The URL can be used to link to this page

1f2. HSZ Development, Final Plat 1 CITY OF \ 1/4); CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM !N TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner , _2(—&ACT Data Su`61,: ! 03 DATE: July 20, 1988 SUBJ: Final Plat Approval of Seven Forty One Crossing _a ' BACKGROUND The City Council approved the preliminary plat for the subject ' property at the April 25 , 1988, meeting subject to 11 conditions ( see attached minutes) . Of primary concern during the prelimi- nary plat review process was the partial vacation of 64th Street. The City Council at the May 31, 1988 , meeting approved the par- tial vacation request subject to construction of a cul-de-sac on the Reed property, construction of an 8 ' trail and providing a left turn lane for westbound traffic on TH 7 ( see attached 1 minutes ) . The next item on the agenda regarding site plan review will also discuss a number of the conditions that were required by these two approvals . 1 ANALYSIS The final plat proposes lot dimensions generally consistent with 1 the preliminary plat. A portion of Lot 2 extends north to TH 7 in order for the owner of Lot 2 , the applicant, to maintain control and maintenance of the right-in only access. 1 The applicant is reserving a 25 foot utility easement along the south lot line. The plat is being shown to the centerline of the vacated roadway (the plat indicates Bardwell Road because it was 1 originally platted as that in the Bardwell Acres subdivision prior to the city changing it to 64th Street) . The City Engineer' s Office has stated that the 25 foot drainage and uti- lity easement will adequately cover the drainage and utility structures in this area. 1 As part of the vacation request, the Council required the appli- cant to construct an 8 foot bituminous trail. The final plans indicate this trail consistent with Council approval. However, because the trail meanders through the former 50 foot right-of-way of 64th Street, a 25 foot trail easement on the 11 Mr. Don Ashworth July 20 , 1988 Page 2 north side of the southern boundary of the plat should be dedi- 1 cated to the city. Similarily, a 25 foot easement on the south side of the centerline of 64th Street is being required with the plat for the Reed Addition now under consideration by the Planning Commission and which will be seen by the Council on August 8th. All of the plat conditions have been incorporated into the 1 development contract. A majority of these conditions pertain to engineering items which will be resolved during the building per- mit approval process or plan and specification review. Note that the letter of credit amount includes all improvements, both on and off site ( trail, TH 7 turn lane, utilities, grading, etc. ) . RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the final plat stamped "Received July 13 , 1988" subject to the following con- ditions: 1 . Execution of the development contract and submission of the I necessary financial securities. 2 . Submission of a 25 foot trail easement along the south boun- dary of the plat. ATTACHMENTS 1 . City Council minutes dated April 25 ,1988 . 2 . City Council minues dated May 31, 1988 . 3 . Final plat stamped "Received July 13 , 1988" . ' 1 1 1 I Ea . (i8 City Council Meeting -April 25, 1988 'y placed in another holding pattern while they basically photoco last time and I'm wondering why the City was unwilling py what they said II recommendation from last time and act on that to get this thingtresolvedso's we can get our dock? We feel we have... II Mayor Hamilton: I think this is standard procedure for us. Rer Knutson was here. This time Mr. Farrell is here and he's the time and he will come up with the Findings of Fact and talk to Roger and I'm sure he'll have it back to us in very short order. I suspect we'll have it back I here in a weeks time or sooner. Pat Farrell: Next meeting. IMayor Hamilton: Next meeting we'll have it. We're not trying to delay you at all. We'll get it just as quickly as we can. IILOT AREA VARIANCE TO PERMIT A HOME SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED ON WOODHILLROAD,CLOTSR2763-2766 CARVER 8,, R ILAND VENTURES. BEACH, R AND R Mayor Hamilton: This item was before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals so II Willard, can you inform the Council what the disposition was. Willard Johnson: We discussed it. It's a lot of record and we granted the variance being it's a lot of record, unanimously. 1 IIII SEVER PETERSON, PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve extension until January 1, 1989 because of the proposed p212icorrid plat TH li II Without the corridor having been approved and finalized at this point, Mr. Peterson doesn't know how it's going to affect his property. Until he knows how it's going to affect his property, he can't go through a platting process. IIAll voted in favor and motion carried. HSZ DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 7 AND TH 41: IA. REZONING FROM OI, OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL TO BN, NEIGHBORHOOD B B. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE 3 COMMERCIAL LOTS. 0 USINESS. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,920 SQUARE FEET RETAIL CENTER. D. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET. == Mayor Hamilton: This is an item that's been before us many times also. We have new developers of this property who have presented a plat to us. Barbara Dacy: At the Planning Commission meeting on March 16, 1988, the Planning Commission covered a number of issues and the Planning Commission Chairman is here tonight, or at least I thought he was. were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting dealt with theorezoning that R issue, the traffic and the transportation alignments and various items on the ;i1) ,II '' City Council Meeting April 25; 1988 site plan. I'd just briefly like to review I w those and point out some additional information that has been made available. As far as the rezoning action is concerned from the office institutional to the neighborhood business district, II the Planning Commission felt more comfortable with this proposal because of the creation of the BN district in the new Zoning Ordinance. Now the neighborhood zoning district specifically controls height to one story for the types of uses II that are proposed. It also establishes a 50 foot building and parking setback from adjacent homes and requires a strict amount of screening to be constructed between residential and commercial properties. Further, it provides for a specific list of neighborhood oriented uses. Another item of this proposal II that seems to gain more acceptance than previous proposals was the traffic separation from the commercial development to the adjacent neighborhood. Basically what that entailed, at the Planning Commission was a discussion of II two options. Option 1 being vacation of existing 64th Street and realignment of 64th Street further to the south of TH 41 so that a full intersection could be created into the development on TH 41 according to MnDot standards, II approximately 600 feet south of TH 7. This option proposed an extension of Oriole Lane down to it's existing terminus and then east adjacent to the Gowen and the Reed property. Another option that was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, as labeled on your plans as Option 2 or staff has kind of r called it the Z option, would crisscross through the Reed property. Again, - allowing for the full intersection farther to the north. I think it's fair to say that the Planning Commission felt that a reconnection to TH 41 for 64th II Street was important. They also agreed with the neighborhood comments that there should not be assessments created out of this road construction project and the cost, if one of these options or another option to connect it to TH 41 11 should be born by the developer. The Council does have that option to require that. Since the Planning Commission meeting there have been two additional alternatives suggested by the developer. What we're calling as Option 3 is the construction of a cul-de-sac at the southwest corner of the commercial site on II 64th Street. This option would not make a connection back to TH 41. Option 4 is the same principle however it goes farther into the Reed property and would provide for future resubdivision of the Reed property. We know this is a II change from the Planning Commission. However, it is staff's recommendation that a reconnection of 64th Street is very, very important to the neighborhood in this area. As you can tell by this overhead, this is TH 7 on the north, TH 41 over here, that this Washta Bay Road/Orchard Lane neighborhood has no II access into and out of the area other than 64th Street and TH 7. There is no ability to cross or connect to Dartmouth Drive to the west because of the wetland area. Closing off 64th Street would force all of the residential trips I onto TH 7. TH 7 is a minor arterial and serves a different purpose. It's purpose is to move traffic between two points at a fairly rapid speed and without a lot of interruption. Retaining the connection of 64th Street would II allow traffic coming out of this neighborhood to go south on TH 41 and provides a second means of ingress and egress. Therefore, what staff is recommending Council to take direction on is whether or not 64th Street should be reconnected to TH 41. It's our recommendation that it should be. That either II Option 1, 2 or some other option can be evaluated in more detail when the Reed property would come in for platting. Condition of approval that was recommended by the Planning Commission was that that plat for the Reed property II would be approved by the Council before construction could occur on the commercial property. As to the site plan issues, three items that we'd like to follow up on. One, there was concern about landscaping along the western border of the site. That the landscaping would extend to the TH 7 property II 25 II IIerty Council Meeting - Al 25, 1988 i line. The applicant has amended his plans to add ten 6 foot evergreen trees to extend the landscaping along the Ziegler property line and all the way up to [- II TH 7. Another concern was the concern from the Watershed District about water quality on Lake Minnewashta. The applicant has revised it's plan to provide for an on-site storm water retention. The applicant has also revised the lighting plan to take better advantage of pole standards and so on and to ' create lighting structures that are constructed in such a manner to protect glare from going onto adjacent properties. The Planning Commission and staff recommendation remains the same from the March 16th meeting. However, we would ' recommend that you would adopt the revised plans. If you'd like, Larry Brown can address the on-site retention issue and the lighting plan issue, if you want to go into further detail on it. Larry Brown: As stated in the report, kind of at the 12th hour, concerns came up regarding the water quality as this proposed storm sewer pipe would discharge into the Herman Field Park. Not the park itself but the wetlands down by Herman Field Park. In going back to the Watershed District with these concerns, they revised their initial recommendation and stated that they wanted additional on-site ponding. The plan that you see before you tonight addresses ' those concerns by constructing two ponds. One up here in the northeast corner and the one you don't see, because this is the old transparency, is the one that on your plan shown in the southeast corner. These ponds do provide adequate sedimentation and the Watershed District has given their verbal approval on these. As you know, they will not give their formal approval until the Council acts on these. The other issue was the lighting concept plan. Since the neighborhood had brought up such a great concern about the glare, they designed out or speced out special lighting fixtures similar to the ones that you see in the City Hall lots and kept the full heights at 20 feet such that the glare would not be affecting any other adjacent lot owners. They have gone as far as taking this to a lighting consultant and had this plan analyzed to make sure that the glare would not be affecting the adjacent property owners. With that I'll leave it open to Council questions. ' Mayor Hamilton: What I'd like to do is have the developer, do you have a presentation you'd like to make? ' Roger Zahn: My name is Roger Zahn. I'm president of HSZ Development. I!d just like to give a little bit of background on our approach to a number of the issues that we saw with respect to this property as we studied it and looked into whether or not we should go forward with this development. Having read the Minutes of the past Council and Planning Commission meetings and tried to take into account the concerns raised there, many of them legitimate and trying to solve those problems. In our approach to the development, we have tried to ' a great extent to listen to the neighbors and if they had a preferred approach that we might take, we tried to take that and work with then. That has caused us to kind of change directions a little bit more often I think than staff ' would like us to do and perhaps we've caused a few concerns on their part by doing that but we have done it in an effort to cooperate with the neighbors. The cul-de-sac ideas that have been discussed and that have been brought to you since the Planning Commission meeting were basically the neighbors preference. ' The Reeds and the Gowens, in our discussion with then initially they saw a little bit more of the idea of moving a road all the way through onto TH 41 a little bit more favorably and I think in analyzing their own situations, they [77 would prefer to do it this way and that's fine with us. So we drew up some 26 City Council Meeting Cpril 25, 1988 , r- concept plans showing that and it's also fine with us to put the road through. If we had a preference we would agree with the Reeds and Gowens and the other neighbors that thing that way, that the cul-de-sac approach would probably be the best and it is our preferred approach at this time. At this point I think I'll turn, so you can see, we've got some presentation boards and we've got John Uban from Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban here to discuss the planning issues that he has worked on and we've got J.D. MacRae from Heise, Ryan, MacRae and Associates to discuss the architectural concerns and also Brian Larson from Barrientos and Associates to answer questions that you may have regarding any engineering. Craig Johnson also from that firm regarding landscaping. I think I'll turn it over to John at this point. John Uban: You're all very familiar with this. I will briefly show this to ' you. To give you an idea of some of the things that we looked and had to deal with as we were trying to develop a good development scenario for this parcel. This is a 200 scale aerial photograph. The subject property is right at the intersection of TH 7 and TH 41. This piece is isolated in a sense from the neighborhood in that it really doesn't share access into the neighborhood itself and really is incumbered by the extreme exposure to the highway system which actually makes it a good site for doing something like neighborhood commercial. That's the attack we took and yet at the same time, all the residents in the pattern of development that has happened in the past, really spoke to try to separate the traffic systems from these two uses. So we looked at a method of doing that. We worked with the neighbors to really came out with the best plan. Also to the south is a major Hennepin County park and open space system. The actual property is divided up into many single family plots onto the west and we have on Oriole Drive the connection of 64th over to TH 41 the way it exists today. That connects to TH 7 and loops back across into the neighborhood and to the west. So we looked at the land to the south owned by two individuals to see what kind of options we had. We also looked at the area circulation and did studies and we looked at the basic water drainage system. Here we found that there were some ponds put in place by the Highway Department that were draining the norther portions of the site but primarily most of it came through a very informal fashion and found their way into a marshland just before it entered the lake which is a good natural system to