1i. City Council Minutes Dated September 11, 1995l ti
l
CHANHASSEN C117Y COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
' SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, and Councilwoman
Dockendorf
' COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Berquist
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Charles
' Folch, John Rask, and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda
amended to delete item 8, City Hall Expansion, per Councilman Berquist's request until the next City Council
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
b. Resolution #95 -89: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans & Specifications for
McGlynn Addition, Project No. 95 -16.
' g. City Council Minutes dated August 28, 1995
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 16, 1995
' h. Approval of Bills.
i. Approve One Day Beer License Request, Septemberfest Celebration, September 23, Chanhassen Lions
' Club.
j. Resolution 095 -90: Set Public Hearing Date, Sale of Industrial Revenue Bonds, Control Products.
i k. Accept Donation from Chanhassen Lions Club for Emergency Rescue Equipment.
' All voted in favor and the motion canted unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: I also wanted to address item (e) and we'll put that down as item number 13.
' Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor? We do have a consultant representing that item on the agenda tonight. If you want
to address it now, as long as they're here.
' Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't want to.
Councilman Senn: It depends on, are we paying him?
' Charles Folch: By the hour.
1
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Trail issues that were, yeah.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I remember discussing the line inline. It had to do with the surface.
Councilman Senn: It had to do with maintenance. Long term maintenance costs. It had to do with the ability
to maintain a sheet of ice. I mean there were tons of reasons. I mean we got a whole list of reasons why it had
to be concrete because the concrete was going to be much more costly than the asphalt and we were looking at
using up a big chunk, or at least a part of the contingency as a result of that. And now like I say, this is kind
of really a 180 degree turn back again so I was wondering what's changed or what happens one way or the
other. That was one question. I guess if anyone can't answer it, I'll go on. Second question was, from a
standpoint, I understand Todd and a lot of his staff are very busy but at the same time on a project like this,
total construction's $150,000.00. An additional $30,000.00 for engineering and construction coordination just, I
mean I understand construction and there's complicated construction and to me there's kind of simple, slam dunk
construction. I mean this seems to me like very simple slam dunk type of construction. I don't think we should
be looking at $30,000.00 in fees to build a $150,000.00 worth of asphalt and boards and a few lights, etc. So
that was the second question. Why $30,000.00?
Jon Horn: Okay. I guess in response to that. The way our proposal is set up it's on an hourly basis. Like you
' said there is difficult construction and easy construction and... project goes fairly well, hopefully we wouldn't be
billing you for the full amount. That's a not to exceed amount. Not to exceed amount was just established...
with the budget and the improvements but that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the final cost will be if the
project moves forward. I guess it all depends upon how active we need to be during construction. If you get a
good contractor, there isn't a whole lot of problems during construction, we'll be looking... better than that. On
the other hand, if you get a bad contractor with a lot of complications...
Councilman Senn: My last question was for Don Ashworth. Several meetings ago we talked about you coming
back to us with a good picture of where we sat in relationship to the contingencies on this project and that
hasn't kind of come back yet. So I mean I was kind of wondering where this fits overall in relationship to that
' contingencies and financial issues. Again, this kind of goes back to point number 1 which I raised because I
thought we had okayed part of a contingency going for that concrete or whatever previous so I mean.
Don Ashworth: And you were correct. I apologize. I guess Hoffman and I didn't communicate as to then who
' was actually going to write up that response. But even with this item, I talked to him again today and that will
put that project over the budget, meaning this particular expenditure. And what I said to him was, I need to,
which we're in the process of doing, finalizing that update on that tax increment stuff with Dave MacGillivrary.
I asked that a separate, that this item be bid as two items so there should be a bid for North Lotus Lake, which
North Lotus Lake there's not a problem with but the community center, there could be a problem. Well, it will
go over the budget. The next question then would be, is there sufficient increment to pay that additional
amount and does the Council wish to use it in that fashion, recognizing the recommendations of Park and Rec.
