Loading...
1987 08 03133 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MRRTING AUGUST 3, 1987 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag· MMMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson M]~BERS ABSENT: Councilman Horn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, ~ry Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt and Larry Brown APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss the variances involved with items 3 ar~ 4 ar~ Councilman Geving wanted a status report on the update of ~ storm ~ the Lotus Lake Boat Access. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamiltcm seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a· bm ee f· ge i· j · Resolution 987-73: Approval of Joint Cooperation Agreement for Extension of the Community Develolmment Block Grant Program. Reoslution 987-74: Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Phase II of the Downtown Public Improvenent Project. Resolution 987-75: Accept Streets in Triple Crown Estates. Resolution 987-76: Accept Streets in Chanhass~n Vista First Addition. Resolution 987-77: Accept Utilities in ChanhassenVista Second Addition. Resolution #87-78: Accept Utilities in South Lotus Lake, Bloc~nberg. Resolution 987-79: Lar~t Use Plan knendment, South Bay Addition. City Council Minutes dated July 6, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes dated July 22, 1987 Park and Recreation Cc~mission Minutes dated July 14, 1987 All voted in favor arzt motion carried. LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST, 6830 Y[IMA DRIVE, LEWIS WOITAr.rA. This item was passed unanimously by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals prior to the City Council meeting. City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 6410 WHITE DOVE DRIVE, MARK PRCHAL. This item was passed unanimously by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals prior to the City Council meeting. SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 1, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT, DICK SCHLENER. This item was passed unanimously by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals prior to the City Council meeting. REALIGNMENT OF WEST 78TH STREET: ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE. Councilman Geving: Just a quick answer on the private roadway that's being proposed for the existing West 78th Street. Who will maintain that route? Gary W~rren: Taat would be, no city maintenance would be involved with that. Councilman (]eving: Okay, ar~ we'll make that abundantly clear to our maintenance people that that will never be touched for snowplowing or any involvement. Okay. I have a few questions regarding the feasibility study that I would like to bring out at this time. Most of mine really had to do with s~me of the cost considerations. I wanted to ask, now there are two alternatives. Are we going to look at that later? The alternatives A and B on the storm water retention? That seemed to be a very big factor in the feasibility study and I don't know if I can find that. Gary Warren: The feasibility study concludes that Alternate A, which would be a pond on the Eckankar site would be the perferred location for that so they do actually within the report make that recommendation. Councilman Geving: I think it's very important for all us to ur~erstand what that is because the design criteria that I saw for Alternative A, which would be the west side, makes much more long term sense to me. There is existing hole area there. Future expansion can be accomodated there if we ever involve the Eckankar property and develop it. I think a major decision in this feasibility study is the decision to go with the recommendation of Alternative A. On page 5 Gary there is a question on the grading and I'll read it to you. Lack of fill material may require the construction of certain portions of the project such as the bike paths, be delayed until such time as the development of the adjacent parcels occur. I was under the impression that we had all kinds of fill material on the south end of Lotus Lake that could be used for something like this. Is that still available? Gary Warren: No. Tne fill material in the South Lotus Lake we've been reserving for the drainage swale work on Kerber Blvd. improvements. That was the main location for that material. It is yet to be seen, there will be some material coming off the downtown area and exactly how that will balance out will be a question but I think we're taking a conservative approach in that regard because fill typically is hard to come by with the exception of our 135 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 obvious pile there. Councilman Geving: (1~ the same page there regarding Powers Blvd. and also West 78th Street, pav~nent removal will occur from Kerber Blvd. to Powers Blvd.. We're going to tear out the e~tire bituminous section. Is that necessary? 'Gary Warren: Yes, in order to bring it up to State Aid standards, by the time you get down working with it out there, it makes good sense to put back a full new section. Councilman (3eving: I noticed that there is approximately $130,000.00 in easement fees to be paid, could you tell me who those fees are going to be paid to or what the proposal is? Gary Warren: I have the main locations for these and the fees would be for the ponding site o~ the Bckankar property. Councilman Geving: I would like to know that if you could find that specifically. I didn't see it in the report. Maybe I missed it. Gary Warren: When I reviewed it with C~ry Eh, ret I asked him to elaborate on it. Mayor Hamilton: Do you know Don? Councilman Geving: I didn't see that on the report. It's listed several times but it isn't identified as to where that $138,888.08 is going to be paid. I'm hoping it's not on the ea_~t side of the road because if we choose Alternative A which takes it over the Bckankar property, I would make the assumption then that the entire easement will be picked up on the east side? I would like to have you find that. Gary Warren: I' 11 research that. Councilman Geving: Alternate A is on page 7 of the considerations on page 8 make an awful lot of sense. I see every one of those, especially B, C, D ar~ F as being extremely important for choosing Alternate B and getting it o~f the Burdick property. You answered by question on page If regarding the private driveway. I think then I would like to have you slip back to page 15 on the project costs. That's where I picked up on item, page 16, the $13~,00~.00 for the acquisition cost, not specified. Have you approached anyone as a result of this feasibility study? Has anyone ~ approached or is this .the best estimate of the people who put together this package? Gary Warren: BRW based on recent acquisitions that we've ~_n involved with has applied some numbers based on that easement acquisition and applied it specifically to the area where we're looking at. We have not approached anyone specifically because w~ didn't want to try to shave the dollars. Councilman CL=ving: One of the things on page 16 rather struck me as being extremely high. I don't believe I've ever seen a construction.project that City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 made an allowance for 25% of the total construction and acquisition costs for administrative costs. We do a lot of construction work where Ih~ involved and 15% to 25% to me is even high. I have seen some projects that we have brought in here at 22% and I always kind of questioned those. Gary Warren: I did some recent looking at our current seven projects that we're looking to assess this year just to get a better feel for myself because I know Bill Monk for example had 22% in feasibilities and I have seen others that have ~n at 30%. 22% to 25% has bc~n~ historically what we've ~ running at. Councilman Geving: Okay. It seems that things are getting higher and higher all the time. I would like to look now with you at the project planning assessments. I have them here on Appendix G-1. I would like to have the Council review with us for a minute particularly the area under storm drainage. Now it would appear to me that under storm drainage, watermain and sanitary sewer, where we have a considerable amount of properties other than West Village Heights, West Village Townhouses and so forth, they are going to benefit from all three of these, sanitary sewer, watermain and storm management and none of this has been assessed against the Burdick property. Is there a reason for that? They currently do not have water and we're bringing water into the area. Why wouldn't they be assessed. Gary Warren: Specifically on the watermain? Councilman Geving: Yes. Gary Warren: Tnere's a watermain in town on West 78th Street that currently exists there. They will take their service frcm that line. Councilman Geving: Is that also true with the sanitary sewer? Gary Warren: Sanitary sewer is being constructed at this moment and is being assessed back. Councilman Geving: I don't see it here. Gary Warren: It's being assessed as part of the current project. Councilman Geving: Okay, so we're not including the assessment for Burdick under this project for anything other than West 78th Street is that correct? Gary Warren: West 78th Street sanitary sewer project is under construction right now and that is being assessed. Councilman Geving: Okay, so t_hey're being assessed for that. Under this proposal the only thing the Burdick's will be assessed for approximately $138,000.00 will be the West 78th Street roadway improvements, is that correct? Gary Warren: That is correct. Storm drainage, because storm drainage is being brought to the Mckankar property, under Alternative A, the Burdick would 137 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 still have to provide for it's own storm water retention consistent with our develolmnent. · Councilman Geving: I believe that's all the questions that I have. Resolution %87-80: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Gevirg seconded to accept the feasiblity study, Alternate A, and set the public hearing date for August 24, 1987. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. REALIGNMENT OF WEST 78TH STREET: PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF A PORTION OF WEST 78TH STREET. The staff requested that this item be tabled because Carver County had not received authorization from the State as of yet ar~t have ~_n unable to convey the street to city jurisdictioru Mayor Hamilton asked if there was anyone frcm the public who wanted to comment on t/~ it eh. MC. Jim Burdick: This is what has occurred there. As the plats know, that street which is a state highway is goirg to be on the township line but due to a bust, I've never heard the word before this afternoon, it is not. It angles to the south. You all probably know what a bust is, I didn't. Mayor Hamilton: What is it? MC. Jim Burdick: Bill Engelhardt said it's when the surveyor is off a bit on his degrees. Anyway, if it's vacated as shown there, I will be receiving much less than the property to the north which we decided that it just isn't fair that it should be vacated along the township line but then of course the pavement is going to be quite delayed. At one time Charlie James had an agreement where he agreed to pave 6~ more feet on the north side to alleviate this but I don't know if this agreement is still in effect. Anyway, the alternative would be, because I would just like to keep this going along even though I'm very happy with West 78th Street right where it is, much happier than wh~n it's moved but I have agreed to the moving. I can't bring it up now. Anyway, if I receive that area to the east or the northeast diagonal, if I receive that, we will have the opinion that it has ~ drawn that way but I wanted to bring it up. If I receive that diagonal up there then it would make what is being vacated for both us fairly even. Councilman Geving: Could we identify that piece more carefully? It's the corner but there's a little triangle on the ot/Ter side of that. MC. Jim Burdick: Yes, Charlie James has a few feet. I think I'll just try to tell him that those few square feet aren't worth anything ~ perhaps that could just go to me too but I think that's between Charlie James and me. It looks like about 5~ square feet of his property. Counciliman Coving: I can't believe you would get that whole thing. Mayor Hamilton: That's all done pretty much by, it's done by the courts I believe as to who gets it. It's not for us to say if you or Charlie James 138 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 gets it. As I ur~erstand it's going to have to go through a court process. B.C. Jim Burdick: I didn't understand it that way. If it's acceptble to both Charlie James and me, I would just expedite. Otherwise, I want to go back to having it split as of the township line, as of the center of the right-of-way which would mean I would have all the pavement. Barbara Dacy: The first step in the process though is to consummate the vacation process and once that is completed and each property owner has t_heir share of the right-of-way, then if you want to approach Mr. James and talk about that triangle, then it would be between you and Mr. James to purchase a part. It seems, if I take your meaning, you're wanting to attach that onto Lot 3? B.C. Jim Burdick: That's correct. Barbara Dacy: Before you could do that, the road would have to vacated first. Unfortunately the Council can't act on that issue tonight. However, we're trying to proceed as fast as w~ can to get the dedication. B.C. Jim Burdick: I agree with Barbara here and I have a little bit the cart ahead of the horse. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would like to see when this item comes back Barbara, to have a more clear definition for us of what can happen to that piece and perhaps work with Jim so he can get his ideas more specifically down. Maybe you can talk to Charlie too and find out what his views are so we would have some idea of what our options are so we can work with the piece. Is that acceptable? Barbara Dacy: Sure. Mayor Hamilton: Is there anybody else from the public who wanted to comment on this item? If not then I would like to continue the public hearing and I would move for tabling of this item until such time as the County acts to bring this item back. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to continue the public hearing and table the facation of a portion of West 78th Street until the County has taken action. All voted in favor of tabling the item and motion carried. RFALI~ OF WEST 78TH STREET: SITE PLAN REVIEW, JAMES C(IMP~. Olsen: The property is located, as we just reviewed, on the corner of Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street. As we were talking about, they will be pursuing a vacation and it is in the process right now. As soon as we obtain control over West 78th Street we can initiate the portion of West 78th Street that will be under our jurisdiction. The only other problem now is that portion of the right-of-way is controlled by MnDot but we have received the letter from MnDot statin~ that they do not have any objections to turning over the 139 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 jurisdiction hack over to the city nor the applicant. That process has ~ initiated so what the applicant is requesting as part of the site plan review will be again the first phase of vacation so they can meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance for this building. Again, this process has ~ initiated. As far as the site plan itself, there will be a shopping center. It will also contain a convenience store with gas pumpe. It is approximately 22,000 square feet. The site plan does meet all of the zoning requirements for parking, impervious surface, lar~scaping, etc.. The lar~scaping along the new West 78th Street and Powers Blvd. will be provided as a part of the Feasibility study and the applicant will be assessed the cost of that. As far as the Planning Commission, they approved the site plan with Staff's cor~itions ar~ they added that, because of the time it takes to vacate the portion of West 78th Street, the applicant wishes to construct the building in phases, the Planning Commission wanted to see the site plan again to see the phases so they added that condition~ Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with those cor~itions. Tim McCoy: Charlie James is not here at the present time. He was supposed to be here at 8:00. My name is Tim McCoy, I5~ ~ architect for the project. Perhaps I could answer some of the questions that the Council might have related to the building itself before Charlie discusses some of the site issues. Just to make a few brief comments about the building is that first of all one of our objections was to provide a building that had multiple orientation in terms of it's exterior designs. We waives more' or less the typical retail center of having a front elevation ar~ a back ar~ service elevation. Part of the reason for that was because of the vehicular circulation all the way arour~ the site on the realigned West 78th Street, Powers Blvd. to the west and TH 5 to the south and so forth and also because of the vacation of West 78th will provide at least initial access from the south and also allow for the north orientation within the realignment of West 78th Street. One of tb~ things that we try to accomplish with the building, which is really quite long, I believe it's 3B2 feet long including the arcades on the er~s, is to actually provide more volume in this structure than we would actually be required to build with a 14 foot ceiling inside. That's where the gable configuration that you've seen on your elevations has cc~e from. The other reason for that was to try and do something with the gables to be somewhat compatible with what sone of your downtown planning was for the redevelopment. The major materials that we're talking about using in the structure are predominantly masonry up to the 8 foot 8 height of the arcade that goes around the building. ~here are a few locations where the stucco comes down to a lower elevation at some of the building entries ar~ this would probably be a combination of something like a split face, concrete block which the probability of some brick in there also. The predominant material above the 8 foot 8 height of the arcade and that you see on the ends of the gables is stucco. That allowed us to do s~mething that would be a lighter weight steel framing up on the ends of the gables and so forth. ~e tallest gables reach a height of about 34 feet 6 inches ar~ we were going to be roofing the gable areas of the structure in a standing seam metal roof and there is a scan roof product that Charlie James in interested in using from Sweden that we're going to try and use under. It's a metal roofing that looks like a tile, if our costs work out to allow that. One of the other reasons for bringing the height up for the building was because of the fact that much of the property 140 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 to the north is at a higher elevation. I believe it goes up to as much as 40 feet higher than this site elevation and you can see the little cutouts in the site plan at the two center gables is where we're going to be screening our mechanical equipment in there so we're planning on having individual condensing units for each side. I think that's some of the basic objectives that we had. One comment I should make related to the gas canopy. That's something that we're going to be designing with the same roof form and materials as we used on the rest of the building rather than getting a package that many companies provide locally. So that will be something that we will engineer also. Councilman Johnson: You understand the 16 conditions in here and have any problems with any of these? Tim McCoy: I don't have any problems with these. Charlie James I'm sure would have some comments on those. He told me he'd be here by 8:00. I don't know what the disposition of the sprinkler condition was at the time that we left the Planning Commission meeting. I don't know if that had ~ something that had been... Jo Ann Olsen: We just wanted that in there in case of a fire. Tim McCoy: So that was not retained as a strict condition? Jo Ann Olsen: Tney still want it as a condition. Tim McCoy: Okay. Not necessarily that the sprinkling itself as I understand as long as it meets the fire codes. We had a discussion at the Planning Commission meeting related to the building construction and there are a whole range of different construction types and so forth that you can use. For instance we could use all steel construction or the gables might end up being wood trusses but if we ended up doing that we would likely have them sprinkled inside so there are a number of different considerations like that. I guess we have no problem with meeting any of the building codes or city requirements but that was the only issue of the 16 points that are in mind are still somewhat in question. Councilman Johnson: A comment that issue number 10 here, there is a typographical error. I believe that's supposed to he 100% opaque screen. We want to make sure that it's not seen as 10%. Are you saying that they wanted to sprinkle both the interior, fully sprinkle both the store level and loft level. Tne loft level, is that a ceiling area and then you'll have something above it or what are they talking about? Tim McCoy: We havem't worked out the details for construction. One of the options would be basically just to do an entirely flat roofed building and basically build these gables up above that steel framing and basically they would be like a residential attic space for instance is one of ~ options. Another option is to build the gables up as the actual exterior of the building with the insulation indoors and come down to the flat roofs and so forth. City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Councilman Johnson: It would be prettier on rte inside that way. Tim McCoy: Right. I guess that depends on what the tenant uses will be and a number of other considerations because many of the tenant spaces are about 1,100 square feet apiece. The James Company finds that they can lease these spaces out pretty easily to the different retail uses like video stores am~ so forth. So for instance if we had an 1,100 square foot space that had a 20 foot high ceilirg, there may not be entirely appropriate with that use but there may be other spaces for something where you might combine two or three of these different spaces. Councilman Johnson: So if you have the gables that form an attic there, do you have a problen with sprinkling that area? Tim McCoy: I don't have a problem if we don't meet building code requirements and I would say that the James Company ar~ myself certainly are used to working with a number of different varied building positions like that. Basically we want to see the project go ahead ar~ meet whatever requirements that the city might place on us. I'm probably confusing the issue somewhat because of the fact that there just was a discussion two weeks ago at the Planning Commission related to all of the different types of actual construction materials alternatives that you might have for fire walls ar~ different types of materials amd depending on what you end up using and a lot of that is just based on ergineering ar~ cost analysis, we might find that it's more economical to sprinkle the building and use wood trusses, as I mentioned before to build those gables or else we might find that we have something else that's completely fire resistant. His name escapes me right now but I came out in I believe it was probably January or February ar~ met with the building official of the City and showed him essentially exactly the same plans as you've got there and be didn't have any problems with those. We went over the building code briefly but I guess I would like to say that he approved t~. Councilman Johnson: What I'm hearing is that you want to meet building code ar~ what I hear