Loading...
CC Minutes 1994 07 25CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 1994 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dockendorf and Councilman Senn COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Wing and Councilman Mason STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al-Jaff, Bob Generous, Charles Folch and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING JULY AS RECREATION AND PARKS MONTH. Mayor Chmiel: This is a short but brief but I'd like to read it. Whereas physical recreation meaningful leisure experiences contribute to physical and mental well-being as well as the overall quality of life; and Whereas, community recreation and leisure opportunities create socially beneficial connections between and among individuals, groups and communities; and Whereas, parks and recreation services provide prevention health benefits, support more productive work forces, enhance the desirability of locations for business and families, and stimulate tourism revenues to increase a total community economic development model; and Whereas, the provision and preservation of parks and open spaces are both an inveslment and insurance plan for our collective quality of life. Now therefore be it resolved that July has been designated as Recreation and Parks Month by the National Recreation and Parks Association; and Be it further resolved by all citizens of this great city join in this nationwide celebration bringing recognition to all the benefits derived from quality public and private recreation and park resources at the local level. To be passed and adopted by Chanhassen City Council this 25th day of July, 1994. Can I have a motion please? Resolution g94-70: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the resolution proclaiming July as Recreation and Parks Mouth. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Todd, you have something you'd like to present to us as Council. Todd Hoffman: In recognition of the July as Park and Recreation Month, I'd like to present this poster, framed edition to the Mayor and City Council. We'll find somewhere to hang it, either in this building or perhaps maybe in the new recreation center coming on tine next fall. I can especially attest to that part of increased revenues from tourism. Having just gotten back from the Boundary Waters for 5 days. After planning for that trip for some 6 months, probably spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000.00 in new equipment, to spend 4 nights in a tent, that's $250.00 a night so it does have an economic impact. Much of that money which was purchased right here in Chanlmssen. There you have it and... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much. Why don't you just hold it right up there. Todd Hoffman: It says many of the same things that are in the resolution. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Development Contract and Plans and Specifications for Minger Addition, Project 94-13. b. Resolution #94-71: Approve Change Order No. 4 to West 78th Street and Downtown Improvement, Project 92-3. c. Resolution ~)4-72: Approve Plans and Specifications for Upper Bluff Creek Phase IIB Trunk Utilities; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project 91-17B-2. d. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval, Lotus Lake Woods. e. Approval of Bills. g. Approve Permit Agreement with Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority. All voted in favor and the motion carried. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilman Senn: I just pulled (0 because I wasn't here so I wanted to abstain on the Minutes. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Mayor Chmiei seconded to approve the following Minutes as presented: City Council Minutes dated July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated July 6, 1994 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 28, 1994 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated July 14, 1994 All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn abstained from voting on the City Council Minutes and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Lee Komland: My name is Lee Kornland and I'm representing Lamberg Inc, 123 North Third Street, Minneapolis, 55401. We are the owners of the 25 acres of property...east and west of Bluff Creek on Highway 5 and just east of the school site and the school community center. We have been going through the process of the PUD process and were seeking homing for that site for multiple housing and we have found that it's been a difficult process. We are withdrawing our housing...want the community to know that we will be marketing the site for high quality industriaL.for uses for that site. The one comment that I will make is, it's been somewhat difficult in the process because I understand the Planning Commission's desire to see every detail of the project before they approve the usage but with the PUD process, that's under the circumstance...and I hope when we do go into the PUD, that we will be looking for...without such an expenditure of money...Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to do a visitor presentation? 2 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: LYMAN BOULEVARD AND LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 93.32, (CONTINUED FROM JULY 11, 1994). Public Present: Name Addre~ Mike Pflaum Pat & Ben Swenson Rosemary Luebke Russell, Orletta & Dan Frederick Tom & Kristine Uppman Eunice Kottke Rick & Diane Riegert Richard Chadwick Bailey & Mary Lou Janssen Laura & Lee Wyman Greg & Kelly Hastings Norm Grant Nancy R. Smith A1 Klingelhutz B.J. Reich Jeff Brauchle Steve Leifschultz Len Levine Ernie Peacock Lundgren Bros Conslxuction Chanhassen 8526 Great Plains Blvd. 540 Lyman Blvd. 532 Lyman Blvd. 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. 520 Lyman Blvd. 9530 Foxford Road 500 Lyman Blvd. 400 Lyman Blvd. 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. 8600 Great Plains Blvd. White Bear Lake, MN 3400 Pla?a VIII, Mpls 55110 3025 Harbor Lane #315, Plymouth 2028 B Ford Parkway, St. Paul 55116 17325 Panama Avenue, Prior Lake Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You'll recall at the last public hearing it was concluded with Council's direction to staff to take a look at the overall proposed improvement project and evaluate it's slructure. To determine whether the project could be split out into phases, if you will, which would allow some construction to begin to meet some of the initial time lines and needs for the petitioning property owners on the project and yet allow...but would also provide improvements for the remaining properties... During this past week staff and the project engineer have had time to review the project. We've also had a meeting with one of the landowners representing the Lakeview Hills Investment Group to discuss some of the concerns that they had raised at the previous public hearing. Following that meeting, which can be viewed as a positive meeting. I think there's still some things to work out but the discussions were positive. I think given some time, the remaining issues can be worked out. But in the interim, we have developed a stage one portion of the project which basically involves constructing a large share of the watermain under this year's fall and early spring con~xact. We do have, Dave do we have the overhead that we can show? Basically stage one would involve construction of the watennain from it's current terminus on Trunk Highway 101 and Lake Susan Drive. Would be extended north along TH 101 up to the future 86th Street realignment. Then extended east along the 86th Street and then going south along the John Klingelhutz property. Continuing south of Lyman Blvd and then extending for a short distance probably back to the west. This would provide water service to the petitioning properties, Mission Hills which would like to begin development work yet this fall. Also John Klingelhutz property and the Lundgren development south of Lyman Blvd. It's also proposed with stage one to construct a small amount of sanitary sewer f~om the current lift station located at the intersection of Lyman and Lake Riley Blvd. Extend that back to the west and provide some interim capacity over the proposed Lundgren 3 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 development with stage one. This would in effect eliminate some of the concerns that you heard raised by Mr. Forbord last time about being 2 years out...could begin this year. That would be the extent of the proposed stage one. Basically, from a revenue standpoint, cost to revenue would balance with that proposed stage... Phase two has not yet been completely defined. It's possible that ail of the remaining proposed work would be done under phase two, depending on how our discussions continue with the Adelman property and the Lakeview Hills property on the very east end of the project. It's possible that the project could be split up even further where a stage two would eliminate any proposed improvements adjacent to those properties. We would expect or hope that within the next 30 days we could have these remaining issues ironed out, At least make a determination of whether we can go ahead and proceed with the remaining portion of the project or...so at this time it would be staff's recommendation to proceed with ordering phase one of the proposed improvement project as stated and then we would propose to come back to Council within 30 days and give a recommendation on the remaining portion of the work to be done with this project. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think right up front here, if Council so chooses, we can move the plans and specs but we cannot order the project because it's going to require a 4/5 majority and being we only have 3 here and I just wanted to bring that up at this particular time. Roger Knutson: The only exception to the 4/5 or 2/3 rule is if you have proper petition signed by 35% of the people in frontage and then you have to put it in the paper and do a few other fancy things. But effectively, if you order the plans and specifications, if you want to, you can move the project aiong. You really can order the project. You can order plans and specifications. Mayor ChmieI: Right. Okay. Dave Mitchell: I was just going to comment on that. That we did do some analysis as far as the front footage. That we do exceed that 35% petitioning...that's requked. Audience: We can't hear back here. Mayor Chmiel: Can we turn the microphones up so everyone can hear this? Is that one on up front? Dave Mitchell: Yep, now it is. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can you hear now? Audience: That's better. Roger Knutson: Even when you exceed the 35% frontage, then you have it published in the newspaper and check the validity of the petition. And you create some potential, conceivable problems. I'd still recommend maybe we could get by that if we just order the plans and specifications. Maybe you can by-pass that issue entirely. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Charles. Charles Folch: That'd be fine. 4 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anything in addition to what you said basically right now or is there more than you're planning to show? Okay. I know that we had requested that you re-review some of those things and you had covered each of those accordingly. We did have the public hearing on this. We closed the public hearing. But because of my nature, I do hold it open if there are anyone who have not been here previously and would like to comment on it, you have your opportunity at this particular time. Yes. Would you please come to the microphone. Pat Swenson: If it's absolutely necessary. Mayor Chmiel: State your name and your address please. Pat Swenson: My name is Pat Swenson. I'm on Lake Riley Blvd and I guess I'm sorry that we were unavoidably absent at the previous meeting. Do I understand that in the inspection that you're discussing tonight, we are not discussing the road. The improvement of Lake Riley, I mean of Lyman Blvd? Charles Folch: That's correct. That would be proposed under a state improvement. Pat Swenson: What is the purpose of putting in the water until we put in the road, which is much more important? Charles Folch: That's a very good point. But in fact the proposed watermain alignment that we'd be looking at with stage one, basically does not follow the Lyman Blvd alignment so that we would not be putting the cart before the horse if you will by doing stage one. Pat Swenson: And my second question is, is that lift station adequate to take care of the new development? Charles Folch: We've analyzed, based on pumping records that we have for that lift station and we estimate that basically is operating at 50% capacity right now and could take roughly another 65 to 70 homes total. So what we would propose to do as the interim, in the...proposed development's going on, we would look at splitting that allocation to two subdivisions, proposed subdivisions down on Lyman. Basically limit the remaining capacity and not exceed, we basically would not allow any more building permits until we had the... Pat Swenson: Because I remember when that trunk main was put through and there was an established limit of capacity at that time and perhaps Don remembers what it was. I don't. I haven't retained my records on it but there was a question I remember at that time as to whether it was going to be adequate to accommodate development in that area .... the lift station, you're intending to leave it where it is? Is that the idea? Charles Folch: No. The new lift station would be located actually across the street from where it is now. Pat Swenson: To the north? Charles Folch: To the north. Pat Swenson: I don't want it any closer to our house. Charles Folch: It'd be to the north side of the new road. 5 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Pat Swenson: Alright. Then from an assessment standt~int, people along Lake Riley have nothing to be concerned with at this time? Charles Folch: Not with stage one. Pat Swenson: Thank you kindly. I'm sorry to have detained the meeting here but there were some questions hanging over. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: You bet. Any other further discussion? If none, Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have no comments. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of staff's recommendation, ordering plans and specs. Mayor Chmiel: Ordering plans and specs. Okay. Is them a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: There is. Richard Chadwick: Mayor, may I speak for a moment please? Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. If you'd come up please and just state your name and your address. Richard Chadwick: My name's Richard Chadwick. I live at 9530 Foxford Road. I have some property over on Lyman Blvd. A number of other people here in the audience also have but most of us have spoken earlier in this consideration of this project but before this phase one or phase two or whatever we're talking about now, were broken out. And I guess I have concern tonight because of the phase that has been discussed hasn't discussed anything about the cost to the various property owners and when that might come to play against our properties which may or may not be benefitted at all by phase one, or even phase two. We haven't had any discussion about what phase two or phase three or what others there might be. I guess I'd like to have, hear some discussion about it. I received letters in the last week or so indicating that it's going to cost me maybe $35,000.00 for the project that is considered here and I know we've got a number of people that are here in the audience that, if they are forced into paying for a project of this nature, some of them are retired individuals. Others are on fixed incomes, that it's just going to force them to sell their property or develop the property that we've all learned to love and know as a rural section of Chanhassen and it's just destroying that entire area there and we are forced to develop the land or sell it into smaller lots. I guess I would like some comment, if I can, about what the cost is going to be and when the cost is going to be incurred or put upon us for even for phase one, and I haven't heard anything about that tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Maybe we can expound on that just a bit Charles. In addition to that, I also thought about some of these people who have existing systems of their own for their sewers with septic systems and the question I had, have we ever gone through a process of deferring payment on that? And also, having them make connection to the sewer at the time when their system fails. And I'd like you to address that too. Councilman Senn: Point of clarification though. I thought we weren't dealing with sewers tonight. 6 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: No. But I wanted. Councilman Senn: Oh okay. Alright.. Mayor Chmiel: Eventually. Charles Folch: In terms of the fa'st question or point that was made. The proposed assessments as shown in the feasibility study that was prepared by OSM, those remain the same. The splitting up of the project into stages here, we've done it in a fashion that they are still very sizeable type contracts and we don't expect to see a different...bid prices due to loss of economy of scales. In terms of timing of potential assessments. We would be looking at holding an assessment hearing of this project likely at this point in time, with the type of staging we're going to do, likely that we wouldn't hold the hearings until probably the fall of '96' now and then with assessments being first payable in May of '97. Typically on these types of projects, we've had somewhere between 8 and 10 year term paybacks on those assessments. For the large lot properties, as I'm sure you're all aware of what we've done in the past with mink ulilifies projects where we don't, it's been Council's position not to force non-development of large lot land holders off their property with heavy assessments so typically we've done this one unit assessment per 10 acres of homesteaded, non-developed property with the remaining is to be collected as a hook-up charge that they would subdivide or develop. In terms of existing sewer and water, the ordinance does require that when sewer is available, lateral sewer is available to property, that they have one year to hook up to that sewer and make a connection. In terms of water, they may elect to continue to use their well. Well water and are not required to hook up until such time as their well would fail and then they would be required to hook up. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Does that answer your questions? Mr. Chadwick. Richard Chadwick: Well it would still seem to assess the property owners along Lyman Blvd. the same amount of money at approximately the same time without giving any benefit to those individuals. As I see it, there'd be no sewer or water, at least in phase one, down Lyman Blvd. There would be none into the back part of the properties and yet they're going to be assessed for that. It doesn't sound right to me. I think it's going to force people really to sell their properties and move away and/or develop properties very quickly. That's something that people who have lived in that area for 30 years and had it for the intention of living in the rural area and being forced into development now and actually forced off of their land. Charles Folch: I should clarify that Mr. Mayor, members of Council. With stage one, that portion of the project does not affect these people along Lyman. If that was the only part of the project that was ordered, that's all that we would assess for. We would not assess for the improvements, unless there was improvements down on Lyman Blvd with reconstruction of ~'unk sewer and water. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Any other discussion? Any questions? Rosemary Luebke: Rosemary Luebke, 8526 Great Plains Blvd. I have something to add. I had requested that the water line had been originally scheduled to come through part of our property and our neighbor's, Al Klingelhutz' property and we did have a meeting with the engineers and they came out and said they would make a recommendation that the water line be moved back and follow TH 101. Not to go through the property and I guess I just want a little bit of clarification. I'm not sure right now. They said the recommendation has been made that it be moved to TH 101. We're not sure ff we, if this is a decision now that the Council has to 7 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 make or whether they approve their recommendation and so can we expect a letter from the city saying that you've accepted their recommendation. I guess we're not sure exactly what that means. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I can have Charles address that. Charles Folch: Sure, The f~t time that we looked at doing this, actually looked at doing this portion of the work about 2 years ago, It was originally proposed to follow TH 101 and then we had a request from one of the property owners to extend it slightly off of TH 101 in order to serve the property at that point in time a little bit more efficiently. That has since, that issue has since gone away and it is our proposal/.hat we would stay along TH 101 with the alignment,.. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard Chadwick: Did I understand the engineer correctly that there would be no assessment to any of the properties along Lyman Blvd east of John Ktingelhutz' property? Charles Folch: That's correct, There will be no assessments associated with stage one, At a future date when stage two is ordered, then there would be, Richard Chadwick: Is there any proposal now or any idea when stage two might be proposed? Charles Folch: We expect to come back to the Council with that proposal within 30 days, Richard Chadwick: We'd have a right then to appeal again? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Okay, with that. Any other discussion? A1 Klingelhutz: One question. Mayor Chmiel: Al, would you like to come up please and just state your name and address. Not that we don't know you. Al Klingelhutz: I guess the only question I've got, if you're going to require the feasibility study on it now or the? Mayor Chmiel: No, just the plans and specs. Al Klingelhutz: Plans and specs. How long does that take? Charles Folch: You're putting me on the spot, Dave Mitchell: We would anticipate having plans put together in order to meet the Mission Hills project, I'm assuming that's the prime reason for this behind Al's question. I would anticipate those plans being ready sometime in the same time frame. We may be here on the same night for the same thing. 30 days or there abouts. 4 to 6 weeks. Al Klingelhutz: And then you let it out for bids? 8 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Dave Mitchell: Then we would go out for bids at that point. Al Klingelhutz: How long does that take? I ask the question for my son who's planted some crops on some of this land and he's wondering when he's going to have to harvest them and this is why I've got these questions. Dave Mitchell: I would anticipate that there would be very little activity out there before the first or second week in October. Mayor Chmiel: Crops will be in. Al Klingelhutz: Maybe. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that, we have a motion on the floor with a second to prepare the plans and specs for Project No. 93-32. Resolution g94-73: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for stage I of the Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley area trunk utility improvement Project No. 93-32, with the understanding that staff will bring back a recommendation on the phasing for the remaining work within the next 30 days. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF THE BIDS: WELL NO. 7, PROJECT NO. 94-3. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This past Friday, July 22nd...bids were opened for the Well No. 7, Project No. 94-3. Only four bids were received for this project with the low bid being received from Lane Minnesota with a low bid of $164,996.00. It's approximately 90%. Mayor Chmiel: Could we have it just a little quiet If you'd like to have discussions, would you mind going outside in the hall. Thank you. Charles Folch: This is approximately 90% below the engineer's estimate which is approximately $180,000.00. We've checked references on...At this point in time we're still trying to work out some easement acquisition for the site location, which is proposed to go along the future extension of Lake Lucy Road and beyond the Gestach- Paulson property which will be submitting a subdivision proposal to Council within a month. However, right now the Gestach-Paulson group is let's say concerned or reserved about granting the easement and complying with the site location before they actually have a subdivision proposed so that's approved at least in a preliminary stage by both Planning Commission and Council. So they are scheduled to come before the Planning Commission I believe on the 18th of August. Following the meeting they would be before the Council and it would be staff's recommendation that we award this bid tonight to Lane Minnesota at the contract base bid contingent upon being able to work out this easement negotiation for this site with the Gestach-Paulson group. Mayor Chmiel: When we get ready with that, I'd like to see the exact location as to where it is with a map attached showing the proximity to where this might be located. I drove out there today but I couldn't find any names. Charles Folch: Once we have a preliminary plat, then we can go off a survey for a location. 9 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions of Council? Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. I didn't get a chance to look at the bids yet. It wasn't in our packet. Mayor Chmiel: They were probably about $24,000.00 less. 23 something. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I don't have any issues. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: So if I'm understanding you right, if we approve this to proceed on it, I mean it's still not going to be able to go forward until. Mayor Chmiel: Until we know exactly the location. Councilman Senn: Until we know where it is. Until the easement's in place and everything else. Charles Folch: Our contract doesn't get, the bid specifications stated that the bidders must...bids for 45 days. We basically have about 45 days to work this, to get this issue ironed out. Councilman Senn: Okay. How long do we have to start? Charles Folch: We'd like to start as soon as possible. Councilman Senn: But how long does the contract, or under the bid specifications do we have to start? Charles Folch: We have 45 days to award and I believe we have. Phil Gravel: Until mid September. Charles Folch: About another 10 days. Phil Gravel: We have a start date of, as late as mid September. The approval's going to be contingent upon a right of entry. Is that what you asked? Councilman Senn: Exactly. Phil Gravel: We've spoken with Gestach-Paulson as late as Friday and I think they're ready to.,.for this phase of the project. So we're getting that drafted. Councilman Senn: Okay, so even though we approve this tonight then, you're not really planning on awarding the bid until that's resolved? Charles Folch: That's correct. Contingent award, I unfortunately did not have a chance to get a hold of Phil. About 5:00 today I received a can from the Gestach group and they had some concerns that they had raised so we basically are going to sit tight and let them just go through the preliminary plat approval process until they give us a right of entry. 10 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Councilman Senn: I mean my only point was going to be, given the fact that you don't have the easement, they want to get through the Planning Commission and stuff before they give you the easement and stuff, and that timing could end up being quite extended. I mean we should extend this time period on our bidding as far as we can extend it without going outside of the. Charles Folch: 45 days to award was in the original plans and specs that were submitted to the bidders. I guess. Councilman Senn: So our action does not constitute award I guess is what my question, comes back to. That's kind of where I'm having the problem with this. To me if we approve this tonight, that clocks starts ticking. Roger Knutson: The clock is, it's 45 days from receipt of bids. So the clock is ticking now if you act or don't act. Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but if we act tonight, we've awarded the bid which then starts the second clock ticking doesn't it? We're past the 45 day clock if we award the bid, are we not? Roger Knutson: Is there a second clock? I haven't seen the plans and specifications. You're saying mid September start date. That's what the contract says. So that's there whether you award tonight or award next week or. Councilman Senn: Oh okay. Mayor Chmiel: One of the other questions that I might have too. Councilman Senn: I thought there was a 10 day. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have your question answered Mark? Councilman Senn: Well I thought there was a set period of time after the. Phil Gravel: On this project there's 45 days is from the date of receipt of the bids that the city has to make the decision on whether or not to award. Then there are also calendar dates in the conlract for the contractor that says you shall start construction by September 15th. As a matter of fact this one says the owner reserves the right to delay start of construction for easement purposes until September 13th... So if you award it contingent, we have time to work that out. Mayor Chmiel: The only question I have, in negotiating a fee price for this, does this put us in a very precarious position? Because we're committed to this. We're going to locate it on theft particular property. Have we discussed any prices with them? Charles Folch: Actually to be honest I don't think it will involve, I don't think their concern is in dollars. I think the concern is not.,.location of the site which they might need. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. Okay, with that as a contingency as to what's been discussed. Councilman Senn: Move approval. 