take care of the water. So now we've only tried to augment that to meet the criteria of the Watershed District and the City so this water is now handled the best way possible. We've studied this and solved some problems. There's water that comes across the road. We've looked at all of those developments. In our discussions, staff has already reviewed the options that we've looked at but we did several things. We met with MnDot. We tried to work out problems that they had. Proposing to add a lane, a by-pass lane and then a deaccerleration and acceleration lane for the entrances. What we've developed then is a piece of land with it's own full access which separates it completely from the neighborhood and this went a long way to really get the use integrated with much better architecture, lower buildings, good landscaping, good setbacks, low glare lighting, all these features to really make it work. We also worked with MnDot to try and develop a solution to a very dangerous situation. It is very difficult for westbound traffic to make a left turn onto Oriole Lane so we worked with them and they will now, this summer, be restriping that section of the road for a dedicated left turn lane because in the past people have been 3 sitting in there, high speed traffic coming up behind them and they're sitting there waiting to make this seemingly innocuous left turn and it's very dangerous. People have almost gotten hurt so we've worked to try and solve 27 ' i 7721 Council Meeting - Apr) l 25, 1988 that problem and we thing we have worked that out now with MnDot. This ' development looked at different ways of putting access into the land to the south to give them future development potential. Really what we've done is opened up the realm of possibilities and what could happen, there are several different solutions. This one looped through and followed the existing right-of-way here but some of the neighbors didn't want this road. Didn't want to finish out some of the platted roads that were in the area. So we looked at another system in which 64th was kept in place that then hopped down to the ' Reed property, followed the property line out then to TH 41. This worked except maybe the timing isn't quite right for both parties at the same time and then we would not extend Forest Avenue either. The neighborhood did not want that to happen. So that's what led us to the final solution. That's maybe not the best name for it but hopefully it's one that will work very well. The cul-de-sac idea really is only the first phase of the previous kinds of solutions that we looked at. One in which Mr. Reed can develop a few lots, culminate 64th Street into a safe cul-de-sac and then it offers the platting and the continuation of the street that could open up the rest of the land in Mr. Gowen and Mr. Reed on out to TH 41 so it does resolve that deadend issue in that it can be completed. It does not use other existing right-of-way. It doesn't have to although the City certainly has the choice of completing the road system that exists and eliminating the other cul-de-sac. This also has the potential, and is requested by the City for safety purposes as an interim ' solution to this cul-de-sac is to provide emergency access right up into the site itself which we can do if it's really required so all of this is really designed as a first step. These two landowners are not developers really. ' They're people who own the land, have owned it for a long time and are not necessarily in a good position today to really jump in and take on all the responsibilities of development but this is a solution that they can live with and it gets them into working with their land on a slower pace. We think this works very well and will solve all the problems with circulation for the site itself. It works with the standards of MnDot. It helps revive a solution that should have been looked at a long time ago with the left turn lane into Oriole ' and it really starts the development pattern I think working out very successfully. We've worked hard. We've met with everyone and we think we have before you tonight the best solution we can produce and I think you'll see, ' when you see the product, the site design, that it really is going to be a very good development for you. I'll turn it over now to J.D. to go through that development unless you have any questions of me. ' Councilman Boyt: How long is your cul-de-sac? John Uban: This small one, I'll measure it exactly. A little over 500 feet. ' Councilman Johnson: All the way. 11 John Boyt: There's a second entrance there Jay on the bottom. John Uban: I'm measuring from this to this. ' Councilman Johnson: All the way up. That's your one and only entrance. Councilman Boyt: No. It comes out another part of TH 7. [E7 ' 28 ' 7 . , City Council Meeting April 25, 1988 John Uban: There are different ways I ys of looking at it. , If you want to measure # it from TH 7, obviously we have several hundred more feet there but there's a platted road through here that forms a'road. Physically it is not in place II but it's platted right-of-way. Councilman Boyt: That other one is another 600 or 700 feet up to TH 7? That II extension? Councilman Johnson: Where Orchard intersects.. . Councilman Boyt: II yt: I think I've got the idea. John Uban: If you're measuring from TH 7, this is over 500 feet. I Councilman Boyt: Like about 1,000. John Uban: That's why we're providing the option of doing this. The landowner II then can pursue the dedication through easements and dedication right-of-way for the completion of the roadway. J.D. MacRae: My name is J.D. MacRae. I'm with Heise, Ryan, II, Mac Rae and Associates. We're the architects on the project. To go quickly through the site issues first of all. Again, reorientating, TH 7, TH 41, full access II onto TH 41 and a right turn lane only off of TH 7. We chose to build up on TH 7 two outlots that would be sold off for commercial uses. Then pulled our site back away from TH 7 feeling that the highest visibility is TH 7. The best II useage for those lots then, for that intense type use on that outlot would be up on TH 7. We then orientated the building along the south property line. Following the property line. We orientated it that way for two reasons. One, the intersection with the stop light. , Full visibility of the project. The II most sighted for the retailers. Secondly, trying to reduce the impact of our building on the neighborhood to the west which was of great concern. The impact to the south obviously, we have a lot of building along there but due to II the height difference between this piece of property and the property to the south, they're really looking up through a berm and seeing very little of the building from this height. We then have an accessory building which is on the west side. Again, trying to minimize the amount of building there with a II maximum amount of square footage that you can put on this site. We then have the parking out in front with some drive-up parking along the center. The parking meets all the requirements of the City. The setbacks to the paving are II actually about 59 feet I believe we have here rather than the 50 foot setback. Most of that is due to the grade difference from about this point to this point and the needing for the slope and the berm up on top to the landscaping which II we'll get to in a moment. Well, we can get to it right now. We have a landscape plan here which has been amended, is not amended on here, continuing landscaping up to TH 7 as Barb had discussed. We have fir trees all along the perimeter of the property intermixing other types of vegetation and bringing in II Scotch Pine. Then down below it we have sumac. Craig Johnson: We have deciduous shrubs. I 1 J.D. MacRae: Along this portion of the berm. We then have deciduous trees out in front that are thin, light trees so again the visibility is easy to see II through. We have an arcade of trees on each side of the entrance making 29 1 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 somewhat of a parkway entrance off of TH 7.- Then landscaping out inhere. With that landscaping, this all meets down here. The landscaping along the [- perimeter, we've also incorporated berming along the top of. this hillside here to help screen the residential. We have sight section A, B, C and D which are reflected here showing a typical two story house and it's proper elevation and the relationship of distance and height to our project. Through this accessory building we would actually berm up onto the back of the building and carry the berm up somewhat higher and then scotch pines and the deciduous trees... The sight line actually from eye level on the second level cutting across, I believe we see about a foot of the accessory building. You_get into the small - _ side of the retail center itself, again here cutting through; you see about the same amount of building. Not taking into consideration that we have landscaping on top of that that is there year round. On the back side, Section C and D, we're just showing there is obviously no development down there. These are the existing contours coming up the hill and again showing the minimal amount of the building with the berm itself and then the landscaping up on top of the berm. The biggest concern we have with the berming was to hide the cars and hide the parking lot so we're not looking at a parking lot. Looking at a minimal amount of building. Making the smallest amount of impact. Getting to the actual building itself, along the front side, the street side, we have windows, full height from the sidewalk 9 feet high. We have a canopy that carries across the face of the building that sticks over the sidewalk so you can walk underneath the canopy. Then we anchor at each end of the building, this is sort of a shorten elevation, this is the actual elevation to make sense of how long it really is. We have anchored each side of the building with an architectural element_ that sticks up above the top of. the building and using brick and rock face concrete block, we tried. to make a real pretty elevation here and'here. Again, with" the glass and concrete, columns going across here, the signage will be incorporated into the canopy. We then wrap around the corner here carrying the brick back to about a two-thirds point and then it's a rock faced-block mask that sticks 2'8" here and then wraps around the back side of the building. We've clad the roof of the canopy and the roof of these two elements in a red standing seam roofing.. This black mass you see back behind is another metal roofing that is being used as a screening element for the rooftop units. It runs the continuous length of.the building. Again, it has the two-thirds point back, wrapping around this concrete mass and then coming around the back of the building a short distance and terminating. We chose to do that for two reasons. One, the intersection-of TH 7 and TH 41 is slightly higher than the floor height here which means somebody sitting in their car would have the opportunity to look up onto the roof and see not the roof but would see the rooftop units. We think that's very distracting and not good looking. Two, as we drive along this side on TH 41, TH 41 is as high as our building is and you actually have the opportunity to look down upon the building. Again, trying to lessen the impact of the rooftop unit. I'll leave you with, and we have a rendering to give you sort of an image idea of what kind of a center we're talking about. A very high quality, nice materials. Again, the sign band up in the canopy. The canopy going back. Many people walking along the sidewalk. Only two cars, I don't know how they got there. Then our tall element up here. Again, the tall deci.dious trees out in the parking lot for minimum impact. Mayor Hamilton: Anybody from the neighborhood like to make comments? . If you'd like to, now is your 'chance. Preferably if there is somebody representing the whole group I'd appreciate hearing from them rather than each individual. 30 75 1 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 II Gene Conner: I'm the next door neighbor to Bob Wagner on Orchard Lane. Bob * s poked me and said okay, it's your turn. I feel like I've kind of been II subjected over the years to the Chinese water torture with this project. I must admist that I do have to congratulate the developers for finally coming up with something that at least seems like a reasonably intelligent approach to the project. I really can't say that for previous approaches. I still have II reservations. It's been said over and over and over again that that area is not suitable for residential. I really don't believe it. Since that's been said so many times it's almost become a thing with me. I drive around and II I look at residential development areas that are close to highways much busier, much bigger than that one and see really nice places being built close to intersections. That property also has enough contour in it so that residences II could have been built in off 64th Street with, I think .the highways would not have bothered them at all. I built facing TH 7 and I don't have a problem with TH 7 and I think there is some property in there, most of the property in there could have been utilized with more screening toward the highway than I II had. But the Council in all their wisdom has decided that that's not going to be residential. I still think it's suitable for the OI that it's presently designated. I guess I'm not sold on a commercial type development in there yet II although this is far better than what we've had in the past. I do have two areas of concern with this however and that is the two pieces of undeveloped property in front of it. I mean as sure as God made little green apples, the II next approach is going to be for a full blown commercial on those lots because they're facing right out on the highway. It's creeping commercialism. I just know in my own heart that if this goes in, that is going to go full blown commercial out there. Maybe not with this Council. It's easy for this Council II to say it won't happen but down the road you people won't always be here. Again, my congratulations however to the developers, a very fine presentation. Ben Gowen: I'm the adjacent property to the south of Reeds. Under the latest II proposal of the cul-de-sac, I see where I'm not involved one iota now or in the future. If I've got that wrong, please correct me. Another thing, it was mentioned by Barb earlier that during the Planning meeting it was stated by her II that Reed's plotting was a part of the discussion. I don't think that was a fact in the Planning meeting. Otherwise, I'm for the commrecial corner. I think there's only one way to do it and that's commercial. I Bob Wagner, 2511 Orchard Lane: Of course I couldn't pass up the opportunity to come up here and talk to you guys again. I'd like to take you back to your II August 3rd Commission meeting in which you met without the luxury of us, the homeowners, and Mayor Hamilton talked to Councilman Johnson and he said if the ingress and egress on that property could be resolved to Councilman Johnson's satisfaction, would he be in favor of commercial and he said yes. I think II that's still a major issue from what I've heard tonight. I'm not sure I've heard the proper solution. We've talked about two options, two of which were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Two of which were discussed for II the first time tonight, at least amongst us homeowners that are here. One of those I have heard is very disturbing to me and that's where we talk about an emergency route, if you will, back up into the shopping center which to me II } means we're distroying the privacy, we're tearing down berming, we're not protecting the residential any longer. Of course I understand where that's i coming from. We have 1,000 foot or longer cul-de-sac which is against the Code I believe. I'm more opposed to the entrance back into the shopping center than II anything and I think that deserves a lot of discussion. I think it destroys 1 31 II City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 the concept that we were trying to sell in the beginning which is keep it separate. Councilman Boyt made a statement on August 3rd, he said to vote on that we've got to be able to show that there's a significant portion of the neighborhood that supports it. I've heard Ben get up and say he supports it. I have yet to hear anybody else in the neighborhood get