our Fire Marshall saying is that we want to make sure this is a fire safe building and he wants to insure that it is sprinkled. We may he asking you to go beyond the building code. If you make th~ entire building of fire proof material and a tenant comes in and is selling materials that do burn, paper goods or whatever, ar~ it's not sprinkled because the building meets code, we still have a fire problem with that building ar~ I think that's what we were talking the whole picture here. Tim McCoy: I think I got off and confused the issue a little bit at first. If I would have just said that I think the thrust of the conversati~ was that basically that was a building permit issue and not a site plan review issue. I think that was the basic nature of the conversation. In order to get the building permit we have to not only meet building code but also meet the fire code and local interpretation ar~ so forth so that was really what the thrust of the discussion was. Gary Warren: Just to point out the conditions, we just got the benefit of Benshoof's study as the feasibility we're in to accentuate I guess the 142 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 detachment of West 78th Street. We want to provide a free right, so to speak or turn lane on the right of the intersection of West 78th Street and Powers which would require until we go to design I'm don't exactly how much but about an additional right in easement up there so we can make that free right and I guess we would like that included as part of the plat conditions. Councilman Johnson: As condition 177 Gary Warren: Yes, I don't see the impace with sight as any significance. The new West 78th in order to accentuate the movement traffic in there so you don't have stacking. Councilman Johnson: It looks to me, if the architectural drawings that I've seen, the trees they want to put in, if they work with the city here we could have a very nice little shopping center here. Councilman Geving: I wasn't overly pleased that we were going to have another quicky type gas station and convenience food store in town but so be it. We have no real control over what kinds of businesses end up in these locations. I do have a couple of questions that had more to do with the letter of Larry Brown dated July 17, 1987 in regard to the drainage. I would like to have you answer this for me Gary. The temporary storage pond that's being proposed for this Lot 2, Block 1, how temporary is that and how will we resolve that issue? Gary Warren: As a part of the feasibility that we just accepted this evening, storm drainage is provided to be retained in this basin as well as Eckankar so it's more than just a temporary facility the way we're looking at it now. I guess we would want our design to refine that but it had always been looked at, even in the Watershed plan as a permanent pond. We're willing to look at alternatives because Mr. James' engineer has shown it as temporary and he thinks he has some ideas on it. Councilman Geving: Earlier this evening now we made a decision to accept Alternate A and move the storage ponding to the west. How will this affect this particular plan? Gary Warren: Alternate A accomodated or included having the ponding in that t~orary pond. Councilman Geving: The water then will not pond across the road into the Burdick property as a result of the earlier decision that we made, is that correct and the discussion of Larry Brown's memo? Gary Warren: We're talking about temporary pondirg to the north of the James property. Councilman Geving: There were a couple of items in the memorandum that I picked up on Larry and that had to do with the existing road will be considered a private service drive. Would you explain that to me a little bit more Gary? How this is going to work? 10 143 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Gary Warren: As we mentioned in the feasibility, it is not a municipal road. It is to provide access to the Burdick property and the James property. There have ~ some discussions and I guess the County Engi~ring concern was that that was not a short cut route through to West 78th once we had the realignment made but there have ~ some discussions that were worked out in the design that may be even actually blocking off . that road so this driveway access those properties from a service standpoint but that they would not be maintained by the City. Councilman Geving: I guess we answered these temporary status and it is temporary, is that correct? Tem~x>rary storage pond? Gary Warren: No, the storage por~ to the north would be a part of the Alternate A design ar~ sizing to the Eckankar property. Councilman Geving: I didn't see that anywhere in the plans slx)wing the pond. Did I miss something? If we're going to include this item 17, easenent for the West 78th Street right-in/right-out. Gary Warren: Free right. Councilman Geving: Alright, I'm assuming now that Mr. James will work with us and that will not any cost to us to acquire that easement, is that correct? Gary Warren: As a part of the platting process I guess that would be a condition. Councilman Geving: It always bothers me a great deal that we're willing to vacate city property and then we turn around and pay an easement to someone to acquire a similar piece back. ~hat really bothers me a lot so I guess my direction to you Gary is if you get into those kirks of situations, that's at least how one council member feels about acquisition of easements. Gary Warren: That's why I wanted to mention it as pert of these conditions Councilman Boyt: The front of the building and it's consistency with the ideas we're talking about in the tax increment district downtown ar~ have you sort of tried to balance that out so we have some continuity there? How do you see this building fitting in with what is being proposed for the downtown redevelolzm-=nt? Tim McCoy: In terms of design or use or design predominantly? Councilman Boyt: Desigru Compatibility with the desigru This is an important issue to having an unified downtowru You're clearly going to be part of downtown so what have your thoughts ~ along the lines of fitting the two together? Tim McCoy: I think as I mentioned previously, that was o~e of the primary intents of us coming up with this gabled form. Essentially we could build a 11 144 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 much less costly building if we just went up our 14 or 16 feet arzt put a flat roof on and then took what would typically be done and do something with the arcades and entry and so forth so it would look like a hollywood facade or stage set or whatever so that was one of the primary factors that really created the gable forms on the structure. That is probably the primary physical feature that relates to what you're doing downtown. We do want to have consistent landscaping with what is being done along West 78th Street. I have met with Jim Lasher of BRW, that was prior to the issuance of the final report, and we will be working closely with the city and BRW on that to get some consistency in terms of the site treatment. In terms of building materials themselves, I guess we feel that it will be a rather handsome center and so forth. We would like to think it will be much nicer than most of the small retail centers like that people have s~'~n. In terms of the actual building materials themselves, we haven't really made a effort to conform exactly with what is going to be used downtown. I know we're talking about for instance a standing seam metal roof or this scan roof product that I talked about as opposed to I believe they've got wood shakes or something in the downtown area or else they're talking about some type of shingle. Councilman Boyt: Heavy duty type of shingle. Timberline or something on that order I believe. In your metal roof structure, reference it if you would please to the ~kten Prairie Center down here off of 1-494 with the Rainbow Food place in it. When I think of metal roof, that's what I think. C~re yours to that if you would please. Tim McCoy: Is that the one that's all gresen_ structure? Councilman Boyt: Tnat's right. Tim McCoy: It would be a product that would probably be similar to that. Not necessarily green. We're probably thinking in terms of a dark red type of color for the roof. As a matter of fact, that's what we used in the color renderings that I had done for the James Company previously. Councilman Boyt: I think it's very important. I agree that it looks like you're quite committed to creating a nice center. I would like to see it blend and I gather you would too. I have Dale's concern or share the concern, I don't know where the concept has come that we need a gas station with every convenience store but it's breaking out all over and it's disappointing. Other than that I agree with all 17 conditions. Mayor Hamilton: I just have a question on a couple of the conditions. Condition 3, a heat and smoke detection sysbem throughout the building that is audible and connected to a central dispatch station. I guess that's new to me Jo Ann, are we starting to do this now? Jo Ann Olsen: Tnis is the first that this condition specifically is the first time that we've applied it to a site plaru This is our Public Safety Director reviewed each of these cases specifically and these are the conditions that he feels are important. We will be working with Jim Chaffee on improving and upgrading specific fire codes. 12 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: I guess I do have a bit of a problem with them. I don't see any problem with having smoke detection systems but to have them connected to a central dispatch station. Where is the central dispatch station and what is the function of all this? If you had a full time fire department and was connected directly to that I could __"~c some purpose in it. As lorg as you're detectirg the ~oke ar~ fire ar~ heat. Don Ashworth: ~hese go through private firms. T~ey are becoming more prevalent. City Hall is not connected to a similar type of system. I do not believe that it's over expensive for the applicant. If the applicant that it is an excessive condition, staff would like to work with him further or bring the item back to City Council but I don't think it is excessive. Mayor Hamilton: It's scmethirg that's new ar~ I guess suddenly we're seeing it as a condition in a site plan which we've never ~n before and I guess I would have liked to have had the opportunity to discuss with th~ Council whether or not it should be something that would be a condition involved fr~m here on. Something that everybody feels strongly about ~r s~mething that we can live without. If somehow it can be proved that these things save lives making them sprinkle the whole place, that's fine. Even tt~ loft area, that's fine. Now they have to have smoke detection and it has to be centrally dispatchecL I s~metimes think we're going for a little overkill here. Councilman Geving: I would like to suggest Mr. Mayor that, I agree with you on this particular point. I didn't pick up on it myself. I would like to suggest that we put a period at the end of audible and strike the rest of the sentence, ar~ connected to a central dispatch statioru I think if we have smoke and fire detection and there is an alarm of some sort, I think that is all that we can request at this time at least fr~m a new sit~ plan. We haven't seen this before. I think this catches us all a little bit by surprise. Mayor Hamilton: If the Public Safety Gommission had reviewed this and made recommendation to the Planning Commission that these things should be contained in all the site plans from P~_re on and the Council has had an opportunity to review that recommendation, ~ I wouldn't necessarily have any problem with it but it's something that's new and I guess I really feel it's some overkill. Don Ashworth: May I suggest or consider that the item be left in there but it be subject to a review by the Public Safety Commission to determine the importance and cost of the item? They're not going to be building this facility right away. We do have a period of time to resolve that one issue. Mayor Hamilton: ~hat's fine ar~ then it could come back on a consent item to be dealt with in the future. Councilman Geving: I get the impression after reading the report that these people have a builder ar~ t~ have some leases out on this and this is going to be an urgent matter. I get the impression that this is going to go fairly quickly. Is that true? 13 146 city Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: When do you expect to break ground Charlie? Charlie James: Our time table, as soon as we resolve the roadway situation. I apologize for being late this evening. I miscalculated when I might be on the agenda. As far as this whole central dispatch thing and everything, the way that that works is, we have that in our office building that we just built in ~den Prairie and the way that works is we have to hire someone like 3M or Honeywell, they're in the monitoring business, we pay them a monthly fee and all they are is a telephone answering service. When they get a signal over their line then they call up the fire station and say something is going on out at this building. We've had about 5 false alarms. We've had the firemen so po'ed about being out at this building because they get a message and they feel they have to go answer it and some mechanical thing and here they're all standing out there with their hoses and axes and some little thing is going bleep, bleep, bleep on a panel. You can have these kind of systems where right inside the door you get a key. There's a key lock place on the outside of the building that will get the best view. There will be a panel that can be monitored there that zones the whole building and it tells where in the building an alarm or sensor or smoke device is being set off and then they can go to that part of the building but really I think this type of system is much more appropriate for a high rise office building or something. This would be the first time and we've built dozen of shopping centers and this is the first time we've ever had to put in this type of syst~n. Mayor Hamilton: We're going to review that and I guess the question directly to you was, do you have signed leases and do you have the financing to start building the building? Charlie James: We have letters of intent and we don't have any reason to expect that there will be any more trouble with financing on this then there has been in any other project. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, I guess that still doesn't answer the question. Are you planning on building it this fall? Charlie James: If we can resolve the road. You tell me when the street will be vacated. You tell me when all these other things are going to be done and then I'll tell you when we're going to start construction. I don't know. These are things that, I'll answer your question this way. Our intent is to begin construction as soon as conditions will permit. Mayor Hamilton: Which means when the streets are vacated. When you have 50% of the building leased and when you have financing then you can begin. I guess that's typically how those things happen. Councilman Johnson: Also, with this system, you can break dirt before the final decision as to your fire alarm system is made so what I'm saying is the Public Safety Commission would have time to review this even if they broke ground tomorrow. I would assume if you can make the decision on whether this is going to be a monitored system or unmonitored system, t_hat doesn't have to be made at the same time as you break ground. 14 147 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: ~hat's true. What we're saying is we'll get this to the Public Safety Commissio~ to review there ar~ the~ we can brir~3 it back~ I agree with you, I don't think it's necessary and I think it's something we need to review more thoroughly. Do we need to have anythirz3 in here about permits from the Watershed or other appropriate agencies. Is there some reason why that was left off of here Gary? There is~'t any problem with run-off or ponding? I guess they have to go through that process anyway. Gary Warren: They definitely have to. Mayor Hamilton: (kay, I didn't see that here as one of the conditions and I wanted to make that one of the cor~itions. Gary Warren: I think it's a condition of the overall, this is the site plan review so that condition carries over frcm the original plat review. Mayor Hamilton: ~here are going to he 18 co~itions. ~he free right off of Powers Blvd. would be another condition. That's all I have. Councilman Johnson: You could combine number 15, the erosion control and grading plan. Mayor Hamilton: That's where I had it but I just thought might as well make it specific. Whatever permits are necessary so everybody has a chance to review the project. Councilman Gaving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Site Plan $87-7 as shown on tt~ site plan stamped "Received July 1, 1987' subject to the following conditions: . A building permit will not be issued until a partial vacation of tt~ West 78th Street right-of-way is completed (as shown in Attachment $7) or upon vacation of the portion of Carver County right-of-way ar~ a letter from MnDot stating they are agreeable to the conveyance of their controlled right-of-way. . . . Staff ar~ applicant will work together on the landscaping plan for it to meet city requirements and conform with the feasibility study. A heat and smoke detection system throughout the building that is audible and connected to a central dispatch .station subject to Public Safety Oommission review and being brought back on the Consent Agenda at a future date. The building shall be fully sprinkled, both the store level and the loft area. 5. A sprinklered trash room is required. . Fire lanes shall be provided in front of eac~ door ar~ three spaces shall be provided in front of the open court. 15 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 7. Fire hydrant placement shall be as follows: a. One at each entrance. b. One on the west side of the building in the alley around the building, one-half the distance to the end of the street. 8. No signage will be allowed on the gas canopy. 9. Ail rooftop equi[xnent shall be screened. 10. The trash enclosure shall be screened on three sides with a 100% opaque screen one foot higher than the trash receptacle. 11. Tnere shall be no unlicensed or inoperable vehicles stored on premises and no repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles. 12. No public address system shall be audible from any esidential parcel and no sales, storage or display or used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles, or all-terrain vehicles. 13. 10 foot easement be placed over all existing utilities in areas of right-of-way to be vacated. 14. Tne "temporarI~' status of the storage pond on Lot 2, Block 1 is subject to the feasibility study being completed by BRW, along with the City Engineer ' s approval. 15. Submittal of a satisfactory Grading and Erosion Control Plan, especially as it relates to fill and ponding areas. 16. The applicant shall come back for Planning Commission and City Council review if the structure is constructed in phases. 17. A free right turn easement be made at the intersection of Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street. 18. Tne applicant receive all the necessary permits from appropriate agencies i.e. Watershed District, etc.. All voted in favor and motion carried. REALIGNMENT OF WEST 78TH STREET: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL PLAT, BURDICK 2ND ADDITION. Barbara Dacy: This item was tabled from the June 29th Council meeting so that two issues could be resolved regarding the subject plat. One was the permanent and temporary utility easement as needed by the city in regards to the current sewer construction project that is occurring in West 78th Street. Tne second issue was the drainage issue which again, was to be resolved prior to this evening in the feasibility study. The Council action 16 149 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 was to go for Alternate A whic~ directs the drainage to the west to the ~ckankar site. Therefore, the second condition of approval on the plat should be that a drainage easement should be indicated somewhere on tt~ plat with e~ough area to accomodate the run-off that would occur from just the proposed five lots. The Attorney's office says the utility easements have been instructed to work with the applicant o~ that issue. Tmerefore, Staff is recomm~ing approval of the final plat subject to retaining the premanent utility easement as is shown in Attachment %1 and providing that the applicant provide a temporary easement as requested in Attachment %1. Secondly, reserving a drainage easement encompassing an are that meets the storage requiroments generated by final plat. B~_ Jim Burdick: ~he final plat was approved two weeks ago. All of you were nice enough to approve it unanimously. I was shocked when Brian saw this in the newspaper and called it to my attention. I didn't know it was coming up tonight. 13 months ago th~ preliminary plat was approved ar~ two weeks ago the final plat was approved unanimously so I don't eve~ know what we're talking about tonight. These easement things don't have anything to do with the plat. I have some very interested people down there and all this would be doing is holding it ~ In other wonds, 2 weeks ago you approved it unanimously and the only requirement was a formality that the City Manager, the Mayor ar~ w~ sign the plat and take it to Chaska. Mayor Hamilton: I think Jim you're correct in saying two weeks ago o~ the agenda it did appear as though the final plat approval was o~ there. In fact what that was was the extension of the one year period of time so the time period would not lapse on your plat ar~ I believe it may have ~ an error in typing up that. We did extend for 6 months the plat approval process so that this could be done without your having to go back through the whole process again. There isn't any intent on anyone's part to hold you up or to keep you from doing anything that you want to do with your property and I'm a little surprised that the utility easements haven't ~n completed prior to this time since it was quite s~ne time ago that we asked the City Attorney to work with you on getting those. I know that you have given easements for going across your lar~ to put in the utilities so that doesn't appear to be a problem but I guess I don't understand the whole process. Why that hasn't ~ completed especially when Jim has ~_n more than willing to let the company on the land to do whatever they want to do. Barbara Dacy: Just for an update, I did speak with Mr. Farrell on Wednesday and be was going to give your attorney a call at the eod of last week. I did not hear back from Mr. Farrell about tt~ utility easements. I just wanted to clarify for the record also that despite the dispute on the final plat or when it was approved or whatever, the issues are that the utility easements ar~ the drainage easement issues arise as a result of the projects that have occurred within the last 6 to 12 month period. During the past year we've authorized that sewer improvement. Mr. Burdick received preliminary plat approval I believe it was May of 1986. That project was authorized beyond that. The drainage issue arose from the Watershed District study where we're without County stormwater management plan again resulting in the ~ to go back and look at the function of that entire area so the final plat is up for consideration tonight for official action 17 150 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 by the Council. We believe the two conditions are reasonable and typical of plat reviews. B.C. Jim Burdick: But gentleman, if I can speak for another moment, I do not believe that this is the situation at all and I have bc~n held up for a month. I would like to give you the transcript of the last meeting. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that's necessary Jim. We've had it. We've read it. B.C. Jim Burdick: There's no question it was passed and I have no position except this is just delaying me and I'm being harmed and if this had been brought up because of the preliminary plat 13 months ago, fine but when the plat is approved as Attorney William Frank Kelly said, the ballgame is over. It's just a formality from then on in and all I want to do is go ahead with this formality of signing the plat and filing it. Mayor Hamilton: Well, as soon as we finish this evening you'll probably have the opportunity to do that and I guess if you feel you've ~ harmed or grieved in some way, then there are ways to remedy that. Councilman Johnson: Do you have a problem with the two conditions? B.C. Jim Burdick: Absolutely. Cbmpletely. Mayor Hamilton: Why? B.C. Jim Burdick: Because it has nothing to do with the plat. I'm willing to sit down anytime and discuss those and discuss this easement with some responsible person but it has nothing to do with filing of the plat. Councilman Johnson: Easements have to be on the plat, do they not? Barbara Dacy: I would suggest also that if we wouldn't have acted to extend preliminary plat approval ar~ a recommendation could have easily have been because of the changed conditions of the property, we could have required the applicant to go through the preliminary plat process. Again, we have no intent to hold up the applicant. We're going through standard construction procedures. I have nothing more to say. Councilman Johnson: We took action two weeks ago to extend the preliminary plat in order not to delay this project any further than it had been delayed. I know that was exactly what I was doing was two weeks before that I wanted to extend it at that time thinking that two weeks may not have bc~---n enough but that didn't come up so. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the final plat for Burdick Second Addition subject to the following conditions: l. Identifying the permanent utility easement as reflected in Attachment 91, and provision of a temporary easement as reflected in Attachment 91. 18 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 . Reserving a drainage easement encompassing an area that meets the storage requirements dictated in tt~ feasibility study. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: Now we'll sign your plat. Councilman Geving: You can take it to Carver County t~morrow. B.C. Jim Burdick: I don't think we're going to under these ci~tances. Mayor Hamilton: Well, you're free to do what you want, let's put it that way. Councilman Geving: I think we've been very fair with you Jim. Look what we've given yo~ If the vacation of the property on West 78th Street goes through. If the right-in/right-out roadway onto Powers Blvd. goes through, you've acquired an awful lot of property. We brought water all the way over from the Industrial Park just to serve your property. We've done a lot for Mr. Burdick. I think you have to recognize that. B~. Jim Burdick: Yes, I agree with this and there is wisdom in what you say but I say it is not fair to require me to spend the month of September in Chicago to have my plat filed. Councilman Geving: Let's put it this way, you can take your plat and file it. B,C. Jim Burdick: I don't understand that way but I respect what you're saying. REQUEST FOR DEANNEXATION, MERLE D. YOLK. Mayor Hamilton: Merle Yolk has sent us a letter ar~ I've discussed this with Barb and I talked with Merle today about it. I guess Barb, do you want to go through this? Barbara Dacy: Mr. Yolk has requested to appear before the Council tonight to discuss a proposal to deannex 40 acres of his property that lies north of CR lB and Lyman Blvd.. This area is outlined in red. Mr. yolk owns the property to the east ar~ all the way to Galpin Blvd. This area here is where Gardeneer and Mr. Volk's existing contractor's yard is and R & W Sanitatio~ This area in Chaska, this boot shaped parcel is now under construction for industrial development. West 82r~ Street and this area is now under construction also by the City of ~ As the Council recalls, a street agreement was approved with Chaska. Chaska is assuming the apparent cost for this street construction. If included into the City of Chanhassen, unless we provide more street connection down to Lyman Blvd.. This area is also within the Watershed District ar~ Drainage District in Chaska in their watershed. Utilities would also likewise be moved. 19 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Originally this item appeared in the Council packet in February. I met Mr. Volk's Attorney began speaking with Chaska and Chanhassen's staff about this request. The Minutes from your discussion of that meeting are included. Staff's recommendation for this particular item being that it is an opportunity for Mr. Volk to discuss the issue with the Council to determine whether or not he should pursue further. Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Volk, did you want to give us your thoughts? Merle Volk: There's not much more I can say although the drainage through there and I think where the City is going to spend some time and some deep thought that the 40 acres out of that is really approximately 35 because of the road takes about 5 for CR 18. Out of the balance of the 35 there is approximately 20 that's useable so we're really not talking 40 acres. A lot of that is in their watershed area. I think there is some room in there for Chanhassen to give it some deep thought as far as working with Chaska. By the same token I'm interested to see what Chaska is going to give to Chanhassen. I don't think anybody gives anything away anymore without getting something in return. Mayor Hamilton: I think you had talked to Chaska about that didn't you about a possible swap? Merle Volk: Tnere was something brought up at a staff meeting on some property down by Gedney Pickles that is not lying in Chaska's city limits and owned by Gedney and from what I understand they w-ant to add on. Don Ashworth: That's correct. The City of Chaska, we did talk with ~. One of the possibilities would be there is a small piece that is... It's easiest to simply describe it. It's a piece directly adjacent to Gedney's. It is owned by Gedney. Gedney is considering an expansion of that facility. Obtaining that piece for Chanhassen has some merits. If all of the Gedney facility would be in the City of Chanhassen. They did not follow that up with any other type of correspondence that I'm aware of. Merle Volk: I would think that Chaska for their overall grading and drainage plan would want this parcel of property very much. I think, if the Council see fits to work with them, I think we should put it back in their hands and let them ccm~ up with sc~e kind of a site. Mayor Hamilton: We just want to get some comments from the Council tonight but I think that's probably the next step Merle. Once we see what the Council feels, we should sit down with Chaska and see what comments they have. Council hasn't had an opportunity to see that or hear their discussion so I guess unless you have something else Merle we'll just kind of go around the Council and get thoughts from everybody. Jay I would like to start with you. Councilman Johnson: I think Merle kind of hit the nail on the head there. I talked to Dale about it earlier as we were walking up here and so far we've heard that Chaska would be more than willing to take 40 acres of Chanhassen but we haven't heard a thing from Chaska as to what Chanhassen 20 City Council ~eting - August 3, 1987 153 gets for the deal. If there is some equitability in this, then I think we owe it to everybody to look at it. As of right now there is no equitability in it. It's you give this to me and fine. I think it would be a good deal for you if it can come out to be a good deal for the City of Chanhassen, we should look at it but right now there is no good deal on our side. ~hat's my comments. Councilman Geving: Quite frankly I am shocked by this request from Merle yolk and I see no equitability in giving up any inch of Chanhasse~ property to the City of Chaska and I'll tell you why. We gave Chaska CR 18 a long time ago. We got nothing in return. It created for them ~ ability to build their industrial park. It gave you Mr. Volk the ability to market your corner which you did. We provided you with t/~ ability to have three, count them, three contractor's yards on your piece of property. As far as I'm concerned, I don't want to give up one inch of Chanhas~ to any city. We have five bordering cities and I can tell you right now that there are people waiting in the wings for deannexation of 40 acres or any piece of property. I could name at least three people right today that would file tomorrow to be in here next week for the same purpose if we are to let this go and I think some of the Council members know who those people are. They would rather deannex from Chanhasse~, move into another community where maybe they can some of the proposals that they've been trying to push for many years into Shorewood, Minnetcnka, ~de~ Prairie. If you can show we an equitable piece of 40 acres of Chaska, property that they are willing swap and not just the swamplar~] down in Gedney's property. I know where that is by the way. We gave Mr. (~dney a One Million Dollar bond. I asked him only one thing and that was to put Chanlmasse~ on his pickle package. His pickles still say Chaska. He will not get another bond until be changes that. He had promised to change his Post Office box. Look at t/~ pickles the next time you buy them but until we get 40 acres of equitable land from Chaska and you talked about squaring off that little corner over there Merle, do you see wl~_re that corner is? I would like to run that corner right up to the top and pick up their 40 acres and square it off or I would like to cede all the way over here to our border and pick up that whole quarter and square it off with the boundary lines. Again, I'm very shocked by your proposal to deannex, take away from Chanhassen to give something to Chaska with nothing in returru I think this would be very precedent setting and would be dangerous to the city of (]~anhassen or any other community when we are trying to get along with Chaska and Ede~ Prairie on the building of TH 212, to set up some kind of a turf war over 40 acres of your land. We're trying to cooperate right now with Chaska ar~ I think if we were to go ahead with the deannexation of this 40 acres, there would be a lot of people looking for something in return, me included ar~ if we didn't get something in return, we would probably have a couple of different council members up here during the next electioru So I%m saying I don't think your proposal works well with me. If they want to give us something, give us Hazeltine. We'll swal~ I'll gladly take that 40 acres. I strongly recommer~ that we not consider this situation on this request any further. Merle Yolk: What I don't understar~ is I do believe that the activity that's going on with the development of the industrial park, that Chanhassen is gaining by it. You're telling me that there is not one sole that comes 21 154 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 out of Jonathan's Industrial Park and comes up to the Riveria and sponsors your people up in town there. I can not believe that when I see the traffic going by. I can not believe that Dale. ~hat you would sit there and make comments like that. Councilman Boyt: I would like Dale to negotiate for me. I can see he's got the drive to get the job done here. I found it very interesting that the Metropolitan Council would start their letter saying there's no way that Chaska's sewer system could handle what you're proposing in the way of industrial growth and somehow got convinced they were wrong. I find that both interesting and refreshing. I would like to believe that we can negotiate anything Mr. Volk and I think Dale has raised some very good points that we are trying to get along with our neighbors and this is the very sort of issue that can stir things up and set them ill at ease. I don't know if it's possible for the Staff to gather some more data on a preliminary basis. If it is, I would like to see that. I fought estimate that you're talking about a million dollar development here at some point and a million dollars into Chanhassen would by an equivalent transfer of property would be nice to see so I don't know exactly how to get the balance done and keep the relations in good shape and give you what you want and get back in turn, what you mentioned, something of appropriate value. If that could be done, I would be for seeing us pursue that. Mayor Hamilton: I think that Dale made a comment that we're trying to get along with our neighboring communities and I think even more importantly than that is to get along with our neighbors that live in our community. Merle is certainly one of those and one that we've done a lot of work with and to me, Merle your company has bc-~n~ a very valuable asset to the City of Chanhassen. I don't think that making such a suggestion as he has to deannex 40 acres to a neighboring community is such a dumb idea when you stop and look at all the possibilities that it presents. By allowing Chaska to take 40 acres of Merle's property, 20 of which would be developed, I think Bill eluded to the fact that there would be perhaps a million dollars worth of taxes generated out of that development. That million dollars worth of taxes would go to the county and to the school district and those dollars, part of those dollars would alleviate th~ tax bill that the residents of this city have to pay. I think the point that Merle is making that the businesses in the Chaska Industrial Park do contribute to the growth and development of Chanhassen is true. There is no question that the businesses that are there currently and any that would be there in the future are going to contribute to the retail base in downtown Chanhassen. You just drive over there, it just takes a few minutes to drive there. Those people, it's going to much more convenient to drive into Chanhassen then it is for them to drive to downtown Chaska and since there isn't anything in Jonathan right now for them to shop at or eat at, it's a much better deal for them to come to Chanhassen. There's no reason why Chanhassen's CAA or other organizations in this city can't go that industrial park and ask for donations for support of teams ar~ everything else since they would probably use our Lake Ann Park some and other facilities in this city so I really don't think it's such a dumb idea. I think it's something we need to consider and that's the reason it was on the agenda tonight was for discussion. I never have a problem with anybody who 22 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 155 is a property owner in this town or any other town suggesting how his property might be best developed. If we look at how Merle's property going to be developed, it's going to be a lomg time before we have sewer to this property and his property would continue to be as it is today, a contractor's yard which is fine. I~n sure Merle is happy with that because his business keeps running out of there and it keeps paying his bills. It's also farmland which he farms himself or leases out and continues to use the property in that manner but it's the corner property that we could certainly consider deannexing and I~ not for just giving it to Chaska for a thank you but I think we ~ to at least talk to Chaska and find out what they're willin~ to do. It's obvious that the sewer is there. It's to that property. Thelfre building just to the north of Merle's property at the current time. There is an industrial park there. This would a natural extension of it so I think those are things we ~ to consider. Ihn glad that Merle bm, made the suggestion and I~ glad he brought it to us this eveming for review to get our commits and I think it's something we should pursue further and at least talk to Chaska ~ see what s(ane of our alternatives are at least. I guess I can't believe that there is'a line-up of people waiting in line to take over any or all of part of Chanhassem nor would the courts allow it if it did occur so those are my commemts. I don't know if that helps you any Merle. It sounds like we've got a maybe, a yes and two no's. Councilman Johnson: Can I follow up on the commemt that Bill made on Met Council reversing themselves. I think that's significant. Met Council reversed themselves on one point here. I don't know if they may reverse themselves again yet and say that Chaska can provide for this 40 acres to the City of Chanhassen sewer system so if Merle could develop this with sewer service from the City of Chaska givem tt~ type of industry there could be caveats into the type of industry going in not sewer intensive. You're not putting in plating shops or s(~nething like this that uses gallons a day. There are a lot of business out there that uses 20 to 25 gallons per pers(~ per day and if you have a few people in the business it doesn't really take very much water at all. There may be some room to negotiate with Met Council there to get that lar~ developed as part of Chanhassen yet. We're working with Met Council on transportation and other issues, maybe we should look at that also. Mayor Hamilton: I guess one other thing is, when you look at housing too and the people who may be working in this will be ~ing facilities that would be built there, certainly would have the opportunity to purchase their homes in Chanhassem ~ bec~e residents of Chanhassem ar~ taxpayers of Chanhassen so that's a benefit also. We're growing like crazy and putting up a lot of homes and there's no reason why people who work in Chaska can't live in Chanhassen. Councilman Boyt: What do we lose by beginning discussions with Chaska? of tbs things we lose is staff time which is certainly valuable. What else do we lose if we direct them in this? Dale suggested that one thing we could lose is good relations. We might lose that either way. Certainly Chaska is aware that this is a possibility ar~ if we don't discuss it we're taking away something they may already begin thinking them have. I don't 23 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 know but I'm interested in your thoughts about what we're losing by doing a preliminary discussion ar~ I would like to see us find out what they have to offer. We may very well turn that down if not sufficient. Don Ashworth: To date the staffs of the two cities have really looked at the issue without having direction from either of the two councils. It's b~ more difficult for us to explore specific options. In other words, your point of getting with Met Council to reconsider their position and until we know which way we were heading it was more difficult to do. In discussions with Dave Korney of Chaska, they have generally talked to their council ar~ again I'm anticipating that they're having discussion very similar to what we're having either at the current time or in the next few weeks. The whole issue of insuring that relationships are maintained between the two cities has continued to be a key point in not only our meetings but in the comments that we have received back from Chaska from their city council so they are concerned as well as to what your thoughts are and what it is you may be looking for so I don't think you're going to have anything really at stake by approaching them and saying what do you think is equitable because I think both parties are coming to the table looking at the applicant and saying, we're not really driving this request but if we were to follow through on it, what might be a fair solution. So I don't think they are really coming to the ~ahle very hungry saying this is something we've got to have or want or we're driving this. I think they will sit down and be fair in those negotiations or at least be open. Whether or not they come back with a proposal that you would accept, that becomes another question. Mayor Hamilton: At least we can discuss it. We can at least talk to them and see where it takes us. It's going to cost us some time and that's about it. Councilman Geving: If I were to make a motion, I would make a motion to deny this and that's the only motion that I can make. Mayor Hamilton: Is there a second? If not, motion dies for lack of second. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded moving ahead with talking with the City of Chaska to find out what their feelings are in the deannexation request by Merle Volk. All voted in favor except Councilman Geving who opgosed and motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A REC~TIONAL BEACHLOT, OUTLOT B, REICHERT'S ADDITION, NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION. Jo Ann Olsen: The property is located on Lotus Lake on the northern portion of the lake. Tne applicant has requested a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot. Outlot B, the large outlot, a majority of it is maintained in it's natural state and it is a Class A wetland. Tne applicant is proposing to install a dock and canoe rack down on the southern portion of the outlot where it has already been altered. Tney will maintain the remaining portion of the outlot in it's natural state. The Planning 24 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Commission recommended approval of the comditional use permit with changing number 2 to state that there should be no use of chemical kill or dredging in the wetland without an additional wetland alteration permit and DNR approval. They also ask that a slow-no wake sign shall be posted at the beachlot and that Dr. Rockwell should visit the site to determine whether or not the area where the dock is being proposed is in fact a wetlar~s. I did visit the site with Dr. Rockwell and she stated that it is not considered a wetlar~ in it's current state and that is what she determined as she looked at what exists today. She also felt that the proposed dock would not impact the surrounding wetlar~ ar~ As far as slow-no wake, we are looking into that. That is up to the City to install the sigru ~ does not have control on that arzt we are looking into the cost of purchasing the sign and who would maintain it. We are recommending approval of the conditional use permit with the five conditions as stated in the report. Mayor Hamilton: Is there someone here from the Near Mountain Lake Association that would like to omanent on this? Sam Oumow: We're hear from the Near Mountain Lake Association. I think she has said it very clearly. Mayor Hamilton: You didn't have anything else to add from your group? Sore Cornow: No, Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us make two changes in the Planning Commission recommendations. First charge would item 2 on the list which talks about chemical kill. I'm more confident in our staff and the Council's ability to control the use of chemical than I am DNR and so I would suggest that we add the Council after DNR. Mayor Hamilton: Could I comment on that particular item~ I had on mine to just put a period after wetland. Cross off "without an additional...". There shall be no use of chemical kill or dredging in the wetlar~. Councilman Boyt: At some point and maybe Susan wants to comment on this but at some point we may find it appropriate to use chemicals to control loose- strife. Can I defer her for just a minute to talk about c/~mical kill? Susan Conrad: There is a chemical that they are experimenting with right now called R~deo that is aquatic approved. What Bill is talking about is that it would be nice to see what the DNR comes up this summer on their control programs to see if it's a viable thing for us to use. To just blanketly say no chemical use, I like what Bill is just proposing that the Council have some control over it. Mayor Hamilton: I understar~ there are some problems with Rodeo. Susan Conrad: Yes, it kills everything else too so what the DNR is doing is spot spraying of certain areas where it's pior~_cring. Mayor Hamilton: We have pioneering here. 25 