11 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution #94.74: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to award the bid for Well No. 7, Project 94-3 to Lane Minnesota in the base amount of $164,996.00 contingent upon obtaining the needed easement from the Gestach.Pauison property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Unfinished business, item number 5 has been pulled by the applicant so we'll go fight onto item number 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 17.6 ACRES INTO 23 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCES AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES ON THE FLAG LOTS, 1420 AND 1430 LAKE LUCY ROAD, SHADOW RIDGE, (HARVEY/O'BRIEN), COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. Bob Generous: Mr. Mayor, Council members, One correction for the record. This is a 15.99 acre site. Their original survey showed the right to include the fight-of-way for Lake Lucy Road and they were adding the fight- of-way back into the number so that's how that number came up to that. We have been working diligently with the applicant to get the development on this site that was sensitive to the environmental issues present. There are part or all of three wetlands on this site that we've been working at to try to preserve. There are some severe slopes located on the site that separate the eastern and western halves of the development. We have a house along the eastern wetland area. Water service has been partially available to this property off of Lake Lucy Road. However, there is no water on Yosemite...Grading and house types were an issue that we when we looked at this development so as pan of our recommendation we want them to revise those plans. As I said, the applicant has been very cooperative with us. We are currently recommending that you approve this subdivision, preliminary plat. We are recommending that the city additionally grant a 20 foot front setback for Lots 3 thru 6 in Block 1 and for a 25 foot front setback on Lot 2 in order to pull the building pads away from the top of the slope and preserve the trees on the interior. We are also recommending that Block 2, which is on the western half of this site, be platted as an outlot at this time until some issues regarding the wetlands, the road fight-of- way and widening and utilities services can be... If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen, do you have any specific questions in regard to this? Colleen Dockendorf: If you could give me a synopsis of the canopy coverage and what we're doing in that tree preservation area please. Mayor Chmiel: I failed to ask if the applicant was here this evening. Bob Generous: Yeah, Bill's here and he's very conversant on that. There's approximately 65% current coverage. We're looking, this is the roadway into the development. Along the northern edge of that we're proposing a 40 foot buffer area that would have no development in it... There's approximately 210, 270 feet within the middle of the project that would remain in it's mural state basically. We're looking at all the wetland areas on the Lot 2 and then a future phase and areas around the wetland on the east side of the development. In calculating the canopy coverage, that area met almost, most of the development that has to be provided and there's very little additional that we have to... As part of the woodland management plan that they're working on currently, they will provide us with the...that they're going to make up that additional third of an acre of canopy coverage that area met almost most of the development...provided and there was very little additional that the applicant had to make. As part of the woodland management plan that they're working on 12 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 currently, they will provide us with the...that they're going to make up that additional third of an acre of canopy coverage that's required. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Did you want the applicant to present something? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Yes, that's what I was going to do and I was moving a little too quickly. I didn't mean to put you to the side. Ken Adolf: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen. We're the consulting engineers for the applicant. Bill Coffman is also present this evening. Mr. Coffman is agreeing to all of the conditions listed. We really don't have any presentation. We'd be available to answer any questions you might have. Mayor Chmiel: development? Okay. You're looking basically Bob at the conceptual and the preliminary planned unit Bob Generous: No, this is a straight subdivision. It's preliminary plat. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, yes. Yes, okay. I'm holding the wrong one here and I'm looking at the wrong one here and I can't find what I'm looking for. Good. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And we have...as to what types of homes and where the building pads will be? Bob Generous: We specified the revisions that they would need to make as part of the conditions of that. As a matter of fact, the building pads that he's showing on the property are most likely larger than what he's building... Mayor Chmiel: If I remember correctly, there was only about 2 or 3 of those lots that were roughly about 15,000 square feet. Okay. We're going to have to have an additional council member in here. Would you like to look out in the hall and see if he's there and ask him to come in. We're doing item number 6 and I don't know ff you had any questions in regard to this. The applicant has indicated that they are amendable to the number of conditions that have been put on with this. Councilman Senn: No. No notes so no questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I don't have discussion. I just, you know it's parcels like this that just break my heart to develop. It's a really nice piece of land and in looking at it you can see the horse paths through it. But it looks like staff and the applicant really have been sensitive to that~ I would request that it come back before Council not on consent agenda. Ask that the final plat come through on the regular agenda so we can look at it in detail. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something that I would like to see as well. Councilwoman Dockendoff: And with that, I will move approval of the preliminary plat. 13 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Subdivision #94-4, Councilwoman Dockendorf: That would be it. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve Subdivision g94-4 and Rezoning 94-2 rezoning the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential, consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, preliminary plat approval creating 17 lots and one outlot on 15.99 acres of land, approve a 10 foot side setback variance from the 20 foot side setback requirement for flag lots for Lots 5, 9, and 10, Block 1, and grant a variance of 10 feet from the 30 foot front setback requirement for Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 to permit a twenty foot front setback, and a $ foot front setback variance from the 30 foot setback requirement for Lot 2, Block 1 to permit a 25 foot setback, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. Normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized, In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $25,938.00 assuming 13.1 acres of developable land. Water quality assessments will be waived if the applicant constructs an on- site Walker pretreatment basin. These fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site, SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. Stormwater runoff from Lot 16 and the access road is shown to discharge to Lake Lucy Road. The applicant shall demonstrate that the runoff from this portion of land can be handled by the existing drainage system on Lake Lucy Road. Detailed storm calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer. 4. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 5. The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 will be required to connect to City water once the well on the property fails. 6, The applicant shall work with staff in determining the most feasible location to extend sanitary sewer and water services to the north (Stewart parcel). 14 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 The grading plan shall be revised to limit the house types on Lots 2, 3, 6 and 7, Block 1 to rambler style homes and Lots 4, 5, 8 and 13, Block 1 to side/comer walkout type dwelling. The lot grading on Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be revised to maintain the existing "sheet flow" to the west. Concentrated or funnelled runoff shall be prohibited. 8. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. The stormwater retention pond shall be relocated further to the northeast on Lots 10 and 11. The storm sewer system between Lots 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be redirected within the proposed street and combined into one discharge point on Lot 11, Block 1. 10. Lots 1 through 5, Block 2 shall be platted as an ouflot due to the lack of adequate utilities and street. This outlot would not be subdividable or buildable until Yosemite Road is upgraded to the City's urban standard, municipal sanitary sewer and water is extended adjacent to the parcel, and wetland setback and buffer area issues are resolved. 11. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum easement width should be 20 feet. 12. The applicant shall enter into a development conlract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. 13. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration. 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 15. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood- fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 16. 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. 17. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 15 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 18. Prior to the f'mal plat approval, a Woodland Management Plan and Tree preservation Plan must be developed by a landscape professional pursuant to section 18-61(d) of the City Code. This plan must be submitted to the city for staff approval. 19. A 25 foot front setback is allowed on Lot 2, Block 1 and a 20 foot front setback is allowed on Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 to move the building pads away from the top of the slope and to preserve trees. The applicant shall incorporate retaining walls and custom grading to assure that slopes and trees are minimally impacted. Staff encourages the developer to incorporate bluff protection guidelines in the development. 20. Pay park and trail fees as specified by city ordinance. 21. Submit revised utility plans for approval of locations of f'ue hydrants. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 foot maximum. 22. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. 23. Submit turning radius and cd-de-sac dimensions to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. 24. Advise Fire Marshal of the status of water main and fire hydrant placement and spacing on Yosemite Avenue, west of Lots 1 - 5, Block 2. 25. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of house pads, using standard designations, and lowest level floor and garage elevations prior to final plat approval. 26. The tree preservation areas shall be delineated on the final grading plan as part of the final plat approval. The tree preservation areas in Lots 2, 3, 11, 12, 14, and 15 shall be re-evaluated and either be revised or realigned to avoid the grading areas, or have the grading plan revised to stay out of the tree preservation areas, or have the woodland management plan address the replanting of these areas. 27. Calculations for buildable space on each lot be forwarded to the City Council. 