Loading...
CC Minutes 1998 03 23CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 1998 Acting Mayor Mason called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Mayor Mason, Councilman Engel and Councilman Senn COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Berquist and Mayor Mancino STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Bob Generous, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Charles Folch, Anita Benson, Todd Gerhardt and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the agenda as amended to delete item 9 under Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Resolution #98-23: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Oak Ridge of Lake Minnewashta, Project 96-9. Resolution #98-24: Approval of Plans & Specifications for Well No. 8 Drilling Contract, Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project 97-4. c. Springfield 2nd Addition, Lundgren Brothers, as amended by staff: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approve Development Contract/PUD Agreement and Construction Plans and Specifications, Project 97-20. Approve Amendment to Development Contract, Springfield Third Addition; Lot Releases for Outlots G&H. f. Approval of Bills. City Council Minutes dated March 9, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes dated March 4, 1998 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 24, 1998 All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: BOB RITTER, REMAX, REGARDING ZWIERS PROPERTY/MOON VALLEY. Bob Ritter: Thank you, I'm Bob Ritter. I appreciate the Council giving us the opportunity. As you can see by what I have handed out to the Council, I'm here to address the Council regarding the Moon City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Valley/Zwiers property which is in the very southeast comer of the city of Eden Prairie, or of Chanhassen. The reason that we wanted to bring this to the attention of the Council first of all is obviously there's a financial benefit for me being here. There's a financial benefit for the owner of the property, Mr. Zwiers and there's also a financial benefit for several potential purchasers of this property as well as we feel a window of opportunity for the City of Chanhassen to at least look at something that is happening in Eden Prairie, just adjoining this and based on some engineering information that has come our way, at least give some consideration to possibly going against what appears to be the city's policy that this will not be available for sewer and water, this property, until I believe the time is like 2006, which is in the city's plan. The front page actually shows the property that I have highlighted in yellow is the Moon Valley/Zwiers property. You'll notice that there is also, this abuts the county line and includes the Moon Valley Gravel Pit, the shooting range and some additional property that is contiguous down along 169. Mr. Zwiers also owns the approximately 12 acres that adjoins the old Chicago and Northwestern Line, the recreational trail and is actually located in Eden Prairie. And right now there's an access to this property, the upper part of this property which is very high and bluffs and that sort of thing. And the second page is actually a proposal that has been approved preliminarily by the City of Eden Prairie for the property along Pioneer Trail that adjoins the Zwiers property there. The City of Eden Prairie is going to be starting preliminary work on sewer and water design. This is a proposal, Setters Ridge which has been, which was given preliminary approval by Eden Prairie for the Pemton Land Company who has acquired all of this property. They're going to be bringing sewer and water down Pioneer Road in order to get to this development. The City of Eden Prairie has indicated that they intend to start extending that sewer, which now is at approximately Bear Path, and they're going to be heading this way beginning around the first of July. They're going to begin construction. As I understand this development, Settlers Ridge is going to be the first phase of that is going to be started in June. The second page here is also is kind of a break out of what they're going to be doing there but I think the real issue here for Chanhassen I think is an opportunity to perhaps give some thought to developing a parcel here that, I don't know if burr under the saddle but to some extent that property has been, there's been a number of controversies about the property and the very geography of the property which I would be happy to walk anybody through that property if they're interested, is such that if you look at everything around Chanhassen that is developed around that, when really the only way to get the sewer down there realistically is along the bottom, along 169. The engineering. The adjoining properties. The way the property to the north on the other side of the railroad line has been developed. I don't think there, it doesn't appear that there's going to be too many people there that are going to be asking the City to bring the sewer down there. So it would make some sense to develop this in conjunction, do a joint powers with the City of Eden Prairie possibly to get the sewer down to this piece because it is very isolated and from an engineering standpoint we've been led to believe that it won't be the easiest piece of property to get to and the opportunity is now there, but it's a small window of opportunity and it was just our intent to bring that to the attention of the Council. I don't know if anyone has any questions or anything? Acting Mayor Mason: Does Council have any questions? Hearing none, I'm sure we'll take a look at it. As you know we have our comp plan and I'm, have you talked with engineering or Planning Commission about this? Bob Ritter: Yeah, we've spoken with staff about it in numerous conversations have held this piece of property. I think they've been contacted by numerous developers and the comprehensive plan, as I understand says that sewer's 2006. Acting Mayor Mason: Well I know we're trying to develop the city in an orderly fashion and as such I'm sure there's some problems related. Other than that right now I'm not quite sure what City Council could City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 do at this point as we're going through a revision of the comp plan process, as I think you know. That might be the time to bring up those concerns at those hearings. Do we know? Bob Generous: They're tentatively scheduled for June. April 22nd there will be an open forum meeting at the Rec Center to receive citizen input and show people what we're proposing at the time. Acting Mayor Mason: That sounds like it might be a good time for you to show up at. Okay. Bob Ritter: Thank you very much. Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. STATE WIDE AUTO SALVAGE~ LA VERNE VASSAR. LaVerne Vassar: Well your staff sent me a letter from your staff and your city attorney and I want to know where the City is sitting on that because they're employees and they're not the City Council. I want to know the position the City sits on that. Acting Mayor Mason: On which? LaVeme Vassar: On my place and the permit for the building. Acting Mayor Mason: Well as I understand, we got some plans with absolutely nothing on them so I don't, I would say right now the City has no position on it and until we see some plans, I don't know how we could have a position on it. LaVerne Vassar: How can I give you plans when they say it's not permissible? Acting Mayor Mason: Well we have a process to go through. If you want to put a site plan before the Planning Commission, I would strongly suggest you do that. LaVerne Vassar: That's what they told me to do and to work with her and that's what I did and she says there is nothing, no more further than that. Acting Mayor Mason: Well there are some guidelines that need to be followed before you can get a site plan reviewed. If you want to get on the Planning Commission, on their agenda I would suggest you talk with the planner and get that worked out with her. LaVerne Vassar: That's not, they said last time I was here they said I was supposed to sit here and work it out with her. I waited 6 weeks and they sent me a letter and they says, no. The City's not following this agreement. Acting Mayor Mason: Well I'm not privy to what agreement you're talking about. I would. LaVerne Vassar: Your attorney, he's the one that made the ruling on it. Acting Mayor Mason: Can you shed any light on this? City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Roger Knutson: You can apply for anything you want to apply for and if you don't like what staff says, you can go through the Board of Adjustments and Appeals if you disagree with them and you can apply for a site plan to do anything. Whether you get approved will be determined when you apply. My letter just reviewed a judgment that was entered into in the 1970's and the question put to me was, does that judgment require us to approve a building out there and I answered no. LaVeme Vassar: Well it's not only a judgment, it was a contract with the City. Acting Mayor Mason: Well as a I recall, that contract dates back some 20 years. LaVerne Vassar: You're right. Acting Mayor Mason: And I believe our City Attorney also feels that there's a 10 year expiration date on that, and if that is in fact the case, you would have to re-apply like any citizen that changes their plans 10 or 20 years down the road would have to do. LaVerne Vassar: Well that was a lifetime contract. That wasn't a 10 year. That's a judge, you're talking about a judgment for money. That was a lifetime agreement. Roger Knutson: I have nothing more to add. The references in that judgment and that agreement as you call it, that ordinance doesn't even exist anymore. That's referred to in that judgment. That ordinance has been repealed 10, 15, 20 years ago. LaVerne Vassar: Well you're telling in your letter it's denied. They don't have to live with that. Roger Knutson: It's no longer applicable is my, that's what my letter said. You can still apply to build a building. LaVerne Vassar: That's what you're saying right now, that I can go through the process of that right? Roger Knutson: You can apply. It doesn't mean you're going to get approved. It doesn't mean you're going to get denied. LaVerne Vassar: Okay, that's what we'll do. Acting Mayor Mason: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else with visitor presentations? Linda Janson: Councilmen, I'm Linda Janson, 240 Eastwood Court. I want to thank you for bringing up the Coulter issue and tabling that early so that anyone who is here that was going to address that can leave. What I did want to bring to your attention this evening, since I spoke with you at the last Council meeting, since time is of issue. I have encountered numerous comments from out of the community that it was their understanding, just so you're aware, that this boulevard was not going to be constructed. No, no, no. Just so you're aware. Acting Mayor Mason: Well I think, Linda as I stated earlier, that is not part of the agenda. We will be having a public hearing on whether Coulter Boulevard should go through and that will be the time for anyone, and hopefully there will be lots of people that come to that public hearing to talk about that. City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Linda Janson: And we did make a point, as we were hearing that this was going to be tabled, of calling the people who were going to be here and asking them and telling them to go ahead and stay home tonight. Acting Mayor Mason: Right. And I think you also need to understand that the issue for this evening didn't have really anything to do whether Coulter Boulevard was going through or not but whether plans and specifications should be rescinded or not. Those are two huge, huge different issues. Linda Janson: Absolutely understood. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. Okay. Linda Janson: And that's why I'm bringing this up in the visitor presentation because it wouldn't have applied to rescinding the plans and the specifications. More my communication to you from the people that I have been speaking with is that they are looking to have that opportunity to voice their opinion before any more tax money is spent. It's understood that the plans and specifications are done. Whatever it costs to put those utilities down already has been spent. There was no communication as far as they were able to address it. This whole thing has been so rushed and in the communication that I've read it was with the understanding that if it didn't get done before there were people living in those townhomes, that it would be a problem putting it through and so you have been, it's been expressed to you that it really needs to be done and as hastily as possible. And what I am hearing, and hopefully you will hear it first hand from the community, is that they would have liked to have had the opportunity to voice an opinion on even how those utilities were laid down. Now it's sitting there smacking them in the face that well, they're here already. The destruction's already done. Now let's just blacktop it. Now the only question is, is it a MnDot road or is it a regular circulatory or whatever your term is road that goes in there. But I think you need to know that with the timing, be it the holidays, however it was handled, they did not know that even those utilities were going to go down when they did. Just so you're aware. If the project can stop now, at whatever point you're saying it will stop with the plans and specifications, and it comes back to the public to be able to voice an opinion before anything else is done, it would seem like the prudent move. Acting Mayor Mason: There will be a public hearing on that. Linda Janson: Thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: You're welcome. Thank you. Doris Nickolay: My name is Doris Nickolay. I live at 6570 Galpin Boulevard. My property is adjacent to Mayor Mancino's and the Davis property. And I'm here because we found out two days after the last Council meeting all this had taken place and out of 700 names on the mailing list, mine was omitted. Acting Mayor Mason: I'm sorry, what item are you talking about? Doris Nickolay: The Galpin lake property. Don Ashworth: The trail. Acting Mayor Mason: Oh, okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you. City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Doris Nickolay: So I was not, my son is my representative here. He contacted somebody from the parks and recreation and they discovered that out of 700 people, for some reason, mine was on there. I received nothing of any of this November, December, January and this was all passed last week and we have some major concerns because my property is probably the most problematical of any in the entire trail system and my son will tell you why. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, thank you. Alan Nickolay: My name is Alan Nickolay. I'm Doris' son. Basically, like Doris mentioned, she was not been notified of any hearings, commission meetings, etc since the inception of this, I believe it started this past fall as far as the specification and with the corridor. On March 11th I contacted Mr. Hoffman, the Director of Parks and Recreation inquiring how come we haven't received. What's going on? What's the status of this? Basically he had notified me that, at that point that it was passed the previous Monday, which was two weeks ago. He said I will mail you some information, etc. He looked on a GSI, I'm not sure what that stands for, database. My mother's name was not on there. And he goes, oh yeah. Her name is on the map. So somebody, somewhere made a major mistake there. I had a conversation this past Thursday with Dave Nyberg. He basically updated myself of the significant changes that would occur to my mother's property as a result of this trail system, of that segment. Basically I'm asking the Council to please re-address the Galpin Boulevard trail segment north of Lake Lucy Road. Number one, my mother was not notified of any of the meetings regarding this trail you know. I'd like to approach, if I may. Acting Mayor Mason: Certainly. Alan Nickolay: That's a copy of the letter from Mr. Hoffman. He's the Director of Park and Recreation, basically admitting that for some reason your property, I'm quoting here. For some reason your property was not included in our computer GIS database. It has been added and hopefully will ensure you to get all the future mailings. Well that's fine for the future but the problem is my mother was never notified. Basically, please realize that my mother's property from conversations with Mr. Nyberg, is going to possibly have approximately a 15 foot permanent easement going across the entire length of that property. Now we're not talking that we're basically taking this trail inside the right-of-way of the county property. We're talking additional 15 feet beyond. You know we're going to be losing trees. 