Loading...
CC Minutes 1996 09 09CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Todd Hoffman, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Scott Harr and Bob Generous APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda with the following amendment: Item 11 will be discussed as an Executive Session of the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Melody Hill, Springbrook Corporation: 1. Approval of Final Plat 2. Approval of Development Contract and Plans and Specifications, Project No. 96-14. Resolution #96-74: Receive Preliminary Assessment Roll; Set Assessment Hearing Date for Lake Riley Area Trunk Utilities, Phase I, Project 93-32A. f. Approval of Preliminary Plat Extension for Andrew Hiscox. g. Approval of 1997 Animal Control Contract. h. Approval of Easement Acquisition for Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley Improvement Project. i. Approval of Temporary Soccer Field, United Mailing Site. Site Plan Review of an office warehouse building with an area of 16,704 sq. ft. on property zoned PUD-lOP and located west of Audubon Road, south of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, and northeast of Commerce Drive, Chuck's Grinding. Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications, Chanhassen Recreation Center Lions Playground and Patio. n. Approval of Bills. City Code Amendment Concerning the Fire Department, Final Reading and Approval of a Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Mark, do you want to go to set truth in taxation hearing dates and set proposed levy? Or is that going to take long? City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Councilman Senn: That would take some discussion I think. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, then we'll move. How about (o). O. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Councilman Senn: (o) can go fairly quickly. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have one as well. While you're looking, if I may. On page 4. Towards the bottom. Bear in mind I wasn't... Second line. Active member of St. Therese Catholic Church in Deephaven as an Eucharistic Minister. Councilman Mason: It says acoustic minister. That sounds pretty good. Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Okay. There was just one other and I didn't pull it. I'll make that change. Roger, a letter from Paws, Claws, and Hooves attorney .... they way they spelled my name, it comes like that in the mail all the time but there needs a correction on that particular letter. Roger Knutson: Well he sent the letter. It might be wrong but it's what he said. Mayor Chmiel: That, okay. But if the spelling on my name is a little bit different. Councilman Berquist: Maybe your computer's off. Mayor Chmiel: It was that one letter... Okay. Councilman Senn: Mine's on page 48. Page 48 on the vote. Mine was a no vote. It had all in favor... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that change noted, would you move that item. Councilman Senn: It's moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Minutes: City Council Minutes dated August 26, 1996 as amended on page 4 and page 48. Planning Commission Minutes dated August 7, 1996 as presented. Planning Commission Minutes dated August 21, 1996 as presented. Public Safety Commission Minutes dated July 11, 1996 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. ADOPT FINDINGS REGARDING PAWS~ CLAWS AND HOOVES PET BOARDING~ NANCY LEE AND PATRICK BLOOD. Mayor Chmiel: I pulled (j) because of the fact that the adopt the Findings regarding Paws, Claws and Hooves Pet Boarding, Nancy Lee wondered if she could just say something. Sharmin, I think you have some information with that letter. Would you care to add anything more to that? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Actually we had a conversation with the applicant this afternoon. The Planning Director and myself and the applicant requested that the City Council consider going back to it's original recommendation of having one metal building and on the second building it would have a mix of metal as well as wood. That would 2 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 satisfy the condition of the zoning ordinance as far as site plans go. It still needs a variance on the stable. Having it all metal. And the applicant wanted to present their request before the City Council and they requested that it be pulled offthe Consent Agenda. We're here to answer any questions. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Does anyone have any questions of Sharmin? Okay. Nancy, is there something that you might like to say? Nancy Lee: No. I think it's written in the letter. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure. Okay. Councilman Berquist: I've got a question. So the metal lanes go up to over 6 feet, or whatever, and then wood after that? Satisfies the. Kate Aanenson: What the ordinance says is that metal can be used a support material. When we spoke to the applicant, we didn't discuss how high it would be but the intent is to act as a support material and we would work with them on that. I'm not sure... Sharmin A1-Jaff: We haven't seen any revised plans so we don't know what it's going to look like. Councilman Berquist: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Now you're looking for direction from Council to revisit this and bring it back to Council. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: Do we need to act on the, I guess a question for Roger. Do we need to act on the Findings of Fact and then leave the door open, or can we just leave the door open and hold off on acting on the Findings of Fact given the... Roger Knutson: Right now if you take no action, well hopefully you'll take some action. Excuse me. If you adopt the, it depends on what you want to do. I'm not clear on what. Do you want to leave it open on the variance issue? Councilman Senn: What I'm saying is, given our action last time, do we have to take an action on the Findings of Fact tonight or can we stall that in relationship to reconsidering effectively the item. Roger Knutson: You can move to reconsider the item, yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And then we'll discuss it two weeks from tonight? Roger Knutson: Yes. If that's what you desire. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And we can just table acting on the Findings? Roger Knutson: Yeah, what you could do. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. There could be a motion to reconsider item (j). If that motion passes, then the next motion could be to table it until your next meeting, if that's what you desire. Councilman Berquist: And that motion has to be made by one of the dissenters. Councilman Senn: Right. City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Roger Knutson: Or yourself. You were absent I believe. Councilman Senn: Well let me, I will try one. I would move that we table the Findings of Fact on the basis that the applicant and staff get together and come up with a plan which comes back to us which meets the desires we expressed before which was, an okay on the metal building for the stable. Not on the other building, and some agreements with the City over some special conditions so that we are not creating a special circumstance, or...we are not setting some easy precedent as it relates to the metal building portion being on the stable. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that sounds good. All right, is there a second? I'd second that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: May I ask for a clarification? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Would that include Mark, accepting some metal supports on the main roof? Councilman Senn: Well again, I have to see a plan. The general direction is yes it can but I mean we have to see a plan. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just don't want to give the applicant, you know. Councilman Senn: Well I don't want to give the impression that we're saying that's okay when we don't even know what it means. I'm just saying, sit down with staff, work it out and come back with a plan. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. All those in favor say aye. Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table the Findings of Fact for Paws, Claws and Hooves Pet Boarding on the basis that the applicant and staff get together and come up with a plan which comes back which meets the desires expressed before which was, an okay on the metal building for the stable. Not on the other building, and some agreements with the City over some special conditions so that we are not creating a special circumstance, or not setting some easy precedent as it relates to the metal building portion being on the stable. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: It will be back on Council agenda. Kate Aanenson: Can I just make one point? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Kate Aanenson: October 14th is the deadline. We wanted to get a letter from the applicant waiving the 120 days. Asking for an extension. So that gives us time to work on it. The applicant's going to do that. Councilman Senn: Do we need that on record tonight? Because we won't meet again until that first. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we will in 2 more weeks. Kate Aanenson: Well we should be okay... Roger Knutson: You have time? Okay. It's okay. Councilman Berquist: You understand Nancy? 4 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Nancy Lee: Well I'm confused. I was I guess under the assumption, and this was probably wrong then. It was everything that was done last week... Is it something that can just be kennels and then... Mayor Chmiel: What Council basically is saying is they'd like to see what that building's going to be like and are you saying that the building that's existing, that you showed us last time. Nancy Lee: The only difference would be that the wainscoting would move up instead of all metal. So it would be, I mean... Mayor Chmiel: Well I think probably, basically what we're looking at to be voted on was to put this on the next agenda and then go from there. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think also, I mean last time it was a 2-2 vote so there was disagreement over whether the stable would be metal at all so perhaps you're looking... Mayor Chmiel: Kate, can you give Nancy some direction as to what we're looking at? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Would you see Kate, either later this evening, whenever she gets away. We don't give her many breaks. Okay. That takes care of that particular item. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSFER OF ON-SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE TO CHRISTOPHER MUNSON, FRANKIE'S PIZZA TO GO, INC., 7850 MARKET BOULEVARD. Don Ashworth: We've had a request to transfer the license for Frankie's had a change of ownership. Mr. Munson is here. I don't know if he wishes to speak on this item. Staff has gone through the background reviews with Public Safety. Find no negative comments. We have provided notice to all properties within 500 feet. Staff is recommending approval following submittal of a $5,000.00 surety bond, submittal of liquor liability insurance and receipt of license fee in the amount of $280.00. Mayor Chmiel: Roger Knutson: Mayor Chmiel: Roger Knutson: Mayor Chmiel: this time? This Okay. Are there any specific questions by Council? Is there a motion? Mayor? Yes. Be sure to inquire if you have any. Yes. I have to close the public hearing first .... yeah. Is there anyone wishing to address this at isn't a done deal. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Senn: Move to approve. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded approval of transferring the on-sale beer and wine license of Frankie's Pasta & Pizza To Go to CSM Enterprises, Inc. contingent upon the following: City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Submittal of a $5,000.00 surety bond with an expiration date of April 30, 1997. Submittal of a liquor liability insurance certificate meeting minimum state requirements with an expiration date of April 30, 1997. Receipt of the license fee of $280.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 7.03 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD AND EAST OF STONE CREEK DRIVE EXTENSION~ REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD-R~ PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT~ AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 25 TOWNHOME UNITS; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION AND FILLING WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN~ TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE~ HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT. Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Senn: Before we start, just a point of clarification. On page 2 1 think there's a typo or whatever but that City Council update should read, there was a motion to approve, not deny. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Bob Generous: Well basically there was a motion to approve but it failed because there was a 4/5 vote required. All through the process we discussed the possibility that this development use different housing types. We provided some additional information in the packet. But basically...to make sure that all Council members had a chance to review the.., issue. So staff is recommending approval on the plan as submitted. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Bob. Any questions of Bob? Steve? Councilman Berquist: How early in the process did you start asking about density issues? Very early in the process? Bob Generous: Yes. Very early in the process. After we, actually we started discussing it before he submitted it... looking for the housing... Several years ago we discussed this property and suggested, at that time we went ahead with the single loaded units and that was one of the options that was discussed over the last two years with that. And then the single loaded units with just the front entry and the rear yard for the townhomes. But we suggested the opportunity of looking at the zero lot line type of development, more like Rottlund built. Unfortunately on this site with all the setback requirements they have, it's real tough to make those work so we'd have to go more with stacked units. So that's more of a policy decision for the Council. Is that the type of unit...in that area. This plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan, at least as far as the density ranges that are permitted in the medium densities... We'd like to see if we can... It's not the plan that he brought in. CouncilmanBerquist: No. How was that . . . when staff started talking about . . . increase in the densities. AndI would suspect that when the plat was brought in there was a pre-conceived notion by the developer as to what they really wanted to put on this site because...they made arguments pro and we made arguments con and it doesn't seem like there was really any compromise other than... Bob Generous: Well we gained one unit out of the discussion. That was more a design thing. He was looking at, he had a specific developer in mind when he came in and this is his type of unit. City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Councilman Berquist: I understand. Okay, no more for Bob. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. At the last meeting we did talk, given the constraints of this site with the flood plains and everything else, how could we achieve greater density? Bob Generous: With a garden type units. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is this stacking? Bob Generous: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Any other? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: Well I guess my main question is, if we don't start looking at this in relationship to every project that comes in, especially when we don't have a lot of surrounding development, how are we ever going to achieve our 50%... same ballpark of 50%. Kate Aanenson: That's certainly an issue that we've...the Planning Commission has discussed this numerous times. If you take it away, you've got to find somewhere to pick it up so we need to look carefully at... Because in the past we've tried to be under the density and make sure... Mayor Chmiel: Anything else? That's it? Councilman Senn: That's it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any specific questions. The developer, would you like to? Yeah, we can sit through it one more time unless you feel comfortable with what's there. With what you have. Councilman Berquist: Well John and I had talked and he asked me some questions about what I was thought and something very specific to what I think. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you also just state your name and who you represent. John Dobbs: Sure... My name is John Dobbs. I'm from Heritage Development. After the last City Council meeting, Ken Adolf, who couldn't, from Schoell and Madson, who couldn't be here this evening because he had a prior commitment, wanted to look at a couple things and as Bob mentioned... The real problem with the site is the setbacks and the right-of-way of Coulter and the storm water pond. When the public street right-of-way for Stone Creek and Coulter is taken out, the setbacks from the public street and the setback from the two creeks, which is 100 feet.., the storm water basin, it's 2.84 usable acres out of 7.03. And what that means is, you know there's some parking lots... It's a very constraining site. It's difficult to deal with. It's expensive. Stone Creek Drive by itself is going to be expensive, as well as crossing Bluff Creek. It's going to be... Coulter Drive on the north side... City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Councilman Berquist: Excuse me John. Is your mic on? John Dobbs: Yes it is. I'm hearing it in the back of me. Councilman Berquist: Is it? John Dobbs: It turns into an issue of trying to, quite frankly...develop the property. As a developer, I've done $90,000.00 townhouse units in Eagan. I've done $150,000.00 in White Bear township. I've done three developments in Woodbury... This project in and of itself has probably in the range of, for example unit number 1, which would be in the $140's. Unit number 17 and 18, and those...would actually close to $200. Then slab on grade with a full basement and the entire thing...interior decor they'd like to have... So we actually cover a lot of swing in prices. It's just not going to be in the affordable range according to the Metropolitan Council .... the Creekside site which we did on the south end... $140,000.00 to $150,000.00, which is about $100,000.00 less than the most inexpensive house in Creekside. So we're using a different price point to the subdivision we did to the south. I did have a conversation with Councilman Berquist and he asked me to talk a little bit about why we're only proposing one type of unit. There are a number of issues associated with that but, three big ones actually. On this site there's 25 units, we just simply cannot justify splitting up to a couple different types of architecture and price point. If for example we split it up between maybe 10 of the smaller unit. 15 of this for example. Having two different types of product, two different types of... two different sets of blueprints. Blueprints take $25- 20,000.00 a piece to generate. The builder would have to put up two different models... This site is just too small for the builder to do that.., so the builder's almost got to come up with diversity in the building itself to give people some variety of choices. It is also an issue, Creekside on the south end...lot configuration next to that and then the industrial on the north on Coulter. Just trying to find a builder and product...that also takes into account the.., setbacks, the flood plain, the sensitivity in the document... I guess that... That's all I have. I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone would have. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Colleen, do you have any questions? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike? Councilman Mason: No. Not on this particularly... Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: No questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. (There was technical difficulties with the taping of this portion of the discussion.) Mayor Chmiel: Michael, do you have anything? Councilman Mason: Well, I do. And I'm not convinced a motion won't be made on this yet tonight. On the one hand I'm choosing to believe what Mr. Dobbs says about the logistics of the site. I do know that this has been worked on for two years. This diversity and affordable housing issue has come up officially within the last, what? Six months. I'm having a little trouble holding this site accountable to the issues raised by Met Council because this has been in the hopper for two years now, give or take. So that.., and how are we going to help developers know that these kinds of things are no longer, at face value, are not longer accepted by the City of Chanhassen. And I'm not sure we can hold Heritage Development to that but I certainly think in the future we can. And I guess that would be, if a motion were to be made yet tonight, that would be my rationale for voting for approval for this site. Although I do not disagree with anything that any Council person has said. I share their concerns. I think City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 we're running into trouble in terms of the legal of what we can and can't deny based on whatever our aesthetic reasoning or what our plans are. But yet I don't feel as though we have a legal plan in place to say no... Not that it's not good enough. But no, this is not what the City...is I guess where I'm coming from on this. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor... Councilman Senn: ...a suggestion... Councilman Mason: With what I just said, I will move approval. That Council grant approval of conceptual and preliminary planned unit development for a 25 unit medium density residential development as stated in the staff report. I'll move approval. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Berquist: ...that we need to develop some guidelines... (There was some discussion between Council members and Roger Knutson.) Councilman Berquist: Well I would table this until... Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor. Roger Knutson: A motion to table is in order if the main motion is on the floor. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Moved and seconded. All those in favor... Councilman Mason: So what is the purpose of tabling at this time?... Councilman Berquist: My purpose in proposing tabling this was to allow Mr. Dobbs...and I'm sorry John but, this is an issue that's not going to go away. You're the guinea pig. John Dobbs: ... If I understand what you're saying. It's not a matter of, as we talked on the phone, it's not a matter of just going out and.., and all of these types not every developer.., and with the size that this site is, I just think it's going to be incredibly difficult task to do, if not impossible.., to ask him to come back with something that's more affordable and higher density and an entirely different product. Perhaps...but are you still going to get diversity? Is this going to be $120,000.00 and then $250,000.00...I think you understand what I'm driving at. I would like to be able to do something that's affordable. I'd like to do something...but is just not the site. It's not that I don't want to do it here, it's just that there's not much I can do about it... I don't think the, quite frankly I don't think the answer on these particular units can be any different. I don't think, given the builder and what I've got, I don't think...and if that means that if this doesn't go, and what we've done goes down the tubes, I guess that's what it means. And that just goes into the land cost. The next time we do it, it's just another cost on top of what's already existing so... I don't think can...for that. I have to, in two weeks I have to find a prototype. Convince the builder that it's doable. He'd have to get a sales staffwho'd be willing to try to work at it and have, you know have somebody sincerely take a look at financing something like that, because I don't want to stand up here and present a product that I'm not sure if anybody can finance it. It's much more complex than just... And as I told you.., office in Milwaukee. I also started one in Kansas City. I grew up in the middle of Kentucky and I have a landscape architecture background so I've seen a lot of different things and I was in Chicago... and that's a much different market place. So I've seen a number of things and.., so that's all I have. City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Councilman Mason: If I could make a quick comment, and I'm going to... a little bit at Councilman Berquist because I don't think anybody thinks that Heritage is, or John's a guinea pig. What I think the issue here is this City and many other cities are grappling with some incredibly difficult housing issues right now. So I don't, I mean I don't want us in any more trouble in that vein so. I mean I don't think... John Dobbs: ...and I didn't take it that way at all and I appreciate. Councilman Mason: Well, but I think that is the issue here that we're all grappling with some incredibly difficult issues right now. John Dobbs: But as a developer on the other side of the city, we are too. Councilman Mason: Absolutely. John Dobbs: Things like.., and then you've got other places like Farmington where they want inexpensive stuff...and everything in-between. It's a very complex issue. The guinea pig thing isn't...I don't feel that way. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks John. So with that we have a motion on the floor with a table, and as it appears to what John is saying, that that probability is unlikely for that proposal as he has now to be changed. Because of the total amount of dollars that are into that particular site, and I can appreciate some of those things too. So with that, if Council so wishes, it might be a good idea for us to just mull this over as well within our own minds and maybe we'll come up with again, a solution or maybe right where we're at but the motion on the floor is a table. I'm going to call the question. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table conceptual and preliminary planned unit development approval for the Townhomes at Creekside. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason and Councilwoman I)ockendorf who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks John. REVIEW OF LIQUOR LICENSE~ CHANHASSEN BOWL~ 581 WEST 78TM STREET~ DAN DAHLIN. Don Ashworth: The Council tabled action on this item on August 12th. Mr. Dahlin was to report on the progress of his securing a developer loan for the entertainment project, including paying back taxes at tonight's meeting. I see that Mr. Dahlin is present and I guess that's the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any questions of Don before we call on Mr. Dahlin, or his representative? Councilman Berquist: Is this a public hearing? Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Berquist: I move to table this until November 1st. And carry on as it is until that time and we'll revisit. Mayor Chmiel: Could you give us a little more reasoning than just an automatic going to tabling. Councilman Berquist: I think they're working on getting the difficulties squared away. I have every reason to believe that it will, and that as time goes on we'll see significant progress. I just see no reason for additional discussion. Councilman Senn: Steve, I think there's progress being made... I can't necessarily see the light at the end of the tunnel that assures me it's going to be done. We kind of set this up as a 30 day review process. Since there were 10 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 no payments being made, that we keep reviewing it every 30 days. I have no problem extending it another 30 days but I think we ought to keep our eye on it and do it every 30 days. Mayor Chmiel: I think that was the intent. Councilman Berquist: ...it has arrived. That's fine. I move to table. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would second it but I would like to hear what progress has been made. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Brad. Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. I am Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm with the development of the property. As of Friday we had received appraisals.., application into two banks and we're going to actually get two loans. The first loan is designed to take out the taxes... And then as our primary tenant is able to complete his financing, then we would do the next portion of the package, which is the restaurant and the whole deal. We can talk a little bit more about that later on, but we believe that we are, within the next 30 days, should have a commitment letter of some type from one or two types of lenders that we would have been in contact with. So we have processed of having to do...which is reasonable for them to request. And the appraisal did come in at around a million two thirty so we're well within the range of what we are requesting so I think we're making fine progress on it. I'd be happy to answer any questions...later on just talking about the project. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anybody have any questions? Okay, good. So that leaves me now with where we're at. With the discussions that we've had at the previous meetings and I think that's the reason why you're here this evening. To give us that update so we can move on. So with this we have a motion to table to the next available meeting which is November what Don? Don Ashworth: I'm assuming the Council wants to look to what? The second meeting in October? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Don Ashworth: I don't have a calendar in front of me but the regular second meeting in October. Mayor Chmiel: It'd be the 21st of October. Okay. Okay, there's a motion on the floor to table. Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table review of the liquor license for Chanhassen Bowl until the second regular City Council meeting in October, October 21, 1996. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST TO REVIEW UTILITY BILL, DOUG ROPER, 2751 SANDPIPER LANE. Don Ashworth: You do have correspondence that we had received from Douglas and Kathleen Roper and they noted that for many years they had used approximately 20,000 gallons per quarter and that at the quarter ending May 31st, usage was 297,000. Almost ten times greater than their normal usage. We had several readings on this meter. You have a copy of the staff report. So do the Roper's. I feel very bad that this had to occur but the fact is, the water was used. For the two or three people that face this type of dilemma each year, I find that providing some type of relief for the Ropers just wouldn't be that fair to the rest of the community and for other people who have gone through similar type of situations. We have in the past for others, we waived all the penalties and late charges as they've been associated with missing the initial payment period. We've also allowed the total bill to be paid in three payments over the course of like a 90 day period of time. And we're recommending that same policy be followed in the case of Mr. And Mrs. Roper. 11 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions of Don before I call on the Roper's? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I had a question Don. I'm trying to figure out the sequence of events. Was it just a short...time that the reading was taken? Don Ashworth: No, it was a three month period of time. When Chris did the billing for the end of that quarter, she noticed the high usage by the Roper's so she contacted the utility department and dispatched an individual that went up there. That was my initial thought. Well maybe they just misread the last numbers. Maybe it was a matter of 500,000 or 600,000 and they read it as 800,000. That wasn't the case. The previous usage was like 1.2 million. The current usage was like 1.4 million. So they called Chris back. They verified that the reading was correct and further noted that the usage for the 5-6 days from the end of the quarter readings to then was also extremely high. Chris did two things at that point. She again contacted the Utility Department to asked them to remove that meter and check it. She also contacted the Roper's to tell them that there was excessive usage on that meter for both the previous quarter as well as for the past 5-6 days. By the time that we dispatched the second visit to the home to actually remove the meter, the usage had literally stopped. Although usage had returned to normal, we removed the meter. It was put on the test bench. It was checked at high volume and low volume. It was 4% off at low volume and right on at high volume. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So prior to notifying Roper's, it had gotten back to normal? Don Ashworth: No. Somewhere in that 2-3 day period, after we had notified them but before the meter was changed out, the usage went back to normal. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael? Mark, any questions? Okay, is Mr. Roper here? Would you like to come forward. Please state your name and your address and what we have here. Doug Roper: I'm Doug Roper from 2751 Sandpiper Lane. I've been a resident of Chanhassen for 18 years. At my present residence for 10 years. I've never had anything like this happen before and I am told by the City that metersdon'tlie. Iwonder...withthetruth. Andtheyarec°nsidering'"Iunderstands°Iunderstandy°urp°siti°n' Just a little clarification. It was I who asked Chris to send somebody out to check the meter. And... come out a second time to check the meter because they hadn't taken any initiative to do so, so it was my request that they do so. It was my request that they change the meter, which they did and thus the meter that we have. Which they informed me was working properly. I've got no proof. All I can appeal to is common sense and reality. They told us there was no leakage when they came out to check, and I asked them to do that. And we checked the house and could find nothing going on. My wife said to me... got some drippy faucets so she figured out.., drippy faucets, how that would work if we dripped every day for a period of time, and she has those figures if you're interested in them. I called a swimming pool company to ask what it would take to fill a 25,000 gallon swimming pool and they said it would take a hose running steady for 2 days. There's no way that we used that amount of water. That's ridiculous to think that we used that water. And that's why I'm appealing it. I thought...be glad to pay the bill, that's no problem. It's the principal of the thing and it's...because I know we didn't use that water. And you know, meters never lie. You know. I don't know. Mayor Chmiel: It seems like a tremendous amount of usage for that period of time. And not only that but that meter was approximately 4% slow, which is something in itself. Do you have any other questions that you might have now at this time? Councilman Berquist: Yes I do. And I have a little bit of knowledge on how those things work and they cannot run fast. I do have a couple questions. Who's Chris? Don Ashworth: Our utility billing clerk. Councilman Berquist: Does this thing have an outside reading? 12 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Don Ashworth: Yes it does. Councilman Berquist: I don't know how the outside reading gets transferred from the meter to the gauge. I do know a small thermostat type wire runs from the outside read to the meter itself. Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Berquist: I suspect at some point...meter that transfers that out. Is it possible that there was a trickle charge coming from somewhere that would have spun that outside read gauge? Did the outside read gauge and the meter jive? Don Ashworth: One of the problems we have is, it's difficult a lot of times to get into the home so when the meters were changed out, we compared outside versus inside. But the previous reading from the inside was so old that, I don't know. I'd have to check that question to see whether or not there had been, at some point in time, an inside read versus an outside and how those correlate. Councilman Berquist: I'm not an electrical engineer but I know that quite frequently watermains are used as the grounding source and if there was something else completing the circuit, touching the water line.., control the transformer or something like that. I'm just... 297,000 gallons is a heck of a lot of water. Don Ashworth: It is but I did note in December we had another resident. In that instance their water softener stuck on and their bill was over $900.00. That they did pay. Mayor Chmiel: That's terrible. Councilman Berquist: So in one month, no in one quarter. Don Ashworth: One quarter. Councilman Berquist: This bill is $340.00? So what you're saying is that in one month there was over a million gallons dumped? Don Ashworth: Three months, one quarter, for the other billing occurring in December of 1995. Councilman Berquist: In three months. There was a million gallons...through the water softener. Don Ashworth: Yes. Whatever would translate into $900.00. Assuming two or three times more than this. Councilman Berquist: And there was no evidence, I mean obviously that was fine to pay. In this case there was nothing like that that's been findable? I don't know. I don't know. Don Ashworth: If you'd like to table this for me to check out that electrical question, I could. Councilman Berquist: Well it'd be an interesting question. Don Ashworth: The only thing I'd be aware of is instances where the wire has been damaged and has actually slowed down the read or stopped it sporadically. Councilman Berquist: If you can slow it down, you can probably speed it up. Don Ashworth: That's the question I'd like to ask. Councilman Berquist: I mean you can't do that with the meter just because of the way the thing's put together but. 13 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Don Ashworth: Right. I wouldn't mind responding to both of those questions if I could. Councilman Berquist: I'll move to table until you can research it. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any other discussions on this before I call for a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm just wondering what that would accomplish, if anything. Councilman Senn: Well I think it's good to answer the question but I was telling Mike before here that I kind of sympathize because I'm going through the same thing right now on a building where we normally use 5,000 a month and all of a sudden in a quarter we ended up with 75,000 more gallons than we normally use. Mayor Chmiel: ... Councilman Senn: No, we found the problem. I mean the problem was an internal leak in one toilet that caused 75,000 gallons. I mean we had a plumber even go through the building and check everything during that time period and he missed it because it wasn't showing up in the bowl, like most runnings would. It was an internal leak in the tank in back.., that constituted 75,000 additional gallons. Councilman Berquist: But the statement here is that the mere change, something changed within the structure of the measuring device itself and the problem went away. Councilman Senn: No. That's not what I'm hearing. What I'm hearing is that this problem stopped. That doesn't mean that it was within the metering mechanism. The meter checked out and they came out to remove it and put a new one in. That, to me the problem corrected itself somewhere in the plumbing system just as well as the meter correcting itself. I can't, I mean I've had some faulty meters before Steve in the buildings and the City's generally been, you wherever.., faulty meter and that's the end of it but I thought that was fairly full proof in terms of checking those out. But again it'd be interesting the answers to your questions because I've always thought that was kind of full proof. I mean they know if it is or it isn't. Councilman Berquist: I'll withdraw the motion. Let's act on it and then bearing, based on what Don finds, reconsider? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd just as soon table it. Councilman Senn: That's fine if we're tabling it. I have no problem with that. Let's hear the answers... Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second your motion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. A motion's been made and seconded to table. Any other discussion? Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table the request to review the utility bill for Doug Roper, 2751 Sandpiper Lane. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF PARK MASTER PLAN, ROUNDHOUSE PARK (NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY AND KINGS ROAD). Public Present: Name Address Tab Erickson 3720 So. Cedar 14 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Dorthy Downing 7200 Juniper Road Greg Dattilo 7201 Juniper Avenue Joe Epping 7508 West 77th Street Craig Anderson 7507 West 77th Street Frank Scott 2730 Sandpiper Trail Larry & Nancy Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road Janet Carlson 4141 Kings Road Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road Dave Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Peter Moe 7161 Minnewashta Parkway Jan Lash Park and Recreation Commission Chairman Todd Hoffman: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The first thing this evening, I'd like to go through some introductions. As a part of that, I'd like to acknowledge the work of the Minnewashta Parkway, Kings Road focus group that's worked on this proposal for about the last 6 to 8 months. They've been instrumental in bringing this, the proposal which you have before you this evening for Roundhouse Park to the forefront... As do the many residents in the area who have taken their time to participate in public meetings at the Park and Recreation Commission over the same 6 to 8 months. With me this evening to go through the report, I have Brace Chamberlain who is a landscape architect with Hoisington Koegler Group to my right. Janet Lash, the Chair of the Park Task Force is also here, as is Frank Scott, a member of the Park, or excuse me, Park and Recreation Commission, as is Frank Scott, another member of the Park and Recreation Commission. Tonight we are asking for approval of the park master plan for Roundhouse Park. The proposed Roundhouse Park, which is located in the northwest intersection of Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road. The site's about 8 acres in size. It was acquired as a part of the platting of the Oaks at Minnewashta, which at that time the City purchased approximately 6 ½ acres of land. An acre and a half was dedicated as a part of the project. August 27th of this year the Park and Recreation Commission received recommendations of the task force, that I mentioned earlier. That focus group. Specific information regarding this presentation in detail in the attached packet which was presented that evening to the Park and Recreation Commission. Many residents residing in the Minnewashta west neighborhood presented their viewpoints to the commission that evening. A majority of the testimony on that particular night focused on the beachfront. It was the area of major contention. Or I should say major discussion throughout the process, as were a few others. Namely the ice hockey rink, in-line skating area... The vast majority of those who referenced the beach that evening spoke in favor of it. Six letters were received that evening, which are attached in your packet, and they speak to a variety of issues. One additional letter received after the meeting from Mr. Jim Hofer of 7098 Red Cedar Cove is also attached. Following public input and commission deliberation that evening, the Park and Recreation Commission made the following motion. Commissioner Berg moved, Scott seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council the following components be included in the proposed master park plan for Roundhouse Park. Lakeshore beach, playgrounds, Phase 1 and 2, landscaping, picnic area, an open area where two non-illuminated tennis courts with basketball hoops could be placed in the future, open skating, one illuminated hockey and inline skating rink, a sand volleyball area, fishing pier, an open play field, bike rack, water fountain, parking and trail network. All commissioners voted in favor that evening and the motion carried. This is the sketch plan of the proposed Roundhouse Park. In a moment I would like Brace Chamberlain to go through the elements of the design. He is the author of the present plan. Before I do that, I'd like to note that throughout this 8 month process there's been approximately 1,600 pieces of mail which we've sent the neighbors. There has been difficulty with notification of the residents and we've gone beyond the typical putting it in the Villager and 500 feet. We mailed to 457 households on average. The focus group identifies.., if you will to the park and we've attempted to reach each and every one of those homes each time we've mailed. Again we've been notified this evening that we did not reach all the residents in that area. However I should note that this has been the most public process that I've been involved with as far as the design of a park. ... a schedule was included which stated that the Council would be discussing this item tonight. So the last two notifications have informed the residents that you would be acting or would be asked to act on this recommendation this evening. With that, I'd like to call up Brace Chamberlain who will go over the plan. If you have any questions of the commissioners, they'd be glad to answer those... 