The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Minutes 1994 07 11CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 1994 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf and Councilman Mason COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Bob Generous, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Scott Harr, Tom Scott, City Attorney; and Roger Knutson, City Attorney. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: ACCEPT DONATION FROM THE CHANHASSEN LIONS CLUB: A. PARK AND RECREATION. B. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT. Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, could I make the comment? I was asked by Scott Harr that I believe it's for $21,000.00 and not $20,000.00. Is that fight Scott? Are you here? Scott Ham Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so $21,0130.00. I would like for you to come up at this time and talk about some of the things that you have in your packet today but if you could keep it rather brief, I'd appreciate it. Scott Hart: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The Lions were interested in working with us on a project. We had discussions and recognized that Chanhassen, particularly with..xight now is addressing crime prevention needs of one of the fastest growing cities, this is the opportunity to keep on top of things to maintain a wonderfully Iow crime rate that we continue to enjoy in relationship with the Sheriff's Depamnent, the Drug Task Force, State Patrol, our personnel really does wonk and we've appreciated the relationship we've had with the communities, the Lion's Club...consider a request for fund a major crime prevention effort We would like to put together a unit that we can take to community events to get the important story of crime prevention out there and we're very flattered that the Lion's has been generous enough to offer this to the community this evening. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. I know that Todd Hoffman was also going to make a short presentation but he had another commitment this evening and rather than have discussions additionally I'd like to call on Mr. Gary Boyle from the Lion's Club. Gary. Gary Boyle: Well thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. I'll make it very short..presentation. We're very happy and very proud to be able to donate this money to the Park and Rec and to Public Safety and especially in funds that...take chances within our community and put some of that money back into the community. Earmark a lot of it for you and again we're happy to be able to do it and proud and know it's going to go to good use. Mayor Chmiel: Good. On behalf of the city and the residents, we thank you very much for that considerable contribution and I'm sure that we'll put it in the right direction thai it should be, so thanks again Gary. Before I move along, are there any additional public announcements at this time? If seeing none, I'll move right along with the agencl~ CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Authorization to Initiate Contract Negotiations with Existing Haulers for Organized Collection within the City. g. Approve City Code Amendment Regarding Cable TV Rate Regulation, Final Reading. h. Resolution 404-66: Approve Resolution Regarding 1995 Southwest Metro Drug Task Force Cash Match. i. Approval of Bills. j. City Council Minutes dated June 27, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 15, 1994 1. Resolution 404-67: Approve Change Order No. 5 to Upper Bluff Creek Phase lIB Trunk Utilities, Project 91-17A. m. Accept 1993 Annual Audit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 2(C) AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CREATING THE HIGHWAY $ OVERLAY DISTRICT WHICH ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR, FINAL READING. Mayor Chmiel: I did indicate in our last discussions with the people from Fleet Farm that they would have that opportunity to come back again to present their particular case and I will allow that at this particular time. Christopher Dietz: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Ladies and gentlemen. My name is Christopher Dietz and I'm appearing on behalf of Mills Fleet Farm to set forth our comments on the city's proposed design overlay ordinance for the Highway 5 corridor. I have prepared written comments and to speed it up I'd like to circulate them. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. What I've proposed to do is to simply highlight our comments. We've set forth essentially two objections. One is the procedural requirements of Minnesota Statute 462.357 adopting the following. Secondly, that the proposed ordinance, in our opinion, is so burdensome, so restrictive and so subjective that it will be totally unworkable. The City is setting itself up for arguments regarding whether it is harmonious, suitable, high quality, etc and those are not defined terms. There are no objective standards. It's rather the subjective intent of the decision maker, We believe that that is contrary to rules of the law. I've cited a case upon that point. On page 2, we make specific comments regarding Section 4 of the Ordinance, Section 7, Section 20-1451 that we think there are serious problems with the ordinance. Going to page 3 for example where we state that Section 20-1453 of the proposed ordinance provides that lots which abut both Highway 5 and one of the access boulevards up to the park lot lines and the parking areas cannot be located within the required minimum front yard setback of any lot. Section 20-1462 provides that the minimum building setback for such lots is 70 feet from Highway 5 and 50 feet from the access boulevard. On property with 1,000 feet of frontage, this ordinance would render 3 acres of land completely worthless. There's nothing inherently wrong with parking areas adjacent to the State Highway given the width of the Highway 5 right-of-way. Most properties will have a significant setback from cars on Highway 5 within the...and without the need for additional extra setbacks within the property. And then going to the last page of 2 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 the document. Well second to the last page. Page 4. We talk about the pitched roof requirement and the fact that although there is a requirement for "pitched roofs", if you look at page 6 and 7 of the proposed ordinance, there appears to be 5 examples on how to comply with the ordinance. Four of these examples show buildings with no pitched roof elements. It's very difficult for us to see how one could comply with "subjective" standards. Then going to the last page of the letter. It is my client's conclusion that this ordinance is an attempt to regulate every detail of the property owner's use of his land from the color of his or her building to the species of trees in the front yard on a purely subjective basis. It is unreasonable, over reslricfive and would be a nightmare for the property owners subjected to it and the staff who must administer it. We also think that several comments that were made at the last City Council meeting indicate that this ordinance also violates the equal protection clause of Minnesota and U.S. Constitution because it does not operate uniformly on properties that are similarly situated. In other words, there are other properties located next to highways that are not required to comply with this ordinance, yet these property owners are requffed to shoulder an additional burden which places them in a less than competitive or less competitive situation. Our conclusion is that without objective standards, the ordinance is flawed. We would request and urge that the Council have this matter tabled. Send it to the City Attorney's office for assistance to develop objective standards. Otherwise we think that there will be many problems with subjective standards. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to present the remarks from Mills Fleet Farm. If Council has any questions or staff, I'd be happy to address them. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Staff, do you have any specific questions in relationship to what was just provided? Kate Aanenson: Not unless you have...answer. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Wing: Kate, the pitched roof issue. Kate Aanenson: It's a pitched roof element. Councilman Wing: Yeah so we're not, we don't want pitched roofs and I agree it's in there. I read it differently than they did. How do you see the intent? Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry. Councilman Wing: Well could you explain that? I don't read it the way they did. Kate Aanenson: We have different interpretations all along that corridor. Byerly's has a different interpretation. Obviously when you get a bigger user it's difficult to put a pitched roof on. Target put the parapet wall on. So the terminology is element. What we're talking about is to style somehow to soften the look of the big flat roof. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I haven't any comments. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: No. No comments. 3 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any comments either. Sometimes from what one reads to what someone else reads may be just a tad bit different in the interpretation and that's why we have attorneys in this world and I appreciate your concerns. Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue at this time? If not, is there a motion on the floor? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move the amendment to City Code creating the Highway 5 Overlay District. Councilman Wing: Second that. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the fina! reading of the amendment to City Code creating the Highway 5 Overlay District which establishes Development and Design standards for the Highway 5 Corridor. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 2(D). ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, PROJECT 93-1. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As of this morning we received notification from one of the...companies on this project indicating that they had discovered some failed concrete strength tests for some of the sidewalks that were put in. As such we haven't had a chance yet to work through the situations with the developer...and as such we would, it would be staff's recommendation to proceed with the recommendation of accepting the street improvements with the condition that the sidewalk repairs be corrected at staff's direction. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Charles. Any questions? Okay, if there are no questions, I'll call the question. With the motion that Charles has put on the floor, would someone make that motion? Councilman Wing: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution g94-68: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to accept Street Improvements in Chanhassen Business Center, Project 93-1 as amended by Charles Folch, City Engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 2(K). FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, LOTS 1-3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, MARCUS CORPORATION. Mayor Chmiel: We did pull this at this time and I think I've had some discussions with our City Manager. I've asked him to go through a process. I think that we've gone through, or at least I feel that we, we as myself and the Council, have credibility within the city. I want to continue with this credibility and I'm going to make sure that everyone is well aware as to what's happening. This is where we have one of our Council people who still has their name on the proposed project, which is the Marcus Corporation. And prior to doing something of this nature, I would like to see our Council person sign a form indicating that there are no interests on this project and have our City Attorney draft this form for him to sign, And if he signs that, then I would say that we would approve this final plat approval of Lot 1-3, Park One Third Addition, Marcus Corporation. Any discussion? Councilman Wing: Well Mr. Mayor, the last meeting I made maybe, I hope it wasn't a passionate comment but it was passionately felt that if the Council was voting on a fire truck and I sit here as a fireman, I would step 4 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 down. And I really feel that the editor of the Villager hit it on the head. That something was wrong here and whether it's right or wrong, there was an appearance of impropriety or an appearance of conflict of interest. And whether it is or isn't, that appearance to me justifies a gentlemanly departure from the Council. I mean there was nothing to be lost or gained, one way or the other except it looked better. ! also want to point out to the Council, and also have in the Minutes, on page 51 and 50. Actually 50, 51, and 52 from the July 6th Planning Commission meetings where they discussed this very issue and they show a lot of concern. They're a little angry this was passed and they really felt it did not look good and they were in concurrence with the editorial in the paper. So here we have the leadership in the community really questioning this, up until the last Planning Commission meeting and I think that their comments are pertinent on this issue also and I want to make sure you've seen them and realize that you have additional support on this issue. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: Just a clarification for staff's standpoint. What I hear you saying then is that the City Attorney's office is to draft a no financial interest or other conflict of interest form to be signed by Councilman Senn. That if that is signed, the plat can go ahead and be fried. Failure to sign that would cause this item to reappear on the July 25th City Council agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Correct. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, the city offered a challenge of our rules. Where do we stand on a decision on what we're going to do in the future on issues such as this? Roger was going to come forth with some other city rules that we might look at. I'm just. wondering, where do you stand on that? DO we want to pursue that? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Yes, I think we should. I think it's in the best interest of the city for us to pursue that and at least for each of us to do the same in signing off and indicating that we do not have interest within the city other than our own homes and piece of property that they're located on. I just sometimes feel that sometimes the improprieties happen and I don't want to have it happen and I probably do understand where Mark is coming from. But I just don't, I just don't feel as comfortable with it as I should and I guess I don't want any way in any mean or any form of this pointing directly back to the city and winding up with a black eye. I took this job with no interest behind it and I know each of you have as well and I just want to make sure that we do pursue this and that we do come up with another form for us which Roger is in prepatory of. That we can be signed and make sure that there's no interest in anything that we do within the city. So with that, with that as a motion as with clarification as to what DOn has indicated and said regarding the plat, I would so move this item (k). Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? City Council Meeting ~ July 11, 1994 Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approval the final plat for Lots 1-3, Park One Third Addition, Marcus Corporation with the condition that Councilman Senn sign a form prepared by the City Attorney claiming no financial or personal interest in the project. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Dockendorf abstained, and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to give your mason for abstaining? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just haven't thought it through. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I guess I probably would not have brought this up either if the name is still on the final approval. If it were removed, I would have no question. Thank you. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: LYMAN BOULEVARD AND LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK UTILITY PROJECT NO. 93.321 AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 13, 1994). Public Present: Name Address Kevin Finger Bernard Reich Steve Liefschultz Jeff Brauchle Dick Putnam Jim Ostenson Don Jensen Scott Wirth John Dobbs Terry Forbord Bruce Malkerson Jim Dolejsi Jerry & Rosie Luebke At Klingelhutz Dan Frederick V.G. Prewitt Russ & Orletm Frederick Bailey & Mary Lou Janssen R,H, Peterson Barbara BonGiovanni Kristine Uppman Diane & Rick Riegert 9151 Great Plains Blvd. 4776 Karen Place, White Bear Lake, MN 3D25 Harbor Lane, #315, Plymouth Plaza VII Building, Minneapolis Tandem Properties Tandem Properties Rottlund Homes 361 Deerfoot Trail 361 Deerfoot Trail Lundgren Bros. 3200 Piper Jafffey 9260 Kiowa Trail 8526 Great Plains Blvd. 8600 Great Plains Blvd. 540 Lyman Blvd. 420 Lyman Blvd. 540 Lyman Blvd. 500 Lyman Blvd., 9101 Lake Riley Blvd, 4502 West 36th Street, St. Louis Park 532 Lyman Blvd. 520 Lyman Blvd. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of Council. At the previous public hearing a detailed presentation of this project, including it's primary elements, costs and financing was made. Following the 6 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 presentation there were some questions raised by property owners who had been at the public hearing. In addition it appeared both to staff and Council that the attendance...by the project was very light given the large size of the project and as such the Council directed staff to take the Minutes from the meeting and provide written responses to the questions raised and also re-notify all the property owners of...hearing date along with the information on the proposed assessment to the property. All of this has been done during the interim between these public hearings. The written responses were not available in time to be put in your packet. However they are provided to you tonight as a handout that has been passed out. The project engineer, Mr. David Mitchell with OSM is here tonight to provide verbal response to each of the questions raised at the last public hearing and then following his conclusion I would like to respond back with some updated information of this project prior to... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. David Mitchell: Thanks Charles. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As Charles indicated, I'm Dave Mitchell with OSM Engineering, project manager for the project. On June 13th we had 5 individuals, property owners that were represented at the public hearing. Basically it broke down into two groups. The first group being Mr. Klingelhutz and Mr. Luebke who own properties adjacent to Trunk Highway 101 and 86th Street. Their primary concerns were with the alignment of the trunk utilities through that area. Mr. Wayne Hule from our office and myself met with Mr. Klingelhutz and Mr. Luebke on site. Discussed some of the alternatives present and I believe we reached a conclusion that was acceptable to all. Primarily what we will be doing is looking at alignments that is along Highway 101 and working with the property owners adjacent to...this kind of alignment is acceptable to everyone. Mr. Klingelhutz also had some questions regarding his assessments and the breakdown of those assessments. I've provided that for him. His primary concern was the assessments associated with the Mission Hills versus the assessments related to the property that has had retained and those questions have been answered been for him. Other questions came from properties owned by the Frederick's, the Chadwick's and the Janssen's. All three properties are in...Lyman Boulevard area. Their primary concerns again were costs and assessments associated with their properties. Also some concerns with the timing of the project. A comment was made with regards to their existing systems being in good condition. Also some concerns about specifics such as tree loss, retaining walls, and whether or not the trunk highway 212 properties were being assessed. In a letter that was prepared for these residents, I outlined the benefits for the properties would be realized when the improvement's been made and that their property values would increase proportionally with, perhaps proportionally equal to the amount of assessments that's the basis of the whole assessment policy. Assessments are also based on a residential equivalent unit, which is something that the city of Chanhassen has accepted through their comprehensive plans. That is briefly described in these letters. Also we discussed the deferments to the small acreage homesteaded properties and that they would be assessed only for the units that they have at this time along with the entire road assessment. The remaining assessments would be deferred for future collection of...for sale of the property. With regards to timing of the project, we have over 350 units proposed under concept plans within the study area with over 200 of those units proposed adjacent to Lyman Blvd. The timing of this is right. It's lime for these things to happen. We've got lots of land out there ready to develop. Also explained was the trunk highway 212 property that is not being assessed. That is undevelopable land. It is mapped and will be likely purchased by the State of Minnesota for the construction of Trunk Highway 212. Recently, not discussed in the letters but in a phone conversation with Mr. Bailey Janssen, he had some concerns with regards to his trees and his wall. We've indicated to him that we will work with him through those areas. We realize that those properties are very sensitive. That there is going to be some room for adjustments for road in respect to these areas to preserve as much existing features out there as possible. With that I'll let Charles update you with some additional information that's come forth. 