Loading...
CC Minutes 1994 09 26CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, Councilwoman Dockendorf, and Councilman Wing STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Charles Folch, and Sharmin Al-Jarl APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a suggestion to take off item 9. Given the, which is the Perkins-Taco Bell. Given that we've got a very heavy agenda and I think it's going to be midnight before we get to it, or maybe we can gauge that as the meeting goes on. I don't know, how docs everyone else feel? ! just think we're not going to get to it at a reasonable lime frame and it's ~eliminary and final. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I was going to suggest we table it because there's a lot of information that is not contained, unless they're going to provide that information at the meeting. And there are other things that are shown without additional drawings that make reference too that I can't make heads or tails out oL Councilwoman Dockendorf: So should we take it off the agenda or move it up and table it so they don't have to sit here until midnight? Mayor Chmiel: Is anyone here at this time for that particular item? Bob Generous: I don't believe they'll be here until about 8:30. MaYor Chmiel: Well maybe you can save them a trip if you can get a hold of them. We could remove this from the agenda if you so choose. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we do that. Councilman Mason: Well, the only thing would be, if there are issues that we need to get, if we want to table it, and tell them tlxis is what we want cleared up as opposed to deleting it from the agenda. And that would give them more of a, ! mean if we just delete it from the agenda, it will be a month, won't it? Mayor Chmiel: Within the next 2 weeks to come back on October the 10th. Councilman Mason: Well right, but if we're just going to table it. Mayor Chmiel: It's nice and red here so I don't know if that's October 10th. Okay, whatever is Council's desire. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Bob, do they know that we're going to tabling it? I mean do they have a good inkling that we will be? Bob Generous: Well we discussed that they didn't have all the information... City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, well we'll put it where it is right now. Let's leave it there and see what comes in and then we can address it probably at that time, I don't like taking up people's time to find out they're not going to be on the agenda but I think we'd best leave it. So with the motion that's on the floor with a second, to approve the agenda. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAMATION DECLARING 1996 AS THE CITY'S CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION, MAYOR CHMIEL. Mayor Chmiel: I have a public announcement to make and this is a proclamation for the City of Chanhassen. Proclamation declaring 1996 as the Centennial, City Centennial celebration and establishing a centennial commission. Whereas, the fast election for city officers was held on May 5, 1896; and Whereas, upon canvasing election returns, Gerhardt Schroeder was declared Mayor. John Rosebach, Bernard Simmer, Frank Grayson and N.E. Pauly were declared Council members, officially taking office on May 5, 1896; and Whereas, the results of the city's fast election to form as a city, including officers, hereof was fried with Carver County effective May 5, 1896; Now Therefore I, Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor, do hereby proclaim May 5, 1996 as Chanhassen's official centennial date. Further I do hereby proclaim the establishment of a centennial commission to help plan and coordinate the celebration's activities throughout all of i996 in commemoration of Chanhassen's 100 years of existence as a Minnesota city. Finally I invite all citizens to apply for our newly created centennial commission or to help with one of the many activities envisioned as part of our centennial celebration. Can I have a motion to approve the proclamation. Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution g94-100: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Proclamation declaring 1996 as the City of Chanhassen's Centennial Celebration. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 13 of City Code Concerning Weeds and Grass, Final Reading. c. Approval of Accounts. do City Council Minutes dated September 12, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 7, 1994 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated August 23, 1994 g. Approve Concurrence of Award of Contract for the Powers Boulevard (CR 17) Surcharging Improvement Contract (Carver County Project), Project 93-29A. City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 h. Resolution g94.101: Approve Plans and Specifications for Phase I Lake Lucy Road and Utility Project (Trunk Highway 41 to 1500 Lineal Feet East), Project 92-12. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBUC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR UPPER BLUFF CREEK TRUNK UTILITIES PHASE H, PROJECT 91-17B. Public Present: Name ~ally Case, DSU Address 300 First Ave. No, Suite 210, Mpls 55401 Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This is an assessment hearing for the Upper Bluff Creek Project 91-17B. This was a petitioned project by the property owners and/or land developers with interest in a majority of the property...in this improvement project. I am required by law, we have...this hearing in the paper. We've also...packets were prepared last week and we did not receive any objections to the assessments of this project. However, today we did receive two objections which regard the same property. It's an outlot property with the Timberwood plat on the west side of Galpin Boulevard and I'll pass out a copy of those objections here for the record. As one of letter indicates, there is a meeting scheduled for this Friday between the attorney, staff and also the attorney representing the property owners to discuss the assessment and also easement acquisition that's needed as a part of this... It is hoped that we can work this out at a staff level and negotiate any objection to the assessment. So with us tonight we do have the project engineer, Mr. Phil Grovel from Bonestroo and Phil will basically provide a synopsis and...costs that were incurred for the special assessments. So with that I'll mm it over to Phil. Phil Grovel: Thank you Charles. As Charles mentioned, this is the assessment hearing for Project 91-17B. This is the second phase of a larger project that we've been working on for a number of years now. As you recall, during the report part of this phase, the project was a little bit larger in that there was going to be utilities extended westward out towards Highway 41. Since that time the developments in that area have not proceeded as rapidly as they had anticipated so those improvements have been delayed until a future phase, be it Phase 3 or 4 for this project. Accordingly the proposed assessment rate has been reduced to not include a couple of those areas west towards Highway 41 and were initially included in the assessment area. So the project as it stands consists of extending sanitary sewer northward from the Chanhassen cemetery area out towards the new school site and in the future it will extend westward through the O'Shaughnessy and Gateway West property. Also, in a bigger chunk of this project was a watermain improvement which consisted of connecting the watermain that was previously installed with the Stone Creek development, northward up to the watermain that was previously installed as part of the JohnsonfDolejsifrurner property. So what this does is...watermain loop in this area by connecting the two watermalns along Galpin Boulevard. The total project cost for the project were $359,000.00 for sanitary sewer and $595,000.00 for watermaln for a total of $954,000.00. As you can see, the revenue generated at the top of the list here is slightly over a million dollars so the assessment revenue does cover the project cost. I've also included the numbers showing what the initial assessments are because this project is, as 3 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 the last few have, we are not proposing to assess the small, 10 acre or less single family property more than 1 unit at this time. And with that, not assessing those properties, the revenue generated is $965,000.00 which is stiil...project costs. With that I'd open it up to any questions anyone may have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What I'd like to do Phil is, this is a public hearing. If there's anyone at this particular time who would like to come forward and express their concerns. And if you do, please state your name and your address and any questions that you have arriving to this project. Wally Case: Good evening. I'm Wally Case. I with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. I'm here tonight representing Gateway Parmers. They are in favor of this project and look forward to the project... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the pUblic hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Richard. Do you have any specific questions? Councilman Wing: No. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen? Yeah, Phil you said that at this time we won't be assessing the area to the west. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Phil Gravel: Correct. Councilwoman Dockendoff: So they're off the rolls altogether or we'll assess them when they do develop? Phil Gravel: What we did is, and this we worked out with Gateway. Was the proposed project costs were $950,000.00 and we assessed as much as we had to to the Gateway Properties to generate enough revenue to cover the... The area west of what I've shown in orange here will be assessed probably next year when the utilities are extended through that part. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And what's your determination on this outlot of Timberwood? Phil Gravel: I agree with Charles in that it's an assessable area but we are negotiating with...and I think that that assessment will be taken care of... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Nothing. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. 4 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Councilman Senn: Nothing. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and I guess I don't have any either. Is there a motion to approve the assessment hearing for Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utilities Phase II Project 91-17B? Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Resolution g94.102: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adopt the assessment for the Upper Bluff Creek Phase I! Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 91-17B dated September, 1994 with the interest and term to be 7 112% and 10 years, respectively. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: MODIFICATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCIAL DISTRICT NO. 2-1. Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Honorable Council. In accordance with State law, the City Council must hold a public hearing when considering a modification to a tax increment plan. At your September 12th meeting you established today as that public hearing date. Approximately one year ago the City Council approved modification g4 for TIF District No. 2-1 to include the construction of a frontage road and recreational facility at a cost of approximately $3,300,000.00. The City bonding attorney is required that the city hold another public hearing when selling the bonds and you will be doing that later this evening. The plan modification calls for including the second phase of the frontage road that will be assessed to the benefitting properties this fall, and that is an estimated cost of $2 million. That is also included in the plan modifications and an additional $20,000.00 for administrative expense. The amendment to the plan also authorizes the sale of bonds at an aggregate amount of $5,300,000.00 for the recreational facility and frontage road. Staff would recommend the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving modifications. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Todd. Is there anyone at this time wishing to address the modification of the tax increment district? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Richard. Councilman Wing: What I'd do? Mayor Chmiel: We just closed the public hearing. We're voting on the issue now. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you have any comments? Councilman Wing: Oh, no. I thought we were rolling. No sir, I have no comments. 5 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Nor do I. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: I have no comment Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: No. No additional ones. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I don't have any either because we did discuss this previously and come up with the conclusion as we have to put it on for a public hearing. Can I have a motion to approve? Councilman Wing: I'll move that approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution g94-103: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the attached resolution (Attachment #4) approving the modifications to Development District No. 2 and TIF District No. 2 and TIF District No. 2-1. AH voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. AWARD OF BIDS: 1994 BONDS. Don Ashworth: Dave MacGillvrary had anticipated being here. He is in Washington D.C. and was not able to get back. Bob Thistle from Springsted is here this evening to discuss the bids that were received this afternoon. With that, Bob. Bob Thistle: Thank you Don, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, It's a pleasure to be here representing Dave and Springsted this evening. At your direction at a meeting about a month ago Springsted today went to market on your behalf for $2,240,000.00 of GO Tax Increment Bonds for the construction of a frontage road and a community center. You took bids today at 11:00 a.m.. We received 8 bids representing 16 different banking underwriting firms. All bids that we received carry...or MGIA insurance. The certificate for that insurance is that increases the rating on it from AAA to provide insurance with coverage for the buyer. The underlying rating provided by Moody's, who reviewed this issue, was BAA, Slightly lower than BAA1 the city's had on some other issues. You've kind of vacillated back and forth between issues recently, The Iow bid that was received was from, and I believe you have the bid back sheet in yellow in front of you. The low bid was from Firstar Bank, Milwaukee in conjunction with Oppenheimer. Their bid was 5.2863%. In comparison to that bid to a bid that we took this last week with a city BAA1 rating, that interest rate for that issue was about, well the interest rates ranged within 10 or were exactly the same interest rate that you received today. The market has gone up 13 basis points or 13 one hundredths of 1% since that rating last week. So the rating is very fair and very comparable to the BAA1 rating. Perhaps a little bit better. It would be our recommendation at this time that you accept the low bid of Firstar Bank Milwaukee for 5.2863% for a net interest cost of $428,239.52. And if you have any questions, I'd be free to try and answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Bob. It's not unusual to see as many bidders but this seems like, this was something that 8 bidders did come in on. City Council Meeting - September :26, 1994 Bob Thistle: It shows a lot of interest in your product and the fact that they were able to get insurance was very helpful. Mayor Chmiel: Good, great. I guess I don't have any. Richard. Councilman Wing: Thank you Don, nothing. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: What's the term on these? Bob Thistle: The term is 5 years. A very short term bond. They go from 1996 to the year 2000. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay. So they're incremental. Bob Thistle: Actually 7 years from today. The fa'st interest payment, you see in that fa-st column? Councilwoman Dockendoff: Right. Bob Thistle: Those are the interest rates that you pay each year on those bonds. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Gotchya, thanks. Nothing further. Councilman Mason: I have nothing. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: Question. On the interest rate, when you quoted basically 4.4% up to 5%. How do we end up with a tree interest rate of 5.28%? Bob Thistle: That's the interest rate that you see, the coupon rate of 4.45% is the actual cost of the money that you borrow. Then in addition to that you have the profit that was bid by the underwriter. The issuance cost which includes bond counsel, rating agency, our cost, printing of the documents and whatever else. So that takes the interest rate of 5.28%. So the TIC is in the interest rate but it's an all inclusive cost of all costs of the bond issue. Councilman Senn: Okay, so the average is a 4.85 and then goes up to the 5.28 to cover those costs then? Bob Thistle: That's right. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Hearing no other questions, can I have a motion to approve the award of bids for our 1994 bonds. Councilman Wing: So moved, Firstar Bank. Mayor Chmiel: For the acceptance of Firstar Bank. Is there a second? City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution g94-104: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to accept the low bid of Firstar Bank Milwaukee for 5.2863 % for a net interest cost of $428~.39~2. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1994 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROGRAM, PROJECT 94-9. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On Thursday, September 15th bids were received and opened for the 1994 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program No. 94-9. Only two bids were received... The low bid received was from Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. at a total bid amount of $88,758.09. This bid is significantly lower than the engineer's estimate based on bids received for similar work done last year...very, very favorable this year. It would be staff's recommendation to the Council that the project engineer and staff take a look at possibly adding some additional testing and sealing work... But in any case, at this point in time staff recommends that the City Council award the 1994 Sanitary Sewer Rehab Program to Visu Sewer in the amount of $88,758.09. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Charles. Any questions? Richard? Councilman Wing: No sir. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well Charles, I know what you're doing but I always get nervous when we get significantly under bid like this. Do they understand the project thoroughly? Mayor Chmiel: We've had them before, have we not? Charles Folch: Yes we have and actually, to be honest with you, what's happened is one of the companies that had a patent on this type of work that is done, their patent ran out last year so. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Great. Mayor Chmiel: Always makes it sweeter for us. Michael. Councilman Mason: Ah no. I don't have any questions about accepting this bid. I think maybe we need to discuss if we want to go beyond it but this bid sounds real good to me. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think that would be brought back to Council prior to any acceptance rather than just making a change order. Councilman Mason: Fine. Sounds good. Mayor Chmiel: At least that's the way I'd like to see it done. Mark. Councilman Senn: No. Given Mike's comments on it. City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion? Councilman Mason: So moved to accept bids for 1994 Sanitary Sewer Rehab Program, Project 94-9 to Visu- Sewer Clean and Seal, Inc. to $88,758.09. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution #94-105: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to award the bids for the 1994 Sanitary Sewer Rehab Program, Project 94-9 to Visu-Sewer Clean and Seal, Inc. in the amount of $88,758.09. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.5 ACRES INTO 36 RURAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, HALLA'S GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES, LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 14 AND WEST AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 101, DON HALLA. Sharmin AI-Jaff: This item has appeared before you on August 22nd and the City Council reviewed the application but you needed action on it the report issues that you wanted staff to address and bring it back before you. The first being obtaining a legal opinion from the City Attorney's office on whether the applicant needed to maintain a 2 1/2 acre area per lot or an overall average density of 2 1/2 acres. The second was determined if the overall density should include the nursery portion of the site. Now those two issues were resolved at the September 12, 1994 meeting. You decided that the applicant may proceed with an overall average of 2 1/2 acres and that density would include the nursery site. The other two issues were to provide screening for homes located...of the easterly portion of the proposed subdivision. Staff added a condition to the proposal that would provide some additional landscaping. The fourth issue was to resolve the access or a private driveway issue for homes located south of the easterly portion of the proposed subdivision. And again we've addressed that issue within the staff report by making two suggestions. The first one to realign the future driveway which would serve the eastern development side here to the west. This way we would avoid...and still maintain access to the southerly potion. The second alternative would be to provide a stub street either between Lots 1 and 2 or Lots 2 and 3. This is all going to depend upon how the applicant redesigns his plat and this will be resolved when he fine tunes it. We are recommending approval of this plat. There is one condition that we need to add and this one concerns the park and trail fees. Currently there isn't a condition that refers to the park and trail dedication. So a condition needs to be added reflecting that the applicant pay park and trail fees at the time of building permit application. We are recommending approval. However, staff is requesting that the Council give the applicant a deadline to final plat it no later than December 1st of this year. And if the applicant did not meet that deadline, then you would only permit him to go back to the 1 unit per 10 acre density which is what the ordinance allows at this time. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. I have one specific question and...the blue line drawing that we have for this showing that segment of that future development. That future development is something that is not owned by the applicant. Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: I would like to see that removed from that drawing because it could imply that it's part of his property and that he could develop that and to me that shouldn't be on that particular drawing. City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Sharmin AI-Jaff: Mr. Mayor, the 19 acres that we have shown that we, the correction that was made in the staff report from 102 acres to subtract that portion of property. Mayor Chmiel: But I guess this is a signed paper, document and it is still shown and I think it should be removed and I would like that as another condition added to that. Okay. That's about the only concern I had on that particular one. Richard. Councilman Wing: This has been talked about at length and as long as we're going with the average lot size, I think that was kind of the end of the discussion for me. This has been hacked over. It's a done deal. I guess the only comment I have, and I apologize to Sharmin because I hate going against staff but this deadline may be reasonable and maybe reasonable expectation but I'm in no rush to have anything happen and I don't wish to rush it and I think the deadline just says, you've got to do something. Do it now so I don't have any problem with an extension and I don't care how long the extension goes. This dates back to the 80's and we've approved it tonight and wouldn't suppose another month, two months or a year. Kate Aanenson: The extension has been on going and what we're saying is he's got a right that nobody else has. Anybody that comes in...so what we're saying is he's.,.non-conforming for over 7 years and he does need to plat it for coming up... So what we're saying is that because of the tlme...continues on and on. That's what we're saying. We don't want to force him into this plat. He doesn't have to...but what we're saying is that he's got a right that nobody has... Councilman Wing: Sure, I understand it but with the process and the length of time, the issue here of time no longer exists for me so I'm not opposed to your position. But if there's any other leeway of the time frame, that's not an issue to me. That's all, Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. CounciIwoman Dockendorf: Well I just want to clear up some inconsistencies between well, a couple of things. It is 92.53 acres, not 46.5? It's 92, okay. And the density is 2.85 or 2.57? Sharmin A1-Jaff: 2.85 is the, 2.57 is the gross density. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's what he's got written on our cover sheet is 2.85. So is the difference between that and. Sharmin A1-Jaff: I'm sorry. 2.85 is the gross density. 2.57 is the net density. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thank you. I guess last time we looked at this site I voted to deny the continuing of the non-conforming or whatever you call it. But given that as Council we did allow them to extend it, I guess I don't have a problem with the preliminary plat. There are several conditions that staff has outlined that we need to clean up. I guess I would make them stick to the deadline as recommended by staff. Fish or cut bait I guess. That's it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: Given it's a preliminary plat, I don't have any comments at this time. 10 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: Sharmin, is the December 1 a realistic date? Or are we just saying they need to be in the process by December lst? He needs to be done. Kate Aanenson: For final plat...the entire project has to be final plat. That was one of the conditions that we originally...I can understand where there's...the lots may not be platted...We believe that when we set that date, that progress can be achieved by that timeframe. Councilman Senn: So they just work out the fine points with you guys when they come back through? Kate Aanenson's comments were not picked up on the tape. Councilman Senn: The only other thing, I'd ask you to delete 35. I did previously. I still don't see that deleted. I think that really creates a false sense of expectations... Councilman Mason: That's a good point. Mayor Chmiel: Delete 35? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Okay, any other questions? Councilwoman Dockendoff: I'm sorry, are you finished? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Councilwoman Dockendoff: On the park dedication, I've just got a couple of phrases here that they may and talked about it. What are we proposing to do? Sharmin Al-Iaff: They decided that they would rather get park and trail fees in lieu of land. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here? Roger Anderson: My name is Roger Anderson. I'm the engineer for Mr. Halla on this project and we understand there are quite a few conditions on this plat and one of our concerns is the deadline of December Ist. As the engineer on the project, I recognize there are still a lot of hurdles ahead of us. We've done I think a substantial amount of work to know the history. We've redrawn it... December 1st to have final plat is in the way I look at the plat, I think is rushing things quite a bit. There are a substantial nmnber of permitting agencies that have yet to review this plat and now that we have a final configuration that will work, we've got to still son out the individual treatment sites which will be started shortly but that can affect the configuration. We've got PCA and DNR and Corps of Engineers' concerns from the wetland management act. There's a state highway that we need some permits from. The county roads. There are various city permits that are required. This is a substantial list and some of these are contingent on other ones and I believe that some of those things, 11 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 even if they are submitted immediately, are still out of our control as far as the process involved. Typically a preliminary plat is good for one year from the date of approval. If you don't have a final plat in that time, you have to start over with a preliminary plat. Here we have I think a special case and maybe one year isn't reasonable. I think some of the Council,..has looked at it from the standpoint of if we could extend the December 1st date. I don't want, because December 1st is selected, for that to become a hard and fast rule that we may be locked into and there may be some things out of our control that could affect that deadline, Including some things like the Council, when is the meeting submittal date that we have to get everything done by to get on the Council agenda to be approved by December lst? And I don't know. That's 3 weeks ahead of the meeting. We've lost 3 weeks on that end already. I think that schedule is very tight. We'll do our best to keep the plat moving along but to my thinking, a 6 month deadline would be appropriate given the nature of the permits and the approvals we still have to obtain. Mayor Chmiel: Kate, can you give? Kate Aanenson: When we give final plat approval there's definitely additional conditions of approval. That could be watershed approval still but not all those things... What we want to see is a good faith effort to keep this plat moving along and we believe that if we have... Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: But Kate, usually those other reviewing agencies, the changes of any changes coming as a result of those reviews are pretty much minuscule or I mean slim or nothing. In this case, and I'm going back to. Kate Aanenson: They've all seen this plat. He's been going...that's why we set this time frame what we felt was reasonable and doable. Councilman Senn: Okay, because I'm going back to the discussion from last time when we were talking about the...and all that sort of thing and the shifting. I mean is that all pretty well set now? Kate Aanenson: We believe that, again there may be some approvals that have to be sought after the final plat but that's consistent with what we normally do as far as conditions of the plat. They've all seen this plat several times at different designs...DNR, Watershed. Councilman Mason: I guess I can go either way. I don't have any trouble sticking with December but I also realize that if a good faith effort is being made and it's not done by the 1st of December, I can't imagine we'd shut the door either. Well I should say I wouldn't. I'll only speak for myself, sorry. So maybe we should go... Councilman Senn: How about we say we'd like to see it by December 1st but no later than. Councilman Mason: Well yeah and I certainly could leave that up to staff too. If they think the applicant's dragging their feet, that's a totally different issue than things getting goofed up somewhere else down the line too. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I honestly have a concem that the Halla's do not want to develop this piece of property and would like to continue it on ad infinitum. 12 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Councilman Mason: Well they don't have to develop it just because this is platted either. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well they have a time frame. Kate Aanenson: Once it's final platted, we can require, before it gets recorded, we require guarantees, be it a letter of credit or some form of surety to make sure that the improvements get put in that way. So while it may not do anything...that's still an option. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I would propose that we keep it at December 1 but I mean we can always be reasonable if that date, you know if it's not met. Mayor Chmieh Okay. Richard. Do you have anything at all? Councilman Wing: No. Mayor Chmiel: Don. Don Halla: Good evening. I have a problem with the December 1 issue...septic systems are part of what's required in here and...they want all septic system sites surveyed. They then want to have, after that's completed...bofings done. And then it's supposed to be reviewed by the City review person. And ff we have to move lot lines, we have to move lot lines. Now that's what I understand as a requirement. I don't know how all of that can get done in basically 2 months. It took us 9 months from the time we submitted the plans... reviewed from the city's septic people back...come up with a second design... So it's hard for me to believe that we're going to get all of this done within 60 days. I doubt if they're going to approve the septic sites.., on the eastem half and then we've got to put the septic sites back in. I don't know if that's going to get accomplished before the snow flies. Councilman Senn: I think we've spent enough time on the issue. I mean no construction can start up until next spring anyway. I mean why don't we just say a date like March 1st and that's well in advance of the spring construction season. It's going to be done and everybody's going to have a comfortable time line to work with. Kate Aanenson: Well again, I think we need to see a good faith effort on the applicant's part. It comes to January, March...out to do it. Now it's still snowing...another 3 months. I think we need to say at least by December 1st, hold them to that deadline for that meeting in December and have them come back and show you what action they're taken to date... Councilman Senn: Why don't we ask that the work required not to be done in the winter, be done then by December 1st and we'll extend to March 1st for the balance of the work. Kate Aanenson: Well as I say, at least that he comes back in December and shows you what progress he's made and those... Councilman Senn: So by March we know it's going to be a done deal. So more or less, non winter work gets done by December 1 and the rest by March 1. Mayor Chmiel: I think that would probably be reasonable enough to move on that. But I would like to see them provide information to you prior to the end of December as well. DO you have any comment to that Kate? 13 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I think that, we have a meeting in December and we come back to us, to staff and we can put it on their agenda so you can see what progress has been made...completion schedule that they're moving along and they're trying to progress towards getting a final plat. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What's the Council feeling on that? Richard. Councilman Wing: I don't want to complicate this any more than it is. If it's easier to go with Plan A, I'm flexible and Plan B as Mark has suggested is workable, I'll follow the Council's lead. I'm going to vote in the majority whatever happens. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendoff: I'm open to having a two step deadline. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: That's sounds, yeah a two step deadline sounds fine to me. Councilman Wing: Mr. Developer at the end, does that work? Is that a functional thing...? Councilman Senn: Well I mean from a practical standpoint they should be able to sit down and work out a work schedule with staff and get the work done that needs to be done by December 1 and the balance of the paper processing can occur after that. Councilman Wing: So what we're passing then is an agreement that December 1st is a deadline but that there will be some items deferable until March 1st if. Councilman Senn: We want to see substantial progress by December I. Councilman Wing: Just so that's clarified for everyone, It's clear to the staff and the applicant. Mayor Chmiel: Is that as clear as mud to the applicant? Don Hallaz We have to... Mayor Chmiel: Right. Don Halla: Okay, fine. Councilman Wing: I've move the preliminary plat then to subdivide the 92+ acres into 36 single family lots. The Halla request. I did not write down staff's additions which were one or two. Sharmin At-Jaff: The applicant pay park and trail fees in lieu of land at the time of building permit application. Councilman Wing: Okay, and was there another one? Councilwoman Dockendorf: We took out 35. I4 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994- Councilman Wing: Well 35 I got. Deleting number 35. Sharmin AI-Jaff: And then revise the plans to exclude David Halla's pamel. Councilman Mason: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #86-31 for Great Plains Goff Estates as shown on the plans dated June 6, 1994, subject to the following conditions: All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or g~eater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. This plan shall include a list of all trees and size proposed to be removed. The plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval. Staff shall review the need for screening along Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 4 as it relates to the existing single family homes to the south. Lot 4, 5, 7, and 8 Block 3, shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The turning radius of a fac apparatus access road shall be designed; shown on site plan; and, approved by the Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fu'e apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings. This applies to homes which are in excess of 150 feet of State Hwy 101. 6. Street names: a. Maple Court is not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with "Maple" in the name. 15 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 b. The street between Hwy. 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive and Halla Nursery Vista. The street must have only one name. Eliminate Halla Vista Drive. c. Rename "Golf View Circle." Submit alternative name. 7. Building Department conditions: a. Use Carver County licensed septic site evaluator. b. Submit boring logs of borings done on each proposed ISTS site with a unique identification for each to Inspections Division. c. Stake and identify proposed property lines, proposed ISTS sites and perc and boring locations. d. Provide a preliminary evaluation report on the ISTS sites from Resource Engineering. The applicant will need to provide revised detailed storm calculations for 10 and 10~3-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality and quantity ponds in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall retain on site the predeveloped runoff rate as well as provided interim water quality and quantity ponds. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for existing and proposed storm water basins. In addition, water quality pond design calculations shall be based on Walker's pondnet model. The streets shall be constructed to the City's rural street section. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans shall be designed in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. 10. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with f'mal plat conditions of approval. 11. The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in the Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland f'fll activity or excavation in future phases of the project. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 13. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all storm water drainageways and ponding areas lying outside the street fight-of-ways. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the storm water ponding areas. Outlot A shall be platted as a lot and block. 14. The applicant's engineer shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 16 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 15. The grading plan shall be revised to relocate all berming outside street or trunk highway right-of-ways. The berm shall be limited to 4 feet high with 3:1 slopes along Trunk Highway 101 right-of-ways. In addition, the grading plan shall show all proposed grading as a result of drainage improvements, street and house construction. The applicant's engineer shall work with staff in developing a revised storm drainage plan to accommodate plat revisions. 16. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100-year high water level. All storm water ponds shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes. 17. The outlet from the existing pond behind the nursery shall be re-routed and directed through Pond "B." 18. Existing wells and septic systems on the site which are not to be utilized shall be properly abandoned in accordance with City or State codes. 19. The applicant shall be responsible for the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees based in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The requirement for cash fees in lieu of land or permanent pond construction shall be based upon the schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. 20. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 21. The developer shall convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for future construction of storm drainage infrastructures over Outlot D, Great Plains Golf Estates. 22. Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the plat has been revised to accommodate staff' changes in the plat's street and lot configuration. The developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with revised detailed storm sewer drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm drainage system on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat. 23. The applicant shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety improvements: The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant is also proposing to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff recommends that the existing banks along Tnmk Highway 101 be pulled back to improve sight lines and berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height. bo The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creek'wood Drive shall be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet MnDOT standards for sight distance at the posted speeds. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose sight distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by the applicant's engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the posted speeds. 17 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 24. The applicant shall be required to re-excavate all unacceptable materials in the ravine on Lot 3, Block 6 and backfill with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm drainage pipe (24-inch CMP) with concrete pipe. 25. The applicant's engineer should redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D") to accommodate the existing significant trees that are alive yet. 26. The applicant shall provide for the future looping of the two street systems through Outlot A from Golfview Circle or Golfview Court. Ouflot A shall have no additional access granted for TH 101. 27. The plat shall be redesigned to provide full public street access to the properties south of this development via two stub streets extended south from Halla Nursery Vista between Lots 4 and 5, Block 4 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 4 or Lots 2 and 3, Block 4 or some other alternative acceptable to the city. 28. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County that appropriate right-of-way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one-half of the minimum 100-foot wide corridor for County Road 14. 29. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from County Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101. 30. The applicant shall revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be continuous with Foxford Road at the intersection of County Road 14. 31. The f'mal plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way. 32. Outlot A is currently used as the nursery business and should be platted into a lot and block. The final plat should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot I, Block 2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains Golfview Estates. 33. Staff and applicant work together to make sure that the future road in the southeast comer of the plat not infringe on the bluff and that it adheres to the new bluff ordinance. 34. The plat shall maintain an average overall density of 2 1/2 acres, including the nursery property, for Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates preliminary plat. 35. The total number of lots shall not exceed 36 lots. This number includes the parcel owned by Mark Hall, the nursery site, and all lots proposed for single family development. 36. The applicant must report back to the City Council by December 1, 1994 showing that substantial progress is being made towards final plat approval, and the final plat must be completed by March 1, 1995 or the preliminary plat will be void and the applicant will have to comply with the 1 unit per 10 acre density requkement. 37. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland or trail construction at the time of building permit application. 18 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REZONING OF 25.85 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 25.85 ACRES INTO 21 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 30UTLOTS; LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, BRENDON POND, GESTACH AND PAULSON CONSTRUCTION. Sharmin A1-Jaff: ...located off of Highway 41, south of Minnetonka Jr. High School. The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 25 acres into 19 single family lots and 4 outlots. The average lot size is approximately 25,000 square feet, which exceeds the minimum area required by ordinance. Access to this site will be provided via future extension of Lake Lucy Road and a cul-de-sac that would then be providing access for the majority of the lots for that section of those three parcels located just north of Lake Lucy. All of these parcels meet the minimum requirements as far as depth and width of the zoning ordinance. The outlots that are shown on the plat. Outlot A will provide access for the parcel located east of the proposed Gestach plat. ...portion of the plan is heavily wooded, extremely dense. Has a ravine running through it. Staff reviewed different options as to how to provide service access to this property. Getting a road through this portion of the parcel would have truly destroyed a large number of trees. The applicant's requesting a private drive. The neighboring property requested a private drive that would allow them to serve a maximum of 4 homes. The applicants were agreeable to that. They did provide a private driveway access which is what Outlot A is. Outlot B is reserved for future development. The reason why it is outlotted at this point is because it's unsure as to what alignment Lake Lucy Road is going to take so until that is determined. Outlot B will be platted. Outlot C is a wetland that will never be developed. And Outlot D is a remanent lot that is created as a result of the alignment of Lake Lucy Road. This applicant has gone through numerous revisions. When it fa-st appeared there were 21 parcels. Now there are 19 parcels. The applicant has shifted the cul-de-sac to the east to preserve additional trees and minimize grading. The plan is very well designed. We are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant here this evening? Dave Gestach: I'm Dave Gestach, 8001 Acorn Lane, Chanhassen and I just hope that you recommend approval of the preliminary plat so we can go on. We've owned this land for 10 years and it's been a long, windy road so I can't believe we're finally here at this stage and the Lake Lucy Road, as everybody knows, has been an issue and hopefully we've got resolved so we can go on. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, thank you Dave. Richard. Councilman Wing: Well Mr. Mayor, this has been talked about in length. I did count a total of 38 box elders we're losing. Councilman Mason: Some people would consider that a plus. Nancy Mancino: Aren't you holding a public hearing on this? Mayor Chmiel: It's under new business. 19 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Councilman Wing: A couple things here that are coming along well. There's been a lot of attention to land, well fa'st of all my big concern was grading and I got all the colored pens out today and Sharmin, we found out that there is no grading so they're leaving this land as is which I was real pleased. Some tree loss but they're also putting a large number of trees which I think is a real asset to this and wherever we're losing them, they're going to be built back in the future and they're going to look good. Plus we're required to put in 1 tree per lot right now pending a new ordinance that's coming forward on boulevard t~ees and this is specifying 2 trees on each lot so I think the applicant has really tried to do a good job and I think this is as good as we're going to get. It's going to get developed and I favor large lots and this is large lots so I have no comments other than to be supportive of the project as is. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, you're on. Councilwoman Dockendorf: If I may, I have a picture that I'd like to show Council and the rest of the people in the room. I just happen to find it when I was looking at the Lundgren Long Acres and it's a beautiful photograph and I think it helps me look at the land. I've lost it twice. Once to the Mancino's and once to the Ryan's... To orient you. These other lines are their property. This is the piece we're talking about, Gestach- Paulson. Now tell me if I'm wrong guys but this is where Lake Lucy's going through .... Lake Lucy here. What we're doing is we're taking down this whole row of a-ees all through there and winding it back there. Now they may be box elders but they're good sized trees. I just wanted you to be aware of what we're doing before we do it. Long Acres Drive is part of the Song property...This road will continue back up to about here. It is an east/west collector, and that's probably not the correct term... Now I haven't made up my mind about...but it seems to me that I don't want to back track on all the work that's been done...but I really question the necessity of Lake Lucy... So I just wanted to show everyone so we know what we're doing this evening and what properties we're affecting and I think we got on this specific piece of land, we did a really good job. The applicant has done a very good job of keeping this road here. Keeping that... Like Richard said, there's minimum grading. We will have to come through here and take out some of these trees but again, as Richard pointed out, there's very good replacement. So for this piece of land I guess my position is, I'm okay with it but I just wanted everyone to see this. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Charles, with the existing Lake Lucy Road, the continuation from County Road 117 extending west, will that be to the north or south of existing Lake Lucy Road? Charles Folch: It will touch down on Galpin Boulevard, at County Road 117, the intersection will be a match basically on touch down points. You'll have a tree intersection point. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that existing facility that we have there now, which is placed directly on the Lake Lucy Road. Charles Folch: The pump booster station? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. What are we going to do with that? Charles Folch: That will actually be eliminated. With the new well, or this will be going in next spring and then a future well probably about 2 years from now, that will be... Mayor Chmiel: It will? Good. And the prediction that was said when we asked the question about 4 or 5 years ago, of whether or not the connection going through was going to be a problem, and at that time you said, no. It 20 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 wouldn't be a problem. Okay. That's all I, I just wanted to make sure that that elimination, if it's going to be there, then that's fine. I don't see the problem with it but ff there were, I'd have some problems with location. Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: Did you have anything more? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I didn't. Councilman Mason: A couple of questions. For replacing of the trees where Lake Lucy Road is going, why does the applicant have to replace those? As opposed to the city, being Lake Lucy's a collector road. It's been planned in some form or another for at least 4 years. I don't quite get that. Sharmin Aldaff: The applicant would not be able to get access to the property unless that road goes through and we...road through on their property. The trees would be removed regardless...the city's putting up the road... Councilman Mason: Right. So if the city put in the road, the applicant wouldn't have to put the trees back? Replace them. I mean I guess I just don't, I don't understand the connection there. I mean that road's going in at some point regardless of who develops their parcel or Ryan's property. That road's going to go in someday. Sharmin AI-Jaff: Well, the Ryan's would be responsible for their portion of Lake Lucy and Gestach-Paulson would be responsible for thews. Councilman Mason: That's the way, I guess I don't remember seeing that before but obviously that's the way it's done huh? Kate Aanenson: Well that's the way we're doing it...and looking at putting in additional trees and... Councilman Mason: Right. No, no, I understand that. I guess my question is, if the city's putting in a roM, how come the city isn't putting the trees back? Kate Aanenson: Well as Sharmin indicated...part of each other...road improvement project to make their project happen. Councilman Mason: So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is that kind of. Kate Aanenson's comments could not be heard on the tape. Councilman Mason: Oh I totally agree. I just, I wasn't quite sure of which should do which there. Alfight. In the staff report, and this is going to come up again on the next one. I, quite honesty this is not a 2 hours that I'm particularly looking forward to but so be it. Now I do know that in the future the Mancino's have said they're planning on having 4 homes in that back portion of the property, right? Just like nothing's etched in stone, we're talking about having a private road go in there. What happens if 3 years from now the Mancino's say, you know. We changed our mind, which lord knows you have the right to do. What's the ramifications there? 21 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Sharmin AI-Jaff: They were giving up that right right now. They're going with a private drive. They can request a variance...and it's going to be up to Council to grant them that variance but as it stands right now, we're just trying to... They will only be... There's another portion of the parcel that could be accessed potentially from the north. But we won't get into that. We're just looking at the western portion of the Mancino property which is heavily wooded and that's the only way we can access it is through the Gestach property. Kate Aanenson: I guess what we're saying is the preservation of the natural features, we believe this is the best way to serve the property. But you made a good point...somebody else picks up the property and...15,000 square foot lots...but we believe at this time that you should provide an access to that parcel...and that would probably be best served and preservation of natural features provided by a private drive on that portion of the property. And it's difficult in looking at this but the Planning Commission looked at all these... Councilman Mason: Yeah. I think this proposal obviously has been very well thought out and it's gone through all kinds of permutations and I didn't, I don't mean to be cavalier when I say, you know I don't sound like I care that 45 box elders are being removed. The fact remains, whether we like it or not, this city is developing. I'm sure faster than a whole lot of us would like but it is doing that and I think we have to try and do the best we can with what we have and in this case, certainly I think that's been done. I'll certainly be voting for approval. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Mike. Mark. Councilman Senn: A couple questions. The applicant is providing all of the land for Lake Lucy Road? Okay, and the applicant is paying for all of the improvement costs on Lake Lucy Road? Is the applicant here paying for all the improvement costs on Lake Lucy Road? On his property. Charles Folch: The feasibility study that was put together... Councilman Senn: I mean do we have a ratio that we apply there on some kind of a fairness quotient that says this is a major east/west provider versus a normal residential street furnishing a 19 home subdivision or whatever? Charles Folch: Technically that's correct. The assessments have been set up so that we retain your fak share for a local width roadway which is 31 feet. The additional width is to be funded...state aid. Councilman Senn: But as far as the actual land acquisition itself, they're requked to furnish the much broader right-of-way versus. Charles Folch: That's correct. Through dedication. Councilman Senn: What the normal road would be versus the difference. In looking through this and having spent a couple times walking out there now, I guess it seems to me that a good solufion's been worked out. I don't really have any problems with it. I guess the only thing that really still bothers me is from a standpoint of, especially a small subdivision like this, I don't know how they afford to do it but they are obviously. They're agreeing to do it but I just have some problems with kind of a fairness quotient as it relates to our major streets developed. I mean I have no problems as it relates to our normal residential streets but it's kind of like, kind of like taking a step up from that now and I'm not sure it's one we can maintain. That's my opinion. 22 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Richard, do you have another question? Councilman Wing: Well I'd just like to apologize to Council and the Mayor for not having my notes in front of me. There was one very major issue that I wanted to talk about on this and I think it's significant. First of all we talked about this road and the road is very theoretical and what's occurring and we're concerned about topography and grading and the next one we're going to be looking at, there's some major issues involved in trees and that. I'd just like to make a comment on the trees. For the parcel we're looking at, no matter where we go with the road, the trees are going but there's a lot of replacement. On the next parcel we're looking at there's some trees going but whether we go the north route or south route, the trees go. It doesn't matter where it went, the trees go. That grading, as I looked at it, no matter where we put it, those trees go so I've given that up. It's unfortunate and hopefully the landscaping issue there will be as generous as it was here. Then I said, with all the concerns for the environment and the topography and this landform, what if we didn't put that road through? I mean I'd like to see this road go through and good planning would certainly say this road should go through. I think it ought to be connected and I'll use this east/west connection. But if we didn't, would we save a significant amount of the land and it's impact and after working this out with Charles, he said there's going to be a road coming from the west to the east and a road coming from the east to the west and whether you put a barrier there or not doesn't change a lot. So I backed off that brilliant idea of trying to create something here. I would give up the road to save the land even though I want to use it. Alright, so now I come down to the point I want to make. This parcel we're looking at now has an 80 foot right-of-way and that's been purchased and I understand the applicant doesn't want to mess with that. That's fine. But what ! have real concern about is that this doesn't become an extension of Lake Lucy because Lake Lucy as I know it today is bigger than 494 was when they first put it in. In terms of size. And I don't want to get in, and I was thinking that was a 36 foot road and I was very wrong. That's a 44 road on Lake Lucy I think. But Minnewashta Parkway had a lot of traffic. It's traffic forecasts were severe and we started out at 36 and the neighbors went berserk and tried to get it down to 28 and then we got into state aid comments and we wound up at 32 and anybody who's driven the parkway recognizes that that width holds down traffic, speed, and is adequate for all it's needs. I want to assure that tonight we approve this with a 32 foot road because whatever happens in the next parcel, it's very, very scenic and I think this should be more of a parkway, less a collector. And I think 32, with the trail along side it is going to be more than adequate and more or less be a mimic of Minnewashta Parkway which I think is more than adequate to handle heavy traffic through a residential area that we don't want to necessarily, this whole area's going to be residential and scenic. We don't want to encourage it to be a massive thoroughfare so that's my only comments. I would ask, with passage, that it be understood that it be no more than 32 foot road. I'm not sure that's not too big but I'm comparing it to Minnewashta Parkway which is wide enough but not too so I'd like to hear the Council's. Mayor Chmiel: And when you mentioned the fact that Lake Lucy is 44 feet. Charles, is that 44 driven road surface? Charles Folch: It's something right around 44...but I'd have to check the plan, the original conslruction plans to be sure but you've got probably...foot lanes each direction plus about another about 6 feet of bike lane on both sides so it's right around that 40 plus or minus mark. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I was going to say it's closer to 40 but. Councilman Mason: It looks 80 but.' Mayor Chmiel: It looks wide. 23 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Councilman Senn: But I think the real question is, is it an option? I mean I never understood previously that that was an option, In fact I thought it was not an option because of the requirements related to the street design and state aid and all that stuff so I mean, is this is a new set of rules? Charles Folch: You're correct. What happens, with the parkway was sort of a different situation in dealing with state aid because here was an existing roadway that we were trying to reconstruct. Basically trying to shoe horn through what was already developed there. I mean there were a lot of constraints with,..properties, the lake, things like that. Even volume needs, as you will, through the state aid funding process, to build that road as if it was a 36 foot wide street. I'd have to discuss that with the state to find out what implications could result from that but they do allow 32 feet with...needs as a full 36 foot street. Councilman Wing: Well the need's here. Kate Aanenson: ...on this plat, you do have some front facing lots. On Minnewashta there were a few lots that were a liule bit larger. On this plat there are some lots that are...front facing so if you do have, for some reason have to have parking on there...safety. We certainly don't want to have an additional right-of-way than necessary because we believe...environmentally sensitive but the impact is from a utility standpoint. There's a large trench that you have to put in for the depth of the utilities and at that point in time...The big discussion was had... Mayor Chmiel: I think that was one of the major concems that we had at that time was the electric and gas and telephone cable. Sewer, water, storm and the other things that we had going and when you start adding all those up, you can't put them all in one trench unfortunately. Councilman Wing: I'm not questioning the right-of-way. The 80 foot right-of-way stays. When everything's done, and all those,..all I'm talking about is curb. 32 foot curb to curb. And the parking may be an issue but then that ought to be worked out with the developer. Councilman Mason: Well, we've put no parking signs up on roads before. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, but the issue was, if someone has a party, Councilman Mason: Well,'I can speak for my neighborhood. I face that all the time. People have to park about a block and a half away. Well so be it I mean. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Yeah, getting back to your point though, look at all the complaints we get on Lake Lucy. Everyone thinks, I mean we've put up numerous traffic controls there to get speeds down and the width of the road certainly contributes to those abuses. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and it's unfortunately only a few of those cars going through there but just automatically do it, which you see the same thing up and down 78th Street. When I came to City Hall this evening, I was going 30 and somebody had to be going past me 45. Councilman Senn: How wide is Lake Lucy curb to curb on this section we're talking about. Councilman Mason: That's already built? 24 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean it's significantly bigger than 36 even, isn't it? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's 44 is what Richard mentioned previously. Councilman Senn: I mean there basically was a roadway that the trails, everything was combined in side it curb to curb and I think we've departed from that concept now, have we not? And it seems to me that safeguard tums around and really take that impression away and I'm agreeing. That impression is definitely there on the existing portion of Lake Lucy there. Kids look at it as a drag strip I mean with the broad expanse but we haven't really been duplicating that either. Nor here. Councilman Mason: I think Richard's point is really well taken and I really, that is something we need to, I want that road to be as narrow as it can be in the end result and if we need to do that needs thing, that's fine. I mean I don't, I think that needs to happen there but with, are we ready to. Mayor Chmiel: Not yet. I think I have another comment. Councilman Wing: Well I like to use the word parkway. Minnewashta Parkway's a 32 and there's no parking and I've noticed numerous parties and big summer events they park up and down it. They just call the Sheriff's department and say we need this and traffic has to slow down. But I'm not interested in this being a thoroughfare to the point where I care about that so that has been, I agree it's a problem. I haven't seen it on the Parkway on the summer days and they have been parking. Is that legal or illegal? Are they parking illegally? I suppose they're parking illegally. Charles Folch: Unless they have special permits. Councilman Mason: Which they can do. They can get a permit to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Akight. Okay. I guess everybody discussed all the specific issues. I guess the only one that I really had major concern over is the environmental aspects of it and the preservation of the natural features that are existing, which I still want to see. So with that I would entertain a motion. Well let me just back up a tad. Is there anyone who would like to address this at this time with some of their concerns? And if so, I would allow you at least 5 minutes to prove the respective point. Yes. Come forward and just state your name and your address please. 5 minutes or less I should say. Steve Buresh: Steve Buresh. I live on 6651 Galpin Boulevard. The only comments I have here is that I'd ask that Council consider, because of the next item on the agenda, that you either hold off your vote, if it's possible. I don't know what the procedure of that would be, until after the next item. Or possibly table this into the next meeting which I know this has gone on for quite a while probably for this person but I think, I believe that you might have some information coming out on the next item that has some impact on Lake Lucy Road extension. Councilman Wing: Would it change the width of the road? Steve Buresh: Ah no. It would change whether or not it comes to be I guess. Councilman Wing: Okay. Well, so you don't mind if this one stays 32 and the other one never happens. Steve Buresh: Well you said Lake Lucy is at 44? 25 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Councilman Wing: No, my only issue here is this one would be 32. I would intend the entire, if the road went through. If the road went through, the entire strip would be 32 feet maximum. I mean I would address that in the next issue also. Lake Lucy as you know ceases. The rest of this road would be at 32. If this goes in independent, it would remain 32. Steve Buresh: I guess I don't really have a concern about the road width. I do know that we do have a problem with speeders and that out there right now. I also know that we don't get adequate patrolling out in that area so unless the city's going to take into account. Mayor Chmiel: We're already in the process of doing some additional patrolling on it again, Steve Buresh: But that's getting beyond what someone had to say about this. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay, we can either consider it or I see this as starting from one end to the other and I think. Councilman Mason: I think there's some more people that want to talk, Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Oh, okay. Sorry about that. Jerome Carlson: That's alright. I've been overlooked before. Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin. I have some familiarity with this property and visited with the applicants on several occasions. I think they've done an excellent job. I think they've worked through this entire process very legitimately. Very honestly and I recommend passage. I think 32 foot of road is an excellent idea as far as the paved area, if I'm understanding Mr. Wing. We had occasion to go down and measure Lake Cedar Parkway. On a Sunday, which was very difficult because there were so many cars but we actually did that. Lake Cedar Parkway, including the bike path and pedestrian path, is 28 feet. It carries as many cars on a Sunday afternoon, perhaps as Lake Lucy Road carries in a year. It is a very, very busy place and it does it quite well to this day, so I support Mr. Wing's additional amendment, if that's what it was. And I support the passage of this particular plat because of the due diligence I believe has been done. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, I'll call the question. Can I have a motion? Mark. Councilman Senn: Can I maybe try one? What I'm trying to think of is a way, I mean can we do a motion that basically says, well I take it back. I'll move approval okay but to the extent the staff can pull it off with the state and get the approvals to go with the 32 foot road. But you know, if we simply can't, I mean we don't see a need for the project to come back. I mean if it has to be 36 and there's nothing we can do about it, I don't want to rehash the issue per se. Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if that's a requirement of the State or not if we put in our specific road width, is it Charles? Charles Folch: They do allow a 32 foot size but again the question that I have, that I'd have to verify is the...need on a larger sized road. That basically had been approved. Money has been set aside based on the cost of the larger sized road and whether that would have to be sacrificed or not, I'd have to find out. 26 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Councilman Wing: Okay, and as part of Mark's motion, just for discussion. I'm not so sure it isn't worth the money. That's ail. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Why don't you try your motion Mark. Councilman Senn: Okay. I move approvai of the project based on staff's recommendations with the additionai recommendation that Council would strongly like to see a 32 foot road, curb to curb and unless there's some major reason why we can't do it, let's do it and avoid the 36 foot road. Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Senn: However, ff there's some reason that he can't, then the project still can go ahead with a 36 foot road. I don't think that needs to come back to Council. Mayor Chmiel: I think we have to do the rezoning aspects of this as well. Is that correct? And we also have to do the preliminary plat and I'd like to keep it clear so we do first go through the rezoning. Councilman Senn: Okay. Is that okay? Councilman Wing: Well I'll move the rezoning of the 25.85 acres of property from PR, Rural Residential to Rural Single Family. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Rezoning g04-5 for property zoned RR to RSF for Brendon Pond as shown on the plans dated August 30, 1994 and subject tot he following conditions: The applicant shail enter into a development conlract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: And the second phase the preliminary plat. Councilman Senn: Okay, that's the one. Mayor Chmiel: This is what we're talking about. Councilman Senn: Okay, so the motion's on the floor. Councilman Wing: The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision g94-10. Let's not repeat it. Let's go with it. Second. We're talking a number 24, a 32 foot roadway as Mark stated. 27 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Right. Motion's of the floor with a second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision g94- 10 for Brendon Pond for 19 single family lots and 4 outlets with a variance to the street grade (10%) on Pondview Court as shown on the plans received August 30, 1994, subject to the following conditions: All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. Tree conservation areas are shown on attachment #1. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of these easements. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. A total number of 185 trees will be required for the forestation and tree replacement on this site. Financial guarantees acceptable to the city will be required to ensure compliance. This plan shall include a list of all trees and size proposed to be removed. The plan shall be submitted prior to f'mal plat approval. Staff shall review the need for screening along Lots 10-12, Block 1 as it relates to the existing single family home to the west. 3. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. Building Department conditions: a. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with final plat conditions of approval. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health DeparUnent, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 7. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100-year high water level. All storm water ponds shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the fa'st ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety puqx)ses. 8. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 28 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 9. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from Lake Lucy Road with the exception of lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1. 10. Fire Marshal conditions: A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. b. Pending review by Engineering staff, fh-e hydrant locations are acceptable. c. Radius of cul-de-sacs shall be 45 feet, not 42 feet. d. Fire hydrants shall be located a maximum of 300 feet apart. 11. Park and Recreation conditions: A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of Pondview Court extending north to the school property shall be incorporated into the construction plans for Brenden Pond. The applicant is to construct this sidewalk and convey any and all easements required by its alignment to the city. b. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 12. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user fee of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The water quantity and quality fees may or may not be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project assessment methodology. The water quantity fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 13. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 14. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 15. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review. 16. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed sireet and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 29 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 17. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Any wetland alteration be mitigated in accordance with city ordinances and state laws as it relates to the orientation of Lake Lucy Road. 18. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and pest-developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins/wetlands and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 20. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering Improvement Project No. 92- 12 and awarding a bid for the conlract. 