up and say they support ' it. I don't know what you consider significant but I don't consider one or two neighbors significant. I think I've heard a lot more neighbors opposed that for. Councilman Geving said something a little bit better quality, bring that back or something that could sell the quality angle. Keeping it se the homeowners. Low density. Bring us back something that's separate frlo g good quality, low density, good separation from existing homes. I think the one point in that ' that should be discussed is intensity. I think if you look at the records and if you look at previous proposals, this may be less intense by 1,000 square feet but you're not considering the other property up front yet to be developed and I would challenge that to the question of intensity. Mayor Hamilton made a ' comment in that meeting about, I'll quote, I can't for the life of me figure out how they can complain about noise, talking about the neighbors, or whatever it was they were complaining about that far away from the road. I think ' they're complaining about something that isn't a problem and I think I'm being realistic and they're not. I think if that's true Mr. Mayor, then residential would fit there. If noise isn't an issue. Going back to the Planning Commission meeting, the last meeting we attended, it was stated by Barb Dacy ' that as to this application, what we're saying is they can't start building here until the City has resolution on the street connection issue. From the staff standpoint, that's the major issue and that is to get the traffic ' connection back to TH 41. That's on page 15, about the third paragraph. I still think that's the issue tonight. I hear a sense in change in direction. I guess I'm just concerned that it's adequately discussed. There is a ' presentation on this board that shows two buildings. One is the 26,000 square foot building but there's another building placed off to the side in the presentation that is not part of what they're planning on developing. That particular building sits right behind Ziegler's home and that would in fact ' create a privacy issue with them in that it would protect them from the shopping center. I just want to point out to you that's really not in this phase of development unless they could find a builder but I think the way they're presenting it, it's not in there although it's in the picture. The statement was made about the berm and the statement was made that it's somewhat higher than the parking lot. Having lived through this in front of my house with what was the Baltic property, somewhat highwer is a very disturbing term ' to me. I'm still looking for the landscaping and the evergreen trees that was reserved with a letter of credit at that time. It's still not there today. That's back in 1979 so I think• somewhat higher is a rather elusive term and I ' think you need to do a better job of finalizing what that is. We talked about the view from TH 41 as we listened to this and the fact that somebody could sit in their car and possibly look down, at least slightly on the units on the top ' of this building, I'd like to point out to the Council that I live on the hill higher than TH 41 and I'm going to have the opportunity to look down across the whole roof, not just part of it. I think that's an issue. A community issue. Maybe very much a personal one but with good reason. I've been here before and ' I would like to see something directed in that area. We talked about the pleasing look. I call it the Canterbury stables look with the two cones on top of the roof. I would ask you to verify that that's within the height limit of 67 the Building Code for BN. I think it might be out of that area that's approved. I think that's the major issues. ' 32 77 I City Council Meeting April 25, 1988 -r- g; Gary Reed: My brother and I own the property that's adjacent to the shopping center on the south. As far as the shopping center going in, it just depends on what Mr. Zahn is going to do for us. If we vacate the street, we have approximately five sewer and water system that we're not currently paying for along the street so that is the reason for the extension of the cul-de-sac into the property. We felt that that would be a good compromise to vacate the street. That we would then be able to develop around the cul-de-sac area which would give us a little more depth into the property. Then the drainage situation that is currently there, where it cuts through the property, would have to be dealt with if this concept were to be accepted. We have a lot of drainage that comes off of the West Jr. High or whatever it is now, the Middle School, that comes off of their parking lot and cuts through our property and it can be a torrent at times so I think we're looking for the developer to look at that situation too because it would certainly be a part of his drainage problem and we all met at one spot there. We would hope to also be applying for a BN type zoning on probably the front 3 1/2 acres and residential then around the cul-de-sac area. We feel that being back up to the shopping center, Ben Gowen has conditional use running on the other side of us and then to the south is the park and school and so on, that we would also apply in the future for a BN for the frontage along the highway. We asked Roger for a permanent easement into his parking lot so that we would then have two exits. One on TH 41 and then into his parking lot for that frontage. Then develop the back lots as residential at some future plat that you would have that comes before you. These are just some of my thoughts on it. We would be in favor of the cul-de- sac idea that's being proposed as we could work it out with Roger. Councilman Geving: Are you in favor then of that second access into the shopping center from your property to the north? You're the one that worked out and negotiated with the developer? Gary Reed: In the front part of his parking lot we would ask for an easement over his parking lot so that if we did develop it, we could then be part of his entrance and exit. We could exit out ours and then we would have no impact on the neighborhood as far as traffic flow is concerned. Now if you're talking about the emergency access to the back. ' Councilman Geving: That's what I'm really talking about. Gary Reed: I think if that's handled properly, there shouldn't be any traffic ' back through. My wife and I were concerned about the people that walk up to the school, we suggested to Roger and he agreed that putting a bike path up through and along the shopping center and then that would double as the emergency entrance into the cul-de-sac area if an emergency vehicle needed to go in there. Possibly leave a notch in the bermi.ng. At that point, I don't think it would bother anybody. I guess I hoped a little bit about protecting the rooftop units on the front of the building but I would certainly like to see them protected on the back side too. I wouldn't like to look at them. 1 Councilman Geving: So you're in favor of the project as it's being proposed , tonight? Gary mod: Well, as the amendments go on, as long as we work things out. 33 78 City Council Meeting - Apr 25, 1988 Larry Brown: Point of clarification. I think there, and correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Reed but BIr believe uthat was Ir ' that you were in favor of. The one showing on the right hand side. Not confused with the one that the applicant had shown. ' Gary Reed: That was the easement I had discussed with Roger and this concept, this isn't exactly laid out the way it would be probably. The concept is the same but I would prefer it being forward here so, this isn't really to scale. I have 155. feet in here. My house and my sons house would be built on that and ' then I would like another 100 feet or 150 feet in the lots here and another 100 here... ' Councilman Boyt: How many acres do you have? Gary Reed: There's approximately from, I'm severing this off so the rest would ' be probably 7-7 1/2 acres or so. Councilman Boyt: So you're looking at about half of that BN? ' Gary Reed: Yes, just enough to put one business on the property. We've had the drive-in up there for years you know and I've been talking to some people that would reconstruct that idea and make a restaurant. Put an extension on ' the Reed's Drive-in theme. Operated for years and it was an asset to the community. Paul Kerner, 6351 Minnewashta Woods Drive: I'm just here on behalf, we want to ' see some commercial development at that location. I just wanted to show my support. Mayor Hamilton: We should take them one at a time and look at the rezonin g from OI to BN first of all. After that we'll look at the preliminary plat and see if we can't hammer out something that's workable there. Jay, do you want to start? Do you have any comments on the rezoning issue? Councilman Johnson: Since this is the first reading of rezoning and the change to our ordinance on the cause for rezoning, and we're putting conditions in the plat and site plan review and stuff, we prevent a second reading until we've satisfied the other conditions, I don't have a lot of problem right now with ' the rezoning because it's not a total rezoning at this time. I believe that BN is better than OI for the neighbors in that the OI is three story buildings maximum at this time and possibly in the future will even be taller buildings in the future so theoretically four years down the road, we could see a six story office building in this area if one of the premise that we have, the three story restriction on is because, one of the reasons is because the fire trucks can't fight a fire at this time. The new platform truck we'll have a couple years from now, we may be changing that ordinance. It's quite possible that OI in this area, we could have a fairly extensive, several hundred square foot office building placed in this area that could cause even worse problems II than the BN. Even currently you could put three stories worth of office buildings in here which could be a considerable amount of square footage of area. A lot of employees. A lot of traffic. A lot of potential problems. Site wise, a three story building is a heck of a lot harder to berm away then a one story building. Given this is the first reading and it's not final until ' 34 I 7 II City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 II the second reading, we're not actually rezoning it tonight, until we get the Ai single issue here is access and I'm going to talk more about access and I think everybody else is going to talk more about access on the next phases of this II but to me, this section should either be residential or business neighborhood. Right now we don't have anything before us saying go residential. Business neighborhood to me would be better than OI for the residents in the II neighborhood. Councilman Horn: I'll just repeat what Jay said. I think the BN makes sense. II I think the BN makes a good transition for this area. Councilman Geving: Bill, do you have any comments on just the first issue I please. The rezoning issue. Just limit it to that at this time. Councilman Boyt: I have a hard time separate this out into four issues. I'll make an attempt. I think that the strongest tool that we have here is the II request for rezoning and that takes a four-fifths vote. I was happy to be reminded of what I had said earlier by Mr. Wagner. It's always nice to be haunted by one's quotes Mr. Wagner. I would suggest that it's somewhat II difficult for me to know, I know this issue is probably beaten down a lot of the neighbors and it must be hard to get up and rally the troops one more time. I have heard that there is some sense that this is better. Whether it's good II enough or not I think is something we have to hammer out between now and when it's finally improved. My guess would be that this developer is determined to meet all reasonable interests of the neighborhood and I would anticipate eventual approvement. You show me that a significant part of the neighborhood II is in fact opposed and I'll vote against it. By significant I mean you show me z that, for my vote, that somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% to 70% of the neighborhood is opposed to this kind of development. I'd vote against it. I I think it's incumbent upon the developer to meet the concerns of the neighborhood. I think the neighborhood has said that yes, the developer is moving in that direction. We have this zoned, it's kind of an unfortunate zoning. I think Jay has mentioned one reason it's unfortunate. I think II another one is, it's taking a valuable piece of property out of circulation in the community. I think the thing that will keep this piece of property from developing residential is it's commercial value. Eventually someone, they II can't afford to put a house there because the land is potentially worth that much. I think you've seen that over the years. You've seen it with four different attempts to develop it commercially. As far as the preliminary reading, I think that it's very important for the developer to show a II significant support of the neighborhood. I don't see a significant part of the neighborhood saying that they oppose it so I think it's incumbent upon the neighborhood to do that. This is pouring gasoline on the fire but I happen to II agree with you that since a conditional use for a BN is a convenience store with gas pumps or an automotive service station, I would be inclined to think that what we're really looking at here is a very good screening system. I II think it's a fairly good screening from that but I would anticipate that the use right off of TH 7 would be more intense than the shopping center. It's all projections so how do I know? Put simply, I like what I see. I think that 1 there has been a good bit of adjustment to the concerns of the neighborhood. I II i City Council Meeting - Ap1 25, 1988 from where it was just several years ago. I think that the developers have gone back to the homeowners and made a really significant attempt to work with the homeowners. I got this impression and that was the marching order that we gave to the developers. To meet with the homeowners. Work out the problems. Try to keep the separation as was mentioned earlier from the homeowners and don't impact them in terms of assesments. This is your project and it's very important that it remain your project. If there are improvements to be made in your area, they should not impact upon the homeowners in terms of assessments ' for roads and whatever is going to be constructed here. I think we've come a long ways in terms of trying to look at that corner. Now two years ago, we made an attempt to look at this as an office institutional area. We thought offices might be the way to go. It just didn't happen and I guess the market ' research and the studies will indicate that there just isn't a demand, a great demand for office at this time. Certainly not at that location. I think it's time to develop this property. I think it's time to develop that corner. In ' time it will get developed. Whether it's now or at some future time. The concern that I have is that we continue to look at the separation of the development from the homeowners both on the west and to the south and I'm very much concerned about the drainage issue. There's going to be a lot of water coming south and to the southwest. It's happening now in fact and we're going to intensify that with any kind of construction. The big concern of course is the highway issue. I know we're on the rezoning issue but it all has to do ' with rezoning. I'm for rezoning personally because I think until we resolve that we can't go onto the other issues on the preliminary plat and look at where we're going. For the record, I'll be for rezoning this from OI to BN. ' Mayor Hamilton: It's certainly been a difficult piece of land to work with over the years and I like the plan I see. I know that office industrial space on the strip for instance, has between 17% and 25% vacancy rates. It's ' understandable that somebody wouldn't want to come in here and put in any office/industrial. It's just not in demand for it right now so I'm very much in favor of rezoning this to BN. I think it's a good use for the corner. I ' also feel that to reply to Mr. Connor's comment, I think if there had been somebody who wanted to do, felt it was a good residential corner, it's been available for so long that someone would have been here requesting to do that. ' It appears that this is the use that the people with the money who want to invest it to do something, this is the use they want to use it for and I think it's a good use for that corner. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Rezoning Request #85-2 to rezone 7.63 acres from OI, Office Institutional to BN, Business Neighborhood, First Reading as legally described in the proposed plat application. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE THREE COMMERCIAL LOTS. ' Mayor Hamilton: We have Outlot A and B which will be developed at a future time and the Lot C which has the retail strip center on it which we have before us. 1 1 36 IICity Council Meeting 3. ,April 25, 1988 Councilman Johnson: My main comment on this one is rewording of condition 1 • which currently reads, approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon the vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, approval of final plat of the Reed property. I think we've got a real problem with Options 3 and/or 4 because I see this as an extreme, extreme might too far, I see this as a public safety issue and a public convenience issue. When we cul-de-sac that property, that forces these homeowners living on Oriole and that area, they have to exit onto TH 7. I hate exiting onto TH 7 up there. I drive up there every once in a while and I purposely go down Oriole and around on 64th Street so I can get onto TH 41 where it's much safer to drive. Somebody in a Trans Am might have a better chance than me in my Horizon. I appreciate the developers pointing out to MnDot that you can make that left turn lane in there and hopefully that will work. That's one place where I saw death coming in my rear view mirror one day. What I'd like to do is redo this number 1 to make it a little more restrictive. Say, approval of the second reading of the zoning ordinance change, preliminary plat and site plan should be contingent... Mayor Hamilton: What page are you on? Councilman Johnson: Page 11. Under City Council recommendation. First item. Say approval of the second reading of the zoning ordinance change, preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon the vacation of 64th Street right- of-way, approval of a final plat for the Reed property with no commercial, i.e. retail, business neighborhood, etc., access to the relocated 64th Street. Then continue on the way it is. In other words, the purpose for moving 64th Street in the first place is to prevent commercial traffic from being on 64th Street. That's one of the things the neighborhoods have complained about over the years } is that traffic. That was the neighborhood concern that I'm addressing here. The movement of 64th Street to the south side of the Reed property and then rezoning the Reed property BN and allowing an access from this BN onto the commercial property has done absolutely nothing. All we did was separate. If the Reed property can be serviced from the existing entrance on the proposed shopping area without having to have their own access to TH 41, which MnDot won't allow them to have anyway, without having access to 64th Street, then it could work. But at no time will I vote for any plan that closes 64th Street's access to the TH 41 for any significant period of time. It can be closed during construction. Mayor Hamilton: We're still on (b) . Councilman Johnson: That is (b) . Mayor Hamilton: You're talking about (d) now. You're on 64th Street. Councilman Johnson: That's right. Condition 1 talks about 64th Street. If we don't approve this then (d) is just out the window anyway. That's the length of my real comment on this. I do want to compliment the developers here because they have gone a quantum leap I think from the last development I saw when I was here as a citizen, the citizens from this area were also here protesting Copperwood Developments or whatever it was back then and we have made some improvements here. I think there's room to work and we might actually get this accomplished. 37 ' City Council Meeting - 1 i.l 25, 1988 Councilman Geving: I just want g to go back to the Watershed retention of the stormwater to assure ourselves that that's going to be retained on-site and the ' staff update is correct as far as the record is concerned there in that the indication was that it's going to be retained in two places. Is that correct? 1 Larry Brown: That's correct. On the southeast and northeast corner. Councilman Geving: You've calculated this out and this will work? Larry Brown: I have checked the applicant's calculations and they are true to form. ' Councilman Geving: I still believe that we've got to get 64th Street out to TH 41. I just feel that somehow or another that's got to happen. I will continue to work in that regard. I have no other comments about the platting. ' I think we're in good shape here and I'll go along with that. Councilman Horn: My biggest concerns are the transportation. At one point we thought we found a way to eliminate the left turn on TH 7 which seemed to me ' like a good way to go. The problem I'm really having with this whole thing is when I put together a whole transportation thing in a vaccum it makes a lot of sense to go one way but when I hear what all the neighborhood concerns are and 1 the developer concerns and the people who have property and they want to develop in that area, this scenario isn't quite simple. I guess we have an ultimate access to Herman Field now but my first impression on this is that I ' would somehow develop another access to Herman Field and I'd get an alternate out to TH 41 and I'd take as many accesses off of TH 7 as I could. But understanding the realities of what we're living with, I would support the last recommendation which is to put a cul-de-sac in. I think that's the best ' compromise with all the bodies and the all the people who are concerned about this because it is going to impact the neighborhood. There's no question about that. I think we've got to be sensitive to minimize it. I'm also concerned ' about this emergency access from the parking lot. I'm not so sure how we're going to handle that and I want to make sure that we don't misuse that and have bicycles and trail bikes and everything else going back into the neighborhood through that area. I want to make sure we handle that. Just to summarize, I think what we have here is the best compromise. Certainly it wouldn't be the plan that I would have come up with the first time I looked at this without hearing all the input but I think it's workable. Councilman Boyt: No comments. ' Mayor Hamilton: I have no problem planning and creating three commercial lots on this particular piece of property. I have a little problem with the first condition that says that approval of this is contingent upon approval of a final plat for the Reed property. I'm not sure we can do that, number one. ' Mr. Reed could just, if he wanted to, drag his feet and change his mind and do everything he can think for the next 20 years and never reach an agreement so I'd like to ask Pat, that doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable thing to put in ' a condition. Pat Farrell: About half an hour ago I starred that particular point with a [7.7 question mark. I'm not so sure that that is an appropriate condition. As I understand it, there is not a preliminary plat or any sketch plan or anything 1 38 r • City Council Meeti.nglr April 25, 1988 by Mr. Reed at this point. I understand where you're trying to get to. I think it's appropriate for the Council to apply pressure, if that's the right choice of words, upon the developer to acquire this right-of-way and the layout s of the Reed property and that it all be considered but that's not the way to do it. Mayor Hamilton: I would prefer to see us put conditions in that the develop continue to work with the Reeds as far as developing their property and getting access to it. We could actually leave 64th Street as it is for this parcel to develop as long as the developers need to work with the Reeds to continue to come up with the proper layout for their property. Pat Farrell: One of the things, as I understand this layout, you may have to go to the Reed property to accomplish the connection of the street. One of the things that you could put in there that in the event that access is not obtained through the Reed property and the City has to come in with it, the developer pay for it. That might be a little bit tough but it's the only thing that I can think of at this point. You're going to need that and it's going to cost money unless he plats. If he chooses not to plat, you have a problem that requires a solution that requires money. ' Barbara Dacy: Two points of clarification. The property couldn't go ahead and build with the full access onto TH 41 and with 64th Street there. MnDot has said, if they want a full access, 64th Street entrance has to go. Mayor Hamilton: They said that specifically? 1 'Barbara Dacy: Right. In their letter that's attached to the report. If I can, maybe the Attorney can help me out, if the words in the condition are not phrased the right way, maybe we can work together to reword that so that it is appropriate but the point being is that the intent is that the City wants to insure that the realigned 64th Street is connected to TH 41 and we want that surety prior to than building on this lot. The intent being is that the only way we would get to this point would be to have an assurance that the development contracts there which is usually as a result of a plat application. However, if you're saying that a plat is not necessary but some other type of assurance, staff's objective in any case was to make sure that 64th Street would be reconnected. Mayor Hamilton: I understand that and I think that's a good idea. However, to tie it to another person's platting of their land is unreasonable I think to the developer in this case. Pat Farrell: Illegal too. , Mayor Hamilton: Okay, illegal. Let's come right out and say it. As a condition of the development contract I think it could be put in there that the developer needs to continue working with the Reeds. What I was trying to say is that we'll attempt to work with the Reeds and with the developers to accomplish this so that it's fair with everybody but allowing the developers to continue with their project so this thing doesn't sit here for another couple of years. 1 39 1 %ty Council Meeting - i.l 25, 1988 Gary Warren: I think, and we're trying to stay on each item here but as I prepared by staff memo for the vacation issue, it goes over and over here how ' can you spec even in a development contract performance for HSZ of an item that at this point is almost out of his control. That being the Reed property. I'd be uncomfortable a little bit I guess even trying to write a condition that says you have to provide a connection of West 64th Street to the Reed property or words to that effect in that it would be pretty difficult to really enforce. Even with a letter of credit or anything like that. That's why I approached it saying the call would have to be made is can we, with a cul-de-sac and a ' reverse scenario with a lot of our subdivisions that we end up dealing with, where we try to preserve right-of-way for the future. Here you've got one and you're being asked to vacate it. The question is can you live with a cul-de- ' sac with full intent that when Reed or Gowen or both come in that we would push through at some time in the future. Otherwise it gets pretty unmangeable from my perspective. ' Mayor Hamilton: It's kind of whatever works. Whatever is going to work is what ought to be done. If cul-de-sacing 64th Street and closing it on TH 41 is what has to be done so it can move forward then I think that should be done so ' this project can move ahead and then you can still continue to work with the Gowens and the Reeds to accomplish whatever is going to happen there and the developer will be involved in that. Gary Warren: If someone wondered the assessments that are presently against the Reed property are a legitimate issue that needs to be dealt with here if we would vacate a portion of West 64th Street because there is access and there are assessments that need to be paid and that could be a job of HSZ if the Council would choose to go with this cul-de-sac. Pat Farrell: I don't see that that requirement is so ownerous. I think we're all making too much of it. I think the requirement that there be a connection to the other road is a legitimate requirement of plat approval under Minnesota Statute and even the cost of that road could be appropriately charged against ' the developer. That's not to say that the Reed's ought to have a free ride. There ought to be some discussion back and forth of that but I think this Council could legitimately require that as a condition of plat approval. Ben Gowen: I'm just confused here. You're talking about a cul-de-sac terminating in the middle of the Reed's property and yet you're talking about connecting to TH 41. Now if you connect to TH 41, I'm back in the picture very definitely. But if you cul-de-sac in Reed's property, I'm out of the picture. In any case, I'm for the development. ' Mayor Hamilton: What we're saying is that we want to connect to TH 41 at some time. When that happens is not clear at this time. Staff is saying we want that and the Council is saying we want that connection to be made someday. If it has to be a temporary cul-de-sac now for a period of time until the Reed's decide how they want to develop their property, that's a possibility but we don't want to condition everything on the HSZ's development by what the Reed's are going to do. rBen Gowen: You better continue then, Reed has to lot be continued. p his land so that it can !=7 r ' 40 City Council Meeting (April 25; 1988 T- Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. That's what we're trying to get done. ' Ben Gowen: It's not fair to him. ' Mayor Hamilton: We're trying to be fair to everybody. We're trying to make sure that everybody's needs are taken care of and we can move ahead here. I guess I wish we had this worked out ahead of time with the legal counsel. We could figure out sane way to handle this item. Councilman Boyt: Can we strike "approval of" in what's in parenthesis there ' and then accept what's left? Councilman Geving: I think we should. ' Barbara Dacy: I'm sorry, what are you referring to in parenthesis? Councilman Boyt: Approval of final plat for the Reed property, just strike that phrase. Mayor Hamilton: Good idea. ' Councilman Horn: I think the TH 41 issue is something we have to deal with later. I don't think we can tie it to this. ' Councilman Geving: When we see Reed's plat. { * A motion was made at this point with the following discussion. ' Councilman Johnson: The rest of this thing talks about the execution of a development contract with the City of Chanhassen. I believe staff was looking at a development contract for developing 64th Street to TH 41. A letter of credit, etc. the rest of that is in reference to the realignment of 64th Street to TH 41. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's exactly what we're saying is going to have to happen. Councilman Johnson: You can't execute a development contract until you have approval of final plat. I don't what we just gained by getting rid of that. Mayor Hamilton: You're not tying it up with the Reed property. The thing can ' move ahead. Councilman Johnson: We're going to have to get a development contract from 1 somebody to develop. As I read this. .. Mayor Hamilton: We're talking about HSZ's property. Not the Reed property. This does not pertain to the Reed property. Councilman Johnson: It used to be until we removed that one. The development contract... Mayor Hamilton: No. All it said about the Reed property was approval of the final plat for the Reed property. It didn't say we were having a development ' 41 , I City Council Meeting April 25 g - p , 1988 contract with the Reed property or anybody else. All this pertains to the HSZ property. '- Councilman Johnson: Okay, then you're going with the rest of this. So they have to have 64th Street completely realigned to TH 41 prior to the approval of the preliminary plat and site plan? Mayor Hamilton: That's what it says here. As far as I'm concerned, you could t have a temporary cul-de-sac until such time as the Reeds want to develop. There's all kinds of way you can solve that problem. Councilman Johnson: That's what we have to do here. Your motion didn't talk about the temporary cul-de-sac. Mayor Hamilton: That's why we have discussion. ' Councilman Johnson: I'm against the temporary cul-de-sac if y ou're going to discuss temporary cul-de-sacs. g g Councilman Boyt: My problem is that we're talking about 64th Street. Can't we just vote on these things one thing at a time and take the issue and if we've ' got an issue with 64th, do it then. Mayor Hamilton: They're intertwined. You're talking about one issue. We're talking about one item on the approval process of the preliminary plat. This ' is one of the conditions and in one of the conditions it talks about 64th Street to TH 41. You can't eliminate that. We're going to get back to it and talk about it some more in a few minutes. ' Councilman Boyt: Do we have a motion on the table? Mayor Hamilton: Yes we do have a motion on the floor. Councilman Boyt: I call a question. ' Mayor Hamilton: There is still discussion. Jay was talking about it. Did you have additional questions? ' Councilman Johnson: As I understand your motion then we get exactly what I want with the exception of I would like to see something in condition one that restricts commercial access to 64th Street. One of the original complaints of the neighbors is that it would increase the traffic up Oriole and through their subdivision if commercial had direct access to 64th Street which is what the previous plans had. Councilman Horn: This doesn't have that. Councilman Johnson: Me Reed had stated that he wants to put commercial on the front 3 acres of that which will then have access to 64th Street. Mayor Hamilton: That's not a part of this. Councilman Horn: Not necessarily. 42 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Johnson: It could. Mayor Hamilton: That'd be a whole other issue. Councilman Horn: That's the whole point. We can't put a restriction on what the Reed property is in respect to this property. That will take a whole other plat when that comes in and then we'll see... Councilman Johnson: We could at least talk that our intent is not to put ' commercial traffic on 64th Street so that when the Reeds, a future council can look at our minutes and when the Reeds come in here and say okay, the whole 64th Street was realigned to avoid commercial, one of the purposes was to avoid commercial traffic on Oriole Lane. Mayor Hamilton: Well, you said it. Future Council is not bound by anything we do so it doesn't really matter if we say it or not. Councilman Johnson: It matters if we say it because it might help sway the future council one way or the other as to what we are thinking at the time. ' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision Request #85-7 subject to the plat stamped "Received March 7, 1988", the grading and drainage plan stamped "Received April 6, 1988", the utility plan stamped 7 "Received April 6, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1 1. Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, execution of a development contract with the City of Chanhassen, filing of a letter of credit with the City of Chanhassen from a recognized financial institution authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of Chanhassen's reasonable approval, and realignment of 64th Street to TH 41. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the public improvements. I 3. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. ' 4. Hay bales shall be placed and staked around all storm sewer inlets. 5. Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed 1 slopes greater than 3:1. 6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 7. Calculations verifying adequate pressure conditions for the sprinkler system of the proposed retail building should be submitted for approval by 1 the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. i 8. The proposed sanitary sewer and watermain systems internal to the site will ' be constructed and maintained as private utilities. The City of Chanhassen 43 City Council Meeting - A(Ti.l 25, 1988 will not be responsible for any maintenance of the utilities (with the (- ' exception of public storm sewer drainage facilities) internal to the site. 9. An acceptable traffic sign and pavement marking plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. ' 10. Specific plans and specifications which address the specific alignment, installation and erosion control for the proposed storm sewer system must ' be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The applicant shall submit a revised erosion control plan subject to the ' approval of the City ENgineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. All voted in favor and motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,920 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER. ' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to start by saying to the neighbors who are here, I think you have a good point in which to use leverage and that's in how this site is developed. I think you're going to have to show some inequities in how ' it's developed to sway somebody else on the Council if you want to defeat the zoning change. On how it's developed, the Planning Commission made comment about Scotch Pines. I wasn't aware of this but one of the Planning Commission ' members said that they occasionally brown off. Is that right? Does anyone know? You're using a lot of scotch pines. Craig Johnson: They actually turn purple. That's the fall color. They do get ' dark purple. Councilman Boyt: They don't defoliate? ' Craig Johnson: Well, all pines do. They go in cycles of 3 years perhaps. It depends on the species p pecies but all pines drop their needles in cycles of 3 to 5 years but then each year they grow them again. That's the way the pines work. ' Councilman Boyt: What I'd like to see here is what I'm after is a visual screen that fortunately think would get higher hig gher evvery you're eery and year and I would like to see some sort of blend so we don't have all of one kind of tree. If for some reason they get struck by a disease, we're out of a visual barrier. So maybe you can blend in some other appropriate types of pines that are dense. I have a question about grading. Is there extensive grading going on on this property? It looks to me like there is extensive grading. What's the depth of the cut? ' Larry Brown: The depth of the cut would be fairly minimal. It's going to be the fill amounts along the southwest corner, the grading along the southwest corner that's going to be.. . Councilman Boyt: So we're talking about how much fill? How many feet? Give me a sense of what we're talking. 20? Alright. I would like to see that as [7.7 ' you develop this concept, I think that some sort of maybe a two tiered pine arrangement so that it's not just single trees in sort of a row even though ' 44 ' City Council Meeting April 25, 1988 } your row appears to be somewhat staggered, that we really make that very dense. I would like to see, I appreciate the gentleman's comment about more total roof ### screening. It sounds like you've done a good job from the highway and from a good bit of the housing in looking at your perspective. I really think that the view of the roof, as you agree, is very important and we should make every effort to make it a pleasant view for those who are going to have to look at it so if we can screen off any kind of structures up there. That's all I've got. I'm sure interested in other comments from the Council. I think that this, to me the acceptance of this in the neighborhood is going to depend a great deal on what it looks like. It appears like it looks pretty nice from the highway. What's it look like from the neighborhood? Councilman Horn: Did we ever get an answer to the question about the height of ' the building being appropriate? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Mr. Wagner raised that issue also. The Zoning Ordinance ' states that the maximum height is one story and his question was whether or not that met the Building Code. Although I'm not exactly familiar with the contents of the Building Code, they will have to meet that. There are portions of the elevation that do extend above 20 feet and that's the Canterbury approach. The height of the occupied area will be I think approximately 17 feet in height and it is our interpretation that that met the one story requirement. Whatever the Building Code says, we have to do anyway. So if it has to be reduced, it has to be reduced. Councilman Horn: I my only , guess m onl concern is I m not a real fan of the vinyl clad vinyl. Obviously if somebody wants the green stuff, well, now we've got red and black stuff but that seems to be what everybody is building with these days. Currently I don't believe our ordinance is quite clear on that issue. I know we had a tough time defining what's an acceptable metal and what isn't. It seems like that corregated clad metal is fine but if you've just got corregated metal, that wouldn't be fine. My particular preference is not for that kind of appearance. Councilman Geving: I think it would be appropriate again for J.D. to come back up here and persent that landscaping and berming plan one more time and give us an idea on your board here. I want to know whether or not we're looking at it from the west or we're looking at it from the south. Tell us again what kind of berming you're planning on the west side which faces the residential area and potentially to the south where there could be some residential properties looking to this site and also the extent and type of greenery that you'll have. The types of trees. How tall they will be and so forth. Craig Johnson: First of all, let me introduce myself. I'm Craig Johnson from Barrientos and Associates. We are landscape architects and engineers. Initially we went through the process of the Planning Commission approval, developing and screening, etc. the issues. On the west side, we also have extended the scotch pines. There is potential for a berm to run from the right-of-way line to approximately this point here. That berming then would be accented by conifers. Those conifers, we selected the scotch pine because of their rapid growth first of all and their ability to withstand drought and the soil conditions that are on the site. We could intermix, I don't see any problem with intermixing species. Particularly if something becomes very linear and the contrast would be very nice. We also introduced deciduous 45 II C City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 ilP , trees. The Norway pine to break that up also in view of the contrast to the II deciduous and conifer trees. They're used limitedly on the west and south [- because they do not provide winter screening. We've maximized the south and the west with evergreens. Be it Austrian Pine and Scotch Pine and we've broken I that up with deciduous trees and Norway Maple. Then we go to the setback screening in this general area. We exceeded the Planning Commission's requirements in regards to overhead canopy or tree and an additional screening. Plant material would be planted at grade to provide, I believe it was 80% I opaque in the winter screen. Internally we've used a lighter Honey Locust, the Sunburst Honey Locust which would allow for light shade and some view into the retail center which is very critical to the developer but also adds some shade I for vehicular and users. For the entrance we decided to create, increase the impact of the sense of arrival by developing a canopy all the way up through and then orientating that to the center of the project site. This canopy would be made by the Little Leaf Linden. It has a very nice spring bloom and I think t that is just another accent to the sense of arrival. The flowers are also very fragrant so the drive in will be visually and... z 11 Councilman Geving: On day one when you open the center and the landscaping is in, how tall will those trees be on the west side of that development? Craig Johnson: We're proposing to use 6 foot trees at time of installation and I also a 12 foot. We place the 12 foot in the most strategic location adjacent to the building and we've also introduced I believe some 12 foot at this point also. The back side would mainly be 6 foot and then this first stretch would Ibe a 6 foot tree. Councilman Geving: How high is that berm on the west side? Tell us what the Iview is from Section A? Are we looking from the west to the east? J.D. MacRae: This is the south face and this is the section. This would be on the west. ICouncilman Geving: Ziegler's home for example. I J.D. MacRae: Right. Looking up through what we call the auxiliary building. You have heard that building won't be built right away so it would be bermed up and dropped back down to a flat building surface. This section is just further south of this one. This one actually cuts into the middle of the center. I We're showing at this point we've got about a 4 foot high berm here. This point we're also 4 feet high. As we get along the back side, due to the incline, we're showing a 2 foot berm on the back side. Now again, as was I brought up, at this point we're 18-20 feet high. The thought was that being that the property continued to fall off or stay at the same level. When you get down here, you're looking up into the building through the berm. You've I got Section A that went through the auxillary building. Section B that went along a portion of the building. Section C is cutting through the building on the west end. Section D is cutting through it on the east end. Section E the grade starts coming up as 64th comes up and meets TH 41. The grade difference I is very minimal. Here we've got a 3 foot high berm. Councilman Geving: I'm satisfied with that. I just want to advise you though [7:: I that this is the thing that Mr. Connors and Mr. Wagner were referring to. It always seems like the developer shows these kinds of schematics to us. They II 46 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 jr- look really good. We approve the project and the landscaping is the last thing to go in and they generally skip so I assure you that we'll be watching for that kind of thing not happen on this project. Councilman Johnson: Do we have any financial assurance that if landscaping doesn't go in, that we have any way of putting it in? Gary Warren: We'll have a letter of credit. Councilman Johnson: The letter of credit will cover landscaping? Gary Warren: It will cover everything. Councilman Johnson: I don't have a lot of problems with this. Mayor Hamilton: I don't either. I think it's a nice plan. I'd just like to see the same type of materials used on this building as is being used downtown. I like that retail west or whatever it's called. I don't know if it's the same thing or not but if we can do something similar to that it would look nice. ' Barbara Dacy: The only thing that's metal is on the roofing. The remainder is concrete and rock faced block. ' Councilman Johnson: I will have to revert back. I did mean to mention that there's one thing that we've doing with residential areas on trees where somebody, there's one down here where they put in Marshall Seedless Ash to every front yard, straight in a line. If a disease comes through like the Dutch Elm or whatever that affects Marshall Seedless Ash, it wipes them all out. That's why I think I'd like to see a mixture of your evergreens along the back to where if something is going to come in that's going to wipe out scotch pines, that we don't lose all the trees across the back. If we have a mixture of Scotch or Marshall or whatever. Something that would be slightly different. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Site Plan Request #86-2 for the construction of a 25,920 square foot retail center based on the , site plan stamped "Received March 7, 1988" and the lighting, landscaping, utilities and grading plans stamped "Received April 6, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1. All bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete curb. 2. The building permit for the retail center will not issued until the City ' has approved the vacation of 64th Street including submission of financial sureties and execution of the development contract to insure that 64th Street will be realigned to intersect TH 41 in another location. 