The problem we have is that, oh I'm sorry. Yeah, bids are to be taken the 21st for presentation to the City
Council on the 25th.
Jon Horn: Correct.
Don Ashworth: And so we will know 2 weeks from tonight what those bids are and what monies are available.
' Councilman Senn: Am I correct that the plans and specifications are done?
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
was proposing a shortened curve for that alignment. Staff was recommending that they provide one that met
State Aid standards for a 35 mph. And the third was resolving the ponding issues for this plat as well as the
surrounding land. The applicant was able to work out an agreement with the abutting property owner to shift
the roadway alignment into the project over to the eastern property line and with that we were able to reduce the
amount of wetland fill on the site. They have provided ponding area on the north side of the Lyman Boulevard,
' which is sufficient for this development. We're still working to see if we can size it sufficiently for a regional
pond for that area. The roadway alignment, I believe staff is recommending that I go back to the city's original
alignment. This is a modification to that. It would, I believe, meet the standards but we want to push it
' forward. The final issue that they had was a Park and Recreation Commission recommendation that the city
require dedication of the land on Lake Riley for parkland. From a technical standpoint staff believes we either
worked out or are close to working out all the issues involved in this plat and we are therefore recommending
' approval. The Planning Commission requested that we look at infrastructure adequacy in this area and there is a
memo from the City Attorney addressing that but we believe with the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard, we will
have adequate capacity to handle this. This project is below the guidelines established as part of the
comprehensive plan. However, it meets some other housing goals that we have in providing diversity to our
' housing type as well as, while it doesn't strictly meet the affordable housing criteria for Chanhassen if they meet
their range of $120,000.00 to $160,000.00, it would be relatively affordable. With that staff is recommending
approval of the preliminary planned unit development and the first reading of the rezoning with the wetland
' setback as shown on the plans. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions of Bob at this time? I don't see any. Would the developer like
to come forward and please state your name and your address and who you're representing.
Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, Don Jensen, Land Development Manager for the Rottlund Company, 2681 Long Lake
Road, Roseville, 55113. We're here tonight to bring forward the preliminary plat, which essentially took all of
' the recommendations of the concept approval that were granted this project by the Planning Commission and
Council and the Parks Commission. We have tonight a number of additional graphics that were not available at
our last Council presentation, both on the architecture side, landscaping as well as site planning. I have on an
easel up in front of me the current site plan that was just on the overhead that staff presented on the easel in
front of me. There's a board in front of me of building material selections, color palate. Hopefully you can see
that. If you like, I can pick it up on the easel as we go. We have renderings that describe common open space
and our entry treatments that we have for the housing types. I also have a couple of perspectives of our
' cottages, which is our one level housing type that we have, which is at the lowest portion, or the main entry
point of the development. That's the furthest along in our research and development. Just a couple of minor
items in our staff summary that I'd like to get at. Most of these are Minutes that I did not get a chance to
' approve. They're really very minor. We were talking about in a couple of cases is that this project... research
and development and that's farther in there. I believe it's on page, it's toward the end of our Planning
Commission meetings... here and then on page 41, what we were looking at, in case you're looking back on the
' Planning Commission meeting, and the reply at the bottom of the page in the Minutes talk about a tree area and
I believe I was describing it as a trade area. I'll get at that with my presentation if you like. We concur with all
the bold face conditions of approval in the Planning Commission recommendations, as well as what staff has put
in. As staff noted, we still have an issue regarding parks. Our counsel can reply to that a little bit later this
' evening. The plans that we have prepared for you took all of the drainage concerns that we were able to
accomplish by Pioneer Engineering. We've also worked with addition engineering from RLK who have been
consulting with Lakeview Hills Apartments. They are to the east of this development and we share the drainage
' basins and a number of our common boundaries in this particular site plan design. Our goal this evening is to