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Susan Conrad: Yes, it is all over. You know down at the north end where the new park is coming, it's just starting there and I tried to get them to come out and do some testing there, s~me spot testing. Mayor Hamilton: You mean the loosestrife. I thought you were saying they were going to use the Rodeo-. Susan Conrad: No, so I think we should just hold off on doing that but the part of the land that they have that is still the Type A wetland is overrun with loosestrife and it's that whole hay is just full of it so we have to be careful and make sure that we allow a possibility of controlling it in the future. Councilman Johnson: It says on 2 it already needs a wetland alteration permit which is our city penmit to ccme before the Council. Councilman Boyt: Okay, if that's how you read that. I just don't want the DNR providing an alteration permit without our review. Councilman Johnson: Tnat's where it says and. Maybe we should say a Chanhasse~ Wetland Alteration Permit. I think that's what the intent was there. Susan Conrad: Tnat would make our committee real happy. A few of us have bc~n~ talking lately about all the wetland alteration permits that you have been looking at and they would be real happy if you took things back at the end and that was the intent when we wrote the ordinance was that you Control it, not the agencies. Councilman Johnson: The condition from Staff is that we and the DNR both have to approve chemical kill in that area. Mayor Hamilton: You want to just add, and council approval? Councilman Boyt: However we phrase that. Two weeks ago I would have agreed with you completely. There has been a little education process underway here so I think one of those two again. Then I have one other change, so let's put DNR and' Council if you don't mind. Tnen on number 5, I would like to propose that the slow-no wake sign, since the city apparently can control that, shall be posted and maintained by the Lake Association at the beachlot. I think that's fairly typical in lake associations that they purchase and maintain bouys around the swimming areas and this would be a similar sort of thing. Susan Conrad: I wanted to direct this to Jo Ann, the Planning Commission had asked that some specific questions be asked of Dr. Rockwell because we keep talking about those floating mats of wetlands and how they are affected by motor traffic and I was wondering if she addressed that? The other one which I don't think she can, the Planning Commission was concered about the spawning area. How the boats taking off. 26 159 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Jo Ann Olsen: I did ask her about the impact of the dock and the motorboats around the wetland and there are sue protective lilypads there that will not be affected. There is not any dock limitation that says exactly what ~ impact of the oil and gas on the wetlar~. She felt that just that one dock would not have a detrimental impact to the w~tland. Councilman ~evir~3: I'm very familiar with this particular area. In 1978 Mr. Reichert developed the sites in question. We made it very specific that in the north of this outlot there was to be a conservation easement forever. The reason for that is we understar~ there is bass spawning area in the area there and more importantly the Lotus Lily, if you live in that area you know what I'm talking about, was to he protected. I guess it was a very big surprise to me that because we had designed the lots not to extend beyond the road and into the beach area, it was a surprise to me to see that this outlot now was owned by the Near Mountain Homeowners Association that had access to it. I have a problem with that because I know the dock has been there for a long time but the thing that concerns me a little bit is we don't want to see the size of the beachlot expanded so we have to he assured of that. I know where we put in a beachlot on the Lotus Lake Estates, we limited the beach area and the mat. I think we put down some kind of a black plastic to kill the weeds ar~ so forth in a specific area there ar~ we brought in sand to make a beach. Is there a beach that exists there noW? Jo Ann Olsen: There is a little sar~ area ar~ we did make a condition that there shall not he any alteration of that. Councilman (~eving: So they will not bring any new sar~ into the area to make a beach. Jo Ann Olsen: No, there is a condition to prevent that. Councilman (~eving: Okay, the~ one of the problems that I have with, and I~n happy to see that there are homeowners that are very interested in developing this, the 7 or 8 names that I haven't ~ familiar with. If there is in fact a Near Mountain Lake Homeowners Association, I think it's real important that you place on file with the City the names of your organization and people that can be contacted who are responsible officers so when this beachlot does become a fact and there is a problem or communication is necessary we know who to contact. That's the only question I have is to make sure. Is this true of other homeow~s? Do we know all the presidents? This is a new homeowners association I knew nothing about before and on Lotus Lake we must have 6 or 7 of them so this is a new group. Is there a homeowner back there who is an officer? Could you give me your name sir? Sam Curnow: Sam Curnow. Councilman Geving: For the record you are the president? San Curnow: Yes. 27 160 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Councilman Geving: Other than that I have no other questions. I think I am in very much agreement with the Planning Commission action. Councilman Johnson: I think what we've heard here tonight pretty much reflects what my feelings are. Maintaining the lilies. Maintaining the area. Minimize this area to what is there right now. I stopped by this evening ar~ looked there and saw the boat moored there and whatever so if that creates some problems elsewhere. I think one thing that we really have to start enforcing is that we know what's there and any alterations we see, that we can take quick action to make sure that it's not being continued because 4 or 5 years from now when there is a new group of homeowners or 10 years from now they might want this a little larger so they bring down the lawnmowers one weekend and it's larger. That's happened elsewhere. I'm not exactly sure how that's going to be controlled now and into the future but it's a concern of mine. Make sure the lily pads aren't touched and whatever. Otherwise, I think your Covenants cover a lot of things in here and our conditions cover it. I don't have a lot of problem with this very small homeowners association having a beachlot that I would say they've had and have been using as a beachlot for quite a while. Mayor Hamilton: I just have a couple of comments and I would direct your attention to Page 8 of the Covenants and Restrictions of the Homeowners Association. The bottom of the page, common area useage, Section 1, Boat. Members of the Association may use the southerly portion of the common area on waters abutting said premises for the purpose of launching boats in the water. I would suggest that that be taken out of the Covenants and Restrictions completely and one of the conditions that I would recommend is that there will be no launching of boats at all for this property. You can put your boats in at the public boat launching at the south end of Lotus and there will be no boat access launched done on this beachlot as is the case on other beachlots. Councilman Johnson: What about canoes? Mayor Hamilton: Well, canoes, you can just drop those in but where you have to back the trailer in and this kind. Also, Pleasant View being a rather narrow street I forsee the next problem is going to be parking along Pleasant View. As the people in this association go down to use the lot they're going to start parking along Pleasant View and we're going to have a problem with the neighbors complaining about parking like we do in all the others so perhaps to avoid that problem we should consider putting UP no parking signs at this time in that area. I wouldn't normally do that except that it's such a narrow street to begin with that you put one car and half of that street, I doubt you could even get a fire truck past there so I had that down as one of the conditions and that is certainly something I would like the Council to consider. Other than that I don't have any problems with what they're trying to do. I think they will maintain it well. Councilman Geving: I would like to ask the homeowners, do all of you live right on Pleasant View that are members of the lake association? Sam Curnow: We' re Lots 1 through 8. 28 161 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Councilman Geving: So there really is no need for anyone other than yourselves to park there? Sam Curnow: Not at all. Councilman Geving: So the Mayor's restriction on parking, how does that? Sam Curnow: As far as I~ concerned, I don't think it really applies. We've ~ using that lot for the past 8 years already and we've had absolutely no problems or had anyone park irg in that area currently. They do go up and usually park in our driveways. Councilman Geving: So really Mr. Mayor I don't see the reason for putting no parking there. These are people who are using it ar~ they live right there and they would know if anyone, although it's their own private beach. I guess that's the only coument I have about parking. Mayor Hamilton: ~hat's fine. I don't care if it's a condition right now but it's certainly sc~nething to consider if a problem comes up, I think we're going to have to enforce it then. I have no other cc~nents. Valerie Bossback: I think Bill that you suggested the Near Mountain Lake Association pay for the no wake sign? Councilman Boyt: Yes, that's right. Valerie Rsssback: I don't know if that was covered at all but I didn't think that anyone caught that but I don't think that's a very appropriate idea. I don't think it should be our responsibility to pay for obtaining that. We're residents and we know we have a slow wake there, if we use our boats why would we need to pay for a sign to tell us that? Who's the sign for then? Councilman Boyt: No, I believe the intent of the sign is to create a no wake zone in an area that's going to have higher use t/m~n it should have had previous to becoming a recreational beachlot. Valerie Bossback: We will be the users, why should we pay for the sign and maintenance of the sign when we don't need the sign to go a no wake? Councilman Boyt: [k~fortunately, we can't just say we're going declare this imaginary area no wake. We have to mark no wake areas ~ much as you would mark your swimming area in which you will be responsbile for putting bouys out to mark your swimming are~- That's your responsibility and what I~n proposing and I guess we disagree because I think it's quite fair. What we're proposing is, as part of the conditions surrounding this beachlot we want you to clearly notify the public that this is a no wake area. Valerie Rossback: ...the people who use the public access or the other residents. Councilman Soyt: o~ anybody that passes through that area. You're going to have people who are going to launch down at the other er~ of the lake, come 29 162 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 down to your beachlot so they can spend a day with people who live along and to make that an enforceable no wake area, we have to post it. I don't think it's the City's responsibility to come in and post an area that you're creating. We may disagree about that. Valerie Rossback: You're saying the people that are putting in at the public access and ccmirg down to our beachshore? Councilman Boyt: I'm saying it's for you, your guests, the public at large. David Rossback: Wouldn't it be the same as the no parking signs though? Councilman Boyt: No it's not. It's different and I don't know that we can take up a lot of time here. I think the Council understands that you disagree with me. Tnat's a fair disagreement and now it's up to them to vote. David Rossback: Would this just be a sign on the beach or would this be a bouy out in the water? Jo Ann Olsen: It would be a bouy in the water. Mayor Hamilton: It would be U.S. Coast Guard approved. I guess I'm glad to get that cleared because I hadn't written that down as one of my conditions. Is that in addition to the conditions? Councilman Boyt: Yes, it was 5 where I made the addition, a slow - no wake sign will be posted and maintained by the lake association at the beachlot and that means in the water. That's where those things are. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit #87-13 for a recreational beachlot with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Article 5-9-11 of the Zoning Ordinance. . No alteration to the existing site shall be permitted. There shall be no use of chemical kill or dredging in the without an additional wetland alteration permit and DNR and City Council approval. . The recreational beachlot is limited to the installation of one dock and one canoe rack. . The beachlot shall be maintained by the Near Mountailn Lake Association. . A "slow - no wake" sign shall be posted and maintained by the Near ~untain fake Association in the water at the beachlot. 6. There will be no launching of boats on trailers at the beachlot. All voted in favor and motion carried. 3~ City Council ~ting - August 3, 1987 163 Councilman Geving: In order for the association to understand the rules that we operate o~ in terms of the length of the dock and the number of boats ar~ so forth, I would like to give them a copy of our zoning ordinance so Sam, we would like to mail one of those ordinances to you so you understar~ what it is we' re looking for. CONSIDER ~ ROAD EXTENSION, TIM FOSTER. Barbara Dacy: The Council meeting on July 6th, the Council considered a three lot subdivision on the Zimmerman Farm. The three lots were to be created at the end of the existing Dogwood Road right-of-way. Two issues that were discussed during that preliminary plat review was one, whether or not Dogwood Road could feasibily be constructed into the Worm property ar~ out to TH 5 and the secondary and separate issue was brought out by the homeowners living along the existing Dogwood Road sectioru The homeowners, as evidenced in their letter attached in your packet, they have petitioned the city to begin maintenance o~ the Dogwood Road right-of-way. As a result of the Council meeting VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings was asked to take a brief analysis and look at whether or not Dogwood Road could physically be constructed ar~ to estimate those costs. They looked at the two options that were discussed at the July 6th meeting. One was the straight line connection beginning back where the existing Dogwood Road section e~]s and continues straight south and hooking into the cul-de-sac that was recently platted in the Worm property. The distance between the end of the existing right-of-way and the southerly property line is approximately 300 feet. There are 12% slopes in that area that would dissect Lot 3 of Mr. Poster's proposed subdivision. Estimated cost of this alternative is approximately $97,500.00. The other alternative that was evaluated was looking at grading a road section down and around the proposed three lots ar~ then tying back into the Worm cul-de-sac at that point. This alternative, because of it's length and because of the cross slope situation that we encounter here cost significantly more, approximately $229,000.00. As you can see in their drawings, they also looked at what potential road connection could be made if these two alternatives are not implemented. The remaining outlot is approximately 76 acres. ~er a 1 per 10 ordinance, 7 additional lots could be created to be served by septic systems. Potential road alignment is in this fashion tying back to Tanadoona Drive or potentially extending out to TH 4L As you are all aware, for an assessment proceeding, because of the improvement, to sustain a test as to whether or not the bond will increase the value of the property equal to or exceeding the amount of the proposed assessments. Because the costs in both of these options, Staff feels that neither option would be able to sustain this test. ~he secondary issue as to whether or not the City should begin maintenance responsibilities for existing Dogwood Road should be handled consistent with Council action on July 6th. One of your conditions was to begin looking at a feasibility study to improve the substar~ard area of Tanadoona Drive and existing Dogwood. Staff feels that a feasibility study could be carried out at minimal cost. Maybe between $500.00 and $1,000.00. We could look to utilizing city maintenance crews to perform some of the activity. That feasibility study would be brought back to the Council at that time and we will look at the cost and meet with the neighborhood. The applicant, Mr. Foster is here tonight to discuss the first issue of the 31 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Dogwood Road extension. In summary, staff is recommending Council action as fol lows: Tnat you authorize the feasibility study for the existing section of Dogwood Road and Tanadoona Drive. . That you direct staff to notify people living in the area that such a study is underway and in the process. . Tnat the proposed roadway easement that was looked at during Council consideration be removed. When Outlot A is resubdivided that this type of street connection be implemented at that time. Tim Foster: Based on the last meeting that we had, I've just kind of postponed my house project until we can determine where these roads are going to go so I'm just kind of looking for the outcome of where you're going to go with that road. I can look at the drawings and see which way is the shortest way for a hook-up but the other thing is because of the excessive cost of the road on a 100 acre parcel that only gets 10 lots, I tend to think that the feasibility study possibily will tell us that we can't do a full blown road of some type on Dogwood. If you have specific questions of me, I have no other comnents. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Foster, did you have any problems with the staff recommendations? Their recommendation is basically not to do anything until everything else is subdivided is the way I understand it. Is that correct? We're looking at doing a feasibility study on the other two roads, how to make them better which it does in effect and they're saying we're not going to cut your homesite that you're proposing in half with the road. Those are the way I read them. Tim Foster: That' s the recomnendations. Councilman Johnson: Yes, that's the recommendations. Are you in favor of that? Tim Foster: Yes. Councilman Johnson: I personally like the staff recommendations too. I don't know why we have to direct staff to notify the residents of the feasibility study. I would think that would be automatic. Barbara Dacy: I just wanted to insure that the Council was aware that we were going to be working with the homeowners in that area. They have been requesting this action for a number of months. Councilman Johnson: I would think anytime you're doing a feasibility study in front of somebody's house that they're going to be notified of it. Barbara Dacy: I just want to make it perfectly clear. 32 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Councilman (~eving: I think we should make it perfectly clear to them too that we did do the brief study and that tb~ other road alternatives were not feasible. I think they should know that. Barbara Dacy: A copy of the staff report was sent to the hcmeowners association president. Councilman Geving: Okay, just so we are aware of that because that could be the next questio~ to ask, why don't you run the road all the way through ar~ upgrade it? I like what the staff is arriving at here. I think if we can make the road safe, build it up to the best standard that we can and do it reasonably until something happens with the development of the other piece of property there, we can't possibly spend $10~,000.00 to $200,00~.00 upgrading that road. I think we've done all we can for the homeowners if we do what's asked for here. That's go ahead at~ upgrade ~ existing road. That's all I have o Councilman Boyt: I have ooe difficulty. We are creating or et~-ouraging a mile long cul-de-sac. And though it looks as though we're going to be approving part of that, Mr. Foster, I wor~er what's going to happen when you get marooned. That causes me some concerr6 We're talking about a 22 foot wide road at some points as I ur~s~ it. A couple of trees across that ar~ you can't get out and we can't get in. Tim Foster: You're asking me what I'm going to do? Councilman Boyt: It's a comment and I think we are allowing you to put yourself in a difficult position if we okay this cul-de-sac which is what we're doing. Tim Foster: It's not a co~cern of mine. Councilman Boyt: Not now, I agr~ I would like to see this extension out to TH 41 looks like it might be the least expensive of the alternatives but when this feasibility study is made, could that be included in the study so we know just how much that's going to cost us ~ay? Barbara Dacy: Our intention on the Dogwood Road feasibility study would be to keep those costs as minimal as possible because that will be wrapped up in the overall assessment project to upgrade Dogwood ar~ Tanadoona. Maybe it could be suggested that the applicant's engir~r look at estimating those costs and kir~ of doing a mini-study of their own ar~ the~ we would have that suhnitted to our engineering office for a double check. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Foster, what would be your time line? Let's suppose the road came in at $1~,~0~.