30 inch trees, 12 inch trees, etc, which are on our property as a result of that easement. And there's possibly other trees accordingly. I asked Mr. Nyberg for some detailed plans of that section of the corridor. He has not, as of today, we have not received anything in the mail from Mr. Nyberg regarding that. So you know, basically my mother's not been afforded any comment on the trail in front of her property when they're talking substantial easement. I know there are some other residents on Galpin Boulevard also have had concerns with this trail, that segment of the trail about some of the destruction of the landscape, the trees, etc. Also I know the City from reviewing the tape from the last Council meeting, that is over budget on this. I believe there is a more cost effective way to do this segment of the trail that would be less obtrusive onto the landscape. Also cost less money in light of that you are $300,000.00 over budget on this trail. I believe that it was originally $1.24 million. Now you're talking $1.54 million. That's a substantial overrun. And say I'm just going to pull this number out of the air but if say the section of the trail cost $200,000.00 and we can somehow save $60,000.00 to $80,000.00 by some modifications, let's do so. You've got to realize, this segment of the trail is not a part of a loop trail or anything. This is a dead end spur. It's a dead end. It goes from a part of a loop and goes, and stops nowhere which makes it even worse, on a very dangerous comer it stops. So you're going to have people crossing at a very dangerous intersection. Mayor Mancino two weeks ago referred to it as dead man's comer. It is. It's a very dangerous, there's a reason they call it dead man's comer. Someone did die there many years ago. There's nothing unusual to have a half a dozen City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 accidents every December there, and very often very serious accidents with injuries and that's where the trail's going to stop. People are going to be crossing. It's on a very sharp comer going with a steep grade. It's a very bad spot to stop that trail. The bottom line is, you know councilmembers, how would you feel if you were completely by-passed of this process and you had significant changes to your property as a result of this segment? Think about it. How would you feel? So basically I'm going to reiterate. I would like the Council to re-address that portion of Galpin Boulevard segment, the trail segment north of Lake Lucy Road and re-open it up for public comment. Acting Mayor Mason: I'll answer your one question. I wouldn't like it. To be honest with you, and the City obviously was at fault at that. There's, we were at fault. My understanding is that you are meeting at 11:00 tomorrow morning with Mr. Hoffman? Alan Nickolay: Mr. Nyberg is my understanding. Acting Mayor Mason: Oh, okay. Both Mr. Nyberg. Alan Nickolay: I was not notified Mr. Hoffman would be there but I was talking with Mr. Nyberg last Thursday. Acting Mayor Mason: Right, okay. My understanding is that you are meeting with Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Nyberg at 11:00 tomorrow morning and I would anticipate the Mayor or someone from City Council will be there also. Let's see what we can work out at that point and we'll get a report back from Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Nyberg and you folks about what. Doris Nickolay... Acting Mayor Mason: I, quite honestly do not know. As far as, I know we do have a Chamber of Commerce luncheon tomorrow at noon so I'm assuming that she will... Right, right. Right, right. I would anticipate if the Mayor would not be there, that certainly somebody else from City Council will be there at that meeting and then we'll get a report back from them. Okay, thank you. Anybody else for visitor presentations this evening? Seeing nothing else, we'll move on to public hearings. PUBLIC HEARING: RECEIVE AND APPROVE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR LAKE LUCY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 98-1. Public Present: Name Address Will Johnson 1660 West 63rd Street Anita Benson: This is the proposed improvement project is to complete the Lake Lucy Road segment between the Brendon Pond development and the Woodridge Heights development. At this point I'd like to mm it over to Michael Foertsch, project engineer with RCM and Associates to present the feasibility study and address any questions you may have. Acting Mayor Mason: Good enough. Thank you. City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Michael Foertsch: Good evening members of the City Council. I don't have any concerns to address to you tonight but I do have, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here and present this information. As Ms. Benson had alluded to, I was wondering if we could, I understand there's a camera. Councilman Engel: It's right above. Michael Foertsch: The Lake Lucy Road segment is the missing piece of roadway... Lake Lucy Road connects Highway 41 with County Road 117. There's approximately 350 segment of roadway there and it's not been completed at this point. As you're well aware of, Lake Lucy Road is a municipal state aid street on the City's street system. The proposed improvements briefly include, my wonderful coloring job I did there. The roadway will be constructed to 36 feet wide, face to face. Included in the roadway construction will be storm sewer facilities to drain the roadway as well as connect the existing drainage which flows from north to south. Also identified in the City's storm water management plan there's a need for some type of a storm water treatment basin in this location. Also included with the improvements would be the construction of a trailway along the north side of the road, as well as a street light somewhere. I've shown it here for a lack of a better location. The estimated project cost included on this overhead, the street construction cost is estimated at $28,500.00. The storm sewer construction and pond excavation is estimated at $31,000.00. The trailway is estimated at about $3,000.00. Contingent fees, administration and engineering.., cost of approximately $119,000.00. The project is proposed to be funded by a combination of special assessments, municipal state aid street funds and the city's surface water management funds. An assessment rate for the adjacent properties has been calculated at $87.18. This rate comes from the past Lake Lucy Road improvements with a construction cost index factor applied to those to come up with $87.18. The funding breakdown has estimated the assessment share of the funds would be $43,590.00 and approximately $53,000.00 is your state aid funds and approximately $22,000.00 in surface water management funds. The proposed schedule, of course we are at this evening. March 23rd. We're hopeful the City Council will receive the report and approve the project and authorize the preparation of the plans and specifications. Given that action tonight, we propose to have the plans and specifications completed by the 27th. Receive the bids on May 22nd. We need to have a 3 week advertising period because of the cost of improvements and the proposed special assessments. Consideration of a contract award May 26th. Construction June, July. Final cost, or at least enough cost calculated so that you can have a final assessment hearing on the improvements in October with the final construction and clean-up in June of 1999. And that concludes my remarks at this time. I will address any questions the Council may have. Acting Mayor Mason: So we're right on schedule so far then? Michael Foertsch: Right on schedule so far. Acting Mayor Mason: Does Council have any questions for Ms. Benson or Mr. Foertsch? Councilman Senn: No. Councilman Engel: No. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Does anyone wish to make any comment on the feasibility report for Lake Lucy Road improvements? If so, now's the time. City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Will Johnson: I live up in that neighborhood. I ain't going to complain about the price but I'd like to see the road go through. Because we are on the north end now, if you are aware, getting blocked in. MnDot is shutting the streets off. We have no roads to get out up there so let's get this road done with finally. Thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: You're welcome. Any other comments? Hearing none I'd like a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilman Engel: Second. Roger Knutson: Mayor, can I ask was there a petition to do this project? Was this done by petition? Charles Folch: This is being done in conjunction with the development of Brendon Ponds 3rd Phase. Roger Knutson: Did they sign a petition? Or will they? Charles Folch: Not a petition at this time. Roger Knutson: Otherwise we need four votes. Don Ashworth: Why don't you, if I may. Modify the motion to be approval under the assumption that the developer in fact submits a petition in favor. Otherwise the item is resubmitted to the City Council for the next regular agenda. Roger Knutson: That's what I thought I heard you say. Acting Mayor Mason: Do we need to vote again or just as amended? Councilman Senn: Do we need four votes just to authorize the preparation of plans and specs? Roger Knutson: Well you're ordering the project. Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah, we're ordering the project here. Roger Knutson: Preparation of plans and specs would just require a simple majority vote. But this is ordering the project. Councilman Senn: Okay, well maybe I'm confused then but that's, our agenda says receive and approve feasibility report for Lake Lucy Road project and authorize preparation of plans and specifications. Roger Knutson: I think you included in that is ordering the project. City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Charles Folch: That's technically what, technically approving the preparation of plans and specs is officially ordering the project. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the feasibility report dated March 16, 1998 for the Lake Lucy Road Improvement Project No. 98-1 and authorize the project consultant engineer, RCM Associates, lnc. to prepare the project plans and specifications under the assumption that the developer submits a petition for the project. If not, the item will be brought back to the City Council at the next meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 18-57(~)(1) DRIVEWAY ACCESS ON COLLECTOR ROADS, FIRST READING. Anita Benson: Members of the Council. Over the last year the City has had residential and commercial subdivisions which involved direct driveway access from lots onto collector roads. Current city code 18- 57(1) prohibits direct vehicular or pedestrian access from individual lots to such highways or streets. The City in the past has approved direct driveway access from individual lots or combined lots when there are no other feasible means of accessing the property. The ordinance amendment would represent past practice and give the City Engineer the authority to review and approve the direct driveway accesses from individual lots to collector roads on a case by case basis in the future. Staff would recommend approval of the first reading. Acting Mayor Mason: Does Council have any questions to staff on this item? Okay, I have none. Again this is a public hearing. If there's anyone that would wish to comment on the first reading of this ordinance, now's the time. This is first reading. It will come up again I believe in two weeks if I'm not mistaken. Oh yeah, three. Thank you. I need, first of all I need a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Acting Mayor Mason: Can I have approval of first reading? Councilman Engel: Move approval. Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve first reading of City Code Amendment to Section 18-57(g)(1), driveway access onto collector roads as presented by the City Attorney's office. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 10 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 APPROVE TH 7 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, MNDOT, PW067D1. Public Present: Name Address Dan Rathman & Linda Conner Dolores & Bill Ziegler Michael P. Chapman Cindy Will Andy & Linda Brisley 2521 Orchard Lane 6441 Oriole Avenue 2831 North Manor Road 2730 Sandpiper Trail 2811 North Manor Road Anita Benson: Members of the Council, this issue was first brought before you at the January 26, 1998 City Council meeting. MnDot presented their proposals and we received resident input and based on that resident input we have prepared a response for you tonight. At this point in time I would like to mm this over to Mr. Paul Kachelmyer with MnDot to go over his response to questions raised at the January 26th meeting that were not able to be addressed at that time. Paul Kachelmyer: I have a few handouts here. Acting Mayor Mason: IfI could just ask, just to kind of get a feel here. How many people are here for Highway 7 tonight? Okay, good enough. Great, thank you. Paul Kachelmyer: Did everyone get a copy of it that would like one? Since I was here last, we revised what we're requesting to do. We had previously asked for a number of road closings. One of which we asked for before was at Washta Bay Road and in response to citizen input we have revised our proposal to now allow Washta Bay Road to stay open with some safety improvements at the intersection there to make it a safer intersection. I could go through this 15 questions that I had prepared a response for that was in the City Council packet, if you would like me to. That would take a while. If you don't think that's necessary, I could just talk a little in general. Acting Mayor Mason: Council, what do you think? I'm sure some of the people here have some specific questions. Councilman Senn: It seems to make sense. Why don't we just go to the questions because we've already been through this. Acting Mayor Mason: Right, and I think everyone here probably is aware of that. Why don't we just do that. Why don't we ask the people that are here that have specific questions that, my guess is you've already addressed in this and you could just handle that. Would that be alright with you? Paul Kachelmyer: Certainly, any way you'd like. Councilman Senn: Yeah, why don't you just bring your stuff and maybe come up here and then as people ask questions, you've got a microphone to answer them with. 11 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Acting Mayor Mason: Good idea. So Mr. Kachelmyer did present quite a lengthy, there were a number of very interesting and legitimate questions asked here and Mr. Kachelmyer did, has responded to all of them and I suspect that if you can come up and ask them, he can probably go right off the sheet that he's already prepared and we'll see what happens from there so if I could ask folks to, with your questions. If you have questions, to come up one at a time here, we'll see if we can address them and then take whatever action is appropriate. Councilman Senn: I think of particular interest would be if there's anybody who is not happy at this point with the compromises effectively that have been put forward, we need to know that. Acting Mayor Mason: Fair enough. Andy Brisley: Since nobody else will go. Acting Mayor Mason: Oh, I bet after one starts there will be more. Councilman Senn: Didn't you start last time? The same order as last time please. Acting Mayor Mason: I'm sorry, I totally neglected. Why don't we go through the staff report first because, I'm sorry and that may answer some of the questions. Hey, I'm only Acting Mayor. Come on. So I'm sorry, thanks. Let's do that and then we'll take the questions. Anita Benson: Councilmembers. The following is revisions of the proposal that currently staff has worked out with MnDot. The first neighborhood we'll address was the Minnewashta Manor neighborhood. The existing local street access points to Trunk Highway 7 are Oriole Avenue, Sandpiper Trail and Washta Bay Road. Proposed local street access points to Trunk Highway 7 for the entire Minnewashta Manor neighborhood are Washta Bay Road and Sandpiper Trail remaining open and Oriole Avenue being restricted to a right-in/right-out access. This is based on 1998 city improvements of leaving Washta Bay Road intersection open to traffic with the City of Chanhassen public works department in conjunction with the 1998 trail project. Making improvements to the access point grade and closing North Manor Road to vehicular traffic at the west end, at the intersection with Washta Bay Road. In 1998 MnDot would install green street name signage at Oriole Avenue, Sandpiper Trail and Washta Bay Road along Trunk Highway 7. In the year 2000, with the safety improvement project, MnDot would restrict the access at Oriole Avenue to right-in/right-out only. The left mm lane to Sandpiper Trail would be increased from the existing 250 feet to 400 feet. The access point at Sandpiper Trail would be reconstructed to provide an exclusive lane for westbound left mm movement onto Trunk Highway 7. The next neighborhood is the Minnewashta Heights neighborhood. An existing local street access points to Trunk Highway 7 are Arbor Lane, Cypress Drive, Dogwood Avenue, Fir Tree Avenue and Greenbriar Avenue. Proposed local street access points to Trunk Highway 7 for the entire Minnewashta Heights neighborhood are Arbor Lane, Dogwood Avenue and Greenbriar Avenue remaining open. This is based on 1998 city improvements of closing Fir Tree Avenue and Cypress Drive access to Trunk Highway 7. Widen the turning radii at Greenbriar Avenue and upon reviewing the sight lines at the access at Dogwood with Trunk Highway 7, MnDot has revised their recommendation and does not recommend shifting the Dogwood access to the west as originally proposed. Should the speed and volume of traffic on Dogwood become a problem in the future once these closures are completed, the City would be responsible for instituting proper mitigating measures. In 1998 MnDot would install the large green street name signage at Arbor Lane, Dogwood Avenue and Greenbriar Avenue. In the year 2000 MnDot would add a right turn lane for eastbound Trunk Highway 7 to southbound Arbor Lane traffic movement. And they would also widen the turning radii on 12 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Arbor Lane to provide for, I lost the rest of my page. To provide for the turning radius. On Leslee Curve, MnDot would install green street name signage at Leslee Curve in 1998. In the year 2000 they would leave Leslee Curve access open and construct left turn lanes. However, the City of Chanhassen is attempting to facilitate the easement and a right-of-way acquisition needed to extend an existing culvert to the north on the church property, which is necessary for the turn lane construction. And with that I'd like to turn it over to questions. Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you for the staff report. Go ahead. Go ahead, sure. Andy Brisley: What I'd like to do, Mr. Kachelmyer did respond to our questions. I've read through the responses and I guess I'd just like to reply in general. Not to anything in particular, okay? So my name is Andy Brisley, 2811 North Manor Road. We'll get the official stuff done with. I am the President of the Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association and I'm speaking on behalf of our neighborhood. And what's gone on is after the council meeting, we've talked in our neighborhood. We've had a couple meetings and we've talked with other people around the area that are being affected by this and it just kind of gets down to, for the money that's being spent, and for the improvements, we don't get it. We just don't understand what you're trying to do. To use MnDot's figures of 17,000 cars a day and this is in reference to the Oriole Avenue area using MnDot's figures again. For 17,000 cars a day, that's 6 million. Over 6 million cars a year and there's, at MnDot's numbers again there's 3 accidents a year so that's basically a .00004 percentage chance that there's going to be an accident there. Also there hasn't been an accident reported at Sandpiper and Washta Bay has had two accidents in three years, and that's even a smaller percentage point. Again it gets down to the question of how much taxpayer dollar do we have to put out for what seems to be possibly minimal, minimal returns. Now I understand MnDot's approach and that you need to, that you want to close these access points but in response to your response, it seems that there's many statistical innuendo's and almost scare tactics and I guess I'd like to just read a couple of them. In response to the question 1, and question 1 was, what factors does MnDot feel contribute to making Oriole Avenue a potentially dangerous intersection and it starts out with experience has found that it takes very few additional complications to make a situation hazardous where there's already the combination of a high volume of traffic moving at high speeds. You don't tell us what you're referring to. What, you know what's the baseline and what is, what you're comparing that to. And later on in the letter, you could remove one of the variables by just reducing the speed but you say that's just out of the question. That's absolutely not a possibility. And continuing on in response 1. It says this section of Highway 7 has experienced numerous serious accidents related to merging traffic, including a fatal accident. Is this regarding specifically the Oriole Avenue area or is this regarding the entire area that MnDot is referring to? And that isn't really clear in that section. And if numerous accidents is 2 to 3 a year, well again that's a .0004% chance with 6 million cars a year and do we know that each and every one of those accidents was directly related to the merging traffic? And if you do know that, how do you know that? Continuing on with question, part of the response with question 1 and if you've read it, it's a very long response. Residents have reported that thru traffic sometimes drifts into the left turn lane creating for the potential for serious rear ending accidents. How many of the residents have reported this? How many times have they reported this and what were the driving conditions when those incidents happened? And another thing that isn't pointed out is all the residents, and we went door to door, knocking on doors. We didn't talk to everybody but we talked to probably 65-70%. Every resident we spoke with was opposed to this plan and that's not something that you say in here. You also say there have been cases of eastbound vehicles swerving to avoid what they believe to have been an imminent accident, and that would be in reference to headlights coming on at them. Well how many cases have you know been reported of this? And if they did swerve, how do you know that's related to the oncoming traffic and not something else? In response to question 2, how many accidents have been reported at Oriole Avenue intersection. There were reported 13 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 approximately 2 or 3 accidents per year at this intersection and local residents report many near misses at the intersections. And again, the numerous serious accidents. I guess I would look at this as almost you know a way to try and dramatize what the situation is. And what is officially a near miss? I mean is, I don't understand what a near miss is. Is there you know some way to report that? And they'll go on and I'll end up with a response from question 11 and that was, could the speed limit be lowered on TH 7? The answer was no. What has been found to happen in areas where speed limits have been lowered is that some people drive slower and many continue to drive faster at the speed they feel safe. The difference in speed between the vehicles then tends to result in accidents. What studies are you reporting? What facts are you using to give us this? And again your answer is plain and simply no. What I'd like to do is I went out at the U.S. Department of Transportation's web site and looked for some statistics. And basically all these statistics support that lowering speed limits reduces accidents. The first statement in that web site was speeding. Exceeding the posted speed limit or driving too fast for conditions and this could very well mean that people are driving too fast for the road condition that's present after the Oriole Avenue area, is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes. And from a report to Congress on the effects of the increased speed limits, and the post NLMS era, and DOTHS808637. You made me nervous. I had to get official there. Fatalities and persons injured in traffic crashes occurring on the roads with higher speed limits have been commanding an increased share of total traffic crashes toll for some time. A large part of this increase in 1996 is a direct result of the increased speed limits. Back in 1973 when the speed limits had to be dropped due to the oil embargoes and those type of things, accidents and fatalities decreased over 16%. Again, it proves that reducing the speed limit reduces accidents and fatalities. From a report on fatal crash involvement and basically it's what are the odds, and this is dated July, 1997. The study uses a baseline of under 40 mph and then it compares the change in the speed limits to the percentage increase that you have of being involved in a fatal accident. If the speed limit increases to between 40 and 50 mph as opposed to 40 mph, you're 283% more likely to be involved in a fatal crash or accident. If the speed limit is at 55, you're 717% more likely and if it's over 55, it's 891% more likely. Now I'd like to read some excerpts from the traffic, Highway 7 corridor study and this is basically the executive summary. And this is dated February, 1996 and prepared by BRW, Incorporated. In the capacity analysis section, it states plain and simply that Sandpiper and Oriole Avenue currently operate at congested levels during peak traffic periods. What you're suggesting now is taking half that traffic from Oriole and moving it down into Sandpiper. That doesn't make sense to me. It just seems like you're going to make a congested situation even more dangerous. In the accident analysis section, 23% of the accidents involved in this area of Highway 7 are caused by animals. Now there's nothing you can do about that unless we can teach the animals to read and we can't do that. If you were to lower the speed in the area, the rest of the accidents, the 18% rear end situations, 14% of the right angle and those type of things, the statistics plain and simply show that the severity of those accidents would be decreased. In recommendations, and again this is from the executive summary. In recommendations it says, close access at Linden Lake Drive. And that's been done. It says close access at Wood Drive, and that's going to be done. And it says close access at Pleasant Avenue and you've got Chanhassen, or excuse me, Shorewood's approval to do that. There's nothing in here about closing Oriole Avenue, limiting the traffic to right-in or right-out and nothing about closing or limiting access to Washta Bay Road and then taking some of the access from North Manor Road as well. Under the planning department alternatives in the same report, it said correct the alignment of 41 and 7. Obviously you know that seems to be, even in your report that you provided us at the January 25th meeting, that's where the most accidents occurred was at Highway 7 and 41, but there's nothing in this plan to address that area at all. I guess I'd like to close the quoting part by what I think is probably the most important statement from the traffic Highway 7 corridor study and it says MnDot does not own access control and only has a limited ability to influence future access decisions. Therefore cooperation is needed from local units of government that have zoning and subdivision authority. I guess MnDot and the Chanhassen City Engineer are saying that they approve this. Are you asking us just to accept the 14 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 inconvenience of the traffic patterns, lower our quality of living, increase the risk to ourselves, our children, our animals, and I don't think that you've really looked at low cost alternatives. You just, you've plain and simply said that lowering the speed limit isn't an alternative. What we'd like to see somebody look at is the speed limit through Excelsior on Highway 7 is 45. Can that be extended or could the speed limit in Excelsior be reduced to 40 and that extended out? Again, the statistics that I read before prove that that reduces the accidents. If that's truly what MnDot wants to do, there's a low cost alternative without spending taxpayer dollars and inconvenience residents. Also, you say that the merging area is a problem and it can be hairy but if you were to again use signage and start the merging process on Highway 7 by saying that the left lane is limited to either south 41 and then Oriole Avenue afterwards, that could start the merging process there. You know basically it feels like MnDot is trying to pass off the problems on Highway 7 and pass it off to the city and the residents. They're trying to optimize Highway 7 but again at the expense of the residents in our area. A good example of this is if the plan goes through as stated, you're going to increase the traffic on Orchard Avenue. There's a park right on Orchard Avenue and that traffic is going to double so again you're asking us to put our children, the elderly that take walks and all of us that take walks around there, to be at more risk. We'd really like you to see, explore these other alternatives and not dismiss them due to it just doesn't work. When the statistic show that it does work. And to the Mayor or Acting Mayor, and City Council, I guess again I urge you to not approve the project as stated. I don't think MnDot's done it's work. I don't think the statistical innuendoes that are mentioned throughout this really prove that what they're going to be doing is a wise taxpayer money and it's going to come in with any concrete benefit. Thank you. Paul Kachelmyer: Heard a lot of issues there. Would you like me to respond to them all? Acting Mayor Mason: Why don't you hang on... respond and then we'll get your comments. Paul Kachelmyer: There is only one reason why we are proposing to limit access at Oriole to right turn in and right turn out and that is because... Audience: We can't hear you. Paul Kachelmyer: The reason why we are proposing to limit access at Oriole to a right turn in and right turn out is because we do believe that there's a high potential for people to get killed at that location, and what we are trying to do is to protect the safety of the residents in that neighborhood and of the other users on Highway 7 by proposing that change. We have no desire to inconvenience people. We aren't trying to shut off the neighborhood. The whole reason is safety and I can go through all the items that were brought up there. Address each one. It was mentioned that there was a fatal accident in the area of the merging section between Highway 41 and Oriole. The fatal accident occurred due to merging traffic. Two cars coming together. One person having to make an erratic move to miss the other car. Losing control. Spinning out. Going into the ditch. Audience: When did that happen? Paul Kachelmyer: That was before. Audience: Was that at Wood Drive? Next to Wood Drive. Paul Kachelmyer: No. That was east of Oriole on the north side of the road within the last 5 years. No, it was between... There was a question raised where are these numerous accidents? Are all the numerous 15 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 accidents I referred to, the 2 to 3 a year at Oriole or there's other? No, there's quite a number of others that have occurred between Oriole and Highway 41 in the merging traffic area. Audience: On what lane? Acting Mayor Mason: I think you should let Mr. Kachelmyer get through with what he has to say. Audience: Well we just want him to be specific. Which lane? Which direction? Acting Mayor Mason: Well, we're dealing with thousands of cars a day and I think for Mr. Kachelmyer to be able to give you a specific spot that something occurred may in fact not be possible. Audience: Narrow it down... Acting Mayor Mason: Well perhaps if we listen to Mr. Kachelmyer we'll get that chance to narrow it down. Paul Kachelmyer: The accidents that have been occurring on that road have been occurring for years and they're all along there. They're not at any one spot. Which is most people would be surprised how many accidents occur on that highway. There's a lot of cars going at a fast rate of speed. Any sort of movements, conflicting movements are occurring on a highway, there's going to be a lot of accidents. I'll go on down the list. I was writing kind of fast. I can't read my own words. I'm going to have to miss one question so. Okay, what is a near miss? Oh I see. It's kind of a combination question. How do we know that traffic is swerving into the left mm lane when people are making left tums at Oriole? I talked to probably 20 or more people from this neighborhood. They've called me due to the exposure of the project and I would say I've heard that, that occurrence mentioned from at least several people who have said they've been in the left turn lane. Going to make a left turn. Somebody's followed them into the left turn lane. They've either had to scoot on back into the thru traffic to avoid getting rear ended or the person in back of them swerved out at the last minute and just missed them by inches. And the concept of what is a near miss and how do we record that? MnDot has no record whatsoever of any near miss accidents ever. The near miss is what a whole bunch of people have related to me. That, I'm surprised that if, and I don't doubt the statement that the person went door