explain any facet of this development that remains unclear from our preliminary presentations that you as
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
We just have a discussion about how it's going to be obtained for use by the city of Chanhassen. That leads us
to the conditions 31 and 32 in the staff report as to public dedication. Full park fees, which we believe is
somewhere in the neighborhood of 150% of typical park fees for a neighborhood. We're looking for a little bit
of a clarification then tonight and our counsel could talk to that if need be later. That's in the Minutes that we
have from the concept plan approval on June 26th on page 32. The Mayor had asked the Parks Director what
was going on with the lakefront. The reply discusses an acquisition, which we're comfortable with. Having
either a combination of fees and acquisition of land and fees. But the conditions of approval that are
recommended or are attached in this report, talk about dedication and that's a concept that we would like to get
cleared up tonight. That really concludes the short portion of our presentation tonight. I don't need a long
portion if you're comfortable with our plans are presented in your packets. If you have particular questions. In
summary we have a very similar development proposal from what was here at the concept level and I can detail
' any of the particular components, private play area, the lake frontage in more detail. The housing products that
we have around the perimeter. Any of the additional conditions of approval. Our counsel from Barney ... and
Steffen is here tonight that is with us in real estate matters and their most pressing reason to be here tonight is
our park dedication issue. Other than that we are more than willing to answer your questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. There are a lot of different things that have been brought up. One of the
things Charles with this lift station. Some of that could be done differently than what was presumed previously.
' Charles Folch: Actually the, what will change, we've actually done an evaluation of the pipe sizes and due to
the difference in reduction in density, it really isn't going to affect the change in pipe size that much. Where we
will experience a cost savings is probably a lowering of one or two steps in the horse power rating of a pump
that we would need for the lift station so there will be some potential cost savings. I would say anywhere from
maybe $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 with slightly smaller pumps.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is it all single phase with a particular area or is there three phases?
Charles Folch: No, it's three phase.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
' Kate Aanenson: I just have one quick comment. Mr. Jensen indicated that based on the land of the beachlot,
he felt like you're giving approval to show that you look favorably upon the beachlot. We indicated in the staff
report it requires a separate conditional use and there is some clouded issues as far as Lakeview Hills
Apartments and we're not saying that we won't look at it. We just don't want to prejudice us. That's a whole
separate issue and we want to make sure it's clear that approving this plan in no way gives approval to the
beachlot. That's a separate permitting. It's not a condition but it is addressed in the staff report so we wanted to
make sure that was clear.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could you, I noticed we were still in the preliminary stage but I see that you
brought some building materials. Do you have any facade drawings of the different types?
Don Jensen: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My concern is that we do have some variation.
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
density, which is a valid concern. Where else do we put that? People have already made decisions on their
homes based on what's around them and where do we put that so as Bob indicated, we really don't have a
choice before we bring in addition areas inside the MUSA.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It is a good transition between... You're looking at marketing these between $120
and $160?
Don Jensen: That's correct. Based on the square footages that you have, you're still looking at approximately
somewhere between $75.00 and $100.00 finished square footage prices at a retail level based on what the
different... so right now, given the information we understand about the Lyman Boulevard project and all the
other factors, looking at this development, that's where we're believing we would like to market this. Kind of
' where we think there's a strong nitch. Start getting about that price point...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have any other questions.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well Colleen asked some of mine. Don, could you just talk a little bit about what's going
to go on in the private play area?
Don Jensen: Certainly. The sketch that I have up in .front of me, which has the aerial photo of the overall area
down on the far left side close to Kate describes, and I'll hold this up just above the big one for the moment.