1 3. Compliance with all conditions of the Subdivision Request #85-7. All voted in favor and motion carried. , 47 ' City Council Meeting - Ail 25, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Gary Reed: I guess I'm a little confused on what you've struck from the t Planning Commission. It seems like I've lost a little bit of bargaining power. I guess if you don't approve, and I guess I understand that you approve the concept of the cul-de-sac without extension of that to TH 41, is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Gary Reed: Then if it is extended, then I would not be able to get a BN type of zoning on my frontage there. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: No, I don't know where you came up with that. Councilman Johnson: I tried for that and it didn't get put in the motion. ' Gary Reed: I'm just trying to sort this thing out. Mayor Hamilton: We can't deal with something that's not before us is the whole thing. You say you want some BN... ' Gary Reed: I'm just trying to get a feel for where I'm at with the frontage. Mayor Hamilton: What I'd like you to do is make comment on the road. The partial vacation of West 64th Street. Gary Reed: I can't really make a comment on it if I don't know what it's going ' to do. At this point I'm for that concept. Not extending West 64th Street and cul-de-sacing it. I guess you guys heard that there was some future plan for reconnecting it. Well, I have no future plan for that. The only future plan I ' would have would be maybe utilizing a lot on the south side if there was some way to get into Ben's property if that would work out. But according to your cul-de-sac plans, I guess that wouldn't be a viable.. . I think another comment ' would be that it seems to me they want the road realigned with the school exit. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: There's been some discussion of that but I don't think that's ' real critical. Gary Reed: If they did then we would be dealing with Ben so it's not all on my shoulders. Ben Gowen: I think it's pretty important to figure out what your plan is for ' connecting. If you connect it, it makes a lot of difference where and how you're going to do it. Can you give us any clue what you plan on for the future connection? ' Mayor Hamilton: That's something that's going to have to be worked out with the property owners. It's pretty hard for us to say. k7.7. Ben Gowen: When? ' 48 City Council Meeting (April 25, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: As soon as possible. 1 Ben Gowen: Before they start building or what? Mayor Hamilton: That's right. Ben Gowen: Then you're requiring them to connect to TH 41? Mayor Hamilton: That's right. Ben Gowen: Do you have that perogative to require that? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. Ben Gowen: I doubt that. Mayor Hamilton: That's up to you. You can talk to your attorney I guess. Ours tells us we have every right to do that so that's what we've done. Ben Gowen: Then if you're going to connect, how are you going to connect? The drawings you're showing here don't show it on my property except for the very last 20-30 feet. These are sketches I realize but if it's a sketch, let's talk about what the reality is. ' Mayor Hamilton: We're talking about partial vacation of existing West 64th Street and how 64th Street gets reconnected to TH 41 is something we just, that's something that the developers are going to have to work out with yourself and with the Reeds and see where it comes out. If they can't reach an agreement, then the City is going to have to go through a condemnation process to accomplish it. We can't sit here tonight and say we know it's going to connect up here, here or here because we haven't any idea. It's going to connect up with TH 41 someplace. Ben Gowen: That wasn't my understanding coming in here tonight. You guys are really going to connect it up regardless. Mayor Hamilton: That's what the motion that was passed, that's what it ' contains. Ben Gowen: It doesn't seem very fair. Mayor Hamilton: I thought you were in favor of it just a minute ago. Ben Gowen: I'm in favor of the project, yes but not in being told what is going to happen to my road. I'd like to have a say so. Mayor Hamilton: You'll have a say. I'm just telling you right now that we don't know where 64th Street is going to connect back with TH 41. We don't know that yet. It's going to connect up with it someplace. That's going to have to be worked out with you, with the Reeds and with the developers. 4 Roger Zahn: I may have waited too long to make this comment. I was trying to address your concern about waiting until we get to (d) to talk about 64th. We have worked extensively with the Reeds and with Mr. Gowen and we have no 49 ' ' City Council Meeting - A11 25, 1988 objection personally as far as being the developers elopers to connecting up to TH 41. This proposal came as a result of our listening to them and proposing it the ' way they wanted to have it done and that's the way we would like to see it also. Am I to understand that you have already voted. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I don't know how else to say it so that you understand it. If I could draw a picture or something, I guess I'd do that but... Roger Zahn: So you are going to condemn 64th if we can't work something out? t Mayor Hamilton: Yes, that would be our only choice at this Y point. ' Roger Zahn: Could we come back and ask you to cul-de-sac it at a future point in time? We have worked hard with those people and that's clearly what they want on their property. It isn't really that we want to do any one of these things in particular except we want to work with the people in the neighborhood and that's what we've tried to do and we've talked extensively and that's really what they want. It seems like somehow this deliberation got taken out of their hands and it certainly wasn't our intent. We'll cooperate with whatever you folks what us to do but we do want to support them. That wasn't our intention to get this thing set up that way, not at all. Councilman Horn: It was my intent that what we were proposing was what you recommended with the cul-de-sac. That was my intention and I thought that was how we changed the wording. That's my impression of what we want it to be. Councilman Johnson: I very clearly stated and restated that that's not what we're voting for. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to take a shot at this if I might. I think all we did was say we took off a constraint on you that said that Mr. Reed's final plat had to be approved before you could do anything. Then I think we had said all along, the Planning Commission had said that we think that it makes sense to eventually have this hooked up to TH 41. I don't see that we've changed anything except we said to you, your project does not have to wait until his project is approved. Mayor Hamilton: Item 1 of the Planning Commission's approval did not change other than to take out the Reed's necessity to have their plat approved. ' Nothing changed other than that. Councilman Horn: It doesn't work. ' Councilman Geving: I have to reiterate. My intention and my thoughts when we approved this was that we were only striking a few words which left out the Reeds from their approval of their plat. Also there's a bottom line, there's a 1 very last line of that particular condition 1. It talks about 64th Street and that should be struck as well. The very last 6 or 7 words of that condition 1 should also be struck because it refers to the realignment of 64th Street. It's my understanding that what we voted upon was an intent at some future time to realign 64th Street to TH 41. Just an intent. At sometime as Mr. Reed comes in with his plat, that would be worked out. What we voted upon was the cul-de-sac that was shown to us on the plan. That's the way I read it. 50 - City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 r Mayor Hamilton: That's because that's what I had said that if you want to cul-de-sac it temporarily until at some point it gets to TH 41, then that's s Councilman Johnson: That's why I pointed out that this last sentence was there and that we were saying that they couldn't cul-de-sac it. I thought I said it quite clearly. Mayor Hamilton: Did you want to leave in, and alignment of 64th Street? Councilman Johnson: Yes, and I pointed that out and you didn't leave it in your motion. I Mayor Hamilton: Both Clark and I had struck the last, where it says "and realignment of 64th Street to TH 41." Both Clark and I had struck that from condition 1 as well as, approve of a final plat for the Reed property. Those were the two items that we struck from condition 1. Gary Warren: The motion didn't strike the last phrase of it. At least the way I copied it down because I still had the question in my mind. Mayor Hamilton: My motion was it only struck the part dealing with the Reed property. It did not strike out the realignment. Councilman Geving: But Tom it can't work unless you do strike the' last part. Mayor Hamilton: That's fine with me. I vou].d just as soon cul-de-sac it. Temporary or whatever. I guess what I was saying all along was do whatever it takes to make the whole thing work and it ties back to TH 41 at some future date than that's what ought to be done. Councilman Geving: But that's the future and we can't. . . Barbara Dacy: Maybe the City Attorney should advise as to how the Council can clarify the intent and/or the wording on condition 1 on the preliminary plat for the record. Pat Farrell: You could have a motion to reconsider. You could go back to resolution whatever it is or motion whatever it is and make a motion to reconsider that to clarify the intent of the Council. Restate it deleting the last, whatever those words ending at approval and deleting approval of the final plat of the Reed property if that's really what your intention is. Councilman Horn: Right, and I made the second and I fully intended that that was not part of the motion. Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to finish the one that we're on. Seeing how we have a public hearing open and then we can go back. Is there anybody else from the public who has a comment about the vacation of West 64th Street? Any additional information? Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was , closed. 51 gi City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 I Councilman Johnson: I think it's premature until we find out how 64th Street ' is going to be connected up. We can't close the people's lifeline to TH 41, or your driveway. How can we vacate something until we know how we're going to replace it? Until the 64th Street issue is resolved, this should be tabled. This is a premature application for vacation. ' Pat Farrell: One thing that you could do is, you closed your .ublic hearing. g You could move to table that matter until a later time. ' Councilman Boyt: Before we consider the move to table, I think that the issue for me is, our intent on what we're going to do with the connection to TH 41. ' To move to vacate is to take an existing entrance and exit out of that picture. So the question to me is, are we taking that out permanently or are we taking it out until such time as there is an opportunity to put it back in? I like the idea of tying that particular question down sometime soon. If it seems appropriate to table it, I won't vote against that. It just seems to me at some point pretty quick here we have to decide what kind of connection do we want and that's going to impact on this gentleman's ability to develop that ' corner. Mayor Hamilton: I see no reason why the development can't move ahead prior to ' doing any vacation of 64th or coming up with the realignment. It doesn't have any affect on what's happening on the property to the north, just so long as it gets done and I agree with you. ' Councilman Boyt: I would argue Tom that this is a critical issue to the rest of the development. I don't think we have to vacate it until somewhere down the road but I sure think we have to tell them what our intentions are. Mayor Hamilton: Sure. That's exactly what I'm saying. Councilman Boyt: How can we do that if we table it? Mayor Hamilton: We'll table it until as soon as we can get it back on the agenda and work with it more clearly. Somehow it's got to be worked out and I ' don't think we're going to solve anything here tonight. I would rather table it so staff can work with the Gowen's and the Reed's and the developer to come up with something that's going to work. All I'm saying is I think that can be going on while the development is going to proceed or whatever else they need to do to continue on with their development. It doesn't stop that. Councilman Boyt: I see two of the neighbors saying, at least two of the neighbors we want a cul-de-sac. Councilman Johnson: The two property owners. ' Councilman Boyt: What I'm very interested in is what do the people say who might be using 64th as a current entrance/exit off of TH 41? That's another affected group and I think we need to hear from them. For that reason along we might want to hold this up. Councilman Horn: The vacation of West 64th is a clear indication that the intent of the overall plan was to create a cul-de-sac and this portion would be vacated. I think the request to require that 64th go out to TH 41 is a total 52 . • City Council Meeting �Apri.l 25, 1988 II change in direction from what was being proposed and what g II P p t these four conditions i we were asked to vote on tonight represented. To me we clear this thing up by accepting the cul-de-sac as it is, it's a permanent plat and later when the II Reed's develop and the Gowen's develop and they decide that they want to have a proposal come in where it makes sense to run that through, we should deal with it at that point but at this point the request is to have a cul-de-sac at that II point and we don't need 64th Street anymore and that's why we have the request to vacate it. I believe, as I said before, that's the best compromise for this development at this point, and we should go ahead and proceed that way. As a matter of fact, I thought that was the way we had decided to proceed initially. II We would deal with the issue of 64th when further development took place. Therefore, I go along with the partial vacation. I think what that's telling us is that in no plan is there any attempt to leave 64th the way it is today. II I don't see that in any of the plans that there is an attempt to leave it the way it is today so I think it's appropriate to vacate it and I don't think it's necessary for them to have it to proceed with the project. II Councilman Geving: I think it's premature at this time to consider the vacation of 64th Street and I'll tell you why. It's a very legal matter. You vacate a street and you've just given it back to the property owners. We're II not prepared to do that tonight. We don't know what we're going to do once we have made that decision. The property owners have it as of the moment that we vote on it and I think the Council would agree with me on that. It's a very II legal situation so we're premature on this. I think we need to buy some time until we work out exactly what we're going to do with 64th Street as far as vacating it. In fact, the preliminary plat and the site plan is contingent tupon the vacation of this street. That is again going back to the number 1 I issue that we're going to bring back after this is over so I think tonight we need to table this matter and bring it back with some good intelligence of what we're going to do with the vacation. We can not vacate it. I'll tell you, we II can not do it tonight. That's how I feel about it. We should table this matter for further consideration. i Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to table the request for partial vacation of West 64th Street for further consideration. All voted in favor and motion carried. II Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to reconsider item 8(b) , the II preliminary plat request to create 3 commercial lots. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving: My feeling is we should drop the last wordage of condition II 1. Put a period after "reasonable approval" and strike "and realignment of 64th Street to TH 41" and strike the words "approval of a final plat for the Reed property". II Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to amend condition 1 of the I Subdivision Request #85-7 to read as follows: i 1. Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, execution of a development contract 53 II N'T1 II ' City Council Meeting - A i.1 25, 1988 with the City of Chanhassen, filing a letter of credit with the City of Chanhassen from a recognized financial institution authorized to do ' business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of Chanhassen's reasonable approval. ' All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried. Councilman Johnson: I think what you just did, I hope you attend the funerals ' of the people that get killed on TH 7 because now they're taveling TH 7 more often. This exit to TH 41 is a crucial exit to those people living on that street and you just closed it. Councilman Gevi.ng: We understand that. Mayor Hamilton: Closed what? Councilman Johnson: You just closed 64th Street. They no longer have access to TH 41. You say sometime in the future. Frontier Lane was sometime in the future, it was many, many, many years in the future. These people are going to have to contend with TH 7 who now drive TH 41 because we're closing their only access and I don't think that for this commercial development that we should put our citizens in a safety predicament making them drive a much more intense, making the primary and the single exit out of this residential development to State Highway 7 is ridiculous. They should have an exit to a less intense highway, a less used highway other than TH 41. A safer route to get out onto the highway. Then they can go back up to the lights and have a red light [_ protecting them from those oncoming eastbound cars as they try to get on if they're trying to go westbound. Have you ever gone up into Oriole Lane and tried to go westbound on TH 7? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. You can do it. ' Councilman Johnson: I'm going to totally vote against it. It's a prime public safety issue. Councilman Horn: I'd like to ask how this precludes another exit? All we're ' doing here is just. .. Councilman Johnson: You just gave them a cul-de-sac. Councilman Horn: All we gave them here was the fact that we didn't tie this redevelopment to another development on somebody elses property. We have not vacated existing 64th Street. All we're taking it out of here is saying that that is not a condition to approve this development. Councilman Boyt: I think Clark in the second line there where it says contingent upon vacation of 64th Street right-of-way so we are saying contingent upon the vacation of 64th which does mean closing it off. This is what we're going to do. Mayor Hamilton: Contingent upon though. It hasn't been done. k77 Councilman Boyt: That's right. It hasn't been done so the vote as to what happens as far as the exit will turn upon our tabled matter. What I understand 54 7 City Council Meeting (April 25, 1988 I you're doing with what you currently struck is you're simply taking out the reference. You're not eliminating the ability. Barbara Dacy: Despite the option, connect or reconnect, you're going to have to vacate a part of 64th Street in order for the developer to get full access onto TH 41 so the intent of your condition is you're not making a specific statement at this time as to whether or not it should be reconnected. You're stating that you're reserving your option when the Reed comes back in for a potential plat. Is that correct? , Mayor Hamilton: I think that's pretty accurate. Barbara Dacy: The intent of the staff report was, again, that will come back in a fairly similar manner. The recommendation being that the City would not file the resolution to vacate the street until something is resolved. Either connect or reconnection so it's the cat catching it's own tail or the dog or somebody in Canterbury Downs. In any case, you're going to seeing the issue in very similar format with the same type of options. Gary Warren: Which means MnDot will not issue an access permit for the 1 development and their new driveway access on TH 41 until the City vacates our connection so we're still tied in there. Mayor Hamilton: We've got to have more information on this and clarify some of this stuff that filtered out. Pat Farrell: Is the preliminary they're approving is the cul-de-sac on the 1_ Reed property? Gary Warren: The one I had on the screen, the last one, is my interpretation 1 of what you're approving. Pat Farrell: Which one? Gary Warren: The short cul-de-sac not on the Reed property. Barbara Dacy: That's the one that's not on the Reed property. Gary Warren: Otherwise if this is the version, than you're tied in with the platting... Pat Farrell: Just to clarify, my only point is you ought to nail down which one you're talking about because you've seen two of them. Mayor Hamilton: It has to be the first one because we're not tying this to the Reed property. We've already eliminated that. Barbara Dacy: So the Council is saying this one? Councilman Geving: Can we call it Exhibit A or something. Barbara Dacy: Option 3. 55 ICS5y Council Meeting - A( 1 25, 1988 IICouncilman Johnson: That cul-de-sac happens to be on somebody elses property,HSZ's p ro perty either. That's s on Schmitz' property and Reed property. Ir II Mayor Hamilton: Put a T on there on the HSZ property. There are a lot of alternatives i think that we haven't even looked at. IICouncilman Boyt: What do we gain when we pass this? I will admit to being a bit lost. It seems to me as though what the developer is trying to do is make some progress knowing what should be the next step the developer is taking and 1 MnDot is saying if you guys don't vacate 64th Street, the guy can't have a major entrance and exit to his operation. We've tabled that issue. Now we're coming back and we're sanitizing number 1. What I read, number 1 now says that I the gentleman is eventually going to need to post a letter of credit for his development and that's about all. Mayor Hamilton: That's normal. IICouncilman Boyt: Yes, but I'm saying that doesn't say. .. I Councilman Johnson: We haven't solved anything here tonight unless we solve whether or not the realigned 64th Street is going to reconnect to TH 41 and at what time period does that happen? Without that we've wasted a lot of time II tonight. We can't just cul-de-sac it like this. We can but I'm not going to. I'm saying that prior to vacation of 64th Street, those people need an exit to TH 41 and they need a road connecting all the way from TH 41 to where the old 64th Street used to be and that's the position I'm taking on this prior to any I vacation of the other one. We can approve a preliminary plat but the preliminary plat doesn't have that cul-de-sac on it. The preliminary plat shows a vacated street but then a condition of approval of the preliminary plat II is that we vacate the street and then we go to the next argument. We haven' t solved anything yet. Mayor Hamilton: If that's the case, and if that's what you really believe, Ithen what the City has to do and we should do immediately is start condemnation process and just select a place where the road is going to go. Based on what the developer is saying, they've worked with the neighborhood and they have not I made progress and so rather than tying this to the Reed property, the City will have to go through a condemnation of property and force the road through. That's an option we have to take a look at also and I think those are the I Options we don' t have laid out for us tonight and that's what we need to look at. And I don't agree that we haven't accomplished anything. We've come a long ways. Maybe there's been a lot of gum beating but this is not an easy issue to deal with. 1 Councilman Johnson: Could I ask staff a question? IMayor Hamilton: Is it something new that we haven't dealt with before? Councilman Johnson: It's something you brought up. Can the City condemn somebody's property to put a new street in for the purpose of allowing a II commercial development to develop in this area? Pat Farrell: Yes. !:7 II I56 IIIIN------ City Council Meeting-April 25, 1988 ' UMayor Hamilton: So now we have before us, we voted to reconsider item 1. We're on 8(b) but item 1 of the conditions. We have striken approval of the final plat of the Reed property and at the last line, and alignment of 64th Street to TH 41. Councilman Horn: Unless I misunderstand something, our choices are we can have 64th go through or we can have the main entrance to this development. Barbara Dacy: 64th realigned. 1 Gary Warren: One or the other. Councilman Horn: Realigned to go through or? ' Gary Warren: 64th 1,100 feet south. Councilman Horn: 1,100 feet south of the Reed property or farther south? Gary Warren: 1,100 feet south of the center line of TH 7 which puts you into the Reed property. Councilman Horn: So if people really want that to go through to TH 41, then they don't want to approve this cul-de-sac? Barbara Dacy: Right. That's the issue. Either the cul-de-sac or you = reconnect to TH 41. Mayor Hamilton: And that's why I'm saying their option is we should start condemnation process if those are our choices. ' Councilman Boyt: And that's why we tabled that is because we don't know so let's vote on this. Councilman Geving: I think we're still alright with condition 1. Councilman Boyt: All condition 1 says is the whole thing falls apart if we don't vacate 64th Street. Does anybody have trouble living with that? Councilman Geving: No, because it's going to happen. ' Councilman Johnson: Because we're really not saying how they going to cul-de-sac. .. 1 TRAPPERS PASS ADDITION, LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF HWY 101, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION: , A. SUBDIVISION OF 32.5 ACRES INTO 34 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND AND DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET. 4 Barbara Dacy: Briefly, I know the applicant has submitted a letter to each of the Councilmembers objecting to three conditions on the plat. One of them being the tree removal plan. Secondly, in regards to the Park and Recreation 57 4P 4)�r7 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: We could have it on our consent. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution declaring the the Old Assumption Seminary as a public health hazard and a public safety hazard to be available for the next City Council meeting. In the meantime, directing staff to move ahead to proceed to do whatever they can to close it down. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET. Mayor Hamilton: We've gone over this a number of time. I guess Barb, has anything changed since last week that you want to bring to our attention? Barbara Dacy: It's my understanding from the Reed's that Roger Reed has signed a petition agreeing to the vacation. ' Councilman Johnson: So now we're at a three-fifth's vote. Roger Knutson: Last time there was a concern that two people owned the property. Have they both signed? tMayor Hamilton: Gary, your brother is owner with you, is that correct? ' Roger Knutson: Now you both signed the petition? Mayor Hamilton: Including your wife so there's three of you. Jan Reed: We haven't actually signed it. Roger Knutson: If they sign it and if they own a majority of the land abutting ' the road to be vacated, then it is. .. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could examine the document and tell us what needs to be done. Roger Knutson: I guess know someone needs to sign it. ' Barbara Dacy: They are signing our standard application. You should probably write on there we're going to vacate 64th Street. ' Roger Knutson: From point to point. Councilman Boyt: It's a little sketchy isn't it? Roger Knutson: Yes. Why don't I draw something up right here. Councilman Johnson: Of course his brother's not here. Mayor Hamilton: Barbara, could you review what the current plan is at this point in time? ' Barbara Dacy: The Council at last Monday's meeting was talking about one of the 1 3 223 / ' II City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 cul-de- sac options and what would have to happen is 64th Street would be vacated from the southwest corner of the HSZ site to TH 41. So this area would be vacated. Then either cul-de-sacs here or into the Reed property. At the last meeting the Reed's and HSZ appeared to have agreement to build a cul-de-sac into their property. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: Do you agree with that Gary? Gary Reed: Yes. They've given us a written agreement that is putting the cul-de-sac into our property, that compensate. .. He would like some area for ponding on our property. Barb, that hasn't been approved? Barbara Dacy: The planning issue is really not part of the Council's review tonight. The main issue is whether or not 64th Street should be vacated or what alignment it is. Other related ponding issues or drainage issues have to be addressed at another time. , Gary Reed: If you'd like to see, I drew up an option of coming in off of TH 41 and some of the reasons why it doesn't seen to be working out. Bill was concerned that we looked that over as an option... Councilman Boyt: I'd like one, thank you. Gary Reed: This would be coming in off of TH 41 coming down to here.. . Without Ben Gowen's cooperation for the. . .it comes real close to the house right here...so that's one of the reasons. Councilman Geving: How many units are there? Gary Reed: As far as lots go. With the West 64th Street cul-de-sac I get one ' more lot plus I don't use all this land on the road here. So this is not quite as efficient as what I consider the land use to be. So that's another reason that it doesn't really work out for me. The other reason is HSZ won't put in the other cul-de-sac. On this plan.. . Then we would probably have to stub the sewer in across the easement from West 64th Street. Sewer and water is not available up here by the highway and that would be another additional cost. To get the sewer from West 64th Street to seven lots, in this area here... I guess my conclusion was that this cption worked for me. A little better land use. I come up with approximately a 260 foot from West 64th Street to the end of the cul-de-sac here. Anything you wanted to ask? , Councilman Boyt: What's the length of the whole cul-de-sac? Councilman Johnson: From Orchard. ' Gary Reed: I suspect it would be close to 1,000 feet. Councilman Johnson: Where are you with the drainage issue? Gary Reed: We're trying to nail that down. We have put in the holding pond for their property and the main drainage coming off of TH 41 from the school is channeled through our property. It's been a problem with us and it would go into the holding pond and is this correct now, the runoff is going to go underground to the park? 4 . (- City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Councilman Johnson: How does it affect the 8 lots you're proposing? Gary Reed: I haven't nailed down the ponding site with them. Possibly put it up in this area here with this sharp angle...the drainage comes into my property now. At that point now there's a natural.. .and from there goes underground. There's another possibilty but I'm not sure. .. Councilman Johnson: So you're not fighting the ponding at this point? Gary Reed: No. i Councilman Johnson: You're just trying, you agreed in principle to allow them to II pond on your property for their area and it looks like. .. Gary Reed: I agreed to a pond of not more than 10,000 square feet. Somewhat Ismaller than a minimum sized lot should be sufficient I imagine. Larry Brown: Just a point of clarification, if West 64th Street is vacated and I Mr. Reed comes in for a plat, he will be responsible as well for on site ponding to maintain a predevelopment runoff rate. Therefore there will be a pond somewhere on his property. IIGary Reed: Just for the blacktopping? The water running off the blacktop? Larry Brown: And the houses that potentially would be there. IIIIICouncilman Johnson: His pond could be the same pond? ILarry Brown: Correct. If it were sized appropriately, yes. Gary Reed: Like I say, the major drainage comes off the school parking lot and II they have no on site ponding at all. I feel that they should be responsible for their blacktop and should provide on site ponding for their runoff because it comes down really fast through there. They've got a spot next to the highway there. They've got plenty of land. They're going to channel their runoff Iinto... Mayor Hamilton: Doesn't any of that go to the park? IGary Reed: Some of it does go into that pond to the north... Mayor Hamilton: Underneath that driveway? IGary Reed: Where that pond is now. ..if that culvert ever opened up, ou would have a problem there with our lake. y IMayor Hamilton: Anything else Gary? Is that it? Bill, do you have any additional questions? Councilman Boyt: I appreciate the answers I got. Barbara, I had a question for you. The current limit on cul-de-sacs and how that affects this? Barbara Dacy: There's is no specific limit identified in the subdivision II 5 1. 