21. Outlot A shall be conveyed to the City for access to the Mancino parcel. A private street shall be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance to the City's private street ordinance over Outlot A. This private street shall serve a maximum of 4 single family homes. Utility service (sanitary sewer and water) shall also be extended to the east line of Outlot A. 22. The applicant shall dedicate to the city at no cost the future right-of-way for Lake Lucy Road through Outlot B. 23. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property." 24. Lake Lucy Road extension shall be constructed at a 32 foot width, curb to curb, if possible. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92 ACRES INTO 50 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Sam & Nancy Mancino Charles Stinson Peter Davis E. Jerome & Linda Carlson Clarke Nicholson Address 6620 Galpin Blvd. Minnetonka 6640 Galpin Blvd. 6950 Galpin Blvd. 2051 Crestview Drive 30 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Steve Buresh 6651 Galpin Blvd. Martin Gustafson 6691 Galpin Blvd. Debbie Wunderlick 7011 Galpin Blvd. Break Johnson 6621 Galpin Blvd. Eric Rivkin 1695 Steller Court Bret Davidson 7291 Galpin Blvd. A1 Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Frank Kelly 351 2nd Street, Excelsior Ed & Mary Ryan 6730 Galpin Blvd. Chuck Plowe Brooklyn Park Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. The applicant has brought in a residential subdivision for City Council review and preliminary plat approval. We've been working on this project for a very long time and have been through numerous reiterations and revisions to the proposed plat. The basic issue involved, well there's 2 of them. The first one is the Lake Lucy Road extension alignment through this development. And the second one is the protection and the preserving of the natural features on the site, specifically the steep slopes. This project is approximately 38 acres in size. It has a gross density of 1.24 units per acre which is compatible with all the other proposed subdivisions in the area. Unfortunately for the developer there's a large wetland complex on the site which reduces his developable area. Therefore he has a net density of 1.83 units per acre, which is still within the comprehensive plan designation for this property. Originally as proposed the application brought in 62 single family lots. In working with staff and revising the plat, they have reduced that number to 47, which is before you tonight. Part of the reason that they've done that is they've tried, originally they had the alignment of the Lake Lucy Road all the way up to the northern property line. In this configuration they were actually grading on to the adjacent property so we...that would not be acceptable and they moved the alignment 60 feet to the south. After further review with staff, we had them move it an additional 20 feet to the south to permit a 3:1 slope from the northern property line of this development. At the same time maintaining a 30 foot tree conservation easement along the northern encL..of this plat. The applicant has been pushing all through this process with staff to keep the alignment to the north in order to maximize the lots that they can put on site. In addition to having a rear walkout type configuration.., we both compromised what we originally wanted. In looking at the development on the site, staff believes there's one optimal way to develop this site and that is to provide the western third of property as an outlot so that it can be accessed from the north. That way we would eliminate all, most the grading on the westerly third of the Property and we would provide some walkout type lots in that area and they would not have to disturb the slope. However, the applicant is not of the same mind and wants to go forward with his preliminary platting of the entire property. We therefore looked at two alternatives. One was using the southern alignment and looking at the development of the western third of that, of the project with the southerly alignment. If we did this, the applicant would be required to dig into the hill and we believe that it would be an even worse situation from the landform standpoint and the proposal that the applicant has in front of you today. Unfortunately, when you look at the alignment for Lake Lucy Road, the preservation of the natural pond landform...As I said, the applicant has worked with staff in trying to make this a better plan and believe we have worked out a compromise with the applicant that is workable with the. city staff and we're recommending that should the city agree with the applicant's proposal, we have conditions of approval that we think would make...project to consider. There is one item of clarification under condition 32. This condition says Lake Lucy Road shall be realigned southerly to be compatible with the intersection proposed in Brendon Pond This, Chuck has stated that they would start curving the land within their project...with the intersection that's to the west there. We have staff supports the rezoning of this property and conditions as outlined. Additionally they have a..xezoning of this property is consistent with the comp plan. With this ruling they have a request for a wetland alteration permit...f'tlling in a wetland within the Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. 31 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 They will be dedicating this wetland and the fill on site...should you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions of staff?. Richard? Councilman Wing: Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: It's 47 lots, not 48? Bob Generous: Correct. Councilman Mason: Not at this time, no. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess I was going to ask you too. So this is now the plan that we're dealing with and that is the private driveway on that. Bob Generous: Well there's two of them. There's one on the west here and then another one to serve these 3 lots. So there's no direct access onto Lake Lucy Road in this plan. Councilman Senn: That's it for the moment. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't either. Is the applicant here this evening? Ed Ryan: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is Ed Ryan and this is my wife Mary. We are owners of the property and we are pleased to present our plat and explain it more fully to the Council. We have met with staff often during the process over the past few months and we've worked through a lot of challenging issues. We appreciate the comments that staff has made and the input that we've received not only from staff but also from others. I think what we have produced is a superior plat that's very thoughtful and now accepted for approval by staff. I would like to address four key issues regarding our plat that Chuck, our engineer will get into with more detail. The tn'st issue I want to talk about is the road alignment. I think as you know, in early June the Council approved the supplemental feasibility study for Lake Lucy Road granting the flexibility for road locations. That extended through our property. It illustrated two alignments. One to the north. The illustration was in this neighborhood and one to the south, which was approximately in this vicinity. Based on that we proce.,eded to draft various positions or alignments that would go through our plat at both the southerly and the northerly alignment, finding that the northerly alignment was much more favorable to the natural topography that we're trying to maintain. When this issue was presented to Planning Commission, in both of our meetings, the northerly alignment was not considered an option. It was as if this northerly alignment did not exist. After our second planning meeting we requested the denial of the plat rather than to be tabled once again. As Bob mentioned, the staff indicated that they preferred a southerly alignment with no development. This 32 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 preference has been considered not feasible by the city attorney as drafted in their report and stated as such. The staff now agrees, and it's written in the report, that our northerly alignment be proposed. Is preferred over the southerly alignment with northern cul-de-sacs. Chuck will illustrate why we and staff believe this is a better alignment. Those reasons are going to include reduced grading. A more workable slope. We have a large ouflot that we've allowed for. We preserved the trees and the wetland. And we also feel that this roadway is a much safer roadway because a roadway that is straight and flat invites pedestrians to speed through the neighborhood. With this alignment we feel that that doesn't offer that option. The second issue I want to talk about is the topography. The grading issue. Now I know many of you in this room and many of the Council members have seen our property first hand and would agree that the property does have tremendous natural beauty with rolling hills and gentle slopes. We have preserved this topographical uniqueness in terms of the site's characteristics, as Chuck will illustrate, and we have minimized the grading despite the requirement of having to construct a state aid collector road through the site. Now several comments have been made, and they've been made publically as well, that we would bulldoze the property and make it flat. I think what you'll find is just the opposite is tree. Chuck will demonstrate how our plat principally follows the existing contours to provide for beautiful views, relaxing sight lines and respect for our natural topography. The third issue is the trees and the wetland issue. Our property is uniquely situated between the beautiful, dense faceted mature I~ee line on the north and wetlands on the south. In recognition of this natural beauty, the layout of our plat has been designed to preserve the tree line and observe a 30 foot conservation corridor along this location. In addition, by utilizing ~his northern alignment we eliminate any roadway conslruction that would be taken up along this wetland area and preserve it's natural beauty. However, between the northern tree line of the southern wetlands there is a sporadic line of trees that have grown up between these two farm fields. We agree with staff that these trees cannot be saved. Whether the northern alignment is utilized, the southern alignment is utilized, or any variation in between. The plat as a whole has successfully preserved the natural beauty of the property and it retains the special character that the land really has been blessed with. It is beautiful. The last major issue I want to cover is density. We recognize that our plan is a neighborhood. It's going to be for new residents as well as existing residents. It's going to be the neighborhood for this part of Chanhassen. We've designed our average lots to exceed 23,000 square feet To create an opportunity to appreciate the beauty and that residents can enjoy the spacious, beautiful land. Our plat density, as Bob said, fits well within developments already approved by Council with the Carlson/Song plat at 1.2121. Our plat is 1.2421 and the Gestach-Paulson plat which you just heard at 1.27. With this as an outline, I'd like to have Chuck now share some of the specific features of the issues that I've just talked about. Councilman Wing: Can I ask one question, just for the record? Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Councilman Wing: Did you say that staff favors or approves the northerly route? Ed Ryan: Yes. Councilman Wing: Because that's not in our packet. Is that tree? Kate Aanenson: No, what we're saying is, the fa'st northern route...what we're saying is they were probably pretty much equal... Bob Generous: This is a good compromise. 33 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Ed Ryan: Any other questions? Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Ed Ryan: I'll have Chuck. Chuck Plowe: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. Chuck Plowe, project engineer for Ed and Mary Ryan. I'd like to start talking about Lake Lucy Road. The feasibility study that was done, included as it was laid out, two options for the Lake Lucy Road alignment. One of the options was shown going directly up to the top and actually connected into the north property line. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we bring that plat just a little bit closer so we can get that on the monitor. That's better. Chuck Plowe: Can I move...back? Mayor Chmiel: Can we pick it up if we put that back farther so everyone can see it? Sure. Why don't you move it back just a little bit more, but don't go out the door please. Chuck Plowe: Okay, as I was saying. The option 2 was Lake Lucy Road coming up to the north property line. That's how it was shown in the feasibility study and what we did was we extended from there onto the flat to Galpin Boulevard. That was, and we concur was unacceptable once we got the grading plan drafted, etc realizing the impact on the trees and the actually encroaching into the north property. So we agreed right away to slide Lake Lucy Road down and also we were asked to look again at using the southerly alignment, which the staff was really wanting us to use the southerly alignment in any way that we could get to work. So we did look at the southerly, the south alignment prior to coming up with another drawing showing the northerly alignment. And as staff had indicated...with the three cul-de-sacs coming off the southerly alignment, the grading into the hill is more severe. Is severe where this is much more in tune with the slope itself. Let me just show you the latest sketch that I did from the southerly alignment with the cul-de-sacs coming to the north. Now I did everything I possibly could, including increasing the grading on this cul-de-sac more than the prior plan that I had prepared for staff but I still was unable to avoid cutting into the trees. The area you see in green actually projecting up into the north property a little bit is required to get, with tuck under lots, to get 3:1 slopes to work. And as you'll also notice, I used as much open area in the highest point of the hill to try and make it fit. So I'm trying to demonstrate that the ultimate with the southerly alignment still is not able to preserve the trees along the north alignment. The plan immediately prior to this one we had shifted Lake Lucy Road 60 feet south and that alignment was in the last plan I believe Planning Commission saw. The problem that staff had with that was we didn't provide enough boulevard on our 80 foot wide right-of-way street on this side. I was pulling to staff that we put the trail on the other side, utilize this area as much as possible for the slope is the best way to...most difficult areas to work with for that. We then met with staff after they set the parameters that they wanted. The 60 foot minimum boulevard and minimum 3:1 slopes. We then ended up with the plan that's before you tonight. We moved this an additional 25 to 30 feet south so our point closest to the north property line is actually 105 feet from the north prolr~'ty line. Finally we had a cul-de-sac street here. Shifting this southerly created, pushed the entire cul-de-sac southerly so we became too close to this wetland edge so with staff we come up with a private drive scheme taking one lot out and actually moving the toe of the slope away from the wetland further than it was on the prior plan. We were asked to curve the sheet at the end so we could better match in with the Lake Lucy Road... So this is, the blue color is the link between what we're showing and what is proposed to you on Brendon Pond, and you can see there's a little transition from the northerly 34 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 alignment into Bmndon Pond. Another thing that's a plus on this, we have a considerable buffer between the collector street and Lake Lucy Road and the north property line and I think this is the point that staff also made that the northerly alignment, it is a positive note to have that large buffer that we're excluding from any development between Lake Lucy Road and the north property. So there's no question to us that the northerly alignment is more environmentally favorable than the southerly alignment. I think the tree preservation has been talked about so I don't want to repeat what's already been said. As you can see we, the green areas are the areas that the trees are being saved and a corridor of trees in through here we know are going to be lost regardless of where the Lake Lucy Road is placed. And the wetlands again have been also preserved with the exception of the area where Lake Lucy Road has cut through the wetland... Now for the grading of the site. We always designed to follow the existing topography as much as possible in designing what we plat. The reason we do this is to save Ixees, avoid wetlands and to maintain the character of the existing topography. Which these are all environmentally oriented...that we followed in designing this plat. It also saves cost. More grading, more cost. One of the concerns that's been mentioned is that we are flattening the land, so I want to get into that a little bit. Let's just take a look at the grading plan fu-st and let me try to follow through with you a little bit to see if we can kind of picture what the final topography is going to be. Let's put ourselves down here at Galpin Blvd and Lake Lucy Road. Elevation 994. Let's take ourselves along Lake Lucy Road to Jennifer Way. Continue on up Jennifer Way to where it terminates on our plan. Elevation 1020. 26 feet above the center line of Galpin Boulevard. We continue to come uphill here and here so we have definitely tried to follow the topography as much as the design of the roadway will allow it. Elevation of this garage, 1022 is the elevation of this garage is 1012. We're standing here, we're looking into the roof of that home. This one is 15 feet above this one. We're looking almost over the roof of that one. I could go on. There's another one up here where this home is 30 feet above this one. These homes along this corridor are 40 feet above the existing wetland. What it's doing is in addition to this trying to give you a little better picture of what the topography looks like on our proposed grading contours and draw some elevation views. Elevation view one coming from the top of the hill across Lake Lucy Road through the wetland. This is the top of the hill. This is where the house would be. This is the back of the house as it's shown as a walkout. This is the garage elevation. So I was mentioning the 30 feet. The 30 feet is from here down to this house. If you have a physical graphic look at what I'm trying to tell you on the grading plan. It's pretty difficult to look at that and visually see and I'm hoping that this will tell you that there is a lot of topography and a lot of change in elevation happening. Elevation 2. This is the garage I was talking about. This is the other garage I was saying and looking at and here are the two' drawn graphically so they're...10 feet. Is anyone having trouble following this? Following what I'm doing. Okay .... elevation 3. This is the top of the hill. Jennifer Way, this is high up in this area here. High today and it's going to be high when the road is built. As you can see here it's sticking way up above the wetland area down here and it's up above the proposed home elevations... Difference in elevation from this walkout down to the, the difference of that is 40 feet. I could take different elevation views for different parts of the site. Generally you're going to find the same type thing as you see here regardless of what I do with here. You're going to see this filling type thing here regardless of what I do so those to me are really representative of what the site is doing with the final design concept. I guess the idea that we're flattening the land is far from the truth, as you can see. We have reviewed the staff's condition for approval with this alignment and with this plan and we have no problems with those conditions. I have no further comments at this time or if someone. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions of the Council? Councilman Wing: I want to talk about grading. I don't know if it's appropriate now. As long as that's up. I guess I can't read this and I really don't understand. It's nice to talk about 10 and 20, 30 feet. Usually it doesn't mean anything. Kate or Bob, can we learn anything off of this right now? Can either one of you or anybody tell me what exists now and how much dirt's being shoved where to ftil in what. I'm pretty lost here. 35 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Bob Generous: We worked with... Chuck Plowe: Well, if you want me to look at say just go through this. Kate Aanenson: What he's showing you is the proposed. Chuck Plowe: I'm showing you the final contours. Kate Aanenson: Final grading, right. He's not showing you the cuts. Councilman Wing: That's what I want to see. I need an overlay. Chuck Plowe: The sense I'm getting is that a lot of people are interested in what the site's going to look like when it's finally completed and the fear is there that we're going to flatten this out and it's going to be...You know taking a beautiful site as it is and making it boring. That's not going to be the way it is. It's going to be beautiful when it's done. Is there something specific that I need? Councilman Wing: No I just, I need, I'I1 talk about it later. I guess I'm standing, I need an overlay or some other type of picture here but I'll get that later. It's not important. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else? I guess the way it sits right now, unless somebody has any specific questions. Thank you. Ed Ryan: Very briefly. I guess as you can see, and I think Kate knows this as staff does, that we've put a lot of hours into this and we've tried to make it a pleasing plan and I think we have. We've put a lot of care and sensitivity into it because this is our neighborhood and the result of working with staff closely and the recommendations of the neighbors and the Planning Commission have been a superior plat which we're very proud to have done. Our plat will meet all the conditions, or has met all the conditions that the staff has recommended so we are requesting, as staff allows for, approval of our plat consistent with what staff has recommended, subject to the conditions detailed in their report. If you have any questions throughout the process, please feel free. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay. Let's go to your specific questions that you have. Councilman Wing: I don't. Mayor Chmiel: I think what you're, are you trying to determine how much the existing contours where the roads are...graded or? Councilman Wing: I don't think we can do that tonight. I guess what I'm saying though is we have an ordinance on the books now that says there are time that we can impose additional da, da, da, da. And this is going to be one of them for me. I want to know, I want a picture and a grading plan that I can understand as a layman of what we have now and what we're going to have when it's all over because I've been personally stung on the last 3 we've done. I'm really shocked by what we approved and what I thought was good and what actually occurred. So I want to know what dirt's being moved where and what hills aren't going to exist and I'm not saying there isn't a lot of flexibility here and a need to do a lot of this but I want to make it real clear that I need a 3 dimensional picture or I need a 3 dimensional computer graphics. I need an artist's sketch of the 36 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 land from a couple angles with an artist's sketch of what it's going to be after that stuff without homes on it. So maybe that's part of the final plat. I don't know but I think I've addressed this other times and I don't know how I can word it better but this grading plan means nothing to me and I don't want to approve it with the information I have. At least on the final plat. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: How many more rounds do you think we're going to have here on this tonight? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Speak now instead of... Councilman Mason: Yeah, became I don't have issues specific to the plan that I'm seeing here but I do have issues that deal with everything. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I understand that good sign language. Okay. Councilman Mason: Good. Obviously a whole lot of time has been spent on this. This latest one is, I certainly view it. I was at the Planning Commission meeting that they unanimously denied, not this plan but the plan prior to it and I would have been surprised had they not unanimously denied it. This looks appreciably different and I'm hearing staff say, it's a compromise that staff can live with. So in terms of what I see here, I'm done. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Mark. Councilman Senn: Do I take your silence to mean that it's going to be coming around again for comments and this is just questions? Mayor Chmiel: Well yes, yeah. I want to open it up to the floor with the adjacent property owners. Councilman Senn: I don't have any questions at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to now open this up to anyone wishing to make a presentation, and I again would ask your indulgence for brief presentations. Indicate your concerns rather eloquently. Peter Davis: My name is Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Blvd. I'd like to read a petition that has 18 signatures on it and represents 14 families. Vin~ally they've signed it all today. It represents virtually all of the neighbors surrounding the property of the Ryans. Then in conclusion, after I read this I'd like to give copies for everyone present. Whereas the Ryans proposed plat rezoning request from RR to SF1 in an area of the comprehensive plan designates SF1 increases lot density to 15,000 square feet. It poses massive regrading to destroy the natural slopes, wetlands and trees. Does not propose a pedestrian wail system. It proposes storm drainage flow into the Lake Lucy headwaters watershed. Where the City Code, Section 18-60 states, lots should be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. Whereas the rolling hill topography, natural wetlands and open spaces and abundance of wildlife and water quality to the Lake Lucy headwaters are this community's best assets and should be preserved. 