatioru That would still be enough area for some ponding near the creek for run-off into the creek and still be able to filter water. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit request to fill in a Class A wetland up to the 954 contour ar~ permit approval from the Army Corps of Engineers. There was no second and motion died for lack of second. 51 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the Wetland Alteration Permit request to fill in a Class A wetland. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE GOLF COURSE AND AN INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS. Councilman Johnson: Because we're building something within 200 feet of a wetlands, how does that affect this and if there is not going to be any further work on the wetlands, does the Conditional Use have to have the Corps of Army Engineer's approval also? Barbara Dacy: I take the proposed Council action to mean approve the Conditional Use permit for the driving range and basically the applicant can't fill into the wetland area. He can not alter it so a specific condition should read that the wetland area as identified on the plan should remain as is. Mayor Hamilton: That's what we just passed. Councilman Geving: No alteration of the area. I'm talking about alteration in terms of excavation and replacement of soils in the wetland area. Councilman Johnson: So planting grass seed in the wetland area, would that be acceptable or would that be considered fill? Mayor Hamilton: Are we going back to the last motion are we to clarify that at this point? Councilman Johnson: Tne last motion almost kicks out the conditional use permit because this land would be useless within the wetlands that's in the middle of the driving range unless he can ~ooth it out to plant grass. Mayor Hamilton: If he doesn't fill it to the 954 contour then it would be more useable. We still have a drainage area and filtering area before it gets to the creek. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve a Conditional Use Permit request for a golf driving range and miniature golf course. All voted in favor and motion carried. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL THE LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR AND THE LAKE VIRGINIA FORCEMAIN IN AND NEAR CLASS A AND CLASS B WETLANDS ALONG THE ALIGNMENT RUNNING SOUTHEASTERLY FROM TH 4--1 TO TH 5, THROUGH THE CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND INTO EDEN PRAIRIE, METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION, APPLICANT. Councilman Johnson: Tnere was a point in here where Dr. Rockwell made a recommendations. It wasn't within the conditions. I thought it would have been good to have those recommendations for the areas alongside the wetlands to be recompacted i~mediately to prevent, I'm trying to find it in here. 52 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Barbara Dacy: I know what you're referring to. Maybe I generalized those comments too much in the first condition. I put proper methods of soil compression and restoration so in the conditions if you wanted to specify what she had in her letter that's fine. Councilman Johnson: If that's your intent and we have it clear that that's the intent of condition 1 is to meet her conditions that she wants in there. Barbara Dacy: What she had recked was very standard. Councilman Johnson: I was also a little aghast at how many trees t~ are taking out through Prince's property and that area in there. 200 foot wide swatch of trees, and there are a few other areas where t~ are going to be 200 feet wide and they are only digging 20 feet deep. I would like to have them look a little closer to the tree removal. I was sorry to hear that you were directly going to a motion on this Tom. There are several areas along there where they are ripping out 24 inch oaks so they can pile the dirt there and then they think after digging 40 feet deep that the trees are going to reroot from what root they didn't plant back in there. I think we ~ some reforestation in there. I personally can't see how you dig a 40 foot deep hole to put in a sewer and then expect the trees to grow back. Mayor Hamilton: Is your point then that you want them to consider putting some plantings back in there then after they've gone through? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Councilman Horn: I think they already discussed that and the answer was no, they wouldn't do that. I think if there is any reforestation, it's going to be our responsibility from what I read. Councilman Johnson: So the Metropolitan Waster Control Commission, t~ can c~me in here and rip out all the trees and we have to live with it? Councilman Geving: Don't forget that there was negotiation that took place between Chanhassen and the Metro people to bring that line through C~3nhassen. We take part of that as our responsibilty. Councilman Johnson: But if some of these trees that they are taking out, if they could just move them after they make their move, to replant some of ~. I know you can't do a 24 inch oak but there are going to be some smaller trees in there that would not be that ~ive for them to move ar~ replant. This 200 wide strip that we're going to cut through our ba_rdwood forest. Maybe allow us to do it or something. Barbara Dacy: Phrase a condition in the terms that the City will work with the ~ to conduct reforestation program as much as practically possible. Councilman Johnson: Just impress upon ~ that w~ like trees. Mayor Hamilton: Don't include everybody. Trees are a renewable resource and if they are knocked down they can be replanted. I think that's a reasonable 53 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 thing for the Staff to do to work the MWCC and see if they can't do that or if the City Staff can do it. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit 987-3 to install the Lake Virginia Forcemain along TH 7 and the Lake Ann Interceptor from TH 41 in its proposed alignment to the existing interceptor just east of TH 101 subject to the following conditions: . In all sections identified in this report the following shall occur: installation of silt fences, side casting of dredged material on upland areas, and proper methods of soil c(mlpression and restoration. e Construction in Section J shall occur during winter months. Construction in Section F shall occur in late fall. 3. Compliance with the DNR and Watershed District requirements. 4. Staff work with the MW(DC or City Staff to reforest as best as possible. All voted in favor and motion carried. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: 1987 BONDING, ANDY MERRY. Andy Merry: We've been working on $4,685,000.00 for improvement bonds, $3,475,000.00 of tax increment bonds and $200,000.00 of equipment certificates. Just to run through the presentation fairly quickly, you have your index broken essentially into three sections. It gives you financing details. A time table and I've got a redo on the time table. A couple of the dates didn't come out. They can be pulled out of your books fairly easily if you want to insert this. As you can see we're moving towards a bond sale on the 15th of June which should dovetail nicely with the same evening in which you will consider the award of the construction bids relating to the improvement and tax increment projects. The first page of each of the sections gives the financing details. ~ne maturity structuring, the redemption feature, good faith check, minimum bid amounts. Again, we're applying for a credit assignment for Mooty's Investor Services in New York. O~ the improvement issue which is page 3 in the handout, this gives you your project costs and we identify the various projects. 86-11 is the downtown redevelopment/public improvement construction costs totaling about $2,235,000.00 representing about 54% of the improvement bond total. We prorated each of the projects for allocation of expense purposes and then there were 6 additional municipal improvement projects that were added in downtown redevelopment improvements. The next page, page 4 will give you your sources and uses of funds with the allocation of expenses and construction period interest by project. Working over to the far right hand column, you'll get your total. On the following page, which is page 5, we'll give you your maturity structure again by project. By public improvement. These maturities dovetail with the assessment periods that we were provided by City Staff. I've rounded for issuance so we have increments of $25,000.00. $4,635,000.00 and an annual surplus deficient and accumulative surplus deficient on the far 54 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 right side. We try to maintain positive balances all the way through and we were successful here. The next page, page 6, gives you what the bond issue would look like if it were sold last Wednesday. As you can see the coupons are sending 5 1/2% out to 8.1%, an average coupon rate of about 7 1/4% and with the maximum discount allowable, about 7 1/2% all in cost of funds. The next project on page 7 is the tax increment project. That one doesn't go out quite as far. It matures in August of 2001. The bonds are prepay-able in 1995 and the interest payment date thereafter without penalty. The next page, page 8 gives you your sources and uses of funds for the tax increment bonds. The project costs are on page 8 and the sources ar~] uses of funds and capitalized interest calculation is found on page 9. Page 10 gives you a summary of what the bond issue would look like assuming it was sold a week ago. The market is about the same today as it was when the run was put together last Wednesday. Interest rates, as you probably know have increased materially really in the last two weeks from where they have been and then the last bood issue on page 11 is for the equipment certificates. Again, it will he a 5 year financir~3. Page 12 shows the equipment that is being acquired or actually has been acquired now. This is for reimbursement. Your equipment fur~, page 13,- sources and uses with capitalized interest calculation ~ the last page, page 14, shows you what the equipment certificate would look like had it ~ sold a week ago. ~nen the last exhibit, last page in the presentation just gives a summary of the bond buyer's index and I think most of you are familiar with bond buyer's index. It's a 20 bond investment grade municipal index but we also show prime rate and you can see that the prime rate right at the beginning of April as have all interest sensitive instruments. Just for comparison, we sold bor~]s a year ago beginning of JUly I belive, the bond buyer's index at that time was about 7 1/2% and right now it's a little bit better than 7 3/4%. Deper~ting on where you read it or who you listen