Loading...
CC Minutes 1998 02 23CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 1998 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, Councilman Engel and Councilman Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Cynthia Kirchoff, Charles Folch, Anita Benson, Todd Hoffman, and Don Ashworth APPROVAL OF AGENDA; Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda as presented. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Mancino: Next is public announcements and Councilman Berquist has a public announcement. Can everyone hear me? Thank you. Councilman Berquist: Thank you. I have a short public announcement regarding a resolution that Mayor Mancino will be reading. On Friday night, my wife and my young son and Todd Hoffman and his family represented the City of Chanhassen at the University of Minnesota Women's Basketball, women athletic event in honor of Mindy Hanson who is a native of Chanhassen. A graduate of Chaska High School. She's a junior there and it was her Hometown Day. Todd and I and our families as well as her family participated in halftime ceremonies honoring Mindy and honoring the hometown from whence she comes. It was nice to be there. It was a good time. They unfortunately lost to Michigan State University. It was a great game and we enjoyed ourselves and with that. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. I'll read the proclamation. Whereas, the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota is actively concerned and involved in nurturing and supporting the educational and physical development and achievements of it's natives and residents; and Whereas, the achievements academically and athletically of our native citizen, Mindy Hanson, are a source of great community pride and interest as she represents our hometown in the nation and at the University of Minnesota as an accomplished student and athlete; and Whereas, as she will be especially honored during ceremonies at the University of Minnesota and Hometown Days celebrations of her achievements is representative of the recognition our city supports. Therefore, I, Nancy Mancino, as Mayor of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, do hereby ordain and declare the date of February 27th, 1998 as official Mindy Hanson, Chanhassen Hometown Day in our city. Thank you. Another public announcement. Councilman Berquist: There's one other public announcement that I want to make. It's a little sadder in some regard but happy in others. Our neighborhood, Sunrise Hills in the city of Chanhassen, lost a much loved friend on the 14th of February. Darlene Huseth, who's been our neighbor since we moved there and a neighbor of a lot of us for many more years than we've been there, passed away at her home surrounded by her family. Donald and Darlene have lived here in Chanhassen for 36 years. They've been very busy with many activities and their entire family has built hundreds of wonderful relationships with Chanhassen residents. The funeral was glorious. It was a wonderful funeral and a tribute to a wonderful woman. They were charter members of the Church of the Living Christ. Darlene was a person blessed with wisdom and City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 wit and manners and mirth and she possessed respect for all and was respected by all. She was loved by folks of all ages and she had a way of making us feel loved and cared about. We'll all miss her. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Moving ahead to the Consent Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA; Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Resolution #98-20: Accept Public Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Autumn Ridge, Project Nos. 95-5 & 96-4. c. Approve Amendments to Development Contract Standard Format. d. Approval of Bills. e. City Council Minutes dated February 9, 1998 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 27, 1998 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 4, 1998 f. Approve Plans & Specifications for 1998 Sealcoat Project 98-3; Authorize Advertising for Bids. g. Approve Joint Cooperative Agreement Creating the Suburban Transit Association. h. Appointment to the Park & Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, I have to apologize. I had some notes because there were a couple of things I did have an issue with in terms of what was in the Minutes but I've misplaced the notes. I assume there's no burning desire to pass this so I'd prefer if we could just kind of put it off until next meeting. I'll find my notes. Mayor Mancino: Certainly, I think that's fine. Councilman Senn: If you want to do I too, that's fine. I just pulled that because, so I could vote no. Councilman Mason: Move approval of item 1 (I). Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Contract Amendment, Howard R. Green, 1998 Trail Project. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. VISITOR PRESENTATION: City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 CONSIDERATION OF ADDING BUILDINGS~ STATEWIDE AUTO SALVAGE~ 285 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE~ LAVERNE VASSAR. Mayor Mancino: Is Laverne here? Would you like to approach the City Council at this time. Please state your name and address. LaVerne Vassar: LaVerne Vassar, 215 Flying Cloud Drive. Mayor Mancino: And can you let us know why you're here and. LaVeme Vassar: ...new building... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Have you talked with staff about this? LaVerne Vassar: They said I have to come here first. Mayor Mancino: That you have to come to us first. Kate, can you give us a little bit of direction here? Kate Aanenson: Sure. Mr. Vassar requested a building permit on the subject site. It was the staff's opinion that because it's in a flood plain, because it's a non-conforming use, that we could not make that approval. In discussing with him, he wanted to come before you to explain his position. He felt that there was some issues that gave him certain rights to proceed without the approval of the staff so he wanted to explain those to you tonight. That was our understanding. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. LaVeme Vassar: Well there's an agreement with the City and myself, it was under litigation back in the 70's. It was agreed on...to put a building up. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so that's why. Are there any questions from Councilmembers because I'm just wondering if maybe we could have staff research the 19, did you say 70? LaVerne Vassar: I gave her the information on it. Mayor Mancino: The 1970 agreement and review that and review it with our attorney, Mr. Knutson and then get back to you. LaVerne Vassar... Councilman Berquist: What is it you want to do sir? Mayor Mancino: You want to put up a building on 212. Councilman Berquist: To store all the vehicles that are currently there? LaVerne Vassar: No, I'll dismantle them and put the stuff inside and we would have less, a lot less vehicles. Yes, and it would act as a screen as well from the highway. City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Councilman Berquist: So the operation would essentially change. You'd end up taking off the pieces that were of value and scrapping out the carcass. LaVerne Vassar: Right. Instead of now we leave them sit until we, sell a product off of it and discarded the rest of it later. It would speed up the process a little bit. Don Ashworth: Mayor? I may direct this to Kate. Do we have any idea as to how big a building he's talking about? Where it would be located? The proximity to lot lines. Do we know anything? Kate Aanenson: I believe he did submit a survey. LaVerne Vassar: I brought bought of them and they said that I should talk to the Council first. The building would be 50 feet wide and approximately 250 feet long and a 14 foot side wall on it. Mayor Mancino: And the concerns are that they're in a flood plain. Kate Aanenson: That's one, and it's an expansion of a non-conforming use. And that would also require site plan approval and all the other things that would go with it but first we're trying to figure out the status of the property and what we would need to do to proceed. Don Ashworth: Mayor? Kate, if I may. What is happening? At one point in time this property was slated to be acquired by I believe DNR. Has more transpired in that regard? LaVerne Vassar: That was 23 years ago. It was any day that's why the City said not to put a building up at that time. 23 years ago and... Don Ashworth: I wasn't here 23 years ago and I do recall the action coming back before Council. LaVerne Vassar: I know as much as you guys hate to hear, we're the oldest business in Chanhassen. Mayor Mancino: How long have you been there? LaVerne Vassar: Since the 50's. Kate Aanenson: Just so I can answer your question Don. Fish and Wildlife has been acquiring a lot of that property. Mr. Vassar's property, not including but a lot of property over time has been acquired by Fish and Wildlife. South of 212. Councilman Berquist: So why wouldn't they be... ? Kate Aanenson: I can only speculate that because it's an existing business it becomes more costly. Than maybe a piece that's just as a farmstead or something like that. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions from council members at this point? Well I'd like to see it come back to us and come back in the form of one, the 1970 document and what that says and what rights are given to the applicant. And then look at it from a zoning point of view. City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Councilman Senn: Part of that, it would also be nice to have more definition on what the applicant wants to do and what the intentions are. Basically what outside storage would be alleviated as a result of the building, etc. Councilman Berquist: Not necessarily asking for a full blown set of drawings. Councilman Senn: No. I'd say more of a concept plan that will define the size of the building. Where the building would go. What outside storage area would be eliminated as a result of it. What the trade-offs are to doing it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. LaVerne Vassar: ...that can be put in writing? Mayor Mancino: It will be. We'll have Minutes from tonight's meeting and we can certainly give you those Minutes. LaVerne Vassar: So I know exactly what you're... Mayor Mancino: Exactly, and Kate can go over that with you. Good. So you will be coming back to see us again. Okay, thank you. LaVerne Vassar: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone else tonight? That's here and would like to make a presentation to the City Council. Seeing none, we'll move forward. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR AN 8 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE REQUEST, 6711 HOPI DRIVE, DANIEL RUTLEDGE. Cynthia Kirchoff: Thank you. On January 13th the Board of Adjustments reviewed this item and did deny the 8 foot side yard variance request but did approve a 2 foot side yard variance to allow the applicant to build a 22 foot wide garage. The applicant has appealed this decision citing that he would like the original proposed 28 foot wide garage, at the 30 foot front yard setback. The applicant has come up with a second proposal. Different from the first. This proposal involves a 20 foot wide garage with an 8 foot overhang on it rather than a 28 foot wide garage.., structure. The zoning ordinance does allow eaves to encroach into a setback 2 ½ feet so therefore the applicant would only be requesting a 5 ½ foot variance for this overhang. Staff still believes a hardship does not exist and does recommend denial. However, if the Council should approve this, staff has prepared conditions of approval for both proposals. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Is the applicant here? Would you like to come forward. State your name and address and anything else you'd like to share with us. Dan Rutledge: My name's Dan Rutledge. I live at 6711 Hopi Road in Chanhassen. Originally when I started the project, really all I wanted to build was a 2 car garage and the way I came about that was by measuring my vehicles. Opening the doors... It became apparently obvious that I was running out of space on the front of my lot because I realized that... The Council gave me 2 feet and I was happy for that. But most garages these days a minimum of...what I'd like to get is 26. But I'd be happy with 24 feet. This City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 would allow me to build a standard two car garage because 20 feet is just isn't wide enough to fit two pick- ups in and open the door... Mayor Mancino: Great. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this point? Well I did go out and I measured everything. I measured Fords, the Chevy pick-up. I measured my garage and in fact that was one of the reasons why we went from 20 to 22 because I said I had an older house and a smaller older garage and it would have been nice to have a little bit more room. And I must say Dan, I came up I think 22 is very reasonable. When I went out and as I said, I measured every vehicle in a parking lot practically. 22 isn't the biggest but it certainly does I think give you the room to put two good sized vehicles in there and still be able to open the door. But I'd like to hear from other council members. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I was trying to understand now from the neighbor's perspective. Dan Rutledge: Yes. On the north side? Councilman Senn: Yes. Dan Rutledge: They were happy with the original. I started this a year ago and I came up a design of the garage. How it was going to look. Went through all my neighbors and talked to them ahead of time to be sure that this was what, you know.., looked like when I was done and had gone through that and they had all agreed that they liked what I was doing and it wasn't a problem. The neighbors to the north of me were here at the variance meeting. They wanted it built the way it was originally, or you know that I had originally designed it .... cleaning things up I guess. You know not having so much outdoor storage that I have now. I'll be able to put some things in the garage... Councilman Senn: Now one of the, how far away is the neighbors closest structure to the property line? Dan Rutledge: I'm going to say 30, 35 feet. From my property line to the front of his garage. Councilman Senn: I'm having trouble judging that. Dan Rutledge: It's probably from, probably from you to the wall. Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, what was the question from you Mark? Councilman Senn: How much room there was on the neighbor's lot between the property line and their structure. Did you happen to measure that? Mayor Mancino: Yes, I think that was about 35 feet. No, I actually didn't measure it. But there's no question that the property owner to the north's house faces, will face directly the new...the new garage. It will look right into it. Councilman Senn: That's it for questions. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Councilman Mason: I don't have any questions. I happen, living in that area, I do know some of the problems of living in that area but I do, I happen to concur with staff on this. That there is, it's not the widest garage in the world but I do find 22 feet acceptable. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: What was your original plan? What kind of variances? Cynthia Kirchoff: He originally requested a 10 foot front yard variance. That was denied. And an 8 foot side yard variance to allow a 28 foot garage and a 40 foot wide area of his lot. Councilman Engel: Which effectively left him with 20? I mean the garage width originally. After denying it, what would he have been able to build there? Cynthia Kirchoff: 22 feet wide. Councilman Engel: 22? Well I thought that was with a 2 foot variance. Cynthia Kirchoff: That is. Mayor Mancino: If there was no variance granted, it would have been 20 feet, yep. Councilman Engel: ... 28 huh? Dan Rutledge: I'd be happy with 26 or 24. Mayor Mancino: Trying to go a little bit more every time. Are you going to come back again? Dan Rutledge: When you go to Menards and you try to buy a kit, let's say plans to build a garage, they start at 24 because that's...and especially in a detached garage. They do have a few kits that are 20 foot wide garages and.., and the whole reason I came up with the other plan was the overhang was just to allow me to park one more car under. Not necessarily in the garage but under, under something .... maybe come up with some other way to get two cars, you know park in there with some equipment. Mayor Mancino: Dan, did your neighbors, because that would be on the north side is where you would put the overhang and carport, how did your neighbors feel about that? I mean I can understand their wanting to see a wall versus. Dan Rutledge: Right, right. And...they like the idea that I'd be two feet because...nothing you can do with two feet really. If they're worried that it says 8 feet or 10 feet... Councilman Berquist: Daniel, why do the neighbors have a problem with the 30 foot depth? Dan Rutledge: The neighbors didn't. In fact that wasn't a problem at all. Councilman Berquist: Well the letter says, your letter says, requesting to grant a variance with my neighbors. Their opinion was they did not want me to build a 22 foot wide, 30 foot long garage on my property. City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Dan Rutledge: Oh, that... Councilman Berquist: They thought it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Dan Rutledge: No, I was referring to the length of the garage... Councilman Berquist: I understand. I understand. But in your re-application you say they have a problem with you building a 22 foot wide by 30 foot long garage. Why do they have a problem with a 30 foot length? Dan Rutledge: Because it'd look almost like a second house. Councilman Berquist: They'd have to look out at it? Dan Rutledge: Yeah. Yeah, on the back side because.., where they would only be, right now my garage would be in line with their garage. Councilman Berquist: One of the problems that I had with it when I originally looked at this at Board of Adjustments and Appeals was what they would, or the occupant, whether it be them or someone else, we'd have to look at. That was one of the reasons that I wanted it to be set back 30 feet from the road. Somewhat to clean up the sight lines. One of the other things that I had asked was the exploration on your part to purchase land from the adjoining neighbor. At that time you said that you'd never looked at it. You never thought about it. You were really interested in getting this thing built so you could, I mean your goal, one of your goals, not only to live in the house but the other side of the goals is to mm the property to make a few bucks. And my thought, well and there's nothing wrong with that but my thought at that point was that rather than build a detached garage and have to deal with the unsellable nature of that. Why not explore purchasing some property from your neighbor and building an attached garage? At that time you said that the, that you hadn't talked to the neighbor but you had talked to someone who had done it previously in years past and had been unsuccessful. However, the last conversation that we had before we even broke up was that someone else was living there. You didn't even know if it was the owner that was there. The owner may be out of state. And I don't see any indication in here that you've done any of that checking. And now you're back asking for more. Dan Rutledge: Yes. After looking at it, their lot is actually a nice lot. My lot is the one that's really messed up and if I was to try and purchase, the gentleman doesn't live in Chanhassen. The one that owns it. It's a rental property I guess, or her ex-husband or somebody that owns it but they're not a resident of Chanhassen. Councilman Berquist: Have you talked to them? Have you explored it? Dan Rutledge: I talked to her. Councilman Berquist: Her being? Dan Rutledge: The lady that's living there... Councilman Berquist: Her owner. City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Dan Rutledge: I think it's a tenant...kind of a situation. Councilman Berquist: Would you not agree that an attached garage is the best solution all the way around? For you. For your neighbor. For the City. For everybody. Dan Rutledge: Oh, by far. Councilman Berquist: Why not explore it? Dan Rutledge: IfI could attach a garage to my house and because of the topography challenges all the way around my house, I'd... The only place I could put it would be in front. IfI put, well ifI attach the garage to the front of the house, the way it is now. Let's say I use my 40 feet and attach it to the front of the garage. That will mean that I'll have an 80 foot concrete driveway going out to the street. Councilman Berquist: It doesn't need to be concrete, number one, but it would be a long driveway. Dan Rutledge: An 80 foot yeah, or 60 foot driveway. And I would have no yard whatsoever with the property. There would be no grass. No place to put a garden. Because of the topography on the other side... There wouldn't be any grass to mow. I would have no yard. Councilman Berquist: Well, I sure don't see that but if you say so. Dan Rutledge: Well I'd invite all of you to come out and take a look if you'd like. If you want to come out and take a look at it, absolutely. Councilman Berquist: Well I have been out there. I was out there last time and I did look at it and the solution that I proposed at, I thought the solution that I proposed at Adjustments and Appeals was very adequate and allows you to fulfill your goals and allowed me to maintain my responsibility to whoever owns the property to the north. Well, okay. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. You can sit down, yeah. I think we'll, oh. Okay. Councilman Senn: When did you purchase the property? Dan Rutledge: A year and a half ago. Councilman Senn: And you're a builder, correct? Dan Rutledge: I'm a commercial builder. A third generation in a company in Hopkins. I actually just passed my residential contractors license last week. A couple weeks ago... Councilman Senn: But you understood when you purchased the house what the setbacks were and all that sort of thing? Dan Rutledge: No, actually I was unaware. Unaware of that at the time. We're not a residential builder. Councilman Senn: ... every building you build you still have to deal with setbacks. City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Dan Rutledge: Yeah but I'm not, what I do for the company right now is not, I'm not in that on sites. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Dan. Any other comments from Council members? Then may I have a motion? Councilman Berquist: Well I'll move to uphold the decision as rendered by Board of Adjustments and Appeals and allow a variance to construct a 22 foot wide garage by however long the applicant would choose to make it. Maintaining the 30 foot setback from the street. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Roger Knutson: Mayor? To clarify. That includes adopting the Findings set forth in the planning report as a basis of your reason. Councilman Berquist: It does. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Roger. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council adopt the Findings of Fact and uphold the decision made by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to allow a variance to construct a 22 foot wide garage by however long the applicant would choose to make it at the 30 foot setback from the street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: And the motion carries and that means stand at, that we go by the previous decision that was made for a 22 foot wide garage. Thanks for coming. REQUEST FOR LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REQUEST FOR REZONING OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS FROM A-2 TO RSF; SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1 INTO 6 LOTS; POWER CIRCLE, ARILD ROSSAVIK. Kate Aanenson: ... residential development, the City has and is looking at it's comprehensive plan for a multitude of housing types and styles and certainly large lot is one of them. That parcel does abut a collector roadway and because of that and because of the amenities that are in this area of the slopes and the vegetation, to maintain the City's goals of diversity of housing types, we certainly feel like this is an area that can be maintained. Lots that preserve significant features in the area. The Planning Commission did review the subdivision and voted unanimously to deny the application based on the land use map rezoning, excuse me. Recommended denial of the proposed land use amendment, rezoning and the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission felt that they didn't believe there was a compelling reason at this time to change the land use recommendation on the property. Staff has prepared Findings of Fact and is recommending denial of the land use plan amendment based on the Findings of Fact. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Kate. Can we see that back again please Nann. So you're saying that, north of this property, all the way to the yellow. 10 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Kate Aanenson: ... Mayor Mancino: So that's large lot too. So it has contiguous large lot all around it, except for on the west. It has a few low density. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Senn: And the lots to the north of it are how big? Kate Aanenson: In Lake Susan some of those are a little bit under 13,000. It's a PUD. The lot immediately to the north of this is also a large lot. This is the subject lot.., some of those lots. The average is 15. Some of them are under the 15,000. Councilman Senn: The area just to the north of the parcel? Kate Aanenson: That's a single home on a large lot. Councilman Senn: So what are the lines? Kate Aanenson: This is the subject. That's just... Councilman Senn: That's just, okay. So that's one lot to the north? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: The lots to the west, those that are in the PUD is environmentally or visually or whatever, they're way up. They're at a much higher elevation. Kate Aanenson: There's a ravine and topography separates those. They visually can see each other but the topography separates them. Mayor Mancino: Okay, which makes sense for why it was large lot to begin with. Thank you. Any other questions? For staff at this point. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council please? Please state your name and address. Craig Mertz: I'm Craig Mertz, Arild's attorney. Arild's next to me. Arild lives on Powers Boulevard. Arild Rossavik: 8800 Powers Boulevard. Craig Mertz: My office is here in town. To be kind about this, it appears that the staff has gone through a bit of a flip flop since 1997 when this was started. Your own staff report indicates that in 1997 when Mr. Rossavik brought this before the City, the staff was in favor of the proposal and your staff report indicates why. First of all it was pointed out that this particular lot was not strictly a part of this Oakside 11 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 development because it did not access the road via Oakside Circle. Rather it had it's own direct access onto the highway. Secondly staff indicated that subdivision of this property would be compatible with the surrounding development. We have a PRD to the immediate east of this, across the highway. We have a PRD to the west of this, across the highway. And at that time the owner of the one house to the immediate north of this wanted to join in the application. The staff also cited the fact that the utilities had been put in the ground, the sewer and the water, and that the engineering department had sited or located 6 potential, maybe 7 potential sewer and water units on this particular property, and the staff indicated that this was a positive because there were no further utility extensions that would be necessary as a result of this project. Your own staff report indicates further that in 1980 this particular property got preliminary approval for a PRD and finally, well those are the reasons that were given in 1997 for why this should be approved. All of those factors are present here again and now their recommendation is exactly the opposite. Mr. Rossavik obviously would like to proceed with the development. The only thing I can spot that has changed is that the one house to the immediate north does not want to participate in the project. I would also like to mention that the one house to the immediate north consists of the house and the shop building out of which a plumbing and heating, or a heating and air conditioning contractor is operating. I think that this property is ripe for urban development and Mr. Rossavik would like to proceed with his development. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Would you like to say anything? Thank you. Is there anyone else here tonight that would like to speak on this please? George Bizek: Thank you Council members. I'm the property owner to the north. The road has changed since this original proposal. Making it no access to the north, leaving our driveway, our adjoining driveway at the bottom, which would cause a traffic hazard which, I stated this all at the. Mayor Mancino: Planning Commission. George Bizek: At the Planning Commission. Mayor Mancino: If you'd do so again, that would be helpful for us. We'd appreciate it. So just take your time and. George Bizek: It would be a traffic hazard because the only way to access to the north now is to head south and make a U mm. And both me and Mr. Rossavik make U tums at a point where there isn't even a turn lane, stopping fast lane traffic behind you to be able to head to the north. I don't know if this is legal but this is the way it's being done. You putting 6 more houses in there and that's the way it's going to be done also. I also would like to review the fact that there was a petition is not only I. It was the whole neighborhood was against this. This would be unsightly. I think it would be against the whole neighborhood as a whole for the wants of one. For profit. And I guess I would also like to address the issue that's being brought up about me operating out of my home. I've been in that home since 1985. The city ordinances were established in 1987. The City has been out recently due to another complaint of his and approved. Looked in my garage and approved what I'm doing there. So he's got to bring this up again at this meeting. And on the County Engineer's report, a couple things. I'd like item 38 and 40 include me, as changing my driveway. Changing my address. And he's the one who brought it up that I'm running a business out of my home. This would be tough to change my address after doing this for 13 years. I'm not going to change my driveway. If you look at the way my driveway is, it would make it too steep to approach my house. I'm just, it'd be ridiculous if this passed. I'd be kind of disappointed in the city if they even think about allowing this. 12 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council on this issue? We'll bring this back to Council members for comments. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I have a question for Kate if I can. Mayor Mancino: Okay, just one second. Kate, Councilman Senn has a question for you. Councilman Senn: Historically, go back and reference what was discussed about on the previous staff report in '97. Kate Aanenson: The two property owners to the north came in together. We felt that that, at that time that there was a possibility of working together with these two lots had a separate access. A common driveway could be achieved.., sensitivity of the terrain. Councilman Senn: So it was this property and the property to the north? Kate Aanenson: Came in together with one application, correct. It never proceeded though because one of the applicants pulled out. Mayor Mancino: So it never went through Planning Commission or anything? Kate Aanenson: ... but that was withdrawn. George Bizek: It was not submitted... Councilman Senn: I have nothing else. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Mason. Just one second please. Councilman Mason: I don't have any questions at this time. Are we looking for comments now? Mayor Mancino: And for comments, please. Councilman Mason: Alright. Well, I'm comfortable with, I'm comfortable with the staff report stated for this area. Mayor Mancino: So that means you would like to not see a land use plan amendment? Councilman Mason: That is correct. I see no reason to change it. Mayor Mancino: ... saying it's residential large lot? Councilman Mason: Yeah. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I see no over riding reason or benefit for rezoning it at this time. 13 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I'm glad Mark asked the question regarding 1 and 2. What the intent was in earlier 1997 because it wasn't clear that, in my mind, that 1 and 2 were... Now that it is, one of the discussions that we had at some length when we started talking about Carver County Road 17 and the improvement of that, was what happens traffic wise and what sort of problems do we create for the people that live on that road that will not have access to traffic going both ways and what will be done. What do we expect will happen as a result of that? And there was quite a little bit of discussion regarding these two, actually the three properties that are along there, as well as discussion about Oakside Circle. Eventually Oakside Circle, as I recall, was given a crossing. To go back to the north on CR 17 but the point is that we were very cognizant of the homeowners along there and what they would have to go through. Now to all of a sudden double, triple the density of, by allowing that Lot 2 to be subdivided into six, I couldn't, I do not support that. For that matter, I don't know that I could support it even if both landowners were in before us, because of the problems that it creates on CR 17. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn, you wanted to comment? Councilman Senn: Another question. Kate. In terms of the, I mean Powers has been all upgraded now, and it is a substantially different road than it was before. How long do you think, realistically speaking that large lot residential will stay in that location? Kate Aanenson: The same issue we have with Timberwood. I think there's people that are always going to choose that type of lifestyle. Councilman Senn: But it's on a major, you know, on a major thoroughfare? Kate Aanenson: That's why you want the larger lot I guess, to reduce some of the impact too. I guess that's why we're concerned about those three lots that were adjacent to Powers. We felt like they needed to be larger lots to minimize that impact. Mayor Mancino: Well you also have that on Lyman. You have large lots, Sunset Trail. You have large lots on Galpin, which is Timberwood. You have large lot on Galpin, just north of Lake Lucy Road. That's all large lot too. So we're going to have quite a few places where we do have it designated as large lot, and to go in and in the middle of the large lot, let it start being split up. The people who bought those large lots bought them knowing what was going to be around them and one of the things that we do as a city and as a City Council and Planning does is try and be very, very proactive about our planning and our land use. People do come to move here and to invest in our land. They know what's going to be around them. So I would like to make sure that we stay proactive and let people, when they make the investment, feel the comfort and security of not changing the zoning capriciously. Councilman Senn: Charles, help me out here. I thought I remembered at the time that we got into the big assessment discussion down here, with the road improvements and stuff, that this precise subject came up. In terms of subdividing these lots. I thought I recollected at the time that you know there were some pretty quick answers to that in the sense that you know, that would be expected to follow fairly soon. Now, you know and that we were going to assess these on the basis of kind of like, you know one unit for the large lot fully expecting that to be more when they were actually subdivided or whatever. Wasn't that? Or I don't know, am I thinking of a different project? 14 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Charles Folch: Well we did with our project feasibility report and with the assessment roll, did try to analyze those large lots and look at what could be generated from them in the future for special assessments. For the trunk improvements. So that we could show that the project was financially sustainable because at this point in time, being that they were, the zoning that we weren't going to assess them but we wanted to make sure that down the road the numbers we anticipated generating make the project financially sustainable so that's why we did show you know how many units we expected to derive off of these lots in the future. Mainly to predict what our cost recovery is going to be on the project. Kate Aanenson: But they were not assessed at this time. Charles Folch: No, they were not assessed at this time. Kate Aanenson: They were left off because they were large lots. Councilman Senn: Well, I don't know. My own feelings are, you know I guess I don't look at it as being this cut and dried as obviously everybody else does. You know I don't want to down play because I do want to pay particular attention to the concerns of the surrounding residents. Especially the ones with large lots. At the same time though, we've substantially changed the character of that area. And I think this is, I don't know. I think this is just the beginning. Maybe it's a matter of who's putting the foot forward first and everybody else wondering whether they're going to. I don't know but I guess you know there's no way to really tell that for sure. But you know at the same time, you know I can't downplay the fact that we have substantially changed the character of that lot. And that entire area. And generally when we do, that generally triggers over some period of time, in the not too distant future, probably a number of changes. So like I say, for those reasons I don't think it's just this pure cut and dry argument that. Mayor Mancino: Then are you saying when we go in and we upgrade a road or we upgrade areas, that we should go in and look at our zoning? What we've guided it then. Councilman Senn: Well what I'm saying is, I think it's an issue we're going to have to address. I think over what time line and what time, I don't know. You know I mean that's up to the property owner because that's the property owner's right but at the same time, you know I'd be trying to fool somebody if I said when we made the improvements to that road and effectively what we did to change that character, that I didn't expect this sort of thing to follow. Again, I didn't know on what timeframe. Mayor Mancino: But then are we doing proper planning by having, you know one property change the whole area? Councilman Senn: Well part of our justification in putting those improvements in were that it was eventually going to happen. Mayor Mancino: Well that's what I'm saying. Then maybe we should have looked at it. Councilman Senn: That was our planning, okay. So I'm saying, you know, now maybe we're changing our mind on our planning but I mean, I don't know. Again there hasn't been a specific discussion of that or a specific look see at that on a broader basis than simply reviewing one application. You know, that's where I'm having trouble with it. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. 15 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Councilman Berquist: ...two applicants were originally here. How many lots were on the table? Do you remember? Kate Aanenson: I can look. The applicant may. Councilman Berquist: Four on his side... Can you explain to me briefly how, how you ended up with a design showing, a design detailing six lots? Justification for that density. Arild Rossavik:... Councilman Berquist: And this was done when both of you were coming, okay. Arild Rossavik: What happened was my neighbor, he... Kate Aanenson: Let me clarify that. I wouldn't say that was a true statement. When the assessments came out, those properties were assessed. Miscommunication and then Charles, I apprised him of the fact that those are guided large lots and we have no intention of, the Planning Department, does. So in meeting with the engineering staff, they were looking at their assessments. What they should do. That does not... status as an approved, going through the process. As a matter of fact, they submitted something that we gave them, it was withdrawn. Councilman Berquist: I agree with you but there's an implied response. You bring it up and they said what can we do and. Kate Aanenson: The assessments were waived. That's what happened. The assessments were waived because it was guided large lot so they were not assessed. Councilman Berquist: I'm just trying to, I'm trying to figure out where, how we ended up arriving... Arild Rossavik: ...then Mr. Bizek, he came.., didn't like the cul-de-sac going.., so he changed his mind and at the time... Mr. Generous' response to... I just want to have some.., said to me, if you put one more lot into the property, then we will go ahead and you will have support for that. I would have to go out and build a private road and I looked at the cost of that... So the only thing that's happened with respect to that, on the cul-de-sac... The neighborhood...they're not going to be very much affected by this development at all and... Councilman Berquist: You know you mentioned that the neighbors are going to be unaffected. Somewhat, mostly unaffected. On top of the hill and yet there's the vast majority obviously, the vast majority of these folks are on top of that hill. Arild Rossavik: Yes, yes. That's right but they look down in my neighborhood and my trees and my... Mayor Mancino: It's yours. Arild Rossavik: It's mine. It's my property. Mayor Mancino: ... lot and they bought it knowing that it was large lot. You're right, go ahead. 16 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Arild Rossavik: Yes. Yes, but they actually the trees and everything will be untouched as far as I'm concerned.., none of the houses will actually take into the view because of... Mayor Mancino: Charles, did any of the property owners get assessed for the road improvement? No property owners got assessed for the road improvement? Charles Folch: None of the residential. Mayor Mancino: So there is no financial significance for any of them to want to subdivide, okay. Thanks. Or on sewer and water? Thank you very much. Comments. Yeah, I think Councilman Senn what you bring up is good. I have a concern about upgrading the road and then saying, you know this is the time for development to happen. The right-of-way and how we sequence that and I think it's a good discussion to have, but I certainly would not like to see, I would like to keep our diversity of housing in Chanhassen. A large lot. And the large lot neighborhoods. Because there's no question that people do buy into those neighborhoods knowing, wanting to know what's around them and they buy into a certain, more of the rural feel and areas. Whether we will always have that, I hope so but it might change. May I have a motion please. Councilman Berquist: I'll move to deny the request for land plan amendment Case #97-12 SUB... staff report for the reasons outlined and detailed. Roger Knutson: And your motion includes adopting the Findings of Fact and decision as presented? Councilman Berquist: Thank you. Councilman Engel: Per the staff report. Roger Knutson: I'm hard of hearing so I just wanted to be sure. Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council adopt the Findings of Fact consistent with denying Land Use Map Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks; denying the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, and denying the preliminary plat of Subdivision #97-12 creating six lots for the Powers Circle Addition subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR COULTER BOULEVARD, STAGE II, (ROAD IMPROVEMENTS), PROJECT 97-1-3. Charles Folch: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. This item is being brought back to you. We did present it to you initially back last Fall as a part of the overall feasibility report for improvements to the southeast quadrant of Trunk Highway 5 and TH 41 in conjunction with the Steiner development of the industrial, office industrial park development. Basically this improvement project was identified as a Phase II element of the project and anticipated to occur in 1998. So we are bringing it back 17 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 before you for consideration. We've always had work sessions with the Park Commission and the Planning Commission to discuss issues and elements regarding this proposed improvement project. At this point we've also presented the Council with traffic analysis. Updated traffic analysis for this development. What impacts will occur to the local transportation in this general area, specifically Highway 41, Trunk Highway 5, Coulter Boulevard, Galpin Boulevard, 82nd Street. And the report, transportation study conducted by SRF clearly indicates that there is a, from a transportation standpoint there is a need to make this project improvement happen. One of the concerns that staff has is that if this project does not move forward in the near term, it's likely that it may not ever be built once residential development in the area occurs and the challenges that come about with trying to make this type of improvement project after development has occurred so staff believes that if the project is to move forward this year, this is the time. We're kind of at a time deadline to get moving forward with plans to be able to bid the project early enough this year to begin construction during this summer. So with that staff would present the project to you and ask for a recommendation to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is there anyone here tonight, or any questions for staff at this point? Is there anyone here tonight wishing to comment on this? Please come forward and state your name and address. Michael Howe: I'm Michael Howe from the Park and Recreation Commission. The commission as a whole is against this project. The main reason is, we feel it will disrupt that parcel of land by putting a road through there and I know I read the reports and it will be a friendly road with drainage and sidewalks and all, fine. But we still think it will disrupt that project. If there's any way that we can not build that road, we'd like to see that. Nine months ago this town voted to raise their taxes and spend millions of dollars to buy land and improve our parks and I think developing this land and building a road through it kind of flies in the fact of that entire theory of what we were trying to do. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else which just came in or anyone else wishing to speak on this? Roderick Franks: Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Roderick Franks. A resident at 8694 Mary Jane Circle and I'm also a member of the Park and Recreation Commission. I was at a work session not too long ago where this came up and it was wholly discussed and the idea of traffic was brought up and the necessity from the engineering and planning point of view to proceed with this project. However there was some significant concerns raised at that time from the Park and Recreation Commission. One already raised by my fellow commissioner was that, what is the goal of this City? The City had decided not too long ago to vote in favor of a referendum raising our taxes. Doing that at a time when conventional wisdom said that it couldn't be done. What that pointed out to me, as a member of the commission, and someone who worked for the passage of that referendum, was that our city has a goal. And that's the preservation of it's parkland and it's park space. Now when these plans were done, according to the Highway 5 corridor plan, we weren't really aware that we were going to end up with this wonderful parcel of land. Kind of ended up right in our lap. But we did and what a gift. I hate to see that gift ruined. I was just down there today, as I dropped my daughter off for her dance class at the wonderful Chan Recreation Center. So I drove down the road to take a look. The utilities are through. Some of the trees have been cut out. You know a large portion of that land was already at one time agricultural and cultivated. It doesn't look like it would take very long for that growth to come back. We're looking at a parcel now that's acreage is at the minimum level to support the sustained flora and fauna of that area. You're thinking about taking a road, putting it right through. Yes, a park friendly road with wonderful landscaping, trees, multi-use. Yet what we'll be doing is we're dividing up this minimal sized land to maintain it's wildlife. We'll be breaking it up into two parcels, neither of which will be large enough to sustain the wildlife that 18 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 currently exists. Woodbury is thinking about passing a referendum to raise their taxes to buy land too. Millions of dollars they're going to be looking to buy space that's left up. In the Star and Tribune they cited the, I thought it was interesting, they cited this whole arrangement as buying up small parcels of land. This is a parcel of land we don't have to buy. It already exists for parkland. I think that this is an opportunity that's well worth saving. Well worth taking. Not to like cut down our brothers in Eden Prairie, or our sisters in Eden Prairie, but when you drive down Highway 5 in Eden Prairie, what do you see? You see businesses. You see frontage routes. You see businesses. You see some residential. When you drive down Highway 5 and you look at the O'Shaughnessy property and you look up that hill, what a wonderful view shed. We have a city that's the edge of the prairie city. We have a pioneer city and yet we're taking, we're thinking about taking one of the last pieces away as you drive down Highway 5 through our city, that reminds us of our heritage. I think that we should seriously consider not moving forward with this project at this time. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Yes, Charles. Charles Folch: Just one correction or clarification to Mr. Franks statement. When the Highway 5 corridor study was done, if you look at the drawings, this area was mapped or it was designated to be open park space so it was shown on that. That's correct Kate? Yeah, so it was known at that time that this area would probably be acquired for park in one way or another. Mayor Mancino: Well most of it's wetlands so it couldn't have been built on anyway. Only a road can be built on wetlands. Only a city road, excuse me. Anyone else wishing to speak? Jan Lash: Well I'll keep this very short because you all know how we feel about this and really Rod is a very hard act to follow. My name for the record, I'm Jan Lash. I'm on the Park and Rec Commission. My address is 6, oh that's not my address anymore. 7001 Tecumseh Lane. Mayor Mancino: Did you move? Jan Lash: Yeah, 6 years ago. Councilman Mason: It happens to all of us Jan. Jan Lash: Well last time I talked at this podium that was my old address. Anyway, as you all know, we feel very strongly about trying to preserve the integrity of this parcel of property and we do, I find sort of an oxymoron in the phrase a park friendly road. I just can't imagine how you can put a road through the middle of this and have it be friendly to the environment or to the nature that we are trying to preserve and the wildlife in that area also. And I agree with Rod's comments of the perception that people have driving down Highway 5. It's one opportunity we can make a difference and unfortunately we don't have big thick studies or packets of things that we can provide from you. You know we speak from the heart as citizens and preservers of the environment. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Howard Dahlgren: Madam Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Howard Dahlgren. I'm one of the partners in the industrial project to the east, to the west of this property. First of all I'd like to point out that there seems to be an idea here that vehicles and people in vehicles are incompatible with parks, and the use and enjoyment of parks. That isn't really true. If you look at the City of Minneapolis for instance, 19 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 who has one of the finest park systems in the world for a city of that scale and nature, the emphasis on parkways and the building of new parkways in Minneapolis is one of the prime features of that park system. Today for instance the City of Minneapolis is spending millions of dollars to build new parkways along the Mississippi River in the downtown areas. Some of the most sensitive park areas in the city. And many people have done this many ways. Many of us you know enjoy the parks, not just by walking through them but by being in our cars as we drive through these areas that go by and through parks. You take the parkway around Lake of the Isles. One of the features of that is the fact that the people do travel around that in their cars. Another factor is that it makes it safe. It's fine to have parks but they also have to be safe so people can enjoy those parks. So children and folks can use them and one of the ways we do that is to have vehicular traffic in a position so that the public in effect is policing those parks as they travel around and through the parks. So the idea that putting a road through or by a park is going to destroy it, or make it so that people can't enjoy it, really isn't true. Those uses are compatible. Particularly in this case where you have such a vast park of something like 100 acres. It's not going to affect the visual impact of how it looks from the highway. That vast open space will still be there. You'll still enjoy it as you, the vista as you go past on Highway 5. And the corridor, the Highway 5 corridor study did of course correctly identify this area of land, both the O'Shaughnessy property and our property, as a public open space. That has been accomplished. And all during the process, and we've been planning this now for some 6 years. All that time the park department of course was pushing hard for us to dedicate or somehow make all this parkland happen. And in the middle of this park on our side there's some high land that we wanted to use for development purposes. But there wasn't enough land to put the road through and develop well, so we said okay. We'll put the road there. We'll forget about developing and we'll dedicate all that land for park purpose. Now when we first started this planning process, one of the guides that we have to follow is to look at your thoroughfare plan. Every city has the right and the responsibility to develop a thoroughfare plan locating where the major thoroughfares are going to go in the city. And by law we must respect those routes. Now in this case the thoroughfare plan looked like this. If you can see this, our land, would it be better if I put it over here? Mayor Mancino: Howard you know that Coulter Boulevard is going to prohibit any vehicles over 3 tons though. Howard Dahlgren: We think that's just fine. Really, that's wonderful. It should be for people and not for trucks. This is a drawing of the thoroughfare plan and here's the open space that we're talking about. This is Coulter Boulevard right here. This is the north/south thoroughfare that connects Highway 5... development plan and that's something that we were required to do and the City, any city has the right to require developers and we did that. There was no mention during all that planning process that we're going to limit people to boulevard. It was a requirement. When we come to do the plat we were required to dedicate two acres of right-of-way for Coulter. And we had said at one point, well if you, we'll just give you all the parkland and you can do with it what you like. No, we have to dedicate the right-of-way, and we did. And we dedicated the parkland on top of that, but we did dedicate 2 acres of right-of-way for the roadway. Now if you don't build that, do we get the 2 acres back? Use it for park? I mean in fairness we dedicated it for a street and therefore it should be used as a street. Another element of this is the question of traffic. Now you had a traffic study that points all this out but in the bottom line is basically this. Where there is a good deal of concern about the heavy traffic on Highway 5, it affects all of us. As developers. You as citizens. All the people who live in this city. One of the things you can do to reduce that traffic, and to make it more workable, is to provide local thoroughfares that parallel Highway 5. It's a good planning principle that's used all over the world. In the City of Bloomington for instance they're spending millions of dollars to build 79th Street and 80th Street parallel to the freeway. Parallel to 494. You can see examples of all over the metropolitan area, all over this country. The way to reduce traffic on 20 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 a heavy thoroughfare like TH 5 is to provide opportunities for the local traffic to not have to get on it. Do their local moving on a separate thoroughfare that parallels it and that's why of course you're building the service road system on the north. And to not complete it on the south, it really doesn't make a lot of sense. It's going to have a deleterious affect on the traffic movements on Highway 5. So we feel that to not build Coulter is a big mistake. Furthermore, when it comes to, for our doing our grading to start our development this past year, we were asked to grade Coulter for you so you could put in utilities. We did that, as you requested, free of charge. We just put it in the whole contract and our graders, grading people did it. We did that in good faith because we knew that building Coulter is good for the traffic pattern. It's good for the city. It's good for us. It's a win-win situation. Everybody does better by having this street built. Currently we have, you know the only access we have to our property is 82nd Street. Here's a layout, can you focus in on this? This is the layout of our land as it was approved, and this of course is Coulter Boulevard. We've started development here, and we have another active proposal to build a building here that we've been working on very hard. But we're not going to have access to Highway 5 until that project is completed. It goes out for bid a year from this fall. The work will be done in the year 2000. Completed in the year 2001 I believe, is that right Charles? Charles Folch: That's correct. Howard Dahlgren: So until that time we propose not to complete this road, but we have graded it to that point. We propose to hook up at that time. Over on TH 41, there are no current plans to lower TH 41 some 16 feet at this point. They all had agreed it's necessary to do. So we may not have access there for many years. Now to cut off access through Coulter leaves us land locked here with the only access through to 82nd Street. We can begin to develop with that access, and have done so. But it's a very sever problem for us to have to develop this land with access off of 82nd Street only. And if you do limit the traffic, the truck traffic on Coulter, we just feel that this is an important element to make all of this traffic, this system work better. It works better for you. It works better for us. And we sincerely hope that you will build it and do it right. In the later years you'll look back, a major mistake not to have done it, and it's perhaps true that once residential development occurs contiguous to this road over to the east, on the old O'Shaughnessy property, then you'll have people who will object and it may be very difficult to do it. So we feel very sincerely that the time is now. Remember you folks wanted us to develop this industrially. We wanted to do it residentially and you said what can we do to help you make it successful? This is something you can do that will be very important. Thank you very much. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Jan Lash: Jan Lash again. I just wanted to express my, I'm a little confused by Mr. Dahlgren's statement because I'm quite sure, I have a memory like a steel trap when it comes to the comments that we hear on the commission, and I know you could go back and check Minutes and at the time when we talked about this, I know Mr. Dahlgren said it made no difference to them if Coulter went in or not. It would not affect their development. And that was part of our feeling. We knew it would be damaging to the integrity of the park interior and at that time he said it did not matter to them at all. So that was part of our whole thought process behind this. It wasn't like we were intentionally going contrary to what the developer was requesting. Also, I think his comment really needs to be taken well and I know that Charles made this comment last time too and I think it sort of makes our case. If this road does not go in now, it will be very difficult to go back and put it in in a few years because you would have a lot of dissention from the residents. What does that tell you? It tells you that people living there would not like this road to be going through. With industrial traffic going through the residential area, let alone through the park itself. Thanks. 21 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? We'll bring this back to Council for comments. Councilman Berquist: Charles, I've got a quick question. Given the fact that what we're proposing here is a Minnesota State Aid roadway, do we, what sort of, or Anita perhaps. What sort of limits can we impose on that roadway? Weight wise... Someone at one point, early on in the discussion had... 3 tons per axle limit. Is that practical? Charles Folch: Basically there are a couple of primary criteria that these roads have to meet based on the intent that, for why Municipal State Aid road systems were set up and it would have to function as a 9 ton road year round, except for during the road restriction time period which we're currently in during the spring thaw. Other than that design section, you know design section is to typically, you know our standard is compatible with that. Speeds basically, you can design the road corridor to set it as you know the type of speed you want. Whether you want it down at 30 mph or you want it up at 45. Those sorts of things you know. Councilman Berquist: Do we have some say over to how fast the speed limit would be? Charles Folch: Well you design, basically you design the road. You can adjust the road design to facilitate road speeds. Typically the section of Coulter between Galpin and Audubon, I believe we have it at 35 or 30 mph. Something like that. So basically you know we have an ability to make that you know a 30 mph road. Councilman Berquist: Not much. A 9 ton road doesn't prohibit semi traffic? Charles Folch: No. Councilman Berquist: It doesn't prohibit garbage trucks? It prohibits nothing that's on the road? Charles Folch: No. MSA roads are typically meant to be higher use urban collector routes. For both traffic volume and weight capacity. Mayor Mancino: Can I build on what he said? When you said, how do you design a road so that you make sure that people are only going 30 mph? Charles Folch: Well if you want you can build in curvilinear nature of the, you know you have to work within the topography of the area you're dealing with but you can add in curves, both vertically and horizontally to try and limit basically the comfort level, if you will, of motorists using the corridor, if you will. But in this case here, I mean there really isn't too much elevation. Mayor Mancino: This is a straight shot. Charles Folch: It's a relatively straight shot but again, I think we could set this up and probably designate it accordingly to maintain a 30-35 mph speed zone through there. Mayor Mancino: And define park friendly. 22 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Charles Folch: Oh park friendly meaning that we will, you know a road corridor like this can have, like we've done, I think Coulter going back to the east is a good example. I think Galpin Boulevard south of TH 5 is a good example where you can introduce alternative modes of transportation such as trails for both bikes and pedestrians. I think you integrate landscaping with trees, like we have done through our typical sections which tend to give it more of a boulevard type feel. Also what trees end up doing is providing a little bit of traffic calming. As the trees get older and mature and larger, they actually help define the road corridor and actually make it feel somewhat more closed in than wide open and studies now are showing that limiting that view feel, if you will, perception feel to the corridor, helps provide an element of traffic calming if you will. Lower speeds. Things like that. It doesn't feel as wide open. Mayor Mancino: So does that mean we could put the trees on the inside of the trail between the trail and the street? Charles Folch: Well typically that's what we have been doing. Basically we've been setting the trees back at about 7 or 8 feet behind the curb so that they don't get damaged by salt and snowplows winging back and things like that. So we've been actually pushing the trails back farther off the curb to create a place to put trees in-between and also I think it's a more comfortable location for the trail for pedestrians and bikers because they feel more removed from the road too, from that standpoint. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Charles, it's been a long time since we looked at the alignment issue, let's call it, of those service roads. Refresh my memory. Why can that section not be moved to the north to hug along TH 5? Charles Folch: Basically you'd be going completely through a wetland. The alignment that was selected was to try and minimize the amount of wetland we go through and also minimize the poor soils that we're going to have to go through. If you tried to push that thing to the north, you're going to have tremendous poor soil conditions to deal with. Either major surcharging or major muck excavation. Much less the permit process you'd have to go through for blowing right through the middle of a wetland and having to do the 2 to 1 replacement and things like that. Mayor Mancino: We actually looked at that on the Highway 5 corridor study. Where to put that alignment. Even back in ~92-93. Councilman Senn: What was your general idea as to the difference in cost? Charles Folch: An analysis really wasn't done in terms of the difference in cost. Even if it would be allowed, and now I can't even tell you sitting right here that it would be even permitted to do that. Mayor Mancino: That's a good thought. Any other questions? ... Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: First of all, everyone that spoke from the Planning Commission and Howard and everyone else that talked about this, talks about issues that, aspects that hit real close. I mean Mike and Rod and Jan, you all did a tremendous job of making the case and Howard, I understand your perspective as well. Initially when we first started looking at this project I was of the opinion that we could wait on this road. When we had the Planning Commission/Council meeting to look at the project and whether or not we needed it, I was completely convinced that, at that time, reasonably convinced, that again it was something 23 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 that could wait. The more I think about it, the more I look at the traffic reports from the various people, the more I listen to MnDot talk about what we can expect for infrastructure improvements, the more I think in my own mind about what would, what will happen on the highways as we continue to get more and more built, including the Gateway project. And including the houses that are in that area that's been platted directly to the east of this park. The more convinced I become in my own mind that it's not in our best interest to wait. I don't like the idea of putting a road right through the middle of a plush wetland either. I didn't like it 6 weeks ago. Didn't like it a year ago. Don't like it now. But in looking at all the stuff that we looked at, to me it's a decision that I've actually changed my mind on. Gone 180 degrees from where I was 6 weeks ago and I'm of the opinion that we should at least prepare plans and specifications and prepare to get on with the project. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Yeah, I think Steve pretty well outlines it. Many times we sit in this chair, you're faced with choosing the lesser of two evils. Really. And I shudder to think what this would be like years from now, after there were more buildings in that area. The traffic on TH 5 was unbearable with these new intersections and would have to go through and do it then. Who knows what kind of funding. There are a lot of negatives out there if we don't do this thing now. I think for that reason we should move ahead with it. Councilman Berquist: There's a lot of negatives if we do it now. Councilman Engel: As I said, it's a lesser of two evils. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Oh I'd like to wax eloquently about the ongoing hassles of passing a referendum and then putting a road through a park and when I first moved here there were less than 6,000 people and in the year 2010 there's going to be 80 bazillion or however many they're predicting. You know when does it end? Do I necessarily want a road through there? Well I'm a bike rider. You know I kind of go, going to get that north frontage road put in. That south frontage road put in. That's going to be a pretty cool loop to ride a bike around so you know. In terms of the parkland, yeah. I don't want a road to go through but, and that's one reason we do have commissions and we don't always agree and we don't always disagree but I'm glad you folks said what you said. I'm, unfortunately on this one I, if we don't need it now, we're going to and Jan, your comment about well what does that say. You know if we build there and well of course nobody wants a road once, yeah. I mean you know that as well as I do and is it right or wrong? It's just the way it is. I believe I, well I wasn't sure 6 weeks ago and as I see what's going on around here, we've got to plan ahead for 40,000 people or whatever it's going to be. Whether we like it or not. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I wasn't sure 6 weeks ago and I'm still not sure. How's that? Mayor Mancino: You've got another one here. Councilman Senn: I mean in my mind I have no doubt that the road will ultimately be needed. And there's a certain amount to be said for the premise that as we all have gone through so many times before, it's far easier to do it now than later. And it's only going to get tougher to do it later. At the same time, in my 24 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 mind, as much as we have going in this city, both in relationship to new development in areas and existing areas we need to deal with, I prefer to approach this more on a basis of you know really when should we and when is the timing right? When should this be the top priority for MSA dollars, which we only have a limited number of. There's one big factor, at least in my mind...but whether a stop light is going to or not go with Century and TH 5 is I think.., significant impact on the way I looked at this one way or the other. And that's something we don't know at this point. We've heard both sides of that. You know yes, there may be and no, there may not be. So it doesn't sound like we're too far off from finding that out. I'm not sure it hurts at this point to proceed with plans and specifications because those aren't going to change regardless of when we do the road. If this is the alignment after all the years of the discussion, you know that it's got to be there and where it's got to go, and the issue is only timing, what we do now in plans and specs is going to change whether we do it now or 5 years from now I'm assuming. You know based on that I don't see a problem proceeding with the plans and specifications because I again ultimately believe that the road will be necessary. But as to making a decision on the timing and when will that be... I'm not at a point at least myself, comfortable making that decision until we have all the information in front of us. Mayor Mancino: To say what you just said. To go ahead with the plans and specifications, at this point, to go ahead with that, but maybe not go ahead with building of the road right away. Councilman Senn: Well authorizing the plans and specifications does not authorize the road. Mayor Mancino: No, but it's one more step towards it I mean. Charles Folch: Madam Mayor. There is an issue with, if you're wanting to or desiring to obtain State Aid funds for this, the shelf life of the plans is typically about a year. So if we had plans prepared now, MnDot would want them updated if you wanted a year, two years, three years, four years down the road. I don't want to be in a situation where we were discussing, what was it a couple meetings ago, about County Road 17 where we prepared the plans once and why do we have this $200,000.00 addition here for costs before 1992, or whatever it was. Mayor Mancino: We would ask. Charles Folch: Because it was drawn up. Councilman Mason: I don't think it will be a year before this decision is made. Charles Folch: ... got killed and then we had to go do the plans again and who's responsible for that. You know we did that a couple months ago here. I'd rather not do that again. Councilman Mason: I bet you on this issue that doesn't happen. With all this said I'd like to make a motion, or do you have more comments? Mayor Mancino: Well my heart and head are not together on this one. Councilman Mason: Well mine aren't either and unfortunately, if nothing else I've learned that they don't always get in sync at, has yet to make it any easier. Mayor Mancino: But I don't.., make a decision until they are in some way and mine certainly aren't but go ahead and make a motion. 25 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Councilman Mason: Well you're newer at this. Some of us have managed to. Councilman Engel: He's jaded. Councilman Mason: Well I hope not. I hope not. I would like to move approval to authorize plans and specs for Coulter Boulevard, Phase II extension, Project 97-1-3 knowing full well that this is, as some Council would like to hear, not necessarily meaning approval of the road. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Engel: I'd second that motion. Resolution #98-21: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to authorize plans and specifications for Coulter Boulevard Phase ll extension, Project 97-1-3. All voted in favor, except Mayor Mancino who opposed, and Councilman Senn abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Mancino: So the ayes carry it with a majority. Thank you for coming. Thank you for giving your thoughts. Thank you. CITY CODE AMENDMENT FOR THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT~ FIRST READING. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The Bluff Creek Natural Resource Plan was approved by this Council a little over a year ago .... attempts of this plan to integrate the Bluff Creek watershed into future planning for the city. A subcommittee or task force was established by the Council which some of you served on and they put together a vision statement and some goals. I'd just kind of like to maybe refresh your memory about the vision, the goals that we had for this area. The watershed district really they envisioned being, with no more development in the sensitive areas by the creek. That was one of the major intents. The vision statement was to reflect what would the development be like in the year 2040. They also saw that there's a variety of preserve habitat and environments. In this area there's very unique vegetation, slopes, natural resources that they wanted to preserve. In addition, they saw that the water quality be maintained high. Again at the lower end of the gorge it's very high of water quality. After the reviewal of the vision statement it led to goals and the goals are really grouped into five categories. The first one being protection, restoration and enhancement of natural resources. Now that.., dividing of the watershed into different regions and then specific plans that were developed for each of those regions. Also a greenway was discussed. Continuous land acquisition along the creek made a trail system, and there certainly were areas that were too sensitive for the trails and they discussed areas to have a link of the trail system without degradation to the development itself. The third goal was development. Look at preservation of open space to preserve the ecological system in place and look at possible mixed use of density development along this corridor. And then the final two goals were education and then government... So we had this vision and we had this plan and really what it became was an element of the city's comprehensive plan. But in order to implement these goals and these visions, you need a tool to do that. A tool is an ordinance so the City hired Koegler and Associates, Hoisington-Koegler and Associates. We've had Mark working with us for a year to put together an ordinance and we'd like to go through that with you a little bit tonight but before we do, I just want to talk about a couple of things. In looking at a map, as I indicated, there was a goal established 26 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 to preserve the Bluff Creek corridor and in looking at the features of the corridor, it became apparent that there was a primary zone and a secondary zone and the primary and the secondary zone. Mayor Mancino: Well at some point between when Mark, can we come around it and see it? I mean can you point it out. It's hard for me to tell the different colors up here. Kate Aanenson: Okay. The two different zones. Yeah, I think when Mark goes through he could say a little bit more clearly. But let me just again relate how this came about. How did the primary zone come about? Did it just appear on a map and all of a sudden it seemed to make sense. But the primary zone was delineated as a conservancy zone where conditions should be undisturbed and what was found in that area of the primary zone, it was probably already encumbered by either water. There was wetland or the creek ran through it. There's maybe significant wildlife in the back of the glossary and inventory was done of all wildlife in the area. Also, plant species were inventoried and the diversity in those areas where maybe there was a larger concentration of those that affected where the corridor went. And then also slopes. Bluff ordinance also comes into play on this. So if you look at where the primary zone falls, it's probably already encumbered by one of these unique parts of the natural resources so it's not just water we're talking about. It's, this is a natural resource plan so it...those other elements. So that really was the primary zone. The second zone also comes into play in the fact that we think that development in the secondary zone, if we're not sensitive in looking at how that's developed, will affect what's happening in the primary zone. So if we were just to do a traditional development, as we do today, what we're saying is that that will really degradate the water quality and the natural resources of the creek itself in that area so what we wanted to do is do a different type of development. Do things differently than we have in the past. And again that means some ordinance changes. Not only what Mark's talking about here, but looking at different types of cluster zoning so we can preserve those natural features. So in looking at where that line falls, it's a little deceiving to say well, we're taking out a large area but we're saying there's already probably encumbered by, there might be some isolated upland areas that have some development potential but it's already encumbered by either a steep slope or some other natural feature that would make it difficult to develop. So with that, I'd like Mark to go through the ordinance and then I'd be happy to answer questions. Mark Koegler: Thank you. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm just going to kind of run through some of the high points if you will and we can certainly address in more detail any questions that you may have. As you may well have guessed, given the title of this ordinance, as an overlay ordinance, it is truly that much like the ordinance we have in effect for Highway 5 right now in that it's a layer of regulation that fits over the top of basically zoning and PUD practices within the city. It utilizes both the primary and secondary zones or corridors and we might use those terms kind of interchangeably as defined in the management plan but as you noted probably in the ordinance, there are provisions that an applicant can prepare and submit to the City more detailed information to delineate that line, much like a wetland delineation is done in a community. And that likely would happen on a development basis. I think it's important that I spend just a moment maybe talking about the purposes of the ordinance because they pick up and play off of purposes that were outlined in the plan and perhaps get a little more specific in some areas. First of all certainly to protect natural areas. This was a natural resources study that basically started this ball rolling on this whole process. Secondly, to encourage cost effective site development specifically relating to infrastructure costs that may be possible due to some clustering, density clustering that we'll talk about in a minute. Certainly to promote the creation of a greenway. That if you look on a map of Chanhassen, you've got a couple of wonderful resources. The Minnesota River Valley to the south, Minnewashta Regional Park to the northwest. This corridor has the opportunity to connect those. Not only in a literal sense for recreation purposes possibly with a trail, but also from an educational standpoint. The 27 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Bluff Creek School that is within this corridor, I think there's been some at least preliminary discussions about some curriculum ideas and things that could be developed out of this, utilizing really this natural resource lab if you will. This linear lab that's right outside their doorstep. And it certainly to implement the policies and recommendations that were found within the Bluff Creek management plan. As you well know there was quit a bit of citizen input.., input that went into that process, as well as many hours with city staff and Planning Commission and Council and so forth putting it together and this seeks to basically implement that plan. So the intent, as Kate kind of summarized was a primary corridor, or as primary zone is preservation. In many cases there are features there that might be preserved. Otherwise there are probably some areas that that's not the case. And then certainly secondly within this secondary zone or secondary corridor, to minimize impacts to take a look at impervious cover, runoff, views and so forth to minimize the impacts to that property as well but certainly not to preclude development within those areas. The primary tool that the ordinance utilizes to essentially accomplish these goals and means is basically through density clustering. And I just want to run through a couple of quick examples. We did as a part of the process with the Planning Commission, investigate a number of kind of "hypothetical" sites in order to get a bit of real world view as to what all of this meant. How did this fit in the landscape? And let me start more in the general sense first, if I may .... kind of a textbook example if you will. A typical development pattern with a typical lot arrangement. Obviously the emphasis here with this approach is that you privatize the open space. It becomes front yards, back yards, side yards and so forth. Through the density clustering that we're talking about as being kind of the focal point of this ordinance, the development pattern becomes a little bit different. You have opportunity to preserve not only those resources that in this particular example graphic, might be around the periphery. The standard wetlands for example, but also some of the wildlife habitat areas. Some of the slopes. Some of the treed areas. Those kinds of features as well as a part of this by clustering the density. By clustering the number of units in the lots that are there. I think it's important to note that the goal of this is not only to apply to residential development. It is also going to apply to commercial/industrial development also. Admittedly the opportunities for this specific land use are somewhat less in this area, simply because the dominant land use by far is residential in the future land use plan. However it's important to note that the industrial will fall under this also so that in areas where this primary exists, we'll probably have a higher concentration of some of the impervious cover within smaller land areas. But if you look on the whole balance, we still maintain the overall impervious cover that's desired. Given the fact that the residential pattern was the most prominent, we did look at several examples of different residential developments and how this actually might play out. And this is one of them that was examined. This obviously depicts a traditional lot arrangement on a piece of property that's roughly 122 acres in size. This is a real piece of land within the city, and if one was to lay out a traditional development pattern, this is one that might, and I would underscore might because it's not that definitive, might occur. An applicant in this case, if this ordinance is implemented, would prepare a plan like this that would show what the density is. What the unit count would be under the city's traditional zoning and subdivision practices. Then the alternative plan, reflecting the resources.., there, would be assembled, which may look some like, hypothetically more like this. Where in this particular example, and this may be at least provides a focal point so hopefully you can see a bit. This cross hatched area that you see in the first area is the primary zone within this particular piece of property .... in this case is secondary zone. You can see in this area for example might have house footprints in it because again we're not precluding development in the secondary zone. We're only limiting it from the primary zone. In this case we're in essence clustering that density so that you could get the same number of units in limited land areas there by preserving obviously the overall resource features that have been identified in the management plan. So this being simply kind of a graphic example of how this begins to fit together and how this begins to work in the real world. The ordinance also contains language pertaining to some other resources. Really the only specific setback provision that is contained within it, deals with structural setbacks at the edge of the primary zone, and there's a 40 foot setback requirement in there that's 28 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 consistent with what you typically see in most of the wetland cases. That number has some validity in the code right now and it was felt that that was appropriate to use. Quite candidly the reason that's there is to help prevent kind of residential creep. If you live on a wetland you may start mowing a little bit further each year. A little further and your yard expands over time. The intent was to just define a reasonable back yard space, if you will, that would allow or minimize perhaps that from occurring. And the 40 feet was thought by the Planning Commission to be an appropriate way to do that. So those are in essence the major provisions of the ordinance again in a general context. It focuses on density clustering as a tool to preserve the primary corridor. It focuses on certain limitations with the secondary corridor but essentially allows development in those areas and as Kate pointed out earlier, many of the features in the primary corridor already are such that development would be precluded from occurring. With that Madam Mayor I would certainly collaborate with staff to address any questions. I don't know if you want to gather around the map for a minute and take a look at that prior to launching into discussions... Mayor Mancino: I'd like to take just a few minutes. I don't know if other councilmembers want to walk up and actually see the color coded primary and secondary zones. Okay. (The City Council took a short break to look at the Bluff Creek Overlay District map. ) Kate Aanenson: Le me address a couple of questions that came up. One is trails. And the other was, who would own this land? As a part of the plan itself, Park and Recreation Director, I'm assuming working through the commission, gave a recommendation of where these trails should go. Certainly we looked at the gorge area but felt like that was too environmentally sensitive to put trails through, and we looked at where the commuter rail, where we already have the trail going. That seemed to make a connection. There was, there are trails proposed in the vicinity and they will not be in the gorge, the more sensitive areas. But there is a trail map and I can try to put that on if you want to see but it is one of the documents in the plan itself. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Kate Aanenson: It is one of the documents. Mayor Mancino: But does it go through the primary zone? Is that where the trail goes? Have they overlaid the. Kate Aanenson: I have a map that has them all on one. It's very difficult to read. One of the Planning Commissioners asked for that map and we've got it all on one map. So again we're avoiding the sensitive areas. There are some uplands. The other question was who would acquire this. On the advice of the City Attorney, all the applications coming through under this ordinance would be a conditional use permit. At that time through that process we would decide, right now when we look at tree conservation's, preservation areas are kind of on a case by case basis decide whether the City wants to take ownership or that or... Maybe the developer, and each one's a little bit unique. We look at how they should be managed, what resources are there. Because each of these places along the corridor have different diversity of species or different unique features, and we want to look at those on a case by case basis. So looking at a conditional kind of gives us that flexibility to decide. Some of it. Councilman Berquist: A parcel that comes in for. 29 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Kate Aanenson: Well some.., name of the association if it's preserved or open space. Some of it we may want to have an easement for a trail. In some instances we may not need a trail easement through that property so it just depends on, in working with the property owner to see what the needs are. That's how we would resolve it. If that makes some sense. Really what the intent is to preserve and there's some circumstances that we would want to utilize.., want a viewpoint or something like that so then we would review that on a case by case basis. Councilman Berquist: So all development proposals would be, tentatively would be done under a conditional use? Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's in Section 20-1463. Conditional Use will be required for all applications.., plans prior to any building permit activity. Mayor Mancino: My other question is on delineation of primary zone at the time of when an applicant comes in. When we delineate a wetland, they're very you know, everyone knows the definition of a wetland. The plants are in there. How much water, etc. What is going to be our definition of the primary zone? Are we going to be very specific about that so people know how to delineate it, much as the wetland? Kate Aanenson: The first part of that is, we do need to make a correction, a couple corrections to the ordinance. Again, make sure that we clarify what the primary and secondary zone are. They're a little bit lengthy in the ordinance itself. What Mark did is summarize them but I think we'll go back and put the longer description of those in a little bit more qualified. And then how that gets done, I'll let Mark comment. Mark Koegler: You raise a good point. It's one that came up in discussion with Planning. Not only towards this but several different. How do we define this? What does this term mean? What does that term mean? That was one of the reasons that essentially the resource plan has been adopted by reference as part of the ordinance. There are some standards in here that I think Kate alluded to with regard to some of the species that are looked for and so forth that we're delineating as part of the primary zone. So while there is no ~technical Bible" so to speak for primary zone or primary corridor delineation, this serves as a basis for doing that and it's an objective basis for doing that. Kate Aanenson: So there is an appendix in the back that lists species that were identified. And that again is for, you can have somebody qualified go out and say you know, that line seems a little bit arbitrary. It should be back further and if they can demonstrate that, and we can, there's some valid documentation, then we certainly review that. Again a point, we believe it has some validity but.., certainly can be clarified. Mayor Mancino: Kate, you said that you talked to land owners in the area that will be affected by this. What has been their reaction? I mean I don't see any here tonight so. Kate Aanenson: We did send this ordinance up to the Builders Association and called several times for feedback. I think there's an interest in doing things differently than we have done in the past. And the cluster type is kind of a new wave that we're catching on. Sustainable development and we think the traditional development patterns that we've done in the past aren't going to work in the southern end of the city. We want to maintain the character of the uniqueness of that area. So I think the builders who represent maybe some of the landowners, are interested. 30 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Well it certainly gives an added land, or can do and add land value to them. Councilman Senn: Have we notified affected property owners though? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Senn: They all have been notified? Kate Aanenson: Yes. They were all, yeah they were notified during the public hearing and we did met with some of the significant ones we did sit down and meet with but we did send notice to all of them. Mayor Mancino: I just have a couple other questions. One of them has to do with, a couple more definitions that I would like to see. Under Section 20-1460 Purpose. B. Third sentence says, significant natural features should impact development rather than development impacting significant natural features. What are significant natural features? I think that would be... Well I'm just saying, you know and native trees. I mean we've said we wanted to retain our native trees. Well I mean, what are our native trees? Councilman Mason: That could get into some pretty acrimonious. Kate Aanenson: We tried to fall back on what we identified and the resource plan that... Mayor Mancino: But they are listed? Kate Aanenson: Yes, and we can try to qualify that but they are listed. All the species that we thought were unique were identified in this. Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you. Councilman Senn: Page 4 there's another one of those. Section 20-1461C. It says creation of suitable balance. Can you define suitable balance? That's a real humdinger. Mark Koegler: I would hazard to say that's probably not defined within the plan. Councilman Senn: Can we define it before we're asked to act on this? Mayor Mancino: I think Mark should be on the task force. Councilman Senn: Page 5. Another one of those in Section 20-1465. Not the same type of delineation but you reference minimizing building footprint size. That seems to me to be... In one way it's a good goal but in other ways it's a very bad goal. You know it seems to me that you're kind of taking a broad, kind of very generalized statement and trying to make it sound like it's underlying basis in the ordinance and I don't think it should be. Kate Aanenson: ...think we should take it out? Councilman Senn: Well, maybe not try to make it, maybe not try to be so rigid as far as that being an underlying concept in the ordinance. I mean more latitude and leeway. I mean a lot of cases it's far better 31 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 to keep single story construction and expand.., because you'd have greater impact by denser or higher construction. In other cases, especially in terms of home, you know some people are pretty much confined to building homes that are single level. It runs contrary effectively as a goal. So I'm just saying, I mean I don't think we should build everything out of the ordinance that builds people and different lifestyles and different business styles just simply out of the ordinance. Mayor Mancino: While still maintaining the greenway, yeah. Kate Aanenson: Can we back up on that? Because that's, I mean this is...principles here so I guess we'd like to take a look at that before... Reducing the impervious surface is one of the guidings principles for our watershed. So I guess if we could come back with some, look at some other language. Councilman Mason: Well just off the top of my head, if that's, I wonder if you couldn't just say, and this is just first reading, I understand that. That the issue here is to reduce impervious surface. Mayor Mancino: Well certainly because it's reducing roadways. Councilman Mason: Well right, but by saying that maybe you don't even need, maybe the minimizing the footprint doesn't even need to be in there if it's stated strongly, clearly and succinctly, that the object here is to reduce impervious surface. You know and that includes footprints where possible or something like that. Right, right. But you know, again it's first reading too you know. Kate Aanenson: So your recommendation Mike would just be leave the.., extent possible. All development shall minimize the amount of impervious? ... would be? Councilman Mason: Well I think you know you maybe need to wrestle with that a little bit too. I don't want to. Mayor Mancino: Roger? Roger Knutson: The rest of them seem to work I think for me really well, but the question I would have is, on minimizing those footprints. If someone came in with a 4,000 square foot rambler, does that mean we're going to turn down the project? Councilman Senn: Well legally I don't think we can in some situations. Roger Knutson: Would that be in the intent to tell them you have to go two stories or 2,000 a story or? Kate Aanenson: Well it would depend on the size of the parcel. It would depend on a lot of other issues you know. Roger Knutson: Ask the question, when somebody comes in, would we actually be telling people. Mayor Mancino: Not if it fits on the lot with the setbacks and everything else. Roger Knutson: We don't want this big a house here. 32 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Mark Koegler: I don't think the intent is to preclude a certain type of housing like that when obviously the goal overall is to allow varieties of housing types to occur within the city and these areas as well so maybe this just needs to be qualified as was suggested with where practical or something like that, as a part of this because it's not meant to exclude that but trying not to mask the general sense that the intent is where possible to build up instead of building out. Mayor Mancino: Well and it's also, no. It also limits impervious surface. Mark Koegler: You could ask us to define up. Councilman Senn: Yeah but.., significant issues with going up rather than out. I mean especially when you start talking about it commercially or industrially, there's going to be huge impacts. Mark Koegler: Right. Councilman Senn: I mean that's not, in fact financially feasible types of, you know, you're going to get yourself into some problems. Kate Aanenson: We're not going to do a taking on all these. I think we have to look at these on a case by case basis. The size of the parcel and what we're trying to do and the intent, if it's a large industrial piece, there has to be flexibility built in but I think it's certainly our intent to try and minimize the impervious surface and those are the qualifiers. Councilman Berquist: How about taking the opposite tact? Common access drives and utility corridors while maximizing non-impervious surfaces. Councilman Mason: Or where practical, minimizing footprint. Well, but there is a point there with that wording, it makes it sound like don't come in with the big footprint and maybe on some lots that's practical and maybe on some lots it's not. Kate Aanenson: When you're doing a large lot subdivision such as Hesse Farm, I don't think anyone would say that.., if you get a 5 acre lot and somebody came in with a large, you know again you have to look at what's underneath it. Councilman Mason: Yeah. You know we might just be looking at semantics here too and maybe we just need to look at it and come back to us. Kate Aanenson: Well we'll certainly visit that issue and see what other language we can do. Mayor Mancino: What's an average sloping...25%. What does that mean to me? Roger Knutson: Darn steep. Councilman Senn: Okay, this angle and this angle. The average is 25%. Mayor Mancino: Try and preserve those. Councilman Senn: Average. 33 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Kate Aanenson: Right, and that would be in our slope ordinance. Our current bluff ordinance, right. Mayor Mancino: Certainly, being an advocate of the clustering and keeping the open space in the corridor. Having a greenway through our city is just exciting. Councilman Mason: If I could just, I guess maybe I just want to add a little history to this. Kate, how old is the surface water management program now? What was that, about 6 years ago? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, probably 5 or 6. Councilman Mason: And I see this kind of stuff as kind of an ongoing attempt that started with what city staff started 6 years ago here and I just, I think it's good stuff and my hat is off to all the people that were involved in carrying out the surface water. Carrying on this whole deal, I think it's terrific. I really do. Good job. Councilman Senn: I had a question on page 9 too ifI could. Section 20-1473. IfI understand what you're doing there, kind of in an add on top of the other basis, is there's a minimum 60 foot setback then? Mark Koegler: No, there's a 40 foot setback, but essentially 20 feet of that is undisturbed so 20 feet of that would be... blue. Mayor Mancino: Any other comments to give to Mark and Kate? I'm also going to talk to landowners in the area and their aware... Councilman Berquist, any remarks? Councilman Berquist: No .... very nicely put together. Glad it's coming to fruition. Councilman Engel: Move on. Looks good. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda. Kate Aanenson: Do we need a motion of some sort Roger? Roger Knutson: Passing this through first reading or you want to postpone that. Mayor Mancino: Let's go ahead and I'll make a motion to pass in first reading and...Yeah, would you include the comments and.., discussion about other things and when it comes back we can decide. Councilman Senn: I don't have a problem with that but I just want to make sure that they get addressed. Mayor Mancino: We'll see it again. Councilman Mason: I will move approval of first reading with staff to take into consideration comments made by Council. Mayor Mancino: Second. 34 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to approve first reading of the City Code Amendment for the Bluff Creek Overlay District taking into consideration comments made by City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS~ 1998 TRAIL PROJECTS. Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor, members of City Council. It's our intention this evening to deliver to you the proposed plans and specifications for the 1998 trail project. You have those in front of you. Those packets contain within them a great deal of work and effort by the Park and Recreation Commission, the Park Task Force, Planning Commission, the City Council, our consultants on the job and staff members and last but not least, hundreds and hundreds of residents who have participated in the public hearing and public process for this project. So with that, again I'd like to state that both the Planning Commission and Park and Recreation Commission have reviewed this project five times. Both the Planning Commission and the Park and Recreation Commission recommend approval of all six segments as presented to you this evening. Those segments have gone through some change over the past 2 1/2 months. And we feel as the project team that the presentation of alignments that you have before you tonight represent the community. Represent the intent of the task force. But I should note that there is a budget increase recommendation as a part of this project so the original budget of $1.24 million, it became apparent that that would not fund the entire project. That was the original reason for recommending deletion of certain segments. The north Galpin segment, the north Powers segment. With those segments being brought back in due to public input, public testimony, and action by the Planning Commission and Park and Recreation Commission, they're recommending that the City Council access park and trail dedication fund reserves of up to $300,000.00 to increase the overall budget to $1.54 million. Mayor Mancino: And then that stops? That's it? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Yeah, and we have budget estimates, both low and high which hopefully tell us that, you know there is a chance that it could go beyond that in a worse, worse case scenario. At the present time we don't feel that will be the case. But again the recommendation is to approve all six alignments and we're asking for that approval in two weeks. Our intent this evening is to present the documents, ask for public comment and then allow the Council two weeks to review these documents and ask questions. So with that I would like to have Dave Nyberg, unless the Council would like to see otherwise, take about 4 or 5 minutes on each segment for a total of about 30 minutes worth of presentation on each individual segment. I think we owe that to the Council prior to hearing your comments and taking public testimony. Mayor Mancino: Well then we'll take public comments for 30 minutes on each trail segment too. Councilman Mason: And how far was your tongue in your cheek? Dave Nyberg: Mayor Mancino and members of the Council, what I would suggest in relation to what Todd said is, each segment of the six segments has an index sheet on the plan. You'll see that on the summary at the front. That may be a good sheet to just go through the alignment very briefly. Hit some hot spots or spots where we had a lot of residential involvement and then move on if there's any questions from the Council. What I could do then, in specific areas, is address those areas on the actual plan sheets with more detail so I'll proceed that way, unless the Council directs me to do so differently. 35 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Okay. Just so people in the audience know, and how we'll do this is we'll go over each segment and ask if there's anyone from the public who'd like to speak on that segment. See if there's any questions from Council and then just go onto the next. Okay? Dave Nyberg: Thank you Mayor. On the Highway 7 segment, the alignment begins at Lake Minnewashta Parkway and extends easterly to Washta Bay Road. We had probably an average amount of interest on this segment including one Saturday we met with a group of people concerned about the park property between Elm Tree and Dogwood Avenue. The alignment was revised at that point to show the alignment closer to Highway 7. We had originally proposed an alignment down along I believe Elm Tree Avenue at that point so that was revised according to their concerns. There's a property. Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry Dave. Dave Nyberg: Yeah, go ahead. Mayor Mancino: That was due to what? Dave Nyberg: Basically I think the idea was to get the trail more in line through that area with landscaping there. They were going to, I believe they're still considering some different options there with future plantings or trees to remove with this project. Jill Sinclair the City Environmental Coordinator has met with some of the representatives from that committee to discuss different options at that point so. We also met with the resident just west of Arbor Lane, Mr. Ted Bigos. He has some large evergreen trees along Highway 7 that provide a very nice buffer between the highway and his property. We have revised plans to show the trail moved out towards Highway 7. Just in a phone conversation with Paul Kachelmeyer, the engineer from MnDot, that will be alright with him to show that alignment revised that way and many of you may have seen the letter from Mr. Bigos recently forwarded to the city. Mayor Mancino: Can we make sure that when we do, we are re-routing the trail to preserve trees, that our Forester, our City Forester, Jill goes out and makes sure that the staking is done and that the fencing is up and everything prior to work on any of the trails. Dave Nyberg: Yeah, what we've told some residents is that we are going to bid the project with a quantity of, many of you know it as orange construction fence. Very high visibility fence. That fence will be installed as the specifications state prior to any work beginning in very environmentally sensitive areas such as that one. The contractor would be required to stay within the limits of that fence and that is where Jill would come in to be involved to set that fence outside of a drip line or where appropriate. We also, I should mention, presented the plans to the public works department today. Park and Rec Department of course has those for review. In the next two weeks we're hoping we get a lot of review from the city as well and I guess I would recommend a set of plans go to Jill as well too. Just get her input on sensitive areas. Mayor Mancino: And we are able to stay outside of the drip line. Okay. Dave Nyberg: Yep. We really have to do whatever we've got to do to protect those trees. It doesn't do any good to leave them stand if they're going to die later because of root damage so. We have had some other residents just call and ask questions on this segment of property. Some other residents concerned about fences and potential easements. We only are proposing a couple temporary easements on this segment so this is a segment that can be done with virtually, or very little easement acquisition. 