Loading...
CC Minutes 1994 03 28CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 1994 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Dockendorf STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the agenda with an addition by Councilman Senn under Council Presentations, talking about the Hanus building memo in the Administrative Packet. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 28-APRIL 1 AS TOBACCO FREE YOUTH DAY. Mayor Chmiel: This is declaring a proclamation for March 27th thru April 2nd as Tobacco Free Youth Week. And it reads, Whereas more than 400,000 premature deaths occur each year in the United States from tobacco related causes, This epidemic is totally preventable and key opportunities for prevention are during childhood and adolescence; and Whereas, at least 3.1 million adolescents are current smokers and smoking is most common among 17 and 18 year olds, with about 25% of these young people smoking; and Whereas, nicotine is often the first drug used by young people who use alcohol, marijuana and harder drugs, and Whereas, cigarette advertising appears to increase young people's risk of smoking by conveying that smoking has social benefits and that it is more common than it really is, and Whereas, in Minnesota teenagers were illegally sold over 4 1/2 million packs of cigarettes in 1991, and Whereas, the most effective preventive programs are community wide ones that combine education and public policy approaches. Now therefore, I, Donald $. Chmiel, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen, do hereby proclaim March 27th thru April 2nd, I994 as Tobacco Free Youth Week and urge citizens to take part in this important week. Can I have a motion? Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilman Wing: Second. Resolution g94-36: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the proclamation declaring the Week of March 27th thru April 2nd, 1994 as Tobacco Free Youth Week. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: This evening, I wanted to let you know, for those of you who are on here for some of the items that may be the later part of our agenda. The Council, the City Council will terminate our Council meeting at 11:00. That is within our By-laws. We normally meet sometimes beyond that but we have been evoking this because of the fact that we have had many work sessions and eliminating some of the given problems that we've hacL But for those of you who may have things on the agenda that are later on and may take a little longer for each of the respective items that we have for discussion this evening, I'd suggest that you watch the agenda and if you feel that it's not going to be there, or be able to be on the agenda, you'll be able to tell by the lime on the clock. So with that I just would like you to be well aware of that fact. City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor? I wonder if at some point in the evening, perhaps 9:00.9:30 we'd be able to give some indication of where we see things are going also. If that might help. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Church Road 2nd Addition, 6301 Church Road, Greg Reed: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approve Development Contract and Plans and Specifications c. Approve of 1994/95 Liquor License Renewals. e. Approval of Bills f. City Council Minutes dated March 14, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated March 2, 1994 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 22, 1994 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated March 10, 1994 g. Resolution g94-37: Resolution Modifying Previous Annexation, 6200 Cardinal Lane, Gerald and Lynn Cox All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. D, APPROVE REVISED DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FORM. Mayor Chmiel: Mark, is it going to be a long discussion on this? Councilman Senn: No. In fact I talked to Charles and Dave today. We're going to basically just utble this. There were a number of issues that them and I were starting to discuss but need to finish discussing and there wasn't any reason or urgency for this to be passed tonight so that's kind of the way. We'd just like to move to table this. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there a second? Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the revised Development Contract form. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATION: Mayor Chmiel: We do have the Youth Commission. Is Natalie here this evening? I don't see her. Is there anyone else wishing to make a presentation? Someone came up to me just prior to the CouneiI meeting and indicated they'd like to discuss something. Resident: I would. May I approach? 2 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Mayor Chmieh Yes. Resident: Mayor, I represent largely the 2nd Addition in Chanhassen Estates. Mayor Chmieh Could I just sort of, that's on the agenda. Resident: Yeah, I was told that during the Visitor Presentation I should come up and state my case. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, if it's not on the agenda but it is on the agenda so that will be discussed and you'll have your opportunity at that time. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none we'll move right along. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING CHANGING THE HOURS SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING CAN BE COLLECTED. Don Ashworth: City Council asked that the hours of collection be modified from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. The City Attorney has drafted that change. Staff made the assumption that you wanted that to apply to residential properties only and for second and final reading we will have that modification in front of you. Approval of fkst reading is recommended with the condition that staff modify that to show residential only. Mayor Chmieh Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue at this time? If seeing none, can I have a motion to close public hearing? Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion on this item? Councilman Senn: I move approval. Councilman Mason: Second, Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of the City Code amendment regarding changing the hours that solid waste/recycling can be collected. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: AUTHORIZE FILING OF RATE REGULATION, TRIAX CABLEVISION. Mayor Chmieh Once again I'd like to open this. This is a public hearing. Don, would you like to address this? Don Ashworth: FCC rules require that a city provide the cable operator with notification of your intent to carry out rate regulation. The earliest that we would see the filing of that would be mid-May. However to start the process you need to formally pass a resolution at this point in time. The Council has a copy of the resolution. It's in the separate packet that was distributed this afternoon and it's labeled ~, Approval of that resolution is recommended. Mayor Chmiel: And I think that the memo does clarify the fact that if determination is, that you're actually going to file that resolution, we need to pass this now so in the event we do go with that, we can take hold and 3 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 move ahead. Or ff we still might feel comfortable enough in tying in with the Lake Minnetonka District on cable television as well. Of the other 12 cities. Is there any discussion? Councilman Senn: Don, if we file this initial one, now this eats up what? The $2,500.00? Mayor Chmiel: $2,500.00. Councilman Senn: The initial application? Don Ashworth: Well I think for this initial filing we can do that relatively cheaply. When right after our meeting the other day with Brian I conf'm-ned, we're looking at potentially $100.00 or $200.00 to carry out the filing. And again, I will keep the City Council posted as to what we do during our meeting in April and May. And you again may decide to say, to me, don't f'fle that. But at least this gives the operator the notice that we're planning on doing it. Councilman Senn: And you have to just_.at this point? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Mayor Chmiel: And I might s~ongly suggest that we go this route because I know with discussions that we've had with the cable company and some of the concerns that we've had and some of the questions we've asked, the things that we've wanted, we've not gotten so this would put a little more bite into us, back into them. Is there a motion? Councilman Senn: I would move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Resolution g94-38: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize the City to file for rate regulation with the FCC. All voted in favor and the motion earried unanimously. AWARD OF BIDS: NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE GRADING. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Council. Included in your packet are the award of bids for the mass grading for the new Chanhassen Elementary School site. Bids ranged from $694,000.00 on the low end up to $1,021,600.00 on the high end. The engineer's estimate on this project was $810,000.00. Staff has done a review of the low bidder, J & K Grading and Trucking out of Shakopee and has found them to be a reliable company. It's staff's recommendation that you go with J & K Grading for the bid mount of $694,000.00. And to update you, the School Board has not accepted bids as of yet. We are still working our a purchase agreement and development contract with them. They did not want to award bid on that until we had all the documents sent. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Our recommendation is approval conditioned upon the School District similarly making that award so. 4 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Good. One other thing I'd just like to interject in this as well. I would like to make sure that somehow there is a substantial amount of money left in escrow upon completion of this project be finally paid at the end of that project. And I want a good amount of dollars left in there. I'm not familiar with the contractor. I'm sure he's a reliable contractor but I know we have had other contractors come in and have not performed fully and so consequently I'd like to see us do that. Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: I have a question. Todd, what's the, it says here as far as the grading costs. That part will be assessed against the school district. How much? What percentage? Don Ashworth: 50%. Councilman Senn: 50%? And that won't change? Don Ashworth: That will not change. The only part of it that may change is, this is an award for the construction and typically you have fees associated with preparation of plans and specs and those kinds of things. Potentially 6% added to that and then 50% of that then higher number. So let's see. Councilman Senn: That's all within the same split. Don Ashworth: Right. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If not, I'll call a question. Councilman Mason: Did we get a motion on that? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, let's get a motion. I'm moving a little quick. Councilman Mason: You are in a hurry tonight. Mayor Chmiel: I am. I want to get to some of the mai meat here. Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of accepting J & K Grading and Trucking for the mass grading of the new Chanhassen Elementary School and Recreation Facility site. Councilman Senn: Conditioned on. Councilman Mason: Conditioned on School Boa_rd... Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Councilman Wing: I was working on, did anybody ask about the discrepancy in the bids? Councilman Senn: In terms of dollar amounts? 5 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: $694,000.00, $730,000.00, a million, $850,000.00. Every time we take the low bid, we regret it. Mayor Chmiel: That's why I was asking. Councilman Wing: I know. I apologize. What's the difference between the million dollars and the $600,000.00 and the $850,000.00? Councilman Mason: Oh about $400,000,00. Mayor Chmiel: It depends on how busy the con.actors are. If they're hungry, they bid Iow. ff they've got things where they can work it out and they aren't really rushing it. Todd Gerhardt: J & K is a smaller company that is a subsidiary of a larger company and if they run short of trucks or anything, they work together on a project. And they're hungry. And there's not a lot of big projects going on and this is a very big project~ Councilman Wing: You said those exact same words that were said for Minnewashta Parkway. They're hungry and da, da, da. 1 guess I'm a little dissatisfied, I always, and there's nothing we can do about it anyway, right? You're satisfied with... Councilman Mason: Not much you can do. Mayor Chmiel: No. No. Councilman Senn: Other than Don's suggestion which is hold them for escrow. Mayor Chmiel: We just hold more in escrow and that's one of my concerns. That's why I wanted to hit it Okay, all those in favor. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? Charles wanted to. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Charles. Charles Folch: It is hard to know what effects, exactly what effects certain conmact bids but I know one thing that certainly does is uncertainty with what's involved in the project~ I know the larger company Ihat is involved in this company has performed a lot of work around the area. In fact they have the recent mass grading contract down on the Chanhassen Business Center, just south of this project area so they're familiar with the Chart soil conditions and what needs to be dealt with in doing this type of work in this area so that may have also had an effect in their feeling comfortable to provide the cost effective bid for the project. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Resolution g94.39: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to award the bid for mass grading of the Chanhassen Elementary School/Recreation facilities to J & K Grading and Trucking in the amount of $694,000.00 with the condition that the District #112 School Board also approve the bid and that an adequate amount be held in escrow to insure the completion of the project. All voted in favor and 6 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 the motion carded unanimously. REQUEST FOR AN OFF-SALE INTOXICATING LIOUOR LICENSE, 800 WEST 78TH STREET, BYERLY'S~ AND OPTIONS FOR REZONING. Don Ashworth: The City Council acted to table the request for Byerly's off-sale liquor license at our last City Council meeting. The concern was the interpretation by the City Attorney's office that the phrase retail, specialty retail did include off-sale liquor and the concern was, with that interpretation potentially we would be opening up a number of other areas to potential applications for off-sale liquor licenses. The City Council did have a work session to talk about this issue. One of the, there were two suggested modifications. One would be to establish a distance between off-sale stores and the number that we looked at was 500 feet. If you did that, you virtually could not have an additional off-sale store at least in the BO zone, which is what the Council had showed concern for. The second option would be to actually limit the total number of licenses. So you currently have, 3 licenses and so if you limit it to 4 or 5. If you limit it to 5 and approve Byerly's, then there'd be one more out. If you limit it to 4 and approve Byerly's, then that would be it. And at least myself, I continue to believe that that's probably a better option than the 500 foot option because even though there would be no additional sites within the BG zone, there are other zones out there such as central business district, which means that you could, even with the 500 foot requirement, you potentially could get an application from the Kenny's site. The current vacant lot adjacent to the medical center. The site adjacent to Abra. A rezoning of what I refer to as the office complex that would be on the north side of Highway 5. So I mean I think there's a number of other areas that by limiting the number of stores to 4, you would not have that concern. But staff has drafted it in both fashions. Did I have you draft the other one or not? Roger Knutson: I just drafted the one Don. Don Ashworth: Okay. Well, this is very simi~r to the last action so it's an ordinance. It requires two readings. If you placed either of those two on f~t reading or you put it in on first reading and with the condition that it be modified to have no more than 4 stores, that would be a legal action you could take. Or you could approve the draft as presented by the City Attorney. Staff believes that either really accomplished what you were looking at and I should conclude by saying, staff continues to recommend approval of the Byerly's off-sale request. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here this evening wishes to address this? If not, we'll bring it back to Council. Richard. Councilman Wing: I think the work session...I was happy with the 500 feet. I guess my question then and now would be, why don't we do both. I don't care what the numbers necessarily. Whether it's 4 or 5, 6, 7 or 8 but I'd like to go with the 500 feet. Not to exceed 6 licenses. Councilman Mason: I think 6 is a little high. I'm just throwing that out. I mean how many. Councilman Wing: I'll amend my motion. Councilman Mason: Well no, sure. I mean how many do we have. We have 3 now right? Councilman Senn: And Byerly's would be 4 if that goes ahead. So if yOU have 5, that would leave room for one more. Or 4 would limit it to what we've got. 7 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Mason: I guess I'm happy with 4 or 5 personally. Councilman Wing: But this city wide, right? Councilman Mason: Yes. If we say 4 or 5, we're saying the whole city. Mayor Chmiel: Well you know as we continually grow and as this need, ff there is a need for additional, this can also be changed by Council as well at that particular time. So I think we would be in proper direction to probably go to a 5. Councilman Wing: I agree with Mike. Whatever number he's happy with. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I can live with 5. And would that then include the 500 feet? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Mason: Okay, so the 500 feet and/or. Councilman Senn: Yeah, so the 500 is...to the BG. Yeah, that's kind of the way it's come back to because the way Don is talking about 4, he's talking in the BG zone. And what I'm hearing you say I think is 500 feet anywhere. Councilman Wing: City wide with a limit of 5. Councilman Senn: Right, I agree. Councilman Mason: I don't have any trouble with that. Mayor Chmiel: We have a discussion going between our City Attorney and our Manager. Don Ashworth: Again I just wanted to make sure the City Council is aware that you have allowed an off sale store in a BN designation, which means that if you would receive an application. If you leave with one additional and you would receive an application for an off sale store adjacent to Q, off of Lake Drive. Across the street from the church. You would fred it very difficult to be able to deny that license request. If they made an application over by Abra, you would have a difficult time denying that request. I would go with the Mayor in terms of saying, if somebody came in and ff it really was a use on a particular site that you felt comfortable with, then at that time modify it to go from 4 to 5. But right now you have too many zones that I do not believe the Council would want to see an off sale store anywhere in that BH zone. Anywhere in that BN zone. Councilman Senn: I think you missed Don when we were talking and that was, rather than 500 feet, specifically referencing the BG zone. Make it 500 feet period. More or less any zone. More or less can_nm be within 500 feet of each other. On that basis, would you not then eliminate most of those? Don Ashworth: No. Let's say across from the church on Lake Drive. That would be more than 500 feet from Cheers. Abra would be more than 500 feet. Kenny's would be more than 500 feet. Councilman Mason: So let's just limit it to 4 then. 8 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Don Ashworth: Now you could go 1,000 feet or 2,000 then that would take care of it but I mean. Councilman Mason: Well that ends up being a little frivolous then doesn't it Roger? I mean if somebody wants to challenge that. Roger Knutson: You'd have, see how those numbers work and you want to take a map and sit down and work with the ordinance...a particular number but I'd say, some communities, for example Burnsville have a mile spacing. But then Bumsville is laid out completely different than the city of Chanhassen. Councilman Mason: Well we can solve the whole issue by just limiting it to 4, right? I mean that takes cate of it. Roger Knutson: Then you're done. Councilman Senn: So you need kind of a double, ff I'm understanding it, you need a double motion basically. One motion being that we amend, make the amendments under first reading to come back with second reading which would limit licenses to 4. And secondly, that we approve the Byerly's one going forward as the fourth. Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Wing: But the 500 stays in? Councilman Mason: The 500's immaterial. Or should we still have that in there? Roger Knutson: I would leave the 500 in. It gives someone double pause. Councilman Senn: Okay, and leave the 500 in. So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Both motions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of an ordinance amendment limiting the number of off. sale liquor licenses to four (4) and approving the application for an off-sale liquor license from Byerly Beverages, Inc. conditioned upon the following: 1. Submittal of a $3,000.00 surety bond which will expire on April 30, 1995. 2. Submittal of liquor liability insurance meeting minimum state xequirements which will expire on April 30, 1995. 3. Submittal of the $280.00 liquor license fee. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE TO CITY CODE REGARDING SIGN REOUIREMENTS FOR WEST VILLAGE HEIGHT CENTER, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS SECOND ADDITION, CHARLIE JAMES. 9 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Bob Generous: Mr. Mayor, Council members. The applicant is requesting a variance fi.om the city code which permits only an 80 square foot sign per business wall with street frontage and for signage on the non street frontage which would be the west elevation of the Byerly's building and the retail center. Staff, in reviewing this application, believes that there is...granting relief from our restriction. We've compared this signage with the larger users in the immediate area immediately across the street and also with the Chan Bowl, which is in the BG district. Because the two projects immediately across the street were PUD's, we tried to discount them but ff we looked at it compared to the BG district, the amount of signage that they would have would be much greater than what is being requested. So we took an average of all the signage and when we applied that average to their building, their request seemed reasonable. Therefore staff is recommending approval of their variance request except for the western elevation of the Byerly's building itself. We just would like to note under condition 9 that the Planning Commission added this. It is in fact adding another variance to the sign variances because we only permit two separate signs, the monument or the pylon signs on the site and this would in fact create a third one. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone from Charlie James, is he here this evening? Todd Gerhardt: He's out in the hall. Mayor Chmiel: Is Mr. Charles James, he's standing walking around out there. Councilman Mason: He can't believe he's on already. Mayor Chmiel: It's showtime. You're on. Councilman Mason: We're moving along tonight Charlie. Mayor Chmiel: We're talking about the variance to the city code regarding the signage. Charlie James: I'm sorry. I saw that you had two public hearings. Mayor Chmiel: We did. But we've gone through them. Charlie James: Okay. Well then I will try to be. Mayor Chmiel: Much to our surprise as well. Charlie James: I'll try to be uncharacteristically brief. I guess basically I'd like to begin by explaining briefly how we got to where we're at. This first is a photocopy from your existing zoning ordinance that pertains to signs and you see the arrow at the heading. This is in the highway and general business district and specifically in the area that pertains to wall business signs. I guess the first thing I wanted to point out is that the code is unclear and somewhat ambiguous. There's a mixture here of the singular and the plural. They talk about wall business signs. Then they talk about the total of alt wall mounted signs display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building walt upon which the signs, plural, are mountecL Then they go on to say that no individual sign could exceed 80 square feet. Well we had a lot of difficulty with the interpretation of this and we thought that you were allowed 15% as long as no individual sign was greater than 15, or 80 square feet. I'm sorry. And then this is a copy that son of further buttresses that interpretation. This is some notes that were prepared by the city here as a part of the Target project. You'll notice at the bottom here, it says wall signs are 10 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 permitted on no more than two sueet frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which"the signs", plural, are mounted. So really what the issue then is we can meet the ordinance of this project in terms of the percentage of wall area covered but where we have difficulty is in the 80 square foot maximum and here's a further illusmation. I think this might be the smoking gun here of the problem with the code. This is a quote at the top here from the code. 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs, plural, are mounted. Then it goes on to say, no individual sign shall exceed 80 square feet in sign display areas. So if you take the 80 square feet that's provided for in your code and you divide that by 15%, you'd see that what the code contemplated was a building who's wall area would not exceed 533 square feet. And this would be the equivalent of a 16 foot tall building that's 32 feet wide. So I would...that your code was perhaps drawn up more in mind with small shops downtown on main slxeet~ close to the curb and really didn't anticipate big box users and buildings that would tend to be set back further from the sidewalk and from the street. What we're seeking then is we have submitted to stuff a pylon sign. The code allows one pylon sign, one monument sign. We submitted drawings for those that as submitted, meet exactly the terms and conditions of the code,' And we feel that the rest of the retail center can live within this 80 square foot maximum area. Where we have problems is on the Byerly's alone. The Byerly's will constitute 65% of this total project and that's the area where, if we were to give to them the signage that's appropriate for a building of that scale, that's where we run afoul of this 80 square foot issue. I point out that if this variance is granted, what the variance in effect would do would place us in conformity with our neighbors. Target doesn't meet this 80 square foot thing. Market Square does not meet it and furthermore, I believe that the numbers that were provided to you in your staff report about the square footage of Target, it mlk~ about I believe 206 or 207 square feet as being the total on their building. That is the Target and the insignia only and the word Pharmacy is not included in that total. And similarly I was going to ask Bob whether the Open 24 Hours, there are signs on 3 sides of Festival and I didn't know whether the Open 24 Hours was included in those totals. Bob Generous: Just the Festival. Charlie James: Okay, just the Festival. So if you add those additional signs in, you could see that that would affect the variances on the spread sheet that staff prepared and would further suggest that we are, what we're asking is in cordormity with our neighbors and with the district that we're in. We went to the Planning Commission. I had to kind of do this spread sheet here because at the end of the evening everything had to get squeezed down sort of to a funnel of consensus but I wanted to show you here that even amongst the members of the Planning Commission there was a great deal of diversity of opinion as to what was acceptable and what was not acceptable on what we had proposed. I hope I have the, I took notes and I hope I have the right names here. Mayor Chmiel: If you don't, we do because we have.all the Minutes of that particular meeting. Charlie James: Okay. Well I'll just touch on this briefly. With regard to the sign in the northwest comer that says Byerly's, we had a no, no, an overall the thing was okay, most of it's nice. In tiffs instance this was, if there was no specie comment about that particular side of the building. This was sort of an opening remark and there was no comments here. On the south elevation of the main Byerly's logo above the door that's proposed, there was a remark to reduce it by 75%. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. That it was fine the way it was. And then we really get into some interesting things here. With Wine and Spirits we have yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. The feeling there was that was a business within a business. AM then within Fine Foods, that question of is that referring to the restaurant or is that referring to the groceries and is that a business within a business raised some questions here. But we had a no, a yes, a yes, a yes, a yes. And then when we got down to 24 Hours we had a 11 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 no, a yes, a yes, a no, a yes, a no and then when we go to the east side of the building, we didn't seem to have some, a little bit of variance there, We had some remarks that it should be smaller and that was subsequently modified. That comment to go along with some other people that suggested substituting the wall signage for a monument. And we also had a yes and a yes saying it was okay the way it was. And then as far as the Fine Foods and 24 Hours on that elevation we had quite a variance there, Yes and yes and yes and no. And then the pylon, almost across the board we had lower, lower, lower, lower but try to save the design. There was some concern that it was very attractive and scaled properly the way it was submitted and that might be affected if it was dropped lower. And a comment that they weren't sure. The height could be an issue but they weren't sure. The reason that, and so the reason I'm showing you this is to say that then at the end of the day there was a lot of horse trading that went on to try to pull this together and the amendments here or this, I don't know what to call that. The recommendations of the Planning Commission. And from our position we have an issue when all these things sort of got blended together and the vote was 4 to 2 and Mr. Conrad said quote that they, he wasn't comfortable with the gerry rigging of the signage or tinkering with design. And Rod said not comfortable with picking everything apart. In looking at this list here, we tried to find those elements that were clearly consistent all the way across and what that came to was the signage on this side of the building here, which tonight we would agree to remove. That'd be the signage on the west elevation of Byefly's, And the other thing was to lower the monument. I'm sorry, lower the pylon, Here's the monument that we proposed. This would be built out of the same brick as the rest of the center. These would be non-illuminated solid brass cut out letters. And then these would be tenant identification and it also would have some back illumination. And that's all drawn to the code. This was the pylon as we originally presented it and drew it. It's drawn to the code. As it's shown here we have 64 square foot of signage area, including the brick behind the Byerly's. It's in essence the 64 square feet is measured in this area here, although the Byerly's letters are no more than 5'4" tall. And a substantial amount of the volume of the sign or the height of the sign is air. So it's not like it's this solid thing and I guess where we run into a problem with starting to lower this, and I have a drawing tonight where .we have made an effort to lower that but I want to show you the problems if we start to do that. You start to all of a sudden to lose the proportion and the scale of this arch in relationship to some of the design elements of the building and at some point this arch kind of becomes so close to the ground that it really loses it's appeal as a design feature. There's something about the legginess or height of this arch I think that would be lost if we started doing this. By contrast, this is what's over at Target. I couldn't tell whether this was, this is shown at 34 but in the narrative to their project it's said to be 36 feet high but in any event, 14 to 16 feet taller than what we're proposing. The sign area up here is 144 square feet. Or approximately 80 square feet or more than twice what we're proposing here. It's 144 square feet and 34 feet as opposed to 64 square feet and what we're going to show you here now is a new drawing for that, Okay, what we've drawn here is essentially the monument and you can see we've tried to show the brass letters in here and that didn't seem to be an issue at the Planning Commission. Here's the pylon design and we've cut 2 feet off that. Took a course of brick off the top of the corbeling area here and cut 2 foot off of the overall height of that. So I guess what we're proposing tonight is that we'd be willing to, number one. Remove the sign. Okay. John Meyers: To put things in perspective, This is 18 feet. The Target sign's 34. This is essentially .half in height~ Councilman Wing: It's half of what? John Meyers: The Target sign across the street is 34 feet. It might be 36. We note the one plan says 34. This is 18. That site is 36. Just for a perspective. Charlie James: And their sign is solid and this is an...or air that you see through so. About half our sign is air 12 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 and so am I, I guess. If I hadn't have said it, you would have. John Meyers: One of the comments from the Planning Commission. There was a Byerly's sign that would have faced west over the top of the other shops. One of the comments was, they didn't think the visibility would be good from Powers Boulevard. We've taken that one out. The side, part of the building remains the same as we presented to the Planning Commission and the east side of the building remains the same. To put things in a little better perspective, this is an artist rendering of the store. Of this design. Humbly in my opinion, I don't think anything here is out of proportion in any way. It's obviously not over signed. The signs that we've got on there basically describe who we are a little bit to the extent we feel it's necessary for the marketplace. The Open 24 Hours we feel is important. I know quite a few people already have commented they didn't know we were open 24 hours. The restaurant, that's important to us. But I don't think anything on here is out of proportion. So we tried to come back from the Planning Commission...some of the points that they had and tried to fred a middle ground. Charlie James: So in summary I guess we feel that the sign ordinance as it pertains to big box users needs some tweaking or adjustment. And second of all, we've tried to take those, some of those items that seem to be the most, have the most uniform comments at the Planning Commission, realizing that there was a great diversity in opinion there as to what should go on and what should come off. But in those areas in which there was uniformity, we tried to speak and address to those issues and hence we have removed the sign here and attempted to our pylon signs... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions? Richard. Councilman Wing: Well on the, I guess when this comes to us, a picture is worth a thousand words and I'd like to see a picture of Byerly's with our ordinance and a picture of Byerly's with what they're asking. I sat through the Planning Commission and I listened to that debate for how long? Every lime I woke up they're slill talking about these same numbers. If we take 837 square feet and divide it by .15 which comes up with fids and this. I didn't know what they were talking about then and I don't know what you're talking about now. I just want to see, here's our ordinance and the sign would be this big and here's what we're proposing the variance and here's what it's going to look like. So to repeat myself, a picture's worth a thousand words or in this ease, ten or twenty thousand words between the Planning Commission and Charlie and then it's done. Charlie James: This is a quarter inch. I'm sorry, 1/'8 inch scale. So 8 feet by 10 foot would probably be. Councilman Senn: We just don't have anything that shOWs us what the code allows. Councilman Wing: We don't have a picture of the code and we've got a picture of what the variance is going to be so I can't compare it. Also the pylon sign compared to the elevations at Target and there's a vast difference here and they were designed for different reasons. If we lowered Target, they disappeared altogether and went below the road. In this case we've got an enormous monument right on an open road with a lot of vis~ility to the store so I have no Irouble with Charlie's request. I don't have any Irouble with the signs on the north side. I mean a blue Byerly's has never been offensive to me. We've golten into so much debate on this, it's frusuating but I don't have the pictures to show me what the difference is and I think should have provided a picture of both or should have asked you to provide the difference. A picture of what you're required lo do and what you're requesting to do. Because it means nothing. As far as these pylons go, we have no elevations. No pictures of how they fit into the road. Where they sit on there. There's a picture of a parking lot. A circle with an arrow pointing to the pylon sign. Where it's going to be. $o to make a decision based on what we've got is 13 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 really pretty weak. Other than I guess, the one thing I did get out of the Planning Commission was the issue of the height and the massiveness of the monument sign. So I guess I personally favored, here we go against the commission. I personally favored a sign on the east side versus that monument they wanted. I thought that looked better and subtle. So here we go. They put all the time and effort in and then I sort of say, well what's the difference. I would go along with all the recommendations. I guess I would be pleased to accept this as it is and I would leave the monument at the 10 foot level. I don't think West 78th Street needs those enormous monument signs. I think that would be a mistake to even start that. With all due respect to Target and I hope with forthcoming stores, we do the same thing. Retain the size and limit the monument signs going up. They're not going to be hurting for advertising and visibility here in any manner so I don't think we'll impact them. These other issues, I think their variance request is neasonable and I don't have any comments. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: Where are you with the height of the pylon sign? Councilman Wing: The Planning Commission recommendation. Councilman Mason: The 10 feet? Councilman Wing: Because they really tried to look at that and after listening to Jeff and that group that are really the artists, I kind of had to agree with them. His concern about the visibility of this little blue sign east and west didn't impact me at all and I'd rather have those signs than the monument signs. Councilman Mason: What, Kate or Bob, what's the height of the monument at Market Square? Bob Generous: 12 feet. Councilman Mason: And we're saying, okay. So this gives them a 12 foot high monument then. Mayor Chmiel: This is 10. The recommendation by Planning Commission. Councilman Mason: Well, but that isn't what's on. Councilman Senn: It's says here on 7 of the Planning Commission's recommendation to limit it to 10. Councilman Mason: Yeah but that's for the pylon. How about the monument? Bob Generous: No, the monument would be 8 foot. Councilman Wing: TMt's the middle one with the gold leuem. Councilman Mason: Okay. Councilman Wing: This is the one on West 78th Street at the main entrance. The pylon sign. Councilman Mason: Okay but the wording in this says, the monument height shall be the same as the Target and Market Square monuments....Well but that doesn't jive then. 14 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Kate Aanenson: Which is 8? Councilman Mason: Well you just told me the Market Square one was. Bob Generous: They were talking about the monument on Kerber. That they're proposing changing the wall sign to a monument sign and they said that one should be the same height as the one that's for Target. Councilman Wing: That's the monument sign on the east side. I'm talking about the pylon sign. Councilman Mason: Right. Right, I understand that. Councilman Senn: So you're talking about 2 monuments. Councilman Mason: Byerly's is talking about 2 monuments. John Meyers: There is no monument on the east side. Councilman Mason: You're talking about one monument right? And one pylon. John Meyers: Well there's one monument for the center... Councilman Mason: Right. John Meyers: The Planning Commission suggested. Councilman Wing: Where are we Charlie? Charlie James: Okay, I'm sorry. Councilman Mason: I'm confused then. Charlie James: Let's see if I can help you here. Right here, that little line there. That is where the monument would go and that's right across, that's at the stop light now and it sort of identifies for people that are stopped there, who's up there. Councilman Mason: Sure. Sure. Charlie James: Because we're going to be about 10 or 20 feet above the level of this intersection here. We're at 982 and this is 954. And then we were going to put the pylon sign right up here. That's what was met with some shrubs at the base of it. And that was the other reason to have it up on legs is that we have a big planting bed underneath it and we wanted some design reference to these large colonnades and arches that we have up here. And what we found was, when we started cutting the legs off of that monument combined with thc shrubs and the trees underneath it. John Meyers: The pylon. Charlie James: I'm sorry. Of the pylon. That this started to look like this little kind of meek arch over thc 15 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 ground and so that's why when we looked at it and looked al trying to cut it down, the architect looked at trying to cut it down to 12 feet. Or 14 feet and if that was the case, we need to be back in here with a different design because the arch just looks, there isn't enough spring to the arch. John Meyers: The 20 feet was the code for the pylon, Charlie James: So we're actually. John Meyers: So we're going below what the code is for that monument. Councilman Mason: And you're asking for 12 feet On that right? Charlie James: No, 18. Councilman Mason: 18, okay. I'm getting it straight, John Meyers: It's allowed to be 20 and they said could you make it smaller, Chaxlie James: The pylon and the monument which are drawn in your packets tonight are drawn according to the code, That's what we had given the Planning Commission. And they wanted to see the pylon lowered. So we studied that and looked at it and decided that if it gets much lower, there's no point in having it up on legs. It becomes a solid plank, more like Target's got. Councilman Wing: Kate, why did they want it lowered? Or Bob. I mean that was a big issue that night. Kate Aanenson: I think part of it was the visibility of the Byerly's. You could already see it from TH 5 and the pylon sign k/nd of... Councilman Wing: There was no need for that mass there? Bob Generous: That was their feeling, yes. They were looking at the streetscape when you're looking down West 78th, Councilman Wing: And again we have nothing to look at to show us what this would took like. How it would impact that area. So if we go small, we know we're not hurting anything. If we go large, we have no picture to compare it to, No elevations. No sight lines. I've got, oh excuse me, Councilman Mason: No, that's okay. Okay, and I now have the pylon thing straight in my mind. I'm still confused about if you folks are saying an 8 foot monument right? 8 foot tall? But yet..xight, Charlie, is that right with the monument? 8 foot? Charlie James: That's what the code is, No higher than 8 feet for a monument. Councilman Mason: But this, in our report on page 8, staff recommendation says, monument height shall be the same as Target and Market Square monuments... Bob Generous: That's what the Planning Commission said. 16 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Mason: Well we've got, okay. This is what, okay. We need to clear this up then. Kate Aanenson: Just put 8 fool Charlie James: This is the monument drawn to 8 feet high. Councilman Mason: And you're talking about 8 feet and that's what you want that to be? Alright. Charlie James: Now here's the pylon which we've redrawn at 18 and my comment was, but that's what these black lines are here. But my comment was that if you start to, this is a design fixing and I had the feeling at the Planning Commission that someone made the comment, I think to a design change and what we were trying to do is have a, but as you start bringing it, keep in mind now there's a planting bed underneath fids and this arch is about 8 feet high..so by the time you add shrubs and things, at some point the thing loses it's proportions and so if we came down from the top, that'd be 8 foot. Here would be about 10 foot. You see what I mean? Here is where about 10 feet would be from the top down. The point there was, that there was a planting bed at the base of that, you might as well not have the arch at all. You're not going to see it. It disappears with the design reference to the building so the idea was to get the arch up to set the tone and then we've got the same corbeling here that appears all along the roofline of the building and the same thing here. The same brick and that was the reason for that. And so we tried to lower this down without unduly affecting the proportions and keeping in mind that there'd be some 2 to 3 foot high shrubs underneath this thing. John Meyers: ...what the code allows for the district for a pylon, correct? Charlie James: Correct Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Well I kind of feel like we're caught between a rock and a hard spot on the pylon. So I guess I'm done for now but I'm going to want to. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: If it's just questions, I don't have any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any concerns over the size of the pylon? Councilman Senn: I don't know, with the design I really don't mind the pylon as long as it's within the ordinance requirements. I don't like the monument, whether it is {x isn't in the ordinance tuquirements. As far as the overall signage, I've been relatively critical of some of it downtown and...I really think we should hold fids signage to the ordinance. This isn't a PUD. We wanted a PUD. They didn't want a PUD. Now they want the benefits of a PUD and I don't really see that. The other places in the PUD where we exceeded the ordinance, not by *bis much but lesser amounts, were part of a PUD and a negotiation process that involved a whole bunch of things. We don't have that negotiation process here and I think basically the cudinance limitation should be adhered to. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 17 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Mason: Can I? Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. Councilman Ma.son: Mark, just for clarification. Would you state again why you think the ordinance should be adhered to? Councilman Senn: The ordinance as far as it exists right now has been pretty much kept in place other than for PUD's. Okay. PUD's have a very definite reason to them. They bring both parties to the table to resolve a whole bunch of things. Okay. In that process if we give up a little bit on signage or something that's pan of a negotiation process but also the city is able to get certain things through the PUD process that they can't get through normal ordinances, okay. To me either opt for it or you don't opt for it and you don't opt out of it and then come back later and say, but we want these elements of it. Because these are the ones that benefit us. I just, I think looking at the overall amount of square footage being requested or suggested, I think it's excessive and I think that can be clearly seen just looking at the percentages there that the staff came up with and I'm not going to use Chan Bowl as any kind of a comparison because that was done ions ago before any of this was in place. And I think we've all commented on that and would like to see a change and it probably will be someday but looking at the other ones, I mean the...talking a lot lower percentages than 6.6 and 5,7 and combined, I'd hate to see what that is. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Bob, a question. What is the elevation of 78th Street as opposed to the location of this particular pylon.'? Two different elevations. Bob Generous: You mean the contour? I looked at it from Kerber and there's a 7 foot difference but I didn't look at it from the road over. From the base and where the, the base of this and where the intersection of Kerber and West 78th, there's a 7 foot elevation change down. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Don Ashworth: Charlie could probably respond to that. Mayor Chmiel: Charlie. Charlie James: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to address, if I may Councilman Senn's remarks about us wanting to have the best of both worlds and not coming in as a PUD but wanting the benefits of the PUD. I guess I maybe need to remind the Council here that we came in and our intent was to meet the ordinance and at the time that we came in, we even came in with a landscape plan at that point that exceeded what was cm'rently on your books but was a standard that was done by Target. Subsequently we went even higher than that. Voluntarily I met with people from Hoisington. I've met with your tree committee. I've had the Planning Commission input on this. Our landscaping on this far and above exceeds anything that would be required under your existing ordinance. We meet or exceed all of the things that were discussed at the Vision 2000 meeting and the Highway corridor thing. We voluntarily incorporated those things into this project even though they're not written into the code or the law yet. The quality of the finishes on this project far and above exceed anything in my opinion that has been done in Chanhassen I mean but it is consistent with the City Hall and the bank and some of the other buildings on this side of the street. And not just the overall site landscaping but the landscaping along the parking lot voluntarily, not by code but by our cooperation with the city, far and above exceeds anything that this city's ever done in the past. You've never had a developer that's agreed to landscape 18 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 as much of the interior of the parking lot as I have, and there's been no gun at my head here. There's been a sincere wish to work with the city on this so I guess I would submit that the city has got a very well conceived and well designed project that far and above exceeds any of the codes or anything thai are currently on the book. And we did that without a PUD. We did that because we wanted a nice project and so I think you got that without having to extort us or whatever through a PUD process and so this sign thing unfortunately came up as part of an honest, just misinterpretation of the code. We looked around us and saw what was happening with Target and with Market Square and all we're asking is that we would be consistent with them. And also I would point out that there were references just made to the percentages that are in the staff report. I would call your attention once more to the fact that Bob has confirmed what I had suspected. That those percentages do not include the sign that says Pharmacy on Target and they do not include the Open 24 Hours sign that's on Festival. So ff you add those square footages in the disparity there would narrow and you can see that we're quite consistent with our neighbors. Councilman Mason: John, could you take that blueprint off there please? I mean take the whole thing off so I can see the picture. John Meyers: You want the rendering? Councilman Mason: Yeah. Are you, how important is that picture to you? I mean can you trace over about what the Byerly's would look like with it smaller? Do you mind on that or don't you want to do that on that? Charlie James: I did that on this one. Councilman Mason: Well I know but. Charlie James: This is one where if you get those 80 square feet it would be basically on this scale it'd be an inch by an inch and a quarter. Yes. If it was an 80 square foot sign on this size drawing it would be an inch by an inch and a quarter would be 80 square feet. John Meyers: Basically this B, basically this B is close to 80 square feet. One of the arguments, unfortunately one of the things we need to do and we tried to be up front about this. We could build 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 signs. One sign says B. One sign ways Y. One sign says E. I mean that's where we're going. It just. Councilman Mason: Yeah, that's, I. Charlie James: That's what I'm trying to say. We've got a problem with the code and we wanted you to kind of look at the gestalt of the whole thing here and not be pressured to write a whole code around us and then we submitted this and then we tried to be responsive to those things again, even though the things that they've asked us to respond to are things that are allowed under the code. They haven't asked us to respond to the variance part of the thing. They've asked us to respond to those things that are clearly permitted under the code and we've tried to address that. John Meyers: This is about 18 x 6. Bob Generous: Mike, if you look at the Open, the Fine Foods, the sign on the west side. That's about 72 square feet. No, the two of them together. 19 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Mason: Yeah I. Councilman Wing: Why don't I throw something out here. Councilman Mason: Oh please do. Councilman Wing: If there's a problem with our ordinance, I think we should look at it. StafFs on record numerous times stating that it does not fit nor is it appropriate for the larger buildings. I'll take your word for it. Planning Commission acknowledged that. Charlie claims that's the case. I don't care about his claims for Target. That's irrelevant...however, I will move approval of this. What am I approving? Mayor Chmieh Page 7. Councilman Wing: I'd make a motion to approve this sign variance with all 1 1 items with one exception. That number 7 will be changed to a pylon sign shall be limited to a height of not to exceed 12 feet, just as a compromise. I have no, nothing to base that on. We have no pictures. We have no knowledge whatsoever of that sign and to approve a sign without even a picture of it with no idea what it looks like or how it fits on that comer. Even to go to 12 feet I think is excessive so my motion would be 1 thru 11, with the exception of number 7 which would be a monument not to exceed, a pylon. A pylon not to exceed 12 feet. Councilman Mason: Does that then include that number 9 should state the monument height shall be 8 feet and we would strike the, shall be the same as Target and Market Square monuments? Councilman Wing: Yes. I would accept that as a friendly amendment. Councilman Mason: I'm okay with that. Yeah, I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: I just, quick comment. I understand where I think that Mr. James feels he's kind of caught, and I can also see aesthetically where ff that Byerly's sign was that much smaller than it's rendered there, it wouldn't look as good as it does right now. And I can accept that. I take a little hombrage with some of the comments about the direction we're headed here but I guess that's water over the dam. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not. John Meyers: Can I ask? You took out 24 Hours? Open 24 Hours. Councilman Wing: Yes. That's what you heard at the Planning Commission and I'm going to go along with that recommendation. John Meyers: What we're asking for is the 24 Hours, the Fine Foods on that wall. Festival Foods across the street has iL Councilman Wing: That's great. I know. At Planning Commission I heard that discussion go at length and they didn't like the sound or they felt it was irrelevant for that store. 20 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 John Meyers: It may be irrelevant to the Planning Commission but we've got $6 to $10 million in a building. I'd like people to know we're open 24 hours. Your city manager for one, I'll use him as an example, said I didn't know you were open 24 hours. For us that's an issue. I mean unfortunately it's a big issue for us. Mayor Chmiel: I can understand some of the concerns that you have. But by word of mouth probably spreads as much as anything else as well. And that Open 24 Hours is on thc Fcstival building which is on the east side of that building and I guess I don't, and the only mason I noticed that is after I read this and I was looking at their's. I did notice that 24 Hours. But prior to that I really didn't, it didn't ring my bell let's say. Charlie James: The Planning Commission on that, on the 24 Hours was evenly divided. Nancy was no. Jeff was yes. Mau was yes. Ladd was no. Rod was yes and Joe was no on the 24 hour sign. I mean they went through all these. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could just raise a question. Is the concern about the amount of signage? I think that's what you should, what I would recommend that you concern yourself with. Not the content of what the sign says so much as how much it is. Councilman Senn: Well except when you get into the request, you start exceeding the requirement, you have to ask what it's going to be. Roger Knutson: The concern is how much signage do they have. Just for example, ff they wanted to eliminate, they don't but eliminate Byerly's and put Open 24 Hours in it's place. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I've said I think there's too much signage. Elimi~_ating the 24 Hours helps. I don't have a problem with the big Byerly's. I don't have a problem with Fine Foods. I don't have a problem with the pylon. I don't have a problem with the pylon being a little larger but there's no way you're going to get me to support the monument down on the comer. Councilman Wing: What if we add the 24 Hours and what do you want done with the monument? Councihnan Senn: I feel these monuments simply is advertising down by the corner. John Meyers: The small monument? Charlie James: There's no Byerly's identification on it. That's simply the mall tenants. There's no Byefly's... Roger Knutson: What I was suggesting, for example, and I don't know that they want to do this but if they wanted to remove the Wine and Spirits... John Meyers: Say that again? Roger Knutson: Did it say Wine and Spirits? I can't read it. John Meyers: See, they're not big signs...When the Planning Commission came back and said here's the things that we found obnoxious, and we tried to scale them back and one group wanted, and they want us to jump on 21 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 an example. One group wanted a monument sign, They wanted us to take down the wall sign on this side and put up a 10 foot monument on this side, I mean I think practically speaking, we don't want to block the visibility for cars coming in and out of this back entrance and trucks and so forth. It just didn't seem to make a lot of sense. We can work with you on the pylon down here. Charlie was, 20 feet which is what the code says. They said make it a little smaller, We went to 18. Design wise it might work at 16. I've got to be honest with you, at 12 feet, ff I'm 7 feet above up here, and it's only a I0 foot sign down here...to 12, I don't know how much you're going to see it. Councilman Wing: Mark, the 24 Hours, the signs, the blue signs. If the monument is what's holding this up, decide what you want to do and make that amendment to the motion and I'm happy that this whole thing.., Councilman Senn: What do we have on Festival? Bob Generous: 12 foot monument, Councilman Mason: And there's another monument coming because of the PUD. There's going to be two monuments at Festival. At Market Square. Councilman Wing: Our only choice is to ask for renderings. Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion would be to table this and bring back some renderings so we can see exactly what you're talking, John Meyers: Can we do that on just the pylon? And approve the building. Charlie James: Renderings of, tell us what you want. I mean we've drawn it at 20 foot, We've drawn it at 18. We've drawn, Mayor Chmiel: Give us a choice between something and something rather than something and nothing. To where we're at at 10 foot. John Meyers: What about 15 feet? It doesn't make any sense. It will look out of proportion, Sitting all by itself. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. And I would like to request that the motion be reviewed right now and stricken and go back to getting renderings and tabling this at this time and moving from there, Councilman Wing: Okay, I'll withdraw the motion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Second? Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'll withdraw the second, Councilman Wing: And I would be willing to move on the building as requested. Councilman Mason: By? 22 City Council Meeting. March 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: Councilman Senn: Councilman Wing: The applicant. And that we'll leave the decision. The building being exactly what's shown fight there? The only issue is 24 Hours. Councilman Mason: So okay. Quick review here. So we're saying we're going to wait on the monument and the pylon but we'll approve, there's a move afoot fight now to approve what's on the building. Councilman Wing: Number 7, number 9 would be... Councilman Mason: How about number 87 You're saying you want to delete number 8 then too? See I don't care about 24 Hours one way or the other. Councilman Wing: The building I would approve as... Councilman Mason: I guess I have a little trouble. If Festival didn't have 24 Hours on it, I would not approve 24 Hours here. I have a little trouble saying Festival can have 24 Hours and Byerly's can't. I mean that. Well, there are two aren't there? Aren't there two 24 Hours? Does anybody know? John Meyers: I tell you what. I'll take one of the Open 24 Hours signs off. I've got two on the building. I'll give you one back. Just give me one. But let's work on the pylon and go 15 feet on the pylon and we're all out of here. Councilman Mason: Well I can't believe that we need to make a decision on the pylon tonight. The point we're making is, I don't know what 12 feet's going to look like. I don't know what 15 feet is going to look like. I mean quite honestly I can live with 18 but there's some people here that can't and you're asking us to approve something we can't see. Charlie James: That's where I'm having trouble Mike because we drew it ac. cording to code and submitted it as part of your packet, both of them. Then we came in and redrew it at 18 and. Councilman Wing: There isn't a single picture anywhere of what that looks like on West 78th Street. I mean I've got a picture of this pylon but so what? Here's the monument. Councilman Mason: But you know Charlie, I think the issue fight now is, what is it going to look like in relationship to everything else out there. You know can we have a picture of that 18 foot pylon? That real nice picture you were just passing out here. Yeah, Where is the 18 foot pylon going to fit in in all of that? John Meyers: From that perspective you wouldn't see it. Councilman Mason: So give me a picture where I will see it, is what we're ~qkirlg for. Mayor Chmiel: Show the site plan that you had previously. Councilman Mason: It sounds to me like we're saying, everything is in place here fight now except we've still got some questions about the monument and the pylon. 23 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 CounciLman Wing: Can I move 1 thru I 1 and delete number 7 and 9 and number 8 would be one 24 hour sign? Mayor Chmiel: Repeat your motion. Motion would be to pass the staff, Planning Commission recommendations 1 thru 11 deleting number 7, number 9 and number 8 being changed to one 24 hour sign. CounciLman Senn: I'll second that. CounciLman Mason: With the proviso that, I mean obviously this will come back for discussion as to the size of the pylon and the monument. Mayor Chmiel: Roger. John Meyers: Do you want the monument back? Mayor Chmiel: Before I move any further I've got an opinion I'd like to get. Roger. Roger Knutson: Just to keep in perspective what's going to I believe is happening. They're in for a variance because of the wall signage and one of the conditions that the Planning Commission's attached to getting that variance, to get more signage and otherwise...is that they keep the pylon shorter than what they would otherwise be entitled to. Councilman Senn: Again they're entitled to the monument sign too? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Roger Knutson: Yes. CounciLman Senn: Okay. I withdraw my second. Roger Knutson: Therefore, you know you can pass it as two chapters if you will but you should be clear that if they proceed to build that, the condition of granting this variance will be to build the pylon and the monument consistent with how you're going to decide it in 2 weeks. They are fled together. CounciLman Senn: Well but what you're saying is neither one of the future considerations is a variance. Roger Knutson: No. The ones in the future are not. The one today is, on the wall. CounciLman Senn: Yeah but I wanted to see the whole package together. Roger Knutson: What I'm suggesting, that's fine too. CounciLman Senn: ...variances tonight you lose all negotiating... Roger Knutson: What you're saying is, ff you accept the variance, you accept a condition which you're going to impose in 2 weeks. CounciLman Senn: Yeah but the condition's a hollow condition. 