Loading...
1f. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 ' Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dimler, Councilman Wing, and Councilman Mason. Councilman Workman arrived during discussion of item 2. ' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Scott Harr and Elliott Knetsch APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to t approve the agenda with the following additions and changes: Mayor Chmiel moved item 9 onto the Consent Agenda and under Public Announcements wanted to make a recommendation from Council commending the Metro Drug Task Force. Councilman Wing also had a public announcements to make on behalf of the Fire Department. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. David Teich Subdivision Request, 10151 Great Plains Boulevard: 1) Resolution #92 -97: Approval of a Metes and Bounds Subdivision Request to Create Two Parcels of 5 Acres and 14+ Acres. 2) Approval of Development Contract. b. Approval of Stipulation Agreement, Ward Property, Highways 101 and 5. c. Approval of a One Day Beer License for Oktoberfest, September 25, 1992, ' Chanhassen Lions Club. d. Accept Donation from the Chanhassen American Legion for Purchase of Cellular Phones for Emergency Operations Center. e. Resolution 192 -98: Approve Plans and Specifications for Lilac Lane Improvement Project 91 -4, Authorize Advertising for Bids. f. Resolution 192 -99: Accept Utility Improvements in Market Square Project 92 -2. g. Resolution 192 -100: Accept Street Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition, Project 90 -16. h. Resolution #92 -101: Accept Street Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West 6th Addition, Project 91 -7. ' j. Approval of Bills. 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 k. City Council Minutes dated August 24, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes dated August 19, 1992 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated August 25, 1992 1 1. Approval of Contract with McComb Group Ltd. to Undertake a Senior Housing Feasibility Study. j m. Ordinance Establishing a Franchise Agreement with Minnegasco, First Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: I just wanted to note the reason I wanted to move that to the Consent Agenda, the Minnegasco ordinance is that we will be sitting down this Wednesday with the attorney and Minnegasco, myself and Don and I thought it was worthless to have much discussion on it this evening. And it will be back on our agenda for a final approval. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Chmiel: Let me move back first to the Public Announcements. I almost overlooked that. I have a letter that I'm sending to Sgt. Hudson who's on the I Southwest Metro Drug Task Force and it reads. On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I'd like to formally thank you for the efforts of the Task Force in our community. Having had the priviledge of being present with the Task Force on several occasions, I have seen the professionalism with which you and your II agents operate. Public Safety Director, Scott Harr has mentioned on numerous occasions the respect he has for you and your officers. Most recently the Task Force executed a search warrant at a growing operation in the area of Highway 5 II and 41. This situation again exemplifies how well the Task Force works. But I realize there are many, many other cases in and around our community that the Task Force is working on and the efforts of all of these deserve accommodation. As Mayor of Chanhassen, please accept my thanks for all you do to make Chanhassen and our society a much better place. The time commitment, exposure to danger and success have not gone unnoticed. Sincerely and it also has the Council with it. And with that we're also going to, and I'm not going to read I this but we're also adopting a resolution commending the efforts of the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. Richard. ' Councilman Wing: Each year the Fire Department has a fund raiser which benefits the members and this year the Fire Department received very good public support. And speaking on behalf of the 42 members of the Chan Fire Department, we just II wish to say publicly, thank you. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. II PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR WEST 79TH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 91 -8. I Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to open this public hearing. This is an assessment hearing for West 79th Street, Improvement Project 91 -8. Don or Charles. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This project was completed II earlier this summer with the improvements consisting of the westbound, right 1 2 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 1 turn lane, concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, street lighting, landscaping and a bituminous overlay. The feasibility study identified those properties benefitting from this improvement project as being Lot 2 and portions of Lot 1 and Lot 3 of the proposed Gateway First Addition. The method of assessment is based on a front foot cost consistent with the feasibility study. Your staff report has outlined the proposed assessment dollars and I'll summarize those as for Lot 1, a road assessment totalling *16,402.31. Lot 2, roadway and storm sewer assessment totalling *46,367.74. And for Lot 3, roadway and storm sewer assessment of *25,346.99. These costs are somewhat higher than that predicted in the feasibility study partly due to initial under estimate of the required engineering cost. We had a carry over of this project through the winter time due to the early October snowstorm last year which added some administrative costs. And proportionately, these costs become somewhat significant relative to this being such a small project. But staff believes that the cost and assessments presented represent a legitimate and necessary project cost associated to complete the improvement and therefore recommend that the assessment schedule as contained in your reports be adopted. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. At this particular time what we'll do is see if 1 there's anyone that wishes to address this particular item for the assessments on 79th Street. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this particular time? It seems like everyone is content with what is taking place. Have you had any discussions with anyone? Charles Folch: I've not received a call from any property owners that were notified. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: I did receive a call from Mr. Brown, Gary Brown and he thought that the rate seemed high and was anticipating talking with the engineer and potentially being here this evening. I guess he never contacted you so. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I've not received any calls either. I'd like to call a 1 question and then we'll have discussion. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I just have a question here and I'm wondering why, and 1 Richard I'm sure is wondering the same thing. The front footage rates are 80/20 split and I remember when Frontier Trail was before us, I fought through that with everything I was worth and I didn't get it. I'm just wondering why this is a 80/20. Don Ashworth: This is reverse though. 3 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Charles Folch: Maybe I can answer. The 80/20 split is actually between two 1 lots. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. But it's the front footage too you said. 1 I Charles Folch: Right. Well what we did basically was we took the total area contributing and 20% came off one lot, 80% came off the other so what we did is just adjust or basically developed a rate that applied it equally to both those ' two lots. So actually the City's standard share is consistent with the storm sewer which is 50% and the remainder is basically split up 80/20 between two lots. That's not a city split there. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I just wanted to make sure you were treating us fairly. II Charles Folch: Absolutely. Councilman Wing: These total assessment numbers, is that after the 80/20 split ' or is that what's going to be split? Charles Folch: That's after the split. The numbers in your table are the totals. II Mayor Chmiel: Right, total assessment. Michael, do you have any questions? Okay. I'd like to have a motion to accept these assessments for the 79th Street ' Improvement Project 91 -8. Councilman Mason: So moved. II Councilman Wing: Second. Resolution $92 -102: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve II the Assessment Schedule for the 79th Street Improvement Project 91 -8 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I PUBLIC HEARING: ACKNOWLEDGE STAFF PROPOSED 1993 SUMMARY BUDGET, ADOPT 1993 PROPOSED LEVY, AND ESTABLISH OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING DATES. Mayor Chmiel: This is item number 2.5 and I'd like to open that public hearing. II This is acknowledge staff proposed 1993 summary budget, adopt 1993 proposed levy and establish official public hearing dates. Don. II Don Ashworth: This is the first of the hearings proposed for the 1993 budget. It seems like we just finished the last budgetary process. We're proposing dates of September 14th, October 5th, October 19th, November 2nd, November 16th and shown in your list is December 14th, which cannot be. We're going to have to select a new date on that one. As it deals with the certification being made by staff, we're still in the dark in regards to a lot of the revenue numbers. We just received fiscal disparity contribution distribution and tax capacity II numbers this past week. In setting the amount, staff has done it in such a fashion that we anticipate that there will not be a property tax increase if, at the end of the process the Council were to select that as our final budgetary II numbers. It's important to note that the amount initial set cannot be expanded. ' 4 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 You cannot increase over that amount as we go through this budgetary process. The Council has the full right ability to reduce that. So after we go through the budget process and you say I don't like this. I don't like that and it ends up that we reduce it from the numbers we have here, again you have the full right to do that. We anticipate that the culmination of the budget process again will occur in early to mid- December. And again, one of the things the Council needs to do this evening is to select a potential hearing date. Staff, the dates selected by the counties and school districts, oh those are the dates. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we have to make sure that we, unfortunately we're in three school districts. As you've indicated and that really sets it hard for us. Don Ashworth: I'm not sure what the Council's pleasure would be. They've taken the two Mondays in December. Mayor Chmiel: I think we could try for the 25th and everybody'd be around. , Councilman Wing: So moved. Don Ashworth: Good Christmas present. 21st is probably too close to the Christmas holidays? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: And again, the two Mondays. , Mayor Chmiel: Can we convene on one special evening? Don Ashworth: Yes. You're to set the date for the hearing and also to set an optional date in case that you do not end your business on the original hearing date. I think the second date that we had picked out was okay, if I remember. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ' Councilman Mason: 21st is too late? Don Ashworth: It's very close to Christmas but if it's alright with the Council. I mean that's a valid date. Mayor Chmiel: Well we can. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll be out of town. , Mayor Chmiel: If there are people who have concerns and really want to discuss that and they're planning on leaving for the holidays. Don Ashworth: It isn't shown in here. My recollection is that December 15th was the last date... Elliott Knetsch: It is December 15th. Don Ashworth: December 15th is the final date so we can't go past December 15th. 5 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Councilwoman Dimier: It doesn't have to be a Monday night does it? II Don Ashworth: No. Councilwoman Dimier: Can it be Wednesday the 9th? ' Don Ashworth: You could go with the, the 16th would be alright. The 9th would be open. II Mayor Chmiel: You can't go beyond the 15th so we couldn't go to the 16th. How about December 9th, as Ursula was saying? II Don Ashworth: The 9th would be fine. Mayor Chmiel: Which would be a Wednesday. II Councilman Mason: It's a Planning Commission. Mayor Chmiel: No, it's not anything. Don Ashworth: I'm confident with this 5 sessions that we're going to have in advance of that, would the Council mind setting like December 10th as the II optional date? I'm confident you'll never get to that date. We'll have everything concluded before you get to that point. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's Public Safety Commission that particular night. Councilwoman Dimier: Thursday is HRA? II Mayor Chmiel: No. HRA would be, when. The 17th. Don Ashworth: Our regular in December, I can't remember if in December we had II moved our meetings. The earliest the HRA could be would be the 17th. In fact it probably is the 17th. But you do have another meeting shown for the 10th. ' Mayor Chmiel: But how about the 9th? Don Ashworth: Aren't we setting the 9th as the official hearing date? II Mayor Chmiel: Right. Don Ashworth: But then if we need to continue, we'd go to the 10th, which I'm 1 confident we'll never do. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Okay. Does everyone have that? II Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, just a preliminary question of the budget process. If the City should refuse to use tax dollars to pay sales tax, who would go to jail? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Ashworth. Notice how quickly I said that. Councilman Wing: That's all I was interested in. r 6 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 1 Don Ashworth: The State doesn't really care how you pay the sales tax but you II must pay the sales tax. Councilman Workman: They keep our LGA. II Councilman Wing: I'm just interested, I'm real curious to see what impact that's going to have on our budget. That's really semi frightening. Mayor Chmiel: Well it's going to have quite an impact, unfortunately. I think II we should all start lobbying back to the State to see if we can't get that changed. 1 Councilman Wing: Amen. Councilwoman Dimier: Could I ask just one more question before we act on this? II It says here that we're to adopt the 1993 proposed levy tonight. That's the way I read it. And yet I don't see anything to base my decision on. Don Ashworth: In the past, staff has looked at this as though, staff is II actually the one that is making the certification with recognizing that the Council then would have the ability to reduce that. II Councilwoman Dimier: So you're going to recommend. Don Ashworth: But from a technical standpoint, it is still, it still needs to II receive the endorsement. You have to be aware that we are going through that process. So the amount that has been established or that we're looking at is 5% more than last year's operational levy. The debt portion will be higher. And II that's recognizing the two larger projects that we've done in the past 2 years. But that's just straight from the debt schedules from Springsted, from MacGillvery. Councilwoman Dimier: But we'll see the details on this later? II Don Ashworth: Yes. And as the revenue projections are prepared, you'll also I see it at your home because then the impact of this 5% will be seen and you will get an estimate. If that ends up as our final adopted. If the Council says, yeah. We agree with that, that would actually be then your tax as far as the II City is concerned. You will get a notice saying, the proposed tax by the City for 1993, if the budget that they're currently considering is adopted, will be and then it will show $982.00. This compares to last year's $983.00. They'll do that for the County and for the City. I Councilwoman Dimier: But what you're proposing, you don't see a tax increase? Don Ashworth: No, but again I haven't gotten final numbers yet. II Mayor Chmiel: We're going to be looking for a tax decrease. II Councilwoman Dimier: Okay, great. I'll vote for that. Councilwoman Dimier: Mr. Mayor, I would have liked to have heard Don finish his II statement. 7 II II City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: He just swallowed hard. Don Ashworth: We're going to be able to achieve that. I honestly do. Councilwoman Dimler:, Good. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this time? ' Gayle Degler: Just one question. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, would you like to come up to the microphone and please state ' your name and your address please. Gayle Degler: I'm Gayle Degler at 1630 Lyman Boulevard and my question basically is just, how many million are we talking about for this proposed budget? Do we have any idea? Don Ashworth: Yeah. The total budget for the City from this past year was II $7,200,000.00 for all operations and all activities. And we're anticipating approximately, well that would be the portion. The general tax portion would be increasing by again that 5%. The general tax levy of the $7.2 was 3, or is proposed to be for this next year, $3.6 million. My recollection is that that II would have been $3.2 to $2.3 million for 1992. Mayor Chmiel: It's really hard to say because all the budgets have not come in I from each of the departments. So he's just sort of guesstimating more than anything else right now. Anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? II Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I Mayor Chmiel: Shall we also put a time for that public hearing on the 9th? Are we contemplating it at 7:00 or 7:30? II Don Ashworth: I anticipated 7:30 but if you'd like to. Mayor Chmiel: No, let's put it 7:30. That's the normal meeting time that we . have. Resolution 4192 -103: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to I acknowledge the staff's proposed 1993 summary budget, adopt the 1993 proposed levy and to establish the official public hearing dates as amended to change the final date to December 9, 1992 instead of December 14, 1992, with the alternate date being December 10, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: PHASE I OF UPPER BLUFF CREEK TRUNK UTILITIES. PROJECT 91 -17. II Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As I have provided in my staff report, unfortunately the bid opening for this project didn't occur until last Friday so there wasn't enough time to have the information in the packet. 1 Thus, we're providing information for you tonight. During the design process, 1 8 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 some, modifications were made to this project. You may recall that at the same 11 time Chanhassen, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and Chaska were concurrently working on a Joint Powers Agreement to allow some flow from Chaska to be diverted on an interim basis through this new proposed system into the Lake Ann Interceptor. These flow sheet design modifications will of course be reimbursed by the MWCC as specified in the Joint Powers Agreement. Also, due to development timing, some utilities that were proposed through the Stone Creek Addition and that were previously scheduled to be a part of Phase II, have now been rescheduled for Phase I at the developer's request. Again, these additional costs will be recovered through trunk and lateral benefit assessments to these lots within the subdivision. Bonestroo - Rosene- Anderlik Associates have provided an itemi -zed list that was contained in your staff report of some of these project element changes which were not known at the previous report time and have also prepared a revised construction cost estimate which to date is $2,348,000.00 for Phase I of the project. As I stated, this past Friday the bids were received and opened for the project. A total of 11 bids were received with the low bid being submitted by Progressive Contractors at $2,352,258.00. This is roughly within $4,000.00 or 2/10 of a percent of the engineer's revised estimate so that's pretty good. I give credit to Bonestroo on that one. Given this favorable low bid received, it is predicted that the trunk and lateral assessments generated from the project and MWCC's reimbursement to Chanhassen for this interim capacity to Chaska, this will balance the overall cost estimate for Phase I of this Upper Bluff Creek project. I should point out that a number of easements still need to be acquired for this project and the City is continuing to work with these property owners during this acquisition process. Two easements however are critical from a timing standpoint in order to begin construction yet this fall and those easements are along the future extension of Lake Drive West between County Road 17 and Audubon Road. And the other is along Audubon from that future extension of Lake Drive West to about 1,300 feet south or just north of the Rod Grams property. Since easement acquisition may take up to another 90 days, staff is going to try to obtain right of entries from these two property owners to allow us to at least begin construction during the easement process. On a background check on Progressive Contractors, we received information that they performed satisfactorily on previous projects of this significant size in other metro area communities. It is therefore recommended that Phase 1 of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Project, No. 91 -17 be awarded to Progressive Contractors, Inc. at a total base bid of $2,352,258.00 contingent upon receiving full easements or right -of- entries from the two afore mentioned areas along Lake Drive West and Audubon Road by a date of October 12, 1992. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions? The total amount of dollars that you're talking with the reimbursement that we're going to get from the MWCC, is going to offset any of the additional costs that may be there? Charles Folch: That's correct. We will be getting both a capital cost ' reimbursement and an annual operation and maintenance reimbursement from MWCC. Mayor Chmiel: Do you know what that might be? ' Charles Folch: The capital costs I believe is a little over $80,000.00 and the maintenance and operational is on a 5 year schedule starting with the first year 9 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 they'll pay 100% and it decreases each year by 10%. So the fifth year they'll be down to 50 %. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay. Is there a motion to accept the award of bids? Councilman Wing: I'll so move. ' Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Wing: Staff recommendation for Project 91 -17 to Progressive ' Contractors. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? ' Resolution $92 -104: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconed that Phase I of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Project, No. 91 -17 be awarded to Progressive Contractors, Inc. at a total base bid of $2,352,258.00 contingent upon receiving full easements or right -of- entries from the two afore mentioned areas along Lake Drive West and Audubon Road by a date of October 12, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AWARD OF BIDS FOR WEST 86TH STREET TRUNK WATERMAIN PROJECT 90 -10. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On Tuesday, September 8th bids were received and opened for the West 86th Street Trunk Watermain Project No. 90 -10. A total of 8 bids were received with the confirmed low bid being received from Machtemes Construction at a bid of $246,500.10. This was ' approximately *10,000.00 below the engineer's estimate. Again, this is another project where we have to acquire some utility easements from a few property owners along the route. We're currently again in the process with these property owners and we've obtained a couple waivers of trespass to begin construction. We still are looking for one more waiver of trespass to begin construction so again we would recommend an award of bid for the West 86th Street trunk watermain project to Machtemes Construction at a base bid of ' *246,510.00 and again we would contingent upon the City acquiring the necessary project easements or rights of entries by November, on this project, by November 6, 1992 before we begin construction. Mayor Chmiel: The one property owner that you have not secured, are they residents within the city? Charles Folch: They own property, this person is currently out of town. I don't know if he still has a residence within town but he's currently out of town and we're dealing with them on that basis right now. Mayor Chmiel: And I'm assuming there aren't any costs entailed for. Charles Folch: Well at this point in time, we are going through an appraisal process and there will be a cost, some cost associated with acquiring these easements and that will be basically our appraiser will determine a value and we'll negotiate that with the property owner and hopefully we can come to some 1 consensus as to exactly what that value is for granting the city the easement for the utility. ' 10 11 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: The utility is going to provide that property owner some additional enhancement as well. Charles Folch: That's correct. Any time that you're providing either a street or a utility that either borders or goes through a property and can be serviced or used by that property, it does provide that benefit to the property. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to find out how you're going to proceed with this 11 one with the last one. - Charles Folch: Okay. At this point we'll at least try to acquire the last right of entry which allows us to go onto the property to begin construction and certainly we can have discussions with the entire Council if you'd like, as to how this process is proceeding. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any other questions? Can I have a motion? , Councilman Workman: I move approval of the award of bids of West 86th Street Trunk Watermain Project 90 -10. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award the bid for West 86th Street Trunk Watermain Project 90 -10 to Machtemes Construction at a base bid of $246,510.00 contingent upon the City acquiring the necessary project easements or rights of entries by November 6, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION OF THE 1993 POLICE CONTRACT WITH THE CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor and City Council. Sheriff Wallin and I are recommending tonight that the Council agree to enter into a contract with Carver County and the City of Chanhassen for 1993 for police services which would include 4 additional hours per day beyond the time that we have contracted for over the past 2 years. We're here discussing this tonight rather than through the budget process that you've discussed the time line for because the Sheriff does need this additional time to plan for their personnel and equipment needs for 1993. The documentation that I have provided you with, I've outlined why I feel that , this recommendation is a responsible one and unless you have specific questions, I won't go over each item point by point. But in making your decision, I would ask you to keep in mind that while this is a difficult time for a department head to come before you and ask for anything more, I've not been here for 2 years asking for an increase in contract time in spite of the rapid growth we're experiencing. Also, I'm frequently asked, when will Chanhassen have it's own police department. The answer is simply, we won't as long as the cost benefits remain as strong as they are for us and as long as the system works as well as it does. But to ensure that the system does continue to work, we have to make the commitment as a city to make sure that we contract for a sufficient number of hours to make the system work. To do anything less would be setting up the Sheriff's Department and the system as a whole for failure. Council has struggled with issues before that cost money, or are an investment in our future. This increase will fall within that category. As Chanhassen continues 11 - 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 to grow and the public safety needs continue to increase, I believe the City has I a need to maintain the level of service that the city has come to expect. I think it falls under the category of something being penny wise and pound foolish. While I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have, it is the I unanimous recommendation of the Public Safety Commission, the recommendation of Sheriff Wallin and of the Public Safety Director, that the Council agree to enter into a contract with the Carver County Sheriff for 32 hours of police contract service for 1993. II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Don, do you have any specific comments on this? I Don Ashworth: Again, we are getting ahead of the budgetary process. That is of concern. In talking with Al, the Sheriff, he felt that if we had a problem, we would not, this is not a final commitment and so if through the budgetary process we simply cannot meet the goal we're striving for here, we can reduce I that. The second part has been a continuing concern of mine and that is, to ensure that as a County that we are establishing a base level of service that is known and recognized and is something apart from the hours associated with the I contracting cities. We don't really have that now. The County Board has set that as a goal. That's been a goal for the past 5 years. I would like to make another presentation to them potentially with the Mayor again advocating that I they strive to get to that base level. The primary reason is that right now, especially in the western portion of the county, the same officer that is a base level officer is also a contracting city officer. And it really doesn't make any sense for Watertown to talk about buying additional hours because all I they're doing is simply paying more of the cost associated with the person that's already out there. They're not buying additional, or at least it's not clear. So if you talk to the Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff, they say no. We really I try to give them the additional hours but it's very hard to find them. So if we get the County to a position where they have established, we are going to operate a 24 hour vehicle, 365 days a year, then you know whether or not the I contracting cities are actually buying something more than that base level. Councilman Wing sat in on meetings going back, how far? 8 to 10 years where this same issue was discussed. I think the County is striving to get up to a recognized base level. I'd like to use this year's, if the Council approves our I increase, as an additional justification for why the County should make a similar increase in their own service level. I Mayor Chmiel: And with that, does everyone understand that? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I do have a question on, I agree with the proposal. II I'm just wondering, since we're just set October 5th as the budget date process, which isn't that far off, what is the rush? Why does the Sheriff want this approved tonight and why can't we wait until the 5th of October? I Scott Harr: Because they will have to hire an additional officer. They're in the process of getting their budget prepared. An extra vehicle would in all probability have to be purchased by them so logistically, they've got quite a I few things to do to prepare for it. As the City Manager said though, Sheriff Wallin understands the process and at this time is more looking at what we will plan on doing, realizing that the process has to go through as defined by the City Manager. 1 12 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: I'm more comfortable approving when I can see some numbers. That's why I'm asking the question. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Well the numbers in comparison to what we would be going to get and getting is very minimal in comparison. Councilwoman Dimler: I know''that. I know that. Mayor Chmiel: And I feel too, sitting in as I do on the Public Safety , Commission, discussions that were had, is that our growth is getting much more. We are now at close to 14,000. In that neighborhood and I think we have to make sure that the residents within our community are provided with the best protection that Council can provide as far as dollars are concerned. And in comparison, for cost as I think I talked about just before I did a study on cost comparisons of having a full time police department and no way do I feel we're 11 going to start that. Councilwoman Dimler: No way. Mayor Chmiel: Because that would cost us roughly about $1,500,000.00 in comparison and we're still getting this for way, way less and still being provided the kind of protection that we're looking for. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and I do want to make a comment that I'm really impressed that we can still work so cooperatively as we have over the years because when we first came on the Council, that was not the case and I think that they do have an excellent record of responding. There's no question that we need the increased hours. I was just wondering why the rush here before the October 5th. ' Don Ashworth: This item could be put off until after October 5th, if you wanted to, really the numbers are here as far as the cost for the contract. But you won't really know what all of the department requests are. You have to get... Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, we won't see the relation of the other departments. Don Ashworth: ...and all of the revenue and you're really looking to like November 2nd before that, we'll have those final numbers in. So again, if you would like to see this wait until after we've had the presentation on Public Safety, that would be fine but I don't see that it really gains you that much more. Councilwoman Dimler: I think if the rest of the Council is comfortable with it, 1 I am too. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I'd like to move on this only because I think 32 hours is something the City needs and deserves and all we're really adding is fringe patrol and I think it's about time we got a little more serious about that. The fringes have not had the coverage the downtown area has. The numbers are in line. The numbers are very favorable to costs. I think we've got a formula we've tried to comply with. We're not in compliance with that formula. We 13 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 haven't been for several years. I don't see this as an increase. I just think I this is something we've put off two years ago that we're finally getting around to. So I think it's irrelevant and the total costs are irrelevant if you look to the reality of what could happen. So I'd prefer to move on it tonight also. II Councilwoman Dimler: But that doesn't mean we would start with the new service hours right away. That will still only start in January. II Mayor Chmiel: No, that's correct. Councilman Wing: That takes care of 32 hours but there's a separate issue here and that's that baseline and that's been so evasive and so elusive and I don't, I'm willing to push that $100.00 bill and place it on the counter and dare you to take it Don. I'd like to see if we can't make some headway on that baseline and whatever I can put in to help that, time or effort, I'd like to. Let's pursue that. I think the County should take that a little more seriously. Don Ashworth: If we don't get it through this year, we'll get it through next II year. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, right. II Councilman Workman: I think he has kids in college. He doesn't even have a hundred bucks. I think in light of, this is going to be 12 months day today or II so, this is going to be a different looking community I've got a feeling. Thanks to downtown and some of the things that are going to be going on in the industrial park and everything. And so if I didn't trust the Sheriff and Scott and everybody so much, I would have concerns too. I think we know what those II costs are. I think that's a correct statement that 2 years ago we were pulling at this so I do feel comfortable with this. I know that we've all, it's kind of • one of those things where we talk out of both sides of our mouth. We want more. We want better speed trap patrol, we want all sorts of other things but, so here it is time to take care of it and I think my own personal feeling, we're there. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. II Councilman Mason: I concur. I'd also like to compliment Scott for the Chanhassen model. Reading in his report that other cities are asking Chan how they do it as well as they do, I think is a credit to your department and the city. Mayor Chmiel: One other thing I'd just like to mention. Bob Zydowsky just recently completed his law enforcement training center, his Skills Class 2 graduation which now puts him on with the City and in conjunction, in tying that in with the Sheriff's Department, which I think is really great Al. I'd like to II publicly say that because it's good to see the kind of working relationship we have between the city and the Sheriff. I really appreciate that and congratulations. So with that, I would call the question. 11 Councilman Wing: I would like to move approval of the 1993 police contract for 32 hours. 11 Councilwoman Dimler: Second. 1 14 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 , Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the contract with the Carver County Sheriffs Department for 32 hours of police contract service for 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONCEPTUAL PUD FOR 113 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 63 (NET) ACRES, EAST , SIDE OF HIGHWAY 41 ADJACENT TO BMT AUTOMOTIVE, LUNDGREN BROTHERS DEVELOPMENT ON THE JOHNSON/DOLEJSI/TURNER PROPERTY. Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission reviewed this and did recommend unanimously, recommended approval for the concept plan. The applicant, this is the first stage of a review for a planned unit development and it's just a conceptual plan for you to determine whether or not you want to accept it as a planned unit development. Staff in the report did recommend approval that it be rezoned to PUD. We feel that the site does contain some sensitive features that the applicant has been able to work around using some of the relaxed standards of the Zoning Code through the planned unit development. We have several conditions as part of the approval for the concept plan. Mostly it's just recommendations for changes in the new submittal that they have actually made at this time and they have already addressed several of these conditions. The Planning Commission again did recommend unanimously that it be approved for the concept plan. Some of the conditions that they commented on, that we would also hope that the Council give direction to staff on. The connection of the cul -de -sac I and G. We are still recommending that those do be connected. It is two long cul -de -sacs that will be difficult for buses to, they will not be able to go down there and for the children to... Another one of the things that 1 was mentioned or discussed was the cul -de -sac islands. The Planning Commission generally felt that the cul -de -sac islands should be permitted. They liked them. Staff had been recommending that they be removed because there has been some difficulty from an engineering perspective as far as snow removal, emergency access and those type of items. The PUD does meet all the items for a planned unit development. The density is quite low. They are not really utilizing a lot of the smaller lots. It's more so to get flexibility of some of the setbacks and to work around some of the vegetative areas. In summary, we are again recommending approval with the conditions that are on page 19, 20 and 21. The applicant is here to answer any questions. I think he does still have some comments on the conditions that staff are proposing and then again we would just like some direction on some of those conditions from Council. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. And with that, are we going to see what this is all ' about? What the conceptual plan is. Do we have anything at all? Jo Ann Olsen: Do you want the plans? I've got all the. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Are you going to put that up so other people can see it? Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant also has slides if you're interested in that, he can set that up. Mayor Chmiel: Which would be better? 1 Jo Ann Olsen: Oh, I think this is fine. The location of the property and it's surrounded by State Highway 41 and Highway 5. The northern part of the property 1 is where the applicant is proposing to develop at this time. The southern part 15 11 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 1 is in the 1995 study area on the comprehensive plan, that's going to remain as outlot. Nothing's being proposed for that at this time. He's showing a preliminary plat with some of the features of the site. One of the concerns that staff had with this was that the extensive vegetation that was going to be...and the applicant has been working with that... Do you want more? Mayor Chmiel: No, I think that covers it fine. It is your time. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. My name is Terry Forbord and I'm Vice President of Land Development for Lungren Bros. at 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata, Minnesota. And out of courtesy and respect for the schedule that you have, I know you have a lot of items coming up behind me. I have a 2 hour presentation but I don't think that it's, I just don't know what, how many questions you have and I'd be happy to go as much into detail as the Council would wish. This is a concept plan approval. We have already submitted our preliminary plat to the city and they are reviewing it at this time so I will be before you very shortly again with the preliminary plat approval. So at this time I think I would just ask the Council how far they 1 would like me to go at this time because I'd leave that up to the Council. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I guess I have a few questions in relationship to some of the sizes of the lots in comparison. Some of those being what, 11,000 square feet. Which is about another 4,000 and I guess my concerns with some of those particular lots, wanting to know what size those lots were in themselves. And if considerations had been given to many of the things that we sit up here and have people coming back for all those good things such as their decks and things that they want to do and yet we sometimes cannot allow them to do. And as I had been a strong advocate of the 15,000 square foot lots within the city, I feel strongly about that and I would maybe like to see some of those 11,000 square foot lots be upped and some of those larger lots be cut back. And there is a whole host and assortment of different sizes of lots. But that's some of my concerns. Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I have four questions too. I guess I'll just bring them out and then you can answer them throughout your presentation. I'd like to know where you are in the petition process for the extension of the utilities because that will certainly effect this. Would you also please give us the results of the neighborhood meetings you've had with the neighbors and how they've been 1 going. I'd like an explanation of the cul -de -sac islands and how they'll impact the safety. And also, is this project likely to force assessments on existing neighbors with sewer hook -ups, etc.. II Terry Forbord: Those are good questions and I think that I will set up my projector and kind of prepare for some of the things, because each one of those kind of leads to another question. And for me to adequately address them, I will need the visual aids that I have. Jo Ann Olsen: Maybe to answer one of your questions Mr. Mayor that you were bringing up, as he's setting this up. As far as the lot sizes. One of the things that we were looking at with this PUD was that there was always still buildable area for a 60 x 40 pad which we were feeling that's necessary to provide to prevent variances in the future and they are providing that. And a 1 1 16 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 lot of the larger lots actually are wetland areas or vegetated or preserved so I don't know how easy it would be to reduce those and put that elsewhere. , Terry Forbord: The other thing I need to do, in case you haven't figured it out, is stall a little bit for time because all these high priced consultants that I've got are coming from different Council meetings. Oh, there's one of them. Before I get into this, probably the biggest issues or the burning issues that the Council will have related to the plan itself, is the lot size and why are certain things the way that they are. Many of you have heard me address ' some of these things before and just talking conceptually about PUD's, or in other neighborhood communities that we have brought before you. PUD's are really a hassle to do from a developer's standpoint because the process that we have to go through is certainly more complex. It costs more money. There's money documentation. Really the ordinances and the codes are kind of set aside in the city, the legislative authority of the city can pretty much be put on the developer in the manner that the city determines. Whereas if I just came in as a standard subdivision, I could by the code and the subdivision and basically the city would be in a position where they'd probably legally have to approve it as long as I met the code and the ordinance. So you know, people say well, why in the heck do you go through all this then in doing a PUD? It takes more time. It's more costly. Well, it's very simple for a company like ours. In order for us to be successful at Lundgren Bros., we find that we have to do something different than what all of our competition is doing. It's really that elementary. If we were just to go in and put in normal lots and no other pizzaz or any of the things that most of our buyer profile says that they want, then we'd be just like everybody else. It's just as a business, what we're trying to find and we interview and survey all of our clientele 2 or 3 times a year. Say what is it that you want from us? What can we do? What can we provide you with to make the investment that you're making in the community the quality of life that you want better than our competition. Well, the down side of that is all of those things have a price to pay. There's a price to pay for all of those things, whether they be tennis courts. Whether they be volleyball. Whether they be skating rinks. Whether they be intense landscaping and berms and entrance monumentation and irrigation and all those other things. They all cost a lot of money. So one of the benefits for us, when we go into a situation like this, along with being able to provide open space and special little amenities ' in our neighborhoods that normally we could not provide elsewhere under standard subdivision rules and regulations, the PUD allows us to be a little flexible and allows us to divert a little bit from lot sizes and /or setbacks and often times we're able to get a few more lots. Not always, because if you look at the density, the density is extremely lot, but sometimes those additional generations of revenue enables us to do some of those other things. That's only one aspect of it. From a city like Chanhassen's standpoint, and I've talked directly to you about this before on a neighborhood community that you probably recall being referred to as Ortenblat /Ersbo, which we now are marketing as Willow Ridge. The reason we did a PUD there is just purely from an environmental standpoint, it was easily to do that and defer from the standard regulations and be more sensitive to the existing conditions. And this site is not unlike that. I'm going to go to the slides at this time, just to kind of give you an overview of the particular site and it's existing condition. This represents aerial view, helicopter, we flew the site...just some photography so it would be easier to explain to folks on the Planning Commission and the neighbors, Planning Commission and the City Council the general lay of the land 17 11 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 1 and why we are proposing this neighborhood community in the manner in which we do. We also do this, not just to explain to you but in the initial stages we want to see ourselves. I mean many of you have seen aerial photogrpahy, satellite photography and you can kind of get a feel for it then but when we start doing this type of analysis, you really get a different feel for it. It's very helpful from a planning, and those of you who are familiar with us, we spend a lot of time in just plafining. Before it gets to you, we've probably gone through 10 to 20 different concepts and staff often times see those through the process because we come in and say, what do you think of this. What do you think of that so we've usually done probably more concepts planning than what typically is done. But you can see right here is Highway 41. You have Lake Minnewashta over here. This mass of water is the sprawl of Lake Minnetonka to the north. Right along through here there's a power line that goes, you can see the power poles and this one quite readily. This property from here northward, up to about right through Lake Harrison is commonly known as the Song property. North of that is the Carlson property. The subject property of what we are before you tonight is kind of cuts right through this wooded diagonal here and up like this. And right in this general area is what is called the Johnson/ Dolejsi /Turner property and it consists of approximately 95 acres of land. A couple points before I change this slide here. I don't know what you can see from that angle of where you are but right here is a ravine. Then it goes up only about a 75 foot distance. Maybe 100 feet. It goes up approximately 70 ' feet. And then right into here there's another ravine. And then it goes up very abruptly another 65 -70 feet or another 50 -60 feet. Then there's a big wetland here. There's a wetland actually within these trees. There's actually a wetland here and a couple other potholes and there's an inferior wetland complex in this area. And we'll get to those items here in a minute. Here's the existing house so if you were out in front here, you could kind of see this topography and how it changes. It's really an interesting phenomenum. The same thing occurs on the Song property over through here. This is the Song home right on the edge here. This is looking from the north towards the south. This is Highway 41. We have Highway 5. The subject property would be like this and ' like this. You can see this large wetland here, here, and there are a couple of scattered ones throughout the site that are difficult to see in this particular photograph. And here's the power line. You may note by looking at both slides, most of this was all farmland at one time and in fact a dairy farm that was owned by the Donnelly family. And it consisted of a larger parcel than what we now are submitting to you this evening in the planned unit development. And it was grazed a lot in certain areas and it was not grazed in others. So there are certain tree stands that, there's nothing here that's stunning. There's no big woods or anything like that but there certainly are some little areas of groupings of trees that are worth spending some time at trying to save them. For us because there are so few trees, we work very, very hard to try to same them. And the wetlands are interspersed in a somewhat unusual way primarily because of the topography that I described to you earlier. The initial plans that we submitted to the staff and they reviewed them and they came back with some ideas on how they thought that we may minimize some of the grading and maybe lessen some of the impact on certain vegetated areas. We embraced those ideas to the extent that we were able to. Oftentimes at this 1 conceptual stage I might add, you don't really get into exactly which tree is going to go and which one isn't. You get into that more in the design stage. The final design stage. But the diligence of the staff, they're trying to get 11 as much of that up front, at this point in time as possible so we've worked with 11 18 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 them and identified those things and we've actually changed the grading plan that has been submitted just within the last few days as part of the preliminary plat which you'll be seeing shortly, to minimize that. So that kind of gives you a general idea of the site from that direction. I'm not sure if I need to go any further. You can really see the topography on this particular shot. Now again, why are we doing this as a PUD. Anytime you have such constraints like this, I have a couple options. What I can do is what I said earlier, and we've actually developed this plan. We didn't bring it to show it to you because we knew you wouldn't want it anyway but we do have this plan. I could make all the lots 15,000 square feet. Make them all exactly 90 feet at the setback. I could get more lots on this site than are in this proposal and I could maintain my setbacks from the wetlands and the streets and sideyards and everything, but what you would end up with is a vanilla subdivision. Every lot would look identical to the next lot. There'd be more grading than what you're seeing on this proposal and it just wouldn't certainly be what we would want to propose to the City or what we know that our buyer types would want. You look at the other neighborhoods we've done in your community, Near Mountain in particular, and we look at that and we see a bunch of mistakes there. I mean we see a lot of things that we would never do today. We would do a much better job. And yet that's still recognized, even today as a nationally acclaimed neighborhood community and it still gets coverage. But we see a lot of mistakes there so what we're trying to do is get better at it. But the reason we do the PUD is to cover the issues that we've just addressed and actually with your staff, it's refreshing because they come back to us with ideas that, like reduced front yard setbacks, which we normally propose. I've never proposed that here in Chanhassen because I've never received or had it embraced by the Planning Commission or Council. But we do it in every other community we work in. Staff came back with the idea here because they know it will help keep the structures away further from the wetland. It will save a bunch of trees and things like that. Those are very creative solutions to problems we're all trying to solve. Let me see who has, okay I've got some of my consultants here with me. The question regarding lot size. I think I'm going to defer that to John Uban and John can address lot size. And just for their benefit, being that they've just received here, there's been some questions asked right up front due to lot size and why are the lots the way that they are. There were questions about the status of the petition for public improvements and I think the consultants are here for the city. They can probably address that better than we can. There was discussion about the neighborhood meeting. Cul -de -sac islands and assessments on neighbors. Before I give up the podium to John Uban, I'll just tell you a little bit about the neighborhood meetings. As most of you probably know, we typically always have a neighborhood meeting or even more than one on every neighborhood community we develop. And really it's because we sometimes learn something from them. We find out what they don't like and what they do like and we think that it actually saves time, not just for us but it saves time for the Planning Commission and the Council because we try to address the issues before we come before you. There were some concerns by 3 or 4 neighbors about certain things, primarily related to drainage. A couple neighbors said that they would prefer that they would all be acreage lots and that's a normal concern that you see on any growing community that's urbanizing. But generally speaking, I felt that the neighbors felt that it was a good neighborhood community. I have not had anybody come forth and say, we just oppose it and we don't want it to there period. I have not heard that as of this date. Related to the islands, cul -de -sac islands and assessments, I think we'll get to that in 19 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 a minute but right now I'd like to introduce John Uban from Dahlgren, Shardlow ' and Uban. He is our planner. He's a principle with the firm and he has designed this and worked very closely with our firm and staff in putting this proposal to you this evening. Now for the benefit of the audience and for the Council, we have a considerable amount of overhead transparencies to probably address the questions that you're going to have related to setbacks, wetlands, trees, things like that. And just give us a couple seconds. We'll put the, John I think we can put the overhead right up here like we did at the 11 neighborhood meeting and use them simultaneously if we need to. John Uban: What I'd like to go through with you, if you can see our overhead projection. The basic elements of design. Why it's designed the way it is. How the road system and the lots work together and how it works with the topography of the land. Then how our lot sizes work. Primarily we wanted a road system that absolutely tried to miss all the wetlands and natural features and would wind it's way through the area and actually attach, and we've looked at the adjacent property so it gives access on over to CR 117. This curvalinear road system moves through the area and crosses between these two wetlands on a little bridge. It's about the only place you can get through. There's some beautiful pines that have been planted with the previous homestead and we're saving those as an entry feature. Moving on across missing this wetland area in here. Moving up to the north and skimming across the southern end of this wetland and onward to the very northeast corner. And at this point it lines up to miss the wetlands on the other side which are on the Song property. A large one down through this area, and another large one to the north. So it's designed very specifically to work with the land. In addition, we're working back into the property where we can with a curvalinear road system. It's rolling. We're missing these wetland pockets. The whole southern edge is wetland up in this area. That's why we have the cul -de -sac and it's very..., it's rolling. So these follow the ridge lines and then it drops into steep valleys that feed this wetland. The same with this wetland. This little area works it way back up between these two and this works out on a little pennisula that's all surrounded by wetlands. So the road system is designed specifically to fit with the land. Also, it's curvalinear and what we don't want are a lot of straight roads where all the houses line up the same and we drive down and you see fronts of houses ' that sort of march down the street like soldiers or a commercial development or something. We want it to curve so as you enter the subdivision, you focus on this nice woods and area. There's a big beautiful oak tree right here. We're ' going to create a bridge effect and then you focus on that and curve around here and you focus on these pines and then these houses, and we're keeping the existing home in place too. They start coming off all in different positions so that there are no homes that just line up with the next one. So we're doing that all throughout. And the curvalinear patterns were important. And what that creates in the cul -de -sacs are of course lots that are pie shaped. And because of the curvalinear system, we have very few perfectly rectangular lots. They all have lots with side lot lines that come in at angles. And because of that, we have a variety of ways of working with setbacks, sideyards, front yards, to make that all work. And it's really, that flexibility we're looking for in a PUD. The lot size of the smallest lot out here, without wetland in it, I the smaller buildable yard and lot is a little over 10,000 square feet which is. But the average lot size overall is 23,000. So we really have a lot of large lots in here and then some small ones. So what we need is diversity and that's 11 what we like to work with also. The diversity is good for attracting a number ' 20 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 of types of homeowners. It isn't all just one kind of home. It provides a variety of experiences. Wooded lots. Lots that look out. Lots that are flat and will have garden spaces in the backyard. All of that works together and is created specifically for diversity. We think that's very important. And so our lot lines and how we measure the width of the lots varies. What we're looking for is some flexibility that not all lots would have at the setback line of 20 feet, not all of them would have a 90 foot width and that only happens though at lots that are on the ends of cul -de -sacs where the pie shape moves in becomes narrow right at the cul -de -sac. But it gets very wide as it moves out and all you have to do is move the house back, sometimes only 5 feet beyond the calculated setback and we have 90 feet more. And those lots also incidentally are larger than all the other lots. They're the largest lots but they just happen to be the narrowest when you count the setback right at the road. So it's that pattern and that flexibility so that we still get that 90 foot width but only by moving the house back or just moving the garage back with an offset which makes it work very well. That design has worked out excellently... Terry Forbord: The interesting phenomena about that, and anytime you look at, and I get caught up doing this myself when I'm working on this, and I think even at one time we prepared an exhibit for the Council or the Planning Commission of a neighborhood like that without any lot lines. So if you just looked up there and you didn't see any lot lines, that's what you're going to see when you drive through the neighborhood. You're not going to see lines on the ground. It's going to look just like a neighborhood. Now, the other thing that you have to remember is the minimum lot size that has been quoted to you of 10,000+ square foot is of the upland area. The lot itself is larger than that but the staff often times tries to show the Council that that is exclusive of wetland. Now as you know, many of the lots in Chanhassen have what is today considered wetland. I would say a lot of lots in the city of Chanhassen have and if you took out those lots what is wetlands, you'd find many lots very, very small. So the lot that has been expressed to you as being that size, is exclusive of that. The other question that was asked is related to cul -de -sac islands and medians. I think what we'll do is just very briefly tell you a little bit about that. I've got a few pictures that I. can show you and the reason that we've never presented them to you before is because, just candidly speaking with members of the City, we didn't think that the City would embrace them. We were quite surprised to find that the Planning Commission, the majority of the Planning Commission said that they'd always wanted to do, or they wanted for a long time to have cul -de -sac islands and medians and I didn't even know that. But we have never , brought them forth to you before. We have done them in other neighborhoods before and we're finding now that cities are asking us to do them where they had not before. And the reason is very simple. As you all know the movement afoot for less impervious material on the ground. Less pavement. Subdivisions not designed for cars. Subdivisions that has more green space. Things that set them apart from what is normal. Now there's obviously, there's some difficulty in embracing that for many cities. Primarily by the public works department and often times by public safety. But if you go to communities like Burnsville where they've been doing islands for years and years and years and if Roger Knutson was here tonight he'd tell you because he's worked in that community for years. Decades and Burnsville almost demands them. They want them in their cul -de -sacs. Now you have to remember some of the reasons they don't like it is because they say, well. If you were going to turn around with a vehicle in there, the island would be in the way. Well that's not true becuase they never 21 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 get close to the island. If a vehicle's so big such as a moving van. Have you ever see a moving van turn around in a cul—de-sac? They can't. Even one I without an island. They can't do it. They have to stop and back up and then go once again and they can get out. So the island has nothing to do with a moving van being able to turn around because they can't turn around anyway. The other I issue that typically comes up is snow removal. And I used to contract in the city of Plymouth, myself in my business to plow their snow and I plowed areas that they had islands in and it is different than plowing a normal cul -de -sac but the neat thing about it is, you don't have to plow the area where the island I is because that has storage capacity for snow all by itself. And the other thing is usually you go further on the outside of the cul -de -sac and you blade that to the outside. When you make your other pass, you blade that on the 1 inside and there's storage capacity on that island. Now the down side to islands, if somebody was trying to figure out, well what is it that we should be worried about. One is obviously maintenance. Who's going to take care of it because I've seen personally some very unsightly cul -de -sac islands because there was no mechanism set up to maintain them and keep the weeds out of them and all that other stuff. Well, as you probably guessed, we're having a homeowners association in this PUD that's being presented to you, not unlike in 1 what we do in other neighborhoods because there's a lot of open space. There's a lot of entrance monumentation and plantings and things like that that have to be maintained and the islands would be maintained by the homeowners association. I Now it's