to door and talked to people and are not hearing that there's concern because I've talked to a number of people who are extremely concerned about the safety at that intersection. People describing it as an accident waiting to happen. A death trap. Great concern. Moving on down. The lowering the speed limit. There was allusion to cheaper alternatives and yeah, it's cheap to go out and put out signs that say we should lower the speed limit. Most people here probably do remember back in the 70's when the nationwide speed limit was lowered from 75 mph down to 55 by President Nixon at the time. And yes, the death rate around the country went way down. We've all seen in the last couple years what the Congress and what the public in the United States has asked for. For the speed limit to go up and that's exactly what the Congress passed. Speed limit laws are a reflection of what people want and speeds that people drive are a reflection of what people choose to drive. The highway system in the Twin Cities area, in the entire country is a system of roads that are intended to convey a lot of traffic at a fast rate of speed. The concept that we should say lower the speed limit in all roads in the Twin Cities area to 45 mph would be met with just rebellion. The fact that people in a particular area may want the speed limit lowered because they would perceive that their area of the road would be safer, that's understandable. And the road probably would experience fewer serious accidents if that speed limit could be enforced. But what we've found in numerous cases where speed limits have been reduced and enforcement is not there, is that some people drive the speed limit and some people drive way over the speed limit then. And the differential 16 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 between fast moving vehicles and slow moving vehicles causes accidents and it's something that's gone back decades. You know this asking for this is not, this is not the first case that it's been asked for. It's probably been asked for hundreds of times in the state and if the road is designed in such a fashion that people perceive that they can drive faster than what the posted speed limit is, they often drive faster than what the posted speed limit is. The statement about the speed limit in Excelsior being 45 mph. Could that be extended? Well, I think you're all probably familiar with how the road swerves in Excelsior underneath the bridge with the.., shoulder and stuff. The accident rate in the Excelsior area on Highway 7 is higher than any other stretch of Highway 7 between here and 494. The lower speed limit in the Excelsior area has not somehow or another brought about the low rate of accidents. There's a high rate of accidents there because the road is complicated. In the year 2000 we intend to reconstruct the road in the entire Excelsior area. Greatly simplifying the curves and everything there. When that is all done the speed limit will be raised to 50 mph. It won't be kept at 45. The 1996 corridor study that was done, studying what should be done with Highway 7 from Highway 41 all the way out to Hutchinson, Minnesota. A whole lot of recommendations were put forth in that corridor study as to what might be done along certain stretches of road and none of those recommendations were based on any in-depth study. They were conceptual ideas as to the types of things that could be done along a certain stretch of road. So for instance in this stretch of road, calling for the closure of certain streets, that wasn't based on any detailed study of what was going on at those streets. It was just kind of a concept that in that area it was most likely a terrible thing to close a number of streets. The corridor study that was done for Highway 7 back in 1986 for the stretch of road between Highway 101 out to Minnewashta Parkway also put forth a whole bunch of recommendations. Again, conceptual type of recommendations. The number of projects that have been done since then like at Old Market Road, Vine Hill Road, the one that's proposed in Excelsior. None of them have ended up or will end up looking exactly like the recommendations of that '86 corridor study. The comment was made there's nothing in our year 2000 project to address the accident rate at Highway 7 and 41 and that the corridor study had recommended that we straighten up the intersection at 7 and 41. It was originally proposed that in this year 2000 project that we do, that we're going to straighten up the intersection on the north side of the highway by the shopping center there. And instead what we've done is we've been working with the City of Shorewood so that the City of Shorewood is going to straighten that up and MnDot will pay most the cost of that. One of the last statements made was that there was the belief that there would be increased risk to the residents of this neighborhood if we restrict access at Oriole to right turn in and right turn out and we feel that the exact opposite is the case. That there will be fewer people seriously injured or killed over the long term by us doing this. That's the end of what I've got written down for questions. Acting Mayor Mason: Are there any other questions? Gary Reed: Well I think. Acting Mayor Mason: I'm sorry, could we get your name for the record. Gary Reed: My name is Gary Reed, West 64th Street. 2461. Funneling the traffic all the way around through Oriole Avenue or Orchard Lane, Orchard Lane is a very poor road. It was basically an old gravel road. It follows the grade. It's narrow. A lot of people walk their dogs on it. A lot of people walk their kids on it. I walk my grandkids on it. You can't see over the hills. You've got to constantly keep the kids right on the edge of the road because the cars come flying over the hill. Once you get people commuting on that road, going all the way down, flipping all the way around and coming home, they're going to drive too fast on that road because they're commuting to work or from work. And I think it's going to cause some hazards and I think the State is trying to put off improving Highway 7 and put it on the residents that have 17 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 to maintain their streets and the streets would have to be widened or walking paths or something put along side of them to make them safe with the increased amount of traffic that's going to occur on Orchard Lane. So I guess I would like to see the State widened that access. Extend it a little further beyond so that people can merge. Extend our turning lane back towards Highway 7 so you can get in it and I know it's a dangerous intersection and I think everybody that uses it knows it and I think that's why there hasn't been a lot of accidents there. They're all very cautious about it. And once in a while you know you see a car that wants to get into a double lane a little quick when you're trying to turn there. You flick your lights at them and they pull back but I think people are cautious when they use it and I think that's why there hasn't been a lot of incidents. I haven't seen any incidences there. And I go in and out of there maybe 3-4 times a day. Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. Any comments on extending the turning lanes there? Paul Kachelmyer: Well looked at you know, could the left, the existing left turn lane for westbound Highway 7 to southbound Oriole, could that be extended? There's physically only enough room to extend that 100 feet. That is if we were to remove island that's immediately east of the existing left turn lane and it's the median island that channelizes the traffic where it has to go on Highway 7. The rest of the half of the 17,000 vehicles a day that are headed on Highway 7, have to be directed into the right place. We think that if we were to extend the left turn lane, that we would end up with a large amount of vehicles in that left turn lane who tend actually to go west on Highway 7. We think that the incidents of rear ending accidents there would just skyrocket. The concern about the amount of increased traffic on Orchard Lane. There'd be 140 vehicles a day that would not be making a left turn in or left turn out movement at Oriole due to the fact that we'd be extending that median island there. So there'd be 140 vehicles a day more increased traffic on Orchard Lane. We'd expect that the largest hour of traffic flow, that that would amount to approximately 14 vehicles in an hour on Orchard Lane over what it is there now. That's certainly not you know a huge amount of traffic. And regarding the speed enforcement on any streets in the city where there's any amount of traffic, again it's an enforcement issue. In this case all the traffic on Orchard Lane is local traffic. In any neighborhood that's like this where all the traffic in a neighborhood is local traffic, speed enforcement tends to be extremely effective. Police tend to have to only set up a speed trap very rarely to catch a few speeders before those few speeders in the neighborhood realize that there's a potential to be caught there. It's not a case where there's you know thru traffic due to some business or a more major road where everyday there's new people driving down it. I think those were some of the issues that were raised there. Acting Mayor Mason: Are there any other questions? Mark Leightner: Hi. My name is Mark Leightner. I live at 6311 Dogwood Avenue. Just to kind of, I've got my own issues in the Heights area but regarding Oriole. Where that merge lane is, I mean I think that's the biggest hazard there as far as having that merge funnel down right where there happens to be the left turn there and I think where we're closing roads there to again try to solve a problem when it's coming to road design on Highway 7 where two lanes are merging down and I've seen cars almost go into the right guard rail because you've got two speeders coming down there. I've also seen people swerving into the other lane of traffic where the cars are coming eastbound. At some point you know something's going to have to be done with 7 anyhow, so why not try to fix that merge spot there now. Maybe extend it down farther towards that lake, which at some point in time that road's going to end up being double lane anyhow and potentially you can keep that left turn into Orchard there. The biggest thing is there's just no place, you've got speeders that are constantly flying through there and they just, most of them don't care. It doesn't matter if you've got a rotten car or a nice car, people just, for whatever reason I'm going to get ahead of the other guy. And when you've got two lanes trying to merge and you have no divider, because 18 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 most divided highways when you have two lanes going to merge down into one, typically there's a divider or something where you're never going to be forced into the other lane of traffic. And with the way the road is designed now, potentially you are, could be forced into the oncoming traffic with this kind of activity continuing. So to sum up my spot there, closing that road isn't necessarily going to solve a safety problem with it's more the road design in the first place. Point two. I think you just got done finishing Crosstown not too long ago and I believe that's a double lane highway and I believe on that road the speed limit's 45 mph. That's a brand new road. It tums into, eventually the freeway over there but that's at 45. I'm not sure why that's not higher. You could go 60 on that road if you wanted to. It's certainly made for it. You've got the same amount of accesses on that road coming in. They're all over the place on that road. But the speed limit I believe is 45, unless I'm wrong, but I think it's 45. I'm not sure why that can't be started much farther down on Highway 7 even before you get into, I don't know, out by Smithtown or even out there farther. Potentially you could start slowing down traffic. As far as closing more streets. Part of what I see is keeping some of these streets open. It actually slows down the traffic. Because you're going to have people you know, not taking unnecessary risks but getting, taking a right turn onto Highway 7 and going east is not that difficult to get out and most of the time you're actually probably slowing down traffic that's probably going too fast. I live on Dogwood. If you close Fir Tree, essentially now you have no more cars coming out on that road. People just have more, a more head of steam that more cars are going to be funneled out of Dogwood and I've got a feeling more people are going to be taking more chances in trying to get on the road. The biggest problem I have with trying to close too many exits in Dogwood is you're funneling the bulk of the traffic right next to the park. We're also going to be having new equipment I believe coming to that park and now all of a sudden Dogwood's pretty much a straight shot and the bulk of the traffic is going to go on that road. And I don't see closing some of these other streets is going to make that area any safer. I know there was at one time it was talked about that we could possibly move the entrance down. I still think that's a possibility. But I guess the bottom line is, kind of continuing on what the first gentleman said. I think closing some of these roads is just, it's trying to solve a problem that I don't think has anything to do with the neighborhood. It's just the design of Highway 7 and I don't think closing a few of these intersections is going to solve the problem. If anything it could make things worst. I mean the way the road is designed and having that middle left turn lane is a problem in itself. I mean I've had numerous times where people are coming at me trying to turn into Dogwood and they don't belong there because they're passing. People are using that lane as a passing lane. So I mean I think the biggest thing you've got here is you've got a major traffic hazard in general with people that don't live in the area and they don't care how they drive and they're going to drive the way they want to. And I think eventually this road's got to get redesigned and I'm not sure when that's going to be but I think that's the bigger issue than trying to worry about closing a few streets. I guess that's all I've got to say. Thank you. Paul Kachelmyer: I find the statements there to be quite interesting. I couldn't agree more with quite a lot of what you just said. The road has got numerous design problems and constantly there are situations where there's accidents and there's near miss accidents out there. It's a very unsafe road in many locations and there's definitely a need to make a lot of improvements. The trouble that I'm faced with is that I have very little money to make improvements on this stretch of road. I have to try to make the improvements that I feel give the biggest bang for the buck. Improve the situations that present the most hazard at this time. That's what our project proposes to do along the whole 8 mile stretch from Highway 41 out to St. Bonifacius. The feeling that this road should get redesigned and should be done soon is a statement that I've heard from a number of people I've talked to in my dealings with working on this project. Unfortunately the amount of money that we have to spend here and the amount of money that we have to spend on any road improvements at all is governed by the amount of money that comes in by the state gas tax. And there has not been an increase in the state gas tax in 10 years and our legislators every year 19 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 propose increases and our legislators every year do not eventually vote for increases. And that is just the reality that MnDot have to live with and then you, the driving public has to live with also. As a result of a federal law, ISTEA law, Intermodal Surface Transportation... Act or something like that. I'm not sure. MnDot and all the other states in the nation had to come up with roadway improvement plans that were based on the reality of what income was. And these roadway improvements plans have to reflect what can be done in the next 3 years and possibly what can be done in the next 20 years. And MnDot completed that study last year and found out that in the next 3 years, well in the next not too many years we had essentially planned to construct about 50% more projects than in reality we're going to have money for. It turns out we're pretty good. Minnesota was pretty good compared to a lot of the other states in the country. There were a lot of other states in the country where they had planned 4 or 5 times as many projects in the next number of years and the reality was they were going to have funding for. So how this relates to Highway 7. Our 20 year plan projecting what improvements will likely be made in the 7 county metro area in the next 20 years does not include any major improvements at all for this stretch of Highway 7. Essentially what we're proposing in our year 2000 project is all the