7 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Charles Folch: Thank you David. Late last week staff was contacted by Mr, Emie Peacock with Edina Realty who was representing Mr. Charles Adelman's property which is located, it's about 52 acres located north of Lake Riley Blvd. Evidently Mr, Peacock was unaware of this project and unaware that his previous notices were being sent to the property owner of record, Mr. Adelman. As such Mr. Peacock raised some objections...time to take a look at the feasibility study and formally respond back to staff on the position with the cost of assessments and such that have been proposed. In addition, Mr. Peacock has also contacted the new property owners for Lakeview Hills Apaxtment complex...purchased the property recently on a contract for deed. As required by law, we notified the fee owners of the property of which the new contract owners...the information received at the County. Therefore, evidently it appears from what they're saying that the information of these public hearings and notices that have been sent out were not being forwarded onto them and they've also contacted us. They raised some concerns for not having had the opportunity to come to any of the public hearings in the past or review the feasibility study. They're requesting a continuance of the public hearing so that they have time to take a look at this information. Given all things considered, these two properties do represent a significant share of the project. Proposed project both in size and potential financing through assessments. Due to circumstances, the utilities and notifichtion that they weren't forwarded on, these notices, it appears that there could be some justification for a continuance to allow some time to review and prepare... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The continuance that you're looking, I believe you're looking for at least to come back probably before Council on August 8th? Or is there. Charles Folch: Yeah at this point I guess it's hard to know exactly how much time these people would like. I think some of them are here tonight and they can have the opportunity to speak to what time they think they might need. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Jeff Brauchle: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. With regards to that question, my name is Jeff Brauchle. I'm an attorney with the Oppenheimer Law Firm and we represent the Lakeview Hills Investment Group. Mr. Reich and Liefschultz are in the audience. They are two of the partners in that investment group. The facts are, as Mr. Folch states, said on a public contract under which the investment group owns this property. It is of record. A notice was not received until seridepitiously enough Mr. Peacock called and let us know about this today. Since then we have gotten the feasibility study. We've tried to look at it quickly. We've already talked to an appraiser and we've assembled a group and myself to be here tonight. We're determined to do our level best to move as quickly as possible to analyze the work that you've done to try to catch up. To work with city staff and the City Council and Mayor to try to...with a just resolution to this situation. Having said that, we face the task of getting an appraiser to work on this and get a work product out on it as well as I 'ordered some engineering expertise to help us with some of the questions. For example, this parcel has a large well on it and how that will interact with the proposed watermain assessment which is roughly half of the $925,000.00 assessed against this property. As an example of the question that we're going to ask of you. And as I say, we're prepared to do our level best to work as quickly as we can on this so that the city is not delayed while property owners have ample opportunity to analyze the questions and get the expertise they need. But you folks hire appraisers and engineers as well...we fear that August 8th is too soon and we're not going to be able to, dispute our best efforts in spending some money, to have enough time prior to August 8th to formulate a position and come back to you with a meaningful position and the investment group humbly beseeches you for more time than that. At least to give us 60 days. We'd also like to make it clear that the current formulations we do object to the proposed assessment and... We'd be happy to answer any questions that City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 you have...say about the projects but I think it's best said after ample and full investigation. And we do pledge to move quickly and professionally on... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Charles. Charles Foleh: For the record, both copies of the letter that we received from the Lakeview I-Iills Partnership and the Emie Peacock are included in that handout that was provided to you tonight. I should point out that if we do delay this project 60 days, we may need to take a look at some alternatives for the project in terms of, there currently is one project that will be before you later on tonight that is in the preliminary plat stage. At this time what they need is trunk watermain. Depending on what happens with their approval process, it may be prudent for staff and...engineers to look at staging this project and maybe at least letting a small watermain contract at least to provide the necessary service to that property if it looks like it's going to develop this fall and leave the main work to take place next summer. If we delay this 60 days, basically the project is not feasible, the project will not occur this year. Mayor Chmiel: But to continue with the project,..60 day delay, this would still come back before Council for discussion and the final determinations at that time and then this would either be done the following year with the balance of the needs to accommodate whatever is going to be done. Charles Folch: That's correct. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Is there anyone else at this time that would like to address this particular issue? As you can see, there's going to be a delay but ff you would like to come forward and present your position, we'll be happy to entertain that at this time. Terry Forbord: Your Honor and members of the City Council. Good evening. My name is Terry Forbord. I've Vice President of Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata. About 23, maybe 22 months ago we began working with the city of Chanhassen on a piece of property that's commonly known as the Rogers-Dolejsi property. Prior to that, there was another developer that was working with the city on this very site and there's another developer that was working on a site that is just north of the Rogers-Dolejsi project, Well probably for 3 to maybe 4 years there's been developer interest in this area that is served by the improvement project. In December of 1993, about 8 months ago, you approved the preliminary plat on the Rogers-Dolejsi property by Lundgren Bros at the intersection of TH 101 and Pioneer Boulevard. The plans and the other plans that have been presented to you for properties in that area are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The schedule that was presented to you regarding this public improvement project, which you received on May 9th of this year, suggests that if you approved the project at your last meeting, that the project would be substantially completed in November of 1995. Now as you know, in Minnesota it's very difficult to get a lot of work done on a project of this scope, and if this project is delayed now, we'll lose two winters. We'll lose this coming winter and then we'll lose the following winter. So essentially we're making this into a 1996, late '96 project for the Rogers-Dolejsi property. We also notice that the City of Chanhassen normally, at least typically building permits are not granted until the blacktop is down. So that's puts an additional burden on those who are trying to get into the ground and get going. And needless to say, a delay of the magnitude that's being discussed earlier this evening would push this public improvement project and the investments that the other people have made in the area over the last 24 to 36 months, 48 months, economically unfeasible. If, you know that this is not an assessment hearing. You do know that this project can be ordered. Preparation of the plans and specs. And you also know that you can choose or elect to not do the project later on, if you would select even after the plans and specs have been prepared. Even later on, after the project is City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 started is when the assessments...so there are plenty of opportunities for those who are affected by this project, to speak before you in the future, If you elect to delay this project, which I'm not sure is in the best interest for the city, I would urge you to consider breaking the project into phases. So those who have been working with the city over the last number of years, can keep on their time tables that have been established. However, I do note, at least from talking to the consultants. To the city consultants and the city staff has worked very closely with all who have been participating in this for months. It's not a new item. I do know, at least from what I've been told, that not doing the project as it's proposed, poses additional problems for the city and the orderly development of that area, and those can be better addressed by the staff. Thank you very much for your time. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Jim Ostenson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jim Ostenson. I'm with Tandem Properties. We've also been working with the city for several months, more than a year in developing a project which you're going to hear later tonight, Mission Hills. We've purchased the property contingent upon approvals from two long time residents of Chanhassen who have gone ahead and made decisions, personal decisions of their own. We have worked with the staff. We've worked with the Highway 101 and 212. All the...project that is totally consistent with your comprehensive guide plans. It fits in what people perceive appropriate for this part of Chanhassen. And as Mr. Forbord has indicated, now at the llth hour it appears that we could have a substantial delay. With our development, as the engineer eluded to earlier, that we could go ahead with accommodation made for the watermain. If it's a minimum, we'd like to see you have that conversation with the engineers and move on and do that... But I think for everyone that's worked in the area and has been diligent in the process of doing so, to have it delayed now is not right. Especially when the city has acted properly in notifying people but that they...I'm sympathetic to that but at the same time there are a lot of other people who have spent a lot of time and money that I think deserve to be treated fairly as well. Thank you. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? If I might make a point of clarification to what I heard Charles say, and I think what I heard you say. And that is that we would like to provide additional time for the Lakeview Hills people to analyze this proposal and that could go upwards of 30, 45 or maybe 60 days. But I also see that the engineers will probably be in a position to offer an alternative, hopefully by the 25th of this month or the first meeting in August, which would look at the phasing request that Mr. Forbord had eluded to and Mission Hills. Because I think their comments are also very valid. That they will lose 2 winters and we as a community may lose the opportunity to see an orderly development along Lyman Blvd. So I guess what I'm saying is even though there may be a longer period for Lakeview Hills, I sincerely believe that either on the 25th, does that seem logical Dave? David Mitchell: I think we could put together some alternatives by the 25th. I guess in just brainstorming it right now, there may be some opportunities to exclude those areas. Don Ashworth: Well at least have them as part of Phase 2. David Mitchell: Correct. Don Ashworth: Phase I could reasonably be ordered on the 25th with whatever additional time necessary to order Phase 2. David Mitchell: That's correct. Or even conceivably if Phase 3 is... 10 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Don Jensen. I'm Developer Manager with the Rottlund Companies. We've been working actively with Tandem and with the city staff as the builder for the Mission Hills project for over a year. In our process and primary focus as a developer and as a builder where someone else develops the land as this project is, Mission Hills. A development for the Rottlund Companies if you will, there's nothing that we can see that would preclude the city from moving forward with plans and specs in order to keep the process moving for those of us who have been waiting for a development project and process and still analyze at the same time well in phases that go with those final plans and specifications. As a builder, it is critical for us to have the pavement down, as it is for Lundgren Bros. ff the city were to wait for every client that wanted to study further alignments and phases, maybe that would be an interesting compromise. But presuming that the city would choose to not lay the pavement down before building permits, we're in the precarious position of tooling up a whole organization. Ready to sell. Selling people and mortgage dates that we can deliver based on presumptions by the city ordering the project and have a weather problem just like we had 2 years ago. Like many people experienced last year in not getting pavement down the last 2 weeks of when a plan is supposed to be opened. And then spending the whole winter sitting idlely by while you've had a whole lot of commitments to people who are very interested in being residents of Chanhassen. And we would urge them not only for Mission Hills but as a follow up builder to do what it can to move the project along because there's an awful lot of work in preparing plans and specs, because I know by ordering for private developments but in working with cities on a major public improvement. So I guess in closing, we would urge you to see if there is a dual track process you can't follow here. Thank you. Kevin Finger: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Kevin Finger and we've heard from all the big boys and I figure maybe one of the little guys should ~lk, I'm just a single property owner and in all fairness, they do have a lot of money invested but on June 21st I received a letter from Dave Mitchell and I was very thankful I received the letter because prior to that point I had no idea that I was being assessed for this trunk line and I really don't want to get into my concerns and whatever at this point. I'll wait and see whether you decide to table it and deal with it later but I feel that it's important for us to have a chance to search farther. To look into the alternatives we have and as they have, over many, many months, we have had it for about 2 weeks. And we need a little bit more time and I imagine some people when they're looking at hundreds of thousands dollars, they'd like a little more time. So I understand that we have a couple good projects proposed and that but good projects will stay and good projects will come. We're home owners and we're residents of Chanhassen and I think we have to be concerned about us too. Thank you. Jim Dolejsi: Mr. Mayor, City Council. My name is Jim Dolejsi and as a homeowner and resident of Chanhassen, I guess...from the development, I'd like to go on record as stating that I guess I'd like to see some action tonight taken on this because we've had...it's kind of frustrating. I'm amazed all these ...and same things show up. I don't think anyone's questioning the engineering work that's been done. The feasibility of the project or any of the numbers. It's more really what will be enfomed and the phasing issues that can be dealt with after a vote and we can pass this tonight and continue to work those issues. I don't think there's much disagreement that the project at some point in lime will go through in that area~ Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz. 8600 Great Plains Blvd. I've lived in Chanhassen all my life. Part of this, a good share of this project is covering some of my property and I've worked with the engineers, I think we've come up with a very satisfied solution to the problems that I discussed with you at the last meeting. I know for 11 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 a fact that there was a feasibility study prepared I think a year and a half ago. I think most of the people were notified about that and we know it's going to have to happen someday. It just seems that even from a year and a half ago until today the costs have increased dramatically. In fact I remember...watermain in my property was a total of $85,000.00 and today for the watermain, including Mission Hills and my property, is close to $200,000.00 which is sort of large. The total project is about ,$450,000.00 for my property. When you look at a watermain coming in a year and a half ago for $85,000.00, virtually the same a-unk charges. I think there might have been a little added to them because they do escalate with inflation and with cost. If we delay this project much longer, we know that the costs are going to be that much higher. It don't take long to make them considerably higher. I just feel that we're going to have to bite the bullet and go aheacr with it because of the fact that we know it's going to come. It's going to have to be. I can remember when we put in the north service area, each unit for sewer and water and blacktop the street was $3,200.00. And look at what it costs today. That included lateral benefits, trunk charges and the whole works. How long ago did that happen? 20 some years ago. Councilman Wing: Al, I could have killed you when you did that. Al Klingelhutz: And kiss me today for doing it. Mayor Chmiel: This really is a friendly city. Anyone else? Jeff Brauchle: Council, I'd like to make a couple more comments from the Lakeview Hills group. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead. Jeff Brauchle: Just briefly then. Again, the two property owners representing about a third of the property of the project costs at the end of the line here through I believe no fault of their's, did not receive notice of this. This is genuinely the first opportunity to look at this project. We're surprised that it's been in progress for a year but we literally did not know about this. Much less know that $925,000.00 would fall on the Lakeview Hills Group. We are not in principle opposed to phasing the project we think but we are concerned and would like to express our concerns that the project not achieve and we have this ability that it doesn't preserve because ourselves and I believe...Mr. Peacock, are opposed to the project of at least in it's currently configuration based on the little we know about it and the amount of the costs. So you do have one-third of the project cost basically not in agreement with the project with all due respect at this point and I would not like it to be understood that in saying that phasing is probably okay in principle, that we are acquiescing in any way.., the ability of the project either as a phase 2 or a phase 3. We naturally appreciate the extra time in any... Mr. Liefschultz, did you want to... Steve Liefschultz: My name is Steve Liefschultz. I'm one of the owners. It's hard for me to say too much because it was only at 9:30 this morning I became aware of the situation. I'm still a little bit shell shocked but we have, we aren't developers and until this morning we never heard about $925,000.00. I spent about 5 hours today trying to get educated. I talked to an appraiser and Mr. Brauchle and I'm not sure exactly what's best for us. I'm not sure what's best for the city. I do know that, I don't know anything about land or development. I know quite a bit about existing properties such as apartment buildings and I know our position now, as I mentioned to Mr. Mitchell earlier tonight, is that we view the proposed assessments as having no benefit to the existing apartment complex itself after having talked with our appraisers and I don't know if that's something that the city doesn't want to become more involved in as well and have some time to look over because with myself and Mr. Peacock, who I've never met. Just got a phone call from representing one third, I don't know 12 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 what the nature of his objection is but ot~ objections for sure involve some of the money involved and that may or may not have an influence on the city in terms of the overall cost. Now I don't know enough today about whether or not if you exclude our end or don't exclude it or phase it, I'm not aware of that but I do know that the amount of dollars we're objecting to at this point based on what little information we have or have assimilated as such that it may also be in the best interest of the city to know...where that's going. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? ff seeing none. A1 Klingelhutz: Just one question. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you like to come forward Al? Al Klingelhutz: If you would exclude the Lakeview Hills property, what would that do to the assessments on the rest of the property? Don Ashworth: I honestly wouldn't encourage you to respond to that. Charles Folch: Staff would have to take a look at that in terms of what would have to be done. Whether they were included or excluded and what the costs would be and what method of financing. We'd have to... Mayor Chmiel: I think that, we also had some people here, some residents that were here who were told that this was probably going to get tabled this evening and I know that they probably would have liked to have made comments as well again. And Charles and I had discussions with another lady who came up and talked to us about it. I guess I'm sort of betwixt and between because we did tell a couple of these other people that this may be tabled. I didn't want to, and I should not have presumed or assumed or presumed it, I should say. But I did. And I'm thinking maybe with some of the other information that we had gathered on that particular location and that feasibility study from a couple of years ago, was it the same feasibility we're looking at now or. Charles Folch: The project area is a little bit larger and probably about a third larger than what we were looking at previously. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Maybe that answered some of the questions that you had Al as well. I'll just pull back here and I'm just considering whether or not if we do do this, we could close the public hearing now and ff we do decide to table it, we still can table this for a 2 week period or 4 week period or whatever your feelings are. But I would then at this time, if there's no other information that anyone else would like to provide in regards to this particular project. Terry. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, I'm Terry Forbord. Just one closing remark. If, I'm reiterating myself but if the Council decided that they feel that it's best to delay this, I would just plead with you to consider doing it in phases because there's just too many people who have spent a tremendous amount of lime and energy and money invested in this part of the community. It's in the guidelines of the comprehensive plan and depending on the roads that have been allocated through the approval projects by the county, so the commitment's made with those approvals and we would just really urge you, if you are going to delay it, please do it in phases so we don't lose any timing. If we lose two winters, we'll have to walk because there's no way I can afford to not do anything for two full winters. It's tough enough to wait through one but then all of a sudden we'll lose another 13 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 one. What you're really looking at is 12 months. That's how much time you lose. A whole year so I'd really urge you to do it in phases. If you elected not to, I would... Mayor Chmiel: Charles, once we prepare the plans and specs, we then will come back with cost factors. In making the preparation of the plans and specs, who assumes those costs? Charles Folch: Well, we've had a couple different situations in the past on some projects in the past where the city has basically, we felt comfortable...progressing. We assume those costs knowing full well we'll recover the costs which the project is proceeding and the assessment financing is such. There have been a couple instances where there's been some uncertainty as to the commitments that might be there with the development. In those cases we requested a letter of credit or cash escrow as a deposit covering the cost of preparation of plans and specs. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Good, thank you. Yes. Dick Putnam: Mr. Mayor, my name is Dick Putnam. I'm the parmer with Jim Ostenson in Tandem Properties. We have the Mission Hills project. We had hoped last year in August to be starting construction on the Rottlund project. That got delayed for a number of reasons, one of which was TH 101. The other was this public improvement project so we've missed one year already. We've talked with the staff relative to running the watermain that goes through primarily Mr. Klingelhutz' property as a private project as part of our own work. If the public improvement project that we're talking about now just can't go ahead. I guess that would be one thing I'd like to throw out and I don't know if some of the other owners are in the same position to do the work themselves with the credit against the public assessments that we have. What I just heard being discussed tonight was a 60 day delay to order plans and specs probably puts the death nail on this project for this year and I'm not sure that's fair to anyone involved. Be it staff or the property owners so I guess I would like to ask you to really consider at least authorizing plans and specs and if you choose to continue part of the project for the apartments or others, give yourself that flexibility in the future but so to speak, don't throw the baby out with the bath water at this meeting. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Appreciate that. I know we have several of the residents here who have not spoken this evening and of course they have much of their own concerns as well with the additional assessments that they're going to be getting. Whether they be large or small, it hurts them all. And I understand that the project's going forward by the developers are something that are benefitting the city as well because of the additional tax base that come back in. But yet we still have the other people who are still involved with this particular project and I know with some of the assessments and I had brought this up at other particular meetings when I put in my water and sewer and my slreet, by the time I f'mished it was about $10,000,130 that was assessed against my property. Of course we had a period of time to pay that off as well, which I'm sure will be the same with this particular project. And I know it's a Little early but Charles, in doing that, what can be done for the property owners in regard to payments and period of time. And I know we can't say interest because that keeps jumping around and mainly going up but maybe you can address that so they're aware of that as well. Charles Folch: Well I guess we can certainly with our proposal bring back and take a look at the logistics of the bonding term that we could use in terms of length. I think we're...about a 10 year pay back on these type of improvement projects...for extending that out, We can take a look at doing that. The long and the short of it is,.,interest cost has occurred. That's the down side...We can certainly provide some options and alternatives for you to consider. 14 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. With that I would entertain a motion at this time to close this public hearing. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Michael. Councilman Mason: First question for the City Attorney. What, are there any legal ramifications ff we proceed tonight with this current information of people that we assumed were notified but found out were not? Tom Scott: My understanding that the fee owner of the property was notified, is that correct? Charles Folch: That's correct. The property owners of record were the ones that were notified. Jeff Brauchle: No, that's an incorrect statement. Charles Folch: The property owners of record, the information that the county gave us, were notified. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Tom Scott: I don't see any problem with the notice requirements and going ahead and order to be approved. Councilman Mason: Okay. That's my t-u-st question. Second comment is that this is not an assessment hearing. Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Mason: When, if we approve everything tonight, ff. Typically when would the assessment hearing be? How far down the road is that? Charles Folch: Probably, typically it's towards the end of when a project is completed. We'd have to take a look at their schedule and revise schedule based on when they expect to have an approval on this. But at the earliest, assessment hearing could be late next fall of '95, fa-st payable in '96. If there's any delays incurred, it's more likely there will be an assessment hearing in the fall of '96, fa'st payable in '97. Councilman Mason: Okay. David Mitchell: The schedule outline in the feasibility report calls for the fall of '96 for the assessment hearing. Councilman Mason: The assessment hearing in '96, payable in '97? David Mitchell: That's correct. We anticipated some work carrying over into the fall of '95. It would be too hard to define £mal project amounts at that poinL...assessment hearing. Councilman Mason: Sure, sure. That area, I agree with some of the people that have said that area's going to be developed. It's going to happen. Mission of mine, quit saying gonna. And I think the city, by and large has done a fair job of staying ahead of development. And I really think on an area of this size it's paramount that we stay ahead of this. My concern, if we don't take any action on this, is that it rightly or not. I'm hearing 15 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 some people saying things are going to come unraveled. I think we could probably argue that but I think the city needs to make sure we're staying ahead of things here. If phasing is a legitimate option, according to our staff, I don't have any trouble with that. But I do feet pretty strongly that things need to start moving here. And I guess a 2 week delay to find out the in's and out's of phasing is one thing but I'm not prepared to wait 60 days. Personally. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything more? Councilman Mason: No. Just knowing that this is just to authorize preparation of plans and specs, I think maybe we need to keep that in a little better focus at this point. That's it. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Charles, would a 2 week delay do anything to the schedule? Could we still start this fall? Charles Folch: Again. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Weather. Charles Folch: If we get an October snowstorm, I guess we'll probably kick ourselves for waiting 2 weeks but if I was a betting person I'd say it's not going to kill us, 2 weeks. And you might feel more comfortable seeing exactly what's being proposed and what's being presented before you in 2 weeks. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Do we lose any efficiencies if we do a phased project? I'm sorry Dave, I should probably be asking you. David Mitchell: Certainly some efficiencies are lost but in a project of this size, it's... Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay. Well, you know whenever we have assessment and this, as Mike stated, this is not an assessment hearing but whenever we talk projects of this size, I 'understand when individual residents come in and say, you know I didn't know. It's too short a time, blah, blah, blah but when a developer has, or anybody. A private citizen owns 53 acres of land in a community that is rapidly developing, it would behoove them to read the local paper and we certainly do notice these in the paper. So I have a hard time having a lot of sympathy. I guess I'm not adverse to waiting 2 weeks to see what we can do with phasing but yet on the other hand, I'm just ready to go ahead with it tonight so. As Mike said, it's going to happen. I mean you know, and we need to be ahead of this development. I mean far be it for me to encourage development but it's going to happen regardless and we need to be ahead of it so. Mayor Chmiel: And I think the only thing that would benefit for us within the next 2 weeks is seeing the staging proposal for phasing, and that might give you a little better idea or concept as to what's going to happen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, and I'd be okay with that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. 16 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Councilman Wing: Development is going to happen, it has happened. It's already there. It's just a matter of final approvals. So Mission Hills and Lundgren Bros is not thinking about this, they're already going to do it. It's just a matter of getting the stuff in so you know it's kind of the big guys versus the little guys here and I'm pretty empathetic towards the little guys but unfortunately the City is expanding and there's not much that can be done about that. The two weeks was just to look at the phasing issue? I got lost on that when you fa'st started. But the only real phasing here is the east end is kind of the end of the tracks. I mean it's sort of out there in the middle of no place. It's open land and there's an apartment building and I guess the only phasing I'm interested in is maybe just simply deleting the end of the lxack area. I don't see why that even has to be part of the project right now necessarily unless it highly impacts cost but it's such an obscure, isolated area right now. How do you run lines out there without incurring incredible costs? Charles Folch: Actually though we really need to know what's going to happen there in terms of sizing the lift station that needs to be put into this project. Councilman Wing: Okay. I'm kind of with Colleen. I think we simply ought to, this whole thing is a done deal and the only question in my mind at all would be the Peacock property maybe, and maybe the only one is the apartments and there may be some credibility to their statement that there's a little confusion of who's going where, what but it is a lot of money being imposed on that group and I guess I have some questions on what we're going to do with them. To move on the whole project tonight seems to make sense because it's got to get done. I mean it's already here and I again, I'm one of the little guys so I have the empathy for the small guys but they're caught up in something that's already done. I mean it's already under law exists and nothing's going to change. These assessments are going to occur and I just don't want one myself and that's why it's so hard to sit here and dish them out. But we're not doing that tonight, as Mike pointed out. If we move on this, do you have the opportunity to clarify the east end issue? Or do we have to separate it out? Charles Folch: We're going to have to separate it out. Councilman Wing: Okay. Then I guess I have to go along with the 2 weeks. Get that information. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I guess I would like to see that as well because often times we jump into it a little too quickly and I know this has been on the books for a long time but we have not seen what that staging can do. So that's where I'd be coming from and I'd feel more comfortable with that once I saw that. So with that, I would make that a motion. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: That we would table and come back with the staging proposal as to how this can be done for that facility. It's been seconded, Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: Just one comment about little guys versus big guys and I think most of you know how I feel about too but I think we do have to remember that the little guys are also, some of the little guys are also people that have lived in Chanhassen for a long time that are selling some of this land. So I don't know, I'm not quite sure where the balance is there. It's a tough issue. Don Ashworth: Can I get a clarification if I may. Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Don. 17 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Don Ashworth: Dave, is there any question as it deals with the 25th? Should we advise people to watch the paper as to the 25th or August 8th or can you make a commitment to the 25th? David Mitchell: I can make a commitment to the 25th. We're...address those issues. I think in that time frame we can look at some possible alternatives for the east end and be prepared to do that I guess as I sit here and think of one of the options that has been presented is the density issue out there and the additional impact that Charles has given on the lift station as a possible,..I think we can address some of those impacts and proceed with the project at that point,., Don Ashworth: Thank you. Councilman Mason: Will this private versus public thing enter into this at all? I mean what was mentioned. I mean for their credit towards what's going on. I believe it was Mr. Pumam brought that up. Is that an option to be looked at all here? I mean would that facilitate things at all or we don't care about that? Charles Folch: At this point, as long as there's still hope in doing at least that portion of the work this year, I think we should probably leave that issue, that alternative... Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other discussion? Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Trunk Utility Project No. 93-32 and authorizing plans and specifications until the next City Council meeting on July 25, 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 74 LOTS OF MIXED HIGH DENSITY (186 DWELLING UNITS), 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND AN OUTLOT WHICH CONTAIN FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE(S); SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY UNITS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT WEST 86TH STREET; MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. Public Present: Name Address Dick Putnam Jim Ostenson Don Jensen A1 Klingelhutz Ed Hasek Tandem Properties Tandem Properties Rottlund Homes 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Westwood Engineering Dick Putnam: Mr. Mayor, my name is Dick Putnam, Tandem Properties. Jim Ostenson is here, who's my partner. Don Jensen, Director of Development for Rottlund Corporation is here to answer any questions.., on the units themselves and Ed Hasek from Westwood Engineering who will present to you the changes that we made on the plans since the last meeting...went back to the Park and Rec Commission to take a look at the site plan. 18 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 We won't go through the project any more since you've been through it a couple times but I would like to ask Ed to...and then any of us would be available to answer any questions on the units or... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Sharmin, I'll let you start this f~rst. Sharmin AI-Jaff: Thank you. The...You tabled it mainly because of the park issUe. The applicant had not appeared before the Park and Recreation Commission yet for preliminary PUD application. One of the issues was staff was requesting a 1.5 acre area for a park. The applicant was providing a .23 acre and this issue has been resolved. The Park and Rec Commission recommended the 1.5 acre and the applicant's revised the plans to show that park. This morning I was speaking to Mr. Mayer. He had some concerns regarding the location of the totlot in relationship to the wetlands. This wetland has standing water. It's within close proximity to the totlot is in close proximity to the wetland. Assuming that the children were supervised, would that be a concern and we looked at other situations that we have in this city. One of them was in Lake Susan. However, and it's along the beach there is a totlot next to, Lake Susan has a totlot. However there's a distance between it and the lake. Lake Ann has a totlot next to the beach but there's usually a lifeguard out there. We looked at fencing but rather not doing the fencing around the wetland. One possibility would be to put it around the totlot itself. So these are options before you. The second issue that was raised was the grading and the ponding on this site. This remains an issue that hasn't been resolved and the engineering department and the applicant are working on this still. Elevations was the third issue and staff feels that we have reached an agreement with, the applicant. He has revised the elevation plans and there are materials as well as renderings that he has brought with him that he could share with you so. Councilman Wing: This is the new one? These are not up to date? Councilwoman Dockendorf: These don't look compatible with what you've got up there. Sharmin A1-Jaffi Those are the old ones. Okay, what's here is the new one. Ed Hasek: This one's the new one too. Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct. One other difference between the old and the new is the new plans show two additional units but they are still within the permitted density. They meet the comprehensive plan guidelines as well as the zoning ordinance. The previous plan showed a higher density than was lxa'mitted under the comprehensive plan within this quarter of the parcel. However, because they added this open space here, we no longer need to transfer density and they are within the guidelines. And also comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. So we are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report and if you have any questions, I'll be more than glad to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Sharmin. Gentlemen. Ed Hasek: Your Honor, members of the Council, my name is Ed Hasek. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. Again, our offices are located just down the highway here in Eden Prairie. I think to expedite things just a little bit this evening I'm going to be as brief as I possibly can. I think Sharmin has done a good job of outlining the changes between what I'm going to show you as the plan that we had presented for conceptual approval. Basically the plan that was put together and that's why I had this one flipped up before. We went through that concept with you I believe last time about the s'nnilarities and the project, the changes ~at have occurred on this particular project. That we have reduced density in the southeastern quarter of the project while 19 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 obtaining two additional units. We're actually under 8 units per acre in both the medium and the high density areas of this project as it stands right now. One thing that did occur, we have reduced the number of ponds by one at this point and as Sharmin had pointed out, we are working diligently with the engineering staff to work out the issues related to pending for this property. They basically relate to what the ultimate plan is for water and how that's going to impact this particular development. What will or will not be temporary in... Again, 1.5+ acres of parkland is suggested for this plan. We're going to install the same facilities, the same totlot, the same hard surface and ball court area. That will be located in the area that I just pointed to on the map. And the other thing that did occur on this is we had originally intended that the road that's just to the south of the pond, this one right here, be extended across on a temporary basis with some sort of sub-surface hard cover and for those times that emergency vehicles may want to use it. In working with the city staff and the fire marshal, we've included a hammerhead. The details of that have not been worked out yet at this time. We're still talking to him...provided one that we know is in excess of what he's going to want and we're hoping that we can cut that back to further expand the open space in the park. At that I think I'll let it go. If you've got any questions of Don Jensen, related to the specific units, he can deal with that at this time. Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Don Jensen with the Rottlund Company. We brought all our boards with describing the various building components that are going into this. We would like to share with you our screens with private parks, which is...this is not a public parks. It's being asked of the developers to create. Our insurance carders, which then would insure for the homeowners association asked that we provide signage. We're not real excited about fencing off amenities that are in fact...desirable about Minnesota, Chanhassen and the western suburbs. Totlot is key in that it is for tots. The question unsupervised lots is an interesting thing...supervision in Minnesota and...that's always important regardless. Whether that's a pond or a lake. We've been asked to provide fencing and signage. That's for the insurance carriers so that they know that these areas do have at least an awareness posted. At what point the awareness goes, that's always subject to debate. We have worked with staff on changing the facade of our garden home product. That subdivision as planned in the north of 86th has not changed and we've also submitted our building materials, which I have next to Charlie here. And I'll just hold in front of the podium there, I think the camera picks those up as well. But we'd be looking at aluminum or vinyl siding. It depends on the manufacturers. Accent colors which are carried around the garden home also on shudders which are on the end of the buildings that we were looking at. We worked with staff on deviating on the standards. There's the transom windows. The detail as well as an arched window detail that we'd put on this end elevation, The previous plans had an idea for a fairly simply end treatment. The current plans that we re-submitted back to staff deal with the change on the 8 unit buildings in the center as well as beefing up the amount of window or perceived window volume on the end elevation. When you look at the building, in reality outside of the architectural elevations and we have some photographs that we shared with staff, virtually those whole end elevations are either doors or windows. There's not a whole lot of wall space on those units. In fact they have a whole lot of added insulation for instance so we feel pretty comfortable that we have a rather elegant looking building. Again, there's two sectors of the marketplace that we feel Chanhassen has created through the jobs market. It in Chaska and there's a lot of people that are really needing housing under $100,000.00 in categories both starting out in a job and people winding down on their jobs and that's what these two products are aimed squarely at with their building line and the garden home line. I'd be happy to have me go through in a little bit greater detail the building plans that are all in your packets. I would describe them at some length with some market research that we've been able to go through and we believe that the people that are going to be living here are going to be either working within about 5 miles to 7 miles of this area or they're already living within $ to 7 miles of this area. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? 20 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Councilman Wing: Are you looking at us? Mayor Chmiel: No, I'm looking at the audience who may be in and adjacent to that particular property. I don't see any so I'll bring it back to Council. Richard. Councilman Wing: Kate or Sharmin can you, my daughter just bought a house. She didn't qualify for much so I want to talk about affordable housing. At some point in the discussion of this project we talked affordable housing. And as I'm understanding, affordable housing that the city's looked at, we're looking at $60,000.00 to $70,000.00 is affordable housing. I mean anything over that you've got to have a $30,000.00, $40,000.00, $50,000.00 income. $100,000.00 mortgage doesn't come out of a $20,000.00-$30,000.00 income. So what I'm getting at is, was this project supposedly going to enhance our affordable housing situation? Sharmin AI-Jaff: Initially when we started working on it we suggested that maybe we could create a housing district out there. That would be our only option basically to guarantee affordable prices on those units. Kate Aanenson: They've indicated that they want to make it some affordable housing...make it clear that we have no way of guaranteeing what those prices are going to be. We can indicate a certain price range but there's no way that we can guarantee that that's what they're selling. Councilman Wing: But I need to define affordable housing, and is affordable housing under $80,000.00? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Wing: Are any of these units going to sell? Kate Aanenson: They had indicated that they had some at $69-$70,000.00. That's what we have in your report. What I'm saying is there's no guarantee. Councilman Wing: Is that tree? Is that true that a percentage of these are affordable housing? Don Jensen: That's correct. I could show which ones are. Our standard villa, which is a one bathroom product which helps maintain the affordability, which is the center of the lower subdivision. It's next to 212. The buildings that are cut in half that look at the wetland areas, have a 2 bathroom standard. Because of the extra building materials, people are looking for that because that will tend to go in the 80's. These that are the back to back configuration will come on the market and our pricing...in the high 60's, low 70's. Obviously an influence to that is whether or not the utility infrasmlcture gets in this year or next year because none of that does get any cheaper. Kate Aanenson: We just want to make it clear that that's all preferenced on their good faith that that's what... Councilman Wing: Yeah, I'll get to that. Kate Aanenson: There's no guarantee that... Councilman Wing: Yeah, I want to ask about that. Out of your 100 and, I don't know how much are in these? Out of these, out of the all level housing units, how many of that number, because I can't see here. Do you know the number that would be in the $60,000.00 to $70,000.00 range? 21 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Don Jensen: Certainly those would be all of the back to back dwelling units in through here that we'd be targeting and those are about 84-88 units of the project as it is presently configured. Councilman Wing: And how about the ones that might go into the 80's? Approximately how many. Don Jensen: The center units in the garden home areas are targeted and slotted so we can try to reach that $80,000.00 category. As well as some of the interior units through here on this half buildings. Councilman Wing: So a good percentage. Don Jensen: Approximately 65% is trying to maintain underneath that $85,000.00 number and compared under the villas under $80,000.00. Councilman Wing: Okay. I'm getting increasingly down on these densities and the number of homes coming in and the amount of traffic we're bringing in and the lack of infrastructure. It just seems like the cart's ahead of the horse. And so I'm having a harder and harder time with these developments because all we do is keep stamping them and all I look to see is that the silt fencing is in place and there's nothing more to be said. They meet our ordinances and I'm really concerned that we need an emergency review of our comprehensive plan. But I'll go after this a little differently now that ff we're going to meet some affordable housing needs, which is with a good location and a good project, it alters my opinion on this. Can we, as a condition, lock in affordable housing of this project. Is there any way that we can assure that this goal is going to be met? If I was to approve this, is there any condition, any wording we can put in this to insure that that goal is met or that that in fact happens? Because once we approve it, like Kate said, there's nothing to say they can't go sell these for $125,000.00. If the market was there. Tom Scott: Mr. Mayor, I'm not aware of any conditions imposed on this plat that would require the developer to sell the units at a certain price. Mayor Chmiel: Unless the city were to come in with maybe having HRA or the County HRA subsidize a particular project. Tom Scott: If there was some sort of involvement of that nature, there certainly may be a different set of rules involved, yes. Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Wing. What we have found is that one of the ways that you maintain affordability, and quite often we're chased out of the room for bringing in housing under $80,000.00, is when you take a look at the square footage of the dwelling units that's going in and all of that is part of the...and you try to build value into each and every square foot. When you increase the square footage, no matter what condition you put on, the building's fixed cost of creating whether it's a single family home or apartment structure, you're right around that $45.00, $50.00, $55.00 a square foot range. When you can get market rate housing, a for profit builder trying to meet the needs of the market place and you look at that square footage, that's how you're going to allow to have the city affordability goals be maintained. And we believe we can do an awful good job trying to meet those needs of the city outlines and one of the ways we can do it is slx:ed. If we can move through a project and not have delays, we're able to maintain that pricing where we target it rather than having to have increases because of delays and because of what Kate mentioned,..asphalt and other elements that we don't have any control over. 22 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Councilman Wing: I don't want to belabor this and I don't want to bore my colleagues here but let me ask one more question of Kate. Give me an option or another way that we can approach this. Maybe we can't do it now but how can we obtain this goal? Would we have to rezone? Would we have to start out with city involvement right from scratch on a project like this? ff we're going to go these high density projects, then I want to attain some goals. How can we make sure we attain those goals? Kate Aanenson: Well this property is under the...zoning in the comprehensive plan. Okay, so it meets that · criteria. Now they've gone beyond that and made a good faith effort and we're assuming that they're going to try to attain that as far as providing some affordable housing. That's one of the objectives of the PUD which was one of the reasons why we supported the project. Again, you can take it a liule bit differently but we certainly feel that those are two objectives. As far as whether or not this...city or some other agency would have had to get involved prior to this to make it happen. Councilman Wing: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So this condition 14, I mean is that still a valid point? Are we still going to continue to explore options of putting a housing district over it? Sharmin A1-Jaff: I believe~it's getting at a point where it's... Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's too late. That's what I just heard, okay. I think the developer's come a really long ways since what we first saw and I'm very impressed with what the project looks like. I really am. I'm ready to go ahead with the preliminary plat. We do need to discuss however, as staff has pointed out, what goes in the commercial part of it, although it's not up tonight for any specific buildings. We should discuss what we want there. We've got some pretty nebulous definitions of what neighborhood community is, or maybe I just can't find it. I'm looking on page 7 and we're saying medium sized restaurant, office, daycare, neighborhood scale commercial, which I don't know what that is, convenient store, churches, etc. Do we need to pin down more specifically what we want here? Is that the direction you're looking for? Sharmin AI-Jaff: If there are certain uses that you believe should. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well yeah. Kate Aanenson: Square footage is one... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is the developer pretty much looking until TH 212 and TH 101 gets finished there before they determine what they want? Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's what they've told us. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And do we have to hold them, I mean when it comes in as a PUD we like to look at the whole package so. 23 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Kate Aancnson: Right, And we also wanted to look at some criteria if...understanding of this is the framework. This is what you're allowing. This is pretty significant to the understanding of...and also we want it to be a compatible design, Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we have a definition of neighborhood commercial or is it pretty much what I just stated before? Sharmin AI-Jaff: This is pretty much the definition that we have. Them is also in there a sentence that says, if there was some confusion about any of this, the Planning Director will make the determination of that use. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. I'm fine with the definitions that are provided here. I think 20 and 26, the conditions in here are repetitive. Other than that I have no problem with the conditions. There's some work to be done but this has really gone a long way and this is only preliminary plat. From now on out it's just detail. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: I basically agree with what's been said. All along here Councilman Wing and I have disagreed on density issues and I suspect we will continue to. However, I do agree with him about infrastructure issues and I think as these kinds of developments start coming into Chanhassen with the hopes of allowing more affordable housing in this community, that infrastructure issue is something I really think we need to take a look at. I think that's a really good point. I do also agree with his comments about, andI'm not sure whether it's obtainable or attainable goals for affordable housing. I do commend Rottlund, and I think they've been in this city enough and I think hope to be in this city enough that I'm pretty comfortable with what they're trying to do here in terms of $60,000.00 to $80,000.00. That's a far cry from what is the average single family home now in Chan, $120,000.007 Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilman Mason: So that's good, I'm really glad to see that. I agree with what Colleen has said about the work that's gone into this. Yeah, it looks good. I'm also, well believe me with children of my own, I do understand the Mayor's concern about safety. I also hear what Mr. Jensen is saying. And quite honestly I guess I do pretty strongly believe that while the city, safety obviously is a paramount issue, it's even more important for the family to practice that safety. Those safety issues than it is for the city. I guess I'm just throwing my two cents in on that but it looks good, Looks okay, Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Mike. The only concern, we have an awful lot of ponding throughout the city and no fences in and adjacent to those. But only because of the close proximity to that one particular area, I became a little concerned with it. Looking at it from a safety aspect. And even looking at it from the standpoint if they were to just take fencing and just cover from one end down to the other and make a comer, which is close to that play lot, it would probably have tendencies to alleviate some given problems. It's not a whole lot of fencing. It's just minor but because of that close proximity I guess that's where I really got my feeling from that. And watching my own grandldds, you can keep your eye on them. Turn your back for one second and they're gone. Just that quick. And I had a situation happen in a motel, and I won't give the name of the motel. No plugs. But one of my own children, who just moves fast and quick. I turned my head for no more than I'll bet you 5 seconds and he was on the diving board at 2 1/2 years old and in the water. And that's where my concerns come from. If an obstruction is there, it could just give that parent a little more time. But because, as I said and I'll reiterate it one more time. The close proximity, I have that concern. And I would like to even 24 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 make that as an additional condition that they look at that and put fencing on that one specific area with that. But other than that, I think it does look good. I think density is there and they're still a little bit under density and maybe we need to improve our density aspects when we look at something but for what's there and what we have on the books, it's compatible. So with that, any other discussion? Councilman Wing: Do you want one more comment? Will you accept one more comment? Mayor Chmiel: You have it. Councilman Wing: ! don't f'md any problem with the project. I think it meets some needs but for 4 years since we moved the MUSA line we've gotten into an identical routine that's starting to bother me because I've lived here 30 years and I moved here for some amenities and a lifestyle that's starting to get choked out. Everything coming before ns is high density, maximum use. And all I'm seeing coming out of these are stop lights, traffic, and choking up a lifestyle. So everyfime one of these high density projects comes in, and I'm glad this one isn't in my neighborhood, this is only one and there's another one tonight, and there was another one last week. We're just approving one right after another and the net result is I think we're really starting to affect a lifestyle and the future of this community and I'm not so sure it's in a positive way. But we're doing it without an awful lot of discussion. That's why I'm concerned about the comp plan and why I make these statements. Good project but what are we really doing visionary wise here. That's, I threw my two cents worth in here and I apologize humbly to. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, let me throw in one more comment. Tonight we're approving over 200 acres in the city. Just tonight. That's so scary. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. That's right. Which will be done by '97. Councilman Wing: Anyway with that I'll move approval. Wait a minute, what am I moving? Mayor Chmiel: Well there's 3 different motions that we'll have. Councilman Wing: Here, I'm going to let Mike do it because he's better at putting 3 together. Councilman Mason: It's that third grade teaching experience Councilman. Mayor Chmiel: If you look on page 2. It's under the comments. Councilman Mason: Alright. I'll move approval of Preliminary Plat for Subdivision g94-5 and Site Plan g94-5 as shown on plans dated April 15, 1994 and revised plans received July 5, 1994 as subject to the conditions as stated in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And in addition to that, does it also 'have the rezoning of the property? From RSF, residential single family to PUD. Councilman Mason: Yep, I'll move that also. Are we going to do them all three at once here? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 25 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Councilman Mason: Okay. I'll move the preliminary site plan for the PUD. Mayor Chmiel: Is that what you're looking for Sharmin? Sharmin A1-Jaff: No. Actnally the rezoning is done with the final plat. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, then we'll just sit with that and pull that back. I thought I'd best ask that question before we proceed. Councilman Wing: Item 14, can that be deleted? Mayor Chmiel: And item 14 being deleted. Councilman Wing: I'm asking. Should it be deleted? We're not going to put a housing district overlay on this. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well as long as you're cleaning it up, I think 20 and 26 is repetitive. Kate Aanenson: Right. Councilman Mason: Well one of them should stay in. That motion includes deleting item number 14 and item number 26. And all we want is preliminary plat tonight, right? Mayor Chmiel: That's all we're looking for. Strictly that as shown. Motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision ~94-5 and Site Plan #94-5 as shown on the plans dated April 15, 1994 and revised plans received July 5, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0%. 86th Street shall be constructed with a 36' wide urban street section from existing TH 101 to "A" Street. The remaining sueet may be reduced to 31' wide. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the DNR, MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT. 3. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 inch watermain and a 12 inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations, 26 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 4. The homeowners association declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be submitted to staff for review and approval as it pertains to site maintenance prior to final plat approval. 5. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 6. The applicant shall include a drain tile system in all public slreets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 7. An additional 17 feet of right-of-way lying easterly of the existing highway shall be dedicated with the final plat. The remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for future road right-of-way acquisition. 8. During conslruction of the site improvements, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress at all times for the homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 9. Allowed uses in the commercial site (outlo0 shall be restricted to the uses described in the staff report. 10. The applicant shall provide density/lmrd surface coverage calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right-of-way and wetland areas. 11. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Highway 212 and Highway I01 right-of-ways and between the area separating commercial and residential lots. 12. Meet the following conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission: A. The tot park facility shall include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables, park benches, play apparatus and basketball courts, etc. B. Six foot wide concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and a 5 foot wide core sidewalk on "A" Slxeet from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail shall be constructed encircling the wetland located south of 86th Street, connecting the sidewalk system to the "park site." In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force. 13. Plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives) building massings, square footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by A1 Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to ensure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We had suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the City Council's input. 27 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 14. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the city authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93-32. 15. An additional trail easement along the south side of 86th Street may have to be dedicated to the city for the sidewalk construction. This will be determined during construction plan review and approval process. A 5' wide concrete sidewalk shall also be extended along the west side of "A" Street. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27. The commercial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study design standards, Submit street names for both public and private streets to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. Chanhassen Fire Department's policy on Premise Identification must be followed. Additional monument signs for address location will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirements and details. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Policy enclosed. There will be no parking allowed on private streets or the south side of 86th Street. Signage must be installed in compliance to Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.207(a). A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transform boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(c). Dead Ends: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203 exc. #1. Street lights shall be provided along West 86th Street and "A" Street/Court. The city shall determine type and placement. The applicant shall verify that the landscaping plan meets the city tree preservation ordinance for canopy coverage. The applicant shall provide diversity in the color schemes used in the buildings. The applicant shall deposit with the city an escrow for the future upgrading if TH 101 north of 86th Street. The escrow may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash deposit. The amount of the escrow will have to be determined after a feasibility study for the upgrading TH 101. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 28 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 28. 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. 29. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submilled to the City for review and formal approval 30. 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 predeveloped and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm eVents and 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 ff sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 31. The applicant shall enter into a development conlract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contracL 32. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the fmal plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 33. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level of all wetlands and ponding basins. 34. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. 35. 36. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 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. 37. Grading shall be prohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall be installed outside the 10-foot buffer as well. 38. The street turnaround located southeast of the wetland shall be redesigned as shown in atlachment #2. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 29 City Council Meeting - July I 1, 1994 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 38 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES TO THE SHORELAND REGULATIONS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZES, LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, THE OAKS AT MINNEWASHTA, HARSTAD COMPANIES. Kate Aanenson: As you indicated, the applicant is proposing 44 building lots with..,The project went to the Planning Commission twice, Revised,..the Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla properties. This area right here will be a future outlot, These 4 lots here. This area here, as we determined from the original plat is unbuildable based on the wetlands. To the south is Lake St. Joe, which is designated as a natural environmeflt lake by the DNR. So the shoreland regulations fall into the regulations. They do meet those. As far as averaging 20,000 square feet with 125 foot width. This plat also has been changed as far as one of the significant areas of trees is up along the northern road up through this area here adjacent to the Hallgren property which is located here. The applicants have revised the plat and shorten up the cul-de-sac to provide a private drive...save the significant trees...One of the major issues here was access to the property along Kings Road... The applicant is providing a 50 foot right-of-way based on the most southerly alignment of...The property owner to the south of Kings Road do have a concern about the integrity maintained on some of the red cedars. The applicant's engineer will discuss that in more detail as we go along. That is an issue for them and also hooking up to the sewer, One of the other issues is the park location, Originally we looked at a 10 acre park and the Parks Commission has recommended that it be an 8 acre park. The storm water pond was located in the park area. That has not been put inside of the plat itself and the park is 7 1/2 acres with a half an acre on the other side of Minnewashta Parkway which is on Lake Minnewashtm They're recommending at this time that there be a swimming beach only. There would not be any boats docked there... We request that the applicant prepare a woodland management plan, As I indicated, this is a residential street...and there will be a significant amount of lxees replaced on this including some located on the streetscape along Kings Road. One of the other issues that... revised, we looked at how the future Hallgren property would be developed in the future and Wenzel and Headla properties, It was at one time thought of extending Stratford through. At this time what we're proposing that this street will eventually be a cul-de-sac and Headla's and Wenzel's could access from here and when Mrs. Hallgren determines to develop, more than likely it will be a cul-de-sac over this way and a cul-de-sac going that way. We think this provides the best access and developability for those lots. Again, direct access onto Minnewashta Parkway is not permitted by our ordinance. We felt this was a suitable way for the rest of those parcels to develop. We feel like this subdivision has come a long way since the fa'st time we saw this. It changed hands and feel like we got a superior development here...The other thing, preliminary plat approval and.,.We did recommend approval,.,trees in order to get the sewer through Kings Road...to the neighboring property owner's trees. We are working to make sure that they are preserved. In addition, there are some trees on the north side and we hope that the applicant,..that they can be relocated on the site. With that, the staff is recommending that City Council approve the project with the conditions,.. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. Is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to comment on any of the discussions that were done? And also provide us some additional information. Steve Johnston: Members of the City Council, my name is Steve Johnston. I'm with Loucks and Associates in Maple Grove and we are the engineers and surveyors on this project. I'll try to make my presentation brief but also if you have any questions, please feel free to ask and we'll make sure you get the information... The primary issue here, at least at the Planning Commission seemed to be Kings Road and I'll get on that in detail in a minute, It's strictly..,staff report, One of the things that we were asked to do is try to eliminate the three pondings shown on site. We narrowed that down to two ponds. We have submitted f'mal design calculations to the Watershed and to the City Engineer, We have now gotten it down to one pond only and obviously an 30 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 improvement from a maintenance standpoint Really other than Kings Road and the construction of Kings Road and the sewer in Kings Road...Our original plan showed bringing sewer down Kings Road to serve the project and the sewer got quite deep. For that. reason we modified the plan to put a, where we were filtering up Kings Road to a point and then cross the park with the sewer and...We met with the adjacent property owners, Mr. Headla and Mr. Wenzel who have that area~..their property instead of down Kings Road. The overall project cost is less to everybody and it would obviously be less desm~ctive to the park area and Kings Road. The neighbors along Kings Road were very concerned about whether they would be forced to connect to city sewer and water if it was brought in to serve this property...sewer up Kings Road or not at this time or ff you want to leave... The other item had to do with construction of Kings Road. What I brought with me tonight is an exhibit that will hopefully clarify the situation. There is an issue as to whether the city has any fight-of-way... Kings Road. The half section maps show 33 feet of right-of-way. The City Attorney has...the city has right-of-way over that portion of the roadway that they've been maintaining, 20 to 23 feet in width. The neighbors would argue that they maintain it more than the city so the city really doesn't have any right-of-way period. What we are proposing with this plan, if dedicated, we're just showing a short segment here of it that the scale hopefully will make some sense. We're proposing to dedicate 50 feet of fight-of-way. All of it on our side of the property line. The property line, the southern property line of the site is the section line that is shown here at the edge of the green shading. We would be dedicating 50 feet north of that line. None of the property that is currently owned by the residents south of Kings Road would be used for road purposes here. The cross hatched road that runs through here. You can probably pick that up a little better here and here. But that's the existing gravel surface of Kings Road. And you'll see then that on the eastern end, I just picked the properties in the middle with a similar situation... On the eastern end our road would be partially within that existing gravel surface and partially north of it. As you move to the west, the existing gravel surface starts to shift to the south, our road will continue through. At that point being totally within, outside of that gravel surface. The trees that have been an issue are located on this drawing, which has been surveyed in. Those are on private property. Those are not, they're outside of the existing gravel surface. They're not within the property. And we have no intention of damaging those trees at all. We have indicated with the heavier blue line here and fight here, the construction limits based on, and I don't expect that you can see this line but based on the profile that we've come up with along Kings Road. Basically what we've done is designed the grade for Kings Road to match the south right-of-way line so that we don't have to go into those properties at all. We would be putting the construction limit would be about 5 feet behind the curb. That would give us enough room to make that minor variation in the grade to the top of the curb to match in with the existing ground surface. That construction limit in the particular area of concern is the Scott-Morgan property adjacent to their trees. That construction limit is at the edge of the gravel or...edge of the gravel. We're confident that the work...end of the street. The Planning Commission asked in...is somebody willing to guarantee, sign a piece of paper that those trees won't be damaged and what we tried to explain is, we can show you the drawings, we can draw a cross section and profiles and plan views that they can stay. We can stake it in the field. I've done that. We've staked the road. We've walked the residents through. Showed where the stakes, explained the stakes to them. The only thing that we can't guarantee is what the actual contractor and operator that mistakes happen. So the only other thing that I'd like to point out is the section of our specifications and indicate to you what kind of penalties the contractor faces in saving those trees. And this is a page right out of our specifications and you'll see the trees 12 inches and over, which these trees would be, the cost per diameter inch of $200.00 ff the contractor was to damage it. He would pay that directly to us and we would in turn pay that to the person who was damaged. That's the best we can do to say that those trees are going to stay. We get the impression that while people along Kings Road are well intentioned, that they may be rating to cloud the issues here...as ff we don't have a right to build Kings Road. In fact we do have the right to build Kings Road because it's being built all on our property. Excuse me, all on property that's been purchased by Harstad Companies for the purpose of developing this property. The only other issue that I'd like to bring up has to do with the process of including Kings Road and the cost of 31 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 improving Kings Road. The last year, I believe it was in November. Late last year. Harstad Companies petitioned for the upgrade of Kings Road and asked that a report be prepared for that. It was not prepared at that time. We're again asking that the city go ahead and prepare the feasibility report for this project for Kings Road. Not recognizing that we needed to resubmit that petition, it wasn't turned in until very late today and it's not on the agenda for issuing the project but we would ask that if at all possible, that you do initiate the project. I have in writing a letter asking for it... Along with that feasibility report, one of the things that we feel still needs to be addressed is the cost sharing for Kings Road and the property owner has met with the city staff to discuss it. What is a fair and equitable distribution of the cost when the majority of Kings Road does not abut the property that they're developing. It abuts park property...So we're hoping that some of these..,as a part of that feasibility process and ask you to move ahead with that. If there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. If not, that's the end of the statements that I'd like to make. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address this particular project? Sue Morgan: Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is Sue Morgan and I live at 4031 Kings Road which is the property with all the trees on here. First of all I'd like to thank the city, the City Attorney, Roger Knutson for helping me resolve the dispute or the question on easements as well as...resolve that issue and I think it's been noted and we're all in agreement now as to where the trees are and appreciate that. There are a couple issues that I feel are still unanswered and I'm not sure if you can answer them tonight or if you want to just give me a time. And one is something that's already been mentioned about the possible assessments...whether the city will be constructing the road or whether Harstad's will be in it so...In order for us to make a decision as to requesting a variance to that, we need some facts and figures to work with so we can make a decision without... and I don't know when would be the last time for us to do that. I don't know what point in time to decide how much the road's going to cost therefore or how much is assessing...when we should apply for a variance or you know, I don't even know if we should because we don't have any costs yet. Mayor Chmiel: Roger. Roger Knutson: I'm not sure what she means by variance. Sue Morgan: Well, we have a septic system, it's a mound system that we were requested to put that in...cost us $2,900.00 when we put it in 4 years ago. If the city water and sewer comes through and you're asking us to hook up, within a year to hook up. Roger Knutson: City ordinance. Sue Morgan: Right, the city ordinance. And what we need to know is whether or not that cost is going to be prohibitive to us or if it's going to be within the budget to do that. If it's not, then we're going to petition for a variance so we don't have to hook up. So we... Roger Knutson: First, I don't think it's been decided whether sewer or water's going to down here yet, has it? Mayor Chmiel: No. Feasibility study. Roger Knutson: And second, I'm definitely the wrong person to ask how much it's going to cost. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think anybody can really give a cost figure on that either. 32 City Council Meeting - July 1 I, 1994 Sue Morgan: So prior to the time line, I mean when will you know costs? A year from now. 6 months from now. I mean I'm just trying to figure out when I should start petitioning for a variance. Roger Knutson: They talked about doing a feasibility study. If you do a feasibility study and it includes sewer and water down here, then that feasibility study will give you a good guesstimate. Charles, can you, what's a typical cost for trunk sewer and water? Charles Folch: Well, best guess estimate, we've got a uniform charge for the trunk assessments for you're looking at about $2,500.00 for trunk sewer and water and then...probably looking at about another from 4, anywhere between $4,000.00 and $5,500.00 for your lateral. Roger Knutson: So $7,000.00 to $8,000.00 plus the cost of the service from the slxeet to the house. Say 10 and you're maybe safe. Maybe not. Sue Morgan: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Approximately. Councilman Mason: Yeah. And that's predicated on whether the sewer and water even runs down that road or not. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Sue Morgan: And also I'm just wondering about access to our homes once the road is put in. I don't know if that will be the best way to get to that...stubbing in a road or something that we can use to get in and out in emergencies, whatever. Because that is the only road and if... Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure you're very familiar with Mudawashta Parkway road when we had that and I do recall seeing your car a couple different times with that nice red color to it. But it's hard to say really how that will be but that will be worked out. Sue Morgan: And then I have one other issue that's not quite so close to home. It affects a lot of people along Lake St. Joe and as you know Lake St. Joe's a natural environment lake and there's recently the DNR designated it as such. Lake St. Joe is a spring fed lake. It also feeds two other ponds and has a great deal of wetlands to the west of it. And it feeds into Lake Minnewashta. Right now there are two detention ponds that are right along side Lake St. Joe to handle all the storm water that runs off Minnewashta Parkway. Harstad's has reduced their number of detention ponds from 4 to I and water's going to be draining down the outlot next to our home into Lake St. Joe. In looking at Lundgren Bros project which is on the south end of Lake St. Joe, they have at least 4 detention ponds, and I'm assuming that they will slowly filter into Lake St. Joe. My question is, in looking through Lundgren Bras information there was not an environmental impact study made or an environmental assessment worksheet done and I'm wondering if Chanhassen isn't setting a precedence on the surrounding it with detention ponds and not anticipating how that's going to get into the lake. And not only that lake but the wetlands and Lake Minnewashta. In looking through the...information, there were some wetland alteration permits that have already been issued...and I was wondering if this issue has been addressed at all. I mean Harstad Companies alone I don't think has direct impact but I think we have to look at I-larstad along with Lundgren Bras impacting on the...environmental impact. 33 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: I don't know the answer. Charles, do you know? Kate Aanenson: I can address that. As part of the development they're required to pre-treat before it goos into the wetland. That's why there is the two ponds. They're going to be located, one will be in the park. The largest one. And they're also have a small pond outside the parking lot proposed for the park. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to point those out? Kate Aanenson: Pardon me? Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to point those out. Kate Aanenson: Sure. This is the largest pond right here. This is Kings Road. The development again, what that's doing is catching the runoff and pre-treating it before it goos into the wetland. The park itself, it doesn't have a design yet but we understand there will probably be a parking lot in this area here and there will be a pond to the west of that, which will have runoff from the parking lot. In addition we propose runoff from Kings Road being another possible retention area before it goos in so all the water will be pre-l~eated before it goes into the Lake St. Joe. And this is similar, the same way we handled the Boley subdivision, the Lundgren project. It's all pre-geated. And again, the number of ponds and locations are based on grading. The location, but it is all pre-treated... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so an environmental impact statement is basically not required as to what you're saying. Kate Aanenson: Based on the size of these two projects, no they're not. Sue Morgan: So you're basing them on the number of ponding units? Kate Aanenson: Well yes. The size of the pond is based on the runoff that's generawxt by the development. Sue Morgan: Okay, but the decision to do or not do an environmental assessment worksheet is based on the number of homes... Kate Aanenson: Correct. Sue Morgan: What is the maximum number of homes, or minimum number of homes? Kate Aanenson: I don't know that. Mayor Chmiel: For an EAW? Sue Morgan: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: X number of signatures. Kate Aanenson: Well yeah, you can request one. Sue Morgan: You can petition one. 34 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Roger Knutson: There are various mandatory categories depending on the size of the city. Kate Aanenson: We're a Class IV city and it's. Roger Knutson: I think it's 250. Kate Aanenson: It's pretty significant. Sue Morgan: In looking at this, the statutes that I found depending on, I found 50 or n~ore unattached or 75 or more attached units if you were an incorporated area, or 100 unattached units or 150 attached units if you're an unincorporated area. I'm assuming we're incorporated. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, then it also breaks down to the... Sue Morgan: I guess my concern is that regardless of the number of homes, I think that we might be setting a precedent. It seems like Chanhassen has designated...Rice Marsh Lake and some of the others, are those also surrounded by development? Kate Aanenson: assessment fee. as pre-treating... Yes, Lake Han~son they've got...that's part of the reason why we have the storm water We have a significant storm water management plan and we think we're pretty aggressive as far Sue Morgan: From the research I found that the detention ponds are not proven yet to be...so I guess my question here is I'd just like to bring up the issue and have people think about it. Because we are surrounding a natural environment lake, which is according to the defmition of the DNR, these lakes particularly in rural areas which do not have much existing development or recreation use. So you know, once we put it in place, it's going to be hard to...I have been working with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy to...to make sure that we're all doing what we can to... That's all I have, thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We'll bring it back to Council. Richard. Councilman Wing: I just wanted some clarifications here. I should have gotten these today. For some reason this thing just, these didn't come up until right now and maybe on the Kings Road issue. First of all this is, I love it when we wait these things out. We get the pressure like we got earlier about time frames and boy, if this is going to happen. Well this one, I can't say much because it meets my 18,000 minimum square fool 18,000 square feet minimum lot size so what am I going to say about it. And I like the accesses and development's going to occur and this one seems reasonable but I've got a question on the beach area but that's a separate issue and I'll discuss it at another t/me. Just some clarifications for me, whoever can handle it. On Kings Road. The sewer issue I understand. Does King Road nm to Victoria? Isn't there a house in Victoria at the end of Kings Road? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Several. Councilman Wing: Several. So we get into that thing again. Okay. And tell me about the impact that this may have on the residents of Kings Road, and if you'd rather answer them, well let's just hit this quickly. First of all, if you put the road through, the developer's going to pick up Kings Road. That's where I lost this, or you're going to assess those few houses along Kings Road. 35 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Kate Aanenson: Well, as far as the dedication, he's obligated, This is similar to the Teton Lane, That was off center, He put the whole right-of-way instead of trying to acquire it, What we did is we defined the most southerly limits of where that, where we're indicaWxl it and from that point going northerly, he's picked up the 50 foot right-of-way. Our standard is 60 feet. Sometime when the southerly develops, we'll pick up the additional 10 feet because what we really need is a 30 to 36 foot paved surface but he's giving up the 50 feet so he's giving up additional land to make this project happen. CounciLman Wing: So you, and this is where I got lost. The intent them is to put a road, pave Kings Road up to his entry. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And the rest we'll leave in an outlot. Councilman Wing: And that's a city developer shared cost. Kate Aanenson: Well that's yet to be determined, We're moving forward with the, if you notice where it tapers down,.,4 lots and an outlot to go towards Mr. Carlson's property. That's part of what you'll he going forward with the feasibility request to see how that will be determined. Again, the factors involved in that is the city is purchasing the 8 acres of park and there's some...participating at some level as far as how to work the whole thing out. How they're requesting the feasibility because their participation.., CounciLman Wing: Okay so for my slow mind tonight then, to approve the preliminary, we're not specifically impacting the Kings Road residents on that issue? Kate Aanenson: Well that's a question mark as far as the sewer and water. It's an issue because the grading that they're concerned about, what does that mean,., They've looked at another option which.,.in working through the Headla/Wenzel piece which saves them some cost which alleviates some concerns. So that may be an option but the road still needs to be paved because that's,.,Mrs, Hallgren isn't developing which is the extension of Country Oaks so it's locked in. They have to come down Kings Road to get access. It's just a separate issue with the sewer and water coming in. Councilman Wing: Well I guess I want to stay real alert on, and I don't understand tonight so I'll wait. But they come in and develop but then along Kings Road there's extxemely few homes to pay this and they're all large lots and my fear is the impact on, Kate Aanenson: Well we did raise that issue in the report. We said that somehow, well the other thing is too, they can hold those 4 lots out forever. That we get some security in place, But we've got enough,..assessments from those 4 lots. They don't push everything out. Councilman Wing: Okay. When do we talk about that swimming beach issue? Where does that fit in here? Kate Aanenson: Well it's really a park issue. We'd have to design after the Park and Recreation Commission and what we stated is it doesn't meet the standards for our beachlot, That doesn't mean you can't go down there and swim, What we said is the design of that really falls under the jurisdiction of the Park and Recreation Commission. How that lays out. It's our understanding that they're looking at allowing people to go down there, 36 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Councilman Wing: But that could be a condition of a final plat then where as a Council we could say it will be a swimming beach. It won't be a swimming beach. It will have a dock or. Kate Aanenson: ...if you want. Well ~t doesn't meet the criteria for a dock. We've always figured there won't be a dock. Councilman Wing: Well, fishing pier. That wouldn't exist either? That's what I'm getting at. Fishing pier. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Kate, the question of sewer and water, is that too big of an issue to let go on the preliminary plat? Kate Aanenson: No. We talked to the Assistant City Engineer, Dave Hempel and explained to him that that's an option. He's agreeable. He thinks it may settle some issues so we think that's certainly an option... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. So it's not too big of a question, alright. Kate Aanenson: It may work better for the Wenzel and Headla who are going to develop in the future too so we'll balance everything out. And again, there is some significant depths going out Kings Road and we were going to talk about lift stations so I think that's... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Right now Kings Road would be the only access into it? Kate Aanenson: Yes until Mrs. Hallgren... Councilwoman Dockendorf: I didn't see where it was going to come out because I saw a lot of cul-de-sacs proposed but not where it comes out. Or eventually will come out. Through Stratford? Kate Aanenson: This is the extent of Mrs. Hallgren's property right here. This is the horse barn and her property is right here. This is Country Oaks Drive which is the slxeet is already stubbed to right here. So this is the missing link. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh! So it doesn't come out to Stratford? Kate Aanenson: No. We eliminated this. Again, this was put in the name of their homeowners association when it got recorded so we felt that we revised this from the original one. That probably they could make this a cul-de-sac here. Allow them to go subdivide without getting access onto Minnewashta Parkway. That allows Mrs. Hallgren the opportunity to someday to plat kind of mirroring what's on this side and then this street to come through. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, good. Thanks. I have nothing further. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. 37 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Councilman Mason: Not much. I think it would be great if the developers and Headla's and Wenzel's can work out something. I think that would alleviate a whole lot of the concerns of the people on Kings Road. That would be nice. And Ms. Morgan, for what it's worth, I do hear what you're saying about Lake Joe. I served on the Surface Water Management Program committee or whatever we called it and you know, that is, if I'm not mistaken, there isn't one other city that has something as slafngent as we do in this state. On how those issues are dealt with. You know, you're fight. Who knows how it will wash in the future but I really do think that Chanhassen is really trying to hard to take care of those issues. I really do. I f'mnly believe that. Yeah, this red cedar issue looks like it has been resolved as best, and yeah. It looks good. Looks okay. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I'm glad you mentioned that Michael because I was going to say, we are the leading edge throughout the metro area. I think we've had a lot of concerns with it over the years and we have things in place now that do cover it. One of the other questions that I had. Kate on these street frontages. On some of these for the 20,000 square foot lots. We have 125. For some of these other 20,000 square foot lots, we go back to the 90 feet which is required. Kate Aanenson: You can follow along the map. There is a dotted line on that map fight there. Those are the lots that fail within the shoreland district. So there are lots within this plat that are outside the requirements for the 20,000 square foot lots. So those will just have a minimum of 15. Again, that's what gets you to your averaging of 18. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, and I was going through the process of those and each of the lots that those are so significantly shown. And there seems to be a substantial total number and somewhere we have that 90 feet again that we exceed some of those. It seems like everything falls into it's place there. But as you look at it you sit back and you say hey, what is it? And why that we didn't explain that part of it. Let me go through the process now for the feasibility study. That normally goes through a process and that has to be published as well. Charles Folch: Typically what will happen when you see...like this, we'll discuss the potential project with an available consultant that we have working for the city. Try and get an estimate as to the costs that might be involved and then come back to you with a recommendation to proceed with the feasibility study. Typically what we do is ask, and we petition the developer or the developers for a public improvement project to secure the cost of the study. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I'm looking at it, putting the cart before the horse and getting the preliminary plat for subdividing and still not having that kind of information but I think we're, maybe it's not reaily putting the cart before the horse. Charles Folch: I think the final plat would be but. Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah, I think no question. Okay. The total detention ponds are now sufficient from what we had looked at previously Kate? Kate Aanenson: Well this is the preliminary. As part of the final plat they're required to submit... Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Councilman Wing: And with the sensitivity of Lake St. Joe, do we want to look at an EAW without a petition? 38 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Kate Aanenson: I guess we look at it the same way we did the Boley property. And you've got Kings Road separating this one. Councilman Wing: Yeah, I'm probably more concerned about Lundgren. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that I think is probably where more concern should be at this time. But at the same token, the city would be the RGU, the regul_a?ing governmental unit to determine whether or not the EAW is required. So okay, I guess I have some of those things answered and I still look at that portion of water and sewer going in with the road. Whether or not an assessment should be given again back to the property and if the developer wants to put that in, with that short distance of the nm that they've got. And going back and assessing again the property, that's something we can look at when we get to it. Okay, any other discussion? Is there a motion? Councilman Mason: I would like to move the approval of preliminary plat to subdivide 35.83 acres into 44 single family lots and a neighborhood park. Councilman Wing: Which case number is it Mike, do you know? Councilman Mason: Oh jeepers, I don't know. Councilman Wing: It's 93-11. Councilman Mason: That would be Case No. 93-11. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Preliminary Plat 093-11 to subdivide 35,83 acres into 44 single family lots as shown on the plans dated May 31, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utilities and street within all public right-of- way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. Maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. The routes are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 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 completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with dopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR) and comply with theft conditions of approval. 39 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 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 contract. No building permits shall be issued for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1 (phase II) until the full 60-foot wide right-of-way on Kings Road is dedicated to the City and the street is constructed to urban standards. This area shall be platted as an ouflot until the full street is dedicated and built. The applicant shall escrow with the City their fair share of the cost to extend Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed that these lots will be responsible for 50% of the cost to upgrade Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road. The applicant shall provide revised detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations in accordance with the City's ordinance for the city engineer to review and approval based on the approved final set of grading and drainage plans, The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate storm water retention ponds in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to the City for review. All lots shall be prohibited to take direct access from Kings Road except for Phase II. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. A temporary cul-de-sac should be constructed at the end of White Oak Lane east of Count~T Oaks Road. The applicant shall dedicate to the city a temporary turnaround easement for construction of the turnaround outside the right-of-way. A portion of the utility connection fees the City collects from the property owners south of Kings Road may be refunded to the applicant. The exact reimbursement will be determined based on actual conslruction costs for the inslallation of the utilities. The applicant/builder shall provide, at the time of building permit applicant, a tree removal plan and grading plan for all wooded lots, specifically Lots 22 through 27 through 24, Block 1. The street grades shall be adjusted in an effort to minimize disruption to the adjacent parcels or employ other means to reduce grading limits, i.e. retaining walls. The City has allowed up to 10% street grades in an effort to minimize grading and tree removal. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the east side of Country Oaks Lane and the north side of Kings Road in conjunction with the overall site improvements. The private driveway at the end of White Oak Lane shall be designed and consmacted in accordance to the city's private driveway ordinance (20 ft, wide, 7 ton design and 30 foot wide easement). City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 18. The applicant may qualify for a credit towards the applicant's storm water quantity fees. These quantity fees should be applied to this development as outlined in the SWMP and/or modified accordingly pending adoption by the City Council. The applicant shall escrow with the city the applicable SWMP fees until such time as the City Council adopts the Surface Water Management Plan. 19. The City will be requiting the inclusion of a drain tile system with the street and utility construction. 20. Additional erosion control measures will be required during the new home construction process. 21. A woodland management plan be prepared as per city ordinance Section 18.61(d). 22. The intersection of Country Oaks Road shall be shifted westerly to improve sight distance in accordance to MnDOT's design criteria. 23. The acreage of park shall be determined by the Park and Recreation Commission. 24. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official noted in memo dated January 21, 1994. 25. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to Kings Road being built between Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road to the city's urban standards whether done by the applicant or city improvement project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Wing: Tell me about this feasibility study. We're going to call for it? Where do we stand on that? Roger Knutson: If you want to order that tonight, w. hat you can do, based upon the discussion here, is order the preparation of the feasibility study on Kings Road subject to receipt of costs. Security on the costs. Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilman Wing: Second. Resolution g94-69: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to order the preparation of the feasibility study on Kings Road subject to a security on the costs. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD; AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 34 BLOCKS AND 30UTLOTS FOR A 166 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 34 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 2, 3, 4, 6 OR 8 UNITS EACH; LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY $ AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, AUTUMN RIDGE, GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. (BE~'rY O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY). Bob Generous: Mr. Mayor, Council members. I'll try to keep my comments brief. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. 41 City Council Meeting - July 11, I994 Bob Generous: They're requesting both conceptual and preliminary planned unit development approval, preliminary subdivision and rezoning of this property... Staff is a little concerned about the issues that we have so we're recommending that we only give them preliminary, or conceptual approval at this time. Basically we're in support with the concept behind this plan but there are many issues that we would like them to investigate further. One of the major ones is the resolution of the collector road. The south of Highway 5 collector road through the development and connecting to the Opus development that's proposed to the west of this. We'd also like them to evaluate their grading plan to determine whether or not they are in fact minimizing the disruption of the existing topography. Related to this is the design of the development. The actual layout of the lots. I think what we will let them do a better job of mixing them to both minimize grading and to meet our Highway 5 corridor design criteria to get a different perspective of the development. As far as the tree preservation plan and woodland management plan, we'd like them to do a little more work on that, There's only one significant area of trees in the upland and basically on this current plan they're bulldozing all of them and so we're looking, want them to look at alternatives to what they're proposing. Additionally we'd like them to look at...design of the buildings with the Highway 5 corridor design guidelines. We'd also like them to provide us with some information on the impervious surface and some preliminary storm water calculations to see if they meet the high criteria for PUD's. Finally we have the issue of there's a major wetland within this development that the DNR is in the process of having the ordinary high water mark surveyed and this will help us to do a determination of the road cost and then what mitigation will be required. Therefore we're recommending only conceptual at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What you're saying here is before what was printed, the conceptual and preliminary planned unit development. Only you're saying is the conceptual of a preliminary planned unit development. Bob Generous: Yes, the conceptual. Not preliminary. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well the applicant is requesting preliminary. Staff is just recommending. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. Is the developer here this evening for this? Bob Generous: I haven't seen him. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. He must really feel good about this. Okay, we'll just bring it right back to Council. Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this time? Seeing none, Michael. Councilman Mason: Well, with the developer not being here, I'd be pretty hard pressed to approve both conceptual and preliminary plat. I agree with staff. I think the concept for the area, that's going to be very handy for an awful lot of people. Right across the street from the elementary school there. But going through the staff report and with what Bob has said, certainly there are some issues that are yet to be resolved. I would be very comfortable in approving conceptual approval tonight. And then I guess I'd direct staff to keep working with the developer to get those other issues taken care of so the developer can move on. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Mason: That's where I'm at. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. 42 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question on the layout, Now because the current homes along Galpin aren't delineated, could you show me where they are? Yeah, where the current ones are. Councilman Mason: You know, when axe we going to do something about the AV in this room? Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay, so we've got, and that's where a majority of those trees are that they're taking out which I would highly object to. In back of there. Councilman Mason: I would hope something could be done about that. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Yeah, okay. And there's a little banana shaped piece of outline towards Highway 5 which I see on all the specs but I don't know what it is. That area right there. What is that? Bob Generous: Oh that's an existing wetland. They will be mitigating that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. There's also a stand of trees right on the comer where the homestead was. Those will be staying? Bob Generous: Right. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay. And the way' we've shown the road, that will meet up with the current, across the street so it will be a direct connection? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay. Yeah, whatever we decide to call it, With the size of this development I would assume that would necessitate a stop light at that intersection and is that enough distance from Highway 5. Is that a strong assumption? I'm not talking about Galpin and Highway 5. That's later on. But even at this frontage road and is that enough distance, enough stacking distance from Highway 5 ff a stop light is necessary? Do you know what the length is there? Charles Folch: I believe that access is the proposed alignment with the cross intersection and it would set up with enough spacing... Councilwoman Dockendoff: Alright. Do we have any idea the price of these units? Any idea? Bob Generous: I think they're $80,000.00. Kate Aanenson: Similar to the ones you... Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay. And we don't have any calculations on impervious surface coverage. This looks awfully packed. Bob Generous: That was our question too. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay. You know I share all the same concerns that you've outlined. But as I said, conceptually I'm okay with it. 43 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: And I only chuckle because as I reviewed this I put some of my notes on the front page and I just said, why. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why? Yeah. Well you know and I don't. Mayor Chmiel: Especially if he's not hem this evening. I'd say double why. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well you know I guess I have a question, a bigger question, why PUD. I think Joe Scott asked the question, and I read the Minutes and I still didn't understand. I didn't get it answered. Kate Aanenson: As far as density transfer... Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it's the wetland density transfer? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. It makes more sense to put it down there. We've got open space and it ties into that area that we're picking up with...really nice natural area which makes a room as far as Highway 5...wetland on either side and high points and then lowlands and natural area. So again, yeah it's questionable as far as building. You could put some units on there but if we transfer density. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you think the developer's serious about this? I mean I'm very concerned that they're not here tonight. Kate Aanenson: Well we would hope that they got the, we didn't speak to them so I guess I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.., Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The mitigation of that wetland. Have you gone into any discussion with them? Kate Aanenson: Well there is part of that, again the DNR wetland and the DNR was supposed to stake that. Bob Generous: As pan of the whole proposal that we're looking at enhancing the wetland through them, partially through their mitigation and partially through our SWMP. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Wing: Is everybody done? I was going, Mayor Chmiel: Yes, your rum. Councilman Wing: Well I've made my pleads earlier this evening and Colleen brought up this 200 acres. I don't even want to talk about conceptual. Highway 5, I can't get on and off now. Galpin Boulevard scares the daylights out of me. We don't have the infrastructure to handle this development and until Galpin Road is formally completed, I don't even want to ~_alk about this. From the Fire Depanrnent's standpoint, that's our favorite intersection. That T is our bread and butter. And it's geuing worse and worse and worse and we're talking about 19977 Mayor Chmiel: No. We're going to have appropriations in '95. We may pay that amount of dollars for that intersection but we will be reimbursed back from MnDot. City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Councilman Wing: I think we need a four lane road with mm improvements and proper lighting and everything else before we start pounding more houses into this area. Especially high density like this. Wow. Not me. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Can I tack onto what you're saying? I have right here a traffic report for that intersection of Galpin and Highway 5. In the last 3 years we've had 32 accidents, 6 fatals. I mean what more do you need to know? It's absolutely ridiculous. We all know it. I talked with Don Ashworth this morning and the best we can do, even if we really, really push it through, is get a temporary stop fight by next spring, which in my opinion is still not soon enough but that's the best we can do. MnDot's not talking about it until '97, which is ridiculous with the school going in next year. Councilman Wing: You need turn lanes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Well at least we got them to acknowledge the fact of putting it in to that 77 budget. If we didn't, we still would not have gotten it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I know. It's just, it's so dangerous. It's just. Councilman Wing: I've never, ever seen, what was that? Sight lines. Traffic. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well as long as you're taking the...Richard I guess I'll forget it for tonight. I guess I agree. Kate Aanenson: Could we just have...part of this improvement project? This segment? Charles Folch: Actually yes it is. We financed a project about 2 months ago with plans and specs. The north, what was is 1,300 feet of Galpin Blvd basically from Timberwood Drive north to the intersection of Highway 5 is going to be improved, although the northerly 600 feet going into Highway 5 will be a temporary section with temporary turn lanes because once the Highway 5 project happens in the next 20 years, the whole grading elevation is going to change. But concurrently with the city project, that north half of that road next year. Carver County's looking at building from Timberwood south down to Lyman concurrently next year so that the full blown improvements if you will from Highway 5 to Lyman... Councilwoman Dockendorf: But no stop lights. Charles Folch: Temporary stop lights at Highway 5. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Next spring. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Mason: When are full blown improvements going to take place? Charles Folch: The city's project, well for that segment of the work with the city project, thai will likely begin next spring as will the county will be letting their contract next spring also. 45 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Councilman Mason: And so, how does that fit in with time line with this plan? Charles Folch: Well, I'm not sure what the time line is with that project. I mean it's conceivable that they would be building at the same time we'd be building. Kate Aanenson: I mean it's only...go back with all the issues before the Planning Commission and then come back before you with a preliminary plat... Don Ashworth: Point of clarification if I could. I heard you talking about the signal. Did you bring up to them this letter? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Don Ashworth: And so I do have approval to go ahead and send that? What this mounts to is we got the state to agree to the 1997 funding which really occurs in July of '96. By sending this letter, you will advance fund that signal so construction can start this fall, into spring and then they reimburse us in July of 1996. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Wing: And you want to make sure we get the light in them that has all the multiple turns and stuff so that we can sit there for at least 2 minutes. Okay with you? Councilwoman Dockendorf: As long as I don't get rear ended. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With what we've got going and all the discussion that we've had, can I have a motion to either approve or disapprove. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Table it until they want to come in and talk. Mayor Chmiel: Or I can take a table. Councilman Wing: Motion to table? Second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendoff: I motioned, he seconded. Mayor Chmiel: Oh I'm sorry. I didn't hear your motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I said it rather flippantly. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, a motion to table with a second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the conceptual and preliminary planned unit development #93-$ PUD for Autumn Ridge, Good Value Homes on the Betty O'Shaughnessy property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 46 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE SECTION 20-732 CONCERNING THE CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ALLOW SCHOOLS AS A PERMITTED USE, FIRST READING. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This actually came out...an application for a building permit that St. Hubert's and the Chaska School District were looking at... I felt that that definition was a little too broad and I looked at it a little bit more narrowly...and allow a school as a permitted use within that district. If you look at the district itself, it's pretty small in size so as far as another use of a school going in, it's probably pretty unlikely as far as the availability of property. I've given in here a list of all the uses within the district, which is pretty broad... The Planning Commission did recommend approval. They did have one concern and tliat was... Based on that, it seems appropriate to allow this use in there and we would recommend approval of amending your CBD district to allow for school as a permitted use. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. I did get a call from Father Steve this evening prior to coming to Council and he apologizes for the fact that he can't be here this evening due to circumstances of his back and he seemed to be in pretty much pain. He's pulled a muscle and he did indicate he would send a representative from the church here to just discuss with you and give you some of their information. So with that, if you'd like to come forward and just give your name and your address please. Tim Helmeke: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is Tim Helmeke. I'm the parish administrator. Available for questions. Dave Bangasser in back is our project manager and will answer any construction questions. I didn't have a prepared statement. I'm just available for questions. Councilman Wing: I'd move approval. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the first reading of an amendment to City Code Section 20-732 concerning CBD, Central Business District to allow schools as a permitted use. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Wing: Is there a lot of remodeling that has to be done? To make it usable for the school. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Wing: Pretty extensive? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Thank you. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON THE SAME LOT (SECTION 20-902) IN A PUD DISTRICT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 280 SQ. FT. TELEPHONE SWITCHING BUILDING LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, SPRINT/UNITED TELEPHONE OF MINNESOTA. Sharmin AI-Jaff: I'll make this brief. I'll just say that they're going to use the same material as the National Weather Station building, which is. City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Councilman Wing: Plywood? I've seen it. I went out and looked. As a matter of fact, I like these switching buildings better than I do some of the other proposals that have come in recently along TH 5. And I say that seriously. Some of the telephone buildings and stuff I think are really quality, nice looking buildings. Along with this one. Excuse me, did I interrupt? Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Sharmin. Sharmin AI-Jaff: Their landscaping plan is truly of high quality. I mean the building is only 288 square feet but their landscaping plan is very well prepared and we're recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report, Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening and wish to say anything7 Phil Briggs: Good evening Mr, Mayor and Council members, My name is Phil Briggs. I'm with,..here in Minneapolis and we're acting on behalf of the...project, I haven't prepared a statement. I think the...If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are you going to have a radome too? Phil Briggs: Pardon? Councilwoman Dockendoff: Never mind. Councilman Wing: I'm just wonder why these facilities are coming in with central switching annexes that are better quality and standards than are going in on Highway 5. What are we doing wrong? Mayor Chmiel: Well, they're easy. Councilman Wing: Small huh. Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion? Councilman Mason; Move approval. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Doekendorf seconded to approve Site Plan Review g94.3 as shown on the site plan dated June 28, 1994 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required f'mancial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 48 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 3. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. and approval of the Conditional Use-Permit ~4-3, subject to the following condition: 1. Compliance with conditions of the site plan and plat approval. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Mason: Now did we just move on both of those, the site plan review and the conditional use permit? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Mason: Okay. That's wha~ I thought. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE SECTION 20-904(C) REGARDING TIME LIMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED AlrrER THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE HAS BEEN REMOVED OR DESTROYED, FIRST READING. Sharmin Al-Jaff: Basically under our current ordinance, if a main structure is destroyed or if someone chooses to destroy the house or remove it, and let's say they have a shed, an existing shed. Under our current ordinance the shed can remain. So with this ordinance amendment, the owner of that parcel would have one year, either build thc home, which is the main structure, or remove the accessory structure. And with that we're recommending approval as outlined in the staff report, Thank you. Mayor Chmicl: Thank you. Any questions? Councilwoman Dockendoff: Yeah. What's the impetus for this? I mean is there, are we at liberty to say? Sharmin Al-Jaff: It started with thc Jessup variance where. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Alright, I get it. Mayor Chmiel: You don't have any say anything more. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'm trying to think of the down side and I can see where, I don't know. A person has a lot. They've got a old home. It's d_il_n_pidated. Perhaps it gets condemned and they have to take it down but there's a perfectly good barn or shed or something and you know, they just can't get it together in 12 months to put up a primary structure. I'm just wondering ff we could handle a specific problem in a different way than through an ordinance. Sharmin Al-$aff: In a situation like this, they could come before you and ask for a variance. Councilwoman Dockcndoff: Oh, airight. Sharmin Al-Jaff: And if they think there's... 49 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Right, I think legitimate reasons are acceptable case. Councilman Wing: I move ordinance amendment Section 20-904¢), Councilman Mason: Second. Okay. Accessory structures. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the f'wst reading of an amendment to the City Code Section 20-904(c) regarding a time limit for an Accessory Structure to be removed after the primary structure has been removed or destroyed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPOINTMENT TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION. Mayor Chmiel: Was it Kerry Holtmeier that was appointed on another particular committee in school? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. She got student council or something. Mayor Chmiel: Right...an opportunity to interview each of the applicants that we did sit down with and I wish we had probably about 3 openings because they're all excellent. I think that we had at least, I don't have my former copy with my comments on it. I'm looking at the names and I'm trying to. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Can I move? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I wish you would. I'll second it, Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we would appoint Jason Thompson to the Youth Commission and to reappoint Susan Hurm as the adult representative. Mayor Chmiel: Very good, I'll second that. Councilwoman Doekendorf moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to appoint Jason Thompson to the Youth Commission and to reappoint Susan I-Iurm as the adult representative. All voted in favor and the motion carried, Mayor Chmiel: Can we write letters back to the other applicants thanking them for that and indicating that I wish we wonld because ! think each of those kids was really very good. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Council presentations, we didn't have any. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, we never approved the agenda, that's why. Councilman Wing: Mike has an item and I have a small item. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. 5O City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Councilman Mason: Well it's come to our attention here that both Councilman Wing and I are going to be out of town for the next two council meetings. And what kind of ramifications are there because of that? Mayor Chmiel: You can't go. Councilman Mason: Would you call my wife and tell her that please. Don Ashworth: That we don't schedule any 4/5 required acts. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's all we'd have to do. Don Ashworth: So in the next two. So July 25th then and August 8th. Kate Aanenson: That's going to affect some people. Councilman Wing: And you know, in our 4 years this has never occurred. I can fly home if it was a crisis and then go right back out. And so I can offer that. I don't want to but I can. Mayor Chmiel: I think everybody's entitled to a vacation. Councilman Wing: Well but when you're on the Council you have some priorities too. Mike can't come back as easily as I can. Don Ashworth: Usually very seldom. Kate Aanenson: Rezoning. If we have final plats on there that require rezoning. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that takes 4/5. Councilman Mason: Will they be on the 25th or the 8th? Mayor Chmiel: Can you rearrange those Kate? You're going to have to. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Which ones are they? Mingers on for f'mal plat. Well final plat doesn't require it. No. Some of them require rezoning with the final plat. I'm not sure if they're still zoned low Kate Aanenson: Don Ashworth: Kate Aanenson: residential... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah they are. You can put them off. Kate Aanenson: They were supposed to be on this time and we bumped them based on the length of agenda. I can notify them again. I mean I can do it. A month, that wipes them out sometimes for the season. 