This is a blow up of this particular area here on the main concept plans which shows our overstory trees. We
have our village series of homes, which is two story. This overall street steps up approximately a foot and a
half each dwelling unit. We're substantial higher here. This is our high point in the whole development. Again
' we're stepping down and these dwelling units all step down almost two feet apiece and they're spaced a little bit
farther apart and as this street goes down, that's what's happening. There's a landform so. In general, in plan
it's not very well described but I guess as an overview that's what's occurring. If you drop down to this
' particular sketch here. What happens based on that triangular space, which was outlined in our minutes about
.65 acres so it's approximately 2/3 of an acre large and that is keeping kind of a private space and measuring it,
for discussion purposes, of about 10 or 15 feet for each dwelling unit. Roughly in line with what we have on
this planting concept here and also immediately behind this particular walkway that's shown on this sketch here.
Likewise that same line occurs in our cottages series on this side. What you have, because these buildings are
stepped, is essentially an upper plate, which is this area. What we're looking at there is that this area be set
aside, we believe a program should be more adult uses. It could be a very active gardening area. It could be an
' active flower gardening area. It could just be an open space for sitting, remembering that this is a fairly high
point, approximately 40 feet above Lake Riley. It'd be a very nice viewing area. Could have benches. You
might even find that the mix of people in this neighborhood would like a private volleyball area. It would be
big enough for instance to accomplish that. As these structures are stepping down, what we have is, on the
grading plan in your packets, a little spill or a ridge that falls down or cascades down is how I describe it.
Previously it would be similar to what you have in the upper tier parking to your lower tier parking. You have
probably not quite as severe a grade change as that example but that's what's occurring in this center planting
area. So you have a smaller pocket that's at a lower tier that we described as being possible for a totlot area, if
in fact that's what the mix of residents desires. We offered it to the Planning Commission that we were
concerned about having a mandate to fund a play structures in here that these people would then be paying
' insurance costs on. You know as the Council looking at your budget what liability insurance coverage is for
parks and play areas. We want to be careful that these people were very willing to step into that insurance
' 9
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, I would like to double check. In your packets that you received all of the drawings.
' You have a reduction. I have them on a board but did not end up in my packet so what I'll do is hold up a
plain blueprint.
Mayor Chmiel: I was sort of looking for that rendition as to what you have for the on slab ones with the single.
You don't have anything as such, other than what's in blueprints?
Don Jensen: No I don't. Not tonight. What I have in front of you, which should be reduced on the packet are
our two story product. The elevations are down at the lower portion of this particular drawing and our floor
plans. These are going from approximately 1,300 to 1,800 square feet of total finished space. You can see that
the elevations were slightly different for each particular floor plan similar to how we were having the elevations
constructed for the cottages. The entry points were again set back from the garage front and the use of windows
above the garage, to use in this case there's an example of garages that are for two cars but they are a single
garage door configurations. There's some variation going on. That would replicated in this as well as I believe
the cottages. The cottages plan, which wasn't illustrated in front of you. You have to look at the plan for them
also has several that are turned 90 degrees and I can show you that on our plans where we have. Those are in
very fixed locations and have reasons for that option happening. For example we have two units that are side
by side in this location. This one, if you look closely actually has the garage doors access from the side rather
than from head on and that was important for us one, because we had the street curving away. But two, it
reduces any type of conflict movement where Lakeview Hills Apartments is now accessing the public street. If
it were a head on garage, it'd be backing up in essence out right next to probably one of our highest conflict
movements of the whole subdivision. We also have options as we fan the streets of possibly this unit or this
unit to go to the side load. And this dwelling over down through here at the end is a side load so of the 26,
we've probably got 4 or 5 that are the side load configuration representing about 15 %. We don't have that
option with this particular building type. Mr. Mayor, was this blueprint that I'm holding up at least adequate
enough for the moment?
Mayor Chmiel: Right now, yeah. I believe you wanted to discuss regarding Park and Recreation as we have
within our Minutes on page 17. Did you have some discussion that you wanted to do a little more on that?
Don Jensen: Jeff, do you have?