37 City Council Meeting - September 26, i994 Whereas the city, the trail system, extension planned to Lake Minnewashta Park. Whereas nutrients from storm water runoff from proposed massive fill abutting the existing wetland, polluted runoff from the proposed homes abutting the wetland will be a major environmental disturbance and degrade the wetland ecosystem. Whereas runoff from the development can be contained entirely on the west side of Galpin Blvd and any additional runoff into the Lake Lucy watershed would result in further harm to wetland vegetation and wildlife .... Whereas the natural environment on the Ryan property provides a vital corridor for wildlife traveling between Lake Minnewashta Park and the Lake Lucy area. Whereas the Planning Commission also agreed with the above concerns, therefore we the undersigned request the City Council to (1), deny the proposed plat on the basis it does not meet City Code, Section I8-60. The required land planning to lower lot density be reconsidered accordingly. (2), consider changing the comprehensive plan or require a condition on the plat to a minimum net lot size of 1 acre for all remaining land north of Harrison Lake, between Galpin Blvd and Highway 41. (3), as a condition prohibits storm water runoff to the east of Galpin Blvd. (4), as a condition required of Lake Lucy Road extension to follow the natural lower land contours winding along the existing wetland with an off road pedestrian trail which meanders through natural created corridors. (5), keep the area zoned RR until a plan is submitted that is consistent with the existing topography, and other natural amenities with less housing density. I don't know if that took 5 minutes. Mayor Chmiel: Right on time, thank you. Okay, is there anyone else? Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Gaipin Blvd in Chanhassen. I have an overall feeling that I simply need to express and then I'll try to get a little bit specific in my allowed time. I feel somewhat tricked by this entire process, to be very frank with everybody here. I think this plan is very different from the Planning Commission, what they saw. What they debated, and I'd highly recommend that in the £mal analysis this entire process be turned back to the Planning Commission where many suggestions were made and next to nothing was taken seriously by the developer of this property in terms of what was resubmitted and I certainly spent some time in this room reviewing both of those plans. Now tonight them is something significantly different. Still something that I personally object to, but significantly different that I don't know who's had the time to even review in terms of the neighborhood and people in the area who would normally be concerned and normally be given the time table allotted the normal process, which is one of going through the Planning Commission, which I respect. That's an overall feeling. Staff has made it clear in each of the Planning Commission meetings that it favors an outlot on the westerly portion of this land for the very reason that the City Code states. Staff I commend because they have been upholding what I believe the City Code has indicated very strongly. Lots shall be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, walker courses and historic sites. I believe staff has been doing exactly that with this property. I don't think that the city, whether they be the Planning Commission or this Council, has an obligation to any landowner, including this one, to make land sellable that just plain shouldn't be sold for purposes of the dollar. There is an argument I think that can be made that says, if we preserve wetlands, why would we not also preserve certain steep slopes? What's the difference? What we're preserving in both cases is something that we ought to preserve. That's why we do it. That's why it's in the City Code. That's why I believe this city put it there. And I see a strong effort being made to develop some steep slopes in some areas that staff has consistently recommended be held as an outlot at least until access from the north can be had and that the land itself will be allowed to dictate the development of that land and not boundary lines and not a sense of urgency by current landowners to see that every square inch be developed that possibly could be. And so I implore this Council to look carefully and please consider the preservation of the natural amenities as stated in the Code. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jerome. Is there anyone else? 38 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Linda Carlson: I'm Linda Carlson, 6950 Galpin Blvd and my math is a little rusty and I don't have a calculator with me tonight but I found myself confused when Ed Ryan was talking about the density. Comparing this to other developments. When you look at the Halla one, that's 46 acres into 36 lots. The number of lots was smaller than the number of acres and the Gestach and Paulson one, they have 26 acres into 21 lots. Again, the number of lots is smaller than the acreage. However they're proposing 38 acres into 50 lots where the number of lots is bigger. So I'm not sure how they can compare the density... Mayor Chmiel: I think there's just a slight typo on the 50 lots. That's 47 lots is what we're looking at? Okay. Linda Carlson: The number of lots though is still bigger than the number of acres. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. No, I just wanted to just make that one. There's 3 different sizes of lots or there's 3 less lots than what was indicated as the 50 on the agenda as we have. Jerome Carlson: I think Gestach is also not 21. Perhaps it's down to 19 by now so. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Is there anyone else? Ed Ryan: Can I just make a comment? Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up? I realize you have to. Ed Ryan: Just as a point of clarification. The information that I stated in my density comparisons was received from staff. That was the information they provided me so. Councilman Wing: Can they clarify that? As long as we're on that subject. Kate Aanenson: We stand by that. The Halla plat is outside the MUSA area and that's not a fair comparison. What we compared was the surrounding area...platted in the RSF. The Song/CarLson. Certainly. there's larger lots in the area. The Highlands to the east. The Mancino's haven't been platted... Councilman Wing: ...on the question of density, if this is 25 acres and 50 houses, it can't be the same as 25 houses on 25 acres. How does this work out? Kate Aanenson: Well as Bob said, there's a significant amount of wetland you need to take out so it reduces your net buildable lots. Bob Generous: And I believe like the Gestach is at 1.7 is the gross... Kate Aanenson: You're looking at gross and the net. Bob Generous: They start out with about the same. Councilman Wing: I thought we were only dealing with net now. I thought we were getting rid of these gross numbers long ago. What's the usable, buildable lot? Kate Aanenson: Net. 39 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Right, but you have to have your wetlands within that. Bob Generous: Previous comparisons were based on gross numbers of 1.1 and 1.2 so we provided that information also. Councilman Wing: Okay, thank you. Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. We're the property owners to the north of this. I'd like to do two things. First I'd like to do a couple of very quick comments relating to our property and the impact that this development on our's is going...plat request, or have requested and see some aspects that have been represented in this plan. And then also discuss some of the feelings that we have as community...I'd like to have Charles Stinson, an architect who has been working with us, to assist me. This is a photo of about 3 years ago flying over our property which is, to the west, heavily wooded and it abuts the Gestach-Paulson property here and up to this point. The Ryan property is along this border. There's a natural tree line here. There a stand of arborvitae which many of your drive past and are familiar with on Galpin Blvd. Here's a private drive that goes through here. That goes past the Davis' and our house here. So we're quite close to this property line which is...Lake Lucy Road is going to go through. To help understand some of the vegetation there, I've done some...coloring on it that separates some of the pines, tall specimen trees and break those away from some of the... When these two developments were platted and came before City planning sometime back in July I believe, city staff requested that we look at a long term plan that would take into account future contingencies of how our property might develop. Although we don't intend to develop at this point, we wanted to be prepared to respond to the neighbors...as to how we might develop in the future. We talked with developers. We talked to a number of engineers. We talked to architects. Met extensively with staff to understand the intent of the comprehensive plan and the city's desires and then tried to look at a long term staged plan that would be environmentally sensitive to the landforms and the natural amenities and trees. Charles can kind of help walk through quickly what we intend to do in a staged perspective. Charles Sfinson: Hello. My name is Charles Stinson. I'm an architect. I live in Minnetonka. Sam and Nancy contacted me a while back and the reason being, I do predominantly residential architecture in specialty lots. Working on projects that we try to preserve the area and blend the architecture into the site and respect what's there. So in looking at it, our approach was f~t of all just getting familiar with what was there and you know, again Sam was saying about the arborvitaes going around the perimeter. This area was essentially unmolested. It's just beautiful with giant, you know having been a tree farm there's just giant specimen trees. Big ponderosa pines. A natural ravine going through the middle of that. You have some trail systems. This portion is a large meadow. It's just a beautiful meadow here. A beautiful meadow here. Again the stand of trees going along the south of the property. The existing private drive coming in to Peter, I don't know Peter's last name, but Peter's property. Coming back to the Mancino's residence. So first of all the thought was well, you know how should we do this? What should we put on the property? Before I guess I move this. The other thing, to get...with this piece of property and hiking it and photographing it and setting the topo, also I wanted to get familiar with everything that was going on around it. So looking at this site. Getting familiar with that development. The plat and then looking at this and realizing that the property from here to the wetlands fails over 90 feet of drop, you know so it's pretty substantial. We're higher. A nice piece of property. Quite a bit of vegetation and the wetlands. So the solution in a very cartoony form was just determining where the homes would want to be and wanting to do it without just bulldozing it down and taking down the trees. So it became, again coming from the right side, you know there's some just beautiful spots looking down the valley. A big open meadow that the Mancino's look across now. This area and a buffer of a stand of trees here and this is just wild in here to the big trees and then there's a big ravine that continues down to this site. The problem was, how do you do it 40 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 without, you know if you run a road in here, you know we'd be destroying the ravine. We talked to the city about getting, they're proposing a road up here...property to connect. Either way it just took out a lot of trees so as we looked at it, and the original development below, Ryan's was grading way back onto this property and there wasn't a preservation zone so at minimum we started just putting up kind of a protection zone of 30 feet onto our property and 30 feet onto their property and going all the way around. And then in look at the road access, we originally were hoping to get two and kind of settled for one coming in to save this property, and I think that works pretty good. Utilities, again getting, talking about at some point that there'd be a connection of a street that would come through here and once this was developed, perhaps there'd be a connection to that so this would be pretty much serf contained here. But having all these lots also looked over the amenity of these trees in the middle so they can all be left open. Even going out there early this morning there's, I saw 4 different deer on the piece of property so that way they can still roam and it's a sensitive area. So I guess that's the approach we had to that piece of property. The only I guess requirements from below where the, not continuing the street but stubbing out potentially access and utilities here just because of the working with engineering and the Mancino's engineer from Schoell and Madson, just because the elevation that would work out. Another one that wasn't shown on the applicant was getting an access point here just to serve these lots without something coming up here would destroy the ravine and those trees. And I guess that kind of sums up our approach and how that affects us. My only comment about this lower piece of property here, I guess the one in question about how it connects to the other axe~. I think, if I could put this up. I guess this only affects our property indirectly but being a lover of natural terrain, ! couldn't help but notice the question you had about the fill and one half of the grading. What I understand the drawings, there's an 8, an existing 980 elevation here and with the new homes on it, it's been filled in about twice as high as the ceiling with earth so it's really creating the walkout sites. So it's virtually all new soil all the way out so if you added a 2 story house with a steep roof, and at 20 feet of grade, that would be about 50 feet over the existing grade. It's coming down pretty steep so it's always tough to try to save the existing environment. I think a recommendation to do a road study. I think last, at the Planning Commission the applicants in here did have a cross section showing what was going on and I think that was helpful to see what was happening. That's it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Sam Mancino: We wanted to walk you through that so that you'd have some understanding how this will affect to the other sites. I guess for the record, we would request ff you see it, see parts of it stipulated in the plan that is before us which is a 30 foot tree preservation easement along this entire property line here. No grading and encroaching into it. All of the grades have to start from there and no driveway penetration into it. The second thing is we'd like to understand the status of this outlot. As we understand it, that is forever unbuildable on the site and who owns title to that? Is that the city's? Kate Aanenson: We hadn't considered that but there are... Roger Knutson: I'm not sure I'm understanding. You want a conservation easement? Kate Aanenson: The Outlot B. The 3:1 slope down to Lake Lucy. Sam Mancino: Outlot B is stipulated as a not buildable site at this time. We'd like to understand how that becomes a permanent not buildable site so we don't get surprised in 6 months or a year from now. Roger Knutson: That's a totally new issue to me. I'll have to look at that. 41 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Sam Mancino: That's fine... The potential, it is stipulated that there would be utilities and a read brought up to the tree easement line. Constructed. The additional one that we'd like to request, again as Charles has said, is utilities brought to I believe probably just north of whatever the trail system is here and then an easement to gain access into this half of the property, The alternative is to go in through the ouflot of the Gestach-Paulson piece... The last thing is if we could request a buffer of trees, of pines and fins planted along here to screen off our house from the proximity of the road. That would be along a corridor of Ouflot B. That's really the comments that I have as it relates to our property. As a neighbor I have...couple of issues. One is the, as is mentioned in the staff report, lack of environmental sensitivity and the excessive grading and the alteration of the natural landform. Planning Commission unanimously rejected a plan that was quite a bit similar to this. This is moved slightly. This road is moved slightly. The cul-de-sac has been changed into a private drive but in essence the overall concept...remains pretty much unchanged throughout this entire process. They've been fairly singularly focused with one thing in mind which is get the maximum number of buildable lots and the maximum number of walkout sites, even though that means reconfiguring the existing landform. What I'd like to show is the, one of the things that I was struck with in looking at the Ryan's last plan is the designation it has here. The orange marks are walkouts. The blue marks are other than walkouts. Anything that's not a walkout. So it's a fairly remarkable percentage of walkout lots being put into this site. The land has been conformed to do that but in comparison with a comparable site is the Gestach-Paulson piece which has similar grade situation and you see a somewhat different pattern created here and as Bruce commented earlier, not much grading is going on here. So one of the things that I guess that we see is driving this whole thing is the need to make the land conform to the maximum density. Several years ago the comprehensive plan was put in place as a guideline and it was stated to be a guideline for the local decision making process. The cornerstone identified with this higher quality for the community and it set out values and goals which reduced the number of lots stated,,.the entire comprehensive plan by saying Chanhassen is a high amenity residential community that takes large amounts of open space and natural tree cover, wetlands and variable topography. It is the city's overall goal that the amenities and qualifies be maximized and preserved while allowing for...comprehensive plan... A little later on it says, as it would discourage the alteration of steep s. lope areas and bluffs to minimize soil washing and erosion and minimize tree loss when appropriate...amenities such as those found flowing...weflands. It has a number of premises, five premises that go into the land use and one of them is that the land, that development be consistent with the preservation and enhance the natural features and amenities. It is our belief that you have a conflict between the guidelines in the comprehensive plan and the zoning single family residential that encourages maximizing the number of lots at the expense of reconforming the land. We think that it's a conflict that needs to be resolved by re-examining the comprehensive plan and trying to find within that the language such as this. A way to discourage this maximum density and we believe that by going to slightly lower density, better use of the surrounding community can be achieved. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you, Is there anyone else? Steve Buresh: Steve Buresh again from 6651 Galpin Blvd. My major concern with this property, which has been the same all along. I attended the Planning Commission meeting and there is, nothing has been done with any of the changes in the plan here to take away from my hardest concem which is the wildlife in the area. I live diagonally across from the property on the east side of Galpin Blvd and frequently, and I've seen them, I have observed on some mornings up to 14 deer on my property. They go right across the road and follow the Ryan property and I assume that they're heading over towards TH 41. Probably into the park area there on the other side. No concern has been, or nothing has been added into this plan.to take precautions to protect them. If this development goes in the density that is proposed, even as we speak now, there's not going to be any deer in this area. And the whole reason that I moved in this area and I can't speak for anybody else except myself, but I wanted a large lot area. Having been raised up on a farm and I wanted to be in an area where there was 42 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 some wildlife. My 4 year daughter can look out in the morning and see deer, pheasants, all types of wildlife. What I would, although what I'd like to see is that it not be developed but that's unfair to the landowner and that's, you can't expect something like that to happen. What I would like to see, and what I'd like the land owner to consider is, they're looking at themselves as compared to what's on the other side of the hill. Or what's considerably down the road a piece towards Highway 5. The area that this development is in is all large lots. I probably have one of the smallest lots in the area at 2 1/2 acres. And if you put this high density housing in this area, it totally detracts from what this area looks like because it doesn't fit in with the lay of the land. It may fit in with the property adjacent there, which is on the other side of the hill which we won't be seeing from our side of the road.. I guess what I'd like to see is that the area that's on the Galpin side, the Galpin Blvd side. The base of the hill there. That the developer and the applicant would take into consideration what's in the area right now. How the property owners are situated as far as the large lots and that and try to maintain the look of this area. It's very unique. It's very peaceful to live in this area. But I do see that as you would cross over the hill, since you're getting into larger, higher density housing, to gradually increase it. Now to some extent they've done that but it still is quite dense compared to the rest of the houses in the area. And so I guess in closing I'd like you to consider that nothing has been done to take into account the wildlife in the area. The plan as it sits, if it goes in, there isn't going to be any wildlife in the area and that they go back and come up with a plan that fits better with the surrounding neighbors, not just with what's on the other side of the hill which us, as neighbors in that area, will never be able to see anyway unless you go over the hill so that's. And also I wasn't able to get my name on the petition but I totally agree with what was submitted to you by Mr. Davis so thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Chuck Plowe: I'd just like to clarify a statement about elevations and flexibility and so on. I guess I was confused about the 50 foot dimension and I don't know of any 50 foot cut, fill or whatever the case might have been but just to give you a feel if someone is questioning what the cut and fdl of the roadway up in here. Actually there's fill here. We ended up with getting zero here. There's a cut in through here and a cut that maxes out at about 10 1/2-11 feet right there. So that's the extent of the large cut here. Of course the slope continues up so that's why we have to continue the 3:1 slope up to match grade here. Incidentally we do have ample room with the top of that slope. We're not even at the tree line with the top of that 3:1 slope. As far as being environmentally sensitive. I think that we are. We're using the existing topography as best as we can. As I've demonstrated, there's going to be a lot of relief in this topography. Extreme relief in this topography in the final design. The density that we're trying to achieve and that I think is what everybody is looking at us to do. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Mason: Can I ask a question? The comment was made Chuck on that private drive on the left side there that you're going to be bringing in a couple stories of fill. 50 feet I believe you said. Chuck Plowe: Okay, I can respond to that. Councilman Mason: I mean you said a couple, 50 feet right? Charles Stinson: No, the 50 feet was. Councilman Mason: Well that's what was said. 43 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Charles Stinson: ...in the back including that 30 feet of building and 20 feet of fill. But I think said 20 feet or more of fill. Councilman Mason: Well okay but you said 50 feet of ~l before so let's, well okay. I just want to make sure. Okay. Chuck Plowe: I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a misunderstanding because. Charles Sfinson: I mean are we correct that there's going to be 20 feet of fill here across the back? Chuck Plowe: No, across the back there's going to be about 10 feet. Very little. Along the front there will be about 17 at the maximum point. This Lake Lucy Road as constructed down here, it's going to be 10-13 feet of fill through here with the road. We're exceeding that by maybe 3 or 4 feet at the front of the pad... Councilman Mason: So what's the difference then, if the road goes down along the wetland, what's getting taken out there? I'm just trying to get a picture of all this here. Kate Aanenson: There's more f'fll going in. Councilman Mason: There's going to be, see this is what I'm having trouble with. I mean somebody's sayinl~3" one thing and somebody's saying another and I just want to get it straight in my own mind here. Chuck Plowe: Okay... Councilman Mason: Well my only question right now is, I'm heating a couple of different things on if the road goes next to the wetland. Kate, what's your impression if the road goes next to the wetland, or Bob. What are we talking in feet here? Give or take. Bob Generous: It was 987 at one of the other cul-de-sacs...and with this they're at now 998. So what is that, it'd be 7 feet in the wetland with the southern alignment and what you'd say. Councilman Mason: So there's going to be significant fill no matter which way it goes? I mean just, okay. Alright. Thank you. Kate Aanenson: That's how we arrived at the original plat. No matter which the road goes... Councilman Mason: Right, right. Thank you. That's it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Joe. Joe Scott: Joe Scott, 7091 Pimlico Lane. I just have a couple questions for staff. This is the existing topography. Okay. We recently passed a bluff ordinance and if you can tell me, it's a 30% grade, or excuse me. 30% change in elevation over. Bob Generous: 30% slope with a 25 foot change in elevation. City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Joe Scott: Okay. Well I'm looking at the tree plan that happens to have existing topography on it and I come up with at least a half a dozen areas that qualifies as being a bluff and the northwest portion of the project, Block 1 in between Lots 1 and 14 and 12 and 13. 6 and 14. And I can understand why when many years ago when the roadway was proposed with the two different alignments, and we didn't have that ordinance. Now that we do have the ordinance, it appears to me anyway doing some real simple work here that given our bluff ordinance we can't the road in here. So that might be something that requires some consideration. But I was just sitting there kind of looking at this plan and listening to what everybody is talking about and started doing some figuring. Somebody else is going to have to take a look at that but that was just something I wanted to throw out. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. Thank you Joe. Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin. I llve at 1695 Steller Court. I represent also I'm the Co- President of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. I'm within sight of this property to the west of my house. I am a member of the Lake Lucy Homeowners. We're concerned about the water quality of Lake Lucy and it's watershed. There's approximately a 10:1 ratio of surface area to watershed. It's a very large one and that's why the lake is very eutrophic because it has a lot of nutrients in it. One of the reasons that you see on the petition before you that it's mentioned about the runoff situation here is that according to the watershed district's current map, there's a tiny portion of the northeast comer of this plat, right about here, that drains underneath Galpin Road into the Lake Lucy watershed. I think that there's enough property here and enough proposals, wetland mitigation that that tiny portion could be contained here and drained into the Harrison Lake watershed. We need to keep away the pollutants that are coming from this development and...pollution stress on the Lake Lucy area. Getting back to the petition, I want to underscore the importance of a city probe and this is a very special area of Chanhassen. The plan, as I see it, I agree with Mr. Carlson and all the previous speakers. That the plan as it stands right now, it does not go far enough to preserve the natural amenities. There is too much grading. The amount of fill that goes in here, whether it's 17 feet or 20 feet, it doesn't make any difference. It's a huge amount of f'fll. The landforms, there's all new soil here pretty much. Here's Lake Lucy Road. That's that tree line. Okay. Lake Minnewashta Park, this Lake Lucy area Two great natural areas. There's lots and lots of wildlife here. I'm not just talking about 14 deer. We've got many different birds. There are some tree corridors. There's a flow of water going through. There's rolling hills. There's giant meadows. This I think, this property here is, the developer has done an excellent job and has my full blessings. He's not destroying the contours of this land. This is a special area and the contours need to be preserved. You have great views up on top of this large hill up here and this corridor needs to be preserved. In this plan it has been preserved on this property. I think it should be taken into account, and can be taken into account very easily that here, because these wetlands work, where's the existing. Anyway, there's a lot of natural ~ right here that's going up to the southern property and I think if you take away the need for a collector road, you eliminate a lot of problems with the environmental sensitivity here...problem up with this cut and fill...first road in. Follow the contour below part of the land without any, hardly any cuts at all and end with the cul-de-sac here. I don't think it's a given that we have to assume that there has to be a collector road going through one way or the other. There's, ! mean it could be argued that there really isn't a need for one. That collector road proposal was done years and years ago before we had all these ordinances about bluffs and environmental preservation. I think if you limit it here, you have preserved this big slope up here and you have houses around here without some of the great views, tuck under. It has some lots abutting the wetlands here and have a road come in without any disturbance of the trail system and come up here and... The wildlife corridor could be maintained throughout here with this perhaps terminating here and this wildlife corridor could be maintained. It's pretty difficult for deer to go across roads and yards and start eating up everybody's plants. I don't think the neighbors, new neighbors here would appreciate that. So I think this would be maintained. There'd also be a natural amenity to the city to put in a 45 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 trail system that would meander through a naturalized area. Like Anderson Lakes. Like Minnetonka's trying to do. Like Jonathan has done. The trail does not have to go along the street. That's just a sidewalk. I think we need to go, have a leap of faith and try to do what other cities have tried to do with a real trail system. You're going up a major natural amenity. Lake Minnewashta Park is another one and this is something that makes up for the bad design that the current Lake Lucy Road trail which is dangerous and pretty boring. I agree with keeping the road narrow. If you didn't make it a collector street~ It would also reduce the cost of the development. You wouldn't have to have all those collector width and the utilities that go along with it. I think that the bluff ordinance, we could get around that We can preserve that without having to put in a road here. This means we preserve the bluff. I think the density should conform to the land and not the other way around. I agree with Mrs. Carlson and everybody who stated the comments about that. As far as zoning, I want to clarify my position, personal position about zoning on this. I think that the density that you see on the property to the west, I think it's a good example of the kind of density we expect in here too. The land follows the lot, the development follows all the natural contours. There's no reason why you can't here. No reason at all. It's not an economic hardship issue. They'll do just fine economically putting 20 houses in as they would with more you know, 40. And in fact I think they'd do a lot better because then the community would be consistent with what's in the entire community and the amenities would be... And if the density has to change because of the comprehensive plan has changed, then change the comp plan. The density might go to RSF where you have 1.24 units per acre. Maybe 1 unit per acre net. I agree with going with net on that because it would preserve everything that we need, that we'd like to see preserved. That's all I have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? A1 Klingelhutz: A1 Klingelhutz, 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Probably wonder why I'm up here. Mayor Chmiel: That's a good question, thank you Al. A1 Klingelhutz: I'll give you an answer. About 10 or 12 years I listed this property for Ray Brandon and sold part of it to the Gestach-Paulson and part of it to Ed Ryan and I believe there was a fellow by the name of Mr. Olson I think his name was, if I remember right, bought about 20 acres of the total farm there. I walked the farm many times showing it. Most of this land that you're looking at was under cultivation. Growing corn, soybeans. You're talking about bluffs. When you talk about bluffs that's untillable land and as I recall, this farm was all tillable on the high ground. There was wetland on the bottom...steep slopes but I don't believe there is a 18% slope on the property. My legs were younger then. Today I could tell better. But after looking at this plan, and I went over it quite thoroughly this rooming, it seems that we're talking about walkout lots and the roads are going in on the crest of the hills and the north/south streets almost perfectly on the crest of the hills so you naturally have a walkout on each side. If you put the road on what we call the south corridor, I noticed that when the people before were expressing a beautiful walkout lots looking over a meadow, you'll be destroying that pan of a good share of these lots if the road follows along the wetland because it's going to have to be f'tlled 8, 9, 10 feet down in there. You won't even be able to see the wetland anymore. Whereas if you put the road through the middle of the property, you're up towards the north, you'll be having back walkouts instead of tuck under walkouts for the front. I don't like to talk about value. I've been in the real estate business for nearly 25 years now but I can tell you it would make a heck of a lot of difference in tax base for the city of Chanhassen to have read walkout lots instead of front walkout lots. I understand that Lake Lucy Road was a given. When this developer came in, Lake Lucy Road was a given and he designed the property around Lake Lucy Road. Originally I couldn't understand why Lake Lucy Road, like Mr. Wing said, could be a collector street through this property. But it's been a given in the city of Chanhassen for the last 15 years. And this is what the developer has to work with. Collector street going through the property...down to Highway 41. 46 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 I can't see putting any blame on the developer for developing his property the way it's been developed to get the most feasible way of getting good lots, instead of not so good lots. Plus the fact that the city ordinance, I think it still says 15,000 square feet for single family residence and these lots are 23,000 square feet. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Al. Yes. Marty Gustafson: Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Marty Gustafson. I live at 6691 Galpin. Notwithstanding the comments that have been made to the Council so far, I have not seen, not seen it delineated very well the wail system we're talking about or I keep hearing about or sidewalks even. My property is adjacent to Lake Lucy Road. It's supposedly a bike trail on either side of it. What happens, the cars wind up throwing all the rocks into the bike trail. The bike trail's full of rocks and all the bikes of course ride in the traffic lanes. It's treacherous to even walk down Lake Lucy on the bike trail. It's really, you know that creates quite a traffic problem. Notwithstanding speeding or whatever else is involved. I have a 1 year old daughter and I envision in time she'll be walking to school and I'm not really sure I want her walking along the wail system...walking out in the open where other parents can be watching her as she's going to school. I would love to have a trail system...children comes fkst in my mind and I would like to see that on the trail and it's approval with the city plus the approval of the nearby landowners... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Kate. Kate Aanenson: There is a sidewalk planned for this. Clarification. We do have, the city does have off street trails...one of them that's just been built in the last 2 weeks is Lake Susan Hills No. 9...Meadows at Long Acres also has some off road trail systems. We do my to coordinate those where they work. In this instance because it's a collector road, we do believe that a sidewalk is appropriate...to service this area. It's a separate sidewalk on the street. It's now shown on the plan but that's part of the specs for the 80 foot right-of-way is a sidewalk will ga all the way over to TH 41 and will also provide access up to the junior high... Councilman Wing: This is the 8 foot bituminous trail, is their recommendation. Kate Aanenson: Adjacent to the road but there will be a land strip inbetween separating it so you won't have that problem. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Bret Davidson: My name is Bret Davidson, I live at 7291 Galpin Blvd. I guess I feel a little bit like the odd man out tonight because I don't have a direct interest on anything that's going on. It's just as an interested neighbor. I was originally approached by Ed Ryan more than 6 months ago because I had a little bit of background in development and working with the city and working with the Planning Commission and the Rec Commission. He asked if he could pick my brain and give him some ideas on where to start and how to work with it and he promised me that if I'd come down and talk to him for a couple hours, he'd give me a cup of coffee. And as Richard Wing can attest, as a pilot, it's hard to refuse a good cup of coffee. Councilman Wing: ff it's free. Bret Davidson: If it's free, right. So anyways, I went. So my opinion is tonight is a little bit from an outsiders point of view. I don't have a direct interest like Ed Ryan. I don't have a financial interest in the property that says I'd like to see it develop with this and this. Or see a road gu...this. I don't have any emotional interests City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 like the landowners that surround it because they're concerned about a stxeet being on their property...as a resident of Chanhassen and as someone who's looked over the plan. So I talked to Ed for a couple hours that night and kind of gave him some guidelines on how to start working with the city. Who to contact fa'st. Kind of get started down the road to develop it and basically just about forgot about it until recently Ed called me and said hey, you know I'm well...come take a look at it. I went and took a look at it and have to say that I was impressed with what he had done so far. He showed me the iterations and some of the work that he had gone through and as you know, and as anybody who's ever done it knows, it takes a lot of time and effort and from a developer's point of view, obviously there's two ends of the spectrum. If the piece is completely fiat, that has no character. Just a fiat piece of farmland and ff you have that you have to develop that. On the other hand if you have a beautiful piece of property and you have rolling hills and character...because you have to grade it. There's no way to get around grading a piece of property that's...it's not perfect because you have to remove some of the Irees. It's an impossibility not to remove the trees. You have to save the good trees...and I guess that's why I was impressed with the job that Ed and Mary and his engineers have done because they addressed every concern they could address. They have realigned the road. They have worked hard to save the good trees. They worked hard to save the wetland and something that's even more important and that is that I feel maybe we're overlooking a thing, that it's not a bad deal to have somebody's back yard be a wetland. I have lots that are for sale now that people love because they have a back yard that's a wetland. Why do they like the back yard as a wetland? Because people take care of their back yard and they know if they're going to sit there and look at it for 20 or 30 years, that they'd better take care of the wetlands. They better protect the natural resources because it is their back yard and development does not have to drive away animals. I've been in Chanhassen for 7 or 8 years and people used to came on my doorstep before hunting season and beg to hunt on my property because we had some of the highest concentrations of deer around off Galpin Boulevard. Since then I have had over 50 or 55 homes surrounding my property and I still wake up in the morning upset because I have deer munching on my grass in the front yard. We have kids along the back, when they were dozing the property, we had deer within 20 or 30 feet of the dozers. So the development does not necessarily drive away the natural resources of deer by what we see there today. So as a, maybe not a completely unbiased viewpoint but it's a viewpoint from a resident who's not surrounding the neighborhood. Has no interest in the neighborhood other than as a resident of Chanhassen, this neighbor's opinion is that it's a good development. That it's good for the city. It's good for an alignment that is forced through the city which was the Lake Lucy extension. It's good for the neighbors who eventually will be there and so I would urge the City Council to recommend approving the preliminary plat. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? One more time quickly. Nancy Mancino: I'm Nancy Mancino, 6620 Galpin. A couple things I wanted to review and say for the public record. One of them was, as Ed Ryan has stated earlier tonight that staff believes that the northern road alignment of Lake Lucy Road is the right now and I think Dick Wing had to ask a little bit about that. On page 3 of the staff report, the last paragraph, line 2 it says, while staff still believes that the southern alignment for Lake Lucy Road is a better alignment for the community. Should the City Council approve the applicant's proposal, we have developed revisions that improve the development. I would like to go on public record as saying what the staff had put in their staff report. My other consideration that I'd like you to think about..also in the staff report on page 18. It has to do with City Code, Section 18-39 and it also seems to be something that the staff feels concerned about and that is number 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. Finding. The proposed subdivision will impact the land form and existing wetlands and vegetation by the amount of grading. Staff is recommending changes to minimize the impact. And there are questions that I know that Councilman Wing...and Councilman Wing asked about grading and...all I am asking is before you do...and pass this, that you really do understand the grading plan. From what I can see, from the staff's...plan, is 48 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 that there will be grading over the entire site. They will be adding 10 to 7 feet in the fill area. They will be taking away 10 feet,..if you stand on CR 117, or Galpin facing west, they will be taking away hills. They'll be taking away 16 feet on this high hill. They will be taking away 8 feet over here. They will also be going in and making sure that these are walkouts...f'Lll back in but I just strongly stress that you do take some time in reviewing and understanding what's going on with the grading because I think it will be...thank you. Chuck Plowe: Just wanted to clarify the comments, clarify a couple of things. We have an existing...it's not very large but it stands up above the rest of the site and it is true that there is a, at least to have a I4 or 15 foot cut going through that, but that's an isolated area. Again, it is Lake Lucy Road and the Lake Lucy Road is going to go through whether it's going up or down so that is going to happen here and that's not something that this plat can control. Thank you. Ed Ryan: Just very briefly. In the staff report that Nancy was referring to, in the paragraph directly above that. When the staff is responding to the southerly and northerly alignments. Our f'mst issue about the southerly alignment is whether it's feasible to outlot this. And the response from the City Attorney was that if it could provide a feasible alternative that met the code, it would be acceptable. The second point. The last sentence said, based on the review of the southern alignment and the northerly alignment, staff felt that the applicant's proposal was a better alternative and would result in less grading and tree preservation along this northern line. So point of clarification. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Anyone else? Peter Davis: Since I had to read the petition, I didn't really get a chance to...comments. It seems to me that the...aside from a lot of nuances and details, really the premise of this plat is driven by one of two things. One is it's driving by a zoning...that is really typically pursued over farmland that's really flat in nature. And the second is driven by the Lake Lucy Road. I heard a suggestion made just recently because there's been a lot of active dialogue and suggestions from a lot of neighbors that spoke here, challenging the premise of the road and wouldn't it be great if this...didn't even have to exist because there'd be a lot of things that people could do. I'm sure that Ed and Mary could even do from a real estate standpoint that would make the thing a more attractive development. It's on that basis that there will be an opportunity to consider perhaps creating a new category for something that would be more flexible. You may not like this but there are a lot of other places in and around Chanhassen where these issues are going to be become prevalent and..developed. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. It doesn't look like anyone else is coming up. I'll bring it back to Council. Richard. Do you have anything you'd like to say? Councilman Wing: With all due respect to Ryans, this isn't a simple one. It's been kind of a scathing response from the neighbors and I guess even the Planning Commission which unanimously denied the plan citing excessive grading, unacceptable discretion, da, da, da, da, da, da, da, then we had pros and cons of that. I think that the Ryans and their engineer have been very clear. I think they've been honest and I think they've made a real effort here and I won't down play that at all. But I think that we're caught in the middle of something that just isn't ripe for picking yet. The oranges aren't orange yet and I guess this is just absolute the easiest one to send back to Planning Commission I've ever seen. There's too many issues to really act on it. Even the preliminary. I think it needs to go back to the Planning Commission but specifically the Planning Commission, I think zoning is something that ought to be discussed. What is appropriate zoning. What is legal zoning. What are our rights. I mean maybe there is only one way to go here. A1 has commented that this is farmland. Others suggest it's not farmland. Well it has been agricultural so I'm not sure what the proper zoning is but I'd like 49 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 them to address that issue. The 32 foot max read would be involved in the process. And for myself personally, whenever we see it again, I want a clearly defined grading diagram. I don't know how to best accomplish that Kate. I've got to rely on your background but this, the blueprint is unusable. I simply can't pick out what's happening here. I need some type of a picture. Some type of a model or a computer graphic that shows where they're going from A to B and what A is going to look like and then what B is going to look like. And then I think that will also help defend their position so they can actually show what is and isn't being done and counter some of the problems here. So rather than belabor this, I'm not ready to move on it and I'd recommend for myself, just getting it back to Planning with the idea that it's not going to go away. We might as well deal with it and do the best we can here. Get it back to us with a lot of these questions answered. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make that as a motion? Councilman Wing: Well no, I'd like. Mayor Chmiel: And I'm saying that if we do get a second, I still want some opinions back from Council on Councilman Wing: Well I'll be happy to do that unless Council, just make the motion that it be turned back to Planning Commission with subsequent suggestions from Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will second it and if I could. Kate Aanenson: Could I get a clarification...reconsideration of the zoning? Councilman Wing: Well, the motion only states that it be returned to Planning Commission for review but there's going to be several stipulations and my ones that were specific with me that the road, the trail, the grading issues, better clarification of grading and the zoning issues that were brought up by several people. What's the proper zoning for this? Kate Aanenson: My point...they had recommended denial of the plan... Mayor Chmiel: Well because there are other things that have been interjected into this such as the bluff ordinance which was never looked at. Kate Aanenson: Yes, we looked at it. It doesn't meet the criteria. We already gave that analysis. Mayor Chmiel: That was contained in the staff, within the report7 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Well I missed it somewhere along the fine. Kate Aanenson: We didn't have an opportunity to respond to that. Bob Generous: I don't think I addressed that specifically... 