15 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Bruce Chamberlain: Thanks Todd. From the beginning the Park Commission. Mayor Chmiel: Could you just put your name on there so we know. Bruce Chamberlain: Absolutely. My name is Bruce Chamberlain. I'm with Hoisington-Koegler Group. I'm a landscape architect and we worked with city staff and the Park Commission on a number of parks throughout the city of Chanhassen on this... From the beginning on Roundhouse Park, which is what it is now called, the Park Commission and city staff has looked at the design of this facility a little bit differently than most neighborhood parks and the reason being that the west Minnewashta Parkway neighborhood is somewhat isolated from the rest of the park and recreation facilities throughout the city. So we looked at incorporating and at least accommodating some items in this park that wouldn't normally be in a neighborhood park. Namely the hockey rink and inline skating rink were just proposed and also the tennis courts. Most neighborhood parks, it's the position and policy of the Park Commission not to include those items. But again because this park is somewhat isolated, those are shown on this concept plan. The reason for the name Roundhouse Park, as I'm sure you well know, is because of the unique round building. The structure that's existing on the park and is something that the Park Commission and the neighborhood committee has decided to try and maintain and keep as far as the park. And use that as some type of a park facility, warming house, meeting rooms, what have you. There are really three plateaus to this park. There's an upper plateau on the northern tier of the park. There's kind of a mid plateau through the center. And then the lowest portion of the park is on the south end, adjacent to Kings Road. And what we've tried to do is conglomerate some of the more intensive uses towards the intersection of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway, or the southeast corner of the park. And the reason for that happening is because that's kind of the common and logical place to create some of those activities and also to look at bringing an entry point into the park. One of the things that the neighborhood group struggled with throughout the process was how do we maintain a park that feels much more rural and more open in character than an intensively used park. And because of the facilities that we have in the park, it was difficult to create that combination and create that compromise but we tried to do that in this latest concept plan. We, at one time did have fairly extensive pavement and activity along the south end of the park, just north of Kings Road. That we tried with this concept plan to pull some of those things away so that we've created a more passive and rural atmosphere in the park along Kings Road. The hockey rink would still be in that portion of the park but there would be a fairly significant green space separating Kings Road from the hockey rink. And then we also created a green open space entry corridor.., entry into the park in the southeast corner of the park, at the intersection. To the west of the hockey rink we have a pad for future tennis, if that's something that the City determines they want to provide. We will be grading for the tennis court. Provide a double tennis court in that area. And then west of the tennis court we have an open play field that could accommodate pick-up ball games or soccer, what have you but at this point it's just an open play field. There are no back stops or lines for soccer. We do have a trail that runs right through the park and goes all the way from the western edge, up to the northern corner, and then meanders it's way through back at this gateway location, plaza area of the intersection. And then also down alongside the parking lot, towards the middle part of the park and Kings Road. One of the things we tried to accomplish is to limit pedestrian access from the park, across Minnewashta Parkway to the beach and fishing pier area. One of the things that came out of the traffic study that was done is that we want to try and direct pedestrian traffic coming from the park, down to the intersection, to create a crossing at that point for the safest way across. So what we're proposing to do is create a very residential character along Minnewashta Parkway with a picket fence and landscaping to try and minimize the amount of pedestrian flow that would happen across the parkway. So we think that the way we have the park laid out now, people who are going to be using the beach will primarily be using the beach only. People who are using the park will primarily be using the park only. The exceptions to that are when people come and want to use the play area for probably family gatherings and the picnic area and then want to go across to the beach or a certain portion of those people who are using and want to go across to use the beach. So we think with the design that we have, we're encouraging people to go to the south corner and cross there. Now we have a two phase play area in the park for younger toddlers and also middle aged, elementary aged kids. We also have a volleyball, sand volleyball court. Open skating and hockey as I mentioned. There is a parking lot. 24 stalls proposed for the park and again we've 16 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 tried to minimize the frontage of the parking lot along either of the streets so we can create again a more passive atmosphere for the park. There's another gateway entry at the parking lot in addition to the one at the southeast corner for pedestrian and vehicle access into the park. We're trying to create a fairly significant vegetative buffer in the north end, separating the residents to the north so that we make some noise and also the fact that that being the...park. We'd also be constructing a chainlink fence that would be along the north edge to an access for the park users into the residential property. The beach area is located where it is because of the width that we have between Minnewashta Parkway and the actual shoreline. We've located the beach in an area that's the widest spot that we would have to use in that area. And then taking the fishing pier off of the south end and located it there. The way the vegetation works on that side of Minnewashta Parkway also lends itself to putting the beach at the northern end. There's a lot more old growth vegetative tree cover on the south end that is better for fishing. And more open space at the north end. If you have any questions about the design, I'll be happy to answer those and Todd and I, I think will team up on any other questions that you may have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there any questions by Council? Steve, do you have anything right now? Councilman Berquist: I've just got questions concerning usage. I'll ask those in a little bit. Unless, do you want to talk about it now Todd? Todd Hoffman: Sure. Councilman Berquist: Usage issues. Every time I talk to someone about hockey they're talking about a new sheet of ice and they're always talking about an enclosed sheet of ice and the ability to have that ice summer, winter, and spring and how outdoor ice is ill suited for hockey... Councilman Mason: When I was a kid. Councilman Berquist: By golly. I drive by the Tonka Bay site, the one that's right next to NSP's facility there. Across the street. In the middle of the winter time and I can honestly say that I don't remember the last time I saw that thing being actively used by more than one or two individuals in the winter time. Although my memory is... short. I wonder about the same sort of situation here. I don't know how often the two outdoor rinks behind us are currently used anymore. Maybe they're used extensively. And then the other question goes to the asphalt over the hockey area. We've got two of those now at Bluff Creek. Not that I've been to Bluff Creek an awful lot over the summertime but the times I have been there I cannot remember seeing heavy use, by any stretch of the imagination, on those asphalt courts. So it begs a question in my mind, are we spending money that we don't really need to be spending at this time. Can you address that? Todd Hoffman: I sure can. With the exception of Shorewood's park. I can't address that. I would categorize the use at City Center as extensive. It is the activity center of winter activity. Up until last year those were the only hockey rinks in the city. And then we added the two at the new Recreation Center and one at North Lotus. Many suburban departments take a look back at Richfield, Bloomington, that type of first and second tier suburbs where it seemed a hockey rink on every corner in the 60's and 70's and kids grew up as rink rats and it was the place to be for activity during the winter after school and they played all winter long.., came home for a bite to eat and then went back down to the rink. Those are some of the type of conversations that everybody's had about this rink. The folks out there are really, and the neighborhood to the south, if they have the opportunity to put these types of facilities in their neighborhood park, a good portion of those neighbors would like to see that happen so... Now the entire debate about the value of installing boards for simply a 2 1/: month season and then expending the dollars to maintain it... has been widely debated over the... Not only inline skating. We really think that you have a big bonus there when you go from 2 1/: to 3 months of operating and deny them 10 months or more of operation of that rink. The inline skating facility at the Recreation Center officially opened about the first of August and...the majority of the population that uses it, or will use it... We have not had our official first year of operations out there at the Recreation Center. Next year will be our first year and we'll see those... I think it's a good investment in the park and you have to...along with it. The roundhouse could be utilized as a warming facility and... We're 17 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 not looking at practice teams there...piece of ice for either the Minnetonka or the Chaska hockey associations. This is seen as a neighborhood rink for about 200 households. Councilman Berquist: It was sited as a significant attraction by the focus group? Todd Hoffman: It was approved by the focus group. There was vocal opposition and vocal support for it. Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just a... question. It will be used for inline skating as well? Todd Hoffman: We recommend it, yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And it is lighted or is not lighted? Todd Hoffman: Is. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is. And what kind of conditions or guarantees do we have that it will not be booked for... Todd Hoffman: Simply by policy. Councilwoman Dockendorf: ...the vegetation that's shown there is now existing? Todd Hoffman: What is now existing.., development to the north. Councilwoman Dockendorf: The northern border, is that it? Todd Hoffman: Which border? Councilwoman Dockendorf: The northern. Todd Hoffman: ...will enhance it as part of the plan. Councilwoman Dockendorf: The trail. I'm used to going to a park and having a little trail. Does this make sense to? Todd Hoffman: Well with the sidewalk, as the... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Was there any consideration given to having like a trail link up to the north? The access. Todd Hoffman: Yes there was. It was part of the original plat with the Oaks. There's a large pond in this area and then a couple renditions of the plat we...was taken out in favor of the access to be a street. There's a sidewalk in this corner to the north. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the number of parking stalls, how was that determined? Todd Hoffman: 24 is an adequate number, or in our opinion, for the swimming beach and the hockey during the winter. A reasonable number. There's no magic formula. 16 to 30 seems reasonable for something in that area. 18 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 If you go down too short, you're going to run into problems. If you go too high, you don't want to do that either. You'll just end up... all that asphalt. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Has the engineering department taken a look at where the crosswalk is and analyzed between the speed limits and the sight lines, if that's a good place for it? Todd Hoffman: Yes, both the City Engineer and the consulting engineer cited in their report. Benshoof and Associates. That the focus group wanted the condition of a traffic study. We hired a traffic engineer who took a look at that for this report and that is the best site. It's the existing site of the crosswalk. It's constructed in that location. We had at one time considered moving it to the center of the park and parkway and then having a center loop for the park and the parkway and then having an access.., crosswalk. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: Well, my questions have pretty much been answered. I was concerned about if there's too much stuff in this park, but I also understand the rationale that was explained and that certainly makes sense for that area. They've been park poor for an awfully long time. The crosswalk and the beach. I like the idea of the beach there. I'm concerned about the traffic crossing Minnewashta Parkway and the amount of cars. And that's a concern and I don't know if there's anything we can or should do but I mean it seems to me if the beach is there, it's going to be a problem. If the beach isn't there, it won't be a problem. But ifI was around there, I'd sure want a beach there too. Can you just, I know it was in the report but for the record, can you just talk a little bit Todd about the discussion for the pros and the cons to having a beach there. Todd Hoffman: Sure. You're not alone in your concern and I can assure you that the residents this evening will speak to that concern. We moved the beach around north and south. Prior to the, well the recommendation which before the Park and Recreation Commission the last meeting was to table the beach to allow the focus group to debate it further and take a look and in their minds then resolve the issue. There was an outgoing resident that evening who did not happen to currently have access to the lake who would like to see this beach put in. It's simply the nicest piece of lakefront property that will be transformed into a neighborhood park in the city of Chanhassen. It's not an ideal situation. But in my mind it's palatable. And in fact I...and are parents going to be with the kids. Is there going to be proper supervision? If your kid's old enough to go to the beach, aren't they old enough to handle the crosswalks and traffic and trails and those type of things. Suffice it to say, there was a large discussion. We had the traffic study, to take a look at that. We spent $3,000.00 on that professional study which focused on the fact that.., an all way stop or three way stop at that intersection to even assist in making the crossing process and the traffic counts in no way warranted that at all. The concern of the traffic engineer was that if you put those stop signs up, there's so little traffic there and when you take a look at that kind of study, then people are going to start to roll at that stop sign because there's just not.., at that intersection. And then with the new crosswalk law which came into effect in August- September, where if you step into a crosswalk. It doesn't matter where it is in the street, the vehicles by law are required to stop... I share your concerns. It's not my preference to split a park by a road but it's what... Councilman Mason: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I think most of the concern issues I think have already been asked. A couple of additional ones. What are we going to do for drainage here? And in looking at drainage... Todd Hoffman: The plan will meet the city's drainage issues. Generally..to the south... Councilman Senn: There won't be any ponding area required? 19 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Todd Hoffman: No. Kate could address that issue I think further... Kate Aanenson: Ponds for it. They were all put in place with development of the subdivision. There's a small pond...and there's a large pond over to the west. Councilman Senn: So this flow's been accounted for? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Senn: All right. Referencing in the staff report here you've got $62,000.00 in the account to establish this park, and it says that you're going to put in the entry road to the parking lot and the hard surface trails for that wetland? Todd Hoffman: I don't have an estimate...those dollars we have not worked with them...to get it seeded and then get those hard surface areas in... Councilman Senn: Okay, and that's where I guess I was having trouble because I was having trouble seeing how the numbers were... I read that in the staff report, yet I went back to Hoisington's report, which says just to do that preliminary work it's going to take, over $100,000.00 just for the preliminary work. And then $380,000.00 overall. Todd Hoffman: All of the...been bid. Councilman Senn: But I mean people understand that? You know if the people understand that $62,000.00 may not even do that preliminary stuff. Todd Hoffman: All the letters that went out clearly stated the dollars that we had in the budget and had the information regarding the estimated cost... Councilman Senn: Well I assume Hoisington's memo... Todd Hoffman: Correct. Brace Chamberlain: I can respond a little bit to that. While the memo that I wrote, the numbers were based on if the City hires a contractor and the bids all work out. I believe that Todd is planning on having city staff do much of the grading. Todd Hoffman: They've done all of the grading to date and they complete the grading in-house. Brace Chamberlain: Okay. So that reduces the grading costs.., seeding cost. So with those reductions we think we can get the grading, seeding, parking lot and trail within this $62,000.00 budget. We're not sure at this point because we don't know exactly how much grading is going to be required. Councilman Senn: How many years are you looking at in terms of overall implementation? Todd Hoffman: Unanswerable question. The annual CIP for 1997 includes a recommendation for an additional $50,000.00 and then beyond that... CIP identifies another $50,000.00 allocation but typically at least 5 years.., or longer depending on the cash flow. Councilman Senn: Getting up to this specific area and you know, it's a fairly broad area. You've got young families, older families and it seems to me you kind of put something in the park for everyone, which is probably part of the outcropping of the process that you... Did you have any real heated issues that people were split on? 20 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Todd Hoffman: The hockey. The beach. Actually the sand volleyball court was not recommended by the focus group and was put back in the plan because of it's inexpensive nature and versatility in use, especially for the teenage population, it was put back in by the Park and Recreation Commission. Councilman Senn: What was the majority opinions on hockey? Todd Hoffman: A rural open setting versus what was called a recreational... Councilman Senn: So more or less intensity... Todd Hoffman: Hard grade versus open spaces. Councilman Senn: What was the beach issue? Todd Hoffman: Traffic. Crossing. Councilman Senn: Strictly traffic and crossing?...that type of beach or access. Todd Hoffman: Yes. And whether or not it should be used a certain way. Councilman Senn: Were any of these issues really closely divided? I mean I assume in your process you used some type of majority vote or whatever. You're saying the focus group approved it. Todd Hoffman: Correct. The focus group, the evening that they voted on these was shared by a number of the community. Resolved issue by issue by a majority vote and members of that focus group would be more than happy to speak to you regarding those issues. Councilman Senn: Can you give us a consensus at this point? Todd Hoffman: It wasn't a consensus process. They tried to make it a consensus process but in some cases a consensus could not be reached. Councilman Senn: Okay. Were those the issues that consensus wasn't reached on? The hockey and the beach. Todd Hoffman: I did not keep a record on those issues so I won't speak to that. Councilman Senn: I'm just asking because I've gotten several phone calls and it seems like the issues aren't really resolved but. Todd Hoffman: Well, it's a public process, even within the focus group and again, not all issues reached a consensus but they resolved that in order to get the process done. They would have to go with the majority of the... Councilman Senn: All right. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Just a couple questions that I have Todd. You indicated there'd be approximately 24 parking spaces provided here. We have ballfield and a soccer field and I imagine probably some of the league play will get involved into the usage of this park as well. Todd Hoffman: No. Mayor Chmiel: They're not? 21 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Todd Hoffman: No. The formal soccer field was actually removed from the plan...open field. Simply an open area for either organized or passive play. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What if we go through organized play there, will we use the ballfield at all for any of the CAA activities that we've got? Todd Hoffman: No. There's only two neighborhood parks in the community which are currently grandfathered for athletic association use, those being Rice Marsh Lake Park and Carver Beach Park. And the...Recreation Center next year, your Park and Recreation Commission may choose to pull those uses out of those parks... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess my main concern was the usage of, in the event that those things did occur. The parking that would take place on Kings Road and how would that be looked at? How could we make sure that it's not going to cause any adjacent neighbors problems, such as we have right here at City Hall when it comes time, up and down Kerber Boulevard, we have cars just about everywhere and when it comes time to even find a place to park to come into City Hall for a Council meeting, sometimes it's just packed and there's no place to even park. And that was my basic concern within that particular area. So if that's not an issue, then I guess that's nothing that we have to really discuss then. That fishing pier that you're looking at too, will this be donated by the DNR? Todd Hoffman: They still have the program where we can apply...They would see this as a very positive access to Lake Minnewashta and...use besides boat access and fishing... Mayor Chmiel: Good. I think the rest of my questions have already been have been in the previous questions that were asked. So thank you. I'd like to now go back to the residents to voice your opinion for the project or some of the concerns that you may have with it. I would like to limit at least 5 minutes or less for each person, only because we still have a long agenda and I don't want to go home at 1:00. So if you could do that please. Come forward. State your name and your address with your particular concerns for the project. And also please as I said, state your name and address. Sue Morgan: Good evening. My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road. Directly south of the property to the park and... I do have some concerns about the park though. In general I think... I think everyone should be served but I think that we're trying to put too much into the space that we have. One of the...especially because of the rural atmosphere... And two, I haven't been convinced that the... Also in talking to some of my friends who do inline skating, they would rather skate...than skate around and around in a circle so I'm not so sure how feasible... The other issue I have is parking on Kings Road. At the...it was mentioned that there'd be parking on both sides of Kings Road allowed. I think if you measure it out...cars are normally about 5 foot wide... Also I have concerns with the amount of... storm water runoff from the park at this point in time. The Harstad development was supposed to put a pond in the south side of Kings Road... There's storm water runoff from the development to the pond directly across from our place which is west of the park. The runoff from this park is... Also I think that people in the neighborhood are not aware of the... They're under the impression that park trails, trail fees were being...this park and I think they're thinking that...in the next 3 to 5 years and I think they've been misled. And I think the Park Commission has to do something to tell them otherwise. Because my understanding, that's.., and now we hear people have to pay taxes on it and I think.., so I think they've generally been misled. Councilman Mason: Excuse me Sue. How do you mean misled? Sue Morgan: Because I think people have been told that the amenities were going to be paid for from the trail fees that the Park Commission gets from the developers. So they've been misled by...the Park Commission that fees w°uld be paid f°r t° get th°se'"and n°t thr°ugh the taxes' And I'm under the impression that these amenities will be put in place within the next 3 to 5, 10 years... Councilman Mason: Have you ever heard that said by the Park Commissioner Todd? 22 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Sue Morgan: Yes. They did the last, I had.., off my notes.., dollars that we're going to be doing the initial grading and the asphalting and stuff like that but.., how many fees you have to collect for a $75,000.00 hockey rink and $30,000.00 tennis court. You know I can't foresee the City really... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well yeah, without taking up the entire. There is an accumulating fund. I mean we carry forward a balance every year and allocate it and we will obviously.., even now receive more fees so my understanding Todd is that if there will be more fees so the Park and Rec budget and it won't be part of the park referendum. I mean is that not tree? Sue Morgan: ...part of the park referendum, I don't think that's tree because this park was included in the referendum... Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would you just like to clarify that portion. Todd Hoffman: Sure, I'd be glad to address the financing. There was a question and I brought it up in our last letter, although I don't believe you have a copy... I clearly stated in there that the funding was an issue that's been brought up and I'd like to give you copies of that letter this evening. I stated in there that the miscommunication occurred with the fact that the Park Task Force has brought up the possibility of including a portion of development in that referendum. And the residents said, hold on a minute. Nobody said you were going to raise our taxes to... You said it would be done through park and trail fees. Park fees mainly. And all along we said that would be the case. In fact in that letter I clearly stated that may take 5 to 10 years. That's clearly stated in that letter. Or more. Again I stated that we, I cannot predict the actual park fees that would come in and I can't predict how the Park and Recreation Commission should choose to recommend that allocation and I can't predict how the Council should see fit to present those allocations to the neighborhood so again, in this park or any other, I've always attempted not to misrepresent the fact of how fast these projects move along. We've been caught in that trap many times before and I do... so again, I'll bring that letter down. It was clearly stated that 5 or more years was used in many of these letters, which we mailed out again about 450 letters each time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? Janet Carlson: I'm Janet Carlson. I live at 4141 Kings Road. Number one thing, as far as letters going out, we have received no letters at all of any of this. A lot of people in the south.., did not receive letters of this tonight. Nor the last meeting. I've gotten one letter and that's because I went to a meeting with the focus group. That's the only letter we, ourselves have ever gotten of any of this. But anyway, the swimming beach area. I can understand them wanting a swimming beach. I think it's great. When I looked at this here tonight, this is the first time I've seen this and I guess my concern would be a little bit. I feel for the Wenzel's because it's getting awful close to their beach and their property and I think that's, but I don't know. It's getting close. And then another thing, I was worried about.., on Kings Road is going out onto Minnewashta Parkway. Are you going to have a picket fence there and shrubbery along there, from what I understand? Is that going to be a barrier or? Mayor Chmiel: Todd, do you have a quick answer for that? Janet Carlson: What are you going to put along Minnewashta Parkway? A picket fence? Todd Hoffman: Yes. Brace can address that quite quickly. Brace Chamberlain: What we're proposing is a picket fence along with landscaping of various heights so we create a barrier. We don't want to create a fence hedge along Minnewashta Parkway because we want it to have it's own public character. So we want people to understand that visually it's not a place for them to cross the street. Janet Carlson: How close to the sidewalk is this going to be? 23 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Brace Chamberlain: The path would be about 6 feet back from the sidewalk allowing some landscape room between the fence and the sidewalk. Janet Carlson: Okay because when you come off of Kings Road along Minnewashta Parkway, there are the trees there now. And they've been pulled. We had to cut some of them back because it blinds, you cannot see when you pull out because of the curve in the road. It's very dangerous. I guess the other thing I would kind of like settled is the parking on Kings Road. I would like that signed before even it goes a long ways because we've lived there a lot of years and if they're parking on both sides of the road. Even when, I mean that was when it was narrower, but with the width of it now, I mean the parking on one side is going to be fine but not on both sides because you get two cars there. If one car has a door open, an emergency vehicle's going to have a hard time getting up the road. So those are my concerns. The safety concerns for crossing the road... Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? Linda Scott: Hi. I'm Linda Scott from 4031 Kings Road. It's adjacent to the south side of the park. And in addition to the other comments that have been made by a couple of my friends and neighbors here, one of the things that I was thinking about as I looked at this plan. It's kind of a truism that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. And people who park here and want to go to the beach, are going to want to go in a straight line. If they can't get through there, then they're going to park on Kings Road because that's closer to the beach. Rather than walking around down here and back up. I just point that out because it's something that's definitely going to happen. Also with the hockey rink, I don't know how necessary it is. I'm not necessarily strongly for or against it. What I would suggest is that we be, during the time between now and such time as it might get built, that we kind of not really plan to do it asphalt. See what happens at these other asphalt rinks, if they really get used or not, and see if that's a wise use of our money. As Todd said, the one at the Rec Center hasn't been used much. Perhaps people don't know it's there. Perhaps it's not being used because people aren't going to use it. That's just something else... And also our house is, I don't know, probably right about here and there's an entrance to the ballfield right here and the parking lot's way over there. So I also envision, if people are getting together for a meeting or something and there's going to be a lot of parking right in front of our house, which of course I'm not very much in favor of since a year ago this was a little country road. But again if we have some parking on Kings Road, I would be in favor of just having it on one side and not both. All and all I think it's a good plan. I think there's maybe a few things that could be, have a little more study put into or a little more thought put into... Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Peter Moe: My name is Peter Moe. I live at 7161 Minnewashta Parkway. I'd like to speak in favor of the plan. I was a member of the focus group and I think the plan that we have now is a good one. It addresses a lot of the concerns that have come up. I think there has been good communication. I understand there were some problems with mailings but there were a lot of letters gone out and a lot of comments come back and I think those comments have been addressed in a good way. I think Brace Chamberlain has, the way the landscaping and fencing and...we have addressed the safety concerns and we're going to have a good park. It's very tree that we do, we are somewhat isolated in the western Minnewashta area. If a kid's going to get on their bike and go someplace else, they have to go on a state highway to go anywhere off of Minnewashta Parkway so it's real nice to have a park here. I appreciate the efforts of the City Council to acquire the land and the money that's been already allocated to start the new preliminary improvements to help that it goes forward. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Peter. Anyone else? Tab Erickson: ...Tab Erickson at 3720 South Cedar Drive and I do have... I'm in favor of the park. I know when I was growing up, I had access to a park in the neighborhood and... I don't think there's too many things that have been allocated right now for the park. Right now I've got a couple of open lots by our place and I used to skate out there all the time. In the winter we'd play hockey...I know a lot of use would be taken on this park area. Thanks. 24 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? Not seeing any. Okay. Nancy Wenzel: I'm Nancy Wenzel. We're... I'm not necessarily against anything...park. I am for a little open space. I feel that that's the last...in that neighborhood. Everything else is going to be developed...and I feel that we need to look into it a little more. Waconia's currently going to re-route their traffic on...and Minnewashta is a straight road. There's no intersections. If we had a stop sign there... My children grew up down there and.., and I think kids need that... Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Nancy. I agree with you. There's possibly some kinds of signages that we can put within that particular area that could deter some of that concern that you have. I don't know if there's some reduced speeds that we can do but I'm sure there's enough signage that we can put there to make the drivers slow down. Or even if we have to, to put pedestrian crossings to give that pedestrian the right-of-way and making vehicles coming to a stop.., see it that way but there's some way that we can get through it, I'm sure. Nancy Wenzel: I was just going to say.., somebody made reference to it being a... and just this afternoon... You don't see far enough ahead... Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else then? Dave Headla: My name is Dave Headla. I live at 6870 Minnewashta Parkway. I live actually...next to the closest party to the far end of the park. I want to speak in strong support of the plan that's outlined. Brace attended the first meeting. He heard our concerns. He gave us different alternatives and layouts and I think from, after I understood the rationale for the plan... So you'll hear a new word, and I've said this before. People say it's a rural community. It doesn't fit into the rural community. We were a rural community 50 years ago before all these people came out. Now they're city folks. We've got street lights. We've got curbs. We've got water... We're city folks...we must have a hockey rink... People will say we can skate over at Badger. Cathcart. Go over to the Rec Center. That isn't a neighborhood park. No mother, no father wants to dump their kids in the car and haul them over there and then bring them back later on. To go to Cathcart, and let their kids walk...it's about DA of a mile across Highway 7. That's just not... We've got about 100 homes... 100 homes in the immediate area and that's a hockey rink, inline skating...wondering about how much that's going to be used, that's another question...Roundhouse Park is going to have a lot higher density right along the... I think a lot of kids need ice that they can skate free. Hockey players, you know...young kids that play hockey... A lot of kids can't afford to play. I think we've got to give these kids someplace to skate and not fork out all that money. Let them be rink rats. I think that's a heck of a good opportunity for them. As far as hockey being, hockey doesn't have a good name yet but if the people would think about how much we use hockey, we use it for about 8 weeks. They use it from about the middle of December to the middle of February. After the middle of February the ice is... and if we're lucky we can skate early in December. When I was coaching, in December I could... Also, the skating rinks are only open from like 4:00 until 9:00 at night. That's...part of the day and... You know that's a heck of a place to let them spend their time at the hockey rink. As far as the swimming beach. Fishing pier. I didn't like the plan at first and I think Brace did one heck of a good job. I heard his rationale and having the beach to the north, yeah it's closer to Nancy... and mine but there's a lot of area there. I think you can get a lot of... The fishing pier's an excellent opportunity for a handicap person in terms of the parking lot and... That's great. Here again we have about 100 homes in that immediate area. Kids don't have an access, immediate access to the beach. Or to Minnewashta. They should have a place to swim. It's a heck of a good place for them to swim and spend their time during the summer. I just think you've got to let them have something like that. And then finally, on financing .... come all the time but our initial meeting, that night I asked the question and then the meeting...that the funding for this park, it isn't all going to happen tomorrow. It could...many years. Several years and...and then fine. Then now later on, people apparently assume that gee, this is going to happen right away and I never heard Todd make any statement that it's going to be done right away. There could have been some statements that involved...but I think a lot of people misread... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. 25 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Jan Lash: Good evening. I'm Jan Lash from the Park and Rec Commission. I guess I just wanted to wrap up a few loose ends. I think the residents are done. I didn't want to start before but. I wanted to address some of the concerns that we heard and I think Brace did a great job too of trying to address the concerns. I'm just going to walk quickly through the park and tell you our plans, or my plans I guess, my understanding. I think that the Park and Rec Commission is very sensitive to wanting to keep natural areas open areas and not paving. It's, we feel there's an equal balance between recreational and passive use. But when I look at this plan I see an open field, which is basically open space. I see a pad for future tennis, and we haven't decided yet if we're going to put that in. I see a play area, which is basically fairly open. A picnic area that's open. Open skating, which will be open 9 months of the year. And the only thing that really is going to be a permanent installation I can see year round would be the hockey, round house, which is there, and the parking lot. So I think with the buffers and the residents were very concerned about pedestrians crossing Minnewashta Parkway. We were concerned about that too so I think that's been addressed with the fencing and the landscape buffers. Also the privacy to the north was an issue. Parking on Kings Road was addressed. We looked at it as more of a public safety issue than a Park and Rec issue so we said, at our meeting, we felt it should just remain as it is until there appears to be a problem. Now if at the same time we're.., and too much parking, we can be receptive to sending out the Public Safety to monitor and do whatever signage there. We also addressed that there'd be a crossing at the crosswalk, and I believe in our recommendation we talked about some kind of signage out there.., mentioned either a flashing light or pedestrian crosswalk ahead or whatever to make motorists aware of this intersection. And the discussion on the financing. I think I have a pretty clear understanding of how that happened, and it certainly was the Park and Rec Commission's understanding that it would essentially be funded by park fees, which of course this area in itself will not generate enough fees, or the amount of fees that we'd like to see in here. So we have to use our standard, we'll wait until we get money from someone else to go back and to do this. So it's been our plan all along that this would take many years to be constructed. However, at the last meeting, towards the tail end of the conversation, one commissioner happened to mention, you know, this could be tagged onto the referendum if you'd like to see it done in a sooner fashion and I think that was kind of a, it was something thrown out and I think a lot of the residents kind of hit the panic button that it was going to be on the referendum and they'd have an increase for taxes so I think there was just sort of a misunderstanding about that. But I do think that all along the funding basically, in the normal 10 year, 15-20 year, however long it would take, could be done. But if the residents wanted it done in a few years, that would be an option for them. Does anyone have any other questions? Mayor Chmiel: Any questions by the Council? Councilman Berquist: Well I had a couple questions you or Brace can probably address real quickly. Jan, I noticed this is master plan approval and that every year you go through the budgetary process to look at doing various components of it so I understand that this is not necessarily fixed in concrete, but obviously it's a goal that we can work towards. I think as Ms. Scott mentions the parking lot and the short, the likelihood of people taking the shortcut, either through the park or, and over the fence, rather than directly across the intersection. Brace in your design, just out of curiosity, tell me your thought process for... Brace Chamberlain: ...that corner was changed for aesthetic reasons. We wanted to create an entry into the park visually that's much more open and much more inviting, rather than having that corner be kind of like an asphalt parking lot. The reason the parking lot was moved from where the open skating is now, is because if we had done that, we would have number one, somehow had to create an entry off of Kings Road because we didn't want an entry off of Minnewashta Road. And then if the parking lot was in that box, it makes it a little more inviting than to push it off.., center of the park and not at the intersection. So this is a compromise position. We wanted to get entry off Kings Road. We needed parking space both for the picnic area and play area, and we also needed parking fairly close for hockey, and tennis if that's ever constructed. So this was the best we could do given the circumstances. Jan Lash: ...I know we talked quickly about organized youth. That is contrary to the Park and Rec Commission's policy now...That's not to say that some people may not press the point. I mean...pick-up games or... The asphalt in the hockey rink, you know we think it will be used and I believe it was the same meeting that we had this plan, we had some young men from the city come and address us about maybe having inline skating areas. 26 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 They're not allowed to skate in town. It's been a problem in Market Square and so they came and had requested more areas for inline skating and they wanted to even have some kind of jump things and things like that but we thought this was at least a start for the kids who want it. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any other questions? Councilman Berquist: The only other one that hasn't already been addressed was the, Ms. Morgan brought up the storm water pond that the developer of the housing project adjacent to the site was to be built and it hasn't apparently been constructed, according to her. Kate Aanenson: Sure, we can check on that. There should be a pond for the park. That was taken into consideration and... Sue Morgan: It has not been constructed now... Kate Aanenson: ...tie it into the park here. Councilman Berquist: No further questions. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, plus I'm uncertain of what the current parking restrictions, or lack thereof are currently on Kings Road. Charles. Charles Folch: Well, Kings Road is going to be upgraded to our city standard residential road section. Typically those types of roadways in the city are not restricted in parking unless there's some particular circumstance that would warrant it. In this particular case it could be a situation where you could have a lot of regular on street parking. More so than occasional parking that you'd have in front of a residential property. And given the fact that you could have children walking out into the street between cars and things like that, may create a problem. So we looked at putting in a, allowing for parking in designated areas along the park. The park side of the road for that purpose. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What about the fact that it does dead end. I mean when you pull in there and your car is facing west, how do you turn around? Charles Folch: You've got to, it's going to be easier to turn around at the entrance to the new development or there's a few cul-de-sacs in there where a motorist would have to choose what they feel is the best opportunity to do that. Councilman Mason: You can practice your K turn a lot. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's right. Todd. Has any consideration been given to the next phase, and we'll probably put the asphalt down on the trails. What's the next phasing, and if it hasn't been addressed, who will determine when the next phasing is? Todd Hoffman: The neighborhood questionnaire had some ranking incorporated into it and the play areas, ironically phase 2 ranked higher than phase 1 so we could look at play equipment. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And those are totlots? Todd Hoffman: Yes. Well it's a $25,000.00 $28,000.00, $25,000.00 to $30,000.00 investment for each phase. 27 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it would be, so if in fact we did take a wait and see in terms of the hockey rink...basically that would be, that decision would be... Todd Hoffman: It's a big ticket item so it's going to take a real concerted effort to put it onto the budget. It's going to be again...what year that would come on. The other thing I should note is that once these master plans are adopted, staff is always interested in attempting to get.., out of pocket expense. Amenities such as the beach, the sand volleyball, the grading, seed work, tree planting and those type of things, a lot of... equipment costs and material costs so we can get those type of things accomplished... Councilwoman Dockendorf: So the beach you would foresee wouldn't be next summer? Todd Hoffman: The beach could go next summer.., design considerations and.., costs and landscaping and areas associated with that in addressing cost... Councilwoman Dockendorf: So next year would be the hard surface, the play area and the beach. And then take it as it comes and see how it goes. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilwoman Dockendorf: How would your amendments to the master plan work? If it is in fact determined down the line that hockey is not being used all that much. I assume you're going to flood it right now. Not put the asphalt down. Todd Hoffman: We'd flood the open skate area. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But you wouldn't flood the hockey rink. Todd Hoffman: We'd flood one or the other. Whichever seems more... Councilwoman Dockendorf: If we wanted to take a wait and see, again what process is involved? Todd Hoffman: It is...Park Commission and again a neighborhood meeting stated the position why...they are opposed, we'll go through the public process. If that's a very heavily... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. Councilman Mason: Questions, no. Comments, yes. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to give those? Councilman Mason: Sure, I'd be happy to. Todd did get this letter copied and it is in our staff report, by the way, and I don't normally do stuff like this but I think it would be worthwhile reading this paragraph for the record. This talks to how this would be paid for. Utilizing park fee dollars will result in progress of the park for 5 to 10 years or more are certain to pass prior to final development being realized. To expedite the improvement process, the park referendum task force has offered to include $100,000.00 to $150,000.00 allocation for Roundhouse Park in the referendum proposal. A city wide referendum vote is proposed to occur in April or May of 1997. A total of $5 million to $6 million in park and trail acquisition and development projects will be included in the referendum. If the referendum passes, every household and business in Chanhassen would share the cost of financing these park improvements. The referendum task force is simply asking the residents of the west Minnewashta area if they would like their "piece of the pie" included in the referendum. This letter is addressed September 5 and I believe it went to 400 some residents, if I'm not mistaken on that. So I hope that clears up any misunderstandings that were 28 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 over that. I like the master plan. I think it's a good one. I have some reservations about the beach but they will always be there and I understand the needs of that area needing, wanting a beach. I certainly want to look into what we can do to identify that crosswalk and signage and what not. In terms of the hockey rink, that obviously seems to be the, those two seem to be the big issues. Where I teach there is, in Eden Prairie and the Forest Hills area, there is a hockey rink there that up until two years ago was grass in the summer and ice in the winter. It got asphalted over and frequently I see kids either skating around on their inline skates or kids playing inline hockey. I definitely see a need for that type of facility in that area. We've talked about park poor. If there were other parks nearby I'd say well, you know maybe not. If the rest of the Council chooses to wait and see, so be it. I think skating is a great thing to do in the winter. I kind of wish in my youth I would have been a little closer to one, although I can occasionally skate backwards. At any rate, I like the plan. I think it's a good one. I think it's been very well thought out. My objection I think will be in parking. I share the concerns of the residents. It seems to me that it won't be too long that there's parking on the park side of the road and not on the other. That seems a very legitimate concern to me. You know, the issue was asked before whether there was consensus on this or not. I thought Todd hit it right on the head when he said it was a public process. None of us were elected by consensus and there are differences of opinion and when, if they can't be worked out, at some point decisions need to be made. I think this is a very good plan. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Mark. Councilman Senn: Todd, I had a question. As far as your overall plan implementation have you, or are you kind of logging by priority you know the results of the process effectively you've gone through? I mean you know for example...through all the information in the staff report and...for example the tennis and basketball area was quite a bit higher in terms of acceptance for example than hockey. Yet that's been labeled in the future and hockey's kind of labeled you know more as an immediate type of thing. I mean I guess what I'm trying to get at is, is there an implementation plan to prioritize those preferences back. Todd Hoffman: The thought process with the focus group was that that was why we went through that prioritization and ranking process. That would guide the process. The Park Commission chose to remove the tennis court as a part of the master plan.., so they made that real conscience decision. Otherwise the ranking would guide the improvements that have been installed. Councilman Senn: And what is the ranking now then? Todd Hoffman: Well the ranking now, if I can pull it out of the report. Jan Lash: I think at the conclusion of our meeting Tuesday we said our role I think was to have everything in, except for the hockey and, which is down the line now anyway, within the next couple of years, in the dollars that we have budgeted. For '97-'98. Yeah, basically everything but the hockey and tennis would be...with the money we had budgeted in the next couple of years. Todd Hoffman: Yeah, we went through the $70,000.00 this year and $50,000.00 next year and $50,000.00 the year after that. But to get to the question specifically, the top 11. Number one, the play area, phase 2. Number two, play area, phase 1. Third, landscaping. Fourth, picnic facilities. Fifth, swimming beach. And sixth, the tennis courts which were held out. Seventh, ballfield. Eighth, fishing pier. Ninth, round house renovation. Tenth, the hockey rink and asphalt.., and eleventh, the volleyball court. Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're still using this same priority list in the development process? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilman Senn: All right. 29 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And I really don't have any questions in regards to those that have already been asked and sort of, the kind of comments I would really agree with the position that Mike has taken on this. A couple of years ago we were approached by residents within the community, especially along Lake Minnewashta Drive and we have had many requests saying we want a park. We want a park. We want a park. And it always seems that once we get the acquisition of property, and as to what goes, does take time. And I think the whole idea is to have something for those people within that particular area and they really are starved as far as parks are concerned. So I would support the... Do you have any other comments that you'd like to make Steve? Councilman Berquist: No more comments, no sir. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If there's no more comments, can I get a recommendation. Councilman Berquist: I would move approval that the City Council affirm the action taken by the Park and Rec Commission as outlined in the staff report regarding Roundhouse Park master plan. Councilman Mason: I will second that motion. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council authorize final authoring of the Roundhouse Park's master plan as outlined by the Park and Recreation Commission in their motion on August 27, 1996, and commencement of a public improvement project to construct the entry road, parking lot and hard surfaced trails. These improvements to be funded by the balance remaining in the $70,000.00 1996 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) account established for this park (approximately $62,000.00 remains on account). All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST OF LOTS 805-811 AND LOTS 853-859~ CARVER BEACH INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS~ AND LOT AREA AND DEPTH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ LOCATED AT 900 HIAWATHA DRIVE~ STEVEN SCHMIEG. Public Present: Name Address Donald & Carol Zalusky Judy & Mathias Jacobs Gayle Odette Steve Schmieg 960 Western Drive 921 Western Drive 900 Western Drive 487 Ridge Lane, Chaska Kate Aanenson: As you indicated, this is a two lot subdivision. What we're doing is a way of conveying one parcel into two so you have two separate PID numbers. Both lots have public street frontage. One off of Hiawatha and the other off...lot. It can be subdivided. The two lots that are 14,000 square feet. That's the variance request to be under the minimum of 15,000 square feet. In addition, the lots would need variances from the lot depth, the street frontage requirement. Both lots will meet the setback requirements. Some of the concerns of the neighbors, which there was neighbors at the Planning Commission was consistency with the neighborhood. We did survey lots in the Carver Beach area and find out the number that were under 15,000 square feet and in the immediate area how many lots could be further subdivided. Both lots would have to have frontage on, any lot would have to have frontage on a public street. The only other potential one would be this one here, which is a larger lot. In looking at the home placement, this home would not meet, would not meet the setback requirements of 30 foot front and rear yard. As the existing home here would have to take off the deck but that home can meet the setbacks requirements. I guess that's what we were looking at. Can they provide that. In looking at the larger area' " Chaparral area' " are under the 15,000 square footage requirements. Again we believe that itwas consistent with the density requirements of the comprehensive plan and consistent with some of the neighborhood lot sizes. We did recommend approval with the conditions of the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you'd have. 30 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: And that's it? Thank you. I thought you were looking for something. Okay. Is there any questions of Kate? Councilman Berquist: Do you want to go on down the line? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, go ahead. Councilman Berquist: This is part of the subdivision. This thing was originally recorded as one lot? When that area was originally platted. Kate Aanenson: Those are very narrow lots. They were assembled. There's several lots that make up the one taxing parcel. What the applicant's proposing to do is create two tax parcel numbers, which what's happening, those are under the 15,000 requirement but those lots are all very, very narrow. 25 foot width so it's already a combination of several lots. Councilman Berquist: Oh, so the original plat has already been. Kate Aanenson: Right. If you look at how narrow these lots in the Carver Beach area. They were all platted a long time ago so they've been assembled differently over time. Councilman Berquist: Okay. There's a, in looking at the property, there's a, I think that triangular lot that is directly across the street from Hiawatha and Nez Perce, that's currently for sale. That's also a lot according to this little chart. That does not meet the under 15,000 square foot. It is under a 15,000 square foot lot. Yeah. Yeah, that one. It's got a for sale sign on it. That's just a, that is a lot. Now I think I'm looking at the right piece when I was over there. That little black thin triangle, is a non-conforming lot now. Apparently it has been subdivided or it's being sold. Kate Aanenson: Correct. It's a lot of record, right. Councilman Berquist: Okay. All right, let's see. No, I don't have any others at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Kate, your main rationale for recommending approval is that there are so many other lots under 15,000 square feet? Kate Aanenson: No, the ordinance does allow it if you meet the 75% of those... Councilwoman Dockendorf: What's the 75%? Kate Aanenson: 75% of the.., and we did.., survey the area, that was consistent. I know some of the neighbors were concerned that some people had been buying homes and adding to and refurbishing and certainly that's an issue but we've come across the situation, people may want to put up a three car garage on and it doesn't fit and sometimes people in order to move up, do have to move out of their property. That sometimes happens. Not all properties can pass the threshold to enlarge. That was certainly felt like, it does meet all the setback requirements and a home that would be equal in value and size would be on the property. Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Councilman Mason: No questions. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. 31 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Councilman Senn: No questions, no. Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't have any either. At this time. Is the applicant here? Would you like to come forward and present your position and please give us your name and your address. Steve Schmieg: Steve Schmieg. I live at 487 Ridge Lane in Chaska. I know there are some concerns of the neighbors regarding how it will affect their home and their values and so on. I do intend to put a very nice home on the property that I think will be of comparable value or greater. There was a concern mentioned that a $130,000.00 home on a small lot and there will not be opportunity to improve that. You know improve that home in value or size, whatever. That will possibly be a detriment to the area. I think it's important that you realize that the 130 is for a split entry home with only the main level finished and that area's about 1,100 square feet. By finishing the lower level there would be over 2,000 feet finished and I think a very reasonable value with that lower level finished is $145,000.00 to $150,000.00. And there have been many homes that have sold in the area and in the neighborhood that have been far less than that. There was one at $101.4. $101.7. One at $114. One at $118. And there on up of course. I think it does, you know it does fit in to the neighborhood well and not even at the low end even. I think it would be one of the nicer homes in the area. Another thing I think that's very important is that when you are able to meet all the setbacks, Chanhassen has a side setback ordinance of 10 feet. The home that I'm proposing to put on that lot as it is stated, has a 25 foot side setback on one side and a 48 side setback on the other, and the reason it's offto one side is to preserve as many trees as possible. Another thing that I think is important is the fact that the lot is 140 feet wide, which is wider than many of the lots in the area. It is shallower but it is quite a lot wider than most of the lots so from the front, from the street it's going to appear to be very roomy on the lot. There's going to be a lot of side room. It will not look cramped at all from the street. And the other thing is too, there is a lot of trees and vegetation on both lot lines that will provide excellent screening to the neighbors that already exist so they're already mature. It does not have to mature. The existing home on the property right now was built on the southerly half of that. The property is 140 x 200. The existing home is on the southerly 100 feet, seeming to be the intention of one day building another home on the northerly half of the lot so I think it's pretty much always...intended for that. For that lot. I do intend to make this a very, I think it will be a very positive addition to the neighborhood and quite a nice home for somebody in a nice neighborhood. Any questions? Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Steve? Councilman Berquist: No. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Mike. Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone here from the particular neighborhood that would like to address some of those issues. If you'd just state your name and your address and your concern. And if I could ask you to try to summarize that to 5 minutes. Carol Zalusky: My name is Carol Zalusky. I'm at 960 Western Drive and many of us in the neighborhood have been concerned, and I have 22 of the nearest neighbors that say, by my signature I hereby indicate that I am opposed to the subdivision of any lot requiring variances, and particularly the property at 900 Hiawatha Drive. The biggest concern is the deck. It's only 100 foot. They're taking offthe deck on the rambler to meet the setbacks on the back. So that would be another variance besides the depth and square footage, because you know that eventually they're going to want to put a deck back on and then at a separate time to get a variance for the 32 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 deck. And because there have been past variances doesn't justify making future variances. And also a majority of the lots from that point forward are all about a half acre. Most of the lots are at least 100 x 200, 100 x 220, depending on which side of the street you're on. So from that point on they're all larger lots, including that one. You have.., where the smaller lots where, which they referred to in the report here so that's basically our concerns. I would like to see the large lots stay there. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Can we also have the signatures of the people who were. Carol Zalusky: Would you like any additional copies? That one is the original. Mayor Chmiel: Well, okay thank you. Okay, is there anyone else? Matt Jacobs: I'm Matt Jacobs and I live at 921 Western Drive. The lot just to the west of it, and at the time I built out there in '69, moved in '70. At that time we needed 15,000 square feet and at that time I wound up buying about 3 or 4 additional lots so that I'd have a nice size lot, which would accommodate the rest of the area. And now we're going to start dividing all these lots up. You've got a lot of older people that are going to be leaving the neighborhood in a matter of a few years, either moving into townhouses or they're getting up to the age where they may not be around much longer. And what's going to happen? Are we going to be dividing all of these lots up and make it a crowded area again? I know the lots to the east and some of the other lots around there are only 100 x 100 and the reason why they were that way is because they plotted way back in the early 1920's or whenever that big land sale was at the time. And they were recorded over at the courthouse and stuff as parcels of land and people got their variances and stuff to build on those kinds of lots, and I can see giving that kind of variance but...don't want a problem neighborhood just like on the other side on Nez Perce. That was kind of the...years ago when it was 15,000 square feet.., smaller lots on the other side... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Councilman Berquist: Are you the gentleman with the garden? Matt Jacobs: What garden? Councilman Berquist: Do you have a large garden behind your home? Matt Jacobs: I'm just adjacent to the west of him.., get some tomatoes? That's to the south of him. That garden is to the south of him and east of the flower garden... Councilman Berquist: All right. I came in on Hiawatha and...on Western. So all right, I've got it backwards. Yeah, I'd like some tomatoes. The reason I, oh I'm sorry. Go ahead. Gayle Odette: My name is Gayle Odette. I live at 900 Western Drive. I live in the house that's right adjacent to the lot that you are talking about this evening .... various concerns and...took them seriously. When I was here last time.., concerned with aesthetics and I hope this isn't just about aesthetics because we have much more... Also about street access...I mean it's very, very close. And if you have truly gone around our neighborhood, it is a neighborhood that is spacious. It's a neighborhood I think that does spend a lot of time in improving it... I'm wondering if the reason that Mr. Schmieg wanted to do this to provide affordable housing. Well I want to know at who's expense...affordable housing is placed there. Is it, to me as neighbors that are close to this. I have to suffer the consequences of having it. I would agree with the statement about... people that really worked hard at improving their homes, as I have. Some of the dollar figures that he has just told about the price of those homes there. You have to look at the few that are to the east of where that lot is. They are small homes. Yes, they're... I worked long and hard to remodel that home and there is no way I would sell it for the price that I purchased it for in April. My recommendation is, if you want to make something that is going to be aesthetic...looking at, why don't we tear down that little dinky house that's there right now and put in a house, put 33 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 a nice home on that lot and use the lot for what it's... I think that would work best for everybody involved.., thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If seeing none, we'll bring it back to Council. Steve, would you like to give your opinion? Councilman Berquist: No. Let somebody else go first on this one. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, whenever we look at variances it's an exception to the norm, and I understand that this lot, there's a lot of good reasons why on the face of it we should approve it without a second thought. I mean in terms of it has two street frontages.., natural dividing line with the tree line. But whenever I look at a variance I look at what the neighbors think is reasonable... We always have to look at what the neighbors... I mean there's an overriding concern here by the neighbors. Not so much that this plat is going to change the current situation but also in the fact that the person proposing, the applicant doesn't live there, and I think that's an important consideration so I guess that's where I stand. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: Well, as you all know I live in Carver Beach. When I first moved to Carver Beach I lived in a house on a 12,000 square foot lot. I still live in Carver Beach but it's not in a 12,000 square foot lot. What does that have to do with all of this? If I were the neighbors right next to the subdivision I would be unalterable opposed. Carver Beach is anomaly. There are lots there, I believe what's the smallest lot in Carver Beach? 6,000 square feet? Maybe even smaller? Smaller than that I believe. I look at this map and I know I've had more than one Planning Commissioner say they wish that Carver Beach and Red Cedar Point would go away. And eventually it will because it will all be platted out. I'm hard, because of knowing Carver Beach as well as I know it, whereas I, believe me, when I first moved in there, there were two homes on Woodhill. There are a lot more there now. I didn't like it when it got built but it did. I don't like the idea but I'm a little hard pressed to deny a 14,000 square foot lot in Carver Beach. So that's my opinion at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: The easiest way for me to describe it is, when I drove over into the immediate neighborhood my first reaction was kind of, you've got to be kidding. But given the recommendations we had before us, and I went and drove around and came back again to look again. Just to see if I felt the same way about it, and I guess I came back. Looked at it a while longer and still felt the same way about it. You know I know we can use the rationale that there's a lot of substandard lots in Carver Beach so what's one more going to matter. I think if you look at this immediate area, I think there, well the map shows it. There's hardly any. And I think when you drive into this area, the area very much sets the tone and character of this unusual from other parts of Carver Beach. And for that reason...there's no way that I'm going to support creating two more substandard lots to accomplish this. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Steve. Councilman Berquist: I was surprised by the varying opinions. First supplied by Mike, I thought in your opening remarks that you would be against it and then you turn around and are in favor of it. Mark's right. If you look at the immediate neighbors, there are, they all are greater than 15,000 square feet. I tried to make some notes recently when I looked at this and I started out by typing one variance does not necessarily have to beget another. And then I backed that out and began to address the mind set consistent with approval. However, after hearing what I've heard tonight and after listening to the rationale presented by the other Council members, I am more of the mind to deny the variance than approve. 34 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think much of what's been said, all except for the ending portion of it. I find that that piece of property's been there for probably some time. And the adjacent property owners who had an opportunity to buy that piece of property, who have not and then in course coming back and saying that this is going to disturb the balance of what is there .... that the only way that any of this is going to be developed is if we lower our total amount of square feet per respective residential on it, and I'm not too much in favor of doing that either. I think for what we have is probably fairly decent because we tried at one time for 20,000 square feet, that would have made...to even accept. But because some of those lots within Carver Beach, that then did move to Council to 15,000 square feet to negotiate something that would be more acceptable .... 1,000 foot less and as Mike said, 14,000 square feet really gives me the feeling that I would probably concur with staff recommendation. Andthat the lot area and depth variance is based on findings that are presented by the staff report. It seems to me that it would be acceptable. So with that I would entertain a motion. Councilman Senn: I'll move that we deny the variance, but I guess what we're doing is we're denying the subdivision and resulting variances and I assume ask Roger to prepare the appropriate Findings of Fact. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council deny Subdivision #96- 16 and lot area and depth variances and direct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason and Mayor Chmiel who abstained, and the motion carried. Councilman Mason: You know, Colleen asked why I abstained. And just because I think it is a tough issue. I do live in the neighborhood. It was evident that my vote was not going to make any difference one way or the other... I quite honestly could have lived with the decision with either way. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST TO REPLAT THREE LOTS AND THREE OUTLOTS INTO THREE LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND PHASING CONSTRUCTION/RE MODELING OF THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX INTO TWO PHASES, IN AN AREA ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, LOCATED NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS, EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF WEST 78TM STREET, CHANHASSEN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, LOTUS REALTY. Sharmin A1-Jaff: I'll keep this presentation very brief. The planning includes property from the Bloomberg Addition as well as the Chanhassen Mall Addition. The replatting is to provide a separate lot for the cinema and the entertainment complex. The second issue we're looking at is the phasing of the remodeling of the entertainment complex. This is due to the fact that the cinema is ready to proceed while the entertainment center development has not completed the financing package yet. The applicant is working diligently on putting the financing together. Without approval of the phasing, the cinema will not proceed... There are two issues of concern with staff. The first one dealt with appearance. Should the entertainment center fail to remodel their portion, you'll only have halfa building that's remodeled and it is basically what you see on the... Everything else will remain as you see it. The second issue was, should the cinema be held captive because the entertainment center is not able to proceed at this time. We looked at options as to how we can encourage the applicant of the entertainment center to complete the project and truly we don't have any options. The only incentive that we have right now is through the tax increment financing that the city is offering the applicant. We are recommending approval of both the phasing, as well as the replatting. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any questions of Sharmin? No? Okay. Thank you. I know the applicant's here. Is there anyone wanting to update anything that we may have forgotten. 35 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Vernelle Clayton: Vernelle Clayton. I live at 472 Santa Fe Circle and I'll be... Councilman Senn: Can we cut this short? Vernelle Clayton: Yes. Councilman Senn: I move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Subdivision #96-17 for the Entertainment Complex and Frontier Cinema Addition as shown in the plans submitted July 15, 1996, and subject to the following conditions: Existing buildings shall comply with the requirements of Uniferm Building Code Chapter 34, "Existing Structures". 2. Engineering Department Conditions: FRONTIER CINEMA ADDITION PLAT a. The final plat should dedicate a 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement along the south side of Lot 2 and Outlet A. b. The final plat should also show existing easements of record across the parcel. The City has a sanitary sewer easement which intersects the parcel. c. The applicant should supply the City with a $400 escrow for review and recording the documents for the City Attorney's office. ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX PLAT. The final plat should show the existing easements of record across the parcel. The City has an existing sewer and water line that intersects the parcel that should be denoted on the final plat. The easement width should be a minimum of 20 feet wide. b. The applicant should supply the City with a financial escrow in the amount of $250 for review and recording of the final plat by the City Attorney's office. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST OF APPROXIMATELY 10.95 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 2 LOTS AND I OUTLOT; SITE PLAN REVIEW OF TWO OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS WITH AN AREA OF 64,000 SQ. FT. AND 40,600 SQ. FT. ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP AND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DELL ROAD AND HWY 5, CSM CORPORATION. Sharmin A1-Jaff: There are two actions being requested with this application. Subdivision and a site plan review for two office warehouse buildings. The subdivision request is a straight forward action. We've got 10.95 acres that will be split into two lots and one eutlet. Lots 1 and 2 will house the two proposed buildings. Outlet B is proposed for future development and we're not aware of any development proposed on that site for now. Briefly on the architecture of the building. A few months back the City Council approved two buildings that were both in an 36 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 L shape, identical as far as materials, as well as the architectural design of the building. When this went before the Planning Commission, this proposal which is phase 2, also proposing two buildings, the applicant requested that they go with the exact same architecture. Maybe a little difference as far as the materials go and the change would be in color. The Planning Commission felt uncomfortable with that proposal. They wanted the applicant to tie the architecture in with the existing buildings. However, they wanted some changes. There was also some discussion on whether Buildings 3 and 4 should be identical or remain the same, and the applicant will address those issues before you today. As far as landscaping plan, it's really very well designed. The parking it surrounding the building and we're just proposing some additional landscaping along the southern portion of the site to kind of screen the loading docks. We are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Sharmin. Any questions of Sharmin? Okay. Any questions, or did you say you had a question? Councilman Berquist: No. Mayor Chmiel: The applicant. Would you like to give your name and address. Murray: You can cut me short too if you'd like. My name is Murray .... I'm a Vice President at CSM Corporation, 2575 University Avenue, North St. Paul. I think just to be real brief. We have agreed with all the stipulations in the staff report as a result of...Planning Commission and then some subsequent work on our end on some of the details. I guess we do feel fairly strong about maintaining a unified architectural theme, as we finish offthis development. Or at least the next phase of this development. And that's I think the one message that I'd like to bring to you is that I really.., next two buildings as the second phase of an overall integrated development and I think that the buildings certainly speak for themselves in terms of architectural design and.., and we're pretty careful about the kind of buildings we put together. We think that we've got a...looking development there. As we build these types of developments in other communities around the Twin Cities, we try to come up with a unique design for each of the cities that we build in and we really don't see a significant issue in continuing that same design along with the next two buildings. Mark Kuesnerick is here. He's the project manager and staff architect with CSM and he can take you through why we think what we're building is okay. We've also...to come up with alternatives. Again, as I say, we feel pretty strongly about maintaining the theme that we've established already. Also with me this evening is John Dietrich from RLK who's our civil engineer and he can answer any questions that you might have specifically about the site or the subdivision but I think those are issues that are...what the building's going to look like so I'll turn it over to Mark real briefly and he'll kind of walk you through the architecture. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Mark Kuesnerick: Good evening. My name's Mark Kuesnerick, project architect for CSM Corporation. Currently we're proposing to put two buildings on this site. On this two lots here. One of them is currently the same shape and size as the first two buildings. The last one, because of the constraints of the site, we had to rearrange in a different shape and we felt that we wanted to bring the same image throughout the entire project. What we're trying to establish here, we laid out this entire site when we first looked at it, to present to the City of Chanhassen a corporate image that we'd like to present as CSM Chanhassen. We have tried to do this throughout the entire metropolitan area as establishing a corporate image within each city that is different from each one. But it will appear as this would be Chanhassen and not what you see in Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, or anywhere else. As Murray has stated, the buildings are going up and they're very attractive looking buildings. We have accomplished everything within the city ordinances that pertain to the Highway 5 corridor issues. With respect to materials and with design of the buildings... The elevations here. Building 3 would be exactly the same as Buildings 1 and 2, because that is the L shaped building and same size and square footage. Building 4 with the respect that it is longer and thinner because of the site constraints again. We have brought into it the same elements but it has a similar appearance as the first two to tie it all together and to produce this one development type of image within it. We feel if we went into a separate look would break it into making it look and appear as two developments rather than one. For our tenants this produces a better image for them...tell their respective 37 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 clients that they're at the Chanhassen Business Center and they can easily locate it by having them locate the building...they can find their tenants. Our option two is to keep the same buildings and go with similar material but the different colors. The phase one colors...with respect, except for the metal roof has been changed to a teal color which would help blend it with the landscaping as the rest of the design has been going on. What we've altered instead, the phase one colors... Typically we kept the bricks the same to tie it in with the rest of it. We altered the block colors in their respect so the banding.., giving a slight different appearance but yet tying it all together. It still leaves us with one...type appearance. The Planning Commission has comments in the recommendations to go with a different design and what we had come up with... This one has a tying element of the rooftop, metal roof units themselves would be tied over again. They don't come that often. There are only two metal then three on the top of buildings and they are, in respect to the same corners at the building... We again are using a similar material here but different colors but again what we produce then is a main building component of rock faced block in this color. In the rope banding and the three lower bands here would be in a rock face and the two upper face would go into a smooth face split block, which would give it an appearance of smaller unit. Therefore lighting the top rather than having the whole building.., and again tying in the teal color in the metal roofs. These wider areas appear to be an exterior insulation finishing system which is... stucco and would be a similar color as the accent panels within the block itself. Again we would like to keep the same look, but we are looking for some...from you on this issue of the appearance. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Does Council have any questions at this time? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you have a schematic of all four buildings at all? Mark Kuesnerick: The other two. We've got the site. Councilman Mason: Is that going east to west or west to east? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Councilman Mason: Okay, right. Got it. Mark Kuesnerick: Now they do set back as you come along. These are back further. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And what's the intention for Outlot B? Mark Kuesnerick: We do not know at this time. That is more than likely going to be a separate building altogether. It's going to be more or less a build to suit... We're not sure at this time. That would... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other questions? Anyone else? Okay. Thank you. Is there any discussion that you might have on this? Mark. Councilman Senn: I went back out and looked at it again. I think we should really stick with the original concept there. I mean if you really go out and look at it, it looks beautiful. I mean it looks just great. And the concept was a campus approach and I really don't think we should back off of it at this point. Plus I really don't think we are in the position to play architect. I think they've designed what's turning out to be a very beautiful project... They've met all the criteria we set out on Highway 5. The ordinances and otherwise and again that's why the concept was approved in the first place. Other than that I...think it's a great project at this point. One of the nicer we've got as far as industrial. Mayor Chmiel: It does look good. Looks nice. Okay. Is there any other discussion? 38 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Councilman Berquist: I don't disagree with Mark. I don't know that, and I think the Planning Commission was looking at this as a gateway, entry way and an exit from the city of Chanhassen and I've got to give them credit for being as...as they were in looking at the project. I'm not quite honestly certain whether I favor a common approach to the way the building's addressed versus a dissimilar approach. I really don't know which would look better... Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm wondering what you guys are looking at. Phase 1 isn't done yet. Councilman Senn: Well the facade's done enough to tell what it's going to look like. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess your point's well taken. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move approval of site plan review and preliminary and final plat. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Berquist: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: As they originally proposed. Councilman Senn: As originally proposed. Kate Aanenson: Because our conditions are reflective of the change in the site plan... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh! I didn't get that far. My motion is to have it as the applicant... Councilman Senn: Okay, I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussions? Councilman Mason: Well yeah. I guess I would like to have a little discussion on this. There is no dispute that it's a good looking project. Make that understood. But I guess I do think, and Steve eluded to it, I think that it's worth discussing what the Planning Commission wanted a little bit before we just go ahead and approve this. It's real hard for me, you know looking at that, to visualize what, I mean that's a whole lot of stuff that' s going to look the same way along Highway 5 there. And I guess I don't, you know right or wrong, I think what the Planning Commission wants here is worth talking about a little bit. I'm not disputing what Mark is saying. It looks very nice but I think is that, I mean that's a big space there. That's a huge space there and once that's there, obviously hopefully it's going to be there for a long time. Is that truly the view of Council that we want that to look the same way or, you know even the idea of changing the block around a little bit. I mean certainly the building would look the same way but just changing the block a little bit would just change it just a little bit. Councilman Berquist: Can I ask, the gentleman that, I'm sorry I've forgotten your name. You did the design elements relative to the facades and the changes that you've shown and what not. Let me just ask you a question. I ask this kind of a question a lot. I mean in essence this is going to become an integral part of the city of Chanhassen and if you were a resident here, and you had the option of driving into or out of town every day looking at those four rather large industrial office buildings, and you had the option of looking at four of the same or some variations within those, which would you choose? 39 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Mark Kuesnerick: Currently I look at it as more of the same because you're looking at one solid development. Changes within that can make it seem or appear as two different developments within one area. If you try to establish a certain image that is more of a gateway. You want to make it a very strong...to come up at you. You don't want it to just suddenly hit you as something that's piecemeal all the way through. Councilman Berquist: Were you present at the Planning Commission meeting where this was discussed? Mark Kuesnerick: Yes I was. Councilman Berquist: What were some of the comments that were made and how did you feel about them when they began to address the color scheme? Mark Kuesnerick: Most of the comments were made, they were looking for differences within it. They did not want a lot of the same. Most of the comments were aimed at the townhouses across the way and I guess I was confused at that type of comparison because those are two different, totally different type of developments that you're looking at. We're not proposing any more than four being the same. Councilman Berquist: Now if factor out the architectural similarities, with the pyramids and what not, I can completely understand your, you're talking about the theme if you will. But factoring those into the four buildings and then doing the subtle changes with the color changes, do you think that the differences in colorations seriously, does it add to or subtract from the project? I mean I... Mark Kuesnerick: No, that's fine. When I first started laying this out, I envisioned all of the buildings being the same. What I was trying to impress was between Phase 1 and Phase 2 was this main corridor. I did not want a client or a tenant driving down the aisle seeing two different things on either side. I wanted some type of symmetry between the two developments. I did not want one to weigh heavier than the other then helping out the economics within the site. Councilman Berquist: Okay, now change hats. Put on the same resident hat. And I mean I understand driving between the buildings but again, driving past them, either one way or another, you're strongly of the opinion that similar colors and textures are, will present an overall better product both to CSM as well as to the City of Chanhassen. Mark Kuesnerick: Right. What it produces is a very strong point that this is the gateway to Chanhassen. I don't, I've seen a lot of other cities put in multiple different types of buildings and it gets confusing as to where is the city entrance... I guess we were of the understanding when we first started out that this was the gateway and that's why we wanted to produce something very strong. Councilman Berquist: And that's why I think the Planning Commission wanted, thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Councilman Senn: ... In terms of looking at this project when you let's say drive by it. Just what the average person's going to do. When you drive by this project, yes it's massive but at the same time it's still, I mean one project looks like one project. You're not even barely going to notice the separation of the architectural elements that define and break up the front between pillars and glass and pyramids and everything else. It gives it a lot of nice detail along the front area that you're going to see. Now again...but if you start introducing different colorations into it, okay. I think you're going to do precisely what he was saying. Create kind of amish mash. I mean ultimately you could end up with one company occupying more than one of these buildings in this type of a single ownership, single campus type setting. In fact they probably hope that's the case. Because you know.., expands and they end up effectively in more than one of the buildings. It happens very common. And again, from that standpoint, then you've got a unified... So I mean again, that's a concept. Okay, I mean we have other concepts elsewhere. 40 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Councilman Berquist: No, I understand and in my mind's eye I'm trying to visualize four buildings of this nature in a row and I can go out and drive 494...and see an expanse that's going to be very similar to this and there is a word used within the staff report, or within the Planning Commission Minutes, was monotony. There's a monotony to the way it looks. Now is that good or bad? That's sort of the dilemma that we're faced with. There's probably more reasons to argue in favor of the monotony as opposed to against but I want to be sure of that before. I mean as long as we're discussing, let's discuss so that's where I'm at. Councilman Senn: To me it's a little bit of the...I want to say the quality of the monotony. I mean I don't know where you're talking about in Plymouth okay, but I mean yes, I think I can look at some spots in Plymouth where they've developed a whole row of industrial and yes it looks very monotonous and has very little character. But I can also look at the newer developments up in Plymouth, take for example the one on the east side of 494, just north of 394. Councilman Berquist: That's the one I'm thinking of. Councilman Senn: And to me that's very...to me is beautiful. I mean again, it has a lot of architectural detail. It has a lot of character. You don't, I mean it's hard to find office industrial with that much detail. Councilman Berquist: I agree with you...no doubt about it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we've probably had enough discussion. Anyway, the motion's on the floor with a second. All those in favor say aye. Councilman Berquist: Discussion. The motion is to approve it with the coloring differences? Councilman Senn: No. Councilman Berquist: With the same... Councilman Senn: As the applicant tonight. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve Site Plan Review #95-18 for CSM Phase II, as shown on the site plan received September 5, 1996, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall increase the number of evergreens in plant schedule to 20% of the total number of trees. Also, increase the number of trees used along street frontage by 22. These additional trees shall be evergreens and used along Lake Drive East to maximize screening of the loading docks and along the western edge to create a windbreak for the neighboring parking lot. 2. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. 3. Signage criteria: Each building shall share one monument sign. One monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The letters shall be located within a designated sign band. c. All signs require a separate permit. 41 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south and west of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. h. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet and logos may not exceed 30 inches in height. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. k. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit point of both sites. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Fire Marshal conditions: A ten foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters, pursuant to City Ordinance 9-1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 29-1992 (premise identification), copy enclosed. Fire lanes will be marked with appropriate No Parking Fire Lane signs and yellow painted curbing. Fire Marshal will determine fire lanes during the building plan review process. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted. Post indicator valves (PIV) valves are required. Indicate on plans location of post indicator valves for review and approval. Fire Department sprinkler locations shall be located in the following areas; building #4 in the southeast corner of the building, building #3 in the southwest corner of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 04-1991 (fire department notes to be included on site plan), copy enclosed. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 07- 1991 (pre-fire plans), copy enclosed. Comply with inspection division installation policy 34-1993 (water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings), copy enclosed. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 36-1994 (combination domestic fire sprinkler supply line), copy enclosed. 42 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 6. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Revise plans to provide one additional accessible parking space, for a total of five, at building three as requested in the Building Official's attached memo. 8. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. And also approve the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #95-18 for Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition as shown on the plat received September 5, 1996, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. The name of the subdivision shall be changed to Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition, and Block 3 shall be changed to Block 1. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater calculations for a 10- year and 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 5. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities. The applicant shall dedicate a cross-access easement over Lots 2, Block 1, Chanhassen East Business Center, and Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition. The applicant shall enter into a site plan permit with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the permit. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and Surface Water Management requirements for new development. Erosion control fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant will be responsible for all boulevard restoration or damage to existing City utilities or street improvements as a result of construction. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event, 24-hour duration for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Waste Water Services, Minnesota Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within street right-of-way. 43 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 11. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tile found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 12. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible for a share of the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume on Dell Road. The developer and/or property owner shall waive any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessment, including, but not limited to, hearing requirements or any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 13. The applicant shall consider realigning the middle driveway access to avoid relocating the existing fire hydrant on Lake Drive East." All voted in favor and the motion carried. LOTUS REALTY/ST. HUBERT'S CHURCH IS REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 96~288 SQ. FT. CHURCH AND SCHOOL FACILITY ON 8.03 ACRES AND A SOCCER FIELD ON 2.48 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED VILLAGES ON THE PONDS PROJECT WHICH IS SOUTH OF HWY 5~ PROPOSED LOTS 10 AND 1L VILLAGES ON THE POND~ ST. HUBERT'S CATHOLIC CHURCH. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. I'll try to be brief. As stated, this is the first development within the proposed Villages on the Pond development. It is located in the southeast corner of the site and it will create a...or the basis for the rest of the development of the project. The site plan is pretty straight forward. There are some minor revisions in the conditions of approval that staff would like to see to make the landscaping within the parking lot area a little better. Including along the north property line and to add additional islands. One of the questions the Planning Commission had was the impervious surface. This development has 58% impervious surface for the church/school site and if you add the lower field in, it's down to 45% impervious surface so it's well below what we approved as a part of the development. The only real issue that we have on this is the location of the soccer field, which is currently as proposed, they're putting it on the southern part of the site. One of the issues with that is, it is surrounded by wetlands on three sides and it's a low area. They have, one of the conditions of the Planning Commission was that they provide the alternatives for the City Council review and look at what the pros and cons of each issue were. The first.., original package, the soccer field goes into the wetland area. This is really not an option for the development because...wetland impacts and require the individual improvements... The second alternative would leave it in the southern part of the site but shifting over and changing the grading of it. The negatives on that options were that it removes some significant trees that were being proposed to save as part of their original proposal. The third option would be to locate it up in the northern part. North of the trail but the southern part of the site. Development in this area. What that does is, it would require the relocation of the storm water treatment pond and bring the hill basically down to the trail with a large retaining wall. Staff is requesting that you provide some direction for us and the applicant on which applicant we should have for that. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with the conditions in the staff report. We would recommend that condition number 36 be amended to state, the applicant is required to use the Roman Pisa retaining wall systems, or equivalent. That would permit the applicant to find something that was similar in appearance that might be available locally. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, are there any questions? Councilman Mason: Yeah, who's Roman Pisa? No, just kidding. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. No questions. Good. Would the applicant, would you like to come forward and please give your name and your address. 44 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 David Bangasser: Hi. I'm David Bangasser with the St. Hubert's Building Committee. Also with me this evening is Father Steve Ulrick, our pastor. We have an hour and a half long presentation but we'll shorten it up. Mayor Chmiel: Because we stop at 11:30. David Bangasser: As Bob indicated, I'll be brief here. As Bob indicated, the ballfield I think is the...issue. We've seen the recommendation through approval and are in agreement with those recommendations and the big issue was a big issue for the church as well, was the location of the ballfield. And as we talked about the church and school up here, the location we proposed is down south of the trail and south of the creek. I think the alternative that we're looking at down here, we've got a couple of schemes that I think you folks have in your packet. One is shifted closer to TH 101, which originally when we presented that scheme as a possibility we weren't as close to it as BRW was in terms of wetlands. We didn't realize the wetlands wrapped around there in this direction. That not being an option anymore so we're back to essentially what BRW's shown all along and I think already the tree canopy loss and the tree replacement...which is where the ballfield on the east. The significant trees that we were hoping to be able to save, it appears that we couldn't save them. The other location that the church has pursued, partly at staff's request but also at, we wanted to pursue it as well, was the location of the ballfield up in this area. That scheme has a lot of advantages for St. Hubert's. We'd love to see it up there. However we're not sure that we can accommodate that. There's a lot of things that need to be worked out in terms of, as Bob mentioned, the NURP ponding needs to move and part of the thought with this, if the ballfield was located here and the NURP ponding could take place down in this area that is currently designated as buffer area and that buffer area is shifted to the other side of the creek. That seems to work fine but there's some question that it needs to be engineered to see if we get enough capacity down there. And we may not be able to do that. At this point in time, because we don't know if the ballfield can fit up on the north of the trail, and until such time as we can figure that out and work something out with the landlords and the developers, we're not in the position to say that's the way we want to go. On the other hand, it's very important to St. Hubert's that this building be done about 11 months from now so that the start of the school year can be begun on a smooth basis. So we really need to keep the process moving. I guess if it was an ideal world what we'd like to ask is that your approval or some direction to pursue both of these schemes. See if we can work this out, but if we can't work that out, that we have the ability to proceed with the ballfield south of the trail the way it's been proposed all along here. I don't know if there's any other questions on the ballfield, while I've got that drawing up. Mayor Chmiel: Does Council have any questions in regard to this? Councilman Berquist: So we've got a choice of losing trees or filling in wetlands? David Bangasser: Well filling in wetlands is probably out so it's losing trees. Bob Generous: Or preserving that area as a natural area. And moving the field up. Vernelle Clayton: Losing the NURP pond. Councilman Berquist: And moving the NURP pond, and it would appear to me, given the preliminary plat, that that plan would be enormously more expensive. Councilman Senn: Question for staff. What's the premise of the, I mean is that being initiated by the City as a park requirement or anything like that? Okay, so it's basically... David Bangasser: It's just recreation. Whether it's soccer. St. Hubert's has several soccer teams. Potentially you know some baseball practice and that kind of thing. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not recess? 45 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 David Bangasser: No. There is a playground right here that is intended to be primarily for recess. One of the big advantages if...here it obviously gives us more flexibility than we have down here. One of the big issues that we're trying to address is that we don't want to be in the same position 20 years from now that we are today that our crystal ball was wrong. We've grown beyond what we ever would have imagined and we've got to move again. If the ballfield was located up here, it provides us a little bit more flexibility than... If things change, we've got a little bit more flexibility there. Makes it a little bit easier to set up... and those kind of things. However until we know if that can work and work all those things out, it is important to us with the size of the parish and the number of youth, that we have some green space. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else have any other questions? To make those transition and those changes would not really hurt too much other than the fact as to what was proposed previously, right? Bob Generous: They would just have to re-engineer the NURP ponds, or stormwater pond. Mayor Chmiel: And would that be acceptable to the City? Bob Generous: Oh yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Well I think some kind of direction, I think something like that could be worked out with direction from staff directly with the applicant and developers of that particular site and I think that it possibly working without any problems. I see a problem with keeping it where it's at because it's in the floodplain, or I should say within the area that it is. And we don't want to cut into that and there's no other place that that can be replaced, is there? By filling in the pond. Bob Generous: Well they could always... The development has...because they believe they're going to lose parking area and building area. However we believe that it will be accommodated on the site. There is... so to speak and there is other areas that we can replace it. The storm water ponds. Kate Aanenson: ...framework because we had to provide ponding and we had to provide wetland replacement. Then you place the buildings in there. We keep getting back to... so there certainly flexibility. Councilman Senn: So what are you looking for tonight? Kate Aanenson: Well obviously...keep it a natural area...keep that natural. Now if... Councilman Mason: Well yeah. I'd like to see it work on the northern half. Councilman Senn: ...I'd like to see it work on the north. Councilman Mason: Likewise. Councilman Berquist: I've got a question, putting on my parishioner hat. I thought there was a little bit of acreage that was going to be available to us for future expansion. David Bangasser: We've got expansion planned here as well as here. And we do have the playground area in this area as well. Councilman Berquist: Otherwise, is there an option on the property directly to the east? Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any more questions? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to see the schematic. 46 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 David Bangasser: The elevations? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. David Bangasser: Just real briefly. I think you're all familiar with Villages on the Ponds but we essentially have three main parking areas. The area to the south, to the north and the west and so therefore we've got three entries into the building. One of our key features is we're trying to foster the gathering of fellowship. Things that we currently are not able to do in our current facility so we're trying to make three entrances feel like equal entrances. And so from the south elevations, from the south parking lot looking at the building, we've got the church with this west entrance off of TH 5 and a feature or identifying with a trellis. That leads people into this western door, directly into the narthax gathering space. You've got a couple of features that are critical to our design. One is the cross, kind of identifying what we're all about here. We've also got what we're calling a lantern kind of within the cross structure. There's a lot of significance within the Bible, etc. on light and so that's a translucent glass that we're going to have lighting behind it to create a glow or a lantern and we think it will be a landmark for the area. In addition to that, we've got the bell tower. We're using...and even though we're located, so we've got the bell tower here. Within that bell tower we've got a stairs to get people in from the south entry point right here so the people from the south parking lot, there.., essentially the walkout theme because of the topography.., and then be in the narthax gathering space. We've got the west elevation pretty much similar to the west entry. We've got a feature in our school...through the tabernacle, the alter, the baptismal font, the bell tower, and circular feature which is the library and our media center area. So kind of a school focal point, kind of drawing people's attention to the school entry here. From the north entrance, we've got again the bell tower is pretty much on an... of our entries. We've got a trellis here on the north entry but because this is hoped to be a future expansion area, the fellowship hall, we've really just got the trellis entrance here. It's not going to go all the way back to the doors here. That's kind of a Reader's Digest version. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any other questions that anyone may have? Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of the site plan with the soccer field to the north. If that can't be accomplished, have it return to the Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Point of clarification? Councilman Senn: We approve the site plan the way it's submitted with the soccer field to the north and if that can't be worked out, revisit it with the Council. David Bangasser: We're concerned about being able to start the grading, in order to have this building done in 11 months. And if we've got to come back to Council, I don't know if we'll. Councilman Senn: You can start grading with this approval. Vernelle Clayton: ... not require the plans for NURP Pond and the. Kate Aanenson: We're talking about a separate thing that goes with the final plat. Those are final plat issues which we haven't even gotten to yet. We're doing the site plan. That's really final plat issues in two weeks. So those issues will be addressed at that point. Vernelle Clayton: ...we have to have all of our... We have to have everything in by Monday. The 16th. 47 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Kate Aanenson: For final plat? Vernelle Clayton: Yes. And if we're changing all this, the engineering department can't take that. Councilman Senn: Well Kate, let me ask you this. Effectively with our site plan approval, can't they go ahead and do the grading and stuff and quickly analyze the impacted areas before they're going to reach a critical.., on the grading. Kate Aanenson: Generally in order to do grading we do require some...and then generally based on approval of the plat... Vernelle Clayton: ...approval. Kate Aanenson: That's what we're saying. Come back if it doesn't work. Brad Johnson: If we're going to meet the deadline, then we should meet, we have to make a decision tomorrow morning whether to have the ballfield to the south or the north, prior to meeting with the owners in order to achieve. Councilman Senn: Put it on the north. Brad Johnson: They haven't agreed. Councilman Senn: Well then why are you here with us? You should be talking to the owners. Brad Johnson: It's a timing issue. You're listening to a presentation from St. Hubert's. Not from the developers. There's a plat that's been approved that's to the north. To the south. Kate Aanenson: You haven't got final plat approval yet. Brad Johnson: And we're going for final plat approval because we don't have any issue with it being north or south, but it's a timing issue and we would like to be able to proceed with our planning to the south with you agreeing that if it can be worked out, between the engineering department and the owners. There's another team in here. They have not purchased that property, okay. And if it can be worked out with the, and this is the hang- up. If you say to the north, we cannot proceed. If you say it's okay to go to the south, and you're okay with it on the north, if we can work it out with the staff. And the owners. Councilman Senn: Brad, I don't understand that because...get back to owners and work it out very quickly. Brad Johnson: It's not going to be an easy subject. Councilman Senn: Well but again, you're trying to put us in a corner and say we only have one choice. Councilman Berquist: Everybody's in a corner here. Vernelle Clayton: We have preliminary approval on our plat...with the south site. Bob Generous: There was no site plan approval. Brad Johnson: Well, you guys are at risk then. We are not sure if we can perform according to St. Hubert's. I mean we'd like to but we cannot make it through it the city process with that kind of direction. We can make it through the city process if you say it's okay if it's on the south, and then you try to work it out with the engineering 48 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 department. And then hopefully with the owners. The owners can't make a decision based on the information they have. They have no idea at this time what the cost of moving this field to the north is to them... And that will delay the project by at least another 2 weeks. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, let me just ask another question. In keeping that location in the south, with that wetland being situated there, isn't there any wetland mitigation that can be done with this. Not necessarily having to be on that piece of property but some other location. Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure of your question, and I think that might not be the issue. Bob Generous: They can avoid the wetlands in the southern part. They just take down the knoll and remove all the trees. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, okay. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Don. Don Ashworth: I just do not see that it's going to be an issue. I mean I do not believe that engineering is the problem for Brad. I don't know what the real problem is but the motion, as they made that, from the city standpoint I think it works. But maybe there's some other agenda here that we're not seeing. Councilman Senn: One question for Kate first. Iftiming's the issue here, is there a way that we can make up some weeks in the process as we go along? Kate Aanenson: This thing has been on the fast track since...We always have been trying to... Councilman Senn: So there's really no flexibility. Kate Aanenson: No, I'm not saying that. I'm not sure ifwe...I'm not sure what the agenda is. Certainly we're going to, if they get plans into us, we're going to try to keep it on the agenda and review... Bob Generous: They told me today that they could do it, based on the time frame of them having them in next Tuesday into our office. Brad Johnson: We're not sure we can do that, that's all. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I guess my direction from Council is, it's not going on the southern portion. I mean that's my feeling. That's too much to ask in terms of that site and for natural resources and keeping an open area. No, we have not approved... Vernelle Clayton: ...plat shows that. That's what we've got... The Planning Commission actually delayed their decision for... After that Planning Commission approved it with the soccer field to the south. That's what we brought to you in the preliminary package. We brought it back to you.., engineering has been working.., to bring back to you for final approval.., all the engineering based on the soccer field to the south. And there is a lot of engineering involved in that. More than you realize because.., and the grading along the south for example. Major changes... Changing it at this time... Yesterday we brought up that perhaps this pond could just go down here. Or here. Keep in mind this is now coming right up to the trail. 