36 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Great, okay. Dave Nyberg: If there aren't any other questions I'll move onto the next segment, Galpin Boulevard. Councilman Senn: Should we maybe ask first if there's anybody here on this segment? Dave Nyberg: Oh I'm sorry, yeah. Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone here wishing to address the Council on this trail segment on Highway 7? Councilman Berquist: The only comment that I would make is that along, you've got.., for Cypress for instance to be closed. Washta Bay Road to be closed. To the best of my recollection, Elm Tree is going to be closed. Dave Nyberg: Yeah I could address. Councilman Senn: Well what did we approve so far? We didn't approve that..., did we? Dave Nyberg: Yeah, what those are are, those are to be closed in the future by MnDot. However, we just met with your public works staff today and we may try to work out some agreement with MnDot to actually close those as part of this project or do that work concurrently with what work they're doing. There's some savings on the trail project obviously if we get those roads closed. Highway 7, when Highway 7 is rebuilt, they won't do the closing. It will already be done and the trail won't need to be reconstructed through those closing areas so. Mayor Mancino: But that won't be done for two years. Dave Nyberg: Yeah, Charles could probably talk more. Anita Benson: We're working right now with Paul Kachelmeyer and MnDot, working through some details and we will be coming back to Council with the proposed closures and what we would be doing now as far as any closures. We'll be bringing all that back for Council approval. Mayor Mancino: Okay, but any of the new safety closings or additional lanes, mm lanes won't be done on Highway 7 until the year 2000. We're going to be putting the trail in this summer. So in areas where you know the one, there will be a closure, an access closure or else it will be widened to have a left mm lane, etc, will we put something in temporarily or what? Dave Nyberg: A trail you mean? Actually the trail as it's constructed will be back far enough so that the only areas that would need to be reconstructed would be those areas of closing. If you were to add those closings to this project, you'd virtually build this trail without having any future impacts to it when Highway 7 is rebuilt. And the reason for that is that Mr. Kachlemeyer made it a contingent requirement of the permit on this trail that we build out a few fill slopes where they would propose flattening of the slope, coming down from the road, and these plans reflect that work. Councilman Berquist: Another thing that's been discussed is... 37 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Dave Nyberg: Next we move to Galpin Boulevard. Sheet 21 is the index sheet. I think we can move rather quickly through the segment of the trail to Lake Lucy Road. Many of you, that segment is very unchanged from a previous submittal you probably received over a month ago. We have had considerable discussion with a resident on the south end. He's the first resident on Galpin Boulevard on the east side where the trail begins. It's Mr. John Hennessey. We're working with him to incorporate the trail into his property. We'll need a significant easement from him. Several power poles, or a couple power poles on his, in front of his property need to be relocated so we're coordinating that effort with NSP and Mr. Hennessey. We've had significant residential input early in the process, in the area of Brinker Street and Majestic Way. We had originally proposed a crossing at Majestic Way. Any of you that were at the neighborhood meetings back in early December may remember several residents expressing concern about that. Requesting that the crossing actually get moved down to Brinker. We looked at that and for sight distance it really was, certainly no worse. Probably no better but based on that input and the fact that the park property is directly across Galpin Boulevard, from that crossing, we have moved that crossing in response to those residential concerns and in talking to them on the phone, they seemed very pleased that we made that change. North of that area to Lake Lucy Road there really hasn't been much deviation from the project to date. We did talk to the developer of the Longacres development. He had some concern about potential tree loss and impacts to the fence for the Longacres development. Mayor Mancino: Way east of the fence, isn't it? The trail? Dave Nyberg: It's east of the fence but some of the construction limits actually get quite close to the fence. If you can imagine, whatever the steepness of the slope is from the road or the ditch up to those, up to that fence, that trail has to be cut in on that slope somewhere and some of the slopes coming up or down from that trail may approach the fence to cut the trail in, if you will. Mayor Mancino: The fence looks so far over. I'm just amazed. Dave Nyberg: Yeah, it's not very much. I think there's one spot in particular where the fence kind of goes over a ridge and it's rather steep there. Coming down to Galpin. That's one spot where we would need to cut that slope back a ways but he said that he'll work with us on those trees maybe to move a couple. I think it only impacted one or two potential trees in that area. Mayor Mancino: And are those new ones that they just put in last year? Dave Nyberg: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Dave Nyberg: As far as north of Lake Lucy Road, I think what I'll do, since this hasn't been viewed yet, and I know we have at least. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me, may I ask one more thing before we go north of Lake Lucy? Dave Nyberg: Yeah, certainly. Mayor Mancino: For Todd and Charles and Anita. Where the Arboretum Boulevard comes into Galpin. That is south of Brinker. Are we going to have to redo the trail in that area between where the Arboretum 38 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Boulevard will come in and that whole east, the whole upgrade of Galpin Boulevard between Brinker and TH 5 when we go and redo TH 5 ? Anita Benson: I have not had a chance to review this final set of plans but I would anticipate that when we come through with the Highway 5 project we would tie into whatever the existing trail is that they left off. Dave Nyberg: Yeah the actual trail on Galpin does not start right at the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin. It starts maybe a couple hundred feet to the north. There's an existing old bituminous trail right behind, I think it's a bituminous curb or some such older curb on Galpin up to a point to the Hennessey property. Around where the creek, Bluff Creek, where the head waters of Bluff Creek. Mayor Mancino: So I assume, I'm just asking a few little nits here but I just want to make sure. I assume the trail's staying on the west side of Galpin. However, everyone who lives on Galpin is going to want to go on the east side. I mean because they're going to want to go to Bluff Creek Elementary School. They're going to want to go to Lake Ann. I mean the destination at this point is on the east side. So when we have trail crossings like this, we're going to have signage up that says, you know trail crossing coming up in 20 feet or... ? What kind of signage will we have? Dave Nyberg: Turn to page 20, or sheet 23. We show the standard signing on a crossing like this. I believe the connection trail is very similar. There's a pedestrian crossing warning sign placed up the traffic flow from the intersection based on the design speed. There's also a pedestrian crossing with an arrow pointing down at the actual crossing. And then those stop signs you see are for the actual pedestrians to warn them that oncoming traffic does not have a sign at that point. The law is that a pedestrian in the crosswalk has the right-of-way. However, we've all seen instances where that's been violated so that stop sign there is a warning to the pedestrians that they should stop and look both ways before crossing Galpin Boulevard. Sheet 28 is the sheet that begins the Galpin Boulevard alignment north of Lake Lucy Road. As you can see from the plans, we're just extending the trail as recommended by Park and Recreation Commission, with a curb and gutter section. 14 feet from the face of the curb to the center line of Galpin Boulevard with a proposed bituminous trail directly behind that new curb and gutter. And that extends northward along the entire alignment of Galpin Boulevard to the terminus point at Pheasant Drive. Mayor Mancino: Wow! How long is that? Dave Nyberg: I believe it's about 500 feet I think. No, I take that back...That's about 300. Or 3, yeah. 300 feet. Mayor Mancino: So then you will also have at Pheasant Drive, you also have a stop sign and it will be, you'll have the markings on the street on Galpin? Dave Nyberg: Yeah. It's on Sheet 30. Excuse me, 3,000 feet. I had my units off here. Didn't sound right did it? Had a mental lapse there. Yeah, on Sheet 30 there's signage very similar to the Galpin crossing on the south. A pedestrian crosswalk warning signs. A pedestrian crosswalk indicator sign. And a stop sign for pedestrians going from the trail across to Pheasant Drive. Mayor Mancino: So not only can they cross there and get on the trail, but then they can take the trail to the Middle School West also? 39 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Dave Nyberg: Yes. Any questions about that segment? I know that's a new addition to the plans. One that really no one has seen prior to today so. Mayor Mancino: ... now there will be a trail on Galpin so if children and adults want to now go from... subdivision, if they want to get over to the Middle School, at least they can be on a trail on Galpin and then cut up. There isn't one there now. Melody Hill, yeah. Councilman Berquist: Oh, Melody Hill by the water tower, okay. Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone here that has any questions or make any comments? Come on up and state your name and address. Jane Schlangen: Jane Schlangen, 1941 Melody Hill Circle and when I look at the crosswalks, I'm sort of looking in this area right here too. And this road is very dangerous and we were talking about the crosswalks and signs and everything. And by seeing this I'm still concerned with the, well with the speed on this hill, but also maybe prior notice because this will almost, well it's a bad curve. And maybe also signs up higher so they'll slow down maybe a little bit more. Councilman Berquist: Caution, crosswalk ahead? Jane Schlangen: Yeah. Mayor Mancino: And do you see that? Do you see the signs on. Jane Schlangen: This one here? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. What are those David, about 25 feet before the actual crosswalk on the north and south side of it? Dave Nyberg: Actually those are about I think 250 feet or so. There's a small little scale over on the lower right comer of the, it's about as wide as your finger, if your finger's pretty narrow and that's about 40 feet so if you count fingers, it's maybe 40 feet per finger so. Unless you have big fingers. Jane Schlangen: And then also with the hedge there, it tends to come out and cover the signs in the summer so I don't know... Mayor Mancino: That's a good comment. Jane Schlangen: ... important part of the trail because.., people are walking it now and Middle School kids are walking this trail right now. Mayor Mancino: Plus there is a tremendous amount of runoff, water there every year that gets on Galpin. So I would hope that maybe we'll have the County helping us on this part since it is their road because every year it, the gravel just...that's also what makes it a hard mm. Jane Schlangen: And also, on the stopping of this, there's a... Councilman Berquist: Oh, like one of those alert ridges? 40 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Jane Schlangen: Yeah... So I guess those are my only concerns and I'm really happy that the addition again from Lake Lucy... Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you. And you can certainly, from Pheasant Hill, you can certainly, you have your own internal roads and you can get over to Lake Lucy Road from that trail too. Yeah. So you have a back door to Lake Lucy. Susan Mitchell: I am Susan Mitchell and I'm at 1950 Crestview Circle and I promise I won't take 25 minutes. I know you gave us 30 and I don't need it. I'm just going to say, thank you Todd and the Park, God bless you for getting this this far because we had lost lots of hope a while back. Todd, thank you. Thank you. Safety is our big concern. We have, most of us have kids and we can get nowhere. We're all landlocked. We're all on cul-de-sacs. We need that trail. We have no access to parks. We just really need it for the kids. Jane's one street up and my kids can't walk to her house just because there's no shoulder. We really just need that. So I just want to say thanks to these guys and I hope you pass this, or use the $300,000.00 to build it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Berquist: That is a terrible stretch of roadway there. Dave Nyberg: Yeah, it's not the best. Councilman Berquist: And she brings up good points regarding safety. Traffic does go through there hell bent for leather. And the sight lines at that particular area, especially coming from the south are terrible. And coming downhill. The signs are fine but are they enough? Are they adequate? What else could we do to? Dave Nyberg: You could, right at the top of the hill. The top of the hill is roughly around Melody Hill Road. As soon as you come over that hill you're starting to go downhill. That's when you're going to see the pedestrian sign. That's when you're going to feel like you're coming up on that crosswalk quickly. So you could either put up some kind of a custom sign, like you were saying, crosswalk ahead or crosswalk over hill. A yellow diamond sign. You can really get those with almost anything on it that you want. However, either the County or the City would have to approve that. I mean this road is the road that the city will take over someday, probably sooner than any other and the County has said, you can build this trail here but we've got to make sure that you're okay with it or comfortable with it so they're doing a review. Your own staff's doing a review and really it can be anything. It can be anything. Councilman Berquist: Would you please incorporate some modification that allows notification of that trail sooner and more vividly? Dave Nyberg: Sure. We can meet with Anita next week to talk about it. Councilman Berquist: ... we need to bless it, I don't think that's a problem. If the County needs to bless it, I don't think that's a problem. Dave Nyberg: Yeah the County, if it's okay with Anita, whatever we come up with together, it's going to be fine. 41 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Anita's the heavy. But very seriously. As you go, if you're turning, you're right. People coming up the hill don't go quite as fast as the people obviously going down going south. And previously the County put gravel on the side of the road which makes it even worse because the gravel gets out on Galpin and if you're coming down and you need to put on your brakes, you skid and so you don't really stop. Councilman Mason: Well that means you're traveling too fast in the first place... Mayor Mancino: But I think that that will help too because there is gravel there all the time. I think I'm going to be quiet now. Dave Nyberg: Some of that gravel that the County places there every spring is actually, may be eliminated somewhat with this project because you're going to install curb and gutter. Build this trail over that gravel shoulder that's there now. The problem we have and we're going to look at this a lot more closely this week too is, runoff now, instead of going into this ditch, down to that wetland, is going to be caught in the curb. It's all going to flow down the curb and somehow we've got to get that water into a catch basin system, under the road, and to that wetland without spending a ton of money there. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions on Galpin? We'll move ahead. No other comments? Okay. And one other question. When we get the trails built, do we put a sign that say no snowmobiling or what happens then? Dave Nyberg: Standard no motorized vehicle sign that is in use in other places in the city. And we have not included that in this bid. If the City would like us to do that, we could certainly do that. Otherwise you can put those up later with your own forces. However you choose to do it. Mayor Mancino: We don't want to get too much signage either. I mean it's just a trail. Councilman Senn: You know so just simply pass an ordinance for snowmobiles... Mayor Mancino: We'll move ahead to Powers. Dave Nyberg: The index sheet for Powers is on Sheet 46. At the south end of Powers Boulevard we will be constructing the trail through the ditch area where there is an existing trail at the bottom of the ditch, from the maintenance folks for your city. They've said that's a real maintenance problem because it is in the bottom of the ditch. It's narrower than this trail will be. So we're going to remove that trail. Build a new one up higher from the bottom of the ditch. And then we extend across Saddlebrook Trail, Ute Court to the area that generated considerable residential input through the Chaparral townhome area. We have revised that alignment as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission to show the trail 2 feet towards Powers Boulevard in front of the split rail fence. Virtually the whole way to Kerber Boulevard. Mayor Mancino: So the split rail will remain as it is? Dave Nyberg: The split rail will remain. However, I have been telling people in a sense what will happen is, to do some matching of grading on the trail, we may have to pull a few posts out and put them back in. There's some jagged edges in that fence. We may move it over a foot or two to straighten it out but 42 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 virtually the fence should remain as it is and there may be a few new posts out there but when the trail's done, it should be about the same place as it is now. Councilman Berquist: On page 47. Right in the middle. Remove existing 6 foot bituminous trail. Is that what you were just speaking to? Dave Nyberg: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Is it usually under water, is that why? Dave Nyberg: I think maybe Todd can speak to the history. Councilman Berquist: I'm trying to think now, Santa Vera Drive. That's the one that goes up past the senior center. Senior housing. I've taken that trail many times, and you're saying that that is frequently under water?... Todd Hoffman: The segment of trail between the two Saddlebrook entrances. It was built by the developer, at their cost. Per their design so it sits directly in the bottom of the ditch. The sub-base is constantly wet. We attempted to sealcoat it and we fell through in 4 or 5 different spots. Then we attempted to patch that and we fell through in 3 other spots on the trail. And so it's actually an example of how not to build these trails, placing them in the bottom of the drainageway and so. Councilman Berquist: I'd been on the edge of the roadway because I thought, when we built that trail from Santa Vera all the way up, we built that big retaining wall. Big spendy retaining wall. Todd Hoffman: The concrete sidewalk. Councilman Berquist: The concrete sidewalk. We came all the way up there. And then we came back out onto the shoulder.., abandon the trail that was put in by the developer? Todd Hoffman: No, we stopped. The sidewalk stops at Saddlebrook. The sidewalk that you're speaking to that comes north. That's a concrete sidewalk. And then it's a bituminous asphalt trail on the base of the ditch that starts across the street from the. Councilman Berquist: Across the street? On the north side of Saddlebrook? Todd Hoffman: Yep. And down in the bottom of the ditch. Councilman Berquist: Then why are we removing existing 6 foot bituminous trail? I'm still obviously confused. Todd Hoffman: Yep. That's the trail that's in the bottom of the ditch that's substandard. That's broken up. Councilman Berquist: But that's south of Saddlebrook Trail. Todd Hoffman: North. 43 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Councilman Berquist: The notation says south. Todd Hoffman: There's two Saddlebrooks there. Saddlebrook Curve and Saddlebrook Pass. Dave Nyberg: I think what's wrong is the drawing says Santa Vera Drive and I don't think that's Santa Vera Drive, from what I'm gathering. It sounds like that may be Saddlebrook Circle. Todd Hoffman: You're right, yep. That's a typo. Dave Nyberg: Okay, that was a mistake on our part. I apologize for that. Councilman Berquist: This is Saddlebrook, alright.., okay, good. I thought, I was just going to be livid. Todd Hoffman: We were going to take that concrete sidewalk out. Thanks for being patient Councilman Berquist. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Dave Nyberg: As you leave the townhome area, you cross Kerber Boulevard and then we extend north to Pleasant View. That was the original plan that many of you saw in the plan set previously completed. As a recommendation, or in response to a recommendation from the Park and Rec Commission. We then added on north of Pleasant View to Holly Lane, and that was the additional trail segment added on Powers Boulevard. Mayor Mancino: Dave, may I ask some questions? Dave Nyberg: Sure. Mayor Mancino: Between Carver Beach Road and Lake Lucy, actually even north of Lake Lucy, there are homes, boy they're probably my... same year as my home but there's some significant trees there. There's some big oaks and big, huge.., we're taking those, right? In people's front yards and. Dave Nyberg: Between Kerber? Mayor Mancino: Between Carver Beach Road on Powers between Carver Beach Road and I'd say Lake Lucy, and a little north. There are some ramblers there that have just gorgeous trees. Dave Nyberg: Just north of Carver Beach Road is a. Mayor Mancino: Kind of a wetland area. Dave Nyberg: Yeah, it's a parcel owned by the City of Chanhassen. We're clearing some trees out. Just some scrub and. Mayor Mancino: I mean more on personal property. Dave Nyberg: Yeah, as you're going north on Shenandoah, there are some trees there. I think you're probably talking about the two large trees owned by the McGinn's. Thomas and Anne McGinn. They're 44 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 just south of Lake Lucy Road and the plans actually show those trees to be removed. However, what we've done, let me finish. We've talked to those residents. We had an on-site meeting with them. They were very cooperative and we really gave them two options. One would be for those trees to remain in place, the two large ones. And then they would give us additional easement to run the trail closer into their property or closer to their home. The other option would be for those trees to be taken down. They have a very narrow hedge row, or a very young hedge row of, I'm not even sure what trees they are but those trees could probably remain. They would give us less easements. However, those trees would come down. The trees are, one is completely in the County right-of-way. The other is very close to the line, if not mostly in the County right-of-way. So those trees really aren't on their private property anyway. One tree was cracked quite a bit. It looked like it may not live that much longer. We talked about that with the McGinn's. That's something that in the next two weeks, along with a few other issues that I could maybe outline, is the area where we need to make some contact with those folks and find out what they're going to do. We basically gave them those two options. The plan shows this now but it may not remain that way. Mayor Mancino: When you do that, will you please bring.., go outside the drip line, you know you'd be in their living room maybe. I don't know. They're huge trees so I think she would be able to tell, give you percentage of if we did but into just one side of them, what the percentage of livability would be after that would happen... Dave Nyberg: Any other questions on Powers before we move on? The next segment is Bluff Creek. Anybody here on Powers? Yeah, I guess I don't believe anybody's here from Powers so. Councilman Senn: What page is Bluff Creek on? Dave Nyberg: Oh I'm sorry, 69. Bluff Creek trail is one of our shorter trails and it's also unique from the others for the simple fact that it's not along county or state right-of-way, or city for that matter. We're wrapping behind an existing development. We've talked to a few residents in this area, Mr. Gomez I think lives in this lot. We talked to Ms. Fink lives along one of the lots adjacent to our connection point with Valley View, the street here that's part of the development. We will be connecting into the existing trail system behind the postal transfer station at this point, and the trail extends behind these homes to around by the wetland and to Audubon Road. This parcel, many of you may know of as the Monson property. They've been in for a subdivision at that location and the city has requested the trail easements at that location contingent upon the lot split but it's my understanding there's no action on that yet or they haven't made any progress there but that's the way the plan is now, or the design for the trail. Many of you may also know of a plan in the Bluff Creek wetland complex to flood that area or create a more open water habitat. The trail will be designed at an elevation that will accommodate the high water level of that ponding area. Councilman Senn: Yeah you'd better because Berquist won't notice when he's under water. Councilman Berquist: Only when I have trouble breathing... Dave Nyberg: Any other questions on Bluff Creek? Mayor Mancino: No. I did walk that and you're staying very, you know because of the subdivisions that they may.., staying very, very close to the creek. I noticed that. I mean you're right there. 45 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Dave Nyberg: Yeah, that's correct. In fact there is an existing trail easement through some of that area. Unfortunately it's only 20 feet wide and to put the trail up at a higher slope, or a higher elevation, the toe of that embankment is out quite a distance from the 20 feet you have there. There's one spot in fact where the toe actually extends out across the creekbed so the creek would be relocated along the toe of the slope with the idea that eventually it's all going to be under water anyway once that project's complete and the wetland there is flooded. Mayor Mancino: And aren't we going underneath... ? Dave Nyberg: Under Audubon? Mayor Mancino: Under Audubon at that point. Todd Hoffman: At a future time. Mayor Mancino: At a future time. Councilman Berquist: End at Audubon and you'd better be careful... Dave Nyberg: The next segment is connection trail. Sheet 80. This segment's had very little change from the original proposal. Not a lot of residential input on this segment. We have talked to Mr. Klingelhutz at the sharp comer. Talked on the phone with Mr. Jim Amundson, up towards the north end about some of his concerns. Mayor Mancino: His concerns for the sight lines again, much like on Galpin. Dave Nyberg: Yeah, he has a very difficult time exiting his driveway because of the speeds on TH 101 and it's just concern about sight distance for the crossing. He lives very near the crossing. I think it actually tums and goes across TH 101 at the property, or the comer of his property. We have, is there a question? Councilman Berquist: ... you're talking about? Dave Nyberg: Mr. Jim Amundson. Yeah, Amundson. It's on Sheet 83, just near the crosswalk. Mayor Mancino: He also has a problem with the runoff that's created. Dave Nyberg: That's right and his, there's actually some rip rap shown there and some field grading to be done as proposed now anyway in response to some of those concerns. However, the City does not have an easement at that location the way I understand it anyway, for that drainage so that's one, we're actually meeting with Joel Jamnick of Campbell-Knutson tomorrow to discuss many of the easement issues on this project. One of the things we're going to talk about is not only easements for the trail, but what are the issues with drainage easements or existing routes of runoff where there is no easement now. It's an area where the runoff has been going that way for a long time. It's been a county issue. It's been a highway or a MnDot issue, but now with the introduction of the city's trail, you're really putting some infrastructure there that will have runoff going into that same area. And I have talked to Mr. Jamnick on the phone about that and his response was, we need to try and do something there to improve the situation for those people. So that we don't get into a case where we're making something worse than opening ourselves up to a liability there. 46 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Mayor Mancino: ... problem in his back yard. Dave Nyberg: I haven't met with him on site but he has told me that on the phone. Councilman Senn: Now is this trail segment impacted at all with the road construction in the future then? Dave Nyberg: What construction do you mean? Councilman Senn: Charles? Mayor Mancino: The redesign of TH 101. Dave Nyberg: Oh, redesign of TH 101. Councilman Senn: Does this trail impact this with the redesign and reconstruction down there? Todd Hoffman: Yes it is. Charles Folch: Part of it will be but the thought, long term thought is that a good portion of this segment of TH 101 will remain as a local street, even after the realignment reconstruction so it would facilitate. There's a portion on the north end as a transition area that would be reconstructed with TH 101. Mayor Mancino: How much of it? Of the street, do you know? Do you have any idea? Todd Hoffman: Approximately from the crossing north. From the crossing at 86th Street north. Councilman Berquist: So 1,000, 800 feet. Mayor Mancino: So that trail we don't be using at some point? Is what we're saying because we're going to redesign. Councilman Senn: Not a matter or re-using. It will be ripped up. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Dave Nyberg: We talked to your staff just this afternoon about the plans, just briefly. We're going to have another meeting next week after they've had time to look at it and one of their suggestions, which I thought was pretty good was, if we can identify a segment like that, that's likely to be torn up in 10 years or whatever the year is, it may be worthwhile to construct that segment at a less heavy section. A 2 inch section versus a 3 inch or maybe reduce the Class V. We save some money for the city there. The trail doesn't have to last as long as some of the other segments so that's something we'll be trying to identify as well in the next week and get that into the specifications as an option. Mayor Mancino: And when MnDot turns back TH 101 to Carver County, will it just be north of TH 5 first? I mean will those come in two different segments, north of TH 5 and south of TH 5 ? Or do we know? 47 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Charles Folch: North of TH 5... been turned back to Hennepin County and then now that, about a month ago we were notified that that's been rescinded. That the two must go together. The entire corridor must go together. So when it does happen, it will be all as one total. Councilman Berquist: ... Carver and Hennepin? Charles Folch: No, what happened is, they tried if you will, with commissioners order, to actually release everything north of TH 5 to Hennepin County. Okay. No, the entire segment. Something wasn't totally kosher with that and that order, commissioners order was rescinded and the entire corridor must be released at one time. Dave Nyberg: I don't believe there's any questions from the audience on that segment so. The last segment is the Pioneer Trail/Great Plains Boulevard trail. It's also known as the Lake Riley trail. With installation of this trail, there will be a complete loop around Lake Riley, hence the name. And that index sheet is on Sheet 91. The terminus point or the start point is the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority gravel trail just across the border in Eden Prairie. We'll be making a gravel connection to the gravel, Hennepin County trail at that location until we cross a private road. Almost at the City of Chanhassen corporate boundary. We then extend along the north side of Pioneer Trail to the intersection of Highway 101, and then north on TH 101 to Kiowa Trail. This segment, for the number of property owners on this segment, we've probably had more public involvement than any other segment. Several of the residents along Pioneer Trail have talked to me on the phone. We've met with several of them as well. There's a gentleman at the comer, the Novatney residence. That's Sheet 97. He has indicated to us probably a month and a half ago now. We met with him out at his site. We was very interested in moving the trail closer to his property to accommodate the trail. There is a 20 foot walkway easement through his property. We're actually going to run the trail even closer to his property than that. There's several large evergreen trees at that comer. Many of you may know of those and his idea was, can I move the trail closer to my property and save more of those large trees so that I can keep my buffer zone against noise on the highway? So we realigned that segment through there. It kind of winds it's way through the trees. I think Mr. Hoffman indicated that boundary in the field before we surveyed it with Jill I think. Your Environmental Coordinator to establish that alignment. We've also had some involvement from residents up on Kiowa Trail, or near Kiowa Trail. There was a concern there with the crossing of the creek. That's on Sheet 99 and the sharp mm at this location. What we've done now to, or in response to some of those concerns is move the trail back farther from the road and virtually for a vehicle that would leave the road now, much the same thing will happen after the trail is built as what happens now. The vehicle will leave the road. Go down an embankment and maybe end up in the creek. But the vehicle won't cross the trail because the trail is back along the creek, or over the creek, back farther from the road. We had originally proposed a design where there was an offset from the road through that area and it was all filled in with kind of a boulevard area between the road and the trail. Yeah, that's actually an earth embankment. Not a bridge but same idea. Just cheaper. And on Pioneer Trail, there's a Mr. Schott in the audience who we've met with and I've talked to on the phone several times. He has some, or an issue with some of the trees on his property. It's shown on Sheet 93 and 94. We've got kind of a dilemma in this area and it's unfortunate that this is a problem but, and I'll let Mr. Schott speak for some of that himself, or represent himself but basically what happened here was, the County said that we can build the trail within their clear zone provided that the slopes of the embankment aren't steepened. Most of those slopes there are at a 4:1, coming down from the road embankment into a wetland area or what have you out in that area. To build the trail off of the road through that area, either requires putting the trail, you know the trail is a flat surface. It's a 12 foot wide section, 2 feet of flat area to an 8 foot trail and then another 2 feet of a flat, almost like a shoulder area. To put a trail 12 feet wide anywhere on that 4:1 slope requires, you really lose like 3 feet of vertical relief. 48 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 You either have to make that up in a retaining wall or you have to make that up at a 3:1 over another 12 feet or so. So what has happened here is Mr. Shott has planted several small, I believe they're mostly evergreen trees. Maybe some other varieties along that alignment. We're really faced with two options. One of either building a wall to save those trees at an expense, or remove those trees and grade out that embankment quite a ways down the slope, probably losing several, many trees. And maybe Mr. Shott can talk about how many there, and I'm sure he knows better than I do but anyway, that's the dilemma with that issue. Yeah. Mayor Mancino: How big are the trees? Dave Nyberg: I think I'd like to let Mr. Shott talk about that. We met with him out on site but there was a lot of snow and. Mayor Mancino: ...the ratio will be a little different. Dave Nyberg: That would help. Anything would help, but retaining walls are expensive. If we've got, our estimate is about $18.00 per square foot. You could easily spend $30,000.00 or so on that wall through that stretch because it's probably about 600 feet of wall. Mayor Mancino: What happens, okay just, and I'll let you speak in just a minute. If we narrow the trail and then talk to the County again about a 3:1 slope... Dave Nyberg: They're probably very reluctant to allow that because they will jeopardize their state aid funding. Or so they say anyway. I mean it really remains to be seen whether that would be true but at any rate. Councilman Senn: Where's the right-of-way at? Dave Nyberg: The right-of-way is 50 feet wide there. The City actually, I should mention this too. The right-of-way's 50 feet wide off of center line. That right-of-way was narrower, however it was platted as 50 feet with, I believe it's Lake Riley Woods I believe plat, and the City did acquire a 20 foot easement, even in addition to the right-of-way. Councilman Senn: So the 20 foot walkway easement you have identified there, is an acquired easement? Dave Nyberg: Yeah. Now the problem, as you can see on the drawing, the trees are within that walkway easement. And according to Mr. Shott, and again he can elaborate on this. He was probably misled in that those planting those trees where he did would be outside of any encroachment. It appears from what we observed in the field that the trees are probably 20 feet off the edge of the bituminous, or edge of the pavement, rather than 20 feet behind the right-of-way line and that's probably what happened. Councilman Senn: So what you're saying is a lot of them were even in the right-of-way then? Dave Nyberg: They're on the edge. Or close to it but they are, the roads we show are within the walkway easement as shown on the plans. And there's additional trees. Our topo does not extend out far enough to show all the trees but they go way, all the way down the embankment to a wetland area behind his property. 49 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Mayor Mancino: We know all about you know. Please come forward. Dell Shott: IfI can give you a little more detail here. He's been at the property. Mayor, members of City Council. My name is Dell Shott. I live at 9350 Foxford Road and we've owned the parcel of land on the north side of Foxford there, between Meadowlark and Foxford. So I'm going to be using Sheets 93, 94 and 95 on that. We purchased this property just about 1989, after they finished reconstruction. There was a very sharp mm and the County rebuilt that whole area. And at the time we purchased the property we were very aware of the 20 foot trail easement that was in there. With the guidance of the County I planted about 100 hybrid cottonwood trees that would grow up quickly and provide a visual and sound barrier, and this was real important to us. They've been growing for about 5 years. Some of them are 15, maybe a little higher than that, feet tall. And they are providing, starting to provide that visual and sound barrier. So it did impact these trees, the trail. You know it would jeopardize what we built up there already. And I know that the city is very concerned about trees because when we put our driveway into our property, we had to go through a section of treed area and we basically had to examine each tree and make sure that we were impacting the least amount of trees to bring that driveway through. Just looking at the plan tonight and in our new to seen, you know the new proposal here with the retaining wall and so forth, it looks to me that the retaining wall would be very close to the tree line and impact those trees. And I think that there's probably some room for compromise. You know we've been very careful about placing the trees where we thought were outside of the trail easement. Comes to find out that the County has a 50 foot easement from the center of the road. And then there's another 20 foot for the trail easement. Well, that puts you know into our property probably, maybe 30 feet or so. So it's a pretty big section there and we weren't aware of it when we placed those trees. And when you go down the hill, it just gets steeper and steeper so it kind of compounds the problem. I'm seeing that there is, you know clear 20 feet from the asphalt to the tree line and you know it would seem to me that if you were keeping it up towards the road higher, you'd have less problems with the grade and maybe even avoid putting a retaining wall in. I note that there's 9 foot of shoulder. Paved shoulder on the road so that helps separation you know from the trail and cars. And then on Sheets 94 and 95, you can see that at Foxford Road and then proceeding west, that the trail has been brought out very close to the existing pavement there. Yet you know apparently there isn't any room for doing that up near these tree lines. Also, after the tree lines on Sheet 94 on our property, the trail goes down into a drainage ditch. It's not sited perfectly at the bottom of the drainage ditch but it's very close to it. And you know I've lived on the property all of the land and the road drains towards that area. There's also a culvert that comes under Foxford Road. And I'm questioning whether that would be the best siting for that area also. So I guess I just respectfully ask that you know consider some of these other details and see if there wouldn't be room to provide for the trees and still make a nice pathway. Mayor Mancino: How far is your home from the trees? Dell Shott: Our home is probably about 200 feet. Yeah. Councilman Senn: And help me out again. How did the trees erroneously get put in the easement or what happened there? Dell Shott: Well, in talking to the County, they indicated you know that ifI planted those outside of the easement, you know I'd be alright but come to find out they have a much larger easement than we realized. Councilman Senn: So you didn't check it out when you planted the trees effectively? Dell Shott: I talked to the County. 