Jeff Johnson: Thank you Don. Members of the Council, my name is Jeff Johnson. I'm a partner... office. It's a
pleasure to be with you tonight. I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about a number of legal issues but
what our position is that what the conditions of the plat as they relate to the park dedication of full park
dedication fees paid per unit as well as the dedication of land itself along the lakefront is unfair. That is asking
for too much. Is there a substantial reason why the city needs the lakefront property because of this
development? Well if someone argues that there is, as you can see the proposal doesn't ask for a building site
or anything to be put on that portion of the property, so we could just make that a private dedication to the
homeowners association, if this plat really is what is driving the need for that additional park space so, we're
looking at it as it's a city wide effort. It's the need for a trail and we understand that and that's perfectly
legitimate in our mind that the city would want something like that. But to charge park dedication fee on every
unit, as well as require a dedication really seems to be over, stepping over the bounds as an extraction from the
developer and it's that what we want to consider, or this Council to consider. I don't think that we're saying that
we're opposed to having that lakefront area as a park. But if you take it as a park, if you require dedication,
there should be some credit given back for park dedication fees that the individual units would be responsible to
pay. The other issue that I'd ask is, are we being treated differently than any other developer within the city.
11
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Councilman Senn: Begging Council's indulgence for a minute. I had a dumb idea. You know and I don't think
it's something that we necessarily have to resolve tonight because it's just something that off the top of the head
is, as we were going through some of this, but here we have a product that starts at $120,000.00. That's a new
kind of product that we haven't seen in a long time and you look at the project, I think the project really looks
good in relationship to the product that it's delivering. At the same time, that $120,000.00 range really made me
t start thinking a lot because if you look at all the affordable housing issues, the maximum limit under affordable
housing is $115,000.00. You know, what's the old expression? We talk the talk, we walk the walk as it relates
to affordable housing all the time but here we are another situation where instead of trying to take things off,
' we're trying to add things on which is going to push that $120,000.00 or necessitate them to try to sell these
units for closer to $160,000.00 rather than $120,000.00. Is there any, I mean would Council be, I mean I'd love
to explore the option, if nothing else explore it. You know you've got 76 units here. 76 units at $120,000.00
' plus. What if we made it 71 units at $120,000.00 plus and got 5 units dispersed through here at $95,000.00 and
forget the park dedication fees. And we've accomplished 5 affordable housing units under well, for a distance
under the maximum but at the same time it helps us meet some of the goals we've talked about in the past
because if affordable housing is going to work, it's going to be dispersed. I mean here you've got 5 out of 76
' units. It's single family, which was another key point. It allows it to be the same style because we require the
developer to build it to $120,000.00 and sell it for $95,000.00, which makes it fit with the rest of the
neighborhood. But that's where you know, where it's a trade -off between us getting maybe park dedication fees
' and I don't know. It just seems to me that if we don't take the -time to try to have that discussion, we could
really be missing the boat here and we're so close here, we ought to take advantage of it I think. And if it, this
is preliminary but you know, spend a couple weeks doing that I think could really have some merit.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something that staff could have discussions with and I'm sure they're not able to
give any answers right now.
' Councilman Senn: No, and I'm not asking for them.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. But it's a concept. It's an idea and I'd like to know what the pros and cons to those
' specific issues would be as well.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I agree. It's really, it's off the top of the head so I mean it may be a terribly bad idea.
It's I'd like we should look at.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think that's something that we can come up with.
' Councilman Senn: I mean I'm curious. Would you have an objection to that?
Don Jensen: You know I think right now what we're trying to do is make sure that we've got a binding
approval at our preliminary plat and that we don't have any conditions in there that we're sitting on our knees
here begging for forgiveness on a few months from now.
Councilman Senn: But to you it's a financial trade -off, correct?
Don Jensen: You know those things certainly seem reasonable for us to explore as a company. Our goal is to
try to deliver housing where people seem to have a nitch that's not being built and this is one of them...
extremely difficult to deliver at market rate without any kind of subsidy housing at, falling within the Met
Council guidelines of affordability. Usually it's some give and take.
13