Loading...
CC Minutes 1994 06 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin AI-Jaff, and Scott Harr APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason mOved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Appraiser Selection for the RALF Program. b. Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code Concerning Firms and City Shooting Boundary Map Revision, Final Reading. c. Resolution g94-56: Approval of Temporary Gambling Permit Request, St. Hubert's Church. d. Approval of Landscaping Plan for Market Square Second Addition. f. Approve Development Contract and Plans and Specifications for Lot 5, Block 1, Sun Ridge Addition, Project 93-33. i. Resolution g94-57: 1. Resolution ~94-58: 92-12. m. Approval of Bills. n. City Council Minutes dated May 23, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 18, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 1, 1994 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated May 12, 1994 o. Amendment to Section 19-28 of City Code regarding Sprinkling Restrictions, First Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Accept Public Utility Improvements in Trotters Ridge, Project 93-18. Call Public Hearing Date on Lake Lucy Road Street and Utility Extension Project City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 G. MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council. You should have before you tonight a revised copy. There were some clerical, grammatical type errors, if you will, with the development contract and the conditions of approval with the final plat. I've highlighted on that copy what the changes are. Basically, in summary, page 1. There was a correction to the listed name of the developer on the development contract. On page 2 there was a typo on the zip code. On page 3, item (h). Landscaping and berming will be allowed. Or no berming and landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way other than cul-de-sac islands or median on the Landings Drive. And on page SP-5. A condition Z is added where the developer may use Ouflot B as a temporary access to the site... Mayor Chmiel: Good. With those additions to that particular proposal, I would so move that. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Final Plat, Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for Minnewashta Landings as amended by the City Engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. H. REQUEST FOR A WAIVER FROM STANDARD WORK HOURS, THE MEADOWS AT LONGACRES, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. Charles Folch: This item was a request for a waiver to the standard work hours for construction. It's a request by the developer. Notices were sent out to all the properties at the time of the construction site. Staff did receive a few phone calls as of late last week and today concerning this time frame and mainly their concern is for the, not so much the noise of the construction vehicles but the actual safety beeper that's on them when they're in the reverse mode. But the few that did call, we talked and we discussed the issue with them about, can came to the resolution that maybe it would be a good idea to put this as a full week temporary situation. If at such time there would be complaints and it's not working out, then basically this work extension variance would be rescinded and the calls that we did get, those residents were happy with that compromise of one week's. Unless there's a problem... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Mason: With that condition on that, I'd move approval of item l(h). Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Doekendorf seconded to approve the request for waiver from standard work hours at the Meadows at Longacres, Lundgren Brothers Construction as amended by the City Engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously, K. APPROVE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE. Councilman Senn: I talked with Roger and I can't say that I disagree with Roger's conclusions as it relates to kind of the money versus time that would be wasted or whatever. I think with the changes we kind of have to 2 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 take it in the shorts on the park fees on I think the only property in Chanhassen where the government's going to be paid $30.00 a square foot base rent. That's $500,000.00 a year and I just, I hope we make it up on the other end where we have the assessor establish the value for the property. I'd like staff to kind of followl~up on that with the assessor. Mayor Chmiel: I think that basically what I was saying, in the court systems and we wouldn't come out on this. It'd be a losing proposition for us. With the kinds of agreements that we're finally talking about, I think that his recommendation I sort of concur with him only because of the fact that nobody wins outside the attorneys, excuse me Roger, when you go to corm. The city comes on the short end, even though we might win. Whatever it might be. But in this particular case, I think the agreement with that, the conditions that were in there, relating to the purchase and the selling of that property for that period of time and we came in with our fees later on. I can understand from that as well. But with that, if you'd like to move that particular item. Councilman Senn: Yeah, so moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Modified Development Contract for the National Weather Service. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Steve Kern: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Steve Kern. I live at 6540 Devonshire Drive in Chanhassen and I'm here tonight representing the Chanhassen congregation of Jehovah's Wimesses. Real briefly, I was wondering if I could first just give Council and the Mayor a handout to look at another time or...now. The main thought is carried on page 2 and goes back to a letter dated May 21, 1993 from City Hall and the history behind the letter is that before we purchased our land there in the Chanhassen Business Center, Lot 1, Block 1, we approached treasury and another individual in the fall of '92 and asked what our assessments would be. Audubon Road, 15. Bluff Creek, 17.9. Then before closing on the land we asked for this letter dated May 21st, so some 6 months later so everyone knew that we had not closed on the land yet but we asked again because of our responsibilities for the congregation, what would the numbers be for the Bluff Creek assessment for our 2 acres. In the letter, towards the end of the first paragraph, on page 2, they quote $7,700.00 plus the $10,200.00 or about $17,900.00. And since that time, after or during the closing and from that point forward, in our file, what the front page shows and now it's actually a solid bond has taken place at 10 years at 8% but the lot is charged with $28,079.00. And we're just asking that the rest of the package be reviewed at a future time for the history of this and our request really is at the very last paragraph on that front page. That the Chanhassen congregation is therefore requesting a reduced interest payment on Bluff Creek in 1995. A reduction of interest of $2,246.34 and that the length of the bond and Bluff Creek term be 15 years. Well that part, I don't know if it's possible at 15 years now that's...10 years but as you can see, and when we were again with treasury today to make sure, 1994 has an interest of $1,874.00. 1995 it's payable in '95. The 2486 and the principle of 2807 for a total of 6926. Audubon Road is $3,000.00. So due and payable next year, 1995, will be the $10,011.00 and it's quite a bit more than what we were understanding it to be and beyond what the congregation feels they can handle. So we were just approaching Council for the possibility of some relief on that or some discussion in the future. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What we'll do is accept the information that you've provided to us and I would ask our attorney to prepare a response for our next agenda. So this would be on June 27th. 3 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Steve Kern: Good, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you, Is there anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING: NEUMANN SUBDIVISION, LOCATED SOUTH OF SANDPIPER LANE AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE LANE, ARNOLD AND ANN WEIMERSKIRCH: A. VACATION OF RIGHT.OF.WAY ON MINNEWASHTA AVENUE. _B. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25.9 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT; AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION OF A WETLAND. Public Present: Name Address ~)live Neumann Anne Weimerskirch Art Johnsen Ken Adolf Harry D. Peters 2841 Sandpiper Trail 2831 Sandpiper Trail 18300 Minnetonka Blvd, Schoell & Madson, Inc. 18300 Minnetonka Blvd. Mayor Chmiel: I would like to open this public hearing at this time and if I could have staff indicate what the concerns are, Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. The applicants are proposing a 9 lot, single family subdivision and it's located on the north side of Lake Minnewashta, It's an old subdivision. It's a replat of a subdivision that goes back to the late 1800's. This subdivision also includes a request to vacate...Access to the site via a 360 foot cul- de-sac which comes off of Tanager's Lane. We believe that the way the subdivision has been modified, it's really a superior layout. This did go to the Planning Commission twice,.,recommended to table to resolve some design issues, Specifically the location of the storm water pond. A little more information on the tree survey and elimination of some variance requests. Access into the subdivision is a little difficult. It's pinched between the existing wetland here and the existing house. So access into the site, staff is recommending a 50 foot right- of-way through this area but we are requesting a 60 foot radius cul-de-sac be provided. There are two variances requested as I indicated in order to get through the wetland with the street. It does pinch between the existing house and the wetlands so we're requesting variances for the two existing homes which we feel is warranted. Other than that, the rest of the lots meet requirements. We are requesting that Lots 1 and 2 be combined. That's these lots, One lot really is kind of topographically separated. It's access would come off of Piper Ridge Lane and Lot 2. Staff is recommending that those be combined. The one off of Piper Ridge Lane has a driveway of 16 feet, The home would be up on a knoll and the other home is almost at grade with the wetlands so the integrity of that lot really isn't there so we feel that it makes more sense to combine those lots... applicant's support that. This subdivision does fall within the shoreland district which means all lots abutting,,. 20,000 square foot minimum lot size, which they do. There is a natural wetland I think around the entire subdivision. It's upland area in the lots,.. The wetland follows, this is the lake here, The wetland follows around. This is the natural wetland. The entire subdivision. The applicant's are proposing a conditional use for recreational beachlot. The beachlot itself meets the standards...of over 45,000 square feet. They would be 4 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 allowed, based on the size of square footage...to have 9 boat slips. We are recommending that there be one common dock with the 9 slips. The DNR supports that, although they are requiring, because there are going to be more than 4 boats, a marina permit.. But they do support the 9...As I mentioned, this did go to the Planning Commission twice. Staff does recommend approval of the four actions. The fmal action that you'd be looking at would be the street vacation, as I indicated of the old plat. The old Minnewashta Avenue. As you recall, we looked at this as part of the beachlot that we had at the end of the subdivision for Minnewashta Manor. At the end of this is Minnewashta Manor. That's actually in that location. There's four actions that you'd be looking at tonight. One would be the preliminary plat. We are recommending approval with those conditions. They have been modified and the Planning Commission modifications are shown in bold and anything else shaded would be a strike out. The conditional use for the recreational beachlot. The wetland alteration permit and then four is the street vacation. I'll leave this picture of the map and the street vacation at the very end and that's... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. Is the applicant or the anyone wishing to indicate any concerns regarding the proposal? Ken Adolf: Your honor, members of the Council. My name is Ken Adolf. I'm with Schoell and Madson. We're engineers for the applicant. The applicant has worked with the planning staff and they have agreed to the conditions. I guess I'd just like to highlight a couple items. First of all on item 22, which is regarding the cul- de-sac island. The applicant...without the island...On the item 23. That refers to some deferred assessments for sewer and water some years ago. The applicant had requested that those assessments were going to be forgiven because they're on the portion of the property which is wetland. ..spreading the assessments over the entire parcel. And then again, the highlight of item 12, what the applicant's request was was to exempt the lot of the two existing homes from your requirements for the storm water fees. It's my understanding that those fees would not apply to the existing homes and therefore we could...two existing homes in this subdivision should be exempt as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Kate, would you address those. First of all the island. Kate Aanenson: Certainly. It's been a policy. We've been requested recently for the landscaped islands we had at Longacres. That they do put an island in. The Fire Marshal's requesting that based on the fact that they can't get a fire truck around them. And especially the fact that their beachlot at the, that there's parking down there, we can't get emergency vehicles around the islands. Whether they're parked on the inside or the outside of that island. We certainly see that as a desirable feature to have but the safety just overrides that. If they choose not to do that, when it comes for £mal plat then that condition will just not be carded... Other than that, they do want to put it in as it was requested they...per the Fire Marshal's request. The second one, number 23 was, from my understanding there's two assessments still outstanding that are approximately $18,000.00 and they're requesting the one assessment be waived and that's the one on Sandpiper Lane. It's the opinion of the engineering department that based on the fact that we still have to pay for the costs of bringing this service down Sandpiper Lane into the two homes there, that both assessments still should be paid by the applicant. So what we're saying of this is, if they choose to spread those out over these new lots, that we would look at that. But at this point we would not support having those... Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Kate. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to address this proposal? This is your opportunity to come forward and indicate your concerns, if there are any. Is there anyone wishing to come forward? If not, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Wing: Kate, just the only question I've got at all on this is the dock. It goes through kind of a natural area and then goes into an existing channel that has been closed throttle. It's a very natural area. And as the dock is shown, it kind of comes into a real back water area. And in being in there today, we had to paddle out with an inboard. It was all muck and weeds. How far out can they go? Kate Aanenson: With this specification here is not necessarily how it's going to be laid out. In working with the DNR, they provided the staff with depths of how the dock can be laid out and the DNR's flexible on how we lay that out. And they provided that information so it's, I think it can be laid out certainly with an L shape or something else. Councilman Wing: Yeah, I don't mind the dock shape or if that's the case. How far out can they go? I mean to get enough depth, they're almost going to be into the channel. Kate Aanenson: The ordinance allows you to go up to 4 foot in depth. To bring your dock out as far to get 4 feet in depth, Normally it's 50 feet or as far as you need to get to 4 feet in depth. But as you know on that side of the lake, there's some docks that go out 200 feet .... showed us one I believe he was talking about 190 length of dock. Councilman Wing: Okay but it's a very narrow, navigable channel. If you're in the middle, it's a little deeper because the boats over the years have dug it out literally and then to either side you're in the mud. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. They provided us with, I didn't put it in here but they provided us with depths to show us how that L works. We did review that. Mayor Chmiel: You're saying it's workable and viable? Kate Aanenson: Yes. And they'll have to work with the DNR again because they're having more than 4 slips. Councilman Wing: Without going into the channel? Kate Aanenson: Well, there's the channel. Councilman Wing: That probably shows it. Let me just get up here a minute Kate because I want to make sure this is clear. This is all heavy vegetation going through here. And there's a very narrow area that you can actually navigate this. The way you're showing it is the beachlot kind of comes through here and the dock kind of comes into here. It's sort of, I don't have any trouble with that but as soon as you go up along this artificial shoreline here, where you go through this little back water area, to get 4 feet of depth, you could be out into this channel and at that point this becomes unacceptable. I just want to know how far to get to that 4 feet will it put it in the channel and if that's the case it's. If it stays in this back water area, it really isn't going to affect that area at all. If it goes beyond that into the channel area, then it's really becoming a major. Do you think that's accurate? Kate Aanenson: With the depth... Councihnan Wing: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Question answered. Any other? Councilman Wing: No, that's all. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's a boardwalk. Do you have any idea? I can't tell where it starts. I mean it's a very long pathway. Kate Aanenson: There is a long pathway, correct. It starts at the edge of the wetland would be the boardwalk portion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And there are no reslrictions? Oh I see. Kate Aanenson: That was part of the wetland alteration permit. Putting the boardwalk instead of just a regular dock. Put it up above the vegetation. Councilwoman Dockendoff: The drawing of these slips look a little better than the other ones in terms of accessibility. And I have a question about, there are an awful lot of trees there that are going to need to be taken down and I do like the way that, in this report it was shown that you gave a square foot loss of trees. That's easier for me to visualize than number of trees. Anyway. My question is, has the canopy approach been working in other subdivisions or is it too early to tell? Kate Aanenson: This is, we're just coming through with a couple subdivisions using the canopy. What we're finding is we've got a good handle maintaining the existing canopy and replacing. What we're having a little bit of trouble with is providing easements on how to make that work. I think the applicants have done a great job in meeting with the staff and trying to address our concerns. They're very willing to meet the terms that we have. What we're trying to resolve now, what we put in the staff report is trying to come to some resolution. We've had one meeting already. We're just coming to you for final plat to come forward with the, what we put in here originally was the 10,000 square foot area. Buildable area. But these homes are going to be custom graded and it's difficult and they're real reluctant to...so we're talking about the limited flexibility for that so they can work with individual home buyers but yet we've got the easements in place so when they're buying a lot...what needs to be preserved. So we've bounced around a couple ideas and that's where we've having the downfall in the canopy ordinance. So as far as maintaining the existing trees and maintaining the canopy coverage, this subdivision does that. Now getting into some of the individual trees in the tree easement, that's what we're trying to resolve before we reach the final pht. They seem very willing to work with us. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks. That's all. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Any questions? Councilman Mason: No. I think everyone's been working well on this. It looks good. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: No, it looks frae. City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that, this is going to be a four part motion. And the f'LrSt being for the preliminary plat. Can I have a motion for that? Councilman Wing: I'll move that. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded that this be accepted with, g94-3 for 25.9 acres into 9 single family lots with variances as shown on the plans stamped June 7th subject to the following conditions. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Preliminary Plat 094-3 of 25.95 acres into 9 single family lots with variances as shown on the plans stamped June 7, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: A 13 foot front yard setback variance for Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard setback variance on Lot 3, Block 2. 2. Approval of the vacation of Minnewashta Avenue at the time of final plat. 3. Approval of the 50 foot right-of-way for street. The radius of the cul-de-sac shall be 60 feet. 4. Lots 1 and 2 Block 1 shall be combined into one lot. Relocation of the storm water retention pond from the rear of Lot 3, Block 2 to between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. 6. Erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. The two existing homes within the plat are required to be connected to city sewer within 30 days after the sanitary sewer line becomes operational. The homes may continue to utilize their existing wells until the well fails. The street shall be named Tanagers Lane or Tanagers Court and the two existing homes shall be required to change their addresses to correspond to the plat's street name and city's address grid. ~0~:.'~ t!~e:~:i(~oPY:~!~i Staff will work with the applicant to create a woodland management plan including tree conservation easements. Some lots may require custom grading plans. 10. Lowest floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the wetland areas shall be two feet above the wetland's ordinary high water level. 11, The grading plan shall be revised to show the appropriate site grading to achieve buildable house pad elevations adjacent to the wetlands. Individual grading and drainage plans will be required for all treed lots. The plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 12. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees or provide storm water management improvements in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. If the storm water fees have not been formally adopted by the time final plat is to be recorded, then a letter of credit or cash dedication will be escrowed with the City until the SWMP plan has been formally adopted by the City and the fees adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment methodology. Staff will evaluate the fees according to the SWMP plan recommendations and review the exemptions of the two existing homes. 13. Storm water calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. All storm water ponds shall meet Walker standards. The storm sewer shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. 14. The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grading and drainage plan. Erosion control measures shall be employed in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 15. All retaining walls shall be built outside the City's right-of-way and maintained by the property owner. 16. All utility and street installation for public improvements shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifcafions and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 17. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final platting. 18. As a result of platting the two existing homes may be required to change the addresses to correspond to the final plat and the City's address grid system. The new street name shall be subject to approval by the City's Public Safety Department. 19. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, DNR, MWCC, MPCA, Minnesota Dept. of Health, etc. 20. Submit street name to Public Safety Department for review prior to final plat approval. 21. Accept full park and trail dedication fees for the Neumann Subdivision in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction. One-third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued: rate in effect for residential single family property when a building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid. 22. The cul-de-sac-island shall be posted and signed as per the Fire Marshal for no parking. 23. Upon platting of the property, the city typically spreads these deferred assessments over the newly created plat on a per lot basis. Staff is open to alternative methods in respreading the deferred assessments if desired by the property owner." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Conditional use permit, Can I have a motion on that. Councilman Senn: Move approval, Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council approves the conditional use permit ~94.2 for the recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions: 1. Receive DNR approval for dock with more than 4 slips. 2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock. 3. The dock shall have a maximum of 9 boat slips. 4. The recreational beachlot shall meet all of the General Issuance Standards of Section 20-232, conditional uses." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Mason: I move approval of the wetland alteration permit g94-2 for mitigation of the wetland subject to conditions as stated in the report. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second, Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council approves the wetland alteration permit g94-2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following conditions: 1. The area of mitigation shall be located on the north or eastern portion of the wetland adjacent to the ag/urban wetland on Sandpiper Lane, 2. A replacement plan is necessary for any impacts to the wetland at a minimum size wetland replacement ratio of 2:1. 3. The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers. 4. The following wetland setbacks shall be maintained: Natural wetland 10'-30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback Ag/urban wetland 0-30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback" All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: S~eet vacation. Councilman Wing: So moved, 10 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution g94-59: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council approve the request for vacation of Minnewashta Avenue subject to f'mal plat approval of Neumann Subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: LYMAN BOULEVARD STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN SECTIONS 13 AND 24. PROJECT 93-32. Public Present: Name Address Al Klingelhutz Gary Skalberg Richard Chadwick Bailey & Mary Lou Janssen Daniel Frederick Russell & Orletta F. Frederick Diane Riegert Eunice Kottke Robert H. Peterson Gerald & Rosemary Luebke Marc Anderson 8600 Great Plains Blvd. 510 Lyman Blvd. 9530 Foxford Road 500 Lyman Blvd. 540 Lyman Blvd. 540 Lyman Blvd. 520 Lyman Blvd. 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. 910.1 Lake Riley Blvd. 8526 Great Plains Blvd. 420 Merrimac Lane, Plymouth Charles Folch: Thank Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As indicated in the staff report, this capital improvement project is a joint petition project by land owners and/or developers massing 1 to 3 acres in Sections 13 and 24 in Chanhassen. This particular report was received by the Council approximately a month ago. Last Monday we followed it up with a neighborhood meeting where all the affected property owners were invited. Tonight at the public hearing, we have our project consultant engineers from OSM, David Mitchell and Wayne Houle to provide a presentation of the feasibility study consistent of project elements, cost and method of financing the project. So with that I'll turn it over to OSM. David Mitchell: Thanks Charles. Your Honor, members of the Council. As Wayne set this up I'd like to point out a couple of typographical errors in the report and to just clarify a couple of items. I don't know ff anyone has the report with them but in the executive summary we made a statement that funding for the reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard, north of Lake Riley Boulevard, includes 7% special assessments. That should be corrected to 71% special assessments. To the benefitted properties. 25% municipal state aid funds and 4% from the city's drainage funds. The second typographical errors, they're on page 17 of the report. Under cost estimates. The fLrst paragraph. These costs. The report states these costs do include. That should say, these costs do not include land or easement acquisition costs or cost of wetland mitigation. With that I will open the presentation by discussing basically the study area of the proposed land use. I want to make sure this is showing up on the monitors for the public. Basically the study area extends from Highway 5 at the north down to Trunk Highway 101, Kiowa Trail area. Then from east to west, from the east side of, from the city limits to currently Chanhassen Hills addition west of Trunk Highway 101. Primarily this area is zoned single family residential through this area. There is some mixed use along the primary corridors through the area_ There's also some 11 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 high density residential, medium density residential zoning areas. You may remember a number of years ago, 3 or 4 years ago, our firm was before this Council with a similar study. At that point these lands through here and the current Rogers-Dolejsi property was under a green acres status. Therefore he was unassessable at that time. There are current developments proposed in those areas at that time the green acres would be lifted as a part of those developments. With that I will introduce Wayne Houle who is very familiar with the proposed improvements and he will discuss some of the alternatives that were looked at as a part of this study. Wayne Houle: Thanks Dave. Mr. Mayor and Council and residents of the study area. As Dave said, my name is Wayne. I'm with the engineering fh'm of OSM and right now I'm going to basically cover the...cover the existing conditions, the proposed conditions, and some of the other items that were addressed in the study, First off, all the items that I'm going to be covering on are covered in the comprehensive plan for the city of Chanhassen...different than the actual comprehensive plans that were stated before. The watermain portion, trunk watermain portion of this project consists of, the actually existing portion of this project is all the, the whole study area is on a well system right now. So what we're proposing to do is extend a trunk watermain along the proposed Lake Drive and then down existing, or actually Market Boulevard to the existing TH 101 and then tying into Lyman Boulevard and looping around the system. In looking at the watermain issues, we separated them into two different segments. Actually two different alternatives but about 4 different segments. The fa'st part is we'd be tying in up by Lake Drive and Great Plains Blvd. And then carrying it through on Lake Drive and then down to the, where Great Plains Bird hooks up with Market Blvd. The other alternative would be to go down the existing Great Plains Blvd. The reason why we chose the recommended route was there'd be a lot of tree loss along the existing Great Plains Bird and this street here hasn't been constructed yet but the ease of construction, it'd be quite simple to extend that through. But also put in a looping system with the existing water system. The second segment that we looked at were basically from Great Plains Blvd down to 86th Street. Now we follow the existing TH 101 construction, actually the proposed TH 101 construction because of the timeliness of the new TH 101 proposed. The third segments that we looked at were down, either down the proposed TH 101 construction to 86th Street or through the existing TH 101 highway. As you recall back in, I believe it was '86 or '88. The existing, we had plans out for from 86th down to Lake Susan Drive and...but that was not constructed at that time. So what we're proposing to do is just follow the same route that the plans had covered before. Then when we go east on Lyman Blvd, we continue the trunk system out to the city limits and then also loop the system through the proposed Lake Riley Hills area and up through 86th Street, through the Mission Hills Addition and up to 86th Street. The Lake Riley Boulevard area and the Sunnyslope Addition would be served also by this trunk line. As one part of the study that we covered, the Lake Riley Blvd area was, the residents were sent a survey and about 72% of them were in favor of looking into extending the watermain to their residences. The next item that we looked at was the sanitary sewer. The existing portions of the sanitary system is the Lake Ann Interceptor, which is a MWCC line and residents along Lake Susan were also...drainage to the Lake Ann Interceptor was the gravity system. The people along Lake Riley Bird, the Sunnyslope Addition, about half of them drain down to the lift station or up to another lift station which is at Lake Riley Blvd and Lyman Blvd. The force main is then pumped up to about Lakeview Hills Apartment complex. From there it's a gravity system which also serves the people on the Tigua Lane area. Those tie into existing Lake Ann Interceptor. What we're proposing per the comprehensive sanitary plan is to extend a trunk line down to Lyman Blvd. There's two different altematives that we also studied there. One is to place the line along the proposed Highway 101 extension or alignment, or else follow the existing. Since the watermain was placed along the existing and also some depth restrictions along the new TH 101, we're recommending the alternative 2 which is along the existing TH 101 alignment. This would be also a gravity line from the Lyman and the Highway 101 intersection to the Lake Ann Interceptor. Also part of the sanitary system would be improving the lift station, which is at Lake Riley Blvd and Lyman Blvd. Right now the existing lift station can only handle an addition, I believe it's 34 services before it needs to be improved so that's one of the reasons that 12 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 that lift station was looked into. Another reason is this line that, the gravity line from Lakeview Hills Apartments to the Lake Ann Interceptor is actually through this marshy area is in pretty bad shape and needs to be placed in or upgraded and if we were to force any more sewage into that line. This lift station, well actually over what we're proposing to do is reroute the force main along Lyman Blvd to the new trunk sanitary sewer and Lake Ann Interceptor. Also along the Lyman Blvd would be a gravity system which would go down in...lifi station and back up to the force main to that intersection. One other thing. The Lakeview Hills Apartments, this line would be abandoned and the Lakeview Hills Apartments would basically turn around to the gravity system with the new line so the lift station and then up...This on the north is...and this is Lyman Blvd. One item that was also looked into was the reconstruction of Lyman Blvd. Currently it's a 24 foot wide roadway. It's in very poor shape with a lot of areas in need of repair. The vertical curves for the traffic that's on that road right now do not meet MnDot's State Aid funding or requirements for that width of a roadway. So part of the feasibility report was to look into the realignment of Lake Riley and Lyman Blvd, both horizontally and vertically. The existing daily, average daily ~xaffic is 1,069 cars per day. In the year 2010, according to Carver County Transportation Study, the...would increase to 7,400 vehicles per day. So taking that all into account, we're proposing to expand the width of the roadway to a 52 foot width from the intersection of the existing balance of proposed Highway 101 to the enWance or the area of the entrance of the Lakeview Hills Apartments. The Lakeview Hills Apartment, it was reduced back down to about a 36 foot roadway section. This 52 foot roadway section would accomplish striping for 2 lanes of traffic with left turn treatments at all the major intersections that could be put into the proposed development and also the realignment of Lake Riley Blvd. And also left turns into the Lakeview Hills Apartments. Also along the south side of the Lyman Blvd. would be an 8 foot trail, pathway or bikeway. This is also covered in the Chanhassen wails comprehensive wail plan. This road would be, another portion of the roadway would be concrete curb and gutter...and also no parking the entire length of the roadway. You'd have storm applications, storm drainage applications throughout and also... That pretty much wraps up the project elements...Dave can go over the cost. David Mitchell: There is a much more detailed cost estimate found in the report. If there's any members of the audience that want to see that breakdown, you can look at that but at this point what we're looking at is estimated project costs for Lyman Blvd. reconstruction is approximately $1.55 or $1.6 million. A watermain, which would include the, all the trunk improvements for watermain would be $1.35 million. Sanitary sewer is $974,000.00 and the Lake Riley Blvd watermain, which would be the watermain that Wayne showed coming down Lake Riley Blvd and looping around Sunnyslope area, would have a project cost of $251,000.00 for a total estimated project for the area encompassed with the study of $4.1-$4.2 million. The assessments for this area become quite complicated. I guess Wayne's got me set up here. The assessment area for the watermain area is shown, is shaded here. The trunk area primarily involves everything except the Lake Riley Hills area or Shore Acres I should say and Sunnyslope area. Areas that are shaded or cross hatched in blue indicate some trunk benefit to properties with lateral benefits...properties in front directly onto trunk watermain. Therefore they are assessed an additional amount that is standard for, for example...here would have additional lateral benefit to these areas. We would assess lateral benefit in a similar manner. The proposed line on Lake Riley Blvd would also be assessed as a lateral. Another area that would show some lateral benefit would be the area along Lake Susan and the short area along the proposed Missions Hills plat. Councilman Wing: Why is the Kiowa, maybe I missed that earlier. Why is Kiowa excluded there? David Mitchell: Kiowa Trail currently has sanitary sewer within the system. There's no provisions to loop the watermain through this area at this point. So we did not include them in the study...end up being a very long, dead end lines along this area. I'm not sure if they're, are they actually in the service area? 13 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Charles Folch: Yes. They're in the service area but we did not receive any indication from any property owners that they were interested like we did from Lake Riley Hills. We did receive a few phone calls and there was some interest in that. Basically that area can be served with a lateral line at any time in the future coming off of the proposed subdivision that Lundgren Bros is doing so at which time they would decide to have water so but it didn't necessarily need to be at this time. David Mitchell: Similarly the sanitary sewer...includes areas of Mission Hills on the north to Bandimc~re Park and the Lundgren proposal on the Rogers-Dolejsi property. Currently Shore Acres, Sunnyslope area along Lake Riley Blvd has sanitary sewer and has been assessed for that or as part of that whole project. I think Kiowa Trail the same thing. Some of the areas here are shaded. Lakeview Hills Apartments has been assessed a portion for the units that are in place...Again, these areas are all served with the existing systems. The assessment area for the sanitary sewer is shown and is highlighted. Similarly there are some lateral benefits along Lyman Blvd for gravity systems for the individuals that front directly on Lyman Blvd will realize benefits from those segments. Lyman Blvd reconstruction. The assessment area for that is again shown in the shaded. The proposed area really has no other collector mute out of their designated areas. Therefore they're being assessed for the entry of Lyman Blvd. Lyman Blvd itself is a state aid route. 25% of the project cost will be paid for with state aid funds. Enforcement of the cost for the storm sewer will be paid for out of the city's storm water funds and the remainder will be assessed back to the properties. If I can switch gears here and move over to the overhead, the assessments rates are shown here and a majority of the assessments are actually realized from the trunk utility charges that are in place from the comprehensive plan that the city updates on an annual basis. Each resident equivalent unit is assessed $1,050.00 per resident equivalent unit for sanitary sewer or approximately $2,100.00 per acre and the trunk watermain is $1,375.00 per resident equivalent unit or approximately $2,750.00 per acre. The total trunk funds generated from this project would be $1,032,150.00. Total trunk water funds generated would be $1,986,875.00. Assessments for lateral sanitary sewer service, a total of $27,000.00. Those were the areas shown on Lyman Blvd. Additional lateral watermain assessment of $142,686.00 would be received from the trunk watermain itself that benefits abuuing properties. Lateral watermain assessments to Lake Riley Blvd would be $2,500.00 per lot. Similarly that would be the same assessment for the lateral benefit throughout the entire study area and those areas up along Lake Susan. But that number is included in the $142,000.00 but along Lake Riley Blvd would be $100,000.00. The Lyman Blvd assessments, each unit shown in the shaded area would be assessed $800.00. The areas that front directly on Lyman Blvd, including the development areas, would be assessed another $819.00 per unit, primarily because of their frontage on Lyman Blvd. So the areas along Lake Riley Bird would be assessed $800.00. These areas along here would be assessed approximately $1,600.00 per residential unit. Lyman Bird funding basically comes down to $I.1 million from assessments. Another $394,000.00 from municipal state aid funds and another $62,000.00 for storm drainage funds for a total of $1,576,000.00 for round numbers. As we add these together, this would be the total funding for the project. Assessments would be $4.4 million. Of that, $122,800.00 would be deferred assessments which would be collected as future hook-ups. Those areas are primarily the 2 to 10 acre hobby farm areas north of Lyman Blvd. Approximately halfway between TH 101 and Lake Riley Blvd. Primarily these areas H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, Q, R and S. The city funds needed for this project would be approximately $119,300.00. City storm drainage fund would contribute $61,900.00. Municipal state aid funding would be $394,000.00 for a total amount of funds generated of ,$4.9 or approximately $5 million. As stated in the report, there is the assessments collected are larger than the total project costs. The reason for that is the trunk utility charge. The trunk funds are then put into the bank, so to speak and would be used for future updates to wells, storage systems, sanitary sewer, lift stations. Those types of items so that is an area charged throughout the city. Proposed schedule. As Wayne mentioned, there are plans that have been done for approximately, or a portion of this project between the existing additions to the west of TH 101. Chanhassen Hills and 86th Street. Some of these plans have been drawn. Those may be, it may be possible to bring parts of 14 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 those on line prior to this, what this schedule shows but basically to run through it quickly. Council received or first saw this feasibility report back on May 9th. Ordered a public hearing at that time. As Charles indicated, we had a public informational meeting last week with a public hearing tonight. We would anticipate Council authorizing preparation of plans and specifications either at this meeting or the following meeting on June 27th. September, end of September we would hope to have the plans complete and come back to Council for authorization for bids. Bid opening would be in October. We would anticipate beginning construction in November. Completing conslruction November of '95 with a f'mal wearing course put on the roadway in '96. Assessment hearing in '96 and ftrst payment on real estate taxes in May of '97. With that, that basically concludes our presentation for the evening. I'd like to open it up to Council, if they have any questions at this point. Or turn it hack over to the Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think what I'd like to do is open this up for the balance of the public hearing that we have this for and maybe listen to some of the residents that are adjacent to this with some concerns they may have and at least get some of those things, some of those answers addressed. Is there anyone at this time wishing to come forward and express your concerns regarding this specific proposal? Please state your name and address. Al Klingelhutz: Al Klingelhutz, 8600 Great Plains Blvd. I guess I'm not against the project but I'm against what it's going to cost. After the neighborhood meeting last week...some figures and I've seen 3 different figures and the total is $548,000.00 against my property. Now I don't know if those figures are right or not but it looks to me like that's about 1/8 the cost of the whole project. I've got a total of 70 acres there and the highway's going to take about 25 of it. They said there's over 300 acres in the project and it just doesn't seem right. A year and a half or two years ago there was another feasibility study done on the project and it was just to put the water line in. At that time the total cost for the water line along, the trunk charge for the water line on my property was $85,000.00. I think if you go back in the Minutes, there's a statement there exactly showing that. And there was some discussion on the property being green acres and it was even talked about deferring the interest on it until such time as development could occur. I believe those things are all in the Minutes. I don't know if they took into consideration that the house on the farm had been hooked onto city sewer for at least 12 years. Sewer line runs through part of my property. At the present time there's an 8 inch line serving the house. I notice that with all the checks marks to be assessed, I didn't know if it was just for water or just for sewer or what. I paid assessments on that once before. Something said the other night that instead of following TH 101 on the north side of my property, they were going to cut across the section corner and then go south. And that again would be a detriment to my property because looking into the future of sometime a project developing that land, if you sever that property would ruin the three lots on the property... But geuing back to that $85,000.00 proposed trunk charge. Less than 2 years ago I believe it was, for water and I understand that the sewer trunk charge is somewhat less than the water. But if you put the $85,000.00 and add 75 to it, you'd come up with about $170,000.00 instead of $548,000.00. I just can't figure out where all those dollars came from. You might remember some of that land was zoned commercial and for sure there's no commercial development going to come there if Highway 212 don't come in. I understand you're leaving some of the 10 acre parcels and 5 acre parcels on Lyman Bird getting by for 1 unit. Well I paid for 1 unit on the balance of my property except it's 20 some acres was sold to Mission Hills. I don't know why people can be treated differently. I'm willing to pay when development comes but when you're looking at 42 years on the Highway 212 committee and there's no highway there yet. And you might be looking at another 42 years before it comes. It might never come. I don't know about placing an assessment on that property that can't be used at this time. I guess that's about all I've got to say except I'll be dead against the property, the sewer or water line going down on a section line instead of following TH 101. Thank you. 15 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Al. Is there anyone else? Gerald Luebke: Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you like to come forward? Gerald Luebke: Mayor, Council. I'm Gerald Luebke. I live at 8526 Great Plains Blvd. Our property abuts this township line that Al spoke of and would like to know why the water is being routed down along that township line. Section line, excuse me. I see where the, if the water does go along the section line and having talked with A1 a long time before I even bought the property and understood what his plans were, that it will sever 3 of his lots. It will also run through a small grove of lxees which I and wife paid handsomely for and I think it would kill all of those trees. I see absolutely no reason, I would be the only one that that water would be servicing and see no reason for it. I'd like to talk with whoever the designers were and try to get an understanding for why that water's running where it's proposed. I am def'mitely, the wife and I, are definitely in disagreement with that decision. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Bailey Janssen: Bailey Janssen from 500 Lyman Blvd and I'm against the project. I think the cost is way too high and I live on Lyman and I think we're being penalized because we live on Lyman. They're double charging us for the widening of the road. They can't give us any definite direction on which way it's going to go when they widen it and if we're going to be losing trees and taking retaining walls and things like that, I think we should know. I think there's a lot of people in the area that are against the project. I don't know if they're going to come up and say or not but the benefit that we were told last week is that we're going to have sewer and water and the road is going to be widened. The benefit is not to us, We don't need the road wider. We already have good wells and most the septics are working fine around there. The benefit is to the developers. Let's let them pay for it. Not the homeowners that are there. That covers it. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Richard Chadwick: My name is Richard Chadwick. I have property on Lyman Blvd. 420 Lyman Blvd. I presently live over on Lake Riley, 9530 Foxford Road, I agree that the cost to the property owners along Lyman Blvd and along TH 101 appear to be substantially higher than any benefit that we would ever receive from the construction of the water and sewer systems. The property in there is all tied up with the proposed Highway 212. There's not much that can be done with any of the property, whether it be Al's or some of the others. People that are actually living there and have good water and sewer, it's not benefitting anybody except the large developers that may be coming up on the south side of TH 101. Or pardon me, the south side of Lyman Blvd or some of the other areas in here. I would be against the development of the project. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? This is your opportunity to express your opinion. Russ Frederick: I'm Russ Frederick. I live at 540 Lyman Blvd. I'm not directly affected on the road but will be affected by the assessments and so on. It seems to me, as they had stated, that the costs are on the extremely high side and it seems to me that it's way ahead of it's time. I don't see the need for a major reconstruction at this time. I agree there is a water loop they wanted to put in a couple years ago and there's also a sewer line that's,..I don't see any sign that this is going to accomplish the water loop that they wanted 2 years ago and the sewer line, I haven't had the chance to get into this deep enough. I can't state that other than the cost are very 16 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 high. It's something that I support to people that are on the line. I think it's been handled very efficiently because there's been what was thought to be the issue resolved 2 years ago and roadway right-of-way was adjusted...on both sides of the road. It comes back this year like it was a brand new issue. I guess it don't make sense to me. I'd like to see a little more common sense in tying together of the effort. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else? Marc Anderson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Marc Anderson. I'm with Lundgren Bros Construction. We've have an approved preliminary plat...south of Lyman Blvd... We believe the time is right for this project and that we've seen a lot of demand for housing in the west area here and in Chanhassen and we look forward to...As we've seen that land in Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and places like that are unavailable there. They're basically...Secondly, regarding the costs...that costs associated with these lots are basically in line with other kinds of developments we see. They're a little over $4,000.00 per unit. We find that those are acceptable costs... Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Going once. Going twice. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Charles, this has been sitting around for quite some time. Some of the questions that had been asked this evening, I'm just wondering if we shouldn't just try to answer them and get back to each one with respect to those questions and get the answers for each of those things. And probably have this come back again to Council, unless Council has any other direction that they'd like to go and look at it one more time. And I would suggest that we, I don't know how long it would take you to respond to those answers. I'll set a time line for you to come up with the date that we can review this. Charles Folch: I think we can get a copy of the Minutes when they're available and respond to each question as they had come up. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What would you be looking at? The 27th of June or are you looking at more like July. It takes at least, what a week to hopefully get these Minutes pulled together from the meeting. Charles Folch: I think given the numbers that we have to deal with tonight, we could pull it together by the 27th. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Councilman Wing: Can you keep the road conslruction on Lyman kind of independent. Let's look at sewer and water and then let's look at that road consmaction and widening and upgrading maybe as a separate issue. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I want to look at that 52 feet in some area~ and some in 36 feet and others. Charles Folch: One thing that probably is important to keep in mind is the amount of units that are proposed to go out there that we've seen the basic drawings for. The conceptual plans if you will. Lyman would be a very haTardous situation to introduce that much traffic without doing any type of improvements that need to be done on that type of roadway. Getting that standard to an urban design. But we do have the costs broken out and the 17 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 assessments broken out between what's utility assessments, trunk and lateral and what is roadway assessment. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a couple of detail questions. I agree we need to bring it back. Get some of those questions answered but on the north side, where instead of following, on the very north part of the project, instead of following current TH 101, we're going to cut across. Right up abutting Highway 5 and then go down Market where it meets up with TH 101. Seeing that we don't have anything currently coming in to the city about what's going to happen with that parking lot. I forget the people's name on that. Charles Folch: The Ward property? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. The Ward property, thank you. Have we heard anything from them? Do we know what their opinion is? Charles Folch: We've not had recent contact with the Ward's. Basically...that we would attempt to either acquire right-of-way or acquire the utility easement needed to bring that line across and follow the alignment that's anticipated for future Lake Drive. The importance of getting that line connected back along Lake Drive to Great Plains, from a surprise standpoint. We've got 3 wells located...by the park off of TH 101 and we just completed a 20 inch trunk line, if you will, that crosses Highway 5 and...basically stub out by the Legion there and we really need to get to that, connected to that system to provide the amount of flow we need for development that's going on down there. So that is an important link in getting... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Following the current TH 101 alignment, I assume that there's no problem. Well if and when we do the new TH 101. I mean those lines can stay there and there won't be any problem. If we do put it in, will there be construction, any delays through there on the current TH 1017 Charles Folch: We're anticipating that we'd do most of these improvements off road on TH 101. There may be times where the shoulders might be compromised during the day when we have to have appropriate barricades and such but we would be shutting the road down. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay. And then my last question is, doing a traffic study on Lyman and then necessity or the finding out if we do need to increase. Does that take into consideration TH 2127 The possible TH 212 or is that independent and does what? Charles Folch: No, that's correct. It does. Basically the numbers we've been working off of for the Eastem study that was done back in '89-'90. The Eastern Carver County transportation study which took into account the TH 101 improvement and Trunk Highway 212 and basically growth in the region and forecasted improvements to Highway 5 accordingly. And again, we're always integrating into that the amount of units that we're seeing there could come on line conceivably over the next couple years. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Not at this time, I saw these questions need to be answered... Mayor Chmiel: Mark. 18 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilman Senn: No. Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: I would like to carry this meeting over then to June 27th. Mark that down because we hopefully will get back to the questions that are asked and get your answers to that. Maybe we can look at this in a little more detail. Al? Would you like to come up to the mic so we can pick this up please. A1 Klingelhutz: It's kind of hard to judge when there's no really price tag attached. I'm just wondering when you have a hearing like this if each individual that's going to be assessed shouldn't be able to find out what the proposed assessment's going to be. I didn't sleep well the night after that meeting, after I found out it was going to be a $548,000.00 assessment. I guess a lot of you wouldn't either. That's over half a million bucks. I'm getting kind of old to worry about some of those things. So it would be helpful I think to, for everybody involved, if we would know ahead of time what the proposed assessments would be. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Charles. Charles Folch: Each property that's proposed to be assessed is listed in the feasibility study and broken out in terms of what portion of assessment and type of improvement, whether it be trunk sewer, water, lateral, street. Every property owner affected in this project was notified of the public hearing tonight. Each property owner affected by the project was notified of the neighborhood meeting we held last Monday. The letter also included an invitation that if anybody wanted to come up to City Hall during daytime hours to look at the study and look at costs, the information is certainly available to anybody who's interested in seeing it. It's all here in the report. Councilman Senn: Charles, that raises a good point though when we send that letter out. Why can't we include in that letter, hem's what your assessment is? I mean to tell them to come to a public heating and that all the books and records are available at City Hall, I mean that's. Councilman Mason: Pretty intimidating. Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean can't we add a paragraph to the letter that notifies them of what their assessment is and, you know we have a problem like at the neighborhood meetings I know and you've commented before of getting people out and stuff and I think if people had something more personalized to identify with, I think they would. I think that would sure go a long way in doing that. Charles Folch: Yeah and these are proposed assessments and as you all know the official assessment hearing wouldn't be held until the project is completed and at that time we send out notices which give the exact numbers. But if you so wish, we could certainly do something like that. Councilman Mason: I think that would certainly get people's attention a little bit more. I think that's a real good point. Charles Folch: In light of that, I guess if that's the Council's desire to do something like that like, I guess I would recommend maybe tabling this for another 2 weeks past that to allow a mailing to go out with the costs and such and maybe continue this on the in'st meeting in July. Mayor Chmiel: Which would be July llth. Scratch the date of the 27th and it will be July the llth. Continuation. 19 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Gerald Luebke: Who makes the ultimate decision as to the routing of the water line, i.e. whether or not it runs down the section line or...TH 101. Mayor Chmiel: .,.the city does. Any discussion...Is that right Charles? Charles Folch: Pardon me. Mayor Chmiel: Charles Folch: Mayor Chmiel: Gerald Luebke: Mayor Chmiel: Gerald Luebke: Mayor Chmiel: Gerald Luebke: Mayor Chmiel: Gerald Luebke: David Mitchell: My statement that I made basically is with the city. Correct. The decision lies...by staff's recommendation. So with that. Is the decision final then? Pardon me. Will you be making a final decision? On the 1 lth of July? Yes. Conceivably we could. So if we wanted to bring legal counsel, that'd be the time to do it? Thank you. Mr. Mayor, one point that I think should be made is that the exact alignment would not be defined. That we would be more than willing to work with individual property owners as far as the, Al brings up a good point. You don't want to bisect properties and those type of situations we want to avoid so we would be more than willing to work with individuals then have those type of concerns. And that's when we get into a detailed design. Mayor Chmiel: Right, and I would think that that discussion can take place once we get answers to the questions that have been risen. Okay, so this specific public hearing will be carded over to July llth and you'll be notified as to the time. Hopefully everyone who is here for this has signed in so we know who to send this to. In fact if all the people on that list that Charles has will be sent that information as well. So this will be carried over until July 1 lth. Councilman Senn: Do we need a motion then to do that? To table it or what. Mayor Chmiel: I would ask for that motion that I'm going to come up with right now. Can I have a motion to table? Councilman Senn: To July 1 lth. Mayor Chmiel: July llth. 2O City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilman Senn: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table action on the Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements in Sections 13 and 24, Project 93-32 until July 11, 1994 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Public Present: Name LAKE LUCY ROAD STREET AND UTILITY EXTENSION, PROJECT 92-12. Address Bill Engelhardt Ed & Mary Ryan David Gestach Brian Klingelhutz Lee Paulson Sam & Nancy Mancino Wm R. Engelhardt & Assoc. 6730 Galpin Blvd. 8001 Acorn Circle 8860 Co. Rd. 10 E 8880 Wildwood Avenue 6620 Galpin Blvd. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You may recall that last week about this time we had two public hearings on this proposed project. At that time the project stalled out due to one of the originally petitioning property owners withdrawing the petition and they were an integral part of the getting the road alignment across the property. Since that time there's been new ownership, new acquisition of that property and we did have two property owners that petitioned for the road improvement. Subsequent to that we had the project engineer prepare a supplemental report or update if you will to that original feasibility study. There are some revisions to that specifically related to the road alignment. We do think, at least coming out, the portion coming off of Trunk Highway 41 is a much better alignment in terms of reducing the grading...and tonight we have the project engineer here to provide a presentation of that...elements-of cost and method of financing for the project. With that I'll turn it over to Bill Engelhardt, Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. I'm Bill Engelhardt with William Engelhardt Associates. We've been working on this project for a couple of years with the individual property owners in Ixying to determine an alignment for the Lake Lucy Road connection. As Charles gave you some of the background, the history of the project. Gestach-Paulson property is situated in this area. After they purchased the property they sold off a piece of property in roughly this area to the Westside Baptist Church. Those two property owners petitioned for Lake Lucy Road. A study was done to determine for alignment purposes only, from TH 41 over to Lake Lucy Road. What you see underneath the underlying drawing here is what was originally shown as the alignment to the Lake Lucy Road. As part of the consideration for the alignment for Lake Lucy Road we have 2, 3 basic criteria. One was to work with the church area and how that property would be bisected when the church was involved. And then a sketch plan that Gestach-Paulson have had in the works for about 8 to 9 years for the development of their property. The purpose of that sketch plan back in 1985 was that the Lake Ann Interceptor was running through their property and they wanted some idea of how the property could be developed and accommodate the Lake Ann Interceptor. So what you see in the dashed line is that sketch plan that was done some number of years ago. It gave us an indication on how many lots, how many units that that 21 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 property could be assessed at that time. At the first meeting, or at the last meeting, Mr. Jerome Carlson who owns this large tract of land and the Ryan's who own this tract and the Mancino's who own this tract, spoke at the public heating. Mr. Carlson asked that this roadway be shifted to more accommodate his property. We went out and staked the alignments. We worked with Mr. Carlson but that alignment was never brought to the Council simply because at that time the Westside Baptist Church still did not agree to it. They did, Westside Baptist Church did pull out of the project and Mr. Carlson has now purchased their property so petitioners are Jerome Carlson and Gestach-Paulson and we're focusing basically on the alignment for Lake Lucy Road for the development of the Gestach-Paulson property and the Carlson property. In consideration of the Ryan's, they have brought forward or they've shown us a sketch plan that they had prepared for their property. Lakeview Road should go through their property. Initially they objected to the road basically bisecting their property, although you have to understand that this line that's shown here is wetlands. Everything within this area is a wetland. What we attempted to do is hang to the south or to the north edge of the wetlands and then bring the road directly over to the intersection of Lake Lucy Road. The Council instructed us to meet with the property owners involved and what we basically call a fn'st phase of the construction which again is the Gestach-Paulson and the Jerome Carlson property. We met with those individuals and they requested that the alignment of the roadway be shifted to accommodate the trunk sewer to Lake Ann Interceptor as closely as possible. The Lake Ann Interceptor is shown in this location and then the roadway would be adjacent to that simply because of the terrain up in here and it doesn't work to be right on top of it. But these two, this alignment through these two properties is agreeable to both property owners. When we met with Mr. Carlson and with the Gestach-Panlson people, our objective in the meeting was to determine how the cost of this roadway section was to be divided between those properties. An agreement was formed. It's a draft of an agreement that their attorneys drafted on how the cost would be shared for that roadway and that is part of the project. The Ryan's, with their concern of bringing the roadway into the souther, or into the middle of their property. The northern edge of the wetland. The southern edge of basically the buildable property of the Gestach-Paulson property. Gestach and Paulson agreed that they would, when they plat this property that they would leave this area as an outlot which would give the maximum flexibility to the Ryan's when their property would come in and be platted and at that time you could determine how the alignment could go through their property. Whether it would be to the north of what we show as Option 2. Or the south, which was the original option. That does give the Ryan's the flexibility to design their plat. It doesn't hinder them by locking in at this point. Gestach and Paulson feel that that's, that it works well with them. They're not interested in doing all the lots at one time. They would be able to plat the balance of their property and leave that until sometime in the future when this alignment would actually be fixed. As part of the project we're also looking at the extension of lateral sanitary sewer. Again we're focusing only on the petitioner's project, Gestach-Paulson and Jerome Carlson. Jerome Carlson has direct access to Lake Ann Interceptor and Gestach-Paulson would construct lateral lines down to the interceptor and they're shown in red. We have not shown any additional sewer. That's a completely separate issue. They need to come in with a preliminary plat. They have to have preliminary engineering and final engineering of any plat that they do. Again, that's just a graphic representation that was shown in 1985 on how that property could be subdivided. The original report did not address watermains. Basically the water main was looked at as a secondary issue. The watermain could have been placed outside of the roadway in the boulevard area. It's a 80 foot right-of-way for a collector street versus a 60 foot right-of-way. But as part of the supplemental report and the eminent desire of these properties to develop, we have included the cost for watermain which would be bringing a trunk line down Highway 41. Crossing 41 and running a trunk line all the way to wherever the roadway would stop. It's basically proposed that the roadway would stop at this ouflot line and then the extension of the utilities would take place in the future when the properties to the east would develop. Storm sewer again would be only for the properties within the development area_ There'd be a,..to maintain drainage in this area and then storm sewer from about this location or from the intersection of where this cul-de-sac would be located down to a point on the roadway where it can be discharged to ponding areas prior to the water body 22 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 that's shown fight in here. The total cost of the project, the total project cost is $525,000.00. That's including all of the overhead costs. We use a 30% factor in estimating. The assessments have been broken down for each portion and for each property that had petitioned. The only people proposed to be assessed at this time where roadway would be assessed in their property, would be the Gestach-Paulson, Jerome Carlson property. They again through agreement between these two property owners, it's been defmed how many lineal feet of the street would be assessed. The storm sewer is a split and city policy is 50% city and 50% developer when building a collector street and this is a split of 50% of the storm sewer going drainage areas for each property. We call it a sidewalk. It's actually a bituminous nail which would be an extension ultimately of the Lake Lucy, ultimately of the Lake Lucy Road east of Galpin as the trail align. This trail would continue on through this property, through this alignment, through the total alignment and ultimately you would have a trail. Ultimately you would have a trail from all the way from Lake Lucy Road to this existing trail. The ultimate trail would then follow the alignment all the way to TH 41 which is not too far from the Minnewashta Park. That trail's been shown as part of the project would be constructed. And 50% of the trail, the cost of the trail would be paid by state aid funds. 50% of it would be assessed. Watermain is 100% assessable to the benefitted properties. Two property owners. Sanitary sewer. Mr. Carlson would have direct access to the Lake Ann Interceptor. They would not be, he would not be beating any of the costs of the lateral. The Gestach-Panlson development would pay $42,809.00 of the cost. The...funds, local funds which include trunk oversizing of the watermain.., construction would fall into a watermain in lieu of an 8 inch watermain. The developer's cost would be $61,067.16. Again, 50% of the trail cost and 50% of the storm sewer cost and this is basically the over sizing of the street cost for the street for development of that nature would be constructed to city standards of 28 feet as a collector. It would be 34 feet so the state aid would pick up the 6 feet difference in sizing. So we have total assessments, total project assessments of $347,720.56 and state aid local funds would be $177,948.44. Both properties would be assessed at this time for trunk water. It's a policy that when a trunk watermain goes in, that those trunk water units are paid as part of the assessments. That's $1,375.00 per unit. We've used 24 lots for the Gestach property. Jerome Carlson is unplatted. As sketch plans we've used 2 units per net acre on him and he has 6.31 acres for a total of $17,352.50. Trunk sanitary sewer is $25,200.00 for Gestach and $13,251.00 for Jerome Carlson. That's basically the project. Again our task was to originally was to determine an alignment through there. Work with the petitioning property owners at the time to come to some kind of agreement for the alignment for what we call the first phase or the first stage of the project. During the course of a year, year and a haft, the property owners have changed. Those property owners now agree. The new property owners agree on the alignment and legal documents have been drafted between the parties to cost share the project cost. And we've left flexibility on the east end so as the property to the east would be developed, that they'd be able to fie that in either way anywhere along that alignment. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Bill. This is a public hearing, as I mentioned previously. Do you have any concerns regarding this proposal, this is your opportunity to come forward and express those concerns. Just state your name and your address. Is there anyone at this time? Ed Ryan: My name is Ed Ryan and my wife and I are both here tonight. We are on the property, I guess the east side as Bill has referred to. We were involved in this project about a year ago. We were informed that the Lake Lucy extension was going to come through our piece of property and so since that time what we've done is put together a sketch plan based on potentially where that benefit would be best served for our piece of property. We didn't really have any intentions of developing but felt that given that the touch down spots for that border was going to defined, we felt that we needed to do so. We provided that sketch plan to the city and I think to Bill in that meeting and he has basically accommodated our concerns regarding that touch down spot. When we did our sketch plan we looked at the preservation of trees. Some of the grading issues and so forth and we're going to be, continue to work on that plan. That plan basically has a touch down spot further north where the 23 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 comer of this, the property here bordering Mancino's property, what we did is, over the past 3 months we put together 2 or 3 plans based on trying to preserve the tree lines. We have a large clump of trees in the very middle of where the road was proposed to go through. We also looked at the grading, the hills and so forth. We also looked at preserving the lots that would border, the potential lots that would border some of that wetland that Bill has referred to and basically we're going to continue to pursue that plan with the city and work through the planning departments and so forth in order to improve that design and assure that the properties developed in this is adequate. So I guess that was our initial concern. We felt we needed to get involved to make sure the property was reasonably developed but we don't have any plans to develop at this time but again, that touch down spot would impact our property and so we had gone ahead and developed the plans necessary to address that touch down spot so. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? Sam Mancino: Hi. I'm Sam and Nancy Mancino and we are slightly to the north of the Ryan's property. There's a couple things that we'd like to talk about for a minute. First, on a more pressing matter of the western portion of the Gestach-Paulson. We'd like to see how in that north, I guess it'd be the eastern comer, we would have access to tie a road system into the road system that's platted there. Otherwise we'll be somewhat landlocked in the property and if we need to, in the future plat...would address that. As it relates to what Ed calls the touch down site or the alternate platting or moving of the roadway, the proposed roadway north. There was a meeting evidentally on May 18th with Gestach-Paulson, the Carlsons and the Ryans at which we were not a party to this. We didn't know about it, they had met until today, so we really, Nancy Mancino: 9:00 this morning. Sam Mancino: 9:00 this morning's the first time we've actually seen these plans so we really don't know all the implications about this. We, unlike the Ryans, have not known about this and we have not platted anything. We haven't looked at any alternative plans but we probably are going to need to do that soon. But since it's in an official document now and has some official momentum, we feel we need to comment on it. Last year when this topic of the road alignment came up, we've always been under the understanding it was a relatively straight shot to align the current point where Lake Lucy Road intersects Galpin Bird and go directly to, fairly due west until it comes to TH 41 to avoid the top area there. When we asked the question or the question came up last year about that northern swing of that property, Bill Engelhardt's opinion was that it was not practical because the cost to grade issues and so we aren't sure exactly how this particular alignment fits into that opinion. We'd like a little bit more information on that. As it is shown on that northern swing, the radius, the northern most radius of that road, would virtually touch us between about 50 and 60 feet from where our house is right now. So this would be several hundred feet away, as we've always understood it to be...which raises the issue of if that becomes our point of access to the road system, does the road system then go through our house? How do deal with that? So we need some more information on that. There are some financial implications that being if we had the northern alignment, it would financially affect us seriously. Seriously devalue the property value of our house, let along the development aspect of it. And we have a question about the assessment portion. If the road is artificially pushed that far north to parallel or abut our property line, does that mean that we are now liable for the assessment portion of it? It seems to me that when that original property was purchased by the Ryans...that the road was going through there at one time. Whatever financial impact of a pending assessment was dealt with at that time. The property was valued for that price and purchased at that. We have never anticipated having to pay a complete parallel road assessment to our property line so we need a little more information about that. I guess in sum total, we'd like to say for the record we're against a northern alignment. 24 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Nancy Mancino: What happens next? My question is, I guess Charles and I talked this morning. This is the fu-st that I had heard about it. It will, the road will bring us closer over to the western roadway using our extension, will go in TH 41 to the where the cul-de-sac goes north? Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. Charles Folch: It will stop at that point leaving about, approximately 400 feet of land to reach the east/west property line with the Ryan's which allows basically either alignment will be shown there. It would be potentially an option at this time that we would go through the process of studying it to determine which alignment would be more feasible so, the developers have proposed to work with staff and the engineer to at least stage the fLrSt stage of this project which does not preclude any future options for stage 2 so that's, you're basically fight. It stops at the cul-de-sac. Nancy Mancino: So we'll be hack in to talk about the next project. Since this is a sketch plan, there's not a preliminary plat, I mean that may change, mighten it? The cul-de-sac may not come out of Lake Lucy Road there. Charles Folch: It will likely come out somewhere in that general area. There aren't a whole lot of options in terms of getting a road up into that area. It's more of a long tract of land that's actually developable so it's in all likelihood a north/south mute would have to go up in there. Going through the site plan approval, it's conceivable that maybe the actual touchdown point with the road could move 50 feet either direction but it's likely going to end up fight in that general ballpark. Nancy Mancino: And how long is that cul-de-sac? Charles Folch: I think that cul-de-sac is about 650-700 feet. Nancy Mancino: Any questions for us? Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? Ed Ryan: Just a follow up issue on Sam and Nancy's concerns. I think you find yourselves in the same position Mary and I did a year ago and that is that we were informed that there was a road coming through our property. I don't know who perhaps put it in this form...when we acquired the property 10 years ago that this was the direct line of Lake Lucy going through our property. We fred ourselves in the very same situation as your's. We'd prefer not to have the road through us but find that this is the situation we're in. We'd prefer not to have the road at all on our property. You know we'd rather have a collector road to the south of us or north but this is where we're at too so all we have done is to say, if this is what is coming at us, that we're going to have to look at the alternative based on what the property can support and I guess I feel very much, I feel very similar to you do but I feel like here it is, what am I going to do about it. So. Sam Mancino: Well, it's probably not for the Council but at the meeting, at the Council meeting last year when this came up, because the momentum was building to put the road in, the topic came up, should we... should we plat it or lock it in with that alignment and I think it was our point, in deference to your concerns, to say gee. Don't put a gun to their head. If you don't need the road now, let them have their options and now that's coming back to bite us. You know we were hoping to be able to give the flexibility to avoid having to have the road go in fight away. I guess I do feel a little bit...as if this is not working in our best interest to have the road 25 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 come up and...right where our house is, Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Brian Klingelhutz: I'm Brian Klingelhutz. Charlie and a lot of the guys came out. How long have we been trying to get this through? So we did everything we could to make it that the road could go either way you know after this, after get done with our property so we just don't want something that could happen in 4-5 years down the road delay us anymore because if we don't get going on this project real soon, it won't happen this year. We left ail the options open so it could go either spot and that's something that just has to be decided later. So that's all... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else? Lee Paulson: I'm Lee Paulson. I live in St, Boni, Minnesota. I just wanted to say that we've been trying to develop this piece of property since 1985 and it aiways, every time I come up here we kind of get beat back and we just would like to get this thing on the road. We've been waiting about 10 years for this and we think it's time for the city to move on because we've accommodated ail the neighbors and we'd just like to move on with it. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: I did receive a call from Mr. Carlson on Friday. He apologized for not being able to be here this evening. He had an event with his daughter and it was quite an honor for him but he did relate, he wanted me to relay that he appreciates being able to work with Bill. I understand there were some subsequent meetings in here and he's happy with the outcomes of those meetings and the current position of where the road stands and he would hope that the Council would support the project. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else? Seeing none, let's close the public hearing. Can I have a motion? 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: Any questions that anyone may have of Bill at this particular time? Councilman Senn: Bill, I'm just curious. Why did the alignment end up departing so much from what we were talking about before of more or less starting so far to the north and then taking such a dip to the south? Bill Engelhardt: This one. This alignment versus this alignment? Councilman Senn: Yeah. See but, well no, What I'm going back to is also our previous conversation where I thought the option being discussed was actually moving the road from the original suggested location to the south rather than the north. Now it seems to me that we're jumping it way up north rather than going south and we're creating a lot of additional roadway to do it. 26 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Bill Engelhardt: Okay, you're talking about this section in here? Councilman Senn: That section there. Originally this is, I thought they were talking about moving the road right here. Now that's gone and all of a sudden we're way up here. Bill Engelhardt: Yeah. The original alignment underneath was what the Baptist church alignment wanted to follow recognizing that they were, we were severing their property and that gave them enough room to get their church, their facility on this site so that's why the alignment was placed here. Then when Mr. Carlson got into the picture, he wanted the alignment more along his property line and it was basically to save some trees and it gave him better access. Then after Carlson purchased this property from the Baptist church, it went back to follow the original alignment for the sewer. If you recall from the sewer map. This is pretty close to being the sewer so if we had the road here and the sewer here, it limits his builclability. So by putting the road as close to the sewer, it gives him more flexibility for this section and more flexibility for this section so that he can tie this area in to the balance of his property down here. So he was looking, Carlson was looking at more of a development that would tie this parcel together versus something in here. Councilman Senn: But again, why are we, again. The sewer stays north but there's a big dip. Why are we dipping down so far south? Bill Engelhardt: This dip in here is to accommodate any lots that Gestach-Paulson may be able to develop along here so that they would have frontage. If we were going to put the road through here, it basically eliminates any buildability and so you're building a section of road from here to here without providing any benefit to anybody and I don't believe that you really want to do that because you'll probably get into a situation where you're severing this property and you'd probably be paying more for right-of-way and that type of thing. Councilman Senn: So you couldn't move it further to the north and just have the lots on the south side of the road? Bill Engelhardt: No. Councilman Senn: Because the sewer effectively that's in the way? Okay. Alright. Bill Engelhardt: Plus the grade in here. The grade of this comes down. Councilman Wing: Bill, tell me about that north alignment. I thought there was something when we talked about that before, there was some grade issues and it got pretty high. Is the north feasible? Could you just basically sketch in where this might go? Bill Engelhardt: Okay, I can do a combination here. I don't know if this will work but we'll try it. Councilman Wing: Both wetlands and elevations. Bill Engelhardt: My original alignment was staying close to this wetlands in here. Basically because this area goes up hill and what I lxied to do is plot the contours. If you look on this map, this would be the alignment that would fit right in here. There's kind of a ravine system and there's a wooded area here and I believe that it would be more expensive to bring that alignment to the north. But again, you want to leave the flexibility so that the Ryan's do have a chance. We aren't fixing those alignments. The original task was just to map a 27 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 course so we'd have somewhat of an idea of where we're going to go. If I was going to do it from an engineering standpoint, I would probably stay south. But it's totally up to the Ryan's and their planners and what they feel would be more agreeable but I think I would stay south, if I was going to do it .... and how you would match in. And it may be that it doesn't go north, it doesn't go south, it might go right through the middle. But with that outlot in there, they can go wherever they want. There is only so much room there to get it through there. That's all there is so somewhere in here it's going to go, whether it's north or south. Councilman Wing: Do we need to map that road now? Would there be any mason to map that road now and is there any connection between the east and the west? I mean if we approve the development to the west, is there any reason to even worry or think about where the alignments are going to be and what happens on the east side? Bill Engelhardt: Not really. Originally it was shown in your comprehensive plan that there would be a collector through there. It really has no bearing on the eastern end of it. Where we stop or where Gestach-Paulson would plan to stop, I think it was indicated earlier that they had like a narrow finger of property. There is really nothing else they can do with that property other than have a cul-de-sac go up. Whether that's extended to the Mancino property, that's a preliminary plat issue at a future date. But it would stop here. By stopping back here, the grade would work either way. It can be done anywhere in there. And anything to the east is really a moot issue. Councilman Wing: So both Mancino's and Ryan's at this point would be protected. Bill Engelhardt: Absolutely. Councilman Wing: And it'd be a whole other set of public heatings. Bill Engelhardt: Absolutely, yeah. Councilman Wing: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendoff: I guess that was my issue as well. The action before us tonight, required before us tonight is pretty straight forward and the option 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5, whatever is decided, needs to be discussed between the Ryan's and Mancino's and Gestach, etc. And that's for future discussions so I have no problem with the western mapping of this tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Michael. Councilman Mason: I concur. With what's going on here. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: Well, I don't have a problem with it as far as it goes for the time being. Mayor Chmiel: Nor do I. I did have some concerns about the wetlands but Richard asked that question for me. This proposal as we have for the road, street and utility extensions, is there anyone that would like to make a motion? 28 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilman Wing: I move to approve Project 92-12 as it relates to the west portion of this parcel. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Resolution g94-60: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the supplement report to the feasibility study for Lake Lucy Road Extension Project No. 92-1:~ dated May 25, 1994, and authorize Engelhardt & Associates to prepare the project plans and specifications. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON PREPARATION OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 3-1. Public Present: Name Address Jim Paulette DataServ Corporation Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Honorable Council. At our last' meeting...to allow DataServ Companies to come back in and review their tax increment advantage and tonight I handed out a letter prior to the meeting from the DataServ people. In that letter they're 'asking for some additional public assistance for some public improvement projects. Of those '5 items, staff feels that there's probably about 2 items in there that you could use tax increment for. Landscaping a boulevard and also matching the paths to arterial systems. However those would have to, the DataServ people would have to grant us an easement to go in there and constxuct those and maintain them. At this point I would just take citizen comments from the citizenry. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there any citizenry here that would like to make comment in regards to this proposal? We did give a time extension for DataServ at that time because of some concerns that they had. They didn't quite understand what we had going with their acceptance...really no other discussion regarding this. So is there anyone else wishing to address this particular issue? As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. If there's something you'd like to say this evening. We do have the letter which I think pretty well spells it out. Is there anyone else wishing to say anything? Jim Paulette: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As you may recall, my name is Jim Paulette. I'm here representing DataServ tonight and I'm here also, my purpose for being here is to voice DataServ's support for the establishment of the tax increment district, which includes our property and we look forward to working with you on this project. And as you mentioned, I guess you do have the letter and I guess I'm here just to answer any questions you might have about some of the requests that we had. Our feeling is just that as a property owner there, that we would like to see the increment dollars that are generated by that site, by the district to be used in that district as much as possible. And this is what we were trying to point out in this letter that these are some of the things that we thought about that we'd like to do on the property. If anybody has any questions about any of those, please let me know if I can answer them. 29 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. There doesn't seem to be any questions. Thank you. Jim Paulette: Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anybody else? I don't believe we closed the public hearing the last time. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion regarding this proposal? If there's not, I'd like a motion. Councilman Senn: I'd move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution g9441: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the program for the Development District No. 3 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing Plan No. 3-1 in accordance with the overall development community, All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously, AWARD OF BIDS: 1994 SANITARY SEWER TELEVISING PROGRAM, PROJECT 94-9-1. Charles l~olch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. We've programmed again this year to do televising programs that we can set up a...sewer rehab program for 1994...we'd recommend award of this quote or contract for the 1994...in the whole contract amount of $2,320.00. Solidication has performed televising work in the city in the past and they do have a proven, acceptable track record with the city. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any discussion? Councilman Mason: One quick question. What channel will this be on? Charles Folch: Late, late, late night. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there a motion to accept the award of bids for the 94-9? Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilman Senn: Second. Resolution ~94-62: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the 1994 Sanitary Sewer Televising Program, Project 94-9-1 contract be awarded to Solidication Inc. at a proposal contract amount of $2~320.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ABRA AND GOODYEAR, 40 AND 50 LAKE DRIVE EAST, DOLPHIN DEVELOPMENT: A. SIGN PLAN REVIEW. B. MATERIALS USE ON GOODYEAR BUILDING. 3O City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Sharmin Al-Jaff: This plan appeared before you 2 years ago. You approved the monument sign for Abra and Goodyear. While the issues that were discussed at the time was the height of the monument sign. You approved a variance for an additional 4. feet to the permitted 8 foot height. You also requested that you review all the signage before it is constructed. The applicant is proposing to locate 3 directional signs as permitted by ordinance, as well as one monument sign which you just saw. The monument sign meets the setback requirement as well as the area~ There have been some revisions since this appeared before the Planning Commission. The height of the directional signs did not meet the requirements at this time. This has been revised since and it was in compliance with ordinance. Abm is proposing to have two wall mounted signs and Goodyear is proposing to have two wall mounted signs. Both buildings will have signage that meets the requirement. This is Abra on two elevations. The south as well as the north. So one will be facing Highway 5 and the other one will be facing Lake Drive. And Goodyear is proposing to have two, like mentioned earlier. One is going to be along the north elevation and the second one would be along the west elevation. We're recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report, Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant here this evening? Joel Harding: Yes. Mr. Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Joel Harding. My address is 536 West 79th Street. That's our business office. I'm with Dolphin Development and Construction. We've been there about 15 years. I only have 3 quick comments on the signs that are proposed through the staff report. They are two comments on the monument sign. I thought we straighten this out at Planning but the sign is perpendicular to Highway 5 as opposed to facing Highway 5 and it is 60 feet. That is 3 signs of 20 square feet each on the monument. Well they're double sides so it's really 120 feet. But that is, as opposed to each individual 3 lots having monuments of 8 so we're well below the quota we otherwise could have. And then the second point is, the directional signs in the staff report indicate that there should be a brick pedestal associated with the signs and our plan was to have them, 1 foot by 4 foot with a metal post. Around Chanhassen today there's not very many examples of directional signs and the ones that I can point to, and I took pictures of them if you're not familiar with them. I'll be glad to pass these around. But over at Chanhassen Bank they have the directional signs and they're not meant to make an architectural statement as much as they are to help people get in and out of the parking lots and so forth to get to the right place. When we met with the Planning Commission about a month ago there was a reference made to the directional signs out at the SA at TH 41 and TH 7 and that brick pedestal. That brick pedestal is really more of a monument type sign that advertises the gas price and the location. Their pedestal signs or their directional signs out there are much similar to the ones you see across the way here. So the only point I wanted to make, it wasn't our plan to, we did not want to build these signs with a brick pedestal and we'd like your consideration on that. If there's any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Richard. Councilman Wing: What are we working on? Just site plan review. Mayor Chmiel: Sign plan review for Abra, yeah. And a couple other things too that axe there with the sign plan. Councilman Wing: Sharmin, what happened to that rood Is that roof under construction or f'mished? On the Goodyear building. Sharmin A1-Jaff: This will be, the roof will be the second item that we will address. 31 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Kate Aanenson: We tried to keep the two separate. One is just the sign permit application and the other one will address the... Councilman Wing: Okay, sign plan review. On the sign issue, I guess I concur with the developer. I don't have a problem with those directional signs being minimized. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What do you think of the fact being brick portion being around? Councilman Wing: On the directional signs? I think it would emphasize the signs more than de-emphasize them. Mayor Chmiel: Any other comment? Councilman Wing: No. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have a problem with the directional signs being on metal poles. Otherwise I don't have problems with those either. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Boring night. I agree with what's being said. Sorry. Mayor Chmiel: You're right. I don't disagree. Mark. Councilman Senn: The monument sign, now that's illuminated? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes. Councilman Senn: And the building sign's illuminated and then the directional signs are illuminated too? Sharmin A1-Jaff: The building signs facing the residential area, across the street from Lake Drive East, should not be illuminated. That's what we're recommending. Councilman Senn: So only the. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Anything facing east to west or north. Councilman Senn: Would be illuminated. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. And the directionals which would be closest to the residential neighborhood. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Are going to be 5 feet high. They won't be visible from the residential area. 32 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Some of my concerns with down lighting and so forth...residential area and that should not really take place is what you're saying. Okay. Alright, any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move approval of the sign plan review. Councilman Mason: Striking the sentence in item number 8. Brick shall be used to cover the poles? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes, thank you. Councilman Mason: You're so welcome. I'll second it. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the sign plans for Abra and Goodyear as shown on the attached plans dated April 18, 1994, with the following conditions: 1. The monument sign which will face Highway 5 shall be 12 feet high and contain only the names of the occupants of Lots 1, 2 and 3. The material and color of brick used shall be consistent with brick and colors used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings. The sign shall be located 10 feet from the north property line as shown on the attached landscaping plan dated April 18, 1994. 2. All businesses built on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall share one monument sign. 3. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 80 square feet. 4. All signs require a separate permit. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. 6. No illuminated signs facing south may be viewed from the residential section located south of Lake Drive East. 7. Only back lit individual letter signs are permitted. 8. The area of all directional signs shall not exceed 4 square feet and the height shall not exceed 5 feet. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: The other portion, Sharmin. Sharmin A1-Jaff: When you approved the site plan for Goodyear, one of the conditions. Well actually the conditions of approval were that this area would be made out of brick material. This would remain as proposed and that louvers would be built on Goodyear as proposed on those plans. When the applicant appeared, applied for the building permit he asked if they could change the material from stucco to block. Concrete block. And if he could change the pattern and we said no. Please stay with what the Council approved. Well, they are requesting the change so their changes would include eliminating the louvers. Using cracked face block rather 33 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 than the drivit for accent and then changing the pattern of the decorative strip. And what we're saying is, if the Council is agreeable with this, then we will allow the changes so it's entirely up to your discretion. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I believe everybody had an opportunity to go out there and look at it today. I know I did and I look at that building and it just son of appalls me. I don't like the color of the roof that's with that gray. You've got different grays with the block that you put in. I don't think that really blends to that building at all. Aesthetically I think it has changed immensely from what we indicated we wanted to see. In comparison as to what's there. What can be done with that right now? Sharmin A1-Jaff: We issued a stop work order and the applicant stated that everything could be con'ected and as approved by the City Council. Mayor Chmiel: It really looks, and I don't like using the word, but it looks to me like a cheap building. It wasn't completely from what I envisioned. I think that's one of the things I didn't approve on in seeing exactly what our products are coming to us and knowing full well and good what it is just as not to meet my expectations from what I thought it was going to be. But that gray roofing that's up there, number one, doesn't blend in with any of the exterior portions of the brick or even that gray, it's introducing another color as well. And it just to me doesn't have the aesthetics that it should. Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I concur with the Mayor. I guess my first comment would be, no changes. We've got a deal. If they want to go back to the Planning Commission and bring in new drawings and new sketches and, go ahead. Bring in new materials. We didn't agree to this and I'm not interested in any changes. I can't, I thought the roof was still under construction. I thought it was just roughed in roof. I guess my third comment would be, are those all really working pipes or are they just dummies to make it look bad? I've never seen a roof anywhere with that many vents, pipes, aluminum crap sitting all over. I thought it must be just stuck up there with glue to aggravate us. That is really, you said it all. I would not have used the work appalling. I'm glad the Mayor did. It saves me from having to have it on the record. It's a cheap building. I don't like it. I hope we're learning. I hope this is why I feel so good about that ordinance we passed requiring better graphics and drawings because we're getting smarter and smarter and these things aren't going to happen. This isn't the Eden Prairie building that Goodyear put up. Somehow Eden Prairie extracted some quality and some architectural standard and a proper roof. We didn't get away with that somehow. They got by us here and so I kind of don't want to hear any changes. The louvers stay. The stucco's stays and is there anything we can do with those roof?. Why there'd be gray on a brick building, they must have picked it up at a garage sale. Nobody would have done that intentionally. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No comment. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: The deal was made. Yeah, I see, yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: Well, isn't the roof as it was approved? I guess basically the roof we insisted on, if I remember right. Or that somebody insisted on. 34 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct, but the accents were going to. Councilman Senn: No, I understand but I'm just saying from a roof standpoint, the roof is as some people insisted on basically. Versus going to a flat roof or whatever. This roof was put on there and that's what shows. I don't know. Going out and looking at it, and dealing with the issues separately, I think the, you know if I visualize the accent strip and say the accent strip is either going to be stucco as approved or it's going to be the rock faced block. Quite honestly I think the rock face block is an improvement. It's a texture. I think if you go back to the stucco you're going to have flat against flat and it's even going to be worse. At the same time I'd like to see something done with color though as it relates to that accent band rather than the gray. The change in the pattern on the decorative stripe I don't think, I mean that to me just seems so inconsequential that it wasn't going to have a big impact one way or the other. As far as the louvers go, I'm in agreement just to, there should be no change there. I mean that's part of the element I think that the whole thing's missing right now. I think that's part of what also makes the roof so noticeable because you have absolutely no break at all basically between that accent band and then going up, which leads you right to the roof. So I think, I would really like to see the louvers go in. The rock faced block, again from a texturing standpoint, I'd like to see that stay. Maybe some color added there. The change of pattern I don't have a problem with. As far as the roof issue goes, I think I'm not sure what the answer is to fixing it up but I think it would look a lot better once the louvers were put in but again, I don't know how we do a lot of changing there because again, they built what we asked them to build. I'm not going to say it was the best thing to build except we asked them to build it. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: I don't disagree with Mark on the texture. I think that's valid but we tried to get a brick building which was kind of a small sizing, if you will. And suddenly the block comes in and block is block. I like texture but here's this brick building and all of a sudden it looks like there's bricks holding up these great big blocks that sit and cement blocks are cement block. And that's, I agree with Mark. Councilman Senn: The stucco's going to look the same way Dick, that's the problem. I think it's really going to look worse because I mean all it's going to do is then you're going to look like. I mean I hate to say it but if you take a flat block and compare it to the stucco, that's in affect the texture you're going to have and look like, so it's going to look like it's holding up a flat block versus a textured block and to me that's why ! think the texture really ends up helping it because it's providing some break in that space. Councilman and it looks the brick. I Wing: If it had texture and wasn't flat I wouldn't mind it but the texture is part of cement blocks like cement blocks really...so it was real noticeable to me. Just blocks that seemed out of place with like the texture, I agree. Councilman Senn: Some color added to that textured block. If you took an earth tone that was a nice contrast but...brick or something, then I think it could really end up enhancing it but. And that's not that difficult. Mayor Chmiel: I don't disagree with that too much there but I think one of the things that we seem to be missing for the buildings coming in. I think this community itself is sort of a traditional kind of buildings. As I was driving back down the service road and I happened to look at the Lutheran Church...church there. That to me is a traditional kind of building. And those are the things that I think we should, at least in my opinion, start looking for in construction of what's going to be going in with any kinds of service buildings as such. And again a little more appearance to give that softer touch and make it look more appealing. I think everybody within this community sort of leans to that...and maybe a few here and there that are not, that like modernistic 35 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 aspects of buildings and that's all well and good and everybody in their own taste but I think from what we look for for the community, with the amount of people that we have within the community, they approach it from that aspect. Councilman Mason: I wonder if some kind of compromise might be in order here. I don't think there's anyone here that particularly likes the way the roof looks right now, at least on this side of the bench. Or chair. Whatever you want to call it. I'm hearing some ambivalence about the rock face and the decorative stripe but I think we're all kind of in agreement about the louvers. I'm wondering if this could go back with staff and Goodyear and see ff anything can be done about the roof and the louvers go up and the other stuff can stay. I'm just throwing it out. Councilman Senn: It would mean re-roofing it. Councilman Mason: Well I don't know. Yeah, maybe that's not an option. Mayor Chmiel: It's an introduction of another color that just. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I mean maybe it wouldn't work but I guess I'm just trying to throw some stuff out here. Councilman Senn: Well the roof could be, I mean the roof could be dealt with again through coloring. Mayor Chmiel: Which is a problem .... doesn't accept it and those crystals that are contained on there...and the other colors are still showing. It's frightful. Councilman Senn: A lot of it would depend on how you take that and tie it together with the color down in the accents. And the accent stripe and so I really think we need to add some color to that stripe. Again, I really hate getting into this because all of us are sitting here talking about what my color preference versus somebody else's color preference is and I think that's ridiculous. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's true. Colors are not part of our portion but when you look at it just from a, carry your own color chart. Councilman Wing: That means...Planning Commission and tell us what kind of shingle it's going to be and what color it's going to be, etc, etc, etc, etc. I guess we got to start doing it. Start building the buildings because if we leave it to people up on the hill, where I change my oil, and this is another example. They don't go in our, well anyway. Councilman Senn: How about if we did something like, you know say the louvers have to be added. Use of the rock face with some color added and the decorative pattern are okay contingent upon staff finding a way to tie it together with the rough structure and get us out of it and let them solve that part of it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I like that. Mayor Chmiel: I think that'd be an acceptable part of that, Councilman Senn: Is that a responsibility you are willing to. 36 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilman Wing: But we get Council support in this? We're asking you to do that and would that mean we wouldn't approve this tonight pending that? Bring it back. Councilman Senn: No, I'd say we approve it contingent upon that being satisfactory to them. Mayor Chmiel: I would say on staff's review and if you so choose to get back and at least for those of us who were interested, to each Councilmember and let us know what the direction's going to be. Councilman Wing: And if they can't work it out, they have a right to bring it back. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with that. Councilman Senn: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the materials used on the Goodyear building to include adding louvers, use of the rock face with some color added and the decorative pattern is okay contingent upon the applicant and staff f'mding a way to tie it together with the rough structure. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REZONING OF 8.46 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, LOCATED AT 8221 GALPIN BOULEVARD, PATRICK MINGER. Public Present: Name Address Peter Knaeble Patrick & Karen Minger 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd, Edina 8221 Galpin Blvd. Kate Aanenson: The applicant is proposing to divide 8.46 acres into 17 single family residential lots. The property is currently zoned A2 and is guided for single family residential. This item did appear before the Planning Commission twice. They went through all the...issues. There's a significant amount of uees.on the site and that was one of the issues before the Planning Commission. Also...the home of Pat and Karen Minger which is located in the northeast comer of the site...by Timberwood Estates which is a large lot subdivision to the south. The city has the parkland that's part of the Stone Creek addition and the city cemetery is located just to 'the north of this plat adjacent to the... Access to the subdivision will be via Galpin Boulevard. There is another home in this area that accesses off a drive, that is the Dempsey property. One of the issues that I indicated that the Planning Commission looked at was loss of trees and access to the site and the adjacency of the road adjacent to the southern lot with the Timberwood homes. The staff looked at moving the street from a 60 foot right-of-way to a 50 foot in order to save trees and a variance from the 30 foot setback to a 20. We did look at, one reason why this was tabled at the Planning Commission was looking at the possibility of using a private drive. 4 homes can be used on a private drive and the potential of saving additional trees. But with the lot configuration and grading...it was determined that additional tree preservation would not be accomplished and 37 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 therefore we recommended staying with the public street. Outlot A, which is located in the southern portion of the plat. At the end of the first cul-de-sac will be provide access to the park. Again, that was indicated at Stone Creek. The first cul-de-sac...you can see that liule area of red that I've shaded in. That cul-de-sac accesses by the existing Dempsey property. There's a ghost plat shown on this but his property is not being platted at this time but that is how...and we see access being off of that cul-de-sac .... as far as streets is that when he develops his property, that additional area shown in red will have to be developed plus an additional 10 feet to get that total street fight-of-way. What we're recommending now at this point is that you...via a pfivate drive. 4 homes off that private drive so it will not be developed at this time. When utilities go in, the existing utilities for those ghost plats along Mr. Jensen's property so we're indicating as part of this report that whoever develops the Dempsey property, whether it's Mr. Dempsey or somebody else buys it, that they'd be responsible for that segment of road. Another issue that was raised as a part of this was the applicant's...utilities, that they be reimbursed for those service utilities. The Engineering Department is looking at doing that. We have...on previous plats. One of the biggest issues then was the preservation of the woodland areas indicated on brown, Preservation on the backs of lots. Just as a general rule we looked at 50 feet around the backs of all the lots. There are some instances where we looked at 40 and 30. As far as the woodland management plan, they're allowed to take up to slightly over 5 acres and that's what they are taking out so they're following...with the conservation easement...and layout looks as best at preserving natural. We are recommending as part of the plat that the...on Galpin that there be a streetscape. In addition, that any trees that would not have, any lots that would not have trees, they would have to provide that. Again, what we're recommending in order to preserve trees is that we go the 50 foot right-of-way and the homes be allowed a 20 foot setback instead of the 30. Grading and drainage, there was some drainage issues that were raised by the residents. There is a swaled area that goes along the back of some of the lots in Timberwood. Some of that drainage will continue but this subdivision should correct a lot of the drainage problems that currently exist. There is a swale area between Lots 13, Lots 12, 11 and 13. What we're recommending...is the installation of drainage tiles lor this swaled area to make sure that we don't have water problems with those homes. Park and open spaces. I indicated the Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that Outlot A be platted for trails and access purposes in order to get to the park. The had their meeting on...Based on that, staff is recommending that City Council approve the plat and the recommendations in the staff report. We do have one condition that is, we did address it in the staff report although it's not specifically listed as a condition and that would be condition number 21. And that'd be the cul-de-sac adjacent to the Dempsey property, the most westerly cul-de-sac will be developed but right now it will be a private street so it will be developed to a full street, along with 50 foot street right-of-way with the Dempsey property development at the expense of whoever develops the Dempsey property. What we're saying now is it should just be left as a private street with the specs that we have for the 30 foot fight-of-way. Excuse me, we'll get the fight-of-way but only the 20 foot... Mayor Chmiel: Kate, will we also post something there to let developers or people who develop their properties, where that proposed street's going to go? Kate Aanenson: We'll somehow put that...but there are negotiations between the two parties because... The Mingers have had to work with the Dempsey's and maybe it'd be...can answer that more closely but there is some cross easements to some other areas. We'll have to put that on...so the next person knows and that's the intent of putting that as a condition. I guess what we're saying there is these 4 homes already have access and to go back and assess them later...are enjoying the access to their property and trying to go back and assess them would be difficult. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Is that it? 38 City Council - Meeting - June 13, 1994 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is the applicant here? Is there anything you'd like to say? Peter Knaeble: No. We agree with the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. And could I have your name please. Peter Knaeble: My name's Peter Knaeble. I'm the engineer for the applicant. I'm here tonight with Pat Minger and Karen Minger, the owners of the property. They're also here. We've been working with city staff since last fall on this project. We've gone through a number of gyrations on the development but we've tried to frae tune it as best we could given...a plan that satisfies all the conditions that we...so we're here tonight just to answer any additional questions. Mayor Chmiel: Can you answer the question that I asked Kate previously? Peter Knaeble: Yes. In regards to, well there are two issues. One would be signing that private driveway to make sure the people that live there...will be extended to a public street and cul-de-sac. That can be done as a part of our final construction plans... The other would be to put the Dempsey property on what is... Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Are there any questions? Richard. Councilman Wing: No sir. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Given that this is a preliminary plat and we need input about what I think of this development and the density and the layout, etc. I have a lot of problems with the density issues given that it's bordered by Timberwood which are large lot estates. The cemetery, a park and other low density uses and especially given the tree coverage in here. It makes me sick when I drive across the street from this development to Trotters Ridge and see what's gone in there and the hardwoods that have been taken out of that and I don't want to see it happen across the street. This is too dense given the surrounding uses and the amount of trees that will have to be taken out to accomplish these number of homes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else? Councilman Wing: Do you have a solution to that? I say this every time as I bring it up, I say... Councilwoman Dockendorf: I know you want an ordinance. I know. Councilman Wing: What's the solution to prevent these concerns? Do you have any ideas? Councilwoman Dockendoff: No. Because I don't agree with your position that we need to change our ordinances. I mean this is not a PUD. This is a regular. Councilman Wing: Oh no, no. No. No relationship. If we take you at your word and for that issue, is there any way we can approve that to accomplish your concerns? 39 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't know. You know it's hard to vote against something if they meet all the requirements in the ordinance, etc. All I can say from my gut is I do not like this. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Given Colleen's concern, I think that's kind of the price we pay living in a city that's growing as rapidly as the city of Chanhassen is growing, I don't in this particular instance, I don't share some. I share the concerns that Colleen has but it seems to me that they're following our guidelines for the canopy, The tree canopy and following everything else so I don't, you know unless we're going to change what we have in place, I'm hard pressed you know. I mean it looks, you know when I hear the applicants agree with the staff report and staff's obviously worked hard at it, it's telling me that everybody's apparently working pretty well together on the project so that to me is a good sign. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could I ask a point? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Kate, did you hear from I believe it's the Richardson's who live to the north of where there will be 4 homes abutting their property? Or Bielski or something tike that. Kate Aanenson: I believe at the first Planning Commission, those neighbors were there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And they didn't have concerns about 4 homes in their backyard? Kate Aanenson: Oh yeah they did but that same issue came up with Stone Creek and it came up with Heritage. What we looked at too is, there's not a lot of woods in the back there and they're set back quite a ways. It goes back to when we looked at the comprehensive plan, that's what it was guided for. I share your concern...That's why we put the 50 foot tree conservation easement. We felt that really based on the fact that they're set back quite a ways and the 50 foot conservation easement adjacent to Timberwood, it really should be an effective screen. So the house won't be... Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought that was a good solution for a lack of trees... Kate Aanenson: We spent a lot of time trying to resolve...There was a concern about that. With the cemetery, it loses some of those trees. I think it compromises trying to protect those homes...or it came up in the Minutes. How far was the setback. It was a substantial distance. I think with the preservation area, we should be able tO... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark, Councilman Senn: I guess this is preliminary plat. I guess I'd like to think about it some more before f'mal. We keep coming up against these I guess two different ways, One way we keep coming up against them is we keep coming up and saying we need more affordable lots to create more affordable housing. On the other end you know we come up with other situations where we say we need bigger lots. It's just going to take us exactly the opposite way but at the same time makes the development pretty unaffordable sometimes for the landowner. You've got to be able to get certain densities out of a piece of property to afford all the public systems and 4O City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 everything else that we require them to put in. I guess I don't have any magic answers for it but I guess...we haven't had a Council meeting lately where this hasn't come up so maybe we should concentrate on it and look at it a little more diligently before we start wrapping these up. Don, I agree 100% with your comment and we've got to stick some kind of safeguard in there so we don't end up with another one of those where people come back later and say I didn't know that. I'd really like to throw that one to staff or city attorney or somebody and just I mean really have it etched in something so there's definitely no possibility of them coming back later and saying, you know. Oh, nobody told us that 5 years ago or whatever. I think the surest way to do that is somehow or another get attached to the title there or whatever but I don't know. I don't know. Turn that over to the experts and I'd love to see something done on that. Mayor Chmiel: I guess there's not too much that I can really add to this too and I talked to Kate this afternoon. I talked to Bob about this earlier today and I had most of my questions answered in relationship to what I had in here. So with that I would like to have a motion. Councilman Mason: I will move. Mayor Chmiel: To accept preliminary plat. Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: And condition number 21. Councilman Mason: As stated. Mayor Chmiel: As previously indicated. Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Second? I'll second. Councilman Senn: I'm sorry. I'm just hesitating. Now 21 is the addition of the notification or some way to. Kate Aanenson: Right. That...Dempsey property...that cul-de-sac. Councilman Senn: Alright. Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approves 93-25 Subdivision and 94-1 Rezoning providing for the preliminary plat on 9.