important to design these so they take as little maintenance as possible, and I'm going to show you a couple of examples. Here's an example of a median. Many of you have seen medians before. You probably have a few in the city. I think that it's important to note that the medians that we're going to II have are right at the entry. This is a neighborhood community and basically the purpose of this slide is just to show you that they can look very nice. I don't know if any of you have ever been up to Carlson Parkway by the Carlson Companies 1 corporate offices and I had a slide that I didn't bring it tonight, but medians can really change the feel of what roadways look like. And I think there's a lot of interest. The discussion on the Highway 5 Task Force that's been debated I around this community for the last few years and I've heard a lot of people say that it's very important to them how that roadway looks. What is the impression of the community going to be when you're driving through it? The median certainly softens the impact of the roadways. I don't know if you're going to II be having planted medians on Highway 5 into the business district of the city but I think you can probably get the gest of what I'm saying. When you put landscaping and green space or lighting and flowers or anything like that in a 1 roadway, it really softens the impact. This is a picture of a cul -de -sac island. This is taken from a helicopter. This particular island, I don't know if you can see it from where you are, but it has a curb. A surmountable curb I around it. It also then has what is called rush. White river rock. Many of you have probably used this for a landscaping element around your home. Around your shurbs. And then it has the small boulder retaining wall that goes around it and then there are the types of the plantings in the middle of this that are 1 fairly easy to take care of. They don't take a lot of maintenance. They're durable and in the case of the evergreens, they're green year round. And this is not exactly the type of planting materials we would probably put here for the ' way we would do it. We'd put the emphasis on evergreens and things that are green all the time and then maybe have some lower bushes in front of them that in the summertime they bud and perhaps even flower. Now underneath all this rock is fabric to keep the weeds from growing through it and because there's no 22 1 City Council Meeting - September 14,°1992 , grass here, many of you may have seen medians and cul -de -sac islands that have grass. Obviously somebody needs to maintain those and what we would propose would be something of a lower maintenance. Something that softens the impact of the pavement. Because if you've ever looked, if you've ever flown over a community, cul -de -sacs are these huge things of pavement and they just sit there and they're really quite ugly. So we think that this does soften it Here's one at ground level. The reason I'm showing you this slide is probably the first thing you'll notice if you take a look at it for a few minutes. What do you normally see when you drive into a cul -de -sac? In today's architecture, because of what people can afford as far as design. The first thing you're going to notice is boy, there sure are a lot of garage doors looking at me. And again, it's ugly. Garage doors are not a beautiful element of a house. The other buying points of a house that people like, the roofline, the point of entry, window treatments, things like that, maybe some specialty windows. Those are the things that capture the eye and are aesthetically pleasing. But because of the economics of construction today and because all the lots can no longer afford to be large lots where you spread that house out really wide, we find that people having to put the garage out in front. Shorten the distance of the pavement to the home because that helps save cost, etc, etc. You certainly can see by coming into this cul -de -sac that really the first thing you see is that there's a lot of really nice landscaping done on the island. And that's exactly what we would propose, or something very similar to it. Is any of you are familiar with our entrances, we're getting better at it. We think we've done a fairly good job but we're actually getting better. This is a new one in Plymouth called Churchhill Farms. And this one has a median in the middle to the entrance. It's quite a grand entrance. The theme of it is thoroughbred racing and has an authentic rail fence that you may see at a Kentucky farm and it has this type of little gingerbread design on the monuments and a lot of flowers and things like that. And you can see this median right here. This is all irrigated and there will be flags. An American flag, and on the other flag poles going in we'll have a Minnesota and another flag that's going in will have the logo of the development. And the same thing is repeated on both sides and then we planted all of these trees to make kind of a promenade into the neighborhood community. ...point of arrival and as this matures and fully develops, it's tremendously dramatic. And we think that it makes a statement that identifes the project and is really quite nice. Now because we're coming off of a major trunk highway, Highway 41, we think it's important immediately to address that and if you looked at the site plan that you have, one of the other things we're learning to do over the last 5 -6 years is that we don't put any lots right at the entrance. Right when you come in, we could put a lot right behind that fence and one on the other side. We put outlots in there now and we keep those houses back in there and try to keep them at least 150 feet, 175 feet into the development so when you come in you get this feeling of open space. You get to see flowers. Everything's taken care of. Somebody's maintained it and it certainly is a feel that if we were unable to do those things, they wouldn't have the same effect. This is just the flip side of that entrance. Some of the other things as part of the PUD that we're able to do that we probably couldn't do under standard subdivision, is we can put in little park areas. Now some of you may have some questions about the private park later on here. What we have found, and we've done this before, right away. One of the very first thing that we do, once it's platted and we open up the neighborhood communities, we put in these facilities. Typically as you know, in the park plans, the park, usually the people are all there and then the parks get developed because the city just 23 ' 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 doesn't have that kind of money in their budgets to go out and put in all kinds II of extra little features that they may like to. They just don't have the money. What we're proposing, we go in and we build a tennis court ourselves. This righ there a $27,000.00 play structure. We put in the volleyball courts. We do all that stuff right away and we still pay a park dedication fee. So what we're doing is we're providing a little something special in the neighborhood right up front and the real benefit for that is, it isn't just for the city in alleviating some of the pressures on the park system. But really we do it for II the benefit of the people who buy homes from us. When it comes time, for them it's an investment. When it comes time for them to sell their home, what's going to give them that special advantage that the other homes that are for sale 11 on the market don't have. And if you go through the other neighborhoods that we have these type of play structures in, you can go by there any time of the day and there's mothers out there, or fathers for that matter, with their kids and there's people playing tennis at any time of the day. And those are all ' maintained by the homeowners association and it's a real plus on the resale value of those homes. I know that you have some questions related to assessments and to the public improvements. I think at this time I would defer II those questions to the city's consultants and then I have an exhibit here when they're done that I'd like to just pass out to each one of you and put it up on the overhead. Basically going through the recommendations because there's just II a few things we'd like clarified and a couple of items we'd like to share with you. So at this time I think I'd defer the issue about assessments and the status of the public improvements that have been petitioned to the consultants and then I'm available to answer, or my consultants are, to answer any of the II questions that you may have. Whether they're engineering, wetlands, or planning matters. II Phil Gravel: We will be at the September 28th meeting to present the public improvement...and there will be some proposed assessments for the area...not included in this development that are, most of them are green acres so we're ' assuming that some of the same standards that you've taken on like the Bluff Creek project...only one unit assessments. The small homes... Councilman Workman: So there are single family homes adjacent that are going to II be assessed? Mayor Chmiel: Could be, yes. II Councilman Workman: Hook up charge? I Phil Gravel: Like the Song parcel...Properties to the east of this. Councilman Workman: Are those people all aware of that? II Phil Gravel: They'll be noticed. We're planning on having a neighborhood meeting in early October before the public hearing which would probably be... ' Councilwoman Dimler: I have one question on the assessments too that doesn't really relate to other properties but your own properties on the pie shaped lots. The configuration there where they have very little front footage but the lot gets bigger as it goes back. They're only assessed for the road on the front footage and so what you're actually having there is that the large lots 1 24 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 are paying less and some of the smaller lots would have more front footage. Is that a problem for your own assessment rolls or has that been in other developments? Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, the improvements in the neighborhood, when people buy a home from us. All the assessments are in and paid. They buy a package from us. They buy the home, the lot and everything is included in the sale price of that so there isn't, they don't get hit with that additional assessment later on. Councilwoman Dimier: Okay, so that's not likely to be a problem in the future? Terry Forbord: No, no. It's a package of what they buy. Councilwoman Dimier: It will be though when the road's redone. Terry Forbord: I'm sure the city has a policy in how they deal with local neighborhood, residential communities. Councilwoman Dimier: That's why I asked. Terry Forbord: I'm sure it's consistent. I would hope that it would be and this project wouldn't be treated any differently. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but we did have some problems. That's why I asked the question. Terry Forbord: Okay. Hopefully, I wish I could tell you these roads last forever and they never need any maintenance but that would be a lie. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Terry Forbord: Are there any other questions that I may address or would you ' like me to put the items up on the screen for clarification? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, could you explain and again, I liked your cul -de -sac presentation but I did ask about the safety impact there. It looks to me like that if you have parking then, if you allow street parking for visitors and whoever, there might be a safety problem as far as safety vehicles getting through. Can you address that as to what other communities are experiencing? Terry Forbord: I think I could best let John Uban address that. He could do it better than I could. John Uban: On the cul -de -sacs, it really won't work any differently than your existing cul -de -sacs in the city when it comes to parking. Around the cul-de-sac you notice that the driveways are closer together. But the driveways themselves hold quite a few cars in addition to what's in the garage. And we have not ever found a situation in which a cul -de -sac itself really gets parked up beyond a reasonable sort of level. What is nice about an island, it actually helps control the parking. It defines and makes the cul -de -sac look more like a typical street going around in a circle. And it maintains the same width of street all the way around so it isn't substandard in any respect and actually we 25 , 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 think it works better because it better defines the street edge and allows for II better organization of traffic just from looking at it. Councilwoman Dimler: And is all your curbing surmountable, in the proposed development? ' John Uban: Yes. We would like it to be that way. 1 Councilwoman Dimier: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions at this particular time? Tom. II Councilman Workman: Only, what was the, we have an outlet through the Song property. How does that jibe with future development? They just have to accept II that as a connecting point or how does that connect? Paul Krauss: It's really, whoever goes first cast the die for how this will I happen but we've done a lot more than that. We've had a meeting with the Song's, Mr. Forbord and I and their engineers meet with the Song's 3 -4 months ago when it became clear that this was where the road was going to go. We asked their consultant, John Uban to sketch out an alignment that made sense that I missed the wetlands. We basically had a need to connect the two points. We know we needed continuity between TH 41 and Galpin. Early on in the process we realized this is not the kind of terrain that you plow a road that looks like I Lake Lucy through. It just was much too hilly and we'd lose a lot to do that so we wanted the continuity and then it became a question of where to put it and there really was only one location that lent itself to the continuity and that's where it is right now. I Terry Forbord: I think it's fair to say, and some of you know this. If you just would stop and think about it for a minute but we've been working on this I now for 3 1/2 years and we've actually worked very closely with the Song family on the alignment of that road. And the city has been, has really kind of asked us to take the initiative and figure out, okay we know this road's got to go here someday. So let's figure out the way that it can be done with having the ' least impact on the area and they helped provide us with data and aerial photography and topography so we could determine where that future roadway would be. And the exhibit that you see on the screen right now is very close to II where that road would end up being. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Paul, getting back to those street widths. As you're well I aware, in some of the subdivisions that have been constructed and built up, the given problems that we're having with parking on streets and some of the accessibility of emergency vehicles getting to these. Do you see much problem here if the parking is done, and it's going to happen. I don't care how hard you try. What's going to be a problem for us as a city? Paul Krauss: Well, we're not looking at reducing the pavement widths here. II Charles, what are we looking on the collector street portion. Charles Folch: It's still a 36 foot wide street. The right -of -way is what's been proposed to be reduced from 80 to 60. But the pavement width will actually remain the same. Or remain the standard. 1 26 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 1 Paul Krauss: So from what the eye sees and what the car parks on, it's not going to be any different than an oversized actually street elsewhere. There's also not all the homes front on that street. Relatively few actually do. The people parking in the streets more than likely will be parking next to the homes on the cul -de -sacs. , Mayor Chmiel: If and when those homes go in and closely situated as they were, with the driveways coming in, what total numbers of cars can be parked in that drive and what is the distance of that drive from the garage back out to the street? Terry Forbord: Okay, every particular situation is different because it depends , on the type of, if you've ever looked at it like. Mayor Chmiel: The lots themselves. , Terry Forbord: Not even just that. But have you ever looked at a plan, view of a plan, what does the footprint look like. We have a repertoire of probably 25 different floor plans that would be available to people in here and everyone looks a little different and some of them, the garage is forward a little bit more and some of them, the garage is back a little bit. But I think it's fair to say that most cars, excuse me, most homes and driveways have a stacking capability for a minimum, I mean in a worst case scenario, even if you had a 20 foot front yard setback, which on some of these lots is being recommended by staff and we agree with that, that you'd probably have a stacking capability of 2 cars in the driveway and then you have 2 cars probably in the garage or maybe even 3, depending on the style of home or if the people elected to have a 3 car garage. In that case, then the driveway would be even wider and then maybe you'd have a stacking capability of 3. But more typically it's not uncommon to have a stacking of 4 cars in a driveway. It just depends on the given situation. Mayor Chmiel: And I keep looking back at a couple of the subdivisions, the problems that we're having now. It's the same situation where the driveways do not have the capacity to keep the vehicles there. Before you know it, they have 4 cars and maybe they have 4 children. They have 6 cars and there isn't room enough within those driveways to park these vehicles and they're parked on the street. You get that with adjacent neighbors. They may not be quite as prolific within those families but, there is some of those problems that I see concerns with that I see happening within town right now. And then they come back and we decide maybe we're not going to put no parking on one side. Well they don't want that because they have no place to really park. But yet the problem that comes back to me, as I stated before, is the accessibility of having our fire department or police department. Fire department's more my concern, because we're not providing them the proper amount of space for them to get to their destination. And I can see where it could come back to the city and make us liable because we approved basically what went in and not giving enough room on those streets. Terry Forbord: Yeah, the streets in our proposal are no smaller than any other neighborhood street that is currently within the city and there may be some that are even smaller. You may have some that have some reduced road widths. Well even the road right out in front of City Hall is a quite narrow roads but the 27 1 II City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 II roads in these neighborhoods would be larger than the road in front of City Hall. I don't think, and maybe Charles or Paul can add to this but I don't believe that there's a street or a situation in this proposed neighborhood community that jeopardizes the public safety any more than any other II neighborhood community would. Charles Folch: Related to the collector street, 36 foot width allows for II parking on both sides. Mayor Chmiel: It provides parking on both sides of the 36 feet. The average II width of a car is 5 feet? Depending. Give some, take some. Okay, so that's 10 feet. Richard, what's the size of the engines going through? Councilman Wing: They're 8 footers. II Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me? Councilman Wing: Most of them are maximum width, 8 footers. Mayor Chmiel: 8 footers. Okay. I Councilman Wing: Don, I guess I don't see a problem. And even with these cul -de -sacs, you can get it near a cul -de -sac. There's no problem with the hose lengths at that point. II Mayor Chmiel: And I was thinking mainly of our main engine. I Councilman Wing: The big one. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. It could give us problems. I guess I've had some of my questions. II Terry Forbord: Your Honor, I'm going to pass out some material that I'm going to put up on the screen and it's just a copy of the recommendations of staff and II just to get some clarification and address a couple things that the Planning Commission are requesting and hopefully answer some questions. The purpose of this is basically what we have here is what is before you in your II recommendations and the bold items underneath each item are just my responses to those things and we're requesting a couple items be deleted. The first item is on the recommendation is reduce the amount of tree removal currently proposed through reduction of grading, use of retaining walls, removal and shortening of 11 cul -de -sacs, different housing styles, lowering of street grades, and reconfiguration of lot sizes and locations. The applicant has met with staff and considered their recommendations where possible. Altering the grading plan, II utilizing retaining walls on home sites, reconfiguring lot lines, whie still keeping with the applicant's design. And the applicant does not wish to delete the cul -de -sac H and replace it with a private road. And I've asked that those items in number 1 be deleted. If we could put up the site plan just briefly II John. There was some discussion and some concern about the connection of two roadways in this neighborhood community. John, if you could just point to those. That is I believe I and J. Is that correct? II John Uban: G. I and G. 1 28 II City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Terry Forbord: I and G. Now it's really quite simple why we are submitting these as cul -de -sacs. And the cul -de -sac debate, all of you have heard on numerous times before I'm sure throughout your tenure as public officials and really, and you've heard me talk about it before and I won't belabor the issue but we create neighborhood communities. We design them to be safe. What we really want are these little individual neighborhoods and alcoves that cul -de -sacs really offer you and 99.9 people out of 100 would prefer to live on a cul -de -sac. So what we do, if you recall when I was showing you the aerial photography and I was showing you where that ravine was and then the hill went back up and then the ravine went down again. John or Ken, can you kind of show where those are there? John Uban: Here is one ravine through here. There's another ravine down through here so this is a hill and then it drops down and once again you have this area between these two wetlands. So it drops down and then it drops down again into here. Mayor Chmiel: What's the height from one end to the other? Terry Forbord: Pardon me? Mayor Chmiel: You're talking with the ravines going down. 1 John Uban: Some of these ravines are what, 30 feet or so approximately. Through here and here and I really don't know, it's 90 to 100 feet probably the full distance. Terry Forbord: And so all we typically do and this also helps eliminate some grading, is we try to put where the houses and the roads are going to be on the hiohest parts and have as many walkouts as we possibly can because again, 99% of the people would prefer walkout if we could make it available to them. Yes, you could connect a lot of roads in there. We just think it makes a better neighborhood and there's issues on both sides of the fence on that and that's why I'm asking you to allow us to proceed as it's proposed. We don't feel that it's really a safety issue. There's no documented evidence anywhere in the United States, there's never been a death anywhere documented that somebody died as a result of a cul -de -sac that was too long. I mean that's a fact and the Urban Land Institute will tell you that and any other organization that follows these types of things. But that's for your consideration and we would just ask that that item be deleted. Item number 2, provide a detailed tree removal plan illustrating types, number and caliper of trees over 6 inch caliper being removed. The applicant has submitted on September llth a tree removal tabulation chart for the site. A more detailed plan will be developed during the final design stage of each development phase, and I believe that our consultants have discussed that with staff and I think that meets their satisfaction. Number 3, revise the lot areas by removing wetland area from the calculations. The applicant has submitted those revisions on September llth. Item number 4. Demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60 x 40 building pad and a 12 x 12 deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. And we have submitted that information to the staff as well and you'll be seeing that information as part of the preliminary plat application, if you haven't already received it. Item number 5, revise lot widths so that each lot has a minimum of 90 feet at the building setback. Or 29 1 II City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 I provide justification that the required buildable area can be accomplished. We would like to delete the first part of that sentence. We've submitted drawings and narrative and other examples on charts describing how this can occur and we certainly could meet the 90 foot if we just move the houses back anywhere from 5 II to 8 feet and then we'd be at 90 feet. Remember that the lots that aren't at 90 feet are the ones that happen to be in the cul -de -sac and they're not 90 feet at the setback but we could just push that house back a little more and it would be I 90 feet, and also those are the largest lots. Number 6, we've submitted information to answer that. Number 7, we've done the same there. Number 8, I'm going to just talk to you a little bit about that in case you have any II questions. The ordinance requires a 10 foot sideyard setback. The intent of the ordinance is typically to make sure that there's 20 feet between each structure. What we have asked for, and I believe staff accepts that and is recommending that they accept it, is that we are allowed some flexibility to I shift that house back and forth for the simple example is if there's a large tree on one part of the lot. Give some flexibility so that home can move back and forth. So in other words, it's the same thing that we've done on other II neighborhood communities for the same reason. And we're asking for a minimum setback of 9 feet on the house side, 6 feet on the garage side but at no time ever will there be 20 feet, less than 20 feet between structures. And the other II neighborhoods we've developed over 300 homes with this exact same arrangement in other neighborhoods. And the minimum ends up being 20 but the vast majority of them are even greater than 20 feet between structures. Primarily because if you remember the way the site plan looks, the roads are moving and so just because 1 of the way the houses get situated on the lot, it's not like a bunch of homes just lined up in a row. Every home's tiled, angled and things like that so you typically end up with far greater than 20 feet. 20's the minimum. Number 9. I The applicant accepts the staff recommendation. Number 10, same. Number 11, locate the extension for watermann service along the east side of Trunk Highway 41. Now I believe that our consulting engineer has talked to the engineering department and the reason that they asked for that recommendation is they II thought there was going to be a berm built along Highway 41. Well if you're familiar with the site at all, the topography drops off dramatically downward from Highway 41 and so it's nearly impossible to build a berm there and have any I impact whatsoever so there isn't going to be a berm built. Staff wanted, if there was going to be a berm built, they wanted to get that waterline in there now before the berm got put on top of it. And so it's my understanding that II staff has decided that that's not a problem. Number 12, the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation. Number 13, the applicant agrees with staff recommendation. Same with 14 and 15. Item number 16. We ask that the words, the connection of, be deleted and so that recommendation would say, review I and II G streets so it will provide a 3% or less grade for the first 50 feet. For the reason that I've already stated to you, is that we'd like to keep those cul -de -sacs and not link those streets. We think it makes a better U neighborhood. Number 17, I would like to delete the portion that says, delete the center median islands on A Street and all the cul -de -sacs. We would request that you allow us to put the medians in in the cul -de -sac island for the reasons that I've already stated. At either way, this might be an opportunity for the II city to decide if they like the idea. I mean I don't know if you have them in any neighborhood communities. I think that we've been diligent in the way that we handled all of our homeowners associations in the past and the way we've 1 maintained our neighborhoods. This might be a good time for the city to try it. We think that we'd do a good job and that the city'd be happy with the outcome. II 30 II City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 II Number 18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer 1 strips, and protection of wetland. And then, continually submitting revised and additional detail and working with the staff to provide the most sensitive application as possible, and we've even submitted additional information as of II today. And those items typically will be handled in the final design. Number 19 is a very major problem for us. Provide "as build" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building II Official. We have never been required of that in the city before. In all of our neighborhoods, we're the builder. We don't just develop it and then put a shingle out and ask other builders to come on in and build a house without any knowledge of what's been done in the grading and the developing and the soil II corrections. And if you were going to do an as build on every single lot, in other words that's a cross section of what's been done on that lot for every one, it would greatly increase the cost of developing the site and we don't feel II that it's necessary and there's really any benefit from it. We would just ask that you allow us to do it in a manner that we've always done it with the city in the past.. And the last item is respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Departments. We would do everything that we possibly can II to continue to work with those various departments to answer all those questions and supply any information that they may request. If there's any other questions of me or my staff, we'd be happy to address them. II Mayor Chmiel: Paul, in reviewing the comments that are here, are you in agreement with what, on some of these, are you in agreement with Mr. Forbord? 11 Are all these in the best interest of the city? Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, we've been working with Lundgren Bros. on this for II quite some time and we think basically we have a real excellent proposal. I mean it's extraordinarily low density. It's protecting most of the site. Most of it's going to remain green so fundamentally we're in agreement. Most of the items that Terry read through are items that we're making good progress on. The II revised plans have been submitted to Jo Ann and we have to review them but we think we're making good progress. We continue to, I mean the only salient one that we still continue to disagree on is whether or not those two cul -de -sacs II should be connected. I guess I'm not going to argue about ULI data but ULI is an organization of and by and for developers. You had situations here twice over the summer where fundamentally Teton Lane is basically two cul -de -sacs right now abutting up against each other where the fire truck got stuck on the II wrong side. It happens. To say it doesn't happen trivializes the information. We agree that most people would like to live on cul -de -sacs. We don't think we're being knee jerk and in a community like, I believe Eden Prairie says you can have two cul -de -sacs or three cul -de -sacs. That's it. You decide where II they're going to go. I mean other communities do that. We do believe that it should be connected. The cul -de -sac right now is 1,400 feet long. Many communities have a 500 foot limitation. We don't do that here. We try to be II more sensitive. There's 45 homes on it. So we still would prefer to have that connected. As for the other things, I think we're basically in agreement on everything. By the way, that cul -de -sac design change is one that can be incorporated very simply. I mean there's no question it doesn't have a major impact on the layout of the subdivision. As to the islands in the cul -de -sacs in a parkway type of sense, it presents us with a little bit of a dilemma II because as planners we agree with a lot of what Mr. Forbord's saying but the question for us, is there a way to work that out that's acceptable to our 31 II II 11 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 engineering department and to our public safety department. We hope there might II be but we'd really defer on that issue to Charles and his folks. Other than that, I think we're pretty much in agreement. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any specific questions that any of the Council may have? Mike. • II Councilman Mason: I wanted to ask about those two cul -de -sacs and that's a bone of contention that will have to be resolved. I guess I don't have any specific questions. I think as usual, Mr. Forbord's done an excellent job of saying what Lundgren wants to do. I just wanted to make a comment on diversity. I'm not I quite sure how much diversity there is between a $150,000.00 home and a $250,000.00 home. But that's my bias. Do you want some more general comments now or do you want to wait on that? II Mayor Chmiel: If you'd like to provide those at this time, that's be acceptable. II Councilman Mason: I like the idea of the cul -de -sac islands. I think many of the people on the Planning Commission did too. Certainly seeing that picture with some bushes in the middle is very nice. It looks as the other Lundgren I developments in this town, looks very nice on paper. I guess my other major concern is assessments for people that don't own or are not part of the Lundgren property, and I know there's the discussion of future benefit and what not. I I think we need to talk about that because I have some strong feelings about that. But it sounds like the City is for the most part in agreement with what's going on here and it looks to be pretty well done. II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Tom. Councilman Workman: I don't have a whole lot of questions. I just, we're 1 talking about Street I and Street G connecting? I too just have the question right now. These conceptual ideas look different to the neighbors when they know they have an assessment. If they do or they don't. The concept can be one I of indifference if they don't have one but it can be rather ugly if they do. I guess I'd like out consultant to as soon as possible try to get that information out to the neighbors so they can maybe better assess their impact. That's all I have. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. I Councilman Wing: Well I like the PUD concept and my concern is, like of a PUD ordinance. This has been how many years now we've been talking about a PUD ordinance and if you look on page 3 or wherever it is, it talks minimum lot size and it has the word draft. The Council still hasn't come to terms with minimum lot size. And I don't care if you want to decide on 5,000, 10,000's too small for me. I've made that clear and I think we ought to get the PUD off the draft stage and in the ordinance stage which means to do it, we've got to plug in one II number which is the minimum lot size. And between the five of us, we ought to be able to come up with a number. 10,000's too low for me but I'm not going to argue it if there's a majority opinion. I think we've said we don't want to go II below 15,000 but then you don't have a PUD so I want to protect the PUD ordinance and maybe there's a compromise number that we can come up with that we II 32 - 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 can plug into this and be part of this right now. But right now, the PUD ordinance doesn't exist because it's a draft and we still haven't decided on minimum lot size so I think that has to be done. 10,300. Pick a number. I don't care anymore. I just think we've got to get off the draft stage after all these years, at least Council should, before you people leave, take responsibility for a minimum lot size. ' Councilman Mason: Here, here. Yeah, I don't have any trouble at all with 10,000 feet. For RSF, I would strongly disagree. With the situation with Near Mountain and what not, I know some people that are on those small lots that are perfectly happy. Mayor Chmiel: And I also know some that aren't. Councilman Wing: And I know many that are. Councilman Mason: We'll be going back and forth on this one for a while. Councilman Wing: It's only going to take 3 of us to say we don't like 10,000 square foot lots. Okay, 4/5. We may never get it. Alright, PUD ordinance. I think we should address it along with this. At the Board, the variance Board. What do you call that group that met at 6:00? Councilman Workman: Board of Adjustments. Councilwoman Dimler: That you're part of you mean? ' Councilman Wing: Carol Watson brought up a comment about that she doesn't like the appearance that we're giving our city and this is with some justification, and Paul does justify his position here as Terry did earlier, and that's our 20 foot front yard setback. And Carol commented, we go from street to curb to the house and they're narrow. We have a very short driveway that holds 2 cars, etc, etc. and we wind up with more parking on the street. I like the appearance. I like the parking. I like the front yard of a 30 foot setback versus a 20 and I realize there's environmental concerns but if our rule is 30 feet, and we stick with it, these rules evenly applied are going to come in and develop that way and we don't have to argue about it. If there's a wetland back there, it still has to be protected. I wouldn't shift anything. That lot just has to be built differently. So I don't like the 20 foot frontyard setback. I'd like to see that maintained to 30. I think it's a better apperance. Having the houses that close, we can talk about who likes front yards and backyards. And the backyards are wonderful for bar -be -ques but the reality is, the kids get on their tric's and they head down the driveway and they head into the street. That's where the action is and you can go through any neighborhood with children, and all the complaints we get, it's not the problems in their backyards. It's the problem in the streets and their frontyards. A 20 foot driveway's pretty short into the street so, my preference would be that we don't go with the 20 foot front yard setback. I would like to maintain the cul -de -sacs. I'm happy with it. If the fire department has to go to Street A or G or I, they know how to get there and there's numerous cases in the city that maybe should be dealt with. 2190 Murray Hill Road is on the east side and there's no connection and 2200 is on the west side. It's a long way around. So we've got a lot of problems like that but in this case, if we're going to go to cul -de -sac A, we know how to get there and ' 33 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 II connected or not, I don't see that as an issue. I like the medians. I'd urge II you to continue the medians and go with the cul -de -sac islands. I think they're classy. I've seen them. I think Terry's got some, I think they'll do it very attractively. Paul, is that as build, you said you're happy with that? The delete the as build, you're content with that? I Jo Ann Olsen: The language that we put in there was that Terry had mentioned that he had some other ways of doing that, of meeting that condition with other I cities and so we were accepting that. Councilman Wing: Okay. And beyond that, I feel real comfortable that Lundgren I Bros. is going first class here. This is going to be one of the nicest projects in our city. The setback and the cul -de -sac's I'm happy with. The medians. That's all I have. II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay I asked my four questions up front. I think they did II an excellent job of answering them. I want to thank you for that. You didn't evade any of the issues. I like the concept here of a PUD because it does give the city more control. As Terry said, that he could go ahead and develop it. It wouldn't look as nice and probably get more lots so to me that makes sense to II go with the PUD in this instance. I don't really have any objections to any of their deletions. I do like cul-de-sacs. I know people prefer to live on them. The one thing that still remains in my mind is the connection of I and G but if I Richard is comfortable with that, being that he's on the Fire Department, then I don't have a problem with that either. I Mayor Chmiel: That's it? Thank you. Councilwoman Dimier: But I do think we still need to talk about the assessments to existing neighbors and I know they're going to have a meeting on that but II that is a major concern. Mayor Chmiel: That was the first thing I had was the assessments. And I secondly, I fully agree that we're going to have to come up with a PUD ordinance rather than going through all the, excuse the expression, Micky Mouse that we've done. And I think we should really try to determine what that figure is going I to be. Because I too don't like, you know as well as I do the smaller lot size because there's just a lot of problems that we have to live with once those things go in. And a 12 x 12 deck is something that some people like but there are other people who like the 14 x 60 as well and to have it wrap around the II side of a house and not have the proper setback requirements. If you put for that particular pad that you put in. So those are some of the concerns that I still have on that. I too don't like the 20 foot setbacks. I think the 30 are I probably a little more acceptable because that way there can be additional vehicles parked, not only in the garage but also on that driveway. And I do really like that aspect of it. And I think I had some of the questions that I II had answered too as far as the lot sizes and the street widths. I guess I really don't have any problem with those islands either. I think it dresses it up. It makes it absolutely look neat in appearance and gives a certain amount of richness just to that particular area. But I know there's a given problem II with some of our people in doing the snowplowing and the time that's taken away II 34 II City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 from that to get everybody else out during the wintertime is crucial as well. So there's some things that I live with one and look at the other and understand their concerns. So with that, is there any other questions? Councilman Wing: Just one clarification for Paul. On this 90 foot width. That's not clear to me. These pies are coming in and those houses really look, they're in like the middle of the pie and they really point at each other. Are you buying that? Terry's proposal. Paul Krauss: That's typical for a cul -de -sac. What Terry's proposing that we accept, the problem comes if you assume that all the homes are 30 feet back from the right -of -way. If you arbitrarily say that, because this is a PUD, some of them might have a 40 foot setback or a 35 foot setback, if you push it back to that point, the lot's plenty wide enough to accommodate the house. We don't have a problem doing that and in the PUD you have the flexibility to say Lots 10 thru 12 on this block are 40 foot setbacks and it works just fine. Councilman Wing: So you're comfortable with number 5 and his deletion? The Planning Commission looked like they put a lot of concern into that. Councilman Mason: What's your feeling on that 20 as opposed to 30 foot? Paul Krauss: Well, again we've been advocates of it for the flexibility it ' provides. Our streets are designed to accommodate on street parking. If they're not supposed to have any cars on them, let us make them narrower than we do because we're spending a lot of money and taking down a lot of