Loading...
CC Minutes 1994 06 27CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 1994 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Dave Hempel, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, Shannin AI-Jaff, and Todd Gerhardt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the agenda with the following amendments under Council Presentations: deleting the discussion regarding milfoil and adding an item on conflict of interest. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded t° approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Amendment to Section 19-28 of City Code Regarding Sprinkling Restrictions, Final Reading. Co City Code Section 18-57, Streets, by Amending (n) and (o) to include Standards for Private Driveways Serving R4, R8, R12, R16 and Non-Residential Uses, Final Reading; Approval of Ordinance Summary for Publication Purposes. d. Approval of Liquor License for Rotary Club, Fourth of July Celebration. e. Approval of Bills. f. City Council Minutes dated June 13, 1994 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 24, 1994 g. Landscape Easement Request, City of Chaska, Lyman Boulevard and County Road 17. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A. THE WOODS AT LONGACRES (SONG PROPERTY), LUNDGREN BROTHERS. Mayor Chmiel: I pulled the Longacres for two things, and Kate I think you want to address some of that at this particular time as well. Kate Aanenson: Good evening. There are a couple of modifications to the recommendations for the conditions of approval. I handed you a copy of that. Condition number 1. It should read Lots 1 and 8 thru I0 as opposed to Lots 8 thru 11. Condition number 4, for trails. It was intended that the Galpin trail will be constxucted in the street right-of-way except with 100 feet of the intersection. And condition number 8. Just a modification, for the first 100 feet from the center line of Hunters Drive. And we just had one other issue that we wanted to raise... There was a lot of discussion on the Song driveway. We are saying that we should modify the condition...access out onto Galpin Blvd. Access would have to be through, between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1. City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The other thing that, prior to making this as an acceptance, I'd also like one more condition put on this. Is that the certification by the PE be noted on all drawings that are required to go through. Have you received any of those as yet? Dave Hempel: These are not the final drawifigs Mr. Mayor...work with the applicant's engineer... Mayor Chmiel: Alright. If we don't receive those, I don't want us to proceed on that until once those are signed because I would not accept them unless that's indicated. So with that, any other discussions on item 2(a), 1 and 2? Seeing none, I'll make the motion to approve it. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Final Plat, Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for The Woods at Longacres (Song Property), as amended by the City Planner. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Tom Huntington: Good evening. My name's Tom Huntington and I live at 6300 Dogwood Avenue. The north side of Lake Minnewashta. I'm representing the Minnewashta Heights Association, which I am President of that organization. The matter has to deal with is Eurasian Water Milfoil on Lake Minnewashta lake and this past annual meeting that we had within and amongst our members, the matter came up as a site of concern about whether or not we should continue to have our raft out on the Lake Minnewashta area due to the fact that there were so many weeds. The motion was actually made to get rid of the raft and just sell it off because the weeds were so bad out by our property and so that got many of us thinking and a lot of discussion going on and we decided, let's just table that motion altogether and deal with the real problem and that is milfoil on the lake. A member, Randy Schwoers and myself had gotten together with Diane Desotelle last week. We had a meeting of homeowners and associations in the area and there were about 40 of here last Thursday. What we'd like to do is get the city involved in helping out with this matter and helping to maintain and eventually come up with a solution for the milfoil on Lake Minnewashta. I know it's a concern for other lakes in the area of Chanhassen too. It's time to do something with one of our most precious resources, the lakes around the area and what we'd like to do is, it seemed to be a consensus of the members that were present, the 40 people or so, that 24D would be the best solution to handle and maintain the weed... Does everybody, have a copy of this? Councilman Wing: I'll explain it. We just received it. Tom Huntington: Anyway, we understand there are some city funds that are available to be matched I guess by the DNR. Some of the things that we thought needed to be done was not only to help maintain the lakes but do a better, deal with conlxolling the public access too that's going into Lake Minnewashta. I know if you get in there early in the morning, there's nobody there. There's launching of boats coming into the lake and out and I think it's, the source of milfoil I think has from public Iransmission from other lakes and we need to do a better job of controlling that... Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, if I may. And Tom, if you want to just remain. This was on the Council portion later in the evening and perhaps it'd be appropriate right now, just to go over very quickly and perhaps get this on the next agenda. Diane would be prepared to formally address this at this time. Minnewashta has reached the point, a survey was done this week that I participated in was found that the total area, which is from City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 15 feet into shore, which is the main problem for the milfoil and Lake Minnewashta is approximately 75% saturated at this time and the band runs anywhere from 100 to 300 feet wide around the entire lake. And in fact on the east side, it is in fact choking off the entire eastern quarter of the lake. When I say choke it off, it's unsuitable for sailboats or any motor b~ats or any type of motorized navigation of any kind. And they feel it's going to continue to get worse and the neighbors can no longer get in and out of their docks, in and out of their beaches. Their swimming rafts are no longer usable. The water ski course is infested to the point where thc skiers are falling as they come into the course because they get caught up in the weeds. And the consensus was that they'd like to see it sprayed. The issue was, we can only do 15% of the total area, which isn't much because I want in front of my house done and so on and so forth. And anybody that's pulled a permit this year, you have to do that, takes that 15%. So what we don't know is what the solution is. The chemical 24D apparently does work. There are some people very concerned about the chemical versus the weed. And the green pages, pretty well spell it out. What it is. What we can do. What the options are. So what Diane would like to do is, with the DNR present, and Minnewashta Heights and the lake associations present, and remember I state only for Minnewashta but we have Riley, Lotus, and all the other city lakes that would be included in the program and Diane's thinking and also money. A full explanation of the problems and solutions are the green pages and Diane had requested that this be formally placed on the agenda for the next Council meeting where it could be discussed a little more formally and the solutions discussed. Tom Huntington: One of the activities that's going on fight now too is we are going out and asking homeowners in the area would they be willing to get involved in helping to treat and provide funding to help fund the program. Obviously it doesn't get done for free and we know there's some city money out there but... get the job done, we have 4 different people on different parts of the lake going to homeowners on the lake to see who wants to participate. Councilman Wing: This treatment will run $300.00 an acre and there's very few homeowners that haven't stated that they would pay for the 100, 600 foot section in front of their house. It's the other areas that the city would become involved in. So money might be in good shape. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. As Richard has indicated, it will be on the next agenda and discussions can be done at that particular time. Thanks for coming in. Milfoil is no fun item. I know that much of what's being done, even in Minnetonka and even harvesting or trying to harvest it is presenting more of a problem in itself because you don't get it all and it starts growing fight back. Each little piece that goes grows unfortunately. So something has to be done but what's the solution, we'll fred out. Thanks. Anyone else for visitor presentations? SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REQUEST, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. Steve Kern: Good evening. My name is Steve Kern. I live at 6540 Devonshire Drive in Chanhassen and ...given 2 weeks ago of our concern about the assessments for Bluff Creek trunk sewer system...on May 21st. I did get a copy of the attorney's final review and thoughts of the situation as it took place legally, etc and even though the letter sounded awfully definite with their rough figure saying this amounts to roughly $7,760.00 and $10,200.00. The word roughly tumed into an additional $10,000.00. But we feel for the future, for the people who come in interested in buying land in Chanlmssen,. and approach one of your officials upstairs, that there shouldn't be any...or include a sheet of paper to talk about the variables in the process, the developers in the assessment area, x amount of con~rol and so on. But in the presentation we made 2 weeks ago, at a visitor presentation, what we were hoping for some discussion by Council, potential resolution to assist us through next year because it was such a shocker and myself as being accountable for it, I presented it to the congregation. City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 The numbers are dramatically different and so we tried to illustrate a new number.,.but a $10,000.00 figure for a small group is going to be a tough one and...make it happen. So we're asking for a little relief in the interest in the next year... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess as Roger has indicated, I don't know the process that we've gone through in creating relief on those kinds of situations. I think it's something that will have to be taken under advisement. I think basically the Council is provided the information technically by law as to what we can or we can't do. I don't believe there's anything at this particular time, Don unless you have something. Don Ashworth: I think Roger would have to address that. Roger Knutson: It's your..xevised by the city an estimated assessment of $I7,000.00 was correctly given. The developer came in as part of the platting process and said we want a portion of the assessments..,and the developer, at that time, or the owner of the property had the right to do so... Steve Kern: We understancL..thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Conrad Fiskness: Conrad Fiskness, President of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. I'll try to be very brief. I think you have in your packet two pages of information regarding Bluff Creek land acquisition. As you may recall early in 1994 we became aware of the fact that there was a very strong possibility that some land at the very lower extremity of Bluff Creek was going to be sold as a private development. We felt that there was great concern for what that might have impact on for the future and that the ideas that we've had and the city has had for doing some further studies and planning for that area, we as a Board stepped in and purchased that land to hold it in reserve for the future. I have with me tonight Cynthia Clish who has been a member of the advisory committee for the watershed district. She has helped us in many ways in terms of the public information requirements that we need as a Board and also as community relations and she has prepared things like the video that you probably have seen with regard to our watershed district.., She also prepared for the Minnesota State... We had been talking about this and we wanted to, as a Board we wanted to make it clear to the city that we weren't trying to become land barons or any such thing. That's not our intent. Our intent is to cooperate with the city and at such a time as the plans get going for Bluff Creek, this would become park and parcel of whatever is done. I know that you weren't successful with LCMR grant and we have been talking to your staff people in regards to the possibility of using the basic water management capabilities that we have available... What we are here for tonight is the idea that if it's the Council wish, we would hold some sort of a press conference jointly to let the public know, let agencies know, that we do have this intent to work together and that that land has been purchased for that purpose. I guess I have four questions. Number one, you either agree with that idea in concept. Maybe you don't want any part of it. That's frae. We just wanted to be avallable...if you're interested. If so, the date at which you might want to do that. There is a, in your packet we suggested a date for July 21. The agenda. There was a proposed agenda there and then the last question would be, if we were to go ahead, are there officials from other agencies, the County Commissioners, legislative people that you would want to see included. So that's the extent of what I have to present. If you would like to ask questions...happy to answer any of them for you. And I'd think you would be simply waiting for your response as to whether or not to proceed in this... Mayor ChmieI: I think what you're saying is a combined effort between the city and the Riley-Purgatory, and I think it's great that you at least were able to come up with the money because it's about the only way we could 4 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 preserve that particular piece of property, and as you say, you don't want to become land barons and we realize that. That maybe at some lime you may be weak and very ready to mm that back over to the city or something. Conrad Fiskness: Well that is the ultimate intent. Mayor Chmiel: It will be. Conrad Fiskness: When this plan goes through. We don't plan to hold it for... Mayor Chmiel: Right, and I realize that. But as what we had here, I was just reading that your request, your participation and the joint press conference, blah, blah, blah. Public demonstration of our cooperative efforts to preserve the pristine part of Bluff Creek watershed district. I think we left out one word, pristine because I think it is worth while for us to have that in there because it is one of the areas that we have that we have to preserve and we do have to take care of it. As far as speaking as the mayor, I would agree with it. I'm not sure what the Council members positions are but I would be more than happy to just go down the line and see if they would so be desirous to go through that process. But I do think too, that having the County Commissioner here as well as local representatives, to take part in this type of ceremony and I think it will be well worth while. Does Council have any position on that? Councilman Wing: I support. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Councilman Mason: Likewise. Councilman Senn: 100%. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Cynthia Clish: I just want to make sure we check that date. Mayor Chmiel: 21st. Cynthia Clish: Neither Todd nor Diane can be there...if that's okay with your calendars. Mayor Chmiel: I have that on mine. Councilman Mason: Is that a Wednesday or Thursday? Mayor Chmiel: It would be a Thursday. Prior to the HRA. Conrad Fiskness: Well we'll proceed and we'lL.thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: HIGHWAY $ OVERLAY DISTRICT ORDINANCE WHICH ESTABLISHES 5 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR. Public Present: Name Address Jim Paulette Chris Dietz Stuart Mills DataServ Corporation Mills Fleet Farm Mills Fleet Farm Kate Aanenson: The background is on March 28th you looked at the EA document and the Highway 5 corridor. At that time we recommended that you adopt the overlay standards...public heating on January 19th. I think you felt uncomfortable with that. Subsequent to that we've had numerous work sessions and I think that we feel like, based on the fact that you probably won't any...until August and you have development occurring along the corridor, that we would recommend adoption of the overlay standards. We did notify those along the corridor that have interest. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 13th...and January 28th. I didn't, I wasn't prepared to go through specifically the ordinance itself. If there are questions... Mayor Chmiel: Great. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. This is your opportunity to come forward if you have some concerns regarding the Highway 5 overlay district. And if you do, please indicate your name and your address and what those concerns may be. And who you're also representing. Chris Dietz: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, My name is Chris Dietz and I'm representing Mills Fleet Farm. Also with me are the board of representatives from Mills Fleet Farm, including Smart Mills. We didn't find out about this public hearing until, they found out about it late Friday. I found out about it this afternoon. And it was, we were notified that it was a public hearing for Highway 5 corridor study and the EAW for the north access boulevard alignment analysis and review of Highway 5 overlay ordinance. When I met with my clients, the first concern was, this is an important, these are all important issues to us. Can the city hold a public hearing essentially on 72 hours notice? And attached to what we received was a document that's entitled notice of public meeting. And then at the bottom it says published in Chanhassen Villager on June 23, 1994. When we contacted the Chanhassen Villager to see if notice had been published as a public hearing, found out, at least I had the individual check the newspaper for the last several publications. No notification had been given. I looked at the Statute, Minnesota Statute 426.357 Subd.3 which states that before a city council can adopt or amend an ordinance, they must hold a public hearing. And they must give at least 10 days published notice before the hearing. Based on that, it's our interpretation of the statute that you can't hold a public hearing without 10 days published notice. The City Council adopted an agenda and the public hearing was opened, we think that going forward is in violation of the statute. We would oppose that. Beyond that, what our concern is, is that we have serious concerns about the overlay ordinance. The corridor issues. The access issues and I'm sure that there are other members of the public that have concerns over those issues. We found out late this afternoon that what was going to be discussed at this public hearing was going to be Highway 5 only. We didn't know, nor could we know, until we came to the hearing today, what exactly was going to happen or what the City Council was going to consider. We're not prepared to respond to the issues at this point. We would request that the City Council reschedule the public hearing. Give the 10 days published notice so the public can participate and if the intent is only to consider the overlay, the Highway 5 overlay ordinance, then fine. So be it. We can come prepared for that and narrow our comments on that particular issue. At this point, not knowing what was going to happen, we're not in a position to comment on this. We would then request that the notice be published and that we be given an opportunity then to make our remarks. Thank you. 6 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: I think we'd probably like to respond and I'd like our attorney to address the issues that you brought up. Roger Knutson: The Statute 462.357 SuM 3 and it states that no zoning ordinance amendment thereto shall be adopted until public hearing has been held on by the Planning Commission or by the governing body. Or. It doesn't require both. You already had the hearing before the Planning Commission back in January. The notice is of a public meeting. This is certainly a public meeting. The public hearing... In addition, this is the first reading of the ordinance. You have the fight to come back in 2 weeks... First and second reading is not required by State law. By your own general procedures. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Chris Dietz: Roger, I agree with the reading which should, of the ordinance. Or of the statute. I'm not aware of whether there was proper notice given of the January 23rd public heating or what that was. All I know is that we received a document which says this is a notice of public hearing and gave the date and indicated that there were going to be four topics that were going to be discussed. We didn't find out until this afternoon that staff's interpretation and I would add the staff was very cooperative. Staff said it's our understanding that only one of those four was going to be discussed. It puts us in a very difficult position and that's why now we think that once the City Council adopted it as an agenda item, this was a public hearing. It needs to be a public hearing and it needs to meet the statutory requirements. Roger Knutson: ...notice, if you read, said a public meeting. Chris Dietz: I understand that. The agenda that' we were given says public hearing. The agenda that this Council adopted said public hearing. Roger Knutson: ...the argument. Chris Dietz: Roger, I'm sorry Mr. Mayor. I don't mean to belabor this point. All I want is an oppommity in a public hearing to present my client's views on these issues which are important to them...the City Council acts on the overlay ordinance. If the Council is not going to vote on the ordinance tonight, then that's helpful. We'll be back in 2 weeks but as a matter of procedure I think I have to make, state our position clearly so that it's understood. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. You'll have the opportunity within 2 weeks to come back. Hopefully that will give you enough time to review your concerns and bring them back to Council at that time. Chris Dietz: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Jim Paulette: Honorable Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jim Paulette. I represent DataServ at 19011 Lake Drive East. After reviewing the Highway corridor overlay zone ordinance. I had a meeting with city staff. We concluded that we have a concern about the parking restrictions within the required minimum front yard setback. Especially, well as it relates to Highway 5 frontage but also, especially as it relates to the access road. Along Highway 5 we would like to see some front yard parking to allow better access to what probably will be the enlry doors of whatever buildings are developed there. Along Lake Drive East, which will City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 more than likely be DataServ's development site, we would like to see unlimited front yard parking if we deem that it is the most functional design for DataServ. At the very least we'd like to see at least minimal front yard parking to provide our employees. We're going to a lot of second and third shift and we would like our second and third shift employees to be able to' do the parking in front of the building rather than at the end of a dark parking lot. That's one concern that we have. But also we don't want the parking restrictions to determine how we configure our buildings. We'd like our buildings to be facing the street but we don't want our parking to be on the side of the building. Have all of the parking be limited to the side of the building. These are just a few of the concerns that we have. We'd like the Council to take some of those things into consideration when voting on this ordinance. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? This is your opportunity to address the issues on the overlay district. This is a public hearing. Hearing none, I would then Roger. If we're going to be carrying this over, I don't think we close the public hearing at this time to be closed? Roger Knutson: Yeah, it's just fa'st reading. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, first reading and the second it comes back, okay. Good. So with that then I would request a closing of public hearing. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Richard, any discussion? Councilman Wing: My only comment Mr. Mayor is just, having been on the ground floor of this and the issues discussed tonight discussed at length. In terms of design and quality and the direction we'd like to go, and then discussing the document in it's entirety, I don't have any changes or comments to make on it. I would tend to vote for first reading. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's extremely thorough and I'm happy with the level of quality that it insists on. There's a typo on page 14. Section 20-1462, item b. It's just very, very minor. Where we spell out fifty but we put 5 in parenthesis. Other than that, I like what it does. I think we are going to probably, unfortunately, run into some conflicts with how we make it work logistically but that's the reason we're talking tonight. And this is the opportunity for any future developers to come in and state their concerns so. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Michael. Councilman Mason: I too was on the ground floor of just about all of this. I don't have a whole lot of questions, I do, I'm not sure if this is a fair statement for all of Council to make but on the background information, the front page it says that the only action taken by Council was a resolution supporting the southern alignment for the northern frontage road. I'm not sure that that's a done deal and I don't want people to read that and assume that that is exactly the way it will appear. I think there will be a fair mount of discussion before that comes back. This parking restriction and safety issues, I think is something that needs to be addressed. I'm not sure I agree necessarily with Mr. Panlette but if there are some safety concerns, I think we at least need to take a look at that and lighting or sight lines or what not for how people and where people park. City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Kate, on page 7, number 1. It says each building shall contain 1 or more pitched roof elements. It won't bother me if we don't have every building in this city have a pitched roof on it. Kate Aanenson: We spent a lot of time discussing that. Councilman Mason: I know. Kate Aanenson: As you recall, we came up with the Target we had a parapet walls instead of the pitched roof. The Byerly's has a different treatment as opposed to Market Square. So what we...basically the side of the building. Structurally we can't always put a pitched roof on so we...pitched roof element. What we try to do is look at the different treatments and try to get that effect. So that was the intent of putting some...and architectural features. Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay. One other quick comment on page 9, H. It t_~lks about colors shall be harmonious. Bright or brilliant colors, sharply contrasting colors may only be as for accent purposes. That was a tough one for me at the time and it still is. That's so dog gone subjective. Who will be the people that decides whether? I mean maybe a bright color might look nice. Mayor Chmiel: Bright purple? Councilman Mason: Well there were some people in town a few years ago that thought that was a pretty good deal. I mean what. Kate Aanenson: Ultimately the Planning Commission and City Council will review the site plan... Councilman Mason: Okay. I don't know, I don't think we need buzzard puke green and chartreuse and this, that and the other thing but things get kind of gray all the time and I don't think there's, you know I think that's just something we all need to be aware of. I just throw that out. I'm not going to say I'm fond of this document but a lot of people spent a lot of time on it and I think it has the potential of making Highway 5 look pretty nice. I like it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I had three specific elements that I'm still uncomfortable with. I think Michael's already hit all 3 of them. Likewise I'm not real comfortable with the subjective element of the color components. I'm not comfortable with the parking elements. I see that as really, I'm going to say, I see that as a conflict creator in the future. Hard and fast rule that I think is going to create some conflicts because when we end up with land uses on the other sides of the service roads, especially ones that are going to be residential and if those residential areas then come in especially before say commercial development on the other side, I think there's going to be some real conflict issues and considerations relating to the fact that this may say that parking should be on the highway side, but I think they're going to have quite the contrary opinion, and maybe not wrongfully so. I just, the way this is worded I think it is far too definite and it's far too restrictive. I think it can be worded in a fashion that it could better serve a goal that we're trying to reach but not just simply be a hard and fast requirement which doesn't leave a whole lot of leeway. The same comment applies as it relates to the pitched roofs. Like Michael I believe that, I don't think every building in town has to have a pitched roof and there are a lot of very nice architectural styles