money we've got for I would predict the next 20 years, other than a spot improvement here or there. Like the signal lights were to put in at Minnewashta Parkway. Money might be spent in that one location but not elsewhere along the rest of the road. Now that's absolutely not what I would like to see done. I'd like to see tons of money come to MnDot and us make all kinds of improvements that are needed, but that's not reality. Let's see, some of the other issues that were brought up. Crosstown Highway. I actually don't know at all what went on with the Crosstown Highway other than it is not a state highway for the portion I believe that got worked on. It's a county road and what influenced the county to post it at whatever speed it's posted at, I do not know. Audience... Paul Kachelmyer: Actually Highway 7 is a state highway and it carries a high volume of traffic and it carries traffic a long distance. It goes all the way out to western Minnesota. Other roads such as the Crosstown Highway, the portion that is the county road, I don't know what the traffic volume is on that road but when it turns into the state highway, where it becomes the Crosstown that most people hear about in the news, it is a state highway. The speed limit there is 55 mph and it carries a high volume of traffic. Audience... Paul Kachelmyer: Actually, as far as residential development along the highway, it's been brought up in previous meetings. Our desire with this project and our desire in general in the future is to reduce the number of access points to the road so that the access points to the road are the major cross streets. The county roads and the major city collector roads and not individual small city streets or individual driveways. Acting Mayor Mason: Are there any other questions at this time? Andy Brisley: Can I just wrap up with one thing... Acting Mayor Mason: For the tape, I'd like you up here Andy, if you don't mind. Andy Brisley: Again, basically you've heard from the residents. I don't think you've heard anybody that approves closing these access points. And access point closure is up to you. Not up to MnDot and that's basically what it gets down to. MnDot has basically said every reason why they can't lower the speed limit, so it's almost like they're refusing to look at lowering the speed limit. I want you guys to take that 20 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 into consideration and I'm sure you will but you yourself said you don't have money. Or you don't have enough money. This is a good way, we think, and you've heard it from many people, and it doesn't have to be the entire stretch of Highway 7. It might be a mile or two mile stretch and I think that the people that are traveling on that mile or 2 mile stretch can go 40 or 45. It's not going to put them that far behind. Thanks. Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. Well, it's Council's mm now. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: What are we being asked to do tonight? Councilman Engel: Approve safety improvements. Councilman Senn: Approve the project huh? Acting Mayor Mason: As stated in the staff report. Councilman Senn: I guess the easiest way to say this is I was hoping through this process somewhere along the line I would start getting more comfortable with the project. I have to admit I don't think I'm any more comfortable with the project now than I was when we started this discussion. As I stated, I think when we first started this project it appeared that what was driving the project was a budget that was severely inadequate and was effectively driving a bandaid fix to a problem that needs a lot more than a bandaid fix. I don't think anybody would debate that this is a dangerous section of highway. I don't think I've heard anybody say that it's not. I think where most of the objection comes over, what are we going to accomplish by those fixes and where is it really going to get us? You know our job on City Council is also different than MnDot's. I mean we have to balance the safety concerns and what happens within the neighborhood at the same time as we balance the safety concerns and what happens on the highway point. I think MnDot has a little bit of a comfortable position in the sense that all they really need to do is consider what happens at the highway points. I share the concern of the residents as it relates to the park areas and the increased traffic and stuff. I know if it was my neighborhood I'd feel the same way they feel about the added traffic. And what it all comes down to is I wish I could.., nice solution or I wish I could even think of a good solution, but I can't. I don't like what is proposed and before us, but I have to say at the same time I don't like many of the suggestions I've heard though either because again what I'm hearing is from two different groups of people who are balancing their opinions towards their area of concern, which I can't fault them for, okay. Because MnDot has an area of concern that's highway focused and the residents have an area of concern that's neighborhood focused. You're both right. If we're being asked, at least in my mind to make a decision on this now, I think I'd have to say that the way I'm leaning right now the best decision is no decision at all. I'd rather hold out for a better answer than to I guess take any of the alternatives I've heard. I don't think just simply lowering the speed limit is going to solve the problem. I don't think the street closures and changes that are being suggested under the proposed improvements will solve the problems either. I'm not faulting MnDot in that context. I mean I sense they have a little bit of a problem and they're a little bit confined by the dollars they have to spend on whatever. I guess I'd rather see the safety dollars combined and spent in one place where they can really do some good rather than spread out so inadequately in many areas that they're really not going to do anybody any good. That's kind of the feeling or the sense that I end up with out of this project. But from my perspective, you know if we're talking about taking an action or move on this tonight, my vote would be none of the above. At the same time though, I'd like to strongly, strongly encourage people to contact their legislators because you know unless we start getting at the foundation of the problem. I don't care whether we're talking Highway 7. Whether we're talking Highway 5 or talking 212 or whatever it is, okay. Our infrastructure out in the 21 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 west and the southwest suburbs is a disaster. We're sitting here in a big discussion over how many thousands of different ways we can all think of to spend you know a surplus that is just you know unbelievable in size and in magnitude and you know what our legislators ought to be hearing very strongly from people is quit listening to all the special interest groups that want to think of different ways to spend the money and instead maybe devote half of it to infrastructure with... There's been a crying need in this state for over 20 years, at least as far as I know and maybe the other half give back to the taxpayers where it came from in the first place. So I think both ways that taxpayers benefit on something like that. But do you want to know something? They're not hearing that. Because nobody's calling and saying that to them. All they're hearing is from the special interest groups who they have thousands of different ways they want to spend the money and if we don't do something on our infrastructure out here pretty soon, well. From a dollar standpoint from the State, you can start to kind of just shut everything down because we're not going to be able to do much more because the infrastructure's not going to be in place...to handle it and we are by no means in control of that. We may be able to control what happens in our area but everything that happens out beyond us, which is going to also affect our infrastructure, is something that's beyond our control. I don't know how we do all that but I guess that's what I'd really like to see happen. Acting Mayor Mason: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Well Mark summarized a lot of what I was thinking. I'd like some points of clarification though. Charles, earlier we discussed before we came up here, what are the ramifications whether we approve or deny any of these changes long term? If we are against all of them, where does that leave the City and the State in this decision process? Charles Folch: Well what will probably end up happening if there is, call it a stalemate as to whether or not to create any of these closures or not, is probably some of the other things that MnDot was looking at doing in terms of their improvement project, mm lanes and so forth along the corridor through Chanhassen, may or may not happen. I don't want to speak for Paul but he could certainly address that for you. My understanding that MnDot can go in and restrict accesses to right-in, right-out's if you will along that highway corridor with or without the local jurisdictional permission. To fully close them without jurisdiction or without the local jurisdiction consensus would probably require some legislation or some costs and financial aspect of closing but certainly if they wanted to put a median down the center of Highway 7 there and restrict everything to a right-in, right-out, they could do that. Councilman Engel: Okay, thanks. One other one Roger. What are we required to do tonight? Are we up here against any time lines on this thing? Roger Knutson: I'm not aware of any time lines except MnDot's time lines for doing something. Their construction schedule or non-construction schedule. Maybe Paul can answer that. We have no 60 day rule or anything like that applicable to this. Councilman Engel: I was just concerned that we'd have to make an up or down decision here tonight without Councilman Berquist or Mayor Mancino and I'll just recap briefly where I'm at. I'm about where Mark is. I don't like any, no offense Paul. I'm not excited about, I'm just not excited about the skimpiness of the project given what I think needs to be done up there. I can't believe I'm saying this because I'm usually the one that wants to change anything. If it's action to me has always been preferable, better than stalemate but in my old age on this Council I'm finding sometimes the best decision is no decision so oxymoronic as it sounds, I'm ready to do nothing. I really am. I'm ready to leave it as it is. 22 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Acting Mayor Mason: Mr. Kachelmyer. What happens if we do nothing? Well yeah, I want to ask a question or two before I wait on this. So what happens if Chanhassen does nothing tonight? No. No, I'll take that back. What happens if Chanhassen votes no to all of this tonight? Paul Kachelmyer: Well as your Public Works Director mentioned, then look at what we're faced with and choose to do the things that we can do without City Council approval. For instance, there was a correct statement. We can limit access to right-in and right-out without City Council approval. If we saw the need to put a median island down all of Highway 7, we could do that without City Council approval. I had hoped that we would work with the City and come up with a solution that would not force us to do things without City Council approval but obviously if we don't get City Council approval, we'll have to do whatever situation we're left in. As far as the time requirement goes, if there are any locations where we can buy right-of-way in order to proceed with am improvement at that particular location. For instance we had offered to put in left mm lanes at Leslee Curve if more or less the rest of this got approved, we would need to buy right-of-way. If this goes much more than another month or so without approval, then we'd not be able to do that. Acting Mayor Mason: Well first of all I would like to go on record as saying I think that city staff and MnDot have worked very well together on this and I would be as a resident of the City of Chanhassen and a resident of the State of Minnesota, I would be very disappointed if the City and the State can't work something out here. I see that as perhaps the ultimate waste of taxpayers money when groups are trying to get together and work something out. An awful lot of time by an awful lot of people has been spent on this issue. Point number one. Point number two. With 40% of Council not being here tonight, quite honestly I'm loathe to bring this to a vote tonight because, while as I think there are all, very good points are being made tonight. I think having 100% of Council here for a decision of this magnitude is pretty important. I've looked at this process as one of compromise. We got the original proposal on well prior to my notes here say January 26th, and I know this all started quite a bit before then. I do know that between January 26th and now the City and the State and with some neighborhood input, have tried to work out an agreement. I think Mark hit it right on the point when he said he, I'm going to paraphrase Mark. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. That essentially what the State is saying is right and what the neighborhood is saying is right. I think you know, I too live in a neighborhood and sitting up here when I have to deal with the whole city as opposed to just my neighborhood, certainly change is how I have to look at things. I can think quite honestly of the Nez Perce extension in my neighborhood. My neighbors didn't want it. I didn't want it. However, in my view it was the best thing for the City. I think we all have to take responsibility to look, and I'm talking about everybody here. I'm not just talking neighborhoods. I'm talking you know MnDot. The whole deal here. I think we all have to take the responsibility to look beyond just what our needs are and look at the needs of the whole area. Of the whole region of how our decisions impact others. Am I 100% in favor of what MnDot wants to do on Highway 7? No I'm not. The neighborhood will be inconvenienced. There's no question about that. Do I think traveling on Highway 7 as often as I do and I have not, but my wife and two kids have been one of those near misses on Highway 7 and no I can't tell you the exact spot or the date, but it was very real to me as it was to them. Do I think it's important that we try to make Highway 7 a safer place? Yes I do. As it stands I will go on record as saying I am, well as I certainly do not agree with everything that MnDot wants to do here, I think it is a step in making Highway 7 a safer road. Does that mean that residents of the City of Chanhassen, whom I represent will be inconvenienced? Yes it does. And that's not a practically easy thing for me to say. Having said all of that I really, I feel very strongly that this decision should be made. This decision either should or shouldn't be made with the full weight of City Council and not just 60% of the members. Councilman Engel: I agree. I want my vote to count 1/5, not 1/3. 