to, half of the economist think rates will continue to rise and half of them think that rates might improve. Actually bond prices did firm a little bit this afternoon but this gives you a capsualized view of what the financing would look like. The grand total is $8,360,000.00 and we're proposing that the sale would take place on JUne 15th of this year. We don't have resolutions calling for the sale and providing for the notice that we published in two different newspapers. However, if the Council determines to 'call for the sale, the appropriate resolution will be provided within the next couple days. Councilman Horn: Do we have anS{ latest status on the Shriver's Bill? Andy Marry: No. Nothing' s happening. Don Ashworth: As far as I know it will die. ~nat's kind of the best information with the legislature and the bill being primarily a Republican bill, I don' t know. Councilman Geving: ~hat's our bond rating right now? Ar~ty Merry: BAA. Mayor Hamilton: It's been the same for quite a while. 55 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Don Ashworth: The resolutions referred to also include a resolution clarifying the Council's condemnation resolution of March 6, 1987. We needed to convert one lot from a partial taking to a totak taking and we need construction easements in the Pauly/Pryzmus/Kallestad area. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Resolution 987-37 authorizing acquisition by condemnation of property within the downtown redevelopment project area and Resolution 987-38 to approve the 1987 bonding as outlined for $8,360,000.00 for the General Obligation Improvement Fund and the General Obligation Tax Increment Funds and the Equipment Certificate of Indebtedness with the condition that the Council get the resolutions and needed paperwork within a few days of the Council meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAREDO DRIVE AND WEST 78TH STREET INTERSECTION, WINFIELD DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND CHANHASSEN DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES (CHADDA): A. SITE PLAN REVIEW OF AN 18,500 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ONLOT 1. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL FOURGAS PUMPS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 18,500 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING.-- C. SUBDIVISION OF 2.6 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS (LOT 1; 1.19 ACRES AND LOT 2; .7 ACRES). At this point Mayor Hamilton turned the chair over to Councilman Geving and Mayor Hamilton left the room. Councilman Johnson: I agree pretty much with everything the Planning Commission did in their meeting the other night and I too want to have a good look at the architectural plans that are coming up that are going to set the pace for all downtown which is very important to us. Councilman Horn: It looks good to me. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Site Plan Request 987-3 based on the site plan stamped "Received April 30, 1987" with the following conditions: . The entrance design to the east of the Riveria shall be resolved with BRWand City Staff. . The applicant shall submit for Planning Commission and City Council review an architectural model or detailed facia plans depicting the exterior of the Retail West building and the gas pump canopy. . All roof-top equipment shall be screened from view from any direction. 56 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 . The landscaping plan shall be revised to reflect the recommendations of BRW in their mere.far, un of April 15, 1987. 5. The applicant must receive approval fr~m the Watershed District. . The applicant shall sutanit an acceptable lease or easement agreement for parking on the property to the east of the subject parcel. . The applicant shall suk~it a detailed signage plan for review by the Planning Oommission and City Council prior to issuance of a building permit. . The applicant shall suhnit a detail of the trash enclosures prior to issuance of a building permit. . The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan detailing the lighting on the rear of the building as well as the parking area to the east of the Riviera. The fire hydrants be arranged in such a manner that they comply with the state cedes per the ccuments fr~n the Fire Department. Also, approval of Conditional Use Permit %87-6 for the installation of four gas p~nps based on the revision on the site plan stamped "Received April 30, 1987" and subject to the following conditions: 1. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on th~ pr~nises. 2. No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles. . No public address systems shall be audible from any residential parcel. . No sales, storage or display of merchandise or used automobiles such as motorcycles, snow mobiles or all-terrain vehicles. . No parking signs shall be posted on the west end of the retail- building. 6. There shall be no signage on any portion .the gas pump canopy. 7. The canopy shall be lute] 10 feet from tb~ west property line. Also, that the City Council approves Subdivision Request %87-18 based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received April 1, 1987~'. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton retured to the meeting at this point. 