24 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: No. Roger Knutson: You haven't established it. If they accept the variance, then they have to accept the condition. They won't know what the condition is until, for 2 weeks. Or whenever you decide. Councilman Senn: Why not just do the whole package in 2 weeks? What difference does it make? Mayor Chmiel: We can do it either way. Richard, you made a motion. Our second was withdrawn. Councilman Wing: There is no second to it. I don't think we can hold these people up. The rest of the audience hostage on this sign issue. Accordingly I think we need renderings. I don't think we have adequate pictures to make a decision. I think we should see a before and after. I think we ought to see what the monument looks like on a rendering, east/west on West 78th Street. I'll move tabling until such time. John Meyers: Can I make a suggestion for you? Why don't you approve it with the 12 foot pylon and that takes care of Councilman Senn's problem. Councilman Wing: Because he won't pass it with the monument. The monument is alright though. That 8 foot monument is automatic by ordinance, is that right Mayor Chmiel: Bob? Bob Generous: It's permiued under code. Councilman Senn: Not when it's in a variance package though... Councilman Wing: But not as part of the variance package. Councilman Mason: Well but if it's part of code. I mean, no. John Meyers: I just suggest if you want to put a 12 foot pylon in and then we approve the building, we can come in in the next couple weeks with a rendering and ask you to raise the 12 foot pylon if you like what you see. If you don't like what you see. Councilman Senn: Mayor, you and I already have said we don't care if it's 18 feet. I mean that's not where my problem is. Charlie James: This was the problem I was having at the Planning Commission because some people were saying Wine's okay and some people were saying Open 24 Hours is okay. Mayor Chmiel: See if you had different shops with smaller square foot area, you'd have signs all over that whole building too so that's...other than the fact of the three sides that they're proposing to have on that structure from one end to the other. Councilman Wing: Roger, do we need a 4/5 of this being a variance.* Roger Knutson: No. 25 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: Then I'm going to go with the original motion that you seconded. being 10 feet maximum and number 8 being one 24 hour. I believe for a sign variance it does take a full 4/5 of the full Council. Then I will stand corrected. Bob Generous: Roger Knutson: Mayor Chmiel: Kate Aanenson: 1 thru 11 with number 7 Check that for clarification, I think it's, that's right too. It's 4/5. At least 4/5, correct, Councilman Wing: The only contact that the rest of the stores are going to have is in that monument sign. Councilman Senn: But I want to correct something you said. Each one of those small tenants comes in anti requests their own signage, It has nothing to do with what we're considering tonight So ff you're under the impression that this building's going to be blank, that's not reality. Councilman Wing: That's what I'm assuming,., Bob Generous: This building will. Councilman Mason: That part of the building will. Mayor Chmiel: This building won't change, That's going to be just as is. But if you have tenants on the other segment of this building, yes, You're right in what you're saying. Charlie Jarnes: The signs on the other, the other retail tenants will not exceecl 80 feet. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and that will be on the pylon itself.. Or on the monument. Is that correct? Councilman Senn: No, he's asking for the signage on the monument and on the building. Mayor Chmiel: You've got too many signs. Charlie/lames: Let me just try to. Councilman Mason: (30 for it. Go for it. Charlie James: Alright. The area that we need the variance in pertains only to the Byerly's. It pertains to the size of the sign on the Byerly's. We were trying to illustrate that we think that there's some work that needs to be done in your code. We're saying we don't want to be held hostage to that. We wanted you to look at kind of the gestalt of this. Say it is consistent with what's in the neighborhood. And then as part of that sign package we drew the monument exactly to code and we drew the pylon exactly to code. Okay. And the rest of the building, the rest of the shopping center, all the signs, none of them will be bigger than 80 square feet. Okay so, we're not asking for any variances. $o what I guess, for the sake of all of us getting on with our lives, I guess what I'd like to suggest and now I understand what Roger is saying is that, it's apparently legitimate for 26 , City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 a Planning Commission or a City Council, when they're entertaining a variance to, even though the pylon and the monument are permitted by code, to say that tho~e should be down sized in order to allow the increase size on the building. Is that a correct statement? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Charlie James: Okay. So what I would suggest here, let's try one more nm with this. We'll draw up a 12 foot pylon. What's probably going to have to happen is we're going to keep the whole scale of the thing will probably have to come down because I don't know. We'll draw up a 12 foot pylon. The monument we'll leave the way it is. We're asking for approval of what you see here and we'll take the 24 hours off this side of the building. One 24 hour off the east side of the building. John Meyers: Or somewhere... Charlie James: We will take the sign off of the northwest corner of the building and we would ask that You move on the balance. Councilman Wing: I don't want to get beat up here so I'm happy with what's going on here. Basically I'm happy with 1 thru 11 with these exceptions, and I offer these as a motion. Number 7 will be a pylon sign limited to 12 feet. One 24 hour will be allowed. The number 9 will simply state 8 foot monument and the rest of them are intact and then I'm getting out of this. Councilman Mason: You're making a motion on that? John Meyers: You want to change 8 to make it only one, don't you? Councilman Mason: That's what he said. John Meyers: Oh I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. Mayor Chmiel: He said one. Councilman Wing: 8 foot monument on number 9 rather than the same as Target. And the pylon not to exceed 12. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: I don't think anybody needs to be held hostage over a monument sign or a 4 or 5 foot pylon. I've stated my feelings about that before. I think, you know. What happens here, and I understand some of the consternation of the audience but I also know that their turn is going to be coming up shortly and I also know that if somebody doesn't like the signs, we're going to be the people that take the tack for it so we've got to get this right in our minds so government does in fact work slowly folks. You seconded it. I'm okay with what's there. A monument. Market Square's going to have another one. I guess I think people have a certain amount of legitimacy to do some advertising on monuments like that so I'm fine with this. Councilman Wing: And Mark, I don't see this monument coming in as anything but fa'st class. Now there's other areas that I question how they operate and what they do but not here and I think that Charlie and Byerly's 27 Cit~ Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 are going to put in an atlxactive sign that's going to be reasonable and good quality. John Meyers: It's all brick, just so you know. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motions on the floor with a second. I'll call the question. Councilman Wing moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the variance to the sign ordinance for the West Village Center to permit a maximum of 431 square feet of sign area on the south elevation of Byerly's (a variance of 351 square feet), and a maximum of 376 square feet of sign:age on the east elevation of Byerly's, (a variance of 296 square fee0, approval of the signage on the west elevation of the retail center and denial of variances to permit signage on the west elevation of Byerly's This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Signage shall be individual block letters. No pan or panel signs shall be permitted. 2. All signs require a separate permit. 3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development~ Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 4. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. 5. Individual letters may not exceed four (4) feet in height exclusive of the Byerly's sign. 6. The signage for the remainder of the development shall comply with city code. 7. A pylon sign shall be limited to a height of not to exceed 12 feel 8. The words "Open 24 Hours" will be permitted on one side of the building, 9. Replace the east elevation wall sign with a monument sign containing Byerly's, 10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall account for the removal of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text. 11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion fails with a vote of 3 to 1. (It needs a 4/5 majority vote to pass.) Mayor Chmiel: Which means that she fails and it's dead. Maybe what we can do is to do this. Yes, we've got one more Council member who is I think having her baby hopefully right now. And probably table this. Bring back some of those things that we talked before and we'll move on it at that particular time. And I'd like to see this put back on Council agenda within 2 weeks. Is there a second? Councilman Wing: Second, 28 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the variance request to the code regarding sign requirements for West Village Heights Center, Lot 4, Block 1, West Village Heights Second Addition until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: We'll see you in 2 weeks. Thank you. Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. That would assume that Colleen would be back available in 2 weeks? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Mason: Well. Mayor Chmiel: Well we may even see something back here that may appease Mark with his position. PUBLIC NOTICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING COMMENTS ON THE HIGHWAY $ CORRIDOR STUDY AND THE EAW FOR THE NORTH ACCESS BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS. THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT TH GOALS OF THE PLAN. Public Present: Name Addre~ Brad Johnson Vemelle Clayton Larry VanDeVeire Harold Skjelbostad Lisa Notermann Paul Paulson Mike Gorra Peter Olin Steve Schwanke Brace Buxton Thomas Green Peter Beck John Hennessy Jay Dolejsi Deb Porter James Unmh 7425 Frontier 422 Santa Fe Circle 4980 Co. Rd. 10E, Chaska LSA Design 1450 Arboretum 3160 West 82nd S~'eet, 1680 Arboretum Minnesota Landscape Arboretum RLK Associates WSN-MilI~ Properties Inc. Mills Properties Inc. 7900 Xerxes Avenue So. 7305 Galpin 6961 Chaparral Lane. Barton-Aschman Barton-Aschman Kate Aanenson: The purpose of this hearing tonight is three fold. What we'd really like to do is reference, to get a selection for the preferred alternative for the Highway 5. Mayor Chmiel: Could we have it quiet please? Thank you. Kate Aanenson: In your work session on February 7th we walked through the documents that are involved in 29 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 the Highway 5 study. As I mentioned it's a three fold process to this. One is the EA document. That's...to be the location of the frontage road between Powers Boulevard and Highway 41. The second component is the land use recommendations for the corridor study. And the third component is the overlay for the corridor study itself. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the study, the land use recommendations modifications and the frontage road alignment, which is the most northerly frontage road alignment. What we are a.~king you tonight to do is to obviously consider all. We're available to answer questions on all three issues but most preferably we would like a recommendation from you on the location of the frontage roM. The reason this being as we need to get this into the next arena which is the publication in the EQB, the Environmental Quality Board and take up the 30 day comment period where you hold a public heating after that. As I put in the packet here, there's a letter from MnDot and that looks like there's a possibility that we could get funding for a segment. Break out a segment of this and possibly do a '95 project and that would be the segment where we have a lot of problems getting into Lake Ann, which is going to be between Powers and the Lake Ann and possibly even picking up a larger segment. Obviously we'd like to see it go all the way to Oaipin but in the short run, at least getting that segment approved. In order to do that we have to have the EA document in place. We do have here tonight Deb Porter from Barton-Aschman and James Unruh who worked on the design of the two different alternatives themselves. So I think a lot of the discussion tonight is going to focus on the alternatives of the two different alignments of the road and what do they cost and the pros and cons. If you go back to our discussion at the work session back in February, I think a lot of concern the Planning Commission had, I mean excuse me, the Council had was the cost differential between the two alternatives. I did include in your packet a summary chart of two different alternatives and Deb can explain that in more detail if you have a question on that but it's pretty much a wash as far as costs. There's environmental impacts...but I think probably the overall cost, if you look at the estimated cost, they're pretty close. The task force did recommend a crossover and that seems to be where a lot of the concern is and that's when you cross at Oalpin. Does it cross the creek or does it stay to the north? ...into the Hennessy property. So again what we're looking at is for you to get some input from respective properties along this frontage. We did notify everybody along the whole corridor to give them an opportunity to speak to you and we're hoping to get tonight from the Council is a preferred alignment so we can process this and get it to you. I did put in here the requirements to get this process and get it onto the Federal Highway Administration so if you have questions on this, Deb Porter and James Unruh are both here. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Are there any questions in regards to this? As Kate indicated, we have to make a recommendation of the preferred alignment for the frontage road and approve the EA document as well as to modify or adopt the Highway 5 corridor overlay zone and also approve the Highway 5 corridor study with the land use recommendations that has been proposed. I would like to see us address presently, at this time, just the service road from County Road 17 extending west to Lake Ann Park. I think that's a very critical part of this proposal at this time because of the accessibility in and out of that park and I think that with people wanting to get to and from, it would be a much safer portion going off Powers Boulevard, County Road 17 and making that access through that service road. Taking it off of Highway 5 completely. But maybe ff you could address that part of it. Kate Aanenson: I think I'll let James Um'uh talk about where we are. We talked about this as fax as when this is special funding... Councilman Senn: Yeah Don, I didn't have a question before but now I do because, maybe I'm not following but I thought you were asking that we approve the alignment all the way. 30 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Kate Aanenson: Well as part of the EA document we need the preferred alternative, the whole segment. Councilman Senn: And that's what under the time crunch that we have to act on? Kate Aanenson: Right. Because we need to get the whole document approved. We're hoping, as James is going to ~ about, that MnDot, it looks like they may break a portion of this out and fund it as a '95 project instead of waiting until the 1998-99 year. But we need to have an EA document in place. And what we talked about before, if we have the whole document in place and money loosens up, there's a possibility of getting the whole project going. And...Conway's property is ready to go and get that property maybe fled to this whole project so we would like to see the preferred alignment for the whole segment, if you're ready to do that. And maybe it takes one more meeting after this to come to some conclusions but. Councilman Senn: What is just the alignment from Powers to the park...at this point? Kate Aanenson: Well that's an easement we have through Eckankar. That's pretty much. Mayor Chmiel: That's all in place. Deb Porter. Why don't I point out the limits of the project that we're ~alking about right now. Powers Boulevard or County Road, or to South 17 is this intersection right here and what we are looking at as far as the STP funds, it's called Service Transportation Program. That's part of the federal funding package. Is looking at possibly applying for funds to build at least a portion of Arboretum Boulevard either to Lake Ann Park entrance or preferably to Audubon Road intersection. That's where we really see a lot of impact happening in the next couple years with development south of TH 5. So that portion of it is one application but James can explain in more detail. There are actually two applications being sent forward at the same time through MnDot. One includes the portion of Powers to Audubon. The other is from Powers to TH 41. The entire segment and there's no disadvantage in applying for both of these. It's kind of a, you know throw it into a big pool. You - know make your grant application and there's a chance that either will be funded. Councilman Senn: But from a timing standpoint, what you need is the alignment? The overlay and the design, I mean those, if I'm reading the staff report, those would be nice but I mean they're not critical at this point. What you're really after is a decision on the preferred alternative. Deb Porter. Right. MnDot is at the point now with their engineering design. If they're ready to move ahead on Highway 5. If order to do that they need to know where are all the access points. What are your major intersections going to look like along TH 5? And that's determined by Arbore~ Boulevard so that's their incentive and that's what their letter about was to urge lhe city to come to some resolution on the preferred alternative...lames, is there any details you want to mention about the funding or the deadlines that go with that? James Unruh: No. The only thing is, the City of Chanhassen is applying for funding from, as Deb said, County Road 17 to Audubon Road. Now that's for upgrading Highway $ to four lanes and for constructing a frontage road. So there's two parts to that. That's due April 1st. This Friday so we're actually working on that. MnDot is applying for federal funds to construction Highway 5 to four lanes and Arboretum Boulevard all the way from County Road 17 to TH 41 and that also has to be done this, by this Friday. We'll find out about 0hat at the end of June and that would cover 80% of the cost for Highway 5 and Arboretum Boulevard. The other 20% would be a mixture of city funds and state funds. $o we'll apply and hopefully get the funding for it. That would push, if the entire project would go, get funded, I believe...to 1997. 1997, 1998. But that's basically where 31 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 we're at It's a real fight time frame to get the application for the funding and we don't necessarily need a decision for this application on Friday but to keep the EA moving for the overall process, we... Deb Porter:. I think also another thing that may need to be menl/oned is that these applications are one of just hundreds that are being submitted and I think MnDot has tried to let us know in a subtle way and maybe also in their last letter that you received from them, is that there are many projects competing for limited funds and those that seem to have their planning in place. They have their environmental review documents approved and there's consensus among the community as to what to build, those will have the least hassle. The least headache in trying to get funding approved, ff they see something that looks like it's...with a lot of disagreements and delays and so on, other projects may look better in comparison so I think that's been our concern in trying to move the environmental document ahead. It's not necessarily to just push a decision sooner than it needs to be rome but now we're looking at critical funding deadlines and to present the project in the best possible light you need to have it look as though we're fairly sure as to which way to go. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Kate. Kate Aanenson: Again I just wanted to, what we did then was by notifying people, just to give them an opportunity to speak to the concerns that they would have with the two different alternatives and let that help you make some recommendations. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay we'll open it up at this time and if we could limit this to probably about a 3 minute time frame per each person getting up because we do have some additional business to conduct yet this evening. So ff there's anyone wishing to address this issue at this time, please come forward and indicate those concerns. Maybe we could just lower that. Is there anyone wishing to say something in regard to this? It's your opportunity to give some additional input into this. I know we've had a lot of work done on this. A lot of open meetings and this has been going on for almost a year and a half, two years. Jay Dolejsi: Is this on the entire corridor? Mayor Chmiel: This is on the entire corridor that we're looking at, correct. Just please state your name and your address. Jay Dolejsi: My name is Jay Dolejsi, 6961 Chaparral Lane. I own property between the Mills Fleet Farm site and the Swings golf course. One of my concerns is if this federal funding does not come through, who's going to be paying for this road? And aim on my particular piece of property, I would like to see that roM, the northern alignment swung a little farther south to preserve the large stand of oaks that is currently running through. That's about it~ Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? Tom Green: My name is Tom Green. I'm Vice President of Mills Fleet Farm. We've been following these meetings for several years as you all probably know. We own the property at Highway 5 and 41, the northeast quadrant. Our detailed response to this is in a letter which I'll hand out to everyone but in summary we di~vree with the present road alignment through our property. It is, as it's shown, the north alignment makes our property unusable for the purpose that we're intending to develop it. We can't build a store there... While I'm here I'm going to comment on the land use that deal with the land use study. It's not reasonable for our 32 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 property, which is located on the intersection of two State Highways. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Mike Gorra' My name is Mike Gorra. I live at 1680 Arboretum. I own approximately 150 acres on the southwest side of Lake Ann and your northerly road alignment's going to be running right through the center of my property. I'd like to make a few comments. I attended most of the task force, Highway 5 Ta.~k Force meetings and Planning Commission meetings and I still don't understand why the city decides that Chanhassen needs a 6 lane highway running into a business district that's only a couple block square. I don't think that business district is going to get much bigger unless they start tearing down houses and schools and existing buildings. Minneapolis has a 6 lane highway, that's Highway 35W but Minneapolis is just a little bit bigger than Chanhassen. It's probably got about the same number of stop lights but it is a little bit bigger. Minneapolis, I don't think the people that live in Minneapolis paid for that 35W either. I think the State of Minnesota paid for that. And I too am also worried about who's going to get the bill for this road in case MnDot pulls out...we talked about. What I've got here, I've owned this property most of this property for exactly 20 years and I've lived on it for 17 and I'm a developer and I have had plans for this property and you're looking at one of the plans that I've been considering for approximately 3 years now. Before I even heard that there was a road running through the property. You can see that what that road would do to a golf course. It'd make it impossible to build. Another thing that I would, another project that I would contemplate putting on this project, in case the golf course wouldn't wok for some reason, even though a golf course is my fkst choice, would be a high end real estate development and the road would not do that any good either. You couldn't tie it togelher. You couldn't put a lake access for all the development. It just wouldn't work. Which isn't hard to understand because...is divided in half. Looking at the whole west end of the city there, you've got the school that you're developing. You've got your baseball diamonds. You've got the park...if I did I~ve a chance to build a golf course, it would fit right in with everything. In fact even if the rest of the city got messed up, the west end of town would probably carry it. Now I'm not here trying to talk you out of that road so I can make more money because anybody that knows anything about development, and I hope there is a few people here. Would be able to tell you that if I developed that property, I would be able to make considerably more money than if I put a golf course on it. It's just the economics of the development business. I'm not here trying to be a good guy saying I'm going to give Chanhassen a golf course because I like to live here. I'm kind of selfish. I do live here. I've lived here a long time and I do live on the property so I have developed for 20 years because I wanted to do something that would really make the property look nice for you know, for a long time in the future, and I think a golf course would do that. So I'm not just trying to stand up here and say that I'm going to do something that I'm not to delay this project. I know some people in the past have asked, have stood up here and said, hey Gorra's not going to build a golf course. He's just trying to throw a wrench in our plans. Well, those people don't know what they're talking about. First of all how could they know what I plan to do. And why wouldn't I do it? I've got the land. I'm in the business. I've got the plans and I just told you that I could make more money developing it anyway. Not only that, none of my plans include a road going through the center of my property so you'd have to take it from me and usually that involves condemnation. Paying for the land. Separation costs. I don't know if the people who live out in Chanhassen are going to want to pay for that in their taxes. My suggestion is to do what Evan Green suggested a long time ago. He's with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. That they would provide me, my property, 150 acres with a stub off of Audubon Road. You come across TH 5. Stub into my property. That would handle my property. It would go all the way through to the city. Take care of your park traffic, if you have a lot of, you know enough traffic that would justify that. The property to the west would be handled by CR 117 and TH 41. That's why the State put those highways there in the first place many years ago. You've also got TH 101, CR 17, Highway 7 and you've got other accesses into town. I don't think a 6 lane highway paralleling or an additional 2 lanes 33 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 paralleling an existing 4 lanes is going to do any good. I also wanted to ask one question, At one of the other meetings, or at several of the other meetings it was stated that MnDot didn't want to pay for a route that was too far off of the Highway 5 access. Does that still hold a'ue or has that changed? Deb Porter. No, the funding officers for construction funding for either alternative are the same. Those have always been, the ratio, the...ratio is 80% federal funding. The other 20%, which would be ma_de, up by MnDot and city funds. Mike Gorra: But are you familiar with what they said maybe 6 months ago. That they would kind of balk ff you strayed the highway too far from Highway 5 corridor? Deb Porter:. No, those discussions were based more or less on fight-of-way acquisition. The land acquisition ...and the fight-of-way acquisition policy of MnDot is generally they are interested in buying properties that border a state facility like Trunk Highway 5. So it is, there is less likelihood of.,.as much right-of-way acquisition for Alternative 1, the route that's farthest from the highway versus Alternative 2. That's strictly fight-of-way cost. That doesn't have anything to do with the construction. Mike Gorra: But it is U-ue that they'd be less apt to kick in for the fight-of-way costs, which would be a substantial part of this project? Deb Porter. Land costs, fight-of-way costs, Both alternatives would have some portion of fight-of-way costs participating with MnDot, Mike Gorra: But that northerly route would have less. So the excess burden would fall on the city of Chanhassen taxpayers, is that correct? Deb Porter: City and federal money. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Paul Paulson: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Paul Paulson. I live on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of 82nd Street and Highway 41. My concern, I guess the reason I'm here tonight is concerning land use. The Opus, actually that Gateway West Business Park straddies Highway 41. The bulk of it is on the southeast quadrant of that intersection. However 30 acres of it is on the west side of Highway 41. Now of that northwest quadrant of 82nd Street and Highway 41 there are 40 acres and my property, the 10 acres is on the northwest part of that. And the only access to my property is a one quarter mile easement through the heart of the 30 acres owned by Steiner Development, which is part of the Gateway West Business Park. Anyway, my concern is that if my property is not given adequate consideration in the plans for development in that area, that I'll have a severe negative impact on the value of that property over the long term. And I guess my primary concern is that I'll become an island in the midst of development there, Unfortunately we don't have a map of that area Do we? This is my property right here. The easement goes through here. This is the proposed Gateway West Business Park. I believe it's all the way down in here. About this part. Here is the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and you'll notice that our property being here, we're sandwiched between the Landscape Arboretum and the Business Park. We're landlocked. The analogy I was just thinking of this evening as I was listening to the end of the discussion is that it seems to me that that property is a little bit like the filling between two halves of an Oreo cooking, The top half might be Gateway West Business Park. The bottom half might be the Arboretum and I'm the filling in the middle. Now there's two interesting characteristics about the fflling in 34 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 the middle of an Oreo cooking. First of all it's been squished. Okay. And second of all, there's the buffer between the halves of the cookie. I'm here tonight to avoid being squished and to say that I don't want it to be used as a buffer between the business park and the Arboretum. About a year, maybe over a year ago I requested at the City Council that our property be incorporated into the project. And by that I mean I requested that we become part of the Planned Unite Development, the PUD for Gateway West Business Park. To the best of my knowledge, no action has been taken on that. And so another one of my concerns is that I feel a little bit of a lack of response on the part of the city in reacting to my request. Another example of that sense of lack of response is a recent letter that I sent to Mr. Paul Krauss. The former Planning Director of the city of Chanhassen. And with the Mayor's permission I'd like to pass around a copy of that letter to the City Council. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Wing: Paul, just to clardy. I remember, I don't remember the discussion on this land use other than, what's your proposed and preferred use of that land? Paul Paulson: Of our property? Councilman Wing: Yes. Paul Paulson: I don't have necessarily a specific desire for what happens to that property in terms of development but I would like it to become incorporated into the overall Gateway West Business project so that, so that more than anything if in the future we'd like to leave that property, our property has some value and we could sell it. If we remain an island, I believe that the value of the property will be very minimal because I can't imagine anyone wanting to buy a single family residence in the middle of a business park. I personally wouldn't touch it. Also I'd like to. Mayor Chmiel: Has the Arboretum ever contacted you? Paul Paulson: About? Mayor Chmiel: Regarding your property and acquisition of it. Paul Paulson: I've had some informal just conversations with Peter Olin in regards to the overall 40 acres. That they would very much like to purchase that and I agree wholeheartedly. I would love to see the Arboretum get it. I'm jumping ahead a little bit. I was going to mention this at the very end but in the Planning Commission meeting of January 19th I believe, there was a discussion about what the residents of the city of Chanhassen south of 82nd Street would like to have happen north of them on north of 82nd Street. And I believe the understanding of the Planning Commission members was that those people would prefer industrial office space north of 82nd Street. I did contact two of those neighbors before I came this evening and they said their number one, if they could have a wish list of what would happen. The number one thing they want to have happen is for the Arboretum to buy that property at a reasonable price because that would protect them and they appreciate the presence of the Arboretum there. Short of that, their next desire would be to have it be a nicely done office or industrial site. Next beyond that would be low density housing. Maybe 1 to 4 houses per acre and then it would go to medium density and then high density. $o the addition, you know the housing part is the least desirable for them. I would like to read the text of this letter so that it's rexxmlM in the Minutes of this meeting. It's just a single page letter and I'll go through it quickly. 35 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: If you would, I think what we're looking at is this can be entered into discussions as far as this is concerned and I'll make sure that it does get into the Minutes. Paul Paulson: So the verbatim text of this will be in there? Mayor Chmiel: Correct. Right, Paul Paulson: Okay. Don Ashworth: Is it not sufficient Mr. Mayor to make sure that the Minutes refer to this letter rather than. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct, That's all we'd have to. Paul Paulson: So my goal is that the actual text,,.and not just a reference to the letter. Okay. *Please refer to a copy of the letter submitted by Mr. Paul Paulson which is attached and made a part of the official Minutes of the City Council Meeting. Councilman Wing: Before you go Paul, Again, I don't remember these discussions from a year ago, Looking at the Arboretum coming south. It seems like the perfect buffer would be low density housing. Why would you and the neighbors prefer the industrial park? What's the reason for that? Paul Paulson: Well I didn't ask the neighbors I questioned specifically so I might be taking a little bit of a guess here but they see the office industrial park as a daytime use. Maybe during daylight hours and then they would have it quiet during the evening hours. And there's also a concern with higher density housing that there'd be many more people there. Then you have problems with people trespassing and you know pets and all that sort of thing. And there's also a concern about people going into the Arboretum and trespassing and that sort of thing. Kate Aanenson: I just had a comment. That was the reason why. Obviously it was felt that if we did the PUD, it could be,.,and you'd have something that would probably be prelly nominal on the weekends and shut down at night as opposed to multi-family wh/ch would be traffic pretty much non stop. Plus the weekend, as far as the trash and noise and a lot of that would, we'd have more conu'ol over industrial. We'll be putting in that it would be the higher end office as opposed to industrial traffic. We could arrange...and that sort of thing. Again, this is still,.,I know Mr. Paulson has thought we have ignored him but Opus, we have not seem them back. There are still ongoing negotiations. We're still negotiating. Don has a meeting with them next week. We're still hoping some things happen with the Arboretum on that property in this area, They've got a lot of work to do and things have to, they've changed their plan. We talked about that, as far as grading, What we did was we told them not to come hack until we get the Highway 5 corridor planned and that's what we're... We've asked them to incorporate a lot of the issues with this plan. Paul Paulson: I have a question on that. Does that mean that my property could not be considered for incorporation into the PUD until Opus completes their work? Kate Aanenson: Certainly not~ I mean their PUD is a separate thing from this. What we're recommending is some land use. what we're hoping is that there's a possibility that maybe some of that property to the north and we would also be by the Arboretum. Then you wouldn't be an island, which is. 36 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Paul Paulson: And see, that's part of my problem. You said that their plan is separate from this. And that's my problem is I don't want them to be separate. I want my property to be considered in conjunction with what they're planning to do. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. And that would be part of their PUD. We haven't left you out. We originally, the staff is the one that had fine recommendation to include Mr. Paulson. At fa'st he was reluctant and then he thought, well I don't want to be an island and asked me. We certainly ask the developers of that property to work something out to maybe incorporate him. Paul Paulson: And see that's the other thing. That's another example of my sense of no reaction because you're fight. I saw that. About a year and a half ago there was a request that the developers incorporate both my property and Wrase's property and I haven't heard a single word from anybody. Kate Aanenson: We're working to do that. Don Ashworth: But neither have we. I mean we can't incorporate you into something that doesn't exist. Paul Paulson: And I'm not asking to be incorporated...but I want to be planned in on the development so I don't find myself 5 years down the road with a property that I can't sell. I'm stuck. $o that's all I'm asking. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Peter Olin: Peter Olin. I'm representing the Arboretum and I've not talked with Paul in quite a while so I'm glad to hear his views. We axe concerned about that end of this corridor study obviously but I wanted to address the route, as that's what you are looking at tonight. And I was on the team looking at that. We did look at all the land use along there. We tried to consider all the different options that were proposed, and there were many and obviously some are not going to work no matter where that goes. But one of the, several of things that we looked at were making finis not just a frontage road but a city su'eet for Chanhassen. A continuation of main slxeet. And when you look at many of the suburban towns that have grown and the highways that have gone through them, they create a wide swath. Not only fine highway but fine frontage roads. It's not only ugly but it divides the town up and becomes a real barrier. And this was a new idea. Chance to make something a little different to creme this as a main slreet or a continuation of main street for Chanhassen. We looked at it in terms of fine town center and the town center ending at Powers Boulevard. It is Powers isn't it? I've got the fight road there. And then from then on going into fine neighborhood. Parks and neighborhoods and the way the route on the northern section would be would allow neighborhoods to be on both sides of that street so that it would be very much like a town street. A main street and then it would end up at the border of the Arboretmn at sort of the end of town on Highway 41. We thought it was a very good concept. It solved the circulation problems and it also allowed for the town to grow and to create a nice image. Part of the image right now of Chanhassen, which is going to be lost shortly is the agricultural community. The open lands and the forest lands and this was a way to keep some of that fight along Highway 5 as well because some of those areas are not quite buildable. So we thought it was a very good route and we're glad to see that recommendation come fxom the Planning Commission from our work up to the Council. We hope you approve it. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Lisa Notermann: I'm Lisa Notermann. I live at 1450 Arboretum Blvd. I'd just like to make a comment My house is going no matter what. I'm fight by Lake Ann Park. We really need, we really would like to have 37 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 some time frame, We're living in limbo out there, you know and it's really hard. Just with the upkeep of your home and with the kids in school. I mean it's really a hard situation that we're in right now and I'm hoping that it will be something decided soon and that you'll inform us so that we know what's going on. I mean last meeting we came here and we thought, when we left we thought well, anywhere fi.om 4 to 14 years. And now I hear well, maybe '95 you know, That's pretty soon so I'm hoping that you keep us informed, And ff it is going to be long range, then let us know. If it is short term, then let us know but don't let us sitting in limbo forever. Mayor Chmiel: If you can't get questions, call me. Lisa Notermann: Okay, thanks. Mayor Chmiel: You're welcome. Anyone else? Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Peter Beck and I'm here tonight on behalf of the owners of the Ward property, which is a piece of property completely unrelated to this, the road corridor and I'd be more than happy to bring my comments up at a later meeting when you're talking about land uses in general in the corridor unless this is the only opportunity to bring it up, If this is the one and only chance to talk about land uses anywhere in the corridor and you want to get into another topic, I'll talk about the Ward property. I'm happy to come back at a future meeting ff you're going to have another public hearing on the land use. Mayor Chmiel: Kate, Regarding the location in comparison to what we're talking from Powers Boulevard going west, the property which is the Ward property, as you're aware of TH 101 and, Kate Aanenson: It's on TH 101 south of TH 5. Mayor Chmiel: Right, Peter Beck: Not related... Kate Aanenson: There are some land use recommendations as a pan of this and different even from this at the Planning Commission. We kind of went through those in our work session. As I mentioned, there's really three components but this one right now we want you to get on for the 30 day comment period. As I suspect we'll probably come back in order to get those issues resolved and have another public hearing and maybe even a work session before that, So if you guys want to make it pan of the record or. Peter Beck: I'd be more than happy to come back. I just want to be sure we're not passing up our opportunity by not speaking. Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think that you would be. Don Ashworth: Eventually we're going to be looking to a comprehensive plan amendment incmg. Kate Aanenson: Correct, Don Ashworth: Okay. That requires a separate public hearing process, So I mean it would be at that point in time where Peter should really show up and talk about the land use issues. 38 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Peter Beck: I'm more than happy to do that because our request is that you also do something different than the Planning Commission recommended on the corridor study but it is land use related and I'll be happy to bring it up later. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Sure. Peter Beck: So I'll do that with respect to the Ward. As the Council knows, Eckankar is also a client of mine and I just wanted to tell the Council, the discussion about the project that's ready to go...be more likely to happen and the most important segment of course of this frontage road is the piece that goes through Eckankar and I think the Council should know that the right-of-way for that is all resolved. An easement is required. There will be no hassle from the property owner with respect to that segment of flue frontage road and Eckankar's looking forward to working with the city as to landscaping and the way that road lays into ~he easement as that moves forward and the landscaping we lalked about. You kllow additional opportunity for landscaping...so at least for that segment over there, there should be no controversy and you should be able to present a pretty clean proposal to the people that decide whether it's going to in. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else? Steve Schwanke: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Steve Schwanke with RLK Associates and like Mr. Beck, we are here this evening representing DataServ. Data~qerv owns approximately 60 acres south of Trunk Highway 5 just west of Dell Road and again, like Mr. Beck mentioned, our comments are mainly land use related. We just wanted to make you aware that D_a~_a.qerv is within a month of completing their corporate planning process for that piece of property and in the near future will be before you to discuss a number of land use and site design related issues. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks. Anyone else? Susan Markert: My name is Susan Markert and I live at 7461 Ha~ltine Boulevard which is the northeast comer of TH 5 and TH 41. And I just want to comment that I am in agreement with the northerly route because I think any other route which would have been down south further wouldn't work because of the stacking of the traffic. And also I'm wondering, I had heard that there could be some sort of a lit intersection. Is that true? Where that northerly route would come onto TH 41. Is that going to, has that been decided? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think any determination has been made on that. Kate? Kate Aanenson: Well as that property north of the Arboretum, the Com-moy property, that develops. There may be a street to T into that property. Susan Markerl: No, I'm talking about lit Kate. Is it going to be lit. Is there going to be a light. Mayor Chmiel: Well I would imagine. Kate Aanenson: If warrant, that would have to be something that would be resolved. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That would be something that would be looked at by thc city. A determination is the light is shed the proper area within. If there's a given problem, and there could very well be. You're lalking strictly a light, not a stop and go light? 39 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Susan Marken: No. I'm talking, I don't care, Anything. See I'm talking anything. Anything that changes you know I'm concerned about. I'm wondering if there's any way that we could get a buffer you know, A bit of a buffer from evergreen trees where that would come. I don't know exactly how close that's going to come to our house. I did know and I can't remember now. It's been a while. Is there any possibility that we could get some son of a buffer of evergreen ~a'ees? Lots of them. Mayor Chmiel: I can't make any commitment on it right now but that's something that Council can take under consideration. Susan Markert: Okay. I would ask that the Council'would take that under consideration because it does, you know somewhat alter our view. I also would like to make a comment on my concern for the, well first of all the evergreen trees that were just knocked down on the Byerly's, I believe it's the Byefly's property. Is there a reason. I'm concerned about the alteration you know of the land .... but the alteration of this hill. I'm real concerned about that and I'm wondering if there's some sort of a maximum grading ordinance that is...because I don't want to see this beautiful, Okay we picked this road and I was also on the committee. Picked this road to be north of Highway 5 for the beauty of it. And part of the beauty of it is the hill. So now if you start flattening everything because it's easier to build something on a flat piece of property than a hill, then I, it's going to look like Highway 7, depending on what area it is, Market Boulevard or something like that. Where they widened Highway 7 and took all the hills down. I'm very concerned about the aesthetic beauty of what we have because that's what Chanhassen is about. Is there any kind of an ordinance to protect the destruction of the hills? Kate Aanenson: That,.,overlay zone. That was,..and maybe James can speak to that. That was how the alignment came to be, We looked at the natural features. Mr. Dolejsi brought up the oak trees and..,bu~ we looked at all the natural features. The creeks. The wetlands, The existing stand of trees, The topography and I mean James had that whole area worked and what he came up with was 4 alignments and they got narrowed down to two preferred and we looked at an 80 foot right-of-way because it came down to a 32 foot paved section with a bike trail on it and a lot of that was designed with the sensitivity of saving or preserving the natural features, Councilman Wing: You were there Sue. I'm surprised you don't have the answers yourself because we discussed all of these. Susan Markert: Well I know but I said I'm also bringing up an issue that I want to make sure that you know, that everybody's aware of that. Okay I was there. I agree with that. And also I would like to make a comment lastly, of the width of the road to be. There was the narrow road and then the second, I think it was the second to the narrowest. That's what the task force wanted, I would hope that you would comply with that because I believe it's a workable road but I don't like to see, you know personally myself, would like to see a big wide road where we don't really actually need it I don't believe. So I guess that's all I have to say. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, My name is Brad Johnson, I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm here as both a resident and then also representing...Conway who owns some property out that way. As far as the, which northerly or southerly mute. I think we have figured out that we can work with either one on the Conway site, We are concerned however, as we've done our planning and you'll soon see the proposed plan probably within about 30 days, that the current plan will require you potentially immerliately to condemn Mr. City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Gorra's property and to condemn Mr. Hennessy's property in order to give us access to that so I'd like to have you look at what is currently before you because ff Mr. Conway is going to develop his property, currently there is no access unless one or both of those are done. Which brings me to a couple of questions, and I have been to a lot of these meetings. I have not, from a development point of view, seen costs adequately addressed. I note that the road across the way, a short portion of that is up around $4 million so far. Over by the new school. I just don't understand how this is all going to be paid for. Number two, the completion time will relate to when it's going to be paid for. I have no idea when this will be completed. My concern is not so much for Mr. Conway's property but just for all of you to go through this whole process and there are no funds available. Each time a parcel there is going to be developed it will be kind of a small war. ff there's no money available from the city. We understand the cost of this road is in the $200.00 to $260.00 a square foot. A normal road that would be required by development of this nature I guess is around $100.00 so there's quite a bit of difference in cost. I don't know how that's going to be handled. I have not seen a traffic study. It's nice to have a road running from TH 41. The road sm'ts and ends basically nowhere in my point of view. It's basically a collector street. Most of the people that we've talked to tend, ff they go to TH 41 they end up going TH 5 to come into town. If they go to CR 17, they end up on TH 5 to come into town because TH 5 will always be quicker. So it would be interesting to see, we're good at traffic studies here. ff this whole area is developed, how much traffic would this road actually handle. And then I think one of the problems you're going to have as you go through this whole process, and this is just for the record, is that you're trying to align basically collector streets for quite a long ways. And I really question whether it needs to be a road that runs from TH 41 to downtown. I think you're going to run into a lot of costs and over a long time and in fact, ff we just look at a collector street like much of the road to the south is, you'd probably get it put in by developers and with a lot of extra costs but just these alignments are causing trouble. An example of that is Mr. Hennessy's property. Because we've got a historical barn across the street, we've got to go through Mr. Hennessy's house and all these kinds of things are just going to create a large cost. I haven't seen what I'd call an adequate real effective cost to the city, especially if you don't have federal funding and if you don't have state funds. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Wing: Why don't we see if there's an answer to that. Kate Aanenson: Would you like us to respond to that? Mayor Chmiel: Kate, would you please. Kate Aanenson: I'll let Deb. Deb Porter. 1 think part of the problem sometimes in the information that we're presenting here at these meetings. It hasn't been realized yet and we probably haven't announced it clearly enough, is that some of the impact issues, for instance traffic projections, that sor~ of llting, are contained in this environmental assessment document. This has not yet been released to the public for review, which is the point in having the public hearing once you get this document released through your local libraries and City Hall and through the EQB Monitor and so on. So. it may seem as though we're discussing a lot of things here without having enough background information but we're doing this up front, as all cities do, to come up with at least a preferred thinking or route that the city has in mind of what they're planning to do and release all the information to the public for them to read and then comment at the public hearing, which I think we're estimating would be somewhere maybe late April, early May on this document. $o I can understand there's some confusion and lack of information for a lot of people to make comments. We haven't yet released the public documents so. Most 41 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 of the information for instance Mr. Johnson is talking about is in the document. There's some cost information. Cost estimating is somewhat out of the scope of the environmental assessment documents. We try our best to get some preliminary estimates but that's awfully difficult to do until you have more finalized engineering information. And you get more into the fight-of-way acquisition activities and that's all part of the EA actually. But we do have some estimates on range of cost. We're hoping to release this in early Ainil,..is the city's recommendation on the preferred alternative and that again, even when it appears in this document, it's not a final selection. It just gives the public some idea as to what your feelings are at that point. Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Any other? Okay. If seeing none, we'll come back to Council and have some discussion in regard to the recommendations that we're going to be making. Mark. Councilman Senn: Well what are we trying to address then? Just simply the alignment issue? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. We're looking for a preferred alignment for the frontage road and approval of the.EA document first of all, Then you can ask questions regarding that or any of the things that were brought before us as well. And then also the modification or adopt the Highway 5 corridor overlay zone. Kate Aanenson: I put that in there. I think at this point we'll just hold off on that issue...you know obviously we went ahead and we have a lot...happening along Highway 5 corridor. We want to get the overlay standards in place...so we'll be bringing that ~ck to you shortly but tonight you really, we would prefer that you.,. Mayor Chmiel: Strictly the alignment. Kate Aanenson: Strictly the alignment. Councilman Senn: Okay. I'd be uncomfortable with the overlays and the land use tonight myself but as far as the alignment goes. I've really tried to basically look at this and look at every piece of information that exists out there, and boy there's plenty of it. Talk about an issue that's been studied to death. The basic problem I keep having 1 guess is I still have a real hard time getting past all of the land use assumptions that exist and those land use assumptions to me have a great deal to do with the alignment of the road. AM I don't think we've really had a good discussion of those land use assumptions, at least at the Council level yet. ff I had to state preference tonight in terms of an alignment, the way I would be leaning fight now would be towards the southern alignment simply because it leaves most of the options open and does not, how would I say, imply or accept all those land use assumptions which I really still have some questions on, In reading a lot of the information it appears that a lot of the premise to the north road is basically related to land use between the north road and the highway. Kate Aanenson: Well to go back to what Peter and Sue were ~lklng about. I think part of the reason for the northern frontage mad is to allow for you to look at something besides another roM. There's a lot of development occurring in those two parcels...there's some existing natural features. Maybe create some landscaping buffers, especially along the edge of the pond. That was really the intent of pushing it to the north, The Planning Commission struggled with that too and that's why...but really you know as far as you get the residential. The development east along, between Audubon and up to Oalpin. There's some issues about crossing...going through Mr. Hennessy's property. Whether you do the environmental and cross the creek between VanDeVeire's and Conway's piece but that's always been shown as residential. Again, we have predominantly residential until you get to the property that's owned by Fleet Farm and we did Sue, in the land use recommendation, we did a site analysis for that and the one thing that was recommended that we didn't want 42 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 to see a large user on that site. We had it broken down to smaller office and we didn't want to see, this is the same on the south side. We didn't want to see a large user on the other side where Opus is building either. I mean that was eliminated from their property too...the large comer. So I agree with some of what you're saying. The Planning Commission straggled with that too but towards that philosophy...was Irying to maintain some of the existing mural features before you look at the road. Pushing the mad back.,. Councilman Senn: But as I understand either mute really maintains mural features. You know both routings, at least as I've studied them, rake the natural features surrounding the road into some pretty good consideration. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Senn: You know and I think that's why it's down to these two alternatives but the underlying assumption that I keep coming back to and then say okay, well. You want it removed so it's not part of like a highway corridor. You know that may be a nice goal but where I keep straggling with that is then I look back at the land use and I look back and the land use and I see geez, everybody has this hero's the north mad. Here's the highway and the big assumption is there's a lot of multi-family housing between the north mad and the highway and they aren't large areas. Then I just kind of apply my personal test and I'm son'y, I don't really see a lot of people having a burning desire to live in any kind of housing along a major highway. Kate Aanenson: Except we know, at the Planning Commission meeting we've already seen Mr. Conway's proposed development. It's not all multi-family on his piece of property. It's my understanding that Lundgron's has an option on Mr. Dolejsi's property and they state that the northern alignment works for them and they'll probably do at least some. I'm not sure d it's going to be all multi-family but they do own the property that they're developing to the north and probably continuity of some of that coming to the south so I'm not sure that it's all going to be multi-family because we put the roM... Councilman Senn: Kate, I don't know if it is either. Again that's, I'm just saying that's what I'm uncomfortable with and yeah, and the golf course issue thero, I've gone out and looked at that. I don't know whether that's a real or not but I can look at the whole corridor and say who knows what's for real and what's not. Kate Aanenson: And the Planning Commission felt like if that's legitimate, he's ready to go forward, that would be one area they would recommend... Councilman Senn: It seems like a heck of a use for that site. Kate Aanenson: Sure, and again that... Councilman Senn: But if you settle on the north now it pretty much. Kate Aanenson: No, what we're saying is that, as Deb had indicated that that would be preferred...we put it out and we get comments and we look at that more closely. Councilman Senn: Yeah see and that's why I kind of bounce south because again that keeps the options open and again, just from my standpoint that's what make me moro comfortable at this point. Mayor Chmieh Okay. Any other thing Mark? 43 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: ! certainly don't feel that we're making, I was glad to hear Deb say we're not making a definite decision tonight. I also was on the task force committee and as I recall the vote between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 was very close. And I think environmentally, I think Alternative 1 is a better roum. I think when you include, if you just look at the environment as the natural resources, I think Alternative 1 is the better mute. There are a lot of people that are affected and I guess quite honestly, as not as a m~ force member but as a Council member I've got to consider the environment of the whole city. Having said that Kate, somebody else that was on the task force help me out, Didn't we talk about that if alternative 2 was chosen, that it would be as much as possible completely buffered from Highway $ with beans or plantings? Kate Aanenson: ..,we talked about there'd probably be more acquisition because what we've done is mated a dead zone that you can't do anything in so there may actually be some more acquisition that you would have to.,.because it's unusable property. Councilman Mason: And did we ever come to any kind of agreement on that? Kate Aanenson: I think we directed the consultant to look at some cost estimates and we just Lalked about rough numbers but that would be something, if that's an alternative, that we may want to look at. But we are creating more land that's basically unusable, Councilman Mason: Well yeah. That's something, I think that's a very important part of this puzzle because I'm sure there are people that are saying, we're doing that by alternate, well they were here tonight. Saying that by alternative 1. You know, having said all that, I am a f'n'm believer in the commissions and the task force and I kind of feel like, kind of being between a rock and a hard place here because if I say I like alternative 2, that's saying I disagree totally with all the work that's been done and quite honestly nothing could be further from the truth and I hope anyone that was on those commissions understands that. With the exception of the west end, my inclination right now is to go with alternative 2 just for some of those stated reasons. Simply because when we look at, when I look I should say, at the whole picture, I see alternative 2 having less of an impact on what's currently out there and who is currently out there. I do want to add, I see a need for a road going all the way through. We're talking, what are we talking about in the year 20107 35,000 people? I mean in the city of Chart. Aren't we somewhere around there fight now? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Mason: To say that Highway 5, for those of us that live in the city and quite honestly don't enjoy driving on Highway 5 now, I can't imagine I'd enjoy driving on it 10-15 years in the future. I do think we need a road that goes through there and I don't think that road will be a 6 lane road in and out of the city of Chanhassen. I quite honestly do not feel totally committed to alternative 2 right now. There are still a bunch of questions that need to be answered but that certainly is where I'm leaning fight now. I'm, no. The southern route. Alternative 2 and where I would change that would be up towards the Highway 41 there because of some traffic configurations. I think we discussed at that point it would, I would be tending to lean towards alternative 1. No, isn't that, yeah. Alternative 1. Kate Aanenson: Swing to the north, City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Mason: Swing to the north but I think we also are some other issues on that property that need to be addressed too but I'm right now I'm leaning towards alternative 2. The southern route. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I of course was real active with Bill Morrish when this all started and the concept of breaking these roads off and designing this boulevard if you would, that was going to run north of the highway to avoid this 4 or 5, 6 lane Fridley type atmosphere. What'd we call it, the Fridley syndrome I guess. We wanted to avoid that. That's how it all started. So I guess I voted with Peter Olin and Planning Commission in selecting number 1. But that was only after Paul and staff in truly some detail had gone over land uses on both and how the acquisition costs played in and what the options were of those pieces of property. If you compared them to what their zones were, what their use would be with either one, the northern mute seemed to give us that neighborhood road that Peter addressed and tried to accomplish what we were doing with the extension of West 78th Street. And it was also I guess, as Mike had mentioned, a more environmentally sound one. It was the better city stxeet and gave us greater separation. And if you can take then, just take the land use as a nebulous, non-subjective discussion at this point, I guess right now I'd favor the northern route to accomplish what we'd like to do long term for the city in a visionary way. Alternative 2 is certainly acceptable to me. I don't have any problem with it and I could go along with the Council if that was the majority but I think too, what we need here to make the final decision is a very detailed discussion of land use and what the options would be with both uses. And then I sat down with Paul Krauss one afternoon and really talked about what it's zoned for. How it could or couldn't develop and as he explained the options that the owners would have, the northern route continued to make sense to me. They did not cut anybody out. It allowed for quite a bit of development and gave them quite a bit of options. Sometimes maybe more so than the southern route so right now I guess I continue to favor the northern route which was recommended by Planning Commission and the task force. Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to make one comment that I forgot The issue of cost has come up and that's a very real issue and it is, I think I agree with you Don that it's paramount that we get some sort of frontage road in to Lake Ann. I see cars turning in and out of there in the summer and it amazes me that we haven't had a problem there yet. But cost, at least after Lake Ann is definitely an issue. A very big issue and without funding, with federal funding I, long and hard look. Long and hard look. Councilman Wing: For what? ...project or just development? Councilman Mason: Well I'm on record as saying, we've got to go. We've got to hook up to Lake Ann somehow and I'd like to see it go to Audubon regardless. But after that, if we find out we don't have any federal funds available, that's a whole other can of worms. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I guess I don't disagree with that Michael because that's some of the concerns I have. We're talking about the city purchasing right-of-way for the frontage road and access which was really originally required to provide local access that we talked about and for the discussion that we had with the City and MnDot, it's necessary for us to work out with the parcels, will be the responsibilities of the city. And there again too, I don't know what the costs are going to be. I have a real concern with that. The other areas that we're talking, we're going to work with MnDot. Those figures I don't believe are completely and fully consummated either to even do the share of the 50%. Or is there some figures that's fairly reasonable. Deb Porter. When you're speaking of 50%, are yon tulidng about cons~xuction funding dollars for Arboretum 45 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Boulevard for the access road? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Deb Porter. I think our assumption has been since the beginning of the project that the predominant proportion of the funding would be federal funds meaning approxinmtely 80% of total funds. I don't believe that you are at great risk of losing, or acquiring federal funds at some point. That's what has become the issue here during the last 2-3 years with MnDot is that it's not that projects no longer qualify for federal funds and will never receive them. It's that they aren't receiving them as soon as they can plan. All projects pretty much have been delayed. There's been a moratorium on a lot of building in some areas. There are no federal funds available at that time. I can't imagine that you won't receive a large amount of federal funds at some point. It's that they're not coming nearly as soon as we had originally forecast. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's some discussions I've also had with Chuck Seeger from MnDot. And there's a need for funding throughout the entirety of the metro area and there are also other cities who have been in line probably before us. And that too is some of my concerns because we've been moved back from where we were originally to 1998 and it could go beyond that. And so consequently some of that is a real concern to me as well. Deb Porter:. I think what we talked with MnDot again, representatives from the Federal Highway Administration about, in terms of what is the real likelihood of Chanhassen and some other communities in receiving federal funds by the year 2000? A lot of the projects are planned for the year 1998 and so on. That now is the new date for the Trunk Highway 5 reconstruction is 1998. It was 1995 I believe just as of a year ago that was our projected date and that... Their feeling is that most projects that were promised federal funds, if you say promised. At some point in the past you will also qualify for those in years to come. It's just that ff they delay 4 or 5, possibly more years. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And as you're probably well aware I do sit on the Transportation Advisory Board for the Met Council and I'm aware as to all these ties that we're trying to get. And it's causing a lot of difficulty throughout the metro area in coming up with total dollars. In fact they've also requested that the Governor cut loose some of the dollars that they have to do some funding but I don't think you're likely to see that either. Deb Porter:. The best I guess, not a guarantee but the arrangement that MnDot has proposed to some cities and Chanhassen being one of them, is to fund projects through what they call advance funding. Meaning that the city would have to come up with funds on their own for consn'ucfion ff they wanted projects to happen at an earlier date than what MnDot has them planned for based on their funding requirements, That advance money means that the city goes ahead and builds it. At some point in the future, maybe 4 years later, MnDot then reimburses them for their agreed share. So in fact you receive the dollars then at a later date and whatever those... Mayor Chmiel: In looking at the routing in itself, I too know the environmental concerns that were based on the northern route as well and looking at the southern route and I too sort of put my chips right now into that southern route because I think that that to me looks like the most feasible and probably, and hopefully the less impact on a good share of the people living within that particular area. Those crossovers that we talked about in the center portions there, are something that we looked at rather strongly and I too sat in on an awful lot of these meetings that they've had. But as I, if I were to hang my hat on anything presently, I'd hang it on the southern route. So with that, any other discussion? 46 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: No, let's vote on something. Mayor Chmiel: That's the way ! feel. Do you want to make a recommendation? Councilman Senn: I'll move on the southern mute. Kate Aanenson: ...that endorsement or approve of the EA document also? Councilman Senn: Yeah, for purposes of yeah. Deb Porter. Right. We include within the Environmental Assessment would be the issue... Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Wing: I'll second it. I opposed it but I'll second it. What I don't like, what occurred here happened the same thing at Planning in that this tagk force spent month after month after month discussing the issues of land use and then the Planning Commission was given it and they had to kind of reinvent the wheel. Now we tried to push it through there and kind of have to reinvent the wheel there. I'll go along with the southern route but I think it's really important that we look at these land use issues and development potenfialg and costs so that, that's why I'm willing to go along with this without any effort. I mean the southern route is fine. At least we're not creating a 6 lane highway and that's my big concern. But I think there's some real issues here that favored the northern route that we haven't heard, haven't talked about. Mayor Chmiel: The other concern that I might have too Dick is on the west end as to where that road would come out onto TH 41. Either the southern or the northern and part of my concern with the southern is if there would be stacking on that particular road for accessibility and would it be better to go to the northern portion of that. Councilman Senn: I thought either one was acceptable. Councilman Mason: Well I talked about the northern route at the tail end there. Councilman Wing: Who made the motion? Councilman Senn: traffic design standpoint, both meet the standards. Mayor Chmiel: Is that? Kate Aanenson: Yes. ~ames Unmh: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Councilman Wing: I made the motion but I'm going back to, at least in all the information I've read, from a Okay. Whether it's the north or the southern route. Okay. That's my understanding so I mean that's. But the southern one doesn't tie into the proposed road coming across to the west. City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Deb Porter. Continuing west fi.om Trunk Highway 41. Councilman Senn: 417 Councilman Wing: 41. Councilman Senn: What road? Councilman Mason: I don't know that we need to get fled up in that. Mayor Chmiel: Well eventually there's going to be something there but we don't know where that is. Okay, any other discussion? If hearing none, I'I1 call the question. Resolution g94-40: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the southern route, Alternative #2 as the preferred alignment for the frontage road north of Highway $ and to approve the EA document. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: That's number one. Do we have to do any of these others? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we have to go through 2 or 3 now. Kate Aanenson: No, that's fine. Mayor Chmiel: As far as I'm concerned. Councilman Mason: When do we see this coming back before us? I mean who knows but. Councilman Senn: I'd like to spend some time on a work session, Mayor Chmiel: I would think a work session would probably be the ideal time. Councilman Senn: I mean I'm really, just this issue and. Mayor Chmiel: Come up with some of the things and some of the answers and some of the questions that we have and in order to do that, I think it'd be advisable. Councilman Mason: When do you see a finalizing what alternative we choose? Deb Porter. Once you issue the EA document you have to wait approximately 3 weeks before you can have a public hearing...comment period is open for another 2 weeks after that and at whatever City Council meeting follows that last 2 weeks, it's possible you could make a decision at that time. It's not often done that quickly because you will have a fair amount of agency review and if possible... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I would think that that would be an aggressive way to move with it. And I don't think it will go. 48 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Deb Porter. Yeah and I think we may be looking more at July and August...and discuss the land use issues further. That kind of goes back and forth. You know each decision making body hasn't heard all the... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Do you want me to give you a few minutes to clear your boards so we can start with the next process? As it looks right now, I would think that the Chanhassen Estates is probably going to take us to 11:00, if not maybe a little bit beyond. $o if anyone is staying yet and still, unfortunately for the preliminary plat for Minnewashta Parkway, Minnewashta Landings. Item 11 which is the Wendy's and Edina Realty office building. Amendment to the City Code. Resolution to increase wetland alteration permit fees. Resolution for the wetland buffer monumentation. I don't. Councilman Senn: Don, a question. Mayor Chmiel: I don't believe that that will be heard this evening. But the next one that will be on the agenda is the item number 9. Mark. Councilman Senn: Is there any chance that we could maybe get through 9 and 107 Mayor Chmiel: Well I'm amenable to it. I would go along with item number 10 then. Councilman Senn: Because there's a lot of people here on both of those. I'd hate to have to see them come back and sit through. Councilman Wing: I want a commitment that they're not going to leave. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll move on with item number 92 APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CHANHASSEN ESTATES STREET, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 93-10, AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS. Public Present: Name Address Mark Littfm Martin & Lora Wade Gerald Fischer David & Joanne Malkovich Keith Anderson 8052 Erie Spur 8028 Erie Avenue 8042 Erie Avenue 8039 Dakota Lane 8043 Cheyenne 49 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Joe Betz 8107 Dakota Lane Jerry Griep 8002 Dakota Avenue Bill ? 8105 Dakota Lane Amy Dvorak 8003 Dakota Avenue Allison & Randy Blackowiak 8116 Erie Circle Rhonda Faidley 8117 Erie Circle George Thomas 8029 Cheyenne Avenue Dan Orinser 8020 Erie Avenue Dave Tiohey 9049 Cheyenne Avenue Tim Herberg 8113 Erie Circle Mike Kraus 8037 Cheyenne Avenue Bill Kraus 8008 Cheyenne Avenue Patt Hegstrom 8005 Dakota Avenue Gerald Wassink 8004 Dakota Avenue Kathie ? 8025 Erie Avenue Tom & Kristie Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Steve Peterson 8021 Dakota Avenue Gene Gegner 8025 Dakota Avenue Vince Venne 8022 Dakota Avenue Bob Seward 8031 Cheyenne Avenue R & Nina Cottrell 8044 Cheyenne Avenue Phil & Rhonda Hennen 8110 Dakota Lane Jan & Jim Gitclner 8003 Cheyenne Avenue Gerald Kuant 8036 Dakota Lane Kathy Dorfner 8026 Cheyenne Avenue Lynne Pilgrim 8026 Dakota Avenue Conrad Fiskness 8033 Cheyenne Avenue Charles Folch: ...you will recall that last October we had a public hearing on the feasibility study for the proposed...At that hearing the... Subsequent to that hearing Council ordered the project plans and specifications to be prepared by a consultant engineer. In February of this year the preliminary project plans were completed and available for review. As such, all the property owners were notified. Two public or informational neighborhood meetings that were held to preview the plans. At these neighborhood meetings there arose some concern over a number of issues related to the project. For example tree loss, road width.,.etc. Staff and the project engineer felt that it was important that ff changes and deviations were to be made to the standards and the project's element and scope that was presented at the feasibility time, that it was important that all of the property owners were informed as such and solicited theh' input accordingly. And as such a detailed survey was sent out to all the residents in Chan Estates subdivision. The survey and the results are included in your packets along with all of the written correspondence that we received from any of the property owners since this project planning process has begun. The project consultants are David Mitchell and Laurie McCroskey are here tonight to present an overview of the project elements, the results of the survey and an updated cost estimate for the proposed project. And with that I'll turn floor over to David. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. David Mitchell: Thank you Charles. Mayor, members of the Council. Briefly what I'd like to 8o through is the plan that we've prepared to date. Have Laurie talk a little bit about some of the tree issues that have come out 50 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 of this. And then also go through the survey for the benefit of the public that is here. As you'll recall, last fall, City Council ordered the preparation of plans and specs for the street reconstruction. For Chanhassen Estates 1st and 2nd Addition. 3rd Addition, which was a small lot division over in the 1st division and then Wisely Estates, which is another lot division in the 2nd Addition. Basically we're looking at the reconstruction of approximately 7,200 lineal feet of street. As part of the project it was deemed thai it should be also include the reconstruction of a watcrmain throughout the entire area. The water superintendent has recorded 18 watermain breaks in this area since construction. This is a very high number of watermain breaks for this type of area. Also proposed as part of this construction are portions of sanitary sewer reconstruction basically through this area. Also throughout the area we'll be looking at the sanitary sewer and doing testing and sealing that will not require open cut. There are some small spot repair areas that will require open cut but the area that you see highlighted in red is the primary area for sanitary sewer. As stared earlier, watermain would be replaced throughout the entire area. As a part of any sweet reconstruction project of this nature, we would propose to improve upon the existing drainage system in the area. Some individoalg have expressed concern~ with ponding and the intersections. Those type of angles are things that would be taken care of as a part of this project. Currently proposed storm sewer is really taken up by two systems within the area. This being the northerly system that ties into an existing 42 inch line that goes down to Rice Marsh Lake. The second system, this is really an improvement of an existing system. The second system is in a lot of senses a new system. It's very limited. This time there's existing, at this intersection that goes out this way we plan to reconslxuct that. Bring that all the way down through Erie Circle and out through the park enuance. This line that goes out through here is currently undersized and we felt that that would be, to upgrade that line would cost much money as well as disturbance to those particular residences affected. As you'll recall back last fall there was really no opposition to the projects. Some questions were asked regarding wee removal. At that time I made an estimate of approximately 35 to 45 wees being removed. That unfommately was an error on my part. AS we prepared detailed plans and specifications for this area, it was found that that number was significantly higher. With these plans it's proposed as a 31 foot street from back of curb to back of curb, which is a city standard. We are estimating the approximate removal and this is a worst case removal, of approximately 120 trees. Maybe a little history as far as some of the thought process that Laurie and I have gone through with tree removal. What you see in this overhead is a presentation of the existing trees in relationship to the existing road. In genea~al terms, the existing trees are approximately 7 to 8 feet behind the proposed curb and gutter. With the soils in the Chanhassen area it's required that we'd be doing a 3 foot subeut to bring the roads up to today's standards. With the oversizing required for that excavation, we are looking at excavating at least 3 feet beyond the back of the curb and optimally that would be 6 feet. We're looking at again I would say a minimum of 3 feet beyond the curb just to construct the road section. That is the primary reason for the tree loss with tiffs project. At this time I'll inwoduce Laurie McCroskey who is a landscape architect with our finn. When it was found that we were getting to be affecting this many trees, I got Laurie involved from a landscaping aspect. Asked her to physically look at some of these trees, which she's done. This slide represents the wees proposed to be removed. Of the aces shown in green are trees, let me start at the top. Trees shown in red are likely lost at any width. Those trees are trees that we're anticipating coming out even at a 26 foot width,which was a width that was proposed by some of the residents. The Ue, e,s highlighted in blue are trees lost at widths wider than 26, i.e. 28 or 31 foot. And the green Ue~s are trees that are additional trees lost at a 31 foot width. At this point I'll let Laurie talk a little bit as far as the condition of the trees and the tree replacement plan. Laurie McCroskey: Thank you David. Mr. Mayor and Council members. All of us became really concerned about wee loss on this project. We're working in a residential neighborhood that's established. It's been around for 20 years and it's got some trees that are of a fair size and contribute to a character in that neighborhood. One of the first things that we did was we really went out and looked at every single one of the trees. I've got a picture of almost every one along the boulevard. Dave has ~lked about the trees that will be impacted. They 51 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 are all ash trees, almost all of them. And some of them are in great shape and others are in very poor shape. They are bad form. A lot of them have already suffered wind damage and we felt that, in our first go through, our recommendation was to remove all the trees just because of the impact from road consmacfion is going to get too close here. Just too close to the existing road. They are anywhere from 4 to 6 feet back from the existing curb. Any kind of construction that happens within that tree zone is going to impact them enough that they will probably be damaged in the furore. That was our first recommendation. Looking at the condition of the trees, which the majority of them are not very good and they were too close to the road. They're going to suffer construction impact. We, our first proposal...neighbors that we take them all down and replace the street trees at a ratio of 2 to 1 and establish a, re-establish a residential character. After a lot of discussion with the neighbors and the concerns that were raised, we would like to propose a staged removal plan in which we take down the majority of the trees with the red dots. That we know are just too close to the road and would be impacted by construction or are going to be damaged. And then as we go through construction to look at the remaining trees and determine whether the impact to them is going to be so great that they will not live for any length of time after the road is constructed. So we have a plan where we'll take down trees at first and I think that's approaching maybe 65 to 70 ut. es. And then we can stage removal as the project goes forwarcL A replacement plan has been proposed and replacement for trees is being suggested at a 2:1 ratio. So for every tree lost, we'll put 2 back and that will make a placement of about 3 trees spaced 50 foot on center is what that tree replacement plan would provide. We're also suggesting that 5 species of trees be planted. We're looking at red maples, small white oak, hackberry, have more ash, and a form of honey locust. That species. Chanhassen, as you all know, has some real heavy clay soils and there aren't a lot of tree varieties that Mil grow in that type of soils. So those are 5 of them. There are a couple more and one of them is silver maple. That was a street tree that we didn't want to consider. So we've got, I think good trees that will live in this neighborhood. There also have been suggested that they are arranged in a pattern that's shown on the overhead. We've broken them up into massings and clumps of about 400 feet in spacing so you've got one stretch of red maple and then another stretch of oak and then hackberry and combine them throughout the neighborhood in thai way. Really trying to make an attempt to establish, re-establish that neighborhood character. It's going to take a while for the trees to get big and we're looking at putting in 2 1/2 to 3 inch trees to start with So we'll get some sizes at the beginning but it would take 15 years for them to reach the size that they are now. However I think you would have more variety. You'd also, if this street plan is developed or accepted, you're going to establish some kind of character with the continuity of species along the roadway. From design perspective and in my opinion it's important to establish some sort of similar visual character. That's why the plan is suggesting that we keep the segment in oak and a segment in maple and so forth. So I think that there's been some compromise in terms of tree loss and we're going to look at...and see ff they'll come down. Some are coming down regardless. If there's a 2:1 replacement plan suggested with 5 varieties of trees there that we feel will re-establish the neighborhood character once they're installed. And I know that we had many, many comments in terms of the surveys that have been...and Dave has more of the information to share with you on that regard. And I'm here to answer questions later on. Dave Mitchell: Thanks Laurie. I'll continue with some more aspects of the general project. First I'd like to update the cost for the Council. As we're looking at right now, the estimated project cost which would include engineering and the city's administrative cost, the breakdown. I won't go through that piece by piece but the total project cost is $1.945 million or $1,945,000.00. This is approximately $400,000.00 higher than what was presented in August or October. October at the public hearing and the feasibility report. Really there are four primary reasons for this. In 1994, amendment to the city's standard specifications, fl~e city is requiring draintile under all streets again for subsurface drainage because of the soil types within abe city of Chanhassen. That's a large ticket item for this increase. Also the tree issue has increased this total project cost. Tree removal. Tree replacement. Another issue is the increased cost in materials for various types of piping materials. Associated 52 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 with this is a revised assessment. As part of the storm sewer assessment you'll note that the slreet assessment has remained the same. The storm sewer assessment has been increased by $200.00 for the single family dwelling. This was I believe $997,000.00 last fall when it was presented. And that again is primarily due to increased material costs and a portion of the draintile. As a schedule that was outlined, and I've elaborated on that to show some of the things that have happened here. In March of 1983 the city sent out a survey to all the residents simply asking them if they wanted us to study the reconswaction of sm;ecs within tho area. That survey came back with the majority of individuals in favor of that. So subsequently, May 10th of 1993 this Council ordered the preparation of the feasibility report by ourselves. In September that feasibility report was received. September 29th there was an informational meeting and as you will recall, on October 1 lth, a public hearing was held. And also at that time, not hearing anyone speaking out adamantly against this project, Council authorized us to prepare plans and specifications. One week after that, our office mailed a resident update letter which is common for us to do in a project of this type. Letting the residents in the area know what was going to be happening with the results of surveys and the fact that a project was proceeding. Again on December 1st, a second update letter was mailed. February 8th an information meeting was held at which a number of these issues that have been brought up surfaced. We held a second informational meeting on March 7th which brought us into a survey that the Council has in their packet. Council has a copy of the survey as it was sent out and a tabulation of the results. What we'd like to do at this point is go through some of the findings of the survey and I've got a number of other overheads here if Council has any other questions on any particulars, we can talk about those at that time. First of all we had a very good response, as we see it, from a survey point. We had 71% of the individuals who, or 71% of the properties return surveys. 29% did not return surveys. A number of those I guess a reason they may not have returned, some individuals may have felt that they were demonstrating against the project by not returning them. Other individuals I'm sure were on vacation during this time period. Other individuals may not have eared. Again, we're not sure why some of these responses were not returned. One of the first questions on the survey was, the preferred street width by the residents. Again, the 31 foot width is a city standard. 16% of the residents, or of the surveys returned. Again, all these numbers that will be presented are from the surveys that were returned. 16% preferred the 31 foot width. A majority, 55% preferred 28 foot and 29% preferred the 26 foot width. Second question that was asked was, curb and gutter type. That was virtually split down the middle. We received 91 surveys back of which there was one no response and 45 preferred surmountable and 45 preferred barrier. As Charles pointed out in his report, that was somewhat by division or by 1st and 2nd Addition. The 1st Addition, by a majority preferred the barrier and the 2nd Addition, by majority preferred the surmountable. As we looked at the total area, it was a 50/50 split. We've got some information regarding no parking. A majority of individuals preferred that no parking be implemented on the 26 foot width. On the odd side of the street. Again, this may become a moot point, as Charlie pointed out in his staff report in that really a majority of people did not prefer the 26 foot width. Another question was asked regarding no parking. 40% of the people stated that they did strongly oppose no parking. And again that's just in a sense a moot issue at this point. Regarding the Ixees. Property own~s were asked if they would prefer the ~ being removed per the plan or if they would prefer the trees to be removed in a staged pattern. It was really two questions. Looking at the preferred removal of the Irees. Again, 45% preferred removal in accordance with the plan and implementing a new nv, e plan. Replacement plan in accordance with the plans prepared by us. 55% preferred that this not be the case. Similarly when we asked the question on staged removal, a few individuals, 51% prefea'red staged removal. 49% preferred no removal. Again, some of the reasons for the no responses to this were individuals not wanting any trees removed so they responded no to beth questions regarding free removal. Again we wanted to get the feel for the residents as far as what they actually thought of the lree that existed in their boulevard. $o we asked them, if the tree in the boulevard was in good health and form. 61% felt that it was. 39% fiat out said no, it's not. When asked if residents would like to have that existing boulevard tree removed, 48% responded yes. 52% responded no. ff you remember the previous slide, there were a lot more people who said their trees were in good health. What 53 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 we're seeing here is that a number of individuals, even though they felt their tree was in good health and form, also preferred that their tree be removed as part of the plan with the implementation of the tree replacement plan, Again, as Laurie discussed the proposed replacement plan. 63% were in favor of the tree replacement plan. 37% said no and offered alternative species that they would like to see as a replacement. Again that concludes the results of the survey. Council has had a little more time to digest this than the residents have but I guess as a side light, this has been an interesting exercise that I believe has really put some validity in some of the comments that were made at informational meetings. Also I believe it takes some of the validity out of those comments. Also included for Council's review are all the comments that were received as a part of this survey. Again, those were as received on March 23rd. I have received a couple other surveys that really don't change the results of the survey. At this point I'll turn it over to Council for questions of Laurie or myself or Charles. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. What I'd like to do is to open this up for discussion but I'd like to limit the time that we'll discuss the proposed project. But ff you could just limit it to at least 3 minutes and give us at least your consensus and your opinion within that. I know that we've also received from the residents of. Chanhassen Estates regarding the concerns that are here and at least I've had an opportunity to read that since I've gotten here in the Chambers. So with that I'II open it up and please just state your. Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Mason: I wonder if it would speed things up at all if we kind of said, at least at this point where we're at. I wonder if there might not be a little more agreement or. Mayor Chmiel: Well, yeah. I know where I'm al on this whole thing. I've driven it myself two different times and I've gone with Charles as well. I've looked at the trees. I've looked at the streets. The 1st Addition is really in dire shape and I would prefer seeing us get that segment done. Along with that I'd like to see a barrier curb go in. I didn't know if that was my watch going off or the beeps are going. But anyway, I've looked at the trees and some of those trees are nice trees. They're good uees. There are some that are still questionable. Some of the concerns some of the people had, the meeting that I also sat down here with, a neighborhood meeting, Was the fact of possibly cutting those trees on the curb side and cutting the roots and trimming the trees up. To me that's a way you could go but I think there could be some other problems with that. Specifically in gusting or strong winds or tornadoes that we have, the root base is no longer there and those trees would just automatically go right towards the residences. And that I have some concerns with. From a liability aspect as well. In looking at what is there presently with the 2nd Addition. 2nd Addition I didn't think was in too bad of shape. I don't know how many people are here from the 2nd Addition. Okay. I looked at that rather closely. There's some problems with some of the curbs where they are sinking. But my suggestion with that would be to leave it sit as is. Let it go for another 5-6 years and do some maintenance and some patching of those streets and not do it at this time. Although take into consideration 6 years later the costs are going to escalate again and that's going to go up a little higher. And you can ahnost figure roughly another 10% per year is the norm that we used to figure within industxy and I would, is that a fairly? David Mitchell: It's not quite that much for construction... Mayor Chmiel: So that's another thing to look at by itself. But I would be willing to go on those particular parts. Richard. 54 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: It seems looking at the survey and the group that's here, we'd be relatively safe ff we did only number 1. 28 foot road with barrier curb and staged the trees and left phase 2 out of it altogether at this point. I guess that's where I would stand at this point. Councilman Mason: I'm in agreement with that. My only thing is, I think if we're going to do it, we've got to do the watermain too. I mean just because, ff we go ahead and tear. Mayor Chmiel: Well everything contained with the 1st Addition is going to have to be done. Councilman Mason: Right. Right, right. To not do the watermain and then have to tear up the road 6 months later doesn't seem like too good of an idea but I don't have any uouble at all with wofldng on number 1 with the 28 feet and the barrier curb. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I have no problem with the barrier curb either. As far as the tree replacemem goes. I don't know whether it's possible or not but maybe we should be looking at our tree fund to replace it. I mean this is reforestation at it's best I think. I don't think this is something we should be charging back to the residents through the assessments one way or the other. They've put a lot into the frees that are out there and we do have a budget for that sort of thing. Mayor Chmiel: Well those ~xees, the existing frees that are there were put in by, if I'm wrong tell me, by the developer. And they were all put within the boulevard section, which is in city right.of-way. Councilman Senn: Yeah which unfortunately is water over the dam because the developer's not around anymore and. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's right. Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean I have a hard time turning around and telling the residents they should be responsible for it and just think since we have that fund, maybe we should look at using it to get a good caliber of tree in there and do something. I don't know. To me that's as good a use of those funds as the other things so it's au idea for whatever it's worth. Don Ashworth: If I may. We're not proposing to assess the cost of the trees. David Mitchell: No we're not. Councilman Senn: Oh we aren't? Mayor Chmiel: No. David Mitchell: The proposed assessments for the street portion are, it's a rate that was determined to be the anticipated increased value in the property as a result of the...at the time that those rates were put together, no tree replacement plan was in place. Councilman Senn: So the increased cost in the project, by the trees and the other firings we've talked about, are 55 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 totally going back on us basically? David Mitchell: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay. So there's no additional cost. That rate to the resident has not changed? David Mitchell: For the street assessment. The storm sewer has increased slightly because of some of the draintile issues and increased costs of materials, Mayor Chmiel: One of the other concerns I had too in saying with the Ist Addition to the 2nd Addition, is *&at the cost per se would not change for the assessments. Maybe you'd just like to elaborate on that a little bit Charles because I had some discussion. Charles Folch: That's correct Mr. Mayor. ff this project is split up where only the 1st Addition is done, costwise, I mean basically unit quantities is basically cut in half but so there's no real affect on assessments with the 1 st Addition properties. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: Are you suggesting that if we do the 2nd Addition 5-6 years from now, we'll hold the assessment rate at the same level? Mayor Chmiet: No. I don't think you can because of the costs. It'd be nice to do but that's not the real world. Councilman Senn: No, I understand. I just wanted to clarify that. Councilman Wing: So we're really only discussing number, phase number 1 so phase number 2 doesn't have to address this tonight because they're really not... Mayor Chmiel: No, if they're in agreement with it. They may want to go ahead and pursue it and get it in, I don't know. I mean at least that's what I had looked at. So ff there's some, still some concern after knowing at least where we're coming from, step up please. Indicate your name and your address and tell us your concern. Bill Kraus: Hi. Mr. Mayor, Council members. Bill K.raus at 8008 Cheyenne. One thing Dave that was not talked about tonight in the watermains was the fact and you did not put the display up, was the fact that where the existing watermain is and where they're proposing to put it brings that construction a lot farther into the resident's yard. Now it was suggested at the informational meeting that the watermain could be put on the other side of the street and limit, there would be not that big conslruction into the residential part but containing to the street part. And that wasn't even brought up or even suggested. David Mitchell: That's a good point and what I did after the last public meeting, for Council's information, the question was asked ff we could save more trees by relocating the watermain. As the plan existed, it's proposed to be 2 foot outside of the existing or on the house side of the existing watermain for ease of construction, What I did after that last informational meeting is I went back and looked at it a little bit closer and what I found was that at a width of 26 feet, it would be prudent for us to do that. At a width of 28 feet, the watermain trench and the subcut required for the street are basically equal so we're really not saving anything by doing it that way for 56 City Cotmcil Meeting - March 28, 1994 the 28 or the 31 foot. Bill Kraus: Do you have that on a slide anywhere to show that? It's kind of hard to believe. From the slide that you had shown last time, it looked like it would be quite a, it would be quite a savings. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead, while he's looking. Conrad Fiskness: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm Conrad Fiskness. I reside at 8033 Cheyenne Avenue. After the previous, or the last informational meeting there were several residents of the neighborhood that were concerned that the project might mn into snags and there was an effort put together to generate a letter and a number of signatures were secured. I believe your packet does contain copies of that. Subsequent to the submission of the letters there are several more signatures that have come about. I kind of by default have selected I guess to deliver this. I have the originals of those letters which I will leave with you here. There are now 4 leuers total. There were 3 I think that were submitted. The first one is primaffiy, not totally exclusively but I would say all but 2 or 3 are from Cheyenne Avenue in the 1st Addition. The second letter is primarily from Dakota Avenue, with one or two exceptions. The third letter is from, signed by residents of Cheyenne 'Avenue in the 2nd Addition who are concerned that they're going to get left out. And the fourth letter is signed by about half of the people are from Dakota Avenue and the other half are from Erie and you have not seen that letter. That is one that just came about over the weekend. The jist of the letters are basically that the project should be done. It should be done correctly and it should be done quickly. And then with regard to the sire, et, which the survey would support, everybody thai signed these is anxious to see the 28 foot width. So I don't know who I should give this leuer to. Mayor Chmiel: We'll take it. Conrad Fiskness: ARight. Thank you. Councilman Wing: ...2nd Addition? Mayor Chmiel: Part of it is 2nd Addition with the support of it, yeah. Some. David Mitchell: If I may Mr. Mayor and Council, I'd like to address Mr. Krans' concern with the watermain. What he's referring to is we've got 3 different trench options when it comes to the replacement of the watermain. I've lost my pointer so I'll have to walk on the Uack here. The three options, and these were verified through a contractor, are to, thanks Kate. Have a trench box and again' I want to emphasize that we cannot dictate to a contractor his means of conslmetion. We can ask him to save this tree but we can't dictate the means of coustmction. This ~rench line here represents what a contractor would construct as a minimum trench. This is the heavy line or the solid line is his standard trench. Mr. Kraus' concern is that, and I guess I'm making the assumption that we're going with a minimum trench or box in a case that we're trying to save a tree. Mr. Kraus' concern is that the extent of this trench is extending out beyond what the subcut for the road is. Now this subcut indicates a 31 foot road. Again this distance, or right in here at the pointer may not be the foot and a half that we're narrowing up the street but it's not significant enough to go through a total redesign of the road. I guess what I'm saying is, that the con~xactor's going to cheat this a little bit so he's not beyond the subcut required in the roM. Did that address? Bill Kraus: No. If I may. 57 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 David Mitchell: I guess what I'm saying is we're going to lose this tree due to the subcut before we're going to lose it to the watermain. Bill Kraus: I thought when we had talked earlier, if I may, if we were to put the pipe which has to be 10 feet from the sanitary, if I'm correct, The position of this box is like this with the pipe here because that's the room that they need but if we were to put the pipe here, with nothing inbetween, the box could be mom centered and as you can see, the box and the trench would not have to be any wider than it would have to be just for the subcut. David Mitchell: And I guess what I'm saying is that's the case here too. Is that the french isn't going to be any wider than the subcut of the road. Bill Kraus: Okay. Resident: The street is going to be 3 feet narrower than what you're showing. David Mitchell: A foot and a half on each side. If in fact the Council orders that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else? Resident: Mr. Mayor and Council and Mr. Ashworth. I've got a petition in front of you...I represent about 14 homes. I should say the majority of 14 homes in the 2nd Addition so I can be very brief now based on what I've just heard here. 12 out of 14 homes that I personally surveyed and have signed petitions for all you folks, are in favor of resurfacing the road on Dakota Circle and Dakota Lane. By that we mean...an inch or two and then resurfacing it because it is quite bumpy and there's quite a few little potholes and bumps and it's been quite a while since it's been maintained in that regard. We would like to see it resurfaced and possibly consider a major overall in about 10 years or so or however long you feel that a resttrfacing shall...Beyond that I'll just simply say that we've been a little bit fmswated. We've been quite surprised that you are the fa'st person that has recognized that the 2nd Addition is 10 years newer and has curbing and has a little different situation to deal with than the 1st Addition does. I'm glad that you did because it could have jeopardized the Ist Addition and the street which they need very badly. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Charles, one of the aspects of resuffacing, from at least my understanding is ff we go through that process. I can understand doing patchwork and necessary items as such. But what about the resurfacing? Basically that's not going to last for any length of time. Charles Folch: That's correct. The pavement management study which was completed on evea'y street in the city two years ago indicated that all of the streets in Chart Estates basically were in a condition, and there were a number of different criteria that each street was evaluated on in determining the condition of the street in terms of the rating system priority in strategizing repair but bottom line is, for these streets, an overlay, whether you do an overlay or whether you just rock, fill and patch potholes and things like that, within the next 1 to 5 years you basically are going to be the same situa~on. And an overlay really is not an economically effective means for dealing with the condition of the mad... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else? David Mitchell: What I've shown here for the benefit of Councilman Wing is the break between the 1st and 2nd 58 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Additions. And as such the 1st Addition is Dakota Avenue and the north 2/3 of Cheyenne and then the 2nd Addition entails all of Erie, the south 1/3 of Cheyenne, Dakota Lane and Erie Circle. And Erie Spur. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Amy Dvorak: Amy Dvorak and I reside at 8003 Dakota Avenue. I have attended all of the meetings that have been held on this since last fall and I just wanted to point out, I think there was one error quoted tonight and that is that originally 25 trees was listed to be possibly lost in this whole. As stated in the Villager from last October...I have concern over the replacement of the lrees, the 2 to 1. In my particular lot we're going to lose 2 trees and that means they would replace with 4. We have a beautiful landscaped yard and we've invested in that and, as many other residents have. We would request that you install larger trees instead of doubling the number of trees that are there. That it visually and aesthetically increases the value of our home and not decreases. Many of the trees that are closer to the house will look silly ff you put 4 trees fight out in front. We in particular have a cedar fence that's been there since the house was built. Putting 4 lrees fight in front of that would look really silly and I'd really appreciate if you would make that addendum to the plan. Also I think it's only fair that these are our homes. That we would have a choice in the tree that would be placed on our property. We had an information meeting here and we had a vote by all the residents that attended and it was even higher attendance than what you see this evening. And it was a unanimous vote that the residents be able to choose their tree. Yes it was. Resident: Of the choices that the city gave us. Amy Dvorak: Yes, of the choices that the city gave us. Resident: That's important Amy Dvorak: Okay. Of the 5 or 6 species that were recommended for that area. The other issue that's not been addressed tonight is the return of the Chanhassen Estates sign that was removed when Lake Drive was installed. We would request that that be replaced. Also that ff shrubs and fences are destroyed or misplaced, they be put back at the city's cost and not the resident's cost. That was initially discussed in the first meeting back in October and since we've been told that that would not be included. When originally, at the first meeting it was said that it was...I personally do not believe that the watermains need to be replaced. I work with the City of Edina and they had 3 watermains break right near where I work this winter. I called the City Engineer. I asked him how long can watermains be effective? He gave me a time of 50 to 100 years. The watennains in our area are 25 years old. Half of what the low range for a watermain is. I asked him why do watermains break. One of the reasons they felt, they've had watermains breaking quite heavily this winter was because of the large variance in tempemune. From 35 below to 30 above. And also soil movement. We all know flint in Chanhassen there's a lot of beautiful lakes and a lot of moist soil. They're going to continue to move whether they're new or they're old. I also would like to say that when the survey was done for the width of sueets, if you were to review the width of streets for Dakota Avenue, which is mostly 26 feet in width. Not 28. And the residents on those streets requested that they be kept at 26 feet in width. To keep the traffic slow because that's a street that people come in on. That's the street that I live on. I have two small children and I would prefer to have the traffic slower, not faster. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, if I might just comment. One issue brought up in terms of shrubs and fencing. It 59 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 has been and continues to be the city's policy that if there's like a wood fence or some sort of fence like that, that's typically removed during construction and reinstalled, But on all reconstruction projects we notify the people as we have at the feasibility time, We would send out another letter prior to construction. Do you have shrubs and things like that. Landscaping in your boulevard area that's within an encroachment area, that it's up to the residents to remove those shrubs and move them back off of the right-of-way. We do not replace small shrubs and arborvitae and things like that. Councilman Mason: Charles, that's in right-of-way right? Charles Folch: In right-of-way, fight, Councilman Mason: Now if the city were to damage anything out of the right-of-way, the city would take care of it. Charles Folch: That's right. If we're outside the fight-of-way, we have to acquire an easement. Councilman Wing: And do you agree that the cast iron pipes in that area with those soils should last 100 years? Charles Folch: Well you know I guess I've been heating this quote from this infamous City Engineer of Edina but I guess in looking at some of the digouts that we've had from watermain replacement, in the southwest meu'o here it's really high corrosive soils, Eden Prairie has the same problem. Minnetonka has experienced some problems. Basically that's,.,southwest are all wrapping new watermain pipe with poly protection for corrosion. We're also using...which is a little more accomm~a!ing to soft movement than a cast iron pipe is. But that's just what we've seen and we work with it here day in and day out, Steven Peterson: Members of the Council. I'm Steven Peterson. I live at 8021 Dakota Avenue. If I could impress one thing upon all of you it would be that if we're going to do this, let's do it fight and let's do the watermain. There have been so many breaks. Terrible. You all know that I believe. I heard rumors about not replacing the watermain before tonight. And I would rather see the street not be done ff we're just going to do the street over again only to dig it up and patch and repair. I don't believe that's the way we should do it. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Steve. Anyone else? Bill ?: Bill...again. Just a quick rebuttal to what Charles is saying. He continually gives us the impression that our choices here are between everything and nothing. And like you sir, we would like the choice between something and something and what we're feeling in our neighborhood is that our streets are well constructed. If we.,,at that point we were told that we had good quality streets and now he's telling us we have poor quality streets. To tear them all out and start over. What we're saying is that we believe that a resurfacing job should be at least explored and then considered seriously and then go from there. Thank you very much. David Mitchell: As a comment to that, We did do soil borings throughout the entire area Very few soft borings, and I do not have that repot with me tonight but very few soil borings showed any Class V. I guess I'm not saying that none was put down at the time but it has degraded into the soil below and there really is no Class V available. And also to reiterate what Charles has said.., resurfacing project within these areas is that it would be very poor use of city dollars to do any type of project, That's my opinion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Anyone else? 60 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Dick Cottrell: Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council. I want to thank you for tairir~g the extra lime tonight to hear us out rather than closing your meeting off at the appointed time. My name is Dick Cottrell and I'm at 8044 Cheyenne Avenue. And I am interested in the option of being able to stage this in developments to some extent. For one thing it gives us the opportunity to stage the removal and the replacement of the trees. As I've spent, I jog so I go around that area quite a little bit and I look at all those trees that axe scheduled to come out of there. It's going to make that area look radically different if all of those trees are removed at one time. I recognize the necessity of doing this and doing it properly but ff there is a way to stage it without increasing the cost to the city and the residents...and still get a quality job, I would like to see that considered. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Tom Kotsonas: Again I want to thank you also for staying so late and listening to us. I'm Tom Kotsonas and I live at 8001 Cheyenne and I have some points to question on. On my personal, on my property I stand to lose in this project 4 deciduous trees plus 3 to 5 spruce trees and arborvitae trees and I know all the arborvitaes are called scrub even though mine are about 15 feet high and my spruce trees are all over 12 feet and they've been called scrub because they're Colorado Spmce...and so I'm losing, it looks like, something like 8 trees on my property and since my property buffers the rest of the neighborhood from, or part of it anyway, from Highway 5, there's a purpose that I put those trees in and that was to protect myself as much as I could from the noise and the pollution that Highway 5 brings. I continually pick up garbage and I brought this to the City before. I have picked up this spring litter bags, garbage bags, two full ones of stuff that comes onto my property and that's with the trees and the brush that I have there now. Now ff I lose that, I'm going to wind up picking up even more and it doesn't affect the other neighborhood and I know Mr. Fiskness brought you some letters but he was evidentally very selective on the people that he asked to sign the letters in the neighborhood. Also, ff I'm going to be forced to lose those trees, ff I, ff you put in 2 to 2 1/2 inch trees. They take 15 years to grow. I'm 55 years old. I'm going to wait until I'm 70 to see a shade tree again on my property? Or my alternative is to move and go someplace else. I think we should be looking at trees more than 2 to 2 1/2 inches in diameter and if you look in last Saturday's paper and there was an article on value of houses and the value of shade trees. And if I'm going to lose all my shade trees, I think I stand to lose a fair amount of value to my property at this time and to wait 15 years. And the other thing is, if you're contemplating leaving out area number 2 or Chart Estates #2 from this issue that we're talking, I would say then that that survey that was taken is really, has no value any longer because the numbers that were quoted are based on the total. $o we would like to really propose to look at for instance the 26 foot wide streets versus the 28 feet streets. Thank you very much. Councilman Wing: Charles, I think you should look at this project, depending on what gets approved here, that those particular houses on all the issues that have come up on that Highway 5 development. Those trees have been a real significant barrier in that issue. And that ff they wind up being taken out or damaged, I think that should be given special attention to retain that barrier berm. Whether we put in some significant pines or some type of barrier tree there because I would agree. That, we've tried to protect that and enhance that with all the development to the north and I think ff we wind up damaging, that should be put back in whatever way possible. Just point that out as a special attention item, David Mitchell: I guess for my clarification, that's the area between Erie Avenue as it extends to the west and Lake Drive Extension? Councilman Wing: Well actually it would be going to the east. Other direction. David Mitchell: Yeah, the east side. 61 City Council Meeting - March 28. 1994 Councilman Wing: From Dakota to the east of Cheyenne. What abuts the McDonalds and Lake Drive. David Mitchell: That whole little triangle area between...and over to the park. Charles Folch: We can also meet with Mr. Kotsonas. Depending on the size of some of these evergreens, they may still be able to get to relocated farther back out of the conslruction zone and maybe that's an option we can take a l.ook at too. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay. Is there anyone else? Mr. Wassink: I'm Mr. Wassink. the property if they're taken out? are they going to be placed? I live at 8004 Dakota Avenue. How far are these trees going to be placed on Are they going to be next to the curb? 4 to 6. 8 feet from the curb? Where Charles Folch: Generally they'll be in a zone of minimum of 8 feet behind the curb. And so that 8 to 10 foot range. Again, we propose to do a 2 to 1. We're basically budgeting this project for the 2 to 1 replacement but when it gets right down to it, as Mrs. Dvorak pointed out, depending on where existing trees are in the yard, farther back and such, you may not always be able to get 2 more or 3 more trees in a front boulevard. But generally in that range of 8, middle of 8, possibly 10 feet behind the curb. Mr. Wassink: Okay. Now the person that's going to put these trees in. I imagine the city's going to do that. Will the property owner have any say where that tree is going to be set?... Charles Folch: We have, as we have in other projects, we will meet with the homeowner and try to get a general location which we'll stake as to where that homeowner prefers that tree to be laterally along the boulevard but we certainly don't want to encroach any closer than that 8 foot zone to the curb. In the future point in time some Councils 25-30 years from now might have to deal with the same situation in tree loss. Mr. Wassink: Okay. then one more question. What is the depth of your, when you put down tar? Now I don't expect to see probably an inch and a half tar and say well this is it. I'd like to see something that's going to be a little heavier and it won't be kicking out of the... Charles Folch: Basically that road section out there, which would follow the city's residential standard, will be on top of the 2 foot granting of their subbase would be 12 inches of Class V rock. A 2 1/2 inch blacktop base and another inch and a half of blacktop wear on top. So you're going to have a total of 3 1/2 inches of blacktop on top of 12 inches of rock. Mr. Wassink: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? George Thomas: Yeah, I'm in the 1st Addition Mr. Mayor and Councilmen. I'm in the 1st Addition. My address is 8029 Cheyenne Avenue. My opinion is that residents on the 1st Addition should have their choice of what tree...The gentleman that was just up here and asked for evergreen trees. Is there any way that you people could retransplant those trees back off the right-of-way? And second, I want a barrier curb. It's easier for the street department to plow snow back there and I don't get my grass all tore up from the plow. Thank you. 62 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? Allison Blackowiak: Hi. Mayor and Council members. I'm Allison Blackowiak. I live on 8116 Erie Circle, which is in the 2nd Addition and I guess I'm not too much affected I think by what's going to be happening tonight, if I read you all correctly. But I still would like to make some comments about the trees. First of all I like the idea of the staged tree removal. One problem I had was that I felt any contractor dmt would come in would just rip all the trees out indiscriminanfly without looking at the merits of each tree. And I think what we need to do is take a look at a tree and figure out ff indeed there's a chance to save it, if it's dead or dying, like many of them are, take them out. But if there's a chance to save them, I think we should give the Irees that chance because it takes many, many years to grow these trees and I don't think that going in and tipping them all out is a solution. And I've heard comments tonight earlier about the streetscape and how you want to keep stuff, West 78th Street looking a certain way and we have a neighborhood. Chanhassen Estates that already looks a certain way. It's an established neighborhood. We've got nice trees on each side of the street and just kind of a very cozy feeling when you go into that neighborhood. But to rip all the trees out indiscriminantly and replace them with 2 1/2 inch diameter trees would totally destroy .that streetscape that we've already got there. So I think what we need to do is take a look at the trees individually and see what we can do to save what trees we can, given that some will be taken out and let's do the staged tree removal if possible and let's let the neighbors have a lime bit more say. I think one of the main problems I had with this entire process was, when I heard we were getting a new street I was thrilled. Even though ! live in the 2nd Addition, I'm down on Erie Circle and we get chunks of blacktop floating down to our street so I mean I know that there's a problem and I'd like to see that taken care of. But I just, I was not feeling well informed about what was going to be happening. The letters I got we kept talking about street construction and I thought, great. They didn't say anything about trees. They didn't say anything about watermains. They didn't say anything about sewer. And I felt that those were issues that should have been brought to the attention of the residents. It's not just a .street reconstruction project. There are other elements to this project and I felt that that would have been nice to have come out earlier in the process because had I been aware of this earlier, I would definitely have been at all the meetings and I talked to Dave Mitchell the other day on the phone and I told him I thought the survey and the information packet he sent out was great. I mean I felt at least like I had a feeling of what was going to be happening and things that maybe in the future, if you could send out a little more information and try to identify the issues so people might find helpful or might be of concern to them, that filings might go a little bit more smoothly than this entire project has started off going. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Charles. Charles Folch: I should point out that in terms of the scope, and I don't know if this is the word, conceming the utility repairs and storm drainage and street drainage, all that was brought out at the feasibility hearing and the neighborhood meeting that we had in September prior to that feasibility hearing. I should also point out that that first neighborhood meeting, before the feasibility last September, we only had 12 people show up. Similar situation OCCtUTed for the second neighborhood meeting we had. It was only until the third neighboxhood meeting when we finally got a full crowd of people that were even interested in hearing about the project so it can be very tough to get information and get people interested in coming to these neighborhood meetings to find out what's happening on the projects and that's why we do have these neighborhood meelings so people can come and find out what's going on. Mayor Chmiel: And I understand that because I've gone through the same process except our assessment came to about $10,000.00 per residence rather than 4 so I understand the feel. 63 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: Have you got that paid off yet? Mayor Chmiel: Just last year. Finally. It was put on for a 15 year assessment. Anyone else? Gene Gagner: Good evening gentlemen. Thanks for spending the long evening with us. My name is Gene Gagner and I live at 8025 Dakota Avenue. And I hope that this project is approved tonight because of any other further delays it won't get done this year. Except for the final 2 inches that we put on next year so I hope the project goes through and I'd like to see both 1st and the 2nd Additions done. The reason I'd like the 2nd Addition done now is because in a couple, 2 or 3 years, maybe 4 years, they're going to be looking at doing it the right way. As it were, the 1st Addition wants it done now and they're going to be driving their heavy equipment over our new roads. I don't want my new roads that I spent $4,000.00 on and they city spent even more on than I have, to have to go back over and reconstruct them because the roads were weaken because of heavy equipment. That they will have to drive over to get to the 2nd Addition to do the road construction. Thank you for your time. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Rhonda Faidley: Gentlemen. My name's Rhonda Faidley and I live at 8117 Erie Circle. 2nd Addition. I'm curious, there's been talk about maybe not doing the 2nd Addition but then there's also talk about the storm sewer. Different areas that need to be taken care of. Part of that was coming down the 2nd Addition, If the 2nd Addition is not done, what happens with the storm sewers? Is that also not done? David Mitchell: Yeah, the project can be broken into two phases and if I'm reading the Council correctly, they only order the 1st Addition and there would be no storm sewer work done in the 2nd Addition, The 2nd Addition would remain as is until a future project is initiated. Rhonda Faidley: Future project would be initiated and maybe looked at later on down the roM, depending on. Mayor Chmiel: 5 years. 6 years. Whatever. Anyone else? Amy Dvorak: Amy Dvorak again. Can I ask one more question? On the stage removal of trees. That's the first that we heard..,come through and take out 60 or 70, Who will be responsible for removing the other trees? If it's left up to the contractor, we all know that they will come down. We've been looking at building a different home in Chanhassen and if it's a wooded lot you can only take out these 3 trees. There's very limited and restrictive ordinances about how many trees can be removed from an existing lot. And so I understand that the city values trees but I feel no assurance whatsoever from what's been said this evening that a sincere effort will be made to save trees by stating it in a contract with the contractor and pet~alizing them if they're not kept and they could be. Mayor Chmiel: Charles? Charles Folch: The construction will be monitored on a daily basis with the inspector assigned through our project consultant engineer. We have, I mean at this point in time a number based on their location on the plans of which trees definitely are going to be severely impacted. Which ones are marginal. The ones that are marginal, I don't believe you could put a penalty on a contractor necessarily. I mean unless it's a tree that's far enough away where it certainly was never intended to affected by the project, then I think we can impose a penalty but the call as to damage of the tree, that certainly would come from probably the inspector maybe even City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 with Laurie's taking a look at some of the marginal cases as to how much damage has been done to the root system of the tree. Amy Dvorak: Could you qualify how many trees would come out in the first si,age and how many are marginal and how many are left? On a 26 foot street and a 28 foot street and a 31 foot street, which is what we've asked for since the very beginning and we've never gotten an answer on and I'd really appreciate it. Charles Folch: There was a colored drawing. David Mitchell: ! think ff we. Amy Dvorak: What are the totals? David Mitchell: I'm estimating here, and we've been through this 4 or 5 different times so I'm l~jlling numbers that I'm not real sure on but the estimated tree removal at a 31 foot street, and I'm quoting the entire project area now. 1st and 2nd Additions. With the 31 foot street, our worst case scenario was 120 trees removed. Under a 28 foot scenario we were looking at in the neighborhood of 80 to 100 trees being removed. And in the 26 foot scenario, in the neighborhood of 62 to 80 ~xees being removed. Councilman Wing: On Minnewashta Parkway we moved the entire road to save a couple really nm down, beat out, chewed up maple trees. We don't take ne. es down for the fun of it. The city's as tight as any city I'm aware of on trees and so it will be minimized. I know that. There's no question. But you're going to lose some and it's a nebulous number. I don't think it's reasonable to even try and tie it down right now. I can only tell you our ordinances don't allow for the removal so I'm pretty confident that you're going to see the minimum number taken. But they're going to go. Amy Dvorak: I'm concerned because originally it was talking about taking them all out and I still think that that's the thought process. I hope not. Councilman Wing: I hope not. Mayor Chmiel: I do too. ~'ny Dvorak: But when they're down it's too late. David Mitchell: I'd like to add to what Charles had said too. As you !_aJk with conlractors too doing this type of work, they're becoming very aware of the sensitivity of these issues and they are being more cautions as they approach these types of projects. Mayor Chmiel: I think that contractor should be informed prior to conslruction and the concerns the city has. Joe Betz: Mayor and Council, I wasn't going to say anything for the sake of time but hearing some other things being said, I just want to make a few quick comments. My name is Joe Betz, 8107 Dakota Lane, 2nd Addition. I've attended all the meetings. Been involved and I'm probably the only resident who's lived on both sides of the slxeet over the lime that I've lived here since 1974. I want to say in terms of my relationship with people who have been involved with the staff, and other professionals involved, what's gone on in my experience with city businesses before, I feel that all the people involved-have tried to do a sincerely as good a job as they can in 65 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 presenting the materials and it does require an obligation on the part of citizens to attend the meetings and pick up the information. I'd like to say that in a sense this is somewhat comparable to a patient relationship with a surgeon. If you were a cancer patient, You're about to do something to us that's very traumatic, extensive and it hurts some people very much and we hope that the outcome of all this is going to be better than the situation that we have. We have some things that have to be fixed. They need attention...12 year project to get to this point. Generally speaking, without getting into specifics, I think there are 3 priority ways to get this. One is first of all health and safety and I see that the three priorities in that are basically resident's children, resident's,.,and then the construction workers themselves, It seems that the decisions you have to make keep within those priorities. Secondly, in terms of the infrastructure overall needs to be addressed fi.om a long term perspective as well as from a cost effective approach.' The whole community but that's an issue that, whether heavy equipment should be brought in now or later, whatever. The 1st or 2nd Addition, I think you need to look at in the broad sense. And then lastly in terms of.,.generally speaking. As people have brought up. Some people have different plantings...the city could work with some people, such as has been suggested, and maybe bring in the right equipment to help them move plants, To also get the community together and the one nice thing about this particular situation, it has brought the community together better than anything in the past, Unfortunately it has had some trauma involved with the road but I would hope some of you will get together and help your neighbors to maybe move some trees and have us all work together and get this thing going but I think you need to make a decision tonight. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks, Anyone else? If not, we'll come back to Council. Councilman Mason: Can we use the applause o'meter to see whether we should do 2nd Addition or not? Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think Council has indicated some of their concerns and true, if equipment is brought in on a low boy trailer, and correct me if I'm wrong Charles, it can eliminate some of those given problems because it does have additional wheels and it takes compression onto that entirety of the road. The only thing I'd have is concerns about sizes of vehicles that they would have for removal of soils and whatever they're going to do, And I don't know what kind of equipment they even have so that's another thing, But I still son of stand by the decision that I had in regard to that 2nd Addition. I guess being that it's not quite as old and it doesn't have as many years in wear on it and to put it over and to do some just patch work on those roads. I can't see an overlay because I think it's just a waste of dollars. To either go that particular way or to do it completely and right now I'm still leaning to doing the 1st Addition. Getting that completed and getting the show on the road and leaving the 2nd Addition as is, Councilman Wing: Now did you sneak in a motion there? Mayor Chmiel: I'd so move that. Councilman Wing: I'll second that. And to that, as a friendly amendment, that it be a 28 foot road, barrier curb, and careful staging of trees, Mayor Chmiel: Correct. Councilman Mason: Could I add to that? That I think this issue of bigger trees ~ 1 tree as opposed to 2 u, ees. If the homeowner should choose, they say they'd rather because of landscaping or what not, that they should have the option of having one larger tree? 66 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Senn: Well the thing is, couldn't we put together some type of. Mayor Chmiel: The concern I have number one Michael is, once you go from 2 1/2 to a 3 inch to a larger based tree, your costs just escalate really high. Charles Folch: And that's correct. And a clear example of that is the tree project that we bid out this year for Audubon Road and Kerber Boulevard. Strategically we did, throughout the project at 2 1/'2 inch caliper tree because when you actually go out to the nursery and pick out the trees, often limes they come in at 3 inches but you're paying at 2 1/2 versus if you spec out 3, you're going to pay the 3 price and it's typically 50% to 70% higher than a 2 1/2. But that's kind of the way the game is played. Councilman Mason: Well but okay. But then if you're mllring one 3 1/2 inch tree as opposed to two 2 1/2 inch trees, I mean what's the cost then? Give or take. Charles Folch: Just an example from some of the nursery prices we received this year. A tree, a 2 1/'2 inch caliper tree that would normally sell for probably $225.00 to $250.00 at 3 inches specified diameter probably runs another $80.00. $75.00 to $80.00 more per tree. Councilman Ma.son: Well but, so then one 3 1/2 inch tree is cheaper than two 2 1/2 inch trees. Mayor Chmiel: That would be true. Councilman Mason: So what I'm saying is, if the neighbors. Mayor Chmiel: One large one as opposed to two. Councilman Mason: Would rather have one large one as opposed to the two. Councilman Senn: And I heard somebody say if they had 4 and they'd rather have 1. I mean why don't we have some kind of a scale or some type of an allowance set up so it allows them to do something like thai? Charles Folch: We'll see what we can work out. Mayor Chmiel: It's not figured in on the road portion. Councilman Mason: Yeah, this is a separate deal but I mean that certainly makes sense to me. I mean it sounds like we'd even be saving some money on the deal. Councilman Wing: We'll just simply instruct flexibility here. Councilman Senn: I don't have a problem with them choosing a tree either, do you? Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make that as an additional condition9. Councilman Mason: Oh, Charles is upset here now. Charles Folch: ..,it can be tough to bid out in terms of, at this point knowing exactly which trees ate coming out 67 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 and does this particular owner, if he loses that tree, does he want a 3 1/2 or 4 inch because everything is bid out in the front end of the project and we're not going to know exactly how many trees. Councilman Senn: But I think you're missing the point. Why don't you take the cost of a 2 1/2 inch tree and if this lot's losing 2 and you've doubled it to 4, just give them an allowance. I mean if that allowance is x dollars, that's it. I mean you can bid that out in the project up front and it's up to the homeowner how they want to use it. I mean let them pick their tree and let them pick the size of the tree within that allowance. If they go over the allowance, and that's what they want... Councilman Mason: They kick in some more money for a bigger tree. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? One of the, as I heard Dave though. When you said this 50 foot spacing, like the two trees. I got the feeling that that's kind of an average. You know so it's not necessarily 4 trees on this particular owner. In fact if you've got a 100 foot lot, and most of them look like they're kind of on a lot line. So the question then becomes whether or not, well the fa'st guy has 3 trees and the next guy he only has 2. Well he's going to say he has 3 and the other guy only has 2. Mayor Chmiel: Work it out. Councilman Mason: Yeah, split it down the middle, there you go. I mean I would certainly hope. I mean I'm hearing that the neighborhood, and it does certainly seem like the neighborhood has come together on this. I've got to believe that the side by side homeowners can work it out and if not, we'll get the applause meter out or something. I don't know. I mean I think we can work this out~ We can be flexible. Councilman Wing: If you've got to get going on trees... Councilman Senn: And let them choose their trees which was a point. Councilman Mason: On the list. The approved list. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor with a second. Amy Dvorak: Can we get the sign? Councilman Senn: Oh the sign. Mayor Chmiel: The sign is something, I don't know who took the sign down. Whether it be the city or. Councilman Wing: Well that's not part of this project. Mayor Chmiel: And to me that's not part of the project. We had a sign taken down from our's as well and it never got put back up. It's still sitting there. So consequently, I really don't think that that's part of the project. We did that by an association and contributed dollars and got our own sign back again. But that I don't think is part of the project. So with that, I'll call the question. Resolution g9441: Mayor Chmiel moved, Counclhnan Wing seconded to approve plans and specfficafions for Chanhassen Estates street, drainage and utility Reconstruction Project g93.10 for Phase I only with a 68 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 28 foot wide street, barrier curb and careful consideration given to tree removal and replacement; and to authorize advertising for bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 19.7 ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS. Public Present: Name Address Kenneth Durr Rick Sathre Dave & Donna Hoelke Ann Zweig Tom & Sharon Wright Bob Haibesen Applicant Sathre-Berquist 3621 Ironwood Road 3601 Ironwood Road 3611 Ironwood Road 3607 Ironwood Road Kate Aanenson: The applicant Ken Durr is proposing to subdivide 19 acres into 27 single family lots. Originally there were four underlying parcels of land and three homes located on the site. Currently there's still one home located on the property. This plan has some modifications...preliminary approval from the Planning Commission. You do have a revised plat since the Planning Commission. Also Lot 7 was redesigned to meet the regulations with the 90 foot frontage and 30 foot setback. And then also we took out the variance...for Lot 8. Mx. Durr proposes to use this plat as part of the 1995 Street of Dreams. As indicated, this lot is adjacent to Highway 7 and l_ake Minnewashta so all the lots on Lake Minnewashta have to meet the 20,000 square foot for the DNR shoreland regulations and have a minimum setback of 75 feet The average lot size for the subdivision is in excess of 2z~,000 with the smallest lot being 16,500...standard lot size in the RSF zone is 15,000. On Outlot A, which is next to the Schmid's Acres reservation over here on Minnewashta Parkway. This is Outlot A. The applicant may in the future propose a beachlot. That would require a separate conditional use. That's not part of the application at this time. Just to make you aware. It does meet standards of the 200 feet of shoreline plus the square footage requirements. The applicant is requesting two variances for Lots 11 and 16. Lot 11 is this lot right here and 16 is up here. This lot is a double frontage lot. It has access from the cul-de-sac, which would be our preference. This lot...pushing it further back. All it does is keep away from the rear yard and it drops off...And Lot 16, this is the large pond. In pushing that back, it doesn't meet the requirements on that lot. Again what you're doing is taking away their rear yard. So the staff did go through the variance requirements and is recommending approval on those two lots. As far as storm water issues, this pond is maybe redesigned and maybe even combined with the pond over in this area here. That will have to go through the evaloation of the storm water calculation before final plat. The other pond is proposed for Outlot A. Access to this site is from a long cul-de-sac. Normally we don't like to see cul-de-sacs in excess of 600 feet. This one is well in excess of 1,000 feet. What this proposed site is trying to accomplish is to pick up, there is 4 homes that exist off of Ironwood Lane. This is Ironwood Drive right here. There are 4 homes that have access directly off of Highway 7...wish to eliminate those access and it is a safety concern. And what Mr. Durr would propose with this lot is to provide an outlot for a drive. This would be just a drive, which the ordinance does allow 4 homes off of, to provide access to these homes through the etd-de-sac. Again, giving them direct access onto Minnewashta Parkway as opposed to direct access onto Highway 7, which we feel meets a lot of safety concerns. Fire Marshal would still like to see the possibility of leaving this as a secondary access. Just put hard 69 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 surface. Obviously in the winter it probably would be maintained but that's something we need to take. a look at, There is a tree survey was prepared for this site. The plat map's been designed to provide for maximum ~ preservation. A majority of the trees along the lakeshore, obviously they're saved behind the lots. Trees which would be significant will be taken off, or on this ridge line on Lot 2, As far as sueetscape on Minnewashta Parkway, the ordinance requires streetscape along Highway 7, which is proposed in this planted berm but there was not streetscape proposed. There is existing trees along Minnewashta Parkway and a berm may not work in trying to preserve the integrity of existing trees but staff feels like additional trees can be planted in that area. The plan,.,maximum of 35 to 38 trees and just with the s~..etscape plan and the replacement of 1 tree per lot an additional 50 trees will be replaced. Staff has asked for additional txees. When this went to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission was concerned with the landscaping plan and asked that it come back to review the plan specifically, They were still concerned at that point that the landscaping plan was not prepared by a professional landscape person. What we are particularly the Planning Commission is that normally we don't took at final landscape plans until it's the very final plat. But they did request that before final plat...they have an opportunity to review that landscape plan, I do have a letter in your packet that was given by Mr. Zweig who is one of the neighbors on Ironwood that was concerned about the nee removal and felt that additional txees should be placed on the site to accommodate for the removal. And the other issue that's a concern of the neighbors, especially the neighbors right here...are concerned about the view on Lot 8. As we indicated, the setback from the shoreland regulations is 75 feet. This plat proposes...their home, Mr. Durr has a map showing where their home is located. Currently they have a 180 degree view across. Their home is set approximately 5 feet from the property line so fight now any home located in this area, and they're set back about 200 feet, would block their view. Staff has indicated...beyond the 75 foot setback and what we've done is asked Mr. Durr to work with the neighbors to try to resolve the best way to accomplish maximizing their views and retain the integrity of the value of the lot, And I'm certain they want to discuss that with you, I mentioned the existing ponds, There is a storm water issue, There is one fight now that runs through the back of this lot and cuts down through this neighborhood, The city's been in there fixing some problems. What we're hoping with this pond, as I've indicated, these may be tied together, is try to resolve a,..work with the developer to try to resolve some storm water issues, As far as compliance,.J~ot 8, In looking at that lot, frontage, where you meet 100 feet is set here. As this pad is shown here, it meets setback requirements. In meeting with the neighbors, I think they're going to come and ask for a different proposal on that lot that we can discuss. Park and Recreation, the Park and Recreation has asked for park and trail fees in lieu of park dedication with this plat. As indicated, in the Planning Commission's review, this did comply and again they do want to see the, Planning Commission wants to see the final landscape plan before the final plat approval. So the staff recommends approval of the subdivision with the 31 conditions in the report. Planning Commission added 27 thru 31 conditions... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. Is the developer here this evening? Rick Sathre: Your Honor, members of Council. My name is Rick Sathre. I'm the planner and engineer for Mr. Duff. Mr. Kenneth Durr is here tonight as well as a consultant that he uses fxequently, Steve Keifer from Davies Tree Company. They'll each be available for questions or whatever you wish. I have five things I'd like to discuss with the Council. I think the staff has done a ten'ffic job in I think helping you understand the proposal so I'll deal with those 5 things and fry to keep it brief in light of the late hour. I'll pass three pictures around. First issue or first comment briefly is, there's been a discussion with the neighbors and the Planning Commission about tree removal and whether it was clear cutting and what Mr. Durr has done a couple of years ago is, what his intent was to clean up dead fallen material. Trees that were dying or dead and some of the scrub trees that were under the specimen trees and he did render or had a contractor go in and take out trees that he thought 7O City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 were substanda~ and small and the saplings. And that's been an issue. That he did that Again, when we did our tree survey we tried to identify those grade of trees that are on the site and we did the tree survey so that we could design the subdivision to preserve the best of the trees with the idea that this site is heavily impacted by Highway 7 and we have to do a good job of screening the view of the traffic that's on Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7. To that end we've committed to the Planning Commission and just to the project we've committed to significant tree plantings. Ken knows he ha~ to do a good job ff he's going to market ~hese homes in the upper bracket, which he intends to. So in his earlier removal of ~ he took out a lot of the dead and dying trees. The pictures that I sent around show some more that are, there are any number of spruce that are out there...There's many other trees on the site which are...and smaller trees that he intends to spade move. We'll move as many trees as we can that are in the way. Going on to the number two item I wanted to talk about. That's Minnewashta Parkway assessments. The staff report identifies that the 'city should collect assessments for Minnewashta Parkway for all 27 lots. The site was previously assessed for 8 units with the original assessment roll. We'd like your consideration and not assessing the rest of these sites. All of the land that directly fronted on Minnewashta Parkway was assessed for the road. We're going to some trouble to direct all the traffic to Miunewashta Parkway, even though there is two present accesses out to Highway 7. The driveways from the old homes. We're moving the traffic to Minnewash~a Parkway for health, safety and welfare reasons. We think it's a safer place than Highway 7 to put the traffic. Now to pemlize potentially the project with the additional assessments would seem to contradict the goal of lnomoting safety. So we're trying to do our part to he safe and we'd like not to be pe~_alized for doing that. So we would prefer that only the 8 assessments he collected, not 27. Third item, staff has and the Planning Commission recommended additional right-of-way dedication for Minnewashta Parkway. Minnewashta Parkway slightly encroaches into the property. Staff is asking that 33 feet of right-of-way be dedicated from the center of the roM. If you need the land, you should take it. The problem from our standpoint, and I want you to know that we have to dedicate about 10 extra feet of right-of-way to accommodate the staff's wishes. What that realistically does is it takes away 10 feet of rear yards from the lots that abut the northwest comer of the site. And so that, it will lessen the berm height by a couple feet. Maybe it's not the end of the world. It probably isn't. What we would ask you to do, if you take that land as, to prevent, to agree to prohibit any motorized vehicles from using the boulevard in that area. To keep the snowmobilers or the three wheelers or whatever that might use that boulevard area out of there. We hope that you would do that. Fourth item we wish to address is park fees. There's three existing tax parcels there. There's been three houses on the property for a long time. Two are removed and another one's going to be taken down. Staff is asking for 27 new park and trail fees to be collected. We'd ~ that you credit us for the three, for the three existing tax parcels. And lastly, the issue of the Hoelke's. I've got a graph, a couple graphics and they're free to use them as well. I hope you can still hear if I talk from here. This is the eastern line of the Dun' property and this is Hoelke's house and Wright's house and H_aibesen's and Zweig's. It's half on and half off the page. So you can see they're set quite a ways back from the lake and they're staggered so they're getting closer to the lake as you go west Zeroing in more, the ordinance would allow the structures to be 75 feet from the shoreline and you can see how much closer that is than your home. After a lot of back and forth, Ken Durr has committed to Hoelke's that he would hold this house back 105 feet at least fi'om the lakeshore and at least 25 feet from the common property boundary. But we need an accommodation from the city to he able to accomplish that. That is we need to he able to put the house 10 feet from this lot line and I think that might he a problem now because Kate's considering this a front lot line? So we'd have a 20 foot variance I guess, wouldn't we? Or 25. Kate Aanenson: 20. Rick Sathre: 20 foot variance so if this has to he 30 then this house is 20 feet farther south if it's that same home. I guess this would require a variance that we haven't applied for and I guess we could work that out at 71 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 the final plat stage ff that worked for the Council. There'd have to be a hearing I suppose. But ff this can work, then we can go partly at least in solving the Hoelke's objections. The other way that we could solve the problem, we understand they'd like to have a 45 degree sight angle across this sight, not 32 degrees which is what we're showing here. The only way we could accommodate that, practically speaking, is to eliminate the access. The outlot~ The driveway access that would tie this subdivision to the Ironwood neighborhood. If I could use the sight plan there. In order to pull that house, ff we were to pull this house farther north, we need to shift these other lots farther north too and the only way to really free up the space is to take this driveway ouflot back out of there. But that would mean that their access would continue out to Highway 7 as it does now and so that I don't know which is the lesser of evils but. But we've been trying to get their access through this plat with a common goal of improving the safety. That's where we're at and that's my...five issues and I'd be happy to answer questions. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wanting to address this at this time? I think that we all have had an opportunity to review the letter and know some of the points. Maybe if you'd just briefly bring us up to date as to your thinking right now with this 105 feet. If we were able to give that a variance, Dave Hoelke: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members. I'm Dave Hoelke and this is my wife Donna Hoelke. We live at 3621 Ironwood, which is a picture...of the property there. As I walk around here I see all the pictures of the lakes. I trust that we all take, I know that we're all very proud of the lakes and trying to maintain the beauty and integrity...and trust that we'll make a decision here that's along reasonable lines. For the record I sent a package to you on Friday. To each of you and I spoke to you over the weekend. A~king you if you had any questions and I want to say that I'm very much in support of the development. And Mr. Durr I think he'll put together and do a terrific job of putting a high quality buildings in and a high qu_aJity development. Our particular issue is with the placement of the house on Lot 8. In all due respect I, if Mr. Durr or somebody else lives on the property, I don't really want to see them shaving in the morning when I look out to the lake. I think it's reasonable for us to want to protect the aesthetic quality and the...value that we paid dearly for to move there in the first place. What we've got, what I've seen is really two points of, that work in our favor. What we don't have is an ordinance that works in our favor because they are meeting the 75 degree setback. But from a logical standpoint, there's a beautiful ridge, just at the north two lot lines of Lot 8. Directly west of our property. It's the ridge that would naturally, that we would assume people would build into when we moved into the property. It's elevated 6 or 8 feet above the lake. In order to build a house forward of that there'd have to be considerable filling and changing of the elevations. And the other logical point of view is that other cities around the community have set an ordinance that says that you can't build in front of your neighbors and cover up lakefront views. Chanhassen is one of the few cities that doesn't have an ordinance like that and regardless of how we come out here today, I would ask that you take a look at that for future consideration. For future developments because this is going to happen more and more as other houses are tom down. As people try to get closer to the lakes. All of the things that happen over time. The other point is, a precedence that was set, our neighbors two houses to the east of us. When they subdivided the lot in 1977 they were told by the City Council and the Attorney that they could not build or they had to build in line with the two houses on either side, which is the same as what Excelsior and any other communities that yon are in require. And so that precedence is the type of thing that I'm looking for so it seems that there's common sense and there's precedence but what we don't have is an ordinance. And so I'm asking for help at this point in trying to allow, try to get something that we can work with. I'm a~qking for 45 degrees of clear view from our property. Mr. Durr has come back with a 32 degree assurance and we'd like to see what we can do to maintain that 45 degrees. We feel like we're compromising in aqking for 45 degrees. I'm not sure what the alternatives would be. Whether they'd be to move the house further west by changing the lots to the west or by moving it further to the north and changing Lots 9, 10 and 11 or changing the Outlot B to coming in from the south of 11 instead 72 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 of the north of 11. There are a number of different things that might work. I'm not a planner so ! don't know exactly what will work. But I guess what I would ask is ff that ordinance were there, ff it had been there when we started the property, it would be, it would still be a developable property and worthwhile project and so I would ask you to consider that next. It's not something that is. An the project and feasible. That's all I have, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Bob Haibesen: Mayor, Council members. My name is Bob Haibesen. I live at 3607 Ironwood Road. I think I'm the last person to build out there and that was 16 years ago. At the time I built there was a restriction that said that I had to build basically at the same distance from the lake as the other homes on both sides of me. I felt it was a reasonable request at the time and...I guess I would ask that you put yourself in Mr. Hoelke's position. He's lived there for some time and I think that the view of the lake is very critical to the value of his property. Secondly...to Mr. Durr, I'd like to personally say thank you very much for cleaning up that piece of property that you have. We've been looking at 16 years of over growth and it's been a real eyesore and he's cleaned it up and it's improved it considerably. Thank you. Tom Wright: My name is Tom Wright and I'm at 3611 Ironwood Road. My wife Sharon is here with me this evening. I guess I would make just a couple of comments, so we don't get redundant with our comments here this evening. We have generally been very strong supporters of the project as it's been outlined to us. Mr. Durr has done I think a good job of bringing us in the loop. I think we're all convinced that what he's proposing here is basically better than what we've got and certainly a lot better than what could be proposed there. I think the issue for us, for a lot of us who have been going out to Highway 7. We've been a neighborhood down there. We're happy with what we've got. With what we have. We really hadn't considered any other egress out of our property other than Ironwood Road going up to Highway 7. As this was proposed, and the work that he was doing, the quality of development, we thought that that would be to our benefit. To be able to cut into that cul- de-sac and go on out. So I think generally all of us have been supportive of this project. As it's evolved, I think that Dave and Donna have gone from saying gee, I didn't like this. As they thought about it more, I think they realistically, they spent more time and they thought about the placement of this house, it's become more and more objectionable to them. And I have to say that we support that as well. If it's your house and if you're there where they are, having a house built in front of you. Only one time in my experience out at Lake Minnewashta has that happened and that was down at a house further down on the Shore Drive and they built a big addition swimming pool out the front and I mean it was just, how it ever got done I don't know but I think that being a good neighbor along this line says yeah, we are concerned about where the houses go and I know that that's going to work some hardship on him, the way they've got that development drawn but I think in fairness, that that's a reasonable position. So thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Ann Zweig: My name is Ann Zweig and I live at 3601 Ironwood Road and I'm in agreement with the mst of my neighbors. My husband and I basically agree with the development. We have...going down to Outlot B. But we also strongly urge that the city put restrictions on the Durr property so that the house proposed for Lot 8 stay in alignment with the rest of the neighborhood. We feel it really is important that Hoelke's get that relief that they request. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Richard. Do you have any questions? 73 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: Any comments at this time? Kate, the 33 foot easement. Minnewashta Parkway right now, and I don't know why this happened and I don't know why we didn't correct it before. Minnewashta Parkway comes up and then we had that gentleman who that danced that little jig for us. Minnewashta Parkway comes in and makes a very abrupt turn just before it hits Highway 7. And it's almost dysfunctional ff you will. I mean it's a wide road. Something, you're U'ying to T it off or make a 90 into Highway 7. It seems to me that road or when MnDot comes through with a stop light, that road's going to have to swing to the east and be, that curve coming up to TH 7 is going to have to be graded into a little more of a gentle approach to Highway 7. So I guess I see that 33 feet as really critical because I think that road's got to rebuilt That 300 feet as it comes up to Highway 7 is really abrupt and extreme and I don't know how it happened. I remember Bill Engelhardt trying to justify his position but it didn't make sense then and it makes less sense now and we didn't have the money to buy it. On the other hand you can't T a road up and a road that doesn't exist. So what ate we going to do with that, that 33 feet I think we need and I respect his right to protect it until such time as we use it. I think they have a legitimate concern that that's going to be abused with snowmobiles and that's a real issue that I think he has a right to have an answer to. But what are we going to do with that road Charles? Charles Folch: You're absolutely correct. We do need the 33 feet. The reason that the road exists or the connection to TH 7 exists as it does today is when the plans were actually drawn up 2 years ago for that project. At that time MnDot's schedule was to install the traffic signal at Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway in 1994 and the one down at Highway 5 in '95. All of those schedules, as we keep heating the story on every highway project, have all been pushed back. So basically that was designed because it was...a one to two year interim situation until MnDot would come back through and realign it with the intersection. Now it looks like it's going to end up having a useful life with a lime bit longer than what we had hoped but it will be remedied and we certainly do need the additional right-of-way. Councilman Wing: Alright. On the assessments, item 3. I think what did it say there? Three that were on the tax roils? Charles Folch: It was actually 8. We made the, as Mr. Sathre pointed out, the property currently has two access points out onto Highway 7. And as we have done with similar properties like that, we've u'ied to basically estimate at that point in time, what's the fair and reasonable amount of lots that would probably make use of Minnewashta Parkway. And that accesses to TH 7 are giving up and their sole access is to the parkway, we don't see it as a penalty to the developer. We see it as the lots paying their fair share for use and benefit of the operation. We don't see it as a penalty and we don't intend it as a penalty. Councilman Wing: So you stick with the 20? Charles Folch: That's correct. Councilman Wing: Alright. On the Hoelke issue, it seems like maybe we have actually no recourse here and I'll wait for final comment of the other members. It seems to me that this is platted out with that is an issue. On the other hand, if we delete Lot 9, I0 or 11, or we cut those lots down in size, Lot 8 then could in fact be adjusted to go north a few feet. I mean everything sort of take it or leave it and I guess as it was drawn out, there wasn't much leeway. Either it's going to be your way or not at all and we have to give a 20 foot variance to do this and do that. It seems like this plat maybe has one too many lots in it then if that's the case. Outlot B. I'd be real hesitant to approve this without giving that Ironwood access off, I think that's a hazard and I think MnDot would support that. I think it's the proper way to go but we can hit that later. On the Outlot B access. Mr. Sathre, they've had the aerial truck out driving cul-de-sacs. Well actually the engines this week with 74 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Charles. And with that island in there, the lrucks come in and they back out. There's absolutely no maneuvering possible whatsoever. And I don't think that even the engines could make the cut with that island in there so either, on that one cul-de-sac. The island needs to be deleted or there needs to be a major curb cut of a sizeable portion cut out to allow the equipment to get around that corner. And fire access to those four lots is a major issue because they're going to be pretty isolated and access is going to be really critical. So I don't know what your final outcome is there but you have to look at the wide breadth this aerial truck takes and I think the aerial truck ought to be able to get in there and I'm going to just trust you that with the Fire Marshal, that's going to be worked out. But as I'm looking at it, what we have ~ere, there's no way the island could be in there and I don't know, have you corrected that? Rick Sathre: We took, excuse me for having to speak,.I was hoping not to. We took the fire department's turning radius little diagram and made it the same scale as that ouflot B and the cul-de-sac with the intention that we would show you, or could show you that, how that works. The little red thing on there is the fire truck going out presumably. And the green lines are the actual wheels of the f'n'e truck and the blue line is the overhang of the basket in the front. And so that radius that exists there is adequate to make the turn with the track. It also works at the intersection of Minnewashta Parkway, although we'd have to tweak the island a little. We have to make the island a little smaller. So I think it works to get the truck in and out and have the island there. But the engineering department's issue, whether the island belongs there I guess is. Kate Aanenson: What the Fire Marshal recommended is that they be posted no parking on the interior. Both sides of the, around the island and around the outside of the curb too. Councilman Wing: I don't think that's even practical to discuss. That wouldn't be an option, I would think. It's sort of humorous to even state that. Alright. Rick Sathre: Or the island could be smaller. We'd like to have some green space. Councilman Wing: Okay. And I agree. I happened that I just flew over an area and I was looking down and I said geez. They stick out like a sore thumb the other day and I just noticed. I happen to like them but that's a preference and the Fire Marshal, I don't want him to hear me say that. Kate, on the landscaping issue. Mr. Durr I think is well known for having come in and cut illegally and he wasn't tagged. I think the city's been cooperative and as I mentioned, it was the best thing that could have happened because it maybe gives us, because this isn't a PUD, a chance to strong arm just a little bit. And we talked about all the landscaping in here. I don't see any. There are some existing trees but a lot of those existing aren't much. Kate Aanenson: This isn't the final landscaping plan. Councilman Wing: Well I understand. Here's specifically what I would request if it was to come back on the final. That each lot have 3 trees on the 13 lots that aren't treed. Now there are, I won't argue with the ones that have any trees on them but for the 13 that aren't, I'd like to see boulevard trees in front so that out of these 3 trees, 2 would be in the front yard and 1 in the back, and I don't care how the placement went but to get some boulevard effect in here. But more important, along Highway 7 we've got just a scattering of pine Irees and I'd like to see 50 to 75 foot shade trees dispersed along that section too. So that we get some shade, some overstory shade trees in there and I guess, I was looking at 50 foot centers and I eame up with what, 12 or I can't remember. 20. I don't have my number in front of me. I guess I counted an additional 26 shade trees along the entire frontage of Highway 7 and then running down Minnewashta Parkway to that, let's see it'd be Lot 2, 3, 75 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 4 and 5, as I saw it. And the reason I bring that up is that this is an enormous area and the church that came through last time, and a very small area, we suggested 13 trees and they said what an excellent idea. They put in 16. And then they're a very small area. So that asking for 26 trees in an area this big is just nothing. I mean they're barely even noticeable at that point because of the spread on them. So that would be my request to Council to consider that as a landscaping pIan comes in, I would ask that there'd be, along with existing pine trees. I don't ask for any more of those, that we get some of the overstory shade u'ees we've been talking about all these years on Highway 7 running down the parkway and then these non need lots, given the fact that we don't know what was removed, at least 3 go back into those blank lots. That would be my request. I think that's a reasonable request and then with that, I wouldn't bring up the other issue of what happened and what got cut and what got lost. I think that's all I had on that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: Looks good. My concern is with the Hoelke's. I can only, well. I know how I'd feel if I was being told or...I wonder Kate, I mean can some things be juggled around so that doesn't have to happen? Mayor Chmiel: That 105 feet that would go back totally, we're ~__a_lking 75 feet back from the shoreline. With an additional 30 feet, does that give us that 42% or the 45%? Councilman Senn: Yeah, it'd be an additional 30 feet so you'd be 135 feet back for the 45%. Councilman Wing: But then we get into all these crazy variances and I'd just as soon avoid that if we could. Councilman Senn: Well I mean by the time, the problem is once you bring it back to, yikes. Once you bring it back 135 feet. That's taking over half the lot. Councilman Mason: You're saying it's not doable... Mayor Chmiel: Anything more Michael? Councilman Mason: No. Richard pretty much covered anything else I had to say. I mean it's a good deal. It's a good project. Councilman Wing: So what do you want to do about 8? Councilman Mason: Well that, yeah. I'm not done yet because I think we need to help out the existing neighbors. But I want to hear what Mark has to say. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I don't know. Overall I think it's a good project. I don't have a whole lot of problems with iL I keep coming back to how do we solve the problem on 8. I wish I had some wonderful ideas. I'm willing to say that I, I don't appreciate or I guess I don't in one sense like the fact that the shape of the house platted on Lot 8 is now all of a sudden changed real dramatically to elongated, which makes it even worse. Everything else on here is the same that it was on the plat but Lot 8 all of a sudden has changed shape in terms of the house configuration. 76 City Council Meeting. March 28, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: What was the footprint of that? Rick Sathre: Can I speak to that Your Honor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Rick Sathre: Well now I guess blame me. I'm a dumb engineer and I'm not a house designer. My company drew houses on those lots which are just very simple representations of a house. All we were really intended to show was does it make more sense to have the garage on one side or the other. And the u'uth of it is, the people that will help to design the houses on these lots are the ultimate buyers and Ken and the other builders that go in there will work with architects and with those buyers to try to design a house that fits that family's needs. And that, the home that Ken is illustrating on Lot 8 is one that he's just building now. He thought that that might be representative of the type of house that you'd see on the lot. And if that's tree, the houses that I illuswated are undersized. Councilman Senn: Well I guess that's my point. I mean if you take this house and put it on any one of your other lots, there may be problems elsewhere. Not just on this lot. Kate Aanenson: What the intent of this, with these elevations, we require what's code and that's to review the grading plan. What the intention is to get the elevation of these pads such that the drain...so that's the requirement. It's just a footprint to see what the lowest elevation and we also...just to see whether they're rambler or walkouts or whether they're splits. And we've indicated where there's a problem and in the staff report we've identified some that we'll have to raise these up to get the proper drainage towards the street. So the intent of this is, obviously there's a setback variance that they've asked for but...otherwise they're requiring to go through and meet the setbacks...Most people don't build perfectly square houses. Councilman Senn: I understand that. The only other. Mayor Chmiel: Mark, Don's got something here. Don Ashworth: I was just going to ask Mr. Sathre. What ff the City Council just comes back and say you figure it out as long as you maintain a 45 degree angle? It seems like there's a lot of options in that we're going to spend a lot of time trying to engineer something that you should be doing. Councilman Senn: Well Don, I want to add something. I mean when I went out there and drove this and really looked around and then came back and looked at the plat again and stuff. I mean to me it seems like the obvious solution is not to look to the north. I mean to me the obvious solution is to look towards Minnewashta Parkway. We've got Outlot A there. We've got ponding there. You know maybe there's some give and take there but I mean maybe we can downsize the requirements of that lot and still let it meet a beachlot type of thing. I don't know. I mean to me there's, yeah Dick's choking. But he wore a fie tonight so he deserves it but I don't know. You've got the reservation next to it. I mean to me there's enough there that it seems to me that there's something there that could work. Councilman Mason: If I could just interject. That would still meet what Don said. We don't care how they do it, as long as Hoelke's get their 45 degrees. Councilman Senn: Well and I, and I really sympathize with Hoelke's and I'd like to see the 45 percent but at 77 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 the same time I have a real hard time going back and telling the other people that they have to lose over 50% of their lot. I mean I think there's some compromise there other than a hard and fast say, you know... Councilman Mason: I look at all these lot sizes here and I don't know that anybody has to lose 50% of any lot size with some juggling around, that they would need to do. Councilman Senn: If you looked at the lot lines. Okay lot lines you generally look at as it relates to being perpendicular from the lake. Everything here makes sense. It's pretty much...until you get down to the end. See that's not a problem to Mr. Durr has mused himself. That's being caused in effect by a neighboring property lying with houses very close to the neighboring properly. I mean a lot closer than any of us would allow them nowadays and stuff so the thing is, I think I'd like to get as close to that 45 as we can but I don't think we should give direction that don't come back until you get 45. I think that let's get as close to it as we can but let's shift down, let's see what we can shift down there and accommodate from the two ends and see if we can accomplish something. Councilman Wing: Without a variance. Councilman Senn: Well, I'd rather see, you know. And I know Dick could choke on this again. I mean I'd rather see us vary on something like the lot down here where we can put some tight controls on it than I would like to vary screwing around with the lots where we can't put the tight conm)ls on it. And that's just a personal thing. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. In other words what you're saying is basically to shift from Lot 1, 2, 3 and move that all back to the west. Because that would then extend Lot number 8 right along with it. Councilman Senn: Well I mean the other option is, maybe the whole thing should shift and maybe Lot 8 can be a common lot. I don't know. I mean if it's. You get into us start trying to design a project and you're asking for trouble. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I don't have any intention of doing that. But I do think it's legitimate to ask that the existing neighbors are compatible. Are impinged upon as little as possible. Councilman Wing: And I like Don's idea of just saying, you know I think in the preliminary approval that's the Council's request that you try and work that out and engineer to the best of your ability and figure something... final. End of discussion or whatever. Mayor Chmiel: I would say that would be exactly what it should be. Yes. Kenneth Dm'r: Can I ask one thing? I'm Ken Duff. Your comment about adjusting and possibly making the beachlot smaller, is that something that this body would approve? Councilman Senn: I said it's something that I'm willing to consider but I'd like you to show me you know how that works. I'm not sure Dick will accept that because Dick's pretty, he's a lot more stringent on that than I a~n but. I mean I'd like to see some alternatives, Now I'm not saying come up with a dozen of them but I think it'd be nice to see a few different alternatives, Kind of like on Byerly's. I would have loved to have seen a few alternatives other than just... 78 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah because it's strictly in the preliminary stages, as you're well aware and before the final stage comes back, the Council will really look at it strongly to make sure that that is being addressed. Kenneth Durr: We feel however that to make the lakeside lots narrower than they are to accommodate even a wider lot than Lot 8. Lot 8 is the largest site that we have. And we wish to do whatever we can to accommodate the Hoelke's. I've been really trying very, vea'y hard to get as much sight angle guaranteed to them as possible. It started out with 18 degrees and then we have it at 32. I know it's a ways from 45 which they would like but I would not want to devalue the lake lots in making those narrower. But I think it was possible for us to have a beachlot that would be something narrower than 200 feet. That would certainly be a viable consideration for us. We could work along with you on that. The other alternative of moving the lot line on 8 further north. That is possible if we do not have to have the Outlot B as an access because if we move that lot line northerly, then we don't have enough land there. So we're kind of boxed in on that side if we want to maintain an access for the people to the east. And yet we really don't want to devalue our lake lots either. Councilman Senn: But Ken what I was just saying though is you might just kind of look at and fry to tighten things up a little bit both north and to the west. I mean and you can leave the road in Ouflot g but maybe move things a little bit. Again, I mean ff that causes a variance, then I mean to me that's a little easier variance to deal with in your lot size up there where it's not affecting anybody. I don't know. I mean again it comes down to options in terms of. Rick Sathre: We respect what you're saying very much. I think it's wonderful that...We're not designing this subdivision to meet the ordinance. We're designing it to meet the expectations of a higher market. Councilman Senn: You guys have done a great job.that way. I mean I can't say enough. We just reviewed another one out there a couple weeks ago that. Mayor Chmiel: We turned down. Councilman Senn: It isn't even comparable. Rick Sathre: What we really did, and you know you've never seen the proposal...but to get this Outlot B corridor in here we squeezed those lots down and we went to what we thought was a practical... It is a problem. Councilman Mason: Well this is preliminary. This is preliminary plat right? Mayor Chmiel: I would entertain a motion. Councilman Mason: Dick, tell me. You didn't make any major changes in I thru 31 did you? Councilman Senn: I'd really like to see them go back and work on it a little bit. Councilman Mason: Well I'm going to add, I want to add condition 32 to this. I mean it's preliminary plat. We can always... Mayor Chmiel: Right. Put that additional on it. 79 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Mason: ! mean that's. Councilman Senn: Well if you're comfortable with that but I mean we're ~alklng about potentially about some significant changes. I mean it may even change the variances, I mean is what I'm saying. Councilman Mason: Well then it has to come back before us again anyway. Kate Aanenson: Can I make a point of clarification on..varianee. If there's a condition that it maintain a 45 degree and the applicant does come back and now needs variances to accommodate that, does that have to go back to the Planning Commission and then come back to this body for the variance request? Roger Knutson: Yeah. Councilman Wing: But we created it. Councilman Senn: If we create it? Kate Aanenson: The applicant has a hard time meeting the 45 degrees...some relief from the ordinance, he needs a variance. He would have to go to the Planning Commission flu'st and then come to the... Mayor Chmiel: When can this be put back on Planning Commission? Kate Aanenson: Once they come up with a proposal, we'll put them on the next meeting. Don Ashworth: But don't you want to have it somehow considered by this body to make sure. Kate Aanenson: In the motion tonight, as a part of that they need to seek a variance, I just wanted to make clear that they do have to go back to the Planning Commission... Councilman Senn: I thought they were advisory. Why can't we just do the variance? Roger Knutson: Because you have an ordinance that says if you're going to grant a variance, here's the process. This type of variance. This type of variance needs a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Councilman Senn: Rather than a public hearing before us? Roger Knutson: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. Roger Knutson: It's your right to ignore their advice. Councilman Wing: I'd be happy with 1 thru 21 with the exception of the landscaping plan to include additional shade trees along the parkway and Highway 7 and the non treed lots be increased to 3. And then I would Mike's number 32 which is, Councilman Mason: The developer will work to achieve 45 percent. 80 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: 45 degree. Councilman Mason: 45 degree, excuse me. 45 degree view of Hoelke's. Somebody help me out. It's 1:00. Roger Knutson: 45 degree view of the lake from center of his propen'y. Kate Aanenson: From the center of their home. Councilman Mason: Is that your motion or my motion then? Councilman Wing: I'll second your's. Councilman Mason: Okay. I made the motion. He seconded it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? ff hearing none, I'll call the question. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat ~V94.1, Minnewashta Landings for 27 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 9, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or'wood- fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of site grad_ing unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All dis~ areas with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood-fiber blanket. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Phtes. Detailed sue. et and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 4. 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 and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development conuact. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 81 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 8. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance with the construction plans. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the fight-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. I0. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval 11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 12. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of the r',unbler house located on Lot 12, Block 1 should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. This may raise the house elevation to 971 or greater requiring a very steep driveway. Staff recommends the applicant re-evaluate this and include exterior draintile around the house foundation. The dmintile shall be connected to the proposed storm sewer along the property line. 13. The house pads south of Landings Dr., along the lake, should be a minimum of one foot above the road elevation. All low points should be located between lots to route overland flow around the houses. Also, catch basins should be located at the low point between homes to help route surface flow away from Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 2. 14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the fa'st ten feet and no more than 3:1 thereafter for safety and water quality purposes. 15. The driveway entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 fight-of-way. In addition, a drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood drainage from the east of this development into the easterly proposed pond. 16. Existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned. 17. Landings Court intersection should be redesigned to be perpendicular with Landings Drive and the median deleted. 18. The alignment of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway should be re£med to provide more of a perpendicular intersection in accordance with the City's ordinance. 19. All lots shall take direct access from the interior streets and not Minnewashta Parkway or Highway 7. 20. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessments units. The rate per unit is $760.00. 21. Staff recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of fight-of-way from the center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1. 82 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 22. The final grading plan shall be revised to reflect proposed grading on Lots 1 through 8, Block 2. 23. A cross access agreement needs to be established between the applicant and the residents of Ironwood for the use of Outlot B. 24. Lot 7, Block 2 needs to have a 90 foot lot width. 25. Variance from the side yard setback to 10 feet on flag lots located on Lots 11 and 16, Block 1 and Lot 8, Block 2. 26. Landscaping plans for the larger bemi along Hwy. 7, as well as streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway needs to be provided." 27. Park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and wail construction at the rate in force at the time of building permit application with one-third of the park and trail fees paid at the time of final plat. 29. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit. 30. "No Parking" signs shall be posted on the inside and outside of the landscaped islands of the cul-de-sacs. 31. The developer shall provide for a homeowners association to maintain the landscaped islands. 32. The developer will work to achieve a 45 degree view of the lake from the center of the Hoelke's home. 33. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include additional overstory shade trees along Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7 along with an additional 3 trees on every non treed lot. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 83