28. In conjunction with submittal of a building permit application for Lot 17, Block 1, the applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan subject to the Watershed District's approval prior to issuance of any building permits. 29. Final plat come back as a regular agenda item rather than on the Consent Agend~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. INTERIM USE PERMIT REQUEST TO GRADE 46.$6 ACRES, EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT WEST 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Back on earlier this month Mission Hills development came before you for preliminary plat approval which was received. Given the time line of their proposed development in relation to the necessity for public improvements and getting, their hopes of getting 16 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 some structure up yet this year, the developer is proposing to go through the interim use grading permit process to at least begin to move some dirt. They do have a significant amount of dirt to move out there. At least we can get some of that work going ahead of time and in the meantime the city receives the ordering of the project that we talked about earlier. Hopefully their project...and the city's capital improvement project will be coordinated in a timely fashion. There are a couple of issues that do need to be discussed in terms of we worked out in terms of this grading permit. The city is, or city staff has pointed out in the conditions of approval that they're still need to work out some of the ponding issues in terms of seeing calculations on the...and such. We also would like to see the storm sewer calcs itself which certainly p. lay a part in the grading approval. We do have a signed copy. That's one of the concerns that we had. We had not received a signed copy. They had the grading plan signed. There is a signed copy now that we have received as of tonight. There's also some concern that was raised at the previous meeting regarding the Tigua properties to the east which had some trees that they wanted to make sure were protected through this process and we'll take the necessary precautions with the snow fence and such to take care of that. And also there was some concern for some berming that was going to be put to the south of the property. But I think those are all things that we can work out. So again, staff has recommended approval of this interim use grading permit with the conditions as outlined. I think there's 19 conditions attached to this. And again, one of which was the storm sewer and...calculations which we believe we will get worked out. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The point about the storm ponds, axe we still looking at 3 as opposed to what they were looking at? Charles Folch: We are looking at 3 permanent and one, which the latest pond describes as being temporary or interim. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And have they come to any conclusion with that as yet? I mean are they leaning to that? I guess my position is, if they don't agree to some of those things that we're recommending. Charles Folch: Mainly I.think they're in agreement with all of them. They just haven't provided the information or detail of the design information but they have stated it's forth coming. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Is the applicant here? Councilman Senn: I've got a number of questions if you want to do that first, I don't know. You have here the grading permit, condition 16. You have the grading permit shall be conditioned upon approval of the preliminary plat for the Mission Hills PUD by the City Council. Okay, does that mean we're approving this contingent upon that? So I mean we're approving this but they can't proceed until we do it? Charles Folch: I believe the preliminary plat was approved on July 1 lth. Councilman Senn: Okay. So that was approved. Alright. That was confusing. Second thing. Condition 17. Trees and shrubbery along the east property boundary. Okay, is that realistic? I mean we had a discussion in here not too long ago about looking at the whole picttcre rather than individual ones. Is it reali.qtic to assume that this work can all be done and those trees can be saved or are we raising some false expectations because of the way the line's going to be cut and the effect of the root system and everything else? Kate Aanenson: I think I can answer that. That one specifically came out of the Planning Commission meeting. One of the residents spoke, what would be the northeast comer of the site. 17 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Councilman Senn: Well Kate, I picked that up. The resident spoke and said they wanted to keep it and Planning Commission said, keep it. Well I mean to me that doesn't answer the issue. Is it feasible to keep the trees? Charles Folch: According to our staff has discussed that with their engineer and their engineer also believes it is feasible. Councilman Senn: Believes. Charles Folch: Well. Councilman Senn: Okay, well again. I mean we ended up in big battles on a couple projects already because somebody had an expectation that those 8 trees were going to be there and live and stuff and I thought we kind of agreed at that point that we weren't going to get into that kind of a detail on this stuff in the future. But I see it's coming fight back here. The Planning Commission is creating the exact same situation again. Or is somebody going to sit out there and count the trees before you start and they're going to count them when you're done and we're going to be fight back in here arguing again because you're not going to be able to save every tree. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Did you want a financial disincentive or? Councilman Senn: Well, I'm just asking the question. When you start grading the site, is it feasible or is it realistic to expect that all those trees are going to be saved. Charles Folch: Well, I guess the long and the short. We've looked at iL They've looked at it and I guess they feel that we're not being unreasonable and they've agreed to cooperate with us to do everything possible to try and save them. Councilman Senn: Okay. So there's not an absolute requirement. It's you're working together to do it. Charles Folch: Right. Councilman Senn: Okay. The 18, condition 18 1 didn't like because it seems to me that's a matter between the two property owners. I don't know why we're getting into telling one property owner or two property owners what they can or can't do on their property fine. Charles Folch: Although we don't want to approve a plan that shows grading on a trespass situation. Councilman Senn: No, I understand that. But if they work it out as property owners, I don't know why we're prohibiting it here. Charles Folch: It's my understanding this was a request from a property owner on the south side that we do this. Councilman Senn: I didn't see that request. Kate Aanenson: Mr. Klingelhutz' property. 18 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Councilman Senn: I didn't see that in the Minutes. Charles Folch: I think that came verbally? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Well he spoke at the Planning Commission meeting .... the grading outside the limits on Mission Hills. A1 Klingelhutz: To berm my property. Councilman Senn: Was that your request Al? A1 Klingelhutz: Well to take the berm off my property until it was acquired by somebody. Councilman Senn: Okay. But again that's the matter of being too, here we put a condition in here that prohibits it and that to me again just didn't make sense. Why are we prohibiting something that if they can work out, they can do it, why can't they do it? Charles Folch: We can modify that to say, just basically adding onto that. That unless it's mutually agreed upon by the property owners. Councilman Senn: Okay, agreed. That's fine. The only other thing was, is the, let's see here. Where was it? The hours issue. What are our Saturday hours in the ordinance? Charles Folch: I believe it is 9:00 to 5:00. I think it's 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays. Councilman Senn: Is it? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Charles Folch: It's 7:00 to 7:00 during the week but 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday. Councilman Senn: Okay, because we had one just in here a few weeks ago. I think it was different. That's why I just wondered. Charles Folch: We may have given a variance to that. Mayor Chmiel: I think we've looked at a couple of other projects with the same intent behind it with what's here. Saying that it will be reviewed by City Council ff there's complaints by the residents. Councilman Senn: But I just wanted to make sure that is in conformance with the ordinance. That we're not establishing a new, okay. Alrighty. No, that was it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen? Did you have any? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. 19 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess my major concern only was with the storm ponds within this and once we come up with those conclusions and get all of your staB, that should take care of it. I know that was a real concern right along with it. Councilman Senn: Okay, do you want a motion then? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, one other thing I was just looking for. No, I guess that was it. I'm ready for a motion. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval with the deletion of items 16 and the change in ianguage on item 18. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Approval. Kate Aanenson: Excuse me. Did you say 16 or 177 Councilman Senn: 16. Mayor Chmiel: 16 being deleted. And 18 be added, mutually agreed to by the property owners. For number 18 in addition to what's there. Kate Aanenson: You sure it wasn't 177 16, that was the contingent. Councilman Senn: Well I didn't...because Charles said they were already making best efforts on that and that's what that really meant, right? Kate Aanenson: I thought you wanted...17. Councilman Senn: No. As long as that's best efforts, it's not a problem. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Interim Use Permit g94-2 for Mission Hills Planned Unit Development site subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of $92,025.00 to cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion control measures, site restoration and driveway maintenance to Tigua Lane. 2. The applicant shall pay the City $630.00 in grading permit fees as required by the Uniform Building Code and pay for all City staff and attorney time used to monitor and inspect the grading operation. The inspection fees shall be computed at a rate of $30 per hour per person. 