57 14 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CURB AND GUTTER IMP~S, KERBER BOULEVARD. Mayor Hamilton: The last time we reviewed this it was tabled so Rick Murray could make comment on this particular item since he was being assessed a rather significant number of dollars. I'm surprised he isn't here tonight. Gary Warren: We have met with Rick and talked on the phone on a number of occasions to receive his input. I guess I thought he would be here tonight also but he may be coming on the public hearing also. Tnis will be going to public hearing if we accept it tonight. Basically, just to give you a brief overview, we were looking specifically at Rick's comments as far as the assessments and the value of what the original assessments, the $21.02 that he was assessed on the property for improvements out there. In meeting with him we received his input. We have gone hack and looked at our estimates of Bill Engelhardt's cost estimates and basically feel comforable that Bill has properly estimated what the cost of the improvements is going to be. We recognize that the City has already spent $435,000.00 of State Aid money to address the collector roadway portion of the improvement which was part of Rick's contention that it is a major road for the City, why should he be picking up all the improvements. The City has picked up $435,000.00 originally on it in State Aid monies and also are proposing to pick up another $135,000.00 at this point so I think basically at this point we're looking for Council to accept this portion of the feasibility and call a public hearing on it. If there is any other specific direction as far as any further credits or whatever the Council feels to be appropriate for Rick Murray, which would include the rest of the abutting property then I guess we would look to that direction at this time. Mayor Hamilton: I have to wonder why we're putting curb and gutter on Kerber Blvd.. What benefit is putting curb and gutter on Kerber Blvd. to Rick Murray's property or anybody elses property along Kerber? Gary Warren: Basically, as was in the original proposals for Kerber Blvd., the orignal section that was proposed, was that this was one of our important collectors to the system here. That the only reason the curb and gutters were not installed in the first place was because the property being farmland for the most part was not able to support the assessments at that time so it was deferred. However, to the north to Chaparral, etc. those areas did receive curb and gutter. From my overview, from the record it was always intended that when the development came that necessitated that we would build that road to our urban section which is curb and gutter. Mayor Hamilton: I guess my point is, what's necessitating it now? The road works fine just the way it is without curb and gutter. I don't see that the property is going to benefit by $200,000.00 in Rick's case by putting curb and gutter along his property. That's the bottom line. I think that's about what it comes out to. How is he benefitting by $200,000.00? Gary Warren: Maybe an appraiser would have to specifically address that but the road, what is necessitating it, your original question is the fact that the development is now coming into the area and improvements are going to be made to that section as originally proposed, this would be the time to do it. 58 City Oouncil Meeting - May 4, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: When you put the development in and see extending your sewer and water and putting your roads in but to put in a curb ar~ gutter just because 10 years ago we thought it would be a good idea, I'm not sure that I agree with that. Don Ashworth: You're doing a number of other things as well. You are moving fr~n a two lane roadway systs~ into basically a four lane. You're going to be able to accommodate the additional traffic and create turning lanes, etc. in each of those additions. If you don't go into an urban standard it means thinks like a bike trail off line would have to go into his property so he would have to reserve a portion of that ridge line. Remember we talked to him about that. It becomes much more difficult to control that. You really don't have a safe location for street lighting. You can't properly handle storm sewer because you have no place to really collect it. You have loose edges on sides that continuously fray and you have rock and other conditions on the roadway like you have today. As you move into a period of time as we are, it's not really the curb and gutter. It's all the improvements in combination so if we would want to look to some additional way to say that the entire community is benefitting so therefo~ we should not have an individual owner paying quite as much. I can understar~ that. I don't think we should not do the improveuent though. I really believe that now is the time to do it. Mayor Hamilton: I think maybe we should consider that. That's a major road now connecting Chanhassen with Excelsior or Powers Blvd.. I use the thing everyday and probably nearly every resident here does and everyone is going to so to expect one developer to pay a major portion of doing that, I'm not sure it's the right thing to do. Councilman Geving: You know we did put a substantial amount of State Aid monies into Kerber and we did improve the north er~ of the Chaparral area. There was no reason at the time that we stopped short of the creek area to put in the curb and gutter. There was nobody going to develop it for years. It was about 10 years ago or a number of years ago. Now's the time. I think we should do it but I agree that we probably should put State Aid funds in there. I think we're hitting one developer awfully hard. Mayor Hamilton: Or make an area wide assessment. Councilman Geving: What did we do for Chan vista? Is Chan Vista involved in this too? They are going to get their share of it. C~ry Warren: Chan Vista has already signed a development contract that acknowledges ... Mayor Hamilton: But not all three additions. Gary Warren: The 2nd, 3rd and 4th addition. Mayor Hamilton: The 1st Addition will get nothing. Councilman Geving: Then we've got the school. A substantial amount of property there. What would we do with the school? Can we assess the school? 