~ and that it really provides a comparable option to splitting your property but it certainly a much better option for you ar~ probably a better option for the future develo~ent of that property. Would that be out of line for you to consider building that given that scenario? Tim Foster: What time frame Bill? 33 16({ City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Councilman Boyt: Well, give me a ballpark. Let's say the next 3 to 5 years. Tim Foster: Whether that being a 10 acre parcel? I don't have any specific plans for developing the 76 acre outlot so therefore the study is done based on that I'm going to be a developer and develop those then I guess I would have to say. Councilman Boyt: Pretty slim. Tim Foster: Right. Councilman Boyt: Now there are other developers who might be interested in helping you out. You're sitting on a fairly nice piece of property there. My concern is, and I don't know if others on the Council share this concern, that we've got a bad situation. We are making it somewhat better because you are proposing or the neighbors are proposing to upgrade Dogwood so we are settling short of a safe solution. That's all I have. Mayor Hamilton: Can you tell me why, the proposed Worm property road that we talked about two weeks ago, it appears to be a fairly short distance from the end of the cul-de-sac that they are going to put in to the end of the cul-de- sac on Dogwood. Is that true? Barbara Dacy: The end of the existing gravel roadway of Dogwood is back up here. Mayor Hamilton: I know but the ending of the road. Barbara Dacy: The right-of-way stops here. Most of your costs are because of the slopes as they talked about in the study. The grading and the ditch sections ar~ they have to be completed different from our typical star~ards so that will add to the cost of the project. There is significant topography in here and there is a lot of clearing of mature stands of trees. They also have a length of road section with a rural street section. Mayor Hamilton: I wanted to bring that back up because I know that Dan had suggested that possibility when he was here of extending that road further north and it wasn't clear to me what the possibility of doing that was. Barbara Dacy: When that came through you did require an easement for potential connection but when that was up at Council we did not have the results of the study yet. Councilman Johnson: Have we done any looking at the, I don't know what the name of the road is coming out of the Worm property is or is going to be or what they've named it but that's coming out, when I was looking and I drove in there and drove out, that is a very busy highway. It's fairly narrow. It's directly across from the Arboretum. There are people stopping already there. Putting more cars onto that road, to me, may not seem to be a real good idea. While it's really nice to put everybody to have a backdoor for safety purposes which I have pushed many times, making a more hazardous situation on TH 5 there may not be the way to do it. Have we looked at that aspect for the 34 167 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 safety of this proposal? Barbara Dacy: To be honest no. We haven't done an intersection analysis other than just by comment. As I recall the curve of the road was realigned and it is sharper. C~ry Warren: I think we have some feedback from the State on that. Specifically ~n the Worm property. They weren't lookirg at tl~ impact from say making it a through street but even in that case they're looking at a turn lane for westbour~ traffic so that there is concern as far as the traffic load. Councilman Johnson: Because the Dogwood people, there are a lot more houses there than are going into the Worm property so we'll more than d~uble what Worm is proposing for that property, we'll more than double it if we make a connection to DogwoocL The internal connection up to Tanadoona to me makes more sense without even a connection into the Worm property. I hate to leave two cul-de-sacs back to back like that with a hill betw~------~ because it cuts off access, emergency access during situations to both of those cul-de-sacs because there is no safe backdoor. Before I~ going to say let's make this connection, I want to know what the impact on TH 5 is. That's directly more dargerous as far as I'm concerned. Should w~ put that in a feasibility study? Councilman Boyt: Jay, I don't think that's the way to go off TH 5. I think it's much better to go either back into Tanadoona or off of TH 41. Councilman Johnson: T~at's what I'm saying. Councilman Boyt: I can't imagine that it's anymore expensive really, even though it's longer, it's a lot flater. Councilman Johnson: That's exactly what I was saying. To connect between_ Worm and Dogwood, I think enough said there but before we make a connection where people have access to TH 5, w~ better know what the impact on TH 5 is. Mayor Hamilton: Is there a motion? I think the staff recomm~tions would ~ to be reasonable. Councilman Geving: I think they're reasonable Tom. I have to ask a question here. It seems like we're continually asking our road crews to build roads and maintain roads and staff is indicating that this would be done by city crews. Do we have the kir~ of crew that is available to put in a road like this? The reason I'm saying this is we're adding new streets to our community everyday. I don' t know how w~ can start building roads. Mayor Hamilton: It depends on what year you're talking about. Maybe Gary can respond to that. Gary Warren: I guess there are some points that ~ clarification. We can go out with our crews. We acquired a packer for example last year where we have more capabilities for paving roads. We did Deerwood this year already and it was a pretty tough application ar~ our crews did well in that regard. 35 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 This one concerns me a little bit because of the length and I guess there is more than just the standard construction out there that I think we're going to have to get a crew so I think as much as I like to boast of the abilities of our crews up here, I think we would like to reserve that we really get involved until we see what we find. Councilman Geving: That's the extent of my question. It's a fairly major project. Gary Warren: The extent of the scope of the feasibility study is a question in my mind also. Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest that Mr. Foster, as long as you're handy here, that we put a 4th one in and ask for a feasibility study and it looks like my guess would be it would probably cost $500.00 to $1,000.00 to find out what it's going to cost to put that road in eventually. Barbara Dacy: To be done by his engineer? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Which road? Councilman Boyt: This is the backdoor road Jay. Councilman Johnson: Going where? Councilman Boyt: I would like to see it run to TH 41 myself but maybe for that price he' 11 take a good look at both of them. Barbara Dacy: Okay, you're directing his engineer to look at the cost of either this alignment or back up to Tanadoona Drive or an alternative al igmment? Councilman Boyt: Right. Some backdoor arrangement there that makes sense to you. Councilman Geving: Do you own all that property Tim? Tim Foster: Not yet, no. You guys have to give me some answers. Councilman Geving: That's why I ask. We're asking his engineer to do a feasibility study that he doesn't own the property. Gary Warren: Who is your engineer? Tim Foster: Jim Hill. Barbara Dacy: Tnere is a separate parcel of record just to the east of this property before it gets to TH 41 but there is obviously topography available so they could do preliminary estimates. 36 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 169 Tim Foster: ~hen I would presumably have to make a decision on how I want to develop that 76 acres outlot. Councilman Boyt: Where you want to' put the road. I think we're saying that at some point that road is going to go through to something els~ I think we need to know what we're biting off there. You ~ to know that. The City needs to know that. Maybe these other gentlemen don't agree with me. I'm just wary of leaving a mile long cul-de-sac there with no prospects. Councilman Johnson: Bill, let me give a whack at this. Rather than a feasibility study by Mr. Hill, that we make it a condition that resubdivision of Outlot A will include an access road out of Dogwood. That will be included in the resubdivision of Outlot ~. Does that change our preliminary plat approval? Barbara Dacy: No. I think, correct me if I'm wrong but maybe your point is more whether or not to fir~ out if some type of road pattern throughout the Outlot A is economically achievable with the 7 lots that can be anticipated in that area. Your point that he needs to know that, Tim needs to know whether or not that area can work. Secondarily it provides assurance to the City that another road connection can be made so that there is a second way out. Councilman Boyt: I'm saying I don't want 10 years from now to have to deal with a road that can not be extended because it was just not economically feasible. Tim Foster: Based on the costs that Ihn hearing, I think it's probably feasible whs~ sewer and water goes in there 20 years from now. Barbara Dacy: There are restrictions in the remaining area that have to do with the other tm options. Councilman Geving: I think that would come up when we were dealing with Outlot A at s~ne future time as a subdivisi~ proposal. That's the first thing we would nail him for is a road patterru Whe~r it's included here tonight or not. Councilman Boyt: Well, to me it's important so I propose an amendment a backdoor access be sketched out on Outlot A. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded for an amendment for a backdoor access be ske~ out on Outlot ~. All voted in favor of the ams~clment and motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded that the Council recommend the following action: le Authorize feasibility study for Dogwood Boad amd Tanadoona Drive (consistent with plat approval action). Direct Staff to notify residents that feasibility study is in process for Council actic~ in response to their request for maintenance. 37 170 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 . A roadway easement through Lot 3 of Tim Foster's subdivision is not required. If Outlot A is resubdivided, the City will look to an alternate street connection as represented in the report prepared by VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings. All voted in favor and motion carried. Gary W~rren: We're not talking about a Chapter 429 feasibility study right? Councilman Geving: Oh no, In-house. Councilman Boyt: I see that as something that's relatively inexpensive. If you find out that that's not going to be in the neighborhood of $500.00 or so, I would like you to let me know and I will certainly give that some discussion because I don't see this as being a big expense. CONSENT A~: (D) APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, CARVER BEACH ESTATES. Councilman Johnson: I had a chance to look at the plans today and the way the plans look to me it looks like we're basically clearcutting a whole area, they're grading everywhere. Tney are very little areas that don't show that no grading is going to happen or no changes in the contours. I have a concern over that. I was wondering, this is really tough because it was approved back in 1981 or 1982, whatever the case may be, 1981 ar~ now it finally comes up for building. There seems to be quite a few problems especially along the southern boundary of the main area back behind Jerry Boucheaux's property. Is the developer willing to put up the berm and diking or build a low area as our engineer Larry Brown has suggested? There seems to be a lot of conditions in here. I want to make sure the developer is aware of all 19 conditions and is acceptable to all these. Grady Boeck: I am one of the partners that will be developing this property. I'm also a consulting engineer and have had a bit of experience in this type of field in the last 30 years. We are very much interested in receiving your approval so we can begin work on this thing here before the season, even though people would rather fight the cold than the warm as the survey said, I don't agree with that but we have gone over these 19 issues ar~ I spoke just briefly with Mr. Warren about them. This afternoon we received this in the mail so this is the first time we've been able to see it. Item 1, we do have a development contract that was signed back in 1982 by the owner and there is a statement in there, a paragrah that that contract does accrue to anybody that buys that property and it does hold to the city in opposed to any other purchaser or developer and I have gone over that with our attorneys on that and he is convinced that that is in fact the case. Now I'm sure your attorney will have to verify that too. I can show you what that paragraph states. Item 2, 3, 4, 5, we have no problems with those. Nor with number 6. 7, move the drainage swale and I believe Councilman Johnson that was what you were referring to on the south lot line. It is our intention and we have always worked in our work that when we have water on our property we take care of it to a proper outflow such as some areas I know that they permit water from your 38 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 parcel, your development parcel to run onto the next parcel as it has done for 40 years. Whether it sheets across there or however but it is definitely our intention to contain that water on our property in those contours that we show on that drainage ar~t erosion layout does so ir~icate that. Mr. Brown has stated that he would like to have the indicated drainage swale moved to the north. We have no problem with that understar~ting that we have a 2M foot drainaeg easement into which we have worked. We have also tried to design that so that we will not run all of tt~ water down to one small channel. That the water would more or less sheet across the back-yard so there would be no area that would receive excessive erosion or anything like that. Not that there is a great deal of water coming down there but we would work with Mr. Brown to move that 1M feet. 8, 9, 1M, we have no problem. We are a little bit concerned with item 11 requiring additional catch basins. We have to maintain a proper flow in the pipe as it goes to tt~ detention pond and in order to construct a catch basin you must have at least a minimum of three feet from the er~t of the pipe to the top of the grour~i If we do that we would have to raise our ground at the outfall or where they are requesting that we put the catch basin in we would have to raise it approximately 2 feet. That can he done. ~here is no problem with that. ~he only thing that it does is cut down on the natural drainage area. Now as you are aware, both Lots 1 and 2 in Block 3 have a great deal of their area is dedicated for drainage which is accessible to provide drainage for that area ~ that's the way the park was laid out and that's the way it's recorded and that's the way it's filed. We intend to use those drainage areas as part of this overall program so we are a little bit concerned about item 11. Item 12 and the trees, there are trees down on the southerly part of tt~ plat in Lots 1 and 2 in Block 3. ~here are also a lot of trees up in the northeasterly portion. We do not want to take down a tree anymore than anybody else does. We have a problem. If we are required and we accept that, to construct ponding in the two lots, 1 and 2 in Block 3, if we must construct a ponding area we have to remove trees in order to dig dirt and there's just no alternative- We have one or the other and we accept either but if it's a 1MM year por£t you want then we will supply you with the tree removal permit or whatever to your engineering department for their approval and indicate therein what will be removed. Item 13, if you want to change the name to Nez Perce or from Nez Perce to Lake Lucy Road or to Chanhassen Blvd. or whatever, we have no problem. That's a city ordinance. ~he plat is recorded right now at the County Courthouse right now ~ it says Nez Perce Road ~ a city ordinance will take care of that with no trouble. We have no problem with that whatsoever. 14, no problem. Item 15, I believe we can point out to the engi ~crs that there is a fire hydrant constructed on your project coming off of Powers BlvcL that is part of your reservoir program so there is a hydrant there. They must have a hydrant on their system in order to feed and flush ar~ feed ~ flush that reservoir as many times as they are going to do it during cleaning and painting and whatever has to go on at that point so that hydrant is then available for eternity, until it blows up. Number 16, we can not agree to that whatsoever and I have talked to our legal counsel. Rather than that we would do as what Mr. Johnscm has suggested, we will create a berm. Not in the sense that we would build one but we would not go upon the adjacent property that is not our property. We would cut our property in order to create a lower area from which the water would not run from our property to the adjacent property. We have looked over t/~ area regarding 39 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 those lots on Western Drive. They do drain. Tnere is a natural swale. It does drain all the way down to Lot 1 and Lot 2 in Block 3 where the area is reserved with drainage easements so that area does drain. Taose houses right now, the one on the cul-de-sac on Western Drive has an elevation of approximately 1,001 foot on the first floor. Tne drainage swale in the back goes from, that house goes from 96 to 94 to 93 so in comparison it's about 8 feet minimum below that house. There is grading up to that house so we can not whatsoever agree with item 16. We feel that we have taken care of the drainage on our property plus we are accepting as requested by the engineering department the natural drainage from the parcel to the north. Now I don't know if you approved that preliminary plat but I know that the Planning Commission did and they are running approximately 1 1/2 to 2 acres of water onto our property. Now that's the natural drainage...and it was suggested by the engineering department that we accept it. We'll accept it but on the south end of our parcel where there was some of our water running naturally to the south on the adjacent property, we will intercept that so that it does not run onto their property anymore. Item 17, we have no problem with it. Item 18, we certainly will do. Item 19 is in the specifications and they are right in saying that should be done. We ask for your approval that those conditions excluded as I mentioned here this evening. Councilman Johnson: One thing, on number 3 I would like to ask staff a couple questions on this. Wood fiber blanket on greater than 3:1 slope. That's a pretty hefty slope. Gary Warren: That's consistent with what the Watershed District requires arid what we typically required for Chan Vista. Grady Boeck: Mr. Johnson may I add, I talked this over with Mr. Warren and he said that he would accept some of the new geotech fabric and to get up to a slope too great, I think there is some concern about woodchips eroding but this new geotech fabric is something equal to woodchips and he said he is aware of that. Councilman Johnson: The fire hydrant at the west end, what do we hit there? Larry Brown: I think at this point it would be better if we clarified that. The applicant is just required to meet all fire safety codes. Councilman Johnson: You really don't need that as a condition because that's really a given isn't it? Gary Warren: Specific review of the plans we note that the fire coverage isn't proper is what called it up. What Mr. Boeck is indicating, Larry will confirm tomorrow and make sure that there is a hydrant there and if there is then he won't be required to have one. Councilman Johnson: (kay, so 15 will be applicant will comply with the Fire Safety Codes and ensure adequate fire protection which you basically get rid of most of the first line and part of the second line. In the development contract that you currently have, there is a section in there talking about and I don't have it with me, Larry has got it, about going onto adjacent 40 173 City Oouncil Meeting - August 3, 19B7 properties, getting easements for work on adjacent properties and stuff for the type of work they're talking about in number 16 here if I remember correctly. Grady Boeck: No, I think Councilman Johnson that had to do with the parcel that was right off of Powers Blvd. ar~ what we're going to do there is shown in the plans and we also have a separate agreement with that property owner that was by the original owner ar~ now accrues to us. Councilman Johnson: In speaking of plans, it was very tough on us I believe to review this without a set of plans. I don't know what happened there. There was a snaffu of some sort but I guess only one set of plans was suhnit~ ar~ therefore Council didn't get any plans. Grady Boeck: If we were told we r~ed 6 sets, we would have brought 6 sets. Councilman Johnson: Minor snaffu. Larry Brown: I apologize, that was probably an oversight on my part. Mayor Hamilton: This project came up to the Council several times since I've been here and I think Clark and Dale and I were on the Council at the time and we spent really a lot of time dealing with this particular develo~mment. I think there were at least two different owners that we reviewed their development and since that time now a lot of things have changed. We're going to have the water reservoir just to the north and Mr. Owezm is now developing his property to the north so it's changing a lot of things so I wish we could have had the plans also because I know as part of this plat when it was approved there was a roadway that was to connect to the north that we made a part of the condition of the plat approval. Councilman Johnson: It's still there. Mayor Hamilton: I know it is. It doesn't ~ to be there any longer. I believe we determined that that wasn't going to connect up with Mr. Owen's property so those things have kind of been overlooked and should be corrected. I don't know how that gets vacated or gets changed but it doesn't r~ to be there any longer. Grady Boeck: I think we can request a vacation because we don't want it. Mayor Hamilton: Now that the water reservoir is there, there's additional fire hydrants and the additional looping of the watermains ar~ the whole thing sl~uld work a lot better but we did I know whe~ I recall working a lot with the drainage on this property to make sure that, I don't remember the lots anymore that the lots by Jerry's place, in fact we pretty near made that an unbuildable lot at one time and made the developer move the home way to one end. We spent a heck of a lot of time o~ this thing trying to move everything arour~ so I just wanted Jay and Bill to know that there was a lot of time spent o~ this. I think we did a good job at that time facing what we had to consider and I was surprised to see this hack after all these years. 41 City Council Meeting - August 3~ 1987 Councilman Geving: Do you have a real problem then with item 167 Is that something we can't resolve? Grady Boeck: We have no problem working with those people to some extent but our legal counsel has definitely indicated that no way can we agree to go on private property to improve their property as a part of receiving plat approval. Councilman Geving: So the key comment here is the developer shall fill in the low lying area off-site on the lots behind Western Drive. You're saying you can't legally do that and I don't think I blame you for that. I agree with you. I certainly do agree with you. Now I think the intent here, the intent is to shortstop that water so it doesn't continue to drain into Lots 6, 7 and 8. I think if you do that, you have achieved the intent of item 16. Grady Boeck: We have no problem with that whatsoever. We can bring that water down. As you say Mr. Mayor, you went through this thing and you have more drainage easement area on Lots 1 and 2. There is a building envelope and there's a house on Lot 1. There's a building envelope and there are all kinds of trees on Lot 2. Councilman Geving: I have no other comnent Mr. Mayor. Councilman Boyt: Where is the water going to go when you build your berm? Grady Boeck: Along our south line? It will run to the west and it will drain in the drainage swale that comes from approximately the northwest corner of Lot 1. You're concerned about this area, here's Western Drive. This is LOt 1. It's already built on. The action has been started. This plat is underway and it was underway when that building permit was issued. Our agreement now has two years until 1988. What we would do is we would bring this water down this lot line and you can see that we have a lower elevation at this point than we do naturally there. We're going to contour all of this property here. We'll try and sheet that water down here but as we get farther down we're going to have a ditch and that will bring it all the way to this area right here. Now the drainage easement for Lot 1, the house sits there but the drainage easement is all around there. This is all drainage easement. This whole thing. Tnere's a little pad here for a house and there is an existing house but generally this is all drainage easement. We can drain that water right down to this area. Tnere will be catch basins up on the street. Across here we'll pick up that water and pipe it down to a very wide utility easement here. We'll discharge it at this point putting in a drainage swale so that it comes down. It can come south to a culvert that could go under a potential drive that could go up there. Now we would be using in the 100 year overflow, we would be using portions of this drainage area that is there is dedicated. A new ponding area here with an overflow that would result into a large marsh that extends all the way down to Carver Beach Road and we would pick up all of this drainage and take it the same way. The area that we are picking up and requested was that we pick up from ~ reservoir plus Mr. Owens plus some of this, we'll be taking that across our property. We did not show definitive drainage plans over in this area because of the woods that are all around here. We want to preserve as much of that until such time that we need 42 175 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 a building permit. The drainage that we show will come south and west, the other drainage will go north and east. Councilman Johnson: I was thinking it would be more on that roadway that no longer needs to be a roadway, that you do grading in there to help to develop the roadway. Grady Boeck: We're going to change over time. We had to do this in order for you to have s~me kind of drainageway but w~ will charge that. Mayor Hamilton: Does that become a buildable lot there? Grady Boeck: If we replat it. We would take that share of the street and nip a little bit of each one, I think we could. Councilman Geving: It's probably too late. Councilman Boyt: Okay, you satisfied my question about the water. It's all got a home. The reason I didn't take this off the consent ager~a was because you're still in your current development contract as I ur~erstar~ it. Otherwise, I think if you came back in again, in spite of all the work and I think you probably did the best job you could given the ordinance you have, we have a tougher ordinance now ar~ this wouldn't fly but you've got it and I guess that covers my c~m~ents. Gary Warren: I w~uld like to address some of these if I could. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not sure we ~ to. I think we're ready for a motion. Do you have anymore discussion on this? Councilman Johnson: If he's got something significant to add. Most of these are his conditions. Mayor Hamilton: I guess we've spent a lot of time discussing it and it's something that we can't turn down so if you had questions about it you can work that out with Gary. Councilman Johnson: We've got 19 conditions, we want to make sure the~re the right conditions. Mayor Hamilton: Right and I think we've already established that. Gary Warren: Just or~ point I guess. The development contract, because of it's age from 1982, we put it in here as a condition, in checking with the City Attorney, the plat was filed June 6, 1986 and the development contract provisions call for that the developer for improvements have to start within one year of the filing of the fiDa] plat or basically throw it back open as far as the development contract is concerned so as you are aware, we're here in August of 1987 so I think the conditions that I was looking at here was to go in this with our eyes open. I wasn't comfortable with the drainage situation ar~ not knowing the history of tt~ platting process, we did look back in the files to __"~c if we had any more tools to deal with the drainage. 43 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 We've had people, Mr. Boucheaux was pointed out, who had been living with the drainage problem up there for a while and that's why I guess our staff recommendations were to try and work with Mr. Boeck here to accomodate that drainage without aggravating an already bad situatior~ The recommendations as far as the 100 year storm and the ponding area there, Larry had gone through the calculations. We just received them last Wednesday. We're trying I guess our best to get this reviewed for Mr. Boeck here but we didn't feel comfortable that we had the right numbers even for the pond sizing so as you say, it has been discussed thoroughly but I guess from a staff standpoint I still have some concerns about it. Larry Brown: Just one point I would like to make that would have to be included if this were accepted. In ~ specifications it states that the working hours will be 6:30 a~m. to 10:30 p~m.. Cbviously this is going to be a problem with our ordinance. Councilman Johnson: 7:00 to 6:00 is what we've put on everybody else lately. Grady Boeck: We have no problem with that. Councilman Boyt: Gary, are you suggesting that we really are in no shape to pass this tonight? That we should be tabling this? Gary Warren: Our rec(mxmm~ation w~s for approval with the conditions. Councilman Boyt: So you're ccmfortable with it? Gary Warren: With the conditions however Mr. Boeck is taking exception to some of the key questions that we had or concerns we had such as that Lot 2 drainage area and the whole swale area and I guess I'm notcomfortable with it without providing some piping the storm water as we rec(mmended. Mayor Hamilton: I think since Mr. Boeck had said he didn't get an opportunity to see some of these conditions until today that approval could be granted based on Gary and Mr. Boeck working out the additional conditions and those conditions that are in question, when they are resolved to your satisfaction Gary and Larry, that they could be put back on a consent item so we can see what the resolution of them was. Would that satisfy you? That would give you an opportunity to work with our engineers to satisfyanything that was a probl6m for them. Grady Boeck: So there is two options? To accept all the 19 conditions and get it approved tonight or have it delayed for another tw~ weeks? Councilman Johnson: Or longer. Continue to negotiate. I was going to modify number 15 which is comply with Fire Safety Codes from that standpoint. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'm not sure Mr. Boeck why you have a problem having it approved tonight with the condition that you work out the differences with our staff. 44 -177 City Council ~eting - August 3, 1987 Grady Boeck: Your motion will be to approve it and we work out the conditions with the staff? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Councilman Johnson: That would be number 16 we're having a problem with. The low lying area. If you show that no water frc~ his develo~ent is getting into Boucheaux's and whatever yard, I believe that... Gary Warren: That's our condition is for is just to resolve that issue. T~at' s correct. Cour~ilman Johnson: Ckay, so that's basically, rather than trying to solve a problem of the neighboring neighborhood by filling in a low area in their neighborhood that would protect any additional water from coming on there being caused by the increased develo~ent within this are=~ I think that can be worked out between you pretty easily. Grady Boeck: I have no problem with it_ I would just like to suggest that over the 30 years of city engineer and all of this other what you are all going through, to go out on that property ar~ satisfy those owners ar~ the word restoration in here is the killer. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we're saying that you need to satisfy, we're saying you ~ to satisfy the engineer. Grady Boeck: That's right and what we're trying to attempt to do is not to go onto that private property ar~ work out a solution whereas we can drain that property west along our south line ar~ get it into th~ easements that are public domain. Mayor Hamilton: I think the direction to the engineer is that Dale and I agree and I'm not sure about Bill and Jay that we would certainly agree with you that it's a difficult thing to go onto somebody elses property ar~ start filling ar~ you should talk to Roger and that should be a part of your negotiations with the eogir._~_~r. ~hat's a difficult thing and you shouldn't have to not do it. Councilman (~eving: I don't think Gary is going to be unreasonable. It's a matter of two items here that I saw or so that had to be worked out. Cour~ilman Johnson: I don't see a problem in working 16 out. Item 11 might be a little more difficult. Cour~ilman ~eving: ~hat's an engineering problem. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilto~ seconded to approve the plans ar~ specifications for Carver Beach Estates dated Jttne 30, 1987 as recommeoded in the Consent Agenda with the conditions as pointsd out by the City Er~ineer and the applicant and the City Engineer will work out the items of conflict which are cor~itions 11 and 16. It~n 15 be modifed to read as follows: 45 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 15. The applicant will comply with Fire Safety Codes and ensure adequate fire protection. All voted in favor and motion carried. DISCUSSION REGARDING LICENSING BUILDING CONTRACTORS. Jim Chaffee: A little over a month ago we were approached, Staff was approached, specifically Public Safety by members of City Council to look at some alternatives for increasing local patrol of the building codes. It seemed at the time an incredibly complex issue but we did boil it down to a very simple objective. The objective was to insure quality construction of a verifiable nature to coincide with the long range plans of the City of Chanhassen's goals and I think when we looked at it we decided that what we do now could have some major impacts on what would happen in the future as far as the quality of life in Chanhassen would go. That evolved into a meeting with some members of the local building contractors in the city of Chanhassen. We invited four, two showed up but they were two of the major ones. F~mphill- Northern and Tomkay Builders. During that meeting Councilman Boyt was there, Mayor Hamilton, a member of our building inspector staff, myself and I think that was it but what it turned out to be in this discovery meeting was not only did we come up with some alternatives for increasing local control but we came up with some ideas involving insurance and just something we could get our teeth into that would insure that we would have quality construction in the City of Chanhasser~ To that end we discussed many issues, some that we weren't even aware of and we were surprised that the builders had brought up themselves. One of them was the lack of heating inspector or building requirement. If you will just let me, in the packet we went over, Councilman Bolt wrote up some of his notes from the meeting and he started from ground one or we started from ground one in that to insure quality construction, what it turned out to be I think was not so much alternatives for stricter enforcement. We came up that there were none so we did come up with some alternatives for some stricter enforcements. These are just some examples. What we're doing is throwing them out to the Council to discuss. We still have a little bit of research to do in this. Just going from the memo from Councilman Boyt we looked at basements and again, we're going from the basement on up. Some of these ideas were draintiles, sump pump systems to be required, block or poured concrete required for walls, 2 inch concrete floor requirements crawl space with the space properly ventilated. Mayor Hamilton: Before we get off that one. I think we talked about wood construction of basements and I don't think we all agreed there was nothing wrong with them it's just that they didn't like to do them. Tom said he had done some but he just didn't like them so he doesn't do them anymore so I'm not sure. Remit TOm said he didn't really have anything against them, I just don't like to do tb~m. He experimented with them and he just didn't care about them. Councilman Johnson: He built two. I live in one, he lives in the other. 46 179 City Oouncil Meeting - August 3, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: He does poured and I think most of them expressed that they just prefer to do either block or concrete. Councilman Geving: I want to talk a little bit about this 2 inch floor, do we have bullets that don't fill in that area? That leave it? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Councilman Geving: I would really agree with this. I didn't know they were doing that. Jim Chaffee: I'll tell you what was an eye opener was that storm' a week ago Thursday. We saw s~me of those. Councilman Johnson: qbe duplex next to my house which Tom built has this California crawlspace, it's just dirt underneath there. Jim Chaffee: Still on the points of basements, you say with properly ventilatio~ We did discuss tt~ concept of Raydon gas which is a concern of late. I have looked into getting some detectors and for $6~.~ we can get three detectors but it would take approximately 8 to 9 months to get a proper reading so we would ~ some volunteers to put some of these detectors in their basements but I think it would be a good idea just to see where tt~ City of C~m~sen sits as a concern with RaI~on gas. ~he secor~ item was main constructior6 Inspections of both subfloor ar~ underlayment, 2 x 6, 16 inch on center framing, douglas fir floor joist, 3/4 inch tongue ar~ groove or double layer subfloor made of chip board or plywood and fireplace inspection during construction. ~his would coincide with us maybe implementing a heating permit and a heat inspector. Heat and ventilation inspector. Again, we talked about clad wir~ows. Any questions so far? Going up to the roof, we talked about 1/2 inch or thicker plywood. Oxford or wafer board with hay slips. 20 year or better shingles. On the landscaping we talked about total sodding, not just sodding tl~ frontyard. If you'll look arour~ the City you'll ~ some new developments with beautifully sodded frontyards and horrendous weed growth in tb~ backyard~ It keeps our zoning people pretty busy. Mayor Hamilton: I think Hemphill said they sc~ the whole yard and Tom said he usually contracts 2,g~0 yards of sod or a credit. If be doesn't do the backyard be gives him credit so they can do it. He was flexible. He didn't care. H~ill does the whole yard. Councilman Geving: Can I go back to the main inspections again. On the fireplace inspection, I talked with Tom Klingelhutz on one or more occasions, he doesn't do many of these wood fireplace boxes anymore. Did he mention that to you? Jim Chaffee: What he mentioned Dale was that he doesn't know. He is not an expert in heating and ventilation ar~ fireplaces for that matter art] he did state that be thought the city of C~anhassen should have a heating inspector and that was echoed by th~ representative by Hemp~ill. 47 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Councilman Geving: Let me ask you this then Tom, do we have a lot of fire as a result of having the straight pipe that goes up ar~ it's surrounded by the wood all the way up through the chimney. Jim Chaffee: I couldn't tell you that. Councilman Geving: Fritz is here. Do you know Fritz, have we had much experience with that? Is that a problem Fritz? Fritz: It's a problem. Not the construction of the fireplace but the fact that people don't clean their chimneys. That's where the problem is. Jim Chaffee: (In the landscaping again I had total sodding. Hard surface driveway. Again, after this last storm a week ago Thursday, we saw a lot of driveways in our roadways. A daily clean-up with dumpster on-site. I think that's a must as did Hemphill and Tomkay Builders. As far as apartments, we were checking into the sour~proofing. We haven't done that as yet but we will be getting on that. What this meeting actually evolved into is we were looking at alternatives to stricter control. We actually decided that there really were none to insure or to get toward our objective. It also evolved into a looking at licensing contractors and builders in the city of Chanhassen. In our study we surveyed 12 communities. Of the 12 we found only 3 that at present license builders and contractors. Tnose three were Minneapolis, ~den Prairie and Columbia Heights. In the packet we have provided copies of the ordinances from all three. Some application forms for licensing bonding information. There is a lot of information and I understand the packets were a little late getting to you too so I apologize for that. I think as a last item I threw in there was the residential sprinkler system. It's something I've had lying on my desk that was a study conducted by the ISMA group and I thought that now is probably the time to start looking at something especially with the incredible growth that is occurring right now in the City of Chanhassen. With the foresight shown by the Council into providing a safe place for the citizens to live in now and in the future, we could really make our mark right now. That's where we stand for discussion. Councilman (~eving: Anything on electrical and plt~bing? Jim Chaffee: Electrical we decided that the State could handle that. Plumbing, we talked about plumbing. Right now we have I think he's 84 years old plumbing inspector who takes I think 80% of the plumbing permit fees right now. Tnat's something we're going to have to look into. Again, it's not a real big cost concern. None of this was a real big cost concern for the builders or to us as we were discussing it. We will have to, there are some spacing needs, I think I mentioned that in one of my memos, and there are some support needs from say secretarial depending on which route we take. Mayor Hamilton: Tne two buiders that were there were basically in favor of everything we discussed. It seems to me they were in favor of licensing generals and subs. Tney don't want to have the responsibility for the subs on them so they want the subs to be licensed and they had absolutely no 48 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 181 problem with that. It makes better for them because if the sub is licensed they only hire tt~ sub if the guy is licensed and can work in town ar~ be inspected and he doesn't have to worry about them. I think we're going in the right directioru I think some of ~ things we might even want to pass through the Public Safety Oommission because they may come up with some more ideas that they would want to input ar~ possibly have s~ne more people there. Jim Chaffee: Maybe the Planning (kmmission too. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to see the Public Safety Commission get it first I think ar~ have them make it a recommendation whether it goes to the Planning Commission or the Council. The more people that look at input the more information you're going to get. Councilman Boyt: I think we've still got some resources in our city yet to ~ Howard Noziska being one ar~ there are probably a few other people that can give us some very good input into this. I think you're on the right track. I appreciate th~ information on the fire sprinkler systems. Given the difficulty we have in recruiting additional people for our volunteer fire department, this really seems like an excellent way for us to be looking at developer. Jim Chaffee: In regards to the residential sprinkler systems, there is a trailer that travels around, I think the five state that has a residential sprinkler system set up in it and I don't know if you saw the papers maybe two weeks ago, the Sailor, where t/~ Mayor from Minnetcnka sat in this trailer when they lit the fire and that's what they do. They have volunteers ar~ t/~y light that fire ar~ they have you sit in there and in three seconds the fire is out. It's incredible. ~he fire is just blazing and it's out. It's out just like that. A lot of information, we'll be continuing the study and hopefully will come back after going through the Public Safety (kmmission and seeing what they recommend. CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE TH 212 ~ FOH/E. Mayor Hamilton suggested that a Council member and citizen at large be appointed to the Task Force. councilman Johnson volunteered for the council member due to his environmental concerns~ councilman Boyt suggested that Jo Ann Larson would be a good candidate for the citizen at large but the Council should still advertise. Mayor Hamilto~ was wonderir&3 if the citizen at large should be someone who is directly affected and and if someone directly affected could make decisions that are open minded ar~ look at both sides of the issue. Councilman (~eving stated that he knew of a couple of people who were interested in the appointment so there seamed to be a lot of citizen interest. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman (~eving seconded to appoint Councilman Johnson as the Council representative to the TH 212 Task Force and direct staff to advertise for a citizen at large representative. Ail voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who abstained ar~ motion carried. 49 182 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 DISCUSSION REGARDING WHOLESALE/RETAIL NURSERIES IN THE RURAL AREA, MAYOR HAMILTON. Mayor Hamilton: The next item is a discussion item regarding a request by a gentleman named Jay Kronick to put a nursery in the area and the piece of property that he's looking at is the property that Dave Luse owns out here west on TH 5 which is Natural Green Nursery. As you know Dave Luse, he wants to move to Chaska or to a different location because he doesn't have enough room here. Consequently he had talked to Jay Kronick who is here with us this evening. Jay lives in Baltimore, Maryland. Operates a business in Washington D.C~ and would like to move to Minnesota and have a nursery so we have discussed this and I have talked to Jay many times about it ar~ we wanted to just have a discussion with the Council to see if the Council might be amenable to granting a variance or changing the Zoning to allow retail on that parcel of property. What Jay is going to propose and he can speak for himself in a minute, is that he would like to live on the property. He would like to grow his materials on the property and sell them on the property. Before he moves ahead with purchasing the property, I thought it might be a good idea if he knew if he can do those things on the property so he doesn't all of a sudden own a piece of property where he can't realistically sell off of. Dave Luse of course has a wholesale operation and he has trucks and cars going in and out of there each day but on a wholesale basis. The trucks bring in his materials and they haul them out for big jobs. JaI~s would be more car traffic coming in to purchase your shurbs for your yard or your fertilizer or your bedding plants in the spring and would be that type of traffic so there would r~cd to be some improvement to the access if we were to allow a bunch of use on that property. Both getting in and getting out and Jay hasn't pursued that further because he wanted to kind of get the feeling from the Council as to where we might stand on consideration of this item so Jay would you like to make any additional conments? Jay Kronick: ~nanks for the opportunity to speak before you this evening. I think Tc~ has given you a good overlook of what I'm thinking of doing there. However, I would not intend to grow all of my own nursery stock. I think that would be bring a lot of it in. In fact a lot of it initially, raising nursery stock takes years and it's something I would start to get into right away but whether it would be 2 years or 5 years or 10 before I have anything available that I grew myself, that's up for question at this point. The lot is about a 5 acre parcel and I would propose using at the most 1 acre for the retail operation and that would be the part fronting on TH 5 on the southeast corner of the property. The rest of it would be residence and essentially agricultural garden lots. There are a couple of greenhouses back there at the back end of the property. As far as the physical structures on the property, I don't really anticipate any major changes. The old Chanhassen Railroad depot is on the property now and if it's a suitable building, code wise and so forth and meets my ~s as well I would be interested in simply moving it closer to the road and using that as a sales area and perhaps moving one of the greenhouses type structures or maybe putting another long but I'm not talking about increasing the physical use of the property. Tne buildings that are there would remain perhaps just a little bit of shuffling around on the site consistent with the local 50 183 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 ordinances ar~ so forth, I think Tom mentioned that the nature of the traffic would be different than what is presently on that site. Oertainly I would acknowledge the need to have a vehicle or two to move materials arour~ but something like what is existing on the site at present. The traffic that I would anticipate would be highly seasonal for one. In the spring certainly. Primarily on weekends and certainly access from the highway which is a busy one ar~ I know you've got some concerns and plans down the road, the traffic would move into a parking area on the property and they would not be moving all arour~] the property as I see it. I would inte~] to live on the property. There is a residence there and that needs improvements which I would make once I was assured of being able to proceed with this and that's my intent to live ar~ work on the same parcel. Mayor Hamilton: I asked Jay not to bring any specific plans. ~'s done a few sketches that I've seen but I said really it's a question of whether or not the Council would like to see or allow retail sales on that parcel. We would be kir~ of getting ahead of ourselves. If Jay were to hear some favorable comments that he thought we might be able to have some retail sales there then he would come back and show us how he would configure the property ar~ charge the buildings around. Councilman Geving: I think my comment would be, some time ago we took Dave Luse to court and negotiated a settlement whereby he could stay on that property for 10 years. ~he 10 years will be up in I believe 1995 and at that time we were hoping that our develolament of the city would be moving to the west and that there would be commercial development probably filling in that area to the west of Lake Ann ar~ further west even than that but that was why we agreed on a 10 year period so I don't know how I personally feel about amending zoning ar~ looking long tem~ I suspect once you moved in there your intention would be to be in the wholesale/retail tree business for quite a long time. Jay Kronick: I think it would be the retail end of it ar~ not the wholesale. I would not inter~ to sale wholesale. There are certainly enough growers in the area who are doing that kind of thing and where I see the market need in this area would basically be a retail operation. Councilman Geving: Like a Frank's. Jay Kronick: I make a distinction from Frank's in that it wouldn't be quite on th~ scale, different quality. Councilman Geving: You're talking more about landscaping type trees like they have now out there with tt~ Blue Spruces? Jay Kronick: You talk big trees and then you start talking about heavy equipment and Ihn looking in more the types of things homeowners can come out and buy themselves. Plants in 5 gallon containers. Bedding plants. All the gardening supplies. Councilman Geving: Who owns that property directly west? Does anybody know? Where you see all these trees? Is that Gore who has put all those 51 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 trees in? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Councilman Geving: Okay, so the area would be confined to just the basic Dave Luse property frGn the Ray Kerbers over to Gore's property line? Jay Kronick: Yes. Councilman Geving: I don't know. I don't know how the Planning Commission or anybody else could look at this in terms of long term plans for the City. How is it zoned now? Barbara Dacy: It' s zoned RR. Councilman Geving: But wasn't it our plan though Barb that someday that would probably be co~nercial along there? Barbara Dacy: Let me just say that the RR district was created, it's boundary was created consistent with the boundary of the service area of the Lake Ann Interceptor knowing that that area would be served and that there would be residential develo~nent. There has not been specific plans or consideration that I'm aware of by the Planning Commission in looking at what types of land uses should occur where. In order to accomodate the type of retail use that is being proposed, a zoning ordinance amendment for a garden center would have to be proposed in the RR district. Councilman Boyt: Dale, I'm amazed at your memory about something that happens so long ago. If you're looking at 1995, I think what I hear Dale saying is that in 1995 something drmatically different could happen to that piece of proprty. Is that right? Councilman Geving: Yes. Councilman Boyt: So I gather regardless of our feeling about whether this is a retail possibility right now that everything changes 7 years down the road. Jay Kronick: If Mr. Luse continues to own the property. Barbara Dacy: The terms of th~ settlement agreement is that it can continue the following described business operation by the subject property until January 1, 1995 or until the property is sold, whichever first occurs. Now landscaping contractor yards are a conditional use in the A-2 district but again, contractor yards are not conditional use in the RR nor the garden center type of usage which he is proposing. Councilman Boyt: I think we've seen in Eden Prairie that a garden center holds a piece of ground until it becomes too valuable and then you get a shopping center there or whatever. We're talking about this being next to possibly single family residential of some sort, is that right? Dale says comnercial development but it's currently zoned for that kind of thing. 52 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 18'5 Barbara Dacy: It's for large lot. Councilman Boyt: Large lot but not commercial. Barbara Dacy: As an interim basis until the Lake Ann Interceptor can be hooked into. Mayor Hamilton: I think you r~ to consider, it sits on TH 5 and TH 5 is going to be widened someday ar~ that's the type of development that follows along the highway is generally not residential right on the highway. Councilman Boyt: I'm pleased to hear you say that TH 5 is going to be widened someday. I think we're moving in the right direction. I would sure like to hear the issues flushed out on this thing. I think the Planning Oommission is the place that does that. I really have no feel for the background here. I trust what Dale has said so I can't give you much insight about where I would c~me down. It's an interesting idea. Jay Kronick: You're concerned that I move in there, I work the property for 5 to 10 years and land values jump and I move out and put in a shopping center? Councilman Boyt: No, that's really not my concern. ~hat lb okay with. My concern is right, the situation as it s~ right now ar~ is this something that w~ want to do as a city. Actually I don't know. Councilman Johnson: I have thought personally about this area ar~ future, if and when other major highways are built, is what we're planning reasonable for that area ar~ I've always thought that we should be looking better at what should be going in there. ~he Pryzmus area and these other areas, he's trying to get a commercial use into the RR, or not he's across the street from R[L He's off in A-2 again but I personally don't have a lot of, I think it's a reasonable use on a major highway. Put a garden center up on Galpin or off of 67th Street or Lake Lucy Road, other places within the RR district I think would not be appropriate but off of the major highway there, I think retail is more appropriate. ~here would be some costs I believe in putting a turn lane coming on so the roads aren't slowing down and stopping on TH 5 before turning in. Jay Kronick: I had that problem myself when I~ trying to visit property. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I got rear ended less than a year ago so I'm very cautious about places where you slow down in front of people who are going fast. My personal feeling is that whole area along 'ih 5 should be looked at as to what the near term ar~ long term uses should be. Not necessarily just this one property or if we do have a change to allow retail businesses within RR districts, that that should be confined only to RR districts with access to certain types of roads so we don't get a garden center or a convenience store or whatever out on Lake Lucy Road or 67th Street or Tanadoona or someplace like that. That's the way I feel. I think it's appropriate at that area but I agree with Bill, I think the Planning 53 186 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Co~ission is a good place to look at that. Councilman Geving: I think eventually we're going to have a strip all the way from downtown Chanhassen to TH 4L Pretty well filled in with commercial development. Small businesses, offices, whatever. I just think it's going to be a natural progression. Maybe it will work out from TH 41 and work backwards, I don't know but I see that whole corridor as being built eventually. Mayor Hamilton: Tnat's true and I like the idea of having a garden store in town, as Jay knows. We don't have a nursery here. We have to go some distance to buy plant materials and plants and bedding plants and everything in the spring and I certainly like to see one in town, especially where the person who is going to operate it is going to live in your town right on the property. There is also the possibility, if the Council or the Planning Commission were not to want to see retail sales off of there, I think Jay has other option to still do some growing there and to live there and to have another location for his retail. Jay Kronick: Obviously it increases cost to operate two sites at once. Councilman ~eving: It might be a better alternative though Jay for a short te~m operation. Short term, I'm always speaking in terms of 10 years. Mayor Hamilton: I guess it's hard to tell the way the town is growing so fast how quickly we're going to develop the area out there. The MUSA line has to change before we can do anything with it and it's supposed to be the year 2000. Whether or not it goes that long, who knows. We continue to try and change that but right now it doesn't look too promising but I think that's a nice use for that land. He would just be growing plant materials and plants there, I think it's a nice use of the land. Jay Kronick: It consistent with the existing use of the land. Councilman Geving: It is consistent but I think Bill it right on the head, it's just like Dale Green and some of the others that we've seen, when their properties became so valuable to them, it was easier to sell and put a bank building in and move on further west than it was to continue in the nursery business. (~ the short term, as long as you understand that's the economics of it and someway you could come in, 5 years from now and say I'm getting out of this business, I've just moved out. I'm moving onto Cologne. Councilman Johnson: Could I ask you a question, the lawsuit that you referred to earlier, what was the basis and what were we trying to stop or prevent? Were w~ trying to prevent retail or what? Councilman Geving: We were trying to prevent the Dave Luse operation from existence. Barbara Dacy: At that time contractor's yards were not a permitted use, or I should say a conditional use. 54 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 187 Councilman Geving: W~ had a different set of rules too. Mayor Hamilton: Dsve Luse is, in my opinion a hell of a nice guy and he just kind of goes along. He's kind of like Pryzmus only not as outspoken. The rules apply to everybody else except him and he was a council person in Victoria for a number of years. He started his operation here and he just kind of kept growing with it ar~ we would tell him he can't do it ar~ he would say oh, okay. The next time you went out there he grew some more so it just kind of drifted on ar~ it got out of hand and we ended up taking him to court a few times. He really is a heck of a nice guy, he just couldn't stop growing was his problem. He had a good business and it was going like crazy. It still is. I don't know if that helped you a lot Jay. I had hoped we would get more specific yes or no. When does the Planning Cc~mission meet again Barbara? Barbara Dacy: He hasn't made application. Mayor Hamilton: ! just asked you when the Planning Commission met. Barbara Dacy: ~he second and fourth Wednesdays of every month. Mayor Hamilton: I was wondering what date that was. Councilman Johnson: Can they consider the same way we considered it? Informally discuss it without an application to give Jay a feel? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Jay is going to be here for a couple of weeks so you may have the opportunity to get on tt~ agenda ar~ just discuss it with them and get their feelings also. DISCUSSI~ ~ PROPERTY ~ THE S(X3THWEST~RNER~ ~ 7AND~41, ~YOR HAMILTON. Mayor Hamilton: This is a piece of property that we've looked at a few times previously at the Council. The applicant would like to develop the property and the homeowners in the area continue to fight the retail development of tt~ property, in fact, almost any development of the property. So I had told Tom Wartman and Todd Thompson that we would be happy to have the Council give their views on that intersection one more time to see if there is any sentiment for retail which they are proposing, what seems to me to be the reasonable way to develop that corner. The property is currently zoned primarily for commercial use which is office buildings ar~ other such structures. At the present time the market is not in very good shape for office buildings and I think the applicants may have a good case in saying that it's a taking since they can't use the property, put the property to use so they can use it. ~ey can build apartment buildings there ar~ leave thsm sit empty and lose all their money which doesn't ~--~cm to me to he a very good thing to do and I'm sure it doesn't for them either. So I had just told them that we would discuss it again ar~ I 55 188 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 would like to get the Council's feelings on this parcel to just give them a better flavor for where the Council may be at today and what types of things the Council would be amenable to listening to and not listening to. I felt it would be an easier quorum for us to discuss it just amongst ourselves rather than having the neighborhood in here beating the drums. I do notice that one of the neighbors up there, and I don't remember the guys name, has some property for sale now just to the south of your property. What's that guys name? Gary Reed. He fought their develolmnent previously but now has his own property for sale supposedly for commercial development so things are changing. It's a nice corner and of course traffic continues to increase on that corner and it ~ccms to be a good solid retail development corner. Jay, why don't I start with you. Councilman Geving: Have they got a proposal? A specific proposal? Mayor Hamilton: No. I didn't ask them to come in with a specific proposal. You saw the last proposal they had included retail. Like a strip shopping center and there would be retail and there would be some office space. I think there was one building that was some office on the west side. Councilman Johnson: I saw a lot of this last year as I sat through many of those meetings. I was involved in a neighborhood that was in fighting also at the same time so I can sympathize a little with the neighbors. I see the biggest problem as transportation. As the transportation safety problems, I almost got rear ended out on TH 7 a while back. As usual, somebody behind me was talking to his wife instead of looking in front of him and I looked in my rearview window as I was taking a left turn and sure enough he was still doing 60 behind me. Those are going to be some tough issues there. I really see that as some of the toughest. I thought that you had worked out a lot of the problems as far as I was concerned. I personally believe that it's inevitable that we're going to have some development other than single family housing on that corner. Mayor Hamilton: Let me ask you a question. If the ingress and egress on that property off of TH 7 and onto TH 7 and on to and off of TH 41 could be resolved to your satisfaction, would you be in favor of a retail center on that property?. A strip center with some commercial? I don't want to get into specifics, I'm just saying generally retail. Councilman Johnson: In general yes. It's really a tough situation there and they are really going to have some heavy traffic counts when you get towards any kind of fast food type of applications and things like that which was mentioned previously. Tnat becomes very tough. I think the main issue with me is the traffic safety. I'll leave it at that, I did not prevote anything here. Mayor Hamilton: I don't expect you to. I'm just saying if all those things could be resolved, the traffic and there's no question they are a problem, you feel that that could be retail and commercial combined or retail like a strip shopping center like we were looking at for Retail West or on the James Property. 56 189 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Councilman Johnson: I actually liked their last proposal. It is tough for people to say that they're going to build a shopping center behind me but progress has got to be made. ~hat is a very marketable corner. I don't know if it would be good for single family housing in that it's such a busy intersection. I'm not 100% in favor of single family housing. I think they have legitimate gripes. Councilman (~eving: Well, I think there are four or five things that we have to consider in this develo~xnent- You've got a lot of very concerned people in that area who are vocal, as you well know. It is primarily a single family neighborhood ar~ those people will fight to k~ that separation. I think that's the next point that I'll make is that if the project was done properly with a showing to the neighborhood that there is a go(x] separation between the proposed business and the existing homeowners and the impact of the very close neighbors, I~n talking about the neighbors that would be affected most, which is directly to the west. That's the key to this development. I don't believe that the Reeds play as big a part in this as some of the other homeowners but if the development was nicely done, quality type operation and maybe not sc~ething that you would rehash ar~ bring back to us with something that's not new, I don't think it would have a chance of passing but if it were something that you dish up as something new. Something a little bit better quality or could sell the quality angle keeping it separate from the homeowners. Low density. Good mix of whatever you're proposing and not just a gas station. I don't know. I looked at that area several times since we voted on the issue ar~ obviously nothing has happened there in several years now. I'm afraid it will continue to lie idle so there has to be a better use for that property and I think we have to be realistic that there is a better use somewhere. What I%n saying to you people is, bring us back a new proposal. Don't rehash the old proposal, it will die. It will never get pass first base but bring us back something that's good quality, low density, good separation from the existing homes and I think it has a chance of being talked about and discussed further. That's all. Councilman Boyt: I think the critical issue here is the neighbors. It bas ~_n all along. The property is certainly commercially viable. I believe that there are some issues that ~ to be worked out a~d I don't know that the neighbors ur~erstar~ them. I don't know that I understand them but I do know that to vote on it we've got to be able to show that there is a significant portion of the neighborhood that supports it. It doesn't have to be the people right next door to it. I think you've talked a good deal about beming. You've talked about sight line. You've talked about routing the traffic to lower the traffic by the residential neighborhood. You've done a lot to try and meet the neighborhood ar~ to me tl~ key issue is let's find some neighbors who are going to come in ar~ support this thing. You represent a substantial economic resource to Chanhasse~ to get something done on that corner and I think the Council and the neighborhood ~s to come to grips with whatever we're going to do there and get it done. Whatever that is so as I've said all along you deserve a decision. You deserve it from this Council and I would be all for getting on with it so we can work the problems out. 57 190 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Councilman Geving: I think one of the things that I've seen over a long period of time is where the developer has come in knowing that they've got a lor~3 history of opposition, where the developers have worked with the neighbors. I mean really gone almost door to door and held some meetings with the people and talk to the people. Tell them what you're proposing and ask them for their advice. You have to ask them. Be pleasant about it and I think if you can get them to support you and work with you, I think that's what we'll hear and I've seen proposals come through like that where on the night we vote on it nobody shows up. They are completely satisfied so it's a selling job that you have to do before it ever gets to our situation here. That's all I'm going to tell you because that works. Mayor Hamilton: I have a couple comments. I think everybody who has tried to develop this property has worked with the neighbors and the neighbors have not been satisfied with any proposal and I think if everybody came to them on bended knee they still wouldn't be satisfied with it no matter if you took them all out to lunch and dinner for months on end and they still wouldn't support your darn project and no matter how nice it was or not nice it was. Personally I'm 100% behind the project. I think it's a great place for retail and I think we need to remember that resident opposition to a proposed plan does not in itself mean that it should be turned down. Tnat is not a means of turning down a project legally. It's a taking of property. The residents can voice their opinions but you still have to base your vote on the project on what your ordinance says you can do and not on public opinion. I just feel that no matter who brings the project in on this parcel, no matter what it looks like, whether it's the last one they brought in and brought it in again, whether they redo the whole plat and bring in a completely new one, the neighbors are going to oppose it. We've told the neighbors previously if they don't like what they see they ought to buy the property themselves. They're not willing to buy the property so I feel it's time that the Council stood up and was counted and we moved ahead with this project and gave these fellows some support in developing that corner. It's about time we got going and I think they have had to put up with enough grief from the neighbors and the council and everybody else and they ~ some support and I'm willing to give it to them. Councilman Geving: But Tom you have to be a little bit realistic. We represent the people and the people are the ones who vote for us and call us up and tell us what their wishes are and what they would like to see done and we listen to that. We will always listen to that. I don't even know if these gentlemen live in Chanhassen. I'm talking people who live here, pay taxes here and vote for the people who are sitting at this table. They are the ones who are going to call you and I think as long as we represent those people, we have to hear from them. What I'm proposing is that these fellows continue to go back and try to sell their program to them one more time. I think timing is really important. I don't know when the best time to sell a project is. Look back to when we tried it before and analyze if you can what went wrong. Maybe the timing was poor. Maybe what you don't realize is a lot of those people go south in the wintertime. Maybe the time to sell a project is in December. I don't know. I have no idea but what I'm telling you is timing is very important. 