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the watershed district, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and MnDOT. 4. The applicant shall work with City staff in revising the proposed grading plan to an acceptable stormwater management plan in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. This may result in consolidating ponding areas and loss of mits. Since the stormwater management plan for the subdivision has not been fully approved, the applicant's engineer shall provide an interim storm drainage and erosion 20 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 control plan including but not limited to construction of temporary sediment basins in accordance with the City Best Management Practice Handbook in an effort to minimize erosion off the site. Upon completion of the site grading, the applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey of the grading prepared by a professional surveyor registered in the state of Minnesota upon completion of the excavation to verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the proposed plan. o All site restoration and erosion control measures shah be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer is encouraged to pursue acquisition of this handbook and to employ these said practices. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon as the excavation and site grading is completed, Topsoil and discmulched seeding shall be implemented immediately following the completion of the graded areas unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook dictates otherwise. 7. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed Minnesota PCA or EPA regulations. If the City determined that there is a problem warranting testing, such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and no work on national holidays or Sundays. Hours of operation on Saturdays are limited to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. If complaints from residents are logged with city staff regarding Saturday operation, the hours shall be reviewed by the City Council. The applicant shall construct and maintain gravel construction entrances during the grading operation. In addition, the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining ingress and egress to the existing residents on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles at ah times. 10. The applicant shall enter into an earthwork permit with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee compliance with the Conditions of Approval. All grading work shall be completed by November 15, 1994. 11. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and be maintained until all disturbed areas have been fully restored. The applicant shall also be responsible for removal of all erosion control measures upon completion of site grading. The city engineer will determine the appropriate time and authorize the applicant to remove the erosion control measures. 12. The applicant shall notify the city engineer of all drainage tiles encountered during site grading. The city engineer shall determine the appropriate abandonment or reroufing of all existing drainfile systems. 13. Additional Type I erosion control fence shall be used along the north perimeter of the site. Erosion control fence surrounding the wetlands shah be the City's Type Ill version. 14. Grading shall be prohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shah be installed outside the 10-foot buffer as well. 15. This grading permit approval be conditioned upon the City authorizing a public improvement project to extend trunk utility service to the site. 21 1UP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 22 16, Trees and shrubbery along the east property boundary shall be saved with this grading activity. 17, Grading activity for the berm along the southern property boundary shall be contained within the property. 18. The applicant shall maintain the access road to provide all weather access to the residents in the area. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PROPOSED ENTRY MONUMENTS, MICHAEL SCHROEDER, HOISINGTON-KOEGLER GROUP, .INC. Mayor Chmiel: Michael was at the HRA last Thursday and made the presentation. I'm going to be quiet with my comments because I think I already made mine over at HRA. So I'd like Council to look at this and look at some of the concepts, Whether you like or dislike or whatever your position might be. Michael Schroeder: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council, We're here tonight just to provide you some ideas of concepts. We were asked to bring or explore some ideas of what could happen at three entry points to the downtown, Market Boulevard, at the AVR site and TH 101 and at Powers Boulevard. We were also asked by the Planning Commission to explore what the implications of these entries would be on properties that are closer to the edge of Chanhassen. So we looked at those. We don't have any specific recommendations but we have some ideas that might be considered as we go forward. These are only concepts. I had some...what the cost estimates that are associated with these but we're really here tonight just to get some direction. As the Mayor indicated, we've had the HRA. We've taken them to Planning Commission, Continuing to review them with staff, I'm going to go through them just in order going east to west. Starting with the TH I01, AVR site. This site is very difficult to access. We were asked at the I-IRA whether there's any potential for development on this site, I won't say that there's not but I will say that it seems to be very difficult and after we looked at that, we considered what the uses of this site would be beyond simply providing for some kind of entry marker to Chanhassen. As we considered some of the other questions that were put to us by council people and staff people, we considered the use of a park on this site to try and essentially get more bang for the buck. Try to make the dollars for this entry go a little further. The site is long and narrow. Very directly facing Highway 5, We find that... What we decided to do was highway the pedestrian bridge which crosses Highway 5 by creating a corridor that leads to and from the intersection of Highway 101 or Dakota Avenue. The two concepts that were shown are quite similar. They have a different configuration of plantings on the site but what we propose is a walkway of some kind that leads out to the comer. Makes a connection back to the Highway 5 trail and also...the pedestrian bridge and back around West 78th, Trying to create a pedestrian oriented park for this space that has along with it the same ideas of entry or gateway for Chanhassen. In the center of this particular concept we show a grove of sugar maples and also trying to recall some of the hedgerow or framing elements of the landscape that surrounds Chanhassen, although in a much smaller way. With additional groves placed at locations to kind of carry the idea through the intersection further. One of the concepts that works for both this concept, the fa'st one and the second is the idea of making the park more meaningful. Trying to get a purpose for Chanhassen and through discussions that we had early on, it was noted that there people who wanted to create commemorative plantings for family members or other people in Chanhassen, They talked about it happening at a different site. One of the different entries that I'll be discussing. As we looked at it, this site had pedestrian opportunities that are far and away better than other entries, And so we proposed that commemorative plantings could happen on this site in a couple of ways. On this particular plane, a commemorative plantings might happen in a center grove. The other thing that we wanted to try and introduce to this site is, as Chanhassen approaches it's centennial, maybe there's a way that the park could become more 22 IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 23 than just a passive walking park and introduce along the path a time line of elements of events that happened in Chanhassen's history to try and make it a real use out there. This would help create a park and just say it's going to be open space parkland. We'd like to try and find some use. The other concept that goes along with this is, quite similar although in this one the commemorative plantings are striped along the trails and leads back to the pedestrian bridge creating more of a leading gateway back to the bridge. Both of these concentrate on significant plantings of maple trees with other trees planted to augment the landscaping. As we've gone through in the cost estimates, which I'll share with you later, there could be a fair amount of earth work to happen on this site given it's disturbed nature and we may have to do some soil corrections in order to get a reasonable growing environment for some of the land materials or for any plant materials. Just a sketch that's a little bit difficult to read. This second idea that I'll share. But it tries to highlight the pedestrian bridge and the way the plantings on both sides can work to reinforce the view right back to it so that they're trying to give more of a frame to the view towards the pedestrian bridge or the gateway element. The second entry area is at Market Boulevard and we were asked to consider, along with the landscape theme, a wetland at the center entry. The possibility of introducing monumentation of some kind which essentially means signs. And we looked at this in two different ways. One where we considered using all four comers of the intersection or as much as we can. In really focusing on the idea of wetland by expanding the water area. One of the things that we felt was that wetlands are not easily recognized as being different than tall grasslands unless there's some water present. The pond that surrounds, that's at the fountain now is significant. We could expand in two comers of the intersection with creating some open water areas which would really highlight the idea of this being a wetland entry to Chanhassen. In this particular scheme we looked at a sign that would be viewed as you view Chanhassen from across the landscape. As you drive up and down Highway 5 and look back towards the city, really you look across fields, more wetlands, to see the downtown. And we look at that the same way. Where the sign would be viewed across the pond to the sign that's located at the back side of the entry. Somewhat screening the back side of Festival Foods. Looking back, ff this is Festival Foods would be in the