59 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Don Ashworth: Yes. You can assess the school. Mayor Hamilton: ~nat's assessing ourselves. Councilman Geving: In effect we're just paying for it anyway. Don Ashworth: What has been considered to date is that the $435,000.00 basically purchased the right-of-way through State Aid monies. We did all the grading work through State Aid dollars. You're going to have curb and gutter whether you go into residential section or you would have a certain amount of payment whether it went here or with the State Aid. What we could do is to look at it closer in terms of the depth of the asphalt and also the additional width and potentially reduce the costs by reviewing those two items saying that a typical residential design would be 36 feet so therefore the cost of going to 44 should reasonably be paid through other than direct assessments. For initial discussion purposes, we felt that the cost factor that we were putting in was not that far out of line. At that point in time, if we would have made the decision to put that in to a urban standard, let's just go ahead and do it and then Rick Murray when he comes in from 1980 to 1987, 7 years later, but now you start adding in the cost, either construction cost index or just the interest charges and you would add close to 50% to that number so you're up to about a $66.00 figure which is about where we're at right now. Looking at his previous assessment plus the current proposal. Based on the input you've given us, we can go back and again sharpen our pencil in terms of looking at some of these additional width costs and the additional depth costs. Mayor Hamilton: I think we should also look at Chan Vista again. I don't think it's right that they're not paying anything. The 1st Addition. Don Ashworth: The problem with that is that we goofed up. That's really what it comes down to. When Chan Vista first came through we looked at everything assoCiated with Chan Vista. Tney only had a very small section that was touching over onto Kerber Blvd. but it should have ~n a signal. It should have drawn our attention. What occurred was when they moved into the 2nd phase along with the Saddlebrook along with the Jacobson proposal started putting in the major water facility, the sanitary sewer, it just became obvious that we needed to bring that section up to an urban standard. By that point in time, those three lots had changed ownership from Saul Segal into individual property owners so if we were to add them, we would end up sending them a notice. ~nose new property owners who have just moved into their homes anticipating that all assessments were paid. Given what we considered the relatively minor costs of those three lots, we added that total cost into the total asses~nent figure and did not include those three. Mayor Hamilton: So Rick Murray gets to pay part of that too. DOn Ashworth: He gets to pay part of that too. Mayor Hamilton: That' s not fair. DOn Ashworth: We can look at reducing that out of there as well. 60 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: I think that whole thing ~s to be looked at and consider having an areawide assessment. Everybody uses that road. I would like to look at some alternatives there instead of nailing the people we are. It's not just Rick. It's all the others rood. Everybody else in here, Village Townhomes, the James Company, they are picking up a part of what we apparently screwed up in Chan Vista. Councilman Geving: Maybe there's a timing issue here also. This doesn't have to be done this year. This doesn't have to be done ever next year if we want to go with State Aid dollars. Gary Warren: We're going to be installing watermain and sanitary sewer in the west drainageway on the road so there will be some efficiencies in doing it at the same time but it doesn't have to be. Mayor Hamilton: Wasn't there also a question of fill that was going to be needed along the roadway when you put in the curbs? Don Ashworth: We'll respond to your questions. Mayor Hamilton: Can we table this again or does it ~ to be passed with conditions? Don Ashworth: You should be accepting the feasibilty study and order a public hearing. At the public hearing we will address the questions you brought up today. Resolution ~B7-39: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to accept the feasibility study for curb and gutter improvements on Kerber Boulevard and set a public hearing date of May 18, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR Sf~IER AND ~TER IMP~S ON CHURCH ROAD. Gary Warren: Church Road basically