50 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Councilman Senn: And they told you they only had a 50 foot easement you mean? Dell Shott: They didn't mention anything about the easement, no. And we might have misread that but. Mayor Mancino: ... Dell Shott: Well we knew about the trail easement. Mayor Mancino: You knew about the trail easement. You knew about the road. Dell Shott: Besides the trail easement, there's you know, another 50 foot road easement so you're looking at major parts of our property being under easement. Councilman Senn: Yeah, but I mean that's always been there. Dell Shott: Well yes, it has been. Councilman Senn: Okay. Councilman Berquist: You mentioned, on Sheet 94. As we move west, past Foxford Road you did mention.., accurate that our distance away from the edge of the bituminous diminishes dramatically. Was that true? I mean you did say that? Dell Shott: Yeah, that's what it looks like to me. This is the first I've seen of the plan. But that I think is also to save trees and not be in the drainage ditch. Councilman Berquist: I understand that, but if that's true then. Mayor Mancino: Do it here. Councilman Berquist: Let me ask the question. Could you address that please? Dave Nyberg: Yeah... Councilman Berquist: Do you see where we're talking about? Dave Nyberg: Yeah. I'm trying to look up the cross sections just to give you a better idea of how some of the lay of the land is out there. If you look on Sheet 105. The plan view really doesn't tell the whole story on the whole alignment. If you look on Sheet 105, starting at Foxford Road and moving up station or up the page. The slope coming off the road there is flatter. And there's more room to build the trail without running a slope all the way down really even off of the page or off the sections as shown. You know if you can, it's difficult to explain without being out there and I've been out there many times but what happens is the ditch west of Foxford Road is very, it's not as deep. You know there's natural ditch there and then it goes back up on the other side and there's something to match to. We could certainly do this. In fact, could I get a pen and draw you a picture? That might help you. By Mr. Shott's property the embankment looks something like this. This is the road and then it drops off at a steady slope that's probably a 4:1. Or 4 horizontal to 1 vertical. So what happens is when you try and put a trail anywhere in that, on that slope, 51 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 whether you put it at the top in here or down the slopes farther, somewhere you have to make up for that grade you lost and even if you do it at a 3:1 at this point, you may chase that grade all the way down. Now I think, when you go towards Foxford Road and to the west, the slope comes off more gradual and then goes up on the other side. So you can do a lot more there without having to build a wall. You can match that slope at a 3:1. What happens on Mr. Shott's property is that if we were to build at this segment, even a trail right up along side the road, which he alluded to, it still doesn't help your problem. You've got to match that slope with a 3:1 and you're still going to be maybe 10-15 feet down the hill and impact some of his trees. Dell Shott: There is some flatness near the road. It doesn't drop right off the edge of the road. Dave Nyberg: Yeah and that is correct. He, what he's talking about there is, there is a very, maybe a 10 foot wide 6:1 slope and the reason the County has built much of Pioneer Trail like that is they want to rebuild that road to an urban section someday and try and establish some kind of a boulevard area. You know you can almost see it on the cross section sheets here but it kind of varies from width. 10 feet. Some places it looks like it doesn't even exist. Mayor Mancino: ... rail right up there. Dave Nyberg: Well you know, the other thing Mr. Shott alluded to was putting the trail up on the shoulder. I believe there's a 6 foot shoulder off of the travel lane. It's an 18 foot wide road from center line and you know you could do something where between the road segments through his property, traffic is just routed up on the shoulder. I mean I don't think it really gains you much to add on a couple feet or 3 feet to make the shoulder wider. We tried to keep the trail down the slope. Give some separation between the highway and the pedestrian path by this plan, but on that slope, you either lose the trees by trying to match the slope or you need to put a retaining wall up. The retaining wall, as the plan shows, is right at the clear zone boundary. So even moving, you know as Mr. Shott said, the wall is right in front of probably where the trees are going to be, which may have an impact on it's own but to try and move the wall closer toward the road, doesn't meet the county requirements either because then the wall is within the clear zone and obviously the wall is a steeper slope than existing. Dell Shott: We are petitioning the County to be closer you know on the west side... Mayor Mancino: I think we should just move the road... Are you going to be going out again to make a site visit? Dave Nyberg: Yeah I guess we just, it's kind of ironic Mr. Shott's here because we just, Todd and I briefly talked about this this afternoon. We had some time to just talk about the budget and what some of the issues were and this is something we just barely touched on was on this segment, our budget projections for this segment is over what the anticipated amount was largely due to the cost of this wall that we're proposing. And frankly we're showing that on the plans in response to meeting with Mr. Shott and telling him that we would try and come up with something that would work. I mean if you have the money to throw at this thing, you can do this but it is very expensive. Councilman Senn: What's the cost differential? Dave Nyberg: I would say, I was thinking about that here. I apologize for not having those numbers but the wall is probably 30 grand or so. The earthwork and seeding that you would have to do, if you did not 52 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 do the wall, is probably $5,000.00 to $7,000.00. You know there is considerable fill that you have to place in that area but it doesn't come close to the cost of the wall. The wall's 600 feet long. Average 3 feet high. We don't need railing on it because it's not high enough to warrant that. However, we use $18.00 a square foot for an estimate. Councilman Senn: That's big bucks. Mayor Mancino: That's along... Councilman Mason: We're not going to make a decision on TH 101 tonight. Dave Nyberg: No, and you don't have to. What we, and I could touch on, unless do you have anything else to add? Dell Shott: No. Mayor Mancino: Thank you for coming tonight. Because obviously we still have to work this out. Dave Nyberg: It's getting late but before I wind, or just to wind up here. We'll be coming back in two weeks asking for your approval and authorization to advertise for bids. What you could do at that point, you could certainly be in contact with me after you visit Mr. Shott's property, if you choose to do that. I anticipate there will be issues like this throughout the duration of this project. Not only now but after the bids are let. When Campbell-Knutson is out acquiring easements, there are going to be issues that come up with people. They're going to want answers to things and this project is just going to be in flux like this because of the number of residents involved all through it and these are final plans that we want you to approve. But the project won't be final until the trail's built and functioning so, in the next two weeks I'd encourage all of you to listen to your constituents and read some of the memos and phone records. If you have any questions, you can certainly call me. And any changes you would wish to make at the next meeting, we could do that by a contingent approval of some sort. We really have about 10 days between that Council meeting and the first ad for bids being published in the local paper, just because of the way the timeframe fits with your Council meetings and the publication of the local paper again so there's ample time to get plenty of comments and changes back in the plan. Mayor Mancino: Is that it? Dave Nyberg: That's it. Unless you have any other questions. Thanks. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE SECTIONS 19-21~ 23~ 27~ 43~ 46 AND 49; ASSESSMENT TERMS AND CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING NUMBER OF HOOK-UP UNITS; FIRST READING. Councilman Senn: Move approval of ordinance amendment to City Code Sections 19-21, 23,27, 43, 46 and 49. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Mancino: Staff report first? 53 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Councilman Senn: Naw, who needs it. Councilman Mason: Unless Anita wants to give it. Anita Benson: Sure, I'll give you a staff report. Mayor Mancino, members of the Council. These are several minor changes to our ordinances to clarify sections in the past which may have required interpretation by staff. Section 19-21 (b)(4), sewer hook-up and Section 19-46(b)(4), water hook-up. The ordinance amendment clarifies how the number of hook-up charges are determined and provides continuity with other metropolitan agencies. The ordinance amendment contains language to modify 274 gallons of water/sewer usage to a SAC unit of measure. Section 19-2(c), ordinance amendment contains language to simply the process in reducing the number of hook-up charges by eliminating the necessity to receive City Council approval. The City will use the number of SAC units to determine the number of sewer and water hook-up units to charge. Section 19-22(d) and Section 19-46(d), connection required. The City currently allows sewer and water hook-up and connection charges to be specially assessed against properties at the time of building permit issuance. This ordinance amendment would clarify the terms and reflect current policy for assessing sewer and water hook-up charges at time of building permit issuance. Section 19- 23(I),0),(k) and (1) and Section 19-43(I),0),(k) and (1) permits for connections. The Inspection Division has requested amendments to this section in the city code to provide continuity with the Uniform Plumbing Code, administrative provisions. Changes include language from building or architect to plumbing. Section 19-27 and 19-50, inspections and city's provision of work. The ordinance amends the inspection time to between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on weekdays to match current inspection scheduling. And Section 19-28(c), user rates and charges. The ordinance amendment changes the requirement from an architect to a master plumber to provide the inspections division with the necessary plans and calculations or other related, or other data related to issuing a plumbing permit. Section 19-49(a) concerning water, sewers and sewage disposal. Staff requested this change to apply uniformity in construction practices in all developments since the development ultimately impacts the city infrastructure system. Staff would recommend approval of the first reading of the various ordinance amendment sections listed, that I just covered. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion? Councilman Senn: You already have it. Councilman Berquist: I have a second. Councilman Mason: There's a motion and a second on the floor already. Councilman Berquist: Discussion. Discussion then. Earlier, when you first started you said there was something we were supposed to be for. Councilman Senn: The Mayor is ignoring.., procedure once again. Mayor Mancino: No, we had two councilmembers ignoring staff reports. Go ahead. Are you ready? Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the first reading of Section 19-21(b, c and d), Section 19-230, j, k and 1), Section 19-27(a), Section 19-43(c, i, j, k and 1) Section 19-46(b, c and d), Section 19-49(a), and Section 19-50(a) ordinance amendments as prepared by the city attorney's office. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 54 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION: Councilman Berquist: Admin real quick. Councilman Senn: Yes, talk about Admin. Councilman Mason: You know, ifAdmin's going to go real long, can we do executive session first? Mayor Mancino: I don't think it should go that long. Councilman Berquist: My questions aren't going to go terribly long. Councilman Mason: Alright. Councilman Berquist: My question is, on the memo from the building office regarding permit fees dated October 7, 1997. Is this the response to the request to fulfill the responsibility to explore the mechanical permit fees that we discussed when we acquiesced to the '94 adoption? Don Ashworth: I know we talked about that at the staff meeting right after the question was brought out. I'm not sure Todd, is this supposed to answer those questions? Todd Gerhardt: That's the information, the most current information that we have to date. Steve is looking for further direction from you on exactly what you're looking for. In there I think is a list of cities. I think that was what I thought direction was the last time was to review what our rates are to comparable cities. And I think that's what I gave you. Or Steve gave me to give to you. Councilman Berquist: You put this together? No, this is a copy of something he had given us back in October. Todd Gerhardt: It's been updated a little bit I think since then. Councilman Berquist: And added to. So now then it's up to us to look at and decide whether or not we wish to pursue it. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. I mean there was some discrepancy regarding, some people said we kind of want to be in the middle. Some said well, they didn't have a problem being at the top as long as we're you know not too far up on the top and so discussion among yourselves of where you want to be. Councilman Senn: Why don't we throw it on next work session for 15 minutes so we can get it resolved? Mayor Mancino: There is also, one of the things I talked to Steve about tonight, which he explained is probably in my box right now. Is I know the plumbing mechanical comes out, it looks like League of Cities information. The mechanical is not real complete because it said it is based on heating job value. He was, we have a sliding scale so it's not just 1.5% of job valuation like Chaska. We have a sliding scale so he has put that in my box but I haven't gotten it yet. So I will make sure that everybody. Councilman Berquist: And other municipalities have to do it that way. 55 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Okay. And it doesn't really say that here. If you read under mechanical it doesn't really say that. But I just wanted, we have that now. We'll get that information too. Councilman Senn: That's fine but I mean, if the object here is to look at what our neighboring cities effectively are charging, you know then this is still kind of an incomplete list. If the object here is to look at the size and what they're charging, likewise it's an incomplete list. But maybe we need to see more. You take these basically and look at them, I mean we're top and top. Mayor Mancino: No we aren't. Councilman Senn: Well Minnetonka in the one case is over us. That's all but if the average of those cities, if all cities considered the average is $96.00 and we're at $120.00. We're the only other one other than Minnetonka above the average. That's, I would say, putting us at the top. Mayor Mancino: Well you're taking one line. But we can talk about that. Councilman Berquist: I can do a quick analysis.., based on a number of different jobs.., and go from there. Don Ashworth: Could you try to get that to me so I can make sure that I distribute it to all council and also get it back to our staff. Mayor Mancino: But I don't want to leave it open like this. If you, if we want to see specific cities or 25 cities our size, that's what we have to ask for. Just to say you know, do we want to see Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Wayzata. What cities is that you're thinking of that you would like to comparables? Councilman Senn: Well I'd like to see it two ways. I would like to see our neighboring cities because every time you get a complaint on this, it effectively is from somebody who simply says, well you know. Everyplace else around here, they charge us less. Okay. Mayor Mancino: Who do you consider to be our neighboring cities? Just help me. Councilman Senn: Physically just do it. I don't think I have to define it. Take our borders and take every city around us and define that as our neighboring cities. Minnetonka, Eden Prairie. It's Chaska. It's Victoria. It's Shoreview. Do I have to do this? Excelsior. Who else neighbors on us? Okay, and then secondly, as far as an answer possibly to how we fit or why we fit the way we do in relationship to our neighbors. I think you need an analysis of how we stack up against other cities of our size effectively in a mid development mode. I mean it's silly to take a city our size who's fully developed and has been that way for 30 years, that's the point okay. But if you take a city that's roughly our size that's been half developed or something, then you're roughly in the same place. Councilman Berquist: Well some of the, the cities that I use as examples will be a pretty broad base sampling. There will be some that are mature. There will be some that are just like us. There are some that aren't just like us. Brand newer. Then we can see if we want to carry it out. If we do, fine. If we don't. Mayor Mancino: Two other things. You also want to see residential valuation, $5,000.00 or under. And $15,000.00 which is more commercial.., permit fee s, $ 5,000.00 value has u s pretty, on the high side. 56 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 $15,000.00 value, we're low. On the low side. So do you want to see the difference? And I'm thinking that $5,000.00 and under is residential and over that is commercial, effectively. Councilman Berquist: In this city, with the single families, $15,000.00 is closer than the 5. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I was going to say. The 5's not even, the 5's a remodel a one bathroom. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so our $15,000.00 value that's so low here, okay. So do we need to... Councilman Berquist: Sure. Mayor Mancino: I just want to make sure that we get all the information done so we don't have something to go back and...to find out more. That's what I'm trying to get to. I mean we keep going back and saying... Councilman Berquist: When I get done I... make a decision, how's that? Mayor Mancino: Good. And you Councilman Senn? Any other information? Councilman Mason: That's 20%, what the heck. There you go. Councilman Senn: Do you want to talk about vehicle lists too for a minute? I'd rather see him do it all. Let him do the work. Mayor Mancino: Vehicle list is on the work session agenda and this is included here because I asked to see a new column that says replacement. When we're going to replace all these vehicles. Councilman Senn: But I'd also like to see the list effectively coincide with what we asked for, which is identify who's attached to what vehicle. What position is attached to what vehicles. You have some job descriptions in here that don't even exist anywhere in our, in the new thing you gave us for '98. Mayor Mancino: Because I went through and listed a person for each one of these. Councilman Senn: You did? Mayor Mancino: Yep. Councilman Senn: Where'd you find building manager job description and who's in that job? I mean I searched the classifications, I'm sorry. I didn't find a building manager. Don Ashworth: Yeah, it's Dave. Maybe one document calls him one thing and another document calls him another. Councilman Mason: Well this is on the work session, right? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. 57 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Councilman Senn: Yeah, but I'm just saying to just fill in the holes so we don't have to do it at the work session. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, I can give you those. Councilman Berquist: Can I ask a quick question on the Fire Department vehicle. We have a '95 training, Fire Department training vehicle. Is that to transport to and from training? Sirens and all the rest the stuff? Yeah, it's got lights and it's dressed. Don Ashworth: I don't think so... Todd Gerhardt: Maybe it's emergency response, there's first aid stuff in it. Don Ashworth: But there's no sirens and none of that other stuff. Mayor Mancino: Todd, how do we feel about the trees replacement on Bluff Creek Elementary? Did they really do all of them? Todd Hoffman: They really did all of them but they're still dying... Councilman Berquist: No, I was there today and I walk into the mens locker room and there the opener is ripped out of the door. And I look at how the thing was attached. It's attached with four inch and a half wood screws. Not very thick. I can't believe that that, HGA would have written a detail for attachments that would have allowed wood screws to hold those openers, those closers in place. Councilman Senn: Which is the first time somebody hangs on it, it comes off. Todd Hoffman: I don't believe they probably did it either but that's how they were installed. Councilman Berquist: Well I think in typical public construction, there are more details than you can shake a stick at and I wouldn't be at all surprised if somewhere in there it's detailed how those things were supposed to be attached. If that's in there and the quick call to whoever that should be able to tell you. Todd Hoffman: Get them back out here and have them do it over. Councilman Berquist: Have them do all of them, while we're at it. And if they refuse, we tell them to come out and do the service work and then we just don't pay them. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions on News Alley? Councilman Mason: Let's move on to the executive session. Mayor Mancino: Okay, just one second. I would like to say under News Alley. If the movie theater, I actually did go over and went through it on Sunday. It's pretty exciting. If there are some changes in signage and there is the issue, I would like it coming back to City Council. Councilman Senn: What are we talking about now? 58 City Council Meeting - February 23, 1998 Mayor Mancino: The February 18th. News Alley. I would just like to make sure that staff knows that if there are some concerns with signage, I would like it to come back to City Council. The theater. Todd Gerhardt: They're planning on coming back. Councilman Senn: They have to. It's off site, isn't it? Mayor Mancino: Well no. It's signage on the theater and off site. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions on News Alley? Okay, Executive session. Roger Knutson: Mayor first, unless I missed it. Did you deal with item l(c). The Council Minutes of February 2nd? Mayor Mancino: Oh we're waiting for, Mark has a question so. Councilman Senn: I had some questions. We were just going to wait until next meeting to deal with it. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Roger. Shall we adjourn and go someplace? Roger Knutson: You can adjourn to the executive session. Mayor Mancino adjourned the regular City Council meeting at 10:20 p.m. The City Council then met in Executive Session to discuss assessment appeals filed by Instant Web Companies and Empak for the Powers Boulevard Improvement Project. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 59