12 feet from the trail...but not all of these are currently in. This, there's an area here.., so we may have to change something here. That will require additional engineering, and this is either going to be moved tomorrow morning that the church is going to... all the engineering done for Dave to review. What we've reviewed to date, what's called the red lines, with the soccer 49 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 field down here. We have to get the... We can't tell them tomorrow morning because the owners have something to say about what goes onto their site... Brad Johnson: We have to provide... St. Hubert's. They have been negotiating with... Vernelle Clayton: Is there some way, Charles, that we could without having all of this finalized.., for grading to proceed... Currently the plan that we have now would have all of the... Charles Folch: Both of those items seem kind of contradictory. On the one hand you're saying that depending on whether the soccer field's on the north or the south end, you could have all these major changes in engineering and all these things would have to be redesigned. In the other breath you're saying, well let's just get started anyway and if there is a change, we'll worry about those major changes later. Vernelle Clayton: Unless they get started... Charles Folch: I guess it's the Council's choice with what they have a preferred recommendation where the field goes. It can be in the area of the site that would not be changed, with either location, the Council would direct staff to do so. We could take a look at that... Councilman Berquist: Why don't we make a motion to... Councilman Senn: The motion was to approve the site plan with the soccer field to the north. And if there's a change in that, have it come back and I wouldn't have a problem adding to the motion that if it can be worked out, to give them a preliminary start based on that assumption on other parts of the site, I don't have a problem with that to work it out and get going. Councilman Berquist: What's the problem with going the other way? Making the motion for the southern alignment with the stipulation that the northern alignment be continued to be pursued. Councilman Senn: Because there's no obligation to change it and I don't want it to the south, as the person making the motion. I want it to the north. I want that to be the driving part of the decision. Councilman Berquist: ...there's a concern of the knoll and the trees being lost. Councilman Senn: The knoll and the trees and the natural area. Councilwoman Dockendorf: There is so much, yeah there is so much impervious surface on this entire site already and granted, a soccer field is not impervious surface. It's still a clearing. Councilman Berquist: Tree. I think frankly that the rest of the Council is splitting hairs over consideration of a, holding up a project like this over a few thousand square feet of flatten area. I mean if you look at the entire... Councilman Senn: Steve, I don't agree with you. We aren't holding it up .... let them go ahead. If they have owner considerations, that's not something we get in the middle of. We're giving them every ability to move ahead... Councilman Berquist: ... approve the preliminary plat predicated on the southern alignment of the field? Councilman Senn: No. Councilman Berquist: Everything that I see has always indicated that that thing goes there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It has always been a point, from the beginning, it's always been. 50 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Councilman Senn: Major issue. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, it's always been a major issue. Brad Johnson: To me the issue is whether we were going to have a field or not. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think that's probably where we're at today. Brad Johnson: ... making a decision to prohibit St. Hubert's. Councilman Mason: Hold on. Hold on. But Brad, you know how many times are we told you've got to make a decision right now or everything's going to fall... Brad Johnson: All we want is to meet the schedule. Councilman Mason: And it seems to me with Mark's motion, that can happen. Brad Johnson: If the owners agree. Councilman Senn: That's right. We can't speak for the owners. Brad, go talk to them. We've given you everything in the motion to do that. And accomplish it. We're not going to approve the southern... Vernelle Clayton: ...final based on the preliminary approval. Brad Johnson: We've got it on the southern alignment. I mean we're just looking for some flexibility. Councilman Senn: No, you're looking for approval on the southern field. Brad Johnson: We had approval on the southern field. Councilman Mason: Well there's some disagreement on that. Brad Johnson: ...the preliminary plat had it on the south. Roger Knutson: Plat application is you're platting the lots. It doesn't give you a right to build anything particular in that lot. Or do anything with it other than cut it up into lots. Councilman Berquist: ...if we hold this thing up for a soccer field, north or south alignment, it's pretty short sighted. And I would hope that you withdraw your motion. Councilman Senn: Steve again, I don't think we're holding anything up. We gave them all the flexibility in the world to start the grading and everything else... Councilman Berquist: Well it appears to me if that were the case they wouldn't be arguing it vehemently as they are. So one of you is wrong and insofar as you're not intimately involved in the negotiations, I would suspect it would be you. Councilman Mason: And I guess I wonder if some of us, considering what church we go to and this, that and the other thing, need to really try and keep things separated out here. I mean I quite honestly think you're in a tough position here. Councilman Berquist: I am in a tough position. 51 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Councilman Mason: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: We all are. Councilman Mason: Well I agree. I agree. We all are and I mean this is real close. Mayor Chmiel: And I don't think we're looking at it from that standpoint either Mike... Councilman Mason: No, I understand. I understand. Councilman Senn: From my standpoint, that's always been a point of discussion. I guess I don't like the fact that it's the eleventh hour and it's here to be made right now. But I'm not going to basically go ahead on the basis that we're going to approve the southern alignment, that we don't want, in hopes that a northern will be worked out. I'm sorry, I don't think a northern will get worked out. If there's other issues on the agenda, then somebody should put those issues on the agenda and show us a case or reason why we should make a different decision. But based on the information that we have before us, and the decision we're supposed to make based on that information, I think that's the most responsible decision. Councilman Berquist: So what I'm hearing is that in the event a northern alignment is unattainable, financially or otherwise, the entire project would be put on hold? Councilman Senn: I'm not saying that. I didn't say that in my motion. Councilman Berquist: That's exactly what you're saying. Councilman Senn: No it's not. Not at all. Mayor Chmiel: Well we're going to have to come up with a given conclusion. I, not because I go to the church but I think the entirety of that project is very meaningful as I see it for the city. Plus the fact that there has to be some kind of a solution that can be done in order to provide this to continually move, and I can understand the fast track that it's been on. And it has been on for some time. When I brought up the fact of mitigation, taking out what is there in wetland and moving it somewhere else, you're saying that can't be done at all? Bob Generous: What it does, it trips the different permitting processes. Mayor Chmiel: Oh I see. Bob Generous: ... Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for issuing the permit. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: I totally agree with Councilman Senn's comment. This Council has demonstrated that it's willing to take and work with all owners, and this is a major construction item. I would anticipate that this Council would be willing to take and have a special session, special meeting date if that were required to take and re-look at this issue. But I mean, I'm hearing Brad and Vernelle say, we already had it approved on the south side. It's going there and we're not looking at anything else. And I don't think they're being flexible. Brad Johnson: No, we're not saying that. 52 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Vernelle Clayton: We're not having saying that. We've been doing everything we can to accommodate the Ward's. But you have to understand there was just an enormous amount of work that went into the plan that way. Don Ashworth: But this Council's willing to take and give you grading plans for the north side, if that helps you out. Vernelle Clayton: There's one element, the Wards, there's one of the Wards that's adamantly opposed to this and two of them that are really questioning it. Brad Johnson: To us. Councilman Senn: Then you need to go talk to them and bring back the rationale and basis that... Brad Johnson: ...engineering. We took with the idea that we were going to have a ballfield on the south and charged ahead, okay. We now have to back off of that. All of that engineering is done. We're ready to go and I guess what I'm finding out is that it's going to cost quite a bit of money to change it. We have to go to the Wards and get the authorization to start the engineering. We can't start tomorrow morning with what we've got going. And all we're saying is, it very well could end up on the north side. What you're doing is making a decision for the owner. They presented a site plan on property they don't own or have an option. There's a lot of decisions that somebody has to make. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well and Brad, this can't come as a surprise to you. I guess that's what I find the frustrating part. I mean the. Brad Johnson: It is a surprise to us because they are presenting a site plan on property they don't own and have not bought from the Wards... Councilman Senn: Why are you yelling at us Brad? Brad Johnson: Oh, I'm just frustrated because we'd like to see the church get started. Okay. And we don't have control. Trust us. We don't have control over this. We're just here trying to figure out a solution. Now we were told that if this came offtonight the way it is, we're pulling it from the agenda. We talked the Wards into bringing it in... It's not as cut and dry... They have no idea what the cost of a field on the north means to them. That's all, and we don't have any numbers. It will take us about a week. We're just trying to figure out is there a way to start the grading to do something. Councilman Senn: We just gave it to you. Brad Johnson: On the north. Councilman Senn: ...He has tons of grading to do before he even hits this spot. Kate Aanenson: ... red line, so to say there's significant changes, they still aren't done... Councilman Mason: Yeah, I mean we're giving you the green light on what, 38% of what's going on here. Councilman Senn: We've never done one like that before. I think we're all in the position where we want to see this go, and go quickly and accommodate it anyway we can. But Brad I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable in giving you approval on the south side tonight because everything you just rationalized the other way tells me you're not going to be back here doing any work on the north side so. Brad Johnson: I don't think it's that easy Mark. I don't know what to say. We, as I understand it, the timing is at least, in the meeting schedule, 3 weeks. 53 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Councilman Senn: Then we'll have a special meeting. Councilman Mason: You just heard we'll call a special session. I don't have any trouble with that at all, if that's what it takes. Brad Johnson: What I hear you saying is, if the owners won't agree with this, it's coming back? Councilman Senn: Well the only way if you're going to bring it back, I guess I'd like to see your rationale as to why it doesn't work and why you want us to make a decision differently than what we feel is right. Brad Johnson: ...the owners...you're making the decision for them. Councilman Mason: Well the decision that's being made, whether we say south side or north side Brad, don't pin that on us. Brad Johnson: Oh no. I mean we're just looking for... The owners are looking for information that we can't give them tomorrow on cost and they know that... We were told that it looked like this field was going to have to be smaller, this pond was going to have to bigger, we're going to lose some more parking up here, because of something we made a decision on down here. That's how I'm looking at this. That was a surprise to us. Councilman Mason: Well, I don't think we can expect everything to just fly through. Brad Johnson: No, we can bring it back except they want to start grading on October 1st. They wanted to start construction on October 15th. We can meet that schedule if we go boom, boom, boom. Councilman Senn: I think we just gave you the ability to do that. Councilman Mason: Well, what I'm hearing is you can meet that schedule regardless of where the soccer field goes. That's what I'm hearing right now. Vernelle Clayton: I think that's true. I think the issue now is whether the Wards are going to feel comfortable with the... Councilman Senn: Well, that's not an issue... Councilman Mason: Well, maybe they can come in too and we can talk with them about this, if that's what it takes. Mayor Chmiel: So then you'd be willing to allow for the motion that we basically have on the floor. Brad Johnson: If we get...have a special meeting? Councilman Mason: Absolutely. No problem at all. If I didn't second Mark's motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I did. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Site Plan #96-11 for a 96,288 square foot school church facility for St. Hubert Catholic Community, plans prepared by OPUS Architects & Engineers, Inc., dated 7/19/96, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must provide three more islands or peninsulas in the south parking lot and add perimeter landscaping in the north parking lots in order to meet city ordinance requirements. 54 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 2. The applicant must provide four more overstory trees within the parking lot areas in order to meet city requirements. 3. The seven Black Hills Spruce south of the school are to be relocated outside of the future expansion area. If it is feasible to relocate the soccer field north of the trail, the wooded area south of Highway 101 shall be placed under a conservation easement. If the soccer field is to be constructed in the proposed location, grading shall be modified to avoid filling of any wetlands on the site. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan south of the school site on the steep slope. This area shall be revegetated with sumac, live willow and dogwood stakes, and other fast growing materials to improve soil stability and reduce potential erosion. 6. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width will require the installation of aeration piping. 7. All new planting areas, including parking lot islands, peninsulas, and boulevards, shall have an irrigation system installed. 8. The applicant is required to incorporate street furniture in the plaza area west of the church. 9. A bicycle parking area and bicycle racks shall be provided on site. 10. A minimum of 50 percent of the parking for the St. Hubert Catholic Community must be provided through shared parking agreements. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 11. A separate sign permit must be submitted for all site signage, except for traffic control signage. 12. Site plan approval shall be conditioned upon the developer of The Villages on the Ponds receiving final plat approval by the City of Chanhassen. Once the developer has supplied the City with an executed PUD/development contract and financial escrow to guarantee site improvements, the site grading may commence upon receipt of the appropriate permits from other governmental agencies. 13. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height shall be engineered and will require a building permit from the City's Building Department. All retaining walls in excess of six feet in height shall have safety fences installed above them. 14. The grading plan shall be revised to take into account an additional 17 feet of right-of-way to be dedicated to the City for Grandview Road in the northeast corner of the site. The parking lot configuration shall be revised accordingly. Parking lot grades in the easterly side of the building shall be modified to eliminate the isolated storm sewer line south of the secondary access point. Landscaped islands shall be provided at the ends of the parking aisles. The parking stall in front of the trail shall be striped and a pedestrian ramp installed. 15. Final grading and drainage plans shall be modified to be compatible with the overall comprehensive grading and drainage plans from The Villages on the Ponds development. 16. A sanitary sewer line shall be extended around the southerly end of the building to the easterly property line for future extension along Grandview Road. 17. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval 55 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 18. All areas disturbed as a result of constmction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be restored with erosion control blankets. 19. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 20. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for lO-year and l O0-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for lO0-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine ff sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 21. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the agreement. 22. The applicant will meet wetland roles and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 23. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 24. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters (pursuant to City Ordinance 9-1). An additional fire hydrant will be required -- the location to be on the southwest corner of the property. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 25. Yellow painted curbing and No Parking Fire Lane Signs will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location of signage and determination of curbing to be painted. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10-206 and Section 20-207a. and Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy 06-1991. 26. A post indicator valve (PIV) will be required on the 8" water line coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 27. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #01-1990, Fire Alarm Systems (copy enclosed). 28. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #04-1991 (notes to be included on site plans) (copy enclosed). 29. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #07-1991, Pre-Fire Plan Policy (copy enclosed). 30. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #29-1992, Premise Identification (copy enclosed). 56 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 31. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #36-1994, Water Line Sizing (copy enclosed). 32. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #40-1995, Fire Sprinkler Systems. 33. Comply with Inspection Division, Policy #34-1993, Water Service Installation. 34. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building. After constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet, fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. With regards to the school wing, either provide fire apparatus access to within 150 feet of all portions of the building or install Class I stand pipes within the stairways of the school portion of the complex. This is taking into account the future expansion of the school. 35. 35. Submit turning radiuses of Fire Department access routes to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval." 36. The applicant is required to use the Roman Pisa retaining wall systems, or equivalent. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Okay, we'll move on to item number 10. Don Ashworth Because of the hour do you want to tackle that? Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll just, does anyone want to, rather than close this evening and have an executive session tomorrow at a given time? To discuss Halla's. Councilman Mason: I'm sorry? Mayor Chmiel: We can go to an executive session tomorrow, if anyone has time. Do you have time tomorrow that we could sit down? Councilman Mason: A lot of it depends on. Mayor Chmiel: What do you have going tomorrow? Councilman Mason: It would have to be after 7:30. Kate Aanenson: May I interject? I'm not sure Roger... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, what's your availability? Roger Knutson: Tomorrow there's a primary. Councilman Senn: After 8:00 you could? Roger Knutson: Except personally I'm supposed to be someplace else tomorrow night but I could have a colleague here. Don Ashworth: Are there any other evenings where we could do something earlier? 57 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: It's up to Council. Don Ashworth: Wednesday night? Thursday. I'm talking about like at 6:00-6:30. Councilman Senn: Wednesday night I can do it but I have to be somewhere at 7:00. Mayor Chmiel: Well it shouldn't take much more than half hour. Half hour, 45 minutes. If it goes beyond that, I'm already carried over to another. Councilman Mason: We have a work session on the 16th, don't we? Kate Aanenson: Roger can't be here that night either. Roger Knutson: Which day of the week? Mayor Chmiel: Monday. Councilman Mason: Oh, you've got a Council meeting somewhere else I suppose. Kate Aanenson: That's what we had suggested, two more weeks. Councilman Mason: That's fine with me. Mayor Chmiel: Let's do it at that time. We're talking the 23~'d. Councilman Mason: Meet at 7:00? ...6:457 Councilman Senn: What day is that? Mayor Chmiel: 23~'d of September, which is Council meeting. Councilman Senn: Okay, let's do two weeks from tonight...temporary sign back up on the corner down there. I mean that is one of the issues for the settlement...problem insofar as people finding their business. And I hate to...because it wasn't going to be there any other way. I don't know. I don't want to get in their games. I'm staying out of it... Mayor Chmiel: Let's put this on schedule for the 23~'d at, how does 6:30 sound? Kate Aanenson: I've got a Board of Adjustments... Councilman Senn: Do we have a Board of Adjustments that night? Don Ashworth: 6:45 would probably work... Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we try for what, 6:45... Councilman Mason: Can that notice please get on when we get the agendas mailed to us? Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The other items, we can cover at our next meeting. Councilman Senn: Can we do something on the sign thing or not? 58 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: On the what? Councilman Senn: On the sign thing. Don Ashworth: Why not just let the track sit there for another two weeks. Councilman Senn: Well it's not sitting there now. Todd Gerhardt: Well it's not on the corner but it's pulled... Councilman Senn: Well I mean, the applicant is taking a very strong enforcement position...until we get back to make a decision. Now this just keeps going on and on and on. Mayor Chmiel: Well let him sit it where it's at and then we'll go from there. Councilman Senn: Do we have to do l(e) tonight? Don Ashworth: We have to have that certified by the 15th. I(E). SET TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING DATES AND SET PROPOSED LEVY. Councilman Senn: I pulled l(e) for my annual reason I guess. I don't like the idea of sending out the maximum allowed amount, which is then used by the county to calculate the notices to go out to everybody and tell them how much their taxes are going to go up. Don Ashworth: Well that's State law. I'm surely not going to go the maximum. You could set it... I would propose to set it at exactly the same as last year. Councilman Senn: Okay. So the notices would go out the same as last year? Don Ashworth: Well realize, I have to do the calculation. It's going to be my best guesstimate so if it comes in at 25.2 versus this year's... I will try to set it as close to the existing tax level as possible. Councilman Senn: Okay, I move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution #96-75: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to set the truth in taxation hearing dates and 1997 proposed levy as outlined by the City Manager. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Motion for adjournment. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can I just add something on that same topic? Don, I don't know, Ashworth. I don't know if you've seen what the statement's going to look like. Whether there's going to be a huge jump because of the local... Don Ashworth: Yeah, I'm aware of that. But we should still, well maybe we can talk later, and I can tell you what I know. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12.15 a.m. 59 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996 Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 60