which don't have pitched elements on them. And again, the language should maybe be, may contain rather than shall. And shall again just kind of, to me seems very City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 definite. Leaves no room for anything else and specifically those are the 3 I continue to have a problem with. From an overall standpoint. There's been something really bothering me on this overlay for some time and I honestly have to say I haven't figured out what it was until just last week and the thing that really bothers me about it is, is that there's a lot of really good points in this overlay. But if we think that then, I think this is a standard that we should address, set up and apply city wide. I don't think it's something that should be built just for Highway 5. And here's why. I think in effect what we're doing then, is we're as a Council basically kind of trying to legislate competition and I think that's unfair, I don't think we should be holding any business who locates on Highway 5 to a different standard than any other business who locates in Chanhassen. They should all be operating from an equal plane as far as I'm concerned. Through the numerous businesses I own, sometimes it becomes very convoluted in the sense that you're trying to compete with somebody but then well geez, somebody allows them to do it with cyclone fence or a metal building and you have to do it with brick and fancy fencing. Well I mean hey, I can't compete on that basis because I have to charge a lot more rent or I have to charge a lot more money for the services or the products that my business are putting out because those overhead costs are all overhead costs that come back to business. And I don't really, you know as one person on this Council I'm going to say I don't agree with that and I don't think that's something we should be doing. And I think when we take this and say that Highway 5, whatever's along it you have to meet this standard and everybody else in the city can operate under a different standard, I think again that's wrong and I again, if the concept is good, if the things we've stuck in the overlay interest design wise and stuff makes sense, then I think it should make sense city wide and should apply city wide and not just be limited to Highway 5. And I'd like to see that really receive some more consideration and discussion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I agree to some extent. There are certain, definitely certain parts of this document that I would like to see apply city wide but other ones are not necessary to be applied city wide and I think if you're located along Highway 5 you have the one upmanship over your competition just by the fact that you get increased exposure. I mean so nothing's equal in business. There are lots of factors that go into determining how competitive you are, including building restrictions. But I would be, so I'd like to see this document approved and I agree with you, we should also look at certain parts of it that should apply city wide. But I don't want to throw away the document saying if it doesn't apply to everyone, it shouldn't apply just to them. Councilman Senn: I'm not saying throw the document away, and don't get me wrong. I really don't you know even like that as an inference. I think the document also makes sense and I think there's a lot of things in it that do. But I think if they make sense, then we should apply them city wide and I don't agree with you on your statement that just because you're on Highway 5 you have a competitive advantage. That's not tree. Especially if you look at all the land uses along Highway 5. Some admitted will be a deterrent. I mean come on. How many people would just as soon live on a residential complex on Highway 5 versus off Highway 5? So I mean it's real hard to take blanket statements and say that just because you're on Highway 5 you're going to be able to demand a higher dollar. That's not true. But at the same time we're legislating in effect roles and procedures here that are going to requke substantial dollars to be spent on facilities that a couple blocks away somebody doesn't have to spend the same dollars, and I don't think that's fair. Mayor Chmiel: To a certain point I don't disagree but again, I keep going back to my statement, which I always say, we have one time to do this right along Highway 5. And in and adjacent to it. If we don't do it right the first time, of which some of the items contained within this document I think are going in that right direction, we're never going to get that opportunity again. And if it's a developer who's coming in who wants to do 10 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 those kinds of things, that's up to that developer. Of whether he wants to be within the community or not. I mean that's your choice. Councilman Senn: Well Don, I can't see. Mayor Chmiel: And I can't see lowering the standards for a developer to from what we want or what we should see. What we want envisioned for the city. Councilman Senn: Again I'm not saying lower the standard. I'm saying what we should do is we should set the standard on a city wide basis rather than simply set it for Highway 5, okay? And I'm not mlkir~g about developers. I'm talking about the ultimate person who pays and it's not the developer. The ultimate person who pays is the business. Or the person who lives or works there or whatever, okay? And the ultimate person who pays is also the consumer, okay. And I don't think we should create a situation where we put ourselves in effect or create an artificial marketplace and I think we can do that because if you look at these rules and apply them only in a specific area, they're going to create substantial costs over what are going to be applied in the other Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Listening to what Mark is saying here and Colleen's comments, it seems to me the thing to do would be to adopt this and then take a look at the other standards of development in the city, which I'm all for that. I don't think that we have, and I don't think any city has the same standards for everything in the city. I mean the standards for development in medium density are different than they are in low density. Standards for PUD residential is different and I think that even the standards for the business district in downtown are different than standards elsewhere. So I see what Mark is saying and I think it's something we need to take a look at but I guess I would beg to different about the same standard approach. But yeah, if it means raising standards for development in the city, I guess I'm all for that. Well no. I want to take a look at it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I think this is an early argument and I think if we wanted to t_aik about this, I'd want my position represented with Bill Morrish and Barry and Hoisington because they had talked about this and this is the corridor study. The intent was to elevate as high as possible the quality and the performance of this corridor and to do it city wide, again I would agree with Mike and I'd agree with Mark. Take this document and spread it border to border. But the focus tonight and the focus in this is the Highway 5 corridor and there's no question that my expectations were higher quality and front line buildings and my expectations for buildings one haft block away from this frontage is different than the ones that are on it. So I think we are setting a separate standard and I intend to do that from the beginning and I don't apologize for that at all. I don't think we're doing a thing to do with the competition. That's premium comm. That's like Wendy's wanting to be in the middle of a shopping center downtown. That's a premier corner. They're willing to pay to be there and they're willing to build a building they've never built before to be there. If we destroy competition, no. If we've got competition and we've got quality to boot so I don't, again I was part of this discussion so much earlier. I think the people that are there that can intellectually represent my position and opposition, I'd like to have speak at the next meeting ff they're available. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Seeing none, then we'll carry this back over for July llth. In 2 weeks at our next hearing that we'll have on it at the second reading. 11 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Councilman Wing: You're going to move on a first reading this evening? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Wing: I would move the first reading. Councilman Mason: I will second that. Mayor Chmiel: A motion with a second. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the f'wst reading of the Highway Overlay District Ordinance as shown in Attachment #1. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: As I had said the next meeting, this will be held at the July 1 lth here in the Council Chambers. AWARD OF BIDS: 1994 STREET REPAIR PROGRAM, PROJECT 94-8. Dave Hempel: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Wednesday, June 22, 1994 bids were received and opened for the 1994 Street Repair Program. A total of two bids were received with the low base bid being received from Allied Blacktop Company at $138,557.50. The bid package included two alternatives for consideration. However, due to the prices received, Alternative A will not fit within the budget limitations. Alternate B consisted of sealcoafing and bituminous overlay repair work to the Kerber Boulevard trail. This work will be paid through park funds. It is therefore recommended that the 1994 Street Repair Program Project No. 94-8 be awarded to Allied Blacktop Company with a base bid contract amount of $138,557.50 and the Alternate B trail work at $7,804.00. Allied Blacktop has previously worked within the city and performed satisfactorily. Mayor Chmiel: One of the things that sort of amazed me Dave, with all the companies that we sent out to, that we only got 2 back. Is that because the others are really busy? Or is there some reason why we didn't get additional bids back? Dave Hempel: I think the time of year and probably a little bit busier this year. In the past we have generally only received 2 or 3 bids. These two contractors are the two that we generally receive bids back from. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any questions? Councilwoman Dockendoff: Ah yeah. Dave, I understand that part of this is for the trail. Is the other part to redo Kerber Boulevard? I don't know what the street repair program is. I mean is it for Kerber specifically? Dave Hempel: No. The other base bid is for numerous streets we have laid out across the city as part of the specifications. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay, Any other discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question, Or can I have a motion please? Councilman Mason: I'd like to make a motion. To award bid to, it's Allied right? Allied Blacktop for 1994 Street Repair Program Project No. 94-8. 12 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution g94-63: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the 1994 Street Repair Program Project No. 94-8 be awarded to Allied Blacktop Company with a base bid contract amount of $138,557.50 and the Alternate B trail work at $7,804.00. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACILITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAYCARE CENTER IN AN'IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5, MARCUS CORPORATION. Sharmin AI-Jaff: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. This applicant appeared before you on June 13, 1994. You gave it conceptual approval. We requested that the applicant address the issues raised at the meeting. Several alternatives for traffic circulation were raised and studied by staff. As well as by the applicants. Based on the alternative that the applicant prepared, there are some conditions that we need to be deleted from the staff report. If you would kindly turn to page 7. Condition 4(b). Would need to be deleted regarding the turning radius...According to the new plan, the applicants will be able to have a truck mm along, through the parking lot and onto Dell Road as well as a school bus. The second condition would be number 18. It would be deleting the first two sentences which would be adopting RSF designs and eliminating the access onto Dell Road to a right out only. Eliminate that portion of the condition but keep the maximum number of parking stalls will be limited to 33. The third condition is number 20. This one, the City Council direct staff to investigate an east/west access point onto Dell Road. Engineering staff believes that this access is a better solution for this subdivision as a whole. However, if that option was implemented, it would extend the road through the totlot and playground area of Kindercare which would potentially eliminate the project altogether. And then condition number 22, which would require the applicant move the building 40 feet to the north would also be eliminated because again, the turning movements have been adjusted to where a school bus as well as fire truck could go through. The aerial won't be able to go through but a fire truck would be able to go through. With those changes staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. If there any questions, we'll be able to answer. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here this evening? Is there anything that you wish to address that we haven't already discussed? John Dietrich: I'd just like to personally point out a few of the changes that we have gone through and some of the changes that we've addressed with the site plan and the revised site plan package that was submitted to staff with your staff report. The applicant, the Kindercare and the Press. have put together this joint application and some of the major changes that we have done to the site plan have come through the comments and concerns from both the Planning Commission and City Council and we're very pleased to have tried to built in as many of those as we can so we feel this site and location is good for the applicant and will be good for the city. Ideally the change that we had talked about last time about closing off the southwest corner of the access to the parking lot between the Kindercare and Press, with that we've increased the impervious area, green space on the site and feel we have eliminated that issue of the cut thru traffic so that access to the Kindercare will come down this central road and into the Kindercare itself whereas access and parking for the Press facility will be more self contained. We feel it's better, that was a solution that the traffic patterns are more clearly defined and that we agreed to put those in. In terms of other access points we taken and made the 30 foot radius corners and we'll put those according to the city standards and we've discussed the access with the city Fire Marshal in terms of 13 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 the type of vehicles that they will need to have coming through the site for emergency access and vehicle servicing. And we've also included that pedestrian access with a landscaped walkway and the designated crosswalks all the way through the entry access in the parking lot. The parking drive has been widened to 26 feet according to the staff report. In terms of landscaping, we have added additional plant material along this central island between the Press and the Kindercare and have made sure that we could incorporate that landscape buffer area of 30 feet behind the property line and to a distance back 75 feet so that the comer will have the opportunity to incorporate the landscape enhancement that is required by the city or staff and when the overlay district would occur. We have provided a landscape plan that we will be happy to modify in order to make this work with the entry...chosen as an area. The landscape area down in the comer has incorporated a berm. Approximately 3 1/2 foot berm above the grade of the parking lot and it is up about 6 feet from the center line grade of...so essentially the parking facility will be screened from view as will the majority of the parking in the Press parking lot from the berm that is existing long the southern area of the Press parking area today. The berm will be extended to the east so that it will incorporate and that undulating area will be landscaped and...irrigated. In terms of signage. Signage will be within the setback and will be at a point of setback and will have a brick face according to and matching the building. The building will be a complete brick structure along with accents, ceramic tiles and a pitched roof. John Finnemore from Kindercare will address the issues of the architecture in a little more detail and I would like to just put the, go through a couple of the staff conditions that we have issue with in terms of how we have arranged the site plan so that we may address those as your comments come forward. In terms of the staff recommendations and the items listed under number one, site plan review. The trash enclosure will be constructed of brick so that it will match the building and we will submit plans and details of that. The trash location is set back from the facade of the building so that it will be tucked up next to the western side of the building. Items 2, 3 and 4, we will fully comply with. Item (b) has already been complied with under 4(b). Items 5 and 6 we will comply with and condition and we submit the 10 year storm calculations to the City Engineer identifying the capacity of the storm sewer and the catch basin system that has been revised and submitted. Items 7, 8, 9 and 10, we will also comply with. Number 11, turn radii have been completed. Items number 12 and 13, we will definitely comply with. Items 16. We will submit the plans showing the current Press building at scale so that the Fire Marshal will be able to make their calculations for the fire hydrants and floorplans as necessary. Parking, item (b). Handicapped parking stalls have been provided on the site plan. At the Press, the handicap parking are located in the southwest comer with a sidewalk directly off of the stalls coming up the main entrance. At the Press, or excuse me, Kindercare. The two handicap stalls are located directly in front of the building. Item number 17. Rooftop equipment will not be visible. Item number 18. The number of parking stalls. Based on Kindercare's experience in developing this facility across the country, they have the opportunity to handle anywhere from 175 to 200 children and their parking demands are greater than the requirement as established by the city of 33 parking stalls. Where they have can, they have built up to 50-55 parking stalls. They feel the number that they need to effectively operate is in the range of 44 parking stalls and that is the number that we have put on the plan based on the city, based on Kindercare's experience with this facility and having to work safely and effectively. Item 19 will be complied with. Item number 20. The access road, as Sharmin had indicated, would cut through the play area if it was to line up with the access to the Press. We feel the access modifications that have been made in the southwest comer and allowing the turning movements to come into Dell Road so that it would be a right-in and a right-out only, will adequately service this Kindercare site while keeping the Press facility separated. Then would allow this northern area, future potential for use of the Press without having a roadway cut thru and disrupting the central portion of the site. We are looking to maintain this site plan as it is being presented. Item number 21, I'd like John Finnemore to address. Item number 22. The building to be moved, will not be moved 40 feet. Again, we're proposing that it be approved in it's current location so that it would allow this comer lot to function as designed with the ability to accommodate the emergency vehicles. And lastly, item number 23. The access between the Press and Kindercare. Staff had talked about closing off this access point here. We feel 14 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 for the Press release and effective use of the parking lot, both these access points should remain along the central 26 foot wide roadway system. Once at this point it definitely comes into the Kindercare facility, whereas from here to the north and allows the circulation through the parking lot without ?_a~ng everything through this northern parking lot into one road. And lastly on item number 2, Preliminary Plat. Item number 2Co). Dedication of public right-of-way. Based on the plat that is existing for the Press today, we are looking to re- organize and replat that existing property without going through and having the need for any dedication of public right-of-way. All access that would come down the central road would be fled into agreement between the different parcels so they would have access rights pertaining to that central road but we do not see any dedication of public right-of-way for this site plan, or preliminary plat approval. John. John Finnemore: John's handing out some photos of a similar facility that we built in Texas. I don't know if they've made, ff you've seen them before or not but...I wanted to address the issue of the appearance of the building. Earlier in the meeting you were discussing your Highway 5 corridor study and one of the issues that you discussed was that you wanted all the buildings to have a peaked roof, which we, that's what we're proposing. That is a peaked roof. And also, there was some discussion that the roof seemed a little too Mgh maybe compared to the front of the buildings. We do have that roof at 4/12 pitch which is the least steep pitch that you can have a roof in the Minnesota area by code that can handle the snow load so we've got it basically as the least steep as possible. Also too, part of the reason why we have a pitched roof is that front entrance, the main multi-purpose room as you walk into the building has a cathedral ceiling and you notice on these photos with the skylights and the ceiling area. I think the photos may help in comparison to like an elevation drawing to show that the roof, when you look at an elevation you have a two dimensional photo or a drawing that doesn't show you the difference between that top ridge line and the front of the building...set back a little more. We went and looked at the building down the road, that was mentioned, that had a pitched roof that was a little more attractive. I think that we basically, our roof accommodates a lot of those similar designs. We have a double facia along the building which is more attractive. We've got double hips on the building instead of one just large building and then inbetween those double hips we have the enWance area of the building which kind of breaks up at this point also. Additionally, we will not have any rooftop equipment. The other thing that's shown on those plans would be the vents which are not required by building codes, that they be there and we'll locate those to match the roof. And the shingles that we use are not just average...shingles. They are high quality, what's known as a dimensional shingle. It gives it a textured look and the color would be like a weathered wood so it wouldn't just be the real reasonable black roof. Finally, I think we're proposing a real atlxactive building for Chanhassen. This, of the 4 or 5 basic building designs that Kindercare has, this is our most expensive, our most attractive building. We feel we are going to be the enwance to your community so it's the most attractive building we have to offer and that's why we're proposing to go in your town. Additionally, at the request of the Planning Commission we did upgrade from our original design which was half stucco, half brick building to an all brick building. We've made that change. There are stucco columns around the building that have some color accents and there are some color tiles that have some accents and in all and all I just feel we would make a very good addition... Mayor Chmiel: Richard, any questions? Councilman Wing: Kate, or Sharmin? Can we go back to page 5, item number 22. It mlk.q about the landscaping easement of 30 feet and the 75 feet to Dell and it states this condition has been met. So accordingly you transferred it over to the approval. One thing I wanted to clarify is that because we don't know what the gateway areas are or how they're def'med or even designed yet, I'm concerned that we have the ability to revise and set designs and obviously if it happens before the permit, I guess it's the developer's problem. If it happened after that case, I'd certainly consider it the city's problem but regardless, as a condition, and I'm not 15 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 sure where to put this in here, I'd like to make sure that, if you are suggesting this may be a good idea. That we have the right to change the landscape being designed or make revisions as the Highway 5 corridor develops. Again, it may become our liability but I think we ought to have that ability to revise that plan. I think that's all I had Don, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm confused about well, a reckon understanding of what the difference is in the parking stalls. Why is there an issue with that? Where do we get our numbers from and where do they get their numbers from? Sharmin AI-Jaff: There is a...that site. Our ordinance requires 1 stall per 6 children. The maximum number of children they can have is 200 and then we would require a maximum of 33 stalls. They're providing 44 stalls. The Planning Commission recommended that the number of stalls be reduced down to that 11 extra. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I would suppose taking away the extra 11 would somehow provide some more green area? Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct. However, Kindercare states that they need 44 stalls. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What else did I have? Councilman Mason: May I, it's a question that pertains to that. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Sure. Councilman Mason: With the percentages of impervious surfaces and what not, do they still meet the requirements with the 44 stalls? Sharmin AI-Jaff: Kindercare does meet it. Councilman Mason: Thanks. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think that's the other, besides saying that I really do like the revised circulation. I think that works much better. Much, much better. I'm glad we worked on that. And I guess I have to make a point in saying we did, in talking earlier about the overlay district, before we even pass it we're already running into a conflict with it in terms of parking in front but there's an ample amount of green space in front and with the addition of the, I think it was the 6 foot berm and the landscaping ~reatment, it works so maybe we do have to go back and look at our overlay district and make exception because I think on this comer, it works nicely with the parking out in front. That's the only comment I have. Mayor Chmiel: Go<xl, Michael. Councilman Mason: Kindercare's set back what, about 250 feet? From Highway 5, give or take. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Actually 190 feet. 16 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Councilman Mason: I was close. And there's going to be a 6 foot berm did you say? Sharmin A1-Jaff: It's a 4 feet meandering berm. John Dietrich: Above the parking lot but the elevation of Highway 5 is down lower a little bit and the parking lot will be appearing. Councilman Mason: It will look.., sure. John Dietrich: ...berm from Highway 5. Mayor Chmiel: How much lower is Highway 5 in comparison to where this berm's going to be? John Dietrich: In terms of elevations, Kindercare is supposed to be at 926 floor elevation. The parking lot is approximately 926. The top of berm, about 930. And then the Highway 5 is approximately a 925-924+. Mayor Chmiel: I was just thinking sight line as you're sitting in a car as you're going by. John Dietrich: So the sight line from a car you will be looking at the berm and not visible... Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry Mike. Councilman Mason: No, no. You know this has gone through a whole lot of permutations and a whole lot of convolutions and this, that and the other thing. Quite honestly I'm impressed with what I'm looking at here. I like the way parking issue was resolved. I think the berm with the landscaping with still the city to have the opportunity to put more landscaping in front there if we so desire. It looks nice. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else? Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, Mark. Councilman Senn: Just one .follow-up question on Richards. The easement out there pretty much allows anything in terms of the future, as far as the landscaping goes, right? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. It's giving the city the right to go in there. Councilman Senn: Go into the easement and effectuate whatever it wants then, okay. Councilman Mason: I guess there is one issue we should maybe chat about, is the parking. I'm a little, I mean city staff is saying 33. Kindercare is saying 44. What are we going to do about that? Mayor Chmiel: Well that's the only issue that really stands open for discussion. Councilman Wing: That is preliminary hearing. 17 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, this is still strictly preliminary but it still can be addressed at this particular time. Sharmin A1-Jaff: But it's not going to go. I mean we ran into the same issue last time. It's not preliminary necessarily. This is pretty much going to determine what it looks like, and I don't see it being resolved. I mean they've discussed it back and forth for a couple of months now. We're saying 33. They're saying 44 and that's where it stands. Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah but if they still meet the impervious... Councilman Mason: Yeah, and I. Mayor Chmiel: If it wasn't for that and the only thing I can see the additional parking for is for additional kids coming into that center. You can accommodate up to how many, 200? John Finnemore: Up to 200. One real quick thing on the parking lot, The way it was configured with the 33 stalls, it actually was just as much pavement. They were designed on a 45 degree angles and they did a one way circulation so there's no more asphalt with the 44 than there is with the 33. With the way the configuration is. So the impervious would stay the same. Mayor Chmiel: How many numbers or what is the number, 6 children per person? Is that what it is? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Per stall. John Finnemore: For teacher, for the ratios? Mayor Chmiel: Right. John Finnemore: It varies. Like the infants are 4 to 1 and then that gets up to, the after to school kids are like a 20 to 1 so the overall average is somewhere between 6 to 8 per you know, which on the center of 175 to 200 people. Mayor Chmiel: Total staff. Total staff and maximum of 200. John Finnemore: About 25. About 25 total staff. So you can see where if you've got 44 stalls, 25 of them are taken up by staff, that leaves what, 17 for parents. That's not a real over abundance of parking. Councilman Mason: Well I guess I understand where staff is coming from. I think in this instance I'm a little low to tell Kindercare they don't know how many parking stalls they need. And with this impervious figure thing, I'm okay with 44. I mean with 25 staff, although I'd assume they're probably not there all the time. I mean even if you assume you have 20 stalls taken up with employees, that could get crowded. I don't have any trouble with the 44. Mayor Chmiel: Kate, you were going to, you wanted to say something. Kate Aanenson: Well I was going to make two clarifications on the parking lot where we the overlay district require parking in front. What it says specifically in the ordinance, parking shall not be located within the required minimum front yard setback. We're going to have instances where it's on the side. It's not in the 18 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 minimum front yard. Obviously the desire is not to look at parking lots and try to put them on the side. However...instances where we're going to have some in front of buildings, just to make sure that was clear. Councilman Mason: That's a good point. Kate Aanenson: And where we can put them to the side or screen them behind a building, but when you have double fronted lots when you have a frontage road, it's going to be on one side or the other. Where this is in front of the building, it's not in the front yard setback so it's not inconsistent with the overhy district...and that was the same question that DataServ had and I'll address that specifically in a letter. And the other thing too is just that staff, the ordinance requires a minimum. Again, if that's what they feel like they need for their marketing, we're not sure that that's... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks for that clarification. Councilman Wing: I want to be sure we, in the Highway 5 issues, study that at length because Bill Morrish and Barry and the group talked at length, what are we trying to accomplish. We want the buildings forward. We want the quality forward. We want all other, and I'm going to use the word debris but, because I consider cars in the parking lot and whatever, on the other side and there are going to be variances. Kate Aanenson: Right. Well and if you look at the specific charette design that went into each of those and specifically in the DataServ across the street from this, we looked at there's a narrow parcel between the frontage road. We looked at the parking between the buildings...it will be close to the road... Councilman Wing: There is an intent not to have your building facing from and the parking lot and the entry doors on the highway necessarily. And that was part of the design. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: You're right. I guess all the questions I was concerned too with the ratio of 33 to 44. But ff ' they have met the impervious space there, or they meet that, it's not a concern. I can see if they look at that total number, they may need those additional spaces. But I guess I just don't, often times we don't have enough spaces in many of the facilities that we put in and we have to make them comply with the minimum requirements. Here we're exceeding so I guess I don't have any concern with that. Again with the difference in the topos that are from the highway coming up towards the building, that should adequately screen it. And if you were to even just move that, we say 3 or 4. I'd like to just have us put 4 within it because I think that would take care of much of the concerns. But other than that, I guess I don't have any other questions. Any other discussion? We're going to need 3 different motions and I think we should go to the first. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I, with pleasure, would like to move that we approve the Site Plan Review for the Press and the Kindercare, deleting items 4(!>). Item 18 in it's entirety, including the parking. Item 20 and item 22. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's moved and seconded. Any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Site Plan Review 094-1 as shown on the site plan received June 22, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 19 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosure on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The monument sign on the Kindercare site shall utilize brick as a base for the sign rather than metal poles. 3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 4. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal's memo dated March 10, 1994. a. Submit utility plans showing existing and proposed fire hydrant locations. A determination will then be made if additional hydrants will be needed. b. Deleted. c. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fn'e hydrants. 5. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm even shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department). Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. 9. A rock construction enu'ance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kindercare site off of Dell Road. 10. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 11. The turning radiuses still need to be increased on 77th Street West and no parking signs posted along the main thoroughfare (drive aisle). 12. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 13. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration, All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 20 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Deleted. Deleted, Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. a. Submit a 1/8"=1'0" scale plan of the entire existing building indicating dimensions and use of all spaces and all floors. b. Revise site plans to show site approach details and handicap parking stalls in compliance with MSBC Chapter 1340. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Sweet West. The applicant is working on the design of the roof and will have a new rendering at the City Council meeting. Deleted. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees associated with the traffic study prepared by SRF. Deleted, Proportion of the roof size to the building wall height is incompatible. Architectural plans must be revised to reflect compatibility. The applicant shall bring in architecttual drawings of the Kindereare building making it compatible with buildings in the surrounding area. The applicant is working on the design of the roof and will have a new rendering at the City Council meeting. 22. Deleted. 23. The access between the Press and Kindercare via a curb cut on the center island running north and south shall be closed off and made into green space. All voted in favor and the motion carded. Councilman Mason: I'll move preliminary plat for both Press and Kindercare, items 1 thru 6. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Kate Aanenson: Mayor Chmiel: Kate Aanenson: Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Can we make clarification on that? Certainly. Do you...preliminary.,.final at the same time? No, these are strictly all preliminaxy. As to what are these. 21 City Council Meeting - June 27, i994 Kate Aanenson: Just the preliminary plat. The rest of them you're not going to see. The only thing we're going to see again is for the subdivision and we put that on consent... Mayor Chmiel: Well I think Council indicated at the time it would come back to Council as well. Roger Knutson: ...mentioned and the preliminary plat's not mentioned here on the agenda item, is what Kate is saying. I don't see it. Councilman Senn: So it could be both you mean, or what? Kate Aanenson: No, it wasn't even noticed on here. Roger Knutson: It's not recorded, the preliminary plat is not recordeck.,excuse me, was that approved at your last meeting? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't think so. Kate Aanenson: We did conceptual. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, it was conceptual, That's what it reads within. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It was that funny one that really was a table. Roger Knutson: Well even though it's not on your agenda, you really can still act on it. It's not a public hearing. So if you want to act on the preliminary plat,.. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. It's contained within the information that we have here. Well alright, I guess you can move on it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll move the preliminary plat. Councilman Mason: I already did that, Mayor Chmiel: Alright, all those in favor say aye. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockeudorf seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision $94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition as shown on the plat received April 13, 1994, with the following conditions: 1, Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easeanent shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 and 3, Block 1. b, Dedication of public right-of-way. 22 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 c. A 15 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the access of off 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and ~ed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the city. 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the watershed district, health department, etc. 6. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: And the final and the last. Councilwoman Dockendoff: I'I1 move the conditional use permit for the Kindercare site. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Sure. Yes. Second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Moved and seconded. And where on there are we making sure that we get that 4 foot berming? Kate, are you sure that we're going to get that 4 foot berming? Kate Aanenson said something that was not heard on the tape. Councilman Senn: Change that one from 3 to 4 meandering to 4? Is that? Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's not an item. Mayor Chmiel: No. Kate Aanenson: It's been done on the plan. It's shown on the plan that way so it looks the same... Mayor Chmiel: I just want to make sure it's at 4 feet. Kate Aanenson: You're accepting the plans with this being done. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion? ff not, I'll call the question. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit//94.1 subject to the following conditions: 23 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain all applicable state, county and city licenses, All voted in favor and the motion carried, Mayor Chmiel: Oh, one other thing too. Make sure that when we get these back, the architect's signature is contained on there. They are not on there now. Kate Aanenson: The only thing you'll see again is the final plat of the subdivision. Mayor Chmiel: Well I want to make sure that what we approve now is consistent, okay? Alright. MISSION HILLS, LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT WEST 86TH STREET, TANDEM PROPERTIES: A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY ZONED RSF TO PUD (46.56 ACRES). B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 74 LOTS OF MIXED HIGH DENSITY (186 DWELLING UNITS), 25 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND AN OUTLOT WHICH WILL CONTAIN FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE(S). C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY DWELLING UNITS. Sharmin A1-Jaff: This application is for a total of 208 units.,.single family units. There is an outlot located to the west of the site. This outlot is slated for neighborhood related commemial. You reviewed this application last year and you approved it conceptually. It appeared before the Planning Commission for approval, preliminary plat and PUD approval. The Planning Commission approved it with conditions outlined in the staff report. There were some issues that were raised and would...mass grading is always an issue. Mass grading of the site. With the type of units that we have, the grading, the mass grading is inevitable. However, what the applicant has proposed to do is create new grade berms on this site to make up for the rolling hills that we will be losing. Design elevations of the units on Block 4 was an issue was an issue that was...with the applicant. The majority of the elevations are identical and what we refer to, to the applicant of the proposed...The applicant indicated that he was going to meet with his architect and prepare new design elevations. Designs for the elevations on Block 4 so that would be the one story building only. Another issue that was raised was the size of the lot that immediately abuts...The applicant has, he meets the minimum area of each one of those lots for the 20,000 square feet. They also reduced the number from 8 to 7 lots abutting that subdivision. One of the issues that were raised at the meeting, at the Planning Commission meeting was a request to increase the rear yard setback to..,on those parcels. Staff doesn't believe that there is a need for such an excessive setback between one single family to another and we are recommending that the rear yard setback between the single family remain at 30 feet. Landscaping. The Planning Commission requested that staff review the landscaping plan to make sure that it meets the standards set in the new landscaping ordinance. According to the landscaping ordinance, the multi-family section of the site would need ,9 trees per unit, The single family would need 5 trees per unit, The applicant is providing 3 trees per unit for the multi-family and 3 for the single family so there is a transfer...exceeds the minimum required by ordinance required landscaping and we are recommending that that transfer of landscaping from the single family to the multi-family be approved. Parking setback was another issue that was raised at the Planning Commission for the neighborhood commercial section of the site. Mr. Klingelhutz indicated that a 50 foot parking setback is excessive and would prevent them from utilizing the site to it's maximum potential. Staff is recommending that we use the underlying setbacks for the zoning district 24 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 for neighborhood commercial business, which is 35 feet. That would still allow for a berm as well as landscaping and the parking area would be screened. One last issue that...is the totlot size. Totlot area. Originally when the plan appeared, and even now we fred that_amd it truly was an honest misunderstanding. Very justifiable. The applicant showed the topped part as 1.3 or at least we read it as 1.3. Actlmlly it is a parenthesis and the applicant has indicated that it is a .3, one-third of an acre is what the totlot site is. Todd Hoffman is here to address this issue. It will appear before the Park Commission so I'll turn it over to Todd and have him address the park issue. Todd Hoffman: Thank you Sharmin. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Conceptual site plan was reviewed by the Park Commission about last August and I should make it clear that it is throughout this entire lime been the recommendation that full park and trail fees be required as a part of this development for use elsewhere in the city for acquisition and development. What we are encouraging the applicant to do is to increase the amount of open space within the development for use on site during those times when the residents residing.., other locations for their recreation use. Last year when I had the opportunity to speak to the applicant prior to the commission meeting that evening and they thought...the plan showed a totlot sa-ucture. Upon the conclusion of that meeting, at which they talked about whether or not that met the needs of this little private association totlot if you will, they put forth a recommendation that approving the conceptual site plan, asking the applicant shall provide additional park space and what has been proposed to accommodate the...needs of the residents of this development. Since that time the applicant has moved forward with their plans and we had scheduled this tentatively for review by the preliminary plat stage. At the May meeting that did not occur so it will now go back to the Park Commission...tomorrow night. I believe it was their June 1st Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission took it upon themselves to respond and in some occasions to talk about parks and the totlot issue at length. What they came out with was they would like to see it increased as well but they'd leave it up to the Park Commission to decide on the acreage. Thus is this is one item you're going to review tonight which has not been fully closed as the Park Commission won't look at it again until tomorrow evening. Review for the applicant, they have created some other open areas which they will be explaining to you this evening and...which they feel meet the type of recreational needs of this development would be creating on site. With that I'll answer any questions the Council would have in that regard. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anything more Sharmin? Sharmin AI-Jaff: We are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. The applicant has met basically the majority of these conditions. All the issues that were raised at the conceptual stage, we feel have been answered. Other than the conditions outlined in the staff report, we're recommending approval. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That 186 dwelling units, mixed high density. That's all in compliance with our requirements as well, is that correct? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Does the applicant care to approach the Council? Dick Putnam: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. My name is Dick Pumam. I'm one of the partners in Tandem Properties, which is the purchaser of the property from Mr. Barts and Mr. Klingelhutz. Jim Ostenson, who is in the front row, is my panner. We've developed, well quite a bit of property in the southwest portions of the Twin Cities, Eden Prairie, Plymouth. We have a project in Chanhassen currently called Trotters Ridge which is a single family parcel on Jerome Carlson's, right across on Galpin Boulevard. Also here this evening is Dennis 25 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Marhula, who's in the second row, is one of the partners in Westwood Planning and Engineering who was responsible for the project. And Ed Hasek, who is in the front row, will be presenting the, and we'll try to make it brief, changes that have been made and the improvements to the project to you this evening. I think as the staff has pointed out, the project has been around longer than maybe we all would like. And part of that is no fault of anyone's. Initially we thought we would be under construction August of last year and when the project was submitted in the spring, the problem was TH 101. And Fred Hoisington's study and determining the new alignment and working with the neighbors, that you've done here over the last few months. So we kind of get caught in a catch 22 on that issue. Also just getting the public improvements, the watermain and sewer and those improvements that you're dealing with have helped it out so planning has sort of been going and coming and stopping and going based on those issues. I think as the staff mentioned, we went through the Planning Commission for the last time a few weeks ago and they reviewed the project in substantial detail and made recommendations that we believe we can live with and are improvements in some cases to the project. At this point I think I'd like to ask Ed to maybe briefly point out to yon the changes between the concept plan, which you approved last year and the final plan that you have this evening. They're almost identical. You'll see that we've got a couple little paste Oh'S that show some of the issues related to ponds or the play space, the open space areas that we've tried to address and hopefully that will address what Todd and Sharmin were talking about, particularly on the park issues. And we'll be happy to answer any questions. Ed. Ed Hasek: Good evening. My name is Ed Hasek. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. Our offices are just down the road here in Eden Prairie, Minnesota and I recognize a few faces. I once served on the park board out here in Chanhassen when I lived in the city so hello to those of you I recognize. Just a general orientation of where we're talking about. The Missions Hills project is located in the northeast quadrant of the proposed Highway 101 realignment and proposed Highway 212. It's generally between Rice Marsh Lake, Lake Susan and Lake Riley. The plan which you saw earlier and approved in conceptual form is located on the right side here on the plan that we're proposing this evening is located on the left and I think the reason why we put both of them up for you is just to see how close they really are to the same plan. We've got 16 single family units shown. 16 single family units shown. 56 garden units with a single private drive. 16 garden family units with a single drive. Berming along TH 101 and the realigned 86th Street. Berming along TH 101 and the realigned 86th Street. A 200 foot easement for the proposed upgrading of Highway 101. The commercial area. The neighborhood commercial area in the lower left hand corner and 136 units of villa townhomes on the south side with basically a single private drive through. Again, berming on the commercial side along the proposed 212 and where possible, along 86th as well. Berming again is shown along, and I'll take these out of here so you can see where it came from. Councilman Mason: Rubber cement is a marvelous thing. Ed I4_asek: Spray glue, Berming along 86th, along the commercial area and again along Highway, proposed Highway 212. The totlot in the center and the toflot or the play tot area in the center here. One difference that you may notice between the two plans is a blue areas. When the plan was put together originally we took a cursory look at what we thought we would need for storm water ponding. The more we got into the plan, the more we realized we were going to need more area and that's why some of these additional ponds have shown up on the plan. This one and this one are generally in the same location, although a little bit larger in size. To respond to the request by the parks department to increase the open space, we have worked a little bit with and we still have some issues to resolve with the engineering department. Those related to water quality and quantity ponding. Your engineering department's putting together a plan this week to address area storm water ponding issues and this project will be feeding into those ponds at a future date. What we are anticipating is that several of these ponds may not in fact have to be used for more than a few years or until that plan gets in place. 26 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 One of those is this pond to the north .... will be discharged from the site to a pond to be located a little bit closer to the creek that connects Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake. And in response to that, when that pond disappears, we are advocating adding an additional half acre of open space on the north side of the property to respond to some of the issues that the Planning Commission and the staff had. And that would be an addition of .5 of an acre of open space. Also, in talking with the parks department, an additional change has been made and that change would look something like this. We would remove the berm that we had intended to put in this area and create .2 of an acre of just open space. We would also, when this pond is eliminated and the downslxeam ponding is provided, create an additional .8 of an acre of open space there with the trail linkage that could ultimately connect to some potential acquisition of the parkland to the east of the property. What that does for us is gives us overall between 2 1/2 or between 1 1/2 and 2 acres of open space and play area within the project, which I believe is more in keeping with what the park staff and city staff had in mind when they were reviewing this project in the first place. And I think with that, unless Dick or Jim or Dennis have any additional comments, we would just like to open it up to issues that you have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions of Council? Mark. Councilman Senn: I don't really have a lot of problems with what the applicant's proposing. I think they've done a nice job. I don't have a problem with the solutions now in terms of the open space either. I think that seems to make sense versus clustering it altogether in the middle. I like spreading it out a little bit and I like in particular the potential for the trail access and stuff there. Plus I think in my mind it's a little hard just to kind of separate the totlot because you've got a fairly substantial open area that's really with it there in terms of the ponding area and all that sort of thing so you will probably kind of get used that way anyway. At least my kids are drawn to water a lot. So I don't have any real big problems or questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Dave. Dave Hempel: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, if I could just interject at this time with regards to storm water ponding on the site. The applicant has been in to meet with us. If you read the previous staff report, staff was concerned with the number of storm ponds proposed on the site. Seven specifically. We felt that those ponds were in excess. That they were essentially being plopped in wherever they could fit and we wanted to see more of a regional approach on the storm water management plan. We're still working with the applicant to determine appropriate ponding areas. We do show some areas that discusses removing eventually, we lried, we did have concems...those ponds in their backyards...amenity to some people...for a park or a totlot, ...similar to what we do when we say this road's to be extended in the future. A future homeowner on notice that there's a change coming. Again we are still working with the ponding situation and the overall servicing water management plan. We'd like to do some regional...ponding. However, that probably will not occur for some time due to funding and development proposals in the area so these ponding areas could be around for quite some time... Councilman Senn: David, just clarify something though. But doesn't what they're suggesting down there in the southeast comer kind of go a long way to accommodating that? I mean in terms of that becomes a fairly, it seemed like a fairly significant ponding area that gets converted later with the development of the rest of the system. Dave Hempel: The one located in the southeast comer? Councilman Senn: Yeah. 27 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Dave Hempei: That was actually a very small pond considering the area contributing to it. There are two large wetlands, or one large wetland and a smaller one just to the east that will be taking runoff from this development. Per our standards, they all have to be pre-treated to Walker standards for discharging into their development to serve what we call a 100 year storm event for potential flooding downstream so since we don't have a downstream 100 year flood protection in place yet...provide that storage on site through the use of these Walker ponds and also some use of some existing wetlands, So it's kind of a detailed plan that we're trying to work on here. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Richard. Councilman Wing: Todd, can you review what you're trying to accomplish? I look at this and I see somebody has come in and drawn as many squares as they can possibly get in there and for the number of people this represents, and the density it represents, there seems to be no place to go to bar-be-que, to play. There's no recreational area. What are you trying to accomplish and are we, to accomplish what you maybe would like to, they'd have to Iose a building or two but I think we've got the future to think about here. Is this hurting for public recreational area and what are you trying to accomplish again? Todd Hoffman: Again, as I prefaced my other comments, we're not attempting to create a public open space here. Simply to...accommodate those short trips to the open space or to walk around the development and just stop and experience the quality which an open space park area would own. So at .3 acres, that's a very small area...Not a very large area. The Park Commission, that type of an area was displayed to the Park Commission last time, I believe it was August, and they asked for additional land. Now what that is, I picked out an arbitrary number at an acre and a half for presentation to the Park Commission last time. And whether or not they're willing to see that acre and a half be centrally located at the totlot location and yes, you would have the ability to do that, is yet unseen. Councilman Wing: Have you looked at a small recreation area north and a small recreational south, so that each complex would have it's own little park area to go to? Todd Hoffman: The Park Commission has not considered a park, a formalized park setting to the north but the Planning Commission asked that that be considered. Councilman Wing: I guess just my opinion is that with those densities and the two separate areas, both should have a bar-be-que area, a meeting place, toflot, whatever the case is. I'm not sure I would define it but some type of recreational open space in both of those areas. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, just to tack onto what Richard said. I agree that the open space seems to be wholly inadequate for the amount of homes we're looking at there. In addition I think we've attempted to give a good transition to the Rice Lake Manor but I don't think we're accomplishing it yet. We've still got, looking in these plans, we've still got 3 lots abutting one piece of property. Or 2 1/2 lots abutting one piece of property and I'd be hypocritical if I said it's okay in one part of the city and not in another and I don't think it works here but I still think we need a little work on that eastern side with the number or with the size of those lots in the single family. I'm also concerned about the traffic that this will generate and is this too soon in terms of it 28 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 being built and then TH 101 coming later with the construction concerns and the current amount of traffic that TH 101 can handle. I do have a question for the developer. What price ranges are we looking at for these? Dick Putnam: They're really three distinct type of units. Should I go up here? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Please. Dick Putnam: There are three distinct type of units. On the north side of the road is the atrium unit which is really designed for the retired or empty nester person. They're one level, a townhouse type unit with their own patio and 2 car garage. It's really for someone selling their house and moving in. Those units are probably priced, and it depends on options. I mean 2 fireplaces, 1, that kind of thing. I believe they go in the $80,000.00-$90,000.00 price bracket. On the south side of the road, there are two types of units. You'll notice the single or longer, the 4 and 6 unit buildings and then the wider buildings that are the back to back. Either an 8 or a 12 unit building. Those are called villa units. Those are very similar to the units in Eden Prairie. As you drive on Highway 5 just before you get to Dell Road on the south side. The gray buildings that you see... Those units will be priced in the probably mid 70's up to maybe the mid 80's, depending upon the units. They have either a 2 or 1 car garage on 1,400 square feet, two level unit and they're really set up very well for young couples. Retired people by and large, if they have a choice, would take the single level units. Young couples, single individuals, single parents, these are ownership units so they aren't rental units and really, particularly in the southwest part of the metropolitan area, we haven't been able to build them fast enough. The projects, the ones that we were associated with in Eden Prairie, they never did get a model built. It was about 100 units. They used a trailer as a sales center and all of the units were sold before construction began so they would expect, and Centex has had the same experience in Eden Prairie with a similar type of project. There's a real crying need in the marketplace for ownership below $100,000.00 home. Councilwoman Dockendorf: How about single family? What price range? Dick Putnam: Single family, with the almost half acre lot size, the 20,000 foot lots, those are going to be custom builders. Maybe of the same builders that are in the Trotters Ridge, Jim is really the intent at this point, and... Price range there will be. Jim Ostenson: Probably from $200,000.00 to $275,000.00. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you find that that works abutting next to the villa homes and the patio homes? That works? Jim Ostenson: We didn't have any problems with it when we've done it... Dick Putnam: If you drive...projects that we did, 65 single family project and a townhouse project in the vill0s, and single family lots, the entrance is right across the street from the villa~q and...It's worked. And we did the villa project before the single family. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thanks. Ed Hasek: Just a quick comment if I might on the...staff's comments. It's our understanding that, and perhaps Dave can help me with this, that the potential for this project to be served by existing TH 101 is there. The 29 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 capacity is already existing on the existing Highway 101. So it's not as though we're going to overload the existing system... Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would beg to differ with that but if that's what the traffic studies say. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: The play lot issue I'm going to let rest with Park and Rec. I'll go. with their recommendation on that. However that washes out. I believe Councilwoman Dockendoff and I disagreed on the single family issue where they abut before and I suspect we'll continue to. They're 20,000 square foot lots and they're going to be nice homes. That's, land gets developed and that's what happens. I see that as being okay. I'm fine with you know, depending on what Park and Rec decides and where the storm ponds go, I'm f'me. Mayor Chmiel: I would like to just mention something. I think that this particular project should be tabled, even though Council's reviewing it right now. It seems to be a little bit out of sequence. It has not gone to the Park Commission as yet. I would think with some of the wordage within, there's some changes that should be done. Kate, are you listening to what I'm saying? This would be my suggestion at this particular time, Until it's completely through Park and Rec, then it should be back to us to look ac But I think you've got kind of a feel from Council as to what we're looking at. And once we get' some recommendation back from them as well, we should be able to address that at that time. Is that correct Roger? Roger Knutson: Yes Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay, so I would motion to table. Councilman Senn: I'd like to ask a question if I could. Mayor Chmiel: I've got a motion on the table. I just made it. Councilman Senn: Oh! I thought you asked for a motion. Mayor Chmiel: No, I said I would motion to table this project and have it go back to the Park and Rex: Commission. Councilman Wing: If I second that, does he get to ask his question? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Wing: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Discussion. We always have discussion. Councilman Senn: Todd what, if you go with the larger park areas, how is that going to turn around and affect the overall plan as it relates to the wail and the dedication stuff?. Todd Hoffman: It will have no effect on it. 30 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Councilman Senn: None at all? Todd Hoffman: .3 to an acre and a half is insignificant in the realm of our overall comprehensive park plan. Councilman Senn: In terms of the plan correct, but how about in terms of the financial contribution and that sort of thing back to us that you were anticipating? Todd Hoffman: We're still asking that this be a product of an association facility so we're not going to give them credit for the facility you see here or any expansion of it Similar to the multi-family developments at the Oak Ponds or Oak Hill, they're putting in a private association facility as a part of their development. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well then I guess I have a question for Roger. Roger, can we still do that in light of what the Supreme Court decided last week? Roger Knutson: The decision is right here. Councilman Senn: I understand. I understand that we haven't seen any feedback on it yet. Roger Knutson: I've read it. This applicant started back in, this doesn't affect it, to answer that question. Because it first, I'll brief you on that. It's long and tx>ring. The upshot of it is, there's a lot of noise about this but it doesn't make all that much difference. Actually since you asked, I enjoy this subject It starts with approval of a Minnesota Supreme Court decision that we've been following for the last 20 years. Many communities do give credit. In this situation, many communities do not. You're not asking, this is not a.~king for an exaction from the developer. You're not taking something from him. It would remain in private ownership so it's not a park and trail dedication. It's just an acknowledgement that when you come in and ask for a planned unit development, in return for getting densities and other things, you're required to give something. Create other amenities. Off setting amenities. Balance densities and things like that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Wing: And as we're going on, a PUD on this, I think when we look at, and my views on it are strictly my opinion but when we look at this type of density, it takes a lot from the city in terms of services and the traffic impacts and the stop lights that are going to be coming in, etc, etc, etc. So when we start asking for a little open space or parkland, I think it's a real minimum, minimal request for what this really generates in a negative sense for the city, at least in my opinion. I have to, I just hope when all our projects are done and the Highway 5 study is done and all these things we've got on our agenda are done, we can sit down and concentrate with Mike and ask us, how much of this high density do we want? How much of this high density do we need? But more important, can we transition from this high density into some affordable single family housing. I'd just as soon, I wish we were looking at a single family affordable housing right now. Councilman Senn: So to make sure you get into subsidy or something, that's real tough. Councilman Mason: We should take a look at it. Mr. Mayor, with this motion to table, Park and Rec's meeting on it tomorrow night so I'm assuming this would be on our agenda in 2 weeks. Is that a safe assumption? Mayor Chmiel: It will be on your agenda tomorrow? 31 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Todd Hoffman: It's on the agend~ Mayor Chmiel: It is? Alright. Okay,. motion's on the floor with a second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on Mission Hills Planned Unit Development until the Park and Recreation Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. BUDGET AMENDMENT, PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, SOUTHWEST REGIONAL LRT TRAIL CONSTRUCTION. Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. As I hope most of you are aware, Hennepin Parks is in the final stage of completing...improvements on two different raikoad segments which affect the city of Chanhassen. The north corridor which runs from Hopkins through Minnetonka, Shorewood, to Victoria to Carver Park. And the south corridor starting again in Hopkins, running through Minnetonka, Eden Prairie into Chanhassen and then concluding hopefully at Chasks. Hennepin Parks looked at this and it's not that they don't do work in other counties. They operate many parks in other counties, Carver and Scott among them. But once they get out of Hennepin County, they get a little bit nervous in spending money. They wanted to find a suitable terminus however so they could head south to Shakopee. A regional trail is going to be designed to reach Murphy Hannering Park which they operate in Scott County...Park they operate there as well. They decided upon Bluff Creek. Throughout their entire negoOat_ion, or planning process, we encouraged them to keep the segment all the way through Chanhassen to Chaska. They came up...so they're quitting at Bluff Creek. What we'd like to do is participate with the City of Chaska to complete that, the next mile from Bluff Creek to Highway 212... cities of Chaska and Chanhassen lies solely within the city of Chanhassen but Chaska's agreed to pay approximately 50% of the cost. At their last City Council meeting they approved the expenditure up to $9,000.00 for that purpose. Thus we had Veit Construction Company on site. They work for Hennepin Parks. They will complete the next segment. The City of Chanhassen as the principle on the project. For $3.50 a foot, and that's putting down 10 feet of limestone rock and shoulders. In trusting that, and doing some miscellaneous work on the far south side...access to this site. Briefly I can show you...so you can get an idea. You get to the Chanhassen border at Pioneer Trail. So the trail segment comes out of Eden Prairie, then it crosses underneath Pioneer Trail and heads down opening out onto the bluffs in this vicinity where you can see the Shakopee river valley. Highway 101, they took the bridge out. The single concrete bridge. That will be replaced this fall under separate contract by Hennepin Parks. So Hennepin Parks will be paying for that bridge overpass. And then they will conclude at Bluff Creek here with a trail head of sorts. A parking lot. The lighted way widens up in that location so they can allow for some parking. We would like to complete the segment from Bluff Creek to the city of Chasks. It would dead end at this point for a short period of time. Short being 1 year, 2 years, until the City of Ch,asks can come back from the west and make a connection at that point. So that is what I'm asking for this evening. A budget amendment mending the 410 budget, Park Acquisition and Development to approve an additional expenditure not to exceed $12,000.00. We are far exceeding our to date anticipated revenues from park and trail funds so there's at least a desperate shortage of revenues for this type of expenditure to occur. Mayor Chmiel: Todd, in discussion with what you were just saying that point to Chuska, is there a letter of commitment that Chaska would give to us assuring that they will continue that trail? Todd Hoffman: Certainly. Absolutely. They're going to come to this thing with $9,000.00 to finish it. We'll get the letter of transfer of dollars as to the extension... 