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots, rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single-Family Residential, RSF and a front yard setback variance of ten (10) feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet throughout the development subject to the following conditions: Accept full park and trail dedication fees as prescribed by city ordinance for the Minger subdivision in lieu of land acquisition. Provide a 20 ft. trail easement to the west of Lot 17 for connection to the city park and construct an 8 ft. wide asphalt trail stub within this easement. The city shall reimburse the developer for 41 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 e 6. 7. 8. 10. 12. this construction. In addition, design an adequate landscape buffer between this easement and the home which will be constructed on Lot 17. Prior to f'mal platting, the applicant will be required to provide a boulevard landscaping plan for the first 300 feet of the entrance road into the development in order to replace the existing vegetation that will be removed as part of the road and utility grading into the site. A Woodland Management Plan shall be developed for the subdivision prior to the final platting of the property. This plan shall comply with section 18-61 (d) (3) of the City Code. Incorporate a Fifty (50) foot tree conservation area be dedicated along the perimeter of the plat, except for Lot 7 where a thirty (30) foot easement will be required and Lot 8 along the easterly property line where a forty (40) foot easement will be required. Within this area only selective thinning to promote the health and survivability of trees will be permitted or such other clearing or preventative care measures as delineated in the woodland management plan. Additionally, this area, especially along the northern border of the plat could be used as a forestation or replacement area for trees. Thinning, forestation, and tree replacement are conditioned on the development of a Woodland Management Plan by a forestry professional that would address these issues. The following tree conservation easements would also be dedicated as part of the plat: a forty (40) foot easement centered on the common lot lines of Lots 2 and 3, and Lots ~1 and 5; a t~s~nty (20) foot easement along tho south lot line of lot 5; a twenty (2/}) foot easement along the north lot line of Lot 7; a fifty (50) foot easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 10, 11, 14, and 15: a forty ('10) foot ~ar, emant along the south lot line of lot 12; a forty (40) foot easement along the easterly property line of Lot 14; an easement over the southern 115 feet of Lot 13; and an eighty (80) foot easement along the east lot line of Lot 16. No construction activity of any kind will be permitted within these easements except the drainage tile installation in the rear yards of Lots 10 and 11, the removal of the existing driveway in Lots 1, 2, and 3, and the placement of small sheds, storage structures, or play equipment under guidelines incorporated in the Woodland Management Plan. The applicant shall work with staff on the adjustment of easements and house pads on individual lots to save additional trees. The applicant shall include runoff from the cemetery in the proposed pond design and construction. Remove the applicant's existing private driveway once the street is paved with the fa'st lift of asphalt. Provide water quantity/quality pending according to SWMP requirements. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls to save the 34-inch oak and 28-inch oak on Lot 1, Block 1. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review and approval. The existing homes will be required to change their addresses consistent with the new street names and numbering system Compliance with the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum from Bill Weckman, Assistant Carver County Engineer to Bob Generous dated 4/25/94. The applicant shall investigate tho shortening of tho easterly cul de mc tho uso of a private drive to 42 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 s~rvic~ tho four hours at th~ t~rminus of th$ oul de sac. 11. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the public improvements will be required for submittal with final plat approx;al. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval. 12. Prior to the city signing the final plat, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. 13. The Minger's house shall be connected to sanitary sewer within 30 days after the line becomes operational. The Dempsey's house will have to connect to sanitary sewer within 12 months after connection becomes available. The homes may utilize their existing wells until they fail, then the parcels must connect to city water. The existing septic systems shall be abandoned per state and/or local codes. 14. The applicant shall apply and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as MPCA, health department, watershed district, DNR and Carver County Highway Department. 15. The developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during conslruction. 16. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and pending calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10-year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. 17. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP I~ansformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 18. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 19. Depending on the storm pending calculations, if the development is not meeting the City SWMP for water quantity, then the applicant will be required to contribute into the City's SWMP program. The proposed rate per acre for single family is $1,980/acre excluding wetlands. 20._:. Aoplicant shall shift the westerly cul-de-sac ten to fifteen feet east at the intersection to move the roadway away from the existing house. 21, The most westerly cul-de-sac adjacent to the Dempsey property will be a private street at this time. However, when the Dempsey property develops further, it will then be improved to a public street with 50 foot street right-of-way at the expense of whoever develops the Dempsey property. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 43 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 4tol. Roger Knutson: You have to rezone. Mayor Chmiel: Oh yes. We have to rezone on that one. It is a preliminary plat and rezoning of the property. Let me rephrase that as a motion. I'il recall the previous motion. Roger Knutson: Previous motion to rezone. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's make a proposal to rezone. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 10315 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. Public Present: Name Address John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins Doug Chesnut 1 Gardner Lane, Dellwood 55110 Greg Eswine 850 Lecroy, Atlanta, GA John Finnemore 800 Roosevelt, Glen Ellyn, 1L 60137 Carol Riddle 4000 Leslee Curve Sharmin AI-Jaff: The applicant is proposing to construct a daycare facility and expand the warehouse and press room of the Press building. Mayor Chmiel: Just a minute. Mark, maybe you'd like to step down. Councilman Senn: Well for the time being I'm going to hang tight right here. Mayor Chmiel: I think according to what the rules would be...do not have to step down rather than sitting in Council's position. Roger Knutson: I spoke earlier on the telephone and...formally they have no f'mancial interest in this project whatsoever. Mayor Chmiel: Good. That has changed from previously. Councilman Senn: No. It's always been that way. stated. Mayor Chmiel: Okay .... you're on deck. If you'll recall the last Council meeting, that was also City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Kate Aanenson: Do you want to let Sharmin give her staff report? Mayor Chmiel: Oh no, Sharmin. I'm sorry. I'm trying to move this too quick. 11:00 is coming quick. Sharmin AI-Jaff: Okay. I promise I'll be done... Okay, full access to the site is being from 77th Su'eet and 187th Avenue West. There's also proposed a right-in, right-out only for Kindercare via Doll Road. There is an accompanying subdivision request to replat the site into 3 parcels. Lot 1 is being expanded to accommodate the Press expansion. Lot 2 is reserved for future development. We are not aware of any pending development on that parcel and Lot 3 is for the proposed Kindercare. The proposed Press expansion will utilize scored concrete panels. An identical material to that used on the existing building. The Kindercare building...ceramic tile, a canopy and will have a pitched roof. One of the advantages resulting from the expansion on the Press site is that currently their existing loading docks that can be viewed from Highway 5. With the proposed expansion, everything is being pushed to the north facing 77th Slxeet so that would provide better views of the building. For the proposed landscaping plan, and berming, certain areas will be screened from views from the highway. Staff is recommending approval of this application. This item appeared before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Press expansion. However, they denied the Kindercare facility. They base their denial on fn-st of all their electric magnetic field running parallel to Highway 5. No. There are electric lines running parallel to Highway 5. Councilman Mason: It's those electric magnetic fields that are doing it. Just kidding. Sharmin AI-Jaff: Electric lines create electric magnetic fields. Staff doesn't have the expertise on electric magnetic fields. However, we have contacted different agencies and ordered their studies. Those studies are enclosed in your packets. Kindercare has a policy not to locate their buildings next to electric lines that radiate electro magnetic fields. When we read the studies, we have to admit, they were inconclusive and the State doesn't have a policy regarding this issue. One of the other things that the Planning Commission wanted was to see the building and the parking lot flip flopped to where the building would be facing Highway 5 and the parking lot would be far from the Highway 5, screened completely by the building. Well that created an issue with Kindercare. As well as some of the commissioners felt that if there is an issue with eleclxo magnetic fields, then there's an environmental issue and are they creating a future problem with the children. Third issue was parking circulation. The Planning Commission felt uncomfortable with the parking and felt sa'ongly that traffic leaving the Press building would just cut through the Kindercare parking area using it as a shortcut. To address this problem the applicant has introduced a median that would separate the parking lot of the Press from the Kindercare. Architectural style of Kindercare was another issue. Planning Commission felt it didn't fit in with the industrial park. And one last issue was, the access point. The access point onto West 77th Slreet. We measured the turning radius off of Dell Road. We measured the turning radius on this access point and we believe that, we know that a fire truck will not be able to make this turn unless the Kindercare building was shifted back at least 40 feet to accommodate a straight alignment for, rather than having this meandering access point. With that we are recommending approval of this application. If the City Council elects to deny it, you might want to adopt the...Planning Commission recommendations. Otherwise, staff is recommending approval of the subdivision, conditional use permit and site plan with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: We'll go to the developer fkst and then we'll come back. Okay. I'd like to, if you have anything more pertinent than the previous discussions. I think we've gone through the process a couple different times so I'll let you lead with that. John Dietrich: Thank you Mayor. John Dietrich from RLK Associates representing the Press and Kindercare 45 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 facility for the proposed site plan review~ preliminary plat and conditional use permit for the joint application. Also tonight is John Finnemore and Greg,,.of Kindercare so if there are specific questions in regards to the facility of the Kindercare, they will be able to address those. I'll be able to address any of the specific issues in regards to the site plan and layout of the site for the two facilities. What I'd like to do is utilize the overhead projector here and maybe keep that up, If I could just keep that up so that we have an opportunity to refer to that. This plan is the culmination of the comments that were made at previous meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council and it is in response to some of the issues in terms of access from Dell Road and also in regards to the access for cut thru traffic fi'om the Press facility into the Kindercare.,.development, The site plan also reflects,.,immediate proposed expansion for the Press facility and it identifies a secondary expansion for the proposed press room and in that regards the parking lot has taken on a slightly different configuration around the architectural buildings of the Press. So that the future expansion of the Press would be done in two phases versus one and the site plan and parking lot have responded to this immediate request for the proposed warehouse expansion along the north side of the parking lot, A couple of issues I would just like to refer to and I'd like John to respond to any of the Kindercare issues. One, that this is a joint application from the Press and the Kindercare. That the application from the Press facility, that is a 13 year office/warehouse manufacturing facility in the city of Chanhassen, It employs approximately 325 people, And the Kindercare facility is a nationally recognized chain which will also be able to provide a service to the daycare community, users in this area where there's an expressed need for that type of facility at this time. We are proposing that the site plan be expanded according to city codes and that this would need to be a joint application in order to move forward. The property ownership north of the Kindercare is reported to be still owned by the Press for future options on that site, Kindercare would be purchasing the southwest comer of this lot and they would be the sole owners of that lot, tt will be a joint facility by means of the access coming from West 77th Street. Joint access will take off some of the pressure for potential U turns at 77th and Dell and allow access into this facility from both the Press parking area and users of the Kindercare. The added landscape buffer area along the east side of the Press parking lot will help and eliminate we feet the cut thai traffic that was potentially coming through the Press parking lot. Also the access onto Dell Road has been modified slightly to provide a larger radius so that it will be more accommodating to larger service and school and educational facility type vehicles. The landscaped areas around the site will be constructed according to the landscape plans that were submitted and we would also like to continue to work with staff to add the landscaping to the eastern island of the parking lot according to the standards that are already proposed. In addition, the landscape plan that was proposed for the Kindercare will provide a strong screened element as a complimentary back drop 'for a proposed entry element...if so desired by the City Council and staff. The landscaped berm would screen all of the parking from Highway 5 so that individuals driving west or east along Highway 5 would not have an opportunity to see the parking lot. We do have one cross section perspective that indicates an existing condition today from Highway 5 looking north into the site. That this berm that is currently out there would be continued to the east so that it would screen the parking that is further back than the current Press parking is today. The landscaped area for the Kindercare ranges from 45 feet to 75 feet to the property line. Along the south side of the site. In addition, if we took from the proposed parking lot area to the back of the existing bituminous trail, the area for planting expands from 110 feet to 130 feet. We feel an opportunity is here for the city and Council, if they so desire, that this area has the potential to be incorporated into an entry element for landscaping at this site with the amount of area that is being proposed. The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with staff to modify the changed landscaped plans necessary so that it would be able to incorporate an entry node design if so desired. And I should note that ff this application was approved, the landscaping would be the last element to go in and I anticipate that would be the spring of '95 so there's still time to work on getting something put together. Comments from the...staff report in regard to the building location of the EMF, electro magnetic frequencies. I'd like John to speak to those... 46 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 John Finnemore: My name is John Finnemore. I'm the Construction Manager for Kindercare. In reference to some of the comments from the, the reasons for denial by the Planning Commission. The issue of the electro magnetic field. It's correct what staff said. There are really no conclusive studies on electro magnetic fields. However, it is a very well studied and debated topic. And what Kindercare has done as a company, in the event there are rulings and federal guidelines to come out about electro magnetic fields, what has been thrown about is a reading of 2.0 miloganst or greater as being the level where electro magnetic fields are a problem. So what we have done is, I have what is known as a ganst meter that measures electro magnetic fields in milogaust and we, that's why we've set the building back where we have. To the point where our building is the point where the reading is 2.0 or lower. So we are trying to address the potential of this electro magnetic field. If anything is ever proven about it and it's not something...it is a highly debated topic. And most of the studies, although they are inconclusive, have indicated that if there are any ill effects, those ill effects are increased when it comes to children. So we as a child care company have to be cognizant of that. And that is why we've located the building at the point we have. As far as just flipping the building and the parking for the sake of doing so, there's not a development up and down throughout the plan that doesn't have the parking in front so to just take that up here, it doesn't seem like the proper location to do it. That, compounded with the electro magnetic field potentials. As far as the circulation, I believe that the island that's been added...will .help with the cut thm traffic. If a fire track needs to access our facility, they can do so off of West 77th Street. And also as far as the architectural look of Kindercare. We are bringing a commercial type facility into an industrial area. I believe that we enhance the area as opposed to bringing a detriment to it. It's a good mmsition from the residential uses !~. hind us to the industrial areas as you continue on down going west on TH 5. So I believe we would be a benefit to the community and help provide much needed child care in the area. John Dietrich: Just...City Council, we will be available for questions and we respectfully request that we receive approval for the applications that are in front of you tonight with the modifications that staff have recommended and your proposed staff, proposed modifications that are in the staff report for the site plan review, preliminary plat and the conditional use permit to allow a daycare facility in an IOP district. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Carol Riddle: Mr. Mayor and the Council. I'm Carol Riddle. I've live in Chanhassen for about 20 years and I know you've had a long night and I won't keep you long but I come from a completely different perspective tonight about the Kindercare issue. I work with parents who are looking for daycare in the Chanhassen area. I'm employed by the Kerf Agency. We serve Carver and Scott Counties as well as Dakota County. One of the programs that I'm involved with is...referral and we work with parents who call us looking for child care. The Chanhassen area is very lacking in the necessary child care. You have prepared all the subdivisions. I've listened here tonight. All the new subdivisions coming in. The young families. This is a people issue and that's the way I'm addressing you tonight. I'm not coming here on behalf of either side as far as the pros and cons of whether, where it should be. The daycare center should be located. I'm merely coming to tell you that there is a desperate need for more daycare in Chanhassen. We, in Chanhassen at the present time there are 48 family daycare providers and 2 centers who take infants all through school age for child care. 41 of those 48 child care providers care for infants. The others choose not to. The other 7. Of those 41, they can only, are only allowed 5. DHS rules that govern daycare, to take 2 children under a year old. Infants I should say. Usually these daycare providers, family daycare providers I'm speaking now, are young mothers who are staying home with their children and many of them have infants so that lessens the spot to maybe 1 per provider. 48 spots. Of the centers, one center is licensed for I believe 15 infants. One center is licensed for 20. One of the centers has a waiting list, their next projected infant opening is August of 1995. So there are just very, very many people looking for care that's not there. In the last 3 months, 47 parents who have moved into the City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Chanhassen area have called our office looking for care. Just Chanhassen. Of those 47, 26 were looking for infant care. As of today I had, including spaces in centers and spaces in daycare homes, I had a total of 8 slots. That's 8 options that I could offer parents. Well, we check our openings with our providers and with our centers on a regular basis. You can imagine how far that's going to go. And look at all the places you have opened up tonight for young families to come. I was working with, I worked with a colleague in Minneapolis and she called me last week looking for a client of her's who needed care. Who was moving into Chanhassen and needed care for 2 young children. One was an infant. And I said, not much here and I gave her the spots I had. 3 daycare homes and 5 slots otherwise. And she said, can you imagine why anyone would want to move into an area with a young family or if they were preparing to have a young family and find that there would be no daycare there. That would be one of the things you would want to look at first. And you know you'd have to ask yourselves that same question. How many young families are going to choose not to come here? I've lived here for 20 years. I've seen the growth of Chanhassen. I've seen it grow from just a little tom to the nice things we have today. We have the Target. We have the Byerly's soon. We have the industrial park. We have many, many nice things. We have the trails and the parks. We have good schools. But we have to do something for these youngest members of our community, and one of them is to get affordable and plenty of the daycare. We need to get as much daycare as we can do. We are working through resource and referral, we work with lots of things. We are trying to improve the new home daycare providers, If you have the opportunity to find a spot in Chanhassen for a center that is willing to come here and would serve our young people. Our young children, then I certainly would urge you to consider that because if we don't have a spot for these youngest members of our community, I'm afraid that that will limit the growth of our city, Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other questions? Council may have. Before we get into that, Mark just a, in looking through the brochure. Information that's been prepared by RLK, just make me feel better. It says on here...Kindercare, Press site plan approval submission, March 7, 1994. Prepared for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. The developer, Marcus Corporation. Councilman Senn: There effectively is no, I mean it's a name only Don. There is no developer. I mean as far as any developer or construction on the Press, that will be done by Opus Corporation. And as far as any on the Kindercare, that's done by Doug, I forget the name of your company. I'm sorry. Doug Chestnut: Real Estate Diversified. Councilman Senn: Real Estate Diversified. So, we aren't involved in that at all. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's no involvement by you whatsoever? Councilman Senn: Not personally. Mayor Chmiel: Within. I just don't understand why the portion of the, the development portion, your corporation is on it. That's why I'm. Councilman Senn: Well probably because I'm the one who facilitated it, as I explained. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any specific questions, as I asked before. Councilman Wing: I just wanted to check. I can't remember from the Planning Commission meeting a month or so ago. The number of cars delivering morning and night. Wasn't it something like 1130 cars coming 48 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 between 6:00 and 8:00 and 1130 cars coming between 4:00 and 6:00? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Wing: So very large traffic volumes during these pick-up and drop off. John Finnemore: It'd be 84 inbound and 72 outbound, a.m. peak. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let me state first what I don't have a problem with. I think the use is fine in an industrial area~ It's not more odd than a Jehovah Witness church is in an IOP. And I don't have a problem with that. The parking in front, I don't have a problem with either seeing that we've got a parking lot fight next door and I have both from a car and on foot looked at the perspectives from Highway 5 and that sidewalk and there truly is indeed a decent sized berm that will screen that parking. The materials that the building will be built with, I don't have a problem with. I take the develop, well I mean nobody knows about the electro magnetic fields so it's hard to comment on that issue. The issues I do see is number one, the circulation between the Press parking lot and the Kindercare parking lot. I know we've added a center island or an island there and you do have a little bit of a dip with a gutter but has it ever been considered just cutting that off altogether? And if not, what are the reasons for not considering that? Sharmin AI-Jaff: Colleen, you're asking about this? Councilwoman Dockendorf: completely cutting that off. cutting through. No. I'm asking on the other side. The connection to the Press parking. For I mean I think there will be a lot of cutting through. A tremendous amount of Shannin A1-Jaff: You just need another access point. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So that's the reason, you need two accesses to any public building, is that it? Sharmin AI-Jaff: Again, I mean this is right-in/fight-out only. There is a median fight here so that's going to. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, I get it. Sharmin AI-Jaff: It's eliminating the access, exactly. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And I'm also concerned about the U tums that will take place. But I'm very frustrated that, I mean these issues just don't seem insurmountable to me and yet they have not been resolved. And I'm not saying I have a solution for them. I'm just saying I have a concern about cutting through. I guess that's my basic concern and just getting in and out of the facility. I don't have a problem with the use at all, the placement of the parking lot and I guess if there are no better ways to resolve getting in and out, then between the balance of the pros and cons, I'm willing to let the project go forward. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything more? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. 49 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: I don't understand what some of the problems have been with this project to begin with. I share the frustrations of Colleen. I'm set to move on it. I do think some of the problems have been because, for whatever reason, Marcus Corporation's name is on it and I think that raises some other issues that perhaps we need to take a look at. But in terms of this project, I don't have any Irouble with it. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess all I'd like to say is I went and talked Kindercare into coming here because I think we really had an extreme shortage of daycare, okay. I facilitated, I don't know if you want to call it a marriage or a meeting or whatever between Kindercare and the Press because I thought I saw it as a win-win for everybody. The reason I saw it as a win-win was it enabled the Press to go ahead with an expansion. They had been contemplating but economically hadn't really found a way to do. I saw it as a win because it took some very, I'm going to say undesirable elements and hid them by basically getting rid of a lot of I'm going to say truck trailers that are being used for warehousing. Invisible because of a current way out. I thought it was also a good marriage because in effect getting both to move would bring more employment, more jobs, both in terms of the Kindercare and the Press to Chanhassen. And you know all those elements together I think is and would be and would continue to be a win-win for the city. I'd really like to see the project go forward and I don't really quite understand all of the specific issues that have been raised because I think most of them have been raised and dealt with over a period of time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess in looking at the entirety of the project I've been trying to keep an open mind with this as well. The electro magnetic fields, I can sit and talk on that probably the hours but I'm not going to. The thing that I did not like about the project in itself was the accessibility out to Dell Road. I think if Dell Road was sealed off completely, because I do envision seeing a lot of vehicles going in and through that particular area from the Press, and let me back up one or two. I don't think we've had any problem at all with the Press in doing their proposed warehouse expansion at any given time. This was brought in and as John indicated, it would have to be a joint application. And I still don't understand that. Making that warehouse capacity space, I'd say all well and good. Let's move ahead. I don't have any problem with that. But it seemed like something else was being pushed to get both things in at one given time and I think that's probably some of the concerns that we're hearing. But I do see, as I mentioned, the access of the employees coming out and getting off Dell Road to reach the stop and go light in that location. I also see some of the other businesses on down that line possibly using that same exit as well. Creating more traffic. Not just the Press, but you have two other businesses right along there which is going to, as Colleen mentioned, I have some concern with that. And I really do, because there's going to be a lot more traffic moving in this location and going back to the normal flow and going back in there around the Press on 77th Street and exiting out onto Dell Road. I see that as one of my real concerns and it's been that way since.., Richard. Councilman Wing: Let me ask a question... Mayor Chmiel: No, go ahead. Councilman Wing: I take a little, maybe a couple other little off beat approaches here. We just got done tonight talking about a building we're really frustrated with across the street and the use of block and it's roof and so on and so forth. And ff we look at items 1 thru 10, the daycare issue I mean is very significant. I would agree 5O City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 with that and I support daycare anyplace we can get it. I think there is a need for that but I'm not willing to try and put it someplace it doesn't belong nor am I willing to drop my development slandards to get it there. And that's kind of how I felt. As this thing evolved we were talking about cars careening out of control. I'll bring up a tank truck careening out of control at Dell Road or a haz mat spill or incident at Dell Road. It's a 55 mph highway. We're worried about traffic going out of control and then the power line issue came up. So this didn't mm out to be a very warm, fuzzy, cozy comer for a daycare center all of a sudden. If it had been moved to the north lot I wouldn't have questioned the building, it's style, anything. I think it's a great idea. But suddenly we had kind of a home like structure coming into an IOP district, which I agree with Colleen. May be no different than the church going but this is on our highway. It's not second tier or off our highway. They're tucked down in an industrial path somewhere down the road. This is our gateway lot to our city so we're trying to put a daycare center under power lines with heavy traffic with a traffic flow that doesn't, apparently doesn't work real well. Planning Commission hasn't felt so. And it just, I started to back off you know. Would I want to put my children here? Well I started to say, no. I don't think I would approve this because I don't think I'd put my children there if we're talking about cars that can go out of control and power line issues that we can't resolve because we don't know, and I'm not going to use those as excuses because I don't think either one are real big issues. So daycare I support but I guess I don't' support it in this lot. With the health issues that were brought up. With the access issues that were brought up. With the Highway 5 corridor study and it's desire to have parking lots and everything behind. The building's forward. The building forward. All the parking lot and elements behind the highway and that wasn't met. And then I went out and I looked at 4 Kindercare buildings, and if you thought the Goodyear was appalling, I was really set back by what I saw in Bloomington and Eden Prairie and I took pictures of the roofs and I brought them back to Planning and I said, if nothing else, if you approve this, at least improve the roofs. Get rid of, I mean just the straight linear roof has been an issue. And t,hey're just not qualify buildings. You can call them commercial but there's homes in the area that I think are of better quality. So I didn't see this compatible in an IOP district. As a matter of fact, if I could digress just to a New Yorker cartoon where it has the little old lady with the shotgun across her lap. Sitting in her little Victorian house rocking and on all sides of her are these enormous skyscrapers and she says, I'm not going to sell. I kind of looked at this building up against the quality building of the Press, it's kind of that same style. I mean it's sort of, it just didn't go together so for me this just didn't sell. And the Planning Commission I think just did everything possible to try and exlract the quality we have a right to deserve on Highway 5. Again, if this was second tier I wouldn't question it but this is the front tier of Highway 5 and I think they did a good job. I think they had every angle they could. They tried to do the best they could. I could just pick a page at random here, which I just did and they talked about not fitting in and the problems with the traffic. That daycare isn't dependent on being on a major highway. It doesn't need that exposure. I mean there's a desire there. They could fill it up tomorrow. I mean they've got all these applications in. We're trying to work something in that just doesn't fit. Circulation wise. So I agree and I guess what this boils down to, and let me just get it into one sentence. I just guess in this case I really do support the Planning Commission recommendations and would approve the Press. I have no problem other than with that wall...seeing that design and if you elect to go with this Kindercare, then I at least think we ought to extract something off this roof. We've got a mistake across the street and I think the roofline on this building, based on what I've seen of the other buildings, is very poor. So I support the Planning Commission recommendations. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Greg Eswine: Mr. Mayor, I would like to respond directly to a few of the comments please. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. 51 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Greg Eswine: My name is Greg Eswine and I'm Director of Real Estate for Kindercare and I was the person who chose this site, as I have many others throughout the United States. I've been doing this for approximately 10 1/2 years. I've done major consulting with a lot of corporations, companies that utilize childcare throughout the country as well. In speaking to the traffic issue, again traffic circulation and traffic is always a main concern for us because anytime we're selecting a site, probably the most primary concern that we look at is ingress and egress and how, about the safety and how easy and accessibility it is for the parents. Because parents, when they're choosing child care, besides the fact the lack of facilities, is how easily they can get in and out of a facility and on their way to work and vice versa coming home to pick up their children. When we talk about capacity of building and Mr. Mayor, you were responding directly to you. You see a major flow and for some reason conceptually people think because you have 100 child capacity center, all 100 children you know converge on this piece of property all at one time. In other municipalities we've done studies where basically, because in our business, we actually have sign in and sign out sheets. We don't have a drop off area where children can get out. They have to sign in and sign out on these sheets and studies in the past, what we have done, and we do have peak hours. We have peak hours from basically 6:30 to probably 8:30 and then in the afternoons from again probably 4:30 to 6:00 or 4:00 to 6:00, depending on what area of the country that we're in. In those studies we have found that typically the number of students that you're talking about on the sizability and capacity, probably any given half hour no more than 28 to 32 cars per a half hour period. And again, it may vary on this particular building as to capacity but again, when people start relating in half hour segments and the fact that these people, and a lot of people do go to work at many of the same times and some at different times and I'm not arguing what the traffic studies and any of it's case. The other thing they don't take into consideration is a big majority of our capacity is after school children which we do a pick-up scenario at the schools and the location which takes up a large percentage of those children as well. Now in the afternoon, yes. They are being picked up but also those percentage of children also, when you're looking at traffic and cars, you're also looking at a percentage of those that are two children families which again, reduces the number of cars. I'm not saying traffic. Traffic is a consideration but it's not, it's not as mass congestion as what you're talking about. The mason that we selected and had initially in this plan more parking spaces than was last recommended by the plans is the fact that we try to have the sufficient parking spaces and even the drawings on this plan, what it does take in large consideration. You don't have stacking problems when you come in off of Highway 5 taking, whether you're heading west or heading east. You go to 77th Street and take a left and come down again the Press Inc. combination drop. Now in our demographic studies, and you know your own neighborhoods but to the north we expect a lot of children from this neighborhood, which we feel again Dell Road, and having the right-in and right-out, we feel is a benefit and alleviates some of the problems and makes the access to get in and out very easily. As far as some of the other things that we're talking about, when it comes to building and I'm getting off of traffic but I looked at, and again I'm not talking about other child care. I've looked at the competition that we would look at just like they would look at us. You know New Horizon is right off the Highway 5 traffic circulation and again, I realize this is what you're saying. You want to make sure that everything is better than what's been allowed before. You want to improve the aesthetics and the accessibility for the community. But speaking circulation problems, this is probably about 250% over that. You go up north of this site. There's a child care up near the little strip center with gas pumps and you pull into the little strip center and everybody's going in and out of the store and talk about access again. This is probably 250% better and we're counting on the accessibility being much better and safer and so forth for our parents. Mr. Wing, in chatting with you about the building. Again, I can't always tell you that all our older facilities around the country has been state of the art. In fact the sites that we do select nowadays we probably view for the practice of investment and everything else. We probably go to more so commercial sites. We are a public company and there are concerns from a public standpoint in our investments. But the building that we have, and I've been told numerous times of the comments and I've heard your comments before and again, they're well respected. I mean the aesthetics and the concerns that you guys are putting for us are the same 52 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 things that we want. We don't want to go into an area where the area goes down. Our investment goes away. I mean many times we're concerned and just as much as you are, about the same thing. To me the industrial area, again I realize we're going for a special use to get into this part of it. How you can say that our building is detrimental or less than what the Press Inc or any of them sitting there, and this again, the Press Inc. is very viable and valuable to us as well in reaching say a partnership. Well not a partnership but there's still some cross items that we all have to agree to. I feel our building's very compatible and actually I feel our building's even aesthetically better and to have a gateway to the area as opposed to an institutionalized building, I feel it is, as John had indicated, a very good building transition wise. The roofline, and I've got some recent photos of our current building, and I'm sorry if you folks have not received these but yes we do have some venting on the roof line. It is painted and we try to be brought in the color scheme with the roof line where it doesn't stick out. That there are certain things from licensing from state agencies and so forth, that we do have to vent to have proper bathrooms and the different things that we require to have in these facilities. And I've got so many, I'd like to just, there's a couple looks of our building and our current, that's one of our newer buildings. If you would like to, front and back. I'm not sure ideally what it is you're looking for and again, I guess we can ail say you can go to a certain extreme and everything's better but also the fact is that we do have to look at the economics and affordability from the parents side in providing this. We feel that we're providing a start of the art building. The setbacks of this building from a major highway and the signalization that you have in slowing and controlling traffic is ideal as far as we're concerned. Having the equipment and the different things there, we feel again it's all very beneficial. I mean we're not looking to build something that's not viable and acceptable to parents. That would be the worse thing that we could possibly do. Chanhassen's very important to us. We want to get into this community and I can assure you that if we succeed in this situation, we know there's another school site that's being built and so we look to probably sometime within another 18 months put another facility in. And we're doing things throughout the Minneapolis community. Again, when they talk about electro magnetic fields, I don't want to get into ail of that but basically, as John indicated, we're looking at these things for future inveslment, not only in our property and our buildings but for the children's future as well. And I think being a very aggressive company, we only have to be able to address those things. A couple other items just very quickly is ! noticed there was a comment about turning radius. Again, having a street that's parallel going in to the Press Inc and also Dell Road, you know fu'e trucks and different things as far as turning radius ! feel has again as probably as good of access, more so than any of the other child care facilities. And again, I'm not comparing. It's like comparing yourself to something that's less than what you expect and I'm not trying to do that. In fact we try to better our conditions and even some of our own buildings I can assure you...even our monetary efforts to be able to do so to select better sites. Back a number of years ago we were not capable of what we are not today so. Again, I didn't mean to go into a long speech here but I did feel. it was necessary to note some of the things. Not that it changes anything in your mind. But again ! do feel that we have addressed and looked at ail the issues that you say. There's probably a few things if we could make everything absolutely ideal, we could probably change a couple of those items but where do we do that. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think really what I was saying, I'm sure you need the accessibility for parents and easy access in and out but what I'm saying too is you're looking at approximately 3, 5, maybe 600 total employees that work on that particular road who would possibly use this entrance for an exit coming from the west going east to get onto Dell Road. And that's where I see a lot of flow that would be there. Including the Press people. There's no way you're going to stand there. You can make that appeal to your employees to not use it and that might work for 2 weeks but after that it's gone. Greg Eswine: I can understand that. We do have relationships...universities, hospitals. We have two sites down at Disney World which we have a lot of the very same type circumstances and in those cases those companies...I don't know how that would be quicker in getting out but again, I understand what you're talking about...I won't 53 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 rationalize a way. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and as far as the lines that are there, the magnetic fields, I have more concern with the SO2 content that's there coming from those vehicles more than anything else as well. Greg Eswine: I'm sorry, the what? Mayor Chmiel: The SO2 that you're getting from your vehicles. And there's a lot of vehicles moving up and down Highway 5 on a continuous basis. Something...looked at. Richard. Councilman Wing: Kate, you know even if this moves ahead and approve I've got to ask a couple of questions here. I've been to every Council meeting and we're talking Highway 5. We're talking quality. And again when I back up tonight and we're frustrated with what's happened to Goodyear. I have never seen, I've gone out and looked at 4 Kindercares and other numerous daycares, and you've eluded to your older buildings. I won't question a minute that those are older buildings but I don't want them in my neighborhood. Greg Eswine: You don't want what? Councilman Wing: I don't want the buildings I saw, Kindercare buildings in my neighborhood. I don't want them to happen on my shift and I would, I'll grant you they were older buildings. Kate, I'm sitting here as a Council member. I have never seen a drawings. A sketch. A picture. I have seen nothing to do with this building. I'd like to know more about roof design. It says here that no roof top equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Sn:eet. The pictures we saw are loaded with stuff. Fences. Fence colors. One daycare had some wrought iron fence on the main road side and then the chain link on others. I mean there's just, the fence, the landscaping, what about the landscaping issues? Have those been resolved on this great big wall the Planning Commission was talking about? Are the trees there and where are the landscape plans for this? You're coming at us here with absolutely nothing. That's the only drawing I've ever seen in 2 months. That's not very impressive and then you present the pictures tonight. I've never seen that building before tonight. How can we be looking at a gateway project without any information whatsoever? I mean we really, if those of us here that care about quality and design in some of these issues, aside from the daycare issue, where is the information? I didn't attend two of the Planning Commission meetings, mainly in deference to Mark. I didn't want to be there and confuse his presentation and put pressure or stress on him so I relied on what was coming tonight. And you needn't go any further but I haven't seen this building. I haven't seen a picture of it, a design of it or a drawing of it. And I'm, if I approve it tonight I'd just be saying okay. I'd rather have daycare. I don't care about these other issues. Daycare's all that matters. Councilman Mason: Isn't this site plan review and preliminary though Richard? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Mason: I mean this stuff typically follows later. I mean these are discussions that, these are discussions. Councilman Wing: Well no. Councilman Mason: Well these are. 54 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilman Wing: Next time it's f'mal. It's done. Councilman Mason: These are discussions that I know have been problems with Planning Commission in expecting everything on the first round and I don't think we're being fair ff we expect everything. Councilman Wing: Next one could go on the consent agenda Mike. Councilman Mason: No. Not f'mal plat approval. Councilman Wing: What's going to be different? Are you guys going to come in here with more presentations? For what reason? Who would ask for them or deny them? Councilman Mason: Dick, Dick. What I'm saying is, and this is the discussions I've had with people in the city and what not and why would a developer who is entertaining an idea of coming to the city spend all the money and all the time knowing that they might get turned down. This stuff, unless I'm incorrect, this stuff comes later down the line. Mayor Chmiel: Some of it does, yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I would think staff knows that in a project like this we would see it on a second round and it wouldn't go on a consent agenda. Councilman Wing: What are we going to see different than we saw tonight? Kate Aanenson: Well it was included in your site, all the renderings and building elevations are included in your packet. There wasn't at Planning Commission pictures that were available and a lot more detail or spent on architectural. I guess if you wanted us to go through that part in more detail in the staff report we could. That was a rendering that was represented that showed the building elevations. What you see from Highway 5. Councilman Wing: The only thing it really shows maybe what we're doing is the pictures themselves which. Kate Aanenson: Right. There's all those materials were shown at the Planning Commission...building and architectural stuff if you want. Councilman Wing: For some reason then Planning didn't buy this. Kate Aanenson: Well we listed the reasons in the report why the Planning Commission. Councilman Wing: And architectural standards and lOP compatibility were a couple of them. Kate Aanenson: Well I think it's clear what Sharmin put in here. Maybe Commissioner Mancino may want to address it but I think architectural style was discussed and I think the focus was incompatibility between the Press building and the Kindercare. I'm not talking about... Councilman Mason: You know we talk about a gateway and we talk about, I'm getting, I don't know. Maybe the frustration level is high tonight but what better sign for people coming into Chanhassen. You know I'm not even saying I'm for or against this project. But I'm hearing this doesn't fit in. This is gateway. This is this. 55 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 This is that. You know, my kids are older now so I won't use it but on the other hand, driving into town and seeing child care right there, what kind of message is that for people driving through Chanhassen? Councilman Wing: Daycare was my number one consideration. No problem. I'm talking quality. Architectural design. Standards, etc, etc. I don't want to drop those standards to get daycare on that comer. I'm not opposed to the use. Councilman Mason: I don't think anyone's saying those standards are necessarily going to get dropped. I'm hearing they've got all this room they're going to give us to landscape or put in some kind of monument. I mean I'm not, it's like I'm hearing some mixed messages here. Maybe it's just me not hearing right. Councilman Wing: I haven't seen or heard any of that. It's theory. And I'm basing everything again on having gone around to tour daycare centers. No one showed me where this is going to be a quality building. Compatible with an IOP district. Compatible to. Mayor Chmiel: But not only with that preliminary you also have a conditional use. You're approving a conditional use. You then approve it with conditions contained within. Councilman Senn: Those are the same plans that were submitted to the Planning Commission several months ago. Greg Eswine: Mr. Wing, I'm standing here before you and listening to you and I heard you address and actually you've seen the very same items...cancelled meeting approximately 30 days ago. In fact I was very irritated when I came back and saying how can we get to this stage after going through all the number of things that we did for you not to have seen pictures of our building. To be referring to the things that we do and when I asked these questions and so forth, I was told that it was all in the packages and it was before staff and the packages, I assume from you guys, had not been looked at at this point because it hadn't gotten to you. I asked the question at that time, and I do this all over the country. Do I need to go before these people and again, because this project is special for us. Do I need to personally address, and I'll be glad to show you any renderings or anything that is necessary? I'm told that your procedure is such that you review each and every bit of that and that your staff does a complete job and that they have these things to be able to show you. I'm not sitting here and I don't want to be argumentative but the same questions you're asking... Mayor Chmiel: I'm ready to hit my gavel with the position that you're taking and I don't particularly like that. I think you should just settle back and go back and sit down and let us f'mish our discussions. Greg Eswine: Yes sir, I'll be glad to. I didn't realize I was being disrespectful. I apologize. Mayor Chmiel: To a certain point you were. Greg Eswine: I didn't intend to be. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendoff: Just a comment that I would. I would fully expect to see this not come back on a consent agenda. That we get one more look at it to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. And that we're completely happy. If we do pass it tonight. That it come back, 56 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilman Wing: Colleen, if you do pass it tonight, I've got just a couple comments I'd just like you to consider. Number one, next to the Bumet building in Eden Prairie, I don't like that building but right next to it is that medical office building. It's a brick building with glass. That roofline, something about it is real qnality. It's got some breaks in it and it's got some shadowing too. I don't know what they've done or how they've done it or what kind of roof element it is but I'd like to make sure we're capturing that type of quality on this building. Other than that I don't, the daycare center and the building itself I don't have a problem with but let's not put on the Goodyear roof. We made a mistake. Let's get this, and I want to make sure staff specifically goes down and looks at that one building because for some reason it's a good looking building. It's not cluttered up. The second thing, the fence issues, let's not just put in chainlink fence. Let's do something that's got some quality to it. The traffic issues, I don't know how to address that. And also, what are you doing with that wall on the Press? Is it landscaped? Are the trees? Do we have numbers and stuff?. All that's coming back to us? Is that large wall being cared for the way the Planning requested with trees and architectural breaks? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes it is. Councilman Wing: You don't have to go over that now. We've dragged this out far enough. Sharmin A1-Jaff: There is landscaping being introduced. Nancy Mancino: Mr. Mayor, I was wondering. The Planning Commission, if I could give you any of our thoughts, etc. I'm not talking from a personal point of view...Planning Commission as a whole. There were...and 2 who did. I can tell you on one issue that had to do with architectural issues, that we were all in agreement of the roof of Kindercare. The massive roof and not fitting in with the roofs already there and not being compatible. So that was one area we did want Kindercare to go back and look at the roofline because it was so massive and when you leave Eden Prairie and come into Chanhassen, on both the north and south side, if you look at DataServ, ff you look at the Press and the other buildings in that area, there's more of a fiat roof. There is not a roof that's real visible so all of a sudden when the Kindercare, and there was such a massive roof. There's no breakup or anything. To us did not feel like a transition. It was something that just felt very incompatible. So we did ask them to go back and look at that. And we didn't get any... Technically circulation, I think that became a public issue for us as far as having any sort of depressed...going to and egress from the Kindercare lot. We were concerned with toddlers that were being picked up or dropped off and you know a lot of times you have 2 and 3 year olds, they won't stay with you. They just kind of go running off...whether it's to the car or to the building that they're taken to. So that's why we were concerned with having that opening from the Press parking lot out to Dell Road. That we just felt that we wanted to make sure that that didn't happen. And we didn't want to happen once an accident. We didn't want everybody to say, here's an accident that happened. We should have shut it off. We were concerned, and I think that we need your leadership and vision here. We did talk about the Highway 5...becanse in there it very specifically says that parking lots are to be not on the highway side. I mean very specifically. It also talks about architectural compatibility. It doesn't say that we want all of our buildings to look alike. To be exactly the same. We want character. We want a difference but this one, I can tell you from the Planning Commission, we just didn't feel was compatible so we need your leadership if we are going to go with the Highway 5 guidelines, what that means to you because we just didn't feel that this fit in with them. And that is, and all the way up and down Highway 5 so we would like to hear from you...about that because we look at it with those guides. We have two of us who are intimately aware in it,..very well the comprehensive guide plan. So if we're not going to follow it, tell us what to do. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Okay. I think there's been a lot of discussion on this. And there's teen a lot 57 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 of verbiage that has been put down as to the Council's basic concerns. If we move on this, this evening, to give that preliminary plat approval, I think somehow with the conditional use permit, that we put some specifics in there and maybe some of those specifics can be taken fi.om discussion that we've done and be part of that conditional use. If they don't meet those specific requirements as to what we're looking for, then it's not approved. Once a conditional use is issued, it's pretty hard to... You just can't do it but somehow I think I'd like to see some, Roger. Would there be any kinds of conditions that we could put within that conditional use to make sure that discussion that was done tonight would cover much of the concerns? Councilman Wing: Don, they're all in here under staff recommendations. Mayor Chmiel: I know. I know. But there could be more than what was really related to in that part of what we were talking about. Roger Knutson: One suggestion I have Mayor is that certain points in the recommendations it says, this is an example. The applicant will provide plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials. Where it says revise and do something, rather than having the staff approve it. If you wanted to, you could have that come back to yourselves for approval. If you wanted discussion to revise a landscape .... you want to see it back yourself, you can make that as a condition. But if you drop back and...But I haven't gone through all these items. Where that exists in conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any discussion on that? Councilman Wing: Shingle type style and quality. Mayor Chmiel: As an additional? Councilman Wing: Well let's see. Proportion. Number 24. Proportion of the roof size of the building, wall height is incompatible. Architectural plans must be revised to reflect compatibility, The applicant shall bring in architectural drawings of the Kindercare building to make it compatible with surrounding buildings in the area. That's a big order. I guess I'd just, roofing material shall be of highest quality. I mean the recommendations we've got are pretty stiff. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and of course some of the concerns that we had. You know one of the things that's not really being addressed is the parking issue as well. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to throw out an idem My big concern, I'm thinking how I would get out of the Press parking lot or even some of the businesses to the west. If right here we ended this, end here. Have this...I think it'd get rid of a lot of the traffic that would shoot through here and there would be some that would come from here. We still wouldn't get access, although someone could if they really wanted to get out there but we might be able to make...cut off these areas. Could that be a... Mayor Chmiel: I don't think it has but that has some potential. The existing parking on that side of the building. Councilwoman Dockendorf: We did have another option...that they recommended that they show you.,. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Engineering department suggested close off this access and instead between the playground 58 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 area and proposed Lot 2, have a drive. This is going to be an out only. Right-in, right-out only. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you're planning on cutting off. Sharmin AI-Jaff: So you're cutting off this one. So waffle that will be circulating within this area is going to be Kindercare strictly. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Why wasn't this idea developed further? I mean this seems to solve a lot of. Sharmin AI-Jaff: It is in the staff report. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I mean that solves a lot of problems for me. Sharmin A1-Jaff: You could make it a condition of approval. Councilman Wing: But then you, I know the building, they want the building where it is. ff it went further to the south and the playground moves on the side and the parking lot to the north, does that get too close to the wires? Sharmin AI-Jaff: We played with this. Councilman Wing: It's the flip flop I'm speaking of. John Dietrich: We did look at trying to turn the building and place the lot areas to the side and circulating it like this...by going further to the west with the amount of parking that was still necessary for the Press to make those numbers work so the lot was...for this type of site plan. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What do you think about moving the road to the north? John Dietrich: I think your first suggestion of actually closing this off would be a preferred option so that there's still access directly into the parking lot of the Kindercare and out because we're setting up a roadway here not knowing what this use is. That may not even be...to the north parcel but I think it would be important to still have direct access of fight-in and fight-out for the number of vehicles that are coming from the north into the daycare facility and still allow direct access into the Press. Councilwoman Dockendoff: So there's absolutely no concepts of what may go in that north parcel? John Dietrich: None that I'm aware of. Mayor Chmiel: Well, they could also put another expansion onto the warehouse facility in itself. Kate Aanenson: It could be parking. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would entertain a motion. And also incorporate into that motion, I'd like some of those things that were brought out by Roger to bring back to Council. We had that brought under the conditions. I would probably think maybe Roger, should thai be under the conditional use permit? 59 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Kate Aancnson: Roger Knutson: Kate Aanenson: Mayor Chmiel: back? Roger Knutson: Mayor Chmiel: Roger Knutson: Under all three. Site plan review and preliminary plat. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I will move that adding a condition 26 that that comer be blocked off and made additional green space instead of the road there. And on condition 3, I don't think the last 5 words are needed in that paragraph, unless that specifically references something that you need. I've never seen us do something like that. Councilman Wing: Whoever Mancino is. I know what coniferous trees are. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I guess also, I don't know if this is a condition but I do want to see this come back in front of Council. Mayor Chmiel: That should also be in there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That we need to see it again. And I do trust that staff is aware of our concerns. Kate Aanenson: So you're tabling it and you want to see it again? Councilwoman Dockendorf: The final. Just on the final. I don't want to see it a consent agenda item. I want to see it. Kate Aanenson: ...only do the site plan review once. I understand you want to see it back things that are missing but you want to see all of it come back? Councilman Wing: Well there's 26 conditions on here. One of them is that they have to redesign the roof. Those are major issues that have to come back. And I want to see the landscape plan. Shouldn't that be a tabling? What they're giving is concept. Essentially concept approval. Do we have a concept...? Well, that's a questionable thing too. Should this be tabled rather than giving concept or come Mayor, it's your call. You could do it, either one does the same thing. Yeah. I guess it doesn't really matter to me. One way or the other. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Well I'd rather do a concept site approval than a tabling. A concept site approval. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Councilman Wing: Second. Whatever that hybrid is. 6O City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: It's been seconded. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to conceptually approve Site Plan Review g94-1 as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, and revised on June 1, 1994, subject to the following conditions: That the applicant must revise plans to include Imsh screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The monument sign on the Kinder Care site shall utilize brick as a base for the sign rather than metal poles. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. There shall be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal's memo dated March 10, 1994. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing (with relief) to break up the long wall masses. 7. 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 event 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 Departmen0. 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. 11. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kinder Care site off of Dell Road. 12. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet and two way 61 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 traffic, In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. t4. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. 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, 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. 17. An island or a speed bump shall be placed between the Press and Kinder Care site to slow down and discourage lxaffic from cutting through the Kinder Care site. 18. No roof top equipment shall be visible from HighwaY 5, Dell Road or 77th Street West. 19. Brick shall be used on the Kinder Care facade to resemble the building shown in the submitted photographs. 20. The traffic circulation and parking lot layout shall be revised as shown on the revised plan prepared by Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. Access to Dell Road shall be revised to a right-out only to eliminate short cuts. The maximum number of parking stalls will be limited to 33. 21. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees associated with the traffic study prepared by SRF. 22. There shall be a landscaping easement of 30 feet running parallel to Highway $ and then north parallel to Dell Road a distance of 75 feet. A significant number of trees shall be placed on the southeast corner for an entryway. Plantings around the building as well as interior parking shall be provided. 23. Staff shall review an east/west connection. 24. 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 architectural drawings of the Kinder Care building making it compatible with buildings in the surrounding area. 25. The applicant shall move the Kinder Care building 40 feet to the north to realign the driveway access onto Dell Road to accommodate emergency vehicle and school bus turning movements." 26. The corner will be blocked off and made into additional green space. 27. The City Council will review the final plans as an agenda item. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn who abstained, and the motion carried. Councilman Mason: Where does abstaining fit into this? I'm abstaining from this vote. 62 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilman Senn: I will too. Councilman Mason: I guess I want to go on the record as abstaining. Councilman Senn: So am I. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, two abstentions and three who... Don Ashworth: Just a clarification. I think what staff is txeating this as, a vote by the Council telling the developer to either work this stuff out if we're going to approve these ~hings. It really has no other meaning than that. It's just kind of a rough, an initial approval that's putting the challenge back to them to work this out. Councilman Wing: Well if we go with this hybrid, I guess I would gone along with staff recommendation for the preliminary plat with the 26 conditions. But still to get to final you have to have all 26 conditions met, right? To me it doesn't make it, and I don't care what you choose to do. Either one is fine with me. And I can approve this as is but 26 conditions have to be met. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll move on. 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. Sharmin AI-Jaff: One of the reasons why we're trying to develop standards for private streets is because we have three applications coming in. Planned unit developments for multi-family projects which are Mission Hills, Chan Corporate Center and Heritage Development that will be utilizing private driveways. Frankly we don't have any standards for them. We do have standards for residential single family. Up to 4 single family homes can utilize a private street. Those conditions have been a result of meetings between planning, engineering and the fhc department. We are recommending approval of this ordinance. Planning Commission reviewed this item. They approved it. There were a couple of issues that they looked at which was impact of this ordinance on affordable housing. And because it narrows the width of those, you're going to have less cost associated. Also, the impact of hard surface...surface coverage and again, that's going to be less because your streets are going to be narrower. We are recommending approval with the...shown in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you're saying they're going to be narrower. From what to what now? From 30 to 24? Whatever it was in here. Sharmin Al-Jaff: Well, assuming that we go with a typical street section, then it's 60 feet versus the widest you will find on this ordinance is 36 feet. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Wing: For a private street driveway. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Kate Aanenson: This is typical what you f'md in, like Opus has...and some of the individuals to get to the apartment complex there are private streets that are servicing those. So typically they're just found in, as 63 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Sharmin mentioned, in multi family projects. Mayor Chmiel: To who's benefit is this going to be done for? Is it a benefit for the city or is it going to be a benefit for developers? Kate Aanenson: I think it's mutually beneficial. I don't think we want to be in the business of vacating a lot of those private developments. They're homeowner associations...The only part it addresses, as Sharmin indicated, is single family section of the code. What we're looking at... multi family, what we're doing is trying to get some standards that we should be applied. Councilman Wing: What about some of these people that have these big parcels like some of these people off of Galpin where they have a driveway that goes back in for half a mile but you can't get emergency in to. Does this widen that? That doesn't affect those at all? Kate Aanenson: No. No, really what we're trying to do with this one is to look at the new developments as Sharmin indicated, the multi family project. We still wouldn't want more than 4 off a single family. And I believe the way our plan is right now, I just saw it tonight, when there's preservation of natural features. Otherwise we certainly want to encourage public streets. Mayor Chmiel: I know that some of the developers are pushing for narrower streets because it benefits them. They get a little bit more and then on these it's a little different. But I guess I don't always see that done in the regular kinds of developments. Kate Aanenson: You'll be reviewing those too. The only other instances would be, if you had such as the future development of Outlot B on the Target plat, if that was a private street between the 3 outlots there. Whether that would be a public street. Again, this gives us standards for that to look at...in conjunction with the fh:e department making safe and adequate access... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Hearing none, I'll call for a motion. All those in favor. Do you have a question? Councilman Wing: No, I was just going to move Section 18-57 Zoning Code Amendment. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section I8-57, Streets, by amending Sections (n) and (o) to include Standards for Private Streets serving R-4, R-8, R-12, R.16, and Non-Residential Uses and Amendment to Article XXIV, Off Street Parking and Loading. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES. Don Ashworth: It is late...we're supposed to be meeting a week from today. That's on the senior housing. Is that alright with everybody? 64 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilman Mason: What time? Don Ashworth: Would everybody be available for early or would you rather do the 7:00? Councilman Mason: Well I've got soccer from, I coach. I've got a game at 6:00 so that goes from 6:00 until 7:00. 7:15. Councilman Senn: Is that on the 20th you're talking about? Councilman Mason: What I was thinking is we could really do the rest of these next week. If everyone's in agreement, we'll do the 20th then at 7:00. Senior housing. Councilman Wing: I'm going to play £~remen that night. I'll be the only one missing. Councilman Senn: I don't think I'm going to be here either. Or at least I'll be late. Councilwoman Dockendoff: And you're not going to be here until 7:157 Councilman Mason: Well yeah. It will be 7:15 by the time I'll get here but I'll be here. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let's do 7:30 then. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. 7:30. Don Ashworth: And the only other item was, what did Council think of my idea to have a sub-committee to do interviews on the Youth Commission thing. Or do you want to simply do it Mayor or do others wish to join? Or do you want to get the Council involved? They wanted something... Mayor Chmiel: The Council as a whole probably just, whatever the Council desires. Councilman Senn: How many applicants are there? Don Ashworth: Four and we'll be interviewing them before the City Council meeting on the 27th. Mayor Chmiel: We can do it then, Don Ashworth: Probably start at like 6:30. I don't know if we've got a Board meeting that night or not...I'll put this on for next week. 1 l(b) we don't need to talk about, do we Kale? Kate Aanenson: Well that's basically FYI. If you have any questions. Councilman Wing: ...Council presentations? Mayor Chmiel: Alright, yes Richard. Councilman Wing: Well it was on your list. I'll be happy to, what are we going to do with it? I mean I caught a lot of heat from friends on Christmas Lake. 65 City Council Meeting - June 13, t994 Don Ashworth: Roger Knutson: his mind. Councilman Mason: For? Councilman Wing: Frank Beddor organized Christmas Lake and a neighborhood meeting. Really hit them hard and they called me with all sorts of accusations. Councilman Mason: I'd kind of like to see the Judge's comments put in the Villager quite honestly. I'd even chip in a couple of bucks for it. I mean that kind of says it all. Don Ashworth: Well do you want me to convince them they should do an article or do you want to do a letter to the editor? Mayor Chmiel: I think somehow so the rest of the residents within the city with concerns with it, it can be addressed... We can do it either way. Councilman Mason: Yeah the trouble, I don't know about a letter to the editor, Councilman Senn: Then you'll have a counter letter to the editor. Councilman Mason: I think it might be kind of nice for the editor to... I'll talk to Trippler. Just for your information, we received a phone call today. The plaintiffs, Mr. Beddor...change Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 66