58 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I think that one of the confusing factors here is the neighborhood has to come to grips with the development of the corner. Once that is handled then how the corner is developed becc~ea a less volatile issue then if it's going to be developd at all. The City Council said, I gather some time in the last year or so, that the corner could be developed and if it's going to be developed with a different kind of commercial development than the developers would like to have. Now I think it's up to the City Council, if we're really going to bite the bullet on this, to carry the burden of saying we're going to zone that so that the kind of development that ~s to go in there, that is economically justified to go in there can go in there. ~ how it's developed bec~es another issue ar~ until we come to grips with how we're going to zone that piece of property ar~ sort of take our lumps if we decide to zone it differently than what neighborhood would like to have it zoned, then I don't think these guys are going to, based on what you've said, I don't think they're going to make it. Mayor Hamilton: A couple more comments. ~here are three things that ~s to be accomplished I guess. I've ~ UP there now on several times driven down Oriole Lane or whatever the street is that goes down there and gosh, I'll tell you, the hill goes up behind their homes right now. You can't see TH 41 and you can't see TH 7 until you get right over to TH 7. They proposed even more berming and the commercial building would be on that side. I can't for the life of me figure out how they can complain about' noise or whatever it was they were complaining about, that far away from the road. They can't ~ a darn thing now and they're not going to cut the hill down, it's going to stay there so I had a real problem with that. I think they're complaining about something that isn't a problem and I think being realistic ar~ they're not. Councilman Johnson: My back-yard syndr(m~e. Mayor Hamilton: That's true and I guess I've listened to the neighbors up there on the last couple times this has been proposed ar~ I tried to listen to all their comments ar~ weigh things out ar~ I probably didn't weigh them out right. I think Bill hit on it when he says it's just time for us to listen to the experts. Our Planning Staff has told us that that's a retail and commercial corner. The people who are in the business of doing these types of things say it's a retail and commercial corner. It's ideal. It's prime. Probably one of the best sites in the Twin Cities area that's left on TH 7 and they're in the business of doing this. I guess lb more inclined to listen to them than I am to the neighbors who aren't number one going to buy the property ar~ haven't ~ willing, to this point, to lists~ to any development proposed for that corner so I agree, I think we should get on with it and I hope these comments have helped you and maybe you have s~me things Tom you would like to pass on. Tom Wartman: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, we certainly appreciate your comments. ~he major interest that has been expressed in the property has ~ retail type uses, especially with th~ school commitment now ar~ the reopening, we've got basically a projection of 900 to 1,0~ fifth and sixth graders coming to that are=~ We feel there is a real need for convenience neighborhood type uses. We fully intend to work closely with the staff as 59 192 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 well as the neighbors to show them, as the plan develops, in a very quality form and deal with a lot of the concerns that have been expressed tonight and to come back through the Planning Commission and Council with ~ plan that I think the City will be proud of, we can be proud of as developers and the neighborhood will be proud of as well and address as many concerns as we possibly can in the planning process so we appreciate the time and the co~nents. Todd ~nompson: I just wanted to address Dale for a minute. I spent the last three years trying to work with these people. I have ~n beat up to the point where you can not imagine. I have gone into every one of their h~nes. I've shared everything that I possibly ever dreamt of doing there. I've tried everything I can to work with these people. They have blackmailed me. They've threatened me. It's gotten to the point where we have absolutely no way of talking and this is really why I have gotten involved with Tom. He's done a number of quality developments. I have exhausted my time. Councilman Geving: If you have then there is nothing more that I can advise you to do I guess. Todd ~nompson: I've had meeting after meeting. I've had meetings here with the neighborhood. I've had meetings on the site. They don't have any way of listening to reason. Mayor Hamilton: Todd has told me and I hope this is true, that he was in the grocery store shopping and one of the neighbors came up to him and told him if you paid me the right amount of money I would back you on this. Is that correct? Todd Thompson: It's not just one. It's to the point where it's out and out extortion and you've given them the authority to do this in a certain way. It's gotten to the point where s~mething has to change. Councilman (~eving: I think the thing that has to change here is the historical bringing up, we've had what is it two years since this was turned down or rezoned. Tom Wartman: A littel over a year. Councilman Geving: Okay, whatever the time but in that time nothing has happened really because of the economics of the zoning. Nothing can happen and I think that's the strongest point that you have to present to the Planning Commission and the Council that it's just not going to develop the way it ' s been zoned. Mayor Hamilton: And I think you can show office is not going to apply there. It just won't go there. There is so much empty office space, it's not the way to go. Tom Wartman: We plan to take a fresh approach and we're going to bring this to see what we can come forward with so we're going to take a positive 60 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 193 Mayor Hamilton: I think you'll find a good reception from the cityl N~xt item, Bill wanted to talk about items 3 and 4 on the age~ These were items that were on the Board of Review this evening. ~hey were passed but Bill wanted to make some c(~ments about the~ or maybe about the process. Councilman Boyt: Well both. Taings about the process and about these particulars. I would like to get clarification ar~ I understand there are some disagreement about intrepretation of this. I think you can read our ordinance ar~ interpret what we are asking the Board of Adjustment ar~ Appeals to do, that we're asking them to review it. If they unanimously approve it then we are saying we can put that on a consent ager~]a, the City Council agrees and passes. There is some question as to whether the City Council needs to vote on it to approve it or whether the City Council can retrieve them and vote on them if a member wants to. I would like to see that issue clarified and I appreciate the opportunity that T~m has given me to talk about two items that were passed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The first one is item 3 ar~ staff, the way I interpret this, you missed a key point and that is the drawing that I see in item number 3, this person is within 26 1/2 feet roughly of a pond. I don't see anything in the variance about the wetland. Jo Ann Olsen: That's not a wetlar~. Councilman Boyt: A pond is not a ~=tland? Jo Ann Olsen: It's not a designated protected wetlar~. Councilman Boyt: It's not a designated pond? Jo Ann Olsen: It's not protected. It was a marmade pond. Councilman Boyt: It's a drainge pond? If we took Dr. Rockwell out there, are you telling me that she would say that that is not a wetland? She evaluates and bases on what she sees right now. You said that earlier this evneing. You said if she walks out tlmre ar~ sees that there is no wetland vegetation as on that lake lot that we looked at, it is not a wetlar~. Does that mean that if she walks out and sees wetland vegetation, that it is then a wetland? Barbara Dacy: If it is manmade and has been created during the construction process, our guidelines for recreating wetlamls have not ~n implemented until the last year. Now maybe during the process of nature there may have ~ some reed grasses. I don't recall seeing any though. If you want us to ver i fy we can. Councilman Boyt: I think the difference in the issue is are we giving a 3.4 foot variance to a rearyard setback or are we giving a 30 foot or almost a 50 foot variance to our Wetlands Ordinance? TO me that makes a difference. 61 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Barbara Dacy: We are confident that it was a rearyard setback variance. Believe me we double check on wetlam]s. Councilman Boyt: I believe you. Well, if we're talking 3.4 feet on a rear yard ar~ not a wetlar~, then I can let 3 ride. Now may we look at 4? Councilman Johnson: I wouldn ' t have passed 3. Councilman Boyt: You wouldn't have passed 3? Well, you ar~ I need to talk Jay because I think we have maybe a common thought about these variances but the two of us are not going to make a difference given there are two people who would vote to support the variance. Councilman Johnson: My stand on variances have been very consistent. If it's a self created hardship, I don't vote for it. Tnis is as self created as anyone... Mayor Hamilton: Well, we're getting off on something else that we aren't here to discuss tonight but something which we may want to discuss in the future and that is our whole variance process and the Board of Review and Appeals process. Councilman Boyt: All I'm asking is if one of these seems to strike a cord of sensitivity that we then put it on a future agenda and give the person an opportunity to come in and present it. Number 4, I think gets a lot closer to that. We are admittedly in 4 looking at a less than desirable situation' already and can you tell when this house was built? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't have the exact date. Councilman Boyt: Well, I mean ballpark it. Jo Ann Olsen: I would say 40's. Councilman Boyt: And I would gather that at the time it was built there was either no regulation. Jo Ann Olsen: No regulation. Councilman Boyt: Now do we have a problem with run-off from cars sitting on asphalt that are within 5 feet of lakeshore? Jo Ann Olsen: I'm sure it's not desirable. I don't know if we do or not. Councilman Boyt: They are moving it. It's not that it isn't an improvement, it's that there is still... Jo Ann Olsen: And the garage is going to enclose the cars that have stored outside. Councilman Boyt: Okay, they are 28 feet from lakeshore and they have a parking area there and our ordinance says very clearly that we're talking 75 62 195 City Council Mseting - August 3, 1987 feet. I personally have, I grant you that they are in a difficult situation and all the things that they said they do, they improved the site, I agree with you, but the site shouldn't be improved, it shouldn't be developed any more than it already is. We're not donying them tbs ability to use that property. They are using it right now. We're simply denying them the ability to build more on it and my understate]lng is that they are increasing the amount of covered surface out there. Is that correct? They have not greatly reduced the asphalt. They have changed the location of it but they still have a two car parking area and I would like to ~ us, as a Council, consider this as a future ager~]a item. How do I go about doing that? Mayor Hamilton: As I mentioned to you earlier, I think we ~ to talk about the whole process. I guess you could request that this item be placed on the agenda as an item as anybody can request any item. ~be applicant then ~s to be told that they have to come back because you want to have it reconsidered or have it considered even though it's bccn approved. I guess I don't know the legalities of that. That's the whole thing I have a problem with is we've got a process that we've been following and suddenly or~ of the councilmembers wants to change .it ar~ not that that's wrong but I think we ~ to go through a process also of changing it to make sure we're doing things correctly. The fact that you're penalizing one person for the process so why don't we change the process? I guess I would want to hear from Roger how we go about charging tt~ process ar~ what we do with this one particular it~n that Bill would like to have more discussion. Councilman Geving: Tom, if you change the process th~n you might as well do away with the entire Board of Adjustments and Appeals. If it gets to that point where it can be challonged after it's ~ approved by a panel of three people and we set up those rules when we wont through this whole process less than a year ago, now it's being challenged by one councilmember and let's say that he's able to convince two other councilmembers that it should be denied after it was approved, then I think we ought to throw out the whole datum process because we're wasting our time as a Board of Adjustment and Appeals. I would sutanit to you Bill, if you really feel strongly about this, I would be happy to step down as a board member and let you take my place and let you listen to the appeals as they come through. I guarantee you, a year from now you will speak differently than what you are today. After you see some of the situations that c~ne in time after time and you realize that the board is set up to do one thing and that is to alleviate the Council from having to consider seine of these very picky, very unusual circumstances that require a variance and it's totally logical that you should grant it because there is no other alternatives in many cases. It's a reaso_na_ble thing to do and I fully mean that when I say you can very easily ar~ happily sit in my chair for the next year ar~ be a member of this board and see these variance requests coming across and I ~_m_rantee you that you will see tbs~ differently. Wouldn't you say Tom? Tonight for example you had three requests and I think they were all reasonable and now we're getting some guidelines from our attorneys that basically says that if it's a matter of taking, evon a hint of taking, you don't have any choice so you're going to pass those immediately. So where we used to have some authority or at least some discretion, that's been pretty much taken away from us. Like I said Bill, if the whole process is challenged ar~ it's 63 1.96 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 successful then I think we ought to just get rid of the whole Board of Adjustments and Appeals. We're wasting our time if a councilmember can challenge an it~n after it's been approved. Mayor Hamilton: I think if Bill were to sit on it perhaps in a year you would change you mind. I think when you sit on that board you have to be reasonable. You have to use good common sense and you're going to use the ordinance as a guideline and I think those are some really important things to keep in mind. People are property owners and they have a right to use their property even though we have ordinances to develop control at it, the ordinances can also be used strictly as a guideline so when that variance request comes up you can kind of fit things in a little differently but you have to look at the whole process. I think that's what all the members have done. Willard Johnson, I don't know if you know him but he is very tough about these things. He goes out and inspects every property thoroughly. He takes his job very serious. No question about it and Willard is very tough as nails on all of these. Councilman Geving: He doesn't let them go by unless they are reasonable and the other thing is that you have an opportunity to go out to Red Cedar Point and walk across that property and look at it for yourself and see you've really got a problem here. What you're proposing is reasonable and a heck of an improvement over what you've got now and that's generally the way it looks once you get on the ground with t~. Don Ashworth: I would like to have the City Attorney give us an opinion on the section that Bill is bringing up. I would also like to do a review as to when an item is passed, some of the comments of the Council at that point in time. I do feel that this item though is done. If you could debated it earlier and had an appeal at that point in time but I think at this point in time we' re only talking about future applications. Councilman Boyt: I don't understand what you mean by done. They just did this tonight. Councilman Johnson: You have 10 days in order to appeal the decision. Councilman Boyt: What we're saying is that I think the Council as a whole needs to look at this particular issue so I don't think it's done. Now you can tell me that it' s done ... Mayor Hamilton: We'll ask Roger that question and find out. Barbara Dacy: Just one clarification on the bottom of the ager~as even since I've ~cn here this has been the same language under the asterick. If this item is unanimously approved by the Board it will be deleted from this agenda. I think that reflects current policy but the Attorney can settle the issue. Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to hear from the Attorney on this issue. 64 197 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 SOUTHWEST COMMUNITIES COALITION UPDATE, CITY PIANNER. Barbara Dacy: There are two options that Mr. Boland had suggested. It scums from other communities that the secor~ option seems to be the preference from other agencies and that's the recommended option also. I think the big issue is how to get this group organized and underway. That's the point of this consideration this evening and be agreeable to that option. Councilman Johnson: I like between the two. I would like to keep Barbara involved. Your involvement would continue with the group would it not so you continue the planners group would actually continue but there would also be another group in addition so option 2 includes opti~ 1 more or less. Barbara Dacy: Yes, option 2 would be more formalized for maybe 2 or 3 meetings during the year or as issue arise, maybe more ofter~ The point of number 2 is to make sure that the councilmembers would have hands on infonnation ar~ would be able to communicate effectively. Councilman Johnson: In that case I like option 2. Councilman (~eving: I agree wholeheartedly with option 2 amd I recommend that this council would promote the Mayor to be considered as the elected official on this Southwest Coalition. That's all. Mayor Hamilton: I agree with Jay, I think 1 and 2, we certainly want to keep the planning people involved and if we can have har~s on. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept option 2 for the Southwest Communities Coalition. All voted in favor and motion carried. (2{ANHASSEN ~CONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ~2, EXPAND BOOl~)ARIES, DISCUSSION. CITY MANAGRR AND ACCEPTANCE OF FEASIBILITY S~3DY FOR PARKING IMPROVEM~qTS NORTH OF WEST 78TH ST~.RT. Mayor Hamilton: I think basically what it boils down to, and Don can tell you better than I but we have or will have approximately $8~,0~.~ available in that district when it expires. Rather than giving that money back to Hennepin County and we may get 15% of it at best after they distribute the rest of the funds, we should combine that district with the downtown and use those monies ourselves for our downtown district which we can use'it for a~d which we ~ it for. Councilman Johnson: I~n going to put myself in the Eden Prairie School District's shoes and I'm going to sue the hell out of you for it. Don Ashworth: You' re not going to win. Councilman Johnson: As long as you're totally confident on that. Don Ashworth: lb hearing Council say that they like tt~ idea ar~ to go ahead with the expansion. The second item is to accept the feasibility 65 198 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 study and order a public hearing for August 24th for the downtown. Resolution #87-81: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to expand the existing Economic Development District to include certain parcels within the downtown area and to accept the feasibility study for parking lot improvements on the north side of West 78th Street ar~ to authorize August 24, 1987 as the public hearing for this project. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving: Just a quick update on the Lotus Lake Boat Access, are we going to keep it closed off for one week and then what happens? Don Ashworth: We anticipate opening it this weekend. We'll have DNR out on Wednesday. The decision will be made at that point. It appears as though the lake is close or has significant reduced in elevation. CONSENT AGENDA: (H) APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR CURRY FARMS ADDITION, CENTEX HOMES. Councilman Boyt: I want to just look at one point, number 18. Parkland and trail fees. I don't think they should get any parkland dedication credit and I don't think they should get any trail fee credit. I reference Saddlebrook and others where we have been very relunctant to give trail credit. They gave, as I recall, something like 6 acres of park. We don't have anybody from Park and Rec here to tell us about this but my understanding is that that's just not enough to get the park fee w~ived. Mayor Hamilton: I would agree if that's the case. Councilman Boyt: It says under 16, parkland 6.3 plus or minus acres. Councilman Johnson: What was the required parkland? Gary Warren: 6.38 acres of active parkland. Councilman Johnson: And they are doing total grading? Gary Warren: Total grading and drainage. Councilman Johnson: Ar~ ponding. Gary Warren: Restoration. Councilman Johnson: Tney are seeding it with grass seed, plain grass seed so when we get there all we have to do is provide the equipment. For the .08 acres they're not giving us. Mayor Hamilton: They're giving trails. Councilman Johnson: What are they doing on the trails? 66 199 City Council Meeting -August 3, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: They're going to put trails alorg Powers Bl~d., 20 feet off-street trail easement along Lake Lucy Road and 6 foot wide trail connection betwee~ the park to Bretton Way ar~ Stratton Place ar~ an off- stret trail along Stockbridge Road. There are trails all through the plat. Councilman Boyt: They give us trail easements. That doesn't cost them anything. Councilman Johnson: Are they constructing trails on those easements? not for giving any trail fees. Councilman Boyt: F~w about half on the parks and no trail? Councilman G~ving: I w~uld agree. Don Ashworth: Didn't the Council discuss this? Councilman Geving: No, we've never really discuss this particular item. ~nis came as a surprise to me. Don Ashworth: I though you had pushed for the 5~%. Councilman Coving: That's why I say, I couldn't believe this when I read it but it got pulled up. Barbara Dacy: The 100%, as Bill said, was the Park ar~ Rec Commission's recomme~tio~ I know the developer ar~ Lori were talking about this issue. I don't know all the details. Gary Warren: I was taking that direction. I guess in reviewing the Minutes when Tc~ Boyce was here, there was discussion between Council and Mr. Boyce about the park credit and it got to th~ point where Mr. Boyce was saying if that wasn't the understar~ing ths~ we would have to get back in renegotiation because they were definitely of the opinion that they were getting credits for the park based on grading of the park ar~ There wasn't any formal council motion per se. Don Ashworth: Can we put this on the next city council ager~a? Mayor Hamilton: Or approve it contingent upon resolving that one issue. That issue has to be resolved and it has to come back on the Consent Agenda to our satisfaction. Councilman Geving: With the recomm~tion from the Council that it be reduced to 50%. Councilman Boyt: 50% park and no trail credit. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the DeveloI~nent Contract for Curry Farms Addition, contex Homes contingent upon resolving the park and trail dedication issues. That it be brought back on a future consent agenda with the City Council's recommendation of 50% park dedication and no trail credit. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. 67 200 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.. Sutmitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 68