23U City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 II ordinance other than length that's appropriate for the development and intensity which the cul-de-sac serves. The cul-de-sac that goes into the Reed property is approximately 900 feet from Orchard Lane. Typically staff has used a 1,000 foot rule of thumb in the urban area. There are different issues that we look at. Gary Reed: The density is not too great on that cul-de-sac. The lots there are over 60 feet. Councilman Boyt: You've agreed to maintain the walkway from the end of 64th Street out to TH 41? Gary Reed: I have agreed to make a walkway through my property. Councilman Boyt: There's a road through there right now and I thought one of the considerations was that you were going to allow a path width to remain. Gary Reed: A road easement you mean? Barbara Dacy: As a condition of the vacation, if the Council wishes to reserve a trail easement in that vacated area, they have the power to do that. Councilman Boyt: In talking to the neighbors that day, it was my understanding that there was concern that there be some way for the kids to continue to cross that property to the school so I think we should maintain a trail easement on 64th. My concern with this is, as I have expressed I think right along, is I don't know how to deal with long cul-de-sacs. I would like to see the City Council wrestle with this issue in the future. I think that we need to work at it with the Public Safety people and come up with what are we going to do with long cul-de-sacs. This is a pressure all the time it seems to allow them yet I think we all know that they test the limits of our ability to provide public safety protection for the people in the community. I don't know that now is the time to fight that issue. I think the developer and the Reeds have worked at this for quite a while and if the neighbors don't substantially object to this plan, I gather that they don't from the conversation that I had with them, I cz..r sur,.-^o_.t it. Councilman Geving: I like to know now if we have narrowed the potential ' cul-de-sacs to the three that are sho n on the sketch that you've provided. Now we can rule out 2 for sure. That's certainly not to be considered. At least in my view and apparently you have now ruled out number 1, is that correct? I guess I'm most concerned about the comments from citizens who are now using 64th everyday to get to work from TH 41. Do we have any live petitions? Do we have any recent comments that have come in in terms of memorandums? Letters from people? Barbara Dacy: I have not received any at my office. I know some people are here. Councilman Geving: Again, like I said, my major concern was those people who do live to the west who are now traveling east to get to TH 41. Their comments regarding our action tonight and what their alternative will be if we do vacate 64th. Whether this is a substantial number of people who would object to that or whether there's a substantial number of people now will accept this cul-de-sac arrangement and if they want to use TH 41 they'll have to go out onto 6 1 :: ;',11 ,'- City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 TH 7 to get to TH 41. I'd like to hear from those. Mayor Hamilton: I'll get to you in just a minute. Coyncilman Geving: I'd like to hear that in our discussion before we vote. Wh, ther or not there are people representing the area to the west or anybody that lives on Oriole Lane that would want to speak to this issue. I guess my only feelings is if there is substantial agreement among those people that this would not be an undue hardship, they could live with this, I would vote accordingly to vacate the property. I think what I saw tonight in Mr. Reed's alternatives and what he's going to do with his property, you're going to develop there obviously and we have to move ahead with the HSZ development and I don't want to hold it up any longer. I'm pleased we're at this point. il Councilman Johnson: I met with the citizens too. I still have, even though I had a meeting with the neighborhood, the only one part I have problem with even though I'm in general favor of it, is emergency access and our fire trucks are going to have to use TH 7. Fortunately our prime responder is going to be coming from Minnewashta so it's going to be coming down TH 7 anyway but you're II secondary response would be coming from the main station or again, the call for extra help from Shorewood and Excelsior, etc. would be coming down TH 7. Seeing the primary use may be actually TH 7 now anyway and conditioned upon the fact II that the deceleration lane to go into the HSZ property is going to extend all the way back to Orchard Lane to act as an acceleration lane and be a much safer entrance onto TH 7 than they presently have onto TH 7. I'm not sure whether that lane's going to extend all the way to TH 41 or not. I don't think it will. 11111 It would be nice if it went all the way to TH 41 and then you wouldn't have to get on TH 7 at all. Generally I would like to see it connected through...there because of the commercial going on, it's going to be residential traffic. If it II went all the way through we could again be looking at the front part of this property being built commercial and when we would have commercial on this residential street again. I don't particularly want to see that happen so II weighing everything I'm leaning towards this option and they want to sit in there and fight it out and negotiate for this easement. I agree with Dale, I'd like to hear from citizens that are here tonight. Whether they agree with my analysis or not. IIMayor Hamilton: I have just a couple of comments. I too have been concerned about the residents to the west. However, the previous developers of this area I had always tied the shopping center in with the traffic going to the west to get into the center, as I recall, from Oriole. Now we've eliminated that. I guess that's what the residents wanted and now I'd be surprised if we heard them say II they didn't want that. I think I'm concerned that they're satisfied with their access. Entrance and egress onto TH 7 is going to be adequate for them and I'm pleased that the Reed's have reached agreement with the developer that's going to satisfy their needs and accomplish what they want to do. Perhaps sooner than II they want to do it but nevertheless get it done when they want to do something. Seeing how that's the case I'm all in favor of this. II Gene Conner, 2521 Orchard Lane: I would like to restate, just to make sure that it doesn't drop through the cracks because sometimes things seem to do that, that any vacation of 64th Street be absolutely tied to a left turn lane being completed before vacation on TH 7. I II 7 232 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Bob Wagner, 2511 Orchard Lane: I too go TH 41, turn south and go to the great city of Chaska to work every morning and on behalf of the neighbors and having sat through a lot of meetings, I really feel this is probably the optimum soLiion. From the standpoint of talking about the longer cul-de-sac and emergency exit, one of the alternatives that had been discussed was an exit back up into the shopping center. Well, when you really get down to reality with that, that would be in the southwest corner where you've got a 20 foot berm, privacy overrides this in my opinion. An emergency exit...but I really believe this is probably the best solution for the neighborhood in spite of some minor consequences if I have to go up to TH 7, which is two blocks out of my way. Resident: I live to the west on Minnewashta and I guess I'm a little surprised, I hadn't heard about this prior to about two weeks ago. I guess there was some discussion to the east of us but in our area it wasn't discussed until one of the neighbors stopped over and told me about it. But I come over here to work everyday in Chan in my office and two things I'm wondering about. One is the , entrance onto TH 7 certain hours of the day is very difficult to get on. The second thing, if that park is developed behind us, is that traffic going to be forced onto TH 7 without relief or not? Is that a consideration? Mayor Hamilton: From Herman Field? Resident: Yes. ' Mayor Hamilton: Yes. They would use TH 7 also. We don't anticipate heavy useage of the park though. It's more of a passive use than it is an active use. Resident: Is there any type of an entrance lane? I heard discussion about deceleration and entrance into the Minnewashta area off of TH 7 but what about from Minnewashta onto TH 7 during rush hour traffic? Mayor Hamilton: There's a right turn lane out. ' Resident: There will be? Mayor Hamilton: Right. ' Councilman Geving: To follow up on Jay's comment, in terms of the construction on TH 7, does anybody have any knowledge when that will take place? Building a left turn lane? Barbara Dacy: That's post year 2000. Councilman Gevi.ng: Post year 2000? Barbara Dacy: The center lane that was identified in the TH 7 study report. .. ' John Uban: The highway department has already gone out and measured. There's enough room to stripe a left turn lane in there today so it's a matter of getting it on their schedule for striping. Barbara Dacy: I though you were talking about the center left turn lane all the way down TH 7. 8 1 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Councilman Geving: No, just on Orchard. John Uban: And that is, I guess as soon as it's approved and we go ahead with this, we just contact MnDot and say go ahead with that and whatever their schedule is. Councilman Geving: What is your comment relating to what Mr. Conner's proposed her)in terms of timing? John Uban: That would be fine. In fact we would go out and paint it ourselves if we were given permission to do so. Mayor Hamilton: I thought that's what you had said previously. Councilman Johnson: I don't think MnDot has to wait for us to approve this. MnDot can go out there and put that lane in there today because it's needed today. Gene Conner: With no little irritation I'd like to ask, if it's not yours, it's the highway department, if there's roam there now why the hell didn't they do it a long time ago? There's been a lot of bitching about that. Mayor Hamilton: I think you should know we've worked with MnDot over the years in attempting to improve TH 7. They don't seem to inclined to work with us. We have had many requests and studies and they know the traffic is bad and they won't do anything to help us improve the situation. Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to move partial vacation of 64th Street using Option #3 into the Reed property with conditions as outlined by the staff with the fourth condition that the left turn lane be put on TH 7 prior to doing this if it can possibly be accomplished. Remain under construction. Whether it's through your company's efforts or MnDot's. Also, that we reserve a trail easement on the vacated 64th Street so there can be some access for kids to get to the school. Barbara Dacy: On the motion, if you're going to cul-de-sac it then conditions 1 and 2 of the staff report will not apply but condition 3 would. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so we have 1, 2 and 3. Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion. Roger Knutson: One question. It's going to cost money to cul-de-sac it. Mayor Hamilton: The developer has agreed with the Reeds to accomplish that. A written agreement. Roger Knutson: That should be reflected in the development contract to make sure. .. 111 Mayor Hamilton: As the City develops the development contract that should be a part of that. Just so the Reeds are aware of it and you guys are aware of it, that the agreement needs to be signed by both parties and included. 9 a 234 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 II Councilman Geving: It doesn't have anything to do with the vacation. It's a • separate issue. Councilman Johnson: You've got to cul-de-sac the end of the street. ..y 1Roger Knutson: The fact that you're vacating it is causing an expense to incur. Now's the best time to make sure everyone knows who's paying for it. Mayor Hamilton: That's what Mr. Reed had said. That they have agreed to that ' in writing. Roger Knutson: The vacation is contingent upon them signing a development ' contract with us. Mayor Hamilton: That would be a fourth condition. Councilman Boyt: I would like to ask that we modify the trail easement. I think it should be more than an easement. There's a roadway there now. I think the trail should be there and done. It's a very minor cost to pave that trail. There are going to be people, children who are going to want to use that. Gene Conner: A lot of them ride bikes. ' Mayor Hamilton: Do you see any problem with that? Okay. We're modifying the third which was that there be a trail easement. Not just a trail easement but that a trail be constructed from the portion of West 64th that's being vacated to TH 41. Roger Knutson: At who's expense? ' Mayor Hamilton: The developer's. Councilman Johnson: Who maintains it? Mayor Hamilton: The City. Councilman Johnson: I need a review of exactly what we're voting on. 1 and 2 are out? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Approval of the vacation of 64th Street with the recommendations are, number 3 becomes 1. 2 is that the left turn lane off of TH 7 be completed as quickly as possible as soon as the construction starts. Whether it's by the developer or by MnDot. Councilman Johnson: Prior to vacation. Mayor Hamilton: 3 is that the trail be constructed through the property.rt . And 4 was as Roger had stated. Roger Knutson: The condition be put in the development and that the development contract be executed before vacation actually takes place. 10 ' City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: That a signed agreement between the Reeds and the developer be signed so everybody knows who's paying it. Councilman Johnson: The trail being built? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Roger Knutson: The development contract requires someone to do something. We a so require an escrow or letter of credit to make sure it gets accomplished. Councilman Boyt: Now we need to understand what we're getting. We are talking about a city trail. Right? It's 8 feet wide. That's our standard. Just so there's no confusion. That's our typical trail. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the partial vacation of West 64th Street conditioned upon the following: 1. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare an analysis of all steps to be III accomplished prior to filing the vacation resolution including driveway relocation expenses, reconstruction and relocation plans, filing of appropriate letters of credit or escrow amounts, and retaining necessary drainage and utility easements and any other items deemed necessary by the II City Attorney's Office. This will be brought back for Council approval. 2. A left turn lane off of TH 7 be completed prior to the vacation of 64th II Street. Completed either by MnDot or the developer. 3. An 8 foot trail be constructed by the developer from the vacated portion of I64th Street to TH 41. 4. Vacation of 64th Street is contingent upon a development contract being signed and that the development contract spells out that the developer is , II responsible for the expense of constructing the cul-de-sac and construction of the trail. IIAll voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution 88-48 II ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE CITY CODE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF A DOCK AND ONE CANOE RANK/ DOCK REQUIREMENT. IIBarbara Dacy: Two issues, one issue is the lot depth requirement for a beachlot in order to have a dock. The second issue is the canoe rack issue. II Currently as written you have to have a dock in order to have a canoe rack. So the Planning Commission acted to recommend that the Council amend the ordinance to keep the 100 foot lot depth requirement for a dock but added a phrase that II said, inclusive of street right-of-ways. And as to the canoe rack issue, they made the language on page 7 in the staff report, recommending that there be no more than 7 racks per beachlot. Those are the two issues. ICouncilman Johnson: Did they come up with the number 7? II 11 k