trees and doing a lot of grading to make them wide enough to accommodate it. There is no house that's built in the city that can accommodate any less than 4 cars. Most of them can accommodate more than that without being in the street. I'm sure there's some cases of abuse. We had on the Board of Adjustment tonight, Carol was talking about people parking semi's and RV's and other things that may probably be in violation of other parts of the City Code right now. We also have some situations where some streets were built under width. I mean having the right -of -way that we do now and the street design that we do now, is a relatively recent phenomena. It's only been in the last 4 years, 3 -4 years or so that the streets have been that size. So I don't know on a case by case basis where those problems are cropping up. But I know that when you take 60 feet or 80 feet for the street and then you take another 30 feet for the front yards, and then you have to pave these long driveways down it, that's a lot of blacktop. It's not always, not serving a purpose all the time. It serves some purpose. But you're really pushing out those grading limits and everything we try to do with the PUD is cluster. So we would support the 20 foot. And other flexibility to reduce the amount of impact that development has. Councilman Mason: Let me ask you a question Terry. I mean obviously you're in the business to please the people that buy homes from you. What's your thought on the 20 as opposed to 30? Terry Forbord: In the last 30 days I've been asked that question by four City Councils and the best way that I can answer this question is that there's a phenomenon, many of you have already heard me say this. There's a phenomena taking place in the marketplace of people buying homes today. Most people nowadays are two income earning families. There's about 3 1/2, 3 to 3 1/2 ' 35 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 people per household. And they're not sure that's it's if t a s going to shrink or if it s going to grow. It depends on who you talk to. And it depends on what part of the country you're talking to and actually even there's some differential just between parts of the Twin Cities area. But those people now, children are more active. All the kids are playing piano or they're in soccer or hockey or, ' I mean kids are more active and families are more active than at any time in the history of man. And what our people, customers are telling us, the vast majority. Not all. Are telling us that they do not want to spend a lot of time maintaining lawns anymore. In fact, our company is going through a critical self analysis right now because we have always put redwood siding on all of our homes for 23 years. And now we are having people not buy homes from us because they have to stain it and they're saying, why won't you put aluminum siding on? ' Why won't you put vinyl siding on? Now of course we offer stucco and brick but for the vast majorities of families, they cannot afford those types of non - maintenance type of material. The point that I am making is we have seen a ' vast, this is not just me standing before you saying give me smaller lots so I can have more of them. Our customers are saying, they don't want large lots. They don't want to maintain them. If they have any time at all on the weekend, they want to spend it with their family. Now that does not mean that everybody feels that way. What we're seeing is 10% to 20: of the people that are moving from somewhere else. Maybe they're moving from inner city or maybe they're moving from Richfield, or maybe they're moving from another community where they ' want a little more open space and they want the bigger lot. We still have some of those people and that's why, if you look at the proposal that's before you, we try to have a variety in there and we don't want all the small lots in the ' open areas and all the lots in the wooded area, if possible. Even though from an environmental standpoint there may be some benefit to that because we find some people want a small lot in a wooded area. Or a large lot in an open area. The kid's on the football team. He's a quarterback and he wants to be able to ' run and whatever. So that's why we try to have a variety but it is an interesting phenomena. And it's taking place all over the country. Not just here. And so all we've tried to do as business people is react to what is it that the buyers are telling us that they want. Okay, now how do you do that and do it tastey? And make it so it doesn't feel like a streetscape in South Minneapolis where the setbacks from the sideyards are 5 feet. And you've got homes 10 feet together. And they're all in a row. That's one of the reasons if you've noticed in our subdivisions you see this undulating serpentine roadways and if you just drive down a street that looks like that, you can't tell by driving down in your car how close those homes are. I know nobody can. I can't, and I've developed them. I can't tell unless I got out. Now if they were all like little soldiers right next to each other in a straight line, yeah then you could probably tell. You'd say boy, they look awfully close. So I don't know if that's answered your question but I do know from a demand standpoint, what our customers are telling us they want. I do know from an environmental standpoint, the flexibility that's allowed by that type of setback, front yard, side yard, rear yard is definitely, if used correctly and ' applied correctly, is environmentally sound. There's no question about that. That's the benefit of the PUD. It gives you flexibility. Now if a city decided that they didn't want PUD's and they wanted them all to be standard 11 subdivisions, they'd all look alike. There'd be very little diversity and there'd be far more grading and far much more tree loss and all those types of things so, those are the benefits. And interestingly enough, in Chestnut Ridge 9th Addition in the Near Mountain PUD, those are 8,500 square foot lots. 36 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 ' They're wooded lots and I would imagine that if people went up there and looked, they'd be shocked. They wouldn't believe me if I told them they were 8,500 square foot lots with 55 foot width lots. Most people would never say that. And they're very successful. There's probably 60 homes up there like that and I bet most people didn't even know that because it doesn't look like it. So the point is, it becomes a perception in people's minds that if you have this much width, then it's bad. But if you went out and looked at it, you might say, geez that doesn't look so bad. I can't see the line on the ground. The homes look nice so a lot of it depends on how it's done. If you've done a good job in the way you've laid it out. I hope I didn't talk too much. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If not, I would accept the motion to ' carry through with some of the thoughts and some of the recommendations, or not recommendations for this concept approval. Councilman Wing: I didn't hear any, if we accept the applicant's changes which were approved by staff, I would so move PUD #92 -4 with the changes requested by the applicant as approved by staff. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: I second that. Councilman Wing: Numbers 1 thru 19. 1 Mayor Chmiel: 20. Councilwoman Dimler: And 20. Councilman Wing: What did I miss? Oh excuse me, 1 thru 20. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? , Councilman Mason: Where does that leave the I thru J? Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something that is still in staff's hands. And we're not saying that we're not going. Councilwoman Dimler: No, we deleted it in this motion. 1 Councilman Wing: Yes, they remain cul -de -sacs. Mayor Chmiel: It will remain as cul -de -sacs? Jo Ann Olsen: That's if you're accepting. Mayor Chmiel: That is if we are accepting. Still staff has some concerns with that. Jo Ann Olsen: We're not going to beat on a dead horse. Paul Krauss: The purpose of bringing it up here is, I mean we've made our position clear throughout but the Planning Commission had a difference of 37 11 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 opinion and we'll go with whatever you tell us. I think the developer here, and we're looking for some guidance tonight as to would you prefer that it be left alone or be brought back as a thru street. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to restate that? Councilman Workman: I'd like it left alone. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: So in other words, accept the deletion? Councilman Workman: Correct. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve Planned Unit Development, PUD *92 -4 for 113 single family lots with the following conditions: 1. Reduce the amount of tree removal currently proposed through reduction of grading, use of retaining walls, and reconfiguration of lot sizes and ' locations. 2. Provide a detailed tree removal plan illustrating types, number and caliper ' of trees over 6" caliper being removed. 3. Revise lot areas by removing wetland area from the calculations. 4. Demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. 5. Provide justification that the required buildable area can be accommodated. ' 6. Demonstrate that each lot provides a 30' rear yard setback and that there is a 30' exterior setback. 7. The PUD is permitted a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. 8. Maintain a minimum 10' side yard setback for all lots and that all accessory buildings and structures will maintain a 10' setback, or maintain at least a 20' separation between principal structures. It will be the burden of the developer to verify that there is a 20' separation between principal structures at time of building permit application. 1 9. Revise the landscaping plan so that it provides the landscaping required for a residential PUD (boulevard plantings, exterior landscaping tree preservation, foundation and yard plantings) and a proposal for a budget 11 for foundation plantings will not be necessary since the site is already so heavily vegetated. 11 10. Provide architectural covenants. 1 38 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 ' 11. (Deleted.) 12. Extend the watermain beyond "I" street to "G" street to loop the two water systems together. 13. Locate fire hydrants approximately 300' apart and in accordance with any location recommendation by the Fire Marshall. 14. Provide storm drainage and ponding calculations to verify pipe sizing and , pond volumes and extend storm sewer lines to the detention ponds to minimize erosion along the slopes. 15. Provide a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along one side of Street A. 16. Review I and G street to provide a 3% or less grade for the first 50' at intersection. 17. If the cul -de -sac islands are permitted, the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to provide an acceptable design. 18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer strips and protection of wetlands. 19. (Deleted.) 20. Respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Departments. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONCEPTUAL PUD ON 18+ ACRES FOR A COMMERCIAL/RETAIL CENTER, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND POWERS BOULEVARD. TARGET DEVELOPMENT. 1 Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Ryan Construction is proposing a development of approximately 18.78 acres. This proposal has changed. We've already added additional acreage. It's going to the Planning Commission for preliminary and site plan approval on Wednesday so a lot of what I'm talking about is dated information but for the purposes tonight, which is conceptual approval, we'd like to go back and show you what we've gone to the Planning Commission with and give you their recommendations and pass those forward back through the process. So the conceptual proposal was 17.78 acres which included a Target store on approximately 10.36 acres and Outlot B. And Outlot B that they came in with was approximately, excuse me. There were three variations in this area right in here. The proposal also includes a possible gateway project in this area in here, which the HRA is looking at. And in addition, outlot here which would be the trees that the City will be purchasing. The HRA, excuse me will be purchasing and one of the conditions of approval that we would maintain is that those trees be not disturbed. It'd be approximately an acre and a half. Based on the length, the time of the hour, I'd just briefly go to the summary of the rezoning issues and the reasons why the staff would support the zoning to the PUD, which would be that it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It provides for screening of the undesireable views of the loading areas. The preservation of the desireable site characteristics. More specifically the 39 II City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 II trees. Improve architectural standards, including the pitched roof, uniform signage and architecture and traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential traffic conflicts. Again, the purpose of the PUD zone is to develop standards for which this proposal when it comes for site plan'review will have I to be developed under these guidances and in this proposal we'd recommend, as far as permitted uses, I won't go through these in detail, but I'd like to highlight some of the main issues. The permitted uses we've limited to two fast I foods. Otherwise there's a mix of retail uses in that zone. Again, Target being the largest user. We've shown how the three different outlots vary. The Planning Commission had specific concerns about how this outlot, and you'll see tonight, they've prepared the revised plan of this. The mismatch of the outlot I and how that would reflect into the Target proposal. Street and access. It's bordered on three major collectors. Highway 5, Powers Boulevard, and West 78th. Strgar- Roscoe is who's working on the detachment improvement project. I've II reviewed this. We're looking at three access points. One here at Target, another one at the end of the Target parking lot and then this one here into Outlot B. At this time the one going into Outlot 8, we're recommending be a I right turn in and a right turn out only. There will be no access onto Powers Boulevard so all access would be out to West 78th. As you're aware, we have approved stop lights on West 78th recently and we assume that one will be warranted immediately. Target's looking at this location right here for a stop II light in conjunction with the opening of that store. As I had mentioned earlier, as far as landscaping, the tree preservation was the major issue as a part of the Highway 5 and the City's value to those trees. Was a major II discussion with this project. They had requested to go in and do some of the trimming but our recommendation is that those trees be owned by the HRA and that no thinning or trimming of those trees be done. I would like at this time go II through some of the Planning Commission's concerns. The biggest concern, if I . could show you the original proposal for architecture was, because this is on the, so to speak the main street of the downtown area there was a major concern that this oriented towards Powers Boulevard and the view of that long blank wall II on West 78th. There is a significant change in topography from West 78th into this and actually the one corner of Target will be recessed. This area right in here will be recessed down. If you're looking across from West 78th, actually I the top of the building, you'll see less of the building massing so it screens the parking which we feel is a benefit. But we do have concerns about that and they are here and will show you the revised drawings that we feel has made improvements to the design of the building itself. The other concern is the ' actual parking lot. The amount of landscaping that was in the parking lot. And the Planning Commission had concerns again with the massing of the building and what this looks like for our downtown. That large of a building and that much I asphalt. Again, they've come back and what we feel is an improved that by increasing the amount of landscaping islands. In addition, the Planning Commission wanted to see a connection between Target and the Outlot. Whether I that goes through the parking here or pedestrian access, and what they submitted to the Planning Commission, they have not included in that plan. They feel like the sidewalk along West 78th Street accomplishes that. There will be a sidewalk along the entire length of West 78th and the Park and Recreation Commission has 11 recommended a trail along Powers Blvd. that will tie into the trail along TH 5. But again, the Planning Commission felt that it made sense to provide pedestrian access in the middle of the parking lot to break that up. Again, the design of I Outlot 8, as I mentioned before, was one of the concerns of the Planning Commission and they have made those changes as you'll see tonight. Another 11 40 II City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 ' issue then would be just the amount of traffic going into this area and where that's all coming from and Strgar - Roscoe's here and they did spend some time going through that in great detail at the Planning Commission meeting. The majority of that will be coming off of Highway 5 onto Powers. The other issue that is going to be going before the Planning Commission, as you look at this site plan is the road configuration has changed. I won't spend a lot of detail on that but there is some concerns with this. People here tonight that do have concerns about that. It has been claimed by the applicant that there was a 11 number of soil corrections that needed to be made and therefore they felt that it made sense to move the road down. The original realignment for the detachment of West 78th in this area here, they want to move it 120 feet to the south. With the touchdown point in this area. Preliminary it appears that it may work out with MnDot and Carver County engineers but we need to get specific details on those approvals. Obviously that would leave a lot remnant right here in Mr. James' piece and he has specific concerns about that and he's here tonight to discuss those concerns. But the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the conceptual. I've gone through and outlined specifically the concerns with the conditions that the staff had and modified those to reflect the Planning Commission's concerns. So based on that, the Planning Commission recommends approval with those modified conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Kate. At this time, if Target would like to come forward and make your presentation. Bill McHale: Good evening. My name is Bill McHale with Ryan Construction. 11 Mayor, Council people. We will try to make this fairly brief. Because of the massive amount of information that was previously disseminated, we'd like to focus mostly on the changes and the new information we've worked out with staff, especially during the last couple weeks. The main points as we see them were the architecture of the store itself, certainly the 78th elevation and how it fit in. Landscaping on the lot and then Outlot B and the concerns the Planning Commission had. Part of our response to the outlots was the movement of 78th as well as I think some positive changes to the building. The lot and the 78th elevation. What I'd like to have first is Dick Koppe, President of RLK, the consulting engineer to go through some of the specific site changes as they apply to the lot. Then I also have Margaret Fleck, the architect for Target who will go over the building itself and if you desire, there is a real estate rep from Target also here. And then I'll close up but we'd like to get out some of the information so that we can react to some of the concerns from 2 weeks ago. Dick Koppe: I'm going to talk about a few of the items. I'll move through the items very quickly. They may not be in the order that you have in your mind but 11 I'll cover all of the issues that Bill brought up including the landscaping on the site. The first item on this board demonstrates the alignment change that the developer is recommending be looked at by the city. The blue line shows the alignment under the currently platted West 78th Street. Now as you drive the street today, you'll drive along this alignment. The new street would be planned along this blue line. We have looked at the site layout and Outlot B layout and have proposed the new alignment based on several facts that we think are important for the City Council to consider. First of all, with this new alignment we still would have 450 -500 feet of spacing between the new West 78th Street and State Highway 5. We discussed this with your staff and consulting engineers, and I see they're here present tonight and you may wish to ask them 41 , 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 later, to cooperate or make comments about my comments, but they've indicated to us that the spacing will work. In fact it may even be a better spacing in terms of a signal at TH 5 and a signal at West 78th Street in terms of interconnection. One of the big reasons we're recommending that this realignment be done is we feel there's a soils problem in the northern portion of Outlot B. A soils problem that to put buildings in this location would mean considerably expense to the developer of Outlot B. In our estimation, it would be far more economical to put the roadway alignment through Outlot 8 and then vacate Outlot C to the developer on the north side of West 78th Street. Thus allowing him to have the deeper lot which we feel may be of a larger benefit to his property and also having better soils conditions here, eliminating the serious soil problem that we have south of i4est 78th Street, and probably most importantly, eliminating the acquisition of about 1.5 acres of property for Outlot B by this change. The gentler or more lower degree of curb on West. 78th Street under this alignment would make for better traffic movement. However, I think it's important to mention that this alignment shown in blue did meet your State Aid standards so we are not trying to correct something that was not meeting State Aid standards before. We just