should be somewhat fresh in your minds from our original petition of four weeks ago. I guess we'll be looking for the same answer here. Just to accept the feasibilty studay and call a public hearing. ~ne residents as youselves have not had a chance to really give us any input seeing we have just recently received this feasibility study so we for sure want to sit down with them arid go through alternatives and any other alternatives that might pop u~ Basically the request was a result of the forcemain being constructed by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. We wanted to take a look at the advantage to the local residents in reduced assessments since the roadway itself would be replaced to our present stamdards as a part of it- The feasibility study shows several alternatives that were discussed. One of them was to get a handle of what the value of that road replacement was and roughly the report estimated about $32,~0.~ was the improvement. The Commission would reinstall the roadway based on the cross section out there. Not curb and gutter. If we would want that, we would have to pay ourselves and then look at the assessment area. To get a handle on the area here, the consultant looked at planning and engineering did a take a look 61 18 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 at the Gary Carlson property here just to see how many units we might beable to feasibly look at as far as abosrbing the costs of assessments as well as the rest of the properties. The Wanous property, Harry Campbell, Jim Frizell and Kerber property. I know several of the residents are here tonight ar~ again, we haven't had a chance to sit down with them. We looked at two sanitary sewer options. Basically, the petition that the Council received was from the Wanous and Campbell properties and it is feasible to just install sanitary sewer from the Campbell property up to north of West 62nd Street. The elevations and topography actually do not allow us to go any further with that sewer to service the Carlson, Frizell properites so this is one alternative. This is feasible to service sanitary sewer just for those two properties. The second alternative, if we were going to provide the sanitary sewer service for the entire area would require this alternative which basically, in order to be low enough to service the properties here and the Carlson property, we would come over here and hook into our existing system over here on the cartpath. Then the watermain option that we looked at and there is another alternative the consultant has since had a chance to look at, would be basically jacking underneath TH 7 and servicing the properties via that. We do have a watermain on the cathcart area on the west side which again the consultant has recently looked at and it is another possibility. The alternatives are presented, in the report. I guess the alternative that most directly meets the sanitary sewer question and the septic system question was Exhibit L in the report and it talked about total assessments of about $65,800.00. Mayor Hamilton: Tnat wasn't what they asked for. Gary Warren: The petition that was requested was from Wanous and Campbell. Mayor Hamilton: ~he suggestion was that they not put water in as I recall. Look at the feasibility of sewer and not necessarily the water. Gary Warren: Right. They were interested in what the water would cost but this strictly is sanitary sewer. No further improvements to the roadway. Just let the Commission put back basically what was there. Tnat is what this represents. The rest of the scenarios that are in the report take a little more time to digest but they go all the way up to complete installation of water, sanitary sewer for the whole area and curb and gutter roadway improvements. That's the largest alternative. I think the consultant has done a good job in dealing with, although it's a small project it's got a lot of challenges in figuring it out. Mayor Hamilton: Westwood does a good job. Councilman Geving: I was impressed with your work here. You did a nice job of it. Very straight forward. Resolution 987-40: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept the feasibility study for sewer and water improvements for Church Road and set a public hearing date of May 18, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. 62 19 City fbuncil Meeting - May 4, 1987 ACCEPT FEASIBILITY S~3DY AND AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPMCIFICATIONS NORTH LOTUS LAKE, ENGRr.~iRDT AND ASSOCIATES. Bill Englehardt: This is a feasibility study for the North Lotus Lake project. 