center of this picture. The sign that would use cut out letters against an evergreen background. It might be somewhat akin to a Hollywood sign viewed across the landscape. The second idea or the wetland, for the wetland intersection or the wetland entry is to heighten the difference between wetland and groomed land and creating, instead of excavating areas off the ponding, to create a more groomed environment right at the intersection with a sign that's actually a part of that. It kind of spans between an area that's left in more native tuff to an area that's more highly groomed. In this case, the ponding for the wetland areas will be left essentially the same. In this scheme I've shown an idea. Picking up on some of the ideas that have been ~_alked about before. Of carrying the maple leaf idea with maybe a more modest sign than has been proposed in the past. But in this case it would be located very close to Highway 5 as opposed to the other scheme where it would be located back viewed across the pond. Councilman Senn: Where would that go? Michael Schroeder: I'm sorry, it would be in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. There may have to be some amount of grading there to make sure that it can be elevated high enough to be seen but the main difference between the location of the signs, is one is viewed across the pond as a part of the landscape. The other one's a more significant prominent sign. Finally at the Powers Boulevard intersection we looked at a way of capturing the benefit of some of the oaks that were saved at Target and also some of the few oaks that remain at the development up behind Byerly's and using that...for the Powers Boulevard intersection. Essentially creating a strong ring of oak trees that frame the intersection. Underplanting them with something more colorful where they'd be visible. To really make you feel like you're entering a room at that point. And to reinforce that entry by planting the oaks, stretching the oaks along the highway and up and down Powers Boulevard. We also looked at what you have to do to start screening out some of the larger warehouse buildings so you really can focus on the landscape elements instead of the built elements at that intersection. As we talked about this 23 IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 24 concept with staff, we talked about the fast food development and what could be done to introduce the element of oaks. Of the oak theme into that and we think there was potential for expanding the idea of the intersection through the development, which really brings us back to the very first board where we talk about what happens at the edges. There's an opportunity I think as development stretches out along Highway 5 that we can designate intersections as entry and use elements of the landscape as subtle statements of entry into the community and I don't know exactly where those will happen yet but it seems to me Dell Road is a possibility, being a significant intersection on the easterly end of town. And Highway 41 as being a significant entry on the west end of town. So we might reflect some of those, recall some of the same ideas as we find with the maples at the AVR site and oaks at the Powers Boulevard site. We've also put together some very rough cost estimates based on these schemes and really it's only a point of departure for us so when we can begin to understand the implications of these. All of them have indicated there's an amount of money set aside for site preparation and earth work. We want to make sure that if we're doing things here, we can have the elements working to our best advantage. The...where we talk about the Highway 101, AVR site, the costs are substantially more because we're including costs related to pedestrian features and walkway benches and... The center entry is significantly more because it includes a sign as a special feature in this case. This is where we're at right now. We're really bringing it to the Council's attention to try and get some information, direction, ideas. Ideas that we can explore further and I'll take questions. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Or any direction that you may see. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I just have a couple comments. Mayor Chmiel: On the first page that he's indicated, it's either the square grove or the linear grove for the proposal. Of one or the other and the other choices on the other sites. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I have a question about how the railroad goes through there and will people be cutting across that as it goes... Michael Schroeder: Essentially the park that will be created, the feeling of a landscape might stretch across but the path itself would, we would create a path that's not so indirect that people would feel that they can't, that they would want to leave the pathway and I think adding the elements of maybe commemorative markers or something along it would help to reinforce the linear nature of it. We wouldn't want to cut it off totally because the space we gain in creating a landscaped effect on the north side I think is significant for us. But we do want to maintain some protection at the railroad. We also, I've been trying to get in contact with the railroad so we can understand what the sight line requirements are for this one and the Market Boulevard intersection, which may limit us in our ability to do some plantings in some areas. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I guess my opinion is, the square one was a tittle too planned. A little too perfect. I would prefer the second option, And as far as the Market Boulevard one, I've never been too keen on monuments so I guess I'd take out those. I don't like either one. I do like the idea of those tall pines however on the back side of the pond. Screening part of that. I believe that will look very nice and to me that's a statement in itself. You don't need it spelled out. The landscaping coming in at $50,000.00 to $59,000.00. A lot of money. And Michael help me, what's not included in these costs? Michael Schroeder: As I've indicated at the beginning. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Your fees. 24 IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 25 Michael Schroeder: Right. Design fees. There's survey work which may well need to be. If there's, it's determined that we need to acquire additional property for getting easements or access. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What does that look like now? Michael Schroeder: Well one of the things that has been considered, if we were to take this intersection here at the Sinclair station. We may want to do something closer to the Sinclair station than we have property to do. So we may need to either acquire or one way or another gain access to that site. And that may hold tree for some of the other intersections as well to Powers Boulevard. We may be wanting to plant closer to buildings on property that we don't actually own and there would have to be some controls established. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And then getting back to the Market Boulevard one. I'd just as soon leave it in it's natural state with the ponding. Just personal preference again. And the west entry, I really like the idem Spreading the txees out. Again, not making it look so planned. Mayor Chmiel: More or less a softer effect is what you're. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. I guess those are my comments about the drawings but in terms of how we're going to fund this is a completely separate issue. And where do we go from here. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I had one question on property acquisition. I guess you kind of all answered that. Second question is, what are, have you done estimates on ongoing maintenance costs on this stuff once it's graded? Michael Schroeder: That's one of the things we talked about with the HRA. Before we proceed much further, we'd like to sit down with the maintenance staff and try to understand what their ability to commit to projects like these would be. We don't yet know but we do know we need to talk to people who are going to maintaining the site. We did talk at HRA about at a minimum, before we do anything, to fred out what the requirements are. Figure out how far apart these should be spaced in order to efficiently get mowers through there. Riding mowers instead of push mowers. We'll be looking at all those things. We just haven't gotten to that point yet. Councilman Senn: Okay. Let's see. I guess if you're looking for direction or comments, at least as far as I'm concerned, what you're showing us on TH 101, I agree with Colleen. I like the linear approach rather than the square. If we're going to do any commemorative markers or whatever, I think we might want to look at some way of doing that privately rather than publically. It seems to be fairly successful in other places that I've seen it done. As far as Market goes, I think the design with the sign setback against Festival is considerably softer so I guess I like that in that sense but still provides good identity as the main entrance to the core. I think the simple reality is is with the commercial comer in the downtown area, there's got to be some entry point or identity or feature and I guess ff we're going to have it somewhere, that's where I'd just as soon see it. And if we don't have it there, I think it's an issue that's going to be continually revisited in the future. Powers, don't see any real problems with that. That has a nice soft effect there. I'm going to withhold comment on the cost. 25 IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 26 I have some real I guess potential questions or issues with the cost on that. But I guess when I make that statement, I'm going to make it equally as strong on maintenance because typically the maintenance will very quickly out do these numbers. By leaps and bounds. And I guess in that I guess I'd like to make something other clear, at least in my mind and that is, I really view these three entry points and the reason we're pursuing them is basically identifying our central area. Okay, and any ongoing maintenance costs I don't think should be passed back to the taxpayers. I think it should be an assessment to the core in terms of some type of a commercial assessment or something to maintain these areas identifying the core. I don't really see it as something that you fall into a general expenditure and go back. As far as the spreading out from these, I think I stated. In fact I thought the Council fairly def'mitely stated it before that we're not really interested in doing that at this point in terms of going beyond these three points tonight. I would I guess take real issue with even spending money to further study that at this point. We had that kind of long discussion about well what do you mark them? Every entry to the city and what constitutes an entry and you know, why is TH 41 the best place when that's really not the line. And there's lots of issues you get into and I quite frankly think it's a waste of our time and spinning wheels and I think this identifies the core which I think is something we need to do. Beyond that, I think we should stay with some of the more standard accepted practices that don't cost a mint. As this I guess reinforces. I guess that's it on my comments. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Some of the things that you had said were the same questions that were raised by the I-IRA and costs are a little high. They keep looking and I keep looking to see some kind of a structure that we can be within that would be much less with total costs as we look at it about $181,000.00. Or $184,000.00. Councilman Senn: Are you like me where you look at it and you say, where's the benefit or where's the use? Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. I think we have to make a statement but I don't know if we have to make it with that many dollars. That's one of my concerns and has been fight along. But yep, upkeep and maintenance was another one of the factors that I then brought up on that too because I was real concerned about that. At I-IRA. Once you put it in, after a number of years your costs are going to be..,means another individual's going to have to hired just to maintain that part of this, as we've discussed. So I guess maybe you might have a pretty good sense of direction again. Whether this should really continue is another one of those questions. I think maybe what we have to do is have staff come back to us with some of their thoughts and ideas as to what they're looking at with this. Councilwoman Dockendoff: In terms of where the money will come from? Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what I'd like to find out, one. I'd like to see this just shaved if we were to ever to go to anything. Just way out of hand is what I keep, $161,000.00 for one and $107,000.00 for another and $184,000.00 for another and there's a lot of dollars that I think we can put to use better within the city than within those specific locations. I think we need something as an enticement for the downtown but I'm not sure this is the fight way to go. Councilman Senn: You know, to piggy back on that a little bit. It seems to me that we really need to go talk to the commercial businesses and if they feel it's important or strongly feel that this type of, I don't know. I don't want to call it monumentation but this type of treatment of an access to the core is important, you know I think the question becomes, is it then a legitimate priority as it relates to the TIF and use of those funds to accomplish it. But more importantly, I think it needs to really be laid on the table with them fight up front as far as the maintenance costs go. You know, are they willing to absorb those and take them on in a special assessment district for whatever of the core. And you know, I think if those types of questions get answered, then I think 26 IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 27 it's far easier for us to sit there and turn around and deal with where do we place this TIF expenditure or whatever in relationship to other priorities or whatever. But there's kind of a lot of unknowns at this point. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I guess I'm not in complete agreement that it's strictly for the benefit of the commercial in town. I think it benefits the entire community. That doesn't mean the fund should come out of the general fund but to put it all on the business owners, I'm not sure that's the only reason we're doing this. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's something I think that has to be looked at and explored. If I was a business owner, I would sure as beck wouldn't want to pay any additional dollars for anything that's coming in there because I'm already paying taxes and they're a considerable... Councilman Senn: But every year, everybody that's got a downtown area has special maintenance tills and I'm just saying. Mayor Chmiel: Right. And once our TIF is gone, there's dollars are going to be there and it's going to be balanced everybody within the community so. I guess you have that direction that you're probably looking for. Not maybe what you wanted to hear but. Michael Schroeder: We will be taking this to the Planning Commission for their review and looking for staff direction further all the way through the process. Mayor Chmiel: Right. And we're looking for some additional information back from staff in regards to what the proposal is. Councilman Senn: Well I guess I have a question. I mean, it sounds to me like if this is going back to go through the Planning Commission process, I mean we're going to sit here and keep going forward on this and we're going to spend money to retain the consultant to do it. I'd rather see us get these questions, or at least some of these questions answered and I'd like them to bring it back here before we pass it on the conceptual approval for anybody to look at. So we can provide some direction. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's good. Don, did you hear? Alright, thanks. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING UPDATE, MAYOR CHMIEL. Mayor Chmiel: This is in regards to the low and moderate income housing update. Todd and I, Gerhardt and I had attended the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities regarding the housing opportunities for low and moderate income persons through the melxo area. And the AMM has come up with some slrategies and draft report basically and they'd like input back from the cities within the area in regard to this. As most of you axe aware that recently there was an article in the Villager about covering some of these specific ideas and the one who really is spearheading this is Representative Orfield in getting some low income housing within the community. And I think some of his stats and some of his things are just out of context and it'd be the same way to ask him to put some of these kinds of same units in his particular district where his homes are running probably a million to a million and a half as well, and up. So there's good things people can do and I think some of these things have to be done but I don't think that we, as a city, have to be shot at like a bullseye as he's been doing in the past. Not only Chanhassen but also within Eden Prairie. Recently on one of the radio 27 1UP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 28 stations they were taking pot shots again at Chanhassen regarding this. I was out again just today looking at some of the facilities that we have within the community and in just driving around looking at the low kinds of housing that's available. You have to .look at Lakeview Hills has 218 units. We have other complexes within the community, By the time you get done with it, it all numbers probably about 400 kinds of units that are low to moderate kinds of income housing within the community and I think that's something that he's not even looking at, And for ownership and some of the other things that they're looking at, I think that's some of the things that we have to still come up with and still provide some of this within the community. But I'm not sure exactly where that specific cut off comes from, I know that d you've had an opportunity to look at this, some of the things that they're looking for as findings and some of their recommendations are shown through here. And one of the ones that I immediately picked out was the social services as they've indicated here to be formulated. To me that's not a city's responsibility. That basically is county's responsibility. They have the numbers of people, They can maintain it, They can take care of it so I don't think that's all put back onto the city. But have you had an opportunity to review this? Colleen, Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I think it identifies the problem fairly well but these recommendations don't do anything. I mean it's full of words but I don't see anything. Mayor Chmiel: And I think one of the things is that, if any of you would like to just sit down, we have until, what is it? August something if I remember right, from that particular meeting, to get this back to them because this is a position paper that they're going to take to the legislature to say this is what the city's are going to do within the metropolitan area. And to try to come up with some conclusions and solutions that you're looking at. Because what's going to be introduced again at the next session, will be the same things that were brought up previously and that's always brought up by Representative Orfield. And he gets his votes on it and I just don't fully agree with things that he's really saying. So a lot of things being said that seem to be untrue. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Yeah, I'd be interested in working on this as well. I don't want it however to become a dissent paper. I'd like it to have some good solutions. Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly, and this is exactly what they're looking at. I've already given some of those ideas that we've had at that particular meeting with some comments that were done, And so what I'd like to do is to, ff you have any specific recommendations that you may have, we'd like you to get those back to Todd so he can formulate those and send those back into the AMM. Councilman Senn: When by? Mayor Chmiel: Pardon? Councilman Senn: When do you need those by? Mayor Chmiel: Oh we would like, he probably would like those within the next week or so. I like one of those community buildings, seeing poor people in communities to craft solutions to their own problems. That's a good idea but what does it really say... Councilman Senn: It says what you says but they don't allow you the authority to do it. 28 IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 29 Mayor Chmiel: That's right. They don't have that authority but you empower them to have that authority. So with that, I would like to get that and we'll work it from there. With no other items on the agenda, I would look for an adjournment. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 29