feel this would be a better alignment for the high volumes of traffic that will be using West 78th Street. The outlot or organization of Outlot B under this plan would be better organized because we would be able to locate four buildings on Outlot B and we would have a better organization of Outlot B and in our opinion better access from West 78th Street into Outlot B. We've included in our packet some design alternatives for Outlot 8. ...if you'd like, we can leave the Outlot 8 alternative with you. Finally, the soil corrections that would be necessary, I did mention before that one of the big issues, soil issues along the new alignment of West 78th Street, the soil corrections that would be necessary for the new alignment would be done by the developer during the construction of the Target site. So the City would not have to have any additional expense of soil correction problems as a result of the realignment. And in fact would have less acquisition by this layout of approximately 1 1/2 acres. This plan, using that new scheme along West 78th Street, demonstrates the landscaping that would be completed or implemented throughout the lot. Outlot B would not be landscaped at this time. It would be done under a separate development agreement but this entire Target outlot or Target lot of about 10.3 acres would be totally landscaped in the area along West 78th Street. I'm going to show the three cuts that we've made, or sections that we've made through the site trying to give you an idea of how that you can look at the site from West 78th Street. The first section through the site is Section AA and that section would be right at the easterly end of the site near the northeast corner of the Target building. As you're looking at the site from a section, this is West 78th Street. This would be the retaining wall along the edge of the parking lot. This is the parking lot and grass area. There'd be grass in here. There would be a rear landscaped area behind the Target store. Section BB is a little further to the west, just ' about 50 feet from the entrance of Target. I might add, this entrance to Target is where the traffic signals is projected to be placed. Again we have a slope coming off of West 78th Street. One of the elevation requirements that we are requesting is that West 78th Street be cut from it's existing elevation that you had planned in the BRW study. We are requesting that that be lowered an additional 2 feet. We already have, as you can see, a fairly significant cut. Similarly, the additional 2 feet less of elevation will help us blend through 11 the Target site from West 78th Street down to Highway 5. Even with that cut, we're still looking at slopes through the Target parking lot of between 3% and 42 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 ' 5 %. This is Section BB. Again, coming off of the roadway. The boulevard area with a 5 foot sidewalk, boulevard trees, shrubbery, and the parking lot with trees within the parking lot and a Target building. This is Section CC, and this section is further into the parking lot. At a section along West 78th Street at the point of curvature where you start curving up to the north, it indicates the widest point of the boulevard area. You can see the landscaping that will be done. It also indicates how some of those islands within the parking lot would be landscaped with trees and shurbbery, trying to reduce as you're looking through the parking lot, the impact of the vehicular parking situation. The bottom perspective is looking at the Target building basically from the rear of the building back at this point to the front of the building from the side view. Again, along West 78th Street. We have tried to meet with staff. Take into account many of their landscaping, building aesthetics, engineering, street alignment situations that have come up over the past few weeks. We think we've worked with staff to the degree where they're satisfied that we met most of these demands, if not all of them. And we feel that we have demonstrated that adequately. Councilman Mason: Can I just see AA please? 1 Dick Koppe: Sure. Councilman Mason: Where is that again in relation to? Dick Koppe: AA is at the rear of the Target building. You're looking at the big swath of landscaping that would be back here between the Target building and the Burdick property. Councilman Mason: Now is that the current elevation or the elevation you want? 1 Dick Koppe: This would be the elevation that we would propose as a part of the reconstruction of West 78th Street. Councilman Mason: What's the elevation now? Do you know off hand? Kate Aanenson: They're lowering it a foot and a half. , Dick Koppe: About a foot and a half. The property from the James property all the way down to TH 5 is pretty much one continuous slope and in order to try to minimize the fill and the cut that we have through the property and keep the grade somewhere around 3% to 4% in the parking lot, we feel that this elevation along the front of Target would help that situation. 1 Bill McHale: A couple things that I'd like to express and then I'll let Margaret Fleck go over the elevations. A couple things with aligning the , roadway...is it takes less acreage into account that when you consider the existing easements that go through the center or both sides of the existing 78th that you'd be vacated...the sanitary can't be moved very much because of the fall and gravity situation. But when you take the sight lines of the roadway into consideration, the setbacks, the utilities, etc., in order to place building pads on Outlot B previously, it became confusing as far as Planning Commission was concerned. By lowering the grade, we enhance the sight lines into the property. We also move the roadway closer to the existing easements 43 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 that can't be moved and to be vacated right away. And it looks at that point 11 like a, I believe it's in your packet, a fairly simplified for building outlot with a new street coming through it that exists on the property. The buildings can all be built and the economics as well as the aesthetics I think are greatly enhanced. Plus it means that the HRA would have to acquire about an acre and a half less property also. Margaret. Margaret Fleck: Just very quickly I'm just going to show you what we standardly start with when we go out on a job site and think about what we want to do as a Target. This is our bare minimum Target. This is not what you're getting in Chanhassen at all. I guarantee you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Margaret Fleck: Hopefully this will make you appreciate this even more though. To some extent the building footprint will be maintained. It just starts with our merchandising. To begin with, just to emphasize. Our entry area and our front area does have a great deal of variation just standardly. What we've done to really assist and upgrade it even further is to, I'm going to drop the proto type down here so you can just get a real strong comparison. Or standard building. Is we've changed the front entry area and brought in the pitched roofs so it brings back in your reflection of your residential areas here. Tries to bring in some scale. We have also added several colored stripes that we would normally not use on our standard building, feeling that that also 11 brought more scale in. Brought more color. It's the blue, the green and the red that we call somewhat our Greatland colors. There is the curved edges which accent and soften the building a great deal. And then along with that, so that we could start working and playing with the 78th Street side, we added another 11 massing over here that has a similar roof at a lower height and then we added masses along the 78th Street side. One of them reflecting almost a smaller entryway and the metal standing seam roof that again gives you your sloped pitch look. You'll notice on all of the areas that project out further, we have changed the height of the darker tan color of the 8 x 16 masonry so that it really emphasizes it projecting out even further. In fact, the West 78th Street side we've even gone to adding the brown stripe up higher to kind of bring it out again. It is a masonry building with an 8 x 16, what we call a rock face. It's not a smooth face block. It has a texture to it. It is sealed with a coat that gives it the color and we'll go with the darker color and then the lighter color up here is all in 8 x 8 scored masonry unit so that you get a different . scale. And it gives you a great deal more variety to the texture and the surface of the building. Yeah, there's the colors. Councilman Mason: How wide are the bands? The color bands. Margaret Fleck: They're 8 inch bands and they are actually a tile piece that's integrally molded into the block. Mayor Chmiel: Sometimes known as racing stripes. ' Margaret Fleck: We call it spectraglaze. That's a product name but. It does assist a great deal in breaking up and because it's smooth in comparison to the rock face, it does have an indentation to it that you don't have on the rest of the building. We've added trees up in the front to break up the line here and 44 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 also to add some green into the area. Brought another tree in over here. The projections that we have on the building will be 2'8" or greater and at this point I'd like to show you a perspective that should give you an indication of how the West 78th Street side as well as the front entry starts working so that you can get a feel for the massing that we're projecting out and the variation along this side. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Mayor Chmiel: ...had a little more aesthetics to it than even what you have here. Margaret Fleck: Perhaps very different aesthetics because of the Florida area. We do work with a different material down there that would be fairly inappropriate for this cold climate. To some extent we do have elements. I know one of the things that was mentioned on, and I believe you saw Boca Raton? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Margaret Fleck: Yeah. One of the items that I didn't manage to include in this and that was mentioned on that was there was a cornice work. Here rather than doing an attached cornice work, we have actually done a corbeling to the block that will bring you and project out 2 inches and 2 inches so that you start getting that same, but yet with the masonry units that you don't change materials again and we maintain the integrity of the wall that would be there. Mayor Chmiel: The C2 that you have on here, is indicating metal. Where would that particular... Margaret Fleck: That would not be on this particular building. That is normally on our Greatland building which has the two different colored entries. We're maintaining the red entry on the interior but we're keeping this band along here the same color as the base color. Councilman Workman: How does the size of this match up with the Eden Prairie store? , Margaret Fleck: The Eden Prairie store was built prior to my getting involved with Target but I would say that width wise, it's approximately the same and depth wise, it's fairly close. Tim, do you know the square footage on the Eden Prairie? Yeah, it should be fairly close to that. This one does have a greal deal more variation along the wall surfaces than that Eden Prairie store has. that prototype didn't have the variation. We've moved, that prototype also had, or that basic building also has the office area upstairs so we've gotten a great deal more variation moving in and out of the entryway area than you would have seen in Eden Prairie. I believe that's almost straight across. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Mike, do you have any specifics? Councilman Mason: I need a visual. I'm curious about some sort of computer , imaging. I don't know if that can be done here or not but I'd like, I understand the view now from West 78th and that's really been helpful but, and 45 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 maybe I'm jumping ahead here but what will it look like from Highway 5? What 11 will it look like from all the other areas? Margaret Fleck: Most of what you're going to see from Highway 5 is this II elevation. This elevation which does not reflect all the trees over on that lot will be pretty well covered by those trees or their branches during the winter. That's a big stand of trees there. You'd only, the area that you're going to really see is maybe along here. I Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'm tacking about coming from Victoria. Coming from the other direction. Coming over the bridge. II Mayor Chmiel: Coming from the west and going east. I Councilman Mason: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: I specifically asked for, we looked at the elevations at points going up, and Barton - Aschman going up and looking at, plotting this along to II look, see what we would actually look at and what we haven't discussed here tonight is the 3 to 4 foot parapet wall because that was a big concern too. So we went through and we plotted those points. I think we got them every 100 feet II and you won't see any rooftop equipment. They have, what you can't see also is, as you mentioned, they have trees in Outlot A. Plus there is additional, with the storm retention pond. One of the advantages of this plan is, they were able to put a 2:1 slope on that pond. In this area here. We were able to get the II parking lot pulled up and increase this area down in here too...landscaping along this area will help. But that is a concern and we did look at that specifically and how this would look... Again, I think a lot of this, what I happens here will affect that visual and the landscaping that goes with each of those lots. II Councilman Mason: Anyone else on the Council interested in seeing what it looks like on a computer or should I be quiet? Councilman Wing: Computer imaging is certainly the in thing. It doesn't seem II to be that costly to take a picture of the area and put the store in and start adding and subtracting. It certainly was successful on those monuments. II Councilman Mason: Well, it was very successful on those monuments. I just would be really curious to see what it would look like. I Councilman Wing: Do you do computer imaging? Margaret Fleck: I would have to look into that. I don't know that this particular prototype or this particular building type has been put into the II computer that would be able to do that 3D imaging. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, can I ask you a question? With the relocation of 78th II Street, the proposed location. Maybe Charles too. How is this going to effect how our parkway along the north side of Highway 5? Paul Krauss: First keep in mind that we have not taken an active position one II way or another shifting it but our concern has always been maintaining a II 46 II City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 continuity through there and we've had Strgar- Roscoe look at that and we believe it doesn't really effect it adversely. You can continue right through there. In fact it helps you scoot around the wetland a little bit more to move you to the south a little bit. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Charles, maybe you can answer the other question I had. The relationship to moving that from point to point. How will this effect our State Aid on that particular road? Charles Folch: Well, basically we would, we aren't proposing to use State Aid dollars to construct the West 78th Street improvement project so therefore. Mayor Chmiel: No, but once they go in and once someone's due for a change 20 years down the road. Charles Folch: That's basically a change in paperwork if you will. Define the alignment. Once it's basically, this change would have to be approved by both Carver County and MnDot from a review standpoint. Once we have, if we did receive those approvals, it's a matter of a paperwork process just to redefine the alignment from a State Aid mapping standpoint. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, how would the stacking be with that 450 to 500 feet? 1 Charles Folch: Well that's, yeah that's the question that I think Strgar took a further look at. How that, not only West 78th Street at County Road 17 but also the segment from CR 17 or the segment of CR 17 from the detachment intersection south to Highway 5. How that would function and such and I think preliminary indications are that, as a minimum at Highway 5, we would need to add an additional left turn lane so in a sense you'd have side by side double left turn lanes. Is that correct Denny? From an initial traffic analysis standpoint, so there might be some modifications that would have to be done at the intersection with Highway 5 to get it to perform properly. Another change may be eliminating the free right from westbound TH 5 to northbound CR 17 which isn't that big a deal but there's other considerations like that that we would want to take a look at. Councilman Mason: I think that would be a big deal if we had to eliminate that. Personally. • Charles Folch: The free right? , Councilman Mason: Yeah. Because I use it a lot. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, does anyone have any specific questions? Councilman Wing: I'd like to ask Paul on grading and drainage. All this money going into these environmental, this parking lot and the number of cars is going to bring into the city and create some horrible things that we wouldn't want to drink or smell. What's going to happen? I understand it's going into a retention pond, it's holding. Has our engineering staff or water surface people looked at this parking lot? Is all this drainage and the pollution it creates, going into areas that are going to be, what's the word, treated? Treatable? 47 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Paul Krauss: Its all going to be runned through treatment basins that's to the NURP standards. And when taken in total, over the entire PUO, the hard surface coverage is actually relatively low. So when you combine it with the fact that all the water that runs off will be run through treatment basins, I think we can offer a pretty good level of environmental protection. Councilman Wing: The only other comment I would make, as we progress along the way here, at some point I'd like to throw this out and I might as well put you on guard right now. Is that when everything is said and done and we've agreed on this and the vote's down, at the very last minute I'd like to quote a mentor of mine and say, whatever the landscaping is, double it and vote for it. So I think that the building is basically, they've made some real efforts to meet the city's standards and the building is more attractive. However, it's still a basic warehouse. Windowless. Somewhat square. And in Eagan they have a lot of similar buildings and they're incredibly attractive because they're incredibly landscaped and not to the point of being excessive. There's just a lot of landscaping. As it matures, you actually give a gift to the city so I think we really want to react to the future and impact the future. When all's said and done, and it's all agreed upon, I think we ought to take a final look at the landscaping and maybe there's room for some more trees and brush and whatever the case is, to put the building into a little more of a, less of an open field setting and into a little more of a wooded setting for the future. I think it would really impact this store as it comes into our city and I think that would be a gift we could give the community. To see that it's landscaped. But what we've got now is good, but I think it's basic. So at some point I would like to request additional landscaping. Unless you bent my arm enough not to. Paul Krauss: It occurred to me, I live in Eagan. I'm familiar with the one in ' Eagan and this is no Eagan. I mean we're doing it a lot better. Councilman Wing: I'm not talking about Target. I'm just talking about some construction in Eagan. We'll go for a ride. I'll show you want I mean. ' Paul Krauss: Because this has the Target in Eagan beat hands down. Councilman Wing: Oh, oh I agree. I think you've done a wonderful job on this. I'm only saying that when we're down to the bottom line, I sure would feel comfortable with just a little more green. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe before I proceed with the balance of Council. I know we have some property owners in and adjacent to this and I'm wondering if there's any concerns or anything you'd like to bring up at this particular time. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: B.C. "Jim" Burdick from Excelsior. I own the land just to the east of here and in our agreement it does provide for a drive to go between 1 the parking lot and my property. And we did originally want a curb cut but we've pretty well given that up so the driveway there is acceptable. And I did go into moving the building 40 to 60 feet to the south where it was originally and right along for a number of months but I understand and I've talked to Kate II about this. She particularly wanted it moved to the north to save some of the oak trees and we had a discussion on this. I discussed it with her and a couple of you people and the situation is like this. I looked at it and I thought 11 perhaps 2, 3, 4 oak trees would be gone and on that basis it would be worth it. 1 48 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Moving it 40 feet to the south but I engaged Bill Engelhardt, a professional engineer, because I'm sure he has a much better, more accurate job than me and he reports about a dozen oak trees. 