12 single family lots, all over 15,000 square feet being developed by the Bloomberg Companies. ~hey petitioned the City for a public utilities, sanitary sewer, street, curb and gutter, watermain and storm sewer. The total cost of the project is $107,937.00 of which $22,835.00 is for sanitary sewer. Sanitary sewer connects with the existing sanitary sewer in Fox Hollow Road, go west and up into the cul-de-sac and deademd in the cul-de-sac serving all the lots except for Lot 6 which will be served by the existing sanitary sewer and water service coming off of Pleasant View Boad. ~ne reason that sanitary sewer is going this way instead of this way, because of the grade of the cul- de-sac and the street, in order to get a cover over the sanitary sewer we bad to go to the east. Watermain portion of the project, total estimated cost for the watermain is $17,535.00. It's making a connection at Pleasant .View Road, running into the cul-de-sac area, into the Bloomberg property ~ deader~ing in the cul-de-sac. As a secondary issue to this feasibilty study, we also looked at making a connection at this time betw~ the proposed watermain for the development to Fox Hollow Road which provides a second source of water for the Fox Hollow deveopment. We proposed that this portion of the watermain be paid out of the trunk fund and upgrade the Cities overall system for the entire are~ The third portion of the study is the street ~ storm sewer. The storm sewer proposed is a section of pipe connecting into the proposed storm sewer for the North Lotus Lake park. The inlet to this storm sewer would be a retention area that collects the water from an existing 15 inch PVC and existing 10 inch P~2 from this area that then goes south to Lotus Lake. The other portion of the storm sewer is a catch basin located at the low point in the road collecting the road drainage and a portion of the lot area ~ discharging into a swale to be constructed at the park project and flowing on down south. Again, as with the watermain, there is a secondary issue comcerning the road. This portion of the road abuts city property and we're proposing that that portion be curb ar~ gutter ar~ the roadway are one-half of this 200 foot section of roadway be paved by the City but the other half be assessed to the Bloomberg Comtk3nies. It's basically following the assessment policy that's been established by the abutting properties assessed for the road. The cost of the roadway to the City is $5,000.00 ar~ to jump back a little bit, the cost of the watermain connection that I spoke of earlier, that upgrades the system in the Fox Hollow area, would be $7,000.00. The toeal project cost is $107,938.00. We propose that this cost be paid for by an assessment to the benefitting properties ~ it will be divided on a used basis for each one of the lots considered as o~e unit and they would share equally in the assessment. Takir~3 the project cost of $107,000.00 ~ divide it by the 12 lots, we end up with an assessment for this project of about $8,994.7~ This piece of property previously being assessed for lateral and trunk sanitary sewer water. Right now there is $46,000.00 worth of assessments on the property. Those assessments would be respread to the 12 lots so the total assessment or total cost to this project for the municipal facilities would be $12,828.00. Councilman Johnson: Just being new on the Council a little confused. Normally what I've seen on the subdivisions is that the developer comes in and 63 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 puts in the streets and the gutters and the storm sewers and everything. It seems the same thing is going to happen. The City is going to put in t_he street, storm sewer and gutter and everything and then assess it back to the property owner. Why are w~ involved? Mayor Hamilton: That often happens. It's up to the developer to request that we do that.- Some of them want to do it themselves and some request that we do it. Councilman Johnson: I would think with the red tape of government there is always a little bit more expense. Councilman Geving: It's really up to us whether or not we want to proceed with these kind of Chapter 429 but we do it just for development in a particular area for example. It's not unusual. We've turned down a few in the past but not very often. Don Ashworth: It's set up in such a way that if you do not vote to approve the project, we'll still have a chance to knock it out of this year's bonding. Resolution #87-41: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to accept the feasibility study and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for North Lotus Lake and waive the public hearing as requetsedby the developer. All voted in favor and motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Horn thought that the no parking signs by Carver Beach were going to be taken down so people could use them but as of Sunday they were still up. Don Ashworth stated that both Carver Beach and Greenwood Shore signs are up and that the Park and Recreation Commission had two plans for how those parks could be used by putting parking in and structuring it to control parking on the park site rather than just taking down no parking signs and potentially creating a bad situation for the city with no way to control parking. ~ stated that the Park and Rec Commission would be looking at this issue tomorrow night and that it will probably come before the City Council to approve what the Park and Rec Commission recommends. Councilman Horn also stated that since the boat access is blocked, do we need all the no parking signs where the boat access used to be? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: LEAGUE OF MINIESOTA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE, CITY MANAGER. No Council menbers were planning on attending this year's meeting. Pat Farrell, representing the City Attorney's office, gave a brief update of the court proceedings regarding the water tower condemnation and downtown redevelo~ent condonation proceedings. 64 City Council ~ting - May 4, 1987 Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.. Sukmitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 65