51 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Councilman Wing: And when you're talking about doing that on. Kate Aanenson: You have an interim use permit for Mission Hills on for the 25th, accessory structures. Second reading for the church approval. ordinances require 4/5? Roger Knutson: Kate Aanenson: Roger Knutson: Kate Aanenson: Roger Knutson: Kate Aanenson: Don Ashworth: Second reading for You've got shoreland regulations and... Do What ordinance? Ordinance amendments. Unless they're involving the zoning ordinance.., Like the second reading for like the amendment to the central business district to the church. Yes, That requires 4/5. The second reading's on next week. Could they waive the requirement to have the second reading and actually do that this evening? So in other words, a motion waiving the. Roger Knutson: Under your roles you can waive the second reading. Don Ashworth: They could get rid of the school tonight. Roger Knutson: Yes, Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can a person telephone in? Roger Knutson: No. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Has to be physically present? Okay, you're saying we can go back on that one? Well that would at least be one that we'd be knocking out and I know the school is quite Mayor Chmiel: Don Ashworth: concerned, Mayor Chmiel: Roger Knutson: How do we go about that one again, say it Roger, For the school one. The only reason you have two readings is your own internal roles and your own internal roles say you can waive those roles if you desire to do so.,. If the vote is to waive the requirement, you can do that and then move second reading, Don Ashworth: So they're making a motion to waive the roles of procedure to allow the City Council to consider first and second reading tonight. 52 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Roger Knutson: Waive second reading. Don Ashworth: And then after that motion is passed, then someone else would make, or somebody would make a motion to approve second reading. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move that we waive our internal rules regarding whatever, second reading. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to waive the rules of procedure regarding second reading for a zoning ordinance amendment. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Now we need a motion for the second reading. Councilman Wing: And I'll move approval of the second reading. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the second and final reading of Amendment to City Code Section 20-732 Concerning the CBD, Central Business District to allow schools as a permitted use. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Mason: Can we ascertain what will need 4/5 on the 25th? I mean the 8th there's no way I can be around. The 25th there might be. Kate Aanenson: If it's a rezoning with final plat. Councilman Mason: Right and so. Roger Knutson: Rezonings require a 4/5 vote. Kate Aanenson: Right, and so we've got a couple of those on the 25th. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you've got Minger and what else? Kate Aanenson: Minger. Shadow Ridge is preliminary plat so that we may just hold off on...Shoreland regulations, we'd like to get approval... Mission Hills, the Interim Use Permit. Roger Knutson: Don Ashworth: Roger Knutson: them for it. Mayor Chmiel: State law only requires a simple majority. I don't think you require... Feasibility report is only 3/5. Ordering the project requires a simple nmjority unless 35% of the people with frontage petition Okay. So you're getting down to... 53 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Kate Aanenson: Those are the ones that just a concern. There are other things that are housekeeping things that we can push off... Councilman Wing: You know, tell you what. If it's a crisis, I could be here by the meeting time if I drive right straight through. I could get home on the 8th. If required, I could get home on the 8th. I will not be here the 25th, In an emergency I can be here the 8th so looks like we can cover it at both ends if we have to. Mayor Chmiel: Except I don't know what Mark is doing. Councilman Wing: Well it sounds like Mike could push it to be here the 25th in a crisis. I could in a crisis push it to be here on the 8th. Don Ashworth: How about if you reschedule your regular meeting of the 8th for either the 1st or the 15th? Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's a good idea. Do the 15th. Don Ashworth: I mean you're still pushing it back a ways but maybe not quite as bad. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we could jockey that around too. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'll be here on the 15th. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we do that. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we can see and assess what's on. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, come up with a conclusion and Iet us know. Kate Aanenson: Ta/k to people. I mean...construction for the fall, we'll wait and see what we can do. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Wing: There's one other. Remember' the last meeting they were...on that milfoil issue. And there were several meetings held here in City Hall, two meetings I'm aware of. The Minnewashta lakeshore owners and some of them are determined to get fid of that weed at any cost and the way they want to do it is dump 24- D in the lake and the DNR is son of well, you know they're a little hesitant and our liaison, Diane Desotelle is not sold. But the majority vote wants to bill everybody on the lake $275.00 along with the city funding and get a permit and just come in and spray 150 acres of the lake with 24-D. Now apparently it works and my suggestion was we do a test area. We take 400, 500, 600 feet and do a test area and see how it works and make sure that's what we want to do and then get this public notice so that people who say I don't want kids swimming in 24-D, which only lasts one day but they won't come in here and drink a quart. You know that whole routine. I don't want to stop these people if the majority wants to go that route but I don't think we should be dumping that amount of chemicals over that much square area of Lake Minnewashta without the Council being involved and the city taking a stand on this. If they want to come in and present this case to the council, I don't know how this has gotten out of hand and I don't know who's given information to do this but I think we should control that process. And I told them I felt the City Council would come up with the money to pay for the whole thing if it would resolve the problem and be able to handle the weed situation and we don't 54 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 have to go billing everybody $200.00, $300.00, $400.00, depending on where you live on the lake. So Don I guess you or someone to check into this with Diane and pursue this process and get it back to Council. Mayor Chmiel: Well first of all yeah, we should find out what total costs are before you make any commitment as far as city. How many homes are there. Kate Aanenson: The other lakes are going to be fight in line. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I was just going to say. Councilman Wing: There's x dollars in the kitty fight now to ge. at Minnewashta, or in a milfoil fund if you will. I think it's $2,300.00 and they've taken that and combined it with the amount they need on this estimate and then they've billed each homeowner x amount of dollars. Well, I'm one of them but without a lot more talk, I'm not going to pay the money to dump that chemical in the lake. That scares the daylights out of me. Mayor Chmiel: What's our liabilities on that Roger? Roger Knutson: Well we're not giving the permit, the DNR is. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but if we give approval and make those dollars appropriation for them, where would we stand? Don Ashworth: The DNR has made an award of $2,300.00 for the treatment of that lake. The city, under the condition that the city would make a $1,500.00 contribution. Just short of having the entire lake, and the DNR has yet to make a determination as to whether or not they're going to allow a permit of flint size. Councilman Wing: Let's keep it here so that the media is aware of it and the Council's aware of it and the public's aware of it. I don't want to be critical of this group but I think they're so determined to get rid of the weed, that at any cost and I'm not. They're well intended and the majority has spoken. Now let's get it to the public where we can make an intelligent decision, not an impulsive decision. That's all I'm concerned about. Mayor Chmiel: I think one of the ways of doing that is just by notifying those particular property owners. Directly from the city as to where it is and what we can do and how we can do it. I guess I get a little concerned if we're backing something as such. Number one, what the liabilities might be for us. Number two, as Kate has indicated, we have a few other lakes that are going to be standing fight in a row and do we have dollar appropriations for all those who have been taken care of. Something has to be done with the milfoil. I agree. Kate Aanenson: Just so you're aware...Diane indicated that we...but letters have gone out that this is a homeowners association request. We've got to distance ourselves from it saying we're participating but it's a request of the homeowners association. If you have questions about the impact of fids, hen's the number to call the DNR. Here's the person that's spearheading fids on the...We'm trying to make sure it's clear from lake, the city's not pushing this. The association is pushing it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but from the same standpoint, there's also some ramifications as far as any of the kids going in and who's going to take care of that aspect of making sure nobody gets into that lake. Known or unknown, people live there or people who don't. 55 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we'll have to...when it's going to happen and then. Councilman Wing: Yeah, if it's a solution, let's support it. If there's a ba?ard, let's be aware of it but let's slow this down. It doesn't have to be done this year. It's almost over. Mayor Chmiel: Has this been done in other places too, I'd like to find out and what the results were. Councilman Wing: Diane's got all that information. Kate Aanenson: That's all been discussed. We can provide that. Councilman Wing: She should have been here tonight. I thought this was supposed to be on the agenda. I'm really surprised that it has gone, but anyway, thank you. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION: BOLEY ANNEXATION/DE-ANNEXATION, CHANHASSEN AND VICTORIA, LUNDGREN BROTHERS, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: This item has been one of consternation for both the Mayor and myself and I think Lundgren Brothers for well over a year. We've tried to reach some type of resolution with Victoria. We feel that the back yards of the properties, lots that are really in Chanhassen and those back yards should be in Chanhassen as well. We don't see really much value associated with those back yards. We continue to hold out what I call the carrot of providing sewer and water to Boley second phase which is primarily Victoria. And we felt that that was a real win/win situation for Victoria as well as Lundgren Bros because very, very truthfully I find it very difficult to believe that Victoria is going to be able to extend sewer and water to that property within 10, 20, 30, 40 years. It's probably never. I've seen the feasibility study. It's just not currently a possibility. Victoria's staff continues to hold to the position that they want to see an acre per acre swap. And ironically the small part of Chanhassen that's in phase 2, at least from my looking at those diagrams, shows that it's approximately the same area as the back yards of the section that's in Victoria for again our lots in Chanhassen. I did inform Terry Forbord that this was kind of at an impasse. I was willing to put it back onto a City Council agenda and I want to restate that what's shown as the Victoria proposal is not one that's being supported by the Chanhassen city staff. We continue to believe that the back yards that are currently Victoria should go to Chanhassen and again that we should continue with our offer to allow Boley Phase 2 to be served by Chanhassen sewer and water. I told both Bruce and Terry that this would probably be back to Roger, and I'll maybe steal a little bit of his thunder and he can correct me if my statement here is not totally accurate. But I mean I look at this as though, in an association format where the property remains in Victoria, and through a group ownership and certain restrictions, they could have each of their own back yards and fences and everything could work just fine. We don't have to go through this whole annexation process. There are ways in which that legally you could insure that you had your own pan of that outlot. But it's more difficult. I mean you need to get two fence permits. You've got a shed permit in one city and maybe not in another and it's just a consternation so then it comes back to, well what are the alternatives. The alternative is to go to the municipal annexation board. But in my own mind, that determination should really be made by Lundgren Bros. If Lundgren Bros are saying, by having this as an outlot and having to do these special arrangements so people could use their own back yard, that's going to make it more difficult for us to finance those houses. Banks are not going to be as willing to finance homes on those lots. And so if that's the case, I guess the first question is, is will we win in municipal annexation board, and again I'll let Roger respond but his response to me from 2 weeks ago, was yes. He thinks we have a good chance of winning that case. But really the second issue is really one of, if that is the case, then the determination should really be made by Lundgren Bros saying yes, Chanhassen. We should go ahead and we 56 City Council Meeting - July 1 I, 1994 are willing to put up the money to pay the cost for suing that alternative. And maybe there's another alternative in there which the Mayor has mentioned to me which is one that he would like to take and have an opportunity for he and I to sit down with Mayor Pelierier and potentially Merriam and see if, more or less give them one last chance to take and understand that Chanhassen's just not going to roll over and this is the way we're going to go. We hope you see kind of the light. Roger, would you concur with generally the statements I've made? Roger Knutson: Yes. Don Ashworth: Good report. Roger Knutson: Do I have to say something? Councilman Wing: No you do not. Mayor Chmiel: Well he's paid for it. Roger Knutson: Just a couple things. By gaining this 10 foot, this little strip of land, you're not gaining anything in tax base. All you're really doing is you're preventing a real hassle for some people. Double tax statements, as Don said. Or permits or what have you. You're eliminating that hassle. Will we succeed in front of the municipal board? I'm not a prophet but I think you have an excellent chance...because it only makes sense. And I've spoken to Lundgren Bros and their attorneys for a year and they've indicated that if you decide you want to go ahead with that, they will of course reimburse you for your costs. Councilman Wing: Why don't we just give them 3.6 acres on the northeast corner of TH 41 and TH 5 right by Mills Fleet Farm. Where we would get the 3.6 acres? Just someplace else along the line there. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, probably down in Watertown or somewhere. Councilman Wing: Why don't we just somewhere on that west border just give them 3.6 acres? DOn Ashworth: Well they want Boley Phase 2 which currently has 3.6 acres that's in Chanhassen but would actually be in Boley Phase 2. So they want that 3.6 acres. And that's the equivalent of 4 to 5 full lots in trade for 20 back yards. Councilman Wing: I agree. I concur with you. Let's try to work it out with the Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to work it out with the city and we can tell them so many things and we could...them m give them some good deals that the city has taken care of because they couldn't really afford to do it. And so I guess there comes a time that you have to sit down and really discuss. Councilman Wing: Ah, that's your pad. You guys are good at that. We're screwing around here but I really concur with what was just said. I think it's an appropriate way to approach this at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Did you want to make a quick statement in about 2 second? 57 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Terry Forbord: Well I thought I should try to give an overview. Don has done a good job in quickly summarizing it but there are some other outstanding issues that you may want to know about and it would be a good idea to refresh your memory. Does everybody remember where the property is? Council: Yes. Terry Forbord: Okay. If you could just put this on the overhead .... 3 years or so since we brought this into the city. It's been more than a year, a year and a half since the preliminary plat was approved. It's been about 9 months since the final plat was approved. North of the...back portion of the Boley property is in Chanhassen. And the red portion is that portion of the Boley property that's in Victoria- Now I think it's fair to say that the city staff of Chanhassen...has gone clearly the extra mile...trying to bring some resolution to this. And it may even appear...I know that you've seen me talking about this issue before and as you recall, part of the final plat, conditions would be that those...try to work this out. And we have done that on many occasions. On the other hand I can understand Victoria's...give you an acre, you give me an acre. And in looking at what they're proposing. Although it is true that these are back yards in the green, it is fair to say that the valuation, the assessed valuation on these lots with the green in Chanhassen will be higher than if that portion remains in Victoria. Clearly from an appraisal standpoint or an assessed valuation. Now what Victoria is saying, what they originally said is that they would like to have all of this property all the way over to here. Well, this isn't even owned by us so I told Victoria there's no way I can deal with that because we don't own the property. But then they suggested they wanted Lot 10 also and we said, well that's in the f'~t phase of the development in Chanhassen. Final plat's been approved. So really what I think that they're talking about is Outlot C. Now the reason Outlot C is not served via an internal roads from Chanhassen. If you recall, this is a heavily wooded, steep slope area so we elected to leave that like that and serve it from the south through Victoria- That was the only way you could protect the trees and not mass grade that portion of the site. So really what you're talking about are 2 1/2 lots. I would think that because we've batted this issue around for a year and a half, that it may be a reasonable compromise to go back to Victoria and say, look. You give us the back yards of this so we have full sized lots in the city of Chanhassen. Full assessed valuation and we will give back 2 1/2 lots. I don't know ff they'd accept that but it's a compromise from the position from what they're asking for and it may be a simple way to move this off the dime. Councilman Wing: But then they own the little island right in the middle of Chanhassen. I mean it's not, we're not following with a straight line here. Terry Forbord: Are you talking here? Councilman Wing: Yeah. Terry Forbord: Actually their property, the Victoria boundary would then go like this. Ail of this would be. Councilman Wing: In Victoria. Terry Forbord: That's correct. So the reason that, I mean I'd rather not have to be giving them any of this. What we're trying to do is find what is a reasonable solution for both cities. Something that we can move forward with some development and I think it may be a reasonable compromise. It's not one they suggested. They suggested a little bit more than that but if we went back with that, I'm willing to take that back. Now the benefit of that, we avoid litigation before the MMD, which is extremely expensive. And there are no guarantees how it will turn out. There's a good chance that we may be successful but it's tremendously costly. Time 58 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 consuming. There are issues that will be back before the Council again. So I'm just a-ying to find the simplest solution. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, well I'd like us to sit down with the city first before we do any. Terry Forbord: I think that's a really good idea. Mayor Chmiel: And I don't, as I said before Terry, we have given to the City of Victoria several different situations and even Minnewashta Parkway that goes through their city, we paid for it which would take care of more than what they're even talking about here in accessibility out on Highway 5 and cleared that for our residents as well as their's. There's been a lot of things that we've done for them and I think it's due time that the city understands at least our position. We're not trying to hake something from them. I think it's just that they're getting the information back from their perspective employee and I don't fully agree with the position that he's taken so. Terry Forbord: Well I can tell you that it's been extremely difficult. We've Iried to be...progress with the Planning Commission there and the City Council and only fred that staff has recommended against what the Council...should be done. So we're against a wall too. And I do want to reiterate that Chanhassen has gone the extra mile. Not just with Lundgren Bros but...we're willing to work with the city to try to bring resolution to this. What we're hoping to do is do it in the most expeditious manner because we've already spent more than a year. Secondly, what's the most cost effective for the city, for Lundgren. Not spend any more of the staff time trying to find some simple solutions. I think that your idea in giving...Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion for adjournment? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:01 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 59