12 oak trees. Some of them are 18 -24 up to 36 inches. So we would prefer to have it to the south because it'd hurt our property to the east less. On the other hand, the trade off is, these oak trees are though. I'd ask you people not to count too much on oak trees because a 36 oak tree much be 100 years old and just how much life do they have left. We also have a lot of oak wilt i'n Minnesota. Star and Tribune had an article on it a couple of weeks ago. Something like half the oak trees or whatever. They didn't particularly name Chanhassen. It was a general thing. And farther south, it could be a bit more of a gradual slope to the Target building on the north as you're concerned about the appearance from West 78th Street. As Mr. Wing mentioned, the trees, there'd be more room for trees on the north side of the building. In other words, a better appearance from 78th Street. There'd also be more room for the walkway that the Planning Commission wants and I understand the Planning Commission also wants some plantings along 78th Street. So it's rather a trade off. I thought originally about 3 oak trees, I'd come in and really push it. So we'll plant 3 oak trees or whatever or 30 oak trees. In 10 -20 years it'd be okay. It would be because the...oak trees to move it 40 feet. I guess that's about all unless there's some questions. Councilman Workman: Jim, explain to me. You own Lot 2 and Lot 1 there? B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes. Councilman Workman: On the north of Pica and to the west of Monterey. What does that accomplish for you by moving the building south? B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Well, a better visibility. Better visibility and also a better entrance from the Target parking lot. I have a little trouble now with the flow of the traffic there and having this entrance. Kate Aanenson: Originally this wasn't included as part of the PUD submittal. When you see it next time, we recommended, that was one of the recommendations that that be included. It makes sense to architecturally tie that in and physically it's connected through that service drive. ' Councilman Workman: Those two lots? Kate Aanenson: Yes. As you mentioned, there won't be an additional curb cut on 78th. There will just be the access to get through and any other curb cuts will be off of Monterey. By pushing it back, he felt that gave him more visibility onto West 78th and maybe even off of Powers. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: In other words Tom, instead of being seen 5'c in Target's back yard, we'd be 50% in Target's back yard. ' Councilman Wing: What's your proposed use of those lots Jim? What do you perceive those maybe being? B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Oh, we'd of course open a dry cleaning plant there some day 11 in the near future but there's interest in restaurants. Car wash. I believe 1 49 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 II those h have been the main interest. Oh, also I've approached by a medical group. But we're a bit slow on that. I Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Thanks Jim. Is there anyone else? I Charlie James: Charlie James, T.F. James Company. We can't go on meeting this way here. I guess first of all,I want to say in an unambiguous way, that I support this project and I think it will be a great benefit to downtown I Chanhassen. And it also appears that this project is on a fast track schedule and I don't want to slow it down. As a matter of fact I'm hoping that it will prod along some things that need to get done at the west end of West 78th Street. I guess I have to speak tonight about a proposal that came up since the I last Planning Commission meeting that you heard here tonight that would basically involve relocating West 78th Street. There were some statements made here that we've got bad soil and that simply isn't the case. The people that I did the soil correction out there for me were the same people that were engaged by Ryan and they faxed me this drawing of where the borings were done for them and where they'd been done previously for me. The borings that picked up the II bad soil, as you can see here on the pink, that indicates the existing West 78th Street and our property of course is north of there and you can see the arrows here. It says these borings show poor soils. Those borings aren't even on my property. I brought along the original site grading plans and specifications II and when we did that detachment out there, we graded that to MnDot specifications. We spent a couple hundred thousand dollars out there and we also have been waiting, as you know I've had a development agreement with the I city for a number of years and we've been waiting for the street to get built out there so that we could proceed with our project. At the time that all the fill work was done out there, I hired GME who is also working for Ryan to be on II site and they, this is a log of all their daily inspections of every bit of fill that came in and off of that site. And so our site itself, for our proposed building pad is totally corrected. The elevation out there before we started was at 944. We removed organic and bad material below that level and then we I filled it to approximately 955 so there's a considerable amount of material that's not only in the building pad area but we drag lined the area that West 78th Street was proposed to be built on to a depth of 16 feet and put in fill I material according to MnDot's specifications and 8 inch lift. 5o I think that what's really happening out here, and in discussing this with Strgar, unfortunately there was a mix up where there was a meeting scheduled a week ago and I think, as Charlie explained to me, I just wasn't on the mailing list for I that meeting so I was not notified of the meeting when this original proposal came up. And then when I found out about it, I met with staff and I have to say that everyone's put in a tremendous amount of work on this project. Staff and I Don and Todd and everybody and I really appreciate the coordination with them. But in any event, I was unable to make that meeting because I did not receive an invitation. And when I did meet with the City, a couple of things became clear II and I guess the most obvious one is that there's no clear engineering reason for this detachment. That primarily what's at issue here preserving sight lines into Target and also trying to make the tax increment in the project balance out and so if there's less land acquisition costs by splitting Charlie James' II property and then giving him back a big piece of his land to the north, then apparently that makes the project work better. And as I said to staff, at the meeting a week ago, it kind of reminds me about the story of the chicken and the II pig that are standing out by in the pasture one day along the fence on the II 50 11 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 county road. And they're looking up at a billboard along the road and here was a big billboard by, I think it was the Pork Producer's Council and the Egg Producer's Council. And it said, eat a healthy breakfast and there was a picture of bacon and eggs. And the chicken stands there and he says to the pig, he says isn't it wonderful that we can be part of all that. And the pig says well yeah it is but for you it's just a donation and for me it's a total commitment. That's what this road relocation is kind of done. It's a total commitment for me. I would hope that there'd be some time to resolve these issues and I think there's some issues that need to be resolved with the HRA. I know Don was out of town last week and so I think there may be some issues here that could be resolved by meeting with Don and staff. Now I don't know how to accomplish that because I'm a builder and I know how important it is to get your earth work done this time of year so I don't want to obstruct this process but I'd like to see some more work on the west end here. I don't want to see the east end of the PUD get pushed along so fast and then the west end kind of gets put on the back burner and Charlie James is hung out to dry for another 4 years. So what I'd like to see is this Target proposal kind of be the engine that pushes forward the resolution of all these issues for me. And so I don't want it to, I don't want to obstruct the thing. I kind of want to be riding on the front of the locomotive and get my problems solved at the same time. I think they've got a good building plan and as I mentioned before, I think it'd be a very nice addition to downtown. Thank you. Don Ashworth: If 1 may. We started, well first of all, Mr. James and Mr. Burdick are correct from the standpoint that this project has been I think ordered by the City Council two different times and one time it went so far as to even be bonded for. I mean we literally went out into the market and received monies to build the road. Each of the times for one reason or another, the project did not go forward. Each time that it passes a one year period of time, and you've ordered the project but have not constructed it, you have to start the hearing process over. So twice before, really three times now we have reinitiated that hearing process. We did that again in February of this year and held the public hearing to consider ordering the road improvement in mid- March. At that point in time there were some certain questions as to alignment and what not and so the Council's action in March was to table action. Not order the project until some of these issues could be resolved. In the meantime, Target came forward and since that point in time we've been talking about optional concept plans and potential changes to the roadway, etc.. To resolve the issues that Mr. James was referring to, and to assure that we stay on a schedule and meet State law, it's necessary to pick that hearing process back up again. Staff would recommend that we conclude that hearing process and make some decision. Are we ordering the project or are we not? For our meeting on September 28th. Is that correct? But hopefully we'll have an opportunity to meet with Mr. James between now and the 28th and as staff is a part of any other action that the Council might be taking tonight, we'd recommend that you pass a resolution establishing September 28th as the date to conclude the hearing process that was started in March and hopefully again be able to resolve some of the issues that Mr. James has brought out here tonight. So we would present, the re- estimated feasibility study for this project on the 28th as well as to provide updates to the Council as to how we were resolving this issue as to movement of the road. Purchasing all of Mr. James' property, budget problems that quite frankly are there. 51 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else? Thomas. 1 Councilman Workman: I'm ready to approve the concept, and of course I do want to take Mr. James' comments into account. I don't konw if I've got enough information on Mr. Burdick's request. I'd like to look at that a little closer. II As I've driven by there, there would appear to be what I'll call a row of lesser trees in front of the oak trees that I know that would probably have to come... and so I guess I don't know if that's fair for his two lots or what. But if II that's something that can be accommodated. Mayor Chmiel: I still I'd like to see the preservation of some of those larger 1 trees. More specifically the ones that are at least 36 inch and of course the infestation that's happening with the oak trees is not only with the red oak but you know, depending upon what the species are of these trees with the white oak, you have three different variations and some of the species that are only being 1 effected are just certain trees of the oak. So I guess I would like to also see exactly what Tom is saying as to take a look see at that. Just to make sure we're not going to dig up something that's been here for a long time and oak I trees have been known to last a lot longer than I am. So they'll probably be around another 100 years plus. II B.C. "Jim" Burdick: ...I didn't find out which particular type of oak trees... Kate Aanenson: We've got all that information. A tree survey was done. I think the other issue too is, you're not only pushing the building back. When 1 you look at what this, the loading area here, and that takes out a larger significant chunk too and this is the area where the oak trees are down here. 1 Paul Krauss: Right now the loading area benefits from Pica Lane. Or whatever, Pica Street. If you push the building any further south, you wind up having to build a very large cul -de -sac bubble for the trucks to turn around in, and that's what really eats up the trees. II Kate Aanenson: Also, those trees are what's providing the screen. The more trees we take down, the less screening we're providing too so there's a trade 1 off there. Councilman Workman: Put up a big plastic wall. II Mayor Chmiel: It's getting to a late hour. Yes. . Bill McHale: I don't want to belabor that point but additionally, as the II building, right now the grade coming off the street into the lot is 5'c and that's a fairly significant grade in Minnesota. If the street isn't lowered at all and /or it's pushed back in, that grade will increase. I guess there's some 1 questions about how safe or practical that is in Minnesota weather too. Mayor Chmiel: Just a little more sand and a little more salt. 1 Councilman Workman: Who pays for that extra lowering of a street? Mayor Chmiel: I would think that that would be the property owners. 1 II 52 II City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Councilman Workman: That 2 feet is a... Mayor Chmiel: Would that be termed as a city street? , Don Ashworth: The road, to realign 78th Street that's being considered to be reduced. Would that add additional costs? I'm not anticipating it from a city standpoint that it would but. Charles Folch: Relatively speaking, if the only potential cost difference would be if there would be any needed soil corrections within the roadway. If something was worked out where if the alignment is changed, maybe a condition could be put on it that the developer be responsible for any necessary soil corrections and the road preparations so therefore you've got pretty much an equal cost for either alignment. Councilman Workman: I'm not talking about realignment as much as I am about depth. Charles Folch: Yeah, the proposed decrease in the roadway by a foot and a half or whatever it is at that main entrance to Target, that's for basically a short period of the roadway. It's not for the entire length of West 78th Street. It's for more of a defined area at that point. The additional costs in grading. Probably minimal as compared to the overall project cost. Mayor Chmiel: Thomas, with some of the clarifications you've made. Councilman Workman: I would so move the concept. Conceptual design PUD Target. Did I get it all? Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: How does this jive with the thought about realigning West 78th Street? Kate Aanenson: That's not any part of this. 1 Paul Krauss: The way we've taken this to the Planning Commission, and I believe they're going to them on Wednesday, the Target store doesn't change. I mean the Target store issues, the roadway realignment doesn't effect it at all. Mayor Chmiel: No, you're right. 1 Paul Krauss: The concept plan for the outlots that they gave us right now, the PUD concept plan is based upon the realigned road. What we've told the Planning Commission is, if ultimately there's a decision to keep the roadway where it is, then that concept for those outlots needs to come back again for review. Mayor Chmiel: Other than what Don had mentioned, with the resolution to come up by September 28th, and the effect of being included in that motion, as a friendly amendment. Is that acceptable? Okay. And the second? 53 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Councilman Wing: Sure. ure. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: Just Don, on your stop sign meetings with the community, I've 11 missed those and we had Great Plains, Laredo, Market, Kerber and the other night we brought up Target and Powers. ' Mayor Chmiel: We were talking about that this evening prior to the Council meeting. At the informational meeting. Ursula was there as well as Charles and some of the other people. Kevin McShane. 11 Councilwoman Dimler: I want to make a clarification here. We are just approving a concept tonight. Mayor Chmiel: This is strictly concept plan. Councilwoman Dimler: So that any changes that we feel need to be made can still be made? It doesn't mean we're accepting everything we saw here? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. With that clarification, I'll call the question. ' Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded conceptual approval of PUD $92 -5 as shown on the plans dated August 7, 1992, and approving Resolution $92- 106 to conclude the public hearing on the West 78th Street detachment at the ' September 28, 1992 City Council meeting, subject to the following conditions: 1. Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2, be added to the PUD at the time of preliminary PUD. 2. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and Engineer's memo. 3. The most westerly access on West 78th Street shall be a right turn -in and right turn -out only, full access be limited to the other two locations shown on the site plan. 4. The three proposals for Outlot B may or may not be acceptable but each building must proceed through site plan review. This site plan review shall consider the remainder of the balance of the site. This includes landscaping impervious surface, parking, etc.. Any major changes would constitute a rezoning. 5. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street. 6. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees. 7. Six foot sidewalk along West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard. 11 8. Compliance with the standards of the PUD zone outlined in the staff report. 9. Improved design of the Target store including the view from West 78th ' Street. 54 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 1 10. More landscaping in the parking lot of the Target store. 1 11. Better design of Outlot B including the access road that runs through it. 12. Further investigation of traffic issues. 1 13. Consideration of pedestrian access between Target and Outlot B. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. 1 All voted in favor 'and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 55 1 1 1 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES 9/10/92 1 COMMISSION PRESENT: Dave Dummer, Craig Blechta, Brian Beniek, I Don Chmiel, Eldon Berkland Scott Harr Deputy Julie Boden Darel Radde, Waconia Ambulance Willard Johnson, HRA COMMISSION ABSENT: Bill Bernhjelm, Dave Johnson Chairman Dave Dummer opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Chmiel motioned, Commissioner Beniek seconded, to approve the 8/13/92 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motioned passed. Commissioner Bernhjelm will be on an excused leave the remainder of the year as he will be attending the FBI Academy. FIRE DEPARTMENT The Commission has asked for a Fire Department representative be in attendance at meetings. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Sgt. Boden commended the Public Safety Director, his staff, and the Public Safety Commission for the excellent working relationship with the Sheriff's Department. Ongoing meetings with the Director have proved to be an excellent way to maintain this level of cooperation. The deputies are putting in extra patrol in the school zones during a.m. and p.m. hours. Dave Dummer asked about the results of radar enforcement on West 78th Street. Sgt. Boden reported citations have been issued, and the presence of radar has impacted traffic law compliance in this 11 tendency It was noted that eastbound traffic from Powers Blvd. has a tendency to speed more than westbound traffic. 1 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT Director Harr reported on the recent narcotics warrant executed by the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. The Commission would be interested in hearing from a representative of the Task Force at a future meeting. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 September 10, 1992 Page 2 .- Community Service Officer Bob Zydowsky is graduating from police skills on Friday, September 11. He will then spend 8 weeks in field training with the Carver County Sheriff's Department. 11 Community Service Officer interviews will take place on Thursday, September 17. Paramedic Director Darel Radde presented a report on Waconia Ridgeview ambulance service in the Chanhassen area. A county -wide emergency drill will take place on September 28, with Waconia ambulance, fire departments, State Patrol, and County deputies ' participating. ' OLD BUSINESS Discussion was held on the year -round parking restriction proposal. ' Willard Johnson (in Carol Watson's absence) conveyed the HRA's endorsement of this parking restriction proposal. The deputies questioned the benefits of such an ordinance. The deputies also ' requested that if the proposal is enacted, that no exceptions be made for any vehicles. Brian Beniek reported the effectiveness of the parking restriction in the City of Plymouth. Mayor Chmiel ' requested more discussion and also viewpoints from other communities with this type of parking restriction. He conveyed that he sees two important issues with overnight parking: police officer support and emergency vehicle access. The year -round parking restriction proposal will be tabled until the October Commission meeting. Discussion was held on parking on Choctaw Circle. ' Craig Blechta reported on the difficulty for emergency vehicles to pass through this portion of Choctaw with vehicles parked on both sides of the street. The Mayor discussed lowering the speed limit to 25 MPH, and having the area posted for no parking. Director Harr conveyed the opinions of Commissioners Bernhjelm and Johnson, that they concur with that of Commissioner Chairperson Dummer in cutting back brush and shrubbery to the right -of -way in the area, for pedestrian and vehicle safety. Commissioner Berkland relayed his support of the no parking on both sides, based on his dilemma with parking on Kiowa Trail. Commissioner Blechta motioned, Commissioner Berkland, seconded to have the City of Chanhassen trim back the foliage to the right -of- way a minimum of 20 feet on both sides of the street in the area of the beach lot access on Choctaw Circle, -and post adequate signage 1 1 September 10, 1992 1 Page 3 1 for enforcement declaring no parking within 20 feet on the beach 1 lot access side of Choctaw Circle. All voted in favor and the motion passed. Craig motioned, Eldon seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9 p.m. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1