23 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Acting Mayor Mason: Well I think this is too big an issue for me to have 33% of the vote, quite honestly. And with all of that, if there's no other discussion on Council I would like to see this tabled until the next meeting, which I believe is 3 weeks from tonight. Don Ashworth: The second Monday in April. Audience... Acting Mayor Mason: It probably isn't but go ahead. What the heck, I'm Acting Mayor. I can do whatever I want. Councilman Engel: It's in order now. Bill Gleason: I was a little late otherwise I would have said something earlier but one of the last guys made a comment that. My name is Bill Gleason. I'm at 6210 Barberry Circle and I just want you to at least walk away from here as Council members and so on that I don't think every resident in these two areas is against what the DOT is doing. I for one, I've lived there for almost 4 years and I've always found it odd that there are 8 access points within a mile to the south and 5 to the north. It's not safe. And I really, I would favor what these guys are doing so. Just so you think it's not unanimous the other way. Acting Mayor Mason: I know it's not unanimous but thank you. Thanks for the comment. Any more thoughts from Council? Councilman Engel: Move to table. Acting Mayor Mason: Motion's been made. I will second that. Is there any more discussion? Okay. I do want to make it clear that if there were five people here tonight I would not, I would want a vote up or down tonight. But I do think this is a big enough issue that we should have full Council here. There is a motion to table until the next Council meeting. It has been seconded. All those in favor please respond by saying aye. Councilman Engel moved, Acting Mayor Mason seconded to table the safety improvements on Highway 7 until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CHANHASSEN POINTE BUSINESS CENTER; LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF DELL ROAD AND SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST~ WELSH CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT 39.5 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TWO 75~000 SQ. FT. OFFICE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND A 77~700 SQ. FT. OFFICE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. B. VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK. Public Present: 24 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Nflme Address Todd Witcraft Daniel & Judy Bachicha Jeanne Knutson Mike & Laurie Campbell John Dietrich Dan Blomquist Dan Russ Michael Rock Steve Anderson Lec Ehresna Rick Cheeseman Jeff Olson Michael Flom Michael Cleary Mary Jo Bergdorf David Espindola Cathy P... Jim Urlick Phil & Rebecca Becker 18898 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie 18700 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie 18744 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie 18556 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie 6110 Blue Circle Drive 8200 Normandale, Bloomington 8200 Normandale, Bloomington 18832 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie 18788 Wynnfield Road, 18723 Wynnfield Road, 18500 Wynnfield Road, 18678 Wynnfield Road, 18656 Wynnfield Road, 18612 Wynnfield Road, 18584 Wynnfield Road, 8006 Hemlock Circle 18500 Wynnfield Road, 18986 Wynnfield Road, 18722 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Sharmin A1-Jaff: Members of the Council. There are three proposals before you. The first one is a subdivision of approximately 40 acres. The 40 acres is being divided into four parcels. Three of them will house the future buildings, which you will be reviewing the site plan for. The fourth parcel contains an existing industrial building with DataServ. The subdivision is a straight forward action. The site plan is for the three office warehouse buildings. The buildings are similar in design. They can be divided depending on the need of the tenants. Truck loading area was one of the first things we discussed with the applicant when they came in. There is a residential area immediately to the south, sorry north of the. South, thanks. South of the industrial site. We wanted to make sure that none of the loading docks back up to the residential units and based upon that, all of the loading docks have been basically located along the side and between buildings 1 and 2. There is a meandering berm along the southern portion of the property separating the residential from industrial site. The berm has an average height of 8 feet. It really does change. It's a long stretch and it changes in height but it's safe to say it's an average of 8 feet. As far as the landscaping and buffer along Lake Drive East, the berm runs approximately 2 to 4 feet from Lake Drive and then...from the loading dock areas, it's 8 feet. So it will be screening the parking areas and the loading docks. As far as plantings along the berm, it meets ordinance requirements. It does exceed it in some areas. At the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to meet with the neighborhood and truly study the berm and based upon that, we've had two neighborhood meetings following the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant prepared cross sections of each of the 17 houses located south of the industrial site. It's relationship to the berm, landscaping, the building, the parking and the applicant will be able to share that with you when they do their presentation. As far as the utility and drainage easement vacation, it's an existing utility and drainage easement over Lots 1 and 2. The swale is being abandoned and therefore the existing easements may be vacated. Staff is recommending approval of the project with conditions outlined in the staff report. If there are any questions. Acting Mayor Mason: Any questions for staff at this point? Is the, no. I know the applicant is here. Would the applicant care to step forward and make their presentation? 25 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Dan Blomquist: Mr. Chairman, members of the Council, staff. My name is Dan Blomquist with Welsh Development in Bloomington, Minnesota. We have with us tonight John Dietrich from RLK who are our civil and landscape engineers. He'll be presenting most of what we're going to talk to you tonight. Also with us is Ken Piper from Genesis Architecture who will go through any of the architectural elements that you will want to talk about. And then my colleague Dan Russ and I'm not sure if he's going to do anything but he's here. I've been carrying him for a long time. I just want to give a little overview or background about the project and then mm it over to John. The project will be developed by Welsh. Welsh has been developing this kind of property for 20 years. It currently has several similar projects under development, both in the Twin Cities and in other markets. I tell you that only to give you some comfort that we have the experience and the expertise to do a quality project for you. We will have a financial partner which is the General Electric Credit or the General Electric Pension Fund and I tell you that only to give you comfort that we'll have the financial stability to do the kind of project you'd like to see. I want to take just a brief period to anticipate some of the discussion tonight. We are well aware that Eden Prairie residents who own homes just south of our project have been unhappy with some elements of the project. We have had two meetings with them and I think those meetings have been informative and hopefully productive. However, we also are aware that we have been, that it's unlikely we have solved all of their concerns or met all of their wishes. I know that they're going to want to talk with you tonight and we'd like the opportunity to respond to any specific issues that they have, but we have been working with them. We believe that we are in full compliance with all of their ordinance requirements and have exceeded them in some cases. We have been as sensitive as we are able to be to the residents. The bottom line is that we are in a very competitive business and ultimately marketplace economics drive these decisions and we're simply at the bottom of the barrel. We cannot justify a larger budget. Consequently to do anything more in the project, something else has to give and we don't know what that would be. At the end of the discussion we're going to ask you for your approval of the project. We'll be happy to answer any questions you have and we appreciate the time that you're taking with us. Without anything further, John if you would take over. John Dietrich: Thank you Dan. I'm going to put this large one down and talk to 11 x 17, if they can be zoomed in. Again, my name is John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We'll keep it as brief as we can tonight. I know we all have other places we want to sail off to. The site is located on the east side of Chanhassen, abutting Lake Drive East. Right south of Highway 5. The project is set up so that it will be built to Code under the industrial office park zoning and it is guided for industrial property. We have looked at other ways to arrange this project and the composition and site design that we have proposed meets all of the zoning code criteria and we feel it is an exceptional project. The project as is outlined abuts Eden Prairie to the south. We know we have a number of issues there. We feel we've gone quite a distance in trying to make those work and hopefully we will be able to have a quality project... That reads a little better than the large scale one. The project here identifies the eastern half of the 40 acres, or 39.5 acres. Essentially the three areas that are shown here from this line over total approximately 20 acres. The three lots that are being proposed have met the criteria for zoning in terms of parking at 40% ratio of these office industrial buildings to be 40% office. They are parked accordingly. In terms of setbacks. We have a 30 foot setback from Lake Drive for buildings. We have pushed the buildings all the way to the north. On the south we have a 50 foot buffer for comprehensive plan and that is where the parking begins here on Building 1 and Building 3. We also would have had the opportunity to put a building 50 feet off the property line. We have taken and made the decision to push the buildings far to the north, essentially 120 feet off of the property line. We are cognizant of our residents to the south and we want to expand that area as much as possible. This area is also part of the Highway 5 overlay district which says that there should be visual corridors running north and south up to that highway, so that helps design the buildings themselves. All of the truck access will come in off of Lake Drive and stay between buildings 1 and 2. We 26 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 have designed it so that the trucks cannot come around the buildings on the east, south or on the west of Lot 2. Lot 3, the truck traffic will come in, mm, back up and head out. Automobile vehicular traffic along the east, or on the west and south. The site currently has a big swale that picks up all of the drainage from Lake Drive East into this pond. That will be going away and there will be a drainage and utility easement running down between Buildings 1 and 2 which helps define where that elevation needs to be coming off of Lake Drive, so that elevation and coming to the south into the pond is part of the proposal. We're also picking up drainage that comes out of the pond on the Eden Prairie side down there that currently just flows over the property line. We are proposing a public drainage and utility easement to pick up the pipes that are now just daylighting onto the property. With the berms that are an issue, there is an existing berm that runs along the south side of the property. Currently the berm is pushed north of the property line so that the high point of the berm is approximately 25 feet north of the property line. Our proposal.., goes all the way to the property line. There are existing trees along that berm. We want to maintain those trees so that we can add to that level and then extend that berm. So essentially the high point of the berm will be moving north into the site about 10 feet so again the useable or the visual space for the residents to the south will be enhanced. The amount of landscaping that is proposed for this site is going to be approximately 290 trees. Of that 290, 144 are being placed along the south side of the berm. Half of the landscaping is going into that berm today. Code requirements on the berm, or on the buffer talk about a 30 foot wide area, buffer yard D. We're providing 50 feet and some places 70 feet in width and we are providing a total of 144 trees. Yes there are existing trees out there. The code says we could count those as ours. We're saying we're going to max it out. Instead of 75%, we're doing 100% along this berm area today. The signage that we're proposing, there would be a monument sign for each one of the buildings and a development sign at the comer here of Dell Road and Lake Drive East. All of the lights will be shoebox, down cast fixtures. They will be hung on the building so that the light source will be hidden within the box itself. In terms of our proposal, we've put together a cross section for each one of the homes and on an average the berm is being raised about 5 to 6 feet across that berm and the parking lot below the top of berm is at a minimum 5 feet and in some places 10 to 12 feet below the top of the berm on our site. From the living level of the residential homes, all of the vehicular, automobile, passenger parking will be screened. We are not allowing headlights to come in. That berm will catch those headlights. Will we provide 100% screening? No. Have we provided reasonable and acceptable screening? We think we've gone beyond the level that's necessary. We've exceeded the code and we think the project has tremendous merits in how it's been composed. There is an element of a sidewalk that's existing along the north side of Lake Drive East. There's an existing sidewalk on Dell Road north and south. The proposal that we put on the table does not include a sidewalk. Planning Commission requested a sidewalk be placed along the south side of Lake Drive East. We are again asking that that sidewalk be deleted for a couple of reasons. One, this is an industrial office park and we feel one sidewalk on one side of the road should handle the volume of pedestrian circulation that would be moving east and west through this area. Two, the sidewalk both on the east side of Dell Road, as you move down to Dakota is where the continuous sidewalk would go. There would not be an opportunity to continue the sidewalk on the east side of the existing DataServ building so a sidewalk would go from point to point without no extension. We feel it is not a wise use of funds. We are in a competitive market and we are trying to put the money where we already proposed it along that berm and additional landscaping. In terms of the architecture, we can go into the details of it. Perhaps maybe we should just keep our presentation short here and we can address any questions you might have and at this point I will basically conclude and if there's any questions I could answer and we'd still like to have an opportunity to respond to the residents questions. Acting Mayor Mason: Councilman have any questions for the applicant? Not at this time. Thank you. Okay, you're done for now? 27 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 John Dietrich: Yes. Acting Mayor Mason: You're not done yet but for now. Probably the, under new business here, this is not a public hearing but I certainly understand there are still some concerns. In terms of the Eden Prairie residents, do you have one or two people that will be able to speak? Ah, thank you. Why don't, why doesn't, that one or two people, persons, come on up and we'll get started. Phil Becker: My name's Phil Becker. I live at 18722 Wynnfield Road. I'm one of the homes that is along the berm. I want to thank the Council for letting us speak tonight and I want to thank Sharmin and I want to thank Dan and John for meeting with us over the last two weeks to discuss this. I guess to kind of put this in context. The way we kind of look at this is that we're part of Eden Prairie but then again we tend to work and shop and dine and worship you know within Chanhassen so we have a lot in common. Acting Mayor Mason: And we're glad to hear that by the way. Councilman Senn: Can you send your property taxes over here? Phil Becker: I think you'll have to take that up with Eden Prairie City Council on that one. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. Phil Becker: Anyway. I think we have much in common in terms of a city and as Eden Prairie residents and from the developer's point of view. We agree that you know we've all spent a lot of time and effort investing in our respective properties. We want to maximize the value that we get in return as property owners, as Chanhassen does from their industrial tax base and as developers do from their property. We want to be good neighbors and we knew when we purchased our property that we were going to be abut to an industrial office park. I think in general we think the plan is excellent. We appreciate the efforts that the developers have done to maximize the distance from our homes to help with a tasteful exterior and attractive landscaping. Kind of a history of how this got started is that again we bought it with the knowledge that we were building or we were building homes next to commercial property. The original grade, at least on the commercial side of the berm was roughly equal to the grade that's currently on the residential side of the berm. Originally there was a drainage pond and trees that screened a good portion of those lots. That was removed last year so that changed from the standpoint of what we saw when we moved in versus the way it is now. The berm again was paid for by the homeowners through their lot. Their lot charges for their lot and there are 52 trees which constitute about 1/3 of the trees that the developer's proposing to put on that berm. So in terms of that we think as neighbors we've put a significant investment in the screening of that berm as well. And original height of the berm was based on assumption, on some assumptions that did not prove to be true anymore in terms of only being screening for parking and now having to screen a portion of the loading dock area. In terms of the berm and the screening, we agree that they've met the code requirements in terms of the ordinance. The concerns I guess that we have are that in terms of screening it from a reasonable point of view, the homeowners feel a need to have screening from windows, doors and loading docks as sufficient screening from their main living level. Not from the bedroom level but from the main level and most of the homes are daylight basements so they sit about a half story higher than a typical home would with a normal basement. And then we looked at the screening and you look at the plan that you have there, that screening looks pretty good today. That screening, at least when we went in and when I looked and went and measured it, is for trees that are mature and of course we're not going to be able to afford to put mature trees in so the gaps between the trees as they're put on the site are easily wide enough to drive a school bus through. I went in and 28 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 measured some of the trees that are already there in terms of the way they're on the plan versus what additional trees they're going to put on there. And it's essentially a single line of trees roughly along the top of the berm, which allows for gaps for growth and we understand that but what that means is that until probably year 2015 or 2020, we're not going to have sufficient screening along even the loading dock areas where they've put the majority of the plantings because a good portion of that by ordinance is required to be deciduous which during the summer helps in the screening but of course in the winter doesn't really have that much effect. I think that the, you know our biggest concern I guess is the screening in terms of noise. In terms of trash collection, snow removal and delivery trucks. I know the developer is going to do the best to minimize those things. Vehicle lights, there are going to be certain points along the berm where even now we've added, the proposed plan adds height to the berm. It may not be high enough to block those lights. We're also looking for a reasonable amount of security. We've all lived on that property, many of us between 4 and 6 years and we all have children that have played along that berm. They view it as a play area and we realize as parents that we're going to have to monitor those activities much more closely but a more solid and defined boundary between both sides of the berm would definitely help us in managing our children and keeping them out of the industrial area. I guess the solution that we're looking for would be to add additional green material in terms of conifer trees or a privacy fence to allow us to have the screening that would be in place so that we could take advantage of it before the trees are mature. We know that from a fence and from a berm standpoint, we know the National Weather Service property abuts areas that have berms and privacy fences as well. Again we appreciate the fact that the developers have worked so hard for us. We realize that they have made some offers to match funds with us if we want to add additional screening to the property in terms of green materials and we appreciate that. We also appreciate their offer to allow us to position the materials to try to help with that. I guess our concern is that there isn't going to be enough green material and in terms of a contribution in terms of the city ordinances that property owners, at least residential property owners are responsible for 25% of the cost of the screening and that's come up before. I guess concerning that we placed the berm and also about a third of the trees that are on there already, we feel like we've met that requirement no matter how many trees that they proposed to put or any other improvements to the site that they make. And so I guess what I want to emphasize to the Council is that we believe that we're being reasonable. We're not expecting not to see it from the second floors in all our homes. We're not expecting that we aren't going to see the building. What we're expecting is that we don't see windows, doors or loading dock doors and we don't feel that with the current screening the way it is, considering that the screening looks good 20 years from now, it's not going to look good today and that we hope that there will be a solution that they could come up with that would allow us to meet those requirements and not to break the budget for the developer. So with that I want to thank you for your time. Acting Mayor Mason: Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Becker? Phil Becker: Thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: I don't want to play going back and forth all night long but if you'd like to. John Dietrich: I'll wait until. Acting Mayor Mason: Oh, okay. Is there any other residents? And thank you very much. I think you said it very well. Thank you all the way around. And no, I'm not going to play tit for tat all night long but if you feel the need to respond, I'm sure we'll find the time for it. John, did you want to. Do you folks have anything to add to what was said? ... pretty straight forward. 29 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 John Dietrich: Again, taking Mr. Becker's lead, we'll be very, very brief. A couple of quick questions or comments. The distance between the trees are 12 to 15 feet, standard planting. Distances. You have to allow them to mature. They're a combination of deciduous, 6 foot conifers, some 8 foot conifers. We could put in more conifers. We're already over the city ordinance, the number of conifers but I mean if we need more conifers we could do that versus more deciduous out there. They're not a single line of trees. They're staggered. They're put in and it's going to create a good quality screening from day one because these are not 2 and 1 foot type trees. In terms of safety, adding a fence. A fence would have to be about 35 feet into our property line to be effective. If we put it along the property line, it would be on the south side of the berm and it would not provide that type of screening or additional view and we feel it's a tremendous maintenance issue that would become unsightly again from probably our side of the fence. Or our side of the property. We are looking to irrigate the berm. Let it go into a natural state and have a good solid landscape buffer. Acting Mayor Mason: Just a, and I'm just throwing this out without talking to anyone on Council at all on any of this. But would you entertain exchanging some of those deciduous trees for conifers? John Dietrich: Yes. Acting Mayor Mason: ... I believe is about 30% conifer right now and I think what I'm hearing you say is you raised the conifer. John Dietrich: We're about 60% on conifers on the berm itself. Today. So we're already at 60%. Could it go up to 80? Yeah. Acting Mayor Mason: It sounds like there's some room to work there. John Dietrich: Yes. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. Alright, thank you. John Dietrich: Thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: I think perhaps it's time to bring it back to Council here and.., have some questions as time goes on or we'll hopefully reach some kind of decision tonight here. Councilman Engel, what are your thoughts? While you're doing that, I have a question about the sidewalk. I'm hearing. Councilman Engel: On the south end, north end? Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah. The city wants a sidewalk. The developer doesn't. What gives Sharmin? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Well after we talked to the developer, it really made sense to us to recommend against the extension of the sidewalk. It's going to stop at the DataServ site. Chances are it won't go through the residential portion, so it will be a sidewalk that goes nowhere. I personally don't like them. I don't know about the other people. So staff recommended elimination of that portion. The other thing is, the opposite side of the road, there's an existing sidewalk so that could be used. It will do the job. Councilman Engel: That was one thing I wanted to know was why sidewalks that don't connect. 30 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yeah, and that's when we talked to the applicant. Councilman Engel: Is there not a sidewalk on the DataServ site now? Is that what we're saying? Sharmin A1-Jaff: No, there isn't one. It's only on the side that has the car wash and McDonald's. All of that is, there is an existing. Councilman Engel: That was really the only question I had. Everything else, if we can work out the mix of deciduous versus conifer trees, that's the only thing I'd like to see hammered out. I've got nothing more to add on it. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I'd like the applicant to address two things I guess before I comment. One is I'd like you to address the materials you're talking about using. And secondly, I'd like you to address the height issue of the building at 33 feet. Why that's necessary. John Dietrich: The first question Mr. Senn, could I ask? Councilman Senn: Materials. I'd like you to review what you're talking about in terms of materials. John Dietrich: Building materials? Councilman Senn: Yes. John Dietrich: Okay. I'm going to ask Ken Piper, the President of Genesis Architecture to address those issues. Ken Piper: Good evening. My name is Ken Piper, Genesis Architecture and I'll just very briefly go through our materials here. First of all we have two color schemes that we're representing here. Buildings 1 and 3 will represent the, what we call the burgundy scheme and Building 2 will represent the teal scheme. We have three materials essentially. First of all the building will have a clear height of 24 feet. The buildings, all three of them will. We are dressed in three materials per building and those materials will be essentially pre-cast insulated panels. The comers of the buildings will address what is the exposed aggregate...then we'll go to a smooth aggregate with embossed reveals. And then the entry portion, we will come in... a recessed painted, smooth panel... We will also have a band of split face block identifying the entries.., we have bronze insulated glass and bronze anodized window frames. I also have a rendering here to show you. And as the rendering of one of the buildings and what we demonstrate.., bronze anodized frames, as well as... clear ceiling height within the building of 24 feet. Councilman Senn: So the elevations you're showing on your drawings of 33 feet are what? Do you have a large parapet or something up on top? Ken Piper: The parapet goes over the front of the entry system. You're 24 clear. You've got 2 feet on a bar... As you can see on the entry portions here, what we are suggesting is we're suggesting not only a reveal but further accentuation with height differential there on the building which takes it up a number of feet higher than that... 31 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Councilman Senn: How about the sides effectively that are going to be most visible as it relates to the neighborhood in the front. Ken Piper: That portion will have, just a clarification... This is the portion that we are referring to that is the 33 foot height. Councilman Senn: So just the parapet in front then? Ken Piper: Yes. Just the parapet in front... Councilman Senn: And I'm sorry, the end section of the building's going to be what material? Towards the neighborhood now. Ken Piper: We're going to have that essentially as those will be the insulated, painted, precast panels. Those will be plain. Councilman Senn: Okay, are those the panels? Ken Piper: Oh I'm sorry, excuse me. You're talking about the sides. The materials that I describe on the three sides, which essentially are.., will be a combination of the rack panels as well as... here, if we can zero in a little bit .... we are again reproducing that pattern through those sides so this side here, as well as this side will have... Councilman Senn: Okay. That answers my questions. Thank you. Ken Piper: Thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: Any more? Councilman Senn: I mean that was it for questions. If you're looking for comments at this point. I guess in keeping a little bit with what was mentioned before by staff and by Mark, I'd like to see more conifers and I would like to see the minimum height of the conifers be 8 feet, and even see some taller ones in there than 8 feet. Going along there. I'm arguing with myself on the materials but I guess let me argue with myself over that and I'll come back to it. Acting Mayor Mason: That's a scary thought councilman. Mr. Engel. Councilman Engel: Already commented. I'm fine. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. What I've heard tonight is that the applicant and the folks affected have been working together for the most part successfully to this and I'd like to see that continue. A comment I have about the screening is, I think if you get 100% screening now, there's nowhere for the trees to grow later and I, in my neighborhood when things got developed I do understand that but we do have to allow some room to grow. I too, and I'm hearing you folks are okay with this as well. I too would like to see that conifer percentage raised and it doesn't sound like that's too much of an issue. I think it does always surprise me a little bit that we don't, all of us don't plant more evergreens. I know they don't fit everywhere but they look nicer in the winter. I think that that by and large, if we can deal with the screening issue, that essentially deals with the majority of your concerns. And I think by getting taller trees 32 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 and more trees in there, that will accomplish that. With that, if there are no other comments I'd entertain a motion on this. I think we're looking for two separate. Councilman Senn: Preliminary plat approval and drainage easements. Do we need separate? Acting Mayor Mason: We need two on this. Roger Knutson: One motion. Councilman Senn: One motion will do? Okay. I would move approval of the Chanhassen Pointe Business Center, preliminary plat approval, site plan approval and vacation of drainage easements with the change in the conditions to increase the conifer percentage from 60% to 75%. And that you change the minimum height requirement from 6 feet to 8 foot. Councilman Engel: Sidewalk eliminated? Acting Mayor Mason: It's already out. Councilman Engel: Alright, thank you. Councilman Senn: And inherent in that 8 foot minimum is, I'll leave it up to staff basically but I'd like to see some taller. You know I don't want a row of 8 foot trees out there. I'd like to see some larger ones than that. I think that's it. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Site Plan #98-2 as shown on the site plan received February 24, 1998, revised on March 2, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. If the trash dumpsters were located outdoors, the materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building, and that the trash enclosure be located within the loading dock area. 2. Signage criteria: a. All businesses within a single building shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs for Building 1 will be permitted along the north and east elevations. Building 2 will be permitted signs along the north and west elevations, and 3 will be permitted wall signage along the north and west elevations only. Signs will be located within the sign bands located above the entrances and windows. c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. 33 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height and logos shall not exceed 30 inches in height and consistent with the standards for the signage. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. j. No back lit signage shall be viewed from the residential neighborhood to the south. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 5. Building Official conditions: Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss commercial building permit requirements. b. Revise the parking on the preliminary site plan to comply with the building code. 6. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the recording of the final plat for Chanhassen Pointe Business Center with Hennepin County. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates or State Plumbing Codes. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted in conjunction with final plat approval for staff review and City Council approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City. t0. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage maps for 10-year and tOO- year storm events for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. tt. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 34 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide depending on pipe depth. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. No bermmg or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. Landscape materials shall not be placed within drainage swales or over utility lines. The applicant may place landscape materials within the drainage and utility easement conditioned upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible or share the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. Security or other acceptable means to guarantee payment for the developer's share of this traffic signal for the entire development will be required. If importing or exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction commencing. All driveway access points onto Lake Drive East shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). Cross access and maintenance agreements shall be prepared for Lots 1 and 2. The City shall be included in the use for accessing the regional storm water pond. DataServ's existing driveway access onto Lake Drive East in the northeast comer of Lot 4 should be abandoned. The common driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 should be relocated to avoid conflict to the existing street light on Lake Drive East. The developer shall be responsible to obtain a temporary construction easement from the property/properties for the storm sewer construction south of Lot 3 in the City of Eden Prairie. The rock construction entrances shall be maintained by the developer until the parking lots are paved with bituminous. All catch basin inlets shall be protected with silt fence, rock filter dikes or hay bales as well. The grading plan shall be revised to include reconstruction of DataServ's parking lot and a temporary sediment basin to collect sediment before it reaches the regional pond. 35 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 25. The developer shall review the site conditions prior to construction for existing erosion control problems or damaged streets and utility improvements. Once construction activities commence the developer assumes full responsibility for site conditions and any corrections prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 26. Fire Marshal conditions: a) One additional fire hydrant will be required at the north entrance to the lot 3 parking lot on the east side of the building. b) Post Indicator Valves (PIV) will be required for all fire service lines coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of the PIVs. c) No parking fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. d) Submit radius mm dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. e) The new 8 inch BIP water main should be a loop system coming in off of the water main off of Lake Drive East. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 04-1991. (Copy enclosed.) g) Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding pre-fire plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 07-1991. h) Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 29-1992. Note: Due to the size of these buildings, additional signs will be required both at the north end and at the south end of the buildings. i) Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/City of Chanhassen policy regarding water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy # 34-1993. (Copy enclosed.) J) Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 36-1994. k) Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding fire hydrant installation. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 47-1998. (Copy enclosed.) 27. A berm plan will be presented to the City Council detailing the height of that berm and the plantings throughout the entire length of the property line. 36 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 28. Any restrictions imposed on other industrial commercial facilities neighboring residential areas along Lake Drive East to the west be applied to this particular project. 29. The trucks will enter and exit off of Lake Drive East and not via the drive aisle south of the building. 30. The developer/applicant will meet with the neighborhood prior to this going to City Council to review the alternatives subject to the berming between the subject site and the surrounding neighborhood. 31. The plantings shall be increased from 60% to 75% conifer trees and the height minimum changed from 6 foot minimum to 8 foot, with some trees exceeding 8 feet. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #98-2 for Chanhassen Pointe Business Center as shown on the plat received February 24, 1998 with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. The applicant shall dedicate cross-access easements into Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage maps for 10-year and 100- year storm events for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the fight-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide over the trunk storm sewer line. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. 37 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 10. The proposed Industrial development of 39.39 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $93,957 and a water quantity fee of $ 88,421. The applicant will be eligible for credit to the water quantity fee based on oversizing the design of the trunk storm sewer system. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 11. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 12. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible for a share the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. Security or other acceptable means to guarantee payment for the developer's share of this traffic signal for the entire development will be required. 13. If exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval." All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution #98-25: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Vacation #96-2 of the utility and drainage easement over Lots 1 and 2, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of the easement proposed to be vacated. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPOINTMENT TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. Acting Mayor Mason: While we're getting ready for item number 7, Council will move on to number 8 which will take just seconds. Appointment to Public Safety Commission. I would move Bill Bernhjelm and Greg Weber re-appointed as well as appointing Mayor Mancino to the Public Safety Commission. Councilman Senn: Second. Acting Mayor Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to appoint Bill Bernhjelm, Greg Weber and Mayor Mancino to the Public Safety Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 9~582 SQ. FT. OFFICE FACILITY; LOT 3~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2m~ ADDITION~ K & S INVESTMENTS~ LLC. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. This item will fit inside one of those larger buildings that you just approved. It's approximately 9,600 square foot office building with future expansion potential of another 5,800 square feet. 16 feet tall. It's proposed block face concrete block. They do have a metal, standing seam metal accents in the entrance roof and a screening wall around the rooftop equipment. There is a wing wall in the northwest comer of the site to screen the trash area. The proposed development does comply with the design standards for the PUD in this, the Chan Business Center. The one issue, there are two issues in this. The applicant is requesting a current reduction in the number of parking spaces for this site from 43 to 18. Based on the information that the applicant provided, 38 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 this is a capital intensive business rather than a personnel intensive business. We believe the 18 is more than adequate. As a condition of approval we would require that if parking becomes a problem, that they be required to install additional parking. And the final issue was the 943 of the proposed elevation that staff and the applicant agree to for this site. This will be similar to the adjacent building so it should not pose drainage or erosion problems. With that staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of the staff report and we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Acting Mayor Mason: Are there any questions for staff at this time? Councilman Senn: One quick one. With the addition, okay. He's roughly around 15,00 square feet, right? Bob Generous: Correct. Councilman Senn: And if you apply the maximum parking requirements of 15,000 square feet, does the parking handle it? Bob Generous: Yes it does. Councilman Senn: So at the point that the building would be fully built and developed, and if it's use changed and were fully occupied as office space. Bob Generous: You would have sufficient parking. Councilman Senn: You would have sufficient parking to meet the ordinance requirements? Bob Generous: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. Alright. Acting Mayor Mason: The applicant is here and eagerly awaiting. Jim Strapko: I'm Jim Strapko. I'm the architect and I can speak for the owner, Bill Katz as well. The owner of the proposed building is the occupant and it's materials testing facility. It's a little different from your typical testing facility. It's clean. There are very few people. Lots of machines. Lots of computers and they take up a lot of space so there will be about 8 to 10 people rattling around in this 9,000 square foot building. And it may be expanded to 15 in a couple years. At that time, if additional parking is required, we have laid out sufficient spaces on the site so it's very clear how that additional parking could be added and it would fit well with the existing layout. I've got some photos here that show the neighborhood... Commerce Drive, and so this is the view.., from Lake Drive West to the site. There's a prominent place in this little neighborhood and.., building that fits this neighborhood and the kinds of materials... I've got the materials in front of you here. The rock face block is the light color, would be the body of the building. The striping.., and then the windows would be that darker bronze color. The building has a front door and a back door as you can see from the site plan. This front door with the green canopy.., is landscaped around the parking and... The back door is this loading dock which is... does a good job of putting it's best face towards this.., provide some berming along this side even though there's loading docks.., you can't really see it here but there's a substantial berm at the back of the building that goes up 8 feet.., so we're screening from the residential sites that are across the ravine...the dark striping at the windows. The green canopy.., and that's the end of my presentation. 39 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Acting Mayor Mason: Any questions for Mr. Strapko? Councilman Senn: No. Move approval. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn: But I do want the owner to firmly understand the issue on the parking. I mean we're not so concerned about his use but future use. This will be required with the land and you know if the use ever changes, that sort of thing, he will be required to bring the parking up. Jim Strapko: He understands that.., how many spaces we need... Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Site Plan #98-1 for a 9,582 square foot building on Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, site plan prepared by Strapko, Pahl & Associates, LTD, dated 1/30/98, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary security as required by the agreement. 2. A separate sign permit application must be submitted and approved by the city prior to the installation of any signs. 3. The development must comply with the Design Standards established for Chanhassen Business Center. 4. The city may require the installation of the additional parking spaces whenever a need arises (section 20-1124 (1) e.) upon written notification of the developer and/or property owner. 5. Existing trees shall be protected by tree fencing during construction. 6. The applicant shall work with staff to incorporate native vegetation in the rear 70 feet of the lot. 7. Fire Marshal's conditions: a. An additional fire hydrant will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. b. Post indicator valve (PIV) will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 04-1991. (Copy enclosed.) d. No parking fire lane signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 06-1991. (Copy enclosed.) 40 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding pre-fire plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 07-1991. (Copy enclosed.) f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. (Copy enclosed.) g. Contractor must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. (Copy enclosed.) h. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water service on a combination domestic fire sprinkler service line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #36-1994. (Copy enclosed.) i. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding fire hydrant installation. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #47-1998. (Copy enclosed.) 8. Revise the parking on the Site Improvement Plan to comply with the building code. 9. Meet with the Inspections Division plan reviewer as soon as possible after approval to begin the building code plan review process. 10. First floor elevation for the building shall not exceed 943.0. 11. The applicant will need to supply the City with the traffic signage plan, haul route, and location where the material is to be deposited for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. If the materials are to be exported somewhere else within the City of Chanhassen, that property owner must receive a grading permit through the City. 12. The applicant shall work with the City in resolving the existing drainage problem along the easterly property line prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Grading plan shall be revised to include erosion control measures such as silt fence encompassing the grading construction limits and addition of a rock construction entrance off of Commerce Drive. In addition, the proposed catch basins will need to be protected with silt fence, hay bales, and/or rock filter dike until the parking lot has been paved with a bituminous surface. 14. The storm sewer connection points should be revised and relocated to the City's existing storm sewer manhole. The applicant has the option to construct their own storm sewer manholes or relocate connection points to existing manhole locations. 15. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage maps for a 10- and 100-year storm event (24-hour duration) for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. Drive aisles shall be revised to be in conformance with City Code Section 20-1101 and Section 20- 1118. This will require increased drive aisle widths throughout the site. 41 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within city right-of-way. Landscape materials may not be placed within drainage swales or over utility lines. The applicant may place landscape material within the City's drainage and utility easement conditioned upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City. 18. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes. The utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City. 19. The developer and/or his assignee shall review the site conditions prior to construction commencing for existing problems to utilities or streets and notify the City accordingly. Once construction activities commence on the site, the developer will assume all responsibility of damage to public utilities and streets as a result of construction activities. 20. The applicant shall work with city staff to determine the exact locations, shapes and permitted heights of any berming on site. The berming to the north of the building shall be incorporated in the grading plan with additional conifer trees to be installed in a random pattern on such berms. 21. The proposed development shall pay park and trail fees pursuant to City Ordinance. 22. A new plan be presented with the revised mechanical screening. 23. The future expansion of the building shall maintain the existing landform and be set into the berm. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I(E). APPROVAL OF 1998 LIQUOR LICENSES. Councilman Senn: I pulled this because I would like to make a motion which would recommend approval of all the liquor licenses on the list with the exception of, let me find it here. Chanhassen Bowl, 581 West 78th Street and would like to ask staff to prepare a detailed report on if there's been any public safety issues surrounding the uses down there. As well as any other general concerns that may apply to our financial or other financial commitments there. Acting Mayor Mason: I'm sorry Mark, was that a motion? Councilman Senn: Yes. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the 1998 Liquor Licenses with the exception of Chanhassen Bowl and request staff to prepare a report regarding any public safety issues and any other general concerns that apply to financial issues. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Acting Mayor Mason: Anything in Admin Section? I've really been waiting a long time to do this. 42 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1998 Acting Mayor Mason adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 43