32 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Councilman Senn: 9 or 127 Todd Hoffman: Originally we looked at the aggregate mount, which was $18,000.00 and that's the information they reviewed at City Council. And then after further discussions with Veit, they have to do some excavation there at the south end to get a construction access so I had to speak with the city of Chaska. They'll split this thing even/even. If it goes up to $22,000.00, or $20,000.00, they're committed to $9,000.00. Nevertheless, the difference is insignificant... Councilman Senn: Well in here you say you have a total cost of $24,000.00? Todd Hoffman: Not to exceed $24,000.00 .... costs are unknown at this I/me. Councilman Senn: Okay. But basically then they could pay 9 and we'd pay the balance on it. Todd Hoffman: Or they might...Again, it's all within the city of Chanhassen... Councilman Senn: What falls by the wayside? Todd Hoffman: Excuse me? Councilman Senn: Taking the money and using it for this. What out of this year's priorities falls by the wayside? Todd Hoffman: Nothing. Again we're asking for additional monies to be documented or to he'allocated so there's, this is a high priority in the city. It's something which we can do now at a-..cost which is very low. It's opportunity knocking. If we would bid this out, it would obviously be much more expensive. If other opportunities such as this one would present themselves throughout the year, we would do the same type of... City Council asking for additional funding. Councilman Senn: Where is it coming from then Don? Don Ashworth: Well as Todd mentioned, we are receiving revenue monies far in excess of what we originally anticipated in the year. So what you in fact are doing is mending the budget to increase park revenues and at the same point in time amending the budget to allocate those for this particular project. Mayor Chmiel: DOn told me actually he'd take a dollar and buy a lottery ticket and hopefully he'd win it. He'd make that contribution. Councilman Senn: I thought we were already short, that's why I was asking. DOn Ashworth: Well, the park acquisition, that's a dedicated fund so the monies are ahead of where we thought they were going to be, so. Councilman Senn: Okay, and the Parks Commission didn't care about working that into their priorities or? Todd Hoffman: No. They were all enthusiastically in favor of this. They asked why did you even call. 33 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Councilman Senn: Because it's new money, right? Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Councilman Mason: I would like to make a motion that we amend the 1994 Park Acquisition and Development CIP to include costs, etc, etc, as stated in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Is them a second? Councilwoman Dockendoff: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Resolution ~)4-64: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to amend the 1994 Park Acquisition and Development CIP to include costs not to exceed $12,000.00 to pay 50% share of costs to construct a 10 foot wide aggregate trail along the HCRRA Southwest LRT Corridor from Bluff Creek Drive to Highway 212, authorizing staff to administer this project at unit prices with Veit Construction of Rogers, Minnesota. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPOINTMENTS: A. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Mayor Chmiel: As Don's note indicates, that under Minnesota Statute, the Mayor solely has the responsibility to make the nomination for HRA appointments. I've had many discussions with many people. There's a lot of pros and cons to the issue of having Council on as fully members of the HRA and I believe that it was basically in the minority more so than being a majority. And so therefore I am going to recommend that we reappoint Jim Bohn. Councilman Wing: I'll move that recommendation. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Is them any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, same old, same old I guess is all I have to say. Hopefully I'm wrong. Mayor Chmiel: Me too. Councilwoman Dockendoff: As I stated before, I'd just like to see increased communication. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think that whole thing that you indicated before Colleen, is that we do get the Minuw. s of the meeting. And if Council has that desire, it's an open meeting for everybody to be there. And my suggestion is that if Council has opinions of what the agenda is, is to come to those meetings and express those opinions. And we're going to be sitting still with 2 members on I-IRA and hopefully they'll do a good job. Resolution g94-65: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Jim Bohn to the 34 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Housing and Redevelopment Authority. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. B. YOUTH COMMISSION APPOINTMENT. Mayor Chmiel: Okay Youth Commission appointments. I suggest that we don't take any action on it this evening because we're still lacking 2 of the contestants for this and there were only 2 of the Council people there. Even though we won't be able to bring back the 3, at least Colleen and ! can tell you about those 3. But at least get the other 2 back in and Todd indicated that 1 could not be here this evening and wanted to do this so maybe we could have this put on, right prior to the next Council meeting and have that at 7:00, which was this evening's one. Is there a motion to table? Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the Youth Commission appointment until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE REGARDING CABLE TV RATE REGULATION, FIRST READING. Don Ashworth: City Council previously authorized staff to fde for re-regulation. We in fact did that. We set up the...before our regulatory power actually starts. Anticipation of having that approved and obtaining the authority to regulate, we're recommending that the Council approve fa-st reading of the attached ordinance that would actually carry out that regulation. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any questions? Councilman Senn: Don, when you talked about, all the way through the ordinance you refer to the city. Can you define that more? DOn Ashworth: Well, in this instance it would represent the City Council. Councilman Senn: Okay, so the City Council in effect is the Cable Commission then? Don Ashworth: Right. Any...that need to be made... Councilman Senn: Alright. Just a clarification. Don Ashworth: I would assume that the Mayor and I would continue to meet with the cable company and talk about providing better services but if we were to, ff we saw any form of enforcement, we would have to come back to you to provide recommendation and you would have to take the action. Mayor Chmiel: By the way, according to the cable company, the rote for outlets is going to be dropped as of August but I have asked staff to do some checking in regards to some of the calls that were being made to the city. And I oppose vehemently of their and the way they were selling their cable system. That they discontinued calling residents within the community. This is where they gave you Encore for an additional $3.99 and you would get a credit of x number of cents off your next bill, which would be about 96 cents or somewhere in that neighborhoock And they had a calling campaign coming out from Illinois in regard to this. But the question was asked of them, of whether or not, if you chose not to take Encore, would that $4.95 charge 35 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 still be on your bill, and the answer was yes. And I asked it 5 times just to make sure that was clarification. So I didn't like their way of selling their program and they did stop it. And so consequently I've had some discussion with staff, just to make sure that what they're doing is proper and if they have discontinued some of those, all the charges and providing them with Encore, there may be some, hopefully some rebates coming back. Whether it's possible or not, that's another question. Okay. Did I get a motion for the first reading? Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Chmieh Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the first reading of the Ordinance Amending City Code regarding Cable TV Rate Regulation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Council Presentation, Richard. Councilman Wing: It's been taken care of. Mayor Chmiel: You took care of your Eurasian Water Milfoil and you mentioned something about conflict of interest. Councilman Wing: Editorially in the newspaper, a couple things that the Editor had to say in recent papers. It hit home to me personally and I speak solely for myself. And I just want to state to staff and each member of Council and anybody else that ever chooses to bring this up. That any time that I'm involved in a, personally involved in a street that affects me, a tree, a dock, a piece of fire equipment, fire pay. Any perception at level of conflict, I'd like to be, have it mentioned and I will gladly and respectfully step down and not question that issue at all. Several years ago I got caught up in an issue with a councilmember. He was determined to have an issue, or they were determined to have an issue and we were kind of pressured into making a decision I thought was wrong. And the editorial on conflict of interest kind of hit home to me a little bit and maybe we need to get our house rules in order a little bit. I know you were going to bring it up but that's almost a separate issue. I just want to state for myself, any time anybody senses that I might have a conflict of interest or a perception of it, nothing is that critical that I have to sit here and put anybody under stress and I would willingly and very respectfully remove myself from that conversation. Or that issue. That's all I wanted to say. Mayor Chmieh Same thing that I was looking at too is establishing some kind of ethics for Council, and I don't know if any other cities have those kinds of things in relationship to some of the things Richard's talking about or even with developments. Roger Knutson: Some cities have ethic code... Mayor Chmieh Okay. We don't. I would suggest maybe that we look at that. Roger Knutson: I'll give you some examples. 36 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Item number 11. Councilman Senn: Don, just a question. I wasn't here at the beginning but has anybody asked about, what's the deal with all the junk cars down on Highway 5? Mayor Chmiel: Oh I've already addressed that with Todd last week. Todd Gerhardt: They're temporarily stored there so we can put the parking lot in for the Hanus building. There was no space left on site to put the parked cars. Councilman Senn: So those are like cars that people drive? I mean no. You're gong to really surprise me with this answer I'm sure but I can't imagine anybody drives any of those but go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: An auto repair person, those are his projects that he's going to work on whenever he gets the time type of thing. Mayor Chmiel: Todd and I already had discussions regarding that. Councilman Senn: When are they going to be gone? Todd Gerhardt: I would say within the next 2 to 3 weeks the blacktop will be put down. Mayor Chmiel: Can we build a berm? Councilman Senn: Isn't there a more appropriate place we could put them? Todd Gerhardt: Well, I don't think they're ready to go that far. Like I said, within the next 2 to 3 weeks they will be moved out of there. Any time there's an accident, that's one of the spots that they can go until the car can actually Don Ashworth: be restored. Todd Gerhardt: Don Ashworth: Todd Gerhardt: Not that particular spot. Not where we currently have it but where they used to be. Right. In order to get grading and dirt being moved in, we took advantage of the lot between Brown and the Car Wash and that was even full and these were the ones that don't run. So they will be moved back as soon as the blacktop goes down. Mayor Chmiel: And also in between Riveria and. (There were a couple different conversations going on simultaneously at this point.) Mayor Chmiel: Even discussions that the HRA were the fact that we clean up the site right on 78th Slreet. Hopefully that's going to be taken care of within a very short period of time, is that right? 37 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Todd Gerhardt: more. Mayor Chmiel: Todd Gerhardt: I called the engineers and asked them that there should be no reason for the signs and...any And all the materials and equipment within that particular location. Good, thank you. I think you've got 4 or 5 more days left ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: POLL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS RE: WORK SESSION DATE IN AUGUST, SENIOR HOUSING, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: The Mayor relayed no July so but on the other side of the coin, the seniors are anxious to mice and see us grapple with the issue of senior housing so I was wondering what the Council would be looking at for August, I don't know, your off Mondays are not good, I know that they're not good for Councilman Wing. And I think you've got what, 1 or 2 soccer coaches. Councilman Senn: Yeah, but that's all over, Councilman Mason: Soccer's done then. Don Ashworth: Oh, it's all done? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you're out of town. Councilman Mason: I will be out of town the last week of July and the first 2 weeks of August Councilman Wing: Me too. Councilman Mason: Well, where are you going? Councilman Wing: Fishing. Councilman Mason: Me too. Mayor Chmiel: How al~ut the 16th of August? Councilman Wing: What day is that? Mayor Chmiel: Tuesday. Councilman Mason: I can be there. Don Ashworth: Do another early one then? The 5:30 time frame? 38 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Councilman Mason: I'll be a hungry boy coming back from vacation. Mayor Chmiel: Any other business? If not, can ! have a motion to adjourn? Councilman Senn: Don, one thing on administrative. That letter that was in there on the school use in a downtown zone. The school use, the thing related to church and the school district. You know the letter that went back to them really kind of implied that everybody thought it was okay and maybe everybody else here did and I thought it was fine too but I really wanted some type of caveat on it that made it temporary. So it was not a long term decision at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think they're going to be coming back. Kate Aanenson: It's going through the formal process so you will see it at a formal hearing. It's before the Planning Commission. It's been noticed for a public hearing before the Planning Commission... Councilman Senn: But did we get an answer to the question, is there a way for us to do it on a timeframe that's controllable rather than permanent? Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if they can give you a real answer yet but hopefully they can give us an answer when they come in. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I had asked it before the letter was written but that's what I was curious. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that, motion for adjournment. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 39