50 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Councilman Wing: I asked about that. Kate Aanenson: We didn't respond when that came up before. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And this plan is different than the one the Planning Commission reviewed, that's my. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. That's part of the full picture of it as far as review of that. Kate Aanenson: There's also a time flame running too. Roger Knutson: How are we doing on the clock? Bob Generous: We received it July 5th. In October sometime. It was pushed back 2 weeks originally because we had some... Roger Knutson: You have 120 days to act on the preliminary plat unless the applicant gives you an extension. Bob Generous: We had them revise the plan once so I don't know if that counts. An incomplete submission and we'd have to look at that. The time period... Roger Knutson: July 5th is when they put it in? Kate Aanenson: Right... Roger Knutson: We have to look at the exact date. You have 120 days after the applicant has completed the application for you to act on. Councilman Wing: If we denied it, would we accomplish the same thing? I mean they'd simply have to come back in and start the process and I don't know if anything's won or lost at that point. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you'd go through the complete process as to what we've done anyway. So what does that really give us? Roger Knutson: I think what we want to do is take a look at the, if you want it to go back to the Planning Commission, we want to give them the record of when the 120 days is up and if the applicant does not want to give you an extension, we'll just bring the plat back here and you can act on it. Okay. You're saying by the next Council? If necessary. If we have to bring it back, we will. ff we can't get cooperation, we might have Mayor Chmiel: Don Ashworth: to bring it back. Roger Knutson: You're sending it to the Planning Commission unless we look at it and advise to you that you should be acting on it at your next meeting, in which case it doesn't go to the Planning Commission. It comes back here and that's the end on the timing, ff that's what you want. I don't want to put words in your mouth. 51 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, no. I guess I was looking for clarification. Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well forgive me for the jumping around I'll be doing in the next few minutes. I've worked hours and hours and hours on this. Walking it. Talking to property owners surrounding and the applicant. Looking at my own and I want to send it back to the Planning Commission but I want to give them some direction and some feedback as to where I'm coming from. First thing I want to talk about is the surrounding area. Looking at densities, I think Ryan's have a very good point. They are consistent with the surrounding areas. Right here I'm looking at the Song property, Long Acres and it's just as dense. Same thing. If you look at Gestach-Paulson, that piece is the same density. However, having said that, this piece of land was developed very well. Taking into consideration the surrounding property and the trees. I'm not seeing that kind of sensitivity with this piece of property so I want that looked at. I want it sent back to the Planning Commission, another reason is we do have a different plan than what Planning Commission saw and I would like the opportunity for the surrounding property owners, neighbors to get a look at it so they can form their opinions instead of seeing it, having to react to it fight away. Another mason is looking at the Minutes, there were 4 commissioners available to vote on it at that night. I'd like the full Planning Commission, with the exception of Nancy who will want to step down. Doesn't need to but who will want to, look at it. Get a couple more heads together on it. In trying to give direction, and realizing that a lot of the grading has to do with the road alignment. That's requiring a lot of the cutting and filling into it and I don't know how we achieve, I don't know. Maybe narrowing the roadway will help some. Or will have some affect on it. Kate Aanenson: ...the depth of the utilities. Whether or not the road goes through, we still intend to loop the utilities so believe me, as much time as you've spent on it, we've spent ten times the mount of time so it is a complex issue. But we still want the utilities looped so that would ultimately cause trenching...and in some areas it's very deep. Councilwoman Dockendoff: In giving it, when I walked the property, there seemed to be some inconsistencies with the plan in terms of where the blocks of trees were. And I guess I'd like that relooked at. It didn't seem the trees were kind of right in the place where, and when we were looking around the barn and we couldn't figure out what block of trees were represented so I guess I'd like that relooked at and there are a lot of trees being taken out because of the grading. Not because homes will be sitting on top of them but because the grading makes it that way. I wish we could, in the best of all possible worlds, I would like to see the access from the north to that slope but we don't have a legal leg to stand on and perhaps that's not the best word. I guess that's all I have to say fight now. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: With everything that's been discussed tonight, I think tabling is probably in the best interest to all involved. And I do mean to all involved to send this back to the Planning Commission. I think the drainage issues that Mr. Rivkin raised are serious. The nutrient stress and the SWMP issues I think are very important and I'm not sure that they've been. Kate Aanenson: Yes he did...presentation at the Planning Commission as part...but the plan is consistent with their proposal...storm water management and we've always intended to pick up some of that on the other side. Yes we could... Councilman Mason: Okay, okay. Good. I think that basically, yeah. I think this proposal is certainly it's doable. I mean like it or not, it's a doable proposal. But there are some issues of grading that I would like a 52 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 little more clarified. You know as I was sitting listening to everyone here, this is a pretty emotional issue and there a lot of big hitters tonight you know stating their opinions, as they should be. I said earlier, and I don't remember, I'm sure it was over a land issue like this. I said I really try and get my brain and heart to be kind of'in sync when I vote on something this important. And this is an important issue. I've said to more than one of the people involved here, I see this area as one of the nicest areas in the city of Chanhassen right now and I do want it done fight. But it does amaze me a little bit how cavalier people are with other people's money. You know 100 years ago, none of that stuff was there and you know when I first moved to Chanhassen 8 years ago, there were 2 homes on Carver Beach. On my road. Well that's all been developed and I was here at every dog gone meeting saying you can't build on Woodhill Road. Well, you can and they did. And not as much care was put in as what went on their's as what's going in here. Property owners do have fights in this, well they have fights anywhere and I'm almost in kind of an uncomfortable position saying that but I'm going to. It's clear to me that it will get developed. I think, I have some concerns about the grading and I would quite honestly, I don't share the feelings quite as strongly as Councilman Wing about what I want to see but I would, I'd like to know a little bit. I also have trouble seeing what's going to be graded here. In terms of the road going through, there was quite a lawsuit about Nez Perce going through and that road's going through. I think in the overall plan of the city it makes sense to have Lake Lucy Road go through. Does it make sense for the people that live fight around it? It may not. It may not. And I've said it before and I'll say it again, that there are times that people sitting up here have to weigh what they think is best for the city and you know, hopefully most of the time what's best for the city is also best for all the neighborhoods. That's not always true and that's something we all have to live with so I think going back to Planning Commission and having more members look at this. I was disappointed that night that there were only 4 members there when it was denied. I would like to see grading very seriously addressed. And I would like to see it come back here and I'm sure we'll have many of these same discussions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I think I share a lot of Michael's feelings on this. At the same time I think the road's a given. The utilities are a given and the property owners fights are also a given. I have to compliment the Ryans · because I think the Ryans and their consultant have done a real thorough and I'm going to say responsible job in terms of their plan. There's obviously, when you read through all the details, a lot of compromise has already occurred on the project. There's a great deal of it. You know I can't fault what I'm hearing but I heard quite a few people tonight get up and say that they'd really like to see this stay a natural area. And you know that's a tough one any way you look at it because it seems to me there's only two ways that happens. Either the neighborhood buys it and keeps it that way or the city buys it and keeps it that way. We know we don't have the money. Maybe the neighborhood does, I don't know. That's the only way it's going to stay that way. You know beyond that, you know I think our job is to make sure that it's responsibly developed. I heard a lot about density issues tonight. Again I'm intrigued that, I find very little fault at all with the densities I'm seeing here. In fact I'm actually even intrigued because unless my eyes have failed me on the plan there that the Mancino's brought in, ff you look at their proposed and future lots, it's the same density as the Ryan's are going to develop. Almost identically. That they're proposing on their property. And it's really consistent no matter where you look in the entire area there. So I don't see that really being a major part of the issue. Now connecting that back to the natural area argument, you know is another thing but again, any way you look at this, I think you run into dead ends because the dead ends are there no matter which way you turn. I guess I'm not sure what all we're going to find by tabling it or sending it back other than more time but I think the issues are well identified and I think the road blocks aren't going to go away. I think there's just hard decisions over those road blocks that are going to have to be made and what I'm hearing I guess is the rest of the Council would like to wait to 53 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 make them so, so be it. But at the same time I think we should get on with it and give the applicant an answer. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think that there's still enough concerns here listed and a lot of things that should be clarified and relooked at and going back to the Planning Commission would be probably one of those. More things meet the eye and I just wanted to say too that I think everybody's walked the particular site. I've also walked it. I've looked at it and know exactly what's there. In fact when A1 I think was selling that property, he was considering at one time moving my present location to looking at some of that property that's them so I know what's there. But I would like to continue on with this and move it ahead and we have a motion on the floor with a second. Send it back to Planning Commission with all the additional clarifications that have been looked at and come back to the Planning Commission with some recommendation in regard. Kate Aanenson: We can try. We looked at the timeframe. We have July 28th was...which would be the 19th, which I'm not sure you'd have the Minutes from. Mayor Chmiel: I would like to somehow see this get back at the earliest possible convenience to the Planning Commission. That would be what, prior to the 19th. Kate Aanenson: Can we get a point of order. Do we need...public hearing now? Roger Knutson: No. Kate Aanenson: Okay. We can put it on the next. Roger Knutson: You can go through the full advertisements but wouldn't be required, Councilman Wing: I think one point here Don. I think your comments about dead ends no matter where we turn and they're not going to resolve themselves, I think that's fact. I think they need to do a review. Clarify, clean up and then get it back because we're going to have to act on it as it is pretty much. With just additional comments so I think for Planning to deny it is not going to help us. I think what they need to do is review it carefully, add the recommendations they suggest and then get it up here. Denial isn't going to help us. Because the dead ends I agree aren't going to go away. Mayor Chmiel: One other clarification, just a minor one. Harrison Lake is really considered Harrison Pond because we really don't consider that as a lake. Just a point of clarification. So that too is another thing that we do have to make sure. Councilman Mason: I just want to make one more quick comment. One of the reasons I'm voting for it going back to Planning Commission is, while I don't think anyone got tricked, I think that is a legitimate concern and I do believe in the process in this city and whether you "win or lose", when you go through the processes in this city, I think they're there for a reason. And I guess if for no other reason than I can say, well you know, it did go back to the Planning Commission. I mean if they deny this plan again, so be it. I will feel comfortable in saying, this plan has gone through the process and I guess I think that's fair. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think as was just already said, Ryans have really looked at what they thought was really best and by requiring an engineer to go through this. Often times I've thought after I've left your place, whether or not there really was a developer behind you but I think you're really being that developer here, very 54 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 honest and very factual with it and ! think if we go through the process and get that done, I think we can probably get something really fled in. So with that I would call the question. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council direct staff to return the rezoning and preliminary plat for Shamrock Development to the Planning Commission for review of the plan taking into consideration the comments made by the City Council members. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Mason: When will this go to Planning Commission and when will it come back? Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to see this at their f~t meeting which is what, the 5th. Kate Aanenson: Which means we have to get a report out Thursday and I'm not sure we can get everything that you want... Mayor Chmiel: I would like to strongly recommend that it gets onto the 5th agenda. Kate Aanenson: What if they don't have all the answers? Councilman Mason: Well maybe that portion of the packet can get delivered to Planning Commission later or something. I mean that's happened to Council packet before. You know I mean I know. Mayor Chmiel: And I'm not laying to give them enough time to review this. You'll be able to make that particular meeting on the 5th? Okay, good. Sounds good. Thank you. We're going to take a 5 minute recess. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT FOR CHANHASSEN RETAIL SECOND ADDITION CREATING 20UTLOTS AND CHANHASSEN RETAIL 3RD ADDITION PLATTING OUTLOT B INTO 3 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT; SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 5,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR PERKINS RESTAURANT; A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 1,800 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR TACO BELL; LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5, POWERS BOULEVARD, AND WEST 78TH STREET, CHANHASSEN RETAIL CENTER (TARGET SITE), RYAN COMPANIES AND RLK ASSOCIATES. Bob Generous: Actually there's 3 parts in this. The City is requesting preliminary and final plat approval for Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition. To plat Outlot B of the 1st Addition into Outlots A and B of the 2nd Addition to provide the development framework for the Ryans. As part of the Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, the Ryan Companies are dedicating Outlot B of the 2nd Addition and platting them into 3 lots. The second, or first part of this hearing is to have a site plan review for a Taco Bell and Perkins. The Taco Bell is on Lot 3, Block 1 of Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. It's .84 acres and is approximately, the building...34 parking sites which is the northern lot in Outlot B, or Block 1. On the southern lot, the Perkins is a 5,000 square foot building with approximately 5,000 square feet...and 85 parking spaces. The site plan meets the code requirements as far as landscaping, parking, lot coverage. This is all being developed within a planned unit development that was approved as a part of the Target project The applicant is meeting the guidelines established as part of the PUD for this site, including setback, total lot coverage, the use of building materials, slope elements, pitched roof elements... There were just a couple changes that staff was proposing for the site plan and I talked to the applicant and they agree to make those changes. We are requesting that the applicant put in a sidewalk system which will meander along the eastern edge of the property to provide access from West 78th Street into the 55 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 development and potentially long term the city would continue that bikeway/walkway system up to the bike trail on Highway 5. Additionally they'll provide an access into the...Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary and f'mal plat for Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition and for Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition with the conditions contained in the staff report. Staff is also recommending site plan approval for the Taco Bell and Perkins site. If you have any questions... Mayor Chmiel: Were there any questions by Council? Hearing none, I'll have the applicant provide the information for the project. Tom Palmquist: ...I'm Tom Palmquist. I'm with Ryan Construction Company. We're pleased to be before you tonight seeking final approval to two subdivisions and also site plan approvals for both Perkins and Taco Bell. As many of you and staff certainly know, we have had interest in developing these parcels for some time and we're pleased to see the process nearing it's final conclusion. I guess...John Dietrich from RLK Associates and... Mayor Chmiel: Gentlemen, let me just say this. That normally we knock off at 11:00 with Council and decided we would go through the process and you could give us the information that's really pertinent, we would like to hear that right now. John Dietrich: Very fine. I'll try to make it as brief as possible. Thank you. I've got my running shoes on. As Tom had mentioned, conclusion is nearing the end here on... The intent of this process is to have subdivision approval for the Outlots B, which is really the central portion of this entire 4.6 acre lot and then the remaining area which is classified as Outlot A, would remain in city control. So essentially we're looking at 3 developable lots within Outlot B and the city maintaining control of this crescent shaped area around the 3 lots. That would allow the city to then control the green space around it and also have space for the entry monument and landscaping that this area of Powers Boulevard and Highway 5 has been identified as one of the critical intersections on the Highway 5 corridor. The intent of the development was to work with the overall utilities that are in place. We have major utilities running east and west through the site so the location of the buildings are fairly well set. It's a matter of how to place the buildings in there. The overall density, or excuse me, impervious density proposed for these 3 lots will be 68%. The PUD allows up to a 70% impervious density. If we take in Outlot A, we would have an impervious density of 22% for this entire lot. The intent is to have the 2 lots looked at for site plan approval tonight with a third lot coming before you at a future date and that would again have to run through the site plan approval process. I'd like to briefly go through the boards that we have to provide a perspective drawing that identifies the locations of the three buildings. The future one here, Taco Bell and Perkins down to the south. It's essentially drawn halfway, let's say if we were looking on Powers Boulevard about halfway between the buildings looking directly to the east. With the location of the utilities that are within this site, it identifies really where this building's going to have to be placed so there will always be a visual corridor looking between the buildings and towards the Target parcel. That would allow the entire facade of the building to be landscaped and we're also showing some proposed landscaping within the city's control of Ouflot A and that is...so we will be compatible with that landscape version. I believe we have identified some cross sections so that the rooftop equipment will be screened within parapet roofs. Each of the developments, the Taco Bell and the Perkins have about a 4 foot parapet roof so that the rooftop equipment can be screened. We've taken cross section of CC from Highway 5 to Perkins and D to DD from the high point on West 78th Street and with those cross sections we identify the rooftop equipment to be screened. We are also taking cross sections from Highway 5 directly north to identify Section B to BB with the rooftop equipment screened and then Section A, AA would also be screened directly south of the Taco Bell. In terms of the architecture, I'll play architect here. We have the Taco Bell facility and the materials of a pitched roof and a russet color 56 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 concrete shingle along the roof on all 4 sides. The soffit would be a color band running on all 4 sides of the building also. An accent banding around each of the arches, windows and arch over the door would be...on the stucco masonry of the exterior of the door. Lastly, these elevations show 4 signs. There will only be 2 signs on the exterior of the building. They will be on the east and on the northeast side. These two elevations do not have any signage on them... Lastly the Perkins building, in terms of the...architecture, will also have a pitched roof. We will have a standing seam metal roof and building... This elevation which is colored is actually the east elevation which would be looking towards the Target building itself. They're a combination of ceramic tiles, forest green in color, running on all four sides. Canopies will be on just the north and south sides of the building and a combination of stucco material in two colors, both in cream to accent the ceramic tiles and windows in a more desert brown color to be the primary color of the building itself. As Bob had mentioned, this site plan has been revised. There will be an added boardwalk to the eastern side...and access to the Taco Bell and we are excited that it has reached this conclusion of going through a number of alternatives in terms of access and compatibility with the PUD standards and feel that it is..~UD that was developed 3 years ago when Target was before you at that time. Sorry I took longer. Councilman Mason: Not bad though. Mayor Chmiel: Track shoes did well. John Dietrich: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, are there any questions of Council? Richard? Councilman Wing: Well I just wish that Jeff had been at the Planning Commission meeting. I think he would have made some of the same comments about this one as he made about Wendy's. But specifically, good project. ! don't have a lot of comments, with the exception of, I don't think we need to sell Taco Bell and to me when we get into these multi-colored bands, it just cheapens it up and then all of a sudden, well let me back up. I just came back from a week and a half out in San Francisco and in every case, without exception, every fast food blended to the existing structures and if it was Spanish, it was a Spanish McDonald's. If it was early American, it was an early American Wendy's. That's all there was to it and the signs were all restricted. All the building materials were compatible and I'd like to reach that point here except we don't have any standard to go by. I mean it's a little of this, a little of that and so this is basically, the Taco Bell I had no trouble with. The only thing I would ask is that the colored you know, first of all, here's all we've got to work on. So this is difficult. I wish we had some more detail that we could see before we get up here and know what's going on and I failed to look at this today. Were these available for us today? Yeah, I wish I had caught these. Mayor Chmiel: Do we have any pieces of?. Kate Aanenson: Can I make a clarification on that color band because that came up during the sign discussion too. It was addressed on the Highway 5 overlay standards. Talking about color bands as accents and what it does...it can't be painted. I recall specifically... They need to be some other type of material other than painted. Councilman Wing: No, I understand. That doesn't matter. If you put them in solid. Kate, I think that unlike Wendy's, we need to reduce, I realize these are going to be a Ixamanent type of material and they're going to. be a tile. But I think like Wendy's, because of this location and it's central draw, we don't have to have this, this is like lighting up the building and I think this should be reduced to a neutral earthen tone, whatever they want to do with it. 57 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Kate Aanenson: The color band? Councilman Wing: The Taco Bell and their advertising on the front door here, that can stay but the color bands, I really feel strongly should be deleted. I don't think this is approtsriate. I think it really cheapens up the building. I think it cheapens up the area. It advertises in an area, in a way that's not appropriate or necessary here. I don't think we're affecting them one bit to say let's remove those and go with neutral colors. Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask a question that Richard brought up. What was the intent of having those colors? And I guess I thought of it from the same standpoint. I thought of those as racing stripes more or less. Give me some of your input as to why. Maleah Miller: Good evening Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Maleah Miller and I work for the...and I am representing Taco Bell and I do do the site plan, got involved quite a bit with the whole Taco Bell process. I am not the architect but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can. This is a standard prototype building. This is what Taco Bell puts up. This is, it says Taco Bell and they put these up all over the nation and I have never come into a Taco Bell myself where we've taken the banding off. I don't know, personally it's, I can't imagine it without the color banding. It'd be very plain. Just would be a stucco building so I don't know. That's just my own personal opinion. It'd be pretty plain. Mayor Chmiel: Right, we're a pretty plain town. No, I guess what my position would be is that we're looking for something that's sort of a unique design that's coming into our community. Every perspective tenant coming into the community has come up with a different design of buildings from their norm. This is what we're looking for. We're unique in ourselves as a community. We have an opportunity to build this community one time. We want to see it come in right. We're looking for something a little bit different than what their run of the mill is throughout the United States. And I understand that they like to keep that and I know why, because of uniformity. Wherever you see a Taco Bell, you know a Taco Bell. Maleah Miller: Now I can't say what I can do to change it because I'm not the architect but I can bring back your comments and have the architect work with the city. City staff and maybe coming up with some sort of compromise. Maybe toning those colors down or working within, if the city has certain standards or the PUD has a certain standard that says this is what we want. What we desire. I'm sure they'd be flexible working with them. All I can say is this is what the standard is and I don't know how, what we can do to change it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and if they were to come back in with something different maybe in design, I would like to see samples of what they're talking about. I made one mistake and I don't want to make it again with the building that we have in town. We didn't ask for anything. After that we have and luckily it was probably the fin'st one that came in but much to our chagrin, we probably wish that it probably had not come in as it did. So I guess what we're really looking aX is to see what can be provided to us and being maybe a little more unique, as I had said. Maleah Miller: I don't know how you want it, you know if we can get somehow approval for tonight and then work with staff or how we're willing to work with this issue. Is that okay? ff we work with the staff as. Mayor Chmiel: Well that will depend upon the rest of the Council's positioning. Maleah Miller: Okay, and then I can have the architect then contact them and make arrangements with them. 58 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Sure. And I can understand the position you're in. Maleah Miller: I can't say what I can do because, sorry. Councilman Wing: Don, I'd just like to finish on that and we can move on. I think the standard is a poor choice of words because we have been stung repeatedly by that standard and we don't have to accept it and I don't want to accept it so the tile's got to go. The color band's got to go, otherwise I don't want to be part of it. So that's simple. I don't want to compromise. I just want it out of there. Also, no posters in the windows. I think we've talked about that before. I want to make sure that that's a condition. That there's no advertising or posters in the windows. Other than that your building's intact. And by the way, I was in one and ate in one in the Napa Valley area and it didn't look nothing. It wasn't even a remote resemblance of a standard Taco Bell as I know it. It was 100% matching the existing shopping center in every way, including the sign, which is just a remote little red thing that said Taco Bell. So you've got your standards but California's got their's and you're still putting them in so that's really, that's not to say you can't, I know you can. You don't want to but I'm asking you to. Councilman Senn: Dick, I'm curious. Was that in line or free standing? You referenced a shopping center. Councilman Wing: One of the McDonald's was flee standing. The Taco Bell was in line. Maleah Miller: That makes a difference. Councilman Wing: Yeah, I appreciate that. Councilman Senn: That makes a big difference. Maleah Miller: In certain communities which they have certain architectural standards like A, B, C, D, and E, then they have more direction about development... Councilman Wing: I agree. I agree with that. And this does not have that, I agree. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I don't think we need to eliminate the banding but I would like to see earth tones and a little more neutral tones. I must admit I haven't looked at this very deeply. I am assuming that there are no concerns around traffic circulation. Let me see if I wrote anything. Any plans for the other piece of land? Tom Palmquist: At this point, no. The person to be, as a matter of fact...we anticipate a restaurant more of an upscale sit down restaurant. We're currently in negotiations with... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Non chain. I am hoping desperately. Tom Palmquist: Non fast food. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, thanks. The color of the Perkins building is unknown as of the staff report. Do we know it now? 59 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Bob Generous: Yeah. It's tan with a beige accent. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the yellow florescent awnings. I don't suppose we can get them to be changed to like a beige awning... I hate to be so cavalier. It's an important part of our town. Councilman Mason: No, I'm sorry. It's a big deal. It is a big deal. I'm sorry. Councilwoman Dockendorf: You know, fine. Whatever. I'm done. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: I don't have quite as strong a concern but I certainly know that the original Target plan looked a whole lot different than the Target that's in town now so I do know that changes can be made and you know, I think Target's happy to be hem and I suspect that and hope that Perkins and Taco Bell will be happy to be here too. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Councilman Wing: I sure hope they can work it out. Councilman Mason: We'll all work it out, everyone will I'm sure. Councilman Senn: Please don't take this as preaching because it's not intended that way. I just find it a little funny but I think I was the only person on the Council or the HRA to even pose these uses called out in the contract on this. And you know, we put it in the contract and they have a right to put fast food down there. Come on now. We all knew we were going to get fast food down there. You know I don't know how much more you can disguise fast food. I mean I hate to say that but I mean that's a reality. You can't disguise fast food. I mean it's standard, national building operations. It's drive thru's. It's that. I mean I agree with Richard 100%, you know keep the goofy banners out of the windows. I mean we've flied that on every one. I'm not sure we've been successful on any yet but we've got it in all the conditions. But you know, I mean I hate to say it but I mean I look at the Taco Bell building and it seems kind of soothing to me compared to the fun and games I see down at the other end of town. I mean if I could even see the Goodyear-Abm buildings through all their signage, I might know what the buildings even look like. At least the signage is under control on these puppies, or at least it appears to be. And stuff, and I just don't know where you go with it. I think you know, let's just go on with it and get the fast food there. It's going to be there. We can fine tune it a little bit but I don't know what we're going to do beyond fine tuning it. I mean you're not going to, and maybe I'm just being too practical but you're not going to get national franchises to come in and change their national designs for a free standing store. Now Richard, if it's in line, I agree it's a whole different story because their rules are substantially looser but you get into free standing buildings and. Mayor Chmiel: I saw some rather unique free standing buildings and fast food in Phoenix over into a new area that they're developing towards Peoria, which are rather unique in comparison to the norm of the mill. So it can be done. Councilman Senn: I'd love to see pictures of it Don. I mean we take pictm~s of these all the time all over the country and I hate to say it, the basic elements always remain the same. 6O City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: But those things are there in some of the other kinds of stations that are just as we had Valvoline here. Some of the other companies who come into that same type of service that they're providing has even changed some of their appearances in comparison to what we have right now. But softer. But those things are being done. They're being done all over. So I guess when it comes, what I'm trying to say, I'm going to have a Taco Bell, yes. I think we can have a Taco Bell but I think we also have a chance to be selective in saying what we would really like to see. And let them come in with some other than what we're looking at. Okay. Any other discussion? And too, I was just looking at some of the specific one on Taco Bell. It makes references to some of the things on here. See Sheet A-13 which we don't have. Awning it or framed soffit details..Y, now exactly what it's going to look like. And I don't have any idea. I would like to also see, once this is going to be here, what it really looks like. Having pieces of whatever, samples to show what it is. You can visualize it, you can put it down there and yet colors don't come back in as what they normally would be. Councilman Wing: I've held off saying this and I, brick ain't the end of the world I mean but why are we bricking these up? I mean here they are right at the entry to the city, why aren't we saying, yeah. Come on in but why axe we going stucco? Why aren't we bricking these up? Why aren't we doing them classy? Why are we doing an Eden Prairie Perkins? Kate Aanenson: Well we've got pictures of that one... Councilman Wing: Okay. So brick don't have it Kate Aanenson: You can ask them to... Councilman Wing: Well unless we're going to totally redesign this, I think Mark's right Fast food's fast food. You can't cover it up. I guess what it boils down to is I give up but either earthen tones or no band, one or the other. And earthen tones is a good compromise for me. Kate Aanenson: We think it's a compromise we can work out. I mean...on all four sides. Mayor Chmiel: Bob, it looks like you wanted to say something. Bob Generous: I might have but I've forgotten. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. What's Council's. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we table this until we can get the revision back looking to what the building materials will be and some changes to the color tones for the Taco Bell. And I just want to comment that I really do appreciate those sight lines, wherever it went. That helps very much and that's what we were looking for when we, whatever thing we passed a few months ago. Councilman Wing: I second that Mayor Chmiel: Okay, it's been moved and seconded to table. Going to come back with some of those things that we're looking for. Councilman Wing: Could that include the awnings material? 61 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Tom Palmquist: improvements...by January t of '95. Mayor Chmiel: Or start construction. Tom Palmquist: No, completion of. Let me ask one other question. What's the time line on this for construction? Pursuant to the agreement with the HRA, we're to have substantial completion of certain Or start of construction? Councilman Senn: Substantial completion, that means over 80% complete. Mayor Chmiel: I-IRA can also make some changes in that as well, can they not? Todd Gerhardt: ...going to have to come back to the HRA at the next meeting and make a formal request to modify that agreement. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't see any problem as far as that being considered. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Excuse me, they have to modify the agreement because of colors? Mayor Chmiel: No. Time frame. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought, the I-IRA's got more power than we thought. Councilman Senn: Silly suggestion. If I'm hearing everybody right, the only concerns I'm really heating relate to exterior material so why don't we simply approve it contingent upon a review of the exterior materials and they can buzz back in here next meeting with the exterior materials and be off and running with everything else? Mayor Chmiel: And also maybe a little different appearance as far as structure that is concerned. Councilman Senn: Structural? Mayor Chmiel: Not structural but as such, making a design change to be a little different than the norm. Even though you said, fast foods are fast foods, I still don't agree with it. Targets are Targets but look what we got. We still got something much different than their norm. Councilman Wing: I wish I could tell you what we could have gotten. I'I1 get pictures of that one. Mayor Chrniel: Little late. Councilwoman Dockendorf: With all due respect Mr. Mayor, I'm not looking for any structural changes. Mayor Chmiel: Well I'm saying, with all due respect, that I do look to see something being just a little bit different than the norm of a Taco. Councilman Wing: Meaning a Taco Bell? 62 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Wing: I would agree. I'd like to see that one. Well it's a cookie cutter as it is. I think it could be less cookie cutter. Which would be not approving on a contingency. Mayor Chmiel: No. But anyway I guess that's at least where I'm coming from. Tom Palmquist: Point of clarification? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Tom Palmquist: There's been comment made about the color banding. Earth tones...if there's some rather limited guidelines within which...is there any additional guidance or direction to give us as we go back to Taco Bell and try to work through this issue? I mean I'm afraid right now I don't have a fh-m grip on what it is that you might be looking for as an acceptable solution to this. Councilman Wing: My preference is to delete the color band. Tom Palmquist: I'm sorry. Councilman Wing: My position is to delete' the color band. Because I find that unacceptable. Tom Palmqulst: So the preference in your mind then would be more of a separate material, perhaps... Councilman Wing: The only other suggestion would be very, very subtle earthen tones. Very subtle. Kate Aanenson: I think we need to see that. Councilman Wing: That band is, I don't know what material it is. It could be any material to match the building, match the roof. We still have a Taco Bell and if that color band is a deal breaker, there's something wrong with the system. This city's got too much to offer. I'm not afraid of that. Subtle tones, I'm real happy with. On Wendy's we went down to earthen tones, or bright colors and ~here wasn't a question and that's another franchise. They didn't even balk at that. So earthen tones Kate, if you can define that and I mean, Kate I don't know what you're thinking but when I say earthen tones I mean really subdued. They would be indian reds and really getting down to the earth colors, although they might still be the greenish-brownish, they would be very, very subdued. Very subdued. I would accept that. Mayor Chmiel: In other words you're saying not as loud. Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second to table this. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the preliminary and final plat and site plan review for Chanhassen Retail Center 3rd Addition so the applicant can bring back some additional information. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I(F). APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH T.F. JAMES COMPANY. 63 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Councilman Senn: Todd, I don't know, maybe you can answer this and maybe it makes more sense just to table it but I'd really love to see the Minutes from the HRA meeting. You know what you went into the HRA meeting with on this item is about 180 degrees different than what you are giving to the City Council in terms of an agreement and there's some, I thought some really good points that went into the HRA draft agreement that are all of a sudden lost. And I'd kind of like to understand I guess why. You know we haven't seen those Minutes or any of that stuff at this point. I guess I'd really like to understand it because I have a number of questions about some of those points. If you'd like for example in the agreement which went before the HRA it says, in item number 5 Kate where it's talking successors and interests in Lots 1 thru 4, Block 1. He's not to seek, request or apply for any financial assistance in public financial assistance in conjunction with the ownership or development of Lots I thru 4, you know and then all of a sudden when it comes to Council, that whole thing's been deleted. It's gone. And I thought this agreement going into the HRA, in the fa:st place I assumed had some basis in negotiation before it went in and it's kind of like the whole thing's been renegotiated. Now that's only one point. I could sit here and go through the other 6 or 7 with you but like I say, maybe it makes more sense to. Todd Gerhardt: We tried to separate the HRA issues from City Council issues. That's why you have two separate settlement agreements. We tried to get the City Council to deal with the ordinance issues and then the HRA would deal with the money issues. That's why you'll see a difference in settlement agreements between City Council and the HRA. Councilman Senn: Then why isn't the HRA one that was passed attached? So we know that. Todd Gerhardt: The I-IRA agreement that was passed? Councilman Senn: Well I assume that it was enacted upon by the I--IRA. It's done or at least in concept it's done pending City Council approval but that wasn't attached to oar packet. So I mean maybe that's where I'm losing it all in the translation but I don't know what the HRA passed one way or the other. Don Ashworth: So you'd like to see a copy. Councilman Senn: I'd like to see what the HRA passed and maybe the Minutes to understand some of those issues because I guess I'd like to make sure some of those issues are covered. I think they were valid issues in relationship to that negotiation. That, you know the one I mentioned as well as several others so. Don Ashworth: We can provide that I guess. In previous years deals like the Medical Arts or any of those, the HRA went in and actually acquired pamels. Put them together. When the parking lots were actually then developed, they conveyed that back to the City Council. The City Council then acted just on those items that were within the purview of the City Council. I guess we looked at this the same way in terms of the acquisition price. Any special assessment. Future special assessment write downs were all issues presented to the HRA. Issues of land use. Ownership of right-of-ways were all City Council but if you'd like to have us attach that agreement, we don't have a problem with that. It might be more confusing. Councilman Senn: Well Don you brought all those into us individually. I mean you brought us a deal that said let's swap the right-of, ways and stuff. That was a separate action several months ago and stuff and now I assume these agreements are supposed to take it and tie it all back together. I'd kind of like to see that I guess is what I'm saying in that we don't really have that mechanism to show us that it's been tied back together. I just object strongly to the language in here that infers that we're going to give some special consideration to him 64 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 for a gas station on that corner because I'll tell you, I'll fight that to my death. to the end. Mayor Chmiel: Todd Gerhardt: Mayor Chmiel: I'm just going to oppose it right We have new language for that in there. Roger...said that this language was in no way intended for... That was sort of a weasel way of getting out from what it read previously. Councilman Senn: Okay, well the language in the HRA one was very different than this. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. That was requested that that be changed to read the same way that it was and the City Council. Councilman Senn: Okay, well and that again, if I can get that stuff, I think I could understand a lot of that. Roger Knutson: Let me just follow up on that a bit...now the city makes no representations and no assurance to approve any future request. Councilman Senn: No, I understand that Roger and I like what's in the City agreement here but that wasn't in the I-IRA agreement. Okay, see what I'm saying. At least the one that we saw. Todd Gerhardt: The HRA went back and deleted that section out of their... Councilman Senn: Well again, I don't want to keep everybody here all night going through these 12 points or whatever. I guess I'd like to have the information and then it's easy enough to ask the questions or whatever. Don Ashworth: I'll get it on the next agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any time problems as far as that's concerned? Don Ashworth: Well not really. The Taco Bell thing, if that would have been approved tonight, you might have more of a problem. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Then let's do it. ls that a motion? Councilman Senn: To table. So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the Settlement Agreement with the T.F. James Company until the next meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: BOLEY ANNEXATION, MAYOR CHMIEL. Don Ashworth: Mayor Chmiel and I met with Miriam, the Administrator of Victoria as well as the Mayor over there and we looked at some other alternatives as far as...I'd just as soon not get into too much detail tonight 65 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 because the developer himself, Lundgren Bros has not really seen that so we don't know what their reaction is so we would hope to have another update on the next agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Amen. Okay, item number 11. Councilman Senn: Say Don. So this is the clean-up to that old Lnndgren Bros deal where the little section of back yards was being lost over to Victoria and they were fighting over it? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Senn: Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CODE OF ETHICS, CITY ATTORNEY. Roger Knutson: Mayor, would you like my full hour and a half presentation. Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Mason: Please do Roger. Roger Knutson: What I've done at your request is put together a draft attempting an ordinance. There are lots of room for change and there are lots of different ideas. I just put together kind of a bare bones policy for you to begin your deliberation on this subject. If you want me to share with you, I can share with you all sorts of ordinances from all over the country. Councilman Wing: Do you have any from Georgia? Roger Knutson: Not that I recall. But I will continue to...I think it's something you have to be comfortable with and maybe you want to pursue it in a work session or something like that, might be a good way. Mayor Chmiel: Good suggestion. Councilman Mason: I think this is a really good start. I like what I saw so far. I think it's a step in the fight direction for sure. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Wing: Does it require a work session or is it more cut and dry than that? Mayor Chmiel: I think it's something that's discussionary. Councilman Senn: Would you just as soon have us send you some written comments on it? Roger Knulson: Sure. Like one of the things, and it might be hard for yo.u to see it...what's not here. Councilman Senn: That's kind of where some of mine were, yeah. I had about 6 points that I wondered why they weren't there. 66 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994 Roger Knutson: Mayor Chmiel: Don Ashworth: There's a lot of stuff that isn't here. You're right Okay, so with that we will table this to a work session for item number 11. I'll put that on your next agenda to set a work session date for that. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 67